Public Participation Workplan of the Caspian Environment Programme

Final Report

Sylvie Goyet, International Public Participation Advisor

Table of Content:

List of Annexes

Annex 1: Methodology

Annex 2: Sample TOR of the PPAs

Annex 3: Indicators of performance

Annex 4: Assessment of the implementation of PA/PP activities against the workplan

Annex 5: List of documents available

1. Introduction:

The CEP displays an overall concern to involve the public and other stakeholders in its activities. In the strategy of the Caspian Environment Programme, public awareness and increased stakeholder involvement were spelled out as key tools to fulfill the goals of the CEP project¹.

To that end, Immediate Objective Vh of the project document - Public Awareness and Involvement in CEP, SAP and NCAPs – was designed to mobilize “broad-based participation of the general public, private sector associations (especially oil and gas companies), academic and research institutions, non-governmental organizations and local community groups. The Programme [was to] identify key stakeholders, particularly effective NGOs, bringing them together to strategize and discuss common issues, linking them together as appropriate for the enhanced exchange of information and strategies, and involving them in the SAP & NCAP formulation processes done on country-specific and regional bases”. The output of that objective was spelled out as:

“Broader stakeholder involvement in and awareness of the environmental problems of the Caspian and activities of the CEP, both nationally and regionally”.

Upon review of the situation, latest developments in that area, the strengths and weaknesses of the NGO sector in the various countries, the ongoing efforts by international agencies and the specific needs and resources of the CEP (also taking account of the short duration of the PA/PP programme – less than 2 years), it was decided that execution of the objective would best be achieved through:

• The fielding of national public participation advisers (PPAs) in each country for 18 months to 2 years, who would be able to quickly comprehend the local situation, make contacts with the stakeholders and be sensitive to the local conditions, constraints and opportunities;

• A regional plan of action guiding the work of the national PPAs through specific activities and plan of action and consolidating efforts and outputs and at the same time leaving room for local adjustments; and,

• The services of an international public participation adviser ( thereafter referred to as ‘the consultant’) to steer the public awareness/public participation component of the CEP (PA/PP workplan or component), with overall guidance from the CEP-PCU.

A number of points should be noted to set the scene and appreciate the background for enhancing public awareness and public participation in the Caspian region:

• Institutionally, socially and culturally, the four CIS countries tend to have similar settings; on the other hand, the I.R. of Iran has very specific features which require particular attention.

• The development of an organized civil society is, at best, nascent in all of the countries. In the CIS countries, these organizations are often staffed by a handful of concerned scientists who realize the need for an independent voice for environmental protection and/or the opportunity to further their scientific research and activities. On the other hand, most NGOs are located in the capital city and tend to focus their work on the problems in Baku, Alma Aty, Ashgabat, or Moscow. Other areas, in particular the coastal areas, have received little interest from the NGO community. Finally, the NGOs throughout the region suffer from lack of a solid structure and organization, “lack of transparent dialogue and availability of information (see extract below from PPA Iran final report)” and little realism in their targets and objectives.

“[there was a] small number of wandering environmental NGOs, which did not have solid organization, any specific plan and transparent strategy. All they knew was that they must do “something” for their degrading environment. They blamed the government authorities for mismanagement and had developed the bad habits of “loud talking” and “accusation”. Lack of transparent dialogue and availability of information was creating tense situation that fed off itself.” “ the few local Environmental NGOs then, were hopelessly unorganized and in some instances, one-man-shows, which could not be considered as helping hands or stable footholds for even short term planning for public awareness programs, let alone public participation. The goals and aims of these organizations were set so high and broad, that most of their activities and approaches were translated by the authorities as either funny, childish and primitive or offensive and interfering, which often created negative reaction and persistent resistance.” … Extract from PPA Iran final report

• There are few, if any, international conservation NGOs with permanent programs in the region that could provide the necessary support and assistance to the local NGO communities: WWF, operating from Tbilissi, has a Causasus program and ISAR has been running an important Caspian NGO program for 4 years, though environment is not the only focus.

• The collapse of city infrastructure and the deterioration of communal services in all of the CIS Caspian countries naturally tend to mobilize the attention of the local stakeholders. Issues such as solid waste disposal and pollution are prominent in the coastal communities.

• Transport and production of oil & gas underpin all development strategies and all cooperation initiatives.

• A number of Caspian countries are currently looking at the EU for favorable terms of trade and exchange, therefore issues such as environmental protection and public participation could become high on the political agenda, as well as approximation of laws and policies.

• International commercial companies are accountable to their shareholders and constituencies, in general from Europe and the West and, as such, strive to embody sound principles of environmental management, in particular through their Health, Security and Environment standards and procedures and EIA processes and social and environment programs.

2. The PA/PP workplan and strategy

A workplan was developed by the consultant in September 2000 and finalized in December 2000, following a visit to each of the Caspian countries. It calls for the implementation of the PA/PP work programme through realization of the following activities:

1.1 : on a monthly basis, publish and distribute a regional email bulletin 1.2: enhance the effectiveness and outreach of the CEP website 1.3: produce and disseminate a set of publicity materials (posters, calendars, pens, etc.), press releases in support of CEP activities, and a programme brochure 1.4: based on analysis in 3.1 and particular strengths and opportunities in the country, identify up to two target groups and develop focused cooperation activities 2.1: prepare guidelines for the set up and management of selected “coastal Caspian Concern Groups (CCG)” 2.2: for each country, identify the selected areas, initiate contacts and develop a course of action / workplan. 2.3: schedule a series of meetings that will a) discuss the nature and scope of the problems, b) agree on the agenda for priorities & activities. 2.4: facilitate the development of activities and provide support/training for the preparation of project proposals, as and when appropriate 2.5: develop and implement a grants programme to support implementation of agenda items defined by the CCG 3.1 prepare national and regional ground truthing studies 3.2: channel and encourage involvement of NGOs (in particular members of the coastal CCGs) into the TDA, NCAP and SAP processes.

The above activities were to be carried in each of the Caspian countries, along implementation modalities and specificities that were to be adapted to the local conditions and settings. The realization of these consolidated activities was to generate the following outputs:

A copy of the full workplan is attached in Annex 1. It covers a period of implementation from September 15, 2000 to May 31, 2002.

Over only a two-year period (including the time for the recruitment and mobilization of the PPAs), the implementation of the PA/PP workplan may have seen like a challenge. Indeed, mobilizing stakeholders at pilot local sites, strengthening civil society organizations, and enabling the channeling of inputs from the ‘general public’ into the CEP processes take a lot of time and effort. Above all, the challenge was to establish consultative mechanisms, where they did not exist, to enable the local stakeholders to dialogue freely and actively participate, jointly, in the management of their environment as well as in CEP activities. This was to become the Caspian Concern Groups. This process required that the PPAs maintain a continuous link with the stakeholders and display a constant presence and availability in order to gain the confidence of the representatives from ‘the general public’ and authorities and raise their interest. Of course, at the end of the programme, one could not expect a change of attitude in all concerned stakeholders, but one should be able to detect evidence of interest and changes demonstrated in concrete and practical activities. The objective also was to initiate the local participatory planning process, raising interest to it and demonstrating that it can be effective in both supporting the policies developed by the authorities and in finding ‘local solutions’ to the local problems.

In addition, it was clear from the start that it would be unlikely that all activities would be carried out to a similar extent in each of the countries. Some local settings are more favorable than others; some have a civil society already organized, some don’t; some local key individuals are already sensitive to environmental issues, some a lot less. But the PA/PP workplan was to provide the PPAs with clear and specific targets and a series of corresponding activities, the implementation of which was to be adjusted and confirmed as per the local conditions.

The regional workplan was designedalso to give opportunities for regional sharing, exchange and lessons learning. This did not materialize, though it became evident that concerned individuals and organizations were interested in activities happening next door and were looking for opportunities to establish links with partners from countries of the region. Moving to a regional platform though often requires that the home business is in order and sufficiently stable and mature to allow for exchange and sharing.

3. Implementation of the PA/PP workplan: means and resources

To carry out the activities of the PA/PP workplan, PPAs were recruited in each of the Caspian countries as follows:

In Azerbaijan, IR Iran and Russia, PPAs worked for a continued period of 18 to 21 months, thereby ensuring continuity and consistency in the work and approach. In Turkmenistan, the departure of the PPA at the end of February 2002 resulted in a cessation of activities in that country in early 2002, though backstopping arrangements were put in place from March till end of May 2002 to ensure monitoring of the remaining projects. In Kazakhstan, it proved impossible to secure the services of a suitable PPA for the duration of the programme. The first recruited PPA left after 5 months; no progress was registered and no reporting received. Over the next year, despite efforts from the PCU and the resident UNDP office, no PPA could be identified before February 2002 and a contract was then issued for only a few months as the programme concluded at the end of May 2002. As such, minimum activities took place in Kazakhstan: a few news items on the bulletin, distribution of some of the PA materials and limited participation of civil society representatives in CEP national activities (NCAP). But the regular visits of the Programme Coordinator and PCU experts and a 10-day visit from the Turkmenistan PPA in September 2001 helped at least reach out to the NGO community in Atyrau and raise awareness to the CEP and its activities.

The consultant (IPPA) visited each of the countries at the start of the programme (September and November 2001) to brief the PPAs in situ and thereafter, she maintained regular email communication with the PPAs, providing additional guidance and support. She convened regional gatherings and workshops to discuss and guide further the work, monitor results and difficulties, or take adaptive measures. When possible, these gatherings were organized at the time of the scheduling of other CEP activities, thereby allowing for the PPAs to contribute to the CEP activities and increase their awareness and understanding of CEP.

Visits of the consultant:

Each of the PPAs received a computer and a printer, a monthly $100 allocation for running costs and an office – the office was usually located within one of the CEP facilities (PCU, CRTCs).

The TORs of the PPAs were reasonably specific, yet leaving room for flexibility. The reporting was clear – they were to report to the CEP Coordinator. This aspect was sometimes not well understood by the countries and created some difficulty for the PPAs.

Monitoring of the programme was carried out through:

• quarterly progress reports submitted by the PPAs (consolidated into a regional Quarterly Progress Report by the consultant);

• continuous email liaison with the PPAs;

• regional meetings

• feedback from the Programme Coordinator and PCU experts visiting the PPAs in location.

Finally, a total budget of $160,000 (excluding the contracts of the IPPA and the PPAs) was allocated to the implementation of the PA/PP activities under the workplan, including a total of $70,000 for the small grants facility.

3. Results

The results of the PA/PP workplan were satisfactory, with some successes and some shortcomings. Overall, the programme was effective in both raising visibility of CEP and awareness of the CEP activities among local stakeholders and channeling some civil society inputs into the TDA and the Action Plans. It demonstrated that much could be done with relatively little and it was effective in reaching out to a broad range of stakeholders. On the other hand, it shows that more needs to be done, in all of the countries, to support the strengthening of local constituency and governance and the participation of civil society groups into environmental management. Changing governance and mobilizing stakeholders takes much time and dedicated support.

Annex 3 proposes an assessment of monitoring indicators against each of the activities.

3.1 Assessment against the objectives and activities of the logframe

Annex 4 spells out the results against each output and activities across the region and provides an assessment of these.

At the objective level (“Broader stakeholder involvement in and awareness of the environmental problems of the Caspian and activities of the CEP, both nationally and regionally”):

Evidence of change can be noted:

• increased media attention to the Caspian issues (indicator: number of news items printed or aired – means of verification: press releases, PA materials, outputs of small project on the media in Azerbaijan);

• increased attention from the general public (indicator: visit to website – means of verification: web statistics / increased hit on the website);

• participation of and inputs from representatives of the civil society and other stakeholders in the CEP activities (indicator: NGO representatives attending CEP meetings – examples attesting of involvement of NGO representatives in CEP meetings in all countries);

At the output level:

1. Increased visibility of CEP and awareness of Caspian Environmental issues: clearly, there has been good progress on this issue. All PPAs have reported that positive changes took place in the various focal areas (see examples in assessment of activities of Annex 4).

2. Strengthened cooperation among coastal actors through implementation of demonstrative actions and PA projects: though the project has facilitated this aspect and there are positive examples of cooperation across coastal actors in the region as a result of the activities (within the framework of the small projects in particular), the cooperation tends to be horizontal, i.e. among NGOs, but rarely vertical bringing in several stakeholders working towards a same aim. A notable exception is the work undertaken in Iran. There, at a provincial level, the efforts matched very much what the original workplan had been looking for, i.e. setting up a local Agenda 21 consultative group.

[A] first meeting of Mazandaran Coastal Municipalities [took place in February 2002] in which, environmental NGOs of Mazandaran and Golestan provinces, along with many of key provincial authorities, university professors and environmental specialists participated. A resolution was anticipated to be drawn and agreed to, which among other agreements, would obligate the Islamic Councils of the Coastal cities of Mazandaran province, to form an environmental committee, to which, the local Green NGOs also be a permanent member. This committee, then, will act as a CCG, and identify and prioritize local environmental problems and issues, develop project proposals for their solution, seek funds and hire specialists for the implementation and monitoring processes. The article 6 of the mentioned resolution is very important for the establishment of the environmental committees in the coastal communities, which are equivalent to the CCGs of the workplan. Extract from PPA Iran final report

3. Strengthened participation of civil society and other stakeholders in CEP strategies and planning: the participation of NGO representatives in the various CEP meetings in all countries has been enabled, i.e. in the identification of the problems and in recommending possible paths of intervention.

At the activity level:

A good number of projects, events and actions took place ( refer to the tables in Annex 4).The following examples should be noted:

• 4000 units of brochures highlighting CEP and Caspian issues were produced and distributed to the region

• three Azeri NGOs (“Ecograph”, “Ecores” and “Saniya”) cooperated with an American NGO “Internews” and the American Embassy to successfully implement a project for journalists which included a training workshop and a writing contest;

• a health centre established in one of the villages of the Astrakhan region in Russia;

• children of eco-clubs were mobilized in various schools in Turkmenbashi for drawing competitions, field trips, children’s ‘marathon’ and ecological clean up actions.

Annex 5 lists the documents available from the programme.

3.2 Achievements at the country level

Looking at achievements on a country basis, results are uneven and difficult to compare or measure. Each of the PPAs though seem to have focused on a particular set of activities, targeting specific recipient groups, which, upon their assessment, would best channel environmental messages and raise awareness.

People often attend religious rituals, ceremonies and memorials at the local mosques, where clergies address them. These occasions offer good opportunities for conducting public awareness programs and discuss local environmental problems and issues. Extract from PPA Iran final report

The following could be noted for each of the countries:

• Effective activities only took place in 4 of the 5 countries.

• With the support from the PCU, the PPA in Azerbaijan was able to achieve very substantive results, focusing on public awareness and also ably carrying actions against each of the activities. To ultimately reach the general public and decision makers and raise awareness, her activities focused on 3 main target groups: NGOs, the media and international commercial companies (oil and gas). Some 8 sub-contracts were offered to NGOs for implementation of PA activities (within the framework of the small grants facility or as part of the PA national plan); PA materials were produced for the region; involvement of NGOs and stakeholders in CEP activities was facilitated; and press releases, exhibit and other events were scheduled to raise visibility of CEP and its activities.

A project for Mass-Media (duration: 6 months and cost: $4,697.75) was split among three NGOs participating in the bidding process, namely “Ecograph”, “Ecores” and “Saniya”. An American INGO “Internews” and the American Embassy effectively cooperated in the project. The project offered training for journalists. A brochure summarizing guidelines for journalists was prepared by John Boit, director of “Internews Azerbaijan”. 27 journalists (40 % females and 60 % males) from news agencies took part in the June-July training. The project also proposed a writing contest. Best articles about the Caspian were rewarded at an official ceremony and a brochure ("Caspian as Viewed by Journalists") was published. The third component of the project was for audio and video activities, which including the editing and finalizing of a video film, and a radio marathon. … “The project was widely praised”. Extract from the Azerbaijan PPA final report.

• In Iran, activities focused on enabling concerned groups and individuals to organize themselves and structure their action and participation. The PPA has been instrumental in fostering a sense of community participation, in bringing in several stakeholders around a same issue and in channeling inputs and feedback into the CEP processes. The participatory process involved representatives from various sectors, leading to a ‘first meeting of Mazandaran Coastal Municipalities in February 2002.

• Attention of the PPA in Russia focused on concern for the state of social services to the communities. The issues of health and education seem to underline number of her activities and are central to the small projects that were selected for implementation. As in Iran, the convening of stakeholders groups in Russia initiated a process of local consultation and participation that was recognized useful and pertinent.

“At the moment, the problem of environmental impacts on human health is gaining more attention at national level and highly probable to become the most urgent issue concerned with the Caspian and oil development in this region. In these conditions, 2 Russian “health” projects supported by CEP come as a good input to the regional policy-making, feasible to provide a long-lasting effect and stimulate initiating NGOs’ dialogue with the local authorities, which is frequently a weak point in their work (means both)”. Russia PPA QPR5

• The Turkmenistan PPA was the editor of the Caspian bulletin. Much of his energy was devoted to collecting and compiling news items from his PPA colleagues and timely distributing the monthly issues. Also, activities carried out show good examples of partnerships with other organizations (Counterpart Consortium, ISAR, local municipalities, school clubs).

• In Kazakhstan, as mentioned, a very limited number of activities took place. The PPA fielded in March 2002 was able to schedule a photo exhibit.

3.3. Assessment of the fielding of the PPAs

It should also be noted that, over the 21 month implementation period, the PPAs displayed significant progress in carrying out their functions. The consultant would like to underline in particular the increased attainment of the Azerbaijan PPA. By the end of her contract, she had established a good network of NGO contacts, had enabled and supported the implementation of 8 PA projects, had contributed strongly to a revamped web-site and had gained much confidence and know-how in the release and dissemination of information and in scheduling activities to raise awareness to the Caspian Programme and to the Caspian issues in general.

On the other hand, the consultant regrets that reporting throughout the period has been, at best, a challenge. Not to mention the considerable delays in submitting the required reports, a number of quarterly progress reports are still outstanding; parts of the background analysis for the groundtruthing studies are still missing and have not been revised; monitoring and final reports for the small projects were not received, final report were received only from the PPAs of Azerbaijan and Iran and, in general, feedback has been difficult to get. As the implementation of the PA/PP workplan relied much on the sharing of experience and lessons, the lack of reporting has weakened the regional dimension and the elements of regional sharing of the programme.

The strengths and weaknesses of the fielding of the fielding of local PPAs can be analyzed as follows:

3.4 Conclusions with regards to Public Awareness / Public Participation status in the region

The TDA identifies “undeveloped civil society & inadequate awareness” and “inadequate and insufficient information” as some of the common regional root causes of the degradation of the Caspian environment². The following extract from the PPA Iran final report provides a very useful insight into the nature of the problems:

“ Most of the few local Environmental NGOs then, were hopelessly unorganized and in some instances, one-man-shows, which could not be considered as helping hands or stable footholds for even short term planning for public awareness programs, let alone public participation. The goals and aims of these organizations were set so high and broad, that most of their activities and approaches were translated by the authorities as either funny, childish and primitive or offensive and interfering, which often created negative reaction and persistent resistance. Improper distribution or even unavailability of correct/transparent environmental information and their misinterpretation often caused them to get over-magnified, exaggerated and sometimes transformed into gossips that aggravated the public and helped worsening the situations and creating more suspicion and pessimism. There also were negative social factors working against the success of the defined PPA’s activities, which made planning difficult. Of them I can recall: Low level of trust in the societies Suspicion and pessimistic attitude Difficulty in maintaining constructive dialogue among people Short-lived social relationships Destructive competition Lack of skills and experience in group-work Egocentric behavior Low level of individual and social flexibility Shyness Environmental carelessness Many of these factors have roots in centuries of feudalism and dictatorship that cultivated their seeds for insuring own survival, and as the results, the dedication and bonds among the members of the interest groups and NGOs were not strong enough to even hold for short term planning. Another negative factor that worked against the workplan was that the public was not ready for the expected level of participation. It was not easy for the people to believe that the doors to democracy are open and most of them were pessimistic and suspicious to the whole idea and just didn’t want a headache. Those who were optimists, worried about being accused of interfering with government affairs or left alone by the more conservative members of the interest group. The worst of all was the wide gap between the people and the authorities, and I didn’t exactly know how to go about it. For the authorities, a transparent guideline was not yet defined for dealing with motivated and demanding public, and the average citizens neither knew how to approach and communicate with the authorities, and as a rule, the smaller the community, the wider this gap was. Actually, the public was yearning for speaking out their demands and a majority of the authorities was eager to respond, but the rules of the game were not transparent yet and procedures neither defined. As a result, both sides kept careful and conservative and this situation resulted in gradual creation of a status that could be termed as “environmental indifference”. Studying the nature of the Southern Caspian environmental problems and issues had proved that the common major root cause to be “low environmental awareness”, which I prefer to call it “Environmental Illiteracy”. It was quite obvious that the combination of environmental indifference, poor socio-economic conditions, rapid population increase, relatively high rate of unemployment, weak enforcement of the existing environmental laws, and environmental illiteracy can create a disastrous situation for the extremely sensitive natural environment of the area”. Extract from PPA Iran final report.

Looking at the PA/PP activities in the countries, the following additional elements can be suggested:

• Rights and access to information: country legislation embodies provisions for rights to information and, specifically, environmental information. However, one observes wide-spread violation of this right (state officials) in the countries and, in general, the public is not aware about the rights provided by the legislation. On the other hand, access to information is rendered difficult by the lack of appropriate distribution channels, the fact that the information is rarely translated into user-friendly language and the various institutional barriers (including censure and retention of information)

• Public participation is still a western concept, though, increasingly at the local level, groups of stakeholders and individuals are interested to take part in local environmental management.

• The historical context of overly centrally planned economies and systems in the CIS countries seem to provide little incentive for the public to engage in local planning efforts. Though local authorities are increasingly eager to share the responsibility with other stakeholders, they meet little interest from the local communities.

• There also seems to be limited opportunities for the public to participate in the decision-making processes (public hearings), except at the very local level or at the national level (e.g. EIA, national laws).

• NGOs mainly deal with public awareness of environmental issues and environmental education (and mostly at the scientific and school level). Few look at root causes of the problems, few act as facilitator of local planning and consultation processes and even fewer adopt positions of what would be referred to in the west as ‘environmental activism’.

• NGOs tend to reside in the main cities and concentrate on urban matters. Rural issues tend to be overlooked.

• One can witness a gradual democratization of the societies of the Caspian countries.

• Observations indicate that there is an accelerating overall movement towards conservation in most government sectors.

Today, as the results of DOE’s efforts, the registration procedure for environmental NGOs has become very easy, and as an outcome of the agreement between the Ministry of the Interior and the DOE, the authority for registration of environmental interest groups was transferred to DOE’s Public Participation Office. Extract from PPA Iran final report

For additional information and assessment, the reader is invited to refer to the draft groundtruthing study.

3.5 Gender mainstreaming

In response to UNDP and CEP to encourage greater gender sensitivity within their activities, PPAs have endeavored to pay particular attention to involving women and strengthening their participation into environmental management activities. Little specific action has been taken though and more could be done, as is suggested in some of the comments from the PPAs below:

• Women play an active role in the local society in Russia/Astrakhan; also it was noted that “there is a positive trend in ever increasing women activities and decision making in Azerbaijan”; and “women are quite active in public work and their numbers in public services and commercial offices are increasing rapidly” in Iran.

• The PPA Iran noted that “women in the urban areas are far more active and village women are still too limited and shy... Special environmental awareness programs for women living in rural areas could be prepared and implemented to enhance their level of participation”.

• In Russia, “preliminary discussion has been held with the members and Chairman of Association ‘Women for Science and Education’, Astrakhan Regional Department, on feasible joint activities under the Public Awareness component” (Russia QPR3 report).

• Further, in Russia, a seminar on ecology of the Caspian Sea for women teachers staff was held on 21 March 2002 at CaspNIRKh (within the framework of RU005 small project), with the participation of 27 teachers from 20 Astrakhan village schools (Nachalovo, Kilinchi, Poimennoye, Evpraksino, Krasny Yar, Yaksatovo, Funtovo, etc.) [PPA Russia QPR6].

• Women are active CCG members in the countries (Turk for 60%, Azerbaijan for 30-40%) or represent the “moving executive force”. Iran PPA also note that “in the process of electing the Board members of the Mazandaran Green NGO network, 2 out of 5 elected people are women”.

The PPAs also reported that active participants in the CCGs and leaders of local NGOs are often women.

PPAs endeavored to extend equal opportunities to men and women in the implementation of activities.

4. Achievements and impacts of the PA/PP programme

Annex 4 and the description above confirm that significant results and outputs have been generated by the PA/PP programme. At a higher level, if one looks at the overall achievements and impacts of the programme, one can safely attest that the level of environmental awareness for Caspian issues has increased in the coastal areas of the region.

In the participating countries, there is greater understanding that any positive change of the situation and a reversal of the degradation trends cannot take place without public support and participation. Also, the local stakeholders better know the objectives and activities of CEP and grounds have been laid for raising further public awareness and encouraging participation.

The PA/PP programme has generated increased direct communication with the public, in particular through direct meetings and web-site inquiries. Every PA project and activity produced posters, brochures, badges, pens, video films, etc. bearing CEP logo. Some of these materials were distributed throughout the Caspian countries and to partners.

Most authorities in major offices of the coastal area are familiar with CEP and the public participation processes.

In Iran, as a result of the support of the PPA, 3 provincial Green NGO Networks were established, thereafter coordinated as a regional network to enhance participatory planning/decision making, networking of information, coordination of activities and sharing of experiences. The Iranian PPA reports:

Solid bodies are organized today as provincial and regional networks of environmental NGOs that have registered identities and are also welcomed by the authorities. It is envisaged that through these bodies, convenient public awareness and participation practice plans can be developed and effectively implemented. One can already notice the eagerness of the government organization for building relationship with these “Networks”, and this surely is a good reason for being hopeful for future. Extract from Iran PPA final report

He further noted that, in Mazandaran area, the stakeholders groups has established procedures and principles of cooperation, a process that has much in common with the targeted CCG or local Agenda 21:

The most important and promising achievement that I had was holding the “First Meeting of Mazandaran Coastal Municipalities” in which, environmental NGOs of Mazandaran and Golestan provinces, along with many of key provincial authorities, university professors and environmental specialists participated. A resolution was anticipated to be drawn and agreed to, which, among other agreements, would obligate the Islamic Councils of the Coastal cities of Mazandaran province, to form an environmental committee, to which, the local Green NGOs also be a permanent member. Extract from PPA Iran final report

Similarly, in Russia, the CCG translated into a useful facility for dialogue and consultation, thereby setting the seed for a sustained local consultative group:

“The Astrakhan CCG (alias CEG – Caspian Environment Group – as it decided to be called in Russian) is represented by persons with diverse interests, therefore thematic spectrum of the projects covers different areas – pollution control, environmental health issues, public awareness on fisheries/sturgeons, environmental education, ecotourism. CCG meetings have animated spirit and people willingly exchange their views and opinions. It comes that CCG will probably not be a temporary association but a sustainable unity of those concerned with environmental problems” Extract from Russia QPR3

Some of the small projects that were implemented deserve attention and could be held as pilot and demonstrative activities. Of particular interest and success could be the Mass Media project in Azerbaijan with three cooperating NGOs, pilot video teaching manual, training and contests. Finally, it should be noted that the small projects brought about some locally-specific impacts, such as the examples below:

"Performance of this project allowed us to assess the ecology awareness of schoolchildren more perfectly on this stage. It will help to make exact and proper planning of further works for ecological education"; "Work under the CEP Programme gives opportunity to high own rating among other city public ecological organizations". "The result of co-works with schools is a writing of the new project which is given now to assessment committee under REC Programme". Extracts from the final report of project TK003 "The city education department approves the activity of the Center "Umyt" under the project and expects further development of ecological education of children and teenagers. And is also open to the partnership activity on the given subjects". Extracts from the final report of project TK005

On the other hand, it should be noted that little purely regional activities (in the sense of transboundarity) could be held. Activities mainly focused on national target groups and local/national issues. Limited regional exchange and sharing could be undertaken, but also because the national platforms first need to be strengthened before any regional exchange can usefully take place.

5. Partnership and cooperation with stakeholders and counterparts

While carrying out activities, local/national NGOs but also international NGOs, businesses, media channels, universities & research centers and government agencies were invited to participate. Most often, the local/national NGOs acted as implementing agencies for the projects, while others became consulting agencies, co-funding partners or cooperating executing agencies.

The state-owned fisheries company (Shilat), the Regional Health Network, local universities, provincial management of Ministry of Education, the regional offices of Forest and Range Organization, Natural Resources Organization and Islamic City and Village Councils were among many other partners that sincerely welcomed CEP and its programs. Extract from PPA Iran final report

The main partners that supported the work of the PPAs in the countries were the respective departments of environment, which extended much assistance in terms of arranging contacts, meetings, providing facilities and information.

The Azerbaijan PPA final report provides good examples of partnerships engaged within the framework of the small projects:

• International NGO “Internews” participated in the Mass Media project, supporting environmental journalism as a field of common interest.

• the British Embassy for Azerbaijan contributed financially to the small grant project “Improving situation in Hatai through Education” implemented by the Association for Protection of Animals.

• Exxon made available a number of gifts in the frame of the projects for children (with NGO “Gulum”).

• CEP pursued consultations with Shell. The company was interested in carrying out a number of joint PA projects and publishing a calendar. A calendar was successfully printed out and distributed “The Caspian: People and Environment” and a plan of joint PA actions was developed. The plan could not be implemented at the time, but negotiations with Shell are ongoing.

In addition, PPAs were active in supporting other CEP activities and facilitating inputs from the general public and stakeholders group. The PPA Russia reported her efforts to facilitate the advertisement of the WB CEP Matched Small Grants Program among her contacts and partners. In particular, she pointed out that, further to the interest expressed by the Administration of the Astrakhan region, she helped mediate between local parties concerned at the initial stage and organized a training workshop on project proposal writing with support from the World Bank. As a result, a number of good-quality projects were submitted (and selected in November 2001), enhancing the involvement of important stakeholders into CEP activities.

Finally, the CCGs were an opportunity to bring together various local stakeholders group.

In Tonekabon, there was only one active environmental NGO, which was in fact a newly established one, and automatically became the permanent member of the local CCG. The other members consisted of: - the councilmen of the Aghoozkaleh village (the target area) - the representatives of the districts health center - the local DOE’s manager - 3 professors of the local university - the chairman of the Tonekabon Islamic City Council - village people (several men and few women) Extract from PPA Iran final report

6. Difficulties encountered

The PPAs were unfamiliar with UNDP procedures at first and it took some time and much support from the UNDP country offices to have limited activities like travel and missions secured for the PPAs. UN regulations and procedures with regards to funding and contracting out remained a challenge for all of the PPAs, also very time consuming, all the more as, except for Azerbaijan, the PPAs were geographically located far from the UNDP office and could not easily access support and seek clarification. Whether it is the complexity of the procedures, the reluctance of the PPAs to engage in administrative matters, and/or the limited support available to them for these matters (likely, a combination of all of these factors), few activities were contracted out to local partners. Except in Azerbaijan where the PPA was greatly supported by the PCU, as far as the consultant is aware, no fund earmarked directly for PPA activities was either requested by the PPAs or channeled to them (from budgeted and available funds in PA national activities, training workshops, or CCG meetings). PPAs operated solely within their monthly allocation of $100 to discharge with the activities. It is all the more intriguing, as PPAs repeatedly confirmed the need in these countries for a) raising awareness and b) conducting training in project preparation.

The effort showed that most NGOs in the area are desperately in need of project identification and proposal preparation trainings. Extract from PPA Iran final report “Training for project proposal writing appeared to be the most complicated task for the covered period. The CCG proponents proved to be inexperienced in this field; no training workshops had been held before despite the fact ISAR, ROLL and other international programs/agencies are active in the region. Some materials available to PPA were outdated and training was done mainly on the basis of guidelines provided in CCG ToR. Again, despite rather high educational capacities of the proponents, they sometimes fail to present clearly their targets and outputs in terms of PA/PP objectives set for the small grant program. The original idea to conduct workshop for the whole group of proponents had to be replaced by individual work with each of them and was extremely time-consuming” Extract from Russian QPR3

Late contracting of the small projects has led to a number of frustration, impatience and stress – project implementation was delayed (and most of the small projects only started in early 2002) and then implementation time shortened to meet the end of May02 completion deadline. By end of February 2002, all small contracts had been approved and signed (including those selected in November 2001), except for Iran where, by April 2002, contracting arrangements for the two small projects were still not finalized and the two selected grants had to be cancelled.

Additional difficulties, both in terms of logistics and local context have been identified. These should be taken into consideration as constraints and addressed effectively when developing a programme of technical assistance in this area. They include:

• Difficulties with office set up, logistics and communication have been reported as “ time-consuming”, leading to frustration and problems.

• The lack of handy information and PA support materials on CEP and environmental issues in general. PPAs reported that collecting information (in particular for groundtruthing studies) has proved difficult, in particular in countries where data is not readily organized or available.

• PPAs confirmed that setting up CCGs and maintaining the momentum has proved demanding, requiring sheer dedication and constant contact and availability. The exercise also raised the issue of sustainability and raised expectations.

• Some of the government authorities maintained a generally skeptical attitude towards the eco NGO's, reluctantly engaging in collaboration and dialogue.

• “language”: CEP documents were mainly in English or Russian. For sharing with local stakeholders, little is available in the local language. The situation is particularly important in the case of Iran.

• In most of the countries, institutions do not have easy access to Internet and other communication tools, including limited or poor telephone lines. Electronic information therefore can not be the only means of distributing information. Certainly, the radio and user-friendly printed materials (in local languages) carry much impact in the region.

• A number of NGOs and institutions in the region simply do not have bank accounts, especially bank accounts for foreign currency.

Finally, with regards to the preparation and implementation of small project proposals, it should be noted that the role of the PPAs in itself was a challenge. PPAs were only supposed to support and assist the identification and preparation of project proposals, the appraisal of these and their selection was to remain in the hands of the CCGs and of the selection committee. However, for various reasons, the CCGs did not take on that role and the PPAs often ended up being the ones to suggest ideas, help translate these into activities, assist in the preparation of the proposals and also appraise the projects and monitor their implementation.

7. Recommendations

The following is a set of recommendations, stemming either from the PPAs (Quarterly Progress Reports, PPA final reports) or from the consultant. These should be considered as “lessons learned” and taken into consideration when designing follow up programmes to raise public awareness and participation in environmental management.

a) In terms of expertise, the fielding of the PPAs certainly proved effective in reaching out to the local stakeholders and a similar approach is recommended in the future. To enhance their effectiveness, a few suggestions are proposed:

• To remain credible and gain the trust and confidence of all stakeholders, PPAs need to remain independent, reporting directly to the Programme Coordinator but also liaising closely and informing the authorities;

• PPAs should be provided with additional training (formal training) to improve their skills in facilitation/moderation, local community planning and development, project identification and preparation; also, exposure to practices carried out in other countries would be useful (e.g. Eastern Europe);

• Most of the PPAs worked in geographic isolation; they had difficulty accessing support (logistics, technical and substantial inputs) and feeling part of a “network” and of a regional programme. More should be done to involve them in CEP activities, bring them together more often and have them participate in regional activities.

b) From reviewing the few monthly monitoring reports and the final reports received for the small projects, one would agree that the small grants helped much in strengthening the operations of the local/national stakeholders groups. It is regrettable though that little creativity and originality prevailed in these activities and few of the contractors carried out concrete demonstrative actions addressing local problems and issues. It seems that what was carried out is more like 'business as usual', i.e. a set of traditional awareness and educational activities with seminars and activities work with school clubs. The small projects should also try to go beyond the public awareness activities and seek to support concrete and tangible actions.

c) Identifying stakeholders, bringing them together, guiding the participatory planning process and maintaining the interest and the motivation of the concerned individuals, all of this required a lot of effort and dedication from the PPAs, it clearly became the most demanding task.

In the context of the CCGs, approaching government authorities and/or private sector representatives can be difficult. They may not welcome the initiative and may be reluctant in taking part in participatory exercises with NGOs and local associations. Their participation is however crucial. Success in this area will then depend considerably on being able to gather good backing from influential persons (experts, decision makers or industry leaders). Support from CEP in this area would be essential. Extract from Russia APR1

In Iran, but also to another extent in Russia, the participatory process that was carried out as close probably as possible to the original objective of the workplan. Such a process requires support and backing from the central authorities and from CEP. Also, it is clear that such a process requires long term support. The process initiated by CEP has demonstrated that the interest exists and that common solutions can be found to local problems. Follow up programmes of assistance should build on the Concern Groups already set up and extend continued support to facilitate the consultation and the local planning processes (meetings, study tours, capacity building).

The issue of sustainability of these Concern Groups should be addressed. For long term viability, the gatherings (whether it is an informal group, a network or a forum of NGOs and local stakeholders) should be empowered both in terms of institutional strengthening and in terms of capacity building, i.e. through training, regional and international linkages, equipment, study tours, local government support, etc.

d) Though the Caspian Bulletin was useful as a PA tool, the PPAs recommend that it be discontinued and/or that CEP feed information to a well established and professional newsletter. At the same time, CEP should consider recruiting environmentally-sensitive professional media services in each of the countries to further reach out to the people through the appropriate media channels (radio, TV, printed).

e) Additional support to the production and distribution of CEP PA materials is recommended. At present, there are but few visual aids and friendly booklets used for environmental education in the region; those applied in schools are outdated and are not “regionally-oriented”. Also, it would seem most useful to have relevant CEP and PA materials available in each of the Caspian languages and tailored to the needs of the public in each country.

f) Increased cooperation with other partners and donors’ activities to try to expand relations with other donors and develop and implement some of the joint PA projects;

g) To help PPAs deal more efficiently with UN administrative procedures, short briefings and training should be provided to them from the start of their work (including clarification of the procedures, forms and reporting)

h) Finally, as a regional GEF project, a part of the PA/PP workplan was to focus on incrementality and regional sharing and learning. But it became evident that much effort is needed at the national level to strengthen civil society’s awareness and participation in environmental management before being able to mobilize their interest in sharing experience and resources regionally.

As such, it is recommended that public awareness/public participation projects be designed and carried out in each of the Caspian countries. Elements of such projects could include:

• capacity building activities for the NGOs and local concern groups;

• small grants facility;

• activities for raising public awareness;

• incentives to encourage partnerships between the NGOs, the private sector, local authorities and partner international agencies to develop and/or participate in public awareness programs;

• environmental outreach programs developed and implemented for local and provincial authorities;

• local environmental information incorporated in the educational programs of the coastal provinces;

• available media channels used for dissemination of environmental information and knowledge;

• publicity materials prepared locally.

Seed funds should be extended to help further identify and design national PA/PP programmes in each of the countries and initiate contacts with possible funding agencies.

List of Annexes

Annex 1 : Methodology

Annex 2: Sample TOR of the PPAs

Annex 3: Indicators of performance

Annex 4: Assessment of the implementation of PA/PP activities against the workplan

Annex 5: List of documents available

Annex 1: workplan

Caspian Environmental Programme

Public Awareness/Public Participation workplan (CEP-PA/PP)

September 2000 – September 2002

1. Preambles

1. “ 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)…

The CEP Public Awareness and Involvement component is being led by GEF and supported by EU/TACIS; its objective is to obtain broad-based participation by the general public, private sector associations (especially the oil and gas companies), academic and research institutions, local and regional government, NGOs, teacher associations and local community groups in the development of the TDA/NCAP/SAP planning process. The means of achieving this objective proposed in the project document is through the establishment of a NGO Caspian forum, at which key stakeholders and particularly effective NGO’s can be brought together to strategize and discuss common issues. In addition, to the establishment of a NGO forum the project document recommends establishing a small grants programme tied to the recommendations of CEP at the TDA stage.

Both these methods, the NGO forum and the small grants programme, have been tested in earlier GEF International Waters programmes, for example, the Danube and the Black Sea programmes, with varying degrees of success. The NGO forums can be successful but they have a tendency to become self-seeking bodies, detached from their constituencies. Small grants programmes can be effective but it is important that they are well focused at preferably the local level.

In the Caspian Sea there is already an NGO forum, established in 1998 by the International NGO ISAR under project supported by USAID. The CEP is supporting the participation of Iranian NGO representatives in this forum, since they are not eligible for support from USAID. There is therefore no point in CEP establishing a second competing body and it has been decided to remove this activity from the Public Awareness and Involvement Objective (VH). As an alternative it has been suggested that CEP could support instead the establishment of Agenda 21 focus groups on the coast, similar to those in the Baltic, to bring together all the stakeholders in selected coastal communities to identify the local environmental problems associated with the Caspian and develop action plans addressing the root causes. CEP would support the establishment of the groups, the cost of meetings, development of an action plan, publicity and, depending on the funds available, support a small grants programme.

Organisation and logistic support for the Agenda 21 Focus groups will be provided by full-time local public participation officers (PPO) employed by the UNDP and located at the coast. These five posts will replace the one full-time international post who was to be located in the PCU.” (extract from Annex 1 of the TOR for CEP PP Advisor)

2. Elements of Background

1. In the Caspian, the private sector is an important stakeholder in the CEP, their involvement has been sought in several components of the GEF project, including the area of Emergency Response (Oil and Gas sector, int. banking communities). There also exists a Confederation of Entrepreneurs in Azerbaijan and similar organizations in Caspian countries, interested in cooperating in some ways. The nature and scope of their further involvement in the project would need to be defined.

2. A number of CEP countries are signatory to the Aarhus Convention - UN-ECE Guidelines on Access to Environmental Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making, in particular Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. The development of public awareness and public participation principles and tools, institutionalized into the decision-making system, must be encouraged. The reference to the UN-ECE process could serve as useful stimulus and could be looked into.

3. Local Agenda 21 groups and local sustainable development plans are being developed in other parts of the world, including the Baltic (“Baltic Local Agenda 21 Forum”³). Similarly other experiences, such as the establishment of local “interest groups” addressing a particular area and/or issue have been looked at before with varying degrees of success. It will be important to review the activities and successes/problems of these efforts and evaluate how and to what extent these can best be adapted in the context of the Caspian, for effective outcomes. Also, exchanges between the different “seas” could be encouraged to facilitate lessons learned and exposure (Baltic has advanced experience in local agenda 21 and NGO networks, Aral Sea and Red Sea programmes are in the process of establishing PA/PP activities to support programme objectives. Linkages may be developed.

4. Various tools have been tried to encourage the participation of the society in developmental/ environmental programmes: small grants, newsletters and public awareness activities, study tours, exchange of information through websites, etc. Above all, it is recommended that tools employed within the framework of the Caspian Environmental Programme would need to a) encourage cooperation among organisations (transborder or national, within or across sectors), b) integrate training and capacity building, as and when relevant, c) include monitoring of results and efforts, and sharing.

3. Objectives of the CEP-PA/PP programme (as per project document)

1. The project document confirms, in the cover page, that “institutional framework, capacity building, public awareness, and stakeholder involvement are but key tools to fulfill one of the three ultimate goals of the project – development of a regional coordination mechanism”. It calls for an end-of-project situation as:

• strong regional institutional framework to enhance stakeholders communication, cooperation and coordination to address transboundary env. impacts.

• Increased PA and support for regional environmental issues. Enhanced overall effectiveness of environmental awareness programmes through the organisation of concerted region-wide activities, and exchange of lessons learned through an active regional network of NGOs and community groups.

2. These will form the overarching objective of the PA/PP workplan. Deriving from this, it is suggested that outputs be spelled out as:

1. Increased visibility of the CEP and awareness of Caspian Environmental issues

3. Proposed activities will be implemented in each of the five countries, along a similar structure and format to allow for consolidation and exchange of lessons and experience. The present document specifies indicators and tools to monitor progress against targets. Technical reporting will be consolidated on a regional basis (see paragraph 8 – monitoring)

It is envisaged that, in year two, the work will increasingly focus on developing the exchange, sharing and networking among the coastal groups and across borders.

Activities implemented will contribute to the above results but retain enough flexibility to:

1. take advantage of particular strengths and opportunities in each countries (with regard to the public participation context) when developing activities;

2. complement and support the ongoing CEP thematic programmes and identify windows where participation of non-government actors can be encouraged;

3. build capacity for sustainability of PA/PP initiatives, i.e. to include financial security (further commitments from private sector, foundations and donors), institutional capacity (training, coaching, networking).

4. Elements of a 2-year workplan

The results and activities over the two-year period are proposed as follows (see logframe and workplan in table 1 and table 2, respectively)

Output 1: Increased Visibility of the CEP and awareness of Caspian Environmental issues (leading officer)

Though it is envisaged that most of the PA work will be undertaken by NGOs themselves through Concern Groups activities, it is proposed that the CEP initiate a) information exchange, and b) production of CEP support materials. It is also proposed that individual PPA be provided with some flexibility to initiate PA work with selected target groups in their country.

PPAs will be instrumental in a) consolidating the PA/PP experiences of CEP and other programmes in the Caspian and b) developing links with other networks and experiences. It is envisaged that PPAs would be able to connect with international forums and programmes.

Activity 1.1 on a monthly basis, to publish and distribute a regional email bulletin (TurPPA)

PPAs will collect publicly available information about environmental issues relevant to CEP, add news from activity centers and CEP activities and allow NGOs and other stakeholders to present their views and efforts. It is proposed that one PPA be responsible for the timely collection of information from the four other PPAs and ensure the preparation, design and distribution of the email bulletin.

Activity 1.2 to enhance the effectiveness and outreach of the CEP website (AzPPA)

Bulletin information could be channeled to the website.

Responsibility for maintaining and updating the website will be located at the PCU and it is recommended that the AzPPA be responsible for that activity, liaising with the activity centers and other programme components as appropriate.

Activity 1.3: to produce and disseminate a set of publicity materials (posters, calendars, pens, etc.), press releases in support of CEP activities, and a programme brochure (AzPPA)

Based at the PCU, it is recommended that a set of support materials be promptly developed, to serve as presentation and visuals for CEP. It has been suggested that 1) a CEP brochure or leaflet and 2) pens and notepads be prepared first. Other materials could follow.

Activity 1.4: Based on analysis in 3.1 and particular strengths and opportunities in the country, to identify up to two target groups and develop focused cooperation activities (each PPA)

This activity is provided so that PPAs are able to take advantage of particular opportunities in the country, also building on the PPA respective strength in a subject. Each PPA will have identified particular groups or stakeholders in the country to work with and/or selected an event (like a TV programme) that is of particular interest. The cooperation could be formalized in the form of a partnership agreement. The objective will be to develop specific PA projects, not necessarily in relation to the coastal area group activities, but encouraging cooperation across the region. As example, there may be opportunities to cooperate closely with the private sector in Baku and develop a joint training exercise with them, extending to participants from Russia; there may be good ground for involvement in the formal education system in Astrakhan, with teachers training kits developed with and then made available to Kazak schools.

Each PPA will identify a target stakeholder, develop and propose a plan of action (tent. by Feb.01), and, upon endorsement by CEP (see proposed reporting system below), facilitate the implementation of the activities (March-Dec.01). It is proposed that no more than two stakeholders/groups be identified, for the activity to remain manageable.

It is expected that this type of activity could generate interest from donors and private companies. CEP funding would serve as seed money; complementary funding and in-kind support/collaboration would be sought to enlarge the scope and implementation of the activity, in particular in so far as sharing the lessons and products with other countries, extending the number of published copies, etc.

Output 2: Strengthened cooperation among coastal actors through implementation of demonstrative actions and PA projects

The objective here is to foster cooperation among local actors and facilitate the implementation of concrete actions on the coast. The idea is that coastal Caspian Concern Groups (CCG) would be established in representative municipalities, which are faced with a set of problems similar to the thematic issues identified by CEP. For reasons of logistics, travel difficulties and resource availability, it is suggested that a maximum of two municipalities be selected. The 5 to 10 areas would each have, ideally, a different key concern (whether water pollution for one, tourism for the other or fish stock depletion for again an other). The process should then lead to a) relevant projects being implemented which could be viewed as case studies, b) responsible actors from the concern groups invited to participate in CEP activities (TDA, NCAP, SAP). Finally, it is envisaged that, if the process works well, there could be significant follow-up in the form of networking among the coastal concern groups, and associated activities developed such as local municipality twinning arrangements or extension of the exercise to other municipalities.

Local authorities will be encouraged to participate in that process.

Activity 2.1: to prepare guidelines for the set up and management of selected “coastal Caspian Concern (agenda 21) Groups” (2-3 max per country)

Activity 2.2: to identify, for each country, selected areas, initiate contacts and develop a course of action / workplan.

Activity 2.3: to schedule a series of meetings that will a) discuss the nature and scope of the problems, b) agree on the agenda for priorities & activities.

(Local Plan of Action with priority setting developed for selected coastal areas)

Activity 2.4: to facilitate the development of activities and provide support/training for the preparation of project proposals, as and when appropriate

(including development of a capacity building programme for development and implementation of small PA projects)

Activity 2.5: to develop and implement a grants programme to support implementation of agenda items (see procedures and criteria in Annex 4)

Guidelines for this output 2, including the mobilization of the Coastal Concern Groups, the modalities for the small grants program and the management of the activity are spelled out in Annex 4.

The small projects should foster increased public awareness of the Caspian issues through effective demonstrative interventions addressing a) environmental impacts and/or b) supporting development/implementation of local (agenda 21) plans. Coalition and cooperative work will be one of the conditions of the grants.

Output 3: strengthened participation of civil society and other stakeholders in CEP strategies and planning

Activity 3.1 to prepare national and regional ground truthing studies

Each of the PPAs will be doing “homework” in the first few months upon his/her recruitment, reviewing and familiarizing him/her-self with the conditions and context in the country, with the work of NGOs, etc. It is suggested that this work be structured as short national studies and collated into regional reports. The outputs will serve, not only to pave the way for further actions and interventions of the CEP PA/PP programme in the next months/years but also to input into the ongoing CEP and governments’ processes.

Background documentation, reviews and studies are probably already available in the countries, in one form or another. The task will be one of identifying and compiling this information, analyzing the documents, pulling out from the interviews and consultations with NGOs and partners and harmonizing the analysis across the countries.

It is proposed that the studies consist in:

• Identification and evaluation of key stakeholders (identify those activities of relevance to CEP, strengths and weaknesses of the organization, appreciation of the problems of the Caspian and PPA recommendations vis a vis opportunities for collaboration)

• Report on the status of transparency and PP in environmental matters in CEP countries, based on an examination of both laws and actual practices in the 5 countries, using a common questionnaire and methodology.

• Researching the implementation of environmental legislation, conventions and agreements;

• Monitoring and evaluating the existing levels of PP and identifying ongoing needs, trends and problems, outlining ways to improve the legal framework and other preconditions for public involvement on both national and international levels

• Evaluation of the development of National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs) and activities within the NEAP that invite partnerships with NGOs (highlighting gaps in the NEAP process; identifying obstacles to their effective implementation)

• Survey on spread of Environmental Management Systems among private businesses and industries (standardisation and accreditation issues, environmental labelling and reporting, certification, responsible care programmes, etc.)

Detailed Terms of Reference for the studies are attached as Annex 1 to this document.

Activity 3.2: To channel and encourage involvement of NGOs (in particular members of the coastal Caspian Concern Groups) into CEP TDA, NCAP and SAP

PPAs and representative from coastal communities and stakeholders will be encouraged to participate in the TDA, NCAP and SAP process, in particular providing inputs as case studies and demonstrated initiatives, sharing views and ideas at the meetings & workshops, and bringing in local perspective to the TDA analysis and the preparation of Strategic Action Plans.

5. Time schedule

The two-year programme is broadly divided into three phases:

The attached Figure 1 graphically synthesizes the components and flow of the PA/PP activities.

6. Scope of work of the PPAs and coordination

Each PPA is to further develop national activities as these relate to the present regional workplan for PA/PP. It is important that activities are consolidated at the regional level for greater impact; as such, national efforts will need to closely adhere to the objectives, timing and implementation modalities of the workplan. However, it is understood that each of the PPAs will implement activities with the necessary flexibility to adjust to national practices and conditions and take advantage of opportunities, as these arise.

It is also requested that the PPA closely liaise with the National Focal Point and with the CRTCs in his/her country, develop PA/PP activities in support of ongoing CEP national activities, and, generally, ensure integration of PA/PP activities within CEP objectives and efforts.

Detailed activities/priorities for the PPAs for Sept.00-July.01

See attached Annex 2

Coordination mechanism

As spelled out in their Terms Of Reference, each of the PPAs “work under the supervision of and reports to the Programme Coordinator within the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) which is located in Baku”. Overall supervision and coordination, and administrative and logistics issues will be with the Programme Coordinator at the PCU.

The PPA will be liaising with the National Focal Point and CRTCs located in his/her country, providing them with copies of the progress reports and keeping them informed of the progress in the implementation of activities. Whenever possible and opportune, the PPAs will seek their inputs, in particular for contribution to the email bulletin, support to workshops and meetings, and/or technical advice and recommendations. PPAs are to discuss the development of national workplan and country-tailored activities with the National Focal Point and, as feasible and effective, consider carrying out activities in support of ongoing or planned CEP national activities, for maximum impacts.

Each of the PPAs holds responsibility for implementation of specific activities: Azerbaijan PPA for activity 1.2 and 1.3, Turkmenistan PPA for activity 1.1, xxPPA for support to activities 2.3 to 2.6, Turkmenistan PPA for consolidation of reports under 3.1. As such, it is expected that PPAs maintain close communication with the responsible PPA for each activity, provide timely reports and feedback and comments whenever required.

Overall technical coordination will be provided by the International PPA Consultant.

Prog. Coordinator

NFP, CRTC

International PPA Consultant

PPAs are expected to closely monitor the implementation of small projects (under output 2), and ensure adequate reporting from the implementing organizations. Shortly before completion of the small projects, an evaluation will be carried out (for activity 1.4 and 2.6). The evaluation will be conducted by one of the PPAs (on a rotational basis, e.g. the PPA from Azerbaijan evaluating the projects in Kazakhstan, etc.), accompanied by an “independent” representative (to be determined).

7. Inputs and budget

Activity 1.1: small funding will be available to enable PPAs to subscribe to relevant press releases and information if need be, purchase reference books and documents, as required. For administrative purposes, these expenses are to be included in “operational cost” (see below).

Activity 1.3: Funds will be made available for the development of CEP awareness materials, translation into the Caspian languages as appropriate and dissemination.

Activity 1.4: a total of US$7,000 will be made available to each PPA upon submission and clearance of a plan of action. It is anticipated that PPAs would be able to raise additional funding from local sources to complement CEP seed contribution.

Activity 2.3: Up to US$4,000 will be made available to each PPA to mobilize meetings of the concern groups (it is expected that, at least 2 meetings would be convened per concern group; and it is recommended that no more than 2 concern groups be set up by each PPA).

Activity 2.4: Up to US$4,000 will be made available to each PPA to provide training, coaching and appropriate support to the preparation of project proposals. In cases, small financial support could be extended to an organization to cover travel, preparatory meeting or other costs necessary for the preparation of the project proposal.

Activity 2.5: A total of US$70,000 for the five countries will be made available for small projects. The project proposals will be evaluated jointly by the five PPAs, together with the International PPA Consultant and an independent evaluator (International PPA Consultant to identify: e.g. Red Sea PPA, Aral Sea PPA, REC, etc.)

In addition to the above activity expenses, budget support will have to be provided for operational costs and in-country travel. These expenses, not directly linked to specific PA/PP activities, relate to PPAs carrying out their tasks and operating effectively in the coastal areas.

The International PPA Consultant discussed with the CEP-PCU and arranged for most appropriate administrative arrangements for budgeting, requesting and transferring funds to cover all of the work and activities. PPAs will prepare 3-month budget plans highlighting needs for a) operational costs, b) in-country travel, if any, and c) activities.

8. Monitoring

PPAs will provide a short and concise Quarterly Progress Report to the International PPA Consultant and the CEP Programme Coordinator: end of December 2000, end of March 2001, end of June 2001, end of September 2001, end of December 2001, etc. (see format in Annex 3). The reporting will attempt to highlight a) results achieved and b) lessons learned & recommendations. Lessons learned and recommendations from the report will be shared among the PPAs (section 6). Extract of the reports will be consolidated by the International PPA Consultant and integrated into the CEP regular progress reports.

In addition, the regional PPA workshops will be the opportunity to yearly discuss progress and problems.

Figures and tables:

• Figure 1: Diagram of the programme activities

• Table 1: Logframe - Public Awareness / Public Participation Programme

• Table 2: Workplan - Public Awareness / Public Participation Programme

Annexes:

• Annex 1: TORs for the studies (Activity 3.1)

• Annex 2: Detailed activities for the period September 00 – March 01

• Annex 3: Format for Quarterly Progress Report

• Annex 4: Guidelines for set up of coastal Caspian Concern Groups (including notes on coaching and training elements) and Guidelines for small grants (Activity 2.1 to 2.6)

Figure 1

Broader stakeholder involvement in and awareness of the environmental problems of the Caspian and activities of the CEP, both nationally and regionally

1. Increased visibility of the CEP and awareness of Caspian Environmental issues

2.1 Guidelines for set up and management of selected “Caspian Coastal Concern Group” Draft end-Oct./Final mid-Dec.

3.1 National ground truthing studies

end Jan.

1.4: up to 2 target groups identified and plan of activities developed.

By Feb

Endorsed by CEP March

2.2 Selected areas identified

Compilation of Regional reports

2.3 Concern Groups meetings

1. Caspian Env. issues Jan-Feb

2. Priority agenda March

mid-Feb.

3.2 Involvement of NGOs (in particular, members of the coastal Caspian Concern Groups) into CEP TDA, NCAP and SAP encouraged

1.4 coop. activities implemented

April – Dec.01

Evaluation report

2.4 preparation of project proposals

end June

2.5 selection & award of grants

early July

2.6 Implementation of selected projects (July 01 – July 02)

Evaluation of projects

Table 1: Public Awareness / Public Participation Programme - Logframe

Table 2: Public Awareness / Public Participation Programme - Workplan

Annex 1

Terms of Reference – ground truthing studies

1. Stakeholders analysis (5 to 10 pages maximum):

From face to face interviews and visits, review of existing documentation and comments from associated partners and experts, the PPA is to prepare an analysis of the nature and conditions of the various stakeholders involved in or concerned with environmental issues. The national reports will be compiled into a regional study. Ultimately, the work would also be useful for identifying potential partners for involvement in the various stages of CEP implementation.

These groups of stakeholders would likely include:

• Non-Governmental Organizations and Civil-Based Organizations (NGOs and CBOs)

• Private and business sectors (individual companies or association of businesses)

• Media channels (press, TV, radio)

• Local government authorities (mayors’ office, pollution inspectorates, water works authorities)

• Coastal stakeholders: tourism operators, urban developers, protected areas management bodies, environmentalists

• Professional groups and associations (fishermen, hunters, etc.)

• Other (To Be Determined)

For each of these groups, the PPA will:

1. identify the key actors, as appropriate;

2. present a summary analysis (1/2 page max) for that group;

3. prepare a factsheet for each of the key actors identified above (max. 1/2 page per organization), based on information gathered and his/her own analysis.

It is recommended that the individual national report be structured as follows:

• overall presentation of the country/area in terms of development of civil society movement, emerging environmental issues - 1 page max.

• For each group of stakeholder, a brief analysis (how many, who they are, trends over the past 5 years, etc.) – ½ page max.

• For each key actor/stakeholder, a ½-1 page factsheet. The factsheet will consist in:

Name of the organization (in both national language and in English) : __________

Postal address: Year of registration:

Contact person: Number of members:

Tel/fax/email contacts: Number of permanent staff, if any:

Languages: Publications:

Computer and other equipment:

Nature of the projects (education, research, petitions, campaigns, clean up actions, etc.)

Key activities over the past 2-3 years (brief description of the key activities in reference to environmental care, environmental conservation, public awareness raising):

Strengths and weaknesses of the method(s) of work (PPA short analysis):

• legitimacy vis a vis the local communities / roots and connection to the local issues;

• extent of partnerships, with NGOs, Government sectors, local authorities, private sector, scientific institutions, etc. - and/or with other countries;

• skills and experience in project management, i.e. project design, monitoring and evaluation

2. Status of Public Participation in the concerned area (oblast, region, coastal area) (5 to 10 pages maximum)

The following documents are suggested as reference materials and for proper definition of the terms and explanation of the principles (accessible on the internet at www.rec.org):

• Doors to Democracy, current trends and practices in Public Participation in Environmental Decision making in Newly Independent States, REC for Central and Eastern Europe, June 1998

• Manual on Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making, REC for Central and Eastern Europe, 1994

The report involves an examination of both laws and actual practices in the area, using a common questionnaire and methodology. It will consist of four chapters:

1. Researching the legal and institutional framework for access to information and public participation in decision making (environmental legislation, conventions and agreements, EIA, etc.);

2. Giving a couple of practical examples of how Public Participation has been effectively used during one or several of the various phases of a decision making process (public hearing for a particular project or development, EIA, policy or legislation proposal, etc.)

3. Evaluation of the development of National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs) and activities within the NEAP that invite partnerships with NGOs (highlighting gaps in the NEAP process; identifying obstacles to their effective implementation)

4. Conclusions as to progress and trends in enhancing PP in decision making, possibly outlining ways to improve the legal framework and other preconditions for public involvement on both national and local levels

For chapter 1, it is suggested that you use the attached questionnaire as guidelines. Research and responses to the questions would enable you to assess the institutional framework for public participation. Most importantly you should come across concrete examples which you are asked to spell out. For this part, you could divide your analysis into three: access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Please keep in mind that this questionnaire is a frame of reference and may not be totally relevant to your country and/or situations. Adjust and adapt it as you see fit.

Chapter 2 builds upon chapter 1 and asks you to develop a couple of practical examples.

Chapter 3 simply looks at the latest Environmental Action Plan or Environmental Strategy developed for the area and/or country. Review the document to identify the scope of public participation in it.

Finally, in chapter 4, you are asked to provide your own analysis as to the trends and progress in public participation in decision making.

3. Survey on spread of Environmental Management Systems among (private) businesses and industries (5 pages maximum)

This shorter report proposes to look at special activities of business and industries in implementing environmental management principles and tools.

It is suggested that you identify at least a couple of larger companies and investigate their activities and efforts vis a vis:

• Conserving energy

• Conserving water

• Recycling

• Supporting neighboring communities efforts in environmental protection and community development

• Adopting clean technology systems for cleaner production

• Environmental labeling and reporting

• Certification

• Responsible care programmes

• Standardization and accreditation issues (ISO process with EU)

• Etc.

You should also look at whether there exist government incentives and/or obligations for businesses to adopt environmental management systems (EMS).

Kindly give concrete examples.

Status of Public Participation in the concerned area (oblast, region, coastal area)

legal and institutional framework for access to information and

public participation in decision making

Questionnaire

General

2. Right to Information and Environmental Information:

• The right is based in the constitution (special paragraph in the Constitution)

• A specific law regulates access to information

• The country has signed the Aarhus/UN-ECE “ Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters” of June 1998 and or acceded/ratified the following relevant international conventions which contain the norms on access to environmental decision making (e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context – Espoo, 96; Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents – Helsinki, 96; Vienna Convention on Ozone Layer, 1985; CBD, Rio, 1992; CITES, Washington, 1973, etc.)

• There is no right

Comment: ____________________________

Access to Information

3. Is there a definition of “environmental information” in current legislation ? what is it?

4. Passive Provision of information and/or environmental information from authorities, upon requests from citizens or NGOs:

• Public authorities are obliged to provide information and/or environmental information

• Businesses are obliged to provide information, unless classification as commercial secrets

• What is the time frame for provision of information and/or environmental information (time limits to a written request): _____________ (7, 10, 15, 30 days?)

• Public Authority can refuse a request to provide information for the following reasons:

• Commercial confidentiality

• Personal confidentiality

• National defense

• National security (Please tick as appropriate)

• National secret

• Economic secret

• Other: __________

5. What are the costs of information?

• Reasonable charges

• Costs cover only copying of information

• Free of charge

• High costs which can be an obstacle

6. Active provision of information: what environmental reports are being made available to the public?

• reports on the state of the environment;

• draft texts of legislation on or related to the environment;

• policies, plans or programmes on or related to the environment;

• international environmental agreements;

• EIAs of proposed development projects (made available by whom? the developer or a government agency?)

• other: ______________________________

7. Are there local NGOs in the country, which can actively promote the distribution of environmental information? Are there special editions of the newspapers or special newspapers (local, national) dedicated to environmental issues? _________________________________

8. Is there an obligation from businesses, industries and/or private sector to provide information to the public authorities?? What information ?? (e.g. emissions into the air or water, proposed development or construction project) ________________________________________

Public Participation

9. Right to participate in decision making

• The right is declared in the constitution. Please quote and analyze.

• Public hearings are mandatory for all projects EIA

10. How can the public participate in decision making?

• Public is asked to participate in national and local referendums on environmental issues

• Public can send individual and joint petitions to the state bodies and local governments

• Members of the public or of NGOs may be invited to participating in the discussions on law drafting

• Members of the public can make suggestions and requiring the banning of construction, operation , reconstruction, or exploitation of the objects adversely affecting the environment and human health, through EIA process (through public hearing, request from citizens upon review of report, etc.)

• EIA legislation requires public hearings

Give examples: ____________________________________________________________

11. Who can participate in the different types of decisions on preparation and approval of:

• National laws and regulations

• National policies, plans and programs

• Local rules and regulations

• Local policies, plans and programmes

• Land-use plans

• EIA

(everyone, affected/interested public, NGO, other)

12. Please comment on whether and to what extent the public shares the power to decide.

Access to Justice

13. Is there a right (in the Constitution) for members of the public to appeal to Justice and to the court for decisions, actions and/or failure of state bodies (or local authorities) causing environmental and/or health damage? Give an example of such a court case.

14. Is there a right (in the Constitution) for members of the public to appeal to Justice and to the court against polluters? Give an example of such a court case.

Annex 2

Detailed activities/priorities

Sept.00-March.01

Activity 3.1 Preparation of reports on a) stakeholders, b) PP conditions and c) EMS and businesses (see TOR in Annex 1).

• Interviews and research

• Preparation of national reports by end Jan. 01

• Consolidation of national reports into regional studies by mid-Feb. 01

PPA Turkmenistan will take the lead in consolidating the reports. Kindly forward your national reports (electronic English copy) to him when available and at the latest by the end of January 2001. PPA Turkmenistan will share the draft regional document with all of the PPAs, myself and the PCU for comments prior to finalizing the regional report.

Activity 1.1 Email bulletin. A first edition of the email bulletin (in English and Russian) will be prepared for early January 2001. Each of the PPAs is to provide the Turkmenistan PPA with bullet points and short narratives.

Activity 1.2 Website. A first run of the new, improved and edited website will be launched in January 2001.

Activity 1.3 CEP PA materials. It was agreed that the CEP brochure will be the first PA material prepared. The Azerbaijan PPA will be leading this activity and prepare a mock brochure in January 2001. The brochure will include narrative about the project on one side and a descriptive and educational map on the other side. The brochure will be prepared in 3 languages to start with: Russian, English and Farsi, and tentatively be made available for distribution by March 2001. The other priority PA materials agreed to by the team are: pens and notepads/blocnotes.

Activity 2.2 Upon review of conditions and actors in the coastal area/country, up to two selected coastal areas will be identified. A short report will be prepared by the PPAs by mid-January supporting the selection and highlighting the conditions in that area (stakeholders, nature of the environmental/developmental problems, opportunities, support likely to be provided, interest, etc.) and spelling out the proposed workplan for output 2. The plan will need to be cleared by the International PPA Consultant.

If and when appropriate, a first meeting of the stakeholders of the Concern Group would be convened.

Activity 1.4 Up to two target groups and a plan for selected PA activities will be developed and presented to the International PPA Consultant by the beginning of February 2001. The plan will clearly highlight the opportunities and spell out the objectives, the outputs, the schedule of activities, the parties involved and target beneficiaries, and the budget (see suggested format for presentation of the plan).

Time Schedule

Active work

Preparation/dissemination

Annex 3

Quarterly Progress Report

Format (5 pages maximum + detailed attachments, as appropriate)

Date: _____________________

Public Participation Advisor: __________________________________

Reporting period: __________________________________________

1. Please confirm what were your objectives and targets during this reporting period (please refer to the objectives, results and activities of the Regional PA/PP workplan):

2. Highlight the results achieved during the period (please refer to the objectives, results and activities of the Regional PA/PP workplan and of your own national plan):

3. Describe difficulties encountered and problems (and whether and how these were overcome, if at all):

4. Spell out your targets for the next reporting period:

5. Gender mainstreaming: Please refer to the 2-page policy document forwarded to you on 7 february 2001. Kindly describe initiatives and opportunities when the CEP PA/PP project has facilitated greater gender sensitivity within the activities.

6. Recommendations and lessons learned (please include reference to documents, information or materials which you hold or would know of, and which could be shared with your colleagues and CEP)

7. Please attach:

• statement of expenses incurred during the period (please attach financial statement for past 3 months and budget for next 3 months)

• list of meetings organised and/or attended and key persons met during the reporting period.

Annex 4

Caspian Concern Groups (CCG)

Local Partnerships for Environmental Management

Guidelines for Output 2

Summary

The objective of Output 2 is to demonstrate the effectiveness of cooperation among various partners at the local level for assessing environmental problems and guiding implementation of corrective actions.

The programme proposes to identify up to two coastal areas or municipalities per country, faced with a set of problems and issues. It is envisaged that the identified environmental priorities of these coastal areas will correspond to the thematic working lines of CEP (i.e. tourism and coastal zone management, pollution reduction, fisheries, nature reserve and biodiversity maintenance, etc.).

The exercise will introduce participants/stakeholders to options and possibilities for public participation in decision-making processes at the local or municipal level, including opportunities for implementing joint action projects. Communities would develop their own action plan in order to achieve the goal of sustainable development. Local government(s) would have to be closely associated with the exercise; local authorities play a crucial role for their broad understanding of local economic, social and environmental issues and structures, their access to resources and support, their responsibility to guide the development of the area.

With support and facilitation from CEP, stakeholders will be identified and mobilized within the framework of a Caspian Concern Group. Stakeholders will meet to identify issues and problems, assess and analyze, and prioritize these issues. The group will then agree on an agenda for action, review the strengths and weaknesses of each of the partners and assign responsibilities for advancing the process. Gaps and needs will also be identified. CEP and the PPAs will help address some of these needs, through specific training, coaching, support to small meetings, etc. At the outcome of that process, a set of small project proposals will be prepared which address the problems and issues identified and agreed to. CEP will be able to support the implementation of some of these proposals. A number will be selected through a small grants selection process, the guidelines of which would have been presented to the group earlier on. The Caspian Concern , as a forum, will then be responsible for a) leading the implementation of each of the selected projects, b) monitoring their implementation and c) reporting on the success and problems. PPAs will ensure the overall monitoring and guidance of the process and will evaluate the implementation of the whole exercise. At the time of implementation of the small projects, attention will be put on enhancing the linkages across the region, facilitating lessons learned and sharing. Also, whenever possible, representatives of the Caspian Concern Groups will be invited to participate in CEP activities and processes, as and when appropriate.

Specific tasks

From then on, the document proposes some very specific steps. You are to use these as guidelines and adapt these as they best fit the local situation, taking into consideration local constraints and/or opportunities. You are bound by the outcome, i.e. project proposals by the end of June 2001, a process, i.e. participatory and consultative local cooperation, with capacity building and awareness raising elements, and the budget constraints for each of the activities (2.3 and 2.4).

Step 1: Identification of the Caspian Coastal Areas.

Through interviews, visits and expertise, the PPAs will identify up to 2 coastal areas. The attached sheet (Appendix 1 – identification sheet) will be filled for each of the proposed areas. The PPA would have to engage in initial discussions with a representative of a) the local authorities and b) a local community group (NGO, association, etc.). These initial discussions will serve to present CEP, the PA/PP component and the scope and nature of the Caspian Coastal Group initiative and also to “test” the interest and enthusiasm of the potential partners. The PPA’s appreciation of the conditions (favorable or not) would be spelled out in the identification sheet. More than two areas may have to be surveyed before coming to the final selection of 1 or 2, as it is important to select the coastal areas most likely to respond positively to the challenge.

Step 2: first “round table discussions” (1 day) – assessment of the issue

The objectives of this first meeting are to:

1. introduce the aims of the Caspian Coastal Group and review the background situation and conditions (see proposed outline in Appendix 2) (presented by PPA),

2. discuss the need for additional background information, data and analysis (one of the local representatives – tentatively one consulted in step 1 would present a short “homework” document spelling out the characteristics of the area), and,

3. discuss the issues facing the community. These could include:

• public attitudes and consumption habits

• natural resources available: drinking water, forests, nonrenewables

• waste treatment

• industry

• agriculture

• transportation

• tourism

• municipal services

• other

The issues would be discussed and characterized. At the end of the day, the meeting will have:

1. a list of prioritized issue and their principal features and trends;

2. an agreed workplan for researching background information if needed (members of the Group would be asked to research additional information for the priority issues); and,

3. a date for the next consultative meeting of the Caspian Concern Group and confirmation of a facilitator/moderating member of the Group for facilitating meetings, arrangements, information dissemination, etc. (a small stipend could be provided to that person/organization for this matter).

The meeting would have to be chaired by a member of the Group. It is suggested that this person be from one of the two institutions approached early on in the process and remain the facilitator for the Group, if the Group approves and confirms.

After the meeting, the PPA will prepare a short report highlighting the key discussion items and the conclusion of the meeting. The document will be shared with the other PPAs and the International PPA Consultant (cc. National Focal Point).

Step 3. Second “round table discussion” (1day)

The second Caspian Coastal Group meeting would:

1. Discuss and agree on a 1-year and then 5-year development objective for the area/municipality

2. For each of the issues identified and prioritized (first meeting), agree on a “goal” (example for agriculture, the goal could be: preserve soils from desertification through improving methods of land cultivation). This will be done through a review of the documentation and research done by members of the Group for each of the priority issues, and a discussion on these issues.

3. Present the small grants process.

4. Confirm the steps and workplan up to the submission of project proposals, and fix the date for the next meeting.

This meeting is instrumental in getting the Group to adopt a shared vision for the medium term future (5 years) and agree on priorities for action.

Drawing from 1 and 2 above, at the end of the meeting, there should be a draft document spelling out (5 pages max):

1. the development vision for the area at 5 years

2. a prioritized list of key issues, characterized, with a goal for each of these, and preliminary discussions on options for action to address each of these issues.

Session 3 of that meeting will present the project implementation/small grants process. The PPA will present the general scope for it (taking extract from the Small Grants guidelines – Appendix 6), highlighting the criteria. The criteria will be common for the whole Caspian region.

The Group (brainstorming session) will discuss ideas for project proposals.

The PPA will then ask for project proposal ideas to be submitted to him/her within a 1- to 2-week time (see suggested format in Appendix 3).

Step 4: third meeting for discussion, prioritization and selection of project ideas.

The PPA and the facilitator will convene a third short meeting, when proponents will present their tentative project idea. The Group will review and discuss and agree on a short list of a maximum of 7 project ideas. Project ideas could be grouped and associated.

That meeting will also identify needs for training, meetings and workshops, coaching, etc. to enable the proponent(s) to prepare sound project proposals.

Step 5: development of project proposals

The PPA will have identified training needs (project preparation, problem analysis, community participation, etc.) and necessary steps to bringing the members to a stage where they are able to present a project proposal in a good shape. A format for the project proposals will be given to the proponent (Appendix 4); the format has to be adhered to in all countries, for consistency across the region and easier selection.

Project proposals must be collaborative (involving more than one partner), must address directly an environmental/developmental problem identified by the Group as a priority, and must demonstrate concrete and practical solutions.

The development and preparation of proposals will likely involve training in areas such as:

• problem analysis

• project proposal writing

• designing and implementing public awareness projects

• social partnerships

• budget and financial management (for small projects!)

• team building,

• etc.

A number of organizations are able to provide support to the PPA in this area. Training modules have been designed and tested in the region. In particular, UNDP, the REC, ISAR, Counterpart Consortium, and/or leading NGOs in each of the countries are experienced in this type of training. It is recommended that PPAs take advantage of existing resources in the country and work with these partners to schedule relevant training programme in the Caspian Concern Group areas. Small funding is available for that purpose and will be granted to the PPA upon submission of a brief training plan and budget to PCU/IPPA.

It is recognized that proponents will submit project proposals in their native language. The proposals would need to be translated into English, so that they be easily reviewed by the small grants evaluators. The funding available for this step (activity 2.4) must make provision for this.

Project proposals will have to be submitted to the PPA by 15 June 2001. Proposals will be translated (as soon as they come in); the PPA will ensure dispatch of the translated proposals to the members of the international selection panel (see step 6 below) no later than 20 June 2001.

As a maximum of 7 project ideas would have been adopted by the Group, it is expected that no more than 7 project proposals will be developed per area.

Step 5: fourth meeting – Caspian Concern Group evaluation of project proposals (15-30 June 2001)

At this fourth meeting, the Group will collectively evaluate the project proposals. Each proponent will present his/her project, seeking support from the Group. A simple scoring sheet (Appendix 5), translated into the local language, will be given to each of the participating Group members to evaluate project proposals. The collective evaluation will count for 1/3 of the total scoring of the proposal (the other 2/3 will come from the regional small grants evaluation meeting – scheduled for the first week of July 01 with the six PPAs, the IPPA and one independent reviewer).

Step 6: CEP Evaluation meeting (early July 01)

The six PPAs will be sending project proposals (translated into English) at least 2 weeks before the convening of the meeting to all other PPAs, the IPPA and the independent reviewer (to be identified). The reviewers will grade all the proposals (i.e. a grand maximum of 70 proposals and I surely hope less than that!!!) as per the attached scoring sheet (Appendix 5) and forward their scores to the IPPA by …………. (at least 2 days before the meeting).

The 2-day meeting will be arranged to take place in a convenient place, easy to access from all PPAs location.

The scores of the evaluators will count for 2/3 of the overall grade. The other 1/3 will come from the Group’s evaluation. (Appendix 6)

The meeting will conclude with a selection of project proposals, in line with the budget available.

Step 7: communication and administrative arrangements for the grants (PCU to lead)

Step 8: implementation of the grants

Project proponents are responsible for following up on the implementation of the grants, monitoring progress and reporting to the PPA. The PPA will visit the project location at least twice during the implementation period. The project proponent will report to the PPA every quarter (the format of the reporting will have to be agreed between the PPA and the Group and formalized as per the local conditions).

Step 9: fifth meeting of the Group - evaluation of the projects

At the end of the implementation period, the Caspian Concern Group will be convened again to:

1. review the results of the projects and evaluation success, problems, difficulties (IPPA to prepare project evaluation sheet);

2. adopt recommendations for further work of the Group and continuation of some of the projects and activities. Discuss lessons learned and experience of the initiative.

It is also envisaged that one of the other PPAs will be visiting the area to conduct an ‘independent’ evaluation of the projects (IPPA to prepare guidelines for evaluation of small projects).

Implementation modalities

PPAs will be in charge of the process in their country. They will liaise with the National Focal Point and the Activity Centers (CRTC), for synergy. They will report to CEP-PCU and technically seek support from the IPPA.

In addition, one of the PPAs will be entrusted with overall technical coordination of that activity, providing technical support to the others, as and when required, ensuring proper implementation of the overall process, liaising with the IPPA and making arrangements for networking, regional exchange of experience and meetings, as required.

During step 8 – implementation of small projects, PPAs will endeavor to enhance regional networking along similar issues. Opportunities will be looked into to facilitate exchange of experience among projects working on similar issues. PPAs will also look into engaging Group representatives (and/or project proponents and leaders) into CEP activities. Finally PPAs will be encouraged to report on and describe, as case studies, a) experiences of the process and b) implementation of the projects. Documenting the implementation of the projects and of the whole exercise will support CEP communication objectives (press releases, stories, etc.).

Internet reference documents

http://www.rec.org Great selection of publications (in particular, I recommend a look at the following; “awakening participation”, 96; “doors to democracy”, 98 ; “developing local and regional environmental action plans, 96; “manual on Public Participation”, 94).

http://www.isar.org Look at the Caspian and Caucasus programmes, in particular.

http://www.agenda21.ee Estonia example of Agenda 21 and a good short “tool kit” document on how to implement local agenda 21.

http://www.iula.org International Union of Local Authorities web site – has good reference documents and case studies.

http://www.sustainable-cities.org

http://baltic-la21-forum.org The Baltic Local Agenda 21 Forum (BLA21F) is a network of experts from local authorities, NGOs and various other organizations around the Baltic Sea who share a dedication to sustainable development. It has been established to implement the Rio Process at the local level and functions as a complementary element to the Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region. Good example.

Acronyms:

PPA = Public Participation Advisor

IPPA = International Public Participation Advisor

Appendix 1 – Caspian Concern Group: Identification Sheet (to prepare by PPA)

Country: _______________________________

Caspian Coastal Area: ___________________

Location: ______________________________

Surface area: ______________________

Population: ________________________

Number and size of cities or villages: ___________________________

Priority theme/problem (select two): ________________________

_______________________

(tourism, nature reserve, sewage pollution, oil &gas, fisheries, urban development, freshwater availability, desertification, other:___)

NGOs located within the area: _____________________________________

Private companies/industries located within the area: ______________________

Describe favorable conditions and your appreciation: __________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix 2 – Outline for background presentation to the first “round table meeting” of the Caspian Concern Group

The Background information would tentatively include:

1. Information about the habitat:

Land ownership

Areas of architectural, historic, cultural value

Land uses

2. Information about the community and the stakeholders

Age and sex of inhabitants, birth and death rates

Rate of unemployment

Security and crime (if any?)

3. Information about the activities

Main economic activities

4. Other

relationship between communities and stakeholders in the same area

relationship with the central government

responsibilities of the municipal government

Appendix 3 - Project proposal idea: format (1-2 page max) (to be prepared by CCG proponent)

Caspian Concern Group: __________________________________

Title of the project: __________________________________________________________

Name and contacts of the project leader ___________________________________

If any, name of the organization, institution, association, etc.: ______________________________

Project target subject and/or area (one of the priority issues agreed by the Group):_____________________

Brief description of the project: ___________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Who will the project be working with? (target audience and implementation partners)_________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Proposed starting date and duration of the project: ____________________________________________

Tentative resource needs:

Manpower: ____________________

Equipment: ____________________

Funding: ____________________

Appendix 4 - project proposal format (5 pages maximum)

Title of the project: __________________________________________________________

Name and contacts of the project leader ___________________________________

If any, name of the organization, institution, association, etc.: ______________________________

Project target subject and/or area (one of the priority issues agreed by the Group):_____________________

Funding: Proposing organization contribution: ______________

Other contribution: _______________

Funding sought from CEP: ______________

Total: ______________

Brief description of the project: ___________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cooperation partners: ____________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Proposed starting date and duration of the project: ____________________________________________

1. Background and problem statement

• Which overall environmental/sustainable development issue, the project is addressing?

• Explain why the issue is important for the community, the city, and the area.

• Detail what the government departments, other organizations, etc. are doing to address the issue.

2. Description of the project

• Identify the objective(s) of the project and the proposed outputs and activities.

• Describe the target groups

• Assess the present situation which the project will work on (baseline)

• Describe the co-operative arrangements with partner organization(s) and confirm project management arrangements (“who is doing what”).

• Describe the possible risks and threats to the project’s success

3. End of project situation and monitoring

• Describe the expected end of project situation and anticipated follow up.

• Explain how the project will be monitored.

4. Budget (with detailed line by line items, sorted out by contribution)

5. Attach a workplan and timetable

Appendix 5 – project proposals scoring sheet (Caspian Concern Group and independent selection panel of experts)

Scoring Sheet

Proposal title:________________________________________________________________

Proposal number: _______________

Environmental Topic/priority issue: ____________________________________________

Ratings: 0 – very poor Weight: criteria have a weight from 0.5 to 2

1. poor

2. fair

3. good

4. very good

Appendix 6 - Small Grants selection: guidelines and criteria

Grants up to a maximum of US$3,000 will be awarded for a total regional amount of US$70,000.

Background

Local issues are best tackled by local groups. We believe that, by working together, local communities/stakeholders can effectively repair affected areas, enhance sustainable development opportunities and mitigate threats. Having established Caspian Coastal Groups (CCG) as a forum to demonstrate co-operative local action (along the lines of local agenda 21 groups), the grant is design to encourage local groups to effectively work together to solve and address environmental/sustainable development issues.

Who is eligible?

All members of the Caspian Coastal Group(s), whether as dedicated individual, NGO, local authority, trade association, media, agricultural workers union, etc. may apply for the grant.

What are the criteria?

1. Selection of the project proposals will be on the basis of the scoring sheet. In addition, it is important to note that the proposals must adhere to the following criteria:

• The project addresses one of the priority issues, as identified by the Group.

• The project calls for collaborative implementation (more than 1 organisation involved).

• The project demonstrates some concrete and practical solutions.

2. Procurement of equipment can not exceed 30% of the grant and must, in any case, be explained and justified by the proposed project activities.

3. Salaries, honorarium and compensation for project management can not exceed 20% of the grant and must be justified.

Submission of project proposals?

Project proposals must be submitted to the CEP-PPA by 15 June 2001. Proposals will be translated into English and distributed to all of the international selection panel members by 30 June 2001.

Selection process?

Each of the Caspian Concern Groups will be holding its own project selection seminar, during which project proposals will be presented. Each of the CCG members will score the proposals. The total and averaged scores will count for 1/3 of the total grade. The other 2/3 will come from the assessment of an independent panel of experts, scheduled to meet to evaluate the proposals in early July 2001. The decisions will be communicated by CEP directly to the grant winners, copy to the CCG.

How will the grant be offered?

Grant winners will be expected to sign a (simple) grant contract with CEP. Grants will be paid in two installments: one at the beginning and upon signature of the grant contract (70%) and one after completion (30%). Grant amounts will be paid in …………… (currency to confirm).

CEP will endeavor to secure additional funding to allow for the implementation of a maximum number of small projects, providing these meet the criteria and guidelines.

Annex 2: Sample TOR of the PPAs

Public Participation Advisor (Republic of Kazakhstan)

General Job Description

The Public Participation Advisor will be responsible for the project elements designed for enhancing public awareness and participation in the CEP activities in Russian Federation and assist in the coordination of regional activities. He/she will work closely with Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations and will liase with corresponding activities of other donors in this field. He/she shall work under the supervision of the Programme Coordinator within the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU), which is located in Baku.

Duties

The Public Participation Advisor will have the following specific duties:

• to establish and coordinate support to two coastal public awareness groups in Republic of Kazakhstan;

• to assist in the design of a comprehensive public awareness programme, with special emphasis on schools and local communities in Republic of Kazakhstan;

• to liase with other donors on the implementation of projects which support public participation/ public awareness in the Caspian region; and

• to assist with the administration of other Public Awareness and Education issues where required by the Coordinator.

Skills and Experience Required

• higher educational diploma in environmental studies or a directly related field;

• direct experience with the establishment and management of NGOs;

• proven computer skills (including Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Internet);

• familiarity with the problems of the Caspian; and

• full fluency (spoken and written) in English and Russian.

Duty station: Caspian coastal region of Republic of Kazakhstan

Annex 3: Indicators of performance

Description of activities carried out against the workplan and assessment of the results

Annex 4: Assessment of the implementation of PA/PP activities against the workplan

Public Awareness / Public Participation Programme – Logframe and Monitoring (in bold)

Annex 5: Documents available

• Workplan

• Revised compilation of draft groundtruthing Study reports (all 3 sections for the countries of Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkmenistan / section on Stakeholders analysis and Public Participation for Iran)

• Quarterly Progress Reports up to December 2000 (QPR1): Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan and regional.

• Quarterly Progress Reports January to March 2001 (QPR2): Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan, (partial Kazakhstan) and regional.

• Quarterly Progress Reports April to June 2001 (QPR3): Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan and regional.

• Quarterly Progress Reports July to September 2001 (QPR4): Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan and regional.

• Quarterly Progress Reports October to December 2001 (QPR5): Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkmenistan and regional.

• Quarterly Progress Reports January to March 2002 (QPR6): Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and regional.

• 11 editions of the E-bulletin “The Caspian” (from January 2001 to April 2002).

• Final report for small projects: all four projects from Azerbaijan, all three projects from Turkmenistan (no final report for the three projects from Russia at the time of writing).