UNDP Project Document
Governments of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Office for Project Services
Reducing Transboundary Degradation in the Kura-Aras Basin
The Project will assist the Kura-Aras riparian states to 1) identify the principal threats and root causes of the trans-boundary water resources of the
Kura Aras-River Transboundary Basin and 2) develop and implement a sustainable programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms and
investments to address these threats. Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary surface and groundwater basins is
seen as the critical issue in the basin and will be a principal focus of project attention from the very outset of project related activities. The Project
will create synergies with and build upon a range of initiatives being undertaken by the countries themselves and those of bi-lateral and multi-
lateral donors that have given priority to the Basin.
The long-term development/environmental goal of the project is sustainable development of the Kura-Aras River Basin enhanced through
ecosystem-based Integrated Water Resource Management approaches. The project objective is to improve the management of the Kura-Aras
River Transboundary Basin through the implementation of a sustainable programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms and investment
options using the Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Programme (SAP) process. In order to achieve this objective,
the project will provide support in the development of the Kura-Aras Environmental Programme (KAEP), update the TDA, formulate the SAP and
associated National Action Programmes (NAPs) and National IWRM plans, undertake a range of public involvement and awareness activities
focusing on trans-boundary activities, and undertake demonstration projects that implement key aspects of the SAP.
The project will support the nascent KAEP currently being negotiated by the basin states through development of an informational management
system, establishing technical working groups and interministerial committees and developing an integrated programme workplan. During the
development of the preliminary TDA, four priority transboundary problems were identified as affecting the Kura-Aras River Basin: 1. variation
and reduction of hydrological flow; 2. deterioration of water quality; 3. ecosystem degradation in the river basin; and, 4. increased flooding and
bank erosion. The TDA will be revised taking into account key gap filling activities to be undertaken as part of this project and the planned
activities of the EU funded Kura-Aras Regional Project, due to commence summer 2008. The final TDA will serve as the scientific basis for
development of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) an agreed programme of interventions for the introduction of Integrated Water Resource
Management approaches throughout the basin. The TDA will review the potential impacts of climate change on the priority transboundary issues.
The SAP will incorporate a basin vision, water resource quality objectives, targets and interventions in the short and medium term to meet the
targets. Key activities which will inform both the TDA and the SAP will be the demonstration projects on the establishment of ecological flows at
key locations in the basin and the trialing of water management systems in the Aras basin. The SAP will be underpinned by the development of
national IWRM plans in Azerbaijan and Georgia and implementation of the existing IWRM plan in Armenia.
This project has been designed in close collaboration with the Kura-Aras Basin countries and will form a part of the KAEP. It has been developed
in coordination with the other major donors, inter alia, European Union and USAID, to ensure maximum synergy and minimum overlap between
supporting projects.
1
Table of Contents
Section
Page
Acronyms
3
Map
of
the
Basin
5
SECTION I: ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE
6
PART
I:
Situation
Analysis
6
Project Context
6
Physical
Context
6
Environmental
Context 7
Socio-economic
Context
8
Legal, Institutional, and Policy Context
12
Threats, underlying and root causes analysis
14
Stakeholders Analysis Summary
17
Baseline
Analysis
17
PART
II:
Strategy
19
Project Rationale and Policy Conformity
19
Project Goal, Outcomes and Outputs/activities
19
Project
Indicator
30
Risks
and
Assumptions
31
Expected global, national and local benefits
33
Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness
34
Sustainability
37
Replicability and innovation
37
PART III: Management Arrangements
37
PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget
38
PART V: Legal Context
43
SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK
45
SECTION III: Total Budget and Work Plan
58
SECTION IV: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PART I: Other agreements and list of affiliated projects
65
PART II: Organigram of Project
81
PART III: Terms of Reference
82
(additional sections attached)
PART IV: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
PART V: Institutional arrangements for the Kura-Aras Environmental
Programme.
PART VI: NGO Forum Draft Charter
PART VII: Draft Demonstration Project documents
2
Acronyms
AAWEMA Agency for Amelioration and Water Economy of the Ministry of Agriculture
AM
Republic
of
Armenia
ASH
State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of Armenia
AWSC
Armenian Water Supply Company
AZ
Republic
of
Azerbaijan
BMO Basin
Management
Organization
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
EU
European
Union
CCA
Causal Chain Analysis
CEP
Caspian
Environment
Programme
CLD
Causal
Loop
Diagram
CRC
Central Regulatory Commission
CTA
Chief
Technical
Advisor
DAI
Development
Alternatives Inc.
DDD
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethane
DDT
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane
DOE
Department of Environment
ENVSEC
Environmental Security Initiative with UNDP, OSCE and other donors
IA
Implementing
Agency
IDP
Internally Displaced Person
IR
Islamic Republic of Iran
IW
International
Water
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources
EIMC
Environmental Impact Monitoring Center
FSU Former
Soviet
Union
GEF Global
Environmental
Facility
GEO Republic
of
Georgia
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GIWA
Global International Waters Assessment
GNI
Gross National Income
HCH
Hexachlor-Cyclo-Hexane
HMEM
Department of Hydro-Meteorology and Environmental Monitoring
LEB
Local Executive Bodies
LM Local
Municipalities
LMIMCS
Laboratory of Management of Integrated Monitoring of Caspian Sea
LMPLSW
Laboratory of Monitoring of Pollution of Land Surface Waters
LNGES
Laboratory of National Geologic Exploration Service
LSG Local
Self-Government
MAC
Maximum
Allowable
Concentration
MAF
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
MAD
Minimal Allowable Discharges
MED
Ministry of Economic Development
MENR
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources
MEPNR
Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources
MF
Ministry of Finances
MFE
Ministry of Fuel and Energy
MH
Ministry of Health
MLHSS
Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Security
MNP
Ministry of Nature Protection
MOE
Ministry of Energy
MTA
Ministry of Territorial Administration
3
NAPs
National Action Plans
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NGO Non
Governmental
Organization
NMO National
Meteorological
Organization
NSM
Non Structural Measures
NWC
National Water Council of Armenia
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OSCE
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
PCB
Polychlorinated
Biphenyl
POP
Persistent Organic Pollutant
PSRC
Public Services Regulatory Commission of Armenia
RGF
Republican Geological Fund
SHA
Stakeholder
Analysis
SAP
Strategic Action Plan
SC
South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia)
SCWS
State Committee on Water Systems
SIDA
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SEI
State Environmental Inspectorate
SHAEI
State Hygiene and Anti-Epidemiological Inspection
STF
Sweage Treatment Facility
TACIS
Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States
TI
Tax Inspectorate
TTT
Technical Task Team
TDA
Transboundary
Diagnostic
Analysis
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
QLSA
Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis
QNSA
Quantitative Stakeholder Analysis
WRMA
Water Resources Management Agency
WUA
Water
User
Association
WWF
Global Conservation Organization/World Wildlife Fund for Nature
YWSC
Yerevan Water Supply Company
4
Map of the Basin
5
SECTION I: ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE
PART I: Situation Analysis
Project Context
Physical Context
1. The basin of the rivers Kura and Aras covers the territory of Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Iran, and Turkey. The total area of the Kura-Aras basin is approximately
188,400 km2, occupying the greater part of the South Caucasus1. Table 1.1 shows the
distribution amongst the five countries.
Table 1.1: Distribution of the riparian countries in the Kura-Aras River Basin
Country
Total
Area in the
% of the
% of the
Country
Basin (1000
country
basin area
Area (1000
km2)
area
km2)
Armenia
29.8
29.8
100.0
15.8
Azerbaija
n
86.6 55.1 63.6 29.2
Georgia
69.7 36.4 52.2 19.3
Turkey 771 28.9 3.7 15.3
Iran 1648
38.2 2.3 20.3
Total
2605.1
188.4 7.2 100.0
2. The basin spreads over the major part of eastern Georgia; over 60% of Azerbaijan,
excluding the northeast of the country and the Lenkoran region; the entire area of
Armenia; the northwestern part of Iran and territories of northeast Turkey. A map of the
Kura-Aras Basin is shown in Figure 1.1.
3. The Kura is the main water artery of the Caucasus. Its total length is 1,364 km. It
originates at a height of 2,700 m in the Anatolian highland of Northeast Turkey in the
Kizil-Giadik mountain range, winding its way through mountainous regions in Turkey,
Georgia and Azerbaijan into the Caspian Sea. It is fed by snow (36%), ice melt water
from glaciers (14%), underground sources (30%) and rain (20%). The main tributary of
the Kura is the Aras.
4. The altitude of the Kura watershed ranges from 4,500 m to the Caspian Sea (-27 m). The
flow in the spring flood periods makes up 58-64% of the total annual discharge with 19-
22% of the total discharge during the summer-autumn period and 17-20% in winter.
5. The Aras River originates in Erzurum province in eastern Turkey. It flows along the
Turkey-Armenia border, the Iran-Armenia border, and the Iran-Azerbaijan border, before
flowing into Azerbaijan where it joins the Kura near the Caspian.
6. The Aras divides just before meeting the Kura, and one branch flows directly into the
Caspian. The total length of the river is 1,264 km with a total watershed area of 102,000
km2 (of which 18,740 km2 relates to Azerbaijan, 22,556 km2 to Armenia and 60,704 km2
to Iran and Turkey).
1 South Caucus refers to Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
6
7. The Kura and the Aras contribute about 66% and 34% respectively to the total runoff.
There are more than 10,000 rivers in the basin including many small shallow rivers.
8. The water regime is characterized by high spring flows from snow melt and low flows
during the autumn and winter period. In the plains, the river meanders and the water of
the Kura is characterized by high turbidity as the result of mobilization of erosion
products along the bank, exacerbated by deforestation and flooding.
Environmental Context
9. The ecosystems of the Kura-Aras basin, similar to the entire Caucasus Ecoregion, are
highly diverse and include a broad range of landscapes, from semi-deserts and arid
shrublands to mesophylic relic broadleaf forests and alpine grasslands. These ecosystems
harbour a variety of plant and animal species representing a mixture of Mediterranean,
Eastern European, and Near Eastern floras and faunas, combined with a high proportion
of regional endemics (reaching 20-30% of the total species number in certain taxonomic
groups).
10. The Caucasus Ecoregion has been identified by Conservation International (CI) as one of
the world's 25 biodiversity hotspots due to high species diversity and significantly
threatened local ecosystems. The area identified by CI corresponds closely to the Kura-
Aras river system. This demonstrates the ecological importance and fragility of this area.
Notably, the Aras is home to one of the last natural sturgeon breeding grounds, along the
Kura there are important and unique dry-land riparian forests along the Kura, and the
delta, where the Aras and Kura rivers flow into Caspian, contains many important
wetland sites.
11. Over the last decades, the biodiversity in the basin has been affected by extensive
anthropogenic activities. Major impacts on the basin biodiversity include loss of species
and habitats. Many flora and fauna species have become endangered or threatened and
have been listed in IUCN, former USSR and National Red Books, and recently, the
Ecoregional Conservation Plan for the Caucasus (2006). Some species have also become
extinct.
12. The major threats to the biodiversity and habitats are: uncontrolled harvesting of flora and
fauna, including poaching; habitat destruction as a result of the development of
agriculture, industry, tourism and recreation activities, and the development of
infrastructure and urbanization etc; and, climate change.
13. Human activities in the second half of the twentieth century have had a drastic effect on
the quality and quantity of the water in the rivers. Ranges of factors, including industrial
pollution, domestic waste, agricultural pesticides, large-scale irrigation/flood
control/hydropower schemes and watershed degradation have affected the basin. All the
riparian countries have contributed to this situation. However, as many countries in the
region experienced a significant economic decline in the last decade, the stress on water
quality in some parts of the river has decreased temporarily. In the future, as the
economies in the region grow, and as some industrial activities are restored, a likely
scenario is that the threats to the water quality will again grow. Water quantity problems
have generally not decreased in the past decades, with increasing droughts and floods. A
good example of how mismanagement can cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem is
the disappearance of the Tugai forest in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Inefficient upstream
irrigation systems used the water needed by forest ecosystems, and consequently they
were unable to survive.
7
14. A number of off-channel and on-channel reservoirs have been constructed for irrigation,
drinking water supply, energy generation or regulation of uneven annual flow of rivers in
the Kura-Aras river basin that indirectly serve as pollution control mechanisms. Though
the reservoirs have a significant role for socio-economic development in the region, in
some cases they have had a negative environmental impact through changing the natural
hydrological flow of the rivers and the related ecological consequences such as
degradation of floodplain forests, reduction of fish stock downstream, bank erosion, etc.
15. The further downstream, the greater the deterioration in water quality and the increase in
water quantity challenge. This retrogression downstream is due to increasing levels and
aggregation of pollution emissions, increasing demands for water, and the fact that the
downstream areas are naturally drier The Kura-Aras Rivers also have an impact on the
Caspian Sea. At present, the river is the second largest flowing into the Caspian,
providing approximately 10% of the total inflow. It is possible that it provides an even
greater share of the Caspian's pollutants2. In order to sustainably manage the Caspian
Sea, it will be necessary to manage the quality and quantity of the inflow from the Kura-
Aras.3
Socio-economic Context
16. Social and economic changes within the Kura-Aras Basin have impacted the ecosystem
and at the same time changes in environmental conditions have impacted human
development trends. The historical socio-economic conditions of the Kura-Aras Basin
have largely shaped water use practices that continue to date. These include altering water
ways, intensive irrigation schemes and high levels of industrialization. Since 1991 the
shift from the Soviet economic system to a more free market system temporarily reduced
impacts on river system health, but negative impacts continue. Despite the drastic decline
in economic production in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia during the early 1990s, the
Kura-Aras River basin remains a region with relatively well developed industry and
agriculture.
17. The industrial and agricultural sectors are now recovering, again increasing impacts on
the Kura-Aras ecosystem. Concurrently, increased intensity of droughts and flooding
events negatively impact socio-economic development in part due to the loss of riparian
forests, over all deforestation, and climate change.
18. Since the end of the Soviet Union the human population has experienced changes in
demographics movements, transitional economic conditions and more localized social
welfare that are reflected in the shifting environmental situation. The increases in
urbanization, agricultural irrigation, and industrialization within the basin, contribute to
the challenges of managing the health river basin system. The economic data highlights
trends in national macro-economic development in the past 15 years in the region,
pertaining to water use, development and government investment strategies.
19. The Preliminary TDA estimated population of the Kura-Aras River Basin for 2003 was
approximately 13.1 million people, or about 16% of the total population of Armenia,
2 Until recently, the Volga was by far the largest pollution source. However, economic decline along
the Volga has led to major reductions in the pollution load.
3 The Caspian Sea covers 422,000 km2 and provides a livelihood for 12 million people in five
countries. GEF is providing support for the protection of the Caspian through the Caspian Environment
Programme (CEP) with the involvement of the five riparian countries UNDP, World Bank, UNEP and
EU-TACIS.
8
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Islamic Republic of Iran4. The average population density in the
Kura-Aras Basin is 82 people per km2. Table 1.2 shows the division between the urban
and rural populations and population density in each riparian country.
Table 1.2: Population of the Kura-Aras River Basin (2002-2003)
Country Population
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Population
in the
Population Population population Population
Density
basin
(mln.)
(%)
(mln.)
(%)
(per
(mln.)
1km2)
Armenia
3.2 2.1 65 1.1 34
107
Azerbaijan
4.8 1.7
35 3.1 65
87
Georgia
2.7 1.1 41 1.6 59 74
Iran
2.45 na
na na
na
63
Total in
the Kura-
Aras Basin
13.1
82
20. Migration in the Kura-Aras river basin increased in the last decade of the 20th century,
largely determined by the political and socio-economic developments in the region. In
Armenia, in 1992 alone, more than 200,000 people left the country and although the level
of emigration slowed by the end of 1990s, the negative migration balance continues to
affect population growth in the country. Azerbaijan has also experienced substantial
migration within and across its borders over the last two decades and many of the
internally displaced people (IDP) that make up 10 % of the population are settled in
communities along the lower Aras and Kura rivers. Georgia continues to experience
increased urbanization and IDPs now make up approximately 5% of the country's
population. Within Iran, there has been an increased effort on behalf of the state to
develop agricultural settlements within the Aras River Basin that depend on significant
irrigation.
21. Throughout the region, the social and economic systems have been in flux since the fall
of the USSR, exacerbated by the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Economic
development is uneven throughout the river basin, both between and within countries.
Major urban areas are increasingly crowded, and some are thriving, while most rural
areas slide further into economic dislocation due to the shift from a centralized economy
to a market driven economy.
22. Following the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, the economies of
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia experienced dramatic economic decline in large part
due to civil strife and conflict. For example, between 1990 and 1993, the average annual
decrease of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was around 18% in Armenia and 13 % in
Azerbaijan. In Georgia, GDP declined by 70-75 % between 1991 and 1994. This was a
result of economic dislocation, closing down of state owned industries and development
of new land tenure systems for agriculture.
23. However, economic reforms and political stability in the second half of the 1990s have
revived the economies of these countries and they are currently growing rapidly. Between
2000 and 2007 the Gross National Income in Armenia has nearly tripled, more than
tripled in Azerbaijan and more than doubled in Georgia. While these rates show positive
4 For the purpose of analysis this report does not include socio-economic, geographic or other data on
Turkish part of the Kura-Aras River Basin
5 For Iran the data is for 2000.
9
trends the economies of the Basin countries remain in a period of transition with very low
per GNI per capita6 rates. Further, the rates of income distribution are concentrated tightly
in urban centers and are generally in the hands of a minority of the population, while the
significant majority of populations remain in poverty. See Table 1.3 for details.
24. This trend favoring urban populations is notably prevalent in Azerbaijan, which has
undergone a drastic increase in revenues due to the development of oil and gas reserves.
The economic boom Azerbaijan is experiencing does bear some standard hallmarks of
petro-economies in which there is a concentration of wealth for those directly involved in
the petroleum sector, but less immediate benefit for the broader society. It is anticipated
that secondary and tertiary impacts of the oil wealth will improve conditions in
Azerbaijan in the coming years.
Table 1.3: National GNI and GNI Per Capita for Kura-Aras Countries 2000 - 2007
Country
2000
2003
2004
2007
GNI (Current US $), billion
Armenia
2.0 2.9 3.2 5.8
Azerbaijan
4.9 6.8 7.8 15.6
Georgia
3.3 3.9 4.8 7
GNI per capita Current US $)
Armenia
666 960 1,060
1,920
Azerbaijan
610 820 940 1,840
Georgia
700 860 1,064
1,580
Table 1.4: Economic Sector Development Trends for Kura-Aras Countries 2000-2006
Country
2000
2003
2004
2006
Agriculture, value added (% GDP)7
Armenia
25.5 24.1 23.4 44
Azerbaijan
17.1 13.5 12.3 7
Georgia
21.9 20.6 17.8 13
Industry, value added (% of GDP)8 including mining
Armenia
35.4 37.7 37.1 37
Azerbaijan
45.5 52.6 55.4 70
Georgia
22.2 25.6 25.4 25
25. The oil and gas extraction (mostly in Azerbaijan) and its transport are fast growing
sectors in the basin. The Kura-Aras river basin is the corridor for the Baku-Tbilisi-Supsa
and Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil and gas pipelines (put in operation in 1999 and 2006,
respectively) that could impact the health of the river systems in the event of accidents,
however, safeguards have been implemented to mitigate the risks.
6 Definition: GNI (Gross National Income formerly GNP) GNI per capita (formerly GNP per capita) is
the gross national income, converted to U.S. dollars using the World Bank Atlas method, divided by
the midyear population.
7 Agriculture corresponds to International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) divisions 1-5 and includes
forestry, hunting, and fishing, as well as cultivation of crops and livestock production. Value added is the net
output of a sector after adding up all outputs and subtracting intermediate inputs. Source: World Bank national
accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files.
8 Industry corresponds to ISIC divisions 10-45 and includes manufacturing (ISIC divisions 15-37). It comprises
value added in mining, manufacturing (also reported as a separate subgroup), construction, electricity, water, and
gas. Value added is the net output of a sector after adding up all outputs and subtracting intermediate inputs.
Source: World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files.
10
26. Agriculture continues to play an important role through out the region, through both
commercial and subsistence farming. The shift from collective state farms with assured
markets to a free-market based economies for agricultural goods produced on privately
owned plots of land have significantly impacted this sector. The high costs of farming
equipment, renovation of irrigation schemes and agricultural chemicals has resulted in a
short-term decline in environmental impacts on the river basin. However, this is offset by
the decline in the condition of agricultural infrastructure including irrigation channels,
and drainage systems has resulted in increased soil salinization, decreased soil fertility,
and increased demand for water .
27. On the Aras, pending agricultural schemes in Iran feature high levels of water abstraction
for irrigation, which are expected to have significant impacts on the hydrological flows.
Additionally, planned hydroelectric dams to be built in partnership between Iran and
Armenia (the Meghri hydropower plant), and between Iran and Azerbaijan, (the Khoda
Afarin dam, currently under construction) are also expected to impact the regime.
28. While the economic situation appears to be improving, a healthy functional workforce is
needed for economies reach their potential. The health of the population can also be
informative about the conditions within and across the region and can be inferred by
several major indicators that are readily available. These are infant mortality rates, life
expectancy at birth and prevalence of malnourishment. See Table 1.5 for details.
Table 1.5: Social Welfare Indicators in the Kura-Aras Basin for 1990 - 2004
Country
1990
2004
2006
Mortality Rate, infant (per 1,000 live births)
Armenia
52 29
21
Azerbaijan
84 75
73
Georgia
43 41
28
Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
Armenia
68 71
72
Azerbaijan
71 72
72
Georgia
70 71
71
Prevalence of Undernourishment (% of population)
Armenia
52* 29
24
Azerbaijan
34* 10
7
Georgia
44* 13
9
*measured for 1993
29. Between 1990 and 2006, human health indicators have shown very favorable trends
throughout the region, which could be interpreted to be indicative of an overall
improvement in conditions. It should also be noted that the 1993 measure for
malnourishment prevalence shown in Table 1.5, was probably low due to the tremendous
social and political changes in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia during this period.
30. One issue of significant concern is the high rate of infant mortality, especially in
Azerbaijan. As a down stream country relying on the Aras and Kura rivers as the main
source of drinking water for this population, infants become very susceptible to water
borne illnesses. Further, birth defects due to maternal ingestion of some water borne
pollutants can lead to higher rates of infant mortality (please refer to stakeholder analysis
for more details on perceptions different stakeholders.)
11
Legal, Institutional, and Policy Context
31. In the Kura-Aras basin countries virtually all of the water resources are considered to be
part of the national wealth, with state agencies charged with their safe-keeping and
management of their exploitation. National legislation in the basin countries stipulates the
basic principles of management, utilization and protection of the water resources and
water systems. In particular, they specify the principles of: satisfying the essential needs
of present and future generations; preserving and increasing the volumes of the water
reserves; encouraging effective utilization of water resources for the public benefit;
establishing a coordinated and integrated management system of surface and ground
water resources; reducing and preventing the pollution of water resources; and
reimbursing the expenditure for the cleanup of polluted waters, amongst others. All
countries in the region are committed to sustainably managing water resources and this
commitment is reflected in national development and environment policies and plans,
including MDG-based Poverty Reduction and Development Strategies, and National
Environmental Action Programmes. Moreover, these policies and plans give due
emphasis to the management and protection of the Kura and Aras rivers and the
importance of the IWRM approach in achieving the objectives. Armenia already has a
National Action Plans for IWRM, Georgia will have one for the Kura and one for the
Black Sea basin, and Azerbaijan will develop a national IWRM plan which will cover the
Kura, Aras and minor river basins in the north.
32. Each of the countries has a growing non-governmental community and academic sector
to complement the work of governmental organisations in this sector. Over the past ten
years, working with the World Bank and USAID, Armenia has greatly strengthened its
water and environmental policy, legislation and planning process based on the IWRM
approach and it is now entering into an aggressive investment phase. Striving for
accession to the European Union, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have signed with the
EU the European Neighborhood Policy Action Plans (2006). Under these plans each of
the countries is committed "to identify possibilities with neighboring countries for
enhanced regional co-operation, in particular with regard to water issues".
33. After the collapse of former Soviet Union environmental legislation has undergone
significant changes in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Currently in these countries the
legal framework is relatively new, innovative and dynamic, and endeavors to be quite
comprehensive, However, these laws are certain to be confronted with a number challenges
as implementation moves forward. A major concern is the coherence and consistency
among the many legal documents. This has led to some confusion with regard to the
institutional arrangements. The TDA identified areas where there are duplications, gaps
and overlaps in the water resource oriented functions of the various government agencies
in the Kura-Aras basin countries.
34. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are currently working towards the harmonization of
their institutional setting and legislation with the legislation of the European Union (EU),
including the field of environmental protection, and in particular water resource
management. Hence, the institutional structures of water resources management bodies
are being organized to ensure the implementation of water protection policy in
accordance with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive (N2000/60/EC,
2000). The introduction of basin management principles is a requirement of the Directive.
Hence the directive is not only concerned with water quality but also with the equitable
sharing of water at the basin level.
35. Though some progress has been made in water sector governance in the Kura-Aras basin
countries, there are still significant deficiencies in terms of legal frameworks, institutional
frameworks and law enforcement, including the collection of fees/tariffs, and the
12
implementation of transboundary agreements. Water Codes are the main laws governing
water sector in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Analysis of the Codes/laws shows that
though they do reflect the reality of water situation in the countries, there are some
discrepancies and need for improvement. This relates first of all to Georgia and
Azerbaijan, since they intend to transfer to basin management principles, which is not
reflected in their respective Codes/Laws.
36. Institutional analysis shows that some of the institutional drawbacks are implications of
legal drawbacks. This particularly relates to the fact the there are overlaps, gaps and
duplications of functions of various agencies, even within the same Ministry of
Environment. There is a need to streamline the functions of each organization. To avoid
duplication and overlapping of the functions with some other state bodies, it is necessary
to introduce amendments in the relevant legislative acts.
37. One of the most important priorities in all countries is the harmonization of legislative
basis determining the system of control and regulation of the pollution level of the water
resources and all the procedures connected with the licensing of water use.
Harmonization process should develop in two directions: mutual agreements between the
countries of the region and harmonization with the requirements of the European Union
legislation. It is necessary to approve a uniform system of the standards of the quality of
water resources. Standards of quality of the water bodies that are active may be
characterized as quite inapplicable and very strict, thus making them unrealistic. It is
necessary to consider the possibility of applying comprehensive approach to the control
of pollution. Carrying out this principle will require transformation of the existing
systems establishing water quality standards in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.
38. There are a number of existing agreements between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia:
· The agreement of 1974 entered between the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia
and the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan on the joint utilization of the waters
of the river Vorotan (concerning the diversion of the Vorotan-Arpa-Sevan), which
predetermines allocation of 50% of these waters to each party.
· The Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Environment of
Georgia and the State Committee of Ecology and Nature Management of the
Republic of Azerbaijan (currently the Ministry of Ecology) on cooperation in the
development and implementation of pilot projects for monitoring and assessment of
the status of the Kura River basin (1997).
· The agreement between the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan on cooperation
in Environmental Protection (1997).
· The agreement between the Governments of Georgia and Republic of Armenia on
cooperation in Environmental Protection (1997).
39. These agreements are an important step in transboundary IWRM, however additional
unified efforts are required. In order for regional transboundary cooperation be successful
the countries need to have the same/similar methodology of water quantity and quality
monitoring, possess compatible databases, adopt similar water quality standards, and of
course share the information between each other, and public at large. For provision of
interaction of the countries of the Kura-Aras basin it is very important to establish a
mechanism for exchange of the data received through monitoring of water resources.
With this purpose it is very important to develop approved and comparable systems of
monitoring in each country of the region. For Kura-Aras Basin countries it is the first
priority to develop the system of monitoring of water resources in the framework of
overall system of monitoring of the status of the environment. The pre-requisites for such
framework are present in national legislations. It is necessary to set up uniform
13
information on surface waters and groundwater within the common database on natural
resources. The legal framework for exchange of data exists in the form of bilateral and
multilateral international agreements. Besides this, it is necessary to establish a system of
trans-boundary monitoring using similar procedures and methods. Also, the countries
should provide for the transparency of the received data. Only after that bi-lateral
agreements and international environmental agreements will be fully implemented and
their implementation monitored properly.
40. It should be noted that several national and regional projects related to the environment,
and water in particular, have been implemented in the Kura-Aras basin countries, most of
which have carried out an assessment of the legal and institutional frameworks to some
extent. However, the focus of most projects has been at the national level, and even in
those that have undertaken a regional analysis there is a heavy emphasis on the country-
level approach. In addition to treaties, donors have also been actively promoting regional
cooperation in the basin. Several bi-lateral treaties on use of transboundary water
resources bind all Kura-Aras Basin countries. Some of them are a result of Iran-former
USSR agreement, to which South Caucasus countries are considered successors.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are also bound by international environmental
agreements and conventions, including the Helsinski Convention which has been ratified
by Azerbaijan.
Threats, underlying and root causes analysis
41. As part of the preparatory phase of this project a preliminary TDA was prepared
involving four of the five basin countries. During the TDA development the following
priority transboundary issues were identified as variation and reduction in hydrological
flow, deterioration of water quality, ecosystem degradation and flooding and bank
erosion. The current project seeks to address the first three priority issues, with flooding
and bank erosion being addressed by other projects. Within the preliminary TDA, a
Causal Chain Analysis (CCA) was conducted to identify the underlying and root causes
of the degraded conditions pertaining to the priority transboundary issues. For each issue
the CCA identified impacts, immediate causes, underlying causes and socio-economic,
legal and political root causes. The CCA has provided countries with a clear set of
anthropogenic causes that can be addressed in order to interrupt the current trajectory of
degradation of the water resources in Kura-Aras River basin. These threats, and their
underlying and root causes are described below.
Variation and Reduction in Hydrological Flow
42. Variation in hydrological flow has been caused by numerous human interventions
including direct water abstraction from surface and groundwater bodies, increased
evaporation due to impoundments, urbanization and deforestation. This has significant
transboundary consequences and it has been calculated that 40 % of the natural runoff of
the Kura and 27 % of the Aras runoff to the Caspian Sea has been lost. Severe water
deficit has not occurred in the basin to date and consequently shortages of water have not
presented any serious threats to the population. However, population growth and rapid
economic development in the basin countries will impose increased pressure on surface
and groundwater resources. Climate change could also have a catastrophic impact in the
medium and long term with potential scenarios indicating flow reductions of 50% as a
consequence of increased average temperature and decreased precipitation. Variation and
reduction of flow has already impacted fish species such as sturgeon in the Kura-Aras
river basin and affected terrestrial ecosystems such as tugai forests. The construction of
new reservoirs is likely to further alter flows. Non-rational use of water is a widely spread
practice throughout the basin. Agriculture (and in particular irrigation activities) is the
major consumer of water in the basin and water loss (through wastage, leakages and
14
failures), particularly from domestic and municipal water use, is an acute problem for the
South Caucasus countries.
43. Currently, the underlying causes can mainly be attributed to low capital investments in
operation and maintenance (due to alack of finance and historical economic difficulties),
a lack of investment in developing new irrigation schemes and water supply systems, and
a lack of a knowledge base of the hydrology and usage of the basin upon which to
construct an integrated water resource management and river basin management policy
and regulatory framework. This is compounded by the low awareness of the population
that currently has little regard for water efficiency and is often careless with its use.
Furthermore the lack of an integrated approach in water resources management is a major
problem in all the basin countries where ground and surface water are dealt with
separately, and land and forest management often fails to take into account management
issues relating to water resources. This creates many of the problems outlined above. If
present trends of water use are maintained, the impacts on the flow regime will continue
to increase. In order to ensure the equitable use of water, coordinated actions between the
basin countries are needed in order to avoid negative consequences in downstream
countries occurring due to increased water consumption upstream.
44. For the transboundary problem variation and reduction of hydrological flow in the Kura-
Aras Basin, the specific threats are: a shortage of irrigation water resulting in low
agricultural production, desertification, and reduced incomes; a shortage of safe drinking
water impacting human health; shortage of water for industry causing a decline in
economic activity with impacts on hydroelectric energy production; and a shortage of
water needed to maintain ecosystem functions.
45. The root causes are mainly anthropogenic activities that will be exacerbated by climatic
variation and increased populations and agriculturally based economic development. The
water infrastructure is in very poor condition that results in enormous losses and very low
efficiency rates, especially in the Former Soviet States. There is a lack of reliable
information on the water flow trends within the region, and uncoordinated policies and
regulation, lack of state revenues dedicated to regionally harmonized improvements and
low levels of public awareness and stakeholder involvement in the water management in
the region.
Deterioration of Water Quality
46. Deterioration of water quality in the Kura-Aras river basin has significant transboundary
consequences in the down stream countries. This can be confirmed by the presence of
chemical compounds of anthropogenic origin in the transboundary sections of the basin
as well as in bottom sediments of the Kura Delta in the Caspian Sea. Water pollution in
the Kura basin comes from a number of land based sources including industrial and
mining sites, agricultural lands, households in rural areas and municipalities. Wastewater
treatment facilities are absent in many municipalities and enterprises, and are available
only in some locations in the Aras basin. Most of the wastewater treatment facilities were
built 20-30 years ago and are currently non-operational. The application of fertilizers and
pesticides has been significantly reduced in the basin over the last two decades.
Furthermore, the usage of persistent chlorine-organic pesticides, such as DDT,
hexachlorcyclohexane (HCH) and aldrine, etc has been prohibited in the region.
However, recent studies indicate that there is strong evidence that the illegal application
of banned chlorinated pesticides in the region is occurring. The unregulated use of
fertilizers results in diffuse pollution of both surface and ground water resources. Nutrient
loading also comes from direct point source discharges of animal slurry from cattle and
pig farms. These incidents have greatest impact in early spring during the snow melt,
15
when waters wash out nitrates and phosphates from previous autumn applications. There
is little information that can directly attribute water quality to specific environmental
impacts in the Kura-Aras river basin. However, it is likely to be a contributing factor and
certainly increases the pressure on already stressed ecosystems. Industrial development
and the construction of industrial wastewater treatment facilities are not coordinated. The
only exception is enterprises that have local wastewater treatment facilities. However, it
should be noted that most of them are currently not operating. Of particular danger are
wastewaters from the mining industry and tailing lagoons and dumps.
47. For the transboundary problem deterioration of water quality in the Kura-Aras River
Basin, the threats are: risks to public heath through contaminated drinking water and
agricultural products with an increase in potential for water borne illnesses; the
degradation of aquatic ecosystems; and a decline in bioresources including fish stocks.
The root causes include the lack of a regulatory framework to manage water resource
pollution in some riparian counties, including wastewater regulations, industrial pollution
controls and agrochemical runoff. A lack of financial commitment to addressing these
issues, combined with a lack of stakeholder education and understanding about
sustainable use approaches, low enforcement of existing regulations, inefficient practices,
and lack of consistent, coordinated and standardized monitoring results in declining
conditions due to poor water quality in the region.
Ecosystem Degradation
48. Transboundary ecosystem degradation including increased trends of biodiversity loss,
deforestation, and land degradation are observed throughout the basin. The decline of
species has intensified over the last few decades, due to a large extent by habitat
fragmentation and degradation. There has been a remarkable decline in several bird
species, small mammals and several plant species. Forest degradation in the Kura-Aras
basin has intensified during the last two decades. Boundaries of the mountain forests
remained more or less stable until the beginning of the 1990s, but since then, the situation
has changed as a result of extensive logging, both illegal and authorized by government
institutions. Desertification and land degradation is a critical problem in the Kura-Aras
basin. The main forms of degradation are salinization (especially in desert and semi-
desert areas) and soil erosion (washing out of fertile soil). The most important reason for
land degradation appears to be deforestation and overgrazing. Increased demand on
timber for commercial purposes is one of the major drivers of ecosystem degradation.
This includes timber logging for use in the construction business nationally and for
export, and has consequently resulted in a reduction in deciduous forest areas. The energy
crisis that has taken place during the last decade in the South Caucasus countries has also
put great pressure on forests in the basin. The acute energy deficit in these countries,
accompanied with poverty problems has resulted in excessive logging as the population
has been forced to use wood for heating and cooking. The causes are related to weak
legislation and regulations, institutional complexities, poor law enforcement and low
public awareness on the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem act together with
financial constraints to create unfavorable conditions for protecting ecosystem integrity
and biodiversity. The absence of integrated water resources management also contributes
to this process.
49. For the transboundary problem: ecosystem degradation in the Kura-Aras Basin, the
threats a loss of forestry habitats, loss in species and ecosystem integrity, including fish
stocks, and desertification and land degradation via salinization and soil erosion. The root
causes for this include: deforestation due to lack of reliable energy; non-sustainable
fishing and hunting practices stemming for weak enforcement of legislation; overgrazing
due to a lack of management of pasturelands combined with a lack of understanding of
16
stakeholders and increased pressures from increased stocks; over use of resources
including irrigation waters due to outdated technologies and practices; and absence of
coordinated integrated water resource management.
50. The solutions to these transboundary problems are not easily remedied but will require
coordinated, collaborative work on behalf of all governments in the Kura-Aras River
Basin. The countries have signaled a willingness to address these issues and recognize the
importance of doing so as demonstrated through their inputs to the TDA and evidenced in
letters of support for the FSP and SAP development.
Stakeholders Analysis Summary
51. A qualitative and quantitative stakeholder analysis (SHA) was conducted in the
preparation phase of the project in conjunction with the TDA. The findings of the
Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) showed that a majority of stakeholders throughout the
region are most concerned about water quality issues. The second highest concern is
the reduction in hydrological flows, with concerns about flooding and decline in bio
resources being far less immediate concerns. The full TDA stakeholder analysis
including the priorities of individual groups and specific concerns and perceptions is
presented in Section IV. Based on the findings of the SHA, and significant inputs from
the Stakeholder Advisory Group, the Stakeholder Participation plan is outlined in
Section IV.
52. In the Kura-Aras River Basin, stakeholders were identified during the TDA
Stakeholder Analysis, which included both qualitative and quantitative analysis plus
input from a Stakeholder Advisory Group. The stakeholders include those from
government agencies and institutions in the following ministries and departments:
Water, Hydro-meteorological Department, Natural Resources, Ecology or
Environmental Ministry, Industry Ministry, Energy Ministry, Economic Ministry,
Foreign Affairs Ministry, Defence Ministry, Agriculture Ministry, Forestry Ministry,
Fisheries Ministry, Social Welfare / Public Health Ministry, Labour Ministry,
Transportation Ministries and Parliamentary committees for environmental protection.
Additionally, regional and municipal administrators were interviewed including:
Regional government official, District water management official, Municipal
Government and Municipal waste managers, Industrial sectors included Mining
industry, Heavy industry, Light industry, Tourism/Recreation industry, and Agro-
industry representatives. Other stakeholders who are critical to the project success
include National NGOs, Scientists, Nature preserve staff, farmers, fishermen,
pastoralists, community based organization, educator/teacher, students, public health
care providers and members of coastal communities, plus press and media,
international funding Institutions, and bilateral development agency. Their
involvement in the project is outlined in the Section IV.
Baseline Analysis
53. Within the region, there is a high level of technical ability and awareness of the need for
integrated water resource management is a prime concern within the governments in the
region pertaining to development, security and regional cooperation. The countries have
signaled their willingness to cooperate throughout and the preparatory phase and given
full support for the development of the preliminary TDA and SAP. The states are
engagement in active negotiations to create a Kura-Aras Environmental Programme
(KAEP) as a mechanism for transboundary cooperation and collaboration. However, in
17
order to gain from the benefits achieved thus far it is imperative that additional support is
provided.
54. The South Caucasus countries continue to emerge from the legacy of Soviet
environmental mechanisms that emphasized reporting standards to match regulations
rather than actual conditions, and therefore there is a dearth of reliable information prior
to 1991. These countries have been struggling to establish a reliable basin-wide
monitoring network and are eager to work together in order to further improve their
management systems and approximate to the requirements EU Water Framework
Directive. To this end, support has been provided by a large number of donor
organizations including USAID, NATO, SIDA, OSCE, and EU. However, the GEF
project has been the only project in the region that included inputs from all of the major
transboundary countries within the South Caucasus, including Iran. Though they will not
be actively involved in the Full Sized Project it is planned to that Iran and Turkey shall
be kept fully informed about the project's outputs and outcomes.
55. The concept of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is well known
throughout the basin and all three countries are developing national IWRM plans under
their Johannesburg WSSD commitments, albeit at different rates. IWRM is a systematic
process for the sustainable development, allocation and monitoring of water resource use
in the context of social, economic and environmental objectives. It is a cross-sectoral
policy approach, designed to replace the traditional, fragmented sectoral approach to
water resources and management that has led to poor services and unsustainable resource
use. IWRM is based on the understanding that water resources are an integral component
of the ecosystem, a natural resource, and a social and economic good. Traditionally
within the water sector, resource management has been undertaken independently of
social and economic objectives and has focused on the interaction between land and
water use at the basin level. The increased complexity of the IWRM inter-sectoral
approach brings with it many challenges, not least the differing planning units and plans
in which the different sectors operate.
56. The national level IWRM efforts are to be commended where appropriate, and this
project seeks to build coordination mechanisms between the countries to ensure that there
are collaborative efforts in managing water resources in line with basin-wide priorities.
Without this level of collaboration, national level policies will be sub-optimal, as shared
resources require shared management.
57. The linkage between water resource management and land use is not clearly articulated in
any of the basin countries. A lack of capacity and information prevents local communities
from making informed management decisions. They lack information on the important
parameters like land condition, carrying capacity, land contamination, etc. that would
allow the resource users to identify problem areas and make appropriate mitigation
decisions. Conservation of biodiversity and preservation of the hydrology pathways,
particularly in the riparian areas should be key objectives in any land management plan.
58. The stage is set for further coordinated efforts, which will lead to an improvement in the
aquatic ecosystem of the South Caucasus, however, without a global funding mechanism
to support the future work it is likely that this and other efforts will stall, resulting in back
sliding and a lack of significant improvements to the river health in the region.
18
PART II: Strategy
Project Rationale and Policy Conformity
59. The overall long-term objective of this proposed project is to ensure that the quality and
quantity of the water throughout the Kura-Aras river system meets the short and long-
term requirements for optimum ecosystem function as well as the needs of the
communities using the river. A subsidiary objective is to reduce the contaminant load into
the Caspian Sea and improve its water quality.
60. To achieve the overall objectives, the immediate objectives are: to foster regional
cooperation for river basin management, including information exchange; to increase
national and regional capacities with regard to IWRM in addressing water quality and
quant river; to assist development of sustainable financial and institutional coordination
arrangements for the management and protection of the river basin; to make key
improvements to water quality/quantity at specific points in the basin;; and to promote
appropriate reforms to economic sectors causing pollution, water shortages, and habitat
degradation. The focus will be on trans-boundary issues and compliment the Strategic
Objectives of GEF 4, International Waters Strategic Objectives.
61. The project is consistent with the 1st Strategic Objective of the IW Focal Area: to foster
international, multi-state cooperation on priority trans-boundary water concerns through
more comprehensive, ecosystem-based approaches to management. It furthermore fits
with the 3rd Strategic Programme in GEF-4: Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of
water resources in trans-boundary surface and groundwater basins. The project aims to
assist countries to balance competing water uses between production sectors in a highly
stressed river basin under climate change uncertainties, while ensuring water security to
support the people's livelihoods and ecological flows to sustain riparian ecosystems.
Following integrated basin river management (IRBM) principles, the project will
demonstrate and promote the harmonization of policies and activities necessary to
effectively address trans-boundary water concerns in the basin.
Project Goal, Outcomes and Outputs/activities
62. The long-term development/environmental goal of the project is sustainable development
of the Kura-Aras River Basin enhanced through ecosystem-based Integrated Water
Resource Management approaches. The project objective is to improve the management
of the Kura-Aras River Transboundary Basin through the implementation of a sustainable
programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms and investment options using the
Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
process.
63. The project will play a catalytic role in developing and implementing, through the TDA
and SAP process, a sustainable programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms and
investments to address them. The Project will create synergies with and build upon a
range of initiatives being undertaken by the countries themselves and those of bi-lateral
and multi-lateral development partners that have given priority to the Basin. Competing
water uses in the context of dwindling and uncertain future supplies is seen as the critical
issue in the basin and will be a principal focus of project attention from the outset.
64. The GEF project will support the countries to approach water resource management
issues in an interdisciplinary, multi sectoral manner focusing on harmonized basin wide
priorities through the development of the SAP. The project will apply Integrated Water
Resource Management (IWRM) approaches that consider the interrelationships between
natural resource systems, biophysical processes and socio-economic systems. IWRM will
take into account factors outside the water sector such as, agriculture and energy uses,
19
and such issues as climate change in a cross-sectoral approach. This expanded approach
makes possible a transition to adaptive management strategies for water resources.
65. During the preparatory stage the countries have:
· Undertaken a qualitative and quantitative stakeholder analysis to determine
stakeholder perceptions and ranking of the priority trans-boundary issues.
· Prepared a draft public involvement and communication strategy
· Confirmed the trans-boundary priority issues and undertaken causal chain analyses to
identify immediate, underlying and root causes.
· Developed a preliminary trans-boundary diagnostic analysis (to be further refined
during the project implementation), incorporating thematic basin studies undertaken
by UNDP-SIDA and the GEF project.
· Prepared draft institutional arrangement document for the Kura-Aras Environment
Programme under the UNDP-ENVSEC Water Governance project for the Kura-Aras
basin.
· Agreed on a draft basin vision and water resource quality objectives, corresponding
to the priority trans-boundary issues, as the framework for the Strategic Action
Programme to be developed.
· Agreed the scope, activities, outputs and outcomes of two demonstration projects
addressing environmental low flows, water conservation in the irrigation sector and
range land management.
· Prepared a Full Sized project document for submission to GEF through UNDP.
66.
The proposed GEF project on the Kura-Aras River Basin will build upon these
achievements and those by other organizations and together with the countries and other
partners will undertake the following activities with the resulting outcomes:
· Strengthen the Governance of Water Resources in the Kura-Aras basin through
support of the of the nascent KAEP, with creation of an Information Management
System; development of an integrated KAEP partner workplan; establishment of
technical working groups; and support of inter-sectoral committees.
o Outcome: KAEP agreed and established to coordinate initiatives, national
institutions and donors to effectively promote the implementation of IWRM
principles in the basin.
· Review and update the Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), filling critical
data gaps through targeted assessments in collaboration with the EU and USAID
regional projects, identifying potential short, medium and long-term interventions to
address trans-boundary issues and conducting pre-feasibility studies on key
interventions;
o Outcome: Transboundary issues and causes more fully understood through
additional analyses and the resulting more comprehensive TDA
· Development of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and National Action Plans
(NAPs) to form a IWRM plan for the Kura-Aras basin, including the development of
a detailed Monitoring and Evaluation framework for SAP implementation and
support of implementing institutions at the national level;
o Outcome: Regional and national policy, legal and institutional frameworks in
place to address agreed priority transboundary issues using IWRM approach;
with sustainable financial arrangements agreed for SAP implementation.
20
· In line with the public involvement strategy, implement selected projects and
activities to encourage targeted participation and involvement in basin management
and to increase awareness in the critical issue of water conservation in the basin;
o Outcome: Stakeholder involvement in project activities ensured; Public
awareness increased on transboundary issues in the basin
· Implementation of two demonstration projects to show the potential for strengthening
integrated water resource management at the national, sub-basin and basin wide
scale.
o Outcome: Reduced risk of water-related conflict through pilot
demonstrations via the setting of ecological flows and establishment of
water resource bounds and the development of water quality management
systems, reducing human and ecosystem health risks.
67. The trust forged during the pdf-b between the countries and institutions and donor
organizations will be built upon in finalization of the SAP and NAPs (national IWRM
plans).
68. The six project components are outlined below detailing the activities and outputs. These
components are interlinked and intended to both compliment and build on the others to
create an over all stronger and more sustainable project in the long term.
69. The components to be conducted within the project are:
1. Institutional Strengthening of the nascent Kura-Aras Environmental
Programme
2. Completion of Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
3. Preparation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and national IWRM
plans/NAPs
4. Basin wide stakeholder involvement activities
5. Conflicting water use demonstrations
6. Project management
COMPONENT 1: INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING OF THE KURA-ARAS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME
70. The objective of this component is to support the development of the Kura-Aras
Environment Programme (KAEP) which is currently being negotiated by the basin states
and strengthen governance of water resources and the ecosystem in the Kura-Aras basin. .
71. The Kura-Aras Environment Programme is being negotiated within the framework of the
NDP-ENVSEC Kura-Aras water governance project (see KAEP institutional
arrangements document, section IV, part V). Once agreed and established the KAEP will
provide the framework for coordination of national and multi- and bi-lateral donor
activities impacting and developing the Kura-Aras river basin system.
72. During the implementation the GEF project will work with the countries towards the
development a more permanent legal and management framework for the basin, the
structure of which has not yet been agreed. Any such framework should establish general
principles and institutional mechanisms for sustained environmental cooperation based
upon the concepts of IWRM and ecosystem management. As part of this task, the project
21
will work closely with Caucasus Regional Environmental Centre who are implementing a
water governance project for the Kura-Aras basin to be funded by the European Union.
(see section IV, part 1) .
Activities:
1.1 Development and support of GIS-based Information Management System and
project website with IW LEARN support
1.2 Establishment and support of KAEP
1.3 Development of integrated multi-partner work plan.
1.4 Establishment of Technical Working Groups
1.5 Establishment of interministerial committees in all countries
.
73. There is a clear need to develop a common information system and thereby understanding
of the water related problems and issues of the Kura-Aras basin. Equal access to data and
information is essential if the countries are to be able to enter into basin-wide agreements
on a range of key trans-boundary issues. The design of the information system will take
account of the management decisions it is required to support and the current and future
form and type of data available to the Kura-Aras basin countries. A web-based, GIS
information system and a web-site, consistent with IW:Learn guidelines, will enable the
information to be shared efficiently by projects, governments, NGOs, the media, and
other interested stakeholders in and outside the basin. The design will build upon the
work already undertaken by the USAID Southern Caucasus Water Programme (see
section IV, Part 1). The creation of online databases will enable a knowledge based
community to emerge, building on the collective expertise in the basin. Additionally, it
will be critical in the development of outreach mechanisms for stakeholders without
access to internet media, including posters, radio and television information in
conjunction with other activities for stakeholder participation (see Component 4).
74. The project will continue to help develop and support of the regional institutional
coordination mechanisms initiated under the preparatory phase. Once agreed and
established the UNDP/GEF facilitated KAEP would serve as an umbrella coordinating
mechanism between multi-lateral organizations, such as the EU, NATO, OSCE, World
Bank, UNEP, UNDP, and bilaterals such as USAID. The Project Coordination Unit
would serve as the KAEP secretariat, in its first three years and assist in development of a
post-project sustainability strategy. A detailed integrated workplan for the KAEP would
be prepared to ensure that maximum synergy and minimum overlap between the
supporting projects at both regional and national level. It is expected that many
organizational members of a future KAEP will also be members of the Friends of the
Project Group (see component 6).
75. In order to strengthen future operation of the KAEP, the project will establish a set of
technical working groups to review key aspects of trans-boundary water issues, such as
variation and reduction of hydrological flows, deterioration of water quality (e.g.
pollution), ecosystem degradation and climate change. Experts from the basin states will
be recruited to serve on the groups which will meet regularly to review the work done by
the countries and the international projects and will provide guidance to a future KAEP
Steering Committee
76. The component will also support the continued functioning of interministerial committees
in the three basin countries. The committees will review the project documents and those
of other KAEP partner projects and will oversee the development of the National IWRM
plans and the national input into the SAP.
22
Deliverables:
· GIS-based Information Management System and project website
· KAEP Institutional Arrangements document agreed and options for further regional
management explored
· Integrated multi-partner work plan agreed.
· Three Technical Working Groups (TWGs) established
· Interministerial committees functioning in all countries
COMPONENT 2: COMPLETION OF TRANSBOUNDARY DIAGNOSTIC
ANALYSIS
77. Within the preparatory phase of the project, a preliminary TDA was conducted to identify
and assess the status of the priority trans-boundary issues. The preliminary TDA identified
the key information gaps to be addressed in order to better understand and improve the
knowledge of the trans-boundary issues. A revised Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
(TDA) taking into account findings from the USAID and EU regional projects will be
prepared and will provide a mechanism for reaching consensus on priority SAP and
NAP/IWRM plan interventions. The TDA will be supplemented by strategic studies
including the analysis of flood plain forests, landfill/contaminant land impacts, together
with baseline studies of the Aras and Kura Rivers to be carried out in close coordination
with EU Tacis project. The revised TDA will include a revised causal chain analysis and
pre-feasibility studies of the priority interventions and, where applicable, economic
evaluations of possible options.
Activities:
2.1 Information gaps filled for the TDA (water quantity, hydrological flow data, land-
based source of pollution, etc.)
2.2 Environmental and Water Resources Status baseline established to inform TDA
process and long-term SAP M&E.
2.3 Final TB issues prioritized, and immediate and root causes identified
2.4. Final TDA revised and updated
2.5. Final TDA widely disseminated
78. The strategic studies to be undertaken and incorporated into the revised TDA include:
79. A strategic study on floodplain forests which will analyse the forest dynamics, create an
empirical description of their biodiversity, analyze the social-economic causes of
degradation, and develop a model of floodplain forest degradation in the Kura basin and
guidelines for conservation, recovery and sustainable use.
80. Extensive logging, both illegal and authorized, seriously affected forest ecosystems in the
Kura-Aras river basin. The most vulnerable and rapidly degrading forest ecosystems at
present are the floodplain forests. Floodplain areas in the basin are cleared and lands used
for agriculture. Moreover, during last decade due energy supply problems in South
Caucasus countries cases of timber logging in floodplain tugai forests for firewood
drastically increased. Trapping water in reservoirs and changing the natural hydrological
flow of rivers also heavily impacted floodplain forest in the Kura basin. Fragmentation of
floodplain forests in lower and middle part of the Kura was most likely the reason for the
extinction of some large mammals (ungulates and tigers) and decline of the species not
directly associated with the forest but using them as temporary habitats. The process of
degradation of floodplain forests and associated habitats starts in the basin of Alazani,
23
causing drastic decline of some smaller game species. Floodplain forests not only play a
key role in maintenance of the riparian biodiversity but provide other environmental
services too. They shape the bed of the rivers and prevent floods. Exiting data is not
sufficient for accounting fragmentation rates in the basin. Detailed study of floodplain
forests in transboundary regions is required for identification of critical areas, analyzing
trends, development of action plans and mobilization of political efforts for resolving
specific problems;
81. A study of landfill and contaminated land sites in the flood plain and their impacts at
the transboundary sections of the basin. Majority of official and unofficial landfill sites
located in the Kura-Aras basin do not meet environmental requirements. Often they are
not lined and have simple drainage systems collecting leachate and rainwater, but
drainage waters are not treated and may cause contamination of soil, surface and
groundwater with heavy metals and toxins. There are also cases of disposing biological
and hazardous waste in landfills. In the complete absence of any monitoring it is difficult
to judge the extent of the pollution. Therefore, it is very important to develop reliable data
for evaluation of environmental impact of operating landfills and mobilizing efforts for
addressing this problem. There are also numerous contaminated land sites in the basin
associated with old industrial enterprises which are not recorded or characterized but have
significant impact on the well-being of the river basin.
82. Contamination assessments of the Aras and Kura Rivers, concentrating on
determination of trace metals and organic pollutants in the sediment and biota of the
river. This work will be closely coordinated with the activities of the EU Tacis project for
the Kura-Aras basin which commenced in June 2008. It is anticipated that the Tacis
project studies will focus on the river Kura whilst GEF will focus on the river Aras.
83. Deterioration of water quality in the Kura-Aras river basin has significant transboundary
consequences in the down stream countries. This can be confirmed by the presence of
chemical compounds of anthropogenic origin in the transboundary sections of the basin
as well as in bottom sediments of the Kura Delta in the Caspian Sea. Water pollution in
the Kura basin comes from industrial and mining sites, municipalities and agriculture.
Historical analytical data of water quality is limited and unreliable. Moreover, data for
last 10 years in South Caucasus is missing due to inactivity of WQ monitoring network.
There is very little information on sediment contamination and benthic health. In order to
conduct comprehensive water quality analysis there is a need for extended research on
contaminants in sediment and biota. Gathering water quality data along the Kura and
Aras River provides one-time snapshot water quality data across rivers by applying
standardized equipment and methodology and identification of most affected sites for
further specific analysis.
84. The TDA will be revised and updated, including a thorough revision of the Causal Chain
Analyses, development of causal loop diagrams, indicating the positive and negative
feed-back and identifying the gate-keepers in the decision process, and identification of a
range of short, medium and long term interventions for inclusion in the Strategic Action
Program. Priority short-medium term interventions will be subject to pre-feasibility desk
studies. The final TDA will be presented to the future KAEP Steering Committee and
once approved will be disseminated widely to stakeholders, civil society, governments,
other basin wide and regional projects, and the International Waters community.
85. The TDA studies will also include an economic evaluation of the various possible
interventions/options which may be used as a decision support tool for the SAP
development. Failure to include proper economic valuation can lead to a diminished
importance of the project activities in the eyes of the financing sector.
24
Deliverables:
· Gap-filling studies on floodplain forests, contaminated land sites and water quality
surveys
· Revised/updated CCA and causal loop diagrams;
· Listing of potential SAP interventions;
· Pre-feasibility studies for key interventions.
· Final TDA
COMPONENT 3: PREPARATION OF THE STRATEGIC ACTION
PROGRAMME (SAP) AND NATIONAL IWRM PLANS/NAPS
86. The project will provide support to Kura-Aras basin countries in the development of a
Strategic Action Programme and supporting National Action Plans that will enable the
basin to harmonize their IWRM policies and actions. The culmination of these efforts will
be a donors' conference to mobilize commitments to implement the SAP. The National
Action Plans will be developed, from the national IWRM plans, where they exist,
targeting implementation of IWRM within the basin. Where the national IWRM plans do
not exist (Georgia and Azerbaijan) the project will assist the countries in their
development as a parallel activity. The development of the SAP will be undertaken in
close coordination with the other regional donors and will be guided by the integrated
work plan (see component 1).
Activities:
3.1. Institutions established to support the national process for the NAP
development
3.2. SAP and NAPs formulated and endorsed
3.3. Donor conference held to mobilize resources for SAP and IWRM
implementation
87. The Strategic Action Programme is at the heart of this project and will assist the countries
to harmonize and unite their national IWRM policies and strategies in the Kura-Aras
River Basin. The SAP will be under-pinned by National Action Plans (NAPs), which will
take into account both national and basin wide priorities. The SAP and the NAPs will be
developed in parallel to ensure consistency and correlation; the process is an iterative one
beginning with the development of a preliminary SAP and involving a number of revision
stages while the countries finalise and endorse the NAPs through national planning
procedures including establishing financing arrangements.
88. A basin wide working group for SAP formulation and national groups for NAP
development will be formed. The preliminary SAP will incorporate the Basin Vision and
Water Resource Quality Objectives (WRQOs) developed in the PDF-B stage and for each
WRQO a set of targets for the short, medium and long-terms will be established. A listing
of policy, legal, institutional, and investment interventions to meet those targets will be
drawn from the work done under the TDA. It should be noted that the SAP will include
many development interventions which are not GEF applicable and alternative funding
sources will need to be sought; this is a specific objective of the donor conference.
89. The preliminary SAP will be reviewed at basin-wide meeting which will include the
participation of the Stakeholder Advisory Group (see Component 6). On the basis on the
preliminary SAP, draft NAPs will be developed and will be tested through national
workshops to verify the feasibility of the proposed targets and interventions in each state
and determine the financial implications.
25
90. The SAP will enable the riparian states to reach a consensus on priorities, targets,
programmes and projects to protect the shared resources of the Kura-Aras river basin.
The SAP will include an estimation of the required financial resources and a strategy to
mobilize these resources. The SAP will be carefully designed to ensure that it is action-
oriented, financially realistic, locally owned, government supported, sustainable, and
responsive to the local conditions. Once the SAP and NAPs are completed and agreed,
the project will assist to obtain endorsement of the SAP at the highest government level
in each basin country.
91. Once the SAP is endorsed the project will to organize a donor conference aimed at
mobilizing commitments for SAP and NAP implementation. A range of international and
bi-lateral donors will be invited to consider support for specific aspects or interventions
within the SAP, some of which will have been subject to pre-feasibility studies (see
component 2). The project will assist the countries in establishing commitments through
appropriate memoranda and/or agreements, at national or basin wide level as appropriate.
92. An important element of SAP development will be the creation of a Monitoring and
Evaluation framework based on GEF International Waters indicators (process, stress
reduction and environmental status). Using this framework the implementation of the
SAP will be monitored on an annual basis.
Deliverables:
· Endorsed SAP and NAPs.
· Assistance in IWRM plan development in Azerbaijan and Georgia, and IWRM plan
strengthened in Armenia
· Operational GEF M&E framework for SAP implementation.
· Financial support leveraged for SAP and NAP implementation
COMPONENT 4: BASIN WIDE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES
93. This component will continue the stakeholder and public involvement work initiated
under the preparatory phase and the UNDP Environmental Governance Component
implemented in support the PDF-B. The activities will include support of the Stakeholder
Advisory Group and Kura-Aras NGO forum. The Stakeholder Advisory Group will
provide input, through reviews, comments and recommendations into the final TDA and
SAP development activities within Components 2 and 3, respectively.
94. Within budgetary constraints, the component will support a range of public involvement
activities including two small public involvement demonstration projects to be
implemented by regional NGOs. The public involvement activities will be in line with the
objectives and targets of the public involvement and communication strategy developed
during the preparatory phase (see section IV, part IV)
Activities
4.1 Support to the Kura-Aras NGO and Stakeholder forums
4.2. Targeted awareness raising and education activities
95. In collaboration with other donor organizations, the component will support the activities
of the Kura-Aras NGO Forum, initiated under the UNDP Environmental Governance
project and with the assistance of the Eurasia Foundation. Since being established the
26
Kura-Aras NGO Forum has developed a mechanism for collaboration among national
and regionally active NGOs emphasizing cooperative action and improved civil society
involvement in water resource governance. In collaboration with ENVSEC and other
multi-lateral and bilateral donors, the capacity of the Kura-Aras NGO Forum will be
strengthened and it is envisaged that it will be functioning independently by the end of
the project.
96. Key stakeholders will be fully involved in project implementation through the
Stakeholder Advisory Group. It is recognized that unless a wide array of stakeholders is
included in project activities, there is a risk of the project becoming focused on
governmental concerns, without taking into account those directly impacted by
conditions. The component will support the Stakeholder Advisory Group in reviewing
and commenting on all project materials and major products, including the TDA, SAP
and NAPs.
97. The component will support specific activities demonstrating how the public can be
increasingly involved in water resource management issues. Two Public Involvement
Demonstration Projects (PIDPs) will be implemented by national NGOs. These projects
were developed during the preparatory phase of the project with assistance from the
Kura-Aras NGO forum members. The projects will demonstrate the empowerment of
communities to take steps to address water related environmental problems through low
cost, high impact activities. These projects will stress replicability and sustainability, as
well as training of trainers at the local level. Matching funds will be sought for each of
these PIDPs from the participating NGOs and beneficiaries. The projects will be closely
documented and monitored.
98. The PIDP on artificial wetlands is led by the Sustainable Water Environment NGO from
Armenia. The project will involve the community supported construction of an artificial
wetland to treat sewage waste and demonstrate the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
managed wetland systems for cleansing waste and protecting the riverine ecosystem.
There is a strong educational component within the demonstration project and it
anticipated it can be easily replicated in other riparian communities.
99. The PIDP on improved farming methods is to be led by the NGO "Caucasus
Environmental NGO Network" and comprises a set of local projects focusing on
sustainable agricultural practices, including biological pest control, crop rotation and
managed fertilizer application. The project will be implemented in all three countries by a
team of national NGOs. At each site at the beginning of the demonstration project soil,
water and crop samples will be taken for testing to establish the levels of nutrients, agro-
chemicals and other contaminants in the system. Farmers from surrounding communities
will be invited to observe the project and a series of trainings will be designed in support
of replication projects elsewhere.
100.
In addition to the PIDPs, a series of stakeholder specific training activities will be
implemented, intended to raise awareness of the importance of river system health and
the impacts of certain stakeholder groups on the environment. The activities will be
implemented through the NGO Forum and will include, inter alia:
· Outreach support for public health care providers through development and
distribution of information on water borne illnesses, proper methods for potable water
treatment, sanitation, and malaria prevention where appropriate;
· Training for farmers and pastoralists on impacts of their activities on the river system,
including grazing in floodplains and cultivation of river banks, linked to and
expanding on the PIDP in improved farming methods; and
27
· Outreach to river communities for cleanup of local river banks of solid wastes and to
increase awareness of the problems with unregulated dumping.
Deliverables:
· Further inclusion of the NGO Forum in project activities with linkages to any future
KAEP
· Reports on inputs and recommendations for the stakeholder advisory group
· Report on lessons learned from implementation of NGO led artificial wetlands
construction in communities and benefits measured
· Report on lessons learned from implementation of NGO led project on improved
farming methods and benefits measured
· Stakeholder training exercises conducted and results measured
COMPONENT 5: CONFLICTING WATER USE DEMONSTRATIONS
101.
In order to catalyze activities for the SAP and implement the concept of IWRM
regionally, the project will implement two demonstration projects in the basin. The
projects will be designed to be replicable throughout the basin and beyond and will be
accompanied by a strong results dissemination programme. The projects were selected
and developed by the countries during the preliminary TDA development and correspond
to priority activities identified by the basin countries. The demonstration projects are
summarized below and the full draft project documents are given in Section IV.
Activities
5.1: Pilot demonstrations setting of ecological flows at key locations in the Kura-
Aras basin to establish bounds for water resource development
5.2 The introduction of cleaner production approaches at key industrial
manufacturing hotspots in Yerevan, and mining hot-spots in the Syunik province
of Armenia, to be linked to strengthened regulatory framework.
102.
A demonstration project of ecological flows in the Kura-Aras basin will be
undertaken, to establish an agreed methodology for setting environmental limits of water
resource utilization. Increasing demand on water resources due to accelerated economic
activities in the basin is predicted to arise in the next twenty years as the basin countries
emerge from economic transition. In addition, extensive deforestation and conflicting
water use has affected the hydrological flow regime with significant transboundary
consequences. The setting of ecological flows is important for preservation of ecological
services in the basin and prevention of further deterioration of water dependant
ecosystems. Severe water deficit has not occurred in the basin to date, but negative
impacts of variation and reduction of flow on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems have
already been observed. In addition, altered annual distribution of river runoff impacted
has impacted migratory fish species and the flooded forest ecosystems (see component 2).
103.
Two sites will be selected, one on the upper Kura (Georgia) and one in the lower
basin (Azerbaijan). Selection of the sites will depend upon the monitoring record and
existing monitoring facilities. The project design will be finalized in the first three months
in an inception report, which will include a review of state-of-the-art methodologies for
setting EF and an appropriate methodology for testing and selection of the pilot sites,
based on an agreed set of criteria. The focus will be on toxic substances and discharges
from industrial and mining enterprises. The study will undertake a baseline data
collection programme; assess the flow and non-flow/ anthropogenic related impacts on
the river and the likely outcome of their possible amelioration; and, design of a long-term
28
monitoring programme to assess the efficacy of any environmental flow and/or other
management interventions that have been implemented. The demonstration project will
establish two stakeholder advisory forums which will hold regular meetings and inform
the project implementation. A socio-economic study of the impact of flow scenarios will
be conducted and the results incorporated into the design and implementation of the long-
term monitoring programme.
104.
Working with the regulatory authorities and industrial enterprises, the second
demonstration project will develop and test a Water Quality Standards system (WQSs)
in the Aras basin. The WQSs will consistent with the EU Water Framework Directive to
which all three basin countries are committed and be applicable and implementable given
current economic conditions in the region. Compromises in methodology will need to be
sought and the economic implications of any systems carefully evaluated. Uniform
emission or discharge standards may be applied in a specific area (emission approach) or
based on the pertinent ambient water quality standards (water quality approach) or on the
best available technology (BAT), best practicable technology (BPT) or the best available
technology not involving excessive costs (BATNIEC). A combined approach implies that
minimum uniform emission standards are set and that stricter standards are applied if the
quality of the receiving water so requires, or if the way the water is used requires higher
standards (e.g. for maintaining a delicate ecosystem). Specific regulatory instruments can
also be used to protect aquatic ecosystems and riparian habitats, and for the rehabilitation
of water resources. Pilot sites will be selected in order to test a range of these various
combinations.
105.
The challenge will be to design a `Water Quality Standards' system which is
immediately affordable and applicable by the Caucasus states and the polluting
enterprises, and that can be gradually tightened made stricter and more rigid - bringing
it into line with the best international practice. A possible option would be setting
minimum standards for receiving waters based on a low percentile of BAT gradually
increasing until BAT is achieved (for instance 10% percentile rising to 20% in year 4 and
40% in year 8). The costs of setting discharge standards based BAT and different levels
of emission standards will need to be evaluated to determine the potential speed of
application. This demonstration project will be implemented in close coordination with
the EU TACIS project.
106.
The two demonstration projects will be subject to regularly monitoring and in the
last quarter of project implementation a series of workshops to disseminate the findings
from all three demonstration projects will be held at the basin-wide level. Intermediate
and final findings from the pilots will be fed into the TDA/SAP process.
Deliverables:
· Agreed methodology for setting Ecological Flows in the Kura-Aras basin.
· Demonstration of water quality management systems applicable for the Kura-Aras
basin, focusing on toxic substances and discharges from industrial and mining
enterprises.
COMPONENT 6: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
107.
The project management structure will be established in order to facilitate optimal
coordination with the various donor projects under any KAEP umbrella and between the
GEF project components.
29
108.
The Project Management structure (see Organigram section IV, part III) will build
upon the foundations established during the preparatory phase. The Steering committee,
and appointed NFPs will continue to function providing continuity, although it is
anticipated there will be a transition to a KAEP Steering Committee, once agreed and
established. The regional project coordinating unit (PCU) will be established in Tbilisi,
and will comprise a full time CTA with a back ground in IWRM and a water Scientific
Officer (hydrologist or chemist) and an Economist. There will be an office manager and a
part time administrative secretary. All other consultants will be part-time. Wherever
appropriate the office will be staffed from experts from the region. The office will be
supplied with basic equipment necessary for the functioning of the project, including
computers, copy machines and other materials as needed and appropriate.
109.
Within the establishment of the project management structure, the PCU will have the
responsibility of coordinating the inception meeting for the project, and all steering
committee meetings. The closer the collaborative the relationship between the PCU and
the Steering Committee, the more positive the project outcomes achieved; the onus
therefore this lies with the PCU which will be responsible to arranging meetings,
providing materials to members prior to the meeting, and delineating a clear set of
objectives and sub-objectives to be met within the scope of the project. The Steering
Committee will be responsible for providing institutional guidance to the project, as well
as oversight of all activities and outcomes.
110.
The Stakeholder Advisory Group (SHAG) will meet regularly to provide input and
support to the project development. The SHAG will convene prior to Steering Committee
Meetings to provide feedback, recommendations, comments and critique of the project
development. The inputs from the SHAG will be incorporated into the project
development, including the TDA, SAP, demonstration projects and public involvement
activities whenever possible.
111.
Coordination of donor funding for the project will be managed through the Friends of
the Project Group made up on partner donor organizations. This group will meet
approximately every 6 months concurrent with the meeting of the project Steering
Committee.
112.
The management component will coordinate with the implementing agency for the
project monitoring and evaluation at the six quarter of the project for the mid-term review
and the final review. The implementing agency will be responsible for hiring the
independent evaluator and who will review project progress against the logistical
framework indicators.
Deliverables:
· Project Coordination Unit (PCU) established
· Stakeholder Advisory Group Input Reports
· Friends of the Programme Coordination reports
· Website and information management system
· Inception and Steering Committee Meeting reports
Project Indicators
113. As noted in the Strategic Results Framework in Section IV, there are a significant
number of indicators for this project. The indicators focus on outcomes that lead to
improved conditions, through processes and that are reflected in the project. The key
project indicators focus on preparation of the TDA and development of the SAP and
30
NAPs are largely focused on the processes, although there are some environmental status
indicators (ESIs) and stress reduction indicators (SRIs) related to the demonstration
projects (see SRF).
114. The first indicator is establishment and number of meetings of the KAEP (2 times per
year) and number of coordinated initiatives (at least three) in concert with national
institutions and donors for implementation of IWRM principles in the basin. The sub
indicators include: number of project stakeholders using GIS-based Information
Management System; number of stakeholders using project website; number of hits on
the website and amount of information distributed; the number of organizations endorsing
the KAEP; support from KEAP members for work plan, number of components supports;
Technical Working Groups KAEP membership roster and agendas; and, the number of
Interministerial committees meeting regularly
115. The second indicator is a finalized TDA with the number of studies conducted to fill
gaps and number of interventions identified. The sub indicators include: completed TDA
with gaps filled for water quantity, hydrological flow data, land-based source of pollution,
etc.; the environmental and Water Resources Status baseline; the long-term SAP M&E, to
be carried out in close coordination with EU Tacis Kura-Aras project; agreement on final
priority TB issues; identified immediate and root causes; the final TDA revised and
updated; the number of copies of Final TDA disseminated; and, the number of visitors to
webpage with Final TDA.
116. The third indicator is budget commitments at regional and national level to SAP, NAPs
and strengthened IWRM Plans, agreement on the M&E framework, the number of
coordinated policies. The sub indicators include: the number of Ministries endorsing SAP
in each country; support for SAP from Steering Committee; the percent of NAP and
National IWRM plans budget committed by governments; the number of P, SR, and ES
indicators agreed to within the M&E Framework; the number of donors attending
conference held to mobilize resources for SAP and IWRM implementation; and, the
amount pledged by donors at conference.
117. The fourth indicator is the number of Stakeholder groups involved in water resource
planning process, the number of Public awareness events or publications; and the range of
Stakeholders involved in project activities. The sub indicators include: the number of
attendees at the Kura-Aras NGO Forum and number of meetings held; the NGO Forum
Representative Attendance at Project and KAEP Steering Committee meetings; the
number of Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings and number of inputs/recommendations
at each meeting; number of stakeholder groups represented in the Stakeholder Advisory
Group; the number of Communities participating in activities for improved water
conditions; and the number of awareness raising and education activities for
Stakeholders.
118. The fifth indicator is the number of guidelines for water resources management
developed and implemented in the countries. The sub indicators include: (A) Pilot
demonstrations for the Kura-Aras basin to establish bounds for water resource
development and the number of guidelines setting of ecological flows at key locations in
established; and the (B) the number of Water Quality Standards and the regulatory
framework revisions developed and timeframe for implementation.
Risks
and
Assumptions
119.
There are a number of risks inherent in this project indicative of the region and their
acknowledgement enables us to gauge project success.
31
Risk Risk Risk Mitigation Measure
rating
Strong and high level
M
Increasing political commitment from the
government commitment
countries towards regional cooperation to manage
is not sustained
the natural resources exists manifested in
multilateral and bilateral agreements, including
bilateral negotiations between Georgia and
Azerbaijan on water sharing, regional discussions
on the formation of the KAEP. The project should
ensure good information flow to the political
decision makers regarding the economic value and
importance of the basin's water resources and the
need to manage them collectively..
Low acceptance of the
M
The basin countries have indicated a willingness to
TDA/SAP/NAPs process
work within the TDA/SAP/NAP process and have
by the participating
already prepared a TDA and preliminary SAP;
governments
however, it is not clear what level of inter-sectoral
coordination is currently on-going. The project
will assist the countries to improve coordination at
the national level and regional level through the
IWRM plans and SAP to ensure political buy-in
from all the relevant sectors throughout the
TDA/SAP process.
Bi-lateral relations
M
Relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan remain
between basin states may
tense and the project management will have to be
impact on project
constantly sensitive to this issue and consult
implementation.
regularly with the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in
both countries
The transboundary
M
During the TDA development the countries of the
priorities vary between
Aras basin expressed their wish, as a first step to
countries in the Kura and
the introduction of IWRM, to focus on water
Aras basins and may
quality issues which are seen as a priority and
hinder SAP agreement
more problematic than water quantity issues,
which are currently dealt on a bilaterally basis
through historical agreements. This situation
contrast with the situation in the Kura where both
sets of issues are critical.
Currently planned
M
Project through the TDA/SAP process will assist
interventions will not
the riparian countries to the build management
bring effective results due
flexibility needed to adapt to the most severe
to adverse effects of
climate change scenarios.
Climate Change
120.
Concurrently to the risks listed above there are a series of assumed conditions that are
requisite for success of the project. Awareness of these assumptions and their potential to
destabilize the process if not met strengthens the over all project management.
121.
Full support of governments and sectors it is assumed that the approval by the
governments of full support from all sectors including those ministries and agencies that
may have competing or alternate strategies for maximizing their own agendas. The
reliance on the intersectoral committees as well as the clear requirement for national
financial commitments through the NAPs and IWRM plans shall be stressed through out
the project and will be critical to overcoming the problems posed by this assumption.
122.
Acceptance of and reliance on scientific method to define problems in the region
within project, which will more explore the causes of problems impacting river system
32
health, there is an assumed acceptance of and reliance on the scientific methods
employed. The high level technical capabilities throughout the region support this
acceptance..
123.
Continued national and international support and enthusiasm for project while there
is strong ongoing support for the project at the national and international levels, it is
assumed that this will not diminish due to political or economic shifts. However, as this
may occur the project priorities and flexibility can adjust without collapsing and continue
to function.
Expected global, national and local benefits
124.
The global environmental benefits will be achieved through the use of Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM) policies that have been identified as the answer
to balancing competing and conflicting uses of water resources to inform and consider
tradeoffs being made in socio-economic development objectives and ecosystem
protection. The project will establish an enabling framework for the preservation of
transboundary water resources in an extremely political sensitive area facing challenges
from reduction of hydrological flow, deterioration of water quality; ecosystem
degradation in the river basin; and increased flooding and bank erosion. Additional global
benefits will be achieved through the maintenance of the hydrological flows and patterns,
and riverine environment that are important in the conservation of natural spawning
grounds of the sturgeon and other anadromous fishes of the Caspian Sea. Through
linkages with the well-established Caspian Environment Programme, the Kura-Aras
project could serve as a pilot towards broadening of the CEP to a truly basin-wide
management framework similar, to what has emerged with GEF assistance in the
Danube-Black Sea.
125.
The global benefits of this project extend to the preservation of the unique ecosystem
of the Caucasus eco-region, increasing political stability through environmental
cooperation in a geopolitically sensitive area, and testing activities that can be replicated
elsewhere for integrated transboundary water management. The challenge in this project
is the development of harmonized policies among nations who are at varying stages of
development, with wide ranging priorities pertaining to water use. This situation can be
found throughout the world in shared water basins and presents international, regional
and local decision makers with a unique set of options ranging between meeting the most
immediate and dire needs to considering long term sustainable actions needed for
sustainable water resource utilization. By trialing a number of innovative strategies, as
well as employing proven coordination mechanisms this project will take an array of
options into account and will devise a set of realistic activities and objectives that can be
realistically met by the participating countries. The lessons learned from this can be
translated to many of shared water systems and it is expected that refinement of the
strategies will enable this and other projects to develop more fully in the future.
126.
National the national benefits will include an improvement in water quality and
water quantity management strategies, monitoring programmes and coordination with
neighboring countries. Through prioritized objectives and increased policy
harmonization, resources can be combined and will not need to be replicated at the
national level alone. Countries can benefit from improved co-management of resources
and through long term sustainable development of water in the region. Benefits will
include increase monitoring reliability, decrease impacts of significant flooding damages
to infrastructure and economic development, increased activities of public, civil society
and stakeholders in addressing water resource management challenges..
33
127.
Local the local benefits will be improved conditions in water system health,
including improved quality and quantity availability, as well as defined activities that can
be undertaken by communities themselves to improve conditions. The local communities
within the river basin are aware of challenges created by the status quo pertaining to
water management, but lack the skills to empower them to improve their own conditions.
By collaborating with civil society, and project staff, the local beneficiaries will gain a
sense of control over their local circumstances, increase the ability to address these and
learn from other stakeholders in neighboring countries. This opportunity will provide
other communities and stakeholders with examples of low cost activities that can be
undertaken to improve conditions pertaining to their impacts on and impacts from
regional water management issues.
Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness
128.
All countries in the region are committed to sustainably managing water resources
and this commitment is reflected in national development and environment policies and
plans, including MDG-based Poverty Reduction and Development Strategies, and
National Environmental Action Programmes. Moreover, these policies and plans give due
emphasis to the management and protection of the Kura and Aras rivers and the
importance of the IWRM approach in achieving the objectives. Each of the countries has
a growing non-governmental community and academic sector to complement the work of
governmental organisations in this sector. Over the past ten years, working with the
World Bank and USAID, Armenia has greatly strengthened its water and environmental
policy, legislation and planning process based on the IWRM approach and it is now
entering into an aggressive investment phase. The other Caucasus countries would like to
develop similar programmes and both Azerbaijan and Georgia have requested assistance
from UNDP in the development of National IWRM plans as a first stage. Striving for
accession to the European Union, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have signed with the
EU the European Neighborhood Policy Action Plans (2006). Under these plans each of
the countries is committed "to identify possibilities with neighboring countries for
enhanced regional co-operation, in particular with regard to water issues". Under
Individual Partnership Action Plans with NATO the countries have committed to
participate with their neighbors in the Science for Peace project on transboundary impact
of pollution on the environment. The three countries are also committed to approximation
to the EU Water Framework Directive and its future implementation.
129.
Also, the South Caucasus countries participate intensively in:
· the EU Water Initiative EECCA (Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia)
Component, which seeks to improve the management of water resources in the
EECCA region (Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia) through a
partnership established between EU and the EECCA countries at the World
Summit for Sustainable Development in 2002;
· the Global Water Partnership, a working partnership among all those involved in
water management: government agencies, public institutions, private companies,
professional organizations, multilateral development agencies and others
committed to the Dublin-Rio principles consisting of a partnership created by the
World Bank,;
· and, the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) in which UNDP,
http://www.unep.ch/roe/UNEP, OSCE, NATO, UNECE and REC have joined
forces in ENVSEC to offer countries their combined pool of expertise and
resources towards the aim of peacefully resolving the overriding political,
economic and social concerns of our time, including mechanisms to address the
links between the natural environment and human security.
34
Project Linkages to National Priorities, Action Plans, and Programs:
130.
All countries in the region are committed to sustainably managing water resources
and this commitment is reflected in national development and environment policies and
plans, including Poverty Reduction and Development Strategies, Millennium
Development Goals, National Environmental Action Programmes. Moreover, these
policies and plans give due emphasis to the management and protection of the Kura and
Aras rivers. Each participating country has also established legal and institutional
frameworks for managing water resources, the mandates of which cover the Kura-Aras
river basin. Finally, each of the countries has a growing non-governmental community
and academic sector to complement the work of governmental organisations in this
sector.
Sub-Regional Level Policies and Cooperation
131.
The Kura-Aras basin countries recognize the importance of transboundary
cooperation and are trying to address priority transboundary issues with neighbouring
countries. Following the break-up of the former Soviet Union, the existing mechanisms
for cooperation, joint water management, and information sharing in the region has
deteriorated, although there are still a number of bilateral agreements that continue to
function, particularly between the Islamic Republic of Iran and its neighbours. Though
most of the treaties were adopted by the former Soviet Union, Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia consider themselves to be successor states of the Union and are thus bound by
them.
132.
An agreement exists between Armenia and Iran on the joint utilization of the frontier
parts of the Aras River for irrigation, power generation and domestic use. This agreement
from 1957 provides the legal foundation for the current preparatory work for the joint
development of two hydropower plants on the Aras River. An agreement also exists
between Iran and Azerbaijan, which distributes the use of the transboundary River Aras
in equal proportions.
133.
Before the break-up of the Soviet Union, water issues within the Soviet Union were
dealt with centrally through decisions adopted amongst ministers of the Soviet states.
Accordingly, decisions and agreements were made between Armenia and Georgia on the
use of the Debed River and between Armenia and Azerbaijan on the use of the Arpa,
Vorotan, Aghstev and Tavoush rivers. These decisions and agreements have generally
been accepted by the former Soviet States and honored in practice to date.
134.
Bilateral co-operation agreements were developed between Armenia and Georgia and
between Azerbaijan and Georgia and were signed in 1998. Since then, there have been a
growing number of inter-country initiatives in the environmental field at project,
technical and bilateral levels. In 1997, the Georgian Ministry of Environment, with the
support of the EU TACIS Programme, took the initiative to promote cooperation on a
range of environmental issues in the region.
135.
Striving for accession to the European Union, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have
signed with the EU the European Neighborhood Policy Action Plans (2006). Under these
plans each of the countries is committed "to identify possibilities with neighboring
countries for enhanced regional co-operation, in particular with regard to water issues".
Under Individual Partnership Action Plans with NATO the countries have committed to
participate with their neighbors in the Science for Peace project on Environmental Impact
35
of Pollutants in a Trans-Boundary Context objective of conducting an assessment of
trans-boundary impact on environmental pollution in a regional context.
136.
Also, the countries participate intensively in the EU Water Initiative EECCA
Component, a partnership that seeks to improve the management of water resources in the
EECCA region (Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia) to support a partnership
established between EU and the EECCA countries at the World Summit for Sustainable
Development in 2002; the Global Water Partnership, a working partnership among all
those involved in water management: government agencies, public institutions, private
companies, professional organizations, multilateral development agencies and others
committed to the Dublin-Rio principles consisting of a partnership created by the World
Bank, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Swedish International
Development Agency (SIDA) in 1996; and, the Environment and Security Initiative
(ENVSEC) in which UNDP, http://www.unep.ch/roe/UNEP, OSCE, NATO, UNECE
and REC have joined forces in the Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative to
offer countries their combined pool of expertise and resources towards the aim of
peacefully resolving the overriding political, economic and social concerns of our time,
including mechanisms to address the links between the natural environment and human
security.
137.
In addition to the bilateral agreements, international environmental treaties and
conventions also bind Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Other Agreements listed in
Section IV, Part 1 show that there are several conventions that all four countries have
signed and ratified, which can be considered a good basis for transboundary cooperation.
Sustainability
138.
This project will be sustained through the support mechanisms that are being
incorporated in its development. The Kura-Aras Environment Programme will bring
together funders interested in supporting and coordinating work within the region. This
will serve to provide an incentive to countries to continue and bolster support of the
project, as gains are realized. The project will work with the countries in developing a
financial strategy for the sustainability of the KAEP. Within the SAP and NAPs there will
be built-in monitoring and evaluation mechanisms which will allow the countries to track
future implementation at regional and importantly national levels. These systems will also
allow countries to more accurately adapt their plans to current socio-economic conditions
and national priorities. The adoption of the NAPs, as part of national IWRM plans, and
the SAP by the national Governments at the highest level will be major objective in
ensuring project sustainability alongside support for their implementation by the
international community at the donor conference.
Replicability and innovation
139.
The project is designed to be replicated at multiple levels. At the international level,
the development of a regional coordination mechanism, in the form of the KAEP,
focusing on transboundary water issues as a prelude to strengthen water governance will
if successful serve as a model for other transboundary water projects in similar politically
sensitive regions. The KAEP will also demonstrate how to integrate and coordinate a
disparate set of international support projects, bringing them together with common
objectives, spelt out in the SAP, and concurrent timelines. At the national level, the
development of National Action Plans tied to IWRM plans, with the strengthening of
interministerial and stakeholder dialogue, will increase economic and political support for
the SAP development and implementation. The formal institutionalization of the
36
exchange of information, and interlinked reliance of components within this project stress
the importance of national and regional policy harmonization. At the local level, the
public involvement demonstration projects and stakeholder involvement activities are
designed to be supported initially by the project, but with ultimately communities
themselves taking responsibility to maintain and replicate the project outputs and
outcomes.
PART III: Management Arrangements
140.
The idea of a Kura-Aras Environmental Programme (KAEP) has gained support
amongst the countries and is to be developed further with the donors in the next few
months under the ENVSEC project. If established the KAEP will require a larger Steering
Committee than the project and this enlargement would be supported by the project. The
project CTA will act as the Programme Coordinator for the nascent KAEP in the initial
three years and the project will provide secretariat services to the programme (see
component 6 for more detail).
141.
There will be a small PCU based (probably) in Tbilisi, with an international CTA and
two international/regional experts, a Scientific Officer and an Economist. All other
technical staff will be national - maximum staffing of the PCU will be five persons. In
each capital there will be a National Project Coordinator who will report to the National
Focal Point.
142.
The lead UNDP country office will be Georgia and the United Nations Office for
Project Services in Copenhagen will be the Executing Agency. In order to accord proper
acknowledgement to GEF for providing funding, a GEF logo will appear on all relevant
GEF project publications. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by GEF
should also accord proper acknowledgment to GEF.
PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget
131. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established
UNDP and GEF procedures by the project team and the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating
Unite (RCU) in Bratislava. The Logical Framework Matrix provides impact and outcome
indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification.
The M&E plan includes: inception report, project implementation reviews, quarterly
operational reports, a mid-term and final evaluation, etc. Annex 6 outlines indicative cost
estimates related to M&E activities. The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be
presented and finalized at the Project's Inception Meeting following a collective fine-tuning
of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E
responsibilities.
Project Inception Phase
132. A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant
government counterparts, co-financing partners, the RCU, as well as UNDP-CO and GEF
(HQs) as appropriate. A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist
the project team to understand and take ownership of the project's goals and objectives, as
well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's
logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification,
assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize
the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a
manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. Additionally, the purpose and
objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the
37
UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely
OPS and responsible RCU staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary
responsibilities of OPS and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed
overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with
particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related
documentation, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an
opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget
reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all
parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-
making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution
mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be
discussed again, as needed in order to clarify for all, each party's responsibilities during the
project's implementation phase.
Monitoring responsibilities and events
133. A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by the project
management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder
representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i)
tentative time frames for Steering Committee Meetings, or other relevant advisory and/or
coordination mechanisms and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.
134. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the
Project Manager based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project
Team will inform UNDP of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the
appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.
The Project Manager will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the
project in consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from
the RCU. Specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators together with
their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess
whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will
form part of the Annual Work Plan. The local implementing agencies will also take part in the
Inception Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be established.
Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal
evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team.
135. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the RCU through
quarterly telephone meetings with the project local implementation group, or more frequently
as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems
pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project
activities. The RCU will conduct yearly visits to projects that have field sites, or more often
based on an agreed upon scheduled to be detailed in the project's Inception Report/Annual
Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee
can also accompany, as decided by the PSC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the
RCU and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all PSC
members, and UNDP-GEF.
136. Annual Monitoring will be ensured by means of the project Steering Committee (PSC)
meetings9 being the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the
implementation of a project. PSC meetings will be held at least once every year. The first
9 A SCM mechanism as such is similar to the Tripartite Review (TPR) formally required for the
UNDP/GEF projects, and differs from the latter only in the composition of the review panel, which, in
case of the SC, is broader that that of the TPR.
38
such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation.
The project implementation team will prepare a harmonized Annual Project Report and
Project Implementation Review (APR/PIR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF
regional office at least two weeks prior to the PSC for review and comments. The APR/PIR
will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the PSC meeting. The project
proponent will present the APR to the SC, highlighting policy issues and recommendations
for the decision of the PSC members. The project proponent also informs the participants of
any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR/PIR preparation on how to resolve
operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if
necessary.
Project Monitoring Reporting
137. The Project Manager in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be
responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the
monitoring process.
138. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception
Workshop. It will include a detailed First Year Work Plan divided in quarterly time frames
detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first
year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits, support
missions from the RCU or consultants, as well as time frames for meetings of the project's
decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the
first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and
including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project
performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame. The Inception Report will include a
more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and
feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on
progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed
external conditions that may effect project implementation. When finalized the report will be
circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which
to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, the RCU will review
the document.
139. The APR/PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF10. It has become an
essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle
for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. It also forms a part of UNDP's central
oversight, monitoring and project management, as well as represents a key issue for the
discussion at the Steering Committee meetings. Once the project has been under
implementation for a year, an APR/PIR must be completed by the RCU together with the
project implementation team, including GEF International Waters Annual Project
Performance Results template.. The APR/PIR can be prepared any time during the year (July-
June) and ideally prior to the SCM. The APR/PIR should then be discussed at the SCM so
that the result would be an APR/PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the executing
agency, and the key stakeholders. The individual APR/PIRs are collected, reviewed and
analysed by the RCs prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF
headquarters.
140. Quarterly Progress reports: Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will
be provided quarterly to the RCU by the project team based upon a standard format to be
provided by UNDP-GEF.
10 The GEF M&E Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. In light of the similarities of both
APR (standard UNDP requirement) and PIR (GEF format), UNDP/GEF has prepared a harmonized
format - an APR/PIR
39
141. As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the project
team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity.
The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form by
UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports
can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as
troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered.
UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are
necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.
142. During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project
Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and
outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved, structures and systems
implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project's activities during its
lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken
to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project's activities.
Independent Evaluation
143. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as
follows:
144. An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the mid of the third year of
implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the
achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the
effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues
requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design,
implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as
recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project's term.
The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided
after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for
this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the PCU based on guidance from the Regional
Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.
145. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal
Steering Committee meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation.
The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the
contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals.
The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The
Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the PCU based on guidance from
the RCU and UNDP-GEF.
Audit Clause
146. The project will be audited in accordance with UNDP Financial Regulations
and Rules and Audit policies.
TABLE H-1: INDICATIVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION WORK PLAN AND
CORRESPONDING BUDGET
Table - Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget
Type of M&E
Responsible Parties
Budget US$
Time frame
activity
Excluding project staff
time
Inception
Project Manager
Budget US$
Within first two
Workshop &
UNDP CO
Excluding project staff
months of project
40
Type of M&E
Responsible Parties
Budget US$
Time frame
activity
Excluding project staff
time
associated
UNDP GEF
time
start up
arrangements
Project Team
Immediately
Inception Report
UNDP CO
Indicative cost: 10,000 following IW
Consultancy support if needed
Measurement of
Project Manager will oversee
Start, mid and end
Means of
the hiring for specific studies
of project
Indicative cost
5,000
Verification for
and institutions, delegate
(stakeholder
Project Purpose
responsibilities to relevant
consultations,
Indicators
team members, and
consultancy translation)
Ensure hiring outside experts if
deemed necessary
Measurement of
Oversight by Project GEF
To be finalized in
Annually prior to
Means of
Technical Advisor and Project
Inception Phase and
APR/PIR and to
Verification for
Manager
Workshop. Indicative
the definition of
Project Progress
Measurements by regional
cost
None annual work plans
and Performance
field officers and local IAs
(measured on an
annual basis)
APR/PIR, IW RT,
Project Team
To be determined as part
Annually
GEF 4IW
UNDP-CO
of the Annual Work
Tracking Tool.
UNDP-GEF
Plan's preparation.
Indicative cost
None
Steering
Project Manager
Indicative cost:
None Following Project
Committee
UNDP CO
IW and
Meetings and
subsequently at
relevant meeting
least once a year
proceedings
(minutes)
Quarterly status
Project team
Indicative cost: 30,000 To be determined
reports
(travel costs for relevant
by Project team
project stakeholders)
and UNDP CO
Technical reports
Project team
Indicative cost:
None To be determined
Hired consultants as needed
by Project Team
and UNDP-CO
Project
Project team
Indicative cost:
None To be determined
Publications (e.g.
Hired consultants as needed
by Project Team
technical manuals,
and UNDP-CO
field guides)
Mid-term External
Project team
Indicative cost:
None At the mid-point
Evaluation
UNDP- CO
of project
UNDP-GEF RCU
implementation.
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
Final External
Project team,
Indicative cost: 10,000 At the end of
Evaluation
UNDP-CO
project
UNDP-GEF RCU
implementation
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
Terminal Report
Project team
Indicative cost: 15,000 At least one month
UNDP-CO
before the end of
41
Type of M&E
Responsible Parties
Budget US$
Time frame
activity
Excluding project staff
time
External Consultant
the project
Lessons learned
Project team
Yearly
UNDP-GEF RCU (suggested
Indicative cost:
None
formats for documenting best
practices, etc)
Audit
UNDP-CO
Yearly
Indicative cost:
3,000
Project team
Visits to field sites
UNDP Country Office
Yearly
(UNDP staff travel
UNDP-GEF RCU (as
Indicative cost: 18,000
to be charged to
appropriate)
(average $6000 per year)
IA fees)
Government representatives
TOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project team
Indicative cost: 9,000
staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses
(average one visit per
year)
US$ 100,000
LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
143.
Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project
intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums.
In addition:
144.
The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored
networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common
characteristics. UNDP/GEF, IW:LEARN etc. have established a number of networks,
such as IWRM, lake and river basin management, Integrated Ecosystem Management,
eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely function on the basis of an electronic
platform. Additionally the project will contribute to IW:LEARN experience note
preparation, website and participation of the Project CTA and (2) country representatives
in IW Conferences. Approximately 1% of the project budget will be spent on IW:LEARN
activities.
145.
The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific,
policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project
implementation though lessons learned.
146.
The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial
in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identifying and analyzing
lessons learned is an on- going process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one
of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently
than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team
in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage
of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities
PART V: Legal Context
147.
For all three participating countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, this Project
Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic
Assistance Agreement (SBAA) between these governments and the United Nations
Development Programme, signed by the parties previously. The host countries'
42
implementing agencies shall, for the purpose of the SBAA, refer to the governments'
cooperating agencies described in that Agreement. .
148.
The UNDP Resident Representative in Georgia is authorized to effect in writing the
following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified the
agreement thereto by the UNDP-GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the
Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes:
149.
Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document;
150.
Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives,
outputs or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs
already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation;
151.
Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or
increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure
flexibility; and
152.
Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project
Document
43
SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
Goal: The overall goal of the Project is to contribute to improved management of the Kura-Aras River Basin's trans-boundary water resources through Integrated Water
Resource Management (IWRM) approaches that remediate threats and root causes.
Purpose
1. Agreement and
Though initial
· A programme
· All countries are equally engaged
(Objective):
establishment of the
activities have been
Establishment of the KAEP.
framework and
in the operation of KAEP
KAEP. Number of
started, there is not yet
workplan
· Millennium Sustainable
To create an
meetings 2 times per
any formal agreement
At least 4 meetings of KAEP
· Technical
Development Targets can be met
enabling
year and coordinated
on the regional
working groups
while still developing water
framework for the
at least 3 initiatives in
management of the
At least 3 coordinated initiatives
rosters
resources in the basin in a sustainable
long-term,
concert with national
Kura-Aras River Basin
· Information
manner.
sustainable
institutions and donors environment. The
management System
integrated
for implementation of
Kura-Aras countries
active and number of
management of the IWRM principles in
have indicated a
hits tracked
Kura-Aras River
the basin
willingness to support
· KAEP meeting
Basin following
the creation of a Kura-
minutes
IWRM principles
Aras Environment
· Number of
Programme that will
coordinated
enable them to
initiatives
coordinate donor
activities through out
the region and
harmonize water use
policies. This
willingness should be
encouraged, and
formalized so that
governments and
donors can collaborate
towards sustainable
44
development
2. Finalized TDA with The preliminary TDA
· 4 Gap filling
· Willingness of countries and
the number of studies
conducted during the
Completed TDA with at least 4
assessments on water stakeholders to accept objective
conducted to fill gaps
preparatory stage, is
gaps filled on water quantity,
quantity,
findings of the TDA
and number of
based on desk studies
hydrological flow data, land-based hydrological flow
interventions
produced by the GEF
source of pollution, and
data, land-based
identified
team. This work has
biodiversity.
source of pollution
identified a number of
and biodiversity
knowledge gaps to be
Identification of at least 10 short,
· Updated and
filled, some of which
medium and long term
revised TDA
will be addressed by
interventions and pre-feasibility
endorsed by the
GEF in the full size
studies of priority interventions
countries.
project, including
identified from TDA
· Revised CCA
water quantity,
· Pre-feasibility
hydrological flow data,
studies
land-based source of
· TDA disseminated
pollution, etc.
widely
At present there is no
Amount from national budgets
· SAP endorsed and · Appropriateness of
3. Budget
regional basin wide
(total intersectoral) and donors
signed by countries
recommendations based on TDA
commitments at
management or legal
allocated to support SAP and NAP · NAPS budget
· Political will to introduce
regional and national
framework and there is IWRM plans
committed to by
IWRM approach and endorse
level to SAP, NAPs
no coherent unified
governments
the NAPs
and IWRM Plans
regional donor
· Strengthened
initiative through
· Technical capacity exists in the
IWRM plans agreed
Number of agreements which IWRM approach Formal commitment to
·
responsible planning authorities to
Financial
on accepted M&E
can be applied. The
Monitoring and Evaluation
develop the IWRM plans
commitments from
framework
donor supported
Framework in place
governments and
attempts to bring
donor organizations
Number of
together the countries
At least 4 coordinated policies
to support SAP and
coordinated policies
to discuss potential
from between all countries
NAP implementation
collaborative
· M &E framework
45
mechanisms have so
agreed
far been of limited
success. Armenia with
the support of the WB
and USAID has
developed new water
legislation and a
national water resource
plan, which has begun
to implement, but
Georgia and
Azerbaijan are still at
the initial planning
stages. IWRM is a goal
for all three countries
which has yet to be
realized at the national
level and visualized at
the regional level.
4. Number of
There is a little or no
At least 10 stakeholder groups
· Stakeholder
· Stakeholder available and willing
Stakeholder groups
high level, multi
involved in water resource
Advisory Group
to participate and effectiveness of
involved in water
stakeholder
planning.
meeting regularly
awareness raising campaigns
resource planning
involvement in the
· NGO Forum
· Ongoing cooperation among
process
water resource
At least 15 Public awareness
Meetings regularly
NGOs
planning process, at the events each year, etc
and regionally
Number of Public
heart of the IWRM
strengthened
awareness events or
approach. There is a
At least 2 NGO Forum Meetings
· Education and
publications. Number
lack of knowledge
held
public awareness
of Stakeholders
within civil society
raising activities
involvement in project regarding the water
At least 3 communities actively
implemented
activities;
resource issues and a
involved in water improvement
· Public
clear need for public
projects
Involvement
awareness raising and
Demonstration
targeted education
Project reports
programmes.
46
5. Number of
There are no agreed
At least 2 regional guidelines
· Reports from
· There is sufficient time to
guidelines for water
regional guidelines and developed and implemented by
demonstration
resources management objectives for
year 2 of the project
projects
implemented
establishing water
· Agree basin-wide
resource availability
methodology for
and quality within the
setting of ecological
basin at the regional
flows.
level. In theory and in
· Agreed Water
most part the Soviet
Quality objectives
standards and systems
and targets for
are still applied at the
realization based on
national level but the
emission standards
regulatory structures
and BAT.
are weak and incapable
· Lesson learned
of implementation. All
reports
three countries are
· Results replicated
committed to
in other parts of the
implementation of the
basin and in the
EU WFD and the
wider region.
IWRM approach but
which in the short-term
cannot economically
be achieved. The
countries need to find
approaches by which
they can establish
objectives and goals
for water resource
development which
can be achieved over
the medium to long
terms
OUTCOME 1:
1.1
There is a current lack
at least 12 stakeholders using the
· Management
· Management arrangements
Institutional
Number of project
of a mechanism for
GIS every month
arrangements put in
agreed and financially supported
strengthening of
stakeholders using GIS- sharing information
place
· Countries provide data and
47
Kura-Aras
based Information
within the basin, and
at least 30hits /month
· Meta-database
information freely.
Environmental
Management System.
across sectors and also
prepared
Programme
analysing data in an
at least 60 distinct web site users
· Common database
Number of stakeholders integrated manner.
each month
agreed
using project website
While there is high-
· QA and security
level capacity in some
at least 30 informational sites
protocols agreed
Number of hits on the
areas, there is also not
supplied with print information
· Web-site
website and amount of a database that is
operational and
information distributed accessible to all users
number of website
including multiple
hits recorded
government
· Distribution of
departments, academic
non-electronic
and scientific
information
communities, farmers,
conservationists,
NGOs, and others.
1.2 Number of
There are a large
At least all countries and 3 donor
· Clear mission for
· Countries able to come to full
organizations endorsing number of
organizations formally agreeing to KAEP articulated and agreement on mission of KAEP and
the KAEP
transboundary donor
support the KAEP
agreed
governance procedures
driven projects in the
· Signed KAEP
· Donors able to come to full
Kura-Aras region, but
Agreement /
agreement in support of KAEP and
they are only loosely
Declaration
able to coordinate activities in a
coordinated, and often
· Governance
meaningful way
working at cross
structures
purposes,
implemented
unintentionally
· Budget allocations
creating competition
committed for
between donors and
support of KAEP
sectors. In the absence
· KAEP Integrated
of a Convention and
work plan agreed
secretariat there is a
· Regular schedule
need for an
of meetings with
intergovernmental,
agendas developed
regionally owned
structure to coordinate
48
these activities.
1.3. Support from
There are currently
Agreement among all partners and · Work plan
· Ability of donors to reliably
KEAP members for
several bilateral and
countries to fund 3 priority actions · Agreement from
initiate projects at designated times
work plan, number of
multilateral partners
in work plan
all countries
· Ability of all parties to agree to
components supports
operating in the
· Agreement from
work plan priorities
Southern Caucasus in
donors and
various sectors
indications of project
impacting and affected
flexibility
by the Kura-Aras
Rivers, but there in no
unified agreed work
plan in the region to
assist them to
coordinate their efforts.
Without such a work
plan, future activities
may over lap or create
intersectoral tensions
over resource uses
1.4 Technical Working In the Kura-Aras
Technical working groups (TAGs) · Technical group
· Ability to recruit suitable
Groups KAEP
region, there is
created functioning and meeting 3
reports
members from each country
membership roster and insufficient sustained
times per year to address key
· Written guidance
agendas
communication
aspect of IWRM implementation
from the TAGs to
between governments
in the Kura-Aras river basin.
component projects
to address the
regarding
particular
implementation
transboundary issues of
· Reports to
water quality
Steering Committee
degradation,
meeting
conflicting uses and
ecosystem degradation
and the challenges of
climate change. While
there have been some
efforts towards this,
49
notably between
Armenia and Islamic
Republic of Iran, these
efforts need to be
multiplied at the
regional level to
address IWRM.
1.5. Number of
Initial interministerial
Establishment of interministerial
· Reports to
· Ability of ministries to coordinate
Interministerial
committees were
committees and meetings at least 3 Steering Committee
activities and agree on priorities
committees meeting
established during the
times per year to address means of and
regularly
PDF-B phase of the
intersectoral collaboration in
recommendations to
.
project, but these have
concert with the KAEP objectives. KAEP
not been sustainably
active. Therefore it will
be necessary for
governments to
recommit to this effort,
and in some cases for
gaps to be filled on
these committees with
all members briefed on
project goals,
objectives and
TDA/SAP
methodologies.
Outcome 2:
2.1. Completed TDA
There is good
TDA based on:
· Assessment report · Results from the gap filling
Completion of
with gaps filled for
agreement on the
of the gaps and
activities being undertaken by other
Transboundary
water quantity,
priority transboundary
Assessment of water quantity
pertinent information parties will be made available with the
Diagnostic
hydrological flow data, issues relating to water variation by season and flow
regarding their
first three years on project
Analysis
land-based source of
resource management
regimes with baseline and 2-5 year impact on the system
pollution, etc.
in the river basin but
increments
· Study and
there remain a number
assessment reports
of empirical
Study of flood plain forests
(GEF and EU
information gaps to be
projects)
filled before a
Study on landfills and
50
complete picture can
contaminated land sites
be formed. The EU
Tacis Project, in
Contamination assessments of the
concert with the
Kura and Aras rivers
UNDP/GEF TDA, will
undertake a detailed
gap analysis and the
results will be
summarized in the
KAEP workplan. The
donor component
projects will address
these knowledge gaps,
with GEF investigating
issues of water
quantity, hydrological
flow data, land-based
source of pollution,
etc.
2.2 Environmental and The preliminary TDA
Clearly agreed 4 sets of baselines
· Assessment
· EU Tacis assessment completed
Water Resources
was not able to
for environmental and water
reports for water
within the timeframe of this project
Status baseline
establish a full baseline resource status
resources and
for environmental and
environmental status
· Assessments impartial and agreed
Long-term SAP M&E, water resource
2, 5, 10 and 20 year for SAP M&E · M&E guidelines
by all countries
to be carried out in
statuses, which will be
activities
based on assessments
close coordination
required to monitor
with EU Tacis Kura-
and evaluate the
Aras project.
progress of the SAP
throughout
implementation and
beyond. An agreed
baseline status will
provide the benchmark
for progress to be
gauged and to enable
51
all countries to reach
consensus on what
priority actions are
needed in the basin, for
the SAP and other
partner projects
including the EU Tacis
Kura-Aras project and
the other members of
KAEP.
2.3 Number of parties in The preliminary TDA
3 countries and all Steering
· Revised TDA
· Regional agreement on the
agreement on final
undertaken during the
Committee Members in agreement document containing
findings of the TDA and listings of
priority TB issues
preparatory stage did
on final priority transboundary
the results from gap
priority interventions
not identify the longer-
issues
filling studies and
Identified immediate
term interventions to
revised Causal Chain
and root causes
be incorporated into
5 Immediate and 5 root causes of
Analyses with Causal
the SAP. The
each priority issue
Loop Diagrams
additional work
· List of potential
required will involve a
interventions in the
revised CCA and
short, medium and
Causal Loop diagrams.
long term to address
This work will be a
each of the
precursor to SAP and
transboundary issues
NAP/National IWRM
· Economic
Plan development.
valuation report
· Pre feasibility
studies for key
interventions
2.4. Final TDA revised The preliminary TDA
Government and Steering
· TDA Document
· Final TDA acceptable to all
and updated
has information gaps
Committee approval of Final TDA Finalized
countries and Steering Committee
and requires revision
· Final TDA on-line
and updating prior to
At least 15 recommendations for
and accessible to
· Updated information available
dissemination. This
the SAP and KAEP translated into public
activity will result in a
regional languages.
· Final TDA
52
document that
presented to the
accurately reflects the
Steering Committee
current conditions in
the basin, and serve as
the baseline for actions
of the SAP and KAEP.
2.5. Number of copies
As evidenced in the
At least 50 copies of the TDA in
· TDA finalized and · Relevance and accessibility of
of Final TDA
SHA, there is currently local languages shared with at
endorsed by Steering
information to stakeholders
disseminated
a generalized low
least 20 different stakeholder
Committee
awareness among
groups, in either electronic or
· TDA in easy
Number of visitors to
stakeholders regarding
paper format
access format
webpage with Final
the priority
At least 20 hits on website with
prepared and
TDA
transboundary issues in Final TDA
disseminated
the basin and how the
· Newspaper
issues inter-relate, as
articles, radio and TV
well as how these
programmes
issues can be viewed
featuring the TDA
collaboratively by all
findings in local
basin states.
languages
Outcome 3:
3.1 Number of
At least 3 Ministries in each
·
·
Across the Caucasus
SAP endorsed by
Ability to reach agreement on
Preparation of the
Ministries endorsing
country endorsing SAP
the national
priority actions needed
Strategic Action
SAP in each country
there are competing
governments
Programme (SAP)
water uses drawing on
100% support for SAP by Steering
the Kura-Aras River
· Ability to link NAPS/National
IWRM plans and
Percent Support for
Committee
· Final NAPs/ plans IWRM plans to SAP
NAPs
SAP from Steering
basin resources
approved by
Committee
(including ground
water), which may
appropriate national
· Ability to reach targets set within
exacerbate tensions if
planning authorities
the SAP
not collectively
addressed. An initial
· GEF M&E
Basin Vision and
Framework included
preliminary SAP was
in the final SAP
developed under the
PDF-B phase of the
project, but the final
agreement was not
53
decided and targets and
activities not agreed.
The movement towards
consensus is started,
however a final full
SAP formulation and
endorsement will
provide guidance to the
countries in the
development of their
national plans, and
provide partner
organizations with a
clear set of regional
priorities for
investments.
3.2 Percent of NAP and
At least 50% of budget for NAPs
· National Action
· Harmonization of plans across
National IWRM plans
Currently, each
and/or National IWRM Plans
Plans and
the region without resorting to lowest
budget committed by
country is developing
activities committed to by
their own individual
strengthened national common denominator
governments
governments within 1 year of
IWRM plans
· Ability of governments to
and independent water
project completion.
resource use plans
· Letters of
incorporate plans into existing
without collaboration
endorsement from
budgets
with others in the
government
· Willingness of stakeholders to
basin. At the national
· Work plans for
support the National IWRM Action
level there is a need to
implementation of
Plans.
develop plans for
national plans
IWRM that spans
sectors and includes
priorities of
government and other
stakeholders, including
environmental
sustainability. The
formulation of these
plans should be
54
supported and brought
into harmony with the
regional SAP.
3.3 Number of P, SR,
At least 12 agreed indicators for
·
·
N/A
Detailed M&E
The is a management framework
and ES indicators
the M&E Framework
framework
in place to undertake the SAP
agreed to within the
incorporated into the
implementation assessments
M&E Framework
SAP.
· Agreed set of P,SR
and ES indicators
3.4 Number of donors
At least 5 International and
·
·
There have been
Donor conference
Continued donor and national
attending conference
bilateral organizations attending
multiple donor projects
minutes, project
commitment to implementing KAEP
held to mobilize
donors conference
monitoring reports
activities.
resources for SAP and
assisting the Kura-Aras
Basin states with
and files
IWRM
development of
At least 20% of project budgets
implementation
· Memoranda or
transboundary water
pledged by donors within 3
resources workplan
months of donor conference
agreements, project
Amount pledged by
and efforts have been
monitoring reports
donors at conference
undertaken to ensure
and files
the minimum of
duplication of effort
· Financial support
and maximum synergy.
leveraged for SAP
These efforts will
and NAP
continue throughout
implementation
the project and more
donors will be asked to
support the KAEP,
including the major
IFIs.
Outcome 4: Basin 4.1 Number of attendees
At least 2 NGO Forum Meetings
·
·
There are currently
Adopted and
Diversity of Stakeholder
wide stakeholder
at the Kura-Aras NGO
with at least 21 participants at
limited facilities at the
operational NGO
Advisory Group and NGO Forum to
involvement
Forum and number of
each meeting
basin wide level for
Forum Charter with
reflect broad array of stakeholders
activities
meetings held
clear funding sources within the basin
consultation and
At least 1 Steering Committee
involvement of
sought independently · National stakeholder forum are
NGO Forum
meeting and 1 KAEP meeting
and linkages to the
representative of stakeholders in the
Representative
stakeholders. Earlier
with NGO Forum representative
55
Attendance at Steering efforts towards the
attending
KAEP established
basin
Committee Meeting and development of a
· Stakeholder
KAEP Meeting
basin-wide NGO
Advisory Group
Forum show promise,
roster
Number of Stakeholder and included
At least 3 Stakeholder Advisory
Advisory Group
participation from
Group Meetings held and at least
· Stakeholder
meetings and number of NGOs throughout the
20 comments/recommendations in Advisory Group
inputs/recommendations basin and inter-donor
from each meeting
meeting minutes and
at each meeting
coordination. Ongoing
recommendations
support for this
Number of stakeholder collaborative forum is
At least 10 stakeholder groups
groups represented in
needed in order to
represented in the Stakeholder
the Stakeholder
strengthen civil society Advisory Group
Advisory Group
collaboration across
the basin. This strategy
includes reconvening
the Stakeholder
Advisory Group and
creation of national
stakeholders forums to
provide input and
advice to the TDA
finalization, SAP
development and
creation of national
IWRM plans.
Additionally these
groups will provide
input into the M&E
strategy for the SAP
implementation.
4.2. Number of
At least 15 public awareness
· Basin-wide
awareness raising and
The current level of
raising events each year
· Support and political
awareness of water
campaign strategy to
education activities for
engage stakeholders
commitment from the basin
Stakeholders
conservation is
At least 3 stakeholder group
government for the aims and
stakeholder group
in all sectors
objectives of the campaign
56
specific and sectorally
educational outreach activities
· Report on lessons
Number of
focused. Stakeholders
conducted
learned from
Communities
are eager for more
implementation of
· Ability of activities to reach and
participating in
information about
At least 3 communities involved
NGO led artificial
impact targeted groups
activities for improved conservation measures
in the Public Involvement
wetlands construction
water conditions
across the basin
Demonstration Projects
in communities and
including how to
benefits measured
improve water quality
· Report on lessons
and understand
learned from
improved farming
implementation of
methods
NGO led project on
improved farming
methods and benefits
measured
· Stakeholder
training exercises
conducted and results
measured
Outcome 5.1
5.1(A) Pilot
Agreed
The setting of
:Demonstration
demonstrations
3 sets criteria for setting
methodology for
· The ecological value of the river
ecological flows and
Projects on
for the Kura-Aras basin
ecological flows agreed
setting Ecological
is recognized when establishing
classification of the
conflicting water
to establish bounds for
Flows in the Kura-
levels of protection
river are sensitive since
use
water resource
3 sets of ecological flow
Aras river basin.
· The governments willing to
development.
it has a direct bearing
establishment methods agreed
invest in improved infrastructure and
on the water resources
adopt new practices as part of the
Number of guidelines
available. The existing
pilot project.
setting of ecological
procedures for
flows at key locations in establishing ecological
· There is sufficient time to
established
flows were developed
implement and monitor the impact of
during the Soviet
the management changes
period and do not
reflect modern
environmental
protection standards. In
addition, ecological
57
flows need to take
account of the seasonal
variations and flooding
events, necessary for
wetland inundation,
fish migration and
river bed cleansing. A
basin-wide
methodology and
criteria for ecological
flows the countries are
a key element in
defining the long-term
vision for the basin.
5.1 (B)
WQS development strategy, that
Demonstration
· The lessons learnt on the Aras
Number of Water
The current water
results in staged implementation
of water quality
quality management
can be applied throughout the basin
Quality Standards.
towards meeting international
management
regulatory framework
and pollution control
standards for water quality.
systems
· The ecological and economic
revisions developed and systems inherited from
applicable for
value of the river is recognized when
the Soviet era are still
timeframe for
4 WQS regulations revised within
the Kura-Aras
establishing levels of protection and
implementation
in place in all three
1 year, and additional 4 within 3
basin.
new technologies
basin countries but do
years. 12 within 5. All 20
not function. The
· The governments willing to
implemented within 10 years
countries are
invest in improved infrastructure and
committed to the EU
adopt new practices as part of the
Water Framework
pilot project.
Directive but there is
· There is sufficient time to
no planned means of
implement and monitor the impact of
transition from one
the management changes
system to the next. In
addition the existing
· Legislation and regulations
adopted
monitoring systems are
dysfunctional and
licensing and
permitting procedures
58
are inadequate. The
regulators need to
work closely with the
polluting enterprises to
develop a phased water
quality improvement
programme gradually
bringing in BAT and
improved technologies.
Outcome 6:
6.1 Number of full
3 full time staff hired within three
·
N/A
Local
Effective project
time staff in Project
months of project commencement.
·
administration staff
Availability of qualified staff
management
Coordination Unit
appointed
· Filing and
·
accounting systems
Website accessible to all users
set up and bank
account opened.
· Web-site updated
regularly
· Number of web-
sites hits
6.2 Number of
3 meetings of Stakeholder
· Stakeholder
meetings of the
Current institutional
Advisory Group within 3 years
· Representative Stakeholders
mechanisms for
Advisory Group
Stakeholder Advisory
recruited
Input Reports
Group
multiple stakeholder
group input into
· Value of inputs for practicality
project activities are
and cost effectiveness
not active, though
initial inputs from a
stakeholder advisory
group into the PFD-B
were deemed very
useful to project
development
6.3 Number of Friends
5 bilateral and multi-lateral donors · Attendance of FoP
of the Project (FoP)
The establishment of
supporting implementation of the
· Willingness of relevant
the Kura-Aras
at SCM
organizations to dedicate staff time
59
representatives at
Environment
SAP during at least 3 meetings
· FoP meeting
to meetings and support activities
group meetings
Programme has
minutes
provided a focus for
· Support of SAP
coordination of the
components by FoP
donor activities. A
members
detailed workplan is
currently being
developed and gaps in
funding at the national
and basin level
identified.
6.4 Inception and
Inception meeting held within 3
· Steering
number of Steering
N/A
months of project start
Committee reports
Committee meetings
· UNDP Progress
held
At least 1 Steering Committee
reports measured
Meeting held every year
against inception
report
60
SECTION
III:
Total
Budget
and
Work
Plan
Kura-Aras River Basin Total Budget and Work Plan
Award ID:
00051122
Award Title:
Reducing Transboundary Degradation in the Kura-Aras basin
Business Unit:
GEO10
Project Title:
Reducing Transboundary Degradation in the Kura-Aras basin
Project ID: PIMS no. 2272
00063506
Implementing Partner
(Executing Agency)
UNOPS
Responsible
Atlas
GEF
Donor
Amount
Amount
Amount
See
Party/
Budgetary
ATLAS Budget
Total
Component/Atlas
Fund ID
Name
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Budget
Implementing
Account
Description
(USD)
Activity
(USD)
(USD)
(USD)
Note:
Agent
Code
International
71200
55,000 45,000 10,000 110,000 1
Component 1:
Consultants
Institutional
71300 Local
Consultants 30,000 20,000
50,000 2
62000
GEF
Strengthening of
UNOPS
72200 Equipment
40,000 10,000
50,000 3
Kura-Aras
71600 Travel
20,000 20,000
40,000 4
Environmental
74500
Miscellaneous
Programme
sub-total GEF
145,000
95,000
10,000
250,000
Total Outcome 1
145,000 95,000 10,000 250,000
61
International
71200
50,000 85,000
135,000 5
Consultants
71300 Local
Consultants 55,000 20,000
75,000 6
Contractual
Component 2:
72100
services
90,000 100,000
190,000 7
Completion of
UNOPS
62000
GEF
company
Transboundary
72200 Equipment
Diagnostic Analysis
74500 Miscellaneous
20,000
20,000 8
71600 Travel
15,000 15,000
30,000 9
sub-total GEF
210,000 240,000
450,000
Total Outcome 2
210,000 240,000
450,000
International
71200
110,000
155,000
265,000
10
Consultants
Component 3:
71300 Local
Consultants
345,000 200,000 545,000 11
Preparation of
Contractual
Strategic Action
72100
services
UNOPS
Program and
62000
GEF
companies
National IWRM
72200 Equipment
Plans
74500 Miscellaneous
60,000 60,000 12
71600 Travel
60,000 70,000 130,000 13
sub-total GEF
515,000
485,000
1,000,000
Total Outcome 3
515,000
485,000
1,000,000
International
71200
30,000
30,000
14
Consultants
71300 Local
Consultants 45,000 40,000
85,000 15
Component 4:
Contractual
Basin Wide
72100
services
stakeholder
UNOPS
companies
Involvement
72200 Equipment
Activities
74500 Miscellaneous
10,000 20,000 10,000 40,000 16
71600 Travel
15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 17
sub-total GEF
100,000
75,000
25,000
200,000
Total Outcome 4
100,000 75,000 25,000 200,000
Component 5:
International
71200
27,500 90,000 52,500 170,000
18
Conflicting water
UNOPS
Consultants
use demonstrations
71300 Local
Consultants
Contractual
62000
GEF
72100
services
100,000 195,000 225,000 520,000 19
companies
72200 Equipment
74500 Miscellaneous
20,000 20,000 20
71600 Travel
15,000 15,000 30,000 21
62
sub-total
127,500 300,000 312,500 740,000
Total Outcome 5
127,500 300,000 312,500 740,000
International
71200
35,000 35,000 25,000 95,000 22
Consultants
71300 Local
Consultants 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 23
71600 Travel
10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 24
72200 Equipment
PROJECT
62000
GEF
72500 Office
Supplies
5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000
25
MANAGEMENT
UNOPS
Miscellaneous
74500
10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 26
expenses
sub-total
90,000 90,000 80,000 260,000
Total
90,000 90,000 80,000 260,000
Management
PROJECT
TOTAL
672,500 1,315,000. 912,500 2,900,000
Budget notes:
1. 53 staff-weeks of international consultants (including 15% of CTA and 30% of Scientific officer) to work on Activities 1.1 Creation of Information Management System, 1.3
Development of water resource allocation criteria and 1.4 Development of EA guidelines and procedures
2. Includes:
a. 25 staff- weeks of local consultants to assist with development of IMS software and collation and processing of data including assembling of metadatabase
b. 75 staff- week of a pool of national experts serving as members of the four Technical Working Groups to meet twice yearly
3. Computer server to host IMS and web-site and GIS printer. .Statistical and GIS software
4. Includes:
a. Travel cost associated with two technical meetings associated with development of IMS
b. Travel costs for Technical working group meetings
5. 79 staff-weeks of international consultants (including 10% of CTA, 20% of Scientific Officer and 40% of Economist) to work on Activities 2.1 Gap Analysis, 2.2
Environmental baseline and 2.3/2.4 TDA Revision and update
6. 150 staff-weeks of a pool national consultants working on the TDA Technical Task Group, ,CCA and Causal loop diagrams, interventions and prefeasibility studies.
7. Contracts for floodplain forest study($40k), contaminated land sites ($50) and in-river surveys ($100k)
8. Printing and production costs of final TDA
9. Includes:
a. Travel costs for three TDA meetings (CCA and CLDs, interventions and review of pre-feasibility studies and TDA finalization
10. 109 staff- weeks of international consultants including 40% of CTA and 30% of economist to support Activities 31 Formulation of SAP and 3.2 Formulation of National
IWRM plans .A TDA/SAP expert will be hired to facilitate t he TDA/SAP process including vision and WREQO formulation, target setting and drafting of final document (10
wks) and a IWRM expert to guide the national plans(23 weeks) .
11. 1090 staff-weeks of national consultants to formulate the IWRM and the SAP and attend key SAP meetings
12. Costs of SAP and IWRM plan production and distribution.
13. Includes:
a. Travel costs for three IWRM planning meetings in each country
b. Travel costs for four SAP meetings (Vision and WRQOs, Preliminary SAP and integration of NAPs, draft SAP and M&E framework and final SAP)
14. 15 staff-weeks of international consultant to assist with support of the NGO forum and establishment of the Public involvement demonstration projects
15. 170 staff-weeks of a pool of national consultants to work on Activity 4.2 targeted awareness raising campaign including public involvement demonstration projects.
16. Costs of promotional materials for Activiy 4.2
17. Including:
63
a. Travel costs for six NGO forum meetings
b. Travel costs for launch meetings for public awareness campaign
18. 101 staff-weeks of international consultants including 10% of CTA, 50% of Scientific Officer and 30% of Economist
19. International contracts:
a. Ecological Flows study ($260,000) with the following outputs: site selection; comprehensive baseline information at pilot sites; review of ecological flow
determination methodologies and agreement on methodology for Kura-Aras; establishment of stakeholder groups; socio-economic study of the impact of low flow
scenarios; design of long-term monitoring programme ;and final report
b. Water Quality Standards system ( $260,000) with the following outputs: Site selection; review of existing WQ management systems and infrastructure ; assessment
of water quality objectives; design of new system and location of pilot sites; establishment of stakeholder group; trialing of new system; and final report
20. Cost of promotional materials for dissemination of pilot project results
21. Includes:
a. Travel costs for pilot project inception meetings (2)
b. Travel costs for final dissemination meetings (2)
22. 32 staff-weeks of international consultant (25% of CTA)
23. 180 staff-weeks of national consultants including office manager and part-time administrative assistant
24. Travel of CTA on project management related business including attendance at IW conference in 2009
25. Office supplies
26. Includes IW:Learn activities
64
Quarterly work plan
Kura Aras
Full Sized Project Timeline
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Activity
Component 1 Institutional Strengthening of KAEP
1.1 GIS based Information Management System and web-site
1.2 KAEP institutional arrangements agreed
1.3 Integrated multi-partner workplan agreed
1.4 Establishment of technical working groups
1.5 Establishment of intermnisterial committees
Component 2 TDA and gap filling
2.1
TDA
Gap
Filling
Gap analysis
Hydrological flow record review
Refinement of climatic change scenarios
Land-based source assessments
2.2 Environmental and Water Resources baseline established
Strategic study of Floodplain forests
Study of landfill and contaminated land fill sites
In-river contamination assessments
2.3 Final TB issues prioritized and immediate and root causes
identified
TB issues confirmed and prioritized
Detailed Causal Chain Analysis and Causal Loop Diagrams
2.4 Final TDA revised and updated
Identification of short, medium and long term interventions
Pre-feasibilty studies of priority
interventions
2.5 Final TDA widely disseminated
Component 3 Preparation SAP and National IWRM
plans
3.1
Development
of
SAP
Vision and WRQOs confirmed
Draft SAP developed including targets
and
interventions
Revision of SAP in line with IWRM plans
Finalise and endorse SAP
Disseminate results
3.2
National
IWRM
plans
Development of draft National IWRM plans developed
Finalise and endorse national IWRM plans
3.3 Develop M&E framework for SAP implementation
3.4
Donors
Conference
*
65
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Component 4 Basin wide stakeholder and Involvement
activities
4.1 Support to the Kur-Aras NGO and Stakeholder forums
4.2 Targeted awareness raising and educational activities
Public Involvement demonstration projects
Outreach and training programmes for key stakeholders
Component 5 Conflicting water UseDemonstrations
5.1 Environmental Low Flows
Inception Report
Stakeholder consultation
Final project design
Baseline assessment
Application of environmental flows methodology and
selection of scenarios
Design and implementation of long-term monitoring
programme, including M&E framework
Monitor and disseminate results
5.2 Water Quality Standards system
Inception report and site selection
Stakeholder consultation
Baseline assessment
Design of improved WQSs with permitting and monitoring
guidelines
Implementation of improved systems and training
programme
Monitor and disseminate results
Component 6 Project Management
6.1 Establish and maintain PCU
6.2 Establish and maintain Friends of the Project Group
* * * * *
6.3 Inception report and Steering Committee meetings
*
*
*
66
SECTION IV: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PART I: Other agreements
Endorsement Letters
67
68
69
70
International Environmental Agreements, which the Kura-Aras Basin Countries are
Party to (R Ratified; S Signed; NS Not Signed)
Date Status
in Status in
Status Status
Name of Convention
Armenia Azerbaijan
in
in Iran
Georgia
Roma Convention on Plant Protection
1951
NS R NS
NS
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International
1971
S R
R
R
Importance
Convention on the International Fund Establishment for 1971
NS NS R
NS
Compensation of Oil Pollution Damage
Paris Convention for the Protection of World Cultural 1972
R R
NS
R
and Natural Heritage
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 1972
NS R R
NS
from Ships
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
1973
NS R R
R
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Geneva Convention on Prohibition of Military or Any 1977
R NS
NS
NS
Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
Geneva Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air 1979
R R R
NS
Pollution
Bonn Convention on the Protection of Migratory
1979
NS R R
R
Species of Wild Animals
Bern Convention on the Conservation of European
1979
R R
NS
NS
Fauna
Vienna Convention for the Protection of Ozone Layer 1985
R R R
R
Montreal Protocol on Substances Depleting the Ozone 1987
R R R
R
Layer
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
1989
R R R
R
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact
1991
R R
NS
NS
Assessment in Transboundary Context
Rio Convention on Biological Diversity
1992
R R R
R
Framework Convention on Climate Change
1992
R R R
R
Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial 1992
R NS
NS
NS
Accidents
Protocol on Water and Health of Helsinki Convention 1992
S R S
NS
on Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses
and International Lakes
Helsinki Convention on Protection and Use of
1992
NS R NS
NS
Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes
London Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution 1992
NS NS R
NS
Damage
Bucharest Convention on the Pollution of Black Sea and 1992
NS NS R
NS
Other Issue
71
Convention on the Protection of Black Sea Against
1993
NS NS R
NS
Pollution
Paris Convention on Combating Desertification
1994
R R R
R
Kyoto Protocol of UN Framework Convention on
1997
R R R
R
Climate Change
Aarhus Convention on Access to Public Information,
1998
R R R
NS
Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters
Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
1998
S R
NS
R
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemical and
Pesticides in International Trade
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 2001
S NS
R
R
Note: S Singed; R Ratified; NS Not Signed
List of affiliated projects
153.
A list of affiliated projects is given below in the table below. Coordination efforts
between these initiatives supporting the sustainable management of the basin are well
advanced and will continue throughout the project implementation. During the project
preparation the coordination efforts have been realized among the major donor partners
through the creation of a `Friends of the Project' group that has met every three months
and has enabled the parties avoid duplication of effort and maximize synergy. Particular
efforts have been made to coordinate with the USAID regional and national water
programmes. With the assistance of UNDP, UNEP and OSCE the countries are
developing their proposals for a Kura-Aras Environmental Programme (KAEP), an
umbrella programme modeled on the highly successful Caspian Environment Programme
(CEP). The KAEP will be underpinned by a declaration by the countries and donors to
work together to protect and improve the environment and use the resources of the Kura-
Aras basin in a sustainable manner. As part of the institutional strengthening of KAEP the
GEF project will help develop an integrated multi-partner workplan that will guide the
harmonization and coordination of the on-going and forthcoming initiatives of the main
donor organizations (USAID, EU, EBRD, OSCE, NATO, WB UNEP and UNDP) and the
countries. The project will be linked to the rehabilitation of the anadromous fisheries of
the Caspian Sea that is being supported by GEF under the new proposed Caspian Sea
project. The ecological flow requirements to be addressed under a specific pilot project
and will take account the needs of sustainable natural fisheries. The potential for
removing impoundments and restoring lost spawning sites will also be explored.
154.
The project will work closely with the major IFIs in the region, in particular the WB
and EBRD, to encourage countries to make strategic investments in support of the SAP
implementation and the water sector. During project preparation there will be close
coordination with the WB and EBRD to ensure the project is inline with and
complementary to the organizations country strategies; both WB and EBRD are members
of the Kura-Aras Friends of the Project group and will be invited onto the Steering
Committee. In the Kura-Aras basin the WB's ten year restructuring programming of the
water sector in Armenia is particularly impressive and is seen as a model by the other
Caucasus states. EBRD has an extensive portfolio of major water projects in the region
including the Baku Water Project and Lake Sevan Environment Project, funded by a mix
of loans and grants worth 50 million euros. EBRD also has a pipeline of waste water
treatment projects worth 70 million euros identified for the Kura-Aras basin and will be a
key player in shaping the SAP.
72
155.
The full-size project in conjunction with its sister project the Caspian Environment
Programme (CEP) project is committed to work to create a mechanism similar to the
Danube Black Task Force (DABLAS) for the whole Caspian Sea basin to encourage
strategic investments in the environment and water sectors. The highly successful
DABLAS which was set up in 2001 and provides a platform for cooperation between the
countries, IFIs, bilateral donors, regional and international organizations, has been one of
the driving forces behind GEF's Danube/Black Sea pollution reduction investment
programme. The project has already approached the EBRD and EU with a proposal for
the establishment of a Caspian Task Force and its linkage with CEP SAP implementation
and the Kura-Aras SAP development. Finally the project is designed to ensure close
cooperation with other GEF projects in the region, in particular, the Caspian Environment
Programme and will explore the potential for expanding the IWRM approach in the wider
Caspian basin.
73
List of affiliated projects table
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Water Management in the
2000-2004 USAID 4.0
mln. The project goal was to increase the dialogue for sustainable water management between
South Caucasus (Armenia,
USD.
representatives in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in the riparian states of the South Caucasus, and
Azerbaijan, Georgia)
to encourage bilateral actions on the sustainable use of natural resources.
The general activities include support to the appropriate agencies in each country for:
· Monitoring, data exchange, and training
· Integrated river basin planning in bilateral pilot areas, and
· Institutional framework for addressing water policy issues in the region.
Specific activities included:
Integrated river basin planning in the Khrami-Debed basin; Water policy studies; Development of
hydrological and water quality databases; Rehabilitation of hydrological posts, construction of
meteorological stations, Establishment of river basin councils; Establishment of data exchange
mechanism between the countries; Implementation of small grant program for NGOs; Training of
specialists of key governmental agencies.
For More information see: http://chiqui.dai.com/wateriqc/
South Caucasus Water
2005-2008
USAID
$ 4.2 mln. Goal of this project is to increase regional cooperation in the management of shared water resources
Program (Armenia,
Completed
that is effective and sustainable. The project specific objectives and activities include:
Azerbaijan, Georgia)
Strengthening the institutional framework and capacity for trans-boundary basin management
and increase technical understanding on key topics.
Developing the scientific and analytical capacity needed to turn data into information, and
promote its use for management.
Strengthening civil society participation to achieve stewardship and measurable social,
economic, and environmental results.
Promoting regional, international discussion and cooperation amongst Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia on the issues surrounding regional water management, that is critical in the contest of the
southern Caucasus.
For more information see: http://www.scaucasuswater.org/
Joint River Management
2002-2003. EU/TACIS
4mln. This
project covered four rivers, including Kura. The overall objective of this Project was to support
Programme on Monitoring
the prevention, control and reduction of adverse trans-boundary pollution impact caused by the
and Assessment of Water
quality of the four rivers selected for the Project. Although the focus was strongly on monitoring, the
Quality on Transboundary
project addressed related legislative, institutional, economic and financial issues.
Rivers (Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia)
Reducing Transboundary
2003-2005 UNDP, 0.6 mln
Identification of institutional needs for proper management of water resources in the basin
Degradation in the Kura-
SIDA
USD
Identification of technical needs for integrated water resources management and planning in the
74
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Aras Basin (Armenia,
basin
Azerbaijan, Georgia)
Promotion of sustainable water resources management
Science for Peace Program -
2002-up NATO/ NA
General Objectives of this programme is to establish the social and technical infrastructure for an
South Caucasus River
OSCE
international, cooperative, transboundaryr River water quality and quantity monitoring, data sharing
Monitoring (Armenia,
and watershed management system among the Republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Azerbaijan, Georgia)
Specific objectives of the programme are:
· Increase technical capabilities (monitoring, analytical and communications) among partner
countries
· Cooperatively establish standard sampling, analysis and data management techniques for all
partner countries
· Establish data, GIS and model sharing system accessible to all partners via WWW
· Establish social framework (i.e., annual international meetings) for whole-watershed
management
This system is being developed cooperatively with scientists from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, US,
Belgium and Norway.
For more information see: http://www.kura-araks-natosfp.org/
Trans-boundary cooperation
2003-2006 The
Federal
In this study risk assessment and investigation on feasibilty were conducted for the Kura river basin,
for hazard prevention in the
Environmen
where cooperation in hazard prevention between the South Caucasian Countries Georgia, Armenia
Kura-river basin. (Armenia,
tal Agency
and Azerbaijan was prepared and supported. Main objective was to find out the risks and uncertainty
Azerbaijan, Georgia)
of Germany
and specially the following general conditions for the project:
(UBA).
Development of industrial hazard prevention system;
Development of early warning model
Inventory and assessment of potential polluters
Development of appropriate safety measures for the polluters
Development of early warning system in the Kura basin
Gradual increase of safety level to allow integrated of the South Caucasus countries into the
European Economic Zone;
Support to more efficient management of water resources in the South Caucasus
For more information see: http://www.kura-araks-natosfp.org/
Critical Ecosystem
2005-2008 GEF
8.4
mln Implemented through WWF Caucasus Office. CEPF's strategy focuses on the conservation of
Partnership Fund
USD
globally threatened species, priority sites and conservation corridors by providing funding and
(Armenia, Azerbaijan,
technical assistance for the scientific community and civil society groups to:
Georgia, Iran)
· Help preserve the diversity of life and healthy ecosystems as essential components of stable and
thriving societies.
· Undertake initiatives that will also contribute to poverty alleviation and economic prosperity.
The Caucasus area covers territory in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey and Iran.
Within this region, CEPF is interested in supporting initiatives in 5 target conservation corridors:
75
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Greater Caucasus, Caspian, West Lesser Caucasus, East Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan.
For more information see:
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/asia_pacific/our_solutions/caucasus/projects/engl
ish/index.cfm
REC Caucasus Water
2001-up
EU, USA
Being established by the Governments of the three Caucasus countries, guided by the needs of its
Program (Armenia,
beneficiaries and other stakeholder groups, and based on the requirements of international
Azerbaijan, Georgia)
environmental policies, such as the Environment for Europe Process, EU Water Initiative, the
EECCA (Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia) Strategy, and the European
Neighbourhood Policy, the Water Programme aims at strengthened cooperation and coordination
between the various stakeholders of the three countries of the region for integrated management of
transboundary water resources. REC Caucasus plans to achieve it through:
- Calling and facilitating a dialogue between concerned parties on transboundary water resources
management;
- Fostering public participation in water related decision-making processes trough an increased
awareness, information and knowledge of the stakeholders and public in water related issues;
- Assisting the Governments of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in their initiatives towards
integrated management of transboundary water resources.
For more information see: http://www.rec-caucasus.org/
Support to the Trans-
2007-2010.
EU TACIS $ 5 mln.
The project lays on two main pillars: the EU Water Initiative EECCA component and the EU Water
boundary Management of
Framework Directive. The overall objective is to improve the water quality of the Kura river.Specific
the Kura River Basin.
objectives of the project will be:
(Armenia, Azerbaijan,
· To establish transnational organisational monitoring structures and systems of information
Georgia)
management needed for integrated water resources management in the long term;
· To establish a transboundart hazard management system in the Kura river basin to prevent and
control accidental pollution and to minimize contamination of the river from such accidents.
Outputs will include the following:
· Runoff and water quality information will be put in GIS based data. National GIS systems will be
merged in a transnational information system;
· Computerized Kara's catchments area modeling will be developed to establish an inventory of
existing water abstractions, to model the runoff, the water balance and the flood plains.
· Capacity building including the training of national experts
· Hazard prevention systems will be set up;
· Contingency plan will be developed for Kura basin. Monitoring stations will be integrated in the
transboundary warning and alarm system;
Armenia
Integrated Water Resources
1999-2001 WB
1.0
mln Assessment of water resources
Management Project
USD
Structural reforms
76
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Introduction of integrated water resources management principles and Basin planning
Calculation of water supply and demand
Modeling of water balance
Development of guidelines for water resources management strategy
Preparation to Municipal
2001-2004 WB
1.32
mln Preparatory works for "Municipal water supply and wastewater removal" project Water supply and
Water Supply and
USD
wastewater collection systems of major cities (except Yerevan) in Armenia
Wastewater Removal Project
Sustainable Water Resources 2001-2005 USAID 4.0
mln Support to development of the new Water Code, draft National Water Policy and Water Resources
Management Project
USD
Fee Strategy
Rehabilitation of water quality monitoring laboratory in Yerevan, and provision of equipment
Training of the staff of key counterpart organizations
Strengthening of institutional framework for water management
Rehabilitation of water quantity and quality monitoring stations
Development of local capacity
Grant program for NGOs
Irrigation Development
2001-2009 WB
30.82
1) support the rehabilitation of critical irrigation structures, by upgrading primary canal structures,
Project
million
and sections in deficient state, but critical for the effective operation of major irrigation water
USD
conveyance infrastructure systems. Aqueducts, and often siphon structures will undergo
rehabilitation works, while specifically, the Armavir irrigation scheme will be improved, by
expanding river intake schemes, the main conveyance canal, and secondary canal, and will include
construction of sediment control facilities;
2) support the conversion from pump, to gravity irrigation, to reduce the reliance on high-cost
energy-intensive irrigation, for those cases where clear technical, and economic viability can de
demonstrated; and,
3) create conditions for effective operations, and maintenance (O&M) of the irrigation infrastructure
through institutional strengthening, by supporting appropriate institutional reforms.
Improvement of Internal
2003-2006 JICA
2.0
mln. Increasing the role of condominiums in water supply quality and safety issues
Water Network of Multi-
USD
Effective management of the internal water network of multi-apartment buildings,
apartment buildings in
Installation of water meters in socially vulnerable familites,
Yerevan City
Decreasing water loss in the internal network of multi-apartment buildings
Irrigation Dam Safety
1999-2008 WB
30.3
Dam Safety Project aims to protect the population and the socio-economic infrastructure downstream
Project
million
of the dams facing the highest risk of failure. This project has two main components. The first
USD
component supports repair work on primary irrigation dams including design and supervision, field
tests, civil works, hydraulic steel structures. Rehabilitation consists of upstream protection works,
spillway structural repairs, leakage reduction, and irrigation/bottom outlet repair. The second
component prepares, operates, and supervises dam safety plans for operation and maintenance and an
emergency preparedness plan; finances dam safety site installations, which include instruments and
monitoring devices and early warning systems; strengthens the capacity of the Dam Maintenance
Enterprise; and supports safety investigations into all remaining dams in Armenia.
Rehabilitation of Water
2003-2006
KFW
15 mln.
Improvement of technical condition of water supply system and environmental performance,
Supply and Wastewater
financial rehabilitation of the company
Removal Systems in Armavir
Water supply and wastewater removal systems of Armavir region
77
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Irrigation Development
2001-2009 WB
30.82
1) support the rehabilitation of critical irrigation structures, by upgrading primary canal structures,
Project
million
and sections in deficient state, but critical for the effective operation of major irrigation water
USD
conveyance infrastructure systems. Aqueducts, and often siphon structures will undergo
rehabilitation works, while specifically, the Armavir irrigation scheme will be improved, by
expanding river intake schemes, the main conveyance canal, and secondary canal, and will include
construction of sediment control facilities;
2) support the conversion from pump, to gravity irrigation, to reduce the reliance on high-cost
energy-intensive irrigation, for those cases where clear technical, and economic viability can de
demonstrated; and,
3) create conditions for effective operations, and maintenance (O&M) of the irrigation infrastructure
through institutional strengthening, by supporting appropriate institutional reforms.
Program for Institutional
2004-2009 USAID 7.2
Establishment of more effective legal and regulatory framework
and Regulatory
million
Support to establishment of the National Water Council
Strengthening of Water
USD
Support to development of the State Water Cadastre Information System
Management in Armenia
Support to institutional development and strengthening of water basin management organizations
Support to monitoring infrastructure and programs, including rehabilitation of underground water
resources monitoring
Capacity building for the Public Services Regulatory Commission
Dam Safety Project, Stage 2
2004-2009 WB
7.5
Rehabilitation of 47 dams of ameliorative importance for Armenia, improvement of roads adjacent
million
to 16 dams, and preparation for emergency situations Dams
USD
Municipal Water Supply and 2004-2009 WB
1.32
Improvement of Armenian Water Supply and Sewerage company's quality of service provision,
Wastewater Removal Project
million
including improvement operational performance and financial rehabilitation
USD
Rehabilitation of Water
2005-2008 KFW
11.4
Rehabilitation of water supply and wastewater removal systems of Vanadzor city and 16
Supply and Wastewater
million
settlements in Lori region
Removal Systems in Lori
Euro
Rehabilitation of Water
2005-2008 KFW
14.59
Rehabilitation of water supply and wastewater removal systems of Gyumri city and 53 settlements
Supply and Wastewater
million
located near the main canal in Shirak region
Removal Systems in Shirak
Euro
Water Supply and
2006-2011 WB
22
million Development of management, operation and maintenance of Yerevan city drinking water system
Wastewater Removal Project
USD
for Yerevan
Study for Improvement of
2006-2009 JICA
0.6
To formulate an improvement plan for the water supply systems; the plan mainly consists of
Rural Water Supply and
million
rehabilitation of the existing facilities and improvement of the operation and maintenance
Discharge in the Republic of
USD
mechanisms;
Armenia
To transfer knowledge of the plan formulation to the Armenian counterparts through participation
in the Study process.
Armenia Irrigation
2007-2009 WB
5
million Provision of additional funds for rehabilitation of Armenia's tertiary canals
Development Additional
USD
Financing
Armenia Lake Sevan Basin
2007-2010
EBRD
12.5
To improve wastewater treatment for five municipalities discharging wastewater into the Lake Sevan
78
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Environmental Project
million
catchment basin. The operation will: build small wastewater treatment plants and rehabilitate
EURO
wastewater networks in Gavar, Vardenis and Marduni; and, rehabilitate the wastewater networks in
Sevan and Jermuk. The objective is to enable mechanical and enhanced aeration treatment of
wastewaters discharged by the participating towns.
Water Supply and Sanitation 2008-2011 ADB
45
million
Improved access to safe, reliable and sustainable water supply and sanitation services in about 16
Sector Project
USD, of
project towns and up to 125 project villages managed on commercial principles and environmentally
which 9
sound practices.
million
USD is
GOA
contributi
on
Azerbaijan
ADB
22 mln.
The project envisages construction of bank protection for 27 rivers in the Kura basin with higher risk
(Azerbaijan Flood Impact
USD
of mudflows. ADB also has allocated funds (500 000 USD) for Assisting the Agency of Melioration
and Prevention Project)
and Water Economy of Azerbaijan in Planning of River Basins and Floods in Azerbaijan. This
project will develop recommendations and short-term and long-term measures for river basins and
floods management in Azerbaijan.
Technical Assistance
2001-2003
ADB
0.5 mln
The main objectives of the TA are to (i) analyze the WSS sector in secondary towns in Azerbaijan;
to the
and (ii) identify and prepare an investment project to rehabilitate WSS services and provide
Republic of Azerbaijan
institutional restructuring for these in selected towns for possible ADB funding. The level and
For Preparing the
quality of WSS services will be determined with the respective communities, and
Urban Water Supply and
project preparation will seek to establish conditions for the sustainable development of these
Sanitation Project
services.
(Azerbaijan)
Urban Water Supply and
2005-up ADB;
AZ
ADB 30.0 The project objective is to improve the quality, reliability, and sustainability of WSS services in the
Sanitation
Govt.
mln. USD towns of Agdash, Goychay, and Nakhchivan.
(Azerbaijan)
AZ Govt.
For more information see: http://www.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/AZE/rrp-aze-35087.pdf
9.9 mln
USD
Flood Mitigation Project
2004-up ADB 22.7
mll.
The investment project is a multidimensional one, proposing interventions for protection of
In the Republic of
USD.
settlements, agricultural lands, and infrastructure from recurring floods. These measures include
Azerbaijan
structural as well as non-structural interventions.
The Project covers the areas which get devastated by floods in the hill torrents and rivers of the
Republic of Azerbaijan. These areas lie in and the exclave of Nakhchivan, the north-west in the
Greater Caucasus, the south-west close to the border of Russia, and south-east near Iran. The
structural measures comprise the least-cost feasible solution to protect settlements, agricultural areas,
and/or important infrastructure. These structures have been designed against flood with average
occurrence of once in 50 years. The proposed measures will protect five major towns and 43
villages, covering 76,790 hectares (ha) area and inhabited by 215,250 persons in 12 districts. The
Project includes the following components: (i) Structural Measures; (ii) Nonstructure Measures; (iii)
Disaster Preparedness, and (iv) Project Management and Monitoring..
79
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Greater Baku water supply
2002-2006
WB, GoA US$ 61.0
67, Tbilisi Ave, 370112
rehabilitation project
M
Baku, Azerbaijan Republic
Contact Person: Oktay Asadov, President
Tel: (9412) 300131; Fax: (9412) 983814;
E-mail: cdu@azdata.net
Azerbaijan -
Under
WB, GoA US$ 5.5
Aniruddha Dasgupta
AARP/Environment Policy
review
M
Title: Lead Urban Planner
and Enforcement for
Tel: (202) 458-4079
Environment State Program
Email: adasgupta@worldbank.org
Georgia
Social Investment Fund of
Gov.
The Fund is providing financial and technical assistance for:
Georgia (SIF)
Georgia,
·
Implementing local investment projects;
IDA, EBRD
·
Appraising local infrastructure investment projects
·
Financing local infrastructure investment projects
·
Implementing micro projects developed by initiative of local self-governments (governments)
and population,
·
Developing administration capacity, capacity building for self-government (government) units
for managing assets and financial resources, improving accountability of local bodies;
·
Promotion of creation and development of Amelioration Associations.
Some of ongoing water supply and sanitation projects funded by the SIF include:
- Preparation of Engineering Design for Rehabilitation of City Rustavi Headworks, Water Mains
and City Water Supply Networks and Field Supervision
- Preparation of Detailed Design for Kutaisi Water Supply
- Review/Supervision of Detailed Engineering Designs for Rehabilitation of Sioni and Algeti Dams
- Preparation of Detailed Design for Kobuleti Water Supply and Sewage Systems
- Preparation of Detailed Design for Rehabilitation of Sioni Dam
- Corporate Development Programme for Kobuleti Water Company
For more information see: http://www.mdf.org.ge
Irrigation and Drainage
2002-2008 IDA,
Gov. Total -
The Project covers 110,000 ha and envisages implementation of the following activities:
Community Development
Georgia
32.8 mln.
· Establishment of water users' associations (WUA) and full rehabilitation of irrigation schemes
Project
USD.
(including main and onfarm infrastructure) on 16,000 ha in Gurjaani, Khashuri, Kareli and
Akhaltsikhe districts;
IDA- 27
· Establishment of amelioration associations (water users' and drainage users' associations) and
mln.
rehabilitation of only onfarm network on 40,000 ha in various districts of Georgia;
USD,
· Establishment of amelioration associations (AAs) on 50,000 ha.
Gov.
For more information see: http://www.mdf.org.ge/english/IR-1.php
80
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Georgia -
5.8
mln.USD.
Irrigation and Drainage
2006-2008 IDA,
Gov. Total -
The aim of the additional IDCDP component is to restore the flood-damaged irrigation and bank
Community Development
Georgia
16.1 mln
protecting infrastructure. It provides for implementation of the activities as follows:
Project Additional Financing
USD.
· Reconstruction of the flood-damaged irrigation scheme headworks and canals in order to
(Georgia)
restore the design capacities;
IDA -13
· Reconstruction of the flood-damaged bank protecting structures for flood protection in
mln.
accordance with the respective design parameters;
USD,
· Consulting services for designing and construction supervision of reconstruction works.
The objective for the reconstruction of flood-damaged infrastructure component is to improve and
Gov.
secure the sustainability of river flood protection works and irrigation headworks and canals, which,
Georgia
if unattended, could lead to increased flooding occurrences and infrastructure damage, and
3.1 mln
subsequent human life and economic losses.
USD
IDA uses its considerable experience with flood emergency projects and introduction of appropriate
designs and construction materials to reconstruct sustainable infrastructure that would require
minimum maintenance.
For more information see: http://www.mdf.org.ge/english/IR-1.php
Regional Infrastructure
2006-2009 MCG
60
mln. The Government of Georgia has received a $295.3 million grant from the Millennium Challenge
Development Project
USD
Corporation ("MCC") to be managed by Millennium Challenge Georgia Fund ("MCG").
Regional Infrastructure Development (RID) is one of the 5 priority areas of investments from MCG.
Regional Infrastructure Development (RID) Project, which aims at improved regional and municipal
service delivery intends to provide grants to Eligible Governmental Entities. USD 60 million is
allocated to fund regional and municipal physical infrastructure such as:
1. Water supply/sanitation
2. Irrigation/drainage
3. Municipal gasification
4. Road rehabilitation
5. Solid waste treatment
Eligible Entities are:
o Regional government
o Local government
o Local self-government
o Municipal utility
o Central government (to the extent that it owns assets located in Georgia's regions)
The maximum amount allocated to fund each RID Investment Project is 7.0 million USD. For
projects with parallel funding MCG funding portion shall not exceed lesser than 35% of total project
cost or USD 7,000,000.
For more information see: http://www.mcg.ge/?l=1&i=249&i2=0
81
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
Kobuleti and Borjomi Water
2007-2010 EBRD,
Total 29
The Project objectives are to: rehabilitate and extend the water and wastewater networks, install
Project
MCG, WB, mln.
water meters; construct a reservoir, construct a wastewater treatment plant; and, assist the Kobuleti
Gov.
Euro.
and Borjomi water companies to implement the project and to improve their financial and
Georgia,
operational performance.
Local
EBRD 3.0
Municipaliti mln Euro
For more information see: http://www.ebrd.com/projects/psd/psd2007/37560.htm
es
Poti Water Supply Project
2006-2010 EBRD,
Total 8
The project would consist of a sovereign loan of up to EUR 3.5 million, on-lent to the Poti Water
MCG,
mln Euro
Company to finance improvements in the municipal water supply system by extending is pipeline to
SIDA,
EBRD 3.5 a more reliable source. The objective of the project is to enable the City water municipal Company to
Europ Aid, mln Euro
provide a 24/7 service to Poti inhabitants.
Gov.
Georgia,
For more information see: http://www.ebrd.com/projects/psd/psd2005/35601.htm
Local
Municipaliti
es
Kutaisi Water Project
2006-2010 EBRD,
Total 11
The objectives of the proposed project are to: rehabilitate well fields, transmission pumping stations
Gov.
mln Euro
and the water supply network; install water meters for 100 percent of households and assist the
Georgia,
Kutaisi Water company to improve its financial and operational performance.
Local
EBRD 3.0
Municipaliti mln Euro
For more information see: http://www.ebrd.com/projects/psd/psd2006/36491.htm
es
Ecoregional Conservation
2008-2010 BMZ/KfW,
2.25 mln
The project supports the establishment of a national park, four wetland sanctuaries around lakes
Program in the South
Govt.
Euro
Khanchala, Bugdasheni, Madatapa and Sagamo in Javakheti region of Georgia. The project
Caucasus: Establishment of
Georgia
envisages:
Javakheti National Park in
-
Development of management plans for the national park and the wetland sanctuaries;
Georgia
-
Integration of the National Park into the land use of the project area via a land use planning
which covers all communities in the support zone;
-
Development of selected support zone programmes in order to decrease the pressure on
the national park and sanctuaries and to foster the acceptance by the population;
-
To promote transboundary cooperation in biodiversity conservation in the Javakheti
region.
Development of
2007-2008 Finnish 0.7 mln.
Main purposes of the DEMMS project are:
Environmental Monitoring
Gov.
Euro
i)
to strengthen environmental monitoring and management tools of Georgian
and Management Systems in
environmental authorities,
Georgia (DEMMS)
ii)
ii) to modernize water monitoring methods, restore some parts of the monitoring
network, upgrade the environment laboratories and
iii)
iii) preparing a framework for Georgia's water monitoring strategy and action plan.
82
Project Name
Period
Donor
Budget
Project objectives and activities
83
PART
II:
Organigram
of
Project
Regional Organization National
Organization
Governance
KAEP
National
Steering
Focal
Committee
Point
Institutional
Structures
Programme
Stakeholder
National
Interministerial
Coordination
Committee
Coordinating Unit
Advisory
Group
Structure
Projects
GEF
OSCE
EU
USAID
National
Donor
Project
Project
Project
Project
Projects
Projects
UN, WB, EU, GEF
Key
Lines of Management
Lines of Coordination
84
PART III: Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference
Project Coordinator/CTA
General Responsibilities:
The Project Coordinator/CTA shall be responsible for the overall coordination of all aspects of the
UNDP-GEF project. He/she shall liaise directly with members of the Project Steering Committee (PSC),
the Implementing Agency (UNDP), the Executing Agency (UNOPS), UNDP Country Offices, donors,
and other partners as deemed appropriate and necessary.
The budget and associated work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day implementation of the
approved Project Document and inception report and the integration of the various donor funded parallel
initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports
from and on behalf of the Project. He/she will provide overall supervision for all staff in the Project
Coordination Unit, as well as guiding and supervising all external policy relations. She will directly
report to the UNDP Regional technical Adviser and UNOPS Senior Portfolio Manager.
Specific Duties:
The Project Coordinator will have the following specific duties:
· Management of the UNDP- GEF PCU, its staff, budget and if established the imprest account;
· Prepare an Annual Work Plan of the program on the basis of the Project Document and inception
report, under the general supervision of the Project Steering Committee and in close consultation
and coordination with related Projects, National Focal Points, GEF Partners and relevant donors;
· Coordinate and monitor the activities described in the work plan;
· Coordinate the TDA/SAP development process;
· Oversee the pilot project implementation and design the replication strategy;
· Ensure project compliance with all UN and GEF policies, regulations and procedures;
· Ensure consistency between the various program elements and related activities provided or
funded by other donor organizations;
· Assure preparation of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors;
· Coordinate and oversee preparation of the substantive and operational reports from the Program,
including revised TDA;
· Assume overall responsibility for the proper handling of logistics related to project workshops
and events;
· Prepare GEF quarterly project progress reports and annual Project Implementation Reports
(PIR), as well as any other reports requested by the UNOPS, UNDP and GEF;
· Guide the work of consultants and subcontractors and oversee compliance with the agreed work
plan;
· Monitor the expenditures, commitments and balance of funds under the project budget lines, and
draft project budget revisions;
· Assume overall responsibility for the meeting financial delivery targets set out in the agreed
annual work plans, reporting on project funds and related record keeping;
· Liaise with project partners to ensure their co-financing contributions are provided within the
agreed terms; seek opportunities to leverage additional co-funding
· Represent the Project at meetings and other project related fora within the region and globally,
as required
·
Qualifications:
85
· Post-graduate degree in Water Resource or Environmental Management, or a directly related
field;
· At least ten (10) years experience in fields related to the assignment including 6 years of
experience at a senior project management level.
· Demonstrated diplomatic and negotiating skills;
· Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those of the
GEF, UNDP and regional organizations related to Project activities, and currently identified
Project donors;
· Fluency in English and Russian, both speaking and writing;
· Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work
experience in the region on issues related to the Project will be very favorably considered and
· Proof records of successful project management in developing countries.
86
Terms of Reference
Scientific Officer
General Responsibilities:
The Scientific officer shall act as Deputy Project Coordinator and shall assist the Project Coordinator in
the overall coordination of all aspects of the UNDP-GEF project. He/she shall assume the responsibilities
of the Project Coordinator in their absence including communications with the KAEP Secretariat. The
Scientific Officer will have general responsibility for ensuring the Project's high quality technical output.
Specific Duties:
The Scientific Officer will have the following specific duties:
· Assist the Project Coordinator in preparation of an Annual Work Plan of the Project on the basis
of the Project Document and inception report;
· Ensure close collaboration with the major technical partners (EU, NATO, ENVSEC and
USAID).
· Oversee development of the KAEP information management system in consultation with EU;
· Manage the TDA update and have day-to-day responsibility for management of the TDA gap
filling activities;
· Have day-to-day oversight of pilot project implementation;
· Preparation of Terms of Reference for Consultants and Contractors; and
· Represent the Project at technical meetings within the region and globally, as required.
Qualifications:
· Post-graduate degree in Water Resource planning or a directly related field;
· A good background in Information Technology;
· At least fifteen years experience in fields related to the assignment;
· Demonstrated management and team building skills;
· Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those of the
GEF and UNDP and regional organizations related to Project;
· Fluency in English and Russian, both speaking and writing; and
· Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work
experience in the region on issues related to the Project will be very favorably considered.
87
Terms of Reference
Economist
General Responsibilities:
The Economist shall be responsible for production of the up-dated TDA coordinating thematic inputs and
gap filling activities. He/she shall chair the TDA Technical Task Team reporting directly to the Project
Manager. Key technical responsibilities will include the development of the Causal Chain Analysis and
Causal Loop diagrams, identification of SAP interventions and pre-feasibility studies of priority
interventions. The economist will also assist with the development of the SAP and critically the national
IWRM plans, advising the countries on strategic investments, and will be responsible for organization of
the donor conference, and will be responsible for technical oversight of the water quality demonstration
project.
Specific Duties:
The Project Coordinator will have the following specific duties:
· Development of the TDA coordinating all inputs into the process and the production of the final
document;
· Development of the CCA and Causal Loop diagrams for the priority transboundary issues;
· Listing of interventions for inclusion in the SAP and oversight of priority feasibility studies;
· Technical support to the countries in development of national IWRM plans, with particular
reference to investment strategies in the water and environment sectors;
· Organisation of the SAP donor conference and coordination with IFIs; and
· Oversight of the water quality demonstration project and development and promotion of
appropriate economic instruments.
Qualifications:
· Post-graduate degree in Development, Economics or a directly related field;
· At least fifteen years experience in fields related to the assignment;
· Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those of the
GEF, UNDP and regional organizations related to Project activities, and currently identified
Project donors;
· Fluency in English, both speaking and writing, with a working knowledge of Russian; and
· Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work
experience in the region on issues related to the Project will be very favorably considered.
88
PART IV: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
Introduction:
Stakeholder involvement in transboundary projects increases the range of opinions, ideas and
participating populations. In cases where multi-stakeholder involvement has not been widely utilized in
decision making processes, or where there are groups who have been marginalized by the norms
ingrained in the decision making process, a stakeholder involvement strategy provides guidance for
increasing inclusion and a sense of ownership among a broad array of stakeholder groups. The benefits of
increased stakeholder involvement in project development and implementation includes obtaining inputs
and diverse perspectives from stakeholder groups, incorporating these into project design, development
and implementation. Additional benefits include increasing sustainability of project impacts by
increasing the range of stakeholders whose interests are met by the project and through an enhanced
sense of region wide responsibility for common resources.
The rationale for developing a stakeholder involvement strategy for the Kura Aras River is that prior to
the PDf-B project, low levels of attention paid to the need to secure broad-based public support for, uses
associated with the Kura Aras River Basin. It is anticipated that this strategy will provide guidance for
how to increase stakeholder input into decision making of the project and will provide guidance about
how to appeal to broader public as beneficiaries of the efforts undertaken by the project. Additionally, it
is anticipated that this strategy will provide the project with suggested activities that can be undertaken in
order to facilitate stakeholder buy-in to project activities to be implemented primarily at the national level
and utilizing formal civil society stakeholder organizations.
The Public Participation and Stakeholder Involvement Strategy focuses specifically on the objectives of
the Kura Aras River Basin Project and will also support the forthcoming region-wide multi-donor
supported Kura Aras Environment Programme (KAEP) and will delineate the activities and tactics to
meet the stakeholder involvement objective of obtaining high quality contributions to the project
development and implementation from engaged, diverse and informed stakeholder groups. This will
include activities to ensure multi-stakeholder inputs into the Strategic Action Programme, and
determining public awareness building and outreach activities, education targeting specific stakeholder
groups, public involvement components in demonstration projects, ongoing support of the regional Kura
Aras NGO Forum, and monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the project.
This will be accomplished through a series of activities based on creating a dynamic flow of information
to and from the project staff based on a variety of stakeholder ideas and opinions, and allowing a
significant portion of the public and stakeholder involvement to be driven by the stakeholders
themselves. The findings of the Stakeholder Analysis conducted during the PDF-B phase of the project
serve as the empirical basis for both the specific issues to be addressed and approaches to be employed to
reduce tensions between groups through collective action towards common goals.
The activities of the Kura Aras Public Participation and Stakeholder Involvement Strategy are intended to
link with the activities of other KAEP component projects such as the UNDP/OSCE Environmental
Security Initiative, USAID projects, and EU, as well as others under development such as SIDA, the
Greek Embassy, and those working on related activities. Additionally, it is anticipated that the Public
Participation and Stakeholder Involvement Strategy can be synchronized with the Caspian Cluster
Activities strategy when that has been finalized.
This strategy outlines the activities of the Public Participation and Stakeholder Involvement Strategy
(P2/SIS) through: description of the activity; rationale; recommended tactics for accomplishing the
activity; ttimeframe within the project; and, suggested monitoring indicators. Definitions for major terms
used in this strategy are available in Annex 1.
This strategy should be viewed as a framework for more specific actions within the project that will be
developed as the project is implemented relying on further stakeholder inputs during the SAP
development phase of the full sized projects (FSP). This will include the constructing a project
communication strategy to facilitate broad project outreach and public awareness, public involvement
89
inputs into the demonstration projects, and monitoring of project effectiveness and impacts. It is expected
that fulfillment of the strategy will include exchange of knowledge, ideas, challenges and experiences
between communities from various other river basins in the broader region, including the Caspian Sea,
Black Sea, Dnipro/Dneiper River, Tisza River, and Danube River, potentially the Upper Syr Darya, and
Aras Sea, as well as other transboundary water projects.
Background information
The need to support stakeholder involvement and public participation in transboundary water
management within the UNDP Kura Aras Project is based on the findings of the stakeholder analysis,
and the need to meet the needs of multiple stakeholder groups with an interest in and/or impact on the
ecology of the river basin while avoiding exacerbating tensions among stakeholder groups. The
combination of these two will determine the makeup of the Stakeholder Advisory Council (SHAG) and
will contribute to the formation of the national Stakeholder Fora (SHF), as well as provide direction for
the implementation of the strategy.
The Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) for the UNDP Kura Aras Project was conducted in Spring 2005
Autumn 2006. The first phase involved qualitative analysis based on in-depth person to person interviews
with stakeholders in the Former Soviet Kura Aras countries. This was followed by development of
stakeholder analysis surveys administered to over 500 stakeholders representing 36 distinct stakeholder
groups in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Iran. The survey was designed to gauge stakeholder group
opinions, concerns and priorities regarding the specific issues addressed by the UNDP Kura Aras Project.
These surveys were statistically analyzed and the findings combined with those from the qualitative
analysis.
The findings of the SHA suggests that there is a need to include a much broader range of stakeholders in
the process of decision making so that the needs of many groups can be addressed in a way that does not
infringe upon the needs of others. The SHA demonstrated that there were potential tensions between the
upstream and downstream users and use of agrochemicals and municipal waste dumping, or tensions
between environmental users such as those concerned with seasonal flows and those stakeholders who
favor more aggressive water use schemes that would distribute water at times favorable to demand peaks
in order to advance economic development.
The SHA Findings, including those from the Qualitative SHA, Quantitative SHA, and Stakeholder
Advisory Group, suggest that stakeholders at all levels are aware of problems and are eager to be
involved in addressing these. These SHA demonstrated that there is desire across all stakeholder groups
for more information about how to keep the river healthy, and a willingness among stakeholders to
recognize that upstream and downstream uses of the river have resounding impacts throughout the
region. Specific stakeholder groups will need encouragement and support in becoming involved while
others are already active and eager to have more input in to the river basin management process.
Completed findings are available in the Full Stakeholder Analysis, and serve as the foundation for this
strategy. The recommendations, activities and initiatives advocated within this strategy emerge from the
SHA and are a result of the lessons learned through Environmental Governance "Reducing Trans-
boundary Degradation of the Kura-Aras River Basin through Public Involvement and Stakeholder
Inclusion in Governance" the Regional Environment Practice Component, of the UNDP/GEF Kura Aras
Project administered through the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre.
Objective and activities:
As noted above the primary objective of the strategy is to obtain quality contributions into the project
development and implementation from engaged, diverse and informed stakeholders through inputs into
project planning/design, implementation and monitoring of the activities at the national and regional
levels. This is to be accomplished through a set of five activities stemming from the findings of the SHA
and emanating from the inputs of the regional SHAG.
1. Provide input into the project development, including Strategic Action Programme development and
demonstration project implementation through the SHAG with linkages to national stakeholders
charged with supporting the UNDP Kura Aras Project
90
2. Continue to support the region wide Kura Aras NGO Forum focusing on addressing sustainable
transboundary water and environmental management advocacy to support the project, provide civil
society input into project activities and support project outreach activities.
3. Based on the input of the SHAG, develop an iterative communication and outreach strategy for the
project that emphasizes broad public awareness building and specific stakeholder group targeted
education activities to be implemented through a small grants programme in coordination with the
NGO Forum
4. Implement the hands-on stakeholder and public involvement activities at the local level in close
coordination with the project SAP Demonstration Projects to be implemented by NGOs and civil
society within the region.
5. Create and maintain an empirical mechanism to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the
activities to determine what works, what needs improvement and how sustainable efforts are without
long term project funding.
This work will be done in accordance with the UNDP/GEF Kura Aras SAP Development, and other
KAEP projects as possible. These activities will be linked to the activities of the Caspian Cluster where
possible and appropriate. It is intended that these activities will provide a model for other the KAEP
projects and they will be mutually reinforcing, complimentary, and coordinated whenever possible.
The following section outlines the tactics may be employed to accomplish these activities. Additions and
adjustments will be made as the project develops and more information becomes available. The strategy
should be viewed as a flexible approach to including stakeholders and the public in project activities and
should not be considered an immutable plan. It must remain sensitive to the realities of the project, of
regional developments and to the needs and conditions of stakeholders on the ground.
1. Provide input into the project development, including Strategic Action Programme development and
demonstration project implementation through the SHAG with linkages to national stakeholders
charged with supporting the UNDP Kura Aras Project
In order for the public involvement strategy to most accurately reflect the needs, concerns and priorities
of stakeholders within the region, it will be critical that stakeholders from a broad spectrum of interests
and backgrounds are represented on the Stakeholder Advisory Group.
During the PDF-B phase of the project a group of 12 Stakeholders met for 3 days in November 2006 to
review the TDA after an in depth briefing on the UNDP/GEF Project and earlier work of the SHA Team.
The SHAG Team members included: NGO representatives, a public health care provider, a community
organizer, a municipal water manager, an agricultural input association representative, a farming
technology expert, a rural sociologist, and an environmental journalist. Most lived in communities close
to the Kura or Aras rivers.
The members of the group were selected based on a broad spectrum of specialization, their understanding
of transboundary water issues, and various interests while maintaining an equal balance of regional
nationalities. They provided input, via comments on content, and made substantial recommendations for
the project development. Their input has been incorporated into subsequent drafts of the TDA, and will
be incorporated into the Full Sized Project (FSP) and other component projects.
The make-up of this group is based on the findings of the stakeholder analysis and members were
selected based on the division over particular project related issues, the degree of salience within specific
stakeholder groups and the degree to which these stakeholders are impacted by the conditions. The
SHAG does not replicate the functions of the intersectoral committees established by the project but
instead focuses on those groups who do not have a formal voice within the decision making process at
the regional level.
91
In the future officials from various government sectors may be invited to participate in the SHAG as
appropriate. Members of international funding institution and bilateral development agencies and
governmental sectors also are stakeholders who may be included in project activities as appropriate,
however they will not be participating members of the SHAG.
The SHAG members will provide input into the identification and articulation of the SAP Ecosystem
Quality Objectives (EQOs), and set the stage for the development and contributions to the UNDP Kura
Aras Project. The SHAG will be asked to assist the project to develop the final version of the Basin
Vision, and to work with the project and SAP Formulation Team members to develop meaningful EQOs
that will favour win-win situations, address concerns of multiple stakeholders in the region and be
realistically attainable.
For the project to move forward to address specific issues other stakeholder groups may be formed to
deal with these issues. For example for the demonstration project dealing with transboundary flooding
between Azerbaijan and Georgia, a small, issue specific stakeholder group may be able to provide key
inputs into the project design and development, especially pertaining to the development of public
involvement activities of that project. The members of that group could include national members of the
regional SHAG, as well as others impacted by and directly involved with this issue. This approach could
be replicated for other demonstration projects and national level activities as needed.
Both the SHAG and issue specific groups will be run on a consensus based decision making model, with
no member given more prominence than any other, regardless of social, economic, or political standing.
The emphasis will be placed on building mutual respect, consideration and understanding. The goal of
these groups is to create win-win positive sum situations whenever possible, and in cases where it is not,
to reduce negative impacts on stakeholders.
2. Continue to support the region wide Kura Aras NGO Forum focusing on addressing sustainable
transboundary water and environmental management advocacy to support the project and, provide
civil society input into project activities and project outreach activities.
The civil society mechanisms with the Kura Aras Basin are emerging as a potentially influential force for
change for social and environmental issues. Prior to the PDF-B phase of the project there was not an
organization or coalition of civil society organizations that addressed transboundary environmental issues
focusing specifically on water management. The NGO Forum came together under the Environmental
Governance Component of project with the mission to increase support for the project within the civil
society sector, to provide a mechanism for the project to support transboundary project development and
implementation for projects funded by international donors and to provide a united front for civil society
involvement in the region. The NGO Forum now provides civil society with a formal mechanism for
input in to the UNDP project, as well as other.
Members of the NGOs come together, exchange experiences and ideas, develop transboundary
partnerships. Organizations in the NGO sector are often competitors for funding, however because of the
diversity of expertise within these groups, creating a means for them to cooperate can have benefits
throughout the region, including serving as a clearing house and directory for donor funding initiatives,
creating a regional expertise database, and establishing cohesive and collaborative project proposals and
implementation.
The additional benefit for the creation of a NGO Forum is that it provides a means to recruit and market
transboundary communication outreach and stakeholder education activities (detailed in Activity 3) and it
provides a means to solicit proposals for implementation of public involvement activities (detailed in
Activity 4).
Through continues support, in combination with other regional donors, such as the Eurasia Foundation
and OSCE ENV SEC Initiative, the Kura Aras NGO Forum can continue to build upon the strong
foundation laid during the PDF-B phase of the project and work towards becoming autonomous.
Additionally, the group now has elected representative who can serve to provide civil society input in to
92
the forthcoming Kura Aras Environment Programme. Additionally, there is an eagerness to liaise with
NGOs in the Caspian Cluster.
3. Based on the input of the SHAG, develop an iterative communication and outreach strategy for the
project that emphasizes broad public awareness building and specific stakeholder group targeted
education activities to be implemented through a small grants programme in coordination with the
NGO Forum
An iterative communication and outreach strategy for the UNDP Kura Aras Project is intended to reach a
broad array of stakeholders, and the general public, as well as more specific and targeted stakeholder
groups. The messages to be sent to these will be different and based on both awareness raising about the
nature of the challenges to the Kura Aras Basin environment, and improving the behaviours and actions
of specific stakeholders in order to reduce negative impacts on the environment.
A second more focused effort will be developed to increase educational outreach to specific stakeholder
groups. The intention is to increase awareness and introduce alternative practices to stakeholders in the
region. These efforts will be focused on specific stakeholder groups, such as public health care providers,
sustenance farmers, municipal water managers, or educators. The approach will be to demonstrate the
logic behind current approaches, the empirical evidence of the impacts of these approaches, and
introduction of alternative practices.
The SHAG will serve as the body that provides the critical inputs for the development of the strategy and
the specific stakeholder education projects based on the findings of the SHA and the TDA. The SHAG
will be asked to help identify specific areas where these efforts will be most effective and then develop
specific messages to target groups and over all awareness building. The support of an environmental
communications expert may be obtained in order to ensure optimal outputs and strategy design. The
communication and outreach strategy should use social marketing approaches to reach the public and
should be done through a series of iterated activities and information campaigns so that they can build on
one another, and increase understanding and need for action gradually and more effectively. This will be
based on the strategy guidelines developed by UNDP/GEF in the manual "Communicating for Results! A
Communications Planning Guide for International Waters Projects"
Once the efforts and activities have been identified and initally developed through the strategy, they will
be channelled to the NGO Forum, and expressions of interest including specific approaches to be used,
budgets, transboundary areas and such will be solicited from transboundary partner NGOs. These will be
awarded based on criteria established by the SHAG and will be supported through small grants
administered by the project. The small grants will have a specific monitoring and evaluation criteria and
may be administered based on the criteria for set by the SHAG.
4. Implement the hands-on stakeholder and public involvement activities at the local level in close
coordination with the project SAP Demonstration Projects to be implemented by NGOs and civil
society within the region.
The SHAG will also be charged with advising the project regarding the public involvement
demonstration projects (PIDPs) to be implemented during the SAP development phase of the project. The
SHAG will provide additional ideas, and assist in the development of strategies to increase the public in
communities near the selected sites for the demonstration projects. It is anticipated that the SHAG
members will have a unique set of vantage points that can provide much needed understanding of how
these issues are currently viewed and how communities can be recruited to assist in the project, and as a
result become more invested in the outcomes.
The PIDPs were designed and developed through a competitive selection process during the PDF-B
phase of the project in conjunction with the NGO Forum activities. The selected projects are:
Implementation of a farmer training project that demonstrates the impacts of current farming practices,
improved farming practices and organic farming practices. This will involve training of farmers in
communities, carefully gauging the impacts of the farming practices on the environment, and providing
93
hands on community educational opportunities that target reducing negative impacts while improving
harvests quantity and quality.
Design and implementation of artificial wetlands to treat waste water in public buildings within small
communities. This will use artificial wetland technologies to purify the water prior to introducing it to the
river environment, and will emphasize small scale, cost effective mechanisms for improving the water
environment.
These demonstration projects will be implemented in all four Kura Aras Basin countries, by NGO
partners, and will emphasize training, affordability, community involvement and cost effectiveness of the
activities.
Again the SHAG could provide critical inputs to the receptivity, location and approach for recruiting
community involvement in these activities.
For new smaller scale PIDP activities, the SHAG will assist in the development of new PIDP ideas,
provide criteria for selection for proposals from NGOs in the NGO Forum, and devise monitoring and
evaluation indicators for the pubic involvement strategy. As with the Communication Strategy Activities,
these will be channeled through the Kura Aras NGO Forum and will require transboundary cooperation
among NGO partners for implementation, to be funded through small grants.
5. Create and maintain an empirical mechanism to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the
activities to determine what works, what needs improvement and how sustainable efforts are without
long term project funding.
A significant challenge to the field of public participation and stakeholder involvement is adequate and
meaningful monitoring and evaluation of activities. The causality of changes in behaviours, the impacts
of outreach activities, and the effectiveness of projects are often inappropriately measured and lack
empirical validity. As such it becomes difficult to know if the activities had the intended impacts.
Therefore this strategy includes the development of an empirical mechanism to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of activities. This is intended to gauge what is effective, where improvements can be made
and how to increase long term sustainability after funding from the project is no longer driving activities.
A second end of project stakeholder analysis should be conducted to identify where changes have or have
not been effective. This will be based on the findings of the initial SHA and target specific issues and
stakeholders identified as critical during FSP phase of the project. Additionally, the broader public will
also be surveyed to determine if the project has had inputs on the specific groups. This will be a
significant portion of the monitoring and evaluation of the communication strategy and stakeholder
education activities.
A critical review meeting will be held with project staff and select members of the SHAG to determine
the quality and impact of inputs in to the SAP development. It is anticipated that there will be significant
lessons to be learned through this and the critical review meeting will provide an opportunity to assess
the positive and negative impacts of this so that both this and future projects can benefit from the findings
and conclusions reached in this meeting.
Monitoring and evaluation of the NGO Forum will be based on the independent transboundary initiatives
undertaken by the NGOs, as well as the specific activities they implement on behalf of the project. As
noted above the SHAG will assist in developing the indicators for measuring the successful
implementation of the project.
Finally, SHAG and project staff will be charged with reviewing the impacts of the public involvement in
the demonstration project activities. These will be reviewed in terms of the unique approaches employed,
the receptivity of communities and the long term impacts these activities have on communities.
The final output from the monitoring and evaluation of the public participation and stakeholder
involvement activities will be critically reviewed and a lessons learned report will be produced to provide
94
information for related projects and inputs, as well as for the Kura Aras Environment Programme and/or
Caspian Cluster to consider for future public involvement activities.
Annex 1 for Public Participation and Stakeholder Involvement Strategy
Definition of Terms
There are several terms that continue to present conceptual challenges to the development of public
involvement strategies. The terms "public", "stakeholder", and "participation", are routinely, and often
erroneously, interchanged in discussions and project designs. The working definitions for this particular
strategy are as follows:
Public: The population as a whole, including a wide array of stakeholders, both those active and latent,
who are not specifically defined by their status as members of other professional, social, civic, hedonistic,
or economic stakeholder groups in relation to the river basin.
Stakeholder: A member of a specifically defined group sharing a common interest in river issues, based
on professional, social, civic, hedonistic, or economic concerns. It is possible that an individual can be a
member of several stakeholder groups at the same time. Stakeholder interests can be active and organized
or latent and unorganized. Stakeholders can be actively or passively involved in the issues addressed by
the project. They can either be impacted by and/or impacting the issues addressed by the project.
Stakeholders for this project include the following groups: Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs),
scientists, industrial sector, mining industry representatives, construction industry representatives, agro-
industry representatives, regional government officials, district water management officials, municipal
government officials, municipal waste manager, nature preserve staff, community based organizations
(CBOs), educators and teachers, students, farmers, pastoralists, public health care providers, member of
community near the river, tourism and recreation industry officials and employees, press and media, and
members of international Funding Institution and bilateral development agencies. Governmental sectors
also are stakeholders who may be included in project activities as appropriate.
Participation: The act of taking part in activities of the project in order to reach the goal of a healthier
river system in the Kura Aras Basin. This may be done through receptive participation, in terms of
receiving information and education about actions that can be taken to improve conditions, and through
active participation by taking part in activities and potentially continuing to be involved in those
activities.
Involvement: Making a direct contribution to the project through providing direct input and assisting in
guiding the project design and development. Involvement is more dynamic and multidirectional than
participation, and stresses a sense of ownership through consensus building and extended interactions
based on establishing and maintaining an ongoing relationship with the project, and project activities.
Therefore a public participation and stakeholder involvement strategy involves encompassing the
broader public through interactions specifically designed to support the participation of a wide array of
stakeholders in activities in support of the project.
95
Kura-Aras River basin Environment Programme
Institutional Arrangements
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Programme Structure 3
Regional
Governance
5
National
Governance
6
Technical Advisory Groups 6
Stakeholder
Advisory
Council
7
Funding Arrangement and Responsibilities
8
II. Communications modalities
9
III International Partner Coordination
10
Annex 1 Terms of Reference
11
1.1
Steering
Committee
11
1.2 KAEP Secretariat PCU
12
1.3 National Focal Points
13
1.4 National Coordination Structures
14
1.5 Technical Advisory Groups
15
1.6 Programme Coordinator
16
1.7 Stakeholder Advisory Council 17
Annex 2 Rules of Procedure for Steering Committee
18
96
I. PROGRAMME
STRUCTURE
1.
The Kura -Aras River Basin Environment Programme (KAEP) has participation on regional,
national, and international levels and was formed following the Geneva declaration signed by the five
basin states in September 2008.
2.
The KAEP is a programme for and from the five Riparian States of the Kura-Aras River Basin,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey aiming to halt the deterioration of
environmental conditions of the basin and to promote sustainable development in the area. The process is
currently being supported by European Union, Global Environmental Facility (GEF), OSCE, UNDP,
UNEP and USAID, other international organizations and the private sector. In the first phase of the
programme, KAEP's objective will be to develop and adopt a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the
protection and rehabilitation of the basin environment in five transboundary environmental concern
areas:
· Variation and reduction of hydrological flow
· Deterioration of water quality (e.g. pollution)
· Ecosystem degradation in the river basin
· Increased flooding and bank erosion, projected to be exacerbated under climate change
scenarios
and, implement demonstration projects addressing specific aspects in each of the areas of concern.
3.
Within the context of the implementation framework provided by its various programmes and
projects the main responsibilities of KAEP country and International Partner members will include the
following:
· to provide overall coordination of the national and international component projects supporting the
implementation of the SAP.
· to contribute to the overall strategic policy and management direction to the KAEP through
representation on the Steering Committee;
· to provide technical and management advice to the KAEP through representation on the Advisory
Groups;
· to provide national policy guidance for the KAEP through the National Coordination Structures
(NCS) and Inter-sectoral Coordination Groups (ICG);
· to ensure that policy guidance from the Steering Committee is reflected in national KAEP -related
policies and programme activities, as appropriate; and
· to contribute and commit, financially and in kind, to development and implementation of the
Strategic Action Programme.
4.
In its first three years the KAEP will undertake the following activities supported by the Riparian
states, EU, GEF, OSCE, UNDP, UNEP and USAID:
· Establish a KAEP management and coordination structure including a Steering Committee,
Stakeholder Advisory Council and within the KAEP secretariat, a Programme Coordination Unit
(PCU) and technical advisory groups
· Undertake a comprehensive Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
· Agreement on long-term basin vision underpinned by Environmental Quality Objectives
· Development and adoption a Strategic Action Programme (SAP), incorporating IWRM plan elements
· Development of a KAEP River Basin Information System including an interactive web-site
· Implementation of demonstration projects targeting the specific transboundary environmental areas
of concern
In longer term KAEP will concentrate its efforts on implementation of the adopted SAP, supported by
the International Partners at both the national and regional levels. During SAP implementation it is
97
anticipated that other International agencies will apply to have their projects included under the KAEP
umbrella and in so doing become full international partners.
5.
The overall programme structure is shown as Figure 1. The overall governance is provided by
the Steering Committee. Overall KAEP coordination implementation is under the guidance of the KAEP
secretariat and Programme Coordination Unit, led by the Programme Coordinator. The KAEP National
Focal Point and the National Coordination Structure (NCS) provide the coordination at the national level.
Governance
KAEP
KAEP
Steering Committee
National Focal
Point
KAEP Secretariat
Programme
Stakeholder
National
Intersectoral
Institutional
Coordination
and Technical
Coordination
Coordination
Structures
Unit
Advisory
Structure
Group
Groups
UNDP
UNEP
OSCE
USAID
EU
National
Donor
K-A
National
Projects
Projects
Projects
EU,
EBRD,
UNDP
Key
Lines of Management
Lines of Coordination
K
FIGURE 1
Structure of the Kura-Aras River Basin Environment Programme
7.
Each of these elements is discussed below and Terms of Reference (ToR) are provided in Annex
1.
Regional Governance
Steering Committee:
8.
The Steering Committee (Committee) comprises the KAEP national Focal Point from each Kura-
Aras River Basin States or chose representative, representative from the International Partners (European
Union, OSCE, UNDP, UNEP and USAID) and a representative from the Stakeholder Advisory Council.
Project Managers of projects and experts operating under the KAEP umbrella may attend meetings as
observers, subject to the discretion of the Steering Committee Chairman. Other interested parties may be
invited as observers at the Steering Committee's discretion.
9.
The Steering Committee is the principal policy-making body of the KAEP. The Committee will
provide direction to the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) on issues pertaining to the regional
governance of the KAEP, and, when appropriate, to the National Coordination Structures on issues
pertaining to the national governance.
98
10.
The Steering Committee's Rules of Procedure are included in Annex 2.
11.
Funding of Ordinary Steering Committee meetings will be shared between the countries and
International Partners. The country chairing the Steering Committee will be expected to host and bear the
costs of the Steering Committee meeting in its year of office whilst the other countries and International
Partners shall bear the costs of attendance at the meeting by their representatives. Attendance of
observers will be at their own cost.
12.
The ToR for the Steering Committee are provided in Annex 1.1.
Programme Coordination Unit:
13.
In the first three years the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) will be hosted by the UNDP-
GEF project located in Tbilisi Georgia.
14.
The PCU will carry out the day-to-day coordination of the regional components of the KAEP and
subsequent implementation of the SAP, and will act as the Secretariat for the Steering Committee. The
PCU will comprise of a Programme Coordinator and necessary support staff. With the agreement of the
Steering Committee, it is proposed that in the short term the responsibility of the Programme Coordinator
be given to the UNDP- GEF Project Manager. As appropriate the umbrella projects will be subject to
coordination of the Programme Coordinator.
17.
Each individual Project Manager of an umbrella project will be responsible to the Steering
Committee members, as per project application (see section III) and the stated project beneficiary, for
his/her project activities.
18.
The ToR for the PCU are provided in Annex 1.2.
20.
The ToR for the Programme Coordinator are provided in Annex 1.6.
National Governance
The National Focal Points:
21.
The National Focal Point is the main contact in each Country for the KAEP and will sit on all
meetings of the Steering Committee.
22.
The NFP directs and manages the activities of the National Coordination Structure and assures
full inter-sectoral participation in KAEP nationally, including ministries, academia, NGOs, private sector
and other pertinent stakeholders. It is recommended to establish a national Inter-sectoral Coordination
Group (ICG), chaired by the NFP, and a national stakeholder forum to ensure full partnership and
involvement of the other pertinent national stakeholders.
23.
Terms of Reference for the NFP are provided in Annex 1.3.
National Coordination Structures:
24.
The National Coordination Structure (NCS) in each country is responsible for coordination of
national SAP implementation and provision of national input into the regional programme.
25.
The NCS is a permanent body directed and managed by the National Focal Point, which will
maintain close contact with the PCU and be aware of all PCU activities.
26.
The ToR for the NCS are provided as Annex 1.4.
The Technical Advisory Groups
99
27.
Initially three Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) will be established, they are as follows:
-
Advisory Group on variation in hydrological flow, including flooding
-
Advisory Group on pollution control and water quality
-
Advisory Group on ecosystem degradation
28.
The Technical Advisory Groups purpose are to assist KAEP PCU coordinate activities in the
priority regional environmental concern areas. The Technical Advisory Groups will oversee
implementation of the SAP in their specific concern area and, where required, develop specific
implementation plans. Through the Technical Advisory Groups the riparian states will contribute to the
overall regional coordination of the KAEP
29.
The Technical Advisory Groups will operate on the basis of working parties, involving the
participation of all riparian states, PCU representation, and, when necessary, outside experts. Each
riparian state, through the NFP, will appoint a technical expert from the appropriate authority to sit on
each Technical Advisory Group and act as the country focal point, reporting to the NCS and NFP.
30.
The Technical Advisory Groups will meet at least twice a year.
31.
Terms of Reference for the Technical Advisory Groups are provided in Annex 1.5.
Stakeholder Advisory Council
32.
Members of the Stakeholder Advisory Council (SHAC) will be drawn from the national
stakeholder forum and will consist of 12 stakeholders not normally given a formal voice in the
programme and project development process.
33 The role of the SHAC will be review the issues and problems arising with implementation of the
KAEP and SAP and provide an informed feed-back on the assumptions and perceptions of the PCU and
project staff.
34
The SHAC will meet twice a year to review all programme products and will make an annual
report to the Steering Committee. A representative of the SHAC will sit as a member of the Steering
Committee.
35.
Terms of reference for the Stakeholder Advisory Council are provided in Annex 1.7
Funding Arrangements and Responsibilities
36.
It is recognized that the KAEP International Partners in funding umbrella projects must abide by
their own rules and regulations governing the provision and administration of project funds.
37.
Within these regulations and conditions, the Steering Committee will have the ability to pass
comment on project work plans through an annual review. Subsequently, it will be the responsibility of
the Project Managers of umbrella projects (in coordination with the KAEP Programme Coordinator and
in consultation with the NFPs through the National Coordination Structures) to revise the work plans
where appropriate.
38. The Kura-Aras riparian states shall:
· Mobilize resources to implement all national activities and support all regional activities, specified in
KAEP Strategic Action Programme in accordance with programme dates.
· Provide all umbrella projects with appropriate work space where requested.
· Provide the NCS and its staff with the necessary financial support to execute its Terms of Reference;
this includes adequate office space, utilities, meeting expenses and administrative support.
100
· Provide access to all data and information required for implementation of the KAEP.
· Each country shall, as the incumbent Chair of the Steering Committee, host and support the Steering
Committee meeting and Technical Advisory Group meetings, providing venue, logistical support and
translation.
· Provide support for their representatives to attend the Steering Committee meetings and the meetings
of the Technical Advisory Groups.
101
II. Communication Modalities
The programme Coordinator will help maintain clear channels of communication and will be responsible
for:
· preparation of materials for Steering Committee meetings;
· assisting the Chairman of the Steering Committee in providing inter-sessional updates;
· assuring that all parties have the latest versions of the TDA, SAP and KAEP implementation
progress report and other pertinent documents;
· distribution of all major reports from the umbrella project to all parties, for review and
comment;
· Communication exchange between the TAGs and distribution of TAG minutes and reports to
the members of the Steering Committee;
· Communication exchange with the SHAC and distribution of SHAC minutes and reports to the
members of the Steering Committee
All correspondence between the NFPs and PCU, should be copied to all Steering Committee Members
and the NCSs
102
III. International Partners Coordination
Whilst complying with the specific project development and intervention goals set down by their implementing
bodies, the International Partners, will seek to develop their projects in close collaboration and, if possible, in
parallel with each other, in order to ensure that both overall KAEP and specific project goals are met with
minimum overlap and maximum targeting.
In this regard, the International partners agree to:
·
With the assistance of the KAEP Programme Coordinator, develop an integrated implementation
plan, to be shared with the Steering Committee.
·
Hold the following schedule of meetings:
- Task managers, once a year, chaired by KAEP Programme Coordinator, with meeting notes sent
to Steering Committee;
- Project managers, three times a year, chaired by KAEP Programme Coordinator, meeting notes
sent to Steering Committee;
·
Submit all public reports in draft form to the PCU for review and comment before finalization;
this does not include reports intended for internal distribution within the International Partner
organizations.
·
Submit all final public reports to all International Partners and Steering Committee in electronic
and paper form for review and comment.
103
Annex 1.2 Terms of Reference
Kura Aras river basin Environment Programme
Program Coordination Unit (PCU)
Background: The PCU will be hosted in its first three years by the UNDP-GEF project and will provide
a coordination and management structure for implementation of the KAEP in accordance with the rules
and procedures and directions provided by the Steering Committee.
Tasks:
· Assist in networking between National Focal Points and National Coordination Structures in all four
riparian states and act as a Secretariat to the KAEP Steering Committee;
· Coordinate the activities of the International Partner projects ensuring maximum targeting SAP;
· Cooperate and liaise with TAGs and the SHAC;
· With the assistance of the National Coordinating Structures, prepare the reports on implementation
of the SAP on a regular basis for the Steering Committee;
· Assist relevant capacity building within and among littoral countries;
· Prepare progress reports (administrative and financial) concerning programme activities;
· Maintain the KAEP web-site and information system;
· Disseminate information on policy, economic, environmental, scientific and technical issues related
to the programme;
· Coordinate international, multi-lateral and bi-lateral environmental activities in the Kura-Aras basin,
where appropriate; and
· Assist in resource mobilization for the SAP.
104
Annex 1.3 Terms of Reference
Kura-Aras river basin Environment Programme
National Focal Point
Background: National Focal Point is the main contact point for the KAEP in the riparian state. The NFP
is a member of the Steering Committee, and represents his/her country's interests in the governance of
the KAEP. The National Focal Point is tasked with coordinating national activities as well as
coordinating and being responsible for his/her country's participation in the KAEP. The National Focal
Point oversees the office and functions of National Coordination Structure. .
Tasks:
· Member of the Steering Committee representing his/her country;
· Performs intersectoral Coordination with his/her country, including ministries, private sector, NGOs,
and other stakeholders;
· Directs and manages the National Coordination Structure;
· Nominates national Technical Advisory Group members;
105
· Annex 1.4 Terms Of Reference
Kura-Aras river basin Environment Programme
National Coordination Structure
Background: The National Coordination Structure (NCS) is responsible for coordination of national
implementation of the KAEP and SAP, and overall commitments under the ORASECOM agreement.
The NCS will be a permanent body, located either within the Ministry or a host institution designated by
the NFP. The NFP shall oversee and manage the office and functions of the NCS. It will assist the NFP in
the execution of his/her duties under KAEP, including inter-sectoral coordination function (see article
22). The NCS shall maintain close contact with the PCU and be aware of all its activities.
Tasks:
· Promote and coordinate KAEP and SAP implementation;
· Report annually on national SAP implementation against programme timelines to the Steering Committee
and PCU;
· Review and comment on KAEP documents prepared by umbrella projects, PCU, Technical Advisory
Groups, SHAC and National Focal Points;
· Assist in coordination of all national inputs into umbrella projects;
· Assist with practical arrangements for international and regional cooperation (e.g. meeting
arrangements, logistics, visa applications, etc.);
· Assist in identifying national institutions and experts to undertake different thematic tasks with the
umbrella projects and coordinate the different themes at the national level.
106
Annex 1.5 Terms of Reference
Kura Aras river basin Environment Programme
Technical Advisory Groups
Background: The Technical Advisory Groups' purpose is to provide the PCU with the best possible
advice and information on topics key to the development and implementation of the SAP. They will
operate on the basis of working parties involving participation of all riparian states and the PCU, together
with outside experts when considered necessary. The involvement of NGOs is encouraged. The Technical
Advisory Groups will meet at least twice a year the PCU will act as the Secretariat.
Tasks:
· Work closely with the PCU to ensure regional coordination within the area of competency;
· When and where appropriate, make recommendations to the Steering Committee, on guidance and
strategy within area of competency;
· Assist in development of the TDA and SAP;
· With the assistance of the PCU and the International Partner support projects, develop where
necessary specific implementation plans to operationalise the relevant section of the SAP;
· Make recommendations for training within area of competency;
· Cooperate with other Technical Advisory Groups.
107
Annex 1.6 Terms of Reference
Kura-Aras river basin Environment Programme
Programme Coordinator
General Job Description: The Programme Coordinator shall be responsible in general for the overall
coordination of all aspects of the Kura-Aras river basin Environment Programme and implementation of
the SAP in particular. He/she shall liaise directly with the National Focal Points and the representatives
of International Partners and other donors in order to coordinate the annual implementation plan for the
programme.
He/she shall be responsible for all KAEP substantive managerial and financial reports and will provide
overall administrative supervision of the Programme Coordination Unit, as well as guiding and
supervising all external policy relations. He/she will be active in promoting the KAEP and mobilizing
funds from other donors and the private sector to assist with SAP implementation.
Tasks:
· Prepare an annual implementation plan for KAEP on the basis of the SAP and national and
international support projects, in close consultation and coordination with the National Focal Points,
International Partners and other relevant donors. The plan will provide day-to-day implementation
guidance on the programme and assist with integration of donor funded initiatives;
· Coordinate and monitor the implementation of the SAP and, with the assistance of NFPs, TAGs and
the NCSs;
· Ensure consistency between the various programme elements and related support project activities;
and
· Foster and establish links with other related Kura-Aras and, where appropriate, with other
international waters projects in the wider basin.
108
Annex 1.7 Terms of Reference
Kura-Aras river basin Environment Programme
Stakeholder Advisory Council
General Job Description: The Stakeholder Advisory Council (SHAC) purpose is to provide first
feedback to the KAEP on the direction of the programme from the perspective of stakeholders who are
well versed in the issues addressed by the programme, but are not normally involved in its development.
They often have hands on experiences with water related issues that are more immediate than members
of the PCU and project staff and they can provide an informed check on the assumptions and perceptions
of the project staff. The SHAC will comprise of up to ten members and will be represented on KAEP
Steering Committee.
Tasks:
· To review and provide early input all KAEP programmatic documents;
· Coordinate the activities of national stakeholder forums;
· To meet twice a year to articulate the concerns and wishes of under-represented stakeholders in
the Kura-Aras basin.
109
PART V: Institutional arrangements for Kura-Aras Environmental Programme
KURA-ARAS RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
STEERING COMMITTEE
RULES OF PROCEDURE
Rule 1. Definitions
For the purposes of these Rules:
a) "Steering Committee" means the Steering Committee of the Kura-Aras river basin
Environment Programme;
b) "Programme Coordination Unit" means the Programme Coordination Unit of the
Kura-Aras river basin Environment Programme;
c)
"Chairperson" means the Chairperson nominated in accordance with Rule 6;
d) "Meeting" means any meeting of the Steering Committee;
e) "Kura-Aras
riparian
States" means Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran and
Turkey.
Rule 2. Composition
1.
The Steering Committee shall be composed of representatives of the Kura Aras riparian states
and of the EU, OSCE, UNDP, UNEP and USAID and a representative of the Stakeholder Advisory
Council.
2.
The Steering Committee may decide that other organizations become Members of the Steering
Committee.
Rule 3. Meetings
1.
The Steering Committee holds an ordinary meeting at least once a year, upon convocation by the
Chairperson. At each ordinary meeting, the Steering Committee shall decide upon dates and venues of
the next ordinary meeting.
2.
An extraordinary meeting may be convened at any time at the request by any Member of the
Steering Committee submitted to the Secretariat, subject to concurrence of the majority of the Steering
Committee. The requests for an extraordinary meeting shall be circulated by the Secretariat to all
Members with a deadline for reply. The requesting member shall be informed by the Secretariat about
the replies it receives.
3.
The ordinary meetings shall be held in each Kura-Aras riparian State, in turn, in alphabetic order,
in the English language. The venue for extraordinary meeting should be defined by the Chairman of
Steering Committee in consultations with the Secretariat.
4.
The meetings shall be held in private unless the Steering Committee decides otherwise.
Rule 4. Agenda
1.
The Secretariat shall in consultation with the Chairperson prepare the provisional agenda for each
meeting.
2.
The provisional agenda for each ordinary meeting shall include:
a)
items the inclusion of which was decided at a previous meeting;
110
b)
items proposed by any member;
c)
items proposed by the Chairperson.
3.
The provisional agenda for an extraordinary meeting shall consist only of those items proposed
for consideration in the request for the holding of the extraordinary meeting.
4.
The provisional agenda together with supporting documents shall be circulated in English and
Russian by the Secretariat to the members at least four weeks before the opening of the meeting.
Rule 5. Representation
The Kura-Aras riparian states shall be normally represented by the National Focal Point or by senior
officials designated by the National Focal Point.
Rule 6. Chairmanship
1.
The chairmanship of the Steering Committee shall be given to each Kura-Aras riparian State, in
turn, in alphabetical order.
2.
The Kura-Aras riparian State chairing the Steering Committee shall nominate the Chairperson
and a Vice-Chairperson. If the Chairperson finds it necessary to be absent during any meeting or any part
thereof and/or is unable to perform his/her functions, the Vice-Chairperson shall take his/her place.
3.
The Chairperson shall serve for a period of one year.
4.
In addition to exercising the powers and duties conferred upon him/her elsewhere in these rules
the powers and duties of the Chairperson shall be:
a)
to convene the ordinary and extraordinary meetings;
b) to declare the opening and closing of each meeting;
c) to preside at all meetings;
d) to ensure observance of these Rules and to decide all questions of order raised at
the meetings;
e)
to make such decisions and to give such directions to the Secretariat as will ensure, that the
business of the Steering Committee is carried out efficiently and in accordance with its wishes;
f)
to hold responsibility for public awareness, particularly through mass media, in consultations
with Secretariat and in accordance with Steering Committee policy.
Rule 7. Secretariat
1. The Programme Coordination Unit shall serve as the Secretariat of the Steering Committee.
2. In addition to exercising the powers and duties conferred upon it elsewhere by the Rules, the
Secretariat shall:
a) issue the invitations to the meetings;
b) prepare the provisional agenda for the meetings in accordance with Rule 4;
c) make all necessary arrangements, including secretarial assistance, for the meetings of
the Steering Committee and its subsidiary bodies;
d) prepare reports of the meetings; and
e) perform such other functions and tasks entrusted to it by the Steering Committee.
Rule 8. Conduct of business
1. A majority of the members shall constitute quorum.
111
2. Proposals shall normally be introduced in writing and submitted to the Secretariat, which shall
circulate them to the members.
3. The decisions of any meeting shall be taken by consensus.
4. Between meetings, any proposal for a decision falling within the competence of the Steering
Committee shall be circulated in writing by the Secretariat to all members with a specified deadline for
reply.
5. A written decision shall be taken by consensus subject that all members reply.
Rule 9. Subsidiary bodies
1. The Steering Committee may establish any subsidiary body if it deems it necessary.
2. The Rules of Procedure of any such Subsidiary body shall be, mutatis mutandis, those of the
Steering Committee.
Rule 10. Languages
The working languages of the Steering Committee shall be English and Russian
Rule 11. Participation of Observers
1. The Steering Committee may invite observers to participate in its meetings.
2. The observers may participate, without the right to participate in decision-making, in the
deliberations of the Steering Committee and its subsidiary bodies, if any, upon the invitation of the
Chairperson, as the case may be, on question within their competence or scope of activities.
3. Observers may, upon invitation of the Chairperson, submit written statements that shall be
circulated by the Secretariat to the members of the Steering Committee or of the subsidiary body
concerned.
Rule 12. Amendments and Suspension
Any of these rules may be amended or suspended by the Steering Committee in accordance with Rule 8.
112
PART VI: NGO Forum Draft Charter
"Kura-Araks" NGO Forum
C H A R T E R
1. General Provisions
1.1
The "Kurai-Araks NGO Forum'' hereinafter referred to as the "Forum", is a non-entrepreneurial
legal entity.
1.2
The Forum integrates non-governmental organizations of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran
(hereinafter referred to as the --- region)
1.3
The Forum and its members act adherent to the International Conventions and Treaties,
Legislation of Georgia and this Charter.
1.4
The Forum is an organization for regional cooperation.
1.5
The Forum, in its activity, follows gender, ethnic, racial, religion and social equity principles.
1.6
Non-governmental organizations equally participate in the work of the Forum; common
problems are discussed, processed and solved in an associated, open and public manner.
1.7
Governing bodies of the Forum are formed exclusively on parity and rotation bases.
1.8
The Forum is a legal entity. It has its own account in the bank, a seal, an emblem and other
attributes. The Forum, based on equality, cooperates with organizations from Georgia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Iran and other countries of the Region.
1.9
Activity of the Forum is distributed at the territory of the region.
1.10
The full title of Forum is the "Kura-Araks NGO Forum''.
1.11
Address of the Forum Central Office is: Georgia, Tbilisi __________________________.
2. Mission and Objectives of the Forum
2.1.
Mission of the Forum:
2.1.1. Support to decrease of degradation of eco-systems of Kura- Araksi river basin.
2.1.2. Development of the regional cooperation in the transboundary water resources management.
2.1.3. Environmental awareness rising and capacity building of public in the transboundary water
resources management
2.1.4. Involvement of public in the transboundary water resources management
2.2.
Objectives of the NGO Forum:
2.2.1. Support to and implementation of measures aimed at decreasing of degradation of eco-systems of
Kura - Araksi river basin.
2.2.2. Development and promotion of regional and international cooperation in the management of
transboundary water resources.
2.2.3. Rising of the level of environmental education, awareness of public and its involvement in the
process of decision making on management of the transboundary water resources
2.2.4. Participation in the process of development of constitutional and legislative amendments for
effective and efficient conservation, use and sustainable management of water resources in the
countries of the region.
2.2.5. Participation in the process of implementing provisions of the international conventions of the
region and international treaties in water sector, ratified by the countries.
2.2.6. Participation in the process of implementation of bilateral and multilateral international
agreements on sustainable management of the water resources.
2.2.7. Participation in the process of Harmonization of water legislation of the region's countries with
the international legislation.
113
2.2.8. Elaboration of comprehensive programs for the development of the transboundary water
resources management for the countries of the region.
2.2.9. Independent monitoring of projects implemented in the field of water resources.
2.2.10. Creation of web-page of the Forum and its placing in Internet.
2.2.11. Preparation, publication and dissemination of research and recommendation materials.
2.2.12. Communicating viewpoints of non-governmental organizations and the public at international
forums, symposiums, conferences, workshops and others.
2.2.13. Organizing environmental campaigns; implementation of demonstrative and pilot projects.
2.
Rights of the Forum
Given the mission and objectives, the Forum enjoys the right to:
3.1
establish national offices of the Forum Apparatus.
3.2
adherent to the effective legislation, establish water resource conservation, use and management
fund of the Region.
3.3
create educational and scientific-research institutions.
3.4
organize and participate in symposiums, conferences, seminars, trainings and other scientific
events.
3.5
have printing houses; perform publishing activities.
3.6
arrange meetings with citizens, community leaders, businessmen, scientists, journalists, and state
government representatives.
3.7
establish relations with public organizations both in and outside the Region.
3.8
adherent to effective legislation, participate in establishment of enterprises having various
organization-legal forms.
4. Members of the Forum and Their Rights and Obligations
4.1
The Forum members are founding and registered non-governmental organizations enrolled into
the Forum after its registration, adherent to the procedure, making a decision to become a
member of the Forum , follow its Charter and pay a membership fee.
4.2
A non-governmental organization is involved in the activity of the Forum through its official
representative, who can be either the head of a non-governmental organization or a member of
Gamgeoba.
4.3
Members are registered upon their applications by representatives of Board of Directors of the
Forum.
4.4
The member of the Forum has the right to:
a) elect and be elected within the managerial bodies of the Forum.
b) enjoy the right of a single vote in the work of Forum Assembly and within the competence
that s/he enjoys by the Forum .
c) address the management of the Forum; freely express his/her opinion on any issue related to
work of the Forum until the moment the management makes its final decision.
d) freely obtain information on work of the Forum.
e) participate in the work of regional and national offices of the Forum Apparatus, scientific-
research institutions and the fund.
f) freely leave the Forum according to the procedure provided by the Agreement on
Cooperation.
4.5
The Forum member is obliged to:
a) follow the requirements as of the Charter.
b) participate in the work of the Forum; facilitate in execution of decisions made by
management bodies of the Forum.
c) provide the Forum authorities with information necessary for its work.
d) take care of values and property of the Forum.
4.6
Members of the Forum are not responsible for obligations exercised by the Forum.
4.7
The Forum is not responsible for obligations of member non-governmental organizations.
114
4.8
Other rights and obligations of members of the Forum are determined adherent to this Charter.
Typical form of Agreement on Cooperation between the Forum and its members is approved by
the Forum Assembly.
5. Management Authorities and Apparatus of the Forum
5.1 The Board of Directors
5.1.1 The Board of Directors is a managerial authority of the Forum. It is elected for two years and
enrolls the chairman of the Forum and 12members, official representatives of non-governmental
organizations, of the Board of Directors, out of which three are from Armenia, three from
Georgia, three from Azerbaijan, three from Iran.
5.1.2 Sessions of the Board of Directors are attracted at least once a year. A special session is attracted
by the Chairman of the Forum or by initiative of 1/3 of the members of the Board. The Chairman
of the Forum attracts the sessions of the Board of Directors and develops the agenda of the
session. The Session is authorized if it is attended by at least half of the Board's members.
Decisions are made by a simple majority of attendants' votes, if the Session does not provide
otherwise. Decisions of Board are signed by the Chairman of the Forum.
5.1.3 The Forum 's Board of Directors
a) discusses and approves the structure and the staff schedule of the Forum Apparatus.
b) approves internal documents regulating activity of the Forum, regulations of meeting bodies
of the Forum, typical agreements on cooperation between the Forum and its members.
c) elects the Deputy Chairman of the Forum from the members of the Board of Directors.
d) approves action plans of and projects implemented by the Forum.
e) establishes national offices of the Forum Apparatus; approves their action regulations,
structure and staff schedule.
f) creates educational, scientific and publishing institutions and enterprises of the Forum;
approves their heads, action regulations, structure and staff schedule.
g) hears Progress Reports of the Chairmen of Task Groups , heads of institutions and
enterprises of the Forum.
h) makes decisions on disposal of property owned by the Forum; approves agreements and
memorandums of cooperation with partner organizations concluded on behalf of the Forum.
i) creates Interim Task Groups, approves their heads and members, action regulations and
action plans.
j) discusses and accepts other internal documents regulating the activity of the Forum bodies.
k) discusses and makes decisions on issues related to activity of the Forum beyond the
competence of the Assembly.
5.1.4 Organization and the rule of conducting the sessions of the Forum's Board of Directors are
determined by the Regulation of the Board of Directors approved by the same Board.
5.2 Chairman of the Forum
5.2.1 The Chairman of the Forum is elected by the Forum Assembly, for two years, by a secret vote,
simple majority of votes and on rotation basis.
5.2.2 The Chairman of the Forum:
a) determines the agenda of the Board of Directors' session; chairs and administers sessions of
the Board; signs decisions made by the Board.
b) submits the Progress Report to the Assembly.
c) on behalf of the Forum, signs agreements and memorandums on cooperation with the partner
organizations.
d) performs other duties assigned adherent to the regulation of the Board of Directors and
internal documents regulating activity of the Forum bodies.
5.3 Deputy Chairman of the Forum
5.3.1 The Forum Board of Directors, for the term of authority of the Forum Chairman, elects three
Deputy Chairmen of the Forum, from its members from each country.
115
5.3.2 Deputy Chairmen of the Forum:
a) upon assignment of the Forum Chairman or the Board of Directors, perform the duties of the
Chairman in his/her absence, or in the event of failure to perform the duties of the Chairman.
b) perform other duties upon assignment of the Forum Chairman and/or Board of Directors,
also adherent to internal documents regulating activity of the Forum bodies.
5.4 Revision Commission under the Forum
5.4.1 Revision Commission is created by the Forum so that to implement financial and economic
activity of the Forum and to control advisability of the carried out work. The Commission
includes five members elected by the Assembly. The member of the Commission cannot be a
member of the Board of Directors or hold any other position in the Forum Apparatus at the same
time.
5.4.2 Activity of the Revision Commission is managed by its Chairman elected by the Commission.
The session of the Revision Commission is authorized if attended by at least three members.
Decisions are made by majority of attendants' votes. In the event that votes are divided equally,
the Chairman of the Commission has a decisive vote.
5.4.3 The Revision Commission:
a) on a periodical basis, familiarizes with the financial documents of the Forum ; prepares
relevant conclusions and recommendations for the Board of Directors.
b) submits the Financial Report to the Assembly.
c) attends the sessions of the Board of Directors.
5.5 Interim Task Groups under the Forum
5.5.1 Interim Task Groups are created to discuss and prepare issues related to the activity of the Forum
.
5.5.2 The Task Groups are elected by member countries of the Forum and are composed of experts
working in water sector.
5.5.3 Competences and the rule of activity of the Interim Task Groups are determined by relevant
regulations approved by the Board of Directors.
6. Consulting Councils under the Forum
6.1
Consulting Council is created under the Board of Directors of the Forum so that to support
effectiveness of the Forum's work and ensure relevant preparation of separate issues by the
managerial bodies of the Forum.
Expert-Consultants Council, including experts and scientists working on water resource issues are
members of this council.
6.2
By decision of the Board of Directors, a special consulting council of various representatives can
be created so that to discuss separate problem areas.
6.3
Attraction and rule of activity of the sessions of consulting councils is determined by the
Regulation of the Forum Councils approved by the Board of Directors.
7. Property and Funds of the Forum
7.1
The property of the Forum is comprised of immovable property of regional and national offices,
institutions and enterprises established by the Forum, main turnover resources, financial
resources and other assets being on the balance of the Forum and considered for financial support
of its activity adherent to this Charter.
7.2
Funds of the Forum are created from:
a) payments of donor international organizations of the Forum.
b) charity by legal and physical entities
c) incomes from industrial and economic activity adherent to the procedure provided by the
law.
d) other sources that are not prohibited by effective legislation of Georgia.
7.3
Incomes from industrial and economic activity of legal entities established by the Forum are not
distributed and are used to perform the charter tasks only.
116
7.4
The Forum can possess buildings, premises, equipment, inventory, transportation facilities,
financial resources, securities, and other property needed so that to achieve objectives set by this
Charter.
8. Economic Activity of the Forum
8.1
Under the procedure established by the Law, the Forum enjoys the right to create or participate in
establishment of enterprises exercising the right of a legal entity and to use incomes generated
from them for its own activity.
8.2
The Forum enjoys the right to establish mass media, provide publishing, printing and advertising
activity adherent to the effective legislation.
8.3
The Forum provides bookkeeping, statistical and operational recording and accounts and is
responsible for their accuracy.
8.4
Annual financial report of the Forum, since it has been approved by the Assembly, is sent to the
members of the Forum, donors and state tax agencies, adherent to the procedure established by
the law.
8.5
Fiscal year of the Forum coincides with the calendar year.
8.6
The Forum is responsible for its own obligations by the whole of its property.
9. Interruption of the Forum Activity
9.1
The Forum is liquidated upon the decision of the Assembly if at least ¾ of members of the Forum
give their votes.
9.2
Property after liquidation is distributed adherent to the effective legislation of Georgia.
10. Conclusive Provisions
10.1
Relations not regulated under this Charter are regulated by effective legislation, also by internal
documents of the Forum adopted adherent to this Charter, mandatory for execution by members
of the Forum.
10.2
This Charter is effective upon registration of the Forum adherent to the effective legislation.
117
PART VII: Draft Demonstration
Project
documents
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR INCLUSION INTO THE GEF FULL SIZE PROJECT:
1. Country(s): Azerbaijan, Georgia
2. Title: Ecological flows study of the Kura River
3. Executing Agency: UNOPS
4. Cost of Project:
GEF: US$ 340,000; Co-Finance: US$150,000
5. Linkage to Kura-Aras River Basin SAP Priorities:
1.
The Preliminary SAP Priority to address the problem of variation and reduction in
hydrological flows is met with the Ecosystemic Quality Objective I: To achieve sustainable
utilization of water resources to ensure access to water and preserve ecosystem services. In order
to do this, ecological flows requirements of the Kura River must be empirically analyzed in order
to be understand impacts on ecological processes.
6. Linkage to National Priorities and Programmes
2.
All countries in the region are committed to sustainably managing water resources and this
commitment is reflected in national development and environment policies and plans, including
MDG-based Poverty Reduction and Development Strategies, and National Environmental Action
Programmes. Moreover, these policies and plans give due emphasis to the management and
protection of the Kura and Aras rivers and the importance of the IWRM approach in achieving
the objectives. Each of the countries has a growing non-governmental community and academic
sector to complement the work of governmental organisations in this sector. Over the past ten
years, working with the World Bank and USAID, Armenia has greatly strengthened its water and
environmental policy, legislation and planning process based on the IWRM approach and it is
now entering into an aggressive investment phase. The other Caucasus countries would like to
develop similar programmes and both Azerbaijan and Georgia have requested assistance from
UNDP in the development of National IWRM plan as a first stage. Striving for accession to the
European Union, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have signed with the EU the European
Neighborhood Policy Action Plans (2006). Under these plans each of the countries is committed
"to identify possibilities with neighboring countries for enhanced regional co-operation, in
particular with regard to water issues". The three countries are also committed to implementation
of the EU Water Framework Directive and the development of river basin management plans,
including transboundary river basins, of which a key element is the protection of ecological
sensitive riverine areas.
3.
The TDA revealed that s a need to identify and establish an agreed methodology for setting
environmental limits of water resource utilization; setting bounds for the general ecosystem and
in-river flows for migratory fish. Increasing demand on and competition for water resources due
to accelerated economic activities in the basin is predicted to arise in the next twenty years as
countries emerge from economic transition. In addition, extensive deforestation and conflicting
water use has affected not only the quantity of water flowing but also the temporal pattern; the
whole hydrological flow regime has been changed with significant transboundary consequences.
The setting of ecological flows is currently based on out-dated Soviet methodologies which
don't recognize the importance of ecological services in the basin and prevention of further
deterioration of water dependant ecosystems. Severe water deficit has not occurred in the basin to
date, but negative impacts of variation and reduction of flow on aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems have already been observed.
4.
The yield from potential available water resource, is strongly influenced by the volume of
releases made to satisfy the Ecological Flow Requirements (EFR) for aquatic ecosystems, in
118
particular in the river Kura-Aras the wetland of the lower basin and tugai flood plain forests. The
impact of reduced flows on anadromous fish species populations has been noted by the Kura-
Aras sister project, the Caspian Environment Programme, particularly the sturgeon species.
However, there is little or no information regarding the flow requirements for the various
migratory species to enter the Kura-Aras river system from the Caspian Sea or to maintain the
accessible spawning grounds in the upper reaches of the system. Much more work is required to
establish an environmental baseline and to develop a methodology for determining
environmental flow requirements in the river. This work will be linked to the new CEP project
which has been approved which focuses on the development of sustainable fishes in the Caspian.
7.
Name and Post of Government Representatives endorsing the Demonstration Activity
BAGIROV, Hussein
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Azerbaijan
B. Aghayev Street, 100-A
Baku 370073,
Azerbaijan
GAMTSEMLIDZE, Zaal
Minister
Minister of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia
6 Gulua Street
Tbilisi 0114
Georgia
8: Project Objectives and Activities
8.1. Background
5.
The Preliminary TDA details the main hydrological features in the Kura-Aras River
basin. Variation in hydrological flow is caused by numerous human interventions including
direct water abstraction from surface and groundwater bodies, and increased evaporation due to
impoundments, urbanization and deforestation. This has significant transboundary consequences.
At the confluence of the Aras River the natural annual discharge of the Kura River is
approximately 32.3 km3, and the natural discharge from the Aras is 12.3 km3. However, at
present, the discharge of the Kura River is about 19.6 km3, while the discharge from the Aras 9.0
km3. It is calculated that 40% of the Kura's natural runoff and 27% of the Aras runoff is lost to
the Caspian Sea (SIDA Technical Analysis, 2005). Possibly more importantly the temporal
pattern of flow is also changed, with significant impoundment of the basin, reducing the spring
floods and retaining water for irrigation and hydro-power. Little is known about the impact of
these flow alterations on the key ecosystems and migratory fish species.
6.
Severe water deficit has not occurred in the basin to date and consequently shortages of
water have not presented any serious threats to the population. However, population growth and
rapid economic development in the basin countries will impose increased pressure on surface and
groundwater resources. Water resources are most limited in Azerbaijan, which compared to
Georgia has approximately 8 times less water measured in terms of both per km square and per
person. As a result, the country is considered to be a region with a limited water supply (SIDA
Technical Analysis, 2005). The Kura-Aras plain in Azerbaijan is also very arid and Azerbaijan's
dependence on surface water resources from this is high (Regional Study on Irrigation and
Drainage, 2006) making upstream water abstraction a very sensitive issue from a transboundary
perspective.
7.
The main environmental impacts of variation and reduction of hydrological flow can be
summarized as follows:
·
Ecosystem degradation including: degradation of habitat, losses of species and
reduced biodiversity;
119
·
Temporal changes in flow affecting biological processes such as fish migration and
spawning;
·
Reduced natural pollution assimilation capacity of rivers, increased pollutant
concentrations and reduce flux.
·
Increased desertification due to lowering of groundwater tables
8.
Variation and reduction of flow has already impacted fish species composition in the
Kura-Aras river basin. Statistical data shows that in Azerbaijan in 1932 (i.e. before the
implementing major water projects in the Kura river basin) valuable anadromous and fluvial
anadromous fish catch reached 30.5 thousand tonnes per annum. In 1982, after construction of
the various flow control structures the fish catch was 15 times lower at 2 thousand tonnes.
9.
Another cause for decreases in fish catch is the altered annual distribution of river runoff
due to the construction of hydropower and irrigation impoundments such as the Mingechavir and
Shamkir reservoirs. Although the reservoirs have provided favourable conditions for increasing
certain fish stocks, they have had an adverse effect on the habitat and reproduction of
downstream populations of silver fish (Cyprinids) as well as anadromous and fluvial anadromous
fish.
10.
The large abstraction of water from surface and groundwater bodies (predominantly for
irrigation) has also affected terrestrial ecosystems. For instance, 5000 ha of floodplain tugai forests in
the Iori River valley (a Kura River Tributary) located on the border of Georgia and Azerbaijan have
been heavily impacted by reduced surface flows. One of the major causes of degradation of the forest
was the construction of a 50 m tall dam on the Dali reservoir that impeded water flow. The Dali
reservoir, occupying 3 km2 was initially constructed for irrigation purposes in Georgia and
Azerbaijan but no irrigation network has been put in place. Consequently the reservoir has lost its
function and has been non-operational since its construction (WWF Report, 2005). There are similar
examples throughout the lower basin.
11.
The main socio-economic consequences of variation and reduction of hydrological flow
are water shortages in the various economic sectors, causing:
·
Low productivity of agricultural land due to inadequate and poor irrigation;
·
Low income from agricultural activities;
·
Poor local sanitation and increased incidence of water-borne diseases infection of
shallow groundwater potable sources;
·
Loss of groundwater resource due to over-extraction;
·
Loss of commercial anadromous fish populations due to impoundments blocking
access to spawning grounds
·
Decreased capacity for hydro energy generation downstream.
12.
Significant increases in consumption of water in upstream countries will have a negative
impact on the availability of water for economic activities and domestic needs in downstream
states, potentially limiting development and affecting ecological functioning. Water shortage
problems in the agriculture sector have already taken place in Georgia during the last 15 years
although principally as a result of the deterioration of the existing irrigation supply network.
Large areas of agriculture lands have not received irrigation water for many years leading to a
decline in production and increased poverty levels in rural areas. A similar trend has occurred in
Armenia. Water shortage problems in Azerbaijan have resulted in insufficient levels of water for
water intensive crops: often they are irrigated only twice instead of 6-7 times (Regional studies
on Irrigation and Drainage, 2006). This scenario is likely to develop in downstream countries if
water availability is affected due to reduced hydrological flows11. In Iran where energy is heavily
subsidized pumped irrigation schemes are common and the demand for water to irrigate uplands
in the lower Aras basin is high.
11 However it should be noted that much of the land previously irrigated by pumped systems in the Soviet period
would be uneconomic to restore.
120
13. Water shortages are likely to accelerate soil erosion and desertification in the basin. There
are already acute environmental and social problems associated with these issues, especially
in the South Caucasus countries. At present, 600 thousand ha of arable land are heavily
eroded in Azerbaijan whereas in Armenia 44 % of land is subject to various levels of
desertification. In south east Georgia around 3000 ha are subject to desertification and 11.5
thousand ha are heavily eroded. This demonstration project on the Kura will be replicated
subsequently in the Aras and other similar basins.
14. There have been cases in the basin where excessive withdrawals of water have resulted in
small and medium sized rivers drying out. Flow reductions from intensive water withdrawals
for economic activities are relatively easy to determine, but the impacts of other human
activities on river flow will only be revealed over time. Deforestation is one of them. It has a
significant impact on the ratio of ground and surface waters and is one of the main causes of
increased peak runoffs and decreased runoff during hydrological droughts.
15. Climate change could also have a catastrophic impact in the medium and to long term with
potential scenarios indicating flow reductions of 50% as a consequence of increased average
temperature and decreased precipitation.
8.2. Objectives and Activities
Objective:
16. The overall objective of this demonstration project is to set guidelines for establishing
Ecological Flows in the Kura-Aras basin, based on best international practices and
accomplished through:
· undertaking EF assessments for two key sites in the Kura River basin;
· develop a Baseline Data Collection Programme to inform the EF Reviews;
· assess the non-flow related impacts at the selected sites and the likely outcome for
overall ecological condition of their possible amelioration;
· design a long-term Monitoring Programme to assess the efficacy of any EF and/or other
management interventions (i.e. non-flow related) that are implemented.
17. The assessments should aim to develop data sets for the selected sites, which will allow the
evaluation of scenarios of both flow change (i.e., change in the volume and timing of water)
and non-flow related impacts in terms of: effects on overall downstream river condition,
including; changes in the abundance of key biophysical components of the riverine
ecosystems; changes in the availability of resources used directly by the people living
alongside the river; and possible impacts on the health of people, or their livestock, living
alongside the river and estuary.
18. The results of the study in Kura-Aras basin will be used to provide guidelines to be
incorporated into future management plans and to evaluate the feasibility and impacts of new
water resource developments including those that will potentially altering the flow regime.
Project Activities
Activity 1: Project plan, including site selection and review and selection of appropriate
methodologies, and issues assessment. This will include:
19. Development of a project plan and to be included in the project inception Report. The
project plan will include final details of the approach to be adopted, including: the study
team; methodology; issues assessment; preliminary EF reach selection based on agreed
criteria; programming; project monitoring and quality control system; and assumptions,
strengths and weaknesses of the proposed study approach.
121
20. A review of the scientific literature will be undertaken to select appropriate methodologies
based on a preliminary assessment of potential sites. The literature review will include:
information on the nature of the river channel and any associated wetlands and floodplains;
water chemistry; flow information, i.e., hydrological records/models; general bank and
channel biotic communities along the river; any information on the flow and physical habitat
preferences of the biotic communities; and information on non-flow related impacts along
the lower river. This study will allow the project to identify or develop appropriate
methodologies that will meet the objectives of identifying environmental flow limits for the
Kura-Aras River.
21. Undertaking field visits to each of the potential site locations within each of the EF river
reaches identified. Prepare a Site Selection Report describing each site in full, the selection
criteria and potential for replicability to provide a characterization survey of selected sites,
conduct an ecological condition assessment on the present conditions for use as the baseline,
use accepted methods of rapid riverine/estuarine ecosystem appraisal, and draft a clear
description of what natural conditions would have been.
Activity 2: Study area delineation and scenario selection, with biophysical data collection,
and scenario descriptions, to include:
22. For the two selected demonstration EF sites a preliminary assessment to include: the
geographical extent, present condition, ecological or other importance of the river reach in a
local and regional context, past problems related to water management; species or features of
special significance; a summary of the demographics of the human population that utilise the
river and the nature of their dependence on the river; and other relevant aspects such as
important cultural sites.
23. Designing and implementing a Biophysical Data Collection Programme aimed at providing
the data required for the EF selected methodology. All relevant information should be
collected at designated EF sites, under as wide a range as possible of flow conditions to
cover one annual hydrological cycle. Standard, well-accepted methods within each discipline
should be used, and justified, to the extent possible.
24. Provide detailed description of key scenarios and detailed descriptions of their biophysical
implications for a short-list of three key scenarios combining flow and non-flow changes at
each site. The key scenarios should be identified through yield analysis.
Activity 3: Identify the relevant stakeholders and consult with stakeholders at sites, in order
to:
25. Identify relevant stakeholders for the project sites which include, inter alia, stakeholders from
relevant economic sectors involved in water use within the site study area, riparian
communities within the area with special attention to traditional leaders and community
based organizations, government stakeholders at the municipal, district and national level,
those from the scientific community. Stakeholders from the areas near selected sites will be
included in stakeholder advisory group activities to ensure the capture of the flow and non-
flow related impacts on all relevant stakeholders.
Activity 4: Report on application of EF methodology and selection of scenarios based on
flow and non-flow impacts
26. A desk-top study describing the overall biophysical impacts of the annual and seasonal
modified flow regimes, and where possible determine the thresholds of potential concern,
following application of the chosen scenarios. This will result in a report to determine the
influence of non-flow related impacts on the biophysical condition of the river reach and
122
mouth, in accordance with the selected methodology. This knowledge will be used to create
overlay scenarios to determine the ecological conditions resulting from implementing
restorative management actions in combination with the predicted flow related changes.
Activity 5: Final Environmental Flows Summary report, design of long-term monitoring
programme, and dissemination of results.
27. Preparation of an EF Summary Report that combines the biophysical and socio-economic
impacts for each applied flow scenario and identifies thresholds of potential concern. The
report should also summarize for each flow scenario the non-flow impacts, including
mitigation measures. The summary report will include recommendations for the
environmental flow to be adopted at each site and will form the basis for technical guidelines
on the determination of environmental flows in the Kura-Aras basin. And design of a long-
term Monitoring Programme, based on key biophysical and social parameters, as indicators
of agreed site specific Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs). If the target condition is
not being achieved, this should provide criteria for adjustments to be made to the EF, the
target condition or the restoration activities.
28. The project results will be presented at a regional workshop to which the Southern Caucasus
and Caspian States will be invited. The project will seek adoption of the methodology in the
NAPs and the SAP.
8.3 End-of Project Landscape (Outcomes)
29. The conclusion of the demonstration project will result in a heightened awareness and
understanding of the environmental flow requirements of the Kura-Aras River Basin.
30. As a result of the project there will be a review and selection of appropriate methodologies to
be employed in river systems within arid and semi-arid zones. This review of methodologies
once applied will provide added protection to the riverine environment in general and at
critical locations, such as the river mouth, in particular, and can serve as a resource for other
projects in the region and within river systems, to provide guidance to regulating authorities.
31. The project will deliver a solid baseline of information and data from each study area
including a clear delineation and characterization of river reaches, assessment of ecological
conditions, selection of environment flow sites, biophysical data collection, setting of
baseline flows and an evaluation of existing environmental goods and services at the local
level.
32. Selection of methodology(ies) for setting of Ecological Flows in the Kura-Aras basin and
adoption in the NAPs and SAP.
33. The design and implementation of a long-term monitoring programmes at key sites in the
basin. The programme will enable the environmental flow setting methodology to be refined
and strengthened to address trends (e.g. climate change), challenges to and shifts in the
approach. It will provide valuable data on the overall environmental status of the Kura-Aras
and assist in identifying basin-wide trends and changes.
9. Rationale for GEF Involvement and Fit with GEF Operational Programmes and Strategic
Priorities
34. The demonstration project is consistent with the 1st Strategic Objective of the IW Focal Area:
to foster international, multi-state cooperation on priority transboundary water concerns
through more comprehensive, ecosystem-based approaches to management. It furthermore
fits with the 3rd Strategic Program in GEF-4: Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water
resources in transboundary surface and groundwater basins. The project aims to assist
123
countries to better manage water quality and thereby preserve water resources for multiple
use. The demonstration project is consistent with the preliminary SAP developed under the
PDF-B and assist the countries to harmonise with the EU WFD and implement the concept
and principles of IWRM.
10. Project Management Structure and Accountability
35. The Project Coordination Unit based in Tbilisi, Georgia and the Azerbaijan National
Coordination Unit in Baku will over see the project execution. The GEF Chief Technical
Advisor will have overall responsibility for the demonstration project implementation
assisted by the Scientific Officer. Day-today management will be the responsibility of the
National Project Coordinators of Baku and Tbilisi. The CTA shall report regularly to the
Steering Committee. The majority of the technical work will be tendered out internationally.
11. Stakeholders and Beneficiaries:
36. The stakeholders involved in the project, and the beneficiaries include: local rural
communities within the region, conservationists and ecologists, farmers/ pastoralists, and
local authorities, Hydro Met agencies, NGOs, Environmental Ministries, Tourism and
recreational users, fisheries departments, Mining regulating agencies, Agricultural Ministries,
Regional governmental officials, Agricultural industry, and scientists.
12. Long-term Sustainability Strategy
37. The demonstration project has the full support of Azerbaijan and Georgia and is a critical
element of their IWRM plans. The implementation of long term monitoring programmes at
the critical sites is assured as part of the regulatory system once a clear baseline has been
established and methodology agreed. However, the project will seek guarantees through
KAEP that the long term monitoring programmes will be maintained.
13. Replicability
38. The overall objective is to refine methodologies for establishing ecological flow
requirements throughout the Kura-Aras river basin and as such will be applied in two of
basin states and therefore replicability is inherent in the project. The methodology will
address environmental requirements in rivers as well as the main river branches. The
methodology will have application outside the Kura-Aras River Basin, into the CIS and
beyond. The final report of the project will include lessons learned and recommendations for
a strategy for replication in other regions.
14. Monitoring and Evaluation Process
39. The Project Management Unit will produce a brief quarterly Progress Report updating the
Steering Committee and the Project Execution and Implementation Agencies on the progress
of the project based on the approved Strategic Results Framework (Annex 1). Once a year a
detailed report will be submitted through the PCU to the Steering Committee. This report
will provide a full review of the work plan to identify project achievements and deliverables,
budget expenditures, amendments to workplan and budget, staff contracting and
performance, and any other information required by the Steering Committee and/or the
Executing Agencies.
40. In addition, the pilot project will also be subject to:
· Internal Project Implementation Reviews to be conducted by the CTA and submitted to
the implementing agency every six months.
· An independent final project evaluation to be undertaken in conjunction with the
Terminal Evaluation for the FSP.
124
41. The project evaluations will be carried out in accordance with UNDP-GEF requirements and will
cover all aspects of the project. They will include: an assessment of (a) the outcomes generated,
(b) the processes used to generate them, (c) project impacts, and d) lessons learned. Advice will
be given on how the M&E results can be used to adjust the work if needed and on how to
replicate the results in the region.
15. Co-Funding
42. The total contribution requested from GEF is USD 340,000 within a 3 year period. Country co-
funding in-kind is $150K.
Award ID:
GEF Outcome/Atlas
Sub-components
Amount ($)
Amount ($) Amount ($)
Total ($)
Activity**
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
All Years
1. Project plan
1. Project Plan
20,000 0
0 20,000
2. Preliminary assessment and site
30,000 0
0 30,000
selection
Sub-total
50,000
0
0
50,000
2. Study area
1. .Study area delineation and
30,000 0
0 30,000
delineation and
characterisation
scenario selection
2. Biophysical data collection and
preparation of the Biophysical
60,000 60,000
0 120,000
Reference Reports
3. Selection of key scenarios and
detailed descriptions of their
0 10,000 0 10,000
biophysical implications
Sub-total
90,000
70,000
0
160,000
3. Identify the
1. Identify relevant stakeholders
3,000 0
0 3,000
relevant stakeholders
2. Stakeholder Consultation
6,000 3,000 3,000 12,000
at selected sites and
include in project
stakeholder advisory
group
Sub-total
9,000
3,000
3,000
15,000
4. Report on
1. Application of Environmental
0 0
15,000
15,000
application of EF
Flow Scenarios
methodology and
2. Assessment of non-flow related
selection of scenarios
impacts
0 0
20,000
20,000
based on flow and
non-flow impacts
Sub-total
0
0
35,000
35,000
5. Final report, and
1. Preparation of Environmental
0 0
30,000
30,000
design of long-term
Flows Summary Report
2 Development of a long-term
monitoring
Monitoring Programme
0 0
20,000
20,000
programme
3 Dissemination workshop
0 0
30,000
30,000
Sub-total
0
0
80,000
80,000
Total
149,000 73,000 118,00 340,000
125
ANNEX 1 Strategic Results Framework
Ecological flows study of the Kura-Aras River Basin Objectively
Verifiable Sources of Verification Assumptions
and
Risks
Indicators
OUTCOME
Ecological flows study of the Kura River - Establishment of a methodology for determined the ecological flows in the Kura-Aras River basin and setting of the environmental
bounds from which the sustainable water resources of the Kura-Aras River can be measured.
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop project plan and inception report
Project Plan
Project plan and inception report drafted
Project plan delivered and agreed
Data made available
Preliminary assessment and site selection
Demonstration sites selected
Inception meeting minutes
All appropriate Government stakeholders
consulted
Review of EF methodologies
Selection of methodologies to be tested
MoU with Government stakeholders
Methodology report delivered
2. Study area delineation and scenario selection
Study area delineation and characterization report
Study area delineated and baselines
Area study report delivered
Sufficient time and resources to collect
developed for two demonstration sites
meaningful baseline data
Biophysical data collection and preparation of the
Biophysical survey report
Biophysical Reference Reports
Biophysical surveys f study sites
Senario report delivered
Select key scenarios and provide detailed descriptions of
Scenarios selected
their biophysical implications
3. Identify the relevant stakeholders at selected
sites
Demo project stakeholder forum
Stakeholder Advisory Group roster and
Appropriate stakeholders in group with no
Identify relevant stakeholders
identified and recruited to Advisory
meeting reports
significant groups missing
Group
Stakeholder Consultations
Input into project design
4. Report on application of EF methodology and
selection of scenarios based on flow and non-
flow impacts
Flow application reports and assessments
Flow scenario application report delivered
Appropriate methodology selected
drafted
Apply Environmental Flow Scenarios
Non-flow related impact report delivered
Non-flow related impacts assessed
Assess non-flow related impacts
126
Ecological flows study of the Kura-Aras River Basin Objectively
Verifiable Sources of Verification Assumptions
and
Risks
Indicators
5. Final report and design of Long-term
Monitoring Programme.
Monitoring programme in place
Monitoring programme design and
Monitoring programme sustained by countries
monitoring results
Final Environmental Flows Report
Final report agreed and methodology
Methodology replicable in other sites
adopted
Methodology included in NAP/SAP
Develop a Long-term Monitoring Programme
Results disseminated
Dissemination materials and workshop report
127
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR INCLUSION INTO THE GEF FULL SIZE PROJECT:
1. Country(s): Armenia
2. Title: Design and testing of Water Quality Standards System
3. Executing Agency: UNOPS
4. Cost of Project:
GEF: US$ 340K; Co-Finance: $75K
5. Linkage to Kura-Aras Basin SAP Priorities:
1. The Preliminary SAP developed as part of the PDF-B has as its second EQO: To achieve water
quality such that it would ensure access to clean water for present and future generations and sustain
ecosystem functions in the Kura-Aras river Basin. Under the first target is to `Strengthen water
quality control enforcement and management in the riparian states' which includes interventions to:
a. Establish comparable emission discharge standards (1-5 years)
b. Develop harmonised permitting and inspection procedures (1-5 years)
c. Strengthen institutions responsible for water quality enforcement (5-10 years)
d. 1 4 Provide training in new permitting and inspection procedures (1-5 years)
2. The three countries are also committed to the approximation and future adoption of the
environmental protection legislation embodied in the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD).
3. This demonstration project will seek to develop a pragmatic water quality management system which
will move the countries towards their goal of implementation of WFD and address transboundary
pollution.
6. Linkage to National Priorities and Programs
4. Contaminant data from the NATO/OSCE South Caucasus Monitoring Programme between 2003-
2007 was analysed by the GEF project to identify the hotspots of hazardous substances, in particular
heavy metals, throughout the Kura-Aras basin. The NATO/OSCE programme results represent the
most comprehensive and comparable water quality data set available and twelve metals (Ag, As Cd,
Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb and Zn) were analysed by the GEF project.
5. The analysis showed hotspots, particularly of Mercury, Nickel and Zinc, in the upper catchment of
the Aras associated with domestic and industrial discharges from Yerevan and mining activities
particularly in the Meghri river basin. It was decided because of the concentration of hotspots in the
upper Aras catchment and the limited budget available to locate the demonstration project in a single
country, Armenia, and develop a water quality system applicable to all three countries consistent with
the WFD.
6. The overall goals and objectives for water resources management in the Republic of Armenia, as
articulated in the Water Code and National Water Policy, are to analyze, plan, and manage the water
resources in accordance with the most up-to-date international practices, employing techniques and
methodologies reflecting modern concepts and principles. The National Water Code, which was been
developed with the assistance of the World Bank, decentralizes the planning functions, so that the
128
river basin becomes the key focal point for water resources management and planning. The goal is to
establish and implement Integrated Water Resources Management plans in place for each of the five
established river basins in Armenia. The management of water quality is a key component of any
IWRM plan and Armenia is seeking ways of improving this critical function.
7. Several Articles of the National Water Code refer to water quality management including:
- Measures to improve water resources monitoring, pollution prevention use of modern
technologies,
- Designation of emergency and environmentally sensitive zones,
- Threats to environmentally sensitive areas, and programs to counteract such threats,
- Requirements for an annual comprehensive report on water resources monitoring.
8. In addition, the recently adopted RoA Law on Fundamental Provisions of the National Water Policy
defines general broad policy principles and guidance for a comprehensive and integrated approach to
manage and regulate the water sector. National Water Policy provide guidance for the assessment of
water resources, water demand assessment, priorities for the use and the protection of water
resources, emergency situations, the determination of the national water reserve, river basin planning
and management, and the preparation of the National Water Program. The draft Law on National
Water Program12, stresses the importance of preventing negative impacts on water ecosystems,
improvement of water resources monitoring, and development of measures to prevent water quality
pollution.
9. Finally it should be mentioned that the proposed project is in line with the principles of the following
international environmental conventions:
- Helsinki Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and
International Lakes (1992)
- Protocol on Water and Health of Helsinki Convention on Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (1992)
- Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (1992)
- Aarhus Convention on Access to Public Information, Public Participation in Decision-
making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1998)
7: Name and Post of Government Representatives endorsing the Demonstration Activity
DAVTYAN, Ruzanna
Director of International Cooperation Department
Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia
Government Bldg., 3
Republic Sq.,
Yerevan 375010
Armenia
8: Project Objectives and Activities
8.1. Background
10. Deterioration of water quality in the Kura-Aras river basin has significant transboundary
consequences in the down stream countries. This can be confirmed by the presence of chemical
compounds of anthropogenic origin in the transboundary sections of the basin as well as in bottom
sediments of the Kura Delta in the Caspian Sea.
11. Water pollution in the Kura basin comes from a number of land based sources including industrial
and mining sites, agricultural lands, households in rural areas and municipalities. Wastewater
12 ) Adopted by the Government, pending the approval of the National Assembly.
129
treatment facilities are absent in many municipalities and enterprises, and are available only in some
locations in the Aras basin. Most of the wastewater treatment facilities were built 20-30 years ago
and many are currently non-operational and those that are working provide mechanical treatment
only. Biological and chemical treatment of wastewaters is absent in most regions of the basin.
12. Reliable data on contaminant levels in the Kura-Aras basin are scarce. In all three countries the
regulatory monitoring programes are either very limited or non-operable. International projects such
as the NATO/OSCE South Caucasus Monitoring Programme is helping to to build a clearer picture
of water quality in the Kura-Aras basin but there are still many anecdotal and unsupported
testimonies.
13. The lack of functional wastewater treatment plants in Georgia, particularly in Tbilisi and Rustavi,
results in a significant discharge of untreated municipal wastewater into the Kura River, causing
contamination of downstream irrigation reservoirs in Azerbaijan, although the contamination levels
are not monitored. In the Kura River a short distance below the Mingechavir dam in Azerbaijan,
vigorous growth of aquatic grasses, covered with epiphytic algal growth have been observed. This
anecdotal evidence suggests that the nutrient level in the water released at the dam, remains high
despite any nutrient trapping by the reservoirs.
14. Downstream of the city of Mingechevir, the concentration of phenols in the Kura is said to exceed
the sanitary norm by 5 times, the concentration of metals is 4 times higher, and the concentration of
mineral oil and sulphates in water is twice the sanitary norm (USAID/DAI 2004)13.
15. The Aras is polluted by urban areas, agriculture, and industry and mining in both Armenia and Iran,
although a major concern is pollution from certain heavy metals from industrial enterprise and
mining sites located in Armenia Although chromium, copper and nickel undoubtedly have high
natural background values in this mineral-rich region, anthropogenic activities, notably mining, have
further enhanced the metal content of water and sediment in the Aras River. At the confluence of
Aras and Kura, the concentration of metals in water has been recorded as exceeding permissible
levels by up to nine times, the concentration of phenols six times higher, and mineral oil and
sulphates two or three times higher (USAID/DAI 2004).
16. The small tributaries in the Kura-Aras river basin are also affected by pollution. The river Alazani
(Ganykh), a transboundary tributary of the Kura, has recorded concentrations of phenols 5-7 times
above the permissible level, while the concentration of metals is 6-8 times higher and mineral oil is
2-3 times higher (USAID/DAI 2004). To a lesser extent the transboundary river Iori (Gabyrry) is
also polluted, with measured concentrations of phenols and metals in water exceeding the maximum
concentration limit by 2-3 times, while mineral oil and sulphates are twice the permissible level.
17. The South Caucasus countries are committed to the approximation of their legislation to the EU
Water Framework Directive and the environmental protection measures it embodies. In this regard
Armenia is the most advanced of the three countries having developed with the assistance of
comprehensive Water Code incorporating many elements of the WFD. Armenia is now seeking
assistance from its international partners to implement the water code and harmonization with the
WFD.
18. The WFD is a comprehensive and well tested piece of legislation and a powerful tool in support of
the implementation of IWRM. The WFD for instance could supply the legal basis for the
development of a water quality standards system and strengthen River Basin Management plans
forged under the IWRM approach.
19. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC is the result of thirty years of environmental
legislative development and binds together more than 25 EU directives and resolutions which cover
13 It should be noted that this pollution originates from Mingechevir city as well as other upstream sections of the
Kura (UNDP/SIDA 2005).
130
water resource issues and is a framework mechanism under which national and regional authorities
can develop sustainable water policy. Through preventative measures including effluent and
discharge regulations, technical standards for treating polluted effluents as well as quality standards
for receiving waters base on water use the WFD aims to achieve sustainable water policy and good
water status through:
- introduction and implementation of water management based on the evaluation of the
characteristics of the river basin;
- monitoring of the status of surface and ground waters
- determination of target quality
20. The WFD calls for the management of water resources to be carried out on the basis of the
`combined approach' including such elements as setting discharge standards on best available
technique and best environmental practice for diffuse sources, and water quality or environmental
standards. The EU has published a set of Water quality standards but these have not yet been
incorporated into any new Directive (see section 1.1.4.2). The WFD also calls for management plans
to be developed individual for each river basin (to be defined) which will become an action plan to
achieve `good water status'.
8.2. Objectives and Activities
21. The objective of this demonstration project is to design and test a Water Quality Standards system
consistent with the EU WFD and can be applied throughout the Kura-Aras basin and providing the
framework for transboundary water quality management. The WQS system will look at both the
discharge standards and the standards of the receiving waters based on water use.
22. Regulatory instruments for controlling water quality can be aimed at controlling discharges at source,
or at managing the receiving environment. Uniform emission or discharge standards apply to all
emissions in a specific area (emission approach). Specific emission standards can be set in individual
permits. These can be based on the pertinent ambient water quality standards (water quality
approach) or on the best available technology (BAT), best practicable technology (BPT) or the best
available technology not involving excessive costs (BATNEEC). A combined approach implies that
minimum uniform emission standards are set and that stricter standards are applied if the quality of
the receiving water so requires, or if the way the water is used requires higher standards (e.g. for
maintaining a delicate ecosystem). Specific regulatory instruments can also be used to protect aquatic
ecosystems and riparian habitats, and for the rehabilitation of water resources.
23. The challenge will be to design a `Water Quality Standards' system which is immediately affordable
and applicable by South Caucasus states and can be gradually tightened made stricter and more
rigid - the future bringing it into line with the best international practice. A combined approach
would appear the most favourable option setting minimum standards for receiving waters based on a
low percentile gradually increasing until BAT is introduced (for instance 10% percentile rising to
20% in year 40% in year 8). The system would not be uniformally applied and in some
environmentally sensitive locations a stricter control may need to be applied. The costs of setting
discharge standards based BAT and different levels of emission standards will need to be evaluated
to determine the potential speed of application.
24. Both the Soviet, which is currently applicable in the three states, and the WFD systems are based on
EQSs/Maximum Allowable Concentrations (EU EQSs are usually based on both annual averages and
MACs). This provides a good starting point. Further, discharge permits in the Soviet system are
based on loads, rather than MACs, with loads to receiving waterbodies supposedly set to enable
compliance with environmental MACs. This means that either EQS multipliers (as in the existing
Russian system) or percentile compliance statistics could be used as the basis of a revised
classification scheme. Different percentiles/multipliers could be used for different water uses,
effectively introducing water quality objectives, albeit based on EU EQSs a pragmatic compromise
between the two systems? Such an approach could also be used to report results as environmental
quality indices, as required in the WFD, albeit that reference conditions would have to be established.
131
25. The WFD allows three approaches to the identification of reference conditions:
- The use of results from monitoring sites considered to be of quasi-natural status
- Modelling
- Expert opinion.
However, the Soviet approach of monitoring upstream/downstream of major discharges could be
used to set reference conditions for point source discharges.The WFD considers 5 types of
monitoring programmes:
- Surveillance
- Operational
- Investigative
- Groundwater level
- Protected Areas.
26. Given that the limited resources available, it is recommended that the proposed system and the
demonstration projects to be developed should focus on surveillance and operational monitoring.
This will provide the most useful results in terms of assessing water resources, impacts of major
point source discharges and reporting on overall environmental status. It is worth noting at this point
that while the Soviet system of water quality management clearly left a lot to be desired in terms of
pragmatism, by no means was it all bad. For example, the Soviet System required cumulative 24-
hour sampling of sewage treatment effluent for the calculation of effluent loads many years before
the EU adopted this approach in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.
27. Soviet water quality classification schemes are based on sampling sites, with results referring only to
those sites. A first priority will need to be to divide rivers, lakes (if necessary), and groundwater's
into distinct water bodies (basins and aquifers) and to redefine the sampling sites to adequately
represent individual water bodies. Following on from this, focusing on surface waters an assessment
of the physical status (morphology) would be required.
Project Activities
Activity 1: Project Plan and Site Selection
28. Develop a demonstration project plan to be included in the project Inception Report. The project
plan will include final details of the approach to be adopted, including: the study team; methodology;
issues assessment; site selection based agreed criteria; programming; project monitoring and quality
control system; and assumptions, strengths and weaknesses of the proposed study approach. The will
be two project sites, one associated with the mining industry in the upper Aras catchment and another
downstream of a major industrial centre.. Following approval of the project plan detailed ToR for the
technical support contract will be prepared including method of working for each site and MoU
signed between the project and key beneficiaries. It will be important the key government
stakeholders to be fully engaged from the beginning and there to free exchange of information and
data..
Activity 2: Design of WQSs including permitting and monitoring guidelines
29. The project will develop the concept of the new WQS system taking on board the findings and
recommendations of other projects and initiatives in the region. The WQS system should aim to be
compatible with the international standards in the longer term. Under this activity, the Consultant is
expected to identify the use-based hierarchical water quality classes to be promulgated into law, and
to establish which parameters are relevant to each class, with the intention of establishing class-
specific surface water quality standards in an implementing regulation. The proposed model of WQS
system will use the EU standards as a model but adapted to regional conditions, i.e. it should meet
the following criteria: to be flexible, applicable, efficient, and, affordable for the country. The project
will investigate and propose a set of economic instruments to encourage compliance and support the
132
necessary regulatory investment. The selected economic instruments will be tested in parallel with
the WQSs as a desk-top exercise. The new WQS system and economic instruments will be presented
in the form of a Technical report with relevant technical annexes and will be subject for discussion
and consultations with the relevant stakeholders.
Activity 3: Stakeholder consultation
30. Consultations will be held with relevant stakeholders during implementation of the demonstration
project through a specifically formed group. Individual consultations will be held with the
discharging enterprises to better understand constraints on the speed of introduction of
BAT/BATNEEC and the impact of proposed economic instruments. The information gathered will
be crucial to the design of the WQSs.
Activity 4: Baseline assessment
31. Collate and summarise the available scientific data and literature on the selected sites this shall
include: information on the nature of the river channel and any associated wetlands and floodplains;
water quality; flow information; water usage and existing catagoristion; upstream discharges; general
bank and channel biotic communities along the river; and information on water quality impacts on
down-stream reach. Where information and data is absent or insufficient additional survey work may
be commissioned.
Activity 5: Implementation of WQSs and training
32. The new WQS system aims to be replicable in other South Caucasus countries. This will need to be
tested and suitable arrangements arrived at to ensure either that it can be adopted or that it and
neighboring country systems can be made compatible. The proposed WQS system will be tested on
two pilot sites, where representative specific water bodies and pollution conditions exist will be
selected. This should allow the verification of the applicability of the technical criteria of the WQS
system to different conditions, and test and adopt existing water management monitoring, reporting
and inspection procedures as part of the new WQS system requirements. A report on the results of
the WQS testing will be produced, which will include an assessment of the applicability and possible
replication from social, economic and environmental perspectives. The results and lessons learned
will be presented at local workshops to the key stakeholders.
Activity 6: Final report and dissemination of results
33. The final report will include a detailed description of the demonstration project and stakeholder
consultations, the WQSs, lessons learnt and next steps. In order to support further development of
national policy, the project will prepare an WQS system implementation plan based on the results of
the demonstration project. This will include:
- Proposals for amendments to institutional responsibilities and procedures in the national
legislation and implementing regulations, including recommendations on clarifying the
responsibilities of the different institutions for monitoring, sampling and analytical
procedures and statistical assemblage of results.
- Prioritised recommendations for improvements in relevant policy instruments (permission,
control and enforcement procedures);
- Prioritised recommendations for the introduction of targeted economic instruments; and
- Phases of implementation, priorities, time-schedule, costs as well as elements of capacity
building, training and cross-sectoral cooperation, required for sustainability of new WQS
systems
The results of the demonstration project will be presented at a regional meeting.
8.3 End-of Project Landscape (Outcomes)
133
34. The project outcomes include:
- The demonstration project will provide the countries with a clear technical road-map for the
transition from Soviet system of water quality management to the EU Water Framework
Directive. The prioritized recommendations will take into account the economic constraints
of the countries and the industrial enterprises they affect whilst still meeting the
environmental protection aspirations and commitments of the Governments.
- The WQSs will be a crucial element in any IWRM plan. Water resources in terms of quantity
in the Kura-Aras basin are known to be under stress and with climate change are likely to be
further challenged, causing conflicts within and between countries. Improved water quality
management will help improve water utilization efficiency and providing greater
downstream usage.
- The adoption of a WQSs in the NAPs/IWRM plans and SAP will be a first step in
harmonization of water management in the South Caucasus. It will also give impetus to the
re-investment into the regulatory infrastructure and institutions in the three countries.
9. Rationale for GEF Involvement and Fit with GEF Operational Programs and Strategic
Priorities
35. The demonstration project is consistent with the 1st Strategic Objective of the IW Focal Area: to
foster international, multi-state cooperation on priority transboundary water concerns through more
comprehensive, ecosystem-based approaches to management. It furthermore fits with the 3rd Strategic
Program in GEF-4: Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary
surface and groundwater basins. The project aims to assist countries to better manage water quality
and thereby preserve water resources for multiple use. The demonstration project is consistent with
the preliminary SAP developed under the PDF-B and assist the countries to harmonise with the EU
WFD and implement the concept and principles of IWRM.
10. Project Management Structure and Accountability
36. The project execution will be over seen by the Project Coordination Unit based in Tbilisi, Georgia
and the Armenian National Coordination Unit in Yerevan. The GEF Chief Technical Advisor will
have overall responsibility for the demonstration project implementation assisted by the Scientific
Officer. Day-today management will be the responsibility of the National Project Coordinator of
Armenia. The CTA will report regularly to the Steering Committee. The majority of the technical
work will be tendered out internationally.
11: Stakeholders and Beneficiaries:
37. The stakeholders involved in the project are multiple and include:
- Ministry of Nature Protection,
- State agencies in charge of monitoring surface water quality,
- State agencies in charge of environmental compliance assurance,
- Local government authorities,
- Water utility companies
- Mining industry
- Industrial enterprises
- water user associations,
- Scientific community,
- regional and national NGOs, CBO, and their coalitions,
12: Long-term Sustainability Strategy
134
38. A priority criteria for the WQS system design will be that it is implementable and can be adjusted to
meet the prevailing economic conditions. The demonstration project will review through desk-top
studies the potential use of economic instruments to encourage compliance by dischargers to the
newly designed system and to finance the re-establishment of the regulatory infrastructure and
institutions.
13: Replicability
39. It is envisaged at the end of the project the implementation of the WQSs in all three countries will be
an agreed intervention in the SAP and that it will be component of the National IWRM plans. If
successful the WQSs could be introduced into river basin throughout the CIS and the next stage in its
development would be to test it at a transboundary demonstration site. The results of the
demonstration project will be presented at a regional workshop to which other GEF CIS river basin
projects will be invited.
14: Monitoring and Evaluation Process
40. The Project Management Unit will produce a brief quarterly Progress Report updating the Steering
Committee and the project Execution and Implementation Agencies on the progress of the project
based on the approved Logical Framework Matrix and the project workplan . Once a year a detailed
report will be submitted through the PCU to the Steering Committee. This report will provide a full
review of the work plan to identify project achievements and deliverables, budget expenditures,
amendments to workplan and budget, staff contracting and performance, and any other information
required by the Steering Committee and/or the Executing Agencies.
41. In addition, the pilot project will also be subject to:
- Internal Project Implementation Reviews to be conducted by the CTA and submitted to the
implementing agency every six months.
- An independent final project evaluation to be undertaken in conjunction with the Terminal
Evaluation for the FSP.
- The project evaluations will be carried out in accordance with UNDP-GEF requirements and
will cover all aspects of the project. They will include: an assessment of (a) the outcomes
generated, (b) the processes used to generate them, (c) project impacts, and d) lessons
learned. Advice will be given on how the M&E results can be used to adjust the work if
needed and on how to replicate the results in the region.
15: Co-Funding
42. The total contribution requested from GEF is USD 340,000 within a 3 year period. The co-funding
from the Government of Armenia over the project period is $75,000 and from EU is USD 500,000 in
the form of monitoring equipment.
16: Budget
Award ID:
GEF Outcome/Atlas
Sub-components
Amount ($)
Amount ($) Amount ($)
Total ($)
Activity**
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
All Years
1. Project plan and
1. Project Plan and ToR preparation
150,000
inception report
2. Site selection
15,000
3. Presentation at inception meeting
5,000
Sub-total
35,000
0
0
35,000
2. Design of WQSs
1. Desk study and water body
10,000
classification
2. Economic instrument review aand
selectioncharacterization
20,000
3. Monitoring parameters and
programme defined.
10,000
135
Sub-total
40,000
0
0
40,000
3. Stakeholder
1. Identify relevant stakeholders
5,000
5,000
consultation
2. Establishment of stakeholder
5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000
group
3. Consultation with discharging
enterprises
Sub-total
10,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
4. Baseline
1. Desk study and gap filling surveys
20,000 30,000
50,000
assessment
2. Determination of the economic
20,000 20,000
implications of key WQSs scenarios
Sub-total
20,000
50,000
0
70,000
5 Implementation of
1.Monitoring
30,000
50,000
80,000
WQSs and training
2 Training
10,00
20,000
30,000
Sub-total
0
50,000
60,000
110,000
6. Final report, and
1.Preparation of Final report
30,000
dissemination results
2. Dissemination of results and
35,000
regional workshop
Sub-total
0
0
65,000
65,000
Total
105,000 105,000 130,000 340,000
136
ANNEX 1 Strategic Results Framework
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
OUTCOME
Water Qaulity Standards system: Development of a harmonized methodology for the water quality management of surface waters in the Kura-Aras river basin
ACTIVITIES
1. Project plan and inception report
Project Plan and ToR
Project plan and inception report
Project plan and inception report agreed
Availability of information
Site selection
drafted
by countries
Presentation at inception meeting
Tender documents for TA
Government stakeholders engaged
ToR for technical assistance
MoU signed with Government
stakeholders regarding demonstration
Sites selected
sites
2. Design of WQSs
Classification of water bodies based on water use
WQSs designed and implementation
WQSs design report delivered
WQSs methodology flexible enough to be
Review of economic instruments
proposals for each demonstration site
applied to the three countries.
List of parameters to be monitored and compliance -
Economic instrument paper delivered
values
List of parameters to be monitored and compliance Economic instruments proposals for
values
demonstration project -
3. Stakeholder consultation
Stakeholder assessment at each demonstration site
Demo project stakeholder forum
Stakeholder forum roster and meeting
Appropriate stakeholders in group with
Establishment of stakeholder groups
established
reports
no significant groups missing
Consultations with discharging enterprises
Review of WQSs implementation
Revised implementation proposals
Agreement of discharging enterprises to
proposals in light of consultations
work with demonstration project
4. Baseline assassment
Desk study and gap filling surveys
Characterisation report of
Characterisation reports delivered
A good baseline already exist at
Determination of economic implications of WQSs demonstration sites
demonstration sites and minimal surveys
Surveys of key parameters of
Survey reports delivered
are required
scenarios
demonstration sites
Assessment of the effectiveness and
Economic instrument report delivered
acceptance of proposed economic
instruments
5. Implementation of WQSs and training
·
Monitoring programme implemented
Monitoring programme implemented
Quarterly monitoring reports and
Insufficient time available for monitoring
·
Training of field and laboratory staff
over 24 month period
analysis of results
programme
Field and laboratory staff in
biological and chemical monitoring
Training programme delivered
techniques
137
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
6. Final report and dessimination of results
· Preparation of final report
WQOs results presented to the South
Final report delivered
· Dissemination of results
Caucasus countries and wider region
WQSs methodology agreed and
Regional workshop meeting report
adopted by countries
Inclusion of WQSs in Naps/IWRTM
plans and SAP
138
SIGNATURE PAGE
Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
UNDAF Outcome(s)/Indicator(s): ARM: UNDAF outcome 4: Promote environmentally sound technologies and
effective management of natural resources in accordance with the MDGs and PRSP; AZE: UNDAF Outcome 2: The
state improves its delivery of services and its protection of rights with the involvement of civil society and in
compliance with its international commitments; GEO: UNDAF outcome 5: Progress towards environmental
sustainability demonstrated
Expected CP Outcome(s)/Indicator (s): ARM: CP outcome 4.8: The Kura-Araks river basin is managed effectively;
AZE: CP outcome 2.9: National environmental protection and natural resource management improve; GEO: CP
outcome 5.2: Sustainable environmental and natural resources management practices adopted at national and
community level
Expected CP Output(s)/Indicator(s): ARM: CP output 4.8.2: By 2009, control mechanisms and regional cooperation
forums for reducing pollution are established; AZE: CP outcome 2.9.3: Mechanisms in place for management of
international waters; GEO: 5.2.1: Sustainable water management practices adopted for the Kura-Aras River-Basin
Implementing
partner:
UNOPS
(designated institution/Executing agency)
Other
Partners:
_________________________
Progr amme Period: 2006-2010
Total budget:
13,760,000
Programme Component: Energy&Environment
Allocated resources:
Project Title: "Reducing Transboundary Degradation in the
·
Government:
Kura -Aras Basin."
·
Regular:
Project ID: 00063506
·
Other:
Project Duration: 3 years
o GEF:
2,900,000
Management Arrangement: Agency execution: UNOPS
o Donor:
·
In-kind contributions:
o OSCE:
90,000
o UNDP/OSCE (ENVSEC): 120,000
o EU:
7,200,000
o NATO: 135,000
o FINLAND:
1,050,000
o Governments
2,265,000
139
Agreed by (Government of Armenia): ____________________________________________________
Agreed by (Government of Azerbaijan): __________________________________________________
Agreed by (Government of Georgia): ____________________________________________________
Agreed by UNOPS: ___________________________________________________________________
Agreed by UNDP: _____________________________________________________________________
140