Who Owns the Shores of the Caspian? Sanitary and Epidemiological Safety, State Responsibility, and Citizen Conduct

Field observation conducted on the coast near the settlement of Pirshaghi. August 2026

“It’s not as if this is your place...”

This analysis begins not with figures, but with an ordinary observation. On the Caspian coast, near the settlement of Pirshaghi, the author encountered the following situation: after spending time by the sea, a family was preparing to leave without cleaning up the rubbish they had left behind. The author asked them not to leave their waste on the shore. A man from the family then replied in a sharper tone:

“I have the right.”

His mother joined the conversation and said:

“Son, it’s not as if this is your place; someone will come and clean it up.”

In essence, these two statements encapsulate the entire logic of a major social problem. Behind them lies one specific question: who will clean it up? In the family’s imagination, there is some invisible force that will “come and clean up” the waste — the state, a municipal service, or somebody else. Yet no one knows exactly who that “somebody” is. This very uncertainty — the belief that “this is not my place, so I bear no responsibility” — is the country’s real problem.

That single statement gives rise to a whole series of questions: whose territory is this? Who should collect rubbish on the beach? Who is responsible for waste on a site that is not a beach? Is it an offence for a citizen to leave rubbish behind and walk away? Which authority monitors seawater quality and the sanitary condition of the shore? Who is responsible when insanitary conditions arise? And finally, what mechanism should the state and society use to counter the attitude that “this is not your place”? This analysis seeks answers to precisely these questions.

Photo 1. Fresh waste left in a recreation area near Pirshaghi. “It’s not as if this is your place...” — so who will clean it up?

Photo 2. A mixture of seaweed and plastic where the water meets the land: the problem on the shore reaches the water’s edge.

What Is a Sanitary and Epidemiological Situation? Distinguishing the Concepts

To discuss the problem correctly, three different concepts must first be distinguished, because they are often confused in everyday speech.

The sanitary condition of seawater includes microbiological indicators (Escherichia coli, pathogenic microorganisms, and faecal contamination), chemical pollutants (heavy metals, oil and petroleum products, and phenol), as well as the effects of household wastewater and sewage discharges.

The sanitary condition of the coast concerns the sand and shoreline themselves: household waste, plastic, glass, food remnants, medical and hazardous waste, animal excrement, and sewage leaks.

Epidemiological risk is the impact of these two factors on human health: intestinal infections, skin diseases, eye and ear infections, parasitic diseases, and other risks caused by microbiological contamination.

One point must be emphasised in particular: a dirty shore does not automatically mean dirty seawater. A water sample may meet the required standards while the coast remains covered in rubbish. Yet the two phenomena are not entirely independent either: organic and plastic waste, sewage leaks, and food remnants accumulating on the shore converge at the boundary between land and water, creating both environmental and epidemiological risks.

The 2026 Indicators: How Serious Is the Problem?

The Republican Centre for Hygiene and Epidemiology of the Ministry of Health regularly monitors seawater quality as part of preparations for the beach season. In 2026, monitoring was conducted monthly from the beginning of the year and weekly from May onward. In laboratories, samples are tested for sanitary and chemical indicators (water colour and odour, floating impurities, suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, petroleum products, and phenol) and bacteriological indicators (Escherichia coli).

Monitoring found deviations from seawater quality standards in several parts of Baku — at the Turkan beach in the Khazar district, Hovsan in the Surakhani district, Shikh in the Sabail district, and Sahil in the Garadagh district — as well as at certain stretches of coast in the Lankaran and Khachmaz areas. The deviations were caused by pollution from waste and sewage discharges within sanitary protection zones. In such cases, under the Law on Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-being, a decision is taken to temporarily advise against using the beaches concerned, and the information is sent to the relevant local executive authorities, the Ministry of Ecology, the police, and the Ministry of Emergency Situations.

This is where a striking and thought-provoking contradiction emerges. According to official monitoring, the physicochemical and bacteriological indicators of the water at several beaches, including Pirshaghi, comply with the standards. In numerical terms, therefore, the water may be considered “clean”. Yet the photographs in this analysis show that the sand at the same location is covered with waste. This raises the central question:

Is monitoring — that is, taking water samples for analysis — enough, or is a permanent management system needed to eliminate the cause of pollution? A clean-water reading does not excuse a dirty shore.

The Central Question: Who Is Responsible for What?

The most important part of this analysis is the precise allocation of responsibility. The “responsibility map” below distinguishes the directly responsible party, the supervisory function, and the implementing function for each problem. Its purpose, however, is not merely to list the names of institutions.

Although the table appears clear, the practical question for a citizen is more pointed: “If there is rubbish on the shore, whom exactly should I call?” And more pointed still: “If no authority considers itself responsible, who is accountable for the sanitary condition of this site?” This is the root of the problem: responsibility is “divided” among numerous institutions, but there is no single point of accountability for the final result. Where everyone is responsible, often no one is.

The Problem of Areas That Are Not Beaches

The traditional approach focuses mainly on official beaches. Yet a substantial part of the Caspian coastline is not officially designated as beach. People use unofficial beaches, the shores of villages and settlements, rocky sections, vacant strips of land, and areas outside tourist facilities. The site near Pirshaghi discussed here falls precisely into such a “governance gap”.

This gives rise to several fundamental questions. If an area is not an official beach, does that mean there is no sanitation problem? If people swim there, does the state’s responsibility for public health cease? If rubbish is left on the shore, who should remove it? In practice, there is no clear answer because the management model does not clearly distinguish among “official beach”, “unofficial beach”, “public coastline”, and “private territory”. As a result, the most frequently visited areas with the least certain status also remain the dirtiest.

Photo 3. A pile of household waste dumped on an open stretch of coast outside an official beach. Who “owns” it, and who is supposed to clean it up?

Photo 4. A strip of waste extending along the recreation area. The problem is not merely a shortage of rubbish bins.

“Who Will Clean Up the Rubbish?” — Three Levels of Responsibility

Dividing responsibility for waste into three levels clarifies the problem. The first level is the responsibility of the person who generated the waste. A visitor cannot follow the logic of “I dropped it; someone else will clean it up”. The initial and most direct responsibility lies with the person who created the waste.

The second level is the responsibility of the site manager. If the area is an official beach, park, tourist facility, or specially managed zone, the relevant operator’s duty to clean it must be clearly defined. The third and most difficult level is public space: a stretch of coastline that is not an official beach or designated facility and lies outside a populated area. This is where institutional responsibility is most often “lost”.

The key critical question is this: does Azerbaijani legislation provide an answer that is sufficiently clear and understandable to citizens as to “who cleans up” each section of the coastline?

The Difference Between Sanitary and Environmental Oversight

From a scientific standpoint, two types of oversight must be distinguished. Sanitary and epidemiological oversight primarily protects human health by assessing whether the water and shore pose a threat to people. Environmental oversight covers the condition of the ecosystem itself, as well as water-resource and waste management. These areas are related, but they are not identical.

The problem lies precisely in this division. Although many government bodies operate in the same area — health authorities, environmental agencies, municipal services, municipalities, and local executive authorities — the question of who is accountable for the “final result” remains unanswered. Each institution performs its own narrow function, but overall coastal cleanliness is not defined as anyone’s ultimate responsibility.

Sources Affecting the Sanitary Safety of the Caspian

It would be a mistake to reduce pollution solely to the rubbish left by visitors on the shore. The problem is broader, and its sources are diverse:

• Household and plastic waste;
• Sewage discharges and untreated or inadequately treated wastewater;
• Industrial waste, oil, and petroleum products;
• Pollutants carried into the Caspian by rivers and agricultural runoff;
• Shipping, stormwater, and urban surface runoff;
• Illegal coastal construction and activity, as well as pressure from tourism and mass recreation.

Thus, rubbish left by visitors is a visible but not the only part of the problem. At the same time, citizen behaviour is the factor that can be changed most readily.

Human Behaviour: Is This Only the State’s Problem?

Here the analysis makes an important shift: from “Who will clean up?” to “Why does a person not clean up their own rubbish?” No matter how many containers are installed, every piece of discarded rubbish reflects the same attitude: “Someone will clean it up anyway.” This mindset is rooted in attitudes toward public property, weak enforcement and social disapproval, insufficient environmental education in the family and at school, and the psychology of “let my home be clean; the street belongs to someone else.”

The scene witnessed by the author — the remark “it’s not as if this is your place; someone will come and clean it up” — is a vivid microsociological example of precisely this psychology. A refusal to accept responsibility and the logic of shifting it to the state are combined in a single sentence. A clean shore, therefore, is not merely a matter of infrastructure; above all, it is a matter of behaviour.

How Is Coastal Sanitation Organised in Advanced Countries?

The European Union operates a systematic programme for monitoring bathing-water quality. Waters are classified according to levels of faecal bacteria as “excellent”, “good”, “sufficient”, or “poor”. According to a report published in 2026, about 85% of more than 22,200 bathing sites assessed were rated “excellent”, 96% met at least the minimum quality standard, and only 1.5% were classified as “poor”. When the rating is “poor”, bathing is prohibited or advised against, the public is informed, and the cause of the pollution is addressed.

The main lesson for Azerbaijan lies in the model itself: monitoring → assessment → public information → warning → restriction → remediation. The work does not end when a sample is taken; the result is communicated to citizens, and the cause is removed.

In Japan, coastal waste is the subject of a dedicated national policy. The country has a National Action Plan for Marine Plastic Litter, the MARINE Initiative, and an annual nationwide “Umigomi Zero” (“Zero Marine Litter”) Week. During such campaigns, hundreds of thousands of volunteers clean the coastline at thousands of locations across the country. This leads to an important conclusion: clean-up is not solely the work of municipal services, but also a policy of public behaviour in which the state, businesses, schools, and local communities participate together.

The table shows that the main difference does not lie in monitoring itself — Azerbaijan also has systematic monitoring. The difference lies in how its results are used, how fully the information is made public, and what social norm shapes citizen behaviour.

Two Models: “The State That Cleans Up” or “The Citizen Who Does Not Leave Waste Behind”

• Model 1: the citizen litters → the state cleans up. This is an endless, unwinnable race: no matter how much is removed, waste appears faster than it can be collected.
• Model 2: after generating waste, the citizen handles it properly (taking it away or disposing of it in the appropriate place) → the state establishes the system and enforces the rules.

The central argument is that the state’s task is not to collect endlessly every item of waste left by citizens, but to create a system that manages waste generation, proper disposal, and violations of the rules.

What Should Change in Azerbaijan?

Based on the analysis, the Turan Analytical Service makes the following proposals:

• Develop a “Caspian Coast Responsibility Map” identifying, for every section of coastline, the owner, manager, party responsible for cleaning, waste operator, and sanitary and environmental oversight bodies;
• At every site, display “Who is responsible for this area?” information, including a telephone number and QR code;
• The system must answer the question “Where should I dispose of my rubbish?” Citizens must know where to take their waste;
• Map illegal and unofficial beaches separately, since the problem is not confined to official beaches;
• Use cameras and digital monitoring in high-risk areas;
• Before imposing fines, create infrastructure that encourages proper behaviour: enough waste containers, separate-collection bins, waste collection points, sanitary facilities, and information boards;
• Ensure that fines are unavoidable. What matters most is not the amount, but that a person who discards rubbish is actually held accountable.

The Role of Schools, Families, and Social Norms

Environmental behaviour is not formed only in ecology lessons. Children must be taught to regard the street, park, sea, forest, state property, and public space as something that “also belongs to me”. The aim is to move from “do not throw rubbish on the ground” to “this area is also part of my home”. This requires the combined work of the family, school, and civic education.

In advanced countries, behaviour changes not only because of the police and fines, but also under the influence of social norms. Shared responsibility among families, schools, the media, local communities, volunteers, and businesses creates a sense that “littering is shameful”. The central point is this: a shore is clean not because it has an abundance of rubbish bins, but because people do not consider it normal to litter.

A New Governance Model for the Caspian: “Clean Caspian — Clean Shore”

As the conclusion of its analysis, the Turan Analytical Service proposes a model based on five pillars:

• Monitoring — continuous measurement of the condition of seawater and the coastline;
• Responsibility — a specific, publicly known manager for every section of coastline;
• Infrastructure — containers, waste collection, and sanitary facilities;
• Enforcement — cameras, patrols, and a digital system for submitting and tracking complaints;
• Behaviour — a combination of education, social norms, and unavoidable fines.

Photo 5. Waste even in an apparently organised area with shade structures: infrastructure alone does not ensure cleanliness.

Photo 6. The same Caspian, a different impression: people relaxing on a clean sandy shore. Responsibility begins with everyone’s behaviour.

The Analysis’s Main Critical Questions

• Who is ultimately responsible for the sanitary condition of the Caspian coast?
• Who should remove rubbish from an area that is not a beach?
• Where is the boundary between the responsibility of the citizen who left the waste and that of the state that removes it?
• Who eliminates the source of pollution after monitoring identifies a problem?
• Why does a citizen think, “Someone will clean it up anyway”?
• Why do we keep our own homes clean but not regard our country as our home to the same extent?

Overall Conclusion

We had a lecturer in scientific atheism. Everyone called him “the godless one”. Yet in reality he was a very “godly” — that is, a deeply conscientious — person. He had one favourite saying:

“Societies that regard the home as the homeland and the family as the nation are called the Soviet Union.”

Although this thought sounds ironic, it touches the very heart of our problem. Perhaps our main difficulty is that we still do not perceive the Caspian coast, the park, the street, the forest — indeed, the country’s entire territory — as an extension of our own home. We keep order inside the home, but consider everything one step beyond the threshold to be “someone else’s”. This analysis, which began with the question “Who will clean up the rubbish?”, therefore arrives at a deeper question: when will we start treating the country’s territory as our own home and display in the street, park, forest, and on the Caspian coast the same social habits that we practise at home? The cleanliness of the coastline begins with the answer to that question.