Natural Heritage of Kyrgyzstan
In recent years, the concept of natural heritage has increasingly entered analytical research and the practice of natural resource management. The term "natural heritage" became widely used in scientific discourse in the early 1970s, in contrast to the term "cultural heritage," which appeared several decades earlier. This was related to the preparation and adoption of the UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972. In fact, the Convention does not contain a definition of natural heritage; instead, it names (in Article 2) the objects classified in this category:
• Natural monuments created by physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, having outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view;
• Geological and physiographic formations and strictly limited areas representing the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants, having universal value from the scientific or conservation perspective;
• Natural landmarks or strictly limited natural areas, having outstanding universal value from the scientific, conservation, or natural beauty perspective.
As of early 1999, the List of World Heritage Sites compiled under the Convention included 582 sites, of which just under a third were nominated as "natural heritage."
The main function of natural heritage is to ensure the resilience of the natural environment to external factors associated with human activity. It is known that under the increasing anthropogenic pressures, ecosystems gradually lose their ability for self-regulation and restoration of disrupted properties, transforming from "nature" itself, i.e., substances that reproduce themselves, into a more or less amorphous "environment," the natural qualities of which depend on the "ecological" behavior of human communities (in production, daily life, etc.).
The natural heritage of the Chui Valley is associated with such distinctly Kyrgyz concepts as protected areas, reserves, and conservation work. It is well known from domestic history that conservation efforts have deep historical roots, initially arising as a cult phenomenon (sacred groves, holy springs - Kara-Suu and other cult natural sites), and later reserves began to be used in the practical regulation of natural resource management (hunting, forestry, etc.).
Currently, a system of specially protected natural areas has practically formed in Kyrgyzstan, including in the Chui Valley, consisting of the following main components:
• State nature reserves, including biosphere reserves;
• National parks;
• State nature sanctuaries;
• Natural monuments (Koguchkon-Sugat, Issyk-Ata, etc.);
• Botanical gardens;
• Health resorts and recreational areas (Issyk-Ata, Alamedin).
Among them, reserves still play a leading role - the highest form of specially protected areas in Kyrgyzstan, of which there were 6 in 2002, including 2 biosphere reserves. Unfortunately, there is not a single state reserve in the Chui Valley.
The second most significant and strict category of protected areas is national parks. The first national park in Kyrgyzstan was Ala-Archa National Park, established in 1976.
Sanctuaries are classified by profile (landscape, botanical, zoological, paleontological, geological, hydrological). In 2002, there were several sanctuaries of republican and regional significance in the Chui Valley (Tokmok, Chunkurchak, Tatyr, Zharly-Kaindy, Chon-Aryk, Belen-Teke, Ak-Suu, etc.).
Traditional and most common protected natural objects in the Chui Valley are natural monuments. The Law of Kyrgyzstan "On Specially Protected Natural Areas" provides for the possibility of organizing other types of specially protected areas: green zones around the cities of Bishkek, Tokmok, Kara-Balta, Kant; urban forests; micro-reserves, etc.
Since 1975, many countries around the world have begun to propose their most outstanding protected natural objects for the World Heritage List. Recently, Kyrgyzstan has also joined such initiatives. Therefore, it is necessary to start working on compiling the necessary justifications for a number of objects that are promising in terms of their inclusion in the World Heritage List.
Management of Natural Heritage
The urgency of the natural heritage issue is often related to the risk of its loss and the severity or even unpredictability of the corresponding ecological and socio-economic consequences. Frequently, in the decision-making process, the objects and phenomena of natural heritage are improperly equated with natural resources due to their external similarities.
Natural resources in the Chui Valley can participate and actually participate in various stages of the reproduction cycle - production, distribution, circulation, and consumption. As for natural heritage, it is, by its nature and definition, the external environment of production, serving as its external condition. Its use as a consumption resource inevitably leads to undermining the external conditions of production and, consequently, to a crisis of production itself in the foreseeable future. This is related to the fundamentally different functions of heritage and resources in the territorial and functional organization of societal life, where the former act as "stabilizers," and the latter as "mobilizers" (in the words of geographer B.B. Rodoman).
Natural resources are characterized by the fact that they are generally replaceable, renewable, or play a fundamental role in the landscape. In contrast, natural heritage is practically irreplaceable and non-renewable, which constitutes a special risk of its loss. In the broadest sense, the risk of loss of biodiversity and other forms of natural heritage manifestation, according to scientists, is associated with the following, as a rule, systematically manifesting undesirable consequences:
• Deterioration of conditions for the reproduction of natural resources;
• Increase in the risk of biological and other types of environmental pollution;
• Decrease in the recreational potential of the territory;
• Decrease in the value of the territory for the local population and its attractiveness for potential investors;
• Missed benefits for current and future generations;
• Unpredictability of ecological and socio-economic consequences.
Thus, the problem of preserving natural heritage, or, in other words, the problem of the risk of its loss, reflects an internal contradiction in the interpretation of the essence of certain natural values, which in some cases can be classified as resources, and in others as heritage. According to scientists, as a criterion for the appropriate differentiation of these values, categories such as their irreplacability and/or unacceptability of loss during use (consumption) from the perspective of the interests of all social groups involved can be used. The use of the proposed criteria for distinguishing resources and heritage is not only possible in most cases but also quite constructive for the purposes of ecological policy.
For example, the forests of the Chui Valley of the Kyrgyz Range are undoubtedly one of the most important natural resources of the region, with all the resulting consequences in terms of sanitary logging, timber harvesting, etc. However, where these forests serve as a formative element of unique landscapes of special ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, and cult significance, they inevitably become heritage and take their places on the World Heritage List.
