E2549 REV
REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN
AMELIORATION AND IRRIGATION
OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
WATER USERS ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
16 December 2010
2
WATER USERS ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Objective
1.3 World Bank safeguard policies
1.4 Methodology
1.5 Consultation process
2. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Policy context
2.2 Legal/regulatory framework for environmental management/assessment
2.3 Involvement of Azerbaijan in international cooperation on environment
2.4 Institutional framework for environmental management and assessment
2.5 Environmental monitoring
2.6 Regional processes
3. KEY NATURAL PARAMETERS OF AZERBAIJAN
3.1 Natural setting
4. ANALYSIS OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
4.1 Description of project
4.2 Analysis of project alternatives
4.3 Description of physical/biological environment
4.4 Description of socio-economic context
4.5 Description of stakeholders and beneficiaries
5. ASSESSMENT OF PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND
PROPOSED PREVENTIVE ACTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1 Anticipated positive social and environmental impacts
5.2 Anticipated negative environmental and social impacts
6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
6.1 Objective of the EMMP
6.2 Environmental screening and review of sub-projects
6.3 Environmental monitoring program
6.4 Environmental capacity building and training program
6.5 Implementation arrangements
6.6 Implementation schedule
6.7 Proposed budget and funding sources for EMMP implementation
ANNEXES
3
ANNEX A – Public Consultations
ANNEX B – International and Regional Conventions
4
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADCP
AIOJSC
ARN
AZM
BP
EA
EIA
EMMP
FAO
FSU
GoA
GDP
GP
IDP
IDSMIP
IUCN
ISF
MMKC
MMMC
MoA
MENR
MoH
NEAP
NGO
OP
PE
PIU
RIDIP
RSU
SAC
SSB
SSC
SSC
SSL
US$
WB
WSF
WUA
WUAP
WWF
Agricultural Development and Credit Project (World Bank)
Amelioration and Irrigation Open Joint Stock Company
Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan
Azerbaijani manat
Bank procedure (World Bank)
Environmental assessment
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental management and monitoring plan
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Former Soviet Union
Government of Azerbaijan
Gross domestic product
Good practice (World Bank)
Internally displaced person
Irrigation Distribution System and Management Improvement Project
World Conservation Union
Irrigation service fee
Main Mill Karabakh Collector
Main Mill Mugan Collector
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources
Ministry of Health
National Environmental Action Plan
Non-governmental organization
Operational policy (World Bank)
Evapotranspiration
Project Implementation Unit
Rehabilitation and Completion of Irrigation and Drainage Infrastructure Project
Raion WUA Support Units
Samur-Apsheron Canal
State Supervisory Body
State Statistical Committee
Suspended sediment concentrations
Suspended sediment loads
United States dollars
World Bank
WUA Support Fund
Water users association
Water users association development support project
World Wildlife Federation
ha
km
lcpd
lps
msl
hectare
kilometre
litres per capita per day
litres per second
mean sea level
ABBREVIATIONS
5
WATER USERS ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
1. INTRODUCTION
This Environmental assessment (EA) and Environmental management and monitoring plan
(EMMP) has been prepared for the proposed Water users association development support
project (WUAP), to be co-financed by the Government of Azerbaijan (GoA) and the World
Bank, in order to ensure that the project (i) incorporates sound environmental and social
management principles and practices and (ii) fully complies with all GoA environmental
requirements and with applicable World Bank environmental safeguard policies.
1.1 Background
The WUAP will be the World Bank’s third project in the irrigation and drainage sector in
Azerbaijan and is a direct follow-up to the existing Irrigation Distribution System and
Management Improvement Project (IDSMIP), which became effective in 2003 and is
scheduled to close in September 2010. The objective of the IDSMIP was to improve irrigation water
management by providing support to (i) development of Azerbaijan’s emerging water users’
associations (WUAs) and. the Amelioration and Irrigation Open Joint Stock Company (AIOJSC) and
(ii) selective rehabilitation and improvement of associated on-farm irrigation and drainage
infrastructure. The infrastructure improvements were made, for the most part, on a demand-driven
basis on farms that met certain eligibility criteria within the eleven project area raions (i.e.
Aghjabedi, Beylagan, Geranboy, Imishli, Khachmaz, Quba, Saatli, Sabirabad, and Zardab in
Azerbaijan; Babek and Sharur in the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan (ARN)). The project
had three components: (1) Development of WUAs, (2) Irrigation and Drainage Infrastructure
Rehabilitation, and (3) Project Management, which were implemented by a Project Implementation
Unit (PIU) under the AIOJSC.
As the positive results of the IDSMIP and the benefits to the rural economy and population became
apparent, the GoA requested support from the World Bank for a larger-scale follow-up project. This
proposed WUAP will build on the success of the IDSMIP and will have the same core components as
the IDSMIP (i.e. WUA development and infrastructure rehabilitation), but it will extend the
geographical coverage to an additional 16 raions (depending on project component), bringing the total
to 27 raions covered by the project. Map 1 shows the 27 raions that comprise the project area for the
WUAP. The on-farm irrigation and drainage infrastructure improvements will continue to be made on
a demand-driven basis on farms that meet the eligibility criteria. A limited amount of off-farm
infrastructure improvements will be undertaken as necessary to ensure effective delivery of water
to the rehabilitated on-farm systems. The proposed project will be implemented by the same
IDSMIP PIU under the AIOJSC. The PIU comprises a number of construction engineers who
oversee the irrigation and drainage infrastructure improvements and includes an environmental
specialist who oversees the environmental management plan and environmental monitoring
programme established by the EA and EMMP for the IDSMIP. A more detailed description of the
proposed project can be found below (see Section 4.1).
6
Map 1. Project Raions
1.2 Objective
The objective of this EA (Sections 1-5 of the document) is to identify the significant
environmental and social impacts of the proposed project (both positive and negative) and to
specify appropriate preventive actions and mitigation measures (including monitoring) to prevent,
eliminate or minimise any anticipated adverse impacts. The EMMP (Section 6 of the document) is
the mechanism that ensures that the environmental prevention and mitigation measures identified,
the screening and review process proposed, and the capacity-building and monitoring activities
recommended will be properly undertaken during implementation of the proposed project. The
EMMP also establishes the necessary institutional arrangements and proposes an implementation
schedule for undertaking these EMMP activities, indicating their costs in the proposed project
budget.
This EA and EMMP build on the comprehensive EA and EMMP prepared for the IDSMIP, since
the WUAP’s overall approach and basic project interventions will be the same. The EA has been
updated, however, to reflect the particular environmental and socio-economic characteristics of
the new project raions; the EMMP has been modified to reflect lessons learned during
implementation of the IDSMIP.
1.3 World Bank safeguard policies
The World Bank’s Integrated Safeguard Data Sheet for the WUAP classified it as a Category “B”
project (requiring partial assessment), triggering the Bank’s safeguard policies for environmental
assessment, pest management, involuntary resettlement, projects on international waterways, and
safety of dams. The EA confirmed the Category “B” designation for the proposed project, finding
no significant, irreversible, cumulative or long-term adverse impacts. In fact, the EA identified a
number of positive impacts of the proposed project and negative impacts that could be effectively
prevented or reduced through application of appropriate preventive actions or mitigation measures
(see discussion of impacts in Section 5.). The EA also confirmed the application of the five
specified safeguard policies to the WUAP. Four of the five policies are discussed below; the
policy on involuntary resettlement has been dealt with separately. The EA also reviewed
application of the Bank’s safeguard policy for natural habitats to the project. The EA determined
that the project, as currently proposed, does not trigger any of the remaining safeguard policies
involving forests, physical cultural resources, indigenous peoples, or projects in disputed areas.
1.3.1 Environmental assessment (OP1 4.01, BP2 4.01, GP3 4.01). The anticipated environmental
and social impacts of the irrigation and drainage rehabilitation component of the proposed project
trigger this safeguard policy. Because the anticipated adverse impacts will not be significant or
irreversible, however, and can be prevented or reduced through appropriate preventive actions or
mitigation measures, the project is classified a Category “B” project and, as such, requires only
partial assessment. This EA, with its EMMP ensuring that recommended preventive actions and
mitigation measures will be taken, satisfies this Bank safeguard policy. Because the exact number
and location of the specific rehabilitation sub-projects to be undertaken under the WUAP have yet
to be determined, the EA is limited to identifying generic impacts for infrastructure rehabilitation
1
2
3
Operational Policies (OPs) are short, focused statements that follow from the World Bank’s Articles of
Agreement, the general conditions, and policies approved by the Board. OPs establish the parameters for the
conduct of operations; they also describe the circumstances under which exceptions to policy are admissible
and spell out who authorises exceptions.
Bank Procedures (BPs) explain how Bank staff carry out the policies set out in the OPs. They spell out the
procedures and documentation required to ensure Bank-wide consistency and quality.
Good Practices (GPs) contain advice and guidance on policy implementation, for example, the history of the
issue, the sectoral context, analytical framework, best practice examples.
in the project areas identified and specifying generic prevention and mitigation measures for these
impacts. However, the EMMP includes environmental screening and review procedures similar to
those required for financial intermediary operations that will ensure that appropriate preventive
actions and mitigation measures are applied, by means of site-specific environmental management
plans, to sub-project sites on a case-by-case basis (see Section 6).
1.3.2 Pest Management (OP 4.09, BP 4.09). Although the IDSMIP did not trigger this safeguard
policy, the EA prepared for the IDSMIP recognized that the recovery of the agricultural sector in
Azerbaijan was likely to increase pesticide use in the longer term. Because the agricultural
recovery that will likely take place during the proposed project may induce an increase in the use
of pesticides, the project triggers this safeguard policy. The IDSMIP relied on the Bank’s
Agricultural Development and Credit Project (ADCP), with its one-day training courses and
national information campaigns on pesticide application, to provide awareness raising and training
on pesticide management and integrated pest management (IPM) for water users. The proposed
project will continue to take advantage of the ADCP’s extension program until its closure in May
2011. But, more importantly, the project will develop and deliver its own training program on
pesticide management and IPM under the WUA capacity building component.
1.3.3 Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37). The dams and headworks on the Samur, Kura, and
Araz Rivers, which provide most of the water to the irrigation systems to be addressed in the
proposed project, trigger this safeguard policy. The EA, however, does not address this policy; the
Bank’s dam safety specialist will perform a separate dam safety assessment during project
preparation in order to address this safeguard policy.
1.3.4 Projects on international waterways (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50). The Samur, Kura, and
Araz Rivers, which supply most of the water to the irrigation systems to be rehabilitated in the
proposed project, and the Caspian Sea, into which these rivers and project drainage systems
eventually flow, are international waterways that trigger this safeguard policy. The proposed
project, however, is not expected to have any significant impacts on the quantity or quality of
water flowing through these rivers or into the Caspian Sea for two reasons. First, the project
design is limited to the rehabilitation of existing irrigation schemes; no new irrigation schemes or
extensions of schemes will be constructed. Second, the rehabilitation activities are expected to
have minimal or no impact on the quantity or quality of water in (upstream or) downstream water
bodies. The irrigation infrastructure improvements will not result in significant increases in either
withdrawals from or discharges to the international waterways. And, based on water quality
monitoring conducted during the IDSMIP, which indicated no significant adverse impacts from
irrigation drainage in receiving water bodies, the project is not expected to result in significant
impacts on the quality of water in these waterways. (The proposed project will discontinue the
water quality monitoring performed at sites under the IDSMIP but will include similar water
quality monitoring at new sites.) Therefore, the project is not expected to have any adverse effects
on the water flows or the rights of the other riparian states on the international waterways, so the
Bank will seek a waiver, as it did with the IDSMIP, pursuant to paragraph 7 (a) of OP 7.50 for
this safeguard policy.
1.3.5 Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04). The EA determined that the project does not trigger
the natural habitats safeguard policy. Planned project activities will take place on lands already
converted to agricultural use by previous, non-Bank-related actions. As currently planned, the
project will finance principally small-scale on-farm rehabilitation works, will not construct new
irrigation systems and will not induce increased water abstraction. To ensure this, the EA
proposes that all sub-projects be submitted to environmental screening, the criteria for which will
cover natural habitat conversion, new irrigation system construction, and increased water
2
withdrawal. The project will thus not involve “significant conversion or degradation of natural
habitats” as defined in OP 4.04. The proposed project, however, includes a number of new raions
in the mountainous region of northern Azerbaijan where there are national parks, protected forests
and natural reserves (e.g. Qusar Preserve). These protected areas, which are typically on the high
mountain slopes, are unlikely to be impacted by project interventions in the surrounding lowlands.
To be sure, however, the project will ensure that rehabilitation of irrigation schemes that may
result in a potential adverse impact will not be eligible for rehabilitation. The EA also requires the
project to determine whether project sites in the new mountain raions will have potential impacts
on rivers and their tributaries important for migratory fish populations and their spawning areas.
Finally, the EA requires the project to conduct water quality monitoring at all new sites, including
those in the new mountainous raions, and to assess potential impacts on the fish populations in the
receiving waters.
1.4 Methodology
At the request of the GoA, the World Bank asked the UN Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) to send an environment officer to work with the PIU environmental specialist and a
national environmental consultant to update the EA and the EMMP for the WUAP. This EA team
began work on updating the EA and EMMP during the first environmental mission (04-15 May
2010) of the FAO environment officer. During this period, the national environmental consultant
also began gathering the baseline information for the EA on the new project raions. The team
visited various proposed project areas, viewed a number of irrigation and drainage sites, and met
with local officials, WUAs, farmers and other beneficiaries of the proposed project. The team
delivered a draft EA and EMMP to the PIU in July 2010. The PIU disclosed it to the public in
August and held public consultations on it in Baku and Zardab between 20 and 25 August 2010.
This final EA and EMMP, incorporating the comments received from the local consultations, the
PIU, and the World Bank, was completed in September 2010.
1.5 Consultation process
The EA team began the process of consulting the relevant stakeholders and beneficiaries of the
project during its first environmental mission: meeting with officials in the Ministry of Ecology
and Natural Resources (MENR); with local officials and WUA officers and members in a number
of the project area raions; and with farmers and other beneficiaries of the project in the field. *
The EA team then continued and expanded the consultation process with more formal, publicly
announced meetings with stakeholders and beneficiaries on the findings and recommendations of
the draft EA and EMMP in Baku and Zardab. The Baku consultation included government
officials from the AIOJSC, the MENR, the MoA, and the MoH, as well as representatives from a
number of national NGOs. The regional consultation in Zardab included a large number of local
raion AIOJSC officials, WUA members from 15 project raions, and local NGOs.. The minutes of
these meetings and lists of participants are contained in Annex A.
3
2. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
This section presents an overview of the policy, legal, and institutional framework for
environmental management in Azerbaijan, particularly as it applies to the potential environmental
and social impacts of the proposed project, and reviews the requirements and procedures for
environmental assessment contained in Azerbaijani law.
2.1 Policy context
Azerbaijan’s national environmental policy has evolved over the years, beginning with the
environmental policies of the former Soviet Union and following independence moving
increasingly to a more nationally focused policy for Azerbaijan. Although there is no single
statement of the national environmental policy as such, a number of national development policy
documents articulate the country’s policy. The most relevant of these in the context of the
proposed project is the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) of 1998. The NEAP
represents one of the most recent statements of national environmental policy and identification of
the country’s environmental priorities and intended actions. The Forward to the NEAP clearly
states the GoA’s commitment to environmental reform (see Box 2.1).
Box 2.1
Government of Azerbaijan’s commitment to environmental reform
... At this stage of the country’s development the issue of natural resource management is of paramount
importance for the nation. The disastrous environmental situation inherited from the former Soviet Union is
affecting every aspect of the country’s life and presenting a clear threat to the health and well-being of its
population.
The Government of Azerbaijan is committed to improving environmental conditions in the country, and it has
included the environment as one of the primary concerns of the reform agenda. Unfortunately, economic, social,
and institutional constraints inhibit the country’s ability to address the problems promptly and effectively. In
order to mobilise and focus the scarce resources available, prioritise existing problems, and solve the most urgent
issues, there was a need to develop a national environmental action program. ... (Forward to NEAP, 1998)
Among the priorities identified by the NEAP are two of relevance to the proposed project: (i)
deteriorating water quality, especially drinking water, both in rural and urban areas, causing an
increase in water-borne diseases, and (ii) loss of fertile agricultural land from erosion, salinisation,
pollution with heavy metals and chemicals, and deteriorating irrigation systems (see Box 2.2). The
GoA is committed to addressing the highest priorities identified by the NEAP and to incorporating
the environmental recommendations made in the NEAP in sectoral policy and investment
decisions in the agriculture, water supply and sanitation, and energy sectors.
Box 2.2
Key environmental problems and action priorities
Water quality. Water resources are critical for the country’s economy. Water resources are limited and losses
during distribution are high – reaching 50 percent in agriculture, which accounts for 70 percent of total water
usage. ...
Degradation of agricultural lands, loss of forestry and biodiversity. About half of the country’s land
resources are being used for agriculture. Some 1.2 million ha is affected by high salinity; many soils are
exhausted by years of poor agricultural practices and policies; and many areas are damaged by erosion. Loss of
productive land in some locations is resulting in increased pressure on fragile lands and resources in other
locations. ... (Executive summary, NEAP, 1998)
4
2.2 Legal/regulatory framework for environmental management/assessment
Azerbaijan inherited its basic legal framework for environment, public health and safety
management from the former Soviet Union, but the period since independence has seen a burst of
legislative activity in the environmental field. The new Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan
itself includes the right to a healthy environment among the fundamental rights it guarantees its
citizens.
2.2.1 Constitution. Adopted in 1995, the Constitution of the newly independent Republic of
Azerbaijan recognises the importance of environmental protection among the principal human and
civil rights and freedoms it establishes for the people of Azerbaijan. Article 39 guarantees the
people’s right to live in a healthy environment, to acquire environmental information, and to
secure compensation for environmental damage:
Every Person shall have the right to live in healthy environment. Everybody
shall have the right to collect information on environmental situation
and to get compensation for damage rendered to the health and property
due to the violation of ecological rights. (Article 39)
All subsequent environmental legislation is grounded in this constitutional right to the
maintenance of environmental quality, to access to environmental information, and to
environmental equity.
Again, the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic includes a number of articles that establish the
national and international requirements to be applied to the WUAP:



Article 39 – the right to live in healthy environment, to get information on the state of
environment and to receive compensation for the damage caused to person or property
because of the violation of environmental legislation shall be affirmed.
Article 148.2 – international agreements that the Azerbaijan Republic joined shall be an
integral part of the legislation system of the Azerbaijan Republic;
Article 151 – in cases where national legislation contradicts international agreements, the
provisions of the international agreements shall be applied (except for provisions of the
Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic and acts adopted by the referendum).
2.2.2 Legislation. Since its independence Azerbaijan has made important strides in enacting
environmental legislation. * The last decade and a half saw the adoption of a number of
significant environmental management and public health laws that cover the full range from
environmental protection to natural resources management to public health and safety. The most
relevant among these for the proposed irrigation project are the Law on environmental protection
(1999), the Water code (1997), and the Law on amelioration and irrigation (1996).
Legislation on environmental protection in the Azerbaijan Republic is comprised of statutory acts
which regulate relations between society and nature. Under nature protection legislation, a number
of laws regulate the interventions for prevention of harmful effect of any activity to natural
environment and organization of efficient use of nature, and preservation of natural balance for
future generations.
Furthermore, there are effective codes of the Azerbaijan Republic on air, water and land, forest,
etc. Clause 14 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan states that the natural resources belong to the
Azerbaijan Republic with no damage to the rights and benefits of any physical or legal person.
Under the legislation, the use of natural resources and every activity concerning environmental
impact should be subject to state examination and regular control, and every activity feasibility
5
study conducted should provide the norms, and procedures of nature protection, and also negative
impact to the environment should be revealed and indicated.
The protection of natural resources and their efficient use are regulated with the main laws “On
environmental protection”, “On specially protected natural areas and objects”, “On the animal
kingdom” and “On environmental safety”.
In order to meet the water demand of the population, as well as the economic and agricultural
sectors, and to regulate the protection of water resources and the use of water, water protection
legislation was adopted, the “Water code”, and the laws “On water supply and waste water” and
“On Amelioration and Irrigation” are effective.
2.2.2.1 Law on environmental protection, EIA handbook. In recent years Azerbaijan has
enacted an array of new environmental protection laws, including a new Law on Environmental
Protection that specifies relevant environmental assessment requirements. As a rule, these laws
require further legal acts, decrees, and regulations, to permit effective implementation of their
provisions. In most cases some but not all of these decrees and regulations have been
promulgated.
Law on environmental protection (1999). Azerbaijan modernised its basic environmental
protection framework with adoption of the Law on environmental protection in 1999. The stated
purpose of the law is to ensure protection of the ecological balance, prevent harmful impacts from
economic and other activities, conserve biological diversity, and promote rational utilisation of
natural resources. The law recognises the state’s rights and responsibilities in the area of
environmental protection, including setting national policy and strategic measures for its
implementation, developing environmental norms and regulations, conducting environmental
impact assessments, regulating the use of natural resources, monitoring environmental quality and
natural resources, and establishing parks and protected areas. The law also identifies the rights and
responsibilities of citizens, including living in an environment favourable to life and health,
obtaining environmental information, receiving compensation for damage caused by
environmental violations, using natural resources, participating in environmental decisionmaking, and bringing legal action for violation of environmental legislation.
Of particular interest in the context of the proposed project, the law authorises the establishment
of environmental quality standards, discharge and emission limits to control the range of
environmental impacts. Irrigation drainage discharges to receiving waters resulting from the
rehabilitation works of the proposed project will have to comply with applicable discharge limits
and water quality standards. * Also, the law identifies specific environmental requirements
concerning agricultural and irrigation activities (Article 42) with which the proposed project will
have to comply*:
... agricultural and irrigation systems shall incorporate pollution control systems, health
buffer zones, and environmentally sound technologies and meet specific environmental
requirements. They must be equipped with effective waste treatment and management
systems, utilise efficient fuels and natural resources in an economical and efficient way,
and include environmental safeguards. ... (Article 42, 1.)
Furthermore, the law sets out specific requirements with respect to official “environmental
review” (Articles 50-58) for the purpose of complete assessment of the environmental impacts of
“economic and other activities” undertaken in Azerbaijan. The infrastructure rehabilitation
activities of the proposed project will have to comply with these review requirements:
6
Environmental review is defined as determination of the potential adverse impact of
human economic activity on the environment and determination of the compliance of
economic activity with environmental standards and requirements for prevention and
forecasting purposes. ... (Article 50)
These provisions state the purpose and objectives of environmental review, including the
suitability and quality of proposed environmental safeguards, and establish the basic principles on
which such review is based, including comprehensive socio-environmental-economic assessment
of impacts, the public’s right to good environmental conditions for health and well-being, and
preservation of the ecological balance and biological diversity for present and future generations.
The MoENR is responsible for conducting official environmental reviews. Officials and
companies are held accountable under the law for complying with the decisions made in official
environmental reviews.
As the primary environmental protection law governing “economic and other activities” in
Azerbaijan, the requirements of the Law on environmental protection apply to the irrigation and
drainage rehabilitation works of the proposed project. Thus, it will be necessary to comply with
any decrees and implementing regulations adopted for execution of the law’s various provisions.
Certainly the proposed project must comply with Article 42’s environmental requirements for
agricultural and irrigation systems, as well as the environmental review requirements for the
individual rehabilitation sub-projects financed by the project.
Handbook for the environmental impact assessment process in Azerbaijan (1996). Adopted
in 1996 under authority of the Law on environmental protection of 1992, the EIA handbook
continues in force under the new Law on environmental protection. The handbook establishes the
GoA’s policies and procedures with respect to environmental assessment of “all development
proposals, by the private as well as the public sector” that are likely to have environmental
impacts. Specifically, the handbook details (i) the EIA process, i.e., the sequence of events, roles
and responsibilities of applicants and GoA institutions, charges; (ii) the EIA document, i.e., its
purpose and scope; (iii) public participation in the process; (iv) environmental impact review; and
(v) the environmental review decision.
The requirements of the EIA handbook apply to the types of infrastructure rehabilitation to be
financed by the proposed project. Therefore, some form of individual, site-specific environmental
review may be required by the MoENR for each of the rehabilitation and improvement subprojects undertaken under the infrastructure rehabilitation component of the proposed project.
Because this present EA is based on the general areas and not on the specific farms or sites where
most of the infrastructure works will take place, it does not provide the sort of site-specific
preventive actions or mitigation measures required by the EIA handbook (or by the World Bank
safeguard policy). For this reason, the EMMP contains an environmental screening and review
process, designed to be consistent with the EIA handbook, to ensure that appropriate site-specific
actions and measures are identified as proposed sites are considered for rehabilitation over the life
of the project.
Instructions on the EIA process in Azerbaijan were outlined in the “Regulations on Environmental
Impact Assessment in Azerbaijan”. The regulations present the main principles of the EIA process
and the following:



The EIA process, a sequence of implementation of works, also duties and
responsibilities of applicants and authorities;
Aim and coverage of EIA document;
Public involvement in the process;
7


Resolution of the environmental examination (After submission to the MENR, EIA
document shall be checked by the group of experts); and
Appeal process.
A summary of the instructions outlined in the instruction book is presented below in Table 1. As a
result of approval of the EIA document by the MENR, the main principles and environmental and
social standards, which should be followed by the organization, are determined.
Table 1: Summary of EIA Instructions
Scope and method of assessment - Scope of EIA research works for the design of construction
works and general methods of assessment were depicted as follows. In conformity with the
requirements for EIA in Azerbaijan, the following three methods of component assessment are
used for gathering information on the current state of the environment at the project location:

Physical Environment - This section includes the climate of the raion area where the
project is located (weather temperature, humidity, atmosphere rainfall), change of the
wind directions, degree of atmosphere weather pollution in the project site, studying
geological and hydrogeological condition of the area, comments and information on
tectonic developments and seismic characteristics.
 Ecological Environment - The research carried out in this respect covers information and
review of environmental impact assessment, degree of the area pollution with hazardous
substances and oil products, flora and fauna, also cultural and historical monuments in the
project area.
 Socio-economic Environment - The socio-economic condition of the project area is
studied, and information on nearby settlements and population census, characteristics of
the existing structural plan of population, population growth on living settlements in the
project site, and main employment of population is gathered and reviewed.
Assessment Plan - In accordance with the generally accepted guidelines, the EIA process arises
from submission of preliminary justification materials in advance of project preparation. Here the
purpose is to minimize the irreversible environmental impacts and to eradicate reversible impacts
completely. The assessment plan includes the following main principles:






Environmental impact assessment of construction works;
Selection of main assessment criteria;
Prediction of possible impact coverage;
Assessment of impact coverage;
Determination of respective regulatory measures;
Extension of future research and investigations and preparation of monitoring programs.
2.2.2.2 Law on amelioration and irrigation, Water code, Construction norms and rules for
reclamation systems and works.
Law on amelioration and irrigation (1996). The primary legal authority governing the irrigation
and drainage infrastructure rehabilitation activities contained in the proposed project is the Law
on amelioration and irrigation of 1996, which establishes the legal framework for activities in the
field of land amelioration and irrigation. The law establishes the GoA’s institutional structure for
management of the sector and defines its authority to include, among other things, setting national
policy for the sector; implementing the national legislation; planning ameliorative and irrigation
measures; establishing standards, norms and rules; and registering information on and monitoring
irrigated and ameliorated lands.
8
To ensure compliance with appropriate standards and technical requirements, the law specifies
GoA review (including environmental review) of amelioration and irrigation construction and
rehabilitation projects:
State ecological examination in the field of amelioration and irrigation shall be carried out
in accordance with the legislation of Azerbaijan Republic on environment protection and
environmental review. (Article 18)
Furthermore, the law expressly requires that all ameliorative and irrigation measures comply with
the requirements of environmental and natural resources legislation:
Ameliorative and irrigation measures should not result in deterioration
of environment conditions.
Ameliorative and irrigation measures shall be carried out following
requirements of land, water, forest legislation of Azerbaijan Republic
and the legislation of Azerbaijan Republic on environment protection,
on land lots, on flora and fauna. (Article 22)
The law also specifies that the use of water in amelioration and irrigation systems shall be
governed by the water legislation (Water code). It authorises water charges to encourage
efficiency and reimburse GoA expenditures for water supply. The proposed project will have to
comply with all of the provisions of the Law on amelioration and irrigation, observing in
particular the requirements of Articles 18 and 22 on environmental review and environmental
legislation, including any regulations or decrees implementing these articles.
Water code (1997). Approved in 1997, the Water code provides the framework for regulating the
protection and use of water resources in Azerbaijan, including surface and subsurface waters,
boundary water bodies, and the Azerbaijan sector of the Caspian Sea. To this end, the code
establishes the institutional arrangements for management of the use and protection of water
resources. Specifically, the code authorises the GoA to determine policy for the use and protection
of water resources, promulgate the rules for use of water resources, perform monitoring of water
bodies, and provide for economic regulation (fees for use) of water resources. The code authorises
“state ecological examination” (environmental assessment) of any projects for building and
reconstruction of facilities affecting the condition of water resources. Further, it recognises
different types of water uses, from agriculture to potable water to recreation and sport, and
establishes the procedures for permitting these uses of water resources.
The code describes the rights and obligations of water users and details the requirements for the
use of water resources as: potable and service water sources; health treatment, resort, recreation
and sports; agriculture; industry and hydro-power production; transport; fishing and hunting; and
specially protected water resources. (However, the code does not grant or define specific legal
authority for WUAs and thus may require amendment to facilitate the full institutional
development of WUAs envisioned under the IDSMIP component.) Furthermore, the code
provides for the protection of water bodes from pollution, silting, and depletion, as well as for the
establishment of water protective zones. For economic regulation of water use, the code
authorises the charging of fees for the use of water. Finally, the code establishes liability for
violating the water laws of the country and the right to compensation for damages caused by the
violation of water legislation.
The requirements of the Water code and its implementing regulations are directly applicable to
water resources management activities in the irrigation and drainage sector. Therefore, the
proposed project will have to ensure that its components comply with the water use and protection
9
requirements of the Water code. As noted above, the code may have to be strengthened in order to
provide authority for the development of effective WUAs.
Construction norms and rules for reclamation systems and works (1986). Among the
environmental protection regulations inherited from the former Soviet Union are a set of
“Construction norms and rules” that apply to lands reclaimed for agricultural use. Dating from
1986, the rules specify fairly detailed measures to ensure that the design and construction of land
reclamation and irrigation systems take into account environmental protection (e.g. reuse of waste
and drainage waters, controls on discharge of water from reclamation systems, protection of the
boundaries of preserves and wild life sanctuaries, conservation of flora and fauna). Further, the
rules specifically address fish protection measures and mechanisms, forest shelterbelts, wildlife
protection, anti-erosion works, and water protection requirements. *These norms and rules remain
in effect in Azerbaijan and thus are applicable to the irrigation rehabilitation works under the
proposed project.
2.2.2.3 Other applicable environmental and public health laws. In addition to the foregoing
environmental and irrigation laws, Azerbaijan has a number of other environmental, public health
and safety laws with requirements that potentially apply to the infrastructure rehabilitation
activities of the proposed project. Specifically, the protected area and habitat requirements of the
Law on specially protected natural areas and objects (2000) and the Law on wildlife (1999),
as well as the public health requirements of the Law on protection of public health (1997), will
have to be considered in any project decisions with respect to specific rehabilitation sub-projects.
2.2.3 International environmental conventions. Azerbaijan is party to a number of international
environmental conventions. Of most relevance to the proposed project are the Conventions on
biological diversity (Rio de Janeiro) and on wetlands of international importance (Ramsar),
both of which Azerbaijan ratified in 2000. In ratifying these conventions and their implementing
resolutions, the GoA committed to protecting its biodiversity and wetland resources and
performing environmental assessments of projects that may affect these resources. This EA
recommends measures to prevent/mitigate and monitor any potential impacts on biodiversity and
wetlands located near project areas.
2.3 Involvement of Azerbaijan in International Cooperation in Environmental Policy
The Republic of Azerbaijan, in order to implement its policy of integrating into world
cooperation, has joined tens of environmental conventions, agreements and treaties. These
international conventions and agreements on environmental protection and nature use, to which
Azerbaijan has become a party, comprise an integral part of the country’s of national ecological
legal base. A special clause in all legislation adopted by the Azerbaijan Republic specifies that the
procedures fixed with the international agreements shall be applied in cases where they are
different from those foreseen with the national laws. Tables 1 and 2 in Annex B summarize
information on the international and regional conventions that Azerbaijan has joined.
2.4 Institutional framework for environmental management and assessment
Public administration of enviornmental management in Azerbaijan with respect to nature
protection and the use of natural resources is implemented by a number of GOA agencies and
bodies. These agencies include the following:



President of the Azerbaijan Republic
Parliament of the Azerbaijan Republic
Cabinet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan Republic
10

Local government.
The main responsibility for implementing environmental legislation belongs to the Ministry of
Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR). The MENR was established and its regulations were
approved with the decree of the President of the Azerbaijan Republic in May 2001.
2.4.1 Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources. Established by consolidating a number of
national institutions dating from the Soviet period (i.e. the State Committee for Ecology, State
Committee for Hydro-meteorology, Azerbaijan Fisheries Agency, Azerbaijan Forestry Agency,
State Committee for Geology), the MoENR has the primary responsibility for environmental
management in Azerbaijan, including pollution prevention and control, natural resources
conservation and management, and environmental impact assessment. In this role, the MoENR
implements and enforces the principal environmental laws of Azerbaijan (including the Laws on
environmental protection, specially protected natural areas and objects, and wildlife mentioned
above), setting national environmental policy, establishing environmental quality standards and
emission limits, and managing a national network of protected natural areas.
The MENR maintains the state monitoring system for environment and natural resources,
monitoring groundwater, soils, fauna, flora, mineral deposits, forestry and other resources. It is
charged with ensuring proper oversight of soil salinity, swamping, and erosion prevention, as well
as prevention of any other damage that may result from construction or excavation of minerals. It
also manages an information system for environmental, hydro-meteorological and geological data.
Through its Department of Environmental Expertise, the MENR administers the environmental
impact assessment requirements of the EIA handbook. As mentioned above, the EIA handbook
requirements apply to the irrigation infrastructure sub-projects to be financed by the WUAP; the
full extent of which remains to be determined with the MENR. The EMMP establishes an
environmental screening and review process for these sub-projects to ensure that they comply
with the MENR’s EIA handbook requirements.
Based in Baku, the MENR works at the local level through the 30 district agencies it inherited
from the State Committee for Ecology and coordinates its functions with other central government
institutions (e.g. SAIC), local governments, municipalities and public funds. An extremely
ambitious organizational structure has been proposed for the MENR (see Box 2.3), but it remains
to be seen whether the new ministry can find the technical capacity, at both the national and
district levels, to carry out its host of environmental management functions effectively.
Box 2.3
Organisational structure of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
Given the wide range of its environmental management responsibilities, the organizational structure of the new
MENR includes a complex array of management departments (e.g. natural resource use regulation), exploitation
services (e.g. geological exploitation service), monitoring centres (e.g. Caspian ecological monitoring), and
research institutes (e.g. forestry, fisheries, hydro-meteorological). The MoENR maintains a National Monitoring
Service and has scientific stations at a number of sites, including Lake Ag gel, throughout the country. Once the
institutional capacity has been established at the regional level, the bulk of MoENR’s work will be executed by
its Regional departments on Environmental Protection and Use of Natural Resources.
2.4.2 Other Regulatory Bodies in the Area of Nature Protection and Use of Natural
Resources
Other ministries and committees involved in environmental administration have the following
functions:
11






Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES) – bears responsibility for implementation of
technical safety rules in construction, mine and industrial works. In case of an emergency
situation or catastrophe, or natural disassters, in addition to the MENR, the State Oil
Company of the Azerbaijan Republic and other respective ministries, the MES shall also
be notified;
Ministry of Health – has control over sanitary epidemiological situations in the country
and safeguards healthcare in the work place;
Ministry of Industry and Energy – bears responsibility for oil and gas operations, sale
of oil and oil products, and effective use of energy resources of Azerbaijan;
Amelioration and Agricultural Water (OJSC) – has control over water use, gives
permission for the use of surface water and fixes the payments for water use;
State Town-Building and Architecture Committee – regulates the implementation of
design and construction procedures and standards;
State Land and Mapping Committee – implements the following in its sector:
o Sstate policy on effective use of plots of land, protection and restoration of land
fertility;
o Cadastre and monitoring of the State Lands;
o State policy on cartography arrangements.

State Custom Committee – prevents the illegal export of environmentally dangerous,
unique and valuable goods, also endangered species and flora and fauna samples entered
in the Red Book of the Azerbaijan Republic.
2.4.3 Municipalities. Azerbaijan is in the process of strengthening local governance at the
municipality level after a history of extremely weak local institutions. This history is reflected in
the weakness of the traditional environmental services and infrastructure provided by the
municipalities (e.g. water supply and sanitation, waste management). In most cases municipal
water supply and sanitation services do not meet the minimum needs of the local population, but
the municipalities lack the resources to address this problem. Chronically underfunded,
municipalities continue to rely on state budget transfers as their principal source of municipal
revenue, followed by land and property taxes and rental and/or sale of municipal land. Under the
current political framework and economic conditions this situation is unlikely to change in the
near term.
The GoA initiated a process of decentralisation to address the problem of deteriorating municipal
infrastructure. With a new legal framework established and the transfer of assets arranged, local
elections were held in 1999. Some 2 669 municipalities were created and given responsibility for
managing local public infrastructure. This decentralisation process, however, has not produced the
intended results. The chronic lack of resources at the municipal level, the limited understanding of
their responsibilities by municipal officials, and the partial transfer of assets to the municipalities
have all left the state of municipal environmental services pretty poor. These problems are further
exacerbated by the apparent absence of civic culture and community initiative and by the presence
of pervasive corruption.
2.5 Environmental Monitoring
As described above, the MENR is the primary GOA institution charged with environmental
monitoring in Azerbaijan. The main goal of its environmental monitoring is to organize natural
protection measures and environmental safety. Environmental monitoring covers the following:
(1) All technological processes implemented during construction works (i.e. preparation works,
12
industrial waste management, operation of hydraulic structures) and (2) Composition of the
natural enviornment (i.e. atmosphere weather, surface water, ground water, plant-soil cover).
The implementation of environmental monitoring is a complex matter and is carried out in
accordance with the agreement made by the client with the specialized enterprises in this field.
Environmental aspects of the enterprise’s work are regulated: (1) Construction supervision under
accepted guidelines and (2) Keeping records of water resources and waste (i.e. get permission for
use of water resources, agree with the supervisory bodies on creation and management of soild
wastes, submit the statistical reports on air emissions, water use and waste water and hazardous
wastes to the relevant organizations of the MENR; and organize analytical (laboratory) control
over sources of man-made pollutants.
The main goal of the environmental monitoring is to organize control over observation of
environmental standards (air, water, land). Environmental monitoring is comprised of three main
components: (1) monitoring of production; (2) monitoring of environment; and (3) additional
research and testing-methodological works on environmental supervision. These components
provide for the preservation and protection of the environment in the project area. Table 2
describes the structure of each of these components.
Table 2: Structure of Environmental Monitoring
Monitoring of production
1. Control on technology and
pollutants
Monitoring of environment
1. Water quality control
2. Control on water resources
2. Hydrological monitoring
3. Quality control on roads
and transportation of
materials
4. Control on waste water
3. The vegetative cover and
monitoring of soil
5. Control on observation of
maintenance procedures, use
of dangerous substances, fuel
and lubricants.
6. Control on transportation
and rendering harmless
pollutants
4. Monitoring of water biota,
bottom sedimentation
5. Monitoring of fauna, flora
and ichthyofauna
Additional research
1. Ichthyological-biological
research, definition of bioindicators
of water quality
2. Selection of methodologies for
soil cultivation
3. Improvement of technologies and
construction works, preparation of
waste management and utilization
4. Additional engineeringenvironmental research
2.6 Regional processes - European Union
Relations between the European Union and Azerbaijan on environmental protection are primarily
based on the EU-Azerbaijan Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation (APC) and European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). APC became effective in 1999. In conformity with Clause 43 of
the agreement: “Azerbaijan Republic shall demonstrate efforts in order to provide regular
coordination of its legislation with the legislation of the Union”. Under the APC, the EU proposed
some recommendations for conforming Azerbaijan’s environmental legislation to the EU
regulations. Based on these recommendations, considering institutional potential and costs, a draft
version of the national program emphasizing a universal approach to adding amendments and
additions to the national legislation was developed.
13
Since 2004, Azerbaijan has been a part of the ENP of the European Union. The present National
Indicative Program on ENP implementation includes an obligation to support legislative reforms
in environmental protection, which includes:




Conforming Azerbaijan’s legislation and standards on environmental protection to EU
legislation and standards;
Strengthening the management potential of environmental protection through a complex
permit system;
Improving environmental impact assessment procedures and structures; and
Working out environmental protection plan (waste and water resources management, air
pollution etc.).
Environment for Europe
“Environment for Europe” is the partnership of member states and other organizations under
Azerbaijan and United Nations Organizations European Economic Commission (UNECE) region.
With the guidance and support of “Environment for Europe” partnership, a number of ministerial
conferences were held on environmental protection and consequently UNECE conventions were
established.
14
3. KEY NATURAL PARAMETERS OF AZERBAIJAN
3.1 Natural setting
Bold relief, recurring seismic activity and a multitude of active mud volcanoes, all imply that
Azerbaijan is in the throes of powerful internal (tectonic) and external (denudation) natural agents.
This section briefly presents the geological processes that have shaped Azerbaijan’s salient
geographic features, as well as its climatic diversity; soil types; distribution, flow regimes and
quality of surface water, and the occurrence and quality of its groundwater resources. To set the
backdrop for the project’s target areas, emphasis is placed on the Kura-Araz basin and the northeastern foothills of the Greater Caucasus.
3.1.1 Geology and geomorphology1, 2 Azerbaijan is characterised by large elevation differences
across rather short distances: only 70 km separate Mount Bazardyuzu, Azerbaijan’s highest peak
(4 466 m above msl) from its central plains to the south (elevation 0) or the Caspian Sea’s
shoreline to the north-east (27 m below msl). Mountains in excess of 2 500 m, while comprising
only 3.5 percent of the total land area, play a crucial role in nourishing Azerbaijan’s water
resources.
Azerbaijan consists of four major physiographic units: (i) the Greater Caucasus Mountains to the
north, crowned by the country’s highest peak. Their south-eastern extension comprises the
Apsheron Peninsula, a geologically active, low elevation (up to 350 m) protrusion into the
Caspian Sea that divides it into a northern, relatively shallow basin, and a southern, deep basin.
(ii) The Lesser Caucasus Mountains, with maximum elevation of 3 740 m, and the (iii) Talysh
Mountains to the south. These three mountain chains enclose (iv) the Kura-Araz Plain, the main
intermontane lowlands of eastern Transcaucasia. A significant portion of this extensive lowland,
or about 18 percent of the country’s total area, lies below mean sea level.
The Kura-Araz Lowland is an element of the vast Aral-Caspian depression. It extends across 250
km from Mingachevir Reservoir in the west to the Caspian Sea in the east and some 150 km
between the foothills of the Greater and Lesser Caucasus. Gradually opening up and gently
sloping to the south-east, this flat alluvial plain drained and is still being aggraded by the KuraAraz Rivers and their tributaries. The Kura-Araz Lowland is divided from north to south into the
Shirvan steppe on the right bank of the Kura, the Mil-Karabakh steppe between the Kura and the
Araz, and the Mugan steppe, south of the Araz. The shallow, brackish Sarisu and Ag-Gel lakes
occupy mild depressions, ‘windows’ to the shallow groundwater table.
The Caucasus Mountains and the intervening Kura-Araz depression were formed during the
Alpine-Himalayan Mountain-building episode. Starting in the Late Miocene Period, about five
million years ago, enormous compressive forces resulting from the collision of the Eurasian and
the African and Indian continental plates formed a series of complex folds and reverse faults.
Older (Jurassic and Cretaceous), gigantic rock slivers were thrust over younger (Pliocene) ones to
form the uplifted Greater Caucasus ranges. Associated fault zones along the margins of the
uplifted area and its extension into the Caspian, have since become the focus of (i) recent intense
seismic activity (e.g. the November 2000 earthquake that damaged Baku’s water treatment
facilities) and (ii) neotectonic subsidence of the Apsheron Basin by several hundred metres.
1
SCP ESIA, Azerbaijan, draft for disclosure, Geology and Soils Baseline Report, May 2002
State of the Environment Azrbaijan, a joint UNEP/GTZ web site:
http://www.grida.no/enrin/htmls/azer/soe/ecology/html/countryprofile_environmental_and_geographical_cha
rastics.html
2
15
During the peak of the orogenic activity in the Pliocene period, the shoreline of the ancient AralCaspian Sea receded from the Kura-Araz depression, transforming it into a continental basin. This
basin became a sink for massive terrigenous sedimentation fed by intense erosive denudation of
the Caucasus Mountains. As a result, the Kura River Plain has since accumulated some 7-8.4 m of
continental sediments. Inclined piedmont plains, consisting of fluvio-glacial deposits that have
been dumped at the foot of the Caucasus ranges, separate the Kura and Araz River plains from the
adjacent mountains. Deposits of similar nature comprise the north-eastern foothills of the Greater
Caucasus, between the Quba-Qusar area and the Caspian Sea. The alluvial plain of the Kura is
still accreting due to the high sediment loads of the fast-running rivers that drain the Caucasus
Mountains. The intense erosion is driven by steep slopes, torrential rainstorms, seasonally
concentrated snowmelt-generated river flows, flash floods, limited vegetation cover and fine,
erodible soils. Consequently, the sediment loads of the rivers that drain the Greater Caucasus are
among the highest of any rivers in the world.
3.1.2 Hydrogeology1 The thick sequence of sediments that infills the Kura-Araz Lowland consist
of three sediment types. To the west and in proximity to the mountains, outwash/alluvial fan
sediments dominate, which were eroded and fluvially transported from the Lesser and Greater
Caucasus Mountains. Thick layers of poorly sorted sands, gravels and cobbles are inter-layered
with silty/clayey sediments. Transported by high-energy, steep river flows fed by seasonal firn
and snow thaws, these sediments were dumped as the streams entered the plains, and accumulated
in a sequence of contiguous alluvial fans. Towards the Caspian Sea in the east, marine sediments
of the predecessor Caspian-Aral Sea become predominant and recent Kura-River alluvial deposits
overlie the two other types.
Towards the western end of the intermontane basin and along the foothills of the Greater and
Lesser Caucasus, the proluvial/alluvial fan sediments are dominated by coarse-grained
components, forming interconnected aquifers of high hydraulic conductivity and good quality
water. Farther away from the Caucasus foothills towards the centre of the basin, coarse-grained
sediments become subordinate to and intercalated with low permeability marine deposits of the
extinct Caspian-Aral Sea. As a result, individual aquifer horizons underneath much of the KuraAraz Plains have low hydraulic conductivity and a limited degree of interconnectivity. The
groundwater of these aquifers typically contains moderate to high amounts of dissolved salts.
At the north-eastern foothills of the Greater Caucasus, alluvial fan deposits, consisting of coarsegrained, high-energy flow continental sediments, alternate with clay horizons deposited under
low-flow conditions and with marine sediments deposited by the predecessor Aral-Caspian Sea.
The proportion of fine-grained marine deposits increases towards the Caspian shoreline. The
alternating low and high permeability rock units give rise to half a dozen aquifer horizons.
3.1.3 Climate Azerbaijan’s climate is shaped by the country’s remoteness from moderating
oceanic influence, the extreme relief, and the disposition to the prevailing winds. The distribution
of the various climate zones – semi-arid, dry subtropical, wet subtropical, temperate, and Alpine is a function of the altitude and the proximity to the Caspian Sea. Dry subtropical to semi-arid
steppe climate characterises the Kura-Araz Lowlands and the Apsheron Peninsula. Wet
subtropical climate is restricted to the south Talysh Mountains and foothills and the adjacent
Lankaran depression. Temperate climate belts of dry, warm-dry, warm-wet and cool zones
dominate successively higher elevations of the Greater and Lesser Caucasus Mountain slopes.
Finally, Alpine and sub-Alpine conditions prevail at the high altitudes of the Greater and Lesser
Caucasus.
1
SCP ESIA, Azerbaijan, draft for disclosure, op. cit.
16
The average annual temperature across Azerbaijan varies between 14 °C in the lowlands and 0 °C
and below in the highlands, a large range that is typical of continental climate. The average July
temperatures are 25-27 °C in the lowlands and 5 °C in the highlands. Absolute maximum and
minimum temperatures reach 43 C (Nakhchivan depression) and minus 30 °C (in the highlands),
respectively. The prevailing winds are northern (on the Apsheron peninsula), north-west/southwest (Kura-Araz Lowlands), and western (Lankaran depression). Precipitation is characterised by
large spatial, seasonal, and inter-annual variability. Average annual rainfall ranges from less than
200 mm at the southern coast of the Apsheron Peninsula, through 300-900 mm in the foothills and
lower mountainous zones, 1 000-1 300 mm on the southern slope of the Greater Caucasus, and up
to 1 200-1 600 mm in Lankaran and Talysh1.
The climate of Azerbaijan’s cultivated lowlands and foothills is classified as Middle Latitude
Steppe to Semi-Arid, with at least one month below freezing average temperatures. The large
annual sun radiation balance of between 2 100-2 300 MJ/m2 and the great excess of potential
evapotranspiration (PE) over precipitation make irrigation an imperative for reliable crop
production. The only agriculture possible without irrigation is low intensity livestock production
on natural pasture severely limited by low rainfall.
Table 3.1 presents average annual climate parameters, representing the Kura-Araz Plains
(Imishli), the foothills of the Greater Caucasus (Khachmaz). Comparing the meteorological data
of the north-eastern foothills of the Greater Caucasus (Khachmaz2; about 75 m above msl) with
that of the Mill Mugan Plains above the confluence of the Kura and Araz Rivers (Imishli;
elevation: 5 m below msl), suggests the following. Both areas are characterised as semi-steppe,
but in the Khachmaz area the hot season temperatures are slightly cooler and winter temperatures
slightly colder than in the Imishli area. The Imishli area is characterised by hot, dry summers and
mild, sub-humid winters, with a longer growing season. The humidity in the Khachmaz area is
higher as a result of its proximity to the Caspian Sea, as are wind velocities. Annual precipitation
values are rather similar in both areas; however, in Khachmaz about 40 percent of the mean
annual total occurs during the growing season (spring and summer) and a maximum in the fall,
while in Imishli slightly over half of the rainfall occurs in the main growing season between April
and October. Finally, the average annual PE in Imishli is about 30 percent higher than in
Khachmaz. During the main growing season, the PE in Imishli on average will exceed effective
rainfall by a factor of five or more3.
Azerbaijan’s physiographic and climatologic diversity gives rise to nine different agro-climatic
zones. The availability of several significant rivers offers the potential for highly diversified
irrigated agriculture. Representative agro-climatic zones include, among others, the (i) humid subtropical zone along the southern coastal plain of the Caspian, with paddy rice and tea plantations;
(ii) hot and dry Kura-Araz Plains where cereals (wheat and barely), cotton, fodder (alfalfa and
maze), water melons and pomegranates are prevalent, and livestock benefits from lush grazing
grounds; and (iii) sub-humid, chilly Caucasus foothills, where fruit orchards (apples, pears,
quince, peaches, cherries), vineyards, and walnuts prevail. In addition, vegetables, high valueadded crops, are cultivated wherever there is an access to a steady supply of good-quality
irrigation water.
1
Social-Ecological Center "EcoSphere" (Azerbaijan) and the Association of Environmental Protection of
Georgia "The Earth in XXI century": Azerbaijan-Georgia Regional Ecological Portal:
http://ecocaucasus.org/en/glav.htm
2
Based on measurements between 1988-1997; EA and monitoring, Annex A.7, op. cit.
3
Caspian Environmental Program, Caspian Regional Thematic Centre (CRTC) for Integrated Transboundary
Coastal Area Management and Planning: http://www.caspianenvironment.org/itcamp/azeri.htm; and PCD,
March 2002.
17
Table 3.1 Average annual climate parameters,
three representative weather stations
Parameter\District
Imishli
Khachmaz
15.2
12.6
Average Temperature (C)
27.2
24.6
Average Temp. July (C)
)
3.6
-2.2
Average Temp. Jan. (C
42
42
Maximum Temp. (C)
-26
-28
Minimum Temp. (C)
Number of frost-free days
240-260
210-230
Precipitation (mm)
287*
300
Annual relative humidity,
73-76
82-86
winter (%)
Annual relative humidity,
56-58
65-75
summer (%)
Annual average wind
1.4
2.3
velocity (m/s)
Average annual PE (mm)
1 000
708
* A recent ten-year average shows a range from 186-354 mm.
** Lowlands; high mountains average 660 mm.
N/D: No data.
3.1.4 Climate Change Azerbaijan is well aware of the potential impacts of climate change on its
environment, particularly its water resources, agriculture and forests. In its Initial National
Communication on Climate Change (2001), the GOA estimated, based on a trend analysis of
100 years of data from the State Committee on Hydrometeorology, that the air temperature has
increased by 0.5-0.6°C. Moreover, between 1960 and 1990 the warming level was 0.3-0.6°C and
precipitation decreased by 10 percent. An assessment of future climatic trends, using IPCC
recommended models, estimates warming by the year 2100 to be 2°C with precipitation stable or
insignificantly below the norm. The same report included the following analysis of climate
impacts on water resources, agriculture, forest ecosystems, and the coastal Caspian Sea:



Water resources. With an increase in air temperature of 2.0-4.5°C, a reduction of water
resources in the rivers of Azerbaijan is expected to be in the range of 15-20 percent. With
the current water deficiency of 3.8 km3, by the middle of the 21st century it will constitute
9.5-11.5 km3. The GOA proposed the following measures as mitigation: improvement of
water resources management system, regulation of river flow, increase of irrigation
systems efficiency by 75 percent and reconstruction of drainage systems, applying of
water-saving irrigation technologies, reuse of treated drainage water, and setting up
shoreline plantations along water reservoirs.
Agriculture. With the warming of climate, an increase in evaporation is expected to be up
to 30-35 percent, which will result in the decline in natural humidification and moisture
deficiency, with the humidification zones being shifted by 300 m to mountains. Such
conditions will further aggravate due to the reduction of river water resources. The
recurrence of drought and dry winds will increase, especially in the Kura-Araz lowland.
Dramatic consequences are expected at winter pastures. As mitigation measures, the GOA
proposed: introduction and cultivation of highly productive crops, optimization of planting
location and structure of crops, introduction of soil and water-saving technologies,
provision of drainage for irrigated lands, melioration and recultivation of salinized soils,
setting of shelterbelt forests, and prevention of desertification processes.
Forest ecosystems. Climate change will result in a considerable increase in the upper
climatic boundary of the forest cover on the Greater and Lesser Caucasus. However, due
to existing anthropogenic impacts, any decrease of which would not be expected in the
18

future, most probably the upper boundary will remain at the current levels. In the Talish
Mountains, a decrease of the upper boundary is expected to be 50-200 m, with up to 300
m in some places. The lower boundary of forest will rise up to 100-200 m. As a result, the
share of different draught-resistant tree and bush species will increase. The density and
estimated productivity of the forests will also decrease and, as a result, wood stocks will
be reduced. The GOA proposed mitigation measures involving afforestation of eroded
mountain slopes, afforestation and binding of sands, rehabilitation of near-Kura tugay
forests, etc.
Coastal area of the Caspian Sea. The recent rise of the Caspian Sea level by 250 cm is
also associated with climate change. Currently, 48.5 thousand ha of coastal lands have
been flooded, with total damage to the economy as a result of flooding as of 1995 of USD
2.2 billion. By the years 2020-2040 the increase in sea level is expected to be 120-150 cm.
At that level, potential losses of land will amount to 130-160 thousand ha, and damage to
the social and economic sectors is estimated at USD 4.1 billion. Prevention of the
expected damage is possible through measures on protection of settlements, industrial and
infrastructure facilities in the zone of potential sea impact, as well as improvement of
environmental conditions in the coastal area.
The EA recognizes that a number of the measures identified above in the analysis of climate
impacts on water resources and agriculture are relevant to the proposed project. In fact, the EA
signals the fact that the proposed project incorporates a number of the measures identified above
(e.g. improved water resources management, increases in irrigation system efficiency,
rehabilitation of drainage systems, melioration and recultivation of salinized soils) and includes
them in the analysis of environmental impacts, preventive actions, and mitigation measures in
Table 5.1 below, which will be managed and monitored as stated in the EMMP in Section 6.
3.1.5 Soils1 The distribution of Azerbaijan’s soils is congruent with its topographic and climate
zoning. Grey-brown saline and chestnut-coloured soils predominate in the semi-desert areas of the
Apsheron peninsula and Gobustan. Greyish-meadow, greyish saline, and saline soils prevail in the
flat and poorly drained semi-desert belt of the Shollar and Kura lowlands. Mountain-woody
greyish-brown and brown soils prevail in the semi-steppe (woody-steppe) belt in the northeastern
foothills of the Greater Caucasus and Talysh Mountains. Finally, the sub-alpine to alpine belt of
the high elevations of the Caucasus Mountains typically contains mountain-meadow (turf and
peat) and skeletal, stony soils. *
3.1.6 Surface and subsurface water Azerbaijan, a former Soviet Union (FSU) country, still
employs water resources computation practices that go back to the Soviet era. These practices
have important bearing on the degree of confidence that can be placed in the water resources
data2. 3- is deleted First, as a result of the large and protracted withdrawals, the assessment of
surface water runoff is made difficult by the absence of chronological series of natural flow
measurements. Indeed, most of the available flow data relate to measurement of actual runoff
rather than natural flow. In addition, runoff data are frequently conflicting, a reflection of
inconsistent measurement points along a watercourse that are either upstream or downstream from
other measurement points that are separated by intervening tributary inflow and/or canal
abstractions and large natural inter-annual variability of runoff, typical of arid to semi-arid
regions. Furthermore, in semi-arid areas like Azerbaijan’s, complex interrelation between surface
water and groundwater makes it difficult to assess the extent of their overlap. Finally, in the
computation of groundwater, a distinction is usually made between groundwater resources (the
average annual recharge of the aquifers), and extractable groundwater (computed on the basis of
1
2
Caspian CRTC, op. cit.
Irrigation in the Countries of the Former Soviet Union in Figures, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations, Rome, 1997
19
aquifer productivity and a theoretical network of wells). Subject to the cited practices, most of the
references on groundwater rely on an estimate of extractable groundwater, which is usually less
than the groundwater resources.
Further, data reliability is hampered by two additional factors 1: there is a limited database
pertaining to the post-Soviet period, because the hydrometric network in Azerbaijan was severely
curtailed after 1991-1992. Consequently, the older data would not reflect any subsequent climate
variations, basin land-use changes, channel geometry shifts, and local river channel interference
(e.g. riverbed pebble mining). Little information is available on hydrological and monitoring
techniques adopted, such as sampling conditions, constraints, timing and frequency, analytical
methods, precision limits and data collection problems. The limited amount of data collected is
not assessed, laboratory equipment is not calibrated, neither quality assurance nor quality control
is carried out and there is no reporting. The fact that the data are not converted into forms that
would be helpful for managers and decision-makers results in inadequate government support for
monitoring. This, in turn, adversely impacts the average age of the laboratory equipment2. As a
result, some data may be of questionable value, and data inconsistencies are quite common.
Surface water Azerbaijan’s water resources are unevenly distributed, both spatially and
temporally, with only about 29 percent of the total surface resources originating in Azerbaijan.
The average annual amount of surface flow is about 33.1 billion m3, but in extremely arid years it
may diminish down to 20.7 billion m3. Both the large inter-annual and intra-annual fluctuations
have necessitated the construction of large storage reservoirs.
Azerbaijan’s rivers can be divided into three groups:



Rivers of western and central Azerbaijan: the Kura River with its main tributaries - Araz,
Alazani and Iori;
Rivers of northeastern Azerbaijan, flowing from the Greater Caucasus directly into the
Middle Caspian Sea: primarily the Samur, Qusarchay, Quruchay, Qudyalchay, Agchay,
Qarachay, Chagachuqchay, and Velvelichay.
Rivers of south-eastern Azerbaijan, flowing from the Talysh Mountains directly into the
South Caspian Sea (these will not be further discussed).
The Kura-Araz Rivers With a total length of more than 1 500 km and a catchment basin of over
188 000 km2, the Kura is the largest waterway in Transcaucasia. The Kura originates in Turkey, at
an elevation of 2 741 m above msl, and flows through Georgia before crossing into Azerbaijan.
Average flow volume figures are inconsistent, apparently representing averages of measurements
across different time sequences. According to one source, the average flow below its confluence
with the Araz is 908 m3/s (26.8 billion m3 annually), or over 90 percent of Azerbaijan’s total
average surface-flow (see hydrograph in Table 3.2). According to data spanning measurements
that go back to the early 20th century,* the average annual flow near the Mingachevir Reservoir is
401 m3/s. In that area, the highest and lowest flows of the Kura were reported as 2 420 m 3/s and
61 m3/s, respectively. Average annual flow of the Kura near Sabirabad, just below its confluence
with the Araz, is 590 m3/s. The Kura’s annual flow is the highest in the spring (59-69 percent of
the total), with lower and sub-equal flows in the summer (10-14 percent), fall (12-16 percent) and
winter (9-15 percent). This flow regime reflects the predominance of snow melt water from the
Greater and Lesser Caucasus.
1
2
Section 1.4, SCP ESIA, Draft for Disclosure, op. cit.
Joint River Management Programme on Monitoring and Assessment of Water Quality on Transboundary
Rivers: Kura Basin Report. http://www.jointrivers.org/eng/docs/inception/kura/main/php
20
Table 3.2. Monthly hydrographs of Azerbaijan’s main rivers (m3/sec1)
River\Month
I
II
III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
XI XII
Samur
21.9 20.4 23.5 52 117 167 135 79.9 59.9 48.7 35.9 27.2
Kura, above*
417 432 280 310 332 396 321 279 281 279 198 383
Kura, below**
570 578 572 700 794 663 402 341 378 329 431 523
Araz
119 144 172 253 299 235 87 67
84.3 61.5 86.1 102
* Above confluence with Araz
** Below confluence with Araz
Average
65.7
325.7
523.4
142.5
The Kura’s average suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) and sediment loads (SSL) are high,
comparable to those of other glacial/snowmelt-fed rivers. Mean annual SSC values for the Great
Caucasus rivers are ten times those of the Lesser Caucasus systems, the highest being for
Girdemanchay River (0.52 g/l) and Geokchay River (0.48 g/l), two of the Kura’s left bank
tributaries. Suspended sediment transport is highly seasonal, with peak fluxes in the high-flow
period between March and June. In its mid-course, a cascade of two regulating dams and
associated reservoirs, the Shamhkir and Mingachevir, causes the River to dump much of its
annual 26-28 million tons of suspended alluvial load. Consequently, the capacity of the
Mingechevir Reservoir that removes approximately 70 percent of the sediment discharge from the
Kura River has diminished from an original 16 km3 (when built in 1953), to 14.5 km3 in 1982.
The total ionic content of the Kura waters shows considerable seasonal variability. Two midsummer measurements of total dissolved matter2 yielded between 0.85 and 0.95 g/l, rendering the
water slightly brackish but still suitable for irrigation of most crops. A series of early winter (midNovember 1998) measurements yielded better water quality values, possibly due to dilution by
seasonal runoff. The total dissolved matter ranged between 0.45-0.48 g/l at three measurement
points between the town of Yevlakh and Sabirabad, and between 0.51- 0.56 g/l at four
measurement points below the confluence with the Araz and down to Naftacala, close to the
Kura’s discharge into the Caspian Sea. A sequence of measurements downstream at Salyan
demonstrates a persistent increase in ionic content, from 0.42 g/l in the late 1940s, up to 1.26 g/l
in the late 1980s. This apparently represents a cumulative trend of mineralised, irrigation return
flows discharged into the Kura along its course.
The 1 072 km-long Araz River is the second largest waterway. Flow data are again inconsistent:
one source cites an average flow of 138 m3/s at Saatli (or 4.35 m3 billion/year)3 (see hydrograph in
Table 3.2), while another cites 290 m3/s not far downstream near Sabirabad, close to its
confluence with the Kura. This southern tributary of the Kura, with a catchment area of about 102
000 km2, originates at an elevation of 2,600m on the slopes of the Bingel-Dag ridges in Turkey.
Along most of its route the Araz marks the international boundary between Azerbaijan and
Armenia on the north and Turkey and Iran to the south. The Araz is one of the most turbid rivers
in the world; on average it carries 2.5 g/l of suspended particles or an annual total of about 18
million tons. Its arid watershed and outcrops of soluble rocks contribute to a high level of
dissolved salts; mineral content values of 0.87 and 1.57 g/l were recorded in November 2001 in
the Fizuli raion several tens of kilometres upstream from the Barahmtepe and in Sabirabad,
respectively.
1
Samur at…, 1947-1992 average; Araz at Saatli, 1971-1980 average; Kura above confluence at Mollaken, 19551979 average; Kura below confluence at Surra (NE of Sabirabad), 1953-1980 average.
2
3
Water analyses results of field trip, 26-27 July, 1999; Annex A25, EA and Monitoring in the Project Areas of
the SAC and MMMC Drain, Final Report, CES, Consulting Engineers Salzgitter GmbH, 3/2000.
Average for 1971-1980. Table 20, Quality of Surface Water and Efficiency of Water Safety Activities in the
Jurisdiction of the Azerbaijan State Committee of Hydrometeorology in 1987, Soviet Union Committee for
Hydrometeorology and Environmental Control, Central Hydrochemical Laboratory of SAIC, Baku, 1988.
21
The Samur, Qudyalchay and Velvelichay Rivers These rivers supply the Samur-Apsheron Canal
(SAC). Five additional rivers, all discharging ultimately into the Caspian Sea, cross that portion of
the SAC that is slated for restoration under the RIDIP. Draining the north-eastern slopes of the
Greater Caucasus, they all share a common hydrological regime. During the spring and early
summer, glacial, firn and snow melt at their high catchment areas feed peak flow that provides
about 40 percent of the total annual recharge. Surface runoff, with maxima during spring and fall,
contribute about 20 percent of the total recharge, and the remaining 40 percent is groundwater
recharge base flow, of particular importance in the coastal area. The average annual flow of the
Samur River (catchment area of 5 000 km2) are, according to different sources, 1.4 or 2.07 billion
m3, and that of the seven other rivers combined -- about 657 million m3 (see hydrograph in Table
3.3).
Table 3.3. Long-term average monthly natural runoff of rivers
on the north-east slope of the Greater Caucasus (m3/s) (1961-1992)1
River
Samur1
I
II
22.2 20.3
Qusarchay2
1.8
Quruchay3
Qudyalchay4
Agchay5
Qarachay6
Chagachuqchay7
Velvelichay8
III
IV
V
23.8 51.2 115.
7
2.0
1.8
VI
VII
163. 133.
1
2
3
6
.
.
6
9
0
.
4
2
.
8
0
.
4
2
.
8
0
.
7
3
.
4
1
.
4
6
.
4
0
.
6
1
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
5
0
.
7
1
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
6
1
.
7
1
.
2
1
.
3
3
.
1
2
.
8
2
.
1
2
.
5
7
.
1
1
.
7
1
1
.
8
2
.
3
4
.
0
2
.
8
1
0
.
0
VIII IX
X
XI
XII Average
77.2 56.4 47.3 35.7 27.0 64.4
1
1
.
2
1
.
5
1
6
.
0
2
.
1
6
.
0
1
.
9
8
.
3
1
1
.
7
0
.
9
1
1
.
6
1
.
0
4
.
4
0
.
8
5
.
1
7
.
3
4
.
8
3
.
4
2
.
5
2
.
0
4
.
9
0
.
7
7
.
6
0
.
8
6
.
0
0
.
7
5
.
6
0
.
6
4
.
6
0
.
5
3
.
4
0
.
9
6
.
8
0
.
8
2
.
4
0
.
4
3
.
3
1
.
3
2
.
3
0
.
6
3
.
1
1
.
4
1
.
9
0
.
8
3
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
5
0
.
8
2
.
5
0
.
7
1
.
2
0
.
6
1
.
9
1
.
4
2
.
4
1
.
1
4
.
2
Calculation Points: 1- u/s Weir CP1; 2 - CP3; 3 - CP4; 4 – CP5/6; 5 – CP7; 6 – CP8; 7 – CP-9; 8 – CP11.
All the area’s rivers transport periodically heavy sediment loads. At the headworks of the Samur
River, the sediment load increases from 0.37 g/l in March to 5.4 g/l in July, then decreases to 1.6
g/l in October. The total annual suspended load ranges between 2.6 and 3.6-million m3. In the
absence of functioning desilting installations on the SAC system, much of the silt settles in the
Jeiranbatan Reservoir, Baku’s primary water storage, decreasing its live storage by 1 percent
1
Table 2.3, EA and Monitoring, op.cit. For detailed information, see RIIDA II Feasibility Study, Annexes 1.1 –
1.8.
22
annually1. The low total ionic contents of these rivers, between 0.170 and 0.504 g/l, make them
suitable for use as a potable water source as well as for irrigation of all crops.
The hydrograph presented in Figure 3.1 clearly shows that the peak flow of the Araz is about one
month earlier (May) than that of the Kura and Samur (June). This probably reflects an earlier
seasonal snowmelt on the Lesser Caucasus Mountains, compared to a later snow and firn melt on
the higher-elevation Greater Caucasus Mountains. The phased peak flow regime of the Kura-Araz
serves to extend the temporal availability of irrigation water in the eastern lowlands, below the
confluence of the Kura and Araz Rivers. The prominence of the peak flow is remarkable,
considering that the storage and regulating reservoirs on the Kura and Araz Rivers exercise a
moderating effect on the amplitude of the peak flow maxima.
1
RIDIP II Feasibility Study, op. cit., sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.2.7
23
Figure 3.1. Monthly Hydrographs of the Samur and Araz Rivers, and of the Kura River,
Above and Below its Confluence with the Araz River1
Hydrograph, Main Rivers
900
800
Flow, m cu/sec
700
600
Samur
500
Kura,
above
400
Kura,
below
Araz
300
200
100
0
I
II
III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
Month
The small differences reported in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 for the monthly flow volumes for the Samur
are typical of data consistency issues discussed in the introduction to Section 3.1.5. These two sets
of data represent average flow values of measurements across different time sequences (between
1961 and 1992 in Table 3.3, and between 1947 and 1992 in Table 3.2).
Groundwater The amount of Azerbaijan’s annual total rechargeable groundwater resources is
uncertain. According to one reference, it is estimated at 4.41 billion m 3, with 3.8 billion m3
accessible and 1.15 billion m3 currently abstracted for irrigation and water supply2. Another
1
2
Table 20, Quality of Surface Water and Efficiency of Water Safety Activities in 1987, op. cit.
State Committee for Hydrometeorology estimates, in Republic of Azerbaijan, Assessment of Drought Damage
and Priority Needs for Assistance, FAO Mission Report, January 2001.
24
reference cites 6.51 billion m3, 4.35 billion m3 of which are common to surface water (i.e. they
comprise the base flow of rivers).1
3.1.7. Ecology Azerbaijan forms part of the Caucasus Ecoregion that also covers parts of Georgia,
Armenia, Russia, Iran and Turkey. Thanks to its high degree of biodiversity, the region has been
selected as one of the World Wildlife Federation’s (WWF) Global 2000 Ecoregions, as well as
one of the top 25 biodiversity hot spots in the world. The rich biodiversity is related to the variety
of Caucasian ecosystems as well as to its location at a biological crossroads. Sharp changes in
climate and elevation across short distances in the Caucasus area have resulted in a wide array of
ecosystems over a relatively small area. These include forest, high mountain, dry mountain
shrubland, steppe (grassland), semi-desert and wetland ecosystems. These ecosystems are
inhabited by species from Central and Northern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East and
North Africa. Moreover, the level of endemism is higher than anywhere else in the Temperate
Zone of the Northern Hemisphere.
Over 6 300 plant species are found in the Caucasus Region, of which 1 600 are endemic,
including 17 endemic genera. The Hyrcanic region, including the south-eastern corner of
Azerbaijan, is particularly famous for its wealth of species. As to animal diversity, the
convergence of Euro-Siberian, Mediterranean and Central Asian zoogeographic zones results in a
high variety of mammals: 152 species, of which 32 are endemic, including both newly evolved
and relict species. Bird diversity is moderate with 389 species. The region contains a significant
number of breeding raptor populations and forms an important migration corridor for millions of
birds. A high reptile (76 species, of which 21 are endemic) and fish diversity (over 200 species, of
which 73 are endemic) complete the picture. Finally, the country possesses rich agricultural
biodiversity both in terms of number of crop species and intraspecific variability, as well as in
terms of wild relatives of crop species.
The Caspian Sea has high levels of biodiversity, resulting from its long period of isolation, large
spatial variations in water temperature and salinity, and the Caspian geography, which has created
a wide array of habitats. Overall, there are over 400 endemic species and 115 species of fish in the
sea. The ecologically and commercially most important fish is the sturgeon, of which six species
can be found in the Caspian, representing 90 percent of the world population. The Caspian seal is
one of two freshwater seals in the world. The Caspian lies on the path of several major bird
migration routes, and its coastal wetlands provide resting, feeding and breeding grounds for bird
species such as grebes, cormorants, herons and ibises.
Main eco-regions in Azerbaijan (See map 2) The largest part of the country is covered by the
Azerbaijan shrub desert and steppe ecoregion, of which 70 percent is in Azerbaijan with the rest
in Georgia and Iran. This ecoregion is bordered in northern and south-western Azerbaijan by
Caucasus mixed forests and in the south-eastern part of the country by Caucasus-AnatolianHyrcanian temperate forests.
In the Azerbaijan shrub desert and steppe ecoregion, three primary zonal landscape types
(ecosystems) and two intra-zonal types can be found: (i) desert and semi-desert, (ii) arid open
woodland, (iii) steppe, (iv) flood plain (riparian) forests and (v) wetlands.
The main types of desert communities in the ecoregion are: wormwood deserts with ephemeroids,
saltwort deserts (Salsola nodulosa, S. ericoides, S. denroides) and halophytic wormwood deserts
with therophytes. Woodlands, located on foothills and slopes of low mountains, are
1
FAO’s Water Report 15: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w6240e/w6240e07.htm
25
RUSSIAN
FEDERATION
GEORGIA
Shamkur
Reservoir
Caspian
Sea
Mingechevir
Reservoir
ra
Ku
er
Ri v
ARMENIA
BAK
U
ECOREGIONS:
Azerbaijan shrub desert and
steppe
Caspian Hyrcanian mixed forest
Eastern Anatolian montane
steppe
Caucasus mixed forests
NAKHCHIVAN
International boundaries
Capital of Autonomous
Republic
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
IRAN
0
Map 2. Main ecoregions in Azerbaijan
10
20
30 40
50
100 Km
TCI10 3-06/AZE RBAIJ AN-E CO REG
National capital
characterised by Juniper and Pistachio species, with Spiny, Wild jasmine, berberis iberica, etc. as
major understory shrubs. On the relatively tall forb grasslands of the steppe, the dominant
vegetation is yellow bluestem, complemented by feather grass species typical of Ukraine and
Central Asian steppes. The relict long-thorned oak, as well as black and grey poplar dominate the
rapidly disappearing flood plain forests. On wetlands, the flora varies from aquatic vegetation in
lakes to reed, cane and cattails species on swampy floodplain ecosystems that surround them.
The diversity and endemism of fauna in the ecoregion is remarkable. It represents species typical
to arid ecosystems such as striped hyena, Persian gazelle, and Caucasian hamster, as well as large
mammals, e.g. lynx, wild boar, brown bear, grey wolf, European wild cat and roe deer. Reptile
diversity is represented by spur-thighed tortoise, blunt-nosed viper, Western boa, Dahl’s whip
snake, etc. As for birds, partridge, griffon, black vulture, white-tailed eagle and black stork are
typical to the region, in addition to important populations of southern European waterfowl.
In total, the shrub desert and steppe ecoregion covers some 45 000 square kilometres, about half
of Azerbaijani territory. Overall, the status of the ecoregion is critical: more than half of it has
been converted to farmland, while the remaining areas suffer heavily from overgrazing,
uncontrolled logging, pollution from agriculture and oil extraction, and poaching. Flood plain
forests and arid woodlands occupy only 5-7 percent of their original area. Around 60 animal
species are considered by World Conservation Union (IUCN) as endangered and 140 plant and 11
animal species are listed in the Red Book of Azerbaijan.
Several protected areas have been established in the ecoregion since 1961. The most important of
these is the Shirvan Nature Reserve, which protects the only viable (and the world’s largest)
population of Persian gazelles in the ecoregion (some 3 500 individuals). Other protected areas in
the ecoregion include the Turyan Chay area north of the Kura River and Lake Ag-Gel (see Section
4.3.2), which has been designated a Ramsar wetlands site. However, the current protected areas
are too small and fragmented to guarantee long-term biodiversity conservation. Buffer zones are
virtually non-existent and the economic crisis of the last ten years has created strong pressures on
natural resources, resulting in hunting, fishing, illegal forest cutting, grazing and even oil
extraction within protected areas. Many of the reserves are understaffed and their employees
underpaid and under-equipped to ensure effective protection. Adequate facilities and management
plans are also lacking. Finally, the current reserve system does not entirely represent the full range
of biodiversity within the region. Efforts are currently underway to improve protected area
management, create an eco-network to link areas and establish new protected zones, but results
have so far been modest.
The eco-region of Caspian Hyrcanian mixed forests covers an area of 55 100 square kilometres
from southern Azerbaijan into northern Iran. These temperate broadleaf and mixed forests benefit
from the abundant rainfall and snowmelt that runs off the Elburtz and Talysh Mountains. The
lowlands of the ecoregion have been covered by alder forests but are now almost totally under
agricultural and urban use. On the lower mountains, characteristic vegetation consists of humid
oak forests rich in endemic, relict and range-restricted plant species, e.g. chestnut-leafed oak and
Persian parrotia with shrubs/semi-shrubs such as Alexandrian laurel and lianas like greenbriar.
The middle mountains are covered by oriental beech forests, whereas the vegetation on the upper
mountains ranges from steppes, zeric dwarf semi-shrubs and oriental oak to alpine meadows.
Agrobiodiversity in the region is remarkable with numerous endemic cultivated taxa.
The diversity of the avifauna is very high, including both migratory and breeding species. Some
examples are the greylag goose, white-fronted goose, glossy ibis, peregrine falcon, little bustard
and squacco heron. Large mammals that inhabit the region are the (critically endangered) leopard,
lynx, brown bear, wild boar, wolf, jackal, reed cat, badger and otter.
In the lowlands, the natural landscape of the ecoregion has been largely destroyed through
conversion into agricultural lands. Unsustainable logging and poaching also constitute significant
threats to the ecosystems. Protected areas in Azerbaijani territory include the Gizil-Agach nature
reserve (with two Ramsar sites, Kirov Bays and Gizil-Agach), designed to protect waterfowl, the
Zuvand conservation area (a mountainous area habitat to game birds, bear, leopard and rare
reptiles) and the Girkan nature reserve, aimed at protecting the unique plant communities of the
humid thermophilous Hyrcanian forests. The protected areas of this ecoregion suffer from the
same constraints as those of the Azerbaijan shrub desert and steppe described above.
The eco-region of Caucasus mixed forests extends over 170 300 square kilometres in Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Russia, Armenia and Turkey. It consists mainly of temperate mixed forests located in the
mid-zone of mountains and is the most important refuge and relict area of the arctotertiary forests
in Western Eurasia. The forests are predominantly broad-leaved with Georgian oak, hornbeam,
sweet chestnut, oriental beech and oriental oak as the main species. Coniferous forests are
composed of fir, spruce, and Caucasian pine. Grassland ecosystems from forest line to snow cover
consist of tall herbaceous vegetation of grass and forbs and, higher in the mountains, of sub-alpine
and alpine meadows with thickets of Caucasian rhododendron.
Fauna richness and endemism is high in the ecoregion. Characteristic mammals include the East
and West Caucasian turs, chamois, Caucasian red deer, wild goat, mouflon, brown bear, wolf,
lynx, otter, and the critically endangered Caucasian leopard. As to avifauna, it includes
endangered species such as golden eagle and lammergeier, restricted species such as the
Caucasian black grouse and Caucasian snowcock. Restricted range endemic species such as
Caucasian salamander, Caucasian viper and Caucasian parsley frog also form part of the reptile
and amphibian fauna.
Most lowland forests have been converted into human use, mainly into agricultural lands.
Approximately one-third of mountain forests remain in a natural state but are potentially
threatened by overgrazing, local firewood demand, illegal cutting, and efforts to develop
commercial logging, as well as overexploitation/poaching of game and economically valuable
species. In Azerbaijani territory, the principal protected Area at present is the Zakatal Reserve.
The plans to establish a national park in the Shah Dag mountains would considerably enlarge the
area under legal protection.
The eco-region of Eastern Anatolian montane steppe covers an area of 64 900 square kilometres
in Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The location of the ecoregion at the junction of three
biogeographic zones (Lesser Caucasus, Iranian and Mediterranean), its great range of altitudinal
variation and variety of climatic zones have created a diversity of landscapes and ecological
communities with distinct flora and fauna, including many regionally endemic, relict and rare
species. The ecoregion is also a particularly important centre of endemism for wild relatives of
crop and livestock species (e.g. almonds, hawthorns and pears).
Montane steppes cover the largest part of the eco-region. They typically have high vegetation
cover and a rich flora, consisting of artemisia (Artemisia austriaca, A. fragrans), milk-vetch,
prickly thrift, and sainfoin species, as well as graminoids such as feather grass, fescue, bulbous
meadow grass and kochia. In deserts, vegetation is mostly composed of xerophytic and turfforming plant species, whereas in semi-deserts, ephemeral plants such as caper bush dominate.
Juniper-almond steppe woodlands have a sparse canopy but a strong shrub layer with pistachio,
barberry and rose species and a herb layer dominated by milk-vetch or artemisia. The high
mountains and woodland patches provide habitat for many mammals, such as brown bear, grey
2
wolf, striped hyena, wild goat, and marbled polecat. The fauna of the ecoregion also includes
birds like the peregrine falcon and golden eagle and reptiles like the Armenian viper.
Many ecosystems of the eco-region have been badly degraded and a number of species are
seriously endangered. The main causes are habitat loss and modification principally by agriculture
(i.e. drainage and conversion of wetlands, overgrazing), industrial development, unsustainable use
of biological resources (i.e. logging) and the impact of introduced and non-native species. The
few protected areas are not sufficient for effective biodiversity conservation.
3
4. ANALYSIS OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
4.1 Description of the project
The WUAP, which builds on the IDSMIP before it, will have three project components, targeting
an expanded area in Azerbaijan and the ARN:
4.1.1 Component 1: Institutional and WUA Capacity Strengthening. This component would
expand the concentrated capacity building program to around 27 raions, covering all the major
irrigated areas in the country, except for the ten raions which are supported under on-going or
planned projects financed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the
Islamic Development Bank (IsDB). The component would finance the following activities:
 Provision of essential operation and maintenance (O&M) and management equipment to
WUAs: All of the WUAs face significant O&M problems with siltation and vegetation in
the on-farm irrigation and drainage networks. WUAs cannot yet address this problem, as
WUA funds and contractors are limited, and WUAs are not eligible to purchase
machinery under on-going credit schemes. Therefore, WUAs that meet maturity criteria
can submit a formal application to a WUA Support Fund (WSF) for a small excavator or
other equipment, like concrete mixers or communication and transportation equipment.
These funds are envisaged to be partially repaid by the WUAs. These funds would also
finance the establishment of simple WUA offices, where needed. The procedure for
funding and mobilizing this equipment would first be piloted in a limited number of
project raions before being replicated to the WUAs in 27 project raions.
 Capacity building of AIOJSC Central, Regional and Raion WUA Support Units: In the
IDSMIP project raions, RSUs were provided with more support to deliver a concentrated
training program and on-the-job support to WUAs, and as a result WUAs in project raions
matured faster than other WUAs. Under the WUAP RSUs will be provided with the
training and operational support to deliver the capacity building program to over 400
WUAs in 33 raions. In order to coordinate this extensive program, five regional support
centres will be established.
 Targeted training and capacity building of WUAs: A concentrated training program,
complemented by on-the-job support, will be delivered by the RSUs to the WUAs to
conduct effective O&M of on-farm irrigation systems, improve irrigation water
management, and enhance pesticide management practices. During the project, the
training program will be revised and targeted to meet the changing training requirements
as WUAs mature.
 WUA Supervision and Regulation: Under the IDSMIP, the Law on Amelioration and
Irrigation (LAI) was amended to provide a firm legal basis for WUAs in Azerbaijan.
Under the LAI there is a provision to establish a State Supervisory Body (SSB) for
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of WUA performance, as well as water delivery and
usufruct agreements with AIOJSC. The WUAP will provide support to the establishment
and functioning of the SSB.
 Institutional capacity building: Under the proposed 2008-15 State Program on Sustainable
Development of Amelioration and Water Management, AIOJSC aims to strengthen its
capacity for integrated water resources management. Based on the Program and a planned
Agricultural and Irrigation Sector Update ESW, the project will identify pilot programs,
study tours, technology demonstrations and studies on a range of topics from pumped
irrigation to climate adaptation, in order to strengthen AIOJSC’s integrated water
resources management capacity.
4.1.2 Component 2: On-farm irrigation and drainage (I&D) rehabilitation. This component
would finance the rehabilitation and modernization of on-farm I&D systems on about 100,000 ha
4
managed by an estimated 34 WUAs located in 17 project raions with a total irrigated area of
around 600,00 ha. Since the start of the IDSMIP in 2005, the base cost for rendering a WUAmanaged system operational has increased from US$ 300 per ha to US$ 900 per ha due to
increased unit prices. WUAs eligible for rehabilitation will need to meet a set of eligibility criteria
that benchmark them against other WUAs in the raion and will have to commit to repaying a
certain percentage of the infrastructure investments. The concept is to strengthen WUAs
institutionally to a point where they are sufficiently mature to qualify for rehabilitation of their
system. Prior to rehabilitation, WUAs will sign an interim transfer agreement, and after
rehabilitation an agreement transferring responsibility for MOM to the WUA will be signed.
Design and construction supervision will be done through consultants engaged by WUAP, with
oversight from project engineers and WUAs.
4.1.3 Component 3: Project Management. The existing IDSMIP PIU would be strengthened
with staff, training and equipment and part of the operational costs for the daily management,
administration and coordination of the WUAP. Project engineers and WUA support staff will be
based in five regional support centres.
4.2 Analysis of project alternatives
4.2.1 No action alternative. The ‘natural state’ option does not exist, as the project concerns the
rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage systems that have already been constructed. The ‘no
action’ option would allow the existing systems to further dilapidate to a point where continued
silting, installation collapse, and overgrowth of hydrophilic vegetation would essentially eradicate
the water flow capacity of the irrigation systems. This would force most farmers to return to rainfed cropping patterns. With the high evaporation/precipitation ratio in much of Azerbaijan’s
cultivable areas, this would spell the elimination of agriculture as a viable sector, with the
exception of areas that benefit from adequate precipitation thanks to their location at higher
elevations in the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains. Given the importance of the agriculture
sector to the welfare of Azerbaijan’s rural population and to the food security of the country as a
whole, the ‘No Action’ option is not an acceptable alternative. Further, the State Programme on
Poverty Reduction and Economic Growth identifies public investment in the rehabilitation of
irrigation infrastructure as a top priority.
4.2.2 Better Technology Alternatives. Most irrigation systems in the project area are based on
water conveyance in open, unlined canals, as well as on furrow or border strip irrigation. Several
options for technological upgrading of these systems exist and could also bring environmental
benefits. First, lining of irrigation canals would reduce seepage losses and thus increase efficiency
in water conveyance and also reduce the frequency of maintenance works. Second, the use of
piped systems would eliminate losses through evaporation and seepage and thus contribute to
conveyance efficiency, and also lower the risk of water contamination. Third, drip or sprinkler
irrigation systems would use water more efficiently than surface irrigation schemes. These are
crucial considerations considering Azerbaijan’s growing water scarcity and the increasingly
competing demands by the domestic and industrial sectors. However, the following considerations
discourage the introduction of such technological options on a significant scale:

The lining of irrigation canals would indeed reduce some seepage losses, but the main
water losses in the project’s irrigation systems are due to operational inefficiencies. The
bulk of the project’s canals are in the Kura-Araz River basin, where the silty-clayey soils
allow only minor infiltration; piped irrigation systems are employed in the more porous
soils in the northern mountainous region. For this reason, the project’s investments are in
improving operational efficiencies, where the greatest potential gains in water savings lie,
with water control structures, improved water management, etc
5



Piped irrigation systems either rely on gravity or require pumping operations with the
additional energy costs involved. Gravity piped systems are already in place in the project
areas where the topography allows, i.e. the northern mountainous region. But, the vast
majority of the project’s rehabilitation sites will be in the flat Kura-Araz River basin,
where they would have to use pumping and rely on electrical power. The problems with
frequent and unpredictable power blackouts in these project areas render such systems
impractical.
Heavy suspended sediment loads in essentially all the rivers utilised for irrigation are
silting up the canals and piped systems at a pace that, unless de-silted periodically, would
quickly render the irrigation system non-functional. Furthermore, piped irrigation systems
carrying heavy sediment loads require regular chemical treatment in order to avoid algae
growth. Unless effective sediment filters are installed at the headwaters and at major
outtakes down the canal system, silting will knock out any irrigation system that relies on
small diameter pipes and minute perforations.
The cost range of sprinklers varies greatly as a function of the complexity of the system.
However, in general they are more expensive than gravity-fed surface irrigation systems,
and would be significantly more expensive than the restoration of an existing gravity-fed
scheme (e.g., their annual operation and maintenance costs can be up to six percent of
capital costs). Similar arguments apply to a drip-fed system, but with the added risk of
salinisation if water application rates are poorly managed.
In the final analysis, the project’s investments in increasing fundamental operational efficiencies
in the irrigation systems will deliver more environmental benefits in terms of water savings at
project rehabilitation sites than any gains to be realized by lining canals in largely impermeable
soils. Furthermore, in light of the unpredictability of the national power system, the significant
cost of installing and running a backup electrical system, on top of the general lack of requisite
skills and financial resources in the agriculture sector, piped irrigation systems are not considered
a viable alternative at most sites. However, the introduction of more efficient irrigation
technologies in the longer term is desirable and the EA endorses the project’s plan to develop
demonstration/test plots to review and test a number of these newer technologies.
4.2.3 Worst Case Water/Soil Conditions Alternative. The severe problems of salinity,
waterlogging, erosion and decline in soil fertility found in the Kura-Araz lowlands are closely
related to the history of intensive irrigation-based agriculture. The current state of disrepair of the
irrigation and, in particular, drainage canals as well as the wasteful use of irrigation water,
resulting from unclear management responsibilities and weakness of related capacities, continue
contributing to the problem. The issue is also addressed in the State Programme on Poverty
Reduction and Economic Growth, which incorporates several measures to address land
degradation. By concentrating its actions in the areas most affected by the above problems, the
project could achieve significant environmental benefits. However, for the environmental benefits
of the project to be realised and sustained over the long term, the preconditions for continuing
maintenance of the infrastructure and continuing functioning of the WUAs need to be in place.
The focus on providing conditions for sustainability and success justifies the geographically
diverse, demand-oriented approach that is currently proposed for the project.
4.3 Description of the Physical and Biological Environment
The following presents a brief description, based on available information and the additional data
collected by the national experts, of the baseline conditions in the physical and biological
environments of the various project areas. This section builds on the information contained in the
EA for the IDSMIP by adding relevant information for the new raions covered by the WUAP.
6
4.3.1 Physical Environment
4.3.1.1 Northern Zone (Khachmaz, Quba, Qusar). Soils1. The northeastern slopes of the
Greater Caucasus are drained (from north to south) by the Samur, Qusarchay, Quruchay,
Qudyalchay, Agchay, Qarachay, Chagachuqchay, and Velvelichay Rivers. At the foothills of the
Greater Caucasus, arenosol type soils occupy the moderate to gentle slopes of contiguous alluvial
fans deposited as the swiftly flowing, sediment-laden rivers dissipate their energy upon reaching
the plains. The colluvial slopes are noticeably more fertile, but their precise classification requires
additional inspection that is beyond the scope of this study. Further down slope and across the
coastal plain (Khachmaz), clay to clay-loam, greyish brown to brown, non-limy to slightly saline
soils develop on the lower reaches of the alluvial fans and on the ancient seabed of the receding
Caspian Sea. Poor sandy soils develop on the wind-reworked sands of the present day coastal
area. Soil characteristics of the Qusar-Khachmaz Foothills, as well as their amelioration needs and
crop suitability are summarised in Table A-4 of the Appendix. On the steeper, topographically
higher areas of the right bank of the SAC, soils are susceptible to erosion. Moderately saline and
alkaline soils are rather prevalent in flat and topographically depressed areas on the left bank of
the SAC. Most susceptible to salinisation are clay-rich soils that overlie shallow groundwater in
poorly drained areas. Excessively shallow groundwater underlies half of the irrigated lands of the
low-lying Khachmaz raion (52,300 ha), even though over 20 percent of its total irrigated area is
artificially drained. As a result, over 12 percent of the irrigated soils in the Khachmaz raion are
slightly to moderately saline and over 29 percent, slightly alkaline.
Groundwater. The annual renewable recharge of groundwater underlying the SAC irrigation
service area between the Samur River and Devechi is estimated at 870 million m 3. Close to 200
million m3 of this recharge discharge as springs2. The best quality groundwater, calciumbicarbonate type with total dissolved solids (TDS) below 0.5 g/l is encountered in the SamurQusarchay watersheds at the northern part of the area. The quality of groundwater degrades both
towards the coastal area and southwards due to increased leaching of marine deposits, poorer
drainage, and increasing aridity. In the coastal area, the TDS (bicarbonate-sulphate-sodium) rises
up to 2.5 g/l.
The main sources of irrigation water on the right bank of and above the SAC are artesian water
wells and springs. In contrast, on the left bank of the SAC (i.e., the area that can be irrigated by
gravity), only 0.2 percent of the total irrigated area relies on well water 3. The depth to
groundwater decreases from several tens of meters in the upper part of the alluvial fans in the
upper Qusar Foothills, to few meters and less, in the lower reaches of the alluvial fans. The
groundwater table has been on the rise since 1959, reaching in the late 1980s up to an average of 1
m below ground surface. During the economic slowdown of the early 1990s, water usage
decreased due to the deterioration of the water distribution system and more recently this trend
has ceased. This strongly suggests that the fluctuations of the groundwater table were precipitated
by the intensified irrigation activities4.
4.3.1.2 Southern Zone (Saatli, Sabirabad, Imishli, Aghjabedi) and Western Zone
(Geranboy). Soils5. Alluvial soils of water-worked pebbles in a sandy matrix (arenosols by FAO
1
Much of the information is derived from the Diagnostic Survey (2003). Refer to draft report (Sections II B-2b,
c, and d) for further information on the water holding capacity of the different soils and the differences
between the conventions of the Soviet system and their Western counterparts; and Sections II B-2c and d) for
discussion of soil hydraulic conductivities and fertility.
2
Coastal Profiles, Azerbaijan; Caspian Environmental Program website:
wysiwyg://45/http://www.Caspian environment.org/itcamp/azeri1_20_2.htm
3
Table 2.1, EA and Monitoring, op.cit.
4
Tables 2.4 and 2.5, EA and Monitoring, op.cit
5
A liberal use was made of the Diagnostic Survey Draft Report (op. cit, 2003).
7
World Soil Legend) are common along the piedmont fringe of the central valley zone, evidence
for a more pluvial past climate. In these drier, elevated foothill fringe of the Lesser and Greater
Caucasus, bright chestnut, chestnut and grey soils predominate, at times containing gravel lenses.
Derived from the sedimentary rocks of the lower slopes, they are likely to be polygenic, with
considerable variation in texture. Most irrigated soils are either loams, sandy loams, or silt loams.
The clay content of these soils is generally low, less than 15 percent. These soils would be
classified locally as light and medium loams. At lower elevations, silty and fine sandy loams and
medium clay alluvial soils are common. Close to the Kura River, soils become grey saline
meadow and meadow with intermediate to high contents of humus. Most irrigable soils of the
central valley zone would be classified locally as “light sierozem”, or as eutric fluvisols (basesaturated alluvium), by the FAO World Soil Legend. Low-humus, clay-rich swampy and siltyclay meadow soils prevail in the depressions near the Araz River1.
Table A-5 in the Appendix compares the prevalence of saline and alkaline soils, the quality of
irrigation water, and depth to groundwater table in the Imishli, Beylegan, Saatli, and Sabirabad
raions2.
Most of the irrigated lands are located either on the banks of the Araz River (Imishli) or close to
and downstream from the confluence of the Araz and Kura Rivers (Saatli and Sabirabad). During
summer, the main irrigation season, the Kura and Araz Rivers supply slightly brackish water
(between 0.85 – 2 g/l) to the irrigated lands of all three raions. Inferior water quality combined
with flat topography and inadequate drainage3 cause a considerable development -- between 11-17
percent of the total irrigated area -- of moderately to highly saline soils. Based on partial data,
over 22 percent of Imishli’s irrigated soils are defined as moderately to highly alkaline.
Groundwater. On the left bank of the Kura River, the groundwater table is generally within three
meters of the ground surface over 90 percent of the Shirvan Plain4. This is apparently a result of
protracted infiltration of irrigation water from the canal system. Horizontal groundwater heads are
low (0.03 to 0.0007) and decrease towards the Kura River, and the hydraulic conductivity is on
the order of 0.1 to 3 m/day. Dominated by sodium chloride with high sulphate contents, water
TDS ranges between 5-100 g/l, with the higher values typically away from the leaking irrigation
canals and drainage collectors. The shallow, unconfined aquifer is underlain at depths of 50-200
m below ground surface by three, sand and loamy sand artesian aquifer complexes. Underneath
the eastern Shirvan Plain, the water of this deeper aquifer is highly mineralised (5-10 g/l). As one
proceeds towards the elevated margins of the plain, the water quality of the deeper aquifer
improves and the level of the top aquifer plunges to a depth that no longer affects topsoil
salinisation. For instance, the quality of the deeper aquifer water greatly improves around Yevlakh
to 1.2-1.5g/l, where they are extensively used for irrigation and domestic supply. On the right
bank of the Kura River in the Kura-Araz plain, the greatest depth to the groundwater table, 2.8 to
3.5 m below ground surface, is in the alluvial zones of the Mill steppe. Well water levels in areas
of shallow groundwater table (<1 m) have been on the rise between 1991and 1998 due to
insufficient drainage5.
Further to the west, alluvial fan deposits with high proportion of coarse-grained permeable
sediments underlie the piedmont plain of the Geranboy-Ganja area. Recharged in the foothills of
1
Section 2.4.2 and Annex A.10, EA and Monitoring, op. cit.
For good summary of the nexus between shallow groundwater and soil salinity and sodicity (or alkalinity) in
the central valley, see Diagnostic Survey (2003), Sections IV-C 1a, and b.
3
Due to more than doubling of the irrigated area in the Mill-Karabakh Plain since t1940, the draining capacity of
the K-1, K-2, K-3, the Mill-Karabakh as well as the intra-farm collectors was greatly exceeded.
4
Sections 2.4.2 – 2.4.4, SCP ESIA, Draft for Disclosure, op. cit.
5
Table 2.2, EA and Monitoring, op.cit
2
8
the Lesser Caucasus, these deposits comprise two transmissive zones: an upper, partially
unconfined aquifer complex and a deeper confined aquifer system. The deeper aquifer system
splits further north into several separate fresh groundwater-bearing units. Artesian heads feed
overflowing artesian wells that are used for irrigation. Further down along their flow pathways
towards the centre of the intermontane basin and at greater depth, water are encountered that have
sodium sulphate and sodium chloride salinity ranging between 5-129 g/l1. At times these waters
contain significant concentrations of dissolved H2S and methane, endowing them with therapeutic
properties.
In the Geranboy-Ganja area, the depth to the upper, unconfined aquifer ranges from over 25 m in
the intefluves between the rivers that drain the northeastern slopes of the Lesser Caucasus
Mountains, to less than 5 m in the river valleys and in proximity to the Kura River and the
Karabakh Canal. Still, only 8.4 percent of the total irrigated area is afflicted by shallow (<1.5m)
groundwater2. The hydraulic conductivity of the upper aquifer typically ranges between 0.1 and
13.4m/day, and its transmissivity averages 20-40 m2/day. Beneath most of the entire area, the
aquifer contains good quality, calcium bicarbonate water with less than 1g/l TDS.
Both the unconfined and the deeper, confined aquifers are tapped in the Geranboy-Ganja
Piedmont Plain by scores of 100-150 m deep tubewells, as well as by springs and kherizes3 that
are utilised for domestic, irrigation and industrial uses. In the Geranboy area, most of the water
abstracted in recent years, between 238-312 thousand m3/day on average, is used primarily for
irrigation and to a much smaller degree for domestic supply.
4.3.1.3 Northern Zone new raions (Qusar, Saki, Zagatala, Gakh, Balakan, Ismaili, Gabala,
and Oghuz).
Qusar raion is situated on the south-eastern slope of the Upper Caucasus. Its territory is 1 542
km2, its population 86 600. The centre is Gusar Gity. The altitude of the area ranges from 100 m
to 4 466 m. Soils Jurassic and Tabashir, Neogen and Anthropogen sediments are widepsread. The
salt composition of dry layer in soil in 100 sm is less than 25 percent. Mountain-meadow, brown
mountain-forest, carbonate mountain-forest soils are wide-spread. Climate Mild to hot climate
dominates in the south, cold climate in the north. The average temperature in the highlands is 14oC- and in the lowlands 1oC in January, and 2 and 24oC in July, respectively. Annual rainfall is
350-1500 mm. Groundwater The groundwater level is 5-10 m in depth in the upper part of the
raion, and the water mineralization is less than 1000 mg\l. The rivers (Gusar and Samur) belong to
the Caspian Sea basin.
Saki raion is situated on the south-eastern slope of the Upper Caucasus. It is bordered by the
Russian Federation on the north-east. Its territory is 2 432 km2, its population 169 000. The
raion’s centre is Sheki City. The northern part of the region is included in south slope of the
Upper Caucasus chain of mountains, the central part in Ganikh-Haftaran valley, and the southern
part in the Ajinohur lowlands. The altitude of the area ranges from 100 m at Ajinohur lake to 3
683 m in the watershed of the Upper Caucasus chain of maountains. Soils The northern and north
eastern parts of the region are spread with Jurassic and Tabashir sediments, in the remaining area
Neogen and Anthropogen sediments. The salt composition of the dry layer in the soil in 100 sm is
less than 25 percent. Climate A mild to hot climate dominates in the south, with a cold climate
and mountainous tundra to the north. The average temperature is -10oC to 1oC in January, and 10
1
Coastal Profiles, Azerbaijan; Caspian Environmental Program website, op. cit.
RIDIP II Feasibility Study, Table 4.3
3
A hydro-gravity system that taps groundwater at the aquifer and conveys it through subsurface galleries that are
illuminated and served by vertical shafts. For additional information on this traditional technology, see
Kehriz harayi, International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Nakhchivan, Dec. 2001.
2
9
to 26oC in July. The annual rainfall is 400-1400 mm. Groundwater The groundwater level is 5-10
m in depth in the upper part of the region, 2-5 m in depth in the lower part, and the water
mineralization is less than 1000 mg\l. The rivers (Ayrichay, Alijan etc.) belong to the Kura basin.
Mountain-meadow, brown mountain-forest, chestnut-colored meadow-gray, saline gray-brown
soils are wide-spread here.
Zagatala raion is situated on the southern slope of the Upper Caucasus and Ganikh-Ayrichay
valley. It is bordered by the Russian Federation on the north-east and Georgia on the south-west.
Its territory is 1 348 km2, its population is 111 600. The raion’s centre is Zagatala City. Its relief is
mountainous on the north and north-east, and lowlands on the south and south-west. Its altitude on
the lowland relief is around 200-600 m, and in the mountainous areas 3 648 m. Soils The lowland
area is wide-spread with Anthropogen sediments, the mountainous area with the Jurassic and
Tabashir sediments. Mainly alluvial meadow, brown, mountain-forest, mountain-meadow soils
are wide-spread here. The salt composition of the dry layer in the soil in 100 sm is less than 25
percent. Climate The raion’s climate is mild to hot in the lowland and foothill areas, and cold in
the highlands. The average temperature in January in the highlands is higher than -10oC, in
lowlands 1oC, and in July it is -5 to 24oC. Annual rainfall is 600-1600 mm. Groundwater The
ground water level is 5-10 m in depth in the upper part of the region, 2-5 m in the lower part, and
the water mineralization is less than 1000 mg\l. The raion’s rivers (Katekh, Tala, Mukhakh etc.)
belong to the Ganikh basin
Gakh raion is located on the southern slope of the Upper Caucasus. It is bordered by the Russian
Federation on the north-east, and by Georgia on the south-west. Its territory is 1 493 km2, and its
population is 54 700. The raion’s centre is Gakh City. The northern and north-eastern parts of the
region are included in the southern slope of the Upper Caucasus chain of mountains, the central
part in the Ganikh-Haftaran valley, the southern and south-eastern parts in the Ajinohur lowlands.
The altitude ranges from 100 m at the Ajinohur lakeside to 3 480 m at the crest of the Upper
Caucasus chain of mountains. Soils The region has widely spread sediments of the Jurassic,
Tabashir, Neogen and Anthropogen periods. Mountainous-meadow, brown mountainous-forest,
alluvial meadow-forest, chestnut, carbonate black soils are wide-spread. Salt in 100 sm layer in
soil is less than 25 percent. Climate The climate is mild to hot and semi-humid subtropical, and
cold in the highlands. The average temperature in January ranges from -10oC to 2oC, in July from
5oC to 26oC. Annual rainfall is 300-1600mm. Groundwater The ground water table in upper part
is 5-10 m in depth, and in the lower part 2-5 m in depth. Water mineralization is lower than
1000mg\l. The Kurmukchay and Ayrichay rivers and others that flow through the area are
included in Ganikh river basin, which flows along the Georgian border..
Balakan raion is located in the north-western part of the country, on the southern slopes of the
Greater Caucasus and Ganikh-Haftaran valley. It is bordered by the Russian Federation on the
north-east, and Georgia on the north-west and south-west. Its territory is 923 km2, population 84
400. The relief of the region is mountainous in the north-west and lowland in the south-west.
There are Guton, Tinov-Russo and other crests on the water crossing of Main Caucasus. Soils In
the lowlands, Antropogen sediments are found, and in the highlands Yura and Tabashire
sediments are widespread. Salt in 100 sm layer in soil is less than 25 percent. The river network
(Balakan, Mazim, Katekh, Ganikh) is dense. Mountainous-meadow, brown mountainous-forest,
alluvial meadow-forest, chestnut, carbonate black soils are wide-spread. Climate The climate is
mild to hot and semihumid subtropical. It is cold and humid in the highlands. The average
temperature in January is from -7,8oC to -1,5oC, but in July 10,5-24,5oC. Annual rainfall is 6001400 mm. Groundwater The ground water table in the upper parts of the region is 5-10 m in
depth, and in lower parts 2-5 m in depth; water mineralization is lower than 1000mg\l.
10
Ismayilli raion is situated on the south-eastern slope of the Upper Caucasus. Its territory is 2 047
km2, with a population of 75 000. The centre is Ismailli City. The northern part of the raion is
included in the southern slope of the Upper Caucasus chain of mountains, the central part in the
Ganikh-Haftaran valley, and the southern part in Ajinohur lowlands. The altitude of the area
ranges from 100 m to 3 639 m. Soils The northern and north-eastern parts of the raion are spread
with Jurassic and Tabashir sediments, the remaining area Neogen and Anthropogen sediments.
The salt composition of dry layer in soil in 100 sm is less than 25 percent. Mountain-meadow,
brown mountain-forest, chestnut-colored meadow-gray, saline gray-brown soils are wide-spread
in the raion. Climate Mild to hot climate dominates in the south, cold climate and mountainous
tundra in the north. The average temperature is -10oC to 1oC in January, and 12 to 28oC in July.
Annual rainfall is 400-1400 mm. The groundwater level is 5-10 m in depth in the upper part of the
region, 2-5 m in depth in the lower part; the water mineralization is less than 1000mg\l.. The
rivers (Girdimanchay, Goychay, Akhokhchay etc.) belong to the Kura River basin
4.3.2 Biological Environment
The former IDSMIP project sites, with the exception of sites in the Autonomous Republic of
Nakhchivan, fall within the Azerbaijan shrub desert and steppe ecoregion (see Section 3.1.6). The
new WUAP sites in the mountain raions are in the Caucasus mixed forests ecoregion. The
predominant land use activities in all project zones are agriculture and livestock raising, with little
room left for the natural ecosystems. The flora and fauna of the agricultural lands is generally
limited, although it has been unintentionally enriched by the present crisis of the agricultural
sector. Many uncleaned drainage canals have turned into small wetlands, growing common reed
and supporting a population of reed warblers and small raptors as well as terrapins and turtles.
Furthermore, the monocultures of the Soviet period have, in many places, been left to fallow
and/or used as winter pasture, and presently support a flora of salinity resistant grasses and herbs
such as glassworts and, when sufficient time has passed, of bushes such as tamarisk. However,
such on-farm biodiversity is still relatively limited. Main animal species include small rodents,
mainly considered as pests, as well as common birds such as bee-eater1, tree sparrow, house
sparrow, sand martin, roller, magpie, starling, rook, carrion crow, white stork and herons.
4.3.2.1 Northern Zone (Khachmaz, Quba, Qusar). Most of the project area in the northern zone
has been converted to intensive agricultural use: irrigated agriculture, orchards and vineyards,
rainfed agriculture as well as pastures on unirrigated, rocky, salty or wetland. The limited flora
and fauna of the agricultural lands is broadly similar to that described above. Bird diversity,
however, is relatively high, although lower than in the surrounding natural landscapes. Grainfields
are dominated by skylark and corn bunting in the summer, and rock bunting and yellowhammer,
together with skylark, in the winter. In vineyards, typical species also include quail and turtle
dove. Among mammals, orthoptera and rodents dominate on farmed lands, but wolves, foxes and
jackals also occur.
Concerning natural ecosystems, the main landscapes in this project area are (i): seaside sandy
vegetation of the coastal strip; (ii) low-lying landscapes with semi-desert vegetation, meadows,
brushwood of semi-zerophitic shrubs, and low-land mixed broad-leafed forests from –27 to 200
m; (iii) foothill semi-steppe with meadows and fragments of sparse forests and bushes from 20 m
to 500-600 m; and (iv) low-mountain woody landscapes from 500 m to 1,000-1,200 m. Different
types of marshes occur on the coast, including open marine shallows with rich fodder supply and
hence high numbers of aquatic birds; flood marshes growing couch-grass and ephemeric cereals
etc.; and small swamping areas emerging from high groundwater table levels. On the coastal zone,
1
See Annex I for Latin names.
11
31 species of mammals, 16 species of amphibians and reptiles and hundreds of bird species can be
observed. Twenty species can be considered rare of endangered1.
Lowland forests of the coastal strip of the Shollar plain are of particular interest since such large
forest ecosystems do not occur in other project zones. These forests are characterised by vardim
oak, downy oak, Caucasian hornbeam, and white and black poplar associated with smooth-leafed
elm, field maple, and oleaster. Understory is composed of hazel, hawthorn and black hawthorn,
medlar, etc. They provide habitat for a great variety of land mollusks, insects, amphibians and
reptiles and a rich avifauna, including 331 species and subspecies, of which 90 are settled. During
summer time, chaffinch, nightingale and great tit dominate whereas in the wintertime, spruce
siskin and European robin are common. Common pheasant* and white-tailed eagle* are Red
Book species2. Mammals in the forested zone are represented by wolf, badger, otter, and, more
rarely, jackal, stone marten and wild boar.
The small rivers of the zone, in particular Velvelichay, Qudyalchay, Qarachay and Qusarchay,
have been important for their fisheries. Besides carrying mountain stream fish in their upper
course, they provide spawning ground for semi-migratory fishes of the Caspian. However,
reduced river flows due to water abstraction and overexploitation by local populations have had a
negative impact on the lower course fish populations. The EA recommends that the WUAP
address this issue more carefully than the IDSMIP did by monitoring the water quality
(particularly salinity) of discharges to the rivers in the new mountainous raions and investigating
the impacts on fish populations downstream.
4.3.2.2 Southern (Saatli, Sabirabad, Imishli, Aghjabedi, Zardab) and Western Zones
(Geranboy). As in the northern zone, the main land use in these project zones is agriculture.
Irrigated agriculture is practised on suitable elevated and well-drained soils near the mountainside
as well as on the Kura-Araz lowland. Towards the salinised and deficiently drained areas in the
interfluvial depressions and near wetlands, croplands are gradually replaced by pastures.
Second to agriculture, desert and semi-desert are the most common ecosystems in these project
zones. Most of them can be considered semi-natural even if they suffer from significant human
disturbance, e.g., grazing. One of the most typical desert communities comprises mugwort and
saltwort species, associated with ephemerals and ephemeroids such as grass, bulbous meadow
grass, etc. More saline soils are typically covered by different saltwort species communities
accompanied by certain spring herbs, bulbous meadow grass and bur-medick. A third type of
desert community is dominated by seablight species associated with bur-medick, wall barley, and
grass as well as some halophytes. As to semi-desert communities, they are most frequently
dominated by mugwort, but saltwort semi-desert communities also occur.
Woodlands in these project zones are rare, small and fragmented, and often planted. The
vegetation is dominated by ash species, pedunculate oak, vardim oak, bramble, mulberry and
smooth-leave elm. Woodland grape* and pomegranate*, included in the Red Book of Azerbaijan3,
also occur. Some natural shrubland is also found, dominated by salt-resistant tamarisk and
1
See Annex B.
From here on, all species listed in the Red Book will be marked with an asterisk.
3
However, these two species are not likely to be included in the next edition since their status is not considered
threatened. The Red Book of Azerbaijan was published in 1985 but it is based on data from 15-20 years
earlier. Data on the status, abundance and distribution of fauna and flora are thus very outdated and the book
does not illustrate well the actual status of endangered species in Azerbaijan. More up-to-date information
can be obtained from the IUCN Red Data Books, although these only identify whether a globally
rare/endangered species occurs in Azerbaijan, not its status there. For list of species included in the Red Book
of Azerbaijan and on the IUCN list, see Annex B.
2
12
bramble species. Despite their limited size, these ecosystems provide an important habitat for the
fauna of the area.
Typical animal species in the desert/semi-desert and scarce wood/shrublands in the project zones
include: brown hare, rodents, such as red-tail sanderling, house mouse, common wood mouse,
striped field mouse and Gunther’s vole, and carnivores, such as red fox, golden jackal, wolf and
Eurasian badger. Reedbeds along canals and other wetlands are habitat for brown rat, wild boar
and coypu. Animal species included in the Red Book of Azerbaijan that occur in the project area
include reed cat* and pygmy white-toothed shrew* in the Kura-Araz lowlands and, possibly,
marbled polecat* and porcupine*. Birds such as crested lark, lesser short-toed lark, northern
wheatear, isabelline wheatear, Finsch’s wheatear, calandra lark, little bustard, and bittern are
commonly found. Bird species of conservation concern present in the area include raptors such as
Eurasian kestrel, lesser kestrel and the tawny eagle*, as well as ground nesting species such as
chukar and black francolin*. On wetlands (see below), bird diversity is much higher. Typical
reptile species inhabiting desert ecosystems include gecko, lizards, blunt-nosed viper and spurthighed tortoise*.
The turbid flow and unstable bed of the Kura and Araz rivers restricts vegetation to side channels,
silty pools and seasonal meanders. Common reed, mint, water cress, water-milfoil, pondweed and
buttercup species occur. The riverside vegetation comprises scrubs and trees such as tamarisk,
bramble, rose, oleaster, willow, pomegranate*, and poplar species as well as swamp species like
common reed, sea club rush, water-pepper and galingale. Smaller rivers in the project areas are
typically seasonally or perennially nearly dry but still able to support tamarisk and common reed
and, occasionally, milk thistle, sun spurge, saltwort and various grass species.
Riverine ecosystems have changed considerably due to anthropogenic pressures. First, regulation
of rivers significantly affects flooding levels and thus floodplain flora and fauna. Moreover, the
abstraction of irrigation water has adverse impacts in particular during the dry season when river
flows are sometimes decreased below ecological minimum flow requirements. Finally,
ecosystems are affected by lower water quality, caused by pollution from human activities. Other
anthropogenic disturbances such as gravel extraction from riverbeds have created additional
pressures.
The flora of the irrigation canals is largely limited to swamp species such as common reed,
bulrush, sea club rush, galingale, water-pepper and stranglewort. Along canal banks, purple
loosestrife is common as well as tamarisk, bramble, and orache species and camel prickle. In
some cases, salt-tolerant species such as common glasswort and sea lavender also grow on the
banks. Glabrose liquorice*, a useful medicinal plant, can also be found.
In ponds and ox-bow lakes along the Kura and Araz rivers, vegetation is dominated by common
reed and tamarisk species. In marshes, occurring in low-lying areas and often inundated
seasonally, the species diversity is higher, providing also animal fodder and medicinal plants. The
slight salinity typical to these wetlands has resulted in plant communities consisting of glabrose
liquorice*, sea lavender, camel prickle, bermuda-grass, saltwort and orache species but also
including shrub species like tamarisk.
Typical bird species in wetlands include heron, egret, coot, mallard and gull (see below on
important wetland habitats). As for reptiles, freshwater terrapin and European pond terrapin (both
of conservation importance), European grass snakes and water snakes are common.
More than 50 fish species occur in the Kura and its tributaries, with over 20 having some
commercial value. Two main groups can be distinguished: Cyprinids including common crab,
13
Caspian roach and bream, and migrants from the Caspian spawning in the river. Fish species of
conservation importance include white-eyed bream, blackbrow, sturgeon ship, chanari barbel,
murtsa barbel, Caspian lamprey, chub, bleak species and brown trout. Some drainage canals also
carry fish in their lower course.
4.3.2.3 Northern zone new raions (Qusar, Saki, Gakh, Zaqatala, Gabala, Oghuz and
Balakan)
Qusar raion is characterized by alpine and subalpine meadows in the mountainous parts of the
region, which serve as habitat for such animals as: Caucasian goat, wolf, bear, wild cat, squirrel,
etc. Gusar Preserve was established in the region. Saki raion is characterized by alpine and
subalpine meadows and widespread forests (oak, beech and hornbeam) on the Upper Caucasus
part of the region. The region serves as habitat for such animals as noble deer, roe deer, racoon,
squirrel, wolf, fox, gray hare, field mice, red-tailed mice, donkey, pheasant, partridge, etc. The
Saki Preserve was established in order to protect these habitats. In Zagatala raion forests are widespread on the mountains, which serve as habitat to such animals as leopard, noble deer, Caucasian
goat, squirrel, forest squirrel, wild pig, bear, wolf, lynx, wild cat, etc. There are also birds: eagle,
pheasant, tetra etc. The main part of the Zagatala State Nature Reserve is located in this raion. In
Gakh raion, alpine and subalpine meadows and forests are wide-spread in the mountainous parts
of the region. The Ilisu State Nature Reserve and the Gakh Preserve are located in the area.
Balakan raion has alpine and subalpine meadows and forests that are wide-spread in mountainous
parts of the raion. Its fauna include: Caucasian goat, deer, roe deer, brown bear, wild pig, forest
and plain squirrel, etc. The birds include: eagle, falcon, etc. Ismayilli raion has alpine and
subalpine meadows, forests (oak, beech and hornbeam) widely spread in the Upper Caucasus
parts of the raion. These serve as habitat for such animals as: noble deer, roe deer, racoon,
squirrel, wolf, fox, gray hare, field mice, red-tailed mice, donkey, pheasant, partridge, etc.
4.3.2.4 Protected Areas.1,2 (see Map 3) Ag-gol State Protected Area was established in 1964 on
an area of 9,173 hectares in Aghjabedi and Beylegan raions. To strengthen the protected status of
the area, a part of it, and 4 400 ha, was established as a State Reserve in 1978. A further 782 ha
were added to the reserve in 1987. The protected area purports to preserve and restore the number
of nesting, migratory and wintering birds, waterfowl-wader birds, little bustard, wild boar and
others living on the Ag-gel Lake and the surrounding wetlands as well as to breed commercial fish
species. Some 500 hectares of the Ag-gel area were designated a Ramsar site in 2001 3. Located
between the Kura and Araz rivers, Ag-gel Lake is a shallow (0,5-2,0 m) brackish lake whose size
and salinity have varied over the years depending on its water supply. In the past, the lake was a
seasonal freshwater lake, fed by the floods of the Kura River. In the latter part of the 20 th century,
1
Two categories of Protected Areas exist in Azerbaijan. State Reserves or Strict Nature Reserves (zapovednik)
purport to preserve ecosystems and their constituent species in a natural, untouched state. The land is owned
by the State, and all human activities are prohibited without special permission. State Protected Areas or
conservation areas (zapaznik) aim at preserving elements of the natural landscape, including natural
ecosystems. Land is not necessarily State-owned, and certain activities are permitted provided they are
compatible with the Protected Area’s objective.
2
For more details, see Annex B and Map 3.
3
Ag-Gel fulfils three criteria for the inclusion on the List of Wetlands of International Importance (according to
the criteria adopted by the 4th and 6th Meetings of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the
Convention on Wetlands). These are 1(a): [It] is a particularly good representative example of a natural or
near-natural wetland, characteristic of the appropriate bio-geographical region; 2(a) it supports an appreciable
assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal, or an appreciable
number of individuals of any one or more of these species; and 3(a) it regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl.
(For criteria, see http://www.ramsar.org/key_criteria_old.htm; for list of Wetlands of Azerbaijan, see
http://www.ramsar.org/cop8_nrs_azerbaijan_briefreport2.pdf)
14
the development of irrigated agriculture -- through discharge of excess water from the
surrounding area into the lake -- led to an increase in its size (from 4,400 ha to 10,000 ha) and salt
concentration. In 1985-87, the wetland area again decreased, following the construction of a dyke
around the lake to protect its fisheries from saline drainage waters and to prevent its flooding to
surrounding agricultural lands. Part of the area outside the dyke was drained and used as sheep
pasture.
At present, Ag-gel is fed by drainage water from surrounding fields (collectors K-2, K-2.1 and K3 of the Mil-Karabakh drainage system). It flows into the Boz-Kobu wetland through a canal. The
quality of inflowing water is low and, in particular during Soviet times, it carried considerable
amounts of pesticides and nutrients. Consequently, high concentrations of ammonium and
phosphorus as well as eutrophication symptoms were reported on the lake. Chloride and sodium
concentrations still exceed drinking water standards, and salinity levels are high. Severe oxygen
deficits occur in particular during warmer months and the rate of destruction of organic substances
is rapid. This has had a strong adverse impact on lake fisheries with total fish catches declining by
10-12 times, and some freshwater fish species disappearing. If countermeasures are not taken, the
lake risks turning into a highly mineralised isolated swamp.
The vegetation of Ag-gel is characterised by vast reed, cattail, bulrush and wormwood beds, openwater areas linked by reed-choked channels, salt marsh fringes and semi-desert islands with
saltworts, etc. The diversity of water vegetation is high, with 42 species reported, including watermilfoil, shining pondweed and curly pondweed. Land vegetation consists of 40 species,
representing both wetland and semi-desert flora. In an island named Kardon, Bibersitein mountain
tulip* is found.
Ag-gel is considered the most important wetland habitat for birds in Azerbaijan. At least 134 bird
species have been recorded here, 89 of which breed in Ag-gel, including a colony of pelicans and
storks (20,000-25,000 pairs). About 500,000 birds winter at the site. Species of global
conservation concern include pygmy cormorant and marbled teal (breeding) and Dalmatian
pelican, white-headed duck and white-tailed eagle (wintering), and the site supports more than
one percent of the population of several waterbirds. A total of 20 bird species are listed in the Red
Book of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, six groups and 22 species of mammals, six species of reptiles,
four species of amphibians and 13 species of fish live in Ag-gel wetlands.
The Ag-gel wetland is used by the local population for subsistence and small-scale commercial
fishing and aquaculture as well as for grazing. The surrounding areas are heavily used for irrigated
agriculture that affects the volume and quality of water inflow in the lake. The major threat to the
wetland ecosystem is the considerable fluctuation in the water area and water salinity. In dry
years, lack of water reduced the wetland surface and causes an increase in water temperature,
thereby harming benthic life and reducing oxygen content essential for fish populations. Poaching
and drowning of birds in fishing nets are also clear concerns. The problems of protected area
management in Azerbaijan (see section 3.1.6) severely restrict the ability of the Reserve staff to
ensure the protection of the area. The MENR recognises the critical situation and, in partnership
with a German foundation Succow, has launched a project “Saving the Ag-Gel Lake” that
envisages the restoration of water circulation balance by means of repairing and setting up hydrotechnical structures to ensure that there is a sufficient level of water inflow from collectors to the
lake.
Korchay State Protected Area was established in 1961 on 15,000 ha in Khanlar and Goranboy
raions to preserve game animals and birds settled in the area. It consists of semi-desert plains with
low hills, low arid mountains, shrub along rivers, and a reservoir. Korchay area is considered as
an important bird site with breeding species such as ruddy shelduck, long-legged buzzard, chukar
15
and black-bellied sandgrouse. Species of global conservation concern include pallid harrier and
little bustard. Main land uses in the protected area and surrounding lands are sheep grazing,
agriculture (in the river valley) and oil exploration. Overgrazing, poaching and the presence of
insecure pesticide stores constitute the main threats to bird diversity.
Zagatala State Nature Reserve covers an area of 25 218 ha, of which 48 ha - is occupied by
reservoirs. Present-day flora of the reserve includes more than one thousand species. Among
ancient plants there are yellow rhododendron, cherry-laurel herb, Caucasian bilberries, yew-berry
(Taxus baccata), velvety maple, fern, eastern beach, also pale maple, and Georgian oak. The fauna
of the reserve is rich as well. The reserve is habitat for dagestani tur, chamois, deer, roe deer, wild
boar, brown bear, badger, fox, weasel, stone and forest marten, lynx, forest cat, and squirrel. Bird
fauna includes 104 species, among which are several big birds of prey: Eared Owl, Kestrel,
Egyptian Vulture, White-head Vulture, and Black Vulture. Amongst rare, particularly protected
birds there are the Golden Eagle, Falcon, Caucasian Heath-cock and Ular. Eight species of
amphibians are spread in the reserve: comb triton, Caucasian garden-spider, green and ordinary
toads, lacustrine frogs, Transcaucasian and Asia Minor frogs. Reptiles include aesculapius and
Transcaucasian runners, water snakes, and grass-snakes.
4.3.2.6 Natural heritage sites. A number of natural monuments in the project zone have been
identified as natural heritage sites by the Government and thus have legally protected status.
*They mostly include old individual trees or tree stands (oriental planes, pistachios, stone trees,
elms, maples, oaks, pines and poplars). After the establishment of the list in 1982, however, no
country-wide inventory on the state of the sites has been conducted and their current state is
therefore not known.
4.3.2.7 Other important habitats1. Besides Ag-gel Lake, the Mil steppe harbours two other
important bird habitats, the Boz-Gobu wetland area (including Sherbet Qobu, and Zaharmargol
Lakes) and the Lake Sarisu. The Boz-Gobu system is located in the Kura river valley in Agjabedy,
Beylegan and Imishli raions, between the Lakes Ag-gel and Sarisu. In the past, its lakes were
freshwater lakes, fed by the floods of the Kura River, but presently, Boz-Gobu receives its water
from Ag-gel through a canal. It outflows via Sherbetkobu canal to Sarisu Lake (see below). A
continuous lake is formed only during flood season, when a chain of oxbow lakes and channels
merges into a single lake containing shallows and vast reed beds, and surrounded by sparse
tamarisk shrubs. The number of wintering waterbirds has decreased from 50,000 to 10,000-20,000
but 4,445 specimens of birds were observed (early 1990s). Breeding waterbirds include, e.g.,
bittern, little bittern and colonies of other storks. Species of global conservation concern
correspond to those in the Ag-gel Lake area (see above).
The wetland and surrounding area are used mainly for agriculture, grazing and oil extraction. A
hunting reserve of 2,000 ha has been established on the wetlands of Boz-Gobu and surrounding
area, and leased to the Hunters’ Society of Azerbaijan. Another part of the area is under the
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Oil. Pollution and hunting, therefore, constitute the primary threats
to the lake’s biodiversity.
Lake Mehman is one of the freshwater lakes of the Kura River valley that drained following the
creation of the irrigation network in the latter part of the 20 th century. The remaining wetland,
covering an area of 1,200 ha, still supports a diverse bird population (3671 water bird and raptor
species recorded in 1993/94).
The Lake Sarisu wetland, one of the best sites for waterbirds in Azerbaijan, extends over 14,000
ha in Imishli and Sabirabad raions. It is a system of brackish lakes with vast reed beds, areas of
1
For more details, see Annex B and Map 2.
16
open water, small islands, and shallows, which were formerly connected to the Kura River during
spring flood. At present, water levels are dependent on irrigation channels, and average lake depth
is only 0.9 m. Sarisu receives its water from Boz-Gobu and from the drainage system of the
Imishli raion (collectors K and K-1 which, following the ongoing construction of the Main MilMugan collector, are likely to no longer feed the lake). Some irrigation excess water (from canals
P-1 and P-12-1) also flows into the lake. A dike, built in the 1960s for the purpose of creating
additional grazing land, separates the lake area from the riverbank, but, in its easternmost part,
Sarisu has a separate controlled outlet via a short collector to the Kura. As it is fed by drainage
water, the hydrochemical conditions of the lake are tough and unstable with high salinity and low
oxygen content. In the past, eutrophication symptoms were reported, and chloride and sodium
concentrations still exceed drinking water standards.
Due to low water quality, cane and reeds are the main plant species in the wetland area. Avifauna,
instead is numerous and diverse. In good years, the site provides habitat for 70,000-80,000
waterbirds, including several globally threatened species (see Ag-gel description above). Other
breeding birds include herons, shorebirds, black francolin and kingfisher. Several species meet the
conservation criteria of greater than one percent of global population. According to Birdlife
International, international protection status under the Ramsar Convention on wetlands would be
justified.
Most of the site is leased by the Military Hunter’s Society1. Other land uses include fishing,
agriculture and grazing, and oil extraction. Population pressure on the northern shore of the lake is
high. Poaching, fishing and pesticide run-off from surrounding fields threaten the lake ecosystem.
Small remnants of riparian tuqay forests still occur along the Kura River in the northern part of
the central lowlands. These forests are characterised by wing nut, vardim oak and white poplar,
and are currently severely threatened by tree cutting and grazing. The Azerbaijan Comprehensive
Nature Protection Plan for the period up to 2010, which was approved by the Government in
1988, envisages the creation of the “Along-the-Kura” State reserve to protect and restore these
forests mainly in the Barda and Agdash districts. The planned reserve would also cover a small
part of tuqay forestland in Zardab district.
The Samur delta, on the border between Khachmaz raion and Dagestan (Russia), is a lowland
river delta where unique remnants of relic broad-leaved deciduous forests (oak, linden, elm,
beech, etc) have been preserved on an area of 20,000 ha. Three endemic and 16 rare plant species
can be found in the area. Former sand beaches along the Caspian coast have been largely
inundated since the mid-1980s but a few pebble beaches remain. Breeding bird populations,
including black stork, lesser spotted eagle, common kingfisher and European roller, are regionally
important. In the summer, a large number of seabirds gather off the delta. The main threats to this
ecosystem include uncontrolled logging, the fragmentation of the forest area for agriculture and
disturbance from tourism along the coast.
Nabran-Yalama-Khachmaz Liana-oak Forest occupies an area of 20,000 ha in the northeastern
coastal plain near Nabran, Mukhtadir, Khachmaz and Yalama. It is a unique forest of broadleaved trees, mainly oaks, covered frequently by “liana” type creepers, among them ivy. Tree
diversity and endemism are relatively high2. In the Soviet period, the forested area decreased
rapidly due to conversion into agricultural use. However, the process has been reversed with some
land sold back to the MENR (former Forestry agency).
1
The Hunters Union of Azerbaijan manages 30 hunting reserves throughout the country, with a total area of
about 450,000 ha. Reserves are managed under contract to MENR, which also defines management
guidelines for each reserve. However, habitat management in hunting areas is generally very weak.
2
See Annex B.
17
The forest does not possess any nature protection status and is managed for various human uses.
An area of 120 ha is planted annually, mainly with oak, walnut, acacia, and chestnut. The
managing agency harvests approximately 2,500 m3 of wood each year, purchased mainly by
villagers for heating. Recreation activities are allowed within parts of the forested area, in
particular along the coast. Hunting is allowed but requires a permit, and some poaching has been
observed. Cattle and pigs use the parts of the forest as pasture. The planned Shah-Dag National
Park may cover part of the area.
The project zones also harbour certain other sites where plants listed in the Red Book of
Azerbaijan are found. *According to the Law on Wildlife, the owners of the lands that are
inhabited by Red Book species must comply with the arrangements for protection of these species
and create conditions that ensure their natural restoration.
4.4 Description of Socio-Economic Context
Much of the following description of the socio-economic context in the project areas is drawn
from the social assessment performed for the IDSMIP as part of project preparation in six WUAs
in representative project areas1. A more detailed discussion of these issues can be found in the
social assessment. Additional information has been added for the new raions in the WUAP.
4.4.1 Population. Azerbaijan is at the beginning of a demographic transition, with a young and
growing population and a decreasing birth rate as fewer families can afford large numbers of
dependants. The transformation from a salary-based rural economy to a peasant society and the
deterioration of basic rural services has created enormous pressure on rural families. The average
family size in the project areas studied was five per household. However, most families were
living in extended families.
4.4.2 Rural Poverty. As noted above in Section 3.2.5, 42 percent of the rural population was
considered poor by SSC estimates in 2001. There are, however, regional variations in this rural
poverty, as reflected in the differences in poverty rates in the various project areas. The northern
region (including Khachmaz) ranks highest in the country at 58 percent, while the southern region
(including Aghjabedi, Sabirabad, Saatli, Zardab, and Imishli) at 51-54 percent and western region
(including Geranboy) at 50 percent, rank somewhat lower.. Official employment figures are low
in the project areas studied (between 20-40%) and it is impossible to calculate the level of
informal employment and self-employment. There is a significant amount of out-migration from
rural areas; usually younger people migrating to towns and abroad looking for employment
opportunities that will partly be used to bolster household income. Rarely does this involve the
whole family leaving a village and indeed the population of the areas appears to be stable.
Agricultural income in cash and in-kind is the biggest source of income for households and
income from employment is the second most important source. Household livelihood strategies
are diversified. Significant remittances are received in some households from non-agricultural
employment in urban centres or abroad. Employment, pensions and social payments provide an
important safety net for the poor households.
4.4.3 Public Health. Although the state of public health is gradually improving nation-wide, (see
Section 3.2.5), the population in the project areas still suffers from a number of infectious and
water-related diseases. Malaria is a primary concern in most of the irrigated agricultural raions of
the country, particularly in the Kura-Araz lowlands where drainage has traditionally been a
problem. With the assistance of the WHO, UNICEF and other international organisations, the
1
Baumann, Pari: Social Diagnosis (December 2002).
18
MoH has achieved good results in preventing and treating malaria. Although the number of
reported cases of malaria nation-wide has decreased dramatically in recent years (from a high of
13,000 in 1997 to no more than 1,000 in 2001 and around 500 so far in 2002), a number of the
project area raions continue to report a higher than average incidence of cases. Data from MoH
district offices1, for example, indicate that Sabirabad (48), Saatli (37), Imishli (30), and Aghjabedi
(30), reported some of the highest numbers of cases in the country in 2001. Drinking water-related
illnesses, such as stomach infections, salmonella, dysentery, and hepatitis, continue to plague the
rural populations in the project areas where irrigation canals or even drainage collectors are used
for potable water sources. Because these illnesses are traditionally under-reported by the local
populations, MoH data on them are not completely reliable.
4.4.4 Education. As is the case in most of Azerbaijan, the education level of most household
heads is high in the project areas studied. Most have at least a high school education and illiteracy
is almost non-existent. Despite the rising indirect costs of education, school attendance is a
priority and even the poorest households have all children at school. However, the quality of basic
and secondary education is deteriorating sharply due to the lack of basic teaching materials, poor
teacher training and salaries, and poor physical infrastructure. Households that can afford to often
supplement the schooling of their children with private instruction at home. Higher education has
declined significantly, especially amongst women, and poor students are likely to be excluded
from attending higher education institutions because of the rising direct costs.
4.4.5 Irrigation, Drainage and Drinking Water. Irrigation and drainage are the main constraints
to agricultural production in the project areas studied. Large areas lie uncultivated due to a lack of
irrigation and drainage. The exact amount lying uncultivated is impossible to estimate. The data
from SAIC offices on the area are not reliable. Local frustration at the lack of irrigation is high. In
some instances water paid for in advance is not delivered at all or only a fraction of the expected
water is delivered too late. In many instances people do not cultivate their land at all because they
can not be sure of receiving irrigation. Uncertainty about the amount of water needed for various
crops is high. Few people understand the payment system or the regulations governing irrigation.
The general level of ignorance of both technical and institutional aspects of the irrigation system
is a major contribution to poor management. Local WUAs take measures to repair their irrigation
and drainage systems. The normal course of action is to collect money and labour from
households along a section of damaged canal to hire some machinery. This rehabilitation is
usually a temporary emergency measure.
Drinking water is a concern in the project areas studied as most WUAs have problems accessing
clean drinking water. In many cases people are dependent on irrigation canals and rivers for their
drinking water. In some places water is filtered through special stones in a tank before drinking. In
other places the water is trucked into the village from the river and stored without treatment in
household tanks. In some areas drinking water comes from artesian wells, a slightly better
situation in terms of water quality and availability. Many families also have household pumps that
are used to get water for household needs like cooking and cleaning, reserved for such minimal
uses because of very poor quality.
Internally Displaced Persons. There are IDPs in a number of the project areas. The IDPs did not
get land during the privatisation process, but many of them are involved in agricultural
production, either through leasing land or as agricultural labour. Most IDPs are an institutional
part of the village community with their interests formally represented by an elected member to
the Belediye. Further, the arrangements under which IDPs get access to both land and irrigation
may differ from those of other water users. The IDPs often have preferential access to leases on
Belediye land and often have preferential access to water. These may present potential areas of
1
Statistics obtained from MoH in Baku, December 2002.
19
conflict for the project. Finally, the IDPs have a higher level of poverty and vulnerability than
other social groups in Azerbaijan. They have smaller average family sizes and are more likely to
be female headed. Their poverty and vulnerability is reflected in all human development
indicators such as income levels, health and education. They are therefore the least likely of all
social groups to want to invest in the irrigation infrastructure or to be able to pay for increased
water costs.
Socio-economic Context in the New Raions. The Saki-Zagatala economic region covers
Balakən, Gakh, Gabala, Oghuz, Zagatala, and Saki raions. With its mild climate, the region relies
on agriculture as the main part of its economy. Agricultural production in the region includes
tobacco, silkworms, fruit, grains, and grapes; the region provides more than 99.5 percent of the
tobacco, 47.9 percent of the cocoons, and 6.9 percent of the green tea leaves harvested in the
country. Agriculture also includes sheep-breeding for meat, milk, and wool production. Business
enterprises specialize mainly on gardening, tobacco-growing and cattle-breeding; they produce
more than 99.5 percent of the industrial production in the region. The main industrial enterprises
are food-related industry, silk and meat enterprises, fruit-vegetable canning industries, tobaccofermenting, wine and hazel-nut plants. There are also small enterprises producing bread, sweets,
and soft drinks, which meet local demand in the region. The region has a well-developed
transportation network, which includes the main Yevlakh-Balakan highway and a railway which
began operation in the second half of 1980s.
The Guba-Khachmaz economic region comprises Davachi, Khachmaz, Guba, Gusar and Siyazan
raions. Its economy is mainly specialized on vegetable-growing and fruit-growing. Grapes are
grown in Davachi, Siyazan, Khachmaz regions, and potatoes in Gusar. All surroundings of living
settlements in this economic region grow wheat, and the plain areas develop milk-meat purposed
cattle-breeding, and foothills and mountainous areas sheep-breeding. There are poultry farms in
Siyazan and Davachi. The agrarian industrial base of the region is made up of canned fruitvegetable production, fish-processing, and carpet-weaving. There are enterprises processing wheat
and milk products. The railway and telecommunication lines, as well as the main oil, gas and
water pipelines passing through the economic region, create important background for the
economic development of the region.
Gakh is a region of tobacco-growing, cattle-breeding, fruit-growing, grain-growing and silkwormbreeding. Agriculture enterprises in the region are - “Gakh-Grain”, “Gakh-Conserv”, “GakhTobacco”, “Gakh-Manufacturing” OJSCs. “Ilham”, “Gunesh”, “Kapital-N” firms, “Shahmar”
LTD, “Sadig” LLC produce mineral water. There are also sand-gravel combinate, fruit juice
manufacture and hazel-nut processing enterprises in the region. In Balakan, Saki, and Ismaili
raions the cultivation of grains, tobacco, and fruit, as well as the breeding of cattle and silkworms,
are the mainstays of the economy.
4.5 Description of Stakeholders and Beneficiaries
The stakeholders for the WUAP are generally similar to those for the IDSMIP, including the
national and local institutions directly involved in the irrigation system (i.e., AIOJSC and its raion
level offices) and in its agricultural, environmental and social impacts (i.e., the MoA, MENR,
MoH and their local offices), local government institutions (i.e., the Ijra, and Belediye), local
associations (i.e., WUAs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the project areas, and
the beneficiaries themselves, the farmers, farm families and local population likely to benefit from
the project1. The EA team met with representatives of most of these stakeholders to discuss
1
For a more detailed discussion of some of these stakeholders, see the social assessment prepared for Diagnostic
Survey, Baumann, Pari: Social Diagnosis (December 2002).
20
environmental and social aspects of the project (see list of stakeholders met in Annex A). A brief
description of the various stakeholders and their attitudes/interests in the WUAP follows.
4.5.1 Farmers, Farm Families, Local Population. The intended beneficiaries of the WUAP are
obviously the farmers who benefit from the WUA development and infrastructure rehabilitation
components of the project. They will see the direct benefits of the project in terms of better
organisation and management of the irrigation system, as well as rehabilitation of critical
infrastructure on their farms. They also will pay for these benefits in recalculated ISFs and in a
portion of the investment costs for rehabilitation. The social assessment confirmed the willingness
of most farmers to pay for irrigation improvements1. In addition to the farmers themselves their
families, their neighbours, and the local population should benefit indirectly from the project in
terms of increased agricultural output, improved employment opportunities, and expanded
economic base. The EA team met with a number of farmers and other locals in the project areas
visited in both formal and informal settings.
4.5.2 Water User Associations. The primary institutional beneficiaries, and in fact the means the
project will use to reach the farmers, are the WUAs that will participate in the project. The WUAs
will benefit from the capacity building and training in the institutional development component of
the project (see Section 4.1) and those that meet the eligibility criteria will benefit from the
infrastructure rehabilitation component. Many WUAs lack technical and managerial experience,
have trouble collecting the ISF, and often experience conflicts over water distribution 2. Thus,
strengthening the WUAs to become participatory, self-sustaining organisations capable of
operating and maintaining the irrigation infrastructure represents a significant challenge for the
WUAP. The EA team met with a number of WUAs, both leaders and members, in the project
areas visited; a strong WUA representation participated in the local consultations held in Zardab.
(see Annex A).
4.5.3 Local Government Institutions. Although less clear, the local institutions of government,
the Belediye and the Ijra, should benefit from and have an interest in the IDSMIP in terms of
irrigation infrastructure improvements, agricultural productivity, and water management. The
Belediye, as the elected self-government at the village level, has an obvious interest in the social
and economic base of the village. The Belediye manages village assets, infrastructure, and
common lands, but often lacks technical and financial means to do so effectively. The Ijra, the
local executive authority, is the most decentralised level of state public administration. It too has
an interest in the social and economic well-being of the villages within its jurisdiction but has
closer ties to central and raion officials than the elected members of the Belediye 3. The EA team
was not able to meet with local government officials either from the Belediye or the Ijra during its
visits to the project areas.
4.5.4 Non-Governmental Organisations. The NGO community in Azerbaijan, whether national
or local, has an interest in representing and protecting the interests of its members with respect to
the WUAP. This may involve participating in project planning and decision-making,
implementing project activities (e.g., training, information collection or dissemination), and
organising local support and participation. The EA team met with national environmental and
social NGOs in Baku and a smaller number of local NGOs in visits to the project areas. *NGO
representatives attended the publicly advertised, national consultation in Baku (see Annex A).
4.5.5 National Government Institutions. The AIOJSC, as the GoA sponsor and implementing
agency for the WUAP, is the primary national government stakeholder. The AIOJSC and its local
1
Social Diagnosis (December 2002), op. cit.
Social Diagnosis (December 2002), op. cit.
3
Social Diagnosis (December 2002), op. cit.
2
21
offices at the raion level obviously stand to benefit from both the institutional development and
the infrastructure rehabilitation components of the project (see Section 4.1). Historically, the
AIOJSC’s limited technical and financial capacity hampered its operation and maintenance of the
country’s irrigation system. The IDSMIP addressed many of these capacity limitations; the
WUAP will continue this support. Additional national government stakeholders are the MoA,
with its overall responsibility for the agriculture sector, the MENR, with its mandate to protect the
country’s water resources and natural heritage, and the MoH, whose public health programmes
address a number of water-related diseases.
22
5. ASSESSMENT OF PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND
PROPOSED PREVENTIVE ACTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The WUAP, like the IDSMIP before it, is designed to provide economic, social, and
environmental benefits, through its development of WUAs and rehabilitation of on-farm irrigation
and drainage infrastructure, to the farmers, farm families, and rural communities where the project
will operate. Many of these positive impacts of the project are obvious, including improved
agricultural productivity and enhanced management of water resources and soil fertility. There are
also, however, potential negative impacts on the social and environmental conditions in the
project areas which will require attention, preventive action, and appropriate mitigation measures
in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases of the project. Table 5.1
provides an overview, in summary matrix form, of these principal environmental and social
impacts and the proposed preventive actions and mitigation measures identified by the EA for the
potential negative impacts. The range of measures identified in the Table 5.1 are necessarily
generic for the types of irrigation and drainage rehabilitation that the project will undertake; thus
not all measures will be applicable in every case but will be determined in each case by a sitespecific environmental assessment and management plan. A discussion of these impacts and the
preventive actions and mitigation measures proposed follows.
5.1 Anticipated Positive Social and Environmental Impacts
5.1.1 Improved Agricultural Productivity. In improving agricultural productivity of individual
farmers and the agriculture sector as a whole, the WUAP continues to support the Country
Assistance Strategy sector-related goal of sustainable growth in agriculture and reduction in
economic vulnerability of rural people. Agricultural productivity declined in Azerbaijan after
independence, in large part because of the collapse of the off-farm and on-farm irrigation and
drainage systems built by the former Soviet Union. The result was decreasing delivery of
irrigation water, increasing salinisation of soils, and expanding areas of fallow agricultural land.
The infrastructure rehabilitation planned for the WUAP should improve productivity by both
regularising and increasing delivery of irrigation water and by expanding the area of irrigated
lands by bringing existing fallow lands back into production. Use of low quality drainage water
for irrigation would also be avoided when adequate supplies of fresh irrigation water would
become available. Furthermore, the strengthening of the WUAs, besides ensuring improved
payment of water tariffs, should improve management of water resources and soil fertility on
agricultural lands and promote consistent operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage
structure, thus avoiding the problems that occurred with the collapse of the former system.
5.1.2 Increased Farm Income, Alleviation of Poverty. Efforts to quantify the economic and
social benefits of improved agricultural productivity are necessarily conjectural. However, the
experience with the IDSMIP indicates that substantial economic and social benefits are likely.
These benefits will be a result of several factors including increases in yield (see above), return to
cash crops, and expected synergies with other agricultural development projects providing credit,
extension services, etc. From these direct agricultural gross benefits flow a number of important
indirect benefits to the farmers and rural communities in the project areas. Assuming
improvements in marketing agricultural products and agro-industries over time, increased
agricultural productivity should lead to increases in farm family incomes, improved employment
opportunities on and off-farm, and an overall reduction in rural poverty in the project areas.
23
Table 5.1 Principal Environmental and Social Impacts and Proposed Preventive Actions and Mitigation Measures:
A Summary Matrix
Anticipated Positive Social and Environmental Impacts
Social:
 Improved agricultural productivity as a result of
rehabilitated irrigation and drainage systems and improved
WUA management
 Increased farm income as a result of improved agricultural
productivity; alleviation of rural poverty in project areas
 Reduction in water-borne disease vectors from improved
drainage systems; improvements in health of beneficiaries
 Reduction in water user conflicts through improved water
distribution and WUA management
Water resources management:
 Reduction in water losses through improved operations
and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems
 Lowering of the groundwater level, decreased risks of soil
salinisation and waterlogging and improved water
availability for downstream users
 Improved water resources management by strengthened
WUAs and a more reliable water supply to provide the
basis for realistic user fees that reflect the actual value of
water
Agricultural soils:
 Reduction in soil salinisation and waterlogging as a result
of improved on-farm irrigation and drainage systems
Construction, operation and management:
 Improved irrigation and drainage system management,
operation and maintenance under strengthened WUAs
Increasing irrigation system efficiency is also an adaptation measure for the impacts of
climate change, as noted in section 3.1.4 above
Rehabilitation of drainage systems to lower the groundwater level, reduce waterlogging
and decrease soil salinization is also an adaptation measure for the impacts of climate
change, as noted in section 3.1.4 above
Improved water resources management is also an adaptation measure for the impacts of
climate change, as noted in section 3.1.4 above
Amelioration of soils is also an adaptation measure for the impacts of climate change, as
noted in section 3.1.4 above
Potential Negative Environmental and Social Impacts
Construction impacts:
 Disturbance from on-farm construction activities for
rehabilitation works: interference with access and
agricultural activity, cutting of trees along rehabilitated
canals, rubbish, noise, mud and dust; damage to
vegetation; disturbance of wildlife
Proposed Preventive Actions and Mitigation Measures







Improper disposal of sediment excavated from canals and
drains and of reinforced concrete/metal debris during
rehabilitation, operation and maintenance





Water resources management:
 Decrease in water quality from improper fuel management
for equipment used for excavation and transportation

Environmental covenants in bidding documents
Environmental management plan for construction contractors
Preparation and implementation of site-specific environmental management plans
and related staff training
At ecologically sensitive sites, scheduling works with consideration of periods
critical to wildlife; reporting of damage to environmental authorities; definition of
appropriate measures
Compensation for farmers suffering significant crop and/or land losses as required
by Azerbaijani legislation
Cutting of trees only with approval of MENR in conformity with environmental
legislation
Regular site inspections to ensure compliance
Pre-construction sediment sampling. Preparation and implementation of site plans;
reuse of sediments (where appropriate) by spreading on fields or disposal ensuring
hydrological containment (e.g. road infill)
Minimize dredging of canals to extent possible
Provision of sampling results and related use and disposal guidelines to WUAs for
future maintenance works
On sites where substantial volumes of concrete/metal waste are expected,
preparation and implementation of waste management plans
Proper fuel storage, containment and disposal at construction sites
2

Decrease in quantity and quality of water flows
downstream from WUA irrigation and drainage/outlet
systems



Maintenance of sufficient water quantity to meet minimum environmental flow
requirements for downstream river ecosystems and users (adaptation measure for
climate change)
Maintenance of water quality by WUAs (by means of measures to prevent or
minimize agro-chemical contamination) in drainage/outlet systems discharging to
rivers to protect downstream river ecosystems and users
Monitoring of water quality and quantity at WUA drainage/outlet systems by the
PIU, particularly discharges to rivers in the mountainous raions, with remedial
measures if necessary
Impacts from dam safety issues:
 Dam safety issues related to dams more than 15 m. in
height

Compliance with World Bank safeguard policy on Safety of Dams (OP 4.37)


Compliance with project guidelines for dealing with irrigation dams and water
storage reservoirs


Levelling land and field drainage to minimise erosion potential
Relining canals susceptible to erosion, rehabilitation of associated hydraulic
structures
Training WUAs to improve water management practices (adaptation measure for
climate change)
Inspection and removal of unauthorised connections to canals/drains
Rehabilitation of drainage systems together with irrigation canal rehabilitation
(adaptation measure for climate change)
Proper water distribution and management practices; careful irrigation
administration and regulation in the field (adaptation measure for climate change)
Checking field drainage and, if needed, clearing drains before irrigation season
Technical assistance and training to WUAs to improve water management practices
(adaptation measure for climate change)
Sub-surface water level and quality monitoring
Regular soil salinity measurement
Inspection and removal of unauthorised connections to canals
Training in good irrigation practices (e.g. prevention of over-watering); introduction
Dam safety issues related to dams less than 15 m. in height
Degradation of agricultural soils:
 Soil and channel erosion resulting from existing water
management practices


Waterlogging, salinisation and leaching of nutrients from
soils









3
of crop rotation cycles (adaptation measure for climate change)
Impacts on fauna, flora, biodiversity and habitat:
 Threats to fish in upstream rivers posed by intakes to
WUA irrigations systems
 Changes to hydrological regime or water quality of rivers
in mountainous raions

Reduction of on-farm habitats (e.g., in buffer strips and
small wetlands)
Public health and social impacts:
 Increase in irrigation water-related diseases (disease
vectors)
 Conflicts over irrigation water management practices (e.g.
allocations, distribution, fees, illegal diversions)










Installation of fish protection barriers/nets to prevent entrance of fish into WUA
irrigation system intakes
Monitoring of irrigation system impacts on rivers in mountainous raions
Provisions for mitigation measures (incl. natural vegetation filters in secondary
drains; uncultivated buffer strips along field drains) as needed
Identification of rare species and important habitats; design of site-specific
mitigation measures together with local environmental authorities
Rehabilitation of forested shelterbelts
WUA inspections to remove vector breeding areas on farms
Extension/training on vector control and proper drinking water practices
Technical assistance to establish participatory and transparent process for allocating
water to WUAs; equitable water allocation within WUAs
Training for development of WUA conflict resolution strategies
WUA control on unauthorised/unplanned connections to canals/drains
4
5.1.3 Reduction in Water-Borne Disease Vectors, Improvements in Health. Water-related
diseases (e.g. malaria) represent a real concern in rural communities in Azerbaijan, particularly in
areas where stagnant water stands for long periods and irrigation and drainage canals do not drain
adequately (see Section 4.4). These physical conditions, combined with the decline in preventive
health care programs in Azerbaijan, have left the rural population vulnerable to common disease
vectors (e.g. mosquitoes). By improving on-farm irrigation canal and drainage collector systems,
the WUAP should reduce the areas of standing water where disease vectors multiply.
Furthermore, improved operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems by the WUAs,
supported by awareness campaigns regarding the hazards of water-related disease vectors, should
encourage farmers and their families to take a more active role in improving health conditions in
the rural areas.
5.1.4 Reduction in Water User Conflicts. Although the results of the World Bank’s 2001 Rural
Infrastructure Survey suggest that water user conflicts are not a significant issue (only 15 percent
of respondents indicated that such conflicts represent a serious problem), the social assessment
performed for the IDSMIP did find conflicts over water distribution to be an issue in a number of
the WUAs studied. The WUAP’s improvements in irrigation system management through
strengthening of the WUAs and rehabilitation of critical irrigation infrastructure should remove
many of the bases for these conflicts (e.g., irregular delivery of water, questions regarding the
system of payments, etc.) and have beneficial effects on the social harmony of farmers in
competing with each other for irrigation water and in dealing with the local offices that provide
the irrigation water.
5.1.5 Reduction in Water Losses. Currently, a significant portion of the water channelled
through the existing distribution systems is lost because of infiltration, evaporation and
evapotranspiration. These water losses frequently result in the elevation of the local groundwater
table, soil salinisation and waterlogging. The irrigation system rehabilitation activities of the
WUAP should curb many of these water losses. Removal of vegetation in the on-farm irrigation
systems would reduce losses by evapotranspiration. Reduction of unauthorised off-takes (e.g., to
private fields, household plots, and for domestic supply and watering livestock) and breakage due
to damage and neglect would significantly raise canal flow and reduce seepage. Improved canal
management and configuration of cultivated plots, by improving application efficiency, would
reduce the amount of water lost by tail escapes and seepage losses. Additional water savings also
are expected following project installation of cross regulators, control gates and hydroposts, thus
improving management and monitoring of water on-farm, as well as with a rational program for
rotation and control of water supply to irrigated fields throughout the WUAs, based on scientific
and economic considerations.
5.1.6 Improved Water Resources Management. Azerbaijan’s semi-arid climate makes its
agriculture heavily dependent on irrigated cultivation, occupying about 85 percent of the total
cultivated area. The low flow sustainable yield of the Kura-Araz basin, which supplies close to 90
percent of the water resources of the country, is already fully committed. The WUAP’s support
for WUAs, combined with more reliable and spatially extended supply of irrigation water to
downstream farmers, is the first step towards revision of the current concept whereby water is
considered as virtually a cost-free commodity. The project’s installation of better irrigation water
measurement structures will also contribute to more rational water management. Further,
rehabilitation of the irrigation systems will allow for eliminating illegally established groundwater
and river water abstraction sites and thus enable better overall control on water use. As noted
above in 3.1.4, the impacts of climate change on water resources will require the increased use of
adaptation measures for improving water resources management, such as increasing irrigation
system efficiency and improving drainage conditions. With higher crop yields and effective
decentralised organisation to keep the lower tiers of the irrigation system in good repair, an
25/07/10 Draft
increase in the collection rate of user fees would generate, in principle, the basis for funding canal
maintenance on a recurrent basis.
5.1.7 Lowering of Groundwater Level, Reduction in Soil Salinity, Sodicity and
Waterlogging. Properly executed rehabilitation by the WUAP of the off- and on-farm drainage
system should have a positive impact on the large tracts of poorly drained cultivable lands. These
are located primarily close to the confluence of the Kura with the Araz Rivers, in the raions of
Sabirabad, Saatli, Imishli and Agjabedi. Presently, groundwater shallower than the critical 1.5 m
depth prevails in about 17 percent of the irrigable land in these raions. The depth of the water
table is critical for the incidence of secondary salinity, and with certain chemical composition and
grain properties of groundwater and soils, respectively, can result in soil sodicity that is toxic to
crops. Salinity is particularly prevalent where the groundwater itself is saline, and where
accumulated salts are not leached periodically. Annual leaching of the soils, mandatory in the
Soviet period, has practically ceased following independence. Reduction in soil salinity and
sodicity would improve the yields of salt-sensitive crops. Furthermore, waterlogging that
currently causes hardship in some low-lying rural residential areas would be alleviated.
5.1.8 Improved Irrigation and Drainage System Management. As has been noted, after
gaining its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Azerbaijan witnessed the collapse of the
large-scale agriculture and irrigation systems the Soviets had put in place. The transition from the
large collective farms to the small, privately held plots has not been an easy one, with the
operation and maintenance of the complex irrigation and drainage systems slowly deteriorating
during this period. The thrust of the WUAP, as with the IDSMIP before it, is to ensure that this
will not happen again through the empowerment of those most interested in maintaining adequate
irrigation and drainage systems, the water users themselves. The institutional development
component of the WUAP, designed to build secure, responsible, and self-sustaining WUAs, is the
key to ensuring improved and sustainable management of the rehabilitation works in irrigation
and drainage infrastructure financed by the project. With this improved management should come
the host of other environmental and social benefits already described above.
5.2 Potential Negative Environmental and Social Impacts
5.2.1 Impacts during the Construction Phase
5.2.1.1 Construction impacts. Most of the WUAP’s rehabilitation work will address the cleaning
and desilting of tertiary level (on-farm) canals and drains and rehabilitation of the associated
water regulation and measurement structures. The project will also rehabilitate a certain number
of secondary level (off-farm) canals and drains, which may include canal cleaning and relining,
installing water control equipment, and rehabilitating crossings. These works will involve the use
of heavy machinery (excavators, bulldozers) but on a relatively small scale and on lands already
under agricultural use. The most significant construction impacts relate to the management of
dredged sediments and construction debris (discussed separately below). Other potential impacts
include: (i) interference with access and movement; (ii) disturbance of agricultural activities
resulting from access restriction, soil compaction, trenching, etc.; (iii) the cutting of trees along
rehabilitated canals; (iv) rubbish, noise, mud and dust at sites and on access roads; (v) damage to
vegetation along the canals; and (v) disturbance of wildlife, in particular on sites close to
ecologically sensitive areas (see Section 4.3.2).
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. The EA recommends a
combination of preventive, mitigation and monitoring measures to minimise potential
construction-related impacts. First, all construction contracts should have standard environmental,
health and safety covenants, as required by Azerbaijani legislation and World Bank procedures, in
2
25/07/10 Draft
their bidding documents1, and prior to awarding the contract, the PIU should ensure that potential
contractors have adequate capacities to meet these requirements. Second, all contractors will need
to adhere to the environmental management guidelines for contractors (EMG) prepared for the
IDSMIP and continued with the WUAP, *as well as to any construction standards in force in
Azerbaijan, that describe in detail the measures to prevent and mitigate construction-related
environmental impacts. Third, preparation of a site-specific environmental management plan
(EMP), and provision of related staff training, should be a condition of the contract. The scope of
the plan and the training requirements should depend on the scale of the proposed activities.
Fourth, in ecologically sensitive sites, the use of heavy machinery should be scheduled with
consideration to critical periods for wildlife (bird and fish breeding) (see also Section 5.2.4.3).
Finally, as required by Azerbaijani legislation, the project should, prior to starting construction
works, reach an agreement on reasonable compensation for farmers who may suffer significant
crop losses (e.g. orchards) as a result of any land disruption by heavy machinery2.
The environmental specialist from the PIU should conduct site inspections prior to, during, and
upon completion of construction activities to ensure full compliance with the contract conditions,
the EMG, and site-specific EMP. Final payment to the contractor should be contingent on the
inspection results, in particular concerning the requirement of restoring the site to its original
condition upon the completion of construction activities. In sites adjacent to sensitive habitats, the
PIU site inspection should record observations of any destruction and/or changes to
wildlife/habitat, report these to MENR and determine, together with the MENR and the
contractor, appropriate measures to prevent further damage. The EMG *should be periodically
reviewed by the PIU in light of inspection results and adjusted, if necessary.
5.2.1.2 Management of Dredged Sediment and Concrete Debris. Adverse environmental
impacts may result from the disposal of sediments and other material that the project will dredge
from irrigation and drainage canals. The traditional way of managing dredged sediments in the
project area is dumping them along the canal banks. This, however, may result in the loss of
agricultural land and may lead to erosion and subsequent resilting of the canals. Furthermore, at
present there is insufficient information concerning the level of sediment contamination. Where
contamination levels are high, the excavated sediment may adversely affect the natural
environment and also accumulate in crops intended for human consumption.
Furthermore, on some project sites rehabilitation works may entail the removal of malfunctioning
water control structures and concrete relining of selected sections of irrigation canals prior to their
restoration or, in the case of headworks rehabilitation, demolishing existing structures prior to
reconstruction. These works would generate potentially significant amounts of concrete debris,
rebar steel and other metal scrap that, if indiscriminately dumped, would damage landscape and
result in pollution.
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. Prior to the commencement of
canal dredging, as part of site-specific investigations, the PIU should have samples of excavated
sediments analysed by a qualified laboratory. Contaminant levels should be assessed against the
threshold values used under the IDSMIP. (Although the analysis of sediments under the IDSMIP
did not reveal any significant contamination, this analysis will be continued under the WUAP as a
precautionary measure at the new project sites.) If no contamination of concern is detected and the
grain size of the dredged sediments would benefit the quality of the cultivated soils (e.g., add
1
2
Such covenants were included in the bidding documents of the IDSMIP.
According to the Azerbaijani legislation, uncultivated safety belts should be established along all canals for
cleaning works. However, in some sites, the safety belt land is distributed to farmers and the fields thus
border directly on the canals. Furthermore, land over piped irrigation canals is often under cultivation and
cleaning works could cause considerable damage to crops.
3
25/07/10 Draft
clay-size fraction to ameliorate properties of sandy soils), the dredged sediments should be used
for field levelling. In the alternative, the sediment should be used as fill material or levelled on
canal banks. However, where sampling results exceed the threshold values, a site plan should be
prepared by the contractor, with the assistance of the PIU, showing the estimated volume of
sediments to be excavated, expected extent and level of contamination, and corresponding
transportation, use and disposal plans. Contaminated dredged material should not be used to level
agricultural land, particularly land that is not already contaminated by similar pollutants. Instead,
it should be disposed of so as to ensure hydrological containment (e.g., used for construction of
embankments or infill of access roads, placed so as to prevent its erosion back into the canals).
Heavily contaminated sediments should be disposed of in authorised landfills or, in their absence,
in a pre-designated area authorised by the MENR. The PIU should inform the relevant WUAs of
the sampling results in their area so that the above requirements can be taken into consideration in
future maintenance works.
Under no circumstances should concrete or metal waste be dumped indiscriminately. On sites
where significant volumes of such waste are expected, a waste management plan should be
prepared by the contractor, with the assistance of the PIU, to identify: (i) type and quantities of
materials generated; (ii) opportunities for recycling and/or re-use (e.g. reinforcement of erosionprone canals; construction of access roads; crushing into aggregates for construction and/or road
embankments); and (iii) disposal routes, sites and licensing requirements. Spoil arising from the
works that are classified, as "acceptable fill" will, wherever practicable, be used in construction
works. Compliance by the contractor with the above requirements will be monitored by the PIU
environmental specialist through site inspections (once prior to, during and upon completion of
construction).
5.2.2 Impacts on Water Resources
5.2.2.1 Decreased Downstream Water Quality. The potential pollution of water resources
(surface or groundwater) downstream from the project areas (as distinct from pollution from
upstream sources) can derive from two main causes: (i) increased drainage from saline soils and
(ii) increased agro-chemical pollution caused indirectly by the project. Besides potential
environmental damage, this may result in public health problems since many rural households
take their domestic water from rivers and irrigation canals without proper treatment.
The rehabilitation of the irrigation and drainage systems in some of the highly saline lands of the
southern project zone will likely result in a modest increase in the salinity of waters in the
receiving drains. These drainage canals mainly discharge into large collectors flowing directly
into the Caspian Sea; however, significant impacts are not expected from this discharge, given the
already high salinity levels of the Caspian and the small incremental volumes of water concerned.
Water quality monitoring conducted under the IDSMIP, for example, indicated an average salinity
of drainage waters from project WUAs of about 4,300 mg/l and salinity of waters at the outlet to
the Caspian Sea of the Main Mill Mugan Collector of 5,800 mg/l; whereas the salinity levels of
the Caspian Sea along the shore of Azerbaijan ranges from 10,000-12,500 mg/l. Some collectors
discharge into wetlands in the project area and, through them, into the Kura River, potentially
affecting the water quality of these resources (See Section 5.2.4.1), but again the potential impacts
of these discharges are considered negligible.
The new mountain raions in the WUAP will include project sites that will draw water from and
discharge drainage water directly into the numerous river systems that cover the mountainous
areas. The impacts of these drainage discharges on the quantity and quality of the water in the
river systems are as yet unknown and warrant monitoring until the impacts are understood and
evaluated.
4
25/07/10 Draft
At present, there is little or no application of agro-chemicals (fertilisers and/or pesticides) other
than organic fertiliser in most of the project area1. This can be explained mainly by the farmers’
current low economic returns, which prevent them from investing in agricultural inputs, but also
by the absence of serious insect problems. However, projections of increased and more intensive
agricultural production, along with the return to cash crops (cotton, vegetables, etc.), will require
and facilitate the re-introduction of such chemicals in the future. The change will be gradual and
take place over the next decade or more. Certainly a return to the high use levels of the Soviet
period is not foreseen given the farmers’ financial constraints and the fact that the cost of these
chemicals is no longer subsidised by the State. Nevertheless, the awareness of most farmers of the
environmental and health risks associated with pesticides is inadequate. They lack both
application and protective equipment and knowledge on proper application methods. In areas
where farmers can currently afford pesticide use (e.g. orchards in the northern project zone),
reported levels are relatively high. Moreover, stocks of obsolete/banned pesticides are reported to
exist in the country and the GOA capacity to assist farmers in adopting sustainable pest
management practices remains weak. Agricultural extension services are improving, but there are
few good examples of integrated pest and production management (IPPM) 2 projects. Under these
conditions, the risk is that the re-introduction of pesticides could lead to over-application and
subsequently, through runoff, drainage or infiltration, pollution of surface or groundwater
resources.
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. As the potential impacts mainly
represent non-point source pollution, they are best managed by preventive, rather than mitigative
measures. The measures proposed below (see Section 5.2.3) for addressing soil-related impacts, in
particular agricultural extension on proper irrigation and other agricultural practices (e.g.,
prevention of over-watering to minimise return flows and systematic replacement of nutrients;
introduction of crop rotation cycles), will alleviate the impacts of saline drainage water and
fertiliser use on downstream water bodies. In addition, the EA recommends (i) that the PIU
conduct routine monitoring of the quantity and quality of drainage water at all new rehabilitation
sites in the WUAP and (ii) take remedial measures where project interventions result in
significant changes in water quantity or quality affecting downstream water bodies. Concerning
the risk of pollution from pumping station waste, the PIU should, when the participation of
specific WUAs is decided, inspect all diesel-powered pumps on the site (whether or not they are
proposed for rehabilitation) and provide guidance on proper fuel storage, spill containment and
disposal of empty containers and scraps. Subsequent site visits should ensure that pump operators
adhere to this guidance.
With respect to potential agro-chemical pollution, no immediate mitigation measures are required,
but the indirect, long-term impacts should be prevented by exposing the farmers to IPPM, proper
agro-chemical application and storage methods, as well as awareness raising on the risks
associated with the use of obsolete/banned chemicals. For this purpose, appropriate and affordable
access to agricultural extension and training should be provided to individual farmers in the
WUAP areas. The World Bank’s ADCP currently finances agricultural extension activities in
some areas of Azerbaijan and the EA recommends that ADCP extension and training programs be
implemented in WUAP raions until the project closes in May 2011 (see also Section 6.4.3).
Furthermore, the EA recommends that the project develop its own training program on pesticide
management and IPM under the WUA capacity building component.
See Diagnostic Survey Draft Mission Report – Agriculture and Irrigation, February 2003 and RIDIP PIU:
Social Impact Monitoring and Agricultural Assessment, Baseline Survey Report, February 2003.
2
For more details, see
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/IPM/gipmf/02_programmes/02a.htm
1
5
25/07/10 Draft
Concerning monitoring, PIU site visits should monitor pumping station management. In addition,
the ADCP (or other agricultural extension service provider) should monitor access to extension
services at WUAP sites, as well as results in terms of the adoption by farmers of IPPM and
appropriate irrigation and agricultural practices (including use levels of pesticides and chemical
fertilisers). Wherever necessary, the service provider should use such monitoring results to adapt
the extension approach. For ecologically sensitive sites, additional mitigation and monitoring
measures are proposed in Section 5.2.4.2.
5.2.2.2 Reduction in Downstream River flows. The EA examined whether the WUAP will
reduce downstream river flows from their present levels. With respect to the first point, the EA
concluded that no immediate impact on downstream river flows is foreseen since the WUAP is
not likely to affect water abstraction levels at the main water intakes. The project will focus on
rehabilitating on-farm irrigation systems and will not expand the capacity of primary canals. The
expected increase in water delivery to farms in participating WUAs is not expected to have a
significant impact on hydrological systems. The increase will be achieved primarily by improved
off-farm water management. * In the longer term, improved irrigation systems, improvements in
water measurement, and increases in water fees are expected to considerably enhance irrigation
efficiency, which could also increase the availability of water for downstream ecosystems.
However, given the inadequacy of present water delivery levels, a downward trend in irrigation
water withdrawals is unlikely, especially since it is likely that the WUAP would induce an
increase in irrigated area (by bringing currently fallow lands back into production) and/or a switch
to more water-intensive crops.
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. Proposed WUAP activities
include installing/upgrading abstraction level and river flow measuring equipment. Furthermore,
the project should promote more water-conserving irrigation techniques. Besides the dilapidated
infrastructure, the prevalence of furrow and border strip irrigation, weak farmer awareness of the
need for water conservation, and inadequate knowledge of water-conserving crops, techniques
and agricultural practices, all contribute to the present extremely low irrigation efficiency. The EA
recommends that these issues be addressed (as was done under the IDSMIP) both through the
WUA training and technical assistance programme to be implemented by the institutional
development component of the WUAP (see Section 4.1.1) and through the agricultural extension
services proposed in this EA (see Section 6.4.3).
5.2.3 Impacts on Agricultural Soils
5.2.3.1 Increased Soil and Channel Erosion. Irrigation water can cause significant erosion of the
topsoil if proper application methods are not used, and unlined canals or offtakes can scour soil
surfaces if poorly designed or constructed. As natural slopes within the project areas are low
except in the mountain raions, erosion is of significant concern only in instances where furrows
have a steeper slope than generally observed and when the rate of incoming irrigation water is
high enough to cause top soil suspension and/or erosion and its successive transport down furrow
with each irrigation event.
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. To minimise topsoil erosion
during irrigation, land and field drainage should be levelled to the extent possible to reduce
erosion potential, and the amount of inlet flow should be restricted to avoid furrow erosion. The
former may require laser-levelling or mechanical ploughing by experienced professionals, the
latter better overall control of water inflow. In principle, high-order canals that are susceptible to
erosion should be relined, although in practical terms relining will not be cost effective given the
currently irrigation service fees charged to the WUAs. Associated hydraulic structures (e.g.,
culverts) should be rehabilitated, and any unauthorised connections to the main drain should be
6
25/07/10 Draft
avoided, with illegal canals and drains filled in. Addressing the issue of unauthorised connections
effectively will require monthly inspection during the irrigation season of the irrigation and
drainage system within each of the project’s WUAs by its appointed representatives.
5.2.3.2 Soil Degradation Due to Waterlogging, Salinisation, and Leaching of Nutrients. Overwatering and poor subsurface drainage can lead to waterlogging and subsequent salinisation of
soils. Soil salinisation has been observed to be a problem for project areas, particularly in the
Kura-Araz lowlands, that suffer from elevated water table. The rehabilitation of drainage canals
should improve drainage in these areas and alleviate many of the waterlogging and soil
salinisation problems. However, the current prevalence of high water table conditions over much
of the lowland area means that there is a significant risk of salinisation if water application is not
carefully managed. Improved on-farm water management and application techniques fostered by
the project through its technical assistance and training with the WUAs should address this
concern. Finally, there is also a concern that irrigation return flows may leach out nutrients and
reduce soil fertility.
Recommended Preventive Actions and Mitigation Measures. Among preventive actions that
the EA recommends that project WUAs take are (i) levelling farm lands and improving field
drainage to maximise drainage potential, (ii) instituting proper water distribution and management
practices, (iii) regularly inspecting project farms to identify and remove any unauthorised or
unplanned connections to the secondary drains, and (iv) having farmers check annually to clear
field drainage prior to commencement of the irrigation season. Although the IDSMIP did not
undertake levelling any farm lands, the project did improve WUA water distribution and
management practices and the PIU regularly inspected project farms for unauthorized connections
to secondary drains. In the lowland areas it will be important to manage water tables at as high a
level as possible without causing secondary salinity. For example, where the water table is at a
shallow level (e.g., 1.5 m), the net water requirement for maximum agricultural production is
reduced by some 40 percent, which represents a very substantial saving of water resources. For
this reason, rehabilitating the collector drains where the effect might cause the water table to fall
below about 1.5 m should only be undertaken where there is an overriding need to do so, such as
the need for capital leaching (reclamation) of accumulated secondary salts or recovery of sodic
soil.
Aside from standard good irrigation practice (i.e., preventing over-watering and minimising return
flows) and systematic replacement of nutrients, potential leaching problems can be reduced by the
introduction of crop rotation cycles. The feasibility of promoting such measures should be
investigated by the PIU in the context of the technical assistance and training offered to WUAs
under the institutional development component of the project, with a view to introducing a
sustainable cycle in the longer term. In this respect, there should also be opportunities to draw
upon and co-ordinate with the ongoing World Bank ADCP.
5.2.4 Impacts on Biodiversity and Habitat
5.2.4.1 Reduction of Water Levels in Sensitive Wetlands. Some potential project sites may be
located close to the sensitive wetland habitats -- Ag-gel, Boz-Gobu, Sarisu, Mehman -- described
in Section 4.3.2. These wetland ecosystems (see Map 4) are currently suffering from tough and
unstable hydro-chemical conditions associated with low water levels. A change in the
hydrological regime of the surrounding area, if it reduces the amount of water flowing or draining
into these wetlands, could adversely affect their ecosystems through (i) loss of habitat through
decrease in the wetland area; and (ii) decrease in water levels and subsequent worsening of hydrochemical conditions. Besides ecological concerns, fisheries would be affected as well.
7
25/07/10 Draft
The WUAP’s rehabilitation activities, if implemented on farms draining into these wetlands, may
have positive impacts on wetland water levels by increasing water flow in collectors discharging
into them. However, it is also possible that project activities may adversely affect the water flows
concerned by (i) reducing water flow in the relevant collectors; (ii) lowering the water table level
through improved drainage; and (iii) improving water distribution so that excess irrigation water
no longer flows into Lake Sarisu. The small scale of the proposed activities considerably reduces
the likelihood of any negative impacts. Furthermore, the soils of the project zone are clayish, with
low hydraulic conductivity, and the radius of impact on groundwater levels thus likely to be small.
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. Although the risk of adverse
impacts is considered very small, the ecological importance of the wetlands concerned
necessitates careful attention to project activities and precautionary measures. The routine
monitoring of the wetlands conducted under the IDSMIP revealed no significant project impacts
on either the quantity or quality of water entering the wetland areas. Therefore, the EA does not
propose to continue this monitoring under the WUAP, except at new rehabilitation sites that drain
directly to wetland areas. Furthermore, the EA proposes a careful environmental review of project
interventions at sites located near the sensitive wetlands and recommends a periodic inspection of
all wetland areas by the PIU environmental specialist in order to determine whether any
unforeseen impacts on the wetlands are taking place.
8
5.2.4.2 Decreased Water Quality in Sensitive Wetlands. On the shallow wetland habitats Aggel, Boz-Gobu, Sarisu and Mehman, even a small increase in water pollution associated with
increased drainage from saline soils or any potential long-term increase in fertiliser and pesticide
use on project sites draining into these wetlands could have negative impacts on the ecosystem.
Eutrophication and accumulation of toxic pesticides could affect not only aquatic flora and fish
but also birds and humans feeding on them. * The water quality in the collectors discharging into
the wetlands is already poor (e.g. high natrium and magnesium content and chloride hazard), and
any additional adverse pressures should be avoided.
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. Although the risk of adverse
impacts is considered very small, as noted above, the ecological importance of the wetlands
concerned requires careful attention to project activities and precautionary measures. Such
measures could include the following: (i) natural vegetation filters in secondary drains and/or (ii)
uncultivated buffer strips along field drains. The natural vegetation filters would be established for
a short reach (maximum 50 m) just before the secondary drains flow into the collector. Along
their vegetated length, the drains would need to be widened to compensate for reduced
conveyance. The buffer strips (on the order of one meter) would be established along the edges of
the field drains to collect the surface and near-surface runoff and thus minimise the risk of agrochemical transport. Native wetland species should be allowed to grow on the strips, and if
planting is necessary, plants dredged from rehabilitated canals could be used. The disadvantage of
the filters and the strips is that they would remove a portion of each farmer’s plot from
production. However, given their small length/width and the fact that the land immediately
adjacent to the drains may not be usable anyway, this “cost” to farmers is not considered to be
prohibitive. These measures were field-tested in a World Bank Irrigation and Drainage
Community Development Project in Georgia. Although the IDSMIP in the end did not utilize
these measures, they should be considered in the design of WUAP rehabilitation works.
5.2.4.3 Reduction of on-farm habitat. The WUAP may affect some “on-farm habitats” that have
unintentionally blossomed due to the present agricultural crisis: (i) cleaning drainage canals will
eliminate mini-wetlands that have emerged in the blocked drains; and (ii) rehabilitation and
subsequent maintenance works may affect trees or other vegetation along the canals. While most
of these “mini-ecosystems” support relatively common species which are likely to find refuge
elsewhere, in some cases important habitats (habitats of rare or protected species) and/or natural
monuments may occur on WUAP sites. *
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. The EA recommends three types
of measures to address this issue. First, the cleaning of drainage canals should be considered on a
case-by-case basis, only where it is necessary to prevent waterlogging and soil salinisation (see
also Section 5.2.3.2). Second, when a rehabilitation proposal is presented by a WUA, a site
assessment should be carried out (as specified in the Project Implementation Manual) by a
national biodiversity expert, in consultation with local environmental authorities, to identify any
important habitats/sites and define appropriate site-specific preventive/mitigation measures. These
should be respected both by project contractors and the WUA concerned in subsequent
maintenance works. They could include, for example, appropriate scheduling of maintenance
works; fencing off the sensitive habitat for the duration of cleaning works, avoiding dumping
dredged sediments on these sites, or manual excavation instead of heavy machinery. Third, to
compensate for reduced on-farm habitat, the WUAP should, on a demand-driven basis, co-finance
rehabilitation of forest shelterbelts, as required by Azerbaijani legislation, along irrigation canals 1.
When rehabilitating shelterbelts, consideration should be given to planting tree species that
1
According to the construction norms in force, forest shelterbelts should cover 60 percent of irrigation canal
length. At present, shelterbelts along many canals are either degraded or non-existent.
25/07/10 Draft
produce food (e.g. nuts) or bring other economic benefits (e.g. mulberry trees). Follow-up
monitoring of implementation of any site-specific mitigation measures and any impacts on
important habitats would be undertaken by the national biodiversity expert through annual site
inspections.
5.2.4.4. Other important habitats. Other important habitats in the project raions are listed in
Section 4.3.2. The WUAP is not likely to have any impact on these areas for the following
reasons. The Korchay State Protected Area, Shah Dag National Park, Mount Ilandag, and Negram
mountains are all located on mountains and foothills above the proposed project sites and no
irrigation infrastructure rehabilitation will take place in these areas. The tuqay forests along the
Kura river, Samur delta forests, and Nabran-Yalama-Khachmaz Liana-oak forest will not be
impacted by the WUAP since (i) WUAP rehabilitation activities will only cover a small part of
the farmlands surrounding these forests; (ii) no irrigation infrastructure is located within the
forested areas; and (iii) the WUAP will not increase water withdrawal from the rivers feeding the
forest ecosystems.
5.2.5 Social and Public Health Impacts
5.2.5.1 Irrigation Water-Related Health Problems. Although the WUAP is expected to
provide benefits with respect to some health-related concerns, as noted above in Section 5.1.3, in
reducing the areas of stagnant water where disease vectors multiply, there will remain some
potential for increases in health risks related to irrigation water. These will be potential increases
in disease vectors because of more irrigation water extending to more irrigated lands, which may
result in areas of stagnant water where drainage is not adequate to handle improved water delivery
or where on-farm water retention schemes proliferate. Even with the infrastructure improvements
envisioned by the WUAP, there will potentially be increased opportunities for disease vectors
such as mosquitoes to multiply in any standing irrigation canal and drainage collector waters (as
well as in the small pools that farmers sometimes build) and to increase the incidence of malaria
in project areas. Careful water management to prevent water accumulation in low-lying areas and
to discourage on-farm water retention practices can minimise the risks, but some risks of
increased disease vectors will remain with any irrigation project. The MoH health statistics cited
in Section 4.4 confirm that the highest incidence of malaria cases in Azerbaijan is in the KuraAraz plain raions where the project will operate.
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. The EA recommends that the
WUAP undertake a combination of preventive actions, mitigation measures and monitoring
activities to address any potential irrigation water-related health problems. In terms of preventive
actions, first, the project should ensure that farmers in participating WUAs discontinue any onfarm irrigation/drainage or water retention practices that provide breeding areas for mosquitoes.
The technical assistance provided to WUAs under the institutional development component of the
WUAP should address such practices in its training for improved water management. The WUAs
themselves should ensure that such practices are discontinued on project farms. Second, the
project should ensure that appropriate extension services and/or training programs are provided to
WUA members and their families on proper vector control techniques (particularly for
mosquitoes). The MoH, for example, has pioneered some innovative vector control techniques in
the country, such as stocking fish in standing waters to reduce mosquito breeding and planting
eucalyptus trees in low-lying areas to absorb excess water. The EA recommends that these issues
be addressed as part of the extension services offered through the World Bank’s ADCP under its
information and advisory services component. Additional training modules dealing with
environmental health issues may have to be developed for this purpose.
2
25/07/10 Draft
Finally, the project should periodically monitor the health statistics for water-related diseases
(particularly malaria) collected by the MoH (and recorded by the State Statistical Committee) in
order to determine trends in the incidence of water-related diseases in project areas. Where the
statistics indicate a growing public health concern, the PIU should work with the MoH in
addressing the problems: (i) raising awareness with the farmers in the participating WUAs on the
nature of the health problems and the appropriate measures to take and (ii) assisting the MoH in
its direct interventions in project areas.
5.2.5.2 Water User Conflicts
The EA did not find any direct evidence of serious conflicts over irrigation water management
practices (e.g. with regard to allocations, distribution, fees, illegal diversions) and fully expects
the WUAP to have beneficial impacts, both as a result of WUA institutional development and the
infrastructure rehabilitation, on the consistency, transparency and equity of water delivery to
project farms (see Section 5.1.4). However, the social assessment performed during preparation of
the IDSMIP did find conflicts over water distribution to be an issue in four out of the six WUAs
studied. Conflicts may occur among WUA members (e.g., over water distribution between
farmers at the beginning of the canal and those at the end of the canal), between WUA members
and WUA officials (e.g., over payments for water that is not delivered, amount and use of the
irrigation service fee), between WUAs themselves (e.g., over amounts of water supplied), and
between WUAs and the local AIOJSC office (e.g., over amounts of water supplied). Given the
nature of the distribution of this valuable resource in the economic and political context of rural
Azerbaijan, it should be no surprise that such conflicts arise. The WUAP, therefore, must
recognise and address the potential for inherent conflicts between WUAs and among WUA
members over actual or perceived inequities in water distribution in the project areas.
Recommended Preventive Actions or Mitigation Measures. The EA recommends a number of
institutional preventive measures to address this concern. First, the project should work with the
AIOJSC, both at the national and at the raion level, to ensure that a participatory, transparent,
equitable and corruption-free system of water allocation/distribution is established and practised
with respect to the participating WUAs in the raions where the project operates. Technical
assistance to support this approach through AIOJSC WUA Support Units at the national and raion
level has been proposed by the project preparation team as part of the institutional development
component of the project. For example, the amount allocated to each WUA should be determined
by the local AIOJSC office in consultation with the WUA, based on the WUA’s location, crop
size/types and area to be irrigated. The planned allocations should be made available to all the
WUAs before the start of each irrigation season, and the WUAs should have the right to review
and challenge the allocation. If challenged, the local AIOJSC should reassess its decision, make a
final decision and publicise its justification to all stakeholders.
At the WUA level, the EA recommends training and capacity building in equitable water
management practices and conflict resolution. Again, the WUA institutional development
component of the project will provide training to address conflict resolution, as well as the
broader WUA issues of governance/administration, irrigation system operation and maintenance,
etc. The PIU should encourage all participating WUAs to undergo the training and capacity
building on conflict resolution offered by the project. The PIU should make every effort to ensure
that participating WUAs manage the water allocation to their members in a transparent and
equitable manner. Where there appears to be the potential for conflict among members, the PIU
should work with the WUA to develop a clear conflict resolution strategy. Further, the PIU should
encourage the WUAs to be proactive about the policing the sorts of activities that may cause
conflicts, such as illegal and/or unplanned diversions or connections to primary and secondary
drains.
3
25/07/10 Draft
6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
6.1
Objective of the EMMP
The objective of this Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) is to describe the
environmental screening and review process, capacity-building and monitoring activities that will
be undertaken, as well as the institutional arrangements that will be set up, during implementation
of the WUAP to ensure that the environmental and social management principles and practices
identified by the EA are incorporated into project activities and that any potential adverse
environmental impacts are either eliminated or minimised. The EMMP also establishes an
implementation schedule for undertaking these activities and indicates their costs included in the
project budget.
6.2
Environmental Screening and Review of Sub-Projects
As with the IDSMIP before it, the demand-driven nature of the WUAP means that the exact
number and location of the specific infrastructure rehabilitation sub-projects to be financed by the
project have yet to be determined. Therefore, the EA, is of necessity limited to identifying generic
impacts for infrastructure rehabilitation in the project areas identified and specifying generic
preventive actions and mitigation measures for these impacts. In order to ensure that the
appropriate preventive actions and mitigation measures are applied to specific sub-project
rehabilitation sites on a case-by-case basis, therefore, the EMMP establishes the following
environmental screening and review procedures, which are incorporated into the Project
Implementation Manual.
A. Objective of the Environmental Screening and Review Procedures. The
objective of the environmental screening and review procedures is to review the individual
infrastructure rehabilitation sub-projects proposed for financing for the purpose of identifying and
addressing (preventing or minimising) the site-specific potential adverse environmental and social
impacts. Where potential impacts identified through this process are minor, they should be
addressed using the appropriate generic preventive actions and mitigation measures identified in
the EA; more significant impacts may require additional review by the MENR (as explained
below) and implementation of specifically identified preventive actions and mitigation measures.
B. Applicability of Environmental Screening and Review Procedures. All of the
infrastructure rehabilitation sub-projects to be financed by the WUAP will be subject to these
environmental screening and review procedures. The sub-projects will be rehabilitation of existing
on-farm irrigation distribution and drainage systems (and some limited investments in critical,
associated off-farm systems) within the areas under the management of participating WUAs (i.e.,
canal and drain cleaning, canal lining, and rehabilitation and construction of hydraulic and water
measuring structures, etc).
Only sub-projects proposed by WUAs participating in the institutional development component of
the project will be considered, and the eligibility of such sub-projects will be based on established
technical, financial, institutional and environmental criteria. The environmental criterion the EA
recommends using for determining the eligibility of sub-projects is as follows:
No infrastructure construction/rehabilitation sub-project will be financed by the
WUAP if it involves any of the following activities:
(i) construction of significant new irrigation distribution or drainage systems or *
4
25/07/10 Draft
(iii) conversion of wetlands or other natural habitats for agricultural purposes
through drainage or other means.
C. Checklist for Environmental Screening. The PIU will ensure that some form of
environmental screening is incorporated into the regular project preparation cycle for sub-projects
under the WUAP. At the sub-project identification stage, the environmental specialist will discuss
with the relevant WUA the issues raised in the environmental screening checklist. The checklist is
designed to help identify potential environmental impacts, suggest the appropriate preventive
actions and mitigation measures specified in the EA, and trigger (where necessary) further
environmental review under the MENR EIA procedures.
D. PIU Review and Approval. The PIU will ensure that all WUAs eligible for subprojects have participated in environmental screening with the environmental specialist. The
environmental specialist will perform a follow-up environmental site inspection before approving
execution of a sub-project under the WUAP.
The PIU will also ensure that any preventive actions or mitigation measures with respect to the
location, design, construction or operation of a sub-project identified during environmental
screening serve as the basis for a site-specific environmental management plan (EMP) prepared
by the contractor selected to perform the rehabilitation work. The contractor will prepare the EMP
following the guidelines contained in the EA. The EMP will explain how the potential
environmental impacts identified will be addressed by specific preventive actions and/or
mitigation measures The PIU, with technical assistance from the design and construction
supervision consultant, will oversee contractor execution of the EMP.
E. MENR Review and Approval. Under the MENR EIA Handbook all development
projects with potential environmental impacts are required to comply with the environmental
review requirements. The extent to which these requirements are applied, however, depends on
the severity of the potential environmental impacts, a decision that is made by MENR authorities
in consultation with appropriate experts.
The individual WUAP sub-projects (i.e., rehabilitation of existing on-farm irrigation distribution
and drainage systems) are small in scale and limited in impact. Therefore, they should not require
formal MENR review. The generic preventive actions or mitigation measures identified in the EA
should be used to address potential environmental impacts in these cases.
Under the EIA Handbook, MENR has three months in which to review and evaluate the subproject EIA document and provide its decision to the proposer with appropriate conditions to
ensure protection of the environment. MENR could either approve the sub-project on the
condition that its mitigation measures are followed or disapprove the sub-project because of the
nature of the environmental impacts.
F. Field Supervision. The PIU technical staff will monitor execution of all WUAP
sub-projects to ensure that environmental considerations are incorporated, i.e., that appropriate
recommended preventive actions or mitigation measures specified in the EMP are employed or
that MENR-required mitigation actions are taken.
G. Sub-Project Completion and Monitoring. Once a sub-project has been
completed, PIU technical staff will certify that the appropriate preventive actions or mitigation
measures have been executed and that any MENR-required conditions have been met. The PIU’s
monitoring and evaluation unit also will monitor compliance with environmental requirements
5
25/07/10 Draft
and the environmental impacts of the sub-project, and include the results in regular project
reports.
H. Revision of Procedures. These procedures will be periodically reviewed and, as
needed, revised on the basis of supervision experience and monitoring results.
6.3
Environmental Monitoring Program
As part of its overall responsibility for execution of the WUAP, the PIU will perform the regular
monitoring and evaluation of project activities and periodic reporting required by the World Bank.
The PIU will also be responsible for the environmental and social monitoring activities identified
in the EA as part of the preventive actions and mitigation measures proposed to address any
potential adverse impacts. Further, the PIU will perform the additional monitoring activities
identified in Table 1 below. In order to perform these environmental monitoring and evaluation
functions for the project, the PIU will maintain its environmental specialist and contract additional
technical support as needed.
A. Monitoring Environmental Screening and Implementation of Preventive
Actions and Mitigation Measures. The PIU will routinely monitor implementation of the
project’s infrastructure rehabilitation sub-projects (i.e., tracking preparation, approval, and
execution). It will also be responsible for monitoring compliance with environmental screening
and review requirements and implementation of any preventive actions or mitigation measures
required, either by the PIU or the MENR, as a result of environmental screening. This monitoring
will entail periodically making site visits to verify that the preventive actions and/or mitigation
measures identified in the site-specific EMP have been implemented.
Furthermore, the PIU will periodically monitor a set of specified indicators of environmental and
social/health impacts of the WUAP (see below). These indicators will include water quality,
incidence of water-related diseases in the project communities, and measures of biodiversity.
Additional indicators may be developed and incorporated into the monitoring program over the
life of the project.
This environmental and social monitoring will be incorporated into the overall WUAP project
monitoring plan required by the World Bank as part of project performance. The results of such
monitoring will be recorded and maintained by the PIU throughout the life of the project. The PIU
will report the results of its environmental monitoring program in the bi-annual progress-reports it
submits to the Bank; Bank supervision missions will review the results of the monitoring program
on a regular basis.
B. Monitoring Environmental and Social Indicators. In addition to the project
process monitoring and evaluation described above, the PIU will monitor the environmental and
social indicators identified in the analysis of preventive actions and mitigation measures. The
purpose in monitoring these indicators is to determine, to the extent possible, the direct and
indirect environmental and social impacts of project activities and, where necessary, make
appropriate corrections to project activities in order to prevent or lessen adverse impacts. The
proposed environmental and social indicators, as well as the responsibility and schedule for
monitoring them, are shown in Table 1. A more detailed discussion of each of these indicators is
found in the EA.
6
25/07/10 Draft
Table 1 - Environmental and Social Monitoring Program
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL
INDICATORS
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULE
PIU, with technical assistance
from design and construction
engineers
Once prior to, during and
upon completion of
construction
PIU, with technical assistance
from design and construction
engineers
During and upon
completions of
construction
PIU, with technical assistance
from design and construction
engineers
Once before construction;
follow up where needed
WUA (PIU)
Monthly during irrigation
season
Monthly during irrigation
season
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND
MANAGEMENT:
Compliance with EMMP and environmental
management guidelines for contractors
- Site inspections
Contractor execution of site-specific EMP
- Site inspections
Management of sediment
- Data on extent of sediment contamination
AGRICULTURAL SOILS:
Soil and channel erosion
- State of all field canals/drains/linings/hydraulic
structures
- Number of ‘illegal’ connections to canals
WUA (PIU)
Waterlogging and salinisation of soils
- Data on subsurface water level and quality
- Soil salinity levels
PIU (WUA)
PIU (WUA)
Twice each irrigation
season
PIU
Semi-annually (1)
Monthly (2)
PIU
Semi-annually (1)
Weekly (2)
Annually
WATER MANAGEMENT
Surface water quality
- Water quality (1) and quantity (2) of drainage
discharged into rivers
BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT:
Ecological monitoring programme
- Water quality (1) and quantity (2) discharging into
rivers in mountainous raions
- Migratory fish populations in project-affected rivers
PIU
Important habitats identified on project farms
- indicators for the implementation of site-specific
preventive/mitigation measures (to be defined
together with the measures)
PIU
(local environmental
authorities)
Site assessment at all
participating WUAs;
follow-up inspection
annually
PIU (MoH)
Annually
SOCIAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH:
- Health statistics on incidence of water-related
diseases in project areas from State Statistical
Committee or MoH district offices
7
25/07/10 Draft
C. Monitoring Implementation of the EMMP. In addition to the monitoring of
environmental screening and implementation of mitigation measures described above, the PIU
will monitor its own implementation of the EMMP and report the results periodically to the Bank.
The objective of this monitoring is to ensure that overall implementation of the various
components of the EMMP (i.e., sub-project screening and review, implementation of preventive
actions and mitigation measures, capacity building and training, and environmental monitoring) is
following the proposed schedule, and that the PIU is tracking the environmental impacts of the
project. Tracking the impacts would facilitate making any mid-course corrections necessary to
ensure sound environmental management in the project areas. Table 2 displays the proposed
performance indicators the PIU will use for this monitoring.
Table 2 - Monitoring Implementation of the EMMP
EMMP Activities
Performance Indicators
Environmental Screening and Review of Sub-Projects
-- Percentage of sub-projects with completed
checklists
-- Percentage of sub-projects complying with
preventive actions /mitigation measures
-- Days of PIU assistance provided to WUAs in
checklist completion
-- Percentage of sub-projects submitted to MENR
-- Percentage of projects rejected
Capacity Building and Extension/Training
Program
-- PIU environmental capacity
-- Number of months of service of environmental
specialist/environmental consultants
-- Number of days spent on site
-- Number of extension/training sessions/beneficiaries
trained
-- Environmental extension/training
Environmental and Social Monitoring Program
-- Environmental and social indicators monitoring
6.4
-- Number of indicators established and monitored
Environmental Capacity Building and Training Programme
In order to ensure proper implementation of the environmental screening and review procedures
and resulting preventive actions and mitigation measures, the WUAP will carry out
environmental capacity building and extension/training activities.
A. Capacity Building in the PIU and WUAs. Under the IDSMIP, the PIU
employed an environmental specialist to oversee implementation of the EMMP.
The environmental specialist maintained careful records of the environmental
activities that took place at each project site (e.g. specific preventive actions
and/or mitigation measures recommended; site inspections performed before,
during, and after construction, etc.) and reported on the results of the ecological
monitoring performed at project rehabilitation sites and at the sensitive lakes and
wetlands in the project area (e.g. water quality, plant and wildlife surveys, etc.).
These site records and monitoring reports, which were examined during the
preparation mission in May 2010, demonstrate the PIU’s capacity to perform
these functions. The WUAP will continue to employ the environmental specialist
for the project as was done under the IDSMIP. The environmental specialist will
work full-time, report directly to the project manager, and oversee the various
environmental aspects of the project. The project also will provide appropriate
technical training, including a study tour, to the environmental specialist in the
particular skills needed to perform his project environmental oversight functions
8
25/07/10 Draft
effectively. In addition, specialised technical support will be provided to the
environmental specialist, through national environmental consultants, to ensure
that sound environmental management practices are mainstreamed in the
infrastructure rehabilitation component of the project. These consultants will be
used to enhance the environmental capabilities of the PIU in specific technical
areas. *Necessary monitoring equipment will also be provided in order to support
implementation of the environmental screening and monitoring activities under
the project.
In addition, in order to build environmental sensitivity and capacity among the project
beneficiaries, the WUAP will ensure that the WUAs participating in the institutional development
component of the project each designate an environmental counterpart for the environmental
specialist in the PIU. The purpose of the WUA counterpart is to provide a point of contact for the
PIU environmental specialist during the project, to raise awareness within the WUA with respect
to environmental and resource management issues, and to ensure that environmental
considerations (preventive actions, mitigation measures, monitoring indicators) are observed in
execution of any infrastructure rehabilitation works within the areas managed by the WUAs.
Under the direction of the PIU environmental specialist, the WUAP will provide environmental
training and other capacity building to the WUA counterparts and through them reach the other
WUA members and the rural population in general. The WUAP will also make available
technical assistance, in the form of national consultants (as mentioned above) as needed, to ensure
that the WUA counterparts manage their project-related environmental functions properly.
B. Environmental Training for the PIU and WUAs. As noted above, under the
supervision of the PIU environmental specialist, the WUAP will provide national experts to
deliver a range of technical training on environmental issues to PIU management and staff. The
objective of this training is to build the capacity in the PIU to ensure effective implementation of
the requirements of this EA/EMMP in particular, as well enhance environmental assessment and
natural resources management capabilities in Azerbaijan in general.
The training will cover environmental awareness; national policy and legal/regulatory
requirements; environmental assessment guidelines and techniques; socio-economic impact
surveying and analyses; species monitoring and evaluation; management of sensitive habitats;
integrated water resources management; arid and semi-arid ecosystem planning and management;
and other participatory training on specific environmental issues identified during the project. The
training will be delivered by the national consultants identified above, as well as by other
providers, including qualified private sector firms and NGOs. This program also will include
training trainers to provide extension services to the WUAs and their rural communities and
providing refresher courses from time to time in all of the topics identified.
The WUAP also will provide basic (less technical) training to the designated environmental
counterpart and interested members of the WUAs and the project communities. The objective of
this training is to raise the level of general environmental awareness in the WUAs and rural
communities and to begin to build interest and capacity in integrated environmental management
and protection of community resources. Ultimately, the training will build support for the
environmental screening and monitoring programs, which originate at the WUA and community
level. A summary of the environmental training program provided by the WUAP is shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 - Environmental Training Programme
Intended
Audience
PIU:
Training Content
Environmental awareness
Format
Half-day seminar
9
Input
0.5 day
Preparation
Time
2.0 days
Frequency
Twice
Funding
Source
WUAP
25/07/10 Draft
Management and
Technical Staff
(policy, regulations)
Environmental
Specialist
Environmental screening, impact
analysis
One-day workshop
1.0 day
3.0 days
“
WUAP
Overview of specific preventive
actions/ mitigation measures
(water management, habitat
protection, sub-projects)
One-day workshop
1.0 day
2.0 days
“
WUAP
Environmental monitoring
practices
Environmental awareness
Half-day workshop
0.5 day
2.0 days
“
WUAP
Half-day seminar
0.5 day
2.0 days
On demand
WUAP
Environmental screening, impact
analysis
One-day workshop
1.0 day
3.0 days
On demand
WUAP
Good practices, preventive actions
and mitigation measures
One-day workshop
1.0 day
2.0 days
On demand
WUAP
WUA
Environmental
Counterparts,
Interested WUA
and Community
Members
during
project
C. Agricultural Extension Services for Farmers. The analysis of the baseline
situation and potential WUAP impacts in the EA identified needs for agricultural extension and
training on several topics. This strengthening of farmer capacities is essential to sustainably
improve agricultural productivity and prevent many of the potential adverse impacts of more
intensive agricultural production. Furthermore, it is important that basic training to farmers is
provided as and when the irrigation systems on their lands are rehabilitated. Access to affordable
agricultural extension services should also be ensured throughout and beyond project
implementation.
Proposed WUAP WUA training activities under the institutional development component will
include training on irrigation management issues and thus cover some of the identified needs. The
topics on which additional agricultural extension/training is required include the following: (i)
Integrated Pest and Production Management1 (IPPM); (ii) proper agro-chemical management
practices, including appropriate methods of application, storage and waste disposal; (iii) watersaving irrigation techniques (e.g., sprinkler- and drip irrigation); (iv) good agricultural practices
(e.g. little or no tillage, crop rotation, ground cover); (v) erosion prevention (e.g., proper tilling,
irrigation furrows); (vi) soil management techniques and maintenance of soil fertility (e.g., salt
leaching, crop rotation, organic manure); (vii) vector control techniques; and (viii) safe drinking
water practices.
Agricultural extension and training services in Azerbaijan are gradually developing. Some
research activities and related dissemination of results are undertaken by the nine Regional AgroScience Centres (RASCs) of the Ministry of Agriculture, but their extension capacities remain
very limited. No other larger-scale extension service providers are currently operating in the areas
to be affected by the WUAP.
The World Bank’s ADCP supports the provision of extension services in Azerbaijan. The
information and advisory services component of this project includes a sub-component of
extension services and also finances information campaigns on agricultural issues. The ADCP
supports the following activities: (i) training courses for farmers on such topics as water losses,
effective water use, and prevention of soil salinisation; (ii) technical advice and technology
demonstration to farmers through extension groups, individual advisory services and
demonstrations; (iii) nation-wide information campaigns on “Pesticides Application and
1
For more details on IPPM, see
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/IPM/gipmf/02_programmes/02a.htm
10
25/07/10 Draft
Ecological Balance” and “Legal and Economic Basis of Water Use and Effective Water
Management”, as well as on pest control for potatoes and grain crops; and (iv) dissemination of
agriculture-related information, including on irrigation issues, through printed publications and
radio/TV broadcasting.
Co-operation between the IDSMIP and the ADCP provided a cost-effective solution for ensuring
access to high quality extension services required under the proposed project. Therefore, the
WUAP will seek to ensure that collaboration with the ADCP continues at least until the ADCP
closes in May 2011 and that the information and advisory services component is extended to the
raions to be covered by WUAP.
6.5
Implementation Arrangements
Responsibility for implementation of this EMMP will be with the PIU in Baku, AIOJSC, and with
the advisory and monitoring support of MENR. The PIU will have overall responsibility for
implementation of the WUAP and will ensure that the EMMP is fully integrated into
implementation of the project, including monitoring and reporting as required by the World Bank.
The PIU will ensure that all rehabilitation sub-projects undergo environmental screening (and
MENR review where necessary) and monitor their implementation of required preventive actions
and mitigation measures. The PIU will also work closely with AIOJSC and MENR in carrying out
their environmental monitoring and training programs. AIOJSC and MENR will oversee
implementation of the EMMP by the PIU, with the former supporting the PIU in their work with
local AIOJSC offices and WUAs and the latter supporting the PIU in their review of potential
impacts of the rehabilitation subprojects and in environmental quality monitoring. Finally, the
WUAs, through their environmental counterparts, will ensure that environmental considerations
are incorporated into their activities, not only in the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure but in
improved water and soil resources management among their members.
6.6
Implementation Schedule
Implementation of this EMMP will begin with review and refinement of the environmental
monitoring and capacity building and training/extension programmes identified by the EA in the
first quarter after project effectiveness. The PIUs then will undertake implementation of the
capacity building and monitoring programmes and begin the screening and review process for
rehabilitation sub-projects (expected to start in the second year of the project), continuing these
activities throughout the life of the project. Training activities will take place throughout the life
of the project, on the basis of identified needs, with scheduled training for PIU staff occurring
early in project implementation, followed by training programmes with the WUAs and in the local
communities. Such training would be revisited, updated, and delivered a second time during the
project to the PIU personnel and on an as needed basis to the WUAs over the life of the project.
The monitoring program for environmental screening will run continuously for the life of the
project, while periodic monitoring will be used to evaluate the impacts of mitigation measures and
track baseline environmental conditions in the project area. The schedule for implementing the
various components of the EMMP is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 - EMMP Implementation Schedule
Major EMMP Activities
1stQ
Y1
2nQ
Y1
3 rQ
Y1
4 tQ
Y1
Environmental Screening
and Review of Sub-projects
-- PIU review (MENR as needed)
11
1stQ
Y2
2nQ
Y2
3 rQ
Y2
4 tQ
Y2
1stQ
Y3
2nQ
Y3
3 rQ
Y3
4 tQ
Y3
25/07/10 Draft
Capacity Building and
Training Programme
-- PIU environmental specialist
-- Training: PIU
-- Training: RSUs/WUAs
Environmental Monitoring
Program
-- Environmental/social
indicators
6.7
Proposed Budget and Funding Sources for EMMP Implementation
The estimated costs of implementing the various components of this EMMP are displayed in
Table 5. The costs are broken down in terms of personnel expenses (i.e., the full-time
environmental specialist and part-time national consultants), monitoring programme costs (i.e.,
ecological and social monitoring in the WUAP), training costs (i.e., preparation and delivery,
training materials, and incidental meeting arrangement costs), and equipment (i.e., additional
analytical equipment for environmental monitoring).
The WUAP will finance most of these items, but the project should make every effort to ensure
that the Government shares some of the expenses that support Government functions (e.g.,
monitoring by the MoH) and that related World Bank projects finance some of the activities
where appropriate. These costs will be included in the total costs of the WUAP and will be
financed with funds from the World Bank credit. No additional costs are envisaged as a result of
the EMMP.
Table 6 - Budget for EMMP Implementation
EMMP Component
Quantity
Unit Rate
US$
Cost
US$
72 m*
1,400/m
100,800
6m
1,000/m
6,000
lump sum
service
contracts
n/a
358.800
n/a
n/a
12,000
2,000
2,000
tbd**
tbd
tbd
tbd
35.000
35,000
Personnel:
PIU Environmental Specialist
Consultants for PIU (national, part-time) (1 m/year)
Monitoring Programme:
Ecological monitoring (sample collection, laboratory
analysis, reporting)
- sediments
- soils
- groundwater
- surface water
Training Programme:
- preparation and delivery (workshops, etc.)
- materials and supplies
- meeting arrangements
Equipment:
- office (satellite imagery, digital mapping, etc)
- WUA monitoring (EC/pH meters, hydrometric
12
25/07/10 Draft
gauges)
Small-scale environmental investments (e.g., fish
protection nets, planting/rehabilitation of shelter
belts)
TOTAL
tbd
tbd
20,000
571,600
* person months of labour
** to be determined
13
25/07/10 Draft
Sources for Biodiversity Text (Section 3):
Caspian Sea Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, final draft, July 2002. Prepared by Fauna
and Flora International for the Caspian Environment Programme at website
http://www.caspianenvironment.org/bsap.htm
Conservation International website at http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/
Krever, V.; Zazanashvili. N.; Jungius, H: Williams, L; Petelin, D. (eds.): Biodiversity of the
Caucasus Ecoregion. An Analysis of Biodiversity and Current Threats and Initial Investment
Portfolio. WWF. 2001.
Wildworld Terrestrial Ecoregions website at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/
Sources for Biodiversity Text (Section 4):
Birdlife International website at http://www.birdlife.org/
Caspian Environment Programme: Azerbaijan National Shore Profile at CRTC for Integrated
Transboundary Coastal Area Management and Planning Department of Environment, Marine
Environment Research Bureau website http://www.caspianenvironment.org/itcamp/azeri.htm
CES Consulting Engineers Salzgitter GmbH: Environmental assessment and monitoring in the
project areas of the Samur-Aspheron Canal and Main Mill Mugan Collector Drain. Final Report,
March 2000.(referred to as RIDIP EIA-2 above)
CES Consulting Engineers Salzgitter GmbH: Environmental Impact Assessment on RIIDIA II,
November 1999 (referred to as RIDIP EIA above)
Chemonics International Inc.: Biodiversity Assessment for Azerbaijan. Task Order under the
Biodiversity & Sustainable Forestry IQC (BIOFOR), February 2000 at website
http://www.biofor.com/documents/Azerbaijan-Biodiversity-Report.pdf
Ecological Baseline Report, Baseline Appendix to the Environmental and Social Assessment
(Azerbaijan) of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline project at
http://www.caspiandevelopmentandexport.com/BTC/eng/esia1.asp
National Strategy for the Preservation of Biodiversity at http://www.grida.no/
Republic of Azerbaijan: Brief report prepared by Azerbaijan to the 8th Conference of the
Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (18-26.11.2002) at website
http://www.ramsar.org/cop8_nrs_azerbaijan_briefreport2.pdf
UNEP-WCMC Nationally Designated Protected Areas at
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/
ANNEX A
14
25/07/10 Draft
Public Consultations
Agenda of the Public Meeting held at the
State Amelioration and Water Farm Open Joint-Stock Company
Baku City, 20th of August 2010
Mr. А.Мустафайев, PIU deputy
director
Briefing about the project
Mr. М.Gулийев, AWFOJSC, head of
department for water resources and
work with the water users associations
Review of the environmental assessment
Mr. Т.Османов, AWFOJSC, chief of
sector of the department for Science,
Design, Construction and Foreign
Relations
Results and recommendations of the Mr. Е.Щuсейнов, PIU environmental
environmental assessment
specialist
Environmental
management
and Mr. Е.Щuсейнов, PIU environmental
monitoring plan
specialist
Discussion
of
the
environmental
management and monitoring plan
Introduction speech
11.00-11.05
11.05-11.20
11.20-12.00
12.00-12.30
12.30-13.00
13.00
MINUTES
Participants: Announcement on the meeting was placed on the web-page of Amelioration and
Water Farm AIOJSC. The invitations to the meeting were faxed to the government organizations
such as Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Ecology and Natural Resources, and were emailed a
number of non-government organizations. Same time, all related government, non-government
organizations, social units and individuals were invited too.
PIU deputy director, Mr. A. Mustafayev made an opening speech and welcomed the participants,
and briefed on the agenda and the speakers. The project national coordinator, Mr. М. Guliyev
gave all-round report on the project details, objectives and the matters concerning.
Manager of Science, Design, and Construction and Foreign Relations sector of AWFOJSC, Mr. Т.
Оsmanov briefed the meeting participants on the WB requirements on environmental assessment
summary and environmental assessment. PIU environmental specialist, Mr.Е.Huseynov expressed
thanks on behalf of PIU to the international expert, Mr. D. Colbert who had greatly contributed to
the Environmental Assessment Report, and made a presentation on the findings and
recommendations of the environmental assessment. Same time, he presented on biodiversities of
the country, their state and protection, quality of surface and subsurface water, soil contamination
with agrochemical substances, salinity and erosion.
After Mr. E. Huseynov’s presentation, the participants asked questions on the water use with
losses and soil contamination. After discussion of questions asked, Mr.Е. Huseynov presented the
geographical and historical aspects of biodiversities in the country and their current state. Same
time, information was given on the state preserves and reserves in the republic and especially in
the areas close to the project sites. Mr.Е. Huseynov gave information on the possible positive and
negative environmental impacts as a result of the project implementation, and presented
environmental management and monitoring plan.
15
25/07/10 Draft
Matters raised by the meeting participants mainly consisted of the following:
 Measures of eradicating or reducing possible negative environmental impacts during the
project implementation.
 Inefficient use of water regularly leads to water logging and salinity of soils, and
institutional support to WUAs to this direction under the project.
 Difficulties with water measurement in on-farm system and measures foreseen in this
field.
 Ruined state of on-farm irrigation and collector-drainage systems, and measures foreseen
in this field.
 Monitoring on WUA activities in territories close to state preserves and reserves.
 NGO involvement in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) preparation.
All raised matters were provided with broad explanations.
Consequently, the discussions yielded the following:



The project’s necessity for agriculture development and improvement of welfare of
population should be mentioned.
EIA prepared by the international and national experts should be approved and it was also
recommended to seek the ways of reducing to minimum the environmental impacts as a
result of the project implementation.
Meeting participants expressed their satisfaction of all the required aspects been covered
under the project.
Secretary
Lead consultant of the Department
for amelioration, water resources
and work with WUAs
R. Mammadova
16
List of participants of the Public Meeting held in Baku City on Environmental Assessment
№
Name, surname and
patronymic name
1
2
3
Мустафайев Акиф
Муkhтаров Мурад
Щuсейнов Елkhан
4
Gулийев Мaтлaб
5
Османов Теймур
6
Аghайев Рамиз
7
8
Пaнащов Фазил
Рзайев Елдар
9
Вaлийев Фикрaт
10
11
Ейвазов Надир
Таghizadeh Лейла
12
Aлийев Мuбариз
14
15
16
17
18
19
Зейналов Телман
Рaщимов Рuфaт
Йеэанa Gулийева
Щaсaнов Фaрзалy
Щuсейнов Салещ
Айтaн Поладова
Organization/Position
Project Implementation Unit
PIU deputy director
PIU monitoring and evaluation specialist
PIU environmental specialist
Amelioration and Water Farm AIOJSC
Head of Department for Amelioration, Water Resources and Work with the Water
Users Associations – National Project Coordinator
Chief of sector of the Department for Science, Design, Construction and Foreign
Relations
Chief consultant of the Department for Amelioration, Water Resources and Work
with the Water Users Associations
Chief consultant of the Department for Operation of Water Farm Units
Chief consultant of the Department for Operation of Water Farm Units
Ministry of Agriculture
Deputy chief of department for control on the land use, amelioration and nature
protection
Ministry of Health
Director of Hygiene and Epidemiology Center
Deputy Director of Hygiene and Epidemiology Center
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources
Specialist
Non-government organizations
Director of environmental department of «Форум» NGO
President of National Center for Environmental Forecasting
Deputy Director of Аgро-Information Center
Professor of Azerbaijan Technical University
President of «Аgро-Consulting» Center
President of ЕЖОС NGO
Contact Numbers
431-57-90
431-57-90
431-57-90
493-81-96
493-80-11
493-81-96
493-98-58
493-13-63
598-14-16
594-70-12
594-70-12
598-25-12
594-53-42
595-26-36
597-76-95
560-10-53
599-23-58
Agenda of the Public Meeting held at the
State Amelioration and Water Farm Open Joint-Stock Company
Zardab City, 23rd of August 2010
Mr. Е.Щuсейнов,
specialist
Briefing about the project
Mr. Е.Щuсейнов,
specialist
Review of the environmental assessment
Mr. Е.Щuсейнов,
specialist
Results and recommendations of the Mr. Е.Щuсейнов,
environmental assessment
specialist
Environmental management and monitoring Mr. Е.Щuсейнов,
plan
specialist
Discussion
of
the
environmental
management and monitoring plan
Introduction speech
PIU
environmental 11.00-11.05
PIU
environmental 11.05-11.20
PIU
environmental 11.20-12.00
PIU
environmental 12.00-12.30
PIU
environmental 12.30-13.00
13.00
MINUTES
Invitees: Announcement on the meeting was given by Zardab Irrigations Systems Department.
All government, non-government, social unions were invited. Meantime, WUAs and some NGOs
of Sabirabad, Saatli, Imishli, Aghjabedi, Zardab, Beylagan, Guba, Gusar, Khachmaz, Ismaili,
Gabala, Zagatala, Gakh and Balakan raions were invited too.
Participants: Representatives of PIU, AWFOJSC, Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources,
NGOs and WUAs of Sabirabad, Saatli, Imishli, Aghjabedi, Zardab, Beylagan, Guba, Gusar,
Khachmaz, Ismaili, Gabala, Zagatala, Gakh and Balakan rayon (the list is attached).
PIU environmental specialist, Mr.Е. Huseynov made an opening speech, welcomed the
participants and briefed on the agenda and the speakers. Mr.Е. Huseynov briefed the meeting
participants on the WB requirements on environmental assessment summary and environmental
assessment. Same time, he presented on biodiversities of the country, their state and protection,
quality of surface and subsurface water, soil contamination with agrochemical substances, salinity
and erosion.
Mr.Е. Huseynov presented on the geographical and historical aspects of biodiversities in the
country, and their current state. Kinds of fish and their migration under present circumstances
were described. Same time, information was given on the state preserves and reserves in the
republic and especially in the areas close to the project sites. Mr.Е. Huseynov gave information on
the possible positive and negative environmental impacts as a result of the project
implementation, and presented environmental management and monitoring plan.
After Mr. E. Huseynov’s presentation, the participants asked questions on the water use with
losses and soil contamination and easy migration of the fish on the mountainous rivers. The
speech was accompanied with discussions. A number of question were asked, and answers were
given.
Matters raised by the meeting participants mainly consisted of the following:
 The project has prettily big importance and therefore it is necessary to speed up the
project implementation.
 Inefficient use of water regularly leads to water logging and repeat salinity of soils.
25/07/10 Draft
 Necessity of fish protection structures on the intake points of the mountainous rivers.
 Explanation for farmers for reduction of chemical contamination degree of soils.
 Ruined state of on-farm irrigation and collector-drainage systems, and consequently
lands remained useless.
 Problems with the use of soils as a result of the rise in underground water table.
 Difficulties with water measurement in on-farm system and measures foreseen in this
field.
All raised matters were provided with broad explanations.
Consequently, the discussions yielded the following:



The project’s necessity for agriculture development and improvement of welfare of
population should be mentioned.
EIA prepared by the international and national experts should be approved and it was also
recommended to seek the ways of reducing to minimum the environmental impacts as a
result of the project implementation.
Meeting participants expressed their satisfaction of all the required aspects been covered
under the project.
Secretary
Sabirabad Irrigation Systems Department
Head of department for water use
A. Vahabov
2
List of participants at the Public Meeting held in Zardab City on the Environmental Assessment
№
Name, surname and
patronymic name
1
Щuсейнов Елkhан
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Садigов Солтан
Абдуллайев Елshад
Мaммaдов Аслан
Ващабов Адил
Khalafov Alikishi
Shabanly Адил
Аghayev Shukur
Рзайев Рза
Щaсaнов Тапдыг
Gулийев Видади
Мaммaдов Shащруддин
Байрамов Iсфaндийар
Мурадов Shащруз
Поладов Бaйбала
Мaщaррaмов Йусиф
Мaммaдов Адeм
Iманов Ваgиф
Османов Осман
Jамалов Солтан
Бабайев Gурбан
Сafarov Маис
Баghirov Israfil
Дадаshов Закир
Organization/position
Project Implementation Unit
PIU environmental specialist
Amelioration and Water Farm AIOJSC
Chief of Зaрдаб Irrigation Systems Department
Chief engineer of Зaрдаб Irrigation Systems Department
Head of Зaрдаб WUA Raion Support Unit (RSU)
Сабирабад Irrigation Systems Department, head of water use department
Сабирабад Mechanical Irrigation Systems Department, deputy chief
Сабирабад Район Support Unit, head
Саатлy Irrigation Systems Department, chief engineer
Саатлy RSU chief
Аgjabedi RSU chief
Бейлagан RSU chief
Балакaн Irrigation Systems Department deputy chief
Эоранбой Irrigation Systems Department deputy chief
Эоранбой RSU chief
Khachmaz Irrigation Systems Department chief engineer
Khachmaz RSU chief
Imishly Irrigation Systems Department chief engineer
Imishly RSU chief
Iсмайilli Irrigation Systems Departmentchief engineer
Gakh Irrigation Systems Department chief
Gabala Irrigation Systems Department chief engineer
Gabala RSU chief
Guba Irrigation Systems Department chief engineer
Gуба RSU chief
Contact
Numbers
431-57-90
(135) 5-49-58
(135) 5-53-06
(135) 5-53-06
(143) 5-34-12
(143) 5-34-12
(143) 5-34-12
(168) 5-33-26
(168) 5-33-26
(113) 4-09-03
(152) 2-20-45
(119) 5-14-49
(234)5-14-70
(234)5-14-70
(172) 3-11-50
(172) 3-11-50
(154) 5-61-86
(154) 5-61-86
(178) 5-45-12
(144) 5-22-20
(160) 5-03-41
(160) 5-03-41
(169) 5-22-51
(169) 5-22-51
25/07/10 Draft
24
25
26
Нaбийев Назим
Gaдиров Асиф
Микайiлов Фaрзaли
1
2
Iсрафилов Мaммaдaли
Еминов Фирдовси
1
Мещдийев Борис
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ибращимов Shаkир
Gadirov Gadir
Aлийев Aли
Aмaнов Мащмуд
Рuстaмов Зaфaр
Gулийев Елchин
Рuстaмов Тащир
Рuстaмов Фakhraddin
Илйасов Khalil
Aсэaров Khалид
Сaфaров Йаgуб
Байрамов Aзиз
Мaммaдов Gahraman
Заgатала Irrigation Systems Department chief engineer
Заgатала RSU chief
Gусар Irrigation Systems Department chief engineer
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources
Сабирабад Ecology department chief
Сабирабад Еcology department specialist
NGOs
«Елат» Аgро-бusiness consulting center manager
WUAs
Зaрдаб район Shahuseynli WUA chairman
Gуба район Алексейевка WUA chairman
Khachmaz район Shabран WUA chairman
Сабирабад район Муghанganjali WUA chairman
Аgjaбaди район Бойат WUA chairman
Имиshлy район Gizilarkh WUA chairman
Саатлy район Саатлy WUA chairman
Бейлagан район Тaзaкaнд WUA chairman
Эоранбой район Борсунлу WUA chairman
Gаkh район Мелиоратор WUA chairman
Зaрбад район farmer
Балакaн район Мелиоратор WUA chairman
Заgатала район Gimir WUA chairman
2
(174) 5-22-53
(174) 5-22-53
(124) 5-22-65
325-13-50
376-89-67
25/07/10 Draft
ANNEX B
Table 1: Summary on International Conventions
Convention
UN “Framework Convention on Climate Changes”
Bem Convention
Bazel Convention
RAMSAR Convention
Stokholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants
Vienna Convention on Ozone Protection
Convention on Biodiversity
Convention on Protection of the Worldwide Cultural
and Natural Heritage
International Convention on Flora Protection
Convention on Combating Desertification
Convention on International Trade of Endangered
Wild Fauna and Flora Species (CITES)
International Sea Organization
Aim
Status
Compare information on greenhouse gas emissions, cooperate in
planning
Protect wild flora and fauna and preserve their natural habitats
Regulate transboundary transportation of dangerous wastes
Preserve wetlands of the international significance
Reduce the releases of dioxines, furans, hexachlorobenzene
(reducing them to minimum and eradicating completely).
Increase international efforts for ozone protection, and prohibit the
production and use of ozone-destroying substances fixed under
Montreal Protocol of the Convention.
Preserve biodiversity and use its components sustainably and
distribute the benefits fairly and equally
Identify natural and cultural monuments that can be reviewed for
inclusion in the World Cultural Heritage List.
Promote relevant measures for prevention of spreading of plants and
plant products and combating with them.
Combat desertification and diminish the effects of draught
Ensure control over trade of selected fauna and flora
In Azerbaijan, it is not officially required to meet the
targets of decreasing emissions
Effective in Azerbaijan from 2000
Joined the convention in 2001
Signed the convention in 2001
Joined the convention in 2004
Main conventions of the International Sea Organization are as
follows:
Effective in Azerbaijan from 2004
Addendums 1-5 of MARPOL Convention – includes the prevention
of emissions and discharges from vessels
When this document was prepared, Azerbaijan was not a
member to the protocol of the Convention
London Convention – prevents sea pollution through discharging
contaminants and other materials
Ratified by Azerbaijan (this convention became
effective from 2008 in countries that had ratified it)
Convention on Protection Systems against Flora
Convention on Ballast Water and Sediments
Ratified by Azerbaijan (but this convention has not
become effective in countries that ratified them)
2
Joined the convention in 1996
A party to the convention in 2000
When this document was prepared, two monuments in
Azerbaijan were included in this list
Effective in Azerbaijan from 2000
Effective in Azerbaijan from 1998
Effective in Azerbaijan from 1999
25/07/10 Draft
Table 2: Summary on Regional Conventions
Convention
Aim
Status
Orhus Convention***************
Get information on environmental affairs, public engagement
in decision-making and secure the rights of open and fair court
examination
Campaign for harmless and sustainable environmental
development through application of ESA (particularly, as a
preventive measure against environmental pollution in
transboundary context)
Prevent transboundary effect arising from transboundary water
pollution as a result of human activities, keep the effect under
control or decrease it.
Safeguard human health and welfare through better managing
water resources, preventing water-related diseases
Provides the mechanism for controlling on and decreasing
transboundary pollution of weather
Joined the convention in 2000
Espoo Convention
Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary Water
flows and International Lakes
Protocol on Water and Health
Geneva Convention on transboundary pollution on weather
in great distances
Convention on Transboundary Effect of Industrial Wrecks
International Transportation of Dangerous Materials on
Highways
Teheran Framework Convention on the Caspian Sea
Prevent industrial accidents of transboundary effect, prepare
for such accidents with precautionary measures against them
Requirements for packaging and labeling dangerous materials,
equipment supply and operation.
Ratified by all five coastal states, effective in 2006. Member
states are requested to undertake some general actions for
combatting pollution of the Caspian. Four protocols drafted
that they would be basis for national legislation and standards.
Joined the convention in 1999. When this document was
prepared, Azerbaijan had signed the Protocol on
Environmental Strategic Assessment.
Joined the convention in 2002.
Joined the convention in 2003.
Effective in Azerbaijan in 2002.
No protocols ratified by the Azerbaijan Republic when
this document was prepared.
Joined the convention in 2004.
Effective in Azerbaijan in 2000.
Ratified, but protocols were in draft when the document
was prepared and therefore it does not put forward
obligatory demand for working out legislation.
UNECE agreement; Azerbaijan became a member state to the UN Economic Commission on Europe in 1993 (UNECE). UNECE’s main
purpose is to campaign for Euro-integration through establishing norms, standards and conventions.
***************
3