Local Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan: An Assessment of ... · Kazakhstan. Bonn, January 2003 Dr. Anneke Trux Co-ordinator German CCD-Project, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Local Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan:

An Assessment of Efficiency

:

Konstantin Kreiser

Lars Lachmann

Imprint © 2003 NABU – Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V. and authors, all rights reserved

Postal address: NABU Project Office International, Invalidenstr. 112, 10115 Berlin, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)30-284 984-0

Fax: +49-(0)30-284 984-84

E-mail address: [email protected]

Web site: www.NABU.de, www.NABU-international.de

Authors and layout: Konstantin Kreiser ([email protected]) Lars Lachmann ([email protected])

English translation: James Thain

Russian translation: Galiya Zekenovna Bakirova

Print: Offset-Druckerei Gerhard Weinert GmbH Postfach 420 312, 12063 Berlin, Germany

Address for orders: NABU-Infoservice, 53223 Bonn, Germany, phone +49-(0)228-4036-0, fax +49-(0)228-4036-200, [email protected]

Photographs on title: left: Lars Lachmann, all others: Konstantin Kreiser

1. Edition: Berlin, February 2003

ISBN: 3-925815-07-4

The publication of this study was made possible by the German CCD Project of the “Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH”.

An electronic database of Kazakhstani environmental NGOs (last update: end of 2001) is available from the authors and will be made available online within an updated list of NGOs by the “UNDP Sup-port Center for NGOs” (www.undp.kz/~ngorc).

CONTENTS /

English Version Prefaces………………........................................................................................................................2

1 Introduction and Thematic Bases.......................................................................................................4

2 Non-Governmental Organisations: Terminology and Problems.....................................................5

3 Data and Methods................................................................................................................................7

4 Conditions for the Work of Local Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan ......................................10

5 Stages of Development of the Environmental Movement in Kazakhstan......................................16

6 Number and Geographical Distribution of Kazakhstani Environmental NGOs...........................17

7 Evaluation of the Efficiency of Kazakhstani Environmental NGOs ...............................................19

8 Recommendations for a Raised Efficiency of Local Environmental NGOs ...................................26

9 Summary and Outlook......................................................................................................................28

……………… ............................................................................................................29

............................................................................................. 3

2 : ................................... 32

3 ....................................................................................................................... 34

4 .............................................. 38

5 ........................................................ 44

6 ................................ 46

7 ..................................................................... 48

8 .......................................... 56

9 ............................................................................................................. 58

Bibliography / ...................................................................................................... 59

Maps / .......... .................................................................................................................. 6

Prefaces

2

LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS IN KAZAKHSTAN: AN ASSESSMENT OF EFFICIENCY

Preface of NABU For over ten years, the Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU, German Society for Nature Protection) has been involved in nature protection in Central Asia by promoting and actively supporting the implementation of Biosphere Reserves and National Parks as well as other protection measures for “hot spots” of biodiversity. Without strong local partners, such goals are unattainable. There-fore, besides co-operating with state institutions, NABU puts great importance on building up and supporting non-governmental nature protection compe-tency.

For this reason, I am very much pleased that NABU will offer a greater audience access to experiences and results about the efficiency of local environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with the present study. This will be valuable and useful not only for the future activities of NABU, but can also give other international and local organisations insights and stimulations.

We are particularly grateful to the authors of this study, Konstantin Kreiser and Lars Lachmann, who have been for years now successfully involved in our projects in Kazakhstan.

Furthermore, I want to thank the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD, German Academic Exchange Service) and the German CCD project of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH for making this study possible through their financial support.

I expect that the present study will help with the further dynamic and positive development of Kazakhstani environmental NGOs and that we can, together with strong local partners, further contribute to the welfare of the Kazakhstani natural heritage and of the country's population.

Greifswald, January 2003

Prof. Dr. Michael Succow

Vice-President of NABU, Recipient of the Alternative Nobel Prize, and core initiator of the NABU's nature conservation projects in Eurasia

Preface of the German GTZ-CCD project In December 1996, the UNCCD, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, came into force. The five Central Asian States, all of which are threatened in their economic development by accelerating desertification of their natural resources, ratified the UNCCD before the end of 1997 already.

As an international treaty, the UNCCD regulates the co-operation of the so far 115 signatory-states. Financial and organisational resources are to be used more efficiently, experiences to be applied better, new technologies to be transferred, the legal and political framework to be improved. The goal is not only the preservation of ecological balance in the arid zones of the planet, but also the improvement of the population's living conditions in these climatically espe-cially disadvantaged regions. This is to be achieved by developing a sustainable management of natural resources together with the population concerned.

Prefaces 3

The UNCCD acknowledges the fact that state institutions are overtaxed with solving the problem by themselves, which is why civil society must be enabled to play an active part. The participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) both in the practical combat against desertification and as representa-tives of civil society in decision-making processes extending from the local to the national level is an essential guideline of the Convention.

As a contribution to the implementation of the Sub-Regional Action Pro-gramme (SRAP) for the implementation of the CCD in Central Asia, the GTZ-CCD project supports pilot projects. Living conditions of the population are to be improved by developing the potential for self-help in rural regions. Methods of combating desertification and sustainable use of rural land are to be devel-oped and implemented in co-operation with the population, non-governmental organisations, scientists, and decision makers.

For this co-operation, it is important to know the framework within which NGOs work. Therefore, I am particularly pleased about the publication of this study and hope that it will be a contribution to an improved effective and goal-oriented national, bilateral, and international co-operation with NGOs in Kazakhstan.

Bonn, January 2003

Dr. Anneke Trux

Co-ordinator German CCD-Project, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Authors' preface The present study is based on the research for and results of our diploma disser-tation, which we completed jointly at the Humboldt-University at Berlin (De-partment of Geography) and the University of Hannover (Faculty of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Development). The kind support of the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD, German Academic Ex-change Service) and the Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU, German Soci-ety for Nature Protection) enabled us to spend three months for research pur-poses in Kazakhstan in the autumn of 2001.

In this study, we examine the activities of Kazakhstani non-governmental or-ganisations with all the necessary critical distance. But let it not be forgotten that we have a profound respect for the ecological commitment of their members, who remain courageously, industriously, and optimistically devoted to the protection of the environment in spite of all difficulties. We wish them all possible success for the future.

By publishing this study in English and in Russian, we would like to offer in-sights and stimulations for all those involved in questions of civil society and environment protection in Central Asia and beyond. We especially hope that international donors, the Kazakhstani state, but in particular Kazakhstani envi-ronmental NGOs themselves can profit from our results. We wish to express our gratitude to the representatives of these three sectors who we interviewed for their co-operation and hospitality.

We would like to thank the German GTZ-CCD project and NABU for making this publication possible in the first place. Furthermore, we wish to thank our scientific advisors, Prof. Ludwig Ellenberg and Prof. Dietrich Fürst, as well as our parents, for the varied support they offered us.

Berlin, January 2003

Konstantin Kreiser, Lars Lachmann

Introduction and Thematic Bases 4

1 INTRODUCTION AND THEMATIC BASES

A good ten years before this project came into being, the world witnessed a historic shift. In November 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and in December 1991, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR) collapsed. These two events symbolically stand in for a comprehensive new beginning: since then, the citizens of the post-Soviet republics and the transitional countries of Central and Eastern Europe had to adapt rapidly to new forms of political representation, economical mechanisms, and societal organi-sations. Notwithstanding differing geographical, historical, and political conditions, all the govern-ments concerned profess a common goal: the establishment of democracy and market economy.

The great difficulties of a transition such as this were underestimated at first by many of those in-volved: by now, the hope of sudden wealth for all and a rapid development of democratic civil societies has been replaced by a more sober realism.

This is true in particular for the five Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Their respective cultural heritage, but especially the communist social and economic system have shaped the area and its inhabitants so decisively that rapid change remains unimaginable today. In the course of the transition, the population of the region finds itself confronted with a catastrophic economic crisis, widespread poverty, and grave environmental problems. Espe-cially Kazakhstan, the country with the largest territory by far in the region, has inherited a wide range of life-threatening ecological problems from the Soviet Union. In addition, the scarcity of natural resources such as water and arable land, as well as the increasing exploitation of resources in the area of the Caspian Sea present a great challenge to the country's environmental policy.

Already a number of years before achieving independence, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) came into being as a form of civil organisations entirely new to Central Asia. In Western industrialised nations, and in many of the “classical” developing nations, NGOs have been of growing importance since the seventies. Because of their independence from governmental or profit-oriented structures, they are believed to be highly competent at solving social and environmental problems.

The Goals of this Study The present case study attempts an assessment of the efficiency of local Kazakhstani NGOs regarding their efforts to protect natural resources. Only organisations based in Kazakhstan and concerned mainly with issues of the environment and sustainable development (shortened in the following to “local environmental NGOs”) are therefore the subject of this study.

It would be a difficult endeavour to draw up a balance sheet of the ecological changes having occurred since Kazakhstan's independence in 1991: the data is too incomplete, the time span under investigation too short. It seems almost utopian, however, to separate the contribution of local environmental NGOs to these changes. This is so especially because the effects of NGOs are to a high degree indirect and long-term: they attempt to influence other environmentally influential agents (e.g. the authorities, businesses, farmers) or work to improve the environmental awareness of their societies as a whole.

So far, there exists no method of evaluating the efficiency of an organisation or group of organisations for environmental protection which is both comprehensive and universally accepted in the area of development co-operation. The majority of studies relevant to the field have concentrated on the evaluation of specific projects or on global themes, such as the contribution of NGOs to the genesis of international agreements on environmental protection.

The present study is to be understood as an exploratory case study in the geographic context of Ka-zakhstan which attempts to assess all local environmental NGOs as a whole. In its course, the present strengths and weaknesses of these NGOs respecting their efforts at environmental protection will be identified and discussed. The following main questions are the result:

1) Which are the ecological, historical, political/administrative, and international conditions pres-ently influencing the actions of non-governmental organisations in Kazakhstan?

2) What can be stated concerning the geographical and structural conditions of Kazakhstani envi-ronmental NGOs as a whole?

3) Which are the functions of the organisations studied for the protection of natural resources? How well are they able to fulfil them?

Non-Governmental Organisations: Terminology and Problems

5

4) Proceeding from the answers to questions 1 to 3, how can the strengths and weaknesses of Ka-zakhstani environmental NGOs be identified and assessed?

5) How can the efficiency of local environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan be improved?

2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: TERMINOLOGY AND PROBLEMS

The term “Non-Governmental Organisation” (NGO), which appeared for the first time in 1948 in the context of the United Nations, denotes in its widest sense all civil organisations not belonging to the areas of the state and the economy. Related terms attempting to encompass the same phenomenon are “non-profit organisation”, “private organisation”, or “voluntary organisation”. All of these terms denote characteristic attributes of NGOs, such as a lack of profit-orientation, a private character, and the voluntary nature of the co-operation. Their belonging to the “third sector”, beyond the “first” (state) and the “second” (market), is obligatory as well. They belong to “civil society” (GLAGOW 1992). Terms with a narrower application are “altruistic organisation” (representing a third party) and, in contrast, “self-help organisation”, which primarily represents its own interests or those of its members. A further distinction is that between “intermediate organisations”, which are understood as acting as a go-between, and “grassroots organisation”, (GROs), which work from the basis. (cf. ALTVATER et al. 1997)

GLAGOW (1992, p. 311) bases his influential, if slightly idealistic definition of NGOs on the delimita-tions above:

“NGOs are formalised structures outside of the market and the state, which receive their resources from contributions by society on the basis of volunteering; resources which they transform into collective goods for the treatment of social problems.”

While in the state hierarchy and compulsion fulfil a regulating function, and exchange regulates the market, NGOs are regulated by the principle of solidarity. The central foundation of NGOs' power and legitimacy are their basis within society and their capability to mobilise the public (BRAND 2000 et al.).

However distinct the definitions may sound in theory, in practice the NGO sector is highly heteroge-neous. The delimitation to the market sector, for example, becomes problematic as soon as NGOs take up consulting functions or develop into a service provider oriented towards the generation of profit. Similar erasures of delimitations to state structures can occur when NGOs are founded or funded mainly by the state and take on genuinely governmental functions.

In the discourse of development policies a distinction has established itself between Northern NGOs (including the international NGOs based mainly in industrial nations) and Southern NGOs. Southern NGOs are once more distinguished between intermediate organisations (Grassroots Support Organisa-tions) with a go-between function, and basis organisations (Grassroots Organisations), which are in most cases self-help organisations as well (cf. EDWARDS & HULME 1996 or HINRICHSEN 2000).

The academic investigation into environmental NGOs has so far concentrated on the international level and the role of the organisations in the development of an international framework for environ-mental protection. Few studies at a national and local level can be found which critically examine the role of NGOs in environmental protection (for Germany, for example cf. CORNELSEN 1991).

As the protection of natural resources particularly in developing and transitional countries is regarded as part of and well integrated into development policies, a survey of the NGO-discussion within devel-opment policy is revealing.

NGOs (both Northern and Southern NGOs) were integrated relatively late into development co-operation, but have by now become important agents next to the purely governmental development support, both as sponsors and as implementers. In the course of the preparations for the UNCED summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they came to be at the centre of discussions not only in the context of environmental protection, but also of development policies. There was a noticeable increase in studies, but the conceptions of their actual efficiency remained unsophisticated (WEGNER 1993).

The most optimistic assessment originates from the group around Bertrand Schneider (SCHNEIDER 1986, quoted among others in WEGNER 1993), which assumed that a great number of NGOs would

Non-Governmental Organisations: Terminology and Problems 6

be founded in the South of their own initiative, who would then, consulted by Northern NGOs, take their fate into their own hands and thereby start a “barefoot revolution”.

NGOs were often treated as synonymous with everything that seems sensible and desirable in devel-opment policies (BECK & DEMMLER 2000). HANISCH (1994) and NEUBERT (quoted in BECK & DEMMLER 2000) elaborate this fixed bundle of basic assumptions about NGO characteristics and abilities, the so-called “comparative advantages” over other agents. NGOs are supposedly oriented towards the process rather than the results, close to their basis, efficient, un-bureaucratic, innovative, flexible, highly motivated, independent from governments, controlled by the public, and moreover resistant against greed. All this turned NGOs, according to GLAGOW (1992), after the general failure of state and market, into the new beacons of hope for environmental co-operation.

This early NGO euphoria, however, was soon to be brought down to earth again by critical academic studies which showed that NGOs are not, after all, that efficient and successful. WEGNER (1993) especially mentions an early USAID study by TENDLER (1982), which shows that the “articles of faith” ascribed to NGOs, exactly their “comparative advantages”, can be found only in limited form in prac-tice.

Today most authors state, similar to NEUBERT (1997, quoted in BRAND 2000), that in the develop-ing countries in particular the ideal type of NGO integrated into civil society can rarely be found in empirical studies. The often rather less than democratic and basis-oriented structure of most NGOs, casting doubt on the legitimacy of their role in society, is a further cause for worry.

The main point of criticism about Southern NGOs is that they lose their close relations to the societies to which they have to be accountable and many more of their comparative advantages when support from governmental or international sponsors (often Northern NGOs) comes to be the main source of their input. In such cases, the legitimacy and accountability is transposed from the private donor and sympathiser at home to the government or international sponsor (GLAGOW 1992, EDWARDS & HULME 1996, HULME & EDWARDS 1997).

Therefore, sponsors of Southern NGOs carry great responsibility for their efficiency and future. By restructuring their funding procedures they have the possibility to reduce dependencies and promote the NGOs' potential in order to avoid the descent from a “cure-all” to a “new erroneous path in devel-opment co-operation” that MOLT (1998 p. 12f) already diagnoses.

The basis for an improved co-operation and effective support of the NGO sector has to be firstly a conscientious evaluation of the situation of the NGOs in the co-operating countries. This necessity is generally acknowledged.

Such an evaluation will be achieved in the present study for the environmental sector in Kazakhstan. It rests on the following body of previous work:

Several studies, among them a very detailed analysis of the situation of environmental NGOs in Russia, Moldavia, and the Ukraine, have been carried out by the Regional Environmental Centre based in Hungary (REC CEE 1995).

Two years later, the same organisation embarked on an even more detailed inventory of environ-mental NGOs in 15 countries in Central and Eastern Europe (REC CEE 1997). The results can be well cross-referenced to the results of the present study.

An expert opinion of the general situation of civil society in Kazakhstan is contained in a recent study commissioned by the European Union's TACIS programme (SUPIK et al. 2001). However, it only treats four of the fourteen oblasts in an exemplary fashion. A comprehensive, but rather anecdotal picture is given by a collection of essays published by the IDC (2001).

In contrast to most of the “classical” developing countries, environmental NGOs are held to be the part of the NGO sector which is developed furthest in many transitional countries. It is not surprising, therefore, that in this area in particular there exist some analytical sources:

LUONG & WEINTHAL (1999) have investigated the ways in which Northern NGOs support local NGOs (and therefore civil society and democracy) in Kazakhstan, taking as their example environ-mental politics around the Caspian Sea. WATTERS (1999) compares the development of environ-mental NGOs in the five Central Asian former Soviet Republics and offers recommendations for the further support of the sector by donors. KRYLDAKOVA (2001) concentrates on Kazakhstan in her sociological doctoral thesis which examines the interaction of environmental NGOs with state struc-tures and international programmes.

Data and Methods

7

3 DATA AND METHODS

Answering the main questions listed in chapter one requires differentiated scientific tools. Depending on the questions, methods of research as well as quantitative or qualitative surveys were applied. The basis of the empirical studies was a three-month stay of the authors in Kazakhstan in autumn 2001.

3.1 Background Research In the course of the general research of source material, all manners of publications, official statistics, laws, press releases, and internet publications, as well as a great number of unpublished texts and other information was evaluated. The material collected was in English (60%), Russian (30%), and German (10%) language. Generally, the availability of primary sources can be judged as good, but the availabil-ity of reliable statistics and academic secondary literature remains problematic.

3.2 Quantitative Survey of Local Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan

To arrive at an overview of the total number, the geographical distribution, and other relevant struc-tural attributes of the studied environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan, a database was constructed using exhaustive research.

This database was to include all organisations which are either officially registered as environmental NGOs or consist of a clearly identifiable group of citizens (“initiative groups”) and which regard environmental protection as a core area of their non-commercial activities and goals. The database contains details regarding name and seat of the organisation, contact person, address, and information about its activity, if available. It was compiled from 16 existing lists and databases. The most important of those were the database of the NGO support organisation ISAR (ISAR CENTRAL ASIA 2001a), of the UNDP Support Center (UNDP SUPPORT CENTER FOR NGOS 2002) and of the National Envi-ronmental Centre, part of the Kazakhstani Ministry for the Environment (SHAKIROVA 2001), as well as the list of delegates of the third EkoForum, a meeting of Kazakhstani environmental NGOs (EKOFORUM 2001). Further sources were, among others, COUNTERPART INTERNATIONAL INC. (1999), LUONG & WEINTHAL (1999), RUFFIN et al. (1998), SEU (without year) and ZLOTNIKOV & NABOKOV (1998).

None of these sources has proved to be complete. But by comparing them and adding from their own research, the authors were finally able to compile the table of Kazakhstani environmental NGOs most comprehensive and recent at the time of its compilation with 270 entries.

However, this cannot be regarded as even nearly complete. After the more than ten years of its exis-tence, the Kazakhstani environmental NGO sector presents itself as highly diverse and dynamic: al-ready at the beginning of 2001, official data from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan states that there were 300 officially registered environmental NGOs (KRYLDAKOVA 2001). According to a paper adopted by the Kazakhstani government in January 2002 (PRK 23/01/2002) there should even be 525 environmental NGOs. New NGOs keep appearing, while others might have ceased activi-ties, but remain existing officially. Therefore, the database will necessarily contain some organisations which do not exist anymore, as well as initiatives which haven't acquired registered status (yet).

3.3 Survey with Questionnaires As a second step after the compilation of the database, questionnaires were distributed in person as well as by Email. The quantitative part of the questionnaire asked for important structural informa-tion, such as the year of founding, number of members (distinguishing between volunteers and full-time members), education profile, areas of activity (geographically and thematically) and sources of finances. The qualitative part of the questionnaire was evaluated together with the interviews (cf. chapter 3.5).

This questionnaire was sent to about 100 organisations in total, but it needs to be kept in mind that not all of those will have been active at the time. 16 questionnaires were returned. This quota cannot

Data and Methods

8

be regarded as statistically representative (especially since only NGOs with Email addresses were con-tacted, and of those presumably only the active ones replied). However, the data allows to formulate some tendencies, which support the analysis of chapter 7.

3.4 Qualitative Interviews with NGO-Representatives and Experts

A direct measurement of the capabilities of local environmental NGOs is, as stated above, impossible because of the general lack of measurable criteria. To exceed a merely subjective assessment and arrive at an intersubjective evaluation, the methods of qualitative social research seemed most appropriate (cf. LAMNEK 1995). The authors referred mainly to the self-assessments of NGO-representatives, which they analysed and interpreted using expert opinion and results of their own research.

The main focus of the survey were 27 interviews (based on a catalogue of questions) 14 with represen-tatives of local environmental NGOs and 13 with experts from different areas of administration (min-istries, local councils, nature reserves) and international organisations (especially NGO support or-ganisations). The interviews were conducted orally, partly structured, and little or not at all standard-ised (cf. ATTESLANDER 1995). Additional insights were won by surveying the answers to the open questions of the questionnaire mentioned above in chapter 3.3, by a workshop conducted by the authors with a young NGO, as well as informal conversations and observations.

Regarding the choice of interview partners, qualitative social research aims not so much at a high number of samples, but rather attempts to typify. This is to lead to statements which can be general-ised and rendered intersubjectively comprehensible (LAMNEK 1995).

For this reason, the authors chose as interview partners the same number of representatives from urban and rural NGOs, even if the latter form only a small part of the total. Not the least reason to take into account the specific rural situation is that international support organisations have lately begun to aid to a greater extent foundations of NGOs at the periphery.

The urban NGOs chosen were mostly such organisations which were well known and possessed great experience, as the authors hoped to gain particularly revealing and well-founded analyses.

Those interviewed were guaranteed anonymity during the interviews (average length: 80 min.), and therefore no direct links can be established in this study between specific statements and persons. With

two exceptions (English), all the interviews were held in Russian, taped, and then transcribed.

The relevance of the data won from analysing the interviews can be regarded as high; whereas contortions due to factors such as biased choice of interview partners, unnatural speech situa-tions, unconscious or conscious misunder-standings on either sides are very unlikely. This is proved by many concurrent statements of interview partners from very different regions and contexts.

During the survey, NGOs in Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Central Kazakhstan were visited, while the West of the country had to remain excluded. Therefore, there is the danger that some aspects which are of importance there are not taken into account at all, or at least not enough. But the authors were able to ascertain relevant information on the situation of envi-ronmental NGOs around the Aral Sea and in the area of the Caspian Sea in the exhaustive interviews in Almaty and at other places. Over-all, the authors assume a sufficient validity of the study for all of Kazakhstan. Fig. 1: Analysis of qualitative Data (own diagram)

Data and Methods

9

3.5 Evaluation of the Interviews Fig.1 shows the process of evaluating the interviews. The method was developed based on the qualita-tive content analysis (MAYRING 2000). This procedure allows to connect statements relating to categories with an interpretation which does not neglect context, prior understanding, and additional material.

A fundamental step within this study was the development of a catalogue of criteria for the capability of local NGOs with the help of their possible functions. This catalogue is described in chapter 3.6.

After a first cursory inventory of the interviews, and taking this catalogue into account, categories were developed which were the guideline for the evaluation of the transcribed interviews. Statements be-longing to each of the categories were then generalised and abstracted in order to arrive at findings which related on the one hand to the conditions, on the other hand to assessments of NGO capabili-ties.

3.6 Development of a Qualitative Approach to an Assessment of NGO Capabilities

Due to the lack of a proven, institutionally oriented method of evaluating Southern NGOs, and in order to take into account the regional specificities of Kazakhstan, an original method of assessment has been applied in this study. This method, however, is related in many respects to the approaches and criteria of organisation analysis (GLASL et al. 1990; ALFF 2001) as well as of the practice of devel-opment policies, as contained among others in a white paper of the GTZ (HINRICHSEN 2000).

Fig.2: Kazakhstani environmental NGOs in interaction with other agents influencing the environment (own diagram)

Conditions for the Work of Local Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan

10

Fig. 3: Aspects of institutional capability of Kazakhstani environmental NGOs (own diagram)

Above all, it was attempted to disassemble the complex structures in which the NGOs studied here operate into single components and arrive at criteria for their evaluation.

These criteria are fashioned to fit the functions perceived by the single or all of the studied NGOs in Kazakhstan and the corresponding interaction with other agents. Considered were only those aspects which directly or indirectly affect the state of natural resources (Fig. 2).

The “institutional capability” denotes the ability of an organisation to fulfil the above-mentioned functions more or less efficiently. Fig. 3 lists the important aspects of this addi-tional, but fundamental, criterion.

The authors wish to avoid measuring the NGOs with a yardstick that neglects their specific geographical and political-cultural situation by ascribing them functions a priori. Rather, the organisations were encouraged in the interviews to describe their goals and activities themselves, and to then offer their own assessment of their capabilities.

With the additional expert opinion and further results of research, the evaluation scheme could be continually re-fitted in the course of the research and a highly differentiated picture of NGO capability was arrived at and evaluated.

These evaluations result in a weighted analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the entire local envi-ronmental NGO sector in Kazakhstan (cf. chapter 7). Of course, one must not lose sight of the fact that different organisations may differ clearly in their capabilities.

4 CONDITIONS FOR THE WORK OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS IN KAZAKHSTAN

4.1 State of and Dangers to Natural Resources The environmental problems of Kazakhstan are by definition the thematic focus of the activities of the NGOs studied here. Well-known hot spots of the environment, such as the drying Aral Sea, the former nuclear test site of Semipalatinsk, or the oil fields around the Caspian Sea, as well as the countrywide contamination of ground, air, and water endanger human health and, in the long term, the economic development of all of Kazakhstan. In addition, the country's unique biological and landscape diversity is threatened.

4.2 Environmental Administration and Environmental Legislation

Central areas of governmental environment protection are the monitoring of the state of the environ-ment, environmental impact assessment, the regulation of resource use according to market principles, enforcing and controlling natural and environmental protection directives as well as environmental education.

A useful overview of current issues in Kazakhstani governmental policies is presented by TURMAGAMBETOV (2001), NEC SD (2001b), IAZ (1999), NESTERENKO (2000), and KURATOV et al. (2000).


11

4.3 Political and Legal Conditions for NGOs The authors explicitly wish to draw the reader's attention to the fact that these conditions are subject to constant change, especially because the interaction of state, international organisations, and the NGOs themselves is still in a highly dynamic initial phase.

The constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan protects the activities of environmental NGOs espe-cially through articles 5 (the right to engage in activities within organisations without interference from the state), 20 (the freedom of opinion and the press), 23 (the freedom of assembly), and 33 (the right to political activity). These rights and liberties end at the point where the unity or stability of the state or the constitution itself are endangered.

But article 5 contains restrictions for NGOs in paragraph 2: Firstly, the “illegal interference” in “affairs of the state” is prohibited. Therefore, the state possesses, at least theoretically, the means to limit activi-ties of NGOs to specific, explicitly permitted areas and to refrain them from touching upon other subjects. These restrictions, however, are almost never applied to local environmental NGOs, pre-sumably at least in part because their power-political influence on a national level is far to low.

Important legal bases for rights and duties of the NGOs studied can be found among other places in the articles 34 and 106 of the Civil Code (RK 27/12/1994), as well as in the laws “On Civil Organisa-tions” (RK 31/05/1996) and “On Non-Commercial Organisations” (RK 16/01/2001b).

The law “On Normative Legislative Acts” provides in articles 7, 13, and 14 for the participation of civil organisations in the planning of legislative acts. In the realisation of this law, however, grave faults appear, so that up to now relatively few Kazakhstani environmental NGOs have actively shaped the legislative process (cf. RK 24/03/1998 and ZHARIKBAYEV 1999).

But in the general estimation of both Kazakhstani and international experts, the legal framework regarding the activities of local NGOs in Kazakhstan has generally improved (HORTON & KAZAKINA 1999, NI 2001). This is especially true in comparison with other Central Asian CIS coun-tries.

Registration The legally prescribed registration of an NRO with the Ministry of Justice and the correspondent oblast-representations is in practice far more than a mere formality. The responsible authority de-mands among other things the presentation of the statutes, the protocol of the founding meeting, a list of at least ten members as well as payment of a fee. The statutes must contain the goals of the organisa-tion (which need to be authorized and may not be strayed from - unless an official re-registration is applied for) as well as detailed information on personal, financial, and organisational structure. The registration fee has for the past years been about $100-150. In summer and autumn 2001, however, for a test phase of several months, free registrations were granted. Considering additional costs for legal counsel, possibly necessary translations (all documentation must be presented in Kazakh, which is a problem for many Russians), and for the travel to the seat of the responsible office, the registration presents a formidable hurdle which many NGOs, especially rural ones, cannot take without assistance of foreign sponsors.

Only registered organisations can open bank accounts, own property, or rent offices. The activity of unregistered organisations is even a criminal offence in Kazakhstan (Article 337 of the Criminal Code, RK 16/07/1997a), which is a uniquely harsh law for Central Asia.

For civil servants on the lower and middle levels of administration, NGOs are a cause of general distrust, which is most likely a remnant of the Soviet “administrative tradition” and the relative novelty of the NGO phenomenon. This finds an expression for example in the often dragged-out treatment of registrations or the charging of “additional fees”.

Tax Law In the tax laws, a number of important improvements and clarifications have occurred over the last few years (cf. RK 12/06/2001a):

Local environmental NGOs are entitled to receive money and goods from abroad which generally are untaxed. But this is conditional on the respective foreign sponsors either working in Kazakhstan on the basis of inter-governmental agreements or having a government permit (which is usually the case).

Conditions for the Work of Local Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan 12

Considering their high dependency on international sponsors it is important that the NGOs studied here are allowed to undertake commercial activities, as long as the income is used exclusively for the (fundamentally non-profit) goals of the organisation. Such income is not taxed for NGOs from the “social sector”, to which it is safe to assume the environmental NGOs belong.

The freedom from capital gains tax for on-commercial organisations might possibly facilitate the development of a foundations system. On the other hand, the lack of a law on organisations' charitable status as well as correspondent legislation on tax-deductible donations forms a significant hindrance in the opinion of many experts. The culture of donating and sponsoring is badly underdeveloped in Kazakhstan, because of the economic crisis, but also for of historic-societal reasons.

Concepts for State Support of Kazakhstani NGOs A government paper under this title, adopted in January 2002 by the Kazakhstani government might be a further indicator of the growing recognition of NGOs by the state. It was developed by a working group consisting of representatives from ministries, NGOs, and international organisations (cf. PRK 23/01/2002).

The paper envisions a system of social commission (sotsialnyj zakaz), in which the state awards impor-tant projects in the areas of education and social policy, health and environmental policy to NGOs, which compete for them and are paid by the government. All NGOs are to have the same chance of success in competing for projects. But it remains to be seen whether just this decisive aspect is really enforced. Many fear the emergence of a large number of government-friendly “quasi-NGOs”.

Considering the existent regional differences, the state wishes to support and develop NGOs in a balanced way. Part of this is the general improvement of conditions, such as for example the simplifi-cation of registration.

The contacts between NGOs and ministries are to be further developed by continuous co-operation in bodies and seminars. Furthermore, ministries and NGOs want to hold events for the public together. These efforts are co-ordinated by the NGO-Info-Center, which reports to the Ministry for Culture, Information, and Social Accord.

The reason for this more active role of the state in NGO-policies, which has also been encouraged by the president (NAZARBAYEV 2000), may be the insight that NGOs can take over responsibilities which the state is no longer able to fulfil as well as the desire not to let the influence of foreign sponsors grow too far.

4.4 International Co-operation in Environmental Protection and in the Promotion of NGOs

The influence of international agents and mechanisms on Kazakhstani civil society cannot be underes-timated.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, goals were formulated in the Western world which were to guide the transition politics of the former Eastern bloc. Notwithstanding some differences regarding prioritisation and the types of instruments used, the consistent overarching goals were democratisa-tion, introduction of free market economies, and the solution or at least containment of social and ecological problems. Nobody would dispute the self-interest of the Western countries: the securing of markets and resources, the containment of the illegal drugs and weapons trade, and the prevention of streams of refugees. The general security situation since September 2001 has moved Central Asia into the focus of international interest.

Considering the international co-operation concerning the local environmental NGOs studied here, a first distinction is necessary between multilateral and bilateral mechanisms and whether a measure aims primarily at ecological improvements or at empowering civil agents in keeping with the ideal of democratisation. Of course, many projects overlap the distinctions.

International Co-operations in Environmental Protection Since its independence, the Republic of Kazakhstan has joined a number of important international conventions for environmental protection and has taken steps towards their implementation


13

(cf. NEC SD 1999). Important examples are the United Nations Conventions on Biological Diversity, to Combat Desertification (cf. BMZ 2000), Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and on Climate Change. Furthermore, Kazakhstan has joined the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and ratified the Aarhus Convention. The latter has come into force in 2001 and is meant to secure the rights of the public to access information on the environment, to participation in environmentally relevant decisions as well as to take recourse to the judiciary in matter of the environment.

The first approaches to implementing the Aarhus Convention are raising hopes of a strengthened role of local environmental NGOs. In June 2000, a memorandum was adopted in which the Ministry of the Environment, the Parliamentary Environment Committee, as well as an “Extraordinary Project Group of Kazakhstani Environmental NGOs” agreed to co-operate closely (MUSATAYEV et al. 2000). This concerns, among other subjects, the reciprocal transmission of information, the participation of NGOs in important legislative procedures, common measures in public relations and environmental educa-tion, and generally the improvement of NGOs' possibilities in helping to solve environmental prob-lems. How real the results of the “Aarhus process” will be in Kazakhstan depends on whether or not the approaches sketched above will lead to substantial changes or whether they will disappear in the desks of authorities and NGOs.

Further strategies and instruments of international environmental protection worth mentioning are the Agenda 21 process, as well as the Regional Environmental Center for Central Asia, the GEF and TACIS programmes (led by the World Bank/UNEP and the European Union, respectively), and the “Caspian Environmental Programme” (led by the World Bank, UNDP, and the European Union).

International co-operation is of great importance for environmental protection and shows good results in Kazakhstan, too. However, not every instrument applied in this area is equally successful.

According to many interviewed experts and NGO-representatives, many international environmental projects are too rigid and inflexible and designed with time-spans in mind which are too short. To-gether with the sometimes considerable sums involved, this can lead to inefficiency, corruption, and self-enrichment in some cases.

The goals of some projects completely bypass the needs of the population and were conceived instead along the lines of international development-political “trends” with contents and terminologies which are far too abstract (such as sustainability, Agenda 21, biosphere reserve).

State institutions on the lower levels, especially the administrations of protected areas, have practically no way of getting at sponsoring money, in spite of their great importance for the protection of natural resources. Either they would be redirected to higher levels of administration (such as the ministry) and hardly reach the lowest level, or the international sponsors generally sponsor exclusively the civil sector.

International Sponsoring of Local NGOs In the co-operations mentioned above, NGOs are partners, more or less important, with other, mostly governmental main agents. In the following, the authors will present instruments and strategies which are aimed at the direct support of local environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan.

Forms of Sponsoring Fig. 4 shows the different ways in which sponsoring (mostly financial, but also technical aid, informa-tion, and qualification) can arrive at the recipient. Merely a selection of support organisations relevant to local environmental NGOs is listed. Even though supranational organisations like the United Na-tions programmes are funded by contributions of their member states, they are counted as sponsors here. Some of the sponsors have offices in the country (e.g. GEF). But since that is not the rule (e.g. with USAID or HIVOS), a number of intermediate organisations play an important part. They can be either Northern NGOs or so-called Support Centers, which, as independent Kazakhstani NGOs, distribute international sponsors' contributions. In some cases, “experienced” local environmental NGOs simultaneously function as Support Centers for other, mostly younger organisations.

A significant and often vital activity of a local environmental NGO in Kazakhstan consists in the appli-cation for project funding, so-called grants. These are moneys (or goods) which are awarded by the sponsors with the goal of either carrying out concrete projects with an NGO or, more rarely, of strengthening the capabilities of the NGO.


14

Both the sum and the length of the sponsoring as well as the criteria of awards and evaluation vary strongly between the several support organisations. For example, ISAR (Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia), an organisation funded by USAID, distributes small start-up grants of $300-500 to initiatives mostly in rural areas, since even the founding of a local NGO is in need of external sup-port (e.g. to pay for registration).

It is the intent of most NGO support programmes that the supported organisations carry out measures with the help of the grant, which simultaneously achieve socio-economic improvements in the mu-nicipalities. Additionally local communities, and the NGOs themselves, are supposed to be empowered to tackle ecological and economical problems as time passes, for example in the “Small Grants Pro-gramme” of the GEF at the Aral Sea or in the “Periferia”-Concept of ISAR in rural regions of Central Asia in general (GEF 2000 and ISAR CENTRAL ASIA 2001b, respectively).

A new programme (“Community Outreach”) of the organisation Counterpart Consortium, which is also funded by USAID, combines (as do others) grants of money with consulting and training mod-ules. In this case, local NGOs, the municipal administration, and the population are all supposed to participate in a common attempt at defining and solving local problems of any nature (TURDIEV 2001).

Besides financial and technical support, the transmission of knowledge and abilities plays a central part for many NGO support organisations. This can take the shape of, for example, fundraising classes, project management, public relations work, accounting, or the use of the internet.

Some organisations promote the exchange of experience as well as the formation of contacts and net-works among Kazakhstani NGOs, but also on the international level. The umbrella organisation SEU (Socio-Ecological Union), active throughout the CIS, was very important for the latter in the early nineties, since it functioned as port of call for some early Kazakhstani NGOs while there were no support organisations represented in Kazakhstan itself. It was also a model for the umbrella organisa-tion EkoForum, which has been created by environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan and which, in turn, is supported by the Dutch NGO Milieukontakt Oosteuropa.

Fig.4: Possible ways of international support for local environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan (own diagram)


15

Evaluation by Support Organisations In order to assess projects, most support organisations demand detailed progress and final reports and carry out more or less regular monitoring, using local or international experts. The quality of monitor-ing varies greatly, from intensive support by experts knowledgeable in the specific problems, to whis-tle-stop visits of Western representatives without knowledge of Russian, even. In the choice of NGOs and the estimation of their institutional development, most support organisations rely on their own experience as well as on continuous consultations with other support organisations represented in Kazakhstan. There are almost no standardised procedures. Support organisations list, among others, the following general criteria for an organisation to count as capable and efficient: The NGO has existed and has been growing for a considerable time; it has clear goals which include the needs of the local population; its decision-making process is transparent; it engages in public relation; and it re-ceives funds from other support organisations. On the other hand, some support organisations point to the mere number of newly founded NGOs as a measure of their success (cf. LUONG & WEINTHAL 1999).

Support Strategies In the choice of thematic focus, support organisations are bound by the instructions of their financial backer to different degrees. It is often the case that their programmes are oriented towards current topics of global interest, such as sustainability, climate change, and combating desertification, and the respective conventions (which are often the reason funds are available in the first place).

But many criticise this trend: because of their considerable dependence on foreign funds, many local NGOs work more to satisfy global trends than the real needs of the regional population. In the very least, they rarely manage to combine the global and local levels to win understanding and acceptance from the local population.

Concerning the methodical procedures of the support organisations studied here, two principally different approaches can be diagnosed: the first strategy is to promote the foundation of as many local NGOs as possible. To make this possible, small start-up sums as well as training modules are offered, which are intended to enable the young organisations to acquire further resources on their own. For further support, projects with clearly defined topics are available, for which the NGOs are invited to compete. Those following this strategy are among others ISAR and Counterpart Consortium, both funded by the US development agency USAID.

Main points of criticism with this approach are that sometimes the mere number of founded NGOs is regarded as a gain for civil society, rather than their capabilities and efficiency. Furthermore, exclu-sively project-related support can (but not necessarily needs to) hinder goals such as growing member-ship and integration of the NGO into the local community.

The second approach stresses the institutional, rather than project-oriented, support. Of special im-portance for Kazakhstan is the Dutch HIVOS foundation, which in turn is funded in part by donations and in part from the development budget of the Dutch government. In this case, fewer organisations are supported, but over a longer term and not in return for specific projects. Instead, the NGO con-cerned can, over the passage of several years, develop institutionally, grow, and engage in projects of its own choice. Problems can arise, however, if the organisation does not become dynamic and independ-ent as a result of this long-term support, but rather static and dependent on the support organisation (HIVOS 2000, COOPER 1999). Although HIVOS is not represented in Kazakhstan, it supports some local NGOs directly, bypassing intermediary organisations.

The Support Centers already mentioned are intermediary organisations which nevertheless have the status of local NGOs with their seats in Kazakhstan. They can either be former representations of international support organisations (as is the case with the Civil Society Support Centers, which are founded by Counterpart), or they can be local NGOs which have developed from pure recipient or-ganisations to intermediary organisations which in turn distribute funds.

Of course, the above explanations cannot take into account all support organisations relevant to Ka-zakhstani environmental NGOs. Similarly, the numerous projects funded by foreign foundations or diplomatic representations such as Soros, Eurasia, or the German Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, weren't mentioned. The authors rather intended to sketch the main types of NGO funding and the strategies underlying them.

Stages of Development of the Environmental Movement in Kazakhstan 16

5 STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT IN KAZAKHSTAN

Protest Movements against the Soviet Power ( 986- 99 ) Until the mid-eighties, civil societies in their true sense did not exist anywhere in the Soviet Union (ASTANINA 2002). Civil organisations did exist and often played a positive role in the everyday life of the population, but without exception they were controlled either directly or indirectly by the state.

From 1986 on, the political reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev unveiled the full degree of the economic and ecological problems of the USSR step by step. Due to the simultaneously relaxed directives con-cerning for example freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate, discussion clubs and inde-pendent organisations sprang up in many parts of the Soviet Union. Many of those were concerned with environmental protection (LUONG & WEINTHAL 1999). Ecology was estimated by those in power to be a relatively “safe” topic, so that the formation of civil organisations was particularly rapid in this field.

Ecological demands, however, were quickly connected to the struggle for independence in many non-Russian republics of the USSR. The exploitation and contamination of natural resources was blamed on the Russian-dominated central government. The mass movement Nevada-Semipalatinsk (founded in 1989) which protested against the nuclear test site in Eastern Kazakhstan, is a particularly prominent example.

Even before the independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan, President Nursultan Nazarbayev decreed the closure of the nuclear test site in August 1991, helping the Kazakhstani environment movement to achieve its biggest success to date.

The further development of the Kazakhstani environment movement can be divided into three phases (cf. BAHRO 1998 and ASTANINA 2002).

Liberties through rapid Democratisation (1991-1993) The first years of the independent Republic of Kazakhstan were characterised by rapid reforms. Con-stitution and legislation, but the general situation of upheaval as well, allowed the almost entirely unhindered foundation and development of NGOs. Particularly in urban areas, environmental protec-tion organisation such as Green Salvation or Tabigat sprang up, organisations which devoted their time to the many environmental disasters which had been uncovered, and participated in the detection of further trouble spots. At the same time, the economic shock therapy brought the overwhelming majority of the population close to the subsistence level. For some scientists, teachers, and journalists, work in NGOs was a lifeline. For already in 1991, the first Western support organisations offered programmes for NGOs.

De-politicisation and “Donor Tsunami” ( 994- 997) The significantly decreased pace of democratisation in 1994/1995 resulted in a lowering of the Kazakh-stani environmental movement's political influence. The efforts to protect the environment had be-come “troublesome”, since they were potentially hindering the economic development. Activities of environmental NGOs which caught the eye of the public met the mistrust or open disapproval of the authorities.

At the same time, however, the activities of Western support organisations, which were running in full throttle, had lead to a rapid increase in the number of NGOs in the environmental sector as well. HORTON & KAZAKINA (1999 p. 35) speak of a “donor tsunami” between 1994 and 1996. This appar-ent contradiction to the political climate can be explained by the fact that the mostly very small organi-sation moved almost exclusively into the sphere of “non-political” activities (such as environmental education, research, or conferences on globally important, but not locally or nationally risqué, topics). This change of focus was applauded rather than criticised by the international support organisations: some authors therefore charge Western development policy with supporting civil society only where that does not trouble the economic interests (as it does in the case of critical environmental NGOs at the Caspian Sea (cf. LUONG & WEINTHAL without year)).

Number and Geographical Distribution of Kazakhstani Environmental NGOs

17

The time of mass movements had passed, and the existential threat to the population meant that there was no social basis for NGOs. Most people regarded NGOs (should they know about them at all) as merely another source of income which the newly-arrived capitalism offered to especially clever play-ers.

Professionalisation and Specialisation (since 998) In spite of the decreased and, respectively, the targeted international funding of NGOs since the end of the nineties, the number of organisations continues to increase, without a similar increase in their total number of members or in their political influence. However, by now at least some environmental NGOs have developed which are characterised by a more self-confident, professional, and specialised manner of work. For example, they tackle locally relevant problems more often, confrontations are not avoided, and networks are formed in order to gain influence on the national level. Especially self-confident NGOs have even criticised some support organisations.

An especially noteworthy change is beginning to emerge on the part of the state. Comments of the president and several members of the government, as well as a new concept of state support for NGOs, a number of legislative changes, the ratification of the Aarhus Convention as well as a memorandum on the co-operation between the Ministry of the Environment, Parliament, and NGOs prove a rising interest of the state in the NGO sector. Whether this will lead to better capabilities of independent environmental NGOs remains to be seen, however.

6 NUMBER AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF KAZAKHSTANI ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS

The results of the analysis of quantitative data and its interpretation presented in the following serve as important foundations for the evaluation of the efficiency of local environmental non-governmental organisations.

6.1 Number of Environmental NGOs As already mentioned in chapter 3.2, a database as comprehensive as possible of all environmental NGOs was compiled.

In the NGO database 270 environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan were registered. This high number of environmental NGOs is in keeping with those in other transitional countries, according to figures in the studies by the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC CEE 1995, REC CEE 1997).

During the compilation of the database, the authors estimated, following the data and with the support of experts, which of the 270 listed NGOs are actually active and which have ceased activities, or never really started. This necessarily subjective estimation resulted in about 150 active and 120 passive envi-ronmental NGOs.

According to recent and exhaustive data from a paper of the Kazakhstani government (PRK 23/01/2002), the source of which is probably the official statistic of the Ministry of Justice, which keeps records of NGO registrations, environmental NGOs are the largest thematic group of Kazakh-stani NGOs, with 15% of 3,500 NGOs in total. Almost all other themes are related to different aspects of the social sphere. Whether or not the environmental area is the largest sector therefore depends mainly on the applied categories.

Number and Geographical Distribution of Kazakhstani Environmental NGOs 18

6.2 Analysis of the Geographic Distribution of Environmental NGOs

The geographical analysis of the registered organisations was carried out with the use of a Geographical Information System (GIS) by linking the database to a political-administrative map of the Republic of Kazakh-stan (source: ESRI 1999). In addition, current population data were linked to this map (1999 census, source: ARKS 1999).

Urban-Rural Distribution For the analysis of the urban-rural distribution, all towns and counties (rajons) of Kazakhstan were grouped in four categories, according to their centrality. These are, in descending order: the former capital Almaty, the capitals of the oblasts, all remaining towns, and finally the counties, which represent rural areas.

According to the data collected, 36 different counties and towns are seat of one or several environmental NGOs (cf. map ). Fig. 5 show

the distribution in percentage among the catego-ries listed. It can be stated that 90% of all envi-ronmental NGOs are based in urban areas. Almaty, Astana, and the oblast-capitals alone account for 78%.

To eliminate the influence of different popula-tion sizes within the categories, it makes sense to relate the absolute occurrence of NGOs to the total population figure of the four categories. Fig. 6 shows the resulting number of NGOs per 100,000 inhabitants (“NGO density”).

In this respect, Almaty is the clear leader. With 8.5 NGOs/100,000 inhabitants, the NGO density is far higher here than anywhere else. It sinks with decreasing centrality. With only 0.33 NGOs/100,000 inhabitants the NGO density is lowest in rural areas.

Geographical Concentration The cartographic representation of the geographic distribution of registered environmental NGOs within Kazakhstan allows the identification of absolute and relative concentration of their occurrence (cf. maps 1 and 2). In an overview, the following NGO concentrations can be recognised:

• The city of Almaty, because of the remaining concentration of important central functions

• The oblast Akmolinsk and the city of Astana, the new political centre of the country

• Areas of industrial concentration in the oblasts Karaganda, Eastern Kazakhstan, and, less mark-edly, Pavlodar

• The Aral Sea region in the oblast Kyzylorda, and less markedly the oblast Southern Kazakhstan

• Western Kazakhstan in the Caspian region

��

��

��

Rural counties (rayons)

10,0%

Oblast-capitals42,0%

towns12,0%

Almaty36%

Fig. 5: Relative distribution of environmental NGOs among localities of differing centrality (own data)

2.92

8.50

2.15

0.330

2

4

6

8

10

Almaty Oblast-Capitals

Towns Ruralcounties

Class of Centrality

Envi

ronm

enta

l NG

Os

/100

,000

inha

bita

nts

Fig. 6: Average number of environmental NGOs per 100,000 inhabitants for each class of centrality (own data)

Evaluation of the Efficiency of Kazakhstani Environmental NGOs

19

The last three regions are in the main identical to the areas identified in the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP, cf. NEC SD 2001a) as hot spots of environmental concern, which means that a second criterion for occurrence of NGOs, besides centrality, emerges.

However, NGOs do not seem to have been founded in all of these critical regions from endogenous motives. A glance at the founding dates (if known) of the NGOs in the regions concerned and at the support programmes and priority support regions of some NGO support organisations (cf. chapter 4.4) invites the assumption that NGOs in the urban, highly industrialised oblasts are more likely to be endogenously founded than those in the Caspian region and the wider Aral Sea region, where NGOs have been particularly well supported lately.

Therefore, there are three significant factors which in themselves, but also in their interaction, deter-mine high occurrence of NGOs

• Centrality of the location

• Particular environmental problems

• Special support by NGO support organisations

7 EVALUATION OF THE EFFICIENCY OF KAZAKHSTANI ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS

At this stage, the analysis of relevant conditions, the interpretation of structural geographical data of present NGOs and the substantial qualitative information and estimations of NGO representatives and experts carried out in the context of this study will be collated. According to the principles of SWOT analysis (sssstrengths, wwwweaknesses, oooopportunities, tttthreats), the first step is to create a table of the strengths and weaknesses of the NGOs studied regarding their capabilities to protect the natural resources, divided into the categories developed in chapter 3.6. Following that, a summary of the resulting op-portunities and threats is offered.

The capability of the local environmental NGO sector is represented here in its totality, which neces-sarily results in generalisations not always applicable to individual cases. Basis for the authors' assess-ment is the current situation of the majority of NGOs. Should some several, especially important NGOs determine the capability of the entire sector, the mass of inactive and unobtrusive NGOs is correspondingly weighted less. Should there be important exceptions to the general estimate, they are mentioned in the respective other column of the table.

Every one of the points listed is weighted according to its relevance for the general efficiency of the sector by awarding it one, two, or three thumbs. The number of thumbs has the following meaning:

or noticeable, but not significant, strength or weakness

or strength or weakness significant in respect of efficiency

or decisive strength or weakness the relevance of which is such that it can even balance other weaknesses or strengths

Evaluation of the Efficiency of Kazakhstani Environmental NGOs 20

StrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengths WeaknWeaknWeaknWeaknessesessesessesesses

Geographical and Quantitative Aspects of the Distribution of Local Environmental NGOsGeographical and Quantitative Aspects of the Distribution of Local Environmental NGOsGeographical and Quantitative Aspects of the Distribution of Local Environmental NGOsGeographical and Quantitative Aspects of the Distribution of Local Environmental NGOs

Overall great number of environmental NGOs existent in all oblasts and almost all towns

Geographical distribution of NGOs correlates to particular environmental problems

The environmental sector is developed furthest in Kazakhstani civil society

High percentage of inactive NGOs

Rare occurrence outside of towns (exception: focal regions of international organisations)

Aspects of the Institutional CAspects of the Institutional CAspects of the Institutional CAspects of the Institutional Capabilities of Local Environmental NGOsapabilities of Local Environmental NGOsapabilities of Local Environmental NGOsapabilities of Local Environmental NGOs

Strong promotion of foundations by support organisa-tions, recently especially in the periphery

Mostly, existence of super-ordinate goals with societal relevance for the activities of the NGO

Mostly high content motivation of founders and members

Motivation of members by open working climate and feeling of community

Motivation of members through possibility of training and income

Specialisation and professionalisation, often by institution of thematic working groups

Interior structure most often following democratic principles

Small size allows flexibility

Support organisations provide financial security

Technical equipment mostly very good, especially compared to authorities (e.g. communication technology)

Offer of services as additional (tax-free) source of income

Signs of increasing material support and granting of projects by state

Generally highly educated members

Important comparative advantage through knowledge, abilities, and contacts, resulting in high degree of influence and good reputation locally, partly even nationally; function as think tanks

Possibility to increase own expertise by training, international contacts, own studies, hiring of experts

Local NGOs act as intermediate support centers for other local NGOs

National and international networks improve know-ledge and influence, offer support for specific NGOs in conflicts with the state and economic agents, excep-tional role of EkoForum und EkoPravda

State grants NGOs autonomy in content matters in many respects

Strong dependence on founders or leaders.

Foundation often initiated and steered from without (e.g. by support organisations)

Support strategies of international organisations lead to unnecessary re-foundations and splits

Foundation requires much labour and financial expenditure

Registration requires a fixing of area of activity; a change requires re-registration

Dependence from inception on computer and internet especially in periphery

Super-ordinate goals often liable to change, since dependent on support programmes

Members mostly dependent on income, long-term volunteering rarely possible, economic conditions hinder growth in membership

Few NGOs with large membership (little interest in growth, almost no advertising, fees impossible)

Many NGOs exist only formally or were founded for only a specific project, many quasi-NGOs

Accountability to support organisations rather than population

Leaders determine content of activities and possess information advantage within NGOs, short-term volunteers excluded from decision-making process

Strong financial dependence from inception on support organisations, only few organisations survive long-term without direct funding, insecure financial future

No acquisition of donations by NGOs, economic crisis and lack of donation culture, donations not tax-deductible

State sponsoring low and indirect so far

Support organisations almost never fund wages directly

No acquisition of sponsors by NGOs, economic crisis and mistrust with entrepreneurs

Insufficient legal and political competency (hin-drance for influencing politics and economy)

Project management, fundraising, PR, computer use, and English language skills have to be acquired

To much competition for support between NGOs


21

StrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengths WeaknessesWeaknessesWeaknessesWeaknesses

Aspects of the Institutional Capabilities of Local Environmental NGOsAspects of the Institutional Capabilities of Local Environmental NGOsAspects of the Institutional Capabilities of Local Environmental NGOsAspects of the Institutional Capabilities of Local Environmental NGOs

Networks depend on foreign sponsors, are threat-ened by strategic alliances and rifts

Psychological reservations of NGOs against Networks (Soviet experiences)

Concrete choice of topics mostly dependent on support policies, only few NGOs thematically autonomous

Avoidance of political topics

Aspects of the Direct Influence of Local Environmental NGOs on Natural RAspects of the Direct Influence of Local Environmental NGOs on Natural RAspects of the Direct Influence of Local Environmental NGOs on Natural RAspects of the Direct Influence of Local Environmental NGOs on Natural Reeeesourcessourcessourcessources

Particular potential for co-operation with authorities and mobilisation of the population (some successfully realised projects)

Mostly good scientific qualifications

Lacking financial and technical possibilities (especially because of lacking interest of support organisations)

Often lacking motivation of NGOs for practical work (generally few realised projects)

Problems in co-operation with the authorities (reciprocal distrust)

Aspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and the StateAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and the StateAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and the StateAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and the State

Improvement of the general legal conditions for environmental NGOs, partly achieved by lobbying

New approaches to participation of NGOs in political decisions (public meetings etc)

Parliamentarians consult NGOs (high regard because of competency and international contacts)

Good reputation and influence especially with local authorities through advanced knowledge and contacts (to, among others, the higher levels of administration)

Generally improved co-operation and information exchange with authorities

Partly effective control of state activities in the envi-ronmental sector

Co-operation with nature reserves (science, control, education, tourism)

Authorities provide access to media and schools

Inclusion in state functions (so far, mainly environ-mental education and control)

New regulations in preparation for paid provision of state functions by NGOs

General political irrelevance on national level (almost no influence on legislative and executive branches); potential “irrelevance trap”

Many parliamentarians and civil servants remain mistrustful towards NGOs

Parliament itself possesses little influence on decisions

Only few NGOs engage in lobbying or in posses-sion of the necessary skills

Insufficient co-ordination between NGOs makes lobbying more difficult

Contacts between NGOs and parliament difficult, insufficient representation of environmental NGOs in Astana

Almost no pressure on the state, since almost no potential to mobilise population

Almost no recourse to courts (General conditions and lacking legal qualification)

Danger of exclusion of critical NGOs from state-funded projects

So far low participation in environmental impact assessments

Mostly defective provision of the intermediary function between state and population

NGOs' PR directed mostly at other NGOs, not at the population


StrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengths WeakneWeakneWeakneWeaknessesssesssessses

Aspects of the Relation between Local Environmental NGOs and the EconomyAspects of the Relation between Local Environmental NGOs and the EconomyAspects of the Relation between Local Environmental NGOs and the EconomyAspects of the Relation between Local Environmental NGOs and the Economy

Potential to consult companies

Intensive strategy discussions on the treatment of international corporations

Insistence on critical position vis-à-vis international corporations in the Caspian region

Beginnings of application of pressure on and imple-mentation of control of companies, combined with PR, especially locally

Good approaches to encourage sustainable economic development in rural regions

Provision of employment by NGOs themselves

Danger of dependence on large corporations (especially petrol industry in the Caspian region)

Mobilisation of population against big corpora-tions impossible

Almost no legal proceedings against companies (lack of legal qualifications, general conditions)

Engagement with economic agents generally little regarded by NGOs and donors

Support organisations partly weaken the position vis-à-vis international corporations

International corporations cannot be influenced, their influence on politics too great, corruption of authorities

Aspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and the PopulationAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and the PopulationAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and the PopulationAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and the Population

Very well known in some rural regions, because influential and participating in regional development

Generally good access to media (excepting political topics)

Some cases of successful work with and for the popula-tion

Great potential and many successful projects in environmental education

Provision of services for the population especially in rural regions

Transmission of general knowledge and abilities relevant to regional development and environmental protection

Work of NGOs too little oriented towards needs of the population

Generally, especially in cities, low profile, little PR

Low potential of social mobilisation (indifference or mistrust of the population towards many NGOs)

Access to media difficult when political topics concerned, almost no independence of the media

So far no noticeable increase in environmental awareness of population

Often lacking teaching material for environmental education

Aspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and International OrganisAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and International OrganisAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and International OrganisAspects of the Relations between Local Environmental NGOs and International Organisaaaationstionstionstions

In places, good mediator function in the population for international projects

Influence on the programme planning of some support organisations

Inclusion in the international environmental debate via networks, especially in Central Asia

Lack of contact to population prohibits optimal realisation of mediating function for international projects

Large-scale international environment projects endanger the independence of NGOs (corruption, misuse), development of quasi-NGOs

NGOs are led to abstract engagement with interna-tional conventions, without taking into account the real needs of the local population


23

In a further step, the main opportunities and threats for a successful and effective work of local envi-ronmental NGOs in Kazakhstan can now be generally summarised.

The Capabilities ofThe Capabilities ofThe Capabilities ofThe Capabilities of local NGOs local NGOs local NGOs local NGOs to Protect the Natural Rto Protect the Natural Rto Protect the Natural Rto Protect the Natural Reeeesources in Kazakhstan (Summary)sources in Kazakhstan (Summary)sources in Kazakhstan (Summary)sources in Kazakhstan (Summary)

OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ThreatsThreatsThreatsThreats

• Existence of a great number of environ-mental NGOs, especially in ecological hot spot regions.

• Strong support by international donors

• State opens possibilities by improved condi-tions

• NGO members mostly highly motivated and engaged, generally high level of education

• Professionalisation and specialisation, good networking

• Knowledge, contacts, and independence: therefore recognised think tanks, correctives and service providers especially at local level

• Very high potential and good achievements in environmental education

• High potential and great successes in envi-ronmental control

• Potential and success as initiators of rural regional development, influence and good reputation with authorities and population possible

• Important role as independent co-operation partners for international organisations

• Insufficient capacity to achieve a noticeable improvement of environmental condition through own efforts

• Continually more, but smaller organisa-tions, no incentive to growth

• Too dependent on international support organisations, lack of alternative sources of funding, insecure perspective, therefore in-sufficient freedom in choice of topics

• Legitimacy and accountability less from and towards population, but rather foreign donors

• Lacking orientation towards needs of local population, little potential for mobilisation

• Mediator function rarely fulfilled, since contact to population insufficient

• General tendency to non-political and non-conflicted themes

• Too little political and legal competency

• Legal possibilities of political participation are not fully utilised

• State hinders influence on important na-tional decision by executive and legislative branches


This study's enquiry into the capabilities of local non-governmental organisations to protect the natu-ral resources in Kazakhstan can now be answered.

At first it must be stated that the state of natural resources in the Republic of Kazakhstan has not, on a nation-wide scale, noticeably improved since local environmental NGOs began their efforts in 1989. The closure of the nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk in 1991 was the first and, so far, last national success of the Kazakhstani environmental movement worth mentioning. In this context, BAHRO (1998, p. 189) assessment remains valid:

“The really existing environmental policies in Central Asia are conducted today in the interest of fuel and energy companies, of the military industry and the nuclear energy together with state and share-holder capital. So far, environmental protection is only a matter of words.”

But it would not do the Kazakhstani environmental NGOs justice at all to deny them all capability and to therefore deny them a main justification of their existence. Rather, the following points must be taken into consideration:

Without the existence of the Kazakhstani environmental movement, the ecological situation in Ka-zakhstan would possibly be even worse than is the case today. On a local level there have been con-crete, if rare, ecological improvements through activities of local NGOs.

It is incontestable that environmental NGOs do not possess the capacity, but neither the primary function, to solve complex environmental problems through their own activities. NGOs can only be successful on a large scale by influencing other agents impacting on the environment.

The efficiency of environmental NGOs has to be furthermore related to the conditions applicable to Kazakhstan. Considering the short time since the emergence of the first environmental NGOs and the extremely difficult situation occasioned by the upheavals, as well as the sheer extent of the ecological crisis, talking of failure would be unjustified. Rather, a series of successes point to opportunities which promise a higher efficiency in the future:

• The high degree of attention awarded NGOs by international support organisations, and the fi-nancial resources available thereby, provide good starting conditions at the moment. Lobbying by the NGOs themselves has led to improvements in the political and legal framework over the last years as well.

• NGOs have a great potential at their disposal: highly motivated, flexible, and well qualified work-ers, as well as good communication among themselves and with many other relevant agents, both at home and internationally, create a significant comparative advantage over state structures, es-pecially at the local level. Their know-how can secure them influence and a high reputation in lo-cal communities, which is evident in several examples already.

• The greatest achievements so far can be found in the area of environmental education. Further-more, environmental controlling and the initiation of sustainable regional development are im-portant fields of activity, even if few examples exist for successes in these areas. NGOs are already very proficient at the provision of local services. It is also very important that by now many local environmental NGOs can introduce themselves to international organisations as competent partners in development co-operation, making them an independent alternative to state institu-tions.

Opposite these opportunities, some threats must be mentioned, which have so far prevented a higher success rate of Kazakhstani environmental NGOs:

• The tendency to a growing number of NGOs in total, but to a simultaneously decrease in average size of the organisations which are very small anyway, is a major threat regarding political influ-ence. Active NGOs consist of less than 30 members on average, to which have to be added a number of “quasi-NGOs” which consist only of a small number of individuals. Main reasons are the dependence on international donors and their policies which partly encourage splits (many small organisations can achieve higher funds than one large organisation) as well as the lacking motivation, partly a result of this development, to acquire more members.

• The high dependence on foreign, mostly project-oriented funds, lessens the planning security and leads to a sometimes fierce competition between local NGOs. But mainly this results in a shift of the legitimacy and accountability of NGOs away from their proper social basis towards the inter-national support organisations. As a consequence, they often neglect the relevant needs of the population at home and only rarely work as mediators between the population and state or in-


25

ternational institutions and therefore lack a potential to mobilisation. The latter is necessary, however, to put pressure on state or economic decision makers. But the large-scale economic cri-sis is a threat as well when attempting to win over the population for environmental activities. This is a problem common to many Southern NGOs

• In spite of single encouraging counterexamples, local environmental NGOs engage most often in non-political topics and avoid conflict. This can only partly be explained by the indeed existing state limitations and general societal conditions. The legal framework and the revaluation of civic society lately propagated by the government allow more activities than are utilised by NGOs at present. Reasons are the lacking political and legal competency of the organisations, but also the lacking encouragement by support organisations as well as in some cases in the low motivation to lobbying and application of public pressure on the part of the NGOs. Therefore, the function as representative of public interest and, respectively, of ecological matters on the political scene, is rarely realised.

• The state allows NGOs almost no influence on decisions of national importance (which can have a particularly strong impact on the environment). GLAGOW/EVERS 1986 (cited in GLAGOW 1992, p. 320) mention the so-called “irrelevance trap”, a formula according to which critical or-ganisations of any kind which achieve considerable political power on a national level have to ex-pect repression in many countries and are therefore condemned to political irrelevance. How far this danger is to be expected to become real for Kazakhstani environmental NGOs cannot be judged yet. So far none of the existent organisations has reached the necessary “critical mass”.

The comparative advantages which are generally ascribed to NGOs over state agents (cf. chapter 2) can only in part be confirmed for Kazakhstani environmental NGOs. Generally, they are highly motivated, flexible, un-bureaucratic, efficient in the use of funds and independent from state structures. But they cannot be described as particularly close to their proper basis or accountable to the public. A resistance against self-enrichment can not be taken as a given in all cases. The independence from state structures is substituted by strong, if different, dependence on support organisations.

NGOs cannot and are not supposed to free the state from all its responsibilities in environmental policy. By its constitutional mission and the measures as its disposal, such as taxes and duties, the monopoly on violence and a country-wide administration, it is in the final analysis the responsibility and duty of the state to protect the natural resources and guarantee the quality of the environment

NGOs in Kazakhstan can therefore not be seen as an alternative, but only as an important addition to the state apparatus. The function of the NGOs is to develop ideas, to initiate and control smaller-scale and de-centralised projects, to offer co-operation, and to assure the integration of the population. Considering the socio-economic crisis and the so far insufficient democratic development this is a particularly great challenge in Kazakhstan.

Overall, it can be stated that most environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan are still at a stage in which they are building their existence and securing the status quo of the organisation. Some have become profes-sionalised and specialised and are beginning to extend their influence. The stage at which institution-ally secure organisations can proceed to contribute to real, large-scale improvements of the environ-ment, has not yet taken place with most NGOs.

The opinion of two very experienced Kazakhstani NGO-representatives may stand for the experience of the environmental movement there as a whole (KURATOV & SOLYANIK 2000, p. 9):

“A start has been made, but a national and well-organised environmental movement in Kazakhstan remains a distant ideal.”

Recommendations for a Raised Efficiency of Local Environmental NGOs

26

8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A RAISED EFFICIENCY OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS

8.1 What the Donors Can Do The international support organisations have had a decisive part in the emergence and the present situation of NGOs over the last decade. In the course, the form of support determines the result. In the sector studied here, the result is often an existential dependence of local NGOs on external funding and determination of content, since their institutional development was not sufficiently considered.

An end to support at this time would therefore prove far too soon and would not make sense. The challenge to support organisations is to strengthen NGOs and their efficiency, without imposing on them rigid top-down concepts. Rather, they should develop strategies in co-operation with local partners. The possibility that projects reflect local needs would be much higher. The NGOs' initiative and responsibility would be strengthened.

Whereas the support strategies so far have worked mainly according to the “watering can” principle (funding of as many projects as possible in the context of certain programmes offered), in future there has to be a balanced mixture of short-term, flexible project funding which demands initiative and ideas from NGOs, and long-term co-operation which leads to a security of NGOs' existence.

Such a flexible project funding would include the provision of small sums (to raise the efficiency of the usage of funds and prevent abuse) for projects developed by the NGOs themselves. This assures con-ceptual independence for NGOs and ensures local interests are taken into account.

Long-term co-operation means offering the NGOs basic support (not merely financial) beyond the term of a specific project, which is rarely the case up to now. Strong, organisationally and financially secure NGOs are better able to engage intensively and long-term in the proper work of nature and environment protection without constantly having to fight for their survival. If they have to join the “race” for every available grant, this could easily render absurd their original goals and significantly lower their efficiency. Possessing a certain material security, they will be able to undertake sensible projects even without outside help.

The common goal of long-term co-operation must be to achieve financial independence of an NGO by diversifying its sources of finance and a significant growth of the organisation. A possibility for the former would be to create the position of a “finance manager” within the local NGOs, that is paid for by the support organisation, and whose main function it is to acquire funding (from local sources, as well!) and to document its uses. To promote the growth of an NGO, both in respect of public recogni-tion as well as membership, donors could carry the costs for example for PR, membership drives, or membership maintenance (e.g. newsletters). Such a support should especially be directed towards networks and umbrella organisations, to strengthen the sector as a whole and prevent further fraction-ing. The Dutch organisation Milieukontakt Oosteuropa is already positively engaged in this area.

The danger of not project-oriented long-term co-operation is that it may seduce NGOs to perform less well. Should phenomena such as inertia, distance from the population, and corruption begin to de-velop in NGOs they would lose all their comparative advantages over state institutions. To avoid this, appropriate control mechanisms between NGO and support organisation have to be instituted in the form of an effective system of evaluation and continual dialogue between both sides. Only in this way is it possible to judge whether the wishes and needs of the local NGO are considered and whether a long-term co-operation would strengthen or rather weaken the local NGO. The methods of evaluation applied at present are not nearly sufficient. In many cases, the supporters have little idea about the efficiency of the NGO. They can easily choose inappropriate partners.

8.2 What the Environmental NGOs Can Do One of the great deficits of the environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan is the fractioning of the sector in many small and minute organisations, which in most cases are not known beyond the local level. However, to tackle national themes with a certain unified voice, most of them have joined the network EkoForum. This development is to be welcomed. EkoForum could function as an influential mouth-piece of the single organisations, but could develop its own focal points for lobbying. The member

Recommendations for a Raised Efficiency of Local Environmental NGOs

27

NGOs should enforce the further development of this platform, make use of the created structures, and professionalise the work of the forum (partly by creating full-time positions). EkoForum itself should attempt a diversification of sources of funding as well, in order not to become too dependent on international funding.

As an umbrella organisation, EkoForum represents widely differing organisations, which often makes concerted action difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, EkoForum cannot replace the existence of one or several large national NGOs, although these do not yet exist in Kazakhstan. Such large environ-mental organisations could more easily find a thematic profile and would therefore be more flexible than a network of NGOs. Of course such organisations should be encouraged to remain members of EkoForum as well.

Professionalisation and specialisation of NGOs is held to be of special importance right now. But this is only one side of the equation, since these measures remove NGOs even further from the population, their proper basis and legitimacy. It is important, of course, that NGOs acquire further competencies in areas such as lobbying and legal matters, and to apply them, yet at the same time it is necessary for them to strengthen their influence in the interaction with other agents. And for that, support from the population is indispensable.

Therefore, NGOs must pay significantly more attention to the work with the population. PR must not be restricted to transmission of information on the environment to a small target group, but must at the same time be a broad advertising campaign for itself and its own goals. These goals have to coin-cide with the interests of at least parts of the population, of course. Local NGOs must attempt to reduce the mistrust and envy they encounter from many sides because they are funded from abroad. Only in doing so can they win many citizens as supporters and thereby build a greater potential for mobilisation to pursue political topics.

At the same time, NGOs must develop new systems of membership and forms of organisation, which would enable the desperately needed growth of the organisations and in turn a greater influence on society. It can be doubted that every active group needs to remain a discrete NGOs; it might be better if some groups would join to from a larger organisation. Competition for funds would be transformed into co-operation.

The introduction of membership cards and very low symbolic membership fees could strengthen the internal cohesion of the group and integrate “passive members” as well. While the active “core” of the NGO (including the volunteers) carries out the content work and the acquisition of funding (mostly in return for payment), the passive members can express their support for the goals of the organisation by their membership fees. Of course, the distinction between passive and active members would be fluid. For high-membership organisations of this kind, new democratic structures need to be found.

Not only in order to be able to absorb a greater number of members, but also in order to reduce the dependence on foreign sponsors and to be able to survive their possible withdrawal, NGOs must achieve a diversification of funding sources. Apart from membership fees or a new class of member-ships which entail a higher fee without the necessity of actively becoming involved in the day-to day work of the NGO, donations from individuals and companies could contribute to this, which necessi-tates the passage of a law on charitable organisations which would provide for tax-deductible dona-tions and tax-free status for the charity. A further development of the provision of commercial services and especially the increased support from the state in the context of the sotsialnyj zakaz are possible sources of finance. The available income from such sources should rise with the improvement of the economic situation in the country. The more diverse the sources of finances, and the greater the share of income generated by the general public, the lower is the probability that NGOs become financially dependent on state, companies, or international donors.

As growing, financially independent organisations with a strong basis in the population, Kazakhstani environmental NGOs should then continue on the path of co-operation and interaction with other agents whose activities impact on the environment. Only then can they effectively realise their goals of protecting nature and the environment.

Summary and Outlook 28

9 SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

With the local NGOs, a new type of agents has developed in Central Asia. After the political changes, international development co-operation has applied many of its concepts in an area which is signifi-cantly different in many respects from the classic developing countries.

The aim of this case study was to identify the opportunities for and threats to local environmental NGOs in the specific context of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The persons interviewed in the course of this study represent clearly different viewpoints regarding the NGO sector, but nevertheless the compi-lation of their statements, together with quantitative data resulted in an overall consistent picture of strengths and weaknesses.

It is certain that Western support organisations will continue to play an important part for local envi-ronmental NGOs in Kazakhstan for a long time yet. The central question is whether NGOs will suc-ceed in taking this as a point of departure for independent work oriented towards the population, of whether they will become the executing agents of international environment policies. In the second case, a new type of “grant-based NGOs” would come into existence (cf. RUFFIN 1999), which might pursue sensible goals now and then, but which would possess neither societal legitimacy nor institu-tional sustainability.

For the practice of development policy, as well as for the further development of NGO research, it would be well worth accompanying this process in future. The present study can offer an introductory understanding and a basis of comparison, as well as methodological inspiration for studies in other transitional countries.

In the opinion of the authors it should further be investigated, in how far any endogenous structures of civil society (even from pre-Soviet times) can contribute to the participation of the population in the solution of environmental problems in Central Asia.

Local NGOs on Western models, which are the focus of support today, can not in any case be regarded as a cure-all, neither for the goals of environmental policies nor in the sense of a promotion of civil society. It has to be tested on a case by case basis which agents have the highest potential to tackle which problems, a test which must not neglect state agents at any cost.

29

:

NABU 0 Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU,

) , - -

, « » - . . -

, NABU ( ) .

, NABU - .

NABU, .

, ,

. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst

(DAAD, ) ( CCD) Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH , - .

, , -

- .

, 2003 . . C

- NABU, NABU

GTZ-CCD 996

(UNCCD). 997 , - , UNCCD.

UNCCD 5 - ; UNCCD

, , ,

.

, , , -

. UNCCD , -

,

30

. -

, , ,

. (SRAP) -

CCD , GTZ-CCD -. , -

; -

, - , .

.

, - -

. , 2003 . .

( CD) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

,

( ) ( ).

Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD, ) Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU,

) 200 .

- ( ) .

, , , , -

, . .

-

- . ,

, -, ,

. -

. CCD GTZ NABU , -

. , - , . .

, , .

, 2003 ,

3

0 . - 989 , 99 . - : -

, -. , -

, . -

. -

. : , -

, , . , , -

, .

, . , , ,

. - , -

. -

( ) - : , ,

« » , , 70- .

- .

-

. , , , -

– ( ).

99 :

, . , - -

- , . -

( , , , ) , .

, .

, , , , - .

: 32

- , .

, .

: ) , , - -

? 2) -

? 3) ?

? 4) , -3,

? 5) ?

2 :

« » ( ), 948 ( ),

. , ,

«Non Profit Organisation», «Private Organisation» «Voluntary Organisation».

, . « » « » ( ) « -

» ( ), – « » (GLAGOW 992). , , «Altrustic Organisation» (

) « », - . -

«Intermediate Organisations», «Grassroot Organisations» (GROs) -

. ( . ALTVATER et al. 997) GLAGOW ( 992, .3 ) ,

: « , -

-

.»

, , .

- ( . . BRAND 2000).

« , . , , , , -

. - , .»

( « -» , ,

:

33

) ( « ») . - (Grassroot Support Organisations)

(Grassroot Organisations), ( . EDWARDS & HULME 996

HINRICHSEN 2000).

, . ,

( -, . CORNELSEN 99 ).

, , - .

( , ) - , -

, , . UNCED - - , -

, . , -

(WEGNER 993).

(SCHNEIDER 986, . WEGNER 993), , « » - , , ,

, « ». , -

(BECK & DEMMLER 2000). HANISCH ( 994) NEUBERT ( BECK & DEMMLER 2000)

, « -» : ,

, - , , , , , , , -

, . , GLAGOW 992 -

. , , -

, , . WEGNER ( 993) USAID (TENDLER, 982), -

, «articles of faith», .

NEUBERT ( 997, BRAND 2000), , , , -

, . - ,

. , -

, - , , -

( ) , , . (accountability)

(GLAGOW 992, EDWARDS & HULME 996, HULME & EDWARDS 997).

. - , ,

« », - (MOLT 998, . 2f).

34

-

, . .

. ,

, , (REC CEE 995).

5- (REC CEE 997). -

.

, TACIS (SUPIK et al. 200 ), -, , 4 4 . ,

IDC 200 . « » , , . , -

. LUONG & WEINTHAL ( 999) -

, ( ). WATTERS ( 999) -

- -

. (KRYLDAKOVA 200 ) - -

.

3

- . , - , .

200 .

3. , -

, , , . -

(60%), (30%) ( 0%) . ,

, .

3.2 , ,

, , - .

, ,

(« ») -

35

. , , , ,

. 6 .

ISAR (ISAR CENTRAL ASIA 200 a), (UNDP SUPPORT CENTER FOR NGOS 2002)

(SHAKIROVA 200 ), 3- , (EKOFORUM 200 ). -

, . . COUNTERPART INTERNATIONAL INC. ( 999), LUONG & WEINTHAL ( 999), RUFFIN et al. ( 998), SEU (without year) ZLOTNIKOV & NABOKOV ( 998).

. , , ,

(270 ).

. 0 -: 200

300 (KRYLDAKOVA 200 ). -

2002 (PRK 23/0 /2002) 525 . , , - . , -

, , , .

3.3

. - , , , (

), , ( ), .

( . 3.4). 00 , , . 6 .

( , , , - , ).

, 7.

3.4

, , - . , ,

, , - ( . LAMNEK 995). -

, , , . 27 (

), 4 3 ( , , ), ( ). -

, , ( . ATTESLANDER 995). -

36

, , .

, . (LAMNEK

1995). -

, . , -

.

, .

( 80 .) ,

. ( ) , -

. , -

, , , .

.

, , , , , .

, .

. ,

.

3.5 . -, .

- (MAYRING 2000).

, , -

, ,

.

.

3.6.

,

. , -

, ,

, – .

. 1: ( )

37

3.6

, -

. (GLASL et al. 1990 ALFF 2001), -

, GTZ (HINRICHSEN 2000).

. , , - , ,

( . 2). « »

. . 3 , .

, - - , ,

. , , , , -

.2: - ( )

38

.

.

- .

( . 7).

, , , -

.

4

4.1

. – ,

, - ,

– . , .

4.2

, ,

, , .

TURMAGAMBETOV (2001), NEC SD (2001b), IAZ (1999), NESTERENKO (2000)

KURATOV et al. (2000).

4.3

, , -, , ,

.

.3: - (

)

39

, 5 ( ), 20 (

), 23 ( ) 33 ( -). ,

(RK 30/08/ 995). 5 2 : - ,

« » « ». , ,

, – . , , -

. , 34 06 (RK 27/ 2/ 994), «

» (RK 3 /05/ 996) « » (RK 6/0 /200 b).

« » 7, 3 4 - . - , ( . RK 24/03/ 998 ZHARIKBAYEV 999).

, - ,

(HORTON & KAZAKINA 999, NI 200 ). , , .

, -: , -

, 0 , . ( ,

, , - « »), -

, . - 00- 50 $. 200

. , ( -

, ), ,

, .

, .

( .337 , RK 6/07/ 997a), .

, - , , , «

» . « ».

( . RK 2/06/200 a).

40

- , . ,

, ( ).

, ,

. « »

, , .

, , . , , , , , . , , - - ,

- .

2002 , , .

, , - ( . PRK 23/0 /2002).

( ), , , , .

. , , .

« ». -

. , , .

, . ,

. « – », ,

. ,

(NAZARBAYEV 2000) , ,

, .

4.4

.

, .

- , -

. :

, ,

4

. 200 .

, , ,

, - .

, .

( . NEC SD 999). -

, ( . BMZ 2000), , . ,

(CITES) - c . 200 . -

, - , , -

.

: 2000 . , - ,

« » - (MUSATAYEV et al. 2000). , ,

, - . « » -

, , , .

« 2 », , (GEF,

), TACIS ( - ) ( -

, ). , ,

. , .

. -

, .

, - ( . , 2 , ).

, ,

. ( ) , -

.

, ,

,

42

. , .

. 4 , (

, , ) . -

. , , - - , .

( . GEF). ( ., USAID HIVOS), .

(Support Centers), .

« » Support Centers , .

, . ( ),

, , , .

, , . USAID ISAR

(Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia), , 300-500 US $ , -

( ., ) .

.4: ( )

43

, -

- - . ,

, , , « »

« » ISAR (GEF 2000 ISAR CENTRAL ASIA 200 b).

(«Community Outreach»), USAID, «Counterpart Consortium» ( , ) -

. , - , ,

( ) (TURDIEV 200 ).

. , , , , , .

, - . 90- -- ( ),

, . - ,

Milieukontakt Oosteuropa.

, - . -

- , . -

, . -

- . - :

, , , ,

, . ,

( . LUONG & WEINTHAL 999).

. - , , ,

( ). , , :

« », .

- .

- : ,

. - , - -

44

. - , . -

USAID ISAR Counterpart Consortium.

, , « -

», . , , ( ) -

. , - . -

HIVOS, , . ,

. , ,

, . - , , , -

, (HIVOS 2000, COOPER 999). HIVOS ,

, , .

Support-Centers , , , , , -

. ( Civil Society Support Centers, Counterpart) ,

, , - - .

, , . -

, Soros, Eurasia Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

.

5

( 986- 99 ) 80- , - -

(ASTANINA 2002).

, .

C 986 . -

, ,

, (LUONG & WEINTHAL 999). -

« » , , .

- -, , . -

-

45

. « - » ( 989 ), ,

.

99 .

( . BAHRO 998 ASTANINA 2002):

( 99 - 993) . , -

. ,

, - .

- . ,

: 99 .

«Donor Tsunami» ( 994- 997) 994/95 -

. « » « » .

.

. HORTON & KAZAKINA ( 999, . 35) «donor tsunami» 994 996 .

, « » -

( , , ).

, - . ,

, - ( ,

, . LUONG & WEINTHAL, without year). , , - . (

) , - .

( 998)

90- , , , . , , -

, , -, . , , ,

. .

46

. - , ,

, , - , ,

. , .

6

.

6. 3.2,

. 270 .

, , -

(REC CEE 995; REC CEE 997).

, 270 , - . -

50 20 . -

(PRK 23/0 /2002), - , ,

, 5% 3500 .

. , , .

6.2

- (GIS)

--

( : ESRI 999). - (

, 999; : ARKS 999).

– -

4 . :

( ) , -

��

��

��

0%

42,0%

2%

36%

.5: ( )

47

, -

.

36

( .

). . 5

-. ,

90% .

,

78%.

,

-

-

4- . . 6

00 000 (« »). : 8,50

00 000 . , . – 0,33

00 000 .

-

( . 2).

: • , -

• , • ,

• -

•

(NEAP, . NEC SD 200 a) (Hot-

Spots) , .

. (

) ( . 4.4) ,

2.92

8.50

2. 5

0.330

2

4

6

8

0

/00

.

. 6: 00 . ( )

48

, , .

, , , -

: • • •

7

-, -

. SWOT- (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats)

, - , 3.6 .

. , , , -

. - . ,

, . , -

, . , -

. :

,

, , -

49

-

« »

( : -

-)

, ,

-

-

,

-

,

( . )

( )

, , – , - ; think tanks

, ,

,

- (

)

-

-

,

,

, -

,

( - ,

, )

- ,

,

,

, -

50

support centers

, -

,

,

,

, , ,

, - -

(

)

, fundraising, PR, -

, -

(

)

, -

-

( )

-

- ( -

)

- ( ,

)

( )

5

,

( . .)

(

)

(

)

- ( , , -, )

(

)

-

( )

( -

); « »

-

- -

,

,

( -

)

( )

-

-

-, ,

-

- (

)

-

( -

, )

-

52

-

, ,

,

,

- ( )

,

, , ,

(

)

, -

- -

-

- (

)

-

,

-

( , -

),

,

53

.

( )

• , -

• -

•

• - , , -

• ,

• , : - - think tanks,

, ,

• -

• -

• ,

•

• -

• , ,

• - , -

, - ,

• ,

• , - ,

• ,

• -

• -

•

•

,

, . : ,

, 989 . -

99 . BAHRO

998 ( . 89): « ,

. .»

, . -

, :

54

- , , , . ,

, . , , , ,

-. - , , -

.

: ,

, , - . , -

, . • , -

, - . -

. • . , -

, -

, , - . - -

, . • ,

. , ,

. . ,

- , -

. ,

: • ,

. -

30 , « », .

-, ( , ), – - -

. • , ,

. , , , -

– .

, - , -

. , - . , -

-. .

55

• - . -

.

, , . -

, , ,

. - -

. • ( -

) . GLAGOW/EVERS ( 986, . : GLAGOW 992, .320) - « » («Irrelevanzfalle»),

, , -

. , :

« -».

, - ( . 2), . , , , , ,

. , , -

. . ,

, . - . -

, , , -

. , (

) . , , , -

. -

. , , - , ,

- . -, . ,

, ,

.

(KURATOV & SOLYANIK 2000, .9):

«A start has been made, but a national and well-organized environmental movement in Kazakhstan remains a distant ideal.»

56

8

. . , - , -

. , -

. - , , -

, top-down – . .

, - . .

« » ( -

). , , -

, . ( ) , .

. (

) , . , ,

. « » -

. , . -

, .

« » , ( ) .

– , - – , ,

, ( , ). ,

. - Milieukontakt Oosteuropa .

, , , .

, ,

. ,

. , ,

57

. -.

. .

, . -

, . . ,

, . ,

( ). - , .

, -

. , .

. -

.

. . , , -

. , ,

, .

. , .

, ,

. , , -. ,

( « » ). -

. ,

, , . ,

, , .

. -

« ». « » ( « ») , -

, . , -

. .

, , ,

, . -

58

, , -

. , ,

. .

, , ,

. , - , - -

, , - .

9

- . -

, .

- . - ,

.

, - . , ,

, . «grant

based NGOs» ( . RUFFIN 999), , , - , , ,

. ,

. - ,

. , -

( ) - .

, , ,

, . -, ,

.

Bibliography /

59

BIBLIOGRAPHY /

ALFF, U. (2001): Problem- und aufgabenorientierte Organisationsanalyse vs. systemische organisationszentrierte Organisationsdiagnose und Hypothesenbildung. unpubl. (= Materialien zu einem Modul des Seminars für Ländliche Entwicklung)

ALTVATER, E., BRUNNENGRÄBER & WALK (Ed.) (1997): Vernetzt und Verstrickt : Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen als gesell-schaftliche Produktivkraft. Münster

ARKS, Agenstvo Respubliki Kazakhstan po Statistike (1999): Kratkiye itogy perepisi naseleniya 1999 goda v Respublike Kazakhstan. Almaty

ASTANINA, L. (2002): Ekologicheskiye NPO. unpubl.

ATTESLANDER, P. (1995): Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. 8. ed., Berlin, New York

BAHRO, G. (1998): Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltpolitik in Mittelasien. In: GIESE, E.; BAHRO, G. & BETKE, D. (Ed.): Umweltzer-störungen in Trockengebieten Zentralasiens (West- und Ost-Turkestan) : Ursachen, Auswirkungen, Maßnahmen., Stuttgart, p. 185-189 (= Erdkundliches Wissen)

BECK, C. & DEMMLER, D. (2000): "From Resistance to Development" : Basisnahe Nichtregierungsorganisationen in Südafrika. Hamburg (= Arbeiten aus dem Institut für Afrika-Kunde)

BMZ, Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (2000): Lokal agieren, regional kooperieren : Regionale Zusammenarbeit in Zentralasien im Rahmen der Internationalen Konvention zur Desertifikationsbekämpfung (CCD). Bonn

BRAND, U. (2000): Nichtregierungsorganisationen, Staat und ökologische Krise : Konturen kritischer NRO-Forschung am Beispiel der biologischen Vielfalt. Münster

COOPER, J. (1999): The Real Work: Sustaining NGO Growth in Central Asia. In: RUFFIN, M. H. & WAUGH, D. C. (Ed.): Civil Society in Central Asia., Seattle, p. 214-229

CORNELSEN, D. (1991): Anwälte der Natur, Umweltschutzverbände in Deutschland. München

COUNTERPART INTERNATIONAL INC. (1999): NGO Database. (www.cango.net/db/, access 13/06/2001)

EDWARDS, M. & HULME, D. (1996): NGO Performance and Accountability. In: EDWARDS, M. & HULME, D. (Ed.): Beyond the Magic Bullet : NGO-Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World., West Hartford, Connecticut, p. 1-20

EKOFORUM (2001): Spisok uchastnikov tretyego EkoForuma NPO Kazakhstana. unpubl.

ESRI (1999): World Basemap. Redlands

GEF, GEF Small Grants Programme Office, Almaty (2000): Global Environment Facility, Small Grants Programme Kazakhstan. Booklet, without place

GLAGOW, M. (1992): Die Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen in der internationalen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. In: NOHLEN, D. & NUSCHELER, F. (Ed.): Handbuch der Dritten Welt. 3. ed., Bonn, p. 304-326

GLASL, F. et al. (1990): Das Management einer Kulturveränderung. In: GLASL, F. et al. (Ed.): Management Development im Wandel., Wien

HINRICHSEN, I. (2000): Armut, Süd-NRO und TZ : Orientierungen und Leitfragen zur Diskussion. Eschborn (= GTZ-Veröffentlichung)

HIVOS (2000): Portrait of the organisation. In: Green Salvation Herald, vol. 2000, p. 63-65

HORTON, S. & KAZAKINA, A. (1999): The Legal Regulation of NGOs: Central Asia at a Crossroads. In: RUFFIN, M. H. & WAUGH, D. C. (Ed.): Civil Society in Central Asia., Seattle, p. 34-56

HULME, D. & EDWARDS, M. (Ed.) (1997): NGOs, States and Donors - Too Close for Comfort? Houndmills

IAZ, Informationno-analiticheskij tsentr geologii,ekologii i prirodnykh resursov Respubliki Kazakhstan (1999): Sbornik zakonodatelnykh aktov Respubliki Kazakhstan, Tom II . without place

IDC, Institut Razvitiya Sotrudnichestva (2001): Stati k 13-letiyu sushchestvovaniya nekommercheskogo sektora Respubliki Kazakhstan. (www.idc.freenet.kz/, access 29/01/2002)

ISAR CENTRAL ASIA (2001a): List of environmental NGOs and initiative groups in Kazakhstan and Central Asia. unpubl.

ISAR CENTRAL ASIA (2001b): Programma Grantov ISAR "Periferiya" : Malye Granty dlya perifernykh ekologicheskikh obshchestvennykh organizatsij. unpubl.

KRYLDAKOVA, R. (2001): Sotsiologicheskij analiz deyatelnosti ekologicheskikh nepravitelstvennykh organizatsij v Respublike Kazakhstan. Doctoral thesis at the Al-Farabi Kazakh State Universität Almaty

KURATOV, S. & SOLYANIK, S. (2000): Kazakhstan: At the Crossroads of Europe and Asia. In: Green Salvation Herald, vol. 2000, p. 9-12

KURATOV, S., SVITELMAN, S. & SOLYANIK, S. (2000): Evaluation of the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) for Sustainable Development in the Republic of Kazakhstan. In: Green Salvation Herald, vol. 2000/1, p. 13-18

LAMNEK, SIEGFRIED (1995): Qualitative Sozialforschung : Band 2 Methoden und Techniken. 3. ed., Weinheim

LUONG, P. J. & WEINTHAL, E. (without year): NGOs left out of Caspian Development. (www.isar.org, access 2001)

Bibliography / 60

LUONG, P. J. & WEINTHAL, E. (1999): The NGO Paradox : Democratic Goals and Non-democratic Outcomes in Kazakhstan. In: Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 51/7, p. 1267-1284

MAYRING, P. (2000): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse : Grundlagen und Techniken. 7. ed., Weinheim

MOLT, P. (1998): NRO-Arbeit - kein Patentrezept. In: E+Z Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit, vol. 39/1, p. 11-13

MUSATAYEV, M. KH., SYZDYKOV, T. U. & ZHOGOV, I. (2000): Memorandum o sotrudnichestve mezhdu Ministerstvom prirodnykh resursov i okhrany okruzhayushchikh sredy RK, Komitetom po voprosam ekologii i prirodopolzovaniya Mazhilisa Parlamenta RK i Spetsialnoj rabochej gruppoj (SRG) NPO RK. without place

NAZARBAYEV, N. (2000): K svobodnomu, effektivnomu i bezopasnomu obshchestvu : Poslaniye Presidenta strany narodu Kazakhstana 24-vo Oktyabrya 2000 goda. (www.president.kz, access 29/01/2002)

NEC SD, National Environmental Center for Sustainable Development (1999): Uchastiye Respubliki Kazakhstan v mnogostoronnikh prirodookhrannykh dogovorakh i drugikh soglasheniyakh. In: Informationnyj ekologicheskij byulleten Respubliki Kazakhstan, vol. 1999/itogovoj vypusk, p. 112-121

NEC SD, National Environmental Center for Sustainable Development (2001a): National Environmental Action Plan for Sustainable Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (http://www.neapsd.kz/, access 06/02/2002a)

NEC SD, National Environmental Center for Sustainable Development (2001b): Obzor: "Kazakhstan na puti k novoy ekologicheskoy politike". In: Informationnyj ekologicheskij byulleten Respubliki Kazakhstan, vol. 2000/itogovyj vypusk, p. 89-111

NESTERENKO, V. (2000): Methods of Formulating Economic Mechanisms for the Use of Natural Resources under Current Economic and Environmental Conditions of The Republic Kazakhstan. In: Green Salvation Herald, vol. 2000, p. 22-28

NI, V. P. (2001): The New Tax Code in Kazakhstan: A Step Towards NGO Sustainability. unpubl.

PRK, Pravitelstvo Respubliki Kazakhstan (23/1/2002): Kontseptsiya gosudarvstvennoj podderzhki nepravitelstvennykh organizatsij Respub-liki Kazakhstan. without place

REC CEE, Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (1995): New Regional Environmental Centers : A feasability study on establishing new Regional Environmental Centers for countries beyond the mandate of the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest

REC CEE, Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (1997): Problems, Progress and Possibilities : A Needs Assessment of Environmental NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe. Szentendre/Hungary

RK, Respublika Kazakhstan (27/12/1994): Grazhdanskij Kodeks Respubliki Kazakhstan (version from 17/01/2002).

RK, Respublika Kazakhstan (30/8/1995): Konstitutsiya Respubliki Kazakhstan (version from 07/10/1998).

RK, Respublika Kazakhstan (31/5/1996): Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan ob obshchestvennykh obyedineniyakh (version from 24/12/2001).

RK, Respublika Kazakhstan (16/7/1997): Ugolovnyj Kodeks Respubliki Kasakhstan (version from 22/02/2002).

RK, Respublika Kazakhstan (24/3/1998): Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan o normativnykh pravovykh aktakh.

RK, Respublika Kazakhstan (12/6/2001): Kodeks Respubliki Kazakhstan o nalogakh i drugikh obyazatelnykh platezhakh v byudzhet (Nalogovyj kodeks).

RK, Respublika Kazakhstan (16/1/2001): Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan o nekommercheskikh organisatsiyakh (version from 24/12/2001).

RUFFIN, M. H. (1999): Introduction . In: RUFFIN, M. H. & WAUGH, D. C. (Ed.): Civil Society in Central Asia., Seattle, p. 3-26

RUFFIN, M. H., MCCARTER, J. & UPJOHN, R. (1998): A Guide to Grassroots Organizations. In: RUFFIN, M. H.; MCCARTER, J. & UPJOHN, R. (Ed.): The Post-Soviet Handbook, A Guide to Grassroots Organizations and Internet Ressources in the Newly Inde-pendent States., Seattle , p. 140-149

SEU (without year): Portrait of the organisation. (www.seu.ru, access 18/09/2001)

SHAKIROVA, T. (2001): Spisok obshchestvennykh ekologicheskikh obyedinenij i organizatsij Respubliki Kazakhstan po napravleniyam deyatelnosti. unpubl.

SUPIK, A. et al. (2001): TACIS survey about the situation of Civil Society in Kazakhstan. unpubl.

TURDIEV, B. (2001): Program of Counterpart Consortium "Community Outreach". (www.cango.net/news/a0001.asp, access 28/07/2001)

TURMAGAMBETOV, ZH. (2001): Voprosy okhrany okruzhayushchej sredy: itogi 2000 goda i zadatshi na 2001 god. In: EKOLOGIYA & ustojtshivoye razvitiye, vol. 2001/4, p. 3-15

UNDP SUPPORT CENTER FOR NGOS (2002): List of environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan. (www.undp.kz/~ngorc, access 14/01/2002)

WATTERS, K. (1999): Environmental NGOs and the Development of Civil Society in Central Asia. In: RUFFIN, M. H. & WAUGH, D. C. (Ed.): Civil Society in Central Asia., Seattle, p. 85-108

WEGNER, R. (1993): Nichtregierungsorganisationen und Entwicklungshilfe : Einführung und systematische Bibliographie. Hamburg (= Schriften des Deutschen Übersee-Instituts Hamburg)

ZHARIKBAYEV, A. (1999): Uchastiye NPO Kazakhstana v razvitii grazhdanskogo obshchestva. In: BALATSKAYA, L. et al. (Ed.): Kak prodvigat interesy grazhdan v Kazakhstane., Almaty, p. 11-22

ZLOTNIKOV, S. M. & NABOKOV, V. I. (1998): Spravochnik nekommercheskikh organizatsij Kazakhstana. Almaty

Scale 1:15.000.000

Map based on: ESRI World Basemap1:1.000.000 (1999), changed

Data based on:Population data: Agenstvo poStatistike Respubliki Kazakhstan (1999)Environmental NGOs: own data

Authors:Lars Lachmann und Konstantin Kreiser

Map 1: Number of environmental NGOsin Kazakhstan per cityor rural county (rajon)

#S 123 - 46 - 11

14 - 17

96

#S#S#S#S

#S

#S#S#S#S

Almaty

Oblast capitals

Cities without counties

Rural counties (rajons)

Num

ber o

f NGO

sGr

ade o

f cen

tral f

unct

ion

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Kilometers

40° 40°

45° 45°

50° 50°

55° 55°

50°

60°

60°

70°

70°

80°

80°

90°

90°

#

### ### ## #

##

## ## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#S

#S#S#S #S#S#S#S #S

#S

#S#S

#S #S#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

Semej

Taraz

Aksaj

Aktau

Uralsk Astana

AktobeAtyrau

Almaty

Aralsk

Kentau

ÖskemenAtbasar

KostanajPavlodar

Shymkent

Balkhash

Markakol

Kokshetau

Karaganda

KyzylordaZhanaozen

Zhezkazgan

Korgalzhyn

Taldykorgan

Leninogorsk

Petropavlovsk

Novo-Kazalinsk

Shardara

Zhabagly

Ekibastuz

StepnogorskZhaltyr

Temirtau

Talgar

Kapchagaj

Scale 1:15.000.000

Map based on:ESRI World Basemap1:1.000.000 (1999), changed

Data based on:Population data: Agenstvo poStatistike Respubliki Kazakhstan (1999)Environmental NGOs: own data

Authors:Lars Lachmann und Konstantin Kreiser

Map 2: Density of environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan per city or rural county (rajon)

#S#S#S#S

Almaty

Oblast capitals

Cities without counties

Rural counties (rajons)

Num

ber o

f NGO

spe

r 100

.000 i

nhab

itant

sGr

ade o

f cen

tral f

unct

ion

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Kilometers

40° 40°

45° 45°

50° 50°

55° 55°

50°

60°

60°

70°

70°

80°

80°

90°

90°

#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S #S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S#S

#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#SSemej

Taraz

Aksaj

Aktau

Uralsk Astana

Aktobe

Atyrau

Almaty

Aralsk

Kentau

ÖskemenAtbasar

Pavlodar

Shymkent

Balkhash

Zhabagly

Kokshetau

Karaganda

Kyzylorda KapchagajZhanaozen

Zhezkazgan

Korgalzhyn

Taldykorgan

Leninogorsk

Petropavlovsk

Novo-Kazalinsk

Shardara

Markakol

Ekibastuz

StepnogorskKostanajZhaltyr

Temirtau

Talgar

#S 0 - 2#S 2,1 - 3#S 3,1- 5

#S 5,1 - 10

#S 10,1 - 13

#S 16 - 17

ISBN 3-925815-07-4

Local Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan: An Assessment of Efficiency

The young Republic of Kazakhstan possesses a rich biological and landscape diversity, among which are large and untouched natural landscapes of international importance.Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the country has been faced not only by great social and economic challenges: ecological problems inherited from Soviet times as well as new threats to the environment endanger the long-term development of the country itself and the health of its inhabitants.For over fi fteen years, local environmental NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) have been engaged in various ways in protecting nature and the environment in Kazakhstan. Western organisations regard these civil agents as important partners for the implementation of international conventions on the environment. The large-scale support policies undertaken for this reason have, over the last ten years, decisively infl uenced the local NGO sector, but unfortunately have not always led to the desired results.This case study, which originated in the course of the long-term environmental protection activities of the German Society for Nature Protection (NABU) in Kazakhstan, aims at examing the present situation of Kazakhstani environmental NGOs. Taking into account the political, legal, socio-economic and international framework, the authors identify strengths and weaknesses of the sector which currently comprises more than 150 active organisations.At the end of the study, the authors give recomendations to raise the effi ciency of local environmental NGOs. Hereby they address the local NGOs themselves, but their international donors, as well.

:

, .

, .

15- ( ) .

. , ,

10 , , , .

NABU ( )

. , - ,

150 .

, , , ,

.

Documents

Local Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan: An Assessment of ... · Kazakhstan. Bonn, January 2003 Dr. Anneke Trux Co-ordinator German CCD-Project, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische