DOCSLIB.ORG

Published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), November 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 Published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), November 2013 Copyright © UNEP 2013 This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non- profi t services without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Pro- gramme. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the repro- duction, should be addressed to the Director, DCPI, UNEP, P. O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, Kenya. Disclaimers The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Pro- gramme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not neces- sarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made. © Images and illustrations as specifi ed. Citation This document may be cited as: UNEP and WWF, 2013. TEEB Scoping Study for Georgia. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Geneva, Switzerland A digital copy of this report can be downloaded at http://www.teebweb.org Acknowledgements: This document is a joint effort of Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection, Government of Georgia, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and WWF-Caucasus. We are grateful for the valuable contributions of the following experts to the writing of this report: Irakli Matcharashvili (Green Alternative/Ilia State University), Malkhaz Adeishvili, Salman Hussain (Scottish Agricultural College), and Kavita Sharma (UNEP TEEB Offi ce). Ioseb Kartsivadze (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection); Giorgi Sanadiradze and Tamaz Gamkrelidze (WWF-Caucasus); Nicolas Bertrand and Ivonne Higuero (UNEP) coordinated the project on behalf of their respective institutions. We are indebted to Yolanda Kakabadse for initiating this project. We are also grateful to the Project Advisory Group for its guidance throughout the project. Finally, we would like to give special thanks to the many stakeholders for their contributions to the two project workshops. We are also grateful to the Project Advisory Group for its guidance throughout the project (for members of the PAG, see Annex II). Finally, we would like to thank the many stakeholders for their contribution to the two project workshops (for a list of meeting participants, see Annex III). 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 6 PART I – BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 9 PART II – INTRODUCTION: TEEB FOR GEORGIA ..................................................................................... 12 2.1. TEEB ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.3 TEEB Scoping Study: objectives and methodology .......................................................................... 13 PART III: CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Georgia: Bio-physical overview ............................................................................................................ 15 3.2 Georgia: Economic overview ................................................................................................................ 18 PART IV: SECTOR ANALYSES ....................................................................................................................... 19 4.1 Hydropower Sector ................................................................................................................................ 19 4.2 Tourism Sector ........................................................................................................................................ 25 4.3 Agriculture Sector .................................................................................................................................. 29 4.4. Forestry sector ....................................................................................................................................... 34 PART V: CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD .......................................................................................... 40 5.1 Sector findings: summary and recommendations ............................................................................ 40 5.2 Way forward: TEEB for Georgia ............................................................................................................ 42 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 46 ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................... 49 Annex I: Valuation exercises done thus far in Georgia ............................................................................. 49 Annex II: TEEB Project Advisory Group Members .................................................................................... 52 Annex III: Members of the second stakeholder workshop ...................................................................... 53 Annex IV: Objectives of a Scoping Study .................................................................................................. 54 Annex V: Classification of Ecosystem Services .......................................................................................... 55 Annex VI: Biodiversity Offsets ..................................................................................................................... 56 Annex VII: TEEB, WAVES and United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA)..................................................................................... 58 1 Abbreviations APA Agency of Protected Areas BKNP Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park CBD Convention on Biological Diversity BAU Business as Usual BPS Biodiversity Protection Service CWR Crop wild relative EC European Commission ESS Ecosystem services EBRD European Bank of Reconstruction and Development ECP Ecoregion Conservation Plan EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank ESCO Electricity System Commercial Operator GDP Gross domestic product GMO Genetically modified organism GNEWSRC Georgian National Energy and Water Supply Regulatory Commission GNTA Georgian National Tourism Agency GSE Georgian State Electrosystem HPP Hydropower plant HVDC High voltage direct current KfW KfW Entwicklungsbank IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature MCPFE Ministerial Conference on the Protection of forests in Europe ME Ministry of Energy MESD Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development MoENRP Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection MOA Ministry of Agriculture MOU Memorandum of Understanding MNP Mtirala National Park NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NTFP Non-timber forest product SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEEA System of Environmental-Economic Accounting SEM Sustainable Ecosystem Management TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TPP Thermal power plants UNEP United Nations Environment Programme WAVES Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature 2 Foreword by Hon. Khatuna Gogaladze - Minister of Environment and Natural Resources Protection, Georgia The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Initiative aims at promoting a new economy in which the values of natural capital, and the ecosystem services this capital supplies, are fully reflected in public and private decision-making. Georgia is a country of the Caucasus Eco-region, belonging to one of 34 globally significant “biodiversity hotspots” identified by Conservation International. So the global importance of the eco-region, the necessity of its protection and conservation is internationally recognized. The richness of our species and landscape diversity is our treasure and pride. But these resources are not limitless and they need to be cared after and preserved for future generations. Considering the transitional phase and rapid development in Georgia’s economy, TEEB initiative is exactly one of those effective instruments, which could successfully be applied for preserving ecosystems, and at the same time promoting sustainable growth of the economic sector. Therefore it was excellent timing to declare Georgia as one of the pilot countries for implementation of TEEB Initiative in 2011. The present scoping study identifies five core sectors of Georgian economy applicable for the TEEB Initiative; these are Energy, Tourism, Agriculture, Mining, and Forestry.
Recommended publications
  • Assessment of Forest Pests and Diseases in Protected Areas of Georgia Final Report

    Assessment of Forest Pests and Diseases in Protected Areas of Georgia Final Report

    Assessment of Forest Pests and Diseases in Protected Areas of Georgia Final report Dr. Iryna Matsiakh Tbilisi 2014 This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content, findings, interpretations, and conclusions of this publication are the sole responsibility of the FLEG II (ENPI East) Programme Team (www.enpi-fleg.org) and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Implementing Organizations. CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. 3 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Background information ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Literature review ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Results and Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................
  • Environmental Assessment Report: Georgia, Port of Poti

    Environmental Assessment Report: Georgia, Port of Poti

    Environmental Assessment Report Environmental Audit Report September 2009 Prepared by Scientific Research Firm Gamma for Poti Sea Port Corporation This report has been submitted to ADB by Poti Sea Port Corporation and is made publicly available in accordance with ADB’s public communications policy (2005). It does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB. Poti Sea Port Corporation Environmental Audit Report for Current Operations of Poti Sea Port Executed by: Scientific Research Firm Gamma President Vakhtang Gvakharia Tbilisi-Poti 2009 9 M. Alexidze st, 0193, Tbilisi, Georgia tel: +(995 32) 330 274, 330 374 tel/fax +(995 32) 333 268 e-mail: [email protected] SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FIRM GAMMA Environmental Audit, Poti Sea Port Corp. Page 2 of 38 Content 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................3 2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF POTI SEA PORT OPERATIONS ........................................................................4 2.1 ABOUT POTI SEA PORT .............................................................................................................................4 2.2 PORT’S EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................7 3 DESCRIPTION OF PORT’S TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES .....................................................................7 3.1 TECHNOLOGICAL SCHEME AND CAPACITY OF OIL PRODUCT HANDLING ..................................................7
  • E-367 Georgia

    E-367 Georgia

    E-367 GEORGIA PROTECTED AREAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Environmental Assessment, Environmental Management Plan 1. Introduction. The Government of Georgia (GoG) has requested that the International Public Disclosure Authorized Development Association (the Bank) provide support through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for a Protected Areas Development Project. This Project will help the GoG to improve the conservation and sustainable use of Georgian biodiversity. 2. The project will: (i) establish three protected areas in eastern Georgia; (ii) facilitate the creation of a national network of protected areas; (iii) integrate biodiversity conservation into forestry, range management, and agriculture; (iv) strengthen institutions responsible for biodiversity conservation programs; (iv) improve public awareness of the values and importance of Georgian biodiversity; and (v) promote regional / international cooperation for conservation of biodiversity in the Caucasus region. 3. The Implementing Agency for the Project is the Georgia Department of Protected Areas. Financing for Project preparation commenced in March, 1999. Significant analysis and Public Disclosure Authorized proposals for Project financing were developed in partnership with the Department of Protected Areas administrations of three proposed project sites (Vashlovani, Lagodekhi and Tusheti); NGOs; the scientific community, international experts, and Georgian governmental institutions (Ministry of Environment). During project preparation, an environmental review identified the potential impacts of project activities and elaborated environmental review and management plan to be undertaken during project implementation. 4. The results of the environmental review and the recommended environmental management plan were the subject of public consultations held for each protected area site between June 12 and 14,2000. Comments were recorded in minutes (see Annex 5, Summary of Consultations; full minutes are available in Georgian from the Project Implementation Unit).
  • Georgia Environmental Performance Reviews Third Review

    Georgia Environmental Performance Reviews Third Review

    UNECE Georgia Environmental Performance Reviews Third Review UNITED NATIONS ECE/CEP/177 UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS GEORGIA Third Review UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2016 Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 43 NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. In particular, the boundaries shown on the maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. The United Nations issued the second Environmental Performance Review of Georgia (Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 30) in 2010. This volume is issued in English only. ECE/CEP/177 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales E.16.II.E.3 ISBN 978-92-1-117101-3 e-ISBN 978-92-1-057683-3 ISSN 1020-4563 iii Foreword It is essential to monitor progress towards environmental sustainability and to evaluate how countries reconcile environmental and economic targets and meet their international environmental commitments. Through regular monitoring and evaluation, countries may more effectively stay ahead of emerging environmental issues, improve their environmental performance and be accountable to their citizens. The ECE Environmental Performance Review Programme provides valuable assistance to member States by regularly assessing their environmental performance so that they can take steps to improve their environmental management, integrate environmental considerations into economic sectors, increase the availability of information to the public and promote information exchange with other countries on policies and experiences.
  • Caucasus Annual Portfolio Overview, 2013 English Pdf 372.25 KB

    Caucasus Annual Portfolio Overview, 2013 English Pdf 372.25 KB

    An Overview of CEPF’s Consolidation Portfolio in the Caucasus Hotspot November 2013 Introduction The Caucasus Hotspot covers a total area of 580,000 square kilometers, between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, including Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the North Caucasus portion of the Russian Federation, and parts of northeastern Turkey and northwestern Iran. The Caucasus supports more than 6,500 species of vascular plants, a quarter of which are found nowhere else on Earth, and, as such, has the highest level of floral endemism in the temperate world. In addition to outstanding biological values, the Caucasus supports great cultural diversity, with a multitude of ethnic groups, languages and religions intermingled over a relatively small area. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) engagement in the Caucasus Hotspot began with the 1 development of an ecosystem profile for the region in 2003. This was followed by a five-year investment program, under which CEPF awarded 42 large and 87 small grants to civil society groups, with a total investment of $8.5 million. CEPF adopted a unique approach to investing in the biodiversity of the Caucasus, by focusing on biological areas rather than political units, and targeting corridors rich in biological value that straddled national borders. This approach required a focus on transboundary conservation, and emphasized regional collaboration, in contrast to the isolated, national efforts that had hitherto been the norm. To this end, CEPF investment was concentrated within five transboundary corridors, covering 14.2 million hectares, or 25 percent of the hotspot. In addition to these geographic priorities, four strategic directions for CEPF investment were identified through extensive consultations with stakeholders: Support civil society efforts to promote transboundary cooperation and improve protected area systems in five target corridors.
  • Natural Resources of Georgia and Environmental Protection 2018

    Natural Resources of Georgia and Environmental Protection 2018

    STATISTICAL PUBLICATION | 2018 NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF GEORGIA Natural Resources of Georgia and Environmental Protection 2018 Statistical Publication TBILISI 2019 1 STATISTICAL PUBLICATION | 2018 Editors: Gogita Todradze Lia Dzebisauri Person responsible for the publication: Irakli Tsikhelashvili Persons worked on the publication: Tamar Tarashvili Nino Zurabishvili Notation keys: ... Data are not available - Magnitude nil Negligible 0.0 magnitude The discrepancy between the totals and the sum in some cases can be explained by using rounded data The data in this publication do not cover uccupied territories of Georgia (Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region) © National Statistic Office of Georgia 30, Tsotne Dadiani Str., 0180, Tbilisi, Georgia Phone/Fax: (+995 32) 2 36 72 10 (500) E-mail: [email protected] Web-page: www.geostat.ge 2 STATISTICAL PUBLICATION | 2018 Foreword Statistical publication "Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Georgia" presents information on the use of land, forest and water resources, ambient air protection, protected areas, natural disasters and environ- mental violations. It also includes methodological explanations and information from different reference and scien- tific sources. The preparation of this publication is based on the growing interest of a wide range of users, however, the in- formation collected in it, presents the best way of policy planning at local or global levels. In addition, the need to produce environmental indicators is related to the most important issues of global policy, such as climate change and environmental security. The data in the publication reflects the natural resources of Georgia and developed trends of environmental activities in 2000-2018. Substantive comments and suggestions on the format and content of the publication will be highly appreciated by the group of authors.
  • Georgia National Report

    Georgia National Report

    Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes SEMINAR ON THE ROLE OF ECOSYSTEMS AS WATER SUPPLIERS (Geneva, 13-14 December 2004) GEORGIA NATIONAL REPORT NATIONAL REPORT ON THE ROLE OF ECOSYSTEMS AS WATER SUPPLIERS GEORGIA Dr. Ivane Tsiklauri THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND CONVENTIONS DEPARTMENT Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia 68a Kostava St., 0171, Tbilisi, GEORGIA Tel: +995 32 33 4082 Mob: +995 77 76 0547 Fax: +995 32 33 3952 E.mail: [email protected] A. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF WATER-RELATED ECOSYSTEMS Georgia varies greatly in climate and relief. The Greater Caucasus in the north and the Lesser Caucasus in the south are joined by the Likhi ridge to create a natural barrier dividing Georgia into contrasting climatic zones. Western Georgia is humid, in the Black Sea coastal zone - subtropical, while Eastern Georgia tends towards a temperate climate. In the west the average annual rainfall is 1000 to 2800 mm, whereas in the east it is only 300 to 600 mm. This variety of climatic and relief conditions results in diversity of ecosystems in Georgia. Georgia is rich in water resources. There are more than 26060 rivers, with a total length of 59000 km, and about 800 lakes. The majority (99.4%) of the rivers are short (less than 25 km long). There are numerous thermal and mineral water springs, natural and artificial reservoirs. Forest covers about 35 - 37% of the country, including the major part of the mountainous area. The distribution of forests in Georgia is uneven. Along with the forest-rich regions there exist areas with less then 10% of forestation.
  • Realizing the Urban Potential in Georgia: National Urban Assessment

    Realizing the Urban Potential in Georgia: National Urban Assessment

    REALIZING THE URBAN POTENTIAL IN GEORGIA National Urban Assessment ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK REALIZING THE URBAN POTENTIAL IN GEORGIA NATIONAL URBAN ASSESSMENT ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2016 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 632 4444; Fax +63 2 636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2016. Printed in the Philippines. ISBN 978-92-9257-352-2 (Print), 978-92-9257-353-9 (e-ISBN) Publication Stock No. RPT168254 Cataloging-In-Publication Data Asian Development Bank. Realizing the urban potential in Georgia—National urban assessment. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2016. 1. Urban development.2. Georgia.3. National urban assessment, strategy, and road maps. I. Asian Development Bank. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. This publication was finalized in November 2015 and statistical data used was from the National Statistics Office of Georgia as available at the time on http://www.geostat.ge The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
  • National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of Georgia

    National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of Georgia

    Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan - Georgia – Tbilisi, 2005 Foreword Georgia signed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994, thus accepting responsibility to safeguard the nation’s rich diversity of plant, animal, and microbial life, to begin using biological resources in sustainable way, and to ensure equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity. Later the country joined other conventions including the Convention on Climate Change, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, CITES and the Bonn Convention. As a signatory to these important international environmental treaties, Georgia enters the world scene with the potential for joining the most advanced nations in the field of environmental protection. At the present moment of transition, Georgia has a unique opportunity to use the early experiences of other countries, and avoid irreversible changes in the quality of its environment. The national legislation on environmental protection adopted over the past few years provides an adequate legal basis for this, although further elaboration and reinforcement of the existing legislation is needed. With the Ministry of Environment being currently reorganised and assuming broader responsibilities, Georgia’s institutional arrangements for environmental protection already has the necessary structure for improving the quality of the environment throughout the country. The role of non-governmental groups has been very important in resolving problems related to nature conservation. Georgia has shown an excellent example of co-operation between governmental and non-governmental organizations in the field of environment, and particularly in the field of biodiversity conservation. After signing the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Georgian Government immediately acted to develop a Biodiversity Country Study, in partnership with UNEP, and implemented by NACRES, a local conservation organisation.
  • Multifunctional Transshipment Terminal at Port of Poti, Georgia Updated Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

    Multifunctional Transshipment Terminal at Port of Poti, Georgia Updated Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

    TRANSFORD LLC Multifunctional Transshipment Terminal at Port of Poti, Georgia Updated Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Tbilisi 2015 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7 2 Updated ESIA ............................................................................................................... 8 3 Environmental and Social Objectives of the Report ..................................................... 10 4 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Methodology ....................................... 10 5 Legal and Regulatory Framework ................................................................................ 11 5.1 Georgian legislation .............................................................................................. 11 5.2 Environmental Standards in Georgia .................................................................... 15 5.3 Environmental Impact Assessment in Georgia ..................................................... 17 5.4 IFC Performance Standards ................................................................................. 18 5.5 International Conventions ..................................................................................... 19 5.6 Marine sediment quality guidelines ....................................................................... 20 5.7 Gaps between Georgian legislation and IFC requirements ................................... 21 6 Project Description .....................................................................................................
  • Ramsar Adivory Mission No 54

    Ramsar Adivory Mission No 54

    Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 54: Georgia (2005) _______________________________________________________ Mission Report Wetlands of Central Kolkheti, Georgia 14-19 August 2005 by Tobias Salathé, Ramsar Secretariat Contents Summary Introduction Background Scope of this report Article 2.5: urgent national interests for the construction of Kulevi terminal Article 4.2: compensation for wetland loss and degradation Compensation areas Compensation package Ramsar Sites in Georgia Acknowledgements Itinerary and people met Summary 1. The Georgian Ministry of Environment asked the Ramsar Secretariat to provide advice to the experts who are preparing a compensation package (in accordance with Article 4.2 of the Convention) for the construction of Kulevi oil terminal inside the “Wetlands of Central Kolkheti” Ramsar Site. This mission report is part of the assistance provided by the Ramsar Convention to Georgia; it also includes comments on the report concerning ‘urgent national interests’ for the Kulevi oil terminal construction submitted by Georgia (in accordance with Resolution VIII.20) and lists a number of concrete proposals on specific aspects to be dealt with by the compensation study. 2. The most important need is to compensate for the wetland resources lost at Khobi river mouth due to the oil terminal construction, including its access areas from the sea (deep water navigation channel) and from inland (railway track). The area lost to the terminal construction was particularly important for migrating fish and waterbirds, and probably also for
  • 2006 Isbn 99940-58-55-X

    2006 Isbn 99940-58-55-X

    AN ECOREGIONAL CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE CAUCASUSAN ECOREGIONAL CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE CAUCASUS Second Edition May 2006 ISBN 99940-58-55-X Design and printing Contour Ltd 8, Kargareteli street, Tbilisi 0164, Georgia May, 2006 Coordinated by: In collaboration with: With the technical support of: Assisted by experts and contributors: ARMENIA MAMMEDOVA, S. NAKHUTSRISHVILI, G. POPOVICHEV, V. AGAMYAN, L. MUKHTAROV, I. NINUA, N. PTICHNIKOV, A. AGASYAN, A. NAJAFOV, A. SERGEEVA, J. BELANOVSKAYA, E. AKOPYAN, S. ORUJEV, Ad. SIKHARULIDZE, Z. SALPAGAROV, A. AMBARTSUMYAN, A. ORUJEV, Al. SOPADZE, G. SHESTAKOV, A ARZUMANYAN, G. RAKHMATULINA, I. TARKHNISHVILI, D. SKOROBOGACH, J. BALYAN, L. RZAEV, R. TOLORDAVA, K. SPIRIDONOV, V. DANYELYAN, T. SATTARZADE, R. TAMOV, M. DAVTYAN, R. SAFAROV, S. IRAN TUNIEV, B. GABRIELYAN, E. SHAMCHIYEV, T. AGHILI, A. VAISMAN, A. GLYCHIAN, D. SULEIMANOV, M. EVERETT, J. (Coordinator) BELIK, V. GRIGORYAN, E. SULTANOV, E. FARVAR, M.T. JENDEREDJIAN, K. TAGIEVA, E. JAZEBIZADEH, K. KAZARYAN, H. KAVOUSI, K. TURKEY KAZARYAN, M. GEORGIA MAHFOUZI, M. ALTINTAS, M. KHASABYAN, M. ARABULI, A. MANSURI, J. ATAY, S KHOROZYAN, I. ARABULI, G. NAGHIZADEH, N BIRSEL, A. MANVELYAN, K. (Coordinator) BERUCHASHVILI, G. NAJAFI, A. CAN, E. MARKARYAN, N. BERUCHASHVILI, N. ZIYAEE, H. CIFTCI, N. MURADYAN, S. BUKHNIKASHVILI, A. RAHMANIYAN, M. DOMAC, A. RUKHKYAN, L. BUTKHUZI, L. GURKAN, B. SHASHIKYAN, S. CHEKURISHVILI, Z. IPEK, A. TOVMASYAN, S. DIDEBULIDZE, A. RUSSIA KALEM, S. VANYAN, A. DZNELADZE, M. BIRYUKOV, N. KUCUK, M. VARDANYAN, J. EGIASHVILI, D. BLAGOVIDOV, A. KURDOGLU, O. VOSKANOV, M. GELASHVILI, A. BRATKOV, V. KURT, B. ZIROYAN, A. GOGICHAISHVILI, L. BUKREEV, S. LISE, Y. (Coordinator) ZORANYAN, V. GOKHELASHVILI, R. CHILIKIN, V. URAS, A.