PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GEF COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM SUBMISSION
AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: PIMS 3157 FINANCING PLAN (US$) GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 2638 GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT COUNTRY: Turkmenistan Project 1,428,600 PROJECT TITLE: Conservation and sustainable use of PDF A n/a globally significant biological diversity in Khazar Nature Reserve on the Caspian Sea Coast PDF B GEF AGENCY: UNDP PDF C OTHER EXECUTING AGENCY: n/a Sub-Total GEF 1,428,600 DURATION: 4 years CO-FINANCING*1/ GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity UNDP 478,000 GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP 2 – Coastal, Marine Government 590,000 and Freshwater Ecosystems Bilateral Donors 200,000 GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: BD 1 – Catalyzing Other 330,000 sustainability of PA systems Sub-Total Co-financing: 1,598,000 Pipeline Entry Date: 2 December 2004 Total Project Financing: 3,026,600 ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: July 2005 FINANCING FOR ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES IF IA FEE: USD 382,000 ANY: LEVERAGED RESOURCES IF ANY:
CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN: As a result of GEF and co-financing, this project will bring 226,000 hectares of globally significant habitat under improved conservation management within Turkmenistan’s largest protected area, as well as 100,000 hectares under community-based biodiversity friendly resource management in the adjacent conservation landscape. As a result of this project, populations of indicator species, target bird, fish, and mammal species w/in the Reserve will remain stable or increase by project end. Best practices emanating from this project experience will be systematically disseminated and replicated in the National System of Protected Areas.
RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT(S):Mr. M. K. Akmuradov, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Nature Protection of Turkmenistan and GEF OFP, signed the endorsement letter on 29 December 2004.
Approved on behalf of the United Nations Development Programme. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for work program inclusion.
Project Contact Person Mr. Nick Remple, UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinator – email: [email protected] Tel.: +421 2 59 337 458: Frank Pinto Executive Coordinator Date: 17 January 2005
1 PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVE, OUTCOMES, AND OUTPUTS/ACTIVITIES.
Rationale Since Turkmenistan’s independence from the former Soviet Union, protected area management has taken a back seat to the urgent economic and social development needs of the country. While protected areas have been maintained at a minimum level, the human resource capacity of and professional management capacity for these protected areas have declined significantly.
Government is beginning to reverse this 15-year trend of declining capacity and has recently increased funding for protected area management. Reversing this trend, however, and putting Turkmenistan’s protected area system on the path to sustainability from an institutional, conservation and resource use perspective will require significant inputs of additional, incremental financing, skills and international best practice in modern conservation techniques and tools, participatory management, economic value assessment, and capacity building. GEF financing will be used to demonstrate effective protected area management and landscape-based conservation practices in Turkmenistan’s largest protected area, Khazar Nature Reserve, and enable the replication of these best practices across Turkmenistan’s National System of Protected Areas. As such it will play a strategic role in leveraging co-funding and shaping the emergence of a modern, effective, and sustainable protected area network in Turkmenistan.
Global significance of Khazar Reserve Biodiversity: The biodiversity of flora and fauna on Turkmenistan’s southeast Caspian coast consists of 854 species, or one-third of the biodiversity of the Caspian sea as a wholei; Khazar Reserve harbors nearly all of these 854 species. The flora of the Reserve includes more than 360 species of flowering plants, including nine endemic to the region and five that are included in Turkmenistan’s Red Book of endangered species. The productive waters of the many shallow bays on the Turkmen coast support a rich aquatic vegetation and a rich zoobenthos of molluscs, crustacea and marine worms, twenty-nine species in all. The flourishing animal and plant life attracts vast numbers of birds to Khazar Nature Reserve (KhR).
The fauna of the KhR consists of more than 420 vertebrate species, including 48 fish species, 29 reptiles and two amphibians. Birds are the most numerous and diverse group of vertebrates. Two hundred ninety-three (293) bird species representing twenty-one Classes occur in KhR. Two of the world’s major flyways, the Central Asian-Indian Flyway and the East African Flyway, converge on Turkmenistan’s Caspian coastal region. This fact makes these wetlands especially important to an estimated five to eight million migratory birds, who rely on the coastal wetland resources for summer nesting and winter feeding grounds as they pass through on their way north from Africa and India and south from Europe and arctic Russia.
Attracted by the mild climate, hundreds of thousands of these birds winter-over here, spending four to five months in the Reserve and surrounding areas. The area regularly supports over twenty-one percent (21%) of the wintering population of the Greater flamingo globally, significant populations of the Coot and up to two million ducks. Approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the world population of Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis) breed on the islands of KhR.
The Turkmen sector of the Caspian, especially from Turkmenbashi Bay south to the Iranian border, is the wintering place of many fish species, including the sturgeon. The central part of the Caspian Sea supports the largest number of fish species endemic to the Caspian due to its relatively constant and high salinity levels.
2 The area is also one of the most important habitats for the endemic Caspian seal (Phoca caspica), the only Caspian pinniped. Caspian seals are found in Turkmenistan’s waters throughout the year, in fluctuating numbers. From spring to summer, seals generally migrate to the South Caspian to feed after breeding and molting on the ice of the North Caspian. During this time, approximately eighty (80) individuals regularly reside on the islands within KhR. In Autumn, their numbers increase until the winter months, when up to 10,000 individuals can be found along the Turkmen coast.
For additional information, please refer to the detailed Situation Analysis (Project Document Section I: Part I), the detailed Strategy (Project Document Section I: Part II), and the Incremental Cost Analysis in the UNDP Project Document Section II: Part I.
Project goal, objective, outcomes, and outputs/activities
The goal of the project is the protection of Turkmenistan’s globally significant biodiversity by strengthening the sustainability of its National System of Protected Areas.
The objective of the project is the demonstration of a new effective, participatory and adaptive approach to conservation and management in Khazar Nature Reserve and replication of its best practices throughout the National System of Protected Areas.
To achieve this objective, the project is designed to produce four primary outcomes:
Outcome 1 - Khazar Nature Reserve (KhR) management capacity and conservation effectiveness are secured. To achieve this Outcome, the project will pilot adaptive participatory management practice in the Reserve, strengthen technical knowledge and abilities of Reserve staff, and strengthen the field conservation capacity of the Reserve. As such, it will establish a KhR Stakeholder Working Group and develop and implement a protected area management plan using, among other things, the WB/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. It will conduct a comprehensive capacity-building program for the KhR in protected area management, strengthening existing staff capacity through in-country training, building reserve capacity to envision change through overseas training, and bolstering the legal and policy framework for protected area management and enforcement. The project will engage stakeholders in the development and implementation of a biodiversity conservation plan for Khazar Nature Reserve, develop education and outreach materials for raising awareness among targeted stakeholder groups, strengthen the capacity of local associations and community groups to raise awareness among resource users, and strengthen management and enforcement capacities.
Outcome 2 - Cross-sector capacity for integrated coastal management is established and biodiversity conservation objectives are mainstreamed into coastal productive sectors adjacent to the KhR. To achieve this Outcome, the project will assist project stakeholders to define the conservation landscape and seascape more comprehensively on the Caspian Sea Coast, as well as the role of Khazar Nature Reserve within it, strengthen the information baseline on coastal ecosystem health parameters, and put in place a Coastal Zone Management (CZM) framework and planning process. As such, the project will establish a multistakeholder Coastal Planning Working Group (CPWG), strengthen existing law and policy frameworks to support CZM, strengthen the ability of stakeholder institutions to apply CZM concepts and practices, and
3 demarcate the boundaries of KhR on all official maps at all the relevant, published scales used for planning and resource development.
Outcome 3 - KhR demonstrates how to build trust and goodwill with local communities and strengthens environmental governance over biodiversity resources. To achieve this Outcome, the project will strengthen social capital in targeted communities around Khazar Nature Reserve with the aim of restoring goodwill between KhR and local communities. The project will demonstrate sustainable natural resource use aimed at generating new options for coastal fisheries and reducing pressures on migratory waterfowl in the coastal area surrounding KhR, establish community resource centers in three communities neighboring KhR, which have the highest number of bird hunters per capita, and provide small grants to support community-based development and the improvement of Reserve-community relations.
Outcome 4 - Project best practices are mainstreamed into the National Protected Area System of Turkmenistan. To achieve this Outcome, the project will provide proposals for new policies within MNP to encourage adaptive management, create a system-wide Protected Area Management Training Program, establish an operational network for nationwide replication of best practices by Pas, strengthen Caspian-wide PA information exchange and sharing of lessons learned, and develop a clear and compelling economic argument for PA contribution to development and for long-term financing of KhR and the National System of Protected Areas. The project will conduct economic analyses of the value Khazar PA contributes to coastal fisheries, tourism, and environmental health and prepare recommendations for resource extraction levies dedicated to funding sustainable use and conservation of the species and habitats of the KhR and surrounding conservation landscape – best practices from these activities will be disseminated for replication throughout the NPAS.
See also the Logical Framework matrix in the UNDP Project Document Section II: Part II.
Project strategy and approach
The project recognizes that, in the current environment, the fundamental elements of ultimate sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas must be built in a strategic manner. Basic financial sustainability, in the form of budgetary appropriations, appears to have been reached for at least the near and medium terms, given the government’s historical commitments as well as the recent increase in NSPA financing overall. However, this has been insufficient to guarantee sustained conservation of important biodiversity. Project development analyses identified a series of other important factors impeding effective conservation. These are linked primarily to antiquated or insufficient institutional and technical capacities in regard to methods and practices for more effective reserve management, participation by local stakeholders in resource management both within and adjacent to reserves, and inter-institutional cooperation across the landscape to enhance biodiversity conservation adjacent to, but also to the benefit of, protected areas.
The strategy proposed in this project is intended to demonstrate state-of-the-art methods and practices aimed at addressing these issues at the country’s largest protected area – Khazar Nature Reserve - assess the effectiveness of their application and identify best practices, and then
4 replicate these practices and methods at other sites within the National System of Protected Areas.
At the demonstration site, the project will work closely with local stakeholders in particular, involving institutions as well as local people, to strengthen governance mechanisms associated with resource management. As such, there is a strong focus on creating or bolstering the social capital needed to create or adapt a new, biodiversity friendly paradigm of resource use. Institutional capacities will be targeted for concerted development by providing training, materials and opportunities to benefit from other experiences elsewhere.
For additional information, refer to UNDP Project Document Section I: Part II]
KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND RISKS
Indicators
Impact indicators at the outcome and objective levels are verifiable, quantifiable and time-bound. These include:
New PA categories, community participation, and landscape ecology principles are adopted into law by end of year 2. METT scores improve markedly on an annual basis At least 50% of other protected areas in Turkmenistan are applying METT to track management effectiveness by project end At least 50% of other protected areas in Turkmenistan adopt practices demonstrated in Khazar by the end of the project 100,000 hectares are under community-based, biodiversity friendly resource management by year 4. Adaptive management program for KhR operational by end of year 1 - objectives defined and work plan to achieve them approved by EoY 1; METT applied annually. Populations of indicator species; target bird, fish, and mammal species w/in the Reserve remain stable or increase by year 4. Biodiversity-friendly coastal zoning, development, and construction standards approved/not approved as Gov’t policy by end of year 3. Khazar Nature Reserve is gazetted by end of year 3 and KhR conservation plan is approved & operational by end of year 2. Biodiversity-friendly coastal zoning and construction standards approved as policy by end of year 3 and development guidelines are approved for use in coastal zone by EoY 3. MNP/SECI approves landscape-scale conservation plan by EoY 2. Over 20 fishers working as part of new cooperative by EoY 2. Community-based Hunting Management (CBHM) operational in target areas based upon mutually agreed sustainable harvest levels by end of project - hunter coop successfully formed and operating in at least one community by EoY 2 and at least 20 hunters involved in community-based hunting management by EoY 2.
5 At least 20% increase in income derived from sustainable hunting and fishing practices in two target villages by year 3 and at least a 30% reduction in number of birds harvested annually in KhR by year 3. PA management training program is operational with trainers appointed/first courses offered by yr 2.
Baseline values, to the extent possible, have been identified for both global and domestic benefits.
See the Logical Framework in the UNDP Project Document Section II: Part II
Assumptions/Risks
Natural conditions will not change for the worse. The Caspian Sea has surprised littoral countries in recent years with a dramatic increase in water levels all along the eastern coastline of the Sea. In some ways, this has been good for coastal wetland-dependent biodiversity. One key assumption for this project is that the natural conditions will not change during the life of the project in a way that would negatively affect the biodiversity of the area and/or Reserve’s ability to achieve its management objectives.
Associated risk: Low. Mitigating efforts: Project design emphasizes adaptive management practices.
Government commitment to cross-sectoral collaboration and Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) will be maintained. The Government of Turkmenistan has recently moved in the direction of increasing cross-sectoral coordination along the Caspian coast. This project assumes that this trend will continue and that the political will to further develop ICM will not weaken. The project requires cooperation between the MNP, the SECI, the Port Authority, and the Ministry of Oil and Gas; several entities which traditionally work almost exclusively vertically, rather than horizontally. For people with sector-specific backgrounds, the cross-sector “middle ground” is often hard to find.
Associated risk: Low-Medium. Turkmenistan’s oil and natural gas sector is growing quickly. There is the chance that this sector will simply ignore environmental issues. The risk is mitigated by the high level of interest in and priority given to environmental issues within the Turkmen Government as well as the high level of cooperation Turkmenistan has proffered to date to the Caspian Environment Program. Project design mitigation includes involving key actors from the oil and gas sector in its ICM activities, demonstrating step-by-step the different ways of working together, and by providing the tools, information, and incentives to do so.
Government commitment to trying new protected area approaches will be maintained. There is no strong tradition of community involvement and consultation with local people in Turkmenistan’s protected area history or in Turkmenistan’s natural resource management experience. The project will be introducing new, more participatory approaches that will require a receptive approach on the part of government and local communities. The project
6 will need to break down barriers and build bridges in both directions – so that government officials acknowledge and listen to other stakeholders, and the local population sees value and merit in their own participation.
Associated Risk: Low-Medium. Turkmenistan’s protected area system is rooted in policies from another era. These will take time to change. The project mitigates this risk by addressing the issue at the national policy level and at the protected area management/community level, and introducing changes slowly and cumulatively, building upon existing policy and precedent to the maximum extent.
A major threat to the Caspian environment may be pollution from outside the system/outside Turkmenistan. Pollution entering the Caspian from Russia via the Volga is seen by some (CEP website) as the main long-term environmental issue, along with oil spills from the many oil and gas wells/pipelines/refineries in and around the Caspian. An assumption is that this remains at the present level (or decreases) and that nothing catastrophic happens – at least during the life of the project.
Associated Risk: Low-Medium. The CEP, a high profile regional environmental program, is addressing these issues directly. In addition, the project includes under Outcome 2, a provision to help the KhR understand existing oil spill contingency plans with its coastal neighbors and seek additional contingency measures be developed to protect priority habitats in the event of a disaster.
COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
1. COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY
Turkmenistan ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in June 1996. The country is eligible to borrow from the World Bank and receives technical and financial assistance from the United Nations Development Programme.
2. COUNTRY DRIVEN-NESS
The sustainable and balanced development of the Caspian coastal region of Turkmenistan is a priority task included in Turkmenistan’s National Development Strategy for 2010. The National Caspian Action Plan of Turkmenistan calls for the strengthening of Khazar Nature Reserve, developing and implementing a more integrated coastal management and planning approach to resource use on the coast and the strengthening of related laws and policies. The project’s areas of emphases are considered priority actions in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and the National Environmental Action Plan.
The Government of Turkmenistan, in consultation with the World Bank, identified the project concept as a primary priority with respect to the Caspian Environment Program Priority Investment Portfolio Project (CEP/PIPP). Turkmenistan has been an active participant in the CEP and has accorded a high priority to Caspian environmental issues, as evidenced by their joining the four other littoral states in November of 2003 in signing the Framework Convention
7 for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea. In addition, halting the loss of Caspian biodiversity is also one of the top priorities agreed to by Turkmenistan and other states as part of the recently adopted Caspian regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP). Further evidence of country driven-ness and ownership are visible in the Government’s commitment to provide in-kind contributions in pursuit of project objectives
PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY
FIT TO GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM AND STRATEGIC PRIORITY
Strategic Priority Conformity
This project is consistent with the GEF’s Strategic Priority #1 (Catalyzing the Sustainability of Protected Areas). This project will contribute to the sustainability of Turkmenistan’s National System of Protected Areas by focusing on demonstrating innovative practices and techniques first in Khazar Nature Reserve on Turkmenistan’s Caspian Sea Coast, then taking the resulting best practices and applying them system-wide. Khazar was chosen as the demonstration area for three reasons: 1) It is the largest protected area (PA) within the national system; 2) It faces the key challenges in modernizing its management capacity and approach that are faced by every protected area in Turkmenistan - of looking outward rather than inward in terms of its management and long term conservation perspective; of participatory protected area management; of how to work more closely with local communities on resource management; of modernizing its basic organizational management capacities; and of catching up with and integrating into protected area management modern conservation biology and landscape ecology tools; and 3) It is complementary with and carries forward the GEF Caspian Environment Program’s priority areas. The project is designed to enable Khazar Nature Reserve to meet these challenges and to replicate these skills in the National System of Protected Areas.
The current protected area system suffers from a number of significant limitations that hamper the effectiveness and sustainability of biodiversity conservation efforts and impede achievement of the long-term benefits for Turkmenistan and globally.
Operational Program Conformity
The project meets GEF eligibility criteria under Operational Program #2 (OP-2) (Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems). The project promotes the conservation and sustainable use of globally significant biological diversity of coastal and marine resources under threat. Per OP-2 guidance, the project will take an ecosystem (landscape ecology) approach to furthering conservation and sustainable use objectives in and around Khazar Nature Reserve.
CBD Conformity This project is designed to support the primary objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable-use of its components, and the equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of these components. By integrating conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into relevant plans and policies, the project will fulfill the requirements of Article 6: General Measures for Conservation and
8 Sustainable Use. CBD Article 7: Identification and Monitoring and Article 8: In-situ Conservation will be supported through the strengthening of park management and targeted species and habitat management, research and monitoring. Article 10: Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity will be furthered through the development and demonstration of alternative, sustainable livelihood options that avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological diversity, providing incentives for sustainable use (Article 11: Incentive Measures). The project also supports Article 12: Research and Training by promoting targeted research on priority biodiversity in wetlands, providing training in technical and managerial areas, and developing linkages for exchange of information (Article 17: Exchange of Information). Education and awareness raising is also a project priority (Article 13). In addition, the design of the project adheres to the principles contained in the Joint Work Plan (1998) between the CBD and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)
This project is designed to express and demonstrate sustainability in the context of the national level protected area system of Turkmenistan. The project design process considered and the implementation process will address several dimensions of sustainability: environmental, social, institutional and financial sustainability.
The project focuses specifically on the first three dimensions - environmental, social and institutional - by emphasizing the importance of a sustainable environmental and social context for the reserve and by focusing on the very practical capacity building needs of the reserve itself. The prospects for financial sustainability are promising, with the Government recently increasing significant funding for protected areas. The project seeks to bolster this trend by highlighting the total economic value to Turkmenistan of Khazar Reserve and replicating this value assessment for other protected areas.
The project is not designed to achieve full sustainability in each of its dimensions for the National System of Protected Areas in Turkmenistan. Rather, it is designed to demonstrate more sustainable reserve management practices in one reserve and achieve replication of these practices in others, thereby improving the overall conservation effectiveness of the PA system.
The project’s design reflects several overriding assumptions related to the achievement of sustainability: a) The project’s outputs and activities are largely achievable with existing institutions and financial resources through strengthened capacity of reserve personnel, strengthened PA financial management, and strengthened partnerships with other coastal stakeholders. b) Integrating conservation objectives into larger sectoral programs will build individual and institutional momentum, and be a significant contributing factor to sustainability. c) Government has proven its interest in cross-sector management of coastal resources, and this interest will only grow in the future. d) Local communities’ reliance upon natural resources for food and supplementary income will decline as the oil and gas economy grows in the coastal zone. However, it will not change significantly in the short to mid term and thus the need for more sustainable management practices for water bird and fishery resources.
9 The project’s approach can be summarized in four primary ideas: I) Long-term capacity and policy maturation underpin the sustainability of PA systems. II) Reserve management, both inside the reserve and at the landscape scale, is more proactive, sustainable and effective when there is greater collaboration with partner organizations (Outcomes 1, 2). III) Reserve management is more sustainable when local stakeholders have sufficient capacity for collaboration and good will towards the protected area (Outcome 1). IV) Reserve management is more sustainable when the productive landscape in which it exists is more biodiversity friendly and sustainable (Outcome 3).
With respect to point I, the project focuses on strengthening long-term capacity and the maturation of relevant policies by undertaking a broad capacity-building initiative designed to recruit young people from the University and strengthen the capacity of existing staff. The project addresses issues related to policy maturation by working closely with the UNDP EcoNet project to update Turkmenistan’s PA policies and categories. With respect to point II, partnerships among the reserve and local stakeholders will be an important element in ensuring sustainability. Partnerships will strengthen the capacity of KhR and local communities to sustain integrated conservation efforts over the long-term. Collaborative partnerships (among MNP, SECI, community groups and leaders, and resource-users) across the traditional sectoral boundaries offer low-cost management solutions. With respect to point III, the project is designed to strengthen local institutional and stakeholder capacity through training and partnership building. Sustained implementation of these activities will be ensured by building the capacity of a cross-section of civil-society (Reserve offices, hunters, fishermen, fisher group and cooperatives, community groups, and Ministry departments). With respect to point IV the project is designed to improve methods of managed hunting and fishing in the surrounding land and sea scapes.
REPLICABILITY
Replicability is a key element of this project’s strategy. The goal of the project is the conservation of globally significant biodiversity through the augmented effectiveness and sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas. The project strategy is built on the premise that new, modern techniques of biodiversity conservation can be demonstrated at the country’s largest PA and best practices derived from this experience and disseminated and replicated throughout the national system. Thus, proponents explicitly designed a component (Outcome, Outputs and Activities) to ensure replication of the identified innovative practices within the larger national system.
For additional information, refer to the UNDP Project Document, SECTION I: Part II
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Cooperation among the Reserve’s stakeholders is important to the strategic approach of the project. Preparatory work interviewed individual resource-users in order to understand the socio-economic dynamic around the reserve. During the preparatory period, five local stakeholder consultations were held, involving more than 100 people in coastal communities bordering the Reserve.
10 Preparatory analysis centered on consulting with resource users and other stakeholders in order to qualify and quantify the overall level of resource use, and its relative importance. Hunting and fishing impact certain areas of the reserve significantly. For details on local resource use, see the baseline description in the Project document. Different hunters and fishers were individually consulted with the aim to explain the project rationale and objectives, and to obtain information about their resource use, their level of awareness about Reserve issues, and the importance of local resources in their livelihoods. The project will promote community involvement in the nature resources management and self-organization through establishment of and/or support to the local CBOs, fishing cooperatives, KhR stakeholder working group.
Four national-level coordination meetings were held among representatives of MNP and SECI. And finally, individual meetings with officials from MNP, SECI, KhR, Port Authority, Caspian Ecological Control, Fishery Inspection Service, local and national NGOs, community groups, and the private oil and gas sector were conducted to discuss the project, its main approaches, partnering, and co-financing arrangements.
Partner Role in Project Ministry of Nature Protection Chair of POC; Co-funder; Project beneficiary. Direct (MNP)/Khazar Nature Reserve involvement in: implementing activities to achieve all four Outcomes. State Enterprise for Caspian Issues Member of POC; Direct involvement in implementation of (SECI) under the President of activities to achieve Outcome 2. Turkmenistan Ministry of Oil and Gas, Turkmen Provision of experts for Outcome 2, participation in POC. Chemicals (Turkmendokunkhimia Co.), Turkmen Oil and Gas Trade Corp, Turkmen Oil State Concern. Turkmenbashi and Essenguly Members of POC; Direct involvement in Outcome 3. Etraps Port Authority of Turkmenbashi Direct involvement in Outcomes 1 and 2. (PA-T) Balkanbalyk (BB) – “State Fishery Direct involvement in Outcome 3 in terms of serving as a Production Association” market for fishing cooperatives’ harvest as well as providing expertise in fish marketing and processing. Counterpart Consortium Co-funder of and direct involvement in Outcome 3. Turkmenistan, USAID funded project in Turkmenistan Central Asian Regional Co-financing of civil society capacity strengthening work Environment Center (TACIS- under Output 3.1. funded Caspian Community Development grant program) Fishery Inspection Service (FIS) FIS is an important project partner in strengthening fishery management in the productive sector of the coastal zone. Local Fishers & Hunters Key project beneficiaries. Direct involvement in implementing Outcome 3 (sustainable management of bird and fishery resources) and Outcome 1 (Strengthening PA Management). Will be included in the PA conservation and management planning working groups.
11 Desert Research Institute (DRI) Direct involvement in Outcomes 1 and 4. Caspian Ecological Control Member of POC. Direct involvement in providing monitoring data and conducting surveys in PA and coastal zone overall as part of Outcome 2 implementation; Organization for Security and Project co-funder of developing sustainable fisheries under Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Outcome 3. Private fishing entrepreneurs Direct support for sustainable fishery activity under Outcome 3. Emerol (private oil company) Direct involvement in Outcome 1 by helping to strengthen KhR’s information baseline and field monitoring capacity. Border Guards Direct involvement in Outcome 1.
For additional information, refer to the UNDP Project Document, SECTION I: PART II and Section IV, Part III.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
This project will apply detailed and specific Monitoring and Evaluation procedures developed by UNDP-GEF for all UNDP-GEF projects. For additional information please see the UNDP PROJECT DOCUMENT, SECTION I: Part IV.
FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
For additional information, see SECTION III of the UNDP Project Document for the Total Budget Table.
Table 1. Detailed description of estimated co-financing sources
Co-financing Sources Name of Co- Classification Type Amount financier (US$) Status* (source) SECI/FIS Government In-kind 40,000 Agreed, confirmed with a letter MNP Government Re-oriented MNP 590,000 Confirmed in Ministry baseline funding. endorsement letter OSCE Multilateral donor New funding for fishery 25,000 Confirmed by a letter activity. USAID Bi-lateral donor New funding for parallel 200,000 agreed program. TACIS Multi-lateral New funding leveraged 265,000 agreed donor for project areas UNDP Impl. agency Cash (278,000) and in- 478,000 Confirmed by a letter kind (200,000) Sub-Total Co-financing 1,598,000
12 This Project has been designed to be cost-effective in the following ways:
. Project activities have been designed to avoid duplication with and to complement other projects and programmes, such as the Caspian Environment Program (e.g. strengthening environmental, legal and policy frameworks, implementation of the SAP and NCAP, particularly in the priority area of Biodiversity, etc.); . The Project will apply well-tested models and methods addressing social mobilization, and participatory analyses and resource management; consensus building across sectors and stakeholder groups, awareness raising using a wide variety of means and measures, and institutional capacity development; . Institutional capacity development activities were designed to simplify and strengthen existing institutional structures and mechanisms instead of creating new ones. The project has a strong focus on multi-sectoral partnership building – this will reduce duplication of work as well as avert implementation of activities that would undercut Project activities. . Project activities were deliberately designed to foster replication of Project-identified best practices in sites other than the demonstration site. The exchange of lessons learned and the participation of other PAs in these activities will reduce costs overall and increase effectiveness.
INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES
UNDP efforts have concentrated on building support for the application of sustainable development principles and concepts, through capacity building for environmental planning and management. As indicated in UNDP’s Country Cooperation Framework for Turkmenistan, cooperation with the Ministry of Nature Protection in the area of sustainable development and environmental management is a primary focus of the country program.
UNDP is helping to strengthen the country’s capacities to comply with global environmental commitments, including those in the area of biodiversity protection. The proposed project represents an important government priority and is therefore an important intervention for UNDP to support. It will be complemented by UNDP’s overall program in Turkmenistan aimed at building the capacity of the government to achieve environmentally sustainable development.
UNDP’s commitment to this initiative is evidenced by its agreement to provide USD 478,000 in cofinancing, USD 278,000 of which is in cash.
CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN IAS, AND IAS AND EXAS
This project is a result of the long-term institutional coordination and joint efforts of two GEF Implementing Agencies. The project idea emerged from the Caspian Environment Programme‘s (CEP), Project Investment Priority Portfolio (PIPP). CEP was developed by the Caspian littoral states with the assistance of the World Bank, UNEP, UNDP, and the European Union/Tacis. The
13 program is governed by a Steering Committee composed of representatives from each of the five Caspian littoral states as well as the international institutions. The first phase of CEP (1995– 2002) had the following main outputs: a) a regional program and coordination mechanism for the management of the Caspian environment; b) a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) of priority environmental issues identifying and prioritizing necessary actions; c) a fully endorsed Strategic Action Program (SAP) and adoption of National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs) for each littoral country; d) a Caspian Framework Convention signed by all the littoral countries; e) a Priority Investment Project Portfolio (PIPP).
Preparatory activities for the project proposed here were funded by CEP’s PIPP program.
A new second phase of the Caspian Environment Programme was approved by GEF for funding in 2004. This project’s main objectives are: Commence implementation of the SAP in the priority areas of Biodiversity, Invasive Species and Persistent Toxic Substances. Continue with specific capacity building measures to ensure a regionally owned CEP coordination mechanism capable of implementing the SAP, coordinating the NCAPs, and consolidating/updating the TDA, SAP and NCAP’s following a series of information gap- filling measures. Strengthen the environmental legal and policy frameworks operating at the regional and the national levels and where necessary improve implementation and compliance of those frameworks. Achieve tangible environmental improvements in SAP priority areas by implementation of small-scale investments supported by a small matched grants programme.
This project will facilitate close collaboration between the CEP and the MNP/Khazar Nature Reserve. This is envisioned to take the form of active participation in activities under the first objective related to: a) the CEP’s circum-Caspian EcoNet and b) substantitive contributions in staff time, data, and other resources to the CEP-sponsored Caspian seal surveys and habitat conservation efforts. This project will also support CEP work under the other three main objectives as needed and appropriate, including work to strengthen PA management policies, target CEP small grants, and share knowledge and information among protected areas in the five Caspian littoral states.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS The project will be implemented over a period of four years. Project execution will adhere to UNDP national execution (NEX) procedures.
Executing Agency (EA) The Ministry of Nature Protection will execute the project in accordance with standard UNDP procedures for national execution and will be responsible for the planning and overall management, reporting, accounting, monitoring and evaluation of the project, for the supervision of the Project Oversight Committee (POC) and for the management of GEF resources. The Ministry of Nature Protection, as
14 executing agency, will appoint a National Project Director (NPD) responsible for providing government oversight and guidance to the project implementation.
Project Management A National Project Manager will be recruited using standard UNDP recruitment procedures. He/she will assume the overall responsibility for management of the project, i.e. accountability for the use of funds and meeting the overall objectives of the project. The NPM will manage the project on a day-to-day basis and is accountable to the executing agency and the PSC for the quality, timeliness and effectiveness of the activities carried out, as well as for the use of funds. The NPM will ensure the regular monitoring and feedback from activities already under implementation. A Project Admin/Finance Assistant will assist the NPM.. One of the most important responsibilities of the PM will be working effectively with members of the POC to ensure that project-inspired activities proceed on schedule within each project partner. A part- time Senior Advisor will provide annual best practice input to project monitoring and sharing of lessons learned, as well as ongoing support to the PM and the IA via e-mail.
UNDP Working closely with the National Executing Agency, the UNDP Country Office (CO) will be responsible for a) overseeing project budgets and expenditures; b) providing support to the project execution at the request of the National Executing Agency; c) project evaluation and reporting, result- based project monitoring, and organizing independent audits to ensure the proper use of GEF funds.
Project Oversight Committee (POC) The Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP) will establish and chair the POC. The POC will consist of one member from each of the following institutions or stakeholder groups: MNP; the State Enterprise on Caspian Issues (SECI); UNDP; CaspiControl; BalkanBalyk; Essenguly Etrap; and Turkmenbashi Etrap. The POC has four main responsibilities. To serve as a forum for stakeholder input and discussion. To oversee project implementation and meetings on an annual basis to review project progress, and approve annual project work plans. To act as a check on any unintended changes in project implementation. The POC must approve any major changes in project plans or programs before they can take effect. POC members will facilitate project work in their respective spheres, ensure timely implementation of cooperative activities, and facilitate the integration of project-inspired activities into existing programs and practices.
For additional information, please refer to the UNDP Project Document, especially Section I: Part III.
15 Annexes to the Executive Summary
Annex A: Incremental cost analysis
Annex B: Logical Framework
Annex C: Response to Reviews: STAP review, GEF Secretariat Comments, World Bank Comments
16 Annex A : Incremental cost analysis
The total cost of the project “Alternative” to the baseline is US$ 3,036,600. Of this total, co-funding constitutes 52.6% or US$ 1,598,000. GEF financing constitutes the remaining 47.4% of the total, or US$ 1,438,600. The incremental cost matrix provides a summary breakdown of baseline values and Co- funded and GEF-funded Alternative costs.
1. National Development Objectives:
1.1 The Government of the Turkmenistan is committed to pursuing a policy of sustainable development. The Office of the President of Turkmenistan demonstrated this commitment specifically in the Caspian coastal zone by establishing the State Enterprise for Caspian Issues to coordinate sustainable development approaches in Turkmenistan’s Caspian coastal zone.
1.2 The conservation of biodiversity is a recognized cornerstone of the country’s sustainable development agenda. Turkmenistan ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1996 and has completed its National Biodiversity Strategy. The establishment and effective management of protected areas is a key tool within the strategy for the conservation of the country’s biodiversity. Currently, the Government of Turkmenistan (GoT) annually appropriates approximately over $240,000 for biodiversity conservation management activities related to Khazar Nature Reserve (KhR). This figure is not insignificant and represents the GoT’s continued commitment to the protection of this area and indeed all of its protected areas. The ongoing financing of the KhR’s management needs as well as those of the national PA system is particularly striking given the current severe numerous competing priorities as Turkmenistan moves into its second decade of independence. Consequently, international financing is being sought to offset the incremental costs associated with conserving globally significant biological diversity by strengthening Turkmenistan’s National System of Protected Areas.
2. Global Environmental Objectives:
2.1 The project’s global environmental goal is the conservation of Turkmenistan’s globally significant biodiversity by strengthening the sustainability of its National System of Protected Areas. The project will do this by demonstrating a new effective, participatory and adaptive approach to conservation and management with KhR, which also constitutes a model for replication throughout the PA system of Turkmenistan.
2.2 The biological diversity of the Caspian Sea and its coastal zone makes the region of undisputed global significance. The biodiversity of flora and fauna on Turkmenistan’s southeast Caspian coast consists of 854 species, or one-third of the biodiversity of the sea as a wholeii. KhR and its biodiversity values are being increasingly threatened. In spite of the GoT’s concern and commitment to the continued conservation of these areas, baseline activities and levels of financing and institutional capacity are inadequate to fully realize effective and sustainable conservation of these sites. Without the prescribed interventions and essential incremental assistance, the globally significant environmental benefits associated with these areas will be seriously compromised.
17 Annex A: Incremental cost matrix
Benefits and Costs Baseline Alternative Increment Domestic Benefits Minimal and declining. Fishing Fishing sector becomes more viable Enhanced ability of Turkmen yields insufficient returns for most and sustainable, benefiting local stakeholders in government fishermen due to a number of economies. institutions, local communities and constraints and barriers. 30% of NGOs to conserve biodiversity people in small communities are New management regime establishes through sustainable use. forced to supplement their income by sustainable take levels, mitigating and hunting migratory birds in a distributing uncertainty of bird downward spiral of excessive hunting resource across hunters. and decreasing populations. Domestic tourism holds some promise People are empowered with new but is in the nascent stages of knowledge and access to resources to development. develop alternatives.
Improved prospects for Turkmen Protected Areas to provide social and economic benefits
Global Benefits Limited, ineffective protected area Conservation efforts are improved in Improvement in conservation of management and coastal conservation KhR and the productive coastal significant populations of migratory efforts are undertaken to conserve landscape Caspian coastal habitat birdlife, Caspian seals, and coastal coastal ecosystems in the Caspian through capacity building, stakeholder wetland habitat coast, one of the most threatened participation, and applying new habitats in Europe. partnerships, resources. Global indirect use values, future use values and existence values secured. Biodiversity conservation objectives mainstreamed into productive coastal KhR lessons learned contribute to the environment. development of mainstreaming biodiversity practice around Caspian Globally significant biological region. diversity is conserved Baseline (US$ over 4 yr period) Co-funding GEF Outcome 1: Khazar Nature Reserve MNP: $920,000 MNP 319,000 (KhR) management capacity and FIS: $1,832,000 FIS 20,000 conservation effectiveness is secured UNDP 75,000 Total: 2,752,000
18 Total: 414,000 GEF: 584,600 Outcome 2: Cross-sector capacity for SECI 100,000 SECI 20,000 integrated coastal management Port Authority 150,000 MNP: 138,000 established and biodiversity Turkmenbashi Refinery 1,000,000 UNDP 70,000 conservation objectives mainstreamed into productive coastal sectors Total: 1,250,000 Total: 228,000 GEF: 320,000 surrounding KhR. Outcome 3: Khazar Reserve Essenguly and UNDP 268,000 strengthens environmental Turkmenbashi Etraps ---.--- OSCE: 25,000 governance and builds trust and USAID/Counterpart 300,000 TACIS 265,000 goodwill with local communities USAID 200,000 MNP 74,000
Total: 300,000 Total: 832,000 GEF 95,000 Outcome 4: Project best practices Total: 0 UNDP: 65,000 are mainstreamed into the national PA MNP 46,000 system of Turkmenistan. Total: 111,000 GEF: 180,000 M&E (travel included under relevant Total: 13,000 MNP (M&E) 13,000 GEF: (M&E) 104,000 outcomes) and Project Management GEF (Proj Mngmnt) 155,000
Total: 13,000 Total: 259,000 Total: Baseline cost 4,315,000 Total Co-financing Total GEF financing for Alternative 1,598,000 For Alternative 1,438,600
19 Annex B: Project Logical Framework
Objective/Outcomes Impact and Process Indicators Baseline Target goal Sources of Verification Assumptions and Risks Goal: The protection of Turkmenistan’s globally significant biodiversity by strengthening the sustainability of its National System of Protected Areas
Objective: A new effective, New PA categories, community Not adopted. Are adopted and Government decree. Natural conditions will participatory and adaptive participation, and landscape under not change so as to approach to conservation and ecology principles are adopted implementation negatively impact the # management is demonstrated by into law. by EoY 2. and condition of target Khazar Nature Reserve and species within the constitutes a model for METT score improvement. Baseline METT Improves at METT test score records. reserve. replication throughout the score: 24 least 10% system. annually.
Hectares under community-based None. 100,000 by year Resource management resource management around 4. agreements. Khazar Reserve. # of other protected areas in None At least 50% by Field visits/interviews; PA Turkmenistan applying METT to end of project. correspondence/planning track management effectiveness. documents.
# of other protected areas None. At least 50% by Field visits/interviews; PA incorporating new, participatory end of project correspondence/planning management mechanisms into documents. their PA management approach
20 OUTCOME 2. Cross-sector Coastal Planning Working Group is Does not exist Established by Official document; Cross-sectoral capacity for integrated coastal operational. Yr 1. Meeting minutes. coordination remains a managementOUTCOME 1. established Khazar Nature and No specific Objectives New management plan priority among key biodiversityReserve (KhR) conservation management Biodi-friendlyAdaptive management coastal zoning, program for managementNo standards Standardsdefined; document;Official policy PA staffpapers. partnerPromised agencies. budgetary objectivescapacity and mainstreamed conservation into development,KhR operational. and Presenceconstruction of objectivescurrently. in approvedworkplan by interviews; METT resources will productiveeffectiveness coastal is secured sectors. standardsspecific management approved/not objectives; approved as place; METT not EoYapproved 3. by questionnaires. actually surrounding KhR. Gov’tApplication policy. of METT to track applied. EoY 1; Localmaterialize. administrations progress. Not gazetted; METTIs gazetted applied EoY Official maps; Field visits. maintain their level of KhR is/is not gazetted on the Not clearly annually.3; Is clearly interest in participating. authoritative official government marked marked. KhR/MNP could maps. Three 4 by yr 2 and 6 MNP budget; Official become more risk # newly trained professional staff byIncorporated yr 4. SECI’spapers. development review averse and reduce its Targeton payroll landscape for KhR. species Not incorporated. into Oil/gas, mechanisms; Sector support for new conservation priorities incorporated fisheries, port, planning reports. approaches. into key productive sector planning Baseline TBD. Remainsand tourism stable Annual surveys; Data andPopulations development of indicator review species; ordevelopment increases by by records mechanisms.target bird, fish, and mammal yrEoY 4. 4. This outcome is largely OUTCOME 3. KhR builds trust species w/in the Reserve. achievable with and goodwill with local # of fishermen working as part of ZeroNone AtOver least 20 4 by The plans themselves. existingOvercoming institutions, barriers communities and strengthens #new of species/habitatscooperative for which yearfishermen 2; 8 by part FieldField records;monitoring interviews. surveys. existing(knowledge and, tofinancial, be environmental governance over active conservation plans are being yearof coop 3. EoY 2. increased“proof of financialconcept”) will wildlife resources implemented. resourcescatalyze the and adoption personnel of community-based hunting No such Target levels Field monitoring/surveys fromnew protectedthe MNP/KhR. area management operational in target management agreed among management areas based upon mutually agreed exists. Zero stakeholders approaches. sustainable harvest levels. hunters involved and monitoring underway. At least 20 in one community by EoY 2. Field stakeholder surveys. % decrease in # of birds harvested Baseline to be At least a 30% annually in KhR. confirmed at reduction by . inception. year 3.
% people in four target communities Unknown – TBD 30% up by EoY Annual opinion survey. who agree with the statement “the at project launch. 3. reserve is improving social and economic conditions in our community.”
21 OUTCOME 4: Project best practices PA management training program No such program Trainers Letters of appointment; Adaptive management are mainstreamed into the National incorporated into MNP’s national exists appointed/first interviews. finds active supporters System of Protected Areas of PA system. courses offered within MNP. Turkmenistan. by yr 2.
MNP adoption of best practices No new best MNP MNP policy; demonstrated at Khazar. practices. incorporates at least four key best practices into national PA policy and oversight.
# of protected areas in Tstan None At least 40% MNP records; interviews applying specific new practices by EoY 3. with PA directors; field demonstrated at Khazar w/respect to visits. improved financial and human resource management, data management, field surveys, and community relations.
22 Annex C Response to reviews
C.1 STAP REVIEW AND IA RESPONSE TO STAP REVIEW
TECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROJECT PROPOSAL TO THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF)
Project Title: CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT BIODIVERSITY IN KHAZAR NATURE RESERVE ON THE CASPIAN SEA COAST Reviewer: Wim Giesen, Mezenpad 164, 7071 JT Ulft, The Netherlands tel. +31.315.630316 email: [email protected] or [email protected] Date: 12th January 2005 Contact: Nick Remple, GEF Regional Coordinator for biodiversity in Europe and CIS region, UNDP, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, [email protected]
A. Key Issues:
1. Assessment of scientific and technical soundness of the project. a) In general, the KhR proposal appears both technically and scientifically sound. The approach towards establishing a new effective, participatory and adaptive approach to conservation and management, demonstrated in Khazar Nature Reserve (KhR), and using this as a model for replication throughout Turkmenistan’s Protected Area system seems appropriate and highly useful. That this involves increasing KhR management capacity and conservation effectiveness is logical, as does establishing cross-sector capacity for ICM and mainstreaming biodiversity conservation objectives into productive coastal sectors surrounding KhR. Given the soured relationship with local communities (since establishment of the Reserve), building trust and goodwill with local communities and strengthening environmental governance over wildlife resources also seems highly appropriate. Replicating a workable model by mainstreaming project best practices into the national Protected Area system is a logical way forward. In the Turkmenistan context, this approach is innovative, well balanced, sound, and highly necessary. On the whole, the threats analysis correctly identifies root causes and targets these with appropriate responses. The logframe provides a clear and logical project framework with verifiable achievement indicators and an appropriate means of monitoring. There do not appear to be any controversial issues, or flaws that would severely impede implementation. Biodiversity targeted by the project is certainly of global significance. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed (see below, A1b-A1w). b) The main threats identified in the proposal are habitat degradation due to pollution and other disturbances from the oil and gas industry, and over-exploitation/hunting of wildlife resources. However, other sources also list “intrusion of alien species (up to 50) and growing disturbance: during the last decade, the number of high-speed motor-boats increased by 10
23 times, and the burning, mowing, and etching-out of reeds and bulrush pose threats”1. The Biodiversity Assessment for Turkmenistan (USAID, 2001) reports that industrial and agricultural pollution in the Caspian still form a threat, for although inputs have decreased since the breakup of the Soviet Union, high concentrations remain in the system, within both physical and biological components. In addition to hunting, egg collecting is reported to be a threat, especially of gull colonies. These threats are either not mentioned (alien species and destruction of key habitats) in the proposal, or not mentioned as being of major significance (pollution other than from the gas and oil industry). The threats analysis should be expanded to at least mention these additional issues. Pesticide residues and heavy metals reportedly contributed to the recent die off of large numbers of Caspian Seals, and the invasion of Mnemiopsis leidyi, or Leidy’s Comb Jelly in the 1990s, caused the Caspian’s fish stocks to plunge. c) According to the proposal ‘Traditionally, the commercial fishery in Turkmenistan’s Caspian Coast focused exclusively on sturgeon and ignored all other species; fishermen lack knowledge and experience in catching and successfully finding markets for other species’ (p.7). During Soviet times, a specialized fishery co-operative operated in the village
1 http://www.biodiversity.ru/eng/publications/zpnp/archive/n42/kamakhina.html 2 World Bank / WWF (2003) – Reporting Progress in Protected Areas: A Site-level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool.
24 h) Activity 1.2.1. Human capacity building program for KhR. This seems fine, but at the same time the project needs to address the key reason for staff leaving the reserve (p.10). Was this because of demoralization? Lack of funds? Low status? Conflicts with local communities? Building staff capacity is certainly required, but at the same time you need to ensure that this investment isn’t wasted, and that newly trained and qualified staff remain in the area. i) Activity 1.3.1. Surveys and targeted research (p.21). “Survey work will be conducted or overseen by the Institute of Deserts in collaboration with the private sector.” Is the Institute of Deserts well placed to conduct marine/limnological research? Why are local universities not involved? Shouldn’t KhR staff be trained and fully involved? They are to be responsible in the future, and should be given a front seat in this early on; link with Activity 1.2.1. “The Reserve has committed to continuing the monitoring activities upon conclusion of the project.” (p.22). Has GoT committed (sufficient) finances for this? j) Activity 1.3.2. “Stakeholders develop and implement a biodiversity conservation plan for KhR.” (p.22) This is to involve making conservation and recovery plans for key species and habitats. The Biodiversity Conservation Plan will form an integral and central part of the Management Plan (as should other activities). It is stated that MNP approval for this approach will be required – has this not been sought by the proponent of the proposal? If not, this may pose a substantial risk for project implementation. k) Activity 1.3.4 Strengthen staff law enforcement capacity (p.23). Trying to achieve adequate boundary demarcation and signage seems a long shot given the size of the KhR. What about widely providing maps and interpreting these for the stakeholders as part of the awareness- raising program (1.3.3)? l) Activity 2.1.1 Establish a Coastal Planning Working Group. Given the number of initiatives undertaken in the environmental sector in Caspian Sea region over the past decade (e.g. CEP, NCAP), it is surprising that a forum for inter-agency coordination does not exist. Perhaps one does exist, but is ineffective? Establishing new planning groups when others have failed is not always the best/most sustainable solution. This activity should be coordinated with the Caspian Regional Thematic Centre (of CEP) for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Planning and Management in Iran. m) Activity 2.2.1 Define the conservation landscape and seascape more comprehensively (p.25). ‘Through this activity, the same working group established under Activity 1.2.2 will develop a management plan for the Reserve and its surrounding areas…”. This is unclear: 1.2.2 does not mention a working group, but deals with strengthening the legal and policy aspects. Perhaps Activity 1.1.2 Development of the Management Plan is meant here? In any case, it is not under 2.1.1 that the Management Plan is being developed, but under 1.1.2; under 2.2.1 the MP is to be expanded to fully take account of landscape/seascape aspects of species conservation. n) Activity 2.2.2 Demarcate boundaries of KhR on all official maps. Getting government agencies to agree to/endorse boundaries is not a simple matter. Even if the mapping is contracted out to GoT’s Cartographic Services, the boundary has to be agreed to by all major government agencies before the final product can be regarded as an official map. This process usually takes years, even with lots of careful nudging along. Given the fact that local officials have only a vague knowledge of the boundaries of the Reserve does not bode well. o) Activity 3.1.1 Establish community resource centers. On the one hand it appears that physical community centers are to be established (that will also serve as libraries and information centers, e.g. via internet). On the other hand, it is stated that ‘these centers are
25 meant to be transitional and not permanent’. The reviewer interprets this as: the physical centers are to be permanent, but the program for capacity building run at the center is to be transitional (during the life of the project only). p) Activity 3.1.2 Small grant program. Who will decide which (business and/or community action) plans will be funded? While certain environmentally positive plans can readily be funded (such as environmental clean-up, water & electricity supply, sustainable energy, school assistance), criteria for both eligible and non-eligible plans need to be made clear at an early stage. The proponent may need to establish a ‘green list’ (like the one already listed, but more comprehensive), a ‘black list’ (type of plans that are definitely not eligible), and a clear method for deciding about plans that lie in the intermediate ‘grey zone’. q) Activity 3.2.1 Demonstrate re-oriented sustainable fishery practices. This activity should specifically state that the aim is to develop fisheries other than those based on sturgeon. Shouldn’t a feasibility study be carried out first, as an initial phase of this activity, before making significant investments? Are the current non-sturgeon fish stocks healthy enough to support a growth in this industry? Is there a market for these non-sturgeon fish resources? Why was the fish processing plant moved to Turkmenbashi? Is the local infrastructure sufficient, e.g. in terms of road accessibility, electricity for a processing/storage facility? The fishing plant at Turkmenbashi is reportedly already operating below capacity, as everything except the fish needs to be imported.3 A clear and financially healthy feasibility plan is required before making major investments. r) Activity 3.2.2. Community-based management of birdlife resources. Given the over- exploitation of wildlife/birdlife resources and the decline in numbers, this activity will require some delicate balancing. Clearly there is a need to move away from over- exploitation of an open-access resource, to restricted access benefiting local communities. However, these communities have little or no experience in sustainable resource management, and ensuring that over-exploitation does not continue will require lots of capacity building, in combination with enforcement (of quotas, and not hunting protected species). How will local communities be able to ensure that (e.g. wealthy, well-placed, armed) outsiders do not continue to step in and take this resource? s) Risks: Natural conditions. The proposal assumes that the natural conditions will not change during the life of the project in a way that negatively affects biodiversity, and the reserve’s ability to achieve its management objectives. Water levels in the Caspian decreased by 70 cm between 1933-1941 (i.e. almost 9 cm/yr), and increased by 225 cm during 1978-94 (i.e. 14 cm/yr). Given the history and magnitude of these changes, there seems to be a moderate risk of such changes affecting outcome of the project. How can the project deal with this? t) Risks: Government commitment. Commitments on paper are relatively easy to obtain, but these need to translate into actions, such as provision of funds and allocation of human resources, changing of policies and legislation, and the agreement to an official reserve boundary. Have recent actions been taken by GoT that show that these (hoped for) changes are really occurring? u) Risk: External. The major threat to the Caspian environment may be pollution from outside the system/outside Turkmenistan. Pollution entering the Caspian from Russia via the Volga is seen by some (see CEP website) as the main long-term environmental issue, along with oil spills from the many oil and gas wells/pipelines/refineries in and around the Caspian. An
3 http://www.coastalguide.org/icm/caspian/turkmenistan.html
26 assumption is that this remains at the present level (or decreases) and that nothing catastrophic happens – at least during the life of the project. v) Monitoring (p.35-37). The described monitoring program is elaborate and should be sufficient. However, the proponent should be aware that GEF is in the process of developing a Project Information Form for Biodiversity (PIFB)4. All approved GEF 3 biodiversity projects are required to fill in the PIFB – which is for monitoring of project results. w) The Incremental Costs Analysis should be summarized in a narrative that is to be included in the main body text of the proposal. x) Minor points: . Khazar is also written as ‘Hazar’ – this should be mentioned early on in the proposal. . Abbreviations are incomplete (add at least APR, IR, TPR, CCD, PIR, CO, CEC, CZM, CBO, NGO, ROAR) add TACIS to a glossary. . P. 4. Halocnemum is not a monotypic genus: there are at least 7 species in this genus, including H. strobilaceum (see http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html ); the same holds for Halostachys, of which at least 6 species are known. . P. 5. March Harrier should read Marsh Harrier. . P. 5 These wetlands are listed as Ramsar Site (#106). It should be noted that the listing of the Ramsar Site dates from the Soviet period, and that Turkmenistan is not a signatory to the Ramsar Convention. Hence, the listing is left in limbo. . P. 6 “The impact of bird hunting in the Khazar area is unknown in terms of numbers and the ecological costs…”. This is inconsistent with the paragraph that follows, that states that poaching takes at least 85,000 or even as much as 400,000 birds annually. . P. 10: the reserve consists of three distinct areas: this should be made clear in a map, with scale, that show the sheer size of the area (900 km of coastline), and the formidable task. The map that is provided in the proposal is fine for showing a general location within the country, but no more than that. . P.19: Activity 1.1.2 Develop and implement PA management… Where is Activity 1.1.1? . P. 29 Output 4.2 protected area management training program: no activity?.
2. Evaluation of the identification of global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks and risks of the project.
Caspian Sea biodiversity in Turkmenistan, especially along the Khazar NR coastline, is of global significance to conservation. The area was listed as a Ramsar Site (#106) in Soviet times, and has still retained most of the globally significant biodiversity since then, although numbers have declined and several species have disappeared or stopped breeding in the area (bittern, flamingo, ruddy shelduck, eagle owl). There are no apparent drawbacks or added risks to biodiversity because of the Project, provided that clear guidelines are provided for investments under the small grants program (Activity 3.1.2; see A.1.p), and feasibility studies show that non-sturgeon fish stocks can cope with an increase in fishing efforts (activity 3.2.1)
3. 3Evaluation of the project’s compliance or fulfillment of the goals of GEF
Turkmenistan acceded to the CBD on 18 September 1996 and is therefore eligible for GEF assistance. The Conservation and Sustainable Use program in KhR meets GEF eligibility criteria
4 See p.10 www.undp.org/gef/undp-gef_grant_opportunities/sub_grant_opporotunities_files/template_exec_summary.doc
27 under Operational Program #2 “Coastal Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems”, as it promotes conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity of marine ecosystems. The approach outlined is also fully in accordance with the GEF-OP2 Criteria, and supports three GEF strategic priorities, namely BD-1, Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas; BD-2 Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors; and BD-4 Generation and Dissemination of Best Practices for Addressing Current and Emerging Biodiversity Issues.
4. Assessment of how the project fits within its regional context The Project is almost fully focused on Turkmenistan, although there is a provision under Output 4.4 for information exchange. However, the project will be of regional importance to biodiversity conservation as (if successful) it will positively affect migratory and wide ranging species such as the Caspian Seal Phoca caspica and very large numbers of migratory waterfowl along two major flyways: the Central Asian-Indian Flyway and the East African Flyway. Because of this, links should be established with Ramsar and Bonn conventions (Turkmenistan is party to neither at the moment, but does participate on parts of CMS, e.g. Siberian Crane conservation).
Turkmenistan signed the ‘Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea’ on 9 November 2003, and from this various obligations emerge, some of which will be met by the Project. The project should link up with and make use of existing programs where possible, such as those established by the Caspian Environment Program. For example, the Caspian Sea Biodiversity Database, which can be used as a repository for data collected under the Project’s monitoring program (activity 1.3.1). The project should also link up with the CEP’s Caspian Regional Thematic Centre for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Planning and Management in Iran. Cooperation with other Caspian Sea states seems limited (see activity 4.4), and this may be an opportunity lost – exchange of information (e.g. on biodiversity, fish stocks, dealing with alien species, pollution, management approaches) via workshops and meetings is a first way forward, but also site visits and staff exchanges may be an effective way of nurturing cooperation.
5. Evaluation of the replicability of the project a) While the habitats in KhR are unique (the other NRs in Turkmenistan are not located along the Caspian Sea), most of the issues (e.g. pollution, habitat destruction, lack of management capacity and enforcement, over-exploitation of resources, fragmentation, PAs at odds with local communities), at KhR are similar to those in other sites in Turkmenistan’s Protected Area system. It is therefore expected that most of the lessons learned at KhR will be applicable to other sites in the country. b) The Project strongly emphasizes replicability, by providing extensive training and capacity building (1.2.1, 1.3.4, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2) and by having a single component (Outcome 4) devoted entirely to ensuring that best practices are mainstreamed into the national Protected Area system of Turkmenistan. In various ways, it also ensure that legislation and policy are modified to facilitate replicability (e.g. 1.2.2, 2.1.2). c) Replicability should be readily possible, provided that risks can be avoided/mitigated, that the project is successful, and that funds can be allocated or attracted for replication in other PAs.
6. Evaluation of the sustainability of the project
28 a) One of the main issues regarding sustainability is financial sustainability. However, this is looking promising, with the Government recently significantly increasing funding for protected areas. The project seeks to bolster this trend by highlighting the total economic value of Khazar Reserve to Turkmenistan and replicating this value assessment for other protected areas. b) Capacity building of KhR staff is sustainable as long as: i) staff remain motivated and feel supported; this can be achieved by the project; ii) financial security is provided; guarantees have been provided by GoT, but implementation and continued interest is required; iii) in-country training programs continue and serve to provide a continual stream of new staff for PAs; lessons learned at KhR are to be incorporated into existing training programs; and iv) other job opportunities do not poach trained staff from PAs; this is out of control of the project, but may occur because of the lure of the gas and oil industry. c) As mentioned in A.i), ‘surveys will be conducted or overseen by the Institute of Deserts in collaboration with the private sector’. As stated in A.i, KhR staff is to be trained and fully involved in this as soon as possible, as they will be responsible for monitoring programs in the future. d) A Coastal Zone Planning Working Group (CPWG) is to be established, led by SECI, for cross-sectoral management planning and collaboration. How will this function after the project terminates? e) Lessons learned are to be incorporated into a new PA training program, ensuring that these skills are taught to the next generation of PA and environmental practitioners in Turkmenistan. It is not made evident how this new training program will be funded and who/which agency will be responsible for this. f) Sustainability of good will and trust building with the local communities. Much of this may depend on funds entering these communities via the community resources centers (3.1.1) and via the small grant program (3.1.2), which will both end with the finalization of the project. Sustainable fisheries will to some degree (perhaps a major degree?) depend on externalities, such as markets and effects on fish stocks (e.g. by Mnemiopsis leidyi). Sustainable community management of birdlife resources will depend on birdlife numbers (only to some degree controlled by the community), and the degree by which access by external hunters and egg-collectors can be prevented. g) Pollution from outside the system/outside Turkmenistan may be a major threat to sustainability in the long run. Pollution entering the Caspian from Russia via the Volga is seen by some (see CEP website) as the main long-term environmental issue, along with oil spills from the many oil and gas wells/pipelines/refineries in and around the Caspian (see A.1.u).
B. Secondary issues
7. Evaluation of linkages to other focal areas (international waters, climate change)
There are no – or only weak – linkages to the other GEF focal areas.
29 . There is a link with the international waters focal area via conservation of migratory species (esp. Caspian Seal and migratory waterbirds), sustainable fisheries, and the effects of water pollution (e.g. oil spills). This links needs to be emphasized in the proposal.
. There is a possible link with climate change, as global warming may affect water levels in the Caspian Sea; levels in the Caspian Sea can be regarded as a proxy for precipitation in the Volga River basin (80% of incoming water is from from Volga)5. There is no apparent link with the other focal areas (ozone depletion, POPs), and negative impacts in focal areas outside the focus of the project are not expected.
8. Evaluation of linkages to other programs and action plans at the regional and sub- regional level a) Programs/strategies with which the project should link up with or make use of are: . Ramsar Convention. Turkmenistan is not a signatory to the Ramsar Convention, but Khazar NR is recorded as a Ramsar wetland of international importance under its Russian name Krasnovodsk, designated in 1976 during Soviet times. According to the Alma-Ata Declaration of 21 December 1991, Turkmenistan has undertaken to guarantee "in conformity with their legislative procedures, the fulfillment of the international obligations, stemming from the agreements signed by the former USSR", thus the 188,700ha State Nature Reserve (Zapovednik), still maintains it's Ramsar status. . Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention). Turkmenistan is not a signatory or party to the Bonn Convention, but given the relevance of coordinating the conservation of migratory species between Caspian Sea littoral countries and beyond, linking up with CMS is warranted. . The project should link up with the African-Eurasian Migratory Water Bird Agreement (AEWA), the largest agreement developed so far under the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS). AEWA came into force on 1 November 1999, when 20 contracting Parties met in Cape Town, South Africa. The agreement covers 235 species of birds ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle, including many species of pelicans, storks, flamingos, swans, geese, ducks, waders, gulls and terns. Turkmenistan is not a contracting party or signatory to AEWA, but lies within the area covered by AEWA, and the Caspian coast in the country is of particular importance for the AEWA migratory species.
9. Assessment of other beneficial or damaging environmental effects a) Other coastal areas in Turkmenistan (and perhaps beyond, depending upon effectiveness of output 4.4) will also benefit from the project due to improved conservation legislation, increased capacity of MNP, SECR and the PA-T for managing coastal resources (including biodiversity). b) Project replication in other protected areas – foreseen and strongly promoted by the project – will undoubtedly result in additional benefits.
5 www.caspage.citg.tudelft.nl/download/IGCPCaspianv3.doc
30 c) Damaging environmental effects as a result of the project are unlikely, provided that clear guidelines are provided for investments under the small grants program (Activity 3.1.2), and feasibility studies show that non-sturgeon fish stocks can cope with an increase in fishing efforts (activity 3.2.1).
10.Evaluation of the degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project The proponent of the Project fully recognizes that lack of local participation is a major handicap in successful management of the KhR. Therefore, local involvement is actively sought at various levels: a. Activity 1.3.2 Stakeholders develop and implement a biodiversity plan for Khazar Nature Reserve. Stakeholders will actively contribute to the production of a vital part of the Management Plan that directly affects resources they would like to have access to. b. Activity 2.1.1 Establish a Coastal Planning Working Group – this will include local representatives. c. Activity 2.1.3 Strengthen the ability of stakeholder institutions to apply CZM concepts and practices. d. Activity 3.1.1 Establish community resource centers in communities neighboring KhR. Communities will formulate Community Action Plans, which can then be eligible for funding/implementation by the small grants program. e. Activity 3.1.2 Extend small grant program to support community-based development. Community members f. Activity 3.2.1 Demonstrate re-oriented sustainable fishery practices. g. Activity 3.2.2 Pilot community-based natural resource management for birdlife resources.
However, section IV Part III “Stakeholder Involvement Plan” is not yet drafted in the proposal presented to the STAP reviewer, and the following can therefore not be answered: a) Mechanisms for participation and influencing the management of the project:
Seven primary mechanisms for stakeholder participation and influencing project implementation are identified in the proposal’s Stakeholder Involvement Summary: Project oversight committee, KhR Stakeholder Working Group (act. 1.1.2), Coastal Planning Working Group (act, 2.1.1), Annual lessons learned workshops & roundtable discussions (act. 4.3.1), Mid-term evaluation, which will consult major stakeholders, Participatory monitoring (act. 1.3.1), and Fisher cooperative and waterfowl CBNRM mechanisms (act.s 3.2.1 & 3.2.2).
To this could be added a, d/e and g, above. On the whole, the mechanisms appear ample for creating the desired degree of local ownership. However, the actual proposal makes no mention of the Stakeholder Working Group – it is not mentioned anywhere, neither in the main text body, nor in the logframe.
31 The proposal does not directly address communication lines, but states that these will be clarified during the Inception Phase (and elucidated at the Inception Workshop). Lines of communication will on the one hand run via the KhR stakeholder working group (assuming that this will be added to the proposal, as suggested in the Stakeholder Plan), the coastal planning working group, and via the annual workshops and discussions. On the other hand, much of the day-to-day communication will probably run via the POC, which will facilitate communication between project and stakeholders, and among stakeholders. As stated in the proposal (p.34), “when required, the POC will serve as a forum for stakeholder input and discussion.” These various possible channels of communication seem sufficient for smooth and efficient running of the project, but should be clarified to some extent in the proposal, and not left up to the IW. c) Exchange of technical information between communities and stakeholders:
The exchange of technical information between communities and stakeholders will probably be through the Stakeholder Working Group (once this is established), the Coastal Planning Working Group, roundtable discussions, and via participation in the monitoring programmes (act. 1.3.1). d) Participatory schemes and conflict issues
The proposal mentions that conflict resolution mechanisms will be developed and made clear at the Inception Workshop, when all roles and responsibilities and lines of communication will also be made clear. However, it is recommended that some possible mechanisms for conflict resolution be already identified, so that this can be finalized and approved at the IW.
11. Assessment of the capacity building aspects a) General The Project strongly emphasizes training and capacity building, via activities 1.2.1, 1.3.4, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, and on the whole there is adequate attention in the proposal on capacity building. One possible drawback is that trained KhR staff may be transferred to other posts where the acquired skills may no longer be put to use, or they may be attracted to other (better paying) jobs in the oil and gas sector. If at all possible, the project should strive to obtain a commitment from trainees that lasts beyond the life of the project. b) Human capacity to tackle the issues addressed in the project 1. One of the risks identified in the proposal is the institutional capacity of the National Executing Agency. As reported in the proposal (p.31), this risk has been mitigated during project design by focusing on capacity building as one of the first key steps, and by UNDP’s commitment to secure additional administrative assistance to support this project’s implementation. 2. The Project will address human resources and institutional development of KhR, and to some extent MNP, and aims to train persons in various aspects of NRM and CZM
32 (numbers of trainees provided in logframe). This will need to begin with a needs assessment, followed by a targeted response. 3. The above should be sufficient to achieve the outputs targeted under the KhR Project.
12. Innovativeness of the project a) Many of the proposed approaches are ‘tried and true’ (e.g. METT application, NR staff capacity building program, strengthening of the legal framework, surveys and targeted research, education & awareness programs, strengthening NR staff law enforcement capability, establishing Coastal Planning Working Group, strengthening institutions in CZM, boundary demarcation & mapping, small grant programs for Community Action Plan implementation, demonstration of fishery alternatives, operational network for training program replication), based on a long pedigree of protected area, natural resource management, and CZM projects in the region and elsewhere. These have been successfully applied elsewhere, and can certainly be usefully applied in KhR. b) Stakeholders developing a biodiversity conservation plan (Activity 1.3.2), is an innovative approach, certainly in the Turkmenistan context, but also beyond, and as such it entails a moderate but acceptable risk. MNP will have to provide approval for this approach, and will need to be fully convinced. c) Establishing community resource centers (Activity 3.1.1), is relatively tried-and-true elsewhere, but remains new and innovative in the Turkmenistan context, where community involvement in NR management is novel. d) Pilot community-based resource management for birdlife resources (Activity 3.2.2). This is an innovative approach, certainly in the Turkmenistan/regional context, that is not entirely without risk (see A.1.r). However, if these issues are dealt with and a workable solution is found, this should help to provide a solution to one of the principal threats in KhR. e) Clear and compelling economic arguments for PA contribution to development and for long-term financing of KhR and the National PA system (Output 4.5). This aspect is innovative, not only in Turkmenistan, but also on a wider scale. Although TEV studies have been carried out frequently in conjunction the NRM and CZM, such economic studies are seldom carried out in relation to existing PAs.
Concluding remarks
Overall, the KhR proposal is interesting and well developed, and the innovative approaches outlined could provide exciting new models, not only in other PAs of Turkmenistan, but also elsewhere where the suite of management approaches need to be expanded to deal with new threats and issues. The project is therefore expected to have a high demonstration value for the rest of Turkmenistan, as well as in adjacent countries. The innovative elements include: stakeholders developing a biodiversity conservation plan, establishing community resource centers, pilot community-based resource management for birdlife resources, and providing clear and compelling economic arguments for PA contribution to development and for long-term financing of KhR and the National PA system. The project design is sound and feasible, based largely on existing institutions and agencies, and local practices and approaches. Where necessary, provisions are in place for training and capacity building, and there is ample scope for replicability, given that similar issues face the other PAs in the country, and that this is the focus
33 of Outcome 4. No major problems are envisaged – the ones outlined above could easily be rectified in the design.
Wim Giesen
Ulft, the Netherlands, 12th January 2005
34 RESPONSE TO THE STAP REVIEW
Summary of STAP Comment Response Where docum ent was revise d (sectio ns, paragr aphs) y) In general, the KhR proposal appears both technically and scientifically None needed. Not sound. There do not appear to be any controversial issues, or flaws that would Applica severely impede implementation. Biodiversity targeted by the project is certainly of ble global significance. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed (see (NA) below, b-w).
b) The main threats identified in the proposal are habitat degradation due to There are no rivers that flow into the Caspian from Turkmen territory NA pollution and other disturbances from the oil and gas industry, and over- and the coastal area of Turkmenistan is largely sparsely inhabited exploitation/hunting of wildlife resources. However, other sources also list desert scrublands. Farming is not a primary economic activity. “intrusion of alien species and growing disturbance: during the last decade, the This minimizes the input of agricultural pollution from number of high-speed motor-boats increased by 10 times, and the burning, Turkmenistan into the Caspian. mowing, and etching-out of reeds and bulrush pose threats”. The Biodiversity Assessment for Turkmenistan (USAID, 2001) reports that industrial and agricultural Regarding the destruction of reed beds and egg collecting, these issues pollution in the Caspian still form a threat, for although inputs have decreased since were not raised in project preparatory discussions and field visits, but it the breakup of the Soviet Union, high concentrations remain in the system. In will be investigated thoroughly during the first year of project addition to hunting, egg collecting is reported to be a threat. These threats are either implementation. not mentioned in the proposal, or not mentioned as being of major significance. The threats analysis should be expanded to at least mention these additional issues. Regarding the intrusion of alien species and pesticide residues and Pesticide residues and heavy metals reportedly contributed to the recent die off of heavy metals in the Caspian Sea, other initiatives are tackling these large numbers of Caspian Seals, and the invasion of Mnemiopsis leidyi, or Leidy’s Caspian-wide problems, including the Caspian Environment Comb Jelly in the 1990s, caused the Caspian’s fish stocks to plunge. Programme and were deemed to out of the Scope of Interest for this project. This project will collaborate with these initiatives,, in particular with the CEP.
c) According to the proposal ‘Traditionally, the commercial fishery in This has been clarified. The commercial fishery has focused almost Section I,
35 Turkmenistan’s Caspian Coast focused exclusively on sturgeon and ignored all exclusively on sturgeon. The specialized cooperative was the only Pages other species; fishermen lack knowledge and experience in catching and one of its kind in Turkmenistan and it closed in the mid 1980s, 7,27. successfully finding markets for other species (p.7). During Soviet times, a resulting in the loss of this kind of expertise during the intervening specialized fishery co-operative operated in the village
d) Capacity barriers (p.7). Add: Many staff have departed, and few qualified staff The text was modified to include this barrier. Section I, are left in KhR. Page 7.
e) Important for success of the project is that staff are trained or qualified staff See page 9 of the baseline description. The government in fact actually Section I, are again attracted to the KhR – this can be achieved via the project – but financial funds the PA system fairly well. The challenge is to make more Pages 9, guarantees are required (from GoT) to ensure continuity beyond the life of the effective use of the funds. 20 project. If these have been secured for this purpose, this should be prominently stated. As indicated in the METT, one of the constraints is that “There is very little But the point of training and keeping good people is well taken and will secure budget and the protected area could not function adequately without outside be a driving concern under this project’s capacity building approach. funding.” This language has been included under Output 1.2 “ The project will work with the Ministry of Nature Protection to elaborate innovative measures to ensure training and retention of skilled staff.
The answer to METT question #15, ranked the reserve at #2: “The available budget is acceptable, but could be further improved to fully achieve effective management.” f) Overall goal of the project (p.19): “To strengthen Turkmenistan’s national The goal of the project has been rephrased to: “The protection of Section I, system of protected areas”. This is incomplete: the goal of this project should be Turkmenistan’s globally significant biodiversity by strengthening the Page 19 strengthening the national PA system “in order to preserve globally significant sustainability of its National System of Protected Areas.” biodiversity”. Strengthening of a PA system alone could never be an ultimate goal of a GEF-funded biodiversity project.
g) Output 1.1, Activity 1.1.2. It is fine to use the METT results as a basis for This is a good point and clarification has been made to Activity 1.1.2 of Section I, developing a management plan, but as it reads now, annual METT surveys are to the ProDoc: “The working group will review the results of the Page 20. be used to “track progress in improving management capacity and to serve as a METT survey and the information gathering undertaken under catalyst for adaptive management”. The METT guidelines, however, caution that Output 1.3, and with PA management planning input from the there are limitations in its use, and that the METT “should not replace more project, will develop a management plan in response to the issues thorough methods of assessment for the purposes of adaptive management”. raised by the METT and confirmed by additional socio-economic and biological data from the field.” h) Activity 1.2.1. Human capacity building program for KhR. This seems fine, but at The key reasons identified for staff leaving the reserve were a the same time the project needs to address the key reason for staff leaving the combination of historical and economic factors. The difficulties of reserve (p.10). Was this because of demoralization? Lack of funds? Low status? the transition period marked a low point in the reserve’s history, Conflicts with local communities? Building staff capacity is certainly required, but causing many people to depart, especially ethnic Russian staff who
36 at the same time you need to ensure that this investment isn’t wasted, and that newly were being replaced by Turkmen staff as a matter of policy. trained and qualified staff remain in the area. i) Activity 1.3.1. Surveys and targeted research (p.21). “Survey work will be KhR staff will be trained and fully involved. There are no local Section I, conducted or overseen by the Institute of Deserts in collaboration with the private universities in the Caspian area of Turkmenistan. The Institute of Page 21. sector.” Is the Institute of Deserts well placed to conduct marine/limnological Deserts is the only (and best) option. research? Why are local universities not involved? Shouldn’t KhR staff be trained and fully involved? They are to be responsible in the future, and should be given a This has been clarified under Activity 1.3.1, page 21. front seat in this early on; link with Activity 1.2.1. “The Reserve has committed to continuing the monitoring activities upon conclusion of the project.” (p.22). Has GoT committed (sufficient) finances for this?
j) Activity 1.3.2. It is stated that MNP approval for the approach of the The requirement for MNP approval is a standard requirement for all conservation plan under this activity will be required – has this not been sought by international projects in Turkmenistan. It is not expected to cause the proponent of the proposal? If not, this may pose a substantial risk for project any delays. implementation.
k) Activity 1.3.4 Strengthen staff law enforcement capacity (p.23). Trying to This has been included in the awareness-raising program, Activity 1.3.3. Section I, achieve adequate boundary demarcation and signage seems a long shot given the Page 23. size of the KhR. What about widely providing maps and interpreting these for the stakeholders as part of the awareness-raising program (1.3.3)?
l) Activity 2.1.1 Establish a Coastal Planning Working Group. Given the number This is the first such working group of its kind for a specific coastal area Section 1, of initiatives undertaken in the environmental sector in Caspian Sea region over the in Turkmenistan. Page 24. past decade (e.g. CEP, NCAP), it is surprising that a forum for inter-agency Activity coordination does not exist. Perhaps one does exist, but is ineffective? Establishing The State Enterprise For Caspian Issues (SECI) is the existing cross- 2.1.1. new planning groups when others have failed is not always the best/most sectoral authority in Turkmenistan for Caspian coastal issues. They sustainable solution. This activity should be coordinated with the Caspian Regional will chair the project’s Coastal Planning Working Group. Thematic Centre (of CEP) for Integrated Transboundary Coastal Area Planning and Management in Iran. The activity will be coordinated with the Caspian Regional Thematic Center of CEP as suggested. m) Activity 2.2.1 Define the conservation landscape and seascape more This has been clarified under Activity 2.2.1. The text mistakenly Section I, comprehensively (p.25). ‘Through this activity, the same working group referred to Activity 1.1.2, when it should have referred to 1.3.2 as Page 25 established under Activity 1.2.2 will develop a management plan for the Reserve well as the reserve management planning activity under Activity and its surrounding areas…”. This is unclear: 1.2.2 does not mention a working 1.1.1. group, but deals with strengthening the legal and policy aspects. Perhaps Activity 1.1.2 Development of the Management Plan is meant here?
n) Activity 2.2.2 Demarcate boundaries of KhR on all official maps. Getting Indeed, this is not a simple matter. This is why the GoT’s Cartographic government agencies to agree to/endorse boundaries is not a simple matter. Even if Services has been involved in this activity. Reason for optimism
37 the mapping is contracted out to GoT’s Cartographic Services, the boundary has to lies in the fact that SECI, the organization responsible for be agreed to by all major government agencies before the final product can be coordinating Caspian work under the Office of the President of regarded as an official map. This process usually takes years, even with lots of Turkmenistan, is the proponent behind this mapping activity. The careful nudging along. Given the fact that local officials have only a vague idea to do this came from them as they rightly pointed out that knowledge of the boundaries of the Reserve does not bode well. none of the official maps actually have Khazar Reserve demarcated on them, hampering any kind of meaningful collaboration among sectors. With SECI acting as the proponent of this activity, securing endorsement from other government agencies should be much easier. o) Activity 3.1.1 Establish community resource centers. On the one hand it These centers are intended to be transitional both in terms of their appears that physical community centers are to be established. On the other hand, it capacity building work and their physical offices, unless is stated that ‘these centers are meant to be transitional and not permanent’. The stakeholder demand and forthcoming support is sufficient to reviewer interprets this as: the physical centers are to be permanent, but the maintain operation of these physical centers after the capacity program for capacity building run at the center is to be transitional (during the life building program is completed. On a few occasions, the operation of the project only). of the physical centers has been absorbed and subsequently funded by the local administration. p) Activity 3.1.2 Small grant program. Who will decide which (business and/or The proponent will be working closely with the communities on the Section I, community action) plans will be funded? While certain environmentally positive preparation of their plans to ensure that they are environmentally Page 27 plans can readily be funded, criteria for both eligible and non-eligible plans need to positive. The development of a green list and a black list has been be made clear at an early stage. The proponent may need to establish a ‘green list’ added to Activity 3.1.2 in order to clarify that this needs to be (like the one already listed), a ‘black list’ (type of plans that are definitely not made clear to stakeholders before they develop their plan. eligible), and a clear method for deciding about plans that lie in the intermediate ‘grey zone.’ q) Activity 3.2.1 Demonstrate re-oriented sustainable fishery practices. This Additional information has been added to Activity 3.2.1 regarding the Section I, activity should specifically state that the aim is to develop fisheries other than those specific aim of the activity and the discussions held during the Page 28. based on sturgeon. Shouldn’t a feasibility study be carried out as an initial phase of preparatory period covering fish stocks and potential markets. A this activity? Are the current non-sturgeon fish stocks healthy enough to support a feasibility study has been added to build upon these preliminary growth in this industry? Is there a market for these non-sturgeon fish resources? Is discussions. the local infrastructure sufficient, e.g. in terms of road accessibility, electricity for a processing/storage facility? A clear and financially healthy feasibility plan is required before making major investments. r) Activity 3.2.2. Community-based management of birdlife resources. Given the Points are well taken and project proponents are in full concurrence. over-exploitation of wildlife/birdlife resources and the decline in numbers, this Currently, well-funded and armed outsiders are not a major activity will require some delicate balancing. Clearly there is a need to move away problem. Local communities will not be left to themselves to deal from over-exploitation of an open-access resource, to restricted access benefiting with management problems but rather will be working in local communities. However, these communities have little or no experience in partnership with the Reserve and its enforcement staff, as well as sustainable resource management, and ensuring that over-exploitation does not the local Etrap authorities.
38 continue will require lots of capacity building, in combination with enforcement (of quotas, and not hunting protected species). How will local communities be able to ensure that (e.g. wealthy, well-placed, armed) outsiders do not continue to step in and take this resource? s) Risks: Natural conditions. The project will deal with this by assessing the potential impacts on its Section I. Given the history and magnitude of the changes in the Caspian (water levels in the priority species and habitats of additional increases in water levels Caspian decreased by 70 cm between 1933-1941 (i.e. almost 9 cm/yr), and and decreased water levels as well and including these assessments Page 25: increased by 225 cm during 1978-94 (i.e. 14 cm/yr)), there seems to be a moderate as part of its landscape scale conservation plan developed with Additio risk of such changes affecting outcome of the project. How can the project deal coastal partners under Activity 2.2.1. In addition, the adaptive ns made with this? management approach that this project will foster in KhR will to serve the Reserve in good stead in the face of changing Activity circumstances in the need to adapt management priorities in 2.2.1. response. t) Risks: Government commitment. Commitments on paper are relatively easy to Yes. This is described in part in the baseline section on page 9. obtain, but these need to translate into actions, such as provision of funds and “Before independence, Turkmenistan undertook substantial efforts to allocation of human resources, changing of policies and legislation, and the conserve its unique biodiversity; by establishing a network of protected agreement to an official reserve boundary. Have recent actions been taken by GoT areas. Ten years after independence, Turkmenistan increased its that show that these (hoped for) changes are really occurring? commitment to its national system of protected areas substantially with the employment of approximately 385 PA staff, the provision of administration facilities and basic equipment, and funding of recurrent management costs for the system totaling US$1,198,795 in 2002 (MNP).” u) Risk: External. The major threat to the Caspian environment may be pollution This has been added to the list of assumptions and to the coastal Section I. from outside the system/outside Turkmenistan. Pollution entering the Caspian from planning activity 2.1.1. Pages Russia via the Volga is seen by some (see CEP website) as the main long-term 24 and environmental issue, along with oil spills from the many oil and gas 32. wells/pipelines/refineries in and around the Caspian. An assumption is that this remains at the present level (or decreases) and that nothing catastrophic happens – at least during the life of the project. v) Monitoring (p.35-37). The described monitoring program is elaborate and should The comment is appreciated and proponents have been duly informed. be sufficient. However, the proponent should be aware that GEF is in the process of developing a Project Information Form for Biodiversity (PIFB)6. All approved GEF 3 biodiversity projects are required to fill in the PIFB – which is for monitoring of project results.
6 See p.10 www.undp.org/gef/undp-gef_grant_opportunities/sub_grant_opporotunities_files/template_exec_summary.doc
39 w) The Incremental Costs Analysis should be summarized in a narrative that is to be IC narrative has been added. Section II, included in the main body text of the proposal. Part I. Page 45. Minor points:
. P. 6 “The impact of bird hunting in the Khazar area is unknown in terms of They are not inconsistent in that the figures quoted are estimates Section I, numbers and the ecological costs…”. This is inconsistent with the paragraph only, as attested by the wide range (85,000 – 400,000) in total Page 6 that follows, that states that poaching takes at least 85,000 or even as much as numbers estimated to be taken. The paragraph in question on page 400,000 birds annually. 6 has been clarified. . P. 10: the reserve consists of three distinct areas: this should be made clear in a map, with scale, that show the sheer size of the area (900 km of coastline), We are working to get a better map produced, and will have one in and the formidable task. The map that is provided in the proposal is fine for time for the inception workshop. showing a general location within the country, but no more than that. . P. 29 Output 4.2 protected area management training program: no activity?
This activity has been added. Section I, Pages 29-30
40 C.2. Response to comments from GEF Secretariat
Comment: Although the Executive Summary (page 7) and the Project Brief (page 33) refer to a Government monetary contribution, the Government letter of commitment refers only to an in-kind contribution of USD 590.000. There is not a letter of commitment from SECI. Please clarify
Response: The Government will provide in-kind contribution to the project; corresponding sections of the Project brief (page 33) and the Executive Summary (pages 8 and 12) were corrected accordingly. A letter from SECI was obtained confirming their commitment to contribute US$40,000 in-kind. The letter is attached in a separate annex.
C.3. Response to comments from the World bank
Comments Response References The Executive Summary really needs to tell a Page 2 of the compelling story that is logically connected, from Executive why this place is worth saving, through what is summary threatening it and how the project will address those threats: 1) Global biodiversity importance: There is an assertion of global biodiversity importance, but no evidence offered to substantiate it. A paragraph dedicated to explaining why the reserve is of global importance is essential in the Executive Summary. Much of this information is to be found in the project document; it's just a matter of summarizing the most compelling arguments in the Executive Summary 2) Involvement of local communities: This is Potential forms of involving Page 10-11 of seen as a major focus of the project. There is not, local communities in the the Executive however, a good, succinct explanation in the project are presented in the summary Executive summary of the impacts local project brief: stakeholders are having on biodiversity in the a) KhR Activities 1.1.1, reserve. In the stakeholder involvement table, it Stakeholder Working Group 2.1.1, 3.2.1 and would be helpful to know whether the local will be established and 3.2.2 in the stakeholders mentioned have their own include among other project brief. organizations to act as interlocutors. If not, it stakeholders representatives might be worthwhile for the project to include from fishing and hunter support to developing civil society organizations communities from different targeted at key stakeholders such as fishers, as this villages; will be an important element of capacity building b) a for these populations. Coastal Planning Working Group will include representatives from the two
41 coastal Etraps; c) fishing cooperatives will be established in selected villages to promote better fishing practices and self- organization, and help access the markets d) at least one community based organization (CBO) will be established in most active local community to Pilot community-based natural resource management for birdlife resource 3) Project activities: The Executive Summary Detailed description of the Project brief pp. does not give a clear idea of what the project project activities is available in 19-31 activities will be or how they relate to the the Project Document and outcomes. For instance, what is the impact of local therefore were not included in land and resource use and how will activities such the Exec Summary due to the as forming cooperatives help ameliorate negative length limitations. impacts? The reader is left with a very fuzzy idea about what exactly will be happening on the ground in this project. The descriptions under the outcomes of how these outcomes will be achieved (by what activities, which are meant to counter what threats or address which weaknesses) should be more tightly focused to give a better idea of the logic flowing through the project. 4) Project execution: We are concerned about the Project execution Executive fact that project execution is UNDP's direct arrangements were amended. summary: page responsibility, and that they will hire a private firm The project will be nationally 14 to do it. This seems inconsistent with the goal of executed by the Ministry of building national capacity. Why is this necessary? Nature Protection of the Project brief: Why is it supposed that the Implementing Agency Turkmenistant. UNDP will page 35 will be a private firm? Which sorts of firms in support project execution at Turkmenistan have the necessary expertise and the request of the national experience? Are there any conservation NGOs executing agency and will that could be sub-contracted as Implementing carry out project monitoring Agency, if the government is for some reason not and evaluation and other IA’s well-suited to taking on this role directly? principal responsibilities. Finally, a minor point, but one that carries over A new more informative map Project brief: from our previous comments—it is very hard to was added to the project brief. page 56, Part IV. tell on the map provided where exactly the reserve is, and that information is very useful in
42 understanding what sorts of conservation challenges are likely to be faced. A better map would really help.
wb155260 D:\Docs\2018-04-29\0172ddc6d825a7286eb2f35a0edaf4ef.doc
43 i Mamedniyazov O. Turkmenistan. Action Plan to protect biodiversity of the Caspian Sea (Turkmenistan), Caspian Environment Program, Ashgabat 2001A ii Mamedniyazov O. Turkmenistan. Action Plan to protect biodiversity of the Caspian Sea (Turkmenistan), Caspian Environment Program, Ashgabat 2001A