Following the very successful Workshop (ARW) in April 2007, which was structured on the basis of the ever-increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters in the region, the second ARW was convened on 7–10 April 2008 in Chisinau, Moldova. This was aimed at further supplementing the efforts to transfer technology and knowledge and so help decrease the vulnerability of the population to both natural and man-made disasters.

As the Moldova–NATO Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) has foreseen, the follow-up ARW tried to unify the efforts of the scientific community in creating a greater understanding of the various threats to society and the environment. Thus, this ARW had the task of further evaluating accumulated European theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the relevant fields of concern so that practical recommendations can be developed for the prevention and mitigation of disasters.

The agenda consisted of about 30 presentations (from ten countries), and discussions, that addressed a wide range of disaster-management regimes. The principal themes focused (for a series of typical disaster scenarios) on how these disasters can affect both the human and natural environments. Accordingly, the presentations and syndicate discussions covered the following areas of concern: natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, and floods; man-made disasters such as accidents at mining and tailings dams; nuclear/radiological facilities; transport accidents involving hazardous materials; fires; and environmental contamination. Monitoring and the assessment of health and environmental pollution risks, as well as the communication of these risks to the public, were also discussed.

The essence of the various themes centred on the integrated techniques for predicting, measuring and assessing the various physical, environmental, health and social risks, and how these risks might be prevented or at least mitigated. The ARW again recognised the complex inter-relationships between several of the key factors that must be involved, to varying degrees of sophistication, in the overall management of the range of hazards and their associated risks. These factors include: monitoring; risk and other modelling exercises; control measures (such as licensing); public liaison and information management (including education); and cost-benefit assessments.

The scientific content of the presentations, and the subsequent written papers, were thus focused on: risk assessment as part of national policies regarding protection of man and environment; the need for strong co-operation at international and national levels; using a cost–benefit approach; information sharing and networking; and vulnerability as a moderating factor in risk assessment. The presentations appeared to be very useful especially to those partner countries that are developing their legal framework in civil emergency planning as well as in environmental protection. (Some participating countries, such as Moldova, the Ukraine and Georgia, are aligning their legal frameworks to EU directives and other international standards.)

The ARW contributions reflected the extensive experience in the participating countries (namely, Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Georgia, Germany, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the Ukraine, together with a further written paper from the Netherlands) in the field of combating natural and man-made disasters, as well as how their secondary impacts should be assessed and adapted to the specific conditions in the Republic of Moldova.

In the opinion of the ARW participants there is a continuing need to convene similar more dedicated follow-up ARWs, with the aim of gaining a greater understanding of further specific topics, such as environmental and health monitoring, drought conditions, and the role of land-use planning, in mitigating the effects of natural disasters and preventing man-made disasters.