|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to provide you with this Report on the Second Workshop of the Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Management Planning (ITCAMP) Theme of the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP), held on 14-16 November 2000 in Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. This report is available in both Russian and English languages. The Workshop was a positive and significant step forward towards the implementation of the ITCAMP Work Plan. Active participation by all countries, the PCU and other partners, contributed to this success. We want to thank each of the Workshop Participants personally for their dedication and hard work. The Report contains a number of annexes. These comprise most of the material that was presented for information and update during the Workshop. The body of the Report focuses on the salient points raised during the various discussions and notes the consensus reached. We would appreciate any corrections or additions within a reasonable time. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you are in agreement that the Report reflects the Workshop’s deliberations. We look forward to further collaboration with all of you towards the full implementation of the Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Management Planning (ITCAMP) Theme. Please do contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely,
1. INTRODUCTION The Work Plan for the ITCAMP Theme was first discussed and adopted at the First Workshop and Inaugural Meeting held in Tehran in October 1999. Since then, it was confirmed by the CEP Steering Committee and it has now been under implementation by the Caspian countries led by the ITCAMP CRTC for a year. Progress was slow initially, however, momentum has picked up significantly over recent months and this Workshop was the first opportunity to review progress and look ahead at the upcoming tasks. Technical preparations for the Workshop were undertaken by the ITCAMP CRTC. Logistics were the responsibility of the Department of the Environment of the I.R. Iran, spearheaded by the National Focal Point. The PCU arranged for the translation of various documents into Russian and for their eventual distribution. The Workshop Agenda is appended in Annex 1 and the List of Participants is appended as Annex 2, while Annex 3 contains a List of Documents provided to Workshop Participants or appended to this Report. Further annexes comprise copies of various documents discussed at the Workshop or provided to participants.
2. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES The Second ITCAMP Workshop of the Caspian Environment Programme was held at the Howeyzeh Hotel, Tehran, I R Iran, from 14 to 16 November 2000. The Objectives of this Second Workshop of the Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Management Planning (ITCAMP) Theme of the Caspian Environment Programme were as follows :
The Workshop met all its Objectives.
3. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 3.1 Introductory Session Mr M Saeed Hosseini, National Focal Point for the CEP and Director-General for the Marine Environment Bureau of the Department of the Environment of the I.R. Iran, welcomed participants on behalf of the Government, to Tehran and to the Workshop. He noted that the ITCAMP theme had very broad and very important terms of reference and mentioned the need for collaboration of this CRTC with the other thematic centres. Mr Hosseini concluded by wishing the participants a successful and fruitful Workshop and observed that the serious ecological situation in the Caspian, requires a successful outcome. Mr Timothy Turner, Regional Coordinator for the Caspian Environment Programme, added his welcome to participants on behalf of the CEP and identified this as the most important meeting of the ITCAMP theme. He expressed his hope that with the resolution of initial problems, we can now hope to regain the momentum and make up for the lost time. Mr Turner noted that the original Action Plan focussed on “desk” type of work and that discussions are now taking place to revise the budget to ensure funding support for the Pilot Projects which will be the testing ground for the draft Guidelines. Discussions are under way to identify sources of funding from within and outside of the CEP. Mr Fereidon Rostami, UNDP Programme Officer, added his welcome to participants on behalf of UNDP. He noted the wide ranging backgrounds of participants which reflected the wide scope of ITCAMP and wished the meeting all success. Dr Philip Tortell, UNDP Consultant Advisor on ITCAMP, said how pleased he was to see the group back together again with the addition of such a distinguished group of observers and interested persons. He then recalled the memory of Prof Habibulla Atamuradov, a very active member of this group who had passed away suddenly, recently. Dr Tortell told the meeting that one of the best nominations of a site for a Pilot Project had been received from Turkmenistan and that this was a fitting tribute to Prof Atamuradov since it had been prepared by him. Dr Parvin Farshchi, ITCAMP CRTC Director, then added her welcome to all participants. She recalled the efforts being made in another CEP forum in developing a Convention for the Protection of the Caspian Environment. Dr Farshchi noted that this heralded the next phase of the CEP and that the ITCAMP work was preparing the way for that time when integrated planning and management will be undertaken as a mechanism for sustainable development. In order for this to be successful, Dr Farshchi told the meeting that it needed the participation of the Caspian peoples as well as the international partners. She ended by thanking all for being here. Brief introductions were then made by all participants which included the representatives of the Caspian States, the embassies of Austria and Holland, a number of Iranian observers and a representative from the ICZM activities of the Black Sea Environment Programme. Dr Farshchi then introduced the Draft Agenda, described each of the listed items and invited comments. A suggestion to reschedule some of the sessions was discussed but not pursued and with the grateful acceptance of an offer by Mr Rieks Bosch of the Black Sea Environment Programme, to address the meeting at an appropriate time, the Agenda was taken as adopted. The session ended with Mr Hosseini announcing to the meeting that Mr Rostami was relinquishing his post as UNDP Programme Officer. He noted that Mr Rostami had been instrumental in developing the close cooperation that has existed between UNDP-Tehran and CEP. He thanked Mr Rostami for the excellent working relationship that has existed with UNDP, wished him well for the future and presented him with a token of appreciation from the Department of Environment, the thematic centres and all at CEP. Mr Rostami expressed his grateful thanks to all and assured DOE and CEP that everything will remain in place at UNDP to continue with all the support required by the CEP.
3.2.1 Progress with the ITCAMP Work Plan Dr Parvin Farshchi, Director of the ITCAMP CRTC, commenced her presentation of the ITCAMP Work Plan by noting the Overall Objective and the Immediate Objectives of the ITCAMP theme and listed the main responsibilities of the CRTCs. Dr Farshchi then went on to list the progress that has been achieved since the First ITCAMP Workshop and the tasks which remained outstanding, as follows :
Dr Farshchi ended her presentation by recalling the Outputs expected from the Work Plan as follows :
She also referred to the National Coastal Profiles which were now overdue and exhorted NCPs to do their utmost and finalize their work. Mr Bosch commented that it may be posssible to extend the EUCC training in ICZM currently for the Black Sea Programme, to the Caspian region. Dr Farshchi welcomed this possibility and requested the Programme Coordinator to investigate this possibility. Copies of the slides used in Dr Farshchi’s presentation were provided to participants and are annexed to this Report.
3.2.2 Progress with the National Coastal Profiles Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Russian Federation Turkmenistan I.R. Iran In summing up, Dr Farshchi noted that the main problem facing those compiling the National Coastal Profiles had been the time constraint. Other problems included the difficulty with getting adequate and reliable information on pollution, and the weak cooperation between agencies with coastal responsibilities. She noted that a good vehicle for data gathering under CEP was the Inter-Sectoral Coordination Function that existed in each country. This group could be used to access data gathered by or for other CRTCs. Mr Turner also suggested that other Ministries and Departments had more than just data. Many had well developed plans, albeit sectoral ones, and although some of these may go beyond what is required for a Coastal Profile, they were worth examining. 3.2.3 ITCAMP and its Relation with other CRTCs
3.3 Session 3 : Regional Coastal Profile & ITCAMP Contribution to the TDA/NCAPs/SAP 3.3.1 First draft of the Caspian Regional Coastal Profile Dr Farshchi commenced her presentation by referring briefly to the CEP background including the overall objectives and tasks. She then noted that the Regional Coastal Profile was meant to be based on the information contained in the National Coastal Profiles and that since these were still to be finalized, she had not made much progress on the Regional document. However, she discussed in some details the planned scope and contents of the Regional Profile as an indication of the type of data and information she needed to find in the National Profiles. It was noted that in the absence of the National Profiles, work had to commence soon on the Regional Profile and would need to be based on the National Reports compiled when establishing the TDA Framework, the UNDP Human Development Reports, any existing State of the Environment Reports, and similar documents. The target for completion of the Regional Coastal profile was mid-February. 3.3.2 ITCAMP Contribution to the TDA/NCAPs/SAP Dr Farshchi noted the similarities between the TDA and parts of the Regional Coastal Profile and the connection they had with both the SAP and the NCAPs. She observed that both the TDA and the Regional Profile identified regional, transboundary issues and analysed them by determining the immediate causes, the root causes, the likely effective solutions/interventions and the hurdles which might hinder the solutions and that these would contribute to the tasks identified in the SAP. However, in addition to this, the Regional Profile touched upon national issues and problems as well and these, in turn, had to be covered under the NCAPs. Mr Turner provided further explanation as to the relationship between the Profiles, the TDA, the SAP and the NCAPs. He noted that the TDA and the SAP are a specific requirement of the GEF and that they are linked to the Operational Programmes. They only addressed transboundary issues, because these are the only interventions that are considered incremental and funded by GEF. Mr Turner saw the Regional Profile as providing the basic data and information for the TDA but he also expected to see proposals for interventions so they could be incorporated in the SAP. He went on to say that problems and solutions that had a national dimension should still be identified since they would be carried in the NCAPs. It was likely that the teams that were responsible for the National Coastal Profile would be in the best position to also undertake the formulation of the respective NCAPs. In addition, Mr Turner proposed that while the other CRTCs are focussed on problems, ITCAMP was more of a tool and in fact it was one of the solutions for the problems. The Regional Profile therefore needed to “make the case” for Integrated Coastal Area Management Planning as a means through which many of the problems could be addressed. After Dr Tortell had presented an example of what a Threats Matrix looked like (see Annex4) including the listing of threats/issues/problems, immediate causes and root causes, Dr Farshchi rounded the session off by reminding participants of the need to address root causes and of the essential nature of appropriate planning through which existing problems can be addressed and new problems avoided. She concluded that ITCAMP-CRTC will make this possible through its drafting of Guidelines.
3.4 Session 4 : Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Area Management Planning Dr Tortell introduced to the Workshop, the first draft of the Guidelines for Coastal Planning. He stressed that the document was still at a very preliminary stage and that it will be finalized by early to mid-February, in time to be tested in the Pilot Projects. However, in spite of the preliminary nature of the document, its scope and contents were now quite firm and it had been laid out completely in note form. It was noted that the Guidelines had to reflect the situation described in the National Coastal Profiles as well as the Regional Coastal Profile. And, after refinements arising through the Pilot Projects testing process, the Guidelines will give way to the Handbook on Integrated Coastal Area Management Planning for the Caspian Coast. The Guidelines were therefore a crucial element in the transition from problem identification (through the Coastal Profiles) to the actions required to resolve them (as documented in the Handbook). The scope of the Guidelines is quite broad and it is intended to support those who wish to establish Integrated Coastal Area Management Planning in the Caspian Region. The Guidelines explain how to establish the institutional framework for the Integrated Coastal Area Management Planning process. They then provide methodologies for survey of coastal resources and the demands and uses that require management; the identification of the coastal resources, values and uses that require management; assessment of the existing and predicted demands on coastal resources; prediction of the potential environmental impacts; and planning so as to minimize impacts while achieving the maximum benefits on a sustainable basis. Finally, the Guidelines address monitoring procedures to check predictions and evaluate the effectiveness of the planning and management process. Dr Tortell stressed that the Guidelines are addressed in the first instance to those at local government level who are charged with the responsibility for the protection and management of the coastal environment and its resources. Secondly, the Guidelines are also addressed to other sectors within the public administration framework, particularly those with an involvement in land use or water use and development, and to other government agencies as well as organizations outside government whose actions or inaction may have consequences for the coastal environment, albeit unwittingly. Copies of Dr Tortell’s slide presentation were made available at the meeting and are annexed to this Report. Considerable discussion followed the presentation and the following were the salient points noted :
The second part of this session dealt with the Coastal Planning Process according to the Guidelines and, as the Process forms the major part of the document, Dr Tortell went into some detail on this part of the Guidelines. He discussed planning policy, legislation, administration, data and information management, the public participation process and various roles and responsibilities within the Coastal Planning Process. He then described the various preparatory activities and prerequisites and the production of the Draft Plan. Finally, Dr Tortell described the progression from the Draft Plan to the Final Operational Plan. Copies of the slides used in Dr Tortell’s presentation were distributed at the Workshop and are annexed to this Report.
3.5 Session 5 : Current Status of the Coastal Zone Management in the Caspian Littoral States Dr Farshchi introduced this session by noting that while the concept and process of Integrated Coastal Planning might be new for the region, they are not starting from nothing. To a greater or lesser extent, various elements of the process are already present in the majority of the Caspian States. Probably, the most significant advances from the present situation will be the integrated nature of the new process and the participatory approach which it employs. With this in mind, Dr Farshchi then invited representatives of each State to describe the current status of coastal management in their particular situation. Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Russian Federation The second delegate from the Russian Federation, representing Kalmykia, provided the meeting with a description of the coastal environment in Kalmykia. She also discussed the existing legislation and noted that enforcement was a problem; the levels of public participation in various environmental protection works. Turkmenistan I.R. Iran
3.6 Session 6 : Pilot Projects for Coastal Planning This session was introduced by Dr Tortell who referred to the context within which the Pilot Projects will be implemented, their objectives, and other details. He noted that these Projects will have a number of objectives – a) From the perspective of the CEP and the ITCAMP Theme:
b) From the perspective of the locality concerned :
Dr Tortell noted that each Pilot Project will run for approximately 10-12 months and could cost around US$200,000. This amount could not be provided from the CEP Budget alone and there was a need for co-funding. The Pilot Projects were also dependent on collaboration by the local government. He also went on to discuss the relative costs of various components of each Pilot Projects which were likely to be - project administration and management 20%, data gathering and development of the GIS Database 22%, public participation 11%, plans production 34%, and miscellaneous costs 13%. Dr Tortell also proposed cost sharing along the following lines - Government (local and central) 3%, ITCAMP 31%, CEP 9%, bilateral donors 32%, private sector 13%, and other sources 12%. This was followed by Dr Tortell explaining how each Pilot project would be set up, using interim measures with the agreement of the local authorities, in the absence of some essential elements for effective coastal planning. These included policies, legislation, administration and other institutional elements. Dr Tortell stressed again the need for a solid information base and discussed the participatory approach and mechanisms for involving the public in the planning process. In concluding, Dr Tortell recalled the invitation sent to NCPs to nominate a site for a potential Pilot Project according to selection criteria as provided, and noting that only three nominations had been received, he invited delegates to present their selected site and justify their selection by referring to the provided criteria. Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Russian Federation Turkmenistan I.R. Iran Discussion followed all the presentations and focussed primarily on practical issues such as the size of selected sites, their replicability, the availability of funding support from the ITCAMP/CEP budget, starting dates, etc. It was decided that the size had to be a compromise which provided sufficient test for the Guidelines without making the task too difficult, and that the final decision was to be made by the local experts in consultation with the NCP and the advice of the CRTC. Replicability right round the Caspian is the ultimate aim of the ITCAMP exercise but while it would be pleasing to see other small-scale projects in coastal planning at other sites, the full implementation of the ICAMP approach was planned for the SAP and the NCAP stages. Regarding funding availability from the CRTC/CEP budget, Mr Turner assured participants that a minimum of about 25% of the project costs would be provided by CEP, directly or through the ITCAMP-CRTC. As for starting dates and duration, it was noted that the CRTC was required to work within the schedules set by CEP and that preferably Pilot Projects should commence in February/March 2001 and end between 10-12 months later. However, it was accepted that some Pilot Projects may follow a slightly later timing. Mr Rieks Bosch, from the ICZM Theme of the Black Sea Environment Programme, shared his experiences with the Workshop. He discussed the BSEP Pilot Projects and noted their aims and objectives. He also identified the lessons learnt from the Black Sea region. He then went on to describe the application of functional zoning and spatial planning within the context of ICZM. Dr Parvin Farshchi addressed the meeting on the potential sources of co-funding that may be considered for the Pilot Projects . [Ms Babran – please discuss with Dr Farshchi and complete this paragraph]
3.7 Session 7 : Future work The ITCAMP Work Plan as distributed was discussed noting outstanding work and scheduled timing. It was noted by participants that a number of activities were being attempted within a very short period of time as a consequence of the late start of the Project, and that there was a risk that the quality of Outputs will suffer. Mr Turner agreed that the Project had been late in starting and that this has led to an accelerated pace. While there had been some slippage in the timing for the TDA, he noted that the UNDP component of the CEP will still terminate in July 2002. Participants expressed their willingness to try and meet these target dates. Dr Farshchi then presented the Task List for the coming few months, as follows :
3.8 Closing Session The Closing Session comprised a general discussion on the CEP, the ITCAMP Theme, and the Workshop. Participants requested the translation of hand-out materials and were assured that all hand-outs will be annexed to the Workshop Report which would be translated in full. Delegates expressed their willingness to actively participate in the ITCAMP tasks outlined above and wished successes to the ITCAMP CRTC. In reply to the question as to what will be done if Governments are not able to support the Pilot Projects, Mr Turner indicated that the PCU will be able to assist. In reply to another question regarding the role of NCPs after the completion of the National Coastal Profiles, both Mr Turner and Dr Farshchi, assured participants that between the Pilot Projects, the various Training sessions that needed to be organized and the NCAPs which were best compiled by the ITCAMP NCPs, the latter were going to be very busy in the coming 15 months or so. Following this period, activities will focus on the next ITCAMP Workshop, probably in February 2002, which will be the last one and which will need to confirm the Handbook, agree on the input to the SAP, and agree on the concept and technical specifications of the Caspian Atlas of Coastal Resources.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As far as possible, the National Coastal Profiles will be completed by the end of November. If it is not possible to send the finished Profile by then, NCPs should forward whatever material they have to the PCU for translation, as soon as it is available. NCPs, in conjunction with their respective UNDP Country Office, will strive to mobilize resources for a Pilot Project at the locality they have identified. They should maintain close contact with the CRTC and the PCU on this matter. The CRTC Director will continue with the compilation of the Regional Profile and expects to have it ready for translation by early February and distribution soon after. The Consultant will continue with the compilation of the Guidelines and expects to have them ready for translation by mid-January and distribution soon after. The Guidelines are seen as comprehensive and are expected to provide a good view of the planning process. However, they may need to be pitched at a more realistic level bearing in mind the existing situation. It may be necessary to increase attention to spatial planning, functional zoning and buffering. Assistance should be provided by the PCU and the ITCAMP-CRTC to NCPs to obtain the necessary co-funding for a Pilot Project in each of the participating countries. All material produced by the CRTC needs to be translated. For example, the Guidelines may need to be available in national languages so they can be used by local experts. There is also a need for a multilanguage ICAMP technical dictionary. The network of NCPs and others interested in ICAMP should be fostered and supported in the interest of sustainability. Such a network, perhaps through the medium of a website, should also be extended to link up with international networks such as those of EUCC, Wetlands, etc.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Workshop concluded with various votes of thanks from the Director of the ITCAMP CRTC, Dr Parvin Farshchi, Dr Philip Tortell, UNDP Consultant to the ITCAMP CRTC, Mr Tim Turner, the CEP Programme Coordinator, and various speakers on behalf of their country group or their organizations. All expressed their satisfaction with the organization, the conduct and the outcomes of the Workshop and conveyed their thanks and congratulations to the organizers namely the ITCAMP-CRTC and the Department of Environment of the I. R. Iran.
Annex 1. Workshop Agenda Tuesday 14 November
Wednesday 15 November
Thursday 16 November
Annex 2 List of Participants Annex 3 Documents provided to participants and appended to this Report A3.1 Agenda (see Annex 1 above) |
Up-coming Activities
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
