Synergies and Indicators in NBSAPs

Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus, and Central Asia Sub-Regional Workshop Synergies and Indicators in NBSAPs Workshop Report 7th – 9th September 2015...
Author: Reynard Wade
12 downloads 2 Views 921KB Size
Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus, and Central Asia Sub-Regional Workshop

Synergies and Indicators in NBSAPs Workshop Report 7th – 9th September 2015 Royal Beach Hotel, Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan

1. SUMMARY The “Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus, and Central Asia Sub-Regional Workshop on Strengthening synergies and indicators in National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs)” was held from the 7th to the 9th September 2015 in Royal Beach Hotel, Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan. The overall objective of the workshop was to strengthen capacity for indicator development through identifying and developing a common suite of indicators across the countries of each sub-region as part of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) updating process. This workshop was organized as one of the activities of the project “Strengthening MEA synergies and indicators in NBSAPs for the Pan-European region”, led by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This project is funded by the European Commission’s Thematic Programme for Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources including Energy (ENRTP) fund, with contributions from UNEP (Environment Fund), and aims to explore the opportunities to produce a suite of common indicators for NBSAPs, first at the sub-regional level, and subsequently across the Pan-European region. This will be achieved through two sub-regional workshops; one with countries of South Eastern Europe (held in Belgrade, Serbia, from 22-24 April 2015), and the other with countries of Central Asia, Southern Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Web-based trainings will support the indicator development, and a regional workshop will then consolidate the results. The workshop brought together 26 delegates from eleven countries of Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Central Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Participants included representatives from government Ministries, national environmental agencies and research centers, and NGOs. Representatives from the UNEP Regional Office for Europe (UNEP ROE), UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) also participated in the workshop and contributed their expertise. The workshop programme consisted of presentations, interactive group work and training exercises, designed to promote the development of common sub-regional indicators as part of the NBSAP updating process. On the first day, an initial group discussion on common indicators helped the participants come to a shared understanding of what “common indicators across the sub-region” could mean for them, and related challenges. Representatives from countries then discussed their NBSAP revision process to date, including challenges faced, lessons learned and successes. The day finished with a presentation on target-setting and indicator development in the context of NBSAP revision, followed by a group exercise in which participants worked from draft NBSAP targets to produce biodiversity indicators, following the steps of the Biodiversity Indicator Development Framework. During the second day, working in sub-regional groups, participants were invited to identify common NBSAP “subjects” which are important to each country. Participants then selected the top priority subject areas and explored existing indicators and data for each of these. This resulted in a list of common indicators for each sub-region which could feasibly be produced during the project. To 2

conclude the second day, a presentation was given on a framework showing the different elements of capacity needed to produce successful biodiversity indicators, and a short analysis exercise was conducted, to understand strengths and weaknesses in participants’ own countries. On the third day, participants were first given a presentation on indicator fact sheets. Participants then continued working in their sub-regions to determine the next steps under the project. For a number of countries, the first step will be to secure the engagement and commitment of their government, following which more detailed steps can be elaborated. Other countries developed a working plan of their participation in the project until the regional workshop planned for February 2016.

3

Contents 1.

SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................................2

2.

BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................5 2.1. Introduction to the Project “Strengthening MEA synergies and indicators in NBSAPs for the PanEuropean region”..................................................................................................................................................5 2.2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Workshop Introduction ............................................................................................................................5

DAY 1.................................................................................................................................................................5 3.1.

Welcome and Introductions .....................................................................................................................5

3.2.

Strengthening MEA Synergies and Indicators for the Pan-European Region ...........................................5

3.3.

Group Discussion: “Common Indicators within the Sub-regions”............................................................6

3.4.

Top recommendations for successful NBSAP updating ...........................................................................7

3.5.

Target setting and indicator development for NBSAPs ............................................................................7

3.6.

Developing indicators for national targets ...............................................................................................7

DAY 2.................................................................................................................................................................8 4.1.

Identifying Common NBSAP ’Subject Areas’ ............................................................................................8

4.2.

Data and Information for Indicators .......................................................................................................10

4.3.

Capacity for Indicator Development – Framework ................................................................................10

DAY 3...............................................................................................................................................................11 5.1.

Indicator Fact Sheets ..............................................................................................................................11

5.2.

Agreements in Principle and Next Steps ................................................................................................11

5.2.1.

Next steps for Central Asia Sub-Region ..............................................................................................12

5.2.2.

Next steps for Southern Caucasus and Eastern Europe Sub-Regions .................................................12

ANNEXES .........................................................................................................................................................13 6.1.

Annex 1: Workshop Agenda ...................................................................................................................13

6.2.

Annex 2: Final List of Participants ...........................................................................................................15

This report was compiled by WWF-Russia, UNEP Regional Office for Europe and UNEP-WCMC. For further information please contact Maria Morgado ([email protected]).

4

2. BACKGROUND 2.1. Introduction to the Project “Strengthening MEA synergies and indicators in NBSAPs for the Pan-European region” The project “Strengthening MEA synergies and indicators in NBSAPs for the Pan-European region” is funded by the European Commission (EC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and aims to strengthen NBSAP implementation through identifying and developing common indicators in Pan-Europe, with a transboundary focus in the sub-regions of South Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe (including Russia), Southern Caucasus, and Central Asia. The project will explore the opportunities for harmonizing biodiversity indicators firstly within each sub-region through two sub-regional workshops, and then across the four sub-regions together through a regional workshop. 2.2. Workshop Introduction After the first project workshop for South Eastern Europe this was the second project workshop, held for the Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus, and Central Asia sub-regions. The workshop objectives were to: • Improve understanding of key concepts, steps, and good practices in developing impact indicators; • Identify opportunities for NBSAP updating from the experience of other countries in the sub-region; • Agree and define sub-regional indicator commonalities, capacity development needs and support actions to be addressed in the regional workshop; • Develop Agreements in Principle for the indicators to be worked on as a sub-region, the activities to be undertaken and outputs; • Increase skills and confidence in developing and using indicators as part of NBSAP updating and implementation. The workshop agenda can be found in Annex 1 to this report. The participants list can be found in Annex 2.

3. DAY 1 3.1.

Welcome and Introductions The workshop was inaugurated on the morning of the 7th September 2015, under the patronage of the State Agency on Environment Protection and Forestry of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic. Thierry Lucas from UNEP Regional Office for Europe (UNEP ROE), Philip Bubb of UNEP-WCMC, David Duthie of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), Oksana Lipka of WWF-Russia and Olga Pereladova of Central Asia WWF Programme also welcomed participants and expressed appreciation for their participation in the workshop.

3.2. Strengthening MEA Synergies and Indicators for the Pan-European Region Thierry Lucas of UNEP Regional Office for Europe (UNEP ROE) gave an introduction to the project: “Strengthening MEA synergies and indicators in NBSAPs for the Pan-European region”. He stressed the importance of working towards targets and indicators in order to show the progress that is being made in the sub-region and underlined the importance of a regional and sub-regional approach. He also highlighted the Pan-European 2020 Strategy and its role as a bridge between EU and non-EU countries in Pan-Europe. He emphasized that the workshop is intended as a tool for the countries and that UNEP is open to the ideas the countries feel might work best for them. He pointed out that one of the objectives of the project is to identify how different countries are working

5

on other Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and how these activities can best be streamlined to avoid problems such as duplication in reporting. Sarah Ivory from UNEP-WCMC then outlined the objectives of the workshop and the agenda. She highlighted the key outputs of the workshop, the first of these being ‘Agreements in Principle’ that each country would be invited to produce, as preliminary agreements as to the work that each country would undertake as part of the project, and that UNEP and UNEP-WCMC would undertake to support countries in this regard. The second key output of the workshop was this workshop report, the core content of which would also form a chapter of the technical Project Report. Natalia Alexeeva also presented UNEP’s work in the Central Asia subregion. 3.3. Group Discussion: “Common Indicators within the Sub-regions” Participants were divided into four mixed country groups to discuss three questions. The results of the group discussions can be found below: 1. What could “common” indicators look like in your sub-region? • An objective assessment of biodiversity status • The opportunity for objective results comparing at national, regional and global levels • They should be comparable, but not obligatorily the same • A tool for achievement of global targets of international conventions • Improved synergy between countries for achievement of common goals (CBD, IPBES etc.) • Prevention of biodiversity decreasing at national, regional and global levels • Common monitoring, assessing and planning for biodiversity • An objective assessment of transboundary ecosystems and species

2. How can “common” indicators within the sub-region help you? • • • •



• •



Building of a strong international (transboundary) cooperation A common methodology for monitoring, assessments, etc. Useful at national, regional and global levels as well as at cross-sectoral level Common indicators are important at all levels. It depends on purposes and regional specifics: - European-global level: decreasing of species number, climate changes, protected areas; - sub-regional level: protection of migrating species, marine and mountain territories Common indicators are more useful at lower levels, because they are more concrete Take into account ongoing conservation projects Attract large sections of the public (NGOs, public organizations, local societies, international organizations) Cross-sectoral cooperation in development and implementation of projects

3. What are the limitations, considerations and challenges? • It is necessary to have common approaches and optimize resources • Common indicators work better at a regional level • Goals could be the same, but not always identical (e.g. better PA management) • Common indicators have to be adapted for countries

6

3.4. Top recommendations for successful NBSAP updating In mixed country groups, participants then discussed their NBSAP revision process to date, any challenges they had faced and key successes. Based on this, they then listed a number of ‘top recommendations’ for other countries to ensure a successful NBSAP updating process. These included:

“Involve a wide range of society – creates a sense of ownership” “Monitor the implementation of projects, programmes and conventions” “Sectoral cooperation is important, both in the development of the NBSAP and in its implementation” “Realistic – make sure that there is the budget to achieve the targets” “Look for synergies with other conventions and national strategies” “Consider integrating plans into laws”

3.5. Target setting and indicator development for NBSAPs Following the group discussion, Sarah Ivory gave a presentation on target setting and indicator development. She introduced the context of the CBD and the Aichi Targets, and looked at what the Aichi Targets mean for national target setting. Sarah then highlighted some key messages for indicator development, and introduced the ‘Biodiversity Indicator Development Framework’ – a framework to guide the development of successful indicators and which is explained at www.bipindicators.net/nationalindicatordevelopment. Sarah also discussed the different types of indicators in NBSAPs, and their uses, before demonstrating a number of key resources available to support practitioners. 3.6.

Developing indicators for national targets Working in six groups, with representatives of two countries in most groups, participants then completed a practical exercise, following the steps of the Biodiversity Indicator Development Framework. Each group was given a selection of national targets from other countries, or they could use one of their own, and they worked through a handout to develop possible indicators for that target.

Participants recognized that even for very different countries, the indicators can be similar and comparable, for example Protected Areas coverage or conservation of rare species. The legislation in countries is different, but the main principles and approaches are the same. In practice, some indicators in countries’ revised NBSAPs are actually formulated as targets and therefore may need revision or clarification. In this context the ‘Biodiversity Indicator Development Framework’ is a useful tool for 7

development of different types of indicators, which will support effective work in NBSAPs and help countries to report their results. It is crucial to find the right indicator for future planning, but data availability and accessibility may often be an issue.

4. DAY 2 4.1. Identifying Common NBSAP ’Subject Areas’ Delegates worked in three sub-regional groups to identify common priority subject areas within NBSAPs. In the same groups, participants then either voted or decided collectively as a group on those which were, for their country, top priority subjects. They then worked through the lists to further refine them, and to discuss for which indicators data are available and the production of a common indicator would be feasible. Central Asia

Subject area Regional legislation Economic assessment of ecosystem services and payments for them Agrobiodiversity and Genetic resources Invasive species

Order of priority 1 2 3 4

Experience and knowledge exchange + Public Awareness Transboundary cooperation GIS, monitoring, regional databases + Data access + Technical infrastructure

5 6 7

Southern Caucasus and Russia

8

Subject area Network of PAS

Number of votes 5

Capacity building for BD management Mountain ecosystems Water ecosystems Species of special concern (L) Public awareness Mainstreaming biodiversity Impact of climate change Pollution Grassland ecosystems Forest ecosystems Habitat fragmentation Invasive species GMOs

5 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0

Eastern Europe

Subject area Expansion of PA network Ecosystem restoration (for natural ecosystems) Public awareness of conservation problems (inc. education)

Number of votes 5 5 4

Ecosystem services Protection of rare and threatened species Ecosystem degradation Climate change effect on biodiversity Invasive species – investigations and measures Genetic resources and access to them Scientific approach GMOs Organic farming

4 4 2 2 2 1 1 0 0

9

Final lists of selected indicators Central Asia 1. Provision of information about ecosystem services to wide audience (Public awareness) - Number of events - Number of publications - Number of informed persons 2. Adaptation of international methodologies of ecosystem services - Number of methodologies developed - Number of methodologies adopted - Number of Pas, assessed by an ecosystem service methodology 3. Invasive species - Number of invasive species; - Areas effected by invasive species - Economic losses and damages In the exercise of data availability

Eastern Europe 1. Protected areas - % of country’s surface area protected - Number of protected areas with management plans - Number of threatened species in protected areas (through monitoring/red list information) - Number of statutory and regulatory documents regulating issues around Protected Areas management 2. Threatened species - Number of action plans for threatened species (Red Lists, Conventions, international agreements) - Number of territories protected for the conservation of threatened species - Number of threatened species and populations, restored in their natural habitats - Number of technologies and plans for restoration of endangered species in artificial conditions - Number of rare species databases (databases, websites)

Southern Caucasus 1. Protected areas - Number of connected Pas and Eco-corridors - Coverage of PAs 2. Water Resources - Number of HPP - Level of Pollution 3. Species of Special Concern - State of Population of selected species - Effectiveness of Protection of populations of selected species 4. Public awareness - Trends of awareness and attitudes of various target groups towards BD 5. Capacity Building for biodiversity - % of trained staff of responsible agencies

4.2. Data and Information for Indicators In their sub-regional groups, participants then filled out short forms to identify if data was available for each of their selected indicators, where it was held, and if any support would be needed in order to access it.

4.3.

Capacity for Indicator Development – Framework The day ended with a presentation on a framework of capacity for the development of successful indicators by Sarah Walker. This framework brought together a number of key elements of capacity that are necessary for the sustainable production of biodiversity indicators, as well as a number of high-level drivers that help promote indicator development. The framework can be seen on the next page.

10

Participants then completed a short analysis exercise, whereby they scored for their country between 0 and 5 for each element, where 0 means ‘entirely lacking’ and 5 signifies ‘fully in place’. Overall, the lowest scoring elements were “a responsible agency for biodiversity/NBSAP indicators”, and “biodiversity and ecosystem services are high priority areas”. The availability of technical support and capacity building scored very highly. However, there was greatest variation in the scores allocated for the elements “effective monitoring to obtain data”, “national experts on NBSAP ‘topics’ provide advice data, promotion”, “adequate financing for indicators” and “national, regional and global reporting requirements ”. Countries that scored more highly in these areas could support those that allocated lower scores, by sharing their lessons learned and experiences.

5. DAY 3 5.1. Indicator Fact Sheets The third day started with a presentation by Sarah Walker of UNEP-WCMC on indicator fact sheets, an instrument for documenting the methods of calculating an indicator and organising relevant information. Some countries already use fact sheets, and there was a general consensus that it would be useful to use them for common sub-regional indicators, especially in regards to methodology. 5.2. Agreements in Principle and Next Steps Participants then broke into their sub-regional groups to discuss what they wanted from the project, what they were prepared to do under the project, and what support they would need from UNEP and UNEP-WCMC.

11

Some participants felt at this stage that they were unable to consider next steps, as they needed first to ensure that their country was committed to the project and its results. Therefore, concrete next steps will be elaborated during a virtual meeting or webinar, once countries have fully committed to the project. Working groups and countries provided their needs for improving, updating and better implementation of indicators, which are not only for the existing NBSAPs, but also for future versions, because some countries cannot make any changes in State Approved NBSAPs. 5.2.1. Next steps for Central Asia Sub-Region By February 2016 Central Asian countries will do the following: 1. Kazakhstan – make a presentation about economic assessment of ecosystem services in Kazakhstan 2. All countries will aim to show the progress on the identified common indicators for them once they receive official approval from their governments. This will include preparing articles to send to UNEPWCMC by 15th Jan in preparation for the conference in Istanbul. 3. Provide the information for a report on regional indicators From UNEP and UNEP-WCMC side they expect, by February 2016: 1. UNEP to send a letter of participation to each country to re-confirm endorsement of the project 2. All materials from the seminar, including presentations and workshop report to be made available. 3. Technical and methodological support, particularly around assessment of ecosystem services. 4. Provide comments on indicators in existing NBSAPS (developing or approved) for each country 5. Publication leaflets about indicators in Central Asia (including design, printing, translation into Russian)

5.2.2. Next steps for Southern Caucasus and Eastern Europe Sub-Regions For the Southern Caucasus and Eastern Europe Sub-Regions, the next steps are as follows: 1. UNEP to send a letter of participation to each country to re-confirm endorsement of the project 2. All materials from the seminar, including presentations and workshop report to be made available. 3. UNEP-WCMC to organize follow up calls and virtual meetings to clarify and refine project work and next steps 4. UNEP-WCMC and UNEP to provide technical and methodological support as required A representative from Moldova highlighted a number of areas, relating to ecosystem services, in which support would be welcomed: • Assessment of ecosystems • Methodology for different types of assessments • Improving of legislation • Financial and economical instruments • Good practices examples • Examples of official documents concerning ecosystem services (how it was implemented in other countries) • Tools for interaction and comparing of methods for ecosystem services assessments between ecological and other economy sectors

12

6. ANNEXES 6.1.

Annex 1: Workshop Agenda

Time 09:00-10:00

Day 1: Monday 7th September Session Welcome and introductions

10:00-10:30

Project presentation “MEA Synergies and Indicators”

10:30 – 11:00 11:00 – 12:00

Coffee break Group discussion: “Common indicators within the Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus, and Central Asia SubRegions” Top recommendations for successful NBSAP updating

12:00 – 13:00

13:00 – 14:00 14:00 – 15:00

Lunch Indicators introductory presentation and types of indicators in NBSAPs

15:00 – 15:30

Targets and indicators exercise

15:30 – 15:50 15:50 – 17:30

Coffee break Targets and indicators exercise (continued)

17:30

19:00

Time 09:00 – 09:15

Day 2: Tuesday 8th September Session Recap from day 1 and plan for day 2 Split into sub-regional groups

9:15 – 10:30

Identifying common NBSAP ‘subjects’

10:30– 11:00 11:00 – 12:00

Coffee break Group discussion: Prioritization of identified ‘subject areas’.

12:00 – 13:00

Developing key questions and indicators

Objectives Participants and resource people get to know one another and their reasons for involvement in the project Participants understand the aims of the project, how this workshop fits in and the intended outcome of the workshop Group Photo Participants come to a common understanding of what is meant by ‘common indicators across the region’ and of the overall objectives of the project, and challenges/considerations in this. Discussions in small groups in order that participants understand where other countries are in the NBSAP revision process, and key successes and top recommendations for successful NBSAP updating. Participants understand the basic principles of developing successful biodiversity indicators, and are familiar with the Biodiversity Indicator Development Framework. Participants understand the different types of indicators used in NBSAPs, and the importance of having different kinds within an NBSAP. Participants become familiar with the BIDF and with the development of indicators for national targets. Participants understand the different types of indicators used in NBSAPs, and the importance of having different kinds within an NBSAP. Nominate rapporteur for following morning to share a few highlights and key things they’ve learned from day 1. GROUP DINNER

Objectives Rapporteur gives short report back. Warn that one representative will need to present back the results/outcomes on day 3. Participants identify subject areas that the project will focus on. Participants discuss the relevance and feasibility of identified subject areas, and prioritise through voting and other means. Participants identify the key questions within their 13

NBSAP relating to the identified subject areas and identify the indicator(s) that help to answer these questions 13:00 – 14:00 14:00 – 15:00

Lunch Data and information for indicators

15:00 – 15:45

Challenges and solutions

15:45 – 16:15 16:15 – 17:00

Coffee break Plenary: Capacity for indicator development - framework

17:00

Close

9:00 – 9:10 9:10 – 9:30

Day 3: Wednesday 9th September Session In plenary Recap and introduction to the day Indicator Fact sheets

9:30 – 10:30

Report back from sub-regions

10:30 – 10:50 10:50 – 11:30 11:30 – 12:00

Coffee break Common indicators across the panEuropean region? Indicators and synergies between MEAs

12:00 – 13:00

Agreements in principle

13:00 – 14:00 14:00 – 15:30

Lunch Sub-regions Agreements in principle

15:30 – 16:00 15:45 – 16:45

Coffee break Next steps and capacity needs

16:45 - 17:00

Close of workshop

Time

Countries discuss readily available data for the identified indicators, those which may be held elsewhere or may be less easily accessible, and those which are not available. A data mobilization plan is made. Participants have the opportunity to reflect on and share challenges, lessons learnt and considerations relating to indicators in the identified subject areas, which could influence countries’ planned next steps Participants recognize key elements of capacity for producing indicators, and are able to analyse strengths and weaknesses in their country. Nominate rapporteur from each sub-region for the following day (10-15 mins to talk through results of the sub-region and the conclusions etc.) Objectives

Participants are aware of fact sheets and their uses, and want to produce them for the indicators under this project Representative from each sub-region reports back on key questions asked and indicators identified Preliminary discussion on opportunities for common indicators across the Pan-European region. Participants understand how indicators, including those selected over the past days, can support and draw from other MEAs and processes. Participants agree broadly on project objectives, outputs, and activities and what they will do to support this. Participants split into sub-regional groups and discuss again the broad components of agreements in principle, based on the previous discussion, but drawing from the sub-regional discussions over previous days. Participants have clear timelines for work under the project. Participants are clear about the capacity needs of their country and other countries at the workshop. A plan for support is developed for UNEP & UNEPWCMC. Acknowledgements and collect evaluation forms

14

6.2. Annex 2: Final List of Participants No. NAME COUNTRY DESIGNATION 1 Mr. Aram Aghasyan Armenia Head of the Department of Specially Protected Nature Areas Ministry of Nature Protection 2 Ms. Karen Manvelyan Armenia Director WWF Armenia 3 Mr. Rashad Azerbaijan Senior specialist Protection of Biodiversity and Development of Allahverdiyev Specially Protected Nature Areas Department Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources 4 Mr. Chingiz Azerbaijan Senior Programme Adviser/Programme Analyst Mammadov UNDP Azerbaijan 5 Mr. Mehman Nabiyev Azerbaijan Senior advisor Environmental policy division Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources 6

Mr. Mikhail Maksimenkau

Belarus

7

Ms. Tatsiana Zhaliaznova Ms. Mariam Urdia

Belarus

9

Mr. Timur Bekkaliyev (+37410) 58 06 99

Kazakhastan

10

Ms. Ainur Sagandykova

Kazakhastan

11

Mr. Talgat Kerteshev

Kazakhastan

12

Ms. Meruyert Sarsembayeva

Kazakhastan

8

Georgia

Research Associate Laboratory of International Cooperation and Coordination of Environmental Convention of Scientific Centre for Biological Resources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus Consultant Department of Biological and Landscape Diversity Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Project Expert Sustainable Management of Biodiversity, South Caucasus Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Expert Protected Areas Department of Forestry and Wildlife Committee Ministry of Agriculture Chief Expert Water and Biological Resources Department Ministry of Agriculture Government RK-UNDP Biodiversity Projects Manager UNDP National expert on financial tools, Team leader BIOFIN, CB2, UNDP

CONTACT DETAILS Tel: (+374 10) 58 06 99 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (+374 10) 54 61 56 (ext. 12) E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +994554553554 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (+99412) 4989-888 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (+994 50) 342 40 06 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Tel: +375-29-653-36-26 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +375-29-689-31-48; E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +995 599 68 36 34 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

E-mail: [email protected]

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: + 7 (7172) 55 65 73 E-mail: [email protected]

13

Mr. Ruslan Akulov

Kyrgyzstan

14

Ms. Aizada Barieva

Kyrgyzstan

15

Ms. Farida Balbakova

Kyrgyzstan

16

Mr. Azat Alamanov

Kyrgyzstan

17

Ms. Ala Rotaru

Moldova

18

Ms. Laurentia Ungureanu Mr. Vladimir Krever

Moldova

20

Mr. Khisravshokh Shermatov

Tajikistan

21

Ms. Fotima Salimova

Tajikistan

22

Ms. Firuza Illarionova

Tajikistan

23

Mr. Oleg Dudkin

Ukraine

24

Mr. Ivan Rusev

Ukraine

25

Mr. Roman Rasulov

Uzbekistan

26

Mr. Ivan Belikov

Uzbekistan

19

Russia

Head of the Protected Area Section Department of Forest Ecosystems and Protected Areas of the State Agency Chief specialist Ecological Strategy and Policy Department of the State Agency National projects coordinator of WWF in the Kyrgyz Republic Head Public association Global and Local Information Partnership Biodiversity and Ecosystem Expert of WWF projects Public association Global and Local Information Partnership Head, National CBD Focal Point Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division Ministry of Environment Deputy Director Institute of Zoology of Academy of Sciences of Moldova Leader of Biodiversity Programme WWF Russia Chief Specialist National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center Research Worker Research Laboratory for Nature Protection of the Committee of Environmental Protection under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan Director Social Organization Nature Protection Team Director Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Birds, BirdLife Ukraine Board Member Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Birds, BirdLife Ukraine Senior Officer of the State Biological Inspection State Committee for Nature Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan Head of the Environment Monitoring and Cadaster Unit State Committee for Nature Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan

Tel: ( +996312) 461264 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (+ 996 312) 549487 E-mail: [email protected] Теl: +996 772 527277 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +996 772 52 72 72E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +373 22 204 522 / +373 79 623 192 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Tel: + 373 079 553 115 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +7 (495) 727-09-39 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (+992 98) 5125079 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Tel: + 992 918 863 791 E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: (+992 93) 505 25 64 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +380 50 0777210 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +38 097 5762705 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: E-mail: Tel: E-mail: [email protected] 16

27

Ms. Natalia Alexeeva

UNEP

28

Mr. Thierry Lucas

UNEP

29

Ms. Maria Morgado

UNEP

30

Mr. Philip Bubb

31

Ms. Sarah Ivory

32

Ms. Sarah Walker

33

Ms. Olga Peredalova

UNEPWCMC UNEPWCMC UNEPWCMC WWF

34

Ms. Oksana Lipka

WWF

35

Mr. David Duthie

CBD

Head of Sub-Regional Office for Central Asia UNEP Regional Office for Europe Ecosystems Management Sub-programme Coordinator UNEP Regional Office for Europe Assistant Programme Officer UNEP Regional Office for Europe Senior Programme Officer Ecosystem Assessment Assistant Programme Officer Ecosystem Assessment Assistant Programme Officer Ecosystem Assessment Head of Central Asia Programme WWF Russia Coordinator of Climate and Energy Programme WWF Russia Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Tel: +77272582643 ext. 1551 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +32 2 213 30 56 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +32 2 213 61 02 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0) 1223 814722 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +7 (495) 727-09-39 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +7 (495) 727-09-39 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +1-514-287-6695 E-mail: [email protected]

17