With the long-term Eastward enlargement of the EU, the Carpathian and the Caucasus mountains are increasingly becoming established in the public consciousness as European mountains.
Countries and in particular scientists and NGOs working in the international arena are concerned that the desired economic integration of the Eastern European countries will endanger the natural and cultural heritage of habitats areas that are to a large extent still untouched or in their original state. The call for legal instruments to protect them is being voiced with increasing frequency and possible solutions are beginning to be discussed more intensively. Virtually all parties to this discussion feel that the Alpine Convention is a shining example to be followed here.
We have begun to have reservations about whether this discussion might not be wide of the mark, ignoring the actual conditions in the Caucasus. Also, the uncontested assumption being put forward by all sides that the Alpine Convention is the perfect recipe for success in all cases set us thinking. Can the Alpine Convention really already be definitively evaluated as a recipe for success as measured against its original objectives, as a model that can indiscriminately be transposed to other mountain regions?
We believe that the Alpine Convention must primarily be regarded as a process that began in the 1950s. Creation of this convention can not be viewed in isolation from the formation of the EU and the general process of integration that that entailed. Assuming the successful conclusion of the Alpine Convention is to a great extent due to the dialogue on a broad range of cooperation issues that grew up over the years between all the Alpine countries, then the question that springs to mind is to what extent are there any signs of a similarly intensive transnational and cross-border cooperation in the Caucasus region.
We have tried to illustrate the development of cooperation between the countries in the Caucasus over the last ten years, along with any intentions for the near future that have already been expressed. As an indicator of the intensity and quality of this cooperation, we have referred to projects that have been carried out in the Caucasus on sustainable development in the broadest sense. By analysing the number and quantity, type of projects, funding organisations and level of funding, we have tried to give a rough outline of the current status. We have suggested the basic conditions needed for successful cooperation, along with appropriate topics the activities should focus on and geographical areas to be designated if the activities are to have a potential for success. Finally, we return to our original question and discuss this against the background of the results of our study.
Projects are not the only suitable indicators for describing the conditions needed for lively cooperation aimed at securing sustainable development for the Caucasian region. We can therefore only draw tentative conclusions for the entire Caucasian system from this partial consideration. We see this analysis as reaffirming our original hypothesis that the Alpine Convention is neither transposable to the Caucasus as a process nor do the prerequisites exist that would allow an effective multilaterally agreed development paradigm, modelled on the Alpine Convention, to be agreed. The far more obvious conclusion, we believe, is that on an analogy with the Alpine Convention, numerous small steps in the form of projects and state-run consultations are required. Only this will establish the foundation required for a common development perspective adapted to the needs of the region; exactly what it will look like in its final legally binding form is still completely open-ended and should remain that way.
