Climate Change in the South Caucasus. ENVSEC

Climate Change in the South Caucasus

A Visual Synthesis

Based on official country information from the communications to the UNFCCC, scientific papers and news reports.

This is a Zoï Environment Network publication produced in close cooperation with the ENVSEC Initiative and the Governments of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Valuable inputs were received from the Regional Climate Change Impact Study for the Caucasus Region facilitated by the UNDP. OSCE has provided support for printing and dissemination. Additional financial support was received from UNEP Vienna — Environmental Reference Centre of the Mountain Partnership.


Printed on 100% recycled paper.

© Zoï Environment Network 2011

The Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) transforms environment and security risks into regional cooperation. The Initiative provides multi-stakeholder environment and security assessments and facilitates joint action to reduce tensions and increase cooperation between groups and countries. ENVSEC comprises the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Eu-rope (OSCE), Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as an associated partner. The ENVSEC partners address environment and security risks in four regions: Eastern Europe, South Eastern Europe, Southern Cau-casus and Central Asia.

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part in any form for edu-cational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holders, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. Zoï Environment Network would appreciate receiving a copy of any material that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any commercial purpose what so ever without prior permission in written form from the copyright holders. The use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products for advertising is not permitted. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views of the ENVSEC partner organizations and governments. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever concern-ing the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Mention of a com-mercial company or product does not imply endorsement by the cooperat-ing partners. We regret any errors or omissions that may unwittingly have been made.

ConceptZurab Jincharadze, Otto Simonett

CollagesNina Joerchjan

Maps and GraphicsManana Kurtubadze

Text and interviewsZurab Jincharadze

Design and LayoutManana Kurtubadze, Maria Libert

Contributors and IntervieweesRamaz Chitanava, Nickolai Denisov, Harald Egerer, Farda Imanov, Medea Inashvili, Alex Kirby, Nato Kutaladze, Hamlet Melkonyan, Maharram Mehtiyev, Lesya Nikolayeva, Viktor Novikov, Marina Pandoeva, Marina Shvangiradze, Vahagn Tonoyan, Emil Tsereteli, Asif Verdiyev, Benjamin Zakaryan.

2

The South Caucasus at a Glance6

Contents

Greenhouse Gas Emissionsand Climate Change Mitigation30 Impacts of Climate Change

and Adaptation Measures40

Climate Change Trends and Scenarious in the Region18

3

ForewordCLIMATE ChAnGE In ThE CAuCASuS— A MyTh no LonGERIn Greek mythology the Caucasus is known as the place where Prometheus was chained to the mountain as punish-ment for stealing fire from Zeus and giving it to mortals. His liver is eaten by an eagle during the day, only to regenerate at night, until he is freed by Heracles who kills the eagle. In the Book of Genesis, and the Koran, Mount Ararat — close to the Caucasus — is the place where Noah’s ark is stranded, saving Noah himself, his family and the world’s animals from the great floods. So much for mythology and religion, but strangely enough, both narratives can be linked to climate change: on the one hand Prometheus bringing fire to mankind, starting a long chain of burning and releasing CO₂ to the atmosphere, eventually contributing to climate change; on the other hand Noah escaping the floods — one of the po-tential impacts of climate change. As a stark contrast to its rich cultural diversity and beau-tiful environment, in the modern day Caucasus there are several unresolved — frozen — conflicts hampering the “normal” economic development of the region since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Predicted impacts of climate change will not make the region more secure. With this publication, Zoï Environment Network aims to communicate the known facts of climate change in a well illustrated, easily understandable manner, accessible to everyone. For this we could rely on the rich Caucasian tra-dition of geographic analysis, map making and visual arts. Unfortunately, the format did not allow the use of other Cau-casian specialities, such as music, film, cuisine or toasts, it will be up to the reader to accompany his or her lecture with some of this. We do however want to make the point that also in the Caucasus, climate change is no more myth.

Otto SimonettDirector, Zoï Environment NetworkGeneva, January 2012

Atlas and Prometheus. Laconian Kylix, 6th c. BCE. Vatican Museums

4

INDICATORS Armenia

Climate Change in the South Caucasus: key findings, trends and projections

Air temperature (last half century)

Precipitation and snow (last half century)

Desertification

Extreme weather events and climate-related hazards(1990–2009)

Melting ice (last half century)

Water resources availability in the future (2050–2100)

HealthInfectious and vector-borne diseases

Greenhouse gas emissions 1990–2005

Greenhouse gas emissions 2000–2005

Policy instruments, actions and awareness

Climate observation and weather services(1990–2009)

increase, enchancement increase in some areasdecrease, reduction

Azerbaijan Georgia

Sources: Second National Communications ofArmenia, 2010; Azerbaijan, 2010; Georgia, 2009. 5

Alazani valley from Sighnaghi, GEORGIA

The South Caucasus at a Glance

Yerevan

Gyumri

Armavir

Alaverdi

Makhachkala

Grozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

Sochi

Ganja Mingechevir

Sheki

Goris

Lachin

Meghri

Kapan

Khankendi(Stepanakert)

Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Kars

Van

Poti

metres4,0003,0002,0001,5001,000

500200

00Depression-500-1,000-1,500

Glaciers 100 km0

G

re a

t

C

au

c

a

s

u

s

Kazbek5 033

Shkhara5 068

Aragats4 090

Ararat5 165

Elbrus5 642

Le

ss

er

Ca

uc

as

us

ColchisPlain

Kura-ArasDepression

Talysh

Absheron

CaspianDepression

P o n t i c M o u n t a i n

s

A r m e n i a n

H i g h l a n d

R U S S I A NF E D E R A T I O N

G E O R G I A

A R M E N I A

A Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

T U R K E Y

Adjara

Abkhazia

NagornoKarabakh

Nakhchivan

CASPIANSEA

BLACKSEA

LakeSevan

Lake Van

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Tere

k

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Çoruh (Chorokhi)

Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zdan

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

Lankaran

A Z

8 Climate Change in the South Caucasus

GEnERAL oVERVIEWThe South Caucasus is located in the south-eastern part of Europe, between the Black and Caspian Seas. The furthest western and east-ern boundaries of the region lie between 40°01’ and 50°25’ E, while the northern and southern ones are between 43°35’ and 38°23’ N. The region is bordered by Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran in the South and by the Russian Federation in the North. The three South Caucasian republics — Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia — gained independence after the fall of the former Soviet Union in 1991. Shortly after independence the region underwent devastating ethnic and civil wars, the consequences of which are still to be overcome.

BLACKSEA

AZOVSEA

CASPIANSEA

GEORGIASOUTH

CAUCASUS

NORTH CAUCASUS

LEBANON

SYRIA IRAQCYPRUS

ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

TURKEY

IRAN

UKRAINEKAZAKHSTAN

AZ

150 km0

Yerevan

Gyumri

Armavir

Alaverdi

Makhachkala

Grozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

Sochi

Ganja Mingechevir

Sheki

Goris

Lachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Kars

Van

Poti

metres4,0003,0002,0001,5001,000

500200

00Depression-500-1,000-1,500

Glaciers 100 km0

G

re a

t

C

au

c

a

s

u

s

Kazbek5 033

Shkhara5 068

Aragats4 090

Ararat5 165

Elbrus5 642

Le

ss

er

Ca

uc

as

us

ColchisPlain

Kura-ArasDepression

Talysh

Absheron

CaspianDepression

P o n t i c M o u n t a i n

s

A r m e n i a n

H i g h l a n d

R U S S I A NF E D E R A T I O N

G E O R G I A

A R M E N I A

A Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

T U R K E Y

Adjara

Abkhazia

NagornoKarabakh

Nakhchivan

CASPIANSEA

BLACKSEA

LakeSevan

Lake Van

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Tere

k

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Çoruh (Chorokhi)

Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zdan

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

Lankaran

A Z

9The South Caucasus at a Glance

Average Annual Temperatures in the South Caucasus

Yerevan

Gyumri

Armavir

Alaverdi

MakhachkalaGrozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

MagasNalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

GanjaMingechevir

Sheki

GorisLachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Kars

Poti

100 km0Source: State Hydro-meteorological Services of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia; World Trade Press, 2007.

16.0°13.0°10.0°7.0°5.0°1.5°-1.0°

Temperature (°C)

Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nakhchivan

G E O R G I A

A R M E N I AA Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

T U R K E Y

R U S S I A NF E D E R AT I O N CASPIAN

SEABLACK

SEA

LakeSevan

LakeVan

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Terek

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zd

an

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

Çoruh (Chorokhi)

A Z

GEoGRAphy AnD CLIMATEAlmost every climatic zone is represented in the South Caucasus except for savannas and tropical forests. To the North, the Great Caucasus range protects the region from the direct penetration of cold air. The circulation of these air masses has mainly determined the precipitation regime all over the region. Precipitation decreases from west to east and mountains generally receive higher amounts than low-lying areas. The

absolute maximum annual rainfall is 4,100 mm in south-west Georgia (Adjara), whilst the rainfall in southern Geor-gia, Armenia and western Azerbaijan varies between 300 and 800 mm per year. Temperature generally decreases as elevation rises. The highlands of the Lesser Caucasus mountains in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are marked by sharp temperature contrasts between summer and win-ter months due to a more continental climate.


Average Annual Precipitation in the South Caucasus

Yerevan

Gyumri

Armavir

Alaverdi

MakhachkalaGrozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

MagasNalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

GanjaMingechevir

Sheki

GorisLachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Kars

Poti

100 km0Source: State Hydro-meteorological Services of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia; Geopolitical Atlas of the Caucasus, 2010.

2,000 mm1,600 mm800 mm600 mm400 mm200 mmless than 200 mm

Precipitation

Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nakhchivan

R U S S I A NF E D E R AT I O N

G E O R G I A

A R M E N I AA Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

T U R K E Y

CASPIANSEA

BLACKSEA

LakeSevan

Kura

Aras

Kura

Aras

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Çoruh (Chorokhi)Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zd

an

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

LakeVan

Terek

A Z

The average annual temperature in Armenia is 5.5°C. The highest annual average temperature is 12–14°C. At alti-tudes above 2,500 m the average annual temperatures are below zero. The summer is temperate; in July the average temperature is about 16.7°C, and in Ararat valley it varies between 24–26°C. The average annual temperature at the Black Sea shore is 14–15°C, with extremes ranging from +45°C to -15°C.

The climate in the plains of East Georgia and most of Azer-baijan is dry : in the lowlands, it is dry subtropical, and in mountainous areas alpine. The average annual tempera-ture varies from 11 to 13°C in the plains, from 2 to 7°C in the mountains, and around 0°C in alpine zones. Depending on the altitude and remoteness from the Caspian Sea, climatic types in Azerbaijan vary from arid subtropical in the low-lands to temperate and cold in the high mountains.


CASPIANSEA

BLACKSEA

LakeSevan

Kura

Aras

Kura

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zdan

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

Terek

Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nakhchivan

R U S S I A N

F E D E R A T I O NG E O R G I A

A R M E N I A A Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

T U R K E Y

Yerevan

Gyumri

Armavir

Alaverdi

Makhachkala

Grozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

Sochi

GanjaMingechevir

Goris

Lachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Poti

Subtropical forests

Arid deserts and semi-deserts

Temperate forests

Steppes

Coniferous forests

Sub-alpine and alpine meadows

Glaciers

Floodplains and wetlands

Sources: Caucasus ecoregion — environment and human development issues, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2008; CEO-Caucasus-2002; Geopolitical Atlas of the Caucasus, 2010.

Ecosystems

100 km0

Sheki

Ter e k

A Z


CASPIANSEA

BLACKSEA

LakeSevan

Kura

Aras

Kura

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zdan

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

Terek

Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nakhchivan

R U S S I A N

F E D E R A T I O NG E O R G I A


I R A N

T U R K E Y

Yerevan

Gyumri

Armavir

Alaverdi

Makhachkala

Grozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

Sochi

GanjaMingechevir

Goris

Lachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Poti

Subtropical forests

Arid deserts and semi-deserts

Temperate forests

Steppes

Coniferous forests

Sub-alpine and alpine meadows

Glaciers

Floodplains and wetlands

Sources: Caucasus ecoregion — environment and human development issues, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2008; CEO-Caucasus-2002; Geopolitical Atlas of the Caucasus, 2010.

Ecosystems

100 km0

Sheki

Ter e k

A Z

ECoSySTEMSThe complex topography and diverse vegetation cover of the Cauca-sus is a main reason for an unusually large number of climatic zones and natural ecosystems on a relatively small piece of land like South Caucasus. The region ranges from the subtropical rainy type of forest of the south-east Black Sea coast to the high peaks of the Greater Caucasus, with their glaciers and snow caps, to the steppes and semi-deserts of the lowland east.

Debed river at Northern Armenia

Alazani River in the border of Georgia and Azerbaijan


Population dynamics in 1989–2010

0123456789

10

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Million

Sources: Statistical Year Books of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, 2010; World Bank statistics.

Georgia

Armenia

Azerbaijan

18% 23% 17% 19%

72% 71% 69% 70%

10% 7% 14% 10%

Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Total

Population by age groups in 2010

65 and over

Rural

Urban

15–64

0–14

Sources: Statistical Year Books of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, 2010.

64% 54% 53% 57%

36% 46% 47% 43%

Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Total

Urban and rural population in 2010

MAIn FIGuRESArmenia: Total Population 3.249 millions (2010). Total area 29,743 km². Population density 108.4 per km². Life expectancy 74 years. Net population migration -1.7 per 1,000 population.

Azerbaijan: Total Population 8.997 millions (2010). Total area 86,600 km². Population density 105.8 per km². Life expectancy 70 years. Net population migration -1.4 per 1,000 population.

Georgia: Total Population 4.436 millions (2010). Total area 69,700 km². Population density 68.1 per km². Life expectancy 72 years. Net population mi-gration -18.1 per 1,000 population.



Population in the South Caucasus

G E O R G I A

A R M E N I A

A Z E R B A I J A N

T U R K E Y

I R A N

Yerevan

GyumriAlaverdi

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Zugdidi

Akhaltsikhe

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

GanjaMingechevir

Sheki

GorisLachin

Meghri

Kapan


Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi Adjara

Abkhazia

NagornoKarabakh

Nakhchivan

PotiCASPIAN

SEABLACK

SEA

LakeSevan

Lake Van

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Terek

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Çoruh (Chorokhi) Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zd

an

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

100 km0

Hrazdan Vagharshapat

Shirvan

1 dot = 500 inhabitants

Rural population, 2002

Urban population, 2009

Sources: CEO-Caucasus 2002; Statistical Year Books of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, 2010.

2 millions

1 million300,000100,000–200,00050,000–100,000

Sumgayit

A Z

Little Cavemen from Gobustan, AZERBAIJAN


Industry47%

Agriculture22%

Services31%

Armenia

Industry61%

Agriculture6%

Services33%

Azerbaijan

Industry27%

Agriculture11%

Services62%

Georgia

Source: www.indexmundi.com

GDP by sectors in 2010

EConoMIC oVERVIEWFollowing the disintegration of the former Soviet Union the economies of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia ex-perienced dramatic economic declines at the start of the 1990s. For example in Armenia, between 1990 and 1993, the average annual decrease in GDP was about 18%; In Azerbaijan GDP fell by an annual average of about 13%, while in Georgia, it declined by 70–75% from 1991 to 1994. However, the launching of economic reforms and the achievement of political stability by the second half of the

0

10

20

30

40

50

Million USD USD

Source: World Bank statistics. Source: UN statistics.

GDP in 1990–2010 GDP per capita in 1990–2010

Georgia

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Georgia

Armenia

Azerbaijan

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

1990s meant the economies started to revive and then grow rapidly. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, they grew at nearly 9% a year from 1997 to 2002. In these countries growth rates were even higher in 2003 and 2004 (see table 16). In Geor-gia economic growth has been unstable in recent years, varying between about 1.8% in 2000, 10.6% in 1997, and 6.2% in 2004. The real growth of GDP of Georgia in 2010 amounted to 6.4%.Industry

47%

Agriculture22%

Services31%

Armenia

Industry61%

Agriculture6%

Services33%

Azerbaijan

Industry27%

Agriculture11%

Services62%

Georgia



Industry47%

Agriculture22%

Services31%

Armenia

Industry61%

Agriculture6%

Services33%

Azerbaijan

Industry27%

Agriculture11%

Services62%

Georgia



Industry47%

Agriculture22%

Services31%

Armenia

Industry61%

Agriculture6%

Services33%

Azerbaijan

Industry27%

Agriculture11%

Services62%

Georgia



Industry47%

Agriculture22%

Services31%

Armenia

Industry61%

Agriculture6%

Services33%

Azerbaijan

Industry27%

Agriculture11%

Services62%

Georgia




Land use in 2009

43%

41%

13%3%

Georgia

71%

13%

4%12%

Armenia

55%

12%1%

32%

Azerbaijan

Agricultural land

Forest

Water

Other

Sources: Statistical Year Books of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, 2010.

The Peace Bridge, Tbilisi, GEORGIA


Ararat Valley, ARMENIA

Climate Change Trends and Scenarios in the Region

1

0.5

0

-0.5

Changes of winter air temperature

1.5

1

0.5

0

Changes of summer air temperature

1

0.5

0

(C°)

(C°)

(C°)

1935–2008 for Armenia, 1936–2005 for Georgia, 1960–2005 for Azerbaijan

Sources: UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus, 2011.

Changes of annual air temperature

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATION

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATIONGEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

AZ

AZ

AZ

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATION

Changes of air temperature in the South Caucasus REGIonAL CLIMATE ChAnGE TREnDS To study global warming scenarios and risks associ-ated with climate change trends on a regional level in the South Caucasus, the Environment and Secu-rity (ENVSEC) Initiative launched a project on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus implemented by UNDP. The project brought together leading na-tional experts engaged in the preparation of the sec-ond national communications of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia under the UNFCCC. Precipitation and temperature data from the key meteorological stations of the three South Caucasus countries were examined in the following sequence : Armenia — 32 stations for 1935–2008; Georgia — 21 stations for 1936–2005; Azerbaijan — 14 stations for 1960–2005. Temperature changes were assessed for the summer, winter and the whole year. During the period from 1935 to 2009 in Armenia the annual average temperature increased by 0.85ºC, and in Azerbaijan by 0.5 to 0.6ºC since the 1880s, with the highest registered temperatures during the last 10 years. In Georgia from 1906 to 1995 the mean annual air temperature has increased by 0.1 to 0.5ºC in the eastern part of the country, whilst it has decreased by 0.1 to 0.3ºC in the west (Georgia’s Initial National Communication, 1999). However, if calculating for the last 50 years the data shows a different trend: dur-ing the 1957 to 2006 the mean annual temperatures increased by 0.2ºC in the western part and by 0.3ºC in the eastern Georgia (Georgia’s Second National Com-munication, 2009). Regional differences are also reported from Azer-baijan, with the highest temperature increase in the Greater Caucasus and Kura₂Aras lowlands, and from Armenia, with the warmest regions in the Ararat low-lands and in the zone from the border of Georgia to Lake Sevan.


1955–1970 1990–2007 2020–2049 1955–1970 1990–2007 2020–2049 1955–1970 1990–2007 2020–2049

Normal 1,283 773 868 1,338 1,349 1,525 508 872 1,037Warm 682 1,551 2,558 796 843 1,161 463 607 1,063

Very warm 482 736 745 310 545 1,527 331 749 1,858Hot 1 0 305 4 17 287 13 63 539

Very hot 0 0 113 0 0 0 0 0 3Extremly hot 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of dangerous days 483 736 1,164 314 562 1,814 344 812 2,400

Vanadzor Tbilisi BakuComparison of “dangerous” days in Vanadzor, Tbilisi and Baku in the past and future

Source: UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus, 2011.

Values of heat Index (human thermal comfort)Relativehumidity

Temperature (C°)26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 32° 33° 34° 35° 36° 37° 38° 39° 40° 41°

90% 28.0 30.7 33.8 37.1 40.7 44.7 48.9 53.5 58.5 63.7 63.7 75.1 81.2 87.7 94.5 101.685% 27.9 30.2 32.9 35.9 39.1 42.7 46.6 50.8 55.2 60.0 65.1 70.4 76.1 82.1 88.3 94.980% 27.7 29.7 32.1 34.7 37.7 40.9

39.237.638.734.933.732.631.730.930.329.7

44.442.340.438.737.135.634.433.332.331.530.8

48.145.743.541.439.537.836.334.933.832.832.0

52.249.446.844.442.240.238.436.835.434.333.3

56.553.350.347.645.142.840.738.837.235.834.7

61.257.554.251.048.145.543.141.039.137.536.2

66.162.058.254.751.448.545.843.441.239.337.8

71.366.862.558.655.051.648.645.943.441.339.4

76.8 82.5 88.675% 27.5 29.3 31.4 33.7 36.3 71.8 77.0 82.670% 27.3 28.9 30.7 32.7 35.0 67.1 71.9 77.065% 27.1 28.5 30.0 31.8 33.8 62.7 67.1 71.760% 26.9 28.1 29.5 31.0 32.8 58.7 62.6 66.855% 26.7 27.7 28.9 30.3 31.9 55.0 58.5 62.350% 26.6 27.4 28.5 29.7 31.1 51.6 54.8 58.145% 26.4 27.1 28.0 29.1 30.3 48.5 51.3 54.340% 26.3 26.9 27.7 28.6 29.7 45.8 48.3 20.935% 26.0 26.6 27.4 28.2 29.2 43.3 45.5 47.830% 25.8 26.4 27.1 27.9 28.8 41.2 43.1 45.1

Note: Exposure to full sunchine can increase heat index values by up to 10°C

Source: UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus, 2011.

hE AT WAVES The UNDP/ENVSEC regional climate study group constructed a regional model on the urban heat wave trends for some South Caucasian cities, includ-ing Tbilisi, Baku and Vanadzor. The study assessed one of the important indicators of climate change — the Heat Index that is a combination of air temperature and relative humid-ity during the warm periods of a year. The table above demonstrates how Heat Indexes are “translated” to an actual feeling of human comfort when the temperatures (C°) are combined with the relative humidity

(%). The team explored daily meteorological data for warm periods (May to September) of the 1955–1970 and 1990–2007 time sequences, using PRECIS statistical analysis, and generated a forecast for 2020–2049. The calculation was based on the Global Climate Model — ECHAM. Analy-sis of the calculation and forecast models show that four out of six classes of Heat Indexes have risen during the last 15–20 years (1990–2007) and are expected to increase dra-matically for one of three critical classes (orange/hot class with extreme warning of risk) during the coming decades.

21Climate Change Trends and Scenarios in the Region

5

4

3.5

Changes in 2071–2100

3

2.5


1.5


(C°)

(C°)

(C°)

Source: UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus, 2011

Forecasted changes of annual air temperature in the South Caucasus

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATION

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

AZ

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATION

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

AZ

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATION

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

AZ

(by HadCM3 modeling of MAGICC/SCENGEN)

GCM pRECIS MoDELSThe analysis of climate change scenarios developed for all three South Caucasus countries using PRECIS outputs and the MAGICC/SCENGEN modelling tool re-vealed that changes of temperature by the end of the century will vary in the range of 3–6°C. According to the forecast made by the most appro-priate models for the years 2070–2100 the highest in-crement in temperature, 7.7°C, should be anticipated in West Georgia in the summer. The lowest increment, for the same time period, 2.1°C, is expected in Armenia during the winter. The expected increase in mean annual temperature is similar for Armenia and Georgia and is likely to be about 5°C. In Azerbaijan the expected increase is lower, around 3.6°C.


-5%

-10%

-15%

-20%

Source: UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus, 2011

0%

-5%

-10%

5%

0%

-5%




Forecasted changes of annual precipitation in the South Caucasus

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATION

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

AZ

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATION

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

AZ

IRAN

TURKEY

BLACKSEA CASPIAN

SEA

RUSSIANFEDERATION

GEORGIA

ARMENIAAZERBAIJAN

AZ

(by HadCM3 modeling of MAGICC/SCENGEN)

According to the results shown by the HadCM3 climate modelling tool (which is a modification of HAD300 and is considered as best suited model to the Caucasus re-gion) the decrease in annual precipitation in the period 2070–2100 will be around 15% for Azerbaijan and Geor-gia, rising to 24% for Armenia. The highest decrease in precipitation is forecast for Georgia — 80.8% in summer and 68% in spring. The lowest decrease is expected in Azerbaijan, 11% in sum-mer. The highest increase ( 22%) is likely also to be in Azerbaijan in the winter.


Winter Spring Summer Autumn Annual

2030

2070

2100


2030

2070

2100

1 1 1 1 1

3

4 4 4 45

3 3 3 3

-3 -3 -7 1 -3

-5

-7 -19 3 -9-8

-5 -14 3 -6

Changes in seasonal and annual Temperature and Precipitation in Armenia,compared to 1961–1990

Precipitation change (%)(C°) Temperature change

Sources: Armenia’s Second National Communication, 2010.

Changes in average annual Temperature andPrecipitation in Armenia, 1940–2008 compared

to 1961–1990

Precipitation change (mm)

Source: Armenia’s Second National Communication, 2010.

1.0

0.5

0

-0.5

-1.0

100

50

0

-50

-100

Temperature change (C°)

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

CLIMATE ChAnGE TREnDS In ARMEnIAAs a mountainous country with an arid climate, Armenia is highly vulnerable to global climate change. It’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC estimated devia-tions of annual air temperature and precipitation recorded in 1940–2008 from the average of the period of 1961–1990. According to the study average annual temperatures have increased by 0.85°C, while annual precipitation decreased by 6% during the last 80 years. However, the changes show different trends by regions and seasons. In general, the average air temperature has increased by 10°C in summer months, while it stayed sta-ble in winter months. During the last 15 years summers were extremely hot, especially in 1998, 2000 and 2006. The 2006 is considered the hottest recorded in Armenia between 1929 and 2008. The spatial distribution of annual precipitation changes in Armenia is quite irregular; north₂eastern and central ( Ararat valley) regions of the country have become more arid, while the southern and north₂western parts and the Lake Sevan basin have had a significant increase in precipitation in the last 70 years.


Changes in average annual Temperature inAzerbaijan, 1991–2000 compared to 1961–1990

Absheron (Mashtaga)2

1

0

-1

-2

Sources: Azerbaijan’s Second National Communication, 2010.

C°

Ganja

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2

1

0

-1

-2

C°

Lankaran2

1

0

-1

-2

C°

Nakhchivan2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

C°

CLIMATE ChAnGE TREnDS In AzERbAIjAnClimate change trends have been visible in Azerbaijan for some decades too. The data from the National Hydrometeorology Department for 1991–2000 show an increase in temperature by an average 0.41°C, which is three times larger than the increase from 1961 to 1990. As part of the National Communication study, the average annual temperature and precipitation anoma-lies have been analysed in 7 regions of Azerbaijan for the period 1991 to 2000. Compared to the 1961–90 level, temperature anomalies were particularly visible in the Kura-Aras Lowland and ranged from -1.12°C to +1.91°C. The average annual precipitation was below the norm in almost all regions. However, differences seemed more significant in the Kura-Aras Lowland, where they were 14.3% lower, in Ganja-Gazakh (17.7%), and in Nakhchivan (17.1%). In summary, over the past 10 years the rainfall level in Azerbaijan has fallen by 9.9%.


Source: www.climatewizard.org

Changes in annual Temperature and Precipitation in Georgia1951–2002(C°) Temperature change Precipitation change (%)

120

110

100

90

7.5

7

6.5

6

5.5

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

-20

-40

-60

0

20

40

60

80Precipitation change (%)

-1

0

0.5

-0.5

1

1.5

2

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Changes in Temperature and Precipitation in Dedoplistskaro and Lentekhi1990–2005 compared to 1955–1970

Source: Georgia’s Second National Communication, 2009.

(C°) Temperature change

Dedoplistskaro Lentekhi

CLIMATE ChAnGE TREnDS In GEoRGIA The latest studies of climate patterns in Georgia show changes of major parameters — mean and extreme air temperatures, relative humidity, moisture regimes, average annual precipitation, etc. — which clearly indicate an over-all trend of changing climate in the region. The UNFCCC Second National Communication from Georgia identifies three areas as most sensitive to climate change and there-fore vulnerable to future extremes: the Black Sea coastal

zone, Lower Svaneti (Lentekhi district) and Dedoplistskaro district of the Alazani river basin. To investigate the climate change process in Georgia, a survey of climate parameter trends was undertaken for the whole territory and for the priority regions in particu-lar. The trends of change in mean annual air temperatures, mean annual precipitation totals and in the moistening re-gime were estimated between 1955–1970 and 1990–2005.


The statistical analysis revealed increasing trends in both mean annual air temperature and annual precipitation total from the first to the second period in all three priority re-gions, accompanied by a decrease in hydrothermal coeffi-cient (HTC) in the Dedoplistskaro region, and its increase in the other two priority regions. At the same time, the rates of air temperature and precipitation change in priority regions were assessed for four time intervals of different duration (1906–2005; 1966–2005; 1985–2005 and 1995–2005). This survey demonstrated an exceptionally steep rise in annual air temperature in all three priority regions over the last 20 years.

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1,0000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000Altitude, m

Precipitation, mm

East part

West part

Precipitation at different altitudes of theAlazani River catchment

Source: Calibration of hydrological model for the Alazani River in WEAP, UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus, 2011.

Alazani River


The Khrami-Debed River Basin

AZ

GEORGIA

ARMENIA

13%

15%

16%

16%

17%

5°

5°

5°

5°

5°

DilijanIjevan

Red Bridge

Vanadzor

DmanisiAkhalkalaki

Bolnisi

Tashir

Stepanavan

Tsalka

Tbilisi

Eddikilisa

TumanianGargar

Sadakhlo

Debed

Khrami

Khrami

Khrami IoriKura

Kura

Mashavera

Tas hir

11%

4,8°Precipitation

%Temperature

C°

Increase

Decrease

10 km0

Pambak

8%

4.9°

5%

5.8°

4%

5.2°

8%

5.3° 12%

5.3°

11%

4.8°

7%

5.4°

RUSSIANFEDERATION

GEORGIA

AZERBAIJAN

Telavi

Gurjaani

Kvareli

ZakatalaTsnori

Akhmeta

Sheki

Tbilisi

Mingechevirreserv.

IoriKura

Alazani

Lagodekhi

The Alazani River Basin

11%

4.8°Precipitation

%Temperature

C°

Increase

Decrease

50 km0

GEORGIA

ARMENIA

BLACKSEA

CASPIANSEA

AZERBAIJAN

Alazani river basin

Khrami-Debedriver basin

ChAnGES In hyDRoLoGICAL bALAnCE In ThE KhRAMI-DEbED AnD ALAzAnI RIVER bASInSThe Khrami-Debed and Alazani river basins are two important trans-boundary watersheds and major sub-basins of the greater Kura river, sharing scarce water resources between Armenia and Georgia (Khrami-Debed) and Azerbaijan and Georgia (Ala-zani). This area is prone to land degradation and de-sertification from the forecast extremes of climate change, translating to economic losses and in-creased poverty for local population The UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus evaluated the vul-nerability of these river basins to climate change us-ing PRECIS and WEAP (Water Evaluation and Plan-ning Model) tools to assess the changes expected in mean annual temperatures, precipitation and an-nual stream flows compared with the baseline years of 1961–1990. The results of the study showed that immediate adaptation measures have to be taken by all ripar-ian countries to overcome the expected losses to the economy of the region.

Expected annual changes in air temperatures and precipitation in the Khrami-Debed and Alazani river basins 2071–2100 compared with 1961–1990


Average annual stream flow in the Khrami-Debed River (mln m³) in 1966–1990

267 336 480

924

1,593

Yeddikilisa Tumanyan Gargar Sadakhlo Red Bridge

The Khrami-Debed River Basin

AZ

GEORGIA

ARMENIA

DilijanIjevan

Red Bridge

Vanadzor

DmanisiAkhalkalaki

Bolnisi

Tashir

Stepanavan

TsalkaYeddikilisa

TumanyanGargar

Sadakhlo

Debed

Khrami

Khrami

Khrami Kura

Kura

Mashavera

Tas hir

Pambak

29%50%

Section

Difference with 2041–2070 (%)


29%

31%54%

29%51%

40%60%

54%

10 km0

38%

44%

46%

27%

26%

28%

35%

Telavi

Gurjaani

KvareliLagodekhi

Zakatala

Tsnori

Akhmeta

Chiauri

Confluence

Shakriani

ZemoKedi

Sheki

Tbilisi

Mingechevirreserv.

Iori

KuraAl

azan

i

Agrichai

Alazani

GEORGIA

AZERBAIJAN

RUSSIANFEDERATION

Section



The Alazani River Basin

59%

50 km0

1,336

1,874

3,1183,502

Shakriani Chiauri Zemo Kedi Agrichay

Average annual stream flow in the Alazani River (mln m³) in 1966–1990

Changes in average annual stream flows at different points of the Khrami-Debed and Alazani rivers, baseline 1961–1990

Sources: Assessment of vulnerability of water resources to climate change, 2011; Georgia’s Second National Communication, 2009.


Neft Dashlari (Oily Rocks), AZERBAIJAN

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation

Waste

Agriculture

Induatrial Processes

Energy

1990 level

-100% -80% -60% -40% +40%-20% +20%0

Greenhouse gas emissions change from 1990 to 2006 in Armenia


N2O

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

25

24

23

22

21

CH4

CO2

Million tonnes of CO2 equivalent

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

25

24

23

22

21


Greenhouse gas emissions in Armenia, 1990–2006*

AgricultureWaste

Induatrial ProcessesEnergy


* Without LULUCF

By gases By sectors

1990 1995 2000 20051990 1995 2000 2005


After the sharp economic decline of 1991–1994, Armenia was able to achieve economic stability and growth. Eco-nomic growth in 1995–2000 amounted to an annual aver-age of 5.4%, and in 2001–2006 the average growth rate was 12.4%. These shifts have positively influenced the decline of Armenia’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon di-oxide emissions in 2006 declined by 81% compared with

the 1990 level, methane by 38% and nitrous oxide by 42%. The energy sector accounted for the major part of the total GHG emissions in 1990–2006. However, energy- related emissions fell in that period — from 91% in 1990 to 64.7% in 2006 (Armenia’s Second National Communica-tion, 2010).

G E O R G I A


T U R K E Y

I R A N

Yerevan

Gyumri

Alaverdi

Vanadzor

Artik

GorisSisian

Meghri

Kapan


NagornoKarabakh

Nakhchivan(Azerbaijan)

LakeSevan

Iori

Kura

Kura

Hrazdan

Echmiadzin

Armavir Ararat

NS

NS

Aras

Aras

BTE

BTC, BS

Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Aras hydroschemereserv.

Vineyard

Fruit-growering

GardenArable land

Iron

Copper-molybdenumCooper

RailwayRoads

Oil pipelineGas pipeline

Lead and zincChromiteAluminium

50 km0

MetallurgyChemical industryEngineering and metal-working Production of building materials

Sources: SoE-Armenia, 2002, GRID-Arendal; Armenia’s Second National Communication, 2010; Geopolitical Atlas of the Caucasus, 2010; GENI.

Economic map of Armenia

BTCBS

BTENS

— Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan— Baku-Supsa— Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum— North-South

Coal

ARMEnIA: GhG EMISSIonS by EConoMIC SECToRS

33Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation


Greenhouse gas emissions in Azerbaijan, 1990–2005


Source: Azerbaijan’s Second National Communication, 2010.

By gases By sectors

AgricultureWaste

Industrial processesEnergy

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

N2OCH4

CO2

1990 1995 2000 20051990 1995 2000 2005

Baku, AZERBAIJAN

Greenhouse gas emissions changefrom 1990 to 2006 in Azerbaijan

Source: Azerbaijan’s Second National Communication, 2010.

Waste

Energy

1990 level

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0


GanjaTovuz Mingechevir

Kurdamir

Yevlakh


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Aras

Samur

Mingechevirreserv.

Iori

Kura

Alazani

Beylagan

G E O R G I A

A R M E N I A

A Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

CASPIAN

SEA

LakeSevan

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Nakhchivan

NS

NS

From

Kaz

akhs

tan

BTE

BTC, BS

NagornoKarabakh

Ali-Bairamli

Sangachal

Dubendi

Neft Dashlari

Salyan

Shah-Deniz Absheron

Chirag

RUSSIANFEDERATION

Arashydroscheme

reserv.VineyardGardenArable land

Cotton growing

Economic map ofAzerbaijan

Refinery Fishery

Sheep breeding

RailwayRoads

Oil pipelineGas pipeline

Oil fieldGas field


MolybdenumAluminium

GypsumCementIronCopper

Lead and zincGold

Natural gasOil

50 km0

Oil terminalTransport by tanker

Sources: Geopolitical Atlas of the Caucasus, 2010; GRID-Arendal, Caucasus ecoregion, 2008;Azerbaijan international, 11.04.2003; European Tribune; StratOil; Londex Resources.

BTCBS

— Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan— Baku-Supsa

BTENS

— Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum— North-South

A Z

The economic potential of Azerbaijan is mainly determined by its oil and gas industry, the production of chemicals and petrochemicals, metallurgy, mechanical engineering, tex-tiles and the food industry. The agricultural sector consists mostly of wheat, cotton, wine, fruit, tobacco, tea, vegetables and cattle breeding. The predominant part of Azerbaijan’s exports comes from

oil and oil products, electrical energy, cotton and silk fibres. The level of GHG emissions in Azerbaijan in 2005 amounted to 70.6% of the 1990 base year level. The main sources of CO₂ emissions are the energy and industrial sectors, especially from burning fuel for energy production, oil and gas extraction, transport, and human settlements (Azerbaijan’s Second National Communication, 2010).

AzERbAIjAn: GhG EMISSIonS by EConoMIC SECToRS


N2OCH4

CO2

Million tonnes of CO2 equivalent By gases

AgricultureWaste

1990 1995 2000 2005

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Industrial processesEnergy


Source: Georgia’s Second National Communication, 2009

By sectors

Greenhouse gas emissions in Georgia, 1990–2006

1990 2000 2006

Energy

Agriculture

Waste

Industrial processes

Source: Georgia’s Second National Communication, 2009

1990 level

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0

Greenhouse gas emissions changefrom 1990 to 2006 in Georgia


Source: Geopolitical Atlas of the Caucasus, 2010; GRID-Tbilisi data.

Oil terminal

Transportby tanker

BTCBS

BTENS

— Baku-Tbilisi-Ceihan— Baku-Supsa— Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum— North-South

Gypsum

Wine-producing

Cement

VineyardGardenArable land

Iron

CopperManganese

RailwayRoadsOil pipelineGas pipeline

Lead and zincGold

Bituminous coalNatural gasOil

Brown coalPeat


50 km0

Refinery

Fishery



G E O R G I A

T U R K E Y

GoriKaspi

Kazreti

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Ozurgeti Zestaponi

Tkibuli

Tkvarcheli

Gagra

Zugdidi

Chiatura

Akhaltsikhe

Sukhumi

TbilisiBatumi

Poti

SupsaKobuleti

KuleviAnaklia

BLACK

SEA

Terek

Terek

Sulak

Çoruh

(Chorokhi)

Rioni

Rioni

Debed

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

Ingu

ri

Adjara

Abkhazia

Economic map of Georgia

BTE

NS

BTC

BS

BTE

BTC, BS

Georgia’s economic growth has become irreversible since 2004. Georgia’s industry consists of machinery, mining, the chemical industry, ferroalloys, wood, wine and mineral water. Agriculture has been a leading sector since Soviet times. Traditional crops include grapes, wheat, maize, fruit (in-cluding citrus), and tea. Total GHG emissions in Georgia began to sharply de-crease after 1990. Since 1991, the share of the energy sec-

tor in total emissions has been decreasing almost continu-ously. In 2006, its share comprised 45.6%, while in 1990 it had been 76.3%. The share of emissions from industrial processes in 2006 was approximately the same as in 1987, though the actual emissions decreased by about four times. Key sources of GHG emissions in 2000 and 2006 did not change significantly compared with 1990. However, the relative importance of different sources has changed (Georgia’s Second National Communication, 2009).

GEoRGIA: GhG EMISSIonS by EConoMIC SECToRS



G E O R G I A

A R M E N I A

A Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

T U R K E Y

Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

InguriLajanuri

Zhinvali

Tkvarcheli

Khrami 1Khrami 2

Vardnili-1

Argel

Kanaker

Mingechevir

Shamkir Yenikend

ShambTatev

Yerevan

Hrazdan

MtkvariGardabani

Azerbaijan

Shirvan

Sumgayit Shimal

Baku

Tbilisi

CASPIAN

SEA

BLACK

SEA

LakeSevan

LakeVan

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Terek

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Çoruh (Chorokh

i) DebedMingechevir reserv.

Hra

zdan

Iori

Alazani

Inguri

Power Generation and Transmission in the South Caucasus

Ksani

Absheronsubstation

Zestaponi

Yerevan

Gyumri

Metsamor(440 MW)

Alaverdi

MakhachkalaGrozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

Ganja

Mingechevir

Goris

Lachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Kars

Van

Poti

Nakhchivan

Sources: Ministries of Energy and Natural Resources of Armenia and Georgia; GENI; APESA, Global Energy Observatory.

500 kV

Hydro Power Plant Thermal Power Plant

Gas PP Oil PPNuclear Power Plant

220 kV

330 kV

1,300 MW

330–500 MW

110–330 MW

10–110 MW

110 kV100 km0

500 kV330 kV

220 kV

110 kV

110–220 MW

300–550 MW

800–1,200 MW

2,400 MW

Transmission substations Transmission lines

A Z


Georgia

Natural gas

Oil products

Source: InternationalEnergy Agency.

Hydropower

NuclearAzerbaijan

ArmeniaKey sources of electricity in 2008 (in %)

ThE EnERGy SECToR In ThE SouTh CAuCASuS The sources and means of energy generation, despite coexisting in the same region, differ greatly in the South Caucasus countries. In a country rich in fossil fuels, oil products and natural gas are com-monly consumed in Azerbaijan. Energy production there is based on natural gas, fuel oil and hydropower. Thermal power plants account for 89% and hydro-power for 10% of total energy generation. Armenia does not possess its own fuel resources and satisfies its demand for fuel through imports. Its own primary energy resources (hydro, nuclear) cover 31% of the country’s total energy consump-tion. The main type of fuel consumed is natural gas. In 2000–2006, the share of natural gas in total fuel consumption reached 70–79%. Over 80% of Georgia’s electricity is produced by hydropower. The rest mainly comes from thermal power plants, using gas exported from Azerbaijan and Iran. There is an economically viable potential of 32 TWh of hydropower production capacity, one of the largest in the world, of which only 18% is currently being utilized. Georgia became a net electricity exporter in 2007. With its massive unused capacity and its current per capita electricity consumption, one of the lowest in Europe, Georgia can easily increase its electricity exports while satisfying fast-growing domestic electricity consumption, which is rising by 8–9% annually (Second National Communications of Arme-nia, Azerbaijan and Georgia).


G E O R G I A

A R M E N I A

A Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

T U R K E Y

Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

InguriLajanuri

Zhinvali

Tkvarcheli

Khrami 1Khrami 2

Vardnili-1

Argel

Kanaker

Mingechevir

Shamkir Yenikend

ShambTatev

Yerevan

Hrazdan

MtkvariGardabani

Azerbaijan

Shirvan

Sumgayit Shimal

Baku

Tbilisi

CASPIAN

SEA

BLACK

SEA

LakeSevan

LakeVan

KuraAras

Aras

Kura

Terek

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Çoruh (Chorokh

i) DebedMingechevir reserv.

Hra

zdan

Iori

Alazani

Inguri

Power Generation and Transmission in the South Caucasus

Ksani

Absheronsubstation

Zestaponi

Yerevan

Gyumri

Metsamor(440 MW)

Alaverdi

MakhachkalaGrozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

Ganja

Mingechevir

Goris

Lachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Kars

Van

Poti

Nakhchivan

Sources: Ministries of Energy and Natural Resources of Armenia and Georgia; GENI; APESA, Global Energy Observatory.

500 kV

Hydro Power Plant Thermal Power Plant

Gas PP Oil PPNuclear Power Plant

220 kV

330 kV

1,300 MW

330–500 MW

110–330 MW

10–110 MW

110 kV100 km0

500 kV330 kV

220 kV

110 kV

110–220 MW

300–550 MW

800–1,200 MW

2,400 MW

Transmission substations Transmission lines

A Z


Hatsvali with Ushba Mountain, Upper Svaneti, GEORGIA

Impact of Climate Change and Adaptation Measures

Source: Georgia’s Second National Communication, 2009.

KutaisiSamtredia

Zugdidi

Sukhumi

Gagra

The Rioni River delta

Black Sea Coast,Georgia

The Rioni Riverlower reaches

SukhumiCoastal

zone

The ChorokhiRiver delta

Batumi

PotiSupsa

KuleviBLACKSEA

Rion

i

Ingu

ri

Psou

Kodori

Bzib

Chorokhi

Tskhenistsk

ali

Adjara

Abkhazia

+0.2 m

+0.4 m

+0.7 m

LakePaliastomi

+40%

+60%

+40%

+1.6°+0.3 m

+0.45 m

-0.6°

+1.3°

+60% Rio n i

Sea level rise for the last century

Storm surges for the last half century

Sea surface water temperature since 1991

Sedimentation

G E O R G I A

-26-27-28-29

mBS

Caspian Sea levelchange in 1840–2005

1840 1880 1920 1960 2000

72

372

1118

42

38

60

32

60

-25.0 m BS

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

-26.5 m BS3260

CASPIANSEA

Samur

Kura

RUSSIANFEDERATION

A Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

Sumgayit

Astara

Neftchala

Baku

Aras

Caspian Sea Coast,Azerbaijan

Talysh

Absheron

Source: Azerbaijan’s Second National Communication, 2010; MENR-Azerbaijan.

0

200

200

500

500

1000

1000

2000

2000

3000

Inundated area (km²)at two differents levels

by four segments:

Kura-Aras Lowland

IMpACTS oF CLIMATE ChAnGE: ThE bLACK SEA CoAST, GEoRGIAThe Georgian Black Sea coastal zone is considered the area most vulnerable to climate change in Georgia. Highly developed coastal infrastructure, with a dense network of railways and highways stretched along the coast, the im-portant transportation and industrial hubs of port cities like Batumi, Poti and Sukhumi, and the great number of settlements all play a significant role in the regional econ-omy. Georgia’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC defines several specific sensitive areas along the coastal zone : Rioni river delta, Chorokhi river delta, the lower reaches of the Rioni river and the Sukhumi coastal area. Some studies suggest the Rioni delta is the most vulnerable area, already experiencing sea level rise and increased storm surges. This situation will trigger more change in the future, with a predicted temperature rise and consequent negative impact on the environment (Georgia’s Second National Communication, 2010).

IMpACTS oF CLIMATE ChAnGE:ThE CASpIAn SEA CoAST, AzERbAIjAn Sea level fluctuations are a major cause of concern for the Caspian Sea shoreline. As the largest naturally enclosed water body on Earth, with no outflow to the oceans, the Caspian Sea is particularly vulnerable to global climate change processes. Starting from 1961 a level of -28.0 m below sea level (BS) was conditionally taken as the zero point for the Caspian Sea for observation and planning purposes. Azerbaijan’s Second National Communication predicts a further increase of sea level for another 30 to 40 years within the range of -26.5 to -25.0 m BS. Projected damage to the economy would be within the magnitude of USD 4.1 bn. Consequently Azerbaijan is preparing to take adaptation measures (Azerbaijan’s Second National Com-munication, 2010).



2030

2070

2100

SpringWinter Summer Autumn Annual

2030

2070

2100

1.4 0.9 1.8 1.8 1.5

3.2

4–6 5–7 5–7 4.1–6.12.5–4.5

2.1 3.9 3.9 3.3

-7

7

East shore

West shore

East shore

West shore

East shore

West shore

-15

15

-20

20

-10

10

-25

-15

-5

15

-15

7.5

-7

11

-18

-11

-4

11

-11

6

- 4

+4

-9

-5

-2

5

- 5.5

2.8

Changes in seasonal and annual Temperature and Precipitation in the Lake Sevan basin, compared to 1961–1990Precipitation change (%)Temperature change (C°)

Sources: Vulnerability of water resources in the Republic of Armenia under climate change, Yerevan, 2009.

Calm and nice Lake Sevan, sometimes as stormy as any sea

43Impact of Climate Change and Adaptation Measures


Mudflow and landslide high riskzones in the South Caucasus

G E O R G I A

A R M E N I A

A Z E R B A I J A N

I R A N

T U R K E Y

Yerevan

Gyumri

Armavir

Alaverdi

MakhachkalaGrozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

GanjaMingechevir

Sheki

GorisLachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nakhchivan

Kars

PotiCASPIAN

SEABLACK

SEA

LakeSevan

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Terek

Sulak

Samur

Euphrates

Rioni

Rioni


Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zd

an

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

100 km0

Mudflow Landslide

Source: Armenian’s Second National Communica-tion, 2010; Alizadeh E.K. (2007); MEP-Georgia.

LakeVan

A Z

There are major climate change impacts taking place in the South Caucasus, as shown by the observations of the national hydrometeorology services of Armenia, Azerbai-jan and Georgia. In particular, there is a recorded increase in both mean and extreme air temperatures, in addition to changes in rainfall amounts and patterns. Climate change projection models predict even more increase of extreme weather conditions, translating to a heavier and uneven

seasonal distribution of precipitation with possible dra-matic consequences. As a result, the probability of dev-astating natural disasters such as landslides, avalanches, river fl oods, fl ash fl oods and mudfl ows, causing human casualties and economic losses, is expected to rise in the near future (Second National Communications of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia).

IMpACT oF CLIMATE ChAnGE: nATuRAL DISASTERS


Flooding and avalanche high riskzones in the South Caucasus

G E O R G I A

A R M E N I AA Z E R B A I J A NT U R K E Y

Yerevan

Gyumri

Armavir

Alaverdi

MakhachkalaGrozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

MagasNalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

GanjaMingechevir

Sheki

GorisLachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nakhchivan

Kars

PotiCASPIAN

SEABLACK

SEA

LakeSevan

LakeVan

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Sulak

Samur

Euphrates

Rioni

Rioni


Mingechevirreserv.

Hra

zd

an

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

100 km0I R A N

Flood Avalanche

Source: Armenian’s Second National Communication, 2010; Iritz, L. and Jincharadze, Z. (2010); SoE-Georgia, 2007–2009; ReliefWeb.


Terek

A Z

Georgia is particularly exposed to weather extremes, most likely because of its closer proximity to the Black Sea, abundance of water resources, larger amount of annual and seasonal precipitation, high soil humidity, etc. The damage caused by the flooding during the last three years was put at USD 65 m. An increasing frequency and inten-sity of avalanches has been detected since the last dec-ades of the 20th century. More than 20,000 people were

displaced from their homes between 1970 and 1987. About 53,000 locations damaged by gravitational landslides had been identified by 2009. Mudflows are estimated to cause damage of approximately USD 100 m annually. Overall, economic damage caused by mudflows in Georgia over the period 1987 to 1991 exceeded USD 1 bn; the damage caused by mudflows from 1995 to 2008 was over USD 330 m (State of the Environment Georgia, 2010).

Impact of Climate Change and Adaptation Measures 45

1972 2002

GLACIER MELTInG In ThE CAuCASuSGlaciers are sensitive to climate change. Some climatolo-gists suggest the contribution of melting glaciers to sea-level rise may have been increasing by as much as 27% for the last few decades (Dyurgerov, 2003). The climate change scenarios published by the IPCC predict up to 60% glacier loss in the northern hemisphere by 2050 (Schneeberger et al 2003). The Earth Policy Institute (www.earth-policy.org) says glacial volume in the Caucasus has declined by 50% during the last century and will decrease more severely in the foreseeable future. Glaciers are very important water resources for local communities, and play a significant role in the water budget. Smaller glaciers are known to respond more rapidly to climate change and are therefore more im-portant in calculating overall impact. Glaciers cover an area estimated at around 1,600 km² in the Caucasus. Exact up-to-date information on the chang-es in their mass balance is not available. There is visual evi-dence of glacier recession in the Caucasus, but information concerning the latter stages is limited. However those stud-ies that have focused on glacier change in the Caucasus (Bedford and Barry, 1994) reported a strong retreat trend

for 51 glaciers between 1972 and 1986. Chris R. Stokes, Stephen D. Gurney, Maria Shahgedanova, Victor Popovin (Late 20th-Century Changes in Glacier Extent in the Cau-casus Mountains, Russia/Georgia) analysed glaciers of the central Caucasus region, extending the analysis of Bedford and Barry, and showed that the retreat trend has continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Melting rates have greatly accelerated since the mid-1990s. Moreover, the study indi-cates that the retreat of Caucasus glaciers from the mid-1970s to 2000 correlates well with the temperature record.

In these pictures: Melting of the Laboda Glacier in Georgia: photos taken in 1972 and 2002.Source: Institute of Geography, Javakhishvili State University, Tbilisi, Georgia.

IMpACT oF CLIMATE ChAnGE: GLACIER MELTInG

1972 2002

GEORGIA

Laboda-Zopkhito Glaciers

Shkelda-Djankuat Glaciers zone


1 kmin 1985 in 2000

Glacier line0

RUSSIANFEDERATION

Source: Stokes, C. R., et al (2006).

Glaciers melting in north part of the Central Caucasus

ShkheldaGlacier

BzhedukhGlacier

KashkatashGlacier Bashkara

Glacier

N

DjankuatGlacier

500 m0Source: Lambrecht A., et al (2011). Supra-glacial debris cover (trace of glacier) in 1971

Glacier boundary in 2009

LabodaGlacier

GEORGIA

ZopkhitoGlacier

Glaciers melting in south part of the Central CaucasusN

Another group of scientists (Lambrecht et al, 2011) focused their study also on the central part of the Greater Cauca-sus — the Djankuat glacier (Russia) and the Zopkhito gla-cier (Georgia). The results of the study show that at the southern end of the Caucasus range the exposition (south-ern slope) causes higher radiation input and thus more in-

In this picture: retreat of two glaciers on the South slope of the central Caucasus — the Loboda and Zopkhito glaciers, between 1971 ( yellow ) and 2009 ( blue ). The data on the image is a combination of CORONA imagery dating from 1971, a SPOT image of 2007 and a Digital Globe image ( Google Earth ) of 2008.Source : Lambrecht, A., et al (2011).

In this picture: retreat of six neighbouring gla-ciers in the central Caucasus between 1985 ( yellow ) and 2000 ( red ), including Djankuat glacier ( furthest east ), which has an extensive mass balance record, and Shkhelda glacier ( furthest west ) with one of the largest retreat rates in the CaucasusSource : Stokes, C. R., et al (2006).

tensive ice melt. However, high cloudiness due to higher radiation input also provides higher precipitation in the south than in the north. As a result, the effective glacier melt is about 20% less in the south. Both regions experi-enced strong glacier area loss during recent decades and a gradual increase in debris cover (Lambrecht, et al, 2011).


Viticulture and wine production is one of the most viable and oldest agricultural activities that have been carried out for centuries in South Caucasus and particularly Georgia. Both archaeology and history show that Georgia was cul-tivating grapevines and practicing ancient wine produc-tion more than 7,000 years ago (Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia, 2011 — www.samtrest.gov.ge). In many regards Georgia’s identity was closely connected with wine pro-duction, which was very popular among the former Soviet states and always highly prized. Georgia has excellent conditions for viticulture. A moder-

ate climate with a sufficient number of sunny days, frost-free winters and moist air, in combination with fertile soils, min-eral-rich and clean spring waters and a vast diversity of en-demic agricultural species provide outstanding conditions for it. The total share of agriculture in the country’s GDP is about 10–14%, with viticulture and wine production playing a very important role (Georgia’s Second National Commu-nication, 2009). However, increasing natural disasters and specific weather extremes caused by global climate change that is already affecting Georgia and especially its grape-growing zones may jeopardize the sector considerably.

IMpACT oF CLIMATE ChAnGE on WInEGRoWInG zonES oF GEoRGIA

48

Potential impact of climate change on winegrowing zones of Georgia

Winegrowing area(existing and potential)

Landslide area

Mudflow area

Flooding area

Drought area

Red, white and sparkling winesHystorical-

geographycal border

Source: MEP-Georgia; Georgian Wine booklet, 2001.50 km0


A R M E N I A

A Z E R B A I J A N

T U R K E YG E O R G I A

Gori

Tskhinvali

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Sukhumi

TbilisiBatumi

Poti

BLACK

SEA

Terek

Terek

Sulak

Rioni

Rioni

Debed

Iori

Kura

Kura

Alazani

I ngu

ri

Mingechevirreserv.

Zemo Svaneti

Kvemo Svaneti

Lechkhumi

RachaKhevi Khevsureti

TushetiMtiuletiPshavi

ShidaKartli

KakhetiKvemoKartli

Javakheti

Imereti

ToriSamtskheAchara

Guria

Samegrelo

Abkhazia


Impact of Climate Change and Adaptation Measures

Grape Varieties

49

16.5

15

37.4

Armenia

Percent ofagriculture land

Azerbaijan

Georgia

Vineyard area in the South Caucasus in 2009

0.8%

0.3%

1.2%

Sources: State statistical services of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia,Year Books, 2010.

Areathousand ha

0

Million

1

2

3

2000 2002 2004

Source: Georgian National Tourism Agency.

2006 2008 2010

Number of tourists in Georgia in 2000–2011

Source: www.komersanti.ge (6.01.2011)

6,200

13,000

26,000(prognosed)

2009

2010

2011

Number of tourists in the Upper Svanetiin 2009–2011

The Upper Svaneti region of Georgia has been a very popu-lar tourist destination for a long time. Unique and mostly untouched natural landscapes, high mountains, abundant historical monuments and its exceptional cultural herit-age are only few of the wonders ensuring this popularity. Access to this region has never been easy though, due to its rigid topography and the dilapidated infrastructure in post-Soviet Georgia, exhausted by ethnic conflicts, civil wars and consequent economic devastation. Attention to

Svaneti has increased considerably in recent years, after the launch of infrastructure rehabilitation projects and the construction of hotels and a brand new airport in Mestia (the regional capital). The airport now has a modern navi-gation system and connects Svaneti to major Georgian airports, as well as some international destinations. The number of visiting tourists has doubled compared with recent years, since a ski resort (operating for about six months each year) was developed in Hatsvali, a highland

Upper Svaneti, GEORGIA

ThE IMpACT oF CLIMATE ChAnGE on GEoRGIA’S TouRIST SECToR: uppER SVAnETI


Inguri

Inguri

Inguri

Kheledula

Laskadura Tskhenistskali

Nak

ra

Nenskra

Dolra

Tsaneri

Mulkhra

Kasleti

Khobistskali

Khudoni reserv.(projected)

Mes

tiach

ala

Tita

Khaishi

Ipari

Naki Mazeri

Ienashi

IskariMestia

Zhabeshi

Lakhiri

Ieli Adishi

Tsvirmi

Iprari

Chazhashi

Tsana

Mele

Tvibi

LentekhiTsanashi

Mananauri

Dolra

Ushba

L e k h z i r

Tsaneri

Laila

Shkhelda4,368 m

Ushba4,710 m

Shkhara5,068 m

Tetnuldi4,852 m

Gistola4,853 m

Laila4008 mS

va n

e t i r a

n geE

g

ri s i r a n

ge

G r ea

t

Ca u

c

a

su

s

Hatsvali

Glaciers

Forest area

Svaneti priorityconservation area (WWF-Caucasus proposal)

Airport

Historical monument

Ski resortVery strong

Strong

Moderate

Avalanche hazard Landslidehazard

Motor roadDirt road

UNESCO WorldHeritage Site

Potential impact of climate change in theUpper Svaneti touristic zone

10 km0

Dolra

Sources: MEP-Georgia; MENR-Georgia; 1:50,000 Topographic maps.

GEORGIA

resort close to one of the most charming mountain peaks of Georgia — Ushba (4,710 m above sea level). Access to the UNESCO world heritage site at Ushguli has also been restored. However, an increased number of tourists will also mean increased pressure on the fragile natural eco-

systems in coming years. This will become an even more sensitive issue as the region is located in the landslide and avalanche high-risk zone and changing climate patterns, with the predicted temperature rise and precipitation de-crease, are cause for serious concerns.



G E O R G I A


I R A N

T U R K E Y

Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nakhchivan

CASPIAN

SEA

BLACK

SEA

LakeSevan

LakeVan

Kura

Kura

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Terek

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Çoruh (Chorokh

i) Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hraz

dan

Iori

Alazani

Ingu

ri

Potential impact of climate change in the South Caucasus

Yerevan

Gyumri

Alaverdi

MakhachkalaGrozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Lentekhi

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

Ganja

Sheki

Mingechevir

Goris

Lachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Kars

Poti

100 km0

Tskh

en

istskali

Sources: Second National Communications of Armenia-2010, Azerbaijan-2010and Georgia-2009; MEP-Armenia; MEP-Azerbaijan; MEP-Georgia; WHO-Europe.

Depopulation due to increase natural disasters

Spread of malaria

Glaciers melting

Depletion of water resources

Land degradation and desertification

Potential inundation area due to sea levele rise

Increased fashfloods due to weather extremes

A Z


8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6

Sensitivity to climate changeExposure to impactsAdaptive capacity

Increasing sensitivity and exposure Adaptation capacity

Source: Climate Change in Central Asia, 2009.

Albania

Kyrgystan

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

Turkey

Moldova

Serbia

Macedonia (F.Y.R.)

Russia

Bulgaria

Bosnia

Romania

Kazakhstan

Ukraine

Belarus

Croatia

Poland

Latvia

Lithuania

Hungary

Slovakia

Estonia

Czech Republic

Slovenia

10

GEORGIAARMENIA

AZERBAIJAN

Index of vulnerability to climate change*


G E O R G I A


I R A N

T U R K E Y

Adjara

Abkhazia

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nakhchivan

CASPIAN

SEA

BLACK

SEA

LakeSevan

LakeVan

Kura

Kura

Kura

Aras

Aras

Kura

Terek

Sulak

Samur

Rioni

Rioni

Çoruh (Chorokh

i) Debed

Mingechevirreserv.

Hraz

dan

Iori

Alazani

Ingu

ri

Potential impact of climate change in the South Caucasus

Yerevan

Gyumri

Alaverdi

MakhachkalaGrozny

Vladikavkaz

Gori

Tskhinvali

Lentekhi

Telavi

Rustavi

Kutaisi

Akhaltsikhe

Magas

Nalchik

Vanadzor

Sukhumi

Ganja

Sheki

Mingechevir

Goris

Lachin

Meghri

Kapan


Sumgayit

Neftchala

Baku

Tbilisi

Nakhchivan

Batumi

Kars

Poti

100 km0

Tskh

en

istskali

Sources: Second National Communications of Armenia-2010, Azerbaijan-2010and Georgia-2009; MEP-Armenia; MEP-Azerbaijan; MEP-Georgia; WHO-Europe.

Depopulation due to increase natural disasters

Spread of malaria

Glaciers melting

Depletion of water resources

Land degradation and desertification

Potential inundation area due to sea levele rise

Increased fashfloods due to weather extremes

A Z*Vulnerability to climate change is a combination of: i) exposure to hazards, measuring the strength of future climate change rela-tive to today’s climate; ii) sensitivity, indicating which economic sectors and ecosystem services are likely to be affected in view of climate change, e.g. renewable water resources, agriculture and hydro-power production ; and iii) adaptive capacity to climate change, e.g. social, economic, and institutional settings to re-spond to weather shocks and variability.

8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6

Sensitivity to climate changeExposure to impactsAdaptive capacity

Increasing sensitivity and exposure Adaptation capacity

Source: Climate Change in Central Asia, 2009.

Albania

Kyrgystan

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

Turkey

Moldova

Serbia

Macedonia (F.Y.R.)

Russia

Bulgaria

Bosnia

Romania

Kazakhstan

Ukraine

Belarus

Croatia

Poland

Latvia

Lithuania

Hungary

Slovakia

Estonia

Czech Republic

Slovenia

10

GEORGIAARMENIA

AZERBAIJAN

Index of vulnerability to climate change*


Climate Change-related Issues in the South Caucasus

AGRICuLTuRELand degradation and desertification (eastern part of South Caucasus), salinization, droughts, coastal inundation and bogging (Black and Cas-pian Sea coastal zones), loss of soil fertility, decrease of crop production, degradation of wine- and citrus-growing zones.

Impact on livelihood and food security

LAnD AnD WATERLand contamination by pesticides and heavy metals, saliniza-tion of soils, overgrazing pastures, illegal and ill-maintained waste dumps close to water streams, glacier melting, deple-tion of freshwater sources (eastern part of South Caucasus) lack of safe and good quality of drinking water.

Impact on livelihoods, agriculture, human health

Water resources

Food security

biodiversity

Social problems

FLooDS AnD nATuRAL DISASTERSIncreased number of catastrophic floods due to weather extremes (Black Sea coast, Alazani Valley, Kura lowland in Azerbaijan), devastating natural disasters — landslides, mudflows, flash-floods, avalanches in mountainous zones, inundation of croplands, settlements at lowlands.

Impact on livelihoods, infrastructure, threat to human life and health, local and transboundary problems, deterioration of social conditions


SEA AnD CoASTALSea level rise, land inundation, coastal erosion, increased number of storm surges, pollution of sea water by oil products (Caspian Sea) and by untreated wastewater discharge (Black and Caspian Seas), coastal line change, lack of safe drinking water, decrease in number and diver-sity of marine specifies, deterioration of coastal infrastructure, spread of Malaria at inundated areas (eastern part of South Caucasus).

Impact on coastal and sea biodiversity, livelihoods, agriculture, transport and other infrastructure, tourism

FoRESTS, FAunA AnD FLoRADisplacement of natural boundaries at sensitive areas of eastern South Caucasus (temperate forest ecosystems), loss of resilience of flora and fauna to invasive species, loss of natural ecosystem “corridors” for migration of rare and endemic species, increased cases of forest fires, degradation of landscape diversity, loss of biodiversity. Impact on livelihoods, biodiversity, freshwater resources, agriculture, human health

Climate Change-related Issues in the South Caucasus

pEopLE AnD WELLbEInGDepopulation and eco-migration due to increased number of devastating natural disasters— landslides, mudflows, avalanches at highland zones of Adjara and Svaneti (Western Georgia), lack of safe drinking water and food, increase of poverty, spread of infectious diseases, increased stress due to heat waves, increased cases of cardiovascular diseases.

Threat to human life, health and social conditions

55

Caucasus Environment Outlook (2002), UNEP.

Climate Change in Central Asia (2009). Zoï Environment Network.

Dyurgerov, M.B. 2003. Mountain and subpolar glaciers show an increase in sensitivity to climate warming and intensification of the water cycle. J. Hydrol., 282(1–4), 164–176.

Geopolitical Atlas of the Caucasus (2010), Autrement, Paris.

Georgian National Tourism Agency.

Georgian Wine booklet (2001), Tbilisi.

GRID-Arendal (2008) Caucasus ecoregion.

GRID-Tbilisi data. European Tribune: www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/11/20/113536/31

Institute of Geography, Javakhishvili State University, Tbilisi, Georgia.

Iritz, L. and Jincharadze, Z. Needs Assessment of a Flood Early Warning System in Georgia. Disaster Risk Reduction Consultancy Report. June 2010, UNDP. Tbilisi, Georgia.

Commersant. Online Magazine (6.01.2011): www.commersant.ge

Lambrecht A., Mayer C., Hagg W., Popovnin V., Rezepkin A., Lomidze N. and Svanadze D. A comparison of glacier melt on debris-covered glaciers in the Northern and Southern Caucasus. The Cryosphere Discuss., 5, 431–459, 2011: www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/431/2011/

Londex Resources: www.londex.org/projects.html

Melconyan H., Hovsepyan A. Climate Change Scenarios over South Caucasus Region. UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus, 2011.

Schneeberger, C., H. Blatter, A. Abe-Ouchi and M. Wild. 2003. Modeling changes in the mass balance of glaciers of the northern hemisphere for a transient 2xCO₂ scenario. J. Hydrol., 282, 145–163.

State of the Environment of Armenia (2002), GRID-Arendal.

State of the Environment of Georgia (2007-2009). Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural resources of Georgia.

ReferencesMain background documents:

First National Communication of the Republic of Armenia (1998). Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia.

Armenia’s Second National Communication to the United Nations Frame-work Convention on Climate Change (2010). Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia.

Initial National Communication of Azerbaijan Republic on Climate Change (2000). National Climate Research Centre.

Azerbaijan’s Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2010). Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Azerbaijan Republic.

Georgia’s Initial National Communication under the United Nations frame-work convention on Climate Change (1999). National Climate Research Centre.

Georgia’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC (2009). Minis-try of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia.

Regional Climate Change Impacts Study for the South Caucasus Region (2011). ENVSEC, UNDP.

Additional references:

Alizadeh E.K. Sustainable development of mountain geosystems in the conditions of strengthening morphodynamic intensity (on an example of Azerbaijan), the bulletin of the Vladikavkaz centre of science, 2007, n°3.

Assessment of vulnerability of water resource to climate change in trans-boundary river basins (Khrami-Debed and Aghstev) and recommendations on the corresponding adaptation measures. Yerevan, 2011.

Association of the power engineers and specialists of Azerbaijan (APESA): www.azenerji.com.

Azerbaijan international Magazine (11.04.2003): www.azer.com — Pages similaires

Bedford, D.P. and Barry, R.G. 1994. Glacier trends in the Caucasus, 1960s to 1980s. Phys. Geogr., 15(5), 414–424.

Caucasus ecoregion — environment and human development issues, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2008.


Statistical Year Book of Azerbaijan, 2010: www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/index.shtml; www.azstat.org/statinfo/environment/en/index.shtml

Statistical Year Book of Georgia, 2010: www.geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/yearbook/Statistical%20Yearbook_2010.pdf

Azerbaijan National Hydrometeorological Department: www.eco.gov.az/en/prog-buro.php

Climate Wizard: www.climatewizard.org

Earth Policy Institute: www.earth-policy.org

Index Mundi: www.indexmundi.com

Institute for Atmospheric Physics: www.dlr.de/pa/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2559/3824_read-5749

Global Energy Network Institute (GENI): www.geni.org

Global Energy Observatory: www.globalenergyobservatory.org

International Energy Agency: www.iea.org

PRECIS Regional Climate Modelling System: www.metoffice.gov.uk/ precis

ReliefWeb: www.reliefweb.int/countries

United Nations statistics: www.unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm

WHO-Europe, Malaria: www.euro.who.int

World Bank statistics: www.data.worldbank.org

Photos:

Atlas and Prometheus. Laconian Kylix, 6th c. BCE. Vatican Museums: www.utexas.edu/courses/larrymyth/2Prometheus2009.html

Alazani River in the border of Georgia and Azerbaijan, Jincharadze Z., 2007.

Debed river at Northern Armenia, Jincharadze Z., 2007

Upper Svaneti, GEORGIA, Naveriani V.

State of the Environment of Georgia (2010), draft report. Ministry of Environ-mental Protection and Natural resources of Georgia.

Stokes, C.R., Gurney, S.D., Shahgedanova, M., Popovin, V. 2006. Late-20th-Century Changes in Glacier Extent in the Caucasus Mountains, Russia/Georgia. Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 52 No. 176.

StratOil: www.stratoil.wikispaces.com/Azerbaijan

UNDP/ENVSEC Study on Climate Change Impact for the South Caucasus, 2011.

Vulnerability of water resources in the Republic of Armenia under climate change, Yerevan, 2009.

World Trade Press, 2007.

1:50,000 Topographic maps.

online databases and information sources:

Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia: www.mnp.am

Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Azerbaijan Republic: www.eco.gov.az

Ministry of Environment Protection of Georgia: www.moe.gov.ge

Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources of Georgia: www.menr.gov.ge

Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia: www.moa.gov.ge

Climate Change Information Center of Armenia: www.nature-ic.am

Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service: www.meteo.am

National Environmental Agency of Georgia: www.meteo.gov.ge

National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia: www.armstat.am

The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan: www.azstat.org

National Statistics Office of Georgia: www.geostat.ge

Statistical Year Book of Armenia, 2010: www.armstat.am/en/?nid=45&year=2010

57References

Association of the Power Engineers and Specialists of AzerbaijanAzerbaijanBaltic SeaCaucasus Environment OutlookSeries of American strategic reconnaissance satel-lites produced in 1959–1972Global climate model for climate research. The model was given its name as a combination of its origin, the “EC” being short for ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) and the place of development of its parameterisation package, Hamburg.The Environment and Security InitiativeGlobal Climate Change ProcessesGlobal Circulation ModelGross Domestic ProductGlobal Environment FacilityGeorgian LariGlobal Energy Network InstituteGreenhouse GasGlobal Resource Information DatabaseOne of the global circulation model (GCMs)Hadley Centre Coupled Model (Coupled atmos-phere-ocean general circulation model developed at the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom)Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3Hydrothermal CoefficientLand Use, Land-Use Change and ForestryMAGICC: User-friendly software package that takes emissions scenarios for greenhouse gases, reactive gases, and sulphur dioxide as input and gives glob-al-mean temperature, sea level rise, and regional climate as output.SCENGEN: Regionalization algorithm that uses a scaling method to produce climate and climate change information on a 5° latitude by 5° longitude grid.

APESA

AZBSCEOCORONA

ECHAM

ENVSECGCCPGCMGDPGEFGELGENIGHGGRIDHAD300HADCM

HADCM3HTCLULUCFMAGICC/SCENGEN

Abbreviations and GlossaryMENRMEPMilPPPRECISSoESPOT

TWhUNUNDPUNESCO

UNFCCC

USDWEAPWHO

Chemical Combinations

CO₂CH₂N₂O

Ministry of Energy and Natural ResourcesMinistry of Environment ProtectionMillionPower PlantIn French précis — “PRAY-sea” — is based on the Hadley Centre’s regional climateState of the EnvironmentIn French: Système Probatoire d’Observation de la Terre. Probationary System of Earth Observation — high-resolution, optical imaging Earth observa-tion satellite system operating from spaceTerawatt hourUnited NationsUnited Nations Development ProgrammeThe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural OrganizationUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUnited States DollarWater Evaluation and Planning ModelWorld Health Organization

Carbon dioxideMethaneNitrous oxide


The Georgian artist, Nina Joerchjan, has produced a set of collages to illustrate the Zoï Environment Network publica-tion, Climate Change in the South Caucasus. At first sight: beautiful renderings of mountain landscapes, vineyards, fruits, animals and archaic architecture. In the long tradi-tion of the region’s folk art, many scenes — such as Ararat mountain — are immediately recognizable as Caucasian icons. The images evoke Pirosmani, although people — the main subject of the famous Georgian painter at the turn of the twentieth century — are almost completely absent. But why use such a traditional and happy style to illustrate

such a grim and existential subject as climate change? The answer comes in a second, closer look that the artwork deserves. New elements appear: an oil platform, a ski lift and a somewhat strange, turtle-like structure giving the Tbilisi skyline a new look. Even without these modern ele-ments, a sense of fragility becomes obvious. An idyll in the process of being destroyed, nature and livelihoods being threatened, climate change being real. The artist has found a silent, non-alarmist tone to show that things are still there, however fragile. It is up to us to preserve this unique herit-age. There may still be time.

59Abbreviation/nina joerchjan

International Environment HouseChemin de Balexert 9CH-1219 ChâtelaineGeneva, Switzerland

Zoï Environment Network Tel. +41 22 917 83 42www.zoinet.org [email protected]

Documents

Climate Change in the South Caucasus. ENVSEC