envsec eastern europe

8/8/2019 Envsec Eastern Europe

1/98

1

Environment

andSecurity

Transformingrisksint

ocooperation

Environment

andSecurity


ocooperation

Thecase

ofEasternEurope

Belarus

MoldovaUkr

aine


2/98

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as the worlds lead-ing intergovernmental environmental organisation, is the authoritative sourceof knowledge on the current state of, and trends shaping the global environ-ment. The mission of UNEP is to provide leadership and encourage part-

nership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enablingnations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising thatof future generations.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the UNs GlobalDevelopment Network, advocating for change and connecting countries toknowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. Itoperates in 166 countries, working with them on responses to global and na-tional development challenges. As they develop local capacity, the countriesdraw on the UNDP people and its wide range of partners. The UNDP networklinks and co-ordinates global and national efforts to achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) strives tofoster sustainable economic growth among its 56 member countries. To thatend UNECE provides a forum for communication among States; brokers in-ternational legal instruments addressing trade, transport and the environment;

and supplies statistics and analysis. The broad aim of UNECEs environmentactivities is to safeguard the environment and human health, and to promotesustainable development in its member countries in line with Agenda 21.

With 56 participating States, the Organization for Security and Co-opera-tion in Europe (OSCE) is a pre-eminent instrument for early warning, conictprevention, conict management and post-conict rehabilitation in continen-tal Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia and North America. Since its begin-nings in 1973 the OSCE has taken a comprehensive view of security, includ-ing through the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms, economic and environmental cooperation, and political dialogue.

The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe(REC) is a non-partisan, non-advocacy, not-for-prot international organi-sation with a mission to assist in solving environmental problems in Centraland Eastern Europe. The centre fulls this mission by promoting cooperationamong non-governmental organisations, governments, businesses and otherenvironmental stakeholders, and by supporting the free exchange of informa-tion and public participation in environmental decision-making.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) embodies the transatlanticlink that binds Europe and North America in a unique defence and securityalliance. In response to recent changes in the overall security environment,NATO took on new fundamental tasks. These include addressing both insta-bility caused by regional and ethnic conicts within Europe and threats ema-nating from beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. NATOs Science for Peace andSecurity programme brings scientists together to work jointly on new issuesand to contribute to security, stability and solidarity among nations.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not neces-sarily reect views of ENVSEC partner organisations or their member-coun-tries. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the ex-pression of any opinion on the part of the organisations concerning the legal

status of any country, territory, city or area of its authority, or delineation of itsfrontiers and boundaries.

Copyright 2007: UNEP, UNDP, UNECE, OSCE, REC, NATOISBN: 972-82-7701-044-1


3/98

Environment

andSecurity


ocooperation

Thecase

ofEasternEurope

Belarus

MoldovaUkr

aine

This report was prepared on behalf of the partner organisations of the Environment andSecurity initiative by:

Aleh Cherp (lead author, Lund University, Lund and Central European University,Budapest),Alexios Antypas (Central European University, Budapest),Vicken Cheterian (CIMERA, Geneva),Mykhaylo Salnykov (Simon Fraser University, Burnaby);

with input from authors of national contributions to the report:

Alexander Savastenko and Mikhail Struk (Belarus),Tatiana Plesco and Ivan Ignatiev (Moldova),Andriy Demydenko (Ukraine);

and with extended advice and support from:

Alexander Rachevsky, Natalia Golovko, Alexander Sushkevich, Denis Sidorenko, Igor

Chulba, Yuri Bondar (Belarus),Violeta Ivanov, Veronika Lopotenco, Andrei Galbur, Emil Druc, Alexandru Codreanu,Gennady Syrodoev, Roman Corobov, Ilya Trombitsikiy (Moldova),Olga Marushevska, Lessya Starunchak, Anastasia Olshanovska, Anatol Shmurak,Dmytro Kuleba, Innesa Medvedenko, Dmytro Skrylnikov, Hanna Hopko (Ukraine),Frits Schlingemann, Otto Simonett, Stphane Kluser, Elena Veligosh, Viktor Novikov,Valentin Yemelin, Janet Fernandez Skaalvik, Petter Sevaldsen, Jasmina Bogdanovic(UNEP),Raul Daussa, David Swalley, Saba Nordstrm, Franois-Vadim de-Hartingh, LeonidKalashnik, Alexander Savelyev, Tamara Kutonova, Kenneth Pickles, Alexey Stukalo(OSCE),Inkar Kadyrzhanova, Peter Svedberg, Dmitry Golubovsky, Sergei Volkov, Evgeny Khan,Oksana Leshchenko (UNDP), Bo Libert (UNECE), Susanne Michaelis, Walter Kaffenberger(NATO), Stephen Stec (REC),

Arcadie Capcelea (World Bank), Ruben Mnatsakanian, Anastasiya Timoshina, ViktorLagutov (CEU), Susan Boos (WOZ Die Wochenzeitung, Zurich),

and the participants in ENVSEC country consultations in Chisinau, Kyiv and Minsk in Mayand June 2006.

Language editing: Harry Forster (Interrelate, Grenoble).Maps and graphics: Viktor Novikov, Emmanuel Bournay (UNEP / GRID-Arendal).Design and layout: UNEP / GRID-Arendal

Editorial and project manager: Nickolai Denisov (UNEP / GRID-Arendal).

The governments of Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway, and the Science forPeace and Security programme of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have provided

nancial support for the assessment and for the preparation and publication of this report.

Printed on 100% recycled paper at Imprimerie Nouvelle Gonnet, F-01303 Belley, France


4/98


5/98

Environment

andSecurity


ocooperation

Thecase

ofEasternEurope

Belarus

MoldovaUkr

aine

Contents

Preface 6

Linkages between the 8environment and security

Eastern Europe: the regional context 10Geography, history and society 12

The geopolitical position 18

Internal security challenges 21The energy dilemma and Chernobyl legacy 25Environmental challenges facing the region 31

National perspectives on environment 36and security

Belarus 36Background 36Security issues and priorities 37

Environment and security challenges 38Ukraine 44Background 45Security issues and priorities 46Environment and security challenges 48

Moldova 63Background 64Security issues and priorities 64Environment and security challenges 68

Looking ahead 72What has the coming day in store? 72Revisiting issues the ENVSEC response 74

References and sources 80

Participants of ENVSEC country consultations 90

Endnotes 92


6/98


7/98

The case of Eastern Europe Belarus Moldova Ukraine /7

The Environment and Security initiative (ENVSEC)

affect each other. ENVSEC analyses and mapsare known and used at schools and universities, inpublic debate and governmental planning. Projectson the ground range from in-depth investigations ofhotspots1 and awareness-raising to helping coun-tries strengthen their institutions, improve policies

and nd solutions to concrete problems in the envi-ronment-security domain.

The ENVSEC assessment in Belarus, Moldovaand Ukraine started at the request of their Gov-ernments in 2005. Research through academicliterature, statistics and other documents, discus-sions within countries and partner organisations,and inputs commissioned from national expertsprovided an initial picture of issues and specic

areas where various environmental and security

concerns overlap, and possible actions in individ-ual countries, communities and the region. Broadnational consultations with governmental authori-ties, research and international organisations andpublic groups in Chisinau, Kyiv and Minsk in May-June 2006 helped achieve a much more compre-hensive understanding of various actors viewson the environment and security challenges, andof the broad range of their actions and intentionsin the eld. The latter helped ENVSEC to discuss

and develop plans that would ll existing gaps in

the big picture rather than compete with others.

For further information, see www.envsec.org.

The Environment and Security initiative waslaunched in May 2003 simultaneously at the 5thEnvironment for Europe ministerial conference inKyiv and the OSCE Economic Forum in Prague, bythree international organisations with different whilecomplementary agendas and missions: the UN

Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Devel-opment Programme (UNDP) and the Organizationfor Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).Now in 2007, the initiative has been joined by theUN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE),the Regional Environmental Centre for Central andEastern Europe (REC), and the Public DiplomacyDivision of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation(NATO) as an associated partner.

From the outset ENVSEC has seen its primary goal

as helping countries identify, understand and wherepossible mitigate risks to stability and security thatmay stem from environmental problems and chal-lenges. Likewise it aims to promote more sustain-able solutions to security challenges by addressingtheir environmental aspects. The initiative aims tocontribute to solving existing or emerging politicaldisputes by improving dialogue and promoting co-operation on environmental issues throughout thepan-European region. Assessments in South-East-ern Europe and the Southern Caucasus have so far

led to a much broader, deeper and more concreteunderstanding than before of how environmentaland security concerns and policies intervene and


8/98

8 / Environment and Security | Transforming risks into cooperation

Linkages between the environment and security

The end of the Cold War coupled with global con-cerns over human rights, human development andenvironmental risks opened up a debate over newthreats that could orient security, environmentaland related policies in mutually reinforcing ways. Although never the sole causal factor, the contri-

bution of environmental issues, especially resourcescarcity, to conicts has been a central pillar of thediscussion centring on the environment and secu-rity. This has led to consideration of the capacity ofstates to deal with issues of scarcity and competitionover resources, as well as the effects on security ofmigration due to environmental and resource fac-tors. It has also been recognised that the links be-tween environment and security mean that securitycan be improved through environmental cooperation(Homer-Dixon 1999).

The internationally discussed relationship betweenthe environment, and security challenges and policyis consequently complex and multi-dimensional. TheENVSEC initiative has made a substantial contribu-tion to this discussion in its recent publications onthe Balkans, Central Asia and the Southern Cauca-sus2, clarifying in particular the role of environment-security interactions under the specic conditions ofcountries undergoing economic, and political transi-tion.

The present report considers three different aspectsof this relationship particularly relevant to EasternEurope:

Securityimplicationsofenvironmentalprob-lems situations in which scarcity and degra-dation of natural resources or environmentalhazards increase the risk of tensions and exac-erbate external and internal security challenges;

Improving security through environmentalcooperation cases in which environmentalcooperation might alleviate existing tensions,and foster stability and mutual trust;

Environmentalimplicationsofsecuritymeas-ures circumstances in which security policiesand measures have signicant environmentalimplications and require special attention fromthis perspective.

Security implications of environmental prob-lems

The current consensus is that existing tensions be-tween and within states due to non-environmentalfactors can be exacerbated by environmental deg-radation, competition over natural resources as wellas real and perceived environmental hazards. Envi-ronmental factors aggravate such tensions if theycontribute to an atmosphere of hostility and distrustbetween states or communities. For example, poor-

ly managed stockpiles of hazardous chemicals anddangerous activities (e.g. chemical industries, nu-clear power plants, and mining activities) near inter-national frontiers and transboundary water bodiescan put a strain on inter-state relations.

The effects of environment-related factors on ten-sion and conicts depend on specic local condi-tions. For example, scarcity of natural resourcesand environmental goods plays an important rolein conict. Such scarcity may be absolute (where

there are not enough resources) or relative (wheresome groups such as ethnic minorities or rural pop-ulations are denied fair access to resources). Thus,social processes that regulate access to naturalresources as well as a populations vulnerabilitymay amplify or reduce the effects of environmentalfactors on conict potential (Baechler 1998, 1999;Homer-Dixon 1999, ICG 2002).

Environmental problems affect not only the proba-bility of conicts, but also other aspects of security,

such as political and social stability, and the runningof state and social institutions. For example, unsus-tainable use of resources or environmental degra-dation undermine rural or regional economies, and


9/98


human health, and induce unsustainable migration3.Government budgets may be burdened by the costsof environmental clean-up and remediation meas-ures. Unfavourable demographic trends related toenvironmental factors (a sharp rise or decline inpopulation, deteriorating health, mass migration) as

well as a rapid decline in economic welfare threatensocial and political stability. International researchhas shown that under certain conditions this maydisrupt social institutions and even lead to statefailure (Esty et al. 1999). Young and emerging na-tions are especially vulnerable to such challenges,though most countries in Europe and North Americahave had to cope with them to some extent.

Improving security through environmentalcooperation

Whereas environmental problems may aggravate se-curity challenges, protective counter-measures, par-ticularly when they are implemented cooperatively,may help to alleviate them. Cooperation over theenvironment, including joint management of waterresources and dialogue on transboundary hazardscan help reduce international tension. Environmentalcooperation in relatively low-tension areas, such asthe establishment of jointly managed conservationzones (for example peace parks) can also raise the

level of trust between states or communities, therebycontributing to overall stability (Dabelko and Conca2002). Another important area of such cooperationwithin the security framework is the development oflegal regimes and institutions for information sharingand early warning to anticipate accidents and pro-mote dialogue (Weinthal 2004).

Proper environmental policies can also help to solvenon-conictual security challenges. Reversing en-vironmental degradation and eliminating hazards

may help to slow or halt unsustainable migration.Environmental protection and restoration activitiesmay strengthen institutions underpinning overallsocial stability. For example, properly designed

environmental policies4 may stimulate local agri-cultural production and other countryside activitiesand therefore contribute to rural development andreduce food dependency.

Environmental implications of security meas-

ures

Security policies and measures may have positive ornegative impacts on the environment. For example,military activities and facilities often present risksfor the environment and human health. Restructur-ing or decommissioning such activities or facilitiesmay reduce or increase such risks depending onwhether proper consideration is given to environ-mental factors.

Another example is energy policy, an area in whichthe stakes for both the environment and securityare very high. The drive towards energy securityand away from acute energy dependence can havepositive or negative environmental effects, depend-ing on the choice of resources, solutions and energytechnology. Facilitating innovative energy solutionsand improving energy efciency may simultane-ously increase energy security and reduce environ-mental impacts. Conversely, hasty introduction ofenvironmentally unsustainable or hazardous energy

technologies may be only a temporary solution toenergy security while at the same time imposing nu-merous new risks on the society.

In summary, integrating environmental considera-tions into sectoral policies, such as security, de-fence, energy and foreign affairs, increases scopefor addressing overlapping environmental and se-curity concerns and improves the climate of inter-sectoral policy-making in these areas.


10/98


Eastern Europe: the regional contextBelarus, Moldova and Ukraine referred to in this

report as Eastern Europe5 are nations with recent

sovereign statehood. They are positioned between

an enlarging European Union and a historically

inuential Russia. The areas unique position and

history have played a large part in the overlapping

of environmental and security issues, which have

evolved over three distinct periods: the Soviet

years of intensive industrialisation, a difcult periodof political and economic transition, and the recent

economic recovery with its new challenges.

Following the sudden disintegration of the USSR,

Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine immediately faced a

historic challenge for which they were ill equipped.

Outsiders often fail to appreciate their problems but

are quick to notice poverty, corruption and other

negative phenomena in Eastern Europe. Despite

these challenges the three countries have achievedsignicant successes. The region has negotiated

the difcult transition years without suffering violent

conict of the kind that paralysed the Balkans, the

Caucasus, and Central Asia. Eastern Europe gained

much sympathy by deciding not to preserve military

nuclear capacity and transfer weapons inherited

from the Soviet Union to Russia6. Furthermore

disagreements between Russia and Ukraine regarding

the status of the Soviet Black Sea eet have been

satisfactorily managed and largely resolved, sparingEurope a major security risk. However there are

plenty of regional security issues reaching beyond the

borders of Eastern Europe to feature on the security

agenda of the whole continent. The Transnistrian

conict in Moldova is one example. Difcult are also

issues of supply and transit of Russian fuel. The key

challenge for the three countries is still to strengthen

contemporary state institutions, so that they can

fully address economic, social, demographic,

environmental and security problems.

The legacy of the Chernobyl disaster almost

synonymous for the outside world with

environmental problems in Eastern Europe

epitomises the difculties involved in dealing with

all these problems at the same time. In the early

hours of 26 April 1986 a violent explosion at the

Chernobyl nuclear power plant, near the Ukrainian-

Belarusian border, destroyed the reactor and

started a large re that lasted 10 days. During the

explosion and the re a huge amount of radioactivity

was released into the environment, spreading

over hundreds of kilometres into Belarus, Ukraineand beyond. The authorities secrecy and initially

incompetent response aggravated the situation and

contributed to the largely uncontrolled exposure

to radiation of the nearby population and safety

workers. For the last 20 years millions of Ukrainians

and Belarusians have been living on contaminated

land. Compulsory resettlement out of the more

dangerous areas shattered the lives of hundreds of

thousands. Many more chose to voluntary abandon

the environmentally unsafe and economicallydepressed region. Its mounting health problems

and a catastrophic demographic situation were

compounded by accelerating outward migration by

young and able people. Prohibitions pervade the

everyday lives of a whole generation of people still

living in the contaminated areas. They can never

again graze their cattle on meadows, pick berries

and mushrooms in surrounding forests or till their

own elds.

Chernobyl affected one-fth of Belarus territory and

a quarter of its population. In the early 1990s as

much as 20% of the national budget was spent on

remediation efforts, which would result in economic

meltdown even in a stable, healthy economy. The

economic, social and environmental burden of

Chernobyl was no lighter in Ukraine, which had

to deal with the safety of the destroyed reactor as

well. The disaster also clearly demonstrated that an

accident in one country may threaten human livesand health all over a continent. In the USSR and

former Soviet states Chernobyl not only became

a rallying point for many of the social movements,

eventually contributing to the collapse of the Soviet


11/98


Moscow

Vilnius

Warsaw

Chisinau

Kyiv

Bucharest

Minsk

Kursk

Smolensk

Mogilev

Kaliningrad

Brest

Lublin

RivneLutsk

Lviv

Kirovohrad

Balti

Ivano-Frankivsk

Cluj-Napoca

Brasov

Sumy

Kharkiv

Poltava

KhersonOdesa

Tiraspol

Mykolaiv

Daugavpils

Grodno

Klaipeda

Chernihiv

Ternopil

Khmelnitsky Kremenchuk

Zaporizhzhia

Dnipropetrovsk

Donetsk

Luhansk

Berdyansk

Simferopol

Sevastopol

Vitebsk

Uzhhorod

Constanta

Krasnodar

Rostov-on-Don

Chernivtsi

Soligorsk

Chernobyl

Mozyr

Polotsk

Novopolotsk

Gomel

Zhlobin

Voronezh

CherkasyVinnitsia

Bryansk

IzmailGalati

Tula

Bialystok

Baranovichi

Feodosiya

RUSSIA

POLAND

ROMANIA

BELARUS

MOLDOVA

RUSSIA

UKRAINE

LITHUANIALATVIA

RUSSIA

SLOVAKREP.

HUNGARY

BULGARIA

Dniester

Pru

t

Danube Black Sea

Sea ofAzov

Baltic

Sea

Pripyat

Volg

a

Don

Dnieper

Dniepe

r

Zap.

Dvina

Political patterns and communication axes

Riga

Budapest

St Petersburg

Berlin

Krakow

Sofia

Budapest

C R I M E A

TRANSN

ISTR

IA

GAGAUZIA

TuzlaIsland

ZmiinyiIsland

THE MAP DOES NOT IMPLY THE EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION ON THE PART OF ENVSEC PARTNER ORGANISATIONS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF ANY COUNTRY,

TERRITORY, CITY OR AREA OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR DELINEATION OF ITS FRONTIERS AND BOUNDARIES.

Source: Belarus State University.Atlas of Belarus Geography. Minsk 2005; State Committee for Land Resources, Geodesy and Cartography. National Atlas of Belarus.Minsk 2002; Botnaru V. and O. Kazantseva. Republic of Moldova. Atlas. Chisinau 2005; State Committee for Natural Resources. Integrated Atlas of Ukraine. Kyiv

2005. ENVSEC consultations 2006-7.

Map by UNEP/GRID-Arendal, May 2007.

Borders of the Russian Federation

Geopolitical position

Borders of EU member-states

Russian military bases / facilitiesin Eastern European countries

Major corridors

Secondary corridors

Transportation axes

Inter-state disputes in the process ofinternational or bilateral resolution

Inter-ethnic disputes

Land and territorial disputes

Past / current (frozen) conflicts

0 100 200 km


12/98


system, but also inuenced contemporary political

regimes by shaping the relationship between

its victims and the state7. Twenty years after the

disaster the inuential Blacksmith Institute (2006) stilllists Chernobyl among the 10 most polluted places

in the world.

Given this legacy, the recent announcements of

plans by the governments of Belarus and Ukraine

to expand the use of nuclear power reect the

dramatic challenges facing these countries. Their

current dependence on energy imports is seen as

one of the key security concerns. The region does

not have sufcient energy resources of its own, butenergy is critically important for both social stability

and economic development, particularly with such

high energy-intensity economies. The energy issue

is all the more important because Eastern Europe

stands at the crossroads of east-west and north-

south energy corridors linking Russia to Western

Europe, and the Black Sea to the Baltic.

The quest for secure energy supplies by whatever

available means may have serious implicationsfor the environment in Eastern Europe, already

up against acute problems. While some of these

are inherited over from the Soviet era, others are

caused by the decline in state control during the

transition years. A third category are related to

the recent economic upturn and newly spurring

industrial activities. Serious environmental issues

facing the region include pollution in industrial and

mining regions, accumulation of toxic waste, land

degradation, and scarcity of safe drinking water. Butat the same time the region has signicant natural

resources which, if wisely used, may support its

long-term economic prosperity.

Geography, history and society

Eastern Europe extends from the northern shore ofthe Black Sea in Ukraine up to the Baltic Sea ba-sin in Belarus. It covers 845,000 square kilometresand is home to almost 60 million people. Thesenations share common borders, watersheds, andinfrastructure and have many similarities in theirgeography, history, culture and economy.

The regions eastern boundary roughly corre-sponds to the Dnieper watershed, and its westernand south-western boundaries are loosely denedby the Z. Bug, Prut and Danube rivers as well as bythe Carpathian mountains. Roughly speaking, theDniester river separates Moldova from Ukraine and

the Pripyat marshlands in Polesie divide Ukraineand Belarus. Most of the region consists of plainand lowland, wooded as in Belarus and northernUkraine, or open steppe as elsewhere. The rela-tively small mountain regions are concentrated onthe edges of Eastern Europe: in the Carpathiansand Crimea.

The borders separating Belarus, Moldova andUkraine, all of which were Soviet republics before1991, follow former Soviet largely administrative

divisions. The same is true of the regions easternborder with Russia and the northern border withLatvia and Lithuania. But all these borders also re-ect pre-Soviet historic realities. For example, theeastern border roughly corresponds to the earlymodern frontier between Russia and the Com-monwealth of Both Nations8. The contemporaryUkraine-Belarus border follows the administrativefrontier between the Polish Kingdom and the GrandDuchy of Lithuania within this Commonwealth. Thesame ancient frontier separates present-day Bela-

rus from Poland and is also known as the Curzonline9, which divides Poland and Ukraine furthersouth. The border between Ukraine and Moldovaroughly reects the Eastern border of the Ottomanempire in the 16th-18th century.


13/98


Eastern Europe through history

Source: Snyder T. The Reconstruction of Nations. Poland, Ukraine,Lithuania, Belarus. 1569-1999. New Haven & London 2003; Euratlas(www.euratlas.com).

RZECZPOSPOLITA

RUSSIA

OTTOMANEMPIRE

HABSBURG

DOMAINS

1569

Moscow

Berlin

BlackSea

Balt ic

Se a

Warsaw

Minsk

Kyiv

Adria

ticSea

Vienna

SWEDEN

1914

Moscow

Berlin

BlackSea

Balt ic

Se a

Warsaw

Minsk

Kyiv

Adria

ticSe

a

Vienna

GERMANY

AUSTRO-

HUNGARIAN

EMPIRE

ROMANIA

SERBIA

RUSSIAN EMPIRE

Lithuania

Volhynia

Ukraine

Poland

Galicia

Danzig

Dniester

Wisla

Dnieper

Dniester

Dnieper

Wisla

BULGARIA

SWEDEN

1938

Moscow

Berlin

BlackSea

Balt ic

Se a

Minsk

Kyiv

Adriatic

Sea

Vienna

GERMANY

ROMANIA

USSR

UkrainianSoviet Socialist

Republic

Danzig

Dniester

Wisla

Dnie

per

BULGARIA

ESTONIA

Riga

Tallinn

Belgrade

HUNGARYAUSTRIA

PragueCZECHOSLOVAKIA

Warsaw

GERMANY

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

POLAND

DENMARK

YUGOSLAVIA

ITALY

WilnoDENMARK

BelorussianSoviet Socialist

Republic

ITALY

SWEDEN

ITALIANSTATES

DENMARK

N

O

RWA

Y

KYIV RUS

BULGARIAN EMPIRE

ca. 1000

Berlin

BlackSea

Balt ic

Se a

Warsaw

Kyiv

Adria

ticSea

Vienna

Dniester

Dnieper

Wisla

KINGDOMOF SWEDEN

DENMARK

PRINCIPALITYOF HUNGARY

DUCHY OFPOLAND

Kingdomof

Germany

HOLY

ROMAN

EMPIRE

Kingdomof Croatia

KINGDOM

OF

Maps by UNEP/GRID-Arendal, May 2007.

Grand Duchyof Lithuania

Crownof Poland

Danube

Danube

Danube

Danube

THE MAPS DO NOT IMPLY THE EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION ON THE PART OF ENVSEC

PARTNER ORGANISATIONS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF ANY COUNTRY,

TERRITORY, CITY OR AREA OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR DELINEATION OF ITS FRONTIERS

AND BOUNDARIES.

Todays borders

Todays borders Todays borders

Todays borders

0 200 km

0 200 km 0 200 km

0 200 km


14/98


Moscow

Minsk

Vilnius

Warsaw

Chisinau

Kyiv

Bucharest

Kursk

Smolensk

Mogilev

Kaliningrad

Brest

Lublin

Rivne

Lutsk

Lviv

Kirovohrad

Balti

Ivano-Frankivsk

Debrecen

Cluj-Napoca

Brasov

Sumy

Kharkiv

KhersonOdesa

TiraspolMykolaiv

Grodno

Klaipeda

Chernihiv

Ternopil

Khmelnitsky

Kremenchuk

Zaporizhzhia

Dnipropetrovsk

Donetsk

Luhansk

Berdyansk

Simferopol

Sevastopol

Vitebsk

Uzhhorod

Constanta

Krasnodar

Rostov-on-Don

Chernivtsi

Soligorsk

Chernobyl

Mozyr

PolotskNovopolotsk

Gomel

Zhlobin

Voronezh

CherkasyVinnitsia

Cobasna

Bryansk

Daugavpils

RUSSIA

POLAND

ROMANIA

BELARUS

MOLDOVA

RUSSIA

UKRAINE

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

RUSSIA

SLOVAKREP.

HUNGARY

BULGARIA

Dn

ieper

Dn

iester

Pru

t

Danube

Black Sea

Sea ofAzov

Baltic

Sea

Pivd. Buh

Zap.

Dvin

a

Nem

an

Pripyat

Volg

a

Don

Desna

Tisza

Sire

t

KyivRes.

Raut

Kremenchuk

Res.

KakhovkaRes.

Wisla

Daugava

Topography

C R I M E A

0-1 000 -500 -100-2 000

Bathymetry Altitude in meters

50 100 200 500 1 000



Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. World Data Center for Marine Geology & Geophysics. Gridded global relief data (ETOPO2);

ESRI Inc. Global elevation digital data. Redlands, California. Data processing by UNEP / DEWA / GRID-Europe.

Map by UNEP/GRID-Arendal, May2007.

0 100 200 km


15/98


Moscow

Vilnius

Warsaw

Chisinau

Kyiv

Bucharest

Minsk

RUSSIA

POLAND

ROMANIA

BELARUS

MOLDOVA

RUSSIA

UKRAINE

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

RUSSIA

SLOVAKREP.

HUNGARY

BULGARIA

DniesterP

rut

DanubeBlack Sea

Sea ofAzov

Baltic

Sea

Pivd

.Buh

Zap.Dv

ina

Nem

an

Pripyat

Volg

a

Don

Desn

a

Tisza

Sire

t

KyivRes.

Raut

KremenchukRes.

KakhovkaRes.

Dnieper

Wisla

Daug

ava

Siv. Donets

Don

Forest cover

CA

RPA

TH

IAN

MO

U

N

TA

IN

S

C R I M E A

P O LE S

IE

THE MAP DOES NOT IMPLY THE EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION ON THE PART OF ENVSEC PARTNER ORGANISATIONS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF ANY COUNTRY,TERRITORY, CITY OR AREA OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR DELINEATION OF ITS FRONTIERS AND BOUNDARIES.

Source: United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Forest cover digital data (www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/).

Data processing by UNEP / DEWA / GRID-Europe.

Map by UNEP/GRID-Arendal, May2007.

0 100 200 km


16/98


Moscow

Minsk

Vilnius

Warsaw

Chisinau

Kyiv

Bucharest

To theBaltic Sea

To theBlack Sea

BALTIC SEA-BLACK SEA BASIN DIVIDE

RUSSIA

POLAND

ROMANIA

BELARUS

MOLDOVA

RUSSIA

UKRAINE

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

RUSSIA

SLOVAKREP.

HUNGARY

BULGARIA

Dni

eperDniester

Pru

t

Danube Black Sea

Sea of Azov

Baltic

Sea

Pivd.Buh

Zap

.

Dvin

a

Pripyat

Volg

a

Don

Desn

a

T isza

S

iret

KyivReservoir

R

aut

KremenchukReservoir

KakhovkaReservoir

Nemunas

Wisl

a

Daugava

Siv.

Donets

Zapadnaya Dvinabasin

Dnieper basin

Neman basin

SiverskyiDonetsbasin

Wislabasin

PivdennyiBuh

basin

Prut basin

Danubebasin

Danubebasin

Tisza basinDniester basin

Crimeanrivers

Small riversdraining intothe Black Sea

Small rivers draininginto the Sea of Azov

Interior-basindrainage



Water basins of Eastern Europe

Sources: Belarus State University.Atlas of Belarus Geography. Minsk 2005; State Committee for Land Resources, Geodesy and Cartography. National Atlas of Belarus.

Minsk 2002; Botnaru V. and O. Kazantseva. Republic of Moldova. Atlas. Chisinau 2005; State Committee for Natural Resources. Integrated Atlas of Ukraine. Kyiv 2005.


0 100 200 km


17/98


An important feature of Eastern Europe is that itlacks prominent natural barriers both inside indi-vidual countries and between them and neighboursto the north, west and east. Historically this oftenmade the area a literal or gurative battleeld rstbetween eastern nomads and settled European cul-tures and more recently between the great powersof Russia and Europe. Western Christianity (RomanCatholic or Protestant) shaped the cultures to thenorth and west of Eastern Europe, developing in

close connection with Western and Central Europe.The Eastern Christian (Orthodox) tradition fash-ioned society in the east of the region, connectingit to the culture of the vast expanses of northernEurasia. The southwest of Eastern Europe borderedthe Byzantine and Ottoman spheres of inuence.

The regions borderline position has determinedits many specic features. Neighbouring culturesdeeply penetrated and inuenced Eastern Euro-pean societies, shaping contrasting developmen-

tal orientations. Eastern European lands changedhands many times in history and in some periodsthey were split between Western and Eastern pow-ers. This happened, for example, in the 17th and18th century when Ukrainian land on the left bankof the Dnieper belonged to Russia and on the rightbank to the Kingdom of Poland with the sovereignUkrainian-Kozak state in the southeast of the coun-try. In the 19th century Western Ukraine was part ofthe Austro-Hungarian Empire, whereas the rest ofmodern Ukraine belonged to the Russian Empire.

The Ukraine Peoples Republic (1918-22) and Bela-rusian Peoples Republic (1918-19) were importantmilestones for sovereignty in the history of bothcountries. Later, in the 1920s and 1930s EasternUkraine and Belarus were part of the Soviet Unionand consequently underwent rapid collectivisationand industrialisation, whereas Western Ukraine andBelarus were part of the Polish Republic. Moldo-va, except Transnistria, was part of Romania. Thiscomplicated the search for national identity and ledto a duality of national cultures and national po-

litical projects attempting to strike a balance be-

tween East and West. In particular the penetrationof different cultures from East and West10 denedcultural gradients within the societies partly de-termining, for example, the present ambivalencetowards European integration.

Eastern Europe suffered enormously from the

major upheavals of the twentieth century. The

two world wars, the civil war after the collapse of

Tsarism, Stalinist repression and Nazi genocide

claimed millions of lives in Ukraine, Belarus andMoldova. Ukraine particularly suffered from the

severe articially caused Holodomor (the famine)

in 1932-3 that claimed millions of lives and whose

social, psychological and demographical conse-

quences still inuence the country. In the light of

this troubled past, the transition away from the

Soviet system was remarkably peaceful, particu-

larly considering the difculty of accomplishing

social, political and economic change on shrink-

ing resources.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, Be-

larus, Moldova and Ukraine urgently needed to

modernise their economy to meet the new chal-

lenges of international competition, but lacked the

resources (particularly private capital) necessary

for the task. They also had to rise to the challenge

of reconstructing state bodies, often aspiring to

Western political models but building on what

remained of a Soviet republics government. In

Moldova this task was further complicated by the

Transnistrian conict, whereas in Ukraine and Be-larus the Chernobyl legacy hampered transforma-

tion. Moreover, in contrast to Central Europe and

the Baltic states, Eastern Europe had to undertake

its reforms without the major stimulus of possi-

ble EU membership and correspondingly mas-

sive technical and nancial support. The situation

has not been made easier by the fact that various

players neighbours, other inuential states and

supranational organisations often have had di-

vergent views on the desirable future of Eastern

Europe.


18/98


The geopolitical position

Despite common borders and many similarities,

the three countries of Eastern Europe do not con-

stitute a region in the sense of political communi-

ty. Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine have not yet de-veloped visible capacity and projects for regional

integration. On the contrary, Eastern Europe is a

zone of geopolitical attraction among major pow-

ers, including the Russian Federation to the east,

and the European Union to the west. Eastern Eu-

ropes pivotal location at the intersection of strate-

gic transport corridors, such as between Russian

and Caspian producers of fuel and European en-

ergy consumers, further amplies such inuence.

After expanding eastwards over the last decade,the EU seems to be experiencing enlargement

fatigue. Its capacity to absorb additional mem-

bers was compromised, in particular, by the fail-

ure in 2005 to ratify a new European constitution11.

Yet Eastern Europe borders seven of the new EU

member states (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slova-

kia, Hungary, and Romania) and watches over the

Unions longest land border12. The EU is also the

most important trade partner for all three coun-

tries. It is therefore still important for the EU to

have friendly, politically stable and economicallyprosperous countries on its doorstep, forming a

solid bulwark against unwanted migration, ter-

rorism and other threats such as drug, arms and

human trafcking (Ukraine and Moldova are the

only two European countries among the top ten

sources of illegal migrants to the EU)13.

EUs most comprehensive attempt to deal with

Eastern Europe is through its Neighbourhood Pol-

icy (see box) which aims at strengthenning stabil-

ity in the region and cross-border cooperation.

On the eastern side, Eastern European countries

must forge new relations with Russia with which

they share strong historic, cultural and social ties.

Russia is keen to maintain secure transit routes

through Eastern Europe while retaining the ties of

the past and developing political and economic

cooperation. Travel to and from Russia is still visa-

free. Simplied border regulations and cultural

afnity facilitates transfers from several millionEastern European migrant workers in Russia, and

other economic ties. Russia remains a key mar-

ket for Eastern European products and the most

important energy supplier for all three countries.

As is the case with the EU, this economic coop-

eration makes relations with Russia extremely im-

portant, and political disagreements for exam-

ple regarding the settlement of the Transnistrian

conict in Moldova very painful. Russian secu-

rity interests are also related to the presence of its

military facilities in Belarus, Moldova (Transnistria)and Ukraine (Crimea).

Since the disintegration of the USSR various in-

ternational bodies involving part of post-Soviet

states have been set up. The rst of these, the

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was

established in 1991. The CIS currently includes

12 former Soviet republics, while Turkmenistan

has been an associated member since 2005.

Among further initiatives the most notable was

the Collective Security Treaty signed in Tashkentin May 1992 between all CIS countries exclud-

ing Moldova, Turkmenistan and Ukraine14. An

economic integration initiative, the Eurasian

Economic Community (EurAsEC), was started in

2000 and currently involves six former Soviet re-

publics (including Russia and Belarus) as mem-

bers, and Ukraine and Moldova as observers.

EurAsEC aims to offer free trade, a common cus-

toms policy and, in the long term, monetary un-

ion. Finally, Russia has a close association with

Belarus reected in the Treaty of the Formationof a Union State, signed in 1996. Also notable in

the region is the Organization for Democracy and

Economic Development GUAM, which includes

Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.


19/98


EU Neighbourhood Policy

The Neighbourhood Policy emphasises politi-cal and economic interdependence betweenthe Union and its immediate neighbours (East-ern Europe and South Mediterranean) withwhich the enlarged EU will have important

shared interest in working together to tackletransboundary threats from terrorism toair-borne pollution. The goal of the Policy isto avoid drawing new dividing lines in Eu-rope and to promote stability and prosperitywithin and beyond the new borders of theUnion.

The Policy has been actively applied to Ukraine,and, increasingly, Moldova. After 2004, rela-tions between Ukraine and the EU became

closer, and they have now signed an EU-Ukraine Action Plan that envisages continueddemocratisation in Ukraine; enhanced securitycooperation ; and approximation of Ukrain-

ian law with EU regulations. The EU and Moldovahave also agreed on an Action Plan that providesfor closer links between the two, a more activerole for the EU in settling the Transnistrian con-ict, and promotion of sustainable development inMoldova, among others. The EU has signed part-

nership and cooperation agreements with all threecountries in the region, although the agreementwith Belarus has not come into force.

The environment is a high priority for the Neigh-bourhood Policy, which states that environmentalprotection can help to avoid conicts over scarce

resources and urges regional cooperation on en-vironmental issues. In 2006 the EU announcedthat it would allocate 1.6 million to environmentalsustainability projects in border municipalities in

Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia.

Source: European Commission 2004;

europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/index_en.htm for links to all aspects of

the EU Neighbourhood Policy. The Economist, 26 October 2006


20/98


KurskVoronezh

Moscow

Smolensk

MogilevMinsk

Vilnius

Kaliningrad

Warsaw Brest

Lublin

Rivne

Lutsk

Lviv

Chisinau

Kirovohrad

Kyiv

Balti

Ivano-Frankivsk

Debrecen

Cluj-Napoca

Brasov

Bucharest

Zhytomyr

Sumy

Kharkiv

Poltava

KhersonOdesa

Tiraspol Mykolaiv

Gomel

Grodno

Klaipeda

Chernihiv

Ternopil

Khmelnitskyi VinnitsyaCherkasy

Kremenchuk

Zaporizhzhia

Dnipropetrovsk

Donetsk

Luhansk

Berdyansk

Simferopol

Sevastopol

Vitebsk

Uzhhorod

Constanta

Krasnodar

Rostov-on-Don

Bryansk

Zhlobin

Chernivtsi

Soligorsk

Comrat

Chernobyl

Kerch

Yalta

RUSSIA

POLAND

ROMANIA

BELARUS

MOLDOVA RUSSIA

UKRAINE

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

RUSSIA

SLOVAK

REP.

HUNGARY

BULGARIA

Zap.Dvina

Neman

Pripyat

Dnie

per

Volg

a

Don

Dnieper

Desna

Dniester

Pivd.Buh

Pru

t

Danube

Tisza S

iret

Daugava

Siv.Donets

Black Sea

Sea ofAzov

Baltic

Sea

Sources: State Committee for Land Resources, Geodesy and Cartography. National Atlas of Belarus. Minsk 2002; State Committee for Natural

Resources. Integrated Atlas of Ukraine. Kyiv 2005; Moscow Ethnographic Institute, 1995 in Marin C. Atlas des minorits europennes. Paris 2005;Rekacewicz P. inAtlas du Monde Diplomatique, Paris 2006.

THE MAP DOES NOT IMPLY THE EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION ON THE PART OF ENVSEC PARTNER ORGANISATIONS CONCERNING

THE LEGAL STATUS OF ANY COUNTRY, TERRITORY, CITY OR AREA OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR DELINEATION OF ITS FRONTIERS AND

BOUNDARIES.


Gagauzia

Transnistria

C R I M E A

Peoples of Eastern Europe

Belarusians

Ukrainians

Crimean tatars

Gagauz

Moldovans

Poles

Bulgarians

Hungarians

Romanians

Lithuanians

Russians

Locally in the majority

Significant proportion

0 100 200 km


21/98


Internalsecuritychallenges

Internal problems and tensions are no less impor-tant than geopolitical challenges. Not only maythey weaken young states and increase their vul-nerability to external factors15, but they may alsopresent security challenges in their own right. Notsurprisingly such internal security factors featureprominently in the national security doctrines ofall three countries.

Many of the internal developments are common toother post-Soviet states. Though expanding, theregions economies still lag behind most of theirneighbours, with Moldova one of the poorest Euro-pean countries in terms of per capita GDP. All thecountries suffered economic decline in the 1990sfollowed by some recovery over the last ve to tenyears (see GNI gure). However, this recovery hasgone hand-in-hand with painful economic restruc-turing. In the past Belarus, Ukraine and Moldovawere intricately linked to the rest of the Sovieteconomy. The collapse of the USSR and economicliberalisation opened up local markets, increasedcompetition and severed some of the ties withformer Soviet republics. However access to West-ern markets, especially in the EU, has been verylimited and often conditional on political or furthereconomic reform. Moreover the new patterns oftrade with Europe have increasingly consisted ofexports of raw materials in exchange for imports ofmanufactured goods. Finally it has proven difcultto restructure the old heavy industry which was of-ten the mainstay of the Soviet-era economy.

Note: Purchasing Power Parity method.

Source: World Bank. Development Indicators database(www.worldbank.org).

Gross National Income (GNI)

GNI per capita in

current US dollars

1990 1992 1994 1996 2002

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

0

1998 2000 2004

1,000

8,000

Ukraine

Belarus

Moldova

2005

UNEP/GRID-Arendal, May 2007.


22/98


Selected economic, social and environmental indicators in Eastern Europe

GDP / capita(PPP USD),

2006*

Human DevelopmentIndex

(2006, rank)**

CorruptionPerceptionIndex 2006

(rank) ***

Environmental SustainabilityIndex (rank)****

2002 2005

Belarus 7,716 67 of 177 151 of 163 49 of 142 47 of 146

Moldova 2,377 114 of 177 79 of 163 39 of 142 58 of 146

Ukraine 7,803 77 of 177 99 of 163 136 of 142 108 of 146

Source: * - IMF (2007); ** - UNDP (2007); *** - Transparency International (2007); **** - Esty et al (2005)16.

Millions

1990

53

Population evolution

Note: The vertical scale for each graph is different.

Source: World Bank. Development Indicators database (www.worldbank.org); CIS-STAT. Population data for 2006-2007 (www.cisstat.com).

1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

52

51

50

49

48

0 0 0

10.3

10.2

10.1

10.0

9.9

9.8

Millions4.6

4.5

4.4

4.3

4.2

4.1

Millions

Ukraine Belarus Moldova

47

2007 20079.7 4.0


Key demographic indicators in Eastern Europe

Population, millionFertility rate, ***

HIV infection %adults****2005 2050 projection

Belarus 9.8* 6.96* 1.39 0.3

Moldova 4.33** 3.62** 1.81 0.2

Ukraine 46.5* 30.9*-37.7** 1.16 1.4

Sources: * - UNPD (2007); ** - U.S. Census Bureau (2006); *** - CIA (2006); **** - UNAIDS (2005).


23/98


Economic restructuring has consequently not de-livered on its promise of universally higher livingstandards and political stability. The decline inagricultural production contributed to increasedpoverty and further deterioration in the basic in-frastructure of rural areas in all three countries.Social problems have also become more acutein some heavily industrialised regions. In certaincases this has coincided with tension and conict.Here again, the most striking example is Transnis-

tria, home to almost all Moldovan industry withtraditionally strong ties to the former Soviet eco-nomic space. Another example of a region suf-fering from economic restructuring is the heavilyindustrialised Donbas region in Ukraine whereeconomic and social problems mesh with issuesof environmental and energy security.

The economic and social problems of rural andheavily industrialised areas are aggravated bydemographic trends, severely affected by the de-

clining birth rate, now below the replacement levelin all three countries. The populations of Ukraineand Belarus will shrink signicantly, with Ukraineexpected to lose 9 to 15 million people over thenext 50 years (see population gure). Outgoinglabour migration makes the situation even worse,hitting Moldova particularly hard, with an estimat-ed 600,000 to 1,000,000 Moldovans (i.e. 40% ofthe active population) working abroad.

Other serious, in some cases severe, problemsinclude the spread of HIV/AIDS and tuberculo-sis. The rate of increase in HIV/AIDS infectionsin the region is among the highest in the world,though significant differences between thecountries have been reported. Ukraine, with anadult infection rate of 1.4%, is the hardest hitcountry in Europe (UNAIDS 2005). The govern-ments of the three countries are making a con-siderable effort to attract international attention

and obtain assistance in addressing this seri-ous problem.

Coping with these difculties requires effective,resourceful and committed state government.However, government bodies in the region are notalways able to implement reform of social welfare,health care and education. They themselves areoften in need of reform, to effectively deal withpublic sector corruption, for example17.

As already pointed out, internal and external se-curity challenges are closely linked. On the onehand internal weaknesses increase vulnerabilityto external threats, and on the other hand exter-nal pressures often shape economic and politicalreforms with their social, environmental and othersecurity repercussions. Energy, among other is-sues, is at the core of both internal and externalsecurity challenges in the region.


24/98


Mediterranean S e a

B al t

i c

Se

a

Source: European Commission, Joint Research Center, Environment Insti tute; Insti tute of Global Cl imate and Ecology (Moscow); Roshydromet

(Russ ia) ; Minchernoby l (Ukra ine) ; Be lhydromet (Be larus) . Atlas of Caesium Deposit ion on Europe after the Chernobyl Accident.1998.

0 10E 20E 30E 40E 50E10W

40N

45N

50N

55N

60N

20W 60E

35N

Note: the map shows total deposition resultingfrom both the Chernobyl accident and nuclearweapon tests. However at the level above10 kBq per m2 in most cases the effects of theChernobyl accident are predominant.

The continental scale of the Chernobyl accident

RUSSIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

NORWAY

UNITEDKINGDOM

IRELAND

FRANCE

SPAIN ITALY

GERMANYPOLAND

UKRAINE

ROMANIA MOLDOVA

BELARUS

ESTONIA

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

CZECH REP.

SWITZERLAND

SLOVENIAHUNGARY

AUSTRIA

SLOVAK REP.

GREECE

DENMARK

THENETHERLANDS

BELGIUM

CROATIA

RUSSIA

Chernobyl

Black Sea

North

Sea

Atlantic

Ocean

Total Caesium-137 deposition

more than 1 480

from 185 to 1 480

from 40 to 185

from 10 to 40

Data not available

less than 10

per 10 May 1986, in kBq / m2




0 500 km


25/98


The energy dilemma and Chernobyllegacy

The overall impact of the Chernobyl disaster onBelarus and Ukraine, already mentioned at thebeginning of this chapter, is described further ingreater detail in the box. Given this tragic legacy,why are both Belarus and Ukraine currently con-sidering expanding their nuclear energy generat-ing capability? The answer lies in the special roleplayed by energy, and energy security, in EasternEurope.

Energy is vital for the internal and external secu-rity of all three countries (see gure). A secure,affordable domestic energy supply is critical toeconomic development, particularly in energy-hungry industrial sectors. It is also essential tomeet social needs (heating, transportation, etc.)especially for vulnerable groups. Since the re-gions own energy resources and production ca-pacities, especially in Moldova and Belarus, areinsufcient, a signicant proportion of energy hasto be imported (see table), primarily from Rus-sia. This is, in turn, a major factor in the externalsecurity of Eastern Europe. Another factor is thelocation of the region at the crossroads of majorenergy transport corridors linking producers inRussia and the Caspian region with consumersin Central, Western and Northern Europe. In thecontext of rising global demand for energy and

higher hydrocarbon prices, the stability of oil andgas transportation routes is becoming increas-ingly important for Russia, the EU, the UnitedStates and other countries19.

A good illustration of the external aspect of en-ergy security was the heated debate over ar-rangements for the supply of Russian naturalgas to Belarus and Ukraine, tariffs for transport-ing gas across these countries, and ownershipof gas transportation facilities. Belarus, a tradi-tional Russian ally, was purchasing Russian gasat $47 a cubic metre 20 until the end of 2006. From2007, the price of the gas was increased to morethan $100 a cubic metre. In the context of pricenegotiations, Belarus also agreed to sell 50% ofshares of Beltransgaz the Belarus national gasdistribution and transportation company to Rus-sias state-owned Gazprom. The dispute betweenRussia and Ukraine over gas prices in early 2006

resulted in disruption of gas supplies to WesternEurope sparking a strong reaction from the EUthat had worldwide resonance21. While most ob-servers considered that Russia was exerting po-litical pressure by increasing gas prices, otherspointed out that before the 2006 deal Gazpromhad been supplying Ukraine at a fth of the mar-ket price, equivalent to Russia subsidising theUkrainian economy by $3 to $5 billion a year 22. Asimilar dispute over tariffs on export of Russian oiland its products to and through Belarus resulted

in a brief disruption of oil supplies to Poland and


26/98


The Chernobyl legacy

The accident involving reactor meltdown and

massive release of radioactivity occurred on 26April 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plantsituated seven kilometres south of the Ukraine-Belarus border, at the conuence of the Pripyat

and Dnieper rivers. Radioactive fallout affectednot only Ukraine and Belarus, but also nearbyRussia and countries as far away as Swedenand the UK. The Soviet authorities initially triedto conceal the true extent of the disaster, butthen made unprecedented (and sometimes mis-guided) efforts to mitigate its consequences.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the bur-den of dealing with the catastrophe fell mainlyon Ukraine and Belarus, two much smaller andnewly independent states which did not haveanything approaching adequate means to dealwith the awful legacy.

In Ukraine, more than 350,000 inhabitants wereresettled from over 2,000 locations in the con-taminated zone. Several million others have livedon contaminated land since 1986. Between 5%

and 7% of the state budget of Ukraine is cur-rently spent mitigating the consequences ofChernobyl whereas in the early 1990s this g-ure was up to 10% and the total expenditure in1991-2005 amounted to about $7 billion

In Belarus radioactive contamination has af-fected about a fth of the territory and a sixth

of all agricultural land. The cost to the economyis estimated as the equivalent of 32 to 35 timesthe state budget in 1985. In 1991 Belarus spent

about 22% of its national budget on Chernobylremediation measures. The gure dropped to

6% in 2002 and is now about 3%. Total spend-ing by Belarus on Chernobyl between 1991 and

2003 exceeded $13 billion. Apart from direct health

impacts, the social problems of Chernobyl in Be-larus are related to the loss of rural livelihoods andoutward migration by the qualied workforce, cou-pled with inward migration by people who usuallyhave economic or social difculties elsewhere. With

a signicant amount of farming land in the areas of

major fallout still unsuitable for cultivation, develop-ment is a challenge, especially for small towns ac-commodating migrants from local rural communitiesand from the outside of the region (e.g. to Belarusfrom Central Asia). In Ukraine, about 6.7 million hec-

tares of land have been contaminated by radioactivefallout from Chernobyl and more than 3 million peo-ple live on contaminated land.

The current level of government expenditure oncompensatory payments is hardly sustainable.Meanwhile the direct health consequences haveslowly given way to longer-term social marginalisa-tion of the affected areas, and a number of nationaland international initiatives now focus on economicrehabilitation of the affected areas, ranging from

traditional direct support to structural attempts tomove the burden of recovery and development fromstates to communities and individuals. The 2002Report to the UN General Assembly (UNDP andUNICEF 2002) characterised the situation in the af-fected communities as a downward spiral of dete-riorating health, declining well-being and increasingenvironmental hazards. It identied numerous forms

of interaction between environmental contamina-tion, halted economic development, and the healthand social crisis. This was further elaborated in 2005

in material submitted by the inter-agency ChernobylForum, also endorsed by the UN General Assemblyin 2006. The latter reports prompted a controversialinternational response, regarding its alleged under-


27/98


estimate of the direct health impacts of radiation18

and its excessive emphasis on psychological ef-fects, fostering the misleading impression that theimpacts of Chernobyl were largely imaginary andcould be cured through some sort of or psychologi-cal help or social adaptation.

Radioactive pollution is still a concern in Chernobyl-affected areas. Whereas radioactive caesium andstrontium, still widespread, are decaying, the pluto-nium will stay in the environment much longer. (Plu-tonium was deposited in a much smaller area, but

is much more harmful if it enters the body.) Thereare substantial risks of transboundary spread ofcontamination: radioactive caesium and strontiumare transported by the Pripyat river from Belarus toUkraine and inuence contamination levels in Ukrain-ian rivers. Plutonium, although insoluble in water, iscarried away in dust and soot from recurrent forestand peat res, in suspended solid particles during

oods, and even in migrating wild animals (the wild-life population has substantially increased recentlydue to protection in part of the heavily polluted area,

obliging animals to look for food elsewhere, oftenbeing hunted by local residents). Some plutoniumisotopes decay into a more harmful, poorly stud-ied isotope, americium, the concentration of whichis consequently increasing. Contamination of themost severely affected areas is very uneven (with aten-fold variation over a few metres) and constantlychanging. In forests (including wildlife) and closedwater bodies such as small humic lakes, radioactiv-ity is expected to stay for decades, perhaps centu-ries. The issue of using less severely polluted areas

for farming is further complicated by the fact thatpoor peat soils (e.g. in northern Ukraine) are gener-ally characterised by a very high transfer rate of ra-dionuclides from soil to plants. This makes the use

of agricultural products problematic even if the

level of radioactive soil contamination substan-tially decreases.

The situation requires continued scientic re-search and observation to minimise the impactof radiation and support safe socio-economicdevelopment of affected areas. On the Bela-rus side the most severely contaminated areasare part of the Polesskiy Radiation-EcologicalReserve which monitors radiation, the environ-ment, ora and fauna. On the Ukrainian side, the

evacuated territories are managed by a specialadministration which conducts more diversemanagement tasks but is not responsible forscientic observations. Scientic research in

the Chernobyl zone is conducted by the Cher-nobyl centre for issues of nuclear security, ra-dioactive waste and radio-ecology. For the timebeing there is little direct research cooperationbetween these authorities of the two countries.

In the course of remediation work, a substantial

amount of radioactive materials and contami-nated equipment accumulated in the evacuatedand adjacent near-border areas. This, along withwidely discussed plans to build a storage facilityfor radioactive spent fuel from Ukrainian nuclearindustry beside the Chernobyl power plant itself,adds yet another dimension to the problem.

Sources: UNDP and UNICEF (2002), Nesterenko et al. (2002); The

Chernobyl Forum (2005) and the TORCH Report (Farlie and Sum-

ner 2006). Various other reports from the IAEA site at www-ns.iaea.

org/appraisals/chernobyl.htm. Other publications discussing the

health side of Chernobyl include: the International communication

platform at http://chernobyl.info/ website which includes e.g. SDC

(2006); Tourbe (2006); Boos (2006). Numerous ofcial publications

on Chernobyl were released to mark the twentieth anniversary of

the disaster in April 2006, e.g. Comchernobyl (2006); TESEC (2006);

Shevchuk and Gurachevsky (2006); Baloga (2006).


28/98


Gas from Russiaand Central Asia

Kursk

Moscow

Smolensk

Mogilev

Minsk

Vilnius

Kaliningrad

Warsaw

Brest

Lublin

RivneLutsk

Lviv

Chisinau

Kirovohrad

Kyiv

Balti

Ivano-Frankivsk

Debrecen

Cluj-Napoca

Brasov

Bucharest

Sumy

KharkivPoltava

Kherson

Odesa

Tiraspol Mykolaiv

Ignalina

Grodno

Klaipeda

Chernihiv

Ternopil

Khmelnitskyi

Kremenchuk

Zaporizhzhia

Dnipropetrovsk

Donetsk

Luhansk

Berdyansk

Simferopol

Sevastopol

Vitebsk

Uzhhorod

Constanta

Krasnodar

Rostov-on-Don

Chernivtsi

Soligorsk

Chernobyl

Rechitsa

Mozyr

PolotskNovopolotsk

Petrikov

Dnestrovsc

BeleuGiurgiulesti

Brody

Yuzhnoukrainsk

Feodosiya

Novorossiysk

RUSSIA

POLAND

ROMANIA

BELARUS

MOLDOVA

RUSSIA

UKRAINE

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

RUSSIA

SLOVAKREP.

HUNGARY

BULGARIA

Dniep

er

Dnieper

Dnieste

rP

rut

Danube Black Sea

Sea ofAzov

BalticSea

THE MAP DOES NOT IMPLY THE EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION ON THE PART OF ENVSEC PARTNER ORGANISATIONS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF ANY

COUNTRY, TERRITORY, CITY OR AREA OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR DELINEATION OF ITS FRONTIERS AND BOUNDARIES.

Energy resources, production and transportation

Sources: INCOTEC. Oil, gas and product pipelines of Russia and nearby states andAtlas. Fuel-energy complex of Russia XXI. Moscow 2006;

Lecarpentier A. Underground gas storage in the world, CEDIGAZ, 2006; Belarus State University.Atlas of Belarus Geography. Minsk 2005; State Committeefor Land Resources, Geodesy and Cartography. National Atlas of Belarus. Minsk 2002; Botnaru V. and O. Kazantseva. Republic of Moldova. Atlas. Chisinau2005; State Committee for Natural Resources. Integrated Atlas of Ukraine. Kyiv 2005. ENVSEC consultations 2006-7.

Major gas pipelines(line thickness indicates pipeline capacity)

Major oil pipelines

Coal deposits

Uranium deposits

Major hydropower plants(operating / projected)

Major fossil fuel power plants

Gas fieldsOil fields

Oil refineries(operating / under construction)

Oil terminals(in use / considered)

Gas processing plants

Underground gas storages

Peat deposits

Nuclear power plants(operating / projected / closed)

Main oil and gas areas


0 100 200 km


29/98


Imported energy is important to fuel economicdevelopment, particularly energy-hungry heavy in-dustry, such as machine building and steel produc-tion in Ukraine and fertiliser and chemical produc-tion in Belarus. Rening of oil products in Mozyrand Novopolotsk used to be a key sector in theBelarus economy (Balmaceda 2006), but protsmay drop substantially after Russia imposed tariffson the export of oil to Belarus in January 2007. Thesurvival of much of the metallurgy and machine-building industry in the Donbas depends directly

on a cheap, secure supply of natural gas currentlyimported from Russia, or on nding an alternativesuch as electricity from Ukraines domestic powersources. Most of heavy industries were inheritedfrom the Soviet Union and are often located in en-vironmentally and socially stressed areas, whileforming the mainstay of the existing economy. Itmay not be economically feasible to restructurethem to improve energy security. Moreover suchindustry is socially (and politically) important, asit constitutes the main source of work in densely

populated areas with a poorly diversied econo-my.

There are many other ways in which energy is linkedto social and ultimately political issues. Even withcurrent tariffs often below cost-recovery levels,heat and electricity bills are a burden for poor peo-ple. In 2003 utility bills (primarily electricity) rep-resented 37% of an average pensioners income

in Moldova (Fankhauser and Tepic 2005). Raisingtariffs to cost-recovery levels may render heat andelectricity virtually unaffordable for many.

Throughout the difcult 1990s, the energy supplyin Eastern Europe remained relatively secure dueto the slowdown in industrial activity and substan-tially under-priced imports of oil and gas from Rus-sia and Central Asia. Recently energy demand inthe region has reached and surpassed the 1991level at the same time as the world oil prices have

increased dramatically. Russia, for its part, hasstarted a reappraisal of the political and economiccosts and benets of providing indirect energy sub-sidies. These factors are forcing the three countriesto urgently rethink their energy supply options.

The need is so pressing that Belarus and Ukraineare turning to nuclear power to solve their energyproblems. Belarus plans to build a domestic nu-clear power plant by 2015, while the Energy Strat-egy adopted by Ukraine proposes new nuclear

reactors and extending the service life of existingones. This raises obvious technological challengeslocating reactors and nding adequate water re-sources for cooling, particularly in Ukraine whichis already short of water in many areas. But thedeployment of nuclear power is also associatedwith various security challenges ranging from en-forcement of non-proliferation to concerns aboutterrorism, the operation of reactors and radioac-

Energy Consumption in Eastern Europe

Energy intensity of theeconomy

(million TOE / $ billion)*

% of imports inenergy balance*

Predicted affordability ofbasic utilities for poorest

population in 2007**

Belarus 1.61 87% 13-30%

Moldova 2.01 97% 7-12%

Ukraine 3.19 46% 7-21%

OECD

average

0.20

Sources: * - IEA (2005); ** Fankhauser and Tepic (2005)

Notes: ** affordability is measured as the share (%) of household income required to pay utility bills (electricity, heat and water); services are considered affordable

if their cost is below 10% of income for electricity and 10% to 15% for heating, the total cost of all utilities being under 20%; the data are predicted for 10% of

the poorest population.


30/98



Energy - environment - security interactions

Domestic energy resources

(supply, production, transportation)

Environmental impacts

Climate

Air quality

Water use and pollution

Waste, land, ecosystems

Radiation risks

Social impacts

Employment

Affordability

Safety

Health

Comfort micro-level

Production

State security

Stability

Taxes and costs

macro-level

Trade

Power

Use and (in)efficiency

Industry and transport

Households

Strategic infrastructure

Domesticenvironmental

impacts

Externaland globalenvironmentalimpacts

Energy

marketsForeignpolicy

Foreignenergy resources

(supply, production,transportation)

Energy(in)dependence

Energyneeds

COUNTRY - REGION

REST

OFTHEWOR

LD

Environment and security links

Other fields of possible conflict

Potential environment and security concerns and conflicts


31/98


tive waste disposal (Rosenkrantz 2006). In addi-tion it may aggravate social and political tensions,already reected in the hostile response by Ukrain-ian NGOs, opposed to plans to expand the nuclearpower base23. On the other hand Ukraine and Be-larus are determined to increase energy efciencyand implement cleaner energy technologies.

The need to increase energy independence hasfocused fresh attention on the coal sector whichcurrently provides up to a half of all energy, andfuels up to a quarter of electricity production inUkraine. Belarus also has substantial deposits ofbrown coal. The importance of coal to the regioncould potentially increase, but would require majorcapital investment. Much as nuclear power it couldresult in signicant environmental risks though newtechnologies may ensure cleaner (albeit more ex-pensive) coal-based energy generation. Other do-

mestic energy supply options, such as hydropoweror using wood and other bio-fuels are associatedwith environmental, social and security impactstoo (e.g. the impact of newly-built hydropower fa-cilities on downstream areas).

Whatever the strategic choices, restructuring ofthe energy sector in Eastern Europe will continue,and will have a major impact on the economy andsocial stability as well as the state of the environ-ment. As long as the key lessons of Chernobyl re-

main on the agenda, these impacts need to be fullyunderstood and integrated into policy-making.

Environmental challenges facing theregion

The Chernobyl disaster is the foremost, though byno means the only, example of the regions majorenvironmental problems, largely associated withpast disregard for the environment and the rapidindustrialisation and modernisation of the USSR.Much of this legacy did not receive sufcient at-tention during the difcult transition years, whendeclining living standards, and political and eco-

nomic instability took precedence over environ-mental issues. The transition and recent economicrecovery created new environmental challenges,many of which interact with security issues at thelocal, regional and national level.Major environmental problems inherited from theSoviet era are often located in and around largeindustrial centres. This is a result of intensive in-dustrialisation in compact areas, inefcient use ofenergy and natural resources, and disregard forlocal environmental concerns. Air and water pol-

lution, accompanied by degradation of the land-scape and ecosystems, is acute industrial zones inUkraine and Belarus. The wetland areas of Polesiein southern Belarus are another type of territoryunder stress, intensive drainage and deforestationcarried out to recover land for farming having dam-aged ecosystems and ultimately caused a dropin agricultural productivity. Serious environmen-tal degradation also threatens the ecosystems ofthe Carpathian mountains and the Azov and Blackseas.

Environmental degradation often goes hand-in-hand with the declining health of local people.This overlaps with more recent economic andsocial problems which have often hit hardest thevery same heavily industrialised areas that havethe most serious environmental problems. In turnsocial and economic difculties shift attention andresources away from the environment, further ag-gravating the situation and creating a vicious circlethat poses an additional threat to social stability.

It is interesting to note that in the USSR environ-mentally-degraded areas often adjoined large,relatively untouched ecosystems with rich biodi-versity. The Soviet command economys ability to


32/98


restrict economic development to designated are-as resulted in a specic patchwork of environmen-tal degradation. The remaining wilderness areashave signicant potential for nature conservationand tourism.

While some forms of environmental damage werereduced during the transition, others became

much worse. The positive effects of transition in-cluded improved resource efciency resulting inmore realistic pricing of natural resources, newforeign and domestic investment in cleaner tech-nologies, and a cutback in subsidies for heavy(particularly military) industry. On the down side,deregulation associated with market liberalisa-tion resulted in laxer environmental controls. Theeconomic and political difculties distracted theattention of the public and policy-makers from en-vironmental issues. The increasing focus of busi-

ness on prot-making encouraged more intensiveexploitation of natural resources. Environmentaldegradation around large industrial facilities wasoften made worse by chronic underinvestment intheir maintenance. In addition, trade liberalisationin some cases resulted in shifts towards more pol-lution and resource-intensive industries (Cherp etal. 2003). The all-pervading commercial propagan-da that accompanied the rise of market economiesstrengthened consumerist behaviour among thosefortunate enough to be able to consume.

Strong, dynamically adaptive environmentalprotection agencies are needed to tackle thislegacy and meet new challenges. Substantialprogress in this field has been achieved in allthree countries, particularly in view of the factthat at independence even the ministries incharge of environmental protection were barelyfunctional. In addition to progress at home, thethree countries have played a remarkable part ininternational agreements (see table) and Europe-

an processes, such as Environment for Europe,

with Kyiv hosting the fifth Ministerial meeting in2003. Progress in drafting modern environmen-tal legislation has been boosted by the coun-tries commitment (particularly for Ukraine andMoldova) to bring environmental norms in linewith EU directives.

At the same time, environmental bodies in the

region are still generally weak compared to theirWestern and Central European counterparts (re-ected, in particular, in the relatively low Envi-ronmental Sustainability Index scores of all threecountries cited in the Internal security section).Institutional development is particularly ham-pered by the insufcient priority given to the en-vironment by the political agenda and mass me-dia. Global environmental issues such as climatechange, biodiversity conservation and unsustain-able consumption attract little public attention. At

the same time environmental problems causingdirect health, social or economic impacts (con-tamination by hazardous substances, safety ofwater or land degradation) continue to generatesignicant public interest.

While a detailed picture of the environment in the

three countries may be found in the specialist lit-

erature, including regular publications by national

environmental authorities24, this report focuses

on specic environment-security interactions

(see map). For the region as a whole these maybe summarised under the three themes identied

in the rst chapter:

Security implications of environmental prob-

lems. Environmental problems often compound

external security tensions and worsen internal

security challenges in Eastern Europe. Of partic-

ular concern are environmental hazards concen-

trated along national borders (including the bor-

ders with the EU, Russia and borders between

the three countries). Environmental hazards and


33/98


Participation of Eastern European and neighbouring countries in multilateral environmental agree-ments

CountryConvention / protocol*

BY MD UA LT LV PL SL HU RO RU

UNECE conventions

Long-range transboundary air pollu-tion (CLRTAP)

R R R R R R R R R R

Persistent organic pollutants R S R S A R R

Heavy metals R S R R S A R REnvironmental impact assessment ina transboundary context (Espoo)

A R R a a R R R R

Strategic environmental assessment(SEA)**

S S S S S S S S

Transboundary effects of industrialaccidents(TEIA)

R R R R R R R R R

Access to information, public partic-ipation and justice (Aarhus)

AA R R R R R R R R

Pollutant release and transfer registers(PRTR)**

S S S S S S R

Protection and use of transboundarywaters (Helsinki)

R R R R R R R R R R

Water and health** R R R R S R R R R

Civil liability S S S S S R S

Other international conventions

Transboundary movements and dis-

posal of hazardous waste (Basel)

A a A a a R d AA a R

Protection of biological diversity(BD)

R R R R R R AA R R R

Persistent organic pollutants (Stoc-kholm)

A R S S R S R S R S

WetlandsofInternationalImportance

(Ramsar)R R R R R R R R R R

Source: conventions home pages.

Notes: * the names of conventions (bold) and protocols (plain) are given in a simplied form; ** - not yet in force; Signature (S), Accession (a), Acceptance (A),

Approval (AA), Ratication (R), Succession (d).


34/98


Crimea

UKRAINE

Sumy

Kursk Voronezh

Moscow

Smolensk

MogilevMinsk

Vilnius

Kaliningrad

Warsaw Brest

Lublin

RivneLutsk

Lviv

Chisinau

Kirovohrad

Kyiv

Balti

Ivano-Frankivsk

Debrecen

Cluj-Napoca

Brasov

Bucharest

ZhytomyrKharkiv

Poltava

KhersonOdesa

Tiraspol Mykolaiv

Ignalina

Gomel

Grodno

Klaipeda

Chernihiv

Ternopil

Khmelnitskyi VinnitsyaCherkasy

Kremenchuk

Zaporizhzhia

Dnipropetrovsk

Donetsk

Luhansk

Berdyansk

Simferopol

Sevastopol

Vitebsk

Uzhhorod

Constanta

Krasnodar

Rostov-on-Don

Bryansk

Zhlobin

Chernivtsi

Soligorsk

Chernobyl

Gagauzia

Tuzla IslandZmiinyi Island

Rivnenska

Khmelnitska

Zaporizka

Pivdennoukrainska

Smolenskaya

Kurskaya

Novovoronezhskaya

Kozloduy

RUSSIA

POLAND

ROMANIA

BELARUS

MOLDOVA

RUSSIA

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

RUSSIA

SLOVAK

REP.

HUNGARY

BULGARIA

Zap.Dv

ina

Neman

Pripyat

Dnie

per

Volg

a

Don

Dnieper

Desna

Dniester Pivd. Buh

Pru

t

Danube

Tisza

Siret

Daugava

Siv. Donets

Black Sea

Sea ofAzov

Donbas and adjacent areas

Polesie

LowerDniester and

Transnistria

Lower Danube

West-Ukrainian

industrial areas andCarpathian Mountains

BalticSea

North-Western Belarus

THE MAP DOES NOT IMPLY THE EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION ON THE PART OF ENVSEC PARTNER ORGANISATIONS CONCERNING THE

LEGAL STATUS OF ANY COUNTRY, TERRITORY, CITY OR AREA OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR DELINEATION OF ITS FRONTIERS AND BOUNDARIES.

Environment and security priority areas in Eastern Europe

Sources: Belarus State University.Atlas of Belarus Geo

envsec eastern europe

Documents