Environment and Security: Transforming risks into cooperation

26

Environment and Security

trialized regions and especially China. The conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan have amplified the region’s overall insecu- rity, increasing the risk of critical infrastruc- ture becoming a target for terrorist attacks.

Furthermore other oil rich areas are increas- ingly prone to instability, making it imperative to protect – including by military means – in- vestments in the energy sector and ensure the constant flow of energy to the markets.

A sea or a lake? Beyond hydrology: the uncertain status of the Caspian Sea

The main question is whether the Caspian should be considered a sea or a lake. The answer to this question has considerable implications for use of the resources of both the Caspian’s surface waters and its sea- bed. If the Caspian counts as a sea then the United Nations Law of the Sea – the Montego Bay Convention of 1982 – would be the applicable body of law. In this case, each littoral state would be allotted a strip of coastal waters of a few tens of kilometres, or in other words 12 nautical miles of territo- rial waters as well as an exclusive economic zone where states have sovereign rights over surface water and seabed alike. From 1921 to 1991, the Caspian was consid- ered a lake, and its waters were consequently divided by extensions of the land borderlines by consensus of the bordering states, Iran and the USSR. The status of the Caspian was then regulated by bilateral international treaties and national legislation. The resources of the sea were considered to be the joint, exclusive prop- erty of the two littoral states (Djalili and Kellner, 2003; Granmayeh, 2004). With the break-up of the Soviet Union, the situation changed com- pletely. There were now five states (instead of two) each with an interest in the Caspian and its resources 21 . To date the five countries are still negotiating a regional convention on the legal status of the Caspian but an overarching agreement has yet to be reached on the divi- sion of the Caspian waters and – indirectly - its natural and mineral resources.

to its natural resources. Clear and agreed reg- ulations increase the predictability of the situ- ation, while at the same time decreasing the political risks related to possible confrontation over access to these resources. This in turn makes the Caspian region more attractive to global, regional and national investors. The fact that the legal status of the Caspian Sea is still an open question underlines this re- ality and the weight of political and economical interests in finding a common solution. At the same time, states have been able to find coop- erative solutions not only on a bilateral or trilat- eral basis but also in a multilateral framework. By ratifying the Framework Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (Tehran Convention) that entered into force in 2006, the signatories – all five bor- dering states – signalled that they were willing to search for common strategies to protect the Caspian environment. These include the prevention of pollution, the development of preventive measures, and access to and ex- change of information. Progress in negotiating and implementing the Convention’s protocols is “mixed” and further cooperation is urgently required to achieve efficient control of human activities affecting the Caspian’s marine envi- ronment. In this context environmental issues have become the basis for planning and im- plementing common measures, allowing the concerned states to improve stability and se- curity in the region.

Clarifying the legal status of the Caspian Sea is one of the key issues for regulating access

The ratification of the Tehran Convention and the work done within the framework