Iraq coed report 4 2012 final

Cost of Environmental Degradation
Republic of Iraq
April 2012
Ministry of Environment of Iraq

ii
Currency Equivalents
(Exchange rate effective December 31, 2008)
Currency Unit = Iraqi Dinar (ID)
US$1.00 = ID 1,148 (2008)

iii
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this report and the results of the analyses are the sole responsibility of the Author,
and could not be attributed in any way, shape or form to the Government of Iraq.

iv
Contents
DISCLAIMER ...............................................................................................................................................................................III
CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................................................IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................................................................................................................VI
PREAMBLE.................................................................................................................................................................................VII
GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................................................................................VIII
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................................................XI
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................................XII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................................XIII
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................XIII
COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION .........................................................................................................XIV
COMPARISON OF DAMAGE AND REMEDIATION COSTS.....................................................................................XV
‫التنفيذي‬ ‫الملخص‬XIV………………………………………………………………………………………………….
‫المقدمة‬XIV…..……………………………………………………………………………………………….………
‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬XVIII….….……..………………………………………………………………………………
‫ومعالجتها‬ ‫األضرار‬ ‫تكاليف‬ ‫بين‬ ‫مقارنة‬XIX….….……..…………..…………………………………………….
1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION....................................................................................................1
1.3 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................................................2
1.4 THE PREPARATION PROCESS..................................................................................................................................2
2 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK......................................................................................................................4
2.1 DEFINITION.....................................................................................................................................................................4
2.2 METHODOLOGICAL PROCESSES ...........................................................................................................................4
2.3 CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................................................4
2.4 CONSEQUENCES OF DEGRADATION ...................................................................................................................5
2.5 MONETARY VALUATION..........................................................................................................................................6
2.6 COSTS OF REMEDIATION..........................................................................................................................................7
2.7 MARGINAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................................8
3 AIR...........................................................................................................................................................................................9
3.1 HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE.............................................................................................................................9
3.2 NATURAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................................................12
4 WATER................................................................................................................................................................................13
4.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................13
4.2 HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE...........................................................................................................................14
5 LAND....................................................................................................................................................................................17

v
6 WASTE.................................................................................................................................................................................20
7 COASTAL ZONE .............................................................................................................................................................22
8 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................................................................24
9 COST OF REMEDIATION ...........................................................................................................................................27
9.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................27
9.2 POLICY CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................................................27
9.3 AIR.....................................................................................................................................................................................27
9.4 WATER.............................................................................................................................................................................29
9.5 LAND................................................................................................................................................................................31
9.6 WASTE.............................................................................................................................................................................32
9.7 COASTAL ZONES.........................................................................................................................................................32
9.8 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................................................................33
10 COST ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION..................................................................34
10.1 OVERALL ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................................................................34
10.2 COST OF DEGRADATION....................................................................................................................................35
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................................................37
ANNEXES ......................................................................................................................................................................................41

vi
Acknowledgments
This report, which was prepared by Fadi M. Doumani (Environmental Economist), was funded under a
Trust Fund housed at the World Bank and managed by the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of
Iraq. The process leading to the finalization of the report was done under the oversight of the World Bank.
Many colleagues and counterparts from the World Bank provided support and/or technical advice that
shaped this report. However, the author takes the full responsibility for any errors or omissions. In
particular, I am thankful to Maged Hamed, Senior Environmental Specialist, Sherif Arif, Senior
Environmental Consultant and Suiko Yoshijima, Environmental Specialist, who deserves special
recognition for their overall guidance and review of the work leading up to this final report. The author
would also like to thank the Ministry of Environment staff notably Hikmat Jebraeil (Director, Ministry of
Environment) and Faten Azez (Assistant to the Director, Ministry of Environment) as well as Mutasem
El-Fadel (Professor, American University of Beirut), who peer reviewed the report.

vii
Preamble
The Republic of Iraq is painfully recovering from 3 disastrous wars (Iraq-Iran War, 1st
Gulf War and 2nd
Gulf War) and their destructive aftermath that put more strain on Iraq’s human, social, natural, cultural
and capital assets. The reconstruction drive is well underway and we understand that the Ministry of
Environment has among others a pressing priority to mitigate the accumulated environmental degradation
of the last three challenging decades. Nevertheless, we trust that the qualitative and quantitative results of
this study will help shape the political economy of improving sustainable management and improve the
quality of life of the Iraqis in the future.

viii
Glossary
Agent: A hazardous substance or material that has the potential of affecting human health.
Attributable risk proportion: The percentage of a particular disease category that would be eliminated, if
environmental risk factors were reduced to their lowest feasible values.
Benefits transfer:Use the results obtained in one context in a different context by applying GDP
differential and the income elasticity, which means that the percentage responsiveness for a good or
service differs with the percentage change in income in each country.
Burden of disease (BoD): An indicator that measures years’ life lost due to premature mortality and years
of life lived with a disability by using a common denominator, the DALY metric.
Cause-Effect Framework:Also known as the environment and health DPSEEA,(Driving Force, Pressure,
State, Exposure, Effects and Action). The latter was developed by WHO to determine possible entry
points for public health interventions.
Choice modeling: Respondents are asked to choose their preferred option from a set of alternatives with
particular attributes (a variation on the WTP without a monetary value).
Cluster of disease and injury: A group of diseases and injuries stemming from one or several stressors that
could be relieved by a policy choice, project or intervention. Critical clusters are selected based on their
relative magnitude, i.e., vector-borne, water-related and respiratory diseases.
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA): A normative technique that optimizes both the target and the means of a
policy (macro and sectoral) choice, project, or intervention and is, therefore,more economically efficient
than the cost-effectiveness technique. The general premise is well accepted,but becomes controversial
when specific numbers are attached,e.g.,value of life.
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA): A normative technique that, in the absence of proper valuation of the
benefits, sets the target (for example, standard for a pollutant or number of death to be averted) and
determines the means of a policy choice, project or intervention.
Cost of illness: A valuation technique that calculates direct and indirect costs associated with the illness:
medical costs, loss in productivity from illness, and premature death losses valued as lost productivity or
termed human capital approach.
Cross media: A medium such as air, water,food or soil that transmits a pollutant or a contaminant from a
medium to another and that affects human health, e. g., air pollutants that are washed into rivers or leach
into the aquifer used for drinking water.
Disability-adjusted life years (DALY):A non-utilitarian metric that measures the burden of disease and
expresses years life lost to premature death and years lived with a disability of specified and normalized
severity and duration. The DALY metric measures the decrement or increment in health state. A DALY,
which is one lost year of healthy life, could be interpreted in two different ways. A DALY lost stands for
the magnitude of the BoD; a DALY averted stands for the magnitude of the BoD to be reduced through a
policy choice, project or intervention.
Discount rate:It is the rate at which society as a whole is willing to trade off present for future benefits.
Dose-response:see Risk Assessment.
Effectiveness: Refers to the impact under routine conditions when implementation is imperfect.
Environmental externalities: The positive or negative effects of the action of a human agent (generator) on
other human agents (affected parties),for which no organized market for this effect exists, e.g.,emission
of pollutants or spread of disease that affects other individuals.
Environmental health: is defined as the burden of disease that lies outside the purview of the health sector.
Emerging diseases:Diseases that are emerging or re-emerging due to unsustainable development.
Exposure-based evidence: Assessment of exposure estimated on the basis of measured data,and dose-
response relationships.
Hazards: Chemical, microbiological, vectors and physical agents that, if not controlled, have the potential
of affecting human health through pathways.

ix
Health outcome: A change in health status of an individual, group or population which is attributable to a
policy choice, project or intervention, regardless whether these were intended to change the health status.
Hedonic pricing: Extract effect of environmental factors on good or service prices that include those
factors.
Human capital approach: A valuation technique that calculates future discounted earnings lost due to
premature death.
Incidence: The fraction or proportion of a group initially free of the disease, who develop the disease
within a given period of time (usually one year), e.g.,AIDS, malaria or diarrhea.
Incident: Occurs due to lack of attention and safety measures or poor operations and maintenance, and
could have health consequences.
Media: A medium such as air, water,food or soil that transmits a pollutant or a contaminant that affects
human health. Human and animal/insect could also be disease carriers.
Modern hazards: Hazards associated with unsustainable development.
Multi-criteria analysis (MCA): Analysis used for complex multi criteria problem(s) within decision
making. It uses weighting involving different group relative priorities (qualitative and quantitative) as
opposed to a CBA.
Odds ratio: Ratio of the odds of disease for the experimental group relative to the odds of disease in the
control group or the odds in favor of being exposed in diseased subjects divided by the odds in favor of
being exposed in non-diseased control subjects.
Opportunity cost: refers to what you give up by choosing a certain course of action.
Outcome-based evidence: Identification of outcomes associated with risk factor; collection and
compilation of disease outcome data; and disease burden due to a risk factor that is estimated by
combining the attributable fraction with the disease burden of the outcome.
Particulate matter (PM):A mixture of fine (PM2.5 or a particulate with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers) and
respirable (PM10 with a diameter of 10 micrometers) solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air.
Unlike respirable particulates, which adhere to the surface of nose, mouth, and throat, fine particulates are
small enough to penetrate deeply into the lungs and could lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases
(COPD) and possibly cancer. Chemical substances may adhere to or be incorporated into these
particulates. The latter could also be electrically charged by electric magnetic fields and increase the
chances of cancer.
Prevalence:A fraction or proportion of a group possessing a disease at a given point in time, measured by
a single examination or survey of a group (usually two weeks),e.g., diarrhea.
Production function or change in productivity: Trace the impact of change in ecosystem services on
produced goods.
Replacement cost: Use actualcost of replacing the lost good or service.
Risk assessment:Provides a framework for quantifying the adverse environment-related health effects of a
pollutant. Once a hazard has been identified, the researcher attempts to measure the extent to which people
in a population are exposed to the hazard, and the impact of the exposure on health, which is measured in
a dose-response function.
Stressor: Pressure exerted by agents or media on the human body/mind. Measuring the stressor helps
translate hazards into risks that affect human health through pathways.
Traditional hazards: Hazards associated with lack of development (lack of basic infrastructure and
inadequate behavioral practices such as hygiene, exposure to indoor smoke and so on) and land use
mismanagement.
Transitional hazards: Transition from traditional to modern hazards due to environmentally unsustainable
economic growth.
Travel cost: Derive demand curve to target a site from data on actual travel costs.
Value of enjoyment: it elicits stated preferences by the use of a direct open question about the value
placed on the enjoyment of a visit to the recreational place, and so does not require any payment vehicle to
be expressed and avoids the possible biases that payments vehicles can bring to CVM studies.

x
Value of life, value of statistical life, value of lives saved,and value of lives extended: All basically
synonymous terms for measures that permit reductions in mortality risks to be monetized. It is, thus, not
life itself that is valued, but a reduction in the probability of avoiding a given risk. Values for these terms
are derived by dividing an estimate of the value (see WTP) for avoiding (or obtaining) a given change in
the risk of death by the risk change.
Willingness to pay (WTP) or contingent valuation method (CVM): The WTP is the monetary value an
individual is willing to pay for the provision of a good or a service or to reduce the risk of illness,
accident, and/or premature death. In case of an intervention, the WTP is considered a benefit measure in a
CBA.

xi
Abstract
This report is the first step in a process toward using the cost of environmental degradation for priority
setting and as an instrument for integrating environmental issues into economic and social development.
The report provides estimates of damage cost for several areas of the environment. The estimates should
be considered as orders of magnitude and a range is provided to indicate the level of uncertainty.
However, the analysis is far from being exhaustive as the damage cost of environmental degradation has
not been estimated in several areas of the environment due to data limitations, e.g., the increasing
prevalence of cancer especially in areas with high hazardous waste and sites contaminated with depleted
uranium. Hence, as areas of priority are identified, further analysis will be required for more accurate
estimates.
The annual COED in Iraq in 2008 is estimated at 4.9-8.0 percent of GDP with a mean estimate of 6.4
percent of GDP, or close to ID 6.3 trillion per year (US$ 5.5 billion) excluding damages to the global
environment: climate change and biodiversity. When including global externalities, the total amount
reaches about 7.1 trillion or US$ 6.2 billion equivalent to 7.1 percent of GDP. The category ranking of
damage cost is as follows: the cost of urban air pollution is estimated at 1.5 percent for the ten major cities
with collectively about 11.5 million inhabitants; the cost of inadequate potable water, sanitation and
hygiene and water resource degradation is the highest and estimated at 3.5 percent of GDP; land use in
terms of agricultural land degradation (salinity), rangeland blocked due to unexploded ordnance and
victims of unexploded ordnance while the rural people are tending, harvesting or gathering natural
products is assessed at 1 percent of GDP; solid waste in term of poor collection and unsanitary dumping is
equivalent to 0.4 percent; coastal zones is the lowest because difficult to quantify despite serious oil and
gas impact and is estimated at 0.02 percent of GDP; and global damage associated with climate change
caused by emissions of carbon dioxide is estimated to be 0.7 percent of GDP. Comparatively, 56 percent
of total damage is attributable to damages to health and quality of life (3.5 percent of GDP), and the
remaining 44 percent from natural resource degradation (2.9 percent of GDP).
Figure Iraq Cost of Environmental Degradation, 2008
Few mitigation costs were calculates but justify the averted costs for certain environmental categories and
sub-categories.
1,542
3,518
949
381
15
685
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Air Water Land Waste Coasts Global
IDbillion
Category
Iraq Cost of EnvironmentalDegradation, 2008
(ID billion)
1.6%
3.5%
1.0%
0.4%
0.02%
0.7%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
%ofGDP
Category
(% of GDP)

xii
Acronyms
BT Benefit transfer
CIF price at port of destination (cost-insurance-freight)
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COI Cost of illness Approach
DALY Disability Adjusted Life Year
dS/m deciSiemens per meter (a measure of electrical conductivity)
ECe electrical conductivity at crop root zone level
EPI Environment Performance Index
GDP gross domestic product
GES Good Ecological State
HCA Human Capital Approach
ID Iraqi Dinar
Km Kilometer
Km2
Square Kilometer
MENA Middle East and North Africa
METAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program
μg/m3
microgram per cubic meter
MICS III Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey III
MOE Ministry of Environment
N.A. Not available
NOx nitrogen oxide
ORT oral rehydration therapy
PMx particulate matter
RAD restricted activity day
RES Renewable energy sources
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SWM solid waste management
TOE Ton of oil equivalent
TSP total suspended particulates
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
US$ US dollar
UXO Unexploded ordnance
VSL value of statistical life
WFD EC Water Framework Directive
WHO World Health Organization
WTP Willingness to pay

xiii
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
In spite of a raising consciousness, the question
of the worthiness of a cleaner environment often
goes unanswered for policy makers. Indeed, the
costs and benefits comparison of environmental
preservation or improvement projects is usually
much more difficult to formalize than usual
industrial or infrastructure projects.
This report is the first step in a process that
follows on the steps of the World Bank
Mediterranean Environmental Technical
Assistance Program (METAP) that was replaced
by Sustainable Med, toward using environmental
damage cost assessments as an instrument for
integrating environmental issues into economic
and social development. The objective of this
report is to provide an estimate of the cost of
environmental degradation in Iraq. Despite the
difficulties involved in assigning monetary
values to environmental degradation, such
estimates can be a powerful tool to raise
awareness about environmental issues and
facilitate progress toward sustainable
development.
Accomplishments in environmental protection
since the 2003 War in Iraq was mainly to
achieve the Millennium Development Goals,
which led to the increase in child health
protection that has led to a fall in the under-five
mortality rate, and the clean up the major
contaminated sites from hazardous waste,
depleted uranium and unexploded ordnance
although progress is slow.
Nevertheless, pressures on the environment are
numerous and affect: air (leaded gas is still used
and the vehicle average age is relatively high, oil
industries are the most polluting, open dump
burning, carbon emissions, etc.): water (most of
surface water is contaminated mainly due to the
release of untreated or partially treated municipal
and industrial effluents, and agricultural runoff,
underground water salinity level is increasing,
the flow of the Euphrates and the Tigris are
significantly being reduced, coastal zones are
contaminated, water services are deficient with
rural people being the most exposed to water-
borne diseases, etc.); soil as the remnants of the
war in terms of hazardous waste and depleted
uranium, poor solid waste management, and soil
salinity is affecting agricultural yields);
biodiversity is neglected, etc. Therefore, there is
an urgent need to protect and reverse
degradation of freshwater resources, reduce land
degradation and soil salinity, further protect
rangelands, halt and reverse the increase in urban
air pollution, protect coastal resources, and
continue to improve industrial pollution control
and waste management.
It is hoped that this report will provide an
instrument for policymakers to better integrate
the environment into economic development
decisions. Estimates of environmental damage
presented in this report should be viewed as
orders of magnitude. The accuracy of all
estimates is constrained by data availability and
subject to various assumptions and
simplifications. A range of values has been
presented to reflect this uncertainty.
Nevertheless, the estimates presented indicate
the severity and magnitude of environmental
degradation in Iraq and provide a rationale for
continued environmental management and
priority setting for environmental action.
The reader should bear in mind that this report
only reflects a side of the overall impacts of
human activities. Any policy action that causes
environmental damages also produces benefits to
society. While this report only focuses on
environmental degradation costs, understanding
and evaluating both the costs and benefits of
each development actions is necessary for sound
policy making.

xiv
COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION
The cost of environmental degradation in Iraq is
estimated at 4.9-8.0 percent of GDP annually,
based on 2008 figures, with a mean estimate of
around ID 6.3 trillion per year or US$ 5.5 billion
equivalent to 6.4 percent of GDP. The main
reasons are: (i) the disease burden associated
with the lack of safe water and sanitation
facilities and inadequate hygiene; (ii) substantial
negative impacts on health from air pollution;
(iii) significant strain on land resources resulting
in agricultural losses; (iv); unsustainable waste
management; to a lesser extent (v) insufficient
coastal resources preservation; and (vi) poor
energy efficiencies and inadequate use of
renewable energy.
In addition the cost to the global environment is
estimated ID 0.7 trillion equivalent to 0.7
percent of GDP in 2008. The global and local
cost of environmental degradation reaches ID
7.1 trillion or US$ 6.2 billion equivalent to 7.1
percent of GDP in 2008.
Estimated costs of damage are organized by
environmental category and presented as such in
Table A and Figure A. Figure B presents the
same mean estimates by economic category,
indicating that the cost to health and quality of
life is about 3.7 percent of GDP, and 2.9 percent
for natural resources.
The most significant negative impacts are water
induced namely, surface water pollution, and a
lack of access to safe potable water and
sanitation, and inadequate domestic, personal
and food hygiene (3.5 percent of GDP). Urban
air pollution for the cities of Baghdad, Basra,
Babel, Niniveh, Najaf, Kirkuk, Missa,
Suleymaniyeh, Duhouk and Irbil is ranked
second with an estimated cost equivalent to 1.5
percent of GDP.
The estimated cost of natural resource
degradation comes predominantly from the loss
of agricultural productivity, the loss of rangeland
blocked by the availability of unexploded
ordnance and the victims of the ordnance
equivalent to 1 percent of GDP.
Waste management has potential impacts on
health from uncollected and unsafe disposal of
municipal, industrial, hazardous and medical
waste. In addition, the odors and unsightliness of
uncollected waste reduces the quality of life.
Damage from inadequate waste collection is
estimated at 0.14 percent of GDP.
Loss of fisheries and amenities in coastal zones
were equivalent to 0.02 percent of GDP.
Global damage associated with climate change
caused by emissions of carbon dioxide is
estimated to be 0.7 percent of GDP.
Comparatively, 56 percent of the national total
damage is attributable to damages to health and
quality of life (3.5 percent of GDP), and the
remaining 44 percent from natural resource
degradation (2.9 percent of GDP).

xv
Table A. Annual cost of environmental degradation -
mean estimate
ID billion
per year
US$ billion
per year
Percent of
GDP
Air 1,452 1.3 1.5%
Water 3,518 3.1 3.5%
Land 949 0.8 1.0%
Waste 381 0.3 0.4%
Coastal zones 15 0.0 0.0%
Sub-Total 6,316 5.6 6.4%
Global Env. 0.685 0.6 0.7%
Total 7,091 6.2 7.1%
Figure A. Annual cost of environmental degradation by
environmental category (mean estimate as a percentage
of GDP)
Figure B. Annual national cost of environmental
degradation broken down between human and natural
resource impact
In addition, continued pollution and over-
extraction of water resources may impose
significant constraints on domestic water and
agricultural development, and requires intense
water resources management.
When comparing the cost of environmental
degradation at the regional level, Iraq ranks first
among Arab countries (Figure C). With 6.4%,
Iraq is however second to Iran’s cost of
environmental degradation that was equivalent
to 7.4% of GDP in 2002.
Figure C. Annual cost of national environmental
degradation comparison across selected Arab countries,
% of GDP
Source: derived from World Bank and METAP COED
results <www.worldbank.org>.
COMPARISON OF DAMAGE
AND REMEDIATION COSTS
While the estimates presented in this report
provide indications of the areas of the
environment with the largest damage cost to
society, the benefits of reducing environmental
damage should be compared to the costs of
remedial actions for improving the environment.
Such a comparison of benefits and costs can be
useful to identify actions for which benefits
exceed costs, and for ranking actions with the
largest net benefits. In making such
comparisons, a note of caution is warranted:
 Environmental damage is unlikely to be
completely eliminated no matter how
stringent and comprehensive the remedial
actions.
 Quantification of environmental damage and
its monetary valuation can never be
completely accurate.
 The principle of marginal analysis needs to
be applied to identify remedial actions that
are likely to provide the greatest benefits per
unit of cost.
Elements for the evaluation of possible
investments to reduce or prevent environmental
degradations are provided but there is a need to
further assess and quantify current and potential
future damage costs of water resources pollution.
1.6%
3.5%
1.0%
0.4%
0.02%
0.7%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
%ofGDP
Category
(% of GDP)
56%
44 %
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Health and quality of life Natural resources
%ofGDP
(% of GDP)
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Tunisia
1999
Syria
2007
Jordan
2006
Lebanon
2005
Morocco
2000
Algeria
1999
Egypt
1999
Iraq
2008
%ofGDP
COED inSelectedArabCountries
(% of GDP)
Coast
Waste
Land
Water
Air

xvi
Table B and Table C recap the averted and
remedial (when available) costs by category.
Table B. Marginal averted cost, ID billion
Category Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Air 1,042 1,092 1,142
Water
Services
Surface
713
373
340
1,762
732
1,030
6,794
1,094
5,700
Land 77 77 77
Waste 95 197 286
Coasts N.A. N.A. N.A.
Sub-Total 1,927 3,128 8,299
Global 0.01 0.02 0.02
Total 1,927 3,128 8,299
Table C. Marginal remedial cost, ID billion
Category Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Air N.A. N.A. N.A.
Water
Services
Surface
N.A.
1,900
N.A.
3,800
N.A.
5,700
Land N.A. N.A. N.A.
Waste 2.9 5.8 8.6
Coasts N.A. N.A. N.A.
Sub-Total - - -
Global N.A. N.A. N.A.
Total

xvii
‫جزئيا‬ ‫المعالجة‬ ‫أو‬ ‫المعالجة‬ ‫غير‬‫مياه‬ ‫من‬ ‫والمتأتية‬
‫السائلة‬ ‫والنفايات‬ ‫الصحي‬ ‫الصرف‬‫ومياه‬ ،‫الصناعية‬
،‫الزراعي‬ ‫الصرف‬‫الجوفية‬ ‫المياه‬ ‫ملوحة‬ ‫في‬ ‫وتزايد‬،
‫في‬ ‫كبير‬ ‫وانخفاض‬‫مجاري‬‫نهر‬‫ي‬، ‫ودجلة‬ ‫الفرات‬‫وتلوث‬
،‫الساحلية‬ ‫المناطق‬‫و‬‫في‬ ‫نقص‬‫المياه‬ ‫خدمات‬‫ض‬ ّ‫وتعر‬
‫السكان‬‫المياه‬ ‫تنقلها‬ ‫التي‬ ‫لألمراض‬‫ا‬ ‫سكان‬ ‫سيما‬ ‫ال‬ ،‫لمناطق‬
‫الريفية‬‫وهم‬‫عرضة‬ ‫األكثر‬،‫االمراض‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫لمثل‬‫ا‬‫لخ‬…‫)؛‬
‫التربة‬‫(و‬‫حيث‬ ‫من‬ ‫الحرب‬ ‫بقايا‬،‫الخطرة‬ ‫النفايات‬
‫ال‬ ‫واليورانيوم‬‫مستنفذ‬‫إدارة‬ ‫وسوء‬ ،،‫الصلبة‬ ‫النفايات‬
‫التربة‬ ‫وملوحة‬)‫الزراعية‬ ‫المحاصيل‬ ‫على‬ ‫تؤثر‬ ‫التي‬‫؛‬
‫و‬‫في‬ ‫إهمال‬‫ذلك‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫وما‬ ،‫البيولوجي‬ ‫التنوع‬‫لـذا‬ ...‫هناك‬ ،
‫تدهور‬ ‫وعكس‬ ‫لحماية‬ ‫ملحة‬ ‫حاجة‬‫ال‬‫الم‬ ‫موارد‬‫ائية‬،‫العذبة‬
‫و‬‫حماية‬ ‫وزيادة‬ ،‫التربة‬ ‫وملوحة‬ ‫التربة‬ ‫تدهور‬ ‫من‬ ‫الحد‬
‫اتجاه‬ ‫وعكس‬ ‫ووقف‬ ‫المراعي‬‫ال‬‫في‬ ‫الهواء‬ ‫تلوث‬ ‫في‬ ‫زيادة‬
‫ومواصلة‬ ،‫الساحلية‬ ‫الموارد‬ ‫وحماية‬ ،‫الحضرية‬ ‫المناطق‬
‫تحسين‬‫بالتلوث‬ ‫م‬ّ‫ك‬‫التح‬‫الصناعي‬‫النفايات‬ ‫وإدارة‬.
‫من‬ ‫ُرجى‬‫ي‬ ‫ما‬‫التقرير‬ ‫هذا‬‫هو‬ ،‫ت‬‫وف‬‫ي‬‫لواضعي‬ ‫أداة‬ ‫ر‬
‫التنمية‬ ‫قرارات‬ ‫في‬ ‫البيئة‬ ‫دمج‬ ‫لتحسين‬ ‫السياسات‬
‫البيئية‬ ‫األضرار‬ ‫تقديرات‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫النظر‬ ‫وينبغي‬ .‫االقتصادية‬
‫التقرير‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫في‬ ‫الواردة‬‫حجمها‬ ‫لناحية‬.‫إن‬‫دقة‬ ‫من‬ ‫يحد‬ ‫ما‬
‫التقديرات‬ ‫جميع‬،‫البيانات‬ ‫توفر‬‫وخضوعها‬‫لمختلف‬
‫وقد‬ .‫والتبسيط‬ ‫االفتراضات‬‫تقديم‬ ‫تم‬‫من‬ ‫مجموعة‬‫القيم‬
‫التقديرات‬ ‫فإن‬ ،‫ذلك‬ ‫ومع‬ .‫هذه‬ ‫اليقين‬ ‫عدم‬ ‫حالة‬ ‫لتعكس‬
‫في‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫وحجم‬ ‫خطورة‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫تشير‬ ‫الواردة‬
‫وتوفر‬ ،‫العراق‬‫البيئية‬ ‫اإلدارة‬ ‫الستمرار‬ ‫المنطقي‬ ‫األساس‬
‫البيئي‬ ‫للعمل‬ ‫األولويات‬ ‫ووضع‬.
.
‫أن‬ ‫للقارئ‬ ‫وينبغي‬‫ي‬‫التقرير‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫أن‬ ‫اعتباره‬ ‫في‬ ‫ضع‬‫ال‬
‫من‬ ‫جانب‬ ‫سوى‬ ‫يعكس‬.‫البشرية‬ ‫لألنشطة‬ ‫الشاملة‬ ‫اآلثار‬
‫وإن‬‫عمل‬ ‫أي‬‫يت‬ ‫معينة‬ ‫سياسة‬ ‫ضمن‬ ‫يأتي‬‫سبب‬‫ب‬‫أضرار‬
‫أيضا‬ ‫ينتج‬ ‫بيئية‬‫عنه‬.‫للمجتمع‬ ‫فوائد‬‫ف‬‫حين‬ ‫في‬‫يركز‬‫هذا‬
،‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫تكاليف‬ ‫على‬ ‫فقط‬ ‫التقرير‬‫فإن‬‫وتقييم‬ ‫فهم‬
‫و‬ ‫تكاليف‬ ‫من‬ ‫كل‬‫فوائد‬‫من‬ ‫اي‬‫النشاطات‬‫التنم‬‫و‬‫ية‬‫أ‬ ‫لهو‬‫مر‬
‫ل‬ ‫ضروري‬‫وضع‬‫سليمة‬ ‫سياسة‬.
‫التنفيذي‬ ‫الملخص‬
‫المقدمة‬
‫الوعي‬ ‫مستوى‬ ‫من‬ ‫الرغم‬ ‫على‬‫المسؤولين‬ ‫لدى‬ ‫الرفيع‬،
‫تبقى‬ ‫ما‬ ‫غالبا‬‫مسألة‬‫نظافة‬ ‫االشد‬ ‫البيئة‬ ‫قيمة‬‫إجابة‬ ‫دون‬
‫فإن‬ ،‫وبالفعل‬ .‫السياسات‬ ‫لصانعي‬ ‫بالنسبة‬‫بين‬ ‫المقارنة‬
‫الت‬ ‫مشاريع‬ ‫أو‬ ‫البيئة‬ ‫على‬ ‫الحفاظ‬ ‫وفوائد‬ ‫تكاليف‬‫طوير‬
‫البيئي‬‫رسميا‬ ‫صوغها‬ ‫عند‬‫تكون‬،‫ال‬ ‫في‬‫عادة‬،‫درجة‬ ‫على‬
‫من‬ ‫اكبر‬‫ال‬‫صعوبة‬‫مقارنة‬‫ب‬‫أو‬ ‫الصناعية‬ ‫المشاريع‬‫مشاريع‬
‫البن‬‫ى‬‫التحتي‬‫المألوفة‬.
‫يأتي‬‫التقرير‬ ‫هذا‬‫ك‬‫خطوة‬‫أ‬‫عملية‬ ‫في‬ ‫ولى‬‫ضمن‬ ‫تندرج‬
‫لبلدان‬ ‫البيئية‬ ‫الفنية‬ ‫للمساعدة‬ ‫الدولي‬ ‫البنك‬ ‫برنامج‬‫البحر‬
‫المتوسط‬ ‫األبيض‬(METAP)‫وا‬‫تم‬ ‫لذي‬‫استبداله‬‫ببرنامج‬
‫المتوسط‬‫المستدام‬(Sustainable Med)‫تقوم‬ ‫عملية‬ ،
‫على‬‫تقييمات‬ ‫استخدام‬‫االضرار‬ ‫تكاليف‬‫لدمج‬ ‫كأداة‬ ‫البيئية‬
‫ال‬‫مسائل‬‫البيئية‬‫التنمية‬ ‫ضمن‬.‫واالجتماعية‬ ‫االقتصادية‬‫إن‬
‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫لكلفة‬ ‫تقدير‬ ‫تقديم‬ ‫هو‬ ‫التقرير‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫من‬ ‫الهدف‬
.‫العراق‬ ‫في‬‫و‬‫من‬ ‫الرغم‬ ‫على‬‫الصعوبات‬‫ب‬ ‫المتعلقة‬‫تحديد‬
‫القيم‬‫ة‬،‫البيئي‬ ‫للتدهور‬ ‫النقدية‬‫فإن‬‫التقديرات‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫مثل‬‫يمكن‬
‫ت‬ ‫أن‬‫وفر‬‫ال‬ ‫حول‬ ‫الوعي‬ ‫لزيادة‬ ‫قوية‬ ‫أداة‬‫مسائل‬‫البيئية‬
‫المستدامة‬ ‫التنمية‬ ‫تحقيق‬ ‫نحو‬ ‫التقدم‬ ‫وتسهيل‬.
‫و‬‫تهدف‬‫عام‬ ‫حرب‬ ‫منذ‬ ‫البيئة‬ ‫حماية‬ ‫مجال‬ ‫في‬ ‫االنجازات‬
2003‫العراق‬ ‫في‬،‫األول‬ ‫المقام‬ ‫في‬،‫األهداف‬ ‫تحقيق‬ ‫إلى‬
‫صحة‬ ‫حماية‬ ‫في‬ ‫الزيادة‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫أدت‬ ‫والتي‬ ،‫لأللفية‬ ‫اإلنمائية‬
‫الطفل‬‫وبالتالي‬‫دون‬ ‫األطفال‬ ‫وفيات‬ ‫معدل‬ ‫في‬ ‫انخفاض‬ ‫إلى‬
،‫الخامسة‬ ‫سن‬‫تهدف‬ ‫كما‬‫الى‬‫المواقع‬ ‫تنظيف‬‫الملوثة‬
،‫الخطرة‬ ‫النفايات‬ ‫من‬ ‫الرئيسية‬‫و‬‫من‬‫اليورانيوم‬‫المستنفذ‬
‫والق‬‫ا‬ ‫غير‬ ‫ذائف‬‫لمنفجرة‬‫ال‬ ‫الصعيد‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫على‬ ‫التقدم‬ ‫ان‬ ‫إال‬ ،
.‫بطيئا‬ ‫يزال‬
‫و‬ ‫كثيرة‬ ‫البيئة‬ ‫على‬ ‫الضغوط‬ ‫فإن‬ ،‫ذلك‬ ‫ومع‬‫تأثير‬ ‫لها‬:‫على‬
‫الهواء‬ُ‫ي‬ ‫يزال‬ ‫(ال‬‫الرصاص‬ ‫على‬ ‫المحتوي‬ ‫الغاز‬ ‫ستخدم‬،
‫و‬‫نسبيا‬ ‫مرتفع‬ ‫السيارة‬ ‫عمر‬ ‫متوسط‬‫النفطية‬ ‫والصناعات‬ ،
‫تلويثا‬ ‫األكثر‬ ‫هي‬‫وحرق‬ ،‫بالهواء‬ ‫النفايات‬،‫الطلق‬‫انبعاثات‬
‫وغيرها‬ ،‫الكربون‬...)‫؛‬‫الم‬‫ياه‬‫الجارية‬ ‫المياه‬ ‫(اغلب‬‫ملوثة‬،
‫رئيسي‬ ‫بشكل‬ ‫يعود‬ ‫والسبب‬‫إلى‬‫السائلة‬ ‫النفايات‬ ‫تسييب‬

xviii
‫تعود‬‫ال‬‫في‬ ‫الطبيعية‬ ‫الموارد‬ ‫لتدهور‬ ‫التقديرية‬ ‫كلفة‬‫اغلبها‬
‫الى‬،‫الزراعية‬ ‫اإلنتاجية‬ ‫فقدان‬‫و‬‫المراعي‬ ‫فقدان‬‫بسبب‬
‫المنفجرة‬ ‫غير‬ ‫الذخائر‬‫وصل‬ ‫وقد‬ ،‫الذخائر‬ ‫ضحايا‬‫الى‬‫ما‬
‫يعادل‬1‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬.
‫إ‬ ‫إن‬‫النفايات‬ ‫دارة‬‫لديها‬‫آثار‬‫من‬ ‫الصحة‬ ‫على‬ ‫محتملة‬
‫يتم‬ ‫لم‬ ‫والتي‬ ‫عة‬ّ‫م‬‫المج‬ ‫غير‬ ‫النفايات‬‫التخلص‬‫بشكل‬ ‫منها‬
‫غير‬‫آم‬‫ن‬‫با‬ ‫والمتعلقة‬‫البل‬ ‫لنفايات‬‫والخطرة‬ ‫والصناعية‬ ‫دية‬
.‫والطبية‬‫ذلك‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫باإلضافة‬،‫ل‬ّ‫ل‬‫تق‬‫و‬ ‫الروائح‬‫المناظر‬
‫ل‬ ‫القبيحة‬‫غير‬ ‫لنفايات‬‫عة‬ّ‫م‬‫المج‬‫وتقدر‬ .‫الحياة‬ ‫نوعية‬ ‫من‬
‫جمع‬ ‫عن‬ ‫الناجمة‬ ‫االضرار‬‫لل‬ ٍ‫كاف‬ ‫غير‬‫نفايات‬‫بـ‬0.14
‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬.
‫و‬‫ّرت‬‫د‬‫ق‬‫المناطق‬ ‫في‬ ‫والمرافق‬ ‫السمكية‬ ‫الثروة‬ ‫في‬ ‫الخسائر‬
،‫الساحلية‬‫ب‬‫يعادل‬ ‫ما‬0.02‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬
‫اإلجمالي‬.
‫الجدول‬‫رقم‬‫أ‬:‫العرا‬ ‫في‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬‫ق‬،‫دينار‬ ‫مليار‬
‫عراقي‬‫و‬‫مليار‬‫اميركي‬ ‫دوالر‬
٪‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬
‫اإلجمالي‬
2008 ‫في‬
US$ ‫مليار‬
‫سنويا‬
‫دينار‬ ‫مليار‬
‫عراقي‬
‫سنويا‬
‫الفئة‬‫البيئي‬‫ة‬
1.6% 1.3 1,541 ‫الهواء‬
3.5% 3.1 3,518 ‫المياه‬
1.0% 0.8 949 ‫األرض‬
0.4% 0.3 381 ‫النفايات‬
0.0% 0.0 15 ‫الساحل‬
6.4% 5.6 6,405 ‫الفرعي‬ ‫المجموع‬
0.7% 0.6 685 ‫تغيرالمناخ‬
7.1% 6.2 7,091 ‫المجموع‬
‫ا‬‫لرسم‬‫رقم‬‫أ‬:‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬‫العرا‬ ‫في‬ ‫البيئي‬‫ق‬،٪‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬
‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬
‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬
‫تقدر‬‫العراق‬ ‫في‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬‫بـ‬‫ين‬4.9‫و‬8.0‫في‬
‫سنويا‬ ‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬‫أرقام‬ ‫على‬ ‫بناء‬ ،
2008‫تقدير‬ ‫مع‬ ،‫بـ‬ ‫وسطي‬6.3‫تريليون‬‫عراقي‬ ‫دينار‬
‫سنويا‬‫أو‬5.5$‫دوالر‬ ‫مليار‬‫يعادل‬ ‫ما‬ ‫أي‬6.4‫المئة‬ ‫في‬
.‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬‫أما‬‫الرئيسية‬ ‫األسباب‬‫فتعود‬
‫الى‬( :1‫المياه‬ ‫نقص‬ ‫عنه‬ ‫الناجم‬ ‫المرض‬ ‫عبء‬ )‫السليمة‬
‫و‬ ‫الصحي‬ ‫الصرف‬ ‫ومرافق‬‫ال‬ ‫في‬ ‫نقص‬‫نظافة‬( ‫؛‬2‫آثار‬ )
ّ‫جر‬ ‫من‬ ‫الصحة‬ ‫على‬ ‫كبيرة‬ ‫سلبية‬‫الهواء‬ ‫تلوث‬ ‫اء‬‫؛‬(3)
‫إجهاد‬‫كبير‬‫ل‬‫ال‬ ‫ألراضي‬‫مزروعة‬‫أد‬ ‫مما‬‫خسائر‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫ى‬‫في‬
‫الزراعية‬ ‫المحاصيل‬( ‫؛‬4‫للنفايات‬ ‫مستدامة‬ ‫غير‬ ‫إدارة‬ )‫؛‬
‫أقل‬ ‫حد‬ ‫وإلى‬(5)‫حماية‬‫كافية‬ ‫غير‬‫ل‬‫الساحلية‬ ‫لموارد‬‫؛‬‫و‬
(6‫كفاءة‬ )‫في‬ ‫ضئيلة‬‫كفاية‬ ‫وعدم‬ ‫الطاقة‬ ‫استخدام‬‫في‬
‫المتجددة‬ ‫الطاقة‬ ‫استخدام‬.
‫ذلك‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫باإلضافة‬،‫تقدر‬‫ال‬‫ك‬‫العالمية‬ ‫للبيئة‬ ‫لفة‬‫بـ‬0.7
‫عراقي‬ ‫دينار‬ ‫تريليون‬‫يعادل‬ ‫ما‬ ‫أي‬0.7‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬
‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬‫ل‬‫عام‬2008.‫ال‬ ‫وتصل‬‫العالمية‬ ‫كلفة‬
‫والمحلية‬‫ل‬‫إلى‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫لتدهور‬7.1‫عراقي‬ ‫دينار‬ ‫تريليون‬‫أو‬
6.2$‫أمريكي‬ ‫دوالر‬ ‫مليار‬،‫يعادل‬ ‫ما‬ ‫أي‬7.1‫المئة‬ ‫في‬
‫عام‬ ‫في‬ ‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬2008.
‫ت‬ ‫ويتم‬‫رتيب‬‫البيئية‬ ‫لألضرار‬ ‫التقديرية‬ ‫التكاليف‬‫بحسب‬
‫ال‬‫فئ‬،‫البيئية‬ ‫ات‬‫و‬‫ت‬‫قد‬‫م‬)‫(أ‬ ‫الجدول‬ ‫في‬ ‫النحو‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫على‬/‫ا‬‫لرسم‬
‫ويعرض‬ .)‫(أ‬‫ا‬‫لرسم‬)‫(ب‬‫التقديرات‬‫نفسها‬ ‫المتوسطة‬
‫ب‬‫الصحة‬ ‫في‬ ‫التكلفة‬ ‫ان‬ ‫الى‬ ‫مشيرا‬ ،‫االقتصادية‬ ‫الفئة‬ ‫حسب‬
‫ت‬ ‫هي‬ ‫الحياة‬ ‫ونوعية‬‫عادل‬3.7‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬
‫اإل‬‫جمالي‬)56‫الخسائر‬ ‫مجموع‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬(‫و‬ ،‫اما‬
‫الطبيعية‬ ‫الموارد‬‫فت‬‫عادل‬2.9‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬
‫اإلجمالي‬)44‫الخسائر‬ ‫مجموع‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬.(
‫السلبية‬ ‫اآلثار‬ ‫أهم‬‫ال‬ ،‫المياه‬ ‫تلوث‬ ‫عن‬ ‫الناتجة‬ ‫تلك‬ ‫هي‬
‫سيما‬‫مياه‬ ‫على‬ ‫الحصول‬ ‫وعدم‬ ،‫السطحية‬ ‫المياه‬ ‫تلوث‬
‫ال‬ ‫الشرب‬‫سليمة‬‫كفاية‬ ‫وعدم‬ ،‫الصحي‬ ‫والصرف‬‫في‬
‫و‬ ،‫المنزلية‬ ‫النظافة‬( ‫الغذائية‬ ‫والمواد‬ ‫الشخصية‬3.5‫في‬
.)‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬‫الثانية‬ ‫المرتبة‬ ‫في‬ ‫يأتي‬
‫الهواء‬ ‫تلوث‬‫في‬:‫مدن‬‫ونينوى‬ ‫وبابل‬ ‫والبصرة‬ ‫بغداد‬
‫وكركوك‬ ‫والنجف‬‫وميسا‬،‫و‬ ،‫والسليمانية‬‫دهوك‬،‫واربيل‬
‫ب‬‫تكلفة‬‫تقديرية‬‫تعادل‬1.5‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬
‫اإلجمالي‬.
1.6%
3.5%
1.0%
0.4%
0.02%
0.7%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
‫وا‬ ‫ال‬ ‫الميا‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ا‬ ‫النفايا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ال‬ ‫يرالمنا‬ ‫ت‬
٪‫من‬‫الناتج‬‫المحلي‬‫ي‬‫اإلجمال‬
‫الفئة‬
‫را‬ ‫ال‬ ‫في‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫ور‬ ‫ال‬ ‫لفة‬
( ) 2008

xix
‫ومعالجتها‬ ‫األضرار‬ ‫تكاليف‬ ‫بين‬ ‫مقارنة‬
‫ال‬ ‫أن‬ ‫حين‬ ‫في‬‫التقرير‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫في‬ ‫الواردة‬ ‫تقديرات‬‫ت‬‫قدم‬
‫البيئة‬ ‫مجاالت‬ ‫على‬ ‫مؤشرات‬‫من‬ ‫قدر‬ ‫بأكبر‬‫كلفة‬‫ال‬‫ضرر‬
‫ا‬ ‫على‬،‫لمجتمع‬‫إجراء‬ ‫ينبغي‬‫مقارنة‬‫فوائد‬ ‫بين‬‫من‬ ‫الحد‬
‫البيئية‬ ‫األضرار‬‫و‬‫تكاليف‬‫لتحسين‬ ‫العالجية‬ ‫اإلجراءات‬
‫والتكاليف‬ ‫الفوائد‬ ‫بين‬ ‫المقارنة‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫لمثل‬ ‫يمكن‬ .‫البيئة‬‫ان‬
‫مفيدة‬ ‫تكون‬‫ف‬ ّ‫التعر‬ ‫بغية‬‫التي‬ ‫اإلجراءات‬ ‫على‬‫تتجاوز‬
‫التكاليف‬ ‫فوائدها‬،‫وإلجراء‬‫ترتيب‬‫أكبر‬ ‫صافي‬ ‫بحسب‬ ‫ات‬
‫ال‬.‫فوائد‬‫بم‬ ‫القيام‬ ‫وعند‬،‫المقارنات‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫ثل‬‫الحيطة‬ ‫اخذ‬ ‫يتعين‬
‫و‬‫الحذر‬:
•‫من‬‫القضاء‬ ‫يتم‬ ‫أن‬ ‫المحتمل‬ ‫غير‬‫على‬ ‫كليا‬‫األضرار‬
‫مهما‬ ‫البيئية‬‫كانت‬‫العالجية‬ ‫اإلجراءات‬‫وشاملة‬ ‫صارمة‬
•‫تقييم‬ ‫إجراء‬ ‫قطعيا‬ ‫الممكن‬ ‫غير‬ ‫من‬‫كمي‬ ‫ودقيق‬ ‫شامل‬
‫ل‬ ‫ونقدي‬‫البيئية‬ ‫ألضرار‬
•‫إن‬‫مبدأ‬‫ال‬‫تحليل‬‫ال‬‫هامشي‬‫التطبيق‬ ‫الى‬ ‫يحتاج‬‫بغية‬‫تحديد‬
‫ال‬ ‫االجراءات‬‫عالجية‬‫من‬ ‫قدر‬ ‫أكبر‬ ‫توفر‬ ‫أن‬ ‫شأنها‬ ‫من‬ ‫التي‬
‫التكاليف‬ ‫من‬ ‫وحدة‬ ‫لكل‬ ‫الفوائد‬
‫الممكنة‬ ‫االستثمارات‬ ‫لتقييم‬ ‫الالزمة‬ ‫العناصر‬ ‫توفير‬ ‫يتم‬
‫أو‬ ‫من‬ ‫للحد‬‫ل‬‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫منع‬،‫إلى‬ ‫حاجة‬ ‫هناك‬ ‫ولكن‬
‫في‬ ‫والمحتملة‬ ‫الحالية‬ ‫التكاليف‬ ‫وتقدير‬ ‫تقييم‬ ‫مواصلة‬
‫المائية‬ ‫للموارد‬ ‫التلوث‬ ‫ضرر‬ ‫من‬ ‫المستقبل‬.‫يوفر‬‫الجدول‬
)‫(ب‬‫و‬)‫(ج‬ ‫الجدول‬‫خالصة‬‫ال‬ ‫لتكاليف‬‫وال‬ ‫تجنب‬‫معالجة‬
)‫توفرها‬ ‫(عند‬‫ب‬‫الفئة‬ ‫حسب‬.
ّ‫ي‬‫بتغ‬ ‫المرتبطة‬ ‫العالمية‬ ‫االضرار‬ ‫وتقدر‬‫عن‬ ‫الناجم‬ ‫المناخ‬ ‫ر‬
‫الكربون‬ ‫أكسيد‬ ‫ثاني‬ ‫انبعاثات‬‫بـ‬0.7‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬ ‫المئة‬ ‫في‬
‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬.
‫ا‬ ‫ان‬ ‫الى‬ ‫أضف‬‫لتلوث‬‫المتواصل‬‫استخراج‬ ‫في‬ ‫واإلفراط‬
‫المياه‬ ‫على‬ ‫كبيرة‬ ‫قيودا‬ ‫يفرض‬ ‫قد‬ ‫المائية‬ ‫الموارد‬
،‫الزراعية‬ ‫والتنمية‬ ‫المنزلية‬ ‫لألغراض‬‫مما‬‫إدارة‬ ‫يتطلب‬
‫مكثفة‬‫ل‬‫المائية‬ ‫لموارد‬.
‫ا‬‫لرسم‬:‫ب‬ ‫رقم‬‫العرا‬ ‫في‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬‫ق‬‫ب‬‫الفئة‬ ‫حسب‬
‫االقتصادية‬،٪‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬
‫وع‬‫ند‬‫اإل‬ ‫المستوى‬ ‫على‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬ ‫مقارنة‬،‫قليمي‬
‫ا‬ ‫يأتي‬‫األ‬ ‫المرتبة‬ ‫في‬ ‫لعراق‬‫العربي‬ ‫الدول‬ ‫بين‬ ‫ولى‬( ‫ة‬‫ا‬‫لرسم‬
)‫ج‬،‫وبنسبة‬6.4٪‫يحتل‬ ،‫الثاني‬ ‫المركز‬ ‫العراق‬‫خلف‬
‫لكلفة‬ ‫بالنسبة‬ ‫إيران‬‫ي‬ ‫كان‬ ‫الذي‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬‫عادل‬7.4٪
‫في‬ ‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬‫عام‬2002.
‫ا‬‫لرسم‬‫رقم‬‫ج‬:‫في‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬‫ب‬‫ع‬‫العربية‬ ‫الدول‬ ‫ض‬،
٪‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫من‬
:‫المصدر‬‫مستمد‬‫من‬‫دو‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ب‬.
56%
44%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
‫الحيا‬ ‫وعية‬ ‫حية‬ ‫رار‬ ‫ية‬ ‫بي‬ ‫ال‬ ‫الموارد‬ ‫ور‬ ‫ت‬
٪‫من‬‫الناتج‬‫المحلي‬‫ي‬‫اإلجمال‬
‫العرا‬ ‫ي‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬
) 2008٪‫من‬‫الناتج‬‫المحلي‬‫اإلجمالي‬(
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
‫ب‬
‫ي‬ ‫البيئي‬ ‫التدهور‬ ‫كلفة‬‫بع‬‫الدو‬‫العربية‬
)‫اإلجمالي‬ ‫المحلي‬ ‫الناتج‬ ‫٪من‬(

xx
‫رقم‬ ‫الجدول‬‫ب‬:‫تحليل‬‫التكاليف‬ / ‫الفوائد‬‫العرا‬ ‫في‬‫ق‬،‫مليار‬
‫عراقي‬ ‫دينار‬
‫فاد‬ ‫االس‬‫تجنب‬‫كلفة‬ ‫ال‬ ‫البيئية‬ ‫الفئة‬
3 2 1
1,142 1,092 1,042
6,794
1,094
5,700
1,762
732
1,030
713
373
340
‫خد‬
‫ة‬ ‫ط‬
77 77 77
286 197 95
‫غ‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬
‫غ‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬
‫غ‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬
8,299 3,128 1,927 ‫الفرعي‬ ‫المجموع‬
0.02 0.02 0.01 ‫خ‬
8,299 3,128 1,927 ‫المجموع‬
‫رقم‬ ‫الجدول‬‫ج‬:‫تحليل‬‫التكاليف‬ / ‫الفوائد‬‫العرا‬ ‫في‬‫ق‬،‫مليار‬
‫عراقي‬ ‫دينار‬
‫ثمار‬ ‫االس‬‫عالجية‬‫كلفة‬ ‫ال‬ ‫البيئية‬ ‫الفئة‬
3 2 1
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬
5,700
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬
3,800
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬
1,900
‫خد‬
‫ة‬ ‫ط‬
‫غ‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬
8.6 5.8 2.9
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬
- - - ‫الفرعي‬ ‫المجموع‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫خ‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫غ‬ ‫المجموع‬

1
1 Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND
Iraq has long faced environmental degradation
and threats that were exacerbated by the 2003
War and its aftermath, which have impinged on
the quality of growth, life and the commons. The
2004 UNEP Assessment of Environmental ‘Hot
Spots’ in Iraq lead to the prioritization of 5
highly contaminated sites with hazardous waste
whose clean up has started in 2006: Al-Mishraq,
Qassiya, Khan Dhari, Al Suwaira and Ouireej.
Moreover, the UNEP Support for Environmental
Management of the Iraqi Marshlands has
initiated in 2006 the introduction of potable
water for the marsh Arab populations and the
restoration of the integrity of the marsh
ecosystem that is also meant to improve their
livelihood. However, the drought that started in
2008 increased water shortages throughout the
country by 2010 and triggered a migration
notably from marshlands. Also, areas
contaminated with depleted uranium were
identified and measures are being taken to clean
them up. A recent study there has been a 4-fold
increase in all cancer. Interestingly, the spectrum
of cancer is similar to that in the Hiroshima
survivors who were exposed to ionizing
radiation from the bomb and uranium in the
fallout. By comparing the sample population
rates to the cancer rates in Egypt and Jordan,
researchers found there has been a 38-fold
increase in leukemia (20 cases) almost a 10-fold
increase in female breast cancer (12 cases) and
significant increases in lymphoma and brain
tumors in adults (Busby et al., 2010). More
specifically, there is 1,730 km2
where 1.6 million
of Iraqis live that is contaminated with
unexploded ordnance (UXO). The United
Nations is working on an assessment of the latter
but in the meantime, 50 percent of agricultural
land and 90 percent of rangeland are considered
as risky areas that are still increasing the
prevalence of accidental injuries or death from
UXO.
Iraq is a lower middle-income country with a per
capita GDP of about US$ 2,090 in 2009. After
the important oil sector (crude oil export
revenues represents 60 percent of GDP on 2009),
agriculture in Iraq has been affected by the
unsettled security situation that prevailed after
the 2003 War, the dislocation of the rural social
fabric (especially of the Marsh Arabs) that was
compounded by droughts, migration and a
reduction of the availability of water. Close to
22 percent of total land area is under cultivation
and agriculture contributed to 9 percent of GDP
in 2007 that declined to 4 percent in 2008 and
employs 17 percent of the active population.
This long-standing reliance on agriculture has
led to stresses on arable land and freshwater
resources as well as rangelands. Intensification,
especially the increase in irrigated production,
has led to agricultural withdrawal being
responsible for 87 percent of total freshwater
withdrawal (World Bank 2010).
The Environment Performance Index (EPI) was
developed to benchmark the environmental
performance of a country relative to other
countries. The index has two major
environmental objectives: (a) reducing
environmental stresses on human health; and (b)
promoting ecosystem vitality and sound natural
resource management. This index is composed
of a combination of 25 performance indicators
divided among six well-established policy
categories. The higher the score the better is the
environment performance of the country in
achieving environmental sustainability. EPI
ranks Iraq 150 over 163 countries with a score of
41 in 2010 indicating a lower performance
towards environmental sustainability.1
1.2 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION
In , the World Bank published the “Middle
East and North Africa Environmental Strategy.”
The strategy provided an order of magnitude for
the regional cost of environmental degradation
as a percentage of regional GDP. The main areas
for which the strategy provided estimates for the
cost of degradation were the detrimental impacts
1 Esty and Levy (2010).

2
on health from the lack of safe water and
sanitation facilities, urban air pollution, and the
cost of natural resource degradation (soil erosion
and salinization as well as rangeland and forest
degradation). The strategy was based on 1990
data and was a first attempt to quantify the
impacts of environmental degradation on health
and economic activity in the Middle East and
North Africa. In addition, the strategy identified
areas of resource inefficiencies (such as energy
and water) that had high economic costs and
contributed to environmental degradation.
The World Bank prepared its Corporate
Environment Strategy and updated Middle East
and North Africa regional strategy in 2001 and
2011.2
The 2001 regional strategy committed to
demonstrating the economic importance of a
clean environment by underscoring the
assessment of the damage costs of environmental
degradation. Hence, starting in the early 2000s,
several country-specific and sector-specific
studies were undertaken in the region. They
provided estimates of the cost of environmental
degradation (COED) for specific environmental
issues and subsets of issues. These include
studies in Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon,
Morocco, Tunisia, and Syria that were
commissioned by the Mediterranean
Environmental Technical Assistance Program
(METAP) that was since 2009 replaced by the
Sustainable Med program. Until 2009, funding
was provided by the World Bank as well as other
development partners. The World Bank Group is
expected to follow the platform of “Diving
Deeper into Country Priorities and Enhancing
Attention to Cross-Cutting Issues” with the 2011
Strategy.
This assessment could also represent an
analytical tool to assess environmental
sustainability, as called for in Millennium
Development Goal number 7, especially for
water and sanitation improved provision as well
as land use targets.
2 World Bank (2001).
1.3 RATIONALE ANDOBJECTIVES
The COED could help improve the process of
environmental priority setting to achieve
reductions in the overall cost of environmental
degradation. The report is the first step in a
process to use environmental damage cost
assessments as an instrument in environmental
management, prioritization, and policy setting.
The specific objectives of the report are three-
fold:
i Provide an estimate of the COED in Iraq
using the most recent data available.
ii Provide an analytical framework that can be
applied periodically by professionals in Iraq
to assess the COED over time.
iii Provide a basis for a training program for
ministries, agencies, institutes and other
interested parties to incorporate assessments
of the cost of environmental degradation into
policy making and environmental
management.
1.4 THE PREPARATIONPROCESS
The study for this report has been a collaborative
effort between the Ministry of Environment
(MOE) of Iraq and the World Bank. It started in
October 2010 with discussions of study design
and methodologies at the World Bank resident
mission in Beirut. Initial data collection started
since that date and the analysis of the COED was
completed in May, 2011 and finalized in April
2012. This analysis was then reviewed by the
Iraqi counterparts until the end of April, 2012
and the report was finalized in April, 2012. An
official workshop was organized in Beirut in
April, 2012 to share the final results and discuss
the way forward in terms of environmental
action prioritization and requirements for further
technical, scientific and economic assessments
(Agenda and List of Participants are appended in
Annex 5).
During the preparation of the study, a review of
relevant literature and documents was carried
out. Data from various government documents,

3
statistical analyses, World Bank economic and
sector work, and reports from various
researchers and international agencies were
utilized. In addition, analysis from other
countries was utilized to supplement the
estimates for the cost of environmental
degradation included in this report. Chapter 2
provides an overview of the methodologies
applied in the report. Analysis and estimated
degradation cost in the areas of air, water, land,
solid waste, the coastal zone, and the global
environment are presented in Chapters 3-8.
Chapter 9 attempts to determine averted costs
and occasionally mitigation costs for certain
environmental categories and sub-categories.
Chapter 10 provides all the results, a brief
discussion of priority setting, and
recommendations for further work on the
valuation of environmental degradation.
Annexes 1 2 and 3 present details and
explanations of quantified degradation costs.
Annex 4 maps institutional and policy
responsibilities for the environmental themes
and subthemes considered. Annex 5 includes the
Agenda and List of Participants to the workshop
organized in Beirut on April 12-13, 2012.

4
2 Methodological framework
2.1 DEFINITION
This report provides first order estimates of the
cost of environmental degradation in Iraq. An
attempt was made to capture the most significant
costs of degradation. However, data limitations
are a constraint, implying that estimates in some
environmental areas are not included. Hence, the
total estimate of environmental degradation, as
presented in this study, is likely to understate the
true costs of degradation to society.
The cost of environmental degradation can be
understood as a measure of the lost welfare of a
nation due to environmental degradation. Such a
loss in welfare includes, but is not necessarily
limited to:
i Loss of healthy life and well-being of the
population (e.g.: premature death, pain and
suffering from illness, absence of a clean
environment, discomfort).
ii Economic losses (e.g.: reduced soil
productivity and value of other natural
resources, lower tourism revenues).
iii Loss of environmental opportunities (e.g.,
reduced recreational value of lakes, rivers,
beaches, forests).
In this report the cost of environmental
degradation is expressed as a percentage of GDP
to provide a sense of magnitude. It is also useful
to compare the cost of degradation to GDP to
assess the relative magnitude over time. If the
cost of degradation as a percentage of GDP
grows over time, it suggests that the welfare loss
from environmental degradation is growing
faster than GDP. This means that economic and
human activities are having increasingly
negative environmental consequences for the
nation relative to their economic affluence. If the
contrary is the case, it suggests that
environmental consequences are being reduced
relative to the nation’s economic affluence.
2.2 METHODOLOGICAL PROCESSES
The process of estimating the cost of
environmental degradation involves placing a
monetary value on the consequences of such
degradation. This often implies a three-step
process:
i Quantification of environmental degradation
(e.g. monitoring of ambient air quality,
river/lake/sea water quality, soil loss, and
soil quality).
ii Quantification of the consequences of
degradation (e.g. negative impacts on health
from air pollution, changes in soil
productivity, changes in forest
density/growth, reduced natural resource
based recreational activities, reduced tourism
demand).
iii A monetary valuation of the consequences
(e.g., estimating the cost of ill health, soil
productivity losses, reduced recreational
values).
Environmental science, natural resource science,
health science and epidemiology, economics and
other sciences are often applied to quantify the
environment’s degradation and condition and the
resulting consequences. For valuation of the
consequences, and to quantify the consequences
of degradation, environmental economics and
natural resource economics are applied.
2.3 CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS
To estimate the cost of environmental
degradation for various aspects of the
environment, the analysis and estimates are
organized into these categories:
i Air;
ii Water;
iii Land (soil and wild life);
iv Waste;
v Coastal zones and cultural heritage;
and
vi Global environment.

5
For each of these categories there are separate
analyses and cost estimates for:
i. Health and quality of life; and
ii. Natural resources.
2.4 CONSEQUENCES OF
DEGRADATION
Several methodologies and approaches have
been applied to provide quantitative estimates of
the consequences of environmental degradation.
Explanations of the estimates are provided in
Annexes 1, 2 and 3 for each area for which the
cost of degradation is estimated. An overview of
the main principles is provided here.
2.4.1 Health and Quality of Life
Impacts on health from environmental
degradation are expressed as Disability Adjusted
Life Years (DALYs). This is a methodology that
has been developed and applied by WHO and
the World Bank in collaboration with
international experts to provide a common
measure of disease burden for various illnesses
and premature mortality.3 Illnesses are weighted
by severity so that a relatively mild illness or
disability represents a small fraction of a DALY,
while a severe illness represents a larger fraction
of a DALY. One lost year of healthy life
represents one DALY, and future years lost are
discounted at a fixed reference rate of 3 percent.
For air pollution, impacts on health are estimated
based on ambient air quality data in nine cities
and international studies on the negative impacts
on health from air pollution. In this report, each
premature death due to air pollution represents
10 DALYs (see Chapter 3).
For lack of comfort due to urban air pollution,
figures from international literature were adapted
to Iraqi standard of living using Purchasing
Power Parity (PPP) approach. PPPs are price
relatives, which show the ratio of the prices in
national currencies of the same good or service
3
See Murray and Lopez (1996) for a more detailed
explanation of the DALY metric.
in different countries. It allows adjusting for
differences in power parities between countries
in order to compare cost of living between these
countries. PPPs are commonly used by
International Organizations such as the World
Bank, the OECD, the International Monetary
Fund, etc. The International Comparison
Program (ICP) of the World Bank, combined
with an Eurostat-OECD PPP Progam, gives
estimates of PPPs for several economies.
For waterborne illnesses - associated with
inadequate water and sanitation services and
hygiene - the loss of DALYs presented in this
report are predominantly due to mortality and
morbidity in children under five caused by
diarrheal illnesses. Each child death represents
the loss of 33 DALYs (see Chapter 3).
For inadequate solid waste collection, no
estimate of potential health impacts is provided
in the report. The social cost of inadequate
collection is estimated directly by the
willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach (see Chapter
4).
In some cases, social costs of damages were
estimated directly by the WTP approach using
results from international literature adjusted to
Iraqi GDP, and deflated with Consumer Price
Index to estimate 2008 values.
2.4.2 Natural Resources
The main areas of natural resource degradation
quantified in this report are agricultural land and
rangeland degradation, coastal zone degradation,
and some areas of water resources degradation.
For water resources degradation the analysis of
the consequences of water pollution relies on a
benefit transfer based on Baker et al. (2007)
study to improve the quality of surface water
(Land and marine water) by eliciting the state
preference of the community through 2 WTP
techniques. As water resources quality is of great
importance for the domestic, industrial and
agricultural sectors as well as for river
ecosystems in Iraq, further analysis in this area is
considered important to improve the quality of
the resource by selecting and optimizing
investments.

6
The consequences of land degradation are
quantified in terms of productivity declines in
crop cultivation and rangeland forage yields.
Also, the impact of UXO is considered on the
replacement cost for barley in the areas that are
blocked due to UXO and the victims that fall
braving the risk in tending, harvesting and
fetching natural products.
The cost of coastal zone degradation is estimated
based on: (i) an indication of possible fishery
losses due to pollution; and the WTP to improve
the direct and indirect use of the coast.
The global environment is based on the different
of what is allowed in term of carbon emission (2
tons per capita per year) to keep future
temperature increase within the 2º Celsius mark
and the incremental carbon emissions above this
threshold.
2.5 MONETARY VALUATION
Chapters 3-8 provide a discussion and
explanation of the monetary valuation of the cost
of environmental degradation for each of the
environmental categories assessed in the report.
The notes in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 provide further
details. A range has been used for most estimates
to reflect uncertainties. An elaboration of some
health impact valuation issues follows here.
2.5.1 Morbidity
The cost of negative impacts on health is
estimated by applying a combination of
valuation techniques. For morbidity the cost-of-
illness (COI) approach has been used. This
approach estimates treatment costs and the cost
of lost work days or time provided by care
givers. In addition, DALYs lost to morbidity
have been valued in relation to GDP per capita
to account for the cost of pain and suffering of
illness which is not included in the COI
approach.
2.5.2 Adult Mortality
The relationship between PM2.5 air pollution and
long term premature mortality on adults greater
than 30 years is usually assumed to be log-linear
that may be applied to estimate the relative risk
of mortality from concentration levels of PM2.5:
Relative Risk, RR = [(X + 1)/(X0 + 1)]β
Where X is annual concentration of PM2.5; and
X0 is a threshold level below which it may be
assumed that the relative risk of mortality from
PM2.5 is 1.0 (no mortality effect from PM2.5).
The β coefficient is . for
cardiopulmonary mortality and 0.2322 for lung
cancer mortality.4
The attributable fractions assess the proportion
of cases in a population attributable to certain
risk factors. One of the most frequently applied
approaches calculating the AF is the Levin
formula, which requires only the RR estimate
and the prevalence of the risk factor (p):
AF = p*(RR-1)/1+p*(RR-1)
Where p is derived from WHO’s Burden of
Disease prevalence of risk factors and RR is
derived from the above formulas.
The cost of adult mortality from air pollution is
estimated based on the WTP for mortality risk
reduction. Since such studies are not available
for Iraq, the WTP estimated in Europe and North
America has been applied by adjusting for the
GDP per capita differentials for Iraq. Since it has
been found that the elderly are most at risk of
mortality from air pollution (WHO, 1994), the
WTP estimates have been adjusted for
differences in life years lost between mortality
from air pollution and the overall mortality risks
for which the WTP estimate was originally
calculated.
The WTP estimates are used as an upper bound
for the cost of mortality. As a lower bound,
DALYs lost to mortality have been valued at
GDP per capita. This valuation has similarities to
the human capital approach (HCA) that
estimates the cost of mortality as lost future
income from the time of death.
4 Popeet al. (2009).

7
It should be noted that the WTP approach
provides a cost of mortality in this report that is
about four times higher than the approach of
DALYs valued at GDP per capita. Thus the
lower bound estimate of the cost of a DALY lost
due to adult mortality would be a gross
understatement of the cost of environmental
degradation if WTP provides a better
representation of welfare cost.
2.5.3 Child Mortality
Worldwide, most WTP studies assessing
mortality risk are for adult mortality risk
valuation. Almost no such studies are available
for children. The human capital approach has
therefore been applied in this study by
estimating the present value of lifetime income,
approximated by the GDP per capita, for income
during the ages of 20 to 65 years, at a discount
rate of 3 percent.5
At a real income growth of
zero and two percent per year, this corresponds
to a valuation of DALYs at 100 percent of GDP
per capita.
2.5.4 Surface Water Pollution
Non-market economic value of a change in
water quality that could accrue from different
wastewater and waste policy options was used to
determine the surface water degradation. A
benefit transfer method was used to cover non-
market use and non use type of benefits derived
from water resource quality improvements
(Annex 3).
2.5.5 Land
Loss of productivity due to salinization was used and
derived from and Kotuby-Amacher et al.,
(2000). Different produce/fruits are considered
to derive the forgone opportunity cost of
planting high value added produce/fruits. Also,
replacement cost (international price of barley)
was used to quantify the reduction of the
rangeland output due to droughts. UXO are
causing death and injuries and the DALY, HCA,
VSL and COI were used (see above).
5 A discount rate of 3 percent is used, which is consistent
with the rate used for the loss of DALYs.
2.5.6 Waste
Uncollected waste was costed at rural and urban
1.5% of Household disposable income over a
year. Waste dumping was costed at ID 22,960
per m3
for clean up where 340 kg/m2
over 1 m of
depth (Bassi et al., 2011).
2.5.7 Coastal Zones
Loss of productivity of fisheries was used and
derived from FAO, 2009. Use and non-use value
Loss were derived thanks to a benefit transfer
(METAP, 2009).
2.5.8 Global Environment
The World Resource Institute identifies 2 tons of
CO2 per year per capita as the threshold not to be
exceeded to limit the temperature growth to 2°C.
The marginal CO2 per capita emitted in Iraq
beyond the suggested 2 tons are assigned the
most recent social cost of CO2 (Nordhaus, 2011).
2.6 COSTS OF REMEDIATION
The following chapters present estimates of the
cost of environmental degradation and of the
costs of remediation. As previously stated,
damage costs express the national welfare loss
associated with environmental degradation.
Damage costs also provide a perspective on the
extent of the potential benefits that would occur
with good environmental management and
remedial actions. The assessment of remediation
costs provides an indication of the resources
needed to at least partially avoid current
environmental degradation. Only a limited
number of remedial actions, and their costs, are
presented in this report. It therefore remains
uncertain to what extent these actions would
restore environmental quality. Thus any
comparison of degradation costs and remediation
costs (i.e., potential benefits compared to costs
of environmental improvements) should be
undertaken with great care and undergo a more
detailed assessment before utilization as a policy
tool.

8
2.7 MARGINAL ANALYSIS
The objective of this report has been to estimate
the cost to society of environmental damage in
the areas of water, air, land, waste, coastal zones,
and the global environment. This provides a
perspective on the overall damage costs and
areas of the environment with the highest cost.
For each area of the environment, however,
careful consideration needs to be given to the
costs of remedial action and the cost of such
action in comparison to the benefits such as a
reduction in environmental degradation cost.
A marginal (incremental) analysis should be
applied to assess the benefits (reductions in
damage costs) and costs of remedial action. Only
in specific and limited cases can it be expected
that incremental benefits from an additional
remedial action will be the same as for a
previous action. In most cases, incremental
benefits decline and it becomes increasingly
costly to improve environmental quality. Thus
the costs and benefits of each action should be
assessed to the extent possible, and actions with
the greatest benefits per unit of cost should
receive priority. This process should be
continued to the point where benefits of an
action equal the cost. Implementing actions to
improve the environment beyond this point
would result in a net welfare loss.
In practice, however, it may prove very difficult
(if not impossible) to assess benefits and costs
accurately enough on a marginal basis. In such
cases, other principles may be used, such as
precautionary concerns, the irreversibility of
environmental damage, intergenerational
concerns, and gender, poverty alleviation and
equity objectives. These principles may also be
combined with marginal analysis for cases in
which benefits and costs can be quantified.
One approach for estimating remediation costs is
to review the investments that industrialized
countries such as the United States, Japan, and
Germany have made in the 70s and 80s to reduce
industrial and domestic pollution to improve
water and air quality and comply with
increasingly stringent norms.
In 1995, Morocco’s National Strategy for
Environmental Protection and Sustainable
Development used this approach and estimated
that the cost of reducing environmental
degradation costs from 8.2 to 2.3 percent of GDP
would represent 1.91 percent of GDP.6
Therefore, in Morocco, benefits equal to 5.9
percent of GDP would be about three times
bigger than remediation costs.
6 UNDP-UNESCO (1995).

9
3 Air
3.1 HEALTH AND QUALITYOF LIFE
Significant sources of air pollution in Iraq
include power stations, oil and other industries,
open burning of solid waste and traffic.
Moreover, sand storms (30 days reported in
Baghdad and 5 in Mosul in 2008) are
increasingly recognized as causing
cardiopulmonary diseases. At the beginning of
the 2000s, excessive emissions from traffic were
in part due to Iraq’s ageing vehicle fleet (15-20
years average age) and the fuel quality (leaded
fuel). The renewal of a part of the Iraqi vehicle
fleet since 2003 is likely to marginally reduce air
pollution from specific priority pollutants, e.g.,
CO, NOx, SOx, HC, PM and lead. Only a lead
phase out initiative will decrease lead in the air,
but not enough to drastically improve urban
ambient air quality.
There is substantial research evidence from
around the world that outdoor urban air pollution
has significant negative impacts on public health
and results in premature deaths, bronchitis,
respiratory disorders, and cancer. The air
pollutant that has shown the strongest
association with these health endpoints is
particulate matter (PM), and especially fine
particulate of less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10) or smaller. The gaseous pollutants (SO2,
NOx, CO, HC, and ozone) are generally not
thought to be as damaging, albeit having
important adverse health consequences.
Particulate matter (PM) is solid matter or liquid
droplets from smoke, dust, fuel ash, or
condensing vapors that can be suspended in the
air. It consists of a range of different sized
particles from coarser particles to smaller
particles such as PM10 and PM2.5. Recent
evidence suggests that the smaller particulate
cause the greatest health damage. This study
therefore focuses on PM10 and PM2.5, the
smallest measure of PM for which data are
available in Iraq or can be extrapolated.
In 2005, WHO published guideline values of
PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, below which
health risks are considered as acceptable.
Threshold values are 20 µg/m3
per year for PM10
and 10 µg/m3
per year for PM2.5. Moreover,
WHO recently capped the upper values for
premature mortality at 100 µg/m3
per year and a
120 µg/m3
per year is used for cities without
concentration data.
There are three main steps to quantify the health
impacts from air pollution. First, the pollutant
needs to be identified and its concentration
measured. Second, the number of people
exposed to that pollutant and its concentration
needs to be calculated. Third, the health impacts
from this exposure should be estimated based on
epidemiological information. Once the health
impacts are quantified, the value of this damage
can be estimated.
There are no recent or comprehensive data on
PM and PM10 concentrations in Iraqi cities. The
only available data are Total suspended
particulate (TSP) values that significantly exceed
the revoked TPS thresholds by WHO and
USEPA: 786 µg/m3
per year in Baghdad in 2008
with April and May being peak months (± twice
the average) due to the sand storm season; 304
µg/m3
per year in Niniveh (Mosul) in 2007.
Also, SO2 concentrations are monitored in
Baghdad and seems to be below the national and
daily suggested concentrations of SO2 (0.1 parts
per million) in Baghdad in 2008. Also, lead is
monitored in Niniveh and seems below the
suggested WHO threshold of 0.5 µg/m3
per year
in 2007 although a recent study suggests that
lead concentration ranges between 0.6 to 1
µg/m3
per year (University of Alaska: <www.
sciencenews.org>). Hence, official figures need
to be revisited as they also do not reflect urban
air quality as perceived by inhabitants.
Nevertheless, if considered as a proxy, a
professional journal studying a cohort of foreign
military personnel suggests that the
cardiopulmonary prevalence among the cohort
that left Iraq infer a threshold 10 times the
allowed thresholds in the United States

10
(University of Alaska: <www.
sciencenews.org>).
As PM10 is a component of TSP, it is possible to
estimate levels of PM10 where TSP is available.
When PM10 concentrations were not available,
they were extrapolated based on TSP
concentrations, using an average countrywide
PM10/TSP ratio. The ratio between PM10 and
TSP can vary greatly due to different sources of
pollutants and climatic conditions. However, the
ratios found in other countries where COED
assessments were performed suggest a variation
between 0.4 and 0.5. Moreover, PM2.5 are
preferred to evaluate mortality health impacts
and Pope et al. (2002) and Cohen et al. (2004)
provide a base coefficient of 0.5 and 0.6
respectively for PM2.5/PM10 proportions in
developing countries. A 0.5 is used for Iraq.
However, given the lack of time series mean
pollutants, a capping of the upper thresholds (as
performed in WHO, 2004c) at 120 µg/m3
for
PM10 per year, the PM10 levels are beyond the
threshold with 393 per year for Baghdad and 152
per year for Niniveh. TPS are only available for
Baghdad, Niniveh, Missa, nevertheless An
Najjaf, Babel, Basra, Duhouk, as Suleimaniyeh,
Moussil and Irbil were also considered in the
analysis with a capped PM10 at 120 µg/m3
.
The second step in estimating health impacts is
to determine how many people are exposed to
the pollutant. It was assumed that 90 percent of
the 10 cities’ population with a total population
of 10.9 million inhabitants is exposed to air
pollution.
Some health outcomes affect only certain
segments of the population such as adults or
children. As only total population data are
available at the city level, the number of adults
and children in each city was estimated by
applying the percentage of Iraq’s population
under 5 years, under 15 years and over 30 years
of age to the city population data (COS, 2010).
3.1.1 Dose Response Coefficients
The third step is to determine the health impacts
that result from exposure to PM10 and PM2.5. For
this, the study relied upon scientific literature.
Scientific studies estimate a dose-response
coefficient linking PM2.5 concentrations with
mortality and PM10 concentrations with
morbidity outcomes. The health endpoints
considered are premature mortality, chronic
bronchitis, hospital admissions of patients with
respiratory problems, emergency room visits,
restricted activity days, lower respiratory
infections in children, and respiratory symptoms.
The dose-response coefficients from Lvovsky et
al. (2000), Pope et al. (2002) and Neuberger et
al. (2008) that is derived from Pope et al. (2002)
and Pope et al. (2009) are shown in Table 3-1.
Dose-response coefficients for morbidity are
expressed as an overall change in health effects
associated with a change in pollution
concentration. The dose-response coefficient for
mortality is expressed as a percentage change in
the baseline crude mortality rate, reported to be 4
per 1,000 people (WHO, 2006). These figures
were applied to cities in Iraq.
The majority of dose-response studies have been
undertaken in developed countries and there are
questions regarding the validity of their use in
Iraq. However, Lvovsky et al. (2000) find that
recent studies support their use in cross-country
contexts.
3.1.2 Mortality and Morbidity
Using the approach above, it is estimated that
9,469 people die prematurely every year due to
urban air pollution in 5 cities in Iraq. The
number should be greater if we account for all
major cities in Iraq. In addition, it is estimated
that urban pollution in the 5 cities causes about
2,680 cases of chronic bronchitis, 17.6 million
restricted activity days, 651,453 lower
respiratory infections in children, and
approximately 56 million respiratory symptoms
per year. It is also estimated that urban air
pollution is responsible for 11,782 hospital
admissions, and 231,120 emergency room visits
(see Annex 2).

11
Table 3-1. Air : Dose-response coefficients
Annual Health Effect
Dose-response
per μg/m³ of
PM
Mortality (% change in all-cause
mortality rate for children under 5)
0.8 (PM10)
Chronic bronchitis (per 100,000 adults) 0.87 (PM10)
Respiratory hospital admissions (per
100,000 adults)
1.2 (PM10)
Emergency room visits (per 100,000
population)
23.5 (PM10)
Restricted activity days (per 100,000
adults)
5.750 (PM10)
Lower respiratory illness in children
(per 100,000 children)
169 (PM10)
Respiratory symptoms (per 100,000
adults)
18.300 (PM10)
Mortality avoided for 100,000 adult
>30 years
Impact of
reduction of 1
PM2.5 μ/m3
Equation 1: Risk Reduction (Chap. 2)4 [(X + 1)/(X0 + 1)]β
Equation 2: Attribution Factor (Chap. 2) p*(RR-1)/1+p*(RR-1)
Source: Pope et al. (2002) for mortality associated with
PM10 and Pope et al. (2009) for mortality associated with
PM2.5; Lvovskyet al. (2000) for morbidity; and WHO
(2009) for death rate per disease.
To compare the health impacts of mortality and
morbidity, the impacts were converted to
DALYs (see Chapter 2 for more information on
this approach). The number of DALYs lost per
case of mortality or morbidity is from Lvovsky
et al. (2000), Pope et al. (2002) and Pope et al.
(2009) and is in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. In total,
about 100,329 DALYs are lost each year due to
mortality while 22,229 DALYs are lost to
morbidity (see Annex 2).
Table 3-2. Air: DALYs for Health Effects
Health Effect DALYs lost per
10,000 cases
Mortality 100,000
Chronic bronchitis 22,000
Respiratory hospitaladmissions 160
Emergency room visits 45
Restricted activity days 3
Lower respiratory illness in children 65
Respiratory symptoms 0.75
Source: Lvovsky et al. (2000) for mortality associated with
PM10; and Larsen (2004) for morbidity.
4.1.1 Valuation
There are several approaches to value the health
impacts of air pollution. For mortality, the most
common approaches are the human capital
approach and the WTP approach.
The human capital approach estimates the
discounted lost lifetime income of an individual
from his/her time of death. This approach is thus
limited to the economic contribution of the
individual. The WTP approach estimates the
individuals’ willingness to pay for reducing the
risk of premature mortality. WTP therefore
reflects the cost to society of the risk of death of
for instance air pollution. In Europe and the
United States, WTP studies show that the cost of
mortality risk is 4-8 times higher than estimates
from the human capital approach.
For morbidity, a common approach is to estimate
the COI. This includes treatment and medical
costs and the cost of lost work days. However,
this approach does not account for pain and
suffering associated with illness. An approach
that seeks to overcome this shortcoming is to
estimate an individual’s WTP to avoid illness.
Cropper and Oates (1992) report that WTP
estimates are in most cases 3-4 times higher than
the cost of illness.
In the absence of WTP studies of mortality risk
and morbidity in Iraq, this report uses alternative
approaches to estimate the cost to society of air
pollution. For mortality, a DALY lost due to air
pollution is valued at GDP per capita and
represents a “low” estimate. This approach has
similarities to the human capital approach. As a
“high” estimate, WTP for mortality risk
reduction estimated in Europe and the United
States has been used by adjusting for GDP per
capita differentials for Iraq. The adjusted WTP is
then modified to reflect an approximate number
of DALYs lost due to air pollution (see Table 3-
2) relative to DALYs lost as found in WTP
studies1
.
1 Most WTP studies focus on valuing mortality risk from
road or work accidents. On average, this reflects a risk of
premature death at around theage of 40, which represents
the loss of about 20 DALYs. However, for air pollution, the
victims of mortality are often theelderly, resulting in an
average loss of 10 DALYs. The WTP estimates are
therefore adjusted by this ratio to reflect thelower number
of DALYs lost due to air pollution.

12
For morbidity, two approaches are used. DALYs
of morbidity are valued at GDP per capita to
represent the cost associated with the pain and
suffering of illness. In addition, the COI
approach is applied to estimate the cost of work
days lost and the treatment and medical costs of
chronic bronchitis, hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, and restricted activity
days (RADs). The estimated COI is in Annex 2.
While the predominant share of the cost of urban
air pollution is associated with health effects, air
pollution is also causing discomfort, the
acceleration of infrastructure and real estate
decaying, and sometimes reduced visibility and
scenic beauty. There are no data to assess any
possible costs of asset decaying, discomfort and
reduced visibility and scenic beauty in Iraq.
However, a study in Rabat, Morocco (Belhaj,
3) assessed households’ WTP for improved
air quality. The average WTP per household per
month for a 50 percent reduction in air pollution
is estimated at 67 to 82 ID in 1995. While most
of this WTP is likely to be associated with health
concerns, a ten percent share has been used to
provide an order of magnitude of the possible
cost of discomfort associated with air pollution.
The results of this study were transferred to Iraq
after accounting for Purchasing Power Parity
conversion rates differentials between Iraq and
Morocco in 1995 and adjusting the results to
2007 prices. This resulted in a WTP estimate of
between ID 5,547 and ID 6,789 per household
per month (see Annex 2). This amounts to about
ID 6 and 7.4 billion per year, or somewhat less
than 0.1 percent of GDP.
Table 3-3. Air: Annual damage cost - mean estimate
Air Percent of
GDP
Health/Quality of life
Urban air pollution - particulates
Mortality (DALYs lost) 0.71%
Morbidity (DALYs lost) 0.34%
Cost of illness 0.64%
Cost of discomfort 0.01%
Infrastructure and real estate decaying N.A.
Natural Resources (impacts on agricultural
productivity)
N.A.
Total 1.70%
Based on the methods above, the damage cost of
urban air pollution on health and the quality of
life is estimated at ID 1.2 and 2.2 trillion per
year with a mean estimate of ID 1.7 trillion. This
represents 1.7 percent of GDP per year (see
Table 3-3).
In addition to urban air pollution, indoor air
pollution is a serious health threat in many
developing countries. However this is a minimal
issue in Iraq given the practically universal
access (95 percent) to commercial fuels, and
very minimal dependence on indoor use of
biomass energy.
4.2 NATURAL RESOURCES
Some air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and
sulfur compounds, can harm natural resources
(agricultural production, forests and lakes). The
cost of such damage has not been estimated for
Iraq, but it may be expected to be substantially
less than the damage cost to health.

Iraq coed report 4 2012 final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Iraq coed report 4 2012 final