1

19thNovember 2005

MeetingReport: Kura-Aras River basin TDA TTT inception meeting: Identification and Prioritisation of the Transboundary Problems

Tbilisi, Georgia8th - 9th November 2005

Prepared for United Nations Development Programme

M. J. Bloxham (Consultant)

Plymouth, UK


Contents

I. Introduction1

II. Objectives of the meeting1

III. Main activities undertaken during the meeting1

IV. Key outcomes6

VI. Future work6

Appendix A: Meeting Agenda7

Appendix B: Meeting Participants9

Appendix C: Transboundary Problem Prioritisation11

1

I. Introduction

The production of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) followed by a Strategic Programme of Action (SAP) is a requirement for most OP8 and OP9 projects proposed for financing in the GEF IW Focal Area.

A TDA is an objective, non-negotiated assessment using best available verified scientific information to examine the state of the environment and the root causes for its degradation. The analysis is carried out in a cross sectoral manner, focusing on transboundary issues without ignoring national concerns and priorities. It provides the factual basis for the formulation of a SAP, which embodies specific actions (policy, legal, institutional reforms or investments) that can be adopted nationally through National Action Programmes (NAPS), usually within a harmonized multinational context, to address the major priority transboundary concern(s), and over the longer term restore or protect a specific body of water or transboundary ecosystem.

During the PDF B phase of the Kura-Aras project, a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and a draft Strategic Action Programme (SAP) will be prepared. The SAP will provide a solid framework for a long-term, regional, fully integrated and comprehensive approach to management of the Kura-Aras Rivers. Following on from this, a Full Project will support SAP implementation through a series of policy, institutional and legislative reforms at regional and national level, as well as lending incremental support to key, on-the-ground, pilot projects within the SAP.

Thisinception meeting was the first opportunity to bring together, for the first time, key individuals from the riparian countries who will continue to work on the development of the TDA and the subsequent draft SAP.

II. Objectives of the meeting

The main objectives of meeting were:

  • To formulate of the TTT
  • To develop understanding of the TDA/SAP process using ‘best practice’ materials from the UNDP-GEF TDA/SAP training course.
  • To identify the transboundary issues of the Kura-Aras, determine priorities and identify gaps in knowledge
  • To Draft ToRs for TDA TTT members

III. Main activities undertaken during the meeting

The main activities carried out during the Inception Meeting are outlined in the meeting agenda (AppendixA) and presented in detail in the meeting notes (Annexed to this document). A brief description of each agenda point is described below.

Introduction of TTT members and outline and discussion of meeting objectives

The meeting was opened by Revaz Enukidzez (Head of Department of International Relations and Project Preparation)from the Georgian Department of the Environment. Each participant was then asked to introduce their name, position and expertise. A full list of the participants is shown in Appendix B. To conclude this session, the objectives of the meeting were outlined by the Chief Technical Advisor (CTA, Tim Turner)

Overview of TDA/SAP process

Martin Bloxham presented an overview of the TDA/SAP process to the TTT. This presentation was derived from the UNDP-GEF TDA/SAP training course which uses current GEF best practice’ approaches. In particular the presentation focused on:

  • The importance of the TDA/SAP process
  • Underlying Principles ofthe TDA SAP process
  • Detail on the TDA and the SAP
  • The TDA SAP process
  • The purpose of the Technical Task Team
  • Steps carried out during the development of the TDA
  • How to identify transboundary problems
  • An introduction to causal chain analysis

UNDP SIDA Presentation

The findings of the UNDP SIDA Project were presented by ZurabJicharadze. The presentation described the various steps carried out to prepare National Action Programmes (NAPs) in three of the riparian countries (Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan)with particular emphasis on the Georgian example. The project identified 16 issues, 5 of which were considered to be priority.

Each SIDA country representative was asked to describe how the process was carried out in their country. The Iranian representatives were also asked to outline the priorities for Iran.

Stakeholder presentation

The findings of the initial stakeholder analysis were introduced by Mary Matthews. The analysis was able to identify high and medium priority issues by country and by region. The priority issues were:

  1. Lack of potable water and health problems.
  2. Lack of sewage treatment/waste management
  3. Lack of water for irrigation
  4. Flooding
  5. Malaria
  6. Infrastructure decline
  7. Irregular water supply

Identification of the major perceived transboundary problems

The group was asked to brainstorm and identify the major water related transboundary problems in the Kura-ArasRiver Basin. After much debate, the extensive initial list was narrowed down to:

1.Non-rational use of water

2.Ecosystem degradation in the river basin

3.Deterioration in water quality (e.g. pollution)

4.Increased flooding and bank erosion

5.Decline in bio-resources (e.g. fisheries)

A further cross-cutting problem of global climate change was also identified.

On Day 2 of the meeting, this list was re-visited and further discussed in detail by the TTT members. There was general concern that some perceived problems were being overlooked. In particular, lack of collaboration, lack of basin wide monitoring, lack of integrated water resource management, inadequate infrastructure, inequality and poverty, healthcare and socio economic conditions.

It was pointed out that these were not transboundary environmental problems but rather causes or impacts. However, all of the above were likely to be introduced into the TDA when identifying and analysing the causes of the transboundary problems, and formulating their solutions in the draft SAP.

Discussion on scope of transboundary problems and locations

After an initial discussion on the geographical scale of each transboundary problem, it was recognised that further work would need to be carried out to identify sources, hotspots, coverage and the scale of each problem. It was generally agreed that all of the identified problems were transboundary in scale but further detail was required.

It was felt that there were likely to be gaps in information and data relating to this issue. In particular there was a need to:

  • locate satellite/photographic images of the basin to determine ecosystem degradation
  • Examine the TACIS hotspot analysis
  • Undertake a rapid land based assessment of point and non point source pollution using simple models to determine loads as a surrogate for concentrations of contaminants (E.g. UNEP/GIWA RAPS model)

Assignment of priorities (high, medium or low) to transboundary issues

Based on this simple set of criteria each TTT member was asked to assign a score to each transboundary problem of between 0 (no importance), 1 (low importance), 2 (moderate importance) and 3 (high importance) to determine the relevance of the problem from the perspective of the present day and 15-20 years in the future. When examining future change the TTT were asked to consider the effects of climate change. The results are presented in Appendix C.

Round-table discussion on future TDA studies

Each country divided into sub-groups to discuss the following points:

What are gaps in the knowledge of the priority TDA problems?

How can/should these be filled?

Discussions on each point were extensive. Each country tried to describe sources and gaps in knowledge and identify possible solutions to filling these gaps. It was evident from the discussions that there were a number of potential problems. These included:

  • A lack of accountancy regarding water resource facilities
  • Extensive information during the Soviet period but gaps in knowledge during the 1990s
  • A lack of accuracy (below 50%)
  • A lack data on ecology and land resources.
  • A lack of regulations and hence little monitoring (e.g. sedimentation)
  • Lack of regular assessments (e.g. flooding)

However, a number of positive points were raised. These included:

  • The requirement for a review of reliable data from USAID and NATO programmes
  • A need for a reviewof existing digital maps (e.g. GRID maps) for each of the 5 systems. This could include soviet military maps, although they may still be classified.
  • Information on 3 new river laboratories have been commissioned in Azerbaijan although little data at present
  • Regular monitoring in Iran (e.g. heavy metals and nutrients).
  • Possibility of a pilot project on flood management between Georgia and Azerbaijan

Further UNDP SIDA on National Action Plans for Kura-ArasRiver Basin Development

A second and very useful presentation was given by Nino Partskhaladze from UNDP SIDA. She identified four steps in the NAP preparation process. These were:

  1. Conducting studies on identifying:
  2. Legal and Institutional needs; and
  3. Technical needs;

for river basin development and water resource management.

  1. Identifying issues
  2. Formulating problems and conducting root cause analysis
  3. Developing programmes of measures for solving the problems and addressing their root causes.

Stakeholder Consultant Presentation

A further, more detailed presentation on the outcomes of the stakeholder analysis was presented by Mary Matthews. This presentation covered the rationale for including a Stakeholder analysis, the over view and methodology for the qualitative stakeholder analysis and a review of sample questions asked to stakeholders living along the river basin in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia during the June and July 2005 study.

Major concerns for stakeholders in each country were identified and compared to the concerns identified by the TTT task group meeting.

Findings of the qualitative stakeholder analysis for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia individually were further discussed. Important region-wide findings include:

•Stakeholders at the local level are very concerned about drinking water, both in terms of the quality and quantity available

•Lack of sewage treatment and municipal waste management were common concerns

•Stakeholders were concerned about the lack of infrastructure for water and the lack water quality and quantity for irrigation

•Stakeholders believed water was cleaner from upstream

•Municipal governments felt they lacked capacity to address water issues

•Flooding is seen as a challenge that harms local communities

•There is a disconnect between NGOs and local stakeholder populations perception of priority problems in many cases

•Information sources about water related issues are mainly from media, local municipalities, and neighbors

Recommendations for further studies made including the quantitative Stakeholder Analysis to be conducted in December 2005, the development of a stakeholder advisory group to assist the TTT in creation of the Basin Vision and ECOs, and the need for training for local populations in water management issues. Additionally, upcoming events were explained such as the NGO Forum meeting, development of the public involvement plan and integration of pilot projects into the larger technical demonstration projects for the full scale project.

Concluding remarks and meeting closing

It was decided that due to time constraints, the draft TDA contents will be distributed intersessionally after translation.

ToRs for each TTT member will be drafted after the meeting. Particular emphasis will be placed on the national team leaders, who will be reviewing available data for each country.

It was proposed that the next meeting of the TTT would be in mid January 2006 at which the country reports will be presented and the draft causal chains developed.

IV. Key outcomes

The key outcomes of the meeting were:

  • The formation of a working TTT and identification of national team leaders.
  • An improvement in capacity regarding the TDA/SAP process. A better understanding of the GEF ‘best practice’ approach to TDA/SAP development.
  • The identification and prioritisationof 5 major perceived transboundary problems in theKura-ArasRiver Basin
  • An identification of the major sources of information in each country, where gaps in knowledge exist and potential solutions for filling these gaps.

VI. Future work

Each national team leader will, with the help of the international TDA expert and the Project Management Unit, draft a preliminary country report which will identify:

  • information and data sources for each perceived transboundary problem (Meta Data study)
  • gaps in the knowledge for each perceived transboundary problem
  • the major environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences of each perceived transboundary problem
  • the linkages between each perceived transboundary problem
  • the causes of each perceived transboundary problem
  • the stakeholders impacted by or involved in each perceived transboundary problem
  • who has the power to Preliminary ‘power analysis’
  • the main persons with power to resolve the issues and problems (a ‘power analysis’)

This material will be reviewed at a mini workshop in mid December 2005 at which the CTA and national team leaders will be present. These materials will then be presented in full at the next TTT meeting (mid January).

The country reports, once synthesised, will underpin the final TDA document.

1

Appendix A: Meeting Agenda

Reducing Transboundary Degradation of the Kura-Aras basin

TDA TTT inception meeting: Identification and Prioritisation of the Transboundary Problems

8th/9th November 2005, Tbilisi, Georgia

Objective: to identify and locate the major perceived transboundary issues of the Kura-Aras basin and setting out the road-map for the production of the TDA.

Day 1

9:00 – 9:30Introduction of TTT members. Outline and discussion of meeting objectives.

9:30 – 10:30Overview of TDA/SAP process

What is the TDA and why is it important with attention to the importance of developing sound scientific evidence for problems

What are the underlying principles of the TDA

Why is the TDA an important device in development of a SAP

10:30 – 11:30Discussion on the direction of the project from this point

What TDA/SAP approach will be taken?

What is the role of the TTT

How will the work of UNDP-Sida project be integrated

Morning Break

12:00 – 13:30Presentation by countries of the major transboundary perceived issues

Lunch Break

14:30 – 16:00Round-table discussion on scope of transboundary issues and locations.

16:00 – 17:00Assignment of priorities (high, medium or low) to transboundary issues

17:00 – 17:30Summary of days findings

Group Dinner

Day 2

9:00 – 11:00Round-table discussion on future TDA studies

What are gaps in the knowledge of the priority TDA issues?

How can/should these be filled?

Who are the stakeholders impacted by or involved in this issue?

Who has the authority/power to change the current situation?

What are the linkages between the priority issues?

What are the causes of the priority issues?

Break

11:30 – 12:30Discussion (continued)

Break for lunch

13:30 – 15:30Group sessions to draft ToR for TDA studies.

15:30- 16:00Presentation of initial findings of Stakeholder Analysis

16:00 – 17:00Presentation of TDA contents list and round table discussion

17:00 – 17: 45Concluding remarks and meeting closing

Division of responsibilities and

Establishment of preliminary objectives and agenda for next meeting

1

Appendix B: Meeting Participants

# / Name of Participants / Organization and Position / Contact information
1 / Ali Maleki Milani / Ministry of Energy of Iran, Azerbaijan water Auth., Iran / E-mail:
Tel: +0098-411-3305376
2 / Karim Shiati / Yekom Consulting Engeenering, ArasRiver basin project Manager; Regional TDA/SAP Expert, Iran / E-mail:
Tel: +0098-21-88896562
3 / Farda Imanov / UNDP/Sida Kura-Aras project CTL, Azerbaijan / E-mail:
Tel: +994 12 4 993 770
4 / Rajab Mammedov- / UNDP/Sida Kura-Aras project TA, Azerbaijan / E-mail:
Tel: +995 50 338 31 92
5 / Rza Mahmudov / Director of Hydrometeorological Institute (UNESKO),Azerbaijan / E-mail:
Tel: +0098-21-88896562
6 / Hosnik Kirakosyan / Deputy Head of WRMA RA, Armenia / E-mail: Kirakosyan@ wrma.am
7 / Vladimir Narimanyan / Deputy Head of WRMA RA, Armenia / E-mail: Narimanyan @ wrma.am
8 / Eduard Mesropyan / Director of JINJ, Armenia / E-mail:
9 / Vahagn Tonoyan / UNDP/GEF Kura-Aras project, National Coordinator, Armenia / E-mail:
10 / Ilia Mtskhvetadze / MOE-Water department, Georgia / E-mail:
Tel +995 99 20 63 67
11 / Levan Kiknadze / UNDP/Sida Kura-Aras, Melioration Specialist, Georgia / E-mail:
Tel: +995 99 20 59 70
12 / Nino Partskhaladze / UNDP/Sida Kura-Aras project consultant, Georgia / E-mail:
Tel: +995 7 444 755
# / Name of Participants / Organization and Position / Contact information
13 / Davit Tarkhnishvili / NGO-GCCW-Expert of Biodiversity / E-mail:
Tel: +995 77794424
14 / Malkhaz Adeishvili / UNDP/GEF National Coordinator, Georgia / E-mail:
Tel: +995 99 53 14 27
15 / Zurab Jincharadze / UNDP/Sida Kura-Aras project CTL, Georgia / E-mail:
Tel: +995 99 728 768
16 / Nino Malashkhia / UNDP/Sida Kura-Aras project TA, Georgia / E-mail:
Tel: +995 93 18 15 89
17 / Maia Ochigava / UNDP/Sida Kura-Aras project Regional Coordinator, Georgia / E-mail:
Tel: +995 32 29 27 42
18 / Tim Turner / UNDP/GEF Kura-Aras project CTA, UK / E-mail:
Tel: +44 01242576461
19 / Mary M. Matthews / Stakeholder analist/Public Involvement Expert, USA / E-mail:
Tel: +1 706 369 6649
20 / Teyyub Ismayilov / Stakeholder Liaison, Azerbaijan / E-mail:
Tel: +994 50 326 9506
21 / Martin Bloxham / UNDP/GEF Kura-Aras Project consultant, UK / E-mail:
22 / Revaz Enukidze / MOE, Head of Department of International Relations and Project Preparation / E-mail:
Tel: +995 32 46 50 16/+995 99 16 44 69
23 / Mariam Shotadze / UNDP Program Analist / E-mail:
Tel: +995 32 25 1126/27/28/30 ext.118