Environment and Security Initiative ENVSEC

1/60

Advisory Board Meeting Hofburg Congress Center, Vienna, Austria , 31 October 2006

MEETING REPORT CONTENTS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 2

OPENING AND SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN 2006 3 STATEMENT BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER, BELGIUM 3

COUNTRY PERSPECTIVES (PRESENTATIONS/STATEMENTS) 4 Mr. George Kolbin, Georgia 4 Mr. Vitalie Rusu, Moldova 4 Mr. Miroslav Nikcevic, Serbia 5 Mr. Oleg Guchgeldiyev, Turkmenistan 5

PROGRESS IN THE REGIONS 6 Southern Caucasus 6 South Eastern Europe 7 Eastern Europe 8 Central Asia 8

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS 9 Presentation on ENVSEC Evaluation, Georgina Wigley, CIDA 9 Comments and Ideas from Advisory Board participants 11

CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSURE OF THE MEETING 12

ANNEXES 13 Annex I. Opening Remarks by Bernard Snoy 13 Annex II. Statement by Advisory Board Member, Belgium 17 Annex III. Presentations/Statements by Partner Country Representatives 19 Annex IV. Regional Progress Presentations 31 Annex V. CIDA Presentation on ENVSEC Evaluation 44 Annex VI. Meeting Agenda 46 Annex VII. List of Participants 48 Annex VIII. Financial Report for the 2006 Advisory Board 53

2//60

Executive Summary and Key Recommendations The Advisory Board 2006 gathered representatives from donor and recipient countries, academia, and international organisations during 31 October in Vienna. The meeting had the objectives to review the ENVSEC process from a thematic as well as an institutional perspective, and receive recommendations from the participants on the way forward. The thematic aspects were reviewed and discussed in the different regional contexts. The institutional aspects of ENVSEC were reviewed in light of ENVSEC’s new institutional set-up implemented during 2006, as well as the mid-term independent evaluation facilitated by CIDA. Recommendations were received by participants in the following areas: § ENVSEC results

– The ENVSEC would benefit from better reporting according to impacts rather than activities, taking a results-based approach;

– The ENVSEC would benefit from monitoring its impact better; – The results need to be better communicated to an external audience.

§ Project prioritisation/fundraising strategies – The ENVSEC should prioritise among its projects and develop a better

strategy towards fundraising; – Elements of a prioritisation could include regional needs, different skills of

the Partner Organisations; priority donors, and other aspects; – OSCE Member States were encouraged by recipient countries to

specifically use ENVSEC to channel funds to activities; – Donors were asked by recipient countries to increase their attention to the

issues ENVSEC addresses. § Synergies with other constituencies

– Links should be established with the High Commissioner for Ethnic Minorities;

– ENVSEC was encouraged to strengthen links with Brussels, as TACIS just approved a programme of EUR 56 million for Central Asia;

– Connection and coordination with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes are desirable specifically in the context of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA), taking into account the difference between EIA and SEA primary objective and methodological approach;

– Coordination with the Caspian Environmental Programme is crucial in the Caspian Sea region, as well as other national activities.

§ Communication and visibility – ENVSEC should strategise its communication activities; – ENVSEC should make an effort to better communicate its results.

3//60

Opening and Summary of Developments in 2006 The meeting was opened by the Chairman of the ENVSEC Management Board, Bernard Snoy. He highlighted the achievements in 2006 towards the main objective of ENVSEC to raise awareness of environment and security issues on political agendas, and to offer responses to remediate identified issues. He also expressed gratitude over the US$ 1,900,000 of donor funds that were allocated to over 50 projects in the four ENVSEC regions during 2006. He continued by announcing that 2006 saw the integration of two new partners to the ENVSEC Initiative; UNECE and REC Szentendre. The partnership is one of the most important benefits of ENVSEC, fully in line with the 2005 Paris Declaration calling for harmonisation of international organisations in providing development aid. The growing partnership also brings about challenges in terms of coordination; ENVSEC partners have restructured its management structure following the inputs from last year’s Advisory Board by creating a Coordination Unit and Administrative Unit. Also the involvement of National Focal Points in Partner Countries has been systematised. Responding to last year’s Advisory Board conclusions to stay on issue, ENVSEC strictly adheres to clear environmental and security criteria in region-specific contexts. An example of ENVSEC’s ability to quickly mobilise resources to react to environment and security threats is the assessment mission to Nagorny-Karabakh, following requests from Armenia and Azerbaijan, and a UN General Assembly Resolution in September. It was composed by UNEP and OSCE experts, as well as experts from the Global Fire Monitoring Centre, Council of European Union, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, as well as local experts assigned by both parties. See Annex I for full statement.

Statement by Advisory Board Member, Belgium The Representative of the Belgian OSCE Chairmanship unit in Brussels Thierry Vuylsteke, remarked that the ENVSEC Initiative is a model of cooperation between the international organizations, and it should be encouraged. Transforming environmental risks into cooperation contributes to security and helps to prevent conflict, and reduces tensions: the Belgian OSCE Chair is relying on the initiative to develop impact and increase visibility of these issues. The Representative expressed a wish to see ENVSEC extended to other parts of the world, and congratulated the ENVSEC team on its considerable contribution to the OSCE led fire assessment mission in Nagorny-Kharabakh. In 2007, the environment will be the most important theme of OSCE in the second dimension of the OSCE, focussing on land degradation and water management. Cédric Janssens de Bisthoven, First Secretary, added that as a donor, Belgium was supporting ENVSEC since 2003. The work in the field contributes significantly to not only shed light on the security dimensions of environmental issues, but also to finding cost effective and valuable solutions. Environmental degradation, climate change, and ecosystem vulnerability have to be mainstreamed into various policies, and a “greening”

4//60

of the security policies through environmental peacemaking and confidence building across borders is a step in that direction. Efforts to fight environmental problems contribute significantly to conflict prevention, so the speaker congratulated partners on their successful work. See Annex II for full statement.

Country Perspectives (Presentations/Statements) Brief presentations/statements were given by representatives of countries in Eastern Europe, South Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Central Asia.

Mr. George Kolbin, Georgia ENVSEC priorities identified in the Southern Caucasus are: i) environmental degradation and access to natural resources in areas of frozen conflict; ii) management of cross-border environmental concerns – cross-border water resources, natural hazards, and industrial and military legacies; and iii) population growth and rapid development in capitals and other major cities. Georgia’s top priority for state policy is the peaceful resolution of the so called “frozen conflicts” on its territory. ENVSEC projects meet this priority well, however security concerns must be considered and the development of unilateral relations of any kind with the Abkhaz or South Ossetian sides is unacceptable. ENVSEC challenges in Southern Caucasus involve coordination issues – between ENVSEC partners and National Focal Points, between the National Focal Points of the region and within the countries, and communication with ongoing projects. Possibly, the establishment of a regional coordinator could offset some of these challenges. The Government supports the ENVSEC Initiative fully, and expresses its readiness to work together to identify, implement, and monitor activities. See Annex III for full presentation.

Mr. Vitalie Rusu, Moldova Moldova supports the cooperation with the ENVSEC organizations. ENVSEC has been active in Moldova through the NATO project for destruction of pesticides in Moldova that started in 2003. Cooperation with OSCE in ENVSEC activities begun in 2005. As ENVSEC decided to extend its activities in Moldova, and on 29 September 2005 it was officially launched. Moldova is interested in cooperation with ENVSEC and welcomes the broadening of the initiative to cover the country. The consultations held in May 2006 will also help include the ENVSEC in the national programme for 2007-2015, and the government is at the moment looking at how best to do that. Moldova finds several activities that ENVSEC may address relevant, such as a study on environment in a trans-boundary context, taking into account existing international

5//60

conventions on environmental matters, and to improve and modernize the national air pollution monitoring systems in Kishinev and other places. An update of the methodology used in a joint Moldova and Ukraine project in 2005-5 and 2006-7 under the UN/EU ecological provision would also be relevant. All the actions of this exercise are in line with the first phase assistance that ENVSEC is performing in Eastern Europe, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosts the focal point. Moldova encourages the OSCE member states to make their contributions to such activities through the ENVSEC initiative. See Annex III for full statement.

Mr. Miroslav Nikcevic, Serbia The Balkan countries are linked in several circles of international processes: the Euro-Atlantic integrations (the EU, OSCE, Council of Europe and NATO), as well as the establishment of successful cooperation with UNEP, UNDP and other UN organizations. The Balkan countries thus undertake to actively participate in finding solutions for some new threats to national and international security. Serbia’s rapid industrialization, inadequate landscaping, and the ever smaller attention paid to environmental protection requirements in its basis elements, has produced seriously degraded environmental areas. Uncontrolled use and exploitation of natural resources, obsolete technologies and plants, improper management of all kinds of waste, from industrial to common household waste, have directly contributed to reducing the security level for the life and health of man, flora and fauna. Greater engagement of all national communities in the region and beyond is needed; stronger cooperation in the fields of science, technology and practical work is necessary; the integration of environment issues into security issues, OSCE must actively implement the planned programmes in cooperation with the UNDP, UNEP and NATO; and enhancing cooperation between the Balkan countries in solving joint environmental problems and with the view to reducing security risk is necessary. The Sixth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe” will take a place in October 2007 in Belgrade. The “Environment for Europe” process remains essential as a political framework for cooperation in environment protection in Europe. Suggestions during the preparatory process are welcomed. See Annex III for full statement.

Mr. Oleg Guchgeldiyev, Turkmenistan The ENVSEC Initiative addresses issues well in line with Turkmenistan’s national strategies of social economic development to the year 2010 and 2030. Major ENVSEC related issues in the Caspian Sea region include polluted hotspots with toxic dump storages and oil extraction and transportation sites, rapidly developing oil and gas sectors degrading the environment, municipal waste pollution, underdeveloped

6//60

alternate sectors with unemployment as a consequence, and a lack of water resources. ENVSEC provides opportunities to establish an integrated coastal zone management, waste management, drinking water provision, and opportunities for alternative economic development. In the Amu-Darya River Basin, the importance is connected to the fact that the river is the source of 90% of the total water provision of Turkmenistan. Major issues therefore involve the distribution of water resources, with a big demand and small supply, also connected with the emergence of the Afghan economy. The water receives discharges of pollution, creating health problems downstream on already scarce water resources. ENVSEC thus provides opportunities for cooperation on monitoring water quality at the regional level, improving the mechanisms for water distribution at the regional level, through enhanced technical capacity and preparation of water sharing agreements. ENVSEC should take into account the already existing efforts, such as the Caspian Environment Programme and its preparation of an action plan, the Khazar project in Turkmenistan, at the same time as bringing new donors. It should have a scientific, practical approach to be more successful and acceptable by the local politicians. Also the donor community should increase their attention to these issues; many donors present at this meeting are not present on the ground in Turkmenistan. See Annex III for full presentation.

Progress in the regions

Southern Caucasus David Swalley, OSCE, presented an overview of the key issues, projects and achievements in 2006, and goals for 2007-2009, new projects and funding needs (see Annex IV for full presentation). The session addressed the following main subjects: § Assessment Mission of Fires in Nagorny-Karabakh

– Success of mission depended on: i) the strong mandate; ii) involvement of several international organisations; iii) cooperation of local experts

– Partner countries expressed hope that the report will reflect conclusions of technical expertise, providing opportunities for cooperation and conflict resolution, something that should go hand in hand

– Possible follow-up: capacity building for managing fires; infrastructure build-up, integrated water shed management, forest management; lessons learnt for other cases (Abkhazia, South Ossetia)

§ Regional coordination and synergies with other constituencies: – Regional coordinator is to be hired and located in the OSCE Field Mission

in Tbilisi. – The whole of ENVSEC works on coordination issues – issue not specific

for Southern Caucasus – Involvement of International Financial Institutions is a forward-looking

issue for ENVSEC. However there are challenges, such as limitations for

7//60

grant financing, on infrastructure loans, and various set-ups complicating the picture.

– Links should be established with the High Commissioner for Ethnic Minorities; a specific case is the assessment at the Alkhalkalaki Military Base and the ethnic Armenians living in the vicinity.

§ Projects that were discussed: – The pilot case in Lower Kodori River on flood management should ensure

replicability and explore joint activities in the Upper Kodori River. – Kura-Aras/Araks: the projects “South Caucasus River Monitoring” and

“Trans-boundary management of Aquifers (Groundwater)” – Military bases: the assessment of a clean-up at Alkhalkalaki military base

in Georgia is interesting also for Armenia, as ethnic Armenians populate the area. There may also be other relevant cases of military bases with environmental legacies for ENVSEC.

– Caucasus Mountain Convention: work has just begun involving Russia and Iran, funding was received from EC.

– Urban Centers: the issues that begun with forced migration to urban centers during Soviet times now regard the faltering infrastructure that cannot sustain the populations after supply lines of the Soviet Union have been cut.

– Strategic Environmental Assessments have completed a first phase of capacity building in Armenia and Georgia, and is about to start in Azerbaijan. Second phases are being discussed in Armenia and Georgia.

– Public Environmental Information Centers (Aarhus) are being established in all regions of Armenia, and also in Azerbaijan and Georgia these venues where NGOs can gather are established.

South Eastern Europe Jelena Beronja, UNEP, presented an overview of the key issues, projects and achievements in 2006, and goals for 2007-2009, new projects and funding needs (see Annex IV for full presentation). Stephen Stec, REC Szentendre, presented on its participation in the ENVSEC Initiative. The session addressed the following main subjects: § REC incorporation in ENVSEC

– REC is complementary, bringing many activities that are relevant to the ENVSEC.

– REC brings a bottom-up approach, with a strong NGO/Civil Society involvement, where synergies with ENVSEC’s approach should be easy to find.

– REC is in a good position to link and coordinate ENVSEC with other ongoing processes in the sub-region.

§ ENVSEC Results – Concerns were raised of tangible and visible results on the ground from

ENVSEC activities by several participants – results are difficult to trace and measure due to the character of the activities of policy development and awareness.

8//60

– Response included pointing out that ENVSEC has catalysed negotiations, produced scientific results, donor community coordination, producing “Mining for Closure”, and also catalysed larger follow-up in terms of mining clean-up.

– Monitoring and measuring impacts may also be a distraction – the results are tangible, it is more a question of communicating them properly.

Eastern Europe Nickolai Denisov, UNEP, presented an overview of the key issues, projects and achievements in 2006, and goals for 2007-2009, new projects and funding needs (see Annex IV for full presentation). The session addressed the following main subjects: § The future work will address the following issues through some 20+ project ideas

developed in cooperation with the countries: – Need for improved cooperation on and management of waters,

biodiversity, pollution and waste – Development of environmental management in Transnistria, Crimea,

Donbas and Salihorsk – Energy and defence: from debate to policy and clean-up – Overall institutional capacities to deal with the environment-security

interface § Energy security was a specific point of discussion, related to conflict prevention

through energy independence and sustainability: – Chernobyl is a starting point for the region’s issues as a whole, and

particularly for energy. – Strategic Environmental Assessments may help decision makers with

regard to energy security policies. § Prioritisation of projects and a strategy toward fundraising was also discussed:

– Participants raised a question how projects are prioritised in terms of fundraising.

– ENVSEC intends to use various fora to bring project proposals to donor attention; the OSCE Sub-Committee of Economic and Environmental Activities is one, and Strategic Environmental Assessments is a another process that can be used for this purpose.

– ENVSEC is developing tools for selection and prioritisation of projects, and participants suggested some elements to consider: needs of the regions, skills of the International Organisations, and priority donors.

Central Asia Inkar Kadyrzhanova, UNDP Kazakhstan, presented an overview of the key issues, projects and achievements in 2006, and goals for 2007-2009, new projects and funding needs (see Annex IV for full presentation). The session addressed the following main subjects: § The geographical scope of ENVSEC in Central Asia is large and complex:

9//60

– Ferghana Valley issues: complex region, governments of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are involved, national level support by UNDP and OSCE, donor attention and support, integration of new projects.

– East Caspian activities: an initial meeting was held in April 2006, outlining priorities such as coastal zone management, drinking water supply, land management, and public awareness.

– Amu-Darya: ENVSEC facilitated the first meeting between Afghan and Tajik Environmental Authorities at the highest level

– Kazakhstan projects include melange, and activities in the Sarzhal region of the Semipalatinsk polygon.

– Central Asian wide activities are implemented by UNECE, such as dam safety, and the Chu-Talas Commission.

§ Government support was discussed, as participants raised the issue of national involvement and ownership:

– The level of support is also linked to what segment of the Government is involved – in ENVSEC the involvement comes from Ministries of Environment, Foreign Affairs, Emergency Response, Industry, and others.

– The involvement of Uzbekistan was discussed, as the lack of its participation in a concern. However, it is a question of working with National Governments and possibly the involvement of UNECE and NATO can help.

§ The role of other regional cooperation bodies was discussed: – TACIS approved a EUR 56 million for Central Asia – thus discussions

with Brussels should intensify. – Water – Energy nexus is one of the highest priority issues in the region,

important regional bodies are CAREC and EURASEC

Future Development Needs

Presentation on ENVSEC Evaluation, Georgina Wigley, CIDA See Annex V for full presentation CIDA funded the programme from 2004 as one of the first supporters of the ENVSEC. This was a mid-term evaluation for 2004-2006, interested in efficiency of the partnership approach. The findings may not be applied for the entire programme, as the time and scope was limited: only one sub-region (Southern Caucasus) was visited, but should still be considered by the whole programme. Many of the recommendations were also addressed by ENVSEC partners in a short time. The strengths that were identified are, inter alia: § ENVSEC provides a platform for cooperation. § ENVSEC has a strong yet flexible management. § The programme has established a good foundation for the sustainability of its

activities. § ENVSEC contributes much to awareness raising and bringing the issues onto the

agendas of countries. § Early indications of impacts are positive.

10//60

Among the weaknesses that were identified is: § an ad-hoc approach towards capacity building. Capacity building strategies

should be thought through and made more comprehensive across the all projects. § a lack of coordinated approach to gender policies. Each partner organization

deals with gender issues, but ENVSEC would be strengthened by a coordinated approach.

§ requirement of a more systematic attention to Results-Based Management. Planning is activity- and output based, instead of oriented to results and impact. Identification of results towards the impacts and monitoring of their achievement is lacking.

§ strategic planning beyond assessment is needed to ensure better coordination in the field and develop better harmonized activities.

Recommendations:

- Institutional anchor, both in geographic terms and core-funding for staff in the Secretariat;

- Systematic integration of the Results-Based and Capacity Building approaches; - Look into building synergies with other national initiatives at country level – to

continue to build alliance with other partners systematically; - Improve communication and visibility - area of capitalizing on synergies and

spread out the message to others to benefit. Discussion: All ENVSEC partners very much welcomed the evaluation exercise as a tool for improving the ENVSEC work, specifically to set priorities, work more strategically, tighten up management, and better coordinate and provide information on the side of the partners and donors. The specific need for a coordinated fundraising strategy was also highlighted. However there is a need to keep flexibility in order to meet different requirements from different donors. We should do more fund-raising, look at demand and donor side and interlink these two areas as a condition for successful fundraising. There are donors who want to provide more generic funding, and some are interested in more specific funding. Donors may indicate their interest and start a discussion with us in their areas of interest. Regarding the establishment of a more anchored Secretariat, ENVSEC works on strengthening institutional arrangements. It comprises of six organizations with different institutional practices, thus there should be a discussion on how the structure can be strengthened without losing its flexibility. At the same time, each organization shall continue to work on internalizing ENVSEC into their work programme budget. This will allow also showing the investment of the agencies, which is quite a considerable investment in personnel. With regards to the results-based approach, it was stated that it would be difficult to have an aligned approach with six different partner organizations all with different reporting

11//60

structures. At the same time, it was recognized that the results were there, it is merely a matter of reporting on and communicating them properly. The difficulty lies in the character of the ENVSEC work, which sometimes is difficult to measure. Regarding gender mainstreaming, UNDP pointed out that, in many CIS countries, men die 10-15 years before women do, and that while women are poorer then men, this is in part because many elderly women live as lonely pensioners without the social support that would otherwise be provided by their deceased husbands, brothers, or (in some cases) sons. Younger women (and children), especially those living in rural areas of the region’s poorer countries, are made vulnerable by the emigration of male household members in search of work, significant numbers of whom are vulnerable to trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Gender issues in this region are therefore much broader than women’s issues; they are about both sexes and what make both genders vulnerable.

Comments and Ideas from Advisory Board participants Ron Kingham from the Institute for Environmental Security (IES) stated that his institute works with the ENVSEC to look into how we produce projects and how we achieve impact. On 17 November IES and UNEP-ENVSEC will organise a joint workshop on Environmental Security methodologies to exchange information about and evaluate the assessment methodologies and to consider possibilities for further cooperation between IES and UNEP. Last year, an inventory of Environment and Security Policies and Practices providing an overview of strategies and initiatives of selected governments, international organisations and inter-governmental organisations was prepared by IES, and it includes a chapter on ENVSEC. . A user-friendly database, ’EnviroSecurity Action Guide’, containing a wealth of information on selected organisations, specific initiatives, relevant publications and useful web resources related to environment, security and sustainable development is available online at http://www.envirosecurity.org/actionguide/. IES works on greening environmental security workshop and all of the partners took part in this workshop to further develop how the ENVSEC could be further developed. Harald Neitzel, Ministry of Environment of Germany, made the observation that among Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Ministries of Environment, and technical cooperation ministries, donor commitment is not necessary well coordinated. Thus, ENVSEC would benefit from a communication strategy taking this into regard. Another point was that Germany will be a head of the EU next year, planning how to strengthen environmental dialogue of civil society. Germany has also designated Central Asia as a priority region during its presidency. Thus, specific suggestions on how to bring environmental dialogue to the attention of different European programmes such as water initiatives are welcome. Frits Schlingemann commented that some cooperation to this end is already in place: ENVSEC has had policy exchanges with the EC through the DG Environment and is discussing collaboration on substantive issues with RELEX, Europaid and DG Environment. This resulted in initial support from the EC for mountain protection work

12//60

and conflict assessment in Caucasus. ENVSEC will continue this dialogue with the EC and chairmanship, especially in light of the encouraging remark regarding the coming EU Presidency.

Conclusions and closure of the meeting Bernard Snoy gave a summary of the decisions taken at the management Board meeting the day preceding the meeting of the Advisory Board:

1. The Board pays a special tribute to Frits Schlingemann as this was his last Management Board and Advisory Board meeting;

2. ENVSEC has a rotation principle for chairmanship – thus next year UNDP will chair the Management Board, Ben Slay will be the Chairman;

3. Finalising the Memorandum of Understanding between the expanded partnership is virtually done, and ENVSEC re-elected the members of its Secretariat;

4. The Management Board discussed the ENVSEC work programme for the coming three years and will take into account recommendations of the donors and recipient countries;

5. Agreement on scope and contents of the 2006 Progress Report was reached; 6. The Board reviewed a number of financial and administrative issues: donor funds

by region, by implementing agencies, distribution of 2006 funds by project; a prioritization scheme was agreed on internally, we will more systematically use the criteria for project selection; and secretariat budget was approved;

7. The brochure was approved for visibility and outreach purposes, and was launched at the Advisory Board meeting.

13//60

Annexes

Annex I. Opening Remarks by Bernard Snoy

Your Excellencies, distinguished delegates, experts, ladies and gentlemen: It gives me great pleasure to welcome you all to the 2006 Advisory Board meeting of the Environment and Security Initiative. I would like to begin by thanking all of those present for attending today’s meeting which comes at important crossroads for the Initiative’s development and future work. Your review and feedback of our latest activities and future plans is critical for the continued development of the ENVSEC Initiative. Therefore, allow me to thank you again in advance for your active participation and suggestions. Looking back on the year 2006 and in general on the past three years of the ENVSEC Initiative, much has been accomplished in regards to the main objective of the Initiative, that is, to raise the awareness of environment and security issues to higher position on national and international political agendas and to offer coordinated responses to remediate identified issues. This has begun with conducting environment and security assessments in the regions of Central Asia, South-eastern Europe, the Southern Caucasus, and most recently, with Eastern Europe. These environmental assessments have been realized in close coordination with national governmental and civil society stakeholders to ensure that national and regional priorities have been clearly included into the final analysis. These assessments have been followed by the development of integrated work programmes of projects to address identified environment and security hotspots in all of the regions. In 2006, ENVSEC Partners received approximately $1,900,000 million US dollars from Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and USA. This funding was allocated to over 50 projects in the four ENVSEC regions during the year. On behalf of all of the ENVSEC partners, I would like to express our gratitude to all of those donors that have so generously supported the Initiative. As you know, environmental concerns have been on the OSCE’s agenda since its inception, and the specific interest of OSCE in environmental matters is focused on how the environment links to security. In 2003 the OSCE Ministerial Council in Maastricht adopted a new strategy for the OSCE Economic and Environmental Dimension. The strategy document recognizes that environmental degradation, the unsustainable use of, and the unequal access to natural resources have security implications and commits OSCE participating States to promote cooperation on environmental matters, to abide by principles of sustainable development and to assess and exchange information on the state of their environment. Moreover, the strategy document contains an explicit commitment by OSCE participating States to support the further development of the ENVSEC initiative. At the OSCE Ministerial Council in Sofia 2004, OSCE Foreign Ministers decided to establish a panel of eminent persons to review the strategic orientation and effectiveness of the OSCE. The result of the panel’s review was published

14//60

on the 27 June 2005 in a report called “Common Purpose – Towards a More Effective OSCE”. In this report the panel specifically single out the ENVSEC initiative as a good example of how the OSCE should be working in the environmental field. This commitment and the endorsement by the panel of eminent persons give the OSCE a unique political mandate to monitor and assess environmental change and its broader security implications. They give also relevance to the subject selected for upcoming 15th Economic and Environmental Forum - Key Challenges to Ensure Environmental Security and Sustainable Development in the OSCE Area: Land Degradation, Soil Contamination and Water Management. But of course, the OSCE is but just one member of a dedicated partnership of international security and development agencies devoted to linking environment and security considerations. ENVSEC is a unique partnership in the sense that it is the coordinated action of several international organizations committed to raising environmental security issues to a higher level in national and international political agendas. I would like to welcome and thank our founding partners in the Initiative – UNDP Regional Office for Europe, the United Nations Environmental Programme, and our Associated Member –NATO. However, I am also very pleased to announce today that 2006 witnessed the acceptance and integration of two new partners into the ENVSEC partnership: the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe. We are fully confident that the inclusion of these organizations into the ENVSEC Initiative will result in even closer cooperation and more targeted interventions in our respective regions of operation. This expanded partnership will of course be recognized in our new Memorandum of Understanding for the period of 2007-2009. This growing partnership is clearly one of the most important benefits of the ENVSEC Initiative. The combined strength of the partner organizations helps focus interventions in a way that meets the environmental security priorities of national governments in a coordinated manner. This type of international coordination is exactly what was meant in the 2005 Paris Declaration which called for more harmonization from international organizations in providing development aid and humanitarian assistance. However, it should be also clear that coordinating the activity of so many organizations, each with its own particular set of administrative and substantive objectives, is often a daunting task. For instance, ENVSEC partners realize that more work still remains to be done in the area of communication and coordination between themselves and with the broad range of national stakeholders. During last year’s Advisory Board meeting in Bratislava, there were calls for such an increase of communication and coordination. In response, ENVSEC partners have restructured its Secretariat body to take on this growing need for more coordination and communication. Regional desk officers have been appointed for each region to better coordinate joint activities. Greater effort has also been placed on early and consistent involvement of national focal points into approving project proposals for inclusion into regional work programmes. Finally, administrative support and financial monitoring have been centralized in UNDP Bratislava. ENVSEC is reviewing

15//60

the effectiveness of these changes and with your further suggestions over the course of today’s meeting, hopes to continue to address these challenges. Another issue identified at the previous Advisory Board meeting was the need to “stay on issue” and not to stray from the core ENVSEC principles as originally defined at the origin of the programme. Given the sheer magnitude of environmental problems inherited from the previous regime in the former Soviet Union republics and the Eastern European countries, it has been at times quite tempting to engage in projects loosely defined as “environmental.” Nevertheless, ENVSEC does strictly adhere to clear environmental and security criteria in country and region-specific contexts. In this regard, I would cite one recent example of ENVSEC work that underscores ENVSEC partners’ ability to quickly mobilize resources to react to perceived environment and security threats. During the past summer, both the OSCE and the UN General Assembly were notified by the Azerbaijani government that summer wild land fires in and around Nagorny-Karabakh had resulted in significant environmental damage. Further to a Resolution of the United Nations in early September, the OSCE was asked to lead a mission to conduct an environmental assessment of the fires’ impacts and to make recommendations on how to rehabilitate fire affected areas and to prevent future fires through an appropriate environment operation and other confidence-building measures. In response, the OSCE and UNEP quickly mobilized a team of international experts from the Global Fire Monitoring Centre (an organization affiliated with several UN Agencies), the OSCE, UNEP, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the Council of Europe. Moreover, the Mission also included experts appointed by both parties, who visited fire affected areas on both sides of the Line of Contact and provided their expertise and constructive participation. I will speak more about this Mission during the South Caucasus discussions later today. During the last Advisory Board meeting, participants weighed the competing priorities of expanding ENVSEC into new regions versus consolidating progress on the implementation of work programmes in current ENVSEC regions. In this respect, ENVSEC remains, first and foremost, committed to implementing multi-year work programmes to follow up on environment and security assessments in the four current ENVSEC regions. While ENVSEC partners do not foresee launching new assessment and work programmes in other regions, the Partners are prepared to provide the methodology and support to other organizations wishing to launch this type of initiative in other areas in the world. This review meeting also comes at a time when ENVSEC is increasingly turning from assessments to concrete training and environmental operations. I will not go into details of these projects at the moment, but leave this to ENVSEC Regional Desk Officers who will summarize current regional work programmes during the regional sessions. However, I will say that ENVSEC partners, in coordination with national stakeholders, are increasingly identifying concrete policy measures or projects that could potentially have a tremendous impact upon the environmental security of the local populations in the four regions. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all of the ENVSEC

16//60

partners, to thank again all of the donors who have generously supported the initiative over the past few years. We look forward to your continued generosity as we believe the Initiative has the potential to meet UN Millennium Goals and provide significant improvement of people’s lives. On this note, let me turn to today’s agenda. Review of Advisory Board Agenda The ENVSEC partners have decided this year to structure the meetings to correspond to our current regional work. As you may remember, last year’s Advisory Board in Bratislava had invited all of the National Focal Points from the ENVSEC regions to participate – a process that we repeat every other year. Although we have not invited all of the National Focal Points this year, we nevertheless invited one National Focal Point from each of the ENVSEC regions to provide a brief overview of the Initiative in their region. Therefore, I would like to extend special thanks to our three ENVSEC focal points (Mr. George Kolbin from Georgia, Mr. Miroslav Nikcevic from Serbia, and Mr. Oleg Guchgeldiyev from Turkmenistan) and the representative of Moldova, Mr. Vitalie Rusu, speaking on the behalf of the National Focal Point, who will lead off today’s discussions with a brief review of ENVSEC programming and their government’s priorities in the field of environmental security in the first plenary session. You will have the opportunity to ask questions from them directly following each of their presentations. Following the country presentations, we will have parallel sessions by region, first with the Southern Caucasus and South-Eastern Europe at 11:00am followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia after lunch. Brief summaries of the discussions in each regional meeting will be provided during the afternoon plenary session beginning at 16:00. The Plenary Session will also focus on a number of important planning and strategy issues for ENVSEC for 2007 and beyond. We very much forward to receiving your comments and ideas on issues such as: - Sharpening the scope and strategy of the Initiative - Strengthening the institutional and financial basis of the Initiative - Improving regional and country level coordination - Sharing the ENVSEC methodology and experiences outside of Europe I thank you for your attention.

17//60

Annex II. Statement by Advisory Board Member, Belgium Intervention by BELGIUM As a donor, Belgium has been supportive of ENVSEC since 2003, and cannot but reiterate today its political support to the Initiative, as it is progressing towards the achievement of its objectives, which are in line with those of Belgium’s foreing policy. As the reports we will hear today from the different regions will further make clear , ENVSEC is demonstrating with credibility that cooperation on environment issues between key organizations with diversified but converging expertise really can have an impact on the improvement of human security in fragile areas. Furthermore, ENVSEC’s work in the field is contributing significantly to raising the awareness of policy makers on the challenges of environmental security. The activities of ENVSEC not only shed light on the existence and security dimensions of environmental hotspots, they also strive to work out feasible, cost-efficient and sustainable solutions, at this combination of both makes the value of ENVSEC. Indeed, to the question about the possible threats to regional as well as global security and prosperity in the coming decennia, the answers are referring more and more to environmental degradation, climate change, pressure on ecosystems, eco-migrations. Those new threats have to be integrated in our foreign, defence and security policies, and we are called upon to start thinking seriously about the best way to cope with these new menaces. In this regard, ENVSEC’s experience, best practices and lessons learned illustrate the challenges and opportunities for the greening of our foreign and security policies. In particular, ENVSEC is explorong, in a convincing way, the opportunities offered by environmental peacemaking. Activities which are supporting confidence building across boundaries in post-conflict situations, like e.g. shared river basin management or « peace parks », have a high exemplary value. We think that, in the future, environmental peacemaking can constitute a promising diplomatic tool. I would also like to point out how much the activities of ENVSEC, and in particular the assessments of environmental hotspots, have the potential to encourage policymakers to better integrate the environmental factor in conflict prevention policies and measures. Looking at the security risks posed by all kinds of environmental degradation, it becomes more evident by the day that efforts in favour of sustainable development, or the fight against climate change or against desertification , also contribute significantly to conflict prevention. This perspective is something we could promote further in the appropriate fora.

18//60

As a conclusion, Belgium would like to congratulate the Initiative’s partners and their staff for their unrelenting work in helping turning into reality the vision we all share about environmental security in general and ENVSEC in particular.

19//60

Annex III. Presentations/Statements by Partner Country Representatives Georgia

20//60

21//60

22//60

Moldova Statement by the Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Moldova to the OSCE Let me start by thank you for inviting MFA to this meeting and I do regret our Ministry’s representative could not be here because of some unusual procedures the Austrian consulate is applying for Moldovan citizens, including diplomats. So I would like, on behalf of the NATO and Political-Military cooperation Division of Ministry for Foreign Affairs and European Integration, share with you some of our thoughts and ideas regarding this agenda. The first question I guess I would have to answer is what is the link between NATO, RM and ENVSEC? And the answer is a PfP NATO Trust Fund Project for the destruction of pesticides and dangerous chemicals products in Moldova we had started elaborating with NATO in May 2003. Since cooperation with OSCE is foreseen in the NATO PfP Trust Fund Policy, in 2005, apparently not long before ENVSEC decided to extend its activities to Moldova and other Eastern Europe countries, the Belgium delegation to NATO had the happy idea to co lead this Moldova project jointly with Romania and to make its contribution for the implementation through the OSCE Environment initiative. This is how the project became a joint NATO Trust Fund/OSCE project in the framework of the Initiative Environment and Security (ENVSEC) and was officially launched on 29 September 2005. An inaugural ceremony with a large participation of representatives of NATO/NAMSA staff, leading nations and contributors, including OSCE/ENVSEC representatives, is going to take place in Chisinau on 7 November next. I should stress the project is a very costly one, and we still need additional funds to complete the First phase of implementation. Therefore, since the donor nations may also wish contributing to the NATO PfP Trust Fund through OSCE Secretariat in the ENVSEC framework, I would like to use this opportunity to ask Advisory Board to encourage OSCE member states, those that haven’t yet made their contribution through the NATO IS, to do it through ENVSEC Initiative. So, we can say this NATO project, which refers mostly to the environment remediation aiming to eliminate first of all an ecological real threat, is a sort of godfather of Moldova cooperation with ENVSEC. But this link is not the only one. You might have heard about the Individual Partnership Action Plan, so called IPAP that Moldova has recently adopted with NATO. Well, one of its chapters is devoted to a very familiar to the ENVSEC objectives area. In accordance with IPAP, Moldova has, in the upcoming years, to develop a close cooperation with OSCE, UNDP and UNEP in order to identify and address local and regional environmental issues that are threats to security. To this end the MFAEI and Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources have to actively involve themselves into ENVSEC initiative. So, cooperation with ENVSEC is being a matter of the National Action Plan.

23//60

Taking into account its numerous and various environment concerns and necessity to address them, Moldova is very much interested in cooperation with the ENVSEC and we are very pleased with your decision to broad the geographic scope of the Initiative to cover my country as well. The consultations with your experts in May helped us to better prepare the draft of the national Programme on ensuring environment security for the period of 2007-2015. This Programme is now being considered by the Government in view to adopt it. We will ask for consultations on environmental issues under the aegis of ENVSEC initiative with NATO, OSCE, UNDP and UNEP. We’ll propose a Pilot Study on “Environmental Impact of Pollutants in a Trans-Boundary Context” with the objective of conducting an assessment of trans-boundary impact on environmental pollution in a regional context, taking into account existing international environmental conventions, and in this context, to elaborate a strategy for the implementation of the pilot study. Aiming to enhance environmental protection legislation/practices, Moldova’s nearest objectives are to:

- to review the national Environment legislation and draft an action plan for its approximation with the EU guidelines on environmental protection and use of natural resources as recommended by European Commission.

- to improve and modernize the national monitoring system of environmental

quality in line with international standards. In this regard there is a need of aappropriate equipment, including air pollution monitoring stations in Chisinau and Cahul.

- to implement the Joint Partnership Programme for managing trans-boundary

water courses and improving it with Warning and Alert Accidents Systems. This is going to be part of the monitoring network of the State Hydrometeorology Service. To this end, a joint Moldova and Ukraine project “Cross border cooperation and management of the Nistru river water” (First phase 2005/2006, the second one 2006/2007) is currently being implemented under aegis of the UN, EU Ecological Commission and OSCE.

The appropriate equipment, update methodologies, software are also required to elaborate a regional database aimed at improving the natural calamities prediction and warning system As you can see all of these actions are in very line with the 1st phase assessments ENVSEC is performing in Eastern Europe, including Moldova and we do hope through this Initiative we could benefit from a valuable assistance in the above-mentioned actions.

24//60

While MENR remains the main focal point as far as Environment cooperation is concerned, MFAEI stands ready for all coordinating process to keep it in close connection with IPAP provisions. Thanks!

25//60

Serbia Statement by Dr Miroslav Nikcevic, Director, Directorate for Environment, Ministry of Science and Environmental of Republic of Serbia Your Excellences, Ladies and gentleman, Dear colleagues, Please, let me first of all thank to the Government of Austria, and OSCE as host organization, for very warm welcome and excellent organization of this event. After the Thessalonica Summit in June 2003, which reaffirmed Stabilisation and Association Process, the EU sent a strong message that it is committed to the Western Balkans as a long-term investment in peace, stability, democracy and economic development. The ministerial declaration adopted at that ministerial-level meeting, which took place in Skopje on 15 October 2003, reaffirmed the importance of regional cooperation with respect to environmental protection. I Introduction One of the main problems of mankind today is how to preserve the natural environment, namely how to comply with security standards in the production, use and disposal of matters which by their harmful impact threaten the life and health of human beings and fauna and flora, and violate the natural integrity of the earth. The environment nowadays has been threatened at every step, mostly by man and mainly through man’s major polluters, industry and transport among other. The state of Serbia is situated in the region which in the course of 1990’s became part of the area with increased inter-ethnic conflict related security risks. The term used to depict this region during that highest risk period is Western Balkans, meant to include Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia and Serbia. We believe that pointing attention to the fact of war conflicts from late 1990’s that have left gravest consequences in social and mutual relations is a matter of the past. The democratic processes in Serbia and its surrounding countries, as well as the engagement of the international community have contributed to the establishment of relative stability and security in South East European region, mainly in West Balkan countries. Consequently, as well as due to some other reasons, it is now possible to have a somewhat different approach to this issue. According to one approach, the Balkan countries are linked in several circles of international processes: the Euro-Atlantic integrations (the EU, OSCE, Council of Europe and NATO), as well as the establishment of successful cooperation with UNEP, UNDP and other UN organizations. By acceding to the said integrations, namely through cooperation, the Balkan countries undertake to actively participate in finding solutions for some new threats to national and international security, that are of importance for the environment primarily because of all kinds of negative environmental impacts, including the fight for natural resources and their uncontrolled use.

26//60

Cooperation between Serbia, Romania and Hungary, which includes a number of important projects relating to environmental security and protection, has an important place in regional cooperation. The countries of the region which share the Sava River have also had joint cooperation, relating to regulating the international position of the Sava River in terms of free navigation and anti-pollution protection of the river. II Security problems and risks The country’s rapid industrialization, inadequate landscaping, and the ever smaller attention paid to environmental protection requirements in its basis elements, in particular in the post World War II period and in late 1990’s, has produced seriously degraded environmental areas. Uncontrolled use and exploitation of natural resources, obsolete technologies and plants, improper management of all kinds of waste, from industrial to common household waste, have directly contributed to the present level of pollution of all environmental media, thus reducing the security level for the life and health of man, flora and fauna, which is particularly characteristic for degraded areas. With due respect for everything that has been done over the past several years and for the presently made efforts, we have to reiterate on this occasion that the above mentioned problems are still present and are manifested as a security risk at the national, regional and global levels through the following: The still excessive consumption of natural resources, which mainly applies to excessive exploitation of forests, irrational use of drinking water and use of most fertile soils for housing construction; Uncontrolled emissions of harmful matters and waste into the environment, resulting in air, waterways and soil pollution; Worn out, abandoned mines, burdened with a large quantity of waste and seriously degraded environment surrounding them; The imminent technical and technological accidents that may result in radiological, chemical and biological contamination of vast proportions; The especially urban living space burdened with disorganized transportation systems; Transport of hazardous matters that are increasingly present in daily life, which by their specific features threaten environmental security; Poorly and insufficiently developed infrastructure for waste purification, especially in large urban communities; Inadequate organization of States for resolving problems relating to adequate treatment of all types of waste, which particularly applies to communal and household waste; Slowness in changing the lifestyles and awareness raising when attitude to the environment is concerned; Insufficient allocation of funds for organizational-technical-scientific-educational and operational needs of upgrading the environmental protection standards to a satisfactory level; Insufficient development of environmental pollution monitoring/supervision system; Underdeveloped information communications system at country levels, Poor information-communications linkage at the regional and global levels for monitoring/supervision and risk management and environmental protection measures.

27//60

III Measures and proposals for reduction and eliminating of security risks The modern world is undergoing substantive and intensive changes. The monitoring and acknowledgement of such changes and timely identification of best possible solutions in such conditions give us the right to be optimistically forward looking. By the development of market economy, full democratization of societies in all countries of the region, and by keeping pace in scientific and technological development with developed countries and regions, it is possible to overcome the innovation inertness of society and thus expect better times of interest for environmental security at the national and regional levels. The now present and inherited security problems in the field of environmental protection go beyond the national borders and are of regional and global character. By analogy, they have to be resolved accordingly. Analysing each individual problem as well as the totality of their environmental security impacts, with the view to finding adequate solutions, we can adopt the following conclusions: The attainment of an acceptable and satisfactory state of environmental security in the new conditions, both at the national level and beyond, can not be expected without greater engagement of all national communities in the region and beyond; It is necessary to establish stronger cooperation in the fields of science, technology and practical work, for the purposes for seeking the best solutions aimed at reducing security risks; It is necessary, at national levels, to develop short-term and long-term programmes for resolving internal security problems, with emphasis on priorities; When developing regional and global programmes for resolving security problems, it is necessary to pay particular attention to those that by their nature carry the highest environmental security risk; It is necessary to continue with the concept of acceding to security integrations which opens the possibility for broader knowledge in resolving security problems at the regional and global level; It is necessary for OSCE to actively continue to implement the planned programmes and projects in cooperation with the UNDP, UNEP and NATO; It is necessary to develop new and harmonize the existing legislation and by-laws in the further Euro-Atlantic integration process; It is necessary to follow-up the active participation in the development of regional and global programmes for resolving environmental security problems with possible emphasis on priorities; It is necessary to make much bigger investments in the environment, the results of which would contribute to the attainment of the desired security goal at all levels; It would be desirable to reconsider financial possibilities of the region and to identify the ways and means for providing assistance through practical solution of priority security problems; It is necessary to develop information communication systems at the national and regional level for security risk monitoring, information and management.

28//60

In is necessary to enhance bilateral regional cooperation between the Balkan countries in solving joint environmental problems and with the view to reducing security risk. Conclusion The Republic of Serbia has so far taken a number of steps and actions, from the development of its national legislation to its harmonisation with the EU legislation, for the purposes of providing practical solutions to registered security problems at the country level, and actively participates in finding solutions for joint problems at the regional and global level primarily through Euro-Atlantic integrations. Under its 2006-2007 National Investment Plan, the Republic of Serbia has earmarked considerable funds for environmental protection, namely for projects that will directly contribute to the successful solution of problems that by their nature considerably impact the environmental security level and whose solution will directly and indirectly have regional and global importance. The Republic of Serbia, all of its authorities and institutions, as well as its citizens, in spite of all present problems, are making every effort and will continue to do so in the future, strongly committed to move towards Euro-Atlantic integrations of the community at large, and thus also through this field which we consider extremely important for overall security of life and health of citizens and the environment both at the national and regional levels and beyond. Distinguished participants Finally, allow me to remind you that Sixth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe” will take a place in October 2007 in Belgrade. “Environment for Europe” process remains essential as a political framework for cooperation in environment protection in Europe. Holding Sixth Ministerial Conference “EfE” in Belgrade will put stronger attention to environmental issues, as well to the issue of environment and security not only in the region of Western Balkans i.e. Central and East Europe, but in the whole Europe. I would like to welcome all of you to the Sixth Ministerial Conference in autumn 2007 in Belgrade, and I would also like to welcome all your suggestions and help during preparatory process. Thank you for your attention.

29//60

Turkmenistan

30//60

31//60

Annex IV. Regional Progress Presentations Southern Caucasus

32//60

33//60

South-eastern Europe

34//60

35//60

36//60

Eastern Europe

37//60

Central Asia

38//60

39//60

40//60

41//60

Central Asia UNECE Presentation

42//60

43//60

44//60

Annex V. CIDA Presentation on ENVSEC Evaluation

45//60

46//60

Annex VI. Meeting Agenda 09:00 - 09:30

Opening and Summary of Developments in 2006 Bernard Snoy, Chairman of the ENVSEC Initiative

- Highlights of regional results - New projects/areas of work - New partners and secretariat - Financial briefing

09:30 - 09:45

Presentation by Advisory Board Member, Belgium, tbc

09:45 -10:45

Country Perspectives Brief Presentations by ENVSEC Focal Points in Eastern Europe, South Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Central Asia regions Mr. George Kolbin, Georgia Mr. Vitalie Rusu, Moldova Mr. Miroslav Nikcevic, Serbia Mr. Oleg Guchgeldiyev, Turkmenistan Rapporteurs: Clara Nobbe and Tamara Mitrofanenko

10:45 -11:00

Coffee Break Progress in the regions (parallel sessions):

11:00 -12:30

Southern Caucasus (Bibliotheksaal, 5th floor) Presentation by David Swalley, OSCE - Key issues, projects and achievements in 2006 - Goals for 2007-2009, new projects and funding needs Discussion (facilitated by Bernard Snoy and Marc Baltes) Rapporteurs: Peter Svedberg and Tamara Mitrofanenko

South Eastern Europe (Room 201, 2nd floor) Presentation by Jelena Beronja, UNEP and Stephen Stec, REC - Key issues, projects and achievements in 2006 - Goals for 2007-2009, new projects and funding needs Discussion (facilitated by Frits Schlingemann) Rapporteurs: Saba Nordström

47//60

12:30 -14:00

Lunch

Progress in the regions (parallel sessions):

14:00 -15:30

Eastern Europe (Bibliotheksaal, 5th floor) Presentation by Nickolai Denisov, UNEP: - Assessment process and preliminary results - Draft project portfolio and funding needs - Future work plan 2007-2009, ideas for regional coordination

Discussion (facilitated Stephen Stec) Rapporteurs: Raul Daussa and Marika Palosaari

Central Asia (Room 201, 2nd floor) Presentation by Inkar Kadyrzhanova, UNDP and Bo Libert, UNECE - Key issues, projects and achievements in 2006 - Goals for 2007-2009, new projects and funding needs Discussion (facilitated by Ben Slay) Rapporteurs: Otto Simonett and David Swalley

15:30 -16:00

Coffee break

16:00 -17:30

Future Development Needs – Open discussion facilitated by the Chair, Bernard Snoy 1. Report of the regional Sessions 2. Presentation on ENVSEC Evaluation, Georgina Wigley, Canadian International Development Agency 3. Comments and Ideas from Advisory Board participants on the following issues:

- Sharpening the scope and strategy of the Initiative - Strengthening the institutional and financial basis of the Initiative - Improving regional and country level coordination - Sharing the ENVSEC methodology and experiences outside of

Europe

Rapporteurs: Inkar Kadyrzhanova and Jelena Beronja

17:30

Conclusions and closure of the meeting

48//60

Annex VII. List of Participants Name Position Organisation Email Address Baltes Marc, Mr Senior Economic Advisor, OCEEA OSCE Secretariat Marc.Baltes@osce.org

Beronja, Jelena, Ms. Environmental Advisor, Regional Desk Officer for South Eastern Europe UNEP Vienna jelena.beronja@unvienna.org

Borthwick Fiona, Ms PhD Candidate Central European University ephbof01@phd.ceu.hu Callesen Louise, Mr First Secretary Danish Mission to OECD loucal@um.dk Carius Alexander, Mr Managing Director Adelhpi Research GmbH carius@adelphi.research.de Carlson Robert, Mr Political Economic Officer U.S. Mission to OSCE CarlsonRW@state.gov

Cozzone Massimo, Mr Senior Officer Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea cozzone.massimo@minambiente.it

Daussa Raul, Mr Associate Programme Officer, OCEEA OSCE Secretariat raul.daussa@osce.org

De Jaeger Alexander, Mr Assistant Belgian Delegation to the OSCE alexander.dejaeger@diplobel.fed.be

Denisov Nickolai, Mr. Under-Secretary GRID Arendal Office Geneva nickolai.denisov@unep.ch

DeWispelaere Chris, Mr. Science for Peace Programme Director

NATO Public Diplomacy Division science.sfp@hq.nato.int

Dragon Diana, Ms Political Officer U.S. Mission to the OSCE dragondp@state.gov Egerer Harald, Mr. Head UNEP Vienna harald.egerer@unvienna.org Fernandez Norberto R., Mr

Head Early Warning Section, UNEP-DEWA UNEP HQs Nairobi norberto.fernandez@unep.org

Fisciuc Liudmila, Ms NATO/PfP-OSCE/ENVSEC Projects Quality Verification Auditor

NATO Maitenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) liudmila.fisciuc.namsa@gmail.com

Frattini Bruno, Mr Senior Advisor Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea b.frattini@icarocortona.it

Goranic Ivana, Ms Minister Counsellor Permanent Delegation of Croatia to the OSCE ivana.goranic@mvpei.hr

Guchgeldiyev Oleg, Mr Consultant Caspian Environment Programme pipp@online.tm; OGUICH@yahoo.com

Gurbanova Nargiz, Ms Second Secretary Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the OSCE office@azembvienna.at

49//60

Havlik Petr, Mr Counsellor Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic at Vienna PETR_HAVLIK@MZV.CZ

Hessel Barbara, Ms Programme Coordinator Swedish EPA barbara.hessel@naturvardsverket.se Hovhannisyan Andranik, Mr Second Secretary

Armenian Delegation to the OSCE hovhannisyan@armenianmission.at

Hulenyi Peter, Mr Deputy Head of the Mission Permanent Mission of Slovakia to the OSCE peter_hulenyi@mfa.sk

Huseyinli Elchin, Mr Attache Delegation of Azerbaijan to the OSCE osce@azembvienna.at

Cherp Aleh, Mr Associate Professor Lund University, Sweden aleh.cherp@iiiee.lu.se

Janssens de Bisthoven Cedric, Mr

First Secretary, Directorate for Environment and Sustainable Development

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belgium cedric.janssensdebisthoven@diplobel.fed.be

Kadyrzhanova Inkar, Ms

Head of Environment and Sustainable Development Unit of UNDP Kazakhstan, ENVSEC Regional Desk Officer for Central Asia UNDP Kazakhstan inkar.kadyrzhanova@undp.org

Kingham Ronald A., Mr Programme Director Institue for Environmental Security rkingham@envirosecurity.org

Kolbin Giorgi, Mr Head of Division of International Relations, ENVSEC NFP

Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources gmep@access.sanet.ge

Kotis Samuel, Mr Regional Environment Science Technology and Health Officer US Embassy Budapest kotiss@state.gov

Krepela Christian, Mr Head of Depart. Energy, Transport Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Austria christian.krepela@bmaa.gv.at

Kuivila Helena, Ms Second Secretary, Unit of Caucasus and Central Asia

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland helena.kuivila@formin.fi

Leval Henri, Mr Counsellor Permanent Delegation of France to the OSCE henri.leval@diplomatic.govr.fr

Libert, Bo, Mr. Regional Advisor on Environment UNECE bo.libert@unece.org

Litvak Vladimir, Mr PSPD, Energy and Environment, Regional Practice Team Leader

UNDP Bratislava Regional Center vladimir.litvak@undp.org

50//60

Mains Cathy, Ms

Manager, Institutional Partnership Program Russia, Ukraine and Institutional Partnership Division Europe, Middle East and Maghreb Branch CIDA cathy.mains@acdi-cida.gc.ca

Maric Jovanka, Ms Public Relations Officer

Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection of Serbia jovanka.maric@ekoserb.sr.gov.yu

Martonakova Henrieta, Ms

PSPD, Energy and Environment, Programme Associate

UNDP Bratislava Regional Center henrieta.martonakova@undp.org

Mitrofanenko Tamara, Ms Intern UNEP Regional Office for Europe tamara.mitrofanenko@unep.ch

Moman Pampillo Montserrat, Ms Counsellor

Permanent Mission of Spain to the OSCE montserrat.moman@mae.es

Nakano Junya, Mr First Secretary Embassy of Japan in Austria wi214@embjp.at

Neitzel Harald, Mr Deputy Director

Federal Ministry for the Environmnet, Nature Conservationand Nuclear Safety harald.neitzel@bmu.bund.de

Nikcevic Miroslav, Mr Director

Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection/Directorate for Environmental Protection direktor@ekoserb.sr.gov.yu

Nobbe Clara, Ms Intern UNEP Vienna clara.nobbe@unep.ch Nordstrom Saba, Ms Environmental Advisor, OCEEA OSCE Secretariat saba.nordstrom@osce.org Olaoire Ronan, Mr Attache Irish Delegation to the OSCE ronan.olaoire@dfa.ie Olsson Jan, Mr Programme Coordinator Swedish EPA jan.olsson@naturvardsverket.se

Opimakh Aleksandr, Mr Counsellor, Deputy Representative of Belarus to OSCE

Permanent Mission of Belarus to the OSCE oscedel@byembassy.at

Palosaari, Marika, Ms. Co-ordination Officer UNEP Regional Office for Europe marika.palosaari@unep.ch

Pennings Florian, Mr. Trainee Mission of the Netherlands to the OSCE florian.pennings@minbuza.nl

Petrossian Nairi, Mr Deputy Head Armenian Delegation to the OSCE petrossian@armenianmission.at

51//60

Pohl Wolfhart, Mr Senior Environmental Specialist World Bank wpohl@worldbank.org Polgar Petra, Ms. Intern, OCEEA OSCE Secretariat

Pousard Asa, Ms First Secretary Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs asa.pousard@foreign.ministry.se

Prebensen Wenche, Ms Counsellor Permament Delegation of Norway of the OSCE wp@mfa.no

Rusu Vitalie, Mr First Secretary

Permament Delegation of the Republic of Moldova to the OSCE osce@moldmission.at

Sande Marit, Ms. Adviser Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway mais@mfa.no

Schlingemann, Frits, Mr. Director UNEP Regional Office for Europe frits.schlingemann@unep.ch

Simonett, Otto, Mr. GRID Arendal Programme Director GRID Arendal Liaison office,Geneva OTTO.SIMONETT@UNEP.CH

Slay Ben, Mr Director UNDP Bratislava Regional Center ben.slay@undp.org

Stec Stephen, Mr. Head of Environmental Legal Program, Senior Legal Specialist

Regional Environmental Centre (REC) sstec@rec.org

Stohr Sabine, Ms First Secretary

Permanenent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the OSCE sabine.stoehr@diplo.de

Svedberg Peter, Mr PSPD, Energy and Environment, Programme Associate

UNDP Bratislava Regional Center peter.svedberg@undp.org

Swalley David, Mr Economic and Environmental Affairs Officer, OCEEA OSCE Secretariat David.swalley@osce.org

Sychov Alyaksandr, Mr Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Belarus to OSCE

Permanent delegation of the Republic of Belarus to the OSCE mail@byembassy.at

Tavenier Jaco, Mr Policy Advisor Ministry of Environment of the Netherlands jaco.tavenier@minvrom.nl

Tegman Marianne, Ms Head of Section Swedish EPA marianne.tegman@naturvardsverket.se

Ushakova Daria, Ms External Relations Youth and Environmnet Europe, Prague yee@enc.cz; daria.us@yahoo.com

52//60

Verbeek Alexander, Mr First Secretary Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to the OSCE ag.verbeek@minbuza.nl

Vidova Maria, Ms Senior Official Ministry of Environment of Slovakia vidova.maria@enviro.gov.sk

Vuylsteke Thierry Deputy Head OSCE Chairmanship Unit Belgian MFA thierry.vuylsteke@diplobel.fed.be

Waggitt Peter, Mr Scientific Secretary IAEA P.Waggitt@iaea.org

Waignein Brigitte, Ms Second Secretary Permanet Mission of Belgium to the OSCE viennaosce@diplobel.be

Ward Brendan Deputy Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of Ireland to OSCE Brendan.ward@dfa.ie

Wibmer Sandra, Ms Advisor Environment and Natural Resources

Austrian Development Agency Sandra.wibmer@ada.gv.at

Wigley Georgina, Ms Environment Specialist Canadian International Development Agency georgina_wigley@acdi-cida.gc.ca

Witt Ronald, Mr Regional Coordinator UNEP/DEWA/GRID-Europe Ron.Witt@grid.unep.ch Zellei Anett, Ms Environment Specialist US Embassy Budapest ZelleiA@state.gov

53//60

Annex VIII. Financial Report for the 2006 Advisory Board Donor Funds During 2006, ENVSEC has received funds for projects by Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and USA. Figure 1 displays the amounts from each donor. In addition, UNDP has contributed a total of US$ 113,000 to projects in the ENVSEC portfolio. The total donor inflow of funds is approximately US$ 1,900,000 (discrepancies are due to currency fluctuations). As seen in Figure 2, this is US$ 60,000 less than 2005, which is noteworthy. Funds Distribution by Region Projects received donor funds in 2006 as displayed in Table 1 below. By region, projects implemented in Central Asia received US$ 830,000 (43%), projects implemented in Eastern Europe received US$ 47,000 (2%), projects implemented in South-eastern Europe received US$ 752,000 (38%), and projects implemented in Southern Caucasus received US$ 145,000 (8%). Figure 3 gives an overview of this allocation. Figure 4 shows an indicative projection of funding needs for the ENVSEC work programme in the coming three years 2007-2009 for each of the regions. The numbers are highly indicative, but provide guidance on what to expect in terms of funding gaps. Funds Distribution by Lead Implementing Agency Figure 5 displays the allocation of funds to different lead agencies in 2006. The key numbers are: § Projects with UNEP as a lead agency received US$ 1,005,000 (53%). § Projects with UNDP as a lead agency received US$ 285,000 (15%). § Projects with OSCE as a lead agency received US$ 201,000 (11%). § Projects with REC as a lead agency received US$ 190,000 (10%). § Projects with OSCE and UNECE received US$ 155,000 (8%) § Projects with UNECE as a lead agency received US$ 60,000 (3%).

Some projects are co-implemented by more than one agency; however in most cases it is possible to distinguish which agency keeps the lead (e.g. Southern Caucasus in-depth assessments – led by UNEP but co-implemented by both OSCE and UNDP). In such cases, the project funds have been ascribed to the lead agency. Management Fees The total amount of management fees for 2006 is US$ 117,587 (122,000 in 2005). Figure 7 shows the management fee inflow over three years, with a logarithmic trend line. According to its forecast, the management fees in 2007 can be expected to be in the proximity of US$ 140,000, however the small amount of data much hampers the possibilities of forecasting.

54/60

55/60

56/60

57/60

58/60

Table 1. Distribution of 2006 Fund Contributions by Project

PROJECT STATUS IMPLEMENTATION Budget (US$) Donors 2006 Total Funds 2004 -2006 Gap CA: Melange Feasibility Study Kazakhstan Ongoing OSCE 30,000 Canada: 20,000 20,000 10,000

CA: Natural disaster preparedness and risk reduction for communities in high -risk districts in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan Ongoing UNDP BRC 450,000 Canada: 100,000 350,000 100,000

CA: Dam safety in Central Asia: capacity building and sub -regional cooperation Ongoing UNECE 560,000 Finland: 60,000 60,000 500,000

CA: In-depth assessment Amu Darya Planned UNEP (GRID) & UNDP BRC 638,400 Finland: 449,272 449,272 189,128

CA: In-depth assessment East Caspian Ongoing UNEP (GRID) 220,000 Canada: 60,000 85,000 135,000

CA: Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context: Pilot implementation project in Central Asia Planned OSCE & UNECE 142,800 Norway: 120,000 120,000 22,800

CA: Environmental conflict early warning system for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Planned UNDP BRC 80,000 UNDP BRC: 20,000 20,000 60,000

EE: Clean-up of chemicals in Moldova - Phase I Ongoing NATO & OSCE 1,093,776 Germany: 47,376 1,093,776 0

CAU: NGO forum in the Kura -Aras River Basin Ongoing UNDP BRC 100,000 Canada: 10,000 90,000 10,000 UNDP BRC: 15,000

CAU: ENVSEC in -depth assessment of e nvironmental degradation in frozen conflict zones in the Southern Caucasus – Abkhazia

59/60

PROJECT STATUS IMPLEMENTATION Budget (US$) Donors 2006 Total Funds 2004 -2006 Gap Planned UNEP (GRID) & UNDP BRC 190,800 Canada: 31,000 31,000 159,800

CAU: ENVSEC in-depth assessment of environmental degradation in frozen conflict zones in the Southern Caucasus - Nagorny-Karabakh Ongoing UNEP (GRID) & OSCE 600,000 Canada: 69,000 169,000 431,000

CAU: Regional Meetings in Southern Caucasus Ongoing OSCE 27,500 Canada: 20,000 27,500 0

SEE: Enhancing Transboundary B iodiversity Management in South Eastern Europe Ongoing UNEP 409,650 Austria: 112,076 409,650 0 Canada: 60,000

SEE: Follow -up support for AIMS Network of MEAs Senior Officials and Legal Experts for South Eastern Europe Ongoing REC Szentendre 58,338 Netherlands: 58,338 58,338 0

SEE: Preparation of the Adriatic Sea Partnership Under Consideration REC Szentendre 131,664 Finland: 131,664 131,664 0

SEE: Mining hot spots in SEE: Environmental Assessment and Remedial Ac tion Plan project: Stanterg/Stari Trg and Artana Mines Ongoing UNDP Kosovo 112,649 Canada: 90,000 112,649 0 UNDP Kosovo: 22,649

SEE: Mining hot spots in SEE: Feasibility Study for Lojane Mine Cleaning and Closure Ongoing UNDP BRC & UNDP Macedonia 55,000 Czech Republic: 30,000 55,000 0

SEE: Reducing Environment & Security Risks from Mining in South Eastern Europe Ongoing UNEP 632,650 Austria: 112,076 632,650 0

Canada: 50,000

SEE: Reducing Impacts of Agriculture in the Prespa Park Region Completed UNDP BRC 173,000 UNDP BRC: 55,000 173,000 0

60/60

PROJECT STATUS IMPLEMENTATION Budget (US$) Donors 2006 Total Funds 2004 -2006 Gap SEE: Regional Meetings in Southeastern Europe Ongoing UNEP 50,000 Canada: 30,000 30,000 20,000

CR: Establishment of and support to Public E nvironmental Information Centres Ongoing OSCE 212,130 Canada: 40,000 212,130 0 Sweden,: 16,732 USA: 35,374

CR: CAPACITY FOR WATER COOPERATION (CWC) in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia: The work of the river basin commissi on Ongoing OSCE & UNECE 97,854 Spain: 35,000 35,000 62,854

CR: ENVSEC Advisory Board meetings Ongoing UNEP & OSCE & UNDP BRC 73,500 Canada: 10,500 73,500 0

CR: ENVSEC Outreach Ongoing UNEP & OSCE & UNDP BRC 20,000 Canada: 9,500 9,500 10,500

ENVSEC Management OSCE Ongoing ENVSEC Management Fees 29,447

ENVSEC Management UNDP Ongoing ENVSEC Management Fees 58,892

ENVSEC Management UNEP Ongoing ENVSEC Management Fees 29,447 Grand Total 6,159,711 2,000,694 4,448,629 1,711,082