|
|
|
 |
||
| Meeting Report Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Attachment 9 Attachment 10 Attachment 11 Attachment 12 Attachment 13 Attachment 14 Attachment 15 Attachment 16 Attachment 17
|
||
INTRODUCTION The third biodiversity meeting of national experts from the Caspian countries was held in Atyrau, Kazakhstan, on 12-14 September 2001 The objective of the meeting was to summarize the 12-month work done by CRTC for Biodiversity after the second workshop, to discuss recent problems and clarify a work plan for 2001-2002. Among the participants were experts from Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, representatives of PCU, Fisheries CRTC, flora and Fauna International (FFI), European Centre of Environment Protection, Inter-sectoral CEP committee in Kazakhstan, oil companies Agip KCO and Kazakhoil-Emba, akimat of Atyrau oblast, Atyrau local authorities of Atyrau oblast environmental authorities, mass media (Appendix 1). The following issues were discussed: preparation of regional review of habitats, list of species, strategy and Regional Action Plans to protect biodiversity, organization of permanent Biodiversity Centre.
I. Opening of the workshop A.Bolshov, director of CRTC of Biodiversity, opened the workshop. He welcomed all the participants and wished everybody successful work and close cooperation. Welcoming presentations were given by Dr.A.Najafov, Republic of Azerbaijan, Dr. Nizami Baluchi, Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr. M.Bolat, Republic of Kazakhstan, Dr.V.Panov, Russian Federation, F.Shakirova, Turkmenistan. Tim Turner, coordinator of Caspian Environment Program, gave a general introduction and welcoming, presenting work progress and the agenda of the workshop. L.F.Evstifeeva, Manager Deputy of the Department of Oil and Gas Complex, External Economic Links and Investment Policy, welcomed the participants on behalf of Akim of Atyrau oblast. She underlined the actuality and topicality of oil and gas issues raised in the Caspian. Agenda of the workshop was discussed and approved (Appendix 2). The Russian party mainly agreed with the proposed agenda, but noted that the proposed review of Russian Habitat Protection Action Plan is only possible in the form of a scientific report, prepared without consideration of national rules of preparation and approval of these kind of documents, and submission of the information is beyond the scope of the Russian delegation.
II. Progress report of Biodiversity CRTC A.Bolshov,the director of Biodiversity CRTC, reported the work done by the CRTC for the period since the second workshop (Appendix 3). He described the main stages of the work: preparation of Regional Review of Biodiversity, National Habitats Protection Action Plans, input into TDA, organization of a seminar on Mnemiopsis. A Regional Action Plan of Habitat Protection is being prepared, as well as lists of species inhabiting the Caspian, and demo version of a biodiversity database. An option of a permanent Biodiversity Centre is also being developed. Information gaps were identified during the discussion. Caspian countries, except for Iran, did not submit their proposals to found work groups on Mnemiopsis problem. It was also noted that the CRTC is in a complicated position compared with the other CRTC"s (lack of personnel and an appropriate building). The participants were informed about the measures taken to solve the problems.
III. Regional Report on biodiversity of the Caspian Sea Dr.N.V.Aladin submitted a regional biodiversity review. This review was addressed to authorities and others without a biological background. The report contains 6 chapters. Chapter 1 lists the aims and objectives of the report, chapter 2 contains principal approach to work. Chapter 3 focuses on the main subject of the report, biodiversity. Chapter 4 describes the threats to the biodiversity. Chapter 5 reviews studies on biodiversity and available information. Habitats are addressed in Chapter 6. The proposals are as follows:
The first issue that requires an immediate solution was defined as Mnemiopsis suppression by means of introduction of Beroe. A proposal was made to work out a multiple plan of proposals for the next 10 years for submission to sponsors. This should include problems of prevention of invasion into the Caspian and from the Caspian via the Volga-Don and the Volga-Baltic joint systems and the impact of sea level fluctuations on biodiversity of coastal wetlands. It was also noted that sturgeon breeding should only add to natural reproduction as it reduces genetic biodiversity. The main way of increasing sturgeon population is to reduce illegal fishing. Low catches during the Civil and Second World Wars allowed the populations to increase. The opinion of the Russian delegation was that the use of the issues from the National report of the Russian Federation "The Status and Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity of the Caspian Region" in the present draft was restricted, and this source is not included in the list of references. The Russian side proposed to use the document in TDA process, and include recommendations on the protection and rehabilitation of biological diversity from the National report of Russia and other countries into the NCAP and SAP of CEP. A brief summary of the national report of Russian Federation "The Status and Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity of the Caspian Region" should be used as an Appendix to the Regional Review. A few experts mentioned that the report was exaggerated; there was not enough evidence to prove that the sturgeon is the main resource of the Caspian; some inaccuracies need to be removed; Chapter Threats to Biodiversity should be amended. The experts could not agree with the way the Caspian was divided into areas, with Kara Bogaz Gol as an independent area. There was an idea that invasion of Beroe will not be an effective enough measure against Mnemiopsis because the peak of their development requires different temperatures. It was noted that the review was sent to national coordinators for comments. It was proposed to continue work on the document after all comments have been made, based on the first draft of the report.
IV. Discussion of mortality of Caspian seals and sprat U.A.Kim informed the participants about the mortality of seals in the Caspian in 2000 and sprat in 2001, and the reasons for these losses. She listed a few reasons for seals" mortality. However, the specialists agreed that the reason was canine distemper virus (CDV) of carnivors that developed on the basis of generally unfavorable conditions. In 2001 seals" mortality was not high, unlike the mortality of sprat. The weight of sprat was also low. D.N.Katunin gave additional information on reasons of high sprat mortality (Appendix 5). Loss was registered between April and late July. In April the amount of dead fish was 100-150 ind/m2, in July 5 ind/m2. Toxicological studies showed similar concentrations of hydrocarbons in both fish and sediment dwellers. Hydrocarbon concentration in the area of Oily Rocks exceeded MPC by a factor of 84. The highest concentration of dead sprat was between Aktau and Kara Bogaz Gol, lower concentration – in Apsheron area, the lowest in the waters of Turkmenistan. Analysis found gas in the stomach and muscle tissue of the fish (the analogue of caisson disease), which could result from a sudden rise to surface. Lack of nutrition was also obvious. Gonads were underdeveloped, too. A lot of juvenile fish died. The main conclusion is that in 2000 Mnemiopsis grazed out the food base of Anchovy kilka (Crustacean Eurytemora grimmi), so the species had to feed on nauplii of Balanus. Two reasons caused sprat mortality: 1) low immunity due to the lack of nutrition; 2) lack of usual feeding grounds for sprat made vertical migrations necessary. High mortality of kilka will probably repeat next year, if Mnemiopsis develops. It was pointed that cessation of commercial hunting and sanitary shooting of seals caused an increase in disease amongst seals. 8-10 thousand seals (2% of total amount) died. It is less than the estimated annual loss for hunting. It was culling of ill and weak individuals, so nothing irreversible had happened. A complex survey of sprat populations was carried out in 2001. The results of the survey will be published after processing. Lack of reliable data on seals was highlighted. The most reliable data refers to the late 1980"s. The diet of seals has changed. Previously it was 300-400 ton of sprat, seals were feeding on gobies and sandsmelt. At present seals feed on vobla (roach) and thus competes with beluga.
V. Development of demo version of database on biodiversity of the Caspian Sea V.N.Belyaeva gave a presentation on the development of a demo version of biodiversity database. The demo version contains taxonomy of each species, description, and field data. The following species were selected: 4 of phytoplankton, 4 of zooplankton (including Mnemiopsis), 5 of zoobenthos, 2 Crustaceans, and a few species of fish. It was a challenge to collect updated information on fish and add the data on the South Caspian. The database was based on the taxonomy of Reshetnikov. 8-10 pages were assigned to each species. It was proposed to publish the demo version as a monograph. The necessity to provide a brief summary was discussed. The experts came to a conclusion that the selected scope of information is optimal. The submitted work has been approved.
VI. Check-list of species inhabiting the Caspian Sea A.A.Bolshov gave a presentation on the development of a list of Caspian species (Appendix 4). There is a necessity to develop an updated list of the Caspian flora and fauna. The practical value of the list is a description of anthropogenic impact on the species included in it, and revise the Red Books of each country. A group of specialists in different fields lead by B.N.Chaikin, worked on the development of the list. The work was based on the information of the National biodiversity reports. The participants underlined that insufficient data was published, and it was impossible to compile lists of species on the basis of literature. One of the participants mentioned that the name "Check-list of species inhabiting the Caspian Sea" is not fully appropriate. It was also necessary to identify the categories of species for further development of the list. The director of FFI briefly informed the participants about the mechanism of clearing agency and its objective to create and link all data sources inside the country. The countries can get aid from FFI for these purposes. It was proposed to appoint additional experts to identify taxonomy of individual species accurately. It was decided to submit the list of species compiled by the working group to all Caspian countries for comments of national experts.
VII. Discussion of potential impact of Mnemiopsis on biodiversity of the Caspian Sea U.Kim informed the participants of the workshop about the work done. A range of programs was developed to study Mnemiopsis, one of the best was the program of Dr. Kidish from Turkey. Surveys are planned to study Mnemiopsis. This year the species was not found in Kazakh water. Last year the outbreak of Mnemiopsis was recorded in September. CEP coordinator informed that a decision was taken to establish a Board of Advisors on Mnemiopsis, National Coordinators were expected to propose their candidates. Dr. Kidish (Turkey) visited Azerbaijan and Iran to clarify the situation. His report about the visit to Iran can be found on CEP web page. According to the report, the catch of sprat in the waters of Iran was quite high. There was an opinion that the problem of Ctenophore is slightly exaggerated. In Iran, Mnemiopsis development has not yet reached the threshold of 800 g/m3. Dr. Shiganova and scientists of Sevastopol institute are planning to go to Iran in October to carry out sampling. The results will be published on the web page. The next meeting on Mnemiopsis will be held in December in Baku. It will clarify how close we are to the critical threshold. Three measures were proposed to prevent development of Mnemiopsis:
Additional surveys sponsored by governments are required. International investments must not be relied on in this case. This is the problem of the Caspian countries. One of the participants doubted that the introduction of Beroe into the Caspian was studied sufficiently, there was no theoretical ground and an ecosystem approach. Development of Beroe peaks in autumn, while Mnemiopsis reaches its maximum in summer. Mnemiopsis prefers warm waters, and in winter probably concentrates in Iranian coastal waters. If there is no Mnemiopsis, Beroe feeds on other Ctenophore. There is no other Ctenophore in the Caspian, so it is not clear what Beroe will feed on after Mnemiopsis has been grazed out. Another participant pointed that Mnemiopsis grazes on larvae of many bottom dwellers that develop as plankton. He proposed to record the amount of Mnemiopsis and Beroe by luminescence, according to the existing methods. It was proposed to publish the study methods of Mnemiopsis in Iran and Azerbaijan on the web page. The negative impact of Mnemiopsis was recorded also in Turkmenistan (Appendix 5). In 2000 the catch of kilka reduced by a factor of 4 (from 20-25 ton to 6 ton). A lot of Aurelia jellyfish were found in the Caspian where they were introduced from ballast waters. It was proposed to appeal to the governments of the Caspian countries, as they are the most interested in the protection of fisheries, to finance the studies of Beroe and Mnemiopsis and prevent new invasions.
VIII. National Caspian Action plans for protection of habitats National Caspian Habitats Protection Action Plans prepared by experts of the Caspian countries were presented at the meetings. Dr.A.Najafov presented the National plan of Azerbaijan (Appendix 6). He described the situation in the Azerbaijan sector of the Caspian Sea. It was outlined that pollution caused changes in the habitats of flora and fauna. It is important at this stage to identify the prior areas of investments. The format of the document and its contents were also presented. Answering the questions, the speaker mentioned the absence of maps of habitats, while information on vegetation distribution, wetlands, lowlands and reserves exists. Habitats from the Red Book of Azerbaijan are included into the report. He also mentioned that the 2nd edition of the Red Book is being developed. Dr. Nizami Baluchi, representative of Islamic Republic of Iran, presented National Iranian Habitats Protection Action Plan (Appendix 7) focusing on the attempt to identify the status of habitats and their problems. He mentioned that the importance of the Caspian sector in Iran is quite high. It is necessary to protect local and migrating species, genetic fund of the populations. The document identifies risks and threats of various impacts. The list of problems includes lack of equipment, specialists, training, shortcomings of environmental legislation etc. Among major needs are extension of population awareness, control and monitoring of genetic factor, attention to problems of migrants. About 1 million birds, 100 species of fish, 700 species of insects migrate in Iran. Responding to questions, the speaker said that the document contains maps of habitats. There are 5 spawning grounds for sturgeon; there is an institute that works on the problems of sturgeon reproduction, valuable fish species are well protected. A stripe of forests, a green zone that needs to be protected, is located along the Iranian coast of the Caspian at a distance of 5-20 km from the coast. A.Bolshov presented the National Caspian Habitat Protection Action Plans of Kazakhstan (Appendix 8). 6 main biotops were identified in the Kazakhstan sector of the Caspian. Their characteristics were given in the report, together with the proposals of necessary measures at national and regional levels. Some of the measures are already being carried out. Thus, the main riverbed of Ural delta has been cleaned of silt during last 2 years. In response to questions the speaker informed that dying out of birds at the North East coast of the Caspian ceased. In re-filled hyperhaline reservoirs such as Kaidak Bay, Mertvy Kultuk Bay, Komsomolets Bay, Artemia salina develops well, and pink flamingo concentrate in these areas. In the North East Caspian heavy traffic that could negatively impact biodiversity, was absent. Intensification of oil and gas exploration could be a significant threat to habitats. All measures proposed by the document will be included in the National Caspian Action plan. Creation of man-made islands for drilling rigs in the North East Caspian is planned in the nearest future. A special EIA will be developed for the project. The representative of Russia mentioned that the report prepared by experts does not reflect the official position of Russia and can only be reviewed as a scientific report. Therefore he will not deliver his report. The CEP coordinator explained that the report is a working document that reflects the ideas of executors and it does not require an official status or approval. F.Shakirova presented National Caspian Habitats Protection Action Plan of Turkmenistan (Appendix 9). She described the main problems of biodiversity of the Turkmenistan sector of the Caspian. Special description of Kara Bogaz Gol is included in the document as it is an economic and strategic point of Turkmenistan. It was outlined that feeding grounds of sturgeon at the Turkmen coast are valuable as they provide feeding grounds for the entire Caspian populations. All the reports were approved by the participants of the workshop.
IX. The structure of the regional report on habitats of the Caspian Sea Dr. N.P.Ogar presented the format of the Regional Report on Habitats (Appendix 10). She outlined that all the report presented by the countries have certain shortcomings. The objective of the work is to develop the strategy of habitats protection to take political decisions about national management. The common weak point of all the reports is that there is no common concept apparatus, no common geographical background that impedes classification. Section 1 should contain a general pattern of distribution, structure of zonal and subzonal division of the coast of the Caspian. Land cover classification should be amended and used for this purpose. It was proposed to develop a Glossary of terms for common use. Special attention should be paid to transit habitats of migrating species. It is necessary to keep the standard of landscape, to support natural habitats before they are lost and rehabilitate degraded habitats. Criteria of assessment of habitats, principles and approaches were reviewed. This question should be discussed in the regional report. A list of threats to biodiversity should also be developed. Chapter 3 contains inventory and monitoring of habitats, as well as the system approach. It is necessary to synchronize national classifications of habitats. Various approaches of different countries make the materials incomparable. Only local monitoring is carried out, regional is not. Monitoring of desertification, pollution, monitoring of endangered and rare species is required. No clear criteria of rare species are included in national reports. There is no recent information on many species. A list of all introduced species and their inventory are necessary. Protection measures of existing habitats and criteria of their selection should be developed at the national level. A list of priorities is required. International conventions issue is not clearly identified in the reports: on fishing, on migrating birds etc. It is necessary to list degraded habitats, identify the priorities and develop a list of measures like training, education etc. Organisation of regional scientific advisory board and creation of database is required. Enforcement of information exchange and creation of web sites will solve the problem of education and public awareness. Chapter 9 devoted to the development of regional network of reserves should consider proposals of all countries to establish a net of protected areas and reserves. Improvement of legislation and protection measures should also be considered. The list of measures should include the name of the authority or organization responsible for implementation of the action at national level. Responding to questions, the speaker stated that area maps exist for the Sea, they could be based on the division of the Caspian into the North, Middle and South. Status of a national reserve exists only for the North Caspian. A pilot project is required to remove invasive species. A map of the environmental sensitivity of the North Eastern Caspian is being developed. However, there is not sufficient information to develop it. During the discussion, a proposal was made to develop legislation to control oil operations. Drilling in some areas should be prohibited. The format of the Regional Report has been approved as submitted.
X. Input into TDA on Biodiversity A.Boshov gave a presentation about input into TDA on Biodiversity. The TDA was based on the national reports on biodiversity and Habitats Protection Action Plans. Two workshops were held in Baku, where work group worked at individual issues. In December 2000 main cause and effect relations were identified. Primary and secondary reasons of threats to biodiversity were identified. They were ranged at national and regional levels; problems were prioritised. Primary reasons were listed as follows: habitat degradation, loss of species/ genetic fund, invasion of opportunistic species, sea level fluctuations/ climate alteration. The most actual measures were proposed to prevent transboundary species. The submitted information was considered.
XI. Work done by CRTC on commercial biological resources under biodiversity protection project D.N.Katunin, Biodiversity CRTC coordinator, gave a presentation on work done by the CRTC on commercial biological resources (Appendix 11). He provided a brief assessment of the status of sturgeon and marine fish populations and the main threats to their abundance. The main threats are illegal fishing and introduction of the invasive species Mnemiopsis. Information on completed surveys was provided.
XII. Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan Dr.Z.Karpovich (FFI) carried out the discussion of Biodiversity Strategic Plan in a form of exchange of opinions. To develop the Plan he proposed to used methods BSAPS and briefly described it (Appendix 12). The strategy includes both objectives and terms (4-5 years). It should include the principles of development, background, basis, as well as the targets and components of the strategy. Action Plan includes strategic components. Preparation consists of 12 steps that need to be completed within 9 months. Threats to biodiversity were clarified during the exchange of opinions. Dr. Rainjers added the presentation of Dr.Z.Karpovich (Appendix 13). She focused on attracting the shareholders to implementation of the strategy. As this factor was not considered before, implementation of the Action Plan for the Black Sea was delayed. To get the Action plan approved by all countries, high level consultation is required. The strategy was worked out in 53 countries, and FFI has a large experience in it. The participants proposed to make the plan not ambitious but actual that is possible to implement. Dr.Z.Karpovich proposed for discussion a draft of a Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan. The representative of Russia proposed to make a general statement about the environmental status of the Caspian. Main indicators of environmental changes need to be added to paragraph 3. In Aims and objectives aims should be determined as identification of the most dangerous reasons of negative impact on biodiversity. The Section Primary Actions should contain actual proposals to identify reasons. Real implementation of the priorities should also be described there. The mechanism of monitoring should be fully explained. A paragraph about sources of information need to added to the Assessment Section. The Russian side outlined the priority of such problem as introduction of invasive species in the Caspian, as biological pollution could lead to unexpected, undesirable and irreversible changes in ecosystems and communities which is now one of the main threats to biodiversity of the Caspian. The representative of Kazakhstan proposed to include in the Action Plan a definition of maximal anthropogenic pressure resulted from oil operations in the North Caspian. The representative of Iran proposed to consider the importance of NGO in the countries, and the use of biological methods against agricultural pests rather than pesticides in the Caspian basin. The representative of Azerbaijan proposed to increase the amount of reserves for birds, and to identify Caspian environmental network within the pan-European network. The speaker proposed to include the following problems into the SAP:
The priority of invasion was doubted during the discussion. A military factor was considered as having a significant environmental impact in future. The speaker mentioned that economical activities with catastrophic consequences such as with Aral, are not acceptable. CEP coordinator informed the participants that he applied to GEF with a request to grant 12 million USD, including 4 million USD for the biodiversity protection. The cost estimate will be submitted to FFI including costs of establishment of an environmental network, training, identification of biotops of sturgeon, salmon, Siberian crane etc. Support of the Atyrau Centre, biodiversity network in each country, data collection, education, field studies, ecotourism, college for young scientists will be financed. Programs of monitoring Mnemiopsis, Beroe are also included. They require additional 10 million USD. It is necessary to control ballast waters of Volga. The strategy should be supported by all countries. One of the experts mentioned that the Convention should precede the SAP. The description of geographic network could be briefer. The Section Environmentally Important species should be divided into subsections devoted to rare and endangered species, invasion of species. It is required to get the information about the governmental strategy for next 20-30 years to have an idea about the new threats to habitats. A proposal was made to focus on the Caspian endemics, as they are of an ancient origin. The discussion clarified the elements of habitats, species, sectors to be included in the Plan. The participants were provided with the questionnaires necessary to analyze the stakeholders.
XIII. Proposals to found a permanent biodiversity Centre of the Caspian Sea The director of Biodiversity CRTC gave a presentation on creation of a permanent biodiversity Centre of the Caspian Sea in Atyrau. He mentioned that the strategy should include not only the coordination of regional work but also carry out practical tasks to study the biodiversity, in particular, implement monitoring. The Centre will represent a complex of well-equipped laboratories. Limited permanent staff will be involved in the work, as well as foreign specialist invited to work on internationally accepted conditions. The Centre is assumed to be founded on the basis of Atyrau affiliate of the Kazakh Scientific-Research Institute of Fisheries. The first stage of work of the Centre will be financed by GEF with the support of oil sector. In future the Centre is planned to be self-supporting on the basis of grants. The proposed fields of study of the Centre will include phyto- and zooplankton, benthos, offshore and coastal flora, coastal fauna, genetic diversity, invasive species. N.Kocharli explained the way the CPU see the Centre (Appendix 14). She mentioned that the short-term objectives of the Centre – independent monitoring, education and consulting, management. Long-term objectives include creation of reserved areas, development of recommendations for oil and other industries. The work will be submitted in the form of annual reports. The decision to found the Centre was taken after the lacks and shortcomings of local scientific organizations and the Centre itself were analyzed. The main are as follows:
The main objective is to establish a viable self-supporting centre. Local and regional support is required, the Centre should also prove its financial independence of CEP. Responding to questions, the speaker mentioned that Atyrau was selected as a preferable location as there is a local functioning CRTC there. Agip KCO expressed their wish to establish such a centre, the company is prepared to provide the Centre with the laboratory equipment, sruvey work etc. CEP will provide training. It will be a regional, rather than Kazakhstan centre. So far the Centre does not have a building. The Russian delegation mentioned that it is necessary to establish a network of cenres, the regional Centre will coordinate their work. The representatives believed that in case one centre has been established, a balance between other regional centres will be lost. The principle of interaction with other Caspian states is not clear. The proposals of the Russian side are attached (Appendix 15). It was clarified during the discussion that CEP is interested to develop the potential along the entire coast of the Caspian. To establish such a centre financed by the state seems to be impossible. The opportunity of sponsor"s support should be used. It is necessary to clarify the concept of establishing such a Centre. There is a possibility of complications with information exchange but they could be solved under the Framing Convention. Previously the main scientific potential was located in Russia. All Caspian countries should develop their potentials. The proposal to establish the Centre was generally accepted. A proposal was made to develop the conception of the Centre to consider the proposal of Russia.
XIV. Approval of CRTC Work Plan A.Bolshov, director of the CRTC, gave a presentation on draft of Biodiversity CRTC Work Plan for 2001-2002 (Appendix 16). A comment was made that the Strategy Action Plan should be completed by July 2002. The Russian delegation proposed to extend the agenda of the workshop on Mnemiopsis planned for December 2001 and include a general problem of introduction of species in the Caspian and discussion of preventive measures against introduction. The Russian delegation proposed to involve responsible officers from the Ministry of Transport. The planned meeting could be called “A Problem of Introduction of Mnemiopsis and Other Invasive Species". The decision the issue will be taken in work order.
XV. Conclusions and recommendations
XVI. Closure of the workshop The participants found the meeting successful and outlined the effort of the organizers which aided the success. They thanked Kazakhstan, Biodiversity CRITC for the opportunity to participate in the workshop. The chairman concluded the work of the workshop, found the taken decisions important and wished the participants success in their future work. He thanked everybody present, translators and technical personnel for successful work and hoped for the future meetings. |
||
|
||
