Meeting the Environment Millennium Development Goal in Europe and Central Asia

EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA

Meeting the Environment Millennium Development Goal in Europe and Central Asia World Bank Document

Public Information Center in Russia

environment & ecology

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized

28294 Europe and Central Asia Region Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Региональное управление для стран Европы и Центральной Азии Департамент экологически и социально устойчивого развития _________________________________________________________

Meeting the Environment Millennium Development Goal in Europe and Central Asia Достижение Цели развития в области окружающей среды, намеченной в Декларации тысячелетия, в Европе и Центральной Азии

____________ The World Bank, June 2003 Всемирный банк, июнь 2003 г. www.worldbank.org/eca/environment

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Приведенные в настоящей работе выводы, толкования и заключения отражают точку зрения авторов, которая может не совпадать с мнением Совета исполнительных директоров Всемирного банка или правительств представляемых ими стран.

Printed on 30% post consumer recycled paper Отпечатано на бумаге, на 30% изготовленной из вторичного сырья

Contents Executive Summary (English and Russian) Chapter I. Assessment of ECA’s Performance on MDG7 A.

B.

C.

Target I: Halve, by 2015, the Proportion of People Without Sustainable Access to Safe Drinking Water and Basic Sanitation 1. Water Supply 2. Basic Sanitation Target II: Integrate the Principles of Sustainable Development into Country Policies and Programs and Reverse the Losses of Environmental Resources 1. Introduction 2. Land Area Under Forest 3. Land Area Protected to Maintain Biodiversity 4. Energy Efficiency 5. Carbon Emissions 6. Proportion of Population Using Solid Fuels Target III: Have Achieved by 2020 a Significant Improvement in the Lives of at Least 100 Million Slum Dwellers 1. Proportion of Population with Access to Secure Tenure

Chapter II. Adequacy of the Indicators as Measures of Environmental Sustainability in ECA A.

B.

Problems with the Official Data 1. Base Year 2. Data Gaps 3. Data Reliability Supplementary Data on ECA’s Performance with Respect to MDG7 1. Water Supply Indicator 2. Sanitation Indicator 3. Forestry Indicator 4. Biodiversity Indicator 5. Energy Efficiency Indicator 6. Carbon Emissions 7. Slums

Chapter III. The Linkages Between MDG7 and the Health and Poverty MDGs A.

Linkages to Health MDG 1. Water Supply, Sanitation and Health 2. Energy MDG Indicators and Health 3. Indoor Air Pollution 4. Health Benefits from CO2 Reduction B. Linkages to Poverty MDG 1. Water Supply, Sanitation and Poverty in ECA 2. Forestry and Land Conservation: Links to Poverty 3. Energy and Poverty

i 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 11 12 14 14 18 18 21 21 21 25 25 26 27 27 29 32

Chapter IV. Cost Analysis A.

Cost of Meeting the Water Supply and Sanitation MDGs 1. Cost of Water Supply Programs 2. Cost of Sanitation Programs 3. Comparison of Costs with Other Estimates 4. Aggregate Estimate for All CIS B. Costs of Meeting the Energy Indicators 1. Introduction 2. Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Russia 3. Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Ukraine 4. Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Kazakhstan

35 35 35 41 44 45 46 46 46 48 49

Chapter V. Setting of Priorities and Implications for Bank Activities A. Priorities B. Specific Bank Activities 1. Target I: Water Supply and Sanitation 2. Target II: Integrating the Principles of Sustainable Development into Country Policies and Programs and Preventing the Loss of Resources 3. Target III: Improving the Lives of Slum Dwellers C. Data Quality and Partnerships

52 52 52 52

Bibliography

56

53 54 54

Annexes 1.

2.

3.

Millennium Development Goals and Definitions of MDG7 Indicators..........................................59 Official Data on Millennium Development Goals ......................................................................... 64 Survey Data on MDGs ...................................................................................................................72

Tables 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Environmental Sustainability (MDG 7) Targets and Indicators .......................................................1 Environmental MDG Indicators for ECA and Other Groups........................................................... 2 Factors that Determine Country Environmental Management Rankings.........................................5 Data on Quality and Regularity of Supply of Water in CIS Countries ............................................9 Traditional Fuel Use As a Percentage of Total Energy Use...........................................................17 Share of Wood and Coal in Household Energy .............................................................................17 Links Between MDG7 and the Health and Poverty MDGs............................................................ 22 Impact of a One Percent Increase in Delivery of Water Supply or Sanitation on Under 5 Mortality Rates............................................................................................................23 Diarrheal Disease Estimates for 2001 ............................................................................................24 Variations in Under 5 Mortality Attributed to WSS Provision and Other Factors ........................25 Use of Coal and Biomass in Selected Countries ............................................................................26 Ancillary Benefits from GHG Emission Reduction in 2010..........................................................26 Access to Water and Sanitation by Income Quintile......................................................................29 Household Income in Turkey.........................................................................................................30 Urban Network Energy Use in Eastern Europe and Central Asia..................................................33 Urban non-Network Energy Use in Eastern Europe and Central Asia ..........................................33 Number of Urban Residents with Access to Piped Water in Selected Countries ..........................36 Cost of Urban Water Supply Systems............................................................................................38 Access to Improved Water in Rural Areas.....................................................................................39 Cost of Rural Water Supply Systems.............................................................................................40

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Total Water Supply Cost Estimation: 2000-2015 .........................................................................41 Cost of Urban Sewerage Systems ..................................................................................................42 No. of People with Access to Sewage System in Urban Areas in Selected Countries...................43 No. of People with Access to Improved Sanitation in Rural Areas in Selected Countries ........................................................................................................................................43 Cost of Rural Sewage System Services..........................................................................................44 Total Sanitation Cost Estimates .....................................................................................................44 Total Cost of Achieving WSS MDG for All CIS...........................................................................46 Potential for Carbon Reductions in Russian Federation: 2008-2012 .............................................47 Potential for Carbon Reductions in Ukraine: 2008-2012...............................................................49 Potential for Carbon Reductions in Kazakhstan: 2008-2012 .........................................................50

Figures 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Access to Water Source ...................................................................................................................3 Access to Basic Sanitation ...............................................................................................................4 Protected Land Area in 2002............................................................................................................6 Energy Efficiency and Change: 1992-99 in PPP GDP...................................................................15 Energy Efficiency and Change in GDP..........................................................................................16 Water Supply and Poverty Linkages in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan ...............28 Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Russia: 2008-2012 ..................................................................... 47 Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Ukraine: 2008-2012...................................................................49 Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Kazakhstan: 2008-2012 .............................................................51

Acronyms AAN ADB BAU BIMS CIS CO2 DALY DHS EECCA ECA ENPEP EU FAO GDP GEF GHG KGOE L&M HH HIID IMR LPG LSMS MDG MDG7 MICS MMTC NGO

Assigned Amount Units Asian Development Bank “Business as Usual” Biodiversity and Information Monitoring Systems Commonwealth of Independent States Carbon Dioxide Disability Adjusted Life Years Demographic Household Survey Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia Europe and Central Asia Energy and Power Evaluation Program European Union Food and Agriculture Organization Gross Domestic Product Global Environment Facility Greenhouse Gas Kilograms of oil equivalent Lower and Middle Income Household Harvard Institute for International Development Infant Mortality Rate Liquified Petroleum Gas Living Standards Measurement Study Millennium Development Goal Environment Millennium Development Goal Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Million Metric Tons of Carbon Non-governmental Organization

NOX NSS NTFPS OECD PCF PPP SO2 TC TSP UN WDI WHO WSS UNECE UNFCCC U5MR UNICEF WRI

Nitrogen Oxide National Strategy Study Non-Timber Forest Products Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Prototype Carbon Fund Purchasing Power Parity Sulfur Dioxide Total Cost Total Suspended Particles United Nations World Development Indicators World Health Organization Water Supply and Sanitation United Nations Economic Commissions for Europe United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Under Five Mortality Rate United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund World Resource Institute

Acknowledgements This document was prepared by Anil Markandya, Da Zhu (ECSSD) and Elena Strukova (Consultant).

Inputs were received from Marjory-Anne Bromhead and Peter Dewees (ECSSD), and Motoo Konishi and Ellen Hamilton (ECSIE). Comments on the concept note were provided by Robert J. Anderson (ECAVP), Jonathan Halpern (EWDWS), Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez, Roberto Martin-Hurtado (ENV), Vesselina Hekimova (WBIEN), Lee Travers, Jane Olga Ebinger (ECSIE), Emilia Battaglini, Julia Bucknall, Richard Burcroff and Kimberly Heuckroth (ECSSD). The work was conducted under the supervision of Jane Holt, Sector Manager Environment, and Laura Tuck, Sector Director, ECSSD.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A.

Introduction

This report reviews the status of the 28 countries1 of Europe and Central Asia (ECA) with respect to the environmental Millennium Development Goal (MDG7). The aim of this goal is to ‘Ensure Environmental Sustainability,’ which is elaborated by a set of three targets and eight indicators, given below.

Table 1: Environmental Sustainability (MDG 7) Targets and Indicators2 Target I. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation II. Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the losses of environmental resources III. By 2020 to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers

Indicators 1. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source 2. Proportion of population with access to basic sanitation 3. Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per $1 GDP (PPP) 4. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) 5. Proportion of land area covered by forest 6. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area 7. Proportion of population using solid fuels 8. Proportion of households with access to secure tenure

Source: UN Website for the MDGs

Additional indicators are being added and worked on but are not yet ready for a full assessment.

1

Countries included in the analysis are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia FYR, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Serbia and Montenegro (Central and Eastern Europe); and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan (Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia–EECCA); and finally Turkey.

2 The set of targets and indicators is still in flux. Targets being considered include: (a) maintain or restore fish stocks to levels that can produce he maximum sustainable yield by 2015, (b) reverse loss of biodiversity by 2010, (c) establish a network of marine protected areas by 2012, (d) increase share of renewable energy in total energy supply within 20 years and (e) phase out by 2020 production and use of chemicals that harm health and environment. These still need to be elaborated and are being worked on.

Hence they are not discussed further in this report. Table 1 reorganized the order of the targets and indicators for research purposes.

i

B. What are the Key Messages for ECA Countries with Respect to the Three Targets?

•

ECA still has a long way to go to meet the target of halving the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water, despite what the official statistics show.

Officially,3 progress toward this target is measured by access to an improved source of water. By this measure, the present level of access to safe water in ECA is 91%.

An improvement to 94%4 by 2015 would be needed to meet the MDG target of halving the proportion of people without access to an improved source, a relatively modest challenge. The real challenge to meet the target of access to safe water requires a focus on quality. In ECA, drinking water frequently does not meet basic biological and chemical standards, and this constitutes a major health threat. Thus there is a strong case to be made that the quality of supply must be improved.

Countries where the problem is most serious include all of the CIS (particularly Central Asia), Albania and Romania. The quality problems are significantly worse in rural areas where 30% of households are without access to piped water. In rural Moldova, 60% of water sampled from supply systems does not meet quality standards. Many urban areas are also in need of urgent action to prevent the collapse of delivery systems.

•

For basic sanitation, the present level of access is 93% and the target value for 2015 is 95%, again a relatively small increase. The main problem for sanitation is sewage systems that are in a state of disrepair and continue to deteriorate. Without increased investment, the situation will actually worsen. As for quality of water supply, access to sanitation is most problematic in Albania, Romania, and CIS countries. Thus the current high figures are not reason for complacency. Rather lack of further investment will cause the situation to worsen.

•

Despite an increase in energy efficiency of 35% since 1992, the ECA region remains the least energy efficient in the world in terms of GDP per unit of energy used. An increase in efficiency of 74% is needed if the ECA region is to reach the same energy efficiency level as other countries at similar levels of development in terms of PPP GDP per kg of oil equivalent (PPP GDP/KGOE). There is considerable scope for gains in energy efficiency in most of the region. The removal of energy subsidies, which still remain high in many countries would go a long way to increase efficiency.

3

Official data means data submitted by governments and partners as acknowledged in the World Bank’s “World Development Indicators,” 2003 and by the UN statistical office. The data in this version may differ from that of other versions, as access to the recently released 2003 WDI statistics has just become available.

4 The MDG base year is 1990, and the target year is 2015, a period of 25 years. As the base year data is missing in most countries, to determine the level of improvement needed to meet the MDG target, one solution is to take the year closest to 1990 for which data is available and assume the target will be met on a pro rata basis. For example, if data is available from 2000 onwards, the target improvement from 2000 to 2015 would be: divide the 15 remaining years by the original 25-year period and multiply this ratio by 50%. Thus, (15/25)*50%=30%, which means from 2000 to 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water should be reduced by 30%. See Chapter 2 for details.

ii

For example, if Russia were to remove its subsidies, it is estimated that energy efficiency (GDP/energy) would increase by 1.5%, energy consumption would be reduced by 18%, and CO2 emissions would decrease by 17%. There is a developing problem of household access to adequate electricity and district heat in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Many households have turned to fuelwood for warmth in the winter and cooking needs. There is a need to find ways to induce household energy use toward cleaner fuels, especially for poor and rural households that often suffer from indoor air pollution associated with coal and wood burning.

•

Carbon dioxide emissions in ECA declined 27% between 1992 and 1999. Compared to the rest of the world, however, emissions are still high. A decrease of 67% is needed if the ECA region is to reach the same level of CO2 per capita emissions as countries at a similar level of development. Within the region there is considerable potential for reducing carbon emissions in the larger, more industrialized economies, but less so in the poor countries of Central Asia. Carbon reductions in some ECA countries could also be sold to other countries who find it cheaper to buy reduction credits rather than undertake mitigation measures at home. The Bank’s Prototype Carbon and Community Development Funds could help these ECA countries to lower their carbon emissions.

•

At 40%, ECA has more forested area than the world average of 30% and forest areas are increasing in absolute numbers according to official statistics. However, the extent of continuous old growth forests and the broad shade provided by big trees is declining and forest management is under threat in many countries. Illegal logging is also problematic for some in the region and the deposition of nitrogen, acids and heavy metals exceed critical levels in some areas. Thus, as in the case of water, indicators need to be selected to accurately monitor these important dimensions of the problem.

•

Important actions needed to meet the target of environmental sustainability relate to institutional reforms regarding the way that a country’s natural resources are managed. The Bank’s assessment of the countries’ policies and institutions gives the lowest rankings to the countries of Central Asia, where a major effort will be needed, especially to strengthen the Ministries of Environment and to ensure better compliance and enforcement of laws and regulations, and thus compliance.

•

Slums are a growing problem in the region, especially in peri-urban areas, although the definition of a “slum” still requires further clarification. Greater study is needed to assess the extent of this problem in the ECA region. Data collection in selected countries where the problem is known to exist (e.g. Albania) would be a starting point. Research into the reasons why slums develop in ECA is also crucial. The extent to which land reforms, including titling and privatization, have been successful in preventing slum development should be researched.

•

Official data are not very reliable and more country work is needed to verify the real gaps. Furthermore, in some cases, the indicators are not adequately defined, thus not

iii

providing the most appropriate focus for attention. For example, problems of water supply in ECA are not so much related to access, but to quality of service.

C.

What is the Status of the ECA Countries with Respect to the Three Targets?

1.

Target I: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation

Official data on the indicators for this target, where they exist, paint a generally positive picture on how things have been changing and how the countries in the region compare with others at a similar level of development. There are, however, some areas of concern.

The key observations are: Improved water supply For access to improved water supply, the average for the region in 2000 was 91%. The MDG targets for 2015 for this indicator are: 94% for ECA, 87% for lower and middle income countries (L&M)5 and 88% world-wide. Current values outside ECA are 79% for all low and middle income (L&M) countries and 81% world-wide. According to official data, countries in the region below the average for the L&M group are: Azerbaijan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Romania, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan (Figure 1). The situation is particularly bad in rural areas, especially in these same countries, but also more generally across ECA.

100 80 60 40 20 0 TURKMENISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

ROMANIA

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

AZERBAIJAN

LOW/MIDDLE INC.

TARGET 2000

ECA

% of Households

Figure 1: Access to Improved Water Source

Source: The World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank

5

ECA countries as a group have a per capita GNI of $2,010, which is very close to that of middle income countries ($1,970). However the average is skewed by a few large higher income countries, and 11 of the 27 countries in the region have a per capita GNI closer to that of lower income countries ($410). These are: Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

iv

Basic sanitation Access to basic sanitation for the region in 2000 was 93%. The MDG targets for 2015 for this indicator are: 95.1% for ECA, 72% for L&M countries, and 74.5% worldwide.

No countries in the region are below the average for the L&M group, although Romania is close (at 53%) (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Access to Basic Sanitation

% of Households

100 80 60 TARGET 2000

40 20 0 ECA

LOW/MIDDLE INCOME

Source: The World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank

2.

Target II: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the losses of environmental resources

This target is not defined in quantitative terms, although it has some quantitative indicators largely related to natural resources. For ECA the most important actions needed to meet this target relate to institutional reforms regarding the way that a country’s natural resources are managed. The Bank has made an assessment of the countries’ policies and institutions for environmental sustainable development, relating specifically to the role of Ministries of Environment.6 The lowest rankings are given to Central Asian countries. There, a major effort will be needed to achieve the institutional reforms necessary for environmental sustainability.

Areas where action is needed include: the legal basis for management; monitoring and collecting of environmental data and its use for decision-making; strengthening the Ministry of Environment’s capacity for policy design and ability to influence and work with other Ministries (including better pay for civil servants); developing and implementing a modern cost effective, and incentive compatible regulatory framework; facilitating the financing of environmental investments from public and private sources and from financial institutions; and improving public access to information, including 6

See Table 3, Chapter 1.

v

greater participation in key environmental decisions. resources, both internal and external.

All this will need substantial

On the quantitative indicators corresponding to this target the situation is as follows: Forested areas In 2002, forests covered 40% of ECA’s land area, a figure that has remained virtually unchanged since 1990 (39%). Land area under forest in ECA is 40% in 2000, not very different from the 1990 level of 39%. The world average for this indicator is 30% and the L&M average is 31%. There is no target value for this indicator in the MDG framework, but globally an increase is seen as desirable. According to official data, the only country in the region with declining forest cover since 1990 is Albania. Across the Region, however, the extent of continuous old growth forests and the broad shade provided by big trees is declining. Illegal logging is also problematic for some countries in the region and the deposition of nitrogen acids and heavy metals exceeds critical levels in some areas. Thus, as in the case of water, indicators need to be selected to accurately monitor these important dimensions of the problem.

Land area protected to maintain biodiversity Protected land area averages 7% in ECA, compared to 11.7% globally in 2002. Nearly all the countries outside the Accession group (16 of them) are below the world average.

Most notable are those countries shown in Figure 3. The average for ECA is skewed by the large areas for Russia (8.3%). There is no target for this indicator but, as with forest cover, an increase is seen as desirable.

Energy efficiency ECA has shown an increase in energy efficiency of 35% since 1992 (earliest year for which we have data for most countries). The only countries not showing an increase over the period are Turkmenistan and Ukraine. In spite of the general increase, however, the PPP GDP/KGOE in 2002 was only 2.3, compared to 4.0 for L&M countries and 4.5 for the world as a whole. So a further increase of around 74% is needed to bring the region into line with countries at a similar level of development.

vi

AZERBAIJAN

ROMANIA

BULGARIA

TAJIKISTAN

UKRAINE

ALBANIA

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

SERBIA & MONTENEGRO

GEORGIA

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

MOLDOVA

BOSNIA

WORLD AVERAGE

ECA

% of Land

Figure 3: Protected Land Area in 2002 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Source: World Bank Indicators 2003, The World Bank

Carbon emissions Carbon emissions per capita have declined since 1992 in all countries except Hungary and Serbia and Montenegro. The overall decline in the region has been 27% between 1992 and 1999. As with energy efficiency, however, the gap with the rest of the world is quite wide. In 1999 (latest year for which data are available), emissions per capita in the region were around 6.6 metric tons, compared to 2.2 for L&M countries and 3.8 for the world as a whole. To bring the region in line with other countries at its level of development would require a further fall of 67% in per capita emissions. As with energy efficiency there is no target value for this indicator, although some countries have carbon emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

Proportion of population using solid fuels No official data are available for these indicator.

3.

Target III: By 2020 to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers

Proportion of population with access to secure tenure For the first time in 2003, the WDR reported data for 23 cities in 16 of the 28 countries in the region. The data, however, are limited to one year only and so no trends can be discerned. Moreover it is likely that it will be difficult in the ECA region to identify the extent of populations living in ‘slum’ status by looking at data focused on security of tenure. It is clear that the question of slums is one that will need increasing attention in the future, thus it is critical that the analytic tools be developed to lay a better foundation for understanding the situation and how to measure progress.

vii

D.

Linkages Between the Environmental MDG Indicators and the Health and Poverty Goals

The indicators for the environment MDG are important not only as measures of environmental sustainability, but also as contributors to the health and poverty goals (see Table 7 in Chapter 3 for a summary of linkages). In ECA, these linkages are clearly brought out for the water supply and sanitation indicators, but also apply to the carbon reduction, forestry and biodiversity indicators.

1.

Health Linkages

Water supply and sanitation Improvements in water supply and sanitation are clearly linked to reductions in child mortality and diarrheal disease. The links are stronger in tropical and sub-tropical countries than in ECA, most of which is temperate. Within ECA, however, countries with higher levels of improved water supply and sanitation also have notably lower reported child mortality and overall morbidity related to diarrhea.

There are also links between access to safe water and sanitation, and water and land management. In many parts of Central Asia, drinking water is provided through irrigation systems, while in South Eastern Europe, poor agricultural practices have contributed to nutrient contamination of groundwater used for drinking.

Energy The energy indicator most closely linked to health is the use of wood and biomass, where data indicate that, worldwide, perhaps as many as 2 million deaths are attributable to indoor air pollution. ECA region’s share is likely to be quite small, but nevertheless significant in selected countries (Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan).

A more serious problem not picked up by the indicators as currently defined is access to sufficient energy, especially heat. Recent Bank reports on surveys in the region show households complaining about insufficient heat and increasing illnesses related to being cold. For example in Sevastopol, Ukraine, it was reported that in 56% of households somebody had become sick because indoor temperatures were too low. In Moldova, many households are subjected to indoor temperatures of only 5-100 Celsius in the winter months. Similar problems have been encountered in many other countries, especially during the last winter which was exceptionally cold. Such effects are not captured by the proposed indicators. Indeed an increase in ‘energy efficiency’ may be evidence of an increasing problem of access.7 Carbon dioxide emissions The carbon indicator is linked to policies to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have the ancillary benefit of reducing air pollution, since both are generated from the burning of fossil fuels. These include SO2, NOx, TSP, and heavy metals, which have a direct 7

See, Coping With the Cold, World Bank Technical Paper No 529, 2002.

viii

impact on human health. Estimates of the potential benefits of a reduction in fossil fuel emissions indicate that reductions in air pollution related deaths per ton of carbon range from 27 per 100,000 tons in Russia to 38 in Ukraine. These benefits are not insignificant and can be critical in deciding whether to pursue a more costly energy development plan that reduces carbon emissions, versus one that is less costly but higher in terms of carbon output. Certainly any national carbon reduction target value should take into account such benefits.

2.

Poverty linkages

Water supply and sanitation A number of studies have shown that the lack of improved water and basic sanitation is predominant among the poor, especially the rural poor. Data from Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan show, for example, that in the lowest quintile by wealth, access to piped water is virtually zero, while in the highest quintile it is nearly 100%. Similar findings hold for reliance on access to sanitation. Hence investments in rural water and sanitation are highly progressive and benefit the poor directly, by reducing both the income and non-income dimensions of poverty.

Energy In terms of energy, it is predominantly the poor who lack access to sufficient heat and rely on non-network energy. Among the non-network sources, the poor depend disproportionately on wood and coal, while the better off have greater use of a relatively clean fuel, such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). This increases the relative exposure of the poor to indoor air pollution.

Natural resources There are close linkages between natural resource use and the living standards of rural communities, although the causal relationships are complex. Poor rural communities often live in mountainous and forested areas, including those with high levels of biodiversity, and can be dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods. Both poor and non-poor contribute to resources degradation, but the poor have less ability to weather the impact of environmental degradation. In some circumstances, poverty can exacerbate natural resource degradation. Increasing poverty and rising prices for fossil fuels in Albania and Armenia may have led to excessive use of forest products for fuelwood, contributing in turn to soil erosion, declining species diversity of pasture land and declining fertility of pasture land E.

Adequacy of the Measured Indicators as Measures of Environmental Sustainability in ECA

1.

Limitations of official data

Base year There are virtually no 1990 values for the indicators, which is the base year against which quantitative targets are defined in the MDG program. This means that the target change ix

has to be measured relative to a different base year (probably 2000, the first year for which reasonably consistent data are available). Furthermore, it is difficult to extrapolate from the new base year what the remaining time period should be, compared to the target of 25 years in the MDG program.

Data gaps Official data are also missing for several countries for more recent years. This gap needs to be filled urgently as does the lack of data on solid fuel use and people living in slums.

Data reliability Some of the achievements indicated by the official data are not consistent with observations on the ground. For example, substantial problems are known to exist in water supply provision in Albania, Moldova and Ukraine and yet official data for these countries report delivery rates for 2000 of 97%, 92% and 98% respectively. Likewise for sanitation, figures of 100% for Georgia and the Kyrgyz Republic are high compared to experience on the ground. For forestry in-country sources estimates loss of forests since 1990 for Armenia, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

2.

Inadequacy of indicators themselves

Even with full information, the present indicators would be inadequate in a number of areas: Water supply The challenge in meeting the safe water target is not related so much to access to water from an improved source, but to problems with quality and regularity of water supply. In many ECA countries, water quality, even from improved sources, does not meet basic chemical and microbiological standards and therefore constitutes a health threat. The figures are especially high for rural water, but even for piped water there are problems with, for example, more than 60% of water sampled in Moldova below standards. For non-piped water, the range is 25% (Ukraine) to 65% (Moldova). Moreover, in some countries water quality is actually declining and in other countries it is also deteriorating but no official acknowledgement of this fact is made. Regularity of supply is also an issue in a number of countries.

Sanitation Although connection to a public sewer is quite high, in urban areas the system is frequently in a poor state of repair. This means that sewage water can leak out without treatment and pollute water resources. For example, in Kazakhstan, about 33% of the mid-sized and large sewage treatment systems and 26% of smaller towns do not meet basic maintenance standards. In rural areas basic sanitation services are widely available, but access to any form of sewage which is necessary for the use of indoor toilets is rare, especially in the CIS. Forestry While the data on forest cover present a very positive picture, experts note that forest conditions in Europe as a whole are not improving but deteriorating (UNECE, 2002). x

Specifically, the crown condition of forests has declined since 1990; in 2001 more than 20% of the sample trees were rated as damaged. Furthermore, deteriorating forest management including illegal logging and over-harvesting in some areas has led to an overall decline in forest quality.

Biodiversity In addition to land area under conservation there is a need to focus on landscape features, such as the extent to which selected habitats or ecosystems are connected by corridors with appropriate management regimes.

Energy efficiency The improvements in some countries may be more related to a shortage of energy than to improved energy use. The issue of a lack of access to adequate energy is an important factor, but is missing from the indicators.

Carbon emissions Carbon emissions may not be a good guide to the long-term capacity of ECA economies to reduce carbon emissions. Some temporary increase in per capita emissions may be justified if economies in ECA are growing very rapidly and GDP is recovering from very low 1990 levels. In several other very poor countries in the region, emissions per capita are extremely low and future increases may be justified as they need the headroom for growth.

F.

Costs of Meeting the Environment Targets

1.

Water supply and sanitation

Due to the significant variation across ECA in the state and performance of the water supply and sanitation sectors, costs to meet the MDGs are difficult to estimate and, for the EU accession countries, the MDG targets are less relevant. This paper focuses largely on the CIS countries.

These countries have a less developed infrastructure and institutional capacity and suffer from considerably more severe fiscal constraints, reductions in household income, and a much slower reform process than the other countries in the region. This has led to an alarming deterioration in services and weakening of sector institutions. Within EECCA, countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus are facing a particularly challenging uphill battle in preventing the collapse of present infrastructure and urgently need to reform sector policies and rebuild and strengthen sector institutions.

As a starting point, the costs of meeting the quantitative targets of water supply and sanitation (WSS), taking into account the need to improve quality, have been estimated in detail for three countries—Kazakhstan, Moldova and Ukraine. The present and target values are given in Table 4 below.

xi

Table 4: Current Situation and Water and Sanitation Targets for Kazakhstan, Moldova and Ukraine Urban Piped Water % of HH

Rural Improved Water % of HH

2000 2015 2000 2015 Kazakhstan 96.9 97.8 82 87.4 Moldova 79.6 85.7 88 91.6 Ukraine 95.6 96.9 94 95.8 Source: World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank.

Urban Sewage System % HH 2000 73.1 67.6 79.8

2015 81.2 77.3 85.9

Rural Improved Sanitation % HH 2000 98 98 98

2015 98.6 98.6 98.6

The annual expenditures needed from 2003 to 2015 are shown in Figure 4, along with estimates of actual annual investments in this sector in 2000/01. Further delaying needed investments will lead to further deterioration and an estimated more than trebling of per capita costs.

The figure shows that in these countries, the annual investment required in WSS will have to be raised considerably if the MDG targets are to be met (from around $120 million to over $200 million). For all the CIS countries, investment to meet the WSS targets is estimated at $1.1 billion per year, which is considerably more than current investment.8 Figure 4: Annual Investment in Water Supply and Sanitation Required 2003-15

Actual 2000-01

120

$Mln.

100 80 60 40 20 0 KAZAKHSTAN

MOLDOVA

UKRAINE

Source: World Development Indicators, 2003, The World Bank

8

The cost estimates have been made based on the following assumptions: (a) the average cost of repairing existing water supply and sanitation systems (WSS) is estimated to be US$60 per capita; (b) the cost of building a new water supply system is US$200 per capita; (c) the cost of building a new sewage system in urban areas is US$250 per capita; and (d) the cost of providing pit latrines in rural areas is US$25 per capita. It is estimated that 35% of existing WSS systems in the CIS need to be repaired. In urban areas, the MDG target is assumed to imply access to a piped water supply system and a public sewage system; in rural areas, it is assumed to imply access to improved water supply and sanitation as given in the UN MDG definitions.

xii

2.

Costs of reducing carbon emissions

Carbon Emissions One indicator for the environmental sustainability target where there is tremendous scope for improvement, and where allocating resources is justified in terms of the links to poverty alleviation and health is carbon emissions per capita. For example, in the case of Russia, about 220 million tons of carbon could be reduced over the 2008-2012 period at no net cost (i.e. the programs have other benefits that more than justify the interventions) and another 300 million tons or so could be reduced at a price of up to $15 per ton of carbon. This would have positive health benefits and could also generate local employment benefits if the projects undertaken are, for example, carbon sequestration projects in areas with high unemployment. Similarly for Ukraine, the comparable figures are 120 million tons of ‘no regrets’ reductions and around 65 million tons at a cost of less than $40 per ton. For Kazakhstan, around 20 million tons could be reduced under no regrets options and another 13 million at a cost of up to $20 per ton.

These reductions require substantial capital investments, for which lack of funds is a major constraint. One way to increase funds would be to allow forward trading of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs, or tradable emissions), and channel the revenues into GHG reduction programs. Consideration should also be given to the opportunities offered by instruments such as the Biocarbon Fund and the Community Development Carbon Fund, which provide financing for projects that reduce carbon in developing countries while generating local benefits in terms of employment and poverty alleviation.

The Community Development Carbon Fund will provide carbon finance to small-scale projects in poorer rural areas. The Biocarbon Fund is a prototype fund to demonstrate projects that sequester or retain carbon in forest and agro-ecosystems in transition countries. Its aim is to deliver cost-effective emission reduction solutions, while promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Both funds have a target size of $100 million.

Natural resources management With natural resources, the key issue is not simply an increase in forest cover or land under conservation, but the way in which this land is managed as an integral part of a sustainable livelihood strategy for the region. Sustainable forest management increases local incomes both from timber and wood processing and from non-timber products and tourism. Sustainable economic use and land management of protected areas increase incomes for local communities, through the sale of local products and promotion of tourism. Reed harvesting, fisheries and income from tourists in the Danube Delta, which spans Romania and Ukraine, and is the largest European delta ecosystem west of the Volga, are key sources of income for the local population.

In contrast, in Kazakhstan, increasing rural poverty and weakened public institutions, combined with rising demand for saiga antelope horns from China, have led to massive poaching of this species, causing numbers to decline from 900,000 in 1990 to an estimated 50,000 at present. Its numbers had previously declined in the late 19th century, but had recovered thanks to a series of protective measures, combined with controlled hunting, during the Soviet period. xiii

xiv

Краткое содержание A.

Что представляет собой Цель развития в области охраны окружающей среды, намеченная в Декларации тысячелетия?

В настоящем отчете рассматривается положение дел в 28 странах1 Европы и Центральной Азии (ЕЦА) с учетом Цели развития в области охраны окружающей среды, намеченной в Декларации тысячелетия (ЦР7). Постановка указанной цели призвана «Обеспечить экологическую устойчивость», которую более развернуто можно представить в виде 3 целевых показателей и 8 индикаторов, описанных ниже. Таблица 1: Целевые показатели и индикаторы экологической устойчивости (ЦР 7)2 I.

II.

Целевой показатель Сокращение вдвое (к 2015 г.) доли населения, не имеющего стабильного доступа к безопасной питьевой воде и базовой санитарии Включение принципов устойчивого развития в политику и программы стран и обращение вспять процесса утраты природных ресурсов.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Индикаторы Доля населения, имеющего стабильный доступ к улучшенному источнику воды Доля населения, имеющего доступ к базовым средствам санитарии (канализации) Энергопользование (кг нефтяного эквивалента) в расчете на $1 ВВП (ППС) Выбросы двуокиси углерода (на душу населения) Процентная доля земель, покрытых лесами Отношение охраняемых площадей, выделенных для поддержания биоразнообразия, к общей площади поверхности Доля населения, использующего твердые виды топлива Процент домохозяйств, имеющих гарантированное право владения землей

III. К 2020 г. – достижение 8. значительного улучшения качества жизни как минимум 100 миллионов обитателей трущоб Источник: Веб-сайт ООН, посвященный Целям развития.

1

Страны, включенные в данный анализ: Албания, Босния и Герцеговина, Болгария, Хорватия, Чешская Республика, Эстония, Венгрия, Латвия, Литва, Македония, Польша, Румыния, Республика Словакия, Словения, Сербия и Черногория (Центральная и Восточная Европа); Армения, Азербайджан, Беларусь, Грузия, Казахстан, Кыргызстан, Молдова, Российская Федерация, Таджикистан, Туркменистан, Украина и Узбекистан (Восточная Европа, Кавказ и Центральная Азия – ВЕКЦА), и, наконец, Турция.

2 Совокупность целевых показателей и индикаторов пока еще окончательно не определилась. На данный момент рассматриваются следующие целевые показатели: (а) сохранение и восстановление рыбных запасов до объемов, которые могут к 2015 году дать максимально устойчивые результаты, (b) к 2010 году изменение ситуации, приводившей к обеднению биоразнообразия, (с) создание к 2012 году сети морских охранных территорий, (d) в течение 20 лет рост доли возобновляемых источников энергии в общем объеме энергоресурсов и (e) к 2020 г. постепенное прекращение производства и использования химических веществ, наносящих ущерб здоровью и окружающей среде. Указанные целевые показатели нуждаются в тщательном анализе и работа в этом направлении продолжается В силу этого указанные показатели в дальнейшем в этом отчете не рассматриваются. В целях исследования порядок целевых показателей и индикаторов в Таблице 1 изменен.

В настоящий момент работа ведется над дополнительными индикаторами, которые, однако, еще не готовы для полной оценки.

B. •

Какие главные выводы могут сделать для себя страны ЕЦА относительно трех рассматриваемых целевых показателей? Странам ЕЦА еще предстоит пройти длительный путь, прежде чем они смогут достичь целевой показатель сокращения вдвое части населения, не имеющей доступа к безопасной по санитарным нормам питьевой воде, несмотря на цифры, отражаемые официальной3 статистикой. С формальной точки зрения, прогресс на пути достижения данного показателя измеряется степенью доступности улучшенного источника воды. В настоящий момент доступность безопасной питьевой воды в странах ЕЦА составляет 91 процент. Для выполнения намеченного в Цели развития показателя по сокращению вдвое доли населения, не имеющего доступа к улучшенному источнику водоснабжения, потребуется повысить существующий показатель до 944 процентов к 2015 г., что представляет собой сравнительно скромную задачу. Реальная задача с точки зрения осуществления целевого показателя доступности безопасной воды требует сосредоточения основного внимания на вопросе качества водоснабжения. В ЕЦА питьевая вода часто не отвечает базовым биологическим и химическим стандартам, представляя серьезную опасность для здоровья населения. Таким образом, существуют серьезные доводы в пользу необходимости повышения качества водоснабжения. Страны, в которых эта проблема ощущается наиболее остро, включают все государства СНГ (и особенно республики Центральной Азии), Албанию и Румынию. Качество воды значительно хуже в сельских районах, где 30 процентов населения не обеспечены водопроводной водой. В сельских районах Молдовы 60 процентов проб воды, отобранных из систем водоснабжения, не отвечало стандартам качества. Аналогичная цифра по Таджикистану составляет 12 процентов. Во многих городских районах также необходимо принятие срочных мер для предотвращения разрушения систем водоподачи.

3

Термин «официальные данные» означает данные, представленные правительствами и партнерами и опубликованные в «Показателях мирового развития» Всемирного банка, 2003 г. Данные в этой работе могут отличаться от данных из других документов, поскольку лишь сейчас стала доступной недавно опубликованная статистика «Показателей мирового развития», 2003 г. и статистическом бюро ООН.

4 Базовым годом для ЦР является 1990 г., а контрольным годом – 2015 г., т.е. речь идет о периоде продолжительностью 25 лет. Поскольку данные за базовый год в большинстве стран отсутствуют, единственным решением для определения степени улучшения, которая необходима, чтобы выйти на целевой показатель ЦР, является соотнесение с годом, за который есть данные и который максимально близок к 1990 г.; при этом делается допущение о том, что целевой показатель будет определен на пропорциональной основе. Например, если имеются данные, начиная с 2000 г., то целевой показатель улучшения в период с 2000 по 2015 гг. будет установлен следующим образом: делим 15 оставшихся лет на первоначальный 25-летний период и умножаем полученный коэффициент на 50%. Таким образом. (15/25)*50%=30%, что означает, что в период с 2000 г. по 2015 г., доля населения, у которой отсутствует устойчивый доступ к безопасной питьевой воде, должна сократиться на 30%.

xvi

•

В области базовой санитарии текущий уровень обеспеченности канализацией составляет 93 процента, а соответствующий целевой показатель на 2015 год равен 95,1 процента, что также представляет собой сравнительно небольшое увеличение. Главной проблемой санитарного контроля является неудовлетворительное техническое состояние канализационно-очистных систем, которое требует принятия безотлагательных мер. С точки зрения качества водоснабжения, обеспеченность канализацией наиболее низка в Албании, Румынии и странах СНГ. Поэтому текущие высокие цифры официальной статистики не могут служить поводом для успокоения. Напротив, отсутствие дальнейших инвестиций в эту область приведет к ухудшению сложившейся ситуации.

•

Несмотря на рост энергоэффективности на 35 процент по сравнению с 1992 годом, регион ЕЦА остается самым неэффективным в мире с точки зрения объема ВВП в расчете на единицу использованной энергии. В странах ЕЦА необходимо повысить энергоэффективность на 74 процентов, если ставится задача достижения регионом показателя энергоэффективности, характерного для других стран, находящихся на сходном уровне развития по показателю паритета покупательной способности (ППС) ВВП на килограмм нефтяного эквивалента. Существует значительный потенциал повышения данного показателя на большей территории рассматриваемого региона. Ликвидация энергетических субсидий, которые все еще высоки во многих странах, сделают значительный вклад в повышение энергоэффективности. Так, в случае ликвидации системы субсидий в России энергетическая эффективность (отношение ВВП к энергозатратам), вероятно, увеличится на 1,5 процента, энергопотребление сократится на 18 процентов, а объемы выбросов двуокиси углерода снизятся на 17 процентов. Существует растущая проблема нехватки электроэнергии и районного теплоснабжения в странах Кавказа и Центральной Азии. Многие домохозяйства перешли к использованию дров для обогрева помещений в зимний период и приготовления пищи. Существует потребность в поиске путей поощрения населения к использованию более чистых видов топлива, особенно для бедных и сельских домохозяйств, которые часто страдают от загрязнения воздуха в помещениях, связанного со сжиганием угля и древесины.

•

Выбросы двуокиси углерода в ЕЦА по сравнению с 1992 г. сократились на 27 процентов. Однако по сравнению со среднемировыми показателями объем эмиссий все еще высок. Требуется сокращение выбросов углекислоты на 67 процента для обеспечения странами ЕЦА соответствующего показателя на душу населения, который характерен для стран, находящихся на сходном уровне развития. Внутри региона имеется существенный потенциал сокращения эмиссий углерода в более крупных индустриализированных странах и – в меньшей степени – в бедных странах Центральной Азии. Возможна продажа углеродных квот в другие страны, которые сочтут более выгодным приобретение кредитов на выбросы, нежели принятие мер по смягчению вредных экологических последствий на собственной территории. Углеродный

xvii

фонд-прототип и Фонд общинного развития, созданные Всемирным банком, способны помочь странам ЕЦА в сокращении эмиссий углерода.

•

Страны ЕЦА имеют более значительную долю лесных угодий в общей площади территории по сравнению с соответствующим среднемировым показателем (40 и 30 процентов, соответственно). Более того, согласно официальной статистике, в абсолютных значениях наблюдается рост занимаемых лесами площадей. Однако площади сплошных лесных массивов старой посадки и теневой древесный полог, обеспечиваемый крупными деревьями, сокращаются. В некоторых странах региона проблему также составляет незаконная вырубка, а в ряде мест осаждение азотных кислот и тяжелых металлов превышает критические уровни. Таким образом, как и в вопросе качества водоснабжения, необходим выбор индикаторов для точного мониторинга этих важных параметров.

•

Важные меры, которые необходимо принять для достижения цели экологической устойчивости развития, связаны с институциональными реформами в области управления природными ресурсами страны. Оценка Банком политики и институтов является наиболее низкой для стран Центральной Азии, где потребуется приложить значительные усилия в этом направлении, особенно для повышения потенциала и авторитета министерств по охране окружающей среды в обеспечении более эффективного механизма исполнения – и, тем самым, соблюдения – законов и нормативных актов.

•

Понятие «трущобы» неадекватно определено, при этом они могут представлять собой растущую проблему в данном регионе, особенно в пригородах. Требуется больший объем исследований для оценки масштабов этой проблемы в регионе ЕЦА. Отправным пунктом такой работы может стать сбор данных в отдельных странах, где признается наличие этой проблемы (например, в Албании). Столь же необходимо проведение исследований причин возникновения трущоб в странах ЕЦА. Следует изучить степень успеха земельных реформ, в том числе передачи прав собственности и программ приватизации, в профилактике распространения трущоб.

•

Официальные данные не очень надежны, и требуется дополнительная работа в отдельных странах для уточнения реальных пробелов. Кроме того, в ряде случаев индикаторы определены неадекватно, лишая исследователей возможности сосредоточить внимание на наиболее существенных проблемах. Так, реальные проблемы водоснабжения связаны не столько с доставкой воды населению, сколько с качеством обслуживания.

C.

Каково положение дел в странах ЕЦА с точки зрения выполнения трех рассматриваемых целевых показателей?

1.

Целевой показатель I: Сокращение вдвое к 2015 г. доли населения, не имеющего устойчивого доступа к безопасной по санитарным нормам питьевой воде и базовой санитарии xviii

Официальные данные в отношении индикаторов по данному целевому показателю (там, где они имеются) в целом рисуют положительную картину, складывающуюся в странах ЕЦА, по сравнению с другими странами, находящимися на аналогичном уровне развития. Однако при этом имеется ряд моментов, вызывающих озабоченность. Выделяются следующие ключевые наблюдения: Повышение качества водоснабжения Средний показатель доступа к улучшенным источникам водоснабжения за 2000 год в регионе составил 91 процент. Целевые показатели в рамках Целей развития на 2015 г. по данному индикатору составляют: 94 процента для ЕЦА, 87 процентов для стран с низким и средним уровнем доходов5 и 88 процентов для мира в целом. Текущие показатели по регионам, не относящимся к ЕЦА: 79 процентов – в странах с низким и средним уровнем доходов и 81 процент – в среднем по миру. Согласно официальным данным, к странам региона, имеющим показатели ниже среднего показателя для группы стран с низким и средним уровнем доходов, относятся Азербайджан, Кыргызстан, Румыния, Таджикистан и Туркменистан (Рис.

1). Наиболее плачевная ситуация складывается в сельских районах, особенно в указанных странах, хотя в целом эта картина характерна для всех стран ЕЦА.

100 80 60 40 20

2000

ТУРКМЕНИСТАН

ТАДЖИКИСТАН

РУМЫНИЯ

КЫРГЫЗСТАН

АЗЕРБАЙДЖАН

СТРАНЫ С НИЗК./СР. ДОХ.

2000

0 ЕЦА 2000

Процент домохозяйств

Рис. 1: Доступ к улучшенному источнику водоснабжения

Цел. показатель

Источник: Индикаторы мирового развития, 2003 г., Всемирный банк

5

У группы стран ЕЦА уровень доходов на душу населения составляет $2,010, что очень близко к показателю стран со средним уровнем доходов ($1,970). Однако симметричность средней величины искажают ряд стран с более высоким показателем уровня доходов, а также 11 из 27 стран региона, в которых доход на душу населения ближе к показателю стран с низким уровнем доходов ($410). К таким странам относятся: Албания, Сербия и Черногория, Армения, Азербайджан, Грузия, Кыргызстан, Молдова, Таджикистан, Туркменистан, Украина и Узбекистан.

xix

Базовые санитарные условия Показатель наличия средств базовой санитарии (канализации) в регионе в 2000 г. составлял 93 процента. Целевые показатели, предписываемые Целями развития по данному индикатору на 2015 год, составляют: 95 процентов для ЕЦА, 72 процента для стран с низким и средним уровнем доходов и 75 процентов для мира в целом. Ни одна страна, представляющая данный регион, не опускается ниже действующего среднего показателя для группы стран с низким и средним уровнем доходов, хотя Румыния находится очень близко (ее показатель составляет 53 процента) (Рис. 2). Рис. 2: Оснащенность оборудованием базовой санитарии Процент домохозяйств

100 80 60 40 20 0 ЕЦА 2000

2000

СТРАНЫ С НИЗК./СР. ДОХ. 2000

Цел. показатель

Источник: Показатели мирового развития, 2003 г., Всемирный банк

2.

Целевой показатель II: Включение принципов устойчивого развития в политику и программы стран и обращение вспять процесса утраты природных ресурсов

Количественное значение данного целевого показателя не определено, хотя он предусматривает ряд количественных индикаторов, главным образом характеризующих природные ресурсы. Для стран ЕЦА наиболее важные меры, необходимые для достижения этого целевого показателя, связаны с институциональными реформами в области управления природными ресурсами страны. Общая оценка Банком мер политики и институтов, обеспечивающих экологически устойчивое развитие, в части роли министерств по охране окружающей среды6, представлена в Таблице 2. Она содержит рейтинг стран ЕЦА с кратким пояснением факторов, определяющих различия позиций в рейтинге. Наибольшие проблемы отмечаются в странах Центральной Азии, где потребуются серьезные меры для реализации институциональных реформ, необходимых для обеспечения большей экологической устойчивости процесса развития. В частности,

6

См. Таблицу 3, Глава 2

xx

необходимо принятие мер в следующих областях: правовая основа системы управления качеством окружающей среды; мониторинг и сбор данных об окружающей среде и их использование при принятии решений; укрепление потенциала Министерства охраны окружающей среды в области разработки политики, а также его способности оказывать влияние и взаимодействовать с другими министерствами (включая вопрос повышения заработной платы государственным служащим); разработка и реализация современного нормативноправового механизма, обеспечивающего высокую эффективность затрат и предусматривающего систему стимулов; упрощение процесса финансирования экологических инвестиций из государственных и частных источников, а также финансовыми учреждениями; расширение доступа общественности к соответствующей информации, в том числе повышение ее роли в принятии наиболее важных природоохранных решений. Все эти меры потребуют выделения значительных ресурсов – как внутренних, так и внешних. В области количественных индикаторов, относящихся к данному целевому показателю, ситуация обстоит следующим образом: Площади, покрытые лесами Площадь территории стран ЕЦА, занятая лесами, в 2002 г. составляла 40 процентов, что почти не отличается от данных за 1990 год (39 процентов). Соответствующий среднемировой показатель составляет 30 процентов, а в странах с низким и средним уровнем доходов – 31 процента. По данному индикатору количественный показатель в рамках ЦР отсутствует, но в глобальном масштабе его увеличение считается желательным. Согласно официальным данным, единственной страной региона, в которой после 1990 года наблюдается сокращение лесного покрова, является Албания, однако в масштабах региона площади сплошных лесных массивов старой посадки и теневой древесный полог, обеспечиваемый крупными деревьями, сокращаются. В некоторых странах региона проблему также составляет незаконная вырубка, а в ряде мест осаждение азотных кислот и тяжелых металлов превышает критические уровни. Таким образом, как и в вопросе качества водоснабжения, необходим выбор индикаторов для точного мониторинга этих важных параметров. Охраняемые территории, выделенные для поддержания биологического разнообразия Охраняемые территории в странах ЕЦА в 2002 г. составляют в среднем 7 процентов, тогда как среднемировой показатель равен 11,7 процента. Почти все страны за пределами группы стран, готовящихся к вступлению в ЕС (16 стран), имеют показатели ниже среднемирового. Среди них выделяются страны, отмеченные на Рис. 3. Среднее значение по ЕЦА искажено в силу более значительных площадей охраняемых районов в России (8,3 процента). Целевого показателя по данному индикатору не существует, но, как и по показателю площади лесного покрова, увеличение считается желательным.

xxi

АЗЕРБАЙДЖАН

РУМЫНИЯ

БОЛГАРИЯ

TAJIKISTAN

УКРАИНА

АЛБАНИЯ

КЫРГЫЗСТАН

СЕРБИЯ И ЧЕРНОГОРИЯ

ГРУЗИЯ

КАЗАХСТАН

УЗБЕКИСТАН

МОЛДОВА

БОСНИЯ

В СРЕДНЕММИР

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

ЕЦА 2000

Процент угодий

Рис. 3: Охраняемые территории в 2002 г.

Источник: Показатели мирового развития, 2003 г., Всемирный банк.

Энергоэффективность Показатели энергоэффективности в странах ЕЦА повысились на 35 процент по сравнению с 1992 г. (первый год, за который мы располагаем данными по большинству стран). За указанный период рост не наблюдался только в Туркменистане и Украине. Однако, несмотря на совокупное повышение данного показателя, общие уровни энергоэффективности низки. Паритет покупательной способности (ППС) ВВП в пересчете на 1 кг нефтяного эквивалента в 2002 г. составлял лишь 2,3 по сравнению с 4,0 в странах с низким и средним уровнем доходов и 4,5 - в среднем по миру. В рамках Целей развития по данному индикатору количественное значение показателя отсутствует, однако потребуется его дополнительное увеличение примерно на 74 процентов, чтобы довести показатель до уровня энергоэффективности стран, находящихся на аналогичном уровне развития. Выбросы углерода Выбросы углерода в расчете на душу населения сократились за период после 1992 года во всех странах, за исключением Венгрии и Сербии и Черногории. Общее снижение по региону составило 27 процентов. Однако, как и по показателю энергоэффективности, разрыв по сравнению с остальным миром еще достаточно велик. В 1999 г.(самый последний год, за который есть данные), объем выбросов на душу населения в регионе составил порядка 6,6 метрических тонн – в сравнении с 2,2 тоннами в странах с низким и средним уровнем доходов и 3,8 тоннами – в среднем по миру. Для приведения региона в соответствие с другими странами аналогичного уровня развития понадобится дальнейшее сокращение эмиссий на душу населения на 67 процента. Как и по индикатору энергоэффективности, по данному показателю количественное значение не указано, хотя ряд стран ставят задачу выполнения показателей в соответствии с Киотским протоколом. Доля населения, использующего твердые виды топлива Официальные данные по данному индикатору отсутствуют.

xxii

3.

Целевой показатель: К 2020 году обеспечить существенное улучшение качества жизни как минимум 100 миллионов обитателей трущоб.

Процент населения, имеющего гарантированное право владения землей Впервые в 2003 г. в докладе Всемирного банка о мировом развитии приведены данные по 23 городам шестнадцати из 28 стран региона. Однако эти данные охватывают лишь один год и не позволяют установить какие-либо тенденции. Разумеется, проблема трущоб относится к числу проблем, которые потребуют повышенного внимания в будущем, поэтому критически важное значение приобретает разработка аналитических средств для создания более надежного фундамента для осмысления ситуации и измерения прогресса деятельности в этом направлении.

D.

Взаимосвязь между индикаторами ЦР в области окружающей среды и Целями в области охраны здоровья и сокращения бедности

Экологические индикаторы Цели развития в области окружающей среды, заявленной в Декларации тысячелетия, имеют важное значение не только как измерители экологической устойчивости развития, но и как факторы, вносящие вклад в достижение поставленных целей в области здравоохранения и сокращения бедности. В странах ЕЦА это наиболее отчетливо проявляется в индикаторах, характеризующих водоснабжение и канализационное обслуживание, однако при этом также связано с индикаторами сокращения выбросов углерода, лесопользования и биоразнообразия. (Таблица 3).

1.

Взаимосвязь с вопросами охраны здоровья

Водоснабжение и санитария Прослеживается четкая взаимосвязь между повышением качества водоснабжения и канализации и снижением детской смертности, а также сокращением желудочнокишечных заболеваний. Эта взаимосвязь более четко проявляется в тропических и субтропических странах, нежели в странах ЕЦА, большая часть которых находится в умеренном климате. Однако внутри региона ЕЦА страны с более высокими показателями водоснабжения и канализации имеют также значительно более низкие официальные показатели детской смертности и общей распространенности желудочно-кишечных заболеваний. Также существует взаимосвязь между обеспеченностью безопасной по санитарным нормам питьевой водой и канализацией, с одной стороны, и управлением водными и земельными ресурсами в более широком смысле – с другой; во многих районах Центральной Азии снабжение питьевой водой обеспечивается через ирригационные системы, тогда как в странах юго-восточной Европы сельскохозяйственная практика способствовала нутриентному загрязнению грунтовых вод, забираемых для использования в качестве питьевой воды.

xxiii

Энергия Энергетическим показателем, наиболее тесно связанным со здоровьем населения, является использование древесины и биомассы. Согласно имеющимся данным, в мировом масштабе не менее двух миллионов смертей ежегодно могут быть связаны с загрязнением воздуха в помещениях. Доля стран ЕЦА в данном показателе, вероятно, достаточно мала, и тем не менее она значительна в отдельных странах региона (Армении, Грузии, Казахстане, Таджикистане и Узбекистане). Одной из более серьезных проблем, не учитываемых существующими индикаторами, является недостаточное снабжение населения энергией, особенно тепловой. Последние рабочие доклады Банка по итогам обследования региона отмечают наличие жалоб населения на недостаточное теплоснабжение и рост заболеваний. Так, согласно сообщениям, в Севастополе (Украина) в 56 процентах семей имелись случаи заболеваний, связанные с низкой температурой воздуха внутри помещений; в Молдове многие семьи в зимние месяцы живут в помещениях, температура воздуха в которых составляет всего 5-100 С. Аналогичные проблемы, включая случаи с летальным исходом, отмечаются и во многих других странах, особенно за последнюю зиму, которая была необычайно холодной. Такие последствия не учитываются при использовании предложенных индикаторов. В действительности, повышение «энергоэффективности» может свидетельствовать о наличии усугубляющейся проблемы, связанной с доступностью энергоснабжения7. Выбросы двуокиси углерода Индикатор по углероду имеет отношение к политике, направленной на сокращение парниковых газов (ПГ), которая дает дополнительные преимущества с точки зрения снижения других воздушных загрязнений, возникающих в процессе сжигания ископаемого топлива. К таким загрязнениям относятся выбросы SO2, NOx, общее количество взвешенных твердых частиц (TSP) и выбросы тяжелых металлов, которые оказывают непосредственное воздействие на здоровье человека. Оценки потенциального эффекта от сокращения использования ископаемых видов топлива показывают, что снижение количества смертельных случаев, связанных с загрязнением воздуха, в расчете на одну тонну углерода варьирует от 27 на 100 000 тонн в России до 38 – в Украине. Такой эффект является весьма значительным и может иметь критически важное значение при принятии решения о выборе более дорогостоящих проектов получения энергии, способствующих сокращению выбросов углерода, по сравнению с более дешевыми проектами, допускающими более высокие объемы выхода углерода. Безусловно, любой целевой показатель сокращения выбросов углерода в национальном масштабе должен учитывать такой экономический эффект.

7

См. «Coping With the Cold», Технический доклад Всемирного банка № 529, 2002 г.

xxiv

2.

Связь с бедностью

Водоснабжение и канализация Ряд исследований показал, что отсутствие улучшенного водоснабжения и базовой санитарии главным образом затрагивает неимущие слои населения, особенно в сельской местности. Так, данные по Казахстану, Кыргызстану и Узбекистану свидетельствуют, что наиболее бедные 20 процентов населения почти полностью лишены доступа к трубопроводной воде, тогда как для самых состоятельных 20 процентов населения этот показатель составляет почти 100 процентов. Аналогичные данные справедливы и в отношении использования канализации. Таким образом, инвестиции в развитие водоснабжения и канализации в сельских регионах способствуют стремительному развитию и приносят прямую пользу неимущим благодаря сокращению вызывающих нищету факторов – как связанных, так и не связанных с уровнем дохода граждан. Энергия С точки зрения энергопользования, именно бедная часть населения в подавляющем большинстве случаев страдает от дефицита необходимого теплоснабжения и использует несетевые источники энергии. Среди несетевых источников неимущие используют непропорционально большие объемы древесины и угля, тогда как более обеспеченные слои населения чаще используют сравнительно чистые виды топлива, например, сжиженный природный газ (СПГ). В результате неимущие подвергаются сравнительно более высоким уровням загрязнения воздуха внутри жилых помещений. Природные ресурсы Существует тесная взаимосвязь между использованием природных ресурсов и уровнем жизни сельских сообществ, хотя причинно-следственные связи достаточно сложны. Бедные сельские общины часто проживают в горной и лесной местности, в том числе отличающейся высоким биоразнообразием, и вероятно, зависят от природных ресурсов для обеспечения средств к существованию. Как бедные, так и обеспеченные члены сообщества вносят вклад в деградацию ресурсов, однако бедные в меньшей степени способны пережить последствия такого ухудшения. В определенных случаях бедность может усугублять деградацию природных ресурсов. Вероятно, рост нищеты и цен на ископаемое топливо в Албании и Армении способствовали чрезмерной вырубке лесов для заготовки дров, что, в свою очередь, приводит к эрозии почв, обеднению видового разнообразия пастбищных трав и снижению плодородности пастбищных угодий.

E.

Адекватность индикаторов с точки зрения измерения экологической устойчивости развития в странах ЕЦА

1.

Ограниченность официальных данных

Официальные данные, при всей их полезности, имеют ряд серьезных ограничений:

xxv

Контрольный год Почти полностью отсутствуют значения индикаторов за 1990 г. – контрольный год, на основе которого определяются количественные целевые показатели в рамках программы Целей развития. Это означает, что изменение целевого показателя приходится измерять относительно иного контрольного года (возможно, 2000 года – первого года, за который имеются сравнительно последовательные данные). Представляет трудность последующее экстраполирование данных на предполагаемый остаточный период на основе нового контрольного значения по отношению к предусмотренному программой ЦР целевому показателю, рассчитанному на 25 лет. Пробелы в данных По ряду стран официальные данные также отсутствуют за последние несколько лет. Данный пробел требует срочного заполнения; не менее актуально получение данных об использовании твердых видов топлива и населении, проживающем в условиях трущоб. Достоверность данных Ряд достижений, о которых свидетельствуют официальные данные, противоречит результатам наблюдений на местах. Так, например, наличие значительных проблем признается в системе водоснабжения в Албании, Молдове и Украине, в то время как по официальным данным за 2000 год, полученным из этих стран, водоснабжением обеспечиваются 97, 92 и 98 процентов населения, соответственно. Аналогично, 100 процентный показатель обеспеченности канализацией по Грузии и Кыргызстану завышен по сравнению с результатами наблюдений на местах. По показателю лесных ресурсов источники внутри страны отмечают сокращение лесного покрова по сравнению с 1990 г. в Армении, Казахстане и Таджикистане.

2.

Неадекватность самих индикаторов

Водоснабжение Задача достижения целевого показателя по обеспечению населения безопасной водой связана не столько с доступностью воды из улучшенного источника, сколько с проблемами в отношении качества и регулярности водоснабжения. Во многих странах ЕЦА качество воды, даже если она получена из улучшенных источников, не отвечает базовым химическим и микробиологическим нормативам и, таким образом, представляет угрозу для здоровья. Особенно высокие значения содержания загрязнителей отмечаются в воде в сельской местности. По трубопроводной воде диапазон не отвечающих стандартам проб составляет до 60 процентов (Молдова). Во многих других странах также отмечается снижение качества воды, хотя и отсутствует официальное подтверждение данного факта. Кроме того, в ряде стран существует проблема регулярности водоснабженияю Санитарные условия Хотя представленные показатели подключения к наружной канализационной сети часто достаточно высоки, в городах система канализации зачастую находится в

xxvi

плохом техническом состоянии. Это означает, что неочищенные канализационные стоки в результате утечек могут просачиваться в окружающую среду и загрязнять водоемы. Так, в Казахстане около 33 процентов средних и крупных канализационно-очистных систем и 26 процентов канализационных сетей малых городов не отвечают базовым стандартам технического обслуживания. В сельской местности базовые средства санитарии являются широкодоступными, однако доступ к какой бы то ни было системе канализации (необходимое условие для использования туалетов в помещениях) – явление редкое, особенно в странах СНГ. Лесоводство Несмотря на то, что данные о лесном покрове представляют весьма позитивную картину, эксперты указывают на то, что в целом на территории Европы условия лесоводства не улучшаются, а, наоборот, ухудшаются. (ЕЭК ООН, 2002 г.). В частности, состояние крон лесных деревьев ухудшилось по сравнению с 1990 г.; в 2001 г. более 20 процентов отобранных образцов деревьев оценивались как имеющие повреждения. Более того, ухудшение лесохозяйственной практики, включая проблем незаконных лесозаготовок и избыточной вырубке лесов в ряде районов, привело к общему снижению качества леса. Биологическое разнообразие В дополнение к охраняемым земельным угодьям, необходимо сосредоточить внимание на характеристиках ландшафтов, таких как плотность биокоридоров с необходимыми режимами контроля, соединяющих отдельные ареалы или экосистемы. Энергоэффективность Улучшение ситуации в некоторых странах может быть связано с нехваткой энергоресурсов, а не с более рациональным их использованием. Вопрос дефицита адекватного энергоснабжения представляет собой важный фактор, который не учитывается имеющимися индикаторами. Выбросы углерода Определенный, носящий временный характер рост выбросов в расчете на душу населения может быть оправдан в условиях быстрого экономического роста и восстановления уровня ВВП после падения до минимальных уровней 90-х годов. В таких случаях этот индикатор не является надежным ориентиром для определения долгосрочного потенциала стран ЕЦА в области сокращения выбросов углерода. Некоторые из самых бедных стран в регионе имеют крайне низкие показатели эмиссий углерода на душу населения. Эти страны могут обосновать повышение показателя в будущем в силу потребности обеспечения необходимого свободного пространства для экономического роста.

xxvii

Е.

Затраты на достижение экологических целевых показателей в странах ЕЦА

1. Водоснабжения и канализации В связи с тем, что в странах ЕЦА существуют значительные различия в состоянии и работе секторов водоснабжения и санитарии, весьма трудно определить издержки, связаные с выполнением ЦР, а для стран, готовящихся к вступлению в ЕС, ЦР не настолько актуальны. Данная работа в основном фокусируется на странах СНГ. Эти страны имеют значительно менее развитую инфраструктуру и организационный потенциал и переживают гораздо более серьезные финансовые проблемы, сокращение доходов населения и гораздо более медленный процесс реформ по сравнению с другими странами региона. Это приводит к вызывающему озабоченность ухудшению обслуживания и ослаблению отраслевых учреждений. В рамках ВЕКЦА страны Центральной Азии и Кавказа столкнулись с необходимостью решать особо тяжелые проблемы, связанные с предотвращением распада существующей инфраструктуры; им необходимо срочно реформировать отраслевую политику, а также перестроить и укрепить отраслевые ведомства. Детальная оценка затрат на достижение количественных целевых показателей по водоснабжению и канализации (ВК), с учетом потребности повышения качества системы, выполнена в отношении трех стран – Казахстана, Молдовы и Украины. Текущие и целевые показатели по этим трем странам приводятся в Таблице 2. Оценка ежегодных расходов, необходимых в период 2003–2015 гг., представлена на Рис. 4, наряду с оценками фактических годовых инвестиций в данный сектор в 2000–2001 гг. Однако откладывание инвестиций на более поздние сроки приведет к дальнейшему ухудшению положения и, по оценкам, более чем втрое повысит соответствующие затраты на душу населения. Таблица 2: Текущая ситуация и целевые

показатели по Казахстану, Молдове и Украине

Казахстан Молдова Украина

Вода из городского трубопровода, процент домохозяйств

Вода из улучшенных сельских источников, процент домохозяйств

Городская система канализации, процент домохозяйств

2000 96,9 79,6 95,6

2000 82 88 94

2000 73,1 67,6 79,8

2015 97,8 85,7 96,9

2015 87,4 91,6 95,8

2015 81,2 77,3 85,9

Улучшение санитарных условий в сельской местности, процент домохозяйств 2000 2015 98 98,6 98 98,6 98 98,6

Источник: Показатели мирового развития, 2003 г., Всемирный банк

xxviii

График показывает, что для достижения целевых показателей Целей развития в этих странах потребуется значительно увеличить объем ежегодных инвестиций, необходимых для обеспечения населения водоснабжением и канализацией (с порядка 120 млн. долларов до свыше 200 млн. долларов). Для всех стран СНГ объем инвестиций для достижения показателей обеспеченности водоснабжением и канализацией оценивается на уровне 1,1 млрд. долларов в год, что значительно превышает объемы инвестиций в настоящее время8.

Рис. 4: Ежегодные инвестиции в ВК Требуется 2003-15

Факт 2000-01

Млн. долл. США

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 КАЗАХСТАН

МОЛДОВА

УКРАИНА

Источник: Показатели мирового развития, 2003 г., Всемирный банк

2. Затраты на сокращение выбросов углерода Одним из показателей прогресса в области обеспечения экологической устойчивости развития, в которой имеется весьма значительный потенциал улучшений и выделение ресурсов обосновано с точки зрения возможностей сокращения бедности и улучшения здоровья населения, служит уровень выбросов углерода на душу населения. Так, в России выбросы углерода возможно снизить примерно на 220 миллионов тонн с 2008 по 2012 гг. при отсутствии чистых затрат (т.е. такие программы заключают потенциал других выгод, которые более чем оправдывают подобные интервенции), а еще порядка 300 миллионов тонн могут быть сокращены при затратах на уровне 15 долл. США на одну тонну углерода.

8

В основу данных оценок затрат были положены следующие допущения: (a) средняя стоимость ремонта существующей системы ВК оценивается в размере 60 долл. США на душу населения, (b) затраты на строительство новой сети водоснабжения составляют 200 долл. США на душу населения, (с) затраты на строительство новой системы канализации в городских районах равны 250 долл. США на душу населения, (d) затраты на обеспечение сельских районов уборными с выгребной ямой составляют 25 долларов США на душу населения. По оценкам, 35 процентов существующих систем ВК в СНГ требуют ремонта. В городских зонах целевой показатель ЦР предусматривает обязательное наличие доступа к трубопроводной сети водоснабжения и внешней канализации; в сельской местности предполагается обязательный доступ к улучшенным источникам водоснабжения и средствам санитарного контроля в соответствии с определениями, сформулированными в Декларации тысячелетия в области целей развития ООН.

Это, вероятно, положительно отразится на здоровье населения, а также может создать дополнительные возможности трудоустройства в регионах, например, в случае выполнения таких проектов, как проекты секвестрации углерода в районах с высокими уровнями безработицы. Таким же образом, сравнимые цифры по Украине составляют 120 миллионов тонн «беспроблемных» сокращений и порядка 65 миллионов тонн при стоимости менее 40 долл. США за тонну углерода. В Казахстане по вариантам отсутствия чистых затрат может быть обеспечено сокращение около 20 миллионов тонн углерода, а также еще 13 миллионов тонн при стоимости до 20 долл. США в расчете на одну тонну углерода. Указанные сокращения требуют значительных капиталовложений, что, вероятно, накладывает наибольшие ограничения на соответствующие планы. Одним из способов решения данной проблемы может стать разрешение форвардной торговли квотами на выброс парниковых газов (английский термин – AAU, Assigned Amout Units) и направление вырученных средств на программы сокращения выбросов парниковых газов (ПГ). Следует также изучить возможности, предоставляемые такими инструментами, как Биоуглеродный фонд и Углеродный фонд развития сообществ, которые предоставляют финансирование по проектам, направленным на сокращение использования углерода в развивающихся странах при одновременном оказании благоприятного воздействия на регионы через стимулирование занятости и сокращение бедности. Углеродный фонд развития сообществ предоставляет финансирование небольших по масштабу проектов в более бедных сельских районах. Биоуглеродный фонд представляет собой фондпрототип, в задачи которого входит демонстрация проектов, предусматривающих секвестрацию или удержание углерода в лесных и сельскохозяйственных экосистемах и в странах с переходной экономикой. Его целью является обеспечение сокращения выбросов при высокой эффективности затрат и содействие сохранению биоразнообразия и устойчивому развитию. Оба указанных фонда заявляют о выделении на эти цели 100 миллионов долл. США.

3. Улучшение системы управления природными ресурсами В области природных ресурсов ключевой задачей является не просто увеличение площади лесов или охраняемых территорий, но и определение способов управления такими угодьями как неотъемлемой части стратегии обеспечения устойчивых средств к существованию населения в регионе. Устойчивое управление лесными ресурсами приводит к росту доходов на местах как от переработки лесоматериалов и древесины, так и от реализации не связанных с лесом продуктов и туризма. Стабильное хозяйственное пользование и управление земельными ресурсами охраняемых территорий обеспечивает рост доходов местных сообществ благодаря реализации производимой в регионе продукции и развитию туризма. Заготовка тростника, рыболовство и доходы от туризма в районе дельты р. Дунай, протянувшейся через территорию Румынии и Украины и являющейся крупнейшей дельтовой экосистемой в Европе западнее р. Волга, служат основными источниками дохода для местного населения. С другой стороны, в Казахстане рост бедности в сельских районах и ослабление государственных институтов в сочетании с растущим спросом на сайгачьи рога в

xv

Китае привели к массовому браконьерству и отстрелу этого вида антилоп, численность поголовья которого сократилась с 900 000 в 1990 г. до 50 000 в настоящее время. Снижение поголовья сайгака отмечалось и в конце 19 века, однако оно было восстановлено благодаря ряду принятых охранных мер в сочетании с контролируемой охотой в советский период.

xvi

CHAPTER I. ASSESSMENT OF ECA’S PERFORMANCE ON MDG7 United Nations (UN) Global Summits and Conferences, which were held throughout the 1990s, addressed the major global social, economic and environmental issues facing both developing and developed countries. The related Conventions and Declarations were synthesized in the Millennium Summit of September 2000, where 147 heads of the State and Government and 191 nations adopted a Millennium Declaration. A set of goals, numerical targets and quantifiable indicators, known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), grew out of the Millennium Declaration. The eight MDGs comprise 18 targets and 48 indicators, covering poverty reduction, universal primary education, gender equality, child mortality reduction, maternal mortality reduction, reduction in HIV/Aids and malaria, environmental sustainability and global partnership for development. Most of the numerical targets are to be achieved over the 25-year period from 1990-2015. The environment-related goal (MDG 7) and the associated targets and indicators are listed in Table 1.9 A full list of all the MDGs is given in Annex 1.

Table 1: Environmental Sustainability (MDG 7) Targets and Indicators Target I. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation II. Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the losses of environmental resources III. By 2020 to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers

Indicators 1. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source 2. Proportion of population with access to basic sanitation 3. Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per $1 GDP (PPP) 4. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) 5. Proportion of land area covered by forest 6. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area 7. Proportion of population using solid fuels 8. Proportion of households with access to secure tenure

Source: UN Website for the MDGs.

9

The set of targets and indicators is still in flux. Targets being considered include: (a) maintain or restore fish stocks to levels that can produce he maximum sustainable yield by 2015, (b) reverse loss of biodiversity by 2010, (c) establish a network of marine protected areas by 2012, (d) increase share of renewable energy in total energy supply within 20 years and (e) phase out by 2020 production and use of chemicals that harm health and environment. These still need to be elaborated and are being worked on.

Hence they are not discussed further in this report. Table 1 reorganized the order of the targets and indicators for research purposes.

1

A summary of the current official data on MDG indicators in ECA is given in Table 2, along with comparisons for other regions of the world. Details by country are given in Annex II. Table 2: Environmental MDG Indicators for ECA and Other Groups

MDG Indicators

Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%) Proportion of people with access to improved sanitation (%) GDP per unit of energy use (PPP GDP/kg oil) Carbon dioxide emissions (metric tons per capita) Proportion of land area covered by forest (%) Land area protected to maintain biological diversity (% of total land area)

Europe & Central World Asia

No. of Low & countries High middle Year data reporting income income reported data in countries countries ECA

91.0

81.0

79

2000

22

93.0

55.0

51

2000

20

2.3

4.5

4.9

4.0

2000

27

6.6

3.8

12.3

2.2

1999

28

39.7

29.7

26.1

30.9

2000

27

7.0

11.7

19.5

9.3

2002

28

Source: World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank.

The status of ECA countries with respect to each of the three targets is examined below.

A.

Target I: Halve, by 2015, the Proportion of People Without Sustainable Access to Safe Drinking Water and Basic Sanitation

1.

Water Supply For access to improved water supply the average for the region in 2000 was 91%, while that for low and middle income (L&M) countries was 79% and 81% worldwide. The MDG targets for 2015 for this indicator are: 93.7% for ECA, 86.5% for L&M countries and 88% worldwide. Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Hungary, Macedonia, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Ukraine provided more than 97% of their population access to improved water sources.

However, some other countries face big challenges to achieve this goal, such as Romania, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, where only about 60% of the population had access to improved water sources in 2000. To achieve the MDG goal, they need to improve this number to about 72% by 2015.10 10

Very few countries report data for water supply and sanitation for years prior to 1999, so it is difficult to comment on the trends in the official data. Similarly data for area devoted to biodiversity are not available for earlier years.

2

Figure 1: Access to Improved Water Source % of Households

100 80 60 TARGET 2000

40 20 TURKMENISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

ROMANIA

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

AZERBAIJAN

LOW/MIDDLE INC.

ECA

0

Source: World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank

Generally speaking, conditions in urban areas are much better than in rural areas in ECA countries. In most countries, more than 90% of urban residents have access to improved water sources but rural areas are far behind. For example, in Romania, 91% of its urban residents have access to improved water sources compared to only 16% of rural residents.

For the country as a whole, the number is only 58% (the lowest in the region).

Azerbaijan, Georgia and Tajikistan face a similar situation. In ECA, about 63% of the population live in urban areas. This number has been constant for a long period. The other 37% of people living in rural areas are usually poorer, making improved water supply for them an even higher priority on account of its poverty alleviation and health implications (see Chapter 3).

2.

Basic Sanitation Access to basic sanitation for the region in 2000 was 93%. The MDG target for 2015 for ECA is 95.1%. The actual and target values in other groupings are: 52% (target 72%) for all L&M countries and 56% (target 74.5%) world-wide. No countries in the region are below the average for the L&M group although Romania is close (at 53%) (Figure 2).

Most of the ECA countries have higher than 90% access to improved sanitation. Thirteen of the 20 countries reporting data claimed 99% or 100% access. Romania reported the lowest access (53%) and Azerbaijan was also lower than the average at 81%. As with water supply, sanitation conditions are much better in urban than in rural areas. In Romania, this difference is so large that only 10% of the rural population has access to improved sanitation, although 86% of urban people have access.11

11

These figures are so low that they may not be credible.

3

Figure 2: Access to Basic Sanitation

% of Households

100 80 60 TARGET 2000

40 20 0 ECA

LOW/MIDDLE INCOME

Source: World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank

B.

Target II: Integrate the Principles of Sustainable Development into Country Policies and Programs and Reverse the Losses of Environmental Resources

1.

Introduction This target is not defined in quantitative terms although it has some quantitative indicators largely related to natural resources. For ECA the most important actions needed to meet this target relate to institutional reforms regarding the way that a country’s natural resources are managed. The Bank’s assessment of the countries’ policies and institutions for environmental sustainable development, relating specifically to the role of Ministries of Environment is summarized in Table 3 by ranking ECA countries, with a brief indication of what drives the differences between the rankings.

The lowest rankings are given to Central Asian countries. There, a major effort will be needed to achieve the institutional reforms necessary for environmental sustainability.

Areas where action is needed include: the legal basis for management; monitoring and collecting environmental data and its use for decision-making; strengthening the Ministry of Environment’s capacity for policy design and ability to work with other Ministries (including better pay for civil servants); developing and implementing a modern cost effective, and incentive compatible regulatory framework; facilitating the financing of environmental investments from public and private sources and from financial institutions; and improving public access to information, including greater participation in key environmental decisions. All this will need substantial resources, both internal and external.

On the quantitative indicators corresponding to this target the situation is as follows:

4

Table 3: Factors that Determine Country Environmental Management Rankings Ranking

Countries

Lowest Group

Turkmenistan, Tajikistan

2nd Group

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan

3rd Group

Albania, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Macedonia FYR, Moldova, Russia, Serbia & Montenegro, Ukraine, Turkey

4th Group

Croatia, Romania Bulgaria

Highest Group

Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia

Key Management Factors in Environment Ministry Old inconsistent or non-existent legislation. Very limited and/or unreliable monitoring. Environment agency has little standing, very small budget.

Regulatory standards are inconsistent, with little or no compliance and poor enforcement. No incentives for own financing of environmental investments.

Little public information about environmental issues and no procedures for obtaining such information.

Some laws in force, many under discussion. Many laws unenforceable.

Reasonable ambient monitoring for major urban areas and water bodies but old equipment. Ministry of Environment with modest budget and professional staff. Mechanisms for coordination with agencies for water, health and forestry in place. Reasonable enforceable standards and some use of incentive instruments. Compliance procedures in place but limited implementation and enforcement. Some incentives for own financing of environmental investment.

Low cost recovery for environmental services. Information provided to the press in answer to questions. Ineffective procedures for citizens to file complaints and follow up.

Laws covering basic media in force or close to adoption. Basic ambient monitoring in place, and using up-to-date methods, data analysis. Ministry of Environment works fairly well with related agencies. Some incentive instruments implemented nationally. All point sources monitored for compliance. Violators assessed but fines not consistently collected.

Government budget for environment expanding. Clear rules for access to environmental information. Procedures for complaints established but followed inconsistently.

Most laws in place and mostly enforceable, especially those addressing priority problems. Monitoring based on reasonably good equipment. Data collected, analyzed and used for decision-making. Good network of local agencies and clear roles and responsibilities at each level. Ministry of environment has influence, with established relationships with other ministries and well-trained staff with up-to-date equipment. Widespread use of incentive instruments.

Penalties against violators carried out in most cases. Increasing cost recovery for environmental services. Limited private sector participation in supply of services. Good cooperation with external finance donors.

All major media/pollutant-specific and resource-specific laws in force and enforceable. Good, reliable network for ambient monitoring with sophisticated instruments. Highly trained analysts with major role in decision-making.

Mechanisms for inter-ministerial coordination with mainstream ministries in place and functioning. Well qualified staff in place and can be retained. A good mix of instruments for regulation (command and control plus market based). Extensive compliance. Monitoring with sophisticated equipment and well trained staff. Consistent effective enforcement. Environmental concerns incorporated in government investment/policy programs. Willingness of banking system to finance environmental investments. Public disclosure includes performance ratings of enterprises. Access to information is routine and easy.

2.

Land Area Under Forest In 2002 forests covered 40% of ECA’s land area, a figure that has remained virtually unchanged since 1990 (39%). The world average for this indicator is 30% and the L&M average is 32%. There is no target value for this indicator in the MDG framework, but globally an increase is seen as desirable. According to official data, the only country in the region with declining forest cover since 1990 is Albania. Across the region, the extent of continuous old growth forests and the broad shade provided by big trees is

5

declining. Illegal logging is also problematic for some countries in the region and the deposition of nitrogen acids and heavy metals exceeds critical levels in some areas.

Thus, as in the case of water, indicators need to be selected to accurately monitor these important dimensions of the problem.

3.

Land Area Protected to Maintain Biodiversity Protected land area averages 7% in ECA, compared to 11.7% for the world average.

Nearly all the countries outside the Accession group (16 of them) are below the world average. Most notable are those countries shown in Figure 3. The average for ECA is skewed by the large area for Russia (8.3%).

AZERBAIJAN

ROMANIA

BULGARIA

TAJIKISTAN

UKRAINE

ALBANIA

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

SERBIA & MONTENEGRO

GEORGIA

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

MOLDOVA

BOSNIA

WORLD AVERAGE

ECA

% of Land

Figure 3: Protected Land Area in 2002 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Source: World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank

4.

Energy Efficiency GDP per unit of energy is reported in Annex II in terms of KGOE per $1,000 of GDP measures in PPP terms. On this measure energy efficiency has been increasing everywhere except in Turkmenistan and Ukraine. ECA has shown an increase in energy efficiency of 35% since 1992 (earliest year for which data are available for most countries). The only countries not showing an increase over the period are Turkmenistan and Ukraine. In spite of the general increase, however, the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) GDP/KGOE is only 2.3, compared to 4.0 for L&M countries and 4.5 for the world as a whole. So a further increase of around 74% is needed to bring the region into line with countries at a similar level of development.

5.

Carbon Emissions Carbon emissions per capita have declined since 1992 in all countries except Hungary and Serbia and Montenegro. The overall decline in the region has been 27% between 1992 and 1999 among the 22 countries that reported data. As with energy efficiency, however, the gap with the rest of the world is quite wide. In 1999 (latest year for which data are available), emissions per capita in the region are around 6.6 metric tons, compared to 2.2 for L&M countries and 3.8 for the world as a whole. To bring the region

6

in line with other countries at its level of development would require a further fall of 67% in per capita emissions. As with energy efficiency there is no target value for this indicator, although some countries have carbon emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

6.

Proportion of Population Using Solid Fuels No official data are available for these indicator. Please see Chapter 2, Section B5 and Chapter 3, Sections A2, A3 and B3 for further discussion on solid fuels.

C.

Target III: By 2020 Have Achieved a Significant Improvement in the Lives of at Least 100 Million Slum Dwellers

1.

Proportion of Population with Access to Secure Tenure For the first time in 2003, the WDI reported data for 23 cities in 16 of the 28 countries in the region. The information potentially relevant to slums provided was: • •

Percentage of population with secure tenure (for 1998) Households with access to services (potable water, sewerage, electricity and telephone).

The data, however, are limited to one year only and so no trends can be discerned.

Security of tenure is, unfortunately, not a particularly good indicator in the ECA region of extent of populations living in ‘slum’ status. Access to services is more relevant, and some of these are picked up in the improved water and sanitation indicators. Other issues of importance in defining slums in ECA include: structurally dilapidated buildings or temporary constructions, crime and a poor surrounding environment and lack of accessibility to work. For a further discussion of the issues see Chapter 2. It is clear that the question of slums is one that will need increasing attention in the future, thus it is critical that the analytic tools be developed to lay a better foundation for understanding the situation and how to measure progress.

7

CHAPTER II. ADEQUACY OF THE INDICATORS AS MEASURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IN ECA A.

Problems with The Official Data

The official data, while useful, have a number of serious limitations: 1.

Base Year There are virtually no values for the indicators for 1990, which is the base year against which quantitative targets are defined in the MDG program. This means that the target change has to be measured relative to a different base year (probably 2000). Data for 1990 are missing for most countries for access to an improved water sources, access to improved sanitation (as well as carbon dioxide emissions, GDP per unit of energy use and area under conservation). This makes calculation of the rate of change needed with respect to the base year of 1990 impossible for water supply and sanitation, both of which have a quantitative target of a 50% reduction by 2015 (See Table 1). The simplest solution is to take the year closest to 1990 for which data are available and assume the target on a pro rata basis. So for example, if data are available from 1995 onwards, the target improvement from 1995 to 2015 is (20/25)x50% = 40%. The assumption of linearity in this calculation needs some justification, but so far none has been provided.

2.

Data Gaps Official data are also missing for many countries for more recent years. As Table 2 shows, even for 2000, only 20 of the 28 countries report sanitation data and 22 of them report water supply data. This gap needs to be filled urgently as does the lack of data on solid fuel use and people living in slums.

3.

Data Reliability Some of the achievements indicated by the official data are not consistent with observations on the ground. For example, substantial problems are known to exist in water supply provision in Albania, Moldova and Ukraine and yet official data for these countries report delivery rates for 2000 of 97%, 92% and 98% respectively. Likewise for sanitation, figures of 100% for Georgia and the Kyrgyz Republic are high compared to experience on the ground. For forestry in-country sources estimates loss of forests since 1990 for Armenia, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

B.

Supplementary Data on ECA’s Performance with Respect to MDG7

Even with full information, the present indicators would be inadequate in a number of areas: 1.

Water Supply Indicator

The definition of the water supply indicator in the MDG framework is as follows:

8

"Improved" water supply technologies are: household connection, public standpipe, borehole, protected dug well, protected spring, rainwater collection.

Availability of at least 20 liters per person per day from a source within one kilometer of the user's dwelling. “Not improved" are: unprotected well, unprotected spring, vendor-provided water, bottled water (based on concerns about the quantity of supplied water, not concerns over the water quality), tanker truck-provided water (WHO, 2000).

In the above definition, it is implicit that household connections, standpipes, etc., provide water of a sufficient quality to be potable and with sufficient regularity as not to constitute serious hardship. In the ECA region, both of these assumptions are violated in a number of cases. Table 4 demonstrates `shows this for selected countries and makes a number of telling points: Table 4: Data on Quality and Regularity of Supply of Water in CIS Countries Connection Water Not Meeting Chemical & Sanitary Quality Rate to Piped Standards (%) Water (%)

Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Moldova Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan

Urban Rural 87.0 45.0 50.0 96.0 10.0 95.0 15.0 93.0 26.0 75.0 82.0 98.0 82.0 85.4 83.0 90.1

Urban 33.8 16.0 10.1

Rural Piped 52 37.8 15.0

72.0 15.0 56.0 60.0 74.0 22.1 49.0 19.1 11.7 42.1 44.8 25.0 12.2 14.3 61.3

Water Not Meeting Microbiological Quality Standards (%)

Rural Not Piped Urban 49.7

7.0 15.0

65.0 30.5 51.0

12.0

25.0

5.5

Rural Rural Not Piped Piped 17.0

1998

7.4 10.0 9.0

37.0 40.0

1999 1999 2000

10.0

5.0 28.3

2000/01

12.3 25.0

Year

35.0 22.9 7.7

25.0

2000 1999 1999

Sources: Country survey data Notes Armenia 52% and 17% are national averages. Quality is deteriorating. Supply is only 2-6 hours/day Azerbaijan 75% of rural water does not meet ‘standards’.

Belarus Supply is intermittent Georgia Supply is 8-10 hours/day in some cities Kazakhstan Only urban data available for chemical stds. and only national average for microbiological stds.

Many are provided stand pipes only. Outside Bishkek 70% of system is in disrepair. Funds for Kyrgyz Republic disinfection are not available.

Moldova Supply is intermittent is some locations Russia Only one figure for all piped water – urban and rural Tajikistan Quality is deteriorating. No data on microbiological quality of rural non-piped water.

Turkmenistan Only national average data available for water quality standards Ukraine Quality is not improving. Supply is restricted in several towns and cities Uzbekistan No quality data made available

9

•

•

•

•

The frequency with which samples do not meet chemical and microbiological standards would be unacceptable in OECD countries and would constitute a serious health threat. The figures are alarmingly high for rural water. For piped water, the reported range of samples not meeting standards is from 12% (Tajikistan) to 60% (Moldova). For non-piped water the range is 25% (Ukraine) to 65% (Moldova). Water quality can also be an issue for urban water, with Belarus, Moldova and Tajikistan standing out, but in general piped water remains of higher quality than non-piped water.12 Comparison of connection rates shows that even countries with very high levels of connection can have poor quality piped water delivered. Examples are Belarus, where data show 96% urban connections but 34% of samples not meeting chemical standards, Georgia (95% connections but 15-16% of samples do not meet standards) and Russia, with a reported 98% connections but 22% not meeting chemical standards. In fact, the high connection rate does not correlate at all with the quality of service.

Samples acknowledge quality is deteriorating for Armenia, Tajikistan and Ukraine. In many others survey reports show quality is it is also deteriorating but no official acknowledgement of this fact is made.

Supply is intermittent in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Other data not shown in Table 4 point to a serious state of disrepair of may water delivery systems, which is the main cause of the poor quality of delivered water. The following detailed data from a few countries shows the seriousness of the problems: •

•

In Ukraine, 30%-40% of the pump stations and 40,000 km of water supply pipeline (about 22% of the total, amounting to 30,000km in urban areas and 10,000km in rural areas) need to be replaced. It is also estimated that 40% of the available treatment capacities need to renovated to meet water quality requirements.

In Kazakhstan, underground water sources are especially polluted in the large cities and industrial centers. In these circumstances water supply treatment and the pipeline system become more important in serving safe drinking water. An ADB study (2002) has shown that the major industrial water pollutants in Kazakhstan include ionizing waste (over 28,000 tones generated in 1994, 23,000 tones in 1995), nitric organic compounds (around 1,800 tones), phosphorous compounds (over 1,300 tones in 1994 and 800,000 tones in 1995), and Zinc (42,600 and 24,900 tones, 1994 & 1995 respectively).

12

It is useful to compare this with the figures for a well run utility in Western Europe. The following information was obtained from Wessex Water in the UK. In 2002 they took 33000 samples as part of the Statutory monitoring program. Of these 41 (0.1%) failed the bacteriological limits. In these instances resamples were immediately taken and the cause of the failure investigated. In the majority of cases no reason was found for the failure. In a few cases the problem was found to be due to dirty customers taps that were not effectively cleaned by the sampler prior to sampling. There were also 105 (0.3%) samples that failed chemical standard. In these instances re-samples were arranged to identify if there is a more widespread problem and what action should be taken. In all cases if a recurring problem is identified or the failure is likely to recur an improvement program is organized.

10

•

•

In Russia, about 70% of rivers and lakes cannot be used for drinking water supply without treatment. At present, about 90% of surface waters and 30% of ground waters used for water supply undergo treatment, and water supply systems cannot always provide the population with water of guaranteed quality. An especially unfavorable situation exists in the republics of Buryatiya, Dagestan, Kalmykia, Primorski kray, Arkhangelsk, Kaliningrad, Kemerovo, Kurgan, Tomsk, Yaroslavl oblasts Microbiological pollution of open water bodies increased sharply – from 12.5% in 1991 up to 17.7% in 1996. In a number of territories of the country, water-intakes contain pathogens of stomach infections, virus of hepatitis A, rotaviruses.

In Moldova, most wells do not meet sanitary requirements, and 50% are not in working condition. Almost all water-treatment stations need to be repaired and modernized. The technological diagrams of water processing are subject to updating, and half of the equipment, water-pipes need to be replaced. Physical loss of drinking water is about 30%.

There are notable problems of irregularity of water supply in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. In Ukraine regular water supply is 17 hours per day on average. In Moldova, water service is about 10 hours a day in small towns (with population less than 15,000), and 12 hours a day in mediums towns (with population more than 15,000 but less than 100,000). Consistency of water supply is important because the quality of drinking water supplied to users depends partly on water supply regularity. It is well known that irregular water supply interruptions considerably deteriorate drinking water quality as a result of corrosion and secondary pollution of water in water supply lines.

The conclusion, therefore, is that there are serious water quality problems for many consumers of water that, by the MDG definition, would be regarded as an “improved source.” The cause of this is frequently the state of disrepair of the delivery systems, but in some cases it is pollution of the source and/or insufficient resources to treat the water adequately. A different target needs to be established for water supply in ECA, which focuses on quality as well as delivery. This should be monitored and a target value for it established.

2.

Sanitation Indicator The story for sanitation is similar to that for water supply. Although official data show that access to improved sanitation in many countries is 99% or 100%, basic sanitation is still a challenge in the region. The definition for improved sanitation is as follows: Connection to a public sewer, connection to septic system, pour-flush latrine, simple pit latrine, ventilated improved pit latrine. The excreta disposal system is considered adequate if it is private or shared (but not public) and if [it] hygienically separates human excreta from human contact. "Not improved" are: service or bucket latrines (where excreta are manually removed), public latrines, latrines with an open pit. (WHO, 2000)

In the ECA region, connection to a public sewer is frequently quite high, especially in urban areas (see Annex II), but the system is in a poor state of repair. For example: 11

•

•

•

In Kazakhstan, about 33% of the mid-sized and large sewerage treatment systems need rehabilitation in big towns (with more than 50,000 persons), and about 26% need rehabilitation in smaller towns (Ministry of Environment and Energy, 2001).

In Moldova, the greater part of the sewerage system was designed for a 20year life, which it has outdated. 100km of the network needs to be replaced and most equipment needs to be repaired.

In Ukraine, about 23% of the pipeline need to be repaired and 25% of the sewerage treatment system need to be rehabilitated.

The poor state of these sanitation systems means that sewage water can leak out without treatment and pollute water resources. If pipelines or pump stations are broken, sewage will simply leak out easily; if treatment plants are outdated or not maintained properly, sewage will be discharged without meeting chemical and hygiene standards. As a result, surface water and ground water will be easily polluted. If water supply pipelines are also in a poor state, as in many countries in this region, sewage water can leak into water supply systems and pollute drinking water. The fact that many countries cannot supply water 24 hours a day makes the situation even worse. Waste water can easily leak into drinking water when water supply pipes are empty and pressure in the pipes is very low.

In rural areas basic sanitation services are widely available, but access to any form of sewerage which is necessary for the use of indoor toilets is rare, especially in the CIS. It could be argued that outdoor pit latrines are not an adequate sanitation source in the ECA region, much of which suffers from very low winter temperatures. It is not a luxury for people to have indoor toilets, with access to a sewerage system and pipeline network. If we consider accessing to the sewerage system as the goal, the current situation is of course less satisfactory than the official data of accessing to improved sanitation. For example, in Uzbekistan, the percentage of access to “improved” sanitation is 89%, but only 7% have access to a sewerage system. In other countries, sewerage access is between 10% to 70% less than the figure for improved sanitation.

Thus for both water supply and sanitation, the MDGs indicators have serious shortcomings. Perhaps the most important reason why the statistics are off the mark is that they are drawn from a wide range of surveys (such as DHS, LSMS, MICS) across countries. The point here is that most of those surveys are focused on either health and demographics or estimation of consumption baskets of the poor. The kinds of questions they ask regarding levels of WSS service, use of facilities, and hygiene practices are minimal (and not easily comparable between countries using different underlying survey instruments). Improving the relevance and validity of JMP statistics will therefore require improving the design of multi purpose/multi-sectoral surveys, as well as augmenting those perhaps with sector specific or infrastructure wide surveys that look at service quality (again, population-based rather than provider based).

12

3.

Forestry Indicator As noted above, data on forestry present a very positive picture for the region, with areas under forest increasing everywhere since 1990 except in Albania. Even when overall forest cover has increased, however, deteriorating forest management has led to overharvesting in some areas and to an overall decline in forest quality, including declining yields and deteriorating species mix.

Forestry experts further point out that forest conditions in Europe as a whole are not improving but deteriorating (UNECE, 2002). Specifically they note: The crown condition of forests has declined since 1990; in 2001 more than 20% of the sample trees were rated as damaged.

Depositions of nitrogen, acidity and heavy metals exceed critical loads over a large proportion of the monitored plots.

This picture applies to Eastern Europe as much as it does in Western Europe. Defoliation estimates in ‘classes 2-4’ – trees that are moderately or severely damaged or dead – show that the situation has deteriorated with respect to the 1990s, when monitoring started, in Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, and Ukraine.13 Country level studies in the region also point to a growing problems of illegal logging in some countries – Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Romania and Serbia and Montenegro.

Studies for Albania and Georgia have examined the extent of this problem, which is widely believed to be serious in many other countries as well. For example a study for Albania has shown that around 14% of household wood use and as much as 93% of commercial use is from illegal sources. In Georgia, a considerable amount of the exported sawn timber comes from illegal sources. A study is underway for Romania to assess the extent of the problem there.

Illegal logging is worth monitoring for the MDGs for two reasons. First, there is the environmental aspect. Such logging is generally high impact unsustainable logging, with much greater damage to the surrounding forests than controlled logging. Second it is symptomatic of a poverty-environment link. Those who cut illegally are often the poor, who cannot afford commercial fuels or do not have access to them. As a result they suffer from the health effects of air pollution and have their poverty status reinforced (see section on energy below).

Finally, the aggregate data do not reveal the presence of local problems with forest resources that could be of great importance in terms of damage to forest ecosystems. To understand the situation with respect to these issues requires considering trends in forest cover which are examined at the appropriate scale – in some cases for example, at the district or sub-regional scale. Extent, coverage, and quality of specific forest ecosystems should also be considered. In Russia, which has 22% of the world’s forests, important local and regional trends would be masked by summary statistics for the entire country.

13

Very little data are available for Russian and none for Central Asia and the Caucasus.

13

As suggested above, the use of a second indicator such as forest health, which also links to biodiversity values, would be useful. This selection of indicators is a methodological challenge which needs to be further considered.

4.

Biodiversity Indicator For the purposes of cross-country comparisons, the protected area indicator is a reasonable proxy for capturing progress a country has made in protecting its biodiversity.

In addition to land area, however, there is also a need to focus on landscape level features such as the extent to which selected habitats or ecosystems are connected by corridors with appropriate management regimes. The Protected Areas Development and Forests Development Projects in Georgia, the Azov Black Sea Corridor Project in Ukraine, and the Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity Project in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan are piloting approaches to biodiversity conservation and use at the landscape level.

A more significant question than the area which has been formally protected is whether or not there is significant biodiversity to conserve outside of these areas. Efforts are being made to monitor this issues is a number of biodiversity projects with the objective of identifying the extent of species endemism and diversity. Two projects in particular, in Turkey and Romania, are establishing national systems for biodiversity monitoring.

These Biodiversity Information and Monitoring Systems (BIMS) have been designed to provide the information needed to assess, demonstrate, defend, and to improve the effectiveness of the existing Protected Area network; to identify where areas of high conservation importance are not currently under adequate systems of protection and management (such as under-represented habitats, important ecological corridors etc.); and to provide a basis for decision-making with respect to allocating personnel and financial resources for expanding the protected areas network. In order to facilitate the circulation and sharing of data, the BIMS are being designed in a manner to be accessible and widely used, and linked to a relatively user-friendly GIS system. As new information about species diversity and distribution becomes available, the BIMS can be updated.

The BIMS will generate the basic parameters for more fully understanding the extent to which the MDGs are being met with respect to biodiversity conservation, first identifying what is important for conservation, and then identifying where there are gaps in the national system of protected areas.

5.

Energy Efficiency Indicator Energy efficiency in the ECA countries is measured by two indicators: KGOE per $1,000 of PPPGDP and KGOE per $1000 of GDP at constant (1995) prices. Unfortunately data are only available up to 1999 in both cases. Figure 4 shows the data for the first measure and Figure 5 for the second, in each case plotting the 1992 value on the horizontal axis against the 1999 value on the vertical axis.14 In Figure 4, points below the ‘red’ or 45° line indicate an improvement in efficiency, and most ECA countries are below, with the exception of Turkmenistan, Russia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The trend line, however has a slope of slightly less than one, which indicates that countries that were relatively 14

The PPPGDP data have been converted into constant prices by adjusting for US inflation between 1992 and 1999.

14

inefficient in 1992 have gained more in efficiency compared to those that were more efficient. The second point to note is from the world low/middle income line. This is below the 1999 value for 16 of the 24 countries in the region. Both these point to the fact that the scope for energy efficiency gains are substantial.

In Figure 5 similar data are provided for KGOE per dollar of GDP, measured in constant (1995) dollars. Countries below the ‘red’ or 45° line have improved efficiency by this measure; in this case, more countries do not show an improvement than for the PPPGDP measure. But this measure, countries with no improvement include Belarus, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Azerbaijan and Russia shows virtually no difference. The trend line here is almost parallel to the red line, indicating that by this measure the more energy efficient countries have not made a greater improvement than the less efficient countries.

The better record of energy efficiency for most countries using PPP GDP reflects the greater increase in PPP GDP than in GDP measured in constant dollars. From 1992 to 1999, the weighted average of the constant dollar measure of GDP declined by 11% whereas the PPP GDP in constant prices went down by down by 18%. The difference between the two measures is difficult to explain.

Figure 4: Energy Efficiency and Change: 1992-99 in PPP GDP

KGOE/$000PPPGDP (Cons. Prices) 1000

Figure 5: Energy Efficiency and Change in GDP($US95)

900 Turkmenistan

800

Uzbekistan

Ukraine

700 Azerbaijan

1999 600 Values 500

Russia

Tajikistan Kazak

Bulgaria

400 300 Croatia Hungary

200

Turkey

100

Slovakia Poland Romania Latvia Kyrgyz

Estonia Belarus

Armenia

World Low/Middle Income

Albania

450

World Low/Middle

0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1992 Values

15

Figure 5: Energy Efficiency and Change in GDP (US$ 1995) KGOE/$000 GDP 1995$

6,000 Tajikistan

5,000 Uzbekistan Azerbaijan

4,000 1999 Values

Ukraine

3,000 Turkmenistan

2,000

Belarus

Russia Bulgaria

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyz Romania Lithuania Estonia Slovakia Poland Czech Albania Armenia

1,000 0 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1992 Values

One might have expected the increased competitiveness in domestic markets in these countries to result in higher PPPGDP growth but this does not appear to be the case. Both measures are reported in official Bank data but there is no guidance as to which is the better, although the PPPGDP measure is likely to be the more suitable for changes in energy efficiency. Some further work on this is warranted.

Other issues raised with respect to both energy indicators are the following: • For energy efficiency the improvements in some countries simply reflect a

shortage of energy. For example, in Albania, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia perform well according to official data but this does not necessarily reflect high efficiency of energy use. On the contrary, it indicates an energy supply shortage to households and low accessibility to energy resources. Hence output and GDP are little affected by the shortage but measured consumption is reduced, making measured energy efficiency rise. The level of this indicator for Moldova is quite close to that of a similar indicator in the US, but one cannot infer that Moldova is as energy efficient as the US. The lack of access to adequate energy is an important factor, but is missing from the indicators. • No data are collected systematically on the use of biomass fuels although it is officially an MDG7 indicator. The larger this amount, the stronger are the links between energy and the MDGs for poverty and health. Worldwide about 6% of 16

all energy is classified as ‘traditional’ – i.e. including wood, charcoal, agricultural residues and animal waste. UN data for 1997 was collected for most countries in the region and is summarized in Table 5 below. As a region Europe has a very low level of such use (around one percent), but a number of countries report figures above 5% (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Macedonia). There are, however, serious problems of credibility with the UN data in Table 5. It is hard to believe, for example that traditional fuel use in Armenia and Azerbaijan is zero.15 Table 5: Traditional Fuel Use as a Percentage of Total Energy Use Country % Country Albania 7 Georgia Armenia 0 Hungary Azerbaijan 0 Kazakhstan Belarus 1 Kyrgyz Republic Bosnia & 10 Latvia Herzegovina Bulgaria 1 Lithuania Croatia 3 Poland Czech Republic 2 Moldova Estonia 14 Macedonia Source: World Bank, Little Green Data Book, 2002.

•

% 1 2 0 0 26 6 1 1 6

Country Romania Russia Slovakia Slovenia Serbia & Montenegro Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan

% 6 1 1 1 6 N/A N/A 1 0

From an environmental perspective, energy use at the household level is more important than the national use. A recent Bank study has collected sample data on 7 countries in the region between 1999 and 2000 and has found that coal and wood fuels account for between 0.7% (Latvia) and 32.2% (Tajikistan) (Table 6).

Some of the household level data also appears to conflict with the UN data; for example the household survey shows Latvia and Lithuania using only around one percent of energy from these sources, whereas the UN data indicate a value of 26% and 6% nationally. Hence more regular monitoring of this variable is needed to track progress on the MDGs. Table 6: Share of Wood and Coal in Household Energy (%)

Armenia

Kyrgyz Republic

Croatia

Moldova

Tajikistan

Lithuania

Latvia

23.2

20.5

12.7

6.6

32.2

1.4

0.7

Source: Coping With the Cold, World Bank, 2002.

In spite of the problems outlined, there is considerable scope for gains in energy efficiency in most of the region, both through investment in new plant and equipment as well as through policy measures. The removal of energy subsidies, 15

The problems with the data in Table 5 are considered serious enough for the Bank ‘Green Book’ to stop reporting the figures in its 2003 edition.

17

for example, which still remain high in many countries would go a long way to increase efficiency and generate other benefits. This has been illustrated in a Bank study, which has shown that if Russia were to remove its subsidies, energy efficiency (GDP/energy) would increase by 1.5%, energy consumption would be reduced by 18%, and CO2 emissions would decrease by 17%.

6.

Carbon Emissions As noted earlier, carbon emissions per capita have been falling in the region as a whole.

The only country showing an increase from 1992 to 1999 is Serbia and Montenegro and even in that case there are some doubts about the data. Quite a few, however, are showing some increase from the trough values reached in the mid-1990s. This applies to particularly to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The additional issues that should be noted for carbon emissions per capita are: • •

•

•

Data are not altogether reliable. The annual fluctuations in the Table in Annex II for some countries (e.g. Georgia) are not credible.

Some temporary increase in per capita emissions may be justified if the economy is growing very rapidly and GDP is recovering from its trough levels of the 1990s. In those cases the indicator is not a good guide to the long term capacity of the economies to reduce carbon emissions. This may be said to apply to Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Russia, all of which have been achieving significant growth in the last year or so.

Related to that, some of the very poor countries, which have low emissions per capita (e.g. Armenia, Georgia and Tajikistan), can justify some increase in the future as they need the head room for growth. For them as well, the carbon per capita emissions will not be a good guide to environmental sustainability.

Target reductions for carbon emissions must take account of the dependence of the country on coal as a fuel. In this region, this applies particularly to Poland, Russia and Ukraine.

The per capita emissions of carbon indicator is difficult to track and its movements during this phase of transition are not easily interpreted in terms of sustainability. It may be preferable to look at carbon emissions per unit of GDP and to track those. Increases in this indicator would be harder to justify. In the region only Slovakia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan show an increase in this indicator but this is a matter of concern (more than a short term increase in per capita emissions would be) and should be investigated.

7.

Slums Although the number of people living in ‘slums’ is an MDG indicator, virtually no information has been collected for it in this region. Slums which have traditionally been defined as dwellings with insecurity of tenure. Since data on this indicator as originally defined (i.e., people who could be evicted without recourse to the legal system) could not be collected, tenure security has more recently been measured by an index developed by UN HABITAT and consisting of:

18

• • • • •

Percentage Households with access to water Percentage Permanent structures in the housing stock Percentage Housing in compliance with local regulations Percentage Households with access to sewerage Percentage Households with access to electricity.

For the transition countries tenure security is of little relevance since virtually no one can be evicted for any reason. Even the HABITAT interpretation is not so relevant as most urban dwellings would comply with the list. The lack of satisfaction with this definition has resulted in other criteria being used (e.g. in India, US), which define slums as places that are: a) under provided with services; and b) with certain social and economic characteristics (i.e., places with concentration of the poor).

What do slums look like in ECA cities and how many are there? Although we cannot answer the question quantitatively, we have some evidence that the problem is a growing one. Initially, however, we need to have some understanding of what the situation was with housing in the late 1980s, just before the break up of the Soviet Union and the collapse of state socialism across the region. Under state socialism, housing units were built by the state according to state standards, were allocated without regard to ability to pay, and tenants were charged low standardized rents. Furthermore, services (utilities, healthcare, education) were provided at little or no cost based on a system of normatives.

Finally, society was relatively equal meaning that there were few rich people and poor people. As a result, at the beginning of transition, in most countries one found a relatively even mix of different social and economic groups within the buildings and across the city (i.e., no rich and poor neighborhoods) and a relatively even availability of services (utilities, health and education) in neighborhoods and across the city In the early 1990s, transition meant three aspects changed fundamentally. The populations became much less equal with extremes of wealth and poverty. Housing markets replaced state construction and allocation. On the one hand this meant people could, for the first time, freely choose where they wanted to live, while on the other it meant people were no longer guaranteed a unit of a certain quality. Provision of many services became problematic and availability to the population much less uniform as tariffs increased and service quality deteriorated. Now, some twelve years after transition began, there is evidence that cities are becoming more spatially differentiated into rich and poor areas. There are two major patterns of concentrated poverty (or areas that one would characterize as slums): •

“Vertical slums.” Within the existing housing stock, those people who had the resources have moved out of less desirable areas and likely been replaced by people of fewer means. After a number of years, one can see the wealthy areas, but I suspect they are complimented by poor areas, where ever higher concentrations of the poor live in close proximity to one another in high-rise apartment buildings located far from jobs and businesses, that are crumbling due

19

•

to lack of reinvestment. Examples of vertical slums are to be found in Dushanbe in Tajikistan and Tomsk, Russia.

“Peri-urban (or traditional) slums.” In some countries there have been large movements of people looking for work to the major cities, where they have settled in peri-urban areas. This is the typical pattern in most of the developing world.

In some cases these migrants have been given unserviced land to build on. In other cases, this is not so. In any event, these areas are generally: • • • • • •

Home to populations that are much poorer than the city as a whole Poorly housed in buildings that are not structurally sound.

Poorly provided with basic utilities.

Poorly provided with health and educational facilities.

Not accessible.

Often environmentally problematic.

Examples of such slums in the region are to be found in Tirana, Albania and Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, in both of which the World Bank has programs for peri-urban rehabilitation. An important data collection exercise is currently being undertaken by UN Habitat on urban areas that should help define slums better and design the appropriate response measures.

20

CHAPTER III. THE LINKAGES BETWEEN MDG7 AND THE HEALTH AND POVERTY MDGS The environmental MDGs have important but complex links to the MDGs related to health and poverty. Table 7 summarizes the main linkages for the ECA region. Each of the key ones is discussed further below.

A.

Linkages to Health MDG

1.

Water Supply, Sanitation and Health Lack of improved domestic water supply leads to disease via two principal transmission routes. First, waterborne disease transmission occurs by drinking contaminated water.

The waterborne diseases include those transmitted by the fecal–oral route (including diarrhea, typhoid, viral hepatitis A, cholera, dysentery) and dracunculiasis. Waterborne disease transmission has taken place in many dramatic outbreaks such as cholera and typhoid. Secondly, water-washed diseases occur when there is an insufficient quantity of water for washing and personal hygiene. When there is not enough water, people cannot keep their hands, bodies and domestic environments clean and hygienic. Without enough water, skin and eye infections (including trachoma) are easily spread, as are the fecal– oral diseases. The quantity of water that people use depends on ease of access. If water is available through a house or yard connection, people will use large quantities for hygiene, but consumption drops significantly when water must be carried for more than a few minutes from a source to the household.

Sanitation facilities interrupt the transmission of fecal–oral disease at its most important source, by preventing human fecal contamination of water and soil. Epidemiological evidence suggests that sanitation is at least as effective in preventing disease as increasing access to an improved water supply. Often, however, it involves major behavioral changes and significant household cost. Sanitation is likely to be particularly effective in controlling worm infections. In this context the safe disposal of children's feces is of critical importance. Children are the main victims of diarrhea and other fecal– oral disease, and also the most likely source of infection.

Global estimates of health impacts from poor water and sanitation are very substantial.

(Esrey, 1990). For example Four billion cases of diarrhea each year cause 2.2 million deaths, mostly among children under the age of five. These deaths represent 15% of all child deaths under the age of five in developing countries. Contaminated water is the primary source of diarrhea, and accounts for about 56% of all cases (Shyamsundar, 2002).

21

Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions can reduce diarrheal disease on average by between one-quarter and one-third.16 Intestinal worms infect about 10% of the population of the developing world, and about 40% of the world’s 400 million school-age children. Intestinal parasitic infections can lead to malnutrition, anemia and retarded growth, depending upon the severity of the infection. Infections can be controlled through better sanitation, hygiene and water supply.

Table 7: Links Between MDG7 and the Health and Poverty MDGs MDG7 Water and Sanitation Percent Improved Water Supply

Health MDGs Reduced waterborne diseases resulting from improved water means lower morbidity and mortality, especially among children

Percent Improved Sanitation

Reduced gastro-enteric illnesses results in lower morbidity and mortality Environmental Sustainability Percent Land Area Under Conservation Percent Area Under Forestry GDP per Unit of Energy

Increased efficiency can reduce health damaging emissions

Per Capita CO2 Emissions

Ancillary benefits of reducing emissions include lower respiratory and cardiovascular illness Reduced respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease

Percent Population Using Solid Fuels Slums Percent Living in Slums

Poor living conditions impact on health

Poverty MDGs Better health means less time off for illness and higher incomes. Better water supply also means less expenditure on alternative means of obtaining clean water. But higher cost of supply of improved source could partially cancel these factors Better health means less time off for illness and higher incomes Impact of conservation programs combined with sustainable livelihoods programs can improve rural incomes Impact of afforestation programs in a rural development framework contribute to poverty reduction Higher energy efficiency means reduced poverty accompanied by increased access to cleaner fuels among poor Specific projects under the Clean Development Mechanism Users of low quality fuels for heating/ cooking tend to be poor since they cannot afford cleaner options Increased vulnerability and a poor living environment are dimensions of poverty

More recent research on the impact of improved sanitation and improved water sources on child mortality has come up with some more precise estimates. These estimates are summarized in Table 8 below.

16

Hygiene promotion is a fundamental complementary measures to access to water and sanitation ‘hardware’. The simple act of washing hands with soap and water can reduce diarrheal disease transmission by one-third (WHO/UNICEF, 2000).

22

The studies are fairly consistent and show a reduction in the under 5 mortality rate of 0.3 to 0.6% for a one percent increase in access to improved water and a reduction in the U5 mortality rate of 0.3 to 0.4% for a one percent increase in access to improved sanitation.17 Table 8: Impact of a One Percent Increase in Delivery of Water Supply or Sanitation on Under 5 Mortality Rates (%) Study Larsen (2003)

Water Supply -0.31 to -0.41

Sanitation -0.25 to -0.28

Wang, Bolt and Hamilton (2003)

-0.56 to -0.76

-0.36 to -0.45

Comments Data from 84 countries but excluding Europe Household survey data from 43 countries, including three from the region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan)

Source: Larsen, 2003; Wang, Bolt and Hamilton, 2003.

It is tempting to apply these coefficients to calculate the benefits in terms of a reduction in the U5 mortality rate in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but one should proceed with caution. In this region, the climatic conditions are more favorable for preventing the rapid spread of water borne disease, especially in winter. Furthermore the level of female education is generally higher than for other countries at a similar level of income. The Wang et al study shows a significant reduction in U5 mortality with female education and the Larsen study shows a significant reduction in the same variable with female literacy, and degree of prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Hence one would expect access to improved water supply and sanitation to have a smaller effect in this region. This can be seen in Tables 9 and 10. Table 9 gives data on mortality and mortality/morbidity (measured in disability adjusted life years--DALY) caused by diarrhea for three regions of Europe and for the world as a whole. It also gives the information on the percentage of households with access to improved water supply and sanitation. Europe is divided in the WHO statistics into three regions: region A consists of all of Western Europe, along with Croatia, Czech Republic and Slovenia, and has generally very low child and adult mortality; region B, which is made up of 15 of the countries in the region, has low child and low adult mortality; and finally region C has low child and high adult mortality.

The table shows that all three regions have considerably lower values for both indicators of diarrheal disease than the worldwide average. Furthermore the mortality rates are much lower, even when taking account of the factors that we know explain differences in U5 mortality. Table 10 calculates the expected differences in the U5 mortality rates, based on the Larsen study cited above, taking world-wide figures as a reference and compares them with the actual differences in the rates, with the world-wide figures taken as the base values.18 The table shows that the fall in U5 mortality in regions B and C is 17

In the Wang et al study strong mutlicollinearity meant that including either water supply or sanitation resulted in a more significant estimate. The higher value in each range is obtained when only one variable in included, which is probably picking up the effects of both.

18 The estimates in Table 10 are based on the Larsen study. The explanatory variables factors included and the percentage change in U5 mortality caused by a one percent change in the variable are as follows: (a) access to improved water source (-0.36), (b) access to sanitation (-0.26), (c) female literacy in the 15-24 age group (-0.68) and (d) HIV Prevalence in 15-49 year age group (-0.08).

23

between one third and one half that anticipated by the Larsen and in region A actual mortality is only one tenth the estimated value. While this no doubt reflects other factors that matter (e.g. provision of good health care), the fact remains that ECA is a considerable outlier in the context of econometric models explaining U5 mortality.

Table 9: Diarrheal Disease Estimates for 2001

Region

Europe A B C Worldwide

Deaths from Diarrhea (million)

5.1 77.9 11.9 326.3

Source: WHO and World Bank (*) Per 1,000 live births

DALYS due to Diarrhea (million)

278 2,845 547 10,184

U5 Mortality (*)

5.6 28.8 18.9 78.0

Percent with Improved Water Source

100.0 78.3 98.2 81.0

Percent with Improved Sanitation

100.0 85.5 99.2 56.0

DALYS: Disability Adjusted Life Years

Region A includes all of Western Europe, plus Croatia, Czech Republic and Slovenia.

Region B includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Region C includes Belarus, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russian Federation, and Ukraine.

On the other hand, when one looks at the variations in access to safe water and improved sanitation the mortality and DALY rates go down sharply as access increases within the ECA region, at a rate much greater than the estimates from the studies cited above would suggest. This can be confirmed by constructing a Table similar to Table 10, but with Region A as the base values. It can also be seen by casual inspection. For example region A has 22% more access to safe water and 16% more access to improved sanitation than region B, but its total mortality rate due to diarrheal disease is 93% lower. One factor that might explain this is the higher levels of spending on health in region A compared to region B. Similar conclusions hold when comparing region B with region C.19 Thus, while on average disease indicators are much lower in ECA, the marginal differences in access to safe water and improved sanitation are much greater than the estimated coefficients of the world-wide cross-country studies. This suggests that the links in the ECA region operate within different parameters than in the rest of the world.

Thus further work to analyze this linkage within the region is warranted.

19

There is a tendency to under report in the poorer countries, which means the true difference between region A and Regions B and C is even greater.

24

Table 10: Variations in U5 Mortality Attributable to WSS Provision and Other Factors Region

U5 Mortality

World-wide as Base

Europe

A B C World-wide

Estimated U5 Mortality

5.6 28.8 18.9 78.0

54.4 66.6 55.9 78.0

Source: World Bank Estimate Based on Larsen’s Mid-Point Estimates

2.

Energy MDG Indicators and Health There are two main linkages between energy and health: one is the impact of wood and biomass on indoor air quality and thereby on health, and the other is through the air emissions caused by burning fossil fuels for in industry, power and transport sectors.

3.

Indoor Air Pollution As was noted earlier, the use of wood and other biomass, which is significant in some countries, has impacts on human health. A World Resources Institute (WRI) study looked at the use of coal and biomass in the households across 96 countries and constructed a measure of exposure to biomass use based on the kilograms of coal equivalent per household. Four countries from this region were included in the study and these (Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) ranked, respectively 94th, 91st, 90th and 80th. Table 11 provides details. There are significant differences between the lowest and highest ranked countries. The highest ranked was Gabon in Africa, with 4,665 kg of fuel per household, which is twenty times higher than the Uzbekistan value and 50 times higher than the Armenian value.

Thus, although by world levels the problem in the region is relatively small, it is nevertheless a matter of concern, and better and regular data need to be collected. Based on estimates from Smith and Metha20 that there are about 2 million deaths a year worldwide attributable to solid fuel use, the figure for the four countries listed in Table 11 would be about 2000. Across the region as a whole the figure will, or course be higher.21

20

Smith K, and S. Mehta. Estimating the Global Burden of Disease from Indoor Air Pollution. Published in Kay, D., A. Pruss, and C. Corvalan. 2000. Methodology for Assessment of Environmental Burden of Disease. WHO/SED/WSH/00.7: Report on the ISEE session on environmental burden of disease, Buffalo, 22 August 2000.

21 The estimate is based on a relative risk factor of 0.09 (i.e. the ratio of solid fuel use per household fuel in the region relative to the same figure for the world as a whole) and a relative number of households exposed (households in the region divided by households across the world) of 0.011. All data were taken from the WRI study.

25

Table 11: Use of Coal and Biomass in Selected Countries Residential Residential Rank of Average Total use of coal & Use of Coal & Potential No. of size of Population biomass fuel Exposure to Households Biomass Fuel households (‘000) (tons of coal per Household Biomass Use (‘000) equiv.) (kg of coal (1 is highest level 1994 1994 in sample) (1994) equiv.)

Armenia 6,120 5.3 3,622 683 9 94 Georgia 34,100 5.3 5,458 1,030 33 91 Kazakhstan 102,300 5.3 16,824 3,174 32 92 Uzbekistan 911,880 5.3 22,317 4,211 217 80 Source: Potential exposure to polluted indoor air in developing countries, WRI. http://www.wri.org/ehi/indoorair.html

4.

Health Benefits from CO2 Reduction Policies to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) have the ancillary benefits of reducing air pollution, since both are generated from the burning of fossil fuels. These include SO2, NOX, TSP, and heavy metals, which have a direct impact on human health. Estimates of the potential benefits of the reduction of these fuels are based on a combination of traditional risk assessment and rapid assessment methods, undertaken by the World Bank Environment Department.22

Table 12 gives the estimates of health impacts in Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if these countries were to reduce emissions according to current programs for energy use in these countries. Estimated reduction in carbon emissions in 2010 are around 10-14% of the 2010 “business as usual” (BAU) levels (i.e. levels which would exist in the absence of a GHG mitigation policy). Benefits range from 5,000 deaths avoided in Kazakhstan to 40,000 in Russia. The reductions per ton of carbon are range from 27 per 100,000 tons in Russia to 38 in Ukraine.

These benefits are not insignificant and can be critical in deciding on a more costly energy development that reduces carbon emissions versus one that is less costly but higher in terms of carbon output. Certainly any target value of carbon reductions nationally should take account of such benefits.

Table 12: Ancillary Benefits from GHG Emission Reduction in 2010 Country

Kazakhstan Russia Ukraine

Annual avoided mortality No of cases

5,120 40,000 20,000

Annual avoided carbon emissions M tons

12 150 52

Reduction as % of 2010 BAU level

9.8 10.5 14.7

Mortality from fossil fuel air pollution as % of total

Avoided mortality cases/100,000 tons CO2

0.8 0.4 n.a.

43 27 38

Source: Authors calculations; Dudek et al, 2002; Golub A., 2002.

22

Lvovsky K. et al Environmental Costs of Fossil Fuels. A Rapid Assessment Method with Application to Six Cities. Environmental Department Papers. Paper No 78, Pollution Management Series, The World Bank, October 2000.

26

B.

Linkages to Poverty MDG

The key linkages to poverty identified in Table 7 are from water supply and sanitation, conservation and afforestation programs, use of non-commercial fuels and programs to reduce carbon emissions and programs to reduce slum dwellers. This chapter discusses each in more details.

1.

Water Supply, Sanitation and Poverty in ECA The poor are more affected by poor services in water supply and sanitation because they tend to be disproportionately represented in the groups that do not have adequate services. As a consequences they have to pay a greater share of their income for alternative sources or for the costs of mitigation measures such as buying bottled water etc. Furthermore, they are then more prone to the water borne diseases discussed in the previous section.

Data showing how much the poor are over represented in the inadequate service group are available for a few countries in the region. In Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan data show access to piped water by income quintile and use of ‘other’ water sources by quintile. These data are summarized in Table 13 and Figure 6, which show clearly that access to piped water and high quality sanitation is highly skewed to the better off. The lowest income group has hardly any access to piped water. While this is not exactly correlated with access to poor water (as we noted piped water is also suspect in many cases), piped water is more likely to be of better quality than some of the other sources. A similar story applies to sanitation, where flush toilets are virtually unavailable in the lowest income quintile, most of whom have to use traditional pit latrines (even in urban areas), and some of whom have no facilities at all.

27

Figure 6: Water Supply and Poverty Linkages in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan Kazakhstan Water Supply and Poverty Linkage (1995)

Highest

Fourth

Middle

Second

Piped water to residence Others

Lowest

Access to water supply(%)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Poverty quintiles

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Highest

Fourth

Middle

Second

Piped w ater into residence Others

Lowest

Access to water supply (%)

Kyrgyz Republic Water Supply and Poverty Linkage (1997)

Poverty quintiles

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Poverty quintiles

Highest

Fourth

Middle

Second

Piped water into residence Others

Lowest

Access to water supply(%)

Uzbekistan Water Supply and Poverty Linkage (1996)

Source: Demographic and Health Survey, Macro International Inc.

28

Table 13: Access to Water and Sanitation By Income Quintile

Source of Drinking Water Piped to Residence Lowest Quintile Highest Quintile Non-Improved Source (*) Lowest Quintile Highest Quintile Distance more than 15 Minutes Lowest Quintile Highest Quintile Sanitation Own Flush Toilet Lowest Quintile Highest Quintile VIP Latrine or No Facility Lowest Quintile Highest Quintile

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyz Republic

Uzbekistan

0.0 99.7

0.0 98.6

3.6 98.9

9.2 0.3

50.2 0.0

16.6 0.0

22.4 0.7

41.5 0.1

27.7 0.0

0.0 96.6

0.0 69.7

0.0 68.8

1.6 0.0

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.0

(*) includes river, stream, pond, lake, tanker truck and other.

Source: National Demographic and Health Surveys

2.

Forestry and Land Conservation: Links to Poverty There are important potential linkages between natural resource use and the living standards of rural communities, although the causal relationships are complex. Poor rural communities often live in mountainous and forested areas, including those with high levels of biodiversity, and they are often dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods. Both poor and non-poor contribute to resources degradation, but the poor have less ability to weather the impact of any deterioration to the environment. In some circumstances, poverty can exacerbate natural resource degradation. Increasing poverty, constrained access to sources of fuel for domestic cooking and heating, and rising prices for fossil fuels in some countries (such as in Albania and Armenia) may have contributed to overharvesting of forests for fuelwood, causing serious forest degradation.

Forests ecosystems also contribute importantly to risk mitigation for poor rural households, both directly as a source of employment in forest-related industries, but also indirectly, as a source of Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs), principally wild foods and medicinal plants. Forests also provide important habitats for game, which, in some poorer areas, are critical for maintaining nutritional standards.

While the area under forest cover gives some general idea about the importance of forests to transition economies, it obscures the complexities underlying the relationship between forests and poverty. These have as much to do with how local rights of forest ownership and use are determined and mediated, as well as with how rural populations are settled, and how rural communities mitigate risk.

29

As with many of the MDG targets and indicators, the systematic collection of comparative data which can inform policy more fully about the linkages between forest cover, biodiversity conservation, and poverty across the region has been problematic.

Household research of the type required has not been carried out, the complexities of the various relationships are poorly understood, and policy implications are not fully explored. Having said this, a number of studies have been undertaken which seek to address these issues.

In Turkey, for example, research has shown that the incidence of rural poverty is far higher in forest areas, and the consequent dependence on forests to provide rural goods and services for the rural poor is much greater than in other areas – see Table 14. About half of Turkey’s rural population lives in forested areas. Average household income in forest areas is anywhere from 40 to 60% of the average household income in other rural areas.23 Between 1975 and 1990, largely in response to rural poverty and to risk mitigation, the population of about 95% of forest villages in Turkey declined due to out-migration. The most important cause of out-migration was poverty, experienced both in terms of wealth and income and also in terms of inadequate infrastructure and social services.

Table 14: Household Income in Turkey (US$/Year) Turkey Overall

Household Income

4,734

Turkey Rural

3,594

Black Sea Rural Forest

3,520

1,961

Mediterranean Rural Forest

3,506

1,746

Aegean Rural Forest

3,795

2,564

Sources: Adapted from World Bank (1998) Turkey Forest Sector Review, Social Assessment, and State Statistical Office (1997), Household Survey. .

Households in forest areas in Turkey rely mostly on farming, livestock raising and horticulture. As a result, land ownership is a crucial determinant of income. In mountain villages land for agriculture and pasture is severely limited, and poverty is particularly pronounced. On average, households in forest areas have access to 2.5 ha of land, which compares with the average for all rural households in Turkey of 6.4 ha. The proximity of the forest does provide some benefits: 57% of villagers are completely dependent on wood for heating, and about half of these are dependent on wood for cooking as well.

The scarcity of good farming land in mountains and other forested areas has meant that communities are often dependent on mixed land uses, including grazing. Indeed, livestock management is a much more important livelihood strategy in these areas than most other farming options. In Romania, for example, data show that the incidence of livestock and animal ownership increases very considerably in more heavily forested areas. Access to pastures and grazing areas within forests is extremely important for

23

World Bank (2001). Turkey Forest Sector Review.

30

maintaining livestock populations. Mixed land-use systems can have profound impacts on biodiversity. There is some evidence of an interdependence between grazing and biodiversity, particularly in pastures where the species distribution is highly dependent on how these areas are grazed. Where grazing pressures are significantly reduced, species distribution can change to favor less biodiverse assemblages.

The single most important change with respect to tenure relations that is taking place in forested areas in Europe and Central Asia is the process of restitution – the return of State-owned forests to their former private owners. This process in itself is posing enormous challenges for forest conservation and management, as there may be few traditions of sustainable forest management at the household or community level. In the face of rural poverty, there are significant incentives to liquidate these assets to generate cash or to mitigate other problems in the household economy. While forest cover estimates in Europe suggest that restitution has not reduced the overall areas under forest cover, in fact, what has happened is that large areas have been ‘high-graded,’ meaning that the most valuable timber has been extracted, leaving only the poorer quality trees and reducing the potential incremental benefits from forest management.

Local impacts of this approach are highly differentiated, and attitudes toward using forests are heavily influenced by the incidence of poverty. In Romania, for example, in heavily forested areas, the unemployment rate is twice the national average, and the incidence of poverty is consequently higher. Even so, in these areas, rural people are much more likely to consider forests as a long-term capital asset, and households surveyed indicated they would opt for finding sustainable ways of using forests following restitution. In forest-scarce areas, where the poverty incidence is higher, households think of forests as secondary resources, unimportant in the economy of the community. In these areas, households indicate a preference for immediate valorization following restitution, generally by cutting trees and selling the wood.24 Similarly, in heavily forested areas, households are more commonly engaged in primary wood processing activities, rather than in activities such as gathering, processing and selling NTFPs or in secondary wood processing. In less heavily forested areas, households are much more likely to engage in the NTFP economy and in secondary wood processing.

Forest restitution in some areas is likely to impact negatively upon poorer households. In Romania, there was a deep consensus among surveyed households that the rural poor have easier access to NTFPs collected from state forests, and that this situation would deteriorate as forests are restituted. Forest restitution will possibly negatively influence the access of the poor to forest products, and in the short to medium term they foresee a worsening of their life conditions.

24

Metromedia Transylvania (2002). An Assessment of Social Issues Associated with the Forestry Sector in Romania. Prepared for the Forest Development Project.

31

It is not uncommon to speak about NTFPs as subsistence products, contributing to a household’s overall consumptive needs, but not contributing significantly to income generation. There is increasing evidence that this is decidedly not the case. In fact, in Turkey, NTFPs derived from medicinal plants, fruits and nuts, and resins, are of significant value to the national economy, conservatively estimated at around $110 million per year. Many of Turkey’s NTFPs are exported as raw or semi-raw materials.

Medicinal products are of particular importance with Turkey ranking as the third largest global exporter of medicinal plants of wild origin after China and India.

While some data is available with respect to export production, the domestic trade in NTFPs and medicinal plants in particular, while widely observed, is largely unrecorded.

A recent study25 of wild medicinal plants in Turkey, identified 346 taxa of commercially traded wild native plants. About 11% of the commercially traded taxa are endemic, most notably the various species and subspecies of the genus Sideritis, and are used to make herbal tea. The principle markets for medicinal plants within Turkey are bazaars, market stalls and herbalists (‘Aktar’), and pharmaceutical companies which purchase raw materials for processing into drugs. A study of 96 aktar in 40 towns and cities identified 179 plant taxa which are sold through aktar shops.26 The immediate financial value of medicinal plants collected from forested areas to poor rural households aside, they also represent many household’s only source of access to pharmaceuticals or to health care. Service delivery in remote mountainous regions is often highly constrained. However untested in formal clinical trials, traditional medicines, largely collected from forested areas, remain a primary source of treatment for health ailments in many poor rural areas.

3.

Energy and Poverty Energy and poverty links arise in a number of ways. The first is lack of access to electricity, which is important in any poverty alleviation program and has strong links to the MDGs discussed earlier. A recent World Bank study looked at demographic and health data from over 60 low-income countries and investigated the determinants of health outcomes using cross-country data between 1985 and 1999.27 It found that in urban areas, linking households to electricity is the only key factor that reduces both the infant mortality rate (IMR) and the under five mortality rate (U5MR), and that this effect is large, significant and independent of incomes. In rural areas, improving female secondary education is crucial for reducing IMR, while expanding vaccination coverage reduces U5MR.

25

Ozhatay, N., Koyuncu, M., Atay, S. and Byfield, A. 1997. ‘The Trade in Natural Medicinal Plants in Turkey’. Dogal Hayati Koruma Dernegi (DHKD) and Fauna and Flora International (FFI).

26 Baser, K. et al. 1996. ‘Turkiye’de Aktartar ve Bitkisel Droglar’. Asya ve Africa Dilleri ve Kulturleri Arastirma Enstitusus, Islam Kulturu Arastirmalan Serisis, No: 27, Tokyo.

27 Wang, L., K. Bolt, and K. Hamilton. Lives Saved from Environmental Conditions: A Projection. World Bank Environment Department Paper. World Bank: Washington DC., 2003.

32

Systematic data on access to electricity are only available for urban areas in the ECA region. As shown in Table 15, these very high levels of access for both poor and nonpoor, although it is not 100% for all poor households. The more interesting data would be on access in rural areas, where it is probably lower for poor households. Furthermore, ‘access’ may be there but it may only be for a few hours a day and with intermittent supply. For example in Tajikistan supply is cited at 100% but there have been many problems in the power supply system.

Table 15 also shows less access among the poor to district heating and natural gas, which means that they are more dependent on other fuels such as LPG, kerosene, coal and biomass. This raises the second factor linking energy to poverty, that of the health problems associated with the domestic use of coal, biomass and other non-commercial fuels. Table 16 summarizes the data available on this for 7 countries in the region.

Dependence on coal and/or wood is much higher for the poor than the non-poor in Croatia, Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan. The data, however are sparse and sometimes contradict other ‘official’ data. Furthermore, to fully understand the consequences of the use of such energy we need more information on methods of combustion.

Table 15: Urban Network Energy Use in EE and Central Asia (%) Country Armenia 1999 Croatia 1997 Kyrgyz Republic 1999 Latvia 1997 Lithuania 1998 Moldova 1999 Tajikistan 1999

District heating Poor Nonpoor 11 14 15 39 17 55 70 83 31 46 17 57 1 1

Central gas Poor Nonpoor 4 16 19 30 13 33 57 68 46 56 37 70 3 6

Electricity Poor Nonpoor 97 99 99 100 100 99 99 100 85 94 65 89 100 100

Source: Coping with the Cold, op. cit.

Table 16: Urban Non-network Energy Use in EE and Central Asia (%) Country Armenia Croatia Kyrgyz Republic Latvia Lithuania Moldova Tajikistan

Liquefied Propane Gas Poor Nonpoor 17 27 44 45 24 39 37 n/a 6 n/a

28 n/a 7 n/a

Kerosene

Coal

Wood

Poor 14 3 31

Nonpoor 11 7 17

Poor n/a 1 60

Nonpoor n/a 1 31

Poor 47 51 46

Nonpoor 50 26 22

n/a n/a n/a <1

n/a n/a n/a 1

<1 <1 9 11

<1 <1 5 18

1 1 12 47

2 2 9 32

n/a: not available from HH survey Source: Coping with the Cold, op. cit.

33

More generally, a serious problem not highlighted by the present indicators is access to sufficient energy, especially heat. Given the cold climate that pervades most of the ECA region, it is not surprising that the Household Surveys in the region show households consistently identify insufficient heat and related illnesses as major problems. For example in Sevastopol, Ukraine, it was reported that in 56% of households somebody had become sick because indoor temperatures were too low; in Moldova many households are subjected to indoor temperatures of only 5-100 Celsius in the winter months. Similar problems have been encountered in many other countries, especially in the last winter which was exceptionally cold. Such effects are not picked up in the proposed indicators, indeed an increase in â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;energy efficiencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; may be evidence of an increasing problem of access.28 One should also look at the opportunities offered by the incentives for GHG reduction through the Kyoto Protocol to combine poverty reduction, health improvements from less traditional fuel use, and income generating benefits from non timber products through the programs that sequester carbon. These projects can be specifically designed to benefit the poor, with some or all of the additional cost being met from the carbon sequestration benefits. These can be converted into financial flows though mechanisms such as the Community Development Carbon Fund, which can provides carbon finance to smallscale projects in poorer rural areas of the developing world. This Fund can also link small-scale projects seeking carbon finance with companies, governments, foundations, and NGOs seeking to improve the livelihoods of local communities and obtain verified emission reductions. Another new fund is the BioCarbon Fund, which is a prototype fund in support of projects that sequester or retain carbon in forest and agro-ecosystems, in developing countries and countries in transition. It will aim to deliver cost-effective emission reductions, while promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Both funds have a target size of $100 million.

Finally there is an increasing acknowledgement world-wide that potential climate changes are likely to have important negative consequences for the poor. The effects are particularly strong in tropical and sub-tropical regions, but recent studies have also noted similar problems in the former CIS, where a Russian study on the impacts of climate change has shown serious effects on poor and vulnerable communities.29 On the other hand predictions concerning climate change also include some benefits, such as less demand for heat in the winter and longer growing seasons, in the Northern countries of the region.

28

See, Coping With the Cold, World Bank Technical Paper No 529, 2002.

Together, with nine other bilateral and multilateral agencies, the World Bank is in the process of preparing a paper to initiate a global dialog on how to integrate climate variability and climate change into development. A consultative draft of this paper Poverty and Climate Change: Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor, 2002 was launched at the Eighth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate change in New Delhi. The Russian study will be published this year, DanilovDanilyan (ed. (2003).

29

34

CHAPTER IV. COST ANALYSIS It should be noted that water supply and sanitation cost estimates in this chapter consist solely of maintenance and capital costs associated with the infrastructure itself, while the energy cost reflects only the costs of CO2 mitigation. In most cases, however, infrastructure and maintenance expenditures will depend upon policy and institutional reform. Reforms related to achieving the MDGs include: promoting incentives for more efficient energy use; reforming municipal water, sewerage, and district heating utilities by eliminating subsidies; improving collection and cost recovery by introducing metering; privatizing consumer and industrial sectors; promoting free trade and reducing agricultural subsidies; decentralizing service delivery for rural water supply together with intensive capacity building; and improving natural resource management. Land reform and clarification of property rights also helps the environment, since owners often take more care to ensure the sustainability of their property. Also essential is a transparent legal and regulatory framework to support environmental management and monitoring activities as well as a commitment to more seriously involve the public and civil society in environmental decision-making.

Within ECA, the Baltic States and most countries in Central and Southeastern Europe have stronger capacity to manage environmental issues than countries where the reform process has been interrupted or where the institutional and regulatory framework is still developing, such as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, and Romania.

Compared to Central and East European countries, Western CIS countries have also lagged behind in making progress. Central Asia and the Caucasus are among the slowest reformers and include three of the poorest ECA countries.

A.

Cost of Meeting the Water Supply and Sanitation MDGs

Preparing a detailed cost estimate for meeting the water supply and sanitation MDGs for all 28 ECA countries is a major task and beyond the scope of this report. To examine the issues involved and to provide some indicative costs, three countries have been looked at in detail: Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Ukraine. The costs for these countries are then compared with the one rough estimate that has been made for all CIS countries.

1.

Cost of Water Supply Programs The additional cost of achieving the water supply MDG varies, depending on the current condition of a countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water supply infrastructure and the ways that the goal might be achieved. Recall that, by definition, "improved" water supply technologies are household connection, public standpipe, borehole, protected dug well, protected spring, rainwater collection. The additional cost of each of these technologies is very different. Criteria for selecting which technologies to use will be based on the current situation and financial affordability.

35

Urban water supply As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, most urban residents in ECA already have access to improved water (91% for ECA countries), but water quality and reliability are serious problems. The solution in urban areas requires accessing piped water supply, which many ECA countries have achieved to a great extent. For example, in Ukraine, 96% of the urban population has access to piped water, 97% in Kazakhstan, and 80% in Moldova (See table 17). Piped water has higher quality and is more reliable, but it also costs more.

Table 17: No. of Residents with Access to Piped Water in Selected Countries

Country

Kazakhstan Moldova Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Ukraine

MDG for Access to Access to MDG for piped piped water piped water piped water water supply supply Sector (% of (population (% of (population population) thousand) population) thousand) 2000 2000 2015 2015

Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural Total Total Total

96.9 79.6 95.6 69.4 10.2 55.0 85.0 38.1 83.0

8,045 1,417 32,132 4,557 255 8,739 12,639 1,631 41,086

97.8 85.7 96.9

9,078 1,608 29,578

Increased population accessing to piped water (population thousand) 2000-2015

1,032 191 (2,554)

Source: Population data are estimated by FAO; MDGs are World Bank estimates.

If we accept that access to piped water in urban areas is considered as an MDG target, achieving this will require mainly a rehabilitation of old degraded existing systems, and partly (to a modest extent) an extension of the system to those who do not have access to piped water yet.

•

•

•

In Ukraine, population is forecast to decrease between 2000 and 2015 (FAO estimates). The existing water supply infrastructure should therefore already be enough to meet the MDG, or even be over capacity. The cost, therefore, will come from rehabilitation of the existing system, and operation and maintenance of the existing system to serve high quality water. New infrastructure facilities will not be needed in general, but this can vary from city to city.

In Moldova, an additional 191,000 people will need to gain access to piped water to achieve water supply MDG. The existing system is too old to serve high quality water. Solutions could be to save water, rehabilitate and make full use of current water supply capacity, and establish new systems.

In Kazakhstan, building new water supply systems will require a big budget given that an additional one million people need to have access to the water systems by 2015. Rehabilitation of existing systems and proper maintenance and operation are also costly. At the same time, as water pollution is serious in Kazakhstan, fighting pollution and protecting water resources are essential in serving high quality water.

36

Table 18 gives an estimation of the cost of different options for improving/increasing the provision of drinking water in urban areas in Ukraine, Moldova, and Kazakhstan. The actual cost in each country will depend on the combination of options that are undertaken, which in turn are based on Bank and other estimates of how much needs to be rehabilitated. The table provides a first estimate of how much of each option in fact will be needed.

Rural water supply Table 19 shows the population that will have to be supplied with improved water in rural areas. As the rural population is predicted to decrease in both Ukraine and Moldova between 2000- 2015 (estimated by FAO), it is not difficult for these two countries to achieve the water supply MDG in terms of â&#x20AC;&#x153;access.â&#x20AC;? However, they will have problems ensuring water quality. For Kazakhstan, both access and quality will be challenging.

As shown in Table 17, fewer people in rural than in urban areas have access to piped water in these countries. Provision of piped water in rural areas would make meeting the MDGs very costly. An alternative solution is to combine piped water supply with other methods, such as safe wells. To be sure, the quality of water so delivered remains an issue but this can be achieved by a combination of well washing, well protection and maintenance, cleaning of pumps and other equipment, and providing deeper wells.

Table 20 provides an estimation of the cost of different rural water supply options in rural Ukraine, Moldova, and Kazakhstan. As in the case of urban water supply, the need for each of the different options is based on Bank and other estimates of the state of the current system.

37

$21-46/person $ 43-169/person

$61-266/person

$42-573/person

6 Building new pipelines Rehabilitating treatment 7 system 8 Establishing new treatment system

8.1 Ground water treatment

8.2 Surface water treatment

$7-33/person

$25/person

$11-41/person

80% of the treated drinking water is groundwater

20% of the treated drinking water is groundwater

$17-62/person

$44-395/person

$65-266/person

75% of the treated drinking water is groundwater

25% of the treated drinking water is groundwater

40% need repair

About 22% needed

30%-40% of the pump stations need to be repaired

38

Tables 18, 20, 22, and 24 are estimated with references from World Bank ECA Lending projects’ reports (1990-2002); UK water industry research limited (1999), ‘Prevention and Control of Water Related Disease in Europe - Economic Assessment (draft);’ UkrkommunNIIprogress Research Institute, ‘Results of indicative survey of water and sewerage utilities in Ukraine;’ Ifo Institute(1993), ‘Environmental Standards and Legislation in Western and Eastern Europe Towards Harmonization: Economic Costs and Benefits of Harmonization. Strategic Analysis;’ Ofwat (1997), ‘Capital Unit Costs in the Water Industry: the 1994 periodic review cost base,’ IIASA (1992), ‘Cost Effective Water Quality Management in Central and Eastern Europe: Working Paper II;’ WRc (1993), ‘Environmental Standards and Legislation in Western and Eastern Europe: Towards Harmonization. Task IV (b);’ Contribution from Ukraine consultant, 2003.

30

5.6 breaks/km/yr

More than 50% of existing equipments need to be repaired

$20-50/person

Ukraine Case in Ukraine Estimated cost Serious water loss <$5/person

$18-38/person $15-33/person $43-169/person Almost all need repair $43-169/person

$27-41/person

50% of the total treated water is from ground water, 50% is surface water B:25% of the treatment $42-266/person system needs to be rehabilitated; S: 37% needs to be rehabilitated B: 38%; S: 21% needs to be $29-395/person rehabilitated

8.3 Surface water storage $16-59/person Note: B: big city, >50,000 persons; S: small city, 20,000-50,000 persons

$27-41/person

$25/person

$25/person

50% not working

Moldova Case in Moldova Estimated cost 30% physical loss <$5/person $20-50/person

B:53%; S:31% needs renovation

Kazakhstan Case in Kazakhstan Lack of water resource

$20-50/person

<$5/person

Estimated cost

5 Rehabilitating pipelines

No Methods 1 Water saving 2 Adding water filters to household/Boil water 3 Digging wells, community based methods 4 Rehabilitating equipment and improve management

Table 18: Cost of Urban Water Supply System30

Table 19: Access to Improved Water in Rural Areas Country

Current situation (% of population) 2000

Kazakhstan Moldova Ukraine

82 88 94

MDG (% of population) 2015

87.4 91.6 95.8

Current situation (population thousand) 2000

5,384 2,201 14,936

MDG (population thousand) 2015

5,837 2,085 12,278

Increased (population thousand) 2000-2015

452 -116 -2,659

Source: World Bank Estimates

Total cost of water supply program Total cost can be separated into three parts: the cost of improving water quality, which is the renovation cost of the current system; the cost of improving population access to safe water, which is the infrastructure cost of building additional piped water system in urban areas, and the cost of a combination of piped water and drug well in rural areas; and cost of operation and maintenance, to sustain water access, which is about 15% of the sum of water quality improvement cost and new access cost. This total cost is what is needed to achieve access to improved water while ensuring high quality.

Total Cost = Cost of Improving Quality + Cost of Improving Access + Operation & Maintenance Cost To improve water quality for those with connections, the options are, in order of cost, adding water filters in the house, well washing, rehabilitation of equipment and of pipe lines, and rehabilitation of treatment systems, which is the most costly. In order to achieve the water access in MDG rural areas, more work will be needed on well clean up, while urban areas will need to stress pipelines and treatment rehabilitation.

The lowest cost option for providing additional access to water supply is to build new shaft wells, followed by building new pipelines. The latter, however, has to be undertaken together with building new treatment systems, where existing ones are fully utilized. In this regard treatment of groundwater is less expensive than treatment of surface water. Treatment facilities, however, are not always needed; in places such as Ukraine and Moldova, treatment capacity is not yet fully used and new pipelines connecting to the existing system can serve additional people access to water.

Table 21 provides an estimate of the total cost of improving water access and achieving the water supply MDG in the three countries studied. As seen therein, Kazakhstan and Moldova would need to spend annually about 0.2% of GDP in 2002 (constant 1995 US$) from 2000 to 2015, and Ukraine would need to spend about 0.1% of its GDP.

39

Adding water filters to household/boil water Digging wells, community-based methods

Water saving

Drilling new deeper wells (up to 30 m deep or depends on local hydro-geological conditions)

Rehabilitating pipelines

Building new pipelines Rehabilitating 7 treatment system 8 Establishing new treatment system 8.1 Groundwater treatment 8.2 Surface water treatment 8.3 Surface water storage Sources and details : See Table 18

6

5

Building new shaft wells 3.4 4 Rehabilitating equipment

3.3

3.1 Well protection 3.2 Well washing/cleaning

3

2

No 1

Method

$37.5/well, or $3.8/person

<$5/ person $20-50/ person

Ukraine Estimated cost 0

Wells usage under the clean environmental conditions;

Serious water loss

Case in Ukraine

$25-31/ person $27-68/ person $13-45/ person $50-176/ person

$189-360/ 20% of the treated drinking water is groundwater person $263-474/ 80% of the treated drinking water is groundwater person $22-80/ person

$274-522/ person $382688/person $31-177/ person

$266551/person $403725/person $34123/person

40

75% of the treated drinking water is groundwater

Estimation based on $187.6/well experience in Nizhyn rayon or drilling well (38 m deep, water is free of nitrates) $19/person $187.6/well Materials cost half; mechanic equipment cost half or $19/person More than 50% of existing 30-40% of the pump stations equipments need to be $25-31/ need to be repaired repaired person 5.6 breaks/ $7-45/ km/yr person About 22% needed $13-45/ person $50-176/ person

50% not working

30% physical loss

Case in Moldova

Moldova

$25-31/ person $27-68/ person $19-40/ person $50176/person

Kazakhstan Estimated Estimated Case in cost cost Kazakhstan 0 Lack of water 0 resource <$5/ <$5/ person person $20-50/ $20-50/ person person

Table 20: Cost of Rural Water Supply Systems

Table 21: Total Water Supply Cost Estimation: 2000-2015 (in constant 1995 US$)

Country Kazakhstan Moldova Ukraine

TC ($ Mln.) 650 106 1,001

Costs 2000-2015 Cost of Cost of improving improving water access to water quality ($ Mln.) ($ Mln.) 268 297 54 38 871 -

Annual Cost: 2000-2015 O&M cost ($ Mln.) 85 14 131

As % of 2002 GDP 0.2 0.2 0.1

In $Mln. 43 7 67

Source: World Bank estimates based on notes as described in Table 18.

2.

Cost of Sanitation Programs The marginal cost of achieving the MDG goal related to sanitation also depends on the condition of the existing sanitation infrastructure and the level of sanitation that a country wishes to reach. By definition, improved sanitation means connection to a public sewer, connection to septic system, pour-flush latrine, simple pit latrine, and ventilated improved pit latrine. The marginal cost of applying these technologies will be very different.

Access to sewage system has the highest marginal cost but gives higher quality of waste treatment.

Under this definition, for all of the three selected countries, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Ukraine, official data show that total access to sanitation is 100% in urban areas, 98% in rural areas and 99% in general. Thirteen out of the twenty ECA countries reported similar data. In urban areas, priority should therefore be given to access to sewage systems with centralized pipelines, which can meet higher hygiene standards in general.

In rural areas other technologies are of course cheaper, but a flush latrine connected to a septic system or a sewage system is more of a necessity for a long cold winter climate.

Urban sanitation On average, ECA countries report 98% access to sanitation in urban areas (for the 17 countries reporting data). In view of this, priority should be given to building sewage systems to achieve the sanitation MDG in urban areas. Table 22 gives an estimation of the cost of sewage system in urban areas for the three countries.

These costs have to be applied to a large number of households. As shown in table 21, to achieve the target â&#x20AC;&#x153;halve the population without access to sewage system by 2015,â&#x20AC;? sewage systems will need to be built for an additional 1.5 million urban residents in Kazakhstan, and 247,000 people in Moldova. Ukraine has excess capacity because the urban population is decreasing. At the same time, rehabilitating existing systems is important for all the three countries.

41

$27-41/person

$27-41/person

100 km needed. 5 clogs/km/yr

More than 50% of the existing equipments need to be repaired.

Case in Moldova

Moldova Estimated cost $25/person

Ukraine Case in Ukraine

$20-41/person About 23% needs to be rehabilitated 3 Building new pipelines $28-55/person $25-50/person 20 km needed $20-44/person 4 Rehabilitating sewerage $50-176/person B:9-33%; $50-176/person Actual existing capacity is 300,000 $50-176/person About 25% system S:23%-26% m3/day, designed capacity is needs to be needs to be 675,000 m3/day rehabilitated rehabilitated 5 Establishing new treatment $39-394/person $39-394/person $39-310/person Over system capacity Note: B: big city, >50,000 persons; S: small city, 20,000-50,000 persons Sources and details : See Table 18

2 Rehabilitating pipelines

1 Rehabilitating equipment and pump station, and improve management

Method

Kazakhstan Case in Estimated cost Estimated cost Kazakhstan $25/person $25/person

Table 22: Cost of Urban Sewerage Systems

42

Rural sanitation Rural sanitation conditions are much worse than in urban areas. As shown in Table 23, only 2% has access to the sewage system in Kazakhstan, and Moldova 3% respectively.

In Ukraine the corresponding figure is 21%. To build sewage system in rural areas would not be feasible given the costs.

An alternative solution is to combine the technologies of public sewer, septic system, and pit latrines. Sewage treatment does not necessarily have to be centralized as in urban areas. Small-sized treatment facilities for a village or a community could also be applicable. As shown in Table 24, currently 98% of the population in Kazakhstan, Moldova and Ukraine has access to sanitation already. The goal in 2015 will be 98.6%.

An extra sanitation capacity will be needed for 150 thousand people in rural Kazakhstan.

In Moldova and Ukraine, as rural population will decrease, the current capacity is already sufficient; here the goal will be to improve services. Table 25 gives an estimation of the cost of improving and building sewage system in rural areas for the three countries.

Sewage treatment does not necessarily have to be centralized as in urban areas. Smallsized treatment facilities for a village or a community could also be applicable.

Table 23: No. of People with Access to Sewage System in Urban Areas in Selected Countries

Country

Access to Access to Access to sewage Access to system sewage system if MDG sewage system sewage Sector if MDG target system target met (pop. met (%) (%) (pop. thousand) thousand)

Kazakhstan Urban Moldova Urban Ukraine Urban Kazakhstan Rural Moldova Rural Ukraine Rural

2000 73.1 67.6 79.8 2.4 3.1 20.6

2000 6,069 1,204 26,822 158 78 3,273

Kazakhstan Moldova

42.5 29

6,319 1,242

Total Total

2015 81.2 77.3 85.9

2015 7,532 1,451 26,203

Increased population with access to sewage system (pop. thousand)

2000-2015 1,462 247 (619)

Ukraine Total 59.4 29,404 Source: Population data were estimated by FAO; MDGs are World Bank estimates

Table 24: No. of People with Access to Improved Sanitation in Rural Areas in Selected Countries Country

Kazakhstan Moldova Ukraine

Rural access to Increased population Rural (% MDG/Rural Rural access sewage if MDG met with access (pop. thousand) of pop.) (% of pop.) (pop. thousand) (pop. thousand) 2015 2000-2015 2000

98 98 98

98.6 98.6 98.6

6,435 2,451 15,572

6,585 2,244 12,637

150 -207 -2,935

Source: World Bank Estimates

43

Total cost of sanitation programs The total cost is estimated as the cost of providing access to sewage systems in both rural and urban areas. It can be broken down into three components: the cost of renovating existing sewage systems; cost of improving peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s access to sanitation, which is the infrastructure cost of building additional sewage systems in urban areas and of building sanitation facilities with combined technologies of public sewer, septic system, and pit latrine in rural areas; and operation and maintenance cost, which is necessary to ensure sustainability of the system and is assumed to be 15% of the sum of the first two costs.

Total Cost = Cost of Renovation + Cost of Improving Access + Operation & Maintenance Cost Table 26 provides an estimation of the total cost of reaching sanitation goal in the three countries. To achieve the sanitation MDG, Kazakhstan needs to spend about 0.1% of 2002 GDP (constant 1995 US$) annually from 2000 to 2015, Moldova about 0.2%, and Ukraine 0.1%.

Table 25: Cost of Rural Sewage System Services Kazakhstan Estimated cost

Method 1 2

Moldova Estimated cost

Building latrines, community based 7-25/person 7-25/person methods Replacing equipment and improve management $25-31/person $25-31/person Replacing pipelines $27-68/person $27-68/person Building new pipelines $26-55/person $23-50/person Rehabilitating sewerage system $50-176 /person $50-176 /person Establishing new treatment system $234-394/person $234-394/person

3 4 5 6 Sources and details: see Table 18

Ukraine Estimated cost

7-25/person $25-31/person $9-40/person $19-40/person $50-176 /person $234-394/person

Table 26: Total Sanitation Cost Estimates

Country

Kazakhstan Moldova Ukraine

TC ($ Mn.)

Costs 2000-2015 Annual Cost: 2000-2015 Cost of Cost of improving rehabilitating access to sewage O&M cost As percent of In $ Mn. ($ Mn.) 2002 GDP sewage system system ($ Mn.) ($ Mn.)

553 106 508

112 31 402

369 62

72 14 66

0.1 0.2 0.1

37 7 34

Source: World Bank Calculations

3.

Comparison of Costs with Other Estimates There are not many detailed estimates of the costs of meeting the MDG water supply and sanitation targets. The World Bank has carried out a broad analysis for the world, with ECA as one region. According to this study the annual investment cost to be around $200

44

million for water supply and $400 million for sanitation (World Bank, 2003). These apply to the whole of ECA and are based on an expected increase in the population that has to be ‘covered’ to meet MDG of 16 million for water access and 7 million for sanitation. By comparison, the three countries for which detailed costs have been calculated in this study show an annual need of $117 million for water and $78 million for sanitation. These three countries represent only 5% of the region’s population without an adequate water supply and 2% of the region’s population without adequate sanitation. Hence, if these detailed costs are any guide, the total cost of meeting the MDG target will be considerably higher than the figure from the Bank’s global study indicates.

At the national level, estimates of water supply and wastewater treatment requirements have been made for all three countries. For Kazakhstan, showed by COWI study estimated expenditures from 2001 to 2020 of about $120 million for water supply and $105 million for sanitation, which are much higher than the estimates given here ($43 million and $37 million respectively). Direct comparison is not possible as the methodologies are quite divergent (the COWI study is based on full rehabilitation of existing systems to near EU levels, whereas the present estimates are based on meeting the MDG targets, part of which requires some rehabilitation).

For Moldova, ECA water sector specialists have estimated a cost about $80-100 million in total investment costs to meet the water and sanitation MDGs. The comparable figure in this study is the investment component of around $185 million. The difference probably arises from the this report’s estimation of the cost of extension coverage to rural areas, which were not covered in the earlier estimate.

4.

Aggregate Estimate for All CIS From the detailed estimates for the three countries considered above, the total cost of achieving water supply and sanitation MDG for 2015 for all CIS countries can be estimated, albeit roughly. This comes out at about US$ one billion annually, of which 55% is for water supply projects and 45% for sanitation projects (see table 27). The cost estimates have been made based on the following assumptions: (a) the average cost of repairing the existing WSS is estimated to be US$60 per capita; (b) the cost of building a new water supply system is US$200 per capita; (c) the cost of building a new sewage system in urban areas is US$250 per capita; and (d) the cost of providing pit latrines in rural areas is US$25 per capita. It is estimated that 35% of the existing WSS systems in the CIS need to be repaired. In urban areas, the MDG target is assumed to imply access to a piped water supply system and a public sewage system; in rural areas, it is assumed to imply access to improved water supply and sanitation as given in the UN MDG definitions.

45

Table 27: Total Cost of Achieving The WSS MDG for All CIS Water Supply

Total WSS

Sanitation

Rural (% Urban (% Annual Rural (% Urban (% Annual improvement improvement Cost (Mln improvement in improvement in Cost (Mln Country in access to in access to US$) access to better access to piped US$) cleaner water) piped water) sanitation) sewage system)

Kazakhstan Moldova Ukraine CIS

5.4 3.6 1.8

0.9 6.1 1.3

43 7 67 578

0.6 0.6 0.6

8.1 9.7 6.1

37 7 34 483

(Mln US$)

80 14 101 1,061

Source: World Bank calculations

B.

Costs of Meeting the Energy Indicators

1.

Introduction Unlike the MDG for water supply and sanitation, there are no quantitative targets for the energy MDGs. Hence the issue for each country is to look at options available for improving energy efficiency and for reducing carbon emissions, and then design a strategy for implementing those that are justifiable on economic and social grounds. In this section we look at the options for three countries with significant potential in this area: Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Since improvements in energy efficiency and carbon reduction are closely related (although not all energy efficiency projects reduce carbon, most do), the focus here is on the costs of reducing carbon emissions, for which estimates are more readily available.

The assessment of the costs can be carried out using ‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’ methods. ‘top down’ models look at the economy as a whole and estimate the reductions in emissions resulting from policy measures, such as increases in energy prices and/or taxation of carbon emissions. The models take account of inter-sectoral linkages and impacts on macro variables such as savings, investment and growth. In general they come up with higher costs of reduction of emissions than ‘bottom up’ models, which look at the technological option at the micro level and estimate the costs resulting from changes in the technologies used in the power, transport and industrial sectors of the economy.

2.

Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Russia For the Russian Federation, a relatively sophisticated analysis was carried out using the ‘top down’ methodology. This involved a detailed modeling of structural changes in the economy, in which a switch to Western technologies occurs, as old investments are written off. The rate of change is determined, inter alia, by the increases in energy prices. Based on the changes in technology and assumptions about underlying growth, forecasts of emissions of CO2 were made (Golub et al., 1999). The study, conducted as part of the preparation of the response by Russia to the UNFCCC, with World Bank

46

support, estimated the following potential for reduction and costs of reduction. (Table 28 and Figure 7).

Table 28: Potential for Carbon Reductions in Russian Federation: 2008-2012 Cost US$/MTC

Negative Cost (*)

Reduction MMTC Cumulative Reduction MMTC

Up to $15

Up to $40

Up to $50

Up to $90

220

305

285

70

85

220

525

810

880

965

Up to $200

110 1,075

(*) Also referred to as No Regrets Source: Golub et al, (1999)

Figure 7: Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Russia: 2008-2012 250

Cost $/Ton

200 150 100 50 0 220

525

810

880

965

1075

Reduction in MMTC

Source: World Bank Estimates

The reductions are for the period 2008-2012 and come from the following sectors: energy (37%), construction and construction materials (24%), metallurgy (9%), transport (8%), agriculture (3%) and other (19%). The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;No Regretsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; options result from general improvements of efficiency and other measures not directly related to GHG management.

They imply that no additional cost has been incurred to achieve the carbon reductions and the general measures that were taken were justified in their own right. Of course any No Regrets reductions should be undertaken whenever possible.

The costs given in Table 28 suggest that, for modest outlays, Russia can achieve substantial reductions in emissions, which should have a market value during the first commitment period of 2008-2012. In principle, reduction are justified if the marginal cost is less than the market value; indications are that this value could range from $10 to $15, depending on whether the US participates and on whether the EU trading market is open to Russian emissions. Further reductions may also be justified, however, if account is taken of the ancillary or co-benefits, such as reductions in local pollutants, mentioned in Chapter 3.

47

A key issue in the realization of the GHG reductions is the constraint on the availability of capital. This has not been fully taken into account in making the cost estimates, in that the cost of capital has not reflected its real shortage. The problem can also be appreciated by looking at difficulties currently being faced in funding projects that have very low GHG reduction costs (either negative or in the range of a few dollars) but where the limiting factor turns out to be raising the capital for the overall project, which is typically in the $1-10 million range (although some are considerably larger, see Task 4 of the National Strategy Study (NSS) for Russia).31 One way round this would be to allow forward trading of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs, or tradable emissions), and channel the revenues into GHG reductions programs.

3.

Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Ukraine Top down estimates of the options in Ukraine have been made by the EC (Metroeconomica, 1998), and bottom up estimates by the Ukrainian NSS, with World Bank support. The figures below are based on the Ukrainian NSS, with some modifications, as indicated.

The NSS considers several options for carbon abatement. Energy efficiency measures deliver the most substantial portion of CO2 emission reduction. They include measures in energy production, industry, agriculture, construction, transport, and household. The unit cost per ton of CO2 reduction ranges from about $40 in construction up to $120 in energy production (or $150-450 ton of carbon). The reduction potential for the period 2002-2012 is 520-1050 MMT CO2. No-regret and low-cost options include so-called inter-sectoral projects, including projects in accounting, management, dispatching, energy transportation improvement. They constitute another important fraction of carbon reduction potential of 260-520 MMT of CO2. Apart from traditional energy measures, the NSS considers co-generation in local energy systems, capturing and utilization of coal bed methane to form another set of no-regret options of 110-530 MMT of CO2. Wind energy and modernization of coal power stations measures will produce 60-150 MMT of CO2 reduction for the price around $ 60 ton of CO2 or $ 220 ton of C. The most notable thing is how high these costs are compared with the Russian and Kazakhstan costs. This can only be explained by assuming that the NSS authors used total cost instead of incremental in Tables 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the NSS. To arrive at comparable costs we have taken 20% of the full costs since, as a rule of thumb, incremental costs for investment of the type considered are about 20% of full costs. Taking the median carbon reduction potential for all groups of measures presented in Ukrainian NSS one gets the supply curve shown in Table 29 and Figure 8. Given the likely price of carbon, options that entail a cost of less than $40/Ton will be attractive on carbon reduction ground alone but 31

National Report on Climate Change (NSS). Ministry of Economy, Russia, Moscow, 2002. There is a distinction between the total cost of a project and the cost attributable to the GHG reductions. The latter is also called the incremental cost and refers to the additional cost incurred specifically to achieve a lower level of GHGs. For example, when old capital is replaced with more modern equipment, the incremental cost is the additional cost associated with earlier retirement than would have been undertaken without the GHG objective. While the incremental cost is often quite small, it is the full capital cost that has to be raised.

48

higher cost projects may be justified if account is taken of the ancillary benefits. The other issue which applies here, as in the case of Russia is the constraint on the availability of capital for the projects. In addition, there is a problem in the Ukraine case with the estimation of costs. The assumption has been made that the official are significant overestimates of incremental costs and a rough guide has been used to obtain the latter, but clearly this needs to be verified.

Table 29: Potential for Carbon Reductions in Ukraine: 2008-2012 No-regret and low-cost measures

Supply MMTC Cumulative supply MMTC

Less than $40

65

120 120

185

$40-50

$50-80

20 205

35 240

$80-100

20 260

Source: The World Bank calculation, based on Ukraine NSS

Figure 8: Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Ukraine: 2008-2012 120

Cost $/Ton

100 80 60 40 20 0 120

185

205

240

260

Reduction in MMTC

Source: World Bank Estimate

4.

Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Kazakhstan The analysis for Kazakhstan is based on two major sources: the Initial National Communication to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kazakhstan 1998 and the national study on emissions and mitigation options.32

32

Initial National Communication of the Republic of Kazakhstan under the UNFCCC, Almaty, 1998.

Government of Kazakhstan, Ministry of Environment, Report of the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), Emission Projection and Mitigation Analysis in Kazakhstan, Almaty, 1999.

49

The construction of marginal cost curve for CO2 reduction was not within the scope of those documents. However, between them the data relevant to the issue is included. The potential for no-regret and low-cost options was estimated based on information presented in the Initial National Communication document,33 presenting energy saving potential in Kazakhstan. The authors compared specific energy intensity in Kazakhstan with OECD countries and came to the conclusion that energy-saving potential of Kazakhstan amounts to 62 million tons of standard fuel or coal equivalent, which means prevention of about 170 million tones of CO2 emissions. This report estimates that 20 MMTC of this amount could be reduced in 2008-2012 period.

According to the Kazakhstan National Communication, which provides a GHG mitigation analysis based on additional measures that could be taken to save energy, the country would be able to abate 158 MMT of CO2 over the coming 20 years. About onethird of this potential could be obtained in a first phase from 2008-2012 and most of the remainder in 2012-2020.

The capital cost per ton of carbon reduction to achieve these results is equal to $115. If, however, one assumes that incremental costs would be only 20%34 of this total, then the cost of carbon reduction per sector would amount to $23. Table 30 presents additional estimates of the investment costs needed for different measures and Figure 9 gives the corresponding marginal cost curve. From this analysis the carbon reduction potential that is economically justified is that with a marginal cost less than the predicted price of carbon in the first commitment period (2008-2012). Further reductions may also be justified if substantial ancillary benefits can be identified.

Table 30: Potential for Carbon Reductions in Kazakhstan: 2008-2012

Supply MMTC Cumulative Supply MMTC Activities

No-regret and lowcost measures

Up to $20

Up to $40

Up to $80

20

13

20

3

20

33

53

56

Various: management, dispatching, distribution improvements, etc.

Rehabilitation of power plants

Small hydro, wind, energy saving and district heating improvement

Solar thermal

Source: The World Bank calculation, based on National Communication to UNFCCC, Kazakhstan, 1988

33

Box 1, page 54 of the Kazakhstan Initial Communication Strategy to the UNFCCC. New facilities should replace old ones, which are heavily depreciated. That is why one can assume that substantial fraction of the capital investment should occur anyway. As a rough guide only 20% would determine the choice between carbon intensive and energy saving investments. Also this does not take into account saving on operation costs (fuel) with the new technology owing to lack of data. For this reason the actual incremental costs should be slightly lower.

34

50

Cost $/Ton

Figure 9: Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Kazakhstan: 2008-2012 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20

33

53

76

Reduction in MMTC

Source: World Bank Estimates

51

CHAPTER V. SETTING OF PRIORITIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BANK ACTIVITIES A.

Priorities

It is clear that the focus on Goal 7 has a number of implications for the selection of projects and programs for implementation at the national level. Within the limited resources available, several of the targets can be identified for priority in the near future.

The central theme in the MDG framework is the alleviation of poverty within a broad policy structure that pursues the goals of sustainable development. In view of this, the environmental targets that have the greatest impact on poverty alleviation should be given the highest priority. Poverty here, is interpreted widely to include improvements in the health and livelihoods of poor people.

Links between MDG7 indicators in the ECA region and the poverty and health MDGs are strongest for water supply, but they are also important for addressing the problem of slums (for which there is very little information), increasing access to sanitation, providing clean energy, and improving forest management and land conservation programs.

B.

Specific Bank Activities

The Bank is supporting, and will continue to support countries in ECA to meet the MDG targets in a number of ways: 1.

Target I: Water supply and sanitation

The Bank has already started to make plans to undertake in-depth study and work on water supply and sanitation issues in ECA. It has developed a Corporate Sector Strategy to consolidate approaches, instruments, and resource requirements, and set regional and country specific priorities. The broad thematic areas through which the Bank will help selected focus countries to improve water supply and sanitation services are: Serving and empowering the urban poor Expanding rural access and use Promoting responsible stewardship of water resource Building sustainable utilities.

Criteria for selection of focus countries by the Bankâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Regional Management are based on: (i) existing need; (ii) poverty; (iii) current project lending; and (iv) future project lending that would provide opportunities for dialogue and investment.

The focus countries that have been selected for the first phase of the study, which will be implemented over a five-year period, are the poorest countries in ECA with the most 52

severely deteriorated water supply systems: Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Romania and Tajikistan. A second phase of interventions will be developed later, and will include small and medium-sized cities and rural areas in Romania, Russia, and Ukraine, where Bank financed sector work is already ongoing or envisaged over the next few years and where some of the largest population centers in ECA are located.

2.

Target II: Integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and preventing the loss of resources

Broadly speaking, the Bank intends to actively support research and work on this target by: • Advising on the necessary institutional reforms that are essential for the promotion of sustainable environmental and natural resource management.

• Promoting projects that can use Bank instruments to reduce carbon emissions while generating co-benefits of employment poverty alleviation, improved land and forest management, and biodiversity conservation.

• Continuing to make the promotion of sustainable livelihoods in rural areas a key and integral part of any conservation and forestry projects in the region.

More specifically, the Bank will aim to increase, in the following ways, its activities with respect to the five indicators associated with MDG environment Target II: Forests In October 2002, the Bank approved a new forest policy aimed at: harnessing the potential of forests to reduce poverty, integrating forests into sustainable economic development, and protecting local and global environmental value.

In the “forest-resource rich” countries of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic States, as well as in most of the Balkans and Georgia, the Bank will continue to support improved public sector management, better delivery of public service functions such as fire and pest management, strengthened forest management in restituted lands and the creation of environmentally sound private sector investment. In the “forest-resourcepoor” countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Turkey and Central Asia, the Bank will continue to support community-based natural resource and watershed management, forest protection and rehabilitation.

The Bank will especially promote strategies geared to: increased private sector investment to provide jobs and sustainable growth, greater community based participation, increased use of independent methods to certify forest quality, and expanded use of lending instruments, including the GEF and PCF to help countries meet the environment MDG. Biodiversity National Environmental Action Plans for ECA countries commit to: mainstreaming biodiversity into economic development to build understanding of the economic benefits

53

of biodiversity conservation; improving the protected areas network (expansion and introduction of corridors); meeting regional and transboundary cooperation needs; improving the policy framework; completing biodiversity inventories; and supporting land use planning.

The Bank supports all of these initiatives and believes that they will help ECA countries to make progress on the biodiversity MDG indicator. It will continue to build on the successes that have been made in supporting improved management of protected areas and extending protected areas status to selected globally significant ecosystems. Efforts in terms of protected areas development will continue to focus on participatory decision making, community capacity building, enterprise development and job creation, legal clarification of land use and ownership, environmental education and the creation of recreational facilities.

Energy/Carbon dioxide emissions/Solid fuels Significant progress to increase energy efficiency, lower CO2 emissions and reduce the use of solid fuels can be achieved through the reduction of subsidies and attraction of greater competition in the energy sector. The Bank will try to ensure however, that such reforms do not result in less access to energy because of affordability issues or the use of dirty burning fuels such as coal and fuelwood. The Bank will aim to promote: cleaner transport fuels; switching from coal to gas; environmentally sustainable extraction, production, processing, transport and distribution of oil, gas and coal; improved environmental management capacity in the energy and infrastructure sectors; the removal of market barriers to renewables and energy efficiency investments; reduced gas flaring; and carbon trading and joint investments to reduce GHG emissions.

3.

Target III: Improving the lives of slum dwellers

Lack of knowledge of the extent that slums are a problem in ECA and what factors are leading to their development is an area that is particularly in need of study. The Bank is committed to undertaking research in this area to identify problem areas and develop proposals for action.

C.

Data Quality and Partnerships

In addition to helping countries develop strong policies and implement action to move towards meeting the MDG targets as described above, the Bank will also invest time and resources into improving the data which exists so that progress made can be more accurately measured. Information on key indicators is inadequate for many countries and totally missing for others. Effort will also be made to better define both MDG targets and indicators to ensure that they accurately reflect the real conditions that exist on the ground in ECA. Part of this process involves establishing appropriate baselines against which progress can be measured, and setting clear and realistic targets for the future.

Meeting the environment MDG targets in ECA will be challenging. Close cooperation between governments, members of the donor community, and national and international

54

organizations will be necessary if progress is to be achieved. The MDGs provide a framework which can be used to direct action and measure achievements, and ultimately attain greater environmental sustainability in the ECA region.

55

Bibliography Baser, K. et al. ‘Turkiye’de Aktartar ve Bitkisel Droglar.’ Asya ve Africa Dilleri ve Kulturleri Arastirma Enstitusus, Islam Kulturu Arastirmalan Serisis, No: 27, Tokio, 1996.

Biodiversity Conservation in Russia, The First National Report of RF, The State Committee for Environmental Protection of the Russian Federation, Moscow 1997.

Bobylev S., Avaliani S., Golub A., Sidorenko V., Safonov G., Strukova E. Macroeconomic assessment of environment related human health damage cost for Russia. Moscow State University, Moscow. Working paper. 2003.

Danilov-Danilyan, V. (ed.) “Prevention of Climate Change: Benefits for the Environment, Human Health and the Russian Economy,” Moscow: Moscow University Press, 2003.

Dudek, D., A. Golub, and E. Strukova. Ancillary Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Transitional Economies. Washington DC: Working Paper, Environmental Defense. 2002.

Golub A., Ancillary Benefits Of GHG Emission Reduction And Collateral Investments: Opportunities For Economies In Transition. Kyiv, 2002.

Golub, A., A. Avertchenkov, V. Berdin, A. Kokorin, M. Martunova, and E. Strukova.

Study on Russian National Strategy of GHG Emission Reduction (NSS). Moscow: World Bank. 1999.

Government of Kazakhstan, Ministry of Environment Emission Forecast for Kazakhstan, Study by the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), Almaty, Kazakhstan. 1999.

HIID Emission Projection and Mitigation Analysis in Kazakhstan, Almaty, Ministry of Environment, Almaty, Kazakhstan. 1999.

Ifo Institute, ‘Environmental Standards and Legislation in Western and Eastern Europe Towards Harmonization: Economic Costs and Benefits of Harmonization. Strategic Analysis,’ Ifo Institute, Munich Germany, 1993.

IIASA, ‘Cost Effective Water Quality Management in Central and Eastern Europe: Working Paper II,’ Laxenberg, Austria, 1992.

Initial National Communication of the Republic of Kazakhstan under the UNFCCC, Almaty, 1998.

Interagency Commission of RF on Climate Change. Third National Communication.

Hydromet, Moscow, 2002,

56

Larsen, B. Hygiene and Health in Developing Countries: Defining Priorities – A Cost Benefit Statement, World Bank Environment Department working paper, 2003.

Lvovsky K. et al. Environmental Costs of Fossil Fuels. A Rapid Assessment Method with Application to Six Cities. Environmental Department Papers. Paper No. 78, Pollution Management Series, The World Bank, October 2000.

Metromedia Transylvania. An Assessment of Social Issues Associated with the Forestry Sector in Romania, ECSSD, Washington DC, 2002.

Metroeconomica Ltd. Assessing the Potential for Western (European) Publicly Funded Assistance Programmes to Create “Tradable Hot Air” in Russia and Ukraine,’ EC: 1998.

National Report on Climate Change (NSS). Ministry of Economy, Russia, Moscow, 2002 Ofwat. ‘Capital Unit Costs in the Water Industry: the 1994 periodic review cost base,’ Ofwat, UK, 1997.

Ozhatay, N., Koyuncu, M., Atay, S. and Byfield, A. ‘The Trade in Natural Medicinal Plants in Turkey.’ Dogal Hayati Koruma Dernegi (DHKD) and Fauna and Flora International (FFI), 1997.

Smith K, and S. Mehta. Estimating the Global Burden of Disease from Indoor Air Pollution. Published in Kay, D., A. Pruss, and C. Corvalan. 2000. Methodology for Assessment of Environmental Burden of Disease. WHO/SED/WSH/00.7: Report on the ISEE session on environmental burden of disease, Buffalo, 22 August 2000.

State Statistical Office of Turkey, Household Survey, 1997.

Synthesis Study of the National AIJ/JI/CDM Strategy Studies Program. A Review of National AIJ/JI/CDM Strategy Studies in the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Russian Federation and Uzbekistan. 1999.

The World Bank. (J. Lampietti and A. Meyer) Coping with the Cold, Technical Paper, No. 529, Washington DC, 2002.

The World Bank, Turkey Forest Sector Review, Social Assessment, Washington DC, 1998.

World Bank, Turkey Forest Sector Review, Washington DC, 2001.

The World Bank. The National Strategy of Ukraine for JI and ET, Kyiv, Washington DC, 2002.

The World Bank. Study on Uzbek National Strategy for GHG Reduction, Tashkent, 1999.

57

The World Bank. The Little Green Data Book, Washington DC, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002.

The World Bank. The World Development Indicators, Washington DC, 1998, 2002, 2003.

UK Water Industry Research Limited. ‘Prevention and Control of Water Related Disease in Europe - Economic Assessment (draft)’, 1999.

UkrkommunNIIprogress Research Institute. ‘Results of indicative survey of water and sewerage utilities in Ukraine’, 19XX. UNECE, The Condition of Forests in Europe. 2002 Executive Report, UNECE and EC: Geneva and Brussels, 2002.

Wang, L., K. Bolt, and K. Hamilton. Lives Saved from Environmental Conditions: A Projection. World Bank Environment Department Paper. World Bank: Washington DC, 2003.

WHO/UNICEF. World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment, 2000 Report, Geneva and New York, 2000. (Updated data available at www.childinfo.org).

WRc. ‘Environmental Standards and Legislation in Western and Eastern Europe: Towards Harmonization. Task IV, United Kingdom, 1993.

Websites

Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/ Tata Energy Research Institute. http://www.teriin.org/indoor/solid.htm World Resource Institute.http://www.wri.org/ehi/indoorair.html

58

Annex I

Millennium Development Goals and Definitions of MDG7 Indicators Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Goals and Targets Indicators

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day Target 2: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

1.

2.

3.

Proportion of population below $1 (PPP) per day Poverty gap ratio (incidence x depth of poverty) Share of poorest quintile in national consumption

4.

Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption

5.

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Target 3: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling

6.

7.

8.

Net enrolment ratio in primary education Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 5 Literacy rate of 15-24-year-olds

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Target 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005 and to all levels of education no later than 2015

9.

Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education 10. Ratio of literate women to men of 15- to 24-year-olds 11. Share of women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector 12. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Target 5: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate

13. Under-five mortality rate 14. Infant mortality rate 15. Proportion of 1-year-old children immunized against measles

Goal 5: Improve maternal health Target 6: Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio

16. Maternal mortality ratio 17. Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Target 7: Have halted by 2015, and begun to reverse, the spread of HIV/AIDS Target 8: Have halted by 2015, and begun to reverse, the incidence of malaria and other major diseases

18. HIV prevalence among 15-to-24-year-old pregnant women 19. Condom use rate of the contraceptive prevalence rate 20. Number of children orphaned by HIV/AIDS 21. Prevalence and death rates associated with malaria 22. Proportion of population in malaria risk areas using effective malaria prevention and treatment measures 23. Prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis 24. Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under directly observed treatment short course

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources

Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water Target 11: By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers

25. Proportion of land area covered by forest 26. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area 27. Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per $1 GDP (PPP) 28. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) and consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs (ODP tons) 29. Proportion of population using solid fuels 30. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural 31. Proportion of urban population with access to improved sanitation 32. Proportion of households with access to secure tenure

59

Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development* Target 12: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system Includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty reduction â&#x20AC;&#x201C; both nationally and internationally

Target 13: Address the Special Needs of the Least Developed Countries Includes: tariff and quota free access for LDC exports; enhanced programme of debt relief for HIPC and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous ODA for countries committed to poverty reduction

Target 14: Address the Special Needs of landlocked countries and small island developing states (through Barbados Programme and 22nd General Assembly provisions)

Target 15: Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term

Target 16: In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth Target 17: In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable, essential drugs in developing countries Target 18: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications

Some of the indicators listed below are monitored s eparately for the least developed countries (LDCs), Africa, landlocked countries and small island developing States Official development assistance 33 Net ODA, total and to LDCs, as percentage of OECD/DAC donors' gross national income 34 Proportion of total bilateral, sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation) 35 Proportion of bilateral ODA of OECD/DAC donors that is untied 36 ODA received in landlocked countries as proportion of their GNIs 37 ODA received in small island developing States as proportion of their GNIs Market access 38 Proportion of total developed country imports (by value and excluding arms) from developing countries and from LDCs, admitted free of duties 39 Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from developing countries 40 Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as percentage of their GDP 41 Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity Debt sustainability 42 Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and number that have reached their HIPC completion points (cumulative) 43 Debt relief committed under HIPC initiative, US$ 44 Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services 45 Unemployment rate of 15- to 24-year-olds, each sex and total

46 Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on a sustainable basis

47 Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 population 48 Personal computers in use per 100 population (ITU) and Internet users per 100 population Other Indicators TBD

* The selection of indicators for Goals 7 and 8 is subject to further refinement

60

Selected Definitions for Goal 7 Indicators Water, access to improved drinking supply “Improved” water supply technologies are: household connection, public standpipe, borehole, protected dug well, protected spring, rainwater collection. Availability of at least 20 liters per person per day from a source within one kilometer of the user's dwelling. “Not improved” are: unprotected well, unprotected spring, vendor-provided water, bottled water (based on concerns about the quantity of supplie d water, not concerns over the water quality), tanker truck-provided water.

Reference: World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment, 2000 Report, Geneva and New York. (pp. 77- 78) Sanitation, improved “Improved” sanitation technologies are: connection to a public sewer, connection to septic system, pour-flush latrine, simple pit latrine, ventilated improved pit latrine. The excreta disposal system is considered adequate if it is private or shared (but not public) and if it hygienically separates human excreta from human contact. “Not improved” means: service or bucket latrines (where excreta are manually removed), public latrines, latrines with an open pit.

Reference: World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment, 2000 Report, Geneva and New York. (pp. 77-78) Land and water area Total land area comprises agricultural land, forest and other wooded land, built-up and related land (excluding scattered farm buildings), wet open land, dry open land with special vegetation cover and open land without, or with insignificant, vegetation cover. Total land area should be used as a basis for other calculations such as density of population, etc. Water area comprises inland waters and tidal waters. Land and water area should cover the total area of a country. Total surface area comprises total land area plus water area.

Reference: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Conference of European Statisticians. Readings in International Environment Statistics, ECE Standard Statistical Classification of Land Use. (United Nations document) Energy use per unit of PPP GDP Energy use per unit of PPP GDP is commercial energy use measured kilograms of oil equivalent per $1000 of GDP converted from national currencies using purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factors. The ratio of energy use to GDP provides a measure of energy efficiency.

Differences in this ratio over time and across countries reflect in part structural changes in the economy, changes in the energy efficiency of particular sectors, and differences in fuel mixes.

The underlying data on commercial energy production and use are from the International Energy Association.

Reference: The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2002 Carbon dioxide emissions Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is a colorless, odorless and non-poisonous gas formed by combustion of carbon and in the respiration of living organisms. It is considered to be a greenhouse gas.

Emissions means the release of greenhouse gases and/or their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified area and period of time.

Reference: United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1 and Corr.1). Opened for signature at Rio de Janeiro on 4 June 1992. (Section C); United Nations. Glossary of Environment Statistics. Series F, No. 67 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.96.XVII.12).

61

Air pollution indoors Human exposure to air pollution is dominated by the indoor environment. Cooking and heating with solid fuels such as dung, wood, agricultural residues or coal is likely to be the largest source of indoor air pollution globally. When used in simple cooking stoves, these fuels emit substantial amounts of pollutants, including respirable particles, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and benzene.

Reference: World Health Organization (2002). World Health Report 2002 - Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. (p. 69) Biomass fuels Biomass fuel is any material derived from plants or animals which is deliberately burnt by humans. Wood is the most common example, but the use of animal dung and crop residues is also widespread. China, South Africa and some other countries also use coal extensively for domestic needs.

Reference: Bruce, Nigel, Rogelio Perez-Padilla and Rachel Albalak (2000). Indoor air pollution in developing countries: a major environmental and public health challenge. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000, 78 (9), 1078-1092.(Geneva). (p. 78) Secure tenure index UN-HABITAT has developed a secure tenure index that focuses on measuring the physical aspects of secure tenure. This method provides better estimates of the magnitude of slum dwellers. The index is a statistical composite of permanency and legality of structure, and access to water, sewerage and electricity, as reported in city summary data collected by UN-HABITAT. It represents the percentage of households with inadequate housing attributes. The percentage of households is converted directly into a population estimate using the World Urbanization Prospects population figures and projections.

Reference: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Slum population Research on estimating the number of slum dwellers started with an attempt to measure the phenomenon called “secure tenure”. Secure tenure means “protection from involuntary removal from land or residence except through due legal process”. The lack of data based on a specific and operational definition made direct estimation impossible. Initial efforts attempted unsuccessfully to use tenure status data (owner, renter and squatter) as a proxy measure. UNHABITAT then proposed that the attribute of secure tenure be demonstrated through household behavior, since households with secure tenure tend to have more improvements than households without secure tenure. Household behavior could be measured by a proxy index that included dwelling structure and amenities data. This was seen as a subset of the UN-HABITAT slum index initiative that was already underway. The resulting secure tenure index provides a fair assessment of the magnitude of slum dwellings. The characteristic variables include: the proportion of households with access to water (within 200 meters), the proportion of permanent structures in the housing stock, the proportion of housing that is in compliance with local regulations, and the proportion of households connected to a sewer, the proportion of households connected to electricity.

Reference: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs

62

Annex II Official Data on Millennium Development Goals Millennium Development Goals Goal 7.

Target 9.

Ensure environmental sustainability Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.

Indicator 25. Proportion of land area covered by forest Country Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Latvia Lithuania Macedonia, FYR Moldova Poland Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic

1990

2000

39 11 11 33 45 32 32 34 46 43 19 4 4 45 30 36 10 30 27 50

36 12 13 45 45 33 32 34 49 43 20 5 5 47 31 36 10 31 28 50

41 42 55 55 Slovenia Tajikistan 3 3 Turkey 13 13 Turkmenistan 8 8 Ukraine 16 17 Uzbekistan 5 5 World average 29 30 High income countries 26 26 Low & middle income countries 30 31 Number of countries reporting data in ECA 27 27 Europe & Central Asia 39 40 Source: Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Bank.

64

Millennium Development Goals

Europe & Central Asia Ensure environmental sustainability Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.

Indicator 26. Land area protected to maintain biological diversity (% of total land area) Goal 7.

Target 9.

Country

1999

2002

Albania 2.9 3.8 Armenia 7.6 7.6 Azerbaijan 5.5 5.5 Belarus 6.3 6.3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.5 0.5 Bulgaria 4.5 4.5 Croatia 7.5 7.5 Czech Republic 16.1 16.1 Estonia 11.8 11.8 Georgia 2.8 2.8 Hungary 7.0 7.0 Kazakhstan 2.7 2.7 Kyrgyz Republic 3.6 3.6 Latvia 13.0 13.4 Lithuania 10.0 10.0 Macedonia, FYR 7.1 7.1 Moldova 1.4 1.4 Poland 9.6 12.4 Romania 4.7 4.7 Russian Federation 3.1 8.3 Serbia and Montenegro 3.3 3.3 Slovak Republic 22.6 Slovenia 6 6.0 Tajikistan 4.2 4.2 Turkey 1.3 1.6 Turkmenistan 4.2 4.2 Ukraine 1.6 3.9 Uzbekistan 2.0 2.0 World average 6.5 11.7 High income countries 10.2 19.5 Low & middle income countries 5.4 9.3 Number of countries reporting data in ECA 28 27 Europe & Central Asia average 3.3 7.0 Source: World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Protected Areas Data Unit and the World Bank

65

Europe & Central Asia

Millennium Development Goals Goal 7.

Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9.

Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.

Indicator 27. Energy use (Kg oil equivalent) per $1000 (PPP) GDP Country Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macedonia, FYR Poland Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic Slovenia Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan

World average High income countries Low & middle income countries Number of countries reporting data in ECA Europe & Central Asia

1990 286

1991 264

1992 195 540 742 584

1993 147 336 825 488

1994 138 214 982 461

1995 118 228 870 464

1996 117 229 760 455

1997 105 233 701 409

1998 110 226 682 372

2000 149 224 514 335 192 354 204 279 348 222 205 454 187 217 256

2001 97 233 667 400

2002 96 204 625 345

491 249 307 420 213 232 553 244 289 357

1999 159 216 683 361 173 379 227 283 403 219 227 489 205 249 302

570

466

290

310

493 264 388 642 264 288 877 379 425 439

523 291 368 546 340 288 796 337 405 409

485 272 342 570 327 266 794 293 366 385

491 255 320 498 144 259 740 262 312 399

529 242 309 521 192 260 632 280 313 401

516 246 313 448 200 244 546 234 308 359

500 256 313 400 200 233 556 250 294 370

435 244 286 385 208 217 476 200 244 323

461

487

432

398

460 478 385 574

456 404 359 609

404 467 319 603

380 421 311 586

385 485 318 589

348 468 304 562

314 447 293 571

280 380 310 678

250 327 295 624

313 455 286 588

286 313 263 526

454

470

194

185

449 225 874 174 539 698

443 228 717 167 560 697 978

399 227 455 171 852 767 954

377 226 485 170 899 839 867

357 227 613 172 840 904 871

327 233 548 170 937 869 849

317 222 553 170 842 844 959

296 211 554 191 873 788 937

280 199 427 187 715 709 857

313 227

25

25

25

26

26

24

313 204 526 169 833 833 909 227 208 256 25 233

7

7

24

25

25

25

172 833 833 909

Source: The World Bank.

66

Millennium Development Goals

Europe & Central Asia

Goal 7.

Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9.

Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.

Indicator 28. Carbon dioxide emissions (kg of CO2 per capita) Country Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macedonia, FYR Poland Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic Slovenia Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan World average High income countries Low & middle income countries Number of countries reporting data in ECA Europe & Central Asia

1990 2,210

1991 1,196

9,651

7,617

16,058 24,059

14,852 23,629

6,915

6,523

8,765 10,579

6,920

9,987

9,594

7,434 15,997 12,845 11,341 7,266

5,854

2,564

2,500

13,563 5,584

11,298

12,337 1,801 16

8,608 9,934

12

1992 724 1,028 6,461 9,150 1,195 6,859 3,725 13,590 17,925 2,804 5,876 15,088 2,461 5,638 6112 5,498 9,687 4,769 5,637 14,143 4420 9,225 6198 3,743 2,517 7,308 11,145 4,438

28

1993 725 777 6,003 7,561 1,008 7,203 3,773 13,061 14,375 1,834 5,916 12,836 1,848 4,921 4712 5,250 9,442 3,574 5,532 13,224 3808 8,645 6695 2,434 2,698 7,053 9,745 5,248

1994 599 796 5,561 6,729 1,194 6,925 3,763 12,369 15,164 1,134 5,772 11,864 1,467 4,626 4921 5,293 9,641 2,773 5,498 11,191 3940 8,062 6372 898 2,584 8,364 7,885 4,621

28

28

1995 649 982 4,400 6,085 1,247 7,334 3,950 12,476 14,037 435 5,843 10,028 1,155 3,999 4,079 5,475 9,018 2,566 5411 10,739 2868 8,304 7260 901 2,789 8,298 7,406 4,570

28

1996 620 735 4,112 6,186 1,260 7,910 4,120 12,848 14,613 803 5,933 8,546 1,389 3,821 4,361 5,948 9,636 2,645 5550 10,116 4579 8,365 8337 993 3,019 7,314 6,766 4,416

1997 511 829 4,180 6,036 1,260 6,999 4,304 13,312 14,317 864 5,799 8,307 1,397 3,502 4,372 5,379 9,346 2,480 5300 9,390 4604 8,406 8325 859 3,123 6,929 6,324 4,332

1998 501 970 5,056 5,870 1,275 6,271 4,420 12,475 13,458 1,035 5,694 7,531 1,383 3,419 4,519 6,192 8,716 2,206 4439 9,454 4839 8,317 8659 850 3,133 6,467 6,182 4,190

28

28

28

1999 486 810 4,212 5,743 1,245 5,128 4,752 10,586 11,743 986 5,650 7,380 969 2,756 3750 5640 8,133 1,515 3,616 9,824 3,716 7,159 7,265 828 3,085 6,360 7,500 4,778

28

2000 452

1,071 6,734 4,527 10,120 5,446 8,619 2,897 3,533 4,582 7,729 4,040 10,842 3,507 7,076 7,722

4,230

17

2001 500 800 4,100 6,100 1,200 6,100 4,400 12,200 13,100 800 5,900 8,000 1,400 3,300 4,100 5,500 9,200 2,400 4,900 9,800 4,700 7,100 7,800 900 3,500 6,700 7,300 4,400

28

Source: Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

67

Millennium Development Goals

Europe & Central Asia Ensure environmental sustainability Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.

Indicator 28. Consumptionof ozone-depleting CFCs (ODP tons) Goal 7.

Target 9.

Country Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macedonia, FYR Poland Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic Slovenia Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan World

1989

481 1680 219 2612 515 5498 190 766 4848 1395

1990

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

456 524

201 372

4 184 50 -442 23 0 826 67 307 289 514 549 51 763 12345 896 0 1 35 3759 30 1401 260

0 280 12 45 31 4 669 9 23 100 487 308 83 720 10986 832 1 0 48 3870 26 1405 53

152 256 45 0 86 8 70 26 1 1025 57 25 104 63 314 40 582 11821 519 1 0 56 3985 25 1101 120

22 85 192 187 11 338 14824 549 1 0 51 1791 19 951 53

25 22892

25 20565

26 20482

25 19760

914

900

579

1279 434

690 253 1039

684 314 403

2290 1206 118

1675

1381 2218 93

322 194 369 765 13 566

4179

3814

2450

4939

2562

2537

2589

596 206 1678

100102 1749 1979 2391 189 3131 171 4518 2454

98752 1449

38949 1199

343

1649 30130 999 986 594

960 23413 868 229 564

3519 141 4518

222 91 3223 97 4518

36607 1079 609 1098 4118 67 3432

4451 61 1703 585

2661 57 2421 250

82 665 361 558 1756 85 544 20990 820 381 354 32 3789 56 746 294

23 151312

13 127172

16 61512

14 56405

17 50335

19 37186

23 34321

2034 464

4390 1214

1185 145 1556 337

1992

914

4736 5528 1174 4986

1230

1991

106

53 844 85

1999

2000

9 100 194 151 0 142 11 56 22 1

25 88 0 176 0 171 5 16 22 1 54 35 37 49 176 32 361 23821 2 0 28 820 839

High income countries Low & middle income countries

Number of countries reporting data in ECA Europe & Central Asia

23 26758

Source: UNEP-Ozone Secretariat

68

Millennium Development Goals

Europe & Central Asia Goal 7.

Ensure environmental sustainability Target 10.

Halve by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water.

Indicator 30. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source Total Country Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macedonia, FYR Poland Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic Slovenia Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan World average Low & middle income countries Number of countries reporting data in ECA Europe & Central Asia

Source: WHO, Unicef and the World Bank.

1990

2000 97 78 100 97.5 100 95

99

100 79

76 73

Rural 2002

MDG/2015 97.9

95

84.6 100 98.3 100 96.5

79 99 91 77

76 99 91 77

85.3 99.5 93.7 83.9

99

67 99

99.3

92 58 99 98 100 100 60 82 58 98 85 81 79 22 91

100

100 58 99 100 100 83 58 85 80 80 16 90

94.4 70.6 99.3 98.6 100 100 72 89.5 70.6 98.6 89.5 88 86.5 93.7

1990

2000 95 58 100 96.2 100

98

100 72

61 98 82 66

88 16 96 97 100 100 47 86 94 79 71 70 19 83

2002

MDG/2015 96.5

98

70.6 100 97.3 100

98 82 66

72.7 99 87.4 76.2

100

100 16 96 100 100 84 78 71 69 12

91.6 41.2 97.2 97.9 100 100 62.9 86 95.8 85.3

1990

Urban 2000 2002 MDG/2015 99 99.3 93 100 99.6 100

100

100 83

90 100 98 98

97 91 100 99 100 100 93 81 100 94 94 93 19 96

100

100 98 98

100 91 100 100 100 82 96 93 95 11

95.1 100 99.7 100

93 100 98.6 98.6

97.9 93.7 100 99.3 100 100 95.1 91.5 100 95.8

69

Millennium Development Goals

Europe & Central Asia

Goal 7.

Ensure environmental sustainability Target 11.

By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers.

Indicator 31. Proportion of people with access to improved sanitation

Country Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania

1990

99

Macedonia, FYR

Poland Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic Slovenia Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan World

Low & middle income countries

Number of countries reporting data in ECA

Europe & Central Asia

Source: WHO, Unicef, and The World Bank

87

49 44

Total 2000 91

MDG/2015 93.7

81 100 93.5 100 100

86.7 100 95.5 100 100

70 100 90.2

79 100 93.14

90 100 99.1

100 99 99 100

100 99.5 99.3 100

99 98 98 100

98 98 100

99.3 99 98.6 100

93 100 100 100 100

99

99.3

99 53

99.3 67.1

98 10

10

98.6 37

100 86

100 100

100 100

99 100

100

99.3 100

100 100

100

90 90 100 99 89 56 52 20 93

93 93.5 100 99.3 92.3 74.5 72

88 70

70

91.6 85

97 97

98

95.1

1990

98

70

Rural 2000 2002 85

98 85 37 35 16 68

100 35 7

MDG/2015 89.5

98.6 89.5

1990

100

100 97

Urban 2000 2002 99

100 97 81 78 17 98

MDG/2015 99.3 93 100 99.4

93 100 100 100

100 86

100 84

95.1 100 100 100 100

100 90.2 100 100 100 97.9 98.5 100 97.9

9

70

Millennium Development Goals

Europe & Central Asia

Goal 4.

Reduce child mortality Target 5: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate Indicator 13. Under-five mortality rate Indicator 14. Infant mortality rate Goal 5.

Improve maternal health Target 6: Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio Indicator 16. Maternal mortality ratio

Country Name Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Latvia Lithuania Macedonia, FYR Moldova Poland Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic Slovenia Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan

Number of countries reporting data in ECA

Europe & Central Asia Source: The World Bank.

Mortality rate, adult, female (per 1,000 female Mortality rate, adult, male adults) (per 1,000 male adults) 1990 2000 1990 2000 ..

86.0 ..

171.0 119.4 76.0 215.6 171.0 95.8 103.0 216.2 207.0 97.9 128.0 254.4 361.0 108.9 90.0 186.0 165.0 107.3 106.0 211.0 227.0 95.5 117.0 207.2 154.2 99.0 78.0 230.0 168.0 106.1 104.0 285.8 294.0 90.1 82.0 195.3 211.0 135.0 116.0 290.0 272.0 136.0 166.0 306.0 378.0 142.9 136.0 290.6 297.0 107.8 121.0 295.1 296.0 91.5 86.0 245.6 248.0 100.5 100.0 147.1 159.0 145.6 172.0 268.7 306.0 102.0 86.0 264.0 221.0 114.0 117.0 237.0 250.0 107.0 148.0 297.9 416.0 100.7 105.0 168.0 174.0 99.6 85.0 246.6 212.0 90.6 73.0 211.0 165.0 106.0 142.0 168.2 236.0 ..

125.0 ..

188.0 134.8 157.0 249.8 282.0 105.1 132.0 267.8 335.0 109.2 127.0 207.5 226.0 26 28 26 28

Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) 1990 2000 28.3 20.2 18.6 14.6 23.0 12.8 11.9 11.3 15.3 12.8 14.8 13.3 10.7 7.5 10.8 4.1 12.4 8.4 15.9 17.3 14.8 9.2 26.3 21.1 30.0 23.1 13.7 9.9 10.3 8.6 31.6 14.3 19.0 18.4 19.3 8.6 26.9 18.7 17.4 16.2 22.8 13.0 12.0 8.3 8.4 4.6 40.7 20.6 58.0 34.5 45.2 27.3 12.9 12.8 34.6 21.5 28 28

Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 1990 2000 41.5 ..

23.8 17.1 ..

20.5 15.8 13.9 20.5 18.1 18.7 15.8 12.5 9.3 12.4 6.6 17.2 11.3 ..

20.8 16.8 10.7 34.0 27.6 41.3 34.6 18.1 17.4 13.5 11.4 33.3 16.9 25.2 22.0 21.9 10.6 35.7 23.0 21.4 19.1 26.2 15.5 14.1 9.7 10.2 6.5 ..

30.4 67.0 42.6 ..

42.7 ..

16.2 ..

26.8 22 27

71

Annex III Survey Data on MDGs Access to improved water source (percentage of the population using improved drinking water sources) 2000 Main source of water(% access) Piped Tubewell/b Unprotec Pond, Tanker Total safe Piped into into yard Public orehole protected Protected Rainwater Bottled ted dug Unprotect river or truck drinking tap with pump dug well spring collection water well ed spring stream vender Others Country Sector dwelling or plot water Urban 89.6 6.4 1.5 0.4 1.4 0.1 0.6 0 0 0 99 Albania Rural 19.8 26.3 25.1 4.4 13.8 5.6 0.1 2.5 1.6 0.8 95 total 45.5 19 16.4 2.9 9.2 3.6 0.3 1.6 1 0.5 96.6 Urban 52.2 21.4 10.1 4.9 2.7 1.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.9 6.5 92.5 Azerbaijan Rural 1.3 16.9 10.1 15.1 8.1 6 0 0.4 5.2 17.4 19.9 57.5 total 28.6 19.3 10.1 9.6 5.2 3.4 0 0.3 2.5 8.6 12.7 76.2 Urban 97.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.3 99.6 Bosnia&Herzeg Rural 55.4 13.9 2.5 7.6 8.6 7.9 0.3 0 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.9 0.2 96.2 ovina total 70.9 9 1.8 4.8 5.6 5.2 0.2 0 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 97.5 Urban 74.8 8.2 3.2 0.6 1.4 1.3 9.7 0.2 0.1 0.5 89.5 Georgia Rural 9.9 20 12.9 1.3 4.3 12.8 35.8 0.6 0 2.4 61.2 total 43 14 8 0.9 2.8 6.9 22.5 0.3 0 1.6 75.6 Urban 71.5 6.5 1.6 0.4 16.1 1 0 0.1 1.4 0.3 0 0.6 0.6 97.1 Moldova Rural 3.9 5.3 1 2.4 73.5 1.7 0 0.1 8.8 0.6 0 2.2 0.6 87.8 total 31.1 5.8 1.2 1.6 50.4 1.4 0 0.1 5.9 0.5 0 1.6 0.5 91.5 Urban 90.5 6.4 1.7 0.5 0 0.1 0 0.8 99.2 Kazakhstan Rural 32.4 37 11.2 11.8 1 3.2 0.3 2.9 96.6 total 65.4 19.6 5.8 5.4 0.4 1.4 0.1 1.7 98 Urban 49.7 32.3 5 3.6 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.9 4.1 0.2 1.3 92.9 Tajikistan Rural 8.3 17.7 8.6 6.8 1.8 3.7 0 0.8 4.3 41.5 4 2.5 46.9 total 17.3 20.9 7.8 6.1 1.7 3.1 0 0.8 3.6 33.4 3.2 2.1 56.9 Urban 85.6 7.1 2.9 3.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 99.5 Ukraine Rural 28.5 20.9 5.6 37.7 1 4.7 0.1 1.5 93.7 total 67.6 11.7 3.7 14.2 0.5 1.6 0.1 0.6 97.7 Urban 42.7 40.7 6.7 2.5 0.3 1.5 0 0.1 0 3.4 1.9 0.2 94.4 Republic of Rural 7.7 21.3 32.3 13 4.2 0.8 0 1 0.2 6.6 10.7 2.2 79.3 Uzbekistan total 19.1 27.6 24 9.6 2.9 1 0 0.7 0.2 5.5 7.8 1.6 84.2 Urban 97.5 1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0.6 99.4 Serbia and Rural 68 4.8 1.3 9.1 14.1 1.6 0 0.3 0.8 97.3 Montenegro total 83.8 2.8 0.6 4.4 6.8 0.7 0 0 0.9 98.4 Source: Unicef(2000), Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2 Kazakhstan data is from Demographic and Health Survey 1995 Note: Piped water into dwelling, piped water into yard or plot, public tap, tubewell/borehole with pump, protected dug well, protected spring, and rainwater collection are considered to be improved water sources.

72

Access to improved sanitation (Percentage of the population using sanitary means of excreta disposal), 2000 Type of toilet facility used by household (% access) Flush to Pour flush sewage latrine No system or (water seal Improved Traditional facilities, type) pit latrine pit latrine Open pit Bucket bush, field Country Sector septic tank Urban 94.8 3.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 Albania Rural 36.6 38.6 2.8 6.5 14.3 total 58 25.6 1.9 4.3 9.3 Urban 49.7 5.7 1.5 33 9.7 0.1 0.1 Azerbaijan Rural 0.7 0.6 0.1 69 29.3 0 0.1 total 27 3.3 0.8 49.7 18.8 1 0.1 Urban 97.3 1 0.5 0.3 0.9 0 0 Bosnia&Her Rural 73.2 5.3 7.2 4.5 9.6 0 0.1 zegovina total 82.2 3.7 4.7 2.9 6.4 0 0.1 Urban 76.9 2.9 12.6 7.5 0.1 Georgia Rural 4.1 1 34.3 59.7 1 total 41.2 2 23.2 33.1 0.5 Urban 73.1 0.2 26.6 0.1 Kazakhstan Rural 2.4 95.9 1.7 total 42.5 0.1 56.6 0.8 Urban 67.6 3.3 2.2 26.5 0.2 0.1 Moldova Rural 3.1 0.3 2.9 91.7 0.9 1 total 29 1.5 2.6 65.5 0.6 0.6 Urban 33.2 4.2 7.6 52.3 2.4 0 Tajikistan Rural 0.7 0.4 4 82.8 10.9 1.1 total 7.7 1.2 4.7 76.2 9.1 0.8 Urban 79.8 19.7 0.5 0 Ukraine Rural 20.6 74.9 2.1 2.2 total 59.4 38.7 1 0.8 Urban 21.1 10.5 25.3 40 2.5 0 0 Republic of Rural 0.3 0.2 22 62.7 13.9 0 0.2 Uzbekistan total 7.1 3.5 23.1 55.3 10.2 0 0.1 Urban 87.5 10.1 0.1 1.9 0 Serbia and Rural 22.2 55.5 1.3 20.4 0.2 Montenegro total 57.2 31.1 0.7 10.5 0.1 Source: Unicef(2000), Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2 Kazakhstan data is from Demographic and Health Note: Flush to sewage system or septic tank, pour flush latrine (water seal type), improved pit latrine, and traditional pit are considered to be improved sanitation.

Total with sanitary means others/mi of excreta ssing disposal 0.3 98.9 1.2 84.5 0.9 89.8 0.2 89.9 0.2 70.4 80.8 99.1 0.1 90.2 93.5 99.9 99.1 99.5 99.9 98.3 99.2 0.1 99.6 0.1 98 0.2 98.6 0.3 97.3 0.1 87.9 0.3 89.8 100 0.2 97.6 0.1 99.1 0.6 96.9 0.7 85.2 0.7 89 0.4 99.6 0.4 99.4 0.4 99.5 Survey 1995 latrine

73

Biodiversity Statistics

Countries

Total land area, thousand km2 (1997)

Nationally Nationally protected areas, protected areas, Ramsar sites, Forest area, thous km2 % of total land total area, thousand (1996) area (1996) thousand km2 km2 (1995)

Forest area, % of total land area Mammals, (1995) species

Mammals, threatened species

Birds, species

Birds, threatened species

Higher plants, threatened species

Higher plants, species

Reptiles, species

Amphibians, species

Fishes, species

Albania

27

0.8

2.9

0.2

10

38.2

68

2

230

7

3031

17

36

15

39

Armenia

28 87

2.1 4.8

7.4 5.5

4.9 1

3 10

11.8 11.4

84 99

4 11

242 248

5 8

3300 4300

19 12

53 ..

8 ..

30 ..

207 51

8.6 0.2

4.1 0.4

2 0.1

74 27

35.5 53.1

74 72

4 10

221 218

4 2

2100 ..

..

1

7 27

12 16

58 56

111 56

4.9 3.7

4.4 6.6

0 0.8

32 18

29.3 32.6

81 76

13 10

240 224

12 4

3572 ..

59 ..

36 38

16 20

207 111

77 42

12.2 5.1

15.8 12.1

0.4 2.2

26 20

34 47.6

81 65

7 4

199 213

6 2

..

1674

7 1

11 5

21 11

65 71

70 92

1.9 6.3

2.7 6.8

0.3 1.5

30 17

42.9 18.6

107 83

10 8

..

205

5 10

4350 2411

12 8

53 15

13 16

84 81

2671 192

73.4 6.9

2.7 3.6

0 ..

105 7

3.9 3.8

178 83

15 6

396 368

15 5

..

3786

36 7

49 33

12 4

104 75

62 65

7.8 6.5

12.6 10

0.4 0.5

29 20

46.4 30.5

83 68

4 5

217 202

6 4

1205 1796

.. ..

7 8

13 12

76 76

25 33

1.8 0.4

7.1 1.2

0.2 0.2

10 4

38.9 10.8

78 68

10 2

210 177

3 7

3500 1752

.. ..

35 14

17 14

55 82

304 230

29.1 10.7

9.6 4.6

0.9 6.6

87 62

28.7 27.1

84 84

10 16

227 247

6 11

2450 3400

1 34

9 30

18 20

66 87

16889

529.1 ..

3.1 ..

103.2 ..

7635 ..

45.2 ..

269 ..

31 ..

628 ..

38 ..

..

4082

129 50

75 53

27 68

290 141

48 20

10.5 1.1

21.8 5.5

0.4 0

20 11

41.4 53.5

85 75

8 10

209 207

4 3

3124 3200

11 1

20 22

20 20

78 95

141 770

5.9 10.7

4.2 1.4

0.9 1.6

4 89

2.9 11.5

84 116

5 15

365 302

9 14

.. ..

25 ..

44 102

2 18

49 175

470 579 414

19.8 9 8.2

4.2 1.6 2

0 7.2 ..

38 92 13.2

8 15.9 3

103 108 97

11 15 7

397 263 431

12 10 11

..

5100 4800

13 20 11

82 21 58

5 17 2

108 90 83

Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Moldova Poland Romania Russia Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic Slovenia Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan

Sources: http://www.seerecon.org; http://www.economy.co.yu; http://www.ramsar.org; http://www.unep-wcmc.org; WRI 2000-2001; WRI 1994-95; WDI 2000

74

Defoliation of all species (1990-2001) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Results of national surveys as submitted by National Focal Centers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Participating All species 'countries Defoliation classes 2-4 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Albania Belarus 54 29.2 29.3 37.4 38.3 39.7 36.3 Bulgaria 29.1 21.8 23.1 23.2 28.9 38 39.2 49.6 Croatia 15.6 19.2 28.8 39.8 30.1 33.1 Czech Rep. a) 45.3 56.1 51.8 57.7 58.5 71.9 68.6 Estonia Hungary 21.7 19.6 21.5 21 21.7 20 19.2 19.4 Latvia 36 37 35 30 20 21.2 19.2 Lithuania 20.4 23.9 17.5 27.4 25.4 24.9 12.6 14.5 Poland 38.4 45 48.8 50 54.9 52.6 39.7 36.6 Rep. of Moldova 50.8 40.4 41.2 Romania 9.7 16.7 20.5 21.2 21.2 16.9 15.6 Russian Fed. b) 10.7 12.5 Serbia and Montenegro 9.8 3.6 7.7 Slovak Rep. 41.5 28.5 36 37.6 41.8 42.6 34 31 Slovenia 18.2 15.9 19 16 24.7 19 25.7 Turkey Ukraine 2.9 6.4 16.3 21.5 32.4 29.6 46 31.4 Note: 'a) Only trees older than 60 years assessed until 1997; b) Only Kaliningrad and Leningrad Regions.

Source: UNECE and EC, The Condition of Forests in Europe 2002 Executive Report, Geneva and Brussels, 2002

1998 9.8 30.5 60.2 25.6 48.8 8.7 19 16.6 15.7 34.6

1999 9.9 26 44.2 23.1 50.4 8.7 18.2 18.9 11.6 30.6

12.3

12.7

2000 10.1 24 46.3 23.4 51.7 7.4 20.8 20.7 13.9 32 29.1 14.3

8.4 32.5 27.6

11.2 27.8 29.1

8.4 23.5 24.8

2001 10.2 20.7 33.8 25 52.1 8.5 21.2 15.6 11.7 30.6 36.9 13.3 9.8 14 31.7 28.9

51.5

56.2

60.7

39.6

change (% points) 2000/2001 0.1 -3.3 -12.5 1.6 0.4 1.1 0.4 -5.1 -2.2 -1.4 7.8 -1 5.6 8.2 4.1 -21.1

75