ENVSEC Central Asia

Regional Review Meeting

Meeting Report

Objectives and outline of the Meeting

The Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative held a Regional Meeting in Dushanbe, Tajikistanon 21 June 2008. The objectives of the regional meeting were to

  • update participants on the progress under the ENVSEC initiative in Central Asia;
  • to discuss the future of ENVSEC in the region;and
  • to identify priorities for the Initiative in the region.

The meeting was a combination of plenary presentations and discussion. Second half of the meeting was devoted to group discussions to help undertaking the review of ENVSEC in Central Asia. For more information please refer to the agenda and the list of participants at the end of this document.

Opening of the meeting

Opening remarks were delivered by Mr. Jones, UNDP Resident Representative in Tajikistan, Mr. Rasmussen, Deputy Head of OSCE Centre in Dushanbe and Mr. Shomakhmadov on behalf of ENVSEC National Focal Point in Tajikistan.

Mr. Jones emphasized the need for UN organizations to take concrete actions to address identified problems and expand the planning horizon from current 5 years to 20 and more years. This will help to move away from launching emergency appeals every year. In 2008 UN organizations are engaged in preparation of the UN Development Assistance Framework for Tajikistan. The preparation entails expanding the audience to be consulted (including scientists, opposition parties, etc.) and looking at risks such as melting glaciers. ENVSEC is useful in bringing together governments, partner organizations, and experts but there needs to be more emphasis on the work to follow-up and address identified risks and issues.

Mr. Rasmussen reiterated OSCE’s commitment to cooperate within ENVSEC since it is an effective mechanism to identify and address security-related environmental risks. OSCE thinks that ENVSEC assessment in FerghanaValley is still valid and is looking forward to supporting the implementation of Amu DaryaBasin and Eastern Caspian Work Programmes through its network of field presence in all Central Asian countries.ENVSEC projects implemented by OSCE such as the support to Aarhus Centres and piloting of Environmental Impact Assessment principles in transboundary context are helping to address some of security-related environmental issues. OSCE Madrid Declaration on Environment and Security (also signed by Central Asian countries) outlines the political commitment to tackle these issues and OSCE is prepared to assist. Within ENVSEC OSCE would like to see more transboundary projects directly related to security issues such as water issues and hazardous (including radioactive) waste tailings.

Update on ENVSEC work in Central Asia and views from countries

Information update session started with the presentation by Mr. Reimov, UNDP-ENVSEC Project Manager and Regional Desk Officer for Central Asia, about the status of ENVSEC portfolio of projects in Central Asia. He then briefed the participants about the developments in ongoing 12 projects in Central Asia.

Mr. Saidov and Ms. Baidakova presented the information on the results of ENVSEC projects in Tajikistanand Kyrgyzstan, respectively, and expressed views of countries with regard to future priorities of ENVSEC. Presentation of Mr. Akhmetov from Kazakhstan informed participants about the status of ENVSEC assessment work in the Eastern Caspian region and gave a detailed explanation of identified environment-related security issues.

During the discussion the following points were made:

-ENVSEC niche is the joint work with national partners in identifying issues and looking for funds to address them (Grebnev);

-Both Kyrgzystan and Tajikistan lack laboratories capable of doing effective environmental monitoring (Grebnev);

-UNDP Country Office in Kyrgyzstan is working to attract the attention of international community to the issues of uranium tailings;

-ENVSEC must continue supporting the work of Aarhus Centers in Osh and Khudjand (Isabaev);

-In Kyrgyzstan the Ministry of Emergency Situations undertakes the monitoring of abandoned tailings.

Group discussions on ENVSEC in Central Asia

Participants were divided into four groups and they were asked to consider the following questions.

Group 1 and 2

RELEVANCE: the extent to which ENVSEC is suited to local and national development priorities and organizational policies, including changes over time.

a)How does ENVSEC Central Asia relate to the development challenges faced by the Governments of Central Asia countries?

b)What are the ENVSEC comparative advantage(s) vis-à-vis other regional environmental projects or programmes in Central Asia as a whole and in the FerghanaValley in particular?

c)Where should ENVSEC focus in the future: scaling up/replicate results in existing areas of intervention such as FerghanaValley and Kazakhstan OR duplicate the approach in other areas such as Amu-Darya, East Caspian and other areas? And why?

EFFECTIVENESS: the extent to which ENVSEC objectives have been achieved or how likely they are to be achieved.

a)What are the main results of ENVSEC in Central Asia? Is the ENVSEC initiative achieving its expected results; it not why not?

b)What are the lessons learnt during ENVSEC implementation in Central Asia since 2003?

c)What are the suggestions on the future direction of ENVSEC activities in Central Asia as a whole and in the FerghanaValley in particular?

Group 3 and 4

EFFICIENCY: the extent to which ENVSEC results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible.

a)How efficiently is ENVSEC implemented? How could it be more efficient?

b)What are the key target audiences/decision makers/bodies for further ENVSEC initiatives?

c)What are the most positive features and results of ENVSEC Central Asia to be communicated?

IMPACTS: the positive and negative, and foreseen and unforeseen, changes to and effects produced by ENVSEC.

a)What are the long-term potential impacts of activities carried out in the context of ENVSEC?

b)How could this long-term potential be maximized?

SUSTAINABILITY: the likely ability of ENVSEC initiatives to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period of time after completion. Initiatives need to be environmentally as well as financially and socially sustainable.

a)Are the ENVSEC results sustainable in the long-term and why?

b)What could be done to maximize this long-term sustainability?

Highlights of the discussion

Group 1:

-Country national strategies and action plans emphasize environmental security as one of priorities;

-ENVSEC strengths are: i) partnership of several organizations, ii) several priority directions, and iii) regional aspects;

-ENVSEC weaknesses: i) weak coordination between agencies,and ii) projects mainly aimed at assessments and not many concrete results;

-Suggestions for the future: i) follow-up on assessments (i.e. don’t start assessments if there is no possibility of address identified issues either by ENVSEC or assurance that other organizations will pick up the issue, ii) involve Uzbekistan; iii) create national offices in countries to coordinate ENVSEC work; and iv) strengthen coordination with other regional initiatives such as Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management, Interstate Sustainable Development Commission, etc.

Group 2:

-In general ENVSEC projects in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistanmatch the priorities and plans of countries. However ENVSEC projects don’t get “vetted” by Cabinets of Ministers. Some countries are more advanced in coordination ENVSEC work and it is the responsibility of countries to ensure that ENVSEC is better coordinated at country level;

-ENVSEC has its own niche in Central Asia;

-Suggestions for the future: i) ENVSEC should decide where it will stop (i.e. either on assessments or pilots or will endeavor for bigger cleanups); ii) ENVSEC projects need to be at least 2-3 years long so potential donors for follow-up are identified during the assessment; iii) it is very important to include national structures in ENVSEC planning; iii) it is very important to keep Uzbekistan in the loop; iv) ENVSEC should help in bringing the attention to small villages; and iv) ENVSEC should expand into other areas of Central Asia without “forgetting” to continure monitoring Ferghana Valley and working with donors.

Group 3:

-Considering the small budget of ENVSEC projects a lot was achieved and efficiency was high;

-Important audience for ENVSEC are governments, NGO, Regional Environmental Center for Central Asia, European Union, academia, etc.;

-Most positive features: establishment of Aarhus Centers, support to CARNet, partnership of several organizations, awareness raising by putting the existing information in digestible manner;

-It is not easy to assess impacts since ENVSEC didn’t set up benchmarks at the beginning. It is necessary to develop a comprehensive programmatic framework with benchmarks and targets for the next phase. Not much was done on water and land resources priority in FerghanaValley. ENVSEC helped to improve the coordination on the local level for example through natural disasters management project;

-In order to increase long-term sustainability it is necessary to increase the capacity of governmental structures, ensure that ENVSEC priorities are tied to those of countries, use existing institutions, implement long-term projects, and involve all stakeholders. However there are actions which countries will have to take themselves and beyond ENVSEC control. Countries should ensure stability in their governmental structures (e.g. avoid disruptions caused by reforms of environmental management institutions as happened in both Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan).

Group 4:

-In general, ENVSEC and its projects in Central Asia are efficient. There should be more pilot projects aimed at the improvement of the situation than pure assessments. More involvement of national experts is required;

-ENVSEC should work with and engage all relevant stakeholders;

-Most positive features: truly transboundary regional assessments, multi-sectoral approach to issues (i.e. not only looking into environmental but also security issues), enhanced information-sharing and coordination between donors at the regional level;

-Environmental Impact Assessment in transboundary context is one of projects with lasting impact. Unfortunately impact is hampered by desire of donors to engage their own experts (example of REHRA) and lack of guaranteed regional budget for ENVSEC in Central Asia (i.e. ENVSEC depends on funding opportunities instead of being able to adopt a programmatic approach);

-Sustainability will improve is national governments will submit project proposals. Inclusion of ENVSEC projects into national strategies and action plans and UNDP Country Programs will also lead to more sustainable results;

-ENVSEC should work in the climate change area.

Conclusions

The meeting was a useful exchange of information on the status and developments in ENVSEC programme for Central Asia. Exchange of opinions allowed identification of strengths and areas where ENVSEC needs improvement. Some of suggestions aimed at improved communication can be taken up by ENVSEC Regional Desk but the implementation of others will require intensive discussions and decisions in ENVSEC member organizations and at the Management Board.

ENVSEC Central Asia

Regional Review Meeting

21 June 2008

Dushanbe, Tajikistan

Venue: Hotel Kayon

Agenda

9:30 Registration and coffee/tea

10:00 – 10:30 Opening remarks

Mr Makhmadsharif Khakdodov, Deputy Minister of Energy and Industry, ENVSEC National Focal Point

Mr Michael Jones, Resident Representative of UNDP Tajikistan

Mr Klaus Rasmussen, Deputy Head of OSCE Centre in Dushanbe

10:30 – 11:15Status of ENVSEC and recent developments in Central Asia

Briefing by Ajiniyaz Reimov, UNDP ENVSEC Project Manager followed by general discussion and information sharing

11:15 – 11:30Coffee / tea break

11:30 – 11:45Summary of national review paper of Tajikistan

Mr Faridun Saidov, Assistant to the National Focal Point (Tajikistan)

11:45 – 12:00View from Kazakhstan

Mr Serik Akhmetov, co-author of ENVSEC East Caspian assessment

12:00 – 12:15Summary of national review paper of Kyrgyzstan

Ms Natalia Baidakova, Assistant to the National Focal Point (Kyrgyzstan)

12:15 – 12:30Introduction to the group discussion

Mr Jean-Joseph Bellamy, international consultant

12:30 – 14:00Lunch

14:00 - 16:00 Group discussion on ENVSEC in Central Asia

The groups will discuss:

(i) relevance of ENVSEC;

(ii) effectiveness of ENVSEC;

(iii) efficiency of ENVSEC; and

(iv) impacts and sustainability of ENVSEC projects

16:00 – 17:00 Working groups present their findings to the plenary, further discussion

17:00Conclusions

List of participants

Список участников

№ / Name
Ф.И.О. / Title and organization
Должность и организация / Contact details
Контактная информация
Representatives from TAJIKISTAN
Представители ТАДЖИКИСТАНА
Khusrav SHARIFOV / Manager, Disaster Risk Management Programme, UNDP Tajikistan / +992 (47) 441 -08-00, 441-08-01

Хусрав ШАРИФОВ / Менеджер программы по управлению риском природных катастроф, ПРООН Таджикистан
Leonid PAVLYUK / Vostochny Rare Metal Industrial Association (Vostokredmet) Khudjand / 448-8793 (office) and 919252788 (mobile)
Леонид Михайлович ПАВЛЮК / Восточный комбинат редких металлов (Востокредмет
Dmitryi PRUDSKIH / Director of Aarhus Information Centre, Khudjand /
+992 927-77 43-71
Дмитрий ПРУДСКИХ / Директор Орхусского экологическо информационного центра, Худжант
Abdulhamid KAYUMOV / Consultant, Climate change and health / +992 95 15- 15 -731
Абдулхамид
КАЮМОВ / Консультант, по изменению климата
Haknazar BOBOEV / REHRA project expert / +992 (37)221-73-14
Хакназар БОБОЕВ / Эксперт проекта REHRA
Alisho SHOMAKHMADOV / Head of information-analytical сentre of Committee on Emergencies / +992 907 76 36 59
Алишо
ШОХМАХМАДОВ / Начальник Информационно-аналитического центра по чрезвычайным ситуациям Комитета по ЧС
Nailya MUSTAEVA / Expert on climate change /
+992 (37) 221-52-91
Наиля МУСТАЕВА / Эксперт поизменению климата
Umed ULUGOV / Coordinator ofCARNET network facilitator / +992 37227-27-72, 992918 61-34-27
Умед УЛУГОВ / Координатор сети КАРНЕТ
Bozorali ODINAEV / REHRA Project Expert
Бозорали ОДИНАЕВ / Эксперт проекта REHRA
Faridun SAIDOV / Information Assistant on ENVSEC / +992 907 76 36 59
Фаридун САИДОВ / Информационный ассистент по программе ОСИБ
Representatives from KYRGYZSTAN
Представители КЫРГЫЗСТАНА
Zhanybek BAATYROV / Head of Osh-Batken Interregional Unit on Environmental Protection / +996772 245600 (m)
+996 3222 25189/88
ЖаныбекМаришовичБААТЫРОВ / начальник Ош-Баткенского межрегионального управления охраны окружающей среды
Ali TEMIRKULOV / Head of Batken Unit on Environmental Protection / +996772 42-37-90
Али МаматовичТЕМИРКУЛОВ / начальник Баткенского территориального управления охраны окружающей среды
Tatiana VOLKOVA / REHRA project expert / +996 312 902767 (m)

Татьяна ИвановнаВОЛКОВА / Эксперт проекта REHRA
Kanybek ISABAEV / Executive Director of the Aarhus Information Centre Osh /
0772746048 (m)
КаныбекИСАБАЕВ / Директор Орхус-центра в г.Ош
Natalia BAIDAKOVA / Head Specialist, State Agency for Environment Protection and Forestry of the KyrgyzRepublic, Assistant to ENVSEC NFP / +996312 549487

Наталья БАЙДАКОВА / Главный специалист ГАООСиЛХ КР,
Ассистент НК ОСиБ
Representatives from KAZAKHSTAN
Представители КАЗАХСТАНА
  1. 1
/ Serik AKHMETOV / Co-author of ENVSEC East Caspian assessment
Серик АХМЕТОВ / Соавтор оценки ЕНВСЕК по Восточному Каспию
Representatives from International Organizations and ENVSEC partnership
Представители международных организаций и партнерства ЕНВСЕК
  1. 1
/ Michael JONES / Resident Representative
UNDP Tajikistan
Майкл ДЖОНС / Постоянный представитель ПРООН в Таджикистане
Klaus RASMUSSEN / Deputy Head of OSCE Centre in Dushanbe
Клаус РАСМУССЕН / Заместитель главы Центра ОБСЕ в Душанбе
Sukhrob KHOSHMUKHAMMEDOV / Assistant Resident Representative UNDP Tajikistan /
Сухроб ХОШМУХАММЕОВ / Ассистент постоянного представителя ПРООН в Таджикистане
  1. 2
/ Inkar KADYRZHANOVA / Head of Energy and Environment Unit, UNDP Kazakhstan /
Инкар
КАДЫРЖАНОВА / Руководитель отдела энергетики и окружающей среды ПРООН Казахстан,
  1. 2
/ Vladimir GREBNEV / Programme Coordinator, UNDP Kyrgyzstan /
Владимир ГРЕБНЕВ / ПРООН Кыргызстан
  1. 2
/ Kuban ASHYRKULOV / OSCE Bishkek
Кубан АШУРКУЛОВ / ОБСК Бишкек
  1. 2
/ Jean-Joseph BELLAMY / International Consultant
Жан – Жозеф БЕЛЛАМИ / Международный консультант
Ajiniyaz REIMOV / ENVSEC Manager, UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre /
Ажинияз РЕИМОВ / Менеджер по программе ОСиБ
ПРООН, Братислава
  1. 2
/ Saija VUOLA / ENVSEC Programme Coordinator, UNDP Kazakhstan /
Сайя ВУОЛА / Координатор по программе Окружающая среда и безопасность(ENVSEC), ПРООН Казахстан
  1. 2
/ Stoyan DAVIDOV / Head of OSCE Field Office, Kurgan-Tube
Стоян ДАВИДОВ / Председатель ОБСЕ в Курган-Тюбе
  1. 2
/ Nazokat YAKUBOVA / OSCE Field Office, Khudjand /
Назокат ЯКУБОВА / ОБСЕ Худжант
  1. 2
/ Viktor NOVIKOV / UNEP/GRID-Arendal /
+41795 22 62 46
Виктор НОВИКОВ / ЮНЕП/ГРИД Арендал
  1. 2
/ Bess BROWN / OSCE Centre in Dushanbe /
Бесс Броун / Центр ОБСЕ в Душанбе
  1. 3
/ Muhhabat KAMAROVA / OSCE Centre in Dushanbe /
Мухаббат КАМАРОВА / Центр ОБСЕ в Душанбе
  1. 3
/ Andre KWITOWSKI / MIS Expert EU Aarhus Convention Project /
+31 651 553658
Андре КВИТОВСКИ

1