Public Participation Strategy

for the Caspian Sea

1. INTRODUCTION

The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) is a regional umbrella programme established by the Caspian Littoral states that builds on the requirements of cooperation in a number of regional agreements, including the Almaty Declaration on Environmental Cooperation of May 1994. The CEP represents a partnership between the five littoral states, namely, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan as well as International Partners, specifically the European Union/Technical Assistance for CIS (EU/Tacis), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank. The overall goal of the CEP is environmentally sustainable development and management of the Caspian environment, including living resources and water quality, so as to obtain the utmost long-term benefits for the human population of the region, while protecting human health, ecological integrity and the region’s economic and environmental sustainability for future generations.

During its first phase, the CEP has developed a cooperation mechanism in the region, completed a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) of priority environmental issues, a regional stakeholder analysis, a Strategy Action Programme (SAP) and supported the formulation and endorsement of National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs). The CEP includes a Matched Small Grant Programme (MSGP) to advance small-scale investment or pilot projects to address urgent environmental problems in the Caspian region. With this Programme small-scale priority projects can be implemented quickly, in order to take curative or preventive actions; the MSGP also helps to develop capacity for further actions to improve the Caspian environment. Within each country, a Matched Small Grants and Public Participation Advisor (MPPA) is recruited to oversee the grants’ programme. Initial contacts were established for an NGO network, and the CEP has supported the creation of a Caspian Concern Group (CCG) in each of the Caspian Littoral countries, made up of 5 people representing different stakeholder groups to facilitate the dialogue between the CEP and the local communities.

In recognition of both the requirements and the potential benefits of enhanced public participation, the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) began a process of defining a Strategy for Public Participation (PPS) for the Caspian Sea to help the public become engaged in facilitating the establishment of an effective mechanism for Public Participation in environment management of the Caspian Sea and become involved in the decision making, planning, implementation and monitoring of the activities to be implemented according to the SAP for the CEP. Public participation is especially pertinent for the Caspian Sea where the environmental condition is deteriorating. Hence CEP encourages public participation both as end in itself, as well to lobby, implement and monitor specific objectives designated by the CEP. A Public Participation Strategy is also very timely as it will help create the political and legislative framework for public cooperation in the Caspian basin, including lobbying so that eventually, all countries could ratify the Aarhus Convention.

The mandate for the PPS stated in the CEP project documents, where one of the outcomes agreed by CEP Steering Committee is the development of a Public Participation Plan (Outcome G6). The strategy is written to support the implementation of the CEP, SAP and NCAPS, and is aligned with the participation goals and actions of these plans.

The SAP identified five main Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs). The EQOs refer to the following issues:

1. Unsustainable use of bio-resources

2. Threats to biodiversity, including those from invasive species

3. Pollution

4. Unsustainable coastal area development

5. Lack of or weak stakeholder participation in Caspian environment initiatives

The PPS specifically helps promote the 5^th EQO, lack of or weak stakeholder participation in Caspian environment initiatives, through cooperation with the public in order to extend the participation in implementation of CEP.

The SAP stipulates that “the principle of public participation and transparency shall be applied, such that all stakeholders, including communities, individuals and concerned organizations shall be given the opportunity to participate, at the appropriate level, in decision-making and management processes that affect the Caspian Sea. This includes providing access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities and effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings to engage all stakeholders to exercise their rights effectively. Public authorities shall widely disseminate information on the work proposed and undertaken to protect and rehabilitate the Caspian Sea.”

There are many potential benefits from public participation in decision-making and implementation of environmental programs and policies. When the appropriate channels of horizontal communication between the government and various levels are opened, a cycle of participation is established which can lead to the following externalities among others:

• A strong sense of shared ownership of decisions, therefore improved chances of success;

• Public awareness;

• Government accountability and efficiency;

• A culture of co-operation to defuse and prevent conflicts and tension;

• Pooling of ideas and taping into locally-relevant information essential for decision-making;

• The opportunity for citizens to exercise their democratic rights

• A higher degree of compliance with regional treaties which in the long-term, can reduce the costs of enforcement.

Yet, public participation is not an easy task to organize or an objective to reach. Among the many challenges, public participation may be hampered by low prioritization, misinformation, lack of capacity and funding to organize participation, lack of adequate representation of the larger public by NGOs and associations, resistance to the concept of participation by some interest groups, political barriers to greater participation and attention to other short term priorities dictated by economic situations. In addition, there may be a lack of incentives, especially of economic ones, to change behavior at all levels. The Annex II of this document discusses the specific requirements for implementing a PPS for the Caspian region at all levels.

Despite these challenges, it is generally recognized that public participation is both a good means to achieving better environment management as well as an end in itself as an indication of transparent, inclusive and accountable decision-making. For the Caspian region, it would mean better environmental management to address such issues as pollution, biodiversity, sustainable development including of fisheries, invasive species and the growth of civil society. Public Participation is also cost-beneficial in the long term, because, when mainstreamed into the decision-making process, it increases efficiency, ownership and compliance of environmental management actions.

Public Participation is stimulated in key international instruments such as the 1998 Aarhus Convention (Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Matters), signed and ratified by many of the Caspian Sea countries, and builds on the requirements of the Commission on Sustainable Development to promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and the follow-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Public participation is required within the Aarhus Convention and is in line with the principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

In addition, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which has been signed by all Caspian countries, recognizes the need for public participation in biodiversity conservation and natural resources management. In the convention text itself, Article 8 recognizes the importance of local knowledge and practices in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; article 13 emphasizes public education and awareness as a key element of biodiversity conservation and article 17 is about the need for exchange of information at all levels. Furthermore, the CBD has adopted the Ecosystem Approach as the primary framework for action to manage biodiversity, which includes several principles related to public participation.

Methodology:

The Caspian Public Participation Strategy was designed and formulated in consultation with different stakeholders at the local, national and regional level. After initial consultations, broad guidelines of the draft of the PPS were prepared by an International Public Participation Advisor (IPPA) based on background analysis made through the Ground Truthing Reports of Caspian Countries in 2004, the Stakeholder Analysis Reports of 2002 (SHA) and its revisited document of 2004 (SAR). The draft circulated for suggestions at the local, national and regional levels, and became the basis of a regional consultation held in Baku in February 2004. At the regional meeting, participants from the five littoral states brainstormed on the needs and modalities of a public participation for the Caspian Sea at the various levels. The draft PPS, drawn on the basis of these consultations, was once again shared at the local, national and regional levels for comments before adoption. Therefore, the ownership of the PPS goes to the public. During the entire process, CEP has ensured a transparent and inclusive process. Ultimately, the Caspian PPS was drawn in a participatory manner through to its purpose.

The Caspian Public Participation Strategy serves as a flexible framework with an aim to build a system for participation of the public in the process of rehabilitation and protection of the Caspian Sea environment. PPS also serves as a voluntary guideline consisting of guiding principles that all concerned actions can abide by as part of the ecosystem approach regardless of type activities implemented.

The PPS is a broad framework of objectives to be achieved and guidelines for public participation that could be undertaken by different stakeholders as Governments, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Community Based Organizations (CBOs), special interest groups, non-organized individuals, and the private sector in the Caspian region for the rehabilitation of the Caspian Sea environment.

Once the Caspian PPS is adopted, Operational Plans for activities at the various levels (local, national and regional) can be developed, together with monitoring and evaluation indicators. The adoption of the Caspian PPS by the five Littoral States would ensure commitment to its sustainability beyond the CEP Programme. The adoption of the strategy will also ensure sharing of practices and information on legal and operational barriers to participation in each country explored by the CEP National Focal Points (NFPs) at the regional level.

2. Definitions of Key Terms

Public: The Caspian PPS refers to the “Public” as any legal or natural person, group or institution who resides in the Caspian basin. The “public” includes both the public at large and their representative organizations (business associations, consumer groups, NGOs). The distinction is important, since especially at local levels the public can be involved as individuals and not only through organized civil society groups.

Stakeholder: The Caspian PPS refers to the “Stakeholder” as any legal or natural person, group or institution, regardless of the place of residence, who has an interest in the Caspian Sea, has influence or can influence in its programmes and decision-makings, and is affected directly or indirectly by decision makings. The Stakeholder Analysis conducted by CEP studied the opinions and attitudes of Stakeholders towards prior priority areas. However, the Public Participation Strategy is more of a Methodology that encourages the public to identify its own issues and ways that it can contribute to solving them.

Participation: A simple, pragmatic definition of Public Participation (PP) is proposed as the process of ensuring that those who reside in the area and/or have an interest or stake in a decision are involved in making that decision.

Public Participation is much more than just information and consultation. It is an ongoing process which can improve communication, interaction and joint decision making between different stakeholders and the public. Public participation includes both outreach (awareness raising) and inputs (consultation and collaboration). Through public participation, all parties become better informed about the range of views on proposals and issues. A good public participation process will result in better decisions that are more sensitive and responsive to public concerns and values. A good PP mechanism is also one that is owned by the “public”. The public has a strong sense of investment in the process and the outcome of the process through input into the identification of issues, education about these issues, support for and understanding the mechanisms of problem solving and an active interest in those mechanisms reaching their potential.

The types of public participation envisaged in the Caspian PPS are:

1. Information: This is the foundation of PP, in which decision makers actively disseminate information or stakeholders (including the general public) access information upon their demand.

2. Consultation: This is the lowest level of public participation if we consider information supply as being the foundation. Decision-makers make documents available for written comments, organize a public hearing or actively seek the comments and opinions of the public through for instance surveys and interviews. They ask for and receive stakeholders’ feedback on decision-making with comments permissible and due account taken of those comments.

3. Active participation in decision-making, planning and implementation: This is a higher level of participation where stakeholders actively engage in decision-making and policymaking as well as in the implementation of the outcomes. Active involvement implies that stakeholders are invited to contribute actively to the planning process by discussing issues and contributing to their solutions. However, beyond input into the planning, it is also crucial to ensure of the public participation in the actual implementation of projects as a key to concrete results.

The PPS should give the public a reason to care about the need to improve the conditions of the Caspian sea. It is therefore imperative that those responsible for implementing the strategy do so in consultation with the public to explore incentives that would motivate the public to participate beyond an ideal of environmental stewardship.

Participation should be institutionalized at various stages of planning and decision making:

1. At the diagnostic level, during the study to collect information;

2. At the design level;

3. At the implementation level of the action plan/policy;

4. At the evaluation level.

3) Objectives of the Caspian Public Participation Strategy 

The main objectives of the Caspian PPS are:

• to facilitate the establishment of an effective set of mechanisms for public participation in environment management of the Caspian Sea in general;

• and particularly, to help the public become engaged in the decision making, planning/design, policy formulation, implementation and monitoring of the activities of the CEP.

The objectives of the Caspian PPS will be reached through capacity building and strengthening of existing institutions and building new formal and informal institutions for public participation in environment management around the Caspian Sea which can then continue to function beyond the completion of the CEP Programme. The strategy will complement and assist national and local actions by offering a strategic approach to organizing action at various levels.

Implementing the Caspian PPS will lead to:

• Improved institutional and legal basis for PP;

• Capacity building for strong, well managed and engaged NGOs, CBOs;

• Robust systems to ensure the provision of information and transparency;

• Awareness for Coastal communities of key environmental problems and solutions and how they can participate;

• Partnerships and networks among stakeholders;

• transparency and public participation in the process of protection and rehabilitation of the Caspian environment;

• Public awareness campaigns, including environment education program for schools;

• Incentives for cooperation, including higher participation in the implementation of specific projects of the SAP

• Establishment of a Monitoring and Evaluation System.

• Eventually, it is anticipated that the PPS will lead to interest by the Caspian Littoral States to endorse the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (1998)

Ultimately, the PPS will lead to further incentives for the public to care for the environment of the Caspian Coastal Zone. The public will be made aware of the reasons they need to care for the Caspian and how they can contribute to its sustainability. Realistic and feasible alternatives to the status quo will be sought to provide incentives, including economic ones, for cooperation. When they become stakeholders in the management of the Coastal Zone, the public will have better access to transparent information on decision making, implementation modalities, funding possibilities and project-specific involvement. This could encourage the public to contribute in kind to the implementation of the CEP objectives. The Public needs to own the strategy and feel invested in the outcome of the programme.

The mechanism for reaching these objectives is organized through two main pillars of action:

• Pillar 1: Awareness raising and facilitating a systematic, transparent information flow

• Pillar 2: Establishing and strengthening the legal and institutional basis for participation

These pillars should together develop and define incentives for the public to take action with visible benefits.

Pillar 1: Awareness raising and facilitating a systematic, transparent information flow

Lack of adequate networks bringing together NGOs, authorities, academia and business sector at all levels hampers the systemic flow of information. The problems are exacerbated by the distances, especially at the local level. Lack of a system of information flow hampers decision-making for the rational use of natural resources. The SAP identifies the severe limitation in data and information available to decision makers and to the public. Data is not comparable across the region, it is insufficient and inaccurate and not freely exchanged among different institutions. When national legislation requires open access to information, poor dissemination, non-user friendly formats and insufficient media attention to the environmental issues or lack of technologies for information exchange hamper all efforts. Information here refers to design, implementation, funding modalities, monitoring of outcomes, legal and institutional mechanism and any other information that the public needs in order to “own” the objective of environmental management.

Awareness raising on the activities of CEP and on environmental issues around the Caspian Sea is key to ensuring participation in solving acute problems. At the moment, not all stakeholders or the public, especially at the local level, are aware of implications of regional and international conventions. Awareness raising is imperative to link decision making to the concerns of the public, and vice versa. Yet, information is unavailable not only because of the lack of mechanisms described above, but also given lack of funds, environmental illiteracy, frequent administrative reforms of national authorities, lack of information about the activities of CEP at the local level, and lack of strategic partnerships.

The goal would be to develop accessible and appropriate sources of information about the Caspian environment for different stakeholders through creating a robust system to ensure that the public has access to information and opportunities for participation. It also requires building the capacity of civil society organizations, the public and the decision makers to facilitate and support public participation. Caspian coastal communities should become aware of and understand key environmental issues and their solutions, and have the confidence to participate in decision making. At the moment, many people in the Coastal areas see the Caspian as a dumping ground. This attitude and ensuing behavior means that opportunities are missed for raising livelihoods, improving the environment and economic development. Until incentives for change are internalized, and negotiated by the public and those in a position to alter policies and practices, the situation would not change. Mechanisms could include public awareness about opportunity costs, building the capacity of the media to report on environmental issues, integrating environment education into the formal and non-formal curriculum at all levels and creating opportunities for networks and communities to be involved.

Pillar 2: Establishing and strengthening the legal and institutional basis for participation

All the littoral states have comprehensive laws on environment protection and on the use of natural resources, supported by provisions in their constitutions, although none have specific laws on environmental protection of the Caspian Sea. The problem of the new legal status of the Caspian Sea remains unresolved. At the same time, littoral states have already signed the Framework Convention Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (Tehran Convention) and now are preparing for ratifying it.

Institutional deficiencies have been identified by the SAP as the root causes in the lack of participation. As the Caspian states have undergone profound political, legal and economic changes in the past years, the transition has created challenges for the necessary monitoring and enforcement activities. Responsible institutions lack adequate capacity, resources or expertise. There is a need to streamline policies, build capacity in institutions and reform the relevant sectors. Integration of development planning processes and environmental management has not been carried out. The Aarhus Convention has not been ratified by all the countries of the Caspian Basin, and for those that have, capacity building is required to implement the Convention. Yet, institutional mechanisms are important to regulate behaviors and activities that affect the coastal residents’ livelihoods. There is lack of knowledge in the legal sphere among the government and the public and indifference among local authorities who may ignore legal norms in public communications.

The goal would be to ensure that the institutional and legal basis for public participation is in place and effectively implemented. This would require ensuring that environmental impact assessments are undertaken for all appropriate development and that they include effective public participation and mechanisms for public access to the results. It would mean encouraging all countries to ensure that national legislation is in line with the Aarhus Convention principles on public participation and that public participation takes place in the implementation of all appropriate SAP EQOs and NCAPs.

4. Guidelines for Public Participation in the Caspian Environment Programme

Key principles associated with the PP include: transparency, openness, joint search for so-called “winwin” solutions and the development of mutual trust.

At the moment, a number of factors could harm the design and implementation of an Action Plan to implement the Public Participation Strategy in the Caspian Coastal Zone. These need to be recognized, prevented and negotiated with different stakeholders at all levels, local, national and regional in order to ensure success. They include:

• Lack of incentives, especially of economic ones, to change behavior at all levels. Involving the public in the implementation of the various activities and finding adequate rewarding systems is therefore key.

• Underdeveloped information flow systems which can be overcome by systemic changes

• Inconsistency between the concept and plan for the public participation strategy among executing agencies which require coordination.

• Unformed methodology, lack of public awareness about the PP, and lack of information sharing between local organizations and between organizations and institutions at various levels. These can be overcome through training, introduction of networks and systems, and public information campaigns.

• Lack of capacity or lack of investment to build additional capacity for central governments responsible for CEP, local and regional governments, NGOs and CBOs etc. An assessment of capacities at the regional, national and local level is needed to identify strengths and weaknesses and fundraising is needed for specific investments.

• Timing is a critical issue and action needs to be started as soon as possible with notification, providing guidance on what information needs to be made available, and so on.

• Managing the expectations of diverse stakeholders for real “buy-in”. It is vital to ensure that hopes (for example of being able to influence a decision over local plans or decisions) are not first raised and then ignored, since this will result in stakeholders withdrawing from the process and might even increase mutual distrust and conflict.

• Regular representation of stakeholder organizations is also a key issue. Stakeholders and partners need to be correctly identified and selected. This will assist in ensuring that key interests are represented in decision-making processes throughout the implementation.

Preparation for the Implementation of the PPS in the Caspian region

• Necessity of governmental acceptance of international conventions such as Aarhus and implementation of their guidelines;

• Public awareness and capacity building before implementation of the strategy is a must

• Effective consolidation of public movements is insufficiently highlighted. This is primarily required for full scale realization of lawful right of NGO/CBO to participate in decision-making.

• Endorsement and support of the PPS by the governments. Implementation of the strategy strongly depends on governmental support to ensure that its objectives are achieved.

• Creating incentives, including economic ones, through such activities as awareness raising on available opportunities of funds and distribution of funds, etc.

• Ensuring sustainability by providing a legal basis, at the national and local levels, for the involvement of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs); Community Base Organizations (CBOs) and NGOs.

• Institutional government support, including introduction of a Focal Point for CEP activities at the national and local level to ensure of sustainable participation and cooperation;

• Envisioning a process which could make environmental activities cost-effective in order to make them sustainable in the long run.

• Institutional processes for transparent information sharing.

• Designing policies and programmes as well as budgets based on data-information-knowledge. Knowledge Management (KM) should be made as a valuable part. This could for example take the form of networks.

Finally, although at the moment the Strategy is built on two pillars of Awareness Raising and Strengthening Institutions, the implementation of the strategy should be based on a principle of incentives-based foundation for supporting participation, including allowing the public to self-elect and self-direct its own objectives. Only in this way can the ownership of the outcomes enhance the participatory drive of the public itself.

The Caspian PPS is disaggregated in three levels: Regional (Caspian Sea), National, and local (Sub-national) level:

• Regional Level:

Given the complexity of the Caspian basin, national differences, multitude of languages etc., a regional strategy is useful in stimulating PP actions at other levels. The regional level is important to provide the framework and possibilities for cooperation and unity throughout. Often, this level is the most effective and most appropriate level for dialogue. The establishment of dialogue platforms arranged at this level – and including municipalities, regional environmental inspectorates, water suppliers, local businesses, NGOs and other stakeholders – would be an ideal first step towards building the new forms of partnership and co-operation. It is also necessary to develop and endorse of a common methodology and practices for public involvement in the process of decision-making.

The PPS at the regional level is based on the following functions:

• Framework for cooperation and unity;

• Stimulate action at other levels;

• Platform for dialogue;

• Dissemination of new methodologies and guidance;

• Information and expertise;

• Monitoring and evaluation.

• National level:

This level is the most convenient level for governments at different levels and NGOs and other interest groups (farmers associations, industry etc.) to come together to discuss their different motivations for engaging in the CEP implementation process and to define who can contribute what. At the national level, many of the policy and economic decisions will be taken, and so clearly there is need for PPS in those national processes and decision-making fora. The participatory process at the national level needs to be included not just for the sake of it, but because it is recognized by all that there is a need and that it brings benefits to the overall process. Here it is possible to build upon progress made to date – and plans for – the implementation of the Aarhus Convention. Due to the lack of language barriers, the national level may also be the most appropriate for much of the necessary public awareness and information activity. The national level is also key because at this level, key stakeholders (governmental, academic, NGO) are able to play the role of facilitator in order to influence the most important actors at the most important level, of all which is the local level. At this level, it is also important to encourage the active participation of the public in the legislative process.

A PPS for the national level will help:

• Defining roles and responsibilities;

• Sharing of best practices;

• Influence where policy and economic decisions are made;

• Build partnerships between national authorities and NGOs;

• Act as the facilitator of up-stream and down-stream information on decision-making;

• Build on implementation of the Aarhus Convention;

• Organize public awareness campaigns.

• Local level (sub-national), which refers to local communities and local administrations

The local level is where the action really takes place, where policies adopted elsewhere are actually implemented in the regions, by local authorities, local stakeholders, local practitioners, local NGOs. It is at the local level that groups most directly affected by environmental decisions reside. There is enormous need for capacity building, training, education and awareness raising work concerning this level. Most local agencies and actors are largely unaware of the implications of the CEP, or the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea and are also largely unaware of the opportunities it presents. At this level, economic incentives need to be designed in order to motivate the public to participate. At the same time, the public should be consulted to identify their own issues, contribute to planning, partner in the implementation, and conduct monitoring in order to “own” the PPS. To contribute to these processes, Local Environmental Action Plans can be developed and adopted at the municipal level and implementation by local authorities

Strategies of the local level build on these activities:

• Awareness raising among communities;

• Behavior changes of the public through motivation and incentives.

• Partnership between local administration and local communities and CBOs;

• Mobilization of the media;

• Training and education programmes;

• Consultative systems which allow the public to identify their issues, and take an active part in the design, implementation and monitoring of new and existing initiatives;

• Self-determination and self-direction by the public itself in environmental problems and solutions and investment in the outcomes;

• Capacity building of information centers and networks, including of knowledge management.

All three levels are needed at the same time and in unity in order to make any single level successful. There are differences between the levels, regarding who the stakeholders are, what their capacity is, what types of activities are required, in which timeline, and how to manage and coordinate. The tensions between national and local governance and budgets should be also recognized. Often national budgets do not trickle down to local levels (districts). A system of transparent and systemic cooperation needs to create links between the various levels.

L

Regional Level

National Level

Local Level

inkages:

Reaching the Objectives: WHAT, HOW and WITH WHOM?

At the Regional Level At the National Level At the Local Level

Regional Level
WHAT	HOW	STAKEHOLDERS
To raise public awareness of activities of CEP and on regional and international conventions To complement and assist national and local action by offering a strategic coherent framework to organize action and provide guidance to national governments in addressing PP in environmental planning To ensure public participation (PP) in the decision making, planning/design, policy formulation, implementation and monitoring of the activities of the Caspian Environment Programme	Regular dissemination of documents Effective structures and mechanisms for PP in environment management around the Caspian Sea which will continue operating beyond the CEP Programme Coordination between CEP and other initiatives Information exchanges through regional and media networks Regional information centers Partnership including focus groups, together with CEP and other international organizations Caspian Forum for regional NGOs Regional Media outlets Partnerships on communication strategies and information systems with international donors Network of environmental media	CEP, CCGs Regional coastal governments Ministries of Environment Fisheries, Oil and gas industry Regional NGO forums and networks Regional media outlets International private companies International donors working on environmental issues NGOs and universities with regional links
National Level
To ensure reliable and transparent information for NGOs, government, businesses To disseminate information sharing mechanism To develop mechanisms for public opinion responsiveness To address language barriers to support NGO networks and the media on environmental issues	Caspian Information and Education Centers in each country Working expert group of NGOs NGO coalitions Regional public monitoring networks, to watch and monitor changes Networks and special task forces that include governments and civil society organizations Partnership with international donors Collaboration with ministries (of education, communication environment, etc ) Caspian Information and Education Centers in each country.	CEP Ministries and government Concerned authorities NGOs Legislative authorities Research institutes and universities Businesses and private sector National Media CCG’s

Pillar 1: Awareness Raising and facilitating a systematic, transparent information flow

Local Level
To inform at the local level on activities of CEP and conventions. To address communications infrastructure problems To strengthen the activities of local communities To address lack of civil society networks at the local level To facilitate feedback through workshops, trainings, presentations for local communities.	local information centers around the Caspian basin Partnership through establishment of horizontal and vertical task forces Networks between local media and civil society groups Partnership with communication strategies of donors at the local level.	Households and individuals CBO’s, NGO’s with local representation, Municipalities and local administration, Executive authorities represented locally, Mass media Donors working at the local level Educational and research organizations Schoolchildren Fishermen and hunters Youth

Pillar2: Establishing and strengthening the legal and institutional basis for Participation

Engagement of Stakeholders

(5) ANNEXES

I. Public Participation in Aarhus Convention

II. Possible Interventions

III. Institutional Arrangements

IV. List of Abbreviations

Annex I: Public Participation in the Aarhus Convention

ANNEX II: POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS

ANNEX III: INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Desired Institutional Arrangements:

Once the Caspian PPS is approved and roles and responsibilities of CEP and its partners is defined, and priorities devised from among the various activities proposed above, an Operational Plan should be developed that lays out the concrete phase-by-phase approach and funding modalities to the implementation of a Plan to implement this strategy. The timeline or planning horizon for the CEP PPS is for the next ten years (2005-2015) which needs to be constantly updated according to the CEP timetable. The Operational Plan will devise the phase by phase prioritization.

The following could be the institutional arrangements for following-up on the PPS:

At the regional Level:

• The Role of CEP is to assist, in consultation with governments through National Focal Points (NFP’s), in facilitating the implementation and monitoring of Caspian PPS. As champion of the PPS, CEP provides guidance, structures, strategic guidelines, monitoring tools and coordinating activities. It is not expected that the CEP will be in charge of implementing the Caspian PPS but assisting in its implementation by putting at the disposal of governments all of its facilities.

• CEP will also create the linkages between the various levels (local, national and regional) and partner with donors in facilitating the implementation of the strategy.

• The Caspian Concern Groups could establish a Public Participation Advisory Group which can act as steering committee.

• Thematic Regional Advisory Groups (RAG) could provide guidance and networks

• A Regional NGO/Forum, once identified, could be in charge of monitoring the Strategy.

At the National Level: Possible Coordinating and Monitoring Bodies:

• The Caspian PPS at the National Level will be developed and owned by national governments under the auspices of CEP and in coordination with NGOs and other stakeholders.

• A relevant ministry could establish a Public Participation Unit with the goal coordinating the implementation of the strategy at the national level and communicating with the CEP for regional networking and exchanges of practices.

• According to Aarhus Convention, dissemination of information is one of the main roles of the national governments;

• At the national programme level the coordination of practical implementation of the Strategy could be the responsibility of the Matched Grant and Public Participation Advisor (MPPA) appointed by CEP, and supported by the CCG who works in close cooperation with all relevant stakeholders.

• Caspian Environment Centers can be in charge of disseminating awareness and information about the PPS, creating databases, and promoting and monitoring the strategy.

• The National Level needs the establishment of training Center for capacity building and NGO network creation as well as promoting organization of new NGO’s

• At this level, there may also be a need to establish a national Public Council on the issues of Caspian sea to work out the mechanisms of participation and development of a Caspian PPS plan .

At the Local Level:

• NGOs/CBOs and other stakeholders shall consider development and implementation of their activities in line with the goal and objectives of the Strategy.

• Local administrations, in consultation with town and village councils and CBOs, shall develop the local PPS and consultative councils (such as assembly of rural villages) can act as advisory bodies.

• Local information centers will be encouraged to provide information on the Caspian PPS.

• Public Council under the local Administration (now in process) could establish a Working Group for PPS.

In order to raise public awareness and participation in the implementation of the PPS, the following is suggested:

• Development of robust E-NGOs Networks;

• Capacity building in E-NGOs and E-Networks

• Local media (bulletins, newsletters, radio, TV …) in native language;

• Internet resources in native language;

• Syllabuses of educational texts (schools and universities);

• Involvement of religious communities;

• Training for NGOs on proposal writing for the international grants

Sustainability and Resource Mobilization

External assistance is necessary to enhance the limited human resources and financial capacities. As projects are identified, donors could choose to support them in blocks or individually within the overall framework.

Implementing a Public Participation Strategy is cost-beneficial in the long run because public participation, when mainstreamed into the decision-making process, increase efficiency, ownership and compliance of environmental management actions. Funding issues are paramount for successful functioning of NGOs and CBOs in coordinating and directing PP.

Funding of the various components of the Caspian PPS could include

• Grants from donors, private sector, governments, etc.

• Green taxes

• Capacity building for NGOs to apply for international grants and credits

• Government contribution including investment in facilities, grants and in-kind contributions

• Establishment of "Caspian Environmental Fund" with the sponsorship of oil companies, fishing companies, tourism companies (tours, hotels …), shipping, and etc;

• Mainstreaming of various components of the Strategy in existing institutions for better outcome with less resources;

• Resource mobilization through national and local resources, including private sector income generation for cost recovery;

• Including CEP objectives in existing structures for participation (NGO forums, town-hall meetings, education programmes etc). This requires the organization of projects in a coordinated way with other national and international projects in the five countries of the Caspian basin;

• Tapping into National and local government budgets;

• Cost recovery and income generation;

• Sponsorship by international and national industries;

• External donors could choose to support them in blocks or individually within the overall framework

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) indicators need to be designed and implemented. A M&E will enable the PPS to: a) respond to demands to greater accountability in use of resources, b) provide a clearer basis for decision making on project and program related issues, and c) be a learning tool at the more practical level. Three outcomes should be monitored: Awareness raising, institutional mechanisms, and incentives. The indicators of success could be:

• That the public is aware of the CEP activities;

• That information sharing is made in a systematic and transparent way;

• The public is made aware of environment projects, laws and budgets being adopted by governments;

• That the implementation of strategies involves the public (including NGOs, CBOs, individuals, private sector, etc);

• That the public proposes and implements behavior-changing activities;

• That the institutional and legal basis for participation is put in place at each of the three levels in a sustainable way;

• That institutional linkages are made between the three levels;

• That the Aarhus convention is endorsed by all the states;

• That funds are raised for the implementation of the activities of a concrete Action Plan, once developed and endorsed.

On-going evaluation tools throughout the process can include:

• Steering Committees;

• Counterparts feedback;

• Independent evaluation;

• Self evaluation;

• Stakeholders Meeting;

• Field Visits;

ANNEX IV: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity

CBO: Community Based Organization

CCG: Caspian Concern Group

CEP: Caspian Environment Programme

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

ESIA: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

EU/Tacis: European Union/Technical Assistance for CIS

EQO: Environmental Quality Objective

IPPA: International Public Participation Advisor

IT: Information Technology

MDG: United Nations Millennium Development Goals

M & E: Monitoring and Evaluation

MFA: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MPPA: Matched Small Grants and Public Participation Advisor

MSGP: Matched Small Grant Programme

NCAP: National Caspian Action Plan

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

NFP: National Focal Point

PC: Personal Computer

PCU: Programme Coordination Unit

PP: Public Participation

PPS: Public Participation Strategy

RAG: Regional Advisory Group

SAP: Strategy Action Programme

SAR: Stakeholder Analysis Revisited (Report)

SEA: Strategic Environmental Assessment

SHA: Stakeholder Analysis (Report)

TDA: Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis

UNDP: United Nations Development Programme

UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme