4

Issue	Environ-mental Impact	Human Impact	Priority	Reason for assigning priority	Transboundary Justification
1. Modification of hydrological regime	3	2	A	E, H	Land reclamation activities in the Upper Dnipro Basin. Excessive damming and regulation of small and medium rivers. Construction of the Dnipro reservoir chain. Construction of flow diversion canals.
2. Changes in the water table	2	2	B	E, H	Mining developments, groundwater abstraction, excessive regulation of river flow.
3. Flooding and elevated ground and surface waters and elevated groundwater levels in various parts of the Basin	2	2.5	B	H	River bed siltation, degradation of river floodplains, forest cutting, land reclamation activities
4. Chemical pollution	3	3	A	E, H	Presence of chemical compounds of anthropogenic origin in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro Basin.
5. Microbiological pollution	2	2	B	H	Discharges of insufficiently treated municipal sewage waters. Discharges of insufficiently treated food processing industry wastewater. Non-point source pollution (mainly during high flow periods).
6. Pollution by radionuclides	2	3	A	E, H	Consequences of the Chornobyl nuclear accident. Significant extent of caesium- and strontium-contaminated areas in the Dnipro Basin. Uranium mines in the Lower Dnipro Basin.
7. Suspended solids	2	1.5	B	E	Significant suspended substance flows from point/non-point sources and drained/irrigated areas into the Dnipro Basin water bodies.
8. Eutrophication	3	2	A	E	Inputs of significant amounts of organic and nutrient substances into the Dnipro Basin water bodies in the territory of all three countries of the Basin; excessive regulation of flow; presence of shallow water areas in the Dnipro reservoir chain, etc.
9. Solid waste	2	2	B	E, H	Significant number of industrial solid waste disposal sites, MSW dumps and mining waste disposal sites etc. in the Basin, particularly within Ukraine
10. Accidental spills and releases	2	2	B	E, H	Incidental spills and releases of polluted effluents from liquid waste storage facilities and industries; spills resulting from pipeline breakdown accidents etc.
11. Loss/modification of ecosystems or ecotones and decreased viability of stocks due to contamination and diseases	3	2	A	E	1. The areas of progressive ecosystem and ecotone degradation due to economic activities have been identified both in the Dnipro Basin as a whole and in the cross-border territories. 2. Significant changes in the aquatic and land-based ecosystems have been registered in the Dnipro Basin. Changes in flora and fauna species composition are reported to have occurred in various parts of the Basin, including cross-border areas. 3. High percentage of parasitic invasions affecting aquatic biota, accumulation of harmful compounds of anthropogenic origin in the aquatic biota and land-based flora and fauna in the Dnipro Basin.
12. Impact on biological and genetic diversity	2	2	B	E, H	Introduction and invasion of new species have affected the biodiversity in the Basin. Pollution of water bodies in the Dnipro Basin has affected the biological and genetic diversity of wildlife species inhabiting the Basin.

Table 4.2 Problem-solving sequence for the key transboundary environmental issues

Issue	Number of issues dependant on/relating to a given issue	Problem-solving sequence
Accidental spills and releases	6	1
Flooding and elevated ground and surface waters	6	1
Modification of hydrological regime of surface waters	5	2
Chemical pollution	5	2
Eutrophication	4	3
Solid waste	4	3
Suspended solids	3	4
Radionuclides	2	5
Microbiological pollution	2	5
Changes in the water table	1	6
Modification and loss of ecosystems or ecotones and decreased viability of biological resources	1
Impact on biological and genetic diversity	1

1. Modification of hydrological regime of surface waters is attributed to land drainage activities in the Upper Dnipro Basin, excessive damming and regulation of smaller rivers, and construction of the chain of Dnipro reservoirs and flow diversion channels. This can result in the following impacts:

· Modified riparian habitats;

· Depleted fish stocks and decreased species diversity;

· Changes in water quality;

· Decreased wetland area;

· Reduced sediment transport capacity;

· Changes in biological diversity and food chains;

· Changes in sediment budgets;

· Increased intensity of river bank modification.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

2. Changes in the groundwater regime are caused by mining industry activities, groundwater abstractions, and excessive flow regulation. This can result in the following impacts:

· Decreased productivity of natural resources;

· Loss of biodiversity and natural erosion barriers.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

3. Flooding and elevated ground and surface waters are caused by riverbed siltation, degradation of river floodplains, forest cutting activities, and land drainage/irrigation activities. This can result in the following impacts:

· Degradation (change) of terrestrial and riparian plant and animal habitats;

· Additional pollution (bacterial, chemical etc.) of water bodies due to runoff from flooded territories;

· Changes in biotopes;

· Increased extent of territories with elevated groundwater levels.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

4. Microbiological pollution is associated with discharges of insufficiently treated municipal wastewater and food industry process effluents, as well as non-point pollution sources (mainly during high-flow periods). This can result in the following impacts:

· Deterioration in drinking water quality;

· Decreased recreational value of water bodies;

· Infestations/diseases in aquatic and terrestrial species.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

5. Eutrophication has developed as a result of large organic and nutrient pollution loads entering the Basin water bodies in the territories of the three riparian countries, excessive flow regulation, and the presence of extensive shallow-water sections in the Dnipro reservoirs. This can result in the following impacts:

· Deterioration in water quality due to intensive algal blooms;

· Changes in redox capacity;

· Changes in the structure and functions of aquatic ecosystems;

· Changes in species composition and the productivity of native fish species.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

6. Chemical pollution of anthropogenic origin has been consistently present at various levels in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro Basin. This can result in the following impacts:

· Deterioration of surface and groundwater quality;

· Depleted fish stocks and decreased species diversity;

· Changes in the biodiversity of aquatic, riparian and terrestrial biological resources;

· Changes in riparian habitats;

· Reproductive dysfunction in aquatic organisms;

· Behavioural dysfunction in aquatic organisms;

· Modified community structure;

· Increased mortality of aquatic organisms;

· Immuno-suppression in aquatic organisms.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues

7. Suspended solids enter the Dnipro Basin water bodies with discharges from point- and non-point pollution sources, exacerbated by land drainage/irrigation activities. This can result in the following impacts:

· Modification of habitats;

· Changes in biological community composition;

· Increased sediment deposition and siltation;

· Destruction (blanketing) of benthic communities;

· Fish kills.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

8. Solid waste disposal represents a serious problem in the Dnipro Basin. Large numbers of unorganised/non-engineered dumpsites containing industrial/municipal/mining wastes are concentrated in the Basin posing a continuous threat of water pollution. This can result in the following impacts:

· Deterioration of surface water and groundwater quality;

· Modification of terrestrial ecosystems;

· Deterioration of air quality;

· Modification of the hydraulic regime of small rivers;

· Beach and sediment compositional changes.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

9. Pollution by radionuclides is associated with the consequences of the Chornobyl accident resulting in the contamination of large areas of land with caesium and strontium, and uranium mining activities in the Lower Dnipro Basin. When radionuclide concentrations and associated radiation doses are high, as it was the case in the immediate aftermath of the Chornobyl accident in 1986, this can result in the following impacts:

· Mutagenic effects;

· Immune system degradation in living organisms;

· Mortality of living organisms and changes in population number.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

Currently, the environmental radioactivity levels in the Dnipro Basin are much lower than ones, which could cause observable radiobiological effects, and the main adverse effect of the radioactive contamination is unsuitability of the water and biota for human use.

10. Accidental spills and releases represent a continuous threat of water pollution in areas where liquid industrial effluent storage sites and pipelines are in a poor technical condition. This can result in the following impacts:

· Acute deterioration of surface water and groundwater quality;

· Deterioration of air quality;

· Mass kills of living organisms;

· Persistent contamination of soils resulting in dramatic ecological changes.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

11. Modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones and decreased viability of biological resources due to contamination and disease. Progressive degradation of ecosystems and ecotones due to human activities has become apparent in many areas. Significant changes have been found in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and plant and animal species composition. Parasitic invasions have affected aquatic biota, exacerbated by the bioaccumulation of hazardous substances of anthropogenic origin. This can result in the following impacts:

· Modification and degradation of ecosystems;

· Loss of natural productivity;

· Changes in and loss of biodiversity;

· Loss of natural erosion barriers;

· Loss of carbon sinks and release of carbon to the atmosphere;

· Loss of migratory species using the habitat and altered migratory patterns;

· Impacts of estuarine system changes on adjacent coastal marine ecosystems;

· Changes in ecosystem stability;

· Changes in community structure both plant and animal;

· Decreased species diversity.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

12. Impact on biological and genetic diversity is associated with the introduction and invasion of alien species. Water pollution has also undermined the biological and genetic diversity of species/communities inhabiting the Dnipro Basin. This can result in the following impacts:

· Changes in biological community structure due to the overexploitation and/or depletion of one or more key species;

· Changes in biological communities through deliberate and accidental introductions;

· Changes in community structure by food chain manipulation;

· Changes in community structure due to modification of species habitats;

· Changes to habitat and community structure resulting from destructive fishing practices;

· Degradation of ecosystems.

The diagram below illustrates how this issue is linked to other transboundary issues:

4.2 Key Sectors and Immediate Causes

As well as determining the linkages between transboundary issues, it was also necessary to identify the immediate causes of each issue and determine their links with underlying sectoral causes.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 1: Modification of hydrological regime of surface waters are (listed in order of priority) energy (hydropower), agriculture, transport (river), urbanisation, industry and aquaculture. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Flow regulation, including required releases from the Dnipro reservoirs;

· Flow diversions between the river basins or within the basin;

· Flow abstraction for domestic and industrial purposes;

· Land drainage activities;

· Flow abstraction for irrigation;

· Returns/runoff of water;

· Flow diversion for aquaculture.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 2: Changes in the groundwater regime are (listed in order of priority) industry, energy and urbanisation. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Mining industry activities;

· Groundwater abstraction;

· Flow regulation.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 3: Flooding events and elevated groundwater levels are (listed in order of priority) agriculture, mining, urbanisation and transport. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Modification of the hydrological regime;

· Runoff from land surfaces;

· Elevated groundwater and surface water levels;

· Discharges of water.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 4: Microbiological pollution are (listed in order of priority) industry, agriculture, and urbanisation. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Discharges of insufficiently treated municipal effluents;

· Discharges of insufficiently treated effluents from food processing industries;

· Pollution inputs from non-point sources (especially during high flow periods);

· Discharges from livestock-rearing sites.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 5: Eutrophication are (listed in order of priority) agriculture, urbanisation, industry, aquaculture, energy and transport. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Operational discharge of liquids and gaseous effluents including cooling waters;

· Runoff;

· Emissions from storage of liquid wastes;

· Emissions from storage of solid wastes;

· Emissions from transport.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 6: Chemical pollution are (listed in order of priority) industry, agriculture, urbanisation, transport, energy and aquaculture. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Operational discharge of liquids and gaseous effluents including cooling waters;

· Emissions from storage of chemical products;

· Emissions from storage of solid waste;

· Emissions from storage of liquid wastes;

· Emissions from transport;

· Runoff;

· Growth in the production of waste.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 7: Suspended substances are (listed in order of priority) agriculture, urbanisation, industry and transport. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Significant inputs of suspended solids from point sources.

· Significant inputs of suspended solids from diffuse sources.

· Significant inputs of suspended solids as a result of land drainage/irrigation activities.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 8: Solid wastes are (listed in order of priority) industry, agriculture and urbanisation. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· The high rate of solid waste generation in the Basin;

· The large quantity of unorganised waste dumps and industrial waste disposal sites, especially in Ukraine;

· Accumulation of waste generated by mining industries.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 9: Radionuclide pollution are (listed in order of priority) the consequences of the Chornobyl accident, and industry (mining). These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Atmospheric and aquatic releases of radionuclides during the Chornobyl accident;

· Secondary releases from sites contaminated with radionuclides as a result of the Chornobyl accident;

· Point and diffuse discharges of mining process waters and tailing wastes from disposal sites at uranium mines and ore-processing plants;

· Emissions/discharges from radioactive waste disposal sites.

The key sector contributing to Issue 10: Accidental spills and releases are (listed in order of priority) industry, urbanisation and energy. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Episodic accidental spills of polluted effluents from the liquid waste storage sites;

· Episodic accidental spills of polluted material from industries;

· Spills associated with pipework breakdown etc.

The key sectors contributing to Issue 11: Modification and loss of ecosystems or ecotones and decreased viability of biological resources through contamination and disease are (listed in order of priority) agriculture, energy, aquaculture, urbanisation, industry and transport. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Loss or modification of aquatic habitats;

· Changes in land use;

· Introduced species;

· Changes in the sediment transport regime;

In addition the following transboundary issues also contribute to Issue 11:

· Modification of the hydrological regime (see Section 4.3.1);

· Flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (see Section 4.3.3);

· Chemical pollution (see Section 4.4.1);

· Radionuclide pollution (see Section 4.4.3);

· Eutrophication (see Section 4.4.5).

The key sectors contributing to Issue 12: Impact on biological and genetic diversity are fisheries/aquaculture and transport. These sectors contribute to the following immediate causes:

· Introduction and invasion of new species.

4.3 Hydrological Issues

4.3.1 Modification of the hydrological regime of surface waters

Modification of the hydrological regime refers to an increase or decrease in the discharge of streams and rivers as a result of human interventions on a local/regional scale. The transboundary status of the issue is reflected in Table 4.1. A detailed causal chain reflecting the links between this issue its immediate and underlying causes is shown in Figure 4.2.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including changes in the groundwater regime (Section 4.3.2), flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (Section 4.3.3), water resource pollution issues such as chemical and microbiological pollution, and eutrophication (Section 4.4) and modification and loss of ecosystems ands ecotones (Section 4.5).

Modification of riparian habitats

Changes in the temporal and spatial pattern of flooding in the floodplains of the Dnipro Basin have led to a modification of riparian habitats. More details on this impact can be found in Section 4.5 on the modification and loss of ecosystems, Section 3.1.6 on nature reserves and protected areas and in the Basin Passport.

Changes in water quality

A number of other Issues including chemical pollution (Section 4.4.1) microbiological pollution (Section 4.4.2) and eutrophication (Section 4.4.5) are closely linked with this issue. Modification of the hydrological regime can significantly increase the impacts of these issues. Generally, water quality in the Dnipro Basin greatly depends on water releases from the Kakhovka reservoir. Salinity levels in the Dnipro-Buh Estuary tend to increase if discharge rates at the reservoir dam fall below 1,000 m³/s. More details on changes in water quality can be found in and Section 3.2.8 on the sanitary situation in the Basin and the 2000/2001 field survey results discussed in Section 3.3.2.

Immediate causes

Significant changes in the hydrological regime of watercourses in the Dnipro Basin are a result of the following immediate causes (also refer to Table 4.17):

· Flow regulation, including required releases from the Dnipro reservoirs;

· Flow diversions between the river basins or within the basin;

· Flow abstraction for industrial and domestic purposes;

· Land drainage activities;

· Flow abstraction for irrigation;

· Returns/runoff of water;

· Flow diversion for aquaculture.

1. Extent of the river flow regulation

There are 102 reservoirs in the Belorussian part of the Dnipro Basin with a total water surface area of 345 km², and volume of 1,044 million m³. Of that, 55 reservoirs (with a water surface area 206 km² and a capacity 585 million m³) and 730 ponds (water surface area 93 km² and capacity 164 million m³) are located in the Pripyat River Basin. The overall flow regulation ratio is 2-3%. In the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin there are 25,000 artificial impoundments with a total area of 18,000 hectares with an overall flow regulation ratio of about 3%. In Ukraine, the overall flow regulation ratio for reservoirs and ponds was about 22%, as of 1990. More details on the extent of hydro-engineering activities in the Ukrainian part of the Basin can be found in the Basin Passport and in Section 4.3.3 on flooding events and elevated groundwater levels.

2. Flow diversion schemes

There are two major flow diversion schemes in the Republic of Belarus with an annual capacity of 0.2-0.3 km³/year. The first scheme (the Western Dvina/Berezina flow diversion system) supplies 0.2 to 0.25 km³/year of water from the Viliya river basin. The second scheme (the Western Buh Basin/the Dnipro-Buh Channel) redistributes the flow within the Dnipro Basin and diverts part of the flow (0.04-0.06 km³/year) to the Western Buh Basin. In Ukraine there are 6 major channels and 5 water conduits in operation, diverting 3.14 km³ of flow (2000 figures) to supply Dnipro water to water-scarce areas in the country (e.g. the Crimea). Further details on flow diversion schemes can be found in Section 3.2.10 on water uses in the Basin.

3. Flow abstraction for industrial and domestic purposes

In 2001, the total flow abstraction for industrial and domestic purposes within the Belorussian part of the Dnipro Basin (excluding the Pripyat River) was 0.24 km³, with a maximum annual abstraction rate of 0.7 km³ between 1985 and 2001. In the Pripyat River Basin, flow abstraction was 0.18 km³ in 2001, with a maximum annual flow abstraction of 1.26 km³ between 1985 and 2000.

In the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin, annual flow abstraction was 0.77 km³, in 2000. The proportion of non-returnable flow abstraction in Ukraine is over 75%, with the Dnipropetrovsk (14%) and Kherson (23%) Oblasts being the major water consumers. In 2000, the total annual flow abstraction for industrial and domestic purposes in the Ukrainian part of the Dnipro Basin was 6.17 km³, and the total flow abstracted in the Pripyat River Basin in that period was 1,086 million m³. Further details on flow abstraction can be found in the Basin Passport and Section 3.2.10 on water uses in the Basin.

4. Land drainage and flow abstraction for irrigation

Large areas of land have been drained and irrigated in the 3 riparian countries. The extent is shown in Table 4.3. In Belarus, the total length of the surface drainage/irrigation network has reached 64,000 km, or twice the length of the natural drainage network. More details on irrigation activities can be found in Section 3.2.5 on agriculture in the Basin.

Table 4.3 Extent of drained and irrigated land in the 3 riparian countries

Land area	Russia	Belarus	Ukraine
Drained (million hectares)	0.38	2.0	2.5
Irrigated (million hectares)	0.04	n/a	2.6

The highest levels of flow abstraction for irrigation in the Dnipro Basin occur in the Ukraine with 0.86 km³ abstracted per year. The levels in Russia and Belarus are significantly lower (0.003 km³/year and 0.004 km³/year, respectively. Refer to Section 3.2.10 on Water uses in the Basin for more information on flow abstraction.

5. Returns or runoff of water

In 2000, return flows as a result of industrial effluent discharges were 0.43 km³ in the Russian Federation, 0.4 km³ in the Republic of Belarus, and 0.5 km³ in Ukraine.

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying causes of this issue arise in the following key sectors; energy (hydropower), agriculture, transport (river), urbanisation, industry and aquaculture. The effects of the resource uses and practices associated with industry, urbanisation and fishery/aquaculture are less significant. A list of the priority sectors for all issues is presented in Table 4.18 (Section 4.7)

A detailed causal chain reflecting the links between the immediate and underlying sectoral causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.2 and a detailed description of terminology used in this causal chain is given in the definition of terms in Annex 2.

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Based on the causal chain in Figure 4.2, the priority sectoral resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes of this transboundary issue can be identified. These are shown in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) decision making management tool (Figure 4.3).

The SAP decision making management tool shows the priority sectors for this issue (colour coded with the causal chain) together with three hierarchical levels of concern. These levels are:

Level 1: Political & Economical		Level 2: Governance
Legislation and regulations		Organisational and institutional development
Finance		Programmes & planning
		Regulatory framework
		Monitoring & control

Level 3: Technical & Operational		Level 4: Immediate causes

Within each level the priority resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes for each transboundary issue are listed. These can either cut across all sectors (e.g. Lack of finance) or be sector specific (e.g. unsustainable agricultural practices).

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

Construction of the Dnipro reservoir chain has had a profound effect on the hydrological regime of the river. The need for this major development project was mainly driven by a growing demand for hydroelectric power. As a result of the reservoir construction, river flow in the middle and lower reaches of the Dnipro has become fully regulated by water releases from the reservoir dams.

Agriculture is the second significant sector affecting the hydrological regime of surface waters. As a result of the development of large-scale drainage schemes in the Pripyat River Basin, many smaller rivers have been canalized, partially or completely. Numerous hydroengineering facilities and polders regulate and divert a significant part of the river flow in the Pripyat Basin. The remaining flow is regulated and redistributed by major flood-protection schemes during the spring and summer/autumn high flow period.

In Ukraine, especially in the southern regions, irrigated agriculture is a major user of water. A dense network of irrigation channels has been constructed to deliver water to drier areas of the Basin, resulting in the significant redistribution of flow over time and space.

Water transport is the third largest contributor to the issue of modification of hydrological regime, where river flow is affected by channel-clearance and dredging activities to enable navigation, especially during the low-water period. A significant amount of water is diverted to the Dnipro-Buh Channel, a major inter-basin water route, affecting surface water levels in the Upper Pripyat Basin. The contribution of other sectors (industry, urbanisation, and fishery/aquaculture) is relatively minor.

4.3.2 Changes in the groundwater regime

Changes in the groundwater regime refer to changes in aquifers as a direct or indirect consequence of human activity (including land drainage). As can be seen from Table 4.1, this issue is considered to have a transboundary status because the impacts of mining industries located within the riparian countries go beyond the national borders, affecting the adjacent territories. However, based on the prioritisation exercise detailed in Section 4.1, this issue was not considered a priority transboundary issue. Consequently, detailed causal chain analysis beyond the immediate causes of the issue was not carried out.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including modification of the hydrological regime (Section 4.3.1), flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (Section 4.3.3), water resource pollution issues such as suspended solids (Section 4.4.4) and modification and loss of ecosystems ands ecotones (Section 4.5).

Loss of biodiversity and natural erosion barriers

A number of adverse effects on the environment have resulted in a reduction in the area of forests (with approximately a twofold reduction over the past 100 years), and a decrease in fish stocks and wildlife resources. Section 3.1.4 describes the forest resource in the Basin. Sections 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 describe the biological resources and nature reserves and protected areas.

The Dnipro Basin has been greatly affected by intensive farming. Large-scale conversion of land to agriculture with little or no regard to soil property and the construction of major land drainage/irrigation schemes and livestock-rearing farms have lead to a loss of natural erosion barriers. The quality of the land resource in the Basin is also progressively deteriorating as a result of toxic contamination, soil erosion and intensive gorge development. In impacted areas, soils are largely characterised by a medium to high degree of fertile layer degradation. The erosion potential is greater for agricultural fields located on steeper slopes, although the simple anti-erosion practice of lateral slope tillage has been applied on only one third of this erosion-susceptible land. Erosion has affected 1,300 hectares in the Republic of Belarus and over 1.0 million hectares in the Russian Federation and in Ukraine. 18.4% of drained land converted to agriculture has also been affected. More details on the agricultural situation in the Basin can be found in the Basin Passport and Section 3.2.5. The consequences of land drainage/irrigation activities are shown in Section 4.4.4 on suspended solids.

Tree-planting schemes designed to prevent erosion are not being implemented at the required scale. The actual area of erosion-break plantations set up every year is only about 1,000 hectares, opposed to a minimum requirement of 3,000 hectares, suggesting that local authorities are reluctant to allocate land for this purpose. Protective forest plantations also play a significant role in terms of managing the environmental situation in the Lower Dnipro Basin, although their proportion is extremely low, i.e. 1%, or approximately 40,000 hectares. The soil permeability level in protective forest plantations is approximately 4 times higher than beyond their boundaries, thereby encouraging flow entrapment and filtration and preventing losses associated with water and wind erosion. More details on the forest resource in the Basin can be found in Section 3.1.3.

The loss of perennial springs with flow rates of more than 0.1 m³/s have been reported to be a problem in intensively drained areas (especially in the Pripyat River Basin), although statistical evidence is not available. The rate of desertification is very high in Ukraine, especially in the Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv and Kherson Oblasts.

Immediate causes

The major immediate causes of changes in the groundwater regime in the Dnipro Basin are:

· Mining industry activities;

· Groundwater abstraction;

· Flow regulation, including required releases from the Dnipro reservoirs.

1. Mining industry activities

A significant proportion of the national mineral resource of Belarus and Ukraine is concentrated in the Dnipro Basin, and together with its related mining industries is one of the major contributors to waste generation and environment pollution. A full description of mining industry activities is given in Section 3.1.4 on mineral resources and in the Basin Passport.

The rich and diverse mineral resource base in the Dnipro Basin has driven the large-scale development of mining and processing industries. The environmental impact of these activities not only affects the regional geology, but also many other aspects of the environment. Large-scale and long-term operations associated with the extraction of minerals have distorted the geological and hydrogeological balance in the Basin, including the groundwater table and water quality. Mining operations involve the storage of stripped soils and wastes associated with the enrichment process. This has resulted in the pollution of the atmosphere, soil, surface and ground waters. Construction of technical reservoirs and the pumping of saline mining waters have lead to a distortion of the natural surface flow regime, thereby affecting the main water arteries in the Dnipro Basin.

2. Groundwater abstraction

Groundwater sources play a significant role in meeting the demand for water. The total projected groundwater resource available in the Basin is about 25 km³, with over 13 km³ being hydraulically isolated from the surface water flow. The 2000 statistics for groundwater abstraction can be broken down by country as follows: 0.687 km³ in the Republic of Belarus, 0.398 km³ in the Russian Federation, and 1.027 km³ in Ukraine. Over 90% of the local population in the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin rely on the groundwater supply, together with 5.8 million people in Belarus and 25 million people in Ukraine. Land drainage/irrigation data are provided in Section 4.3.1 on modification of the hydrological regime.

The projected groundwater resource available in the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin is 2.31 km³/year with an actual daily consumption rate of 1,832,000 m³. Over 50% of the regional demand for drinking water is covered from groundwater sources. The level of groundwater reserve drawdown is below 1.7%. The groundwater resource distribution pattern is extremely uneven, and the deficit is becoming more and more obvious in some areas. For instance, less than 70% of the actual demand for groundwater supply is currently met in Kaluga.

The projected groundwater reserve in the Belorussian part of the Dnipro Basin is 9.27 km³/year. Total groundwater abstraction in this part of the Basin was 721 million m³ in 1995, and 687 million m³ in 2000. Around 5.8 million people are reliant on this groundwater supply. In Ukraine, the projected groundwater resource is 12.8 km³. Of that, 4.7 km³is hydraulically isolated from the surface flow. Total groundwater abstraction in the Ukrainian part of the Dnipro Basin was 1,645 million m³ in 1995, and 1,100 million m³ in 2000. More details can be found in Section 3.2.10 describing the water uses in the Basin and in the Basin Passport.

3. Flow regulation, including required releases from the Dnipro reservoirs

Excessive flow regulation contributes significantly to this issue. Relevant quantitative data are provided in Section 4.3.1 on modification of the hydrological regime of surface waters and Section 4.3.3 on flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (hydro-engineering construction activities).

Underlying sectoral causes

The major sectors contributing to changes in the groundwater regime are industry, energy, and urbanisation (see Section 4.2).

4.3.3 Flooding events and elevated groundwater levels

Flooding events and elevated groundwater levels in the transboundary areas of the Basin occur as a result of changes in the hydrological regime of rivers, the swamping of river floodplains and land drainage/irrigation activities (Table 4.1). A detailed causal chain reflecting the links between this issue and the immediate and underlying causes of the issue is shown in Figure 4.4.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including modification of the hydrological regime (Section 4.3.1) changes in the groundwater regime (Section 4.3.2) and modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones (Section 4.5).

Changes in the nature of biotopes

Species community structure has changed in the flooded/waterlogged areas of the Ukrainian Polessie zone. The species pattern is now dominated by the common and pygmy shrew (Sorex araneus and Sorex minutus). There has also been an increased occurrence of the water shrew (Neomys fodiens), root vole (Microtus oeconomus Pall.), water vole (Arvicola terrestris) and bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus), and a reduction in the dormice population (Muscardinus avellanarius L.).

More details on the degradation of riparian habitats and the modification and degradation of ecosystems in the Basin can be found in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.5.

Immediate causes

The major immediate causes of this issue in the Dnipro Basin are (also refer to Table 4.17):

· Modification of the hydrological regime;

· Runoff from land surfaces;

· Elevated groundwater and surface water levels;

· Discharges of water from energy and urbanisation.

1. Modification of the hydrological regime and runoff from land surfaces as a result of land reclamation activities

Over 2 million hectares were drained to provide land for arable agriculture in the Republic of Belarus and Russian Federation between the mid-1960s and 1980s, leading to a loss of over 50% of the natural wetland area. The area of drained land in the Republic of Belarus itself is 2 million hectares.

The highly intensive use of land in the region is illustrated by the fact that three fifths of the Basin area have lost their original natural landscape features. About 50% of the territory is occupied by agricultural fields of which over 60% is in Ukraine. Approximately 10% of the Basin area has been designated for land reclamation purposes, 4% is occupied by urban centres and about 1-4% has been lost due to construction of reservoirs and impoundments. Within Ukraine, large-scale land reclamation activities commenced in 1966 and the area of irrigated and drained farmland reached a peak of 2.6 and 2.5 million hectares respectively. More details on land reclamation activities can be found in Sections 3.1.2 (land resource), 3.2.5 (agriculture), 4.3.1 on modification of the hydrological regime and 4.4.4 on suspended solids.

2. Modification of the hydrological regime and elevated ground and surface water levels as a result of historical hydroengineering construction activities

The Dnipro flow has been significantly modified by a large number of reservoirs, channels, conduits, ponds, dams and shipping locks. The number of reservoirs constructed in the Basin is 564 (with a total area of 775.6 km²and capacity of 46.2 km³). Waterlogging and salinisation of surface and groundwater have affected the surrounding area of many of these reservoirs.

In Belarus, 102 reservoirs have been constructed on the rivers draining the Dnipro Basin, with a total water surface area of 345 km² and capacity of 1,044 million m³. Of these, four major reservoirs (the Zaslavsk, Osipovichi, Svetlogorsk and Chigirin) have a combined water surface area of 74.29 km². In the Pripyat River Basin there are 55 reservoirs and 730 ponds. There are 25,000 artificial reservoirs covering 18,000 hectares within the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin. An example of these artificial reservoirs is the large cooling pond attached to the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant site which results in elevated groundwater levels in the adjacent housing area.

The main stem of the Dnipro River in Ukraine has been artificially formed into a series of 6 major reservoirs covering an area of 688 km². In addition, 6 major channels and 5 conduits have been constructed to supply water from the Dnipro to dry regions of the country. The reservoir chain constructed on the Middle and Lower Dnipro stretch, from the Pripyat River mouth to Kakhovka, includes the Kyiv, Kremenchug, Dniprodzerzhinsk, Dniprovsky and Kakhovka reservoirs. Very little of the natural river channel remains downstream of Dniprodzerzhinsk.

Reservoir construction in this part of the Basin has resulted in the loss of 694,800 hectares of land (including 250,000 hectares of farmland). Continuous waterlogging and elevated groundwater levels have been reported to be a serious issue in areas adjacent to the reservoirs. Section 3.1.1 on water resources and major water bodies in the Basin gives more information on hydro engineering construction activities.

3. Elevated ground and surface water levels water from mining activities

Sludge fields and tailing waste disposal sites are inherent to the ore enrichment and agglomeration industries concentrated in the Basin. They are mainly located in valleys and gullies and are often directly linked with other infrastructure elements such as water collection and drainage systems, access roads, treatment facilities, and settlement reservoirs. These sites pose a continuous threat of water logging and saline contamination to adjacent surface water and groundwater sources.

Underlying sectoral causes

The major sectors contributing to the issue of flooding events and elevated groundwater levels are agriculture and energy and mining. Urbanisation and transport contribute to a lesser degree. A list of the priority sectors for all issues is presented in Table 18 (Section 4.7)

A detailed causal chain reflecting the links between the immediate and underlying sectoral causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.4 and a detailed description of terminology used in this causal chain is given in the definition of terms in Annex 2.

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Based on the causal chain in Figure 4.4, the priority sectoral resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes of this transboundary issue can be identified. These are shown in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) decision making management tool (Figure 4.5).

The SAP decision making management tool shows the priority sectors for this issue (colour coded with the causal chain) together with three hierarchical levels of concern (shown in Section 4.3.1). Within each level the priority resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes for each transboundary issue are listed. These can either cut across all sectors (e.g. Lack of finance) or be sector specific (e.g. construction/poor design of reservoir chain).

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

Justification of the priority sectors that contribute to flooding events and elevated groundwater levels is shown in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4 Justification of priority sectors for flooding events and elevated groundwater levels

Priority	Sector	Justification of priority
1	Agriculture: vast area of irrigated land in the southern regions of Ukraine (Kherson, Mykolaiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts)	Excessive use of water for irrigation, exacerbated by elevated groundwater levels. Inadequate irrigation practices. Drainage/filtration of water from irrigation channels. Development of rice fields without proper drainage systems.
2	Energy and mining: elevated groundwater levels in the floodplain area of major reservoirs (Kyiv, Kaniv, Kremenchug and Kakhovka reservoirs)	1. Variation of water levels in the reservoirs directly affect groundwater levels and cause their elevation. 2. Construction and poor design of reservoirs, located in the river floodplains: vast area of agricultural land was inundated without proper containment and drainage arrangements. 3. Derelict mines and quarries are flooded, affecting the groundwater levels in the surrounding area.
3	Urbanisation: within the boundaries of urban centres	Excessive watering of city parks and gardens located in the built-up areas and individual garden plots. Lack of rainstorm water collection systems, combined with elevated groundwater levels.
4	River transport	1. The need to meet the water-level requirement for navigation of river transport in the reservoirs.

4.4 Water Resource Pollution Issues

4.4.1 Chemical pollution

Chemical pollution refers to the adverse effects of chemical contaminants released to standing or marine water bodies as a result of human activities. Chemical contaminants are here defined as compounds that are toxic and/or persistent and/or bioaccumulating. For the Dnipro Basin, chemical pollution also refers to the exceeded guideline levels of chemical substances in water bodies of the three riparian countries, and chemical pollution load carried with the river flow to the Black Sea. The transboundary status of the issue is reflected in Table 4.1. A detailed causal chain showing the links between the immediate and underlying causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.10.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including changes in the groundwater regime (Section 4.3.2), flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (Section 4.3.3) and modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones (Section 4.5). The impacts of other water resource pollution issues in this section such as microbiological pollution, eutrophication, suspended solids, solid wastes and accidental spills and releases (Section 4.4) are also closely linked.

Changes in biodiversity of aquatic, riparian and terrestrial biological resources

The most visible indication of environmental pollution associated with urban and industrial sources is the existing state of river ecosystems. Such ecosystems are greatly affected by municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, particularly those that receive highly variable treatment levels. The continuous pollution load in certain sections of the Dnipro Basin often causes degradation of the rheophilous community structure and species composition.

Biological survey results from a section of the Sozh River near Gomel, Belarus, have shown that there is a direct relationship between a progressively increasing anthropogenic load and a reduction in the diversity of zooplankton species. In upstream sections there were 133 species compared to 38-46 species in the section within the city boundaries, and 72-74 species downstream of the discharge. The total number of species inhabiting the examined river sections was 180.

A similar picture emerges near large industrial centres in the Berezina River, where taxonomic diversity is reduced as pollution load increases. In the river section near Borisov the number of bottom community species fell from 90 to 57, and in the river section near Bobruisk from 50 to 39. Individual macroinvertebrate species and whole taxonomic groups were found to be missing in the downstream sections, particularly those sensitive to changes in water quality. For example, the number of mayfly species reduced from 8 to 2 near Borisov, and no mayfly species were found downstream of Bobruisk. The Oligosaprobic Blackfly (Simuliidae), which is highly sensitive to changes in water quality, occurred only in the upstream sections. Further details on changes in biodiversity are given in Section 3.3.2 reviewing of the 2000-2001 field survey resu1ts (water quality, metal contamination, persistent organic contamination, assessment of ecological status and transboundary transport of pollution).

Immediate causes

The immediate causes of chemical pollution in the Dnipro Basin can be grouped into two hierarchical levels. The first distinguishes point sources and diffuse sources of pollution. The second more detailed level can be broken down into the following (also refer to Table 4.17):

· Operational discharge of liquids and gaseous effluents including cooling waters (point source);

· Emissions from storage of chemical products (point and diffuse source);

· Emissions from storage of solid waste (point and diffuse source);

· Emissions from storage of liquid wastes (point and diffuse source);

· Emissions from transport (point and diffuse source);

· Runoff (point and diffuse source);

· Growth in the production of waste (point and diffuse source).

1. Operational discharge of liquids and gaseous effluents including cooling waters

In general, major water supply/sewerage systems are in poor repair and have reached a high level of depreciation. The poor state of municipal utilities in the Dnipro Basin is illustrated by the fact that wastewater discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants have been recognised as a major (immediate) source of chemical and microbiological pollution and eutrophication. Descriptions of the most significant pollution sources (or ‘hotspots’) in the Dnipro Basin are shown in Section 3.3.3. The transboundary transport of pollution through the Basin is described in Section 3.3.2.

The total annual volume of point source wastewater discharges in the Dnipro Basin in 2000 was 6,843,000,000 m³ (a breakdown by country is shown in Figure 4.6) Of the total volume, the majority receives no, or only partial treatment (Figure 4.7). In 2000, the water bodies of the Pripyat Basin received 164,000,000 m³ of wastewater within Belarus, and 363,730,000 m³ within Ukraine. Of that, 121,560,000 m³ received no treatment; 102,960,000 m³ was classified as ‘normatively clean’, i.e. not requiring treatment; and 133,210,000 m³ was treated to the required standard.

Figure 4.6 Annual volume of point source wastewater discharges in the Dnipro Basin in 2000 (m³/year)

Figure 4.7 Level of treatment of wastewater discharges by total and each country (year)

The pollution load dynamics in the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin are shown in Table 4.5. Table 4.6 shows the annual amounts of pollutants discharged with effluents from point sources in the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin. Data on the pollution load contained in effluents discharged into the Upper Dnipro in 1995 and 2000 are presented in Table 4.7.

Table 4.5 Pollution load dynamics in the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin

Parameters	Pollution load, tonnes/year
Parameters	2000	Average over 1995-2000
Total iron	726	955
Mineral nitrogen	6029	5914
Suspended substances	36756	31121
Sulphates	83625	75948
Chlorides	64178	57687
COD	93771	69501
BOD₅	11577	9479
Phenols	6.81	5.96
Surfactants	911	397
Total phosphorus	929	459

Table 4.6 Pollutants discharged with effluents from point sources in the Russian part
of the Dnipro Basin

Pollutant	Tonnes/year
Phosphorous	1000
Surfactants	150
Nitrates	980
Iron	105
Copper	20
Zinc	190
Organic matter (BOD)	7,000
Oil products	7
Suspended substances	18,000
Sulphates	34,000
Chlorides	41,000

Table 4.7 Pollution load contained in effluents discharged into the Upper Dnipro in 1995 and 2000

Polluting compounds	Unit	1995 *	2000 *
Sulphates	Thousand Tonnes	16.0	12.0
Chlorides	Thousand Tonnes	28.5	19.1
BOD (total)	Thousand Tonnes	7.0	2.9
Oil products	Thousand Tonnes	0.07	0.04
Phenols	Tonnes	0.03	N/a
Ammonium nitrogen	Tonnes	2094	1272
Nitrates	Tonnes	1087	1323
Nitrites	Tonnes	39.2	95.9
Iron	Tonnes	98.2	94.2
Copper	Tonnes	1.46	1.19
* - the State Water Cadastre (Inventory) data

The most polluted river sections in Belarus associated with wastewater discharges are the Svisloch River downstream of Minsk, the Berezina River downstream of Bobruisk, the Dnipro River downstream of Mogilev and Rechitsa, the Pripyat River downstream of Mosyr, the Yaselda River downstream of Beresa, and the Usa River downstream of Gomel. The actual dilution capacities of these rivers are far too low to be able to meet the dilution demand.

In 2000, the Dnipro tributaries within Belarus received 7,930 tonnes of organic matter (in terms of BOD); 5,400 tonnes of ammonium nitrogen; 1,909 tonnes of nitrate nitrogen; 180 tonnes of oil products; 336 tonnes of iron; and 14.8 tonnes of copper. The contribution of transboundary, diffuse and point sources of pollution to the total pollution flow from the territory of Belarus can be evaluated from transboundary pollution load estimates and data on pollution loads entering the rivers with wastewater discharges (averaged over the period of 1995-2000). The results of this evaluation are presented in Table 4.8 Further information on the transboundary transport of pollution in the Basin is presented in Section 3.3.3.

Table 4.8 Comparative contribution of point and diffuse pollution sources to the total pollution flow from Belarus (indicative data)

Pollution sources	Contaminants, %
Pollution sources	Oil products	Suspended substances	BOD₅	Ammonium nitrogen	Copper	Zinc
Diffuse sources	75	50	76	82	56	90
Point sources	25	50	24	18	44	10

In Belarus, 80% of the total wastewater volume entering the Dnipro River and its tributaries contains polluting substances at elevated concentrations even after primary, secondary and tertiary treatment. This proportion varies from 7% to 48% at the city/town level and from 8% to 25% at the Oblast level. Wastewater discharges are concentrated in the Berezina and Svisloch River catchments, with the latter receiving the major part of the pollution load (Table 4.9). The City of Minsk appears to be the major contributor in terms of volume and pollution load, generating more than 25% of the total (Figure 4.8). This has greatly affected the ecological state of the Svisloch River itself, and the Dnipro Basin as a whole.

Table 4.9 Pollution load in the Svisloch River catchment

Pollutant	tonnes	%
Nitrate nitrogen	100	91
Organic matter	3,480	81
Oil products	9	75
Ammonium nitrogen	2,120	71
Surfactants	55.7	66
Phosphates	810	63
Heavy metals	35	73
Iron	93	68

Figure 4.8 % contribution of pollution from the city of Minsk to the Svisloch River and the Dnipro Basin (2000)

Within Ukraine, about 900,000 tonnes of pollutants are discharged with effluents into the Dnipro Basin water bodies from point sources. In 1990, the total amount of discharged pollutants was 793,000 tonnes, whereas the 1991-1995 average annual pollutant discharge was 1,003,000 tonnes. Clearly, the decline in production and associated water consumption during this period did not result in a reduction of pollution load discharged into the Dnipro Basin rivers.

2. Emissions from storage of chemical products, solid wastes and liquid wastes

Approximately 5,000 agrochemical and expired pesticide storage sites are scattered throughout rural areas in Ukraine. Within the Russian Federation, about 50% of chemical fertilisers and agrochemicals are stored at unorganised and often uncontrolled sites.

According to data from a waste inventory survey carried out in the mid 1990s, Ukraine has 2,670 waste landfill and disposal sites, with about a half of them (1,310 sites) located within the Dnipro Basin. These figures do not account for the numerous on-site industrial waste storage facilities, and smaller waste dumps located in rural areas.

There are 300 toxic waste disposal sites in Ukraine (161 of them being located in the Dnipro Basin), containing toxic substances at concentrations exceeding the respective MAC limits by a factor 50. None of these sites are well engineered, thereby posing a continuous threat to groundwater and surface waters.

Despite the decline in production, toxic waste generation remains high in the Russian Federation and in 2000 reached 125% of the 1990 level (1,200,000 tonnes). This equates to 1.1% of the total annual amount of waste generated in the Russian Federation. In the region, usage of toxic materials in industrial processes has grown 2.4 fold over the last five years (from 66,000 tonnes in 1995 to 215,000 tonnes in 2000). Further details on waste disposal sites can be found in Section 4.4.2 (immediate causes of microbiological pollution).

3. Runoff from agricultural land and urbanised areas

Of the total amount of nitrogen and phosphorus applied to agricultural land, about 20% of nitrogen and 5% of phosphorus reach the water bodies with surface runoff. In Belarus, agricultural soils contain phosphorus and nitrogen compounds at elevated concentrations. In 1989-1990, the annual nutrient load discharged into the surface waters of the Dnipro Basin from agricultural areas was 21,200 tonnes of nitrogen and 610 tonnes of phosphorus. Figure 4.9 reflects the percentages contributed by various sources to the total nutrient load.

Another related problem is the large-scale application of pesticides in the riparian countries. Within the Russian Federation, the annual pesticide runoff rate is about 1 kg/ha. Further details on the level of pesticides in the Dnipro environment can be found in Section 3.3.2 (2000-2001 field survey results).

In Belarus, significant pollution load enters surface waters with urban runoff with 4,530 tonnes/year of oil products, 10,260 tonnes/years of organic matter in terms of BOD₅, 780 tonnes/year of ammonium nitrogen and 330 tonnes/year of phosphates (1990 data).

Figure 4.9 % Contribution of 3 sources to the total nutrient load

According to survey data provided by the Ukrainian Municipal Utility Research & Design Institute “UkrKommunNIIProgress”, about 78% of suspended matter, 20% of organic matter and 68% of oil products enter surface waters with rainstorm runoff drained from urban areas. Oil products contained in soils are washed out into the surface waters and accumulated in the bottom sediments. Monitoring data over the past 10 years indicates that oil product concentrations in water have increased over that period, reaching 0.14 mg/l in 2000, compared to the MAC limit for fishery water use of 0.05 mg/l.

4. Growth in the production of waste

For details on the growth of waste production, refer to the immediate causes of chemical pollution described above and Sections 3.1.4 and 4.4.6 on mineral resources and solid waste pollution in the Basin.

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying causes of this issue arise in the following key sectors: industry, agriculture, and urbanisation. Energy, aquaculture and transport contribute to a lesser degree. A list of the priority sectors for all issues is presented in Table 4.18 (Section 4.7)

A detailed causal chain reflecting the links between the immediate and underlying sectoral causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.10 and a detailed description of terminology used in this causal chain is given in the definition of terms in Annex 2.

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Based on the causal chain in Figure 4.10, the priority sectoral resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes of this transboundary issue can be identified. These are shown in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) decision making management tool (Figure 4.11).

The SAP decision making management tool shows the priority sectors for this issue (colour coded with the causal chain) together with three hierarchical levels of concern (shown in Section 4.3.1). Within each level the priority resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes for each transboundary issue are listed. These can either cut across all sectors (e.g. Lack of adequate finance) or be sector specific (e.g. inadequate implementation of clean technologies).

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

Environmental degradation in the Dnipro Basin can largely be attributed to the long-term chemical contamination of air, soil, surface waters and groundwater. The impact on the natural environment of anthropogenic chemical pollution is a legacy of the large-scale unsustainable development of industry, agriculture and urban areas in the Basin.

In terms of point and diffuse sources of chemical pollution, diffuse sources are more significant for the Basin as a whole, as they relate to spatial pollution, i.e.:

· Emissions from storage or disposal of liquid/solid waste and chemicals;

· Atmospheric deposition of pollution;

· Application of fertilisers;

· Application of agrochemicals;

· Pollution of urbanised areas and transport networks.

Moreover, diffuse pollution sources, as opposed to point sources, are very difficult to regulate, and their adverse impact is likely to grow in the short to medium term, as economic activity increases. The most effective options to prevent and reduce diffuse pollution are:

(1) The establishment/reconstruction of water protection zones and strips;

(2) The development and implementation of environmentally sound waste management systems and facilities for all types of waste; and

(3) The collection and treatment of rainstorm runoff from urban areas.

4.4.2 Microbiological pollution

Microbial pollution refers to the adverse effects of microbial constituents of human or animal sewage released to water bodies. The most obvious evidence of the transboundary status of this issue is the presence of microbiological contaminants in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro River and its estuary where its drains into the Black Sea (Table 4.1). However, based on the prioritisation exercise detailed in Chapter 4, this issue was not considered a priority transboundary issue. Consequently, detailed causal chain analysis beyond the immediate causes of the issue was not carried out.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including modification of the hydrological regime (Section 4.3.1) and water resource pollution issues such as chemical pollution (Section 4.4).

The deterioration of drinking water quality and the decreased recreational value of water bodies

There have been numerous reports of the presence of pathogenic parasites in the local water supplies of the Dnipro Basin. Survey results on the sanitary situation suggest that non-disinfected sewage and wastewater are major carriers of infective Helminth eggs and represent a primary cause of contagious diseases.

Water mains and related inspection wells are reported to be a source of water pollution in the Russian Federation, due to their poor technical state, frequent breaks and the absence of disinfection practices. 40% of water samples collected in recreational areas were found to be non-compliant with regard to sanitary and microbiological requirements due to the presence of Helminth eggs. The provision of good quality drinking water has become a serious issue. Over 50% of municipal and corporate water supplies do not meet sanitary standards, with one quarter of water samples from centralised water supply systems and one third of samples from municipal water mains being non-compliant with existing requirements.

In Belarus, the percentage of non-compliant samples taken from or near public water intakes remains consistently high. For example, of 756 samples taken for chemical analysis, 27.6% were found to be non-compliant with regard to existing water quality standards. In terms of biological parameters 14.4% of 2,414 samples taken were found to be non-compliant. A review of available data on the impacts of anthropogenic pollution on human health in the Republic of Belarus indicates that there is a direct relationship between the level of microbiological pollution in river water and the increased incidence of various contagious diseases.

Existing water treatment processes are not capable of ensuring the safety of drinking water. In particular, chlorination processes do not completely remove certain persistent pathogenic viral agents. As a result, even pre-treated drinking water may contain pathogenic viruses that pose a threat to human health. This was the case in Gomel, where a large outbreak of water-borne enteroviral meningitis affected over 600 people, of which 70.6% of them were children.

There have been numerous and regular reports of the presence of pathogenic viruses, bacteria and parasites in the local water supplies of the Belorussian part of the Dnipro Basin. This represents a continuous threat of contagious disease outbreaks in the region.

Of greatest concern are regular reports of water-borne pathogens in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro Basin within Belarus. These include the Svisloch River (near Minsk); the Berezina River (near Svetlogorsk), the Pripyat River (near Petrikov, Mosyr, and Narovlya), the Sozh River (near Gomel and Krichev), and the Dnipro River (near Rogachev, Zhlobin, Rechitsa and Loev). Table 4.8 shows the contribution of pollution sources to the total pollution flow from Belarus and Figure 4.8 reflects the levels of pollution load received by the Svisloch River and Dnipro Basin as a whole from the City of Minsk in 2000.

Significant pollution load also enters the Pripyat Basin from both Belarus and Ukraine and the levels for 2000 are shown in Figure 4.12.

Figure 4.12 Pollution load (tonnes) entering the Pripyat Basin from (A) Belarus and (B) Ukraine (the levels shown are for 2000)

The 2000 monitoring data provided by the Ukrainian Sanitary/Epidemiological Service suggests that a considerable proportion of surface water bodies and drinking water supplies contain water of unacceptable quality. In 2000, 26.6% of surface water samples were found to be non-compliant with the existing sanitary standards, and 15.5% of them did not meet the microbiological requirements. However, the results of regular sanitary/bacteriological monitoring suggest that the microbiological component of river water quality has remained relatively stable over recent years.

Water quality in the region is affected by pollution entering the Dnipro with numerous agricultural, industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. It is also affected by the nature of the region itself, where large-scale industrial and agro-industrial operations are concentrated (refer to Section 3.3.3 on Ukrainian hotspots for more details). Regular monitoring data indicates that admissible limits for a range of pollutants have been consistently exceeded, thereby greatly affecting the overall sanitary situation in the Dnipro Basin. The sections where concentrations of pollutants have been generally higher than average and in some instances have reached or exceeded admissible limits are given below:

· The Dnipro River section within the Poltava Oblast (near the Psyol and Vorskla River inflows and near the Sovetsky village where the river enters the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast).

· Within the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast (in the Samara River mouth near Dnipropetrovsk, and near Vasylivka where the river enters the Zaporizhzhia Oblast).

More information on the deterioration of drinking water quality and the decreased recreational value of water bodies in the basin can be found in Section 3.3.8 on the sanitary situation, Section 3.2.9 on water-borne diseases and microbiological contamination and Section 3.3.2 (Review of the 2000-2001 field survey results). Details on transboundary hotspots and transboundary transport of pollution in the Dnipro Basin can be found in Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.2.

Immediate causes

The following immediate causes contribute to microbiological pollution in the Dnipro Basin (also refer to Section 4.2):

· Discharges of insufficiently treated municipal wastewater;

· Discharges of insufficiently treated effluents by food processing industries;

· Diffuse pollution sources (especially during high flow periods);

· Discharges from livestock-rearing sites;

· Discharges from waste dumps.

1. Discharges of insufficiently treated municipal wastewater and effluents by food processing industries

Full details on municipal wastewater discharges can be found in Section 3.2.7 on the municipal utility sector, Section 3.2.10 on water uses in the Basin and in Section 4.4.1 on chemical Pollution (immediate causes). Details on discharges from food processing industries can be found in Section 3.2.4 on industry in the basin and lists of transboundary hotspots in the Dnipro Basin can be found in Section 3.3.3.

Discharges of microbiological pollution also occur from Landfill sites. In the Kursk Oblast in the Russian Federation, of 32 industrial and municipal waste dumps, only one is an engineered sanitary landfill. In the Republic of Belarus, only 15% of generated municipal solid waste is currently managed and disposed of properly, with only 4% of waste being recycled at the State Municipal Enterprise (Ecores), the sole specialised waste recycling facility existing in Belarus. There are numerous illegal waste dumps.

The Environmental Inspectorate of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine carried out a waste disposal site audit in 1995-1996. This covered 2,208 sites (580 industrial waste disposal sites and 1,628 municipal waste disposal sites) occupying an area of 35,400 hectares. The audit findings indicated that none of these sites met existing environmental safety requirements. The situation with municipal solid waste management is critical. For instance, the Zaporizhzhia Oblast has 27 operating landfills (occupying 209 hectares), 325 waste dumps in rural areas, and 373 cattle burial grounds. There are 201 waste dumps in the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, and 366 waste dumps in the Poltava Oblast. None of the rural waste disposal sites and cattle burial grounds meet environmental safety requirements. Refer to Section 4.4.1 (immediate causes of chemical pollution) for further details on waste disposal sites.

2. Diffuse pollution sources

The following diffuse pollution sources contribute to the microbiological pollution load received by water bodies in the Dnipro Basin:

(a) Surface runoff from urbanised areas and major highways.

(b) Surface runoff and direct discharges from livestock-rearing sites and rural settlement areas not connected to centralised wastewater treatment services.

Further details on the poor coverage of centralised wastewater treatment in rural areas can be found in Section 3.2.7 on the municipal utility sector.

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying causes of microbiological pollution mainly relate to the following sectors: industry urbanisation and agriculture (see Section 4.2).

4.4.3 Radionuclide pollution

Radionuclide pollution refers to the adverse effects of the release of man-made and naturally occurring radioactive contaminants and wastes into the aquatic and atmospheric environments from human activities. The transboundary significance of this issue is illustrated by the fact that the Chornobyl accident affected the territories of many countries, including the three nations of the Dnipro Basin (Table 4.1). A detailed causal chain showing the links between the immediate and underlying causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.13.

The major sources of radionuclide pollution in the Dnipro Basin are the territories contaminated as a result of the Chornobyl accident, nuclear power plants (NPP’s), radioactive material extracting/processing industries and radioactive waste disposal sites.

Environmental impacts

Impacts on human health and ecosystems from uranium mines and related processing industries

Uranium mines and related processing industries in Ukraine have a number of potential impacts on human health and the environment. They include:

· Contamination of mining process water with uranium and other radionuclides;

· Discharge of processing industry effluents to surface waters (usually after treatment);

· Surface runoff from contaminated mining and processing industry sites;

· Radon release from mines and mining/processing waste disposal sites;

· Leaching of radionuclides from tailings and their subsequent transport by river flow;

· Erosion of tailing waste sites leading to the spread of the fine tailing fraction by high winds and migration through water;

· Contamination of surface waters and groundwater sources by poisonous non-radioactive substances (e.g. heavy metals and chemical reagents used in the ore-enrichment process).

Radioactive effluents received by the Zhovtenka and Saksagan Rivers, and the Dnipro reservoirs from uranium mines and ore-processing industries are usually associated with relatively low chronic exposure levels, although radioactive pollution levels can be as high as 1 Bq/l at or immediately downstream of mining process water outlets. Consequently, this may result in additional exposure of the local population through consumption of river water.

Impacts on human health and ecosystems as a result of the Chornobyl accident

The most serious consequences of the Chornobyl accident for the population were caused by exposure to short-lived radionuclides, especially ¹³¹I, which resulted in many thyroid cancers. Other radiation-induced health effects on the public have not been revealed so far. The contribution of freshwater pathways to human exposure is dependent on the direct consumption of water, fish and irrigated farming products, as well as meat and milk produced in the contaminated areas where the river floodplains are used for livestock grazing and haymaking.

The concentrations of ¹³⁷Cs and ⁹⁰Sr in the Dnipro Basin watercourses are now well below the national limits and international guideline levels for drinking water. However, enclosed lakes with no regular outflow still present a radiological problem that will continue for some time. These lakes, usually associated with underlying peat deposits, have a limited ability to fix ¹³⁷Cs. As a result, concentrations of ¹³⁷Cs in these waters are close to the permissible limits.

The levels in local fish species exceed these limits by at least an order of magnitude. Moreover, radionuclide levels exceed permissible levels in local forest products (wild game, mushrooms, and berries), and in milk and meat produced by cattle grazing on the contaminated floodplains. The contribution of freshwater pathways to human exposure of ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³⁷Cs in water, ranges from 0.2% to 1.0% within the Russian Federation, from 0.1% to 1.5% within Belarus, and from 1% to 7% within Ukraine

Strontium transport from the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone to the Dnipro reservoirs increases significantly during high flow periods. Although individual exposure levels remain low (below 1 mSv), collective exposures may reach 20-30 person-Sv, or even 60 person-Sv as a result of elevated annual radionuclide transport from the Zone.

Enclosed lakes located in the Republic of Belarus and the Bryansk Oblast of Russia are considered as local hot spots in terms of average annual human exposure doses. Even 16 years after the Chornobyl fallout, the annual dose of the local population living near the Kozhany Lake (in the Bryansk Oblast) amounts one to two mSv, about half of it due to consumption of local fish. Similar individual exposures were recorded in the areas adjacent to the most heavily contaminated lakes in Belarus.

The direct effect of radioactive pollution in 1986 on species diversity has only produced a response in pedogenetic invertebrate communities residing in the vicinity of the Chornobyl NPP. Other wildlife communities have been more severely affected by secondary ecological factors of radioactive pollution. For example, direct exposure levels in the areas affected by the Chornobyl accident appear to be below lethal levels that would be expected to cause mass kills among wildlife communities, although the resultant radionuclide levels in many species have made them unsuitable for human use. This has had an indirect effect on the abundance and diversity of many wildlife species, especially commercial ones.

Two opposite processes have developed in the most contaminated areas withdrawn from use immediately after the Chornobyl accident. There has been a dramatic drop in the population of synanthrope species, followed by their virtual disappearance and an increase in the population of a number of species vulnerable to anthropogenic effects. Likewise, trends in bird’s communities have followed a similar pattern with a reduction of species diversity and populations of synanthrope communities as opposed to the progressive development of communities that are characteristic to woodland/shrub ecotones and successions. In particular, there has been an increase in the population of those carnivorous species that are vulnerable to anthropogenic effects. Similar trends have been reported for other wildlife communities.

Key features of radionuclide accumulation patterns are as follows:

· In aquatic phytocenoses, the ability to take-up and accumulate ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³⁷Cs is most pronounced in macrophyte species (Typha latifolia and Elodea canadensis), and in algal communities dominated by Cladophora and Oedogonium families.

· Radionuclide levels in various parts of aquatic plants were found to be subject to seasonal variations, with radionuclide accumulation rates being proportional to the concentrations of their macroanalogues in non-aquatic plants.

· ¹³⁷Cs levels were measured in fish inhabiting the Kozhanovsky Lake in the Bryansk Oblast of Russia, and other lakes of a similar type in the Gomel and Mogilev Oblasts of Belarus. There appeared to be differences amongst species within lakes, with ¹³⁷Cs levels generally highest in predator fish. Based on these results, a suite of indigenous fish species may be ranked in terms of increasing levels of ¹³⁷Cs: gudgeon, crucian, tench, pike, and perch. ¹³⁷Cs levels in fish samples varied within the range of 320 to 20,000 Bq/kg (wet weight). There also appeared to be a direct relationship between accumulation rates and fish age. In 1993, average ¹³⁷Cs levels in perch of 10-years of age were 40 kBq/kg (wet weight), exceeding EU guideline levels of 0.6 kBq/kg of wet weight by about sevenfold.

Results of a series of surveys carried out in the Republic of Belarus between 1986 and 1998 indicate that macrophytes, zoobenthos and fish inhabiting local water bodies contained higher levels of radionuclide pollution.

In fish, the highest levels of ¹³⁷Cs were recorded in 1986-1987 in catfish (6´10⁵ Bq/kg) and pike perch (4´10⁵ Bq/kg). Results of surveys carried out in the Kyiv reservoir between 1987 and 1991 suggest that shellfish communities were more responsive to ⁹⁰Sr, with ^{134, 137}Cs levels being generally higher in fish. The highest levels of ^{134, 137}Cs (up to 6´10³ Bq/kg) were recorded in pike in the autumn of 1987 and the winter of 1998. Bottom sediments are estimated to contain over 90% of the total stock of Cs₁₃₇ in the aquatic ecosystem.

Further information on radionuclide contamination can be found in Section 3.3.2 (Review of the 2000-2001 field survey results).

Immediate causes

The following immediate causes contribute to radionuclide pollution in the Dnipro (also refer to Table 4.17):

· Atmospheric and aquatic releases of radionuclides during the Chornobyl accident;

· Secondary releases from sites contaminated with radionuclides as a result of the Chornobyl accident;

· Point and diffuse discharges of mining process waters and tailing wastes from disposal sites at uranium mines and ore-enrichment plants;

· Emissions/discharges from radioactive waste disposal sites

1. Atmospheric and aquatic releases of radionuclides during the Chornobyl accident and subsequent secondary releases

The Chornobyl accident resulted in the contamination of extensive areas of woodland and farmland and continues to be a serious problem in the Basin.

Radioactive contamination is considered to be the major environmental problem in the Belorussian part of the Dnipro Basin, with extensive areas of agricultural land contaminated by ¹³⁷Cs. Approximately 1.1 million hectares (89.7%) of Belorussian agricultural land contaminated by ¹³⁷Cs (>1 Ci/km²) is located in the Dnipro Basin (See Section 3.1.2 and Figure 3.3 for more details). The Gomel and Mogilev Oblasts(674,200 and 332,500 hectares respectively) have suffered most from radioactive contamination of agricultural land.

In addition, surface runoff and ground water flow from contaminated areas has significantly contributed to the existing levels of radionuclide pollution in the Dnipro Basin (including washout of contaminated soil particles and radionuclide metabolites during high flow periods). Surface runoff from contaminated areas results in elevated concentrations of radionuclides in water, bottom sediments and biota. Table 4.10 shows the levels of radionuclides found in water samples taken from the Pripyat River within Ukraine immediately after the Chornobyl accident in May 1986.

During the 2000-2001 field survey organised within the framework of the current UNDP-GEF Dnipro Programme and supported by the International Development Research Centre, a special analytical programme was carried out to investigate the levels of radioactive contamination and distribution patterns throughout the Dnipro Basin.

The results of this survey show that the area most contaminated by radionuclides lies in the Pripyat Basin immediately upstream of the Chornobyl NPP, where ⁹⁰Sr activity was estimated at 8,000 Ci. Levels of ¹³⁷Cs, ²³⁹Pu and ²⁴⁰Pu in soil were also extremely high in this area. However, these radionuclides are bound with soil particles and therefore their contribution to human exposure via freshwater pathways is relatively minor, especially in the post-Chornobyl period.

Table 4.10 Levels of radionuclides found in water samples from the Pripyat River, May 1986

Radionuclide	Bq/l
⁹⁰Sr	3.26-14.8
¹³⁴Cs	3.15
¹³⁷Cs	6.29
⁹⁵Nb	15.54
¹⁴⁴Cs	33.67
¹³¹I	37.0

The migration characteristics of radionuclides can be understood from an appreciation of the chemistry of Cs and Sr. Cs has the ability to be taken up by clay materials frequently occurring in natural soils, thereby weakening its horizontal and vertical migration. Sr is less firmly bound by soil, being more mobile in the environment. The soils in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone are heavily contaminated with ⁹⁰Sr, and this contaminant can be washed out during flooding events. The chemistry of these elements also explains their behaviour upon entering the Dnipro reservoir chain, where ¹³⁷Cs is fixed onto clay sediments in the deeper sections of the reservoirs, especially in the Kyiv reservoir. Very little ¹³⁷Cs passes through the whole chain of reservoirs, therefore the levels of ¹³⁷Cs in river flow entering the Black Sea are very similar to background levels. On the other hand, although ⁹⁰Sr levels progressively decrease downstream (mainly due to dilution), a significant proportion of the pollution load reaches the Black Sea.

Table 4.11 reflects annual radionuclide fluxes into the Pripyat River expressed in absolute terms for a dry year (1997), a wet year (1999) and an average year (2001). The contribution of the Pripyat River tributaries (Uzh, Braginka, and Sakhan) to the total radionuclide load transported by freshwater pathways has not exceeded 13% in recent years.

Analysis of ⁹⁰Sr migration data provided by the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone Administration suggests that the highest contribution of radionuclide pollution to the Dnipro water system is associated with the area adjacent to the Chornobyl NPP site, varying from year to year between 60% and 70%. The total radionuclide pollution load has been continuously decreasing, with 1999 being the only exception due to exceptionally high flooding in the Pripyat River Basin.

Table 4.11 Source-specific fluxes of ⁹⁰Sr into the Pripyat River

Radioactive pollution sources	Fluxes of ⁹⁰Sr (10¹²Bq)			Contribution to ⁹⁰Sr flow beyond the Exclusion Zone, %
Radioactive pollution sources	1997	1999	2001	1997	1999	2001
Pripyat River (inflow into the Exclusion Zone)	0.80	3.21	1.29	26.1	29.9	36.2
Runoff from the left-bank polder	0.33	1.39	0.57	10.8	12.9	16.0
Surface runoff, groundwater flow	1.18	5.21	0.92	38.6	48.5	25.8
Filtration streams (cooling pond)	0.13	0.08	0.10	4.2	0.7	2.8
Glinitsa River	0.22	0.27	0.21	7.2	2.5	5.9
Sakhan River	0.02	0.04	0.05	0.7	0.4	1.4
Uzh River	0.17	0.27	0.20	5.6	2.5	5.6
Braginka River	0.21	0.28	0.22	6.9	2.6	6.2
Total within the Exclusion Zone	2.26	7.54	2.27	73.9	70.1	63.8
Total outflow beyond the Exclusion Zone	3.06	10.75	3.56	100	100	100

⁹⁰Sr remains a priority radionuclide contaminant transported by river flow beyond the boundaries of the Chornobyl NPP site (Table 4.12.). In addition, ¹³⁷Cs, ²³⁹Pu and ²⁴⁰Pu enter the rivers in the Basin with soil particles as a result of erosion developing in the river catchments and floodplains. These radionuclides are carried downstream with sediments and deposited in the upper section of the Kyiv reservoir. However, they are characterised by relatively low bioavailability levels. Accordingly, radioactive pollution levels in river fish and biota have now significantly reduced, and the embargo on fishing activities in the reservoirs has been lifted.

Table 4.12 Estimated stocks of cesium-137 and strontium-90 in catchments of major rivers entering the Kaniv reservoir

River	Catchment area, ‘thousands km²		Radionuclide content, thousands Cu
River	Total area	Area with Cs level above 1 Cu/km²	Cs-137	Sr-90
Dnipro	105	29	275	6
Pripyat		27	180	42
Desna	89	61	8	1

Further information on the redistribution and accumulation of radionuclides originating from the territories affected by the Chornobyl accident can be found in Section 3.3.2 (Review of the 2000-2001 field survey results).

2. Point and diffuse discharges of mining process waters and tailing wastes from disposal sites at uranium mines and ore-enrichment plants.

Uranium mines are concentrated in the Ukrainian part of the Dnipro Basin. The amount of radioactive waste material generated by uranium mines and ore-processing plants in Zhovti Vody and Dniprodzerzhinsk is now higher than 65 million tonnes. A significant amount of natural radioactive material is extracted and processed by mining and ore-processing industries, contributing to the total radioactive pollution load on the local environment. Uranium ore fields and tailing waste disposal sites are major sources of potential radioactive contamination. Surface runoff and leachate migration from tailing waste disposal sites results in elevated levels of radionuclides in local rivers, although they remain below the permissible levels set for drinking water sources. Further information on radioactive pollution sources within the Dnipro Basin can be found in Section 3.3.4.

3. Emissions and discharges from nuclear power plants

There are 20 nuclear power reactors in the Dnipro Basin, 13 of them operating at four nuclear power plants within Ukraine (the Zaporizhzhia, the South-Ukrainian, the Rivne, and the Khmelnitsk NPP’s), and 7 in the Russian Federation at two sites (the Kursk and Smolensk NPP’s).

Results of the IAEA expert review of emission/discharge statistics and monitoring data on performance of nuclear power facilities in Ukraine and Russia suggest that routine discharges from NPP’s are generally well below limits, and their environmental impact is rather limited. Operators of nuclear power generating facilities and radioactive waste disposal sites maintain strict control of pollution migration beyond their sanitary zones. Total annual radioactivity levels associated with process water discharges into water bodies don't exceed 1-2 Cu/year. Waste products are generally well managed at these facilities, with continuous improvements in waste management and waste minimisation being implemented. Waste and spent fuel facilities feature adequate environmental protection systems, although they are reaching capacity in some instances.

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying sectoral causes of radionuclide pollution are mainly associated with resource uses and practices in the mining and energy sectors. A significant proportion of radionuclide pollution load on the Dnipro Basin is a direct consequence of the Chornobyl accident. A list of the priority sectors for all issues is presented in Table 4.18 (Section 4.7)

A detailed causal chain reflecting the links between the immediate and underlying sectoral causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.13 and a detailed description of terminology used in this causal chain is given in the definition of terms in Annex 2.

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Based on the causal chain in Figure 4.13, the priority sectoral resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes of this transboundary issue can be identified. These are shown in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) decision making management tool (Figure 4.14).

The SAP decision making management tool shows the priority sectors for this issue (colour coded with the causal chain) together with three hierarchical levels of concern (shown in Section 4.3.1). Within each level the priority resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes for each transboundary issue are listed. These can either cut across all sectors (e.g. Lack of adequate finance) or be sector specific (e.g. location and concentration of NPP’s in the Basin).

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

The causal chain for the issue of Radionuclide Pollution is quite specific: for example, the consequences of the Chornobyl accident have been identified as an individual sector, which is relevant for the analysis of this issue.

Analysis of the radionuclide pollution issue, carried out by the IAEA experts, suggests that the mining industry (including mining and enrichment of uranium ore) has had a profound impact on the environment. This is illustrated by the fact that the amount of tailing waste accumulated in the Basin as a result of past activities is about 100 million tonnes. The majority of tailing waste storage sites have not been closed/restored properly, and this is likely to pose a long-term problem unless these sites are adequately managed. The tailing waste storage site “D” in Dniprodzerzhinsk is considered to represent the major danger in terms of potential environmental pollution due to its proximity to the Dnipro River, poor technical state and the perceived risk of catastrophic failure of its bund.

Limited data is available on radionuclide concentrations in the vicinity of uranium mines, processing sites and radioactive waste disposal sites. It is therefore impossible to provide any accurate assessment of human exposure doses associated with these sources. Therefore this sector is considered of top priority.

The second priority sector is nuclear energy. This is explained by the fact that emissions during routine operation of nuclear power facilities in Ukraine and Russia are relatively minor and far below existing mandatory limits. The RBMK and VVER reactors have been subject to major regional and international scrutiny. Immediately after the Chornobyl accident, urgent measures were taken to improve the inherent safety of these reactors. An international in-depth safety assessment process is currently underway to optimise these programmes. There is space for improvement of the system of emergency preparedness and response.

The third priority sector is defined as “Consequences of the Chornobyl accident”. According to the IAEA data, transboundary transport of radionuclides in the Dnipro Basin is currently very close to the background levels, i.e. has practically restored to the pre-Chornobyl levels.

4.4.4 Suspended solids

Suspended solids refers to the adverse effects of modified rates of release of suspended particulate matter to water bodies resulting from human activities. Suspended solids are transported from the territories of the riparian countries and accumulated in the Dnipro Delta. The pollution potential is thereby significantly increased in the coastal areas of the Black Sea. The transboundary status of the issue is shown in Table 4.1. However, based on the prioritisation exercise detailed in Chapter 4, this

issue was not considered a priority transboundary issue. Consequently, detailed causal chain analysis beyond the immediate causes of the issue was not carried out.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including modification of hydrological regime (Section 4.3.1), flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (Section 4.3.3) and modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones (Section 4.5). The impacts of other water resource pollution issues in this section such as eutrophication and chemical and microbiological pollution are also closely linked.

Modification of habitats and changes in the composition of biological communities

The retrospective analysis of the taxonomic composition of zooplankton inhabiting the Pripyat River Basin indicates that significant changes in zooplankton species composition have occurred since the commencement of intensive land drainage activities in 1961, indicating that elevated levels of suspended solids may have had an environmental impact. Further details on habitat modification can be found in Section 4.5.

Increased rate of sedimentation and siltation

Bank degradation processes in the Kremenchug reservoir have lead to massive inputs of soil material, resulting in progressive sedimentation and siltation. The total annual amount of soil material received by the reservoir as a result of bank degradation is 87.5 million m³/year, with an annual degradation rate of about 100 hectares per year. Erosion processes account for 150-180 kg/ha of humus, 8-10 kg/ha of nitrogen, and 5-6 kg/ha of phosphorus received by the water bodies with surface runoff. Further information on sedimentation and siltation can be found in Section 3.1.2 on land resources and Section 3.2.5 on agriculture in the Dnipro Basin.

Immediate causes

The following immediate causes contribute to suspended solid pollution in the Dnipro Basin (also refer to Section 4.2):

· Significant inputs of suspended solids from point sources.

· Significant inputs of suspended solids from diffuse sources.

· Significant inputs of suspended solids as a result of land drainage/irrigation activities.

1. Significant inputs of suspended solids from point sources

Annually, 18,000 tonnes of suspended solids enter the water bodies of the Dnipro Basin with effluent discharges generated in the Russian Federation. In Belarus, averaged data for the period between 1995 and 2000 indicates that suspended solids accounted for 5% of the total volume of effluents discharged, with the City of Minsk being the major contributor (Figure 4.8). In 2000, the Basin received 28,720 tonnes of suspended solids with effluent discharged from Ukrainian sources. More details on the inputs of suspended solids from point source pollution can be found in Section 4.4.1. The transboundary transport of suspended solids is described in Section 3.3.2.

2. Significant inputs of suspended solids from diffuse sources

The following diffuse pollution sources are considered to contribute to the pollution of water bodies by suspended solids:

· Surface runoff from urbanised areas and major highways;

· Microbiological pollution entering water bodies with surface runoff;

· Direct discharges from livestock-rearing sites and rural settlement areas not connected to centralised wastewater treatment services;

· Transboundary transport of contamination with atmospheric precipitation;

· Pollution transport with rainstorm and snowmelt water runoff from agricultural land;

· Lack of rainstorm runoff collection and treatment capacity.

Information provided by the UkrKommunNIIProgress Institute indicates that 78% of suspended solids enter the water bodies of the Basin with surface rainstorm runoff from urbanised areas. More details on diffuse source pollution can be found in Section 4.4.1.

3. Consequences of land drainage/irrigation activities

In the Republic of Belarus, 1.3 million hectares have been affected by erosion or classified as susceptible to erosion, with about 7.5% of arable farmland being subject to water and wind erosion. A significant proportion of agricultural land in the Russian Federation has also been affected by water erosion.

In Ukraine, large areas of land in the Western Volyn-Podol Province have been affected by erosion, waterlogging and swamping. According to data provided by the State Committee of land Resource Management of Ukraine, 35.2% of the Dnipro catchment area has been eroded. A breakdown by Oblast is shown in Figure 4.15. The largest eroded areas lie in the Donetsk Oblast followed by the Kirovhrad, Mykolaiv and Kharkiv Oblasts where about 50% of arable farmland has been affected. In the Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kirovhrad Oblasts, the total area of eroded land has increased by between 4.6 and 11.2 % over the past 30 years.

The annual loss of fertile soil due to washout from agricultural land is 14.3 tonnes/ha. Of 12.8 million hectares of eroded land in the Dnipro Basin, 1.2 million hectares consists of excessively washed-out soil that requires urgent restoration and grassing. The most fertile Ukrainian black-earth soils have been especially hard hit by erosion (up to 70%). The proportion of slightly washed-out soil has increased by 26% over the last 15 years, with medium to excessive soil washout increasing by 23%.

Figure 4.15 Breakdown by Oblast of eroded arable farmland (%)

The elevated right-bank catchment of the Dnipro between Kyiv and Dnipropetrovsk is dissected by a dense eroded valley network, within which the erosion base is relatively deep (100-160 m) in. The length of the valleys in this network range between 2 km to 6 km, with slopes ranging between 8^o and 30^o, and depths of several tens of metres. In the Kyiv, Cherkassy, Poltava and Kirovhrad Oblasts about 1.5 million hectares of land surrounding the Dnipro reservoirs has been affected by erosion. Within the catchment of the Kremenchug reservoir, over 1.0 million hectares has been eroded.

Further details on the consequences of land drainage/irrigation activities can be found in Section 3.2.5 describing the agricultural situation in the Basin.

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying causes of suspended solid pollution are mainly associated with resource uses and practices from the following key sectors: agriculture, urbanisation, industry and transport (see Section 4.2).

4.4.5 Eutrophication

Eutrophication including harmful algal blooms refers to artificially enhanced primary productivity in receiving water basins as a result of the increased availability or supply of nutrients. Data on nutrient and organic transport from the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation into Ukraine and ultimately the Black Sea provide the clearest evidence of the transboundary status of this issue. The transboundary status of the issue is shown in Table 4.1. A detailed causal chain showing the links between the immediate and underlying causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.17.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including changes in the groundwater regime (Section 4.3.2), flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (Section 4.3.3) and modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones (Section 4.5). The impacts of other water resource pollution issues in this section such as suspended solids, chemical pollution and microbiological pollution, (Section 4.4) are also closely linked.

Deterioration of water quality due to intensive algal blooms

Ukraine: Reduced flow circulation and extensive shallow-water sections in the reservoir chain have intensified the effects of water pollution in the Dnipro Basin. The most visible indication of pollution is the increased frequency of algal blooms related to high loads of nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) entering the Dnipro and its reservoirs.

Within Ukraine, the total area of shallow-water sections in the reservoir chain is 1,341 km². Of that, aquatic vegetation covers 480 km² with a total mass of over 300,000 tonnes/year. Higher aquatic plants (reed, rush, cattail, etc.) occupy approximately one third of the total shallow-water area. However, reduced water circulation and expansion of shallow-water sections frequently leads to (virtually annual) algal blooms, stimulated by high loads of nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) received by the Dnipro reservoirs. As a result of this, large quantities of dead algae fall to the bottom, representing a source of secondary pollution. Shallow-water sections are also conducive to siltation and swamping leading to the excessive growth of higher aquatic plants and blue-green algae.

Changes in species composition and productivity of indigenous fish species

Belarus: Acute and major changes in the condition of aquatic ecosystems have been associated with the construction of reservoirs in the Belorussian part of the Dnipro Basin. Flowing rivers have been converted into stagnant water bodies with altered flow and temperature regimes, resulting in changes in species diversity. Valuable indigenous species have disappeared and have been substituted by opportunistic species of low or no value.

Ukraine Commercial fish yield significantly increased by up to 20,000-23,000 tonnes immediately after the construction and filling of the reservoir chain. However, valuable fish species including sturgeon, herring, and sabre carp (Pelecus cultratus L.) have virtually disappeared since this period and currently only occur in the Dnipro Estuary. Semi-submerged vegetation thickets have intensively developed in the shallow-water sections over the course of the operational life of the reservoirs. The high density of this vegetation affects light and air penetration, causing anoxic conditions in the bottom water layer, thus reducing the fish spawning value of the ecosystem. Spawning and fattening areas in the Dnipro and its reservoirs have reduced 3-fold.

More information on changes in species composition in the basin can be found in Section 3.1.6 on nature reserves and protected areas and Section 3.3.2 (Review of the 2000-2001 field survey results).

Immediate causes

As with chemical pollution, the immediate causes of eutrophication in the Dnipro Basin can be grouped into two hierarchical levels. The first distinguishes the point and diffuse sources of nutrients together with the existence of extensive area of shallow-water sections in the Dnipro reservoirs (this cause relates specifically to the energy sector). The second more detailed level can be broken down into the following (also refer to Table 4.17):

· Operational discharge of liquids and gaseous effluents including cooling waters (point source);

· Emissions from storage of solid waste (point and diffuse source);

· Emissions from storage of liquid wastes (point and diffuse source);

· Runoff (point and diffuse source);

· Growth in the production of waste.

1. Operational discharge of liquids and gaseous effluents including cooling waters

Information on nutrient loads from point and diffuse sources in the basin (including organic matter and BOD) and the transboundary transport of pollution can be found in Section 4.4.1 (chemical pollution) and Section 3.3.2 (review of the 2000-2001 field survey results).

Figure 4.13 shows the nutrient load entering Dnipro Basin from the 3 riparian countries. Belarus is by far the greatest contributor of nutrients from point sources followed by Ukraine and Russia.

In Ukraine, discharges of cooling waters from nuclear and thermal power plants cause thermal pollution of cooling ponds, which can potentially enhance the impacts of eutrophication. However, this has a limited transboundary effect.

2. Runoff

Of the total amount of nitrogen and phosphorus applied to agricultural land, about 20% of nitrogen and 5% of phosphorus reach the water bodies of the Basin with surface runoff.

In Belarus, agricultural soils contain phosphorus and nitrogen compounds at elevated concentrations. In 1989-1990, the annual nutrient load discharged into the surface waters of the Dnipro Basin from agricultural areas in Belarus was 21,200 tonnes of nitrogen and 610 tonnes of phosphorus. Figure 4.16 reflects the percentages contributed by various sources to the total nutrient load.

Figure 4.16 Total nitrogen and phosphorous load contributed by point sources
from the 3 riparian countries in the Dnipro Basin

3. Extensive area of shallow-water sections in the Dnipro reservoirs.

The flow regulation ratio in the Dnipro Basin ranges from 2-3% in the Russian Federation and Republic of Belarus, to 22% in Ukraine. In the Pripyat River Basin within Ukraine, 1% of river flow is regulated in the Ubort River, reaching 11%-15% in the Ustia and Khomora Rivers.

The total area of shallow-water sections in the Ukrainian reservoir chain is 1,341 km². Of that, aquatic vegetation covers 480 km². Shallow-water sections with a depth of up to 2 m are reported to occupy over 19% of the total area of the Dnipro reservoirs (Table 4.13), affecting water use, recreational value and the ecological state. These sections represent an interface between the land and offshore waters of the reservoir, where various physical, chemical and biological processes affecting water quality are most pronounced. Being prone to swamping, shallow water sections impede access for fishing, recreation, and livestock watering and are also able to strongly affect the ecological state of the reservoir and riparian area under certain conditions, e.g. during flow variations, when water exchange with the offshore area is significant.

Table 4.13 Shallow-water sections in the Dnipro reservoirs

Reservoir	Area
	km²	% of area
	km²	% of area
Kyiv reservoir	312	34.0
Kaniv reservoir	167	26.0
Kremenchug reservoir	410	18.0
Dniprodzerzhinsk reservoir	182	32.0
Dniprovsky reservoir	160	39.0
Kakhovka reservoir	110	5.1
Total	1341	19.1

4. Growth in the production of waste

For details on the growth of waste production, refer to the immediate causes of chemical pollution (Section 4.4.1) and Sections 3.1.4 and 4.4.6 on mineral resources and solid waste pollution in the Basin.

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying sectoral causes of this issue are very similar to those for chemical pollution (see section 4.4.1). They are mainly associated with resource uses and practices dominating the following sectors: agriculture, urbanisation and industry. Aquaculture, energy and transport contribute to a lesser degree. A list of the priority sectors for all issues is presented in Table 4.18 (Section 4.7)

A detailed causal chain reflecting the links between the immediate and underlying sectoral causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.17 and a detailed description of terminology used in this causal chain is given in the definition of terms in Annex 2.

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Based on the causal chain in Figure 4.17, the priority sectoral resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes of this transboundary issue can be identified. These are shown in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) decision making management tool (Figure 4.18).

The SAP decision making management tool shows the priority sectors for this issue (colour coded with the causal chain) together with three hierarchical levels of concern (shown in Section 4.3.1). Within each level the priority resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes for each transboundary issue are listed. These can either cut across all sectors (e.g. Lack of adequate finance) or be sector specific (e.g. incorrect use and storage of fertilisers and livestock-breeding wastes).

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

Agriculture is a major contributor to the nutrient load received by aquatic ecosystems in the Basin. High loads of nutrients enter the Dnipro and its tributaries with surface runoff from agricultural fields and livestock breeding sites causing the progressive eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems. In addition, non-compliant agricultural practices and illegal ploughing activities within the floodplain areas of the Basin, result in high levels of humus entering the water bodies of the Dnipro and its tributaries. This, together with progressive soil erosion is also a contributory factor.

Intensive fishing and aquaculture also contributes to eutrophication. These practices lead to the transport of exometabolites; artificial nutrition of the water; the application of mineral fertilisers to enhance growth of aquatic plants; and lime treatment to prevent diseases in fish. All these factors adversely affect water quality and enhance eutrophication of fishponds and natural water bodies, which receive, return waters.

Another major contributing factor is the high nutrient load entering the water bodies of the Basin with municipal wastewater discharges and surface runoff from rural areas. Food processing and microbiological industries also produce effluents containing nutrients and organic compounds.

Energy and transport also encourage eutrophication, although in an indirect manner. In particular, damming and regulation of larger rivers has led to the expansion of shallow-water areas and the take-up and transport of nutrients and organic compounds from land flooded as a result of damming. This has caused intensive growth of blue-green algae and, consequently, reintroduced pollution into the Dnipro River.

4.4.6 Solid waste

Solid waste pollution refers to adverse effects associated with the introduction of solid waste materials into water bodies or their environs. The transboundary status of the issue is shown in Table 4.1. However, based on the prioritisation exercise detailed in Chapter 4, this issue was not considered a priority transboundary issue. Consequently, detailed causal chain analysis beyond the immediate causes of the issue was not carried out.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (Section 4.3.3) and modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones (Section 4.5). The impacts of other water resource pollution issues in this section such as chemical and microbiological pollution, eutrophication, suspended solids and accidental spills and releases (Section 4.4) are also closely linked.

Deterioration of surface water and groundwater quality

Industrial and municipal solid waste disposal sites pose a continuous threat of environmental pollution. Groundwater quality is affected by leachate generated at waste dumps and landfills located all over the Basin, and there is a potential danger of surface water pollution due to leachate migration with groundwater flow. Waste landfills present a significant impact to groundwater quality in the Basin, particularly in waterlogged areas with elevated groundwater levels. However, leachate generated at landfill sites is also able to migrate through underlying rocks and affect deep aquifers.

The storage and management of highly toxic waste represents a potential source of surface water and groundwater contamination and is a serious issue in the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine. Another area of concern is the management and disposal of sludge generated by municipal wastewater treatment plants. Generally, the practice of mechanical de-watering sludge is limited to large urban centres such as Minsk and Mogilev. Considerable quantities of sludge have accumulated in sludge fields attached to municipal wastewater treatment plants, posing a threat of groundwater pollution.

Deterioration of terrestrial ecosystems

A number of adverse effects on the natural environment, including the effects of waste landfill sites, have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the area of forests (approximately by twofold over the past century), fish stocks and wildlife. For further information on the effects of waste disposal sites in the basin, refer to Section 3.1.4 on mineral resources.

Immediate causes

The following immediate causes contribute to solid waste generation in the Dnipro Basin (also refer to Section 4.2):

· The high rate of solid waste generation in the Basin;

· The large quantity of unorganised waste dumps and industrial waste disposal sites, especially in Ukraine;

· Accumulation of waste generated by mining industries.

1. The high rate of solid waste generation in the Basin.

The situation in the Russian Federation can be illustrated by waste statistics from the Kursk Oblast where about 1,200 million tonnes of waste have accumulated at official (organised) waste disposal sites. Annual waste generation includes 1.5 million m³ of municipal solid waste and about 200,000 tonnes of industrial waste. Only 20% of generated waste is recycled. About 1 million m³ of municipal solid waste is generated annually in the Bryansk Oblast and the majority is disposed of illegally.

The annual amount of solid waste generated in the Republic of Belarus can be broken down by major categories as follows: industrial solid waste (88%), municipal solid waste (10%) and municipal effluent treatment sludge (2%). The range of generated industrial solid wastes includes about 800 waste types. The major waste generators in the territory of Belarus are shown below:

· The Starobinsk Potassium Deposit: over 550 million tonnes of solid waste and 65 million tonnes of liquid waste have accumulated in an area of 5,000 hectares;

· The BelarusKaliy Enterprise in Soligorsk: about 680 million tonnes of halite waste and clay/saline sludge;

· The Gomel Chemical Plant: over 15 million tonnes of phospho-gypsum;

· MSW landfills in Minsk, Gomel, Mogilev, Svetlogorsk, Bobruisk and Pinsk have accumulated over 5 million tonnes of waste.

In Ukraine, annual waste generation in the Dnipro Basin has varied between 424 and 458 million tonnes during the years 1996 to 2000 and is dominated by mining industry waste (about 90%, when compared to 1.5% accounted for by municipal solid waste). Solid waste disposal sites occupy about 84,000 hectares, containing about 12 billion tonnes of waste material. Major waste generating regions are:

· The Krivy Rih Iron-Ore Field: 7.1 billion tonnes;

· The Kremenchug area: 1.8 billion tonnes;

· The Western Donbass area: 0.2 billion tonnes.

2. Large quantity of unorganised waste dumps and industrial waste disposal sites, especially in Ukraine.

Solid waste material can be grouped into three main categories: industrial solid waste, municipal solid waste and wastewater sludge. The current situation regarding waste management and disposal is critical, with many existing sites in a very poor condition, operating illegally and not meeting ecological and sanitary requirements. A number of disposal sites have been commissioned which are currently operating without basic documentation and permits. Toxic waste poses a major threat to the environment, as it is often stored at industrial sites that generally lack the capacity for the correct storage and management of this material. There are reports of toxic waste such as mercury and arsenic being disposed of at municipal dumps and landfills.

There are many illegal dumps in the Russian Federation. The Kursk Oblast has 32 waste disposal sites occupying 80 hectares. Only one site (in the Oktyabrsky District) can be described as an engineered landfill, constructed and operated on the basis of approved design. The existing capacity for the reception and storage of industrial waste at this site has now been reached, and significant investment is required for its expansion and upgrade.

Sanitary landfills are present in all larger connurbations in Belarus (Minsk, Mogilev, Gomel, Svetlogorsk, Orsha, Bobruisk, and Pinsk). However, the existing waste recycling capacity is extremely low Approximately 15% of generated municipal solid waste is currently managed and disposed of properly, with only 4% of waste being recycled at the State Municipal Enterprise, the sole specialised waste recycling facility in Belarus. There are numerous illegal municipal solid waste dumps. There are 7 industrial waste disposal sites in the Republic of Belarus, with a total area of 1,405 hectares. The largest industrial waste disposal sites are:

· A storage site for halite waste and clay/saline sludge, generated by the ‘BelarusKaliy’ Enterprise in Soligorsk, occupying 1,350 hectares;

· A phospho-gypsum waste site for the Gomel Chemical Plant, occupying over 60 hectares;

· A storage site for hydrolysis process waste generated by lignin plants in Bobruisk and Rechitsa (20 hectares); and

· An ash disposal site for the Svetlogorsk thermal power plant (55 hectares).

A waste inventory compiled in the mid-1990s in Ukraine indicated that out of a total of 2,670 waste disposal sites, 1,310 were located in the Dnipro Basin. It should be noted that these figures do not account for the numerous on-site waste storage facilities and smaller dumps in rural areas. The total area of waste disposal sites and dumps was estimated to be 84,000 hectares. A waste disposal site audit, carried out by the Environmental Inspectorate of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine in 1995-1996, covered 2,208 sites (580 industrial and 1,628 municipal) occupying an area of 35,400 hectares. The audit findings indicated that none of these sites met existing environmental safety requirements. Only 23% of these were reported to have at least some form of design, and only 32% were equipped with observation wells.

Many sites are reaching or have reached capacity. The situation with regard to municipal solid waste management is critical. For instance, the Zaporizhzhia Oblast has 27 operating landfills, 325 waste dumps in rural areas, and 373 cattle burial grounds. There are 201 waste dumps in the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, and 366 waste dumps in the Poltava Oblast. None of the rural waste disposal sites and cattle burial grounds meet environmental safety requirements. The Zhitomyr and Volyn Oblasts are reported to have no specialised facilities for the reception and disposal of toxic waste and this material is currently disposed of at sanitary landfills or dumped illegally.

There are 44 mining waste dumpsites near Kryvy Rih (on the Right-Bank of the Dnipro catchment), where 1.64 km³ of mining waste occupies an area of 69 km². In the Kremenchug area (the Left-Bank of the Dnipro catchment), 11 waste dumpsites occupy an area of 5.4 km². The Samara River basin drains the largest coal-mining area in Ukraine, the Western Donbass, where over 20 million m² of mining waste are stored at 13 dumps occupying an area of over 100 hectares.

Another area of concern is the management and disposal of sludge, generated by municipal wastewater treatment plants. In Belarus, the practice of mechanical dewatering sludge is limited to the large urban centres of Minsk and Mogilev. Considerable quantities of sludge have accumulated at sludge fields attached to municipal wastewater treatment plants and pose a threat of groundwater pollution.

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying causes of sold waste generation are mainly associated with resource uses and practices dominating the following sectors: industry, agriculture and urbanisation (Section 4.2).

4.4.7 Accidental spills and releases

Accidental spills/releases refers to the adverse effects of accidental episodic releases of contaminants and materials to the aquatic environment as a result of human activities. The transboundary status of the issue is shown in Table 4.1. However, based on the prioritisation exercise detailed in Chapter 4, this issue was not considered a priority transboundary issue. Consequently, detailed causal chain analysis beyond the immediate causes of the issue was not carried out.

Environmental impacts

The impacts of this issue are linked closely with those of a number of other issues including other water resource pollution issues in this section such as chemical and microbiological pollution, eutrophication and suspended solids (Section 4.4) are also closely linked.

The increased risk of accidental pollution is inherent to a range of facilities and operations in the Basin including a number of different types of industries (e.g. mining, petrochemical and food), liquid waste storage sites, pipelines and municipal utilities in urbanised areas. Accidental spills can cause the acute deterioration of surface water, ground water and air quality. This can result in the mass kill of living organisms, long-term pollution of the environment and resultant ecological changes.

Mass kills of aquatic organisms due to accidental spills of pollutants have been reported in the Republic of Belarus. These mainly occur during winter periods, when anoxic conditions develop in water bodies covered with ice. Regular fish kills are common for the overwhelming majority of rivers in the Dnipro Basin although there appears to be no arrangement for counting the number of organisms killed.

Accidental spills often result in elevated concentrations of pollutants in the transboundary sections of watercourses and there have been numerous reports of many exceeding maximum admissible levels (Table 4.14).

Table 4.14 Examples of pollutants exceeding maximum admissible levels in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro Basin as a result of accidental spills

Pollutant	Year	MAC Exceendence factor	Location
Nitrite nitrogen	1997	26.5	Dnipro River near Orsha
Iron	1995	22.2	Ipout River near Dobrusha
Oil products	1996	31	Pripyat River near Mosyr
Ammonium nitrogen	1996	6.3	Dnipro River near Loyev
Oil products	1997	26.6	Pripyat River near Mosyr
Nitrite nitrogen	1999	37	Goryn River near Rechitsa
Ammonium nitrogen	2000	20	Pripyat River near Pinsk

Such spills and releases of pollutants are distributed unevenly over the Basin, being mainly concentrated in the larger connurbations and industrial centres. Elevated concentrations of pollutants in the air are often recorded during inclement weather periods. Some examples of recorded exceedences are provided in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15 Examples of recorded exceedences of maximum admissible levels as a result of accidental spills

Pollutant	Year	MAC Exceendence factor	Location
Suspended solids	1995	4.6	Mosyr
Formaldehyde	1996	4.5	Pinsk
Phenol	1996	2.2	Gomel
Phenol	1997	7.4	Mogilev
Formaldehyde	1997	48.9	Mogilev
Nitrogen dioxide	1998	8.3	Mogilev
Carbon dioxide	1998	2.2	Mosyr
Formaldehyde	2000	3.6	Mosyr

Immediate causes

The following immediate causes contribute to accidental spills in the Dnipro Basin (also refer Section 4.2):

· Episodic accidental spills of polluted effluents from the liquid waste storage sites;

· Episodic accidental spills of polluted material from industries;

· Spills associated with pipework breakdown etc.

Two opposing trends have dominated the environmental situation in the Dnipro Basin between 1990 and 2000:

1. A gradual (very slow) improvement in the state of environment as a result of the general reduction of pollution load.

2. The increased risk of potential pollution of the environment as a result of accidents and/or emergency situations.

There are a great number of high-pressure pipelines in the Republic of Belarus. Their operation presents a significant risk to the environment. Statistical data indicates that accidents occur once per year per 3,000 km of pipeline. Leaks in oil pipelines are often difficult to detect, as they are mainly placed under the surface. Oil products migrate to the aeration zone, groundwater aquifers, the land surface, and finally reach surface waters with surface runoff and groundwater flow. The high density of pipelines is exacerbated by the intensive development of oil refineries, petrol storage facilities and filling stations etc. Their operation poses a continuous risk of water pollution by oil products and the related cost of environmental damage could amount to many hundreds of billions of Roubles. The most typical accident and emergency scenarios are described below:

1. The risk of accidental pollution from operations related to oil storage, refining and transportation. This risk group includes 2,500 facilities including oil refineries, filling stations, oil pipelines, oil storage facilities, and exploited oil fields.

2. The large-scale contamination of land as a result of accidents associated with oil pipelines. An example of this was the accident at the Druzhba Oil Pipeline within the territory of the Korenev Forestry Unit near Gomel.

3. The potential danger of accidental flooding and the resultant washout of pollutants from flooded areas.

In the republic of Belarus, the potential for accidental pollution has increased significantly due to the poor technical state and the significant depreciation of assets and equipment in industry (by up to 70%).

In the Ukrainian part of the Dnipro Basin, 20 accidental spills were reported in 2000, 10 during transportation and 10 during storage of material. In addition, 29 operational failures were reported to have taken place on pipelines. The average depreciation of industrial equipment and assets in Ukraine is 50-70%.

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying causes of sold waste generation are mainly associated with resource uses and practices dominating the following sectors: industry, urbanisation and energy (Section 4.2).

4.5 Modification and Loss of Ecosystems and Ecotones and Decreased Viability of Biological Resources

Loss of ecosystems or ecotones refers to the complete destruction of aquatic habitats. Modification of ecosystems or ecotones refers to the extinction of native species and changes in ecosystem functioning and services. This is one of the most difficult issues to quantify due to difficulties in determining spatial and temporal heterogeneity and an insufficient knowledge of species composition. Modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones and decreased viability of biological resources is considered as one of the most significant environmental issues in the Dnipro Basin. The transboundary status of the issue is reflected in Table 4.1. A detailed causal chain showing the links between the immediate and underlying causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.19.

Environmental impacts

All the transboundary issues analysed in this document impact on this issue to a greater or lesser degree. Of particular importance are modification of the hydrological regime (Section 4.3.1), flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (Section 4.3.3), chemical pollution (Section 4.4.1), radionuclide pollution (Section 4.4.3) suspended solids (Section 4.4.4) and eutrophication (Section 4.4.5).

Modification and degradation of ecosystems, loss and modification of biological diversity and decreased species diversity.

Existing nature reserves and protected areas occupy about 1.6% of the total area of the Basin (see Basin Passport). The existing nature reserve area and capacity is not sufficient to ensure the full protection and conservation of rare plant and animal species, and their communities. For example, the Bryansk Woodland, a State Natural Reserve in the Russian part of the Basin, occupies only 0.35% of the total area of the Bryansk Oblast, considerably below the existing mandatory limit of 2.2% set by the Russian Federation. Human activities have led to a drastic reduction of forest coverage (by approximately twofold over the past century), a depletion of fish stocks and a reduction in animal species diversity.

Since the 17^th century, 238 species have been lost in Belarus as a result of human activities and changes in abiotic factors. Large-scale land drainage schemes implemented in the Belorussian part of the Dnipro Basin over recent decades have resulted in the loss and shrinkage of a number of valuable and unique woodland communities of oak, ash, lime, black alder, and elm, as well as specific flora and fauna systems. Over the past 100 years, 25 higher vascular plants were reported to have become extinct and 40 animal species have lost their habitats.

Generally, the state of biological resources sustained by forests, wetlands and steppes in the Dnipro Basin is poor and subject to a number of anthropogenic impacts, particularly within the territory of Ukraine. The biological resources of the Dnipro Basin have been and continue to be depleted at an alarming rate, and urgent actions are needed to protect them in order to improve the environmental situation in the Basin.

The artificial conversion of the main stem of the Dnipro River into a series of large reservoirs within Ukraine has had a profound impact on the natural system. Very little of the original river channel remains, restricted to short lengths which connect the reservoirs. As a result, the migratory pattern of many valuable fish has been modified and populations have declined. Less valuable opportunistic species have easily adapted to, and flourished in the new conditions.

The construction of the reservoir chain in Ukraine has led to dramatic changes in fish species composition. For example, prior to the construction of the Kakhovka reservoir, this section of the Dnipro River had been home to 28 commercial fish species, the most valuable of them being beluga (white sturgeon), sturgeon, herring, and vimba (Vimba Vimba). As species diversity has reduced, populations of valuable long-lived species (catfish, mirror carp, and pike) have shrunk, and have been substituted by less valuable short-lived species (roach, sardelle and silver bream (Blicca bjoerkna)). Currently, there are only 6 or 7 commercial fish species in the Kakhovka reservoir (including bream, pikeperch, roach, silver carp (Hypophthalmichtys molitrix), crucian carp, and sardelle), accounting for only 1% of the total fish catch.

Shallow-water sections of the Dnipro reservoirs are the major spawning and dwelling areas for the majority of fish stocks in the Basin and have shrunk as a result of swamping and overgrowth by higher aquatic plants. Prior to the construction of the reservoir chain, phytophilous fish species accounted for 85-90% of the total fish catch spawned on the floodplains during spring high flows and many of these species were permanently present in the river, its tributaries and floodplain lakes. Currently, spawning and dwelling grounds of indigenous species have reduced dramatically in those Dnipro reservoirs used intensively for commercial fish-breeding activities. A result of the loss of the natural capacity of the system to support the reproduction of indigenous fauna has been the decline in the fish population and subsequently, a disproportionate growth of phytoplankton populations.

Large-scale land reclamation projects launched in the 1960 and 70s have led to a profound transformation of the natural environment in the Dnipro Basin. Native flora and fauna in the Polessie (Marshland) area have been worst hit by these developments, with the loss of 31 vascular plant species, and 20 terrestrial mammals (including the wild forest horse Eguus gmelini silvaticus, fallow deer and sable). Retrospective analysis of the taxonomic composition of zooplankton inhabiting the Pripyat River Basin indicates that significant changes in zooplankton species composition have occurred since the commencement of intensive land drainage activities in 1961, indicating that elevated levels of suspended solids may have had an environmental impact.

More details can be found in Sections 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 on the biological resources, and nature reserves and protected areas in the Dnipro Basin.

Immediate causes

The following immediate causes contribute to the modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones in the Dnipro Basin (also refer to Table 4.17) a number of which are other transboundary issues (in Italics):

· Changes in land use;

· Loss or modification of aquatic habitats;

· Introduced species;

· Changes in the sediment transport regime;

· Modification of the hydrological regime (see Section 4.3.1);

· Flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (see Section 4.3.3);

· Chemical pollution (see Section 4.4.1);

· Radionuclide pollution (see Section 4.4.3);

· Eutrophication (see Section 4.4.5).

1. Changes in land use and loss or modification of aquatic habitats

Aquatic habitats in the Basin were lost or modified during the 1950’s to 1990’s as a result of a number of activities. These include the construction of the reservoir chain in the Ukrainian part of the Basin (see Sections 3.1.1, 4.3.1 and 4.3.3) and the subsequent poor management and operation of the chain resulting in the loss of high value fish species (see above) and bank erosion (Section 4.4.4). There have also been substantial changes in land use due to the conversion of wetlands to agriculture and the improvement of existing agricultural land through land drainage activities (see Sections 3.1.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.3 and 4.4.4). In more recent years, the increased role of mining for export income has resulted in the growth of mining waste spoil dumps smothering large areas of land (see Section 3.1.4) though the transboundary status of this is relatively minor.

2. Introduced species

For details on the introduction of alien or exotic species, refer to Section 4.6 on impacts on biological and genetic diversity.

3. Changes in the sediment transport regime

Bank degradation in the reservoir chain has lead to large inputs of soil material resulting in sedimentation and siltation (Section 4.4.4). Inputs of sediment have also occurred due to conversion of forests and wetlands to agricultural use and the subsequent erosion of these soils due to poor farming practices (see Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.4.4).

Underlying sectoral causes

The underlying causes of modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones are either associated with other transboundary issues (see above) or with resource uses and practices from the following sectors: agriculture, energy and fisheries/aquaculture. Urbanisation, industry and transport all contribute to a lesser degree. A list of the priority sectors for all issues is presented in Table 4.18 (Section 4.7).

A detailed causal chain reflecting the links between the immediate and underlying sectoral causes of this issue is shown in Figure 4.19 and a detailed description of terminology used in this causal chain is given in the definition of terms in Annex 2.

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Based on the causal chain in Figure 4.19, the priority sectoral resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes of this transboundary issue can be identified. These are shown in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) decision making management tool (Figure 4.20).

The SAP decision making management tool shows the priority sectors for this issue (colour coded with the causal chain) together with three hierarchical levels of concern (shown in Section 4.3.1). Within each level the priority resource uses and practices and the underlying political, economic and governance causes for each transboundary issue are listed. These can either cut across all sectors (e.g. Lack of adequate finance) or be sector specific (e.g. lack of efficient system for reproduction of native fish/invertebrate species).

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

The negative impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, leading to the decreased viability of biological resources, is largely caused by activities in the following sectors: agriculture, energy and fisheries/aquaculture.

Intensive cultivation of land in the Dnipro Basin, where arable farmland covers up to 90% of the area, is a major cause of the loss of integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Terrestrial ecosystems, having lost their natural features and ability to act as a barrier preventing the transport of nutrients and pollutants into water bodies and watercourses are now contributing to the problem of eutrophication. The transport of soil and humus particles, fulvic acids, agrochemicals etc. with surface runoff from arable land has caused a deterioration in water quality and re-sedimentation of solid particles in the ecotone zones, which are loosing their ability to sustain specific flora and fauna.

Hydroengineering developments significantly affect aquatic ecosystems and surrounding areas. Flow regulation results in the loss of vast areas of land, encourages migration of nutrients into water mass and excessive growth of blue-green algae. As a result, unique riparian ecosystems are replaced by plankton algae species, which intensively develop in the shallow-water sections of the reservoirs.

Intensive fishing/aquaculture has also contributed significantly to the modification of river ecosystems. Numerous dams have been constructed on the smaller rivers, which have lost their drainage capacity. The dams frequently overflow, leading to the siltation and elevation of groundwater levels in the surrounding areas. These transformations affect ecosystems and the biodiversity of smaller rivers. Moreover, the monoculture approach is widely applied at fish-breeding farms, contributing to the reduced biodiversity of native fish and invertebrate species.

The indirect impacts of urbanisation, industry and transport on aquatic ecosystems and the viability of biological resources mainly relate to elevated concentrations of pollutants in air, water and soil.

4.6 Impacts on Biological and Genetic Diversity

This issue refers to changes in genetic and species diversity resulting from the introduction of alien and genetically modified species or local stocks as an intentional or unintentional result of human fisheries activities including aquaculture and restocking. It applies to all aquatic environments. The transboundary status of the issue is shown in Table 4.1. However, based on the prioritisation exercise detailed in Chapter 4, this issue was not considered a priority transboundary issue. Consequently, detailed causal chain analysis beyond the immediate causes of the issue was not carried out.

Environmental impacts

The main environmental impacts of this issue are:

· Changes in biological community structure due to overexploitation/depletion of one or more key species.

· Changes in biological communities through deliberate and accidental introductions.

· Degradation of ecosystems.

Immediate causes

The following immediate cause contributes to impacts on biological and genetic diversity in the Dnipro Basin (also refer to Section 4.2):

· Introduction and invasion of new species.

1. Introduction and invasion of new species.

In some instances, biodiversity is threatened due to competition between introduced/invading species, which are often better adapted to new conditions than less flexible native species. The composition of fish species in the Dnipro Basin has considerably expanded as a result of both the introduction/acclimatisation and invasion of new species including:

· Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) brought to Belarus in 1956;

· The American catfish and channel catfish (Ictaluridae family);

· A number of herbivorous carp-type fish species introduced from the Far East (Aristichthys nobilis, Hypophthalmichtys molitrix, and Ctenopharyngodon idella), as well as Pseudorasbora parva and Rapana thomasiana probably introduced with breeding stock;

· A number of Black Sea/Baltic species whose native habitats were limited to the Baltic Sea catchment before the mid 1950s. These are the sand goby (Gobius melanostomus), the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), and the white goby (Gobius fluviatilis), as well as the three- and nine-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus pungitis and Gasterosteus aculeatus).

Very little is known about the expansion of Ponto-Caspian invertebrates in the Basin although mollusc species such as Dreissena polymorpha and Corophium curvispinum and annelid species such as Caspiobdella fadejevi have colonised the Berezina River.

Sectoral causes

The underlying causes of this issue are associated with resource uses and practices from the following sectors: transport and fisheries/aquaculture (Section 4.2).

4.7 Priority Transboundary Issues, Immediate Causes and Sectors

Based on the results of the previous sections in Chapter 4, the following tables show the priority transboundary issues (Table 4.16), priority immediate causes (Table 4.17) and priority sectors (Table 4.18) in the Dnipro Basin. In all cases, 1 denotes the highest priority.

The priority transboundary issues in Table 4.16 are presented in 3 groups. The first identifies the priority transboundary issues identified by each riparian country. The second group lists those that are considered as the priority transboundary issues within the Basin as a whole. It should be noted that the Basinwide priority transboundary issues are the same as those for each riparian country. The third shows those that have a global context (i.e. effect areas beyond the Dnipro Basin).

Table 4.17 shows the list of prioritised immediate causes. Chemical pollution and eutrophication are prioritised in terms of their two hierarchical levels (see Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.5). Loss and modification of ecosystems is prioritised in terms of its direct immediate causes those other issues that can also cause this issue.

Table 4.16 (a) Priority transboundary issues identified by each riparian country

Riparian Country	Priority Issue
Russian Federation	1. Chemical pollution (including pollution transfer with air masses)
	2. Modification and loss of ecosystems
	3. Modification of hydrological regime
	4. Other issues are not significant
Republic of Belarus	1. Chemical pollution
	2. Modification and loss of ecosystems
	3. Modification of hydrological regime
	4. Pollution by radionuclides
	5. Flooding and elevated groundwater levels
	6. Eutrophication
Ukraine	1. Chemical pollution
	2. Modification and loss of ecosystems
	3. Modification of hydrological regime
	4. Eutrophication
	5. Flooding and elevated groundwater levels
	6. Pollution by radionuclides

Table 4.16 (b) Basinwide priority transboundary issues

Context	Priority Issue
Basin wide	1. Chemical pollution
	2. Modification and loss of ecosystems
	3. Modification of hydrological regime

Table 4.16 (c) Priority transboundary issues with a global context

Context	Priority Issue
Global	1. Conservation of landscape and biological diversity
	2. Pollution of the Black Sea
	3. Consequences of the Chornobyl accident

Table 4.17 Prioritised Immediate Causes (1 denotes highest priority, 7 lowest priority)

Issue	Priority Immediate Causes
1. Chemical pollution	1. Diffuse sources of pollution	1. Runoff
		2. Untreated and poorly treated municipal wastewater and rainstorm water
		3. Operational discharges and emissions of pollutants
	2. Point sources of pollution	4. Emissions from storage or disposal of solid wastes
		5. Emissions from storage or disposal of chemical products
		6. Emissions from storage or disposal of liquid wastes
		7. Automobile transport
2. Modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones, and decreased viability of biological resources	1. Change in land use			Impacts of other issues:
				1. Chemical pollution
	2. Loss or modification of aquatic habitats			2. Modification of hydrological regime
	3. Introduced species			3. Eutrophication
	4. Changes in the sediment transport regime			4. Flooding and elevated groundwater levels
3. Modification of hydrological regime	1. Flow regulation, including required water releases
	2. Land drainage and flow abstraction for irrigation
	3. Flow diversions between basins and within the basin
	4. Flow abstraction for industrial and domestic purposes
	5. Returns/runoff of water
	6. Flow diversion for aquaculture
4. Eutrophication	1. Diffuse sources of pollution		1. Runoff
	2. Point sources of pollution		2. Untreated and poorly treated municipal wastewater and rainstorm water
	3. Extensive area of shallow water sections in the reservoir chain		3. Operational discharges and emissions of pollutants
			4. Emissions from storage or disposal of solid wastes
			5. Emissions from storage or disposal of liquid wastes
5. Pollution by radionuclides	1. Atmospheric and aquatic releases of radionuclides during the Chornobyl accident (including secondary releases as a result of the Chornobyl accident)
	2. Point and diffuse discharges of mining process waters and tailing wastes from disposal sites at uranium mines and ore-processing plants
	3. Emissions/discharges from radioactive waste disposal sites and ionising radiation sources
6. Flooding and elevated groundwater levels	1. Modification of the hydrological regime
	2. Elevated groundwater levels
	3. Discharges of water
	4. Runoff from land surfaces

Table 4.18 Prioritised list of sectors contributing to transboundary issues (1 denotes highest priority, 6 lowest priority)

Issue	Priority Sector
1. Chemical pollution	1. Industry
	2. Agriculture
	3. Urbanisation
	4. Transport
	5. Energy
	6. Fishery/aquaculture
2. Modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones and decreased viability of biological resources	1. Agriculture
	2. Energy
	3. Fishery/aquaculture
	4. Urbanisation
	5. Industry
	6. Transport
3. Modification of the hydrological regime	1. Hydropower
	2.Agriculture
	3. Water transport
	4. Urbanisation
	5. Industry
	6. Fishery/aquaculture
4. Eutrophication	1. Agriculture
	2. Urbanisation
	3. Industry
	4. Fishery/aquaculture
	5. Energy
	6. Transport
5. Pollution by radionuclides	1. Consequences of the Chornobyl accident
	2. Mining and milling
	3. Energy
6. Flooding and elevated groundwater levels	1. Agriculture
	2. Mining
	3. Urbanisation
	4. Transport

4.8 Root Causes of Transboundary Environmental Issues

The 12 transboundary environmental issues in the Dnipro Basin discussed in this Chapter are driven by three Root Causes:

ROOT CAUSE 1: Historical unsustainable development

The existing state of the Dnipro Basin ecosystem is ultimately the legacy of large-scale unsustainable development in the decades prior to transition to a market economy. This includes the concentration, scale and siting of industrial and agricultural complexes in the Basin. The extensive use of natural resources with little regard for ecosystem function has led to major and in some instances irreversible changes in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the Basin.

ROOT CAUSE 2: The systemic socio-economic crisis during the transition to a market economy

The transition from a centrally planned to a market guided economy has been accompanied by a sharp decline in standards of living, widened income inequalities and a deterioration in health conditions. The uncertainty of the conditions in which the economic transition is taking place, including the institutional environment and the weak state of law enforcement have; (a) hampered the progress of economic reform; (b) limited the development of market mechanisms; and (c) led to an economy based on immediate profits that gives little emphasis to environmental issues.

ROOT CAUSE 3: Prevailing attitudes which undervalue the environment

The lack of past attention to the value of the natural environment (as a provider of goods and services and for its intrinsic value) have led to a poor current state of awareness of the consequences of environmental degradation in government and civil society and a limited degree of motivation for environmental protection.

According to the model shown in Figure 2.2, the major socio-economic consequences of the above are:

· The deterioration of the demographic situation (e.g. increased mortality, decreased life expectancy, changes in migration patterns);

· The transition from a centralised to a market economy;

· Insufficient engagement of the public in environmental decision-making;

· The inadequate level of environmental education;

· A lack of specialist training (e.g. in current environmental management approaches, sustainable agricultural practices etc.);

· Reduced budget expenditures on social and environmental protection actions;

· Socio-economic development goals and objectives were not undertaken in an environmentally sustainable manner during the period of transition to the market economy;

· The poor technical condition and the progressive depreciation of production assets (including fixed assets employed in the environmental protection sector) that do not meet environmental safety requirements;

· The unsustainable environmental and economic use of natural resources;

· A limited internal investment capability and an unfavourable investment climate;

· Inadequate management systems and a poorly developed institutional framework that is not capable of supporting economic activities and water resource management on a basin wide basis;

· The lack of consideration given to sustainable development factors in national and regional socio-economic development plans.

Again, according to the model shown in Figure 2.2, the major policy driven consequences are:

· The socio-economic crisis;

· Ineffective and inefficient management systems;

· The lack of application of ownership rights (e.g. land tenure)

· A lack of regulation or a failure to price resource use;

· Ineffective credit finance policy, and a lack of incentives for the introduction of new technologies and environmental actions;

· The declarative nature of environmental priorities in socio-economic development strategies and environmental policies;

· National policies that do not focus on environmental education and awareness;

· A lack of institutional capacity.

The major legislation-related consequences are:

· The lack of a sustainable development concept embedded in environmental legislation;

· Inconsistencies in environmental legislation, affected by inter-sectoral disagreements;

· Gaps in the existing legislative and regulatory framework that are not systematised and structured properly;

· An inadequate legislative process and the declarative nature of laws;

· The inefficient economic and environmental review of draft legislation and regulations;

· Inefficient legislation enforcement and implementation mechanisms;

· The limited involvement of the public in the legislative process;

· The limited practice of independent due diligence review of draft laws.

The major governance-related consequences are:

· A prevalence of command-and-control tools (bans, limits, restrictions) that are of little economic value and deterrent effect;

· A lack of proper justification when setting fees and charges for natural resource usage and environmental pollution;

· The inappropriate use of funds;

· A lack of a programme-oriented basin management approach;

· The limited involvement of the public in the preparation and implementation of environmental programmes;

· Non-transparent financing mechanisms;

· The ineffective enforcement and implementation of environmental legislation and regulations;

· Inadequately financed and staffed environment agencies, monitoring organisations and research/technical institutions;

· Poor existing environment monitoring systems that are not capable of meeting basin wide management needs;

· The limited practice of environmental monitoring;

· A lack of institutional support and practical actions on the enhancement and optimisation of management systems.

A detailed description of institutional, legal and policy factors that need to be overcome in the Dnipro Basin is presented in Chapter 5.

4 PRIORITY TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES

4.1 Key Transboundary Issues and Priority Scores

4.2 Key Sectors and Immediate Causes

4.3 Hydrological Issues

4.3.1 Modification of the hydrological regime of surface waters

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

4.3.2 Changes in the groundwater regime

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

4.3.3 Flooding events and elevated groundwater levels

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

4.4 Water Resource Pollution Issues

4.4.1 Chemical pollution

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

4.4.2 Microbiological pollution

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

4.4.3 Radionuclide pollution

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

4.4.4 Suspended solids

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

4.4.5 Eutrophication

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

4.4.6 Solid waste

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

4.4.7 Accidental spills and releases

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

4.5 Modification and Loss of Ecosystems and Ecotones and Decreased Viability of Biological Resources

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Underlying sectoral causes

Priority inter-sectoral issues

Justification for sectoral prioritisation

4.6 Impacts on Biological and Genetic Diversity

Environmental impacts

Immediate causes

Sectoral causes

4.7 Priority Transboundary Issues, Immediate Causes and Sectors

4.8 Root Causes of Transboundary Environmental Issues

ROOT CAUSE 1: Historical unsustainable development

ROOT CAUSE 2: The systemic socio-economic crisis during the transition to a market economy

ROOT CAUSE 3: Prevailing attitudes which undervalue the environment