Chapter 2. State of the Caucasus Environment and Policy Measures: a retrospective from 1972 to 2002

2.1 Landscape and Biological Diversity

2. 1.5 Policy Measures and Responses

In general, while analysing the last 30-year history of policy pertaining to environmental and biodiversity protection in the Caucasus region, two distinct periods should be mentioned: the Soviet and post-Soviet. The Soviet period can be divided into two periods: one longer period – from early 1970s to early 1980s, and a shorter one covering late 1980s. The early 1970s and 1980s were characterised by increased interest in environmental protection, including natural resources/biodiversity protection. Various legal and regulatory documents pertaining to wildlife, forestry, fisheries use and protection were developed and adopted. Designated bodies at the All-union, national and local levels were established. An environmental chapter, with specific sub-chapters covering wildlife, forestry etc. was included into the State Master Plan to be the major policy document for the entire country. Some economic tools such as per unit taxes, deterrent taxes for the use of forestry resources and damage compensation fees were introduced. Traditional activities aiming at conserving natural resources continued. In-situ biodiversity conservation included the enlargement of existing or the establishment of new specially protected areas, e.g. natural reserves: “zapovedniks”, sanctuaries: “zakazniks” and national parks. Ex-situ conservation practices included the establishment and maintenance of botanical gardens, herbaria and zoos. Various scientific institutions extensively conducted studies on Caucasus biodiversity. Data for national and all-union Red books, designed for listing rare and endangered species were collected and regularly updated.

Nevertheless, the 1970s and early 1980s were periods of using sector-based approaches to environmental protection. Sectoral ministries and committees responsible for managing individual resource had no co-operation with each other, and did not take into consideration the interdependence of all the components of environment during the decision-making processes. The major focus for conserving natural resources was on species of special economic value, while the biological value was not taken into consideration. In practice, policies and tools aiming at protection and sustainable use of natural resources were not implemented, even though legislation, though not complete and perfect, existed for this.

In the late 1980s, attempts to introduce a holistic approach to environmental protection were made. The need for developing and adopting a framework law on environmental protection and setting specific environmental body was understood. During this period, the State Committee for Nature Protection with regulatory, managerial and law enforcement functions was established. In addition, a special environmental examination body was set up under the Committee to make environmental valuation of development plans/project/programs. All protected areas previously managed by different agencies were united under the single management of the above-mentioned Committee. This series of actions was a positive step at that time.

It is impossible to talk about national biodiversity protection policies and legal-institutional arrangements for each of the Soviet republics, including the Caucasus countries, since their role was insignificant in decision-making processes during the Soviet era. However, after independence, the South Caucasus countries and the Russian Federation started building up their national capacities and adapting their laws and institutions to those of the EU. New environmental protection laws became the basis for protecting environment, including biodiversity. Environmental media-specific statutes and codes were also adopted aimed at wildlife and forestry resources protection and establishment of protected areas systems, close to IUCN classification. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and state ecological examinations (SEEs) became mandatory for large-scale development projects having significant potential impacts, with a right for public participation built into all stages of EIAs. National Environmental Action Plans have been developed in all South Caucasus countries and the Russian Federation. As the Russian NEAP does not have specific regional features, some RF administrative regions located in the North Caucasus have adopted their own (regional level) EAPs. NEAPs have identified biodiversity conservation as one of the priority issues in the environmental and natural resources protection field and set short- to medium goals with appropriate indicators. Licensing systems for the use of natural resources, including wildlife, have also been established and environmental taxes for the use of natural resources introduced in all subjects of the Caucasus. Specific environmental bodies, either ministries or committees, became the key biodiversity policy-making, regulatory and management agencies. For better control and management of protected areas, special Protected Areas Services with local branches have been established in some of the South Caucasus countries, either as separate bodies or as structural units of environmental ministries. However, all these agencies are still in the process of forming their structures and responsibilities. For example, the Azerbaijan State Committee for Nature Protection has recently been transformed into the Environmental and Nature Protection Ministry and has subordinated the previously independent forestry, fisheries and geologic departments and hydro meteorological service for increased efficiency, as well as to avoid overlapping responsibilities and conflicts of interests. In Armenia and Georgia, in turn, there are various parallel structures in the field of biodiversity protection and management, frequently competing, but not co-operating with each other. In Armenia, for example, six sanctuaries (Managed Protected Areas) are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. Others are managed by the Ministry of Nature Protection, which is a key environmental agency in Armenia. In Georgia, apart from the Ministry for Environment, the State Forestry Department, State Department of Protected Areas, Nature Reserves and Hunting Management and the Ministry for Food and Agriculture are all engaged in biodiversity protection and management activities (Gokhelashvili at al. 2000).

In the North Caucasus administrative districts, local and municipal governments carry out biodiversity management and control functions. Federal, republican and local level laws and regulations represent the legal framework here. Apart from federal programs, local authorities have their own programs aiming at local biodiversity protection. In those parts of the North Caucasus specifically, in high mountainous regions where state institutions are practically non-existent, local communities play a key role in biodiversity management. In Chechnya, for instance, there is no state environmental policy and the state has completely withdrawn from nature protection. Traditional practices of natural resource use are based on a subsistence economy controlled by informal groups of rural communities, especially village elders. Shariat courts have also been gaining more power for establishing state order in this republic (IUCN, 2000).

In general, because of financial and technical shortages, the lack of appropriate expertise and presence of inefficient, old-style management, the capacity of all agencies involved in biodiversity protection and management activities is very low, though varying on a country-to-country basis. The high level of corruption found in all FSU countries hinders the effective implementation of appropriate policies. The lack of baseline and current information on biodiversity status also serves as an impediment in the decision-making process. Modern environmental monitoring and information technologies such as GIS and remote sensing techniques are not used by appropriate agencies. Overall, these features are common in all the agencies that are directly or indirectly involved in environmental management.

The role of academic institutions in biodiversity conservation is to support decision-makers with scientific knowledge and data and develop appropriate academic curricula. However, at present these institutions lack financial and technical resources to conduct field studies and collect current data. Only a few individual scientists are engaged in biodiversity conservation activities under different internationally funded programs/projects and co-operate with government agencies on an ad-hoc basis. With regard to curricula, although general courses such as botany, zoology, ecology, etc. are taught at academic institutions and universities, such courses as natural resource conservation and management, environmental economics and policy are of limited use or not taught at all.

Regarding the involvement of NGOs in biodiversity conservation activities, the NGO network is more developed in the South Caucasus than in the North Caucasus. There is very little international support in the North Caucasus, while it is extensive for South Caucasus countries. Many of the NGOs there have been receiving financial and technical assistance from a number of agencies. The only international conservation NGO having a permanent program in the Caucasus is the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), operating through its Tbilisi office. WWF-Tbilisi has supported the concept of developing a protected areas system in Georgia and participated actively in the establishment of Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park. The WWF through its Georgian affiliate has invested more than US$4.2 million for conservation activities in Georgia since 1991, including over US$2.5 million for the establishment of Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park (WWF, 2001). Other areas of WWF’s interest are sustainable forestry, environmental education, community-based resource management etc. The NGO has recently conducted a biodiversity investment portfolio study for the entire Caucasus. Other NGOs in Georgia are widely involved in all aspects of biodiversity conservation, including endangered species conservation. NGOs in Armenia are more engaged in public advocacy and environmental awareness. Azerbaijan has the least developed NGO sector, including environmental NGOs. These organisations are mostly staffed by concerned scientists who realise the need for an independent voice for environmental protection. In addition, most NGOs in Azerbaijan are focused on Baku’s problems and do not cover other areas. In the North Caucasus region, state bodies have established many pseudo-public environmental organisations for supporting certain activities of state bodies. The most powerful NGOs, nevertheless, are: the Social and Ecological Union of the Western Caucasus, operating in Krasnodarsky kray, Adygeya and Karachaevo-Cherkessia; the Azov-Black Sea NGO network, part of the international Black Sea NGO network, based in Krasnodarsky kray, Adygeya and Rostovskaya oblast; and the Independent Ecological Service for the North-Western Caucasus, based in Maikop (IUCN, 2000). WWF also has an office in Russia that carries out species conservation and habitat protection activities, promotes sustainable practices in natural resources management, and works to establish protected areas or strengthen existing ones.

Regional co-operation at the inter-state level in the field of landscape and biodiversity protection is largely limited to occasional consultations and information exchange. Although the South Caucasus countries have signed bilateral agreements on co-operation in the environmental field, there are no national activities and programs supporting such co-operation. An idea for a transboundary protected areas establishment, e.g. between Georgia and Dagestan, has not yet gained significant interest. At the same time, there are several ongoing regional projects between NGOs. Noah’s Ark for the Recovery of Endangered Species (NACRES) has been implementing a transboundary project on conservation of arid and semiarid ecosystems; the Georgian Centre for the Conservation of Wildlife (GCCW) established the Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN) in 1998 that publishes monthly bulletins and arranges regional meetings and workshops. The Regional Environmental Centre (REC) also supports regional co-operation among the South Caucasus countries. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded regional water project for Kura-Araks basin. Nevertheless, co-operation among the Caucasus countries, especially between the North and South Caucasus regions is low, caused by poor electronic communications, differences in legal-institutional arrangements and existing political conflicts of interests.

All South Caucasus countries, though at different levels, participate in global processes. The North Caucasus participates in international activities as a part of the Russian Federation. All subjects of the Caucasus are parties to the global Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and enabling activities there are supported by the GEF. Biodiversity Country Studies have already been conducted and Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (BS-APs) were adopted under the framework of the above convention. In addition, the CBD enables countries to raise funds for major conservation activities defined in BS-APs. Two other major conventions are CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), ratified by Azerbaijan and Georgia and the Russian Federation; and the Ramsar Convention (Convention on Wetlands and International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat), signed and ratified by all Caucasus states. There are some problems with implementing CITES convention, related to the low capacity of national bodies to establish compliance assurance and control systems. Customs offices as the major law enforcement body lack specific knowledge in species diversity. Other conventions related to biodiversity and landscape diversity are the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention, Paris, 1972), ratified by all South Caucasus countries and the Russian Federation, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ratified by all subjects of the Caucasus. Only Georgia has ratified the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention, 1979). Georgia also participates in agreements of CMS such as ACCO (2001) and CURL (1994). Azerbaijan is not yet a party to CMS, but participates in the CSM agreement concerning conservation of Siberian Crane (SIBE).

The most active international agencies funding biodiversity conservation activities within the region are the GEF, WB, UNEP, UNDP, FAO, EU/TACIS, USAID, KFW and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. In addition, various private foundations such as the George Soros Fund, McArthur Foundation, Eurasia Foundation, ISAR, etc. finance different environmental activities, including biodiversity protection, at national and regional levels. The largest investments so far in the Caucasus have come from the WB and GEF. The WB financed the development of a forestry strategy for Georgia and is now assisting in implementing specific programs under this strategy. GEF funded the establishment of Kolkheti National Park and two other parks, and assisted in capacity building for managing protected areas in Georgia. The GEF provided core support to strict nature reserves in the North Caucasus under the project “Conservation of Biodiversity in Russia” (WWF, 2001). However, donor co-ordination remains a problem for the region, leading to duplication and overlapping of activities, and inefficient allocation of financial resources.

Regardless of the positive changes which have occurred at institutional, legal and policy levels, all the Caucasus entities face similar difficulties of financial, technical, legal and institutional character which make it difficult to implement full-scale reforms in the biodiversity protection and management field. Economic systems and policies still fail to reflect resource scarcity into prices. Institutions are weak and lack knowledge in advanced biodiversity conservation study methods, e.g. Gap Analysis, IBA (Important Bird Areas), etc. and management approaches. For example, in all the South Caucasus countries as well as in the North Caucasus krays and autonomies, most existing protected areas used for in-situ conservation are typical Soviet period “zapovedniks”, where all human activities are prohibited. These areas are equivalent to “Strict Nature Reserve,” a protected areas management category of IUCN. Other types of protected areas, such as reservations and hunting farms are equivalent to IUCN category VI – Managed Resource Protected Areas. Most of these protected areas were established in order to protect one or several species, based on productivity or potential value criteria, and the majority of reserves are aimed at protecting sub-alpine forests and alpine grasslands. Other unique landscapes are under-represented. Frequently, the boundaries of protected areas are set arbitrarily and are not congruent with natural boundaries. Usually, they conform to land use or administrative boundaries, especially in the North Caucasus (IUCN, 2000). Although some efforts have been made to introduce new models for biodiversity conservation, e.g. a protected areas system in Georgia, implying the transformation of several reserves into broadly protected area landscapes with different management regimes, selection criteria still tend to be political (it is easier to enlarge an existing reserve rather than to establish new one) and economic (donor’s preference and aesthetic value). Criteria such as species rarity, richness, endemism, habitat uniqueness or vulnerability are not taken into consideration. Additionally, very little attention is paid to wildlife management and sustainable use of natural resources outside protected areas.

In general, there is a lack of baseline information on species and their relation to different land use management practices. Because of that, there are no systematic approaches for prioritising national conservation efforts (selection of conservation areas, identification of species conservation status, development of management guidelines for vulnerable species and habitats, policies for sustainable resource use, recovery plans for endangered species, etc.) (Gokhelashvili, Scott, Millington, 2000). The general public is mostly unaware of biodiversity protection issues and public involvement in decision-making processes is very low. There are no incentives for local communities to manage local resources in an environmentally sound manner. Because of that, community-based management practices together with environmentally sound traditional economies have to be encouraged. Finally, regional co-operation has to be strengthened through information exchange, study tours, regular consultations and bi- or multi-lateral agreements.

<<PREVIOUS      NEXT>>