Tehran Convention

THE TEHRAN CONVENTION CAMPAIGN

Introduction

In November 2003, the five Caspian states, in an unprecedented action, signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (further Tehran Convention). This document, eight years in the making, reflects efforts by the governments of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan to reach agreement on a regional effort to protect the fragile environment of the Caspian Sea.

Facilitated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP), the convention was signed in Tehran on November 3, 2003. Over the next two and a half years, the Caspian governments ratified the convention one by one—Turkmenistan in August 2004, Russia in September 2004, Iran in April 2005, Kazakhstan in December 2005, and Azerbaijan in April 2006. According to the official text, the Tehran Convention entered into force ninety days after “the deposit of the instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by all the Caspian littoral states” (IX, Article 33). The first Conference of the Parties was held in Baku in May 2007, and the second took place in Tehran in November 2008.

Despite NGO efforts to engage in dialogue with UNEP and the CEP over a several year period, civil society organizations were not included in the development of the Tehran Convention in any substantive manner. The absence of public participation in the Convention preparation resulted in a weak and relatively meaningless document. The unprecedented government cooperation that resulted in the Tehran Convention would be strengthened and the document would have more legitimacy if NGOs were able to participate in the implementation of the Convention protocols, which are the “teeth” of the Convention.

Crude Accountability Campaign (2003-2005)

In this campaign, Crude Accountability and our Working Group partners made noteworthy progress in the often times uphill campaign to ensure public participation in the decision-making processes that will define the Tehran Convention and its implementation for years to come. Our achievements included:

  • In December 2003, Crude Accountability disseminated a questionnaire to environmental NGOs throughout the Caspian asking for their opinions about the Tehran Convention. Although most respondents acknowledged that the existence of the convention is a step forward, virtually every respondent concluded that the document lacks substance in critical areas. The responses to this survey were incorporated into an analysis of the Tehran Convention, which formed the basis for ongoing research into the strengths and weaknesses of the convention and the opportunities it provides for improved environmental protection in the Caspian region;
  • In March 2004, Crude Accountability organized a workshop on the Tehran Convention in Baku for NGO representatives from around the Caspian region. The workshop resulted in the creation of the “Civil Society Working Group on the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea”;
  • We conducted a well-received letter-writing campaign to national government leaders lobbying for rapid ratification of the convention;
  • We obtained and made publicly accessible numerous official convention documents—in both English and Russian—that were previously unavailable to all but the Caspian governments and the international organizations facilitating the convention development;
  • We successfully negotiated with UNEP and the Caspian governments to allow NGO Observers in meetings regarding the development of the convention;
  • We successfully lobbied for changes to the texts of various draft protocols; and
  • Secured an invitation from UNEP to provide comment on the draft Rules of Procedure governing the convention, and articulating a strong case for fundamental changes regarding public participation in the convention.

Despite these accomplishments and initial assurances of open dialogue on the part of UNEP and the CEP concerns remain regarding the substance of the convention and its protocols, and the lack of an official mechanism for public participation as it is implemented.

The Protocols

Before the convention entered into force, four protocols were prepared and agreed upon by the Parties to the Convention:

  1. Protocol on Biodiversity Conservation
  2. Protocol concerning Regional Preparedness, Response and Cooperation in Combating Oil Pollution Incidents
  3. Protocol on Environmental Impact Assessments in a Transboundary Context
  4. Protocol for the Protection of the Caspian Sea Against Land-Based Sources of Pollution

Each protocol focuses on a particular aspect of protecting the environmental health of the sea and, in theory, could serve as a strong tool. Members of the NGO Working Group were granted “observer” status to each of the meetings on the development of the protocols. Having obtained meeting agendas and draft protocol documents prior to these meetings, the Working Group members discussed the concerns to be raised. In some instances, we were permitted to comment during the official meetings, leading to revisions to the protocol texts. Nevertheless, the protocols, as a whole, lack substance and contain numerous gaps in their approach to natural resource management.

No Public Participation Mechanism

Equally alarming is the fact that there is no mechanism for public participation in the further development and implementation of the convention. The NGO Working Group initially identified the Rules of Procedure as the channel through which to secure transparent public participation requirements.

It was determined at the First Meeting of the Representatives of the State-Signatories to the Tehran Convention on July 19-20, 2004 in Tehran that “pending the preparation and adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties, the Rules of Procedure of the Steering Committee of the CEP will apply” (Meeting Recommendations). Among other stipulations, the Rules state, “meetings shall be held in private unless the Steering Committee decides otherwise” (Rule 3.5). Only upon the explicit invitation of the Steering Committee may Observers be allowed to participate in its meetings or submit written statements for circulation by the Secretariat to the members of the Steering Committee or subsidiary bodies (Rule 11).

In September 2004, UNEP invited Crude Accountability to outline its views on NGO involvement in the convention decision-making processes and to submit proposed articles for inclusion in the Rules of Procedure, offering that the Interim Secretariat would distribute this information to the Parties for comment. In December 2005, Crude Accountability and the NGO Working Group submitted proposed articles to UNEP, stating, “the development and adoption of new Rules of Procedure present a critical opportunity to amend the considerable weaknesses of the Caspian Environment Programme’s Rules of Procedure as regards public participation and to ensure that the Tehran Convention is in accordance with contemporary international legislation,” in particular the Aarhus Convention. We proposed articles regarding notification, agenda and documentation, subsidiary bodies, the Secretariat, conduct of business and official languages.

In accordance with the Aarhus Convention, we proposed that meetings of the Parties be open to members of the public, unless the Meeting of the Parties, in exceptional circumstances, decides otherwise to protect the confidentiality of information. We also proposed that representatives of relevant non-governmental organizations, qualified or having an interest in the fields to which the convention relates, shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings of any meeting governed by the Rules of Procedure, unless one-third of the Parties at that meeting objects to the participation and substantiates their objections in accordance with previously established criteria to veto participation.

In March 2005, UNEP presented a first draft of the Rules of Procedure for the Tehran Convention at a meeting in Moscow and our proposals were circulated to the meeting participants for consideration. According to Rule 25 of the draft Rules, “Sessions of the Conference of the Parties shall be held in public, unless the Conference of the Parties decides otherwise”. Yet Rule 40 states, “The Secretariat shall compile and regularly update the list of Observers [invited to participate in the meetings as Observers]….Such a list shall be communicated by the Secretariat to the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties prior to each meeting”. During the course of the meeting discussion, it was clarified that an NGO accreditation process was planned to approve certain NGOs as official Observers to the Tehran Convention.

Based on this understanding, twenty-six NGOs from the Caspian and larger FSU community sent a letter to UNEP in April 2005, requesting that the Interim Secretariat advise the convention Parties to reconsider the decision to create an NGO accreditation process, arguing that the principles governing the Tehran Convention must be at least as comprehensive as those governing the Aarhus Convention. Crude Accountability and the Working Group also suggested that a protocol on public participation be developed.

Regrettably, NGOs were not allowed to participate in either of the two Conferences of the Parties held to date.

Looking Ahead

Crude Accountability’s Tehran Convention campaign was focused on the period of ratification, but we continue to monitor the implementation of the Tehran Convention as an important means to hold governments, international organizations and oil companies accountable for their decisions and actions. As signatories to the Tehran Convention, the Caspian governments have an obligation to behave in an environmentally responsible matter. The international organizations working with the Caspian countries on the Tehran Convention have an obligation to operate according to international standards on environmental protection, transparency, access to information and public participation in decision-making.