Caspian Strategic Action Programme Implementation:

A Regional Review and Assessment

Caspian Environment Programme

April 2007

List of Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. SAP’s and NCAPs’ Legal Status and Implementation Arrangements 2

2.1 Azerbaijan 2

2.2 Islamic Republic of Iran 3

2.3 Kazakhstan 4

2.4 Russian Federation 5

2.5 Turkmenistan 6

2.6 The Caspian Sea Region 7

3. Summary of Major SAP Interventions with Budgets 9

3.1 Breakdown of Expenses 19

3.2 Summary of Major SAP Interventions by Country 19

4. Environmental Interventions Outside the SAP but Meeting SAP Objectives 24

5. Suitability and Measurability of Indicators 27

6. Findings from the Implementation Assessment Questionnaires 30

7. Impediments and Barriers to Full Implementation 34

7.1 Roles and decision making processes are not defined 34

7.2 The NCAP and SAP Lack Legal Status 34

7.3 Achieving Competent Monitoring and Reporting across Sectoral Actors 35

Annexes

Annex I List of Key Results 36

Annex II List of Environmental Investments (made or committed to) 38

List of Tables

Table 1 EQO 1 Conservation and Sustainable Use of Bioresources 10

Table 2 EQO 2 Conservation of Biodiversity 11

Table 3 EQO 3 Improve the Water Quality of the Caspian 13

Table 4 EQO 4 Sustainable Development of the Coastal Zones 15

Table 5 EQO 5 Strengthen stakeholder participation in the Caspian environmental Stewardship 16

Table 6 Known Expenses for SAP Implementation (2004-6) 18

Table 7 Major Interventions in Azerbaijan 19

Table 8 Major Interventions in Iran 20 Table 9 Major Interventions in Kazakhstan 21

Table 10 Major Interventions in Russia 22

Table 11 Major Interventions in Turkmenistan 23

Table 12 Interventions in Azerbaijan outside the SAP but meeting SAP Objectives 24

Table 13 Interventions in Iran outside the SAP but meeting SAP Objectives 24

Table 14 Interventions in Kazakhstan outside the SAP but meeting SAP Objectives 25

Table 15 Interventions in Russia outside the SAP but meeting SAP Objectives 26

Table 16 Interventions in Turkmenistan outside the SAP but meeting SAP Objectives 26

Table 17 Root Causes for the Lack of Success in Azerbaijan 32

Table 18 Root Causes for the Lack of Success in Iran 33

List of Abbreviations

AZ Azerbaijan

CEP Caspian Environmental Programme

EQO Environmental Quality Objective

IMO International Maritime Organisation

IR, Islamic Republic of Iran

KZ, Kazakhstan

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NCAP National Caspian Action Plan

NEAP National Action Plan on Environmental Protection

NFP National Focal Point

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

RF Russian Federation

SAP Strategic Action Programme

TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States

TK Turkmenistan

TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis

EU European Union

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme

WHO World Health Organisation

1. Introduction

The Caspian Environment Programme is a regional partnership between the five littoral states of the Caspian Sea (Azerbaijan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan) and international organisations (the EU, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank). The goal of the CEP is the environmentally sustainable development and management of the Caspian Environment. Part of the process in achieving this goal is identifying the priority environmental issues and developing a regional Strategic Action Programme and five National Caspian Action Plans , one for each of the littoral countries.

This report reviews and assesses the implementation of the SAP and the NCAPs in the Caspian littoral countries. The study has been commissioned by the GEF supported CEPSAP project under the umbrella of CEP. It has been carried out by an international consultant namely Tristram Lewis and is based on the National SAP Implementation Assessment Reports, these being national studies carried out in each littoral country to assess the implementation of the SAP/NCAPs. The study has also benefited from information collected through SAP/NCAP Implementation Assessment Questionnaires developed by the CEP Coordination Unit and completed by the SAP Implementation Coordinators in all the countries except Russia.

It is important to note that the scope and detail of the National SAP Implementation Assessment Reports varied hugely. This varying quality has meant this report could not be precise and comprehensive. In addition, it hindered the ability to make robust comparisons between the different states’ SAP/NCAPs implementation.

2. SAP’s and NCAPs’ legal status and implementation arrangements

There is little information available on the mechanisms for implementation however often the implementing partner is named and whether that partner is state, international, academic or private sector actor may provide insight into the method of implementation. Where possible the key implementing partners have been identified.

The SAP and NCAPs, in most cases, have very limited legal status however there are numerous examples of legislation being created that aims to achieve the same environmental objectives as the SAP/NCAPs. Further details on each country follow.

2.1. Azerbaijan

In Azerbaijan national environmental policies are driven inter alia by commitments made under international conventions and agreements which include the SAP, with its regional dimension. The SAP and NCAP have been reported as being seen as ‘outdated’ and yet The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources has developed a 2006-10 National Action Plan guided by the SAP and NCAP which was subsequently approved by a Presidential decree.

It is also reported that a review and updating of the NCAP was underway after which the NCAP would be used as a guideline to develop an Action Programme. This would then be submitted to Government for approval. The NCAP review and updating involved the Ministries of Ecology and Natural Resources, Economic Development, Finances, Emergency Response, Agriculture, Health, Education, Industry and Energy, Culture and Tourism, as well as Milli Mejlis (Parliament), National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Land and Mapping, Executive Authority of Baku City, State Oil Company of AR, JSC of Amelioration and Water Industry and public organizations. A Working Group was established with national and local authorities, academic organizations and NGOs to draft the Updated NCAP.

To meet certain EQOs new departments have been established in the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, those being the department of Reproduction and Conservation of Aquatic Bio-resources and the Department of Integrated Environmental Monitoring.

Although it appears that the SAP and NCAP have not been given legal recognition some laws have been introduced that should ensure certain SAP objectives are met. In strengthening stakeholder participation (EQO5) a number of legislations have been introduced including Access to Information on Environmental Matters, the Procedure of Signing an Agreement with the Person Willing to Get Information on Environmental Matters and finally Environmental Education and Public Awareness, all passed in 2002-3.

2.2. Islamic Republic of Iran

The Iranian SAP Implementation Assessment Report explains that although the NCAP was developed in cooperation with all relevant Ministries and different stakeholders it was not subsequently integrated into sectoral plans nor owned by the stakeholders. The Inter-ministerial Forum chaired by the Department of the Environment approved the NCAP. The NCAP was subsequently endorsed by the NFP with the authority of the Vice President.

It was not until the Fourth National Development Plan (2005-2009) that the Caspian Sea was identified as requiring specific attention and the NCAP objectives were integrated in to the development plan with the previously identified Caspian Sea Priority Environmental Actions being incorporated into the Environmental Policies of the 4th Five Year Development Plan. In particular Article 61 discussed the implementation of the waste management especially in the three northern provinces of the Caspian Sea and Article 63 declared that Caspian coastal areas were to be Development Free Zones, with integrated coastal management systems becoming compulsory. Other relevant Articles were 58, 60, 64, 65, 67, 68 and 71.

The Articles require by-laws to be drawn up in order to become law. Article 63 states the by-law ‘shall be prepared by the Management and Planning Organization, Department of the Environment, Ministries of Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Agriculture Jihad, Ministry of Road and Transportation, and other relevant agencies as it may be deemed necessary, and be approved by the Council of Ministers’. Whether a by-law was drawn up is not known and arriving at a consensus across so many departments is likely to weaken and delay the legislation. It is reported that the momentum of the implementation of the 4th Five Year Development Plan has slowed down and no timeframe or follow up mechanism has been considered.

The NCAP was not only incorporated in the 4th Five Year National Development Plan (2005-2009) and the Provincial 5 Year Development Plans, it was also incorporated into the 10 Year Outlook for some Provinces. Moreover, it was expected to be incorporated into the relevant Ministries Strategies and Action Plans such as: National Biodiversity Action Plan; Forest Conservation Plan; Solid Waste Management Plan for Coastal Provinces; Solid Waste Management Plan for Coastal Provinces; Coastal Area Management Plan; National Plan for River Pollution Management and National Plan for Integrated Pest Management. It is further reported that the SAP and NCAPs were prepared in parallel and a lot of the components in the NCAP met SAP targets.

2.3. Kazakhstan

Most of the NCAP measures have been included in the State Programme on Developing Kazakhstan, approved by Presidential Decree in 2003. NCAP measures have also been covered in additional government policy including; the Concept of Ecological Security for 2004-2015; the Strategy of Industrial-Innovation Development for 2004 - 2010, the Programme of Fishery Industry Development 2004 - 2006; the Programme on Environment Protection 2005-2007, the Programme on Combating with Desertification 2005- 2015; the Programme of Gas Industry Development 2004-2010; the Programme of Country Resource Base Development of the Mineral-Raw Complex for 2003 – 2010 and the State Programme of Agricultural Areas Development 2004-2010. The Kazakhstan SAP Implementation Assessment Report states that many of the NCAP objectives are integrated into local level policy too, however, no examples have been provided.

In Kazakhstan the role of the hydrocarbon extraction industry in implementing or financing environmental work is great. AgipKCO alone is recorded as having spent $69,838,000 on various environmental measures from 2003 to 2005. Although the detail is lacking it would appear that many of these measures would fulfil NCAP and SAP objectives.A further proposal underway is the introduction of a coastal zone development strategy proposed by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral resources. This may fulfil additional SAP(EQO 4)or NCAP objectives.

The approved Government NGO Supporting Programme 2003-05 has the objective to strengthen stakeholder participation (EQO5). There is no comment on whether this has undermined the independence of the NGOs. Other initiatives implemented in this sector include the creation of the Civil Forum and the Ecological Forum to foster civil society participation. Again these initiatives are government driven and may result in the NGOs compromising their independence.

Although the SAP and NCAP are not legally binding in Kazakhstan an example of an initiative that demonstrates the Government’s intent was the creation of the Committee of the Nature Protection Control within the Ministry of Environmental Protection. What authority this committee has is not clear and what level of influence the Ministry of Environmental Protection may have compared to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral resources is also not discussed. The level of influence of the different ministries (often with competing interests) may be the only deciding factor when there are no clear legal obligations directing a decision.

Efforts have been made to incorporate environmental protection into the wider society and a number of memorandums have been signed with different NGOs and private sector actors to achieve this.

2.4. Russian Federation

The SAP was agreed to by the environmental protection agencies of the Russian Federation’s government. The NCAP was approved at the NCAP National Forum in Feb 2003 in Astrakhan and agreed to by the administrative authorities of the Caspian region ( Dagestan, Kalmykia and the Astrakhan oblast) and the Ministry of Economic Development.

The responsible department within the Russian government for the SAP/NCAP implementation is the Ministry for Natural Resources. The NCAP is seen as a tool for facilitating coordination. It brought together numerous involved agencies and their strategies and identified agreed priorities for the Caspian Sea including the EQOs identified in the SAP.A core aspect to the NCAP implementation was the regular reviewing of the programme to ensure it adapted to the changing ecological, social, economic and political conditions.

Where the planned interventions were not successfully implemented the reason given was this was due to changes in policy, resulting in restructuring. Since the approval of the SAP/NCAP the division of duties and responsibilities between the different government departments changed leading to delays in implementation. The Ministry for Natural Resources became the state body charged with policy and regulation development and ensuring cooperation at the national, regional and local levels. These reforms were driven by Presidential Decree No.824, July 2003 and Decree No. 314 March 2004.

However since the Tehran Convention came into effect in August 2006 the Convention Action Plan has been designated , when finalised , to become the leading tool for defining the implementation mechanisms and objectives for environmental protection in the Caspian sea and not the SAP.

Activities aiming to fulfil EQO 1 were implemented with the assistance of the Commission on Aquatic Bio-resources of the Caspian Sea. This is a regional body operating in all Caspian littoral states. Other implementing bodies for the EQO include the Federal State Unitary Enterprise ‘BIOS’ (research and production centre for sturgeon breeding) and the oil company Lukoil. Co-funding from the TACIS small grants programme also contributed to those components with a socio/economic dimension.

A memorandum between the CEP and the IMO has facilitated in achieving parts of EQO 2 . While a regional MoU between the Caspian states has enabled meeting the objectives relating to oil spills. Further EQO 3 objectives were met by activities implemented by the State Oceanic Institute and CaspMNIC of Roshydromet, Institute of Water Problems at the Russian Academy of Sciences and Center for International Projects

The implementation of the development of Caspian coastal communities (EQO 4) was implemented through the Russian Regional Ecological Centre

2.5. Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan’s national environmental strategy is the National Action Plan on Environmental Protection (NEAP) which was approved by presidential decree in 2002. All environmental activities in Turkmenistan are informed by the NEAP and an evaluation of the NEAP is presently underway. The NEAP contains legal, institutional and budgetary components. The NCAP is the action plan of the NEAP and hence is legally binding. The NCAP addresses the national priorities, of which many have a regional dimension and fulfil SAP EQOs. The SAP is seen as a guideline and is not a legal requirement.

The Ministry for Nature Protection is responsible for the implementation of the NEAP however numerous executing partners are involved. Meanwhile the responsible agency for the NCAP is the State Enterprise of Caspian Issues with coastal organisations and agencies executing it. The relationship between the Ministry for Nature Protection and the State Enterprise of Caspian Issues is not described in the documentation.

The Minister of Nature Protection is also the CEP national coordinator and responsible for the SAP. Actors recognised as implementing activities leading to the fulfilment of the SAP are; State Corporation Turkmenoil, Fishery Inspection of Turkmenistan, Khazar Nature Reserve, Khazar Chemical Plant, Turkmenbashi Oil Refinery, Division Caspecocontrol, Chemical plant Garabogazsuphat, Emerol, Dragon Oil and Burren energy, with Emerol making by far the greatest financial contribution of $9 149 303.

2.6. The Caspian Sea Region

The CEP Steering Committee approved the SAP in Nov 2003 in Tehran as ‘guidelines for the voluntary adherence of the countries’ The SAP identifies the national and regional interventions needed to address the priority regional environmental concerns. The NCAP remains a tool for implementing a number of environmental interventions at the national level many of which contribute to meeting SAP objectives.

Several of the National SAP Implementation Assessment Reports highlighted that new priorities have appeared and old objectives have become less relevant since the SAP and NCAP were first drawn up. It was argued that the capacity of the littoral states had improved through increased oil revenues due to high oil prices.

There is little evidence suggesting that at the national level the NCAPs or the SAP have been given legal recognition other than Turkmenistan where the NCAP is integrated into the NEAP. However there is evidence that numerous legal requirements have been introduced or strengthened which may lead to SAP/NCAP objectives being achieved. Whether the introduction of these new laws was driven by the NCAPs or SAP is not explicit although it is clear that SAP and NCAP have been instrumental in initiating and /or facilitating the process.

A key development which may bear influence on the recognition and status afforded the SAP and NCAPs is the approval of the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea, known as the Tehran Convention. In August 2006 the convention became enforceable. The objective of the Convention is the protection of the Caspian environment from all sources of pollution including the protection, preservation, restoration and sustainable and rational use of the biological resources of the Caspian Sea. The convention and its associated protocols target the same objectives as the SAP. The CEP Steering Committee Meeting held in December 2007 in Moscow offered its ‘institutional structures and policy documents’ to the Convention Secretariat, an offer which was welcomed by the High Level Meeting of the Parties to the Convention which dovetailed the SCM[t1] It is understood that the First Conference of the Parties to the Convention, planned for May 2007 will decide to develop the SAP into the Convention Action Plan.

The SAP encourages all states sign and ratify the Stockholm Convention, the Aarhus Convention, the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (ESPOO) and the Convention to Combat Desertification. The Stockholm Convention has been signed but not ratified by Kazakhstan and Russia while Azerbaijan and Iran have ratified it. Only Kazakhstan has signed and ratified the Arhus Convention. No parties have signed and ratified the ESPOO Convention. Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan have signed and ratified the Convention to Combat Desertification.

3. Summary of Major SAP Interventions with Budgets

The following 5 tables are taken from Annex II of the SAP. There is a table for each EQO, with its associated targets and interventions. To provide an overview of where the interventions have been implemented a column for each littoral state has been added. A tick (ü) illustrates that the implementation of the intervention is partial or completed. Where known the expenditure for the intervention is shown in stead of a tick. Each National SAP Implementation Assessment Report was the source for information on whether or not an intervention was implemented. A blank cell indicates that there was no information available for that particular intervention. (Note – an alternative source was the Assessment Questionnaires which indicate that virtually all interventions* were implemented in all the states however no other information elaborating on the interventions was presented)

*The interventions not implemented according to the questionnaires were: in AZ & Iran EQO 1, Target 1, intervention 1.2 b) an effective regional fisheries body made operational, in KZ EQO 4 Target 2, intervention 2.4 in threatened forest areas introduce alternatives to fuel wood and in TK EQO 2, Target 3, intervention 3.2 b) management plan for the control of invasive species via the Volga-Don and Volga Baltic navigation routes, EQO 3, Target 3, intervention 3.5 a) three demonstration pilot projects established in the coastal zone and EQO 5, Target 1, intervention 1.5 established fund and number of micro grants dispersed.

Table 1. EQO 1: conservation and Sustainable Use of Bioresources

Table 2. EQO 2: Conservation of biodiversity

TAble 3. EQO 3: Improve the water quality of the caspian

Table 4. EQO 4: sustainable development of the coastal zones

Table 5. EQo 5: Strengthen stakeholder participation in the caspian environmental stewardship

3.1. Breakdown of Expenses

The total expenditure by country and EQO can be found in Table 6. However, the lack of information on expenditure and at times the contradictory data means that the total expenditure either for each EQO or by each country can not be relied upon as totally accurate. For example Russia spent $28 million on environmental protection and rational resource use overall. Of this approximately $9.5 million was allocated for NCAP activities and by totalling up the expenditure from the 5 tables above the money spent on fulfilling the EQOs was $9.725 million. However of the 41 interventions carried out in Russia the costs were provided for only four of them. So the actual total expenditure for the interventions must be significantly larger. Using the data available $10 million remains unaccounted for but it is likely to have been used on those remaining 37 interventions where information on expenses is absent.

Table 6. Known Expenses for SAP Implementation in USD (2004-6)

	AZ	IR	KZ	RF	TK	Total by EQO
EQO I	-	22,576,000	575,000	3,700,000	2,554,000	29,405,000
EQOII	25,000	10,931,000	850,000	25,000	585,000	12,416,000
EQO III	6,220,000	11,738,000	15,668,000	-	12,433,000	46,059,000
EQO IV	-	20,000	23,000	6,000,000	225,000	6,286,000
EQO V	-	1,788,000	-	-	829,000	2,617,000
Total SAP Expenditure by Country	6,245,000	47,053,000	17,116,000	9,725,000	16,626,000

3.2 . Summary of Major SAP Interventions by Country

The key activities carried out are listed below, by country.

Azerbaijan

Table 7. Major Interventions in Azerbaijan

EQO 1	1. Three hatcheries were upgraded and a new one commissioned and artificial reproduction rates have continued to rise. 2. The Kura was dredged to prevent flooding but this also improved the migration of anadromous and semi-anadromous fish species
EQO 2	1. The country’s first 6 National Parks were created and this included 76,000 hectares in the coastal area
EQO 3	1. The capacity to monitor the Caspian was greatly increased. The Caspian Integrated Monitoring Department received an upgrade to its laboratory plus 6 new vessels and two new laboratories were also constructed. 2. Regular monitoring was undertaken in coastal waters and land as well as offshore and hotspots identified. 3. Sewage treatment capacity was increased 4. A National Oil Spill Response Plan was developed and an Emergency Respone Minsitry established. 5. A Hazardous Waste Strategy was drawn up and facilities built 6. An Integrated Action Plan addressing the targets in EQO III was passed and runs from 2006-10. What components were implemented within the time frame of this review is unknown.
EQO 4	1. To reduce desertification fuels other than wood have been introduced including piped gas and biofuels.
EQO 5	1. Environmental awareness campaigns have been implemented targeting the general public

Iran

The Iranian National SAP Assessment Review Report did not contain narrative on the interventions undertaken. The method adopted to identify the major interventions has been to list the interventions with the greatest expenditure. This implies that there may be more significant interventions than those listed below but the expenditure was not available.

Table 8. Major Interventions in Iran

EQO 1	1. In coordination with national and regional organizations, develop enforcement mechanisms and economic instruments to reduce illegal trade in Caspian commercial fish resources in accordance with CITES Paris Declaration. 2. Rehabilitate stocks of migratory commercially valuable fish species. 3. Promote alternative income sources for fishing communities and adoption sustainable livelihoods, and improve access to social /community services.
EQO 2	1. Improve effectiveness of management of Caspian protected coastal areas including compliance with existing legislation. 2. Management of protected areas
EQO 3	1. Establish and promote recommendations for the use of agro chemicals, including application times and rates, handling, storage and disposal.

Kazakhstan

Table 9. Major Interventions in Kazakhstan

EQO 1	1. Plans to upgrade to hatcheries have been developed 2. Numerous studies have lead to greater understanding of the different fisheries distribution and behaviour
EQO 2	1. Parts of the N.E. Caspian were given special status whereby oil extraction is prohibited. 2. Studies of the coastal zone were undertaken to enable a catalogue of flora and fauna to be compiled
EQO 3	1. Numerous oil wells were capped 2. A National Plan for Oil Spill Response has been developed 3. Pollution hotspots were identified 4. Monitoring capacity has been increased
EQO 4	1. A coastal zone development plan has been developed
EQO 5	1. A government programme to foster civil society involvement particularly through NGOs was implemented and runs from 2003-5.

Russia

Table 10. Major Interventions in Russia

EQO 1	1. Reconstruction and dredging of fish pass canals and spawning grounds in the Volga delta 2. Fish breeding farms and artificial reproduction capacity improved
EQO 2	1. Although it is reported that interventions have been fulfilled details are scant
EQO 3	1. Water quality monitoring programmes were established in both Caspian Sea and Volga 2. Both national and regional oil spill response plans were developed 3. An in depth analysis of the major pollutants flows in the Volga River was completed 4. Lukoil Company constructed an oil waste processing plant
EQO 4	1. Community based alternative livelihoods programmes were implemented in 16 communities 2. Actions undertaken to reduce desertification included altering irrigation techniques, improving water supplies and developing ecological tourism.
EQO 5	1. Although it is reported interventions have been fulfilled details are scant

Turkmenistan

Table 11. Major Interventions in Turkmenistan

EQO 1	1. Enforcement against poaching was strengthened 2. The construction of a hatchery is underway 3. Fishermen cooperatives targeting different fisheries were established
EQO 2	1. An inventory of protected species produced and a database of protected areas created 2. The wetlands in the Khazar Reserve increased by 50,000 hectares leading to increased protection and Ramsar listings
EQO 3	1. The monitoring by the state agency and oil companies was strengthened 2. Waste treatment at Turkmenbashi oil refinery and the oil terminal at Kenar was improved 3. The successful prevention of oil contamination of ground water 4. Numerous repairs to pipelines and reservoirs reduced oil pollution 5. A toxic waste disposal site was built by Khazar Chemical Plant and numerous clean up operations of contaminated land 6. Dragon oil purchased oil spill response equipment
EQO 4	1. 32 alternative sustainable livelihoods projects were started in three coastal communities
EQO 5	1. Environmental education has been undertaken in schools in the coastal zone 2. Small scale awareness raising projects for the principles promoted in the Aarhus Convention were carried out

4. Environmental Interventions Outside the SAP But Meeting SAP Objectives

The tables below , one for each Caspian littoral state, present the interventions with the relevant SAP EQOs that fall outside the SAP but meet the objectives.

Azerbaijan

Table 12. Interventions in Azerbaijan outside the SAP but meeting SAP objectives

EQO 1 Conservation and Sustainable use of Bio-resources

-

EQO 2 Conservation of Biodiversity

-

EQO 3 Improve the water quality of the Caspian

The removal of ship wrecks from Baku Bay The performance of Baku sewage treatment plant increased with reduced direct outfall into the Caspian National strategy and disposal site for hazardous waste has been developed Clean up programme of oil polluted areas is near completion Improvements to air quality including monitoring, regulations Refineries coming online must meet new emission standards and power stations have reduced their emissions Maps showing oil polluted territories, oil wells and other polluted areas were compiled Recommendations for sewage treatment facilities for the Caspian and Kura river were developed & await approval Under the Helsinki Convention a joint river management plan has been developed for the Kura 2006-10 action plan for treatment facilities, polluted areas, decommissioned facilities, relocating polluted facilities

EQO 4 Sustainable development of the coastal zone

-

EQO 5 Strengthen stakeholder participation in environmental stewardship

-

Iran

Table 13. Interventions in Iran outside the SAP but meeting SAP objectives

EQO 1 Conservation and Sustainable use of Bio-resources

-

EQO 2 Conservation of Biodiversity

Some activities undertaken to combat mnemiopsis but no details provided Identify and restore priority sensitive coastal habitats but no evidence of standardised monitoring or 5 key projects being identified

EQO 3 Improve the water quality of the Caspian

New treatment sewage facilities

EQO 4 Sustainable development of the coastal zone

Combating desertification through watershed management plans

EQO 5 Strengthen stakeholder participation in environmental stewardship

Promotion of participatory practices in the management of local natural resources Increase local and regional authorities understanding through numerous meetings, workshops and equipment purchased (at a reported cost of $33.5 mil) Some kind of environmental awareness training undertaken, for whom is unknown

Kazakhstan

Table 14. Interventions in Kazakhstan outside the SAP but meeting SAP objectives

EQO 1 Conservation and Sustainable use of Bio-resources

Improved enforcement and strengthened legislation against poaching

Development of the tourism infrastructure in Atyrau oblast

EQO 2 Conservation of Biodiversity

Atyrau programme for environmental protection and ecological improvement was approved at a cost of $296 million. No further details provided

Monitoring of sturgeon and seal populations in certain areas by Agipco oil company & other environmental monitoring be oil companies

New environmental legislation has been introduced or is being introduced however the specifics are not presented

The Protection and Control of Nature Committee was formed, due to government regulation, to strengthen environmental protection

Radio active levels surveyed

EQO 3 Improve the water quality of the Caspian

The decommissioning of ship wrecks in Bautino bay

A fleet of ships adapted to collect sewage water

Air and ground pollution monitoring introduced as well as wind and wave behaviour studies

Ongoing investigation into the ecological status of the NE Caspian. Special consideration is the impact of the hydrocarbon extraction activities and sea level rise

Storm surge forecasting system developed

Equipment for oil spill responses purchased for Aktau port

Treatment plant for domestic waste constructed in the Atyrau oblast

Mitigation work on Koshtar Ata

The burning of gas from oil wells is prohibited, from 2010 the gas must be processed

Zero discharge of waste from oil extraction into the marine environment introduced in 2005

The capacity of the authorities to investigate pollution incidents and investigate infringements has been strengthening

EQO 4 Sustainable development of the coastal zone

-

EQO 5 Strengthen stakeholder participation in environmental stewardship

2002 and 2003 saw regulations passed by the Government strengthening the position of NGOs

Russia

Table 15. Interventions in Russia outside the SAP but meeting SAP objectives

EQO 1 Conservation and Sustainable use of Bio-resources

The reconstruction and dredging on fish pass canals and spawning grounds in Volga delta, enhanced hatcheries and other aquaculture resources increased Sustainable use of commercial fisheries resources

EQO 2 Conservation of Biodiversity

Complemented by the UNDP/GEF project on wetlands in the lover Volga and UNEP project on the integrated environmental management project in the Volga Caspian region

In 2005 255,000 hectares in the Astrakham oblast were designated specially protected nature areas

EQO 3 Improve the water quality of the Caspian

Zero discharge drilling regulations were introduced

Reduction in untreated water and sulphur dioxide discharged

EQO 4 Sustainable development of the coastal zone

Numerous development programmes in the region, no details available

EQO 5 Strengthen stakeholder participation in environmental stewardship

Assisted by the participation of the mass medias coverage of the environmental issues facing the Caspian and the Strategic Environmental Assessment

Turkmenistan

Table 16. Interventions in Turkmenistan outside SAP but meeting SAP objectives

EQO 1 Conservation and Sustainable use of Bio-resources

-

EQO 2 Conservation of Biodiversity

Nation wide forestation (Green Belt) programme

EQO 3 Improve the water quality of the Caspian

Pollution monitoring carried out during exploration and extraction of oil

Additional clean up activities included construction of an industrial waste storage facility preventing pollutants escaping into Caspian Ses, land re-cultivation/soil cleaning, removal of industrial waste and project to utilise oil sludge

Improvements to the sewage system and treatment thereby reducing discharge into the Caspian Sea

Capacity to respond to oil spills improved

Saymanova bay surveyed by Emerol, monitoring bacterial, chemical and phenol content, hard detergents and hydrocarbons

EQO 4 Sustainable development of the coastal zone

-

EQO 5 Strengthen stakeholder participation in environmental stewardship

-

5. Suitability and Measurability of Indicators

Indicators should demonstrate that an intervention has been implemented and most importantly it has been effective. Ideally the indicators should be quantitative and when this is not possible the indicator should be qualitative not just descriptive. For example in EQO IV, intervention 2.1 states ‘Establish environmental issues awareness training programmes for local authorities, and national ministries, emphasizing cost/benefit analysis of proposed projects’ and the indicator states ‘Development and execution of environmental awareness training programmes for local authorities and national ministries’. This indicator ensures the training took place but not whether the authorities’ awareness on environmental issues had increased and that cost/benefit analysis is factored into proposed projects. The indicator should provide evidence of change, be it reflecting a change in behaviour and/or understanding or results/performance. In this case it may be possible to establish an indicator that reflects the number of proposals where cost/benefit analysis is included in the decision making or proposal format, for example.

If the resources are available to collate the data for indicators then simple counting up outputs from an intervention may suffice although this may require baseline data against which to measure the data. For example EQO 1, intervention 1.3, indicator b) could count the number of inspections carried out, intervention 1.4, indicator b) look for a reduction in infringement cases and EQO 2, intervention 3.2, indicator b) look for a reduction in the presence of specific alien species.

The following example has used this approach however the choice of indicator could be improved. EQO 1, intervention 3.2 ‘Promote alternative income sources for fishing communities and adoption sustainable livelihoods, and improve access to social /community services’ with the indicator ‘Improved health and education status in coastal communities as measured by life expectancy and years at school. The phrase ‘years at school’ is descriptive and lacks the qualitative component whereas an indicator considering the literacy rate would be more revealing. The health sector (as with other sectors) has universally recognised indicators and where possible these should be used (e.g. mortality rates) and can be provided by WHO, where as ‘life expectancy’ can be effected by numerous issues not just immediate access to health services.

The limited amount of detail available prevents highly informative reporting of the SAP implementation against the SAP indicators. The National SAP Implementation Assessment Reports refer to large interventions being implemented but there is little reference to the indicators. It is not possible to know whether the absence of the reporting against indicators means the indicator has not been achieved or just the information was unavailable. For example under EQO 1 , intervention 2.2 states ‘Increase sturgeon hatchery efficiency and capacity through improvement of bio techniques and fry growth technology as well as enhancing scales of their production.’ All the states are reported to have undertaken various steps to achieve this intervention. Yet there are three indicators for the intervention; (a) Double amount of fingerlings released from hatcheries from the baseline 120 million per year, b) Double the survival rate of released fingerlings from 2002 rate of 2.5% and c) Brood stocks are maintained alive in hatcheries, and yet no National SAP Implementation Assessment Report reports against all of these indicators.

This may highlight a weakness in programme monitoring. This may be overcome by developing the methods of verification for the indicators within the SAP. Including the means of verification forces programme managers to consider what indicators can be realistically measured and data collated and may result in several proxy indicators being developed that are easily measured rather than a true indicator which would consume too many resources to collect.

The format of the Intervention and Corresponding Indicators matrix used in Annex II of the SAP may be strengthened by utilising a logical framework approach. Not only would this ensure methods of verification were included but would also breakdown the objectives from the outputs and the activities which at times have been bundled together in the present format under the heading of ‘intervention’. Using the same example, intervention 2.2 (‘Increase sturgeon hatchery efficiency and capacity through improvement of bio techniques and fry growth technology as well as enhancing scales of their production), the activities are the introduction of technology and enhancing scales of production and the outputs would be increased sturgeon hatchery efficiency and capacity. Breaking these items down, including indicators for each activity would provide more detail, transparency and promote clearer thinking in programme design. Bundling activities within one intervention makes reporting against the intervention problematic as some of the activities may have been fully implemented, some partially and some not at all and still the desired outcome may or may not have been achieved.

The time frame for the programme expressed in Annex II is five years. Clear and precise indicators could be developed that demonstrate change over the five years. However the use of words such as ‘effective’ and ‘efficient’ as used in EQO1, intervention 1.2, indicator b) and EQO 4 intervention 1.2, indicator b) are uninformative, vague and should be avoided.

Only the Russian SAP Assessment report touched on the issue of indicators. The report concluded that the indicators should be more general in order to be applicable in changing political, social and economic situations.

6. Findings from the Implementation Assessment Questionnaires

Questionnaire 1 was completed by all the states except Russia and examined the rate of success in undertaking the SAP Intervention by giving a score of ‘Highly Satisfactory’ (the expected outcome appears to have been fully achieved, ‘Satisfactory’ (the expected outcome appears to have been achieved efficiently with only minor shortcomings), ‘Moderately Satisfactory’ (the expected outcome is likely to have been achieved efficiently with moderate shortcomings), ‘Moderately Unsatisfactory’ (the expected outcome has moderate shortcomings that limit its achievement, but resolution is likely), ‘Unsatisfactory’ (the expected outcome has significant shortcomings that limit its achievement, and resolution is uncertain) and ‘Highly Unsatisfactory’ (the expected outcome has major shortcomings that limit its achievement, and resolution is unlikely) to each indicator. In total 105 indicators were given a rating.

Of those 105 indicators the following received the highest rating of satisfactory or better across the region (excluding Russia):

EQO 1:

1.4 b: Legal instruments in place to mitigate illegal trade/strengthen mechanisms to reduce illegal trade.

3.2 b: Improved health and education status in coastal communities as measured by life expectancy and years at school.

EQO 2

1.1 a: Regionally endorsed Biodiversity Protocol.

1.5 a: An informed and more active public and more environmentally conscious decision making bodies.

1.6 a: Increased reference to biodiversity as a key issue in coastal planning /land use decision making documents.

4.2 a: Evidence of use of modern protected area management.

EQO 3

2.1 a: Implemented regional monitoring programme to focus on certain contaminants and hotspots, with information exchange among relevant bodies, standardized monitoring protocols, including baseline contaminant levels.

2.2 a: Implemented rapid assessment programme for contaminant levels throughout all Caspian waters, including synchronized assessment standards, and region- wide information sharing mechanisms

3.1 a: Developed and adopted protocol on land-based sources of pollution.

From EQO 5 was 2.2 a) Mandatory application of EIA in development project decisions making process and increased number of public meetings.

In contrast the indicators across the region that received a rating of unsatisfactory or worse were:

EQO 1

1.3 b: A continually updated review of the status of the Caspian biodiversity

EQO 2

6.1 a: A health map of the Caspian’s marine habitats based on standardized assessment methodology

EQO 3

3.7 a: Adopted protocol on dumping at sea

5.3 a: Reduction in nutrient loading by 30% in critical areas

6.5 a: Risk assessment completed and made available to relevant bodies for consideration.

EQO 4

1.3 a: Functioning national and regional data centers and access to GIS database for use by coastal planning authorities.

At the country level Azerbaijan was rated to have met 30 out of the 105 indicators (29%) to a satisfactory or above level, Kazakhstan 40 out of 105 (38%), Turkmenistan 46 out of 105 (46%). Iran scored 6 out of 105 (6%). All Iran’s scores were lower than the other 3 states. This may reflect weaker implementation or a more critical appraisal of the programme. Likewise Azerbaijan was rated to have met 7 out of 105 indicators (7%) at a level of unsatisfactory or worse, Kazakhstan had zero indicators rated at unsatisfactory or worse, Turkmenistan only 6 and Iran 45 out of 105 (43%).

Questionnaire 2 examined the root causes for the lack of success in achieving the 20 SAP targets. Of the five littoral Caspian states only Azerbaijan and Iran completed this questionnaire.

In the case of Azerbaijan, the root cause most commonly cited was ‘insufficient national funding to implement the agreed interventions’. Insufficient national funding was referred to as a root cause for 65% of the SAP targets and ‘insufficient international support and partnership’ was the second most common cause cited as a reason in 35% of the SAP targets. Lack of political will to take needful actions, insufficient national monitoring and evaluation of the SAP and NCAP implementation, lack of accountability and transparency, organized crime and corruption and lastly perceived conflict between national and regional interests were not deemed a cause at all in achieving any of the targets. For the complete findings for

Azerbaijan see Table 17.

Table 17: Root Causes for the Lack of Success in Azerbaijan

The findings for the Iranian questionnaire were as follows; the most frequently cited root causes were ‘insufficient national monitoring and evaluation of the SAP & NCAP implementation’ and ‘lack of and/or inadequate regional strategies, polices and management plans. These two root causes applied to 70% of the SAP targets. The least referred to causes were ‘perceived conflict between national and regional interests’ (quoted in 2% of targets) and ‘lack of accountability and transparency, organized crime and corruption’ (quoted in 4% of targets). Table 18 illustrates all the Iranian findings.

Table 18: Root Causes for the Lack of Success in Iran

The root causes ‘low value attached to environmental considerations’ and ‘insufficient national funding’ rated highly in both questionnaires. In Iran ‘insufficient national monitoring and evaluation’ was one of the two most often cited causes yet in Azerbaijan this was not considered to be an issue at all.

Obtaining completed questionnaires from Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan would lead to greater understanding of the root causes across the programme and region.

7. Impediments and Barriers to Full Implementation

The sources for the impediments and barriers to implementation are threefold; a) obstacles identified by each National Assessment Report, b) issues that have come to attention through examining all National Assessment Reports and c) analysis of the SAP Implementation Assessment Questionnaires. In what follows we have listed the major impediments and barriers:

7.1. Roles and decision making processes are not defined

In a programme of such complexity and with so many actors it is vital that the decision making processes and the roles at all levels are defined, this includes the programme being endorsed from the highest (e.g. the Cabinet) to the lowest levels (e.g. individual farmers and fishermen).

In Iran it appears the NCAP and SAP never got endorsed by the government at sufficiently high appropriate level and at most it was endorsed by the CEP host institution, the Department of the Environment. Environmental protection is rarely a government’s highest priority and the Ministry or Department responsible for environmental protection usually has a lower status than the majority of other ministries. Achieving the highest level buy-in within the Cabinet, prior to competing demands developing and influencing decisions, may go some way towards mitigating against the erosion of environmental policies. This issue of authority was further illustrated in Iran where the task of fund raising for the NCAP and SAP was assigned to the NFP but they did not have the authority to do so thereby reducing their effectiveness. Again an example taken from Iran demonstrates the importance of clearly defined roles and decision making processes; the representatives at the programme planning stages were specialists and not the decision makers for planning and policy development. This undermined the commitment of those managers when it came to implementation. A further risk is that decisions are made in isolation without consultation with other departments or ministries resulting in inefficiencies in the form of gaps or overlaps.

7.2. The NCAP and SAP Lack Legal Status

Without legal recognition the programmes rely mostly on the interest and the good will of the authorities and there is no obligation to design any project in line with the NCAP or SAP. With legal recognition the NCAP and SAP would serve as a binding prioritization mechanism for any Caspian Sea related projects.

7.3. Achieving Competent Monitoring and Reporting across Sectoral Actors

A further point of note is the high number of implementing partners and their varying status i.e. national ministries, local governments, international organisations, NGOs and private sector actors. Monitoring and reporting at both the regional and national level becomes a challenge with such a broad spectrum of actors, with varying levels of competency.

Annex I: Key Results from SAP Interventions

Reporting against whether or not the indicators have been met would illustrate the results, however in this case that is not possible due to the lack of detailed information available. The approach adopted has been to identify any measurable SAP intervention outputs (not the interventions themselves) and list them below, by country.

Azerbaijan

EQO1

Ø The capacity of the fish hatcheries increased by a factor of 1.5-1.7.

Ø A new hatchery was commissioned with a capacity of 15,000,000 fries per year.

Ø In 2005 national hatcheries released 456,500,000 fries of commercial fish species.

Ø Fines for illegal fishing raised by a factor of 1.8 – 2.5.

Ø A brood stock of 1000 sturgeon has been established

EQO 2

Ø The total area designated as Specially Protected Areas increased from 4 – 8 % of the country’s territory with the first (6 in total) National Parks established.

EQO 3

Ø A Caspian wide monitoring programme commenced with 16 air and water samples analysed.

EQO 4

Ø Tree planting/reforestation covered 8000 hectares

EQO 5

Ø A Caspian Centre has been established.

Ø Annual national ‘Day of the Sea’ established to promote messages about the Caspian environment.

Iran

No information available

Kazakhstan

EQO 1

Ø Fish hatcheries established with a capacity of 6,000,000 fries, doubling existing capacity

Ø Through improved enforcement 40 cases of infringement were recorded

EQO 2

Ø Novinski Natural Reserve of 43,000 hectares was set up

EQO 3

Ø 17 oil wells were re/capped.

Ø A map of pollution hotspots was drawn up (including up to 500m off shore)

Russia

EQO 1

Ø The release of sturgeon fry was up by 5% from 2004 – 2005.

EQO 3

Ø In 2005 discharge of untreated water in the Astrakhan oblast decreased by 6.4%, in Dagestan by 1.2% and in Kalmykia by 2.7% compared to 2004.

Turkmenistan

EQO 3 :

Ø Extensive monitoring undertaken in the Saymanov Bay with over 2024 tests carried out

Ø 20,000 tonnes of oil products were collected and prevented from entering the Saymanov Bay

Ø 9 oil pipelines were dismantled and removed, a further 67 km were repaired along with 19 reservoirs.

Ø 5455 tonnes of industrial or toxic waste were removed and 105 hectares of land cleaned

Ø Hazardous waste storage plant built.

EQO 4

Ø 32 coastal community development projects established in 3 coastal communities

Ø further coastal community projects established in Esenguly, Chekishlyar and Gyzylsuw

Annex II: List of Environmental Investments by Country

Environmental investments have been identified as those interventions that provide an environmental benefit and a have a physical/structural dimension, for example the construction of a laboratory or tree planting however a one off environmental survey would not be included .

Azerbaijan

Ø Six National Parks have been declared. Absheron, Shirvan and Girkan are located in the coastal zone with an area of 76,000 hectares. Planning for Altiagal Naional Park is underway and would include 10,000 offshore hectares.

Ø Monitoring capacity was increased. The Caspian Integrated Environmental Monitoring Department received 6 new vessels and the laboratory re-equipped. Two new laboratories were built, one in Gazakh and the other in Beylagan.

Ø Sewage systems in Baku were strengthened and construction of a new sewage treatment plant is underway

Ø A biological treatment plant on Jiloy Island was completed.

Ø A new hazardous waste disposal site has been constructed in Sumgait.

Ø The removal of ship wrecks in Baku Bay and the cleaning of oil polluted areas.

Ø Under the Integrated Action Plan for 2006-10 the following is planned; local treatment sites established for large industrial enterprises in Baku Bay, reception facilities for marine sewage and litter, sewage treatment facilities established in Bibi Heybat, rehabilitation of facilities in Oily Rocks and Pirallahi, Jilov, Gum and Adasy islands, construction of 3 solid waste disposal plants and construction of replacement facilities in Absheron peninsular

Ø Gas pipelines to supply residential areas to were constructed in Lerik and Yardimli to reduce the use of wood as a fuel.

Ø A Young Caspian Centre has been established to promote environmental issues.

Ø A reforestation programme resulted in 8000 hectares planted with 70,000 hectares planned.

Ø Oil spill response capacity has been improved through the purchasing of equipment

Iran

The National SAP Assessment Report for Iran contained no descriptive narrative and therefore the environmental investments are merely headings lifted out of an activities list within a table in the report. The resulting numbered list below is rather uninformative as the headings are often vague.

Ø Pilot project for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in coastal areas with involvement of local communities .

Ø Protection and study on Caspian Seal and its habitat

Ø Protection of Siberian Crane

Ø Protection and restoration of valuable habitats and species in Caspian sea Region

Ø Combating jelly fish

Ø Management of Protected Areas

Ø Establishment of Caspian Sea Research Centre

Ø Establishment of Hydro - meteorological stations

Ø Establishment of Integrated Monitoring System

Ø Establishment of urban sewage treatment facilities

Ø Disaster prevention and response

Ø Protection of forests

Ø Change of fuel consumption pattern

Ø Enhancement and rehabilitation of the forests

Ø Watershed Management

Kazakhstan

Ø Novinski State Natural Reserve was established.

Ø 12 oil wells were capped and other oil polluting facilities remedied and 53 grounded ships removed.

Ø Koshkar Ata tailings stabilized.

Ø Oil spill response equipment purchased and stored in a purpose built warehouse in Bautino.

Ø Two mobile laboratories and two vessels were purchased for monitoring and enforcement. A further laboratory for monitoring pollutant levels in the Caspian is planned.

Ø 8 hydrological stations and 6 meteorological stations brought into operation

Russia

The National SAP Assessment Report for Russia contained no relevant descriptive narrative. The only information available can be found in Section 4. Summary of Major SAP Interventions, Table 10, page 19.

Turkmenistan

Ø The wetlands in the Khazar Reserve increased by 50,000 hectares.

Ø Resource Centre opened in Esenguly to assist coastal community development.

Ø Old treatment plant rehabilitated and new one constructed at the Turkmenbashi oil refinery in Kenar.

Ø Existing oil pipelines were rehabilitated to prevent leakage.

Ø Toxic waste disposal facility was built at Khazar Chemical Plant on the Cheleken Peninsula.

Ø Sewage treatment facilities repaired in Turkmenbashi town. The Turkmen Marine and River Lines sewage treatment facilities were repaired.

Ø New oil spill response equipment purchased.

Ø National tree planting/reforestation programme including coastal areas underway.

Ø A new phase of environmental projects at Turkmenbashi oil refinery is planned (no dates given). This would include; soil cleaning and recovery, reconstruction of a water recycling plant, utilisation of oil sludge and contaminated soil, prevention of polluted groundwater discharging into the Caspian Sea.

---

Converted with Word to HTML.