TOEPFER: You know that we decided directly after the end of the war, even before, in the ongoing war, to be aware of all the information or the consequences for the environment. The Untied Nations Environment Programme, where I am responsible for, is, in actuality was, for the environment, so we decided to be with the mission of Sagio Demello in Serbia and Kosovo when the war was still going on. We learned that there is an urgent need for detailed information. We decided to have a Balkan Task Force. And this task force was already, with three working groups in Serbia and in Kosovo, making information available and making an assessment of those consequences.

We know until now, that there are of course, quite serious environmental consequences on the local level, but that it is not something like regional or trans-boundary disaster for the environment. But we have to go on, we have be very serious and very honest in the information collection and the monitoring.

CALLISON: During the war there was a lot of Serbian media saying this would be an incredible problem all over Europe. Where those reports exaggerated?

TOEPFER: As I mentioned, we are not on a final conclusion. But I have to repeat that the regional and trans-boundary consequences are not as severe as it was mentioned before, but that is not to water down the problems. We are of course aware that where you have the destruction of chemical factory, you must be aware of the consequences, for example in the burning of PCBs and the development of dioxins and the problems of heavy metals in the water, in the soil, so all together, I believe that it was high time that we can have a very objective assessment of this war and I sincerely hope that in the very near future we can come to a final recommendation for direct actions.

CALLISON: What are the potential short term and long term environmental consequences?

TOEPFER: Yes of course, we are not going without any hypothesis in this activity. We are concentrating first and foremost to the sights of chemical production of refineries and storage of those products. And we analyze, for example, Pancevo and Novi Sad and other location like this, we are concerned with regard to direct impact to human health. That is the main foremost topic. So if you burn those substances and chemicals or an oil refinery, they are pollution and these are of course of negative impact for human health, and a direct and immediate effect. We are also to the upmost concern in regard to the drinking water situation. Whether there is a contamination of the ground water, of the drinking water. So these are direct and immediate consequences, possible consequences.

Of course in the longer term it is also necessary to learn where there is contamination of soil where you are producing food stuff. Are there any risk in regard to this food chain. But it is too early to come to a final consequences in this field. But these are our concern, what are the repercussions of the destruction of chemical factories, oil refineries, and other comparable installations with regard to air pollution, oil pollution, water contamination, soil contamination.

CALLISON: Can you explain to me why BTF went into this area so quickly?

TOEPFER: It was actually necessary to be there as soon as even possible. That was an accommodation of this report of San Geramello; and present it to the security council that there was a urgent need for this assessment.

Second of course you, the Danube premier there and there are down streamers from Bulgaria, Rumania, and they want to know what is going on. Are there additional risk, there are the people living there and everybody's aware of the humanitarian need, not of the reconstruction, but of the humanitarian need first and foremost. So I believe it was more than necessary to use a time as soon as even possible. I'm very glad that we could integrate twelve scientists in those groups, (inaudible) there that we have mobile laboratories in the field and that we are now in the possibility to really analyze different activities we had to do in the field. So I sincerely hope that we can present very honest and a very objective assessment of the involvement situation starting directly after the end of this inhuman situation.

CALLISON: How many countries are involved in the BTF? You said there's twelve scientists. Are twelve scientists from twelve different countries or...

TOEPFER: There are quite a lot of European countries represented. There are Danish experts, an expert from Germany, from Finland, and others. We have also integrated the so-called non-governmental organization like, peace and (inaudible) the European commission for Europe. So we want to be as broad based as even possible to avoid that we are later on criticized to be biased in one or the other direction we really have very open and very objective aims and targets.

CALLISON: If you could give me maybe a list of what the potential areas of contamination that you're looking at, I know you've mentioned chemical factories and oil refineries

TOEPFER: They are really a descent of our concern and anybody can understand it, even as our disasters integrating chemical factories, you must be aware of those repercussions to human health and the environment. So that the soil contamination, ground water contamination, air pollution, that the consequences, the direct consequences for the human health, the indirect consequences in regard to the food stuff produced in the region. Of course we have also other topics to be aware of it is very well known that there is a lot of discussion concerning the depleted uranium we tried to integrate.

Until now, the available knowledge, we had no field research in this direction so all together I believe that we are really open and that we are answering to those question concern, and last but not least, that's also concentrated also necessary to as the repercussions to bar diversity, to the consequences of protected areas and others, so we are yes environmental institution as broad as out overall mandate.

CALLISON: What about the rivers? You've mentioned a little bit about the Danube river, does that, I mean how did the rivers get affected and are the drinking water sources

TOEPFER: That is in the center of our concern no doubt and it was already when the war was going on, so we were directly linked with the commission for the Danube river headquarters in Vienna and Austria. Being in very close contact with those people working there, we are in close contact with the Governments of Bulgaria, Romania, we are also in contact with other NGO's. Bucharest Environment Institute only to mention one. So we try to collect all available information as early as even possible.

But last but not least we are starting now again to come to a final assessment of the Danube river knowing that there are also, the repercussions of this war possibly poisoning. The situation, but it is also the situation - but it is also in the long development on this river as industrial sites are located there and I sincerely hope that at the end of September we have also the final overall states and assessment of the Danube River. Until now, we also have to underline that, also back by the people I mentioned, we have not a serious contamination singled out.

CALLISON: Are you going to back, I mean are you doing return trips to do study..

TOEPFER: Yes, we are planning to go again in the region. We believe that in the end of the month of August we can be back in the region. We are quite now still in Kosovo but as I mentioned, three groups being there two in Serbia - one in Kosovo. This group in Kosovo is still working also lead, there are problems of human settlements you know that I am not only responsible for, not only for UNA, but also for the United Nations Center on Human Settlements so that we are to the utmost integrated into problems of property of (inaudible) and administration in the region also with regard to the development of an environment administration.

So that's why its important to be integrated in INMAC in United Nations administrative forces region we have a good contact to those responsible this (inaudible) in the past and (inaudible) now so they are still in the region they are still working there in Serbia. We are out as of the 27 of July and we will be back in August to go (inaudible). We have now to be more detailed and finally inform that we can make the better questioning in the region as well.

CALLISON: Are you going to be looking at the same areas or you going to expand out?

TOEPFER: I assume we will do the one and the other. There might be the necessity to go back to the one or the other after the overall results of our activity. There might be a question still so that we have to go back, but we have also to broaden our view. As I mentioned, the question of biodiversity was not integrated in the first round because it is not directly linked with human health, but nevertheless we must be aware of this so there will be a deepening and a broadening in the future with regard to our work in this region.

CALLISON: You've mentioned several times the impact on human health. What are the concerns that you've been thinking about or that you're looking at? I mean are there respiratory problems, cancer, birth defects? I mean, what are you expecting to see?

TOEPFER: I think these are all those consequences linked with chemical substances like PCP's or dioxins. They are linked mainly with problems with cancers. They are linked with birth defects. They are linked with other direct or indirect repercussions to the human health. So the very direct consequences if you are burning those substances uncontrolled, you have a direct consequence to the air pollution and to the direct problems for mankind, but later on I think we must be much more aware of the other mentioned consequences.

So it is very helpful to integrate those scientists, really specialists in the different types of chemicals linked with the uncontrolled burning or destruction of such factories.

CALLISON: I'd be curious as to what you hoped the final report will inform in the future. What will be the value of your final report for future military actions or international interactions? is that a fair question?

TOEPFER: Stop it. Yes of our course our main aim is to make a clear and a very honest reliable information gathering process for the environment and all the different dimension. In water, in soil, in air, for human health and for biodiversity.

With regard to the people concerned in the specific locations in the sides of the factories but also in the regional entrance bound to the level especially linked with the Danube River. So I sincerely hope that we can give to the public also a clear set of recommendations where they are the need for urgent and prioritized action and where we have not this necessary in the near future.

So that this is a clear program for acting against the consequences in line with humanitarian needs in the region I think that is what we have to do of course we always know that any kind conflicts of a war is the most difficult and the most intensive enemy of the environment and especially, of course, of human health and so that we have to do what ever is possible to come to early warnings to be integrated in those conflicts and to avoid the, I believe this is the most important hope and expectation of all the people around the world.

CALLISON: Who would responsible for the cleanup of the environmental damage? Should it be NATO, should it be another state, should it be Serbia, Kosovo? I mean who should go in there and help clean up once we've decided what's wrong?

TOEPFER: I don't believe that this is our main topic to decide. Our mandate is to come to information monitoring assessment to clear a scientific base assessment, to give a recommendations concerning the consequences for human health where we have humanitarian needs to act follow up I think is going back to the governments and I sincerely believe that only is the information a very, very strong argument for it.