GEF Project Brief
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Identifiers
Project
Number:
Project Name:
Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in the
Caspian Environment Programme
Duration:
3
years
Implementing Agencies:
UNDP, UNEP and The World Bank
Executing Agency:
UNOPS, UNEP and The World Bank
Requesting Country or Countries: Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakstan, Russia, Turkmenistan
Eligibility:
Eligible
under para. 9(b) of GEF Instrument
GEF Focal Area(s):
International Waters
GEF Programming Framework:
GEF Operational Strategy for International Waters, as well
as for the Waterbody Based Operational Programme (#8).
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Summary
This project represents the GEF contribution to the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP), a
regional programme funded by the five riparian countries, GEF, UNEP, The World Bank, and
other donors. 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 populations of the region, while protecting
human health, ecological integrity and the region's economic and environmental sustainability
for future generations.
The Caspian Environment Programme is being developed as a comprehensive response to the
severe environmental problems facing the region, and is based on extensive consultations with
professionals in the regional and international scientific and resource management
communities. The CEP represents a partnership between the Caspian Riparian States, private
sector (specifically the oil and gas industry), all three GEF implementing agencies (UNDP,
UNEP, and The World Bank) and the EU/TACIS, inter alia.
The ultimate goals of the present GEF project are:
1)
The development of a regional coordination mechanism to achieve sustainable
development and management of the Caspian environment through institutional
framework, capacity building, public awareness, and stakeholder involvement;
2)
Completion of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of priority water-related
environmental issues for the Caspian ecosystem to guide prioritization for
environmental actions and investments; and
3)
Formulation and endorsement of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and National
Action Plans (NAPs) as the basis for prioritizing actions to be taken, both baseline and
additional, on behalf of sustaining the Caspian and its associated natural resources.
______________________________________________________________________________
3.
Costs and Financing (Million US$):
GEF Contribution to the CEP
GEF Full Project
: $ 7,639,800
Project Support Costs : $ 351,736
Total Project Costs
: $ 7,991,536
PDF (Allocated)
: $ 349,920
Overall GEF Expenditure
: $ 8,341,456
________________________________________________________________
Co-financing of the CEP:
- IA
Government
:
$
1,420,000
EU/TACIS
: $ 5,831,500
UNEP
:
$
560,000
UNDP
:
$
100,000
World
Bank
:
$
1,964,000
- Private
: $ 100,000
Total Project Cost
:
$
18,316,956
_________________________________________________________________________
4.
Associated Financing (Million US$)
:$
162,521,982
_________________________________________________________________________
Operational Focal Point Endorsement:
Azerbaijan
Sharifov, Abid
Deputy Prime-Minister, Chairman of the State Commission
Signed:
Dated: 28 August 1998
Islamic Republic of Iran
Hosseini, Pirouz
Director General for International Affairs
Signed:
Dated: 24 August 1998
Kazakstan
Daukeev, Serikbek
Minister, Ministry of Ecology and Bioresources
Signed:
Dated: 7 August 1998
Russian Federation
Averchenkov, Alexander
Executive Director, National Pollution Abatement Facility (NPAF)
Signed:
Dated: 25 August 1998
Turkmenistan
Khabibulla Atamuradov
Vice Minister of Environmental Exploration and Nature Preservation and
Signed:
Dated: 26 August 1998
IA Contact:
David Vousden
Regional Coordinator
Global Environment Facility, UNDP
One United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 906-6402
Fax: (212) 906-5102
e-mail: dvousden@undp.org
Fritz Schlingemann
Director and Regional Representative
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
15, Chemin des Anemones
1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Tel: (41 22) 917 8111
Fax: (41 22) 917 8024
e-mail: fschlingemann@unep.ch
Michele de Nevers
Sector Leader, Environment Group
Europe and Central Asia Region
The World Bank
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20433
Tel: (202) 473-8607
Fax: (202) 477-3291
E-mail: mdenevers@worldbank.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Background and Context (Baseline course of action)
1. Introduction
2. Environmental Issues
3. Social and Economic Issues
4. Legislative Issues
5. Institutional Issues
II
Rationale and Objectives (Alternative)
1. Long-term Objective
2. Specific Project Objectives
3. Rationale for GEF Financing
III.
Project Components, Activities and Expected Results
Component I. Project Coordination
A.
Programme Coordination Mechanism
B.
Programmatic Support for Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
C.
Intersectoral Coordination (including private sector) and Involvement in
SAP, NAPs and TDA Formulation Process
Component II. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
A.
Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant Levels
B.
Assessment
of
Transboundary Biodiversity Priorities
C.
Effective Regional Information and Data Management
D.
Transboundary
Diagnostic
Analysis
Component III. The Legislative Framework and Convention
A.
Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and Economic Frameworks
for SAP Implementation
Component IV. Priority Investment Portfolios
A.
Priority Investment Portfolios for Transboundary Priorities
Component V. Formulation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and National
Action Plans (NAPs)
A.
Strategies to Strengthen Contaminant Abatement and Control Policies
and Procedures
B.
Strategies for Sustainable Management of Fish Resources and Other
Commercially Exploited Aquatic Bioresources
C.
Strategies for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Planning and
Management
D.
Strategies to Live with Water Level Fluctuations
E.
Strategies for Combating Coastal Desertification and Land Degradation
F.
Strategies for Sustainable Human Development and Health
G.
Regional Emergency Response Actions to Non-hydrocarbon Chemical
Spills and Other Biohazards
H.
Public Awareness and Involvement in CEP, SAP and NAPs
I.
Formulation and Endorsement of Strategic Action Programme and
National Action Plans for Priority Transboundary Issues
IV.
Risks and Sustainability
1. Constraints and Risks
2. Sustainability
A.
Government Commitment
B.
Private Sector Commitment
C.
Financial Sustainability
V.
Stakeholder Participation and Implementation Arrangements
1. Stakeholders' Commitment and Participation
A.
Public Participation
2. Programme Implementation and Institutional Framework
A.
Regional Institutions
B.
National Institutions
C.
Project Implementation
VI. Project
Costs
VII.
Monitoring, Evaluation & Dissemination
1. Monitoring and Evaluation
2. Lessons Learned and Technical Reviews
VIII. Annexes
Annex 1. Incremental Cost
Annex 2. Log Frame Matrix
Annex 3. STAP Roster Technical Review
Annex 4. Listing of Expected Baseline Activities Associated with SAP
Optional Annexes
Annex 5. Analysis of Root Causes
Annex 6. CEP Organizational Structure
Annex 7. Terms of Reference Steering Committee
Annex 8. Terms of Reference Programme Coordination Unit
Annex 9. Terms of Reference Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
Annex 10. Terms of Reference Intersectoral Coordinating Committee
Annex 11. Framework TDA
Annex 12. Historic Regional Agreements
Annex 13: Copies of GEF Operational Focal Point Endorsement Letters
List of Acronyms
BSEP
Black Sea Environmental Programme
BSP
Baltic Sea Programme
CASPAS
Integrated Programme on Hydrometeorology and Monitoring of Environment in
the Caspian Sea
CD
Compact
Disc
CEP
Caspian Environment Programme
CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
CNAP
Caspian National Action Plan
CRTC
Caspian Regional Thematic Center
DSS
Decision Support System
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EIN
Environmental Information Networking
EU
European
Union
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of UN
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIS
Geographic Information System
GNP
Gross national product
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
ITCAP&M Integrated
Coastal
Area Planning and Management
IMO
International Maritime Organization
IOC
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
ISCC
Intersectoral Coordinating Committee
LEARN
Learning Exchange and Resource Network
MARPOL
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MEAs
Multilateral Environmental Agreements
METAP Mediterranean
Environmental
Technical Assistance Program
NAP
National Action Plan
NEAP
National Environmental Action Plan
NFP
National Focal Point
NGOs
Non-Governmental Organizations
NIS
New Independent States
PCU
Programme Coordination Unit
PDF
Project Development Facility
PHRD
Policy and Human Resources Development Grant (Government of Japan)
PIP
Priority Investment Portfolio
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PPC
Project Preparation Committee
PPER
Project Performance and Evaluation Review
QA
Quality Assurance
QC
Quality
Control
SAP
Strategic Action Program
SC
Steering
Committee
TACIS
EU Programme for Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent
States
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TOR
Terms of References
TPR Tri-partite
Review
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
WHO
World Health Organization
WMO
World Meteorological Organization
WWW
World Wide Web
I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT (BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION)
1. Introduction
1. Five countries share the natural heritage of the Caspian Sea. Despite their political and social
diversity, the people of the region share a common concern for the Caspian. Today the Caspian
faces significant environmental problems, many of a transboundary nature, that arise from both
anthropogenic and natural causes. The countries that emerged from the former Soviet Union
(Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan) are confronting difficult economic and
administrative adjustments that complicate environmental management and natural resource
protection efforts. The five littoral countries share common problems with pollution abatement
and control from municipal and industrial sites in the Caspian basin, as well as contributing
non-point source contaminants from agricultural sources. All of the littoral countries are
urgently seeking to address problems caused by water level change in the Caspian, and all are
also grappling with greatly reduced fish catches (especially sturgeon) caused in part by
overfishing and illegal poaching.
2. The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) is a regional umbrella programme established
by the Caspian littoral states and aided by the international agencies. Born out of a desire for
regional cooperation, expressed through a number of regional agreements (see Annex 12)
including the Almaty Declaration on Environmental Cooperation of May, 1994, the CEP was
agreed to in June 1995 during a joint mission by The World Bank, United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This mission
marked the start of a close partnership between the region and the international community.
The mission also cemented the collaborative mechanisms between the GEF implementing
agencies.
3. As it now stands, the CEP is a regional programme that encompasses all Caspian States and
numerous international agencies, including The World Bank, UNEP, UNDP, the European
Union/TACIS (EU/TACIS), and many others. During meetings in the region in May, 1998, the
CEP was launched officially. A Steering Committee has been established, and the region agreed
that the Concept Paper produced during the previous year in collaboration with The World
Bank would form the basis for the CEP. In addition, UNDP-led efforts towards a Global
Environment Facility (GEF) project for the Caspian focusing on its priority transboundary
issues was endorsed by the region. Since UNDP is the sole major donor unfettered in its
interactions with all five countries equally, the UNDP plays a central role in implementation of
the CEP, along with the UNEP, The World Bank, and EU/TACIS.
4. UNEP has been active in the region, contributing to drafting and formulation of the
Framework Convention for the Protection and Sustainable Management of the Caspian
Environment and its Resources, which will be presented in a second draft to the region in
Moscow in January, 1999. In addition, the UNEP has produced work products on sea-level rise
and climate change. The World Bank played a central role in the NEAP process in the region, as
well as development of investments for the region. The World Bank also developed the
Concept Paper, which has been accepted as the basis for the CEP.
5. The EU/TACIS has begun implementation of its first tranche of funding for the Caspian
Environment Programme, which is being implemented in close collaboration with the UNDP,
UNEP, and The World Bank. The first tranche addresses support for Programme initiation; the
second tranche, which is expected to begin in 1999, will focus on Priority Investment Portfolios
(PIPs). The EU/TACIS project is one of several contributing to the CEP, collaborating closely
with other projects (such as the GEF).
6. Together, the international partners are assisting the Region to initiate this important
sustainable management programme for the Caspian. Sustainability is encouraged by close
cooperation between the individual projects under the CEP umbrella, and the private sector. In
particular, close collaboration between the CEP and the oil and gas industry has been
developed during the past two years. The oil and gas industry will collaborate with the CEP
through direct funding, data sharing, and participation in many sub-components of the CEP.
7. This partnership between the Caspian riparian states, the international agencies and the
private sector (particularly the oil and gas industry) is destined to provide a sustainable
programme for environmental management of the Caspian Sea.
2. Environmental Issues
8. The Caspian, surrounded by the five littoral countries, is the largest land-locked body of
water on earth. Situated in a natural depression, below mean sea level, it receives water from
the Volga, Ural and the Kura rivers and numerous other freshwater inputs, but has no outlet to
the world oceans. Water-level fluctuations, a natural cyclic phenomenon, have nevertheless
had serious consequences for the region, displacing thousands of persons, destroying
investments in industry and infrastructure and causing severe pollution threats via inundation
of nearshore waste sites. The isolation of the Caspian basin, its climatic and salinity gradients,
have created a unique ecological system. Some 400 species are endemic to the Caspian waters,
some of which, notably the sturgeon, are of major economic importance. Bird life is prolific
with large populations during migration, when many birds rest and feed in the extensive deltas,
shallows and other wetlands. Many Caspian biota are threatened by over-exploitation, habitat
destruction and pollution.
9. The Volga River, the largest in Europe, drains 20% of the European land area and is the
source of 80% of the Caspian's freshwater inflow. Its overall contribution to the Caspian may
have diminished somewhat over the years due to extensive dam construction and its lower
reaches are heavily developed with numerous unregulated releases of chemical and biological
pollutants. Although existing data is sparse and of questionable quality, there is ample
evidence to suggest that the Volga is one of the principal sources of transboundary
contaminants to the Caspian.
10. The Caspian basin is rich in commercially developable hydrocarbon deposits. Production
of oil and gas is significant and new exploration activity is under way. Oil and oil products
generate constant traffic that has been estimated to total approximately 10,000 shipping
movements annually. The magnitude of oil and gas extraction and transport activity thus
constitutes a risk to water quality. Underwater oil and gas pipelines are constructed or
proposed. Commercial activity (fishing fleets, passenger, dry goods and other cargo traffic)
utilizes the Caspian enroute to the Black Sea or the Baltic via the Volga-Don canal system. This
combined traffic has a number of possible impacts on the Caspian's environmental integrity.
For example, the Volga-Don connection poses a threat in the form of introduction of exotic
species through ballast waters inter alia, and stringent measures may be needed to prevent this
threat. The traditional Caspian sturgeon fishery is well-known due to the economic value of
Caspian-derived caviar. At its peak, the Caspian supplied more than 80% of the world's
sturgeon stock. In recent years, however, sturgeon landings have decreased dramatically: from
30,000 tons in 1985 to only 5,672 tons in 1995. A quota system, introduced together with a
temporary ban on pelagic fishing, does not appear to have been effective in reviving the
dwindling fish populations. While fishing methods have clearly become more efficient and
overfishing has occurred, a severe impact on the sturgeon and other anadromous species is
thought to arise from the construction of numerous dams on the Volga and Kura rivers. The
latter structures effectively bar fish from their primary spawning areas. Point and non-point
source pollution leads to bio-accumulation of metals and persistent organic pollutants in the
sturgeon from these waters. Poaching, dramatically increased during recent years, is also a main
cause of sturgeon decline.
3. Social and Economic Issues
11. An estimated human population of approximately 11 million is distributed around the
Caspian shoreline. The main urban centres of population are concentrated on the western and
southern shores. In the west, Baku, with a population of 1.7 million, is the largest urban centre
on the Caspian coast. Coastal provinces in Iran and Azerbaijan, in particular, dominate the
demography of the Caspian.
12. The current annual Gross National Products (GNP) per capita of the Caspian States are:
Azerbaijan US$1240; Iran US$2410; Kazakhstan US$2030; Russia US$3470; Turkmenistan
US$1440.
13. Principal economic activities in the Caspian basin include fisheries, agriculture, oil and gas
production, and related downstream industries. At their peak, revenues to the riparian
countries from sturgeon, including caviar, were as much as US$6 billion annually. Rice,
vegetable cultivation and cattle and sheep husbandry are the prime agricultural activities in the
catchment area. Oil exploration and production are increasing along all shelves of the Caspian
by all countries, and are already well established in the Baku (onshore and offshore) and
Tenghiz (onshore) regions. Oil production is expected to increase dramatically during the next
few decades.
4. Legislative Issues
14. An international legal framework for cooperation in protection and sustainable use of the
Caspian natural resources is seen as a major, overarching component of regional cooperation at
large. An urgent need for a cooperative framework is evident from an ecological point of view,
as clearly identified by the littoral states.
15. UNEP has assisted the region in developing the basic elements for a Framework
Convention for the Protection and Sustainable Management of the Caspian Environment and its
Resources. The Framework Convention is to include pollution prevention, reduction and
control; protection, preservation and restoration of the marine environment; procedures to
fulfill the obligations contained in a Framework Convention; and formation of the Organization
for the Protection of the Sustainable Management of the Caspian Environment and its
Resources. Work is proceeding to develop a final draft Framework Convention for
consideration by the Caspian states in January 1999.
5. Institutional Issues
16. The statutory, administrative and procedural capabilities for multi-national regional
environmental administration and management in the Caspian are not uniformly strong. Some
countries are only now adopting laws for environmental management. Effective
implementation of these new standards remains a task for the future. Administrative structures
may be biased towards inspection, policing and enforcement rather than education, information
and compliance. Strong differences exist between states, with some states (for instance, Iran)
comparatively more advanced than others.
17. The Environmental Impact Assessment Process, or its equivalent, is a legal requirement in
the majority of the Caspian countries. However, the manner in which it is applied, particularly
the scoping process and provisions for follow up, is not systematic between states.
18. In contrast, national capabilities in environmental administration, research, monitoring and
data collection are generally adequate throughout the region and, in parts, strong. In the past,
some research institutions have operated on their own initiative rather than in response to the
needs of policy-makers, planners and managers. There is also a widespread inability to market
scientific expertise and to translate scientific results for policy makers. The links between
science and policy are presently weak and should be strengthened by a regional program.
II. RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES
1. Long-term Objective
19. The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) is being developed as a comprehensive
response to the key environmental problems facing the region with GEF helping to address the
transboundary issues. As defined in the Concept Paper, 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
populations of the region, while protecting human health, ecological integrity and the region's
sustainability for future generations."
20. The CEP is designed to draw extensively on positive and negative lessons learned from
other regional sea Programmes, such as the Baltic Sea Programme (BSP), the Black Sea
Environmental Programme (BSEP), and the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance
Programme (METAP). These more mature Programmes have demonstrated that regional
environmental Programmes can provide effective fora for regional cooperation among parties
to relevant agreements or conventions. Certain features common to these Programmes will be
emulated in the CEP while recognizing the unique regional needs and characteristics. The
partners recognize that many of the important lessons learned from the more mature regional
seas Programmes have resulted from the actual process of working through the Programme,
and can be replicated in the Caspian region only by going through similar steps.
2. Specific GEF Project Objectives
21. More specifically the Objectives of the GEF Project are:
Objective 1: Completion of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) of priority water-
related environmental concerns for the Caspian ecosystem; and
Objective 2: Formulation and Endorsement of a Regional Strategic Action Programme
(SAP)and (5) National Action Plans (NAPs) outlining priority actions, both
baseline and additional, to be taken on behalf of sustaining the Caspian and its
associated resources.
Objective 3: Development of a Caspian regional coordination and management mechanism for
the sustainable development and management of the Caspian environment
through the creation of regional, intersectoral and thematic institutional
frameworks, including a regional framework convention.
22. Consistent with the GEF Operational Strategy, such an initial strategic project is often
necessary to gain agreement among cooperative countries in identifying priorities for future
GEF funded activities. Following such an initial process, GEF would expect to support the
agreed incremental costs of measures to address the priority transboundary issues.
23. During the project preparation phase, the Caspian countries, with GEF and other donor
support, agreed that the following priority transboundary issues should be considered under
the SAP. The final priority setting will be determined through the TDA formulation process.
The final list is expected to include several of the following issues identified in the PDF-B phase:
·
Degradation of biodiversity, loss of coastal habitats, loss or imminent loss of
endangered species and their genomes;
·
Possible accidental introduction of exotic species (e.g., via shipping through the
Volga-Don Canal);
·
Unsustainable use of commercial fish stocks (especially sturgeon);
·
Degradation of landscape;
·
Coastal desertification;
·
Poor or unsatisfactory human health quality, unsanitary conditions in many beaches
and bathing waters, unsafe drinking water, contaminated fish and fish products,
poorly or untreated sewage and industrial discharges to coastal waters;
·
Inadequate freshwater resources;
·
Damage to coastal habitats and infrastructure from sea level fluctuations; and
·
Contamination from point and non-point sources as well from offshore exploration
and marine transport.
24. In order to create a framework to begin to address these environmental issues, the following
programmatic elements were identified by the countries:
· Effective Regional Intersectoral (public and private sector) Coordination and
Environmental Management
· Public Awareness and Involvement in the CEP, SAP and NAPs
· Effective Regional Information and Data Management Systems
· Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant Levels
· Assessment of Transboundary Biodiversity Priorities
· Strategies for Sustainable Management of Fish Resources and Other Commercially
Exploited Aquatic Bioresources
· Strategies for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Planning and Management
· Strategies to Live With Water Level Fluctuations
· Strategies for Combating Coastal Desertification and Land Degradation
· Strategies for Sustainable Human Development and Health
· Regional Emergency Response Actions to Non-hydrocarbon Chemical Spills and Other
Biohazards and Other Biohazards
· Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and Economic Frameworks for SAP
implementation
· Strategies to Strengthen Contaminant Abatement and Control Policies and Procedures
· Priority Investment Portfolios for Transboundary Priorities
25. The GEF Project will support the agreed incremental costs of addressing the three primary
project objectives, focusing on the priority transboundary issues identified during the TDA
formulation process. It will share funding and implementation responsibilities for the GEF
project sub-components, particularly with EU/TACIS, UNEP and The World Bank. Other
donors are expected to address national objectives, which are expected to contribute to the
achievement of CEP basin-wide objectives.
3. Rationale for GEF Financing
26. The transboundary transport and effects of contamination in this international water body
and transboundary nature of many of the Caspian's valuable bioresources warrant GEF
support. The proposed project will help the riparian countries of the Caspian to overcome
institutional and other barriers to collaboration and help them to identify and resolve the
priority transboundary environmental concerns identified in the TDA and SAP processes. The
proposed project coordinates among implementing agencies, countries, and other stakeholders,
and generates programmatic benefits for the global environment that would not otherwise be
achievable. This approach is fully in line with the GEF Operational Strategy for International
Waters, as well as for the Waterbody Based Operational Programme (#8). Important
characteristics of this Operational Programme are: "a) the focus on addressing a few high
priority transboundary impairments of the water body such as reducing eutrophication or toxic
substances; b) support for the learning process for countries to work cooperatively and
collectively in addressing imminent threats to their transboundary water resources; and, c)
identifying and implementing country-specific policy, legal and institutional reforms as well as
priority investments to address the transboundary issues."
27. Based on the experience of the GEF Black Sea Environmental Programme and other regional
seas programmes, the Caspian countries consider the GEF to be a key donor for program
initiation, focusing on institutional development and capacity building on the international
level in an integrated, comprehensive manner and with the emphasis on the identification and
implementation of policy and legal reforms. GEF funds will support the identification and
ultimate mitigation of transboundary issues that would be neglected if addressed only from a
national perspective. The TDA and SAP/NAPs will involve international donors, national and
local governmental institutions, industries, and other key stakeholders that have important
actions to take in restoring and protecting the Caspian environment.
28. The GEF International Waters Operational Programme referred to above emphasizes
"institutional building ... and specific capacity-strengthening measures so that policy, legal and
institutional reforms can be enacted in sectors contributing to transboundary environmental
degradation." This project supports institutional capacity building for long-term regional
cooperation as well as helping to strengthen regional capacities in environmental management,
monitoring of priority pollutants, public awareness and preservation of transboundary living
resources.
29. In the Waterbody-Based OP, GEF will play a catalytic role in assisting a group of countries
seeking to leverage co-financing in association with national funding, development financing,
agency regular Programmes, and private sector action for necessary elements of a
comprehensive approach for sustainably managing the international waters environment. In
accord with the GEF International Waters Operational Strategy, this project focuses on the
transboundary threats to the Caspian ecosystem, an internationally significant waterbody. The
considerable transboundary threats seriously impair the functioning of the Caspian ecosystem
and even human health.
III. PROJECT COMPONENTS, ACTIVITIES, AND EXPECTED RESULTS
COMPONENT I. PROJECT COORDINATION
A. Programme Coordination Mechanism (Activities led by GEF and supported by EU/TACIS)
30. The first step towards creating a regional management mechanism is to establish the
implementation structure for governance, coordination and management of the CEP.
Activity 1. Assist in establishment of CEP Steering Committee, including biennial project
reviews and mid-term and final project evaluation;
Activity 2. Develop the coordination information and evaluation mechanisms to ensure that the
results and conclusions of the TDA and SAP process lead to relevant actions to be
taken on the part of the CEP Steering Committee, the thematic centres and the
intersectoral coordinating bodies (including ministries, other government agencies
and private sector).
Activity 3. Establish CEP Programme Coordination Unit;
Activity 4. Set-up country Intersectoral Coordinating Committees and Secretariats for the
Intersectoral Coordinating Functions; and
Activity 5. Establish Caspian Regional Thematic Centres.
Expected Result: Regional, Intersectoral and Thematic Coordination and Management
Mechanisms established and functioning; particular emphasis to be placed on effective
coordination with the private sector.
B. Programmatic Support for Caspian Regional Thematic Centres (Activities led by GEF and
supported by EU/TACIS)
31. The Caspian Regional Thematic Centres will be responsible for development of a work plan
and implementation of activities in respective thematic area, regional coordination within area
of competency, development of relevant regional recommendations, guidance and strategy
within area of competency, assistance in development of the TDA and PIP, assist in
development and implementation of the National Action Plans (NAPs) and Strategic Action
Plan (SAP).
Activity 1. Assessment of capacities of Caspian Regional Thematic Centres, nominated by the
governments and their technical cooperation needs, including training, equipment,
expert consultation;
Activity 2. Provide relevant office equipment; and
Activity 3. Establish a well-functioning system of communications and data transfer within the
region using Internet.
Expected Result: Establishment of a network of Caspian Regional Thematic Centres.
C. Intersectoral Coordination (including private sector) and Involvement in SAP, NAP and
TDA Formulation Process (Activities led by GEF)
32. The Intersectoral Coordinating Committee in each of the Caspian littoral states will provide
guidance and ensure coordination of a wide range of National institutions and organizations
directly responsible for the implementation of the Programme at the National level. The
Intersectoral Coordinating Function will have a full time, small secretariat (national and donor-
supported) reporting to (under the direction of) the National Focal Point, and will serve as the
national liaison with the PCU. Through the intersectoral coordination function, both the
Steering Committee and the PCU will act to advise national and sub-national public and private
sector representatives on the relevant necessary actions required at the legal, institutional and
policy level to reflect the findings of the SAP and the TDA. This will provide regional
(SAP/TDA) feedback at the national and sub-national level (NAP) to ensure continuity and
complementarity in the decision-making process regarding CEP issues.
Activity 1. Set-up and support the secretariat for the national Intersectoral coordination in each
Caspian country; and
Activity 2. Follow-up with the national and sub-national public and private sector on the
recommendations from the Steering Committee and PCU regarding the actions to be
taken in order to reflect the results of the SAP, NAP and TDA. Related activities
supporting this component are established under Component V, I (Formulation and
Endorsement of Strategic Action Programme and National Actions Plans for Priority
Transboundary Issues). This activity should also coordinate closely with Component
III.
Expected Result: Support to the Intersectoral Coordination (including private sector) and
Involvement in SAP, NAP and TDA Formulation Process. Strengthening of the ministries of the
environment.
COMPONENT II. TRANSBOUNDARY DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS (TDA)
C. Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant Levels (Activities led by GEF)
33. A contaminant and ecological monitoring system will be essential to monitoring the long-
term success of SAP and NAP implementation. Data collected during special investigations to
fill in the gaps for the regional assessment will help to set priorities for transboundary
environmental issues in the region during the TDA process.
Activity 1. Country committees, consultants, and thematic centres to evaluate existing data
sets, needs and data gaps, monitoring programmes and monitoring capabilities in
each country and identify and prioritize needs for SAP and NAP actions (e.g.,
baseline monitoring, compliance monitoring, transboundary impacts);
Activity 2. Limited regional assessments of contaminants to fill key gaps in TDA needed to
formulate strategies and action plans;
Activity 3. Collaborate with oil and gas industry on their contribution to the regional
assessment to the TDA process; and
Activity 4. Establish or strengthen links between monitoring facilities among monitoring
centres throughout the region.
Expected Result: Solid understanding of regional contaminant sources, flows and levels built
into TDA. High quality data collected and broadly disseminated. Proposals in SAP for national
commitments and donor support to upgrade regional monitoring network.
B. Assessment of Transboundary Biodiversity Priorities (Activities led by GEF)
34. This assessment and recording of living resources, environmental characteristics, and
human uses are needed on a comprehensive, regional basis, according to agreed, consistent and
compatible procedures. It is also important to establish a biodiversity baseline against which
the near-term and future CEP activities can be evaluated, particularly SAP and NAP
implementation. This effort centres on establishment and operation of a Caspian Bio-Resources
Network as the primary tool for bioresources protection. Working with country Intersector
Coordinating Committees, the following tasks would comprise the biodiversity component of
the Caspian Environment Programme:
Activity 1. Support the Caspian Bioresources Network to stress transboundary issues;
Activity 2. Undertake an initial, rapid ecological survey of the coastal and marine species and
habitats, their uses, values, and threats, for each of the five Caspian states. The
survey will result in an Inventory of Caspian Ecological Resources, their priority
transboundary implications and will be part of the final TDA;
Activity 3. Collate a Caspian Red Data Book based on existing and revised national Red Data
Books, identifying and describing rare, threatened and endangered species that
require attention from a regional perspective and that will be included as a priority
within the TDA process;
Activity 4. Evaluate existing Protected Areas and habitats protection status, particularly those
with transboundary borders and/or those used by migratory species. Identify and
facilitate adoption of SAP and NAP commitments related to protected areas;
Activity 5. Prepare national reports on the State of Caspian Biodiversity according to an
agreed scope and prescription; meld the five national reports into a Regional
Overview on the State of Caspian Biodiversity with transboundary priorities to
support the TDA and SAP preparation;
Activity 6. Identify regional and common threats and assess the risks to species, ecosystems
and particular habitats and propose and facilitate SAP and NAP actions to manage
these risks which include inter alia oil spills, overexploitation, desert encroachment,
etc;
Activity 7. Assessment of possible accidental introduction of exotic species and formulation of
proposals for interventions under SAP (e.g., via shipping through the Volga-Don
Canal). This activity is expected to receive significant funding under this
component due to the high risk of ecosystem disruption; and
Activity 8. Establish a country-specific and a joint regional database as the repository for
ecological information. The database should form part of the Regional GIS and
should be accessible electronically from a number of access points throughout the
region and beyond.
Expected Result: Necessary biodiversity data for TDA preparation. Comprehensive knowledge
of the status of and threats to Caspian biodiversity; broadly accessible biodiversity databases;
agreed-upon national (NAP) and regional (SAP) strategies for biodiversity protection and
conservation; identification of possible introduction of exotic species.
C. Effective Regional Information and Data Management (Activities led by GEF and supported
by EU/TACIS)
35. Full access to high quality, up-to-date CEP data and information, including the TDA, is
essential to multi-sectoral participation in a cooperative regional programme and to decision-
making at the national and regional levels. A comprehensive database and information
management system will serve as a repository for relevant, available data, act as the technically
sound basis for rational decision-making, and serve as a source of information and education
for specialists, administrators, educators, and the general public.
Activity 1. Prepare comprehensive Caspian Bibliography, including science, management,
and economics;
Activity 2. Develop Caspian Information System including data on institutional capacities,
scientists, environmental projects;
Activity 3. Develop Caspian Geographic Information System and hold stakeholders training
workshop in the use of GIS/IP applications;
Activity 4. Upgrade and maintain CEP Home Page on Internet, prepared by The World Bank
in 1998; publish TDA, SAP, NAPs;
Activity 5. Develop Regional Environmental Internet Node, including relevant environmental
databases;
Activity 6. Prepare and hold a Caspian regional workshop for country Intersectoral
Coordination Committees relating to environmental information networking
(EIN), including standards, tools and techniques for data and information
management;
Activity 7. Collation of data by country committees with assistance, where necessary, from
consultants in order to contribute to regional transboundary assessment; and
Activity 8. Prepare State of the Caspian Environment Report.
Expected Result: Necessary data for the TDA preparation and SAP scenario analysis collected
and transferred in to a GIS. Globally accessible databases on the Caspian environment,
institutions and expertise that enhance capacity of decision-makers to develop, implement and
monitor progress of SAP and NAPs.
D. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) (Activities led by GEF and supported by
EU/TACIS)
36. The TDA represents a scientific process of setting priorities for transboundary
environmental issues from the ecosystems standpoint. It is intended to build the capacity of
each country's Intersectoral Coordination Committee to understand the transboundary
priorities and to consider those priorities together with neighboring countries as part of a
regional assessment. The TDA provides the scientific and technical basis for consideration and
evaluation of possible actions to be proposed in the SAP and NAPs.
Activity 1. Utilize the data collected in component II, A ,B and C to develop Draft
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis;
Activity 2. Hold expert meetings and regional workshops with stakeholder involvement
(including NGOs and private sector) for priority formulation and the identification
of `root causes' of environmental problems;
Activity 3. Identify, evaluate and fill critical gaps in the Draft TDA; and
Activity 4. Revise, update and finalize the TDA with country Intersectoral Coordinating
Committee approval and publish in print and on-line.
Expected Result: A complete TDA identifying transboundary priorities with broad stakeholder
involvement.
COMPONENT III. LEGISLATIVE AND REGIONAL CONVENTION
A. Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and Economic Frameworks for SAP
implementation (Activities implemented by UNEP and supported by GEF and EU/TACIS)
37. Effective environmental management and resource protection derive from a combination of
regulatory and non-regulatory actions. Current regulatory authorities and national sector
jurisdictions may overlap, may be inadequate, or are perhaps mutually in conflict. Before
recommendations can be made, an evaluation of existing national and international regulations,
ratification, compliance and enforcement is required. The protection and sustainable use of the
natural environment of the Caspian region should be based on appropriate legal and
institutional frameworks, both on national and international levels, to ensure concerted and
harmonized, environmentally-related activities by the littoral states. The CEP would be
implemented under the umbrella of the Framework Convention, once ratified/in force.
Activity 1. Encourage and facilitate, as appropriate, the finalisation and adoption of the
Framework Convention for the Protection and Sustainable Management of the
Caspian Environment and its Resources as an overarching component of regional
cooperation in protection and sustainable use of the Caspian environment;
Activity 2. Develop a strategy for and facilitate integrating relevant transboundary elements
of the CEP (SAP and NAP priorities) within the Framework Convention,
including, inter alia, subsequent sectoral agreements/protocols, as well as the
means and mechanisms for their implementation. To encourage and facilitate
more effective implementation of and compliance with national
legislation/regulation and regional and international agreements:
Activity 3. Survey of ratification and implementation of relevant multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs)
Activity
4. Survey and evaluation of national legislation (including compliance and
enforcement) and institutions related to the protection and sustainable
management of the Caspian environment and its resources, identification of gaps
and inconsistencies as well as the needs emanating from the new Convention and
proposal of recommendations for follow-up, with a focus on the transboundary
priority environmental issues in coordination with the private sector (e.g., oil and
gas industry);
Activity 5. Provide advice and assistance to lawyers, academia, government officials and
other stakeholders involved in environmental policy and law, including
organization of national and regional workshops and training seminars to enhance
understanding of MEAs and their implementation, and to strengthen and
harmonize institutional, legal and regulatory frameworks, Provide advice and
assistance in developing effective enforcement and compliance regimes;
Activity 6. Assessment of existing economic tools and instruments, including non-compliance
fines, charges for pollution within compliance levels, pollution permits,
export/import allowances and administrative charges; Development of
recommendations for linking economic instruments with environmental solutions
in the Caspian; and Assessment of the applicability of the economic instruments at
the regional Caspian level;
Activity 7. Provide advice and assistance for the harmonious application of the Environmental
Impact Assessment process; and
Activity 8. Preparation of national and regional reviews, for input to the TDA process, covering
economic evaluation of the impact of pollution, biodiversity degradation, losses in
fishing and tourism industries.
Expected Result: Adoption and implementation of a Framework Convention for the Protection
and Sustainable Management of the Caspian Environment and its Resources. Comprehensive
understanding of status of relevant MEAs and national legislation, including compliance and
enforcement issues and including the status of the existing economic frameworks for each
transboundary priority. Identification of country-specific legal and regulatory reforms to be
included by the countries in their NAPs as a result of the TDA and SAP processes.
Strengthened capacity for effective implementation of and compliance with national
legislation/regulation and regional and international agreements with the objective of
improved protection and sustainable use of the Caspian environment. Preliminary proposals
for legislative reform (national) and harmonization (regional). Basic economic evaluation of
impact of pollution, biodiversity degradation, losses in fishing and tourism industries.
COMPONENT IV. DEVELOPMENT OF PRIORITY INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS FOR
TRANSBOUNDARY PRIORITIES
A. Priority Investment Portfolios (PIPs) (Activities implemented by the WB and supported by
GEF and EU/TACIS)
38. The main objective of the "Priority Investment Portfolio" (PIP) component of the Caspian
Initiative is, in conjunction with the SAP and NAP processes, to facilitate the identification,
selection and preparation of the highest priority investment projects to address the most urgent
transboundary environmental problems in the Caspian region. In order to achieve this main
objective, these investment projects will represent a logical reaction to the results and
conclusions of the SAP review. This SAP review itself will address national and regional
legislative needs, policy requirements, institutional support demands and all regional
transboundary issues related to the CEP. The investment projects supported through the PIP
process will be designed to address top priority transboundary environmental impacts, while
providing models for sustainable development that contribute to improved environmental
quality in the Caspian basin and that can be replicated by other Caspian states. It is anticipated
that the PIPs will build on ongoing project identification and priority-setting efforts underway
in several of the Caspian states (e.g., NAPs). As the Caspian states are at different stages in
their planning and execution of environmental investments, it is expected that PIP projects may
be identified and prepared for implementation on a schedule that differs from country to
country. Investment projects that meet Caspian Environment Program PIP criteria and that
have already been identified (and in some cases, funded) will be incorporated into the CEP PIPs
where they have transboundary priority implications. The donors will provide funding and
technical assistance to develop, on a participatory basis, a portfolio of priority investment
projects for each country. The PIPs would be presented by the Caspian states to bilateral
donors and international financial institutions for possible funding. In relation to the GEF
process, the PIPs will be designed to focus on elements of the TDA.
Activity 1. Retransmit selection criteria and methodology to serve as consistent guidelines for
identification and selection of urgent investment priorities;
Activity 2. Identify or continue identification and select potential investment projects for the
Priority Investment Portfolios (PIP);
Activity 3. Prepare activity briefs for each identified project;
Activity 4. Evaluate, rank activity briefs and prepare Priority Investment Portfolios;
Activity 5. Organize or facilitate one or more regional conferences of donors and Caspian
country senior representatives (Finance, Environment, and other sectors), with the
objective of matching the urgent investment projects with donor resources for
feasibility studies and implementation funding; and
Activity 6. Liaise with existing donor coordination mechanisms, such as PPC, to enhance PIP
matching with donors.
Expected Result: A portfolio of primary Caspian investments that address priority
transboundary issues and are linked to SAP, NAPs, and addressing transboundary issues, with
national and donor commitments to finance. For countries that are prepared to make
investments on an accelerated schedule, implementation of PIP projects, derivation of first
lessons learned, and replication of projects in other countries, if appropriate.
COMPONENT V. FORMULATION OF A STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME (SAP)
AND NATIONAL ACTION PLANS (NAPs)
A. Strategies to Strengthen Contaminant Abatement and Control Policies and Procedures
(Activities led primarily by EU/TACIS, supported by GEF and linked to Component III)
39. A strong abatement program to reduce contaminants at their source will be the most
effective method to address coastal and transboundary contamination problems.
Activity 1. Evaluate national practices and capacities for effective emission control and
prevention;
Activity 2. Develop and disseminate improved methodology for measuring discharges of
pollutants and gather data from National authorities regarding discharges;
Activity 3. Coordinate activities to improve permitting procedures;
Activity 4. Prepare Regional Approaches to Contamination abatement/prevention;
Activity 5. Develop/harmonize models on environmental impact and development of
scenarios on pollution discharge in order to assist with the establishment of
scientific criteria for setting permit levels-emissions standards;
Activity 6. Identify and prioritize contaminant `hot spots' with transboundary implications,
calculate using World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, and propose
actions to address them; link to PIP process (supported by GEF); and
Activity 7. Identify necessary reforms on national basis for the oil and gas industry (linked to
Component III).
Expected Result: Significantly enhanced national and regional capacities for pollution
abatement and control. Achievement of an understanding of priority contaminant `hot spots'.
Arrival at an expected baseline and additional commitments for reduction of high priority
transboundary pollution sources.
B. Strategies for Sustainable Management of Fish Resources and Other Commercially
Exploited Aquatic Bioresources (Activities led primarily by EU/TACIS and supported by GEF)
40. The most valuable economic fisheries resources by far are the seven species and subspecies
of Caspian sturgeon. Restoring the regional sturgeon resource is a top priority from both a
biological and economic perspective. To develop sustainable sturgeon yields, a regional
approach that addresses the threats to all stages of the sturgeon's life cycle must be developed.
This approach will directly affect numerous individuals and organizations now operating in the
region and some mechanism to assist affected stakeholders needs to be adopted and
implemented. Measures to reduce poaching and sustainably manage the remaining sturgeon
fishery are most urgently needed.
Activity 1. Undertake stock assessment of fish resources and other living aquatic bioresources;
Activity 2. Facilitate establishment of a regional legal working group representing all Caspian
governments, with input from the private sector, to prepare an agreement on the
sturgeon fishery, to include closed fishing periods, closed zones, minimum catch
size, allowable and forbidden gear, national quotas, important nursery areas to be
protected, etc. The result could also include ratification of The Draft Convention
for the Conservation and Utilization of the Bioresources of the Caspian (linked to
Component III);
Activity 3. Develop a Regional Strategy for artificial reproduction of aquatic bioresources,
revival and expansion of selected hatcheries;
Activity 4. Facilitate establishing regional coordination of enforcement bodies, equipped for
rapid intervention, to deal effectively with poaching and illegal sales; and
Activity 5. Review of catch and by-catch data; fisheries capitalization; gear; aquaculture
capacities, etc with a view towards SAP/NAP actions (Supported by GEF).
Expected Result: Improved regional coordination of sturgeon fishery stakeholders; strategies
for enhanced and sustainable sturgeon and other aquaculture; articulate and facilitate
commitments to SAP and NAPs.
C. Strategies for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Planning and Management
(ITCAP&M) (Activities led by GEF)
41. Adoption through SAP and country-specific NAPs of common regional approaches to
ITCAP&M results in reduced environmental degradation and loss of coastal habitats for
migratory species and preservation of global biodiversity. This element intends to provide
guidance for country focus on wetland habitat protections with transboundary implications.
Activity 1.
Review existing national legislation, regarding coastal zone planning,
management, and resource use, and evaluate implementation procedures at the
national, regional and municipal levels;
Activity 2.
Develop draft guidelines and procedures for Integrated Transboundary Coastal
Area Planning & Management at national and regional level; and
Activity 3.
Prepare a regionally-endorsed Handbook for Integrated Transboundary Coastal
Area Planning & Management for the Caspian Coast.
Expected Result: Strengthened national and regional capacities to design, develop and
implement ITCAP&M. Regional and national commitments to expand ITCAP&M through SAP
and NAPs. Develop effective regional coordination body(s) for legislative, policy and technical
compatibility in (ITCAP&M) using the mechanisms established through the intersectoral
coordinating function (see Component I, Sub-component C: Intersectoral Coordination
(including private sector) and Involvement in SAP, NAP and TDA Formulation Process).
D. Strategies to Live with Water Level Fluctuations (Activities led by EU/TACIS) GEF to
support one element (Activity 3)
42. Development of a water-level change strategy will require better understanding of the
causes of the water-level fluctuations, transboundary effects and global significance. This
regional issue can only be addressed by a cooperative effort.
Activity 1. Evaluate data and the state of knowledge on the Caspian water-level fluctuations,
(including inter-annual, long-term and storm-related changes);
Activity 2. Improve the exchange of real time information on the Caspian sea level
fluctuations between monitoring centres; Establish a regional agreement for
information exchange;
Activity 3. Evaluate influence of water level changes on the regional environment (Supported
by GEF);
Activity 4. Assist the ITCAP&M CRTC to develop land and water use guidelines that take
into account water level fluctuations as a recurrent, natural phenomenon,
including planning for maximum high and maximum low water levels during the
course of a century;
Activity 5. Draw on traditional land use practices where relevant to help determine
appropriate and inappropriate land uses in flood zones;
Activity 6. Adopt, after extensive discussion and extensive public consultation, an operative
strategy for living with Caspian water level fluctuations; integrate into SAP and
NAPs; and
Activity 7. Design an evaluation and review process, of the strategy for living with Caspian
water level fluctuations (every 5 years) in order to reflect new experience gained,
accomplishments, new priorities and changing circumstances.
Expected Result: Enhanced national and regional capacities for living with and/or adapting to
water-level fluctuations. NAP and SAP commitments to adaptation activities.
E. Strategies for Combating Coastal Desertification and Land Degradation (Activities led
primarily by EU/TACIS and supported by GEF)
43. Upland land use in the Caspian watershed is closely linked to effects on coastal waters.
This component will help to better understand the problem of coastal desertification and to
develop the Regional Strategy for Combating Desertification and Land Degradation as part of
SAP.
Activity 1. Establish a Regional network on coastal desertification and land degradation to
assist the Thematic Centre;
Activity 2. Develop a region-wide Inventory of Coastal Land Use addressing erosion, soil
saturation, salinisation, desert encroachment and other aspects of land
degradation; identify in particular, those practices that have an impact on Caspian
water quality, agriculture, public health, transportation, and settlement (Supported
by GEF);
Activity 3. Organise a Regional Workshop on Combating Coastal Desertification and Land
Degradation;
Activity 4. Collate a compendium of indigenous and traditional ways to conserve land and
combat desertification and develop the compendium into a Handbook for Wise
Land Use; and
Activity 5. Develop the Regional Concepts as part of SAP for Combating Desertification and
Land Degradation, protecting deserts and stabilising human requirements.
Expected Result: Strengthen national and regional capacities and conceptual approaches for
combating coastal desertification and land degradation. SAP and NAP commitments to
interventions related to desertification and land degradation.
F. Strategies for Sustainable Human Development and Health (Activities led primarily by
EU/TACIS and supported by GEF)
44. This component will facilitate the compilation of a region-wide inventory of the
environmental health hazards in the Caspian coastal area including climatic extremes and
natural disasters, occupational health practices, solid and liquid waste hazards, food
contamination, malnutrition, and access to safe drinking water. This component will seek to
strengthen the national environmental epidemiology capacity through regional training courses
and information exchange.
Activity 1. Compile a region-wide inventory of the environmental health hazards in the
Caspian coastal area including climatic extremes and natural disasters,
occupational health practices, solid and liquid waste hazards, food contamination,
malnutrition, access to safe drinking water, etc.;
Activity 2. Assessment of transboundary aspects of environmental problems affecting human
health (Supported by GEF as a part of TDA);
Activity 3. Evaluate using formal Risk Assessment approach the chronic impact on human
health and well-being of the exposure to atmospheric contaminants, radioactive
particles, polluted water and food and other hazards known to have been
prevalent in past years;
Activity 4. Evaluate existing health and environmental information systems which are able to
monitor and assess the relationship between environment and health and which
can act as an early warning system;
Activity 5. Strengthen the national environmental epidemiology capacity through regional
training courses, information exchange and improved access to medical/scientific
literature; and
Activity 6. Develop a Regional Environmental Health Action Plan that will be a part of the
CEP SAP.
Expected Result: Strengthened national and regional environmental epidemiology capacities,
regional environmental health action plan.
G. Regional Emergency Response Actions to Non-hydrocarbon Chemical Spills and Other
Biohazards (Activities led by GEF)
45. This component will evaluate regional capacities for effective emergency response; prepare
risk assessment to identify potential high-risk sources, along with information on sensitive
habitats, working closely with the countries and the private sector.
Activity 1. Evaluate regional capacities for effective emergency response assess regional
contingency plans and regional cooperation; and
Activity 2. Prepare risk assessment to identify potential high-risk sources that could represent
a major threat for transboundary changes, along with information on sensitive
habitats that need to be protected near those sources.
Expected Result: Evaluation regional emergency contingency planning for non-hydrocarbon
chemicals and other biohazards as a part of TDA and SAP processes. Proposals for SAP/NAP
actions in the area.
H. Public Awareness and Involvement in CEP, SAP and NAPs (Activities led by GEF and
supported by EU/TACIS)
46. The CEP anticipates broad-based participation by the general public, private sector
associations (especially oil and gas companies), academic and research institutions, non-
governmental organizations and local community groups. The Programme will identify key
stakeholders, particularly effective NGOs, bring them together to strategize and discuss
common issues, link them together for the enhanced exchange of information and strategies,
and involve them in the SAP and NAP formulation processes done on country-specific and
regional bases.
Activity 1. Facilitate socio-economic assessment of counry-specific local population and the
identification of key stakeholders;
Activity 2. Build the capacity of the country Intersectoral Coordinating Committees to
undertake public involvement activities;
Activity 3. Create public awareness and environmental education campaign through
participatory regional events publicized by popular media, NGO newsletters, and
school-based environmental curricula development;
Activity 4. Sponsor and organize annual NGO forum for NGOs to network, identify priorities
and responsibilities, and share data and information;
Activity 5. Create and administer a small grants program for NGOs and community
organizations to fund small scale activities related to the rehabilitation and
improved management of Caspian resources related to CEP recommendations;
Activity 6. Involve scientifically based NGOs and the private sector in TDA, SAP and NAP
processes;
Activity 7. Assist in the preparation and distribution of education/awareness media on the
Caspian; and
Activity 8. Publish and disseminate a twice-annual newsletter describing ongoing activities of
CEP, production of posters and handouts.
Expected Result: Broader stakeholder involvement in and awareness of the environmental
problems of the Caspian and activities of the CEP, both nationally and regionally.
I. Formulation and Endorsement of Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and National Action
Plans (NAPs) for Priority Transboundary Issues
47. The intent of the SAP and NAP processes are to obtain agreement regionally on priorities
for transboundary issues. To determine harmonized approaches for policy, legal and
institutional reforms for addressing those top priority transboundary issues (SAP) and to
translate these reforms and priority investments into country-specific, expected baseline and
additional actions in the NAPs. The Intersectoral Coordination Committee in each country
plays a key role in the implementation among countries at the regional level and with sub-
national enties and stakeholders nationally to ensure policy reforms and priority investments
are actually implemented. Close interaction with private sector involvement in oil and gas
issues and the Convention and Legal Framework component is important to ensure that the
stage is set for follow-up of this initial project through strong national commitments to specific
reforms and investments.
Activity 1.
PCU provides guidance, assistance and facilitation in coordination among all
sub-components contributing to the SAP and in supporting the Intersectoral
Coordinating Committee in each country to undertake its role;
Activity 2. Use TDA and scenario analysis to test, evaluate and determine (i) priority
national policy, legal and institutional reforms; (ii.) priority investments and;
(iii.) regional actions to be included in the SAP and NAPs;
Activity 3. Assist countries in the preparation of draft Caspian National Action Plans
(NAPs), involving stakeholders and donors in close cooperation with
Component IV;
Activity 4.
Draft, refine and finalize regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP) including
identification of expected baseline and additional actions in the proposed SAP
(link baseline identification to PIP process). Process will include all countries, the
stakeholders, donors and external experts as required;
Activity 5.
Assist countries to refine and finalize NAPs at highest governmental level;
Activity 6.
Hold ministerial conference for SAP and NAP endorsement at highest
governmental level;
Activity 7.
Publish (print and on-line), broadly disseminate and publicize SAP; and
Activity 8.
Host donor conference to facilitate financing of baseline and additional actions
and investments as outlined in each country's NAP.
Expected Result: Completed and endorsed SAP and NAPs, consistent with NEAPs and other
national strategic planning programmes; National and donor commitments to SAP and NAP
implementation of financing so that transboundary priority problems will be addressed.
IV. RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY
1. Constraints and Risks
48. The long-term success of regional water body management Programmes such as the CEP
depends, inter alia, on the political willingness of the Countries to cooperate and on the
availability of national and international financial resources. The latter in turn depend on
changing economic, political and social conditions at the individual country level. The Caspian
region presents several difficult issues that may hinder implementation of Programme
objectives. The former Soviet Caspian states1 are undergoing difficult political, social and
economic transitions and may not uniformly rank environmental protection among their
highest national priorities. Several have, however, evidenced sufficient concern about the
health and economic impacts of continued environmental degradation to undertake significant
national environmental programmes, often including projects financed externally as well as
from national budgets. All of the littoral states have expressed a willingness to collaborate
together and with international partners to address the Caspian environment. Ongoing
negotiations regarding the legal status of the Caspian must be acknowledged as important, but
the littoral states have consistently indicated a willingness to address the environmental
problems of the region even in the absence of a broader agreement on the legal status.
49. However, risks due to policy changes resulting from the turnover of key government
officials can not be ignored. Impacts from economic changes and failures are much harder to
predict; the four CIS countries are in the difficult process of shifting towards a market economy
and the state of individual economies varies among the countries. In this regard, countries that
are under economic stress during the transition period may focus their investment priorities
away from environmental concerns to the potential detriment of achieving regional objectives.
On the other hand, the expected growth in financial and economic linkages between the four
countries due to both historical and geographic factors may help to diminish impacts from any
short-term economic lapses experienced by individual countries during the project period.
2. Sustainability
A. Government Commitment
1 Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan
50. The explicit commitments made by each of the five Caspian states and actions they have
already undertaken, are the best indication of the sound foundation for this Programme.
Implementation of the CEP is one step toward guaranteeing that the activities and systems
established by the Programme will endure beyond the life of it.
51. In 1993, the five littoral states founded the Organization for the Cooperation of the Caspian
Coastal Neighboring Countries. Environmental protection and wise use of resources were
among the areas identified for cooperation. Difficulties regarding the Caspian's legal status and
the extent of national sovereign territories delayed progress but there is a consensus that this
issue could be set aside for the time being in order to achieve progress on those aspects which
are not contentious. Some concern has been expressed regarding the prudence of the
international community getting involved in the problems of the Caspian environment before
the Caspian riparian countries have reached agreement on the management and use of the
region's vast oil resources. Other GEF projects (e.g. East Asian Seas) have enjoyed success in
making rapid, substantive progress in addressing multi-country, transboundary marine
environmental issues even in the absence of multi-national agreements on hydrocarbon
resource management. This proposal is submitted with the expectation that multi-country
collaborative projects such as the one proposed could in fact help facilitate a dialogue to reach
agreement on larger and more divisive issues.
52. At Almaty in May 1994, the littoral states adopted the Declaration on Environmental
Cooperation in the Caspian, through which they affirmed their desire to cooperate
constructively in environmental management and their commitment to cooperate fully in the
preparation and implementation of Programmes of joint activities for the protection of the
Caspian environment, with the financial and technical assistance of the international
community.
53. A joint statement by the Caspian littoral states in April, 1995, reiterated their concern
regarding the deterioration of the Caspian environment; renewed their commitment to work
together on this issue; and renewed their invitation to the UN system to support regional and
national Programmes for the protection and sustainable management of the Caspian.
54. As a further demonstration of the national commitment, the first meeting of the Interim
Steering Committee of CEP, held in Ramsar (Iran) in May 1998, provided agreement on the
following:
· The meeting adopted the draft CEP Programme Brief as the technical basis for the
implementation of the CEP, which combines the contributions of EU/TACIS, GEF, The
World Bank, and other sponsors.
· The meeting adopted the structure proposed for governance, coordination and national
implementation for the CEP (Annex 5). In particular, the meeting noted the need for
strong intersectoral and inter-donor coordination.
· The meeting adopted the Terms of Reference and composition for the Steering
Committee, the Intersectoral Coordinating Committee, the PCU and the Caspian
Regional Thematic Centres (Annex 6-9).
· The meeting agreed that the Steering Committee should determine its own procedures
and modalities, with particular attention to involving the private sector and the NGO
community. The Steering Committee will investigate the modality of a Trust Fund to
assist with sustainability of the CEP.
· The meeting requested the UNDP to work with the Countries and donors to develop
detailed rules and procedures for the Steering Committee for their consideration.
· The meeting accepted the Framework for the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis as
agreed at the TDA Experts meeting.
· The countries agreed upon the locations of the PCU and Caspian Regional Thematic
Centres.
55. The countries ownership of the project is also shown by the endorsement of the present
project brief. All countries are committing significant financial resources in support of the
project, in-kind contribution by providing office space to host the regional Thematic centres,
and Intersectoral coordination secretariats, salaries for their staff members. The governments
will also provide to the project necessary scientific expertise from the national organizations
and if necessary provide ship time and meeting space. The countries themselves have
requested that the CEP should achieve a fundamental level of activity, in each country and on a
regional basis, rather than merely an identification of the overall problems. They desire that the
results and recommendations of the SAP and TDA process be translated into real actions and
responses on both a national and international basis. This is reflected in those components of
the project which address programme coordination, intersectoral coordination and involvement
in the Sap as well as SAP/NAP formulation and endorsement (see Component 1 A and B and
Component 5).
B. Private Sector Commitment
56. The private sector has been closely involved in the CEP since prior to its conception. The oil
and gas sector assisted in early environmental activities in the region, throughout the 1990s.
The May, 1995 joint UNDP, UNEP and World Bank mission to the Caspian met with
representatives from the private sector. Since that time, the UNDP and the World Bank have
kept in constant contact with the oil and gas sector, including frequent briefings, formal
presentations at large industry gatherings, invited talks with various environmental
subcommittees within the Caspian oil and gas industry, etc. Since the expected oil reserves are
the most significant of the past few decades, oil and gas exploration and exploitation present
potential environmental concern. The participation of the industry is essential to the success of
the CEP.
57. Though no single industry group speaks on behalf of the entire Caspian oil and gas sector,
the GEF and The World Bank have met with industry environmental consortia within
Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakstan, and Turkmenistan. Industry participation is expected to include
cash contributions, data sharing, training in specific areas of competence, participation in
various sub-components and activities of the CEP/GEF project, and other areas. The
GEF/UNDP has begun discussions on the feasibility of having an Environment Fund
established by the oil and gas sector to provide sustainability of the CEP following completion
of early phases of international agency activities.
58. In addition to the oil and gas sector, other major industries include the caviar industry and
the marine transportation industry. Preliminary discussions with the caviar industry
demonstrate their willingness to participate in the CEP activities. To date, the CEP has not
approached the marine transport industry to solicit their participation.
59. The degree of private sector activity in the Caspian region distinguishes the CEP from other
regional programmes that have faced significant financial challenges as they attempted to
evolve to sustainability (e.g., the BSEP). The CEP can take advantage of these increasing
revenue streams to assist in operating the CEP on a sustainable basis. In order to fully exploit
this advantage, specific measures will be taken under Component I, Sub-component C, develop
an effective, two-way coordination between the project and the private sector.
C. Financial Sustainability
60. The comprehensive context that will be created by this Programme is expected to attract
bilateral and other sponsors of discrete regional activities. Support to the World Bank has
already been received in the form of a grant from the Japanese Government (PHRD) and further
support has been promised from a number of other sources.
The project is designed to identify and stimulate investments in the region through feasibility
studies and the Priority Investment Portfolio. The project will also evaluate the use of various
financial instruments as a mechanism to generate revenue to sustain, inter alia, the regional
coordination mechanisms developed during the project. The Private Sector is expected to
contribute to financial sustainability. The CEP Steering Committee has already begun
investigation of a Private-Sector Environmental Fund. The oil and gas industry could play a
significant role in assuring sustainability of the CEP. Discussions have already begun with the
private sector regarding their cash and in-kind contributions to the CEP, including participation
in an Environmental Fund.
V. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
1. Stakeholders' Commitment and Participation
A. Public Participation
61. In parts of the Caspian region, the concept of community participation is still relatively
weak. However, some exceptions are seen, with groups involved in, or working with, local
communities and elaborating participatory mechanisms for the public in decision-making.
62. Two major opportunities exist for public participation in the Caspian region. The first is
applicable to those societies in which at least some traditional systems of resource use are still
practiced. These include the pastoral and semi-pastoral societies and forest dwellers, collective
and cooperative fishing communities, rural/agricultural communities, and those who have
locally-adapted ways of coping with the sea, such as the inhabitants of the raised settlements.
Most of these will be found in rural areas of each of the Caspian States.
63. The second opportunity for public participation involves primarily those who live in urban
and industrial areas, usually lacking traditional structures and ways of resource use.
2. Programme Implementation and Institutional Framework (Annex 5-9)
A. Regional Institutions
64. The CEP Steering Committee was composed during the PDF-B phase of representatives
from Caspian countries at the level of Deputy Ministers of Environment or equivalent rank,
individuals and representatives of international organizations, bilateral programs, and other
organizations that actively support the CEP.
65. The Regional Steering Committee for the Programme will be responsible for approving
strategic decisions and annual workplans, setting program direction, reviewing CEP progress,
and identifying new and additional funding related to implementation of projects under the
Caspian Environment Programme. Representatives of private sector and other organizations
that contribute to the CEP would be encouraged to participate in the Steering Committee. The
Steering Committee will provide policy-level liaison to national governments, through
Intersectoral Coordination in each country, regarding implementation of the program on the
country level, and will provide direction to the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) regarding
preparation of the Caspian Regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP).
66. The Programme Coordination Unit, once formed, would provide a coordination and
management structure for the development and implementation of the Caspian Environment
Programme in accordance with the rules and procedures of GEF/UNDP and EU/TACIS
consistent with directions provided by the Steering Committee. Specific attention will be given
to the development of a regional intersectoral coordination initiative so as to fully involve the
private sector in the Caspian Environment Programme. This regional intersectoral coordination
function will liaise closely with those national institutions and agencies which have been
designated responsibility for such intersectoral coordination (see National Institutions below).
67. Caspian Regional Thematic Centres shall be based upon existing institutions with the best
available regional expertise in selected thematic areas. They will be responsible for:
development of a work plan and implementation of activities in respective thematic area,
regional coordination within area of competency, relevant regional recommendation
development, guidance and strategy within area of competency, assistance in development of
the TDA and UIP, assist in development and implementation of the National Action Plans
(NAPs) and Strategic Action Plan (SAP).
B. National Institutions
68. Intersectoral Coordinating Committees in each of the Caspian littoral states will provide
guidance and ensure coordination of a wide range of National institutions and organizations
directly responsible for the development and implementation of the Programme at the National
level. The Intersectoral Coordinating Committee will have a full time, small secretariat
(national and donor-supported) reporting to (under the direction of) the National Focal Point,
and will serve as the national liaison with the PCU. Representation by the government will be
expected at the deputy minister level.
69. As was done during the design of the framework TDA during the PDF-B, the governments
of Caspian countries will nominate National TDA Experts for finalization of the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis. These experts will assist the Intersectoral Coordination Committee in each
country and advise the Programme on background information, transboundary environmental
problem analysis, root causes, and needed sectoral and institutional changes for the successful
management of Caspian resources.
C. Project Implementation
70. The UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) served as Executing Agency during the PDF-B
phase and will continue to serve as Executing Agency for the UNDP-implemented portion of
the Project. The World Bank and UNDP will coordinate execution of their respective project
components.
VI. PROJECT COSTS
71. Project Costs (See Table 1, page 23)
Incremental Costs are defined in Annex 1.
Table 1: VI. PROJECT COSTS
Increment (A-B)
Component Sub-component
Gov GEF EU UNEP
UNDP WB Private
I. Project
A. Programme Coordination Mechanism
200,000
1,574,000
78,480
100,000
300,000
100,000
Coordination
I. Project
B. Programmatic Support for Caspian Regional Thematic
1,220,000
616,800
313,920
50,000
Coordination
Centres
I. Project
C. Intersectoral Coordination (including private sector) and
134,000
0
Coordination
Involvement in SAP, NAP and TDA Formulation Process
II. TDA
A. Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant Levels
325,000
0
994,000
II. TDA
B. Assessment of Transboundary Biodiversity Priorities
350,000
0
75,000
II. TDA
C. Effective Regional Information and Data Management
300,000
152,600
20,000
II. TDA
D. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
325,000
196,200
III. Legislative A. Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and
615,000
43,600
560,000
Framework &
Economic Frameworks for SAP Implementation
Convention
IV. PIPs
A. Priority Investment Portfolios for Transboundary
2,000,000
1,449,700
250,000
Priorities
V. Formulation A. Strategies to Strengthen Contaminant Abatement and
135,000
1,068,200
of SAP & NAP
Control Policies and Procedures
V. Formulation B. Strategies for Sustainable Management of Fish Resources
60,000
1,024,600
200,000
of SAP & NAP
and Other Commercially Exploited Aquatic Bioresourses
V. Formulation C. Strategies for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area
300,000
0
of SAP & NAP
Planning and Management
V. Formulation D. Strategies to Live With Water Level Fluctuations
25,000
381,500
of SAP & NAP
V. Formulation E. Strategies for Combating Coastal Desertification and Land
50,000
795,700
of SAP & NAP
Degradation
V. Formulation F. Strategies for Sustainable Human Development and
25,000
54,500
of SAP & NAP
Health
V. Formulation G. Regional Emergency Response Actions to Non-
200,000
0
75,000
of SAP & NAP
hydrocarbon Chemical Spills and Other Biohazards
I. Project
H. Public Awareness and Involvement in CEP, SAP and NAPs
300,000
98,100
Coordination
V. Formulation I. Formulation and Endorsement of Strategic Action
305,000
174,400
of SAP & NAP
Programme (SAP) and National Action Plans (NAPs) for
Priority Transboundary Issues.
Total:
1,420,000
7,634,800
5,831,500
560,000
100,000
1,964,000
100,000
PDF: 349,920
Project Support Costs: 351,736
Total Project Costs: 18,316,596
The Total budget is divided between the implementing agencies as follows:
UNDP: 5,099,800
UNEP: 615,000
World Bank: 2,000,000
VII. MONITORING, EVALUATION & DISSEMINATION
1. Monitoring and Evaluation
71. Project objectives, sub-components and emerging issues will be regularly reviewed
and evaluated at annual meetings of the Programme Steering Committee. The project
will be subject to the various evaluation and review mechanisms of UNDP, including
PPER (Project Performance and Evaluation Review), TPR (Tri-partite Review), mid-term
Independent Evaluation and an external Evaluation and Final Report prior to the
termination of the project. The project will also participate in annual PIR (Project
Implementation Review) exercise of the GEF.
72. In addition, standard GEF indicators for monitoring and evaluation purposes will be
developed during the project for application in subsequent stages of the CEP. They will
consist of process indicators, stress reduction indicators, and environmental status
indicators.
2. Lessons Learned and Technical Reviews
73. This project will be involved from the start in the new GEF International Waters
Learning Exchange and Resource Network (IW: LEARN) program. IW: LEARN is a
distance education program whose purpose is to improve global management of
transboundary water systems. IW: LEARN will provide structured interactive
conferencing capacity across the portfolio of GEF International Waters projects which
will allow participants to share learning related to oceans, river basins, and coastal zone
management. For environmental professionals working on GEF-financed projects, IW:
LEARN will greatly expand opportunities for peer-to-peer consultation, collaborative
research with physically distant colleagues, opportunities to exchange best practices and
training modules among projects, and the delivery of short courses.
VII.
LIST OF ANNEXES
Required:
Annex 1.
Incremental Cost
Annex 2.
Log Frame Matrix
Annex 3.
STAP Roster Technical Review
Annex 4.
Listing of Expected Baseline Activities Associated with SAP
Optional Annexes, available upon request
Annex 5.
Analysis of Root Causes
This annex provides specific information on main root causes of
environmental degradation of the Caspian. Those root causes were
identified during the preparation of the Framework for the TDA, in the
PDF-B phase.
Annex 6.
CEP Organizational Structure
This annex illustrates the organizational structure for the CEP, including
governance, coordination, management and implementation modalities.
Annex 7.
Terms of Reference Steering Committee
This annex describe the structure and responsibilities of the Regional
Steering Committee, accountable for approving strategic decisions and
annual work plans, setting program direction, reviewing CEP progress,
and identifying new and additional funding related to implementation of
projects under the Caspian Environment Programme.
Annex 8.
Terms of Reference Programme Coordination Unit
This annex describe the structure and functions of the PCU, responsible
to provide a coordination and management structure for the
development and implementation of the Caspian Environment
Programme in accordance with the rules and procedures of GEF/UNDP
and EU/TACIS consistent with directions provided by the Steering
Committee.
Annex 9.
Terms of Reference Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
This annex describe the structure and functions of the CRTCs, responsible
for: development of a work plan and implementation of activities in
respective thematic area, regional coordination within area of
competency, relevant regional recommendation development, guidance
and strategy within area of competency, assistance in development of the
TDA and UIP, assist in development and implementation of the National
Action Plans (NAPs) and Strategic Action Plan (SAP).
Annex 10.
Terms of Reference Intersectoral Coordinating Committees
This annex describes the structure and functions of the country-specific
ISCC, responsible to provide guidance and ensure coordination of a wide
range of National institutions and organizations directly responsible for
the development and implementation of the Programme at the National
level. The Intersectoral Coordinating Function will have a full time, small
secretariat (national and donor-supported) reporting to (under the
direction of) the National Focal Point, and will serve as the national
liaison with the PCU. The ISCC will consist of officials at the deputy
minister level.
Annex 11.
Framework TDA
This annex is the Framework for the Caspian Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis, prepared during the PDF-B phase of the project. It represents a
pioneering effort by the Caspian riparian countries to identify perceived
transboundary problems, their root causes and areas were actions should
be proposed.
Annex 12.
Historic Regional Agreements
This annex documents several regional agreements born out of a desire
for regional cooperation. The Almaty Declaration on Environmental
Cooperation of May, 1994 is included.
Annex 13.
Copies of GEF Operational Focal Point Endorsement Letters
This annex includes English and Russian translations of each of the letters
from each of the Caspian riparian countries endorsing the GEF project.
ANNEX 1. INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS
Broad Development Goals
Five countries share the immense natural heritage of the Caspian. Despite their political
and social diversity, the people of the region share a common concern for the Caspian.
Today the Caspian faces significant environmental problems that arise from both
anthropogenic and natural causes. The five littoral countries share common problems
with pollution abatement and control from municipal and industrial sites in the Caspian
basin, as well as contributing non-point source contaminants from agricultural and other
sources. All of the littoral countries are urgently seeking to address problems caused by
water-level change in the Caspian, and all are also grappling with greatly reduced
catches of fish (especially the valuable sturgeon). The major perceived problems of the
Caspian Sea can be summarized as follow:
1)
Degradation of biodiversity, loss of coastal habitats, loss or imminent loss
of endangered species and their genomes
2)
Unsustainable use of commercial fish stocks (especially high value species)
3)
Degradation of landscape
4)
Desertification
5)
Poor or unsatisfactory human health quality, unsanitary conditions in
many beaches and bathing waters, unsafe drinking water, contaminated
fish and fish products, poorly or untreated sewage and industrial
discharges to coastal waters
6)
Inadequate freshwater resources
7)
Damage to coastal habitats and infrastructure from sea level fluctuations
The countries that emerged from the former Soviet Union (Azerbaijan, Kazakstan,
Russia, and Turkmenistan) are confronting difficult economic and administrative
adjustments that complicate environmental management and natural resource
protection efforts.
An international legal framework for cooperation in protection and sustainable use of
the Caspian environment is seen as a major overarching component of regional
cooperation at large. An urgent need for a cooperative framework is evident from the
ecological point of view and the need has been clearly pronounced by the littoral states.
In February 1998 a meeting of experts of the Caspian riparian states on the preparation
of a Framework Convention was held in Moscow. The meeting discussed a new draft of
the Framework Convention and considered further actions in order to assist in
developing such a legal document. The participants of the meeting agreed with the
proposed draft in general. The Caspian countries agreed to continue further
negotiations on the Framework Convention.
Baseline
The need for protection and management of the Caspian environment and its resources
has always preoccupied the Caspian States and since the dissolution of the former Soviet
Union (1991), there has been heightened awareness of such a need. Important
milestones in regional cooperation on the Caspian environment since 1991, include:
· A draft Convention on the Conservation and Utilisation of Bioresources of the
Caspian;
· The Baku Resolution of June, 1991;
· The Tehran Communiqué of October 1992;
· The Astrakhan Communiqué of October 1993;
· The Declaration on Environmental Cooperation in the Caspian, Almaty, May
1994;
· The Protocol of the Meeting on Programmes for the Protection of the
Environment in the Caspian Region, Almaty, 1994;
· The report of the joint meeting of the task force and TDA experts, Almaty, 1997;
· National reports on the state of the Caspian, 1998;
· Report of TDA Experts Meeting (including Framework TDA), Tehran, April,
1998;
· The decisions of the First meeting of the Interim Steering Committee of the CEP,
Ramsar, 1998.
Besides these activities the countries are engaged in a number of national, donor and
Implementing Agency (UNDP) financed activities which are directly or indirectly related
to the Caspian; some of these activities represent `baselines' in the context of the current
project (see Incremental Cost matrix). These activities can be summarised as follow:
· All of the countries have or are developing National programmes which address the
Caspian issues, some countries have some form of institutional framework for the
protection of their own coastal and marine environments.
· Each country is elaborating National Environmental Action Plan, which will later
produce the State of the Environment Report, in which a section on the Caspian will be
present. These Action Programmes will specifically address domestic problems;
· With assistance from UNEP, all countries are actively involved in the preparation of
Caspian Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Management of
the Caspian Environment and its Resources
· In each country a National data centre and a mechanism for data exchange exist in
some form;
· In some countries, with donor support, modern equipped monitoring laboratories are
established, in other countries monitoring capacities are weak and poorly focused;
· Most of the countries are financing or planning to finance the development of nature
reserves, protection of biodiversity, preparation (if not available) of Red Data books
describing endangered species etc.
· In all the countries national legislation on the exploitation of bioresources exist, but in
most countries enforcement is lacking. All the countries are cooperating on the
development of a regional legal mechanism;
· Each country is putting substantial efforts to the development of its coastal zone,
special regulations have been developed in some countries, and are developing in
others.
· Human health issues are of the first priority in most of the countries due to severe
problems occurring in the region. The implementation of regulations and legislation is
usually weak. Governments for the next three years allocate substantial financing.
· The national emergency response capabilities are poorly reinforced, legislation exists
but is inadequately implemented.
The explicit commitment by each of the five Caspian states and actions they have
already undertaken, are the best indication of the sound foundation for this Programme
and a guarantee that the activities and systems established by the Programme will
endure beyond International funding support to it.
In 1993, the five littoral states founded the Organisation for the Cooperation of the Caspian
Coastal Neighbouring Countries. Environmental protection and wise use of resources
were among the areas identified for cooperation. Difficulties regarding the Caspian's legal
status and the extent of national sovereign territories slowed down progress. There
seemed to be a consensus that this could be set aside for the time being in order to achieve
progress on those aspects which are not contentious.
At Almaty in May 1994, the littoral states adopted the Declaration on Environmental
Cooperation in the Caspian, through which they affirmed their desire to cooperate
constructively in environmental management and their commitment to cooperate fully in
the preparation and implementation of Programmes of joint activities for the protection of
the Caspian environment, with the assistance of the international community.
In Ramsar in May 1998, the Caspian Environment Programme was launched; the countries
have agreed on the location of the Programme Coordination Unit and the division of SAP
thematic areas for the CEP. The littoral states also adopted the framework for the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis.
Global Environmental Objective
The global environmental objective of the proposed project 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
populations of the region, while protecting human health, ecological integrity and the
region's sustainability for future generations.
The GEF intervention in the Caspian will be mainly based on the following assumptions:
· The public good characteristic of the Caspian provides littoral countries with an
incentive to use and abuse. Regional cooperation will be of the essence to address the
external costs of pollution; countries have little incentive to apply abatement
measures unilaterally. Thus though technical solutions might exist, an enabling
policy, institutional and structural framework is lacking
· Even if countries were to taken unilateral action, hanging threats would continue to
degrade the Caspian. A comprehensive approach is thus warranted involving all
countries.
· High transactions costs impede regional cooperation to address waterbody
degradation; these include the costs of communications between countries, building
the basis of trust, convening multi-stakeholder forums, learning about current and
emergent environmental problems, obtaining regional consensus on the need to
intervene, and finessing regional agreements regarding pollution quotas, fishery
takes etc.
· A thorough analysis of the determinants of degradation is lacking, including the
transboundary impacts of sectoral activities. While much data already exists, these
need to be collated and/or interpreted to uncover and prioritise root cause issues
that could be addressed through SAP implementation; the lack of such information
poses the risk that interventions will be wrongly targeted, undermining their
efficacy.
The potential global and regional benefits that will accrue if these problems are
comprehensively addressed will likely be substantial, including the protection of vital
ecological services, maintenance of productive uses of bioresources, safeguarding
biological diversity, human health, recreation etc. Inaction would lead to loss of these
benefits.
GEF Alternative
This would be accomplished by GEF provision of catalytic support for incremental costs
associated with the formulation of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and a
Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Caspian, which provides a sound technical
basis for a prevention-oriented project to address priority transboundary issues, consistent
with the guidance for GEF Operational Programme Number 8, "Waterbody-based
Operational Programme." The goal of this Operational Programme is to assist countries in
making changes in the ways that human activities are conducted in different sectors so
that the particular waterbody and its multi-country drainage basin can sustainably
support the human activities. Projects in this OP focus mainly on seriously threatened
waterbodies and the most imminent transboundary threats to their ecosystems as
described in the Operational Strategy. Consequently, priority is placed on changing
sectoral policies and activities responsible for the most serious root causes needed to solve
the top priority transboundary environmental concerns.
The GEF alternative would support a proposed project to:
1) Develop a regional mechanism for the sustainable development and management
of the Caspian environment through institutional framework, capacity building,
public awareness, and stakeholder training;
2) Complete a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of priority water-related
environmental concerns and root causes for the Caspian ecosystem; and
3) Formulate and endorse a Regional Strategic Action Programme and (5) National
Action Plans outlining priority actions (baseline and additional) to be taken on
behalf of sustaining the Caspian and its associated resources.
This would be accomplished through GEF support to facilitate key measures for
formulation of the SAP, combined with additional resources from a large number of
domestic and international sources. The participation of GEF would provide support for
incremental costs needed to prepare the TDA and formulate the SAP, including
additional transaction costs for joint planning activities, development of common
approaches to sectoral policies, data collection and analyses, and co-ordination of efforts
among the participating countries.
Consistent with the objectives of the GEF, the proposed project supports complementary
policy and technical measures on a regional basis for the reduction of contamination and
prevention of new types of pollution; development of effective regional information and
data management systems; protection of biodiversity; sustainable management of fish
resources; public awareness in environmental decision-making process; support for
Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Planning and Management to protect the critical
interface between the terrestrial and marine environments; strengthening institutional,
legal, regulatory frameworks, human health and emergency response preparedness; and
development of priority investment portfolios.
The proposed project, consistent with GEF guidance, would contribute significantly to
the "reduction of stress to the international waters environment" in this region and
support co-operating countries in "making changes in their sectoral policies, making
critical investments, and developing necessary programmes" to achieve these objectives.
The support of GEF will play an important catalytic role in the project, and the
participation of the European Community, international financial institutions, donors
and the private sector (especially oil companies) will also contribute to this multi-
country and multi-stakeholder effort. The emphasis in the individual project
components on the evaluation of sustainable mechanisms for self-financing of a number
of activities would contribute to the long-term financial sustainability of project initiated
actions.
The GEF alternative would support a regionally led initiative to promote the
management and conservation of the coastal and marine resources of the Caspian. It
would greatly facilitate the abilities of co-operating countries to address transboundary
environmental issues and common natural resources management concerns at the
regional level. The GEF alternative would allow for the realisation of a dynamic action
oriented work programme for the preparation of the SAP, to be undertaken on an
accelerated basis with support from a variety of sources. These goals would be realised
through support for the following specific project objectives:
1.
Programme Coordination Mechanism
This project component will establish the implementation structure for the CEP,
including the Steering Committee (responsible for providing overall policy
direction to the Programme), Programme Coordination Unit (responsible for
providing a coordination and management structure for the development and
implementation of the Caspian Environment Programme) and ISCC coordination
roles.
2.
Programmatic Support for Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
This project component will establish and strengthen Caspian Regional Thematic
Centres (responsible for implementing activities in their respective thematic
area), based upon existing institutions with the best available regional expertise
in selected thematic areas.
3.
Intersectoral Coordination (including private sector) and Involvement in SAP,
NAP and TDA Formulation Process
This project component will establish the Intersectoral Coordination (responsible
for providing guidance and ensuring coordination of a wide range of national
institutions and organizations directly responsible for the implementation of the
Programme at the national level).
4.
Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant Levels
This component will evaluate existing data sets in order to provide solid
understanding of regional contaminant sources, flows and levels built into TDA.
High quality data collected will be collected and broadly disseminated.
Proposals in SAP for national commitments and donor support to upgrade
regional monitoring network.
5.
Assessment of Biodiversity Priorities
This component will help to undertake an ecological survey of the coastal and
marine species and habitats, their uses, values, and threats, for each of the five
Caspian states. The survey will result in an Inventory of Caspian Ecological
Resources. As part of the SAP, strategies will be developed for the management of
transboundary biodiversity, including threatened or endangered migratory
species. This component will greatly contribute to the protection of regional
biodiversity as well as the reinforcement of species and habitats of global
significance. Biodiversity data, necessary for TDA preparation, will be collected.
This component will result in comprehensive knowledge of the status of and
threats to Caspian biodiversity, broadly accessible biodiversity databases,
agreed-upon national (NAP) and regional (SAP) strategies for biodiversity
protection and conservation, and identification of actions to mitigate threats from
possible introduction of exotic species.
6.
Effective Regional Information and Data Management
This component is designed to develop important regional information
management tools for the decision-making and public awareness process. This
will include preparation of a Caspian Information System, regional
environmental Internet node and comprehensive bibliography. Special attention
will be drawn to the development of a Geographic Information System.
Specialised workshops and training programmes will be organised within this
component. This component will enhance capacity of decision-makers to
develop, implement and monitor the SAP and NAPs.
7.
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
This component will facilitate the preparation of the TDA based on the
preliminary elements of the Caspian TDA which were identified during the PDF-
B phase of the project. This preparatory work will be fully utilized for the
development of the full scale TDA, identifying major perceived problems, root
causes, hot spot identification, stakeholder involvement, and possible avenues
for improvement. Information from the TDA will play a specific role in assisting
countries in the identification of their PIPs (see 18 below)
8.
Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and Economic Frameworks for
SAP Implementation
This component will facilitate the finalisation and adoption of the Framework
Convention for the Protection and Sustainable Management of the Caspian
Environment and it Resources. This component will encourage and facilitate the
process of review and assessment of national legislation aimed towards
harmonisation at the regional level in SAP. It will provide assestance to the
region, education and training, to understand various international
environmental conventions, so countries can make informed decisions about
endorsing them and establishing appropriate legal, regulatory and institutional
frameworks for their implementation. Economic and other financial instruments
will be identified and assessed for sustainability of the regional environment
programme.
9.
Priority Investment Portfolios for Transboundary Priorities
This component will select criteria and a methodology to serve as consistent
guidelines for identification and selection of urgent investment priorities;
Potential investment projects for the Priority Investment Portfolios will be
identified and selected. Priority Investment Portfolio, linked to SAP and NAPs,
will be prepared addressing regional transboundary issues, with national and
donor commitments to finance.
10.
Strategies to Strengthen Contaminant Abatement and Control Policies and
Procedures
This component will evaluate national practices and capacities for effective
marine contaminant reduction and mitigation. A regional quality assurance
system will be designed and established. Support will be provided to upgrade
the regional monitoring network. Strengthen capacities through training and
other measure as appropriate; prepare Regional Approaches to Contamination
abatement/prevention. Identification in NAPs and SAP adequate actions for
contamination abatement and control.
11. Strategies for Sustainable Management of Fish Resources and Other
Commercially Exploited Aquatic Bioresources
This component will help to develop the preparation, under uniform guidelines, of
inventories of fisheries and other valuable bioresources stocks and fishing fleets.
To develop a common approach for the exploitation of aquatic bioresources, this
component will facilitate the establishment of regional coordination to deal with
poaching and illegal sales. This component will also evaluate existing aquaculture
facilities as well as identify their needs and effectiveness. Support will be
provided to develop an institutional framework for regional cooperation in the
management and conservation of transboundary resources as an integral part of
SAP.
12. Strategies for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Planning and
Management
This component will review existing national plans and facilitate the adoption
through SAP, of common regional approaches to ITCAP&M results in reduced
environmental degradation and loss of coastal habitats for migratory species and
preservation of global biodiversity. This activity will also strengthen national and
regional capacities to design, develop and implement ITCAP&M. Regional and
national commitments to expand ITCAP&M will be addressed in the SAP and
NAPs.
13.
Strategies to Live With Water Level Fluctuations
This component will facilitate better understanding of the causes of sea level
fluctuations, transboundary effects and the global significance. The NAPs and
SAP will identify commitments to adaptation activities.
14.
Strategies for Combating Coastal Desertification and Land Degradation
This component will help to better understand the problem of coastal
desertification and to develop the regional strategy for combating desertification
and land degradation as part of the SAP.
15.
Strategies for Sustainable Human Development and Health
This component will facilitate the compilation of a region-wide inventory of the
environmental health hazards in the Caspian coastal area, including climatic
extremes and natural disasters, occupational health practices, and solid and
liquid waste hazards, food contamination, malnutrition, access to safe drinking
water. National environmental epidimiology capacity will be strengthened
through regional training courses and information exchange. A Regional
Environmental Health Action Plan will be developed as part of the CEP Strategic
Action Programme.
16.
Regional Emergency Response Actions to Non-hydrocarbon Chemical Spills
and Other Biohazards
This component will evaluate regional capacities for effective emergency
response. Risk assessments will be prepared to identify potential high-risk
sources, along with information on sensitive habitats, working closely with the
countries and other oil companies. Regional emergency prevention and
contingency planning will be evaluated as a part of the TDA and SAP processes.
Proposals for SAP/NAP actions in the area.
17.
Public Awareness and Involvement in CEP, SAP and NAPs
This component will promote broad-based public awareness initiatives in NAPs
and SAP, and facilitate dialogues among local environmental NGOs, community
groups, private sector (especially oil and gas industries) and the Governments.
18.
Formulation and Endorsement of Strategic Action Programme and National
Action Plans for Priority Transboundary Issues.
Based on the TDA and country priorities addressed by NEAPs and other studies,
key areas to be addressed by NAPs and SAP will be identified. Special efforts
will be made to help the countries to prepare NAPs, refine and finalise regional
SAP, including identification of baseline and incremental costs of proposed SAP
actions.
System Boundary
The time boundaries for this project are the three-year project period during which it will
be implemented. Some of the benefits will clearly continue to accrue beyond this time
boundary. However, all the listed benefits will be achieved during the three-year
implementation period.
The geographic boundary of the project will be the entire Caspian Sea and its drainage
basin. Major rivers, especially Volga, as a main source of pollution, will be addressed
with their lower reaches as a priority and the rest only as much as possible.
The issues to be dealt with within the boundary of the project are:
(a)
inadequate institutional capacity for the management of transboundary
environmental issues;
(b)
contamination abatement;
(c)
protection of biodiversity
(d)
exploitation of living marine resources;
(e)
coastal habitat destruction and environmental degradation;
(f)
human health;
(g)
low public awareness and participation in environmental and resource
management; and
(h)
lack of recognised regional methodology for ITCAP&M.
Incidental Domestic Benefits
Over the long-term, a variety of domestic benefits would occur through implementation
of the proposed project. The most valuable domestic benefits to be gained from the
project are associated with substantially strengthened institutional and human capacity
in integrated water management, increased technical knowledge and public awareness
of Caspian environmental issues, and improved national capacities in environmental
legislation and enforcement. Each Caspian Regional Thematic Centre would receive
domestic benefits in the form of improved national capacities in the Thematic Centre
area of expertise. In addition, eventual implementation of the National Action Plans
would, by definition, deliver both national and global/regional benefits.
Costs
Baseline: 161,101,982 $ US
Alternative: 178,592,282 $ US
Incremental: 18,316,596 $ US
Annex 1: Incremental Cost Matrix
Component Sub-component
Cost Category
Cost
Domestic Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
($ million)
I. Project
A. Programme
Baseline
9,037,500
Some countries in the Caspian Region have
All countries are actively involved in the
Coordination Coordination
some form of institutional framework for the
preparation of Caspian Framework Convention.
Mechanism
protection of their own coastal and marine
No regional coordinating mechanisms, absence of
environments, but national efforts are usually regional legal documents.
insufficient to mitigate threats to the regional
Caspian ecosystem.
Alternative
11,439,980
Effective coordination and implementation of
Strong regional body and regional cooperation,
national activities, integration of these
enhanced stakeholders coordination and
environmental activities into national policies
communication at the regional level.
and investment programmes. Strengthened
institutional and human capacity through
training and active involvement of national
experts in the TDA and SAP preparation.
Increment
200,000
(Gov)
1,574,000 (GEF)
78,480 (EU)
100,000 (UNDP)
300,000 (WB)
100,000 (Private)
I. Project
B. Programmatic
Baseline
9,037,500
No specific thematic centres dealing with
Almost no interaction and cooperation between
Coordination Support for Caspian
Caspian problems in the countries (except
different institutions in the Caspian countries after
Regional Thematic
few cases)
the collapse of the Soviet Union
Centres
Alternative
11,338,220
Strengthened institutional and human capacity Strong cooperative institutional network to address
through training and active involvement of
Caspian transboundary problems.
national experts in the TDA and SAP
preparation.
Increment
1,220,000 (Gov)
616,800 (GEF)
313,920 (EU)
50,000 (WB)
Annex 1: Incremental Cost Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component Cost Category
Cost
Domestic Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
($ million)
I. Project
C. Intersectoral
Baseline
0
Some countries have established intersectoral
Some form of regional cooperation between
Coordination Coordination
coordination on Caspian environmental
Ministries of Environment
(including private
problems, ministries of environment usually
sector) and
weak.
Involvement in SAP,
NAP and TDA
Formulation Process
Alternative
134,000
Strong coordination between involved sectors.
Effective coordination and interaction between
Strengthen role of the Environmental
Caspian Countries, involvement in SAP process.
Ministries.
Increment
209,000 (GEF)
II. TDA
A. Effective
Baseline 4,829,250
Existing
National monitoring capabilities are
Regional monitoring network destroyed after
Regional
usually weak and poorly focused. No
USSR dissolution; poor regional interaction.
Assessment of
common standards or guidelines developed.
Countries developed a regional monitoring
Contaminant Levels
Few countries have well equipped
programme CASPAS, but no financial
monitoring laboratories and do not
commitments for its implementation have been
systematically use QA/QC practices.
made. No regional monitoring network available.
Absence of regional legal agreement to mitigate
contamination
Alternative
6,148,250
Fully
operational, upgrade and strengthened
Network of monitoring centres throughout the
national monitoring system in each country.
region. Reliable data to catalyze reduction of
Highly qualified trained staff. Ratification
existing and prevention of new types of
and implementation of international
contamination. Development and ratification of the
conventions by each Caspian state.
international convention to protect Caspian from
pollution.
Increment
325,000
(GEF)
994,000 (WB)
II. TDA
B. Assessment of
Baseline 11,181,600
Risk
assessment
information on vulnerable
Urgent need for the comprehensive overview on
Transboundary
habits and biodiversity threats is lacking,
the state of Caspian Biodiversity. No regional
Biodiversity
limited or out of date in most countries. Most strategy for the protection of Caspian biodiversity
Priorities
of the countries have Red data books of
exist. Bilateral agreements in place, but
endangered species and plans for protected
implementation are weak.
areas, but capacity for enforcement is weak in
most cases.
Annex 1: Incremental Cost Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component Cost Category
Cost
Domestic Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
($ million)
Alternative
11,606,600
National biodiversity conservation
Conservation of habitats and species of global
programmes in accordance with NEAP's.
significance. Regional network of protected areas
Institutional strengthening through training.
as a part of global one.
Prioritize threats and measure to avoid
threats to biodiversity.
Increment
350,000
(GEF)
75,000 (WB)
II. TDA
C. Effective
Baseline
2,157,750
Countries in the region have national
Data and information exchange is weak after the
Regional
environmental data centres, some have GIS.
collapse of the Soviet Union. No regional data
Information and
Data stored in different institutions are
centres. No regional quality assurance. Data
Data Management
difficult to access. No information or decision management activities proposed by CASPAS, but
support system available.
no financial support available.
Alternative
2,630,350
Strengthening or creation of national
Regional Caspian Networking Information System
environmental data centres and institutions
including data on Institutional capacities,
through provision of equipment, training and scientists, environmental projects, environmental
networking. Easy and reliable access to
data sets in the region and GIS, accessible via
electronic means of communication, data and
Internet to the world community. High quality,
information exchange. Stakeholders trained
reliable data on Caspian environmental issues.
and willing to use GIS and Information
Improved regional capacity for data collection,
systems.
integration, analysis and use in decision making.
Increment
300,000
(GEF)
152,600 (EU)
20,000 (WB)
II. TDA
D. Transboundary
Baseline
780,062
State of the Environment Reports, including
Lack of regional understanding
Diagnostic Analysis
national coastal and marine areas. Lack of
to coordinate joint actions to reduce or prevent
transboundary approach to the Caspian
transboundary impacts
environmental problems.
Alternative
1,301,262
Identification
of root causes of environmental Establishment of regional scientific and technical
degradation in the Caspian Region and
framework for addressing transboundary impacts
possible mitigation actions.
Increment
325,000
(GEF)
196,200 (EU)
Annex 1: Incremental Cost Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component Cost Category
Cost
Domestic Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
($ million)
III.
A. Strengthened
Baseline
1,465,350
All countries in the Region have some form of All countries are actively involved in the
Legislative
Institutional, Legal,
legal framework for the protection of their
preparation of Caspian Framework Convention.
Framework
Regulatory and
own coastal and marine environments but
No regional coordinating mechanisms exist,
&
Economic
enforcement is poor.
absence of regional legal documents.
Convention
Frameworks for SAP
Implementation
Alternative
2,683,950
Policy,
legal, economic framework for
Framework convention ratified. Existing national
addressing transboundary problems
and international laws and conventions surveyed.
established, institutions strengthen through
training in environmental planning and
management.
Increment
615,000
(GEF)
43,600 (EU)
560,000 (UNEP)
IV. PIPs
A. Priority
Baseline
78,780,000
Insufficient financial support for the
No regional investment strategy developed.
Investment
protection and rehabilitation of the Caspian
Portfolios for
Environment.
Transboundary
Priorities
Alternative
82,279,700
Improved
national capacities, priority
Priority Investment Portfolios prepared and donors
investment projects developed for each
identified.
country.
Increment
2,000,000
(GEF)
1,449,700 (EU)
250,000 (WB)
V. SAP &
A. Strategies to
Baseline
4,829,250
Existing National capacities for effective
Lack of Regional capacities for effective marine
NAPs
Strengthen
marine contaminant reduction and mitigation contaminant reduction and mitigation; poor
Contaminant
are usually weak and poorly focused. No
regional interaction.
Abatement and
common standards or guidelines developed.
Control Policies and
Few countries use QA/QC practices.
Procedures
Alternative
5,957,450
Strengthen national capacities for effective
Regional system of effective marine contaminant
marine contaminant reduction and
reduction and mitigation. Regional quality and
mitigation.
assurance system established.
Annex 1: Incremental Cost Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component Cost Category
Cost
Domestic Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
($ million)
Increment
135,000
(GEF)
1,068,200 (EU)
V. SAP &
B. Strategies for
Baseline
7,652,850
Stocks assessment information is lacking,
Assessment of transboundary stocks is practically
NAPs
Sustainable
limited or out dated in most countries.
non-existent. No regional fisheries agreements or
Management of Fish
National fisheries legislation exists in all
convention in place. Threatened and endangered
Resources and Other
countries but capacity for enforcement is weak
migratory species are protected on a very small
Commercially
in most cases.
scale.
Exploited Aquatic
Bioresources
Alternative
8,937,450
Increased baseline information and
Sustainable use of transboundary stocks building on
strengthened national capacity for sustainable
sound stocks assessment, region-wide monitoring
aquatic resource management.
and management plans. Conservation of threatened
and endangered species emphasising public
awareness and participation.
Increment 60,000
(GEF)
1,024,600 (EU)
200,000 (WB)
V. SAP &
C. Strategies for
Baseline 4,987,500
Uncoordinated
development of valuable
No Regional approaches developed.
NAPs
Integrated
coastal zones predominates in most countries
Transboundary
of the Region and institutional capacity to
Coastal Area
address these issues is weak.
Planning and
Management
(ITCAP&M)
Alternative
5,287,500
Strengthened institutional and human
Adoption of common regional approaches to
capacity in each country to develop and
ITCAP&M results in reduced enironmental
implement national ITCAP&M.
degradation and loss of coastal habitats for
migratory species and global biodiversity; by
catalysing the development and implementation of
national ITCAP&M through regional training,
exchange of lessons learned and sustainable
financing secured.
Incremental 300,000
(GEF)
Annex 1: Incremental Cost Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component Cost Category
Cost
Domestic Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
($ million)
V. SAP &
D. Strategies to Live
Baseline
1,602,375
National land and water guidelines that take
No Regional strategy developed. Exchange of
NAPs
With Water Level
into account level fluctuations are lacking or
information and data on the level changes are poor
Fluctuations
poorly developed.
and inefficient.
Alternative
2,008,875
Adopted well-defined plans to live with
Better understanding of the causes of the level
water fluctuations, according National and
fluctuations, transboundary effects and global
regional requirements.
significance
Increment
25,000
(GEF)
381,500 (EU)
V. SAP &
E. Strategies for
Baseline
1,996,125
Some countries have institutional framework
Implementation of Convention on desertification is
NAPs
Combating Coastal
for combating coastal desertification
weak.
Desertification and
Land Degradation
Alternative
2,841,825
National and regional desertification plans
Ratification and implementation of Desertification
developed, countries and donors
Convention
commitments for implementation
Increment
50,000
(GEF)
795,700 (EU)
V. SAP &
F. Strategies for
Baseline
6,150,000
Severe human health problems in some
No regional agreements, framework or
NAPs
Sustainable Human
countries, poor implementation of national
coordination.
Development and
legislation.
Health
Alternative
6,229,500
Strengthen national environmental
Regional Environmental Health Action Plan which
epidemiology capacity through regional
will be a part of the CEP Strategic Action
training courses, information exchange and
Programme.
improved access to medical/scientific
literature.
Increment
25,000
(GEF)
54,500 (EU)
V. SAP &
G. Regional
Baseline
4,275,000
National network for emergency response
Regional coordination for chemical spill response
NAPs
Emergency
weak and insufficiently equipped,
remains underdeveloped.
Response Actions to
contingency plans developed in some
Non-hydrocarbon
countries but the implementation is poor.
Chemical Spills and
Other Biohazards
Alternative
4,550,000
National
marine pollution preparedness,
Major reduction in risks of regional environmental
response and contingency plans enforced.
degradation. Caspian Regional contingency plan,
Strong regional network of responsible authorities.
Increment
200,000
(GEF)
75,000 (WB)
I. SAP &
H. Public Awareness
Baseline
1,303,845
Few countries have active environmental
Awareness programmes in the individual countries
NAPs
and Involvement in
NGOs. Public participation in resource
rarely cover regional issues.
CEP, SAP and NAPs
management and coastal development
decisions is weak.
Alternative
1,701,945
Increased environmental awareness at the
Increased public awareness and support for regional
national and community levels. Local
environmental issues. Enhanced overall
environmental NGOs and community groups
effectiveness of environmental awareness
obtain grants to carry out projects.
programmes through the organisation of concerted
region-wide activities, and exchange of lessons
learned through an active regional network of
NGOs and community groups.
Increment
300,000
(GEF)
98,100 (EU)
V. SAP &
I. Formulation and
Baseline 11,036,025
National
Environmental Action Plans address Poor coordination of NEAPs between countries.
NAPs
Endorsement of
selected domestic Caspian problems.
Strategic Action
Programme (SAP)
and National Action
Plans (NAPs) for
Priority
Transboundary
Issues
Alternative
11,515,425
National
Caspian Action Plans endorsed and
Regional Strategic Action Plan with countries and
implemented and coordinated with regional
donor commitments baseline and incremental
SAP.
interventions identified.
Increment
305,000
(GEF)
174,400 (EU)
Annex 1: Summary Incremental Cost Matrix
Component Sub-component
Baseline (B) Alternative (A)
Increment (A-B)
Gov GEF EU
UNEP
UNDP
WB
Private
I. Project
A. Programme Coordination Mechanism
9,037,500
11,439,980
200,000 1,574,000
78,480
100,000 300,000
100,000
Coordination
I. Project
B. Programmatic Support for Caspian Regional Thematic
9,037,500
11,338,220 1,220,000
616,800
313,920
50,000
Coordination
Centres
I. Project
C. Intersectoral Coordination (including private sector) and
0
134,000
134,000
0
Coordination
Involvement in SAP, NAP and TDA Formulation Process
II. TDA
A. Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant Levels
4,829,250
6,148,250
325,000
0
994,000
II. TDA
B. Assessment of Transboundary Biodiversity Priorities
11,181,600
11,606,600
350,000
0
75,000
II. TDA
C. Effective Regional Information and Data Management
2,157,750
2,630,350
300,000
152,600
20,000
II. TDA
D. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
780,062
1,301,262
325,000
196,200
III. Legislative A. Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and
1,465,350
2,683,950
615,000
43,600 560,000
Framework &
Economic Frameworks for SAP Implementation
Convention
IV. PIPs
A. Priority Investment Portfolios for Transboundary Priorities
78,780,000
82,279,700
2,000,000 1,449,700
250,000
V. SAP & NAP A. Strategies to Strengthen Contaminant Abatement and
4,829,250
5,957,450
135,000 1,068,200
Control Policies and Procedures
V. SAP & NAP B. Strategies for Sustainable Management of Fish Resources
7,652,850
8,937,450
60,000 1,024,600
200,000
and Other Commercially Exploited Aquatic Bioresourses
V. SAP & NAP C. Strategies for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area
4,987,500
5,287,500
300,000
0
Planning and Management
V. SAP & NAP D. Strategies to Live With Water Level Fluctuations
1,602,375
2,008,875
25,000
381,500
V. SAP & NAP E. Strategies for Combating Coastal Desertification and Land
1,996,125
2,841,825
50,000
795,700
Degradation
V. SAP & NAP F. Strategies for Sustainable Human Development and
6,150,000
6,229,500
25,000
54,500
Health
V. SAP & NAP G. Regional Emergency Response Actions to Non-
4,275,000
4,550,000
200,000
0
75,000
hydrocarbon Chemical Spills and Other Biohazards
V. SAP & NAP H. Public Awareness and Involvement in CEP, SAP and NAPs
1,303,845
1,701,945
300,000
98,100
V. SAP &NAP I. Formulation and Endorsement of Strategic Action
11,036,025
11,515,425
305,000
174,400
Programme (SAP) and National Action Plans (NAPs) for
Priority Transboundary Issues
Total 161,101,982
178,592,282 1,420,000 7,639,800 5,831,500 560,000 100,000 1,964,000
100,000
PDF: 349,920
Project Support Costs: 351,736
Total Project Costs: 18,316,596
ANNEX 2. LOGFRAME MATRIX
Component Intervention
Logic Objectively
Verifiable Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Indications
Long-term Objectives: To
A framework and coordination for
Steering Committees (SC)
Assume continued national commitment to the regional
ensure environmentally
regional and national
annual reports; PCU
program at each sector level, including offer of
sustainable development
interventions; establish Steering
documents;
resources. The ability of the SC and PCU to formulate
and management of the
Committee;
and implement community-based solutions relies on
Caspian environment,
PCU and CRTCs reports;
the support of national agencies through coordinated
including living resources
Rehabilitation and sustainable
(but independent) actions. The GEF project will create
and water quality, so as to
management of the Caspian
Intersectoral Coordinating
a model that can be adopted in the future as a
obtain the utmost long-term
environment;
Committees (ISCC) annual
permanent activity of the individual national sectors.
benefits for the human
reports.
populations of the region,
Multi-sectoral participation in the
Clearly articulated and specified achievable goals must
while protecting human
management of Caspian
be identified at the start of the program; maintaining a
health, ecological integrity
environment.
tight focus on these goals needs to be a program
and the region's
priority. Diffuse and ever-changing goals will
sustainability for future
guarantee inaction.
generations.
A direct and continuous communication between the
Steering Committee and the ISCC will be essential for
the various sectors to recognize the value (to them) of a
regional approach. Self-interest and short-term
national priorities are realities that need to be
incorporated into CEP recommendations.
Project purpose:
Final TDA prepared and agreed;
TDA published and broadly
The TDA addresses the management issues of
Formulation of a
disseminated;
importance to the national agencies (sectors) and is
Transboundary Diagnostic
Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
prepared with their input and in terms that are relevant
Analysis (TDA) and a
formulated and endorsed at
Countries endorse SAP;
to them.
Strategic Action Programme ministerial level in each country;
(SAP) to manage coastal
National and donor
A non-technical synthesis of the SAP, will be presented
resources and achieve
Improved national and regional
commitments to financing SAP
for ministerial approval with input from each state.
sustainable development for capacities for pollution monitoring; and CNAP implementation;
Multiple reports are required to meet different needs;
the Caspian
overly long and overly technical documents risk failure
Caspian National Action Plans
PCU and CRTC reports.
at the ministerial and at the donor level.
(CNAPs) for each country.
Develop a mechanism to
Remedial actions can be costly and/or unpopular in
objectively measure effects
some sectors. A well-designed monitoring program
of management actions
will provide objective technical information with which
to assess the success (or failure) of specific management
actions and can be used to adjust future actions.
ANNEX 2. LOGFRAME MATRIX (continued)
Component Sub-component
Objectively
Verifiable
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Indications
I. Project
A. Programme
Steering Committee begins to
Steering Committee Terms of
The "Regional Management Network" will permit 2-
Coordination
Coordination Mechanism
function;
Reference (TORs) and meeting
way communication between the various national
reports;
sectors and the regional program. The program (i.e., SC
and PCU) must effectively communicate the issues and
Programme Coordination Unit
PCU TOR's, staff hired, PCU
the suggested remedies to the national sectors and be
(PCU) established and operational.
documents.
responsive to national real and perceived needs.
I. Project
B. Programmatic Support
Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
CRTCs and TORs work plan and The CRTC's will form a network permitting
Coordination
for Caspian Regional
(CRTCs) established and
reports.
communication of important programme achievements
Thematic Centres
operational.
to the governments and public.
I. Project
C. Intersectoral
Secretariats for the Intersectoral
TOR for ISCC, annual reports.
The ISCC must effectively communicate the issues and
Coordination
Coordination (including
Coordinating Committees
the suggested remedies to the national sectors and be
private sector) and
established and operational.
responsive to national real and perceived needs.
Involvement in SAP, NAP
and TDA Formulation
Process
II. TDA A.
Effective Regional
High quality data collected and
Monitoring data reports, annual
A well-designed monitoring program will provide
Assessment of
broadly disseminated;
reports;
objective technical information with which to assess the
Contaminant Levels
success (or failure) of specific regional management
actions and can be used to guide future actions. A
strong program of contaminant abatement and control
Donors and country commitments
Letters of intent/commitment
will reduce marine contamination at its source, which is
to the regional monitoring network
from countries and donors.
the most effective way to address this issue. Such a
implementation.
program needs to identify costs of environmental
remediation and clean-up as well as capital costs of new
infrastructure in order to fairly explain full costs. In-
country and international sources of support will need
to be identified and secured to ensure acceptance and
implementation.
Annex 2: Log Frame Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component Objectively
Verifiable Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Indications
II. TDA B.
Assessment of
Definition and assessment of
National reports and regional
Biodiversity is a catch-all term that needs to clearly
Transboundary Biodiversity
Caspian Biodiversity;
assessment on the status of
focus on specific regional issues on which effective
Priorities
Biodiversity published;
actions can be taken (e.g., exotic species).
Biodiversity CRTC report;
Protection of natural gene pools (including non-
commercial species which support economically
Measures to prevent accidental Ballast water treatment agreement;
valuable resources) by a variety of mechanisms
introduction of exotic species
will be needed to address this issue.
developed;
Regional Caspian Red Data
Red Data Book published and on-
Book (threatened and
line.
endangered species),
developed.
II. TDA C. Effective Regional
Regional Caspian Information
On-line system on WWW, reports;
Full access to CEP data and information is essential
Information and Data
System including meta-level
to national sector participation in a cooperative
Management
data developed and used by
regional program. Data and interpreted
various stakeholders;
information, in a form relevant and useful to each
national sector, is necessary to achieve full
Caspian Geographic
GIS published on CD;
"information access". Use of electronic media (i.e.,
Information System developed;
WWW, CD, GIS, etc.) is growing rapidly in all
parts of the world and this can be expected to be a
Caspian Environment
Regional Environmental Internet
primary route of information exchange in the near
Programme activities and data
Node with CEP home page on
future; hard copy reports remain essential during
broadly disseminated via
Internet.
this transition period. The CEP should assist
Internet.
national sectors with the acquisition of
hardware/software to use electronic media and to
catalyze training in its use.
II. TDA D. Transboundary Diagnostic Draft Transboundary
Draft TDA made available for
Early preparation of a draft TDA will serve as a
Analysis (TDA)
Diagnostic Analysis developed; comment in region;
guide and help the national sectors to
conceptualize the scope and direction of the
Expert meetings and regional
Meeting reports and revised TDA;
regional cooperative response. Open discussion
workshops for TDA revision,
and national sector participation in TDA
priority formulation and
development will provide a "sense of ownership"
identification of `root causes' of
that is essential for long-term international
environmental problems;
cooperation.
TDA published and available on-
line; non-technical summary also
TDA finalized and broadly
disseminated.
disseminated.
Annex 2: Log Frame Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component
Objectively
Verifiable Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Indications
III. Leslative
A. Strengthened Institutional,
Framework Convention finalized
Legal/enforcement
Effective environmental management and resource
Framework
Legal, Regulatory and
and ratified;
mechanisms status report;
protection derives from a combination of regulatory
and
Economic Frameworks for
and non-regulatory actions. Current regulatory
Convention
SAP Implementation
Current national and international
authorities and national sector jurisdictions are not
legal/enforcement mechanisms
Selected reports and studies;
based on natural system scales and probably overlap
reviewed;
and are perhaps mutually in conflict. Before
recommendations for effective regulatory changes
Harmonious application of the
can be made, a survey of existing national and
Environmental Impact Assessment Report, stakeholders involved.
international regulations needs to be made.
established;
Stakeholders trained.
IV. PIPs A. Priority Investment
Priority Investment Portfolios
Summary report on PIP;
Financial support for recommended actions needs to
Portfolios for Transboundary
prepared;
be integrated into CEP recommendations from the
Priorities
beginning. While international and national
Feasibility study on economic
Progress reports.
government support is anticipated, private
instruments completed.
commercial and industrial activities will also supply
substantial funds to the Programme.
V.
A. Strategies to Strengthen
This component of the Programme will be primarily supported by EU/TACIS
Formulation of Contaminant Abatement and
SAP and NAPs Control Policies and
Procedures
Annex 2: Log Frame Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component
Objectively
Verifiable Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Indications
V.
B. Strategies for Sustainable Regional working group on the
Working group reports;
Maintenance of sustainable fish populations
Formulation of Management of Fish
sturgeon fishery established;
will require the reduction of system stresses,
SAP and NAPs Resources and Other
including chemical contamination and
Commercially Exploited
Common methodology for the
Countries agreement
fishing pressure. Such remedial actions
Aquatic Bioresources
exploration of aquatic bioresources
directly affect individuals or organizations
developed and agreed;
now doing business in the region and early
identification/ education of stakeholders
Progress reports.
will be necessary for compliance with these
Regional coordination to deal
actions. Some mechanism to compensate
effectively with poaching and illegal
the affected stakeholders must be found to
sales established;
gain their cooperation.
Identify and secure resources
Displacement of current economic activities
(funding, loans, re-training) to shift
that now result in stress to valuable fishery
some portion of the fishing industry
populations cannot be achieved through
to other economic areas.
regulation alone.
V.
C. Strategies for Integrated
Regional organizational framework
Progress and ITCAP&M
Regional, trans-national resource
Formulation of Transboundary Coastal
for integrated coastal zone
CRTC reports;
management problems cannot be resolved
SAP and NAPs Area Planning and
management established;
by uncoordinated national actions. Regional
Management
solutions must be developed and
Guidelines and procedures for
Guidelines published and
implemented via multi-national
Integrated Coastal Area Planning &
translated to national
cooperation.
Management developed.
languages.
V.
D. Strategies to Live with
This component of the Programme will be primarily supported by EU/TACIS
Formulation of Water Level Fluctuations
SAP and NAPs
V.
E. Strategies for Combating
This component of the Programme will be primarily supported by EU/TACIS
Formulation of Coastal Desertification and
SAP and NAPs Land Degradation
V.
F. Strategies for Sustainable
This component of the Programme will be primarily supported by TBD
Formulation of Human Development and
SAP and NAPs Health
Annex 2: Log Frame Matrix (continued)
Component Sub-component
Objectively
Verifiable Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Indications
V.
G. Regional Emergency
Regional marine pollution
Emergency response CRTC
Pollution emergencies do not recognize national
Formulation
Response Actions to Non-
preparedness, response and
reports; regional contingency
borders and regional response is necessary.
of SAP and
hydrocarbon Chemical Spills
contingency plan developed.
plan implemented.
Development of contingency plans and adequately
NAPs
and Other Biohazards
equipping and training of responders is essential.
Enforcement of pollution abatement is an essential
component of this sub-component.
V.
H. Public Awareness and
Key stakeholders identified and
Report on stakeholder
All recommendations made by the CEP regional
Formulation
Involvement in CEP, SAP and involved in project activities,
analysis, stakeholders
program for remedial and resource protection action
of SAP and
NAPs
including public sector and
consultation reports;
will require trade-offs and will negatively affect
NAPs
private groups;
someone. To gain cooperation and compliance, the
Public awareness and
rationale for action and the real costs incurred need to
Public awareness and
environmental education
be fully understood by the affected groups. CEP needs
environmental education on
materials (print and on-line);
to actively assist these groups in finding support to
Caspian environmental issues
attenuate the negative effects of resulting changes.
enhanced;
Strong Regional NGO's network
Reports from annual NGO
established.
forum, NGO directory (print
and on-line).
V.
I. Formulation and
Draft Caspian National Action
Caspian National Action
A SAP, which explicitly includes estimated total costs
Formulation
Endorsement of Strategic
Plans prepared, based on TDA
Plans published;
(level of effort) and clearly indicates sectors responsible
of SAP and
Action Programme (SAP) and and reports;
for each recommended action, is a prerequisite for
NAPs
National Action Plans (NAPs)
Final SAP with baseline and
national endorsement and implementation. Thorough
for Priority Transboundary
Ministerial Conference held;
incremental costs endorsed;
preparation prior to the Ministerial Conference is
Issues
Published SAP and on-line;
necessary to fully apprise each national sector of the
SAP broadly disseminated and
content and costs of the SAP that they will be asked to
publicized;
endorse. Program support from outside the national
Letters of intent/commitment sectors is an essential "carrot" to help persuade
Donors and countries committed from countries and donors.
endorsement.
to financing SAP
implementation.
ANNEX 3:
STAP REVIEW OF THE GEF CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
PROJECT BRIEF
1. Overall Impression
The potential use of any coastal zone in particular enclosed and land-locked seas such as
the Caspian Sea require joint and coordinated action programmes by the riparian states.
Such seas often function as a waste receiving place for wastes produced by coastal
countries as well as wastes produced by human activities outside the area crossing its
geographic boundaries through natural transport mechanisms such as rivers,
atmospheric transport etc. The ambient water quality can affect various human
activities, such as commercial fishing, harbor activities, exploration of oil, recreation;
negative changes of water quality often provides the needed public pressure for
initiating a well defined management action as in the case of the Caspian Sea.
2. Relevance & Priority
Considering the immense environmental problems, which the region faces, and the need
for urgent solutions, this is a well-timed project.
3. Approach
The general approach of the project is appropriate; during the execution stage the
outcome of the GEF Black Sea Environment Project should be utilized.
4. Objectives
If the main goal of the project is to obtain sustainable development and management of
the Caspian environment, the objectives stated in the project document are valid and
well defined.
5. Background & Justification
It is evident from the observations that the Caspian Sea receives large quantities of
domestic and industrial wastewater mostly in untreated forms. In addition the
hydrological cycles of the region's rivers, whose run-offs are detrimental to the basic
ecological characteristics of the basin, are being manipulated strongly. Furthermore,
biotic and abiotic phenomena, which develop in marine areas, cannot be limited by
national boundaries and the Caspian Sea is a good example to illustrate this fact.
6. Activities
Activities related to the Programme Co-ordination Mechanism (Component I and
Component III) are all well defined, realistic and easy to implement. Transboundry
Diagnostic Analysis (Component II) requires skilled manpower, outside expertise and
furthermore concerted action between coastal states. Implementation of this component
should be coordinated with care.
7. Project Funding
Not enough data. However comparing the expected aims, coverage and timeframes
with the GEF Black Sea Environment Project, the suggested funding might be enough.
8. Time Frame
Taking the outcome of GEF Black Sea Environment Project and going through the
project activities carefully, the suggested time frame looks realistic.
9. Rationale for GEF Support
As indicated in the project brief the proposed project is well within the scope of
"Waterbody Based Operational Programmes" and I strongly recommend GEF support
for this important and timely project.
Turgut I. Balkas, Prof.
Dean, Engineering Faculty
Fatih University
Bykekmece
034900 Istanbul
TURKEY
Tel: 90-212-889 0844
Fax: 90-212-889 0839
e-mail: balkas@fatih.edu.tr
Annex 4: Listing of Expected Baseline Activities Associated with SAP
Project Output Azerbaijan
Iran
Kazakstan
Russia
Turkmenistan
Total
Project
Component
1) Programme Coordination Mechanism
150,000
1,050,000
1,275,000
15,600,000
0
18,075,000
3) Effective Regional Information and
300,000 1,050,000 750,000
0
57,750 2,157,750
Data Management
4) Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant
675,000 1,706,250 2,250,000 104,250
93,750 4,829,250
Levels.
5) Assessment of Biodiversity Priorities
6,750,000 1,312,500 1,500,000 1,222,500
396,600 11,181,600
6) Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
90,000
525,000
78,750
60,000
26,312
780,062
7) Priority Investment Portfolios for Caspian
18,000,000 3,937,500 22,500,000
0 34,342,500 78,780,000
Environmental Problems
9) Public Awareness and Involvement in CEP, SAP
75,000 1,050,000 150,000
0
28,845 1,303,845
and NAPs
10) Strategies to Strengthen Institutional, Legal,
150,000 1,050,000 150,000
0
115,350 1,465,350
Regulatory and Economic Frameworks for SAP
Implementation
11) Strategies to Strengthen Contaminant
675,000 1,706,250 2,250,000 104,250
93,750 4,829,250
Abatement and Control Policies and Procedures
12) Strategies for Sustainable Management of fish
0 1,312,500 1,500,000 4,725,000
115,350 7,652,850
Resources and Other Commercially Exploited
Aquatic Bioresourses.
13) Strategies for Integrated Transboundary Coastal
0 2,625,000 450,000 1,912,500
0 4,987,500
Area Planning & Management
14) Strategy to Live with Water Level
37,500 1,050,000 450,000
0
64,875 1,602,375
Fluctuations
15) Strategies for Combating Coastal Desertification
37,500 1,050,000 750,000
0
158,625 1,996,125
and Land Degradation
16) Strategies for Sustainable Human Development
0 1,050,000 3,225,000
0 1,875,000 6,150,000
and Health.
17) National and Regional Emergency Response
0 3,675,000 600,000
0
0 4,275,000
Actions to Non-hydrocarbon Chemical Spills
18) Strategic Action Programme and National Action
150,000 2,100,000 8,250,000
0
536,025 11,036,025
Plans Formulated and Endorsed at Highest
Government Level
TOTAL
27,090,000 26,250,000 46,128,750 23,728,500 37,882,733 161,101,982
Note: Outputs # 2 and #8 are not reflected here because they do not involve any baseline cost and are purely a GEF alternative.
# - Preparation of National Reports on the state of the Caspian environment
ANNEX 5: Analysis of Root Causes
Main Root Causes
Specific Features
1. Poor or ineffective legal framework at the
· Lack of observance of international environmental laws and regulations
national level and absence at the regional level,
· Lack of international coordination
inadequate implementation of regulatory
· Poorly defined national environmental laws and regulations
instruments
· Ineffective EIA's/Environmental audits
· Ineffective inspectorates
· Inadequate compliance and trend monitoring
· Ineffective economic/financial mechanisms
· Inadequate enforcement
2. Inadequate planning and management
· Poorly planned urban/industrial/ recreational/agricultural/coastal zone
practices
development
· Poor intersectoral coordination
· Accidental oil spills from historical offshore development
· Insufficient contingency plans
· Linear (cradle-to-grave) vs. cyclic approaches to human and industrial waste
and pollution management
· Farming and grazing in wetland areas (including deltas)
3. Poor or insufficient public involvement
· Lack of general awareness of environmental issues
· Deficient public participation/lack of transparency
· Inadequate identification and involvement of stakeholders
4. Sea level fluctuation
· Poorly planned urban/industrial/recreational/agricultural development in the
coastal zone
· Ineffective trend monitoring and forecast
· Inefficient emergency plans
· Resettlement of population and growing unemployment
· Desertification
5. Inadequate knowledge and infrastructure base · Insufficient understanding of sustainable fisheries yields in context of ecosystem
health and stability
· Poor understanding of sustainable, low cost pollution management approaches
and technologies
· Limited capacity to simulate human and ecosystem responses to different
marine resource and pollution management strategies
ANNEX 5: Analysis of Root Causes (cont.)
Main Root Causes
Specific Features
6. Inadequate funding base
· Unsettled economies in transition
· Early stages of natural resource development
· Low priority on national agendas
7. Underemployment/lack of jobs
· Poaching increased to gain livelihoods
· Degrading protected areas for fuel sources
8. Inappropriate environmental regulatory
infrastructure
9. Lack of regional legal instruments
· Inadequate regional cooperation
Annex 7
Terms of Reference
Caspian Environment Programme
Steering Committee
Background: The Steering Committee will be composed of representatives of the CEP
member countries, International Donor Agencies and selected observers. The CEP
Steering Committee will also act as the Steering Committee for the GEF/UNDP and the
EU/TACIS projects and any other projects which are incorporated under the CEP
umbrella.
Tasks:
· Provide overall policy direction to the Programme
· Assist in allocating Programme support for activities consistent with Programme
objectives
· Annually review the progress of the Programme and its projects
· Annually review and approve the work plan and the budget of the Programme and
its projects
· Provide guidance to the PCU in coordinating and managing the Programme and its
projects
· Elaborate a long-term environmental recovery plan for the Caspian region.
· Consider adding a representative from the private sector at a later date
Annex 8
Terms of Reference
Caspian Environment Programme
Programme Coordination Unit (PCU)
Background: The PCU would provide a coordination and management structure for the
development and implementation of the Caspian Environment Programme in
accordance with the rules and procedures of GEF/UNDP and EU/TACIS consistent
with directions provided by the Steering Committee.
Tasks:
· Assistance in networking between National Focal Points and Intersectoral
Coordinating Committees in all five coastal countries (Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakstan,
Russian Federation, Turkmenistan);
· Organization of technical cooperation activities between Caspian Regional Thematic
Centres in all five coastal countries for capacity-building, environmental policy,
management and pre-investment activities
· Organization of consultative meetings for introducing and implementing
programme activities;
· Collection and dissemination of information on policy, economic, scientific and
technical issues related to the programme; that are not addressed by the Caspian
Regional Thematic Centres
· Provision of support for the preparation of technical and pre-investment studies;
· Preparation of progress reports (administrative and financial) concerning
programme activities;
· Establishment of and assistance in networking between specialized institutions in
participating countries and technical specialists from elsewhere;
· Assistance in implementing pilot projects for the environment;
· Coordination of international, multi-lateral and bi-lateral environmental activities in
the Caspian, where appropriate;
· Programme management (financial, logistical and strategic) particularly in the
context of both the GEF/UNDP and EU/TACIS projects
Annex 9
Terms of Reference
Caspian Environment Programme
Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
Background: The Caspian Regional Thematic Centres shall be based upon existing
institutions with the best available regional expertise in selected thematic areas. They
will operate on the basis of working parties involving participation of interested coastal
countries together with outside experts where this is considered necessary.
Tasks:
· Develop a work plan and implement activities in respective thematic area
· Responsible for regional coordination within area of competency
· Organize and conduct working parties and training within area of competency
· Develop relevant regional recommendations, guidance and strategy within area of
competency
· Assist in development of the TDA and UIP
· Assist in development and implementation of the National Action Plan (NAP) and
Strategic Action Plan (SAP)
· Contribute scientific and technical advice to the formulation of proposals for national
and regional actions and donor funding
· Network with national and international institutions and specialists in respective
focal area
· Prepare and implement regional pilot projects
· Liaison closely with National Intersectoral Coordinating Committee and PCU
· Contribute scientific and technical expertise to CEP information system development
and public awareness activities
· Cooperate with other Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
· Develop and maintain a Database Management System within area of competence
Annex
10
Terms of Reference
Caspian Environment Programme
Intersectoral Coordinating Committees
Background: The Intersectoral Coordinating Committees will provide guidance
and ensure coordination of a wide range of National institutions and organizations
directly responsible for the implementation of the Programme at the National level. The
Intersectoral Coordinating Committee will have a full time, small secretariat (national
and donor-supported) reporting to (under the direction of) the National Focal Points,
and will serve as the liaison with the PCU.
Tasks:
· Ensure an integrated and coordinated approach to facilitating the sectoral changes
need for the long-term rehabilitation of the Caspian ecosystem
· Identify national modalities for the implementation of various components of CEP
· Develop, support and coordinate national networks of Caspian Regional Thematic
Centres
· Liaise activities of Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
· Coordinate and ensure timely delivery of national contributions to the Programme
· Assume responsibility for national contributions to Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Plan (SAP), and preparation of National Action
Plan (NAP)
· Develop proposals for submittal to the Programme Coordination Unit
· Liaison with Programme Coordination Unit (PCU)
· Facilitate national and donor contributions to necessary `baseline' activities needed
to rehabilitate the Caspian
· Assist in coordination and cooperation of the national Caspian Regional Thematic
Centres and with those in other CEP countries
· Prepare national funding for Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
· Assume responsibility for preparation of Urgent Investment Portfolio
Functi
on
M
odality
Governance
Steering Committee
Program
Coordination/
Coordination
Unit
Management
Azerbaijan
Caspian
Intersectoral
Regional
Coordinating Committee
Thematic Center(s)
Iran
Caspian
Intersectoral
Regional
Coordinating Committee
Thematic Center(s)
National
Kazakstan
Caspian
Implementation
Intersectoral
Regional
Coordinating Committee
Thematic Center(s)
Russian
Caspian
Intersectoral
Regional
Coordinating Committee
Thematic Center(s)
Turkmenistan
Caspian
Intersectoral
Regional
Coordinating Committee
Thematic Center(s)