Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005




Caspian Environment Programme



Stakeholder Analysis Revisit



Autumn 2004




Mary M. Matthews, Ph.D.


1

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Executive Summary

In 2001 the initial Caspian Regional Stakeholder Analysis was commissioned with the
objective of identifying major stakeholder groups, their interests and impact on the Caspian
environment. Also identification of potential conflicts between stakeholder groups was a key
task of the initial study. In summer 2004 this follow-up study was conducted in order to
observe trends in stakeholder interests, perceptions and concerns as they pertain to activities
of the Caspian Environment Programme.

Between July and November of 2004 225 surveys were collected from stakeholders in
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan Iran, Russia and Turkmenistan, as well as experts attending the
Caspian Environment Programme Steering Committee Meeting and World Bank hosted
Caspian Investment Forum held in Baku. These surveys were compiled in a database and
statistically analysed. The analysis compares results from 2001 and provides insights into the
shifts that have occurred among and within stakeholder groups over this time frame.

Six main issues are addressed in this analysis: improved fisheries; preservation of
biodiversity; protection from invasive species; reducing pollution in Caspian waters;
sustainable economic development with environmental care; and stronger civil society input
into decision making. Stakeholders were asked to prioritize these issues and respond to a
series of statements pertaining to these issues. These findings are summarized below.

Improved Fisheries:

The decline in certain fisheries is a predominant issue for the Caspian Environment
Programme. The decline in sturgeon fisheries as well as the decrease in other commercially
fished species, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union has drawn broad attention
from the international community. This issue was the highest priority issue in the first survey
where as now this has shifted significantly. This shift is reflected in the prioritization of the
issue, the perceived causes, the new legal regime and the wider view of conservation of
resources for future generations. There appears to be a deepening of understanding of the
complexity of the fisheries issue among stakeholder groups who were previously more
cohesive in their views. Additionally the shifting of the opinions may be a result of changes in
circumstances for those dependent upon fisheries for food, who are now adjusting to fewer
fish available. The perception of the legal regime, specifically an enforced system of mutually
agreed upon limits on fishing has broad support, though there are groups who are not
convinced of the effectiveness of such measures.

There is an overall decrease in the expected tensions between groups over fisheries
compared to the earlier study, but there is more internal division within more groups. This
bears watching, as measures are taken to improve the fish populations in the Caspian. The
major division between stakeholder groups is with regards to the cause of the decline. Oil
drilling and pollution are viewed by many as being a cause of declining fisheries currently. If
fish populations continue to decline, and coastal economies do not improve, it is possible that
efforts will lack support and the illegal harvests will continue, while blame is placed on those
who are not responsible. There is also some division regarding the immediate economic
needs faced by some stakeholder groups while donor and support groups have higher ideals
for conditions in the region.

Recommendations:
Continuation of public awareness building efforts focusing on the actual causes of
decline.
Targeting of public awareness building efforts to groups directly impacted by and
impacting fisheries decline.
Provide support and training materials for border guards and fisheries enforcement
authorities.
Assist national authorities in developing alternative income sources for coastal
residents

2

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Develop and provide training materials for assistance organizations that emphasize
sustainable development principles.
Support consumer awareness campaigns with regional, national and international
organizations.



Preservation of Biodiversity:

The protection of biodiversity is showing signs of garnering broader support in the Caspian
region compared to the stakeholder analysis conducted in 2001. This issue is ranked as the
second most important issue of the 6 addressed in the current study among all stakeholder
groups. There is an indication that the regional population would be receptive to an
informational campaign that focuses on the importance of biodiversity in the region, as a part
of sustainable development efforts. There are concerns among stakeholder groups about the
propensity to change behaviours of people in order to protect endangered species and
important habitats. Yet there is also new and strong support for a top down approach that
emphasizes limiting activities in certain areas of the coastal region. This puts additional
responsibility on those charged with enforcement and protection of these areas and attention
will need to be given to providing support and capacity building within these groups.

There are not expected to be strong tensions or conflicts across stakeholder groups regarding
preservation of biodiversity. There is division within stakeholder groups as they come to grasp
the complexity of biodiversity protection measures. This internal division within stakeholder
groups may be alleviated by increased education and through drawing clear linkages between
biodiversity protection and sustainable development throughout the region. Additionally, there
may be frustration on behalf of the assistance community who may not fully appreciate the
degree of economic challenges faced by some stakeholder groups. This could potentially
stymie effective project implementation if not addressed with sensitivity to all groups involved.
Over all there is strong consensus regarding preservation of biodiversity, though to maintain
this trajectory, efforts to support responsible stakeholder groups should be made that facilitate
concrete actions to improve environmental conditions in the region. This can be based on a
series of efforts made by and supported through CEP.


Recommendations
Develop informational materials for national press that emphasise the economic
importance of biodiversity in the region and list steps that can be taken by
stakeholders to help improve conditions
Provide a short training course for journalist on the importance of biodiversity in the
region
Provide key stakeholder groups with examples of how small changes in human
behaviour can induce concrete changes in biodiversity preservation with positive sum
scenarios highlighted
Provide enforcement groups such as fisheries enforcement/border guards and nature
preserve staff with support through information exchanges, strategy workshops, and
training by the authorities from other regions with similar challenges.
Develop informational materials on the economic importance of protecting regional
biodiversity for distribution through Interministerial Committees for related ministries.


Protection from invasive species:

The issue of the need for protection from invasive species remains a low priority over all for
stakeholders. Awareness of this issue has increased in comparison other issues and from the
previous study. Groups that now rank it as a high priority concern were not part of the
previous study. There were some shifts among groups in terms of the prioritization which
indicate a need for increased awareness building for the threat of invasive species in the
Caspian. The study shows that the concern for the threat from invasive species is closely
linked to geography rather than stakeholder group. Higher concern across stakeholders

3

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
groups is concentrated in Russia and Iran, while lower concern is evident in Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. This is probably due to the higher concentrations of invasive
species ­ jelly fish in the northern Caspian and invasive flora in the southern Caspian. This
geographic trend is supported by sighting of invasive species in the northern and southern
regions of the Caspian, and among groups directly in contact with Caspian waters, and
affected by the impacts of invasive species.

There are not strong tensions among or between stakeholder groups regarding the concerns
over invasive species. The lower prioritization of this issue among some groups such as
agriculture and fishing ministries may be a result of misunderstanding the causes of
environmental degradation. This could create a situation in which other causes of ecosystem
decline are blamed while this issue goes unaddressed. As a result, the decline caused by
invasive species could continue to occur at increasing rates as stakeholders focus on other
issues. It is not anticipated in the short term that tensions will be increased by this, however,
over the longer term, if invasive species create severe hardship for the ecosystem,
stakeholders may become more agitated and could blame those who were aware of this
problem and did not take steps to remedy this.

Recommendations
It is advisable that efforts to increase public awareness of the threats of invasive species. This
could be done in conjunction with the increase in other concerns found in this study, such as
increased concern for biodiversity. These include:
Create targeted awareness build campaigns for ministries involved in this issue,
including: agriculture and fisheries ministries, economic ministries, transportation
ministries and environmental ministries, with support for and distribution through the
Interministerial Committees.
Develop an invasive species awareness campaign for stakeholders in the coastal
area and who are active in the Caspian waters to focus on developing informal
monitoring networks as part of the Caspian eco-net system with hotlines and
information
Enhancing public awareness of the threats of invasive species as part of an effort to
increase awareness of the need for protection of biodiversity
Develop curriculum activities through small scale pilot projects for school children to
monitor the presence and impacts of invasive species



Reducing pollution in Caspian waters:

Reducing pollution in the Caspian waters is the highest priority issue for all stakeholder
groups, especially those groups who are in closest contact with the Caspian waters. There is
a wide perception that the waters of the Caspian are highly polluted despite recent studies
that suggest this is the case in concentrated hotspots. These have reduced the level of
concern among key stakeholder groups such as environmental ministries, and agriculture and
fisheries ministries. There is a perception among many stakeholders that the Caspian is not
cleaner today than it was 5 years ago, though groups such as coastal recreation industry
stakeholders and fisheries related groups were most adamant about the recent decline in
conditions.

Despite the perception that environmental quality is not improving there is general consensus
among all stakeholder groups that there is adequate scientific knowledge about the causes of
environmental decline in the Caspian. Groups that were internally divided about availability of
information on the decline in environmental quality may not have benefited from recent
information gathered in the past several years. There is a wide perception that pollution is
caused by agricultural and industrial effluents, municipal wastes discharges and pollution from
the oil extraction. Stakeholders continue to recognize that pollution in Caspian waters and low
environmental conditions are taking a toll on human health in the region. The lack of
information regarding causes of human health decline and environmental conditions sets the
stage for emergent tensions if not addressed in a constructive manner in the short term.


4

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
The issue of pollution from oil is especially divisive though the trend appears to be towards
more conciliatory attitudes among stakeholder groups regarding the presence of international
oil companies than was present in the 2001 study. Nonetheless this trend should be
monitored closely as steps are taken towards finding positive sum scenarios and continued
improved dialogue among stakeholder groups.

In several issues involving there is a significant variation across the region. In general, the
respondents from Iran were more vocal about their concern regarding pollution levels.
Russian respondents tended to be more optimistic about environmental conditions pertaining
to pollution. Respondents from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan were more neutral
and lacked a broad consensus. This is discussed in more detail as it pertains to each
subsection, though this variation is believed to be due mainly to cultural variation and current
events.

Tensions between stakeholder groups regarding pollution have become less pronounced than
they were in the previous study. There is tension between groups regarding the cause and
effects of pollution as well as the responsibility for the conditions of the Caspian. In general
the views tend to reflect economic interests. The softening of tensions between some major
stakeholder groups, such as environmental ministries and agriculture and fishing ministries in
opposition to multinational corporations and industry is significant and bodes well for the
programme. However, steps should be taken to ensure that these positive trends will continue
to emerge and are supported by mutually agreeable arrangements.

Recommendations
Exploration of root causes of belief that the environmental quality of the Caspian is
declining
Make available information summarizing recent scientific studies and pollution to
those dealing with water management issue in regional and municipal governments
Provide information about broad trends in stakeholder perception regarding the
consensus on pollution stemming from agriculture and industrial activities
Continue to assist efforts to monitor municipal waste discharge rates into the Caspian
waters
Take steps towards empirically examining regional environmental conditions and the
effects on human health.
Improve dialogue opportunities for various stakeholder groups who are now in conflict
over pollution efforts
Provide information summarizing recent scientific studies to broad stakeholder
groups, in simplified and accessible formats


Sustainable economic development with environmental care:

Improvement of environmental conditions and economic conditions are often viewed as
contradictory aims. This unfortunate conception must be overturned in the region if
sustainable development practices are to be developed, and it appears that stakeholders in
the region is ready to consider these options at this time. Sustainable development with
environmental care is an important priority for stakeholders over all, and the shift to higher
prioritization of this among stakeholder groups is promising. The concept of using resources
to meet current demand at the expense of future generations is increasing in the awareness
of the stakeholders. Economic strains have also increased the realization of many
stakeholder groups that the environment will not be protected if economic conditions are very
low. Groups who had previously taken extreme positions on this appear to be recognizing the
complexity of this and are softening their opinions in general.

A topic of particular concern within this issue is the perception that the environment can
recover regardless of what human activities do to it. There is actually a significant portion of
the population, especially coastal zone residents and agriculture and fisheries ministries who
still seem to believe that technological solutions will resolve environmental problems and
therefore sound stewardship is not needed. A significant majority of stakeholders recognise
that poor environmental conditions impact human health; though no regional empirical studies

5

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
have been conducted. Access to potable water continues to be a high priority concern for
many stakeholders. Establishing a clear link between low environmental quality and poor
human health conditions are obstacles to economic development and may enable broader
meaningful stakeholder support for sustainable development in the region. The responsibility
of the government in regards to taking steps to improve environmental conditions has become
a more polarized issue that could be addressed through development of a sustainable
development agenda for targeted areas through pilot projects to serve as examples for the
wider region.

Regarding the need to use economic resources in non-sustainable manner in order to meet
demands for human consumption, there were disagreements between district water
management officials and national press. This may reflect a realism faced by these district
water management officials, versus the idealism of the press. This issue also was very
divisive within stakeholder groups involved in fisheries issues. There has also been division
among stakeholder groups regarding the responsibilities of government vis a vis social
welfare programmes and environmental protection. This rift was starting to occur in the 2001
study and increasing polarization has been found particularly between groups with an active
interest in environmental protection and those who are economically dislocated due to
poverty.

Recommendations
Examination of shifting trends in stakeholder perceptions of sustainable development
Provide stakeholder groups with accessible models of sustainable development
projects that have had concrete successes under comparable circumstances
Create an information campaign linking improved environmental conditions with
economic development focusing on grass roots efforts to protect habitats
Provide workshops for regional, district and national level planning agencies, with
CBOs, industries and NGOs to train groups how to develop sustainable development
practices.
Provide a basic ecology training course to targeted populations emphasising positive
sum scenarios of sound environmental stewardship.
In conjunction with other organizations develop a Caspian region environmental
health atlas to pin point areas of environmentally induced human problems.
Develop accessible materials demonstrating the linkages between low environmental
conditions, poor human health and poor economic performance.
Provide concrete examples of sustainable development projects that have been
employed at local, national and regional levels to targeted stakeholder groups.



Stronger civil society input into decision making:

Overview
There has been an emphasis on civil society input into environmental decision making by
international organizations. The concern for this among regional stakeholders is actually quite
low. This issue is ranked as the lowest priority for all stakeholder groups in the region. As
expected, some groups such as local and national NGOs see this as a higher priority issue,
while most rank this as a much lower priority. This low ranking is probably due to other more
specific concerns addresses elsewhere in this study. The cultural and political legacies of
most of the Caspian countries also do not strongly encourage input from civil society into
decision making processes. Further, this survey reveals that a there is ambivalence among
most stakeholders about how representative NGOs are of grassroots efforts in the region.
Also the assumption that most environmental information comes from media such as TV and
newspapers has been brought into question by the survey results.

There is positive support for continued collaboration among stakeholders, such as NGOs,
private companies and scientists, and there is broad support for all members of society taking
responsibility for environmental issues. Most stakeholders do not believe that only in the
event of an environmental crisis will people be concerned about environmental issues which

6

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
portends well for increased awareness of issues. Again though, this may be most effectively
addressed in relation to more specific issues discussed above.

There are relatively few tensions with regards to the importance of civil society input into
decision making, at least according to stakeholder groups. The tensions may be more
pronounced as groups attempt to assert influence on the decision making process. While
channels have been established to facilitate this effort in international projects, there may be a
need to carefully consider if civil society representatives are agents of broad coalitions of
stakeholders or special interests claiming to represent a wider spectrum than perhaps they
actually do.

Recommendations
Consider examining the claims of organizations who profess to represent broad
stakeholder groups in order to determine if they are in fact working as grassroots
activists, and if so in what capacity are they doing this
Conduct a wider investigation into sources of environmental information so that
efforts to reach stakeholders can be more effective.
Continue to encourage collaborative efforts between scientists, NGOs and the private
sector
Identify means for stakeholder groups to be involved in decision making processes at
local, national and regional levels.


7

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME ­ STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS REVISIT

Introduction:

In 2001 the initial Caspian Regional Stakeholder Analysis was commissioned with the
objective of identifying major stakeholder groups, their interests and impact on the Caspian
environment. Also identification of potential conflicts between stakeholder groups was a key
task of the initial study. In summer 2004 this follow-up study was conducted in order to
observe trends in stakeholder interests, perceptions and concerns as they pertain to activities
of the Caspian Environment Programme.

Between July and November of 2004 225 surveys were collected from stakeholders in
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan Iran, Russia and Turkmenistan, as well as experts attending the
Caspian Environment Programme Steering Committee Meeting and World Bank hosted
Caspian Investment Forum held in Baku. These surveys were compiled in a database and
statistically analysed. The analysis compares results from 2001 with the current 2004 study
and provides insights into the shifts that have occurred among and within stakeholder groups
over this time frame.

Six main issues are addressed in this analysis: improved fisheries; preservation of
biodiversity; protection from invasive species; reducing pollution in Caspian waters;
sustainable economic development with environmental care; and stronger civil society input
into decision making. Stakeholders were asked to prioritize these issues and respond to a
series of statements pertaining to these issues.

The first objective of the analysis is to determine stakeholder priorities for issues. The
respondents to the survey self selected the stakeholder group with which they most closely
identified. Their attitudes and perceptions were then averaged for each group, and the
findings were analysed. These findings are summarized graphically in Table 1 ­ Stakeholder
Prioritization of Issues. The priority of each issue for each stakeholder group was ranked high,
medium and low. Overall the stakeholder ranked the issues as:

1. Reducing pollution in Caspian waters
2. Preservation
of
biodiversity
3. Improved
fisheries
4. Sustainable economic development with environmental care
5. Protection from invasive species
6. Stronger civil society input into decision making

Table 1 also shows the breakdown of how stakeholder groups individually prioritized these
issues with a high, medium and low priority ranking based on group averages and the
standard deviation from the mean within each of the stakeholder groups.

The second objective of the initial and this revisited stakeholder analysis is also to identify
conflicts, tensions, or potential conflicts between stakeholder groups. Though direct conflicts
have not emerged, it is the hopes that identification of these can allow CEP to take measures
that will allow the region to avoid exacerbated tensions over regional environmental issues.
Table 2 highlights the statements that elicited conflicting responses from stakeholder groups.
Of 23 statements, 9 statements had stakeholder groups who were in strong agreement and
disagreement with the statement. Of 35 stakeholder groups, only 6 were not involved in any
potential conflicts. This is not to suggest that these conflicts are pending, but rather there
should be sensitivity to these perceptions as programmes are developed and implemented. In
some cases additional investigation into these issues may be warranted, as appropriate.

The 35 stakeholder groups in this survey were representative of select impacted groups
identified in the initial 2001 survey and supplemented in the literature review in preparation for
this stakeholder analysis revisit. Most of the groups are fairly self explanatory with further
explanations of the composition of these groups in the literature review (ANNEX 3). An
experts group was added during the CEP Steering Committee Meeting and Caspian
Environment Investment Forum in November 2004. This objective was to gauge the

8

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
perceptions of experts as they pertain to the other stakeholder groups. Over all, the findings
were much as expected, with experts being more progressive with regards to measures for
environmental stewardship than most stakeholder groups. Comments on the perceptions of
this group, and others are discussed below on an issue by issue basis.

It is expected that the information in this analysis will be used as a reference for those
interested in addressing the main six issues of the CEP projects. The analysis is broken down
by issue and conducted as the various stakeholders are impacted by this. Each stakeholder
group is represented in each of the issues. In each section there is a table outlining which
groups ranked the issue as a high, medium or low concern. Additionally, each question
pertaining to that issue lists those who are in strong agreement, strong disagreement or have
wide internal divisions regarding the statement. These are expanded upon as warranted
throughout the report. Based on the analysis recommendations are made in each section for
increasing stakeholder collaboration and understanding of these issues.

Those interested in addressing public involvement may use this study as a basis for additional
efforts at awareness raising efforts pertaining to the specific issues addressed by CEP. This
provides grounding in stakeholder attitudes to issues, and should be built upon through the
public involvement component of the project. It is intended that all impacting or effected
stakeholder groups should be considered in these efforts. This will probably be done best by
different targeted efforts within the project, (i.e. ministerial level information campaigns or
coastal zone residents awareness raising efforts), and could be coordinated at appropriate.
Many of these issues have cross-cutting and inter-related stakeholder groups, and as such,
stakeholder group involvement should be encouraged though linked objectives and initiatives.

Stakeholder involvement and inclusion in efforts will be critical to supporting the momentum of
the Caspian Environment Programme. The long term objective of country and full regional
ownership will be met by strengthening the bonds between and among these groups, and
helping them to realize their dependence upon and responsibility for the local and regional
environmental conditions. It is hoped that the analysis and subsequent recommendations
presented here will assist this objective to be met.

9

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Table 1 Stakeholder Prioritization of Issues
Sustainable
Stakeholder group
Fisheries
Biodiversity
Invasive Species
Pollution
Development Civil
Society
All Stakeholders/ all respondents ( # priority)
# 3
# 2
# 5
# 1
# 4
# 6
Environmental Ministry






Hydromet Officials






Foreign Affairs Ministry






Economic Ministry






Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry






Fisheries Commission






State Owned Fisheries Industry






Energy Ministry






Regional Government






District Water Management Official






Municipal Government






Ministry of Education






State Scientific Research Center






Private Scientific Research Center






National NGO






Nature Preserve Staff






Coastal Zone Resident






Public Healthcare Provider






Educator/ Student






Farmer / Water User






Pastoralist/Animal Husbandry






National or Local NGO






Coastal Recreation Industry






Community Based Organization






Fishermen






Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards






Fishing Product Sales - National






Fisheries Consumer and Value added consumers






State Owned Industry






Private Industry






Oil Company Representatives






National Press






International Funding Institutions






International NGOs, Bilateral Organizations






Experts Group from CEP SCM, Investment Forum






Level of importance
High
Medium
Low

10

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Table 2 Stakeholder Conflict Matrix
Contented statements: 12. use
13. fewer fish
14.multination
15. people will
16. people will
17.government
18. more
25. private
35. the

needed
because of oil
al corporations
only care
not change
should invest
important to
industry should Caspian is
Key:
resources
drilling
and energy
about
lifestyles to
in social
protect
take all
cleaner today
agree
now, instead of
industry do not
environment if
protect
concerns
habitats than
responsibility
than it was 5
Internally divided
environmental

care about the
there is a crisis
endangered
before
enhance
for reversing
years ago
conservation

environment

species
investing in the
economic
environmental

disagree





environment
development
degradation

Groups with conflict
fisheries,








Related issues
biodiversity,

pollution,
sustainable


biodiversity,



sustainable
fisheries,
sustainable
development,

sustainable
sustainable


Stakeholder Groups:
development
pollution
development
civil society
biodiversity
development
development
pollution
pollution
Environmental Ministry









Hydromet Officials









Foreign Affairs Ministry









Economic Ministry









Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry









Fisheries Commission









State Owned Fisheries Industry









Energy Ministry









Regional Government









District Water Management Official









Municipal Government









Ministry of Education









State Scientific Research Centre









Private Scientific Research Centre









National NGO (scientific)









Nature Preserve Staff









Coastal Zone Resident









Public Healthcare Provider









Educator/ Student









Farmer / Water User









Pastoralist/Animal Husbandry









National or Local NGO









Coastal Recreation Industry









Community Based Organization









Fishermen









Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards









Fishing Product Sales - National









Fisheries Consumer and Value Added









State Owned Industry









Private Industry









Oil Company Representatives









National Press









International Funding Institutions









International NGOs









Experts Group from SCM and CEP IF










11

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Methodology:
The methodology for the SAR has relied largely on that used in the initial 2001 SHA in order
to maintain as much continuity between studies as possible. An initial literature review was
conducted to assess changes that have occurred in the time frame following the initial SHA.
This review was based on academic, journalistic, government and international organizations
reports and articles. This led to an expansion of the number stakeholder groups from the
original 18 to a larger 43 total. The literature review closely examined CEP literature, including
the PFD-B, Project Document, and Strategic Action Programme, and identified six major
distinct issues currently being addressed by CEP at this juncture in the programme. These
issues are: improvement of fisheries; preservation of biodiversity; protection from invasive
species; reducing pollution in Caspian waters; sustainable economic development with
environmental care; and stronger civil society input into decision making.

Anticipated stakeholder interest for each of these issue areas was gauged based on how
directly specific stakeholder groups were believed to be impacting or impacted by activities
that pertains to these issues. This served as an initial guide for survey development and to
determine how stakeholder groups could be combined or held distinct as warranted by
different levels of input of active interests for particular issues. See Annex 3 for the full
literature review.

Surveys were developed for the follow-up/revisit of the original stakeholder analysis. The
initial study was significantly larger, both in terms of the time frame, budget and scope of
questions. As a result a shorted survey was developed for the SAR. A total of 35 questions
were developed. The initial demographic questions included self identification for specific
stakeholder groups. The survey then asks respondents to rank order the six issues identified
in the literature review by the level of importance. An additional nineteen survey statements
were drawn from the original survey to provide a means for comparison from the initial
analysis. An additional 5 questions were developed to gauge new perceptions. These
questions were in the form of statements which the respondents were asked to agree or
disagree with based on a scale from 9 to 1 with 9 representing strong agreement, and 1
representing strong disagreement. See Annex 1 for stakeholder analysis survey.

These surveys were distributed to CEP Public Participation Advisors in Azerbaijan, I.R. Iran,
Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan. Additional surveys were distributed by the
stakeholder analyst throughout the region via e-mail, and focused on Kazakhstan. Within the
frame of 2.5 months from mid-July through September 2004, surveys were distributed and
collected. Additional surveys were distributed and collected in October 2004 in Kazakhstan.
And approximately 20 surveys were collected during the CEP Steering Committee Meeting
and the CEP Investment Forum in November 2004, These were returned to the stakeholder
analyst, and entered into a spread sheet for analysis. A total of 224 surveys were collected
and analysed. The surveys were divided by stakeholder groups and the mean and standard
deviation for each stakeholder group was calculated. Of the 43 groups listed on the survey,
35 groups are represented in this analysis. This is due to exceedingly low representation of
some groups in the survey population, and combining of some related groups in order to have
enough responses to warrant inclusion in the survey. An example of this is combining the
international NGOs, bilateral organizations, and non-state international organizations into a
single stakeholder group.

All stakeholders self selected the stakeholder category to which they belonged, and in some
cases they selected more than on category. No survey was used in more than three
categories. The stakeholder groups' size varied from 3 respondents to more than 30. This
clearly limits the statistical validity of the responses. As a result, this survey does not meet the
criteria for scientific polling and should not be treated as such. These responses and the
analysis of them is based on interpretation of the survey results with the awareness that these
criteria are not met, but that information from these surveys provide an important glimpse into
the perceptions and attitudes of members of stakeholder groups. This information is intended
to support the efforts of the Caspian Environment Programme, and additional studies may be
warranted based on these findings, as appropriate.

The stakeholder analyst then assigned normative values of high, medium and low priority for
the issues, for each stakeholder group, based on the mean and standard deviation. This
assignment was based on the mean ranking of issues assigned by each stakeholder group.

12

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Additionally responses to the statements were similarly evaluated for those groups who
showed strong consensus on agreement or disagreement with a mean of above 7.0 for
agreement and below 3.0 for disagreement. In cases where there was a wide variation within
the particular stakeholder groups with a standard deviation above 2.6 ­ 3.0 depending on the
size of the respondent pool, these were noted as having strong internal division within the
stakeholder group. (See Table 2, and ANNEX 2 for the graphic representation of this)

Each issue was then assigned relevant questions, and comparisons of previous stakeholder
responses were compared to the current set of responses. It should be noted that because
this survey was not administered to a sizable portion of the population and that some
stakeholder groups are much larger than others in the survey zone and in within the data
base, that these finds are not statistically representative under scientific sampling criteria.
However, they do provide an important gauge of shifts in attitudes, and the responses are
informative for the purposes for which they were commissioned. It should also be noted that
some groups, particularly experts, took some degree of exception to the form of the
statements. Their concerns have been noted as appropriate, and their comments are
appreciated.

Improved Fisheries:

The decline in certain fisheries is a predominant issue for the Caspian Environment
Programme. The decline in sturgeon fisheries following the collapse of the former Soviet
Union, as well as the decrease in other commercially fished species, has drawn broad
attention from the international community. This issue was the highest priority issue in the first
survey where as now this has shifted significantly. This shift is reflected in the prioritization of
the issue, the perceived causes, the new legal regime and the wider view of conservation of
resources for future generation. There appears to be a deepening of understanding of the
complexity of this issue among stakeholder groups who were previously more cohesive in
their views of this issue. Additionally the shifting of the opinions may be a result of changes in
circumstances for those dependent upon fisheries for food, who are now adjusting to fewer
fish available. The perception of the legal regime, specifically an enforced system of mutually
agreed upon limits on fishing has broad support, though there are groups who are not
convinced of the effectiveness of such measures.

There is an overall decrease in the expected tensions between groups over fisheries
compared to the earlier study, but there is more internal division within more groups. This
bears watching, as measures are taken to improve the fish populations in the Caspian. The
major division between stakeholder groups is with regards to the cause of the decline. Oil
drilling and pollution are viewed by many as being a cause of declining fisheries currently. If
fish populations continue to decline, and coastal economies do not improve, it is possible that
efforts will lack support and the illegal harvests will continue, while blame is placed on those
who are not responsible. Additionally, there is a discrepancy between those who are not
immediately dependent on coastal natural resources, but who are concerned about
environmental conditions and those stakeholder groups that are more directly impacted by
declining economic conditions in the coastal zone.

Recommendations for CEP regarding fisheries include:
Continuation of public awareness building efforts focusing on the actual causes of
decline.
Targeting of public awareness building efforts to groups directly impacted by and
impacting fisheries decline.
Provide support and training materials for border guards and fisheries enforcement
authorities.
Assist national authorities in developing alternative income sources for coastal
residents
Develop and provide training materials for assistance organizations that emphasize
sustainable development principles.
Support consumer awareness campaigns with regional, national and international
organizations.
Conduct studies into the impact the decline in fisheries is expected to have on local
and national economies, including an exploration of the challenges created by the
informal underground sector.

13

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

Prioritization of Improved Fisheries
High
Medium
Low

Agriculture and Fisheries
District
Water
Environmental
Ministry
Ministry
Management Official
Economic
Ministry

State Owned Fisheries

Ministry of Education

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Industry
Public
Healthcare
Energy
Ministry
Educator/
Student
Provider
Hydromet
Officials
Pastoralist/Animal

Farmer / Water User
Fisheries
Commission
Husbandry
Fishermen
Regional
Government
Private
Industry

Fishing Product Sales ­

State Scientific Research

National
Centre
Fisheries
Consumer
Private
Scientific

State Owned Industry
Research Centre
Municipal
Government

National or Local NGO
Nature
Preserve
Staff

Farmers and Water Users

Coastal Zone Resident
Coastal
Recreation
Oil
Company
Industry
Representatives
Community
Based
Regional
Experts
Organization
Fisheries
Enforcement/
Border Guards
National
Press
International
Funding
Institutions
International
NGOs

In 2001, during the first survey period, 11 of the 12 stakeholder groups listed "decline in
certain fisheries" as a high priority issue. This year, 2004, only 5 of 35 groups rank "improved
fisheries" as a priority. This compares to 17 that rank improving fisheries as a low priority
issue. The environmental ministries, regional and municipal governments, scientific
community, and NGOs all ranked this as a top priority issue in 2001, where as now these
groups rank this as a low priority. Even fisher men, and coastal zone residents rank this a
medium level priority issues, down from high priority in 2001.

These changes may be a result of the implementation of the CITES ban and increased
attention internationally to this issue. Many of the citizens of the Former Soviet Union tend to
respond to surveys in a manner they believe they are expect to, rather than giving candid
opinions. Since governments are now charged with taking steps toward improving fisheries, it
is possible that these responses reflect what respondents feel they should respond.
Alternately there may be a decline in priority of fisheries for groups because they now see that
there are other issues that have more immediacy, and the concern over decline in fisheries
peaked earlier, and now the perception is that adjustments have been made in regards to
fisheries management in the region.

Also of note is that oil company representatives and regional experts both rank this as a mid-
level concern, while international funding institutions, International NGOs, Economic Ministry
Officials and Energy Ministry Officials rank this as a low priority concern. If these groups are
to be supportive of efforts to rehabilitate fisheries stocks it may be prudent to address this
lower level of concern among these groups with targeted efforts. Information on the role of
fisheries in economic concerns for the countries, including the impact on diets of coastal
communities and the potential role in development should be explored. Additionally, the
impact of the informal underground sector, involved in illegal harvest of fish stocks should be
calculated into this potential study for distribution to these groups.

The perceived cause of the decline in fish populations in the Caspian has shifted over time to
some degree. The two questions that appeared in the original survey that were repeated in
the revisit are:

13. "There are fewer fish in the Caspian than there used to be because of recent oil drilling."
Disagree
Agree

Oil Company Representatives

Agriculture and Fishing Ministries

International Funding Institutions

Ministry of Education

Educator/
Students

Pastoralist Animal Husbandry

Fisheries Consumer and Value added

14

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Wide Division Within:


State Owned Fisheries Industry
Nature
Preserve
Staff

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Experts

19. "Pollution is the primary reason that there are fewer fish in the Caspian."
Agree

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Public Healthcare Provider
Regional
Government
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

District Water Management Official
Local
NGOs
Municipal
Government
Fishermen

Private Scientific Research Center
Fisheries
Consumer
Wide Division Within:

Fisheries
Commission

Coastal zone residents

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Pastoralist/Animal Husbandry

Ministry of Education

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Nature
Preserve
Staff
International
NGOs


In 2001, the statement "There are fewer fish in the Caspian than there used to be because of
recent oil drilling." drew strong support from fishermen and the agriculture and fishing
ministries. The multinational corporations were divided originally though tended to disagree.
Now, the fishermen stakeholder group responses agree less strongly, though the agriculture
and fishing ministries and the fisheries products and sales groups continue to agree strongly
with this statement. Additionally, Education Ministries and educators and students do as well.
Pastoralists agree as well, though the reason for this is not particularly clear. Also, Fisheries
Consumers and those in the Value Added fisheries industry also agree with this statement.

Now, as before, we find that oil company representatives disagree strongly with this cause for
the decline in fisheries as would be expected because the perceived lack of culpability for this
decline. Additionally, the International Funding Institutions also are in strong disagreement
with this statement. The state owned fisheries industries, Foreign Affairs Ministries, Nature
Preserve Staff and Experts Groups are internally divided. It is worth noting that the coastal
zone stakeholder group was not in strong agreement or disagreement with this statement.
Also absent from this cohort is the environmental ministries. Both of these groups were in
agreement 3 years ago, whereas now, they do not have either a clear consensus of strong
internal variation within the groups. These discrepancies may represent a shifting in opinion
or may be a statistical abnormality. If we assume it is a shift in opinion, it may be because of
the realization and subsequent studies that decline in fisheries is caused in part by over
fishing, rather than pollution levels.

In response to the statement "Pollution is the primary reason that there are fewer fish in the
Caspian" none of the stakeholder groups disagreed strongly. We find similar trends in terms
of agreement, but shifting groups. Previously the coastal zone residents, industries,
environmental ministries and fishermen were in agreement with this statement while now,
only the fisherman remain of this group. It is interesting to note that the other ministries, such
as agriculture and fishing, as well as others listed above have now come to see pollution as a
cause in for the decline in fisheries.

Internal disagreements within stakeholder groups such as coastal zone residents, fisheries
commissions, fisheries enforcement/border guards, pastoralists, and International NGOs. This
internal dissonance may be a result of the dependence of some communities on illegal fishing
activities. Alternately, the decline in fisheries may be more noticeable as species numbers
decline and the assumption is that this is due to pollution levels, combined with over fishing.
Perhaps more public awareness building activities focusing on causes of decline would be
helpful in this effort.

Both of these statements reflect a belief within the stakeholder groups of the cause of the
decline in the fisheries. The exact causes of the decline is compounded, obviously, however,
this suggests that regionally there is disagreement regarding cause and effect relationships
for the decline of fish stocks. As stocks continue to decline, it is expected that these strains
will increase and could become problematic. Steps to resolve this are reflected in the
following statement.

20. "An enforced system of mutually agreed upon fishing limits would be effective for reducing
over-fishing in the Caspian."

15

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Agree
Environmental
Ministry

Farmer / Water User
Hydromet
Officials
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Economic
Ministry

Community Based Organization

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Fishermen

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Regional
Government

Fisheries Product Sales - National

District Water Management Official
Fisheries
Consumer
Municipal
Government

State Owned Industry

Ministry of Education
Private
Industry

State Scientific Research Center
National
Press

Private Scientific Research Center

International Funding Organizations

Coastal Zone Residents
International
NGOs

Public Healthcare Provider
Experts
Group
Wide Division Within:

Fisheries
Commission

Oil Company Representatives

Coastal Recreation Industry

The stakeholder groups mostly agreed with this statement, though there were some
discrepancies. The Oil Company Representatives, members of the Coastal Recreation
Industry and members of the Fisheries Commission were more dubious about the
effectiveness of such an agreement, where as, most of the other stakeholder groups agreed.
There were not groups that on the whole disagreed with this statement, though there were a
few random individuals.

Environmental ministries agreed that an enforced regime could quell the decline in fisheries
stocks, as they did in the 2001 study. This may be in part faith in international environmental
legislation that seems prevalent in many environmental ministries, and the trend towards
these agreements to bolster national legislation and regulation, including financial assistance.
Also the regional and municipal governments were consistent with their previous views on this
issue in support of agreements.

It is interesting to note that there was strong agreement from the stakeholder group of
fisheries enforcement and border guards, who are responsible for enforcing the existing
legislation. Their support for this statement may be defensive, but it also may be due to the
mutual agreement, and they may feel that their counterparts are not enforcing laws as well as
they should be. Though it is difficult to determine here, this may warrant further exploration
and possibly training support for these groups.

In 2001 the coastal zone residents were found to agree with this fairly strongly, where as now
that agreement appears to have weakened somewhat. Again, because we are not dealing
with the same individuals it is not clear if this is an abnormality. If we assume that the decline
in support for mutually enforced agreements is an actual trend, this decline may be due to the
implementation of the CITES ban not resulting in immediate increased fisheries, possible
increases the illegal harvesting and the accompanying crime. Therefore this trend bears
watching over time as steps are taken to reduce illegal harvest. Additionally, it may be
advisable to empower coastal zone residents to not feel obliged to collude with the informal
underground sector by enhancing other opportunities for them.

The poverty level of many coastal zone residents increases their incentives to participate in
illegal fishing activities, or to avoid alienating those who are profiting from this. This creates a
difficult cycle to break which is reflected in the statement: "It is more important for people to
use the Caspian resources that they need than it is to leave them untouched because of
environmental concerns".

12. "It is more important for people to use the Caspian resources that they need than it is to
leave them untouched because of environmental concerns"
Disagree
Agree

State Scientific Research Centers
Economic
Ministry

Oil Company Representatives

District Water Management Official

International Funding Organizations
Educator/
Student
International
NGOs
Fisheries
Consumer
Experts
Group
Wide Division Within:

Environmental
Ministry

Coastal Zone Resident
Hydromet
Officials

Public Healthcare Provider

16

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Economic
Ministry

Farmer / Water User
Energy
Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

National or Local NGO

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Coastal Recreation Industry
Regional
Government

Community Based Organization
Municipal
Government
Fishermen

Ministry of Education

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

State Scientific Research Center

Fisheries Product Sales - National

Private Scientific Research Center

State Owned Industry
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Private
Industry
National
Press

This statement is highly divisive, as the question of harvesting resources now at
unsustainable rates in order to meet immediate human needs, or preserving these for future
generations. In the 2001 survey there was also division between stakeholder groups with
regard to this statement. While division continues to exist, it has shifted to division within
stakeholder groups. In 2001, the environmental ministries, agriculture and fisheries ministries,
regional and municipal governments, scientific communities, coastal zone residents, public
health care providers and fishermen agreed with this statement. In contrast, NGOs both from
local and national groups, and industry disagreed with this statement and again, they are also
now divided over this issue. All of these groups now show strong internal division, though
these trends do not appear to be strongly linked to geographic trends. Now the only groups
that are in consensus on agreement this issue are the State Scientific Research Centers, Oil
Company Representatives, International Funding Organizations, International NGOs and the
Experts Group. This may be due to the relative distance from the coastal living conditions,
which are fairly dire and dependent upon local natural resources to sustain existing
populations. Additionally, these groups will be more inclined to have a conservationist agenda
than other stakeholder groups. This statement is used in regards to several issue areas
because of the relevance to several of the CEP activities and initiatives.

With regards to fisheries, this trend may be a result of awareness of diminishing resources,
and the impact of human activities upon these resources. These groups may have an
increased awareness that they are no longer able to depend upon fisheries resources as they
become scarcer. This would be especially true for groups seeing a decline first hand, such as
environment ministries, agriculture and fisheries ministries, municipal governments, state
owned fisheries industries, nature preserve staff, coastal zone residents, community based
organizations, fishermen, fisheries enforcement and border guards, and fisheries product
sales. Alternately, groups who previously were in disagreement with this statement may have
become more aware of the circumstances facing those in the region that depend on natural
resources for survival, even if they are using these resources at unsustainable rates. CEP
support for economic development projects that emphasize sustainable development may be
helpful by providing information and training resources. CEP has regional presence and
training materials for social and economic development would be supported by this authority
in the region.

Most of the groups in agreement with this statement are benefiting from current extraction of
resources. With regards to fisheries, the fisheries consumer group may be the most critical
group advocating consumption of fisheries resources now, rather than making attempts to
preserve these resources. Additionally, preservation of resources drives costs up for
consumer groups. CEP may consider taking steps to inform end use consumers in
conjunction with other efforts, such as Caviar Emptor and local level projects.

This may be especially important for end use sales. For instance in and informal interview the
analyst was told by a manager at "Caviar House" that she was recently in a meeting of store
managers and they were informed that "there are plenty of sturgeon in the Caspian and there
is no risk of running out." She and her colleagues also agreed that if scarcity becomes an
issue, people will pay more for the caviar as a status symbol and thus increasing prices will
not deter consumption. CEP may wish to consider increasing information campaigns for
caviar consumers as a result of this.

Conclusion:
The fisheries issue has lost the status as a top priority issue for many stakeholder groups.
This may be a result of several factors and should be viewed as a deepening of
understanding of the complexity of this issue among stakeholder groups. The imposition of

17

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
the CITES ban, awareness of other environmental issues and other socio-economic demands
may also account for this shift. Overall, fisheries improvement will continue to be an important
issue within the region, and further efforts toward interministerial collaboration, public
awareness building, and targeting of specific stakeholder groups regarding causes of the
decline in fisheries can support sustainable fisheries management under the CEP auspices.


Preservation of Biodiversity:

The protection of biodiversity showing signs of garnering broader support in the Caspian
region compared to the stakeholder analysis conducted in 2001. This issue is ranked as the
second most important issue of the 6 addressed in the current study among all stakeholder
groups. There is an indication that the regional population would be receptive to an
informational campaign that focuses on the importance of biodiversity in the region, as a part
of sustainable development. There are concerns among stakeholder groups about the
propensity to change behaviours of people in order to protect endangered species and
important habitats. Yet there is also new and strong support for a top down approach that
emphasizes limiting activities in certain areas of the coastal region. This puts additional
responsibility on those charged with enforcement and protection of these areas and attention
will need to be paid to providing support and capacity building within these groups.

There are not expected to be strong tensions or conflicts across stakeholder groups regarding
preservation of biodiversity. There is division within stakeholder groups as they come to grasp
the complexity of biodiversity protection measures. This internal division within stakeholder
groups may be alleviated by increased education and through drawing clear linkages between
biodiversity protection and sustainable development throughout the region. Over all there is
strong consensus regarding preservation of biodiversity, though to maintain this trajectory,
efforts to support responsible stakeholder groups should be made that facilitate concrete
actions to improve environmental conditions in the region. This can be based on a series of
efforts made by and supported through CEP.


Recommendations
Develop informational materials for national press that emphasise the economic
importance of biodiversity in the region and list steps that can be taken by
stakeholders to help improve conditions
Provide a short training course for journalist on the importance of biodiversity in the
region
Provide key stakeholder groups with examples of how small changes in human
behaviour can induce concrete changes in biodiversity preservation with positive sum
outcomes
Provide enforcement groups such as fisheries enforcement/border guards and nature
preserve staff with support through information exchanges, strategy workshops, and
training by the authorities from other regions with similar challenges.
Develop informational materials on the economic importance of protecting regional
biodiversity for distribution through Interministerial Committees for related ministries.


Preservation of Biodiversity
High
Medium
Low

Environmental Ministry
Hydromet
Officials
Public
Healthcare

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Economic
Ministry
Provider

Agriculture and Fisheries
District
Water
Educator/
Student
Ministry
Management Official

State Owned Industry

State Owned Fisheries

Ministry of Education


Industry

State Scientific Research
Regional
Government
Center
Municipal
Government
National
NGO
Private
Scientific
Research
Community
Based
Center
Organization

Coastal Zone Resident
Nature
Preserve
Staff

Farmer / Water User
Fishermen
Pastoralist/Animal

Fishing Product Sales ­
Husbandry
National

National or Local NGO
Oil
Company

18

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

Coastal Recreation Industry
Representatives
Fisheries
Enforcement/

Fisheries Commission
Border Guards
International
Finance

Fisheries Consumer
Institutions
Private
Industry
Experts
Group
National
Press

International
NGOs

On average the preservation of biodiversity was listed as the second highest priority for
respondents to the survey. This is up significantly from the initial 2001 study, where
biodiversity was ranked solidly in the middle of the 8 issues addressed. The increase
awareness of preservation of biodiversity may also be an artefact of the survey sponsor.
Nonetheless, while the ranking is higher over all there have been shifts among stakeholder
groups. The regional and municipal governments as well as coastal zone residents now rank
this as a high priority issue, while they ranked it as a lower priority issue in the initial study.
State scientific researchers, national level NGOs, and fishermen now rank it as a medium
level priority, which is down from their ranking in the initial study. Public healthcare providers,
and state owned industries also dropped this issue from a medium to a lower priority. The
environmental ministries and agriculture and fisheries ministries have not changed their high
level prioritization of this, as would be expected. Foreign affairs ministry officials, coastal zone
residents and coastal recreation industry members, as well as private industry, national press
and international NGOs rank this as a high priority, suggesting an increased awareness of the
importance of this issue to the region.

The general trend towards increasing the prioritization of preservation of biodiversity among
stakeholders, suggests that this issue is becoming more relevant. It is difficult to determine if
this is due to declining conditions which sparks concern, or if it is due to improved awareness
efforts. Nonetheless, this relative boon for biodiversity awareness should be viewed
favourably, in that it may also represent an increased awareness of the complexity and
interdependence of ecosystems. This, in conjunction with the increased priority of the need to
reduce pollution among all stakeholders, may indicate an increased understanding of cause
and effects relationships in environmental degradation.

The division among stakeholder groups does not appear to represent significant divisions or
tensions. Rather, those groups who would be expected to rank this as high priority, such as
environmental ministries, nature preserve staff members, or coastal local NGOs continue to
do this, while others such as public health care providers, educators and state owned
industries rank it as a low priority issue. This may indicate receptiveness to educational
materials for national level press agencies about the importance of preserving biodiversity in
the region. Additionally, the high prioritization by economic ministries and foreign affairs
ministries may indicate a source of support for biodiversity preservation, which CEP should
continue to foster.

The challenge may be assisting stakeholder groups in identifying steps that they can take to
preserve biodiversity now that awareness of it's importance seems to be growing. This need
is reflected in several statements in the survey that had discrepancies both among and within
stakeholder groups. Each of these statements ask respondents to consider what they are
willing to do with regards to protect biodiversity.

16. "People will not change their lifestyles to protect endangered species."
Disagree
Agree
Hydromet
officials
Nature
Preserve
Staff

Foreign Affairs Ministry

Coastal Zone Residents

Oil Company Representatives

Public Healthcare Providers
Fisheries
Enforcement/Border
Guards
Wide Division Within:

Economic
Ministries
Educator/Student

Fisheries
Commission
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Regional
Government

Fisheries Products and Sales

District Water Management Official

State Owned Industry
Municipal
Government
Private
Industry

Ministry of Education
International
NGOs

Private Scientific Research Center

18. "It is more important to protect natural habitats than it is to enhance economic
development."

19

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Disagree
Agree

District Water Management Officials

Fisheries Products and Sales
National
Press
Wide Division Within:

Community Based Organization
Fisheries
Commission
Fishermen
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards


In response to the statement "People will not change their lifestyles to protect endangered
species" there was division within many groups. In the 2001 initial study this statement did not
draw strong support or opposition from any groups as a whole. In the 2004 survey critical
division occur within the economic ministries, education ministries, regional governments,
municipal governments, research centres, and international NGOs. This division may reflect
an internal dialogue within stakeholder groups as to how much they can expect to induce
change in behaviour. Providing targeted examples of how small changes in human activities
have improved shown concrete results in conservation may bolster these groups and
increase confidence in people's ability to change.

Alternately, the hydromet officials, foreign affairs ministry officials, and oil company
representatives feel that people are willing to change their behaviour to protect endangered
species. This may reflect a wider global experience with conservation measures on behalf of
the oil company representatives, and general optimism on behalf of the others. In contrast,
there were several key groups who agreed that people will not change to protect endangered
species. The coastal zone residents were in agreement with this, though not quite as strongly
for this key group when it comes to economic development and the need for preservation of
biodiversity. The nature preserve staff and fisheries enforcement/border guards may have felt
that people are not willing to change because they have witnessed that people will prioritize
economic interests over environmental concerns. These two groups are charged with
protection of species and are facing very difficult challenges. Support for these groups may be
warranted through specific CEP activities and within the initiatives developed through CEP
including training and enforcement activities. These could include regional workshops for
these groups to build support networks, information sharing and strategy development for
protection measures.

In response to the statement "It is more important to protect natural habitats than it is to
enhance economic development" there was some division within and among stakeholder
groups. The only dissenting stakeholder group was the district water management officials.
This would reflect the pressures on them to provide water for economic development even
though they may be aware that it is done at the expense of natural habitats. In contrast,
fisheries products and sales and national press agreed with this statement. This may be due
to the awareness that failure protection of habitats will have broader repercussions, though it
may also be reflective of the small sample of these groups, who may be predisposed to
conservation activities.

The groups that had wide division within the stakeholder groups of note were fisheries
commissions, fishermen and fisheries enforcement/border guards. These groups may be
experiencing something of a crisis as populations of commercial species continue to decline,
and the cause remains elusive to those not wishing to acknowledge the impacts of over
fishing. In comparison, pastoralists and community based organizations may have realized
that destruction of habitats is having economic ramifications as the impacts are felt by coastal
communities. Perhaps an informational campaign linking improved environmental conditions
with economic development would held to alleviate some of these divisions and could
enhance grass roots efforts to protect habitats.

The conspicuous absence of groups such as the environmental ministries, economic
ministries, oil company representatives, industry, international finance organizations,
international NGOs and experts groups, from this is largely due to their relatively anaemic
responses. Among all of these groups there was very weak disagreement with this statement,
which was constant across all of these groups. Coastal zone residents as the largest
stakeholder group had some variation but the average was almost exactly between
agreement and disagreement, with a very low standard deviation. This suggests that the
issue of active habitat protection could become more important, especially if stakeholders are
taught about the beneficial linkages between habitat protection and sustainable economic

20

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
development. This raises the question of how this can be done in a manner that will be
meaningful and supported in the region. A top down approach may be most readily accepted.


21. "There should be limits on some activities in certain zones of the coastal region."
Agree
Environmental
Ministry

Farmer / Water User
Economic
Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Foreign Affairs Ministry

National or Local NGO

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Community Based Organization
Regional
Government
Fishermen

District Water Management Official

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Municipal
Government
Fisheries
Consumer

Ministry of Education

State Owned Industry

State Scientific Research Centre
Private
Industry

Private Scientific Research Centre

Oil Company Representatives
National
NGO
National
Press
Nature
Preserve
Staff

International Funding Institutions

Coastal Zone Resident
International
NGOs

Public Healthcare Provider
Experts
Group
Educator/
Student
Wide Division Within:
Fisheries
Commission

The 2001 study found regional variation in response to the statement: There should be limits
on some activities in certain zones of the coastal region. This regional variation has
evaporated, as Russia, I.R. Iran and Azerbaijan have very strong agreement; Turkmenistan
has moderately strong levels of agreement; and Kazakhstan has strong agreement. The 2004
study also revealed very strong levels of support for limits on activities in certain zones of the
coastal zone. A total of 28 of the 35 stakeholder groups had strong consensus of agreement
on this issue. The only group that was represented as having strong agreement in the 2001
study was industries. Within the current study, there was wide division within the fisheries
commissions, and no clear level of agreement or disagreement from fisheries products sales.
These may be due to statistical aberrations due to a small sample size.

This shift suggests that a top down approach to habitat protection may be widely accepted in
the region. The population in these countries are largely accustomed to governments that
take a strongly directive approach to governance, and may be willing to be supportive of such
an approach to habitat preservation. Again though, this brings to light the concerns raised by
the enforcement officials charged with protecting species. They felt that people would not
change to protect endangered species. Again, this suggests that support may be warranted
for the increasing support and capacity building for these groups.

The issue of sustainable development by conserving resources for future generations is
pertinent here. The following statement reflects this concern.

12. "It is more important for people to use the Caspian resources that they need than it is to
leave them untouched because of environmental concerns"
Disagree
Agree

State Scientific Research Centers
Economic
Ministry

Oil Company Representatives

District Water Management Official

International Funding Institutions
Educator/
Student
International
NGOs
Fisheries
Consumer
Experts
Group
Wide Division Within:

Environmental
Ministry

Public Healthcare Provider
Hydromet
Officials

Farmer / Water User
Economic
Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Energy
Ministry

National or Local NGO

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Community Based Organization
Regional
Government
Fishermen
Municipal
Government

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

Ministry of Education

Fisheries Product Sales - National

State Scientific Research Center

State Owned Industry

Private Scientific Research Center
Private
Industry

Nature Preserve Staff
National
Press

21

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

Coastal Zone Resident

The statement above is highly divisive as noted earlier, as the rate of use of resources now is
unsustainable in order to meet human needs, or preserving these for future generations. In
the 2001 survey there was much wider division between stakeholder groups with regard to
this statement. While division continues to exist, it has shifted to division within stakeholder
groups. In 2001, the environmental ministries, agriculture and fisheries ministries, regional
and municipal governments, scientific communities, coastal zone residents, public health care
providers and fishermen agreed with this statement. In contrast, NGOs both from local and
national groups, industry and multinational corporations disagreed with this statement and
again, they are also now divided over this issue. All of these groups now show strong internal
division, though these trends do not appear to be strongly linked to geographic trends. Now
the only groups that have consensus on this issue are state scientific research centers, oil
company representatives, international funding institutions, the international NGOs and the
experts group. This may be due to these groups relative distance from the coastal living
conditions, which are fairly dire and dependent upon local natural resources to sustain
existing populations. Additionally, these groups will be more inclined to have a conservationist
agenda than other stakeholder groups. This may indicate a source of rising frustration on
behalf of those groups who would like to assist in bringing about positive change however,
may be limited in effectiveness because of a potential lack of the immediate challenges facing
some stakeholder groups. This statement is used in regards to several issue areas because
of the relevance to several of the CEP activities and initiatives.

As this issue pertains to protection of biodiversity, it suggests that there is an increased
awareness in the need to develop more sustainable practices, while reducing impacts on
renewable resources. There is a high correlation between those stakeholder groups who have
prioritized protection of biodiversity with those groups who agree strongly and who have wide
division within stakeholder groups. This suggests that the budding awareness of need to
change behaviours in order to protect the environment. It may be advisable to develop a
broad spectrum stakeholder awareness campaign that clearly links sustainable development
to practices emphasizing protection of biodiversity in the region. This can be through habitat
protection as well as sustainable harvests of commercial species.

Conclusion:
The protection of biodiversity shows signs of increasing in importance in the region. This trend
should be supported by CEP who has the clear regional authority and interministerial linkages
that can build on recent shifts in attitude. Protection of biodiversity must be linked to
sustainable economic development for it to be most effective in the region over the long term.
Further, projects should be developed that enhance people's awareness of the importance of
biodiversity to their livelihoods and to the quality of life in the Caspian region. This will be
more challenging in some areas, but demonstration projects, public awareness campaigns
and support for protection and enforcement personnel may bring about significant
improvements in the region. It appears that stakeholder groups are ready for these efforts and
would be receptive to them, especially if presented in a manner that emphasises win-win
situations.


Protection from invasive species:

The issue of the need for protection from invasive species remains a low priority over all for
stakeholders. Awareness of this issue has increased in comparison other issues and from the
previous study. Groups that rank it as a high priority concern now were not part of the
previous study. There were some shifts among groups in terms of the prioritization which
indicate a need for increased awareness building for the threat of invasive species in the
Caspian. The study shows that the concern for the threat from invasive species is closely
linked to geography rather than stakeholder group. Higher concern across stakeholders
groups is concentrated in Russia and Iran, while lower concern is evident in Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. This is probably due to the higher concentrations of invasive
species ­ jelly fish in the northern Caspian and invasive flora in the southern Caspian. This
geographic trend is supported by sighting of invasive species in the northern and southern

22

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
regions of the Caspian, and among groups directly in contact with Caspian waters, and
affected by the impacts of invasive species.

There are not very strong tensions among or between stakeholder groups regarding the
concerns over invasive species. The lower prioritization of this issue among some groups
such as agriculture and fishing ministries may be a result of misunderstanding the causes of
environmental degradation. This could create a situation in which other causes of ecosystem
decline are blamed while this issue goes unaddressed. As a result, the decline caused by
invasive species could continue to occur at increasing rates as stakeholders focus on other
issues. It is not anticipated that in the short term that tensions will be increased by this,
however, over the longer term, if invasive species create severe hardship for the ecosystem,
stakeholders may become more agitated and could blame those who were aware of this
problem and did not take steps to remedy this.

Recommendations
It is advisable that efforts to increase public awareness of the threats of invasive species. This
could be done in conjunction with the increase in other concerns found in this study, such as
increased concern for biodiversity. These include:
Create targeted awareness build campaigns for ministries involved in this issue,
including: agriculture and fisheries ministries, economic ministries, transportation
ministries and environmental ministries, with support for and distribution through the
Interministerial Committees.
Develop an invasive species awareness campaign for stakeholders in the coastal
area and who are active in the Caspian waters to focus on developing informal
monitoring networks as part of the Caspian eco-net system with hotlines and
information
Enhancing public awareness of the threats of invasive species as part of an effort to
increase awareness of the need for protection of biodiversity
Develop curriculum activities through small scale pilot projects for school children to
monitor the presence and impacts of invasive species in impacted areas


Protection from Invasive Species
High
Medium
Low
Hydromet
Officials
Environmental
Ministry

Agriculture and Fisheries

Economic Ministry

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Ministry
Fisheries
Commission
Economic
Ministry
Regional
Government
Farmer/
water
user

State Owned Fisheries
District
Water


Industry
Management Official

Energy
Ministry

Ministry of Education
Municipal
Government
National
NGO

State Scientific Research
Private
Scientific
Center
Research Center
Pastoralist/Animal
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Husbandry

Coastal Zone Resident

Coastal Recreation Industry
Public
Healthcare
Fishermen
Provider
Private
Industry
Educator/
Student


National or Local NGO
Community
Based
Organization
Fisheries
Enforcement/
Border Guards Fishing
Product Sales ­ National

State Owned Industry
Fisheries
Consumer
Oil
Company
Representatives

State owned industry
National
Press
International
Finance
Institution
International
NGOs
Experts
Group


The issue of invasive species remains a lower overall priority issue for stakeholders, though it
has gained some in comparison to other issues such as fisheries and civil societies. In

23

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
comparison to the previous study the prioritization has shifted to different stakeholder groups.
Environmental ministries have listed this as medium priority issue, while this was a low priority
issue in the 2001 study. The groups that now list this as a high priority issue ­ hydromet
officials, farmers/water users, and fisheries commission members, were not specifically
included in the previous studies. It is possible that these groups that rank this as a high
priority issue may be becoming aware of this as a real threat to the Caspian waters.

Other groups that have shifted their prioritization of this issue include agriculture and fishing
ministries which shifted from medium priority in 2001 to low priority in 2004. This may indicate
that there is a lack of knowledge regarding the threat posed by the invasive jellyfish in the
waters. This may warrant an informational strategy to help those involved in fisheries
management and regulators understand the problems that may emerge as a result of this
threat. Though these groups may not be able to take steps to address this problem directly it
would help to have them understand the impacts of these invasive species and include them
in monitoring, evaluation and other efforts to increase awareness of this threat. In regards to
presence of invasive flora species additional efforts to inform agricultural and fisheries
ministries of the challenges may enable them to assist the lobbying efforts of other ministries,
and the CEP Interministerial committees. Additionally, increasing awareness among oil
company HSE representatives, national press, international finance institutions, and
international NGOs may be beneficial for coordinated activities in the region.

It should also be noted that this issue is listed as a higher concern in the Russia and Iran, and
a lower priority in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. This may suggest that there the
prevalence of invasive species are gaining attention of stakeholders more than areas where
populations are believed to be growing as a result of importation from other water bodies, or
where invasive species of flora have become notably problematic. An awareness building
campaign for those on or near the Caspian waters could assist in monitoring and increase
stakeholder understanding of the challenges that the region faces if these issues are not dealt
with.

Stakeholder groups are becoming more aware of the presence of invasive species. This
suggests that their impact is spreading, as studies suggest, and that the population may be
ready for more information on this topic especially in conjunction with other areas of concern,
such as biodiversity. Additionally, by enhancing awareness of the impacts of invasive species,
the cause and effect relationship of environmental degradation can reduce negative attention
from other issues that may be being blamed unjustly for changes in the ecosystem. Two
statements in the current study have demonstrated a growing awareness of invasive species.

28. "I have seen unusual creatures in the Caspian that were not there ten years ago."
Agree
Environmental
Ministries

Coastal Recreation Industry
Fisheries
Commission

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

State Owned Fisheries Industry
National
Press

Nature Preserve Staff
Division Within:

Hydromet
Officials

Fisheries Product Sales - National

Ministry of Education
International
NGOs

29. "Invasive species are creating significant environmental degradation in the Caspian."
Agree

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Educator/
Student

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Community Based Organization
Energy
Ministry
Fishermen
Regional
Government

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

Public Healthcare Provider
National
Press
Division Within:

Environmental
Ministry
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Hydromet
Officials

Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Fisheries
Commission

Fisheries Product Sales ­ National

These statements represent the awareness that stakeholders have of the presence and
impacts of invasive species in the region. The awareness of these creatures, in the case of
jelly fish, or the invasive flora is important to gauge in order to determine where to target

24

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
efforts and how to address these. Though there is more active awareness building regarding
other issues such as biodiversity, this issue should be included in those efforts.

In response to the statement "I have seen unusual creatures I the Caspian that were not there
ten years ago" environmental ministries have continued to be in strong agreement with this
compared to the 2001 study. In that 2001 study fishermen agreed strongly as well. Now
fishermen do not show strong agreement, though this may be as a result of a longer term
presence of these species in the waters. In the 2001 study there was division among
environmental ministries stakeholders, where as now that division has been reduced and
there seems to be more cohesion within the group, though there is not very strong agreement
at this stage. Other groups who were not directly measured previously are showing stronger
signs of agreement, including the fisheries commissions, state owned fisheries industries,
nature preserve staff, and fisheries enforcement/border guards. These groups are probably
becoming aware of the invasive jellyfish populations. Other groups such as recreation
industry officials may be more aware of floral species that are clogging water ways, canals,
irrigation and lagoons.

There is division within other stakeholder groups, which may be a reflection of geography
more than anything else. As noted above this issue was a much higher concern issue for
stakeholders in Iran and Russia and lower in the other Caspian states. This trend is also
reflected throughout the responses to this question, with the highest levels of agreement from
Russian stakeholder groups.

This holds true as well to the responses to the statement "Invasive species are creating
significant environmental degradation in the Caspian." Strong agreement from stakeholders
from Russia is more predominant in response to this statement. The environmental ministries
had a very similar level of agreement with this statement as they did in the 2001 study. The
agriculture and fisheries ministries are in strong agreement with this statement, though they
did not rank protection from invasive species highly in the over all prioritization. Other groups
associated with fishing and the fisheries industry have either come to realise the impacts of
the invasive species, or are divided amongst themselves regarding the impacts. This may
indicate an opening for incorporating these stakeholders into CEP activities, including
monitoring of impacts and public awareness building.

In the 2001 study there was a higher level of agreement regarding the impact of invasive
species than is revealed in the current analysis, which shows more variation among coastal
zone residents. This is in large part due to the large number of surveys from coastal zone
residents in Turkmenistan, in comparison to the other countries. As noted above, the
responses to this statement are geographically determined so it would be logical this would
account for a lower prioritization among this group. However, once this variation is controlled
for, there is actually much higher level of agreement across this population. This suggests
that there is an increasing awareness of these impacts and that the damages are becoming
more wide spread though they continue to dominate the northern Caspian waters. This may
indicate an opening for increased awareness building and establishing linkages to other
environmental concerns in the region. If tied into the increased concerns for biodiversity, it
may be possible to develop broader public awareness of this issue while incorporating coastal
zone residents in efforts to monitor these species. In conjunction with Caspian eco-net
projects, hotlines for identification could be established that would provide stakeholders with
numbers to call when species are spotted, and information on what to do with these could be
provided to those communities.


Conclusion
The presence of invasive species in the region remains a low priority issue, though it is
continuing to become more important to stakeholders as they witness the impacts of this on
the ecosystem. Further, it may be that other issues, such as pollution levels are being blamed
for degradation that is actually a result of the presence of invasive species. At this time, it is
difficult to determine this link definitively, though with targeted efforts for increased awareness
among specific stakeholder groups, such as those involved with fisheries, and coastal zone
residents may improve this understanding, while also increasing awareness of the problems
facing the ecosystem because of the presence of these invasive species.


25

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

Reducing pollution in Caspian waters:

Reducing pollution in the Caspian waters is the highest priority issue for all stakeholder
groups, especially those groups who are in closest contact with the Caspian waters. There is
a wide perception that the waters of the Caspian are highly polluted despite recent studies
that suggest this is the case in concentrated hotspots. These have reduced the level of
concern among key stakeholder groups such as environmental ministries, and agriculture and
fisheries ministries. There is a perception among many stakeholders that the Caspian is not
cleaner today than it was 5 years ago, though groups such as coastal recreation industry
stakeholders and fisheries related groups were most adamant about the recent decline in
conditions.

Despite the perception that environmental quality is not improving there is general consensus
among all stakeholder groups that there is adequate scientific knowledge about the causes of
environmental decline in the Caspian. Groups that were internally divided about availability of
information on the decline in environmental quality may not have benefited from recent
information gathered in the past several years. There is a wide perception that pollution is
caused by agricultural and industrial effluents, municipal wastes discharges and pollution from
the oil extraction. Stakeholders continue to recognize that pollution in Caspian waters and low
environmental conditions are taking a toll on human health in the region. The lack of
information regarding causes of human health decline and environmental conditions sets the
stage for emergent tensions if not addressed in a constructive manner in the short term.

The issue of pollution from oil is especially divisive though the trend appears to be towards
more conciliatory attitudes among stakeholder groups regarding the presence of international
oil companies. Nonetheless this trend should be monitored closely as steps are taken towards
finding positive sum scenarios and improved dialogue among stakeholder groups.

In several issues involving there is a significant variation across the region. In general, the
respondents from Iran were more vocal about their concern regarding pollution levels.
Russian respondents tended to be more optimistic about environmental conditions pertaining
to pollution. Respondents from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan were more neutral
and lacked a broad consensus. This is discussed in more detail as it pertains to each
subsection, though this variation is believed to be due mainly to cultural variation and current
events.

Tensions between stakeholder groups regarding pollution have become less pronounced than
they were in the previous study. There is tension between groups regarding the cause and
effects of pollution as well as the responsibility for the conditions of the Caspian. In general
the views tend to reflect economic interests. The softening of tensions between some major
stakeholder groups, such as environmental ministries and agriculture and fishing ministries in
opposition to multinational corporations and industry is significant and bodes well for the
programme. However, steps should be taken to ensure that these positive trends will continue
to emerge and are supported by mutually agreeable arrangements.

Recommendations
Exploration of root causes of belief that the environmental quality of the Caspian is
declining
Make information summarizing recent scientific studies and pollution available to
those dealing with water management issue in regional and municipal governments
Provide information about broad trends in stakeholder perception regarding the
consensus on pollution stemming from agriculture and industrial activities
Continue to assist efforts to monitor municipal waste discharge rates into the Caspian
waters
Take steps towards empirically examining regional environmental conditions and the
effects on human health.
Improve dialogue opportunities for various stakeholder groups who are now in conflict
over pollution efforts
Provide information summarizing recent studies to broad stakeholder groups, in
simplified and accessible formats


26

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Reducing Pollution in Caspian Waters
High
Medium
Low
Environmental
Ministry
Hydromet
Officials
(no
groups)

Foreign Affairs Ministry

Agriculture and Fisheries
Economic
Ministry
Ministry

State Owned Fisheries
Fisheries
Commission
Industry
Regional
Government
Energy
Ministry
Private
Scientific
Research

District Water Management
Centre
Official

Farmer /water user
Municipal
Government
Pastoralist/Animal

Ministry of Education
Husbandry

State Scientific Research
Private
Industry
Centre
National
Press
National
NGO


Coastal Zone Resident
Nature
Preserve
Staff

Public Healthcare Provider
Educator/
Student

National or Local NGO
Coastal
Recreation
Industry
Community
Based
Organization
Fishermen
Fisheries
Enforcement/
Border Guards

Fisheries Product Sales -
National
Fisheries
Consumer

State Owned Industry
Oil
Company
Representatives
International
Funding
Institutions
International
NGOs
Experts
Groups

Reducing pollution in Caspian waters is the highest priority concern of respondents to the
stakeholder analysis. The issue of reducing pollution in Caspian waters was not directly
addressed in the 2001 study, though issues overall environmental decline and potential
damages from oil and gas activities were included. The decline in the over all environmental
was the highest priority issue for stakeholders in the 2001 study, while concern regarding
potential damage from oil and gas activities was at a much lower level concern.

The current high level prioritization of pollution in the Caspian waters appears partially due to
the expansion in stakeholder groups included in this analysis. Some groups have maintained
their high priority concern compared to the previous study. These include: all NGOs, public
healthcare providers, fishermen, and coastal zone residents. These groups are closely
involved in or directly impacted by environmental issues in the Caspian. Other groups that
rank this as a high priority include those who are linked to fisheries, or directly involved with
concerns of coastal residents. The high level of prioritization among the ministry of education
and the educators/students may be as a result of increased awareness of the water quality in
the Caspian as a result of more available educational materials. Also of interest are the
energy ministries, oil company representatives, foreign affairs ministries which previously did
not rank this as a high priority concern. The groups that rank this as a high level priority
include industry and oil company representatives. This suggests a willingness to acknowledge
the concerns regarding this issue, though specific responsibility for this condition can not be
deduced from this prioritization. The following statements below provide insight into
perceptions of environmental conditions, the understanding of the causes of the
environmental decline in the Caspian, the human impacts of a degraded environment, specific
causes of and impacts for pollution of the Caspian waters, and perception of who is
responsible for these conditions.

35. "The environment of the Caspian is cleaner today that it was 5 years ago."
Disagree
Agree

Foreign Affairs Ministry

Community Based Organizations
Fisheries
Commission

Oil Company Representatives

State Owned Fisheries Industry


27

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

Private Scientific Research Centre
National
NGO
Educator/student


Farmer / Water User

Coastal Recreation Industry
Educator/Student
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

Fisheries Product Sales ­ National
Fisheries
Consumer
Division Within

Environmental
Ministry

Ministry of Education
Hydromet
Officials

State Scientific Research Centre
Economic
Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Fisheries
Commission

State Owned Industry
Regional
Government
Private
Industry

District Water Management Official
National
Press
Municipal
Government


The statement "the environment is cleaner today than it was 5 years ago" had only two
groups in strong agreement ­ the community based organizations, and the oil company
representatives. This statement was not used on the 2001 study. Those groups in strong
disagreement are those who are involved directly in industries that are economically
dependent upon environmental quality, and living close to the water. Those in the fisheries
industry may be focusing blame for decreased fish stocks on pollution, rather than
acknowledging the decline is a result of over fishing. The coastal recreation industry may be
aware that poor environmental conditions limit the attraction their business. Others such as
the educators/students, farmer/water user group, and pastoralist/animal husbandry groups
may be seeing more pollution, or may be learning more about the pollution than they had
previously been aware of. The foreign affairs ministry may be willing to admit that this is a
problem due to the recent signing of the Tehran Convention and their awareness that it is now
time to address this problem collectively. Alternately, this may be due to an increased concern
over management of the shared waters.

The stakeholder groups that have division internal division were largely in disagreement and it
is the degree to which they disagree that precipitated their division. This is not to say that
there are some individuals who do feel that the environment is cleaner, but they are
significant minority of those surveyed in almost every stakeholder group.

When measured based on geography there was some variation across the region. Russian
respondents had the most positive view of the environmental quality over the past 5 years,
though there was only minute agreement that was strongly diluted by a high standard
deviation. In contrast the Iranian responses rated the environmental quality as significantly
more degraded in the past 5 years, as did the respondents from Kazakhstan, though there
was disproportionate responses from specialist in the Kazakh cohort, which may account for
this. Respondents from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan were in weak disagreement with the
statement. This variation among countries may be due to cultural variations more than any
other factor, though the Iranian population may be more sensitive to these pressures.

The above statement does not directly address why there is a decline in environmental
quality, but rather gauges the over all perception of stakeholders. The general ferocity of
responses suggests that root cause of this perception of environmental decline should be
explored further.

23. "There is adequate scientific knowledge about the causes of environmental decline in the
Caspian."
Agree

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Fisheries
Consumer

Pastoralist/Animal Husbandry

International Finance Organization

Coastal Recreation Industry
Division Within:
Regional
Government
Hydromet
Officials

District Water Management Official
Economic
Ministry
Municipal
Government


28

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
There are currently no groups that have disagreement with the statement "There is adequate
scientific knowledge about the cause of environmental decline in the Caspian" though the
level of agreement varies significantly. In the 2001 study there was division between
environmental ministries who were in weak agreement with this, and fishermen who where in
strong disagreement with this statement. Now fishermen are in very weak agreement with
this, and the environmental ministries maintain their agreement. This weakness in both
fishermen and environmental ministry officials was such that is did not warrant inclusion in the
table above. There is no geographic variation among the responses.

This shift from some disagreement before to stronger agreement now suggests that scientific
knowledge is reaching stakeholder groups. Those in strong agreement, such as the state
owned fisheries industry and others dependent upon fishing may be basing their comments
on the increase scientific evidence regarding the decline of the fisheries. Those groups with
internal divisions may not be receiving information pertaining to their concerns regarding the
causes of environmental decline. This may warrant additional information being made
available to these groups, specifically those dealing with water management issues and in
regional and municipal governments.

The specific causes of environmental decline are often difficult to pinpoint. The survey asked
several questions pertaining to this decline: agriculture and industrial waste; municipal
wastes; and oil pollution. These provide pertinent information regarding how groups view
these issues.


22. "Agricultural and industrial wastes flowing into the Caspian threaten marine and coastal
species."
Agree
Economic
Ministry

Farmer / Water User

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

National or Local NGO

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Coastal Recreation Industry
Regional
Government

Community Based Organization

District Water Management Official
Fishermen
Municipal
Government

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

Ministry of Education
Fisheries
Consumer

State Scientific Research Center

State Owned Industry

Private Scientific Research Center
National
Press
National
NGO

Oil Company Representatives
Nature
Preserve
Staff

International Finance Institutions

Coastal Zone Resident
International
NGOs

Public Healthcare Provider
Experts
Group
Educator/
Student
Wide Division Within:

Hydromet
Officials

Fisheries Product Sales ­ National

32. "Municipal wastes make the Caspian waters unpleasant."
Agree
Environmental
Ministry

Pastoralist/Animal Husbandry
Economic
Ministry

National or Local NGO

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Community Based Organization
Regional
Government
Fishermen

District Water Management Official

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

Municipal Government Officials

Fisheries Product Sales - National

Ministry of Education
Fisheries
Consumer
Nature
Preserve
Staff

State Owned Industry

Coastal Zone Resident
Private
Industry

Public Healthcare Providers

Oil Company Representatives
Educator/
Student
National
Press
Division Within:


Fisheries Commissions
Hydromet
Officials

13. "There are fewer fish in the Caspian than there used to be because of recent oil drilling."
Disagree
Agree

Oil Company Representatives

Agriculture and Fishing Ministries

International Finance Institutions

Ministry of Education
Educator/
Students

Pastoralist Animal Husbandry

29

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

Fisheries Products and Sales
Wide Division Within:


State Owned Fisheries Industry

Nature Park Staff

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Experts
Group


The statement "Agricultural and industrial wastes flowing into the Caspian threaten marine
and coastal species" has drawn very high levels of agreement from stakeholders in the
Caspian. On average most stakeholder groups tended to agree strongly with this statement.
In the 2001 study, there was strong agreement from many stakeholder groups, especially the
fishermen and coastal zone residents. In 2001 the multinational corporations were in
disagreement with this statement, though now the agreement of the oil company
representatives are in agreement. This suggests that the awareness that the pollution of the
Caspian is due to local causes, though it is difficult to pinpoint specifically. Environmental
ministries were in agreement, but it was not as strong as it was among many other groups. It
should be noted that the highest level of agreement was in countries with coastal industries:
Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Russia, while there was lower level agreement from
Turkmenistan. This high level of awareness of the problems of agricultural and industrial
pollution suggests that there is broad support for reducing effluents into the Caspian waters.
Inclusion of this broad trend in public awareness campaigns may help others recognize the
wide spread nature of this concern and could contribute to increased action based on the
support for remedying the situation. The awareness of the international finance institutions,
international NGOs, and experts groups also suggests that this issue is ripe for more
concerted attention and action.

In a similar vein, the statement "municipal wastes make the Caspian waters unpleasant" was
met with broad general agreement. The issue of untreated municipal wastes in the Caspian
was not addressed in the previous study however, this demonstrate that there are serious
concerns with this in the region. The concern over municipal wastes in Caspian waters is wide
spread among stakeholder groups, with only fisheries commissions and hydromet officials
being internally divided about this issue. Alternately, the district water management officials
were in the highest agreement with this statement of any stakeholder group. There was
strong geographic variation in response to this question. The highest level of agreement was
among stakeholders from Iran, with Russia also in strong agreement. Azerbaijan and
Turkmenistan were somewhat less adamant in their agreement. The clean-up efforts in Baku
Bay may be one reason the responses in Azerbaijan were lower, while the lower coastal
population in Turkmenistan may explain their lower level of agreement over all. Continued
monitoring of municipal wastes should be included in efforts to improve the water quality of
the Caspian waters. Though this is generally more of a local and nation level concern, a
possible perception of transboundary waste flows does not serve to improve regional
relations.

Though industrial and agricultural runoff, and municipal wastes are viewed as harming the
environment, there is not strong tensions between stakeholder groups regarding these
perceptions. Tensions do remain over oil pollution in Caspian waters among some
stakeholder groups. In 2001, the statement "There are fewer fish in the Caspian than there
used to be because of recent oil drilling" drew strong support from fishermen and the
agriculture and fishing ministries. The multinational corporations were divided originally
though tended to disagree. Now, the fishermen stakeholder group responses agree much
less strongly than in 2001, though the agriculture and fishing ministries and the fisheries
products and sales groups continue to agree strongly with this statement. Additionally,
education ministries and educators and students do as well. Pastoralists agree as well,
though the reason for this is not particularly clear.

Now we find that the international finance institutions and oil company representatives
disagree strongly with this cause for the decline in fisheries as would be expected because
the perceived lack of culpability for this decline. The experts group, nature park staff, foreign
affairs ministries and the state owned fisheries industries are internally divided. The division
within these groups may signal an awareness of the challenge of this issue or a perception
that there are multiple causes for the decline in certain fish stocks. This may warrant further
investigation among these groups.


30

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
It is worth noting that the coastal zone stakeholder group was not in strong agreement or
disagreement with this statement. Also absent from this cohort is the environmental
ministries. Both of these groups were in agreement 3 years ago, whereas now, they do not
have either a clear consensus or strong internal variation within the groups. These
discrepancies may represent a shifting in opinion or may be a statistical abnormality. If we
assume it is a shift in opinion, it may be because of the realization and subsequent studies
that decline in fisheries are caused in part by over fishing, rather than pollution levels.

Though out the survey respondents seem to link pollution to the oil industry and therefore to
the decline in fish stocks, the pollution is generally seen as creating conditions that are not
healthy for life in the Caspian. Both statements below reflect the belief that there is a
correlation between pollution in the Caspian and health of those in the region.

19. "Pollution is the primary reason that there are fewer fish in the Caspian."
Agree

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Farmer / Water User
Regional
Government

Local or National NGOs

District Water Management Official
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Municipal
Government
Fishermen

Private Scientific Research Center
Fisheries
Consumer

Public Healthcare Provider
Wide Division Within:

Community Based Organization
Fisheries
Commission

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Municipal
Government

Fisheries Products sales

Ministry of Education

State Owned Industry

Pastoralist/Animal Husbandry
International
NGOs


27. "People would be healthier if the environment were cleaner."
Agree
Environmental
Ministry
Educator/
Student
Economic
Ministry

Farmer / Water User

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Fisheries
Commission

National or Local NGO

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Community Based Organization
Regional
Government
Fishermen

District Water Management Official

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Municipal
Government

Fisheries Product Sales - National

Ministry of Education
Fisheries
Consumer

State Scientific Research Center

State Owned Industry

Private Scientific Research Center
Private
Industry
National
NGO
National
Press

Coastal Zone Resident
International
NGOs
Nature
Preserve
Staff

International Finance Organizations

Public Healthcare Provider
Experts
Group
Division Within:

Hydromet
Officials

Coastal Recreation Industry


In response to the statement "Pollution is the primary reason that there are fewer fish in the
Caspian" none of the stakeholder groups disagreed strongly. We find similar trends in terms
of agreement, but shifting groups. Previously the coastal zone residents, industries,
environmental ministries and fishermen were in agreement with this statement while now,
only the fisherman remain of this group. It is interesting to note that the other ministries, such
as agriculture and fishing, as well as other stakeholder groups listed above have now come to
see pollution as a cause in for the decline in fisheries. This suggests that there is an
understanding between pollution impacting declining fish populations. Though thr

Perhaps more telling is the statement "People would be healthier if the environment were
cleaner". This was one of the most widely agreed to statements in the survey. This statement
was also widely supported by almost all stakeholder groups in the initial study. This only
groups with internal dissent was the hydromet officials and coastal recreation industry. The
hydromet officials may have some awareness of other issues that endanger human health,
such as low economic conditions. The environmental conditions in the Caspian region are
believed to contribute to human health decline, though to date no region-wide studies have
been conducted. This creates a gap in information about the Caspian environment that should
be addressed in the future, either through targeted pilot studies or through a broader scaled

31

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
evaluation of public health in the region. Environmental issues continue to be a hot topic with
regards to the health of the human population and empirical evidence of cause and effect
relationships will be particularly helpful towards motivating stakeholders to actively work to
improve conditions in the region.

As it stands now, the stakeholder appear to link low human health conditions to environmental
degradation, and when environmental degradation is conceptualized it seems to be primarily
in the form of pollution from industries and agriculture and from the extractive industries in
particular. If stakeholders believe that there are fewer fish in the Caspian because of pollution
from oil drilling, and they believe that a degraded environment reduced human health, it is
possible that oil industry activities are being blamed for conditions which they did not create.
The perception that these stakeholders do not care about the environment or about their
impacts on the environment is difficult to counter. Two statements gauge this issue with
varying results.

14. "Multinational corporations and the energy industry do not care about the environment."
Disagree
Agree
Hydromet
Officials
Nature
Preserve
Staff

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Nature Park Staff

Oil Company Representatives
Wide Division Within:

Environmental
Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Economic
Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry

Foreign Affairs Ministry

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Fisheries
Commission

Fisheries Product Sales - National
Regional
Government
Fisheries
Consumer
Municipal
Government

State Owned Industry

Ministry of Education

25. "Private industry should take all responsibility for reversing environmental degradation of
the Caspian."
Disagree
Agree
Fisheries
Commission

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

Oil Company Representatives
Wide Division Within:

Coastal Zone Resident
Hydromet
Officials
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Energy
Ministry

Community Based Organization

District Water Management Official
Fishermen

Private Scientific Research Center
Private
Industry

The statement "multinational corporations and the energy industry do not care about the
environment" is widely divisive within stakeholder groups. It is also a divisive issue between
stakeholder groups. In the 2001 study the main division was between industry, multinational
corporations, and regional and municipal governments that were in disagreement with this
statement, in opposition to agriculture and fisheries ministries and fishermen who strongly
agreed with this statement. These divisions remain 3 years later, though the agriculture and
fishing ministries has a weaker level of agreement than before. The fishermen stakeholder
group is also much weaker than before. In comparison the regional and municipal
governments are now more divided than they had been previously which portends some
concern for this issue. This shift in opinion suggests that there is softening in views of
stakeholder groups, but this issue continues to warrant attention.

It should be noted that there is wide variation across the region regarding this statement. The
stakeholders from Russia disagreed, while those in Iran tended to agree. Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan were almost entirely neutral on this issue. The variation
between Russia and Iran is believed to be culturally based, with the current events in Russia
regarding the state seizure of privately owned oil companies may also account for some of
this variation. Follow up studies on this with more in-depth discussions between stakeholders
and oil companies may server to reduce these tensions over all throughout the region.

The statement "private industry should take all responsibility for reversing environmental
degradation in the Caspian" is also divisive among stakeholder groups, though less so than it
was in 2001. In 2001, environmental ministries, agriculture and fisheries ministries, regional
and municipal governments and public healthcare providers were in strong agreement with

32

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
this statement. Now each of these groups has significantly diluted opinions and generally
tends towards very weak agreement. On the other hand, the oil company representatives
maintain a strong disagreement with this statement. The fisheries commissions also disagree,
probably because they recognize that private industry is not responsible for the decline in
certain fisheries. This is in contrast to the fisheries enforcement/border guards who strongly
agree that private industry should take responsibility for environmental decline. This may be a
defensive response on their part, and goes with blaming the decline in fisheries on pollution
rather than lack of effective enforcement. Assigning blame for environmental conditions has
matured to acceptance that this is a very complex problem and is addressed in subsequent
sections of this report.

Assignment of blame for environmental conditions continues to be a precarious situation for
oil companies. Studies suggesting that the mass seal and kilka die-offs were due in part to the
presence of toxins in the water may have lead some stakeholder groups to believe that this is
due specifically to oil pollution, rather than pollution levels present in the region for longer
term. It is common that the extractive industries are blamed when they are seen as profiting
while pollution continues to create environmental problems. The challenge is to determine
what impacts the extractive industries pollution is having on the ecosystem, and also to
determine what other sources of environmental degradation are. It is clear that there are
concerns about the pollution in the environment; however it may be useful to identify those
sources as closely as possible in order to avoid creating a scapegoat industry that attracts
national and international attention while the actual causes of degradation are not addressed.
Once these causes are more closely defined, a public awareness campaign to distribute this
information may be useful in avoiding the vilification of a single industry at the expense of
meaningful remedial action.


Conclusion:

The challenge of pollution reduction is one of the most prevalent in this Caspian region.
Perceptions of causes, effects and responsibility vary widely. This variation suggests that
there are potential areas of conflict between stakeholder groups. The tensions are not as
severe as they were 3 years ago, however they do remain and work to absolve these should
certainly continue. This may require more aggressive information exchange, creative
solutions to entrenched ideas and increased dialogue among stakeholder groups in order to
bring about a more effect set of actions that has broad stakeholder support.


Sustainable economic development with environmental care:

Improvement of environmental conditions and economic conditions are often viewed as
contradictory aims. This unfortunate conception must be overturned in the region if
sustainable development practices are to be developed, and it appears that stakeholders in
the region is ready to consider these options at this time. Sustainable development with
environmental care is an important priority for stakeholders over all, and the shift to higher
prioritization of this among stakeholder groups is promising. The concept of using resources
to meet current demand at the expense of future generations is increasing in the awareness
of the stakeholders. Economic strains have also increased the realization of many
stakeholder groups that the environment will not be protected if economic conditions are very
low. Groups who had previously taken extreme positions on this appear to be recognizing the
complexity of this and are softening their opinions in general.

A topic of particular concern within this issue is the perception that the environment can
withstand whatever human activities do to it. There is actually a significant portion of the
population, especially coastal zone residents, and the agriculture and fisheries ministries who
still believe that technological solutions will resolve environmental problems and therefore
sound stewardship is not needed. A significant majority of stakeholders recognise that poor
environmental conditions impact human health; though no regional empirical studies have
been conducted. Access to potable water continues to be a high priority concern for many
stakeholders. Establishing a clear link between low environmental quality and poor human
health conditions as obstacles economic development may enable broader meaningful
stakeholder support for sustainable development in the region. The responsibility of the

33

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
government in regards to taking steps to improve environmental conditions has become a
more polarized issue that could be addressed through development of a sustainable
development agenda for targeted areas through pilot projects to serve as examples for the
wider region.

There has been division among stakeholder groups regarding the responsibilities of
government vis a vis social welfare programmes and environmental protection. This rift was
starting to occur in the 2001 study and increasing polarization has been found particularly
between groups with an active interest in environmental protection and those who are
economically dislocated due to poverty.

Recommendations
Examination of shifting trends in stakeholder perceptions of sustainable development
Provide stakeholder groups with accessible models of sustainable development
projects that have had concrete successes under comparable circumstances
Create an information campaign linking improved environmental conditions with
economic development focusing on grass roots efforts to protect habitats
Provide workshops for regional, district and national level planning agencies, with
CBOs, industries and NGOs to train groups how to develop sustainable development
practices.
Provide a basic ecology training course to targeted populations emphasising positive
sum scenarios of sound environmental stewardship.
In conjunction with other organizations develop a Caspian region environmental
health atlas to pin point areas of environmentally induced human problems.
Develop accessible materials demonstrating the linkages between low environmental
conditions, poor human health and poor economic performance.
Provide concrete examples of sustainable development projects that have been
employed at local, national and regional levels to targeted stakeholder groups.


Sustainable economic development with environmental care
High
Medium
Low
Hydromet
Officials
Environmental
Ministry

Ministry of Education
Economic
Ministry

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Fisheries
Commission

Agriculture and Fisheries
Husbandry

State Owned Fisheries
Ministry
Private
Industry
Industry
Energy
Ministry
National
Press
District
Water
Regional
Government

Management Official
National
NGO
Municipal
Government
Educator/
Student

State Scientific Research

Farmer / Water User
Center

National or Local NGO
Private
Scientific
Coastal
Recreation
Research Center
Industry

Coastal Zone Resident
Community
Based
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Organization
Public
Healthcare
Fisheries
Enforcement/
Provider
Border Guards
Fishermen
International
NGOs

Fisheries Product Sales -

National
Fisheries
Consumer

State Owned Industry
Oil
Company
Representatives
International
Finance
Institutions
Experts
Group

The issue of sustainable economic development with environmental care has risen as a
priority for stakeholders in the Caspian region. In 2001 this issue was not a high priority issue
overall as a root cause, and yet now is very close to preservation of biodiversity as a second
highest priority. Many of the stakeholder groups from the first study have shifted their priority
of this issue which carries some important implications. Of these groups, only officials from
environmental ministries have not changed their prioritization of this issue.

Those groups that have downgraded this issue include regional governments and NGOs who
previously ranked this as a high level concern and now rank it as a mid level priority now. This

34

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
may be because of the increased importance economic development, and the need to create
opportunities in the region, even at the expense of environmental protection. This downward
trend is also a found with regards to private industry who now rank this as a low priority
concern. For each of these groups, economic priorities are probably outweighing
environmental concerns, or there is a lack of understanding of environmentally friendly
development trends.

Those groups who have increased the prioritization are significant as well. State and private
scientific research centers now rank this as higher, perhaps because of increased awareness
that environmental care in the region can not be effectively developed when there is not
economic incentives for this. This trend is repeated with oil company representatives, and
fishermen. The most interesting shift is among the coastal zone residents who ranked this as
a medium to low level priority 3 years ago and now rank it quite soundly as a high level
priority. This suggests that there is a trend towards recognizing the importance of sustainable
development practices among those in the coastal areas who are affected by low
environmental conditions and face the need for improved economic opportunities. This trend
should be examined further and built upon through concerted efforts involving combining
economic and environmental benefits for coastal zone residents, perhaps through
demonstration projects supported through small grants if these are available.

There are several issues within the concept of sustainable development that were addressed
within the survey. The first group is the issue of economic use versus environmental
protection concerns. The second pertains to human health impacts of environmental
degradation. The third addresses the role of government in sustainable development.

12. "It is more important for people to use the Caspian resources that they need than it is to
leave them untouched because of environmental concerns"
Disagree
Agree

State Scientific Research Centers
Economic
Ministry

Oil Company Representatives

District Water Management Official

International Funding Institutions
Educator/
Student
International
NGOs
Fisheries
Consumer
Experts
Group
Wide Division Within:

Environmental
Ministry

Coastal Zone Resident
Hydromet
Officials

Public Healthcare Provider
Economic
Ministry

Farmer / Water User
Energy
Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

National or Local NGO

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Coastal Recreation Industry
Regional
Government

Community Based Organization
Municipal
Government
Fishermen

Ministry of Education

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

State Scientific Research Center

Fisheries Product Sales - National

Private Scientific Research Center

State Owned Industry
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Private
Industry
National
Press

18. "It is more important to protect natural habitats than it is to enhance economic
development."
Disagree
Agree

District Water Management Officials

Fisheries Products and Sales
National
Press
Wide Division Within:

Community Based Organization
Fisheries
Commission
Fishermen
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

21. "There should be limits on some activities in certain zones of the coastal region."
Agree
Environmental
Ministry
Educator/
Student
Economic
Ministry

Farmer / Water User

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

National or Local NGO

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Coastal Recreation Industry
Regional
Government

Community Based Organization

District Water Management Official
Fishermen
Municipal
Government

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

Ministry of Education
Fisheries
Consumer

35

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

State Scientific Research Center

State Owned Industry

Private Scientific Research Center
Private
Industry
National
NGO

Oil Company Representatives
Nature
Preserve
Staff
National
Press

Coastal Zone Resident

International Funding Institutions

Public Healthcare Provider
International
NGOs
Experts
Group
Wide Division Within:
Fisheries
Commission


The statement "It is more important for people to use the Caspian resources that they need
than it is to leave them untouched because of environmental concerns" is highly divisive
within many stakeholder groups, as the rate of use of resources now is unsustainable in order
to meet human needs, or to preserve them for future generations. In the 2001 survey there
was much wider division between stakeholder groups with regard to this statement, whereas
now the division is within stakeholder groups. In 2001, the environmental ministries,
agriculture and fisheries ministries, regional and municipal governments, scientific
communities, coastal zone residents, public health care providers and fishermen agreed with
this statement. In contrast, NGOs both from local and national groups, and industry disagreed
with this statement and again, they are also now divided over this issue. All of these groups
now show strong internal division, though these trends do not appear to be strongly linked to
geographic trends. Now the only groups that had consensus on this issue were the state
scientific research centers, oil company representatives, international funding institutions
international NGOs and the experts group. This may be due to the relative distance from the
coastal living conditions of these groups' members, while realities for local populations are
direr and often dependent upon local natural resources to sustain existing populations.
Additionally, of those in disagreement with this statement will be more inclined to have a
conservationist agenda than other stakeholder groups.

As this statement pertains to sustainable development, the shift towards a more midline
sentiments suggests that previously held opinions are now being reshaped by the awareness
of the need to care for natural resources while developing economically. Division within key
stakeholder groups, such as environmental ministries, agriculture and fisheries ministries,
energy ministries, regional and municipal governments, national and local NGOs, scientists,
coastal zone residents and others suggests that there is a stronger awareness that low
economic conditions are not conducive to environmental stewardship, as resources are used
at rates that degrade the environment. In contrast, this also suggests the awareness that poor
environmental conditions do not support economic growth. Additional examples of
environmentally sound economic development should be provided to stakeholder groups as
models for development.

In response to the statement "It is more important to protect natural habitats than it is to
enhance economic development" there was some division within and among stakeholder
groups. The only dissenting stakeholder group was the district water management officials.
This would reflect the pressures on them to provide water for economic development even
though they may be aware that it is done at the expense of natural habitats. In contrast,
fisheries products and sales and national press agreed with this statement. This may be due
to the awareness that failure protection of habitats will have broader economic repercussions,
though it may also be reflective of the small sample of these groups.

The groups that had wide division within the stakeholder groups of note were fisheries
commissions, fishermen and fisheries enforcement/border guards. These groups may be
experiencing something of a crisis as populations of commercial species continue to decline,
and the cause remains elusive to those not wishing to acknowledge the impacts of over
fishing. In comparison, pastoralists and community based organizations may have realized
that destruction of habitats is having economic ramifications as the impacts are felt by coastal
communities. Perhaps an informational campaign linking improved environmental conditions
with economic development would held to alleviate some of these divisions and could
enhance grass roots efforts to protect habitats.

The conspicuous absence of groups such as the environmental ministries, economic
ministries, oil company representatives and industry from this is largely due to their relatively
anaemic responses. Among all of these groups there was very weak disagreement with this

36

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
statement, which was constant across all of these groups. Coastal zone residents as the
largest stakeholder group had some variation but the average was almost exactly between
agreement and disagreement, with a very low standard deviation. This suggests that the
issue of active habitat protection could become more important, especially if stakeholders are
taught about the linkages between habitat protection and sustainable economic development.

The 2001 study found high levels of regional variation in response to the statement "there
should be limits on some activities in certain zones of the coastal region". This regional
variation has evaporated, as Russia, I.R. Iran and Azerbaijan have very strong agreement;
Turkmenistan has moderately strong levels of agreement; and the limited response from
Kazakhstan has strong agreement. The 2004 study also revealed very strong levels of
support for limits on activities in certain areas of the coastal zone. A total of 31of the 40
stakeholder groups had strong consensus of agreement on this issue. The only group that
was represented as having strong agreement in the 2001 study was industries. Within the
current study, there was wide division within the fisheries commissions, and no clear level of
agreement or disagreement from hydromet officials or fisheries products sales. These may be
due to statistical aberrations due to a small sample size.

Overall these responses suggest that a top down approach to sustainable development may
be widely accepted in the region. The population in these countries are largely accustomed to
governments that take a strongly directive approach to resource governance, and may be
willing to be supportive of such an approach to social and economic planning. Again, this
suggests that support may be warranted for the increasing support and capacity building for
these groups to advocate for sustainable development practices. This support may be in the
form of planning workshops for municipal, district and regional governments, industries,
community based organizations and NGOs. Additional information for ministerial officials may
also be helpful for increasing sustainable development trends.


34. "The environment can fully recover no matter what humans do to it."
Disagree
Environmental
Ministry

National or Local NGO
Economic
Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Fishermen
Fisheries
Commission

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Fisheries Product Sales - National
Regional
Government
Fisheries
Consumer

District Water Management Official

State Owned Industry
Municipal
Government
Private
Industry

Private Scientific Research Center

Oil Company Representatives
National
NGO
National
Press
Nature
Preserve
Staff
International
NGOs
Educator/
Student
Experts
Group

Farmer / Water User
Division Within

Hydromet
Officials

Ministry of Education

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Coastal Zone Residents

The issue of limits of the environment to absorb human activities and still replenish itself is
new to the current study with the statement "The environment can fully recover no matter
what humans do to it." This question emerged following independent discussions with
stakeholders in the region who repeatedly said that regardless of what they do to the
environment, it will recover. While a majority of stakeholder groups are in strong
disagreement with this statement there are several groups that have strong divisions. These
divisions suggest that there continues to be mentality that no matter what humans do to the
environment, technological solutions can be found to remedy the damages. This mentality,
especially among coastal zone residents may create significant challenges to efforts to
improve environmental conditions. A possible means of addressing this problem is to create a
basic and accessible set of examples drawing on cases where long term environmental
damages were caused by human activities. This will be most effective if economic costs of
these damages can be demonstrated through examples for those groups who may be holding
these outdated conceptions. Another group which had internal division that is of concern to
CEP is the agriculture and fisheries ministry officials. Unexpectedly, they were widely divided
in response to this question, which suggests that there are some officials in this key ministry

37

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
who may not fully appreciate the precarious balance of ecosystems, and the severity of
human impact on these shared resources.

The impacts on human health could also be used as a key example of the problems that
result from environmental degradation. In the Caspian region there is awareness of this
relationship though it is not as developed as it may need to be as demonstrated by the
statements below.

27. "People would be healthier if the environment were cleaner."
Agree
Environmental
Ministry
Educator/
Student
Economic
Ministry

Farmer / Water User

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Fisheries
Commission

National or Local NGO

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Community Based Organization
Regional
Government
Fishermen

District Water Management Official

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Municipal
Government

Fisheries Product Sales - National

Ministry of Education
Fisheries
Consumer

State Scientific Research Center

State Owned Industry

Private Scientific Research Center
Private
Industry
National
NGO
National
Press

Coastal Zone Resident

International Finance Institutions
Nature
Preserve
Staff
International
NGOs

Public Healthcare Provider
Experts
Group
Division Within:

Hydromet
Officials

Coastal Recreation Industry


26. "In the Caspian region, the biggest threat to the human population is the lack of safe drinking
water."
Agree
Environmental
Ministry
Nature
Preserve
Staff

Foreign Affairs Ministry

Public Healthcare Provider

State Owned Fisheries Industry
Educator/Student
Energy
Ministry

Community Based Organization
Regional
Government
Fisheries
Enforcement/Border
Guards

District Water Management Official
Fisheries
Consumer

Ministry of Education
Wide Division Within:

Hydromet
Officials

Coastal Recreation Industry
Economic
Ministry

State Owned Industry
Fisheries
Commission

Oil Company Representatives

Private Scientific Research Center
National
Press

Coastal Zone Residents

Farmer / Water User

The more general statement is "People would be healthier if the environment were cleaner".
This was one of the most widely agreed to statements in the survey. This statement was also
widely supported by almost all stakeholder groups in the initial study. This main group with
dissent was the hydromet officials, who have some internal division possibly due to the
awareness of other issues that endanger human health, such as low economic conditions.
Also there was variation in the coastal recreation industry, which may indicate a division
between those who recognize this issue and those who realize that formal recognition could
decrease economic opportunities for their industry. The environmental conditions in the
Caspian region are believed to contribute to human health decline, though to date no region-
wide studies have been conducted. This creates a gap in information about the Caspian
environment that should be addressed in the future, either through targeted pilot studies or
through a broader scaled evaluation of public health in the region. Environmental issues
continue to be a hot topic with regards to the health of the human population and empirical
evidence of cause and effect relationships will be particularly helpful towards motivating
stakeholders to actively work to improve conditions in the region. This may suggest that a
regional health atlas project could be warranted, building on work of other organizations, and
possibly incorporating WHO assistance.

The second statement is "In the Caspian region, the biggest threat to the human population is
the lack of safe drinking water." In the current study, there was no disagreement with this from
stakeholder groups. When asked in the 2001 study, there was strong agreement from public

38

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
health care providers, and agreement from environmental ministries, coastal zone residents,
and NGOs. These groups has all become somewhat less adamant in their agreement
perhaps because they realize that there are other serious concerns facing the human
population, including lack of economic development. Nonetheless 13 of 35 groups were in
strong agreement with this statement, suggesting that there is an awareness of the challenge
of accessing clean water sources.

These perceptions of low environmental conditions impacting human health can actually work
in favour of implementing sustainable development plans and projects. By linking improved
environmental conditions to improved economic circumstances there are doubled incentives
for stakeholders to support these efforts. A relationship exists between low environmental
conditions and poor human health. As noted before, it is difficult to draw a direct link between
environmental causes of human illness; however empirical trends do support this general
relationship. As human health declines, the investment climate is also degraded both as
workers become ill and as other members of the labour force and revenues go to care for
those with illnesses. As a result of this diversion of money and labour, there is less economic
activity, which in turn increases poverty in a region. As poverty increases, dependence upon
non-sustainable environmental practices increase, and the cycle repeats itself. While this is a
very cursory overview of this issue, presenting it to targeted stakeholders in conjunction with
assessments of current environmental conditions may garner support for the implementation
of sustainable development projects.

In political systems such as those around the Caspian, the expectation of government to meet
basic needs is fairly high, especially in the Former Soviet States. The role of government in
environmental stewardship is not particularly clear, when measured against other more
traditional demands.


17. "The government should spend money on the basic needs of people, like housing, health
care and good jobs, before it spends money on protecting the environment."
Disagree
Agree
Environmental
Ministries
Fishermen
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Fisheries
Enforcement/Border
Guards
Educators/students
National
Press

International Funding Institutions
International
NGOs
Wide Division Within:

Economic
Ministry

Coastal Zone Resident

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Public Healthcare Provider

District Water Management Official
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Municipal
Government

Farmer / Water User

Ministry of Education

Fisheries Product Sales - National

Private Scientific Research Center
Fisheries
Consumer

State Owned Industry

The statement above "The government should spend money on the basic needs of people,
like housing, health care and good jobs, before it spends money on protecting the
environment." When used in the 2001 study this failed to generate a strong reaction from any
stakeholder group though polarization was beginning to occur as groups tended towards
agreement and disagreement. Now there is much more division between and within
stakeholder groups regarding this issues. The groups we see in each of these are those we
would expect to see the division in, with environmental ministries arguing for more resources
dedicated to environmental stewardship, and those groups who are most immediately
economically dislocated in agreement with this. Nonetheless, this division may continue to
become more extreme if linkages between economic improvements and environmental
stewardship are not developed. Divisions within groups also represent the internal
ambivalence that stakeholder groups face. In all the groups listed the division was significant
enough that this split may be worth monitoring over time. Discussions of sustainable
development ideals must be supported by concrete examples. If cases where steps were
taken by governments and other stakeholder groups to reverse degradation trends while
improving environmental conditions could be demonstrated to those in the region it is possible
to bring about changes that could have lasting and meaningful impacts on the region as a
whole.


39

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Conclusion:
The challenge of sustainable development will be to clearly demonstrate the benefits and to
show that these benefits will outweigh the long term costs to stakeholder groups. Generally
there is agreement on the need to improve environmental conditions, but it needs to be done
in conjunction with economic development. The Caspian states can not afford to devote
significant resources to traditional environmental practices that limit economic growth. Rather,
new solutions need to be employed that will improve environmental conditions while also
improving economic opportunities in the region.


Stronger civil society input into decision making:

Overview
There has been an emphasis on civil society input into environmental decision making by
international organizations. The concern for this among regional stakeholders is actually quite
low. This issue is ranked as the lowest priority for all stakeholder groups in the region. As
expected, some groups such as local and national NGOs see this as a higher priority issue,
while most rank this as a much lower priority. This low ranking is probably due to other more
specific concerns addresses elsewhere in this study. The cultural and political legacies of
most of the Caspian countries also do not strongly encourage input from civil society into
decision making processes. Further, this survey reveals that a there is ambivalence among
most stakeholders about how representative NGOs are of grassroots efforts in the region.
Also the assumption that most environmental information comes from media such as TV and
newspapers has been brought into question by the survey results.

There is positive support for continued collaboration among stakeholders, such as NGOs,
private companies and scientists, and there is broad support for all members of society taking
responsibility for environmental issues. Most stakeholders do not believe that only in the
event of an environmental crisis will people be concerned about environmental issues which
portends well for increased awareness of issues. Again though, this may be most effectively
addressed in relation to more specific issues discussed above.

There are relatively few tensions with regards to the importance of civil society input into
decision making, at least according to stakeholder groups. The tensions may be more
pronounced as groups attempt to assert influence on the decision making process. While
channels have been established to facilitate this effort in international projects, there may be a
need to carefully consider if civil society representatives are agents of broad coalitions of
stakeholders or special interests claiming to represent a wider spectrum than perhaps they
actually do.

Recommendations
Consider examining the claims of organizations who profess to represent broad
stakeholder groups in order to determine if they are in fact working as grassroots
activists, and if so in what capacity are they doing this
Conduct a wider investigation into sources of environmental information so that
efforts to reach stakeholders can be more effective.
Continue to encourage collaborative efforts between scientists, NGOs and the private
sector
Identify means for stakeholder groups to be involved in decision making processes at
local, national and regional levels.

Stronger Civil Society input into decision making
High
Medium
Low
Regional
Government

State Owned Fisheries
Environmental
Ministry

Ministry of Education
Industry
Economic
Ministry
National
NGO
District
Water

Foreign Affairs Ministry

National or Local NGO
Management Official
Hydromet
Officials
Coastal
Recreation
Public
Healthcare

Agriculture and Fisheries
Industry
Provider
Ministry
Fishermen

State Owned Industry
Fisheries
Commission
Fisheries
Enforcement/
National
Press
Municipal
Government
Border Guards
International
Funding

State Scientific Research

Institutions
Centre

40

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

International
NGOs
Private
Scientific
Research

Centre

Coastal Zone Resident
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Educator/
Student

Farmer / Water User
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Community
Based
Organization

Fisheries Product Sales -
National
Fisheries
Consumer
Private
Industry
Oil
Company
Representatives
Experts
Group

Concerns over civil society involvement in decision making have been relatively weak among
stakeholders in the Caspian region. In the 2001 study, this was ranked as one of the lowest
priority root causes, and again in the current analysis it comes up as the lower priority issue
among all stakeholders surveyed. There are several groups that list this as a high priority
issue, such as NGOs, both local and national level, as well as the ministry of education. This
would be widely expected since these groups would benefit from higher levels of civil society
input into environmental concerns. Coastal recreation industry and regional government also
rank this as a high priority concern. Other groups such as fishermen and fisheries
enforcement/border guards rank this as a high priority, though this appears to be mainly a
statistical abnormality due to unclear ranking procedures among this group.

Other groups rank this as a lower, or as the lowest priority, probably because there are other
more immediate concerns, such as pollution, loss of biodiversity and need for economic
development with environmental care. The lower prioritization perhaps mostly reflects a
dubious concern about the role of civil society involvement in political systems where civil
society remains nascent after only a dozen years out from under the constraints of the Soviet
Union. With the exception of Iran, the role of civil society in government decision making has
not been given precedence by either those in charge or the society as a whole. This is not to
dismiss its importance, but rather to provide the context for the lower prioritization of this issue
among stakeholders.

The issue of stakeholder support for civil society is reflected in questions with three main
themes: the role of civil society in broader society; the responsibilities of civil society
pertaining to environmental issues; and how to increase public concern for environmental
issues.

30. "NGOs represent the interests of most coastal zone residents."
Agree

District Water Management Official
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Municipal
Government
Fishermen

Public Healthcare Provider

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
Division Within:


State Owned Fisheries Industry

Nature Preserv Staff

Ministry of Education
Fisheries
Commission

Private Scientific Research Center

Oil Company Representatives

31. "Most information about environmental conditions in the Caspian comes from media like TV
or newspapers."
Agree
Economic
Ministry

Farmer / Water User

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Pastoralist/ Animal Husbandry
Fisheries
Commissions
Fishermen

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

Public Healthcare Provider

Division Within:

Energy
Ministry

State Owned Industry

District Water Management Official
National
Press
Fisheries
Consumer
International
NGOs


41

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
The two statements above were not used in the first stakeholder analysis so there can be no
comparison over time. The first statement "NGOs represent the interests of most coastal
zone residents" was intended to gauge the level of stakeholder identification with NGOs.
Interestingly, the NGOs were in weak agreement with this statement, while other groups were
in stronger agreement. There have been assertions that NGOs in fact do not adequately
represent the grassroots movements they often claim to, but instead are made up of
specialists who are more focused on gaining benefits from donors, than improving
environmental conditions. This statement neither confirms nor denies that assertion, though it
does shed interesting light on the concept of NGOs as being widely representative. This may
warrant further investigation into NGOs in the region who are claiming to be representative of
wider populations in the region. While some may in fact be involved in grassroots efforts, this
would suggest that many are not.

The second statement "most information about environmental conditions in the Caspian
comes from media like TV or newspapers" was developed to determine where stakeholders
get their information about the environment. The common assumption has been that media
actually was a major source of environmental information, though based on the results of this
survey this does not seem to be entirely correct. While some groups were in strong
agreement with this statement, many were not. This may be either because there is not
information about environmental issue in the news papers, or because stakeholders have
other sources where environmental information is obtained. It may be prudent to conduct a
wider investigation into sources of environmental information so that efforts to reach
stakeholders could be more effective.


24. "There should be more environmental monitoring projects that involve NGOs, scientists and
private sector collaboration."
Agree
Environmental
Ministry

Farmer / Water User
Hydromet
Officials
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

Foreign Affairs Ministry

National or Local NGO
Economic
Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry
Fisheries
Commission

Community Based Organization

State Owned Fisheries Industry
Fishermen
Regional
Government

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

District Water Management Official

Fisheries Product Sales - National
Municipal
Government
Fisheries
Consumer

Ministry of Education

State Owned Industry

State Scientific Research Center

Oil Company Representatives

Private Scientific Research Center
National
Press
National
NGO

International Funding Institutions

Coastal Zone Resident
International
NGOs

Public Healthcare Provider
Experts
Educator/
Students
Division Within:
Nature
Preserve
Staff


33. "It is important that everyone take responsibility for the environmental conditions, not just
the specialists."
Agree
Environmental
Ministry

Farmer / Water User
Hydromet
Officials
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry
Economic
Ministry

National or Local NGO

Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry
Energy
Ministry

Community Based Organization

State Owned Fisheries Industry
Fishermen
Regional
Government

Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards

District Water Management Official

Fisheries Product Sales - National
Municipal
Government
Fisheries
Consumer

Ministry of Education

State Owned Industry

State Scientific Research Center
Private
Industry

Private Scientific Research Center

Oil Company Representatives
National
NGO
National
Press

Coastal Zone Resident

International Funding Institutions
Nature
Preserve
Staff
International
NGOs

Public Healthcare Provider
Experts
Educator/
Student
Division Within:
Fisheries
Commission



42

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

In response to the statement "there should be more environmental monitoring projects that
involve NGOs, scientists and private sector collaboration" stakeholders were overwhelmingly
in agreement. This was the case in the 2001 study as well, though at that time there were
fewer such projects. It appears that recent experiences with these combined projects have
been positive for the most part. The only group that had division regarding this issue was the
nature preserve staff oil who may be leery of these projects for reasons of potential economic
displacement. This level of stakeholder support suggests that these types of projects should
continue to be supported by CEP activities when possible.

The strong support for the statement "it is important that everyone take responsibility for the
environmental conditions, not just the specialists" suggests that most stakeholder groups
have a sense that environmental problems can not be left to specialist to handle and that
instead all members of society must work together to alleviate environmental problems. The
internal division within the fisheries commission may be as a result of their wariness that
some environmental problems should be handled by experts. However, the over all
consensus on this issue also suggests that stakeholders understand that there is a need for
collective action to alleviate environmental problems. This may warrant emphasising activities
to include groups as much as possible in environmental activities, even if they are not directly
involved in decision making practices.

15. "Unless there is a severe environmental crisis, care for the environment will not be a priority
for the people."
Disagree
Agree
Hydromet
Officials
Energy
Ministry

Foreign Affairs Ministry
Pastoralist/Animal
Husbandry

State Owned Fisheries Industry

Fisheries Products and Sales
Nature
Preserve
Staff
Wide Division Among:

Environment
Ministry

Coastal Recreation Industry
Economic
Ministries
Fishermen
Fisheries
Commission
Fisheries
Enforcement/Border
Guards
Regional
Government
Fisheries
Consumer

Ministry of Education

State Owned Industry

District Water Management Official
Private
Industry
Educator/Student
National
Press

Local or National NGOs
Experts
Group

One issue of concern to many environmental activists is how to increase public awareness of
environmental issues. Many believe that the statement "Unless there is a severe
environmental crisis, care for the environment will not be a priority for the people" reflects the
general lack of interest among most stakeholders. In the previous study this was supported by
statement was agreed to by the environmental ministries, coastal zone resident stakeholder
group, and healthcare providers, and strongly agreed to by the agriculture and fisheries
ministries, regional and municipal governments, the NGOs, the multinational corporation
stakeholder group, and fishermen. In contrast, the Energy Ministry stakeholder group and the
industries did not agree with this statement. It is interesting to note that of these groups only
the energy ministry officials are now in agreement with this statement. There is some weak
agreement with regards to this comment, these groups seem to be much less adamant about
this proposition.

Alternately, groups who are in disagreement now are those who may have experiences that
would lead them to believe that people have more concern for environmental issues than they
are often given credit for. In contrast, those who are in strong agreement now are those who
would be very directly affected by an environmental crisis. This suggests that there is a
perception of broader environmental concern, though this is not pinpointed in this issue, it is
referred to in previous sections where levels of concern are rising. The question of how to
raise awareness of environmental issues without a crisis remains, though earlier sections may
have addressed this more effectively than civil society has at this juncture, and these should
be built upon.


Conclusion:

43

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Civil society involvement in the decision making process remains a relatively low priority for
stakeholders in the region. This is at odds in many ways with international and bilateral
organizations who want to increase civil society input into decision making. This may warrant
further investigation within the region to determine how supportive stakeholders are of civil
society involvement in decision making and how it can be emphasised and encouraged
among stakeholder groups.



44

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
ANNEX 1
Questionnaire for CEP II Regional Stakeholder Analysis

This survey is an important contribution to the Caspian Environment Programme. The Caspian
Environment Programme (CEP) is a regional programme established by the Caspian littoral states and
international agencies including The World Bank, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). A goal of the Caspian Environment
Programme is to improve the lives of the people in the Caspian region by improving the environment
of the Caspian Sea.

The Caspian Environment Programme is eager to develop a set of realistic, achievable objectives that
enhance the condition of the Caspian Sea. In order to best serve the Caspian community, it is important
to identify its stakeholders.

In order to determine what groups have interests in the environment of the Caspian Sea, what these
interests are, and how these interests relate to other interests in the region, your assistance with this
survey is needed. Your answers will be tabulated with others from the region and analyzed to
determine those environmental interests that are most pervasive in the region. No individual survey or
participant will be identified in any report. Please answer the questions below to the best of your
ability, by writing the number or letter of your response in the space provided.


1._____ Country (AZ, IR, KZ, RF, TK or other)
2._____ Urban or Rural (U, R)
3._____ Male or Female (M, F)
4._____ Age

5._____ Please indicate which group you most closely represent from the box below. If more than one,
please indicate rank

Government officials/ ministries
Scientists or other specialists
1. Environmental Ministry
14. State Scientific Research Center
2. Hydromet official
15. Private Scientific Research Center
3. Foreign Affairs Ministry
16. National NGO
4. Economic Ministry
17. Nature preserve staff
5. Agriculture/Fisheries Ministry
Coastal community members
6. Fisheries Commissions
7. State owned fisheries industry
18. Coastal Zone Resident
8. Energy Ministry
19. Public health providers
9. Regional Government
20. Educator Student
10. District water management official
21. Farmer/ water user
11. Municipal Government
22. Pastoralist/animal husbandry
12. Municipal waste manager
23. National or local NGO
13. Ministry of Education
24. Coastal recreation industry

25. Community Based Organization

Fisheries issues
Industry officials
26. Fishermen
34. State owned industry
27. Fisheries processing industry
35. Private industry
28. Fisheries investor
36. Health, Environment and Safety
29. Caspian fisheries alternatives
Manager for international oil company
30. Fisheries enforcement/ border guards
Others
31. Fisheries product sales - national
32. Fisheries product sales - International
37. National press
33. Fisheries Consumer
38. International press

39. Other IWP staff
40. International Funding Inst
41. Bilateral agency
42. Non-State international organization
43. International NGO

45

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Environmental Concerns
Please rank each issue below (number 6- 11) by priority for the Caspian environment with 1 being most
important to you and 6 being the least important.
6._____
Improved fisheries
7._____
Preservation of biodiversity
8._____
Protection from invasive species
9._____
Reducing pollution in Caspian Waters
10._____
Sustainable economic development with environmental care
11._____
Stronger civil society input into decision making


Environmental Attitudes
Below are a series of statements designed to gauge how people think about the environment. We would
like to know how strongly you agree or disagree with these statements. Please assign a number to each
statement based on this scale of agreement:
Strongly
agree
No
opinion
Strongly
disagree

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

12._____
It is more important for people to use the Caspian resources that they need than it is
to leave them untouched because of environmental concerns.
13._____
There are fewer fish in the Caspian than there used to be because of recent oil
drilling.
14._____
Multinational Corporations and the energy industry do not care about the
environment.
15._____
Unless there is a severe environmental crisis, care for the environment will not be a
priority for the people.
16._____
People will not change their lifestyles to protect endangered species.
17._____
The government should spend money on the basic needs of people, like housing,
health care and good jobs, before it spends money on protecting the environment.
18._____
It is more important to protect natural habitats than it is to enhance economic
development.
19._____
Pollution is the primary reason that there are fewer fish in the Caspian.
20._____
An enforced system of mutually agreed upon fishing limits would be effective for
reducing over-fishing in the Caspian.
21._____
There should be limits on some activities in certain zones of the coastal region.
22._____
Agricultural and industrial wastes flowing into the Caspian threaten marine and
coastal species.
23._____
There is adequate scientific knowledge about the causes of environmental decline in
the Caspian.
24._____
There should be more environmental monitoring projects that involve NGOs,
scientists and private sector collaboration.
25._____
Private industry should take all responsibility for reversing environmental
degradation of the Caspian.
26._____
In the Caspian region, the biggest threat to the human population is the lack of safe
drinking water.
27._____
People would be healthier if the environment were cleaner.
28._____
I have seen unusual creatures in the Caspian that were not there ten years ago.
29._____
Invasive species are creating significant environmental degradation in the Caspian.
30._____
NGOs represent the interests of most coastal zone residents.
31._____
Most information about environmental conditions in the Caspian comes from media
like TV or newspapers.
32._____
Municipal wastes make the Caspian waters unpleasant.
33._____
It is important that everyone take responsibility for the environmental conditions, not
just the specialists.
34._____
The environment can fully recover no matter what humans do to it.
35._____
The environment of the Caspian is cleaner today that it was 5 years ago.



Thank you for your participation in this survey!

If you have questions or comments, please contact Mary M. Matthews at:
E-mail: mary.matthews@tethysconsultants.com

46

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005


ANNEX 2

Survey Question Number
Stakeholder
Group
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
SHG 1
Environmental Ministry
























SHG 2
Hydromet Officials
























SHG 3
Foreign Affairs Ministry
























SHG 4
Economic Ministry
























SHG 5
Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry
























SHG 6
Fisheries Commission
























SHG 7
State Owned Fisheries Industry
























SHG 8
Energy Ministry
























SHG 9
Regional Government
























SHG 10
District Water Management Official
























SHG 11
Municipal Government
























SHG 13
Ministry of Education
























SHG 14
State Scientific Research Center
























SHG 15
Private Scientific Research Center
























SHG 16
National NGO
























SHG 17
Nature Preserve Staff
























SHG 18
Coastal Zone Resident
























SHG 19
Public Healthcare Provider
























SHG 20
Educator/ Student
























SHG 21
Farmer / Water User
























SHG 22
Pastoralist/Animal Husbandry
























SHG 23
National or Local NGO
























SHG 24
Coastal Recreation Industry
























SHG 25
Community Based Organization
























SHG 26
Fishermen
























SHG 30
Fisheries Enforcement/ Border Guards
























SHG 31
Fishing Product Sales - National
























SHG 33
Fisheries Consumer and Value Added
























SHG 34
State Owned Industry
























SHG 35
Private Industry
























SHG 36
Oil Company Representatives
























SHG 37
National Press
























SHG40 International
Funding
Institutions
























SHG 43
International NGOs

























Experts Group from SCM and CEP IF

























Disagree
Divided
Agree

47

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
ANNEX 3

Stakeholder Analysis Revisit Literature Review

July 2004

Mary M. Matthews, Ph.D.

Executive Summary

The Stakeholder literature review is based on a desk-study evaluation of the available
information regarding the changes in the perceptions, influence and concerns of the
stakeholders of the Caspian Environment Programme. The findings here are not conclusive
and are intended to direct the development of the stakeholder analysis revisit (SAR).

The Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) for CEP I was originally conducted in order to identify
Stakeholder Groups (SHGs) and to determine areas of potential conflict between SHGs. This
current Stakeholder Analysis Revisit (SAR) will empirically gauge changes or shifts that are
apparent based upon the situational analysis conducted here. The main finding this far
suggest that there are four areas of significant change pertaining to stakeholder involvement
in CEP.

The first is the proliferation of stakeholder groups associated with the bioresources/fisheries
activities. This proliferation was initiated in part by extra-regional influences and the
increasing scarcity in certain fish stocks. As a result, these new groups will need to be
included in the SAR, and may need to be included in the activities of the CEP projects
addressing the issue.

The second is the increased attention to the impact of invasive species. Though not
particularly salient among the broader stakeholder population, the scientific community,
international financial community and others interested in maintaining biodiversity in the
region are becoming much more active in the efforts to minimize the impacts of invasive
species on the ecology of the region.

The third major finding of this review is the increase in international media attention to the
Caspian region and concerns over the impacts of oil development. In the past four years,
international press has become more aware of the Caspian region, and the ecological
challenges facing the Caspian waters linked to the oil exploitation and transportation. This has
been fostered by the influence of INGOs and has drawn more attention to the issues of PTS
than existed previously.

The fourth significant development is the increasing activities of NGOs in the region as a
result of support from the INGO community and bilateral assistance organizations who have
sought to build regional civil society through support of NGO activities. These increases have
linked the NGOs together and created an enhanced expectation of the voice of civil society in
the development of resource management in the region.

Overall there are six main new issues addressed in this full report:
Bioresources/fisheries, preservation of biodiversity, invasive species, persistent toxic
substances, sustainable coastal development and increased civil society input into natural
resource management. Each of these has newly identified stakeholder groups from the
original groups identified in the first SHA. These groups are both impacted by and impacting
the specific issues. Further, the interrelated nature of some of these issues, leads to overlap
in stakeholder groups. The original SHA identified 18 stakeholder groups; the current
literature identifies 46 different groups who are stakeholders in the activities of CEP II.

These groups are outlined in Table I of this review. This table identifies the degree of
involvement in the CEP II Activities, the deeper the blue, the more involved the stakeholder
group is in the issue. Conversely, the lighter the blue the less involved the stakeholder group

48

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
is believed to be. Mid-range blue signifies latent groups who are believed to be either
peripherally impacting or impacted by the issue.


49

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

Introduction

The review of the literature for the SAR is to examine the shifts in roles, perceptions and
influence of various stakeholder groups impacted or impacting the activities of the Caspian
Environment Programme. At the time of the first SHA, there were fewer groups identified,
because they were more latent and less influential. This was due in part to the early stages of
CEP. During the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) the SHA was tasked with
examination of the perceptions of SHGs on the Major Perceived Problems and Issues
(MPPIs) and their root causes. In the 4 years since this initial undertaking, CEP has evolved
to identify specific issues of concern and to recommend means to address these concerns.
As a result, the focus on specific stakeholder groups has become more specific compared to
the earlier study. Additionally, more stakeholder groups have become mobilized as a result of
geopolitical changes, transitional political and economic systems and increased awareness of
stakeholder groups. Therefore, in order to most effectively address the changes of the SHG
attitudes, roles and influence, this review has involved examination SHG activities since 2001.

The most predominant chance in the stakeholder groups since the 2001 SHA is the
proliferation of groups with an active interest in the environmental issues of the Caspian
region. These groups range from scientific research centres, to social welfare groups
interested in monitoring social impacts of natural resource exploitation, to international groups
with stake in environmental impacts of human activities in the Caspian region. Many of these
groups are supported by external actors, through various international, bilateral and private
assistance organizations. The have emerged to address areas that often link to one or more
of the main activity areas of the Caspian Environment Programme. While this is a boon for
stakeholders in some sense, it also can create broader chasms between groups regarding
views of management approaches. This will be addressed in specific sections of this review.

The methodology employed in the review involved gather data from news sources from the
national and international press, organizational reports, press releases, web pages, book
reviews, and academic journals. Though not exhaustive, this review provides a summary of
the findings of this data collection to inform the development of the SAR survey and interview
directions to be developed subsequently. This literature review also builds upon the findings
of the original SHA, and the many reports produced for CEP over the past 4 years which have
served as the grounding for this review.

This review will address the new players or stakeholder groups active in the region for each
major issue to be addressed. The shifts in sway over strategic development and control of
issues will be discussed, as will the anticipated shifts in the perceptions of the stakeholder
groups. Each section will conclude with a set of recommendations for how CEP can engage
these groups in a constructive dialog toward the aims of the project.


1. Fisheries


The concern over the sustainable use of renewable resource in the Caspian region has
spurred a significant increase in attention from multiple groups in the region. During the first
SHA the most prevalent concern among stakeholders was the "Decline in Certain Fisheries".
This decline has potential to emerge as a conflict issue because the vastly different
perceptions of causality held by different stakeholder groups. Fishermen and those involved
in the fisheries industry blamed the activities of the oil industry for the decline, while the oil
industry and others pointed to severe over fishing as the cause. CEP has taken steps, in
conjunction with the international community to address these divergent perceptions. In the
past 3 years there has been a very notable increase in stakeholders who are actively
interested in this issue, particularly relating to the sturgeon fisheries. While other fisheries,
including kilka, salmon, sprat and others have declined, the commercial decline in the
sturgeon fisheries has attracted the most attention because of the international trade in
Caspian caviar.


50

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
The new stakeholder groups emerged in conjunction with the CITES ban placed on Caspian
Caviar exports for all states except for I.R. Iran. I. R. Iran was shown to be sustainably
harvesting the Caspian sturgeon, improving hatcheries technologies and meeting the
standards set by CITES for compliance. The CITES ban affected many stakeholder groups,
within the NIS. These groups include the ministries of environment and natural resources,
foreign affairs, economic development, agriculture and fishing, energy, scientific community,
multinational corporations, international organization and the fishing industries, identified in
the initial SHA. However the number of stakeholder groups with active interests in fisheries
has increased. The expanded groups, who where not identified in the initial SHA, emerged as
a result of the decline in these fisheries and the international ban placed on the NIS countries.
These groups and their stake include:

· Hydro-met officials dealing with water flow regimes, water pollution levels and dams
that impact spawning.
· Regional governments and district water management officials charged with
economic development within their districts and licensing of water usage for
agricultural and industrial usage.
· Border guards charged with protecting national waters from poachers, often
arresting nationals for illegal fishing and confiscating their catch and equipment.
· Illegal underground sector who benefit from sales of illegally harvested fish. It must
be noted that identification of members of this group is expected to be difficult and
potentially dangerous.
· Fisheries enforcement monitors including national and international organizations,
such as TRAFFIC who monitor compliance with CITES bans.
· Fisheries research centres both in and outside of the region who seek to develop
means of sustaining Caspian fisheries harvests through breeding programmes, new
roe harvesting techniques and genetic alternatives for aquaculture development.
These organizations are funded by both government and private interests.
· Investors in fisheries and aquaculture, including Caspian fisheries alternatives
have blossomed in the past several years. These groups seek to produce caviar from
genetically engineered fish raised through aquaculture in the US and other areas.
They are aggressively searching for alternatives to Caspian caviar with the
assumption that these fisheries will become commercially extinct in the near future.
Revival of Caspian fisheries would imply a significant loss on their investment.
· Fisheries processing industries are adversely impacted by the decline in certain
fisheries. These include facilities such as the state owned Caspian Fish Company,
opened near Baku.
· National and international fish product sales firms seek to stabilize the fisheries
stocks, in order to maintain revenues. Significant increases in fish stocks may reduce
profits.
· National fish product consumers who are often the primary consumers of fish
products such as sturgeon meats etc. and have an interest in maintaining regular
supplies at reasonable prices.
· International caviar consumers include both those who rely upon high prices and
scarcity to increase prestige and those who are actively seeking alternatives for
philosophical or price-based reasons such as gourmet chef associations affiliated
with Caviar Emptor.
· Governments of consumers who determine if imports will be banned or permitted
such as the US Fish and Wildlife Agency.
· International environmental NGOs maintain an interest in preservation of
biodiversity and endemic species.
· Journalist focusing on the complicated interests, multiple stakeholders and
environmental interests associated with fisheries decline.

In general the interests of these groups involve sustainable consumption of the fisheries.
However, there is wide variation in the approaches to meeting this objective.

Those groups identified in the original SHA have altered their perceptions as a result of recent
developments in transboundary fisheries management as well. These include:

51

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

· Ministries of environment and natural resources who have increased awareness
of the importance of collaborative ecosystem management pertaining to
bioresources.
· Ministries of economic development who have a (marginal) increase in awareness
in the importance of dedicating revenues to environmental management lest
economic sanctions are imposed internationally.
· Ministries of agriculture and fishing who have an increased appreciation of the
influence of the international community on their activities.
· The scientific community who have benefited from an increase in support from
international agencies interested in supporting work related to fisheries management.
· Multinational corporations who continue their project support and to strive to
improve their public image by addressing concerns related to ecosystem
management and fisheries, particularly the HSE officials within the corporations.
· International organizations who have sought to invest in improvement of the
fisheries management capacity of the region, including close cooperation with
EU/TACIS activities pertaining to sustainable development.
· The fishing industries who have contended with the decline in fisheries stocks while
also dealing with the increase in international attention.

CEP may be able to assist the coordination of these groups by taking on the role of the
clearinghouse for many of these groups. It seems that there is a lack of coordination amongst
these stakeholder groups and that even within general their common interest to preserve the
fisheries, the lack of collaborative efforts may result in redundant efforts, working at cross
purposes and inefficient activities. Therefore it may be suggested that CEP take steps to
serve as a regional body that can start a forum for discussion amongst the groups listed
above.

Clearly articulate the purpose of CEP pertaining to protection of bioresources to avoid
further redundancy of efforts with other activities, and offer training for journalist on
the issues.
Create a forum for dialogue between stakeholder groups, such as newsletters,
information services and networking opportunities. Develop linkages between CEP
and stakeholder groups in all Caspian states and the international community.
Increase stakeholder awareness of the interdisciplinary approach needed for
sustaining fisheries management and challenges facing the Caspian ecosystem that
will impact the health of the fisheries.



2. Biodiversity preservation

The issue of preserving Caspian biodiversity is closely tied to issues impacting the fisheries,
though is much broader in scope, and tends to be more latent due to a lack of recent high
profile events such CITES bans or the mass seal die off of 2001. However, it is anticipated
that as the CEP SAP and BSAP are implemented, there will be an increase in the stakeholder
awareness of this issue and increase in stakeholder involvement.

The proliferation of stakeholder groups related to fisheries is also associated with the
challenges facing biodiversity in the region. A significant disturbance in the make-up of the
ecosystem can have an impact on all species, including those who have commercial value.
Many of the stakeholder groups who have emerged in regards to the fisheries issues are also
impacted by a decline in biodiversity in the region, though they may not yet be aware of this
relationship. Therefore, though they are listed in the previous section, they are also impacted
by the stresses put on the overall biodiversity of the region, and need to preserve it. See
Table 1 for a graphic illustration of this relationship.

Unlike fisheries, there has not been a large increase in the number of stakeholder groups who
are directly impacted by or impacting the loss of biodiversity. In the original SHA, threats to
biodiversity was generally a mid-range concern for the stakeholder with only environmental

52

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
ministry officials, agriculture and fishing ministries, the scientific community, NGOs and
fishermen ranking this as a high priority concern. These groups are expected to have
maintained their level interest in this issue, though it is expected that their engagement will
evolve during this phase of CEP.

CEP activities involving database creation and pilot project implementation increase the
directly involved stakeholder groups. Many of these groups were present in the previous
study, though their roles are changing. Specifically the interests of these groups include:

· Environment and Natural Resource Ministry officials who are charged with
supporting biodiversity database development.

· Regional government officials who are involved in the approval of specific areas for
selection for pilot project implementation.

· The national and international scientific community whose expertise is key to
project development, analysis and implementation.

· Multinational corporations, specifically those in the oil industry who are asked to
assist in the development of database as part of the Regional Oil Spill Cooperation
Plan.

· International NGOs who assist with the creation of the biodiversity database, and
provide training and expertise.

· National NGOs who assist with the creation and maintenance of the database, and
assist with the Eco-net around the Caspian, as well as provide training.

· National preserves/park staffs are critical to the development and monitoring of
biodiversity database.

· Community Based Organizations asked to assist with pilot project development,
monitoring of conditions and coordinate with NGOs.

· Educators and students to be involved in the maintenance of the biodiversity
database and Eco-net.

· International Funding Organizations, and other funding organizations to support
project development and implementation, and include biodiversity sensitivity in ESIA.

· National and international press asked to take part in training sessions to increase
the awareness of biodiversity issues. The recent lack of high profile crises in
biodiversity has led to a decline in interest, though it is expected that this would peak
again quickly if a new crisis emerged.

· Project managers and staff of other IWP and national waters projects to
coordinate efforts and input into biodiversity action plants. These groups were not
existent during the original SHA.

CEP has the challenge of raising awareness of the importance of biodiversity in the region.
Stakeholder interests are generally low, and biodiversity is often taken for granted. However,
efforts of CEP can increase multi-stakeholder awareness through education and defining
linkages between biodiversity and other more salient issues. These include:
Increase information regarding the importance of maintaining biodiversity to the
sustainability of fisheries
Clearly articulate the threats to biodiversity through PTS and invasive species through
press releases
Partner with oil companies, INGOs and NGOs to develop educational materials
specifically for the Caspian ecosystems for fisheries stakeholders, national and

53

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
international press, policy makers, international assistance and development
organizations, and others not currently targeted by SAP interventions.



3. Invasive Species

The issue of invasive species has received relatively little attention from the stakeholder
community outside of those directly addressing the problem, or those few journalists who are
beginning to recognize the impacts that invasives may have on commercial fishing stocks.
However, this issue has increased in salience among immediately interests stakeholder
groups, and if populations of invasive species increase, it is expected that more stakeholder
groups will develop an active interest in this issue. The most notorious invasive species the
jellyfish Mnemiopsis Leiyedi (ML) poses the most significant immediate threat to the Caspian
ecology, if it follows the patterns it set in the Black Sea.

There are new stakeholder groups associated with this threat, though these groups do not
seem to be particularly mobilized at this point. If commercial fisheries are impacted, as they
are forecasted to be, all of the fisheries stakeholders will become stakeholders in this issue,
as will the stakeholder groups identified for biodiversity. It should be noted that 4 years ago, in
the initial SHA, threats from invasive species was the lowest priority issue at that time. It can
be expected that despite this initially low ranking, that if LM populations explode, this issue
will become a much higher priority. (See Table 1 for a graphic illustration of this relationship)

The specific issue of importation of invasives through the ballast waters of ships coming
through the Don-Volga canal leads to a new groups of stakeholders who were previously not
included in the initial SHA, or the TDA. This group includes:
· Transportation ministries these groups will need to develop enforceable monitoring
protocols for ballast discharges and will need to collaborate to develop a region wide
strategy to minimize impacts of infected ballast waters.
· Port authorities who will need to implement the ballast water protocols and assist in
the monitoring for invasive species.
· The shipping industry will bear the brunt of the media exposure for inadvertently
importing the ML from the Black Sea and beyond.
· Hydromet officials specifically in Russia for oversight of the Don-Volga canal and
coordination with transportation ministries.
· Multinational corporation workers to assist with monitoring in the waters and
through the HSE officials.

Other groups previously identified with shifting perceptions include:
· Environment and natural recourse ministries who have increased monitoring
demands and increased responsibility for linking invasive species to impacts on
biodiversity and fisheries.
· Fisheries ministries, fishermen, and commercial fishing industry are expected to
be impacted by ML's degradation of the ecosystem by reducing available nutrients
within the food chain.
· Research centres have begun to address the issue and have developed an
increased awareness of the threats posed by endangered species, as well as
solutions to these threats.
· International funding organizations who need to pay special attention to the
threats caused by ML and other invasive species.

CEP could take steps to increase the awareness of the ML, and increase pressure on the
shipping industry and transportation ministries to take immediate steps to reduce the further
importation of ML in ballast waters, through GloBallast and other organizations. Perhaps the
most effective means to accomplish this is to inform the sectors who will be most direly
threatened by ML

Inform fisheries related stakeholders of the threats from ML to the sustainability of
commercial fisheries

54

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Provide oil industry HSE officials with literature on ML impacts and ask for assistance
in reducing impacts through pressuring governments to act.
Develop invasive species monitoring guides for coastal zone residents, oil rig
workers, fishermen, port authorities, educators, NGOs, INGOs, international
assistance organizations and others.




4. Persistent Toxic Substances

Stakeholder groups with an active and vocal interest in PTS have increased significantly since
the first SHA. These groups were present but comparably latent during the initial SHA. It was
expected that the concern of potential damage from oil and gas would be a high priority
concern for stakeholders during the first SHA. Yet the results showed that it was a mid level
concern with only fishermen and the scientific community ranking this as a high priority issue.
Always an issue to attract international attention, the oil development in the region, combined
with transportation issues has served to fuel the fires of emergent stakeholder groups. Since
this study was initiated, international NGOs, international finance institutes, and some national
NGOs have become more involved in the debate over the environmental impacts of
petroleum resource development in the region. Other PTS issues, such as heavy metals,
industrial pollution and agricultural runoff have been largely overshadowed by the debate
regarding the impacts of oil extraction and transportation, though they are no less important.

This debate regarding the oil exploitation is often polarized between those who support the
development as a means to increased revenues for cash starved countries and those who
view the exploitation of the petroleum resources as a continuation of environmental
degradation and supporting non-democratic (or marginally democratic) regimes. Though the
debate has raised the profile of the environmental issues facing the Caspian region, the
regional stakeholders have not yet mobilized strongly in one direction or the other. This lack
of mobilization may actually bode well for CEP, allowing the project to foster positive sum
partnerships between the stakeholders by taking steps to address the environmental and
development related concerns in the region.

The presence of the international oil industry has brought forth social and environmental
concerns that are common to petroleum development in developing countries. However,
unlike other areas, there are a number of factors that may positively influence the
partnerships in Caspian region. Though public opinion has been largely latent about this
issue, the high literacy rates and the telecommunications revolution suggest that information
exchange can enhance stakeholder group dialog. Also the trend among the extractive
industry to actively invest in the social and environmental development of the region also
supports CEP objectives. These factors combine with the empowerment of national and local
NGOs from the extensive lobbying efforts of the international environmental and human rights
groups. These INGOs have created a presence in the region that increases the public
awareness of the issues, both within and outside of the region.

Bilateral and private non-state investors in the region are more aware of environmental issues
as a result of these combined factors. For instance many USAID social projects feature
environmental awareness as part of their development projects and support for civil society.
These groups were largely nascent in the early phases of CEP but are now reaching maturity
and taking steps to address environmental management in the region. Also, privately funded
groups that focus on monitoring extractive industry in the Caspian region have emerged to
further increase accountability of the multinational corporations in the region- such as "Crude
Accountability". Unlike the issues discussed above, this issue of PTS and the related
stakeholders is the most highly charged and most likely to draw attention and support to CEP
from multiple stakeholder groups.

The groups identified previously with an interest in the PTS issues include:


55

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
· Environmental and natural resource ministries responsible for monitoring and
enforcement of regulations of the polluting industries. Often these groups lack
resources, capacity and influence to carry out their duties. Increased international
support for environmental stewardship, in combination with NCAPs may improve
these circumstances.
· Agriculture and fishing ministries are both contributing to the problem through
excessive use of agro chemicals and they are impacted by the presence of PTS in
the food chain of the Caspian fisheries
· The Energy ministries that are responsible for negotiating PSAs with the oil
companies and the state owned oil companies. Their involvement in CEP seems to
be latent at this point, though may be more active as the NCAPs are implemented,
especially with ESIAs in the region.
· NGOs, as noted above, have become more active, though the local NGOs tend to
focus more on social issues pertaining to oil development rather than environmental
issues.
· State and privately owned industry that are responsible for effluents discharged in
the region may be more aware of environmental concerns because of environmental
impact assessments required by international lending organizations.
· Public healthcare providers in some areas are receiving training from INGOs on
monitoring for exposure to PTSs. This is expected to expand as CEP activities
increase.
· International funding institutions have been under tight scrutiny for their support of
the extractive industry, and it may be expected that as a result of intensive lobbying
efforts by INGOS that environmental projects may be supported by these
organizations.
· Fisheries industry may be more aware of the benefits of the oil industry presence as
support for environmental projects emerges.

New stakeholder groups that have emerged since the initial SHA include the following:

· Hydro-met officials who have increased their activities to monitor effluents in the
river basins feeding into the Caspian.
· Transportation ministries facing increased regulation on the suitability of fleets for
transportation on rivers and open waters.
· International NGOs have emerged in force since 2001, and have developed
linkages in the region in an effort to empower local environmental NGOs.
· Non-state international organizations who have resources to fund INGO and NGO
activities in the region concerned with the impacts of PTS in the Caspian waters.
· Farmers and water users relying on agro chemicals to increase crop yields at the
expense of the Caspian waters.
· Other IWP staff who will be working to address these issues in river basins feeding
into the Caspian waters.
· Press and journalist who continue to cover PTS issues at the local, regional and
international level.
· Coastal recreation industry who are eager to minimize the negative impacts on
resource exploitation on their industry.

The challenges of PTS for CEP will be to serve as a regional mediating body in many senses.
The authority of CEP as an international programme can help CEP facilitate constructive
dialogues among stakeholders. Means to do this include:
Emphasize the transparency of the CEP process and the importance of inclusion of
all stakeholders in decision making progress.
Develop clear partnership literature focusing on positive sum situations of stakeholder
cooperation in the region for journalists, LNGOs and coastal zone residents.
Increase dialogue forum for INGOs, NGOs, public health care providers and others
with the HSE representatives in the oil industry.


5. Sustainable
Development


56

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005

Sustainable development encompasses many of the efforts of CEP to enhance regional
ownership of the programme, including linking NCAPs and the SAP efforts, development of
protocols for the Tehran Convention, development of a regional human development index,
continued implementation of the matching small grants programme, and efforts to reduce
impacts on the Caspian waters through pilot projects aimed at improving human development
conditions while reducing negative environmental impacts. This encompasses a wide array of
stakeholders who are generally latent at this point, but are expected to become more involved
as the project develops.

Integrated coastal zone development involves linkages between multiple stakeholder groups
and increases awareness of the interdependence of these groups. Therefore, those groups
who are likely to be directly affected by the sustainable development efforts of CEP include:

· Environmental ministries, who will bear the responsibility of developing protocols
for the Tehran Convention, take an active role in the pilot project development;
provide training and monitoring services, link with other ministries and stakeholder
groups.
· Economic ministries called upon to support activities of CEP, including revenues for
coastal development and upgrading of industry and waste systems.
· Regional governments asked to approve many of the projects and to provide
support for coastal communities.
· Municipal governments and municipal waste managers asked to mitigate waste
impacts and to become involved in select pilot projects.
· International NGOs, National NGOs and Community Based Organizations have
an increased roll in training, education, and implementation of sustainable
development projects.
· Public healthcare providers asked to provide critical monitoring services.
· International and bilateral funding agencies whose support for sustainable
development efforts will be critical.
· Pastoralists, forestry officials, and farmers asked to be receptive to altering
current practices to reduce impacts on the Caspian environment.
· Other
IWP staff who seek to improve conditions in river basins feeding into the
Caspian.
· Coastal zone residents impacted by sustainable development projects and who may
be asked to contribute to these projects through investment of time and efforts.
· Coastal recreation industry, specifically in the Southern Caspian who will need to
take environmental impacts under consideration the development of their industry.
· International organizations, specifically UNEP and other convention secretariats
provide training to CEP affiliates on the development and enforcement of protocols.

Recommendations for engaging these stakeholders in constructive dialogues will depend
largely upon the individual issue being addressed. Meeting with stakeholder groups early in
the process to obtain their feedback on the challenge and gather their opinions will be critical.
Over all the following recommendations may be useful:

Provide stakeholders with clear, concise summaries of what the project will entail,
why it is important and how it will benefit them, in multiple media formats.
Hold multi-stakeholder forums to answer questions and address concerns raised by
stakeholders prior to implementation of projects.
Clearly articulate the anticipated benefits of the projects and the expected outcomes
so that all stakeholder groups are aware of the objective of the project and why they
should have an interest or investment in it.


6. Civil Society Inclusion

The inclusion of civil society in the governance of CEP and regional, national and
environmental governance creates new challenges for the programme. Though not widely

57

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
addressed in the media, specifically pertaining to CEP, the increase in stakeholder
involvement is a phenomenon brought on by the factors mentioned above regarding the
INGO and oil industry debate. Civil society awareness and NGOs have been supported by
international organizations and predominantly though bi-lateral donor agencies, such as
USAID in the region. As noted above these groups are now reaching institutional maturity and
are taking on issues in conjunction with larger, more practiced INGOs.

The impact of this is a democratizing impact on stakeholder inclusion in the resource
management process. Large companies such as British Petroleum and Exxon include
Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) in their project development, and
INGOs with NGOs in the region have begun to more aggressively make demands for
inclusion in the decision making process. This is tempered by the restrictions placed on
NGOs in the NIS countries, by the NGO registration process. In some cases NGOs are
required to remain apolitical, though the issues they address are politically charged.

This puts the NGOs in a precarious position as they push for influence in an issue area that
has traditionally been closed to indigenous input. The lack of public information available, the
endemic abuse of power and unrealistic expectations of the international NGO community
stymie the progress of the NGOs to successfully induce change.

However several advancements have been noted and bode well for the future. The accession
to the Aarhus Convention by Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan and the ratification by Kazakhstan
suggest that the norm of inclusion and transparency is beginning to emerge in the region.
Though compliance may be delayed, the attention to this is promising. Russian support for
increased transparency, in line with Aarhus is anticipated, and I.R. Iran appears to be
supportive of this approach as well.

The support for NGOs and civil society development by the multinational corporations as part
of their social investment projects is also promising, and if supported by the international
community may increase the profile of NGOs in environmental governance. The anticipated
inclusion of NGO representation in the CEP Steering Committee will further enhance these
developments.

The stakeholders who will be directly involved in this issue include:
· Environmental Ministries benefit from assistance in environmental management
and monitoring from NGOs.
· Municipal governments receive training and monitoring support from NGOs.
· National NGOs who will serve as representatives to the Steering Committee and
assist in the support of CEP activities.
· International NGOs continue to assist and advice NGOs, and may use the Caspian
as an example for other regions.
· IFIs and Bilateral organizations interested in increased democratization in the
region.
· Multinational corporations benefit from improved public relations in the region and
globally by supporting increased civil society.
· Journalists benefit from increased transparency, access to information and expertise
of the NGO community.

Recommendations for engaging in further dialog with these stakeholders include:
Hold workshops or training sessions for NGOs on CEP activities specifically outlining
where their input will be most welcome.
Support and publicize the inclusion of an NGO representative on the CEP Steering
Committee, elected to this position by democratic means across the region.
Liaise with bilateral donors to increase their awareness of CEP activities involving
enhanced civil society.






58

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Conclusion and steps for future action

The literature review provides a preliminary overview of change in circumstances for CEP
implementation. Many anticipated shifts in attitude are not verifiable until the survey has been
conducted, yet through conducting this exercise it is possible to identify emerging trends that
will inform and be informed by the SAR Survey and Interviews. These initial findings indicate
that as CEP develops, SHGs and their interests have also evolved and it is expected that they
will be increasingly important as CEP projects commence implementation.

The initial review of literature suggests that the SAR Survey will need to address a wide
variety of issues and targeted interviews through ground truthing reports will further
supplement these findings. The development of the survey will be based largely on the
information garnered here, as well as informed by the previous SHA findings. The inclusion of
stakeholder input into the CEP activities can enhance the effectiveness of project
implementation and improve the sense of ownership of the programme. The
recommendations made here are tentative.





59

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005
Table I ­SHG Involvement levels - anticipated
Fisheries
Biodiv
Invasives
PTS/POPS
Sus
Dev
Civil
Soc
1. Environmental
Ministry






2. Hydromet
official






3. Foreign
Affairs
Ministry






4. Economic
Ministry






5. Agriculture/Fisheries
Ministry






6. Fisheries
Commissions






7. State owned fisheries industry






8. Energy
Ministry






9. Transportation
Ministry






10. Port authorities






11. Shipping industry






12. Regional Government






13. District water management official






14. Municipal Government






15. Municipal waste manager






16. Nature preserve staff






Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)
17. National NGO






18. International NGO






19. Community Based Organization






20. State owned industry






21. Private industry






Multinational corporation






22. HSE Rep for MNC






Scientific community
23. State Scientific Research Centre






24. Private Scientific Research Centre






25. Educator






26. Ministry of Education






27. Public health providers






International organization
28. International Funding Inst






29. Bilateral agency






30. Non-State international organization






31. Student






Fishing large industry
32. Fishermen






33. Fisheries processing industry






34. Fisheries investor






35. Caspian fisheries alternatives






36. Fisheries enforcement/ border guards






Fishing artisanal industry
37. Fisheries Sales national






38. Fisheries Sales International






39. Fisheries Consumer






40. Farmer/ water user






41. Pastoralist/animal husbandry






42. National press






43. International press






44. Other IWP staff






45. Coastal Zone Resident






46. Coastal recreation industry







Legend ­ colour
Degree of involvement in issue

Directly involved ­ Major stakeholder

Involved and impacted directly

Impacted or involved indirectly
Peripheral
to
issue
Bold Text
Original SHG from first analysis
Regular text
Expanded SHGs based on Literature Review

60

---

Caspian Environment Programme Stakeholder Analysis Revisit 10/24/2005



61

---

Document Outline

• þÿ
• þÿ
• þÿ
  • þÿ

---