Caspian Sea: an introduction
Hamid Ghaffarzadeh, Programme Coordinator, Caspian
Environment Programme
The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) represents a partnership
between the five littoral states, Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic
of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Turkmenistan,
and the International Partners, the EU, UNDP, UNEP, and
the World Bank. The overall goal of the CEP is to promote
the sustainable development and management of the Caspian
environment in order to obtain the optimal long-term benefits
for the human population of the region. Sustainable human
development and management will protect human health, maintain
ecological integrity and support the region's economic and
environmental viability for future generations.
During the first phase of CEP the goals of the GEF/UNDP/UNOPS
project were: (1) creation of a regional coordination mechanism
to achieve sustainable development and management of the
Caspian environment; (2) completion of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (TDA) of priority environmental issues to guide
the necessary environmental actions; (3) formulation and
endorsement of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and adoption
of National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs). This first phase
was conducted from 1998 to present day and involved copious
input from all of the Caspian states. They have all expressed
continued support for a single, regional structure that
will coordinate initiatives to address regional environmental
issues associated with the Caspian Sea.
The countries are anxious to further strengthen and begin
implementation of the SAP, where the fruits of their hard
labour during the first phase of the CEP will become evident.
The next phase of CEP will witness the continued transition
to enhanced governance and execution of the Programme by
the littoral states themselves, with the international partners,
including GEF playing a supportive role. The full ownership
of the CEP by the littoral states is the ultimate aspiration
of the CEP Steering Committee.
The countries have demonstrated their commitment to protecting
and restoring the Caspian environment by signing the Framework
Convention on November 4, 2003 in Tehran, by approval of
the Caspian Strategic Action Programme on the following
day and by effectively pursuing the completion of the endorsement
process of their NCAPs in accordance with the established
procedures.
In addition to strong national support, continuation of
the CEP is encouraged by the private sector active within
the region. Representatives of this sector have been major
supporters of the CEP Phase I activities, and are expected
to continue to do so throughout second phase activities.
This private sector participation is critical for both sustainability
and effectiveness of many of the commitments that will be
made under the SAP and NCAPs.
The Caspian littoral countries are cognizant of an array
of environmental, socio-economic, legislative, and institutional
challenges to reach their objectives. They are also conscious
of potential barriers to success and alternative strategies
have been developed in order to avoid the obstacles. Over
the past decade the environment of the Caspian region has
attracted media, political and global attention. The attention
has not always been positive, though it has created an awareness
of pending environmental problems that must be addressed
in the region.
In the first phase of CEP four major transboundary areas
of environmental concerns issues were identified with regards
to anthropogenic impacts on the Caspian waters, specifically
the needs to protect and conserve biodiversity and reduce
impacts of invasive species; to reduce levels of persistent
toxic substances; to address sustainable use of bioresources,
including fisheries; and to enhance sustainable coastal
development.
The Caspian Sea is the largest enclosed water body on
earth and given its volume and flushing rate there will
be a considerable lag between managed interventions and
the hoped for positive responses in the environmental conditions.
All parties must understand that a period of no apparent
response is a natural feature of the water system and should
not be interpreted as a failure of the remedial activities.
|
