One of the newswires that I subscribe to had a link today to an interesting article in the Guardian newspaper about the growing pressure of work on mountain rescue services in the UK.

It caught my attention because Kyrgyzstan is a mountainous country and I wondered about the situation here in Kyrgyzstan.  In fact I often see references to the fact that Kyrgyzstan is over 90% mountainous – the actual figure seems to vary upon the source being quoted.  This sometimes causes some confusion for some visitors who don’t stray far from the main road – who ask: “Where are the mountains?”

The general definition of a mountain seems to be: “a large landform that rises above the surrounding land”.  One dictionary actually uses the phrase, “higher than and steeper than a hill”, which raises a lot of questions in my mind, especially: “what is a hill?”  The idea behind this four letter word seems so simple and commonplace that we tend to take it for granted but when we look up the word in the dictionary we find that it refers to “a landform that rises above the surrounding land.”  The distinction between a mountain and a hill is simply that one is larger than the other.  So it all boils down to a question of size.

It is not simpy a question, however, of the length or breadth of the landform, nor the area of land that it covers, but one of altitude.  I remember, for example, being taught when I was a schoolboy back in Malvern, that the Worcestershire Beacon, (the highest hill in the Malvern Hills), was actually a Mountain because it was more than 1000 feet high.  Its height of 1395 feet – or 425m – seems pretty small to me nowadays as Bishkek is well above that, situated at about 800m – or about 2600 feet – above sea level, (it depends where you are in the city when you measure it.  My GPS system tells me the office is at 724.4m).

The plot of the 1995 film, “The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain”, starring Hugh Grant, centers around an English cartographer must tell a Welsh village that their mountain, (“the first mountain in Wales”), is only a hill, because his measurements indicate that it is actually just under the 1000 foot threshold.  The offended community sets out to change that and construct a mound on the summit to raise it above the limit in order to retain its official status as a mountain.

Nowadays, the threshold seems to have moved … a mountain is generally considered to rise something like 600m above the surrounding terrain – so the Worcestershire Beacon wouldn’t count any more.

Here, the word “mountain” is used to refer to land which is higher than 1500m above sea level and so, when the country is described as “mountainous”, this simply means that the vast majority of the country lies at altitudes of more than 1500m above sea level.

But what about the question of “steepness”?  This conjures up the image of the sides of a mountain rising up to a “peak”, rather like a pyramid.  Perhaps the archetypal mountain in this respect is Mont Blanc in France – but Khan Tengri on the borders of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and China – and, incidentally, claimed by all three countries as their own – is another.  The Kyrgyz Range of mountains to the south of Bishkek certainly resembles this with their line of craggy peaks, as do the Terskey and Kungey Ala Too ranges which encircle Lake Issyk Kul.  What, however, of Peak Lenin on the border of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan?  It doesn’t have such a pronounced peak as such.

It is said that mountains cover something like 20% of the earth’s surface and occur in 75% of the world’s countries, accommodate approximately 10% of the world’s population and are the source of over 50% – some sources suggest as much as 80% – of the world’s supply of fresh water.

They offer a wide variety of ecosystems – indeed, one definition of mountains is that they must rise sufficiently high as to provide for two distinct ecosystems … hence the 600m limit, which is basically what is needed to do this.

.

Back in Britain, it seems that the number of “callouts” experienced by mountain rescue teams has increased year on year, and this year’s weather conditions have put additional strain on members of the team.  According to the leader of the Langdale/Ambleside team:

the team was a “long way from breaking point” but had to plan for the future. “We have to anticipate it growing year on year. If the callouts carry on increasing, at some point the system we operate is not going to work.”

It seems as if there has been an increase in the number of casual climbers and walkers that have fallen into difficulty and needed assistance – “members of the shorts and flip-flops” brigade, as the report puts it, although, thankfully, “fewer people had been rescued suffering from hypothermia because many were wearing good-quality fleeces and waterproof coats”.  One of the reasons for the increase is thought to be the growing expectation amongst members of the public that “they will be whisked off a mountain in minutes if they get into trouble”, possibly as a result of the media reports and documentaries about the “rescue heroes”.

In fact, rescues are not always as dramatic or comfortable and, unfortunately, are not always successful.  What’s more, members of the rescue services are volunteers and put themselves at risk by going to the assistance of distressed travelers.  I’m not sure if they are ever presented with a bill for the service, but I suppose they ought to be, and I think they would be surprised at how big it would be if they were.

In most parts of the world, and certainly in the UK, the rescue services are manned by volunteers.  The American Coastguard and Britain’s Royal Air Force operate an “Air Sea Search and Rescue Service”, but the Britain’s Lifeboat service is manned and operated almost entirely by volunteers and the situation in mountain regions tends to rely upon ordinary citizens volunteering their services.

Here in Kyrgyzstan there is no central rescue service, although plans to establish one were set in motion as long ago as 2004.  There used to be what everyone seems to agree was an efficient service run in Soviet times, but which has ceased to function since the dissolution of the Union.   That service was financed by trade unions, and all climbers were required to register when they arrived at mountain camps. They were only allowed to begin the climb after their equipment had been checked and they had been given training.  If the group did not return to base camp by a certain time, a team was automatically sent out to find them.  The system collapsed, however, in 1991 along with the Soviet Union, and the responsibility for saving climbers was divided between the travel agencies who organized the climbs and the government’s Ministry for Ecology and Emergency situations, (MEES), which did not have a dedicated mountain rescue team.

Nowadays, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, (M.Ch.S, the Em-chay-es), operates rescue helicopters, and there are at least two private services.  One offers satellite transmitters with a “panic button” which can be pressed to alert the staff at their headquarters who would then alert the appropriate authorities and dispatch assistance.

The American National Guard has recently run training courses for Kyrgyz rescue teams in Montana and Alaska and a Slovakian project has also prepared materials and training for mountain rescuers.

To be honest, I don’t know if the Rescue Services in Kyrgyzstan have experienced a similar increase in the number of callouts in recent years.  There are often stories in the press about climbers running into difficulty, needing rescue or simply “going missing”.  Occasionally there are reports of climbers who have perished in some accident on the mountains.  On average, three to four climbers have disappeared every year since the collapse of the Soviet era mountain rescue system.  A few years ago a body was found in one of the valleys not far from Bishkek of a climber who had obviously gone missing a few years before – but no-one seemed to know anything about who he was and the body could not be identified.

It’s not just climbers either.  A couple of years ago a group of hunters were caught up in a helicopter crash in the mountains in the Naryn oblast, near to the Chinese border.  One of the hunters used his satellite phone to contact relatives in Canada who, in turn, alerted the Kyrgyz authorities.  A relief helicopter was dispatched but, somewhat overloaded, it too crashed to the ground.  Eventually a group of Border Guards from the post at Torugart, led by a visiting American “advisor”, found the group and repatriated them to Naryn.

If the climbers and walkers in Britain would be surprised at the cost of rescue services in the UK, then they would be astounded at the cost here in Kyrgyzstan.  They certainly would have to pay for the services, here.  It’s for that reason that foreign governments advise their nationals to ensure that they take out sufficient travel insurance … as the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office put it: “If you can’t afford the insurance, you can’t afford to go.”

Technically speaking, insurance is a requirement here in Kyrgyzstan, but in reality it is rarely ever checked.  For example, it is never checked when a visa is issued – although many countries actually refuse to issue a visa without a copy of the insurance policy, or certificate, being provided.

.

Now, although most of our tours would not require the assistance of the various mountain rescue services, (most of our tours are “motor tours”, “cultural tours” or tours along the Great Silk Road and we don’t undertake mountaineering expeditions and the like, and our treks are accompanied by experienced staff), we are very conscious of safety issues in the mountains.

The mountains are, indeed, a dangerous place.  The risks in such environments are manifold and numerous: steep slopes with slippery and/or uneven surfaces; risks of avalanche or landslip, or falling rocks; encounters with wildlife … just to mention a few.  What’s more, by their very geography, mountainous regions tend to be remote and difficult terrain to traverse.  It can take a long time to summon assistance – and for it to eventually arrive.   In one case, in 2004, it took five days for the Ministry of Emergency Situations to learn of an incident which cost the life of one Russian climber.  It would help, of course, if there climbers, skiers, snowboarders and the like were at least required to register before entering on an expedition, but at the moment that is not the case.

They should not be thought of as “nothing special” or, worse, treated with contempt or disdain.

It’s as if the body of the car becomes a shell and the driver takes on a new persona.  They become aggressive, selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate to other road users – pedestrians as well as other drivers – and possessive – of the road and their place an it as much as of the vehicle itself – as if they own it.  

It happens the world over – and Kyrgyzstan is no different from other places in this respect.  A friend of mine, John, who was as a consultant on a year long project with one of the donor agencies, used to get really worked up about it.  He hated travelling in taxis and when we sitting on patio outside a cafe, the conversation would often be punctuated with outbursts of “Look at the idiot! He almost ran that woman over”, as he pointed to some vehicle swerving round a corner.

As I said, it happens the world over, and even though I would point out that he has lived in other places where the drivers were as bad, if not worse, (including London), he simply said that he couldn’t get accustomed to the fact.

It doesn’t help that there is now so much traffic on the streets of Bishkek.  When I first came here there were very few cars.  We joke that it was possible to cross the street without looking – because you could hear any vehicle approaching.  One of my favourite photographs of Bishkek is in an old guidebook, (from 1978), and shows a view of a long straight street stretching into the distance flanked by apartment blocks and is captioned “One of the city’s main streets“.  If you look at it closely you can see some buses and two cars travelling the asphalt – with another two parked at the side.  (I often wonder what a photograph of “one of the city’s main streets” in a 1978 guide book of London would have shown.)

The only place I have been where I saw fewer cars was in Albania – there were lots of minibuses, and motor scooters, but I saw only one car – a luxury limousine carrying some high ranking government official in the capital, Tirana.  That was a few years ago and I expect it is quite different now.

It is certainly quite different, nowadays, here in Kyrgyzstan.  There are many more vehicles and you have to be careful crossing the street.

The “Kerb Drill” that I learned as a child, (“Look right, look left, look right again and if all is clear – cross”), needs a minor adaptation because they drive on the right here – but it stands me in good stead.

In fact, the number of vehicles on the roads is one of the major changes that I have seen in my time here in Kyrgyzstan – along with the rise in the number of cafes and restaurants, and the amount of new building that is taking place.  It’s not just the number of cars, but also the type.  If before the majority of vehicles were old old Soviet models, over the years the number of imports has increased exponentially.  At first they were second hand cars purchased in Germany and driven back here.  In fact there was a quite a business in doing this and I know several people who used to earn their living this way.  After a while, as the Germans became more strict about issuing visas, the cars were being bought in the Baltic countries  - and even from Japan.

Now, there are a lot of new vehicles – not second hand and used vehicles.  Also a lot of them are “jeeps” – here, that means Four Wheel Drive, (4WD), and elsewhere might be referred to as SUVs, (Sports Utility Vehicles), or People Carriers.   They are not cheap – so there does appear to be some “money” here in Kyrgyzstan – or, at least, here in Bishkek.

A car is an important status symbol here – as I suppose it is around the world.

It also provides a source of income for many people.  As people find themselves out of work they look for alternative ways of raising cash – and many see the car as the way to do this … they become taxi drivers.

When I first came here, people would stand on almost every street corner, with their arm held out and the hand waving up and down.  They were hailing “taxis” – but in those days a taxi would be any vehicle with a spare seat.  People would simply stop and ask where you wanted to go, and if it was in the right direction – they were going that way anyway – then they would say “hop in”.  If it seems like “hitch hiking” or “thumbing a lift”, there was a subtle difference.  You were expected to pay for the lift – to help cover the cost of petrol.

Soon, cars were touring the streets looking for potential customers – then the drivers found that they could stop at a road junction and so save on petrol whilst they were cruising the streets.  Drivers who earned their living this way would put little lamps on the roof of their vehicles – sometimes it was simply a torch bulb with an up-turned plastic cup, painted with different coloured squares placed over it.  Then someone brought in and started selling rooftop lights that displayed the word “Taxi” – or TAKSI or Такси ion Cyrillic.  Eventually, a number of Taxi Firms started up and offered a variety of services – including being able to telephone and book a car – a “door to door” service with a driver from a recognised source and who could be traced again if, for example, you left something in the car.

Here, there is no form of licensing for taxi drivers – there is for other forms of public transport, buses and minibuses, but not for taxis.  It has been suggested to introduce such a scheme, but has not been enacted, so far.  When the authorities want to crack down on the rise of informal taxis, then they either use the tax inspection to check to see if the drivers have registered and purchased a “patent”, or the traffic police carry out spot checks on “Tech Passports” – the certificate of road worthiness for the vehicle – neither of which is a particularly effective method of control.  What’s more, although there are plans to introduce it, there is no requirement for the driver to have any insurance cover.

It always amazes me that people seem to think – “I have a car, I have a driving license – so I can be a taxi driver”.  Sometimes, I have had people come to me looking for work and they describe themselves as a “Professional Driver“.  I usually ask them what that means, and in most cases it seems to mean that they have driven as a taxi driver for some time.  When I point out that there used to be, (and, incidentally, still is), an official job classification as a “Professional Driver” which involved special training and a lot more than just passing a simple driving test – the applicant normally looks at me with a blank face of astonishment.

So, perhaps it is not so surprising that many drivers are thoughtless, selfish, and inconsiderate of other road users – pedestrians or other drivers.

It’s not just when they are driving – but also when they park.  Some of them seem to spot a space and grab it – regardless of the fact that it blocks in other vehicles – or is across a driveway.

Parking is becoming a big issue in the city.  Almost any new building project has to include parking provision – and underground garages are now becoming widespread.  In the city center there are some areas designated as parking lots and a fee is levied for their use, whilst there are several “stoi-ankas” scattered around the city for people to leave their vehicles overnight – again, for a fee.

It seems funny to me that the authorities have adopted several things from the West to try and help alleviate and control traffic and traffic flow, such as speed radar guns, the breathalyzer, (which is rarely used by the way), and video surveillance (which is still in it’s infancy here).  They have the GAI, (traffic police), stand at the roadside and stop vehicles – exacting fines for all sorts of offences – real or supposed – but they haven’t taken up the idea of Parking Meters, Parking Bays, or Traffic Wardens.

Maybe, however, that is something that is still in the pipeline.

For the record – in case you are wondering … yes, I can drive – but I don’t.

Although, I though about applying for a driving license when I was old enough to do so, I didn’t get round to it until I was in my thirties.  I didn’t have a car – and didn’t see the need for a license.  When I did come to learn how to drive it was a bit of an ordeal – and as a result I would recommend that everyone learns earlier rather than later.

When I came here, I took out an International Drivers’ License which meant that I could drive here.  After a while, however, I had to apply for a local license.  I had to attend classes and sit the Driving test all over again.  That was “fun” … I was really glad when the GAI finally handed me my document.  Unfortunately, I kept it in my wallet and one day – you guessed it – I lost my wallet.

Back in the UK, it is “no big deal” to get a replacement – it is, or at least was, a simple clerical procedure.  Not here.  I had to go through the whole Driving Test again.  I said “Never again!” and when I lost my wallet a second time … I know, I know – how careless of me! Lady Faversham would not be impressed … I kept to my word.

As it happens, it’s not a big handicap … Bishkek is quite small and I can easily walk to most places in the city center, and  I have drivers I can ask to take me places if I am in a hurry or need to go further afield … and there are nearly always Taxis available – I don’t share John’s dislike of them.

It all began with a quiet announcement in the press to the effect that a new draft law “On Tourism” had passed its first reading in the Jogorku Kenesh, (the Kyrgyz Parliament), and would then proceed to the committee stage where it would be considered in detail, before receiving it’s second reading and final approval.   This announcement caught us all by surprise as it was the first that most of us, (if not all of us), had heard of such a measure.  When we finally obtained copies of the document and began to read it, we were so taken aback that we were galvanized into action which resulted in a summer of lobbying, of meetings and drafts.

It proved to be an interesting exercise which distracted us from our main business – that of organizing and running tours so that people could visit and experience Kyrgyzstan: the magnificent scenery, the varied wildlife, the sense of history pervading various locations, the diverse culture of the eighty odd nationalities that call Kyrgyzstan “home” and in particular the traditional nomadic lifestyle and culture of the Kyrgyz.

The draft law began with four pages of definitions of terms like “tour”, “tourist”, “tour services”, “tour activities”, “tour product”, “destination” and “guide”.  There was even a definition of “timesharing”, although the term was never actually used in the main body of the text.   The draft then went on to outline a system of state regulation of the industry, and as a result the introduction of a number of measures, many of which I was tempted to call “draconian” … because they seemed to have the sole intention of increasing control over the industry, such as: new forms of registration, (basically, a form of licensing, although the use of the word itself was studiously avoided); compulsory insurance; the form of contracts with clients; obligations concerning accounting and statistical reporting and specific educational and training requirements for those working in the industry.

To be fair, many of the stated aims of the draft law were laudable, such as:

• The development of tourism as priority branch of the economy of the republic;
• The maintenance of the rights and freedom of the citizens of the Kyrgyz Republic in the sphere of tourism by means of creation of a modern, highly effective and competitive tourist industry, capable to satisfy the needs of citizens for various and qualitative services.
• The observance of the conventional principles and norms of international law and the obligations following from entering international contracts and agreements by the Kyrgyz Republic.

Who can argue, for example, about the need for well qualified guides – especially in the case, for example, of mountaineering expeditions which requires specialist and expert knowledge.

However, there were many aspects of the draft law which were of concern to those of us working in the industry.  Hence the spurt of activity as we entered into discussions with the authorities in an attempt to eliminate some of the more worrying aspects.  To cite just a few examples:

• The draft contained, for example, provision of a register of all subjects of the tourism industry: tour companies, hotels, guides, transport companies, etc.  However, there are already requirements for registering companies … with the Ministry of Justice (or equivalent body), the tax authorities, the Social Fund and Statistical Committee ,so why was it considered necessary to implement a new form of registration for those working in tourism? …
• The draft law went on to specify the contents of contracts between those working in tourism, both with clients and with each other … but why?  The Civil Code already has provisions outlining the requirements for contracts.  What was special about tourism that required additional provisions?  Why aren’t other commercial contracts also subject to similar additional provisions?  Why were “tour vouchers” being made compulsory – and subject to “strict accounting”, (a term which is not defined anywhere in Kyrgyz law, at least as far as I can see).
• There were clauses in the draft law that sought to regulate who could work in the tourism industry and the most notorious provision forbade having someone who was not a Kyrgyz citizen as the the Director of a tour company.

• There were provisions for imposing a system of compulsory insurance for tour operators.  Now, personally, I am in favour of insurance and I can see the point in requiring commercial enterprises, (tour operators, hotels, etc.), to have insurance cover for Public and Product liability and Employers liability.  Indeed, we, ourselves, do have such policies, (all of which adds to our costs and, therefore to our prices, so introducing a requirement for compulsory insurance would be beneficial – to both the client and to us as a company.)  However, it seems to me, at least, that there should be a general requirement for all companies to have such polices rather than just for those working in tourism.

Our campaign began by asking why the new draft law was needed … there is already an existing law “On Tourism” on the statute book, which dates from 1999, (and has been amended once, in 2003).  I am not sure what legislation existed before then because I can’t find any other similar laws dating from the Soviet Period in the legal database that I use.  In the eleven years since that law was adopted there have been at least three attempts to introduce more stringent drafts.

The first was in the “Year of the support and Development of Tourism” in 2001.  A second was based on the law “On Tourism” of the Russian Federation.  The Deputy, (member of Parliament), who proposed it simply removed most of the references to Russia and the Russian Federation, replacing them with Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Kyrgyz, as appropriate.  I say “most” because unfortunately they missed some, which “gave the game away”.  It seemed odd that after several years of independence Kyrgyz laws were still being drafted in Moscow, and that the considerable differences between the situation in Russia and that in Kyrgyzstan were not taken into account.  This new draft was supposed to be based on a Model Law which had been drafted for member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States, but as we perused the two texts we found a number of important differences between them.

As it happens, the Deputies insisted that a new law was needed to meet the changed circumstances since the original law had been adopted, both globally and internally in Kyrgyzstan.  They also claimed that the existing law was mainly “declarative” and there was a need for a law that would be more “regulatory”.  They also pointed out that, as the Bill had passed it’s first reading in the Parliament, it couldn’t just be dropped – it was necessary to reach some conclusion.

So, having “lost” that part of the argument, we switched to a tactic of explaining where there were problems or deficiencies in the draft law; such as where it contradicted provisions in other Kyrgyz legislation.  It was a long and hard process.  To be fair, the deputies were ready and willing to listen to and address our concerns, they were receptive to receiving comment and suggestions.  According to one of the Deputies involved, there were over a hundred meetings to consider different aspects of the draft.  There was also a large amount of public debate on the various issues in the press.  On the whole, however, we were not successful in mitigating or eliminating all of the issues that concerned us, and the law eventually passed it’s second reading in a modified, but, (in our opinion), a form that was still far from satisfactory.

The next stage was of the legislative process was for the Bill to be passed to the President for signature after which it would come into force.  Now the President is not obliged to sign every Bill into law that he receives from the Parliament.  He does have a veto which he does use on occasion and he decided to use his veto on this particular occasion, saying that the Bill had not passed a satisfactory Regulation Impact Analysis.   He referred the matter back to the Parliament for further consideration and so we have come “full circle” and are now being asked to comment on it all over again so that a new “improved” version can be presented to the Parliament.

All of this has led me to ask myself a simple question: “Why do we need a new law “On Tourism”?”: why do we need a special law “On Tourism”, anyway? What is so special about Tourism that it merits a law to itself?

It is true that certain commercial activities may well require specific legislation to regulate them in order to protect the public, (such as the operation of banks, security firms and so forth), but I am not sure that tourism falls into this category.  There are no special laws in Kyrgyzstan, for example, about the operation of shops, or restaurants.  There are, however, a host of general laws and regulations covering normal business activity, Consumer Protection, Health and Safety and so on.   For example, hotels and resorts, cafes and restaurants are already subject to various sanitary regulations, fire regulations and so forth, so I ask myself, why was it thought necessary to introduce in the new draft law a new form of compulsory certification which would simply duplicate these provisions.  Surely, it seemed to me, it would be better to ensure that these regulations were properly applied and enforced rather than introduce a new level of bureaucracy.

I am not sure that I know the answer to my question.  I do know that there are several countries that do have specific laws about tourism, but there are also many that don’t.  The industry in Turkey and Israel, for example, is very strictly regulated whereas in Britain and the Netherlands the regime governing the industry is much more loose and relaxed.

In fact, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has an extensive database of legislation – LEXTOUR – but according to them only a third of the three hundred systems currently identified, in some 130 countries, focus exclusively on legislation relating to tourism.  Looking at the data on the system, it seems to me that these laws and regulations full generally into two different categories:

• General legislation such as tax legislation, environment and consumer protection, which are applied to all industries including tourism , and
• Legislation covering specific topics such as establishing a Tourism Promotion Board; the establishment of special Tourism Economic Zones, (for example in Russia); Planning, such as specific Tourism Development Plans;  Regulations covering “Compliance and Risk Management” which cover security, health and safety, planning and social and environmental concerns; Codes of conduct and accreditation schemes, such as Hotel classification; bilateral, multilateral and regional international agreements, for example on visa recognition or about human trafficking and child sexual exploitation; on qualifications and training, and so on.

This seems to me a sensible way of doing things: general legislation to cover general topics that affect all businesses, then specific legislative acts, (they are called normative acts here), to cover specific issues that arise, rather than to try and create all embracing laws to govern a particular sector of industry.

To take an example of a specific topic, that of the provision in the draft law requiring compulsory insurance for tour operators, then, (as I have already commented), it seems to me that this is a good idea but that there should be a general requirement for all companies to have Public, Product and Employer’s liability polices rather than just imposing this on those who are working in one sector of the economy.  Even if it was thought especially important to have legislation in place requiring special insurance arrangements for Tour Operators, (or Bonds to protect clients funds), then a separate piece of legislation could be enacted to provide for this.

I wonder to what extent it is simply a tendency of trying to “put the clock back” to a time when everything was tightly controlled and regulated under a “central command economy”, when everything was illegal unless it was explicitly permitted rather than everything being legal unless it was specifically prohibited.