Regional Stakeholder Analysis for the Caspian Environment Programme
Mary M. Matthews
February 14, 2002
1
Forward
The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) is a regional umbrella programme established
by the Caspian littoral states and aided by the international agencies. Born out of a desire for
regional cooperation, expressed through a number of regional agreements, including the
Almaty Declaration on Environmental Cooperation of May, 1994, the CEP was agreed to in
June 1995 during a joint mission by The World Bank, United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This mission
marked the start of a close partnership between the region and the international community.
The mission also cemented the collaborative mechanisms between the GEF implementing
agencies.
As it now stands, the CEP is a regional programme that encompasses all Caspian States and
numerous international agencies, including The World Bank, UNEP, UNDP, the European
Union/TACIS (EU/TACIS), and many others. During meetings held at Ramsar, Islamic
Republic of Iran, in May, 1998, the CEP was launched officially. A Steering Committee has
been established, and the Caspian littoral states agreed that the Concept Paper produced
during the previous year in collaboration with The World Bank will form the basis for the CEP.
In addition, UNDP-led efforts towards a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project for the
Caspian focusing on its priority transboundary issues was endorsed by the Caspian littoral
states. The endorsement of the Caspian Environment Programme UNDP/GEF project
occurred in October 1998 and a portion of the funds was released by UNDP/GEF under
Advance Authorization in April 1999. EU/TACIS funds were released beginning in May 1998.
In order to meet the objectives set out by the Caspian Environment Programme, a detailed
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis(TDA) was initiated. This TDA was to complement the
work of the National Caspian Action Plan of each of the Caspian States, as wel as the
Strategic Action Programme to coordinate the efforts of these states.
One critical part of the TDA is a Stakeholder Analysis, as indicated in the Guidance
Documents for TDA Preparation under the International Waters Programme of GEF. There
was little specific guidance for how to prepare a Regional Stakeholder Analysis, so this
project has broken new ground. The TDA Guidance Document provides only the fol ow ing
instruction:
"5. Stakeholder Analysis
A description of all the stakeholders, including institutions, organizations,
ministries, agencies and industry related to the perceived issues should also be
incorporated. The information pertaining to this list would include the effect of
the issue on stakeholders, the nature and effectiveness of the interactions
between the stakeholders, as well as their strengths and weaknesses in view of
their actual and/or potential role in managing water and water dependent
resources."
The Stakeholder analysis identifies the broad spectrum of Stakeholders in a transboundary
context for the Caspian Sea, separately for each of the Major Perceived Problems and Issues
(MPPI). These MPPIs w ere defined during the earlier phases of the TDA process. Both
national and regional stakeholders have been identified. The analysis includes major affected
and contributing Stakeholders for the CEP, describing the Stakeholder's attributes, and
identifying the Stakeholder's interests in matters pertaining to the CEP. This information is
summary in nature. This information has been used to identify Stakeholder conflicts with
Environmental Quality Objectives of the TDA, and to guide interventions at the Natio nal
Caspian Action Plan and Strategic Action Programme levels. (H. Ghaffarzadeh)
A debt of gratitude is due to Tim Turner, Hamid Ghaffarzadeh and David Aubrey for guidance,
support, vision and humor throughout the development of and analysis in this document.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 4
Introduction and Methodology .............................................................................. 5
Potential Conflicts Between Stakeholder Groups .................................................. 6
Decline in Certain Fisheries ..................................................................... 7
Degradation of Coastal Landscape .......................................................... 8
Decline in Biodiversity.............................................................................. 9
Overall Environmental Decline ................................................................. 9
Decline in Human Health ......................................................................... 10
Decline In Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities ....................................... 12
Emerging Issue Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Activities ................. 12
Emerging Issue Introduction of Exotic Species ......................................... 13
Summary and Recommendations......................................................................... 14
Supplemental Materials ........................................................................................ 17
Environmental Ministries .......................................................................... 17
Agriculture and Fishing Ministries............................................................. 23
Energy Ministries ..................................................................................... 28
Regional and Municipal Governments...................................................... 31
State and Private Industries ..................................................................... 34
Coastal Zone Residents........................................................................... 37
Fishermen ............................................................................................... 43
Non Governmental Organizations ............................................................ 47
Public Health Care Providers ................................................................... 50
Scientific Community ............................................................................... 53
Multinational Corporations ....................................................................... 55
Foreign Affairs Ministries.......................................................................... 57
Economic Ministries................................................................................. 58
Informal Underground Sector................................................................... 60
Questionnaire for CEP Regional Stakeholder Analysis............................. 62
Abbreviations:
CEP
Caspian Environment Programme
CEZ
Caspian Economic Zone
CZR
Coastal Zone Resident
MAGICAs
Ministerial and Governmental Intersectoral Coordinating Agents
MPPI
Major Perceived Problems and Issues
NGO
Non Governmental Organization
PPA
Public Participation Advisors
PSA
Property Sharing Agreements
SHAQ
Stakeholder Analysis Questionnaire
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
3
Executive Summary:
The Regional Stakeholder Analysis for the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) was
commissioned in order to identify and empirically examine the attitudes and interests of those
groups, institutions, ministries and individua ls who hold a stake in the Caspian environment.
These stakeholders are both contributors to and affected by environmental issues in the
Caspian water and in the Caspian coastal zone. The inclusion of stakeholder interests into the
CEP Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), as wel as into the collection of analysis on
regional issue is intended to improve the success of the programme by taking into account
those most affected by the recommendations made through the CEP. Additionally, the
identification of conflicts of interests between stakeholder groups is intended to assist the
CEP in making policy recommendations that are both realistic and realizable in terms of
managing issues before conflicts become exacerbated.
This study was conducted during the summer and autumn of 2001. A survey was developed
in order to determine the level of interest and concern about the eight Major Perceived
Problems and Issues (MPPI) identified in the TDA. The survey was administered in al
Caspian states with an average of fifty completed surveys returned for analysis per state.
Though the results of this can not conclusively identify all interests, concerns and conflicts,
they provide illuminating empirical evidence about the actual attitudes in the region among the
stakeholder groups. The awareness and acknowledgement of these attitudes can be
employed to shape more effective policies in the region.
The findings of the survey demonstrate that there are a number of issue that are of high
concern to stakeholder groups in the region, while other issue areas are of less concern to
stakeholders than expected. The MPPI prioritization for each major stakeholder group is
discussed followed by the prioritization of root causes. Issues of high level concern for each
stakeholder group is presented and analyzed as appropriate. These provide an overview of
salient issues for the individual stakeholder groups.
Potential conflicts have been identified which may now be addressed in the objectives of the
Caspian Environment Programme. These conflicts include concerns about the image of the
energy industry and ministries level of concern about the regional environment, the
prioritization of government funding for environmental programmes while meeting basic
human needs, use of a fee system for water use, access to potable water as a health
concern, the degree of soil erosion affecting the environment, the affect of water level
fluctuations on the environment, and the presence of invasive species in the Caspian waters.
Finally, suggestions are offered for overcoming potential conflicts between stakeholder
groups. These include enhanced education projects, support an energy industry oil pollution
management regime, create regional environmental monitoring and standards, implement
alternative technologies to reduce municipal wastes, introduce agricultural practices to
significantly reduce pesticide and herbicide use in the catchment area, develop environmental
monitoring programmes utilizing NGO and oil company coordination, and introduce
technologies to reduce industrial wastes, create realizable fishing restriction enforcement
practices, increase monitoring for and minimization of exotic species and require use of best
available technologies in the Caspian. There is evidence of support for these programmes
from the Regional Stakeholder Analysis.
4
Introduction and Methodology:
The implementation of a regional stakeholder analysis is a new development for programmes
in the Global International Waters Assessment. Therefore, there is a lack of studies to
precede this one. Nonetheless, the stakeholder analysis is intended to identify those groups
who have a stake in the environment of the Caspian. These groups may be well organized
and closely linked or latent and unorganized. Nonetheless, identification of these groups is
important to the process of policy recommendation development. These groups will be most
directly affected by the changes in the environme nt of Caspian, and may benefit or be harmed
by the policies recommended by the CEP.
Further, conflict between groups could stymie implementation of effective policies. Alternately,
these policies may polarize groups leading to increased conflict between groups that may
eventually erode the legitimacy of the Programme. Therefore identification of these groups,
their interests and potential conflict must be addressed in the early stages of the Programme
development. This study provides an overview of these groups, their interests, concerns and
stake in the Major Perceived Problems and Issues identified in the Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis. Additionally the potential for emerging conflict between these groups in regards to
these issues is addressed. Finally, recommendations for these are offered as a means to
avert conflicts of interests between stakeholder groups in the region.
Participants in the Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey include: Coastal Zone Residents,
members of the scientific community, Environmental Ministries, Agriculture and Fishing
Ministries, Industry, Multinational Corporations, NGOs, Energy Ministries, Regional and
Municipal Governments, Fishermen, and Public Healthcare Providers. In some sub-issues of
the Major Perceived Problems and Issues, these stakeholder groups are separated into more
specific sections. These issue specific groups are addressed throughout this report as
appropriate. Other important stakeholder groups who were not participants in the stakeholder
analysis survey include: Economic Ministries, Transportation Ministries and Foreign Affairs
Ministries. Though this study lacks evidence regarding their views of environmental issues
from survey data, other empirical data will be included to delineate the interests of these
groups relating to environmental issues in the Caspian region.
These issues were developed and defined during the first phases of the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis Process. Representatives from all Caspian states were charged with
identifying major perceived problems and issues(MPPIs). These MPPIs were the basis for the
themes addressed in this survey to determine if the stakeholders felt that these were
important issues and perceived problems. Additionally, the root causes that participants were
asked to rank were also identified by these Caspian representatives during the TDA process.
Survey participants from the above mentioned groups given the survey in the late summer of
2001, with the assistance of the MAGICA and PPA representatives to the CEP. Survey
participants were all countries of the Caspian region and were selected based on their interest
and expertise in the region by Public Participation Advisors and MAGICAs for each country.
See "CEP Regional Stakeholder Survey" in appendix. Survey participants were asked to rank
their level of agreement with statements in the stakeholder analysis questionnaire (SHAQ).
The scale was from 9 to 1 with 9 representing "agree strongly", 1 representing "disagree
strongly" and 5 representing "no opinion". In these tables there are three measures with each
represented stakeholder group. A measure of low, medium or high, the average/mean ranking
of participants within a specific stakeholder group and then in parentheses is the standard
deviation.The low, medium and high represent the overal prioritizatio n of an issue by level of
agreement. high was measured for strong agreement 9-7.5, or strong disagreement 1-2.5,
medium represents averages from 7.4-6.0 for agreement and 4.0-2.6 for disagreement, and
low is 5.9-4.1 for the lowest level of prioritization. The mean ranking was calculated from
those surveys that answered the particular section of questions, and non-answers were
discarded. The standard deviation is a calculation of how variation there is away from the
5
mean among respondents. Thus, the lower the standard deviation signified the closer the
consensus on the issue.
Ministerial data from Kazakhstan was not submitted at the time of this report. And quite
incomplete ministerial data from the Russian Federation was submitted. Despite these
inadequacies, survey participation was higher than expected and has provided illuminating
evidence of the stakeholders' perceptions of environmental issues.
Potential Conflicts Between Stakeholder Groups
The survey results produced a number of issue areas where stakeholder groups were in
potential opposition to one another. These potential conflicts between groups must be
recognized and addressed as the next phase of the Caspian Enviro nment Programme comes
into effect. These conflicts may not be realized yet, however, it can be expected that if left
fal ow, they may become exacerbated by policy recommendations made by CEP. A central
concern of the Stakeholder Analysis is to define these conflicts, to determine the degree to
which they may flare up and become problematic, and to suggest actions CEP could
advocate in order to prevent these. Additional y, the ultimate success of the CEP depends on
consensus and support of various stakeholder groups in the region. If CEP serve to heighten
these latent conflicts between stakeholder groups, it is possible that the mission of CEP will
be disrupted.
The conflicting responses among stakeholder groups presented here are based on the
averages calculated and discussed above. In some cases these issues are not addressed in
previous sections because they are not high priority issues for the individual stakeholder
groups. Nonetheless, these are cases where the average level of stakeholder agreement
(and disagreement) differs significantly from that of other stakeholder groups. There was no
single MPPI that elicited complete consensus among all stakeholder groups with regards to
priority ranking. However, for al groups, except public healthcare provider stakeholder group,
decline in certain fisheries was a high priority concern.
Of the prioritization of MPPIs, there is only one area of strong disagreement between
stakeholder groups.
The concern regarding the degradation of costal landscape was a high
priority MPPI for multinational corporations, whereas the Agriculture and
Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, the Energy Ministry stakeholder
group, the regional and municipal governments , public healthcare
provider stakeholder group, and fishermen stakeholder group ranked this
as a very low level concern.
With regards to the root causes, there are a few discrepancies as wel . These are cases
where one group of stakeholders has ranked a root cause as a high priority concern, while
others have ranked the same root cause as a low level concern.
The lack of advanced technologies is seen as a lower level root cause by
the environme ntal ministries, while the scientific community, industry
stakeholder group, multinational corporation stakeholder group, Energy
Ministry stakeholder group, regional and municipal governments, and
public healthcare provider stakeholder group see this as a high priority
root cause. Though this variation among stakeholders may not be viewed
as conflict inducing, the possible conflicts among interest groups
regarding spending of limited budgets on technology that some groups
are less convinced are needed. Though this may occur at local and
national levels, sensitivity to this potential conflict may be warranted.
6
The root cause of regional poverty also was ranked as a high priority
concern for Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, and
fishermen stakeholder group. Alternately the environmental ministries
rank regional poverty as a low priority root cause. All others ranked it as a
mid level concern.
The abuse of power is ranked as a high priority root cause by
multinational corporation stakeholder group, while the energy ministries,
regional and municipal governments stakeholder groups and public
healthcare provider stakeholder group who rank this as a low level
concern. This may be due to the ability of the multinational corporation
stakeholder group to focus on this issue, while other groups are more
eager to deflect attention from this root cause.
The abuse of power as a root cause for environmental degradation was a
high priority concern for the multinational corporation stakeholder group,
w hereas the Energy Ministry stakeholder group, regional and municipal
governments, and public healthcare provider stakeholder group rank this
as a low priority concern. Though this discrepancy may actual y reflect
the relative innocuousness the multinational corporation stakeholder
group senses in their response, whereas other groups, including those
w ho ranked it as a low level concern may not be able to identify this
seemingly endemic problem as a root cause due to political concerns.
Nonetheless, the ability to remedy this particular root cause is clearly
beyond the bounds of CEP purview.
Another root cause that had significant discrepancies between
stakeholder groups is the lack of public awareness of environmental
problems. The environmental ministries energy ministries and industry
rank this as a high level concern, where as Agriculture and Fishing
Ministries stakeholder group, multinational corporation stakeholder group,
the scientific community stakeholder group, NGO's public healthcare
provider stakeholder group, fishermen stakeholder group, and coastal
zone resident stakeholder group see this as a low level root cause for
environmental degradation in the Caspian.
The weakness in civil society is a high level concern for the Energy
Ministry stakeholder group and the public healthcare provider stakeholder
group, while the environmental ministries stakeholder group,the
Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, multinational
corporation stakeholder group, industry, scientific community, NGO's,
fishermen stakeholder group, and the coastal zone resident stakeholder
group see this as a low level priority. It is possible that the Agriculture and
Fishing Ministries stakeholder group have more interaction with
representatives of a civil society than other groups. Alternately, it may be
a result of skewed results from low survey response rates among the
various groups.
Decline in Certain Fisheries:
All stakeholders have listed decline in certain fisheries as a high level concern. Within this
issue the most dominant sub-issues are abuse of power, lack of law enforcement, natural
habitat destruction, and lack of common agreement on management of stocks in the region.
Poaching was also a concern, though of less significance than the sub-issues listed above..
Those groups most highly affected by the decline in certain fisheries are fishermen,
Agriculture and Fishing Ministries, and coastal zone residents. To a lesser degree,
environmental ministries, regional and municipal governments, and the scientific community
members are also affected by the decline in certain fisheries. It is perceived that the groups
contributing to the decline in certain fisheries include environmental ministries, agriculture and
fishing ministries and regional and municipal governments for not effectively enforcing the
current policies that would regulate the amount of fish taken from the Caspian. Also it is
perceived that the industries, energy ministries, and multinatio nal corporations conduct
activities that lead to decline in fishing stocks. The fishermen stakeholder group, and coastal
7
zone resident stakeholder group are also believed to contribute to the decline in certain
fisheries by over fishing certain stocks.
Those groups most highly affected by the decline in certain fisheries are fishermen,
Agriculture and Fishing Ministries, and coastal zone residents. To a lesser degree,
environmental ministries, regional and municipal governments, and the scientific community
members are also affected by the decline in certain fisheries. It is perceived that the groups
contributing to the decline in certain fisheries include environmental ministries, agriculture and
fishing ministries and regional and municipal governments for not effectively enforcing the
current policies that would regulate the amount of fish taken from the Caspian. Also it is
perceived that the industries, energy ministires, and multinatio nal corporations conduct
activities that lead to decline in fishing stocks. The fishermen stakeholder group, and coastal
zone resident stakeholder group are also believed to contribute to the decline in certain
fisheries by over fishing certain stocks. The analysis shows that there are signs of polarization
between several groups regarding the decline in certain fisheries.
In response to the statement "I think it is safe and healthy to eat fish from the
Caspian" the multinational corporation stakeholder group and fishermen agreed,
whereas energy ministries stakeholder groups, and NGO members disagreed.
In response to the statement "Fishermen benefit the most from the fish they catch"
the energy ministries stakeholder group agreed, whereas the regional and municipal
governments disagreed
. In addition to these, the statement "An enforced system of mutually agreed upon
fishing limits would be effective for reducing over-fishing in the Caspian" was agreed
to by the environmental ministries, Energy Ministry stakeholder group and regional
and municipal governments, whereas the multinational corporation stakeholder group
disagree.
The statement "radiation is the primary reason that there are fewer fish in the
Caspian" was agreed to by public healthcare providers and disagreed to by members
of the scientific community and the multinational corporation stakeholder group.
These discrepancies suggest that there are perceptions among stakeholder groups
that others are responsible for decline in certain fisheries.
There is a minor discrepancy between fishermen and oil companies regarding the
impact of the oil and gas development on fishing stocks. Though this is currently only
smal discrepancy, it may become more pronounced as more energy industry
activities are pursued in this area.
o
Specifical y, in response to the statement "There are fewer fish in the
Caspian than there used to be because of recent oil drilling." The Agriculture
and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group (7.39) and the fishermen
stakeholder group (7.29) agreed strongly with this while the coastal zone
resident stakeholder group (5.92), environmental ministry stakeholder group
(5.7), regional and municipal governments stakeholder group (5.67), and
industry stakeholder (5.72) group all have averages that appear to have no
opinion on this issue. The multinational corporation stakeholder group has a
very low level of agreement with this issue (6).
These discrepancies and emerging polarization of attitudes bears monitoring by CEP. All
stakeholder groups list the decline in certain fisheries as a significant problem, however the
analysis demonstrates that the cause of this problem is not clearly understood by stakeholder
groups. Worse yet, the dependence on these fragile fisheries for economic gain, and basic
sustenance as well as the transboundary nature of this issue make this a prime issue for
conflict both among stakeholder groups but also potentially among states in the region.
Degradation of Coastal Landscape:
The degradation of coastal landscape did not rank as a high priority concern for stakeholders
in this survey. Most sub-issues were rated as low -to-medium priorities by stakeholder groups.
Desertification, flooding, and water flow disruption elicited mild concern. Soil erosion, and the
resulting silting of water ways was ranked as a higher priority issue among stakeholder
groups, which was also reflected in decline in coastal infrastructure and amenities. Within the
8
degradation of coastal landscape sub-issue, the highest priority issue overwhelmingly is the
need to create a coordinated coastal zone management plan in the Caspian region. Among
those who most strongly support an integrated coastal management plan are energy
ministries, environmental ministries, industries, regional and municipal governments, and
coastal zone residents. Only agriculture and fishing ministries are moderately supportive of
this plan.
The only discrepancy was in response to the statement "There should be fees for
water used in the irrigation of crops." The Energy Ministry stakeholder group agreed
with this statement, while the scientific community and industries disagreed. This
suggests that water loss from the irrigation of crops may be causing concerns for the
Energy Ministry stakeholder group. This may be because industries use water free of
charge currently, while the Energy Ministry stakeholder group in part oversees hydro-
electric power generation, and the decline in available water reduces the amount of
water available to power dams. Though this is not a high level concern for either
group, this conflict should be addressed prior to implementation of any regional water
management plan if it pertains to such a strategy in any way. Further, the tendency
to shy away from the use of fees for water used for agriculture may indicate that this
system may also be imposed on industry as wel .
This issue warrants monitoring by the CEP if drought conditions prevail in the region,
or if transboundary disputes over water rights become exacerbated by increased
human demand.
Decline in Biodiversity:
Perceived decline in biodiversity in the Caspian ecosystem elicits high priority concern from
stakeholders. Many stakeholder groups responded similarly to these sub-issues. Within these
the stakeholder groups express the highest level of concern about decline in endemic species
and factors that may be contributing to eutrophication, and loss of pristine areas untouched by
human development. Lower priority sub-issues include concern about the loss of endangered
species, concern about energy industry activities, and intensive fishing of some stocks.
The most notable issue of concern to stakeholders that resulted in discrepancies,
and potential conflicts of interests is in regards to 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." There was agreement with this
statement among the following stakeholder groups: coastal zone resident
stakeholder group, environmental ministries, agriculture and fishing ministries,
regional and municipal governments, the scientific community, public healthcare
providers and fishermen. The Energy Ministry stakeholder group, industries,
multinational corporations and NGO's disagreed with this statement.
Though the level of agreement and disagreement was not especially high at either
end of this, except for the coastal zone resident stakeholder group, who agreed
strongly about this. This is worth considering by CEP, because this is one of the
groups most dependent on the resources in the Caspian, and a group that may be
responsible for habitat destruction that will lead to the decline in biodiversity. Further,
unless this population understands the immediate and long range importance of
environmental conservation, they will also be most affected by eventual losses as a
result of this.
Alternatively, the nature of the loss of biodiversity may outside the realm of the
transboundary issues to be addressed by CEP. However the migratory nature of
many species as wel as an increase in opportunistic invasive species may enhance
the transboundary nature of these issues.
Overall Environmental Decline:
Environmental decline captures and reflects a broad number of environmental issues. In
general, there was agreement among stakeholder groups regarding the prioritization of these
9
specific sub-issues. Within these, stakeholder groups express the most concern about
environmental degradation from agricultural and industrial runoff. Though there is limited
concern about industrial runoff causing human health problems, there is a high level of
agreement among al stakeholder groups that industrial and agricultural runoff is threatening
the Caspian environment. There are several issues that elicit potential conflict between
stakeholder groups.
The first of these is the statement "Unless there is a severe environmental crisis,
care for the environment will not be a priority for the people." This statement was
agreed to by the environmental ministries, coastal zone resident stakeholder group,
and healthcare providers, and strongly agreed to by the Agriculture and Fishing
Ministries stakeholder group, regional and municipal government stakeholder group,
the NGO stakeholder group, the multinational corporation stakeholder group, and
fishermen stakeholder group. In contrast, the Energy Ministry stakeholder group and
the industries did not agree with this statement. Though the level of disagreement
was relatively mild, if environmental conditions worsen this may lead to more
polarization and significant conflict among these groups.
Another issue where polarization among stakeholder groups is emerging is in relation
to the actual causes of the environmental degradation. In response to the statement
"There is adequate scientific knowledge about the causes of environmental decline in
the Caspian" the environmental ministries agreed somewhat, while the fishermen
stakeholder group disagreed strongly. This discrepancy suggests that there is not
adequate information exchange between these two groups, or that the environmental
ministries feel more defensive of the scientific knowledge they have accumulated,
while fishermen stakeholder group do not understand the causes of the decline in
environmental conditions in the Caspian.
The third issue where there are discrepancies among stakeholder groups is in
response to the statement "Private industry should take al responsibility for reversing
environmental degradation of the Caspian". The agriculture and fishing ministries,
industry, agreed with this, and the environmental ministries, regional and municipal
governments, and health care providers agreed strongly with this. In contrast, the
multinational corporation stakeholder group disagreed with this statement. This
suggests that the contrast between these groups may become more pronounced if
environmental conditions worsen. Further, the responsibility for losses from
deteriorating environmental conditions may be placed on the private industries by the
above mentioned stakeholders, while the multinational corporation stakeholder
group, and primarily those related to the energy industry are of the opinion that the
Caspian waters were polluted prior to their Post-Soviet involvement, and therefore
they do not bear the responsibility for the conditions of the Caspian environment,
beyond the scope of their immediate activities. This particular issue may warrant
further monitoring by the Caspian Enviro nment Programme in order to prevent
further divisio n among these groups.
A discrepancy, that is not yet polarized, is in regards to air quality issues. In response
to the statement "Air quality is a significant problem in the Caspian region." The
public healthcare provider stakeholder group (7.43) agreed strongly, while the
coastal zone resident stakeholder group (5.11) and industry (5.11) were of no opinion
on this issue. This may signify that the lack of opinion is also partially due to the lack
of accountability of the industry stakeholder group for this concern.
These concerns should continue to be monitored as policy recommendations are formulated.
Perhaps a more indepth study of these issue, as they are viewed by stakeholders is
warranted. This would require more direct contact with survey participants and more in-depth
interviews. Nonetheless, these preliminary results suggest that none of these discrepancies
are too difficult to overcome if handled with care.
Decline in Human Health:
10
Human health is closely linked to environmental health issues. Human health issues did not
rank as an especially high priority concern among stakeholders though. There were high
levels of prioritization agreement among many stakeholder groups. The highest level of
concern was the sentiment that people would be healthier if the environment were cleaner.
The only deviation within this is public healthcare providers who recognize that there are other
factors contributing to human health decline. Other sub-issues that were lower priorities were
government attention to basic human needs prior to funding environmental protection, air
quality concerns in the region, industrial pollution, and the need for sewage treatment. There
were two specific issues where stakeholder groups were in polarized disagreement.
The first is in response to the statement "Air quality is a significant problem in the
Caspian Region." Public healthcare providers agreed very strongly, and Energy
Ministry stakeholder group, regional and municipal governments, the scientific
community and fishermen also agreed. In opposition, the NGO stakeholder group did
not agree that air quality is a significant problem in the region. While this is not
especial y concerning, immediately, if the expectation that civil society will assist in
the development of programmes focusing on environmental issues, it may be
important to educate NGOs about what other stakeholder groups see as important
concerns. This is certainly within the realm of the CEP.
The second issue that elicited discrepancies among the stakeholder groups is in
regards to the statement "The government should spend money on the basic needs
of people, like housing, healthcare and good jobs, before it spends money protecting
the environment." Though none of the groups felt very strongly one way or another
about this, polarization is beginning to occur. Those who agreed with the statement
above include energy ministries, regional and municipal governments, and fishermen
stakeholder group. In contrast the environmental ministries, scientific community,
industries, multinatio nal corporation stakeholder group, NGO's, and public healthcare
providers disagreed with this. This division among these groups may become
problematic if government budgets become more strained. Further, this leads to the
concern that environmental stewardship can be complimentary to economic
development, which some groups may be less immediately aware of than other.
A significant, but as of yet non polarized discrepancy among stakeholder groups in
regards to the MPPI decline in human health is related to access to potable water. In
response to the statement "In the Caspian region, the biggest threat to the human
population is the lack of safe drinking water" the public healthcare provider
stakeholder group (8.14) agreed very strongly. Alternately, the NGO stakeholder
group (5.85) and the regional and municipal governments stakeholder group (6.00)
were less concerned with this problem. This is of specific importance because the
NGO community may be needed to rally the governments in regards to this issue,
and yet neither the advocates nor the enforcers appear to be much concerned w ith
the issue. The coastal zone resident stakeholder group (6.85) is also concerned,
though to a lesser degree.
Another significant, but as of yet non polarized discrepancy among stakeholder
groups in worth noting in these results is also between the NGOs and the public
healthcare provider stakeholder group. In response to the statement "Radioactive
materials have led to a decline in human health" the NGO stakeholder group (5.26)
had a relatively innocuous response level, where as the public healthcare provider
stakeholder group (7.86). Again, this suggests that though the NGOs are not aware
or concerned about this, the public healthcare provider stakeholder group is. The
NGOs need information in order to effectively lobby for change, while public
healthcare provider stakeholder group may need to consider forming into an NGO as
well in order to educate the policy makers and population about their observations.
A decline in human health, resulting from poor environmental conditions is difficult to
prove at best. Nonetheless, the perception of many both inside and outside the
Caspian region is that there are significant health hazards in the region. Conditions
from non-potable ground water, to the perceived presence of banned pesticides to
heavy metal accumulation in fish tissues leads to conditions that result in sub
standard living conditions for coastal zone residents, as w ell as others w ho may want
to move into the area. Additionally, the persistent from a pressures a population in
11
declining health creates unfavorable circumstances for economic development. This
may be more of a strain on these communities and on the region than other
environmental issues combined. Therefore, though marginally transboundary, the
perceived decline in human health as a result of poor environmental conditions
should be monitored by CEP in the future.
Decline in Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities:
Overall, the decline in coastal infrastructure and amenities in the Caspian region ranked as a
lower level concern among stakeholder groups. There were medium and low level
prioritizations of most coastal infrastructure and amenities sub-issues, including deterioration
of roadways, pressures on ports, concerns about destruction from oil activities, deterioration
of sea walls, and municipal waste treatment facility deterioration. The only sub-issue that
elicited a higher level of concern was soil erosion leading to the decline in environmental
amenities. In this sub-issue, municipal and regional governments and environmental
ministries strongly agreed that soil erosion was contributing to environmental decline in the
region. There were two areas of potential conflict of interests between stakeholder groups.
The first is in response to the statement "Mining activities reduce the water quality of
the Caspian." The Energy Ministry stakeholder group disagreed with this statement,
while every other stakeholder group agreed heartily w ith this. This may suggest that
the Energy Ministry stakeholder group is being targeted by these other stakeholder
groups for fouling the waters of the Caspian. This perception bears continued
monitoring by CEP.
The second issue is in regards to the statement "Sea level fluctuation has been
responsible for most damage to the coastal infrastructure." The environmental
ministries, energy ministries and regional and municipal governments agree with this,
while the multinational corporation stakeholder group disagrees. This suggests that
the multinational corporations may think that the decline in the condition of the
Caspian infrastructure is due to other causes, such as economic decline or poor
quality construction, rather than sea level change.
A notable non polarized discrepancy among stakeholder groups is in relation to soil
erosion. In response to the statement "Soil erosion contributes to the decline in
environmental quality of the Caspian" the Energy Ministry stakeholder group (5.33)
reflected low concern about this issues, while the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries
stakeholder group (8.33) saw this as a very high level concern. This may be due to
the effect of erosion on both fisheries and loss of soil from farmlands. Alternately, the
Energy Ministry stakeholder group may not see this as such a high level concern,
even though their activities may be contributing to this problem.
Emerging Issue Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Activities:
The potential damage as a result of increased oil and gas activities in the Caspian region
elicits higher levels of concern regarding sub-issues. Stakeholders in the Caspian region view
oil and gas activities as both a blessing and a curse for environmental stewardship in the
region. There are several areas of high level of agreement between stakeholders including
the need to use the best available environmental technologies to protect the Caspian, and the
potential for development of an industry-led oil pollution agreement in the Caspian. The use of
best available technologies to improve and protect environmental conditions may be applied
to pipeline construction, shipping technologies, and safeguarding against destructive seismic
activity. Lower priorities were assigned to increased demands on refineries and ports in the
region. There are two specific areas that are ripe for potential conflicts of interests between
stakeholder groups.
The first is in response to the statement "The preservation of the Caspian eco-
system cannot take place at the same time as oil drilling activities." The
environmental ministries, Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, public
12
healthcare provider stakeholder group, and fishermen stakeholder group agreed with
this statement, where as the industries disagreed with this statement.
The second discrepancy between stakeholder groups is in response to the statement
"Multinational corporations and the energy industry do not care about the
environment." The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, and
fishermen stakeholder group both agree w ith this statement, whereas the regional
and municipal governments, industries, and multinational corporation stakeholder
group disagree with this issue. This suggests that these discrepancies should be
addressed by the CEP, perhaps by facilitating forums between these groups to
discuss concerns about the activities of each group. Further, if left fallow, this may
become problematic in the future as more energy industry activities take place in the
region.
Other notable polarizing discrepancies exist in regards to the issue of the effect of
energy industry activities on the fishing industry. This is addressed in the previous
section on the decline in certain fisheries.
Emerging Issue Introduction of Exotic Species:
The perceived problem of increase in exotic or invasive species ranked as the lowest among
most stakeholder groups when compared to other groups. However, within the issue, sub-
issues elicit higher concern among affected stakeholder MPPI. The three main sub-issues all
have importance to those stakeholders who responded to this portion of the survey, with
varying degrees of disagreement among stakeholders.
In response to the statement "I have seen unusual creatures in the Caspian that were
not there ten years ago" there was agreement among fishermen, and among
agriculture and fishing ministries, whereas the environmental ministries stakeholder
group, Energy Ministry stakeholder group and the multinational corporation
stakeholder group there was disagreements.
This may be a result of proximity to the effects, or it may reflect a discrepancy
between those contributing to the issue and those more directly affected by it. Yet,
these discrepancies warrant monitoring, and perhaps managing, given that those
responsible for increasing the flow of these life forms into the Caspian are those who
are least concerned about these issues.
13
Summary and Recommendations:
The results of the stakeholder analysis survey reflect many findings of the Caspian
Environment Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. However, the degree of concern among
stakeholder groups has been checked empirical y. Recommendations for overcoming or
minimizing stakeholder conflicts with regards to sub-issues are outlined in the supplemental
tables. For the Major Perceived Problems and Issues the following recommendations include:
1. Increase educational programmes for stakeholders to explain how their actions
impact the Caspian environment
Specifically to the educate the Ministries that are affecting the environment and to
those whose actions unwittingly reduce the environmental quality of the Caspian
waters.
Employ NGO networks to help educate people about the programmes intended to
minimize negative environmental impacts. This may be done through a small
grants programme like that already in place with the World Bank
Encourage NGO and industry partnerships for environmental education in the
region.
Educate NGOs about the potential hazards of invasive species, and assist them
in developing public awareness programmes to monitor for these organisms.
Educate those who are involved in the unintentional import of exotic species into
the Caspian about the potential ramifications of their activities. The survey
suggests that the multinational corporation stakeholder group is somewhat
unaware of the problems that importation of exotic species can produce, they
may be willing to make appropriate adjustments to behaviors once they are
educated about this. Unfortunately, this is anecdotal evidence at best. However, it
may be worth inviting members of IPIECA to join the discussions of the CRTC for
exotic species so that they can become better informed about this issue.
2. Support an energy industry oil pollution ma nagement regime
Incorporation of the Civil Liability Convention for Oil Pol ution at Sea may provide
a framework for such a programme that many oil companies are currently
working under in international waters. Additionally, inclusion of the US Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 outlines may be considered for future programmes. This act
is one of the most aggressive environmental laws in existence, and accounts for
losses to future income from states in the event of a major oil spill.
Specifically, develop a programme based on a mutual y beneficial economic
scenario for the energy, economic, foreign affairs and environmental ministries. If
environmental stewardship programmes can be presented in a win-win situational
outline, support for these programmes is expected to be stronger and attract the
investment in success of multiple stakeholders.
3. Create regional standards for environmental management and measurement.
Include a regional management plan that ties to non-energy resource
management issues
Coordinated coastal management appealed to most survey participants and
should be advocated by CEP w ith support of stakeholder groups.
4. Implement alternative technologies to reduce municipal wastes
14
This is especial y important in urban areas and areas that are upstream from the
Caspian.
5. Introduce agricultural practices to significantly reduce pesticide and herbicide use in
the catchment area (CEZ)
The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group supports this action and
may be able to assist CEP in development and implementation of such a
programme.
Inclusion of the regional and municipal governments is important here as well,
because these groups are both contributors and affected by the problems
presented by this issue of unsustainable farming practices.
NGO and international grants may be able to assist with this as well as a means
to test some new practices. Potentially academic studies funded by agro-
industries, such as Ralston Purina, ADM or Con Agra may be interested in testing
alternate crops, or alternate farming methods in the region in order to establish a
future market base.
6. Develop environmental monitoring programmes utilizing NGO and oil company
coordination, and introduce technologies to reduce industrial wastes
Additionally, there develop industrial pollution monitoring with NGOs and
industries throughout the region. The preliminary evidence suggests that the
industries may be wil ing to submit to monitoring.
7. Create realizable fishing restriction enforcement practices, increase monitoring for
and minimization of exotic species
Specifically create education programmes for policy makers in the Agriculture and
Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, Energy Ministry stakeholder group and
multinational corporation stakeholder group
Develop a system of self-regulated fisheries management that would entail use of
liscencing, group self monitoring and limiting access to those outside of the
regime. Fishermen appear to be supportive of this at this stage. Such programs
can be found in other regions, and have met with relative success in the
management of common property resources. More in depth information on these
institutional mechanisms is available through literature on common property
resource management and upon request.
8. Require use of best available technologies in the Caspian, and so forth.
Include use of low impact technologies including biomass energy production or
the use of solar ovens instead of traditional resource depleting wood burning
ovens in areas subject to deforestation.
Advocate governments to reward use of best available technologies in PSAs with
Multinational corporations.
Perhaps create NGO, CEP rating system for corporations to be publicized both
regionally and internationally.
9. Also a follow up survey of public healthcare provider stakeholder group may be
warranted to determine if environmental impacts on human health are becoming
critical in the region. There are several groups already working on these issues and
liasing with CEP would be beneficial to them and the CEP as wel .
15
Monitor human health over time. Though this study does not extensively focus on
the work of these individuals, it may be advantageous to the CEP to develop a
coalition of public healthcare providers to monitor the health conditions of the
population around the Caspian region. Tracking trends in human illnesses may
provide CEP with an accurate portrait of the environmental impacts on the human
population. Additionally, by participating in epidemiological studies in the region,
the CEP may access groups that are otherwise unrepresented throughout the
region. This may be pursued in collaboration with other organizations such as the
World Health Organization.
10. Continue to monitor attitudes in the region and issues of potential conflicts between
stakeholder groups. This should include intra-governmental ministerial rivalries that
may ultimately tangle CEP objectives into an unsolvable knot of bureaucratic
infighting if not managed carefully. Ministries of special concern are the energy
ministries, environment ministries, and agriculture and fishing ministries. Additional
attention should also be paid to economic ministries, defense ministries and foreign
affairs ministries.
Continue to monitor public opinion in the region and to test for impact and
influence of specific regional policy recommendations
Continue to publicize activities of CEP throughout the region and internationally
among Caspian experts in order to create multiple leve ls of support for CEP
projects and programmes.
Continue to coordinate efforts with other international and regional organizations
in order to avoid repetition of efforts, programmes and projects.
16
Supplemental Materials
The level of interest and prioritization for each stakeholder group has been delineated below.
For each stakeholder group there is: a description of the organizations, their representation in
the stakeholder analysis survey participation on a state by state basis, the group prioritization
of the Major Perceived Problems and Issues, group prioritization of root causes, areas of high
concern for each MPPI. Additionally, though there were several important stakeholder groups
who were not sufficiently represented in the survey, their interests in the issues of MPPI are
outlined below as well.
Environmental Ministries
Stakeholder group summary:
The Environmental Ministries in the Caspian region face numerous challenges from
antiquated regulatory procedures to declining economic support for the Ministries, to
economic incentives for governments to disregard environmental policies currently in
existence. Additional y, the potential cooptation of the Environmental Ministries by extractive-
focused Ministries also diminishes the enforcement capacity of Environmental Ministries.
Nonetheless the embattled Environmental Ministry officials recognize the vast environmental
concerns of the region and as a stakeholder group have both a great deal of influence and
responsibility for environmental problems. Additionally environmental degradation is also
attributed to failures of these Ministries, thus putting these stakeholders in a precarious
political position. Further, the relative status of Environmental Ministries varies a great deal
across the region. Lower prioritization in Azerbaijan compares to relatively high prioritization
in Iran. Further, often these Ministries are used as political fodder by governments seeking to
gain advantage in the region claiming environmental concerns as a means to stall
economical y important resource development and transport in the region. There is also
competition within the Caspian states regarding management of the Caspian environment.
For example Russia has both the Centre for International Projects as well as Environmental
Ministry competing for rights to oversee Caspian environmental issues. This division results in
uneven responsibility and chaotic policy implementation.
Participation: Despite these challenges, the Environmental Ministries in the Caspian region
appear to remain dedicated to participating in the Caspian Environment Programme. The
Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 24 representatives of
Environmental Ministries. Nationalities were represented accordingly: Azerbaijan - 6, I.R. Iran
- 7, Kazakhstan - 4, Russia - 3, Turkmenistan 4.
MPPI Prioritization: The Environmental Ministries are involved in most aspects of the MPPIs
for the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. They rank Decline in Certain Fisheries as the
most important MPPI, followed closely by Decline in Biodiversity and Overall Environmental
Decline. Alternately, Introduction of Exotic Species and Decline in Coastal Infrastructure and
Amenities rank lowest by this stakeholder group.
Root Cause Prioritization: The Environmental Ministries prioritize root causes contributing to
environmental degradation as "Lack of Public Awareness" as highest fol owed very closely by
"Lack of Enforcement of Current Laws". Other highly prioritized root causes are "undefined
legal status", and "lack of advanced technologies", "Weakness in the rule of law". The lowest
prioritized root causes are "overal poverty", "lack of property rights" and "water level change".
It is curious to note that the root cause "lack of enforcement of current laws" may pertain to
the intended mission of the Environmental Ministries.
17
Areas of High Concern: There were a number of areas that elicited high level concern from
the Environmental Ministry survey respondents. These will be presented for each MPPI
specifically. Because each of the MPPIs are related to the Environmental Ministries, each will
be addressed here.
Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: This MPPI ranked as the highest level of
concern for Environmental Ministries. The mean ranking for the
Environmental Ministries was 6.3 of 8 with 2.2 points of standard deviation.
Additional y the root causes of environmental degradation lack of
enforcement and lack of public awareness may reflect the assumed cause
and effect relationship here. The Environmental Ministries stakeholder groups
are affected by the decline in certain fisheries because of the environmental
ramifications that may result in sever disruptions in the ecosystems.
Alternately, they also contribute to problems of over fishing by not adequately
enforcing current regulations. Nonetheless, concerns about this issue are
both high, and high profile making this an important MPPI for CEP to
continue monitoring with regards to attitudes of key stakeholders.
Within the survey Environmental Ministry officials did not reach high
levels of consensus strongly agreeing with the statement that
"Pol ution is the primary reason that there are fewer fish in the
Caspian." Rather the survey demonstrates that of those 19 of 24
Environmental Ministries answering this portion of the survey tended
to agree somewhat as a whole, with an average of 6.84, however
they was wide standard deviation among respondents at 2.59, which
suggests that this issue of pollution leading to a decline in fishing
stocks is not entirely agreed upon by Environmental Ministry officials
in the region.
An issue that did raise a high level of agreement at 7.74 with far less
deviation, 1.45, was the statement that "Even if it is illegal, some fish
will still be caught for profit." There was a very strong agreement
here, with relatively strong consensus. This may reflect the concern
that current enforcement procedures are not effective.
With regards to potential fisheries management practices, Environmental
Ministry officials believe that a "system of mutual y agreed upon
fishing limits would be effective for reducing over-fishing in the
Caspian" by agreeing with this statement at an average of 7.42 and a
standard deviation of 1.92. There was relatively small variation
among survey respondents in this stakeholder group, though the
believe that this may effectively limit the over fishing, implementation
of such a programme may be more difficult than anticipated.
In addition to concerns listed above, the Environmental Ministries in
general felt that there were not sufficient hatcheries to support fishing
stocks. The average was 3.10 with a standard deviation of 1.17 in
response to the statement "There are enough hatcheries to support
al commercial fishing stocks". Though this seems to be self evident,
that Environmental Ministries specifically note this and have a
relatively high level of agreement on this, suggests that they may be
supportive of increasing hatcheries in the region.
Degradation of Coastal Landscapes: This MPPI ranked sixth highest concern (of
eight) for Environmental Ministries. This relatively low ranking was an
average of 4.6 out of 8 with 2.3 points of standard deviation. There are no
18
specific root causes that respond directly to this issue. This issue is much
lower profile in comparison to some others, such as declinein certain fisheries
or pollution from oil and gas activities. Nonetheless, the problems of the
degradation of coastal landscape affect Environme ntal Ministries because
they have strong environmental components for both the marine and coastal
eco-system. Further, the Environmental Ministries stakeholder group
contributes to these problems by failing to adequately enforce current
environmental regulations.
There was a very high level of agreement at 8.4 with a standard
deviation of 0.95 among Environmental Ministries regarding the need
for educating farmers about alternate, low impact farming techniques
to reduce runoff. The consensus of this particular question was quite
high as well with less that 1.0 standard deviation out of 9.
Additionally, there was a very light level of agreement regarding the need
to have a coordinated coastal management plan in the Caspian (8.3)
with very little deviation regarding this need. (0.8) One may surmise
that this is due to the recognition that many of the environmental
problems in the Caspian are transboundary in nature, and can only
be remedied with mutual cooperation.
Other issues related to degradation of coastal landscapes, such a
introducing a market based system of water management for crop
irrigation, landscape degradation caused by human activities and the
need to strengthen environmental laws in the region to protect natural
resources w ere not readily agreed upon by survey participants in the
Environmental Ministries. Additional y, the standard deviations for
these issues remained well above 2.0, suggesting that these issues
are not clearly agreed upon by members of the Environmental
Ministry stakeholder groups.
Threats to Biodiversity: This MPPI ranked as the third highest concern among
members of the Environmental Ministries stakeholder group, with a mean
ranking of 6.04 and standard deviation of 1.5. The loss of biodiversity is
reflected in a series of sub issues where there is a fairly high level of
consensus among Environmental Ministry stakeholders. Loss of biodiversity
due to anthropogenic activities affects Environmental Ministries stakeholder
groups. Often, the mission of these ministries is to protect wildlife, and this is
one of the more visible venues for these ministries to participate in
governance institutions. Like other MPPIs, failure to enforce existing
regulations, inability to plan on regional basis and competition with other
ministries over multiple usages of certain resources leads to the
environmental ministries stakeholder groups contribution to the perceived
decline in biodiversity. Additionally, the lack of reliable long term stock
assessments hamper overall understanding of population fluctuations.
Despite these bedeviling challenges, the environmental ministries
stakeholder group recognizes the importance of preserving biodiversity in the
region.
The statement "There should be a network of marine and wetland
preserves al around the Caspian" elicited high levels of support from
Environmental Ministries, with fairly high levels of consensus. (7.9
and 1.6, respectively) Though this is expected among members of
this stakeholder group, this confirms that there is an awareness of
the need for coordinated action in the region.
19
In response to the statement "My organization supports strengthening
laws protecting sensitive areas even if it limits access to those areas"
the response was an average of high level of agreement at 7.8,
though the variation was somewhat broader at 2.1.
The issue of agricultural and industrial runoff having negative impacts on
the wildlife of the Caspian ranked high as wel at 7.6, with standard
deviation at 1.9. The recognition of this issue is expected among
these groups, though confirmation of this support may be helpful in
regards to the formation of policy recommendations.
There was relatively low levels of agreement with the statement "The
environment of the Caspian is not suffering" with an average of 2.4
and standard deviation of 1.7.
The Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: This MPPI ranked as the second
highest concern for Environmental Ministries stakeholders at 6.08, with a
standard deviation of 1.8. The root causes for this include regional poverty
and lack of public awareness, which Environmental Ministries rank as high
priority issues. The decline in overall environmental quality both affects and is
contributed to by environmental ministries stakeholder groups. This
relationship is dynamic in many ways as the inability to monitor or enforce
changes leads to decline which leads to the inability to monitor or enforce
necessary changes. These groups lack regulatory enforcement capacities,
poor budgets, outdated assessment technologies and have minimal political
clout as a rule. However, over all environmental decline due to political
wrangling, lack of funds, strains on national budgets and lack of political wil
only stands to become more pronounced if left unattended by national
governments.
There is no clear agreement on the adequacy of environmental
information available about causes of environmental decline in the
region. (5.4 mean with a standard deviation of 2.9) The data
suggests that the there is little cohesion among opinions of this group
regarding the statement "There is adequate scientific knowledge
about the causes of environmental decline in the Caspian."
Respondents either agreed or disagreed more strongly. There was
only one of 20 respondents who had no opinion on the issue. There
was wide geographic variation in both groups who agreed and those
who disagreed. Given that these are the institutional body that we
would expect to oversee such information gathering and analysis,
this lack of stakeholder group consensus informs us that this division
may be worth monitoring in the future.
In contrast, there was strong agreement that "there should be more
environmental monitoring projects that involve NGOs, scientists and
private sector col aboration" with the mean agreement at 8.1, and
standard deviation low at 1.1.
In regards to the private sector, the Environmental Ministries overal
favored the statement that "Private industry should take al
responsibility for reversing environmental degradation of the
Caspian". (7.4 mean with 1.9 standard deviation) It is difficult to
gauge if this high level of support represents the sentiment that the
private market will be able to manage this, or if the environmental
degradation is a result of private industry activities and therefore they
20
should bear the costs of cleaning this. Again, given that the
environmental ministries may be charged with overseeing this
activity, CEP attention these attitudes may be appropriate.
There was also clear agreement with the statement "Bet er technology for
environmental preservation would enhance the Caspian region" with
an average of 7.5 and standard deviation of 1.8
Decline in Human Health: This MPPI ranked as the fourth highest priority
concern for the Environmental Ministries stakeholder group, with a mean of
5.29 and a standard deviation of 1.8. Though human health matters are not
directly the concern of environmental ministries, the ramifications of poor
environmental conditions can significantly affect human health. Though the
environmental ministries stakeholder group is somewhat affected by a
decline in human health as coastal residents, they are more directly
contributing to the decline by failing to enforce stringent environmental
regulations currently in place. Similarly the inability to do this may have
secondary ramifications if the health of populations decline in the future if
difficult conditions are exacerbated by further economic decline or natural
disaster.
The issue of access to safe drinking water divided the Environmental
Ministry stakeholder group fairly evenly. Though mean was 6.3, the
standard deviation was 2.75. The raw data shows that there was
either fairly strong agreement, or fairly strong disagreement on with
the statement "In the Caspian region, the biggest threat to the human
population is the lack of safe drinking water." There was wide
geographic variation among both groups, signifying that this is not a
state specific concern.
The issue of radiation and the effects on human health have not been
widely addressed by the CEP. However, members of the
Environmental Ministries were in relatively strong agreement that
"Radioactive materials have led to a decline in human health."
Though the mean was only 6.8, the standard deviation of 2.4 belies
that there are two respondents who disagreed w hile the remaining 17
respondents agreed strongly to very strongly with this statement. This
may warrant further study in the future.
Other human health issues that were especially important were
agreement that the human health should be the concern of the
government, and the commonly held belief that human health
conditions could be improved in the region.
The highest level of agreement for the Environmental Ministries is the
sentiment that "People would be healthier if the environment were
cleaner". The average ranking for this was 8.6 and the standard
deviation was 0.8. This signifies that the Environmental Ministries
recognize that environmental degradation affects human health
directly. This linkage between human health and the environment
may be a very helpful in influencing policy maker support for
environmental improvements.
21
Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: This MPPI ranked very low
among members of the Environmental Ministries stakeholder group. The
average ranking is 4.7 out of 8, with a standard deviation of 2.4. This
relatively large standard deviation suggests that while some members of this
group see this as a higher level concern, others see it as a much lower level
concern. The variation is almost equally spread between among the states,
though northern Caspian states tend to rank this slightly higher than the
southern Caspian states. The Environmental Ministries are both affected by
and are contributing to the damages to coastal infrastructures, both by failure
to enforce existing environmental regulations and by damage to
environmental systems resulting from the damage to coastal infrastructure.
This issue of soil erosion is a high level concern for Environmental Ministries
in particular.
There was fairly high level agreement regarding the concern that soil
erosion contributes to the decline in environmental quality in the
Caspian, with a mean ranking of 7.35, and standard deviation of
1.72. This variation is spread among all regional participants
The issue of negative environmental impacts of mining in the region also
elicited a high level of concern among environmental ministry
stakeholders. The statement "Mining activities reduce the water
quality of the Caspian" was ranked with high level agreement at 7.45
mean and 1.82 standard deviation. There was an equal spread
among regional representatives.
There was lower levels of support for statements relating to municipal
waste disposal into the Caspian and issues of sea level fluctuation
causing most environmental damage in the region. Though this issue
did not rank highly among members of this stakeholder group, there
may be a latent effect that is currently not recognized among
stakeholders. Should infrastructure related disasters occur, this
would be expects to become a much higher leve l concern.
Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: This emerging MPPI ranked
lower among Environmental Ministry stakeholders than might have been
expected. The overall ranking was 5th at 4.67 average with a standard
deviation of 2.4. This relatively large standard deviation suggests that there is
not a clear consensus among Environmental Ministries about the increased
ramifications of the oil and gas activities in the region. The Environmental
Ministries in major oil producing states tended to feel more strongly about this
than those states that produce more natural gas. This may be a result of the
difference in potential environmental ramifications of oil extraction and
transportation compared to that of natural gas. The Environmental Ministries
stakeholder groups are both contributors to and affected by this, based on
the failure to implement existing environmental laws and regulations,
especially as PSAs are developed. Additionally, the Environmental Ministries
stakeholder group is affected by the perception that oil pollution is especially
problematic in the Caspian region and that they are not effectively minimizing
environmental degradation. Further, the actual negative impacts of oil and
gas activity in the Caspian results in the damage to the environment of the
Caspian.
There is the perception among Environmental Ministries stakeholders
that the oil and gas industry does not care about the environment of
the Caspian. With a mean of 6.0 and a standard deviation of 2.2.
22
However, wide variation among stakeholders regarding this
sentiment and the belief is almost equally spread across states in
the region at all levels.
The concern that the environment of the Caspian can not be preserved at
the same time as the oil drilling activities is similar to the statement
above w ith 6.4 mean and 2.6 standard deviation. Again this is spread
evenly across the states.
Among Environmental Ministries stakeholders there is the belief that use
of best available technologies will diminish environmental
degradation in the region. Though this belief is especial y
representative of many in the region, use of new technologies may in
fact improve the environmental conditions in comparison with
outdated technologies used in the past in the region.
The Environmental Ministries stakeholder groups support a "petroleum
based legal agreement for marine pollution from oil (to) reduce oil
pol ution in the Caspian." by an average of 7.4 and a standard
deviation of 2.01. This suggests that the Environmental Ministries
would support such an agreement by the oil companies and energy
ministries, if one could be reached. This support may in turn both
strengthen the Environmental Ministries in the region by legitimizing
their role in the regulatory processes. However, the sample size here
is not large enough to assume that these Environmental Ministries
stakeholders sufficiently represent those who may be charged with
making the final decisions about this matter.
The Environmental Ministries stakeholders do not feel that there are
adequate oil reception facilities in the Caspian region. Though there
is not clear agreement on this over all, the general belief is that these
are not being met.
Introduction of Exotic Species: This emerging MPPI is the lowest ranking concern
for members of the Environmental Ministries stakeholder group. The average
rank is 3.25, with a standard deviation of 2.8. Those who rank this as a high
priority concern are from various Caspian states. It may be hypothesized that
the Environmental Ministries stakeholders from Russia would rank this as a
higher priority issues because of their experiences with invasive species in
the Black Sea region. However, due to a lack of survey data from Russia it is
not possible to verify this. On the other hand, it is worth noting that none the
Russian participants ranked the threat of invasive species below a 4 out of 8.
The threat of invasive species may be a latent concern for members of the
Environmental Ministries stakeholder group, due to other pressing concerns.
However, if there is such a scenario with invasive species as was seen in the
Black Sea, the ramifications for the Environmental Ministries may be quite
significant. Additionally, failure to take this threat seriously now may impinge
on the ability to minimize damages in the near future.
With regards to actual monitoring of invasive species, members of the
Environmental Ministries stakeholder group have a very wide
variation of responses. In response to the statement "I have seen
unusual creatures in the Caspian that were not there ten years ago."
the mean was 4.95 and the standard deviation was 2.95. This
variation is widely spread across the region with no individual state
exhibiting higher incidences of citings of these species.
23
With regards to the statements " Al steps should be taken to limit
invasive species that threaten the ecosystem" and "Invasive species
are creating significant environmental degradation in the Caspian"
the responses were averages at 7.10 and 6.79 with standard
deviation s at 2.38 and 2.27, respectively.
The lack of information about the potential damage to ecosystems from
invasive species may be partially responsible for these lower turnouts
among these groups.
Agriculture and Fishing Ministries
Stakeholder Group Summary:
The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group is widely represented in the region.
Because of the high visibility of fishing activities in the Caspian region, combined with the
negative externalities of agricultural production in the region, the Agriculture and Fishing
Ministries stakeholder group is significant to a number of the Major Perceived Problems and
Issues. The environmental ramifications of these groups activities in the region are also
widespread. If fishing stocks are overly depleted, even beyond some current levels,
agricultural runoff results in serious damages with pesticides. In general the perception is that
these ministries wield significantly more power both in terms of economic influence and
regulatory capacity than environmental ministries in many of the Caspian states. The
economic influence of course is rooted in the perception that the economic value of the good
created by these industries translated into political power. With regards to the fishing
ministries influence, this is somewhat checked by the perception of the abuse of power in the
Former Soviet states in combination with diversion of economic resources from those
segments of the fishing industry which support the sustainable harvest of certain
commercial y valuable species. Though not all of the MPPI pertain directly to the Agriculture
and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, those which do directly affect or are contributed to
by this group will be examined here.
Participation: The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 18
representatives of the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group. Nationalities
were represented accordingly: Azerbaijan - 2, I.R. Iran - 9, Kazakhstan - 5, Russia - 1,
Turkmenistan 1. As a result, the information provided by this stakeholder analysis is biased
towards Iranian and Kazakh interests. However, given that each state was theoretically given
the option to complete equal numbers of the survey this may tell us that either these
ministries were not penetrable by the MAGICAs and PPAs that approached them, or that
these ministries were not widely represented overal . In several cases, I suspect it is the
former rather than the latter. Nonetheless the results that we currently have available are
informative for these purposes.
MPPI Prioritization: The highest priority issue for the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries
stakeholder group was surprisingly the Decline in Biodiversity. This w as followed by Decline
in Human Health and Decline in Certain Fisheries, which tied. The lower priority issues were
Introduction of Exotic Species, Degradation of Coastal Landscape and Decline in Coastal
Infrastructure and Amenities as the lowest concerns.
Root Cause Prioritization: The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group ranked
"Lack of Sufficient Enforcement of Current Environmental Laws as the most important root
cause. This was fol owed by "Regional Poverty", "Lack of Advanced Technologies", and
"Undefined Legal Status " as very important root causes. Low importance root causes include
"Regional Overpopulation", "Abuse of Power", "Lack of Property Rights", "Sea Level Change"
24
and "Weakness of Civil Society". Again, it is important to recognize that this is from a sample
which strongly favors Iranian and Kazakh views.
Areas of High Concern: There are a number of issues that elicit a high level of concern
among the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group.
1. Decline in Certain Fisheries: This MPPI natural y ranks as a high priority concern for
the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group. There were a number of
issues that elicited high level responses from this stakeholder group w hich should be
noted here. Certainly members of this stakeholder group both contribute to and are
affected by this MPPI. They play an integral part in the development of hatcheries,
maintenance of state owned fisheries, and oversight of fish takes in the region, at
least in theory, if not in practice. Additionally, these stakeholders depend on
maintaining a regulatory balance with regards to these resources, both in terms of
encouraging the fishing industry and in managing fisheries so that they do not
become irreparably depleted.
The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group recognize and admit
that there is il egal trade in some fish. In response to the statement "Even if it
is illegal, some fish wil stil be caught for profit." The response of the
Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group was very high
agreement at 7.64 mean and standard deviation of 1.6. This was spread
evenly across the regions.
Similarly the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group strongly
agreed that "People, other than fishermen make money from il egal fishing of
some species" with an average level of agreement at 8.57 and standard
deviation of 0.63. Both of these issues suggest that though abuse of power is
ranked as a low concern root cause, there is the awareness that this is a
driving problem for the fishing industy. Additionally this may be equated with
the perception that the root cause "Lack of sufficient enforcement of current
environmental laws" accounts for the il egal nature affecting the fishing
industry.
The third high level concern issue in regards to decline in certain fisheries is
the high level agreement with the statement that "Al barriers to fish migration
should be removed". The average for this statement was 8.07 with a standard
deviation of 1.44. Though this may be interpreted several ways, it is worth
noting that over half of the respondents agreed strongly, and that they
represented the almost all Caspian states.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries
stakeholder group considers this MPPI to be a low level concern in comparison to
other MPPIs. They contribute to this issue by advocating the use of irrigation on
crops, thus diverting water flow to the Caspian. Additionally they contribute by
al owing the use of certain fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to be used on crops.
Often these are over used and end up getting flushed down to the Caspian.
Especially notable among these is the use of DDT.
There was a high level of agreement on in regards to the statement "Farmers
using herbicides and pesticides should be taught natural ways to reduce use
of these chemicals. (For instance: organic farming methods, crop rotation,
more appropriate crop selection based on climate and soil, genetically
engineered crops, training education, other chemicals or synthetics.)" The
level of agreement was 8.25, w ith a standard deviation of 1.57. This suggests
that the ministry representatives who would be involved in the implementation
of such educational programmes would also be supportive of this. There was
even distribution across the Caspian states in the response to this question.
Additional y, the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group strongly
supported the statement "Current laws are not strong enough to protect
25
natural resources around the Caspian." The average was 8.28 and the
standard deviation was 0.89. This suggests that these groups recognize that
current systems are not effective for protecting the Caspian eco-system
3. Threats to Biodiversity: The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group
ranked this MPPI as the highest level concern among the issues presented. They are
heavily involved in this issue as contributors to this issue, and to some degree as
those affected by this issue as wel . They contribute to this issue by favoring some
species over others in agriculture, use of lands and irrigation for farming, and
pesticide usage which affects the waters of the Caspian. Additional y, the fishing
aspect of these ministries relies on a semi-balanced eco-systems in order to function
properly.
In response to the statement "There should be a network of marine and wetland
nature preserves al around the Caspian" there was overwhelming support
from the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group. The average
was 8.05 and the standard deviation was 1.00
In response to the statement "My organization supports strengthening laws to
protect sensitive areas even if it limits access to those areas." The support
was a sound 7.39 mean with a standard deviation of 1.94.
In response to the statement "It is necessary to protect fish spawning sites in the
Caspian" the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group agreed at
8.05 average and 1.05 standard deviation. These three preceding statements
suggest that the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group would
support some programmes that would link environmental y protected areas to
their activities in the region. However, it is not entirely clear that this
assumption is supported. Nonetheless, there were other instances where this
stakeholder group had some interesting responses.
An example of this includes the agreement with the statement " Agriculture and
industry wastes flowing into the Caspian threaten marine and coastal
species." The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group agreed
with this at an average of 8.05 and a standard deviation of 1.05. Though this
may allow members of this group to focus on industrial pollution
predominantly, it nonetheless reflects an awareness that this is problematic.
Further, the variation is evenly spread among the Caspian states suggesting
that this is not a state specific phenomenon. One caveat to this is the concern
that there is only one respondent from the Russian Federation in this
stakeholder group, and this may bias the responses somewhat, given that a
significant majority of the water flow into the Caspian comes from the Volga
which is within the territory of Russia.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries
stakeholder group ranked this as a mid level concern among the MPPIs presented.
The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group contributes to the overall
decline in environmental quality by allowing the use of certain pesticides that flow into
the Caspian and harm certain species. Both the seal die-offs and the kilka die-offs
have been linked to excessive pesticide residues in the Caspian waters. Additionally,
the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group is affected by the decline in
overall environmental quality because this decline reduces the reproductive and
capacity to thrive.
The one issue specifical y related to decline in overall environmental quality is
the consensus that "There should be more environmental monitoring projects
that involve NGOs, scientists and private sector col aboration." The
26
stakeholders ranked this at 7.61 mean and 1.85 standard deviation. This
suggests that the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group may
be willing to be monitored by these groups in the future. However, before a
widespread program is attempted it would be advantageous to survey a
broader section of this stakeholder group.
Additional y, as mentioned in the previous section above the Agriculture and
Fishing Ministries stakeholder group appears to be amenable to project
aimed at reducing agricultural run-off into the Caspian. The high level of
agreement here may indicate a recognition that this is reducing overall
environmental quality in the region. Though this recognition may be
perceived as a minor step, it may indicate a potential inroad for CEP to work
with these groups to improve overall environmental quality.
5. Decline in Human Health: The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group
ranked this MPPI as a top level concern. Though there are few direct linkages
between human health conditions and the activities of the Agriculture and Fishing
Ministries stakeholder group, this stakeholder was in high leve l agreement on several
issue pertaining to this issue. The variation for these is distributed evenly across
Caspian states.
There was unusually high agreement and consensus among Agriculture and
Fishing Ministries stakeholder group with regard to the statement "People
would be healthier if the environment were cleaner." The average for this
group was 8.35 and the standard deviation was only 0.78. This may be
reflective of the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group
members living in the region. Alternately, it may also be reflective of an
awareness that current environmental practices in the region are causing
illness among humans as wel as other species.
This ties in again with the statements above in section 3 regarding the need
to better manage agricultural runoff and finding alternate technologies for
more environmentally sound agricultural practices.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: This MPPI ranked as a low level
concern by the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group. There is only
one issue related to this MPPI that involves this stakeholder group. Specifically they
contribute to soil erosion as farming practices result in decreased stability of soils in
the region. This includes over grazing, monoculture and farming in drained or altered
wetlands. Simultaneously, they are affected by erosion as it affects the fishing
industry.
The agreement with the statement "Soil erosion contributes to the decline in
environmental quality of the Caspian" was very high at 8.33 mean and 0.77
standard deviation. This suggests that the awareness of this issue is a priority
concern for the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, though
the damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities may not be perceived to
be initially. Further, this may be an area where CEP would be able to expect
support from the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: This MPPI ranked as a lower level
concern for the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group. There is a
perception that there is potential for a great deal of conflict between the Agriculture
and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group and the Energy industry as development of
Caspian oil and gas deposits increase. However, this has not been starkly reflected in
the survey data. Nonetheless, there are areas that bear monitoring as attitudes about
27
this relationship become more salient. The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries
stakeholder group is not a contributor to the environmental ramifications of this MPPI.
However, they would be affected in the event that a large scale oil spill occurred in
the region. Alternately, even if less sensational events occur there could be significant
negative ramifications for the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group.
Especially worth noting is the perception among the Agriculture and Fishing
Ministries stakeholder group that "Multinational Corporations and the energy
industry do not are about the environment." The Agriculture and Fishing
Ministries stakeholder group agrees with this at a 7.50 average and a
standard deviation of 1.67. The variation is evenly spread across the states of
the region, with no particular state ranking higher or lower than the others.
Issues such as the use of best available technologies, petroleum based legal
regimes and adequacy of oil reception facilities did not merit high levels of
concern among the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: This emerging MPPI is one of the lowest ranking
concerns for the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group, in comparison
to the others. However, in regards to specific sub issues this stakeholder group
actually quite high levels of concern. The Agriculture and Fishing Ministries
stakeholder group may potentially be very heavily impacted by this emerging MPPI if
invasive species disrupt the food chain like they did in the Black Sea. Though the
Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group will be affected by this issue,
they may also become very strong advocates of precautionary measures to reduce
introduction of these species into regional waters.
The issue of the presence of invasive species in the region was not one of
high level consensus or concern. However, the respondents from the
Agriculture and Fishing Ministries stakeholder group did have some
agreement on this issue that was distributed among most of the Caspian
states.
The issue of limiting invasive species in the Caspian attracted high level of
agreement and strong consensus. The statement "Al steps should be taken
to limit invasive species that threaten the eco system" was strongly supported
at 8.44 average and 0.70 standard deviation.
The statement "invasive species are creating significant environmental
degradation in the Caspian" had a 7.59 level of agreement and 1.90 standard
deviation. Again, the responses here were widely spread across the states in
the region.
This signifies that the presence of invasive species is being observed in the
region and that there may be cause to believe that this stakeholder group
may be a very strong ally in regards to the formation of a regional policy to
require practices to limit these species.
Additional y, it is worth noting that the Agriculture and Fishing Ministries
stakeholder group ranks individual questions for this MPPI as a much higher
level concern than other stakeholder groups, including the International
Corporations, Energy Ministries and Environmental Ministries. This is worth
monitoring by the CEP and may be a key component of CEP activity in the
future, especial y focusing on education of stakeholder groups about this
issue.
Energy Ministries
Stakeholder Group Summary: The Energy Ministry stakeholder group is very important in the
Caspian region given their high level of influence in the governments of the Caspian states.
Further, because the energy industry is expected to yield significant economic benefits for the
28
region, their activities are worth monitoring. The environmental ramifications of these activities
are of concern to stakeholders throughout the Caspian region and beyond. Though the
Energy Ministry stakeholder group may not recognize that it is a contributor to environmental
issues in the Caspian it often is.
Participation: The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 6 representatives
of the Energy Ministry stakeholder group. Nationalities were represented accordingly:
Azerbaijan - 2, I.R. Iran - 2, Kazakhstan - 0, Russia - 0, Turkmenistan 2. The lack of
representation is a result of incomplete survey distribution in in Kazakhstan and the Russian
Federation. Despite these deficiencies the information provided by the somewhat skewed
sample should be viewed as informative, even if it is limited.
MPPI Prioritization: The Energy Ministry stakeholder group ranked decline in certain fisheries
as the top priority MPPI, followed by decline in human health and decline in biodiversity.
Lower concern MPPIs were degradation of coastal landscape, decline in infrastructure and
amenities, and introduction of exotic species. Pollution from oil and gas ranked as a lower
mid-level concern at 3.7 average with a 3.3standard deviation. Concerns were much higher in
I.R. Iran than in other represented states.
Root Cause Prioritization: The root causes that elicited the highest level of concern among
the Energy Ministry stakeholder group were lack of advanced technologies, Lack of sufficient
enforcement of current environmental laws , undefined legal status, lack of public awareness
of environmental problems and weakness in the rule of law. Low level root causes were
regional overpopulations, abuse of power, lack of property rights, sea level change, and
weakness in civil society. The variation for these was fairly evenly distributed across the
represented states in the region.
Areas of High Concern:
1. Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: The Energy Ministry stakeholder group is not
directly affected by or contributors to the MPPI decline in certain fishing stocks.
Though there may be a perception that these stakeholders contribute to this, there is
not sufficient evidence for this.
The exception to this may be the issue of hydroelectric dams that act as
barriers to fish migration. In response to the statement "Al barriers to fish
migration should be removed" the average response was 7.17 in favor of
this, with a standard deviation of 2.56. It is important to note that those
w ho most strongly favored this were from al of those states represented.
However, because a great deal of the damming of rivers occurs in states
not represented in the region, it would be a faulty conclusion to believe
that removal of dams in order to enhance fish migration.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: The Energy Ministry stakeholder group is
involved in the MPPI degradation of coastal landscape because they often are a key
contact organization for oil and gas exploration and development. Therefore they play
an important role in issues related to this economically critical activity.
The first statement to consider here is "It would be helpful to have
coordinated coastal management plans in the Caspian region to help
preserve the environment." The level of agreement is astoundingly high
at 8.83 with a standard deviation of 0.04. In other words, all of the Energy
Ministry stakeholder group surveyed agreed strongly/ very strongly with
this plan. This may indicate a very important role for CEP as a catalyst for
policy coordination.
29
3. Threats to Biodiversity: Though the Energy Ministry stakeholder group rank this as a
relatively high level concern, there is little direct impact on biodiversity. Indirectly there
is the concern that these Energy Ministry stakeholder groups have more influence on
actual policy development. Therefore issues such as the very central issue of the
need to protect habitats instead of develop economic resources in the region.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The Energy Ministry stakeholder group
ranks this MPPI as a midlevel concern in comparison to the others. The Energy
Ministry stakeholder group actually is minimally affected by this issue and contribute
only indirectly.
5. Decline in Human Health: Though the MPPI was the second highest concern for the
Energy Ministry stakeholder group, they have very little direct impact on this issue
and are only indirectly affected by this.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: The Energy Ministry stakeholder
group rank this as a low level concern. Additionally though they contribute to this
damage by increasing demands on the infrastructure via energy development, these
issues are more appropriately addressed in under the auspices of that subject matter.
Other coastal infrastructure issues are only indirectly related to the Energy Ministry
stakeholder group.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: The Energy Ministry stakeholder
group is very closely linked to concerns about potential damage from oil and gas
development. The Energy Ministry stakeholder group is a direct contributor to this
MPPI. It is only indirectly affected by this. Because Energy Ministry stakeholder group
wield strong economic powers in national governments, and because they also have
closest contact with those agencies charged with overseeing infrastructural issues.
The only issue that elicited a high priority concern for the Energy Ministry
stakeholder group is the statement "A petroleum industry based legal
agreement for marine pol ution from oil would reduce oil pollution in the
Caspian." The average level of support for this w as 7.67 with a standard
deviation of 1.5. The distribution of this was evenly spread across the
represented states in the region.
Other issues such as use of best available technologies to improve
environmental outputs, or the adequacies of oil reception facilities elicited
a tepid response from the Energy Ministry stakeholder group. This
suggests that the environmental ramifications of their work is not a high
priority, especial y in regards to extraction and transportation. This should
be compared with the perceptions of the Multinational oil companies.
In regards to the statement "Multinational corporations and the energy
industry do not care about the environment." The agreement was very
mixed with a mean of 5.0 and a standard deviation of 2.5. This may be
somewhat concerning, unless the translations implied that these groups
should "care for" the environment, rather than about it in more general
30
terms. Nonetheless, this may be worth monitoring, as many other
stakeholder groups agreed strongly w ith this statement.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: This MPPI was a very low level concern for the Energy
Ministry stakeholder group. While they are only peripherally associated with this
issue, the opinions of this pow er body is important to consider, especially as
increased energy industry activities may be responsible for increased introduction of
some invasive exotic species.
In response to the statements regarding invasive species, the Energy
Ministry stakeholder group w as very unenthusiastic. However, this may
be a direct result of the lack of knowledge about this issue in the region,
and among this stakeholder group in particular. Especial y telling is the
6.17 average response (with 2.56 standard deviation) to the statement
"al steps should be taken to limit invasive species that threaten the
ecosystem." Though the response is general y in agreement, the relative
tepidness of it may point to a lack of understand of the implications of the
energy industry activities on this issue. Educating this stakeholder group
about this issues may be a very important role for CEP to consider
pursuing.
Regional and Municipal Governments
Stakeholder Group Summary: Regional and Municipal governments are often caught in a
precarious situation with regards to the environment of the Caspian. They are both
responsible to the citizens of their regions and to the federal government as well. As
addressed in the TDA Socio-Economic Summary, the geographic boundaries of these
divisions is somewhat difficult to gauge because they do not correspond actual environmental
bounadaries. On the other hand, the activities that occur within the municipal and regional
districts buttressing the Caspian are often both directly contributing to the environmental
issues of the Caspian and affected by these environmental issues.
Participation: For the sake of this study, municipal and regional governments were combined
due to a low response rate from both groups. The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was
completed by five representatives of regional governments. Nationalities were represented
accordingly: Azerbaijan - 0, I.R. Iran - 0, Kazakhstan - 0, Russia - 4, Turkmenistan 1. There
were six municipal government officials who completed the survey. Nationalities were
represented accordingly: Azerbaijan - 2, I.R. Iran - 1, Kazakhstan - 0, Russia - 1,
Turkmenistan 2. Combined, there were eleven regional and municipal government
stakeholders. Though Kazakhstan is not represented here, it may be assumed that at least
some of these concerns extend to them as well.
MPPI Prioritization: The most important ranked MPPIs for the regional and municipal
government stakeholder group was overall environmental qua lity fol owed closely by the
decline in certain fisheries. The lowest priority MPPIs were degradation of coastal
landscapes, decline in coastal infrastructure and amenities, and potential pol ution from oil
and gas activities.
Root Cause Prioritization: Of the root causes listed the highest ranking concerns for regional
and municipal government stakeholders were the non-sustainable use of resources, and lack
of advanced technologies. The lowest ranked concerns were regional overpopulation, the
abuse of power, lack of property rights.
31
Areas of High Concern:
1. Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: The regional and municipal government
stakeholder group is both a contributor to the decline in certain fisheries and is
affected by this MPPI. The contribution is due to the lack of enforcement of existing
environmental laws, and poor economic conditions that make over dependence on
this resource a necessity for some. On the other hand, the decline in certain fishing
stocks also affected the regional and municipal government stakeholder group by
lowering the legal economic trade of some of these species, thus encouraging the
abuse of power. Additionally, it represents a decrease in available high quality food
stocks for citizens in these areas, which may lead to political instability, especially
coupled with power abuse issues.
There was very strong agreement with the statement "Even if it is illegal,
some fish wil still be caught for profit" at 8.13 average and 0.83 standard
deviation. Additional y, there was a similarly high level of agreement with
"People, other than fishermen, make money from the il egal fishing of
some species" at 8.14 average and 1.86 standard deviation. This
signifies is the recognition that there is a strong illegal trade in some
species. This high level of agreement does not reflect the root cause
prioritization, which may be explained by the deflection of blame from one
group that might be considered a prime suspect in the abuse of power.
Interestingly, there is also a strong agreement with among the regional and
municipal government stakeholder group with the statement that "An
enforced system of mutually agreed upon fishing limits would be effective
for reducing over-fishing in the Caspian." The mean was 7.62 with a
standard deviation of 1.77. The support for this was almost evenly spread
among the represented states in the region. Russian support was slightly
lower overall, however.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: With regards to this MPPI the regional and
municipal government stakeholder group is both affected and contributing. This
stakeholder group contributes to this by overuse of certain herbicides and pesticides,
population incursions into sensitive areas, and inappropriate citing of industry. It is
affected because the degradation of the coastal landscape reduced the quality of
these areas, and the human benefits in these regions. Additionally, the regional and
municipal government stakeholder group is affected because the diminished state of
these also negatively impacts quality of life for citizens, and may reduce the ability of
governments to meet the needs of these impacted individuals.
The regional and municipal government stakeholder group strongly
supports the use of alternate farming practices to reduce herbicide and
pesticide use in the region. In response to the statement "Farmers using
herbicides and pesticides should be taught natural ways to reduce use of
these chemicals" the agreement was an average of 8.0 with a standard
deviation of 0.83. Though this stakeholder group is not directly
responsible for this, their support may be key in implementing an
agricultural education program in the Caspian region.
In response to the statement "It would be helpful to have coordinates
coastal management plans in the Caspian region to help preserve the
environment" the average agreement was a strong 8.25 with a standard
deviation of 0.97. Though this is promising, in response to the statement
"there should be limits on some activities in certain zones of the coastal
region" the response was quite mixed with a mean of 5.5 and a standard
deviation of 3.0. Azeri respondents strongly agreed, a Russian
respondent was unsure and an Iranian disagreed. This regionalization of
the issue was not represented in the previous strongly supported
32
statement. This may be in part due to translation issue, or it may
represent a disparity among states should be handled with some
sensitivity. However, it may also be a case of a very few individuals
responding, and is not clearly representative of these groups.
3. Threats to Biodiversity: The regional and municipal government stakeholder group is
a contributor to the decline in biodiversity as lack of planning leads to destruction of
habitats. Additionally, the unregulated flow of industrial and agricultural wastes in the
Caspian may be reduced if regional and municipal governments were more effective
at enforcing current environmental laws. The potential decline in biodiversity does not
directly affect the regional and municipal government stakeholder group.
In response to the statement "My organization supports strengthening
laws protecting sensitive areas even if it limits access to those areas."
The average was 7.75 with a 2.26 standard deviation. Again this support
suggests that there is strong support among regional and municipal
government stakeholder group for collectively managing environmentally
important areas in the region. There were relatively evenly shared views
among the represented states in the region.
The issue of agricultural and industrial runoff negatively impacting the
Caspian was a high level concern among the regional and municipal
government stakeholder group. The mean response was 8.0 with a
standard deviation of 1.55 to the statement "Agriculture and industrial
wastes flowing in to the Caspian threaten marine and coastal species."
Though there is high level of agreement regarding this, translating this
into action may be more somewhat difficult.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The regional and municipal government
stakeholder group contributes to the decline in overall environmental quality. By
failing to implement environmental legislation and adding wastes to the Caspian
ecosystem the regional and municipal government stakeholder group adds to the
decline in environmental conditions. Alternately, the regional and municipal
governments stakeholder group is affected by the decline in overall environmental
quality. However the issues specifically focused on decline in overal environmental
quality are not listed as high importance for the regional and municipal government
stakeholder group.
5. Decline in Human Health: The MPPI decline in human health ranks as mid level
concern for the regional and municipal government stakeholder group. They
contribute to environmental decline, and decline in human health by failing to
implement environmental policies. The regional and municipal government
stakeholder group is also indirectly affected by the decline in human health, as costs
for human health care are passed to the regional and municipal governments. The
low human health conditions also discourage foreign businesses settling in these
regions.
The regional and municipal government stakeholder group responded
with tepid agreement to the statement that "In the Caspian region, the
biggest threat to the human population is the lack of safe drinking water."
The mean was 6.0 with a standard deviation of 2.45. The Azeri
respondents agreed most strongly, while states were less inclined to
agree with this statement. This may be reflective of the especial y low
potable water conditions in Azerbaijan.
33
Alternately there was a very high level of agreement by all represented
states in the region that "People would be healthier if the environment
were cleaner." The mean was 8.5 with a standard deviation of 0.58. The
level of disagreement with the statement "The environment of the
Caspian is not suffering" was a sound 1.25, with a standard deviation of
0.50. Further, in response to the statement "Public health must be the
concern of the government" the support was a very strong 8.83, with a
standard deviation of 0.41.
Thus though the regional and municipal government stakeholder group
is aware that human health is related to environmental conditions, that
the environme ntal conditions are low, and there government should be
concerned about human health, there is not clear prioritization of
environmental issues by this stakeholder group. This may be a very
important source of recruitment for support of environmental legislation,
as well as place to emphasize environme ntal policy initiatives. It must be
noted that the sample is significantly smal that follow-up surveys may be
recommended with this group in order to more clearly link these.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: The regional and municipal
government stakeholder group is both affected by and a contributor to the MPPI
damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities. They contribute to it by being unable
or unw illing to maintain the infrastructure in a condition that could withstand
environmental degradation, storm surges and water level fluctuation, as wel as
normal wear and tear. They are affected by it as environmental conditions require
increased spending on infrastructure to protect it from further degradation.
In regards to the issue of soil erosion the regional and municipal
government stakeholder group agree that "soil erosion contributes to the
decline in environmental quality of the Caspian" with a mean of 7.5 and a
standard deviation of 0.57
Interestingly they agree at just the 7.0 level that "sea level fluctuation has
been responsible for most damage to the coastal infrastructure" with a
standard deviation of 1.41.
Also of note is the mid level agreement with the statement "coastal cities
and towns dump most municipal wastes into the waters of the Caspian."
The mean was 6.25 with the standard deviation at 2.63.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: This MPPI was a lower level
concern for members of the regional and municipal government stakeholder group.
Though the oil and gas industry stands to bring much needed revenues to these
stakeholders, there are potential environmental ramifications as well. Among these
are the negative impacts of a severe oil spil . If this were to occur, the regional and
municipal government stakeholder group would be affected.
The regional and municipal government stakeholder group strongly supports the
statement "the Caspian environment would be improved if al oil and gas activities
used best available technologies." The average is 8.5 and the standard deviation
is 0.58. This suggests that as those affected by this MPPI there is support for
stronger environmental practices than have been previously required. However,
this may also be somewhat problematic if there is competition between states for
contracts, and environmental regulations are seen as being uncompetitively
restrictive.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: The regional and municipal government stakeholder
group does not see this MPPI as either a high level or low level concern. In the even
of massive ecological shifts the regional and municipal government stakeholder group
34
members may be affected. However until that occurs they are more passive. They
also do not contribute to this MPPI as a group.
State and Private Industries
Stakeholder Group Summary: The state and private industries stakeholder group is vital to
consider in this stakeholder analysis because they are believed to be significant contributors
to environmental issues in the Caspian region. From industrial effluents to air pol ution, and
from water inundation to silting of waterways, this group is often targeted by other
stakeholders as a primary contributor to environmental degradation in the Caspian region.
The state and private industries stakeholder group is also affected by environmental
degradation as wel , due to the strains this puts on the labor force, the ability to attract new
businesses into the region and their own health.
Participation: The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 25
representatives of the state owned industries. Nationalities were represented accordingly:
Azerbaijan 17, I.R. Iran - 0, Kazakhstan - 4, Russia - 4, Turkmenistan 1. The Regional
Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 14 representatives of the privately owned
industries. Nationalities were represented accordingly: Azerbaijan - 7, I.R. Iran - 1,
Kazakhstan - 3, Russia - 0, Turkmenistan 3. Because there were states missing from each
other these groups, and there is a concern with unequal distribution, these two groups were
combined. In some cases, where it is relevant, they will be separated out, as needed.
MPPI Prioritization: The most important MPPIs for the state and private industries stakeholder
group is the decline in human health, followed by the decline in certain fisheries and overall
environmental decline. These were the top three for the entire stakeholder analysis, thus this
group is matching the overall trends. The lowest concern MPPIs are introduction of exotic
species, degradation of coastal landscape, and decline in infrastructure.
Root Cause Prioritization: Of the root causes presented, the highest ranked were lack of
public awareness of environmental problems, non-sustainable use of resources, and lack of
advanced technologies. The lowest ranked root causes were regional overpopulation, lack of
property rights and sea level change. Again this fell within the overall averages for all
stakeholder groups. This is worth noting because this particular group is often viewed as
being unconcerned with environmental degradation, yet they are ranking both the MPPIs and
the root causes in the same sequences as all other stakeholder groups combined.
Areas of High Concern:
1. Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: This MPPI is a high level concern for the state and
private industries stakeholder group. The decline in certain fishing stocks affects the
state and private industries stakeholder group indirectly by increasing the scarcity of
the certain species, and by increasing the abuse of power in the region. However,
they are not directly affected by this MPPI. Alternately, they are viewed as
contributors to the problem because of the decline in fishing stocks being tied to the
pollution levels in the Caspian. This is not to say they bear ful responsibility here, but
rather, they contribute to it.
In response to the statement "Pol ution is the primary reason there are fewer
fish in the Caspian" the average of the state and private industries
stakeholder group was 7.36 with a 2.19 standard deviation. This is widely
spread across both state and private industries stakeholders, and mostly
across the region. However, it may be important to not that the Russian
industries were not in agreement with this and accounted for the
relatively large standard deviation. This may in part be due to the
35
awareness of the illegal fish trade in this region. Alternately it may be due
to a lack of clear accountability by this group as well and warrants further
monitoring.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: With regards to this MPPI the state and private
industries stakeholder group is both affected, and a contributor, though not as directly
as some other stakeholder groups. The citing of some industries within coastal plains
has environmental ramifications especially as sea levels shift.
In response to the statement "There should be limits on some activities in
certain zones of the coastal region" the state and private industries
stakeholder group average was 6.86, with a standard deviation of 1.48.
There was a relatively even distribution among states in the region.
Additionally, the average response to the statement "it would be helpful to
have coordinated coastal management plans in the Caspian region to
help preserve the environment" was 7.60 with a standard deviation of
1.75. Again distribution across states was relatively even. The may
portend that these industries are willing to consider support of such a
plan with the recognition that economic activities in the region should be
managed with environmental concerns in mind.
3. Threats to Biodiversity: This MPPI ranked as a midlevel concern for the state and
private industries stakeholder group. They are not affected by this in any direct way,
and they are contributors to this perceived problem in the sense that increased waste
loads from industry have had negative impacts on the environment, hence impacting
the biodiversity in the region.
In response to the statement "agriculture and industrial wastes flowing
into the Caspian threaten marine and coastal species" the level of
support was a very string 8.14 with a standard deviation of 0.94.
Additional y, in response to the statement "The environment of the
Caspian is not suffering" the average response was an adamant 1.86
w ith a standard deviation of 0.88. This suggests both an aw areness of
environmental degradation in the Caspian region, as well as an
awareness that the effluents are related to this problem. Again, this was
w idespread across the states in the region.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The state and private industries stakeholder
group rank this MPPI as a high level concern. The decline in Overall environmental
quality both affects this stakeholder group and is contributed to by them. As noted
earlier this group recognizes that environmental degradation is problematic in the
region. Interestingly in regards to the responsibility for this the state and private
industries stakeholder group also see some responsibility regarding these issues.
In response to the statement "Private industry should tal al responsibility for
reducing environmental degradation in the Caspian" there was an
unexpectedly high level of agreement. The average was 6.54 with a
standard deviation of 1.77. Surprisingly this was equally supported
among state and private industries.
Similarly, there was strong support for the statement "There should be more
environmental monitoring projects that involve NGOs, scientists and
private sector col aboration." The average was 7.54 and the standard
deviation was 1.46. This suggests that these groups are open to
involvement and monitoring. However, it is also possible that with each of
these responses we may be getting responses from industries charged
w ith environmental renumeration. Thus the high level of support for both
of these statements would be explained. Unfortunately, it is not clear if
36
this is the case, or is we are dealing with industries with strong
environmental biases, which would be reflected in those willing to take
such a survey in the first place. Though this is unclear, this should be
explored further in subsequent studies.
5. Decline in Human Health: This MPPI also ranked as a very high level concern for the
state and private industries stakeholder group. This issue affects this stakeholder
group because is employees are not healthy they are less able to work. Additionally,
they are not able to attract other businesses to the region when public health
concerns are strong. The state and private industries stakeholder group is also a
contributor to this problem by polluting in the region and failing to comply with current
environmental legislation.
Interestingly, there is a strong level of support for the statement
"industrial runoff has caused people to be sick". The average is 7.46 and
the standard deviation is 1.65. This is w idely spread among the
represented states in the region. The Iranian respondent did not answer
this, and therefore it is not possible to conclude that this is an issue that
is widely agreed upon throughout the entire region.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: This MPPI ranked as a very low
level concern for members of the state and private industries stakeholder group.
Though they are directly affected by this, in that the lack of infrastructure, and
damage to this reduces their ability to function at optimal levels, there is little attention
to this issue by this group. Additionally, the damage to the infrastructure and
amenities that is environmentally based may not be perceived at threatening
industrial output.
In response to the statement "Mining activities reduce the water quality of
the Caspian" the average agreement was at 7.08 with a standard
deviation of 1.89. This suggests that this group is aware of this problem,
and potential y contributing to it, though support for any measures to
reduce this may be difficult to gauge.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: The state and private industries
stakeholder group ranked this MPPI as a mid level concern. They are neither directly
affected by, nor contributing to this particular issue.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: The state and private industries stakeholder group
ranked this MPPI as a very low level concern. They are neither directly affected by,
nor contributing to this particular issue.
Coastal Zone Residents
Stakeholder Group Summary: The coastal zone resident stakeholder group is the largest,
most directly affected of al stakeholder groups discussed here. This stakeholder group
37
consists of those individuals who live within the extended economic zone of the Caspian. The
coastal zone resident stakeholder group consists of survey participants including: municipal
government, NGOs, educators, public healthcare providers, students, farming and fishing
industry, and those who self-identified as "other" when not fitting into other classifications.
Though this indicates that there are those who are both represented here as wel as individual
stakeholder groups, it is important to incorporate them into this category as well.
Participation: The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 110
representatives of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. Nationalities were
represented accordingly: Azerbaijan - 16, I.R. Iran - 33, Kazakhstan - 12, Russia - 18,
Turkmenistan 31.
38
The breakdown of the representatives of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group is best
presented in tabular form below
Azerbaijan
Russia
Turkmenistan
Kazakhstan
I.R. Iran
Municipal
2
1
2
0
1
Governments
NGOs
3
4
8
6
15
Educators
2
3
5
1
1
Public Health
3
2
1
2
0
Care
Providers
Students
2
2
5
1
1
Fishermen
0
2
0
0
0
large industry
Fishermen
1
2
0
2
0
small industry
Other
3
2
10
0
15
Total CZR
16
18
31
12
33
The members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group are critical to include in this
project because they are so integrally related to the Caspian ecosystem. They are those most
affected by the environment, and those who also profoundly affect the environment in a
variety of ways.
MPPI Prioritization: The most important MPPI for the coastal zone resident stakeholder group
is the decline in overal environmental quality. The second highest is decline in certain
fisheries. The lowest level concerns for this group is the decline in infrastructure and
amenities and the introduction of exotic species.
Root Cause Prioritization: The highest root cause was lack of sufficient enforcement of
current environme ntal laws. Low priority root causes include regional overpopulation, lack of
property rights, and sea level change.
Areas of High Concern:
Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: The decline in certain fishing stocks is a concern for
the coastal zone resident stakeholder group because they are both affected by this
directly and contributors to this. They are affected because the decline in fishing
stocks limits the amount that are available to them for consumption in the future.
Additionally, the abuse of power associated with the trade in over harvested species
and byproducts has negative impacts on the society as a whole putting coastal
residents in the position of either contributing to the problem or being jeopardized
because they resist compliance.
Most coastal zone resident stakeholder group eat less fish than their
grandparents did and they consume fish from the Caspian less than three
times per week according to survey results. (Average 6.27 with a
39
standard deviation of 2.7 in agreement with the statement "My
grandparents ate more food from the Caspian waters than I do." Average
disagreement at 2.51 with a standard deviation of 2.21 in response to "I
eat fish from the Caspian at least three times per week."
The members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group are not in
clear agreement regarding the health and safety of eating this fish
however. In response to the statement "I think it is safe and healthy to eat
fish from the Caspian" the average was 5.23 with a standard deviation
2.21. This suggests that though coastal zone resident stakeholder group
may not trust the benefits of eating these fish they consume it because it
is available, even if it may have negative health ramifications.
The issue of declining fisheries that brought the highest level of concern
from the coastal zone resident stakeholder group is the poaching and
illegal market for certain fish. In response to the statement "Even if it is
illegal, some fish wil stil be caught for profit" the average agreement
level was 7.69 with a standard deviation of 1.56. The statement "People,
other than fishermen, make money from the il egal fishing of some
species" elicited an agreement level of 7.77 with a standard deviation of
1.61. This suggests that the coastal zone resident stakeholder group is
very aware of this issue and they recognize that the market for certain
species, even if illegal, may thrive. Further, it suggests that recognition of
the abuse of power related to this is also widespread.
The coastal zone resident stakeholder group has a medium level of
agreement with the statement that "Pol ution is the primary reason that
there are fewer fish in the Caspian." The average was 6.68 with a
standard deviation of 2.26. Alternately, the statement "radiation is the
primary reason that there are fewer fish in the Caspian" elicited a
noncommittal response of 5.20 with a standard deviation of 2.34. This
suggests that while pollutio n may be see as a contributing factor to the
decline in fish, among this stakeholder group, and radiation as non-
determinent, the poaching problem is recognized as more directly linked
to the decline in certain fisheries.
In response to the statement "An enforced system of mutual y agreed
upon fishing limits would be effective for reducing over-fishing in the
Caspian" the coastal zone resident stakeholder group average response
w as 7.07 with a standard deviation of 2.08. This suggested that though
this stakeholder group may not clearly understand the mechanisms for
implementing such a program they would support it in principle.
Additionally, because a self regulating program for fisheries management
w ould depend on broad community support, it is possible that this
preliminary support could be the basis for further exploration of such a
system.
Degradation of Coastal Landscape: The degradation of coastal landscape is a low level
MPPI for the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. Though this issue affects
them, as the problems associated with this MPPI result in a decline in their overal
quality of life, they do not recognize this as a high level concern. Additionally, they
contribute to the degradation of coastal landscape issue by using coastal resources in
an unsustainable manner, and failing to comply with current environmental laws.
In response to the statement that "Farmers using herbicides and pesticides
should be taught natural ways to reduce use of these chemicals (for
instance: organic farming methods, crop rotation, more appropriate crop
selection based on climate and soil, genetical y engineered crops,
training, education, other chemicals or synthetics)" the average 8.68 with
a standard deviation of 1.88. Because many of the coastal zone resident
40
stakeholder group are farmers, even on a small scale, this may be a very
important opening for CEP action. Education for coastal zone residents
regarding more environmentally sensitive farming practices could have a
w ide impact on the Caspian environment while increasing the visibility
among this pivotal stakeholder group.
Interestingly, there was also a high level of support among members of the
coastal zone resident stakeholder group regarding coastal management
plans to reduce coastal zone degradation. In response to the statement
"it would be helpful to have coordinated coastal management plans in the
Caspian to help preserve the environment" the average response was
7.51 with a standard deviation of 1.82. This suggests again that this
stakeholder group has an interest in such a program and may be a key
support group to consider consulting in designing such a program.
In response to the statement "Current laws are not strong enough to protect
natural resources around the Caspian" the average agreement level was
7.94 with a standard deviation of 1.66 among coastal zone resident
stakeholder group. This relatively high level of agreement suggests that
the coastal zone resident stakeholder group may support stronger
environmental legislation. Though the current laws are actually quite
strong in principle, in practice they are not. Coordination of such policies
may be quite difficult, however, that the members of this stakeholder
group recognize the need for a coordinated coastal zone management
plan, and realize that current laws, as enforced, are not sufficient to
protect the Caspian environment.
Threats to Biodiversity: This MPPI is a mid level concern for the coastal zone resident
stakeholder group. They are both affected by this threat and contributors to it. They
are affected by a decline in biodiversity because a loss of biodiversity threatens to
destabilize the ecosystems that many of them depend upon. If significantly impacted,
biodiversity shifts could result in explosive populations of low value species of both
flora and fauna, crowding out less virulent higher value species. Alternately, they are
contributors to this MPPI by reducing population of beneficial species of flora and
fauna, over harvesting some species, farming and grazing in regions with delicately
balanced ecosystems, and pol uting water and soils required for some species to
thrive.
The issue of concern for the coastal zone resident stakeholder group
include the need to coordinate biodiversity reserves throughout the
region. In response to the statement "There should be a network of
marine and wetland nature preserves all around the Caspian" the
average level of agreement was 7.79 with a standard deviation of 1.64.
This compliments the previously discussed findings supporting a
coordinated coastal management plan in the region.
In response to the statement "agricultural and industrial wastes flowing
into the Caspian threaten marine and coastal species" the coastal zone
resident stakeholder group average response was 8.04 with a standard
deviation of 1.25. As discussed in the previous section, this suggests an
awareness of the need for more environmentally sensitive farming
practices by these groups.
In response to the statement "It is necessary to protect fish spawning
sites in the Caspian" the average response was 8.18 with a standard
deviation of 1.47. Again, though coastal residents are active in these
spawning sites, they are also agreeing that these must be protecting in
order to maintain certain fish populations in the region.
41
In response to the statement "The environment of the Caspian is not
suffering" the disagreement level was a very high 1.90 with a standard
deviation of 1.55. Again this emphasizes the awareness of this group that
there are environmental problems in the region.
Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: This MPPI is one of the highest ranking
concerns for the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. The decline in overall
environmental quality is a significant issue for these individua ls as community
members, as economic actors and as a coastal species affected by the degraded
environment. This population is most directly affected by the decline in overall
environmental quality of all stakeholder groups. Yet this is also a group that actively
contributes to this decline as wel . By encroaching on sensitive areas, altering the
region for economic and sustenance based reasons, using the Caspian as a waste
pool, and by over consuming a number of other species in the region, the coastal
zone resident stakeholder group directly contributes to the environmental degradation
of this area. This is not to suggest that this is malicious, intentional or even
conscience, however, it remains a critical dilemma for this particular stakeholder
group.
In regards to the issue of over all environmental decline the coastal zone
resident stakeholder group strongly supports enhanced environmental
monitoring of environmental factors in the region. Specifically, in
response to the statement "There should be more environmental
monitoring projects that involve NGOs, scientists and private sector
col aboration" the average response was a hearty 8.09 with a standard
deviation of 1.28. This indicates that this group would be supportive of a
collaborative effort between the public NGO and private actors.
Interestingly, in response to the statement "Private industry should take
all responsibility for reversing environmental degradation of the Caspian"
the average was a nondescript 5.59 with a standard deviation of 2.51.
This is peculiar because the industries themselves had a much higher
level of agreement in regards to this. This suggests that though it might
have been expected that the coastal zone resident stakeholder group
w ould want to implement a precautionary principal like program, this is
not likely to be actively pursued by this stakeholder group.
Like the industry stakeholder group, the coastal zone resident
stakeholder group is of the opinion that "Better technology for
environmental preservation would enhance the Caspian region." The
average here is 7.47 with a standard deviation of 1.84. Thus though there
is the recognition that the environment is suffering, there is also the belief
that technological remedies may be the solution to the problem. It is
possible that this would be the case in part, though it is important to
introduce low technological solutions because they are less likely to fail
than more complex solutions.
Decline in Human Health: This ranks as a high level concern for this stakeholder group.
The decline in human health directly affects the coastal zone resident stakeholder
group. Additionally as they abuse the environment of the Caspian they also contribute
to this problem. Interestingly though most of the statements in this section did not
elicit especially high levels of agreement or disagreement.
42
The issue of access to potable water did not evoke a high level of
agreement or disagreement among the coastal zone resident stakeholder
group. Specifical y, in response to the statement "In the Caspian region,
the biggest threat to the human population is the lack of safe drinking
water" the average response was 6.85 with a standard deviation of 2.52.
The agreement was spread across all states in the region. There were a
number who disagreed, as reflected in the standard deviation. All states
w ere represented among those disagreeing, except Azerbaijan. This
suggests then that the residents of Azerbaijan are more profoundly
affected by this issue than those of other states. Though this is w idely
believed among those studying the region, these results are not
conclusive.
The issue of responsibility for human health decline and healthcare
management is addressed in the statement "Public health must be the
concern of the government". The average agreement with this was 8.49,
w ith a standard deviation of 1.00.
In response to the statement "People would be healthier if the
environment were cleaner" the average agreement was 8.34 with a
standard deviation of 1.38. This very high level of agreement suggests
that the coastal zone resident stakeholder group should be considered
carefully w hen integrated environmental policies are developed for the
region. This is an opportunity for people of this region to benefit from
CEP activity, while enhancing the reputation of CEP in the region.
Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: This MPPI was one of the lowest ranked
concerns for the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. They contribute to this
peripherally by being economic actors in the region, as well as by those utilizing the
infrastructure. Also, their encroachment into environmentally sensitive w etlands for
farming and grazing decreases these amenities, though this is more specific to the
degradation of coastal landscape MPPI. The coastal zone resident stakeholder group
is affected by the decline in coastal infrastructure and amenities because they must
live with declining conditions. Further, the lack of economic growth is in part due to
this damage, because industry and other service sector employment options
generally are not eager to base in areas where the infrastructure and amenities are
dilapidated.
In response to the statement "Soil erosion contributes to the decline in
environmental quality of the Caspian" the average response among
members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group was 7.24 with a
standard deviation of 1.72.
Responses to other statements regarding the damage to coastal
infrastructure and amenities was not strong and tended to have a wider
variation. This suggest that opinions regarding this issue are latent, and
general y not of concern to this stakeholder group.
Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: This MPPI ranked as a low to mid level
concern for the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. This lower than expected
ranking suggests that the media attention given to oil and gas pol ution in the Caspian
is out of synch with the actual popular concerns in the region. Alternately, the coastal
zone resident stakeholder group may also recognize that this potential damage is not
likely to be worse than current and historical damage and therefore increased energy
industry activities comes with acceptable risks. This is especially due to the common
43
beliefs that incoming revenues from oil and gas exploitation in the region wil have
society wide benefits. The Caspian coastal zone resident stakeholder group is likely
to be affected by potential damage from oil and gas development if a significant spill
were to occur. Alternately, they are not contributors to this issue, because they real y
have little influence over environmental ma nagement plans, or enforcement of PSAs.
In response to the statement "The preservation of the Caspian eco-
system cannot take place at the same time as oil dril ing activities" the
coastal zone resident stakeholder group average was 5.53 with a
standard deviation of 2.61. Additionally in response to the statement
"Multinational corporations and the energy industry do not care about the
environment" the average was 5.91 with a standard deviation of 2.10.
This strongly suggests that despite concerns that there may be animosity
from members of this group towards the energy industry, it does not
appear to be overwhelming. Further, the distribution of those in strong
agreement with these statements is evenly spread across states in the
region, and among stakeholder sub-groups. Nonetheless, this may be a
very fluid opinion if a significant environmental event were to occur and
be perceived as handled poorly by the energy industry. Therefore this
public opinion bears monitoring in the future.
In response to the statement "the Caspian environment would be
improved if all oil and gas activities used best available technologies" the
average level of agreement was 7.43 with a standard deviation of 1.99.
This suggests that these stakeholders are aware that newer technologies
for extraction of oil and gas are needed in the region in order to reduce
environmental damages. Again, there is an opportunity here for CEP and
the energy industry to educate the population about steps that are being
taken to improve the environment.
Introduction of Exotic Species: This issue ranked as one of the lowest level concerns for
members of coastal zone resident stakeholder group. This is to be expected, because
this is a relatively new concern in the region, and the members of this stakeholder
group are more focused on meeting their immediate basic needs in many instances.
Nonetheless, if this were to become as severe in the Caspian as it was in the Black
Sea, there may be very significant impacts for this population, especial y if fishing
stocks are depleted. The coastal zone resident stakeholder group is affected by this
issue, however they are not contributors to it.
In response to the statement "I have seem unusual creatures in the
Caspian that were not there ten years ago" level of agreement was 5.64
w ith a standard deviation of 2.30. Those stakeholders agreeing to this are
from all Caspian states, and from most every stakeholder sub-group.
In response to the statement "Invasive species are creating significant
environmental degradation in the Caspian" the average agreement level
w as at 6.64 with a standard deviation of 1.90. Again there is wide
variation among members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder
groups and states in the region who agree with this statement. Though
this issue is of low level concern compared to other MPPIs this should be
monitored in the future and more in depth surveys of these groups should
be conducted as these exotic species proliferate in the region.
Fishermen
Stakeholder Group Summary: The fishermen stakeholder group is one of the most visible in
the region by virtue of being dependent upon reasonable environmental conditions to ply their
trade. In the Caspian region, where there is a great deal of attention to the trade in certain
44
species of fish and fish by-products the fishermen's plight becomes quite prevalent. However,
it is important to recognize that members of this stakeholder group are also members of the
coastal zone resident stakeholder group. Thus, they are dually affected by issues of
environmental degradation, as well as contributors to some of the MPPIs. This section wil
focus only on their role as stakeholders specifically related to their occupation as fishermen.
The impacts that they face as coastal zone residents are addressed in that specific section.
Participation: The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 2 representatives
of Farming/fishing large industry stakeholder group. Nationalities were represented
accordingly: Azerbaijan - 0, I.R. Iran - 0, Kazakhstan - 0, Russia - 2, Turkmenistan 0. The
Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 5 representatives of farming/fishing
artesanal industry. Nationalities were represented accordingly: Azerbaijan - 1, I.R. Iran - 0,
Kazakhstan - 2, Russia - 2, Turkmenistan 0. Because of the relatively smal sample size,
these two groups were combined. They will separated as discrepancies between these
groups warrant. Additional y, the lack of representation from Iran may in part be due to
translation problems in the survey, and would be captured in the grouping of "other", which
was incorporated into the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. Additionally, respondents
by in large self identified as representing the fishing industry rather than farming in this
survey. Therefore, this group is referred to as the "fishermen stakeholder group".
MPPI Prioritization: Not surprisingly the members of the fishermen stakeholder group
unanimously identified the decline in certain fisheries as the highest priority MPPI. (This is the
only case in which al stakeholders were unanimous about a MPPI). They also prioritized
decline in overall environmental quality as a high level concern. Lowest level concerns were
the degradation of coastal landscape and decline in infrastructure and amenities. The
introduction of exotic species ranked sixth of the eight. Potential pollution from oil and gas
activities ranked as the third highest concern.
Root Cause Prioritization: Interestingly the highest root cause concern for this group was the
undefined legal status. There was near perfect agreement on this issue. This may be due to a
translation error, because it is not clear why fishermen w ould be concerned so highly about
the lack of legal status of the sea. On the other hand, this may be understood as the legal
status of fishing of certain species in the sea, especially because at the time the survey was
administered to this group the implementation of the CITES ban on sturgeon was being
discussed quite visibly by these governments. Other high priority root causes for the
fishermen stakeholder group were lack of sufficient enforcement of current environmental
laws, regional poverty and weakness in civil society. The lowest priority root causes were
regional over population and lack of property rights. Abuse of power issues, which in many
cases directly affect this industry was a midlevel concern.
Areas of High Concern:
1. Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: Not surprisingly, this MPPI is the highest ranking
concern for members of the fishermen stakeholder group. The fishermen stakeholder
group is affected by this issue because decline in commercial y available fishing
stocks reduces the ability of this stakeholder group to profit. Additionally, the decline
in certain fisheries makes competition for existing stocks more fierce and eventually,
increases the velocity with which these species decline. Loss of these species has
long range impacts as well as other, less commercially valuable stocks increase and
compete for resources previously consumed by high value stocks. The unmanaged
taking of immature stocks of some species also hinders their ability to reproduce,
hence significantly decreasing the stock populations. Though this stakeholder group
is affected by this dynamic cycle, they also contribute to this. Therefore they are both
key to the problem and the solution of the decline in certain fisheries.
In regards to the actual decline in certain fisheries the fishermen stakeholder
group respond that they have noticed a decrease in the amount of fish
they eat in compared to their ancestors. In response to the statement "my
45
grandparents ate more food from the Caspian waters than I do" the
average level of agreement was 8.20, with a standard deviation of 1.30.
This very high number suggests that of those participants from the
fishermen stakeholder group, diets are less dependent on fish from the
Caspian. This may be for one of two reasons, either there is less fish
available, or more alternative foods available. Either way, this bares
further exploration in the future.
In response to the statement "Pol ution is the primary reason there are fewer
fish in the Caspian" the average level of agreement was 8.60 with a
standard deviation of 0.58. The sources of the pollution will be explored
subsequently. This is especially interesting to note this response since
many observers believe that over fishing is the primary reason that there
are fewer fish in the Caspian.
In regards to the concern of illegal fishing in the Caspian, the fishermen
stakeholder group responded accordingly. In response to the statement
"Even if it il egal, some fish wil stil be caught for profit" the average level
of agreement was 7.6 with a standard deviation of 2.19. In response to
the statement "People, other than fishermen, make money from the
illegal fishing of some species" the average level of agreement was 8.60
w ith a standard deviation of 0.89. This suggests the very real awareness
of this problem, and that it is endemic in the region.
On the other hand, in response to the statement "An enforced system of
mutally agreed upon fishing limits would be effective for reducing oer-
fishing in the Caspian" the average level of agreement was 7.60 with a
standard deviation of 1.14. This hearty level of agreement may portend a
w illingness on the part of the fishermen stakeholder group to actively
support such a program, if instituted with their immediate needs in mind.
This is an area that may be ripe for CEP involvement, pending further
investigation into a broader population of fishermen in the region.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: This MPPI is one of the lowest ranking concerns
of the fishermen stakeholder group. They are affected by this MPPI in terms of the
impacts this degradation has on the fish populations. The fishermen stakeholder
group do not directly contribute to the degradation of coastal landscape in a capacity
beyond that as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
In response to the statement "Farmers using herbicides and pesticides
should be taught natural ways to reduce use of these chemicals (for
instance: organic farming methods, crop rotation, more appropriate crop
selection based on climate and soil, genetical y engineered crops,
training, education, other chemicals or synthetics)" the average 7.50 with
a standard deviation of 1.29.
In response to the statement "It would be helpful to have coordinated coastal
management plans in the Caspian region to help preserve the
environment" the fishermen stakeholder group strongly agreed with an
average of 8.75 and with a standard deviation of 0.50. Both of these high
levels of agreement on these issues suggests that this stakeholder group
is interested in supporting more active environmental management in the
region related to this MPPI.
46
3. Threats to Biodiversity: The fishermen stakeholder group ranked this as a mid level
concern among the MPPIs. They are potentially affected by this issue because the
decline in biodiversity could significantly unbalance the functioning of the current eco-
system and thus reduce the availability of both fish for catch, but also the resources
that these fish are dependent upon. The fishermen stakeholder group contribute to
this problem by overfishing some species. Though it is not believed that the sturgeon
is a keystone species within the Caspian ecosystem, the decimation of these fishing
stocks may have other significant repercussion on the ecosystem its biodiversity.
In response to the statement "Agricultural and industrial wastes flowing into
the Caspian threaten marine and coastal species" The average response
w as 8.60 with a standard deviation of 0.89. The concern about pollution
mention in the previous section is reflected here as well, suggesting that
these effluents are causing depletion of certain fishing stocks.
In response to the statement "It is necessary to protect fish spawning sites in
the Caspian" the average response was 8.80 with a standard deviation of
0.45. In response to the statement "there should be a network of marine
and wetland nature preserves al around the Caspian" the average level
of agreement was 7.80 with a standard deviation of 1.64. Both of these
responses further suggest the support of a more active environmental
management plan in the region by this stakeholder group.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The decline in overall enviro nmental quality
is a high level concern for the fishermen stakeholder group. They are affected by this
issue as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. They are also
contributors to this issues as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder
group. Independently, as fishermen they are less pivotal to this issue.
5. Decline in Human Health: This MPPI ranked as a mid to high level concern for the
members of the fishermen stakeholder group. They are affected and contributors to
this issue as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: This MPPI ranked as a mid to high
level concern for the members of the fishermen stakeholder group. They are affected
and contributors to this issue as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder
group.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: This MPPI ranked as the third
highest concern for members of the fishermen stakeholder group. This stakeholder
group would be affected by this issue in the event of a major oil spill, or if energy
industry activities severely disrupted the habitats of the fish. The fishermen
stakeholder group do not directly contribute to this problem outside of their capacity
as members of coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
In response to the statement "the preservation of the Caspian eco-
system cannot take place at the same time as oil dril ing activities" the
average level of agreement was 8.60 with a standard deviation of 0.55. In
response to the statement "there are fewer fish in the Caspian than there
47
used to because of recent oil dril ing" the average agreement level was
7.29 with a standard deviation of 1.25. These two statements indicate
that there is already a strong suspicion among fishermen that they will be
displaced by energy activities in the region. Though this has not been
substantiated by current research, this potentially growing animosity
between the fishermen stakeholder group and the energy industry
w arrants monitoring by and possible intervention from CEP.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: This MPPI ranked as one of the lowest concerns for
the fishermen stakeholder group. They are affected by the introduction of exotic
species because if these species proliferate as they have in the Black Sea region, the
fishing stocks may be significantly impacted. The fishermen stakeholder group do not
directly contribute to this emerging MPPI.
Interestingly, in response to the statement "I have seen unusual
creatures in the Caspian that were not there ten years ago" the average
level of agreement 8.25 with a standard deviation of 1.50. In response to
the statement "Invasive species are creating significant environmental
degradation in the Caspian" the average level of agreement was 7.2 with
a standard deviation of 2.49. This strongly suggests that of those survey
participants they have become aw are of the increase in observable exotic
species in the region. Though the numbers of participants are not high
enough to legitimate conclusions that these species are prevalent, this
anecdotal evidence suggests that these species are being observed by
those stakeholders who are most directly in contact with the Caspian
w aters.
Non Governmental Organizations
Stakeholder Group Summary: The NGO stakeholder group is an important component in the
stakeholder analysis. These stakeholders have been underrepresented in past environmental
programmes in the past. Therefore it is critical to include them in this analysis. The difficulty
with NGOs in this region is the representative quality of them. There is currently a debate
about whether environmental NGOs are more focused on environmental concerns or from
benefiting from the benevolence of international organizations eager to be seen as supporting
these groups. Despite this, the NGOs participating in this study represented all states in the
region and warrant inclusion here. However, it is also worth noting that with regard to this
region the NGOs are generally less influential and active than they are in other areas.
Therefore their input into particular issues will be discussed as the NGO stakeholder group
directly impact these issues, outside of their inclusion as members of the coastal zone
resident stakeholder group.
Participation: The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 36
representatives of the NGO stakeholder group. Nationalities were represented accordingly:
Azerbaijan - 3, I.R. Iran - 15, Kazakhstan - 6, Russia - 4, Turkmenistan 8. This emphasis on
the NGOs from Iran will be addressed as needed in the study. The average size of the NGOs
represented is ten to fifty people, and the average age of the organizations is five to ten
years. This corresponds well to the col apse of the Soviet system.
MPPI Prioritization: The NGO stakeholder group ranks the decline in overall environmental
quality and decline in certain fisheries as the highest prioritized concerns. Decline in
biodiversity is the third highest concern by a very close margin. The lowest level concerns
were the decline in infrastructure and introduction of exotic species. Despite some of the more
48
vocal NGO groups in the region, pollution from oil and gas activities ranked fourth of eight
MPPI presented.
Root Cause Prioritization: The NGO stakeholder group ranked the non-sustainable use of
resources and the lack of sufficient enforcement of current environmental laws as the highest
priority root causes. The lowest priority root causes were sea level change, lack of property
rights and regional overpopulation. Weakness in civil society was a mid level root cause with
very high standard deviation.
Areas of High Concern:
1. Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: This MPPI is a high level concern for members of
the NGO stakeholder group. Their concern for the depletion of certain stocks in
certainly important in terms of bringing this issue to broad public notice. Groups such
as a the World Wildlife Fund, the Cousteau Society and Greenpeace all take an
active interest in this issue. However, they do not directly impact this issue. Locally,
the NGO stakeholder group recognize the environmental impacts of over fishing as
wel as the economic incentives for this. However as NGOs they are not directly
active in contributing to this issue, nor are they directly affected by it outside of their
capacities as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: Members of the NGO stakeholder group ranked
this as a low level concern. In their capacity as civic organizers they may be affected
by this issue because the degradation of coastal landscape results in part because of
misuse of coastal areas and mis-education about practices that degrade the
landscapes.
In response to the statement "Farmers using herbicides and pesticides
should be taught natural ways to reduce use of these chemicals (for
instance: organic farming methods, crop rotation, more appropriate crop
selection based on climate and soil, genetical y engineered crops,
training, education, other chemicals or synthetics)" the average 8.00with
a standard deviation of 1.33. This high level of agreement suggests that
the NGOs may be a prime medium for educating farmers about these
practices. If CEP were to develop such a plan, it is possible that these
NGOs could help institute such a programme.
In response to the statement "It would be helpful to have coordinated
coastal management plans in the Caspian region to help preserve the
environment" the average level of agreement was 7.48 with a standard
deviation of 1.90. This is important in regards to subsequent sections.
3. Threats to Biodiversity: The NGO stakeholder group ranked this as the third highest
concern of the MPPIs presented. The NGOs who focus on environmental degradation
often decry the loss of species in this region. This concern for the loss of species and
habitats distinguished them from the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. The
NGO stakeholder group are not a contributing factor to the decline in biodiversity
outside of the concern that their activities hamper preservation efforts by placing
unrealistic and unrealizable demands on the other stakeholders in the region.
In response to the statement "There should be a network of marine and
wetland preserves al around the Caspian" the average level of
agreement was a solid 8.53 with a standard deviation of 0.79. In
combination with the statement in the previous section, there is clear
49
agreement among these groups that coordination of efforts to preserve
the environme nt is imperative within the purview of this stakeholder
group. Further, this recognition of the need for such action may in part be
due to the commendable efforts of groups such as ISAR and others. It
may be worthwhile for CEP to continue to coordinate efforts with these
groups in order to rally public opinion and to educate citizens about these
issues.
In response to the statement "agricultural and industrial wastes flowing
into the Caspian threaten marine and coastal species" the average level
of agreement was 8.07 with a standard deviation of 1.52. This suggests
that the NGO stakeholder group is aware of the problems of effluents in
the region, and may be able to act as advocates and educators for more
environmentally sound practices in the region, if they are able to continue
coordinated activities and obtain support from funding sources for these
projects. Again, CEP could continue to support these activities with small
grants progammes.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: This MPPI ranked as a very high level
concern for the NGO stakeholder group. They are affected by this issue as members
of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. Additional y, they are affected
because the lack of civil society is at times blamed for the decline in overall
environmental quality. They are not significant contributors to this MPPI.
In response to the statement " There should be more environmental
monitoring projects that involve NGOs, scientists and private sector
col aboration" the average level of agreement is 8.25 with a standard
deviation of 1.17. This high level of agreement is as expected.
Nonetheless, it also suggests that instead of the development of a
confrontational relationship between these groups, there may be a strong
potential for collaboration and coordination betw een these groups.
Though there may be some who are suspicious of this, it is possible that
w ith proper management and independent monitoring these relationship
may set new standards only now starting in ind ustrialized societies.
5. Decline in Human Health: This MPPI ranked as a high level concern for the NGO
stakeholder group. They are affected by this as members of the coastal zone resident
stakeholder group. Additionally as advocates of environmental stewardship they are
able to focus on environmental causes of human health decline in order to support
their causes. Though these relationships may be somewhat spurious, they are
important as tools for mobilizing public action.
In response to the statement "People would be healthier if the environment
were cleaner" the NGO stakeholder group average level of agreement
w as a very high 8.74 with a standard deviation of 0.59. This supports the
belief that illness in the region are due to environmental conditions rather
than other conditions such as economic decline or unavailability of health
care.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: This MPPI was ranked the sixth of
eight presented by the NGO stakeholder group. They are affected by this and
contributors to it as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
50
Because they do not prioritize this issue, it can be assumed that it is not an issue the
NGO stakeholder group is eager to advocate.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: Despite some very vocal NGOs,
those who participated in this survey did not vilify the energy industry. Rather the
potential damage from oil and gas activities ranked as the fourth highest concern for
the group. The NGO stakeholder group is affected by this as members of the coastal
zone resident stakeholder group.
Interestingly, in response to the statement "the preservation of the
Caspian eco-system cannot take place at the same time as oil drilling
activities" was a tepid 5.05 with a standard deviation of 2.73. Similarly,
the statement "Multinational corporations and the energy industry do not
care about the environment" garnered a 6.30 average with a standard
deviation of 1.78. Though the second statement is somewhat higher in
agreement than the first, it is important to not that in both cases there are
fairly high standard deviations. These suggest that there is little cohesion
among members of the NGO stakeholder group. This disputes the belief
that these groups are in high levels of agreement in opposition to energy
industry activities.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: The NGO stakeholder group ranked this as the lowest
level concern. This is probably due to the lack of public knowledge about this issue.
The NGOs are affected by this issue, as it affects biodiversity, and over all
environmental decline. Though there are no high level concerns by the NGO
stakeholder group about this activity, if they were to be educated, the NGO
stakeholder group may become a proactive group to assist in educating and rallying
citizens in the region about the potential hazards of these invasive species. CEP may
consider educating these groups.
Public Health Care Providers
Stakeholder Group Summary: The public healthcare provides stakeholder group are an
important component in understanding the trends among the least represented stakeholder
groups in the region. The public healthcare provider stakeholder group works with populations
who are affected by environme ntal decline as wel as challenging economic conditions. They
see first hand the problems faced by the most disenfranchised populations in the region.
Though this study does not extensively focus on the work of these individuals, it may be
advantageous to the CEP to develop a coalition of public healthcare providers to monitor the
health conditions of the population around the Caspian region. Tracking trends in human
illnesses may provide CEP with an accurate portrait of the environme ntal impacts on the
human population. Additionally, by participating in epidemiological studies in the region, the
CEP may access groups that are otherwise unrepresented throughout the region. This may
be pursued in collaboration with other organizations such as the World Health Organization.
Participation: The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 8 representatives
of the public healthcare provider stakeholder group. Nationalities were represented
accordingly: Azerbaijan - 3, I.R. Iran - 0, Kazakhstan - 2, Russia - 2, Turkmenistan 1.
MPPI Prioritization: Overwhelmingly, the public healthcare provider stakeholder group ranked
the decline in overall environmental quality as the most important MPPI. This was very closely
51
fol owed by the expected decline in human health. Though these two were close the
agreement on the top priority, decline in overall environmental quality was unanimous among
this stakeholder group. This suggests that they recognize that environmental quality is closely
linked to human health conditions. The lowest ranking issues for the public healthcare
provider stakeholder group were the degradation of coastal landscape and decline in
infrastructure and amenities.
Root Cause Prioritization: The root causes that received the highest prioritization by the public
healthcare provider stakeholder group were lack of advanced technologies and weakness in
civil society. The lowest ranked root causes were abuse of power, lack of property rights and
regional over population.
Areas of High Concern:
1. Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: The public healthcare provider stakeholder group
is not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it, outside of their
capacity as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: The public healthcare provider stakeholder group
is not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it, outside of their
capacity as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
3. Threats to Biodiversity: The public healthcare provider stakeholder group is not
directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it, outside of their capacity as
members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The public healthcare provider stakeholder
group are not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it, outside of
their capacity as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. The
exception to this is in regards to air quality issues. Though air pol ution is not
generally considered to be a significant problem in the region, it is a concern for
some.
In response to the statement "Air quality is a significant problem in the
Caspian region" the public healthcare provider stakeholder group
average level of agreement was 7.43 with a standard deviation of 2.07.
Though this standard deviation is somewhat higher than usual, it does tell
us that the public healthcare provider stakeholder group members are
seeing ramifications of poor air quality in their clientele. Therefore, though
CEP is not directly charged with improving air quality in the region, this
may be an area where secondary benefits of improving the overall
environmental quality are seen.
5. Decline in Human Health: the public healthcare provider stakeholder group is
immediately involved in this MPPI. As those who are most closely interacting with the
coastal zone resident stakeholder group members and their physical health needs,
the public healthcare provider stakeholder group are in a unique position to observe
the impact environmental conditions have on their patience. Additionally, they are
able to monitor changes over time. On the other hand, it is especially difficult to
clearly establish a cause and effect relationship with most illnesses, and therefore it is
52
not always possible to pinpoint environmental causes for human diseases and
disorders.
In response to the statement "In the Caspian region, the biggest threat to
the human population is the lack of safe drinking water" the average level
of agreement was 8.14 with a standard deviation of 1.46. This was evenly
spread through the represented states in the region, the one Russian and
one Azeri respondents ranked this as a 6, while all the others ranked this
as a 9, signifying very strong agreement.
In response to the statement "Industrial runoff has caused people to be
sick" the average level of agreement was 6.29 with a standard deviation
of 3.09. The very high standard deviation is due to two respondents
(Azeri and Kazakh) disagreeing with this statement
In response to the statement "Radioactive materials have led to a decline
in human health" the average level of agreement was 7.86 with a
standard deviation of 1.95. There were two respondents with "no opinion
" ranked 5 from Azeribaijan and Russia, while the rest ranked this as a 9
for strongly agreeing.
In response to the statement "People are healthier today than they were
20 years ago in the Caspian region" the average level of (dis) agreement
w as 3.00 with a standard deviation of 2.77. This suggests that the trend
towards the decline in health has been observed by these stakeholders.
Though this may be informative, the number of respondents is too low to
treat this as anything other than anecdotal evidence. Nonetheless, this
information may lead to further investigation into this issue, with a more
directed survey of the public healthcare provider stakeholder group.
In response concerns of causality, two statements provide information
about the public healthcare provider stakeholder group perceptions. In
response to the statement "If there were a stronger economy, people
would be healthier in the Caspian region.." the average level of
agreement was 8.17 with a standard deviation of 1.33. In response to the
statement "People would be healthier if the environment were cleaner"
the average level of agreement was 8.69 with a standard deviation of
0.52. This suggest that the direct relationship between environmental
conditions and human health is also related to economic conditions. The
direction of causality here is difficult to determine, yet, the interrelated
nature of these issues leads to the conclusion that public healthcare
provider stakeholder group see that both economic and environmental
conditions are added stressors on the population. Again, this anecdotal
evidence may be a basis for more in-depth investigation into the
environmental causes of human health decline.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: The public healthcare provider
stakeholder group is not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it,
outside of their capacity as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: The public healthcare provider
stakeholder group is not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it,
outside of their capacity as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
53
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: The public healthcare provider stakeholder group is
not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it, outside of their capacity
as members of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group.
Scientific Community
Stakeholder Group Summary: The Scientific Community in the Caspian Region is significant
to environmental issues for a number of reasons. Among these are the ability of these groups
to provide data and analysis to policy makers in the region, to study changes in the
environment of the region and to act as educator for the public. Additionally, these groups
provide the Programme with insights regarding the environment over time that external
observers may not be aware of. In general, the training of these individuals has been specific
to disciplines such as biology, chemistry, geology and hydrology. There is very little formal
training in the region for ecologists who examine factors in a broader systemic context.
Nonetheless, these individuals continue to research issues in the area, and have a stake in
access to the ecosystems of the Caspian. Ideally, they also provide unbiased information to
those groups seeking their expertise, including other stakeholder groups. Thus their
evaluations of the issues in the environme nt are critical to consider, both as stakeholders and
as information providers.
Participation: The stakeholder analysis survey was completed by 22 self-identified members
of the Scientific Community. Nationa lities were represented accordingly: Azerbaijan 4, I.R.
Iran 2, Kazakhstan 7, Russia 7, Turkmenistan 2.
MPPI Prioritization: The members of this stakeholder group are relatively innocuous in terms
of its direct effect on the environment and the MPPIs. How ever, it is affected by these MMPIs
in terms of research subjects and materials. Of these the members of the Scientific
Community rank Decline in Human Health as the most important MPPI, followed closely by
Decline in Overall Environmental Quality, Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Activities,
Decline in Certain Fisheries, and Decline in Biodiversity. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure
and Amenities as the lowest.
Root Cause Prioritization: Root Causes of highest concern to the Scientific Community
stakeholders are "lack of sufficient enforcement of current environmental laws", and the
"undefined legal status of the sea". Lowest concern root causes are "regional overpopulation"
and "lack of property rights". The high level of concern regarding "lack of enforcement of
current environmental laws" is probably a result of the belief that more rigid enforcement of
these laws would lead to improvement in the environment and reduction in deleterious
anthropogenic effects. The concern that the undefined legal status is a root cause of
environmental problems in the Caspian may stem from the press coverage of this issue.
There is equal distribution of these concerns across nationalities as wel , signifying that this is
not a state based phenomenon.
The MPPI sub-issues of highest concern for the Scientific Community stakeholder group
include the effect of industrial and agricultural storage near, and runoff into eco-systems, the
need to establish a network of marine and wetland preserves all around the Caspian, and the
current stress on the environment of the Caspian ecology.
The only particularly notable potential conflict between stakeholder groups involves the extent
of measures to reduce introduction of invasive species in the Caspian. The Scientific
Community stakeholder group regards this as an important preventative measure and high
priority issue, while the Multinational Corporation (MNC) stakeholder group regards this as a
lower priority issue. The importation of these exotic species is partially a result of MNC
activities. Though this is unlikely to create significant conflict in the near term, it may be
54
problematic if exotic species proliferate in the region causing severe environmental
degradation.
A potential resolution to this conflict may be to support for the Scientific Community members
in the study of endemic and invasive biota in the region. Further, if such a study were
completed by a regionally based group, and presented to the MNCs with support from the
Caspian Environment Programme, there is potential to both educate the MNCs and to pacify
the scientific communities concern regarding these issues.
Multinational Corporations
Stakeholder Group Summary: The multinational corporation stakeholder group consists of
those individuals representing large, international companies working in the region. By and
large there are energy industry representatives. As politically powerful groups, the
multinational corporations wield significant influence on the environmental policies of the
region. The PSA process specifies environmental impacts permitted by governments in the
region. The tolerated levels of pollution from energy industry activities is negotiated by these
groups, and though it is in their immediate interest to minimize responsibility for their pollution,
there is the recognition among some of these representatives that doing so may have long
term repercussions that are to be avoided. Additionally, these companies are introducing new
technologies into the region which will minimize pollution, compared to older, less functional
technologies. CEP is in a unique position with regards to these groups in that they are
partial y dependent on CEP for positive public relations regarding environme ntal issues.
Alternately, CEP stands to benefit from allia nces with these groups and access to
technologies, data and potential funding. In a sense this potentially establishes a win-win
situation for both CEP and the multinational corporation stakeholder group.
Participation: The Regional Stakeholder Analysis Survey was completed by 7 representatives
of the multinational corporation stakeholder group. Nationalities were represented
accordingly: Azerbaijan - 2, I.R. Iran - 0, Kazakhstan - 3, Russia - 0, Turkmenistan - 1, other -
1.
MPPI Prioritization: The multinationa l corporation stakeholder group ranked the decline in
overal environmental quality, and decline in certain fisheries as the two most important
MPPIs. This fal s into line with a significant majority of other stakeholder groups. The second
lowest priority MPPI was tied between decline in infrastructure and amenities and introduction
of exotic species. The lowest concern MPPI for the multinational corporation stakeholder
group was potential pollution from the oil and gas industry. It is worth noting that two other
stakeholder groups, students and scientists ranked the potential pol ution from oil and gas
activities as a top MPPI.
Root Cause Prioritization: The multinational corporation stakeholder group ranked several
root causes as very high priorities. These were lack of sufficient enforcement of current
environmental laws, undefined legal status, lack of advanced technologies and abuse of
power. The lower priority root causes were lack of property rights, regional overpopulation
and sea level change. Again, there were discrepancies between the multinational corporation
stakeholder group and others with regards to the abuse of power, which energy ministries,
regional and municipal government stakeholder groups and public healthcare providers see
as a low priority root cause. This may be because the multinational corporation stakeholder
group are more removed than others from this issue.
Areas of High Concern:
1. Decline in Certain Fishing Stocks: The multinational corporation stakeholder group is
not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it directly. Nonetheless,
55
the multinational corporation stakeholder group is often blamed for the decline in
certain fisheries. This is worth considering in subsequent sections related to conflicts
between groups, because the survey shows that they are more concerned about
environmental issues that affect fisheries and biodiversity than common beliefs may
suggest.
For instance, in response to the statement "It is necessary to protect fish
spawning sites in the Caspian" the average level of support was a very
high 8.43 with a standard deviation of 0.95. Additionally, in response to
the statement "There should be a network of marine and wetland nature
preserves al around the Caspian" the average level of agreement was
7.71 with a standard deviation of 1.49. This is only a minute portion lower
than that of the coastal zone resident stakeholder group. Obviously,
these pertain to issues including biodiversity decline and overall
environmental quality, and bear further monitoring as multinational
corporation stakeholder groups become more active in the region.
In response to the statement "there are fewer fish in the Caspian than
there used to be because of recent oil drilling" the average level of
agreement was 6.00 with a standard deviation of 3.21. (Evidently,
Kazakh based corporations see a correlation between decline in certain
fisheries and oil industry activities.)
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: The multinational corporation stakeholder group
is not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it directly.
3. Threats to Biodiversity: The multinational corporation stakeholder group is not directly
affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it directly.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The multinational corporation stakeholder
group rank this as a high level concern. As mentioned above, they support the
creation of a network of marine and coastal nature reserves to protect the Caspian
environment. Additional y, they are well aware that environmental problems have
multiple causes, including agricultural and industrial runoff.
In response to the statement "agricultural and industrial wastes flowing
into the Caspian threaten marine and coastal species" the average level
of agreement was 8.43 with a standard deviation of 0.97. This suggests
that the multinational corporation stakeholder group is more aware of
press reports about the environment of the Caspian, or that it is looking to
place blame away from its own activities. Either way, it is important that
the respondents to this survey from the survey have a relatively high level
of understanding of the environmental problems in the region, and some
of their causes. Of course, assuming that those interested in completing
the survey are from the Health, Safety and Environme nt divisions of
multinational corporations, so some familiarity with environmental issues
is to be expected.
56
5. Decline in Human Health: The multinational corporation stakeholder group is not
directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it directly.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: The multinational corporation
stakeholder group is not directly affected by this issue, nor do they contribute to it
directly, beyond the scope of replying on the infrastructure for conducting business.
However, this declining infrastructure is outside the scope of this project.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: This MPPI ranked as the lowest
level concern for the members of the multinational corporation stakeholder group.
Most likely this is due to confidence about their own work and the ability to minimize
environmental damages. As noted earlier, several stakeholder groups ranked this
MPPI as a high level concern. Therefore this may be a potential conflict in the event
the environmental degradation from oil and gas activities becomes acute in the
region.
In response to the statement "multinational corporations and the energy
industry do not care about the environment" the average response was
4.71 with a standard deviation of 2.24. This suggests that the
multinational corporation stakeholder group do not see themselves as
unconcerned about the environment to the degree that some may
suggest they are. Again this potential conflict will be addressed
subsequently.
In response to the statement "The Caspian environment would be
improved if all oil and gas activities used best available technologies" the
average level of agreement was 7.86 with a standard deviation of 0.90.
In response to the statement "A petroleum industry based legal
agreement for marine pol ution from oil would reduce oil pollution in the
Caspian" the average response was 6.71. These statements suggest that
the multinational corporation stakeholder group recognizes the need to
improve environmental issues, as well as the need to employ best
available technologies and practices to reduce significant pollution from
oil and gas activities. Areas where there is potential conflict w ill be
addressed separately in subsequent sections.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: The multinational corporation stakeholder group
ranked this MPPI as a very low level concern. They are not directly affected by this
issue, though they do contribute to it, as inter-sea transport and exchange of ballast
water from outside the Caspian allows for the introduction of exotic species into the
Caspian ecosystem. This introduction of species may be a significant problem for the
Caspian waters in the future, and as a primary actor involved in unintentionally
importing these species, it is critical that this group recognizes its potential impact on
this issue.
In response to the statement "Al steps should be taken to limit invasive
species that threaten the ecosystem" the average level of agreement was
7.14 with a standard deviation of 2.91. This suggests that even though
this stakeholder group is somew hat unaware of the problems that
importation of exotic species can produce, they may be willing to make
57
appropriate adjustments to behaviors once they are educated about this.
Unfortunately, this is anecdotal evidence at best. However, it may be
w orth inviting members of IPIECA to join the discussions of the CRTC for
exotic species so that they can become better informed about this issue.
Those stakeholders not represented in the survey:
Foreign Affairs Ministries Foreign affairs ministries qualify as stakeholders due to their
high level of influence on the regional agreement process. Additionally, they are critically
important actors in lending support the CEP process. Their input to the CEP, through various
channels strengthens the institutional legitimacy of CEP, as well as increases the likelihood of
its success. There are number of important issue for this stakeholder group to address,
through in many cases they do not do it directly. Rather they use channels through other
ministries. Nonetheless, environmental issues, by virtue of their largely transboundary nature,
must be considered by these stakeholders. Only one survey was completed by a member of
this stakeholder group and therefore it can not effectively be added to the analysis.
1. Decline in Certain Fisheries: This MPPI has attracted a great deal of international
attention because the increasing scarcity of sturgeon, increasing prices of caviar and
the criminalization of trade in certain fish products. Though the foreign affairs
ministries may choose to not focus extensively on this issue, the international
pressures, combined with increasing crimina l activities requires some attention to
this. The recent rounds of CITES based discussions have brought this into the
international arena, though it seems to have faded quite quickly as wel . Foreign
affairs ministries are in the unenviable position of being required to take some steps
towards limiting trade of these fisheries, while in most cases, other government
ministries are not very supportive of this. Iran is the obvious exception to this
however. Unless the technology evolves that will allow for tagging of hatchlings, or
until sturgeon agree to carry passports, this issue will be ongoing and will require the
partial attention of the foreign affairs, charged with overseeing international treaties.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: The degradation of coastal landscape really is
not a priority for members of the foreign affairs ministries stakeholder group.
Degradation of coastal landscapes were not a high level concern for any of the other
stakeholder groups, and therefore, one could conclude that is would not be for this
group either. Further, the degradation of coastal landscapes is concern for
environmental ministries, interior ministries, or regional and municipal governments.
3. Threats to Biodiversity: This MPPI may not be a priority issue for the foreign affairs
ministries stakeholder group. Unfortunately, it is not likely to become a priority until
there is a severe crisis, such as a mass proliferation of exotic species which would
alter the ecosystem of the Caspian significantly. The recent die-offs of seal and kilka
may attract attention of the foreign affairs ministries stakeholder group as it benefits
their regional agenda, as a means to influence policies of neighboring states and as a
means to influence regional policies. In the event that biodiversity appears to be
shifting notably, this may become a much more important issue to the foreign affairs
ministries stakeholder group.
58
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: This MPPI, like the decline in biodiversity
and decline in certain fisheries, the decline in overall environmental quality is a latent
issue for members of the foreign affairs ministries stakeholder group. This decline, or
the potential for it is occasionally used by the foreign affairs ministries to push
regional hegemonic agendas. By focusing on environmental degradation foreign
affairs ministries stakeholder group are able to object to development projects in the
region that may have environmental impacts. Often these claims of environmental
stewardship are transparently attempts to maintain influence or economic domination
in the region.
5. Decline in Human Health: This MPPI may be a concern to members of the foreign
affairs ministries stakeholder group, though at this time, it does not appear to attract
significant attention from this group. They are neither directly affected by , nor
contributing to this particular issue.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: This low level MPPI is unlikely to
attract attention of the foreign affairs ministries stakeholder group. They are neither
directly affected by , nor contributing to this particular issue. The exception to this
may be the damage to the Iranian coasts causes by activities in the northern Caspian
region which ultimately foul the coastline.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: This MPPI is often touted by
members of the foreign affairs ministries stakeholder group as a reason to limit
activities in the region. This results in a struggle for influence in the region, as wel as
issue of autonomy and independence. However, like the decline in overall
environmental quality, and decline in certain fisheries, this concern is a token issue
for expressing less desirable political intentions.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: Interesting, while this is assumed to be a low level
priority MPPI for members of the foreign affairs ministries stakeholder group, it may
actually be an issue that will draw more attention in the future, if certain species
proliferate as they have in other bodies of water. If this were to occur, the role of CEP
may become more politicized in high politics issues.
Economic Ministries The economic ministry stakeholder group was not adequately
represented in the stakeholder analysis survey. Nonetheless, they are a very important
stakeholder group in regard to the Caspian environment. The distribution and collection of
revenues are generally manages through this ministries, and as such they wield tremendous
influence in the region. Additional y, they often determine what projects can or cannot survive
during economically sparse times. Therefore, this powerful group must be considered when
discussing regional stakeholders. In regards to many of the MPPIs, the economic ministry
stakeholder group is at least peripheral and often plays a more direct role.
1. Decline in Certain Fisheries: The economic ministry stakeholder group influences this
issue by al otting funds to hatcheries, law enforcement and fisheries. Though it is not
59
directly affected, it is indirectly affected. For instance the loss of revenues from
illegally poached can not be added to the coffers of the economic ministry
stakeholder group. The lack of support for hatcheries in the former Soviet states is
somewhat understandable, given the over all decline in state revenues in the post
Soviet period. However, this decline also means that there are fewer fish in the
Caspian and that the poaching activities that are prevalent in this area further
diminish the breeding stocks.
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: The economic ministry stakeholder group is
partially responsible for this MPPI, because environmental ministries are seriously
under-funded and unable to enforce current environmental legislation.
3. Threats to Biodiversity: The economic ministry stakeholder group is partial y
responsible for this MPPI, because environmental ministries are seriously under-
funded and unable to enforce current environmental legislation. Further, the lack of
planning and increased need for sustenence level agriculture and grazing of
domesticated stocks in environmenta l y sensitive areas leads to a destruction of
habitats.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The economic ministry stakeholder group
contributes to this by under funding enforcement agencies charged with overseeing
environmental legislation in the region. Additionally, the lack of support for
communities, forcing the destruction of habitats and leading to environmental decline.
It would be especial y easy here to place an extraordinary amount of blame on the
economic ministry stakeholder group for overall environmental decline. However, it
must also be recognized that the neglect of this stakeholder group is not malicious, or
even intentional, but rather is most likely due to multiple demands on a finite set of
resources. As revenues have become more scarce in the post Soviet period, for the
former Soviet states, environmental concerns have fal en by the wayside as basic
human needs are addressed by governments, and allotment of capital shifts from
controlled management to a free market economy. Therefore, instead of focusing on
this, it is important to design environmental policy alternatives that clearly delineate
the economic benefits of supporting environmental stewardship.
5. Decline in Human Health: The economic ministry stakeholder group contributes to
this problem in tw o ways, first by failing to provide adequate funding human health
concerns, and secondly by not adequately funding environmental enforcement
agencies. Though this lack of funding is certainly not malicious, it could potentially
lead to such a decline in human health conditions that the legitimacy of the
governments may be called into question. Respondents to the survey overwhelmingly
agreed that public health should be the concern of the government. Thus, the decline
in human health may also directly affect the governments and specifically the
economic ministry stakeholder group in the future.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: The economic ministry stakeholder
group is partially responsible for this MPPI, because environmental ministries are
seriously under-funded and unable to enforce current environmental legislation.
60
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: The economic ministry
stakeholder group contributes to this potential problem w hile being affected by it as
wel . The potential income from the oil and gas activities are expected to contribute
significantly to the coffers of the Caspian states. The economic struggles of the
1990's have left these coffers in need of replenishment. In order to many states to
improve their conditions, environme ntal and otherwise, the economic ministry
stakeholder group is pressured to provide attractive terms for oil and gas companies
in the region. These attractive terms may include lax environmental standards. In the
future, the pollution from these activities wil be left for the governments to deal w ith
long after the contracts are over, the oil is gone and the revenue from the petroleum
resources is spent. Therefore, it behooves the economic ministry stakeholder group
to closely consider the future environmental ramifications, and costs, or their current
agreement standards.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: The economic ministry stakeholder group is partially
responsible for this MPPI, because environmental ministries are seriously under-
funded and unable to enforce current environmental legislation. Further, as discussed
above the economic ministry stakeholder group is in a conundrum of needing to
increase revenues yet needing to protect the environment. The potential cost and
benefits of implementing measures to reduce the introduction of the exotic species
should be very clearly explained to this stakeholder group in order to gain their
support for such actions.
Informal Underground Sector- This stakeholder group was not represented in the
stakeholder analysis survey due to inherent difficulties with identification of and recruitment of
this sector in any formal survey processes. Nonetheless, they are an important stakeholder
group in regard to the Caspian environment. Additionally, the chronic abuse of power is also
attributed to conditions that benefit this sector. This group must be considered when
discussing regional stakeholders. It is believed that they have a clear interest in certain issues
related to the Caspian Environment, and must be considered when recommending policy
adjustments. Further, it is important to consider ways of creating legitimate, formal roles for
this sector in order to reduce the recurrent problems associated with the abuse of power.
However determining the impact this stakeholder group has in the region is difficult at best
because of the scarcity of accurate reporting on and measurement of actual influe nce.
Nonetheless, to dismiss this stakeholder group because of a lack of solid data would be a
serious error in this analysis.
1. Decline in Certain Fisheries: It is believed that the informal underground sector is
involved in creating an incentive structure that results in the propensity for over
fishing in some areas of the Caspian. The informal trade in some species and their
by-products results in increased need for policing and decrease in the abuse of
power. However, in some instances, it is believed that groups involved in this sector
are able to create conditions that make abuse of power an especially viable
alternative to withstanding poor economic conditions in the region. Therefore, unless
this sector is clearly included in any recommendations for fisheries management, in
concert with improvement of overall economic conditions, their cooptation of this
industry may continue to be problematic in the future.
61
2. Degradation of Coastal Landscape: The Informal Underground Sector is marginal y
involved in this MPPI, only within the scope of the abuse of power and influence in
certain permitting processes. Though this is largely speculative, it has been
suggested that this informal sector has a fair level of influence within some areas of
this region with regard to the abuse of power.
3. Threats to Biodiversity: The Informal Underground Sector is not believed to be
actively involved in this MPPI, beyond the scope of the issue addressed above.
4. Decline in Overall Environmental Quality: The Informal Underground Sector is not
believed to be actively involved in this MPPI, beyond the scope of the issue
addressed above.
5. Decline in Human Health: The Informal Underground Sector is not believed to be
actively involved in this MPPI, beyond the scope of the issue addressed above.
6. Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities: The Informal Underground Sector is
not believed to be actively involved in this MPPI, beyond the scope of the issue
addressed above.
7. Potential Damage from Oil and Gas Development: The involvement of the Informal
Underground Sector is largely under-evaluated in regards to this MPPI. Though there
may be some influence for certain privileges granted by this sector with regards to
this, to date, there are not reliable existing studies to confirm this.
8. Introduction of Exotic Species: The Informal Underground Sector is not believed to be
actively involved in this MPPI, beyond the scope of the issue addressed above.
62
Questionnaire for CEP Regional Stakeholder Analysis
This survey is an important contribution to the Caspian Environment Programme's Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis. 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 o f 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 active interests in the environment o f 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 w ill 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 of your response in the space provided.
General Information
1._____
What state are you from? (Please circle one)
Azerbaijan
IR Iran
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
Turkmenistan
Other:__________________
2._____
What type of organization do you represent? (If you represent more than one category,
please list these as well.)
1. Environmental Ministry
2. Foreign Affairs Ministry
3. Economic Ministry
4. Agriculture/Fisheries Ministry
5. Energy Ministry
6. Regional Government
7. Municipal Government
8. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)
9. State owned industry
10. Private industry
11. Multinational corporation
12. Scientific community
13. Educator
14. Public health providers
15. International organization
16. Student
17. Farming/fishing large industry
18. Farming/fishing artesanal industry
19. Other ____________________
3._____
How large is your organization (number of people in the Caspian Region)?
1. 1-10 people
2. 10-50 people
3. 50-100 people
4. 100-500 people
5. 500 + people
4._____
How long has your organization existed?
1. Less than 1 year
2. Between 1 and 5 years
3. Between 5 and 10 years
63
4. Between 10 and 30 years
5. More than 30 years
Perceived Problems and Issues
National experts from Caspian Countries have identified 6 major perceived problems and issues and
tw o emerging problems and issues. Below are a series of statements. We are interested in your opinions
regarding these perceived problem and issues. These perceived problems and issues are: decline in
certain fish stocks, degradation of the coastal landscape, threats to biodiversity, decline in overall
environmental quality, decline in human health, damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities. The
emerging perceived problems and issues are: potential damage from oil and gas activities and threats
from invasive, exotic species of living organisms.
Please rank order how you would prioritize the perceived problems and issues listed below from a rank
of 8 the most important perceived problem and issue to a rank of 1 for the least important perceived
problem and issue
5._____
Decline in certain fish stocks
6._____
Degradation of the coastal landscape
7._____
Threats to biodiversity
8._____
Decline in overall environmental quality
9._____
Decline in human health
10._____
Damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities
11._____
Potential damage from oil and gas activities
12._____
Threats from invasive, exotic species of living organisms
13._____
Is there a perceived problem or issue that should be added to this list? If so, what is it?
(You may list more than one, please answer below)
Root Causes
A "root cause" is the reason that something happens, distilled to the most basic level. National experts
from the Caspian Countries have identified root causes for the perceived problems and issues listed
above. Often several of these perceived problems and issues share the same root cause. Please help us
by telling us how important you feel these root causes are to environmental problems in the Caspian.
Please prioritize the root causes, listed in numbers 14 to 25 for level of importance,
with 1 = least critical, 2=critical, 3= most critical:
14._____
Non-sustainable use of resources
15._____
Lack of advanced technologies
16._____
Regional poverty
17._____
Regional over population
18._____
Abuse of power
19._____
Lack of sufficient enforcement of current environmental laws
20._____
Undefined legal status
21._____
Lack of property rights
22._____
Sea level change
23._____
Lack of public awareness of environmental problems
24._____
Weakness in civil society
25._____
Weakness in rule of law
26._____
What root causes have not been identified in this list? (Please answer below)
64
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
27._____
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.
28._____
The environment of the Caspian must be protected at all costs.
29._____
It is possible to develop programs that balance human needs with care for the
environment.
30._____
People will not care about protecting and preserving the environment if they are hungry
and need shelter.
31._____
If the economy were stronger, the environment would be cleaner.
32._____
The preservation of the Caspian eco-system cannot take place at the same time as oil
drilling activities.
33._____
There are fewer fish in the Caspian than there used to be because of recent oil drilling.
34._____
The environment can be protected without a strong economy.
35._____
Government, industry and the public can all agree about how to care for the Caspian Sea.
36._____
Multinational Corporations and the energy industry do not care about the environment.
37._____
Unless there is a severe environmental crisis in the Caspian region, care for the
environment will not be a priority for governments.
38._____
Unless there is a severe environmental crisis, care for the environment will not be a
priority for the people.
39._____
People will not change their lifestyles to protect endangered species.
40._____
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.
41._____
It is more important to protect natural habitats than it is to enhance economic
development.
42._____
It is possible to have economic growth and environmental protection at the same time.
Regional stakeholders
43._____
Which one of perceived problems and issues most strongly affects your organization?
1. Decline in certain fish stocks
2. Degradation of the coastal landscape
3. Threats to biodiversity
4. Decline in overall environmental quality
5. Decline in human health
6. Damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities
7. Potential damage from oil and gas activities
8. Threats from invasive, exotic species of living organisms
44._____
Which of the other issues in question 43 also affect your organization?
45._____
My organization/group might be a contributing factor to which of the issues in question
43?
46._____
In your opinion, which single group listed below is most responsible for improving the
condition of the Caspian environment?
1. Local industries
2. International industries
3. Municipal governments
4. Regional governments
5. Federal governments
6. International organizations
7. Citizen groups/ NGOs
65
8. Coastal Communities
9. Fishermen
10. Educators
11. Other: ___________________________
47._____
In your opinion, which group in question 46 is the most likely to bring about positive
environmental change in the Caspian environment?
48._____
In your opinion, which group in question 46 will benefit the most from positive change in
the Caspian environment?
With which groups in question 46 does your organization work on a regular basis?
With which groups in question 46 does your organization desire to work?
Of the groups listed in question 46, please list all of the groups you believe would be eager to
collaborate with your organization with regards to improving the environment?
Does your group work with groups in other Caspian countries? If so, which countries? (Please answer
below)
Thank you for your time and effort!
Optional Questions
There are a set of optional questions below, targeting certain perceived problems and issues. You may
choose which sets of questions (if any) you would like to answer, or you may answer all of these. We
are very interested in your opinions.
These questions are in statement form. 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
Decline in Certain Fish Stocks
My grandparents ate more food from the Caspian waters than I do.
I eat fish fro m the Caspian at least three times per week.
55._____
I think it is safe and healthy to eat fish from the Caspian.
56._____
Pollution is the primary reason that there are fewer fish in the Caspian.
57._____
Radiation is the primary reason there are fewer fish in the Caspian.
58._____
Even if it is illegal, some fish will still be caught for profit.
59._____
The fishermen benefit most from the fish they catch.
60._____
People, other than fisherman, make money fro m the illegal fishing of some species.
61._____
An enforced system of mutually agreed upon fishing limits would be effective for
reducing over-fishing in the Caspian.
62._____
There are enough hatcheries to support all commercial fishing stocks.
63._____
All barriers to fish migration should be removed.
Degradation of Coastal Landscape
64._____
Farmers using herbicides and pesticides should be taught natural ways to reduce use of
these chemicals. (For instance: organic farming methods, crop rotation, more appropriate
crop selection based on climate and soil, genetically engineered crops, training, education,
other chemicals or synthetics)
65._____
It would be helpful to have coordinated coastal management plans in the Caspian region
to help preserve the environment.
66
66._____
There should be fees for water used in the irrigation of crops.
67._____
There should be limits on some activities in certain zones of the coastal region.
68._____
Landscape degradation is mostly due to human activities, such as oil drilling and pesticide
use.
69._____
Communities in the Caspian region use forest resources wisely.
70._____
Current laws are not strong enough to protect natural resources around the Caspian.
Threats to Biodiversity
71._____
There should be a network of marine and wetland nature preserves all around the Caspian.
72._____
My organization supports strengthening laws protecting sensitive areas even if it limits
access to those areas.
73._____
There is no problem with how agriculture or industrial chemicals are stored near the
Caspian waters.
74._____
Agricultural and industrial wastes flowing into the Caspian threaten marine and coastal
species.
75._____
It is necessary to protect fish spawning sites in the Caspian
76._____
There is sufficient sharing of information about environmental quality between groups
concerned about the Caspian environment.
77._____
The environment of the Caspian is not suffering.
Decline in Overall Environmental Quality
78._____
There is adequate scientific knowledge about the causes of environmental decline in the
Caspian.
79._____
There should be more environmental monitoring projects that involve NGOs, scientists
and private sector collaboration.
80._____
Private industry should take all responsibility for reversing environmental degradation of
the Caspian.
81._____
Air quality is a significant problem in the Caspian region.
82._____
Better technology for environmental preservation would enhance the Caspian region.
Human Health
83._____
In the Caspian region, the biggest threat to the human population is the lack of safe
drinking w ater.
84._____
If there were a stronger economy, people would be healthier in the Caspian region..
85._____
People are healthier today than they were 20 years ago in the Caspian region.
86._____
Industrial runoff has caused people to be sick.
87._____
There is nothing that can be done about human health in the region.
88._____
Public health must be the concern of the government.
89._____
Radioactive materials have led to a decline in human health.
90._____
People would be healthier if the environment were cleaner.
Damage to Coastal Infrastructure and Amenities
91._____
Soil erosion contributes to the decline in environmental quality of the Caspian.
92._____
Coastal cities and towns dump most municipal wastes into the water on the Caspian
93._____
Mining activities reduce the water quality of the Caspian.
94._____
Sea level fluctuation has been responsible for most damage to the coastal infrastructure.
Oil and Gas Sector Based Contamination
95._____
The Caspian environment would be improved if all oil and gas activities used best
available technologies.
96._____
A petroleum industry based legal agreement for marine pollution from oil would reduce
oil pollution in the Caspian.
97._____
There are adequate oil reception facilities in the Caspian region.
Invasive Species
98._____
I have seen unusual creatures in the Caspian that were not there ten years ago.
99._____
All steps should be taken to limit invasive species that threaten the ecosystem.
67
100._____
Invasive species are creating significant environmental degradation in the Caspian.
Thank you for your participation in this survey!
If you have questions or comments, please contact Mary M. Matthews at:
E-mail: cas
a pia
i ne
n nviro
r nm
n e
m nt@
t hotma
m il.
l com
Or contact the individual who distributed this questionnaire to you.
The comple te d Regional Stake holde r Analysis will be available on the CEP web page later this
year. Please visit:
hh
t t
t t
pp
: :
////w
w w
w w
w. .
c c
a a
s s
pp
i i
a a
nn
e e
nn
v v
i i
r r
o o
nnm
me e
nn
t.t.
o o
r r
g g
68