44451 Europe and Central Asia Region Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development _________________________________________________________ Meeting the Environment Millennium Development Goal in Europe and Central Asia , , ____________ The World Bank, June 2003 , 2003 . 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. , , . Printed on 30% post consumer recycled paper , 30% Contents Executive Summary (English and Russian) i Chapter I. Assessment of ECA's Performance on MDG7 1 A. Target I: Halve, by 2015, the Proportion of People Without Sustainable Access to 2 Safe Drinking Water and Basic Sanitation 1. Water Supply 2 2. Basic Sanitation 3 B. Target II: Integrate the Principles of Sustainable Development into Country Policies 4 and Programs and Reverse the Losses of Environmental Resources 1. Introduction 4 2. Land Area Under Forest 5 3. Land Area Protected to Maintain Biodiversity 6 4. Energy Efficiency 6 5. Carbon Emissions 6 6. Proportion of Population Using Solid Fuels 7 C. Target III: Have Achieved by 2020 a Significant Improvement in the Lives of 7 at Least 100 Million Slum Dwellers 1. Proportion of Population with Access to Secure Tenure 7 Chapter II. Adequacy of the Indicators as Measures of Environmental Sustainability in ECA 8 A. Problems with the Official Data 8 1. Base Year 8 2. Data Gaps 8 3. Data Reliability 8 B. Supplementary Data on ECA's Performance with Respect to MDG7 8 1. Water Supply Indicator 8 2. Sanitation Indicator 11 3. Forestry Indicator 12 4. Biodiversity Indicator 14 5. Energy Efficiency Indicator 14 6. Carbon Emissions 18 7. Slums 18 Chapter III. The Linkages Between MDG7 and the Health and Poverty MDGs 21 A. Linkages to Health MDG 21 1. Water Supply, Sanitation and Health 21 2. Energy MDG Indicators and Health 25 3. Indoor Air Pollution 25 4. Health Benefits from CO2 Reduction 26 B. Linkages to Poverty MDG 27 1. Water Supply, Sanitation and Poverty in ECA 27 2. Forestry and Land Conservation: Links to Poverty 29 3. Energy and Poverty 32 Chapter IV. Cost Analysis 35 A. Cost of Meeting the Water Supply and Sanitation MDGs 35 1. Cost of Water Supply Programs 35 2. Cost of Sanitation Programs 41 3. Comparison of Costs with Other Estimates 44 4. Aggregate Estimate for All CIS 45 B. Costs of Meeting the Energy Indicators 46 1. Introduction 46 2. Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Russia 46 3. Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Ukraine 48 4. Costs of CO2 Mitigation in Kazakhstan 49 Chapter V. Setting of Priorities and Implications for Bank Activities 52 A. Priorities 52 B. Specific Bank Activities 52 1. Target I: Water Supply and Sanitation 52 2. Target II: Integrating the Principles of Sustainable Development into Country Policies and Programs and Preventing the Loss of Resources 53 3. Target III: Improving the Lives of Slum Dwellers 54 C. Data Quality and Partnerships 54 Bibliography 56 Annexes 1. Millennium Development Goals and Definitions of MDG7 Indicators..........................................59 2. Official Data on Millennium Development Goals .........................................................................64 3. Survey Data on MDGs...................................................................................................................72 Tables 1. Environmental Sustainability (MDG ) Targets and Indicators .......................................................1 7 2. Environmental MDG Indicators for ECA and Other Groups...........................................................2 3. Factors that Determine Country Environmental Management Rankings.........................................5 4. Data on Quality and Regularity of Supply of Water in CIS Countries ............................................9 5. Traditional Fuel Use As a Percentage of Total Energy Use...........................................................17 6. Share of Wood and Coal in Household Energy .............................................................................17 7. Links Between MDG7 and the Health and Poverty MDGs............................................................22 8. Impact of a One Percent Increase in Delivery of Water Supply or Sanitation on Under 5 Mortality Rates............................................................................................................23 9. Diarrheal Disease Estimates for 2001............................................................................................24 10. Variations in Under 5 Mortality Attributed to WSS Provision and Other Factors ........................25 11. Use of Coal and Biomass in Selected Countries............................................................................26 12. Ancillary Benefits from GHG Emission Reduction in 2010..........................................................26 13. Access to Water and Sanitation by Income Quintile......................................................................29 14. Household Income in Turkey.........................................................................................................30 15. Urban Network Energy Use in Eastern Europe and Central Asia..................................................33 16. Urban non-Network Energy Use in Eastern Europe and Central Asia ..........................................33 17. Number of Urban Residents with Access to Piped Water in Selected Countries ..........................36 18. Cost of Urban Water Supply Systems............................................................................................38 19. Access to Improved Water in Rural Areas.....................................................................................39 20. Cost of Rural Water Supply Systems.............................................................................................40 21. Total Water Supply Cost Estimation: 2000-2015 .........................................................................41 22. Cost of Urban Sewerage Systems ..................................................................................................42 23. No. of People with Access to Sewage System in Urban Areas in Selected Countries...................43 24. No. of People with Access to Improved Sanitation in Rural Areas in Selected Countries........................................................................................................................................43 25. Cost of Rural Sewage System Services..........................................................................................44 26. Total Sanitation Cost Estimates .....................................................................................................44 27. Total Cost of Achieving WSS MDG for All CIS...........................................................................46 28. Potential for Carbon Reductions in Russian Federation: 2008-2012.............................................47 29. Potential for Carbon Reductions in Ukraine: 2008-2012...............................................................49 30. Potential for Carbon Reductions in Kazakhstan: 2008-2012 .........................................................50 Figures 1. Access to Water Source ...................................................................................................................3 2. Access to Basic Sanitation ...............................................................................................................4 3. Protected Land Area in 2002............................................................................................................6 4. Energy Efficiency and Change: 1992-99 in PPP GDP...................................................................15 5. Energy Efficiency and Change in GDP..........................................................................................16 6. Water Supply and Poverty Linkages in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan ...............28 7. Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Russia: 2008-2012.....................................................................47 8. Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Ukraine: 2008-2012...................................................................49 9. Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Kazakhstan: 2008-2012.............................................................51 Acronyms AAN Assigned Amount Units ADB Asian Development Bank BAU "Business as Usual" BIMS Biodiversity and Information Monitoring Systems CIS Commonwealth of Independent States CO2 Carbon Dioxide DALY Disability Adjusted Life Years DHS Demographic Household Survey EECCA Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia ECA Europe and Central Asia ENPEP Energy and Power Evaluation Program EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas KGOE Kilograms of oil equivalent L&M Lower and Middle Income HH Household HIID Harvard Institute for International Development IMR Infant Mortality Rate LPG Liquified Petroleum Gas LSMS Living Standards Measurement Study MDG Millennium Development Goal MDG7 Environment Millennium Development Goal MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys MMTC Million Metric Tons of Carbon NGO Non-governmental Organization NOX Nitrogen Oxide NSS National Strategy Study NTFPS Non-Timber Forest Products OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PCF Prototype Carbon Fund PPP Purchasing Power Parity SO2 Sulfur Dioxide TC Total Cost TSP Total Suspended Particles UN United Nations WDI World Development Indicators WHO World Health Organization WSS Water Supply and Sanitation UNECE United Nations Economic Commissions for Europe UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change U5MR Under Five Mortality Rate UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund WRI 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 ) Targets and Indicators2 7 Target Indicators I. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of 1. Proportion of population with sustainable access people without sustainable to an improved water source access to safe drinking water and 2. Proportion of population with access to basic basic sanitation sanitation II. Integrate the principles of 3. Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per $1 GDP sustainable development into (PPP) country policies and programs 4. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) and reverse the losses of 5. Proportion of land area covered by forest environmental resources 6. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area 7. Proportion of population using solid fuels III. By 2020 to have achieved a 8. Proportion of households with access to secure significant improvement in the tenure lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers 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 Asia­EECCA); 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. 3Official 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. 4The 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. Figure 1: Access to Improved Water Source 100 80 60 TARGET 2000 Households 40 of 20 % 0 AN ECA INC. ERBAIJAN KYRGYZ REPUBLIC ROMANIA LOW/MIDDLE AZ JIKISTAT TURKMENISTAN Source: The World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank 5ECA 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 100 80 60 TARGET Households 40 2000 of % 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 6See Table 3, Chapter 1. v 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: 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 Figure 3: Protected Land Area in 2002 14 12 10 Land 8 of 6 % 4 2 0 A IA AV O IC IA IA EC RLD AGE & STAN GYZ BL INE NIA LDO EGR BAN RA WO BOSN BIA ARGL BAIJAN AVER MO BEKISTANZU GEORGIA SER KAZAKH ENTNO KYR EPUR AL UK BU ROMA TAJIKISTAN AZER M 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 7See, 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 Rural Improved Urban Sewage Rural Improved % of HH Water % of HH System % HH Sanitation % HH 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 Kazakhstan 96.9 97.8 82 87.4 73.1 81.2 98 98.6 Moldova 79.6 85.7 88 91.6 67.6 77.3 98 98.6 Ukraine 95.6 96.9 94 95.8 79.8 85.9 98 98.6 Source: World Development Indicators 2003, The World Bank. 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 2000-01 120 100 80 60 $Mln. 40 20 0 KAZAKHSTAN MOLDOVA UKRAINE Source: World Development Indicators, 2003, The World Bank 8The 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 A. , ? 28 1 () , (7). « », 3 8 , . 1: ( )2 7 I. ( 2015 .) 1. , , 2. , () II. 3. ( ) $1 () 4. ( ) 5. , . 6. , , 7. , III. 2020 . ­ 8. , 100 : - , . 1, : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ( ); , , , , , , , , , , ( , ­ ), , , . 2 . : () , 2015 , (b) 2010 , , () 2012 , (d) 20 (e) 2020 . , . . 1 . , , , . B. ? · , , , , 3 . , . 91 . , , 944 2015 ., . . , . , . , , ( ), . , 30 . 60 , , . 12 . . 3 « » , « » , 2003 . , « », 2003 . . 4 1990 ., ­ 2015 ., .. 25 . , , , , , 1990 .; , . , , 2000 ., 2000 2015 . : 15 25- 50%. . (15/25)*50%=30%, , 2000 . 2015 ., , , 30%. xvi · 93 , 2015 95,1 , . - , . , , . . , . · 35 1992 , . 74 , , , () . . , , . , ( ), , 1,5 , 18 , 17 . . . , , , . · 1992 . 27 . . 67 , , . ­ ­ . , , . xvii - , , . · (40 30 , ). , , . , , . , . , , . · , , . , , ­ , , ­ . · «» , , . . , (, ). . , , . · , . , , . , , . C. ? 1. I: 2015 . , xviii (, ) , , , . , . : 2000 91 . 2015 . : 94 , 87 5 88 . , : 79 ­ 81 ­ . , , , , , , (. 1). , , . . 1: 100 80 60 40 20 0 . 2000 . ./ 2000 2000. : , 2003 ., 5 $2,010, ($1,970). , 11 27 , ($410). : , , , , , , , , , . xix () 2000 . 93 . , 2015 , : 95 , 72 75 . , , , ( 53 ) (. 2). . 2: 100 80 60 40 20 0 2000 ./. . 2000 2000. : , 2003 ., 2. II: , , . , , . , , 6, 2. , . , , . , 6. 3, 2 xx : ; ; , ( ); - , ; , ; , . ­ , . , , : , , , 2002 . 40 , 1990 (39 ). 30 , ­ 31 . , . , , 1990 , , , , . , . , , . , 2002 . 7 , 11,7 . , (16 ), . , . 3. (8,3 ). , , , . xxi . 3: 2002 . 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 - 2000 TAJIKISTAN : , 2003 ., . 35 1992 . ( , ). . , , . () 1 2002 . 2,3 4,0 4,5 - . , 74 , , . 1992 , . 27 . , , . 1999 .( , ), 6,6 ­ 2,2 3,8 ­ . 67 . , , . , . xxii 3. : 2020 100 . , 2003 . 23 28 . - . , , , . D. , , , , . , , , . ( 3). 1. , - . , , . - . , , ­ ; , - , . xxiii , , . , . , , , (, , , ). , , , . . , , () 56 , ; , 5-100 . , , , , . . , «» , 7. , (), , . SO2, NOx, (TSP) , . , , , 27 100 000 38 ­ . , , , . , . 7. «Coping With the Cold», 529, 2002 . xxiv 2. , , . , , , 20 , 20 100 . . , ­ , . , . , , , (). . , - . , , , . , , . . , , , , , . E. 1. , , : xxv 1990 . ­ , . , (, 2000 ­ , ). , 25 . . ; , . , , . , , , , 2000 , , 97, 92 98 , . , 100 . 1990 . , . 2. , . , , , , . . 60 (). , . , , xxvi . , . , 33 - 26 . , ( ) ­ , . , , , , , , . ( , 2002 .). , 1990 .; 2001 . 20 . , , , . , , , . , . , . , 90- . . . . xxvii . 1. , , , , , , . . , . . , ; , . (), , ­ , . 2. , 2003­2015 ., . 4, 2000­2001 . , , . 2: , , , , , 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 96,9 97,8 82 87,4 73,1 81,2 98 98,6 79,6 85,7 88 91,6 67,6 77,3 98 98,6 95,6 96,9 94 95,8 79,8 85,9 98 98,6 : , 2003 ., xxviii , , ( 120 . 200 . ). 1,1 . , 8. . 4: 2003-15 2000-01 120 100 . 80 60 40 . 20 0 : , 2003 ., 2. , , . , 220 2008 2012 . (.. , ), 300 15 . . 8 : (a) 60 . , (b) 200 . , () 250 . , (d) 25 . , 35 . ; , . , , , , , , . , 120 «» 65 40 . . 20 , 13 20 . . , , , . ( ­ AAU, Assigned Amout Units) (). , , , , . . - , , . . 100 . . 3. , . , . . , . , . , . , xv , 900 000 1990 . 50 000 . 19 , . 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 ) and the associated targets and 7 indicators are listed in Table 1.9 A full list of all the MDGs is given in Annex 1. Table 1: Environmental Sustainability (MDG ) Targets and Indicators 7 Target Indicators I. Halve, by 2015, the proportion 1. Proportion of population with sustainable access of people without sustainable to an improved water source access to safe drinking water 2. Proportion of population with access to basic and basic sanitation sanitation II. Integrate the principles of 3. Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per $1 GDP sustainable development into (PPP) country policies and programs 4. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) and reverse the losses of 5. Proportion of land area covered by forest environmental resources 6. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area 7. Proportion of population using solid fuels III. By 2020 to have achieved a 8. Proportion of households with access to secure significant improvement in the tenure lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers 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 No. of Europe & High Low & countries MDG Indicators Central middle Year data reporting Asia World income countries income reported data in countries ECA Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%) 91.0 81.0 79 2000 22 Proportion of people with access to improved sanitation (%) 93.0 55.0 51 2000 20 GDP per unit of energy use (PPP GDP/kg oil) 2.3 4.5 4.9 4.0 2000 27 Carbon dioxide emissions (metric tons per capita) 6.6 3.8 12.3 2.2 1999 28 Proportion of land area covered by forest (%) 39.7 29.7 26.1 30.9 2000 27 Land area protected to maintain biological diversity (% of total land area) 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 10Very 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 100 80 60 TARGET Households 40 of 2000 20 % 0 ECA INC. KYRGYZ REPUBLIC ROMANIA LOW/MIDDLE AZERBAIJAN TAJIKISTAN TURKMENISTAN 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 11These figures are so low that they may not be credible. 3 Figure 2: Access to Basic Sanitation 100 80 60 TARGET Households 40 2000 of % 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 Key Management Factors in Environment Ministry Lowest Turkmenistan, Old inconsistent or non-existent legislation. Very limited and/or unreliable Group Tajikistan 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. 2nd Group Armenia, Azerbaijan, Some laws in force, many under discussion. Many laws unenforceable. Georgia, Kyrgyz Reasonable ambient monitoring for major urban areas and water bodies but old Republic, Uzbekistan 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. 3rd Group Albania, Belarus, Laws covering basic media in force or close to adoption. Basic ambient Bosnia & Herzegovina, monitoring in place, and using up-to-date methods, data analysis. Ministry of Kazakhstan, Macedonia Environment works fairly well with related agencies. Some incentive FYR, Moldova, Russia, instruments implemented nationally. All point sources monitored for Serbia & Montenegro, compliance. Violators assessed but fines not consistently collected. Ukraine, Turkey Government budget for environment expanding. Clear rules for access to environmental information. Procedures for complaints established but followed inconsistently. 4th Group Croatia, Romania Most laws in place and mostly enforceable, especially those addressing priority Bulgaria 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. Highest Czech Republic, All major media/pollutant-specific and resource-specific laws in force and Group Estonia, Hungary, enforceable. Good, reliable network for ambient monitoring with sophisticated Latvia, Lithuania instruments. Highly trained analysts with major role in decision-making. Poland, Slovak Mechanisms for inter-ministerial coordination with mainstream ministries in Republic, Slovenia 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%). Figure 3: Protected Land Area in 2002 14 12 10 Land 8 of 6 % 4 2 0 A IA AV O IC IA IA EC RLD AGE & STAN GYZ BL INE NIA LDO EGR BAN RA WO BOSN BIA ARGL BAIJAN AVER MO BEKISTANZU GEORGIA SER KAZAKH ENTNO KYR EPUR AL UK BU ROMA TAJIKISTAN AZER M 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 Water Not Meeting Rate to Piped & Sanitary Quality Microbiological Quality Year Water (%) Standards (%) Standards (%) Rural Rural Not Rural Rural Not Urban Rural Urban Piped Piped Urban Piped Piped Armenia 87.0 45.0 52 17.0 1998 Azerbaijan 50.0 Belarus 96.0 10.0 33.8 37.8 49.7 7.0 7.4 37.0 1999 Georgia 95.0 15.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 40.0 1999 Kazakhstan 93.0 26.0 10.1 9.0 2000 Kyrgyz Republic 75.0 72.0 Moldova 82.0 15.0 56.0 60.0 65.0 12.0 10.0 5.0 2000/01 Russia 98.0 74.0 22.1 30.5 12.3 28.3 Tajikistan 82.0 49.0 19.1 11.7 51.0 25.0 35.0 2000 Turkmenistan 85.4 42.1 44.8 22.9 1999 Ukraine 83.0 25.0 12.2 14.3 25.0 5.5 7.7 25.0 1999 Uzbekistan 90.1 61.3 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. Kyrgyz Republic Many are provided stand pipes only. Outside Bishkek 70% of system is in disrepair. Funds for 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 re- samples 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, rota- viruses. · 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 20- year 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 over- harvesting 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. 13Very 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 14The 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/$000PPPGDP (Cons. Prices) Figure 5: Energy Efficiency and Change in GDP($US95) 1000 900 Uzbekistan Ukraine Turkmenistan 800 700 Azerbaijan 1999 600 Values Russia Tajikistan 500 Kazak Bulgaria 400 Estonia Belarus 300 Slovakia Poland Croatia Romania Latvia 200 HungaryKyrgyz Armenia Turkey World Low/Middle 100 450 Albania Income 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 4,000 Azerbaijan 1999 Ukraine Values 3,000 Turkmenistan 2,000 Belarus Russia Kazakhstan Bulgaria Kyrgyz 1,000 Lithuania Romania Estonia Slovakia Czech Poland Albania Armenia 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 % Country % Albania 7 Georgia 1 Romania 6 Armenia 0 Hungary 2 Russia 1 Azerbaijan 0 Kazakhstan 0 Slovakia 1 Belarus 1 Kyrgyz Republic 0 Slovenia 1 Bosnia & 10 Latvia 26 Serbia & 6 Herzegovina Montenegro Bulgaria 1 Lithuania 6 Tajikistan N/A Croatia 3 Poland 1 Turkmenistan N/A Czech Republic 2 Moldova 1 Ukraine 1 Estonia 14 Macedonia 6 Uzbekistan 0 Source: World Bank, Little Green Data Book, 2002. · 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 Croatia Moldova Tajikistan Lithuania Latvia Republic 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, 15The 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 fecal­oral 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 fecal­oral 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 Health MDGs Poverty MDGs Water and Sanitation Percent Improved Water Reduced waterborne diseases Better health means less time off for illness Supply resulting from improved water and higher incomes. Better water supply means lower morbidity and also means less expenditure on alternative mortality, especially among means of obtaining clean water. But children higher cost of supply of improved source could partially cancel these factors Percent Improved Reduced gastro-enteric illnesses Better health means less time off for illness Sanitation results in lower morbidity and and higher incomes mortality Environmental Sustainability Percent Land Area Under Impact of conservation programs combined Conservation with sustainable livelihoods programs can improve rural incomes Percent Area Under Impact of afforestation programs in a rural Forestry development framework contribute to poverty reduction GDP per Unit of Energy Increased efficiency can reduce Higher energy efficiency means reduced health damaging emissions poverty accompanied by increased access to cleaner fuels among poor Per Capita CO2 Ancillary benefits of reducing Specific projects under the Clean Emissions emissions include lower Development Mechanism respiratory and cardiovascular illness Percent Population Using Reduced respiratory illness and Users of low quality fuels for heating/ Solid Fuels cardiovascular disease cooking tend to be poor since they cannot afford cleaner options Slums Percent Living in Slums Poor living conditions impact on Increased vulnerability and a poor living health 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 Water Supply Sanitation Comments Larsen (2003) -0.31 to -0.41 -0.25 to -0.28 Data from 84 countries but excluding Europe Wang, Bolt and -0.56 to -0.76 -0.36 to -0.45 Household survey data from 43 Hamilton countries, including three from the (2003) 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 17In 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. 18The 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 Deaths from DALYS due to Percent with Percent with Diarrhea Diarrhea U5 Mortality Improved Improved Region (million) (million) (*) Water Source Sanitation Europe A 5.1 278 5.6 100.0 100.0 B 77.9 2,845 28.8 78.3 85.5 C 11.9 547 18.9 98.2 99.2 Worldwide 326.3 10,184 78.0 81.0 56.0 Source: WHO and World Bank (*) Per 1,000 live births 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. 19There 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 Estimated U5 Region U5 Mortality Mortality Europe World-wide as Base A 5.6 54.4 B 28.8 66.6 C 18.9 55.9 World-wide 78.0 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 world- wide 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 20Smith 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. 21The 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 use of coal & Average Total No. of Use of Coal & Potential biomass fuel size of Population Households Biomass Fuel Exposure to (tons of coal households (`000) (`000) per Household Biomass Use equiv.) (kg of coal (1 is highest level (1994) 1994 1994 equiv.) in sample) 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 Annual Annual avoided Reduction Mortality from Avoided avoided carbon as % of fossil fuel air mortality Country mortality emissions 2010 BAU pollution as % cases/100,000 No of cases M tons level of total tons CO2 Kazakhstan 5,120 12 9.8 0.8 43 Russia 40,000 150 10.5 0.4 27 Ukraine 20,000 52 14.7 n.a. 38 Source: Authors calculations; Dudek et al, 2002; Golub A., 2002. 22Lvovsky 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) 120 100 water 80 Piped to 60 water to residence 40 supply(%) Others 20 Access 0 Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Poverty quintiles Kyrgyz Republic Water Supply and Poverty Linkage (1997) 120 100 Piped water (%) 80 w ater into to 60 residence Others upplys 40 20 Access 0 Lowest Second Middle ourthF Highest Poverty quintiles Uzbekistan Water Supply and Poverty Linkage (1996) 120 100 water 80 Piped to 60 water into residence 40 Others supply(%) 20 Access 0 Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Poverty quintiles Source: Demographic and Health Survey, Macro International Inc. 28 Table 13: Access to Water and Sanitation By Income Quintile Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Uzbekistan Republic Source of Drinking Water Piped to Residence Lowest Quintile 0.0 0.0 3.6 Highest Quintile 99.7 98.6 98.9 Non-Improved Source (*) Lowest Quintile 9.2 50.2 16.6 Highest Quintile 0.3 0.0 0.0 Distance more than 15 Minutes Lowest Quintile 22.4 41.5 27.7 Highest Quintile 0.7 0.1 0.0 Sanitation Own Flush Toilet Lowest Quintile 0.0 0.0 0.0 Highest Quintile 96.6 69.7 68.8 VIP Latrine or No Facility Lowest Quintile 1.6 0.2 0.1 Highest Quintile 0.0 0.2 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 Turkey Black Sea Mediterranean Aegean Overall Rural Rural Forest Rural Forest Rural Forest Household Income 4,734 3,594 3,520 1,961 3,506 1,746 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 23World 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. 24Metromedia 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. 25Ozhatay, 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). 26Baser, 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. 27Wang, 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 non- poor, 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 District heating Central gas Electricity Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Armenia 1999 11 14 4 16 97 99 Croatia 1997 15 39 19 30 99 100 Kyrgyz Republic 1999 17 55 13 33 100 99 Latvia 1997 70 83 57 68 99 100 Lithuania 1998 31 46 46 56 85 94 Moldova 1999 17 57 37 70 65 89 Tajikistan 1999 1 1 3 6 100 100 Source: Coping with the Cold, op. cit. Table 16: Urban Non-network Energy Use in EE and Central Asia (%) Country Liquefied Propane Gas Kerosene Coal Wood Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Armenia 17 27 14 11 n/a n/a 47 50 Croatia 44 45 3 7 1 1 51 26 Kyrgyz 24 39 31 17 60 31 46 22 Republic Latvia 37 28 n/a n/a <1 <1 1 2 Lithuania n/a n/a n/a n/a <1 <1 1 2 Moldova 6 7 n/a n/a 9 5 12 9 Tajikistan n/a n/a <1 1 11 18 47 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 `energy efficiency' 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 small- scale 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. 28See, Coping With the Cold, World Bank Technical Paper No 529, 2002. 29Together, 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, Danilov- Danilyan (ed. (2003). 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 country'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 Access to Access to MDG for piped MDG for Increased piped water piped water water supply piped water population Country Sector (% of (population (% of supply accessing to piped population) thousand) population) (population water (population thousand) thousand) 2000 2000 2015 2015 2000-2015 Kazakhstan Urban 96.9 8,045 97.8 9,078 1,032 Moldova Urban 79.6 1,417 85.7 1,608 191 Ukraine Urban 95.6 32,132 96.9 29,578 (2,554) Kazakhstan Rural 69.4 4,557 Moldova Rural 10.2 255 Ukraine Rural 55.0 8,739 Kazakhstan Total 85.0 12,639 Moldova Total 38.1 1,631 Ukraine Total 83.0 41,086 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 "access." 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 neia loss pmupeht beot eded d ne iraper sire sire Ukr water of wat water wat water need ni it in % repaire eedn hc VI ng nd ng nd chr 38 Un 40 inea ital sternaE skaT Case Serious %- onsiatst %22tuo eatedtrehtfo eatedtrehtfo Ab 0%4 nki ourg nki ourg 5%2 dri 5%7 seare dri esearR oniatslgi 30 and Ukr tsoc Le n n tral on.iatz no ted pers soer/p onrs no nosr Cen oni pers erson/p erson/p erson/p stryudnire essrgorpI `Cap,)7991( rm 50 pe5/ soer/p 33/- 33 wat 169 266 395 wat <$5/ $2 unNIm andsdrad int Estima 20-$ $7 15-$ en Hasd 43-$ 65-$ 44-$ $17-62/pe Stan em tal ag av an loss gin fo ts edri ldo rk pmeni pare ry/mk iraper det sire det sire KU;)2002 0- omkrkU'); enm M Mo in physical woton %05 ks/ wat water wat water roniv ality Towar:eporuE anht eedn 991(srt (draft Of';sisylanAcgie equg earteht earteht Qu all of ng nd of ng nd `En rat ern ), 30 avo beot se Ca 30% %05 reo sto % nki ourg % nki ourg pore M istin ntems East ex need brea65. lmA 20 dri 80 dri s' St.noi Watere nda System Mold tsoc Asses te(1993 zat n n n n no soer/p onrs erson/p nosr ectjorp ci stitu oni om In Effectiv ernste Supply pers 50 pe5/ norsep/1 soer/p ngidn on ost 38 169 Le Wni `C <$5/ Estimated 20-$ $2 -47 A Ec- $2 18-$ Ifo'e; 43-$ soerp/662-2 soerp/593-9 $4 $2 $11-41/pe Harmfostfi Water EC pe s ro rainkU 2), oniatsl (199 ce s Eu ur Urban water,d tne eedn in ted beotsd nkaB ni n s d Legidna of khstana stoC soerre eden water beot IIASA %13 treatedl atio ounrg %73 nee rds Kaz S:; ilitaba onrs Worl sease tilitiesu pe e neeBdnasstoCci wat in S:; totaeht m rfaceus eatmtreth needs 21% Di ase,'b of ilitatedba omrf anda of stan %3 nover of fro is m S: St 18: is %5 reheb reh 00,0 to Ec kha Case Lack B:5 50% 50% syste B:2 ilitatedba 38%; water reh B: 50-000 ncesree detaleRre nomo cost sewerag and n:oi ewi Table Kaz ref tsoc n n n ht zat no oni revcid .30 pers soer/p onrs soner/p wi 20 erson/p nosr terawfo rioep 50 pe5/ erso/p soer/p 20,,ytcilal 46 69 266 sm Harmsd alntemnorivnE`,)399 <$5/ Estimated 20-$ $2 27-41$ 21-$ -134$ detami 61-$ $42-573/person $16-59/pe S: s; ons estear WatfolorntoC survey e war (1c and To ultant,snocen t 42 4991eth: WR' rai to re itynu nte noi cativi oper stry Uk es II;r es ntem tne ent eg nda, Eu du In pe ds mm ho filters co eqg nagemam linepip tnem reatt per00,0 indfo Pa omrf w eatmrt treatm stora lts Met gnvi treatg 22,02, tionu wells, water 18 ventreP`,)999 `Resu ngikro rib sare water ngi watlioBd/olh enmpiu lineippg ing hodstemd wen Watereth W ilitatinba provemi ilitatinba ing es m m te, in ontC use ild ilitatinba negnhisibla teraw water (1 ernstaEdnaner Surface Tabl sts pe:o stitu );' oN Wat Add ho Digg base Reh and Reh Bu Reh syste Est syste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 undorG1.8 Surface >50,ytcigbi:B:e 30 detimil In West Co Eur (b 8.2 8.3 Not Table 19: Access to Improved Water in Rural Areas Country Current MDG Current situation MDG Increased situation (% of (% of (population (population (population population) population) thousand) thousand) thousand) 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000-2015 Kazakhstan 82 87.4 5,384 5,837 452 Moldova 88 91.6 2,201 2,085 -116 Ukraine 94 95.8 14,936 12,278 -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 n clea ns; no water, f neia itio the nd onde ray ed eepd echanicm hal onsiatstp edri teraw 40 Ukr in watersu co bas m itrates)n cost pare eden gnkinirddet % ound loss undereg tal Nizhyn half; Serio enm onitami in (38 of ent cost 22t gr free pm pumehtfo beot earteht is Case usa roniv Est rience wellg is equi need 40%- bouA of % teraw Wells en expe illinrd Materials 30 75 / ted 0 no / / / 50 no ro,l no onrs - onrs - onrs onrs inea cost <$5/ pers 20-$ pers Estima wel5/7. ersp /well.6 erson/p 31 no 45 no 176 no or .8/ pe9/ /well.6 45/- 25-$ pers $7 onsrep 13-$ pers $3 $1 50-$ pers 266$ pe1/ 403$ pe5/ 34-$ pe3/ Ukr $3 187$ 187$ $19ro 55 72 12 g av istin ex beot ldo calsi teraw teraw of ed d ks/ Mo not gn r/y gnkinirddet gnkinirddet ound ound Systems phy avo in loss % rki nes 50% % 50 wo ent repaire km gr gr se 30 pply Ca anhter pm brea65. earteht is earteht is of Su Mold equi % teraw of % teraw Mo 20 80 / ted / / / / / Water cost 0 no 50 no 31 no 68 no 45 no 176 no 60/3 no 74/4 no 80 no <$5/ pers 20-$ pers 25-$ pers 27-$ pers 13-$ pers Estima 50-$ pers 9-8 pers 3-6 pers pers $1 $2 22-$ Rural of n re in wat ce Cost khstaa of Case sourer stan Kaz 20: Lack kha / Kaz ted / / / / 50 31 68 40 no onrs no - onrs Table cost 0 no no no no 22/5 no <$5/ pers 20-$ pers 25-$ pers 27-$ pers 19-$ pers 50-$ pe6/ 4-7 pers 382$ pe8/ 177 Estima 17 $2 68 31-$ pers to asedb l (up t ition doh to es re ity-nu gin wells caolnosd )s nd wells mm er co aft enmpiu 81eblaT filters Met g eqg linepipg w g ing or vin wells, system system re See:sliat sa water ngi watliobd/olh co clean/ deep pened ical sh ectiont ogloe wen water water ing pro wash weng deep ing ilitatinba ilitatinba ilitatinba ent ent nte nte use Water Add ho Digg hodstem eg m ild dedna Well Well Drillin 30 ydro-gh Bu Reh Reh newgnidliuB esni watdn pelpi negnhisibla ou Reh treatm Est treatm Gr treatm Surface treatm Surface stora No 1 2 3 13. 23. 33. 43. 4 5 6 7 8 18. urces 8.2 8.3 So Table 21: Total Water Supply Cost Estimation: 2000-2015 (in constant 1995 US$) Costs 2000-2015 Annual Cost: 2000-2015 Cost of Cost of improving water improving TC quality access to water O&M cost As % of Country ($ Mln.) ($ Mln.) ($ Mln.) ($ Mln.) 2002 GDP In $Mln. Kazakhstan 650 268 297 85 0.2 43 Moldova 106 54 38 14 0.2 7 Ukraine 1,001 871 - 131 0.1 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 "halve the population without access to sewage system by 2015," 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 42 % in be % be inea 23t to Case Ukr ilitatedba 25t to ilitatedba revO Abou needs capacity ine reh bouA needs reh Ukra tsoc n n onrs ted pe5/ erso/p soer/p erson/p erson/p 44 176 310 $2 Estima 20-41$ 20-$ 50-$ 39-$ ngits ed.r 00,0 is 300 a ov ldo M exiehtfo paire ry/mks/ is acity beot clog5 ed cap ed eedn acity stemsyS in a %05 nes ed. capg signeded ayd/3m0005, ldov Case anht ent eedn mk02 istin 67 Mo reo pm M equi mk001 exla Sewerage ctuA ay,/d3m tsoc n n Urban onrs ted erson/p erson/p of pe5/ erso/p soer/p s 50 394 stoC $2 Estima 27-41$ 25-$ 50-176$ 39-$ onrs pe ; % 22: in stan kha Case Table %33-:9B be 00,0 26 to %- 23 ilitatedba 50-000 stan Kaz S: needs reh kha tsoc n Kaz onrs ted pe5/ erso/p erson/p erson/p 20,,ytcilal 176 394 $2 Estima 27-41$ nosrep/55-8 $2 50-$ 39-$ t doh enmpiu d es e an nte esni ntem 81eblaT eatrt eqg n, pelpi w Met ilitatinba statiopm nagemamev linepipg seweragg pud pro ilitatinba Reh an im Reh newgnidliuB ilitatinba m negnhisibla m Reh syste Est syste 1 2 3 4 5 sm:S;snosrep000,05>,yticgib:B:etoN See:sliat dedna urces So 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. Small- sized 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 Increased Access to Access to Access to Access to sewage population with Country Sector sewage sewage system sewage system system if MDG access to system (pop. if MDG target target met sewage system (%) thousand) met (%) (pop. thousand) (pop. thousand) 2000 2000 2015 2015 2000-2015 Kazakhstan Urban 73.1 6,069 81.2 7,532 1,462 Moldova Urban 67.6 1,204 77.3 1,451 247 Ukraine Urban 79.8 26,822 85.9 26,203 (619) Kazakhstan Rural 2.4 158 Moldova Rural 3.1 78 Ukraine Rural 20.6 3,273 Kazakhstan Total 42.5 6,319 Moldova Total 29 1,242 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 Rural access to Increased population sewage if MDG met with access (pop. Country Rural (% MDG/Rural Rural access of pop.) (% of pop.) (pop. thousand) (pop. thousand) thousand) 2000 2015 2000-2015 Kazakhstan 98 98.6 6,435 6,585 150 Moldova 98 98.6 2,451 2,244 -207 Ukraine 98 98.6 15,572 12,637 -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 people'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 Moldova Ukraine Method Estimated cost Estimated cost Estimated cost 1 Building latrines, community based methods 7-25/person 7-25/person 7-25/person 2 Replacing equipment and improve management $25-31/person $25-31/person $25-31/person 3 Replacing pipelines $27-68/person $27-68/person $9-40/person 4 Building new pipelines $26-55/person $23-50/person $19-40/person 5 Rehabilitating sewerage system $50-176 /person $50-176 /person $50-176 /person 6 Establishing new treatment system $234-394/person $234-394/person $234-394/person Sources and details: see Table 18 Table 26: Total Sanitation Cost Estimates Costs 2000-2015 Annual Cost: 2000-2015 Cost of Cost of improving Country TC ($ Mn.) rehabilitating access to sewage O&M cost As percent of In $ Mn. sewage system system ($ Mn.) 2002 GDP ($ Mn.) ($ Mn.) Kazakhstan 553 112 369 72 0.1 37 Moldova 106 31 62 14 0.2 7 Ukraine 508 402 66 0.1 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$25 per capita. It is estimated that 35% of the existing WSS systems in the CIS need to be repaired. In urban areas, the MDG target is assumed to imply access to a piped water supply system and a public sewage system; in rural areas, it is assumed to imply access to improved water supply and sanitation as given in the UN MDG definitions. 45 Table 27: Total Cost of Achieving The WSS MDG for All CIS Water Supply Sanitation Total WSS Rural (% Urban (% Annual Rural (% Urban (% Annual (Mln Country improvement improvement Cost (Mln improvement in improvement in Cost (Mln in access to in access to US$) access to better access to piped US$) US$) cleaner water) piped water) sanitation) sewage system) Kazakhstan 5.4 0.9 43 0.6 8.1 37 80 Moldova 3.6 6.1 7 0.6 9.7 7 14 Ukraine 1.8 1.3 67 0.6 6.1 34 101 CIS 578 483 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 Negative Cost US$/MTC Up to Up to Up to Up to Cost (*) Up to $15 $40 $50 $90 $200 Reduction MMTC 220 305 285 70 85 110 Cumulative 220 525 810 880 965 1,075 Reduction MMTC (*) Also referred to as No Regrets Source: Golub et al, (1999) Figure 7: Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Russia: 2008-2012 250 200 150 $/Ton 100 Cost 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 `No Regrets' 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 Less than $40-50 $50-80 $80-100 measures $40 Supply MMTC 120 65 20 35 20 Cumulative 120 185 205 240 260 supply MMTC Source: The World Bank calculation, based on Ukraine NSS Figure 8: Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Ukraine: 2008-2012 120 100 80 $/Ton 60 Cost 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 32Initial 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 one- third 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 No-regret and low- Up to $20 Up to $40 Up to $80 cost measures Supply 20 13 20 3 MMTC Cumulative 20 33 53 56 Supply MMTC Activities Various: Rehabilitation of Small hydro, Solar thermal management, power plants wind, dispatching, energy saving and distribution district heating improvements, etc. improvement Source: The World Bank calculation, based on National Communication to UNFCCC, Kazakhstan, 1988 33Box 1, page 54 of the Kazakhstan Initial Communication Strategy to the UNFCCC. 34 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. 50 Figure 9: Marginal Costs of Mitigation in Kazakhstan: 2008-2012 90 80 70 60 $/Ton 50 40 Cost30 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 Bank'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-resource- poor" 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 1. Proportion of population below $1 (PPP) per day Target 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the 2. Poverty gap ratio (incidence x depth of poverty) proportion of people whose income is 3. Share of poorest quintile in national consumption less than one dollar a day 4. Prevalence of underweight children under five years of Target 2: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the age proportion of people who suffer from 5. Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary hunger energy consumption Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education 6. Net enrolment ratio in primary education Target 3: Ensure that, by 2015, children 7. Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 5 everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be 8. Literacy rate of 15-24-year-olds able to complete a full course of primary schooling Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women 9. Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondaryand tertiary Target 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primary education and secondary education preferably by 10. Ratio of literate women to men of 15- to 24-year-olds 2005 and to all levels of education no 11. Share of women in wage employment in the non- later than 2015 agricultural sector 12. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament Goal 4: Reduce child mortality 13. Under-five mortality rate Target 5: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 14. Infant mortality rate and 2015, the under-five mortality rate 15. Proportion of 1-year-old children immunized against measles Goal 5: Improve maternal health 16. Maternal mortality ratio Target 6: Reduce by three-quarters, between 17. Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 18. HIV prevalence among 15-to-24-year-old pregnant Target 7: Have halted by 2015, and begun to women reverse, the spread of HIV/AIDS 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 Target 8: Have halted by 2015, and begun to 22. Proportion of population in malaria risk areas using reverse, the incidence of malaria and effective malaria prevention and treatment measures other major diseases 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 25. Proportion of land area covered by forest Target 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable 26. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to development into country policies and surface area programmes and reverse the loss of 27. Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per $1 GDP (PPP) environmental resources 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 Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of improved water source, urban and rural people without sustainable access to safe drinking water 31. Proportion of urban population with access to improved Target 11: By 2020, to have achieved a significant sanitation improvement in the lives of at least 100 32. Proportion of households with access to secure tenure million slum dwellers 59 Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development* Target 12: Develop further an open, rule-based, Some of the indicators listed below are monitored s eparately predictable, non-discriminatory trading for the least developed countries (LDCs), Africa, landlocked and financial system countries and small island developing States Includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty reduction ­ both Official development assistance nationally and internationally 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 Target 13: Address the Special Needs of the Least OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic Developed Countries education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation) Includes: tariff and quota free access for 35 Proportion of bilateral ODA of OECD/DAC donors that is LDC exports; enhanced programme of debt untied relief for HIPC and cancellation of official 36 ODA received in landlocked countries as proportion of bilateral debt; and more generous ODA for their GNIs countries committed to poverty reduction 37 ODA received in small island developing States as proportion of their GNIs Target 14: Address the Special Needs of Market access landlocked countries and small island 38 Proportion of total developed country imports (by value developing states and excluding arms) from developing countries and from LDCs, admitted free of duties (through Barbados Programme and 22nd 39 Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on General Assembly provisions) agricultural products and textiles and clothing from Target 15: Deal comprehensively with the debt developing countries problems of developing countries 40 Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as through national and international percentage of their GDP measures in order to make debt 41 Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity sustainable in the long term 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 Target 16: In cooperation with developing total countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth 46 Proportion of population with access to affordable Target 17: In cooperation with pharmaceutical essential drugs on a sustainable basis companies, provide access to affordable, essential drugs in developing countries 47 Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 Target 18: In cooperation with the private sector, population make available the benefits of new 48 Personal computers in use per 100 population (ITU) and technologies, especially information and Internet users per 100 population communications 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 supplied 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 Totalland 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 SocialAffairs 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. UN- HABITAT 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. Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9. 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 1990 2000 Albania 39 36 Armenia 11 12 Azerbaijan 11 13 Belarus 33 45 Bosnia and Herzegovina 45 45 Bulgaria 32 33 Croatia 32 32 Czech Republic 34 34 Estonia 46 49 Georgia 43 43 Hungary 19 20 Kazakhstan 4 5 Kyrgyz Republic 4 5 Latvia 45 47 Lithuania 30 31 Macedonia, FYR 36 36 Moldova 10 10 Poland 30 31 Romania 27 28 Russian Federation 50 50 Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic 41 42 Slovenia 55 55 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 MillenniumDevelopmentGoals Europe&CentralAsia Goal7. Ensureenvironmentalsustainability Target9. Integratetheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopmentintocountrypoliciesandprogramsandreverse thelossofenvironmentalresources. Indicator26. Landareaprotectedtomaintainbiologicaldiversity(%oftotallandarea) 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 SerbiaandMontenegro 3.3 3.3 SlovakRepublic 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 Worldaverage 6.5 11.7 High income countries 10.2 19.5 Low & middle income countries 5.4 9.3 NumberofcountriesreportingdatainECA 28 27 Europe&CentralAsiaaverage 3.3 7.0 Source:WorldConservationMonitoringCentre,ProtectedAreasDataUnitandtheWorldBank 65 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 27. Energy use (Kg oil equivalent) per $1000 (PPP) GDP Country 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Albania 286 264 195 147 138 118 117 105 110 159 149 97 96 Armenia 540 336 214 228 229 233 226 216 224 233 204 Azerbaijan 742 825 982 870 760 701 682 683 514 667 625 Belarus 584 488 461 464 455 409 372 361 335 400 345 BosniaandHerzegovina 173 192 Bulgaria 570 466 493 523 485 491 529 516 491 379 354 500 435 Croatia 264 291 272 255 242 246 249 227 204 256 244 CzechRepublic 388 368 342 320 309 313 307 283 279 313 286 Estonia 642 546 570 498 521 448 420 403 348 400 385 Georgia 264 340 327 144 192 200 213 219 222 200 208 Hungary 290 310 288 288 266 259 260 244 232 227 205 233 217 Kazakhstan 877 796 794 740 632 546 553 489 454 556 476 Kyrgyzstan 379 337 293 262 280 234 244 205 187 250 200 Latvia 425 405 366 312 313 308 289 249 217 294 244 Lithuania 439 409 385 399 401 359 357 302 256 370 323 Macedonia, FYR Poland 461 487 460 456 404 380 385 348 314 280 250 313 286 Republic of Moldova 478 404 467 421 485 468 447 380 327 455 313 Romania 432 398 385 359 319 311 318 304 293 310 295 286 263 Russian Federation 574 609 603 586 589 562 571 678 624 588 526 Serbia and Montenegro Slovak Republic 454 470 449 443 399 377 357 327 317 296 280 313 313 Slovenia 225 228 227 226 227 233 222 211 199 227 204 Tajikistan 874 717 455 485 613 548 553 554 427 526 Turkey 194 185 174 167 171 170 172 170 170 191 187 172 169 Turkmenistan 539 560 852 899 840 937 842 873 715 833 833 Ukraine 698 697 767 839 904 869 844 788 709 833 833 Uzbekistan 978 954 867 871 849 959 937 857 909 909 World average 227 Highincomecountries 208 Low&middleincomecountries 256 Number of countries reporting data in ECA 7 7 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 24 25 Europe & Central Asia 233 Source:TheWorldBank. 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 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Albania 2,210 1,196 724 725 599 649 620 511 501 486 452 500 Armenia 1,028 777 796 982 735 829 970 810 800 Azerbaijan 6,461 6,003 5,561 4,400 4,112 4,180 5,056 4,212 4,100 Belarus 9,150 7,561 6,729 6,085 6,186 6,036 5,870 5,743 6,100 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,195 1,008 1,194 1,247 1,260 1,260 1,275 1,245 1,071 1,200 Bulgaria 9,651 7,617 6,859 7,203 6,925 7,334 7,910 6,999 6,271 5,128 6,734 6,100 Croatia 3,725 3,773 3,763 3,950 4,120 4,304 4,420 4,752 4,527 4,400 Czech Republic 16,058 14,852 13,590 13,061 12,369 12,476 12,848 13,312 12,475 10,586 10,120 12,200 Estonia 24,059 23,629 17,925 14,375 15,164 14,037 14,613 14,317 13,458 11,743 13,100 Georgia 2,804 1,834 1,134 435 803 864 1,035 986 800 Hungary 6,915 6,523 5,876 5,916 5,772 5,843 5,933 5,799 5,694 5,650 5,446 5,900 Kazakhstan 15,088 12,836 11,864 10,028 8,546 8,307 7,531 7,380 8,619 8,000 Kyrgyzstan 2,461 1,848 1,467 1,155 1,389 1,397 1,383 969 1,400 Latvia 8,765 6,920 5,638 4,921 4,626 3,999 3,821 3,502 3,419 2,756 2,897 3,300 Lithuania 10,579 6112 4712 4921 4,079 4,361 4,372 4,519 3750 3,533 4,100 Macedonia, FYR 5,498 5,250 5,293 5,475 5,948 5,379 6,192 5640 4,582 5,500 Poland 9,987 9,594 9,687 9,442 9,641 9,018 9,636 9,346 8,716 8,133 7,729 9,200 Republic of Moldova 4,769 3,574 2,773 2,566 2,645 2,480 2,206 1,515 2,400 Romania 7,434 5,854 5,637 5,532 5,498 5411 5550 5300 4439 3,616 4,040 4,900 Russian Federation 15,997 14,143 13,224 11,191 10,739 10,116 9,390 9,454 9,824 10,842 9,800 Serbia and Montenegro 12,845 8,608 4420 3808 3940 2868 4579 4604 4839 3,716 3,507 4,700 Slovak Republic 11,341 9,934 9,225 8,645 8,062 8,304 8,365 8,406 8,317 7,159 7,076 7,100 Slovenia 7,266 6198 6695 6372 7260 8337 8325 8659 7,265 7,722 7,800 Tajikistan 3,743 2,434 898 901 993 859 850 828 900 Turkey 2,564 2,500 2,517 2,698 2,584 2,789 3,019 3,123 3,133 3,085 3,500 Turkmenistan 7,308 7,053 8,364 8,298 7,314 6,929 6,467 6,360 6,700 Ukraine 13,563 11,298 11,145 9,745 7,885 7,406 6,766 6,324 6,182 7,500 7,300 Uzbekistan 5,584 4,438 5,248 4,621 4,570 4,416 4,332 4,190 4,778 4,230 4,400 World average High income countries 12,337 Low & middle income countries 1,801 Number of countries reporting data in ECA 16 12 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 17 28 Europe & Central Asia Source: Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 67 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. Consumptionof ozone-depleting CFCs (ODP tons) Country 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Albania Armenia 9 25 Azerbaijan 481 456 201 152 100 88 Belarus 1680 1230 1185 914 914 900 579 524 372 256 194 0 Bosnia and Herzegovina 219 145 45 151 176 Bulgaria 2612 2034 1556 1279 690 684 322 4 0 0 0 0 Croatia 515 464 337 434 253 314 194 184 280 86 142 171 Czech Republic 5498 1039 403 369 50 12 8 11 5 Estonia 190 765 -442 45 70 56 16 Georgia 766 53 13 23 31 26 22 22 Hungary 4848 4390 2290 1675 1381 844 566 0 4 1 1 1 Kazakhstan 1395 1214 1206 2218 826 669 1025 Kyrgyzstan 118 106 93 85 82 67 9 57 54 Latvia 4736 665 307 23 25 22 35 Lithuania 5528 4179 3814 2450 596 361 289 100 104 85 37 Macedonia, FYR 1174 206 558 514 487 63 192 49 Poland 4986 4939 2562 2537 2589 1678 1756 549 308 314 187 176 Republic of Moldova 85 51 83 40 11 32 Romania 1649 960 544 763 720 582 338 361 Russian Federation 100102 98752 38949 36607 30130 23413 20990 12345 10986 11821 14824 23821 Serbia and Montenegro 1749 1449 1199 1079 999 868 820 896 832 519 549 Slovak Republic 1979 609 986 229 381 0 1 1 1 2 Slovenia 2391 343 222 1098 594 564 354 1 0 0 0 0 Tajikistan 189 91 32 35 48 56 51 28 Turkey 3131 3519 3223 4118 4451 2661 3789 3759 3870 3985 1791 820 Turkmenistan 171 141 97 67 61 57 56 30 26 25 19 Ukraine 4518 4518 4518 3432 1703 2421 746 1401 1405 1101 951 839 Uzbekistan 2454 585 250 294 260 53 120 53 World High income countries Low & middle income countries Number of countries reporting data in ECA 23 13 16 14 17 19 23 25 25 26 25 23 Europe & Central Asia 151312 127172 61512 56405 50335 37186 34321 22892 20565 20482 19760 26758 Source: UNEP-Ozone Secretariat 68 MillenniumDevelopmentGoals Europe&CentralAsia Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability Target10. Halveby2015,theproportionofpeoplewithoutsustainableaccesstosafedrinkingwater. Indicator 30. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source Total Rural Urban Country 1990 2000 2002 MDG/2015 1990 2000 2002 MDG/2015 1990 2000 2002 MDG/2015 Albania 97 97.9 95 96.5 99 99.3 Armenia Azerbaijan 78 84.6 58 70.6 93 95.1 Belarus 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 BosniaandHerzegovina 97.5 98.3 96.2 97.3 99.6 99.7 Bulgaria 100 100 100 98 100 100 100 Croatia 95 95 96.5 CzechRepublic Estonia Georgia 79 76 85.3 61 72.7 90 93 Hungary 99 99 99 99.5 98 98 98 99 100 100 100 100 Kazakhstan 91 91 93.7 82 82 87.4 98 98 98.6 Kyrgyzstan 77 77 83.9 66 66 76.2 98 98 98.6 Latvia Lithuania 67 Macedonia, FYR 99 99 99.3 Poland Republic of Moldova 92 100 94.4 88 100 91.6 97 100 97.9 Romania 58 58 70.6 16 16 41.2 91 91 93.7 RussianFederation 99 99 99.3 96 96 97.2 100 100 100 Serbia and Montenegro 98 98.6 97 97.9 99 99.3 Slovak Republic 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Slovenia 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Tajikistan 60 72 47 62.9 93 95.1 Turkey 79 82 83 89.5 72 86 84 86 83 81 82 91.5 Turkmenistan 58 58 70.6 Ukraine 98 98.6 94 95.8 100 100 Uzbekistan 85 85 89.5 79 78 85.3 94 96 95.8 World average 76 81 80 88 71 71 94 93 Low & middle income countries 73 79 80 86.5 70 69 93 95 Number of countries reporting data in ECA 22 16 19 12 19 11 Europe&CentralAsia 91 90 93.7 83 96 Source: WHO, Unicef and the World Bank. 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 Total Rural Urban Country 1990 2000 MDG/2015 1990 2000 2002 MDG/2015 1990 2000 2002 MDG/2015 Albania 91 93.7 85 89.5 99 99.3 Armenia Azerbaijan 81 86.7 70 79 90 93 Belarus 100 100 100 100 100 100 Bosnia and Herzegovina 93.5 95.5 90.2 93.14 99.1 99.4 Bulgaria 100 100 Croatia 100 100 Czech Republic Estonia 93 93 95.1 Georgia 100 100 99 99.3 100 100 Hungary 99 99 99.5 98 98 98 99 100 100 100 100 Kazakhstan 99 99.3 98 98 98.6 100 100 100 Kyrgyzstan 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Latvia Lithuania Macedonia, FYR 99 99.3 Poland 100 Republic of Moldova 99 99.3 98 98.6 100 100 Romania 53 67.1 10 10 37 86 86 90.2 Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro 100 100 99 99.3 100 100 Slovak Republic 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Slovenia 100 100 Tajikistan 90 93 88 91.6 97 97.9 Turkey 87 90 93.5 70 70 70 85 97 97 98 98.5 Turkmenistan 100 100 Ukraine 99 99.3 98 98.6 100 100 Uzbekistan 89 92.3 85 100 89.5 97 100 97.9 World 49 56 74.5 37 35 81 84 Low & middle income countries 44 52 72 35 78 Number of countries reporting data in ECA 20 16 7 17 9 Europe & Central Asia 93 95.1 68 98 Source: WHO, Unicef, and The World Bank 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 Mortality rate, adult, female (per 1,000 female Mortality rate, adult, male Mortality rate, infant Mortality rate, under-5 adults) (per 1,000 male adults) (per 1,000 live births) (per 1,000 live births) Country Name 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 Albania .. 86.0 .. 171.0 28.3 20.2 41.5 .. Armenia 119.4 76.0 215.6 171.0 18.6 14.6 23.8 17.1 Azerbaijan 95.8 103.0 216.2 207.0 23.0 12.8 .. 20.5 Belarus 97.9 128.0 254.4 361.0 11.9 11.3 15.8 13.9 Bosnia and Herzegovina 108.9 90.0 186.0 165.0 15.3 12.8 20.5 18.1 Bulgaria 107.3 106.0 211.0 227.0 14.8 13.3 18.7 15.8 Croatia 95.5 117.0 207.2 154.2 10.7 7.5 12.5 9.3 Czech Republic 99.0 78.0 230.0 168.0 10.8 4.1 12.4 6.6 Estonia 106.1 104.0 285.8 294.0 12.4 8.4 17.2 11.3 Georgia 90.1 82.0 195.3 211.0 15.9 17.3 .. 20.8 Hungary 135.0 116.0 290.0 272.0 14.8 9.2 16.8 10.7 Kazakhstan 136.0 166.0 306.0 378.0 26.3 21.1 34.0 27.6 Kyrgyz Republic 142.9 136.0 290.6 297.0 30.0 23.1 41.3 34.6 Latvia 107.8 121.0 295.1 296.0 13.7 9.9 18.1 17.4 Lithuania 91.5 86.0 245.6 248.0 10.3 8.6 13.5 11.4 Macedonia, FYR 100.5 100.0 147.1 159.0 31.6 14.3 33.3 16.9 Moldova 145.6 172.0 268.7 306.0 19.0 18.4 25.2 22.0 Poland 102.0 86.0 264.0 221.0 19.3 8.6 21.9 10.6 Romania 114.0 117.0 237.0 250.0 26.9 18.7 35.7 23.0 Russian Federation 107.0 148.0 297.9 416.0 17.4 16.2 21.4 19.1 Serbia and Montenegro 100.7 105.0 168.0 174.0 22.8 13.0 26.2 15.5 Slovak Republic 99.6 85.0 246.6 212.0 12.0 8.3 14.1 9.7 Slovenia 90.6 73.0 211.0 165.0 8.4 4.6 10.2 6.5 Tajikistan 106.0 142.0 168.2 236.0 40.7 20.6 .. 30.4 Turkey .. 125.0 .. 188.0 58.0 34.5 67.0 42.6 Turkmenistan 134.8 157.0 249.8 282.0 45.2 27.3 .. 42.7 Ukraine 105.1 132.0 267.8 335.0 12.9 12.8 .. 16.2 Uzbekistan 109.2 127.0 207.5 226.0 34.6 21.5 .. 26.8 Number of countries reporting data in ECA 26 28 26 28 28 28 22 27 Europe & Central Asia Source: The World Bank. 71 AnnexIIISurveyDataonMDGs Accesstoimprovedwatersource(percentageofthepopulationusingimproveddrinkingwatersources)2000 Main source of water(% access) Piped Tubewell/b Unprotec Pond, Tanker Totalsafe Pipedinto intoyard Public orehole protected Protected Rainwater Bottled teddug Unprotect river or truck drinking Country Sector dwelling or plot tap withpump dug well spring collection water well edspring stream vender Others 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 Serbiaand Urban 97.5 1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0.6 99.4 Montenegro Rural 68 4.8 1.3 9.1 14.1 1.6 0 0.3 0.8 97.3 total 83.8 2.8 0.6 4.4 6.8 0.7 0 0 0.9 98.4 Source:Unicef(2000),MultipleIndicatorClusterSurvey2 KazakhstandataisfromDemographicandHealthSurvey1995 Note:Pipedwaterintodwelling,pipedwaterintoyardorplot,publictap,tubewell/boreholewithpump,protecteddugwell,protectedspring,andrainwatercollectionareconsideredtobeimprovedwatersources. 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 Total with sewage latrine No sanitary means system or (water seal Improved Traditional facilities, others/mi of excreta Country Sector septic tank type) pit latrine pit latrine Open pit Bucket bush, field ssing disposal Urban 94.8 3.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.3 98.9 Albania Rural 36.6 38.6 2.8 6.5 14.3 1.2 84.5 total 58 25.6 1.9 4.3 9.3 0.9 89.8 Urban 49.7 5.7 1.5 33 9.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 89.9 Azerbaijan Rural 0.7 0.6 0.1 69 29.3 0 0.1 0.2 70.4 total 27 3.3 0.8 49.7 18.8 1 0.1 80.8 Bosnia&Her Urban 97.3 1 0.5 0.3 0.9 0 0 99.1 zegovina Rural 73.2 5.3 7.2 4.5 9.6 0 0.1 0.1 90.2 total 82.2 3.7 4.7 2.9 6.4 0 0.1 93.5 Urban 76.9 2.9 12.6 7.5 0.1 99.9 Georgia Rural 4.1 1 34.3 59.7 1 99.1 total 41.2 2 23.2 33.1 0.5 99.5 Urban 73.1 0.2 26.6 0.1 99.9 Kazakhstan Rural 2.4 95.9 1.7 98.3 total 42.5 0.1 56.6 0.8 99.2 Urban 67.6 3.3 2.2 26.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 99.6 Moldova Rural 3.1 0.3 2.9 91.7 0.9 1 0.1 98 total 29 1.5 2.6 65.5 0.6 0.6 0.2 98.6 Urban 33.2 4.2 7.6 52.3 2.4 0 0.3 97.3 Tajikistan Rural 0.7 0.4 4 82.8 10.9 1.1 0.1 87.9 total 7.7 1.2 4.7 76.2 9.1 0.8 0.3 89.8 Urban 79.8 19.7 0.5 0 100 Ukraine Rural 20.6 74.9 2.1 2.2 0.2 97.6 total 59.4 38.7 1 0.8 0.1 99.1 Republic of Urban 21.1 10.5 25.3 40 2.5 0 0 0.6 96.9 Uzbekistan Rural 0.3 0.2 22 62.7 13.9 0 0.2 0.7 85.2 total 7.1 3.5 23.1 55.3 10.2 0 0.1 0.7 89 Serbia and Urban 87.5 10.1 0.1 1.9 0 0.4 99.6 Montenegro Rural 22.2 55.5 1.3 20.4 0.2 0.4 99.4 total 57.2 31.1 0.7 10.5 0.1 0.4 99.5 Source: Unicef(2000), Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2 Kazakhstan data is from Demographic and Health Survey 1995 Note: Flush to sewage system or septic tank, pour flush latrine (water seal type), improved pit latrine, and traditional pit latrine are considered to be improved sanitation. 73 Biodiversity Statistics Total land Nationally Nationally Forest area, Higher area, protected areas, protected areas, Ramsar sites, Forest area, % of total Mammals, Birds, Higher plants, thousand thous km2 % of total land total area, thousand land area Mammals, threatened Birds, threatened plants, threatened Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Countries km2 (1997) (1996) area (1996) thousand km2 km2 (1995) (1995) species species species species species species species species species Albania 27 0.8 2.9 0.2 10 38.2 68 2 230 7 3031 17 36 15 39 Armenia 28 2.1 7.4 4.9 3 11.8 84 4 242 5 3300 19 53 8 30 Azerbaijan 87 4.8 5.5 1 10 11.4 99 11 248 8 4300 12 .. .. .. Belarus 207 8.6 4.1 2 74 35.5 74 4 221 4 2100 .. 7 12 58 Bosnia 51 0.2 0.4 0.1 27 53.1 72 10 218 2 .. 1 27 16 56 Bulgaria 111 4.9 4.4 0 32 29.3 81 13 240 12 3572 59 36 16 207 Croatia 56 3.7 6.6 0.8 18 32.6 76 10 224 4 .. .. 38 20 111 Czech Republic 77 12.2 15.8 0.4 26 34 81 7 199 6 .. 7 11 21 65 Estonia 42 5.1 12.1 2.2 20 47.6 65 4 213 2 1674 1 5 11 71 Georgia 70 1.9 2.7 0.3 30 42.9 107 10 .. 5 4350 12 53 13 84 Hungary 92 6.3 6.8 1.5 17 18.6 83 8 205 10 2411 8 15 16 81 Kazakhstan 2671 73.4 2.7 0 105 3.9 178 15 396 15 .. 36 49 12 104 Kyrgyz Republic 192 6.9 3.6 .. 7 3.8 83 6 368 5 3786 7 33 4 75 Latvia 62 7.8 12.6 0.4 29 46.4 83 4 217 6 1205 .. 7 13 76 Lithuania 65 6.5 10 0.5 20 30.5 68 5 202 4 1796 .. 8 12 76 Macedonia 25 1.8 7.1 0.2 10 38.9 78 10 210 3 3500 .. 35 17 55 Moldova 33 0.4 1.2 0.2 4 10.8 68 2 177 7 1752 .. 14 14 82 Poland 304 29.1 9.6 0.9 87 28.7 84 10 227 6 2450 1 9 18 66 Romania 230 10.7 4.6 6.6 62 27.1 84 16 247 11 3400 34 30 20 87 Russia 16889 529.1 3.1 103.2 7635 45.2 269 31 628 38 .. 129 75 27 290 Serbia and Montenegro .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4082 50 53 68 141 Slovak Republic 48 10.5 21.8 0.4 20 41.4 85 8 209 4 3124 11 20 20 78 Slovenia 20 1.1 5.5 0 11 53.5 75 10 207 3 3200 1 22 20 95 Tajikistan 141 5.9 4.2 0.9 4 2.9 84 5 365 9 .. 25 44 2 49 Turkey 770 10.7 1.4 1.6 89 11.5 116 15 302 14 .. .. 102 18 175 Turkmenistan 470 19.8 4.2 0 38 8 103 11 397 12 .. 13 82 5 108 Ukraine 579 9 1.6 7.2 92 15.9 108 15 263 10 5100 20 21 17 90 Uzbekistan 414 8.2 2 .. 13.2 3 97 7 431 11 4800 11 58 2 83 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) ­ Results of national surveys as submitted by National Focal Centers ­ Participating All species change 'countries Defoliation classes 2-4 (% points) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2000/2001 Albania 9.8 9.9 10.1 10.2 0.1 Belarus 54 29.2 29.3 37.4 38.3 39.7 36.3 30.5 26 24 20.7 -3.3 Bulgaria 29.1 21.8 23.1 23.2 28.9 38 39.2 49.6 60.2 44.2 46.3 33.8 -12.5 Croatia 15.6 19.2 28.8 39.8 30.1 33.1 25.6 23.1 23.4 25 1.6 Czech Rep. a) 45.3 56.1 51.8 57.7 58.5 71.9 68.6 48.8 50.4 51.7 52.1 0.4 Estonia 8.7 8.7 7.4 8.5 1.1 Hungary 21.7 19.6 21.5 21 21.7 20 19.2 19.4 19 18.2 20.8 21.2 0.4 Latvia 36 37 35 30 20 21.2 19.2 16.6 18.9 20.7 15.6 -5.1 Lithuania 20.4 23.9 17.5 27.4 25.4 24.9 12.6 14.5 15.7 11.6 13.9 11.7 -2.2 Poland 38.4 45 48.8 50 54.9 52.6 39.7 36.6 34.6 30.6 32 30.6 -1.4 Rep. of Moldova 50.8 40.4 41.2 29.1 36.9 7.8 Romania 9.7 16.7 20.5 21.2 21.2 16.9 15.6 12.3 12.7 14.3 13.3 -1 Russian Fed. b) 10.7 12.5 9.8 Serbia and Montenegro 9.8 3.6 7.7 8.4 11.2 8.4 14 5.6 Slovak Rep. 41.5 28.5 36 37.6 41.8 42.6 34 31 32.5 27.8 23.5 31.7 8.2 Slovenia 18.2 15.9 19 16 24.7 19 25.7 27.6 29.1 24.8 28.9 4.1 Turkey Ukraine 2.9 6.4 16.3 21.5 32.4 29.6 46 31.4 51.5 56.2 60.7 39.6 -21.1 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 75