transforming risks into cooperation - the case of central asia

Environment and Security / 1

LaBalk

AralSea

Caspian

Sea

Sem(Semipalatin

Magnitogorsk

Yekaterinburg

KapustinYar

akhan

Baku

zhniy Novgorod

Chelyabinsk

Omsk

Perm

Kazan

Samara

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TURKMENISTAN

TAJ

K

ERBAIJAN

Aktau

Ob

Irtysh

Volga

Tselinny(Kazsabton)

Lira

Say-Utes

FerghanaValley

Aral SeaRegion

Azgyr

Mailu

Tran

sform

ing r

isks

into

coopera

tion

Envi

ronm

ent

and S

ecuri

tyT

he c

ase o

fC

entr

al A

sia

and

South

Eas

tern

Euro

pe

Environment and Security2 /

The United Nations Environment Programme, as the world’sleading intergovernmental environmental organisation, is theauthoritative source of knowledge on the current state of, and trendsshaping the global environment. The mission of UNEP is to provideleadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environ-ment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoplesto improve their quality of life without compromising that of futuregenerations.

The United Nations Development Programme is the UN´s GlobalDevelopment Network, advocating for change and connectingcountries to knowledge, experience and resources which can helppeople build a better life. It operates in 166 countries, working withthem on responses to global and national development challenges.As they develop local capacity, the countries draw on the UNDPpeople and its wide range of partners. The UNDP network links andco-ordinates global and national efforts to achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

With 55 participating states, the Organization for Security andCo-operation in Europe is a prominent instrument for earlywarning, conflict prevention, conflict management and post-conflictrehabilitation in continental Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asiaand North America. Since its beginnings in 1973, the OSCE hastaken a comprehensive view of security, including the protectionand promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms,economic and environmental co-operation, and political dialogue.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, orof the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Thedesignations employed and the presentations do not imply theexpression of any opinion on the part of the co-operating agenciesconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area ofits authorities, or of the delineation of its frontiers and boundaries.

Copyright © 2003: UNEP, UNDP, OSCE.

ISBN: 82-7701-023-0


This report was prepared on behalf of UNEP (ROE), UNDP and OSCE by:

Alexander Carius, Moira Feil (Adelphi Research)Jason Switzer (International Institute for Sustainable Development)Philippe Rekacewicz, Ieva Rucevska, Petter Sevaldsen, Otto Simonett (UNEP/GRID-Arendal)Stephane Kluser, Dominique Del Pietro, Ron Witt (UNEP DEWA~Europe /GRID-Geneva)

The agencies would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial contributions to the Initiativemade by the:

Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationNetherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the EnvironmentGerman Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear SafetySwedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Text written by Alexander Carius, Moira Feil and Jason Switzer

PrefaceExecutive summaryIntroduction

Central AsiaEnvironmental risks in Central AsiaPopulation density, ethnicity and socio-economic contextAddressing environmental risks and regional cooperation

South Eastern EuropeEnvironmental risks in South Eastern EuropeConflict legacyIndustrial pollution, agriculture and healthTransboundary and regional co-operation

ConclusionsThe road ahead

Selected references

445

88

1013

1616182324

2831

32

Kofi Annan, Global Environment Outlook, UNEP 2002.

“Sustainable development is an exceptional opportunity… to build markets … to bring people in from themargins …, to reduce tensions over resources, thatcould lead to violence; and to protect the ecosystems… on which all life depends.”

Tran

sform

ing r

isks

into

coopera

tion

Envi

ronm

ent

and S

ecuri

tyT

he c

ase o

fC

entr

al A

sia

and

South

Eas

tern

Euro

pe


This report focuses on the environmental stress affectingsecurity in two case regions, Central Asia and SouthEastern Europe. It provides maps with an overview onmajor environmental risks to human development andsecurity. The maps are derived from information gatheredat consultation workshops in Belgrade and Ashgabat,which were attended by local experts, government andnon-government representatives.

The maps in this report reveal numerous environmentalhot spots, where water and groundwater pollution,availability and distribution; legacies of conflict; industrialand agricultural pollution; toxic and radioactive waste; landdegradation, salinisation and desertification; and depletionof natural resources negatively impact on economicdevelopment and public health. These effects becomenational security concerns when they are combined withhigh population density or urbanisation, socio-economicpressures, weak governance structures, and tensionsbetween communities or transboundary disputes.

Environmental degradation and resource scarcity do notdirectly lead to conflict. They can, however, contribute toaccelerating already existing political, social crises andinstability. In order to address the socio-economic aspects

of environmental problems, and particularly those of resourcescarcity or resource pressure, migration and social tensions,integrated approaches that take political, economic, socialand environmental dimensions into consideration areneeded. The consultants stressed that basic policies andmeasures to address these links already exist, at global,regional and domestic levels, but implementation and sub-national governance are lacking.

Derived from local expertise and experience, the recom-mendations given in this report include reinforcing trans-boundary co-operation through local-level pilot projects;improving and harmonising environmental monitoring andlegal provisions; increasing enforcement capacities on nationaland sub-national levels; activating civil society involvementin policy making and co-ordinating donor activities.

This report follows the first public presentation of theEnvironment and Security Initiative (launched in 2002 byUNEP, UNDP and OSCE) at the fifth Ministerial Conference“Environment for Europe” in Kiev and connects with the11th OSCE Economic Forum in Prague in May 2003. Its aimis to facilitate a collaborative process between key publicofficials and development partners and to address the inter-connections between environmental and security issues.

Efforts to reduce the risks posed by scarcity, inequity andinjustice can benefit both the planet’s biosphere and thepeople who live within it. Co-operation towards sustainableand equitable management of natural resources shouldstrengthen social cohesion, forge bridges across culturaland political boundaries, and reduce vulnerability to crises.Indeed, the achievement of security, where people canexercise their development choices in safety and freedom,is a vital precondition for sustainability.

To promote peace and stability through sustainable resourcemanagement and environmental co-operation is an objectivethat each of the agencies represented here pursues. ThisInitiative represents the first time we have brought ourcombined experience and strengths together in order toreflect on the many dimensions of this complex challenge.

Our institutions represent unique pools of knowledge andcapability. The Organisation for Security and Co-operationin Europe (OSCE) plays a key role in bringing environmentalconcerns onto the political agenda of participating states.The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is theleading source of knowledge on the current state of, andtrends shaping, the global environment. The UNEP places

the concept of human vulnerability to environmental changehigh on its programme of work towards sustainable develop-ment. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)promotes the incorporation of environmental componentsin all aspects of government policy, and in all sectors ofsociety, in pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals.

People are increasingly vulnerable to environmentalchange. Some can cope, but many others remain at risk.To integrate the environment with the economic, social,and political aspects of security – to achieve security “witha human face” – we must protect and promote humanrights and fundamental freedoms, stimulate economic andenvironmental co-operation, and deepen political dialogue.These are the stepping stones that must be crossed, ifwe are to achieve a more sustainable and equitable future.

Ben Slay

Frits Schlingemann

Marcin Swiecicki

Preface

Executive summary OSCE Charter for European Security, Istanbul, 1999.

“Economic liberty, social justice and environmentalresponsibility are indispensable for prosperity.”

Brundlandt Report, World Commission on Environmentand Development 1987: 291

“Environmental stress can … be an important part ofthe web of causality associated with any conflict.”

Director, UNDP RBEC RegionalSupport Centre, UNDPDirector and Regional Representativein Europe, UNEP ROECo-ordinator of OSCE Economic andEnvironmental Activities, OSCE


Why link environment and security?

Consensus is emerging around the globe, that environmen-tal degradation, inequitable access to critical resources uponwhich people depend in order to meet basic needs, andcompetition to extract and control valuable commodities,are each potentially important contributors to conflict, thatreduce the capacities of states to respond to crises. Thesefactors can in many instances trigger or fuel violence, andincrease vulnerability to natural disasters. However, environ-mental co-operation can be a powerful tool for preventingconflict, building mutual confidence, and promoting goodneighbourly relations, including patterns of co-operationand collaboration that can later extend to other areas.

The Initiative

The Environment and Security Initiative was launched in2002 by the UNEP, UNDP and OSCE, with the common aimof facilitating a collaborative process between key publicofficials and development partners. The Initiative seeks to:

raise awareness as to the connections betweenenvironment and security and assess environmentalrisks and their impacts on security;engage with governmental and non-governmentalstakeholder groups, to identify both risks posed byenvironmental change, and opportunities for trans-boundary co-operation to promote sustainabledevelopment, peace and stability;use the mapping of risks as well as needs andopportunities for environmental co-operation as partof an integrated assessment and consultative dialogueto improve sustainable resource management, crisisprevention and peace promotion;create networks among stakeholder groups at nationallevel to promote environmental co-operation and fostersustainable development as a tool for confidence-building and regional stability;facilitate a platform for co-operation with otherimportant institutions, such as the United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe (UNECE), NATO’sScience for Peace Program, and the OECD –Development Assistant Committee.

A valuable partnership

This Initiative presents a valuable approach in seeking totackle the interconnections between environment andsecurity because:

it is an open forum aimed at generating co-operation andensuring co-ordination between international institutionsdrawing on their respective strengths and experience;it is rooted in consultations with stakeholders in theregions, both from government and civil society, basedon their analyses, thus creating credibility and localownership of the Initiative;it seeks to overcome disciplinary borders and integrateenvironmental, economic, social, political and institutionalaspects of security;it combines analytical, geographic and communicationskills to address policy-makers at various levels; andit aims at creating and implementing practical approachesto the connections between environment and securityin vulnerable regions.

About this report

This report contains the preliminary account of the Initiative’sfindings in two case study regions, Central Asia and SouthEastern Europe. These regions were selected for pilot studiesdue to the complex web of environmental and socio-economic conditions that together may pose a risk tostability and to the lives and livelihoods of the populations.

The report is a condensation of available data combinedwith input gathered through regional consultations in Belgrade,Serbia and Montenegro (December 2002) and Ashgabat,Turkmenistan (January 2003). These regional consultationsdrew upon the contributions of representatives of foreignand environmental ministries as well as the civil society andexperts from the regions’ countries. Participants identifiedthe predominant environment and security concerns andsketched out relevant locations on draft maps.

This exercise was part of a three-fold method based upon:A survey of relevant literature;Consultations with the regional and country offices ofthe leading agencies; andAn interactive mapping exercise with stakeholdersfrom all the regions’ countries, in two-day consultativeworkshops.

The sections that follow present the results of the con-sultations and data-gathering exercises, elaborate on theimplications for social stability and co-operation in theregion, analyse and draw conclusions, and lay out a planfor further activities within the frame of the Initiative.

Preface / Summary / Introduction

Introduction

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•


Envi

ronm

ent

and S

ecu

rity

Cen

tral

Asi

a


Environmental risks in Central Asia

Central Asia encompasses the southern provincesof the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The regionis rich in natural resources, most of them still hiddenin the ground. These resources have been industriallyexploited and processed for decades, which hasled to considerable environmental pollution throughimproper mining and industrial waste disposal.Uranium has left Central Asia with poorly maintainedradioactive waste storage sites. The risk for humanhealth deriving from these sites is increased by thehigh vulnerability to seismic activity of the south-

eastern area of Central Asia, especially Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan, where most of the water supply for the regionoriginates. Kazakhstan’s already high level of naturalradiation (UNECE 2000), is increased by the remnants ofthe Soviet nuclear test sites of Azgyr, Lira, Aral, Say-Utesand Semipalatinsk-Kurchatov. The legacy of chemical andbiological research centres of the former Soviet Unionadds to the environmental threat. Industrial pollutionpresents an additional security threat throughout the region.Besides the negative impact on health, the transboundarypollution deriving from industrial production can increasethe risk of tensions between states.

Bishkek

Tashkent

Zaisan

Semey(Semipalatinsk)

Karagandy

Astana

Kiziliar(Petropavlosk)

DzhezkazganAtyrau

Oral

Aktobe

KustanauRudny

Turgai

Arkalyk

Makinsk

Ayaguz

Dushanbe

Ashgabad

Kzyl-Orda

SaryshaganTyuratam

Emba

UST-KAMENOGORSK

Kurgan-Tube

Bukhara

Kuliab

Turkmenbashi

Mary

Turkmenabad(Chardzhou)

Dashoguz Urgench

Karshi

OshNavoy

KARAKALPAKSTAN

AZGYR

LIRA(Burlinskiy)

SAY-UTESTEST SITE

Say-Utes

BAIKONUR ROCKETLAUNCHING SITE

SEMIPALATINSK-KURCHATOV

TEST SITE

Kurchatov

ChiiliMINING

DIRECTORATENo. 6

STEPNOYETSENTRALNOYE

UCH-KUDUC

ZAFARABADNURABAD

AK-TUZ

KARA-BALTA

KADZHI-SAY

MAILU-SUU

MIN-KUSH

KHAIDARKAN

SHEKAFTARTEREK-SAY

TEO-MOYUN

VOSTOKREDMET (CHKALOVSK)AND TABOSHAR

CHARKASSAR

AKTAUMANGYSHLAK

ATOMIC ENERGYCOMBINE (MAEK) ALATAU

INSTITUTE OFNUCLEAR PHYSICS

KAZSABTON(former Tselinny

Mining andChemical Combine)

KASKOR JSC(former PrikaspiyskiyMining and Metallurgy

Combine)

ULUGBEK

VOZROZHDENIJEPENINSULA

NUKUS

STEPNOGORSK

PAVLODAR

OTAR

ALMATY

KASPUTIN YAR

FERGHANA

CASPIANSEA

ARALSEA

LAKEBALKHASH

Volga

Amu-Daria

Syr-Daria

LAKEZAISAN

LAKEALAKOL

KARA-KUMCANAL

IshymTobol

Ura

l

Irtysh

KYRGYZSTAN

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

IRAN

AFGHANISTAN

TURKMENISTAN CHINA

AZERBAIJAN

RUSSIA

PAKISTAN

RUSSIA

200 4000 600 km

PHILIPPE REKACEWICZ, UNEP/GRID ARENDAL, MAY 2003

Radioactive, chemical and biologicalhazards in Central Asia

R R

Former nuclear test site.Large portion of surroun-ding areas contaminated.

Uranium mining and milling facility. Radioactivewaste related to exploitation

Radioactive waste storage site generally poorlymaintained, and alleged to pose a significant riskto health and environment

Closed uranium mine

Nuclear power plant

Active

Power reactor

Closed

Research reactor

Active Closed

Fuel production

Chemical and biological research center orproduction plants being dismantled Area of high seismic risk

Old radioactive waste site (early 20th century)

Non-radioactive waste site (mercury, antimony)

Cosmodrome and rocket launching test site.Important environmental impact on thesurrounding areas

R

R

R

R

R


As the region supplied cotton crops to the Soviet Union,large scale irrigation systems were built across Central Asia,contributing to the degradation of the Aral Sea and CaspianSea, the reduction of the Amu Daria and Syr Daria as well asdegradation and salinisation of land.

The scale of the disaster provoked by the desiccation of theAral Sea is not yet fully understood. It has already led to thesevere reduction of biodiversity in the region, negativeimpacts on human health, and, through the provocation ofmass migration, increased population pressure elsewherein the region. With the collapse of the Soviet water allocationsystem and the emergence of national interests, thecontinued use of intensive and often inefficient irrigationpractices raised tensions between states. So far, nofunctioning regional regulation framework for the exchangeof water and fuel has been agreed upon, which hasrepeatedly led to tensions between Uzbekistan and

Kyrgyzstan. Water management decisions oftenaffect the whole region and cause concernamongst neighbouring states, when they aretaken unilaterally. The combined effects ofagriculture, industry and mining have exposedCentral Asia’s water ways to serious con-tamination. Inefficient irrigation using pollutedwater may further degrade the land and reducefood quality. The concentration of pollution indownstream countries adds to existing tensionswith upstream riparians over the managementof water supplies.

Central Asia

Almaty

Bishkek

Tashkent

Zaisan


EkibastuzPavlodar

Karagandy

Astana


DzhezkazganAtyrau

Oral

Aktobe

Kustanau

Rudny

Shymkent

Karatau

Turgai

Arkalyk

Aral

Makinsk

Aktau

Ayaguz

Dushanbe

SamarkandAshgabad

Dzhambul

Kzyl-Orda

SaryshaganTyuratam

Emba

Ust-Kamenogorsk

Kurgan-Tube

Bukhara

Nukus

Turkmenbashi

Mary


Kerki

Dashoguz Urgench

KokandAndizhan

Karshi

Osh

Naryn

Toward Russiaand other CIS countries

TowardWesternEurope

and America

Navoy Dzhizzak

Namangan

Rogun (1) and Sangtuda (2)dams and hydroplants projects

Golden Century Lake inthe Kara-Kum desert

in TurkmenistanProjected increase of

water use demand fromAmu-Daria by Afghanistan

Plan for diverting Irtychand Ob rivers to Aral Sea

KARAKALPAKSTAN

Share and distribution ofAmu-Daria and Syr-Dariawaters : lack of coherent

multilateral policies amongthe five Central Asian countries

Aral Seashoreline

in the 1950s

FERGHANAVALLEY

CASPIANSEA

ARALSEA

LAKEBALKHASH

Volga

Amu-Daria

Syr-DariaLAKE

ISSYK-KUL

LAKEZAIZAN

LAKEALAKOL

LAKESARYGAMYSH

RESERVOIR-LAKEOF KAPCHAGAÏ

RESERVOIR-LAKEOF SHARDARA

KARA-KUMCANAL

IshymTobol

RESERVOIR-LAKEOF TOKTOGUL

IrtyshUra

l

RESERVOIR-LAKEOF NUREK

CANALIRTYSH-

KARAGANDY

SAREZ LAKE

KYRGYZSTAN

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TAJIKISTANIRAN

AFGHANISTAN

TURKMENISTAN CHINA

RUSSIA

AZERBAIJAN

RUSSIA

PAKISTAN

RUSSIA

200 4000 600 km


Water management in Central Asia:state and impact

2

1

Polluted water bodiesRivers and canals

Lakes Groundwater

Former bed of the Aral Sea, uncoveredarea entirely desertified and saline

Areas directly affected by the consequencesof the shrinkage of the Aral Sea (toxic salts),leading to salinization and desertification

Areas of intensive and inefficient irrigated agriculturepractices with potential to sterilize soil and threatenhuman health

Impact Concerns for the future and potential areas of tension

Migration from environmentally degraded areas

Projected water infrastructure or managementplans that could lead to international tensionsor conflicts

Areas under threat of flood andof pollution due to mismana-gement of upstream waterreservoirs and hazardous wastestorage sites

State of the Environment Report. Tajikistan 2002.http://www.grida.no/enrin/htmls/tadjik/soe2001/eng/

“Many glacial and obstruction lakes ... – [such as] Sarez –could result in … disasters on the regional scale.”


BishkekTashkent


Karagandy

Astana


Atyrau

Oral

Aktobe

Kustanau

DushanbeAshgabad

Kzyl-Orda

Emba

Bukhara

Mary

Dashoguz Urgench

Osh

KARAKALPAKSTAN Almaty

Nukus

Aktau

Pavlodar

BishkekTashkent


Karagandy

Astana

Atyrau

Oral

Aktobe

Kustanau

DushanbeAshgabad

Kzyl-Orda

Emba

Bukhara

Mary

Dashoguz Urgench

Osh


Nukus

Aktau

Pavlodar

BishkekTashkent


Karagandy

Astana

Atyrau

Oral

Aktobe

Kustanau

DushanbeAshgabad

Kzyl-Orda

Emba

Bukhara

Mary

Dashoguz Urgench

Osh


Nukus

Aktau

Pavlodar

BishkekTashkent


Karagandy

Astana

Atyrau

Oral

Aktobe

Kustanau

DushanbeAshgabad

Kzyl-Orda

Emba

Bukhara

Mary

Dashoguz Urgench

Osh


Nukus

Aktau

Pavlodar




KYRGYZSTAN

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

TURKMENISTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

TURKMENISTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

TURKMENISTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

TURKMENISTAN

PHILIPPE REKACEWICZUNEP/GRID-ARENDAL MAY 2003

Maps based on statistical data presented by WHO Information Centreon Health for Central Asian Republics (CAR) in CAREINFONET 2000,Health of population and health care in Central Asian Republics.

WHO Information Centre on Health for Central Asian RepublicsToktogul Street 62 720021, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

Tel: + 996 312 298791, 293508 - Fax: + 996 312 680830, 680940

Infant mortality, 1999 Mortality, all causes, 1999

Mortality from infectious and parasitic diseases, 1999 Mortality from all forms of cancer, 1999

Per 1,000 live births11 to 1818 to 2020 to 2222 to 25more than 25

Per 100,000 people400 to 500500 to 600600 to 800800 to 1,0001,000 to 1,200

Per 100,000 people15 to 4040 to 8080 to 140140 to 185

Per 100,000 people10 to 2020 to 3030 to 40more than 40

The socio-economic burden of environmental degradationdisproportionately affects the weaker social strata andlocations. Despite general economic recovery since the mid1990’s in the Central Asian region, a substantial number ofpeople live in poverty and are lacking sufficient natural resources.

While the GDP (PPP) per capita varies substantially betweenthe countries (UNICEF 2002), an even larger inequality is foundbetween the core and more peripheral, remote areas in thesecountries, where marginalisation and large scale environmentalpollution is often combined with heavy economic burdens.

Population density, ethnicity and socio-economic context

Central Asian Consultative Meeting on Environment, Water andSecurity. Almaty, Kazakhstan, Regional Environment Centre forCentral Asia. January 30-31, 2003.

“[The] sensitivity of the Central Asian ecosystems to humanimpact and unreasonable use of limited water resources ...create serious obstacles for … future development”


Almaty

Bishkek

Tashkent

Zaisan


EkibastuzPavlodar

Karagandy

Astana


DzhezkazganAtyrau

Oral

Aktobe

Kustanau

Rudny

Shymkent

Karatau

Turgai

Arkalyk

Aral

Makinsk

Aktau

Ayaguz

Dushanbe

SamarkandAshgabad

Dzhambul

Kzyl-Orda

SaryshaganTyuratam

Emba

Ust-Kamenogorsk

Kurgan-Tube

Bukhara

Kuliab

Nukus

Turkmenbashi

Mary


Kerki

Dashoguz Urgench

KokandAndizhan

Gulistan

Karshi

Khorug

DzhalalabadOsh

Naryn

CASPIANSEA

ARALSEA

LAKEBALKHASH

Volga

Amu-D

aria

Syr-Daria

KYRGYZSTAN

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

IRAN

AFGHANISTAN PAKISTAN

TURKMENISTAN

CHINA

RUSSIA

AZERBAIJAN

RUSSIA

FERGHANAVALLEY

200 4000 600 km


Number of peopleper square kilometre

Less than 1

1 to 10

10 to 25

25 to 50

50 to 100

More than 100

Population density

Socio-economic marginalisation and environmental pressurescan lead to violent confrontations at the sub-state level ifthey are combined with high population density and a lackof social safety nets and institutional mechanisms to mitigateor prevent conflicts, as in the case of the Ferghana Valley.This zone is one of the most densely populated areas wherecommunities are exposed to a high level of environmental

pressure: 20% of Central Asia’s population lives inthe Ferghana Valley, which comprises of only 5%of the territory of Central Asia (UNDP 2003). Over-population, due to high growth and fertility ratesand combined with inter-ethnic tensions, resultedin disputes over limited land and water resources.

Statement by H.E. Ishenbay Abdyrazakov, Secretary of Stateof the Kyrgyz Republic at the 19th Special Session of the UNGeneral Assembly New York, 22 June 1997

“A lack of water, along with a lack of other natural resources,leads to increased poverty, the intensification of socialdiscrepancies, the growth of inter-ethnic tensions and,ultimately, the emergence of armed conflicts.”

Central Asia


Almaty

Bishkek

Tashkent


Ekibastuz Pavlodar

Karagandy

Astana


DzhezkazganAtyrau

Oral

Aktobe

Kustanau

Rudny

Shymkent

Aral

Makinsk

Aktau

Dushanbe

SamarkandAshgabad

Dzhambul

Kzyl-Orda

Tyuratam

Oskemen(Ust-Kamenogorsk)

Bukhara

Nukus

Turkmenbashi Balkanabat(Nebit-Dag)

Mary

Urgench

Osh

Dashoguz


PAMIR

FERGANA

KARAKALPAKSTAN

AralSea

LakeBalkhash

Caspian

Sea

Aral Seacoastlinein 1950

KAZAKHSTAN

IRAN

AFGHANISTAN

UZBEKISTAN

TURKMENISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

RUSSIA

PAKISTAN

AZERBAIJAN

CHINA

RUSSIA

Kazakhs

Russians and UkrainiansKyrgyzs

TurkmensUzbeks

Tajiks (Persians)Turkic

KarakalpaksUighurs

Indo-European

SlavicSince the fall of the Soviet Union, most German peoplemigrated back to Germany. According to the 1999Kazakh census, 300,000 remained in Kazakhstan.

Sparsely populated territories

Borders with sporadicfields of land mines

200 4000 600 km

PHILIPPE REKACEWICZ, LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE AND UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL, MAY 2003

Population groups

Central Asia is a multi-ethnic region. The borderdemarcations are sometimes unclear. The FerghanaValley stretches over three Central Asian countries,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with linguis-tically and ethnically distinct populations. The unclearborders crossing the Valley led to a disruption of thesocial and economic structures, further exacerbated

by population influx and density. Scarce natural resourcesand their intensive use as a source for basic human survivaland livelihoods, high levels of pollution (mainly water pol-lution), soil degradation and overpopulation have led tomajor threats to human development and security. Severalcommunities have experienced ethnic clashes triggeringopen violence since the late 1980s (UN FVDP 2000)


Environmental risks become security concerns whenenvironmental migration is generated, access to resourcesfor basic needs (water, soil, air and energy) is no longersecure, widespread negative impacts on public health areevident and agricultural productivity, energy security andeconomic development are undermined. The consultationmeeting on Central Asia identified specific areas of concern,including the Pamir mountains in Tajikistan, Karakalpakstan,Amu Daria and Syr Daria, the Ferghana Valley, Semipalatinsk,Aktau and surroundings, the Caspian and Aral Seas andsurrounding regions, Karakum Canal, Irtysh (Kazakhstan,Russia), the ecological migration in Kokshetau, the waterreservoir in the Vilef and Sogdiyskaya (Tajikistan), thedumping site for radioactive waste in Mailu Suu, and themarshlands forming due to the melting of glaciers in themountains between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

At national level, relevant priorities in tackling securityrelated environmental problems have already been identifiedwithin the respective countries’ national environmentalstrategies. They include the protection and sustainable useof water resources and development of modern technologiesfor water treatment (Tajikistan), hazardous waste treatmentand storage and development of water managementfacilities (Kyrgyzstan), international co-operation on envir-onmental protection and soil degradation – including AralSea protection and reduction of biodiversity loss (Uzbeki-stan), water quantity, pollution control and the reduction ofland/soil degradation (including the Aral Sea) (Turkmenistan),governmental control over environmental protection andthe greening of national policies (Kazakhstan).

Due to the transboundary dimension of environmentalpollution, co-operation is necessary at regional level inorder to reduce environmental pressure and the securityrisks deriving from it. Transboundary co-operation on waterallocation has been subject of various regional and bilateralnegotiation processes and projects in recent years, oftenresulting in formal agreements, joint commissions and thedevelopment of policies and measures for joint watermanagement. However, the consultation meeting on CentralAsia revealed a gap between the policy processes and theirimplementation. Participants stressed the need for:

improving the co-ordination and co-operation betweengovernments and between donors;strengthening the political will, both internally (to takeaction) and internationally (to co-operate);increasing funding as well as technological andadministrative capacities;improving the implementation and enforcement of lawsand compliance mechanisms;starting further monitoring and information managementsystems;implementing transnational policy learning on bestpractices; andintegrating policies across sectors (industrial develop-ment, foreign policy, agriculture, environment).

Environmental decline or resource scarcity do not directlylead to violent conflict; they are one strand within a complexweb of causality in which a series of socio-economicproblems, such as population pressure, poverty, forcedmigration, refugee movements, political instability andethno-political tensions are intertwined. In Central Asiathere is a need for improved regional co-operation combinedwith efficient and local implementation mechanisms.

Addressing environmental risks and regional co-operation

Chair’s Summary. Seventh Meeting of the OSCE EconomicForum, Prague, 28 May 1999.

“No society can achieve sustainable development withoutappropriate water resources … [C]ountries must workclosely together … to find viable solutions.”

Central Asia

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


Neretv

a

Bosn

a

Tara

4


Jiu

J i u

6

Envi

ronm

ent

and S

ecu

rity

Sou

th E

aste

rn E

uro

pe


ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

RUSSIA

GREECE

ITALY

TURKEY0 100 200 300 km

40 to 44

44 to 52

52 to 64

64 to 75

Urban population as apercentage of the totalpopulation (2001)

AUSTRIA

POLAND

GERMANY

CZECHREPUBLIC

SLOVAKIA

HUNGARY

ROMANIA

BULGARIA

SERBIA ANDMONTENEGRO

MACEDONIA

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

CROATIA

MOLDOVA

UKRAINE

ROMANIA

BULGARIA

BOSNIA-HERZÉGOVINA

CROATIA

HUNGARY

ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

MACEDONIA

CZECHREPUBLIC

SLOVAKIA

RUSSIA

GREECE

ITALY

TURKEY

5 and less

6 to 14

15 to 24

25 and over

Under 5 mortality rateper 1 000 births (2001)

0 100 200 300 km

MOLDOVA

UKRAINE

POLAND

GERMANY

AUSTRIA


ROMANIA

BULGARIA

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

CROATIA

HUNGARY

ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

MACEDONIA

CZECHREPUBLIC

SLOVAKIA

GERMANY

RUSSIA

POLAND

AUSTRIA

GREECE

ITALY

TURKEY0 100 200 300 km

68 to 70

70 to 72

72 to 73

73 to 75

Life expectancy at birthyears of age (2001)


MOLDOVA

UKRAINE

2,700 to 5,800

5,800 to 9,200

9,200 to 14,700

14,700 to 17200

GDP per capitaPurchasing Power Paritycurent USD (2001)

ROMANIA

BULGARIA

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

CROATIA

HUNGARY


ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

MACEDONIA

CZECHREPUBLIC

SLOVAKIA

RUSSIA

AUSTRIA

MOLDOVA

ITALY

TURKEYGREECE0 100 200 300 km

2,700 to 5,800

5,800 to 9,200

9,200 to 14,700

14,700 to 17200

GDP per capitaPurchasing Power Paritycurent USD (2001)

UKRAINE

POLAND

GERMANY

PHILIPPE REKACEWICZ, UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL MAY 2003

Environmental risks in South Eastern Europe

South Eastern Europe in this report covers the following countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Bulgaria, Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, andKosovo. The past decade of conflict and transition has left the region with a legacy of inadequate growth,declining living standards and high environmental stress. The region is mainly affected by heavyindustrial pollution in urban-industrial areas, intensive agriculture with yet uncalculated health impacts,a lack of water technology and infrastructure, and industrial pollution from the mining sector. The entireregion has however been supported by large scale environmental protection and co-operation effortsfinanced by bilateral and multilateral donors, mainly in the framework of the Regional Environmental


Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe (REReP),the UNECE environmental conventions, the EU accession pro-cess for Romania and Bulgaria and regional conventions onthe Black Sea, The Danube River and the Carpathian mountains.Transboundary efforts towards environmental protection andregional environmental co-operation are important, sincemany natural resources span more than one country, andenvironmental degradation impacts across borders.

Third Meeting of the OSCE Economic Forum,Prague 9 June 1995.

“[Unresolved environmental problems]are among negative factors influencingsubregional and transborder co-operationin Central and Eastern Europe.”

South Eastern Europe

ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

RUSSIA

GREECE

ITALY

TURKEY0 100 200 300 km

0.5 to 2

2 to 4

4 to 6

7 to 11

CO2 emissions inmillion tonnes per capita(1999)

AUSTRIA

POLAND

GERMANY

CZECHREPUBLIC

SLOVAKIA

HUNGARY

ROMANIA

BULGARIA


MACEDONIA

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

CROATIA

MOLDOVA

UKRAINE

ROMANIA

BULGARIA

BOSNIA-HERZÉGOVINE

CROATIA

HUNGARY

ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

MACEDONIA

CZECHREPUBLIC

SLOVAKIA

RUSSIA

GREECE

ITALY

TURKEY

1,000 to 1,700Water stress

2,500 to 3,100

9,000 to 10,000

12,000 to 17,000

Renewable water resour-ces, in m3 per capita peryear (2000)

0 100 200 300 km

MOLDOVA

UKRAINE

POLAND

GERMANY

AUSTRIA


ROMANIA

BULGARIA

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

CROATIA

HUNGARY

ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

MACEDONIA

CZECHREPUBLIC

SLOVAKIA

GERMANY

RUSSIA

POLAND

AUSTRIA

GREECE

ITALY

TURKEY0 100 200 300 km

Countries part of theRegional Environmental

Reconstruction Program (REReP)for South Eastern Europe


MOLDOVA

UKRAINE

40 to 50

100 to 240

240 to 360

450 to 800

Health expenditureper capitacurrent USD (2000)

ROMANIA

BULGARIA

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

CROATIA

HUNGARY


ALBANIA

SLOVENIA

MACEDONIA

CZECHREPUBLIC

SLOVAKIA

RUSSIA

AUSTRIA

MOLDOVA

ITALY

TURKEYGREECE0 100 200 300 km

40 to 50

100 to 240

240 to 360

450 to 800

Health expenditureper capitacurrent USD (2000)

UKRAINE

POLAND

GERMANY


BU

LGA

RIA

AUSTRIA

ALBANIA GREECE

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

SLOVENIA

CROATIA

MACEDONIAITALY

ROMANIA

HUNGARY

Gorazde

Ljubljana

Rijeka

Zagreb

ZadarKnin

Split

Banja-Luka

Sarajevo

Mostar

Podgorica

Subotica

Novi-Sad

Novi-Pazar

Pristina

Skopje

Dubrovnik

Brcko Belgrade

ADRIATICSEA


Montenegro

Vojvodina

Kosovo

Kra

j i na

East-Slavonia

Serbia

100 km

High concentrations of land mines

PHILIPPE REKACEWICZ, LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE AND UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL, MAY 2003

Land mine concentrationsin the former Yugoslavia

Even though the UNEP PCAU (Post Conflict Assessment Unit)concluded that the war in the former Yugoslavia did not resultin an environmental disaster, people in the region perceive war-related environmental impacts as substantial threats to theireconomy, their health and their livelihoods. The legacy of militaryactivities in the Balkans resulted in the degradation of eco-systems due to hazardous and toxic waste (depleted uranium,landmines, and pharmaceutical waste), the destruction of thewater infrastructure, loss of institutional and administrative

Conflict legacy

The Environmental Performance Review (EPR) ofYugoslavia 2002.http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/serbia_and_montenegro/chapter00.pdf

“As Yugoslavia was absorbed in the war in the early1990s … [t]he international embargo put pressureon the country’s natural resources and pollution …went largely unchecked …”


Brcko

SOFIA

SKOPJE

BELGRADE

TIRANE

SARAJEVO

ZAGREB

BUCHAREST

Subotica

Novi Sad

Nis

Pristina

Novo Beograd

Tuzla Constanta

Zalau

Burgas

Varna

Dobrich

Stara-Zagora

Plovdiv

Ruse

Shumen

Sliven

Pleven

Pernik

Tetovo

Gostivar

Bitola

Shkoder

Podgorica

OsijekRijeka

Split

Craiova

Drobeta - Turnu Severin

Pitesti

Ramnicu Valcea

Arad

Timisoara

Oradea

Satu MareBaia Mare

Cluj-Napoca

Targu Mures

Sibiu

Brasov

Ploiesti

Buzau

Galati

Braila

Focsani

Bacau

Piatra Neamt

Botosani

Iasi

Suceava

Banja Luka

Fier

VlorëKorçë

Kragujevac

R O M A N I A

M A C E D O N I A

A L B A N I A

B U L G A R I A

S E R B I A A N D

H E R Z E G OV I N A

C R O A T I A

B O S N I A -Serbia

K o s o v o

Montenegro

V o j v o d i n a

B o s n i a c - C r o a tF e d e r a t i o n

R e p u b l i c a S r p s k a

M O N T E N G R O

AD

RI

AT

IC

SE

A

B L A C K

S E A

S E A

A E G EE A NE

ForestsGrasslandRainfed arable landIrrigated arable landShrublandWetlandInland waterUrban areaIce and snow

0 150 Kilometers

Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area Projection

300

UNEP/DEWA/GRID-GENEVA - MAY 2003

Land cover map of South Eastern Europe

International boundaryRepublic boundaryAutonomous boundary

100'000 to 1 millionNATIONAL CAPITALInter-entity boundary line

BELGRADE

Split

capacities and increased pressure on local ecosystems dueto refugees and returning populations. As a consequenceof the conflict, living standards have sharply declined,evidenced by higher poverty, inequality and unemploymentand limited prospects for economic growth.

The lack or the destruction of waste water treatment facilitiesled to the contamination of rivers and water reservoirs. Theleakage of hazardous material from war-damaged industrialplants also affected the safety of drinking water supplies.Uncontrolled irrigation for agriculture around the lakes

Scutari, Prespa and Ohrid dramatically reduced ground waterlevels. Military waste, in particular land mines and unexplodedbombs, has impacted soils, watercourses and lakes, and hasrendered difficult or impossible the use of large areas of arableland, which in turn has and is affecting the return of refugees.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina nearly 20% of the forest landsare inaccessible because of landmines. Refugees contributedto forest depletion in the vicinity of major refugee camps inAlbania and FYR Macedonia, due to their relying on fuel woodfor cooking and heating.


The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment.UNEP/UNCHS, 1999.

“[E]nvironmental problems caused by the stream ofrefugees … became an issue, with sanitation anddrinking water services under enormous pressure.”


Danube

Danube

Danube

Prut

MuresDrava

Sava

Bosn

a

DraveM

orava

Drina

Iskar

Vardar

Drin

Tis

za

Tundza

LAKEBALATON

ADRIATICSEA

MARMARASEA

AEGEANSEA

Bosphorus

Dardanelles

BLACKSEA

ITALY

SLOVENIA

AUSTRIA

HUNGARY

MOLDOVA

TURKEY

GREECE

ALBANIA

MACEDONIA

SERBIAMONTENEGRO

Kosovo

Vojvodina

BOSNIAHERZEGOVINA

CROATIA

BULGARIA

ROMANIA

UKRAINE

UKRAINE

TURKEY

Serbia

Montenegro

SLOVAKIA

Ljubljana

BudapestChisinau

Tirana

Skopje

Belgrade

Sarajevo

Zagreb

Sofia

Bucharest

Bratislava

Edirne

Varna

Burgas

Craiova Constanta

Braila

Pec

Prizren

Podgorica

Novi Pazar

Mostar

Tuzla

Bihac

Gorazde

Rijeka

Zadar

Knin

Vukovar

Brcko

Pristina

Durrës

Kukës Tetovo Kocani

Bitola

Banja Luka

Nis

Kragujevac

Pancevo

Novi Sad

Dubrovnik

Tîrgu-Mures

Brasov

Istanbul

0 10050 150 200 km

PHILIPPE REKACEWICZ, LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE AND UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL MAY 2003

Bosnia-Herzegovina:

refugees return

Serbianminorityin East-Slavonia

Albanianminority inMacedonia

Serbia and Montenegro:war aftermath and return ofrefugees (Kosovo, Serbia)

Serbian refugees fromCroatia (Vojvodina)

Croats

Bosniaks1

Serbs

Montenegrins

Macedonians

Germans

Romanians

BulgariansAlbanians

Greeks

Turks Hungarians

Political tensionsValachs

1. Muslims according to the former Yugoslavia census.

Population groups

South Eastern Europe is a multi-cultural region where ethnicdifferences, especially under severe economic constraints,have often been perceived as threats. War, ethnic conflictsand economic decline forced people to migrate across the

entire region and outside South Eastern Europe, fragmentingfamilies and societies and destroying institutions and criticalinfrastructure.


Between 1993 and 1994, up to 4 million people have beendisplaced or were considered refugees within the formerYugoslavia (UNHCR 2000 Statistics). The return of migrants

and refugees to their original destination creates a majorchallenge in terms or social and economic integration, andincreases pressure on natural systems.


Brcko

SOFIA

SKOPJE

BELGRADE

TIRANA

SARAJEVO

ZAGREB

BUCHAREST

Subotica

Novi Sad

Nis

Pristina

Novo Beograd

Tuzla Constanta

Zalau

Burgas

Varna

Dobrich

Stara-Zagora

Plovdiv

Ruse

Shumen

Sliven

Pleven

Pernik

Tetovo

Gostivar

Bitola

Shkoder

Podgorica

Osijek

Split

Craiova

Drobeta - Turnu Severin

Pitesti

Ramnicu Valcea

Arad

Timisoara

Oradea

Satu MareBaia Mare

Cluj-Napoca

Targu Mures

Sibiu

Brasov

Ploiesti

Buzau

GalatiBraila

Focsani

Bacau

Piatra Neamt

Botosani

Iasi

Suceava

Banja Luka

Fier

Vlorë

Kragujevac

R O M A N I A

M A C E D O N I A

A L B A N I A

B U L G A R I A

S E R B I A A N D

H E R Z E G O V I N A

C R O A T I A

B O S N I A -Serbia

Kosovo

Montenegro

Vojvodina



M O N T E N E G R O

AD

RI

AT

IC

SE

A

B L A C K

S E A

S E A

AA E G EE A NN

A

OLDH NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

k

N

RR

AAA E

0 150 KilometersLambert Azimuthal Equal-Area Projection

300


Population density in South Eastern Europe

from 1 to 1010 to 5050 to 500500 to 5,000more than 5,000

People per square km

International boundaryRepublic boundaryAutonomous boundaryInter-entity boundary line

100,000 to 1 millionNATIONAL CAPITAL

HUNGARY10 000

AUSTRIA55 000

SWITZ.32 000

GERMANY320 000

SWEDEN77 000 FINLAND

3 000

CZECH REP.2 800

SLOVAKIA2 400

TURKEY35 000

POLAND675

ITALY35 000

DENMARK20 000

NORWAY19 000

THE NETHERLANDS43 000

BELGIUM5 000

FRANCE16 500

UNITED-KINGDOM8 000

IRLAND20

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

SPAIN3 676

PORTUGAL150

NORTHSEA

BLACKSEA

MEDITERRANEANSEA

LUXEMBOURG2 500

GREECE160

LIECHT.260

0 500 1 000 km

PR, LMD AND UNEP/GA, MAY 2003

Since 1991, between3.7 and 4 million

people have beendisplaced or becamerefugees within theformer Yugoslavia

Some 600,000 to 800,000 peopleemigrated to other Europeancountries while 10,000-15,000sought asylum in the United

States and Australia

Spheres are proportional tothe number of asylum seekers.

Refugees and displacedpeople from the formerYugoslavia since 1991

BU

LGA

RIA

AUSTRIA

ALBANIAGREECE

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

SLOVENIA

CROATIA

MACEDONIA

ITALY

ROMANIA

HUNGARY

Gorazde

Ljubljana

Rijeka

Zagreb

ZadarKnin

Split

Banja-Luka

Sarajevo

Mostar

Podgorica

Subotica

Novi-Sad

Novi-Pazar

Pristina

Skopje

Dubrovnik

BrckoBelgrade

ADRIATICSEA


Montenegro

Vojvodina

Kosovo

Kra

j i na

East-Slavonia

Serbia

100 km

Population displacements1991 to 2001

Croats

Muslims

Serbs

Others (Albanians, Hungarians)

PHILIPPE REKACEWICZ, LE MONDE DIPLOMATQUE AND UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL MAY 2003


Brcko

KutinaViskovo

Sharra

Vard

ar

Vardar

Drin

Vjo se

Osum

De

voll

Shkumbin Lake

Ohrid

Lake Prespa

Lake Scutari

Duna (D anube)

Donau

( D a nube)

Aliakmo

n a s

Pine ios

Dri niZ

i

Struma

Strimonas

Mes ta

M

u r e s

Maros

Ta

m i s

Timis

Jiu

J i u

Crisul Repede

Somes

Tisza

Szamos

Tisa

C

r i sul Alb

T isa

Tis

za

Neretv

a

Bosn

a

Vr ba

s

Una

Krka

Drina

Drina

Tara

Zapadna Morava

BeliD

rim

VelikaM

orava

Sava

Kupa

Sava

S

ava Drava

Dr a u

Drava

Mu

r

B a l a t o n

JuznaM

orava

LakeDojran

Mali Kana l

Ve liki Kan alBegejski Kanal

Vrasacki Kanal

Radovis

KrivaPalanka

Sasa

Kavadarci

Suvodol

Jegunovce

Kicevo

KocaniRubik

Furshe-Kruje

Isalnita

Zlatna

Calan

Copsa Mica

Ohrid

KremikovtsiNiksic

Tivat Kotor

Cetinje

BeraneRozaje

Kragujevac Bor

Doboj

MaglajLukavac

Kakanj

Konjic

Patos

Ballsh

SisakPlomin

Negotino

SmederevoKostolac

Lazarevac

Pljevlja

Ugljevik

Gacko

Cacak

Fier

Zletovo

Dej

Sabac

PrahovoJajce

Lucani

Krsko(Slovenia)

Paks

Kozloduy

1

4

6

SOFIA

SKOPJE

BELGRADE

TIRANA

SARAJEVO

ZAGREB

Pernik

Kumanovo

TetovoGostivar

Bitola

Veles

Durres

Elbasan

Vlore

Podgorica

Rijeka

Craiova

Timisoara

Oradea

Baia Mare

Cluj-Napoca

Zenica

Tuzla

Deva

Hunedoara

Subotica

Novi Sad

Pancevo

Leskovac

Nis

Pristina

Trepca

Zvecan

Gnjilan Pazardzhik

Lom

S L O V A K I A U K

R O M

G R E E C E

M A C E D O N I A

A U S T R I A

I T A L Y

A L B A N I A

S E R B I A A N D

H U N G A R Y


C R O A T I A

B O S N I A

S L O V E N I A

Serbia

K o s o v o

Montenegro

V o j v o d i n a

M O N T E N E G R O

AD

RI

AT

I

C

SE

A

S

International boundary

Republic boundary

Autonomous boundary 1 to 5 million inhabitants

100,000 to 1 million

NATIONAL CAPITAL

Inter-entity boundary line

Hazardous industrial site

Waste disposal site

Mining site

Nuclear power generation site2

Heavy polluted water

Major industrial sites and water pollution


Beyond the direct effects of war on industrial pollutionthrough leakage, and the destruction of infrastructure,water and soil contamination also results from the processof heavy industrialisation undertaken prior to the conflict,and from deficiencies in the treatment of water, and in themanagement and storage of solid and hazardous waste.

Large parts of South Eastern Europe are heavily industrialisedbut lack adequate environmental safeguards, resulting inserious environmental degradation and impacting negativelyon health. Air pollution and soil degradation deriving mainlyfrom the chemical industry and from mining, cement andfertiliser production, have led to severe ecological damagesand adverse human health impacts in local “hot spots”. Majorindustrial “hot spots” close to urban areas often pose severethreats to health. Agricultural production is likewise character-ised by inefficient practices in many places, with high waterdemand and overuse of fertilisers. Drinking water suppliesare threatened by water shortages and poor water quality,often caused by the discharge of untreated wastewater.

Watercourses have been heavily contaminated withpolluting leakage of hazardous substances from war-damaged industrial plants. However, in many cases thedestruction of industry during the war also had temporarypositive effects on the environment, by significantlyreducing air and water pollution from declining and/orobsolete industries. Water management systems in theregion suffer from weak institutional structures and a lackof governance, inefficiencies in operation, a lack ofplanning or even financial viability.

In Kosovo, environmental pollution from industrial activities(relying mainly on agriculture, mining and textiles) has beenfurther exacerbated by the conflict. Yet there are also reversetrends. In Serbia and Montenegro, for example, wars andeconomic decline have not negatively affected infantmortality, as infant mortality even declined during the pastdecade by nearly 50% (UNECE 2001).

The management of nuclear power plants and nuclearsafety is an important regional concern due to its potentialtransboundary effects. Besides Cernavoda in Romania,the operation of the old units in Kozloduy (Bulgaria’snuclear power plant) is of major concern, since these olderreactors lack modern safety standards.

Industrial pollution, agriculture and health


State Of Environment Report 2000, Republic of Macedonia.http://www.soer.moe.gov.mk/

“Significant parts of watersheds of rivers and lakes …belong to neighboring countries … [and] water demandsfor agricultural and household use are not always met.”

Dunav (Danube)

Nestos

Marits a

Tundzha

Evr os

Yan

tra

Isku

r

Ialomita

Buzau

B

istrit a

Siret

Siret

Prut

Pru t

Prut

Dniste r

Dniste r

Mures

Olt

Olt

Arg es

Arge s

Turnu Magurele

Devnya

Pirdop

Dimitrovgrad

Campulung

Curtea de Arges

Tomesti

Savinesti

Borzesti

Stolnici

CodleaFagaras

Galabovo

Cernavoda

1BUCHAREST

Burgas

Stara-Zagora

Plovdiv

Kurdzhali

Pleven

Pitesti

Ramnicu Valcea

Targu Mures

Brasov

Ploiesti

Galati

Braila

Bacau

Piatra Neamt

Iasi

Suceava

Slatina

Tulcea

Onesti

Medias

Ruse

Radnevo

Asenovgrad

ShumenTargoviste

Smolyan

R A I N E

A N I A

B U L G A R I A

MOLDOVA

T U R K E Y

B L A C K

S E A

E A

A E G E A N


300



Transboundary and regional co-operation

The establishment of the Stability Pact for South EasternEurope in June 1999 provided a hope for political stabilisationand European integration for South Eastern Europe. Initiatedin June 1999, it involves over 40 states and internationaland regional organisations. It aims at supporting SEE statesin their efforts to achieve peace, build democracy, respecthuman rights and achieve economic growth and prosperity.Using the stability pact framework, environmental ministersagreed in Skopje in March 2000 on the creation of theRegional Environmental Reconstruction Programme forSouth Eastern Europe (REReP). Today, over 100 projectson transboundary environmental co-operation among SEEstates have been initiated to strengthen institutional andpolicy development, to support environmental civil society,to enhance environmental co-operation mechanisms andcross border projects, and to reduce environmental healththreats and loss of biodiversity.

With the assistance of international organisation anddonors, all countries have embarked on the developmentor the completion of National Environmental Action Plans,and Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria have completed NationalBiodiversity Strategies.

Several of the REReP projects have resulted in bilateralagreements on environmental protection. Regionalapproaches to cross-border nature conservation and riverbasin management resulted in the preparation of river basin

agreements on the river Sava, on coastal management(Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea) and on the CarpathianConvention, to be signed in Kiev in May 2003. Bulgariaand Romania are accession countries to the EuropeanUnion, benefiting from its large scale support frameworkand accession instruments.

The UNECE Environmental Conventions constitute animportant framework for environmental protection and co-operation in the region. Relevant conventions includethose on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (1979),Environmental Impact Assessment in a TransboundaryContext (1991), Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents(2000), Access to Information, Public-Participation inDecision-making and Access to Justice in EnvironmentalMatters (1998), and Protection and Use of TransboundaryWater Courses and International Lakes (1992). UNECEconventions on water, environmental impact assessmentsand industrial accidents provide mechanisms to promoteconflict prevention and settlement of disputes overtransboundary environmental issues (Bosnjakovic 2001).

Transboundary co-operation has been established in theregion as an important tool to mitigate the adverseenvironmental impacts on the economy and health ofaffected communities and to explicitly create trust andconfidence among nations, which previously experiencedpolitical tensions and even violent conflict.

Preparatory Seminar for the Eighth OSCE Economic Forumon “Environmental Impact of Conflicts and RehabilitationMeasures”, Sarajevo, 13-14 December 1999.

“Regional environmental co-operation [is] importantfor peace and stability in South-Eastern Europe”.

Environment and Security / 25South Eastern Europe

Lower Danube GreenCorridor /Ramsar Convention onWetlands Initiative

Lake ScutariTransboundary Environmental

Management

Lake OhridLake Prespa

LakeDoïran

SOFIA

SKOPJE

BELGRADE

TIRANA

SARAJEVO

ZAGREB

BUCHAREST

S L O V A K I A U K R A I N E

R O M A N I A

G R E E C E

M A C E D O N I A

A U S T R I A

I T A L Y

A L B A N I A

(F.Y.R.O.M)

B U L G A R I A

S E R B I A A N D

H U N G A R YMOLDOVA


C R O A T I A

B O S N I A

S L O V E N I A

T U R K E Y

Serbia

K o s o v oMontenegro

V o j v o d i n a



M O N T E N E G R O

AD

RI

AT

I

C

SE

A

B L A C K

S E A

S E A

A E G E A N

Kopacki Rit

National ParkTara

National ParkGalichica

Prespa LakeNational Park

National ParkPelister

National Park Sutjeska

National Park Durmitor

National ParkMavrovo

Cazanele Forest ReserveDjerdap National Park

Danube DeltaBiosphere Reserve

International boundaryRepublic boundaryAutonomous boundaryInter-entity boundary line

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean SeaConvention for the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution

REREP (Regional Environmental Reconstitution Programme)

Transboundary protected areas

Danube River Protection ConventionSava Basin Commission Initiative

Bilateral conservation projects

Tisza River Programme

Multilateral agreements on marine areas

Multilateral agreements on freshwater basins

Bilateral agreements

NATIONAL LOCALWater management

Environmental co-operation

Inter-entity/republic environmental co-operationBilateral conservation projects - in preparation phase

Draft Carpathian Convention

Environmental co-operation - in preparation phase

Inter-entity/republic environmental co-operation - in preparation phase

Transboundary and regional environmental co-operation

Water management - in preparation phase


300



�� Concl

usi

ons

//// / T

he r

oad

ahead

Envi

ronm

ent

and S

ecuri

ty


welcomed the Environment and Security Initiative byUNEP, UNDP and OSCE as a collaborative mechanismto integrate security, environment and developmentconcerns in the regions.

noted that sustainable and equitable managementof the environment can be an effective means forbuilding peace, and reducing vulnerability bothof individuals and nations.

ConclusionsParticipants of the regional consultation workshops in Belgrade and Ashgabat

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��!�

�"#�$%#�&� !�

�� '

�(�!�

!($&��!�

�# �%&�

&�%�!�#

%&��!�

�%��(!�

� ��#�!�

��#'��!�� !�

��!�+$#%"#*��!��

$&�*�%�

�& *�%!�

%��!�� '��#%�!��'

��(#�#*%�

�"#%��!)��%�#�!�

*#�%*!�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�

"� �� #�!�

%&��!�

��#

��

�,��,��-�.��-��

*��

��,��-�.��-��,��,��,��

��,��/��,��.��0

%��,��.��,��.��1�,��,��2��.��-��

)��

��,��,��1,��203��-��,��,�,��

� ��

��,��.��-��0� ��,��.��,��/��

&��.��+��5-��,��,��/��,�� .��6776��89960�:��-��,��/��/��,��0&��5-��,��/��/��-��0�$��/��-��,��0

&��!�� .� ��+��,�� 0� ��/��,��,�-�,��0�'��,�,��-��/��,��,�,��0�!�/��,��,��0%�-��-��/�-�-��/��0

/�#��+%�+��,��/��/��.��/�/��,��4�� -��,�� /��,��,�-�,��0

�$! !��#�%#��#:!�"�+�&�#�>*%!'+�%#�'� ��899?

�� +��


acknowledged the importance of the Initiative as a contribution to theEnvironment for Europe process and understood its complementarity to otherregional programs, such as the UNECE Environment, Water and SecurityInitiative or the Regional Environmental Action Plan for Central Asia.

Conclusions / The road ahead

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��"��$�(��

&"�#�!�(��

(&%��#�!�(��

(�)!�!�(��

��%*�"�(��

��

%&��!�

��*� !�

�$!��

��

��

� ��

$�� %��

&��

��

'��(� �

�� )��

�� !��!��)��

�� !��

*�� +�$�� ,�# �!��!��

'��(� �

��/��,�� /�.�� .��-��.��,��0�$��,��,��-��,��,��1��,��,��24�.��0

��,��/�-��+��,��.��,��,��4��,��-�-��-��/�,��.��

-�� !��+

��

��

��#��

'��/��/��5-��/�� -��4��.�� -��/��/�;99�+�<99��0�'��/�,��/�� 4��,��-��/�/��,��4��-��4��.��0

$��-�-��4��,��.��/��4��/��.4��.��-��//�,��,�� ,��0� �,��/��,��--��0�%��/�,��-��/��,��-��

��,��.��,��/��/��5-��,��5-��=��.��0�$��,��-��0

�� !��#��

Tehran Declaration On Cooperation among ECO MemberStates on Environment, 15 December 2002.

“Cognizant … [that] implementation of environmentalaction plans requires political will … [Ministers expressedtheir] determin[ation] to achieve significant success incombating environmental degradation.”


During the consultation meetings, numerous hot spots wereidentified by participants where environmental stress resultedin environmental migration or population displacementand insecure access to resources for basic needs, under-mining agricultural productivity, economic developmentand widespread impacts on public health. The problemsinclude:

Water and groundwater pollution, availability and dis-tribution, effected by energy generation, agriculturalproduction and leakage from hazardous waste dumps,and impacting on economic development and publichealth;The legacies of conflict and of the ageing of industrialand power generation developments, impacting nega-tively on human health through toxic and radioactivewaste, and on regional stability through transboundaryair and water pollution;Land degradation through over-use of pesticides andfertilisers, desertification, salinity and wind erosion, oftenresulting in population migration or displacement;Depletion of natural resources, deforestation and erosionin mountain areas, impacting on and being caused bymigration and poverty;Direct legacies of previous conflicts, including migration,and the foreclosure or contamination of lands andwater bodies due to land mines, depleted uranium andunexploded ordinance. Conflicts have displaced peoplesacross South Eastern Europe and Tajikistan. In the wakeof conflicts, the return of refugees is generating localtensions related to contested ownership of land, asrecords are incomplete or non-existent, and ethnic andhistorical anger simmers beneath the surface;Policy failure and a lack of financial means to maintainageing industrial sites, to repair and upgrade sewage,water and air treatment facilities, and to ensure thesafe disposal of waste and of harmful chemicals. Eachposes serious threats to the health and safety of peoplein the regions;Environmental disasters (landslides and earthquakes)including human-induced ones and their potentialinteraction with other risks impacting on migration.

In order to address the socio-economic aspects of envir-onmental problems, and particularly those of resourcescarcity or resource pressure, migration and social tensions,integrated approaches are needed. These approachesmust take political, economic, social and environmentaldimensions into consideration. Examples might includemechanisms to integrate the poverty-environment con-nection into environmental policy; and environmentalconcerns in poverty reduction strategies. In addition:

Water resource and water facility management capacityshould be strengthened (including distribution andallocation). Ageing sites should be refurbished or remedialaction taken to restore environmental equilibrium andreduce migration;Transboundary co-operation could be reinforced throughlocal-level pilot projects, and by extending existingregional collaborative schemes into other areas (e.g.Commissions on Water Management);Transnational policy learning among states and civilsociety in the case study regions and donor countriesshould be enhanced, and could focus on experiencesthat have worked in the past (e.g. successful river basinmanagement commissions);Monitoring and enforcement capacities should be im-proved, and government capacity reinforced, particularlyat sub-national level;Legal provisions and regulations should be improvedand further clarified, to tackle the specific problems out-lined above, and international legislative harmonisationpursued;Participatory decision-making mechanisms and civilsociety capacity should be strengthened to enhancetransparency and reinforce implementation; andRegional focal points for co-ordinated and integratedresponses to these problems should be establishedor reinforced, building on successful existing processesand institutions e.g. the Regional Environmental Centres.

Participants stressed that basic policies and measures toaddress these links already exist, at global, regional anddomestic levels, but lack implementation at the sub-statelevel.

They called upon the partner organisations of this Initiativeto develop a plan for further action and committed to acontinued and deepening co-operation in the developmentand implementation of the Environment and SecurityInitiative.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the United NationsSecurity Council on 7 June 2001.

“Comprehensive and coherent conflict preventionstrategies offer the greatest potential for promotinglasting peace and creating an enabling environmentfor sustainable development.”


The presentation of the preliminary findings on the linksbetween environment and security in South Eastern Europeand Central Asia, in May 2003, at the Fifth Ministerial Con-ference “Environment for Europe” in Kiev and at the 11thOSCE Economic Forum in Prague, is a starting point forthe second phase of the Initiative. During this phase theUNEP, UNDP and OSCE will actualise their partnership,broaden its membership, and solidify its capacity to promotepeace and human security. The three organisations willcontinue consultation meetings with stakeholder groupsin the case study regions with the aim of discussing theresults with experts from each of the regions, improvingthe accuracy of the maps and analysis and identifyingpriority areas for the implementation of activities. In thiscontext, the Initiative acknowledges the offer of thegovernment of Tajikistan to host the next consultationmeeting on Central Asia in Tajikistan.

As a first step to improve the understanding of the complexlinkages between the degradation of natural resources,relevant socio-economic conditions and tensions or evenviolent conflicts, the UNDP commissioned a study on“Addressing Environmental Risks in Central Asia – Risks,Conditions, Policies, Capacities”, embedded in theEnvironment and Security Initiative. This overall report willalso be presented at the fifth Ministerial Conference“Environment for Europe” in Kiev.

To address the issues identified as priority concerns forthe environment and security, the OSCE, UNDP and UNEPwill present a paper on “Addressing Environmental Risksand Promoting Peace and Stability – The post Kiev Process”in Kiev and Prague in addition to the reports alreadymentioned. They will then develop activities within theframework of the Initiative, around three axes:

Vulnerability assessment, early warning and monitoringof regions “at risk”: Continue and strengthen theassessment for the two pilot regions, applying similarassessment strategies to additional vulnerable regions(e.g. Caucasus and Russia), issue areas and sectors,and launch a comprehensive awareness generation andcommunications campaign through publications anddissemination, training and education, consultation anddialogue. Promote vulnerability assessment, developappropriate indicators, set up integrated database andestablish a long-term monitoring system.Integrated policy development and implementation:Promote the integration of conflict and environment

linkages in the full spectrum of policies and programs,from Multilateral Environmental Agreements andConflict Prevention activities through national, regionaland sectored environmental plans and assessments,whilst forging links with other assessment efforts,research networks and policy programs.Institutional development, capacity building andadvocacy: Facilitate regional, national and civil societyprograms to strengthen institutional and individualcapacities to prevent and resolve disputes peacefullyand use environmental co-operation to strengthensocio-economic development. This will be addressedthrough informal and formal dispute resolutionmechanisms and peace-building measures, byincreasing access to and the sharing of information,and by implementing stakeholder training projects.

The Environment and Security Initiative represents a uniqueattempt to flexibly co-ordinate and integrate the wide varietyof efforts by various stakeholders and actors, towardsthe common goals of the Initiative. Its three axes providea framework into which many activities and projects thatseek to address either environment or security links canbe integrated and co-ordinated, to more efficiently achievetheir common aim of a more secure and sustainable future.

The Initiative will be governed by a management board ofrepresentatives of the lead agencies, with an advisorycommittee providing scientific and policy advice. A ProjectManager will be appointed to co-ordinate activitiesamongst the institutions and act as the secretariat for theInitiative.

The UNDP, UNEP and OSCE commit themselves to a two-year process to achieve the initial aims of the Environmentand Security Initiative and to raise and generate thenecessary donor support to develop this Initiative into atype II partnership for “Environmental Peace Making –Mitigating Environmental Risks and Promoting Peace andStability through Sustainable Development and Environ-mental Co-operation”.

The UNDP, UNEP and OSCE invite other organisations,institutions, foundations and donors to join the Initiative asfull partners, to sponsor and co-operate in the imple-mentation of activities within the framework of theInitiative, and to lend their expertise to this common effortto address threats to security triggered or accelerated byenvironmental stress.

Conclusions / The road ahead

The road ahead

•

•

•


Maps

Central Asia

Health indicatorsCAREINFONET, Health of Population and Health Care in CentralAsian Republics 2000, World Health Organization (WHO)Information Center on Health for the Central Asian Republics(CAR). WHO Database Online CAR DPS/2000.http://www.who.dk/observatory/Studies/20011008 1

Population density and ethnic patterns and conflictsLatest Census data from the Central Asian Republics. Consultationswith desk officers from Organization for Security and Co-operationin Europe (OSCE)

Radioactive, biological and chemical wasteKenley Butler, “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Central Asia”,Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), Washington DC, October 2002.http://nti.org/e_research/e3_19a.html

Status Report: Nuclear Weapons, Fissile Materials, and ExportControls in the Former Soviet Union, 2001, Center for NonproliferationStudies and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/print/nsr.htm

Amy Smithson, Toxic Archipelago: Preventing Proliferation fromthe Former Soviet Chemical and Biological Weapons Complexes,The Henry L. Stimson Center, December 1999.http://www.stimson.org/cbw/pubs.cfm?ID=27

National States of Environment reports (SoE) for all countries ofCentral Asiahttp://www.grida.no/aral/main_e.htm

Additional information: Bureau des Recherches Géologiques etMinières (BRGM), France, Paris.

Water issuesIwao Kobori and Michael H. Glantz (eds.) Central Eurasian WaterCrisis: Caspian, Aral, and Dead Seas. United Nations University, 1998.

Regional Environment Report: State of Environment of the AralSea Basin, Regional report of the Central Asian States, 2000.http://www.grida.no/aral/aralsea/

Central Asia: Water and Conflict, Asia Report no. 34. InternationalCrisis Group (ICG), Osh/Brussels, May 2002.http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/asia/centralasia/ reports/A400668_30052002.pdf

United Nations High Commissionner for the Refugees (UNHCR),Geneva, 1996, 1998 and 2003.http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statisticshttp://www.unhcr.ch/pubs/sowr2000/sowr2000toc.htm

ReferencesText

Bosnjakovic, Branko 2001: The UN ECE EnvironmentalConventions: Their Role and Potential to Promote ConflictPrevention and Settlement of Disputes in transboundaryEnvironmental Issues, in: Petzold-Bradley, Eileen, AlexanderCarius and Arpád Vincze: Responding to Environmental Conflicts:Implications for Theory and Practice. Dordrecht, Boston, London:Kluwer, 263-282.

Glantz M. (Ed.), 2002. Water, Climate, and Development Issues inthe Amudarya Basin, Informal Planning Meeting 1819 June 2002The Franklin Institute Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAhttp://www.esig.ucar.edu/centralasia/

UNDP 2003: Addressing Environmental Risks in Central Asia.Risks, Conditions, Policies, Capacities. Bratislava: United NationsDevelopment Programme

UNEP/UNCHS BTF 1999: Environmental Damage Assessment atIndustrial Sites. United Nations Environment Programme, UnitedNations Commission on Human Settlements, Balkan Task Force.UN ECE 2000: Environmental Performance Review of Kazakhstan.Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

UN ECE 2001: Environmental Performance Review Serbia andMontenegro. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission forEurope.

UN FVDP 2000: United Nations Ferghana Valley DevelopmentProgramme homepage [1 April 2003].http://www.ferghana.elcat.kg/

UNICEF 2002: TransMONEE Database [3 April 2003].http://www.unicef-icdc.org/documentation/transmonee.html

The World Bank 2000: The Road to Stability and prosperity in SouthEastern Europe. A Regional Strategy Paper. World Bank. Europeand Central Asia Region.

The World Bank 2002: Transistion – The First Ten Years: Analysisand Lessons for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.World Bank. Europe and Central Asia Region.http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ECA/eca.nsf/Attachments/Transition1/$File/complete.pdf



Base Map – Political boundaries – Rivers – LakesUnited Nations Cartographic Sectionhttp://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htmNational Imagery and Mapping Agencyhttp://www.nima.mil/ArcWorld, ESRIhttp://www.esri.com/data/EROS Data Centre, United States Geological Surveyhttp://edc.usgs.gov/

Land coverPan-European Land Cover Monitoring (PELCOM) database.http://cgi.girs.wageningen-ur.nl/cgi/projects/eu/pelcom/public/Data download at: http://dataservice.eea.eu.int/dataservice

Population densityLandScan data set, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) GlobalPopulation Project for estimating ambient populations at risk.http://www.ornl.gov/gist/landscan/

Transboundary cooperationUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s EnvironmentalPerformance Reviews (UNECE’s EPRs).http://www.unece.org/env/epr/UNEP ROE consultation.

Hazardous Industrial facilitiesUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s EnvironmentalPerformance Reviews (UNECE’s EPRs).http://www.unece.org/env/epr/countriesreviewed.htmUnited Nations Environmental Programme’s State-of-the-Environment (SoE) Reports from Europe and the Newly IndependentStates and country consultation.http://www.grida.no/soe/europe/

Water pollution areasCountry consultation.

Internal migration and refugee movement, land mines andethnic groupsPopulation displacement data from: United Nations HighCommissioner for the Refugees (UNHCR), Geneva, 2003.http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home?page=statisticsUS Committee for Refugees (USCR), Washington DC, 2003.http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/RR_December_2002_lead.cfmGlobal Internally Displaced People (IDP) Project of the NorwegianRefugee Council, Geneva, 2003.http://www.idpproject.org/about_the_database.htm

Radio Free Europe - Radio Liberty.http://www.rferl.orgUnited States Committee for Refugees (USCR).http://www.refugees.orgUnited Nations High Commissionner for Refugees (UNHCR).http://www.unhcr.ch and http://www.unhcr.ba/maps/Amnesty international.http://web.amnesty.org/Norwegian Refugee council.http://www.nrc.no/engindex.htmReliefWeb (OCHA).http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/WCT?OpenForm

Location of landmines from: South-Eastern Europe Mine ActionCoordination Council (SEEMACC) and International Trust Funds(ITF) for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance.

Ethnic Patterns based on latest National Census data availablefor the ReREP countries.

1st and 5th Report of the High Representative for Implementationof the Bosnian Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations. Office of the High Representative for Bosnia andHerzegovina (OHRBH), Sarajevo.http://www.ohr.int/ohr-info/maps/

Additional information from Articles 1992-1995 from DailyNewspapers: Herald Tribune, The Guardian, Libération, Le Monde,Le Figaro, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal.

Additional Socio-Economic InformationOnline database for World Development Report 2003. World Bank,Washington DC. Figures from 1999, 2000 and 2001. (Childmortality, GDP, Health Expenditures, Life expectancy, Renewablewater availability, CO2 emissions, and Urbanization rate).

World Resources 2002-2004: Decisions for the Earth – Balance,Voice, and Power, World Resources Institute (WRI), WashingtonDC; andWorld Resources 2000-2001 – People and ecosystems: The FrayingWeb of Life, World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington DC.

References


Hossein FadaeiUnited Nations Environment Programme

15 chemin des Anémones1219 ChatelaineSWITZERLANDTel: +41 (022) 917 8628Fax: +41 (022) 917 [email protected]

Andrej SteinerUnited Nations Development Programme

Grösslingova 35811 09 BratislavaSLOVAKIATel: +421 (02) 59 33 74 16Fax: +421 (02) 59 33 74 [email protected]

Gianluca RampollaOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Kärntner Ring 5-7A-1010 ViennaAUSTRIATel.: +43 (01) 514 36 151Fax: +43 (01) 514 36 [email protected]


BlackSea

BalticSea

Gulf of

Astra

St. Petersburg

Niz

Volgograd

Minsk

SLOVAKIA

CZECHREPUBLIC

POLAND

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

BELARUS

UKRAINE

RUSSIA

ATIA

MACEDONIALBANIA

BOSNIA-RZEGOVINA

HUNGARY

BULGARIA

ROMANIAMOLDOVASERBIA AND

MONTENEGRO

ESTONIA

AZARMENIA

GEORGIA

KOSOVO

Moscow

Danube

Don

Dniepr

Kozloduy

Belene Cernavoda

Paks-Tolna

Finland

RUSSIA

Kiev

MediterraneanSea

transforming risks into cooperation - the case of central asia

Documents

global environment

security andcooperation

continental europe

mission of unep

comprehensive view of

alexander carius

environmental cooperation

behalf of unep roe