Report on the Erosion of Sustainable Development Goal 16 in Central Asia: A Focus on Media Freedom

Introduction: Setbacks to Public Access to Information and Fundamental Freedoms

Recent developments in Central Asia, particularly in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, demonstrate a significant regression in the advancement of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). A coordinated crackdown on independent journalism and dissenting voices directly undermines Target 16.10, which seeks to “ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.” This report details the methods of this crackdown, including digital repression, legislative restrictions, and administrative barriers, which collectively erode the foundations of strong, accountable institutions in the region.

Digital Repression in Kazakhstan: A Direct Challenge to SDG 16.10

In Kazakhstan, a new tactic of digital repression is being utilized to silence influential journalists, representing a clear violation of the principles outlined in SDG 16. Rather than overt state censorship, this method involves technical removals and opaque copyright claims that impede the work of journalists and restrict the public’s access to information. This directly impacts the economic viability of journalism, contravening the principles of decent work outlined in SDG 8.

• Case of Luqpan Akhmediyarov: The investigative journalist’s YouTube channel, Prosto Zhurnalistika, was abruptly blocked. He later received an official explanation citing a copyright violation from a user whose account was created days before the complaint and deleted shortly after. His Instagram account also disappeared and was cloned.
• Case of Vadim Boreiko: The veteran journalist’s Facebook account, with over 30,000 followers, was deleted without warning. His Instagram account also vanished and was replaced by two verified “clone” accounts with different content.

These incidents highlight a pattern of suppression aimed at creating psychological and economic pressure, thereby limiting the fundamental freedom of expression essential for achieving SDG 16.

The Role of Partnerships (SDG 17) in Media Suppression and Defense

The implementation of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) has shown divergent outcomes in this context. A partnership between state authorities and a private corporation appears to have facilitated the suppression of media freedom.

1. State-Corporate Cooperation: A meeting between Kazakh Information and Culture Minister Aida Balaeva and Meta’s regional public policy director, Sarim Ali Aziz, focused on “content moderation.” Following this meeting, a joint working group was formed to develop technical solutions. Journalists note a chronological tie between this partnership and the subsequent deletion of their accounts.
2. Civil Society Partnerships: In contrast, positive partnerships have emerged in defense of these rights. Journalists like Akhmediyarov and Boreiko successfully sought assistance from international organizations such as Access Now and the Cyber Helpline group to restore their accounts, demonstrating how SDG 17 partnerships can be leveraged to protect fundamental freedoms.

Legislative and Administrative Barriers Undermining Strong Institutions

Governments in the region are enacting legal and administrative measures that systematically weaken the institutional framework required by SDG 16. These actions create a legal basis for controlling information and restricting independent media.

Kyrgyzstan

• A revised media law, described as “dangerous” by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), reinstates mandatory registration for all online publications, including bloggers and news websites.
• The law grants the Cabinet exclusive authority to approve or revoke registrations, creating a tool for political control.
• It caps foreign ownership in media at 35%, restricting international partnerships (SDG 17) and support for independent outlets.
• Authorities ordered the closure of independent broadcaster Aprel TV, accusing it of weakening state authority and having a “harmful impact,” thereby eliminating a source of public information.

Kazakhstan

• The Foreign Ministry refused to issue accreditations to six correspondents from RFE/RL’s local service, Radio Azattyq, citing vague “national security” grounds.
• Critics link this decision to 2021 media law amendments that expanded the grounds for revoking accreditation, a measure aimed at controlling foreign and independent media.

Conclusion: A Coordinated Assault on SDG Targets

The combination of digital censorship, restrictive legislation, and administrative pressure constitutes a systematic erosion of the space for independent journalism in Central Asia. These actions represent a coordinated regional trend, with governments appearing to learn repressive tactics from one another. This multi-pronged assault directly threatens the achievement of SDG 16 by dismantling protections for fundamental freedoms and impeding public access to information, which are critical for fostering justice, promoting peace, and building strong, transparent institutions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most relevant SDG. The article extensively discusses the erosion of press freedom, attacks on journalists, and the suppression of free expression, which are fundamental components of peaceful and just societies. The issues of digital crackdowns, restrictive media laws, and lack of government transparency directly relate to the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

   This target is central to the article. The content describes numerous actions that directly undermine public access to information and violate the fundamental freedom of expression. Examples include:

   • The blocking of journalists’ social media accounts, such as Luqpan Akhmediyarov’s YouTube channel and Vadim Boreiko’s Facebook account, which serve as platforms for public information.
   • The closure of independent media outlets like Aprel TV in Kyrgyzstan, which was ordered to halt its social media activities and broadcasting.
   • The refusal by Kazakh authorities to issue accreditations to six correspondents from RFE/RL, physically preventing them from reporting and thus restricting the flow of information.
   • The implementation of new restrictive laws, such as the revised media law in Kyrgyzstan, which imposes mandatory registration on all online publications and limits foreign ownership, thereby controlling the media landscape and stifling independent voices.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   The article highlights the weakening of the rule of law through the arbitrary application of regulations against journalists and media outlets. This is demonstrated by:

   • The use of vague legal justifications, such as “national security” grounds for denying accreditations in Kazakhstan and accusations of having a “harmful impact” to close Aprel TV in Kyrgyzstan. These justifications lack clear legal standards and are used to target dissent.
   • The need for media organizations like RFE/RL to file legal complaints to challenge government decisions (“RFE/RL has filed a complaint with the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Astana”), indicating a struggle to achieve equal access to justice against state actions.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article points to a lack of accountability and transparency in both government and corporate institutions. This is evident through:

   • The opaque nature of the digital takedowns. Akhmediyarov’s page was reinstated by Meta “without any explanation,” and the copyright claim against him came from a suspicious, short-lived account.
   • The meeting between Kazakh Information Minister Aida Balaeva and Meta’s regional director to discuss “content moderation,” which resulted in a “joint working group” whose operations and influence are not transparent to the public. The article notes that while there is no direct proof, there is a “chronological tie” between this cooperation and the subsequent account deletions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several specific, measurable events that can serve as indicators of the regression from the SDG targets.

• Indicators for Target 16.10 (Public access to information and fundamental freedoms):

  • Number of journalists’ online platforms blocked or removed: The article explicitly mentions the blocking of Akhmediyarov’s YouTube channel and Boreiko’s Facebook and Instagram accounts.
  • Number of independent media outlets shut down: The court-ordered closure of Aprel TV in Kyrgyzstan is a clear indicator.
  • Adoption of restrictive media legislation: The passage of the revised media law in Kyrgyzstan, which mandates registration for online media and caps foreign ownership, is a measurable legislative action against media freedom.
  • Number of accreditations denied to journalists: The refusal to issue accreditations to six RFE/RL correspondents in Kazakhstan is a specific, quantifiable indicator of restricted press freedom.

• Indicators for Target 16.3 (Rule of Law):

  • Use of vague legal pretexts for censorship: The article cites the use of “national security” and “harmful impact” as justifications, which can be tracked as an indicator of the arbitrary application of law.
  • Number of legal challenges filed by media against state actions: The lawsuit filed by RFE/RL serves as an indicator of the need to fight for legal recourse and justice.

• Indicators for Target 16.6 (Accountable and transparent institutions):

  • Incidents of non-transparent content moderation: The unexplained reinstatement of Akhmediyarov’s page by Meta and the lack of comment from both Meta and Kazakh officials on the account deletions are indicators of a lack of transparency.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: rferl.org