A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Diagnostic Report June 2024 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Europe and Central Asia Region Regional Water Security Assessment (P170030) Diagnostic Report June 2024 © 2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of the World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Please cite the work as follows: Camilo Lombana Cordoba, Raimund Mair, Crystal Fenwick, Reetik Kumar Sahu, Barbara Anna Willaarts, Dor Fridman, Julian Joseph, Mikhail Smilovic, and Taher Kahil. 2024. “A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@ worldbank.org Cover design: GW, Inc Cover photo: Sebaku Murobak Lake, AdobeStock 975152565 Contents Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Protection from Water-Related Risks. . . . . . . . 19 Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Economic Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Key Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Economic Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Priority Action Areas to Enhance Water Security Economic Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 across Europe and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Environmental Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi Future Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . 33 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4. Water Endowment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Scope and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Water Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Storage to Manage Water Variability. . . . . . . . . . 40 The Water Security Diagnostic Framework . . . 2 Transboundary Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Operationalizing the WSDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Water Demands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Climate-Change Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Future Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . 46 Advancing Water Security in Europe and Central Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Water Sector Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2. Setting the Scene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Water Resources Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Climate and Geography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 National Regulatory Frameworks. . . . . . . . . . . 52 Demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 National and Basin-Level Arrangements. . . . 55 Population Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Transboundary Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Socioeconomic Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Irrigation and Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 The Importance of a Water-Secure Future in Water Supply and Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Europe and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Water Sector Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Water Supply and Sanitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3. People, Environment, and Economy. . . . . . . . 17 Reservoirs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Social Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Irrigation and Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Health Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6. Water Sector Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Delivery of Water-Related Services. . . . . . . . . . . 113 Management of Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Management of Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Management Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Mitigation of Water-Related Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Cross-Cutting Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Delivery of Water-Related Services. . . . . . . . . . . 100 Note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Water Supply and Sanitation Service Coverage appendix A Key Features of the Institutional and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Arrangement of Water Resources Management Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Efficiency in Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 and Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Mitigation of Water-Related Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . 107 appendix B Country Pages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 7. Recommendations for a Water-Secure Future References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 in Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 BOXES Box 3.1 Calculating Flood Exposure Risk. . . . . . 23 Box 5.8  Modernization of Irrigation in South Box 3.2 The High Cost of Floods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan. . . . . . . . . . 90 Box 3.3 The High Cost of Droughts. . . . . . . . . . . 28 Box 6.1  Mitigating Continuity Challenges with  he Danube River Basin: A Global Box 5.1 T Resilient Infrastructure in the Face of Benchmark for Transboundary Basin Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Management and Cooperation. . . . . . . 63 Box 6.2  Potential Causes of Over- and  nstitutional Arrangements of Albania’s Box 5.2 I Underspending in the Water Supply and Irrigation Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Sanitation Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103  erevan Water Supply, Armenia: Box 5.3 Y Box 6.3  Asset Management in the Western Management or Lease Contracts . . . . . 71 Balkans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105  Study of Spending Composition as a Box 5.4 A Box 6.4  The EU Floods Directive: A Best Practice Share of GDP by Country and Sector . 75 for Flood Risk Management. . . . . . . . . 109  ater Pricing in Central Asia and the Box 5.5 W Box 6.5  Drought Risk Impact Assessment for the South Caucasus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Danube Using a Data-Driven Approach  inancing Water Resources Box 5.6 F Provides a Deeper Understanding of Management in the European Union. 78 Drought Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111  ater in Circular Economy and Box 5.7 W Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 FIGURES Figure ES.1 D imensions of the Water Security Figure 2.2  Projection of Future Population in Diagnostic Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . xi 2050 for Europe and Central Asia Figure ES.2 Wastewater Treatment by Country.xv under the Three Shared Figure ES.3 K ey Water Indicators across Europe Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). . . . 11 and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi Figure 2.3  GDP per Capita of Different Countries Figure ES.4 P otential Climate-Related Impacts and the Three Subregions in Europe on GDP in 2050. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure ES.5 E stimated Costs Needed to Achieve Figure 2.4  Total Arable Land across Major SDG 6, 2015–30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii Regions of the World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 1.1  Water Security Diagnostic Framework Figure 2.5  Electricity Production from and Its Dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Hydroelectric Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15  istorical Population Trends and Figure 2.1 H Figure 3.1  Access to Basic and Safely Managed Current Shares of Urban Population Water Supply and Sanitation in in Europe and Central Asia Europe and Central Asia, 2020. . . . . 18 Subregions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3.2 Health Outcomes of Unsafe WASH. 20 Figure 3.3  Percentage of Population Living in Figure 5.2  Main Challenges to Implementing Water Severe Water-Stress Conditions in Resources Management Legislation Europe and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . 21 across Europe and Central Asia. . . . . . . 53  ercentage of Population Exposed to Figure 3.4 P Figure 5.3  Adequacy of the IWRM National Floods in Europe and Central Asia . 22 Policy Development across Europe  opulation Living in Poverty and Figure 3.5 P and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Exposed to High-Risk Floods . . . . . . 23 Figure 5.4  Institutional Readiness of National  verage Total Water Productivity by Figure 3.6 A Water Institutions across Europe and Subregion and Country . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56  hare of Electricity Production from Figure 3.7 S Figure 5.5  Institutional Readiness of Basin Water Hydropower and Share of Institutions across Europe and Economically Feasible Hydropower Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Potential Not Developed in Europe Figure 5.6  Transboundary Area Covered by an and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Operational Agreement for Water  DP Exposed to Flood Risk in Europe Figure 3.8 G Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 5.7  Water Services Provision in the  limate-Related Impacts on GDP, Figure 3.9 C Danube Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 5.8  Estimated Costs (US$ Billion/Year) of Figure 3.10 Ambient Water Quality in Europe Achieving SDG 6, 2015–30 . . . . . . . . 72 and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 5.9  Estimated Costs of Meeting SDG 6 Figure 3.11 Water Stress Levels in Europe and WASH-Related Targets (SDG 6.1 and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 SDG 6.2) and IWRM (SDG 6.3 through Figure 3.12 Riverine Flood Risk between 2010 SDG 6.6), 2015–30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 and 2080 under Two Future Climatic Figure 5.10 Breakdown of Annual Estimated Scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). . . 34 Costs of WASH SDG 6 Targets (SDG Figure 3.13 Regional Average Historical (1980– 6.1 and SDG 6.2) in Europe and 99) and Future (2040–60) SPEIs over Central Asia, 2015–30. . . . . . . . . . . . 72 an Accumulation Period of 12 Figure 5.11 Breakdown of Annual Investments Months under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. 35 (2005 US$) Needed to Achieve SDG  otal Renewable Water Availability Figure 4.1 T 6 Targets Related to IWRM (SDG 6.3 per Capita across Major Regions in through SDG 6.6) in Europe and the World, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Central Asia, 2015–30. . . . . . . . . . . . 73  otal Renewable Water Resources Figure 4.2 T Figure B5.4.1 R elationship between Public Available in Europe and Central Asia, Expenditure and Income. . . . . . . 76 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure B5.6.1 M echanisms to Support Cost  er Capita Dam Availability versus Figure 4.3 P Recovery of Water Services. . . . . 79 Seasonal Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 5.12 Wastewater Treatment by Country .83  ependency Ratio of Countries from Figure 4.4 D Figure 5.13 Per Capita Dam Storage Capacity Transboundary Surface Water Flows. 43 versus Interannual Variability in  nnual Water Demand across Europe Figure 4.5 A Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . 85 and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 5.14 Reservoir Capacities and Their Main  verage Annual Water Demand by Figure 4.6 A Purposes in Europe and Central Sector in Europe and Central Asia . 45 Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87  ater Demand by Source of Water in Figure 4.7 W Figure 5.15 Share of Cultivated Land under Europe and Central Asia, 2020. . . . . 46 Different Types of Irrigation in  dequacy of the IWRM Legal Figure 5.1 A Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . 89 Framework across Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 6.1  Comparison of the Ecological Status  ater Coverage in Terms of Figure 6.5 W of the Surface Water Bodies in Continuity and Percentage of Danube EU Member States between Population with Access to Safe the First (2009–15) and Second Drinking Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Planning Cycles (2016–21) . . . . . . . . 93 Figure 6.6  Average Operating Costs as a Figure 6.2  Barriers Affecting the Function of Coverage and Average Implementation of the Program of Energy Costs of Water Utilities in Measures in River Basin Management Europe and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . 104 Plans to Achieve the River Basin Figure 6.7  Performance of Water Services . . . 106 Planning Goals in EU Member States Figure 6.8  Compliance with SDG Goals on of the Danube. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Sharing Data, Monitoring Water  iological Chemical and Figure 6.3 B Availability, and Managing Water- Hydromorphological Parameters Related Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Monitored to Assess the Ecological Figure 7.1  Action Areas for Water-Secure Status of Water Bodies in the EU Development Pathways in Europe Member States of the Danube and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96  roundwater Exploitable Reserves Figure 6.4 G and Extraction in Central Asia . . . . . 97 MAPS Map ES.1 R elative Change in Water Demands by Map 4.4  Comparison of Surface Water 2050 Compared with 2010 across Availability between the Baseline in Europe and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 2010 and RCP4.5 and RCP6.0 Scenarios Map ES.2 C omparison of Surface Water in 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Availability between Baseline and Map 4.5  Comparison of Total Water Demand Different Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii between the Baseline in 2010 and  aps Depicting Countries Assessed, Map 2.1 M SSP1-RCP4.5, SSP2-RCP6.0, and SSP3- the Main Rivers, and Three Subregions.7 RCP6.0 Scenarios in 2050. . . . . . . . . . . . 48  opography and Precipitation in Map 2.2 T Map 4.6  Comparison of Water Stress Ratio Eastern and Central Europe . . . . . . . . . . . 9 between the Baseline in 2010 and  raction of Unsustainable Groundwater Map 3.1 F SSP1-RCP4.5, SSP2-RCP6.0, and SSP3- Abstraction in Europe and RCP6.0 Scenarios in 2050. . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Map 5.1  Risks of the Transboundary Basin Legal  aline and Brackish Groundwater in Map 3.2 S Framework across Europe and Central Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60  easonal and Interannual Variability in Map 4.1 S Map 5.2  Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 in Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . 82  ain Transboundary River Basins in Map 4.2 M Map 6.1  Chemical and Quantitative Status of Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Groundwater Bodies of Basinwide  ransboundary Aquifers in Europe and Map 4.3 T Importance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Map B6.5.1 Annual Average Losses of Maize Yield in the Danube Region at a NUTS2 Spatial Resolution. . . . . . . 111 TABLES Table 1.1 Countries Included in the Europe and  inancing Allocation to Water Table 5.4 F Central Asia Regional Water Security Resources Management in Europe and Assessment Table 3 Estimated costs (in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 billion 2015 US$) to deliver sustainable Table B5.4.1 A  verage Annual Spending as a water management in ECA region and Share of GDP by Sector and its subregions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Table 3.1 C umulative People Exposed to Floods  inancing Tools for WRM, Cost Table 5.5 F by Flood Driver and Region. . . . . . . . . . 22 Recovery, and Revenue Allocation. . . 78 Table 3.2 E stimated Costs (in Billion 2015 US$) to Table 6.1 S  ummary of the Implementation of the Deliver Sustainable Water Basin Approach in Central Asia . . . . . . 92 Management in Europe and Central  verage Annual Spending Table 6.2 A Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Composition as a Share of Total WSS Table 5.1 A reas of International Water Law Spending by Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Addressed in the Transboundary  ate of Execution in the WSS Sector by Table 6.3 R Agreements of Selected Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Transboundary Basins in Europe and  ey Features Related to Water Supply Table 6.4 K Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 and Sanitation Services in Europe and Table 5.2 M ain Issues Addressed in the Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Transboundary Agreements in Europe  tatus of Flood Risk Management Table 6.5 S and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Planning in Europe and Central Asia . . . Table 5.3 K ey Features of the Institutional 108 Arrangement of the Water Supply and Table A.1 K ey Features of the Institutional Sanitation Sector in Europe and Central Arrangement of Water Resources Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Management in Europe and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 ABBREVIATIONS AMBU Agency for Water Resources Management CAP Common Agricultural Policy CAPEX capital expenditure CAREC Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation DALY disability-adjusted life year DMP drought management plan DRB Danube River basin DRPC Danube River Protection Convention EU European Union FD Floods Directive FRMP flood risk management plan GCM global climate model GDP gross domestic product GFDL-ESM Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Earth System Model GHG greenhouse gases GNI gross national income ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River ICWC Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Central Asia I&D irrigation and drainage IFAS International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea IPSL-CM5A-LR Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace coupled model for CMIP5 IPSL-CM6A-LR Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace coupled model for CMIP6 IQR interquartile range IT information technology IWRM integrated water resources management km3 cubic kilometers m3 cubic meters MAR managed aquifer recharge MIROC-ESM-CHEM Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate Earth System Model MPI-ESM1-2-HR Max Planck Institute Earth System Model MRI-ESM2-0 Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NEAP National Environmental Action Program NRW nonrevenue water NUTS2 level 2 of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development O&M operation and maintenance OPEX operational expenditure PPP private-public partnership RBMP river basin management plan RCP Representative Concentration Pathway RSE Republican State Enterprise SDG Sustainable Development Goal SKWRMIP South Karakalpakstan Water Resources Management Improvement Project SPEI Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index SSP Shared Socioeconomic Pathway UKESM1-0-LL6F6F UK Earth System Model UN United Nations UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE Water Convention  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes UNW Convention  United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses UWWTD Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive WASH water supply, sanitation, and hygiene WCA water consumer association WFD Water Framework Directive WICER Water in Circular Economy and Resilience WRM water resources management WSDF Water Security Diagnostic Framework WSS water supply and sanitation WUA water user association WUO water user organization All dollar amounts are US dollars unless otherwise indicated. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Water Security Initia- to the methodological development, data collection, and tive and accompanying report, A Blueprint for Resilience: analysis were carried out by the International Institute for Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Cen- Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), HYDROPHIL GmbH, and tral Asia, were developed through the collective efforts of InterSus–Sustainability Services. The World Bank acknowl- a dedicated team led by Camilo Lombana Cordoba and edges specific contributions made by Reetik Kumar Sahu, Raimund Mair, including Crystal Fenwick, Melissa Castera Bárbara Anna Willaarts, Dor Fridman, Julian Joseph, Mikhail Errea, Amjad Khan, Regassa Namara, and Elvira Brooks. Smilovic, Taher Kahil, Thomas Waclavicek, Sonja Hofbauer, The initiative and report benefited from valuable guidance Eduard Interwies, Steffen Schwörer, and Stefan Görlitz. This and support provided by Winston Yu, Carolina Sanchez collaborative effort reflects the commitment and expertise Paramo, Sameh Wahba, Eileen Burke, and William Young. of everyone involved to enhance water security and resil- The team expresses its sincere gratitude for the insightful ience in Europe and Central Asia. feedback and contributions of Thomas Farole, Hector Alex- ander Serrano, and Anders Jagerskog. Major contributions Executive Summary The Europe and Central Asia region is highly heteroge- METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH neous, and water security challenges vary widely. Some challenges, although relatively similar, are of a different This report uses the Water Security Diagnostic Framework size, especially given the different geographical, cultural, (WSDF) to undertake a holistic yet comprehensive assess- economic, and political departure points of each country. ment of water security in Europe and Central Asia. Water This assessment explores the main regional challenges and security is a complex, multidimensional, and multisectoral opportunities related to water security by delving into the concept that is typically driven by a combination of envi- situations faced by each of the three major subregions: the ronmental, socioeconomic, technological, and governance Danube, Central Asia, and the South Caucasus. Despite the factors. Even when water is abundant and the hydrologic region’s heterogeneity, a common theme many countries regime is favorable, there may be mismanagement (for share is the low and inconsistent political priority given to example, poor pollution regulation) or inadequate invest- water. This report’s goal is therefore threefold: (a) to raise ments that can lead to water insecurity. The WSDF seeks awareness among policy makers of the importance of pri- to analyze the relationship between a country’s evolving oritizing water (including allocating adequate funds) for water endowment (the innermost ring in figure ES.1) and people, the planet, and economic prosperity; (b) to stimu- social (or people), economic, and environmental outcomes late national and regional policy dialogue to harness water (depicted by the outermost ring in figure ES.1). It does so by for greater economic, social, and environmental good; and examining water sector architecture, encompassing both (c) to offer clear, actionable recommendations that orient infrastructure and institutions (the second ring in figure policy makers and sector practitioners toward sustainable, ES.1) and overall sector performance, including manage- long-term regional water security. ment of water resources, delivery of water-related services, Figure ES.1 DIMENSIONS OF the Water Security Diagnostic Framework ter securi Wa ty ou tcomes tor perfo Sec r m an ce tor archi Sec te ctu ter endow Wa re m en t Source: World Bank 2019. xii A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia and mitigation of water-related risks (the third ring in fig- range from 17 to 98 percent, representing an important ure ES.1). The benefit of this approach is its ability to rapidly source of gross domestic product (GDP). Water also contrib- identify challenges and opportunities and facilitate global utes to the economies of some countries through thermal comparisons and benchmarking. cooling (for example, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), nav- igation (for example, the Danube River and the Sava and In the preparation of this report, the WSDF was oper- Drina Rivers corridor), and environmental flows and natural ationalized through an innovative approach that lev- assets that are critical to tourism (for example, Albania, Cro- eraged readily available information and resources. A atia, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, and Türkiye). Finally, suite of quantitative and qualitative indicators was used water is a fundamental pillar of socioeconomic well-being. to evaluate a country’s maturity across each of the four Safe water and sanitation contribute to important human dimensions (endowment, architecture, performance, and and environmental health benefits, and mortality and outcomes), supplemented by a qualitative analysis of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) attributed to unsafe regional and country-specific data, together with stake- drinking water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in holder engagement. This effort was undertaken through Europe and Central Asia are among the lowest in the world. a phased approach: (a) the preparatory and diagnostic phase established the baseline for water security at the A business-as-usual approach to water management will regional and country levels, considering both current and likely increase economic challenges and exacerbate water future conditions using Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- scarcity. Water demand across the region is projected to mate Change (IPCC) climate and socioeconomic scenarios, increase sharply—from 34 to 51 percent by 2050 (map ES.1)— and (b) findings from the diagnostic phase helped iden- driven primarily by socioeconomic development. As econo- tify regional and subregional strategies needed to bolster mies across the region continue to evolve, industrial demands water security. are expected to increase anywhere from 50 to 90 percent, coupled with a massive rise in domestic demand of between This methodological approach gave rise to a comprehensive 57 and 105 percent. Water stress brought about by the com- regional assessment that integrates diverse perspectives pounding effects of increasing demands, changing availabil- and data sources validated by relevant stakeholders in select ity, and inefficient management practices is likely to have countries to inform the identification and implementation cascading effects on the economy. Downstream and devel- of strategic actions to enhance water security across the oping economies are especially vulnerable because they are region. This overall regional assessment draws on several affected by the actions of upstream countries and are already assessments, including the Danube Regional Assessment, highly vulnerable to climate change. Moreover, developing six deep-dive country assessments (Albania, Bosnia and Her- economies often have low adaptive capacities and lack robust zegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine), and eight institutions, infrastructure, and management instruments. general country assessments (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Geor- gia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmeni- Reducing water losses and improving water efficiency stan, Uzbekistan; see table 1.1 for a detailed breakdown and could lead to substantial economic benefits while preserv- Appendix B for country level results). ing valuable resources. In some parts of the region, drain- age systems are more predominant than irrigation; for example, 60 percent of arable land in the Western Balkans Key Findings (part of the Danube subregion) is equipped with drainage The Importance of Water Security to People, the compared with 6 percent with irrigation. Conversely, in Environment, and the Economy in Europe and Central Central Asia (except Kazakhstan), more than 70 percent of Asia arable land is irrigated. Whatever system prevails, irrigation and drainage systems in Europe and Central Asia are gen- Water is a key driver of economic development across erally inefficient and suffer from substantial water losses, Europe and Central Asia. Almost one-third (27 percent) of largely because of a lack of maintenance resulting from the region’s electricity comes from hydropower. About 15 underfunding. For example, an estimated 40 percent of all percent of the region’s agricultural gross revenues stem water is lost from irrigation canals in Central Asia, where from irrigated crops, although this figure varies widely rehabilitating and modernizing existing irrigation infra- between subregions, ranging from 9 percent in the Dan- structure could lead to water savings of as much as 7 per- ube (where irrigation is mostly limited to a few Balkan cent of current water withdrawals by 2030 and as much as countries) to about 70 to 80 percent in Central Asia (except 10 percent by 2050. Meanwhile, nonrevenue water (NRW) for Kazakhstan) and about 54 percent in the South Cauca- losses across the region are substantial. Subregional aver- sus. These sectors and other water-dependent economic ages range from a low of 35 percent in Central Asia to a sectors, such as food processing, employ anywhere from 18 high of 75 percent in the South Caucasus, whereas the Dan- to 60 percent of the labor force in Europe and Central Asia. ube averages 44 percent. By contrast, average NRW in Euro- Meanwhile, water-dependent exports at the country level pean Union (EU) Member States is about 23 percent. High Executive Summary xiii Map ES.1 RELATIVE CHANGE in Water Demands by 2050 Compared with 2010 across Europe and Central Asia a. SSP2-RCP6.0, b. SSP3-RCP6.0, 2050 2050 –50 –10 0 10 50 100 Source: Satoh et al. 2017. rates of NRW and irrigation losses represent significant The future of agriculture in Europe and Central Asia is irri- economic costs and raise concerns about water resources gated, but without sufficient investments, the sector can- sustainability, especially given the pressing challenges of not reach its full potential. The irrigation sector in Europe increasing water scarcity in the context of climate change. and Central Asia is in transition in response to regional policy dynamics, changes in rural demography, elevated Addressing large water productivity gaps could create demands for water from other sectors that often have additional water-related economic benefits. Water produc- priority climate-change impacts, and the aspiration of tivity in Europe and Central Asia (at $43.2 per cubic meter) governments to use irrigation as a tool for rural economic is the second highest in the world, only marginally lower revival and not just food security. About 15 percent (11 than in North America (at $43.7 per cubic meter) and more million hectares) of all cropland is currently irrigated in than double that of the next-highest region (East Asia and Europe and Central Asia, with the potential for another 58 the Pacific at $21.2 per cubic meter).1 However, across million hectares, but without sufficient investments in irri- Europe and Central Asia, water productivity varies widely gation infrastructure, about 40 percent of irrigated areas by subregion, averaging $52.2 per cubic meter in the Dan- will convert back to rain-fed areas or become abandoned ube subregion, $6.1 per cubic meter in the South Caucasus, (OECD/FAO 2023). Irrigation expansion is expected to and $2.8 per cubic meter in Central Asia. At the country play a land-sparing role and ease the protection of forests level, these rates range from a low of $0.95 per cubic meter and natural land for biodiversity conservation. Investing in the Kyrgyz Republic to a high of $173 per cubic meter in new irrigation infrastructure would spare more than 3 in the Slovak Republic. These vast differences are primarily million hectares in natural lands from conversion, signifi- a result of different cropping and irrigation practices, with cantly increase the water productivity of irrigated areas, low water productivity being driven by low-value crops and produce 2 percent more crops (Palazzo et al. 2019). and inefficient irrigation and drainage. This sharp contrast shows an untapped potential to boost economic growth Irrigation in Europe and Central Asia is characterized by a and farm-level livelihoods across the region. For example, mix of aging, underdeveloped, and inefficient infrastruc- in Serbia, a shift to higher-value crops could bring yield ture. Few investments are directed to irrigation, leaving increases ranging from about 8 and 20 percent for wheat systems undermaintained and in need of upgrading and and maize to as much as 30 and 35 percent for vegetables contributing to low water productivity and crop yields. In and top fruit.2 Meanwhile, in Central Asia, rehabilitating the Danube, where about 11 percent of cultivated land is existing irrigation infrastructure could increase crop yields irrigated, systems have fallen into disrepair because of a by an estimated 20 percent by 2030 and 50 percent by lack of maintenance or are simply outdated. Consequently, 2050 (World Bank 2019). inefficiencies in Romania, for example, have led to maize xiv A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia yields of only 4 tons per hectare compared with 7.4 tons per 43 percent receives at least primary treatment,4 but only hectare in neighboring Hungary. In the South Caucasus, 6 percent undergoes further treatment or reuse (Jones et irrigation practices vary but are generally inefficient, and al. 2021). Sizeable subregional and country-level differ- water is underused. The situation in Central Asia is complex ences exist. For example, in the Danube, about 66 percent and varied, but overall, the infrastructure is similarly old of wastewater is collected (of which 49 percent is treated), and largely neglected, which has led to widespread salini- whereas only 39 and 24 percent of wastewater is collected zation that affects half of all irrigated land, as well as sub- and treated, respectively, in Central Asia and 51 and 29 per- stantial water losses. cent, respectively, in the South Caucasus. Nationally, collec- tion and treatment rates range from a high of 100 percent Modernizing irrigation systems and adopting “smart,” for both collection and treatment in Austria to a low of 24 energy-efficient, climate-resilient technologies could and 5 percent, respectively, in Tajikistan. Many treatment enhance water efficiency, reduce energy consumption, plants across the region are outdated and lack the capacity and promote sustainable agriculture in the face of climate to treat wastewater to modern standards, resulting in pol- change. A dilapidated infrastructure means the agricultural lution and health hazards. Conversely, the low amounts of sector is especially vulnerable to climate shocks, particu- water reuse represent a significant opportunity to enhance larly droughts. Irrigation systems could play an important regional water security, a move aligned with circular econ- role in climate adaptation; however, increased water scar- omy objectives. city could limit their adaptation potential (Palazzo et al. 2019). Droughts have already resulted in substantial agri- Future Water Security Challenges in Europe and Central cultural losses in some countries, and with droughts set to Asia increase and drought management virtually absent, agri- Important water security challenges are rapidly emerging cultural GDP, food security, and rural livelihoods depend on across the region. Most countries depend heavily on trans- climate-resilient irrigation schemes that include upgrading boundary surface waters that are subject to high seasonal existing infrastructure, increasing water storage, and incen- and interannual variations, challenges that are expected tivizing water-saving practices while considering overall to intensify with worsening climate change and increas- water availability. Such irrigation schemes are particularly ing demands. On average, 41 percent of all surface water important given the cautionary tale of the Aral Sea—once flows in Europe and Central Asia are transboundary, signifi- the world’s fourth-largest lake and now famous for its des- cantly more than in any other region in the world (figure iccation because of massive upstream diversions. ES.3, panel a). The dependency ratio is a good indicator of potential conflict over shared water resources and the need Significant strides have been made across Europe and for cooperation. Central Asia is especially vulnerable, given Central Asia to expand access to water and sanitation, but its large dependency ratio (47 percent) and excessive water large disparities in service levels persist. Most of the pop- withdrawals, which exceeded 110 cubic kilometers in 2020 ulation has access to “at least basic” drinking water and (figure ES.3, panel b), driven largely by the agricultural sec- sanitation.3 However, almost one-third of the population tor. By contrast, the Danube and the South Caucasus sub- lacks access to “safely managed” water and sanitation, and regions withdrew 48 and 17 cubic kilometers, respectively. substantive efforts are needed to expand coverage. The sanitation gap is particularly acute in rural areas, where 50 Water storage—a critical tool for managing increasing vari- percent of the population still lacks access to safely man- ability—is a major concern across the region. Europe and aged services. Similarly, although most of the region’s Central Asia’s dam storage capacity (1,128 cubic meters population has access to a reliable (on average, 23 hours per capita) is 25 percent below the global average (figure per day) source of drinking water, significant subregional- ES.3, panel c), with increasing sedimentation (because of and national-level variations in continuity exist. For exam- poor land management practices) reducing capacity by as ple, in Albania (where almost half the population lacks much as 27 percent in some subregions. Glaciers and snow, access to safely managed drinking water), on average, key sources of water storage across much of Europe and services are limited to 15 hours per day. Central Asia, particularly in the Danube and Central Asia, are also experiencing a progressive reduction because Regionally, less than two-thirds of all wastewater is col- of global warming. Groundwater, a natural water store, lected, less than half of which is treated. Such high pollu- remains inadequately regulated and under threat of pollu- tion loads threaten natural water ecosystems (for example, tion and overexploitation. lakes, wetlands, and coastal areas) and may undermine tourism opportunities and affect drinking-water supplies. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of About 60 percent of all wastewater in Europe and Cen- extreme events and influence future water availability. tral Asia is collected (figure ES.2). Of this, approximately Regional climate patterns suggest temperatures will rise Executive Summary xv Figure ES.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT by Country Total wastewater collected (%) Total wastewater treated (%) Total wastewater reused (%) Kazakhstan 60.2 48.9 12.4 Turkmenistan 44.7 34.1 20.4 Central Asia Subregional average 38.9 24.1 8.10 Uzbekistan 39.0 23.5 7.80 Kyrgyz Republic 26.9 8.70 0.00 Tajikistan 23.9 5.20 0.00 Czech Republic 96.9 96.8 12.7 Austria 100 100 0.01 Hungary 96.0 96.0 7.60 Poland 92.3 67.4 9.50 Bulgaria 81.7 54.6 12.8 Subregional average 65.7 48.5 4.40 Slovak Republic 57.4 57.3 0.40 Romania 58.6 45.7 7.50 Danube Croatia 73.8 20.6 0.00 Ukraine 55.9 34.2 2.80 Montenegro 61.0 30.6 0.00 North Macedonia 46.9 33.7 7.20 Slovenia 43.6 42.5 0.00 Bosnia and Herzegovina 52.4 31.3 0.00 Albania 38.4 33.4 9.50 Serbia 60.8 14.8 0.00 Moldova 36.1 16.6 0.00 Azerbaijan 51.8 38.1 10.4 South Caucasus Georgia 50.6 34.5 0.50 Subregional average 50.6 29.1 3.90 Armenia 49.6 14.6 0.80 Turkey 81.1 60.7 26.6 Peripheral Belarus 78.5 62.8 0.80 Russian Federation 55.1 55.1 5.90 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 Share of total wastewater (%) Sources: United Nations Water Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicator 6.3.2 (wastewater treatment). xvi A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Figure ES.3 overall. Upstream countries are expected to experience an increase in rainfall and a reduction in snow storage, KEY WATER Indicators across Europe and Central Asia potentially leading to an increase in floods. Downstream countries are expected to experience decreased rainfall a. Transboundary dependence and reduced summertime flows (because of the reduced upstream snow melt), exacerbating drought risks in low- Central Asia Europe and Europe and Central Asia 41 land areas (map ES.2). South Caucasus 32 Central Asia subregions The Economic Costs of Water Security in Europe and Europe and Danube 43 Central Asia Central Asia 47 Failure to mitigate climate change and implement adapta- tion measures could have serious economic consequences. Western and Central Africa 30 The region’s economic vulnerability to climate change underscores the importance of water security for resil- Global regions Northern, Southern, and Central Europe 22 ience against extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods. Economic damages from such events in Central North America 5 Asia could reach up to 1.3 percent of GDP annually, with Latin America and the Caribbean 21 crop yields potentially decreasing by 30 percent by 2050. Without adequate adaptation measures, the European 0 10 20 30 40 region could face significant job losses and an annual cli- Transboundary dependence ration (%) mate-related extreme weather cost of approximately $184 b. Total water withdrawals (km3) in 2020 billion by the end of the century. If current water manage- ment policies and practices remain unchanged, imminent Central Asia Danube Peripheral South Caucasus 125 123 128 climate and socioeconomic drivers could lead to a reduc- 100 111 109 108 tion of the subregional GDP in Central Asia of up to 11 per- Water demand (km³/year) cent by 2050 (figure ES.4), caused by water-related losses 50 58 in agriculture, health, income, and property. Conversely, improving agricultural production, protecting environ- 50 47 15 15 17 mental assets, and increasing green energy production 0 2000 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020 could instead accelerate the subregion’s economic growth Year by up to 12 percent. c. Per capita dam storage versus interannual variability The estimated cost of addressing water security and achieving water-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 amounts to $77 billion annually (0.6 per- Central Asia cent of regional GDP). To deliver water security across 0.55 Europe and Central Asia and achieve all the water-related US SDGs, a rapid mobilization of $77 billion per year will be needed from 2015 to 2030 (figure ES.5; Strong et al. 2020). Interannual variability (ratio) 0.50 Larger relative efforts will be needed in Central Asia (2.2 percent of GDP) and the South Caucasus (1.3 percent of GDP) compared with the Danube (0.3 percent). The major share of these investments (approximately $30 billion per Europe and Central Asia 0.45 CN year) is needed to address challenges in water resources management (that is, water scarcity and integrated water IN Danube resources management, including irrigation and drain- South Caucasus age), whereas addressing water pollution will require $18 0.40 billion per year, closing the water supply and sanitation (WSS) services gap will require up to $16 billion per year, and addressing institutional reforms will require $13 bil- 0.35 lion per year. However, these investments are expected to 0 1,000 2,000 Per capita dam storage capacity (m3 / capita) 3,000 be much lower than the potential social, environmental, and economic costs of inaction. Source: AQUASTAT, 2024. Executive Summary xvii Map ES.2 COMPARISON OF Surface Water Availability between Baseline and Different Scenarios a. Baseline, 2010 b. SSP1-RCP4.5, 2050 a. SSP2-RCP6.0, b. SSP3-RCP6.0, 2050 2050 c. SSP3-RCP6.0, 2050 –50 –10 0 10 50 100 Source: Satoh et al. 2017. Note: RCP = Representative Concentration Pathway; SSP = Shared Socioeconomic Pathway. The Importance of Strong Institutions and Robust risks that underpin water security in Europe and Central Infrastructure to Water Security in Europe and Central Asia specifically: Asia Overall, the Europe and Central Asia region is character- 1. Weak institutional capacity. The most pressing chal- ized by inadequate water sector architecture to meet water lenge is the need to strengthen and modernize insti- security challenges. Modernization of institutions, poli- tutional capacity across countries to support the full cies, and regulatory instruments is needed. Existing gaps implementation of integrated water resources man- limit the ability to maximize beneficial social, economic, agement (IWRM). This assessment reveals that there and environmental outcomes that could otherwise be are important regulatory gaps in most countries, derived from water resources. These universal problems along with recurring institutional fragmentation, are symptomatic of three cross-cutting challenges and overlapping responsibilities, and limited cooperation xviii A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Figure ES.4 POTENTIAL CLIMATE-RELATED Impacts on GDP in 2050 World -0.49 0.09 Southeast Asia -1.98 1.46 East Asia -7.05 3.32 Europe and Central Asia Central Asia -10.72 11.50 Inside entirely Central Africa -7.08 0.38 Outside World Sahel -11.70 -0.82 Middle East -14.00 -6.02 Western Europe -0.02 -0.01 North America -0.02 0.00 -10 0 10 Range of variation in GDP (%) Source: World Bank 2016. Note: The figure shows potential water-related climate-change impacts on GDP for select regions. It incorporates effects from different policy scenar- ios—for example, business as usual and better water allocation). GDP = gross domestic product. Figure ES.5 ESTIMATED COSTS Needed to Achieve SDG 6, 2015–30 250 3 Annual investment (% GDP) 200 USD billion/year 2 150 100 1 50 0 0 East Asia & North South Asia Latin America Subsaharan Eastern Middle East Western, Pacific America and the Africa Europe and and Northern Central and Caribbean Central Asia Africa Southern Europe Access to drinking water Access to sanitation industrial pollution Agricultural pollution Water scarcity Water Management Source: Strong et al. 2020. Note: Boxed X symbols represent annual investments by regions as a percentage of their regional GDP. GDP = gross domestic product; SDG = Sustain- able Development Goal. Executive Summary xix between institutions within and across countries. PRIORITY ACTION AREAS TO Adaptive capacities are low, with inflexible systems (for example, standards) for managing both short- ENHANCE WATER SECURITY ACROSS term (droughts and floods) and long-term challenges EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA (climate change). Several priority action areas for enhancing water security 2. Insufficient funding and inconsistent political com- and achieving the water-related SDGs emerged from the mitments. These are two of the main causes behind preparation of this publication. Following the findings of the deteriorating state of water infrastructure, this report, the action areas primarily address important including severely compromised dam integrity in gaps in water sector architecture—that is, institutions and numerous countries, aging and inefficient irriga- infrastructure. A brief summary of the different action areas tion systems, and extensive physical losses across is presented next, grouped by the performance dimen- water networks. With increasing demands in a more sions described in the WSDF: delivery of water-related resource-constrained (physical and financial) envi- services, management of water resources, and mitigation ronment, the infrastructure gap is widening in many of water-related risks (see chapter 6 for a comprehensive countries, illustrated by, for example, inadequate review). Most investments and activities to strengthen water storage, limited coverage, and inadequate water security across Europe and Central Asia will need to wastewater treatment. Finally, limited financial be implemented at the national level. However, regional instruments constrain a provider’s ability to fully activities are imperative, especially given the high level of cover costs and earn revenue from water manage- transboundary dependency across the region. The success- ment services. Such underperformance, coupled ful implementation of the priority action areas therefore with an unattractive enabling environment, means hinges on cross-cutting efforts to promote and strengthen private capital mobilization is currently limited in regional cooperation. the region. Delivery of Water-Related Services 3. Low technical and human capacity. The water sector in Europe and Central Asia is grappling with signifi- Modernize irrigation and drainage services to improve cant gaps in capacity, underpinned by a shortage of water efficiency and productivity. Addressing the needs professionals with the technical ability to operate and of the irrigation and drainage sector will require substan- maintain infrastructure. This low technical and human tial investments, climate-resilient strategies and technol- capacity perpetuates a detrimental cycle of build-ne- ogies, and efforts to rehabilitate and modernize existing glect-rebuild, further exacerbated by a lack of critical infrastructure while shifting to more efficient irrigation data and the limited adoption of new digital technol- methods to improve water-use efficiency, reduce water ogies and innovations (despite their prevalence in the losses, increase water productivity, lower costs, and private sector)—for example, the lack of comprehen- increase agricultural production. sive, remote-sensing-based water accounting in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as some Dan- Expand WSS coverage and wastewater treatment to safe- ube countries. Further, there is limited understand- guard public health and the environment. Efforts to address ing of groundwater, a vital resource for drinking and gaps in the provision of WSS services include a set of insti- irrigation water throughout Europe and Central Asia, tutional and financial reforms, prioritization of investments resulting in poor management and threats of pollu- that can support the decarbonization of the water sector, tion and overabstraction. and the adoption of climate-resilient infrastructure and services. A portfolio approach that includes a mix of tech- 4. These limited technical and institutional capacities nical and financial solutions will help the sector address hinder the effective implementation of management coverage gaps, support socioeconomic development, and instruments and the ability to respond to extreme further reduce the burden of WASH-related disease. hydroclimatic events, such as droughts and floods. A pervasive challenge throughout Europe and Central Efforts to improve water-related services in Europe and Asia is the absence of robust drought management Central Asia should generally target the following: strategies, despite increasing drought risks. This situa- tion underscores the urgent need for enhancing tech- nical capabilities and fostering a new generation of • Substantially increasing levels of funding to support the expansion of ongoing institutional and policy water professionals to ensure sustainable water man- reforms, including creating a favorable enabling envi- agement and infrastructure maintenance in the face ronment to increase private sector participation of evolving environmental challenges. • Modernizingand rehabilitating infrastructure and management practices to improve agricultural xx A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia productivity and efficiency, reduce water losses, promoting the adoption of advanced technologies to expand access to safely managed WSS services, and enhance water planning, use, and management; and finally, protect the sector from climate shocks sharing data and knowledge across the region. • Strengthening and building capacities to improve the Mitigation of Water-Related Risks skills of service providers and increase commercial performance to attract private sector investment Enhance water-use efficiency and climate strategies to • Devising and implementing innovative strategies to boost the economy and protect people and the planet. Given the high vulnerability of Europe and Central Asia’s expand wastewater treatment and mitigate environ- water resources and economies to the impacts of climate mental pollution while fostering new, climate-neutral change, it will be key for countries to prioritize investments business models in water-use efficiency and build the necessary infra- structure and capacities to enhance systemwide climate Management of Water Resources resilience. Adaptation measures represent a great oppor- Modernize institutions and build capacity to support full tunity to rethink how countries in the region can boost implementation of IWRM. Widely ranging institutional and economic productivity by lowering costs and increasing policy architecture reforms are needed to continue sup- water productivity. Efforts to ensure water-related risks are porting and expanding IWRM across the region, along with adequately mitigated should generally prioritize funding, targeted actions to increase the performance and manage- promote adaptation and mitigation measures, and tackle ment of water resources to mitigate water-related risks. As the sector’s contribution to climate change. Specifically, a first step, legislative and institutional frameworks must be efforts should include the following: strengthened or developed. This step includes prioritizing, developing, and implementing long-term, national water • Invest in technology and management practices for management strategies that address existing and future water-use efficiency, along with a strategy to rethink threats in countries where a strategy is still needed. Coun- how water is managed across all levels of society, tries with national water management strategies already in with a focus on increased water productivity across all place should continue adopting and implementing river sectors. basin management approaches while addressing existing related institutional weaknesses. • Prioritize investments in measures for climate-change adaptation to build economic and social resilience. For example, upgrade existing facilities and networks to Develop innovative financing mechanisms that include a reduce water losses, and improve reservoir operations mix of taxes, tariffs, public funds, and private capital. Ade- to better balance energy, enhance water security, and quate funds should be earmarked and allocated to ensure improve flood and drought mitigation. that sustainable IWRM approaches are implemented in practice. Management instruments should be further • Promote adaptation measures to limit the impact of developed to align with international best practices and extreme weather events and rainfall variability, such increase the overall performance of water resources man- as rehabilitating and increasing storage capacity and agement, including in the following areas: planning doc- water-reuse systems. uments; expansion and upgrading of monitoring systems; development of water information systems; and the pro- • Invest in climate-resilient infrastructure and systems, particularly those that aim to reduce greenhouse motion of data exchange, both between sectors and across gases (GHGs)—for example, addressing contributions basins and subregions. to GHGs from wastewater treatment operations and throughout the sanitation service chain and reducing Fast-track the adoption of smart technologies and modern- energy inputs across the sector. ize water information management systems. Monitoring, data collection, and information management systems are Cross-Cutting Efforts to Promote Regional Cooperation basic requirements of effective decision making, planning, to Strengthen Development Opportunities and water resources management across and beyond the water sector. Efforts across Europe and Central Asia should Efforts to modernize institutions at the country level must be focus on upgrading and expanding existing systems for mirrored by efforts to promote cooperation at the regional irrigation and drainage and WSS services while adopting level to strengthen development opportunities. Reforms modern technologies designed to increase efficiency sec- and actions to enhance water security across Europe and torwide. Such efforts include expanding and upgrading Central Asia will require important efforts to strengthen, existing hydrological monitoring systems; developing build, or rebuild regional relations and cooperation, espe- groundwater and basin- and countrywide water balances; cially given the high transboundary dependency across the developing water information management systems; region. Promoting greater regional cooperation to support Executive Summary xxi the development and implementation of institutional and Notes legal frameworks to jointly manage transboundary basin resources across all levels will unlock substantial benefits. 1. World Bank Data Bank; for more information, see Efforts to update (to include key principles of modern inter- https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.GDP.FWTL. national water law) and implement existing agreements M3.KD?most_recent_value_desc=true. should be targeted. Boosting regional technical coopera- tion—including promoting regional policy dialogues on 2. Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project (Ser- water resources management (WRM) to facilitate learning bia), World Bank, 2021; for more information, see and exchange best practices—will reduce environmental https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/ and socioeconomic risks and costs, and reinforcing sub- project-detail/P087964. regional political cooperation will further reduce the risks 3. Drinking water from an improved source, provided and costs of water insecurity and complement regional collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a technical cooperation. round trip, including queuing (see https://washdata. org/monitoring/drinking-water), and use of improved sanitation services, which are not shared with other households (see https://washdata.org/monitoring/ sanitation). 4. Primary treatment is a physical process to remove debris that would either float or readily settle out by gravity (Ambulkar and Nathanson 2024). 1 Introduction OBJECTIVE (WRM), particularly in former Soviet Union countries, are not merely a matter of insufficient infrastructure but stem Water security is a matter of increasing concern around from a legacy of underprioritization and underfunding the world. With rapidly growing demands for water and of water. These systemic challenges have hampered the increasing variability in water availability because of development of robust institutions capable of effectively climate change, Europe and Central Asia are no exception. managing water as a vital, strategic resource, leading to Ensuring access for all users and mitigating water-related difficulties in implementing integrated water resources risks should be at the center of national and regional management (IWRM) and ensuring the provision of high- adaptation strategies. quality services. Regionally, water drives positive socioeconomic trends. The A unified document that encapsulates the complex region’s relatively large water endowment has enabled it narrative of regional water security is lacking. The Europe to become one of the world’s largest grain and oilseed net and Central Asia Water Security Initiative was launched and exporters and a key player in global food security. As the a comprehensive assessment undertaken to illuminate the third-largest producer of hydropower globally, the Europe various challenges and opportunities that lie on the path and Central Asia region benefits from a stable domestic to achieving water security and catalyze a much-needed energy source that mitigates dependence on volatile fossil holistic dialogue across disparate sectors and institutions. fuel markets. This is crucial for the region’s energy security, The escalating threats posed by climate change especially in landlocked countries. Additionally, the low underscore the urgency of this endeavor. By enhancing our operating costs of hydropower translate to affordable understanding of the region’s prevailing situation, more electricity for millions. Finally, access to safe drinking water cohesive, strategic, and adaptive responses can be forged, and sanitation services has improved the health and living and as feasible, the adverse impacts of climate change can conditions of millions of people. be mitigated. Urgent management challenges nevertheless threaten Addressing the pressing constraints in governance, the region’s water security and sustainable development infrastructure, and funding is pivotal for advancing the agenda. Growing water demands combined with inefficient region’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Central management practices and climate-change impacts are to this advancement is the management of water- leading to water stress; water conflicts are at the core of related risks, which is integral to effective climate-change many political disputes between neighboring countries in adaptation and mitigation strategies aimed at diminishing Europe and Central Asia. Hydroclimatic extremes, such as vulnerabilities and fortifying resilience across the region. floods and droughts, are becoming more frequent and more To navigate these challenges and secure a water-resilient severe, negatively affecting economies, especially within future, fostering robust collaborations among regional lower-income countries. Access to safely managed water stakeholders, water practitioners, and policy makers is and sanitation services remains inequitable, with greater fundamental. gaps in rural areas and marginalized communities in urban areas. Systemic challenges in water resources management 2 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia SCOPE AND STRUCTURE METHODOLOGY This report offers a cohesive regional picture of current and The Water Security Diagnostic Framework future water security challenges, risks, and opportunities. Based on an extensive examination of development Achieving water security is the overarching goal of water documents, planning materials, scientific literature, and management. Water security is a complex, multidimensional, in-country consultations, this report lays out a strategic and multisectoral concept that involves building a water- framework and initial set of thematically organized secure future for people, the economy, and the environment priority actions. The report highlights areas where in the face of local and global challenges. Creating a additional detailed assessments are needed to support water-secure world is a double-edged sword that includes a comprehensive approach to river basin management, leveraging water productivity for human well-being, sector-specific investment plans, and other essential livelihoods, and environmental and socioeconomic gain planning and execution facets of water governance. while managing the destructive impacts of water, such as floods, droughts, and pollution, to protect societies, The report is meant for policy makers and decision makers economies, and the environment. Water insecurity is working in water security or sectors for which water is driven by a combination of environmental, socioeconomic, a critical input, as well as sector practitioners. It aims to technological, and governance factors. In the most water- address the following four crucial questions: insecure countries, there is typically a combination of challenging hydrological environments, weak institutions, and chronic underinvestment in water infrastructure. 1. What benefits do the region’s water resources provide? Even when water is abundant and the hydrologic regime 2. What are the challenges and risks to the region’s water is favorable, there may be mismanagement (for example, assets? poor pollution regulation) or inadequate infrastructure investments that can lead to water insecurity. 3. What opportunities are there to leverage the benefits of water for society, the economy, and the Water security is too complex to be adequately assessed by environment? a single integrated index. Further, it often intersects with 4. How could water security in the region be improved? other security concerns, including energy, food, climate change, and overall national security. As an alternative to The structure of the report is designed to explore these establishing a rigid methodology for measuring water questions as follows: security, the Water Global Practice of the World Bank developed a more holistic yet comprehensive approach: the • The rest of chapter 1 introduces the Water Security WSDF (figure 1.1), which aims to establish a consistent and Diagnostic Framework (WSDF). structured approach to diagnosing water security without • Chapter 2 provides an overview of the region’s critical being overly prescriptive. The benefit of this approach is its ability to rapidly identify the most severe risks and physical attributes and socioinstitutional dynamics. significant opportunities and facilitate global comparisons • Chapters 3 through 6 present a thorough assessment and benchmarking countries. The WSDF seeks to analyze of each of the WSDF’s layers, beginning with a the relationship between a country’s evolving water comprehensive discussion of the social, economic, endowment and social, economic, and environmental and environmental outcomes of water security; outcomes by examining water sector architecture followed by a presentation of the region’s existing (encompassing both infrastructure and institutions) and water endowment; then a detailed analysis of overall performance, including WRM, delivery of services, institutions and infrastructure (together, water sector and mitigation of water-related risks. architecture); and finally, an evaluation of performance that assesses the delivery of water-related services, management of water resources, and management of Operationalizing the WSDF water-related risks. The WSDF was operationalized through an innovative • Chapter 7 presents key recommendations for approach that maximizes already available information and resources. This was achieved by applying a set of integrated enhancing water security in Europe and Central Asia. Introduction 3 Figure 1.1 scoping interviews. The culmination of this phase led to a comprehensive diagnosis detailing regional water security, WATER SECURITY Diagnostic Framework and Its guided by the WSDF framework and detailed assessments Dimensions of individual countries. These country-specific pages, presented in appendix B, offer valuable insights into key indicators, challenges, and opportunities for each nation. Those interested in understanding the context and data for each country should refer to them. Additionally, a full list of indicators can be found online http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/099062424121127642/P1700 3013a15d28d1942d1420e198a6115ac6adf91d9. Phase B: Identification of Recommendations to Enhance Water Security Drawing on the findings of the diagnostic phase, phase B aided in the identification of regional and subregional strategies needed to bolster water security across Europe and Central Asia. This phase involved identifying recommendations at the regional and subregional scales. The principal outcome was a strategic road map outlining recommendations that serve as a foundation for a strategic action plan. The plan aims to leverage existing momentum generated through the regional diagnosis to expedite policy reforms and investment strategies, fostering the Source: World Bank 2019. realization of a long-term vision for regional water security. quantitative and qualitative indicators that together allow a The Europe and Central Asia water security diagnostic used a country or region’s performance to be rapidly, consistently, hybrid approach that combined a desktop review of existing and systematically assessed across each of the WSDF’s four literature, development reports, in-country consultations, dimensions (endowment, architecture, performance, and and open-source data sets with insights from country- outcomes). This approach promotes a dynamic learning specific deep dives and general water security evaluations, cycle that continuously strengthens itself and accelerates including at the Danube subregional level (table 1.1 and the identification of new opportunities and gaps. It also Appendix B). This methodological approach gave rise to provides the fastest possible pathway toward implementing a comprehensive regional assessment that integrated high-impact actions that incrementally improve water diverse perspectives and data sources validated by relevant sector performance while involving stakeholders from stakeholders in select countries to inform the identification different institutional levels and water-related sectors. The and implementation of strategic actions to enhance water framework adopted a phased approach, as described in security across the region. the following subsections. Phase A: Preparatory and Diagnostic Climate-Change Scenarios The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Phase A established the baseline for water security within uses a set of climate and socioeconomic models to study Europe and Central Asia by delineating current conditions future scenarios related to climate change. The climate and forecasting future challenges, risks, and opportunities, scenarios called Representative Concentration Pathways considering both national and global influences. A suite of (RCPs) comprise four projections of how concentrations quantitative and qualitative indicators was used to evaluate of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere will the maturity of the WSDF’s four dimensions, supplemented change because of human activities. The four RCPs (that by a qualitative analysis of regional and country-specific is, RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5) range from low data, together with stakeholder engagement through 4 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia future concentrations (RCP2.6) to high (RCP8.5). In this The socioeconomic scenarios called Shared Socioeconomic assessment, three are considered; for simplification, these Pathways (SSPs) are five narratives describing alternative future are referred to as low-emission (RCP2.6), medium-emission development cooperation and priorities. For this assessment, (RCP4.5), and high-emission (RCP8.5) scenarios. For each we explored three scenarios: SSP1, SSP3, and SSP5. SSP1, RCP, we used the projections of five different climate “Sustainability Path,” is optimistic and imagines a world models: the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Earth acknowledging environmental boundaries, increasing equality System Model (GFDL-ESM4), the Institut Pierre-Simon and education, increasing economic growth motivated by Laplace coupled model for CMIP6 (IPSL-CM6A-LR), the human well-being, and decreasing the use of resources Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1- and energy. SSP3, “Regional Rivalry,” is a middle-of-the-road 2-HR), the Meteorological Research Institute Earth System scenario and envisions a future where there is a resurgent Model (MRI-ESM2-0), and the UK Earth System Model nationalism that increases concerns about competitiveness (UKESM1-0-LL6F6F). and security. Regional conflicts push countries to increasingly TABLE 1.1  Countries Included in the Europe and Central Asia Regional Water Security Assessment Table 3 Estimated costs (in billion 2015 US$) to deliver sustainable water management in ECA region and its subregions Countries covered under Europe and Europe and Central Europe and Central Deep-dive country General country Danube regional Central Asia regional water security Asia regional Asia subregion assessments assessments assessment assessment assessment Austria X X Bosnia and Herzegovina X X X Bulgaria X X Croatia X X X Czech Republic X X Hungary X X Kosovo X X Moldova X X Montenegro X X X Danube North Macedonia X X Poland X Romania X X Serbia X X X Slovak Republic X X Slovenia X X Ukraine X X X Albania X X X Kazakhstan X X Kyrgyz Republic X X Tajikistan X X Central Asia Turkmenistan X X Uzbekistan X X Armenia X X Azerbaijan X X South Caucasus Georgia X X Belarus X Russian Federation X Peripheral Türkiye X Note: The table also depicts the level of assessment performed at the country level as part of the World Bank Europe and Central Asia Water Security Initiative. Introduction 5 focus on domestic or, at most, regional issues. A low First, it aims to trigger dialogue on current regional international priority for addressing environmental concerns water security challenges among countries and relevant leads to substantial environmental degradation in some stakeholders and offer actionable recommendations regions. SSP5, “Fossil-Fueled Development,” is pessimistic and tailored to the unique and shared water security challenges imagines a world that places increasing faith in competitive faced by individual countries within Europe and Central markets, innovation, and participatory societies to produce Asia. These recommendations aim to guide national policy rapid technological progress and development of human reforms, investment strategies, and management practices capital as the path to sustainable development. Each of the crucial for enhancing water security at the country level. SSPs is associated with quantitative projections of population By identifying common issues across the region, the and gross domestic product (GDP; Jones and O’Neill 2016) report provides a blueprint for national governments to that drive the changes in water demand. The report considers implement solutions that are both effective in their local combinations of these climate and socioeconomic scenarios. context and beneficial for the region’s collective water The socioeconomic projections include population projections security. made using various assumptions, including fertility, mortality, migration, and education rates. Second, the report underscores the critical role of regional action in promoting stronger cooperation and coordination across Europe and Central Asia. By highlighting successful ADVANCING WATER SECURITY IN case studies and best practices, it seeks to inspire EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA stakeholders to embark on collaborative projects and initiatives that can leverage collective strengths and address This report is designed to engage and inform a broad the multifaceted aspects of water security. The report aims spectrum of stakeholders within Europe and Central Asia, to promote a more cohesive and unified effort toward encompassing national governments, regional entities, achieving sustainable water management, ensuring the multilateral organizations, and regional nongovernmental long-term resilience and prosperity of the region against organizations involved in water management and a backdrop of climate change and increasing water-related sustainability. With its comprehensive approach, the report challenges. serves two primary purposes. 2 Setting the Scene Countries in Europe and Central Asia are highly diverse from affiliations with the European Union and the North Atlantic a geographical, cultural, economic, and historical viewpoint. Treaty Organization (NATO), Central Asian nations have There are also notable differences in socioeconomic historically aligned more closely with the Russian Federation circumstances and political regimes. In Eastern Europe, and China, although this dynamic is evolving. These diverse countries such as Hungary and Poland have experienced geopolitical orientations help shape the unique governance significant transformations since the fall of the Iron Curtain, landscapes across these regions. Given the region’s each pursuing unique paths toward economic development. diversity, a nuanced understanding is critical. Appendix These efforts have led to diverse forms of governance and B includes country pages that delve into specific metrics economic models, contributing to their economic growth and characteristics, enabling readers to explore how these and increased integration with broader European standards. elements vary from country to country. Since gaining independence in the early 1990s, Central Asian countries have maintained distinct governance structures. For this assessment, the region has been clustered into three Whereas Eastern European nations have developed closer main subregions (map 2.1). This division acknowledges the Map 2.1 MAPS DEPICTING Countries Assessed, the Main Rivers, and Three Subregions 8 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia distinct geographical features, climatic conditions, and border between Europe and Asia. The region houses socioeconomic contexts of each but also, importantly, significant transboundary river basins, such as the Kura- shared transboundary waters. Arak basin, which is a critical water resource for agriculture, hydropower, and domestic use across all of the countries. The Danube subregion encompasses all countries that are part of the Danube River basin (DRB), including Eastern Europe and the Balkan countries. Although the subregion HISTORY is highly diverse, in addition to being connected through Political changes have profoundly influenced water the DRB, some countries share similar historical influences. governance. Across Europe and Central Asia, the historical For example, several Eastern European countries, including perspective on water sector development reveals a those in the Balkans, were part of the Soviet bloc during complex landscape. Each subregion presents a unique the Cold War, and the transition from communism to transition from centralized, often Soviet-influenced democracy and market economies has been a shared systems toward more fragmented and diverse approaches experience. Many Eastern European countries have become to water governance shaped by political, economic, and members of the European Union (EU), aligning themselves environmental reforms. with Western European values and institutions. In contrast, most Balkan countries are still in the process of seeking Water supply and sanitation (WSS) services in the EU membership. In the Danube subregion, organizations Danube were significantly affected by the subregion’s like the International Commission for the Protection of the transition from centrally planned, Socialist economies Danube River (ICPDR), the Sava Commission, the Danube to market-driven democratic systems in the 1990s. This Commission, and the EU Strategy for the Danube Region shift led to a comprehensive transformation in service play vital roles in enhancing water security. These entities provision, mirroring the broader political and economic work collaboratively on issues ranging from environmental transformations within the region. This transition period protection and water management to navigation and saw efforts to improve efficiency, sustainability, and public sustainable development, ensuring the long-term health service frameworks, marked by decentralization and and security of the region’s water resources. increased private sector involvement. The expansion of the EU played a crucial role in shaping the future trajectory The Central Asia subregion includes Kazakhstan, the of water service provision in the Danube subregion, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and These countries are clustered together because of their compliance with EU environmental standards as countries geographical proximity and historical, cultural, and linguistic in the Danube catchment moved toward EU integration. similarities. Geographically, Central Asia is located at the The Danube Commission and the ICPDR have been crucial heart of the Eurasian continent and is characterized by vast during this transformative period and have guided the steppe lands, deserts, and mountain ranges. This subregion shift toward EU standards in water management, focusing is landlocked and shares borders with Afghanistan, China, on navigation, environmental protection, and sustainable Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia, and the Caucasus subregion. water use. Their efforts facilitated regional cooperation, The region’s complex river systems, including the Amu Darya aligning national policies with EU directives and promoting and Syr Darya Rivers, which originate in the mountainous sustainable development. Through these initiatives, the regions and flow into the shrinking Aral Sea, are crucial for the region has seen improved water quality, effective flood risk region’s water supply, supporting agriculture, hydropower, management, and enhanced biodiversity conservation, and the livelihoods of millions. These countries also share reflecting a successful integration of environmental goals common challenges and opportunities related to economic with economic and political reforms. development, natural resource management, and regional water and energy security. Regional organizations like Water sector development in Central Asia is characterized the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) by the Soviet legacy of unified water management program, the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea systems that facilitated integrated management of major (IFAS), and the Regional Environmental Centre for Central river basins. The Soviet disintegration in 1991 introduced Asia play pivotal roles in fostering cooperation on common challenges to this cooperative framework, leading to issues such as economic development, environmental difficulties in transboundary water cooperation among sustainability, and water security. newly independent states. Efforts to continue collaboration, such as the establishment of the Interstate Commission The countries in the South Caucasus subregion— for Water Coordination of Central Asia (ICWC), faced Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia—share history and challenges because of tensions over water sharing and geographical proximity. They are located in the southern infrastructure management. The interdependence of water part of the Caucasus Mountains, which form a natural for agriculture and energy through hydropower in Central Setting the Scene 9 Asia, particularly in countries like Uzbekistan, illustrates the such as seasonal flooding and subsequent degradation of critical water-energy nexus in the region. This accentuates water quality because of erosion. the delicate balance required between sustaining agricultural output and meeting energy demands, which is The South Caucasus is geographically and climatically essential for economic stability and growth. diverse, featuring high mountain ranges, fertile valleys, and arid plains. This subregion straddles the border Water and environmental protection in the South Caucasus between Europe and Asia and includes the southern subregion have changed significantly since the subregion part of the Greater Caucasus mountain range, the Lesser gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The Caucasus mountain range (map 2.2, panel a), and various approach to addressing environmental and water sector lowlands and plateaus. This diversity results in a range of challenges in the subregion has evolved along political climatic conditions, from humid and temperate climates lines. Armenia and Georgia have seen developments in the mountains to semiarid and arid conditions in the toward mixed-governance models, whereas Azerbaijan has lowlands. These geographical features influence water pursued a distinct governance path. These varied political availability and affect every aspect of water management, landscapes have influenced strategies and priorities from agricultural practices to hydropower generation and in tackling environmental and water-related issues, domestic water supply. highlighting the diverse responses within each country to similar challenges. Environmental activism, particularly in Central Asia’s geography is characterized by vast steppes, Georgia, reflects the complex relationship between political deserts, and mountain ranges, with a predominantly arid interests, economic development, and environmental and continental climate. The subregion is bounded by high stewardship. In Armenia, environmental concerns, mountain ranges to the east and south that significantly initially overshadowed by economic recovery efforts after influence climate and water resources. Overall, the climate independence, saw a resurgence of movements addressing is characterized by hot summers and cool winters, with the ecological and social impacts of development projects. minimal precipitation (map 2.2, panel b), leading to heavy dependence on irrigation for agriculture, supplied largely by the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers. The geography CLIMATE AND GEOGRAPHY and climate of Central Asia pose significant challenges to The Danube subregion is known for its extensive river water management, requiring innovative solutions for system, which flows through numerous European sustainable practices for water use and agriculture. countries, making it one of the continent’s most vital waterways. The Danube River is a crucial resource for water supply, transportation, agriculture, and industrial activities. DEMOGRAPHICS The subregional climate is predominantly continental, Urbanization across Europe and Central Asia reflects supporting a wide array of ecological systems and broader global trends that have seen a shift toward urban agricultural practices. This climate also brings challenges, living. This transition brings opportunities and challenges in regard to infrastructure, service delivery, and sustainable Map 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND Precipitation in Eastern and Central Europe a. Regional topography b. Mean annual precipitation 10 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia development. On the one hand, urbanization can drive rural populations, and distinct migration flows that are investments in water and sanitation infrastructure, promote evident when specific subregions are examined. Rural water-use efficiency through innovation, and strengthen areas in Europe and Central Asia, especially in Eastern water governance. On the other hand, urbanization Europe, have experienced significant demographic increases water demand, exacerbates water pollution, changes over the past few decades, primarily characterized strains infrastructure, and heightens vulnerability to by aging populations, declining birthrates, and migration climate-related water risks. Rapid urban changes demand to urban areas. These changes have had profound impacts adaptable and resilient water management strategies to on agriculture in the region, affecting both the labor force ensure sustainable development and equitable access to and land use patterns. water resources. In the Danube subregion, the population has decreased Population trends in the region reveal a complex picture slightly since 1990 and now stands at roughly 165 million. influenced by urbanization, demographic shifts, and There are, however, different trends within countries migration patterns. The Europe and Central Asia region regarding migration and urbanization (figure 2.1). Austria, has a total population of close to 500 million people. Bulgaria, and Hungary have higher urban-to-rural ratios, Population dynamics are shaped by varying rates of urban- indicating a predominantly urban population. For instance, to-rural ratios, demographic changes in both urban and Austria has seen a positive change in total population Figure 2.1 HISTORICAL POPULATION Trends and Current Shares of Urban Population in Europe and Central Asia Subregions a. Population in the Europe and b. Population in rural, urban, and city areas and Central Asia region by growth rate of urban share of population in 2022 in subregion and countries parentheses 80 Uzbekistan 50.5% urban (+2.2%) Subregional average 45.5% urban (+2.9%) Central Asia 60 Kazakhstan 58.0% urban (+3.5%) Central Asia Tajikistan 28.0% urban (+2.9%) 40 Kyrgyz Republic 37.5% urban (+3.8%) Turkmenistan 53.5% urban (+2.3%) 20 Ukraine 69.9% urban (–14.0%) 0 Poland 60.1% urban (–2.4%) Romania 54.5% urban (–0.1%) 150 Subregional average 61.0% urban (–1.4%) Czech Republic 74.4% urban (+1.8%) Hungary 72.6% urban (–0.3%) Danube 100 Austria 59.3% urban (+1.4%) Population (millions) Serbia 56.9% urban (–2.1%) 50 Danube Bulgaria 76.4% urban (–5.7%) Slovak Republic 59.3% urban (–0.1%) 0 Croatia 58.2% urban (–0.0%) 15 Bosnia and Herzegovina 49.8% urban (–0.3%) Albania 63.8% urban (+0.1%) South Caucasus Moldova 43.2% urban (–1.8%) 10 Slovenia 55.8% urban (+0.8%) North Macedonia 59.1% urban (+0.2%) 5 Montenegro 68.2% urban (+0.2%) 57.2% urban (+0.7%) South Caucasus Azerbaijan 0 250 Subregional average 60.3% urban (+0.5%) Georgia 60.3% urban (+0.8%) 200 Armenia 63.6% urban (+2.9%) 150 75.1% urban (+0.3%) Peripheral Russian Federation Peripheral Turkey 77.0% urban (+1.6%) 100 Belarus 80.3% urban (–0.3%) 50 0 50 100 150 Population (millions) 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Location Rural Urban < 1 million Urban > 1 million Largest city Year Source: World Bank 2024f. Setting the Scene 11 owing to an increase in urban population and substantial The Central Asia subregion is marked by high population international migration inflow. Bulgaria’s urban share of the growth (figure 2.1a), especially in Tajikistan, which has total population is one of the highest at about 75 percent, yet experienced the highest percentage increase among it, Romania, and Serbia face population declines with negative the subregion (figure 2.1b). This subregion is home to a urban demographic trends, accompanied by significant burgeoning population, exemplified by Kazakhstan’s 19 numbers of people leaving the country. This outflow may be million people and Uzbekistan’s 34.9 million, comprising attributed to economic opportunities elsewhere and aging. large urban populations illustrated by urban-to-rural ratios of >1. The Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan The South Caucasus subregion is the least populated in have lower urbanization rates, reflected in the urban share Europe and Central Asia and exhibits diverse trends (figure of their population of 37, 28, and 54 percent, respectively. 2.1). Armenia’s urban population has increased, but the However, each of these countries has experienced a overall trend is slightly negative, and there has been a negative migration trend, with Kazakhstan having the notable outflow of migrants. Armenia’s urban-to-rural ratio largest outflow. The otherwise lower urban-to-rural is the highest at 1.73, indicating that most of the country’s population ratios overall reflect the subregion’s strong 2.8 million people live in cities. Azerbaijan, with a population rural character and the associated challenges in urban surpassing 10 million, and Georgia, with 3.7 million, also development and migration. have urban majorities (urban-to-rural ratios of 57 and 60 percent, respectively; figure 2.1b). Azerbaijan presents a contrasting scenario with an increase in both total and urban POPULATION GROWTH populations and a relatively small but positive migration Future population projections for Europe and Central Asia figure. Trends in Georgia are similar to those in Armenia, suggest a varied demographic landscape influenced by with a declining total population and significant migration factors such as fertility rates, migration, education, and outflow, indicative of the region’s challenges, including economic development (figure 2.2). Overall, the regional economic and geopolitical tensions. Figure 2.2 PROJECTION OF Future Population in 2050 for Europe and Central Asia under the Three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) Europe and Subregions Central Asia total – Population (millions) — — — — – – – – Europe and Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Peripheral Central Asia Region Source: SSPs outlined by Samir and Lutz 2017 in Satoh et al. 2017. 12 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia population is expected to stay close to 500 million through The Danube subregion is home to a mix of developing and 2050, despite a population increase in the Central Asia developed economic profiles. The Danube River is central subregion. to the subregion’s development, supporting agriculture, industry, and energy while facilitating trade. The industry The Danube subregion is expected to experience a small and service sectors dominate in economies like the Czech population decline through 2050. All scenarios1 predict a Republic and Hungary (figure 2.3) (88 and 82 percent of population decrease for the subregion: from a 2010 baseline gross domestic product [GDP], respectively), reflecting their of approximately 176 million to a potential low of nearly advanced manufacturing capabilities and dynamic service 152 million. In contrast, Albania could see its population industries. In such industrial economies, water is a crucial increase to as much as 3.6 million, a stark contrast to its input for manufacturing, energy production, and cooling 2010 baseline of approximately 3.2 million. Although a processes. Meanwhile, the share of GDP attributable to declining population might reduce the strain on water agriculture varies, and it is much lower in developed resources, increasing economic activity could counteract economies such as Austria (1.1 percent) compared with this by intensifying water use (see “Water Availability” in developing economies such as Albania (19.1 percent). chapter 4). Moreover, a diminished population could affect the financial support and scale of benefits that are essential The South Caucasus subregion has diverse economic to sustaining and modernizing water infrastructure. structures, with GDP growth rates ranging from 2.7 to 5.4 percent in 2023 (figure 2.3). Azerbaijan’s economy leans Population projections for the South Caucasus subregion heavily on the oil and gas sector (41 percent industry value diverge under different narratives. With the Shared added), whereas Armenia and Georgia display a stronger Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios, SSP2 and SSP3 orientation toward services (59 and 55 percent of GDP, projections indicate a potential population increase of respectively), indicating the burgeoning role of tourism 0.2 to 1.7 million people, respectively, above the 2010 and information technology (IT). Agriculture remains baseline of 16.6 million. However, SSP1 projects a potential notable in Armenia (11.2 percent). Azerbaijan’s oil wealth population decrease of about 0.6 million. Under SSP3, translates to a higher GDP per capita compared with its Azerbaijan’s population—expected to increase across all neighbors, which face challenges in achieving similar levels three scenarios—could grow to more than 11.5 million of economic prosperity. The subregion’s economic activity from a 2010 baseline of 9.2 million. This population increase is intricately linked to geopolitical dynamics, with strategic will further stress the water supply systems in arid and water resources management (WRM) playing a crucial semiarid areas. In contrast, Armenia’s and Georgia’s growth role in agriculture, energy production, and the provision is more tempered across all scenarios, possibly because of of necessary services for the upsurge in tourism. Ensuring their different economic and migration dynamics. reliable WSS services is vital to safeguarding workforce health in these countries, boosting productivity, and All scenarios predict a large population increase across promoting economic growth. Central Asia. SSP3 projects the highest increase to nearly 86.7 million, a significant jump from the 2010 baseline of The Central Asia subregion exhibits promising economic 60.7 million. The SSP3 scenario also shows large increases in prospects, with 2023 GDP growth rates projected to be the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, potentially attributable as high as 5.8 percent (figure 2.3). Agriculture contributes to a combination of high fertility and lower migration rates, significantly to the economies of Tajikistan (23.8 percent of as well as economic policies that focus on self-sufficiency GDP) and Uzbekistan (25.1 percent of GDP), highlighting its over international trade. The anticipated population role in supporting livelihoods and ensuring food security. increases suggest heightened demand for water in The industry sector, particularly dominant in Turkmenistan agricultural and urban settings that could exacerbate (42 percent of GDP), underscores the region’s reliance existing water scarcity. on natural resources, including vital water resources for irrigation and hydropower. The service sector’s varying development, with Kazakhstan at the forefront SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (56.1 percent of GDP), signals efforts toward economic Socioeconomic transformations and challenges—marked diversification. Trade dynamics indicate a balanced import- by geopolitical tensions, the impacts of COVID-19, export scenario, reflecting global market integration. The and significant economic restructuring—characterize criticality of WRM emerges here, given its essential role in Europe and Central Asia’s current landscape. The water agriculture and hydropower potential overall. sector emerges as a critical element of socioeconomic development, underpinning agriculture, industry, and energy while posing challenges in sustainable management and environmental conservation. Setting the Scene 13 THE IMPORTANCE OF A WATER- regulatory frameworks with the EU, underpinning the region’s commitment to sustainable water management. SECURE FUTURE IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA Central Asia’s reliance on transboundary rivers makes Vast tracts of arable land, extensive forests, and considerable cooperation over water resources vital for maintaining freshwater reserves are central to Europe and Central Asia’s peace and fostering regional integration. Although economic vitality and the well-being of its population. The endowed with significant freshwater resources, Central Asia region holds a distinctive place in the global context because nevertheless faces potential water scarcity exacerbated by of its strategic geopolitical position, economic potential, climate change and inefficient water use, particularly in rich cultural history, and significant natural resources. agriculture. Countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are Encompassing a diversity of countries, from the EU accession pivotal in this context, given their vast agricultural lands states to the resource-abundant landscapes of Central Asia and energy needs. and the geopolitically pivotal South Caucasus, it is a crossroads between East and West. Bridging Europe and Asia, the South Caucasus subregion is rich in biodiversity and relies heavily on its water The Danube is a crucial waterway within Europe and a symbol resources for agriculture and hydropower. It is susceptible of international cooperation and ecological diversity. Water to political tensions that can complicate collaborative security is at the heart of Europe and Central Asia’s global water management efforts, and this context emphasizes significance and is intrinsically linked to the region’s stability the need for robust international agreements and shared and prosperity. Not just a regional concern, it has wider management frameworks. implications for global food security, energy production, and climate resilience. The Danube, for example, is not only a crucial Water security in Europe and Central Asia is crucial for waterway within Europe but also a symbol of international several reasons: cooperation and ecological diversity. The Danube basin countries are working toward harmonizing their legal and • Agricultural productivity. The region accounts for a substantial share of the world’s arable land (19 Figure 2.3 GDP PER Capita of Different Countries and the Three Subregions in Europe and Central Asia Central Asia Danube Austria 40,000 30,000 Slovenia Czech Republic 20,000 Slovak Republic GDP per capita (constant 2015 US$) Kazakhstan 10,000 Turkmenistan Danube Tajikistan Ukraine 0 Central Asia Kyrgyz Republic South Caucasus Peripheral 40,000 30,000 20,000 Turkey 10,000 Belarus South Caucasus Peripheral 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year Source: World Bank 2024f. Note: GDP is in 2015 constant US$. GDP per capita in the Europe and Central Asia region from 1980 to 2023. GDP = gross domestic product. 14 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Figure 2.4 TOTAL ARABLE Land across Major Regions of the World Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia North America Middle East and North Africa Latin America and Caribbean Europe and Central Asia East Asia and Pacific 0 1 2 3 4 Total arable land (million km²) Source: World Bank 2021i. percent; AQUASTAT 2024), making water availability infrastructure and sedimentation affect hydropower key to agricultural output and, by extension, global efficiency and sustainability, and hydropower food markets (figure 2.4). The region contributes operations raise many environmental concerns. 12 percent of the world’s total agriculture and fish Modernization, improved sediment management, production value. Over the past decade, the Europe and the use of new technologies like pumped storage and Central Asia region has been responsible for are crucial for the sector’s continued relevance. nearly 13 percent of overall growth in the global net value of agriculture and fishery and an impressive 38 • Economic growth. The Europe and Central Asia region acts as a crucial bridge between developed Western percent of the increase in global exports, highlighting Europe and the emerging Asian economies in the its pivotal role in the international market (OECD/ East, facilitating trade and investment flows across FAO 2023). The region is home to some of the continents. Water is a fundamental resource for world’s largest grain and oilseed net exporters, such sustaining various economic processes, and its scarcity as Kazakhstan, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine, which could constrain economic growth by as much as 10 furthers the region’s position as a key player in global percent in Central Asia (World Bank 2016). Efficient food security. The agriculture sector sustains millions water use contributes to higher water productivity, of rural communities, providing income and food which is essential for the industrialized economies of security and employing nearly 8 percent of the total the Danube countries. workforce in the region. • Energy production. With abundant water resources, • Climate-change mitigation and adaptation. The region’s vulnerability to climate-change impacts hydropower provides a stable domestic energy underscores the importance of water security for source, mitigating dependence on volatile fossil fuel resilience against extreme weather events, such as markets. Hydropower is crucial for Europe and Central droughts and floods. Economic damages from such Asia’s energy security, especially for landlocked events in Central Asia could reach up to 1.3 percent of countries (figure 2.5). Additionally, its low operating GDP annually, with crop yields potentially decreasing costs translate to affordable electricity for millions. by 30 percent by 2050. The European region could Many countries, particularly in Central Asia and the face significant job losses and an annual climate- South Caucasus, depend on hydropower as a primary related extreme weather cost of approximately $184 source of energy. Water availability directly affects billion by the end of the century without adequate energy security and the potential for sustainable adaptation measures (World Bank 2023c). development. However, challenges such as aging Setting the Scene 15 Figure 2.5 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION from Hydroelectric Sources Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia North America Middle East and North Africa Latin America and Caribbean Europe and Central Asia East Asia and Pacific 0 10 20 30 40 Electricity production from hydroelectric sources (% total) Source: World Bank 2015a. • Human health. Improving access to safe water and NOTE sanitation services in the region is crucial for enhancing public health because 32 percent of the population 1. There are three population scenarios: SSP1 envisions a still lacks access to these services (JMP 2022). Ensuring sustainable world with low fertility and high migration, safe and sustainable water and sanitation services can focusing on human well-being and environmental boost public health, educational opportunities, and sustainability; SSP2 presents a middle-of-the-road labor productivity. Modernizing and expanding water scenario in which trends do not shift markedly, with infrastructure is key to preventing disease spread and moderate fertility rates and migration levels; and SSP3 improving life quality. depicts a fragmented world with high fertility rates, as • Uneven progress in water management across the well as low migration because of restrictive policies, region. Water security is a critical concern in the region leading to regional disparities and challenges in because of uneven progress toward sustainable water global cooperation (see “Climate-Change Scenarios” management, with EU members showing leadership in chapter 1 for a detailed description). in reforms while Central Asia faces challenges resulting from limited institutional capabilities and financial constraints. Achieving regional water security is essential for fostering economic growth, maintaining ecological balance, and enhancing social welfare, but it will require substantial investments in water infrastructure, legal and regulatory reforms, and enhanced regional cooperation, especially in managing transboundary water resources. 3 People, Environment, and Economy This chapter explores water-related benefits to the regional SOCIAL OUTCOMES economy, society, and environment, as well as the risks and missed opportunities countries face by not managing KEY MESSAGES water resources efficiently and sustainably. Water-related benefits are defined as outcomes and explored within • Regionally, more than 161 million people (or 32 percent of the regional population) lack access to safely the social, economic, and environmental dimensions. managed water, and 172 million (or 35 percent) lack This section corresponds to the outermost ring of the access to safely managed sanitation. Water Security Diagnostic Framework (WSDF), which encompasses people, the environment, and the economy • Lack of access is most prevalent in rural areas, often driven by the lack of economies of scale. Major urban (figure 1.1). centers in some countries also lack access, possibly because of limited investments and weak operation and maintenance (O&M) practices, including limited cost recovery. • About 174 million people (or 35 percent of the regional population) live in water-stressed areas across the region, and competition for water resources is likely to increase as demands and climate variability grow. • 77 million people, approximately 15% of the population in the ECA region, are exposed to flood risk with a 1 in 100 years return period. Health Benefits Although access to “at least basic” water supply and sanitation (WSS) services is high across Europe and Central Asia, additional substantive efforts are needed to expand access to “safely managed” services. Most of the population has access to at least basic1 WSS services (averaging 97 percent for drinking water and 95 percent for sanitation; figure 3.1). Access to safely managed WSS is, however, still lacking for more than 161 million people (or 32 percent 18 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia of the regional population). By subregion, 26 percent of some countries, such as Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus the population in Central Asia lacks access, followed by and North Macedonia and Serbia in the Danube, this 19 percent in the South Caucasus and 12 percent in the figure rises to more than 80 percent of the population, and Danube subregion. In some countries, such as Albania in the research suggests achieving Sustainable Development Danube and the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan Goal (SDG) target 6.2 (improved sanitation for all by 2030) in Central Asia, 30 to 40 percent of the population lacks will be especially difficult in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, access. Access to safely managed sanitation lags behind and Romania under various future socioeconomic scenarios access to safe drinking water, affecting more than 172 (van Puijenbroek et al. 2023). million people (or 35 percent of the regional population). In the South Caucasus, 58 percent of the population lacks Lack of access to safely managed WSS services is most access to safely managed sanitation, followed by Central prevalent in rural areas. In some areas of countries such as Asia with 40 percent and the Danube with 35 percent. In the Kyrgyz Republic in Central Asia, more than half the rural Figure 3.1 ACCESS TO Basic and Safely Managed Water Supply and Sanitation in Europe and Central Asia, 2020 Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Peripheral 100 75 Drinking water Percentage Basic 50 25 93.2 81.9 97.8 91.7 95.4 99.0 97.4 95.1 90.6 95.3 97.7 99.0 99.0 98.9 96.1 93.9 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 97.5 97.3 99.0 96.0 97.0 96.5 97.0 0 100 75 Safely managed Drinking water Percentage 50 25 n.a. 73.7 55.2 58.8 70.1 89.3 94.8 87.9 70.7 74.1 75.0 76.8 82.0 82.0 85.1 88.9 89.0 92.6 97.6 97.9 98.3 98.3 98.9 99.0 80.5 66.4 86.9 88.3 76.1 0 94.6 100 75 Percentage Sanitation Basic 50 25 97.9 96.8 97.7 97.9 97.9 99.0 95.3 99.0 78.7 97.9 98.3 87.1 96.6 97.8 95.0 97.7 98.0 86.0 99.0 98.1 99.0 99.0 97.5 91.9 85.8 93.9 96.0 89.4 97.9 99.0 0 100 75 Safely managed Percentage Sanitation 50 18.4 12.2 25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 82.2 72.0 92.5 65.0 47.7 83.1 67.8 45.4 40.0 72.0 87.8 72.2 85.2 71.5 90.5 99.0 81.9 41.6 34.4 69.3 21.0 60.8 73.9 78.4 0 c ge n tan stan n rage nia ova bia ia ania atia gro gary aria enia nd tria blic rage rgia enia an y a on aine blic rus ubli ke ista nista ovin don vera Pola rbaij erati Alba Ser ekis Aus tene epu Bela Tur Mold Cro Bulg epu Geo akh Rom Slov Arm Hun Rep ave Ukr ave k zeg ace Taji kme Aze al a Fed Uzb ak R ch R Mon Kaz nal nal Her th M gyz Tur gion sian regio Slov regio Cze Kyr and Nor re Rus Sub Sub Sub nia Bos Rural/urban disaggregation Rural Urban Source: JMP 2020. Note: n.a. = not applicable. People, Environment, and Economy 19 population lacks access to safely managed drinking water, WSS services can significantly improve health status and whereas 80 percent of the rural population in the Danube provide development opportunities to the region (WHO subregion countries North Macedonia and Serbia lack 2023b). access to safely managed sanitation (figure 3.1). This low level of access in rural areas could be explained by the lack Regional and national estimates of access to safely of economies of scale to provide cost-effective networked managed WSS in Europe and Central Asia often hide services, generally considered the gold standard for service disparities within countries. Even in high-income countries, delivery but not always the most appropriate response in where access to safely managed WSS is generally high, rural areas. To meet the needs of the unconnected in these rural areas and certain marginalized communities are areas, off-network solutions and on-site management underserved. For example, in Croatia and Romania, more practices—in particular, nature-based solutions—should than 30 percent of the rural population lacks access to be considered, which may generate additional social safe WSS services, compared with 5 percent of the urban benefits. However, in some countries, such as Albania, population; in Albania, more than 50 percent of the Roma North Macedonia, and Serbia, access to safely managed population, an ethnic and linguistic minority, has no access sanitation is lower in urban areas than in rural areas. In to safe WSS (World Bank 2023b). Such communities may North Macedonia, for example, 98 percent of the urban face higher health risks and, in some cases, be the source population lacks access to safely managed sanitation. of major disease outbreaks (WHO 2023a; figure 3.2). These exceptional circumstances could be because of (a) Continuous investments in upgrading access from basic limited investments in expanding coverage to connect the to safely managed WSS services could bring substantial growing, often unplanned, urban or periurban settlements additional social benefits. and (b) weak O&M practices with respect to aging and inefficient infrastructure because of the lack of operational The return-on-investment ratios for WASH services from cost recovery and willingness to pay (DWP 2019; see health-related improvements and reduced deaths from “Storage to Manage Water Variability” and “Transboundary water-related diseases range from 0.6 to 8.0 (Hutton 2012). Waters” in chapter 4 for further information on WSS In Central Asia, the investments needed to increase access infrastructure and services and their performance). To move to safely managed WSS are demonstrably lower than the into a positive feedback loop of adequate service provision actual costs. In Tajikistan, for example, the investment gap that promotes willingness to pay, improvements in services to achieve adequate WSS is 1.25 percent of gross domestic are required. In turn, this would facilitate improvements product (GDP) versus 4.25 percent of GDP in economic in cost recovery and thus the ability to increase O&M to costs. Similarly, in the Kyrgyz Republic and Turkmenistan, existing facilities and invest in new ones (World Bank 2019). the investment gap is about half the cost of inadequate WSS to the economy (World Bank 2019). Regionally, mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) attributed to water supply, sanitation, and hygiene Protection from Water-Related Risks (WASH) are relatively low. Adequate access to WSS is crucial for socioeconomic development globally because Almost one-third of the region’s population (or 174 million it improves public health, frees up time for education, people) lives in highly water-stressed areas. This number increases labor productivity, and supports various is expected to increase in the coming years. Water stress economic activities (fisheries, tourism, property markets, occurs when available water resources are insufficient to and so on); it also provides several environmental benefits meet water demands. A region or a country is considered (ecosystems services, biodiversity, and so on; OECD 2011a). highly water-stressed if the ratio of demands to withdrawals Health benefits include a low prevalence of diarrheal is greater than 0.4 (see “Environmental Outcomes” in diseases, intestinal nematode infections, and other chapter 3 for further details on water stress across Europe diseases linked to unsafe WSS. In Europe and Central Asia, and Central Asia). The social outcomes of living in water- the levels of mortality (3.4 people per 100,000 inhabitants) stressed areas may include a lack of reliable access to clean and DALYs2 (182 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants) attributed water; increased vulnerability to disease; reduced labor to unsafe WASH are low compared with other regions productivity; loss of crop yields and livestock production, of the world3 (figure 3.2). Of the three subregions, the causing a loss of food calories, income, and employment; Danube shows the lowest levels of mortality (3.1 people and rural-to-urban migration, putting additional pressures per 100,000 inhabitants) and DALYs (73 DALYs per 100,000 on cities (Damania et al. 2017). Across the countries of inhabitants), whereas Central Asia shows the highest (4.6 Europe and Central Asia, there are large disparities in people per 100,000 inhabitants and 367 DALYs per 100,000 water stress and associated risks for their populations and inhabitants, respectively), although this is still much better economies. than many other regions around the world. Continuous progress in upgrading access from basic to safely managed 20 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia In Central Asia, 43 percent of the population lives under stress, respectively, and most of their populations live in enduring water-stress conditions (figure 3.3). In the Kyrgyz water-stressed areas. As in Central Asia, these disparities Republic and downstream countries like Uzbekistan and underline the importance of transboundary cooperation Turkmenistan, almost half the population lives in high- for effective water management in the South Caucasus (see water-stress areas (water stress ratio > 0.6), reflecting chapter 4 for more information on transboundary waters). severe challenges in water resources management (WRM), with potential risks to human populations and sustainable Water stress in the Danube subregion is generally low. With a development. These results underline the importance of water stress ratio of 0.12, only about 15 percent of the subregion’s transboundary cooperation for addressing water stress in population lives in high-water-stressed areas; however, there Central Asia. are remarkable differences among countries. Despite being a water-rich country, Albania suffers from high water stress In the South Caucasus, about 32 percent of the regional (water stress ratio of 0.6), which is driven by high water demand population lives in high-water-stressed areas. Georgia for economic uses (DWP 2015) and affects 76 percent of its benefits from being located upstream and experiences low population. This disparity highlights the importance of and levels of water stress, and none of its population is exposed need for effective strategies for demand management, even in to water-stress conditions. Azerbaijan and Armenia, countries with a high availability of water resources. conversely, experience moderate and high levels of water Figure 3.2 HEALTH OUTCOMES of Unsafe WASH and Central DALY mortality rate Europe Asia Europe and Central Asia 159.3 3.4 Tajikistan 935.0 9.0 Subregional average 304.8 3.9 Central Asia Turkmenistan 279.0 5.7 Kyrgyz Republic 249.0 2.3 Uzbekistan 238.0 2.9 Kazakhstan 134.0 3.2 Moldova 172.0 3.6 Albania 132.0 3.2 Ukraine 121.0 2.3 Romania 105.0 7.2 Hungary 80.0 2.0 Subregional average 77.1 3.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina 74.0 1.9 North Macedonia 74.0 1.0 Danube Montenegro 71.0 1.8 Bulgaria 64.0 2.9 Serbia 60.0 3.9 Czech Republic 48.0 4.1 Croatia 46.0 2.7 Slovak Republic 45.0 3.6 Poland 41.0 5.4 Slovenia 31.0 1.9 Austria 10.0 2.0 South Caucasus Azerbaijan 248.0 3.6 Subregional average 204.0 4.0 Georgia 145.0 3.4 Armenia 128.0 5.8 Russian Federation 172.0 3.2 Peripheral Turkey 171.0 2.5 Subregional average 162.0 2.4 Belarus 81.0 1.6 0 250 500 750 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 Number of DALYs (left) and mortality rate (right) per 100,000 inhabitants Sources: WHO 2023a, 2023b. Note: People affected per 100,000 inhabitants. DALY = disability-adjusted life years; WASH = water supply, sanitation, and hygiene. People, Environment, and Economy 21 Riverine floods threaten the livelihoods of nearly 5.5 million Exposure to flood risk is highest in the South Caucasus people (or 1.6 percent of the population) regionwide.4 subregion. Roughly 400,000 people in the South Caucasus Causalities, displacement, and damage to dwellings are (or 2.2 percent of the regional population) who live in densely among the most common outcomes of floods, occurring populated river valleys in Azerbaijan and Georgia (CAREC both in developed and less developed countries. Lethal 2022) are exposed to riverine floods (figure 3.4). Torrential rains flood events that occurred in the past two decades in the are the main drivers of floods in this region (table 3.1), often Czech Republic (2009) and Slovenia (2023) resulted in the causing destructive landslides (Leroy et al. 2022). This higher displacement of more than 8,000 people and caused at level of exposure (see box 3.1) is also related to the still-low least nineteen causalities (IFRC 2010, 2023). Floods reduce development of a strategic approach to flood management mobility and disrupt important services, including water (see chapter 6 for more on the management and mitigation of and energy supply (ADRC 2006). Poor sanitation conditions water-related risks). In Central Asia, more than 800,000 people in Azerbaijan (that is, using traditional toilets in the gardens (or about 1.4 percent of the regional population) are exposed of houses) have been shown to increase the risk of infectious to riverine floods, driven primarily by early snowmelt and heavy diseases and chronic illnesses during floods (IFRC 2003). spring rains. In the Danube, about 2.8 million people (or 1.6 percent of the population) are exposed to riverine flood hazards, Figure 3.3 PERCENTAGE OF Population Living in Severe Water-Stress Conditions in Europe and Central Asia and Central Europe Asia Europe and Central Asia 34.7 Kyrgyz Republic 51.7 Uzbekistan 49.0 Central Asia Turkmenistan 47.0 Subregional average 42.9 Tajikistan 34.8 Kazakhstan 31.5 Kosovo No data Albania 76.1 Bulgaria 29.1 Serbia 23.0 Ukraine 22.9 Romania 17.3 Subregional average 15.2 Poland 15.0 Danube North Macedonia 5.9 Hungary 3.8 Moldova 0.7 Slovenia 0.0 Slovak Republic 0.0 Montenegro 0.0 Czech Republic 0.0 Croatia 0.0 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.0 Austria 0.0 61.3 South Caucasus Armenia Azerbaijan 34.9 Subregional average 31.8 Georgia 0.0 Turkey 70.1 Peripheral Russian Federation 17.7 Belarus 3.4 0 20 40 60 Percentage of population living in areas under water stress Source: World Resources Institute n.d. Note: Severe water-stress areas are those where the ratio of withdrawals to availability, after considering the environmental flow requirements, is higher than 0.4. 22 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Figure 3.4 PERCENTAGE OF Population Exposed to Floods in Europe and Central Asia Population exposed to flood risk in the ECA region 3.0 2.8 2.5% Share of national population (%) 2.5 2.0% Population (millions) 2.0 1.5% 1.5 1.5 1.0% 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.5% 0.5 0.0 0.0% Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Peripheral Population exposed (millions) Share of national population Source: Ward et al. 2013. Note: Bars indicate absolute figures (left axis), and points indicate relative figures (right axis). although these figures vary significantly among countries, with eight casualties, and in February 2012, the Ivanovo Dam population exposure exceeding 2 percent in some upstream failed, resulting in five casualties and displacing 1,000 people and midstream countries. As with Central Asian countries, the (Brakenridge n.d.; Nikolova and Nikolov 2021). Another combination of early snowmelt and spring rains is a dominant major dam failure occurred in Uzbekistan in 2020, when the driver in the Danube (table 3.1). Sardoba Dam, completed in 2017, failed catastrophically, resulting in four casualties and 70,000 displaced people TABLE 3.1 Cumulative People Exposed to Floods by Flood in both Uzbekistan itself and downstream Kazakhstan Driver and Region (Brakenridge n.d.). The high dam storage per capita in Central Asia (see “Infrastructure” in chapter 5) highlights the need Flood driver for dam safety inspections and remedial works to avoid the Region Snow, possibility of disastrous failures and their cascading effects Dam/levy Heavy rain Other rain, ice for downstream populations and assets. Central Asia 140 (15%) 723 (78%) 69 (7%) 0 .01 (<1%) South Poor populations are the most vulnerable to floods because 0 0 35 (100%) 0 (0%) of their prevailing socioeconomic conditions. Unprotected Caucasus areas with higher flood risks are often inhabited by poor Danube 2.4 (<1%) 3,067 (73%) 1,073 (26%) 60 (1%) households, which increases the poor population’s exposure to Europe and the negative outcomes of floods. These effects are intensified 143 (3%) 3,789 (73%) 1,177 (23%) 60 (1%) Central Asia by the lack of financial security nets (for example, savings or Source: Tellman et al. 2021. credit), which reduces poor households’ capacity to cope with flood damages (Rentschler et al. 2022; Reyer et al. 2017). Flood Note: Cumulative people (in thousands) exposed to floods (percent of impacts on agriculture, including crop and livestock losses, total population exposed) from 2000 to 2018. have a significant effect on the livelihoods of rural communities, The poor condition of many dams is increasing the risk of women, and children (Reyer et al. 2017). In Europe and Central dam failure and becoming an important driver of floods, Asia, overall approximately 77 million people, or 15% of the particularly in Central Asia. Dams fulfill a pivotal role in water population, are exposed to high-risk flood events estimated supply, hydropower generation, flood mitigation, and inland as a 1-in-100-year flood. Out of this, 11 million poor people water navigation; however, dam leaks and failures often are at risk, earning less than $5.50 per day, of which 1.2 million result in catastrophic outcomes for downstream populations. are the poorest people (figure 3.5). Both Central Asia (except Overflows from reservoirs and flood defense structures Kazakhstan) and the South Caucasus (mainly Armenia and (for example, levees) and dam failures are major flood Georgia) are more vulnerable to floods because of their high drivers in the Danube and Central Asia (table 3.1). Bulgaria share of exposed poor populations. In the Danube, poverty experienced two dam failures within five years: In August levels are lower than those in the other subregions, and the 2007, the Ezerche 1 and Ezerche 2 Dams burst, resulting in coping capacity of exposed populations is higher. People, Environment, and Economy 23 Figure 3.5 POPULATION LIVING in Poverty and Exposed to High-Risk Floods 9.8% 14.3% c. South a. Central Asia 81% Population under 83% flood risk 5.2% Caucasus 3.2% 2.1% 1.2% 0.7% Population under flood risk (%) 15.8% Not in poverty Under $3.2/day b. Danube 83% Under $1.9/day Under $5.5/day Not under risk Population percent 2% 0.9% Source: Rentschler et al. 2022. Note: High-risk floods are defined as a flood event with a 1-in-100-year probability and an inundation depth of up to 1.5 meters. Pie charts on the left show the share of the population that is not affected by the flood, and pie charts on the right show the distribution of the population at different daily income levels. Box 3.1 CALCULATING FLOOD EXPOSURE RISK The population exposed to flood risk indicator quantifies the cumulative potential for detrimental social outcomes of floods by integrating population exposure to floods under different probabilities. An exposure level of 1 percent means that 1 in 100 people is exposed to all flood types, subject to probability of occurrence. However, the population exposure drastically increases for a given flood event. For example, a relatively rare flood event (with a probability of 1 in 100 years) may affect as much as 17 percent of the subregional populations (see figure 3.5). ECONOMIC OUTCOMES KEY MESSAGES • Irrigated crops contribute 15 percent of regional agricultural gross revenues, and hydropower produces 27 percent of the region’s electricity. Water-dependent economic activities like these, as well as agri-food manufacturing and tourism, employ anywhere from 18 to 60 percent of the labor force and contribute from 7 to 98 percent of total country-level exports. • Total water productivity in Europe and Central Asia averages $43.2 per cubic meter, but there are large disparities between countries: EU Member States in the Danube have some of the highest water productivity values in the world (> $100 per cubic meter), whereas Central Asian economies are far less productive (≈ $1.3 per cubic meter). • Climate change is projected to reduce GDP by 11 percent by 2050 in Central Asia because of its very low water-use efficiency and the overall vulnerability of its economic sectors. • To address the region’s water needs, $77 billion (representing only 0.6 percent of regional GDP) per year from 2015 to 2030 must be rapidly mobilized. 24 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Economic Benefits The sectoral composition of a country’s economy and its overall levels of GDP play a role in shaping the Water underpins multiple economic benefits across the economic impacts and productivity of water. The low Europe and Central Asia region, including irrigated crops, water productivities in Central Asia and the South industrial processes, tourism and water-based recreational Caucasus compared with the Danube are mostly driven activities, electricity (for example, hydropower), increased by the weight given to low-value irrigated agriculture economic activities resulting from alleviating flood (for example, agricultural water withdrawals represent and drought risks, and labor productivity of healthy more than 60 percent in seven out of the eight countries populations with access to safe WSS. Tourism also plays in Central Asia and the South Caucasus; more details are an important role in the economy of several countries, provided in chapter 4) and the very low irrigation efficiency such as Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, (the share of irrigated land with flood irrigation amounts and Türkiye. For example, Croatia receives 18 million to 20 to more than 60 percent in all countries in Central Asia and million tourists per year, almost five times the country’s the South Caucasus). population, contributing about 20 percent of GDP. Inland navigation is an important economic activity for countries Service sector–oriented areas tend to use lower quantities along the Danube River (of which 87 percent is navigable of water to generate economic outputs. Water productivity by large ships [ICPDR 2024]), and the Sava and Drina Rivers tends to increase as income-generating activities shift Corridor (for example, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, from agriculture toward manufacturing and further into Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia), alongside Romania, the service sector. Because value added is often higher in has the highest tonnage transported by water, with more the manufacturing and services sectors, a shift of water as than 10 million tons of cargo shipped annually. Many other a means of production away from agriculture and toward countries also transport significant amounts (ICPDR 2021). these sectors could increase GDP (Roson and Damania The EU Strategy for the Danube Region recognizes the 2017). Although reallocation of water from agriculture importance of the Danube River as a major transportation to more profitable sectors, such as manufacturing and corridor connecting countries and regions within the services, is desired, it must, however, be balanced with other Danube basin and beyond. Moreover, water-dependent important values of agriculture, including food security, economic activities, such as irrigated agriculture, agri-food biodiversity conservation, climate mitigation, the links to manufacturing, hydropower production, and tourism, the agri-food processing industry, exports, employment, generate considerable employment opportunities, and rural development. employing between 18 and 60 percent of national labor forces. Water-dependent exports contribute anywhere The sharp contrast in water productivities shows an from 17 to 98 percent of total national exports, thus untapped potential to boost economic growth and farm- representing an important source of foreign currency. level livelihoods across the region. Such a boost can be achieved by implementing modernization and expansion Water productivity in Europe and Central Asia mirrors of existing irrigated areas; shifting toward high-value crops; overall economic development. The water productivity improving water-use efficiency (for example, shifting to indicator can be useful in monitoring how efficiently a efficient sprinkler and drip irrigation systems and adopting given economy uses water over time. An increase in this integrated soil, land, and water management practices); indicator would capture the reallocation of water to more implementing incentives for reducing wastage, overuse, economically productive sectors of the economy. The total and pollution, such as water pricing; better water delivery water productivity in Europe and Central Asia measured in control; and improved access to knowledge and finance for constant 2015 US$ GDP per cubic meter of water averaged farmers. These efforts could lead to important economic $43.2 per cubic meter in 2020 (figure 3.6), a figure that gains. For example, in Serbia, a shift to higher-value crops has climbed steadily year after year for the past twenty- could bring yield increases ranging from 8 percent for wheat five years.5 This upward trend is driven strongly by highly and 20 percent for maize to about 30 percent for vegetables industrialized countries in the Danube subregion, such and 35 percent for top fruit.6 Meanwhile, in Central Asia, as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic, rehabilitating the existing irrigation infrastructure could home to some of the highest water productivities in the increase crop yields by an estimated 20 percent by 2030 world, at more than $100 per cubic meter, and giving rise and 50 percent by 2050 (World Bank 2019). to a subregional average of $52.2 per cubic meter. On the opposite end of the spectrum, total water productivity averages only $6.1 per cubic meter in the South Caucasus and $2.8 per cubic meter in Central Asia. People, Environment, and Economy 25 Agriculture Balkan countries, with the rest of the Danube countries relying almost entirely on rain-fed agriculture. Agriculture remains an important sector in parts of Europe and Central Asia, with considerable potential for sustainable High dependency on rain-fed agriculture in the Danube future development, contributing about 5.8 percent to the and aging and inefficient irrigation infrastructure in the region’s GDP, substantially lower than neighboring South South Caucasus and Central Asia increase the vulnerability Asia (16.6 percent) but higher than the European Union of the region’s agricultural production to climate shocks, (EU; 1.7 percent). About 15 percent of regional agricultural such as droughts. For instance, in 2000, a drought in gross revenues stem from irrigated crops. However, in the Georgia caused a 56 percent loss in wheat yield and $460 Central Asia subregion, agriculture contributes almost 13 million in damages and losses in the agricultural sector percent to GDP, of which 56 percent stems from irrigated (USAID 2017b). Despite this vulnerability, the agriculture crops. Except for Kazakhstan, irrigation represents 70 to 80 sector in Europe and Central Asia has significant potential percent of crop production gross values in all Central Asian to help support future sustainable development within the countries. In the South Caucasus subregion, agriculture region. Such efforts would require a transition to efficiently contributes about 8 percent of GDP, with irrigated crops irrigated, high-value agriculture that supports exports contributing almost 54 percent of the crop production while increasing the climate-adaptive capacity of rain-fed gross value. In the Danube, agriculture plays a minor role agriculture to sustain livelihoods; ensure employment; in the economy (averaging 4 percent of GDP). Similarly, contribute to food security, biodiversity conservation, and irrigated agriculture contributes only 9 percent of the climate mitigation; and help manage risks to the economy. agricultural gross value. Irrigation is also limited to a few Examples of such impactful measures include the following: Figure 3.6 AVERAGE TOTAL Water Productivity by Subregion and Country 180.0 173.3 Average total water productivity (2015 US$ GDP per m³ of water) 170.0 160.0 149.2 150.0 140.0 130.0 120.0 110.7 110.0 100.0 90.0 79.6 80.0 70.0 64.6 60.1 60.0 52.2 50.0 48.1 43.2 40.0 32.7 30.1 30.0 25.2 20.0 16.0 10.9 9.9 10.4 10.0 8.4 8.5 10.0 6.6 6.1 2.8 4.2 4.1 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.9 0.0 an an be a ia ia n ia ia lic us a ia ia e Re a Hu c Po a Da e an ro a an Ta lic vo va Ro d sia y ni i ija in ti ni ag ar in gi n str en rb en bl ar an ub as ist ist g lA b do ist so nu oa st ba la ov do or ra ba ng ne Se pu er pu lg m Au Slo lov jik en uc m ep kh tra Ko Al k ol Cr Uk Ge eg Bu er Ar ed Av te be Ca m Re S kR en za M Az rz rk on ac Uz sia h dC Ka h va He yz Tu ut M ec M lA rg an So d Cz h Ky an ra rt pe No nt ro ia Ce Eu sn Bo Source: World Bank Data Bank. Note: GDP = gross domestic product. 26 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia • Changing cropping patterns, shifting to efficient been developed (figure 3.7). Central Asia generates an sprinkler and drip irrigation, and pricing water to average of 43 percent of its electricity through hydropower, incentivize water savings followed by the South Caucasus with 38 percent and the • Capturing more water and allowing it to infiltrate into Danube with 27 percent. There are, however, substantial differences between countries, with some producing close the root zone with water-harvesting techniques, such to none of their electricity from hydropower (for example, as surface microdams and subsurface tanks, and with Hungary and Turkmenistan) and others relying almost soil and water conservation practices, such as runoff exclusively on it (for example, Albania, the Kyrgyz Republic, strips and terracing and Tajikistan). This disparity suggests that countries with • Using available water more efficiently by increasing small hydropower generation might benefit from investing plant water-uptake capacity and reducing in expanding their hydropower capacity. Meanwhile, nonproductive soil evaporation with integrated soil, countries relying almost exclusively on hydropower would crop, and water management strategies, such as benefit from improving the efficiency of their hydropower conservation agriculture and improved crop varieties plants and diversifying their electricity supply toward, for example, renewable energy technologies that are Hydropower independent from water, such as solar and wind. Although an important source of electricity in Europe and Central Asia, hydropower is highly vulnerable to climate- Hydropower expansion in Europe and Central Asia must change variability and competition with other water uses. consider impending climate change and the social, It accounts for 27 percent of the total electricity supply in environmental, and financial implications. For instance, Europe and Central Asia, yet less than 40 percent of the late 2021 to early 2022 was a very dry period in the Balkan region’s economically feasible hydropower potential has countries, resulting in historically low water levels in Figure 3.7 SHARE OF Electricity Production from Hydropower and Share of Economically Feasible Hydropower Potential Not Developed in Europe and Central Asia 100 Share (%) of economically feasible hydropower potential not developed Turkmenistan Moldova Tajikistan Hungary Kosovo Bosnia and Herzegovina 75 Georgia Azerbaijan Belarus Russian Federation Kyrgyz Republic Poland Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Ukraine Albania Turkey 50 Romania Croatia Armenia 25 Slovak Republic Slovenia Austria 0 0 25 50 75 100 Share (%) of electricity production from hydroelectric sources Share (%) of hydropower in total energy supply Europe and Central Asia subregions 0 10 20 30 Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Peripheral Sources: IRENA 2018; World Bank 2015b, 2021a. People, Environment, and Economy 27 North Macedonia’s reservoirs and a five-year low in Serbia. in transboundary contexts, additional international public Albania had to halt electricity generation in eleven out and private financing can be unlocked based on cross- of thirteen state-owned hydropower plants, declaring an border cooperation agreements (World Bank 2019). energy emergency. Fluctuations in energy generation between years often result in the importation of expensive Economic Costs electricity (Gallop and Ralev 2022). Drought impacts on electricity production also cascade to other sectors because Floods and droughts reduce water security and result in of electricity shortages or energy price increases. Moreover, significant economic costs, slowing economic development. climate-change projections indicate a reduction of annual Historically, floods have inflicted losses to transportation hydropower usable capacity of between 5 and 15 percent infrastructure, housing, and agricultural lands that total by 2050 compared with observed conditions across Europe $64 billion and account for 1.7 percent of regional GDP. and Central Asia (van Vliet et al. 2016). Lastly, hydropower Relative economic exposure to floods is highest in the projects, especially large ones, can have important South Caucasus, hitting 2.2 percent of subregional GDP social and environmental impacts and sometimes face (or $2.5 billion; figure 3.8). The Danube subregion’s relative opposition. They also require large investments that are exposure is 1.6 percent of subregional GDP (or $38 billion), not always viable in contexts of economic and financial although six countries have a relative exposure higher than instability (World Bank 2022a). 2 percent. Central Asia has the lowest relative exposure (1.3 percent of subregional GDP, or $4.3 billion), with exposure Hydropower could play an important role in strengthening in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan above 2 percent. regional cooperation in Europe and Central Asia. Where Extreme flood events frequently lead to immense economic hydropower production is based on reservoir storage, damages (box 3.2), often associated with massive damages there can be flow management benefits for climate-change to transportation infrastructure as roads and bridges are adaptation, including flood and drought prevention and washed away. Agricultural activity is also highly exposed to mitigation, as well as timely delivery of irrigation and floods, and relative exposure across the region ranges from drinking water. Management of reservoirs and cascades 1 to 2.5 percent, mostly in South Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz for these multipurpose benefits will require robust water Republic, and Uzbekistan (Ward et al. 2013). information systems. Analytical work would be required to size cascade and reservoir storage in a way that considers Droughts also drive significant economic losses in the climate-induced flow and production-potential reduction, region, mainly because of crop and livestock damage, as well as storage and flow management functions to reduced hydropower generation, and disruption to the offset these climate-change impacts. Flow management water supply. The average marginal impact of dry periods and adaptation benefits to downstream users can be on economic growth is significant in low- and middle- monetized. For example, downstream benefits achievable income countries at −0.54 percentage points and is most through upstream regulating and storage infrastructure pronounced in cropland-dominated economies (Zaveri et can be used to raise financial resources for the construction al. 2023). In fact, the economic impacts of drought on the of new infrastructure. Where these investments take place agricultural sector of the South Caucasus and Central Asia Figure 3.8 GDP EXPOSED to Flood Risk in Europe and Central Asia GDP exposed to flood risk in the ECA region 40.0 38.0 2.5% 35.0 Share of national GDP (%) 2.0% 30.0 GDP (US$ billions) 25.5 1.5% 19.3 20.0 15.0 1.0% 10.0 0.5% 4.3 5.0 2.6 0.0 0.0% Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Peripheral GDP exposed (US$ billions) Share of national GDP (%) Sources: IRENA 2018; World Bank 2015b, 2021a. 28 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia have been especially acute (box 3.3). Although irrigation decline by as much as 11 percent of GDP by 2050 (World infrastructure is widespread in both regions, its low Bank 2016). However, by improving water management, efficiency and deteriorated state make it less practical for Central Asia could instead accelerate its economic growth mitigating drought risk. Widespread rain-fed agriculture by as much as 12 percent by 2050 through increased in the Danube subregion makes it highly vulnerable to agricultural production, green energy production, and the droughts, and fourteen out of sixteen countries are classified health of the region’s environmental assets. Those results are as having medium-high to high drought risk. Further, many partially because of the region’s sensitivity to climate change countries in the Danube subregion are highly dependent on but also because water-use efficiency is currently very low. hydropower. Similarly, dependence on hydropower in the Thus, there are key opportunities to reprioritize water use, Western Balkans is significant in Albania and Montenegro nullifying and potentially even reversing the impacts that and, to a lesser extent, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North climate change is expected to have on the economy through Macedonia, Romania, and Serbia (IEA 2024). water under a business-as-usual scenario. The impacts of future water stress could compromise Delivering water security requires the rapid mobilization of economic development in several countries in Europe funds dedicated to water-related improvements and more and Central Asia. If current water management policies effective use of existing resources. The cost of delivering and practices do not change, future imminent climate sustainable water management for all globally has been and socioeconomic changes could cause a decline in the estimated at $1.04 trillion (2015 dollars) annually from global growth rate of as much as 0.49 percent of GDP by 2015 to 2030. The share of the global cost for Europe 2050 because of water-related losses in agriculture, health, and Central Asia amounts to $77 billion, representing income, and property (World Bank 2016; figure 3.9). Central 7 percent of the global costs but only 0.6 percent of the Asia is among the regions in the world most economically current regional GDP (table 3.2). Addressing water scarcity vulnerable to future water stress, and its growth rate could is the largest component, totaling $30 billion annually, Box 3.2 THE HIGH COST OF FLOODS • Thus far, floods have inflicted the highest relative damage in Azerbaijan and Georgia. In 2015, flooding in Tbilisi caused almost $20 million in damages and losses to housing, the city zoo, and critical transportation and water infrastructure (World Bank 2015b). • In 2023, Slovenia experienced its most devastating flood, causing major damages to houses, businesses, industries, and agricultural lands, with costs of rebuilding and further development estimated at roughly $10.9 billion (Bezak et al. 2023). • In 2002, flooding caused $2.9 billion in damages in the Czech Republic, $750 million of which stemmed from damages to transportation infrastructure and water courses (Risk Management Solutions 2003). Indirect losses associated with damaged transportation networks are a result of increased travel time or higher operating costs (World Bank 2015b), as exemplified by the 2002 flood when thirteen underground stations in Prague had to shut down for approximately six months. Box 3.3 THE HIGH COST OF DROUGHTS • In 2000, Armenia experienced a severe drought that caused approximately $110 million in damages and an additional $43 million in agricultural losses. At that time, the agricultural sector’s share of GDP was more than 30 percent and accounted for more than 40 percent of employment (World Bank 2017). • A prolonged drought in 2000 to 2002 in Uzbekistan reduced cereal yields by 14 to 17 percent and other crop yields by up to 75 percent while also reducing productivity in the livestock sector, causing $130 million in losses (FAO 2017). • A drought in the Western Balkans from October 2021 to March 2022 forced Albania into an energy emergency as it halted eleven out of thirteen government-owned hydropower plants (Gallop and Ralev 2022). • Overall, droughts in the EU from 1980 to 2022 caused losses of about $56.5 billion, almost one-third of which resulted from the severe European-wide drought of 2022 (EEA 2023a). People, Environment, and Economy 29 TABLE 3.2  Estimated Costs (in Billion 2015 US$) to Deliver Sustainable Water Management in Europe and Central Asia Water challenge Central Asia South Caucasus Danube Others Europe and Central Asia Access to drinking water 1.2 0.2 0.9 3.9 6.1 Access to sanitation 0.9 0.3 1.5 6.7 9.4 Water pollution (industrial and agricultural) 2.0 0.5 6.0 10.1 18.5 Water scarcity 13.0 1.6 4.6 10.8 30.0 Water management 3.4 0.5 2.6 6.3 12.8 Total cost 20.5 (2.2%) 3.1 (1.3%) 15.6 (0.3%) 37.7 (0.6%) 76.9 (0.6%) Source: Strong et al. 2020. Note: The total cost as a percentage of the current regional gross domestic product is in parentheses. Figure 3.9 CLIMATE-RELATED IMPACTS on GDP, 2050 World –0.49 0.09 Southeast Asia –1.98 1.46 East Asia –7.05 3.32 Europe and Central Asia Central Asia –10.72 11.50 Inside entirely Central Africa –7.08 0.38 Outside World Sahel –11.70 –0.82 Middle East –14.00 –6.02 Western Europe –0.02 –0.01 North America –0.02 0.00 -10 0 10 Range of variation in GDP (%) Source: World Bank 2016. Note: The figure shows the range of climate-related effects on GDP for selected regions, incorporating different policy scenarios (for example, business- as-usual policies and those that encourage better water allocation). GDP = gross domestic product. 30 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia because of the size of the challenge, especially in Central Healthy, unpolluted, biodiverse freshwater ecosystems Asia. The estimated costs of delivering sustainable water provide food, livelihoods, drinking water, transportation, and management vary by subregion, as do the most significant recreation and tourism, along with cultural, mental health, water challenges. Costs relative to GDP are the highest and other benefits. They also help to prevent erosion, store in Central Asia, followed by the South Caucasus and the carbon, dispose of waste, and provide natural protection Danube. from flooding. Freshwater ecosystems in Europe and Central Asia are ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES consistently at higher risk of degradation than their terrestrial or marine counterparts. Globally, freshwater biodiversity decreased 83 percent between 1970 and 2018 (WWF 2022). Although some efforts have successfully halted species loss in freshwater ecosystems in Europe, the global downward trend of drastically reduced freshwater biodiversity persists and is growing in some subregions (Haase et al. 2023). The quantity and quality of habitats and the abundance of many species are declining as a consequence of agricultural intensification, inefficient irrigation, and urbanization, combined with climate change (Gozlan et al. 2019). Stronger conservation measures are needed to mitigate the impacts of new and persistent pressures on freshwater ecosystems, including emerging pollutants, excessive water abstractions, climate change, and the spread of invasive species. Irrigation expansion is expected to play a land-sparing role and ease the protection of forests and natural land for biodiversity conservation; investing in new irrigation infrastructure would spare more than 3 million hectares of natural lands from conversion (Palazzo et al. 2019). The Danube subregion is rich in a diverse array of plant and animal species whose habitats are currently facing threats. These habitats include fast-flowing mountain streams, wide KEY MESSAGES and slowly flowing lowland rivers, large sand and gravel • Freshwater ecosystems in Europe and Central Asia are banks, wetlands and floodplains, wet meadows, oxbows, at risk because of agricultural intensification, inefficient small and large lakes, and the dynamic Danube delta. These irrigation, and urbanization combined with climate habitats are home to approximately 2,000 vascular plants change. and over 5,000 animal species, including those of more than • Most of the region’s water bodies (74 percent) report forty mammals, about 180 breeding birds, one hundred good ambient water quality; however, monitoring fish, and twelve reptiles and amphibians. The remaining networks are very limited, and only a small share of large floodplain forests along the Danube and the Danube water bodies is assessed. delta serve as the last sanctuaries in continental Europe for • Groundwater, which is underused in many areas and the white-tailed eagle and white pelicans. However, these facing depletion in others, suffers from low water freshwater ecosystems and the biodiversity they support are quality and salinity, making treatment costly. facing various pressures, including pollution from agricultural • Water stress, currently low in most of the Danube runoff, industrial discharges, inadequate wastewater subregion but prevalent in Central Asia and Türkiye, is treatment, the impacts of hydraulic infrastructure, and expected to increase in the coming decades, especially climate change (ICPDR 2021). in downstream countries, driven by growing water demands and decreasing water availability. Recognized as one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, the South Caucasus subregion is similarly threatened by Sustainable water management is crucial for sustaining the pollution and overabstraction. Characterized by a wide health of Europe and Central Asia’s environmental assets. diversity of species and a high level of endemism, the Freshwater ecosystems include rivers, lakes, wetlands, plant and animal diversity in the South Caucasus is more streams, and underground aquifers. These ecosystems store than twice that of adjacent regions. Freshwater habitats in and clean the water that is crucial for people and wildlife. the South Caucasus are crucial for migrating and nesting birds, spawning fish, and providing water for human needs People, Environment, and Economy 31 (Kuljanishvili et al. 2021). The main threats to freshwater water quality even though only 9 percent of wastewater is ecosystems in the South Caucasus are pollution, water safely treated. Conversely, in Hungary, where 90 percent of abstractions, foreign species, and hydropower and water wastewater is treated, only 59 percent of ambient water is control dams (WWF 2015). considered good. The Aral Sea was once the world’s fourth-largest lake, but Figure 3.10 massive irrigation diversions have reduced it to one-tenth of its original size. The Central Asia subregion contains many AMBIENT WATER Quality in Europe and Central Asia natural lakes, such as the Aral Sea, that have important regulatory influences on the climate and functioning of Ambient water quality other ecosystems. However, massive irrigation schemes Europe and Central Asia 74.3 diverted most of the water flowing to the Aral Sea, causing Uzbekistan No data it to shrink to one-tenth of its original size and making it Turkmenistan No data too saline for most fish (Pala 2011). Tajikistan No data Kyrgyz Republic No data Overall, ambient water quality is considered adequate Kazakhstan 64.0 across Europe and Central Asia, but this is subject to high uncertainty because of the differing monitoring standards Ukraine No data and limited networks across countries. Good water quality Slovenia 84.0 is an important factor for human health and the functioning Slovak Republic 57.0 of ecosystems. According to the SDGs, 79 percent of water Serbia 83.0 bodies across Europe and Central Asia (for example, Romania 84.0 rivers, lakes, and groundwater) have good ambient water Poland 96.0 quality (figure 3.10). The large size of many water bodies North Macedonia 70.0 helps buffer point-source and diffuse pollution, and in Country Montenegro 88.0 some places, such as the Danube subregion (especially EU Moldova No data Member States), stringent regulatory frameworks and large Hungary 59.0 investments in pollution-prevention measures have helped Czech Republic 88.0 limit pollution while maintaining the overall good status of Croatia 56.0 water bodies. Nevertheless, standards differ widely among 66.0 countries. Some countries have very ambitious monitoring Bulgaria programs that address a wide range of environmental Bosnia and Herzegovina 31.0 dimensions, including diverse biological, chemical, and Austria 82.0 hydrological parameters, whereas others are limited to a Albania No data few chemical parameters. Likewise, monitoring networks Georgia 92.0 in many countries are scarce, and data on ambient water Azerbaijan No data quality are missing in eleven Europe and Central Asia Armenia No data countries, which creates a lot of uncertainty. Turkey No data Ambient water quality in the Danube is affected by the Russian Federation 96.0 complex interplay among many factors, including human Belarus 89.0 activities, geography, climate, and monitoring standards. 0 25 50 75 100 More than 80 percent of water bodies in some Danube Percentage countries (for example, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia) report good Source: EEA, 2018. ambient water quality. Meanwhile, several other countries, Note: The figure shows the range of climate-related effects on GDP for such as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, lag selected regions, incorporating different scenarios (for example, busi- behind (figure 3.10). Water pollution from insufficiently ness-as-usual policies and those that encourage better water allocation). treated urban and industrial wastewater and diffuse GDP = gross domestic product. pollution from agriculture are the key pressures affecting water bodies in the Danube. Population density is often, but Information on ambient water quality is limited in Central not always, highest close to rivers and lakes, meaning the Asia and the South Caucasus. Kazakhstan, the only country relationship between wastewater treatment and ambient in Central Asia that has reported ambient water quality, is water quality is highly local. For example, 70 percent of the rated as moderate. The South Caucasus subregion faces a water bodies in North Macedonia reports good ambient similar situation, with Georgia, the only reporting country, 32 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia rated as good. A global water quality risk assessment Map 3.1 indicates that the entire region is expected to experience FRACTION OF Unsustainable Groundwater Abstraction in an elevated to high water quality risk by 2050 (IFPRI and Europe and Central Asia Veolia Water North America 2015). Groundwater is underused in some areas and facing depletion, low quality, and pollution in others. Sustainable use of groundwater requires that abstraction rates not surpass recharge rates. As soon as it does, groundwater will start to deplete. In Europe and Central Asia, about 14 percent of abstracted groundwater is not replenished, compared with a global average of 39 percent (Wada et al. 2010). In the Danube and the South Caucasus, groundwater is still underused, and except for Bulgaria and the southern parts of Moldova and Romania, there is potential for this resource to be developed further (map 3.1). Central Asia, especially around the Aral Sea in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, faces the highest groundwater depletion rates in Europe and Central Asia, marked by unsustainable water abstraction. However, groundwater use remains sustainable in other parts of Central Asia and irrigated areas of Northern Kazakhstan (map 3.1). In the future, higher levels of water stress (see “Future Challenges and Opportunities” in chapter 4 for discussion of future water projections) and increased Source: Processed for this publication based on data from Wada et al. 2014. droughts will put additional pressure on groundwater resources. It follows that improving the currently Note: Hotspots of unsustainable groundwater use (top) and subregional fragmented integrated water resources management summary (bottom). The boxes on the bottom chart show the interquartile (IWRM) and developing drought management plans (see range (IQR) and the median, the whiskers indicate a distance of 1.2 * IQR from the 25th and 75th percentile, and the points are outliers. chapter 4 for more on the mitigation of water-related risks) are key steps to sustainable groundwater use. Map 3.2 Nevertheless, many aquifers suffer from low water quality, SALINE AND Brackish Groundwater in Europe and Central leading to additional treatment costs. Central Asia contains Asia the world’s largest area of saline and brackish aquifers, with salinity levels of up to 50,000 milligrams per liter (Li et al. 2020), meaning much of the groundwater must be treated before use. Similarly, the South Caucasus has extensive saline groundwater aquifers (map 3.2). This water source requires costly desalination that can cause environmental damage. Conversely, using untreated brackish water can lead to adverse environmental and health effects over time (Li et al. 2020). Groundwater quality in the Danube is also compromised in some areas by agricultural pollution or untreated wastewater, and high nitrate levels have been observed in aquifers in Croatia, Poland, Romania, and Serbia. Addressing high ion concentrations in groundwater requires costly pretreatment measures (Abscal et al. 2022). Additionally, using untreated groundwater may expose Source: IGRAC 2009. users to toxic substances, leading to health risks, and notable Note: All polygons indicate saline or brackish groundwater. arsenic concentration hot spots have been observed in the Danube (Hungary and Romania) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan; Podgorski and Berg 2020). People, Environment, and Economy 33 FUTURE CHALLENGES AND An ensemble of twenty-one climate models strongly agrees that flood hazards are likely to decrease overall across most OPPORTUNITIES of Europe and Central Asia, although Central Asia, Georgia, Water stress is mostly driven by water use, which typically and parts of Belarus and Russia may experience an increase increases with socioeconomic developments. Annual water (Arnell and Gosling 2016). This decrease in flood hazards is stress is low in most of the Danube subregion but prevalent slightly counteracted by projected population and economic in Central Asia and Türkiye. Multiple countries already suffer growth. Nevertheless, relative subregional population and from high water stress (that is, a water stress index higher economic exposures are slightly reduced. Thus, even without than or equal to 40 percent), including Albania (56 percent), risk-reduction measures, flood risks in Europe and Central Armenia (40 percent), North Macedonia (40 percent), Türkiye Asia will decrease slightly but remain at an alarming level. (52 percent), Turkmenistan (67 percent), and Uzbekistan In absolute terms, higher GDP exposure is expected across (62 percent). Water stress is expected to increase across Europe and Central Asia, whereas population exposure Europe and Central Asia in the coming decades, especially is expected to differ by subregion, over time, and under in downstream countries, driven by growing water different socioeconomic scenarios. High levels of uncertainty demands and decreasing water availability (see chapter stem from assumptions on future population and economic 4 on endowment). Water stress, other than increasing trends, as well as spatial distribution, because different competition among users, drives several environmental development pathways would result in different risk levels. problems, including groundwater overexploitation and ecosystem degradation. When comparing the level of water • Central Asia. An increase in flood hazards by up to 15 stress against the level of economic development (measured percent is expected, mostly in Northern and Eastern in GDP per capita), it becomes clear that high levels of water Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and parts stress are loosely associated with lower levels of economic of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (Arnell and Gosling development, driven mostly by the prevalence of agricultural 2016). Larger increases in population and GDP exposure activities with lower economic water productivity compared are expected in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, but these with other sectors (figure 3.11). are balanced subregionally by large decreases in exposure in both the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan. The size and frequency of floods are likely to decrease across The opposite trend between hazard and exposure in most of Europe and Central Asia, but they will remain high. the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan may be associated Figure 3.11 WATER STRESS Levels in Europe and Central Asia high 80 Turkmenistan 60 Uzbekistan medium-high Europe and Albania Turkey Central Asia subregions Water stress ratio (%) Kyrgyz Republic Central Asia Danube 40 North Macedonia South Caucasus Armenia Peripheral Excluded Kazakhstan medium Azerbaijan Tajikistan 20 Czech Republic Poland Ukraine Bulgaria low-medium Serbia Slovak Republic Moldova Belarus Romania Georgia Russian Federation Hungary Bosnia and Herzegovina Montenegro Croatia Slovenia Austria low 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 GDP per capita (in international $) Source: Sutanudjaja et al. 2018. Note: Water stress levels are classified as follows: low (0%–10%), moderate (10%–20%), high (20%–40%), and extreme (>40%). GDP = gross domestic product. 34 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia with the spatial distribution of population and South Caucasus subregion by 2080, but a high risk economic activity. Overall, the subregion can expect level remains where population exposure ranges to experience a slight decrease in exposure, which between 1.8 and 2 percent and the GDP exposure is nonetheless remains significant at 1.2 to 1.3 percent. slightly higher (figure 3.12). • Danube. Models largely concur that a decrease of up to Regionally, drought hazard is expected to increase by 2050, 20 percent in flood hazards is expected by 2050 (Arnell threatening multiple human and environmental systems. and Gosling 2016). It follows that relative population Various social, economic, and environmental systems are and GDP exposure show a slight decrease, although at risk from drought, and significant impacts have already risk levels are still important (1.4 to 1.5 percent for GDP been experienced. Assessing and predicting the impacts and 1.6 percent for population). Exposure decreases of droughts is challenging because of the complex links significantly in some countries, including Kosovo, between droughts and impacts. Drought hazard indices Montenegro, and Ukraine, while increasing in North depend only on climate data (that is, precipitation and Macedonia. evapotranspiration) and are a crucial factor in drought risk. • South Caucasus. By 2050, flood hazards are expected The Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) measures water deficit for a selected region over a to decrease by 10 to 20 percent in Armenia and predefined accumulation period. Smaller values of the SPEI Azerbaijan and slightly increase in Georgia (Arnell indicate a higher drought hazard in 2050, and the drought and Gosling 2016). Consequently, the relative GDP hazard increases in Europe and Central Asia under both and population exposure is expected to shift from RCPs (as shown by a decrease in SPEI; figure 3.13). 2.2 percent to as low as 1.8 percent for Azerbaijan in 2080. In Georgia, exposure increases until 2050, Drought hazard is expected to increase significantly in and then it may either increase or decrease to 2080, Central Asia and the South Caucasus but reduce slightly depending on the Representative Concentration in the Danube. If risk-reduction measures are not pursued, Pathway (RCP) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway both regions can expect increased impacts on human well- (SSP). Overall, a constant decrease in both relative being and higher economic loss resulting from droughts. GDP and population exposure is expected for the In contrast, the Danube region shows a slight reduction Figure 3.12 RIVERINE FLOOD Risk between 2010 and 2080 under Two Future Climatic Scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) Projected flood risk exposure in the ECA region Europe and Central Asia Central Asia Danube South Caucasus 2.0 Exposed GDP 1.5 1.0 Relative exposure (%) 0.5 0.0 2.0 Exposed population 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2010 2030 2050 2080 2010 2030 2050 2080 2010 2030 2050 2080 2010 2030 2050 2080 Year RCP4.5 RCP8.5 Source: Ward et al. 2013. Note: Top shows exposure of GDP to riverine flood risk; bottom shows exposure of the population to riverine flood risk. The Europe and Central Asia tool- box’s range bands differentiate between medium flood risk (1.0%–1.5% exposure), medium-high (1.5%–2.0%), and high (>2.0%).GDP = gross domestic product; RCP = Representative Concentration Pathway. People, Environment, and Economy 35 Figure 3.13 REGIONAL AVERAGE Historical (1980–99) and Future (2040–60) SPEIs over an Accumulation Period of 12 Months under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 Europe and Central Asia Central Asia Danube South Caucasus 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.04 SPEI,12 Months 0.02 0.02 0.00 –0.02 –0.02 –0.02 –0.03 –0.04 –0.05 -0.05 –0.07 1980–1999 2040–2060 2040–2060 Historical RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 Source: Santini et al. 2023. Note: The data points represent the average value of three global climate models (GCMs): the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Earth System Model (GFDL-ESM2M), the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace coupled model for CMIP5 (IPSL-CM5A-LR), and the Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Cli- mate Earth System Model (MIROC-ESM-CHEM). Negative values represent a more significant water deficit and higher drought hazard. RCP = Representa- tive Concentration Pathway. in future drought hazard. However, drought impacts in 2. DALYs depict the overall burden of disease with a the Danube region may still increase if drought exposure time-based measure that combines years of life lost remains high (for example, higher utilization of water because of premature mortality and because of time sources for hydropower generation). Exceptionally, Austria, lived in states of less than full health, or years of healthy the Czech Republic, and North Macedonia show an increase life lost because of disability. One DALY represents the in drought hazard. loss of the equivalent of one year of full health. 3. The number of DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants NOTES amounts to 1,131 globally, 3,865 in Africa, 748 in Asia, 202 in America, and sixty-four in Europe. Mortality rates attributed to WASH amount to 17.01 people per 1. Safely managed drinking water means water taken 100,000 inhabitants in Asia, 3.71 in Europe, 6.51 in Latin from an improved water source that is accessible on America and the Caribbean, 2.26 in North America, premises, available when needed, and free from fecal and 49.16 in Sub-Saharan Africa (WHO 2023a). and priority chemical contamination, whereas basic drinking water means water taken from an improved 4. Population figures based on elaboration on data from source, provided collection time is not more than Ward et al. (2013), displayed in figure 3.4. thirty minutes for a round trip, including queuing. 5. Data fromWorld Bank Data Bank; for further information, Safely managed sanitation means the use of improved see https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.GDP. facilities that are not shared with other households FWTL.M3.KD?most_recent_value_desc=true. and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or removed and treated off-site, whereas basic sanitation 6. Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project (Serbia), refers to the use of improved facilities that are not World Bank, 2021; for further information, see https:// shared with other households. projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/ project-detail/P087964. 4 Water Endowment Challenges and risks are typically linked to the volume, KEY MESSAGES timing, and quality of water resources; abilities or deficiencies in water sector governance, including • Regionally, water resources are generally abundant, but they face important challenges because of the high institutional weaknesses and financial gaps; and sector dependency on transboundary waters and increasing performance when essential functions for managing water seasonal and temporal variations. resources, delivering services, and mitigating water-related risks are conducted. This chapter corresponds to the ° On average, 41 percent of all surface water flows originate upstream, and they vary seasonally and innermost ring of the Water Security Diagnostic Framework temporally by as much as 60 percent. (WSDF), encompassing water endowment (figure 1.1). ° These figures increase to 47 and 90 percent in Central Asia. • Groundwater represents only a small share of the region’s total water endowment (about 10 percent), and it is often polluted or too saline to use without costly treatment. • Climate-change impacts will manifest differently across the region, altering water availability and, importantly, increasing the risk of extreme events. ° Temperatures are expected to rise overall. Upstream countries will experience an increase in ° rainfall and a reduction in snow storage, potentially leading to an increase in floods. ° Downstream countries are expected to experience decreased rainfall and reduced summertime flows (resulting from reduced snow melt), exacerbating drought risks in lowland areas. • Water demands are expected to increase sharply across the region by 30 to 60 percent by 2050, driven by growing industrial and domestic demands in the Danube and irrigation in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. 38 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia WATER AVAILABILITY The most water-abundant countries in the Danube subregion are located downstream. For example, together, Renewable water resources are above the global average Romania (212 cubic kilometers per year) and Ukraine (175 but vary widely both regionally and across subregions. cubic kilometers per year) account for 40 percent of total Average water availability in Europe and Central Asia water resources available (surface water and groundwater) in stands at approximately 7,665 cubic meters per person per the entire Danube subregion. Croatia (102 cubic kilometers year, 20 percent higher than the global average of 5,600 per year) and Serbia (162 cubic kilometers per year) are cubic meters per person per year (figure 4.1). Nevertheless, also home to large endowments despite being smaller the region experiences considerable spatial and temporal in land area. Notably, a considerable share of these water variations. Central Asia has the lowest endowment of the resources originates from upstream countries, underscoring three subregions, with 3,450 cubic meters per person per the critical transboundary nature of water dependency in year. Conversely, the Danube subregion is comparatively downstream countries. Although these countries are largely water-rich, boasting an endowment of 9,140 cubic meters abundant in surface water (which supports different uses, per person per year, followed by the South Caucasus with such as irrigation, hydropower, fisheries, and navigation), the 7,306 cubic meters per person per year. Notably, all three utilizable fraction is much smaller because of the constraints subregions significantly exceed the per capita water stress of spatial access and availability. In Ukraine, groundwater is threshold of 1,700 cubic meters. Still, this is insufficient to a key source, accounting for 12 percent of the country’s total meet the water demands of some countries, particularly renewable water resources. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. Water reserves are significantly lower in the South Caucasus Water resources are unevenly distributed across the region. and Central Asia. Georgia has the largest availability of water Surface water represents the largest stocks of water, whereas resources (63 cubic kilometers per year) in the subregion groundwater represents a small but critical share of water (predominantly surface water), whereas Armenia has the resources. The region has an average renewable water lowest (8 cubic kilometers per year, balanced between endowment equivalent to 1,600 cubic kilometers per year surface water and groundwater). These disparities highlight (significantly more than the region’s average annual demand), the varied dynamics of water resources distribution in the 90 percent of which consists of surface water resources. There region. In Central Asia, Kazakhstan is the largest country in are, however, very important differences across the region, the region and is home to the largest endowments of surface with 75 percent of all surface water resources and about 50 water (100 cubic kilometers per year) and groundwater (33 percent of groundwater originating in the Danube (figure 4.2). Figure 4.1 TOTAL RENEWABLE Water Availability per Capita across Major Regions in the World, 2020 25,000 21,337 Renewable water resources per capita 20,000 15,339 15,000 (m³/person/year) 10,000 7,665 5,500 5,000 4,336 3,042 3,374 1,064 480 0 Global average EU East Asia Middle East and Sub-Saharan North America Europe and and Pacific North Africa South Africa Latin America Central Asia Asia and Caribean Source: AQUASTAT, 2024. Water Endowment 39 cubic kilometers per year). The Kyrgyz Republic, although This reliance is underscored by the high percentage of having fewer total renewable water resources (24 cubic surface water use (more than 95 percent of all water kilometers per year) overall, boasts a higher per capita withdrawals) compared with groundwater. Upstream availability because of its smaller population (3,815 cubic demands in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan are meters per person per year). Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan increasing, reducing and altering the timing of outflows are highly dependent on transboundary surface water that to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and affecting groundwater is subject to seasonal fluctuations and upstream activities, recharge downstream. making them especially vulnerable. Water resources in Europe and Central Asia are subject Groundwater plays a critical role as a buffer stock during to increasing spatial and temporal variability. Water prolonged dry periods. The availability of surface availability is highly influenced by climate patterns and water and groundwater in Europe and Central Asia is a human activities. Seasonal variability1 is particularly complex interplay between geographical, climatic, and relevant in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, given that anthropogenic factors, each shaping the regional water surface water flows are highly dependent on snowmelt security narrative. The Danube subregion, characterized by and, to a lesser extent, rainfall (map 4.1a). The Danube its vast network of rivers, relies primarily on surface water to subregion exhibits fewer variations in water availability meet its water demand. However, the anticipated climatic throughout the year, although upstream flows are highly changes could lead to increased variability, with potential reliant on snowmelt. surges in the Upper Danube’s water availability contrasting with declines in the middle and lower regions. The All subregions have experienced moderate changes in interconnected nature of surface water and groundwater water availability throughout the past two decades (map systems means that groundwater levels are replenished 4.1b). Such variability has important socioeconomic and by high river water levels and, conversely, support river environmental consequences because it influences when flows during dry periods, playing a critical role in drought and where water is available, thus affecting agriculture, mitigation. In the South Caucasus, both surface water and hydropower generation, human consumption, and groundwater are critical for the region’s sustainability and environmental flows. For instance, Central Asia’s highly development. Surface water availability varies across the variable precipitation is heavily influenced by Indian landscape, with regions like the Greater Caucasus and the summer monsoons and the Asian westerly jet, which play Caspian Sea basin being relatively water-rich compared critical roles in ensuring water is available for irrigation with the Kur-Aras Lowland. Artesian groundwater is crucial, and hydropower generation. Snowmelt, a significant especially in areas with limited surface water. Similar to contributor to river flow and freshwater supply during the Danube, Central Asia has significant surface water summer, is also closely linked to these seasonal climatic resources fed by glacial melt and snowmelt, particularly in variations. upstream countries like the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan. Figure 4.2 TOTAL RENEWABLE Water Resources Available in Europe and Central Asia, 2020 South Caucasus Region Danube Central Asia 0 250 500 750 1000 Renewable water resources (km³/year) Groundwater (km3) Surface water (km3) Source: AQUASTAT, 2024. 40 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia STORAGE TO MANAGE WATER is especially acute in Central Asia, driven by excessive extractions for agricultural and domestic use. Regions VARIABILITY such as Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are The strategic use of storage can help mitigate risks associated particularly affected, with high rates of land subsidence with seasonal and interannual variability. Managing water because of overextraction of groundwater (Hasan et al. variability in Europe and Central Asia requires an integrated 2023). This unsustainable practice has led to a permanent approach that leverages various types of water storage, reduction in aquifer storage capacity, threatening long- both natural and constructed. The region encompasses term water availability and exacerbating land degradation. diverse climatic zones and hydrological conditions, making The arid and semiarid climates of Central Asia further it imperative to use a spectrum of storage solutions to compound the challenge because natural groundwater mitigate risks associated with water supply fluctuations. recharge rates are low, making recovery difficult. Sustainable Natural storage in the region includes aquifers, soil groundwater management practices, including managed moisture, lakes, and wetlands, which collectively account aquifer recharge and continuous monitoring using for most freshwater reserves. These natural reserves are remote-sensing technologies, are essential to mitigate critical for sustaining ecosystems, supporting agriculture, these impacts and ensure water security in the region. and providing water during dry spells. However, they Some countries in the Danube subregion also experienced are subject to various threats, such as climate change, severe declines in groundwater storage for 2003–20, with overabstraction, and contamination, emphasizing the Ukraine (−2,220 cubic meters per year), Romania (−999 need for careful management and conservation efforts. cubic meters per year), and Hungary (−519 cubic meters per year) being the most affected (Xanke and Liesch 2022). Although some countries in the Danube subregion have Balkan countries have also witnessed negative trends, experienced a severe decline in groundwater, the loss ranging from a significant decline in the Slovak Republic Map 4.1 SEASONAL AND Interannual Variability in Europe and Central Asia A. Seasonal variability B. Interannual variability IIO"N  80°N  70"N 70°N IIO"N 60°N 50"N 50'N 40"N 40°N --- .,. 30"N- 30-N O" 20"E 40"E 80°E 80°E � 20"E 40°E 60°E IIO"E Roglonal A-• Roglonal A- Central Asia 0.9 Central Aoia 0.5 Danube 0.4 Danube 0.4 South Caucasus 0.7 South Cau0.2); however, the data set is exceptionally small, and the results should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, the study group is highly disparate and includes two low-middle-income countries (Moldova and Tajikistan) and one high-income country (Poland), whereas the remaining six are classified as upper-middle-income countries. In fact, when Croatia and Poland are excluded, a moderately positive correlation exists between total spending and income, as might be expected (figure B5.4.1).Central Asia has the largest investment gap, especially the Kyrgyz Republic but also the downstream countries of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (table B5.4.1). In fact, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have the largest investment needs of all countries, given they face some of the most acute water challenges (Vinokurov et al. 2021). The budget for WRM infrastructure normally comes from state budgets and is implemented through state programs and subnational budgets. To address the existing infrastructure financial gap, many Central Asian governments are developing strategies to increase the financial capacities of the water sector by attracting private and foreign investments (UNEP and UNEP-DHI n.d.). Financing for IWRM activities is also clearly insufficient, and in some countries, there is still no specific budget line (for example, the Kyrgyz Republic). Revenues from IWRM are also deficient, given that water tariffs for water services (for example, irrigation and industry) are symbolic and do not cover operational costs, are not established on a volumetric basis, or are not differentiated by user and source (box 5.5). Water abstraction and pollution charges are also not developed. In Uzbekistan, the problem of low revenues from water services is compounded by the cost of electricity, which has grown by almost 87 percent in the past decade and currently amounts to almost 27 percent of the total cost of water provision. A common feature in several countries (for example, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan) is that revenues from WRM are not earmarked and are frequently transferred to the regional or state budget to become part of the government’s general revenues and thus are not necessarily reinvested in WRM. Figure B5.4.1 Total infrastructure spending is defined as spending in the energy, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN Public Expenditure and Income transport, WSS, irrigation, and telecoms sectors. Spending data in these sectors were generally available for all countries. Spending data in 20,000 the irrigation and telecoms sectors were limited and, when available, 20,000 18,000 18,000 represented such a tiny fraction of infrastructure spending that their 16,000 16,000 exclusion in some cases is unlikely to affect general trends. R2 = 0.1396 14,000 14,000 R2 = 0.4597 GN/capita (USD) GN/capita (USD) 12,000 12,000 In this study, water used for transport was included in the transport 10,000 10,000 sector, but it nevertheless represents a tiny fraction of all spending that 8,000 8,000 is unlikely to affect the results. Conversely, because data for hydropower 6,000 6,000 4,000 were not considered in this study, the global average (WSS only) likely 4,000 2,000 2,000 represents a more reasonable comparison. 0 0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Public expenditure (share of GDP) Public expenditure (share of GDP) 20,000 18,000 16,000 R2 = 0.1396 14,000 R2 = 0.4597 GN/capita (USD) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 are of GDP) Public expenditure (share of GDP) Source: Based on 2023 World Bank data (unpublished). Note: GDP = gross domestic product; GNI = gross national income. Water Sector Architecture 77 Some countries in the South Caucasus report having There are large disparities in financing capacities across adequate resources, but nevertheless, all countries face countries in the Danube. EU Member States perform constraints similar to those of Central Asia. For example, best in national and subnational budgets disbursed and Armenia and Azerbaijan report having sufficient financing revenues derived from IWRM to meet the EU water policy for infrastructure programs and projects, most of which goals and associated SDGs (table B5.4.1). This disparity is comes from state budgets through donor funds (table largely because of the financial support received through B5.4.1). Budgets disbursed in Georgia are subject to major EU funds, along with the legal requirements of the EU WFD, fluctuations, often being split between several budget which requires countries to ensure cost recovery through categories and considered insufficient to meet water the development of affordable but financially sustainable sector investments. Regardless, all three countries face water user tariffs, taxes, and environmental charges (box similar problems to those of Central Asia, with water tariffs 5.5). Nevertheless, and despite the legal requirements and charged for non-WSS services being too low and water financial support of the EU, not all Member States of the abstraction and pollution charges being not yet established Danube subregion are achieving full cost recovery of water (for example, Georgia), too low, or unfairly distributed management services and have sufficiently developed among water user groups (for example, in Armenia, water environmental charges (see table 5.5). EU candidate states abstraction fees for all users are <0.002 euros per cubic face problems similar to those in Central Asia and the meter, and irrigation is for the most part exempt). As with South Caucasus, with infrastructure and WRM budgets Central Asia, revenues from WRM are not earmarked and mainly relying on the public budget and insufficient are generally returned to the central budget (for example, international funding (for example, Albania, Moldova, in Azerbaijan). All in all, this scenario of low levels of Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia, among others), charges, unfair distribution of charges across water user as well as issues with water management–related activities groups, and unearmarked budgets poses a major risk to the (policy development, enabling environment, stakeholder financial sustainability of WRM in the region, and targeted participation, data collection, and monitoring). Water tariffs legal reforms are required to upwardly revise water tariffs for water users are in place but are insufficient to achieve and charges to support the application of the user-pays cost recovery, and environment and resource charges and polluter-pays principles, a mandatory requirement for have not been established (box 5.6). This financial gap in eventual accession to the EU. candidate countries is largely driven by legal financing Box 5.5 WATER PRICING IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS Water pricing is crucial for managing water resources in Europe and Central Asia, and it is increasingly affected by water stress resulting from overextraction, climate change, and deteriorating infrastructure. Effective pricing mechanisms could incentivize water conservation, ensure financial sustainability, and support efficient and equitable water allocation. In Central Asia, particularly in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, traditional area-based pricing has led to inefficiencies and overuse because charges are based on irrigated land area rather than actual consumption. Transitioning to volumetric pricing, which charges based on the volume of water consumed, could promote water conservation but requires substantial investments in metering infrastructure. Kazakhstan has made progress with cost-recovery tariffs for urban water supply and sanitation (WSS), but rural areas still face challenges, with low tariffs and poor service delivery. Similarly, low irrigation tariffs lead to inefficient water use and inadequate maintenance. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan maintain highly subsidized water tariffs for both WSS and irrigation, hampering efficiency and sustainability efforts. The Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan also struggle with low water tariffs that do not reflect actual service costs, hindering infrastructure investments. In the South Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan face challenges resulting from variable water availability exacerbated by changing precipitation patterns and overextraction. Volumetric pricing and water-saving technologies are being considered to ensure sustainable use. Armenia’s low household water tariffs create financial challenges for service providers, limiting infrastructure investment. Irrigation tariffs are often insufficient to cover operational costs, requiring government subsidies. In Georgia, WSS pricing is more structured, with higher urban tariffs compared with rural areas. However, irrigation pricing remains inadequate, heavily relying on state support. Azerbaijan’s water tariffs for both WSS and irrigation are among the lowest in the region, resulting in inefficiencies and financial shortfalls. Sources: O’Hara 2003; Wilchens et al. 2010. 78 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia TABLE 5.5 Financing Tools for WRM, Cost Recovery, and Revenue Allocation Environmental and resource Financial charges Revenues earmarked Cost-recovery-level Cost-recovery Country WSS water Irrigation for WRM? WSS (%) irrigation (%) Abstraction Pollution tariff water tariff Austria x No data No data No data No 100 n.a. Croatia x No data x X Yes 90–100 8 Hungary x x x No data No <90 No data Czech Republic x No data x No data Partly 100 No data Slovak x x No data X Yes 100 No data Republic Slovenia x No data x No data Partly 100 No data Romania x No data x X Yes <90 No data Source: Original elaboration for this publication based on data from OECD 2011b, 2022b, and Strosser et al. 2021. Note: n.a. = not applicable; WRM = water resources management; WSS = water supply and sanitation. Box 5.6 FINANCING WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION The most important funding sources for water management in Europe to support the implementation of the European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Floods Directive (FD) are water and sanitation tariffs— this is despite many EU Member States still requiring significant investments in infrastructure for drinking water and wastewater treatment—along with EU funds and national public funds. Water tariffs for other water users (irrigation, industry, hydropower) complement the revenues from water services. Environmental and resources charges (including abstraction and pollution charges) also generate significant revenues. The revenues from water tariffs and charges to the different water users are not always earmarked for water management; thus, in some countries, they are transferred to the state, regional, local, or municipal budgets. Private investments supporting the implementation of the WFD and FD are limited. Some EU countries use innovative funding arrangements, such as, for example, Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes, financial assistance schemes combining public funding and financial participation by recipients (for example, farmers), or an environmental fund financed by hydropower companies. Revenues for water resources management (WRM) in Europe rest on two main principles: polluters pay and cost recovery. The former is implemented through pollution charges or fines to incentivize water users, particularly industries, to reduce their pollution footprint, adopt cleaner technologies, and improve waste management practices. The latter implies that water services costs, including operational, maintenance, and capital costs, as well as environmental and resource costs, should be recovered from users based on their usage. These two principles translate into different types of water tariffs and charges (figure B5.6.1). Abstraction charges can vary depending on the user and source of water, and they might reflect the scarcity value. Full cost recovery has been reported in only 30 percent of the EU Member States and only for WSS services. There is still no full cost recovery for irrigation water services in any EU Member State, and the best-performing countries (for example, France and Spain) report values equivalent to 78 to 87 percent. In most countries, full recovery of irrigation services is far from possible because of the low water tariffs for irrigation. Water Sector Architecture 79 Box 5.6 continued Sharing of experience by EU Member States on how they have achieved cost recovery could help support the wider implementation of water policy goals across Europe and beyond—namely, how additional financial arrangements (for example, private investments or innovative funding arrangements) are designed and implemented and their performance effectiveness in raising the additional financial resources. An additional challenge preventing the current financial investment level is not related to money but concerns the absorption capacity of EU funds. Drivers include the following: limited ability within countries to establish priorities; a lack of capacity to cofinance some of the investments from the national budget; the mutual incompatibility, inconsistency, and instability of national regulations, especially on sectoral policy; and the weaknesses and lack of readiness of the implementing organizations and related institutions, among other factors. Figure B5.6.1 MECHANISMS TO Support Cost Recovery of Water Services Source: OECD 2022a, 2022b. Note: Charges on other significant water uses are charges on water uses other than abstraction and pollution charges, such as taxes on pesticides or nitrates. Source: Strosser et al. 2021. frameworks that are still inconsistent with the EU Water Investments in WRM represent only a small fraction of the Acquis and, moreover, with nonmonetary drivers related priority investments needed across Europe and Central to the limited absorption capacity of EU funds by country Asia, yet they make economic sense. Overall, however, institutions. This issue is not unique to candidate states but these are not translating into investment at scale. The also affects Member States. The financial gap is linked to a widespread undervaluing of water resources and the lack of capacity to provide the requisite cofinancing from benefits associated with water investments by both public the national budget; the incompatibility, inconsistency, and private actors constrains financing opportunities and instability of national regulations, especially on (OECD 2022b) and prevents countries in Europe and Central sectoral policy; and the weaknesses and lack of readiness Asia from reaching the SDG 6 agenda and, eventually, good of the implementing organizations and related institutions standards of water security across countries. (Strosser et al. 2021). 80 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia INFRASTRUCTURE KEY MESSAGES Water Supply and Sanitation • The WSS infrastructure in Europe and Central Asia is well developed but aging and inefficient. • NRW losses are substantial across all three subregions. • Overall, less than 40 percent of wastewater is currently collected and treated in Europe and Central Asia, putting ecosystems at risk and negatively affecting economic activities that depend on water quality, such as tourism and fishing. ° Important regional differences exist: Wastewater treatment rates exceed 80 percent in the Danube subregion (especially in EU Member States), whereas less than 29 and 48 percent of wastewater is treated in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, respectively. Water Storage • Dam storage capacity is below the global average, and the region is facing important storage losses because of increasing sedimentation. • Increases in both gray and green storage solutions will Water infrastructure encompasses the systems that collect, be needed to address fluctuating water availability and treat, and distribute water and collect, treat, and release increasing demands. wastewater. This includes dams and reservoirs for storage, Irrigation treatment plants for drinking water and sewage, pipes for distribution, stormwater systems to manage runoff, and irrigation systems for agriculture. These structures and • Irrigation in Europe and Central Asia represents a mix of aging, underdeveloped, and inefficient infrastructure, networks are vital for ensuring water security, public health, though modernization efforts are ongoing. and environmental protection. Water Supply and Sanitation Despite extensive coverage, WSS infrastructure suffers from inefficient asset management and policies, leading to a build-neglect-rebuild cycle. This highlights the urgent need for improved institutional frameworks and asset management practices. The disparities in coverage and status between urban and rural areas and among countries within the subregions are large and, overall, underscore the need for targeted improvements, regulatory reforms, and increased financing to secure the future sustainability and resilience of the WSS sector. The Danube subregion (and particularly EU Member States) is characterized by good coverage of water supply infrastructure with a strong legacy of investment and regulatory frameworks from the EU (map 5.2; see “Social Outcomes” in chapter 3 and “Institutions” earlier in this chapter for further details on coverage and legal frameworks). However, because most efforts over the past decades went into infrastructure expansion, with limited investments into maintenance and upgrading (see Water Sector Architecture 81 chapter 6), a substantial part of the existing water supply on-site sanitation and decentralized wastewater treatment infrastructure is aging and in need of modernization. This systems could thus represent an untapped opportunity to situation is largely driven by the limited cost recovery of achieve universal access to sanitation in a more economically water services, and many utilities fail to cover operating viable manner. costs with billed revenues, let alone the costs necessary for regular maintenance, asset management, and renewal In the South Caucasus, water supply infrastructure also (see “Institutions” earlier in this chapter for further details shows disparities between urban and rural areas (map 5.2). on financing). Despite the EU WFD’s requirement for cost Armenia nears universal basic coverage but faces high recovery, even within the EU, countries like Bulgaria, NRW rates of approximately 75 percent. Although urban Hungary, and Romania struggle with financial self- sanitation coverage is high, half the rural population relies sufficiency in utilities (DWP 2019). on unimproved facilities. Azerbaijan and Georgia also have high water supply coverage, but service continuity NRW rates in the Danube subregion are, on average, about is an issue, particularly in Azerbaijan, where continuity of 44 percent, nearly double the EU average (23 percent; service is only sixteen hours per day. The subregion’s rural EurEau 2017). Nonrevenue water, a term used to describe sanitation services lag behind those of urban centers. water that has been produced but is “lost” before it reaches Georgia has made progress in reducing technical losses, the customer through leaks, theft, inaccurate metering, or but the urban-rural divide remains stark. legal usage for which no payment is made, is a pressing issue. High rates represent significant economic losses and Central Asia’s WSS infrastructure is marked by degradation also raise concerns about water resource sustainability, and technical inadequacy, and a high proportion of the especially given the pressing challenges of climate infrastructure is more than 50 years old (map 5.2). The change and increasing water scarcity. Furthermore, NRW average NRW for this region is about 35 percent, with large compromises the quality of the water delivered. The disparities across countries. Access to at least basic water is Western Balkan countries, such as Albania, Montenegro, robust in Kazakhstan, where NRW is well managed compared and North Macedonia, have some of the highest rates with its regional counterparts. Despite high coverage, the in the subregion (greater than 60 percent). Countries Kyrgyz Republic grapples with substantial NRW challenges, like Serbia and Croatia, meanwhile, also face substantial with losses reaching more than 50 percent. Both Tajikistan NRW challenges, suggesting losses are a result of aging and Uzbekistan also must focus on enhancing the water infrastructure and the need for better water management supply and reducing high NRW levels. Turkmenistan appears practices. Croatia, for instance, reports rates of about 44 to have good coverage; however, there is a significant lack percent and is implementing a national support program of data on NRW and service continuity. This data scarcity to address water leakages. is critical, given reports indicating challenges such as limited hours of daily water supply and considerable water Sanitation infrastructure in the Danube region varies by losses (about 75 percent) in some regions, spotlighting the country, and important gaps remain, particularly in providing need for improved water management and infrastructure access to safely managed sanitation services in EU candidate development (UNDP 2010). states (map 5.2; see “Social Outcomes” in chapter 3). In these countries, most efforts have been placed on achieving full Across Central Asia, there is a clear need for modernization of access to drinking water, and investments in sanitation are the WSS infrastructure, reduction in NRW rates, and investment only now expanding. Similarly, wastewater treatment remains in sanitation and wastewater treatment facilities. These efforts a widespread challenge (see “Environmental Outcomes” in should come along with strengthening the capacities of chapter 3), indicating a need for continued investment and service providers to improve the management of service policy focus on wastewater treatment facilities. delivery. The disparities between urban and rural areas need to be addressed through targeted policies and investment The divide in service provision between urban and rural areas in infrastructure, along with the development of institutional is acute, especially for sanitation. Closing the gap will require capacities in water utilities to support governance capacities. dedicated strategies and an enhanced enabling environment for diverse service delivery models that meet the unique Challenges in wastewater treatment across the region include needs of rural communities, which may include encouraging the need for investment in new technologies, rehabilitation self-supply mechanisms. Moreover, although innovative and of existing facilities, and compliance with environmental decentralized sanitation systems offer cost-effective solutions standards. Many treatment plants across the region are and advantages, such as lower investment requirements outdated and lack the capacity to treat wastewater to modern and suitability for rural and less urbanized regions, they have standards, resulting in pollution and health hazards. The not been fully explored or used in these countries. Adopting disparity between urban and rural treatment facilities is also 82 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia a concern because the latter often lack the infrastructure and the wastewater treatment infrastructure. It is the best- resources to manage wastewater effectively. Basic wastewater performing of the three subregions, although the average treatment exists across many countries, but the overall share level of wastewater treatment remains moderate (66 percent of treated wastewater at the source or through centralized wastewater collected and 49 percent treated; figure 5.12). wastewater treatment plants before being discharged into The EU’s Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) sets the environment is lagging across all subregions (figure 5.12). rigorous standards for the collection, treatment, and discharge On average, around 60 percent of all wastewater discharged of urban wastewater, aiming to protect the environment in the region is collected. Of this, 43 percent is treated with from the adverse effects of wastewater discharge. Countries at least primary treatment, whereas only 6 percent of the like Croatia and Serbia have made significant investments in treated wastewater undergoes further treatment for reuse collecting and treating wastewater, but additional efforts are (Jones et al. 2021; figure 5.12). The low amounts of water reuse required to meet the directive’s requirements. For instance, represent a significant opportunity for enhancing regional Serbia’s adherence to the UWWTD is pivotal, given its status water sustainability and mitigating scarcity by increasing the as a potential EU candidate state, which demands significant reuse of treated wastewater, a move that aligns with circular upgrades to its wastewater treatment infrastructure. Currently, economy objectives by converting waste into a valuable Serbia lacks both an investment plan and the necessary resource for various uses (box 5.7). agglomeration studies for designing and developing the requisite infrastructure (see “Institutions” earlier in this Under the influence of EU policies and funding, the Danube chapter). Engaging private sector participation presents a subregion has made significant strides in developing viable solution for securing the needed investment to meet Map 5.2 WATER SUPPLY and Sanitation Coverage in Europe and Central Asia Source: JMP 2022. Water Sector Architecture 83 Figure 5.12 WASTEWATER TREATMENT by Country Total wastewater collected (%) Total wastewater treated (%) Total wastewater reused (%) Kazakhstan 60.2 48.9 12.4 Turkmenistan 44.7 34.1 20.4 Central Asia Subregional average 38.9 24.1 8.10 Uzbekistan 39.0 23.5 7.80 Kyrgyz Republic 26.9 8.70 0.00 Tajikistan 23.9 5.20 0.00 Czech Republic 96.9 96.8 12.7 Austria 100 100 0.10 Hungary 96.0 96.0 7.60 Poland 92.3 67.4 9.50 Bulgaria 81.7 54.6 12.8 Subregional average 65.7 48.5 4.40 Slovak Republic 57.4 57.3 0.40 Romania 58.6 45.7 7.50 Danube Croatia 73.8 20.6 0.00 Ukraine 55.9 34.2 2.80 Montenegro 61.0 30.6 0.00 North Macedonia 46.9 33.7 7.20 Slovenia 43.6 42.5 0.00 Bosnia and Herzegovina 52.4 31.3 0.00 Albania 38.4 33.4 9.50 Serbia 60.8 14.8 0.00 Moldova 36.1 16.6 0.00 Azerbaijan 51.8 38.1 10.4 South Caucasus Georgia 50.6 34.5 0.50 Subregional average 50.6 29.1 3.90 Armenia 49.6 14.6 0.80 Turkey 81.1 60.7 26.6 Peripheral Belarus 78.5 62.8 0.80 Russian Federation 55.1 55.1 5.90 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 Share of total wastewater (%) Source: United Nations Water Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicator 6.3.2 (wastewater treatment). 84 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia these requirements efficiently. The forthcoming revision of Central Asian countries face considerable challenges in the UWWTD introduces even stricter requirements, including wastewater treatment because of aging infrastructure, broader coverage down to agglomerations of 1,000 population technical inadequacies, and limited investment. This is the equivalent, advanced treatment processes, and a push toward subregion with the lowest share of wastewater collected and energy neutrality by 2045. This revision aims to intensify the treated (39 and 24 percent, respectively). Kazakhstan, although directive’s environmental protection objective, mandating having reasonable water coverage, has a fragmented and not producers of certain pollutants to cover a significant portion easily accessible account of wastewater treatment facilities, of treatment costs and setting ambitious goals for reducing particularly in rural areas. In Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the wastewater wastewater treatment facilities are not sufficient to serve the treatment sector. For the Danube countries, these impending growing urban populations, and there is a need for investment changes highlight the need for continued investment and in both urban and rural wastewater infrastructure to improve innovation in wastewater management to align with the EU’s sanitation and environmental outcomes. enhanced environmental and sustainability standards. GHG emissions in Europe and Central Asia, most notably In the South Caucasus, the focus on improving wastewater from wastewater treatment, are substantial yet often treatment is increasing, but infrastructure still lags. The share underestimated. Globally, wastewater treatment produces of wastewater collected is about 51 percent, and the rate of emissions equivalent to nearly 1.8 percent of global GHG treatment is about 29 percent. Armenia has received support emissions. The water sector’s emissions are exacerbated by from various international organizations to rehabilitate its outdated infrastructure and practices, contributing to both water supply, but the treatment of wastewater is not keeping direct emissions at treatment plants and indirect emissions pace with water supply improvements, and currently, less through energy consumption for water pumping and than 15 percent of the wastewater collected is treated distribution; electricity alone accounts for about 43 percent of (figure 5.12). The South Caucasus region requires modern emissions at wastewater treatment facilities. The implications treatment facilities, better management practices, and for climate mitigation are clear: Modernizing the water enhanced environmental regulations to effectively address sector’s infrastructure and enhancing efficiency are pivotal the challenges of wastewater disposal. Georgia’s wastewater to reducing these emissions and require a concerted effort treatment facilities, for example, require modernization to toward energy-efficient technologies; renewable energy handle the increasing demand and prevent the release of adoption; and improved water management, including the untreated effluents into natural water bodies. conservation of wetlands, which are significant carbon sinks. Box 5.7 WATER IN CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND RESILIENCE The Water in Circular Economy and Resilience (WICER) framework of the World Bank advocates for a transformation in urban water management by embracing circular economy principles and strengthening system resilience. This innovative approach aims to extend the life span of water as a resource—valued for its utility role in energy and nutrient cycles and potential for reuse and recycling. The circular economy model encourages the conservation and sustainable management of water, reduction of waste, and promotion of the restoration of natural ecosystems. Resilience in the WICER framework ensures that water systems can withstand and adapt to various stressors, maintaining functionality during unforeseen events. This aspect is crucial for growing cities in developing nations, where the equitable distribution of benefits from circular water economy practices can contribute to inclusive development. The framework guides the adoption of these principles in urban water sectors, helping stakeholders from policy investment and design to apply WICER principles effectively. An ideal application of the framework is seen in modern wastewater treatment plants that integrate renewable energy production, water recycling, and material recovery, embodying sustainability and resilience— for example, a wastewater treatment facility that not only purifies water to safe standards for reuse in agriculture or industrial processes but also incorporates solar energy and biogas production to power its operations. Such a facility exemplifies circularity by generating its own renewable energy and repurposing treated water, which diminishes the draw on freshwater sources and bolsters regional water resilience. Moreover, the plant’s waste-to-resource initiatives—transforming treatment by-products into biomass—illustrate how circular economy practices can lead to resource recovery and additional economic benefits. These initiatives turn organic residuals into biofertilizers or energy sources, reducing waste and supporting a low carbon footprint. By integrating these elements, the wastewater treatment plant becomes a paragon of the circular economy, demonstrating how water systems can be designed to be self-sustaining, environmentally friendly, and resilient to future challenges while ensuring the judicious use and reuse of water resources. Water Sector Architecture 85 Reservoirs Europe and Central Asia subregions, with the Danube having an average dam storage of 650 cubic meters per capita and Reservoir infrastructure across Europe and Central Asia is pivotal Central Asia having as much as 2,837 cubic meters per capita. for addressing water and energy needs, yet it faces the challenge Dam storage in the South Caucasus is equivalent to the Europe of aging facilities in need of modernization. The average dam and Central Asia average, amounting to 1,170 cubic meters per storage capacity is equivalent to 1,128 cubic meters per capita, capita (figure 5.13). which is below the global average (1,500 cubic meters per capita). However, there are important differences across the Figure 5.13 PER CAPITA Dam Storage Capacity versus Interannual Variability in Europe and Central Asia 0.6 KZ KG Central Asia UZ MK US TJ UA 0.5 AM BG International variability (ratio) TM CN Europe and Central Asia RO TR IN Danube CZ PL South Caucasus AZ 0.4 HU MD XK AL BY RS ME GE 0.3 SK BA RU HR SI AT 0.2 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Per capita dam storage capacity (m3 / capita) Europe and Central Asia subregions Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Peripheral ECA Non-Europe and Central Asia countries Source: AQUASTAT, 2024. 86 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Inadequate storage capacity represents an important risk cubic meters, is progressively increasing its hydropower as water demands grow and climate variability increases. significance, with hydropower now accounting for about The Europe and Central Asia region is subjected to high 6.6 percent of its electricity production. New projects like seasonal and interannual variability (see “Water Availability” the Dash Salahli and Girkan plants are part of the country’s in chapter 4), which can only be buffered with the existence strategy to expand its hydropower capacity. Georgia of gray and green (or hybrid) storage. In addition to dam stands out, with 78 percent of its electricity coming from storage, snow storage is also important across Europe and hydropower, supported by a per capita dam storage Central Asia, particularly in the Danube and Central Asia, capacity of 852 cubic meters. The country is working to where much of the flow depends on snowmelt. Dams enhance its energy independence and mitigate climate across Europe and Central Asia have also faced important variability’s impact on future water demands. However, storage losses over the decades since they were originally Georgia faces winter reliability issues and dependency on constructed. According to Perera et al. (2023), in 2022, imports, requiring a strategic approach to energy supply, dam storage losses ranged between 12 and 27 percent in especially during the dry winter months. Danube countries, between 14 and 22 percent in the South Caucasus, and between 12 and 20 percent in Central Asia. Central Asia’s reservoir infrastructure development, The main driver underpinning such losses is sedimentation. focused on irrigation and hydropower, plays a pivotal role in the region’s water and energy dynamics (figure 5.14). Human interventions have significantly reshaped the The construction boom between 1950 and 1980 resulted Danube subregion’s reservoir infrastructure to serve flood in more than sixty reservoirs with a combined capacity control, hydropower, and navigation purposes, drastically of more than 163 cubic kilometers, which is crucial for affecting its ecological integrity. Hydropower plants, although regulating over 50 percent of the regional river flow contributing to renewable energy, have caused habitat monthly (Rakhmatullaev et al. 2010). This infrastructure is fragmentation, altered flow regimes, and obstructed sediment key to food security, agricultural production, energy sector and species migration, requiring interventions like dredging support, and environmental protection in the landlocked and sediment supplementation. The adoption of the Guiding nations of Central Asia. Upstream countries like the Kyrgyz Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Republic and Tajikistan, with per capita dam storage Danube Basin in 2013 represents a strategic effort to balance capacities of 3,808 cubic meters and 3,323 cubic meters, hydropower’s benefits against ecological costs through respectively, exploit their reservoir networks primarily upgraded technologies and mitigative actions. Regulatory for winter hydropower generation, addressing energy measures for flood protection have modified more than 80 demands and enhancing energy security. Significant percent of the Danube, affecting floodplain ecosystems and hydropower projects, such as Tajikistan’s Rogun hydropower groundwater levels crucial for drinking water. With a low per plant and Kazakhstan’s involvement in the Kambarata-1 capita dam storage capacity of 616 cubic meters, disparities hydropower plant, highlight a strategic shift toward in capacity across the Danube countries exist, highlighting maximizing hydropower potential and developing energy the need for cooperative transnational water management export capabilities. Conversely, downstream countries like to enhance resilience against climatic fluctuations and Uzbekistan, with its modest per capita storage of 689 cubic hydrological extremes. The river is essential for the water meters, focus on augmenting water storage to ensure supply and supports a significant portion of the region’s agricultural viability and reduce dependence on uncertain electricity generation through hydropower, which accounts upstream water releases, reflecting the region’s complex for an average of 28.3 percent of the energy production. Yet water-energy interplay and the critical need for sustainable the expansion of hydropower is subject to varied technical, reservoir management. economic, and environmental factors, with substantial transboundary implications for the basin’s hydrology and Irrigation and Drainage ecosystems (see “Economic Outcomes” in chapter 3). Modernizing legacy irrigation systems and adopting In the South Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia more efficient technologies stand out as key measures have distinctive approaches to managing their water for mitigating the increasing frequency and intensity of resources and developing hydropower. Armenia, with a droughts and addressing future water stress in the Europe relatively modest per capita dam storage capacity of 471 and Central Asia region. Much of the irrigation infrastructure cubic meters, has developed a substantial hydropower was constructed during the Soviet era, and since the breakup sector, generating about 28 percent of its electricity from this of the Soviet Union, the irrigation infrastructure has been source. Lake Sevan, the largest freshwater lake in the South ownerless, with countries not investing in maintenance and Caucasus, is a central reservoir serving multiple purposes, upgrade. With a few exceptions, the infrastructure is currently from irrigation to energy generation and recreation. in a state of decay, highly inefficient, and contributing to Azerbaijan, with a per capita dam storage capacity of 2,188 low water productivity. Similarly, distribution across Europe Water Sector Architecture 87 Figure 5.14 RESERVOIR CAPACITIES and Their Main Purposes in Europe and Central Asia Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Water supply, hydropower, navigation Water supply, flow regulation, hydropower Water supply, flow regulation Water supply Irrigation, water supply, hydropower Irrigation, water supply, flow regulation, hydropower, Irrigation, navigation water supply, flow regulation, hydropower Irrigation, Main uses water supply, flow regulation Irrigation, water supply Irrigation, hydropower Irrigation, flow regulation Irrigation Hydropower, water supply Hydropower, navigation Hydropower, flow regulation Hydropower 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Cumulative reservoir capacities (billion m³) Source: AQUASTAT, 2023. 88 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia and Central Asia is uneven. Irrigation expansion is expected aging infrastructure. The implications of these challenges to significantly increase the water productivity of irrigated are profound, directly affecting the region’s agricultural areas and produce 2 percent more crops (Palazzo et al. productivity and food security by leading to inefficient 2019). Decommissioning and replacing outdated irrigation water use and limiting the achievement of maximum assets with modern systems is critical to improving water agricultural potential. To address these issues, the region efficiency, reducing operational and energy costs, and should prioritize the revitalization and modernization of enhancing the resilience of agricultural systems in the face irrigation systems, including the adoption of more efficient of climate change. irrigation methods, such as drip irrigation over traditional flood irrigation. These efforts will not only enhance crop In the Danube, irrigation infrastructure is largely not built or production capacity but also contribute to the sustainable built and not in use, representing a significant opportunity management of water resources across the South Caucasus. for investment to enhance resilience against growing water scarcity and droughts. On average, only 10.5 percent The state of irrigation infrastructure in Central Asia presents of cultivated land in this subregion is under irrigation, a complex and varied picture. Across the subregion, the mainly in the form of flood and sprinkler types of systems irrigation systems are generally antiquated and technically (figure 5.15). The predominant form of agriculture is rain- deficient, suffering from significant degradation (EDB 2023). fed farming because of the relatively high and reliable A critical issue is the lack of essential equipment for accurate precipitation. However, where irrigation systems exist, metering and effective distribution of water for irrigation they are often partially nonfunctional because of a lack of purposes and for controlling its usage in the fields. A striking maintenance or outdated designs, leading to inefficient feature of this infrastructure is its age—most of it is more than water use and large water losses. Romania stands out for 50 years old, with most of the systems using the least efficient its high fresh surface water use for irrigation, but this has flood irrigation system (figure 5.15). This aging system has not translated into proportionally high yield levels because led to widespread problems, including salinization, affecting of inefficiencies such as outdated infrastructure and poor as much as half of the irrigated land. Additionally, the region coordination among water suppliers and farmers. The grapples with substantial inefficiencies in water usage for data indicate that in Romania, maize yields reach 4 tons agriculture, with an estimated 40 percent of water being per hectare as compared with 7.4 tons per hectare in lost in the canal systems. As few as 30 percent of canals are Hungary, pointing to substantial room for improvement in estimated to be equipped with antifiltration lining, which water-use efficiency. Climate change introduces additional contributes to low efficiency in irrigation water delivery. This uncertainties in water availability, with potential impacts inefficiency results in significant water wastage because on agricultural productivity. The droughts of 2017 and only a fraction of the water withdrawn for irrigation reaches 2022, for instance, led to substantial economic losses in the the plants’ roots. Pumping plays a crucial role in irrigated agricultural sector across several countries in the region. agriculture in Central Asia, leading to substantial sunk and In Bulgaria and Hungary, extensive but often inoperative O&M costs. For instance, in Uzbekistan, electricity for I&D irrigation systems from Communist times suggest pumps accounts for a significant portion of the national significant potential for modernizing infrastructure to better electricity generation and budget. In Kazakhstan, only a small manage water resources, particularly in light of predicted fraction—4 percent—of the cultivated land is equipped increasing drought intensity and frequency in Central and for irrigation. This limited coverage is compounded by the Eastern Europe. Developing climate-resilient agricultural deterioration of existing systems, which significantly hampers strategies, including expanding and modernizing irrigation agricultural productivity. Moreover, the current irrigation and improving the climate-adaptive capacity of rain-fed practices, including the rates and timing of water application, agriculture, is vital for mitigating these impacts. are predominantly inefficient, underscoring an urgent requirement for significant enhancements and modernization In the South Caucasus, irrigation infrastructure and water of the irrigation infrastructure. Contrastingly, the Kyrgyz management practices display a regionwide contrast, Republic exhibits a higher level of irrigation development, with varying levels of development, challenges, and with 75 percent of its arable land being irrigated. Despite this strategic priorities. Despite a significant expansion of the higher coverage, the predominant irrigation technologies in irrigation infrastructure, as seen with Georgia’s nearly 250 use are outdated and inefficient, indicating a gap between percent increase in irrigated areas over the past decade, potential and actual agricultural productivity. Tajikistan, with the subregion as a whole does not fully use the water 71 percent of its cultivated area equipped for irrigation, faces supplied for irrigation. This underutilization, combined issues similar to those in Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic. with an urgent need for modernization and efficient water Challenges related to the maintenance and overall condition management practices in countries like Azerbaijan and of the irrigation systems are prevalent, adversely affecting Armenia, underscores the broader regional challenge of the agricultural sector’s efficiency and productivity. These Water Sector Architecture 89 challenges highlight the urgent need for substantial upgrades contribute to reducing public expenditures and enhancing and modernization of irrigation infrastructure, incorporating economic growth in the region. advanced water technologies and service management and monitoring systems, to unlock the full agricultural potential The irrigation sector also produces GHG emissions. Inefficient of Tajikistan and the broader Central Asia region. Projects practices like flood irrigation and water losses contribute like the South Karakalpakstan Water Resources Management to higher methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Pumped Improvement Project (SKWRMIP) in Uzbekistan illustrate such irrigation can also play a role because of their reliance on energy, upgrades. The SKWRMIP transformed an outdated irrigation often derived from fossil fuels. The drainage of wetlands can system into a more efficient and sustainable gravity-fed harm ecosystems and lead to loss of soil carbon, a vital carbon model, significantly reducing water losses and operational sink. To mitigate these impacts, enhancing irrigation efficiency costs and enhancing agricultural productivity (see box 5.8). through technologies like drip or sprinkler systems is essential. Improving irrigation efficiency not only reduces the costs These methods deliver water directly to plant roots, reducing associated with inefficient water use but also increases water waste and emissions. Modernizing infrastructure agricultural production, productivity, and income; it can also to transition from energy-intensive pumped systems to Figure 5.15 SHARE OF Cultivated Land under Different Types of Irrigation in Europe and Central Asia and Central Europe Asia Europe and Central Asia 13.3 Uzbekistan 96.5 Turkmenistan 94.8 Central Asia Kyrgyz Republic 74.9 Tajikistan 71.2 Subregional average 22.3 Kazakhstan 4.1 Albania 51.8 North Macedonia 27.9 Moldova 11.5 Austria 7.2 Ukraine 6.4 Subregional average 5.5 Croatia 5.1 Irrigation type Danube Poland 4.9 Drip irrigation Slovak Republic 4.5 Flood irrigation Hungary 4.5 Sprinkler irrigation Bulgaria 3.7 Serbia 1.7 Romania 1.6 Czech Republic 1.5 Slovenia 1.3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.3 Azerbaijan 61.5 South Caucasus Subregional average 53.4 Armenia 30.8 Georgia 30.3 Turkey 23.1 Peripheral Russian Federation 3.1 Belarus 0.5 0 25 50 75 100 Share of cultivated land under (type of) irrigation (%) Source: AQUASTAT, 2024. Note: For empty bars without fill, no data on types of irrigation used are available. 90 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Box 5.8 MODERNIZATION OF IRRIGATION IN SOUTH KARAKALPAKSTAN, UZBEKISTAN The South Karakalpakstan Water Resources Management Improvement Project (SKWRMIP) in Uzbekistan focused on transforming an outdated irrigation system into a more efficient, sustainable model. The primary objective was to shift from energy-intensive pump-based irrigation to a gravity-fed system, significantly enhancing water management and reducing operational costs. Infrastructure Upgrades The project rehabilitated 133 kilometers of main canals and 694 kilometers of secondary canals, converting them to a gravity-fed system. These changes reduced water losses and the reliance on costly and energy-consuming pumping stations. As a result, annual electricity savings amounted to 61,404 megawatt-hours, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were cut by approximately 23,600 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. These improvements decreased public and water consumer association (WCA) expenditures for pumping by 78 percent. Sustainable Agricultural Practices The SKWRMIP promoted modern agricultural techniques, including laser land leveling and deep soil ripping over 16,000 hectares, enhancing water distribution and reducing runoff. The project also facilitated crop diversification, moving 28,172 hectares from water-intensive cotton to other crops, far exceeding the initial target of 8,000 hectares. This shift improved water-use efficiency, increased agricultural productivity, and boosted farmer incomes. Institutional Strengthening The project provided training and support to WCAs and the newly formed Special Services Units within district-level irrigation departments. These efforts professionalized local water management bodies and improved their financial sustainability through better fee collection and the introduction of a water tax based on usage. Overall, the SKWRMIP effectively modernized irrigation infrastructure and practices, leading to significant improvements in water-use efficiency, operational cost reductions, and enhanced agricultural productivity. The project’s comprehensive approach is a model for sustainable water and agricultural management initiatives. gravity-fed systems can significantly cut energy consumption Associations, the 2005 Law on the Fundamentals of and associated emissions. Preserving and restoring wetlands is the National Water Policy, and the 2006 Law on the also crucial because they act as natural carbon sinks and water National Water Program. filters. Protecting these areas prevents the release of stored 3. For management purposes, basins in Kazakhstan carbon and maintains their climate-regulation functions. are determined by physical and administrative Furthermore, managed aquifer recharge projects can enhance boundaries into so-called water economic basins. The water availability and drought resilience while maintaining eight water economic basins are as follows: Aralo- natural carbon sinks. By implementing these strategies, Syrdarya, Balkash-Alakol, Ertis, Esil, Nura-Sarysu, Shu- the irrigation sector can significantly contribute to climate Talas, Tobyl-Torgai, and Zhayik-Caspian. mitigation, reducing overall GHG emissions and enhancing the sustainability of water and agricultural practices. 4. For example, the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECE Water Convention) and the United NOTES Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UNW Convention). 1. Key IWRM principles include the development of 5. Because Kosovo is not an official member of the provisions and plans to manage water quantity, United Nations. water quality, and water services; management of and protection against water-related risks; protection 6. An antimonopoly committee is a regulatory body of water bodies; definition of the functions of water responsible for enforcing competition laws and institutions; participation; and basin planning. promoting fair competition within a country’s economy. The committee’s primary goal is to prevent 2. Most relevant are the 2002 Law on Water User monopolistic practices—such as price fixing, market Associations and Federations of Water User allocation, and other anticompetitive behaviors—that could harm consumers or other businesses. 6 Water Sector Performance This chapter explores instruments developed by countries KEY MESSAGES within Europe and Central Asia to manage water resources and how economies are performing when managing • Main bottlenecks to widespread adoption of basin planning include institutional weaknesses, a lack of financing, and water-related risks (floods and droughts) and delivering technical shortcomings. water-related services. This chapter corresponds to the third ring of the Water Security Diagnostic Framework • Although basin planning is instrumental in supporting integrated water resources management (IWRM), it (WSDF) diagram (figure 1.1). requires large amounts of institutional, technical, and financial capacities, which are lacking across most MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES countries in Europe and Central Asia. • Most countries have established water extraction permits to manage water allocation and, in some cases, a register of water users. However, systems are not always up to date, and countries are failing to charge water tariffs. • Insufficient knowledge of the availability and status of water resources is a key barrier to planning resulting from insufficient monitoring, out-of-date water data infrastructures, and poor information flow among water sector institutions. ° Knowledge gaps are greatest with respect to the ecological, hydromorphological, and quantitative status of water bodies. • Groundwater remains poorly understood and managed. ° There is limited information regarding the quantitative and chemical status of groundwater, which represents a key socioeconomic risk. • Data exchange and cooperation are required within and across borders to support IWRM, but both have significant shortcomings. ° Within countries, data-exchange mechanisms are often insufficient, if not obsolete, except in the European Union (EU) Member States of the Danube. There are also regulatory gaps in several countries regarding open data. ° Data-exchange mechanisms among countries are also rare because of the limited normative development in international water treaties and political disputes among neighboring countries. • Although reflected in the regulatory frameworks of many countries, in practice, stakeholder participation is limited and not as inclusive as intended. Mechanisms for public participation, where they exist, are generally articulated around river basin councils, but even these institutions have limited resources and capacities to engage wider groups. 92 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Management Instruments In Central Asia, basin planning is slowly developing, although in some countries, the approach has not yet The absence of strong river basin planning reduces been stipulated in legislation (table 6.1). Where plans have coping capacity to manage the risks of water scarcity, been adopted, they have largely been developed with disputes among water users, environmental degradation, the support of international funds, but implementation and water-related hazards. The cornerstones of effective is limited because of financial constraints and the and sustainable basin planning include overcoming and limited development of institutional capacities for basin addressing persistent challenges related to financing, management (see “Institutions” in chapter 5). monitoring of infrastructure, data, public participation, and building technical and human capacities. Overall, In the Danube, EU Member States have developed river basin planning is expanding in Europe and Central comprehensive RBMPs and flood risk management Asia, and countries are beginning to implement the basin plans (FRMPs). Required by the EU WFD and the Floods approach in their planning processes, but much more Directive (FD), these address relevant aspects of IWRM progress is needed, especially in the South Caucasus and (water allocation, water quality, water services provision, Central Asia. The main bottlenecks to supporting the full management and protection from water-related risks, and implementation of the basin planning and management protection of water ecosystems). EU candidate states are approach in many countries are insufficient financing and also investing significant efforts in developing EU-compliant the as-yet-limited development of strong basin authorities. RBMPs. Nevertheless, the WFD is very ambitious and requires significant efforts and investments on the part of In the South Caucasus, some countries, such as Armenia and countries to generate the knowledge base needed and to Georgia, have started to develop river basin management support the implementation of the program of measures. plans (RBMPs). Because this is an obligatory component of The legal requirement of the WFD establishes planning EU membership agreements, these RBMPs comply with the cycles of six years in duration, after which plans need to EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). Many of these plans be revised and updated to monitor progress and identify have been developed in the framework of international emerging pressures. EU Member States are currently projects, and although some have been approved, they implementing the third RBMP (planning cycle 2021–27). have not yet been implemented because of financial Since the first plans were developed (2009–15), Danube constraints regarding the financing of the program EU countries have made substantive progress along of measures (OECD 2021b). Given the current limited different axes. Investments oriented toward ecosystem maturity of basin institutions (see “Institutions” in chapter protection have had two positive outcomes: (a) moderate 5), public participation has been limited to ad hoc projects. improvement of the ecological status of water bodies across Azerbaijan has not yet started implementing the basin some countries (for example, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech management approach; no plans are thus in place, nor is Republic, and Romania) and (b) improved the knowledge the required institutional setup present to support their base on the status of water bodies across some countries, implementation at the basin scale. Overall, further efforts with important gaps (for example, Hungary and Poland). will be required to support the strength of basin capacities, Yet Danube countries remain far from reaching the target including the institutionalization of public participation of achieving good status for all water bodies (initially set in basin planning (for example, through the development for 2015 and later extended to 2027 for all Member States; and strengthening of basin councils). figure 6.1). TABLE 6.1 Summary of the Implementation of the Basin Approach in Central Asia Basin approach stipulated in River basin management plans Country the water code or related water Basin management units delineated? developed/river basins delineated legislation? Kyrgyz Republic Yes Yes 0/6 Kazakhstan Yes Yes 2/8 Tajikistan Yes Yes 2/5 Uzbekistan No No n.a. Turkmenistan No No n.a. Source: Original assessment for this publication. Note: n.a. = not applicable. Water Sector Architecture 93 In the past two basin planning cycles, water allocation the limited financing, the bureaucracy that needs to mechanisms have been put in place. All countries have be overcome to implement some of the measures, and established water permit systems and have developed the limited application of cost-effective approaches a register of water abstractions. In some cases, permits to prioritize measures. Governance aspects related to are required only above a certain volume of abstractions the limited technical and human capacities to enforce (for example, in Bulgaria and Slovenia), but in most cases, existing regulations are also a recurrent problem. Croatia, permits are required regardless of the volumes extracted for instance, has a water abstraction permitting system (European Commission 2021). As for the control of water and a water-use register in place, but surveillance and quality, all EU Member States in the Danube have an enforcement mechanisms are insufficient, and it is authorization or permit regime to control wastewater estimated that reported water abstractions are only 60 point-source discharges and have developed a register percent of the real abstractions taking place (World Bank of wastewater discharges for both surface water and 2023b). groundwater. The Czech Republic and Romania have water quality control systems only for surface water. Although EU candidate states are making significant efforts to adapt such measures represent a positive step toward monitoring their institutional frameworks to the requirements of the water quantity and quality, they need to be backed by EU Water Acquis. There are, however, major gaps with strong enforcement and surveillance mechanisms, which respect to river basin planning. River basin districts have are still lacking in many countries. been identified in most countries (for example, in Albania, Montenegro, and Serbia), and RBMPs are being developed, In fact, despite the progress, EU Member States face often with international funds, but most lack government important challenges in fulfilling the implementation approval and are thus not being implemented. The of the program of measures from the RBMPs (figure 6.2). development of the plans has also revealed major gaps Some of the most important challenges are related to that need to be filled, including (a) the limited knowledge Figure 6.1 COMPARISON OF the Ecological Status of the Surface Water Bodies in Danube EU Member States between the First (2009– 15) and Second Planning Cycles (2016–21) 100 17 18 75 First RBMP (2009-2015) 42 43 51 52 50 52 59 63 25 38 57 56 83 49 39 79 41 10 36 Status Percentage 0 Good Status No Good Status 100 Unknown 19 75 31 Second RBMP (2016-2021) 42 47 46 50 57 59 66 25 78 45 52 79 58 13 69 33 39 44 0 AT BG CZ HR HU PL RO SI SK Country Source: WISE-Freshwater (database), Water Information System for Europe (WISE), European Commission/European Environment Agency, https://water. europa.eu/freshwater. Note: EU = European Union; RBMP = river basin management plan. 94 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia base on the status of water bodies because of the narrow financial gaps is key to strengthening the implementation coverage of monitoring systems required to monitor of river basin management instruments and adopting the biological, ecological, hydromorphological, and chemical IWRM approach at the basin scale. quality and (b) limited data on the hydrogeological functioning of aquifers, which prevents the formation of an Data and Monitoring accurate picture of the dynamics and quantitative status of There is inadequate technical knowledge on water groundwater bodies. resources because of insufficient and decaying monitoring infrastructure and weak institutional capacities. These EU candidate states have made major efforts to advance deficiencies seriously undermine planning capacities. the establishment of water allocation mechanisms. Water There are wide disparities across the region, with the EU codes and associated legislation require users to obtain a Member States in the Danube being more advanced than water permit for water abstractions (World Bank 2023d, countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, where 2024c, 2024d). Major gaps remain, however, including the problems of monitoring water resources have not the following: (a) technical gaps, given that water received sufficient attention. Poor material and technical cadasters, even if available, are not well maintained and equipment and low human and technical capacities limit have information that is scattered across the different the development of cooperation in the field of monitoring institutions issuing the permits; (b) governance-related and assessment of water resources. gaps, given countries’ limited capacities for surveillance and enforcement, which prevent them from having realistic In the South Caucasus, there is a major deficit in water control over water abstractions (for example, in Albania monitoring at all levels (hydrometeorological, hydrological, and Serbia); and (c) financial gaps, given that even when and water quality) across the three countries. Efforts are a water tariff for different water users exists, cost recovery under way in Armenia and Georgia to upgrade and expand is not achieved; moreover, environmental and resource the monitoring networks (World Bank 2024a, 2024h). cost charges have not yet been developed (for example, in In Azerbaijan, outdated or inappropriate equipment Albania and Montenegro; see “Water Sector Financing” in and techniques are still used, although there has been chapter 5). Overcoming these technical, institutional, and an encouraging move toward modernization over the Figure 6.2 BARRIERS AFFECTING the Implementation of the Program of Measures in River Basin Management Plans to Achieve the River Basin Planning Goals in EU Member States of the Danube Not cost-effective Lack of mechanism Lack of measures Barrier Lack of finance Governance Extreme events Delays 0 20 40 60 Barrier reported per river basin (%) Source: European Commission 2021. Note: EU = European Union; RB = river basin. Water Sector Architecture 95 past few years (World Bank 2024c). Monitoring of water Groundwater is a strategic resource for drinking water and quality mostly focuses on physicochemical parameters irrigation across Europe and Central Asia, but it is poorly (to detect nutrients and pollutants from agriculture, managed. Despite surface water being the most abundant urban wastewater, and diverse industries), whereas and most used source of water there, groundwater is an other important aspects of ecological monitoring, such important source of drinking water across the entire region as biological and hydromorphological parameters, are and for irrigation in some subregions, such as Central Asia. not monitored. Reliable data on water quantity of both Yet groundwater is poorly managed, largely driven by surface water and groundwater are largely missing. There the limited knowledge and monitoring of a resource (see is a serious lack of information on water abstractions. Only chapter 4 on endowments) that is likely to become more Armenia has a water cadaster, although this is in the process strategic soon while countries adapt to climate change yet of being updated and opened to the public. Overall, the are already facing important pollution and overextraction lack of reliable, timely, and spatially appropriate data on challenges (see “Environmental Outcomes” in chapter 3), water quantity and quality significantly compromises particularly in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. national and regional water security. In Central Asia, increased groundwater use is connected In Central Asia, monitoring is insufficient, and the existing to the drying of the Aral Sea, shared by Kazakhstan and monitoring system is largely antiquated and has fallen Uzbekistan, forcing farmers to seek alternative reliable into disrepair. Currently, evidence-based decision making water sources. Uzbekistan is also highly dependent for water resources planning and management is almost on upstream surface waters from the Kyrgyz Republic impossible. Between 1985 and 2008, the number of and Tajikistan and is progressively gearing its irrigation functioning monitoring stations and equipment declined investments toward groundwater. Irrigation accounts for by 30 to 60 percent in the various countries (World Bank 28 percent of the groundwater abstractions in Uzbekistan, 2019). Most of the monitoring systems in place are manual, but the country is already using 99 percent of its renewable and there are important gaps in the data series. Monitoring groundwater resources (see chapter 4 on endowments), stations need to be urgently reestablished, automated, which represents a major threat to the sustainability of the and combined with modern decision-support systems. Syr Darya aquifer and all dependent water uses (figure 6.4). Until now, most countries in Central Asia have focused on In the rest of Central Asia, the ratio of abstraction is lower, monitoring hydrometeorological and basic physical and with most countries having extraction rates in the range of chemical aspects of water quality, whereas there is barely 25 to 60 percent. Nevertheless, the subregion is exposed any monitoring of ambient water quality and hardly any to several compounding risks related to its exploitation capacities in place for it. Because of the poor status of the of groundwater. One is that groundwater resources in existing infrastructure and the fact that most monitoring Central Asia are highly dependent on surface waters from is still manual, there are important gaps in the data series, the Syr Darya and Amy Darya River basins, and as climate which prevent a reliable and up-to-date understanding change is expected to decrease the amount of runoff, of water quality and quantity—the very knowledge base this will likely affect groundwater recharge and possibly required to support effective water resources planning. reduce the groundwater table and increase the extractions of nonrenewable groundwater (see “Environmental In the Danube, there are large disparities in monitoring Outcomes” in chapter 3). Likewise, diffuse pollution from capacities between EU Member States and candidate agriculture is becoming increasingly serious, threatening states. EU Member States have made major progress in the quality of groundwater resources (Liu et al. 2020). expanding their monitoring systems and currently have reasonably good monitoring networks, although there Groundwater plays a vital role in the Danube, providing are some monitoring gaps for biological, chemical, and nearly 72 percent of the drinking water for about 59 million hydromorphological parameters (figure 6.3). In the EU people and serving agricultural irrigation and industrial candidate states of the Danube, monitoring programs still needs, including cooling and heating applications. need to be expanded much further, with regard to all key However, in this subregion it is under significant threat from parameters for determining the ecological status of surface pollution, primarily stemming from untreated sewage, water (biological, chemical, and hydromorphological agricultural fertilizers and pesticides, and chemicals status) and groundwater (quantitative and chemical leaching from industrial waste sites. Groundwater status). Technical capacities to coordinate and manage the abstractions for drinking water and agriculture are monitoring approach are also inadequate, which reveals increasingly putting pressure on groundwater bodies. To that along with investments in expanding the monitoring ensure the sustainable use of Danube groundwater, the network, efforts are also required to enhance institutional International Commission for the Protection of the Danube and technical capacities for monitoring. River (ICPDR) has set up a Groundwater Task Group, which has managed to identify relevant groundwater bodies of transboundary importance and develop strategic visions 96 Figure 6.3 BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL and Hydromorphological Parameters Monitored to Assess the Ecological Status of Water Bodies in the EU Member States of the Danube Countries a. Biological water quality b. Hydromorphological status c. Chemical parameters 100 100 100 element status Quality Quality element status Unknown Unknown 13 High High 90 21 21 Good 90 90 Good Moderate 25 31 Less than good Poor 80 13 42 Bad 80 42 80 43 44 46 46 46 46 55 15 58 59 70 18 70 70 60 60 31 60 5 11 44 92 8 50 100 50 50 11 13 14 25 49 Percentage Percentage 37 28 Percentage 40 40 40 36 20 29 10 27 23 30 23 23 26 30 30 27 28 20 20 20 26 17 25 25 15 25 22 13 22 20 18 18 10 10 10 17 17 13 13 9 7 6 7 3 4 6 2 2 4 0 0 2 3 QE3-1 - General QE3-1-6 - QE3-1-6-2 - QE3-1-5 - QE3-1-6-1 - QE3-1-3 - QE3-1-2 - QE3-1-4 - QE3-1-1 - 0 QE1 - Biological quality QE1-3 - Benthic QE1-2 - Other aquatic flora QE1-4 - Fish QE1-1 - Phytoplankton QE2 - Hydromorphological quality QE2-3 - Morphological conditions QE2-1 - Hydrological or tidal QE2-2 - River continuity conditions parameters Nutrien.. Phosphoru.. Acidification.. Nitrogen.. Oxygenation.. Thermal.. Saliknity.. Transparency.. elements invertabrates elements regime Quality element status Unknown High Good Moderate Poor Bad A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Source: EEA 2023b. Note: EU = European Union. Water Sector Architecture 97 to address and manage pollution and overabstractions. Of portals (for example, the water online platform EcoPortal the twelve transboundary groundwater bodies identified in Armenia and the water information system of Georgia); in the Danube, 75 percent have a good chemical status, these still need to be further developed and populated with and 86 percent have a good quantitative status (map 6.1). new data as they are generated. An additional problem is the limited digitalization in place. Common functions In the South Caucasus, there is little information on usable among public institutions need to be found, as do generic, groundwater resources, which is a risk in itself. Along with applicable, and interoperable solutions to enable ease of the limited quantitative information, groundwater bodies data exchange among them. A cross-sectoral approach to are increasingly being polluted, especially downstream in digitalization is thus required that involves the participation Azerbaijan because of the high level of pollution of the two of all ministries. The technological gaps are also aggravated most important rivers, the Kura and Aras, the main source because some countries lack a legal basis for open data of aquifer recharge. Groundwater pollution is not a regional access. issue; it is highly concentrated around irrigated areas and near urban areas. The absence of monitoring systems and In Central Asia, water monitoring is spread across many the use of stationary hydrogeological models inhibit the different agencies, each with its own programs that often are ability to forecast, prevent, and manage groundwater risks. not coordinated with regard to sampling sites, parameters analyzed, and measuring frequency. In most countries, the Poor information flow among institutions in the sector monitoring network density is not sufficient to cover all impedes coordinated responses to risks and leads to main water bodies (UNECE 2018). Typically, water quantity inefficient planning. Except for the EU Member States information for surface water and groundwater is gathered by in the Danube, most countries in Europe and Central different institutions (hydrometeorology and hydrogeology Asia have not incorporated data-exchange frameworks bodies, respectively). The quality of environmental, drinking, into their national monitoring systems, which prevents and irrigation water is also monitored by different institutions. the establishment of a unified data-exchange system to Interagency disunity and poor coordination among national facilitate data exchange within countries. authorities often inhibit proper data exchange. Measures are needed to strengthen intersectoral interaction and form In the South Caucasus, there are hardly any formal data- unified national databases on the use of the water fund. exchange mechanisms within the countries. There is also Moreover, data are often not made freely available, although limited access to freely available water data. There are a few this is slowly changing, and countries are also beginning to projects supporting the development of water information support the development of water information systems to Figure 6.4 GROUNDWATER EXPLOITABLE Reserves and Extraction in Central Asia 13.1 10 10 Extraction (billion m³) 7.7 7.8 Status Actual extraction Reserves confirmed for extraction 5 2.2 0.4 1.2 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 1.2 0 Total Aral Sea basin Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Region Source: Liu et al. 2020. 98 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Map 6.1 CHEMICAL AND Quantitative Status of Groundwater Bodies of Basinwide Importance Source: ICPDR 2021. Note: Green indicates good status; red indicates poor status. Water Sector Architecture 99 facilitate cooperation with other national institutions and availability. Similarly, there is practically no cooperation on make data accessible to the public. water quality and water-related ecosystems (UNECE 2018). In the Danube, EU Member States have the most developed In the Danube, transboundary cooperation is highly national water information systems (for example, the successful, and the ICPDR is considered a front-runner in Water Information System in Austria). At the EU level, the facilitating cooperation and exchange between countries. European Commission and the European Environment The ICPDR leads the development and maintenance Agency have created the Water Information System in of several data-exchange platforms (for example, the Europe, a comprehensive portal containing relevant water DanubeGIS), compiling information from all Danube resources management (WRM) information on the status countries on industrial and urban pollution sources, and pressures of surface water and groundwater, water wastewater treatment, continuity interruptions to resources and use, and wastewater treatment. Candidate fish migration, hydrological alterations, and the status states are also developing national water information assessment of water bodies. The DanubeGIS also helps systems, but those are still in progress in many countries. For monitor and support the implementation of the two such systems to be useful for planning and management, main directives, the EU WFD and FD. Such data-exchange candidate states need to focus on designing systems that practices represent good practices to be scaled to other are responsive to information needs and, importantly, transboundary basins. based on open data principles. Data exchange and cooperation in transboundary Public Participation settings are the exception rather than the norm. In the The lack of public participation is a key barrier to South Caucasus, there are no formal mechanisms for achieving equitable, efficient, and sustainable water data exchange across countries, largely caused by limited management outcomes. Engagement of water users in the transboundary cooperation (see “Institutions” in chapter planning process is fundamental for creating ownership, 5). There is some communication and data exchange commitment, and transparency and thus enabling the on water quality, quantity, and hydrological forecasting implementation of river basin plans. between Georgia and Azerbaijan. For instance, the national environmental agency of the Ministry of Environmental In the Danube, participation is mandatory in the Protection and Agriculture of Georgia provides data to the development of the RBMPs per the requirements of respective agency of Azerbaijan on the daily water level the EU WFD. Still, there is a disparity in the level of both and flow in certain locations in the Kura (Mtkvari) River the institutionalization and the inclusivity of public basin and the Alazani River basin. Georgia also provides consultations. Basin councils are being promoted to data on the snow height in Gudauri and Bakuriani (resorts facilitate public consultations and are normally composed in Georgia) to its counterpart agency in Azerbaijan, which of representatives from different groups of water users is responsible for hydrological forecasting. There are and water-related institutions. Although these institutions high political tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, have proved to be useful in encouraging communication although there are some ongoing efforts by international and engagement, they often represent the interests of a organizations to facilitate dialogue and cooperation on reduced group of powerful stakeholders, leaving smaller water-related issues in the region. communities and vulnerable groups underrepresented. In Central Asia, there is insufficient information exchange In the South Caucasus, there are no formal mechanisms among riparian countries overall, which prevents the for public participation in water resource management adoption of a regional IWRM approach to water planning at the basin level. Dialogues have been held during the and management. Cooperation and exchange are development of basin plans in Georgia and Armenia; narrowed down to data on volumes of allocated water these have involved local authorities, nongovernmental between the countries, maintenance and exploitation organizations, the private sector, and academia. Such of transboundary water infrastructure, and the general consultations have not, however, been institutionalized safety of hydrotechnical structures (see “Institutions” because basin councils are not yet fully developed. In in chapter 5). The political tensions between upstream Azerbaijan, public participation is nonexistent; basin and downstream countries, each with different national planning is yet to take off (see “Institutions” in chapter 5). priorities related to the joint use and exchange of water and energy, plus breaches in allocation agreements, have In Central Asia, participation at the basin level is created an atmosphere of mistrust (ICWC 2023). The lack articulated through basin councils (for example, in of exchange of hydrometeorological information prevents Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan). These countries from obtaining more accurate forecasts of water RBCs should normally involve different government and 100 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia nongovernment institutions, but in some countries, such KEY MESSAGES as Kazakhstan, the level of engagement is reportedly low overall, as is representation of a wide group of stakeholders • Water supply and sanitation (WSS) coverage across Europe and Central Asia is high, and service continuity (UNEP and UNEP-DHI n.d.). In Tajikistan, all river basins have is almost guaranteed (twenty-three hours per day), but established basin councils, and these organize meetings there are large disparities among and within subregions on a regular basis (UNEP and UNEP-DHI n.d.). In countries and countries, with pronounced gaps in the South like Uzbekistan, where river basin planning is not reflected Caucasus and Central Asia. in the water policy, engagement is conducted at regional and national levels through the so-called water consumer • Many countries across Europe and Central Asia are able to generate enough revenue from the delivery of WSS associations (WCAs), which are composed of farmers and services. Some, however, though able to achieve cost other water users and act as legal entities to coordinate recovery, also have a high preponderance of nonrevenue water relations, as well as to provide representation and water (NRW), meaning surpluses are not necessarily protection of common interests. There are also several invested in upgrading existing infrastructure. nongovernmental organizations and environmental associations that are significantly involved in inspections • Electricity costs as a share of total operating costs for providing WSS are expected to increase services across and analytical activities carried out by members of the the region as countries expand wastewater treatment. parliament. Reducing energy costs will require demand management approaches, such as addressing NRW and revising Although there are major differences between subregions, water tariffs to reflect its often underpriced value. for the most part, participation has not yet been institutionalized across Europe and Central Asia. The main reasons for this are related to the limited development of Water Supply and Sanitation Service Coverage enabling institutions (that is, specific regulations dealing with public participation and underdeveloped basin and Quality councils), but other contributors include the limited Service quality is highest in countries that have invested technical capacities to facilitate participatory processes in expanding access to safely managed drinking-water and prevailing cultural norms. services and embarked on institutional reforms to strengthen capacities. Service quality, measured as the benefits of having a continuous, piped supply of safe DELIVERY OF WATER-RELATED drinking water delivered to household premises, is key in SERVICES supporting socioeconomic development and reducing the time and effort required to collect water, and it is also essential for health reasons, given that service continuity is more likely to provide water that meets required standards for drinking-water quality (Brocklehurst and Slaymaker 2015). Across Europe and Central Asia, those countries that have prioritized investments to achieve safely managed standards of WSS services (see “Social Outcomes” in chapter 3) and undertaken institutional reforms to strengthen sector institutions and policies (see “Institutions” in chapter 5) display the highest service quality (figure 6.5). On average, continuity across Europe and Central Asia reaches twenty-three hours per day, although there are major differences between urban and rural areas and this figure is expected to rise as a result of climate change (box 6.1). In the Danube region, water services are generally available throughout the day, with only minor interruptions (average availability of 23.5 hours per day). A significant gap is observed in Albania, with an average of fifteen hours of service a day, well below the regional average. Albania also has one of the lowest coverages of safely managed drinking-water services (about 55 percent; figure 6.5). A potential reason is the number of breaks in the water distribution network, reportedly 3.71 Water Sector Architecture 101 Figure 6.5 WATER COVERAGE in Terms of Continuity and Percentage of Population with Access to Safe Drinking Water 24 Serbia Croatia Bosnia Kyrgyzstan Moldova Romania Ukraine Belarus Tajikistan 22 Armenia Uzbekistan National 20 Georgia 18 16 Azerbaijan Continuity of service (average hours/day) Albania 24 Kyrgyz Republic Serbia Croatia Hungary Romania Ukraine Czech North Macedonia Republic 22 Uzbekistan 20 Rural Georgia 18 Azerbaijan 16 24 Serbia Croatia Czechia Ukraine Hungary North Macedonia Kyrgyzstan 22 Romania Uzbekistan 20 Urban 18 Georgia 16 Azerbaijan 0 25 50 75 100 Population with access (%) Europe and Central Asia subregions Central Asia Danube Peripheral South Caucasus Source: IBNET, n.d.; JMP, 2022. Note: The Y-axis cutoff is at fifteen hours. breaks per kilometer per year. Although the number has Water Supply and Sanitation Sector declined from 4.27 in 2013, the lack of planned preventive maintenance procedures is unresolved (World Bank 2023a). Efficiency and Management There is significant room to improve water service delivery Spending composition in the WSS sector is fairly in the South Caucasus subregion, especially Azerbaijan homogeneous across countries, but the amounts invested and Georgia, who both have service continuity below vary considerably (table 6.2). Based on an analysis of nine eighteen hours per day. Moreover, the coverage of safely countries, most spending goes to capital expenditure managed drinking-water services is low, especially in rural (CAPEX), whereas operational expenditure (OPEX) receives areas. Continuity of service in Central Asia is not a major the least. Spending composition in Poland reflects its status issue, with an average of more than twenty-one hours per as a high-income country and is indicative of a well- day. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have the lowest continuity, established WSS sector and infrastructure network. correlated with levels of access to safely managed drinking Although spending composition might reflect the water that are less than 60 percent. maturation of a country’s WSS sector or economy, it does not speak to spending efficiency. Instead, the rate of execution provides some insight into a sector’s spending 102 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Box 6.1 MITIGATING CONTINUITY CHALLENGES WITH RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE A recent study of global water supply utility drought risk and adaptation optioneering served to highlight the challenge of realizing resilient WSS services in the face of future climate change in Europe and Central Asia (Becher et al. 2024). Risk was characterized in the study as unsustainable water supply days, describing the number of customer days where the utility supply is unsustainable or disrupted. Apart from this, associated tariff revenue at risk was estimated to simulate cost-benefit ratios of three alternative infrastructure interventions—namely, increased water storage capacity, desalination, and leakage reduction. Based on this, the rate of unsustainable disrupted utility supply in Europe and Central Asia’s water supply utility customer base was estimated at 16 percent but is projected to rise to 21 percent (15 to 29 percent) under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) and Representative Concentration Pathway (SCP) future climate-change scenario SSP3-RCP7.0. It was found that the future increase in risk could be fully mitigated through the implementation of one of three considered adaptation actions: leakage reduction, reservoir storage, and seawater desalination. For approximately half of the utilities in the Europe and Central Asia region, leakage reduction was identified as the optimal adaptation option. Given high physical water losses across the region, this is an important first step toward a more climate-resilient future for utilities. Reservoir storage was found to be the most cost-effective action for 40 percent of utilities, where sufficient excess surface waters were found to be available for storage. For the remaining 10 percent of utilities, the most cost-effective action was found to be desalination, particularly utilities in proximity to the Mediterranean coast. The study found that implementing options where the cost-benefit ratio exceeds 1 would achieve only approximately a quarter of this benefit. This approach is particularly problematic in less developed countries in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus, where tariff rates are much lower relative to the costs of service provision compared with Western European countries, where water supply tariff rates are higher. This situation underlines the challenge of attracting investment in climate adaptation for water utilities in lower-income countries in Europe and Central Asia. Source: Becher et al. 2024. TABLE 6.2 Average Annual Spending Composition as a efficiency. Ideally, budget execution (or spending) will Share of Total WSS Spending by Country match budget allocation. Over- or underspending generally indicates inefficiencies. Some causes of overspending (spending more than the allocated budget) and Country CAPEX Subsidies Wages OPEX underspending (spending less than the allocated budget) are similar, whereas some are unique (box 6.2). Albania 87.27 8.01 2.38 0.41 Armenia 52.56 11.76 2.13 0.02 Bulgaria 87.98 0.09 0.44 0.62 Kosovo 89.07 n/a 5.81 0.29 Moldova 68.20 25.32 0.14 0.05 North Macedonia 90.05 2.39 0.54 0.11 Poland 28.79 0.50 14.67 3.19 Study average 71.99 8.01 3.73 0.67 Source: Fenwick and Khan 2023. Note: Data are reported to the hundredth decimal place to avoid zeros but are not presumed to be accurate beyond the tenth decimal place. CAPEX = capital expenditure; n.a. = not applicable; OPEX = operational expenditure; WSS = water supply and sanitation. Water Sector Architecture 103 Box 6.2 POTENTIAL CAUSES OF OVER- AND UNDERSPENDING IN THE WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION SECTOR Potential causes of overspending include the following: • Poor budget planning • Changes in the scope of projects and programs (possibly politically motivated) and subsequent failure to adjust • Off-budget spending (often political) • Fear of losing budget allocation • Potential causes of underspending include the following: • Poor budget preparation, project planning, and programming • Lower-than-expected or unrealistic revenue projections • Poor governance • Off-budget spending • Virement—that is, the transfer of funds from one budget to another (for example, transferring from an underspent budget to an overspent budget) Most countries underspend their WSS budget allocation. TABLE 6.3 Rate of Execution in the WSS Sector by The average rate of execution for the entire period for the Country study group was 87 percent, well above the global average of 73 percent, suggesting greater efficiency overall (table 6.3). However, there is significant variability between Country Percentage Period countries. Interestingly, only Moldova overspent its allocated budget, whereas all other countries except Albania 96 2010–21 Croatia underspent, as is the trend in the WSS sector worldwide. Armenia 72 2010–20 Bulgaria 91 2006–20 On average, revenues from WSS services are sufficient Croatia 100 2016–20 to support operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, Kosovo 72 2006–20 though there is a large disparity among countries and Moldova 109 2009–18 service providers. Management includes pricing and cost structures. Hence, the operating cost coverage ratio is a North Macedonia 62 2011–20 key indicator of service delivery efficiency. This indicator Poland 93 2006–20 is defined as the total annual operational revenues versus Study average 87 Variable the total annual operating costs and should be above 1 to Global average 73 2009–20 be efficient and financially sustainable. In the assessment, a rigid boundary is not defined (for example, slightly Source: Fenwick and Khan 2023. or clearly below 1) because the ability of the utility to Note: Total spending data were not available for Tajikistan; interannual attain cost break-even (move beyond 1) and the ability to variability at the country level is vast, and in some cases, the period aver- accumulate savings are considered in tandem. On average, age may be misleading. WSS = water supply and sanitation. the ratio in a typical country in Europe and Central Asia is 1.15, showing a surplus of water utilities of 17 percent (68 percent exceeding revenue share in operating cost (figure 6.6). In other words, revenues exceed operational coverage), Poland (70 percent), and Montenegro (93 and maintenance costs by 15 percent of revenue costs. No percent). In well-supplied countries such as Poland and regional trends emerge. Montenegro, where less than 3 percent of the population has no access to clean and safely managed water for Instead, performance differs strongly from country to drinking or sanitation, surpluses will likely not provide country, often even within countries and from operator access to the last remaining households. Instead, higher to operator. Three geographically dispersed countries capital reserves for future maintenance and upgrading can exhibit very high operating ratios, allowing them to save be built up, or investments in infrastructure upgrading can for major capital maintenance and expansions: Azerbaijan be implemented instantly. In countries such as Azerbaijan, 104 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia where higher shares of the population lack access to percent deficit), Bosnia and Herzegovina (−15 percent), even basic drinking-water (4 percent) and sanitation and Ukraine (−14 percent; figure 6.6). Especially in Armenia, (9 percent) services, higher priority should be given to close attention must be paid to the operation of water investing current surpluses in the expansion of networks services. Here and in other low-efficiency areas of service before further accumulating surpluses. In countries like delivery, the revenue-to-cost ratio can be very low, and the Uzbekistan and Georgia, less than half of the population poor shape of the infrastructure thus prohibits professional (31.1 percent and 40.3 percent, respectively) has access to supply operations. These countries will need substantial safe drinking water. Water utilities in these countries usually investments and possibly reforms in their water sectors to operate at small losses, however. To improve access to safe be able to substantially increase operations in the sector. drinking water, increasing revenues and investments from In Georgia, North Macedonia, and Uzbekistan, utilities the government and private sector in the water sector can also operate at losses, on average, albeit small. Some help secure funds for future improvements (box 6.3). efforts, including restructuring operations or increased government investments, should be assessed to lift the In contrast to overall regional efficiency, some countries operations to a profitable level. fail to break even on average for the operation of water services. The most notable examples where the operating Business efficiency is partly associated with technical cost to coverage ratio is well below 1 are Armenia (revenues efficiency, but other factors need to be considered to ensure cover only 71 percent of operating costs—that is, 29 sustainability for water users and service providers. Some losses Figure 6.6 AVERAGE OPERATING Costs as a Function of Coverage and Average Energy Costs of Water Utilities in Europe and Central Asia b. Share of electricity costs in total a. Operating cost as a function of coverage of water service utilities (share of revenues exceeding O&M costs) operating costs across countries in and Central and Central across countries in the Europe and Central Asia region the Europe and Central Asia region Europe Europe Asia Asia Europe and Central Asia 17 Europe and Central Asia 18 Tajikistan 42 Tajikistan 15 Central Asia Central Asia Kazakhstan 9 Kazakhstan 14 Subregional average 5 Subregional average 25 Kyrgyz Republic 0 Kyrgyz Republic 15 Uzbekistan –6 Uzbekistan 35 Montenegro 93 Montenegro 14 Poland 70 Poland 8 Austria 44 Austria No data Kosovo 40 Kosovo 21 Czech Republic 18 Czech Republic 7 Subregional average 17 Subregional average 14 Croatia 11 Croatia 9 Moldova 10 Moldova 24 Danube Danube Hungary 9 Hungary 11 Romania 8 Romania 11 Albania 8 Albania 38 Bulgaria 4 Bulgaria 17 Serbia 2 Serbia 11 Slovak Republic 1 Slovak Republic 10 North Macedonia –7 North Macedonia 8 Ukraine –14 Ukraine 22 Bosnia and Herzegovina –15 Bosnia and Herzegovina 9 South Caucasus South Caucasus Azerbaijan 68 Azerbaijan No data Subregional average 35 Subregional average 14 Georgia –2 Georgia 18 Armenia –29 Armenia 8 Turkey 25 Turkey 21 Peripheral Peripheral Belarus 16 Belarus 22 Russian Federation 0 Russian Federation 21 0 50 0 10 20 30 Operating cost coverage (%) Operating cost coverage (%) Source: IBNET n.d. Note: O&M = operation and maintenance. Water Sector Architecture 105 Box 6.3 ASSET MANAGEMENT IN THE WESTERN BALKANS In the Western Balkan countries, asset management of water-related infrastructure varies significantly, and urban areas are often better managed than rural ones. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, asset management practices are generally rudimentary and mainly present in larger public utility companies in cities like Sarajevo and Banja Luka, where geographic information systems are used. However, rural areas lack consistent O&M systems, resulting in untested water quality and inadequate infrastructure management. The financial sustainability of water supply systems is hindered by inefficiencies and tariffs that fail to cover total operational costs, requiring external funding for significant investments. In Serbia, asset management is primarily reactive, with insufficient tariff levels preventing the adoption of predictive maintenance practices. Larger cities like Belgrade have developed asset management systems, but most public utility companies lack the necessary tools and strategic planning, leading to inefficient water service delivery. The establishment of an asset management hub in thirty towns shows promise, yet much work remains to integrate comprehensive asset management practices across the sector. Montenegro boasts a strong legal framework but faces challenges in financing and capacity building. Stable energy costs resulting from hydropower resources provide some operational reliability, but new projects must balance energy independence with environmental conservation. Asset management is largely underdeveloped, especially in rural areas, and preventive maintenance is rare. Albania is undergoing significant reforms aimed at regionalizing water utilities to enhance efficiency and financial sustainability. Despite this, asset management practices remain basic and underfunded, particularly in rural areas, where proper asset inventory and documentation are lacking. The new tariff-setting methodology aims to improve financial planning, but comprehensive asset management is still needed to ensure sustainable water service delivery. in the piped system can be linked to financial losses. Across the source of water used, the distance or depth from which several subregions in Europe and Central Asia (figure 6.7), the it is transported or pumped, the status of the pipe network, countries with the largest amounts of NRW are also those with the level of treatment, and the differences in altitude, lower operating expense ratios and thus they generate lower among other factors. At the regional level, electricity revenues from service provision. Armenia provides the most costs represent 14.3 percent of the operating costs for drastic example in the Europe and Central Asia region, with delivering water services (figure 6.8). There are, however, only about 25 percent of the water being revenue water and major differences across subregions, with the Danube and average revenues from water services being 29 percent smaller the South Caucasus in the range of 14 percent and Central than actual O&M costs. On the other extreme, Poland is a good Asia exhibiting larger shares equivalent to 25 percent example of a country where indicators are well on track; its low (table 6.4). When analyzing different aspects that could be levels of NRW contribute to a high operating cost to coverage influencing the share of electricity costs, it is clear that in ratio. However, although business efficiency is partially driven the Danube, the high share of NRW and the higher level by technical efficiency, some countries—such as Montenegro, of treatment could explain electricity use and its costs. In with a substantial NRW equivalent of 67 percent—are still the South Caucasus, the combination of water stress and able to generate significant revenue surpluses (equivalent to pollution, which probably increases the costs of pumping 93 percent). This example showcases that other factors, such and pretreatment, as well as high NRW, could explain as water tariffs, can buffer and sustain the business model. the above-average energy costs in this subregion. This However, this is likely to be unsustainable in the future because situation leaves substantial room for increasing the energy infrastructure requires upgrading and O&M costs increase (for efficiency of water utilities in the future. Lastly, in Central example, quality standards become more stringent, electricity Asia, levels of NRW are lower on average compared with costs increase, new sources of water need to be developed, the other subregions, but water stress is higher, meaning and so on). Increasing costs could compromise the financial that electricity costs could be influenced by pumping and sustainability of service providers and the affordability of water pretreatment costs. In the future, decreasing the quantities tariffs for water users. of electricity used for the water supply could help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accruing during Electricity costs in WSS services as a share of the operating electricity generation, thereby reducing the impact of the costs could grow if water stress increases and wastewater water sector on climate change. treatment expands. Electricity costs are complex because they depend on multiple factors, such as the energy price, 106 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Figure 6.7 PERFORMANCE OF Water Services Armenia High 75 share of NRW Albania Montenegro Turkey North Macedonia Bulgaria Nonrevenue water (%) Romania Kosovo Medium-high 50 Kyrgyz Republic share of Azerbaijan NRW Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbia Georgia Croatia Uzbekistan Moldova Tajikistan Medium Ukraine Hungary share of Slovakia NRW 25 Russian Federation Austria Low-medium Belarus Poland share of NRW Kazakhstan Czech Republic Low Very low Low Moderate High Very high share of OCC OCC OCC OCC OCC NRW 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Operating cost coverage (ratio) Europe and Central Asia subregions Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Peripheral Excluded Sources: IBNET n.d.; World Bank, 2015c. Note: Revenues as share of operating costs (OCC) compared to nonrevenue water (NRW) as share of total water supplied. TABLE 6.4 Key Features Related to Water Supply and Sanitation Services in Europe and Central Asia Electricity share of the Treatment Predominant source of Nonrevenue Subregion total operating costs Water stress (ratio) (% water water for drinking purposes water (%) (%) treated) Danube 14 Groundwater Low 48 42 South Caucasus 14 Groundwater Moderate 29 55 Central Asia 25 Groundwater Moderate-high 24 35 Source: IBNET, n.d. Water Sector Architecture 107 Figure 6.8 COMPLIANCE WITH SDG Goals on Sharing Data, Monitoring Water Availability, and Managing Water-Related Disasters Data and information sharing within country Region Europe and Central Asia Management of water-related disasters Central Asia Danube South Caucasus Water availability monitoring Danube EU member 0 20 40 60 80 Compliance (%) Source: UNEP and UNEP-DHI n.d. Note: Based on countries’ qualitative reporting and assessment. EU = European Union; SDG = Sustainable Development Goal. Projected increases in climate variability will likely need adapted infrastructure must thus take into account how they can be infrastructure, including storage that can safely supply water shaped to fit future conditions under climate change. throughout the year. In Europe and Central Asia, many areas depend on the dynamics of snowmelt and glacier melt, as well as water from mountainous areas in general. The peaks MITIGATION OF WATER-RELATED associated with glacier melt could, however, be substantially RISKS reduced in the future. Relying on surface water for shares of water supply throughout the entire year might thus be less feasible than it is today. Similarly, the increasing probability of flood occurrences could destroy water infrastructure more frequently if no additional measures for disaster risk reduction are implemented (Howard et al. 2016). The locally adapted mix of surface water and groundwater for water supply and required infrastructure must hence be evaluated across countries and sectors and adapted to changing future conditions. Expanding and leveraging existing storage capacities is needed at varying degrees across countries to cope with increasing climate variability. For example, the fifty-five reservoirs providing 20 billion cubic meters of water storage capacity in Uzbekistan need investments in safety and sedimentation, and some additional dams should also be considered in certain areas. Other countries, such as Kazakhstan, mainly need upgrading and expansion of multipurpose storage in various facilities countrywide (World Bank 2022b, 2023e). Barriers to adaptation lie more in institutional capacity and partial inertia than in biophysical conditions (Oberlack and Eisenack 2018). Setting up and improving institutions for water governance and 108 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia KEY MESSAGES The EU WFD (2000/60/EC) and the FD (2007/60/EC) are • All countries in Europe and Central Asia are developing effective instruments for advancing flood and drought risk management. Most of the EU Member States have planning tools to manage flood risks, but drought already completed the development of FRMPs, and the management is not yet implemented. candidate countries are at advanced stages of this process ° The Danube subregion is the most advanced in flood management and is transitioning from a (table 6.5). The Danube region and particularly EU Member States report the highest compliance with Sustainable reactive to a preventive management approach. Development Goal (SDG) 6.5.1 aims regarding data and ° In the South Caucasus and Central Asia, flood management instruments are poorly developed. information sharing, monitoring of water availability, • The lack of funding, institutional capacities, and and management of water-related disasters (figure 6.8). Candidate countries like Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, effective monitoring and data management platforms and Serbia report lower (medium-low to medium-high) constrain ongoing efforts to support flood risk compliance but are constantly closing the gap with the management. • Implementing a drought management approach EU Member States by developing flood risk maps and management plans. A recent assessment of drought requires further development of the enabling preparedness and management led by the European environment (normative development and institutional Commission reports that although EU Member States have capacities) and technical support (an agreed-upon made significant progress in flood management, drought drought risk assessment approach, data and monitoring management is still pending (Schmidt et al. 2023). infrastructure). Reducing the risk of water-related disasters calls for TABLE 6.5 Status of Flood Risk Management Planning in understanding the hazards, limiting the exposure of Europe and Central Asia populations and assets, and reducing vulnerability. These goals can be achieved by undertaking a risk assessment, Subregion Status of flood risk management planning instituting planning for and regulation of land cover Flood hazard maps have been developed and use, setting up early warning systems, investing for the region as a part of the World Bank in a mix of gray and green infrastructure, and building Strengthening Financial Resilience and Central institutional and financial capacities to mitigate risks and Accelerating Risk Reduction program. This Asia manage crises. Risk assessments are needed to improve effort is, however, not aligned with the the understanding of the specific hazards, as well as the guidelines of the EU Floods Directive. exposure and vulnerability of populations and economic assets and sectors to the specific water risks (for example, Georgia is still adapting its legislation to floods and droughts). A recent study by the World Bank support the development of flood hazard South (2023c) conducted a flood risk assessment in Central Asia and risk mapping and the preparation of an Caucasus and found that countries could reduce their economic FRMP, following the EU-Georgia Association exposure by 31 percent annually (from $2.2 billion to $1.5 Agreement. billion per year) if appropriate flood control measures Most EU countries have completed the were implemented, including both gray infrastructure second cycle of FRMPs (Austria, Czech (for example, dams and levees) and nature-based Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, solutions (for example, wetland restoration and riverbank and Slovenia). FRMPs in Bulgaria and the stabilization). These flood control measures can help Slovak Republic are under public consultation reduce the overall risk and protect vulnerable areas from and not yet approved (as of January 2024). the destructive impact of floods. Likewise, countries would Candidate countries are slowly adopting the need to prioritize investments in early warning systems Danube Floods Directive and are in the process of to significantly reduce the impacts of floodwater risks by preparing their first FRMPs. Some countries providing timely alerts to at-risk communities and allowing are in the process of public consultations or for proactive measures to be taken. Countries in Europe and have recently completed them (Bosnia and Central Asia are taking positive steps with regard to flood Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia), and management, particularly in the Danube, largely driven by Albania is in the process of developing flood the EU policies (box 6.4). hazard and risk maps for most of its river basin districts. FRMPs are being developed across Europe and Central Asia, but drought management tools are still absent. Within Source: Original compilation for this publication based on the informa- the Danube, the EU Member States have reached the tion in this report and “deep-dive” reports. highest level of water-related disaster risk management. Note: EU = European Union; FRMP = flood risk management plan. Water Sector Architecture 109 Box 6.4 THE EU FLOODS DIRECTIVE: A BEST PRACTICE FOR FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT The European Union (EU) requires all Member States to assess and manage flood risks across all areas where significant floods could take place and to take adequate risk-reduction measures. For that purpose, each country shall conduct the following activities for each river basin district: • Preliminary flood risk assessment to describe past (and potentially future) floods that had (or could have) significant adverse impacts. • Flood hazard maps to delineate areas with low, medium, and high flooding probability and quantify the flood extent, water depth, and flow velocity. • Flood risk maps to show the potential adverse impacts of floods on populations, economic sectors, and installations that might cause accidental pollution during flood events. • Flood risk management plans (FRMPs), which are meant to be operational instruments detailing the measures to reduce the potential adverse impacts of floods on human health, the environment, cultural heritage, and economic activities. FRMPs are prepared, implemented, and renewed on a six-year cycle like EU river basin management plans (RBMPs). The active involvement of interested parties in the production, review, and updating of FRMPs shall be actively encouraged by the countries. Source: Original elaboration for this publication based on the EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC). In general, the South Caucasus has shown little progress in agency capacity and coordination to perform complex flood and drought risk management. Since the EU-Georgia risk management tasks. For example, in Montenegro, the Association Agreement, Georgia has been gradually Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management; adapting its legislation to align with EU legislation and the Water Administration; and the Ministry of Interior are instruments that aim to improve the assessment and mainly responsible for flood risk management (World Bank management of flood risks (UNDP 2022). Armenia and 2024c). In general, the institutions have a relatively weak Azerbaijan have some infrastructure to reduce flood risk capacity to deal with flood risk, and outside expertise is and foresee strategic planning as the next step (UNEP and required to adequately assess it. In other cases, the lack of UNEP-DHI n.d.). funding can stall or completely halt the implementation of measures to reduce flood risk. In Serbia, for example, In Central Asia, the World Bank is promoting the program the budget for flood risk management is insufficient for Strengthening Financial Resilience and Accelerating to effectively manage flood risk in all places, and the Risk Reduction, which supports the development of authorities managing food risk are understaffed (World regional flood hazard maps and assesses the economic Bank 2024d). Flood risk management could benefit risks of floods (World Bank 2023c). To manage flood from more structural long-term funding, which would risks effectively, Central Asian countries need to identify reduce dependency on donors for large projects. Land high-risk zones for prioritizing risk-reduction actions use planning, regulation, and enforcement are crucial, and establish early warning systems. A further regional for example, to prevent construction in areas with higher effort was made in December 2019 to establish the flood hazards (for example, Albania and Croatia) and also Regional Scientific and Technical Council, a public expert to enhance forest conservation, promote management consultative body responsible for facilitating cooperation practices for regulating runoff, and prevent overgrazing between the Central Asia countries’ emergency authorities, (World Bank 2023a, 2024b). carrying out scientific and technical regional assessments, and planning and implementing programs at the regional Transboundary flooding requires collaborative planning level (World Bank 2023d). and implementation of measures to reduce flood risk and provide early flood warnings. Transboundary management Lack of funding, institutional capacities, and effective controls are limited to the Danube, Ob, and Syr Darya monitoring and data management platforms hinder efforts River basins. Floods are caused by the combination of toward flood risk management. Many Balkan countries are severe precipitation and human actions, including land gradually implementing measures to manage flood risks use changes, river channel modifications, and reservoir but still often lack the regulatory instruments and the operation or failure. Often, developments or events 110 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia upstream drive floods in downstream countries. For Central Asia. Uzbekistan also submitted a national drought example, on May 1, 2020, the Sardoba Dam located in plan to the UNCCD (Tsegai et al. 2021). All five Central Asian North Uzbekistan collapsed, and flooding spilled over into countries are taking some proactive or reactive measures to downstream areas, uprooting more than 31,000 people target droughts and water shortage, including upgrading from their homes in South Kazakhstan (Simonovic et al. irrigation systems, increasing water storage, incentivizing 2021). Given the deteriorated state of many large-scale farmers to buy water-saving systems or seeds, and so on water storage infrastructures in parts of the Danube (Tsegai et al. 2021). Promoting these measures is, however, region, Central Asia, and the South Caucasus, the risk of an challenging because the governments do not currently acute flood affecting local and downstream populations account for the direct or indirect losses from droughts. should be taken into account. Although many river basins The key challenges are similar across all subregions and in the Europe and Central Asia region are transboundary, include the lack of political commitment to developing a only three have included some measures of control on comprehensive drought policy (in the EU, only some of the transboundary flooding management—namely, the Member States have developed DMPs). Such challenges Danube, Ob, and Syr Darya (see “Institutions” in chapter 5). are often accompanied by institutional fragmentation and a lack of synergy and information exchange. Both Drought management is promoted by such transnational technical and financial resources for developing adequate organizations as the European Commission and the United monitoring and early warning systems are lacking. Further, Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). drought issues are not fully integrated into land use, and Development of drought management plans (DMPs) there is a general lack of awareness of drought risk (Tsegai and their adoption at the national level are, however, still et al. 2021). lacking. Some EU Member States in the Danube region are the most advanced countries in Europe and Central Drought risk assessment is crucial for the understanding Asia with regard to drought management; for example, of drought impacts and the planning of risk-reduction the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania already have measures. Recent scientific advances provide quantitative DMPs in place or under preparation. Both Croatia and tools to estimate drought-associated losses in at-risk Slovenia are planning to develop national plans (Schmidt systems. The complexity of droughts makes it challenging et al. 2023). North Macedonia and Serbia have recently to estimate a drought’s impacts or even to define it. In fact, submitted a national drought plan as part of the UNCCD EU Member States use a significantly diverse set of drought 2018–30 strategic framework (Tsegai et al. 2021). In the definitions in their national DMPs (Schmidt et al. 2023). South Caucasus, Azerbaijan has also submitted a national Drought and other natural hazards compound events drought plan to the UNCCD, though the plan lacks some and make it difficult to quantify the drought-associated key components of drought management. For example, impact or loss (UNCCD 2020). Recent advances in drought it only provides some examples of potential reactive risk assessment provide quantitative, data-driven tools and proactive drought management measures but does for estimating the impact on specific at-risk systems, for not allocate responsivities, timelines, and budgets for example, hydropower generation and irrigated or rain-fed promoting them. Instead, it states: “In the future it is agriculture (box 6.5). Such approaches provide a pathway important to complement and enhance this national plan, for countries to assess and manage droughts, which is in close collaboration with stakeholders to develop a series becoming increasingly important for climate-change of action plans, where appropriate, to better manage water adaptation. scarcity at a local level,” but it does not set a timetable for future development (UNCCD 2020, 36). The UNCCD (2021) compiled a regional strategy for drought management in Water Sector Architecture 111 Box 6.5 DROUGHT RISK IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE DANUBE USING A DATA-DRIVEN APPROACH PROVIDES A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF DROUGHT IMPACTS Recent advances in drought risk assessment provide tools to quantify multisector drought-driven impacts. The European Drought Observatory Risk Assessment led by the European Commission Joint Research Center has developed a data- driven approach for sectoral drought risk impact assessment as part of the European Drought Risk Atlas (Rossi et al. 2023). Supported by the World Bank Group, this work was extended by the Water Research Group at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis to include the Western Balkans and Eastern Europe (Fridman et al. 2023). The Danube region experiences substantial annual average productivity losses across multiple at-risk systems, ranging from 2.5 to 5 percent for wheat and maize yield in vast areas across the Danube region, though some regions at level 2 of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units (NUTS2) experience higher losses. For example, annual average productivity losses of higher than 5 percent are expected in Albania, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, and West Ukraine (map B6.5.1). Map B6.5.1 ANNUAL AVERAGE Losses of Maize Yield in the Danube Region at a NUTS2 Spatial Resolution 0–2.5 2.5–5 5–7.5 7.5–10 Sources: Fridman et al. 2023; Rossi et al. 2023. Note: NUTS2 = level 2 of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units. 7 Recommendations for a Water-Secure Future in Europe and Central Asia Water is critical to the smart, cost-effective policies needed Although this chapter outlines strategic recommendations to meet global climate and sustainability targets while for improving water security across the region, it is important generating significant co-benefits across goals. Countries in to consider the unique circumstances of each country. Europe and Central Asia operate within global frameworks Appendix B provides detailed country pages illustrating that establish international and national development how these general recommendations align with the specific objectives for tackling common priority challenges. The 2030 needs and situations of individual nations. Policymakers United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and stakeholders are encouraged to consult the appendix and the Paris Agreement provide reference frameworks for tailored insights that can guide implementation at the for countries to advance their sustainable development country level. agendas. National development pathways should support efforts to achieve these overarching goals, such as reducing Most of the activities proposed to strengthen water security poverty, providing clean water and sanitation, ensuring will unfold at the national level. In practice, most activities food security, improving health, promoting affordable must be undertaken at the national scale. However, given and clean energy, fostering employment and economic the region’s unique hydrological interdependence on growth, reducing inequalities, creating sustainable cities, transboundary rivers and shared cross-border hydraulic forming development partnerships, and taking climate infrastructure, regional cooperation and cross-border action, among other targets. Given the size of the challenge investments are key to managing hydrological risks, worldwide, and particularly in Europe and Central Asia, it is addressing the effects of climate change, and taking crucial that countries design smart, cost-effective policies to advantage of regional coordination and trade prospects. meet the required targets while also generating significant Thus, the successful implementation of the priority action co-benefits across other goals. Investing in water security is areas hinges on the promotion and strengthening of essential to achieving universal access to water supply and regional cooperation efforts. sanitation (WSS) services and, if done smartly, can pave the road for materializing many cross-sectoral objectives. DELIVERY OF WATER-RELATED Pathways to water security should be designed to improve SERVICES livelihoods, protect the planet, and boost economic prosperity. Although climate change is fundamental, water Action area 1: Modernize irrigation and interventions must be tailored to regional and national drainage services to improve water efficiency priorities and capacities. Based on these diagnostic and and productivity. national development priorities across Europe and Central Asia, five main action areas have emerged that offer clear Substantially increase levels of funding to the irrigation opportunities for countries to improve their water security sector and create a favorable enabling environment to and deliver larger economic, social, and environmental attract private sector investment. Levels of investment benefits to the region (figure 7.1), bolstered by the imperative in irrigation are insufficient to meet each country’s for cross-cutting efforts to promote regional collaboration. needs or achieve the SDGs in a timely fashion. A public 114 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia expenditure review of a small group of countries revealed commercial agriculture and where farming is profitable, that spending on irrigation is considerably less than and policy reforms will be needed to ensure an attractive spending on WSS and completely dwarfed by spending on enabling environment for private participation. infrastructure, often representing less than 0.5 percent of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP). There is a need Deepen and expand ongoing institutional and policy to strengthen the coordination of development partners reforms. Europe and Central Asia’s irrigation sector has at national, regional, and international levels to harmonize undergone substantial policy reforms, focusing on irrigation policies and strategies and leverage investments, improvements in irrigation service delivery and more including the potential for cofinancing, parallel financing, efficient and sustainable water use. The reforms include and co-creation of knowledge. Moreover, there is a need decentralization, the establishment of water user to leverage public finances by enhancing or supporting associations, and water pricing. These initiatives require the already significant private investments in irrigation in tailor-made legislation to ensure their success. In some Europe and Central Asia. Private or farmer-led irrigation cases, revisions to existing water laws and codes may be schemes have become increasingly significant in the required, as was the case for the Kyrgyz Republic in 2003. region and often focus on the introduction of advanced This comprehensive change in legislation, supported by irrigation technologies, such as drip irrigation, automated technical assistance from the World Bank and promoted sprinkler systems, and precision agriculture technologies. through Parliament by the State Water Resources Agency, These investments are driven by the need to maximize provides a useful model for modern water resources water-use efficiency and crop yields, particularly in regions planning and management. Such reforms lay the facing water scarcity. Thus, the promotion of farmer-led groundwork for a more integrated and adaptive water irrigation can lead to more rapid adoption of innovative management strategy. The irrigation service delivery needs technologies and practices. Companies and private farms to be transformed from the bureaucratically administered tend to be more flexible and quicker in implementing new allocation model to on-demand systems to allow flexibility technologies compared with public sector programs, which in irrigation water supply and enhance the entrepreneurial can be slowed by bureaucratic processes. Private-public capacities of beneficiaries. Reforms need to allow for the partnerships (PPPs) in irrigation are more likely to succeed enhanced role of farmers in the development and operation when the policy environment supports high-value and and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation systems. Figure 7.1 ACTION AREAS for Water-Secure Development Pathways in Europe and Central Asia MITIGATION OF WATER- DELIVERY OF WATER-RELATED SERVICES MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RELATED RISKS ACTION AREA 1 ACTION AREA 2 ACTION AREA 3 ACTION AREA 4 ACTION AREA 5 Enhance water-use Modernize irrigation Expand WSS coverage and Modernize institutions Fast-track the adoption of efficiency and climate and drainage services to wastewater treatment to and build adaptive smart technologies and strategies to boost the improve water efficiency safeguard public health capacity to support a full modernize information economy and protect and productivity and the environment implementation of IWRM management systems people and the planet NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL REGIONAL AND REGIONAL AND NATIONAL NATIONAL CROSS-CUTTING EFFORTS ACTION AREA 6: PROMOTE REGIONAL COOPERATION TO STRENGTHEN DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Note: IWRM = integrated water resources management; WSS = water supply and sanitation. Recommendations for a Water-Secure Future in Europe and Central Asia 115 Rehabilitate and modernize existing irrigation systems and • Reusing treated wastewater for irrigation as part of a management practices to improve agricultural productivity. greater water resources management (WRM) strategy The irrigation sector in Europe and Central Asia represents a in Europe and Central Asia, especially in response to mix of aging, underdeveloped, and inefficient infrastructure. increasing water scarcity and the need for sustainable Development in the Danube is insufficient; where present, it agricultural practices suffers the same fate as the other subregions: Infrastructure Strengthen agricultural practices, especially at the farm is decaying (as much as 50 years old) and therefore highly level. Irrigation modernization must be accompanied inefficient and at the root of low water productivity. The by modernization of agricultural practices, including potential to improve agricultural water productivity exists in O&M of physical infrastructure, to deliver optimal results many countries. In Central Asia, for instance, rehabilitating for (expensive) physical system modernization. But current systems could lead to water savings of up to 7 importantly, support needs to be provided to enterprising percent of current water withdrawals by 2030 and up to and entrepreneurial lead farmers who can act as catalysts 10 percent by 2050. In tandem with policy reforms, the for change at the farm level and support other farmers region needs to embark on a modernization campaign who may not have received adequate training in crop that includes dams and reservoirs, as well as upgrades to husbandry or irrigated farming practices. Providing credit irrigation infrastructure, including canals, pipelines, and to farmers may be a key part of this process and may require water distribution networks. Specifically, these measures policy and legislative changes by the government. The may include (a) converting open canals to piped, closed, and development of online education and training programs is pressurized systems; (b) embracing technical and process a cost-effective way of upgrading knowledge for farmers innovations; (c) transitioning from flood irrigation to modern and irrigation professionals. These programs can be techniques; (d) adopting smart and prepaid irrigation water developed with the assistance of university, training, and meters to support accurate pricing of irrigation water; and research institutes as part of an external program. Such (e) instituting modern information management systems for programs can be fee-earning offerings or subsidized by irrigation. government or interested private sector organizations. Invest in more efficient irrigation methods to further Ensure the inclusion of women and youth. Actively improve water productivity and protect the agricultural increasing the gender equity of irrigation includes sector from climate shocks. High dependency on rain- involving women in the design of irrigation systems, fed agriculture in the Danube and aging and inefficient providing women equal access to information on irrigation irrigation infrastructure in the South Caucasus and Central technologies and credit that considers women’s lower Asia increase the vulnerability of the region’s agricultural access to collateral, ensuring that women’s time use is not production to climate shocks such as droughts. Shifting increased through the adoption of irrigation technologies, toward efficiently irrigated, high-value crops while increasing and so on. The aging demographic in rural Europe and the climate-adaptive capacity of rain-fed agriculture, Central Asia means there are fewer young people entering implementing pricing mechanisms to reduce overuse and the agricultural workforce, which needs to be ameliorated pollution, implementing better water delivery control, and by crafting and promoting youth-friendly agricultural improving access to knowledge and finance for farmers are policies and technologies. If given opportunities, members some of the ways to enhance water use and productivity in of the younger generation are more open to embracing the agricultural sector. Further shifts in irrigation methods innovations and new business models. might include the following: • Changing cropping patterns, shifting to efficient Action area 2: Expand WSS coverage and sprinkler and drip irrigation, and pricing water to wastewater treatment to safeguard public incentivize water savings health and the environment. • Capturing more water and allowing it to infiltrate into Adopt a portfolio approach to address the gap in WSS the root zone with water-harvesting techniques, such services, support socioeconomic development, and reduce as surface microdams and subsurface tanks, and with waterborne disease. Most countries have achieved close soil and water conservation practices, such as runoff to universal access to at least basic drinking water and strips and terracing sanitation (97 and 95 percent, respectively). Still, nearly 17 • Using available water more efficiently by increasing percent of the regional population lacks access to safely plant water-uptake capacity and reducing managed drinking water, and 32 percent lacks access to nonproductive soil evaporation with integrated soil, safely managed sanitation. This gap is particularly prevalent crop, and water management strategies, such as in rural areas, where less than 50 percent of the population conservation agriculture and improved crop varieties has access to safely managed sanitation. Upgrading service 116 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia standards will have added socioeconomic benefits—for jurisdictional asymmetries with a spread of regulatory, example, improved health leads to increased productivity, management, and financing functions across different as can providing better services to growing sectors such as institutional levels—these are not always fully coordinated. tourism. To meet the needs of the unconnected, countries Such fragmentation is rooted in the decentralization will have to explore different service delivery options rather processes of many Europe and Central Asia countries. than pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach. Mixed delivery Nowadays, most policy-making functions (and financing) models should prioritize centralized solutions in large urban are coordinated at the national level by different ministry centers. But in periurban and rural areas, where centralized lines (that is, water, infrastructure, health and environment), systems are often unaffordable or economically unfeasible, whereas planning is largely decentralized to regional and on-site and decentralized services need to be explored. municipal levels. This process needs further reforms so that Implementing this portfolio approach will require countries regional and local governments have sufficient financial to develop legislative frameworks and financing measures and institutional capacities to match investments with that recognize and enable a variety of service models along coverage needs. the value chain and set up targeted investment programs for the unconnected located in periurban and rural areas. Institutional reforms should target the professionalization These investment programs should be developed in and capacity building of service providers, which should cooperation with local governments and communities to also be captured in legal frameworks. Good practices find affordable yet effective solutions. include the development of waterworks associations, such as those developed across several countries in the Devise innovative strategies to extend wastewater Danube, which provide technical assistance, knowledge treatment and mitigate environmental pollution exchange, and technical guidelines to service providers. while fostering new, climate-neutral business models. Likewise, countries in Europe and Central Asia should also Wastewater treatment has received less attention than pursue the expansion of national regulatory bodies that, drinking water and sanitation, and currently, only 60 as yet, are present in only fifteen of twenty-four countries. percent of the wastewater in Europe and Central Asia Either multisector or water-specific regulators can play a is collected, of which only 43 percent receives (at least major role in improving the quality and efficiency of water primary) treatment. There are large disparities across the services by protecting customers from low-quality or region, with treatment rates in Central Asia and the South costly services through tariff setting and control, granting Caucasus below 25 percent, whereas treatment rates in operator licenses, and developing standards for safe European Union (EU) Member States exceed 70 percent. drinking water and wastewater treatment. As with WSS services, different solutions are needed, including centralized wastewater treatment plans in the Enhance the sector’s overall financial framework by largest agglomerations, alongside decentralized and cost- utilizing a mix of tariffs, taxes, and transfers to boost effective technologies, such as nature-based solutions, in financial capacity and provide the enabling environment rural and periurban areas where expensive technology is to mobilize private capital. To meet SDG 6 by 2030 will cost less economical and less affordable. Wastewater treatment $16 billion per year, whereas reducing the proportion of offers attractive business opportunities for service untreated industrial wastewater by half in the same time providers to promote green and circular economy models, frame will cost about $18 billion per year (or 0.25 percent for instance, through the development of wastewater of the regional GDP combined). Current investment levels reuse, which shows great potential in Europe and Central are low, and funds from different sources (either through Asia, given that less than 5 percent of wastewater treated taxes, tariffs, further transfers from state budgets and is currently reused. Water reuse can become an effective international funds, or private investments) will need to be solution in those areas where pumping costs make mobilized. Good practices to improve financial frameworks irrigation economically unviable and generate additional include reviewing tariff methodologies and overall levels revenues for service providers. Likewise, shifting to a new versus affordability thresholds, leveraging available grant paradigm of “from waste to resource” can also become a funding and tax allocations under a strategic sector financial business opportunity through the recycling of sludge for planning approach, and developing financing strategies biogas or agriculture fertilizers. and policies. Tariffs represent the most important source of funding for overall sector expenditures across Europe Strengthen existing institutional capacities and and Central Asia. Service providers can also be incentivized enabling environments to improve the capacity of to improve their performance to increase cost recovery service providers and increase operational and financial and reduce the public funds required to finance pending performance. Institutional arrangements for WSS services projects needed to close existing gaps. Good practices to are well developed in Europe and Central Asia, but major increase financial sustainability include performance-based institutional fragmentation persists, which translates into financing to service providers to incentivize efficiency Recommendations for a Water-Secure Future in Europe and Central Asia 117 and performance, financing of infrastructure renewal, Central Asia have made important strides to support the and capital expenditure (CAPEX) with strong externalities implementation of IWRM, undertaking reforms to adapt from public budgets. Finally, private capital mobilization new regulatory frameworks, allocating responsibilities for has proved to be a successful strategy for addressing policy making and management across institutions, and infrastructure needs in many countries, as well as helping identifying financing needs. However, major gaps remain, public utilities (for example, through the establishment of and reforms must continue to create a strong enabling PPPs) to manage different services along the value chain, environment. Most countries in Europe and Central Asia including wastewater treatment services. have water regulatory frameworks in place that address key aspects of IWRM, but their implementation is lagging Enhance management of service revenues to improve because of limited normative development, particularly service efficiency and modernize deteriorating on allocation mechanisms, ecosystem protection, and infrastructure. Nonrevenue water (NRW) across Europe risk management. In a context where water demands and Central Asia averages above 44 percent, meaning 4 are increasing, conflicts between users within and out of every 10 cubic meters of water produced are not across borders (for example, water-energy disputes in charged to users, either because water is physically lost Central Asia) are on the rise. Where climate variability across the network or is illegally abstracted. These physical and environmental degradation are growing, further water losses translate to significant financial losses, and development and modernization of existing regulatory revenues from water tariffs are unlikely to be sufficient frameworks are needed to address these critical aspects. to cover asset management as well as the renewal of Such regulatory reforms should also address the existing infrastructure. Investments to upgrade existing water institutional fragmentation and overlaps of responsibilities services infrastructure can help reduce NRW, achieve cost within and across the water sector observed in many recovery, and generate surpluses that can be reinvested countries. Progress has been achieved, and many countries in the maintenance and expansion of infrastructure. But have pursued the development of water ministries to such investments need to accompany or be preceded by centralize water policy functions. However, many still have institutional reforms to strengthen cost recovery for O&M, water functions spread across multiple state bodies— as well as those necessary for asset management and the for example, water policy functions in Serbia remain renewal of infrastructure. Otherwise, new infrastructure will spread across seven ministry lines, and surface water not be maintained, perpetuating the build-neglect-rebuild and groundwater continue to be managed by different cycle. Many countries across Europe and Central Asia are state bodies in countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. caught in this vicious cycle (for example, Montenegro), Such reforms are quite complex and require in-depth where operating costs of >1 are insufficient to counteract institutional assessments to identify an effective and significant NRW. This cycle becomes even more efficient pathway to reform. unsustainable as infrastructure requires upgrading and O&M costs increase (for example, quality standards become Develop, prioritize, and implement long-term national more stringent, electricity costs increase, new sources of water management strategies to address existing threats water need to be developed, and so on), compromising and anticipate future ones, especially in countries where the long-term financial sustainability of service providers a strategy is still needed. Most countries in Europe and and the affordability of water tariffs for users. A first step Central Asia lack a comprehensive water strategy, and out of this vicious circle would be to take stock of existing where present, they are often constrained by limited assets, identify maintenance opportunities, and look for normative development and insufficient funding. Water efficiency gains in the system. Involving the private sector management functions are very broad and require a via performance-based management contracts to identify large effort to facilitate their implementation. Although and reduce technical losses in the system has proven to be national strategies need to provide a comprehensive vision a successful approach to making systems more efficient. for the water sector and guidance on how to overcome existing and emerging threats, strategies also require an incremental approach to implementation. Such an MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES approach means that countries will have to prioritize reforms and investments over a determined timeline Action area 3: Modernize institutions and to ensure these can be implemented to fulfill the vision build adaptive capacity to support a full of the strategy. Setting up such a strategy and securing implementation of IWRM. the relevant capacity needs requires long-term political support and prioritization of water in the political agenda Reinforce the legislative and institutional frameworks as a key asset to socioeconomic development. to support a full implementation of integrated water resources management (IWRM). Countries in Europe and 118 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Develop innovative mechanisms to support sustainable that do not align with hydrographic basins. Therefore, to financing of WRM, including a mix of taxes, tariffs, public support the implementation of IWRM at the basin scale, funds, and private capital. Similar to WSS services, WRM it is fundamental that existing and new institutions are is mostly underfinanced across Europe and Central Asia. provided with expanded functions beyond a consultative Available funding is mainly allocated to new infrastructure function so that they can plan, manage, and allocate water development and much less to O&M of existing within basin boundaries. In the same way, institutions infrastructure or to support the actual management of need to be provided with sufficient human and technical water resources. This underfunding is also largely driven by capacities and financial resources. Enhancing participation the fact that economic mechanisms to generate revenues and improving technical autonomy, accountability, for WRM are not well developed, and where present, they transparency, and efficiency principles are also key to are insufficient or transferred to the state budgets without robust and well-performing institutions. being earmarked for WRM. In most countries, revenues are obtained through water tariffs, which are often too low or Further develop management instruments to increase the insufficient to meet the cost recovery of water services. performance of WRM. The main priorities in implementing Other financing mechanisms, such as environmental and IWRM include the following: resource protection charges, are barely developed across Europe and Central Asia, except for a few EU Member • Establish water allocation mechanisms. Water tariffs States in the Danube subregion. To overcome this financial for services beyond water supply and sanitation (for gap, different principles for water resources financing can example, irrigation), as well as economic instruments, be considered, including the polluter-pays principle, which such as environmental and resources charges, need to allows countries to develop water charges for resource be further developed. This needs to be accompanied protection. A complementary mechanism is the cost- by a strategy to ensure service cost recovery to ensure recovery principle, which implies that water service costs, the financial sustainability of service provision while including operational, maintenance, and capital costs, generating the appropriate incentives for users to use as well as environmental and resource costs, should be water efficiently and sustainably. recovered from users based on their usage. A third possible principle is the policy coherence principle, which seeks to • Enhance public participation and promote the development of stronger river basin councils. ensure that different policy areas (agriculture, energy, land Although reflected in the regulatory frameworks of use, urban development, and trade) do not have negative many countries, in practice, stakeholder participation impacts on water availability, quality, and freshwater is limited and not always inclusive. Where mechanisms ecosystems or increase the cost of water management. for public participation exist, these are generally At the institutional level, this can be supported by the articulated around river basin councils, but such consolidation of policy making for water quantity and institutions have limited resources and capacities quality management under one ministry. to engage wider groups. Strengthening public participation will help empower local communities, Continue implementing the river basin management improve decision making to develop consensus on approach and overcome existing associated institutional the best way of conserving and utilizing water, and weaknesses. The experience gained in Danube EU Member ultimately, create a common ground for developing States shows that basin planning is instrumental in solutions and potentially avoiding future conflicts. supporting the implementation of IWRM. However, the required substantive institutional, technical, and financial • Develop and regularly update operational planning capacities are lacking in many countries within Europe and tools to support the effective management of water Central Asia. Most countries have made important efforts resources and water-related risks. Basin, flood, and to implement the basin water management approach drought management plans are basic instruments and develop decentralized management institutions, for WRM and risk mitigation and management. Basin such as river basin organizations, although in some plans are being developed across many countries, but subregions, these are still underdeveloped (for example, further efforts are required to support the practical Central Asia and the South Caucasus). Where river basin implementation of IWRM at the basin scale. Such plans organizations have been established, they face important could be guided by the EU Water Framework Directive institutional weaknesses, mainly because they have limited (WFD) and by learning from the experience gathered authority and largely act as consultative organizations, in Europe, particularly in Danube countries. Flood with minimum budget and IWRM capacities. In some management plans need to be further developed cases, decentralization of water management has been to support the transition from a flood-reactive to directly delegated to regional branches of the state body a flood-preventive management approach, where or administrative regions with jurisdictional borders risks are well identified and mitigation measures (soft Recommendations for a Water-Secure Future in Europe and Central Asia 119 and hard) are implemented. Drought management underdeveloped, and the existing network has limited plans are still lacking across the entire region, and coverage, is largely antiquated, and has fallen into disrepair; the first step will require taking stock of the different this means evidence-based decision making for water countries’ approaches to and experiences with resources planning and management is almost impossible. managing droughts, co-defining a standard approach Countries have started to reinvest in modernizing their to the measurement of drought risks, and establishing water information systems, yet allocation of adequate funds management measures. Drought management for ongoing investments and O&M remains a challenge. plans represent a cornerstone for climate-change adaptation in Europe and Central Asia, given that Adopt and implement smart water technologies to support rising temperatures and growing rainfall variability the modernization of the irrigation sector. The adoption will increase the risks of extreme events, especially and implementation of modern technologies designed for droughts. rising temperatures and growing rainfall the irrigation sector—such as laser land leveling; a change variability will increase the risks of extreme events, in irrigation methods on some schemes from surface to especially droughts. drip and sprinkler irrigation; conversion of some systems to on-demand piped irrigation supplies; and remote-sensing Action area 4: Fast-track the adoption technology for irrigation planning, scheduling, and water of smart technologies and modernize accounting—need to be accelerated. information management systems. Develop water information systems and promote data Rehabilitate, modernize, and promote the adoption of exchange. Currently, most countries lack a water information advanced technologies to enhance water planning, use, system, or the water system is very basic. Developing such and management. There is growing potential for the systems will also facilitate data exchange across water adoption of transformative digital solutions in the water institutions and increase transparency with the public. and irrigation sectors to leverage the latest enabling Promoting such an information system with open data technologies, including cloud platforms, mobile platforms, policies will require addressing existing regulatory gaps— intelligent infrastructure, sensors, communication namely, gaps in skills that some countries might face. networks, artificial intelligence, and big data analytics. Technological advances have the potential to do the Develop a country- and basinwide water balance. Almost following: no country in Europe and Central Asia has a comprehensive water balance at either the country or basin level. This • Improve decision making and help actors anticipate information is necessary now and for use as a structural and adapt to uncertainty and change, for example, tool in the future; countries can benefit from the use of by providing accurate and real-time data, as well as advanced Earth observation technologies and open-source knowledge, to optimize resource allocation, anticipate hydrological and hydroeconomic models for planning potential challenges, and take proactive measures to purposes. There is a particular knowledge gap with respect mitigate them to groundwater, which needs to be addressed because • Contribute to protecting and improving water systems groundwater is the main source of drinking water across many countries. in the context of water scarcity, including, for example, generating efficiency gains by reducing NRW and irrigation losses and, for wastewater treatment, MITIGATION OF WATER-RELATED helping plants reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions RISKS • Generate benefits for service providers, end users, Action area 5: Enhance water-use efficiency and the environment alike, creating an open dialogue and climate strategies to boost the economy among actors and enabling better monitoring, and protect people and the planet. management, and optimization of service delivery Expand and upgrade data-monitoring systems. Most Implement a combination of investments to improve water- countries have established a water abstraction permit use efficiency, along with a strategy to rethink how water system, and some have developed a cadaster of water uses; is managed, with a focus on increased water productivity. however, data are often not up to date and are scattered Water productivity in Europe and Central Asia is highly across institutions. Surveillance mechanisms (for example, diverse: certain countries in the Danube subregion have metering) in the field are largely missing and need to be some of the highest water productivity levels in the world strengthened. Data-monitoring systems (meteorological, (averaging more than $100 per cubic meter). At the other hydrological, chemical, hydromorphological) are extreme, and despite being relatively highly industrialized, 120 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia albeit with a less profitable sector specialization, water water losses in irrigation and WSS; (c) develop alternative productivity is substantially lower in Central Asia and the water sources (desalinization, water reuse, rainwater); and South Caucasus (equivalent to $2.8 per cubic meter and $6.1 (d) improve reservoir operations to better balance energy per cubic meter, respectively). This sharp contrast between security, water supply, and flood mitigation. subregions shows there is an untapped potential to increase the efficiency and management of water resources and Promote adaptation measures to limit the impact of extreme contribute to boosting economic growth while increasing weather events and rainfall variability. Population and resilience to climate change. Because added value is often economic exposure to floods are expected to increase across higher in the manufacturing and service sectors, a shift the region. Increasing storage capacities and water-reuse away from agriculture (the largest water user) toward the systems will go a long way toward building resilience. Better manufacturing and service sectors could increase GDP and urban planning, risk management, and citizen engagement water productivity. However, agriculture is a key sector will likewise reduce the exposure of cities to flood risks. In contributing to the achievement of other important regional rural areas, expanding crop insurance programs can protect objectives, such as food security, biodiversity conservation, farmers against rainfall shocks. Capital investments, such as climate mitigation, links to the agri-food processing industry, dams, levees, and green solutions, are needed to protect exports, employment, and rural development. Agriculture is, cities from floods. Because the precise impacts of climate and will remain, a critical sector for the region in regard to change are uncertain and large investments are costly and both rural livelihoods and water management, and strategies irreversible, their siting and design must be carefully chosen should therefore focus on improving productivity across to reduce regret. the different sectors, including agriculture, while adapting to changing climate conditions. Climate change will have Investments in sanitation and wastewater treatment, multiple economic impacts in Europe and Central Asia, and along with irrigation and drainage, must prioritize climate the latter is considered one of the most vulnerable regions resilience. Sanitation and wastewater systems contribute to in the world to future water stress, with its growth rate GHG emissions directly, through the breakdown of excreta declining by as much as 11 percent of GDP by 2050 because discharged into the environment or during treatment of the vulnerability of its economic sector and low water-use processes, and indirectly, as an energy-intense process. Even efficiency. By improving water management and investing though concrete figures for Europe and Central Asia are in water efficiency, however, Central Asia could instead incomplete, evidence (see, for example, Li et al. [2015] and Lu accelerate its economic growth (by as much as 12 percent et al. [2018]) suggests that centralized treatment plants require by 2050) through improved agricultural production, green considerable energy inputs, estimated to be equivalent to 3 energy production, and improved health of the region’s percent of global electricity consumption. In addition, the environmental assets. degradation of organic matter during wastewater treatment contributes roughly 1.57 percent of global GHG emissions. Prioritize investments in measures of climate-change On-site sanitation solutions like pit latrines, one of the main adaptation to build economic and social resilience. Almost options for low-income users, are estimated to account for one-third of Europe and Central Asia’s population lives in about 1 percent of global anthropogenic methane emissions. water-stressed areas— that is, areas where there is already These emissions are rarely considered by countries or growing competition for water resources. The situation is development organizations when selecting technologies likely to worsen because of two compounding effects: climate to close sanitation and wastewater treatment gaps. There change and growing demands resulting from population is significant potential to reduce emissions from sanitation growth and socioeconomic development. The former is likely and wastewater systems through recovery of energy and to affect water availability by altering hydrology, inducing nutrients contained in waste while also providing indirect changes in seasonal flows, causing a temperature-driven reduction of emissions through renewable energy production increase in water demand, and inducing a reduction in and reduced dependency on fossil-based chemical fertilizers. snowpack storage. Meanwhile, water demands are expected This approach would contribute to climate action and reduce to increase across the region sharply, from 30 to 60 percent the discharge of contaminants into the environment, as well by 2050. Under this scenario, water stress will likely increase, as provide co-benefits through increased food and energy increasing conflicts between water users. To reduce future security across Europe and Central Asia. conflicts and increase resilience, countries must prioritize adaptation measures to build broader economic resilience The irrigation sector also produces GHG emissions. Inefficient to climate change. Key adaptation measures include (a) practices like flood irrigation and water losses contribute expanding water storage (either through gray or green to higher methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Pumped infrastructure) to buffer the impacts of climate-change irrigation can also contribute to an increase in GHGs, whereas variability and address the alarming rates of current dam drainage of wetlands can harm ecosystems and lead to loss of storage losses; (b) upgrade existing water facilities to reduce soil carbon. Strategies such as improving irrigation efficiency Recommendations for a Water-Secure Future in Europe and Central Asia 121 and modernizing infrastructure can mitigate the sector’s complemented with subregional and technical cooperation carbon footprint. efforts as first steps to building the trust required to negotiate those areas that offer the greatest joint benefits. CROSS-CUTTING EFFORTS Promote regional policy dialogue on WRM to support knowledge sharing and transfer. Most countries in Central Action area 6: Promote regional cooperation to Asia and the South Caucasus would need to make significant strengthen development opportunities. reforms and investments to have modern and efficient WRM systems in place. Danube countries are front-runners in the Strengthen regional technical cooperation to reduce implementation of an ambitious IWRM agenda, and Central environmental and socioeconomic risks and costs and Asia and the South Caucasus can benefit from exchanging support the implementation of existing agreements. Despite and receiving advice on how to implement different reforms. having one of the world’s highest transboundary dependency Within the Danube subregion, EU candidate states have rates, data exchange and cooperation in transboundary received support and advice from Member States through settings are the exception rather than the rule in Europe multiple mechanisms, including policy dialogue. This practice and Central Asia. This limited exchange is motivated by the has provided valuable support to help orient candidate states lack of data but often political disputes as well, especially in in prioritizing their reforms to comply with the EU Water Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Increased exchange of Acquis. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe data and information related to water resources and their (UNECE) is currently leading the National Policy Dialogues on use, the establishment of joint monitoring and early warning Water Resources Management under the EU Water Initiative1 systems, and joint research activities can reduce existing data involving Central Asia and the South Caucasus. These and knowledge inefficiencies. However, increased technical dialogues are resulting in improvements in the legal and cooperation on its own, without political agreements, limits regulatory frameworks in line with IWRM principles and EU the remit of potential mutually beneficial trade-offs and water policies; support to develop river basin management constitutes a weak basis for long-term investments. plans in line with the EU WFD; and a regular exchange of lessons learned, shared, and communicated among Reinforce subregional political cooperation to further reduce stakeholders. Further efforts to complement the portfolio of the risks and costs of water insecurity, complementing activities of UNECE could help to speed up pending reforms technical cooperation. Political cooperation could include and support the development of IWRM capacities. the development of bi-, tri-, or multilateral agreements that would govern the management of specific infrastructure (for Update existing operational agreements to include key example, dams) and coordinate water resources use in country principles of modern international water law. Many of the subbasins. Typical agreements might include regulations existing treaties have not developed provisions for a number on water flows, potentially combined with agreements on of aspects that are at the core of many existing transboundary energy trading and joint operation of and investments in basin disputes in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. These specific infrastructure projects, such as wastewater treatment principles include the absence of notification processes to plants, hydropower projects, or dam safety, with cost sharing co-riparian states when countries are in need of additional and co-benefits. Political cooperation would increase water resources, plans to construct water infrastructure such the potential scope of beneficial trade-offs and reinforce as dams or diversion channels (that is, the no-harm principle), expectations of future cooperation, thereby improving the and conflict resolution mechanisms. Such gaps are important basis for investments. sources of conflicts between riparian countries. These two principles should thus be prioritized in subregional and Promote regional cooperation to support the development regional cooperation strategies. Other important aspects, and implementation of institutional and legal frameworks to such as environmental protection mechanisms, are also jointly manage transboundary basin resources and unlock frequently missing and should similarly be included as a substantial benefits. This would include comprehensive priority. agreements on the management and protection of water resources and also related issues like energy. Although countries in the Danube have well-developed regional NOTE agreements in place, there are fewer agreements in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, and these agreements are 1. See https://unece.org/euwi-npds for further information. often breached because of conflicting national priorities and mistrust. Such overarching frameworks are therefore challenging to implement in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, and the current emphasis on leveraging top-down regional frameworks would probably be more effective if appendix A Key Features of the Institutional Arrangement of Water Resources Management in Europe and Central Asia 124 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia TABLE A.1 Key Features of the Institutional Arrangement of Water Resources Management in Europe and Central Asia Country Legal framework National IWRM strategy Institutions in charge of Institutions in charge Basin water integrating key developing WRM policies of WRM planning and management IWRM principles management approach Central Asia Kazakhstan +++ Sectoral policies Water Resources Regional branches of Yesa (for example, Committee of the the National Water State Programs for Ministry of Water Resources Committee Water Resources and Irrigation (RSE Kazvodkhoz) and Development (2020- (surface water) and basin inspections 30), State Program on Ministry of Industry WSS (2020–25) and Construction (groundwater) Kyrgyz Republic ++ National Water Ministry of Natural The Water Resources Yes Strategy (2023–) Resources, Ecology Service (National) and Technical Supervision (water management) and Ministry of Agriculture (irrigation services) Tajikistan +++ Water Sector Reform Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Energy and Yes Programme (2016–25) Water Resources Water Resources Turkmenistan ++ Sectoral policies State Committee for Territorial water Not yet (National Strategy Water Management organizations belonging on Climate Change, to the State Committee National Program for Water Management “Health”) Uzbekistan +++ Concept for the Ministry of Water Basin water Yesb Development of Resources (surface organizations and Water Sector of the water) and State basin irrigation system Republic of Uzbekistan Committee of the authorities (2020–30) Republic of Uzbekistan on Geology and Mineral Resources (groundwater) South Caucasus Armenia +++ National Water Ministry of Regional river basin Yes Program (expired) Environment (water management bodies protection) and Water Committee of Ministry of Territorial Administration (infrastructure) Azerbaijan +++ National Strategy and Ministry of Ecology Regional water Not yetc Action Plan on the and Natural Resources departments Protection and Use (State Water Reserves of Water Resources Agency) (under development) Appendix A 125 Georgia +++ Several sectoral Ministry of Ministry of Yes policies (for example, Environmental Environmental National Environmental Protection and Protection and Action Program) Agriculture (surface Agriculture water) and Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (groundwater) Danube Albania +++ Integrated Water Water Resources Regional branches of Yes Resources Management Management the Agency for Water Strategy (2018–27) Agency (depending Resources Management on National Water Council) Austria +++ National Plan for the Federal Ministry of Provincial government Yes Management of Waters Agriculture, Forestry, (2021) Environment and Water Management Bosnia and +++ Water Management Entity Ministry of River basins and Yes Herzegovina Strategy for the Agriculture, Water regional water agencies Federation of Bosnia Management and and Herzegovina Forestry (2010–25) Integrated Water Management Strategy of the Republic of Srpska (2014–44) Bulgaria +++ National Strategy for Ministry of River basin directorates Yes Management and Environment and Development of the Water Water Sector (2012–37) Croatia +++ Croatia’s National Ministry of Economy Regional branches of Yes Water Management and Sustainable Croatian Waters Strategy (2008–38) Development (Croatian Waters) Czech Republic +++ Strategy of the Ministry Ministry of the River boards (state Yes of Agriculture of the Environment enterprises) Czech Republic with a (protection) and View to 2030 (2016–30) Ministry of Agriculture (water management) Hungary +++ National Water Ministry of Interior Regional water Yes Strategy—Kvassay Jeno directorates Plan Kosovo +++ National Water Ministry of River basin authority Yes Strategy (2017–34) Environment and Spatial Planning North Macedonia +++ National Water Ministry of Ministry of Agriculture, Yes Strategy (2012–42) Agriculture, Forestry Forestry and Water and Water Resources Resources Management Management 126 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Moldova +++ Only sectoral policies Ministry of Regional development Yes (for example, Water Environment authorities Supply and Sanitation Strategy [2013–27]) Montenegro +++ National Water Ministry of n.a. Yes Management Strategy Agriculture, (2017–35) Forestry and Water Management Romania +++ National Strategy for Ministry of National Administration Yes Water Management Environment, Water of Romanian Waters and (2023–35) and Forest basin administrations Serbia +++ Water Management Ministry of Provincial governments, Yes Strategy (2016–34) Agriculture, local agencies, Forestry and Water and public water Management management companies Slovak Republic +++ Orientation, Principles, Ministry of Branch offices of Yes and Priorities of the Environment the Slovak Water Slovak Republic’s Water Management Enterprise Policy (2015–27) Slovenia +++ Slovenian Development Ministry of Natural Regional branches of Yes Strategy (2030) Resources and Spatial Water Management Planning Office Ukraine ++ Water Strategy of Ministry of Basin management and Yes Ukraine (2022–50) Environmental regional departments of Protection and water resources Natural Resources Source: Original elaboration for this publication. Note: IWRM = integrated water resources management; n.a. = not applicable; RSE = Republican State Enterprise; WRM = water resources management, WSS = water supply and sanitation. a. In Kazakhstan, water planning and management are undertaken within water economic zones, which integrate physical and administrative borders. b. Water management is done within basin irrigation basins, which combine territorial (provincial) with hydrographic boundaries. c. A proposal for the delineation of the river basin districts has been developed but not yet adopted. appendix B Country Pages 128 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ůďĂŶŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ Ăůď ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬĂůď͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ Ϯ͘ϴD ϯϵ͘ϰΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ůďĂŶŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϲϮϭϮϭϮϭϮϭ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϱ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϴ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϯϴй Ϭ͘ϯϳϴϳϴϳϴϳϵ hƌďĂŶ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϲϮй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϯϮ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϲϲ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϯ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϭϵ͘ϭ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϮϬ͘ϭ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϱϰ͘ϰ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϯй ϭϵй ϰϴ͘ϰ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϭϮ͘ϰ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϱϲ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϰϴй ϮϬй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϲ͘ϳ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϮ͘ϵ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϭ͘ϰ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϰϳ͘ϲ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϭϬϬ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϯϭ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϯϱ ϯϭ͘ϰ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϯϬ ϮϮ͘ϵ Ϯϱ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϰϳ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϮϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϱ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϬ ϲ͘ϳ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϱ ϭ͘ϳ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ͘ϴ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϭ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϳ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϯϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ ϭϰ͘ϳ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϵ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϳ͘ϰ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϬ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϭϬϬй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 129 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϰϳϲ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϯ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬ͘ϵ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϬ͘Ϯ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϮϮй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϯϮ͘ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϭϬй ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϭ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϲϴй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϴ͘Ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϭ͘ϲ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 130 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ƌŵĞŶŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ Ăƌŵ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬĂƌŵ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϯD ϯϵ͘ϰΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ƌŵĞŶŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϳϯ Ϭ͘ϲϯϯϲϵϵϲϯϰ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϯ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϯϳй Ϭ͘ϯϲϲϯϬϬϯϲϲ hƌďĂŶ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϯ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϲϯй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϮϴ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϱ͘ϳ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϲϭ͘ϯ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϬ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϭϭ͘Ϯ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϳ͘ϭ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϵй ϭϭй ϱϯ͘Ϯ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϴ͘ϱ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϰϬ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ Ϯϳй ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϯй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯ͘ϯ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϵ͘ϭ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϵ͘ϳ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϯϳ͘ϱ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϯϴ͘ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϱ͘ϴ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ Ϯϱ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϮϬ ϭϵ͘ϭ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϰϳ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϭϱ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϵ͘ϳ ϭϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱ ϯ͘ϯ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϭ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱϮ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϳϭ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ ϵй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϭ͘ϵ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱϮ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϵ͘ϯ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϬ͘ϱ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵ͘ϭ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϵϭй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 131 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϲϯϮ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϰ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϲ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭ͘ϳ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϭ͘ϱ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϯϲй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϭϵ͘ϱ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϬ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϱй ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϲϵй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϬ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϵ͘ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ͘ϴ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϱ͘ϵ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 132 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ƵƐƚƌŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ hd ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬhd͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϴ͘ϵD ϰϵϲ͘ϮΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ƵƐƚƌŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϰϮ Ϭ͘ϱϴϲϳϳϲϴϲ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϭй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϭϯϮϮϯϭϰ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϵй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϬ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϲ͘ϳ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϭ͘ϭ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϴϮ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϱ͘ϱ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϱϳ͘ϯ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϬй ϭй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϲϯ͘ϭ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘ϬϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ Ϯϲй ϭϬ͘ϯ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϲ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϲϯй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϬϬ͘ϳ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϱ͘ϯ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϱ͘ϰ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϲϬ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭϭ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϰϬϬ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϯϬϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϵϯ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϮϬϬ ϭϬϬ͘ϳ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϬϬ ϯϱ͘ϯ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϴ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϯ͘ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϰ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϵϭ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯϰϭ͘Ϯ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ Ϭй ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳ͘ϭ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ ƌŝƉ ϭϬϬй Appendix B 133 ϭϬϬй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϳϯϴ͘ϴ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϲ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϭϬϬ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϯϭй Ϯй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϵϮ͘ϴ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϬ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϳϳй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϬ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϳ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϬ͘ϲ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 134 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ njĞƌďĂŝũĂŶ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ĂnjĞ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬĂnjĞ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϭϬ͘ϭD ϭϰϲ͘ϭΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ njĞƌďĂŝũĂŶ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘Ϯϵ Ϭ͘ϱϲϯϯϭϴϳϳϳ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϲ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϭ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϲ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϰй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϯϲϲϴϭϮϮϯ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϲй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϰϴ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϰϯϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯϰ͘ϵ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱϳ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϲ͘ϵ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ϰϭ͘ϰ ϭϬй ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϰϮ ϳй ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘ϯϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϵ͘ϳ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϴ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϰϮй ϰϭй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯ͘ϳ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϱϬ͘ϯ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϲ͘ϲ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϳϮ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϲ͘ϲ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϵ Ϭ͘ϲ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϲϬ ϱϬ͘ϯ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϱϬ ϰϲ͘ϲ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϰ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϰϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϯϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϮϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭϬ ϯ͘ϳ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϲ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱϳ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϭϴϴ͘ϭ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϵ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϵ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ƌŝƉ Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ ϭϲ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϲ͘ϱ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϭ͘ϴ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϯй &ůŽŽĚ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϳ͘ϯ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϱϳй ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϮ͘ϱ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 135 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϰϴϱ͘ϭ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϳ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϯ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϲ͘ϲ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϰϲ͘ϰ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϯй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϰй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϮϮϮ͘ϵ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϰ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϯй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϮ͘ϰ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ͘ϯ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯ͘ϯ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 136 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ĞůĂƌƵƐ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ďůƌ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬďůƌ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϵ͘ϰD ϭϴϵ͘ϴΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ĞůĂƌƵƐ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϯ͘ϴϳ Ϭ͘ϳϵϰϲϲϭϭϵϭ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϲ͘ϱ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϯ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ Ϯϭй ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů Ϭ͘ϮϬϱϯϯϴϴϬϵ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϴ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ hƌďĂŶ ϮϬϭϵ ϴϭ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϳϵй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯ͘ϰ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱϲ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϲ͘ϴ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϴϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϯϭ͘ϯ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϱϰ͘ϵ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϯй ϳй ϰϵ͘ϭ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘ϭϭ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϭϮ͘ϴ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϭ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ϯϭй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϰϵй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϮ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϲ͘Ϯ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϱϲ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϲϬ ϱϲ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϲ͘Ϯ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϲϲ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϯϮ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϯϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϮϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭϬ Ϭ͘ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϴ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱϰ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϮϴ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ Ϭй ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱϯ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 137 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϭϮϱ͘ϯ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϲ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϰ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϭ͘ϯ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϬ͘ϲ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϬй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϯϴй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϰϳ͘Ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϮ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϯϮй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϴ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϵ͘ϵ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϭ͘ϴ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϴ͘ϯ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 138 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ŽƐŶŝĂ ĂŶĚ,ĞƌnjĞŐŽǀŝŶĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ďŝŚ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬďŝŚ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϯ͘ϯD ϱϭ͘ϲΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ŽƐŶŝĂĂŶĚ,ĞƌnjĞŐŽǀŝŶĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ Ϭ͘ϵϲ Ϭ͘ϰϴϵϳϵϱϵϭϴ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϲ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϯ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϵϱ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϱϭϬϮϬϰϬϴϮ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϵϯ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ZƵƌĂů ϰϵй ϱϭй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϳϰ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϵϭϱ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϳ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϲ͘ϭ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϯϭ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϰ͘ϲ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϰϯ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϯй ϲй ϱϱ͘ϴ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϯ͘ϱ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϳ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ Ϯϱй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϲй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ͳ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϱ͘ϳ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϯϵ͘ϰ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ϭ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϯϱ͘ϱ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱ͘ϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϱϬ ϰϱ͘ϳ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϰϬ Ϯϵ͘ϰ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱϲ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϯϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϮϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘Ϯ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϱϯ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϴϲϵ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘ϵ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ Ϭй ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϱ͘ϰ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ͘ϭ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 139 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭϮϴϮ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϯ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱ͘ϯ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϳ͘ϭ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϬй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϴ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϳ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϴϵй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϯ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϱ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 140 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ƵůŐĂƌŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ďŐƌ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬďŐƌ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϲ͘ϵD ϭϳϬ͘ϳΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ƵůŐĂƌŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ZƵƌĂů ϯ͘ϭϭ Ϭ͘ϳϱϲϲϵϬϵϵϴ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰй ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϴ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϲ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů Ϭ͘ϮϰϯϯϬϵϬϬϮ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϲ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ hƌďĂŶ ϳϲй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϲϰ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϮϬ͘ϴ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯϵ͘ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϵ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϯ͘ϱ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϲϲ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ͘ϵ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϯϴ͘ϵ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϯй ϰй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϲϭ͘ϯ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϮϮй ϭϯ͘ϯ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϰ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϲϭй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϳ͘ϵ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϯ͘ϳ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϭ͘ϵ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϯ͘ϱ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϭϭ͘ϲ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϭ͘ϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϱϬ ϰϭ͘ϵ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϰϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϳϬ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϯϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϮϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϳ͘ϵ ϭϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϯ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϲϵ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϭϳ͘ϴ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ ϮϬй ϯй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱϳ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳϳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϳϳй ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϮϬ͘ϭ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϵ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 141 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϬϮϬ͘ϲ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϯ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ͘ϰ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϳ͘ϴ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϲй ϭϯй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϲϵ͘ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϬ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϳϭй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϯ͘ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϬ͘ϳ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱ͘ϵ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 142 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ƌŽĂƚŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ,Zs ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬ,Zs͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϰD ϭϭϳ͘ϵΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ƌŽĂƚŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϯϲ Ϭ͘ϱϳϲϮϳϭϭϴϲ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ Ͳ ϵϴ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϲ͘ϲ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϮй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϮϯϳϮϴϴϭϰ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϴй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϰϲ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϴ͘ϵ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϲϬ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϲ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ Ϯϭ͘Ϯ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϱϱ͘ϲ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϳй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϱϵ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϱ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϯй Ϯϭй ϭϲ͘ϯ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϲ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϵй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϱϵ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϵ͘ϲ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϳϰ͘ϯ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϱϲ͘ϵ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϳ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϴϬ ϳϰ͘ϯ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϲϬ ϱϵ ϰϵ͘ϲ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϴϰ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϰϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϮϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϳ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϬϳ ϵϬ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϯϬ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ ϱй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱϭ͘ϳ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯ͘ϯ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϵϰ͘ϲ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϵϱй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 143 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϱϯϴϯ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϬ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϰ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϯ͘ϭ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϭй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ Ϯϲй ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳϮ͘ϳ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϱ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϲϯй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϱ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬ͘ϲ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϲ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϯ͘ϰ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 144 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗njĞĐŚ ZĞƉƵďůŝĐ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ĐnjĞ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬĐnjĞ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϭϬ͘ϳD ϰϰϵ͘ϵΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ njĞĐŚZĞƉƵďůŝĐ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ Ϯ͘ϴϲ Ϭ͘ϳϰϬϵϯϮϲϰϮ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ Ϯϲй ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů Ϭ͘ϮϱϵϬϲϳϯϱϴ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ hƌďĂŶ ϳϰй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϰϴ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϯϲϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϬ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϯ ϴϴ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ϯϬ͘ϴ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ Ϯϲ͘ϴ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϵй Ϯй ϱϴ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϯϭй ϵ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϴ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϴй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϬϳ͘ϱ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϲϲ͘ϱ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϴϲ͘ϴ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϭ͘ϰ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϮϬϬ ϭϴϲ͘ϴ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϭϱϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϯ ϴϯ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϭϬϳ͘ϱ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϲϲ͘ϱ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘ϰ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϭ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϬ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϯ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ƌŝƉ ϭϯй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳϭ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϴ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱϴ͘ϱ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ Ϯϵй ϱϴй ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯϴ͘ϱ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭϯ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 145 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϮϯϮ͘ϵ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϱ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϱ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϯй DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϰϭй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϰϵ͘ϭ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϳ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϱϲй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϯ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϲ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϭ͘ϭ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 146 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗'ĞŽƌŐŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ŐĞŽ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬŐĞŽ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϯ͘ϳD ϱϰ͘ϴΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'ĞŽƌŐŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϰϳ Ϭ͘ϱϵϱϭϰϭϳ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϱ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϱ͘ϴ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϬй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϬϰϴϱϴϯ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϲ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϲϬй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϰϱ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ͘ϰ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϲ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϳ͘ϯ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϵϮ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ͘Ϯ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϰϭ͘ϲ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϯй ϳй ϱϵ͘ϭ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘ϭϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϮ͘ϰ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϬ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ Ϯϭй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϵй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϳ͘ϰ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϯ͘ϳ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϳ͘ϭ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϰϭ͘ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϳϴ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϴ ϭϲ͘ϴ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϮϬ ϭϳ͘ϭ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϭϱ ϭϯ͘ϳ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϬϴ ϯϵ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϬ ϳ͘ϰ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϴ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϯ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϲ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϰ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϱϭ͘ϲ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϴ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϴ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ ϭϱй ϲй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ ϭϴ͘Ϯ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϭ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϵ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϳϵй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 147 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱϴϮϭ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϱ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴ͘Ϯ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϮ͘Ϯ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϭ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϲй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϰϴй ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϮϮ͘ϱ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϲ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϭϲй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϰ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϱ͘ϱ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϲ͘ϯ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϴ͘ϯ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 148 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗,ƵŶŐĂƌLJ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ,hE ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬ,hE͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϵ͘ϳD ϯϮϰ͘ϮΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ,ƵŶŐĂƌLJ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ Ϯ͘ϱϲ Ϭ͘ϳϭϵϭϬϭϭϮϰ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϴ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů Ϯϴй Ϭ͘ϮϴϬϴϵϴϴϳϲ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ hƌďĂŶ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϭ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϳϮй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϴϬ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϱϵ͘ϭ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯ͘ϴ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϬ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϯ͘ϰ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϱϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϰ͘ϱ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϰϯ͘ϰ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϲй ϯй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϱϲ͘ϲ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϵ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ Ϯϰй ϭϱ͘ϱ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϳ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϳй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϯϯ͘ϵ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϵ͘ϲ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϮϲ͘ϱ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϯ͘ϰ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϴ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϳ Ϭ͘ϭ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϭϰϬ ϭϮϲ͘ϱ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϭϮϬ ϭϬϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϬϳ ϳϳ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϴϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϲϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰϬ Ϯϯ͘ϵ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϰ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϮϬ ϵ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϱ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϱ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯϲ͘ϰ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϳ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϳ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭϯй ϯй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϲϯ͘ϳ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱ͘ϭ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭϯ͘ϰ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϴϯ͘ϱ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϵ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ ϴϰй Appendix B 149 ϴϰй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϳϭϯ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϳ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϰ͘Ϯ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϬ͘ϱ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϱй ϭϭй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϲϰ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϳ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϳϰй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϯ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭ͘ϱ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϰ͘ϱ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϰ͘ϳ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 150 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ <ĂnjĂŬŚƐƚĂŶ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ŬĂnj ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬŬĂnj͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϭϴ͘ϴD ϱϬϭ͘ϲΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ <ĂnjĂŬŚƐƚĂŶ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϯϲ Ϭ͘ϱϳϲϮϳϭϭϴϲ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϱ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϰ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϮй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϮϯϳϮϴϴϭϰ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϮ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϴй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϯϰ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ Ϯϯ͘ϰ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯϭ͘ϱ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϲ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϱ͘ϰ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϲϰ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϯϯ͘ϭ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϲϳ͘ϳ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϲй ϱй ϱϲ͘ϭ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϴ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϱ͘ϰ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϵ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ϯϯй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϲй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϳ͘ϭ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϭ͘ϲ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϭ͘ϰ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϲ͘ϵ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϴ͘ϳ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϴ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϯϱ ϯϭ͘ϰ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϯϬ Ϯϱ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϱϭ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϮϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϱ ϭϭ͘ϲ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϬ ϳ͘ϭ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϱ Ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘ϰ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϱ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϲ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϰϮϭ͘ϴ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ Ϯй ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘ϴ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϰ͘ϳ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ͘ϯ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϲ͘ϲ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯ͘ϱ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϵϳй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 151 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϵϭϳ͘ϳ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϱ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϱ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϬ͘ϲ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϱ͘ϴ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϵй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϯϲϲ͘ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϭϴй ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϱ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϲϯй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϮ͘ϲ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϴ͘ϱ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϴ͘ϴ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 152 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗<ŽƐŽǀŽ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ džŬŽ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬdžŬŽ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϭ͘ϴD ϮϬ͘ϮΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ <ŽƐŽǀŽ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ Ϭ Ϭ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ hƌďĂŶ Ϭй ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϭ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ZƵƌĂů ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϬϬй ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ Ͳ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϴ͘ϴ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ Ϭ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ Ϭ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ Ͳ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ Ϭй Ϭ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ Ϭй ϭϬϬ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ͳ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ KƚŚĞƌ ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ͳ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϭϬϬй ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ͳ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ͳ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ͳ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϯ͘ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ͳ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϭ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ͳ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϰ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϬϬ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘ϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ Ϭй ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 153 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϲϬϬ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϵ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϰϭй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϭй ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϵϭ͘Ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϴй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϭ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϴ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϱϮ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 154 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗<LJƌŐLJnj Z͘ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ŬŐnj ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬŬŐnj͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϲ͘ϲD ϯϮ͘ϳΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ <LJƌŐLJnjZ͘ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ Ϭ͘ϱϴ Ϭ͘ϯϲϳϬϴϴϲϬϴ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϭ͘ϳ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϴ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ hƌďĂŶ ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϯϳй Ϭ͘ϲϯϮϵϭϭϯϵϮ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϱ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ZƵƌĂů ϲϯй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϰϵ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϴ͘ϭ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱϭ͘ϳ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϵ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϭϯ͘ϱ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϵ͘ϱ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ Ͳ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϳй ϭϯй ϰϵ͘ϲ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘ϭϭ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϳ͘ϰ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϰϴ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϬй ϯϬй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϴ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϱ͘ϱ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϳ͘ϯ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϴϰ͘ϭ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϴϱ͘Ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϰ Ϯϱ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϮϬ ϭϳ͘ϯ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϭϱ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϰ ϰϯ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϬ ϱ͘ϱ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϵ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϭ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϴϬϳ͘ϵ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘ϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯϵ͘ϴ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϰ͘ϵ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϬ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϭϬϬй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 155 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϳϰϲ͘ϱ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϲ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϰ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ͘ϭ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϰϳ͘Ϯ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϯй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϰй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϮϭϱ͘ϭ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϲ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϯй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϮ͘ϳ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ͘ϰ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯ͘ϵ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 156 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗DŽůĚŽǀĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ŵĚĂ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬŵĚĂ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ Ϯ͘ϲD ϯϰ͘ϭΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ DŽůĚŽǀĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϰϮϴϱϳϭϰϮϵ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϬ͘ϲ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϴ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ hƌďĂŶ ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϴ͘ϳ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů Ϭ͘ϱϳϭϰϮϴϱϳϭ ZƵƌĂů ϰϯй ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϰ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϳй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϳϮ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϯϬ͘ϳ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϳ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϴ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϵ͘ϲ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϯ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϯй ϭϬй ϱϰ͘ϱ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϮ͘ϵ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϮ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ Ϯϯй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϰй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϳ͘ϲ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϯ͘ϲ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϯ͘ϴ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ϯ͘ϴ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϱ͘ϭ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭ͘ϭ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϰϬ ϯϯ͘ϴ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϯϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϲ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϮϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϬ ϳ͘ϲ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϰ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϯ͘ϲ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϲ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯϳϳ͘ϳ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ƌŝƉ ϳй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘ϱ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ &ůŽŽĚ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϰ͘ϰ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϯϬй ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭϭ͘ϲ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯϵ͘ϵ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϲϯ͘ϱ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ Ͳ ϲ͘ϲ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ ϲϯй Appendix B 157 ϲϯй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϬϮϴ͘Ϯ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϯ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϲ͘ϴ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϬ͘ϲ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϳй ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϱй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϬϲ͘ϲ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϱ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϳϴй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱ͘ϭ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϳ͘ϰ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳ͘ϰ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 158 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ DŽŶƚĞŶĞŐƌŽ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ŵŶĞ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬŵŶĞ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ Ϭ͘ϲD ϭϮ͘ϴΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ DŽŶƚĞŶĞŐƌŽ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ Ϯ͘Ϭϴ Ϭ͘ϲϳϱϯϮϰϲϳϱ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϴ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϯϮй Ϭ͘ϯϮϰϲϳϱϯϮϱ hƌďĂŶ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϰ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϲϴй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϳϭ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ Ϯϵ͘ϴ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϱ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϳ͘ϲ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϴϴ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϭϳ͘ϯ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϳй ϴй ϱϴ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϯ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϭϳй ϭϳ͘ϭ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϴ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϴй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬ͘ϵ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϳ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϳ͘ϵ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ϯϲ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϰϵ͘ϲ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϱϬ ϰϳ͘ϯ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϰϬ ϯϬ͘ϲ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϴ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϯϬ ϮϬ͘ϵ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϮϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϳ͘ϵ ϭϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘Ϯ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϱ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϲϯϴ͘ϭ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘ϱ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϲ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϯϳй ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϲ͘ϱ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϳ͘ϯ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϲϯй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϮ͘ϰ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 159 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϭϯϵϱ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϴ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϮ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ͘ϳ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϲ͘ϳ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϯϵй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϱϲ͘ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϲϬй ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ͘ϭ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϵ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϵ͘ϵ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 160 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗EŽƌƚŚ DĂĐĞĚŽŶŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ D< ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬD<͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ Ϯ͘ϭD ϯϱ͘ϯΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ EŽƌƚŚDĂĐĞĚŽŶŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϰϭ Ϭ͘ϱϴϱϬϲϮϮϰϭ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϳ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϭй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϭϰϵϯϳϳϱϵ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϵй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϳϰ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϮϵϬ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱ͘ϵ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϵ͘ϭ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϳϬ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϮϮ͘ϲ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϵ͘ϵ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϭй ϵй ϱϳ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϯ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϭ͘ϯ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϰϬ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ Ϯϯй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϳй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϬ͘Ϯ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϵ͘ϲ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ϯϳ͘ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϯϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϰ͘ϱ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ Ϯϱ ϮϬ͘ϳ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϮϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϰϯ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϭϱ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϬ͘Ϯ ϵ͘ϲ ϭϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϲ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϯ͘ϭ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘Ϯ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϯ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘ϴ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ Ϭй ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱϱ͘ϰ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϴ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 161 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϬϳϮ͘ϲ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϬ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱ͘ϲ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϴ͘ϭ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϯϲй ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϭ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϯϴй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϭϯ͘ϭ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϰ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ Ϯϲй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϲ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϴ͘ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϲ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϱ͘ϱ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 162 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗WŽůĂŶĚ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ƉŽů ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬƉŽů͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϯϴD ϭϯϬϱ͘ϳΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ WŽůĂŶĚ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϬй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϲϬй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϰϭ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ Ϯϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭϱ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϮ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ Ϯ͘ϱ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϵϲ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϳ͘ϳ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϰϱ͘ϳ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϮй Ϯй/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϱϳ͘ϴ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ Ϯϴй ϭϮ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϲ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϴй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϯ͘ϲ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬ͘ϴ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϭ͘ϭ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϭ͘ϭ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϮϬϬ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϭϱϬ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϳϮ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱϬ ϰϯ͘ϲ ϮϬ͘ϴ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϰ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϰ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϳ͘ϵ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ ϰй ϳй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϴϴ͘ϴ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰ͘ϯ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϴϵй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϲ͘ϵ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 163 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱϵϱ͘ϰ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϵ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭ͘ϰ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϱ͘ϲ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϯϭй ϭϰй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϲϰ͘ϱ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϯ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϲϱй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϯ͘ϴ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϰ͘ϵ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϭ͘Ϯ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 164 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ZŽŵĂŶŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ƌŽƵ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬƌŽƵ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϭϵ͘ϯD ϲϭϲ͘ϭΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ZŽŵĂŶŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϭϴ Ϭ͘ϱϰϭϮϴϰϰϬϰ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϳ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϱϴϳϭϱϱϵϲ ϰϲй ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϴ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϰй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϬϱ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϰϵ͘ϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭϳ͘ϯ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϴ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϯ͘ϴ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϴϰ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϲ͘ϰ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϲϲ͘ϲ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϵй ϰй ϲϬ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϯ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϴ͘ϵ Ϯϲй ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϭ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϲϭй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϯϱ͘ϱ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϯ͘ϴ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϭϰ͘ϱ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϰ͘ϳ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϯϱ͘Ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϵ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϭϰϬ ϭϭϰ͘ϱ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϭϮϬ ϭϬϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϮ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϴϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϲϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰϬ Ϯϱ͘ϱ ϭϯ͘ϴ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϴ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϮϬ Ϭ͘ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϰ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϳϳ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱϲϮ͘ϵ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ Ϭй ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϲϰ͘ϳ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯ͘ϳ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 165 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϴϲϵ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϴ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϬ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϱ͘ϯ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϳй ϮϮй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϮϴ͘ϵ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϬ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϲϭй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϬ͘ϴ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϲ͘ϵ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 166 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ZƵƐƐŝĂŶ &ĞĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ƌƵƐ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬƌƵƐ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϭϰϰ͘ϭD ϰϭϯϯ͘ϭΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶ&ĞĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ZƵƌĂů Ϯ͘ϵϲ Ϭ͘ϳϰϳϰϳϰϳϰϳ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϱй ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϯ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϵ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů Ϭ͘ϮϱϮϱϮϱϮϱϯ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϲ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ hƌďĂŶ ϳϱй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϳϮ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϯϵ͘ϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭϳ͘ϳ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϯ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϯ͘ϳ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϵϲ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϯϬ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϰϯ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϬй ϰй ϱϲ͘ϯ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϴ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϬ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϭ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ϯϬй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϲй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϴ͘ϳ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϰ͘Ϯ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϳ͘ϰ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ϯ͘ϭ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϭϱ͘ϴ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϱ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϱϬ ϰϳ͘ϰ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϰϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϳ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϯϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϴ͘ϳ ϮϬ ϭϰ͘Ϯ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϴ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭй Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱϬ͘ϱ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϵ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 167 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϭϬϱϯ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϴ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϮ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ͘ϳ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϱ͘ϳ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϯϲй Ϯϵй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϰϰ͘ϴ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϯ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϰϱй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϴ͘ϴ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϰ͘ϴ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϲ͘ϱ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 168 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗^ĞƌďŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ Ɛƌď ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬƐƌď͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϲ͘ϵD ϭϯϯ͘ϴΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ^ĞƌďŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱϲϱϮϭϳϯϵϭ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϱ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϭ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϯй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϯϰϳϴϮϲϬϵ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϲ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϳй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϲϬ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ Ϯϴ͘ϵ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯϳ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϲ͘ϯ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ ϴϯ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϰ͘ϵ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϱϲ͘ϲ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϳй ϲй ϱϭ͘ϵ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϲ͘ϵ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϮ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ Ϯϱй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϮй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϱ͘ϵ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϱ͘ϰ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϯϲ͘ϴ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϱ͘ϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϰϬ ϯϱ͘ϰ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϯϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϮ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϮϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϬ ϱ͘ϵ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϰ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ͘ϯ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϱ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϲ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯϱϳ͘ϭ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭй ϲй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϳ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯ͘ϱ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϭ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϯ͘ϵ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ ϵϰй Appendix B 169 ϵϰй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϴϰϮϲ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϱ͘ϵ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ͘ϭ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϬ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϬ͘ϯ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϮй ϭϯй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϯϭ͘ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϭ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϳϱй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϮ͘ϴ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϱ͘ϰ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭ͘ϴ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 170 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗^ůŽǀĂŬŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ^s< ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬ^s<͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϱ͘ϱD ϭϳϰ͘ϴΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ^ůŽǀĂŬŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϭϲ Ϭ͘ϱϯϳϬϯϳϬϯϳ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϲϮϵϲϮϵϲϯ ϰϲй ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϰй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϰϱ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ Ϯϭ͘ϱ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϬ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϭ͘ϴ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϳ͘ϰ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϭй Ϯй/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϲϬ͘ϰ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϱ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ Ϯϳй ϭϬ͘ϰ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϱ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϲϬй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϵϵ͘ϯ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϯ͘ϭ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϭϰ͘ϱ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϯ Ϯ͘ϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϮϱϬ ϭϵϵ͘ϯ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϮϬϬ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϯ ϲϮ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϭϱϬ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϰ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϯ͘ϭ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ͘ϭ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϲϭ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϭϳ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϯ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭй Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϲϴ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳ͘ϯ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 171 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϭϴϳ͘ϲ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϴ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϰ͘ϵ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϰ͘ϱ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϯй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϰϴй ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭϮ͘Ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϰ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϯϵй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱϲ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϯ͘ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϵ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϳ͘ϴ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 172 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗^ůŽǀĞŶŝĂ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ƐǀŶ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬƐǀŶ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ Ϯ͘ϭD ϴϰ͘ϯΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ^ůŽǀĞŶŝĂ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘Ϯϯ Ϭ͘ϱϱϭϱϲϵϱϬϳ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ͘ϱ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ZƵƌĂů ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϴ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϰϱй hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϰϴϰϯϬϰϵϯ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϱй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϯϭ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϲ͘ϲ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϲϳ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ Ϯ͘ϭ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϯ ϴϰ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϵ͘ϰ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϮй Ϯй ϱϲ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ ͲϬ͘Ϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ Ϯϵй ϭϭ͘ϲ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϳ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϳй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰϮ͘ϲ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϲ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϱ͘ϵ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϲϴ͘ϭ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϭ͘ϵ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϯϱ͘ϳ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ Ͳ ϱ͘ϰ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϮϬϬ ϭϲϴ͘ϭ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϭϱϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϴϭ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱϬ ϰϮ͘ϲ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϭϱ͘ϵ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϲ͘ϱ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϯ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϴϳ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϲ͘ϭ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ &ůŽŽĚ ƌŝƉ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭй Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳϮ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 173 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱϯϯϴ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϴ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϮ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϭ͘ϰ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϳϬ͘ϭ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϴй Ϭй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϲϮ͘ϱ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϬ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϴϮй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϬ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϭ͘ϵ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳ͘ϴ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 174 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ dĂũŝŬŝƐƚĂŶ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ƚũŬ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬƚũŬ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϵ͘ϱD ϯϲ͘ϴΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ dĂũŝŬŝƐƚĂŶ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ Ϭ͘ϯϴ Ϭ͘ϮϳϱϯϲϮϯϭϵ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϴϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ hƌďĂŶ ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϲ͘ϴ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů Ϯϴй Ϭ͘ϳϮϰϲϯϳϲϴϭ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϰ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ZƵƌĂů ϳϮй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϵϯϱ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϯ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϮϬϱ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯϰ͘ϴ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ Ϯϯ͘ϴ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϮ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ϯϮ͘ϴ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϴй ϯϱ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϯ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ Ϯϰй ϴ͘ϭ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϱ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϯϱй ϯϯй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϳ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭ͘ϲ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϱ͘ϱ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϵϬ͘ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϵϴ͘ϱ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϲ ϱ͘ϱ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϱ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϰϴ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϰ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϰ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϯ Ϯ ϭ͘ϲ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϱ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϲ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϯϮϮ͘ϱ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ ϮϮ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϯϴ͘Ϯ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϱ͘ϱ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϬ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϭϬϬй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 175 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϰϬϳ͘ϱ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϵ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϭ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϳ͘ϯ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϯϭ͘ϲ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϴй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϳй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϳϰ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϱ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϳϱй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϱ͘ϱ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϲ͘ϱ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 176 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗dƵƌŬĞLJ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ dhZ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬdhZ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϴϰ͘ϯD Ϯϯϳϭ͘ϭΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ dƵƌŬĞLJ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϯ͘ϭϴ Ϭ͘ϳϲϬϳϲϱϱϱ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ Ϯϰй ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů Ϭ͘ϮϯϵϮϯϰϰϱ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ hƌďĂŶ ϳϲй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϳϭ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϱϭ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳϬ͘ϭ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϲϯ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϲ͘ϳ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϰ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϴ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϰϳ͘ϱ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϭй ϳй ϱϰ͘Ϯ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϴ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϭ͘ϭ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϱϮ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ Ϯϴй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϰй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϯ͘ϲ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϴϲ͘ϳ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϴϰ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ϯϲ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϴ ϱ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϴϲ͘ϳ ϴϰ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϴϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϬϴ ϳϯ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϲϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϯ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϰϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϯ͘ϲ ϮϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϯ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ Ϯ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϳϮ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϵϰϱ͘ϳ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϴ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϬϴ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ ϵй ϯй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϰ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϮ͘ϲ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϵ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϴϳ͘ϴ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϵ͘ϰ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϴϴй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϴ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 177 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϱϲϵ͘ϴ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϱ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϱ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ͘ϱ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϰϲ͘ϵ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϭϭй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϱй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϮϭ͘Ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϳϰ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϴϰй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϲ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϳ͘ϭ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϱ͘Ϯ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϭ͘ϭ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 178 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ dƵƌŬŵĞŶŝƐƚĂŶ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ƚŬŵ ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬƚŬŵ͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϲD ϵϲ͘ϮΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ dƵƌŬŵĞŶŝƐƚĂŶ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϭϭ Ϭ͘ϱϮϲϬϲϲϯϱϭ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϵ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ZƵƌĂů hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϳϯϵϯϯϲϰϵ ϰϳй ϱϯй ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϭ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϳϵ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϳ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϭϬ͘ϴ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϯ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϰϮ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ Ϭй ϭϭй ϰϳ͘Ϯ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ Ϭ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϲϳ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϰϳй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϰϮй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭ͘ϰ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϯϴ͘ϵ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϵ͘Ϯ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϭϬϬ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϯϱ Ϯϴ͘ϵ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϯϬ Ϯϱ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϲϯ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϮϬ ϭϵ͘Ϯ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ Ͳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϱ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϭϬ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϱ ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϲϰ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϵϰϱ͘ϳ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϯ͘ϵ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϮ͘ϵ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϬϬ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϭϬϬй ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 179 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϮϯϮ͘ϳ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϴ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϳ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϰϳ͘ϲ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϯй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϯй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϵ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϰй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϰ͘ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯ͘ϳ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 180 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗hŬƌĂŝŶĞ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ hzƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϮϭ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϭϰϳ͘Ϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϮϮ͘ϵ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϰ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ ϵ͘ϯ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϬ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϮϬ͘ϴ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϴϲ͘ϵ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϭϰй ϵй ϱϱ͘ϳ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϭϰ͘Ϯ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϭϯ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ Ϯϭй ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϱϲй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϳ͘ϴ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϰ͘ϴ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϮ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ Ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϯ͘ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ Ϯϱ ϮϮ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ϮϬ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϰϬ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϭϱ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ ϳ͘ϴ ϭϬ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ͘ϴ ϱ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϭ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϵ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϵϰϱ͘ϳ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ƌŝƉ Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϯ͘ϳ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ &ůŽŽĚ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϵ͘ϱ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϮϮй ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳ͘ϳ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϮϬ͘Ϯ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ Ͳ ϳϬ͘ϴ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ Ͳ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ ϳϴй Appendix B 181 ϳϴй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϵϲϭ͘ϱ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϮ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϲϴ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϱ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϮϮй ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϰϮй ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϯϱϯ͘Ϯ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϲ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ϯϲй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϰ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰϭ͘ϲ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯϲ͘ϱ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϮϮ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů 182 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia ŽƵŶƚƌLJƉĂŐĞ͗ hnjďĞŬŝƐƚĂŶ tĂƚĞƌ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ Ƶnjď ͗ͬhƐĞƌƐͬĚŽĨϭϵͬƌŽƉďŽdžͬ//^ͬtͺͬZĞŐŝŽŶĂůͬͺZĞƉŽƌƚͬϯͺĐŽƵŶƚƌLJͺĂŶŶĞdžĞƐͬŵĂƉƐͬƵnjď͘ƉŶŐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 'W ΀ŝůůŝŽŶƐ΁ ϯϰ͘ϮD Ϯϲϰ͘ϳΨ  /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ sĂůƵĞ ďĞƐƚ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚZƵƌĂů ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ hnjďĞŬŝƐƚĂŶ ^ŽĐŝĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϭ͘ϬϮ Ϭ͘ϱϬϰϵϱϬϰϵϱ ϲ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ ϳ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϵϳ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϭϭϬ hƌďĂŶ ϴ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ ZƵƌĂů ZƵƌĂů hƌďĂŶ Ϭ͘ϰϵϱϬϰϵϱϬϱ ϵ ĂƐŝĐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞůLJŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ƌƵƌĂůͬƵƌďĂŶ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϬй ϱϬй ϭϬ ŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚůŝĨĞLJĞĂƌƐĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀>zƐ΁ ϮϬϭϵ Ϯϯϴ ϭϱϰ͘ϭ ϵϯϱ ϭϭ DŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJƌĂƚĞĚƵĞƚŽƵŶƐĂĨĞt^,΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ ϰ ϭϮ People affected ​by floods [People per 100k] ϭϵϴϬͲϮϬϮϭ ϱ͘Ϯ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϵϭϱ ϭϯ WĞŽƉůĞůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϵ ϯϰ͘ϳ ϳϲ͘ϭ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ sĂůƵĞĂĚĚĞĚйŽĨ'W ϭϰ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂĨĞůLJƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϯϮ ϱϱ͘ϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϵ Ϯϱ͘ϭ ϭϱ tĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŐŽŽĚĂŵďŝĞŶƚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϰ Ͳ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϵϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ KƚŚĞƌ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϯϭ͘ϲ ϭϲ tĞƚůĂŶĚůŽƐƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϮϭ ϱϲ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϳй Ϯϱй ϯϲ ϭϳ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞ΀ĐŵͬLJƌ΁ ϭϵϵϬͲϮϬϭϰ Ϭ͘ϭϳ Ϭ͘Ϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϰ KƚŚĞƌ ϳ͘ϯ ϭϴ tĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞƐƐƌĂƚŝŽ΀Ͳ΁ ϮϬϭϵ ϲϮ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϲϳ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϯϲй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ϯϮй ϭϵ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗KǀĞƌĂůů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭ͘ϯ ϮϮ͘Ϯ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ KǀĞƌĂůů ϮϬ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ ϰϳ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯϭ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϮ ϯϱ͘ϳ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ ϮϮ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͗DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ ϮϬϭϴ ϭϰ ϳϴ͘ϰ ϯϲϵ͘ϲ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǁĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Ϯϯ 'ƌŽƐƐǀĂůƵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϳ ϵϬ͘Ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϲ ϭϬϬ Ϯϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŚLJĚƌŽĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬ͘ϲ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ ΀Ψh^ͬŵϯ΁ Ϯϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŚLJĚƌŽƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚĂůƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϬ ϭ ϰ͘ϭ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϭϱ ϭϰ ϭϮ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ Ϯϲ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨtZDŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϭϬ ϲϬ ϲϯ͘ϲ ϵϯ ϭϬ Ϯϳ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ΀ƌĂƚŝŽ΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϵ Ϯϴ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐŚĂƌĞŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐ΀й΁ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱ ϭ͘ϯ Ϯϵ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϯϬ ZŝǀĞƌŝŶĞĨůŽŽĚƌŝƐŬͲŵŽŶĞƚĂƌLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϭ ϭ ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ KǀĞƌĂůů ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϯϭ ƌŽƵŐŚƚZŝƐŬ΀ϭͲϱ΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϯ͘ϴ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ ϯϯ ĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ/tZDŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϰϴ ϲϭ ϵϭ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ůĂŶĚďLJŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ϯϰ ĂŵƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂ΁ ϮϬϮϬ ϲϴϴ͘ϳ ϭϯϵϴ ϱϱϬϳ͘ϴ ϯϱ tĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƉŝƉĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϬ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ΀й΁ ϯϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞďLJƐĞǁĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϬ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϳ EŽŶͲƌĞǀĞŶƵĞǁĂƚĞƌ΀й΁ ϮϬϮϬ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ƌŝƉ Ϭй Ϭй ϯϴ ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ΀ŚŽƵƌƐ΁ Ͳ Ϯϭ͘ϯ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϰ ϯϵ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ΀й΁ Ͳ ϰϰ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘ϲ ϰϬ ƵůƚŝǀĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϳ͘ϱ Ϯϱ ϭϭϯ͘Ϯ ϰϭ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϵ͘Ϯ ϳϯ͘ϱ ϭϬϬ &ůŽŽĚ &ůŽŽĚ ϭϬϬй ϰϮ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϵ ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ ϰϯ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚǁŝƚŚĚƌŝƉŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϰ ƌŝƉ Appendix B 183 ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵƉƉůLJ ϰϰ dŽƚĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϱϬϰ͘ϴ ϰϳϯϵ͘ϯ ϯϭϬϱϮ͘ϴ ^ĞĐƚŽƌĂů ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů ϰϱ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϰ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ΀й΁ ϰϲ ^ŚĂƌĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϲ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϲϮ ϰϴ dƌĂŶƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϴϬ͘ϭ ϯϵ͘Ϯ ϵϳ ϰϵ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ/ŶĚĞdž΀ϬͲϭϬϬ΁ Ͳ ϱϯ͘ϴ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϭϬϬ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů ϱϬ /ŶƚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ ϰй /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϭ ^ĞĂƐŽŶĂůsĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ΀Žs΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭ͘Ϯ ϰй ŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚ͗ĞŵĂŶĚ ϱϮ tĂƚĞƌtŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀ŵϯͬĐĂƉŝƚĂͬLJĞĂƌ΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭϴϭϯ͘ϲ ϳϰϳ͘ϵ ϰϳϳϳ͘ϳ ϱϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϵ ϴϭ͘ϴ ϵϵ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϵϮй ϱϰ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϭ ϭϴ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϱϱ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϵϮ͘ϯ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϯ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ϱϲ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϯ͘ϲ ϯϬ ϴϭ͘ϵ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ϱϳ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞƚŽƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁĂů΀й΁ ϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϮϮ ϰ͘ϭ ϭϳ͘ϵ ϳϱ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů References Absacl, E., l. Gómez-Coma, I. Ortiz, and A. Ortiz. 2022. “Global Becher, O. R., M. Smilovic, J. Verschuur, R. Pant, S. Tramberend, Diagnosis of Nitrate Pollution in Groundwater and Review and J. Hall 2024. “Closing the Climate Gap for Water Supply of Removal Technologies.” Science of the Total Environment Utilities.” Communications Earth & Environment 5 (1): article 810: 152233. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152233. 356. doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01272-3. ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2020. Sustainable Water Bezak, N., P. Panagos, and M. Mikos. 2023. “Brief Supply and Sanitation Sector Development Program: Report Communication: A First Hydrological Investigation of and Recommendation of the President. Mandaluyong, Extreme August 2023 Floods in Slovenia, Europe.” Natural Philippines: ADB. https://www.adb.org/projects/ Hazards and Earth System Sciences 23 (12): 3885–93. documents/geo-51132-002-rrp. doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-1979. ADB. 2022. A Governance Approach to Urban Water Bisselink, B., J. Bernhard, E. Gelati, M. Adamovic, C. Jacobs, Public–Private Partnerships. Case Studies and L. Mentaschi, C. Lavalle, and A. De Roo. 2018. Impact Lessons from Asia and the Pacific. Mandaluyong, of a Changing Climate, Land Use, and Water Usage on Philippines: ADB. https://www.adb.org/publications/ Water Resources in the Danube River Basin. Luxembourg: governance-approach-urban-water-ppps. Publications Office of the European Union. ADRC (Asian Disaster Reduction Center). 2006. Tajikistan: Brakenridge, G. R. n.d. Global Active Archive of Large Country Report for the Asian Disaster Reduction Center. Flood Events. Database. Dartmouth Flood Observatory, Kobe, Japan: ADRC. University of Colorado. http://floodobservatory.colorado. edu/Archives/. Accessed February 1, 2024. Ambulkar, A., and J. A. Nathanson. 2024. “Wastewater Treatment.” In Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www. Brocklehurst, C., and T. Slaymaker. 2015. “Continuity in britannica.com/technology/wastewater-treatment. Drinking Water Supply.” PLoS Medicine 12 (10): e1001894. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001894. AQUASTAT. 2023. Geo-Referenced Database on Dams. https://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/databases/dams. Burek, P., Y. Satoh, T. Kahil, T. Tang, P. Greve, M. Smilovic, L. Accessed February 1, 2024. Guillaumont, F. Zhao, and Y. Wada. 2020. “Development of the Community Water Model (CWatM v1.04): A High- AQUASTAT. 2024. FAO AQUASTAT Dissemination System. Resolution Hydrological Model for Global and Regional https://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/. Accessed on February, Assessment of Integrated Water Resources Management.” 2024. Geoscientific Model Development 13 (7): 3267–98. doi:10.5194/gmd-13-3267-2020. Arnell, N. W., and S. N. Gosling. 2016. “The Impacts of Climate Change on River Flood Risk at the Global Scale.” Climatic CAREC (Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Change 134: 387–401. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1084-5. Program). 2022. Country Risk Profile: Georgia. TA-9878 REG: Developing a Disaster Risk Transfer Facility in the Central 186 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Region. Mandaluyong, EurEau. 2017. “Europe’s Water in Figures—2017 Edition.” Philippines: CAREC. https://www.eureau.org/resources/publications/1460- eureau-data-report-2017-1/file. Accessed January 31, CAREC. 2023. “Water Sector Financing in Kazakhstan.” Policy 2024. Brief. https://www.carecinstitute.org/wp-content/ uploads/2023/03/Policy-Brief_Water-sector-financing-in- European Commission. 2021. “A European Overview on Kazakhstan.pdf. the Progress in the Implementation of the Member States’ Programmes of Measures under the WFD. Damania, R., S. Desbureaux, M. Hyland, A. Islam, S. 6th Implementation Reports.” https://environment. Moore, A. S. Rodella, J. Russ, and E. Zaveri. 2017. ec.europa.eu/topics/water/water-framework-directive/ Uncharted Waters: The New Economics of Water implementation-reports_en. Scarcity and Variability. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1179-1. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. “Major Hydrological Basins of the World.” Dogaru, D., W. Mauser, D. Balteanu, T. Krimly, C. Lippert, Updated February 2, 2011. https://data.apps.fao.org/ M. Sima, J. Szolgay, S. Kohnova, M. Hanel, M. Nikolova, catalog//iso/7707086d-af3c-41cc-8aa5-323d8609b2d1 S. Szalai, and A. Frank. 2019. “Irrigation Water Use in Accessed October 1, 2023. the Danube Basin: Facts, Governance and Approach to Sustainability.” Journal of Environmental Geography 12 FAO. 2017. Drought Characteristics and Management in Central (3–4): 1–12. doi:10.2478/jengeo-2019-0007. Asia and Turkey. FAO Water Report 44. Rome: FAO. DWP (Danube Water Program). 2015. Water and Wastewater Fenwick and Khan. 2023. Public Expenditure Review (PER) Services in the Danube Region. A State of the Sector. in the Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) and Irrigation Washington, DC: World Bank. Sectors for the Danube Region: An “At-a-glance” Assessment of Six Countries. Unpublished DWP. 2019. Water and Wastewater Services in the Danube Region: A State of the Sector 2018 Update. Washington, DC: Fridman, D., P. Burek, E. Politti, R. Sahu, M. Wens, and T. Kahil. World Bank. 2023. “Western Balkan and Eastern Europe Drought Impact Assessment—Regional Report.” Unpublished ECR (European Commission of the Regions). 2022. “Water report prepared for the World Bank Group. Management Institutions.” https://portal.cor.europa.eu/ divisionpowers/Pages/Croatia-Water-Management.aspx. Gallop, P., and A. Ralev. 2022. Why Hydropower in Southeast Accessed June 21, 2022. Europe Is a Risky Investment. Report by WWF, Euronatur, Riverwatch, CEE Bankwatch Network. https://balkanrivers. EDB (Eurasian Development Bank). 2023. “Efficient Irrigation net/uploads/files/3/Why_hydropower_in_southeast_ and Water Conservation in Central Asia.” https://eabr.org/ Europe_is_a_risky_investment.pdf. upload/iblock/632/EDB_2023_Report-4_Irrigation_eng. pdf. Accessed February 2, 2023. Genina, M. 2007. “The Development of a New Water Code in the Republic of Kazakhstan.” Politikon: The IAPSS EEA (European Environment Agency). 2023a. “Economic Journal of Political Science 13 (1): 21–31. doi:10.22151/ Losses from Weather- and Climate-Related Extremes politikon.13.1.2. in Europe.” https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/ analysis/indicators/economic-losses-from-climate- George, J., Y. R. Hoo, Q. Wang, A. Bahuguna, and L. Andres. related#:~:text=The%20most%20expensive%20 2024. Funding a Water-Secure Future: An Assessment of hazards%20during,(EUR%2017%20billion)%2C%20the. Global Public Spending. Washington, DC: World Bank. Accessed February 2, 2024. Gozlan, R. E., B. K. Karimov, E. Zadereev, D. Kuznetsova, and EEA. 2023b. “Water Quality Element Status for EU Danube S. Brucet. 2019. “Status, Trends, and Future Dynamics of Countries.” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/ Freshwater Ecosystems in Europe and Central Asia.” Inland european-waters/water-quality-and-water-assessment/ Waters 9 (1): 78–94. doi:10.1080/20442041.2018.1510271. water-assessments/quality-elements-of-water-bodies. Haase, P., D. E. Bowler, N. J. Baker, P. Haase, D. E. Bowler, N. EEA. 2018. European waters: Assessment of status and J. Baker, N. Bonada, S. Domisch, J. R. Garcia Marquez, pressures 2018. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ J. Heino, D. Hering, S. C. Jähnig, A. Schmidt-Kloiber, R. state-of-water. Stubbington, Florian Altermatt, M. Álvarez-Cabria, G. Amatulli, D. G. Angeler, G. Archambaud-Suard, I. Arrate References 187 Jorrín, T. Aspin, I. Azpiroz, I. Bañares, J. Barquín Ortiz, C. ICPDR. 2021. Danube River Basin Management Plan. Vienna: L. Bodin, L. Bonacina, R. Bottarin, M. Cañedo-Argüelles, ICPDR. https://www.icpdr.org/main/publications/danube- Z. Csabai, T. Datry, E. de Eyto, A. Dohet, G. Dörflinger, E. river-basin-management-plan-drbmp-update-2021. Drohan, K. A. Eikland, J. England, T. E. Eriksen, V. Evtimova, Accessed May 18, 2023. M. J. Feio, M. Ferréol, M. Floury, M. Forcellini, M. A. Eurie Forio, R. Fornaroli, N. Friberg, J. F. Fruget, G. Georgieva, P. ICPDR. 2024. “Navigation.” https://www.icpdr.org/tasks- Goethals, M. A. S. Graça, W. Graf, A. House, K. L. Huttunen, topics/water-users/navigation#:~:text=Ships%20can%20 T. C. Jensen, . K. Johnson, J. Iwan Jones, J. Kiesel, L. navigate%20the%20Danube,the%20Black%20Sea%20 Kuglerová, A. Larrañaga, P. Leitner, L. L’Hoste, M. H. Lizée, A. in%20Romania. W. Lorenz, A. Maire, J. A. Manzanos Arnaiz, B. G. McKie, A. Millán, D. Monteith, T. Muotka, J. F. Murphy, D. Ozolins, R. ICWC (Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Paavola, P. Paril, F. J. Peñas, F. Pilotto, M. Polášek, J. Jessen Central Asia). 2023. “Main Challenges Faced by the Region Rasmussen, M. Rubio, D. Sánchez-Fernández, L. Sandin, R. Regarding Water.” http://www.icwc-aral.uz/problem.htm. B. Schäfer, A. Scotti, L. Q. Shen, A. Skuja, S. Stoll, M. Straka, H. Timm, V. G. Tyufekchieva, I. Tziortzis, Y. Uzunov, G. H. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2024. “Countries and van der Lee, R. Vannevel, E. Varadinova, G. Várbíró, G. Velle, Regions.” https://www.iea.org/countries. Accessed P. F. M. Verdonschot, R. C. M. Verdonschot, Y. Vidinova, P. February 2, 2024. Wiberg-Larsen and E. A. R. Welti. 2023. “The Recovery of European Freshwater Biodiversity Has Come to a Halt.” IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) and Nature 620: 582–88. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06400-1. Veolia Water North America. 2015. The Murky Future of Global Water Quality: New Global Study Projects Rapid Hasan, M. F., R. Smith, S. Vajedian, R. Pommerenke, and S. Deterioration in Water Quality. Washington, DC: IFPR and Majumdar. 2023. “Global Land Subsidence Mapping Veolia Water North America. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ Reveals Widespread Loss of Aquifer Storage Capacity.” ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/129349. Nature Communications 14 (10): 6180. doi:10.1038/ s41467-023-41933-z. IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies). 2003. Information Bulletin. Azerbaijan/Caucasus: Howard, G., R. Calow, A. Macdonald, and J. Bartram. 2016. Floods. Information Bulletin No. 2/2003. Geneva: IFRC. “Climate Change and Water and Sanitation: Likely Impacts and Emerging Trends for Action.” Annual Review IFRC. 2010. DREF Operation Final Report. Czech Republic: of Environment and Resources 41 (1): 253–76. doi:10.1146/ Floods. DREF Operation No. MRDCZ011. Geneva: IFRC. annurev-environ-110615-085856. IFRC. 2023. DREF Operation. Slovenia Flood 2023. Geneva: IFRC. Hutton, G. 2012. Global Costs and Benefits of Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Interventions to Reach the MDG Target IGRAC (International Groundwater Resources Assessment and Universal Coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization. Centre). 2009. Global Overview of Saline Groundwater Occurrence and Genesis. Delft, Netherlands: IGRAC. IBNET (International Benchmarking Network). n.d. Database. https://www.un-igrac.org/sites/default/files/resources/ files/Global%20Overview%20of%20Saline%20 https://www.ib-net.org/. Groundwater%20Occurences%20and%20Genesis.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2024. ICPDR (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River). 2015. Groundwater: The River’s Invisible IGRAC. 2021. “Transboundary Aquifers of the World Twin. Vienna: ICPDR. https://www.icpdr.org/publications/ Map 2021.” https://www.un-igrac.org/resource/ groundwater-rivers-invisible-twin. transboundary-aquifers-world-map-2021. ICPDR. 2018a. Lessons from the Danube. A World Leader ILA (International Law Association). 1996. “The Helsinki in Transboundary River Basin Management. Vienna: Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International ICPDR. https://www.icpdr.org/sites/default/files/nodes/ Rivers.” International Water Law Project. https://www. documents/lessons-from-the-danube-a-world-leader-in- internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/intldocs/ILA/ILA- transboundary-river-basin-management.pdf. HelsinkiRules1966-as_amended.pdf. ICPDR. 2018b. Revision and Update of the Danube Study, Final ILA. 2004. “Berlin Conference (2004):Water Resources Report. Vienna: ICPDR. https://www.icpdr.org/main/ sites/default/files/nodes/documents/danube_climate_ Law.” International Water Law Project. https://www. adaptation_study_2018.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2023. internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/intldocs/ILA/ ILA_Berlin_Rules-2004.pdf. 188 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2022. Feeling the Heat: Science and Pollution Research 27 (33): 41157–74. Adapting to Climate Change in the Middle East and Central doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10354-6. Asia. Washington, DC: IMF. Li, W.-W., H.-Q. Yu, and B. E. Rittmann. 2015. “Chemistry: IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). 2018. “Share Reuse Water Pollutants.” Nature 528 (7580): 29–31. of Hydropower in Total Primary Energy Supply.” https:// doi:10.1038/528029a. www.irena.org/Statistics/Statistical-Profiles. Liu, Y., P. Wang, H. Ruan, T. Wang, J. Yu, Y. Cheng, and R. JMP (Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Kulmatov. 2020. “Sustainable Use of Groundwater Sanitation and Hygiene). 2020. “Estimates for Drinking Resources in the Transboundary Aquifers of the Five Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Services by Country (2000– Central Asian Countries: Challenges and Perspectives.” 2020).” Database. https://washdata.org/data/country/ Water 12 (8): 2101. doi:10.3390/w12082101. WLD/household/download. Lu, L., J. S. Guest, C. A. Peters, X. Zhu, G. H. Rau, and Z. J. Ren. JMP. 2022. “Data.” Database. https://washdata.org/data. 2018. “Wastewater Treatment for Carbon Capture and Utilization.” Nature Sustainability 1, 750–58. doi:10.1038/ Jones, B., and B. C. O’Neill. 2016. “Spatially Explicit Global s41893-018-0187-9. Population Scenarios Consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.” Environmental Research Letters McCaffrey, S. 2003. The Law of International Watercourses. 11 (8): 084003. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084003. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, E. R., M. T. Van Vliet, M. Qadir, and M. F. Bierkens. 2021. McCracken, M., and A. T. Wolf. 2019. “Updating the Register “Country-Level and Gridded Estimates of Wastewater of International River Basins of the World.” International Production, Collection, Treatment and Reuse.” Earth Journal of Water Resources Development 35 (5): 732–82. doi: System Science Data 13 (2): 237–54. doi:10.1594/ 10.1080/07900627.2019.1572497.¬¬¬ PANGAEA.918731. Nikolova, M., and V. Nikolov. 2021. “Flood Risk from Kennedy, D., S. Fankhauser, and M. Raiser. 2003. “Low Dangerous Dams in Bulgaria.” SocioBrains 78: 29–41. Pressure, High Tension: The Energy-Water Nexus in the https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350889598_ CIS-7 Countries.” In The Low-Income Countries of the FLOOD_RISK_FROM_DANGEROUS_DAMS_IN_BULGARIA. Commonwealth of Independent States, edited by S. Sattar and C. R. Shiells, chapter 11. Washington, DC: International Oberlack, C., and K. Eisenack. 2018. “Archetypical Barriers to Monetary Fund. Adapting Water Governance in River Basins to Climate Change.” Journal of Institutional Economics 14 (3): 527–55. Kuljanishvili, T., L. Mumladze, B. Japoshvili, N. Mustafayev, S. doi:10.1017/S1744137417000509. Ibrahimov, J. Patoka, S. Pipoyan, and L. Kalous. 2021. “The First Unified Inventory of Non-Native Fishes of the South OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Caucasian Countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.” Development). 2011a. Benefits of Investing in Water and Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 422 Sanitation: An OECD Perspective. OECD Studies on Water. (32): 1–16. doi:10.1051/kmae/2021028. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264100817-en. Lehner, B., and G. Grill. 2013. “Global River Hydrography and OECD. 2011b. Ten Years of Water Sector Reform in Eastern Network Routing: Baseline Data and New Approaches Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. OECD Studies on Water. to Study the World’s Large River Systems.” Hydrological Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264118430-en. Processes 27 (15): 2171–86. doi:10.1002/hyp.9740. OECD. 2021a. Developing a Water Policy Outlook for Georgia, Leroy, S. A. G., R. Geacheva, and A. Medvedev. 2022. the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. Paris: OECD Publishing. “Natural Hazards and Disasters around the Caspian doi:10.1787/512a52aa-en. Sea.” Natural Hazards 114 (9): 2435–78. doi:10.1007/ s11069-022-05522-5. OECD. 2021b. Sustainable Infrastructure for Low-carbon Development in the EU Eastern Partnership: Hotspot Analysis Li, C., X. Gao, S. Li, and J. Bundschuh. 2020. “A Review of and Needs Assessment, Green Finance and Investment. Paris: the Distribution, Sources, Genesis, and Environmental OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/c1b2b68d-en. Concerns of Salinity in Groundwater.” Environmental OECD. 2022a. “Background Note: Cost Recovery. For the Thematic Workshop on 31 May–1 June 2022.” https:// References 189 t4.oecd.org/water/background-note-cost-recovery-31- Rakhmatullaev, S., F. Huneau, P. Le Coustumer, M. Motelica- may-1-june-2022.pdf. Heino, and M. Bakiev. 2010. “Facts and Perspectives of Water Reservoirs in Central Asia: A Special Focus on OECD. 2022b. Financing a Water Secure Future. OECD Uzbekistan.” Water 2 (2): 307–20. doi:10.3390/w2020307. Studies on Water. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/ a2ecb261-en. Rentschler, J., M. Salhab, and B. A. Jafino. 2022. “Flood Exposure and Poverty in 188 Countries.” OECD and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of Nature Communications 13 (1): 3527. doi:10.1038/ the United Nations). 2023. OECD-FAO Agricultural s41467-022-30727-4. Outlook 2023–2032. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1787/08801ab7-en. Reyer, C. P. O., I. M. Otto, S. Adams, T. Albrecht, F. Baarsch, M. Cartsburg, D. Coumou, A. Eden, E. Ludi, R. Marcus, M. O’Hara, S., ed. 2003. Drop by Drop: Water Management in Mengel, B. Mosello, A. Robinson, C.-F. Schleussner, O. the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. Budapest: Open Serdeczny, and J. Stagl. 2017. “Climate Change Impacts Society Institute. in Central Asia and Their Implication for Development.” Regional Environmental Change 17 (6): 1639–50. Oweis, T. 2014. “The Need for a Paradigm Change: Agriculture doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0893-z. in Water-Scarce MENA Region.” In Water Scarcity, Security and Democracy: A Mediterranean Mosaic, edited by G. Risk Management Solutions. 2003. “Central Europe Flooding, Holst-Warhaft, T. Steenhuis and F. de Châtel, 114–23. August 2002.” Risk Management Solutions, Newark, CA. Athens: Global Water Partnership Mediterranean, Cornell https://forms2.rms.com/rs/729-DJX-565/images/fl_2002_ University, and Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future. central_europe_flooding.pdf. Pala, C. 2011. “In Northern Aral Sea, Rebound Comes Roson, R., and R. Damania. 2017. “Simulating the with a Big Catch.” Science 334 (6054): 303. doi:10.1126/ Macroeconomic Impact of Future Water Scarcity.” science.334.6054.303. Working paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. doi:10.2139/ ssrn.2737353. Palazzo, Amanda, Hugo Valin, Miroslav Batka, and Petr Havlík. 2019. “Investment Needs for Irrigation Infrastructure Rossi, L., M. Wens, H. De Moel, D. Cotti, A. Sabino Siemons, along Different Socioeconomic Pathways.” Policy Research A. Toreti, W. Maetens, D. Masante, A. Van Loon, M. Working Paper No. 8744, World Bank, Washington, DC. Hagenlocher, R. Rudari, G. Naumann, M. Meroni, F. Avanzi, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31307. M. Isabellon, and P. Barbosa. 2023. European Drought Risk Atlas. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Perera, D., S. Williams, and V. Smakhtin. 2023. “Present and Union. doi:10.2760/608737. Future Losses of Storage in Large Reservoirs Due to Sedimentation: A Country-Wise Global Assessment.” Samir, K. C., and W. Lutz. 2017. “The Human Core of the Sustainability 15 (1): 219. doi:10.3390/su15010219. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: Population Scenarios by Age, Sex and Level of Education for All Countries to 2100.” Pistocchi, A., L. Bontoux, and S. Rafael Almeida. 2020. Global Environmental Change 42: 181–92. doi:10.1016/j. Water Scenarios for the Danube River Basin: Future gloenvcha.2014.06.004. Challenges and Preparedness. A Foresight Study to Inform Water Management in the Danube River Basin. Santini, M., S. Noce, M. Mancini, and L. A. Caporaso. 2023. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. “Global Multiscale SPEI Dataset under an Ensemble doi:10.2760/134358. Approach.” Data 8 (2): 36. doi:10.3390/data8020036. Podgorski, J., and M. Berg. 2020. “Global Threat of Arsenic in Sara, J. J., and T. Proskuryakova. 2022. “Central Asia: At the Groundwater.” Science 368 (6493): 845–50. doi:10.1126/ Confluence of Global Water Action and Climate Resilience science.aba1510. Dushanbe Conference to Emphasize Role of Water in Sustainable Development.” The Water Blog, June 7. https:// Pohl, B., A. Kramer, W. Hull, S. Blumstein, I. Abdullaev, J. blogs.worldbank.org/water/central-asia-confluence- Kazbekov, T. Reznikova, E. Strikeleva, E. Interwies, and S. global-water-action-and-climate-resilience-dushanbe- Görlitz. 2017. Rethinking Water in Central Asia: The Costs of conference. Inaction and Benefits of Water Cooperation. Berlin: Swiss Agency of Development and Cooperation. Satoh, Y., T. Kahil, E. Byers, P. Burek, G. Fischer, S. Tramberend, P. Greve, M. Flörke, S. Eisner, N. Hanasaki, and P. Magnuszewski. 2017. “Multi‐model and Multi‐scenario 190 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia Assessments of Asian Water Futures: The Water Futures Model.” Geoscientific Model Development 11 (6): 2429–53. and Solutions (WFaS) Initiative.” Earth’s Future 5 (7): 823–52. doi:10.5194/gmd-11-2429-2018. doi:10.1002/2016EF000503. Tellman, B., J. A. Sullivan, C. Kuhn, A. J. Kettner, C. S. Doyle, Schmidt, G., A. do Ó, A. Markowska, C. Benítez-Sanz, C. G. R. Brakenridge, T. A. Erickson and D. A. Slayback. Tetelea, D. Cinova, E. Stonevičius, E. Kampa, I. Vroom, J. 2021. “Satellite Imaging Reveals Increased Proportion Féher, J. Rouillard, K. Väljataga, L. Navas, L. Blanka, L. De of Population Exposed to Floods.” Nature 596: 80–86. Stefano, M. Jones, M. Dekker, O. Gustafsson, P. Lundberg, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03695-w. P. Pengal, T. Geidel, T. Dworak, T. Zamparutti, and Z. Lukacova. 2023. Stock-Taking Analysis and Outlook of Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. Drought Policies, Planning and Management in EU Member 2018. Oregon State University. https:// States. Final Report. Under Contract: Technical and Scientific transboundarywaters.ceoas.oregonstate.edu/ Support to the European Drought Observatory (EDO) for transboundary-freshwater-diplomacy-database. Resilience and Adaptation—Lot 2: In-depth Assessment of Drought Management Plans and a Report on Climate Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme. 2016. http:// Adaptation Actions against Drought in Different Sectors www.geftwap.org/. (ENV/2021/OP/0009). Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment. Tsegai, D., S. Adaawen, and F. Girault. 2021. Preliminary Analysis of the National Drought Plans. Bonn, Germany: Simonovic, S. P., Z. W. Kundzewicz, and N. Wright. 2021. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. “Floods and the COVID-19 Pandemic—a New Double Hazard Problem.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 8 UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat (2): e1509. doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1509. Desertification). 2020. Azerbaijan—National Drought Plan. Bonn, Germany: UNCCD. Spang, E. S., W. R. Moomaw, K. S. Gallagher, P. H. Kirshen, and D.H. Marks. 2014. “The Water Consumption of UNCCD. 2021. Regional Strategy for Drought Management and Energy Production: An International Comparison.” Mitigation in Central Asia for 2021–2030. Drought Strategy. Environmental Research Letters 9 (10): 105002. Bonn, Germany: UNCCD. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105002. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2010. Strong, C., S. Kuzma, S. Vionnet, and P. Reig. 2020. “Achieving Assessment of Water Sector in Turkmenistan. New York: Abundance: Understanding the Cost of a Sustainable UNDP. http://www.cawater-info.net/bk/water_law/pdf/ Water Future.” https://www.wri.org/research/achieving- tm_water_sector_assessment_en.pdf. Accessed March 27, abundance-understanding-cost-sustainable-water- 2024. future. UNDP. 2022. Analysis of Legal and Regulatory Framework for Strosser, P., G. Delacámara, R. van Druinen, G. De Paoli, Disaster Risk Knowledge Component of Multi-hazard Early and I. Kirhensteine. 2021. Economic Data Related to the Warning System in Georgia. New York: UNDP. https://www. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive and undp.org/georgia/publications/early-warning-legal- the Floods Directive and the Financing of Measures. Final review. Accessed January 16, 2024. Study. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). publication/9e25fb48-5969-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1/ 2018. Surface Waters Quality Monitoring Systems In Central language-en. Asia: Needs Assessment. Geneva: UNECE. https://unece. org/fileadmin/DAM/env/Projects_in_Central_Asia/ Strosser, P., G. De Paoli, and T. Efimova. 2017. “The Potential SURFACE_WATERS_QUALITY_MONITORING_SYSTEMS_ Benefits of Transboundary Co-operation in Georgia and IN_CENTRAL_ASIA_NEEDS_ASSESSMENT.pdf. Azerbaijan: Kura River Basin.” OECD Environment Working Paper No. 114, Organisation for Economic Co-operation UNECE. 2020. Projects in Central Asia to Support the and Development, Paris. doi:10.1787/a14da8ec-en. Implementation of the UNW Convention. Geneva: UNECE. https://unece.org/environment-policy/water/ Sutanudjaja, E. H., R. Van Beek, N. Wanders, Y. Wada, J. H. areas-work-convention/projects-caucasus. Bosmans, N. Drost, R. J. Van Der Ent, I. E. De Graaf, J. M. Hoch, K. De Jong, and D. Karssenberg. 2018. “PCR-GLOBWB UNECE and Ministry of Sustainable Development and 2: A 5 Arcmin Global Hydrological and Water Resources Tourism. 2016. “Voluntary National Reviews at the HLPF References 191 2016 Montenegro.” https://unece.org/unece-and-sdgs/ Westphal, M. I., M. Mehtiyev, M. Shvangiradze, and V. sdgs-region Accessed February 23, 2023. Tonoyan. 2011. Regional Climate Change Impacts Study for the South Caucasus Region. New York: United Nations UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and UNEP- Development Programme. DHI. n.d. IWRM Data Portal. Tracking SDG 6.5.1. Country Reports. Database. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/ WHO (World Health Organization). 2023a. Burden of Disease country-reports. Attributable to Unsafe Drinking-Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, 2019 Update. Geneva: WHO. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 2020. UN Water-SDG 6 Data Portal. WHO. 2023b. Death Rate Attributed to Unsafe Water, Database. https://sdg6data.org. Sanitation and Hygiene.” Dataset. https://ourworldindata. org/grapher/mortality-rate-attributable-to-wash. USAID. 2017b. Climate Risk Profile: Georgia. Washington, DC: USAID. Wichelns, D., O. Anarbekov, K. Jumaboev, and H. Manthrithilake. 2010. “Irrigation Pricing Alternatives for USAID. 2020. Water Sector Development in Central Asia and Water User Associations in Central Asia.” In Proceedings Afghanistan. Status Review and Development Options. of the Republican Scientific Practical Conference on Washington, DC: USAID. https://carececo.org/upload/ Efficient Agricultural Water Use and Tropical Issues in Land iblock/6cb/Water%20Sector%20Development%20in%20 Reclamation, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, November 10–11, 2010. Central%20Asia%20and%20Afghanistan_compressed. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Ministry of Agriculture and Water pdf. Resources, International Water Management Institute, and Scientific Information Center of Interstate Commission for van Puijenbroek, P. J. T. M., A. H. W. Beusen, A. F. Bouwman, Water Coordination. T. Ayeri, M. Strokal, and N. Hofstra. 2023. “Quantifying Future Sanitation Scenarios and Progress Towards SDG World Bank. 2015a. “Share of Electricity Production from Targets in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.” Journal Hydropower.” https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ of Environmental Management 346: 118921. doi:10.1016/j. EG.ELC.HYRO.ZS. jenvman.2023.118921. World Bank. 2015b. Tbilisi Disaster Needs Assessment 2015. van Vliet, M., D. Wiberg, S. Leduc, and K. Riahi. 2016. “Power- Washington, DC: World Bank. Generation System Vulnerability and Adaptation to Changes in Climate and Water Resources.” Nature Climate World Bank. 2015c. “Water and Wastewater Services in the Change 6: 375–80. doi:10.1038/nclimate2903. Danube Region: A State of the Sector.” https://sos.danubis. org/. Vinokurov, E., A. Ahunbaev, N. Usmanov, T. Tsukarev, and T. Sarsembekov. 2021. “Investment in the Water and Energy World Bank. 2016. High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and Complex of Central Asia.” Reports and Working Papers the Economy. Washington, DC: World Bank. 21/3, Eurasian Development Bank, Almaty, Moscow. World Bank. 2017. Disaster Risk Finance Country Note: Armenia. Wada, Y., L. P. H. van Beek, C. M. van Kempen, J. W. T. M. Washington, DC: World Bank. Reckman, S. Vasak, and M. F. P. Bierkens. 2010. “Global Depletion of Groundwater Resources.” Geophysical World Bank. 2019. Central Asia: Regional Water Security Key Research Letters 37: L20402. doi:10.1029/2010GL044571. Messages. Report No: AUS0000774. Washington, DC: World Bank. Wada, Y., D. Wisser, and M. F. P. Bierkens. 2014. “Global Modeling of Withdrawal, Allocation and Consumptive World Bank. 2021a. Climate Risk Country Profile: Use of Surface Water and Groundwater Resources.” Earth Albania. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// System Dynamics 5 (1): 15–40. doi:10.5194/esd-5-15-2014. climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/15812-Albania%20Country%20Profile-WEB. Ward, P. J., B. Jongman, F. Sperna Weiland, A. Bouwman, R. Van pdf. Accessed June 6, 2023. Beek, M. F. P. Bierkens, W. Ligtvoet, and H. C. Winsemius. 2013. “Assessing Flood Risk at the Global Scale: Model World Bank. 2021b. Climate Risk Country Profile: Bosnia Setup, Results, and Sensitivity.” Environmental Research and Herzegovina. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// Letters 8: 044019. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044019. climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/ files/2021-07/15914-WB_Bosnia%20Country%20Profile- WEB%20%281%29.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2023. 192 A Blueprint for Resilience: Charting the Course for Water Security in Europe and Central Asia World Bank. 2021c. Climate Risk Country Profile: World Bank. 2024c. “Deep Dive Water Security Assessment Bulgaria. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// and Action Planning in Montenegro.” Unpublished report. climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/15848-WB_Bulgaria%20Country%20 World Bank. 2024d. “Deep Dive Water Security Assessment Profile-WEB.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2023. and Action Planning in Serbia.” Unpublished report. World Bank. 2021d. Climate Risk Country Profile: World Bank. 2024e. Georgia General Water Security Croatia. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/15847-WB_Croatia%20Country%20Profile- World Bank. 2024f. World Development Indicators WEB_0.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2023. Database. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/ world-development-indicators. World Bank. 2022a. “Europe and Central Asia Regional Water Security Initiative: Approach and Methodological World Resources Institute. n.d. “AQUEDUCT Water Risk Framework for the Assessment, Benchmarking and Action Atlas.” https://www.wri.org/applications/aqueduct/ Planning Tool.” Unpublished report. water-risk-atlas/. World Bank. 2022b. Kazakhstan Country Climate and WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2015. Towards Development Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. Sustainable Dam and Hydropower in the South Caucasus. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. World Bank. 2022c. Kyrgyz Republic—Climate Resilient Water Services Project. Project Appraisal Document No. PAD4677. WWF. 2022. Living Planet Report 2022—Building a Nature- Washington, DC: World Bank. Positive Society. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. World Bank. 2023a. “Albania Deep Dive Water Security Xanke, J., and T. Liesch. 2022. “Quantification and Possible Assessment and Action Planning (Deep Dive Country Causes of Declining Groundwater Resources in the Euro- Assessments).” Unpublished report. Mediterranean Region from 2003 to 2020.” Hydrogeology Journal 30: 379–400. doi:10.1007/s10040-021-02448- World Bank. 2023b. “Climate Change in Europe and Central 3Yoshino, N., N. Hendriyetty, D. Hondo, and M. Nakamura. Asia.” https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/brief/ 2022. “Private Financing for Water Infrastructure in Central climate-change-in-europe-and-central-asia. Asia.” In Unlocking Private Investment in Sustainable Infrastructure in Asia, edited by B. Grewal, N. Hendriyetty, I. World Bank. 2023c. Earthquake and Flood Risk Abdullaev, C. J. Kim, N. Yoshino, and E. Khan Ayoob Ayoobi, Assessment in Central Asia. Washington, DC: 155–70. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge. World Bank. http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/099559109182313173/ Yu, Winston, R. E. Cestti, and J. Young Lee. 2015. Toward IDU05865efa50d14c04efd0b20a0ead793a1fcf9. Integrated Water Resources Management in Armenia. Directions in Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2023d. The Regional Scientific Technical doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0335-2. Council: Enhancing Regional Cooperation on Disaster Risk Management. Washington, DC: Zaveri, E., R., Damania, and N. Engle. 2023. Droughts and World Bank. http://documents.worldbank. Deficits: Summary Evidence of the Global Impact on org/curated/en/099523509182330628/ Economic Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank. IDU09fe30f710b5ea0490b0ab880f20733d95982. Zoї Environment Network. 2014. Strengthening Cooperation World Bank. 2023e. Uzbekistan Country Climate and in Adaptation to Climate Change in Transboundary Basins Development Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. of the Chu and Talas Rivers (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan). Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. World Bank. 2024a. Armenia General Water Security Assessment. Draft report. https://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/en/099062424121038546/pdf/ P1700301619bb50718c6b1c554e0879f1e.pdf. World Bank. 2024b. “Deep Dive Water Security Assessment and Action Planning in Croatia.” Unpublished report. ABOUT THE GLOBAL DEPARTMENT FOR WATER The World Bank Group’s Global Department for Water brings together financing, knowledge, and implementation in one platform. By combining the Bank’s global knowledge with country investments, this model generates more firepower for transformational solutions to help countries grow sustainably. Please visit us at www.worldbank.org/water or follow us on X: @WorldBankWater. ABOUT GWSP This publication received the support of the Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership (GWSP). GWSP is a multidonor trust fund administered by the World Bank’s Water Global Practice and supported by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austria’s Federal Ministry of Finance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Denmark’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Spain’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, U.K. International Development, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Please visit us at www.worldbank.org/gwsp or follow us on X: @TheGwsp. P170030