CaucasusEnvironment Outlook

(CEO)2002

���

���

GRID-Tbilisi1, M. Alexidze St. VI fl. #603380093 Tbilisi, GEORGIATel.: +995 32 335514, 942808Fax: +995 32 942808E.mail: grid@gridtb.orghttp://www.gridtb.org

Artwork by Georgian artist Lali Lomtadze

Published by New Media Tbilisi

ISBN-99928-803-2-5

TABLE OF CONTENTSPREFACEACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMERINTRODUCTIONLIMITATIONSSOME METHODOLOGICAL CLARIFICATIONSBACKGROUND ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND HISTORICAL-POLITICAL EVENTS FROM 1972-2002

CHAPTER 1. REGIONAL TREND OVERVIEW 1.1 General Information1.2 Socio-Economic Driving Forces

1.2.1 Economic Driving Forces1.2.1.1 Industry1.2.1.2 Energy1.2.1.3 Agriculture1.2.1.4 Transport1.2.1.5 Forestry1.2.1.6 Fishery

1.2.2 Social Driving Forces1.2.2.1 Population1.2.2.2 Political Conflicts and Military Actions

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE CAUCASUS ENVIRONMENT AND POLICY MEASURES: A RETROSPECTIVE FROM 1970 TO 20002.1 Landscapes and Biological Diversity

2.1.1 Landscape Diversity2.1.2 Flora and Fauna Diversity2.1.3 Caucasus Protected Areas2.1.4 Threats and Current Status of Caucasus Biodiversity2.1.5 Policy Measures and Responses

2.2 Land Resources2.2.1 Land Estate and Land Uses2.2.2 Land Degradation and Soil Erosion2.2.3 Soil Pollution2.2.4 Policy Measures

2.3 Forestry Resources2.3.1 Caucasus Forests2.3.2 Dynamics of Forest Cutting2.3.3 Forestry Policy

2.4 Fresh Waters2.4.1 Water Balance2.4.2 Water Availability and Use2.4.3 Surface and Ground Water Quality

2.5 Coastal and Marine Waters2.5.1 Black and Azov Seas2.5.2 Caspian Sea

2.6 Policy Measures in Water Resources Protection Field 2.7 Atmospheric Air

2.7.1 Global and Regional Atmospheric Problems2.7.2 Atmospheric Air Pollution2.7.3 Policy Measures and Responses

2.8 Wastes and Hazardous Chemicals2.8.1 Municipal Wastes2.8.2 Industrial Wastes2.8.3 Radioactive Wastes2.8.4 Hazardous Chemicals and Obsolete Pesticides

2.9 Natural disasters2.9.1 Landslides2.9.2 Mudflows2.9.3 Flooding2.9.4 Avalanches2.9.5 Earthquakes2.9.6 Wild Fires2.9.7 Drought

3. HUMAN VULNERABILITY, POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT3.1 Vulnerability in the Local Setting3.2 The Most Vulnerable Groups3.3 Access to Health Care, Environmental Quality and Vulnerability3.4 Conflicts and their Environmental Impact3.5 Coping Capacities

CHAPTER 4. OUTLOOK 2002 TO 2032: THREE "ALTERNATIVE FUTURES" FOR THE CAUCASUS REGIONCHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SYNOPSIS

5.1 Conclusions5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 General Recommendations5.2.2 Specific Recommendations

5.3 Final SynopsisACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSREFERENCESLIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

���

IIIIIIVXIXI

XII

1122245799

1010131515151717192125252729303232323435353637414143454949505356575859606161626363646565676768707274798787909092949698

100

II

���

This first Caucasus Environment Outlook(CEO) is a regional report and the result ofwork by experts from four countries: Armenia,Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia. The GRID-Tbilisi office conducted overall project manage-ment, under the coordination and overall guid-ance of UNEP's Division of Early Warning andAssessment (DEWA) - Europe office, andRegional Office for Europe (ROE).

The major objectives of the CEO are to reporton the status of the Caucasus environment,identify ongoing socio-economic "drivingforces" and offer an integrated look at regionaleconomic and environmental trends and appro-priate policy measures for the last 30-year peri-od, in order to analyse changes which haveoccurred since the Stockholm Conference(1972) to date. An important part of the reportis the analysis of human vulnerability and inse-curity vis-à-vis environment, conflicts, povertyand other factors, as well as the environmentaloutlook over the next 30-year period, based onthree different development scenarios.

One reason for initiating this report is that theCaucasus region has not received much interna-tional attention, compared with other sub-regions in Central and Eastern Europe. One ofthe major challenges in resolving environmentalproblems of the Caucasus region in the trans-boundary context is the lack of a regionalframework for environmental cooperation. Dueto the fact that during the Soviet era, theCaucasus was part of a single country, it is nowdifficult to find bi- or multi-lateral agreementsbetween the new states. Before the SovietUnion as a whole participated in international

legal agreements; now it is necessary to developinter-state agreements. The perspective of join-ing the European Union is as yet too remote toact as a unifying factor.

Thus, it is hoped that this first CEO report willbe only the beginning of a process which aimsat improved and regular assessment and moni-toring activities within the entire Caucasusregion, as well as substantive measures beingconceived and implemented for the overallregion's environmental protection and rehabili-tation.

A project team of Georgian experts and fournational focal points from Armenia, Azerbaijan,Georgia and the Russian Federation was estab-lished and carried out the related work. Thesepersons were as follows: Mariam Shotadze1,MS. conducted overall project management.Doctor of Geographic Sciences, ProfessorNikoloz Beruchashvili conducted the scientificedition of the report. These experts togetherwith Dali Nickolaishvili and Valerie Melikidze,Candidates of Geographic Sciences, assistantprofessors drafted the report. GiorgiZirakashvili (GRID-Tbilisi) collected baselinedata and Manana Kurtubadze and NinoMegvinetukutsesi (GRID-Tbilisi) provided car-tographic and graphic design2. Vierra Savelyeva(GRID-Moscow, Russia), Mzia Gvilava(Ministry of Environment/GRID-Tbilisi,Georgia) and Tatyana Danielyan (Ministry ofNature Protection, Armenia) played nationalfocal point roles. From Azerbaijan, FuadAkhunzade (Nature Protection Society) partici-pated as an independent expert.

1Project manager during the initial phase of its implementation was Zurab Jincharadze, MS

2A set of geographic maps has been provided by David Beruchashvili

PREFACE

III

���

The authors of the work express their gratitudeto all of the following: The Ministry ofEnvironment of Georgia; The Ministry ofNature Protection of Armenia; State ForestryDepartment of Georgia; Statistical Services ofArmenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia; TheMinistry of Health of Georgia; The StateDepartment of Hydro-meteorology of Georgia;Tbilisi State University; Head GeophysicalObservatory (St. Petersburg); WWF offices inMoscow and Tbilisi; and other state agencies,private companies and NGOs for the informa-tion kindly presented by them.

Individual experts also provided helpful com-ments and contributions. Especially: late GunterBeuchel (Delegation of European Commissionin Georgia), Irina Bredneva (CIP, Moscow),Galina Gladkevich (Moscow State University),Teimuraz Gogishvili (State StatisticalDepartment of Georgia), Matlab Hasanov(REC-Caucasus), David Kikodze (Dzelkva, Ltd,Georgia), Yuri Mazurov (Heritage Institute,Moscow), Tim Turner (Caspian EnvironmentalProgramme), etc.

The CEO report has been completed throughfinancial assistance provided by UNEP (DEWAand ROE) and the Swiss Agency forEnvironment, Forests and Landscape(BUWAL).

Ron Witt, UNEP/DEWA/GRID-Geneva, con-ducted overall coordination of the project.Special thanks are offered to him for his editori-al assistance, enabling the CEO team to preparethe final version of the report. FrançoiseBelmont of UNEP/ROE provided overall gener-al support for and inputs to the project, and Me-rab Sharabidze of UNEP/ROE guiding politicaladvice from the CEE and NIS countries' per-spective.

Ultimately, this first edition of the CEO reportand the material included therein are theresponsibility of the CEO team under UNEP'ssupervision, and any factual errors or other mis-takes should be reported to them.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ANDDISCLAIMER

Location of the Caucasus. The Caucasus is aregion where the oldest route connectingEurope to Asia is located.

For over 70 years the Caucasus region was partof the Soviet Union. After the break-up of theUSSR, three independent countries were estab-lished within the South (or Trans-) Caucasus:Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The northernpart of the Caucasus (the North Caucasus) hasremained a part of the Russian Federation.

The Caucasus region is traditionally locatedbetween the Kuma-Manich depression to the

north and the Turkey-Iran border to the south.On the west, the Caucasus is bounded by theBlack and Azov Seas, and on the east by theCaspian Sea. In this respect, the Caucasus areacomprises 440,000 km sq., and the populationin 2000 was approximately 30.6 million per-sons.

Boundaries of the Caucasus. The issue of theCaucasus frontiers is constantly under reviewand fervent debates are still held on this issue.The question of whether the Caucasus is locatedin Europe or Asia is one of interest to many,and the answer is closely connected to the prob-lem of the border between Europe and Asia.There are several viewpoints on this issue(Beruchashvili, 1996):

1. The Europe-Asia border passes through theKuma-Manich depression, which in geologicaltimes connected the Caspian and Black Seas. Inthis regard, the entire Caucasus belongs to Asia.

2. The Europe-Asia border passes along theborder of South Caucasus countries with Iranand Turkey. In this case, the entire Caucasus isin Europe.

3. The borders pass along the Main CaucasianRange, which is the most important factordetermining regional climate. In this respect,the northern part of the Caucasus is in Europeand the southern in Asia. However, from thegeological viewpoint, the Caucasus is a single

IV

���

INTRODUCTION

The Caucasus

entity, and overall geographically there is muchin common between its southern and northernparts.

4. The rivers Rioni and Kura (Mtkvari) divideEurope and Asia. Herodotus, a Greek geogra-pher of the 5th century B.C., shared this view-point. Nevertheless, neither the Rioni nor theKura are difficult barriers to pass. Thus, theColchian lowland (which is crossed by the riverRioni), Shida (Inner) Kartli plain and the Kura-Araks lowland (crossed by the river Kura) are asingle entity from the geographical viewpoint.

5. The border between Europe and Asia pass-es along the landscape borders. In this case, itis connected with the landscapes typical toEurope and Asia and passes along theJavakheti-Armenian volcanic plateau with land-scapes typical to Asia. At the same time,it penetrates the territory of Turkeyand Iran, where humid sub-tropicalarboreal landscapes are present inthe Pontic Mountains andElbrus. The authors of thisreport share this viewpoint, andhence single out the Caucasus as aseparate eco-region among 200 eco-regions existing in the world. This opin-ion is considered to be the most substanti-ated from the geographical and environmen-tal viewpoints.

However, both statistical and other informationusually considers the Caucasus in terms of itspolitical and administrative borders. In thisrespect, there are traditionally three South orTrans-Caucasus countries: Armenia, Azerbaijanand Georgia, and autonomous republics andkrays (regions) of the North Caucasus:

Krasnodar and Stavropol krays, and therepublics: Adigeya, Karachaevo-Cherkessia,Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia,Chechnya and Dagestan, which are the parts ofthe Russian Federation. Thus, in the CEO reportthe Caucasus is treated from this viewpoint.

There are changes recently ongoing in sub-dividing the Caucasus into the "NorthCaucasus" and "Trans-Caucasus". For special-ists from Russia and other northern neighbour-ing countries who study Caucasus issues,Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are locatedbeyond the Greater Caucasus. That is why theregion was traditionally called "Trans Cau–casus". However, after the break-up of theSoviet Union, there appears to be another geo-graphical understanding of the location of thesethree countries. That is why frequently scientif-ic and political publications refer to the regionas the "South Caucasus", involving the territoryof three new independent states. The name"Trans-Caucasus" remains only in a physical-geographic sense, and its border is located atthe Main Caucasus Range. In this respect, partof the Russian Federation (the Black Sea coast-line) is in the Trans-Caucasus and the regionsof North Georgia (upstream of the rivers Terek,Assa, Argun and Andian Koisy) and northeastAzerbaijan (the city of Kuba and adjacent to itMukhtadir, Divichi, Siazan and Kusary regions)belong to the North Caucasus.

V

���

Border Between Europe and Asia

Administrative map of the Caucasus

Source: Beruchashvili N., 1998

The Russian Federation is now consists ofseven federal districts (okrugs). Krays andrepublics of the North Caucasus are within theSouth Federal District. Rostov, Astrakhan andVolgograd regions (oblasts) and also theRepublic of Kalmykia are included in it. If theentire South Federal District of the RussianFederation belonged to the Caucasus, its borderwould move sharply to the north and the territo-ries added to the Caucasus would have nothingin common with the Caucasus itself, in a physi-cal-geographical and environmental sense.

The North Caucasus involves two completelydifferent parts. The first is represented mainlyby pre-Caucasian plains, and in the majority ofcases is settled by Russians. There are twokrays (regions) of the Russian Federation:Krasnodar and Stavropol. It is one of the rich-est regions of the Russian Federation, and ischaracterised by relative political stability.

The other part is connected with the NorthCaucasus autonomies (Adigeya, Karachaevo-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia,Ingushetia, Chechnya and Dagestan), mostlylocated in the mountains and foothills of theGreater Caucasus. They have diverse ecologicaland geographic conditions, with their popula-tion consisting of local ethnic groups and theregions differing in terms of political stability.

A "backbone" of the Caucasus is the MainCaucasus Range, which extends from theTaman peninsula on the Black Sea, to Absheronpeninsula on the Caspian Sea. This range has adirection from north-west to south-east and is1,500 km. in length. Its highest peak is locatedin the central part (Mt. Elbrus). Unlike the Alps, the Main Caucasus Range does not haveeasily accessible passes. The Jvari (Cross) passis an only motorway laid3 in the high moun-tainous part of the Central Greater Caucasus,and thus the Main Caucasus Range remains adifficult barrier to cross.

It is noteworthy that there are many commonal-ities in the economic and socio-cultural aspects

of its northern and southern slopes. Hence, theGreater Caucasus is often considered a singlegeographic region.

Geo-political Location and EthnicComposition. On the west, the Caucasus iswashed by the Black and Azov Seas. The north-ern border passes the Kuma-Manich depression.Therefore, the North Caucasus joins the rest ofthe Russian Federation4. To the east, there isthe Caspian Sea, on the eastern coast of whichKazakhstan and Turkmenistan are located andon the southern coast Iran. On the southern bor-der of the Caucasus lie Iran and Turkey.

The national and religious composition of the neighbouring countries has a great influence on the geo-political situation of the Caucasus.

Along with Georgians, the Caucasian languagefamily involves Abkhazs, Chechens,Circassians, Kabardins, and the major ethnicgroups of Dagestan.

VI

���

3A tunnel runs under Rocki Pass, connecting Russia andGeorgia

4A part of Rostov region and the Republic of Kalmykia lie tothe south of the Kuma-Manich depression. As they occupy only avery small area, they are not discussed in the present work.

Basic data on the Caucasus

Caucasus geo–political location

VII

���

The Indo-European language family involvesSlavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians), ethnicIranian groups (along with Persians, there areKurds and Ossetians) and Armenians.

The Turkish language group (the majority ofpopulation of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Central Asianrepublics and some minorities of the NorthCaucasus: Karachais and Balkars) belongs tovast Altai language family.

The Caucasus is located in the geo-politicalregion where Christian and Moslem worlds areclosely inter-related. Religion has a great influ-ence on ongoing political processes in theCaucasus and its surroundings.

Key transport corridors are located in theCaucasus, with the shortest route from Middleand Central Asia to Europe passing through theCaucasus.

The transport lines connecting Russia withTurkey and Iran also pass via the Caucasus, andare of great importance as well. Nevertheless,use of the favourable geographical position ofthe Caucasus for transport is complicated bypolitical and ethnic conflicts. Due to this, manyroutes traversing the Caucasus remain blocked.

The Caucasus environment is much influencedby existing and planned oil and gas pipelines.The struggle for access to the region's naturalresources and adjacent territories considerablyinfluences the political situation in theCaucasus.

Major Physical-GeographicCharacteristics. The Caucasus is in the

central part of the Alpine-Himalayasmountain chains, starting on the

coast of the Atlantic Ocean,embracing the MediterraneanSea and Middle East, and viathe Caucasus leading to the

Himalayas.

In terms of climate, theCaucasus is at the junc-

tion of sub-tropical andmoderate zones. The bor-

der between them passesalong the Main Caucasus

Range.

Among six floristic worlds globally, the largestarea is the Holarctic, embracing a greater partof the entire Northern Hemisphere; theCaucasus is located in its southern part. Interms of its vegetation cover as well, theCaucasus is at the junction of the sub-tropicaland temperate zones.

In terms of its fauna, the Caucasus belongs tothe Arctoge, which coincides with the Holarcticworld with some exceptions.

There are eight physical-geographical regions inthe Caucasus. The Pre-Caucasus (or NorthCaucasus plain) is fully located within theRussian Federation and consists of lowlandsand lower elevations. The Greater Caucasus isrepresented by high, difficult to pass mountains.The highest among them Mt. Elbrus reaches5,642 m. The Trans-Caucasian depression rep-resented by the humid sub-tropical Colchidaand relatively arid East Trans-Caucasus is locat-ed to the south. The moderately elevated Likhy(Suram) Range serves a natural divide and isimportant as a climatic determinant. The LesserCaucasus consists of relief of medium elevationand generally encloses the arid ArmenianHighlands. There are two small, but very spe-cific physical-geographic regions: the North

Caucasus ethnic composition

Source: Beruchashvili N., Radvanie J., 1996, 1998. Georgian Soviet Thesaurus

Black Sea (with features of MediterraneanClimate) and Hircan (with humid sub-tropicalclimate and extremely distinct Hyrcan flora) atthe northwest and southeast frontiers.

The Place of the Caucasus in the World.Table below presents some important character-istics of the Caucasus. For comparative purpos-es, average world data and deviations of theCaucasus region from these are given. Analysisof this table enables one to estimate theCaucasus contribution to global processes.

Within the scale of the entire planet, theCaucasus is a medium-sized region. Its totalarea makes up less than half a percent of theland area of the Northern Hemisphere.

Although the Caucasus is considered a highlandregion, its average height is 268 m less than theglobal average. However, if only the Greaterand Lesser Caucasus geographical regions areconsidered, these are 638 m higher than theglobal average.

In terms of thermal conditions, on average, it iscolder in the Caucasus than in other regions ofthe same latitude. It is as if the Caucasus wasactually located several degrees of latitude fur-ther northward. It is colder by 4.50C in Januaryand by 2.80C in July in the Caucasus. Only inColchida are the January temperatures close tomid-latitude ones. In the remaining regions, itis relatively colder, with the cooling influenceof the powerful Siberian anti-cyclone and

results of penetration of cold arctic masses intothe Caucasus.In summer, the temperature of the Caucasusoverall is close to mid-latitude values, and inthe regions with a relatively continental climate(East Trans-Caucasus), it is 3-50C higher. Theaverage annual temperature in the Caucasus is3-50C lower than that in the same latitudes.

On average, it is drier in the Caucasus thanacross the globe, with the difference in precipi-tation reaching nearly 400 mm. If one com-pares the Caucasus values with mid-latitudeprecipitation, the Caucasus varies from theglobal average value by nearly 200mm.

Usually, there is higher humidity in landscapesof Colchida and the Greater and LesserCaucasus than that in other mid-latituderegions. At the same time, in other Caucasusregions, it is 1.5-2 times more arid.

VIII

���

Main physical-geographical regions in the Caucasus

Some of the major physical-geographical values for the Caucasus and Globe

Source: Beruchashvili N., 1998

In terms of thermal and water regimes, theCaucasus overall lags behind average worldvalues, and therefore is like an island of coldand of relative (but not absolute) dryness on ourplanet.

The Caucasus receives less solar radiation thanother mid-latitude regions. However, the differ-ence in this index is less notable than those forthermal and moisture indices. It is noteworthythat lower temperatures compensate for theinsufficient amount of precipitation and thus, inthe light of the difference in radiation balance,average values of heat for evaporation for theCaucasus and other mid-latitude regions arepractically equal to each other.

In terms of radiation balance, only Colchidamay be considered a sub-tropical region withlandscapes characteristic of such regions (theradiation balance is more than 50 kcal/sm2).East Trans-Caucasus and part of the ArmenianHighlands are characterized by landscapes rang-ing from temperate to subtropical.

With values similar to mid-latitude values forevaporation, water flow in the Caucasus is near-ly two times lower than average latitude values.Consequently, the heat and water balance ismaintained mostly through evaporation, whichis close to average latitude indices. Lower val-ues of radiation balance are compensated for bylow turbulent heat exchange values. A reduc-tion of water flow, rather than a reduction ofevaporation compensate for lower precipitation.

Specific Features and Key Problems. One ofthe major peculiarities of the Caucasus is highlandscape diversity of the region. By thisindex, the Caucasus occupies one of the highestranks in the world. A broad spectrum of land-scapes is found in the region, starting fromhumid to arid, from sub-tropical to glacial-nivaland from low- to highlands. Based on roughcalculations, over 40% of landscape types areexistent in the Caucasus, which occupies only0.5% of the global land area. The Caucasus isthus truly a "landscape laboratory" of the world.

Figure "Relief of landscapes diversity of theNorthern Hemisphere", or landscape diversitycalculated by a ten-degree latitude-longitudegrid, shows the relief of diversity in the form ofa volumetric diagram. On its X and Y axes, lat-

itudes and longitudes of the NorthernHemisphere are plotted respectively. Theheight of separate cells corresponds to theirlandscape diversity, the diversity peaks beingeasily visible. As it is clear from the figure, thehighest level of diversity is characteristic of theCaucasus, the Black Sea region and the north-eastern part of the Himalayas. These regionsgreatly surpass other parts of the world in termsof landscape diversity, and thus represent"peaks" of landscape diversity globally.

Similarly, the world map of the number of land-scapes on a 10 degree-step grid shows that theCaucasus falls into the category of regions withthe highest landscape diversity, Georgia beingwithin the group of the first ten countries. Bythe number of landscapes per unit of area(10,000 km sq.), Georgia appears in first place,far ahead of all other countries.

In terms of biological diversity, the Caucasuslags behind tropical countries, but occupies firstplace among other regions of the same latitude.The Caucasus is characterised by a high level ofendemism: nearly one-fourth of all species are

IX

���

Relief of landscape diversity of North Hemisphere

Landscape diversity on the countries of the World

Source: WWF, 2001

Source: WWF, 2002

endemics. The Caucasus flora and faunainclude many relict species, which have beenpreserved and inherited from warmer and morehumid periods.

The high biological diversity of the Caucasus isdetermined by the region being situated at thejunction of temperate and sub-tropical zones,and being affected by both mild Atlantic airmasses and the dry continental air of Eurasia.Because of this and its unique natural history,the Caucasus represents a remarkable sub-region in terms of biodiversity.

One further major peculiarity of the Caucasus isthe existence of a comparatively large amountof intact ecosystems and even virgin land-scapes. Such landscapes occupy nearly one-tenth of the Caucasian land area.

Overall, the Caucasus is a region, with a rela-tively clean environment and few environmen-tal "hot spots".

Finally, one of the specific features of theCaucasus is the high ethno-cultural mosaic ofits territory. Many ethnic groups live in theCaucasus, which profess different religions andhave quite specific ethno-cultural traditions. InDagestan alone, in an area of less than 50,000sq. km., there are more than 40 ethnic groupsspeaking different languages. Very often vil-lages located in neighbouring river gorges donot understand one another, and their popula-tions can only communicate in Russian, whichis a state language there.

Among key issues existing in the Caucasus,economic and social ones, connected with thetransitional period from a planned to a marketeconomy need to be mentioned. In all the coun-tries of the Caucasus, a general economicdecline took place after the collapse of theUSSR. Reduced GDP brought about economicand social problems and a "free-fall" in thestandard of living. This itself had a two-foldimpact on the environment. On the one hand,due to the general economic decline, aggregatedpressures from economic sectors (industry,power, agriculture and transport) were reduced.On the other hand, pressures on local environ-ments from both urban and rural communitiesincreased. However, despite the overall reduc-tion in environmental pressures from major eco-

nomic sectors, per unit pollution increased rela-tive to the 1970s and 1980s, due to the obsoles-cence or absence of pollution control technolo-gies and the existence of poor compliance mon-itoring and control systems.

A very important problem for the Caucasusremains armed conflicts. Among them shouldbe mentioned those in Karabakh, Chechnya andAbkhazia. Overall, the Caucasus is charac-terised by a certain level of geo-political insta-bility. Along with recognized territorial units,there are unrecognised units, often callingthemselves "independent states".

Political conflicts have serious economic, healthand environmental implications for the region.On the one hand, military actions themselvescause high casualties, destruction of amenitiesand environmental degradation in conflict areas.On the other hand, the conflicts create local"hot spots" in terms of refugee camps, wherepeople live under poor sanitary/hygienic condi-tions and over-exploit nearby natural resourcesin order to sustain themselves.

Despite relative environmental health, there arenevertheless a number of environmental prob-lems connected with land degradation and soilerosion, desertification, deforestation, unequaldistribution of water resources and existence oflocal pollution "hot spots".

An important problem for the Caucasus is theresult of activities related to geodynamicprocesses. In 1988, the Spitak earthquake

X

���

Specific Features- High landscape diversity;- High biological diversity within moderate climate zone;- Ethnic-religious and cultural diversity;- Relatively high percent of intact ecosystems and high overall

environmental quality with few existing environmental hotspots; Problems

- Economic and social problems specific to countries in transition (overall decline of economic activities, severe budget constraints, high domestic and foreign indebtedness, low GDP growth rate, institutional weakness, etc);

- Geopolitical instability (ethnic wars, political upheavals, etc)and their impact on environment;

- Unequal distribution of water resources;- Deforestation problems;- Soil degradation and desertification;- High occurrence of natural disasters;

Emerging Issues- Oil spill and biodiversity fragmentation problems related to

existing and planned oil and gas pipeline projects;- Problems with environmental pollution and transit of danger-

ous goods in TRACECA corridor.

XI

���

resulted in about 25,000 deaths. Considerableeconomic damage was brought about by theSachkhere earthquake of 1991 and environmen-tal disasters (landslides, mudflows, floods andavalanches) in 1987 and 1989. The Caucasushas always been a region of ongoing major geo-dynamic processes, which seem to have intensi-fied recently, the earthquake of 25 April, 2000in Tbilisi being only one example.

In the light of current and future economictrends, the Caucasus may also face the follow-ing environmental issues: pollution with oilproducts and destruction of ecosystems as aresult of construction and operation of new oiland gas pipelines; increase in pollution alongthe transport corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia(known as TRACECA).

There were several limitations which hinderedthe CEO report preparation, the majority ofthese being related to the data problem.Although statistical services in different regionsof the Caucasus work with similar methods (atleast until the disintegration of the SovietUnion), their data differ in terms of complete-ness and compatibility. While more-or-lesscomplete historical data exist for Russia, part ofthese archives is classified.

For the South Caucasus countries, data for thelast ten-year period are often lacking or entirelyabsent, especially for Georgia, where environ-mental data collection has diminished the mostdramatically. Another major issue is the qualityof data, with the current system of qualityassurance/quality control (QA/QC) malfunc-tioning.

A final limitation is related to the short timeavailable for the CEO report's preparation anddelivery. Within one year, it was necessary tocollect data from all four countries, and com-bine and analyse the same in a coherent way ~an extremely challenging task.

In this report data are examined for theCaucasus as a whole and individually for allthree South Caucasus states (Armenia,Azerbaijan, Georgia) and the North Caucasus.In general, output data were generated by sum-marising or averaging raw data for the SouthCaucasus states and autonomous republics(Adigeya, Karachaevo-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnyaand Dagestan), and provinces or 'krays'(Krasnodar and Stavropol) of the NorthCaucasus.

Some specific difficulties were experiencedwhile working with data for Chechnya andIngushetia. The problem is that during theSoviet period, they formed a single autonomousrepublic which only broke up in the early1990s. In addition, during the last ten yearsChechnya has been engulfed by conflict, andthus current statistical data on Chechnya eitherdo not exist, or are very insufficient.

The data for South Caucasian autonomies areeven more incomplete. For those autonomies,currently or previously engaged in military con-flicts (e.g. Abkhazia and Karabakh), data arepractically absent.

During the Soviet period, republics, autonomiesand provinces ("kray") were divided intoadministrative districts ("raion"). In 1989, therewere 390 administrative districts in theCaucasus. Currently, administrative districtsstill exist in all states except Armenia. Insteadof 29 districts, regions have been formed("oblast"). As to Georgian districts ("raion"),they are further united into bigger provinces("mkhare" or "kray"). In some cases, data aregiven by administrative districts and cities.A specific feature of this report is the so-called"landscape approach". The main idea is thatthere are as many as 20 distinct landscape types(for a western audience, a more familiar termwould be "ecosystem" instead of "landscape")in the Caucasus, as well as 40 sub-types and152 genera. By using a GIS analytic method,an attempt has been made to compute anddesign features closely related to natural andsocial differentiation of an area for these land-scape units (population density, number of

SOME METHODOLOGICAL CLARIFICATIONS

LIMITATIONS

urban and rural population, area of arable lands,wooded areas, etc.). The reason for using a"landscape approach" is that first of all, theCaucasus has extremely distinct and clearly-defined landscape components that make theidea of using administrative units for spatialallocation of some geographical or environmen-tal features very irrational. Secondly, the samelandscapes in different Caucasus countries arecharacterised by similar sets of environmentaland geographical features and processes.Thirdly, pollution or other environmentalprocesses do not recognize administrativeboundaries and are limited only by natural bor-ders. Finally, what is probably most important,the uniqueness of the Caucasus may only beunderstood through this natural-ecologicalmosaic and landscape differentiation.

So-called "hot spots" play a very important rolein understanding the mechanisms of pollutionand the state of the environment of specific ter-ritories, as they have polygonal, linear and pointfeatures. Therefore, this study gives much atten-tion to description and analysis of pollution dis-tribution.

However, neither a landscape approach, nor theanalysis of smaller administrative districts andhot spots' distribution meets regional require-ments, but only covers local features instead.Therefore in this report, the reader will findonly maps showing local characteristics andtrends for environmental changes in theCaucasus, as description and analysis of thesemaps and local features would require muchtime and space.

At the same time, it is perfectly understood thatin terms of making real sense the further ideolo-gy of the CEO process should focus to the locallevels more closely. Or saying in other way, it isnecessary to keep moving from Global toRegional, then from Regional to Sub-Regionaland finally to Local levels. Only after such in-depth analysis of environmental conditions it isreasonable to move backward up the chain ofsynthesis at regional and global levels.Temporal analysis is also very important for theglobal study. Only such spatial-temporal inter-pretation of modern processes can address newrequirements of forecasting changes in the glob-al environment in our planet. It is hoped thisfirst CEO report will represent a major step indoing so for the Caucasus region.

An analysis of regional environmental andsocio-economic trends is impossible withoutanalysing major historical and political changeswhich have taken place in the world during thelast 30 years.

Why does the Caucasus Environmental Outlook(CEO) report focus on the period from 1972 to2000? In 1972, the first global environmentalconference was held in Stockholm. From thattime onward, the world community began topay more attention to environmental issues.During this period, the Caucasus was a part ofthe Soviet Union, and its industry, agricultureand transport were developed at acceleratedrates, increasing pressures on the environment.At the end of the 1970s, some economic con-traction occurred, when the rate of industrialgrowth declined.

Nevertheless, industrial growth continued toincrease, though at lower rates, reaching itspeak in the late 1980s, and accompanied bygreater environmental pollution.

In 1985, Michael Gorbachev and his team ofreformers began their rule of the Soviet Union.Their initial intentions were noble, being toimprove the situation in the country and initiatethe full-scale reform known as "Perestroika".However, the measures were not planned appro-priately and were carried out arbitrarily. As aresult, the environmental situation became evenworse. A series of ethnic conflicts broke out inKarabakh, Abkhazia and other regions of theCaucasus. The overall situation was aggravatedby a series of natural disasters in 1987-1991.The Spitak and Sachkhere earthquakes, andavalanches, landslides and mudflows in Svanetiand Ajara, not only cost thousands of lives, butalso resulted in billions of dollars of economiclosses. However, industrial and agricultural pro-duction nevertheless remained significant.

1991 was a year of a drastic change in the situa-tion of the Caucasus. During this period, theSoviet Union broke up, and three independentstates - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia -were established in the South Caucasus.

XII

���

BACKGROUND ANALYSIS OFREGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANDHISTORICAL-POLITICAL EVENTSFROM 1972-2002

The late 1980s and early 1990s were marked bya series of political conflicts (Abkhazia,Chechnya, Karabakh, and Former SouthOssetia) that significantly worsened the situa-tion in the Caucasus. Traditional economic tieswere broken and countries began the transitionfrom planned to market economies, howeverhaltingly. All these factors contributed to thedramatic decline of the Caucasus economy.This was also followed by a decline in popula-tion growth, and in some cases even decline inabsolute population size in some of the coun-tries and regions of the Caucasus.Consequently, environmental pressures werereduced and the state of the environmentimproved in terms of some aspects. Since thelate 1990s, some signs of stabilization could beobserved, with modest economic growth at theend of the 1990s and beginning of the 21st cen-tury. However, the level of growth of the 1980shas not yet been achieved by many economicsectors.

At present, there are four countries (three SouthCaucasus states and the Russian Federation,represented by the North Caucasus) with transi-tional economies in the Caucasus, whose majorcommon objective is to build on the currentlevel of democracy and overcome existing eco-nomic difficulties.

XIII

���

���

���

was also well-developed especially the BlackSea resorts from Anapa to Batumi and theCaucasus Mineralnye Vody (mineral waterresorts). In the past, a steady flow of touristscame to the Caucasus, but that flow has beendrastically reduced in recent years.

The Soviet economy was more-or-less stableunder the conditions of a planned economy,with growing industrial production and inten-sive agriculture. A relatively high economicgrowth rate and standard of living wereachieved in the 1970s and 80s, along with asteady growth in GDP. The peak of growth wasreached in the late 1980s. The early 1990s,however, were marked by downward trends,explained by overall economic decline. In theSouth Caucasus, for example, GDP fell to itslowest level in 1992 (1.1 billion USD)5.

Recently, a slight growth of GDP has beenobserved. However, the growth rate is far below1970s figures and is unsteady. GDP growth islargely due to the growth in the service, com-munications and trade sectors. In other sectorsan increase has taken place in mining and oilproduction. Agriculture is still the most impor-tant economic sector for entire region, employ-ing a majority of the adult population. It isnoteworthy, that the North Caucasus economysignificantly overweighs that of the SouthCaucasus. By the year 1998, its share of totalCaucasus GDP was 77.7%. It was also higherthan that the South Caucasus in the 1970s and80s.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, econom-ic ties among the republics were broken, result-ing in sharp reductions in production, importsand exports. Trade with other former Sovietrepublics was suspended. The economies of thenewly independent states (NIS) could not com-pete in western markets. The region was mostdamaged by its high degree of economic spe-cialisation. Industrial and agricultural produc-tion failed to meet the demand for basic con-sumer goods.

The severe economic crisis of the early 1990saffected nearly all economic sectors. Industrialenterprises stopped functioning and agricultural

5 GDP figures expressed in current rates do not reflect the realsituation. The Soviet Union practiced "imaginary" dollar rate, orsaying more precisely, there were several currency rates runningat the same time. Therefore it is very difficult compare data ofdifferent periods. It is clear that data on the Soviet period is artifi-cially lifted up and data on last half of the 1990s in turn is low-ered. Therefore, economic decline is even more obvious.

GDP per capita in the South Caucasus, 1980-99

During the Soviet era, the Caucasus economywas centrally-planned by the Soviet super-state.Management served more to strengthen the eco-nomic and political goals of the state rather thanmeet market demand. All natural resources andmeans of production were state-owned. Thecentralized system played the role of stableguarantor of economic relations between therepublics, but the economy of the republics wasdependent on Russia.

Before the break-up of the Soviet Union, theCaucasus was referred as two economicregions: the North Caucasus (including Rostovregion) and the Trans-Caucasus. The latterinvolved three republics: Armenia, Azerbaijanand Georgia. These economic regions were spe-cialised in several sectors. The tourism sector

1

���

CHAPTER 1.REGIONAL TREND OVERVIEW

1.1 General Information

GDP in the South Caucasus in current prices, 1980-99

output declined. Production of fruit, tea, tobac-co, cotton and wines declined. Hyperinflationdeepened the crisis; as the purchasing power ofsalaries and pensions declined, the standard ofliving fell. Political instability aggravated thesituation.

The beginning of the 1990s should be consid-ered a transition from a centralized system to amarket economy, but a period of economicdestruction. The crisis was followed by somepolitical stabilization, beginning in 1994-95.However, some "hot spots" of political tensionstill exist in some areas of the Caucasus andcontinue to impact the region's social and eco-nomic life.

General. In the 1970s and 1980s, industry inthe Caucasus was well-developed. The majorindustrial sectors were: oil and gas, chemicalsand machinery industries, ferrous and non-fer-rous metallurgy, cement, fertilizer, light manu-facturing and food processing.

In the Soviet period, rapid industrial develop-ment resulted in increased environmental pres-sures. From 1970 to 1990 overall production,for example, increased three times in the SouthCaucasus. However, the level of industrialdevelopment was still less the union averagevalue. After the USSR was dismantled, industri-al production sharply declined in the Caucasusregion, as a result of the energy crisis and thebreak of economic ties between the formerrepublics. Recently, some signs of industrialrevival have appeared. However, the growthrate is still insignificant.

In general, industrial activities are not equallydistributed across the region. Most industrialcentres are located in lowland zones along therailways, concentrated in large cities.

Manufacturing Sector. Some of the mostimportant environmental problems in the Sovietperiod were connected with manufacturingindustries. The Caucasus was not as heavilyindustrialised as European Russia, and sufferedless environmental pollution, but the impact ofindustry on the environment was not unimpor-tant. Of the heavy industries, oil processing,

chemical, metallurgical, machinery and cementmanufacturing plants were built, which createdsome of the most significant centres of pollu-tion. Beginning from the 1970s until the disin-tegration of the USSR, the increasing trend ofimpact on the environment from stationarysources was observed, in spite of the fact that anumber of environmental legal acts were adopt-ed and Soviet standards were among thestrictest in the world. However, the lack of lawenforcement from the government side and pol-lution controls from industry side contributedsignificantly to increased emissions into allenvironmental media. High pressures on envi-ronment from industry were traditionally due toextensive power and raw material consumption.Explanations for these can be attributed tomany causes, the basic among them being thepolitical-economic arrangement of the SovietUnion.

In general, the major focus was on economicgrowth and rapid industrialization, withoutproper consideration of environmental issues. Incentrally planned socialist systems, all means of

2

���

Total industry product in the Caucasus, 1985-98

Industry product in the Caucasus per capita, 1985-98

1.2 Socio-Economic Driving Forces

1.2.1 Economic Driving Forces

1.2.1.1 Industry

production were owned by the state. Practicallyno attention was paid to the efficiency implica-tions of pricing. State planners set minimal orno prices on inputs in order to promote industri-al development. As a result, the Soviet econo-my was extremely resource-intensive with eco-nomic sectors, including industry, over-utilisingnatural resources and polluting all environmen-tal media.

Industrial production was significantly reducedin the 1990s. At present, some industrial sectorsof industry are not functioning or are in severecrisis (working at 20-25% or less capacity). Thefall of industrial production has resulted insome reduction in water and air discharges andindustrial waste generation from stationarysources. Nevertheless, the reduction of environ-mental pressures from industry was not fol-lowed by major improvement in the state of theenvironment. "Old" sources of pollution, toxicindustrial wastes, heavy metals accumulated inthe ground, obsolete technologies and pollutioncontrol equipment still remain important factorscontributing to environmental pollution anddegradation.

Mining Sector. An important factor influencingthe environment, both during the Soviet periodand today is open-pit mining operations (non-

ferrous metals, manganese, coal, gravel, sands,quartz sand extraction), which are common inthe Caucasus. Prospects for future developmentof extensive mining are likely. Therefore, themining sector will remain an important factorimpacting the environment. In many places,open mines are located on household plots andagricultural lands, causing land degradation,creation of badlands and development of geody-namic processes. Some of the mines are situat-ed at relatively high altitudes, and impose adirect threat to fragile mountain ecosystems,and also affect lowland habitats downstreamfrom such mines. There are few land reclama-tion works, but where they occasionally are,they yield no results in mountainous areas.

Of particular concern are tailings from extrac-tive and processing operations. There is a highrisk that pollutants from these tailings mayleach into water systems. This often occurs inthe regions where ores are being extracted. Oiland gas-prospecting companies in the Baku-Sumgayit area and the North Caucasus(Krasnodar, Grozny and Maikop) form impor-tant centres of pollution as well. Since the min-ing sector experienced a lower decline than themanufacturing sector in the 1990s, it is a pro-portionally larger force in the economy.

3

���

Major industries in the Caucasus

Two major sources are used in the energy sectorof the Caucasus: fuel and hydro powerresources. They are not distributed equallyacross the region, one reason for the chronicpower shortage in some parts of the region. Amajor part of the energy resources comes fromhydro resources, comparatively less from fossilfuels.

In the Soviet period, the centralised system ofelectrical power production provided its non-stop delivery to consumers. Thus, in the regionthere were no real power shortages despite thefact that in some periods energy consumptionexceeded production. The deficit was filled byelectricity imported from other Union republics.In the 1990s this was more difficult as the cen-tralized system broke-up and fuel prices on theworld market were high. Since 1985, powershortages have been a problem for Georgia par-

ticularly. It made up in average 2.325-3.64 bil-lion kW/h (Svanidze, 1998).

Until the end of the 1980s power generationand both industrial and household consumptionwere steadily increasing. Energy generationincreased 2.3 times from 45.9 billion kW/h upto 108.3 billion kW/h. between 1970 and 1990(Georgia was the only republic where electricityproduction started to decline from 1985, whileits annual consumption increased). At thebeginning of the 1990s power generationdeclined considerably, falling to 75.7-72.2 bil-lion kW/h from 1995-98. The amount of powergenerated by hydro-electric plants grew in pro-portion to all power generated. All this indi-cates that there has been a reduction of air pol-lution from power plants. However, in recentyears, a slight increase in power generation hasoccurred.

Considerable changes have occurred in thestructure of power consumption as well, withincreases in household consumption anddecreases in the industry, agriculture and trans-port sectors.

A considerable number of environmental prob-lems are related to the power sector. This is par-ticularly visible in the surroundings of largepower plants, although it should be taken intoaccount that natural gas, which causes less pol-lution of the atmosphere, is used quite widely inthe region. Power plants can have environmen-tal impacts over quite long distances. Waterused by thermal power plants pollutes trans-boundary rivers and adjacent areas. Building ofhydro-power stations can negatively influence

4

���

. Oil has been of greatest importance for Azerbaijan all through its history. Evidences of oil extraction on the Absheron peninsula have existed since the 5th centuryA.D. In 1897-1907 the 833 km long Baku-Batumi oil pipeline was built, which was the largest in the world at that time (one of the first oil pipelines in the world was builtin Azerbaijan in 1878). In 1901, Absheron was the largest oil producer in the world (it accounted for over 50% of the world's extraction). Before World War II, Azerbaijanwas the greatest oil extracting and supplying region of the USSR, with ¾ share of total oil extraction. However, this was not followed by important rise in socio-economicconditions in the republic. Moreover, the state of the environment has become worse. Current levels of oil production in Azerbaijan are far below the 70-s and 80-s levelsexplained by reduced oil reserves, out-of-date technologies, inadequate investments, etc. It is noteworthy to mention that Caspian oil has made the Caucasus a strategicregions.In the Caspian seashore the extensive extraction of oil has been conducted for more than a century. Therefore its influence on sensitive aquatoria and densely populatedarea is quite high. In the vicinity of Baku oil has heavily polluted around 10,000 hectares of land. In former USSR the area of Absheron peninsula was considered theregion the most polluted by oil products, where pollution was 32 times higher than the background level. In the 1970s the discharge of polluted water into the sea was pro-hibited, but that brought about no major changes. Wastes, which were neither buried nor utilized, were disposed of on the shore. Therefore during storms they returned tothe sea again. This had negative impact on flora and fauna.. In Chiatura (Georgia) manganese quarries thousands of hectares of agriculture lands have been excavated and become useless. As a result, erosion and landslideshave become extensive, comprising a high threat to settlements. Tailings formed as a result of ore enrichment have accumulated in high quantities. Wastewaters with highmanganese concentration have been heavily polluting River Kvirila. . Madneuli (Georgia) non-ferrous metal (copper, lead, zinc and also gold) mine is one of the largest in the Caucasus. It has been exploited since 1970s. The surround-ing environment is very degraded and arable lands are useless. Open pit waters of the deposit-based ore processing plant pollute the Kura river tributaries. In 1992 the cop-per content in the Kazretula river was 220 times higher than legal standard and zinc content was 65 times higher. About 20-30,000 people live in this area. Local agricul-tural products (mainly vegetables) are supplied to the inhabitants of the city of Tbilisi and its surroundings. Air is also polluted by heavy metals (cobalt, chromium, cadmi-um, nickel, arsenic, others), where the amount of dust emitted annually amounts to 31 tons.. In Tyrnyauz (Kabardino-Balkaria, the North Caucasus) tungsten and molybdenum has been extracted and enriched since the Soviet times. After the short break, theindustrial activities were renewed here in 1994, although adequate environmental actions were not undertaken. As a result 5,527 t suspended substances, 0.1 t of molybde-num and 0.07 t arsenic flow into the Baksan River annually.

Sources: IUCN, 2000; Tvarlchrelidze A. 1998; MoE Documents; Jaoshvili V. 1996; State Committee on Ecology and Control of Natural Resources Utilization 1998,Baku; State Committee of the USSR on Nature Protection, 1989; G.Info, 1996.

Power generation in the Caucasus, 1970-99

1.2.1.2 Energy

coastal zones causing soil erosion and destruc-tion of beaches. In this regard, the Black Searesort zone has experienced significant damage.

Two large nuclear power sources are theMedzamor nuclear plant, in Armenia and theRostov nuclear power plant, located in theregion adjacent to the Caucasus. These plantsare important risk factors for the region. Werean accident to occur at the Medzamor plant, forexample, the South Caucasus and much of theMiddle East would face particular danger. Thisrisk is increased by the fact that the region is ahighly active seismic zone.

General. During the Soviet era, agriculturewas one of the leading sectors of the Caucasuseconomy. Favourable and diverse climatic con-ditions and fertile soils promoted the develop-ment of comparatively productive agriculturalsector there. The Caucasus was an importantagricultural region, supplying goods to theentire USSR, including corn, grapes, tobacco,cotton, fruit, tea and citrus. The Caucasus wasthe only region in the FSU, where tea and citruswere produced. At present agriculture remainsthe major economic sector in the region,employing a significant amount of the popula-tion. Over a certain period, the Caucasus shareof the Soviet Union's total output was approxi-mately 20%, while its area was only 2% of theterritory of the Soviet Union (WWF, 2001). Theabundance of agricultural goods created thebasis for developing the food industry (canner-ies, wine etc).

Despite this, agricultural production failed tosatisfy the demands of the Caucasian populationfor many primary products. The main reasonfor this was the high specialization of agricul-ture, which emphasized the production of tech-nical raw material as a production base forindustry over primary food products. That iswhy a deficit of numerous food products exist-ed and it was necessary to import these prod-ucts from other countries.

Overall, Soviet agriculture was highly ineffi-cient and had a poorly equipped infrastructure.Losses in agriculture output were high, whilethe natural fertility of soils fell in most agricul-ture regions of the country after 1960.Resources were inefficiently allocated withinthe sector. Even agriculture branches andregions that were not economically viable weresubsidized. According to estimates, environ-

mental pressures were more than twice as highas overall land productivity in the Soviet Union.During the period from 1970 to 1980, a 1%growth in agriculture production was achievedby 4% growth in sector expenditures (Ministryof Nature Protection of Russian Federation,1994). Thus, over time Soviet agriculturebecame a resource intensive and inefficient sec-tor, with high pressures on the environment.Caucasus agriculture was not unlike that of theentire Soviet Union.

After the USSR's collapse, basic changes tookplace in the structure of agriculture. TheCaucasian republics, which traditionally pro-duced excess agricultural output, began to expe-rience shortages. Numerous plantations, andorchards gave way to pastures, arable lands andcornfields.

Agriculture Lands. In the Soviet period, aridlands were irrigated and marshy places drainedin order to transform them into agriculturallands. Despite these efforts, there has been adecrease in the amount of arable land, causedbasically by unsustainable land use practices.At the same time, pastures increased at theexpense of arable lands. This has not had a uni-form impact on the region's economy. In theregions rich in winter pastures, for example inthe North Caucasus, the food base for livestockincreased.

Land resources are not distributed equally in theCaucasus. At present, the total area of arableland is 12.4 million hectares. Current reductionin the amount of arable land is connected withdifferent factors (land erosion, land salinizationand secondary bogging, etc.). This tendency isparticularly evident in the North Caucasus.However, the North Caucasus share in the total

5

���

Arable lands, pastures and forest covered areas in theCaucasus per capita, 1998

1.2.1.3 Agriculture

Source: State statistica services of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and RF, Year Books, 1998

area of the Caucasus arable lands is 83.1%.Armenia and Georgia experience a lack ofarable lands.

Highland summer pastures are the major sourceof fodder in the region, and they cover vastareas in the Greater and Lesser Caucasus.Summer pastures are particularly abundant inthe North Caucasus (Kizlyar pastures inDagestan and Chechen-Ingushetia) andAzerbaijan (Kura-Araks lowland). Relativelysmall areas are found in Georgia (Yeldar low-land, Kvemo (Lower) Kartli plain). Hence, theproblem of overgrazing is not uncommon to theregion. The problem is very acute in sub-alpineand alpine zones, which are affected by inten-sive erosion processes and have lower bio-pro-ductivity.

Overall, extensive land cultivation over recentdecades has resulted in reduced land productivi-ty and erosion, and has led to the abandonmentof some areas on hillsides. Over the last 30years, there has been increased conversion ofsemi-desert, steppe and wetland habitats forcultivation, resulting in the loss of some impor-tant sites, and increased threats to species. Forexample, the amphibians and reptiles of theAraks Valley are now threatened as a result ofhabitat loss, and the diversity and populationsof breeding birds has been reduced as their foodsources have decreased. (UNEP/MNP ofArmenia, 2000).

Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Irrigationand drainage systems are essential for Caucasusagriculture. Without agricultural irrigation, it isimpossible to grow the main agriculture cropsin the East Caucasus: Azerbaijan, East Georgia,and the Ararat Valley. It is precisely here that asignificant amount of arable lands exist. Cotton,cereals, rice etc. are grown on irrigated lands.

Irrigation and drainage systems have been usedin the Caucasus since historical times. Theintensive development of such systems began in1920-30s and as a result, a large network wasbuilt.

Environmental pressures are high from irriga-tion systems. On the one hand, irrigation is oneof the major water users in the region. Sincelosses in the systems are high, water resourcesare both inefficiently used, and over-utilized.On the other hand, unsustainable irrigationpractices in the region are leading to a rise inthe water table, erosion processes, secondarybogging or salinization of soils, loss of soil fer-

tility, etc. For example, increased salinity isobserved in 42,000 ha of land in the AraratValley (UNEP/MNP of Armenia, 2000). Waterwith high salt content (more than 1g/l) is main-ly used in the South Caucasus. Therefore theaccumulation of salts and bad soil conditionsare frequent. Some arable lands are located onslopes greater than 5 degrees, accelerating theerosion process. This impact is particularly highdue to the extensive use of gravitational irriga-tion and absence of regular canal cleaning.

Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides.Traditionally, mineral fertilisers and agrochemi-cals were heavily used in the Caucasus regionand reached maximum levels in the 1980s. InArmenia, for example, more than 300,000 tonsof fertilizers, with usage reaching a height of369,600 tons in 1986, and 6,000-7,000 tons ofpesticides were used in the 1980s. Average pes-ticide use was about 9 kg/ha by public farms(UN-ECE/MNP of Armenia, 2000). InAzerbaijan, this figure amounted to about 33kg/ha by that time (State Committee of NaturalResources Protection, Azerbaijan, 1997). InGeorgia, about 250,000 tons (240 kg/ha) of fer-tilizers and 29-34,000 tons pesticides were usedin the late 1980s (WB/MoA of Georgia, 1996;WB, Washington, 1996). In the USSR, the soilsmost heavily polluted by DDT are found inAzerbaijan and Armenia (State Committee ofNature Protection of the USSR, 1989).

In general, the Soviet system for distributingand storing agrochemicals was very inefficient,characterized by high losses, and resulting inwater and soil pollution. On the other hand, thesystem was centralized; hence it was easy tocontrol the distribution and the use of chemi-cals. There was no specific law to regulate thefield. Separate institutions were responsible for

6

���

Pesticide use in Georgia, 1970-99

the handling, storage and use of chemicals, pro-vided they met sanitary requirements, norms orrules established by the central authority.

Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the useof fertilizers and pesticides has dropped dramat-ically, reducing some of the environmentalpressures from agriculture. For example, inGeorgia the use of fertilizers has declined fromabout 240-250 kg/ha in the late 1980s to only10kg/ha in 1994 (WB/MoA of Georgia, 1996). InArmenia, only 10,000-15,000 tons of mineralfertilizers are used at present, which is less than3% of previous levels (UN-ECE/MNP ofArmenia, 2000). Pesticide use has decreased aswell.

Although the use of chemicals has significantlydeclined, soil pollution, has not significantlylessened as a result. Heavy metals used in agro-chemicals are still accumulated in soils in largeamounts.

Obsolete fertilizers and pesticides, stored inwarehouses not meeting minimal environmentalstandards, have adverse impacts on soil andwater quality. Uncontrolled import and use ofchemicals is a common phenomenon for thewhole Caucasus (as well as for the entire for-mer Soviet Union). Under such conditions,some chemicals are used (DDT, DDE, etc.) thatare banned worldwide. Development of small-scale individual farming has also led to theincorrect use of chemicals. There were caseswhen the use of unknown pesticides causeddestruction of agricultural crops.

General. From the viewpoint of transport, theCaucasus has strategic location. On the onehand, it is a "bridge" connecting West Europewith Central Asia (east-west direction) and, onthe other hand, Russia with Middle East (north-south direction).

The region's favourable transport location iscaused by two factors: location between eco-nomic fuel "extracting" (Central Asia) and "consuming" (Europe) regions; and its coastallocation. The Black Sea connects it withSouthern European countries, and the CaspianSea - with Russia, Central Asia, Iran and Volga-Baltic states through navigation canals.

The development of the proposed TRACECA(Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia)

route connecting the Black and Caspian Seaswould be a basis for future development of theregion's economy. This, however, may alsohave some negative impacts on natural environ-ment.In the Soviet period, the Caucasus was a

peripheral region of the USSR, isolated fromthe rest of the world. Most transport mainlyserved cargo and passenger shipments withinthe country. In the 1970s-80s, economic rela-tions among sister republics were mainly imple-mented by railway and marine transport, andwith foreign countries by sea. The harbours ofspecial importance were Baku, Novorossiisk,Tuapse, Poti, Batumi and Makhachkala. Intransportation, the main commodities were oil,oil products, manganese, coal, metals, chemicalproducts, timber, grains etc.

In 1970-88, total freight turnover increased inthe entire region. In the South Caucasus, forexample, it nearly doubled from 78.2 billiont/km to 154.6 billion t/km. In total valueGeorgia's specific share was 40-50%. From1990, in parallel with weakening economic

7

���

Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia

Total freight turnover in the South Caucasus, 1970-99

Vehicular transport road length in the South Caucasus1970-98

1.2.1.4 Transport

links, the freight turnover sharply weakenedreaching a minimum of 23.6 billion t/km in1996 in the South Caucasus. However, a ten-dency of growth in freight turnover has recentlybeen noticed again.

Motor Transport. Similar to other regions ofthe world, motor transport was an importantsource of air pollution in the Caucasus over thelast decades, and its impact continues to grow.One of the most problematic issues related totransport emissions is ground level ozone,which forms "summer smog." The cities withvalley type terrain, poor ventilation and fre-quent low temperature inversions suffer themost. In the Caucasus, Yerevan, Vanadzor andTbilisi, etc. are characterized by such naturalconditions. However, ground-level ozone problem is not asacute for the Caucasus citiesas for large cities of Europeand America.

Passenger cars are the majorsources of ambient air pollu-tion in the Caucasus. A sig-nificant increase in theamount of passenger cars wasobserved in the 1980s. Theearly 1990s were marked by adownward trend, at least forthe South Caucasus. Since themid-1990s, traffic-related pol-lution has become a morecritical issue.

Overall, in the Caucasus,increased pollution from traf-fic is more related to obsoletecar fleet and low quality offuel used rather than the number of vehicles.Poor vehicle inspection-maintenance systemshave led to an increase in "gross polluter" cars.

Oil and Gas Transportation. The Caucasus isa significant region not only for fuel extraction,but also in its transportation. Pipeline construc-tion here dates back to the 19th century, whenbuilding of oil pipelines began in this region,with gas pipelines starting later. Over recentdecades, the total length of pipelines hasincreased in the region. Growth has been partic-ularly significant since the 1980s. In the 1970s-80s, the pipeline share of total freight turnoverhas increased gradually. In Georgia, forinstance, from 1970 to 1983 its percentageshare increased from 10.4% to 30%(Kverenchkliladze, 1986).

The fuel was transported through pipelines fromgas and oil producing regions (Azerbaijan andthe North Caucasus). Major oil pipeline routeswere Baku-Tbilisi-Batumi, Izberbash-Grozny-Krasnodar/Rostov, and gas pipelinesVladikavkaz/Stavropol-Tbilisi-Yerevan.

In the early 1990s, oil and gas transportationdeclined dramatically. However, an upwardtrend is observed again at present, which threat-ens to increases the risk of oil spills and hence,environmental pollution.

At present, there are large-scale pipeline proj-ects of international importance planned orbeing currently constructed in the region to

develop a transport route for crude oil fromAzerbaijan and Central Asia. These may posehigh pressures on the environment. It is project-ed that by 2020 the daily rate of oil extractionwill reach approximately 3-5.5 million barrelsin the Caspian region, through projects alreadydeveloped (Utiashvili, 2000).

In general, environmental impacts of pipelinesduring both the construction and operationphases are significant. Some of the pipelines inthe Caucasus cross the protected areas, waterrecharge regions, archeological sites, etc. Interms of environmental pollution, a high risk isimposed to marine ecosystems from oil loadingtanks. Significant impacts can also come fromcargo ships carrying crude from Kazakstan tothe Dubend terminal in Azerbaijan and from the

8

���

Common East-West Energy Corridor

Supsa Terminal in Georgia to Western coun-tries.

Destruction of forests in different parts of theCaucasus is connected with human activities.Scientists consider that the deforestation onJavakheti plateau, Shida Kartli plain, northernslopes of the Caucasus and areas between therivers Zelenchuk and Baksan are due to anthro-pogenic factors as well as natural ones. Manyhistorical documents indicate that formerly for-est-covered areas rich in fauna are now occu-pied by steppes, shrubs, and degraded andthinned forests or by human settlements.

Destruction of the Caucasian forests becamevery intensive in the 19th century, when foreignowners exported timber from the region.Extensive logging was particularly noticeable inthe first half of the 20th century. In the 1970s-80s, mass woodcuts in the Caucasus were limit-ed due to import of comparatively cheaper tim-ber from Siberia (Russia). That's why mountainforests here remained more or less untouched.Apart from this, most of the Caucasus forestsaccording to adopted forestry codes belonged tothe first category forests, where commerciallogging was banned. Finally, high attention wasalso paid to selective cutting and reforestationfor forest regeneration purposes.

However, non-sustainable wood cutting meth-ods used at that time did not support the regen-eration of Caucasus forests. Felling was con-ducted by extensive use of heavy machinery.Local ecological peculiarities were rarely takeninto consideration.

Commercial logging has dropped significantlyfollowing the post-Soviet economic crisis. Atthe same time, reforestation and selective cut-ting for forest regeneration purposes havedeclined as well due severe budget constraints.

At present, the increase in population impact onforestry resources is caused by the socio-eco-nomic crisis in the Caucasus. Specifically, theenergy crisis and fuel shortage have caused anincrease in woodcutting to obtain firewood forheating. Forests are being cut both in rural andurban areas. Parks and dendraria have notescaped destruction, either. Forests are mostlydamaged on the outskirts of settlements, citiesand along roads. Local people near forestedregions have been cutting forests in easilyaccessible areas. Forests are being destroyed,

and streambeds and banks damaged by thetransport logs by trailing the brushwood.Branches and barks left after cutting fall intolakes and pools turn them into dead systems fullof tannin. High corruption and low capacity oflaw enforcement bodies also result in illegalcutting, especially valuable wood species. Thisitself causes an overall decline in forest quality.Finally, grazing and hay production in forestareas is not rare. All these factors contribute todecreased productivity and regeneration rate offorests as well as a change in species composi-tion and accelerated erosion. In these condi-tions, populations of pest species have beenincreasing, while many bird and mammalspecies associated with forests are threatened.

Another factor driving logging is the high priceof timber in neighbouring countries. This hasinfluenced Georgia, especially the Adigen-Borjomi and Guria-Ajara regions, where forest-ed areas were considerably damaged during thelast decade.

As a result of forest destruction in the Caucasuslandslides of catastrophic character havebecame frequent phenomena since the 1980s.Along with this, the reduction of surface andground water reserves have been observed indifferent parts of the Caucasus, which are againconnected with intensive wood cutting (UNDP,Georgia, 1996).

Over many centuries, humans have fished theBlack, Caspian and Azov seas, but this usagewas not strong enough to cause the destructionof natural ecosystems. Some thirty years ago,these sea basins were rich in fish stocks. Theysupplied the Caucasus region, but also Bulgaria,Romania, Ukraine, Turkey, Kazakhstan andTurkmenistan and their food industries.Nevertheless, the situation has changed lastdecades. High anthropogenic pressures onmarine ecosystems have resulted in decreasedamounts of commercial fish species and totalichthyic fauna. New settlements, water pollu-tion (with ballast and inflow waters), wastedumpsites located on the coast, building ofhydro-technical facilities, over fishing, poach-ing, etc. have destroyed species habitats, naturalbreeding grounds and migration routes. Bio-accumulation of chemical substances has beenobserved among Black Sea fish and mollusks.This itself increased the risks for the food chainand resultant threat to human beings.

9

���

1.2.1.5 Forestry

1.2.1.6 Fishery

The volume of fish catch in the 1970s-80sreached such a big size that this factor signifi-cantly affected the water bodies of the regionand the ecosystems of the adjacent seas.Deterioration of water quality at the same timecaused the reduction of overall volume of bio-organisms and the degradation of ecosystems.Thus, already in the beginning of the 1990s adrastic reduction of commercially exploited fishin the waters of the Caspian, Azov and BlackSeas, once very rich in ichtyofauna, was clearlyseen. For instance the number of commercialfish in the Black Sea for over past 30-year peri-od was reduced from 24 to 3-4 species by 1990(G.Info, 1996).

The general economic collapse was followed bya dramatic reduction in the overall volume offishing. During recent years commercial fishingin the Azov Sea has declined by a factor of 10times relative to the 1970s and 80s (Grigolia G.,1996). Twenty years ago in coastal area ofDagestan along the Caspian Sea, 20-25 thou-sand tons of sturgeon were caught every year.For the past twenty years, the sturgeon catchhas been reduced by 90% (IUCN, 2000). Thesituation is similar in Azerbaijan, where in1991-1996 overall fish catch in the Caspian Seadeclined from 39.7 thousand to 6.9 thousandtons (IUCN, 2000). Decline in fish catch wasparticularly acute in Georgia. In 1992 the over-all volume of fishing decreased by a factor of50 compared to 1990.

Nevertheless, illegal fish catch has significantlyincreased in many places of the Caucasus, par-ticularly the catch of commercial species likesturgeon, salmon, trout and others. Althoughthe catch of valuable fish species is regulatedby existing legislation, actual law enforcementis weak.

Logically, the economic collapse of the 1990sshould have led to a reduction of negativeimpacts on ichtyofauna with more favourableconditions for reproduction of their stocks.Unfortunately, this did not happen, due to pollu-tion from oil and oil products through drillingin the Caspian Sea and transportation via theBlack Sea. Chemically contaminated groundwater eventually ends up in these waters andthus is still an important factor. Due to the dete-rioration of social conditions, the impact of thepopulation on water ecosystems has increased.Poaching has become one of the most signifi-cant reasons for the reduction of fish stocks.Particular damage to fish stocks is caused bythe use of explosives, electric power and chemi-cals, which are particularly dangerous foryoung fish, fish spawning grounds and fish-food storehouses.

Aquatic ecosystems, including fish, are alsoaffected by so-called "putting in nets" which areused by poachers. This practice is rather com-mon in the Black Sea. The victims of the netsare frequently big mammals - even dolphins.The problem becomes more severe due to thefact that such nets are very often lost duringstorms. As a result, fish caught in the net per-ish and decay. Thus, because of poaching fishstocks have not only declined, but also havelost their quality.

Population Size. At present, the population ofthe Caucasus is over 30 million people. Of thisnumber, 13.32 million live in the NorthCaucasus and 17.33 million in the SouthCaucasus. Over the last 30 years, the Caucasuspopulation has been grown steadily, in thebeginning of the 1970s being 22.7 million andexceeding 25 million by 1989. By the year1995, it was already over 30 million.

The Caucasus has far lower growth rates thanAsian, African and Latin American countries.Recently, the growth rate has been graduallydeclining. Thus, environmental pressures frompopulation growth are far less in the Caucasusthan in the developing world.

Over the last 30 years, the growth rate washigher in regions with Moslem traditions(Azerbaijan and a major part of the North

10

���

1.2.2 Social Driving Forces

1.2.2.1 Population

Total fish catch in marine waters of Azerbaijan andGeorgia, 1990-99

Caucasus autonomies) and their share of totalpopulation size increased from 41% in 1970 to45% in 2000. In the period under discussion,there has been some population redistribution ineach country.

During the first 20 years (1970-90), the increasein population was caused mainly by the dynam-

ics of birth and death rates. For the last 10years, migration of the population and a streamof refugees from conflict areas have played animportant role. Mortality rates in the SouthCaucasus for the last 30 years have fluctuatedbetween 5-9 persons per 1000. In the NorthCaucasus, due to the great number of elderlypeople along with poor social and economicconditions, the mortality increased from 8 to 13persons, while at the same time, birth rates have

fallen. The mortality rate exceeded the birthrate in this region in the beginning of the 1990s,

leading to a natural population decline.

However, due to an inflow of migrants from theformer Soviet Union republics, the populationof the North Caucasus keeps growing. From1990 through 2000 it increased from 12.54 to13.32 million people. The flow of migrants wasthe highest in the first half of the 1990s. Overthat period, 100 to 200 thousand people werearriving in the North Caucasus each year. Sincethen, the flow of migrants reduced.

For all three countries of the South Caucasusfrom 1970 through 1990 the flow of migrantswas positive. However, due to dire economicconditions in the 1990s, out-migration of thepopulation occurred, as both native and non-native residents left these countries.

11

���

Population size in the Caucasus, 1970-99

Natural increase in the Caucasus per 1000 inhabitants1970-99

Migration balance in the South Caucasus, 1979-99

Population size in the Caucasus in 1970 and 1999

*

Source: State statistica services of Armenia, Azerbaijanand Georgia, Year Books, 1970-2000

Mass-scale migration of the population is adirect consequence of armed conflicts. A signif-icant number of native citizens migrated to for-eign countries. For instance, most of theRussian population left Georgia, Azerbaijan,Armenia and the autonomous republics of the

North Caucasus. According to the rough esti-mates overall amount of migrants from theCaucasus constitutes 3.5 million people, orabout 12% of its population.

Population Density. Population pressures onthe Caucasus environment are more related topopulation distribution rather than to populationgrowth.

As can be seen from this map, there are threemajor axes of settlements in the Caucasus. Thefirst axis is connected with the Kuban plain andthe South Caucasus foothills. The second axisis connected with the intermountain depression

between the Greater and Lesser Caucasus, andthe third is connected with the Ararat Valley. Inthese axes, density of the population exceeds50/km sq. and in the regions of urban agglom-erations and some densely populated ruralregions varies from 100-500 and more persons.

The mountainous territories of the Greater andLesser Caucasus do not have a high populationdensity (10-30/km sq). Some highland land-scapes and a many average mountainous andforest landscapes have practically no permanentpopulation.

Urban and Rural Population and Pressureson Environment. The Caucasus region hasthree "millionaire" cities with the populations ofover 1,000,000. These are the capitals of theSouth Caucasus: Baku (1,700,000), Tbilisi(1,200,000) and Yerevan (1,200,000). In theNorth Caucasus, only one town, Krasnodar hasa population over 500,000 and four towns:Sochi, Makhachkala, Stavropol andVladikavkaz have populations ranging from300,000 to 500,000.

At present, the percentage of urban populationin Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the North Caucasusfluctuates between 50-60%. A comparativelyhigh percentage of urbanization is characteristicof Armenia where it equals to 66.8 %. In all theregions of the Caucasus, the percentage ofurban population has been growing, but at lowrates.

Urban territories do not occupy large areas inthe Caucasus. However, a major part of the

12

���

Number of refugees in the North Caucasus, 1992-1999

Population density in the Caucasus, 2000

Urban population in the Caucasus

Compiled by Beruchashvili N., 1999-2001 Statistical data

Compiled by Beruchashvili N., 1999-2001 Statistical data

population (57.15%) lives in the cities. In thisrespect, the Caucasus exceeds global averageindex (41%) and majority of Asian and Africancountries. However, it is behind West Europeancountries and the USA, which have the highestlevel of urbanization in the world.

Cities and industrial centres are the mainsources of pollution. There, an important sourceof pollution is formed by motor transport andobsolete municipal infrastructure, low capacityof water treatment facilities or their absence ingeneral. Unorganised location of parking lotscauses traffic jams, creating additional noiseand pollution. The location of industrial enter-prises against prevailing wind patterns is anoth-er important factor.

The environment is influenced by rural settle-ments in the plain zones. In some places, vil-lages and arable lands form continuous alternat-ing patterns. These includes such areas as theColchian hilly zone, Alazani-Agrichai plain,Mid-Araks plain, North Caucasus foothills,Lenkoran depression, etc. In such places thereare intensively polluted surface waters, soilsand ground waters. Biota are damaged and bio-diversity is reduced.

Before the break up of the Soviet Union, onenever would have imagined that military actionswould become significant driving forces for theCaucasus environment. From the end of 1980sthey became significant and sometimes deter-mining factors for the state of the environmentof the region.

Beginning in 1988 the Caucasus became anarena for ethnic conflicts and wars. Amongthese, the most well known is the conflict inChechnya. Military action continues there to thepresent. The conflicts in Abkhazia, Karabakh,and Former South Ossetia and between Ossetsand Ingush have quieted down but were inten-sive in the beginning of the 1990s.

Ethnic conflicts and military actions had seriousimpacts on the Caucasus environment. Theintensive bombing of Chechen, Karabakh andAbkhazian territories caused the degradation oftopsoil there. Explosions followed by fires dam-aged local forests and vegetation cover. Apartfrom this, erosion has intensified. Militaryactions also resulted in environmental pollution.Environmental pollution and noise had highimpacts on local flora and fauna, causing thedestruction of species habitats and migrationroutes (See chapter three for more detailedanalysis).

13

���

Rural population in the Caucasus

Main armed conflicts in the Caucasus, since 1988

1.2.2.2 Political Conflicts and Military Actions

Compiled by Beruchashvili N., 1999-2001 Statistical data

���

The Caucasus is located at the junction of tem-perate and subtropical climate zones. The bor-der between them is well-delineated by theMain Caucasus Range, which determines theclimatic difference between the North andSouth Caucasus. Therefore, climatic factorscausing latitudinal zonality of the Caucasuslandscapes are closely connected with oro-graphic (relief) factors and they should be con-sidered jointly.

In the Caucasus, the first level oroclimatic dif-ferentiation of landscapes, connected with theMain Caucasus Range and Trans-CaucasusSub-meridian upland, is relatively well-known.Less information exists on the second level, inwhich an essential role is played by relief fea-tures, being climate-determining factors of thesecond order. The "sectoral" differentiation ofthe Caucasus landscapes, significant differencein regional moisture distribution and a degree ofcontinentality of the climate are connected withthem.

Overall, oroclimatic factors and high hypsomet-ric (altitude) peculiarities determine the typesand zonality of the Caucasus landscapes.

In the Caucasus, the distribution of landscapesis closely connected with development history.In the Quaternary period, with cooling of theclimate two refugiums (shelters): Colchian andGirkan were established there. With the warm-ing of the climate, the representatives ofColchian and Hircan flora have started tospread. Due to this, the landscapes with thegreat participation of ancient flora were calledColchian and Hircan.

Relief and geological peculiarities determinethe distribution of a number of specific land-scapes in the Caucasus. First of all, the distribu-tion of karst landscapes, connected with conesof limestone and carbonate rocks should bementioned.

Volcanic landscapes are most characteristic ofthe Armenian Highlands. Here they occupyconsiderable areas and high elevation lavaplateau and volcanic cones are connected withthem. On the Greater Caucasus, volcanic land-scapes are met more seldom, presented in theform of isolated volcanic masses, such asElbrus and Kazbegi.

Differentiation of plain, elevated and mountain-ous landscapes is connected with geological andmorphological factors. Thus, separate species oflandscapes are of the following types: depres-sion-plain accumulative, pre-mountainous-hilly,denudation-accumulative and denudation-ero-sive, low mountainous arid-denudation, erosive-denudation, denudation paleo-glacial, and otherlandscapes.

At present, anthropogenic activities are one ofthe most important forces driving transforma-tion of landscapes. As a result of human activi-ties new natural-agrarian territorial units arebeing formed, and the landscapes are connectedwith selitebic (inhabited) parts, industrial andtransport constructions, recreation, etc.

Caucasus Landscapes are described at the levelof type. In addition, major sub-types and enu-merated numbers of landscape genera accordingto the Landscape Map of the Caucasus (1979),the monograph "Caucasus: Landscapes,Models, Experiments" (1995) and the StudyReport Biodiversity of the Caucasus Ecoregion(2001) are given. In all, there are 2 classes, 20types, 40 sub-types and 152 genera of land-scapes in the Caucasus.

In terms of the number of landscapes, Georgiais distinguished by the greatest diversity at thelevel of class among other Caucasus countriesand the countries of the Black Sea region. Inthe meantime, Azerbaijan occupies the firstplace by the amount of landscapes types andsub-types. This is connected with the fact thatAzerbaijan, firstly, has a larger territory, andsecondly, it involves the Nakhichevanautonomous republic. Thirdly, Azerbaijan betterpresents a spectrum of arid and moderate land-scapes. From the regions of the NorthCaucasus, the most varied landscapes are pre-sented in Krasnodar kray and Dagestan.

���

15

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE CAUCASUSENVIRONMENT AND POLICY MEASURES:A RETROSPECTIVE FROM 1970 TO 2000

2.1 Landscapes and Biological Diversity

2.1.1. Landscape Diversity

Caucasus landscapes ���

16

Caucasus Flora. The level of biodiversity inthe Caucasus is relatively well-known. Basedon recent data, there are 6,300-6,350 plantspecies in the region. In this regard, theCaucasus is the richest floristic region amongthe regions of temperate climate zones.Countries of the tropical climate zone, however,have higher indices of floristic diversity. Milderclimate conditions and an abundance of relictplants dated from cretaceous formations mayserve as indicators for this. A unique richness invascular species, with 15 endemic genera, how-ever, makes the Caucasus a centre of globalbiodiversity (IUCN, 2000).

In terms of endemic species, the Caucasus isbetween the highly endemic islands and lowendemic regions. There are 1,600 endemicspecies in the region, making up about 25% ofthe total number of species. Of the total numberof plant species, the share of relict species is thelargest. All these species are related to twobasic refugiums: Colchic and Girkan. Many ofspecies of Tertiary flora survived in theserefugiums.

Caucasus Fauna. Caucasus fauna is also richin biodiversity. Total fauna consists of 152species of mammals, of which 32 are endemic.Birds make up 389 species (3 endemic species),reptiles 76 species (21 endemic species) andamphibians 13 species (WWF, 2001).

Agrobiodiversity. The Caucasus is one of theoldest and richest centres of agro-biodiversity.Agricultural activities here date back to the 5-6th millennium BC, when the first sedentarytribes with farming, animal husbandry and sim-ple infrastructure (adola architecture and irriga-tion) appeared in the Eastern Tran-Caucasus, onthe right bank of the Kura river and the lowercourses of the rivers Algeti, Khrami and Debed(UNEP, MoE, NACRES, 1997, Tbilisi). Thefirst farming communities began to grow wheat,barley, oat, rye and grain legumes, e.g., pea,fava bean, etc. and fruit species: plum, cherry,grapes, etc. By the 5th millennium a diverseagricultural economy had already been estab-lished with farming and animal husbandry:goats, sheep and cattle breeding. Diverseecosystems, mild climate and resource abun-dance enabled small families to populate allzones from lowlands to high mountains. Thisvertical zonality is preserved in the sub-regionto date. More than 300 varieties of grapestogether with up to nine major domestic animalbreeds are found in the Caucasus(Gokhelashvili at al. 2000).

During Soviet times, there was a network ofnature reserves ("Zapovednik"). Historically,the Caucasus region contained an unusuallynumber of protected areas in proportion to itsrelatively small area (only 2% of FSU landarea). In 1988, there were 37 nature reservesfunctioning in the Caucasus (14 of them had

2.1.2 Flora and Fauna Diversity

2.1.3 Caucasus Protected Areas

Number of flora and fauna speciesin the Caucasus

Caucasus landscape diversity���

17

Source: WWF, 2000

18

���

two or more components and thus the totalnumber of protected areas consisted of 60). Thetotal area of nature reserves was 898,000 ha, or2% of the Caucasus area. The number of natu-ral reserves for the North Caucasus in 1998 wasfive (1.86%), for Georgia - 14 (2.4%), forAzerbaijan - 14 (2.2%), and for Armenia - four(2.3%). (Natural Reserves of the Caucasus,1990)

The land was first protected in the Caucasus in1910, when a grove of Eldari Pine on the slopesof Mt. Eldar-Oukhi on the border of Georgiaand Azerbaijan was declared preserved. In 1912the Lagodekhi area and Pitsunda Pine (PinusPityuza) grove in Georgia, the Maziani gorge inwestern Azerbaijan, and a forested lot in Teletirange close to Tbilisi were also declared pre-served. In the 1920s - 30s, the development ofso-called managed nature reserves or sanctuar-ies ("Zakaznik") was broadly practised. Manyreserves were shut down in 1951. For instance,out of 28 nature reserves in Georgia only onereserve, Lagodekhi survived this campaign.Starting from 1957 Soviet authorities attemptedto restore some of the old reserves.

However, many could not satisfy their conser-vation goals or failed to prevent high rates oftourist flow (Pitsunda-Miusera, Ritsa, Sataplia,Gey-Gel, Gobustan, Dilijan). Some of thereserves were located close to traditional cattlebreeding areas or densely populated areas,where their preservation was extremely difficultto maintain.

In the 1990s, circumstances became even morecomplex, when due to economic difficultiesmany reserves failed. Some were used not onlyfor poaching, but also as illegal pasture zonesfor local people. What is most unfortunate isthat unique woodland areas in some reserveshave been used for logging purposes.

However, official records show that the totalarea and number of nature reserves continued togrow in the 1990s (though many reserves exist-ed on paper only). This is due to the efforts ofWWF offices and parliaments of someCaucasian countries, which passed new Lawson Protected Areas increasing the number oftypes of protected areas. For instance, the Lawon Protected Areas passed by the GeorgianParliament in 1996 increased the number of cat-egories to six: National Park, State NatureReserve, Sanctuary, Nature Monument,Protected Landscape, and Area of Multiple Use.

According to the "Biodiversity of the CaucasusEcoregion" compiled and published by WWF in2001, the number of protected areas in theCaucasus is 46, with a total area of 13,035 km2(about 3% of the whole territory). Of these,three reserves (Strict Nature Reserves) and twoNational Parks (Sevan, Dilijan) are in Armeniawith a total area of 931 km2 (3.1% of total landresources); 14 reserves are in Azerbaijan (1291km2, 1.5% of total land resources); 16 naturereserves and two national parks (Borjomi-Kharagauli and Colkheti area) are in Georgia.Protected areas there make up 2,466 km sq.,which is equal to 3.5% of total land resources.

There are three national parks (Alania,Prielbrusye (Elbrus foothills), and Sochinsky)and three nature reserves in the NorthCaucasus. Among them the Kavkazsky StrictNature Reserve (Caucasus biosphere reserve) isthe largest in the Caucasus, with an area of2,803 km sq. The total area of protected territo-ries in the North Caucasus is 8,345 km sq.(3.3% of whole region). One should also takeinto consideration the number of sanctuaries. InGeorgia alone, there are five sanctuaries with atotal area of 590 km sq.

In addition to the network of reserves managedby departments of Protected Areas, there are anumber of protected sections managed by other

Caucasus protected areas

Source: WWF, 2001. G. Info, 1996. GRID-Tbilisi archives

���

19

departments. In Georgia, for instance, theForestry Department owns resort forests (1,185km sq.), green-zone forests (2,684 km sq.),rocky and steep-slope forests (6,8213 km sq.),sub-alpine forests (322 km sq.), and flood-landforests (127 km sq.) with a total area of 11,131km sq. If all types of protected areas in Georgiaare added together, it amounts to 20% of thewhole territory, a rather high ratio.Unfortunately because of economic difficulties,many protected areas in Georgia and otherCaucasian states still exist only on paper, andmany kinds of illegal activities (poaching, cattlepasturing logging) flourish there. However, thenumber and areas of reserved territories in theCaucasus is generally increasing and, impor-tantly public interest in them is also increasing.

Over the last thirty years, the biodiversity in theCaucasus has been affected by extensiveanthropogenic activities. Natural pressure fromactive geodynamic processes is an importantfactor also.

Immediate threats to the Caucasus biodiversityare the loss of species and habitats, as well ashabitat fragmentation and modification. Manyflora and fauna species have become endan-gered or threatened and are listed in the IUCNas well as the USSR and National Red Books.

Other threats to biodiversity are as follows:

. Uncontrolled harvesting of flora and fauna;

. Economic development: agriculture, industry,construction, tourism and recreation activities, etc.

. Intrusion of alien species;

. Armed conflicts;

. Climate change

From the above list, the last two threats haveemerged only recently. Armed conflicts werenever envisioned before the break-up of theSoviet Union. Similarly, climate change hasonly recently been recognised as a threat to theglobal environment, including biodiversity.Other factors have existed since the early yearsof the development of the Soviet Union,although current impacts significantly differfrom those of the Soviet era in terms of theimpact, extent and type.

Historically, agriculture was the major econom-ic sector in the Caucasus. As a result of exten-sive agricultural development over the last 50years, many natural ecosystems have beentransformed into arable lands, pastures and hayfields, which in turn resulted in:

. Change and even loss of some natural habitats and ecosystems, e.g., semi-desert, steppe, forest and wetland habitats;

. Environmental pollution from extensive usage of fertilizers and agrochemicals: soil and water pollution with heavy metals, POPs and river and lake euthropication fromorganic materials and biogenic substances, etc;

. Land degradation, erosion, desertification, soil compaction, salinization, bogging and fertility loss;

. Over-grazing, affecting the vegetation cover of pastures.

At present, uncontrolled use of fertilisers andpesticides, over-grazing of forest and lowlandareas, especially around settlements, as well asobsolete irrigation infrastructure still pose sig-nificant threats to the Caucasus landscape andbiological diversity.

Forestry as an economic sector had, historically,some impact on the Caucasus forest ecosystemsand biodiversity in the 1970s-80s. Forest prob-lems are discussed in detail in Forestry sub-chapter.

2.1.4 Threats and Current Status of CaucasusBiodiversity

Rare and endangered species in the Caucasus

Source: WWF, 2001

Activities in the fisheries sector have also hadsignificant impacts on Caucasus aquatic speciesof both fresh and marine waters during the1970s and 1980s. As a result, many commercialand valuable fish species have declined. Sincethe break up of the Soviet Union, commercialfishing has reduced. This has not resulted in asignificant stabilisation of fish stocks.Currently, poaching is a serious problem,explained by the general economic fall and peo-ple's dependence on local resources as well asweak capacity of law enforcement officers andlow public awareness. The use of unsustainablemethods for catching continues. For example,mussel harvesting frequently is conductedthrough scrapping the seabed, resulting not onlyin the overexploitation of mussel stocks, butalso other marine species. In addition to this,game fishing is not regulated, causing over-catching of fish populations.

Historically, hunting was strictly regulated inthe Caucasus, especially in mountainous zones.Special sanctuaries were established for huntingof certain species. Commercial hunting was notallowed at all and licenses were required forgame and sport hunting of many species. Atpresent, although these laws and regulationsstill exist, they are not enforced due to the lackof a legal and administrative framework andfinancing for rangers who could detect illegalactivities. The population's easy access toweapons makes the situation more uncontrol-lable. At present, even a tourism industry relat-ed to the harvesting of certain animal specieshas been emerged. For example, in Azerbaijan anumber of cases of illegal hunting of Djeiran bybikers in semi-desert landscapes have beendetected (IUCN, 2000). Regarding plantspecies, the population freely utilises plant andwood resources. Collection of medicinal plantsand flowers listed in the Red Data Book is stillconducted.

Industry, energy, transport, mining and infra-structure construction activities had seriousimpacts on the Caucasus biodiversity in the1970s and 1980s, particularly in the late 80s,which were characterised by highest growthrates in the above sectors. At present, majorindustrial pressures come from mining opera-tions as well as gas and oil production. Themanufacturing sector has lower impact, due to

its reduced capacity. In turn, transport impactshave been increasing and will continue to do soin the short to medium term, as freight turnoverincreases along the TRACECA corridor. Recentdevelopments related to the construction andoperation of gas and oil pipelines fromAzerbaijan through Georgia pose a threat tosensitive areas such as the Colchian wetlands,which are important sites for many migratoryand resident birds as well as endangered mam-mals. Because of that, contingency plans forpotential oil spills and other disasters are of theutmost importance.

Tourism and recreation activities also imposedsignificant pressures on natural ecosystems ofthe Caucasus during the 1970s and 80s, whenthe flow of visitors was high. However, in thelate 1980s and early 1990s, due to a series ofarmed conflicts and economic decline, thetourism infrastructure deteriorated and thetourist flow reduced. Since 1996, a revival ofthe sector, particularly mountain tourism, hasbeen observed. At present, most recreationalactivities are not properly managed, imposing athreat to local biodiversity in terms of directdestruction of vegetation, littering and wastedumping, etc.

Alien species were and still are the threats tothe Caucasus biodiversity. During the Sovietera, some species were accidentally introducedinto the Caucasus; others were intentionallyintroduced for "enrichment". Some of thespecies came from neighbouring countries.Certain introduced species could not survive,while others prove successful. For example, in1939 American Mink (Mustela vision) werebrought to Georgia and released in Kvareliregion. The species could not survive in thealien environment. However, racoon dog(Nyctereutes procyonoides) introduced in dif-ferent parts of Georgia spread widely and poseda treat to Galliformes species. Racoon intro-duced in Georgia from Azerbaijan also couldspread widely, imposing the threat toGalliformes (UNEP, MoE, NACRES, 1997).

In addition to all above pressures, new threatsin the form of armed conflicts emerged in theCaucasus in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Theeffects of military conflicts are diverse, thoughthere is a lack of basic information on environ-

20

���

mental implications for all conflict areas (Theeffects of military activities are described inmore detail in chapter 3.0).

Finally, climate change must be considered afactor that may significantly affect the Caucasuslandscapes and biodiversity in the next 30-50years. Recent studies conducted in the SouthCaucasus countries under the UNFCCC haveshown that climate change, though of non-uni-form structure, is already felt in the region. Inthe case of temperature increase by 1.5-20Cdegree, which is expected for the Caucasusregion, the following changes may occur: xero-pitization - expansion of vegetation, preferringarid conditions, mostly in Northeast Caucasus,Eastern Georgia, Armenian-JavakhetiHighlands, etc; adventization - expansion ofadvented or cultivated species, in the passage ofTrans-Caucasian depression most of all, inColchian lowland and relatively elevated partsof the depression; mediterranneazation - expan-sion and domination of Mediterranean climateelements in the Black Sea Coastal zone andfoothills; laurophilization - invasion and expan-sion of evergreen broad-leaved species expectedin the mountains of Colchida, especially inSouth Colchida, with dominant number of lau-rophilous species. These changes in temperatureand precipitation may lead to the rapid extinc-tion of flora and fauna with spotty and restrict-ed areas of distribution (UNDP/GEF-GeorgianGovernment, 1999).

There are some other fundamental factors hav-ing indirect effects on the biodiversity status,which are listed among six fundamental factorsof biodiversity loss in the Global BiodiversityStrategy. These are: the economic and politicalsystems that fail to value natural resources;inequity in ownership and access to naturalresources, including the benefits from the useand conservation of biodiversity; inadequateknowledge and inefficient information use andfinally, legal and institutional systems, promot-ing the unsustainable natural resource use.

In general, while analysing the last 30-year his-tory of policy pertaining to environmental andbiodiversity protection in the Caucasus region,two distinct periods should be mentioned: the

Soviet and post-Soviet. The Soviet period canbe divided into two periods: one longer period -from early 1970s to early 1980s, and a shorterone covering late 1980s. The early 1970s and1980s were characterised by increased interestin environmental protection, including naturalresources/biodiversity protection. Various legaland regulatory documents pertaining to wildlife,forestry, fisheries use and protection weredeveloped and adopted. Designated bodies atthe all-union, national and local levels wereestablished. An environmental chapter, withspecific sub-chapters covering wildlife andforestry etc. was included into the State MasterPlan to be the major policy document for theentire country. Some economic tools such asper unit taxes, deterrent taxes for the use offorestry resources and damage compensationfees were introduced. Traditional activities aim-ing at conserving natural resources continued.In-situ biodiversity conservation included theenlargement of existing or the establishment ofnew specially protected areas, e.g. naturalreserves: "zapovedniks", sanctuaries:"zakazniks" and national parks. Ex-situ conser-vation practices included the establishment andmaintenance of botanical gardens, herbaria andzoos. Various scientific institutions extensivelyconducted studies on Caucasus biodiversity.Data for national and all-union Red books,designed for listing rare and endangered specieswere collected and regularly updated.

Nevertheless, the 1970s and early 1980s wereperiods of using sector-based approaches toenvironmental protection. Sectoral ministriesand committees responsible for managing indi-vidual resource had no co-operation with eachother, and did not take into consideration theinterdependence of all the components of envi-ronment during the decision-making processes.The major focus for conserving naturalresources was on species of special economicvalue, while the biological value was not takeninto consideration. In practice, policies andtools aiming at protection and sustainable use ofnatural resources were not implemented, eventhough legislation, though not complete andperfect, existed for this.

In the late 1980s, attempts to introduce a holis-tic approach to environmental protection weremade. The need for developing and adopting a

���

21

2. 1.5 Policy Measures and Responses

framework law on environmental protection andsetting specific environmental body was under-stood. During this period, the State Committeefor Nature Protection with regulatory, manage-rial and law enforcement functions was estab-lished. In addition, a special environmentalexamination body was set up under theCommittee to make environmental valuation ofdevelopment plans/project/programs. All pro-tected areas previously managed by differentagencies, were united under the single manage-ment of the above-mentioned Committee. Thisseries of actions was a positive step at that time.

It is impossible to talk about national biodiver-sity protection policies and legal-institutionalarrangements for each of the Soviet republics,including the Caucasus countries, since theirrole was insignificant in decision-makingprocesses during the Soviet era. However, afterindependence, the South Caucasus countriesand the Russian Federation started building uptheir national capacities and adapting their lawsand institutions to those of the EU. New envi-ronmental protection laws became the basis forprotecting environment, including biodiversity.Environmental media-specific statutes andcodes were also adopted aimed at wildlife andforestry resources protection and establishmentof protected areas systems, close to IUCN clas-sification. Environmental impact assessments(EIAs) and state ecological examinations(SEEs) became mandatory for large-scaledevelopment projects having significant poten-tial impacts, with a right for public participationbuilt into all stages of EIAs. NationalEnvironmental Action Plans have been devel-oped in all South Caucasus countries and theRussian Federation. As the Russian NEAP doesnot have specific regional features, some RFadministrative regions located in the NorthCaucasus have adopted their own (regionallevel) EAPs. NEAPs have identified biodiversi-ty conservation as one of the priority issues inthe environmental and natural resources protec-tion field and set short- to medium goals.

Licensing systems for the use of naturalresources, including wildlife, have also beenestablished and environmental taxes for the useof natural resources introduced in all subjects ofthe Caucasus. Specific environmental bodies,either ministries or committees, became the key

biodiversity policy-making, regulatory andmanagement agencies. For better control andmanagement of protected areas, specialProtected Areas Services with local brancheshave been established in some of the SouthCaucasus countries, either as separate bodies oras structural units of environmental ministries.However, all these agencies are still in theprocess of forming their structures and respon-sibilities. For example, the Azerbaijan StateCommittee for Nature Protection has recentlybeen transformed into the Environmental andNature Protection Ministry and has subordinat-ed the previously independent forestry, fisheriesand geologic departments and hydro meteoro-logical service for increased efficiency, as wellas to avoid overlapping responsibilities andconflicts of interests. In Armenia and Georgia,in turn, there are various parallel structures inthe field of biodiversity protection and manage-ment, frequently competing, but not co-operat-ing with each other. In Armenia, for example,six sanctuaries (Managed Protected Areas) areunder the responsibility of the Ministry ofAgriculture. Others are managed by theMinistry of Nature Protection, which is a keyenvironmental agency in Armenia. In Georgia,apart from the Ministry for Environment, theState Forestry Department, State Department ofProtected Areas, Nature Reserves and HuntingManagement and the Ministry for Food andAgriculture are all engaged in biodiversity pro-tection and management activities(Gokhelashvili at al. 2000).

In the North Caucasus administrative districts,local and municipal governments carry out bio-diversity management and control functions.Federal, republican and local level laws andregulations represent the legal framework here.Apart from federal programs, local authoritieshave their own programs aiming at local biodi-versity protection. In those parts of the NorthCaucasus specifically, in high mountainousregions where state institutions are practicallynon-existent, local communities play a key rolein biodiversity management. In Chechnya, forinstance, there is no state environmental policyand the state has completely withdrawn fromnature protection. Traditional practices of natu-ral resource use are based on a subsistenceeconomy controlled by informal groups of ruralcommunities, especially village elders. Shariat

22

���

courts have also been gaining more power forestablishing state order in this republic (IUCN,2000).

In general, because of financial and technicalshortages, the lack of appropriate expertise andpresence of inefficient, old-style management,the capacity of all agencies involved in biodi-versity protection and management activities isvery low, though varying on a country-to-coun-try basis. The high level of corruption found inall FSU countries hinders the effective imple-mentation of appropriate policies. The lack ofbaseline and current information on biodiversitystatus also serves as an impediment in the deci-sion-making process. Modern environmentalmonitoring and information technologies suchas GIS and remote sensing techniques are notused by appropriate agencies. Overall, thesefeatures are common in all the agencies that aredirectly or indirectly involved in environmentalmanagement.

The role of academic institutions in biodiversityconservation is to support decision-makers withscientific knowledge and data and developappropriate academic curricula. However, atpresent these institutions lack financial andtechnical resources to conduct field studies andcollect current data. Only a few individual sci-entists are engaged in biodiversity conservationactivities under different internationally fundedprograms/projects and co-operate with govern-ment agencies on an ad-hoc basis. With regardto curricula, although general courses such asbotany, zoology, ecology, etc. are taught at aca-demic institutions and universities, such coursesas natural resource conservation and manage-ment, environmental economics and policy areof limited use or not taught at all.

Regarding the involvement of NGOs in biodi-versity conservation activities, the NGO net-work is more developed in the South Caucasusthan in the North Caucasus. There is very littleinternational support in the North Caucasus,while it is extensive for South Caucasus coun-tries. Many of the NGOs there have beenreceiving financial and technical assistancefrom a number of agencies. The only interna-tional conservation NGO having a permanentprogram in the Caucasus is the World WideFund for Nature (WWF), operating through its

Tbilisi office. WWF-Tbilisi has supported theconcept of developing a protected areas systemin Georgia and participated actively in theestablishment of Borjomi-Kharagauli NationalPark. The WWF through its Georgian affiliatehas invested more than $4.2 million for conser-vation activities in Georgia since 1991, includ-ing over $2.5 million for the establishment ofBorjomi-Khragauli National Park (WWF,2001). Other areas of WWF's interest are sus-tainable forestry, environmental education,community-based resource management etc.The NGO has recently conducted a biodiversityinvestment portfolio study for the entireCaucasus. Other NGOs in Georgia are widelyinvolved in all aspects of biodiversity conserva-tion, including endangered species conserva-tion. NGOs in Armenia are more engaged inpublic advocacy and environmental awareness.Azerbaijan has the least developed NGO sector,including environmental NGOs. These organi-sations are mostly staffed by concerned scien-tists who realise the need for an independentvoice for environmental protection. In addition,most NGOs in Azerbaijan are focused onBaku's problems and do not cover other areas.In the North Caucasus region, state bodies haveestablished many pseudo-public environmentalorganisations for supporting certain activities ofstate bodies. The most powerful NGOs, never-theless, are: the Social and Ecological Union ofthe Western Caucasus, operating inKrasnodarsky kray, Adygeya and Karachaevo-Cherkessia; the Azov-Black Sea NGO network,part of the international Black Sea NGO net-work, based in Krasnodarsky kray, Adygeyaand Rostovskaya oblast; and the IndependentEcological Service for the North-WesternCaucasus, based in Maikop (IUCN, 2000).WWF also has an office in Russia that carriesout species conservation and habitat protectionactivities, promotes sustainable practices in nat-ural resources management, and works to estab-lish protected areas or strengthen existing ones.Regional co-operation at the inter-state level inthe field of landscape and biodiversity protec-tion is largely limited to occasional consulta-tions and information exchange. Although theSouth Caucasus countries have signed bilateralagreements on co-operation in the environmen-tal field, there are no national activities and pro-grams supporting such co-operation. An ideafor a transboundary protected areas establish-

���

23

ment, e.g. between Georgia and Dagestan, hasnot yet gained significant interest. At the sametime, there are several ongoing regional projectsbetween NGOs. Noah's Ark for the Recovery ofEndangered Species (NACRES) has beenimplementing a transboundary project on con-servation of arid and semiarid ecosystems; theGeorgian Centre for the Conservation ofWildlife (GCCW) established the CaucasusEnvironmental NGO Network (CENN) in 1998that publishes monthly bulletins and arrangesregional meetings and workshops. The RegionalEnvironmental Centre (REC) also supportsregional co-operation among the SouthCaucasus countries. United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID) fundedregional water project for Kura-Araks basin.Nevertheless, co-operation among the Caucasuscountries, especially between the North andSouth Caucasus regions is low, caused by poorelectronic communications, differences in legal-institutional arrangements and existing politicalconflicts of interests.

All South Caucasus countries, though at differ-ent levels, participate in global processes. TheNorth Caucasus participates in internationalactivities as a part of the Russian Federation.All subjects of the Caucasus are parties to theglobal Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) and enabling activities there are support-ed by the GEF. Biodiversity Country Studieshave already been conducted and BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plans (BS-APs) wereadopted under the framework of the above con-vention. In addition, the CBD enables countriesto raise funds for major conservation activitiesdefined in BS-APs. Two other major conven-tions are CITES (Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora), ratified by Azerbaijan and Georgiaand the Russian Federation; and the RamsarConvention (Convention on Wetlands andInternational Importance Especially asWaterfowl Habitat), signed and ratified by allCaucasus states. However, there are some prob-lems with implementing CITES this conven-tion, related to the low capacity of national bod-ies to establish compliance assurance and con-trol systems. Customs offices as the major lawenforcement body lack specific knowledge in

species diversity. Other conventions related tobiodiversity and landscape diversity are theConvention concerning the Protection of theWorld Cultural and Natural Heritage (WorldHeritage Convention, Paris, 1972), ratified byall South Caucasus countries and the RussianFederation, the UN Convention to CombatDesertification ratified by South Caucasusstates (UNCCD), and the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) rat-ified by all subjects of the Caucasus. OnlyGeorgia has ratified the Convention on theConservation of Migratory Species of WildAnimals (CMS, Bonn Convention, 1979).Georgia also participates in agreements of CMSsuch as ACCO (2001) and CURL (1994).Azerbaijan is not yet a party to CMS, but par-ticipates in the CSM agreement concerning con-servation of Siberian Crane (SIBE). Finally, theConvention for the Protection of the WorldCultural and Natural Heritage (1972) has beenratified by all South Caucasus countries and theRussian Federation.

The most active international agencies fundingbiodiversity conservation activities within theregion are the GEF, WB, UNEP, UNDP, FAO,EU/TACIS, USAID, KFW and the SwissAgency for Development and Cooperation. Inaddition, various private foundations such asthe George Soros Fund, McArthur Foundation,Eurasia Foundation, ISAR, etc. finance differ-ent environmental activities, including biodiver-sity protection, at national and regional levels.The largest investments so far in the Caucasushave come from the WB and GEF. The WBfinanced the development of a forestry strategyfor Georgia and is now assisting in implement-ing specific programs under this strategy. GEFfunded the establishment of Kolkheti NationalPark and two other parks, and assisted in capac-ity building for managing protected areas inGeorgia. The GEF provided core support tostrict nature reserves in the North Caucasusunder the project "Conservation of Biodiversityin Russia" (WWF, 2001). However, donor co-ordination remains a problem for the region,leading to duplication and overlapping of activi-ties, and inefficient allocation of financialresources.

24

���

Regardless of the positive changes which haveoccurred at institutional, legal and policy levels,all the Caucasus entities face similar difficultiesof financial, technical, legal and institutionalcharacter which make it difficult to implementfull-scale reforms in the biodiversity protectionand management field. Economic systems andpolicies still fail to reflect resource scarcity intoprices. Institutions are weak and lack knowl-edge in advanced biodiversity conservationstudy methods, e.g. Gap Analysis, IBA(Important Bird Areas), etc. and managementapproaches. For example, in all the SouthCaucasus countries as well as in the NorthCaucasus krays and autonomies, most existingprotected areas used for in-situ conservation aretypical Soviet period "zapovedniks", where allhuman activities are prohibited. These areas areequivalent to "Strict Nature Reserve," a protect-ed areas management category of IUCN. Othertypes of protected areas, such as reservationsand hunting farms are equivalent to IUCN cate-gory VI - Managed Resource Protected Areas.Most of these protected areas were establishedin order to protect one or several species, basedon productivity or potential value criteria, andthe majority of reserves are aimed at protectingsub-alpine forests and alpine grasslands. Otherunique landscapes are under-represented.Frequently, the boundaries of protected areasare set arbitrarily and are not congruent withnatural boundaries. Usually, they conform toland use or administrative boundaries, especial-ly in the North Caucasus (IUCN, 2000).Although some efforts have been made to intro-duce new models for biodiversity conservation,e.g. a protected areas system in Georgia, imply-ing the transformation of several reserves intobroadly protected area landscapes with differentmanagement regimes, selection criteria stilltend to be political (it is easier to enlarge anexisting reserve rather than to establish newone) and economic (donor's preference and aes-thetic value). Criteria such as species rarity,richness, endemism, habitat uniqueness or vul-nerability are not taken into consideration.Additionally, very little attention is paid towildlife management and sustainable use of nat-ural resources outside protected areas. In general, there is a lack of baseline informa-tion on species and their relation to differentland use management practices. Because ofthat, there are no systematic approaches for pri-

oritising national conservation efforts (selectionof conservation areas, identification of speciesconservation status, development of manage-ment guidelines for vulnerable species andhabitats, policies for sustainable resource use,recovery plans for endangered species, etc.)(Gokhelashvili, Scott, Millington, 2000). Thegeneral public is mostly unaware of biodiversityprotection issues and public involvement indecision-making processes is very low. Thereare no incentives for local communities to man-age local resources in an environmentally soundmanner. Because of that, community-basedmanagement practices together with environ-mentally sound traditional economies have tobe encouraged. Finally, regional co-operationhas to be strengthened through informationexchange, study tours, regular consultations andbi- or multilateral agreements.

Agricultural land use. The total land area ofthe Caucasus consists of 44,019,400 ha.Agriculture is a major land use in the Caucasus,amounting to about 54% of total land area. Themajority of such lands are located in plainareas. These lands produce almost the entireagricultural output in the Caucasus. The short-age of agricultural lands is particularly acute inmountainous regions.

���

25

2.2 Land Resources

2.2.1 Land Estate and Land Uses

Agriculture areas in the Caucasus

Compiled by Beruchashvili N., 1999-2001 statistical data

The largest agricultural areas are spread in theKuban-Azov plain, Stavropol plateau in theNorth Caucasus, and in the Alazani-AgrichayValley and Lenkoran lowland in the SouthCaucasus. There, more than 80% of lands arecultivated. Large agricultural areas are alsolocated in other parts of the Caucasus such asthe Kura-Araks lowland, Caspian coastline, theArarat Valley, Colchian lowlands and foothillsof the Greater and Lesser Caucasus.

Most of arable lands in the Caucasus are locat-ed in the Kuban-Azov plain, the Stavropolplateau in the North Caucasus, and the Kura-Araks lowland and the Ararat Valley in theSouth Caucasus.

Traditionally, cultivation of cereals, fodder,fruit, tea, tobacco production and vegetable gar-dening were major agricultural sectors.Perennial crops occupied the large areas in theSouth Caucasus: Colchian foothill, Shida Kartliplain, Alazani-Agrichay Valley, Lenkoran low-land and Ararat Valley.

Historically, summer pastures were located inhigh mountains of the Greater and the LesserCaucasus and winter pastures mostly in plainsof East Caucasus: the Terek-Kuma plain and theKura-Araks lowland.

In the 1970s and 80s, highly subsidised large-scale collective farms, either for livestock rais-ing or land cultivation, produced the total agri-cultural output. Increased productivity wasachieved by the use of huge quantities of food-stuff for livestock raising, and the intensive useof fertilisers and other agricultural chemicalsfor crop production.

Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, landuse, agricultural production and trade patternshave dramatically changed in the Caucasusregion, as in other FSU regions. The break-down of traditional economic ties among theSoviet republics caused the loss of markets forboth agricultural inputs (chemicals, food grainfor livestock, fuel, machinery and spare parts)and outputs, leading to reduced amounts ofarable lands and livestock and hence, a generalfall in agricultural output. Large-scale collectivefarms were no longer sustainable and began todisappear. Individual farmers gradually became

the main producers of agriculture output,changing land uses, agriculture practices andadapting to local markets. The natural (subsis-tence) economy has become stronger in agricul-ture and brought about increased grazing andhay production. In the South Caucasus coun-tries almost all collective livestock farms havestopped functioning. This had a detrimentaleffect on pastures near villages, promoting ero-sion and land degradation of lowlands (IUCN,2001). It is worth noting that publicly ownedlarge-scale farms have proven to be more longlasting in some North Caucasus republics(Dagestan, etc.) compared to the SouthCaucasus, where the land privatisation processhas fostered the establishment of private enter-prises and small farms.

Urban land use. In the Caucasus, urban landdevelopment is not the major land uses. Urbanterritories occupy small areas in the region.Major concentrations are the Baku-Sumgayitagglomeration and along the Black Sea coast-line from Sochi to Tuapse, where urban areasvary from 10 to 25% of total landscape areas.Urban territories also are Yerevan, Ganja,Tbilisi-Rustavi agglomeration, Kutaisi-Zestaphoni agglomeration, Nalchik,Vladikavkaz, Grozny and Makhachkala andDerbend.

26

���

Urban areas in the Caucasus

Compiled by Beruchashvili N., 1999-2001 statistical data

Historically, many environmental problems ofthe 1970s-80s in urban areas were related topoor town planning/town-building and landzoning system. Environmental considerationswere largely neglected during the planning andconstruction processes. An even less con-trolled situation exists now. Illegal construc-tion of residential blocks and commercialbuildings, even in green zones, are not rare inthe cities.

Degradation and pollution of land resourcesrank high among the major environmentalissues in the Caucasus region. These prioritiesare underlined in NEAPs of each country. Atpresent, it remains very difficult to take pre-ventive or corrective measures, since severebudgetary constraints do not allow for plan-ning and/or taking large-scale land reclamationand soil protection measures.

Both natural and anthropogenic pressures con-tribute to land degradation. Among the naturalfactors, wind and water erosion, landslides,mudflows, flooding, etc. are important drivingforces in the region, since the whole region isprone to active geo-dynamic processes.Among anthropogenic factors, bad agriculturalpractices (intensive land cultivation, over-useof agricultural chemicals, slope ploughing,intensive irrigation, over-grazing) as well asunsustainable forestry practices, urbanisationand other activities affect land resources.

Soil erosion is one of the most widespread nat-ural phenomena in the Caucasus and is themost dangerous for the republics short inarable lands, such as Georgia and Armenia.Erosion here is connected with climate andrelief peculiarities as well as anthropogenicfactors: irregular woodcutting, unsustainableirrigation and drainage practices, open-pit min-ing, intensive grazing, land cultivation (espe-cially on steep slopes), etc. Erosion results inreduction of land fertility and degradation ofvast land areas, which not only reduces cropproduction but also worsens the environmentcondition.

Erosion is also dangerous for highland mead-ows and steppes, where surface wash out is

���

27

Nazran

2.2.2 Land Degradation and Soil Erosion

Caucasus arable lands

Caucasus perennial plantations

Caucasus pastures

Compiled by Beruchashvili N., 1999-2001 statistical data

intensively expressed. It may be presumed thaterosion processes are one of the reasons for thedegradation of environment in highland zones,where a considerable number of pastures andhayfields are concentrated.

Wind erosion is especially prevalent in the EastCaucasus, where the climate is relatively dryand strong winds during cold periods formfavourable conditions for wind erosion. Itincurs great damage to agricultural landsbecause in the recent years many windbreakswere cut down. In East Georgia about 1,000kmsq. of land area is prone to wind erosion(Beruchashvili, 1996).

The total area of eroded lands has been increas-ing since the 1980s. In Armenia, for example, a1.9% increase in total eroded area was observedduring the last 20 years and the damage fromland erosion amounted to 7.5% of the grossagriculture product (UN-ECE/MNP ofArmenia, 2000). At present, about 45% of totalarea is affected by erosion in the country, and ofthese, agricultural lands account for about 60%(UN-ECE/MNP of Armenia, 2000). Annualloss of fertile lands makes up 8 million tons andmore than 80% of arable lands experience ero-sion of different types (MNP of Armenia, 2001;UNDP, Armenia 1999).

In Azerbaijan, about half of the total land areais affected by erosion (State Committee of theAzerbaijan Republic on Nature Protection,1993). Nearly 35% of agricultural lands are sus-ceptible to water and wind erosion in the coun-try. (UNDP, Azerbaijan, 1999). In result ofwater activity over 516 m3 of land per eachhectare is influenced by erosion annually(UNDP, Azerbaijan, 1998).

In Georgia, over 20-year period, the area oferoded lands reached 1 million hectares, 33% ofthe entire area of the republic (Tsereteli, 1987).At present, there are more than one million haof eroded lands in Georgia, 380,000 ha arearable lands and 547,000 ha are pastures andhayfields. In the 1980s it was only 300,000hectares, from which 200,000 hectares experi-enced water erosion, and 100,000 hectares winderosion. About 87,000 ha along the Black Seacoastal zone have been eroded by rivers, wherethe riverbanks are not protected (MoA of

Georgia, 1998). Soil erosion is a very seriousproblem in the North Caucasus as well. InKabardino-Balkaria, for example, about 56% ofagricultural lands are subject to wind and water-induced erosion, and during last 15-17 years thearea of eroded lands has more than doubled(IUCN, 2000). Geo-dynamic processes togetherwith bad agricultural practices (slope ploughingand overgrazing) and intensive logging areunderlying reasons for severe land erosion inthe region. The problem is aggravated by thefact that protective measures against wind andwater erosion, like the construction of wind-breaks, are not taken due to the lack offinances.

Technogenic activities such as open-pit miningoperations also have adverse effects on landresources, causing land degradation and deple-tion. For example, in Krasnodarsky Kray,according to 1999 data, about 2,801 ha ofdegraded mountain land and 1,498 ha depletedland were registered, brought about by extrac-tion of different types of construction materials,facing and coloured stones, as well as gas andoil operations (IUCN, 2000).

Soil salinization is another major issue pertain-ing to land resources in the Caucasus region.Soils in dry steppe and semi-desert zones in theregion are naturally saline. Hence, cultivatedsoils in such zones need intensive irrigation anddrainage. Unfortunately, since the break-up ofthe Soviet Union the total area of irrigated landshas been declining in the region. For example,in Armenia, irrigated areas have declined from311,000 ha in 1985 to 280,000 ha in 1995 and217,000 ha in 2000 (UN-ECE/MNP ofArmenia, 2000).

In the region, most irrigation systems are inade-quately lined. In addition, they are not properlymaintained and need major repairs and/orreplacement. Water losses are high, although itis impossible to give exact numbers, and con-tribute to an increase in the water table andhence, soil salinization. Regretfully, the coun-tries lack finances to rehabilitate the systems orplan for new irrigation projects. Irrigation sys-tems need in proper drainage as well, withoutwhich water logging and secondary soil salin-ization can occur. Many irrigation systems inthe Caucasus region do not have drainage sys-

28

���

tems or have inefficiently operating ones. Thesystems were destroyed during the last decadeand there is a lack of funds to repair or rehabili-tate them. Thereby, the secondary salinizationof soils is a serious problem at present. InArmenia, for example, salinised soils occupyapprox. 42,000 ha in the Ararat Valley.According to the Azerbaijan NEAP, for exam-ple, about 1.2 million ha are affected by sali-nazation (State Committee on Ecology andControl of Natural Resources Utilization, Baku,1998; UNDP, 2000). About 8.8% of the totalarea in Krasnodarsy kray suffers from saliniza-tion (IUCN, 2000).

Construction of large dams and reservoirs with-out due consideration for physico-geographicand environmental characteristics, also causessoil salinization and flooding. For example, thebuilding of Krasnodarsky reservoir resulted inthe water table rise and hence, salinization andflooding of large territories in KrasnodarskyKray (Ministry of Environment and NaturalResources Protection, 1998).

The problem of salinization is also very acute inCaspian Sea coastal areas as well. Sea-level risein recent years, for example, caused a rise inmineralised ground water above the criticallevel and the flooding of thousands of ha ofagricultural lands in coastal areas of Dagestan(IUCN, 2000).

Soil pollution is a serious concern for theCaucasus. During the Soviet era, such pressuresas intensive use of mineral fertilisers and agri-cultural chemicals together with industrialactivities, mining, oil and gas operations, trafficemissions, and the dumping of municipal andtoxic solid wastes affected the soil quality inboth urban and rural areas.

Presently, despite the general decline in use ofagrochemicals, the problem of soil pollutionstill exists. First, agro-chemicals do not easilydegrade and heavy metals are still accumulatedin soils. Second, the uncontrolled import anduse of fertilisers and chemicals by individualfarmers pose a threat to environmental quality,along with obsolete pesticides stored in inade-quate warehouses. In Georgia, for example,

about 400 tons of obsolete pesticides and 3,500tons of mineral fertilisers are stored in ware-houses that do not meet health and environmentrequirements (TACIS/MoE of Georgia, 1998).In Krasnodarsky kray up to 1,000 tons of obso-lete pesticides are stored (Ministry ofEnvironment and Natural Resources Protectionof the Russian Federation, 1998).

There are limited data on soil pollution by agro-chemicals. Historically, theHydrometeorological Services (HMSs) in theRepublics conducted soil sampling and analy-sis. Measurements were sporadic and the meth-ods of sampling and analysis employed byHMSs might include unacceptable errors. Forexample, in Armenia, 3,560 soil samples weretaken in 1977-1983 from arable lands andorchards, and only 21 samples showed highpesticide concentrations. High concentrations ofDDT and DDE were found in 20% of soil sam-ples taken from arable lands of the AraratValley (UN-ECE/MNP of Armenia, 2000,UNEP/MNP of Armenia, 2000). Similar studiesconducted in Georgia have not revealed anexcess of allowable concentrations(TACIS/MoE of Georgia, 1998). In Azerbaijan,the State Sanitary and Hygienic Service toxico-logical laboratory studied approximately 2,819food and soil samples from 1988-91. The resid-ual quantity of pesticides was found in 7%(184) of these samples and of these, limits wereexceeded in 96 cases (State Committee of theAzerbaijan Republic on Nature Protection,1993). Studies conducted in Krasnodarsky krayshow that nitrates pollute about 4.1% of Kray'sterritory, and pesticides at a level from "moder-ately dangerous" to "dangerous" (IUCN, 2000).

Soil pollution by heavy metals and oil productsis a concern in urban and industrial areas.Heavy metals and oil products released into allenvironmental media from specific industrialactivities, mining operations and fuel combus-tion, pose a high threat to environmental quali-ty. Before the transition, road traffic accountedfor about 60% of soil pollution in urban areas.At present, this figure exceeds 85%, sinceindustries work at a minimum level. In Georgiathe cities of Tbilisi, Rustavi, Kutaisi,Zestaphoni, Chiatura and Batumi, which have ahigh concentration of heavy industry, steel,manganese, ferro-alloys, machinery manufac-

���

29

2.2.3 Soil Pollution

turing and oil refinery plants, etc. and heavytraffic were mostly affected. Additionally, cop-per and gold mining operations in Kvemo Kartliregion were heavily polluting soils. In Armenia,about 30,000 ha of land is polluted by copper,lead and molybdenum due to mining operationsin Northeast Armenia. The city of Yerevan isheavily contaminated. USAID studied soil sam-ples from the area surrounding a thermopowerutility and found contamination by polychlori-nated biphenyls (UN-ECE/MNP of Armenia,2000). In Azerbaijan, urban lands in Sumgayit,Baku, Ganja, Alybairamly and Mingachevir arethe most polluted. Sumgayit is severely pollutedby mercury used in chlorine-alkalin production.During the Soviet period, the mercury lossamounted to approx. 1-2 kg/ton per unit output.At present, the figure is about 300 kg/ton ofchlorine produced. The soil is heavily contami-nated through toxic waste dumping and air dep-osition (State Committee on Ecology andControl of Nature Resources Utilization,Azerbaijan, 1998). In addition, copper, lead andzinc mines in Azerbaijan cause soil pollutionwith heavy metals. Intensive oil and gas opera-tions pollute the soil with oil products. TheNorth Caucasus republics and Azerbaijan, withwell-developed oil production and petrochemi-cal industries, suffer the most. Soil contamina-tion with oil products, for example, is extremelyhigh in the Absheron peninsula. There, in the1980s and 90s average soil oil content in the 0-5 centimetre gradient regularly exceeded back-ground levels (100 ppm) up to 56 times(Ministry of Environment and NaturalResources Protection, Russian Federation,1994). Overall, about 10,000 ha of land areheavily contaminated with oil products (StateCommittee on Ecology and Control of NatureResources Utilisation, Azerbaijan, Baku 1998).In Grozny, Chechnya, soil oil content in the 20-centimeter gradient was varying from 1,200ppm in 1986 to 2,470 ppm in 1990, with 50-ppm trace level (Ministry of Environment andNatural Resources Protection, RussianFederation, 1994). At present, in Chechnyamany unlicensed and uncontrolled firms extractsmall quantities of oil and sell it to neighbour-ing countries, completely neglecting environ-mental considerations during mining operations.

During the Soviet era, all the lands were publicproperty and belonged to the "United StateLand Fund." The Land Fund was divided intoseveral categories based on land use: agricul-ture, state forestry farms, state land fund, non-agricultural lands (industrial areas, resorts andurban areas, etc).

Many of land-related problems of the 1970s and1980s were caused by poor land use planning.Land use planning was a part of central plan-ning system consisting of strictly centralisedterritorial and sector planning. The planningwas conducted at all-union (central) and nation-al levels. State Planning and BuildingCommittees ("Gosplan" and "Gosstroy" respec-tively) with subordinated branches in the Sovietrepublics, were the responsible bodies at thecentral level. In addition, similar national bod-ies operated in the sister republics. The StatePlanning Committee developed master plans forthe entire Soviet Union and provided the majorterritorial planning guidance for nationalrepublics. This agency also worked out short tolong-term sector development and industry dis-tribution plans for the entire Soviet Union.Based on these plans, similar national bodiesdeveloped national branch development plans.

In essence, the Soviet planning system wasineffective. There was no coordination betweenindustrial planning and land use planning, localconditions were ignored, and many plans wereinfeasible. Master plans for urban developmentwere based on uniform approaches and charac-terised by under-valuation of land, lowlanddevelopment at the expense of agriculture landsand green zones, intensive industrialisation,monotonous housing projects etc.

Following their independence, all of the NIScountries, including South Caucasus states andthe RF, began developing national legal-institu-tional capacities. In the land resources manage-ment field, new land codes, providing land clas-sification according to planned uses, and rulesand procedures for land ownership, etc. wereadopted. Environmental media-specific statuteson soil protection were also passed in some ofthese countries.

30

���

2.2.4 Policy Measures

At present, land resources management andprotection responsibilities are widely spreadamong different agencies and the scope of workof these agencies varies on a country-by-coun-try basis. In Armenia for example, the Ministryof Nature Protection is responsible for landresources protection. The Ministry ofAgriculture is responsible for planning andmanagement of agricultural land resources. Atthe same time, the State Committee of the RealProperty Cadastre under the Government ofArmenia is responsible for the planning andmanagement of all lands other than agricultural.These three agencies are all responsible forsome aspect of land resources planning andmanagement. They develop regulations andgeneral policies for land resources planning andmanagement. The Ministry for Environmentconducts monitoring of land use and is respon-sible for inventory of lands affected by geo-dynamic processes. In Georgia, the StateDepartment for Land Resources Managementand the Ministry for Environment, specificallythe Department for Waste Management andLand Resources Protection, are the key agen-cies in land planning and management. Both ofthese agencies are engaged in the developmentof regulations and general policies pertaining toland use; soil protection from erosion and con-tamination, etc. Whereas the MoE is responsi-ble for the inventory of degraded and contami-nated lands, the State Department for LandResources Management is responsible for thecontrol over privatised and leased lands andland tenure, etc. Agriculture Ministries alsoplay key roles in protecting and monitoring ofagricultural lands. Other agencies (health min-istries and their sanitary-hygiene oversight serv-ices, hydro-meteorological services, forestrydepartments, etc.) are also involved in land-related activities in all the South Caucasuscountries. City planning is conducted by theMinistries/Departments of Urbanisation andConstruction and the managerial functions arethe responsibility of city municipalities. In theNorth Caucasus autonomies, federal, republicanand local authorities carry out land-use planningand management activities. In krays, kray-leveladministrations are the key authorities. In someof the parts of the Caucasus, where the statelegal-institutional system is weak or absent andwhere a long tradition of nature use exists, localcommunities play a significant part in landresources management.

Overall, all agencies in the land planning andmanagement field experience similar financialand institutional difficulties, as do othersinvolved in environmental and natural resourcesmanagement. Current legislation is imperfect,especially in the field of land ownership, spatialplanning and zoning, etc. Town planning prac-tices are still based on Soviet approaches anddo not reflect modern urban concepts or thespecial nature of transitional economies.Whereas various state plans, programs and proj-ects pertaining to land resources managementdo exist, financial and implementation mecha-nisms are lacking or absent.

The South Caucasus and Russian NEAPs iden-tify priority issues pertaining to all environmen-tal fields, including land resources, and suggestlegal-institutional and investment measures forsolving these issues. Some of these activitiesare currently being implemented. For example,Armenia has developed the Agro-biodiversityProgram aimed at conserving and using wildspecies, analogous to cultivated ones. The coun-try also has a Program for Land Restoration aswell as a National Agrarian Policy. In Georgia,GTZ, WB, UNDP, etc. funded the land estateregistration project, aimed at establishing amodern user-oriented state system of landtenure by using advanced remote sensing andGIS technologies. All South Caucasus countriesare parties to the UN Convention to CombatDesertification, and the first national reportshave been delivered under the Convention.Currently, the countries are in the process ofdeveloping national programs against desertifi-cation and building up institutions under thatframework.

Nevertheless, there are some concerns that thefunded programs/projects will never be carriedthrough, since most of them do not include sus-tainability components for further financial andtechnical resources. In addition, each of thedonor organisations uses its own criteria andmethodologies and has little co-ordination withother donors. For example, several donorsimplementing land registration programs inGeorgia use different methodologies and datacollection protocols that may lead to the estab-lishment of inconsistent and incompatible landinformation systems within the country.

���

31

The Caucasus is rich in forests. The total areaof forests comprises 73,200 kmsq. or 17% ofthe total land area. From the total area offorests, one should distinguish the area of the"State Forestry Fund (Estate)". It occupies avast territory and amounts to 87,100 km sq.Apart from forestlands, it also consists ofglades, small arable lands, hayfields, pastures,transport and communication right-of-ways, etc.

Most Caucasus forests are located in mid-mountain zones at altitudes of about 500-2,000meters and grow on steep slopes. There are alsolowland and riparian forests. Broad-leavedforests dominate the region, representing 93%of Armenian forests, 83% of Georgian forestsand 98% of Azerbaijani forests. The mostimportant are the relic forests of the Tertiaryera, located in the Caspian Sea coastal zone andTallish Mountains, and the coastal temperaterain forests in southwestern Georgia. Well-expressed vertical zonality and climate varia-tions determine the existence of several types offorests, such as oak forests, beech forests, horn-beam forests, birch forests, dry scrub juniferousforests and coniferous forests, with dominatingspecies of fir, spruce and pine. Riparian forestsconsist of alder, lowland oaks, wing nut, etc.

Georgia has a relatively high percentage offorestlands, though it significantly lags behindother countries rich in forests. Forests cover isnearly 40% of Georgian territory. The NorthCaucasus exceeds Georgia in total area offorests (28,830 kmsq.), but has very low per-

cent of forestland at 11.4%. Azerbaijan hasforests 14-15% of its territory. In Armenia only10% of total land area is covered by forests,while the State Forest Fund is almost 15%.

The total supply of timber makes up 1.130 mil-lion m3. The overwhelming part of the supply(86%) comes from Georgia (40%) and theNorth Caucasus (46%). Azerbaijan suppliesabout 10% and Armenia only 4%.

Both timber supply and forestlands within thecountries vary largely depending on physicaland geographical conditions, agricultural deve-lopment, and proximity to urban centres. In theNorth Caucasus, for example, forestlands varyfrom 6% in Stavropol kray to 23% in NorthOssetia.

In the South Caucasus, much of the forest areais characteristic of the regions of the Greaterand Lesser Caucasus. A small amount of forest-land is in intermountain depressions, connectedwith the intensity of agricultural activities in thewest and central part or with semiarid and aridconditions in the east. The Javakheti-ArmenianHighlands, due to continental conditions, rela-tive aridity of the climate and relatively highaltitudes, has little forest cover.

Analysing the dynamics of forestry estate overthe last 30 years is difficult. The statistics allowone to analyse only the change in total area ofthe State Forestry Estate. This area changed notso much due to logging, but due the transfer ofterritories from one agency to another in theformer Soviet Union. In addition, different cri-teria for designating territories as forests wereset in the countries of the South Caucasus fol-lowing the dissolution of the Soviet Union. InArmenia and Azerbaijan, the area of the ForestEstate increased because some territories withshrubs were added to it.

Thus, data on forest estate area dynamics do notexpress the real picture. Neither does officialdata on timber supply dynamics.

Statistical yearbooks contain data on woodcuts.These data, however, are very tentative, sinceafter the dissolution of the USSR illegal wood-

32

���2.3.1 Caucasus Forests

General data on the Caucasus forests

2.3 Forestry Resources

2.3.2 Dynamics of Forest Cutting

cutting has sharply increased. There are practi-cally no data on the amount of this woodcut-ting.

Reforestation activities were conducted duringSoviet times. Annually, trees were planted inthe forests of the 50-60 thousand ha area. In the90s, this was halted. However, the area offorests in some regions (e.g. in Racha, Georgia)began to increase naturally in connection withthe depopulation of these regions. Pines andother aggressive, rapidly growing timberspecies occupied the places of former arablelands, increasing forested lands in such areas by5% to 6%.

The World Bank (2001) attempted to find outthe dynamics of the forest cover in the centralpart of the Caucasus based on comparing aerialphotos made from Landsat in 1989 and 2000.The results of comparing these pictures showedthat changes in the forest-covered area are nothigh. The most intensive cutting was noticed inthe Bakuriani, Adigen and Khaishi regions. Onthe rest of the territories, the data on forestcover are not essential. Do the data of the aerialphotos reflect a real situation? Usually, most ofCaucasus forests according to Soviet regula-tions belonged to the I and II categories andwoodcutting was fully or partially banned there.These regulations still exist even now on thecountries of the South Caucasus. If now anywoodcutting is conducted, it is illegal. Aerialphotos show just these territories.

In recent years, selective cutting occurred in theCaucasus, when the highest quality trees werecut. During the last ten years cutting wasextensive on the Saguramo-Yalon range (EastGeorgia), and on the outskirts of Tbilisi andYerevan. In the forests of the state forest fund,there were no significant changes in the totalforest cover, but all valuable specimens ofbeech and some other species have been cut.This resulted in a drastic reduction in forestquality. For example, it is estimated that overthe past ten years 26% of beech forests wereconverted to coppice forests and only about10% of the beech forests left have high densityin Armenia. Oak forests are in the most criticalcondition. Mature and over-mature treesaccounted for 31.3% of oak forests. The currentage structure of forests (average age - 90 years,pre-mature trees amount only for 6.5% of total)also has a negative impact on the future devel-opment of forest resources (UNEP/MNP ofArmenia, 2000). In Georgia, as a result discri-minate logging, forest density has been signifi-cantly reduced: 0.5 and lower density grovesoccupy 1149.8 thousand hectares (53%); grovesof average (0.6-0.7) density occupy 932.8 thou-sand hectares (43.0%) and groves of high densi-ty (0.8 and more) occupy only 86.8 thousandhectares (4%). It is quite clear that the area ofhigh-density forests have been considerablyreduced (WB/State Forestry Department,Georgia, 1997).

For the last ten years, the largest amount of cut-ting has taken place on former collective farmsthat had no owners following privatisation. Thesituation in these regions is critical. Cutting ofgreen zones was particularly severe aroundurban areas of Armenia and Georgia in early1990s, where population was forced to useforests for fuel wood because of an energy cri-sis. Consequently, environmental situation inthese settlements has substantially worsened. InYerevan, for instance, about 60-80 thousandtrees were cut down, though they could havesignificantly improved the ambient air qualityby absorbing and neutralising air emissions(UNEP/MNP of Armenia, 2000).

Uncontrolled grazing in forest areas is alsocommon practice at present. This itself causesthe destruction of biodiversity of underbrushwoods, endemic and relic species being the

���

33

Caucasus forests

Compiled by Beruchashvili N., 1999-2001 statistical data

most vulnerable among them. As a result,underbrush fauna migrated from their habitatsand less valuable brushes began to expand.

During recent military conflicts in Chechnya,Georgia and Azerbaijan, bombing, forest fires,clear cutting for heavy military equipment havedamaged the forest cover. Out flows of refugeesand depopulation of the regions have reducedhuman pressures and created good conditionsfor forest regeneration.

To sum up, the problem of deforestation has notbeen so acute for the Caucasus as in some tropi-cal countries, where over the last thirty yearsthe forest cover has been considerably reduced.Overall, the area of forest cover in the Caucasushas been more or less preserved during the past30-year period. Nevertheless, in recent years theterritories near urban areas or where forestexploitation is promoted either by natural fac-tors (easy access) or good opportunity for ille-gal timber export (e.g. in the Lesser Caucasusnear the customs with Turkey) the forest coverstructure has changed significantly. Valuablespecimens of timber have been cut, and forestquality reduced.

In addition to anthropogenic activities, fireshave a considerable influence on the forestcover. Nevertheless, in case of the Caucasus,the forest fires are not so common as in Siberiaand Far East, for example.

Do the changes in forest cover have seriousenvironmental impacts? Where full-scale cut-ting is going on there is a danger of erosion.However, still, the area of re-eroded slopes

within the scale of the entire Caucasus is not solarge, though in some individual cases it is ofcritical importance. Forest estate of theCaucasus, over last 30 years was subject tomoderate changes and, thus its ecological fun-ction as the "natural lungs of atmosphere" hasbeen preserved overall. This cannot be said ofits aesthetic value, which has been sharplyreduced due to unsustainable woodcutting prac-tices.

Before the break up of the Soviet Union, uni-form forestry policy was conducted in theCaucasus. All forests were public property andbelonged to the "State Forest Fund" (estate).Forests were divided into various categories.Those of national importance were managed bycentral and local branches of the Ministry forForest Management ("Minleskhoz"), while cityforests were managed by different sectoral bo-dies. Other categories included forests ofreserves and sanctuaries and forests of collec-tive farms.

According to Soviet legislation, the forests fellunder three categories based on their locationand function. The first category forests hadwater regulation, soil protection, sanitary-hygiene and recreational functions. Forests ofspecial importance, such as national parks, statereserves, reservations, etc. also belonged to thiscategory. The second category consisted of theforests located in densely populated areas withprotective and some commercial value, alongwith forests belonging to collective farms. Thethird category included the forests designedpurely for commercial cutting, which served asa state forest stock. Different regimes ofresource use and management were applied tothese three categories of forests.

Forest cutting was usually conducted for gene-ral use (commercial cutting) and regenerationpurposes (sanitary cutting). Commercial cuttingwas conducted when trees reached certain le-vels of maturity and three types of felling wereused: clear-cutting, discriminate and rotational.Sanitary cutting, on the contrary, was conductedat any growth stage.

34

���

2.3.3 Forestry Policy

Number of forest fires in the Caucasus, 1966-96

Commercial logging was not so extensive in theCaucasus, because the most forests there weremanaged for conservation and protection pur-poses and were classified as first categoryforests, where commercial logging was prohi-bited. Significant stocks of forests in Siberiaand central and northern parts of the USSRwere used to export timber to the Caucasus.

According to forestry regulations, all highforests were subject to natural regeneration.Reforestation was conducted annually. Speciallarge-scale reforestation programs were imple-mented resulting in thousands of hectares ofland area planted with new trees. For example,large quantities of trees, predominantly pines,were planted around the city of Tbilisi. Theseareas were practically bare at the beginning ofthe 20th century.

However, practices such as selective and unsus-tainable cutting have led to degradation of for-est resources in the Caucasus. In addition, weaklegal-institutional frameworks for enforcingexisting legislation has hindered the effectiveimplementation of existing rules and regulationson the use and protection of forestry resources.

In the early 1990s, each of the South Caucasuscountries began to develop and implement inde-pendent national policies. Although someefforts have been made to introduce new poli-cies and management practices, traditionalforestry practices remain widely in use. Newforestry codes and national strategies have beendeveloped and adopted. Grant programs andprojects have been implemented through finan-cing by donor organisations, the World Bankbeing the major donor. The main goals of theseprojects are to establish forestry systems similarto those of western countries.

Despite this, the forestry sector in the Caucasuscountries faces serious economic, institutionaland technical problems. Frequently forest ma-nagement and protection efforts are duplicatedby different agencies. Law enforcement officerslack the capacity to detect violations and actappropriately. Most importantly, there is a lackof current data on forest resources and thus, aforest inventory needs to be conducted andmodern resource monitoring and inventory sys-tems established.

Caucasus rivers belong to the basins of theBlack, Azov and Caspian seas. In 70% the terri-tory of the Caucasus, water drains into theCaspian Sea. In terms of flow volume, the firstplace (56%) is occupied by the Black-Azovseas basin, located in the western part of theCaucasus where precipitation is more plentiful.The major data on main rivers of the Caucasusare given in the table.

The annual average flow of the Caucasus riversfluctuates between 1,000-2,000mm (Ajara andthe Greater Caucasus) to 50mm and lower. Asmall amount of flow is characteristic of theKura-Araks lowland, the Caspian lowland, theStavropol upland and northern part of theKuban plain. The middle mountains have aflow from 600 to 1,000 mm and low mountainsfrom 200 to 600 mm.

���

35

2.4 Fresh Waters

2.4.1 Water Balance

General data of the Caucasus major rivers

Water resources of the South Caucasus

The outflow is connected with evaporation. Theamount of aggregate evaporation depends onevaporation and amount of precipitation. Theamount of precipitation in the Caucasus fluctu-ates from 1,000 to 100mm. The greatest amountof evaporation occurs in places with a humidand warm climate. Insignificant amounts ofevaporation are found either on the territorieswith arid climate or in highland regions withlow air temperature. The table shows elementsof water balance in three South Caucasus coun-tries.

Overall, the Caucasus is not rich in lakes. Sevanis the largest lake in the Caucasus with an areaof 1,416 km sq. It is followed by Manich-Gudilo (800 km sq.) and a few coastal salt lakesof the Azov Sea. Wetlands in the Caucasus arefound in the Colchian Lowland and in the deltasand floodplains of large rivers, wherehydrophilic conditions prevail.

The unequal distribution of regional waterresources in the Caucasus causes problems withwater allocation in the region, especially in theKura-Araks river basin. In the future, this prob-lem may become the source of regional con-flict. For example, while Georgia is the richestcountry in water resources among the SouthCaucasian countries, Azerbaijan suffers fromwater shortages the most.

Historically, major users of fresh waterresources were agriculture, industry and house-holds in the Caucasus region. Usage forhydropower generation and recreation was alsosignificant. Agriculture's share of total use washigher than that of households and industry.The industrial sector used the least amount inmost parts of the regions.

Inefficient water use practices were common tothe region. Only a small percentage of waterwas recycled and/or reused. Water losses in irri-gation and water supply systems were high inthe 1980s. In Georgia and Azerbaijan, forexample, losses in irrigation systems amountedto 29% and 33% in 1988 respectively (StateCommittee of the USSR of Nature Protection,1989). Regardless of legal water quantity limitsset for each enterprise, water over-consumptionwas frequently detected. In Azerbaijan, forexample, 14 out of 17 enterprises for which thelegal limits were set exceeded these limits by18 million cubic meters; in Armenia 14 out 25enterprises exceeded existing limits by 16 mil-lion cubic meters; and in Georgia 14 out of 22enterprises exceeded their limits by 15 millioncubic meters in 1988. Reportedly, regular waterover-consumption was related to the lack ofwater meters (State Committee of the USSR onNature Protection, 1989).

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, totalwater use has significantly decreased due to thegeneral economic decline. In Azerbaijan, forexample, water abstractions declined from16,176 million cubic meters in 1990 to 11,968cubic meters in 1999 (UNDP, Azerbaijan,2000). Of the major uses, industrial usage hasdropped the most dramatically and the domestic

usage the least. The fall in industrial waterusage was more drastic in Armenia andGeorgia, where due to the loss of markets forindustry inputs and auxiliary parts, the sectorhas virtually collapsed. In the RussianFederation and Azerbaijan many industries con-tinue to function. Therefore, the patterns of

36

���

Water balance in the South Caucasus

2.4.2 Water Availability and Use

Availability of regional water resources(1000 m3 per year)

water usage have not changed very much inmost of the North Caucasus republics and kraysas well as in Azerbaijan.

For the last decade, the Caucasus countrieshave faced problems related to potable watersupply. This was underlined in all NEAPs.Although almost all major cities of theCaucasus have centralised water supply sys-tems, existing water supply volumes do notmeet the demands of rapidly growing urbanpopulations. The systems themselves are ineffi-cient, having high losses. Many rural areas donot have central water supply systems, or ifsuch services exist, they do not operate. Hence,the rural population is urged to use water fromrivers or artesian wells that might be contami-nated. Existing water supply systems and intakefacilities are out of date and insufficient to sa-tisfy current demands. Lack of funds precludesrepairing and expanding existing facilities orbuilding new ones.

Over decades, uncoordinated sector-based usesof water resources, traditionally practised in theregion, posed a threat to the hydrology andchemistry of downstream waters and foster thedegradation of biota, nurtured in these waters.Building of large-scale dams, without providingpaths for fish, had a negative impact on fishpopulations, greatly reducing fish stocks. Forexample, intensive water abstraction from theTerek River for irrigation uses, the lack of pathsfor the sturgeon populations in Kargalinskydam, and non-attainment of minimum requireddischarges amounting to 80-100 m3/s for fishpopulation in spring times affected fish breed-ing and has led to a significant reduction inDagestan's sturgeon population (Ministry ofEnvironment and Nature Resources Protection,Russian Federation 1996). A similar situationexists in the Azov and Black Sea basins.

Water quality is one of the major environmentalconcerns in the Caucasus. During the Sovietera, large volumes of effluents were dischargedinto surface water bodies from municipal,industrial and agriculture sources, causing pol-lution of both surface and ground waters. Thelargest sources of point source pollution weremunicipal wastewaters, which polluted rivers

downstream of large cities with organic matter,suspended solids, surfactants, etc. Industrialwaste-water discharges also were high, pollut-ing surface waters with heavy metals, oil prod-ucts, phenols and other hazardous substances.In Georgia, for example, large industrial facili-ties producing manganese, ammonia, machin-ery, etc. together with arsenic, copper and goldmining and processing plants, oil refineries andpower plants polluted the river bodies of the

���

37

Total Water Use in the Caucasus, 1985-99

Total water abstractions and uses in the Caucasus, 1995-99

Total water consumption by sectors in the Caucasus, 1995-99

2.4.3 Surface and Ground Water Quality

Source: State statistical services of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and RF, Year Books, 1970-2001

Black and the Caspian Sea basins with heavymetals, oil products, phenols and other toxicsubstances. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, differ-ent industries also discharged high loads of pol-lutants into the Kura and Araks Rivers and theirtributaries. In the North Caucasus, one of themajor concerns was the contamination of theTerek River and its tributaries from non-ferrousindustries (Ministry of Environment and NatureResources Protection, Russian Federation

1996). Heavy metals, oil products and phenolsalso heavily polluted the Kuban River. Forexample, in the late 1980s in the Kuban River,ambient concentrations of oil products and cop-per were 5-7 times as high as existing surfacewater quality standards (State Committee of theUSSR on Nature Protection, 1989). Agriculturerun-off discharged heavy loads of nutrients, sus-pended solids and pesticides into surface waterbodies, causing eutrophication of rivers andlakes and the loss of biota. Lake Sevan, forexample, suffered seriously from heavy loads ofnutrients from agriculture. About 800,000 tonsof 34 types of fertilisers were used in the 1980sin the Lake basin (UN-ECE/MNP of Armenia,2000). Agricultural run-off from nearby arablelands and livestock farms discharged heavyloads of P and N and organic matter into thelake, changing its status from tropic to almosteutrophic. Therefore, its physical-chemical bal-ance was destroyed, leading to eutrophicationand the loss of valuable trout populations. Inthe North Caucasus, the Rivers the Kuban alsowas highly polluted with biogenic substances(Ministry of Environment and Nature ResourcesProtection, Russian Federation 1996).

Diffused sources of pollution, other than agri-culture run-off, drainage waters from legallandfills and illegal dumpsites and open-pitmining operations, etc. as well as urban run-offalso posed high threat to surface and groundwaters. In Armenia, for example, the DebedRiver, a tributary of the Kura River was highlypolluted with copper and zinc discharged fromthe Alaverdi mine in Northeast Armenia. InGeorgia, wastewaters from copper mining oper-ations heavily polluted the Kazretula River(Kura River basin) with heavy metals. In theNorth Caucasus, the contamination of Terek-Kuma artesian aquifer with arsenic was and stillis a problem (Ministry of Environment andNature Resources Protection, RussianFederation 1996).

Historically, the coverage rate of the Caucasusregion by sewage systems was high, amountingto about 50-60% of the urban population. Themajority of the rural populations however, werenot covered by sewage services and they atlarge relied on septic tanks. Water treatmentfacilities usually received more wastewater thanthey could treat. In many cases, industrial

38

���

Untreated waste-water discharges in the Caucasus, 1985-99

Total waste-water discharges in the South Caucasus, 1985-99

Waste-water discharges from major sectors in the SouthCaucasus, 1980-2000

Source: State statistical services of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and RF, Year Books, 1970-2001

wastewaters were discharged directly intomunicipal sewage collectors. In addition, fre-quently rain water sewers and domestic sewagesystems were connected to each other, causingoverloading during heavy rainfalls.

Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, con-tamination of surface waters has decreased.This could have resulted in the temporaryimprovement of water quality. However, this isoffset by the fact that the majority of waste-water treatment facilities ceased to function orwork at very low levels of efficiency, causingthe discharge of larger quantities of untreatedwastewater directly into water bodies. Theproblem of industrial accidents and gulp releas-es is still acute in the region. For example, dur-ing 1998 in North Dagestan gulp dischargesfrom industries located in Chechnya caused

heavy contamination of the Terek River andother small river bodies with oil products,exceeding the existing water quality standards200 to 600 times (Ministry of Environment andNature Resources Protection, RussianFederation, 1998).

Overall, most of rivers of both the Black andCaspian Sea basins are considered polluted.However, the Kura river, being the major water-way in the South Caucasus region, has a highdegree of international importance, in terms ofboth quantity and quality of water, since itsbasin covers six countries: Georgia, Armenia,Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran and the rivers andtheir tributaries there are abstracted for essentialuses. Whereas they are less crucial, at a nationallevel, to Iran and Turkey, they are neverthelessimportant to the economy and communities liv-ing in the riparian corridors.

���

39

The most polluted rivers in the Caucasus

Compiled by Beruchashvili N., 1999-2001 statistical data

40

���The Kura-Araks River Basin, including its two main rivers, the

Kura and the Araks and their tributaries, covers three countries:Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and parts of Turkey and Iran. Thetotal area of the basin is more than 200,000 square kilometres, withabout 188,000 km sq. of catchment area for the Kura river basin and102,000 km sq. of catchment area for the Araks river basin. TheKura River originates in Northeast Turkey, passes through Georgiaand flows into the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan. Some of its tributar-ies flow from Armenia to Georgia and Azerbaijan. The Araks Riveroriginates in eastern Turkey and flows along the border of Turkey,Armenia, Iran and Azerbaijan. One branch of the Araks flowsdirectly into the Caspian Sea. The total length of the Kura River isabout 1,515 km and its main tributary, the Araks River, is approxi-mately 1,072 km. The basin is rich in biodiversity, unique riparianforests along the Kura, and many important wetlands.

The rivers of the Kura basin are used for agriculture, domestic,industrial, and hydropower generation and recreation purposes.Whereas Armenia and Georgia have abundant underground waterreserves, which are used as a major source of drinking water,Azerbaijan is almost entirely reliant on the Kura River for all typesof water uses. The problems existing in the basin are related to bothquantity and quality of water. Water shortage is acute for Georgiaand Azerbaijan, since rainfall disappears from west to east of thebasin. The average annual precipitation in Central Georgia, wherethe Kura enters Georgia from Turkey, is 500 mm but is 200 mm inAzerbaijan, where the river flows into the Caspian Sea. Similarly,evaporation rates soar from west to east. Drought periods in theKura Basin are very common. This has seriously affected theeconomies of Georgia and Azerbaijan. Overall, despite the efforts tomanage river flow the region faces both floods and shortages. Waterquality is deteriorated by raw municipal and industrial wastewatersand return flow from agriculture, imposing health, ecological andaesthetic threats. Additionally, improperly designed solid wastelandfills and illegal dumpsites, drainage waters from open pit minesand urban run-off degrade the water quality. Municipal sewage con-tributes the highest share in pollution. The Kura River downstreamof such large cities like Tbilisi and Rustavi is heavily polluted withorganic matter and other pollutants. Thus, when the river crosses theborder of Azerbaijan it is already heavily polluted. For example, in1992-94, average annual concentrations of phenols and oil productsexceeded existing water quality standards about 13-14 and 2.5-3times respectively in the vicinity of village Shikhly, Azerbaijan nearthe border with Georgia.

At present, most wastewater is left untreated. Existing treatmentfacilities are out of date and work with low efficiency. Mostly, onlymechanical treatment is conducted. Recently, experts from SandiaLaboratory made cost estimations for raw sewage discharges down-stream of Tbilisi. Modelling results have showed that potential costsfor discharging municipal sewage in Tbilisi with current dischargerates exceed US$ 100,000 at Rustavi and further fall below US$300 downstream the river due to self-purification capacity of theriver. This means that Rustavi population would gain the most if thewastewater were properly treated.

Sources: Phase I Report, Draft, USAID/DAI, 2000; Sandia Report, 2001;Concept Paper UNDP, 2001; UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 1995

Concentrations of selected components in the Kura River*

*note: Khertvisi is the most upstream and Gachiani -the most downstream river gauging site

During the last decades, the Black and AzovSeas, which represent the one system of inter-connected waters, suffered greatly from envi-ronmental degradation and pollution. Intensiveanthropogenic pressures on the Seas' ecosys-tems, resulted in serious and sometimes irre-versible environmental effects.

During the Soviet era, the Azov Sea was pollut-ed from multiple sources. Heavy volumes ofwastewater from industry, households and agri-culture were regularly discharged into the Seaand the rivers of its basin. Wastewaters mostlywere carrying heavy metals, chlororganic chem-icals, phosphates and pesticides. In the late1980s, the sea encountered the problem ofintrusion of alien species: jellyfish Mnemiopsis,which inhabits Atlantic Ocean coastal waters inUSA. The species was introduced in the AzovSea in 1989. The jellyfish eats almost entirezooplancton, causing the change in biota. Non-sustainable use and pollution of Kuban River,which drains into the Azov Sea, destroy the nat-ural balance of ecosystems in the basin, includ-ing marine ecosystems. Regular non-returnablewater abstractions from the Kuban, without tak-ing into consideration the minimum ecologicalflow hinder the natural breeding of major com-mercial fish species. Building of large-scalehydro projects on this river also resulted in theloss of natural breeding grounds for many valu-able fish.

Overall, 10-fold decline in fish productivity hasbeen reported for major fish breeding grounds.According to 1995 data, annual commercialcatch in the Azov Sea, which in the past wasone of the most productive Seas, amounts about5 thousand tons annually, while the figure was120-160,000 tons annually in 1935-36 years.Seal catch has been almost zero since 1992(Ministry of Environment and Nature ResourcesProtection, Russian Federation 1996).Although, Russia and Ukraine take some meas-ures to retain existing fish stocks, without jointmeasures by these countries to regulate freshwater discharge and control pollution, it willnot be possible to recover the fish stock to tra-ditional levels.

���

41

2.5 Coastal and Marine Waters

2.5.1 Black and Azov Seas

The Black Sea has an international importance,since it washes several countries and is rich inunique ecosystems. The number of total popula-tion within its basin is about 170 million. In theCaucasus, Georgian and Krasnodar kray's sharethe coastline of the Sea. Sea level rising togeth-er with degradation of unique marine ecosys-tems and water pollution is the major issue forthe Sea.

The Black Sea, as a part of the World Ocean, isaffected by global warming. Long-term sealevel observations indicate that the Black Sealevel rising has begun since 1923-1925 with arate of 2.5 mm per year (UNDP/GEF-Government of Georgia, 1999). Sea level risecreated following vulnerability to the sea coast-lines: increased probability of catastrophicfloods on some rivers; salinization and boggingof pastures and washing out of beaches; anddamage to amenities: communications, munici-pal buildings and facilities. In Georgia, the mostvulnerable places are Poti and Rioni deltaregions. The regions have receded since thebeginning of this century by up to 0.52 m rela-tive to the sea and it is assumed the process willcontinue in the future. In addition to above phe-nomena, the trend of cooling of the Black Seasurface has been observed, which reached 10Cfor the last 50-70 years at the coastal zone ofGeorgia. This itself will result in the decline ofrecreation and tourism periods as well as vege-tation spell for subtropical crops, such as citrusand tea, hence reducing the revenues for localpopulation (UNDP/GEF-Government ofGeorgia, 1999).

The part of the Caucasus washed by the sea hasserious environmental impacts on the Black Seain terms of seawater pollution. Some of themajor resorts, harbours and industrial centresare located there and have a significant impacton the sea.

In the 1970s and 1980s, millions of cubicmetres of domestic and industrial waste-waterswere discharged into the sea from large cities,resorts and industries. During tourist seasons,the concentrations of BOD, COD, and surfac-tants were exceeding existing water qualitystandards several times. Water pollution by col-iform bacteria was common as well. Water oilcontent was also high along coastal line, where

large harbours: Novorossiisk, Tuaphse, Poti,Batumi, Sukhumi, etc. were located. Differentindustries were developed within the basin.Wastewaters from ferrous, chemical, mechani-cal plants, oil refineries and mines were dis-charged into the rivers or directly into the sea.Batumi oil refinery alone, for example, dis-charged more than 500 tons of oil wastes intothe sea annually in the 1980s. Gulp dischargesfrom the plant also were not rare, bringingabout 115 km sq. water surface pollution onaverage annually (State Committee of theUSSR on Nature Protection, 1989). Agriculturealso had significant impact on coastal waters.Georgia produced almost the entire citrus andtea crops of the FSU and about 90% of theseproducts were exported to other republics of theFSU. Tea and citrus plantations were concen-trated along the coastline and agriculture run-off from these areas discharged significantamounts of fertilisers and pesticides into thesea. Return agricultural flow from ploughedfields, fodder fields and perennial crops inKrasnodarsky kray also contributed highly tothe pollution of surface and coastal waters.

The demise of the Soviet Union was followedby economic decline. At present, the problem ofseawater pollution is mainly related to domesticsewage and oil spills from cargo ships and stor-age tanks. Although, industries continue work-ing at low loads, resulting in reduced industrialwastewater loads, non-optimal operationregimes, out of date technologies and reducedcontrol from law enforcement officers may off-set the situation.

Oil products were one of the major seawaterpollutants in the 1970s and 1980s and remainsuch at present. Studies conducted by Georgianscientists in 1993-95 showed that oil productssignificantly polluted the seawater in Batumiand Poti harbours. Water oil content in watersamples varied from 1 to 24 times the existingwater quality standard (0.05 mg/l) in Batumiand from 1 to 14 times the standard in Poti. Thehighest concentrations were recorded in dayswith high sun radiation. Phenol concentrationsalso were high in warm seasons and they werenot only discharged from rivers, but alsoformed in the seawater as an intermediate prod-uct of the degradation of oil products.Sediments were also polluted by oil products

42

���

BOD sources for the Black Sea (ton/year), 1996

TN sources for the Black Sea (ton/year), 1996

TP sources for the Black Sea (ton/year), 1996

and might cause the secondary pollution duringhigh turbulence. In addition to oil products,trace levels of chlororganic pesticides and sur-factant, sometimes exceeding existing limits 2-5times, were detected. (Institute ofHydrometeorology, Georgian Academy ofScience, 1998).

In the past, the Black Sea was rich in fishstocks. Over the last 30 years, the maximumcatch was in 1976 and amounted to about315,000 tons (Ministry of Environment andNature Resources Protection, the RussianFederation, 1995). Over-catching and water pol-lution has significantly reduced fish popula-tions. Currently the bulk of the commercialfishing consists of hamsa and Sprattus. Theindustrial catch of sturgeon has extremelyreduced, while carp and bream stocks are morestable. Shamaya, pilengas and rybets becamevery rare (IUCN, 2000).

The problem with invasion of alien species iscommon to the Black Sea. In the mid 1980s, ajelly-fish-like species (Mnemiopsis leidyi),which was accidentally introduced to the BlackSea from the eastern seaboard of America in theballast water of a ship, invaded the Black Sea.It quickly reached a total mass of 900 milliontons . Though declining, Mnemiopsis continuesto nourish in the Black Sea.

Finally, recent large-scale development projectsfor the Caspian oil transportation and theexpansion of the Black Sea harbours withinTRACECA project may significantly affect theBlack Sea in the near future. Thus, environmen-tal considerations should be taken into accountduring construction and operation phases.

The Caspian Sea is the largest inland body ofwater in the world. It washes five countries:Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia andTurkmenistan. A significant part of it is locatedin the Caucasus, shared by Azerbaijan andDagestan.

The water level of the Caspian Sea is currentlyabout 26.5-27 metres below the Baltic Sealevel. The level has fluctuated from 6 to 7metres during the past few centuries and about

13 metres over last 500 years. Historically, thesea accounted more than 90% of world's stur-geon and caviar output. Additionally, it hasabundant oil and gas deposits and they areexploited both on- and off-shore. Major envi-ronmental issues related to the Caspian Sea arethe impact of water level fluctuation on coastalsettlements, decline in sturgeon populations andwater pollution from oil and gas operations,industry, households and agriculture.

The water level rose over four metres between1978-95, causing severe damage to nearby terri-tories, populations and infrastructure. About807 kmsq. of land was inundated in Azerbaijan.An additional 460 km sq. will be flooded if thesea level rise to -25 m (State Committee onEcology and Control of Natural ResourcesUtilization, Azerbaijan Republic, 1998).

The sea level rise has resulted in significanteconomic, health and environmental damage toAzerbaijan and Dagestan. Communities inaffected areas have suffered from increasedhumidity and dampness; drinking water qualityhas deteriorated due the salt water intrusion;communications infrastructure has been signifi-cantly damaged; flooded agricultural lands anddamage to sturgeon hatcheries and fish process-ing industries have deepened unemploymentand poverty. The rising sea has also caused thesecondary pollution of marine water from oilfields either through direct flooding or watertable rise and ground water seepage.

While in recent years the sea level has slightlydeclined, it is forecast to continue rising overthe next two decades. The reasons for sea levelfluctuations are not well understood.Presumably both natural and anthropogenic fac-tors affect it. Change in water cycle and climatewithin the watershed have a high impact on thesea level. At the same time, non-sustainableagricultural practices, especially on the riverVolga, and human-induced change in waterregime contribute greatly to the sea level risetoo.

Historically, the Caspian Sea water was affectedby polluted river flow and direct dischargesfrom households, industries, oil and gas opera-tions and oil transportation through marineroutes. From the territory of Azerbaijan alone

���

43

2.5.2 Caspian Sea

more than 300 million cubic metres of waste-water were discharged into the sea in 1980s,polluting it with suspended solids, organic mat-ter, surfactants, oil products, sulphates, chlo-rides, phenols and other harmful substances(State Committee of the Azerbaijan Republic onNature Protection, 1993). From the industrysector, the oil and gas industry contributed thehighest share. During the Soviet era, existingwater quality standards for oil products andphenols were significantly exceeded in coastalwaters of Dagestan and Azerbaijan. For exam-ple, in 1988 in Dagestan water quality standardsfor oil products and phenols were exceeded 4 to6 times and in Azerbaijan about 5-16 times(State Committee of the USSR on NatureProtection, 1989). Agricultural run-off also wasa significant source of the Caspian Sea pollu-tion during the 1970s and 1980s. In the early1980s, the intensive use of fertilisers and pesti-cides polluted the fresh and coastal waters withnitrogen, phosphorus, chlororganic compounds,etc. However, the use of agrochemicals has sig-nificantly declined during the last ten years, dueto the overall economic decline. At present, oilextraction and municipal sector are the majorsources for seawater pollution. Although indus-trial discharges have reduced due to the fall ineconomy, pollution from such activities as oiland gas extraction, oil refining and transporta-tion, and power generation are high. Obsoleteproduction and pollution control technologies orlack of pollution controls aggravates the situa-tion. Inefficient and obsolete wastewater treat-ment facilities add to the problem.

In the past, about 11.4 billion cubic metres ofwastewater were discharged annually into theCaspian Sea (State Committee of theAzerbaijan Republic on Nature Protection,1993). Among the rivers of the Caspian Seabasin, the Volga River's share of total pollutionwas and still stays more than 80%. Currently,about 2.5 billion m3 of raw sewage and 7 bil-lion m3 treated sewage is discharged into theriver annually (Ministry of Environment andnature Resources Protection, RussianFederation, 1996). The Kura and Araks riversare also historical polluters of the Caspian Sea,discharging about 522 million cubic metresannually during Soviet era, from which about497 came from Georgia and Armenia (StateCommittee of the Azerbaijan Republic onNature Protection, 1993).

At present, seawater oil pollution remains amajor concern for the Caspian Sea, as it was inthe past decades. Among coastal waters, watersoff Absheron peninsula, where intensive oiloperations are conducted and Sumgayit withconcentration of petroleum, petrochemical andchemical industries were and still are the mostaffected. A recent baseline study of the total oilin sediments off Absheron peninsula in andaround the Chirag field revealed that in the areaof the oil field (contact area) the level was 19-3,860 mg/kg, near the shore sediments in BakuBay were 270-2,100 mg/kg. One station justsouth of Oily Rocks showed 5,800 mg/kg.Sediment concentrations of petroleum hydrocar-bons were analysed at ten stations 60-80 km offAbsheron Peninsula. Levels of 4.7 to 128.5mg/kg were recorded. An analysis of the indi-vidual hydrocarbons of the samples indicatedcontamination with heavily degraded crude oil,which is also seen in natural seeps (TACIS,2000). The levels of mercury and phenols arehigh too, amounting to over 0.2-1.0 and 5.0-140g/kg of sediment in Baku Bay respectively.Concentrations of oil products and phenols arealso high in water column, exceeding the stan-dards 10-30 times (State Committee on Ecologyand Control of Natural Resources Utilization,Azerbaijan, 1998). The sediment concentrationoff Kura River is reported to contain 500-1,500mg/kg even though it is far from any offshoreinstallations. Also, at the Lenkoran coastal zonethe level of petroleum hydrocarbons in sedi-ment reach 200-1,500 mg/kg. As comparisonthe level of petroleum hydrocarbons in theBaltic Sea reached 4,100 mg/kg, and in onecase close to an oil refinery 16,000 mg/kg.

In general, environmental impacts of water oilpollution are related to the loss of benthicfauna, and fish populations, using benthos as afood. In the case of the Caspian Sea, the openwater surface and eastern coast of the northernCaspian Sea is polluted, and the benthic com-munities have lost their stability and are in atransition state. The Dagestan coast is heavilypolluted. Azerbaijan coast from Russian borderto Sumgayit is polluted, and the benthic faunavaries between a stable and a transition state.The Absheron peninsula, the Baku Bay and theSumgayit coast are extremely polluted, and thestate of the benthic fauna communities rangesfrom a transition to a critical to a disastrous sit-

44

���

uation. The open waters of the whole CaspianSea are heavily polluted. The fish fauna hasdecreased in the strongly polluted areas in BakuBay, Sumgayit Coast and Neftyanye Kamnyand they are considered "dead zones" mainlydue to oil pollution. However, the very samearea contains a long series of industries that dis-charge or did discharge numerous other con-taminants into that coastal area. The disappear-ance of the zander in the southern part of theCaspian nevertheless, is directly related to oilpollution. The disastrous situation of theCaspian herring (shad) stocks is also the resultof oil pollution. The migration routes of stur-geons have been affected by oil pollution inAzerbaijani territorial water. Earlier the stur-geons moved from the southern part of theCaspian to its middle part and back along thewestern and eastern coasts. Now they comeacross a barrier of highly polluted water nearthe Absheron Peninsula and have to migrateparticularly along the eastern coast. The greymullet stocks have been reduced, too, and agreat number of crawfish have disappeared(TACIS, 2000).

Overall, intensive anthropogenic pressures, suchas: industrial and municipal wastewater dis-charges and developments of large-scale hydroschemes have detrimental impacts on naturalecosystems of the Caspian Sea. A sharpdecrease in the diversity of the benthic fauna ofthe Caspian Sea has been reported. In the north-ern part the diversity has decreased from 78 to46 species, and in the southern and central partthe number of species has decreased by onethird. In Baku Bay and off Sumgayit crus-taceans and some species of mollusks havedrastically declined. Bulk stocks of commercialfish species have significantly reduced in lastdecades. The sturgeon population has sufferedespecially. Twenty years ago, about 20-25,000tons of sturgeons were harvested in the CaspianSea annually. Over the last 20 years, the totalcatch has decreased by 90% and in the lastthree years by factor three. In 1998, for exam-ple only 1,465 tons were harvested (IUCN,2000).

Until the break-up of the USSR, Caucasusstates had no national bodies responsible forenvironmental protection, including waterresources protection and management, with realpower at both: local and national levels. In gen-eral, the Soviet managerial system was arrangedfrom the top down, and all the issues at nation-al/local levels were solved based on decrees anddirectives issued from Moscow. The centralMinistry for Melioration and WaterManagement ("Minvodkhoz") with similarnational structures in sister republics was themajor body responsible for water resources pro-tection and rational use. Several other agenciesalso carried out water-related activities. Centraland national HMSs were responsible for waterquantity and quality data collection; standardsdepartments developed and set surface waterquality standards; health ministries set drinkingwater quality standards and enforced them viasanitary-hygiene services; geologic agenciesconducted the geologic surveys over groundwater reserves. Historically, there was little orno co-ordination among these agencies, becauseonly a sector-based approach to environmentaland natural resources management was con-ducted in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1988, inorder to improve co-ordination among differentagencies, the Nature Protection Committee wasestablished, later transformed to the Ministryfor Environment, to be responsible for the pro-tection of all environmental media. However,the committee had no long-term record due tothe break up of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The first Soviet water law was adopted in 1970,immediately followed by the development andadoption of similar national laws and regula-tions. For enforcement purposes, the codes ofcivil and criminal violations were developedduring the period from 1970 to 1990. In orderto implement existing legislation, Soviet regula-tors mostly used command and controlapproaches. In 1976-90, source-specific andgeneral (activity or river basin based) waterabstraction and use standards (quotas) weredeveloped and set for major water user econom-ic sectors, taking into consideration the qualityof the water used. In the 1960s and 1970s, sur-face water quality standards (GOSTs) for a

���

45

2.6 Policy Measures in Water ResourcesProtection Field

broad spectrum of substances were establishedas well. Water bodies were divided into severalcategories, based on some of the basic function-al water uses: municipal-domestic, recreational,fisheries, etc. In order to achieve desirablewater quality, in 1979 source specific effluentlimitations were introduced for point sources,based on dilution effect and self-purificationcapacity of the river. Domestic sewage wasrequired to enter water treatment facilities andundergo both mechanical and biological treat-ment. In essence, Soviet point source dischargestandards were based on ambient quality anddid not require a certain type of technology forpollution control, hence promoting end-off pipepollution control approaches. Meanwhile, nostandards, guidelines or management practicesexisted for controlling diffused source pollu-tion.

The state statistical reporting system, intro-duced in the late 1980s, obliged all water usersto conduct water use and discharge inventoriesat source, using either measurement or estima-tion methods and regularly report to responsibleauthorities. After water use and discharge datawere submitted they were then aggregated andpublished in statistical yearbooks. The validityof reported data was checked through regularinspections. However, water inventory datawere not precise, because the majority of indus-tries lacked water metering and effluent moni-toring equipment, and largely employed estima-tion methods.

Regardless of legal requirements, existing laws,regulations, and standards were frequentlyignored or violated, because of their strictnessand unfeasibility. Besides, rent-seeking systemsbased on bribery and mutual services hinderedthe compliance assurance monitoring and con-trol.

The Soviet Union had little experience withusing economic tools in environmental fields,including water resources management. Until1991, there were no taxes on water pollution.Only water use fees were employed. Per unitwater use fees were first introduced in 1982. Inessence, they served more to finance state waterprotection programs rather than to give anincentive to water users to conserve a resource.In addition to water use fees, environmental

damage compensation fees were employed inthe country. Effluent charges have been ineffect since 1991. The first charge system wasintroduced at the all-union level. The chargerate under this program was different withinand above the legal limit. In addition, the typeof pollutant as well as socio-economic andenvironmental conditions for specific regionswas taken into consideration while calculatingthe base charge rate. After the disintegration ofthe Soviet Union, national authorities intro-duced "polluter pays" principles in their envi-ronmental legislations and established effluentcharge systems. These systems are similar totheir Soviet ancestor. Charge programs are verycomplicated and cover a wide range of pollu-tants, which cannot possibly be monitored fully.At present, these countries only have the capac-ities to monitor several voluminous pollutants.This partly explains low tax revenues. Tax ratesthemselves are low, not reflecting marginaldamage and benefit costs and hence not affect-ing environmental behaviour. Even if the taxeswere set at appropriate levels, industries havelittle option for reducing their emissions, due tothe thin market for environmental services andgoods. Increased inflation also erodes the realtax rate. Finally, taxes are not earmarked forenvironmental purposes. Water use feesemployed by the countries are also set at lowerlevels and do not generate an incentive to con-serve the resource. Water charges, employed forpotable water consumption also are low, notallowing for recovery of O/M costs. At least,the number of pollutants has to be reduced, taxbase rate set at appropriate level and revenuesearmarked for environmental expenditures orfor maintaining the tax system.

In the 1970s and 1980s, national HMSs main-tained extensive hydro-meteorological andambient environmental quality networks, con-ducting observations over surface water quanti-ty and quality. Water quality networks werebased on manual sampling. For sample analysis,the combination of both wet chemistry andautomated methods was employed. After col-lection, the raw data were processed and storedin paper formats or non-user oriented PC-baseddatabases. HMS published data in annual year-books or multi-year summaries. Usually, sisterrepublics did not share or exchange data.Although Soviet monitoring networks provided

46

���

baseline river flow and quality data, these net-works were not designed for daily resourcemanagement.

The period from 1991 up to now can be consid-ered one that for established and strengthenednational environmental institutions in the FSU,including the South Caucasus countries. Atpresent, national environmental ministries havemajor environmental protection and manage-ment responsibilities in South Caucasus states.In the North Caucasus autonomies, similarstructures are subordinated to republican andfederal governments the latter has the right toveto a republican decisions. In the kray leveladministrations, local governments manageenvironment and natural resources.Environmental ministries develop water regula-tions, general policies/programs, permit newdevelopments or major modifications, issuelicenses over water use and wastewater dis-charges and conduct compliance assurance con-trol either through their regional branches orspecial environmental inspectorates. Otheragencies: HMS, health, agriculture, fuel andenergy ministries, geologic services, etc. areengaged in water-related activities as well.However, the duties and powers of all theseagencies vary from country to country.

Presently, most water-related agencies lackfinancial and technical resources to implementtheir policies and enforce existing laws. Publicfinancing is very poor and only allows for mini-mum performance. The wide distribution ofenvironment related tasks in the governmentresults in scattered and inefficient budgetaryexpenses for environment. Regarding non-pub-lic finances, environmental taxes employed arenot earmarked in general. The countries lackfield-financing strategies to set specific andrealistic targets and implementation schedules;make cost assessments; and identify potentialfinancial sources. However, some limited activ-ities in this direction have already been con-ducted in some of the South Caucasus coun-tries. In 1998-2000, Georgia, for example,together with some other selected NIS coun-tries, participated into the project called"Environmental Financing Strategies,Environmental Expenditure and Use ofEconomic Instruments in NIS Countries". Theenvironmental financing strategy, focused on

bringing the water supply and sewage sector inline with NEAP priorities was developed byCOWI.

In general, there is a little co-operation amongthe agencies engaged in water resources man-agement. They do not share or exchange infor-mation due to the lack of legally binding dataflow requirements. The sector-based approachto water resources management is still widelyused and integrated river basin-based watermanagement principles are not entertainedregion wide. However, currently there are someefforts to introduce these approaches as well asto establish specific water authorities for co-ordinated water resources management andimproved performance in some of the countriesof Caucasus region. In Armenia, for example,specific water authority was established underthe WB funded national water project. Anongoing USAID/DAI South Caucasus Waterproject also aims at strengthening the co-opera-tion among water-related agencies at all local,national and regional levels and demonstrateintegrated water resources management.

The post-soviet era can be considered a produc-tive period for drafting environmental legisla-tion in the FSU states, including the SouthCaucasus countries. The majority of them haveadopted framework environmental protectionacts. Laws/regulations on state environmentalexaminations and environmental permitting,requiring permits for new developments or/andmajor modifications after environmental impactassessment and state environmental examina-tion have been conducted, also were developedand passed. In the water protection field, media-specific water laws/codes have been passed,setting water protection objectives and goals,duties and powers of responsible authorities,record-keeping and reporting requirements, etc.Although new principles such as: precautionary,stand still, polluter pays, etc. have been intro-duced by some of the Caucasus countries, theappropriate regulatory basis has not been devel-oped yet. Existing regulations are still based onSoviet approaches. There is no application ofBAT/BAP standards. Ambient standards alsoneed review and revision.

Regarding water quantity and quality monitor-ing, data collection and flow have declined

���

47

greatly because of the regional financial crisis.Apart from this, existing monitoring technolo-gies are out of date and do not meet internation-al standards. Quality of current data is not guar-anteed, due to the malfunctioning of existingQA/QC systems. Finally, there is practically lit-tle or no application of remote sensing and GIStechnologies for water resources monitoring andmanagement. Though limited, there are somesuch national capacities, concentrated largely inscientific and academic institutions.

At present, Georgia and Russian Federation areparties to International Convention for thePrevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL73/78) and International Convention onLiability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC 1969).Azerbaijan and the RF are parties to LondonConvention on the Prevention of MarinePollution by Dumping of Wastes and OtherMatters (LDC 1972), and Georgia has ratifiedits protocol of 1996 . Georgia and Russia areparties to UN Convention on the Protection ofthe Black Sea Against Pollution (Bucharest,1992). These countries also ratified the GEFBlack Sea Protection Program. Under this pro-gram, for example, Black Sea EnvironmentalAction Plan and Black Sea Program forIntegrated Coastal Zone Management have beendeveloped and launched in Georgia with GEFfinancial assistance. Azerbaijan participates inCaspian Sea Environmental Program, operatedsince the late 1990s. UNDP, TACIS, WB andUSAID fund the Program. The significant out-put of this program is the establishment ofCaspian Centre for Pollution Control and thedevelopment of GIS-friendly database.

The CITES convention, ratified by Azerbaijan,Georgia and the RF, among others concernsprotection of sturgeon populations. Since 1998,international trade in all sturgeon species hasbeen regulated under the convention, sinceunsustainable harvesting and illegal trade insturgeon has a high impact on sturgeon stocks.Under the convention all littoral countries of theCaspian Sea that engage in international tradein sturgeon, their parts or their derivatives, arerequired to hold CITIES permit or certificate.The situation in the Caspian Sea is particularlytroubling. Special focus is on the protection ofCaspian sturgeon, and specific regional annualquotas of catch and trade in each specimen of

sturgeon are set for littoral countries, includingAzerbaijan and the Russian Federation. In addi-tion, parties are required to report to theSecretariat on the progress made to fulfil com-mitments taken under the convention.Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation closelyco-operate at bi- and multi-lateral levels in jointassessment of fish stocks, deriving total allow-able catch (TAC) and implementing measuresto enhance fish stocks. Recent assessmentsmade by five littoral countries have shown thatsturgeon populations in the Caspian have sta-bilised or are beginning to increase and that theage structure of the stocks is biased to youngerage classes, due to the introduction of tens ofmillions of juvenile sturgeon over the past twodecades. These results were achieved by imple-menting long-term fisheries re-stocking pro-gramme and drastically cutting catch limits(Management Authority for Sturgeon of theRussian Federation, 2001).

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia participate inthe activities within the framework of the UNConvention on Transboundary Water Courses.However, only Azerbaijan is a party to thisConvention, while all South Caucasus countriesratified the protocol concerning health protec-tion. The WB jointly with Finland, theNetherlands, Sweden and Switzerland hasfinanced the implementation of the Lake SevanEnvironmental Action Plan in Armenia, aimingto establish sustainable and integrated watermanagement practices there. During the periodfrom 1999-2001, the WB funded the develop-ment of Integrated Water ResourcesManagement Plan for Armenia. USAID also isone of the active donors financing integratedwater resources management activities withinthe Caucasus region. For example, it financedthe national project for Sustainable WaterResources Management in Armenia. Currently,it implements the South Caucasus Water projectto strengthen water resources management inthe Kura-Araks basin, based on integrated river-basin water resources management principles.In parallel to this, TACIS launched the JointRiver Management Program on Monitoring andAssessment of Water Quality on TransboundaryRivers, aimed at the prevention, control andreduction of transboundary pollution impact.The program covers four basins, including Kurariver basin. In addition, regional organisations

48

���

such as REC, Eurasia Foundation etc. andnumerous local foundations promote the nation-al and regional activities in the field of waterresources management and protection. Recently,the Georgian office of UNDP has prepared theconcept paper for large-scale regional partner-ship program for Kura-Araks basin to be pre-sented to GEF. The project aims at the strength-ening regional partnership and security throughpreventing transboundary pollution of thewaters of Kura-Araks basin. The project isexpected to develop institutional and legalframework for the use and protection of sharedresources. The project is currently waitingapproval.

Along with this, some large-scale investmentprojects for infrastructure rehabilitation, whichwere identified as priorities in NEAPs, arebeing implemented within the region. Forexample, the WB finances long-term irrigation-drainage system rehabilitation projects inGeorgia and Azerbaijan, together with invest-ment components, including capacity buildingfor sound management of the systems, specifi-cally, the establishment of local community-based water use associations. Similarly, theinvestment project on primary and secondarycanal rehabilitation has been prepared inArmenia. In addition to this, the WB and otherlending organizations funded or plan to investin the rehabilitation of municipal water supplyand sewage networks in many cities of theSouth Caucasus. Rebuilding of water treatmentfacilities is also among the planned investmentactivities.

Thus, there is a hope that all above activitieswill strengthen the national and regional capaci-ties to manage shared water resources in a sus-tainable and integrated manner and protect themfrom environmental pollution.

The Caucasus' contribution to global andregional environmental processes, such as cli-mate change, stratospheric ozone depletion andacid rain, etc. is presumably insignificant, tak-ing into account its small scale economy andthe medium to low development index of its

countries by the UN human development scale.The World Resources Institute's estimates showthat the South Caucasus share of global andEurope's CO2 emissions from 1950 to 1999 wasonly about 0.38% and 0.85% respectively.

A downward trend in emissions of pollutantscontributing to global and regional atmosphericproblems can be seen in the 1990s relative tothe late 1970s and 1980s. This fact is explainedby the post-Soviet regional economic crisis. InArmenia, for example, a 12-fold drop and three-fold drop were reported for SO2 and NOx emis-sions, respectively (TACIS/MNP of Armenia,1998). In Georgia in 1994, sulphur dioxideemissions were eleven times less and NOxemissions seven times less relative to 1988(TACIS-MoE of Georgia, 1998). In the late1990s, some signs of economic stability wereobserved, which were reflected in slightlyincreased emissions, including those of GHGs,SO2, NOx, etc.

From an environmental standpoint, the impactof global and regional atmospheric processes onthe Caucasus environment is of much interest.Whereas more or less complete information onclimate change phenomena is available for theCaucasus, there is practically no information onacid deposition and its effects on ecosystems inthe region. Little is known about regional back-ground levels of pollutants and their long-rangemovements as well.

For climate change, national studies on climatechange have been conducted under the UNFC-CC in the South Caucasus countries and thetrends of climate warming have been revealed.Studies for Georgia, for example, have revealednoticeable warming of up to 0.50C in EasternGeorgia and slight cooling up to 0.30C inWestern Georgia, especially in the cold periodof the year. These trends match well with globalstudies conducted under IPCC in 1995 thatrevealed the trend of warming in the CentralAsian and Caspian Sea regions and coolingover the Black Sea region. Similarly, changeshave been found in precipitation levels.Specifically, plain regions have seen an increasein precipitation of up to 15% and conversely,mountainous areas of the Greater Caucasus,especially the eastern slopes have seen adecrease of up to 20%. Climate specialists,

���

49

2.7 Atmospheric Air

2.7.1 Global and Regional Atmospheric Problems

based on available data, predict that a 1.5-20Cincrease in mean air temperature in the SouthCaucasus. However, sea surface cooling byanother 0.5-0.70C will continue along Georgia'scoastal zone (UNDP/GEF-GeorgianGovernment, 1999).

It is assumed that as the economies of FSUcountries, including Caucasus states, begin torecover, both production and consumption lev-els will go up, accompanied by increased con-tribution to global and regional atmosphericproblems. However, whether or not they willbelow or above the late 1980s levels dependson the macroeconomic development scenariosand the implementation of commitments takenunder relevant international treaties and conven-tions.

Major Sources of Air Pollution and theirEmissions. During the 1970s and 1980s, trans-port and industry were the major sources for airpollution in the Caucasus region. Total emis-sions reached their peaks in the late 1980s andfell in the early 1990s due to the general eco-nomic decline. Currently, some signs of eco-nomic stabilization can be observed in theregion as reflected in slightly increased emis-sions. However, the increase is irregular charac-ter and far below the 1980s' levels. At present,the significant share, apart from mobile and sta-tionary sources, is from domestic heaters inmany parts of the region.

Mobile Sources. Historically, the percentageof emissions from transport, with some excep-

tions, was higher than stationary source emis-sions in most of parts of the region. For exam-ple, whereas in Georgia, Armenia and most ofthe North Caucasus republics and krays mobilesources contributed over 60% of total emis-sions, in Azerbaijan, Chechen-Ingushetia, etc.with large industrial capacities, the figure var-ied from 30% to 40%.

Vehicular transport was a major concern. Theearly 1970s were marked by a significantgrowth in the Soviet car fleet. Although a high-er priority was always given to public transport,the number of passenger cars significantlyincreased. By 1980 the annual vehicle output ofexisting vehicle manufacturing plants increasedfrom 916,000 to over 2.1 million vehicles andthe car fleet expanded by 3.5 times relative to1970 (State Committee of the USSR on NatureProtection, 1989). This aggravated ambient airquality in most of parts of the country. Air qual-ity was particularly poor in urban areas withdense populations and heavy traffic. The rea-sons for high vehicle emissions were heavytraffic in urban areas and high emissions fromcars lacking pollution control devices.

Vehicle emissions reached their peaks in thelate 1980s in the Caucasus region, in line withgeneral trends for the Soviet Union. Grossemissions were particularly high in large citiessuch as Baku, Yerevan, Tbilisi, where they var-ied from 150,000 to 300,000 tons per year,some of the highest figures in the Soviet Union(State Committee of the USSR on NatureProtection, 1989). In the early 1990s, aggregated vehicle emis-

Total air emissions in the South Caucasus, 1985-99

Air emissions from motor transport in theSouth Caucasus, 1985-99

2.7.2 Atmospheric Air Pollution

���

50

Source: Complex Scheme of Environment Protection of Azerbaijan, 1987.State Committee on Ecology and Control of Natural Resources Utilization, Azerbaijan, 1993.MoE of Georgia, 1996. State statistical services of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, 1986-2000

Source: Complex Scheme of Environment Protection of Azerbaijan, 1987.State Committee on Ecology and Control of Natural Resources Utilization, Azerbaijan, 1993.MoE of Georgia, 1996. State statistical services of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, 1986-2000

sions declined in the region. Industrial emis-sions declined even more dramatically, increas-ing the transport share of total emissions to80%.

The number of vehicles in the South Caucasusslightly declined in the early 1990s, but this(CAID, 1998) trend was not observed in theNorth Caucasus. At present, an upward trend isreported for both the South and the NorthCaucasus. However, the countries of the regionstill lag behind European countries and the USin terms of number of vehicles per capita vehi-cle.

The current problems of vehicle emissions aremore related to high emissions per vehiclerather than high vehicle numbers. Increased pervehicle emissions are mainly related to obsoletecar fleet, in which more than 90% of all vehi-cles are more than five years old. The average

age of vehicles is around 15 years. Most vehi-cles are of Soviet made. The share of foreignmodels, used cars, has been increasing recently.Soviet models do not have catalytic convertersand are higher polluters than foreign models.However, the owners of foreign models fre-quently use gasoline with lead additives, sincethere is no differentiation between the pumpsfor leaded and unleaded gasoline in gasolinestations. This causes the poisoning of catalyticconverters and increases the vehicle emissions.

The system of vehicle inspection/maintenanceis very poor. Responsible authorities lackfinances, technical equipment and qualifiedstaff to properly check vehicle emissions. Lowsalaries of inspectors lead to bribe-taking andfalsification of records. The proper maintenanceand repair of vehicles cannot be guaranteedunder such conditions, which promotes theincrease in the volume of gross polluters.

Fuel quality is a concern as well. Lead is need-ed for Soviet cars in order to reduce wearing of"soft" seat valves that most of these cars have.Hence, leaded gasoline is still widely used inthe region. Even though the use of lead isbanned in some of the countries of theCaucasus, frequently wholesalers and retailersillegally add lead additives to the low octanegasoline in order to enhance the octane ratingand generate extra revenues. For example, astudy conducted by NORCE consultants in thecity of Tbilisi in 1999 revealed that the averagelead level in gasoline pool was about 52 mg/l,while the legal lead content is 13 mg/l (NORCE& MoE of Georgia, 1999). There are limitedstudies on other components of fuel, such assulphur and hydrocarbon.

Heavy traffic and poor road conditions alsocontribute to increased vehicle emissions. Lackof bypasses in most cities causes a deteriorationof urban air quality there.

Stationary Sources. In the 1970s-80s, station-ary sources were significant polluters of ambi-ent air in the Caucasus, with the percentageshare of total emissions depending on the levelof industrialization. In Azerbaijan andChechnya in the 1980s, for example, stationarysource share of total emissions was more than60%, predominantly due to the emissions from

51

Number of passenger cars in theNorth Caucasus per 1000 inhabitants, 1970-99

Number of passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants,1996

���

large stationary sources located in Baku andSumgayit in Azerbaijan and Grozny inChechnya. In most of other parts of the region,stationary sources' share was lower than 50%.

Stationary source emissions, similar to mobilesource emissions, reached their maximum lev-els in the late 1980s. The break-up of the SovietUnion was followed by the mass shut-down ofindustry in the region, resulting in a significantfall in industrial emissions. However, the extentof the fall was different for the countries of theregion. In addition, there were temporal differ-ences in the peaks of fall between the North andthe South Caucasus as well as within these veryregions. In the early 1990s, Armenia andGeorgia, facing a power crisis, suffered themost. Stationary source share of total emissionsdropped to almost 5% there. Whereas the pres-sures from economic sectors have fallen, thosefrom households have increased in these coun-tries. Due to the loss of fuel markets and disin-tegration of central heating systems people wereforced to use alternative fuels for domesticheaters and micro-generators. This has resultedin increased low temperature emissions. Mostof the North Caucasus states and Azerbaijanhave retained their industrial capacities andpower sector at higher levels.

Stationary source emissions have been slightlyincreasing since 1995. However, they are farbelow the 1980s' levels, as existing facilitiesstill work at low capacities (about 15-20%) andthere are few new industrial developments inthe region. Currently, major pollution is from

gas and oil industries, power plants and small tomedium size enterprises. Although gross emis-sions are reduced, current per unit emissions arebelieved to be higher than that of the 1980s,since existing production and pollution controltechnologies are out-of-date and inefficient.Besides, current compliance assurance monitor-ing and control systems do not guarantee com-pliance with existing standards.

Industrial Hotspots. Large urban areas weretargets for intensive industrial development, andgradually became environmental "hot-spots"with a broad spectrum of environmental prob-lems. For example, the cities of Baku, Tbilisi,Yerevan, etc. became large industrial centreswith diverse industries of local, regional or all-union importance. In the late 1950s, many newmono-functional cities were developed aroundspecific industries. For example, the city ofRustavi was built around the steel manufactur-ing industry. The city of Sumgayit was alsobuilt as a typical Soviet industrial centre.Populations of such cities were mainlyemployed by the various industries there.

Current environmental problems in industrialcentres are mostly related to out of date tech-nologies, low efficiency or lack of pollutioncontrols and the disposal/treatment of industrialwastes accumulated around the industries. Theterritories of many facilities have become prac-tically "brown fields" whose clean up costscould be millions of US dollars. Among indus-trial centres, the city of Sumgayit can be con-sidered an extreme case of an industrial "hot-spot".Urban air quality. In the Caucasus, urban

52

���

Sumgayit was founded in the 1950s as a centre for the chemical and petro-chemical industries. Soon after it became one of the largest industrial centres ofthe USSR. Industrial areas occupied over 34% of the city. About 88 large facili-ties were built, of which 10 became heavy air polluters. Annual air emissionswere about 100,000 tons. Emissions per square kilometre amounted to 1,200tons in 1990-91, while the average value for Azerbaijan was about 24 t/km2.Apart from criteria pollutants, toxic substances, mercury, chlorine, hydrogenfluoride, heavy metals, etc., were released into the ambient air, affecting thelocal population especially sensitive groups. Persistent organic compounds,such as dioxins and dibenzofuranes were released from petrochemical indus-tries. The city had one of the highest morbidity rates during Soviet era. In 1992,the city of Sumgayit was declared as environmental disaster zone, although airemissions have been declined since 1990. The city was later designated a freeeconomic zone, in order to foster economic growth and the introduction of newtechnologies there. However, the problems of uncontrolled emissions, persistentpollutants and the liability for past pollution remain unsolved.

Source: State Committee for Nature Protection, Azerbaijan, 1998; UNEP/StateCommittee for Nature Protection, Azerbaijan, 1996

Air emissions from stationary sources in the Caucasus, 1985-99

areas with dense population, high concentrationof industries and traffic are environmental "hot-spots." Existing National Environmental ActionPlans (NEAPs) identify urban air quality pro-tection as one of the national priorities.

Industrialization and urbanization over the past30 years have resulted in the deterioration ofambient air quality in urban areas of theCaucasus region. In large urban areas, existingair quality standards for SO2, Dust, NOx, COwere regularly exceeded. Ambient air qualitystandards were exceeded for wide range of sub-stances, linked to specific industrial activities.Cities of the region such as Baku, Sumgayit,Yerevan, Alaverdi, Tbilisi, Rustavi, Zestaphoni,Grozny, etc. were included in the list of themost polluted cities of the FSU.

Although there is limited information on ambi-ent air quality for the last 10 years, due todecline in baseline data collection, it is assumedthat in the early 1990s, ambient air quality tem-porarily improved in the cities of the region.Since 1996, slight increase in emissions hasbeen observed that might become the reason forair quality deterioration.

At present, vehicular transport is a major con-cern in urban areas. High ambient concentra-tions of CO, NOx, phenol and formaldehydeindicate a significant impact from traffic. Theproblem with ground level ozone is a concern.Cities such as Tbilisi, Yerevan, Vanadzor,Ararat, etc. with valley type terrain or/and poorventilation may suffer the most. However, thereare practically no data on ground level ozone.Of ozone's precursors, only NOx is monitoredregularly. There are no regular measurements ofVOCs. Lead is a problem, as most cars run onleaded gasoline. However, lead backgroundmeasurements are very rare and irregular.

Indoor Air Quality. Historically, little attentionwas paid to indoor air quality in the Caucasusregion. Very little is known about the indoorconcentrations of asbestos and other man-madefibrous materials, used as building materials orinsulation. Building materials and furnishingsalso may be the sources of such substances asformaldehyde from chipboard and hydrocarbonsfrom paintings, cleaners, adhesives, timber andfurnishing. Levels of flue gases from domestic

cooking, the products of incomplete combus-tion, POPs, or cigarette smoke are usually sig-nificant in indoor environments. However, thereis no information for the Caucasus. Neitherhuman health impacts nor cost estimations havebeen made. At present, the problem of indoorair quality may be acute for some of the parts ofthe region, people use domestic heaters withalternative fuels and without proper fuel com-bustion devices.

In the early 1970s, in the USSR there werethree key agencies with atmospheric air protec-tion and management responsibilities at boththe all-union and national levels. The StateInspection was responsible for inspecting sta-tionary source pollution control equipment, theState Sanitary-Hygienic Service for settingambient air quality standards and the Hydro-meteorological Service for ambient air qualitydata collection. However, none of these agen-cies had regulatory functions. There was nospecial environmental protection body, withbroad spectrum of managerial and regulatoryresponsibilities. In 1988 State Nature ProtectionCommittee, with national branches was estab-lished, in order to improve environmental per-formance and enhance the coordination ofactivities within the field. Although, Sovietrepublics and autonomies had legal right forimplementing independent policies in theory, inpractice they had no real autonomy and werestrictly dependent on the central government.

The first Soviet Atmospheric Air Protection Actwas passed in 1980 followed by the adoption ofnational laws and regulations. However, theSoviet Union had long experience in developinghealth and technical standards, regulations andmethodologies. For example, in 1951 health-based air quality standards were set for up to 10pollutants. By 1972, standards existed for 98and by 1991 for 479 substances. These stan-dards were based on toxicological studies andwere believed to be set at levels, below whichno health effects were observed. Two sets ofstandards were applied for all substances: 20-minute and 24-averages based on dose-responseeffects.

���

53

2.7.3 Policy Measures and Responses

At the beginning of the 1980s, source-specificemission limits were introduced for stationarysources in order to achieve ambient air qualitystandards. Those were ambient, but not technol-ogy-based standards, and did not promote pol-lution prevention and the introduction of clean-er technologies, but rather the use of passivemethods of pollution control (end-off-pipeapproach). Regular statistical reporting require-ment was introduced for all large stationarysources in the late 1970s. Facilities wererequired to report on their annual emissionsusing either direct stack measurements or engi-neering calculations. Emission calculationmethodologies were based on source-categoryemission factors or mass balance methods.

Regardless of legally binding requirements tocomply with existing standards, the standardswere ignored to fulfil five-year productionplans. Environmental protection was considereda low priority at the government level. As envi-ronmental protection was of lower priority thaneconomic growth, little was spent on enforce-ment and monitoring, or in developing pollutioncontrol technologies and technological innova-tions. Industries themselves had no incentive tolower their emissions below legally bindingemission levels and introduce technologicalbreakthroughs. Therefore, there was no marketfor environmental services and goods.

Concerning the mobile source pollution control,in 1970, emission standard (GOST) was set oncarbon monoxide emissions for gasoline-pow-ered engines. In 1975, the standard on dieselsoot content was introduced. In 1974-80, vehi-cle design and technical standards were devel-oped and introduced. Standards were alsodeveloped for fuel quality. Specifically, theywere set on diesel sulphur and hydrocarboncontent, gasoline lead content, etc. However,between 1970 and 1990 practically nothing wasdone to update existing standards. Additionally,the entire system of vehicle inspection wasweak and corrupted.

In the 1970s-80s, there were no economic toolsfor environmental pollution, including atmos-pheric air pollution. Only in 1991 were emis-sion taxes were introduced for a broad spectrumof substances countrywide.

During the Soviet era, national hydro-meteoro-logical services maintained ambient air qualitymonitoring networks. Almost all the stationswere concentrated in densely populated andhighly industrialized cities. The monitoring wasbased on manual sampling. There were no auto-mated monitors. According to standard method-ologies, the following criteria pollutants weremonitored at all monitoring stations: TSP; SO2,CO and NOx. A broad spectrum of specificsubstances was measured at some of monitoringsites of several major cities. There were no reg-ular measurements of O3, Pb and VOCs. Therealso were no stations measuring fine particleswith aerodynamic diameters of less than 10microns. Ambient air quality data were record-ed in paper formats not computerized databases.Data were reported in paper format on daily,monthly and annual basis. In general, theseambient monitoring systems were moredesigned to detect longer-term pollution trends,rather than high pollution peaks and thus, didnot assist in the daily air quality management.

Since 1991, national environmental ministriesor committees with regulatory and some mana-gerial functions have been established in theindependent states of the Caucasus. However,these agencies are still in the process of devel-oping their organizational structures and duringlast ten years have been expanded or cut severaltimes. North Caucasus republics and krays donot have independent environmental bodies.Existing governmental institutions there aresub-ordinated to the federal agency. In the airprotection field, media-specificdepartments/divisions under environmentalministries deal with air protection. They haveregulatory functions to issue operation permitsfor stationary sources. They also are responsiblefor developing general policies, programs, regu-lations, and methodologies in the air protectionfield. Compliance assurance monitoring andlaw enforcement is conducted either by region-al/district/local environmental authorities orspecial inspection bodies. Health ministries areresponsible for developing and setting health-based ambient air quality standards. RoadPolice Departments are responsible for inspect-ing and monitoring mobile sources. Eitherhydro-meteorological services or environmentalministries carry out air quality monitoringresponsibilities within the Caucasus countries.

54

���

After independence, all the South Caucasuscountries and the Russian Federation adoptedframework laws on environmental protection.Although these laws introduce new approaches,principles and standards: "polluter pays", "riskminimization", "access to information", "criticalloads", BAT, IPPC, EMAS, etc. they are onlystatements, and require the development ofdetailed legislation. Existing air protection lawsare still based on the Soviet principles andapproaches. According to these laws, sourcespecific ambient-based standards are applied forstationary sources. There is no differentiatedapproach for existing and new facilities. Formobile sources, emission standards cut fromSoviet models are employed. There is no differ-entiated approach for old and new models. OnlyCO and soot content in exhaust gases are regu-lated. There are no standards for NOx and HCemissions. Additionally, there are no regulationscovering the vaporized (fugitive) emissions.Similarly, Soviet ambient air quality standardsare used in the region. These are only health-based standards and do not take into considera-tion protection of ecosystems and amenities.Although some of the Caucasus countries,Georgia for example, attempted to adopt EUstandards there are no finances and implementa-tion mechanisms to undertake appropriatemeasures. The standards need not only changein quantitative values, but also change in thewhole data collection, processing and analysissystems, which is a resource and time consum-ing process.

Even if the legislation were perfect, poorenforcement system would preclude complianceof existing laws and regulations. At present,the countries lack finances to develop moderncompliance assurance monitoring and controlsystems. Environmental law enforcement offi-cers are untrained and poorly equipped withmeasuring devices and there is no legal basisfor the frequency and quality of inspections andemission measurements. Administrative penal-ties imposed on violators, including permit con-ditions, are symbolic, encouraging illegal activi-ties. On a whole, the Caucasus countries lacklegislation and practical experience related toenvironmental damage, liability and compensa-tion issues, and public court suits.

Emission taxes currently employed in theregion do not perform well. Although there isinsufficient empirical evidence, it is doubtfulthat charges have any effect on environmentalbehaviour. First, charge rates are set at low lev-els, not taking into consideration marginalabatement costs of industries. Second, realcharge rates are low due to the growing infla-tion and there is no frequent tax adjustment.The criteria for calculating base charge rate isunclear and somehow arbitrary. Although rela-tive human health effects are used for the calcu-lation of base charge rate, it is still unclear howclosely they are related to marginal damages.Pollution charge system is very complex itself,covering hundreds of pollutants that are infeasi-ble to monitor. Real revenues fall short of esti-mates due to the lax enforcement and monitor-ing. Economic difficulties that the industriesundergo today contribute greatly to the lowlevel of revenues from pollution charges. Manymarginal enterprises are not capable of payingcharges. Frequently, charge deductions andeven exemptions are made for prioritised enter-prises. The revenue generation is a major driverfor regulators. Receipts from charge/taxes arenot earmarked and there is no transparency onhow much is spent on environmental purposes.However, the inertia of the political system andnon-existence of a functional market are corereasons for the low performances of existing taxprograms. "Predatory" rent-extracting systemsare everywhere in the region. Although priva-tised, the same ministries, local authorities, andplant managers hold the firms. All of them arelinked with each other by bureaucratic connec-tions and mutual services. In practice, existinglaws are not enforceable equally for all the par-ties. High authorities as well as prioritised sec-tors remain untouchable.

A current problem related to ambient air qualitymonitoring is the drastic decline in data collec-tion due to shortage of financial resources andtechnical equipment. In general, existing moni-toring networks do not meet internationalrequirements in terms of number and locationof sites, data collection, storage, processing andreporting methods, etc. In addition, the currenteconomic situation requires the change in moni-toring network design as well as gradual net-work automatisation, in order to reflect the cur-rent status of ambient air and the major pres-

���

55

56

���

sures as well as conduct daily resource manage-ment and make short to medium-term forecasts.At present, the traffic related pollution is amajor concern and will continue to exist as suchin the future. Hence, particular attention shouldbe paid to ground level ozone, CO, VOCs, NOxand PM10/2.5 measurements. In addition, con-siderable attention should be paid to ambientlead measurements, since leaded gasoline con-sists of significant share in total gasoline pool.Modelling capabilities have to be strengthenedas well, since modelling, though imprecise, isone of the cost-effective ways for ambient airquality monitoring. Hence, it can be used ascomplement for real measurements.

During the period from 1972 to 1991, theUSSR became signatory and party to the 1979European Convention on Long-range Trans-boundary Air Pollution and some of its proto-cols, 1985 Vienna Convention for theProtection of Ozone Layer and 1987 MontrealProtocol on the Substances that Deplete OzoneLayer. Soviet experts participated also in thedevelopment of the UN Convention on ClimateChange. After independence, the RussianFederation automatically became an inheritor ofthe Soviet legacy. The South Caucasus coun-tries started participating in internationaltreaties and agreements individually. Theybecame parties to the Vienna Convention andMontreal Protocol. At present, Georgia is aheadfrom other South Caucasus countries in termsof participation in Montreal Protocol. She hasalready acceded to London (1990), Copenhagen(1992) and Montreal (1997) Amendments.South Caucasus Countries and the RussianFederation became also parties to the UNFC-CC. Later, Armenia and Georgia have signedthe Kyoto protocols. Georgia, Armenia andRussia are also the parties to EC Convention onLong-range Transboundary Air Pollution andactively participate in negotiations and develop-ment of relevant protocols. The countries alsoparticipate in the London Charter on Transportand Environment and Program of Joint Action(POJA) processes. Georgia together with someof the NIS countries participates in EU approxi-mation processes funded by European Union.With financial assistance of different interna-tional institutions and donors, UNDP, UNEP,WB, GEF, Multilateral Fund, EU-TACIS, etc.various national activities have been imple-

mented under the above treaties and agree-ments. Country programs and first NationalCommunications under UNFCCC have beenprepared in all these countries and NationalClimate Centres have been established in someof them. Ozone Country Programs and actionplans have been prepared or are currently underpreparation. Ozone Units have been establishedin some of these countries and several technicalassistance and investment projects have beenimplemented.

Whereas the cooperation at the global level ishigh, there is practically no cooperation at theregional level to address transboundary air pol-lution issues. Although, in the past some of theambient monitoring stations within the regionwere measuring regional background pollutionlevels, at present, there is practically no infor-mation on trans-boundary movements of pollu-tants.

Traditionally, there was no state system of inte-grated waste management in the FSU includingthe Caucasus region. No specific managementagency existed. Separate sector-specific institu-tions and organisations were responsible forwaste disposal generated under their auspices.There was no specific law regulating wastes.Only sanitary-hygienic rules and technicalrequirements existed. Whereas the system ofstate inventory and regular reporting was estab-lished for air and water discharges in the late1970s, there was no such system for wastes.Therefore, there are practically no historicaldata on them. Limited data are scattered amongdifferent organisations. Whereas in 1986 aneffort to introduce the state system of inventoryand statistical reporting for industrial wasteswas made by the Soviet central government, thesystem was never introduced widely.

Consequently, wastes were frequently disposedwithout due consideration of environmentalissues. Legal landfills were not planned in anenvironmentally friendly manner either.Frequently, municipal wastes were disposedtogether with industrial and hazardous wastesfrom hospitals, military camps, etc. An evenmore uncontrolled situation exists at present.

2.8 Wastes and Hazardous Chemicals

���

57

Population growth and urbanization have result-ed in increased generation of municipal wastesover the last 30 years in all the regions of theFSU, including the Caucasus, although thistrend slowed somewhat following the collapseof the Soviet Union. In Armenia, for example,per capita solid municipal waste generationamounted to about 370-430 kg annually in1985-90, while the figure was about 247-285 kgin 1997 (UN-ECE/MNP of Armenia, 2000).The figures are similar to those in all transitioncountries. At present, annual municipal wastegeneration has been increasing with slightupturn of economy. As the studies in selectedcities show, the largest share of solid domesticwaste is due to the household wastes and therest is harmless industrial waste. The studies forselected cities of Armenia show that the contentof food residues has decreased by 9 per centand that of soil, silt and debris increased by12% since 1990. The percent share of paper andpolymeric materials has been increasing aswell. The study for the city of Tbilisi hasshowed increased plastic component in munici-pal waste (WB, 1996).

Historically, solid waste was taken to a landfilland covered with soil. Some was burnt and/orprocessed. There used to be some recovery oforganic wastes. In separate cases food wasteswere collected separately and used as animalfoodstuff. Usually, legal landfills were builtwithout special planning and due considerationof environmental issues.

At present, existing municipal waste landfillsare overloaded, improperly operated and main-tained and do not meet minimum health andenvironmental requirements. Illegal wastedumping is common as well. There is a verylimited practice of waste separation and recy-cling. Only glass bottles are recycled in someurban areas. Wastes are disposed by private sec-tor without any state control. Consequently,industrial wastes and even hazardous wastes aredumped into the municipal waste disposal sites.In rural areas, garbage is directly dumped onriverbanks, hence threatening surface andground waters.

The absence of controlled landfills for environ-mentally sound municipal waste disposal or itsproper incineration creates the following prob-lems for the population and the environment:

. Risks of soil and groundwater contamination with heavy metals and other hazardous substances in the vicinity of landfills, especiallywhere industrial and municipal wastes are dumped together;

. Evaporation of substances containing heavy metals and toxic organic pollutants from uncontrolled municipal waste landfills as well as release of toxics from open-land waste burning;

. Hygienic-epidemiological risks related to rodents (cholera, tularaemia, hepatic and other diseases).

In the past, municipalities and local authoritieswere better-operated due to the state financing.Modern sustainable waste management requireshigh level of institutional strength (legal proce-dures for planning, designing, operation andclosing of landfills, establishment/operation offee collection system, modern technical equip-ment, compliance to environmental standards,public awareness and participation, etc.). Themost important constraint to the development ofproper waste management systems is economichardship, low environmental awareness andweak democracies in countries (especially poordelineation of duties and powers between cen-tral and local authorities).

Solid waste composition for the cities Yerevan and Hrazdan

2.8.1 Municipal Wastes

58

���During the Soviet period, different industries,

e.g., gas and oil, ferrous, non-ferrous, chemical,machinery, food, cement, light industries, etc.developed in the Caucasus region generatedhigh volumes of industrial wastes annually,including hazardous wastes, containing heavymetals, solvents, oil products, etc. Soils aroundindustrial zones, oil and gas drilling fields,quarries, and power plants were contaminatedwith toxic substances. In 1988, for example, inthe city of Alaverdi in Armenia, where non-fer-rous industries were developed, soil lead con-tent was 11 to 29 times the existing soil qualitystandard and copper content was 16 times thebackground concentrations. Soils around steelmanufacturing plants in Rustavi (Georgia) andSumgayit (Azerbaijan) were contaminated withbenz(a)pyrene, lead, copper, zinc, mercury,molybdenum, etc. and background concentra-tions were exceeded more than 10 times there.In the city of Zestaphoni, where a ferrous-alloysplant was located, high concentrations of man-ganese were found. In Yerevan and Sumgayitfluorine concentrations around aluminiumplants were 6-10 times background levels (StateCommittee of the USSR on Nature Protection,1989). High concentrations of PCBs, used assemiconductors in transformers and condensers,were found in soils around power and electricalmachinery plants. PCB contamination, forexample, was observed around condenser man-ufacturing plants in Baku and Ganja (StateCommittee of the Azerbaijan Republic onNature Protection, 1993).

Traditionally, some industrial wastes wereeither utilized or rendered harmless. A smallpercent was directly dumped into solid wastelandfills. The majority of hazardous wasteswere buried into specially arranged polygons.Some of the industrial wastes, though in smallquantities, were re-used by enterprises. Forexample, the Nairit plant in Armenia re-usedrubber waste to make glue (TACIS/MNP ofArmenia, 1998).

During the Soviet era, there was no specific lawregulating wastes, including industrial wastes.Only specific regulations existed for waste dis-posal, utilization, transportation, renderingharmless and burial. In addition, technical and

construction requirements were applied forlandfills/toxic waste disposal sites.

In general, Soviet industry was a resourceintensive and highly polluting sector. No tools,either regulatory or market-based, wereemployed to prevent pollution at source andpromote cleaner technologies. The inventorysystem for industrial wastes, including toxicwastes, was not in force, whereas such systems,though not perfect, existed for air and waterdischarges. More or less full data exist for1990, when the comprehensive inventory ofindustrial wastes was conducted throughout theSoviet Union.

The drastic decline in industrial activities thatfollowed the disintegration of the Soviet Unionresulted in a decline in industrial waste genera-tion in the early 1990s. In Armenia, for exam-ple, non-hazardous industrial waste generationfell from 35.2 million tons/yr in 1985-90 to251,000 tons/yr in 1995-96 (UNEP/MNP ofArmenia, 2000). In parallel, the hazardouswaste generation rate fell. Currently, a slightgrowth in industrial output can be observed.However, existing facilities still work at about15-20% of their capacities. In general, the struc-ture of industry shifted from heavy and chemi-cal industry to oil and gas operations, mining,cement manufacturing, food processing, etc.,which are more adapted to local markets andlocally available raw materials. This itselfmight affect the industrial waste composition.At present, oil industries, mineral resourcesextraction and processing industries and powerplants are major generators of industrial wastescontaining oil residues, heavy metals and PCBs,etc. The problem of disposal, rendering harm-less and utilization of industrial wastes is veryacute in the region. In Sumgayit, for example,about 200,000 tons of mercury sludge, with 0.1-0.3% of mercury content has been accumulatedsince 1980s around the chlorine-alkali produc-tion plant. These wastes are inadequatelystored, contaminating ground waters andCaspian Sea bed sediments through seepage(State Committee on Ecology and Control ofNatural Resources Utilization, Azerbaijan,1998). Since 1998 about 125 million toxicwastes containing arsenic have accumulated inthe Tyrnyauz molybdenum and wolfram quarryand processing plant in Kabardino-Balkaria

2.8.2 Industrial Wastes

���

59

(Ministry of Environment and Nature ResourcesProtection, Russian Federation, 1998). InStavropol kray, about 4.4 million tons of toxicwastes were registered in 1995, of which onemillion tons were of highest toxicity (Ministryof Environment and Nature ResourcesProtection, Russian Federation, 1996). InGeorgia, about 1.3 million tons of toxic wastesare accumulated at present (WHO/MoH ofGeorgia, draft, 2001).

Overall, the rate of utilization or renderingharmless of hazardous wastes is not high in theregion. However, it varies for different parts ofthe Caucasus. In Stavropol kray, for example,the total amount of hazardous wastes generatedin 2000 amounted to 226.6 thousand tons fromwhich over 60.7% were utilized or renderedharmless, while in Krasnodar kray, of a total of196.6 thousand tons, only 26% were treated(State Committee of the Russian Federation forStatistics, Russian Federation, 2001).

At present, toxic wastes are mostly accumulatedwithin territories of industrial facilities or near-by territories or dumped into municipal wastelandfills or illegal dumpsites. Known hazardouswaste disposal sites are overloaded and not ade-quately isolated from the environment. Thereare no finances or mechanisms to arrange newsites.

Present status in the field of waste managementsystem, including industrial wastes, is causedby the lack of appropriate national legislationsand institutions. Licensing systems for industri-al wastes are not put into force. Waste classifi-cation systems are either non-existent or imper-fect, not going in line with EU (yellow and cor-rected red lists, etc), UN and OECD, etc. classi-fication systems. There is virtually no system oftoxic waste and contaminated site inventory.

Because of that, information on industrialwastes is practically absent. Finally, there areno policies promoting prevention/minimizationof toxic wastes at sources. Such principles andstandards as IPPC and BAT, etc. although statedin framework environmental protection laws ofsome of the South Caucasus countries, are notyet implemented. Nor do the problem of liabili-ty for the past pollution is reflected in nationallegislations.

The problem of transboundary movement anddisposal of hazardous wastes has become criti-cal since the disintegration of the Soviet Union.Non-existence of sound law enforcement andmonitoring systems as well as high corruptionposes the threat that the Caucasus countriescould become "havens" for international wastetrading. In addition, existence of uncontrolledterritories with practically no law and order pro-motes illegal trading and smuggling. Although,all South Caucasus countries and the RussianFederation are parties to Basel Convention onTransboundary Movements of HazardousWastes and their Disposal, they lack nationalcapacities as well as finances to fulfil the com-mitments taken under the above treaty. There isa need to develop state-of-the-art waste man-agement/custom legislation, build institutionalcapacities and raise public awareness. In thisregard, international assistance is needed inorder to promote regional co-operation in wastemanagement and achieve environmental safety.

The issue of radioactive wastes in the Caucasusregion is basically related to the nuclear powerplant operated by Armenia, military camps, andoil drilling and processing operations inAzerbaijan and some parts of the NorthCaucasus. Different research and medical insti-

. In Azerbaijan, radionucleides of naturally occurring radium, thorium and potassium were found in oil drill fields. At some places, soils are so polluted thatthey need to be buried as radioactive wastes. "oil lakes" and flood fields, created while pumping bore-waters back into oil-bearing layers, aggravate the situation. Some old oil drill fields currently are used as settlements hence the population is exposed to radon noble gas damaging to the lungs. A similar situation exists for chemical plants and oil refineries. Ground waters with high radium-226, thorium-228 and potassium-40 content were used in a Baku iodine plant as a raw material. As a result, part of plant territory and equipment were polluted by radionucleides. Especially urgent is the problem of activated charcoal decontamination, accumulated in the plant territory;. In Georgia in 1996, three people were injured, two fatally, when they opened the container with radioactive medical wastes. These containers were sent to Russia for disposal, but they were returned to Georgia due to the failure transportation routes. The issue was completely neglected.. In 1997, nine soldiers were injured in training centre near Tbilisi from Cs-137 and Co-60 radiation sources, left by Soviet military troops. . In winter 2002, three people received high doses of radiation in Western Georgia, after they dismantled 2 radioactive sources of strontium-90. These and other several sources were brought to Georgia in 1980s for the construction of large-scale hydro dam and were designed to be used as power generators for radio communications. As the hydro dam project was never implemented, these sources have been left without any control. Recently, local inhabitants have found the containers with these radioactive sources and decided to use them for domestic needs. Hence, they opened these sources and imposed high threat to their and other people's lives. After the injured inhabitants were hospitalised, the case gained wide public disclosure. With joint efforts of the Ministries of Environment and Internal Affairs and State Security Service of Georgia and the experts of International Nuclear Agency the dismantled sources were rendered harmless.

Sources: State Committee of the Azerbaijan Republic on Nature Protection, 1993; TACIS/MoE of Georgia, 1998; Courier, Rustavi-2 night TV show, 04.02.02

2.8.3 Radioactive Wastes

60

���

tutions are also the sources for radioactivewastes. There are practically no data on thesetypes of wastes and the issue needs to be furtherstudied. Even if there is some information, it isfrequently classified and not available for dif-ferent users. Public awareness about radioactivewastes is also very low within the entire region.As a result, casualties in the population are notrare. In particular, a high threat is from formerSoviet military bases, where significantamounts of radioactive wastes are accumulated.There are no comprehensive inventories ofradioactive sources and wastes. Nor do storagefacilities exist for them. Although, the Caucasuscountries have designated authorities, they havelittle capacity to handle the issues.

During the Soviet period, fertilizers and agro-chemicals were intensively used in theCaucasus region, since the region's economywas largely agriculture-based. Although totaluse has declined dramatically since the break upof the Soviet Union, there are some indicationsthat the use has been slightly going up, at leastfor Georgia. There, about 60-70% of chemicalsin use are illegally imported (MoE, expert inter-views, 2000; GRID-Tbilisi, 2002). For otherparts of the Caucasus, there is no informationavailable.

There are still high volumes of obsolete andbanned pesticides stored in warehouses formore than 15 years throughout the region.Many of these warehouses are completely out-date and do not meet existing technical and san-itary requirements, imposing high threat to sur-face and ground waters and nearby soils. Largequantities of pesticides are directly exposed toopen air. Due to the lack of finances, sourceinventories and the measures for renderingobsolete pesticides harmless, proper storage,incineration, etc. is not undertaken by responsi-ble authorities. Existing state inventory systemsfor hazardous chemicals, if they exist, mal-function and data on chemicals import-exports,production, and storage and consumption pat-terns are very scarce. Public awareness aroundhazardous chemicals is extremely low. Localfarmers lack knowledge on the safe applicationof agrochemicals and hence, injuries are com-mon among this group.

Thus, the current situation can be described in afollowing way:

. Centralised import of pesticides was stopped in the beginning of the 1990s due to eco-nomic difficulties;

. Illegal import and distribution of pesticides and wastes is growing as a result of inadequate legislation, law enforcement and weakmanagement capacity of authorities;

. Management of chemicals is not co-ordinat-ed among different authorities (MoE, MoA, MoH, etc.) at both central and local levels and no appropriate information for decision-making process is available;

. There is lack of training for new farmers in safe handling of chemicals;

. No regional co-ordination policies and activities exist for the integrated management of chemicals and hazardous wastes.

There are recent positive developments in theCaucasus to overcome problems indicatedabove: Convention on the Prior InformedConsent Procedure for Certain HazardousChemicals and Pesticides in International Trade(Rotterdam, 1998) is signed by Armenia, andStockholm Convention on Persistent OrganicPollutants by Armenia, Georgia and the RussianFederation. In this regard, initial steps to enableimplementation of the provisions of these multi-lateral treaties are undergoing. However, grow-ing poverty and general (environmental) securi-ty issues have first priority in the new democra-cies of the Caucasus countries. Accordingly, ifno specific international assistance is made inthe short-term towards this direction, the issueof chemicals and waste management willremain critical, since the countries lack finan-cial and technical capacities to handle it.

In order to prevent or mitigate the issue, it isnecessary that the governments further developtheir waste management legislations, policies,and build-up their capacities. Waste inventorysystems have to be established. Sound market-based tools have to be introduced for fieldfinancing. Policies promoting cleaner technolo-gies have to be implemented. All the countrieshave to strengthen their capacities towards con-trolling illegal trades and import-exports ofwastes through building co-ordinated policies.

2.8.4 Hazardous Chemicals and Obsolete Pesticides

���

61

One of the specific examples of urgent co-ordi-nated actions needed in the region is: inventory,monitoring and environmentally safe disposalof PCB-containing wastes and products. In thisregard, GEF enabling activities to assist coun-tries to fulfil their obligations under theStockholm Convention need new additionalinputs through bi- or multi-lateral assistancemechanisms.

Natural disasters, frequently of catastrophiccharacter, are widespread phenomena in theCaucasus. Fortunately, not all the naturalprocesses are observed in the Caucasus andsome have relatively small intensity. TheCaucasus is not an active volcanic zone, thereare no tropical storms and hurricanes, andcyclones and floods are of much smaller sizethan those in tropics or areas with extensivelowland topography. Nevertheless, there areother environmental disasters: landslides, ava-lanches, mudflows, as well as someunfavourable hydro-meteorological processesthat are very real for the Caucasus. Thoughmeteorological processes (frost, drought, sandstorms, winds storms, hailstorms, ice storms,etc.) do not lead to human deaths, they maycause very serious economic losses.

During the Soviet era, different institutionsstudied environmental disasters. Some datawere also collected. Data collection, however,was irregular and no unified system existed forthis. Preventive measures against natural phe-nomena, such as reforestation, slope terracing,etc. were also conducted. There was no precisemethodology for calculating damage incurredfrom natural disasters.

Natural disasters have become rather intensiverecently. No single strategy to fight againstenvironmental disasters has been yet developed,either in the region or in an individual country.Nor does any organization with the capacity tomake forecasts and manage disasters exist inthe region. Nevertheless, some positive stepsare being taken towards the strengthening man-agerial capacity in the field. For example,UNDP has financed some activities at nationaland regional levels for establishing early disas-ter warning and management systems and

strengthening regional capacity for joint man-agement of environmental disasters in the SouthCaucasus.

Intensive landslides characterize mountainousterritories of the Caucasus. The majority oflandslides occur in the middle-mountain zone.Their intensification is due to excessive humidi-ty, earthquakes, and different economic activi-ties.

Landslides cause many changes in the environ-ment. Specifically, they destroy topsoil and veg-etation as well as settlements. For example, alandslide completely destroyed the villageMarmarashen (Armenia, the bank of the riverAzurn), and as a result the local population wasforced to leave the place. There are numeroussimilar examples in different regions of theCaucasus.

Landslides intensify in case of unsustainablewater use practices, water loss from reservoirs,and destruction of water distribution systems.For example, in Yerevan and its surroundingvillages, favourable conditions for landslideshave formed due to improperly built and main-tained irrigation, water supply and sewage sys-tems and high water losses.

Recently, a trend of increase in the amount oflandslides has been observed. In Georgia alone,the amount of landslides has exceeded 50,000.The area of regions damaged by landslides hasalso increased. In Georgia 3.5 million hectaresare within the area of landslide and mudflowprocesses (Tatashidze and et al., 1996). InArmenia, the regions affected by landslidesoccupy 500 km2 (2% of the total area of therepublic). Landslides are especially prevalent inthe south-eastern part of the Caucasus,Lenkoran (Azerbaijan), and foothills of theWest and Central Caucasus and Meskheti andTrialeti ranges (Georgia) (The Map ofZoning...,1985).

2.9 Natural disasters

2.9.1 Landslides

62

���

Mudflows are characteristic of the mountainousregions of the Caucasus, resulting in seriouseconomic loss. The negative impact of mud-flows on the environment is multiple.Specifically, they bring about the formation oferosive slopes, pollute rivers with mud and peb-bles and destroy agriculture lands, industrialenterprises and transport communications,including oil and gas pipelines, which impose aparticular threat to the environment. Mudflowsare most intensive on the southern slope of theGreater Caucasus within Azerbaijan. It wasconsidered one of the most active regions of theformer USSR, and the largest mudflow dangerareas in the Caucasus (Geomorphology ofAzerbaijan, Baku, 1959). In average, annualeconomic loss from mudflows in Azerbaijanamounts to $US 15 million and over hundredsettlements with total population of 700 thou-sand people are under mudflow danger(Dangerous Natural Phenomena ..., 2002).Mudflows have frequently damaged settle-ments, such as Shecki, Ordubad (Azerbaijan),Yerevan, Kapan, Alaverdi (Armenia), Tbilisi,Kvareli, Telavi (Georgia), Tyrnyauz(Kabardino-Balkaria). In total, mudflows dam-aged about 200 settlements in Armenia, andseveral hundred ones in Georgia (UNDP,Armenia, 1999; Tatashidze et al. 1996).

Strong mudflows formed in the Caucasus bringdown hundreds, sometimes millions of cubicmeters of friable mass, forming enormous allu-vial cones (Caucasus, Moscow, 1966). Theregion's relief, geological structure and specificclimatic features, namely, steep slopes, fragilerocks, long droughts followed by downpours,etc. form favourable conditions for mudflows inmany places. Mudflows have accelerated ero-

sion processes, which have intensified over thelast twenty years because of intensive woodcut-ting, overgrazing and unsustainable land usepractices. In some places, tailings from miningoperations accumulated on the slopes and river-banks (which happens rather often) form addi-tional factors for intensification of mudflows. Insome places, one of the major reasons for thedeclining forest areas are thought to be erosionprocesses caused by mudflows.

Before the mid-1980s, over 20% of mudflows(1,130 flows) in the territory of the FSUoccurred in the Caucasus. Of these, 936 (from1978-1,030 flows) were registered in the SouthCaucasus, and 194 the North Caucasus(Dangerous Hydro-meteorological Phenomenain the Caucasus, Leningrad, 1984).

In order to prevent the destructive influence ofmudflows special constructions against mud-flows are built in Caucasus. Along the SouthCaucasus railway line, there are mudflow-gassings, built in the 19th century. Many con-structions were built to protect against mudflowin the Soviet period. Nevertheless, there are stillno perfectly regulated mudflow basins unlike insome countries of West Europe where thou-sands of such systems operate.

. Intensification of landslides in Ajara in 1989 was connected with extensive snow (snow depth exceeded 3m) and an unusually warm spring. April average temperature exceeded 4-50 C. All this was followed by intensive snow melting, saturation of rocks by water and numerous landslides, especially in the river Tsablana gorge.. In September 1999, because of heavy rains, many landslides occurred in Dagestan near the towns of Buynansk and Gunib. The landslide dam-aged the 75-km length transport road, water supply and sewage systems, and over 2,000 buildings, etc.;. In 1997 in Karachaevo-Cherkessia, in the district of Ust-Jeguta, over 12,000 m3 landslide body was formed, which damaged transport communications and the Stavropol irrigation canal.

Source: Beruchashvili, 1995; GRID-Moscow, 2001

. A catastrophic mudflow was formed in the Terek Gorge at the village Larsi (the North Caucasus). It came from Devdarak glacier (from Mkinvartsveri, Georgia). It brought a huge boulder (29X15X13 m), known as "Yermolov's Stone," which is considered as one of the biggest glacier boulder in Eastern Europe. In the river Terek basin, strong mudflows occur frequently. They often damage the Georgian Military Road, one of the most important Trans-Caucasian motorways.

. Mudflows are common in the Duruji River gorge (left tributary of the river Alazani, Georgia), posing danger to the town Kvareli. In 1899 a mudflow of catastrophic character brought down 224-ton boulder ("Duruji boulder") with the size of 5,8x4.2x4m. In 1997, a mudflow damaged the town Kvareli, where stone, road metal and mud covered town streets, damaged melioration systems and arable lands.

. Mudflow on the river Sadon (Ardon basin, North Ossetia) in 1958 was one of the strongest in the Caucasus.

. Extremely high intensity of mudflows was reported in 1989, for both the North and South Caucasus, especially in North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Dagestan, Georgia and Azerbaijan. This was related to heavy rains and intensive snow melting in March-May.

. In 1977 due to high temperatures and extensive precipitation, mudflows were intensified in the North Caucasus, involving almost all altitude zones. In particular, mudflows were intensive in the basin of the river Bezengsky-Cherek.

Sources: Tsomaia, 1985; Dangerous Hydrometeorological…, 1983

2.9.2 Mudflows

Water hydrology of the Caucasus is largelyaffected by two factors: atmospheric precipita-tion and snow melting. Usually, annual precipi-tation increases together with elevation until2,000 m above sea level and decreases fromwest to east. Rivers that flow in areas with highprecipitation and are fed by snow melting arecharacterized with high flow. Many rivers inoriginate in high mountain zones of the GreaterCaucasus, where eternal snow and glaciers arelocated. High flood periods, lasting about 6months, are characteristic of these rivers. Inspring and summer periods, when intensivesnow melting starts, water level increases con-siderably. Usually, one peak discharge occurson these rivers, whereas on the rivers that startin foothills of the Caucasus there are two ofthem: in spring when snow melts and in fallafter downpours. Floods are spontaneous onlyin some years, when the most intensive snowmelting occurs and water covers adjacent planeterritories, incurring great damage to agricul-ture.

The following rivers form the largest floodareas: Kuban, Terek, Kura, Araks and Rioni.Along their shores there are concrete dikes andlevies to prevent material loss caused by floods.Many reservoirs regulate water, such as theMingechevir on the river Kura, Krasnodar onthe river Kuban, Chirkei, Chiri- Yurti on theriver Sulak, Lajanuri, Gumati, Vartsikhe on theriver Rioni, Jvari on the river Enguir, Akhurian,Arpichil, Araks hydro knot on the river Araks,etc

During the past 30 years major floods occurredin Western Georgia in April 1978, May 1982,and January 1987; in Baksan gorge in the NorthCaucasus in July 1975 and in Krasnodar Krayin the North Caucasus in February 1998. Allthese floods had serious social-economic andenvironmental impacts. Specifically, they inun-dated settlements including the large townsKutaisi, Zestaphoni, Krasnodar, Tikhoretsk etc.They also damaged large areas of agriculturallands and infrastructure: roads, bridges, watersupply and sewage systems, etc. For instance,as a result of a 1998 flood, about 329,000 ha ofagricultural land was damaged in KrasnodarKray (Dangerous Hydrometeorological…,

1983; Ministry of Environment and NatureResources Protection, the Russian Federation,1994; GRID-Moscow, 2001). The flood,occurred in West Georgia in 1987 inundatednearly 200 km sq. area, significantly damaged3.2 thousand and completely destroyed morethan 2.6 thousand buildings. Total economicloss amounted to $US 300 million (DangerousNatural Phenomena ..., 2002).

Avalanches are one of the most common naturaldisasters in the Caucasus. They impose dangerto populated areas, industrial enterprises, andmeans of communication. In winter, traffic isoften blocked between the North and SouthCaucasus.

Avalanches are particularly typical in highlands,although the lowest border of high-risk territo-ries descends far below. The risk zone comesdown the lowest in the West Caucasus (to 50-100 m on southern slopes, 550 m - on NorthCaucasus), while in the East Caucasus it isfound at elevations of 1,400-1,500 meters andhigher. The whole territory located above thesehypsometric levels of the Greater and LesserCaucasus represents an avalanche-prone area(Dangerous Hydrometeorological…,1983).However, the frequency of avalanches varies atdifferent altitudes. The zone of the Caucasianhighlands with alpine relief is featured by thehighest danger of avalanche (the main ridge ofthe Caucasus and Skalistyi (rocky) ridge),where the ratio of avalanche danger is 75-80%.Avalanches are observed here during the wholeyear, but represent danger for only for moun-taineers. Northern and Southern slopes of theCaucasus, individual ridges of Lesser Caucasus(Bazum, Pambak, Zangezur, and Murovdag) arealso located in avalanche risk prone areas (50-75%).

The avalanche danger period lasts six to eightmonths, posing a significant danger to populat-ed areas, mountain pass roads etc.

The remaining territory of the Caucasus is atrelatively small risk. Here avalanches happenrarely, although because of populated areas andindustrial facilities they cause great damage tothe economy. In heavy snowy winters, ava-

���

63

2.9.3 Flooding

2.9.4 Avalanches

lanches may even be catastrophic here. In low-lands and foothills, avalanches also cause greateconomic damage. They are sporadic and occuronce every five years or less.

The greatest number of avalanches occurs atheights of 1,000-4,000 m above sea level. Theyare particularly frequent from January toMarch, occurring in all areas of the zone ofavalanche danger. Avalanches are particularlyfrequent in the regions not rich in forests.Avalanches destroy mountainous forests too.

There is no comprehensive monitoring of ava-lanches in the Caucasus, although informationabout them has been collected since 1804.Special research began in the 1930s.Avalanches occurring near populated areas androads of strategic importance are studied better.Only three meteorological stations: Mamisonipass, Kazbegi, and Sulaki located at high alti-tudes provide information on them. Therefore,the available data do not show a comprehensivepicture.

The Caucasus is located in one of the mostactive Alpine-Himalayan collision belt. Overthe past two thousand years, there have beenmany earthquakes in the Caucasus. Some havebeen catastrophic, resulted in thousands ofdeaths, infrastructure destruction and environ-mental degradation. Sometimes damage causedby earthquakes may be more linked to land-slides generated after them than to the actualearthquake.

The landslides and rockslides resulting fromearthquakes have formed lakes in severalplaces. Lake Abrau (near Novorossiisk) wasformed two to three thousand years ago, Bigand Small Ritsa-250-300 years ago, Gey-Gel(Armenia) in 1139, Amtkeli (West Georgia) in1891 etc.

Since 1800, over 2,000 significant earthquakeshave been recorded in the Caucasus, 1,200 inthe last half of the 20th century. While they dif-fered in intensity, their capacity was generallyless than 8MSK. Compared with the mostactive seismic regions of the world, (Japan,California) the Caucasus seems calm. However,over the past decades several powerful earth-quakes of 6-6.5M have shook the region(Spitak, 1988; Sachkhere, 1991; Barisakho1992; Eastern Turkey 1976, 1983 and 1992;North Iran, 1990 and 1997). Among theseearthquakes, the most disastrous was the Spitak9MSK earthquake of 1988, which killed 25,000people. The earthquake damaged 21 cities, 342villages, and left 520,000 people homeless(Ministry of Environmental and NatureResources Protection, Russian Federation,1994; Institute of Geophysics of Georgia). Afterthis earthquake, some of the regions of theCaucasus were declared 9MSK earthquakezones.

The location of epicentres close to the earth sur-face (the average epicentre depth is about 20-30km and less) is one of the specific features ofthe earthquakes in the Caucasus. Therefore,weaker earthquakes may cause disastrous

64

���

. Following a very snow winter avalanches on both slopes of the Central Caucasus took place in 1976. They were especially powerful in the gorges of Nenskra and Nakra rivers (Enguri basin, Georgia) where 546 hectares of forest were destroyed.

. The winter of 1986-1987 was marked with many avalanches in West Georgia, caused by abundant precipitation that formed high snow cover.That winter was unusually warm. A powerful anticyclone, formed in Eastern Europe, provoked the movement of several warm Mediterranean cyclones to the Western Trans-Caucasus, causing heavy showers in the Colchian lowland and heavy snow in mountain areas. Asa result, in Upper Svaneti several avalanches took place leading to human deaths and huge economic losses. Intensive snow melting resulted in serious floods of the Rioni, Tskhenistkali, Khobi and other rivers. Since soils accumulated huge amount of moisture, landslides occurred in spring. Finally, a number of large mudflows occurred in the summer. Overall, damage by these processes in Georgia alone amounted to about $US 300 million. Many people died, hundreds of buildings des-troyed, transport communications damaged, 20,000 people evacuated.

Sources: Land Snow Cover and Glaciers in Caucasus. 1983. Beruchashvili,1996; Beruchashvli, 1995

Seismicity of the CaucasusEarthquake catalogue of the Caucasus (Historical and instrumental database)

2.9.5 Earthquakes

effects there. Moreover, many of buildings ofthe Soviet period are not built to withstandearthquakes of high magnitude.

The Great Caucasus and Javakheti-Armenianhighlands are at the highest level of seismicrisk. Most important seismic centres are locatedalong the large tectonic breaks. The Javakheti-Armenian highlands is the most active tectonicarea in the Caucasus, characterised by the high-est frequency of earthquakes.

Wild fires have some impact on the Caucasuseconomy and environment. However, they arenot as critical as other natural disasters in theregion.

Fires negatively affect forest formation, reduceforest quality and productivity, and destroy suchfunctions of forests as water protection, recre-ation, etc. Fires are caused by both natural fac-tors (lightening, peat self-firing, etc) and humanactivities. The greatest share falls to the latter.

Clearcutting causes the highest risk for wildfires. Pine forests and dying damaged trees, aswell as areas of arid and dry juniper forests aremost vulnerable. Clearcutting is very rare inCaucasus, however. Caucasian forests are verydiverse, for example in beech forests one canfind younger trees next to 200 year-old trees. InColchic polidominant multi-layer wet forests,the structure is even more complex. That is whythere are very few fire risks to old forestecosystems in the Caucasus. Dry juniper forestsremain only in nature reserves (Vashlovanireserve in Georgia, for example) and are fully

protected from fire risk. Wild fires frequentlyoccur because of burning of agriculture fields.

Areas with pine forests are growing very inten-sively at the expense of former agriculturallands. In Racha (Georgia) for instance, forestedareas have increased by 5-10% over the pastfew decades. As mentioned, the danger of firein pine forests is extremely high, although thewet climate in these districts mitigates this risk.In the Caucasus, wild forest fires are rare (com-pared with Savannas in Africa). In highlands,this is due to the wet climate, in steppes - main-ly to irrigation.

The 1970-80s saw a decreasing number of wildfires, which can be explained by better techni-cal equipment of fire fighters. That is why inthe past, forest fires were not considered animportant environmental problem for theregion. However, in recent years wild fires havebeen increasing in both the number of fires andthe areas damaged by them. One assumes thatcurrent trend will continue.

How to preserve the relatively safe situation interms of wild fires is a critical issue at present.The only solutions are putting restrictions onclearcutting and visiting virgin forest groves aswell as establishing an early-warning system formonitoring forests in the Caucasus.

In terms of humidity, the Caucasus is a regionof great contrasts. Its western part and highlandzones are more humid and the North Caucasusplains and the Javakheti-Armenian highlandsare more arid. Evaporation in the entire regionexceeds the flow by 140mm, indicating aspreading of arid landscapes in the major partof the territory. Annual amount of atmosphericprecipitation exceeds 1,000mm only on theGreater and Lesser Caucasus and Colchida. Inthe rest of the territories, it is less than abovevalue and in many places amounts to 300-450mm. That is why in light of global warmingthe problem of xerophyzation (desertification)is very acute in the region. It is more acute inthe lowlands and foothills of the NorthCaucasus, especially in Eastern part as well asin Eastern parts of the South Caucasus: Iori-Ajinauri plateau, Kvemo Kartli plain,

���

65

Seismic hazard of the Caucasus test area, 1997

2.9.6 Wild Fires

2.9.7 Drought

Akhaltsikhe depression, Javakheti-Armenianhighlands, Kura-Araks lowland, etc.

Droughts are more characteristic of the easternpart of the Caucasus. The lowest amounts ofatmospheric precipitation fall in the Terek-Kuma and Kura-Araks lowlands and AraratValley.

Lately, a drop in the amount of precipitation isobserved, negatively affecting agricultural out-put. In addition, strong arid winds bring greatdamage too. For example, 1998-99 autumn andwinter droughts in Armenia affected more than75% of winter wheat crops and up to 50% oforchards (MNP, Armenia, 2001). Similarly, in1998 in Karachaevo-Cherkessia, droughts dam-aged more than 50% of cereals. Damage alsowas incurred to the agricultures of Krasnodarand Stavropol krays, Adigeya, Ingushetia. 1998and 2000 summers were also extremely dry forAzerbaijan and Georgia, incurring significanteconomic losses to these countries.

In general, droughts are one of the major fac-tors for desertification. In the Caucasus, deserti-fication process became more intensive inrecent years and thus semi-desert and desertelements are met even in places not charac-terised by such elements, e.g. riparian forests.In East Georgia, for example, over 3,000 ha oftotal land area is under the process of desertifi-cation, caused by droughts and over-grazing(MoE of Georgia/UNDP, 2001-2002)

In the future, global warming will cause theCaucasian landscapes to be more "sensitive" toatmospheric precipitation and less to air temper-ature. Desertification process will considerablyaffect arid and semi-arid landscapes in plainsand foothills of the East Caucasus as well assub-alpine and alpine landscapes of high moun-tains (Beruchashvili, 1995).

���

66

67

���

In the majority of cases of human-nature interac-tions, the chain of events starts within humansociety, triggered by problems of societal devel-opment (economic, social, cultural, etc.). Theseproblems may then be "imposed" on nature,either accidentally or deliberately, causingchanges there and re-emerging as environmentalproblems. Afterwards, this chain of events maycause feedback effects on society, presentingwhat resembles an absolutely new set of prob-lems. Interaction with nature does not create newproblems; it just makes evident problems alreadyexisting in human society. It also often magnifiesthe negative consequences of human activities,leaving them to be solved by people who did notcause them in the first place, and often by mov-ing the process far away, from where they werephysically initiated.

Even when people encounter unavoidable natu-ral phenomena ("acts of God") such as earth-quakes or tropical cyclones, tornadoes etc., thischain of events still may have begun within soci-ety. There are social-economic factors that deter-mine why people are located in harm's way inthe first place, what they know about a potentialhazard and how well they are prepared to dealwith it.

Thus, even in cases when human vulnerabilityappears to be caused by environmental factors,its real driving forces may be socio-economic.Vulnerability is a potential state, which is oftencase-specific; that is, attributable to either social,economic or environmental factors that activateit.

As a result, human-nature interactions are well-known for being complex. Causes and effectsare hard to trace and chains of events are usuallyso intermingled that following them to theirsource is a near-to-impossible task. Hence, thereare obvious difficulties in perceiving human-nature interaction problems, reaching efficientsolutions and undertaking effective mitigatingmeasures. Associated difficulties in planning andproblem solving usually lead to a lack of preven-tive initiatives, with mitigating measures appliedafter the fact and on visible effects, rather thanto the causes of a given problem.

These general problems in case of the Caucasusare further exacerbated by the disintegration of

the USSR and subsequent weakening of theeconomy, governmental structures and socialsafety nets, along with armed conflicts and thelike. The enormous changes have been negativefor the vast majority of the local population, andare associated with huge gains for a very fewand poverty, insecurity and struggle for day-by-day survival for the majority. For people undersuch circumstances environmental considera-tions are very low on the agenda. They come topeople's attention only when negative environ-mental changes hit people in some drastic way,as in the case of some natural catastrophe.Environmental problems will certainly becomemore important to people if they are affected bylarge-scale environmental degradation.Nevertheless, right now environmental concernsare over-shadowed by the more pressing prob-lems of poverty and insecurity that are consid-ered the leading causes of vulnerability in theregion6.

Local vulnerability in the Caucasus is very dif-ferent from what is observed in other less devel-oped regions of the world. For many (if not themajority) it has resulted from the extremelyrapid - virtually overnight - deterioration of rela-tively high living standards after the disintegra-tion of the USSR. One of the main characteris-tics of local vulnerability is rooted in the tradi-tionally high level of dependency on the govern-ment. By the end of the communist era, hardlyanyone really trusted or respected the govern-ment, but strange as it seems, viewed it as thesole provider of services and ultimate protectorin time of need. When governments began to failin their missions as protectors and providers, formany, especially the previously affluent, povertymoved into a psychological dimension. It isoften associated with not only material depriva-tion, but also the feeling of powerlessness andhumiliation - a phenomenon clearly visible inGeorgia for instance7. Now ten years followingthe collapse of the Soviet Union, the authoritiesstill lack coping strategies and resources to ame-liorate the condition of vulnerable people, whilethe frequency and scale of extreme events hassharply increased.

In considering causes of vulnerability in theCaucasus, it should be understood that the ongo-ing transition in the region is actually the thirdsuch transition in a relatively short historicalperiod8. Each transition has profoundly alteredexisting ideas, beliefs and value systems. As aresult, the vast majority of population has avalue system much at odds with what is accept-ed in civilized society in terms of rights andwrongs. In such value systems, environmentalconcerns occupy very little space, if any.

CHAPTER 3. HUMAN VULNERABILITY,INSECURITY AND ENVIRONMENT

6 We understand vulnerability as inability of individual or group of people to resist adverse socio-economic and/or natural phenomena aswell to cope successfully with their consequences.7 As a result the less developed and previously less affluent communities and individuals usually find themselves better positioned toresist vulnerability as a whole and poverty in particular. They lose less, expect less, and are more dependent on informal security nets(extended families, local clans) than their previously richer counterparts.8 Traditional society in this region was under already under a strong pressure of successful capitalist transformation when Bolsheviks gotit under control. In turn, the current stage of transformation started when vast majority of population at last began to come to terms withrules of games offered by Communists. As a result, we deal with two cases of aborted development and one incomplete transformation dur-ing one century.

3.1 Vulnerability in the Local Setting

68

���

Karachaevo-Cherkesia 76th, Adygeia 70th,Kabardino-Balkaria 64th place respectively.The average Ingushetian earned just 22.8% ofthe average Russian wage. On the other hand,all these republics have the highest rates ofsocial transfers in terms of the population'smonetary income - for the average Russian itwas 13.6%, in Ingushetia 28.2%, Dagestan 27.3%, Adigeya 24.1 %, Karachaevo-Cherkessia26.6% (State Committee of Russian Federationfor Statistics, 2000).

Ingushetia (82.6%) and Dagestan (75.1%) hadthe highest rates of food expenditures in house-hold budgets in the Russian Federation, closelyfollowed by Karachaevo-Cherkessia andKabardino-Balkaria. The former two had thelowest levels of pensions. Ingushetia is the onlyplace in the Russian Federation where the num-ber of pensioners exceeds the number ofemployed persons. The same trends areobserved almost in all other republics, includingAlania. Naturally, unemployment levels hereare among the highest in Russia.

The vulnerability of the population here is basi-cally caused by a lack of economic develop-ment. Even in Soviet times, these areas wereunderdeveloped. Dagestan may be the onlyplace in the region where high population pres-sure coupled with underdevelopment directlycauses land degradation.

All other territorial units of the North Caucasusare similar to the average Russian level, and arerepresentative of a country in transition, juststarting to overcome deep economic and socialcrisis13. The formal state social security systemplays the lead role in mitigating vulnerability;although it is not as reliable, it once was underSoviet administration. Pensioners and familiesof unemployed workers are especially vulnera-ble if they cannot find some supplement to for-mal state support. It is interesting that in theseareas collective farms are still the leading agri-cultural enterprise. Some of them continue tomaintain social safety nets, providing mutual

Vulnerability in the region today primarilyhinges on the economic situation. One is natu-rally much less vulnerable to various hazards inan economically developed country than in theCaucasus, which is still in the midst of pro-longed economic hardships almost after adecade of widely publicized economic reforms9.Even armed conflicts, for whatever reasons theywere started, are mainly sustained because thereare plenty of people earning their livelihoodfrom them10. Chechen youngsters are dyingplanting mines to kill young Russian soldierssince this is the only opportunity for them toearn a few dollars to support their families.Thousands of people in the mountains of theSouth Caucasus are felling trees on steep slopesdirectly above their villages since this is theonly way to earn some money to live. Hencethe obvious conclusion - whatever the visiblereasons of vulnerability, its ultimate solutionlies in the improvement of the general econom-ic situation throughout the region, raising stan-dards of living and increasing state funding forsocial programs.

Poor people are obviously the most vulnerable.The smaller national autonomies of the NorthCaucasus are characterised by extremely highpoverty levels. Ingushetia (where 95.1% of pop-ulation is poor based on per capita monetaryincome in 1999)11 and Dagestan (63.2%) areclassified in Russia as belonging to "the lessdeveloped autonomous republics and units invery critical condition12". Two more -Karachaevo-Cherkessia (64.6%) andKabardino-Balkaria (46.6%) are classified as"underdeveloped republics". These republicshave the worst social indicators in Russia andthe only other areas of the Russian Federationthat bear any comparison to them are remoteareas of Siberia and the Far East. According toa survey of average monthly per capita incomesin 1999, Ingushetia occupied the last (79th)place in Russia, and Dagestan 77th,

9 It should be ceaselessly emphasized - whatever the difficulties of transition human deprivation here does not goes as far as in majorityof vulnerable countries of Africa or Asia where it is associated with famine or mass epidemics claiming huge amounts of human life. Andespecially there is not noticeable deprivation of population due to overexploitation of environmental resources.10 There are also plenty of people making money on these conflicts, but this is not directly related to vulnerability issue. Although one ofthe main (if not the main) reasons of the South Ossetian conflict preserved in a state of suspended animation is that the uncertain status ofthe disputed territory provides may be the largest regional smuggling opportunities.11 Naturally this number is rather inflated since cannot estimate undeclared monetary incomes, which here should be rather high and doesnot count income in kind too, but even adjusted it may be very high.12 There are seven such units altogether in Russia. Chechnya is of course left out of any database.13 Alternatively, may be they have not still encountered the real crisis. What will become to local agriculture after Russian parliamentfinally permits to sell agriculture lands is hard to predict.

3.2 The Most Vulnerable Groups

69

���

support to their members through the period ofhardship. Although such enterprises are ineffi-cient from an economic point of view, they con-tinue to play an important social role.

All three South Caucasus republics have similarpoverty/vulnerability trends. Poverty levels inGeorgia and Armenia have been stable for thepast several years at 50-55% (calculated as thepercentage of households with incomes belowthe official subsistence level). This is veryhigh, especially considering that these countrieshad some of the highest standards of living inSoviet times. In Azerbaijan according to the lat-est available data dating back to 1995 - poorhouseholds amounted to 61.5% of the total.How the situation has changed since then is dif-ficult to determine (there is no data available)but it is not likely to have improved much,except for employees of the leading industries,like oil extraction. Azerbaijan follows similarpatterns as its regional neighbours and "themost acute social problem continues to beextremely low level of satisfaction of the mini-mum material and spiritual needs of absolutemajority of population". One more indicator ifnot of poverty but rather fragility, is the rela-tively high percentage of total household expen-ditures spent on food, in excess of 2/3 house-hold budgets on average. Some studies evensuggest that 63% of Armenia's entire populationfor instance is spending their entire income onfood (IFRCRCS Delegation in Armenia,Yerevan, 2000). As a whole, the majority ofpopulation here is either poor or vulnerable topoverty in the sense that any unforeseen expen-diture, like health care expenses (not to mentionnatural disasters, armed conflicts and like), maypush the household over the poverty threshold.The capacity of most local households to copewith such changes is very low.

Pensioners living alone, with children or with asingle adult, extended families with childrenand female-headed households account for the

biggest percentage of poor households in thesub-region. The unemployed is anotherextremely poor and vulnerable group. Financialand other resources available to local socialsecurity systems are not nearly enough toimprove the conditions of the millions of peoplewho depend on them. Pensions and other socialpayments are well below 1US$ per day - theabsolute poverty level adopted by the WorldBank. In Georgia, old age pensions amount toabout US 20 cents per day.

Official minimum salaries and actual remunera-tion also compare very unfavourably with offi-cially adopted minimum subsistence levels,meaning that employment alone is not a safe-guard against poverty and vulnerability14.

All these vulnerable groups are subject toimpoverishment and are supported mainly byinformal kinship ties. These ties are obviouslythe most widespread means of survival for poorfamilies in the country, government supportbeing next to nothing. Support by various inter-national donors and/or by some local NGOsdoes not play a significant role. Rural house-holds, having direct access to food production,usually cope with hardships better than urbanhouseholds do.

Internally displaced persons (IDPs) form anoth-er group of the poor/vulnerable population.Numerous regional conflicts have forced thou-sands to flee their homes. In the SouthCaucasus there are about 1 million IDPs regis-tered in Azerbaijan, 400,000 in Armenia and290,000 in Georgia15. While the IDPs them-selves are very vulnerable, their displacementsharply increases vulnerability of the populationin places of resettlement through strain onlocally available communal services, materialand financial resources, housing, the labourmarket, etc. It naturally leads to increasingsocial tensions and poverty. We do not com-ment specifically on the fact that no govern-ment in the region is able to provide decent

14 The only exception was Armenia where level of remuneration for employed was usually well above the poverty line. Average monthlysalary of employed person exceeded 193% of poverty line. Of 16 branches of economy only in social sectors, such as education, cultureand health care it was near the poverty line. Even administrative employees received salaries in excess of 277% of poverty line - a rareexception in the former USSR.15 As to the reliability of this data, for instance almost all IDPs in Georgia are registered as displaced from Abkhazia and almost all arelater registered as Georgians. This number clearly exceeds the amount of Georgians registered in Abkhazia in 1989 (234,0000). Obviouslythis cannot be even if one assumes that they are characterized by very high natural increase and all of them migrated to Georgia (that clear-ly is not so). On the other hand this is a good indicator of a real socio-economic situation in the country, where a general quality of life hasdeteriorated to such extent that it is clearly beneficial for many to register as IDPs. At least this way people are entitled to some kind ofwelfare benefits and rights to accommodation for instance. In Tbilisi, especially, this leads to numerous conflicts, open marauding and ille-gal trade in floor space.

70

���

material and financial support for these people.They receive assistance well below anyacknowledged poverty levels and otherwise areprimarily left to their own resources.

Despite the evident socio-economic causes forIDPs' vulnerability, the main reason for theircurrent vulnerable status is that they are politi-cally tradable assets and are usually treated assuch, although the country approaches vary16.

Most IDPs live in refugee camps, convertedpublic buildings, boxcars, shipping containersand other accommodation hardly fit for habita-tion. These accommodations are usually over-crowded and unsanitary. Depending on wherethe refugee camps are situated, people are eithersubjected to adverse environmental conditions,or they mercilessly exploit any naturalresources available (especially forests), sincethis is the only way to earn a livelihood.

Many of these people manage to find their wayto major urban centres where they still remainan isolated, marginalized group, but otherwiseno different from any other economic migrants.

What distinguishes them from other vulnerablegroups is that their vulnerable status is formallyacknowledged by international donor agenciesand they receive some kind of "preferentialtreatment." Being rather isolated they tend tostick together and put forward their demands asa group.

The problems of forced migration may take avery long time to mitigate. First, because manypeople are clearly interested to use IDPs in pur-suit of their private political ends, and secondly,difficult economic conditions do not leavemany resources to change their conditions forthe better. Extensive international assistance (aseverywhere in the world) can only amelioratetheir condition to some extent but clearly can-not replace local government efforts.

Human health is affected by a broad spectrumof factors including social, economic, sanitary-hygienic and environmental conditions, lifestyle, access to health care services and thequality of health care systems. According toWHO data, up to 80% of morbidity is due toexposure to different environmental factors of aphysical, chemical and biological character.

The Caucasus was traditionally characterized bymoderate to serious environmental and hygienicconditions in urban and industrial areas, linkedto its underdeveloped sanitation infrastructure,environmental pollution from industries andtraffic, and serious sanitary-hygienic and envi-ronmental problems in rural areas connected tothe intensive use of pesticides and other chemi-cals and poor sanitation infrastructure or thelack thereof (Ministry of Environment andNature Resources Protection, RussianFederation, 1994).

High figures of infectious diseases were tradi-tionally reported in some parts of the region.High morbidity due to typhus, dysentery andviral hepatitis was observed in the cities of theNorth Caucasus. In rural areas, gastrointestinaldiseases and poliomyelitis caused morbidity fig-ures of higher than average values. High mor-bidity due to typhus was observed in cities ofArmenia and Azerbaijan as well (Ministry ofEnvironment and Nature Resources Protection,Russian Federation, 1994). Apart from this,there has always been and continues to be ahigh risk for epizootic outbreaks in the NorthCaucasus, since the region has natural sourcesfor contagious diseases such as plague,tularaemia, brucellosis. Lack of animal vaccina-tion and poor sanitary-epidemiological condi-tions only aggravate the situation.

Since 1990, sanitary-hygienic conditions havebeen worsening in the region. Outbreaks ofinfectious diseases, especially gastrointestinalones, have become routine. They have alsooccurred in areas where they hardly everoccurred before, namely Georgia (StateCommittee of the Azerbaijan Republic on

16 See "Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper" (Interim Report), Azerbaijan Republic, p.24(http://www.imf.org/external/NP/prsp/2001/aze/01/index.htm) Governments of the region are clearly reluctant to undertake efficient meas-ures to integrate this people into local communities in places where they live now. They try hard to preserve their numerous IDPs as areserve and a driving force for the future resettlement on the territories now outside their control. Armenia may be the only exception sincerealistically there is no place in Azerbaijan for Armenians in the near future.

3.3 Access to Health Care, EnvironmentalQuality and Vulnerability

71

���

Nature Protection, 1993; UN-ECE/MNP ofArmenia, 2000; WHO/MoH of Georgia, 2001;Ministry of Environment and Nature ResourcesProtection, Russian Federation, 1996).

This may be traced to sharply reduced abilitiesof state sanitary-hygienic services to conductregular inspections of food products and drink-ing water due to lack of finances and technicalequipment. Existing water supply and sewagesystems are inadequately maintained and fre-quently cross-contamination of sewage anddrinking water occurs. Water intake facilitiesare not properly protected and do not meet sani-tary and hygienic requirements. In many loca-tions, the lack of chlorine does not allow forproper treatment of drinking water. Over-loadedlandfills that do not meet health and environ-mental requirements, and illegal dumpsitescause the contamination of ground waters,which are the major sources for drinking waterin many of parts of the region.

The overall situation is such that the populationin general has become vulnerable to infectiousdiseases. The need to treat foodstuffs and drink-ing water with utmost caution has become afact of daily life - an absolutely new situationthat has not been necessary for decades. Thepoor and IDPs living in refugee camps are espe-cially vulnerable. Considering existing econom-ic problems and general mismanagement, theabove problems will continue to fester in theshort to medium term.

Although it is very difficult to establish linksbetween environmental pollution and morbidityrates, there is some scientific evidence linkinghigh ambient concentrations of different pollu-tants emitted from stationary and mobilesources to increases in the morbidity rate forspecific diseases like respiratory and cardiovas-cular diseases, specifically, hypertension andheart attacks, skin and endocrine diseases, can-cer, and lowered children's IQ. All these havebeen routinely documented in leading industrialcentres of the region.

Recent ambient air quality data for selectedmajor cities of the Caucasus indicate decliningor stable trends for most pollutants, due to thefall in industrial activities and hence, industry-related emissions. However, this is offset tosome extent by an increase in traffic-relatedemissions. In the South Caucasus, there is

noticeable trend of concentration of populationand economic activity in the few largest urbancentres. These have led to a dramatic increasein vehicles that are old (10 years or older),poorly maintained and use low quality fuel.Traffic is poorly organised, and congestion isroutine. Since traffic is a major source for ambi-ent air pollution in most Caucasus cities, partic-ulates and lead are assumed to be the most seri-ous health concerns. There are a number ofstudies supporting this thesis, for instance, thestudy of health effects of short-term exposure toTSP for the city of Yerevan (MNP of Armenia,2001), studies for the cities of Baku, Sumgayitand Ganja on PM10 concentration (StateCommittee on Ecology and Control of NaturalResources Utilization, Azerbaijan, 1998), andstudies on lead impact on health for Tbilisi(NORCE & MoE of Georgia, 2000).

During the Soviet era, the morbidity and mor-tality rates due to neoplasm and birth defectswere traditionally high among the rural popula-tion of the Caucasus, mainly due to unsustain-able use of pesticides. At present, whereas theoverall pesticide use has declined here, healthconcerns related to pesticides still exist.Specifically, many individual farmers are notaware of health and environmental requirementsfor pesticide use, and pose a high threat to theirown and other people's health and environment.Another problem is related to obsolete pesti-cides and other agrochemicals that are not prop-erly stored and cause the contamination ofground waters and soil. This poses a high riskto human health through drinking water andfood contamination.

The situation in the public health care systemhas also dramatically changed. While duringSoviet times it was never very advanced or effi-cient, it did provide universal access and wasfree. The post-Soviet transition crisis has result-ed in a marked deterioration of this system,although this process has been uneven. Russiahas managed to retain the previously existingmodel and is even expanding the system. Onthe other hand, a crisis in the system is obvious,and quality is falling. It has become especiallymore discriminatory towards the less affluentpopulation since under-the-table payments arealmost mandatory. In the South Caucasus, thepoor are virtually alienated from the health-caresystem, in Armenia and Georgia quite perverse

72

���

ly because of the WB sponsored reforms17.

Even for the more affluent families paying formedical treatment can often mean sliding belowthe poverty line. People routinely postpone vis-its to doctors or self-medicate, causing addition-al aggravating factors in the case of contagiousand infectious diseases.

More importantly, health-care systems have losttheir ability to practice preventative medicineand usually treat people in advanced stages ofdisease. Poor infrastructure facilities, and thelack of technical and financial resources to con-duct the most routine sanitary and hygienicoversight services are too much for the peoplein the system to cope with. Although qualifiedprofessionals in the system still exist, they toolag behind in their knowledge of recent toolsand methods used in contemporary toxicologyand epidemiology. Environmental and otherauthorities responsible for data collection alsodo not have enough resources to regularly mon-itor ambient environment quality, detect highpollution episodes and take specific measuresfor human health protection. Existing ambientstandards are out of date and need revision.Besides, more often than not authorities simplydo not react to easily observable trends and sit-uations with obvious health hazards, while thepublic in general lacks information, understand-ing, organization and effective means to alterthe situation18.

During the final years of the USSR, armed con-flicts became one of the most important deter-mining factors of environmental quality in someparts of the Caucasus. The type of impact andits level depends on the ongoing status andintensity of the conflict.Except for in Chechnya,all other military operations in the Caucasus arein a state of suspended animation and have nodirect impact on the state of environment. Ofthose, the South Ossetian and Ossetia-Ingushetia conflicts were of very low intensityand their environmental impact was negligent.

As for the Karabakh and Abkhazian conflicts,military operations were intensive, affecting theenvironmental quality noticeably; especiallyforests and vegetation cover. Hundreds ofhectares were badly damaged, mostly by firebecause of aerial bombardments and artilleryshelling. Minefields that were left behind stillrepresent a major hazard to both people andlocal fauna.

On the other hand, these operations have in abroad and unintended sense led to a certainimprovement in the state of the natural environ-ment. Although the scars of war are still visiblehere, the territories are mainly depopulated.This is well-illustrated in the case of Abkhazia,where 550,000 people lived before the conflict.At present, its population is less than half ofthis figure, with a number of villages and arablelands abandoned; and life in cities (e.g.Sukhumi) concentrated only in their centralparts. Because of the humid subtropical climate,which is favourable to the rapid growth ofplants, weeds have begun to take over highwaysand railroads, wild vegetation is covering largeareas and forests are recovering. The total col-lapse of the economy contributes to the reduc-tion of pollution of the environment, as allindustrial enterprises are standing idle.

Indirect impacts are reflected in the disruptionof pre-existing, traditional land-use. In moun-tainous Karabakh and Abkhazia, agriculturallands formerly intended for vineyards and fruitgardens have been turned into pastures andlands for annual crops. This was caused mainlyby the damage to and breakdown of irrigationsystems. Selective cutting is damaging theforests of Abkhazia, which had not undergoneindustrial logging for the last 50 years. Valuablespecies such as chestnut and box-tree are beingcut down for firewood and illegal sale.

A similar picture can be seen in Karabakh, andparticularly in the territories outside ofKarabakh proper. The city of Agdam, whichhad 40,000 inhabitants before the conflict andwas known all over the Soviet Union for itswine industry, is now completely destroyed.

17 Obviously, absence of these reforms would have resulted in the same alienation, but in the popular perception, reforms caused this mis-fortune. We also do not specifically comment on the quality of health services. High quality is rare and usually accessible only for a veryrestricted stratum of the population.18 For instance, malaria that was virtually non-existent in Georgia for decades started to re-emerge recently. It is mainly imported fromAzerbaijan as well as from Asian countries with a high prevalence of this disease. High incidences in the Kakheti region adjacent toAzerbaijan are primarily caused by the cessation of regular chemical processing of few local reservoirs that naturally harbour the malariavector. This fact is widely known but no mitigating measures are undertaken, even though resumption of processing is rather cheap andwell within the abilities of impoverished Georgian health-care budget.

3.4 Conflicts and their EnvironmentalImpact

73

���

Even the foundations of earlier buildings do notexist any more. Once highly fertile, lands alongthe frontier line in Karabakh are completelyabandoned. The only known reserve of planetrees has nearly disappeared. One of the mostunpleasant consequences of the landscape trans-formation here has been a plague of mice inneighbouring areas of Azerbaijan.

Some of these processes cannot be directlyascribed to military operations, but rather togeneral economic decline, breakdown of lawand order in the region and wide spread corrup-tion. Analogous processes observed throughoutthe Caucasus are described elsewhere in thisreport.

The ongoing conflict in Chechnya is the mostprolonged and intensive, with many modernweapons used. As a result, both the direct andindirect impacts of this conflict on the environ-ment surpass all others in the region. At leastone-third of local forests (thousands ofhectares) have been seriously impacted as aresult. This has been caused not only byshelling and aerial bombardment, but also bymass felling of trees and cutting openings fornew communication pathways. Erosion hasintensified, creating "hot spots" in the moun-tainous areas of Azerbaijan, Chechnya andDagestan. The roads that appeared due to themovement of heavy equipment have also great-ly contributed to the degradation of such areas(IUCN, 2000).

Military actions have also resulted in environ-mental pollution, namely, the contamination ofsoils, sub-soil, atmosphere, surface waters,water supply systems and settlements by chemi-cals. All this had a negative impact on humanhealth (IUCN, 2000).

In Chechnya, which used to have advancedmanufacturing and mining industries, militaryoperations have had severe environmental con-sequences. Bombing destroyed many oil wells,refineries and storage tanks, resulting in oilspills and soil and ground water pollution. Oilponds having detrimental environmentalimpacts have been found in some places.According to recent estimates, about 30-40% ofthe total area of Chechnya is heavily polluted

by oil products. In some locations, oil productshave seeped two meters into the soil19.

An additional local, albeit serious hazard stemsfrom police operations to eliminate illegal,primitive petroleum refineries, often situated inbackyards, which abound here. Such "refiner-ies" even in operational condition are extremelydirty and polluting. Elimination means that theyare simply blown up, scattering dirty wasteacross a rather large area. Left in this condition,the refineries leak oil into the soil. During onerecent operation, 36 such backyard refinerieswere destroyed, and operations of this type arerather routine20.

Pollution and noise from military operationsalso have a high impact on local fauna, causingthe destruction of habitat and migration routes.Some areas are marked by a reduction in thediversity of fauna (species impoverishment).For instance, in Dagestan in 1999 when armedoperations "spilled over" from Chechnya, a sig-nificant loss of fauna in broad-leaf forests wasobserved.

Environmental implications are perceived notonly in conflict zones but in bordering areas aswell. This is reflected in the migration of ani-mals, particularly large mammals. In recentyears animals, particularly predators, have beenmore frequently migrating from Chechnya toGeorgia and into Kabardino-Balkaria (IUCN,2000). The local population reports that thenumber of wolves has significantly increased inthe areas of Dagestan bordering with Chechnya,and their attacks on cattle have become morefrequent (IUCN, 2000)21. The majority ofmigrating animals have become victims ofpoachers.

A particularly high degree of pollution of airand surface waters was observed in neighbour-ing Dagestan (and was reported in the official"Reports on the State of Environment in theRussian Federation". Prevailing westerly aircurrents that often carry polluted air fromChechnya cause such high levels of pollution inDagestan. In addition, all rivers in Chechnyaflow toward the Caspian Sea and pass throughDagestan. Hence, explosion of oil refineries andreservoirs resulting in the discharge of oil and

19 Ecological Situation in Chechnya (http:/www.domaindom.net.moscow/ecology.html) 20 http://gazeta.ru, information as of 12 May, 2002.21 The same was observed during other conflicts as well. For example, in Azerbaijan, from front - mountainous and low mountain land-scapes large mammals migrated to the neighbouring areas (IUCN, 2000). During the conflict in former South Ossetia (Georgia), aurochs,deer, brown bear, and wild boar abandoned this area for Chechnya.

74

���

other matters into the Terek River has beenreflected in deterioration in the ecological stateof the northern part of the Caspian Sea(Ministry of Environment and NatureProtection, the Russian Federation, 1996).

In general, there is very limited "hard informa-tion on the environmental implications of mili-tary activities in the Caucasus region. Whereassome studies, although not comprehensive, havebeen conducted for some of the conflict areas,there is lack of information on all the conflicts.The studies that do exist are only qualitativeassessments and no quantitative studies havebeen conducted yet. There is a definite need fora detailed assessment of environmental condi-tions in all conflict areas. In addition, theimpacts on neighbouring countries and/orrepublics should be studied as well.

The region as whole is vulnerable to environ-mental hazards that may occur both as naturalphenomena and human-initiated processes. Thehazard itself is not as important as the chain ofevents that triggered by it, which often causesthe most suffering22.

During the years of transition the local popula-tion largely has lost the ability to cope withthese "aftershocks" and is much more vulnera-ble to these hazards than before. The main rea-son is the drastically reduced coping capacity ofboth the population and governments due toinsufficient financial and material resources attheir disposal, dwindling infrastructure, institu-tional inefficiencies, wide-scale corruption, etc.

There are two distinctive models of coping withenvironmental hazards and their consequencesin the region.

The Russian model is still based on the "pater-nalistic" approach to hazard mitigation inheritedfrom the Soviet Union. It is based on the ideathat the state should play the role of "insurer"for its subjects. It provides whatever protectionpossible against hazards undertakes emergencycare and mitigates consequences. The systemworked quite well as long as the country was

strong and wealthy, especially in case of large-scale earthquakes like ones that took place inAshgabad or Tashkent. It did not work as effi-ciently in the case of the large-scale naturalhazards that took place in the South Caucasusin the 80s primarily because the USSR wasalready quite weakened and disorganized bythen.

The Russian Federation still responds to haz-ards based on this model and is to some extentsuccessful. Learning from the negative experi-ence of the Spitak earthquake, it created theMinistry of Emergency Situations that hasachieved wide acclaim as one of the most effi-cient rapid reaction forces worldwide. Thus, inthe event of a real hazard Russians can receiveassistance as quickly and efficiently as in anyother developed country23.

The real problems begin during the stage of"aftershocks," when it comes to evaluation oflosses, planning and implementing reconstruc-tion, paying compensation to the population etc.These kinds of activities usually are late andinefficient, if they are implemented at all.Insufficient resources, especially financial, areonly part of the problem. Whatever compensa-tion the population may be formally entitled tois usually extremely small-the maximum beinga few thousand US dollars - absolutely notenough to cover property losses and especiallyloss of life. General institutional incapacity anduniversal corruption, especially on the locallevel, are the main obstacles to efficient hazardmitigation. There is no information available onhow funds are allocated during natural hazardsin North Caucasus, but according to numerousreports by various Russian TV stations, moneyallocated for reconstruction in Chechnya doesnot reach the target population. Since Russiaremains a centralized country, such problemsneed interference from top-level officials, allthe way up to the president, to find efficientsolutions24.

Another emerging problem is managing thedeteriorating infrastructure inherited from theUSSR. For example, heavy mudflows inTirnyauz in 2000, and constant interruption oftraffic and loss of lives on Trans-Caucasus

22 These hazards are considered in different part of this report and are not subject of analysis here.23 Kabardino-Balkaria has recently went one step farther and united under one roof all emergency services including rescue, fire, firstmedical aid, community infrastructure accidents, etc. (Russian TV, First Channel, May 16, 2002)24 For instance, President Putin's personal control led to the prompt and efficient rebuilding of a whole city destroyed by flood in Siberialast year. However, such events are the exception and are hardly applicable to all hazard mitigation.

3.5 Coping Capacities

75

���

highway in North Ossetia due to avalanches.These are recurring events caused primarily byimproper management and over-ambitious plan-ning, which sacrificed economic and environ-mental considerations to political ones. Thecase of the Trans-Caucasus highway is an espe-cially telling example. It was constructed on thepresent location mainly to provide a connectionbetween Russia and Georgia, even though thisroute was known to be hazardous from thebeginning. How Russian authorities will copewith this situation and other similar ones is dif-ficult to tell, give the country's many otherpressing problems. Most likely, it will take anevent of truly catastrophic proportions to attractthe attention of the central authorities and leadto some efficient mitigating measures.

The South Caucasus model of hazard mitiga-tion is not based on Paterism d'etat approachdue to the simple reason that the weakened gov-ernments of the three republics are unable toperform "parental" functions any more. Theshortages of government resources, inefficientmanagement and corruption have lead to situa-tion where the governments if not formally, ineffect, have transferred responsibility for hazardmitigation to international relief organizationsas well as to the population proper. Althoughdisaster mitigation authorities formally exist,the extent of their actual ability to cope withdangerous situations and operational efficiencyare rather doubtful25. NGO and public interestgroup activities at the community level are alsoclose to non-existent.

The coping abilities of the modern Armeniangovernment have been tested during itsresponse to the consequences of the 1988 earth-quake and have proved to be unsatisfactory.The regions, where the earthquake took place,are some of the poorest in the country; manypeople there are not re-settled yet and continueto live in private garages and shacks.Restoration work is carried out almost exclu-sively by international agencies or funded bythe Diaspora. There is an analogous situation inGeorgia, where thousands of families movedfrom Ajara in the 80s were conveniently forgot-ten by the authorities and continue to live under

the most adverse conditions, even in places likecowsheds.

Thus the population here is left with little or noefficient assistance from governments and verylittle if any information about potential haz-ards26. Poor households are naturally the mostvulnerable since virtually everything they pos-sess is concentrated inside their homes. Ifsomething happens to a home in an earthquake,flood or mudflow, almost all family possessionsare lost. Poor families can do little or nothing toavoid dangers, by moving, or making theirhomes safer; they are also the most helpless indealing with government agencies and localadministrations. In the absence of any govern-ment disaster insurance there is no other formof insurance available to them. The emergingsystem of private insurance is naturally unat-tainable to poor and vulnerable people, but eventhe most affluent are still reluctant to insuretheir property. Credits when they are availableare based on unrealistically high interest ratesand most people have nothing to put up as acollateral.

Thus, the population of the South Caucasusrepublics is more vulnerable to environmentalhazards than it was before. People are usuallyleft dependent on resources available to them,their families or kin; very little if any assistancecomes from outside.

The most telling example of this is the series ofearthquakes that shook Tbilisi in April 2002.The most damaging earthquake on April 25thwas estimated at a magnitude 6-7 by the MSKscale adopted in the USSR. Quite fortunately,the loss of human life was minimal-only 7 peo-ple were killed in a city of approximately 1.5million inhabitants. However, the material dam-age was excessive. The most preliminary dam-age estimate was in excess of US$ 150 million;thousands of houses were damaged, many ofthem beyond repair27. By the most optimisticcalculation, at least 1,700 families need reloca-tion. Whole neighbourhoods in Tbilisi were iso-lated, with many buildings on the brink of col-lapse.

The very first conclusion drawn from this disas-

25 During the Baku earthquake in 2000, these bodies were not up to their requested performance, but due to regrettable habit of circum-venting any negative information regarding Azerbaijan the true situation is hard to evaluate.26 The reasons behind absence of information are primarily based on assumption is that it may create panic; that it will increase the cur-rent high level of apathy and fatalism; or that the information is not useful to people who do not have the means to mitigate their situation.Vulnerability Profile Update: The Social Dimension of the Causes of Disaster Vulnerability. A literature review. IFRCRCS, Delegation inArmenia. Yerevan May, 2000.27 Much of this damage was pre-existing since old parts of the city were virtually falling apart already decades ago.

76

���

ter was that it damaged the poorest, old districtsof the city where inhabitants were already themost vulnerable and had the least capacity tocope with its consequences.

It was obvious that the authorities had no con-

tingency plan and were not ready to deal withemergencies like this. They acted spontaneouslyto provide help for victims during the very first,most difficult hours after the major tremor.Receiving hospitals had no emergency powersupply and had to rely on portable electric gen-erators (and fuel) provided by victims' relatives;local TV channels were collecting informationabout hot-spots and passing it to authorities, etc.Representatives from the Emergency SituationsDepartment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs,which was created under an ambitious UNDPprogram and is formally charged with being thefirst to help and rescue, were simply nowhere tobe seen.

All other activities undertaken since to mitigateconsequences of the earthquake appear to beimprovisation rather than some coherent plan.For instance, in a huge city like Tbilisi sheltercould not be found for a few hundred homelessfamilies and many of them were still living intents by mid-May. Government stated that it

would purchase flats for families whose houseswere the most damaged and provide some mon-etary assistance. A detailed inventory and eval-uation of damage was underway in May 2002,but there were obviously no funds available forreconstruction and no definite promises as tothe exact time when it might take place. Theprevailing mood of local authorities was suchthat President Shevardnadze during one ofCabinet meetings said that they preferred to"conveniently forget" the whole accident.

The only people who actually provided somereal assistance to earthquake victims were localbusinessmen turned politicians who by mid-May 2002 managed to collect just over US$700,000. They donated about US$ 4,000 toeach of the 38 poorest families among the vic-tims and promised to extend this assistance totwo more groups of roughly the same size28.This may cover less than 10% of all the mostaffected families.

All in all the vast majority of earthquake vic-tims seemed to be left to their own resourcesfor an indefinite time. Even more, this earth-quake coincided with the beginning of localelectoral campaign, one of the toughest in themodern Georgian history. This event promptlypushed the earthquake away from the attentionof the local mass media and the population as awhole.

The main lessons learned:

. Local authorities were informed about the possible earthquake hazard, its probability, possible outcomes and the scope of potentialdamage many years before. The ministry of Urbanization of Georgia evaluated residential buildings in Tbilisi for their potential damage in a magnitude 7 earthquake back inthe 90s, and provided their exact location in the city29. It was estimated then that 3,500 residential buildings were at a high risk of destruction and the cost of safeguarding them against possible earthquakes was set atabout US$ 35 million30. Still they did not and/or could not undertake any proactive planning and preventive measures.

. The roots of this disaster can be seen in man

28 The very first reaction to this assistance by local officials was that these people received phone calls from city hall informing them that due toreceiving assistance from private sources they were not eligible to official government support any more.29 This information was provided for Georgia: Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment by IFRCRCS back in 1999 but for reasons unknown did notfind its way into the final draft available to us.30 I.e. about four times less than mitigating consequences of this earthquake will cost now. Actual type and spatial distribution of damage duringApril earthquakes exactly coincided with what was predicted by the Ministry. Its scope was smaller mainly thanks to the fact that the earthquake wasless intensive than envisaged.

. Hazards and disasters are often almost artificially created by shortsighted activities of population, untimely and ill-planned reforms, omnipresent corruption, absence of the rule of law, etc. There are the numerous instances of this.

. Local authorities in Baku, a city that is well known for its very active landslides, are routinely issuing building permits for sites where safe construction is impossible. As a result high-rise residential buildings are being built on activelandslide zones. Structures are constantly replacing each other during relatively short period of time as soon as they are damaged and demolished.

. In Yerevan local authorities did not spare efforts to preserve the centralized heating systems at least in relatively new parts of the city, but now the population has to bear the high cost of heating. Quite naturally as soon as these costs are not met the heat supply is suspended and people are turning to local parks or trees in their yards to get themselves some firewood. There are no protests and no law enforcement is used against such offenders.

. In the mountainous Dusheti district in Eastern Georgia forests perform an important water protection role. They have been overexploited during recent years by mainly illegal commercial logging by the local population. As a result numerous villages that depend on springs for water supply were left without water at all and their inhabitants are facing migration. Local authorities are well aware of this but are unable to mitigate the situation.

. One of the emerging hazards is manifested in loss by local farmers of collectiveknowledge of individual, private agriculture accumulated during centuries. This is especially noticeable in areas of previously large scale, industrial agriculture. Since centralized, state supported agronomy consulting services have disappeared and have not been replaced by something viable, farmers are mainly left to their own resources. People are simply turning to each other forassistance in the easiest procedures for the lack of more viable alternatives. This routinely results in mistreatment of land.

77

���

agerial practices adopted by then Soviet authorities some 25-30 years ago, when it seemed cheaper and easier to build new housing in the outskirts of the city, rather then to reconstruct the old, overcrowded historical centre. In addition, sewage water leaking for decades has damaged foundations there. This was also caused by general mismanagement and the most primitive misappropriation of funds. Districts under consideration were doomed many years ago. The earthquake simply accelerated the inevitable.

. People living here fell victims of ill-planned privatisation of state housing some 10-12 years ago. They were virtually tricked into the ownership of strongly depreciated, potentially hazardous assets. No one at the time explained them that as new owners they were ultimately responsible for maintenance and reconstruction and the state was not obliged to render them assistance any more. It took this major catastrophe to make them at least understand these realities if notto come to terms with them.

Local developers emerged as net winners fromthis catastrophe. Now they will be able to buildwithin the prestigious historical centre, whichpreviously was off limits for new development,obtaining land at lower prices. It seems as ifthese are the people who will ultimately "solve"the problem of resettling earthquake victims bymoving them to low quality, cheap housing atthe city margins.

The main conclusion is that the Caucasus as aregion (and the South Caucasus in particular) isstill in a transition stage when authorities areloosing or have already lost their ability to effi-ciently manage disasters, carry out strategicplanning and undertake preventive or mitigatingactivities. Emergence of new systems and poli-cies may take a long time, considering theongoing systemic crisis.

The population has basically lost its accumulat-ed knowledge of dealing with nature, and is tooweakened by current hardships to be able tocope efficiently with them. Absence of civilsociety and weakness of basic democratic insti-

tutions also keeps it uninformed or misinformedas to the type and scope of potential hazards,precluding it from organizing to lobby its inter-ests or take independent mitigating actions.

These aspects of vulnerability are unlikely to beameliorated in the short to medium run. Onlyisolated cases of well-planned intervention bynational governments, bilateral donors, NGOsand concerned citizens groups may producepositive results.

Emerging hot-spots

The territory at the junction of three South Caucasus republics is one of the mostimportant agricultural areas of the region, providing livelihood for hundreds of thou-sands of local families. Its well-being is primarily dependent on an extensive irriga-tion system that uses the Kura River and its tributaries. During the late Soviet yearsand afterwards this system fell victim to mismanagement and neglect.

Deterioration is the most advanced in Georgia, where during spontaneous land pri-vatisation and distribution of property previously belonging to collective farms in theearly 90s the irrigation infrastructure stripped of everything of value by the localpopulation. Now this part of the irrigation system is hardly operative and it has nolegal ownership. The WB is currently investing relatively small sums into repair andreconstruction of the system, but the actual need is measured in hundreds of millionsof US$. The WB has recommended passing local irrigation systems into hands offarmers associations, which many fear will mean monopoly by the few richestlandowners. Meanwhile local agriculture is in a deep crisis-- the amount of landunder cultivation is constantly dropping, crops are failing, farmers are going bank-rupt etc. This part of Georgia has become the source of intensive out-migration. Themain reason for this as cited by local and international experts is lack of water.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are following a similar pattern, also with adverse effects onthe natural environment. Agricultural lands both abandoned and exploited withoutsufficient water supply, are subject to desertification and salination. Merciless fellingof riparian forests observed throughout the area also leads to bogging, disruption ofrivers and activation of local geological processes.

The situation is further aggravated by a noticeable reduction of amount of water sup-plied by the Kura and other rivers due to purely natural causes. It has already led tosome discussions between Georgia and Azerbaijan about water distribution priorities.Dealing with this situation calls primarily for joint efforts by all three republics ofSouth Caucasus, developing a comprehensive action plan, financing it and organizingefficient, transparent control over its implementation. Considering the most recenthistory of interaction among these countries as well as their visible inability to carryout large-scale programs, the prospects for mitigating this situation before it turnsinto a full-scale humanitarian and environmental crisis are rather dim.

Another environmental hot-spot may be emerging in Western Georgia where tens ofthousands of hectares of tea plantations were abandoned in recent years. They havenot been re-stored so far (which in any case is difficult and expensive) and are infest-ed by imported exotic invasive species. If these "spill out" into indigenous land-scapes, the consequences for the whole sub-region (population included) may be cat-astrophic. There are no indications that authorities are even aware of this danger tosay nothing of the need for planning and undertaking some mitigating measures.

The North Caucasus will definitely face an environmental crisis of catastrophic pro-portion as soon as the Chechen conflict is over. Even the most fragmentary informa-tion available to us suggests that mitigating negative environmental impacts of warmay be at least as costly as all other post-war reconstruction activities.

Another hot-spot may emerge in Krasnodar and Stavropol krays after the sale ofagricultural land is finally legalised. This will definitely lead to the break up of theexisting agricultural management system, which is still based on Soviet-type collec-tive farms. Based on the experience of previous Russian reforms this process may berather unruly. Most likely, it will develop along the lines of analogous reforms inGeorgia, with the appropriate negative environmental implications.

���

79

���

Due to both its ancient past and more recenthistory, as well as its strategic but vulnerablegeographic location, the Caucasus region isoften considered one of the least predictableand unstable regions of the world. In today'sworld, one can well imagine it quite easilyembracing Western values and moving towardsEuropean integration or, at the other extreme,ending up resembling a country such asAfghanistan, ethnically divided and set back intime. In addition, the Caucasus can only beconsidered a single entity from he geographicalperspective, while developmentally speaking, itis more clearly divided into at least two parts:the North (Russian) Caucasus and the SouthCaucasus, each of which are further subdividedin turn. The Russian Caucasus includes twodistinctive parts: the Russian regions proper(roughly, the western part) and non-Russianautonomies. Although formally quite similar asmembers of the Russian Federation, they differboth in their current status and trends of devel-opment. The South Caucasus, of course, iscomposed of three separate and independentstates, each different in their history, ethniccomposition and politics.

The third Global Environment Outlook (GEO-3) report recently published includes a descrip-tion of four outlooks for the future at the globaland broad (e.g. the pan-European) regional lev-els. These four scenarios have been given thedesignations of "Markets First", "Policy First","Security First" and "Sustainability First".While it was not deemed either logical or possi-ble to re-create all four of these scenarios forthe Caucasus, due to factors explained below,three have been used as inspiration for potentialfutures of development and environmentalimpacts in the Caucasus in the following pages.Respectively, these are the "Status quo" (rough-ly analogous to "Policy First" in GEO-3),"Market world" (similar to "Markets First" inGEO-3) and "Downfall" (which can be linkedto "Security First" in GEO-3). While there arebroad parallels between the global scenarios inGEO-3 and those that have been developed forthis report, it is emphasized that the global sce-narios served only as background and points of

departure. In addition, the process of develop-ing the three Caucasus scenarios was far morelimited in time and scope than the oneemployed for the global scenarios.

The general trends, scope and characteristics ofenvironmental changes during the scenario peri-od (2002 - 2032) are determined by two sets offactors that affect the region in its entirety:

. The degree of capability to adopt and implement market reforms as the only realistic development alternative by all regional political entities; and

. The degree of capability to alleviate numerous regional conflicts, to a level such that they will not impede progress and development in the Caucasus.

There are of course additional factors that maystrongly alter developmental trends at theregional level, but the two factors mentionedabove are the most important ones.

CHAPTER 4. OUTLOOK 2002 TO 2032:THREE "ALTERNATIVE FUTURES"FOR THE CAUCASUS REGION

The scenarios presented here were developed as a result of intensive

consultations between the lead author for their development and repre-

sentatives of various international bodies, NGOs, and research and aca-

demic institutions in Armenia, Georgia and Russia. The assistance of

the late Gunter Beuchel from the Delegation of European Commission

in Georgia; Ghia Nodia of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy

and Development; Yuri Mazourov from the Russian Academy of

Sciences; Galina Gladkevich from Moscow State University and Hrant

Sargysyan from Armenia, as well as David Kikodze from "Dzelkva"

environmental centre was especially valuable.

While reviewing these scenarios, it is vital to understand that despite a

natural tendency to use them as forecasting tools, one cannot do so.

They are not intended to provide quantitative information based on

analysis of actual processes or phenomena. Rather, these scenarios

suggest how, based on the collective knowledge of numerous experts,

one may envision the future of the Caucasus region. Departing from

the trends of development that are the most obvious today, the CEO

scenarios team has attempted to construe various trajectories, which the

region may plausibly follow and which would lead to very different

future worlds.

This is virtually the first attempt to bring together critical trends and

information on the social, economic, political and environmental con-

texts to create broad long-term outlooks on the future of the Caucasus.

Some of the trends which are traced are positive, some are negative,

but in general obstacles along the path of regional transformation are

such that relative tranquillity and sluggish development, combined with

peaceful dissatisfaction may emerge as the most preferable trend.

Although the scenarios have been put in the order of preference, in a

region so volatile as the Caucasus, this order could easily be disrupted.

80

���

Out-migration so characteristic in major parts ofthe region throughout the last decade of the20th century drops to a negligible level inGeorgia and Armenia, as these countries simplyexhaust their population export potential. Onthe other hand, rural-urban migration intensi-fies, with smaller towns losing their populationto the capitals and local development poles.Inequality in population distribution thusincreases. On the other hand, the Russianautonomies and Azerbaijan, with relatively highlevels of natural growth, will continue to supplylarge numbers of migrants to main Russianurban centres, especially Moscow. Such popula-tion movements occasionally lead to strainedrelations as a result of ethnic hostilities. InDagestan, in addition to already observed out-migration of population from regions adjacentto Chechnya, a new flow of migrants emergesdue to lands being affected by the rising levelof the Caspian Sea, with a similar situationobserved in Azerbaijan.

The level of the regional economic integrationincreases, albeit slowly. Towards the secondpart of the scenario period, this may lead to theformalisation of such relationships, althoughnot yet at the level of creating some type ofregional economic union.

Environmental problems will remain rather lowon the scale of priorities, both for governmentsof the region as well as for the population,although constantly mentioned by those in posi-tions of authority. All countries of the regionwill formally subscribe to most major interna-tional conventions, adopt environmental lawsand create appropriate institutions, but willhardly ever apply them. Those environmentalmeasures that are taken will be relatively ineffi-cient, and no radical changes in current envi-ronmental policies will take place.

The main reason will be an elementary shortageof resources (more evident in the SouthCaucasus than in Russia), corruption and awidespread absence of environmental aware-ness. As currently, environmental problemswill mainly be dealt with if they lead to somekind of disaster, or if an outside government orinternational body is interested in its solutionand finances the appropriate operations.

The most evident development for the SouthCaucasus will be emergence of a transportation

31 Allen Hammond in his Which World? Scenarios for 21stCentury also omits this scenario while talking about Russia. Hesays - "I omit Transformed World scenario because even a MarketWorld depends on a successful political and economic transitionthat is, in effect, a profound transformation of Russian society"(p.218).

Generally speaking, the prospects of develop-ment for the Caucasus region are such that thefourth GEO-3 scenario Sustainability First wassimply not considered applicable31. Instead,Market World has been used as an example ofradical changes of policies and social transfor-mations. There is thus the assumption that realmarket transformations of the type EasternEuropean candidates for EU membership arecurrently undergoing are the most radical,improbable and perhaps desirable that couldtake place in the Caucasus region. In place ofthe Market World scenario, the baseline sce-nario developed is called Status Quo and makesthe assumption the current balance of powerand relative stability in the region will lastthroughout the period until at least 2030.

A Status Quo scenario sees general peace andtranquility in the region. Regional conflicts inthe South Caucasus are settled in a way thatfully satisfies no parties involved, but still pro-motes relative stability, observation of humanrights and the rule of law, resettlement of mostrefugees, and the opening of now isolatedregions to the outside world and their integra-tion into the regional economy. This also pro-motes border security and a relative reductionof smuggling, especially arms trade and traf-ficking. Improved internal stability also encour-ages greater access to world markets.

All regional players persist with economicreform policies they formally began a decadeago, but the actual pace of economic develop-ment is slow, even sluggish. It takes a long timeuntil the region as a whole reaches even thepre-1990s level of economic development.Actually, the Caucasus continues to sufferthrough one low-intensity economic crisis afteranother, interspersed by short periods of inten-sive growth. Technological and business inno-vations spread, but are mainly restricted tomajor urban centres and development poles.The level of integration in the world economyremains relatively low, and is mainly represent-ed by commercial transit traffic, fuel and someagricultural commodities' exports.

81

���

corridor serving as the main outlet towards theworld market for the Central Asian countries.Besides increasing incomes and boosting therelevant economic sectors in Azerbaijan andGeorgia, this strongly adds to the growing vol-ume of air pollution and noise, as well as theloss of valuable agriculture land for road andrail construction. Waste dumping along theseroutes (especially from numerous small foodand other retail service outlets) emerges as anadditional problem.

Georgia will be the country most seriouslyaffected, since the main generally east-westtransportation corridor will be supplementedhere by reconstructed north-south highways,allowing year-round transit between Russia andGeorgian Black Sea ports. Only far into the sec-ond half of the scenario period will some effi-cient measures to ameliorate this situation beimplemented.

Port development will also cause plenty of con-cern, especially at Novorossiisk and Anapa inRussia. Especially in the former case, a large-scale development along the very narrowcoastal zone side-by-side with the only Russiansea resort area will lead to numerous environ-mental problems, mostly in the form of seawater pollution, coastal erosion, land degrada-tion etc.

Coastal zone problems will strongly affect boththe east and west shorelines of the region, espe-cially in the absence of efficiently-applied legis-lation regarding coastal zone protection andmanagerial practices, as well as a lack of coor-dination among different states of the region.Rising Caspian Sea levels, as well as growingpetroleum and gas exploitation, will only add tothe general degradation.

Besides being affected by the main transporta-tion corridors, air pollution will also increasethroughout the leading urban centres of theregion, mainly because the demand for cars willdefinitely outpace the reconstruction of trans-port infrastructure, enforcement of road regula-tions and better traffic planning.

The quality of the urban environment will alsodegrade during most of the scenario period, dueto deteriorating infrastructure of (especially)housing, a lack of financial and materialresources for their maintenance and inefficiencyof local community services.

Degradation will be more pronounced in partsof the South Caucasus where constructionbegan earlier; Russian urban centres will beaffected later in the period. Often this will leavethe local population more exposed to earth-quakes through weakened construction, poorroads and other infrastructure. Some improve-ment in the situation will be noticeable only bythe end of the period.

The problem of access to safe drinking watersources, rather than a wider problem of waterpollution, will gradually emerge throughout theregion, as water supply and wastewater treat-ment systems (where they exist) will deterioratemore rapidly than they can be replaced. Thiswill lead to outbreaks of dangerous infectiousdiseases, especially in the eastern part of theregion.

In general, the region will be characterized by agradually diminishing role for industry as amajor factor affecting environmental quality.Instead, industry will be supplanted by suchsectors as agriculture, forestry and transport. Atthe same time, inherited industrial waste andpollution will not be cleaned up and thusremains a latent danger throughout the region.The mining industry will largely retain potentialfor growth, but this process will develop slowlyand take a long time until pollution in theindustry reaches pre-1990 levels, even assum-ing environmental protection measures arelargely neglected.

Negative consequences of deforestationprocesses in Georgia and Armenia that emergedin the early 1990s as a reaction to the energycrisis will be felt throughout the scenario peri-od. Although the overall area logged is verysmall compared to the region as a whole, itaffects the most environmentally sensitiveareas. Especially in parts of the WesternGeorgian mountains, this will cause a situationwhen tens of thousands of people will live vir-tually on top of environmental hazards, whereexcessive rain or snowfall may cause massivelife-threatening landslides, mudflows and otherdangerous processes.

In Armenia and Eastern Georgia, the same log-ging will add to already widespread desertifica-tion processes, leading to abandonment of valu-able agricultural lands. It will also cause adeficit of drinking water, especially in rural

82

���

areas. Many natural tourism sites will bestrongly devalued throughout the region aswell.

Although illegal and unsustainable logging inthe region will finally be reduced, selected log-ging of valuable tree species will continuethroughout the western part of the Caucasus,where it is easier to export them from theregion. Biodiversity degradation in affectedareas will be noticeable. The rural populationwill also continue using forests as fuelwoodsources throughout the scenario period, due torelatively high energy prices and widespreadpoverty. Overgrazing will also cause problems,especially in the transition areas between forestsand the alpine zone. Reforestation will be inad-equate or totally absent.

Agricultural land use will continue to shrinkthroughout the region, more as a spontaneousreaction to changing economic and environmen-tal conditions, rather than as a result of plannedreforms. In many cases, this will lead torestoration of pre-agricultural landscapes, butalso in some cases, the creation of vast waste-land areas. In large areas of the western part ofthe Russian Caucasus, this will emerge as anenvironmental crisis, due to water-intensiveagricultural practices and over-exploitation.

In Western Georgia, thousands of hectares offormer tea plantations will become fertileground for numerous imported weeds, and betransformed into "aggressive" landscapesincompatible with the indigenous local plantand animal species.

Agricultural land use will also shrink through-out the Eastern Caucasus as a result of continu-ous desertification processes, degradation ofirrigation systems and outdated agriculturalpractices. This will routinely be accompaniedby salinization of soils.

In Dagestan, on the other hand, growing trans-formation of land for agricultural use willemerge under the pressure of population and apersistent patriarchal model of management.Growing deforestation and erosion, especiallyon mountain slopes, will accompany thisprocess.

The disorganization of previously existing agri-cultural consulting services and poor qualitycontrol of farm products will lead to emergence

of an additional hazard, especially evident inthe relatively smaller farmsteads of the SouthCaucasus and Russian autonomies. Farmers willuse the cheapest available pesticides and herbi-cides as well as other chemicals, often of dubi-ous origin, untested or even prohibited for usein more developed countries. The low generallevel of "agricultural literacy" will only exacer-bate the situation through improper applicationof these chemicals. Numerous cases of poison-ing and general health scares will accompanythis process, while measures undertaken bylocal authorities will be inefficient and oftenapplied only "after the fact".

It will take a number of serious crises and atleast until the middle of the scenario perioduntil a new type of agricultural economy, basedon technology and modern managerial practiceswill emerge. This process will take especiallylong in the steppe regions of the western part ofthe Russian Caucasus, where the residual col-lectivist agricultural land management and own-ership traditions are deeply ingrained in localfarming traditions.

Throughout the region, conflicts between press-ing subsistence needs of the local population,and the necessity to establish and maintain pro-tected areas will be evident. In some cases, thiswill lead to revision in the status of such areas,or abandonment of plans to establish new ones.Remaining natural habitats, especially along theGeorgian part of the Black Sea coast will comeunder growing pressure from development proj-ects, and attempts to protect them will not bealways successful, especially during the firsthalf of the scenario period.

Under the "status quo" scenario, tourism willnot play a significant role in regional develop-ment, with the exception of the Black Sea coastwhere growing demands for holiday and leisurevisits at sea resorts will lead to redevelopmentof the Abkhazian coastal zone, as well as thesouthern slopes of the Caucasus range. Thiswill only occur towards the end of the firstdecade of this century, by which time locallandscapes will be properly "rested" and lessvulnerable to human impacts. Land manage-ment and development practices will also benoticeably improved as compared to earlier.

Local geological processes will intensifythroughout the region, especially in mountain-

83

���

ous areas. Many parts of Armenia and Georgiawill be endangered by land and mudslides,which will also be life threatening in someregions of Azerbaijan, parts of the central andeastern North Caucasus, and especially on thesouthern slopes of the North Caucasus at theBlack Sea coast. These processes will routinelycause infrastructural damage and heavy materialloses, and occasionally lead to evacuation oflocal populations and loss of life.

The Downfall scenario displays a world ofchaos and degeneration arriving in theCaucasus. Under this scheme, governance ingeneral and law-and-order in particular in theregion deteriorate, due to a number of bothexternal and internal forces (economic stagna-tion, population movements, weakness of cen-tral authorities etc.). In addition, global factorsas played out in the region (notably, the anti-terrorist movement) have the impact of de-legit-imising current governments and putting greateremphasis on reinforcing national military sec-tors, rather than fledgling market economiesand relatively weak central governments. Thestates' armed forces instead become alternativecentres of power and the predominant recipientsof external funding from Western and othergovernments.

Under the pressures of externally de-stabilisingforces and internal pressures, the relativelyweak governmental structures of the SouthCaucasus countries - Armenia, Azerbaijan andGeorgia - all but completely break down. Theireconomies grind to a halt, daily commerce andutilities cease to function and the general levelof life falls to a near-unbearable level. Peoplefrom all three countries begin departing again,some returning to the countryside to survivefrom the land, some standing in line in front offoreign embassies seeking permission tomigrate abroad.

Real law-and-order ceases to exist, with armedcriminal gangs roaming the countryside. In theend, governments are back where they were inthe beginning of the 1990s, controlling only thecapital cities, and even those rather tenuously.Strong support from abroad proves incapable ofstemming the overall decline, and foreign pow-ers eventually abandon their attempts to use theSouth Caucasus countries as a base for fighting"international terrorism".

Gradually, the region as a whole turns into aninternational pariah, neglected by internationaldonors and constantly under threat of sanctionsfor allegedly "supporting" terrorism. After someyears the situation eventually settles down, butat a much lower economic level than the early2000s. With the entire region impoverished,economies in shreds and services mostly non-functioning, there is little hope of a better life tooffer long-suffering populations, leave alone tolure back foreign investors et al. to help rebuildthe region.

Huge foreign funds invested in the oil and gasindustry are not long able to act as a seriousbraking factor to the armed redistribution ofpower, and investors leave en masse.Eventually, local clans take over but inheritcountries in ruins and with serious oppositionpresented by Islamic fundamentalists, who havein the meantime become popular during yearsof unrest and instability.

Under circumstances such as these with amajority of the population struggling merely forsurvival, there is no place for environmentalpriorities. Environmental problems either"solve themselves" in what can be seen as natu-ral or spontaneous ways, or are largely ignoredand/or become aggravated.

Two opposing trends can mainly be observed.On the one hand, disruption of agriculture andmassive outflow of population leaves largeareas of lands unattended. These turn back intonatural landscapes, a process that in mountain-ous areas with sufficient precipitation, as wellas in parts of the western Georgian lowlands, isbeneficial for nature. Natural habitats arerestored and animal species abound. Formerlyirrigated territories throughout the region turninto salinated steppes or semi-desert badlands,unfit for exploitation without huge investments.

On the other hand, territories under cultivationare over-exploited by the population which can-not provide necessary inputs in the form of fer-tilizers, machines, seeds etc., and relies heavilyon manual labour and traditional methods ofland cultivation. Land plots are often used forcultivation of drugs.

Forests within easy reach of the population aresubject to intensive felling and various uses,since often they are the only source of fuel,food and general income for the locals.

84

���

Geological processes (erosion, landslides, mud-slides) within populated territories are intensi-fied: aside from damage done by logging andsoil erosion, neither the state nor private sectorpossesses enough resources to control theseprocesses as before. Threats of natural process-es to people, communications, roads and otherinfrastructure thus continue to increase.

Lack of drinking water becomes a problemthroughout much of the region, often leading toabandonment of settlements and occasionalconflicts over access of safe water sources.Various diseases caused by poor water qualityabound and worse, repeated droughts lead toimpoverishment of much of the rural populationand isolated cases of famine. Epidemics ofinfectious diseases such as cholera and dysen-tery break out and spread since, given currentconditions (deterioration and further disruptionof health care systems), they are not efficientlyfought, and foreign aid for this purpose is bothinsufficient and arrives too late.

During periods of unrest, numerous oil and gaspipelines criss-crossing the region becomeprime objects of terrorist attacks, with cata-strophic consequences for both the local popu-lation and natural habitats. Petroleum pipelinesare routinely drilled in order to get raw oil forhousehold and personal use, and thus spillagesabound which turn hundreds of square kilome-tres into polluted wastelands.

Disposal and treatment of wastes become a seri-ous problem, since removal services are closeto failure, even in leading urban centres, andnon-existent elsewhere. There is little or nowaste-water treatment, and sewage systems incities are badly maintained and leaking, whichoften leads to pollution of drinking water, dam-age to buildings' foundations etc. On the otherhand, the massive reduction in industrial outputhas the effect of reducing levels of water pollu-tion to a minimum.

Protected areas in close proximity to humanpopulation become virtually extinct, remainingonly in a rudimentary form. On the other hand,coastal areas are in much better shape thanbefore, because with little or no tourism andfew other activities, they often revert to rela-tively pristine conditions.

In short, the "Downfall Scenario" brings eco-nomic and social ruin to a region which has

known more than its fair share of these plaguesduring the late 20th century, and in general aswell an over-whelming neglect of environmen-tal issues, due to disease, general disorder andpoverty. The only instances where improve-ments in the state of environment may be notedare paradoxically through remediation by non-management or depopulation of certain zones,as opposed to active government policies tobring about change for the better. Pure physicalsurvival becomes the watchword for all but thesmallest (most well-off) fragment of the popula-tion, and certainly any concerted attempt toaddress environmental problems as a collectiveeffort in the region will take years or evendecades.

A Caucasus Market World. By 2010, the entireCaucasus region has undergone a series of dem-ocratic transformations and become increasing-ly stable, setting the scene for sustained growthand even movement towards the developmentof a regional economy and the related underpin-ning institutions. The Russian Federation, forexample, has not only become a full member ofNATO, but is gradually approaching member-ship in the European Union, with the states ofthe South Caucasus perhaps not far behind.

Long-existing regional conflicts/disputes aremostly solved through successful political dia-log and the participation of European structures,securing transition to a new order of relation-ships in this region, and engaging all players inmainstream democratic reforms and markettransformations.

For example, total restructuring of the agricul-tural sector, including a shift to individual landownership, takes place and a new, fiercely com-petitive agricultural sector emerges. It is upheldby the strong development of storage and pro-cessing facilities, and farmers cease fearinghigh yields of grain crops such as corn andwheat. Growing pan-European economic inte-gration turns this region into a main supplier ofEuropean markets, gradually leading to theabandonment of outdated pesticide-and water-intensive practices.

All countries of the region actively participatein concerted efforts to fight cross-boundarycrimes and terrorism, although it is well into thesecond decade of the 21st century until thesemeasures bring real results.

85

���

In the South Caucasus, governments areincreasingly devoted to market reform and dem-ocratic transformations. They manage to curbthe appetites of corrupt bureaucracies and openthe way to development of the private sector,especially beneficial for the emerging middleclass, securing in the process the presence offoreign investors in the country. With construc-tive American and Russian cooperation, as wellas the participation of international structures,the countries eventually manage to solve theexisting territorial problems through interna-tional mediation. Although some general mis-trust and resentment remain, the countries beginvarious forms of economic cooperation and par-ticipate in joint regional efforts.

The regional economy expands vigorously,technological and business innovations spreadrapidly and foreign capital flows in. As invest-ments and the general business atmospherebecome more secure, former emigrants from theregion begin to return, bringing with them capi-tal amassed elsewhere and further spurring theeconomy. Since all these countries aspire toEU membership, they work hard to harmonizetheir laws and managerial mechanisms withexisting European ones, which in turn leads toever-growing regional cooperation and estab-lishment of a number of joint structures.

Rapid economic growth leads to increasingpressure on the natural environment throughoutthe region, which gradually leads to pollutionlevels comparable to, if not exceeding, pre-1990s ones. Initially, this growth will be con-centrated in sectors that can be developed with-out serious managerial and policy innovations.It is mainly concentrated in already existing orplanned industries and infrastructure, often revi-talizing old Soviet enterprises, and includesdevelopment of the most easily extractable min-eral deposits, even if they are not economicallyviable in the end and are thus soon abandoned.

Transport in general and industry (especiallymining) are the main sectors exploited in thisgame. Development of new unclean industriesalong the main petroleum and gas pipelinescriss-crossing the region only adds to growingpollution. In cities, transport and housingdevelopment outpace infrastructural develop-ment, leading to rapid growth of air pollution,shortages of drinking water, waste-water runoff,numerous local land-and mudslides and remo-val of plant cover.

It takes nearly two decades before such nega-tive processes are finally curbed and in someinstances reversed. Only far into the lastdecade of the scenario period, with growingintegration in the international economy andaccelerating globalization trends, is sufficientpressure exerted on local governments for themto adopt comprehensive environmental policieswhich have mitigating effects on transport,industry and urban infrastructural development.

Everywhere throughout the region, demands innew energy (both local and imported) for theexpanding economy clearly outpace the intro-duction of new, energy-efficient technologies.Although alternative energy production basedon local clean energy sources such as thermalwater, wind and solar power will be widely uti-lized, overall greenhouse gas emissions in theregion will grow and eventually cause concernin regard to meeting Kyoto Protocol targets.

Deforestation processes will be the easiest tocurb, through more efficient application ofalready existing laws and regulations andtighter border controls, but this will only takeplace by the second decade of the century.Some early attempts to introduce forest planta-tions will be made. Negative impacts of thislogging in the forms of desertification, localgeological processes and water deficits will befelt throughout a major part of the region wellafter the end of the scenario period. The dangerto the population in the most adversely affectedareas will remain high.

Agriculture will go through a series of transfor-mations until at last more sustainable agricultur-al practices emerge. This will not happen uni-versally throughout the region. Old patriarchalpractices will still prevail in the eastern part ofthe North Caucasus and parts of Azerbaijanwith rapid population growth, leading toincreasing pressure on the land with the antici-pated consequences.

In Armenia, Georgia and part of Azerbaijan,agricultural restructuring will lead to the emer-gence of a modern sustainable sector based onproducing ecologically grown fruit and vegeta-bles for the pan-European market. This will befollowed by abandonment of many inefficientsites, which will revert to more "natural"ecosystems. Much land area in the EasternCaucasus will be abandoned due to desertifica-tion, erosion and salinization.

86

���

Inherited pollution and degradation will not beproperly cleared and additional pollution willoccur during the scenario period, due to theexistence of more pressing priorities than envi-ronmental ones, mainly in the realms of eco-nomic development and fighting poverty.

On the other hand, in developing some highlyprofitable sectors of the economy, environmen-tal considerations will be of paramount impor-tance. Appropriate policies and laws will bedeveloped, coordinated and vigorously pursuedby all states of the region. Tourism will play anincreasingly important role for regional devel-opment (especially in the Western Caucasus) asinfrastructure develops, the rule of law isextended and the security of visitors is guaran-teed.

Ecological tourism will become widespread inthe Western Caucasus, which in turn will leadto the growing importance of protecting naturalareas. The number and area of officially pro-tected areas will grow, with their status beingupgraded as well, and new, comprehensive stan-dards and managerial practices will be intro-duced and enforced. Efforts to reclaim impor-tant sites damaged by logging will also getunder way.

Tourism development along the Black Sea coastwill lead to coordination of efforts betweenGeorgia and Russia to develop appropriate pro-tection legislation and managerial practices,increasingly based on EU standards. Similarprocesses will develop in regard to the CaspianSea coast, endangered by rising sea levels and,at least on occasion, oil pollution from newfields being developed and exploited.

Throughout the region, new instruments tointroduce and implement environmental policiesare developed, although with varying success.This leads to application of measures that wereunder-utilized or totally absent in the past, suchas pricing, land use planning, zoning rules andinfrastructure policies. Environmental educationand information dissemination for all strata ofthe population will become a far more powerfulpolicy instrument, even if their effects do notextend to all is parts of the region. By the endof the scenario period, environmental problemswill be considered on a par with social and eco-nomic development by both local governmentsand parts of the broader public.

Three very different futures for the Caucasusregion have been presented in the precedingpages; in reality, the future is likely to consistof some combination of all three situationsdescribed. What is critical for readers of thisreport is to realise, in essence, that "the future isin our hands". That is, quite literally, decisionstaken now by governments and civil society, aswell as individuals, will have real impacts and atendency to take the region down one or anoth-er of these paths into the future. At the veryleast, it is hoped that by describing differentfates for the Caucasus, that wiser decisions canand will be taken by the multiple actors of soci-ety who have a role to play in determining thefuture.

87

���

of fires with consequent pollution of the atmos-phere, oil spills resulting from attacks on oilstorage tanks, and many other direct or indirectconsequences. The harmful effects of theseincidents could be seen not only in conflictzones themselves, but in neighbouring districtsas well. The impact of air pollution during theChechen War was observed in neighbouringDagestan, for instance.

Refugee camps became new "hot-spots", con-tributing to environmental pollution in theregion. This was especially the case inAzerbaijan and Ingushetia, where hundreds ofrefugees live in unsanitary conditions, and thereare few if any treatment facilities to handlerelated waste products.

New tendencies of pollution caused by munici-pal services are observed in the Caucasusrecently. While during Soviet times, cities werewell-equipped with central heating systems,such services currently does not operate inArmenia or Georgia and are compensated forby use of firewood, gas or kerosene stoves.Municipal services in the region generally arein a very poor condition, and sewage, waterpipes and electric supply are often out of order,factors which can eventually have catastrophiceffects on environmental conditions there.

Thus, the observed trend of changing impactson the environment is closely related to theintensity of industrial and agricultural produc-tion and transportation. However, the decreasein economic activities is not always accompa-nied by similar decreases in environmentalimpacts. In the Caucasus, despite decliningproduction capacities, additional negativeimpacts on the environment are still takingplace, due to obsolescence or complete absenceof pollution control equipment.

In general during the last 30 years, there hasbeen little or no significant change in the bio-logical diversity of the Caucasus. Major lossesamong animal life and rare floristic species tookplace in the 19th and first half of the 20th cen-turies. Currently, one sees only quantitativechanges resulting from a reduction in specificrare species, mainly due to poaching. Thequantity of some single populations of rare andsome herbal species is also being reduced,caused either by illegal or extremely extensiveharvesting.

The general trend of impacts on the Caucasusenvironment is of the nature of regular increas-es, starting from the 1970s and lasting until the1990s. After that, a sharp decline and then,more recently again, minor increases wereobserved. As a result, the intensity of impactson the environment in 2000-2001 was veryclose to the levels of 1970s, and in some caseseven less.

In different parts of the Caucasus, this trend ofdecreasing environmental impacts appears indifferent ways and to a varying extent.Generally, it is less distinct in the NorthCaucasus. Within the South Caucasus states,decreasing environmental impacts are mostclearly seen in Georgia and then Armenia andAzerbaijan. As for the North Caucasus, adecrease of environmental impacts is lessnoticeable in Krasnodar and Stavropol kraysthan in the various autonomies.

The major sources of impacts on environmentare also changing. Whereas in the 1970s and1980s, stationary and mobile sources were themajor sources of atmospheric air pollution, atthe end of the 1990s, the share of mobile pollu-tant sources (auto transport) increased dramati-cally and became predominant.

The same is happening in terms of water pollu-tion. In contrast to the 1970s and 1980s, theshare of industrial and agricultural pollution hasdecreased, and the role of municipal sources ofpollution has increased.

Soil contamination used to be very high inSoviet times because of the intensive use ofmineral fertilizers and pesticides. However, as aresult of the decline in agricultural productionand concentration on local markets only, soilcontamination by pesticides and other chemi-cals was greatly reduced in the 1990s.

Armed conflicts contributed significantly to thepollution of the Caucasus environment in the1990s. Apart from direct impacts on the envi-ronment, these conflicts caused a great number

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SYNOPSIS

5.1 Conclusions

1. The general trend of impacts

2. Biological diversity

88

���

During the last 30 years, the Caucasus popula-tion has been steadily growing. However, popu-lation growth has different trends in differentparts of the Caucasus. Growth was more exten-sive in regions with predominantly Muslim tra-ditions (Azerbaijan and the majority ofautonomies in the North Caucasus).

In the first 20 years (1970-90), populationgrowth was regulated mainly by the dynamicsof birth and death rates. In the last decade,migration processes and refugee flows fromconflict zones played a more important role inpopulation changes.

The ethnic distribution in the Caucasian stateshas rapidly changed, becoming in general moremono-ethnic. One reason for this may be migra-tion and refugee flows, due partially to flightfrom conflict zones.

The percentage of urban population has notincreased very rapidly (only by 4%). Also, theamount of land covered by urban areas remainslow. Cities do not influence the environmentvery much, and thus the threat of urbanizationis not a priority environmental issue for theCaucasus.

It appears mostly coincidental that the mostintensive natural disasters which occurred dur-ing the last 30 years in the Caucasus happenedduring the years (1987-91) when maximumanthropogenic environmental impacts were alsoobserved. While direct "geographical determin-ism" does not offer real explanations for theseprocesses, it is clear that over-population ofsome areas (in Ajara, Georgia for instance) pro-voked activation of landslides, eventually caus-ing major economic damage to the region.

Significant damage of the 1987 avalanche inSvaneti, Georgia is a result of "disregard" tohistoric experiences. The avalanche destroyedonly new buildings, whereas most old towersand fortifications survived.

There were many factors and occurrenceswhich could not have been foreseen 30 yearsago, including:

The area of protected territories has increasedover the last 30 years, from 898,000 to13,035,000 ha (from 2% to 3% of the Caucasus'total land area), and the total number from 37 to46 over the last 15 years, for instance.However, many protected areas exist on paperonly, or intensive cattle pasturing or poachingare occurring there.

The structure of protected areas during the lastdecade has changed. While in the SovietUnion, there were only two types of protectedareas (nature reserves and managed naturereserves or "zakazniks"), the current number ofcategories has increased. The Georgian protect-ed areas' network, for instance, now includessix categories: national park, nature reserve,managed nature reserve, nature monument, pro-tected landscape and area of multi-purpose use.

Officially, the total land area designated asforestland has increased. This is caused by thefact that in Soviet times, part of the forests wereowned by the State Forests Fund("Goslesfond"), and in the post-Soviet erabecause local authorities could not managethem properly, some collective farm("kolkhoz") forests have also been moved tothis same category.

Because of de-population of some mountainregions (for example, Racha in Georgia), anintensive shift of formerly agricultural lands toforested areas is observed. Commercial logginghas declined, the quality of roads has gottenworse, machinery has deteriorated etc. Allthese factors have led to a reduction in pres-sures on forest ecosystems. Change in climaticconditions may also be leading to a complex ifpoorly understood series of … backgroundimpacts on growth of forested areas.

However, forest "quality" has changed in a neg-ative sense. Highly productive trees have beenreplaced by less productive species, rare speciesare being cut more extensively and highly pro-ductive trees are diminishing in number.

An extreme increase in illegal forest cutting,especially in those districts of Georgia(Adigeni, Borjomi, Adjaria and Samegrelo)where illegal timber export to Turkey is takingplace, is also observed.

3. Forests and related problems

4. Population

5. Disasters

6. The "Unforeseeable"

89

���

a. The collapse of the FSU and the related general decline of economic production.

b. The formation of new sovereign countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) and their independent existence.

c. The formation of "not officially recognized"but de-facto territorial units (Abkhazia, Chechnya, Karabakh, South Ossetia) with local governance, as well as the strong local power of autonomous republics and regions ("oblasts").

d. The high level of ethnic conflicts (although some "ethnic competition" was already apparent), and environmental problems associated with them.

e. The change in the development structure of the Caucasus: the failure of recreation and tourism infrastructures, the change in the more traditional orientation of agriculture, the sharp decline of industrial production; and linked to this, the intensity and range of impacts on the environment.

f. The collapse of city infrastructure and deterioration of communal services. A kind of blurring or "functional deterioration" among the urban population (although officially they still live in cities, their main incomes are generated from primitive agriculture in suburban land parcels). Instead of central heating systems, many urban as well as all rural dwellers use firewood or kerosene stoves.

g. The possibility of Azerbaijan and Georgia becoming a transport pathway (corridor) between Europe and Central Asia, and the whole Caucasus transition from being a semi-closed zone to a transit region with a rapid increase of trade turnover with Iran and Turkey.

h. The rapid decline of impacts on the environment, reduced pollution and the loss of interest in many environmental problems that were critical for society in the 1970s and 1980s.

a. Pipelines. Increased interest in the Caucasusis caused by recently discovered oil- and

gas-fields in the Eastern Caucasus and Central Asia, and the challenge of transporting these products to markets. Two alternative projects, the northerly (through the North Caucasus in the Russian Federation) and southerly directions (through Azerbaijanand Georgia), are already being designed. One southerly route (Baku Supsa oil pipeline) is already functioning. Currently, the project design for the southerly route's major pipe system from Baku to Ceyhan (Turkey) that will pass Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey is ongoing.

b. Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA). This is a new function of the South Caucasus, a transportation corridor linking Europe to Central Asia throughGeorgia and Azerbaijan. This transportationsystem to a certain extent is already functioning. It transports oil from Baku to Batumi by railroad and transit cargo by highways Poti (Batumi) to Tbilisi (Yerevan) from Turkey and Iran. It is planned to develop these routes further in the future. However, it is expected that the transit function will significantly affect environmental quality in the South Caucasus along the pathof the transportation corridor route. Therefore, it is necessary to take all possiblemeasures to avoid potential environmental impacts.

c. Regional tourism can also attract interest inthe Caucasus, although it is not expected that the level of the 1980s could be achieved, when millions of Soviet citizens were spending their vacations in the Caucasus. High tourist flows were not only due to the climate and recreational potential,but also to the "Iron Curtain's" strongly restricting tourism outside of the Soviet Union. There are also possibilities to develop the Black Sea resorts of the North Caucasus (between Anapa and Sochi), Georgia (Kobuleti-Batumi) and possibly (if the situation stabilizes) the Abkhazian part of Georgia (Gagra-Pitsunda-Sukhumi). The Caspian Sea will probably take on a more local function for recreational purposes. There are also good possibilities for developing winter resorts, as well as mountain climbing and hiking (alpinism). But because of state barriers (boundaries), as well as conflicts zones and insufficient security, these

7. Factors now drawing attention to theCaucasus Region

90

���

would for the time being, at least, have somelimitations. Eco-tourism and recreation in rural areas would also seem to have a good chance of being developed.

d. Agriculture will hardly achieve the level of Soviet times, and probably only continue to have regional significance. Kuban and Stavropol in the North Caucasus would still play a critical role for the Russian Federation's agriculture. Intensity of agricultural processes in the South Caucasus will depend on the demands of local markets. However, some products (Kakhetian wine ofGeorgia, for instance) could also gain a regional market. Because of the very high competition in the international market, the sub-tropical agriculture of the Caucasus, once very advanced, has little chance to sur-vive even at the regional level, and is likely to turn towards production for local use only.

e. Because of low economic potential, industrial production would only be suitable for local and occasionally regional markets.

a. This is a relatively unaffected "island" in terms of the natural world, and at the same time very distinct due to its high biological diversity for the temperate and sub-tropical climate zones.

b. The Caucasus is also very distinct in having one of the highest levels of landscape diversity. Nearly 40% of all world landscape types are represented here, and thus the Caucasus is truly one of the "world's landscape laboratories".

c. Much of the Caucasus is thinly populated and thus nature is relatively well-preserved. Nowhere else in the Europe can one observeas many diverse virgin landscapes as in the Caucasus.

d. Many Caucasus regions still have a very lowlevel of environmental pollution. This is a significant asset that can be used for recre-ational and touristic purposes.

e. The Caucasus is very rich in its cultural heritage and ethnic diversity, a factor that can

8. The Caucasus perspectives from otherview points

attract attention of many people from different parts of the world.

f. Overall, probably the most exceptional feature of the Caucasus is its high conservation level, extended network of protected areas and preservation of relatively untouched natural resources and a clean environment.

Having analysed the trends of changes in theCaucasus environment over the last 30 years,assessed the present state of the Caucasus statesand territories, and considered the basic tenden-cies of the development of the Caucasus fromthe point of view of near-future potential, it isnow useful to provide some recommendationsfor measures to be put in place and activities tobe carried out. These recommendations wouldallow for the mitigation of negative trendsobserved, and reducing the threat of environ-mental degradation in the Caucasus.

The recommendations for the activities andmeasures are divided into two groups. The firstgroup, including general recommendationsdeveloped by UNEP in connection with theproject GEO-2000, should be interpreted in thelight of specific conditions of the Caucasianregion. The other group will include the mosturgent (present-day) recommendations thatshould be put into practice in the near future,and for most of which financing is required asrapidly as possible.

In accordance with the GEO-2000 Report,UNEP's recommendations are to focus on fourkey directions in the future, consequently to:

. Eliminate gaps in knowledge;

. Address the root causes;

. Apply an integrated approach;

. Mobilize efforts.

There are linkages among these directions, suchthat success in one will influence the rest and,on the contrary, an unsuccessful solution to oneof these proposals would lead to negativeeffects in the other fields of activity. It is useful

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 General Recommendations

91

���

to examine how these directions are interpretedin the context of the Caucasian region.

Elimination of Gaps in Knowledge. Alongwith the recommended measures proposed inGEO-2000 (definition of the set of indices forthe determination of the state of environment,selection and collection of global assessmentson sustainable development, improvement ofmonitoring and data standards and others), thefollowing issues are also very current for theCaucasus:

- Elaboration of concerted (coordinated, agreed) methodology of monitoring of the state of environment and creation of a com-mon network of ambient monitoring in the countries of the Caucasus region. Establishment of monitoring systems should also include the development of quality assurance and quality control systems, whichwill guarantee data reliability and validity.

- Elucidation of the issues on how the state of the environment of one region affects the state of another, for example, defining the directions of prevailing winds and their role in the pollution of the environment of neigh-boring regions, defining the effects of trans-boundary rivers on the state of environment, study of the new transport corridors and howthey contribute to pollution of the environ-ment.

- How global processes affect the state of environment of the Caucasus, and the assessment of the role of the Caucasus in theglobal environmental processes.

- Study of the negative experience of environmental pollution in the former Soviet Union,with the purpose of preventing similar mistakes in future.

Addressing the Root Causes. In the GEO-2000 report, a number of generally recommend-ed activities of a global nature are proposed:limiting population size, changing consumptionpatterns, increasing the efficiency of resourceuse and carrying out structural transformationsin economies. As this study showed, currentlyin the Caucasus, these original (primary) rea-sons for environmental degradation and pollu-tion are being transformed in a specific way.This is connected with the fact that the process-es of environmental change in the Caucasus

very often differ from global trends. For exam-ple, in a number of areas of the Caucasus, thepopulation is decreasing and the problems ofde-population come to the foreground, contraryto over-population. Due to the economicdecline, environmental pollution has signifi-cantly declined. But at the same time, impover-ishment of the population has increased andnew negative forms of environmental impactsare emerging. This could very well be illustrat-ed by the illegal woodcutting that has causedsignificant degradation of forests in a number ofareas of the Caucasus. The absence of financesfor restructuring of enterprises led to the shut-down of a number of mining enterprises (e.g.output of coal in Tkibuli, manganese inChiatura, etc.), which resulted in large-scaleunemployment in these districts and sharplyaggravated the social situation, not only in theselocations but also in neighboring cities, particu-larly in the capitals (high crime rate, problemsconnected with unemployment). It was notonly armed conflicts that negatively affected theCaucasus, but the consequences of these con-flicts which were no less serious. It should berecalled that at present, various types ofmigrants (refugees, internally displaced people)constitute 12% of the population of theCaucasus.

Application of an Integrated Approach. Theapplication of an integrated approach is particu-larly important for such a complex and diverseregion as the Caucasus. Actually, any reason-able measures aimed at protecting the environ-ment applied in the past were based on an inte-grated approach. Scientific schools of the for-mer Soviet Union were characterized by a highdegree of complexity in research and studies.Thus, achievements of landscape studies inphysical geography were both remarkable andhighly successful. In ecology, this led to thedevelopment of bio-geocineology and economicgeography, and teaching on "territorial-indus-trial complexes". Certainly over the last tenyears a significant decline in scientific researchhas taken place. However, there still exists suf-ficient human resources capable of applyingsuch an integrated approach for environmentalprotection activities, on the basis of the pastrich experience, combined with the latest devel-opments in Western countries.

Mobilization of Efforts. Mobilization ofefforts assumes the involvement of all stake-

92

���

holders (individual citizens, communities andNGOs, the private sector, national authoritiesand others) in the elaboration and implementa-tion of measures for environmental protection.Environmental awareness is one of the mostimportant issues for the Caucasus. Hence, it isparticularly important to assure access to infor-mation on environmental protection and encour-age the mass media to pay attention to environ-mental protection to the same or greater extentas is devoted to issues such as crime, politics,sports and finance.

In addition to the above recommendations,three additional ones of a general nature,addressing the major needs of all Caucasuscountries can be drawn, based on this study ofthe region's environmental outlook:

. Institutional strengthening in the field ofenvironmental management, including stafftraining, development of modern communica-tion and information systems and decision-mak-ing support tools;

. Capacity building for implementing inter-national treaties and conventions;

. Regional cooperation towards harmoniza-tion of legal/institutional settings, as well asmanaging shared resources and natural andhuman-related disasters.

Along with general recommendations, there areas well a number of specific ones that should beconsidered due to their importance, and whichrequire prompt responses. These recommenda-tions may be seen as proposals for specific proj-ects directed at improving the study of the stateand trends of the Caucasus environment.Implementation of these recommendationswould, without any doubt, greatly contribute tothe improvement of environmental protectionactivities for the Caucasus as a whole.

1. Creation of a common GIS and information retrieval system for the Caucasus.Presently, GIS development is being carried out in all Caucasus states. However, the countries are applying different methodologies and in varying degrees of detail. Therefore, the elaboration of a common GISprotocols seems particularly urgent, and

would assist in providing continuous monitoring of the state of the Caucasus environment. The creation of a common GIS for theentire Caucasus region is therefore highly recommended.

2. Study of the effects of armed conflicts andnatural disasters on the Caucasus environment. Both are very important driving forces for the Caucasus environment. On theone hand, it is necessary to study their directimpacts (effects of bombardments, forest fires, landslides, avalanches, etc), and on theother hand their indirect effects (consequences related to refugee flows and internally displaced persons).

3. Study of new "hot-spots" and creation of a current environmental atlas of the Caucasus. New "hot-spots" have appeared in the Caucasus caused by local concentrations of environmental pollution in these areas. These "hot-spots" should be identified and mapped, and environmental maps or even an environmental atlas should be produced showing the present state of the Caucasus environment.

4. Carrying capacity of landscapes. One current complex and interesting issue is the carrying capacity of landscapes; i.e., what is themaximum population, and what intensity of economic activities, can the natural environment of a given region endure. It is well-known that the dramatic consequences of theheavy precipitation in Ajara in 1989 were connected not only with natural processes, but also with the over-population in the mountainous areas there.

5. Elaboration of a common network of pro-tected areas. The difference should be drawn between the notion of a network or set of protected areas, and a more complex and nested system of protected areas comprised of different hierarchical categories. In this respect, the existing categorisation in a number of Caucasian states (preserve - national park - order or "zakaznik") is no longer up-to-date. New designations such as"protected landscape", "natural monument", "multi-purpose use area" (and other units if possible) should be brought into a single unified system, which would create a common, inter-related infrastructure of Caucasusprotected areas. This connection should in

5.2.2 Specific Recommendations

93

���

particular also be carried out with the help ofecological corridors, thus enabling fauna (and flora) to move freely between and within the various protected areas of the Caucasus.

6. Conducting an inventory and assessment of the Caucasus landscape and biological diversity, and developing a Caucasus "Red Book", including unique landscapes and flora and fauna requiring conservation and protection:

- Creating, designing, mapping and developing a database on pristine and relatively unchanged landscapes of the Caucasus. Thus far, few if any data are available on pristine landscape areas. Itis necessary to define and carry out an inventory of these areas, and assess the potential dangers of their loss and degradation.

- Studying biological and landscape diversity within the protected area's network. The inventory and assessment ofindividual flora and fauna species, as well as ecosystems and landscapes, should be performed within the defined protected areas. Databases and GIS forprotected areas also ought to be established.

- Performing a detailed landscape and environmental assessment of areas where intense forest cutting is expected.The World Bank Forestry DevelopmentProject is expected to result in increased harvesting. It is important to ensure that these activities do not lead to serious or even minor landscape degradation. Therefore, proposed harvesting areas should be inspected in terms of potential environmental consequences. Areas with fragile or unstablelandscapes should be excluded from active forest exploitation.

7. Deserted areas, de-population, demographic decline ~ self-recovery of ecosystems and natural landscapes. Contrary to the global trend of population growth, in a number of areas of the Caucasus, de-population has become the dominant phenomenon over the last ten years. This is accompanied by specific processes of "abandonment" of

these areas. Such processes are clearly seen in Racha, e.g., where the population (compared to the beginning of the 20th century) has declined by a factor of six, and many areas previously covered with vineyards andorchards are at present covered with thick pine forests or brushwood. Similar processes are observed in Abkhazia and Karabakh, where armed conflicts and consequent streams of refugees have resulted in vast abandoned areas.

8. Conducting an inventory of historical andnatural heritage, since the Caucasus has a very rich historical and natural heritage, which are closely inter-related with one another.

9. Raising public awareness about and participation in environmental matters, and improving the current level of enforcement of environmental legislation, should also be Caucasus regional priorities. This could be done, inter alia, through the greater involvement of existing civil society institutions such as the Regional Environmental Centres (REC) for the Caucasus and Russian Federation.

10.Poverty in the Caucasus and its linkages to environmental problems. During the Soviet era, the Caucasus was one of the best-developed and flourishing regions of the Soviet Union. Since 1990, the situation has significantly changed, with over half of the population currently living below the poverty line. It would thus be interesting to study how poverty influences the use of natural resources and impacts on the state of theenvironment.

11.Study of how finances already invested contribute to improving the Caucasus state of environment, since significant funds have already been invested in environmental activities. For example, over the last ten years a considerable amount of money (over US $10 million) has been invested for the creation of Borjomi-Kharagauli and Kolkheti National Parks and their adjacent territories. It would be most interesting to study how these investments have improved the state of the environment there, what the effects have been and how these have occurred.

94

���

12.Transition from regional to local level. Adeepening of the GEO process could involvea transition from the global to a sub-regionallevel. This first CEO report was conducted at a regional level. However, more detailed research, including a transition from the regional to a local level (i.e., individual administrative districts and even communities (selsovets) may hold additional interest for better understanding the underlying driving forces of environmental change. This level of analysis in turn would offer the basis for an interesting local-to-regional synthesis, and help to clarify the impact of localpeculiarities on the development of regional and global processes and trends.

13.Impact of TRACECA, pipelines and new industrial infrastructures on the environment. The Caucasus during the Soviet era was an isolated region, totally cut-off from neighboring countries and having no transport communications. At present, the situation has fundamentally changed, with the Caucasus as a transport corridor attracting growing interest. The study of the impact ofthis corridor on the environment, as well as of new industrial infrastructures, would be of great interest.

14.Finally, assuring the sustainability of the CEO process by establishing a regional centre, or strengthening an existing one, for thispurpose. Such a centre could take on the role of supervising/implementing the ongoing CEO reporting process, and/or the responsibility for seeing recommendations suggested in the CEO are moving forward and being implemented in the Caucasus region.

This first Caucasus Environment Outlook reporthas demonstrated that the region faces signifi-cant environmental challenges in relation tofuture economic and human development.Political processes in the new states of theCaucasus also remain frail due to a broad num-ber of factors. But the focus of the currentReport is the regional environmental situation,for which the economy and human society areseen from the perspective of "background" or"underlying factors". These nevertheless help

to determine both the current environmentalstate of, and future environmental trends in, theCaucasus.

It has been clearly shown that the Caucasusregion as a whole has a unique environmentalendowment, recognised since ancient times, andwhich merits an array of efforts to defend andpreserve it from the harsher impacts of econom-ic development and human society. Thepanoply of cultural and ethnic diversity, naturallandscapes (or ecosystems) and relatively ele-vated levels of biodiversity found in theCaucasus are all major reasons for keeping aclose eye on potential environmental impacts ofcurrent and future development processes in theregion, and taking measures to see these areminimised. The eventual global impacts ofCaucasus regional environmental changesshould also be kept in mind.

In many ways, the current environmental situa-tion of the Caucasus is both rather advanta-geous, and anomalous, vis-à-vis other regionsof the world. Due to low (and in some casesdeclining) population levels outside of the fewmajor cities and towns, human pressures on thelandscape are generally low. Where they arepresent, they are typically exerted locally, andbecause of the generally poor economic situa-tion, are often related to human poverty and theneed to extract and use natural resources on anindividual basis for survival. Thus, one canforesee that with a return to economic prosperi-ty (as the region knew in the past), that suchlocal exploitation would be greatly reduced orcease altogether.

On the other hand, some recent developmentsare perhaps a real threat to the regional environ-ment, if they would be carried to their logical(and purely economic) extreme and withoutproper consideration for the surrounding envi-ronment. With the opening up of the regionoverall and current possibilities for the SouthCaucasus in particular to become one of transitfor both goods and people, there are sure to berising pressures exerted in the form of construc-tion (roads, railways, pipelines) and transport(cars, trucks, trains and pumping of oil andgas). If such related developments are carriedout without due regard for the natural environ-ment, it is all but certain that increased pollu-tion of air, land and waters will take place.While the economics of today may tend to give

5.3 Final Synopsis

95

���

a "push" to such development in order toimprove the living situation of Caucasus citi-zens, it is hoped that serious mistakes whichmight compromise their futures can be avoidedin the process.

Thus, the major challenge of the moment is thatfaced by many peoples and regions of theworld: how to create further economic develop-ment, which can better the living standards forthe greatest number of persons in the Caucasus,without seriously or even irreparably damaginglocal environments on which all depend forbasic "life-support" systems? The unique beau-ty and diversity, and relatively unspoiled natureof the Caucasus region, can only serve to re-inforce the timeliness of this question.

ACCO Agreement on the Conservation of Cetacean of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic AreasBAT Best Available TechnologyBOD Biological Oxygen DemandBS-AP Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanBSEP Black Sea Environmental ProgramBUWAL Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape 0C centigrade degree CAID Canadian Agency for International DevelopmentCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCEE Central and Eastern EuropeCENN Caucasus Environmental NGO Network CEO Caucasus Environmental OutlookCIP Centre for International ProgrammesCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and FloraCLD Convention on Liability for Oil Pollution Damagecm centimetreCMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species and Wild AnimalsCo CobaltCOD Chemical Oxygen DemandCO2 Carbon dioxideCO Carbon monoxideCOWI Consulting EngineerCs CesiumDAI Development Alternative IncorporatedDDE DichlorodiphenylethaneDDT DichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneEAP Environmental Action PlanECE Economic Commission for EuropeEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEMAS Environmental Management SystemsEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United NationsFSU Former Soviet Uniong gramGCCW Georgian Centre for the Conservation of WildlifeGHG Green House GasesGDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environmental FacilityGEO Global Environment Outlook GIOC Georgian International Oil CorporationG.Info Geographic Information Centre of Georgiag/kg gram per kilogram g/l gram per litreGRID Global Resource Information DatabaseGOST Gosudarstveniy standart (State Standard)GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for Technical Cooperation)ha hectare-HC- HydrocarbonsHMS Hydro-meteorological ServiceIBA Important Bird AreaIDP Internally Displaced PersonIFRCRCS International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesIMO International Maritime OrganisationISAR Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in EurasiaIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and ControlIUCN International Union for Nature ConservationJSC Joint-Stock Companykcal kilocaloriekcal/cm sq. kilocalorie per square centimetrekg kilogramkg/ha kilogram per hectareKfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau km kilometrekm3 cubic kilometrekm2 square kilometre km sq. square kilometrekW kilowattkW/h kilowatt per hourl litre

96

���

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

97

���

LDC London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters Ltd Limited m metrem2 square metrem3 cubic metre m3/s cubic metre per second MAC Maximum Allowable Concentration MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Shipsmg microgrammg/kg microgram per kilogrammg/l microgram per litreml milligramml/l milligram per litremln millionMNP Ministry of Natural Protection MoA Ministry of AgricultureMoE Ministry of EnvironmentMoH Ministry of HealthMSK Medvedev, Sponheuer and Karnik intensity scaleNACRES Noah's Ark for the Recovery of Endangered SpeciesNARSD National Assessment Report for Sustainable DevelopmentNATO North Atlantic Treaty OrganisationNORCE Norwegian Consortium for Energy and EnvironmentNEAP National Environmental Action PlanNGO Non-governmental OrganizationNIS Newly Independent StatesNOx Nitrous oxidesO3 OzoneOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentO/M Operation and MaintenancePb Lead PC Personal ComputerPCB Polychlorinated biphenyls PM10/2.5 Particulate Matters with aerodynamic diameter less than 10/2.5 micronsPOJA Program of Joint ActionPOPs Persistent Organic Pollutantsppm parts per millionQA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality ControlREC Regional Environmental CentreRF Russian FederationROE Regional Office for EuropeSEE State Ecological ExaminationSIBE Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Conservation Measures for the Siberian CraneSO2 Sulphur dioxideSS suspended solidst tont/km ton(s) per kilometret/km2 ton(s) per square kilometreTAC Total Allowable CatchTACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent StatesTN Total nitrogenTP Total phosphorusTRACECA Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-AsiaTSP Total Suspended ParticulatesUN United Nations UNCCD UN Convention to Combat DesertificationUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUN-ECE United Nations Economic Commission for EuropeUNEP United Nations Environmental ProgrammeUNEP/DEWA UNEP's Division of Early Warning and AssessmentUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUSA United States of AmericaUSAID United States Agency for International Development US$ US dollarUSSR Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics VOCs Volatile organic compoundsWB World BankWHO World Health OrganisationWWF World Wide Fund for Nature yr yearZn Zinc

98

���Atlas of Georgia (1964). Tbilisi-Moscow

Atlas of the USSR (1983). Moscow Beruchashvili N. (1996). Physical Geography of Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia Beruchashvili N. (1995). Caucasus: Landscapes, Models, and Experiments. TbilisiBeruchashvili N. (1979). Landscape Map of Caucasus. Tbilisi, GeorgiaBeruchashvili N. and Rishard J.F. (1996). Landscape Map of Globe. Russian Academy of Science, newsletter,geogr. #6, Moscow, RussiaBeroutchachvili N. et Radvanie J. Atlas Geopolitique du Caucase (1996, 1998). Paris, FranceBSEP (1995). Fishery on Black Sea: Three Decades of Decline, BSEP Co-ordination Unit. Istanbul, Turkey BSEP (1987). Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. http://www.grid.unep.ch/bsein/tda/files/3a18t.htmCAID (1998). Canadian Agency of International Development. Characteristic of Car Fleet in Countries of Central Asia and Caucasus.

Regional Investigation ReportCaucasus (1966). Moscow, RussiaCourier, Rustavi-2 night TV show, 04.02.02Dangerous Hydro-meteorological Phenomena in Caucasus (1984). Leningrad Dangerous Hydro-meteorological Phenomena: Geographic, Geographic, Ecological and Social-Economic Aspects, Moscow, 2000Ecological Situation in Chechnya. http:/www.domaindom.net.moscow/ecology.htmlEnvironmental Rehabilitation of Sumgayit (1999-2000). Ecological bulletin, #3, Sumgayit, Azerbaijan, 1999-2000Geographic Reference Atlas (1986). MoscowGeomorphology of Azerbaijan (1959). BakuGeorgian Soviet Thesaurus, V.1, Tbilisi, 1975 G.Info (1996). State of the Environment of Georgia 96. http://www.parliament.ge/SOEGEO/hp_soege.htmGokhelashvili R., Scott J. M. and Millington S. (2000). Biodiversity Assessment for the Caucasus, Idaho State University & Chemonics,

InternationalGrigolia G. (1996). Attack of the Black Sea", "Zgvispireti", XII. GeorgiaHammond Allen. Which World? Scenarios for the 21st CenturyHydro-meteorological Institute, Academy of Science of Georgia (1998). Pollution Forecast of Black Sea Coastal Zone and Western

Georgia's Rivers of Black Sea Basin. Tbilisi, GeorgiaIFRCRCS Delegation in Armenia. (2000). Vulnerability Profile Update: The Social Dimension of the Causes of Disaster Vulnerability.

Yerevan, Republic of ArmeniaInternational Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRCRCS). Georgia: Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (1999).

Background paper Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. March, 2001, Republic of ArmeniaIndependent Voice of Russia (1999). E. Pain. Caucasus Crisis - Scenarios of Development. Independent Voice of Russia, #5, September,

1999, No. 5, September, pp. 26-30Institute of Geophysics of Georgia. ArchivesInstitute of Hydro-meteorology/Georgian Academy of Science (1998). Forecast for the Pollution of Black SeaIUCN (2000). Cooperation in the European Mountains 2: The Caucasus. ed. by Martin PriceCoastal Waters and its Rivers under Anthropogenic Pressures Jaoshvili V. Social-Economic Geography of Georgia. (1996). TbilisiKhromovski V., Nikonov A. (1984). Following Strong Earthquakes, MoscowKverenchkliladze R. (1986) Transport of Georgian Soviet Republic. TbilisiManagement Authority for Sturgeon of the Russian Federation (2001). Total Allowable Catch (CAT) Estimation for Sturgeon Species in

the Caspian Sea. http://www.cites.org/eng/programme/Sturgeon/catch.pdfMap of Mudflow Risk in the Trans-Caucasus and Dagestan (1989). MoscowMaruashvili L. (1981). Physical Geography of the Caucasus. Tbilisi, GeorgiaMinistry of Environment of Georgia (2000). National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). Tbilisi, GeorgiaMinistry of Nature Protection of Republic of Armenia (1998). State of the Environment. Country Overview-Armenia, June, 1998 Ministry of Nature Protection of Republic of Armenia (1999). National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) (1999). Main Report.

ArmeniaMinistry of Environment and Nature Resources Protection, Russian Federation (1998). State of the Environment in the Russian Federation

in 1998Ministry of Environment and Nature Resources Protection, Russian Federation (1996). State Report on the State of the Environment in

1995. Moscow, RussiaMinistry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of the Russian Federation. State of Environment and Environmental Protection

in FSU, From Stokholm to Rio (1994). V.1-2. Moscow, Russia MoE of Georgia/UNDP (2001-2002). National Assessment Report for Sustainable Development (NARDS), draftNature Reserves of the Caucasus. 1990, MoscowNatural Resources of Georgia and its Rational Use (1991). Tbilisi, Georgia NORCE & the Ministry of Environment of Georgia: Norwegian Consortium for Energy and Environment & the Ministry of Environment

of Georgia (2000). Country Programme for Phasing Out of Lead in Gasoline in Georgia, GEO-2110. V.1: Assessment of the Existing Situation and Development of Baselines

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper" (Interim Report) (2001). Azerbaijan Republic http://www.imf.org/external/NP/prsp/2001/aze/01/index.htm

REC Caucasus (2001). Water: Problems and Solutions. South Caucasus Countries unite efforts in sustainable management of water resources 4-15. News from REC Caucasus, Issue 3, August

Research and Development (2000). Monthly Bulletin, 41, AugustRussian TV, First Channel, May 16, 2002

Sandia National Laboratories (2001). Integrating Monitoring and Decision Modelling Within a Cooperative Framework: Promoting Transboundary Water Management and Avoiding Regional Conflict. Tidwell V.C., Salerno R.M., Passel H.D., Larson K.L., Kalinina E., Wolf A.T., Cooper J.A., Curtis J., Conrad S.H., Thomas D.P. and Paananen O.H. Albuquerque, New Mexico and

REFERENCES

99

���

Livermore, California, USASocial-Economic Situation in Russia (2001) Moscow. January-June State Committee on Ecology and Control of Natural Resources Utilization (1998).National Environmental Action Plan. Azerbaijan Republic. Baku, AzerbaijanState Committee of the Azerbaijan Republic on Nature Protection (1993). Environmental Condition and Nature Protecting Activity in

Azerbaijan Republic. Baku, AzerbaijanState Committee of the Russian Federation for Statistics (2001). Statistical Reference Book, Moscow, RussiaState Committee of the Russian Federation for Statistics (2000). Russian Regions. Official Publication. Statistical Abstract. Moscow,

Volumes 1 and 2State Committee of the Russian Federation for Statistics (1998). Environmental Protection in Russia. Moscow, RussiaState Department for Statistics of Georgia (1970-2001). Archives State Department for Statistics of Georgia, Statistical Yearbook of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2000State Department for Hydro-meteorology of Georgia. Archives (1979-1990)Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia. Yerevan, (2001). Statistical Yearbook of Armenia.State Committee of the USSR of Nature Protection (1988). SoE Report of the USSR in 1988. Moscow, RussiaSvanidze G. (1998). The Use of Hydro-resources, Journal "Energy", No.1 (5)TACIS (1998). Annual Report. EC, Brussels, 23.07.99TACIS (2000). Oil Contamination of the Caspian Sea. Caspian Environment Programme Facilitating Thematic Advisory Groups in

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, & TurkmenistanTACIS/MoE of Georgia. State of the Environment Report, 1998Tatashidze Z., Tsereteli E., Bondirev I., Abuladze G., Javaxisvili A. (1996). Current Status and Perspectives for the Studies of Natural

Disasters in Georgia. Fifth Republican Conference, Tbilisi, GeorgiaTbilisi State University (1977). The Department of Radio-Carbon and Low Radioactivity of the Rational Use of Water Resources in

Georgian Soviet RepublicThe Big Soviet Thesaurus. Several ArticlesThe Map of Zonning of Georgia According to the Landslide Risk and Probability of the Landslide Development, Moscow, 1985Tsereteli G. (1987). Economical Problems of Environmental Protection.Tbilisi, GeorgiaTsomaia V. Early Ages of Development of Great Caucasus (1985). Tbilisi, 1985Tvalchrelidze A. (1998). Georgia's Solid Mineral Resources. Centre for Strategic Research and Development. Monthly Bulleting, 9. Tbilisi,

Georgia UN-ECE/MNP of Armenia (2000). Environmental Performance Review. ArmeniaUNDP (2001). Concept Paper. Regional Partnership for Environmental Security through Prevention of Transboundary Pollution to the

Kura-Aras Rivers UNDP (2000). UNDP Humal Development Report - Baku, Azerbaijan. UNDP (1999). Human Development Report - Azerbaijan. Baku, AzerbaijanUNDP (1998). Human Development Report - Azerbaijan. Baku, AzerbaijanUNDP (1995). Human Development Report - Azerbaijan. Baku, AzerbaijanUNDP (1996). UNDP Human Development Report - Georgia. Government of the Republic of Georgia and UNDP, Tbilisi, GeorgiaUNDP (1995). UNDP Human Development Report - Georgia. Government of the Republic of Georgia and UNDP, Tbilisi, GeorgiaUNDP (1997). Human Development Report - Russian FederationUNDP (1999). Human Development Report - Armenia. Five Years of Human Development in Armenia. Yerevan, ArmeniaUNDP/GEF-Georgian Government, (1999), First National Communication under UNFCCUNDP/GEF-Government of Georgia (1999). Georgia's Initial National Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change. Project GEO/96/G31. Tbilisi, GeorgiaUNDP/UNEP/WK/WRI (2000-2001). World Resources 2000-2001. People and Ecosystems . The Fraying Web of Life. Washington, USAUNEP/GRID Arendal (1996). Environmental Information Systems in Armenia. Ohanian Zh., Torossian R., Gabrelian A., Gyulmisarian S.

Draft Version. JuneUNEP/GRID Arendal (1996). Environmental Information Systems in Azerbaijan. Draft Version. Report prepared by Ismailov T., Akhoun-

Zade F. The State Committee of the Azerbaijan Republic for Ecology and Nature Management. JuneUNEP/GRID Arendal (1995). Environmental Information Systems in Georgia. Report prepared by Bakuradze T., Gvilava M., Jincharadze

Z., Khurtsidze M. and Kurtubadze M. GRID ArendalUNEP/GRID-Tbilisi (2000). Environment and Health, GeorgiaUNEP/MoE/NACRES (1997). Georgian Biodiversity Country Study. Tbilisi, GeorgiaUNEP/MNP of Armenia, State of the Environment Report, 2000, CD-versionUSAID/DAI Phase I Report, South Caucasus Water Protect (2000) Utiashvili Sh . Georgian Centre for Strategic Research and Development (2000). Prospects for Caucasus Security. "Peace in Caucasus",

41, August. Tbilisi, GeorgiaVerdiyev R. The Water Resources of Eastern Caucasus Rivers under Climate Change (2002). Baku, AzerbaijanCaucasus Water Balance and its Geographical Features (1991). Tbilisi, GeorgiaWater Resources of the Trans-Caucasus (1988).WB/MoA of Georgia, Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia, NEAP, No.6 WG, DraftWHO/MoH of Georgia (2001). National Environmental Health Action Plan, (NEHAP), DraftWB, World Bank Analysis (1996). Reforms in Food Industry and Agriculture in Georgia. WB. Washington, USAWB/State Forestry Department (1997). Georgian Forest StrategyWB/Tbilisi (1996). Solid Waste Managment MasterplanWWF (2000). Biological and Landscape Diversity of Georgia. Tbilisi, GeorgiaWWF (2001). Biodiversity of the Caucasus Ecoregion. An Analysis of Biodiversity and Current Threats and Initial Investment Portfolio,

Tbilisi

Internet Sourceshttp://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1994/jf94/jf94Armenia.html, Laboratory for Nuclear Investigation. http://gazeta.ru, information as of 12 May, 2002http://www.domaindom.net.moscow/ecology.html, Ecological Situation in Chechnya http://www.imo.org/home.asp, Conventions

100

���

LIST OF FIGURS AND TABLES

IntroductionThe CaucasusBorder between Europe and AsiaAdministrative map of the CaucasusBasic data on the CaucasusCaucasus geopolitical locationCaucasus ethnic compositionMain physical-geographical regions in the CaucasusSome of the major physical-geographical values for the Caucasus and GlobeRelief of landscapes diversity of the North HemisphereLandscape diversity on the countries of the World

Chapter 1GDP in the South Caucasus in current prices, 1980-99GDP per capita in the South Caucasus, 1980-99Total industry product in the Caucasus, 1985-98Industry product in the Caucasus per capita, 1985-98Major industries in the Caucasus (Soviet and post-Soviet period)Power generation in the Caucasus, 1970-99Arable lands, pastures and forest covered areas in the Caucasus per capita, 1998Pesticide use in Georgia, 1970-99Total freight turnover in the South Caucasus, 1970-99Vehicular transport road length in the South Caucasus, 1970-98Common East-West Energy CorridorTotal fish catch in marine waters of Azerbaijan and Georgia, 1990-99Population size in the Caucasus, 1970-99Natural increase in the Caucasus per 1000 inhabitants, 1970-99Population size in the Caucasus in 1970 and 1999Migration balance in the South Caucasus, 1979-99Number of efugees in the North Caucasus, 1992-1999Population density in the CaucasusUrban population in the CaucasusRural population in the CaucasusMain armed conflicts in the Caucasus, since 1988

Chapter 2Caucasus landscapesCaucasus landscape diversityNumber of flora and fauna species in the CaucasusCaucasus protected areasRare and endangered species in the CaucasusAgriculture areas in the CaucasusUrban areas in the CaucasusCaucasus arable landsCaucasus perennial plantationsCaucasus pasturesGeneral data on the Caucasus forestsCaucasus forestsNumber of Forest fires in the Caucasus, 1966-96General data of the Caucasus major riversWater Resources of the South CaucasusWater balance in the South CaucasusAvailability of regional water resourcesTotal water use in the Caucasus, 1985-99Total water abstractions and uses in the Caucasus, 1995-99Total water consumption by sectors in the Caucasus, 1995-99Total waste-water discharges in the South Caucasus, 1985-99Waste-water discharges from major sectors in the South Caucasus, 1980-2000Total waste-water discharges in the South Caucasus, 1985-99 The most polluted rivers in the Caucasus, 1999 Concentrations of selected components in the Kura River (BOD, DO, SS, Surfactants, Nitrates, Phenols)BOD sources for the Black Sea, 1996TN sources for the Black Sea, 1996TP sources for the Black Sea, 1996Total air emissions in the South Caucasus, 1985-99Air emissions from motor transport in the South Caucasus, 1985-99Passenger cars in the North Caucasus per 1000 inhabitants, 1970-99Number of passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants, 1996Air emissions from stationary sources in the Caucasus, 1985-99Solid waste composition for the cities Yerevan and HrazdanSeismicity of the CaucasusSeismic hazard of the Caucasus test area, 1997