A F T E R T H E W A R
Impacts on Balkan neighbours
The most visible environmental effects of the conflict for Albania, and
FYR Macedonia, came from the massive influx of refugees.Albania
By May 21, there were 465,824 refugees in 306 camps and centers in Albania. Environmental concerns included health problems, the destruction of soil fertility and structure, damage to natural areas and wastewater and sewage problems.
Water for camps came mainly from the systems of nearby towns, often from artesian wells, which often contained untreated water. In camps near Durres on the Adriatic coast, artesian wells were used for some 6,000 people in 1,400 tents. In other areas, drinking water was previously polluted by oil as in the town of Fier - an old problem exacerbated by the increased population.
Sewage was usually disposed in septic holes (not tanks), most of which had reached maximum capacity, threatening soils and surface and ground waters.
During the construction of tent camps, hundreds of hectares of soil lost their function as agricultural land because of camp surfacing. For the Durres camps, 100 hectares of agricultural land was covered by 60 centimetres of concrete and gravel. Many tented camps were constructed along vulnerable riverbeds or near freshwater lakes, or downstream from polluting factories such as the Turkish-run Elbasan Mjeksi camp (pop. 3,500).
Impacts on protected areas and wetlands are quite visible, especially along the Adriatic coast. In early April, several camps were built within protected areas by international organisations without permission. These later sought permission to build within protected areas but were often blocked by Albanian authorities.
Camps located within town boundaries had their solid waste disposed in landfills. In districts without landfill facilities, disposal was done along rivers. In camps in village areas such as in Fier, even small camps produced over 250 kilograms of waste per day, disposed in open fields and often burned.
FYR Macedonia
REC visits to two camps showed good organisational logistics, human health, drinking water supply and sewage treatment, and fair waste management. The Macedonian Ministry of Environment states that there was no identified increase in water pollution from chemicals, toxins or radiation. FYR Macedonia does not have sophisticated equipment for measuring concentrations of chemical pollutants in the air.
However, some long-term damages to the natural, human and urban environments are expected, especially the threat of contamination of Rasce, a major drinking water spring which supplies the capital of Skopje.
Interestingly, increased numbers of rare species were noted, including wolves and bears, having probably fled from Kosovo's military disturbances.
Bulgaria and Romania
The main environmental concern caused by the conflict for Bulgaria and Romania is trans-boundary water and air pollution.
Neither country borders Kosovo, so refugee concerns were limited. But they do sit downstream from Yugoslavia via the Danube River and are often on the downwind side of prevailing winds.
Toxins such as vinyl chloride monomers, chlorine, hydrochloric acid and phosgenes are expected to flow to Romania and Bulgaria via the Danube and into the Black Sea. The Iron Gate reservoirs on the Romanian border are in special danger as they act as collectors of upstream pollution.
Bulgaria's well-developed environmental monitoring systems provided good indications of environmental impacts. Figures to date show no measurable effects on the Danube or on biodiversity although future pollution is expected, most likely through polluted riverbed sedimentation and chemical accumulation in river flora and fauna.
In Romania, the quality of data provided was poor in most cases as agencies lacked proper monitoring equipment. Questionable data includes recordings of acid rain, and copper, cadmium, chromium and lead registered at rates double the maximum allowable concentration in Romania's Danube waters.
