4. The environment and conflict in the Western Balkans
4.1 The Balkan Task Force, conflict and cooperation
As argued in Section 3, the Balkan Task Force assessment presents the starting point for environmental cooperation in the post-conflict Western Balkans. Although it was not originally designed as a part of any relief effort, it produced a great deal of information that inevitably had an important role in directing the activities that followed. The direct linkage of the conflict to its environmental consequences was a novel approach and therefore significant in introducing the environmental conflict discourse to the
118
region. The fact that a UN mission had been mobilised for such a purpose already gave credence to the idea that the natural environment could be one factor to take into account in the context of a conflict.
In addition to the conflict linkage, the BTF assessment may have had an even stronger effect on introducing the environment into the human security discourse due to the way in which it was included in humanitarian relief efforts. This aspect will be discussed in more detail in Section 5. However, the conflict approach is interesting in its own right, not least because the entire discourse so clearly emerged as a part of a conflict and its environmental consequences.
In light of the documents in which environmental cooperation in the Western Balkans was further sketched out, the UNEP assessment did have an influence beyond its immediate results and reception.
Perhaps the most important recognition, in terms of its later impact, is the one by Regional Environmental Reconstruction Program (REReP), which became the main body through which environmental cooperation was organised during the early 2000s. In fact, the entire idea of REReP came about at an informal meeting of the EU Ministers of Environment in Helsinki in June 1999, where the BTF mission was also presented.1 Later, the Joint Statement issued by the Consultation Meeting of High Officials from the Ministries of Environment of South Eastern Europe in Skopje on January 26-27th 2000 listed ‘the UNEP Balkan Task Force’ among the elements providing ‘a good strategic framework for the future work’.2 Correspondingly, the need to remediate the environmental hot spots pointed out by UNEP and the BTF was taken into account in the programme document of REReP, which included this as one of its five Priorities.3 Thus there was a direct link between the environmental conflict thematic and the REReP effort from the very start. In its more detailed strategy documents, REReP put strong emphasis on the stability-building impact of environmental issues.
The BTF assessment also comes up in various other documents that are central to the Western Balkan case. Among others, the 8th annual Economic Forum of the OSCE in 2000 noted it as a welcome effort,
1 REC: The Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe – Model for a Successful Assistance Mechanism. REC, Szentedre 2003b. Available at http://www.rec.org/publication.php?id=82 (Last visited 5.1.2015); REReP Programme March 15-16 2000, 28.
2 Stability Pact: Joint Statement on Regional Environmental Reconstruction Program. Consultation Meeting of High Officials from the Ministries of Environment of South Eastern Europe, Skopje, January 27, 2000; (Stability Pact 26-27 January 2000) available at http://www.stabilitypact.org/environment/000126-27-skopje.asp (Last visited 10.11.2014)
3 REC: Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South eastern Europe (REReP). The Environmental Programme for Working Table II of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. Based on the initial concept developed at the SEE ministerial meeting held in Skopje, Macedonia, on March 15-16, 2000. REReP/TF/1(g). (REReP Programme March 15-16 2000) REC, Szentendre 2000, 22. Available at http://archive.rec.org/REC/Programs/REREP/docs/REReP_Intro.PDF (Last visited 25.11.2014).
119
pointing out that it ‘worked well, allowing an objective analysis that overcame wider political factors’.4 Even later, when the cooperation efforts were already more established, the work of the BTF was credited for example by the Environment for Europe meeting in Kyiv in 20035. Both the Economic Forum and Environment for Europe were important processes within which the discourse on environmental cooperation, and thus also environmental security, were developed further.
These references show that the BTF report had a role in the post-conflict agenda-setting. The attention that the assessment and its results gained inevitably contributed to the perception of the environment as an element worth considering in a conflict. It provided a platform that not only yielded sorely needed data on the environmental status but also carried the implication – sometimes clearly explicated – that environmental problems could further complicate stability-building. Also, the observation that the BTF had worked and managed to overcome some political obstacles suggests a basis for further work on the environmental aspects of conflict.
The involvement of UNEP also had a concrete impact on the Western Balkans because it introduced a permanent presence of the organisation in the region. Rather than just point out the need for urgent clean up in the final report, it also intended to follow up on its recommendations and coordinate the necessary actions. Due to a lack of any effective or existing mechanism to channel international assistance for environmental needs, the BTF team set off in April 2000 to prepare feasibility studies of the four ‘hot spots’ that had been considered the most urgent to tackle.6 It also planned to continue its work in its originally temporary offices in Geneva and was asked by the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe to contribute its expertise on the environmental assessments of other Western Balkan countries.7As a result, UNEP became an integral part of the environmental post-conflict activities in the region.
The work in the Balkans also turned out to become especially important for UNEP itself as it marked the beginning of the Post-conflict and Disaster Management branch. The organisation had not previously taken such a concentrated interest in conflicts or their consequences, but the BTF assessment seemed
4 OSCE: Eighth Meeting of the Economic Forum, Prague 11-14 April 2000. Summary. Available at http://www.osce.org/eea/42131?download=true (Last visited 14.11.2014)
5 UNECE: Fifth Ministerial Conference Environment for Europe, Kiev, Ukraine, 21-23 May 2003. Declaration by the Environment Ministers of the region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Available at http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/efe/Kiev/proceedings/files.pdf/Item%2014_15/14_15Documents/ece.cep.94.
rev.1.e.pdf (Last visited 14.11.2014)
6 UNEP: From Conflict to Sustainable Development. Assessment and Clean-up in Serbia and Montenegro. Final report, UNEP 2004, 9. Available at http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/sam.pdf (Last visited 12.4.2016).
7 Grid-Arendal: UNEP-led Balkans Task Force to Continue Its Work in Yugoslavia. Press Release 8 Feb 2000. Available at http://www.grida.no/news/default/2048.aspx?p=2 (Last visited 10.4.2016)
120
to spark a whole new attention that went even beyond the immediate aftermath of the Western Balkan case. In 2008, the Governing Council of UNEP endorsed the organisation’s work on conflicts as one of its six new strategic priorities.8