CONTENTS


Executive Summary	V

1. Introduction	1

2. Methodology	4
2.1 Background	4
2.2 Dnipro Basin TDA methodology	5
2.2.1 Identification of the priority transboundary issues	5
2.2.2 Development of an indicator based approach for the state of the environment report and environmental impact assessment	5
2.2.3 Development of causal chains for the priority transboundary issues	6

3. Description of the Basin	10
3.1 Physical and geographical characteristics	10
3.1.1 Water resources and major water bodies in the Basin	17
3.1.2 Land resource	18
3.1.3 Forests	21
3.1.4 Mineral resources	22
3.1.5 Biological resources	23
3.1.6 Nature reserves and protected areas	23
3.2 Socio-economic situation	24
3.2.1 Demographic processes	25
3.2.2 Migration processes	25
3.2.3 State of economy in the Dnipro Basin	26
3.2.4 Industry	27
3.2.5 Agriculture	28
3.2.6 Social development and living conditions in the Dnipro Basin	29
3.2.7 Municipal utility sector	30
3.2.8 Sanitary situation	31
3.2.9 Water-borne diseases	32
3.2.10 Water uses in the Basin	33
3.3 Ecological status of the Basin	35
3.3.1 Global trends in the environmental situation in the Dnipro Basin	35
3.3.2 Review of the 2000-2001 field survey results. Assessment of impact of transboundary pollution transport on the environmental situation in the Basin (local and global effects)	37
3.3.3 Identification of hot spots and evaluation of their potential transboundary impact	47
3.3.4 Radioactive pollution sources within the Dnipro Basin	48

4. Priority Transboundary Issues	50
4.1 Key transboundary issues and priority scores	50
4.2 Key sectors and immediate causes	57
4.3 Hydrological issues	60
4.3.1 Modification of hydrological regime of surface waters	60
4.3.2 Changes in the groundwater regime	62
4.3.3 Flooding events and elevated groundwater levels	66
4.4 Water resource pollution issues	71
4.4.1 Chemical pollution	71
4.4.2 Microbiological pollution	79
4.4.3 Radionuclide pollution	81
4.4.4 Suspended solids	89
4.4.5 Eutrophication	91
4.4.6 Solid waste	97
4.4.7 Accidental spills and releases	99
4.5 Modification and loss of ecosystems or ecotones and decreased viability of biological resources due to contamination and disease	101
4.6 Impact on biological and genetic diversity	104
4.7 Priority transboundary issues, immediate causes and sectors	107
4.8 Root causes of transboundary environmental issues	109

5. Institutional, Legal and Policy Factors to Overcome	112
5.1 Political map of the Dnipro Basin	112
5.2 National environmental strategies adopted by the riparian countries	116
5.3 National environmental programmes	119
5.4 Key areas of national environmental policy development in the riparian countries	121
5.5 Institutional framework of environment protection and management in the riparian countries	124
5.6 Environmental legislation of the riparian countries of the Dnipro Basin	127
5.7 Water quality regulations	131
5.8 Legal framework for international cooperation in the Dnipro Basin	132
5.9 The need for further development of environmental legislation in the riparian countries	135

6. Public and Stakeholder Participation	141
6.1 Introduction	141
6.2 Tasks, objectives and activity areas of environmental NGO’s	141
6.3 Structure of public environmental organisations	141
6.4 Environmental NGO membership	143
6.5 Relations of Environmental NGOs with other Social Institutions and Stakeholder Groups	143
6.6 Environmental NGOs and the Dnipro Basin Rehabilitation Programme	147

7. Findings and Conclusions	148
7.1 Suggestions to the National Plans and Strategic Action Programme	148
7.2 Proposed options for addressing the identified issues	149

Glossary of terms used in the TDA	155
Abbreviations and acronyms	159

Annex 1. Pressure, state and impact indicators developed	163
Annex 2. Definition of terms used in casual chain analysis	174
Annex 3. Participants in the TDA process	179

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is the result of the collaborative effort of the leading specialists of the Republic of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine, assisted by many international experts. It represents the first-ever attempt to produce an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the environmental situation within the whole Dnipro Basin.

Information gathered by the national experts from the three riparian countries and materials produced by IDRC, UNIDO and IAEA within the framework of the Project are unique, both in terms of their wealth and depth of analysis. This material has covered a broad range of economic, environmental, institutional and other activities, as well as their environmental consequences.

This analysis employed new information gathering mechanisms, the experience of a number of GEF projects to date in the design of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, and tools originally developed for the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA), to provide a maximum focus on transboundary issues without ignoring national concerns and priorities.

The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the Dnipro River Basin was produced using the most reliable scientific information as a basis for examining the state of the environment and the root causes of environmental degradation within the Basin. The TDA identifies the key environmental issues in the Basin and its transboundary sections, and assesses the significance of these issues for the whole Basin and each riparian country. The completed analysis involved justification of the most urgent transboundary issues and examination of the root causes of environmental degradation in the Basin. The need for preventive and corrective actions was also justified.

As a result of this analysis, key areas for environmental action have been identified as an initial basis for developing detailed strategic environmental programmes at the international and national level that aim to ensure the sustainable use and protection of natural/water resources in the Dnipro Basin.

The TDA identifies information gaps and deficiencies in the national legislative and institutional framework of the riparian countries. The experts examined the role of various economic sectors, the socio-economic situation, and the existing level of public awareness and involvement in decision-making on environmental issues.

The causal chain analysis was completed for each priority transboundary issue using the GIWA methodology modified by the national experts from the three riparian countries.

Detailed characterisation of the Dnipro Basin is presented in the Basin Passport, produced as part of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. The Basin Passport reflects concise information on a broad range of aspects of the existing situation in the Basin, including its physical and geographic characteristics, administrative and territorial setting, resources, socio-economic indicators, anthropogenic pressures and the consequences of the Chernobyl accident. It also contains a list of international environmental agreements signed by the three riparian countries.

Six priority transboundary issues relating to five major areas of concern were identified using the GIWA methodology and prioritised in terms of their significance.

An indicator-based approach was employed in this analysis, using a suite of indicators supported by relevant factual information and reflecting specific features of the Dnipro Basin. These indicators can be used as important monitoring tools in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and National Action Plans (NAPs).

Causal chain analysis (using a suite of pressure/status/impact indicators) enabled the identification of the most significant immediate, sectoral and root causes of key environmental issues in the Basin.

The TDA document provides a useful basis for the development of the SAP and NAPs that will embody the priority actions on environmental rehabilitation in the Dnipro Basin.

List of Figures

Figure 1.1	Layout of the 2002 TDA showing links with the chapters produced by the TDA authors/expert groups set up in the RTC’s
Figure 2.1	Driver/Pressure/State/Impact/Response Framework for GIWA: The Continuous Feedback Process
Figure 2.2	Outline of the approach employed for the causal chain analysis
Figure 3.1	Map of the Dnipro Basin
Figure 3.2	Land use in the Dnipro Basin
Figure 3.3	Belorussian agricultural land contaminated by Cs 137 in the Dnipro Basin
Figure 3.4	Contribution of mineral reserves in the Dnipro Basin to the Ukrainian national mineral resource
Figure 3.5	Population density in the Dnipro Basin, people/km²
Figure 3.6	Belorussian economic recovery showing 2000 levels versus 1990 levels (% change). Dotted line indicates pre-crisis 1990 levels
Figure 3.7	Percentage contribution of the main processing industries within the Dnipro Basin to the total Russian industrial capacity
Figure 3.8	Mean annual proportions of non-compliant water quality samples and total annual percentages of water quality samples not meeting sanitary standards in the Belorussian part of the Dnipro River Basin 1999-2001
Figure 3.9	National demand for water (%) from the Dnipro Basin in Ukraine (by sector). Agricultural sector demand supplies 85% of water for irrigation
Figure 3.10	Long-term variations of mean annual air temperature at the Poltava (a) and Gorki (b) meteorological stations
Figure 3.11	Long-term variations in maximum thickness of snow cover at the Pokoshitchi meteostation (130 km north-east from Chernihiv)
Figure 3.12	Seasonal distribution of the Desna River flow (near Chernihiv): the left column reflects the whole observation period; the right column, the period between 1970-1999
Figure 3.13	Locations of sampling sites for the 2000-2001 field surveys
Figure 3.14	Excessive concentrations of metals and arsenic in fish sampled during the 2001 field survey
Figure 3.15	Chlorinated organic pesticides in water of the Dnipro River Basin
Figure 3.16	Parasitic invasions in B. leachi mollusc sample (the Vorskla River)
Figure 3.17	Water quality classification on the basis of WPI values
Figure 3.18	Variation of WPI values along the Dnipro River within the Republic of Belarus
Figure 3.19	Major hot spots identified in the three riparian countries of the Dnipro Basin
Figure 4.1	Outline of links between the transboundary environmental issues of the Dnipro Basin
Figure 4.2*	Causal chain for the issue of modification of the hydrological regime of surface waters (see causal chain definition of terms for more details)
Figure 4.3*	SAP decision making management tool for the issue of modification of the hydrological regime of surface waters
Figure 4.4*	Causal chain for the issue of flooding and elevated groundwater levels (see causal chain definition of terms for more details)
Figure 4.5*	SAP decision making management tool for the issue of flooding events and elevated groundwater levels
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
Figure 4.8	% contribution of pollution from the city of Minsk to the Svisloch River and the Dnipro Basin (2000)
Figure 4.9	% Contribution of 3 sources to the total nutrient load
Figure 4.10*	Causal chain for the issue of chemical pollution (see causal chain definition of terms for more details)
Figure 4.11*	SAP decision making management tool for the issue of chemical pollution
Figure 4.12	Pollution load (tonnes) entering the Pripyat Basin from (A) Belarus and (B) Ukraine (the levels shown are for 2000)
Figure 4.13*	Causal chain for the issue of radionuclide pollution
Figure 4.14 *	SAP decision making management tool for the issue of radionuclide pollution
Figure 4.15	Breakdown by Oblast of eroded arable farmland (%)
Figure 4.16	Total nitrogen and phosphorous load contributed by point sources from the 3 riparian countries in the Dnipro Basin
Figure 4.17*	Causal chain for the issue of eutrophication
Figure 4.18*	SAP decision making management tool for the issue of eutrophication
Figure 4.19*	Causal chain for the issue of modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones and decreased viability of biological resources
Figure 4.20*	SAP decision making management tool for the issue of modification and loss of ecosystems and ecotones and decreased viability of biological resources
Figure 5.1	The Dnipro Programme budget in 1999-2000, broken down by main activity areas (‘000 Ukrainian Hryvnyas)
Figure 5.2	Organisational structure of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine
Figure 5.3	Legislative and regulatory framework of environment management in the Russian Federation

* Figures in A3 format

List of Tables

Table 1.1	TDA chapters produced by the country experts
Table 3.1	The major Dnipro tributaries
Table 3.2	River flow distribution pattern in the Dnipro Basin
Table 3.3	River water resource distribution pattern in the Dnipro Basin
Table 3.4	Population of the Dnipro River Basin (as of 1/1/2001)
Table 3.5	Industrial production output of the Ukrainian part of the Dnipro Basin
Table 3.6	Breakdown of agricultural enterprise by type
Table 3.7	Human development indicators for the Dnipro Basin countries (UNDP Human Development Report 2000)
Table 3.8	Percentage of cases of contagious diseases attributed to microbiological pollution
Table 3.9	Water consumption in the Dnipro Basin (million m³), 1999
Table 3.10	Major diversion channels in the Ukrainian part of the Dnipro Basin
Table 3.11	Changes in mean annual precipitation in Ukraine and Belarus over 1891-2000
Table 3.12	Bacterial contamination in the transboundary sections of the Pripyat River tributaries
Table 3.13(A)	Estimated mean annual mass load at the Ukrainian/Belorussian border over the period of 1995-2000 (tonnes/year)
Table 3.13(B)	Estimated mean annual mass load at Ukrainian/Belorussian border over the period of 1995-2000 (tonnes/year)
Table 3.13(С)	Estimated mean annual mass load at the Ukrainian/Belorussian border over the period of 1995-2000 (tonnes/year)
Table 3.14	Estimated mean annual mass load at the Russian/Belorussian border over the period of 1995-2000 (tonnes/year)
Table 3.15	Estimated annual mass load carried by the main Dnipro tributaries across the Russian/Ukrainian border (tonnes/year)
Table 3.16	Averaged mass flow estimates for the Dnipro-Kherson section (estuary) based on the 1998-2000 data
Table 3.17	Major hot spots in the Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian parts of the Dnipro Basin
Table 4.1	Modified GIWA concerns and issues for the Dnipro River Basin
Table 4.2	Problem-solving sequence for the key transboundary environmental issues
Table 4.3	Extent of drained and irrigated land in the 3 riparian countries
Table 4.4	Justification of priority sectors for flooding events and elevated groundwater levels
Table 4.5	Pollution load dynamics in the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin
Table 4.6	Pollutants discharged with effluents from point sources in the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin
Table 4.7	Pollution load contained in effluents discharged into the Upper Dnipro in 1995 and 2000
Table 4.8	Comparative contribution of point and diffuse pollution sources to the total pollution flow from Belarus (indicative data)
Table 4.9	Pollution load in the Svisloch River catchment
Table 4.10	Levels of radionuclides found in water samples from the Pripyat River, 1986
Table 4.11	Source-specific fluxes of ⁹⁰Sr into the Pripyat River
Table 4.12	Estimated stocks of cesium-138 and strontium-90 in catchments of major rivers entering the Kaniv reservoir
Table 4.13	Shallow-water sections in the Dnipro reservoirs
Table 4.14	Examples of pollutants exceeding maximum admissible levels in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro Basin as a result of accidental spills
Table 4.15	Examples of recorded exceedences of maximum admissible levels as a result of accidental spills
Table 4.16 (a)	Priority transboundary issues identified by each riparian country
Table 4.16 (b)	Basinwide priority transboundary issues
Table 4.16 (c)	Priority transboundary issues with a global context
Table 4.17	Prioritised Immediate Causes (1 denotes highest priority, 7 lowest priority)
Table 4.18	Prioritised list of sectors contributing to transboundary issues (1 denotes highest priority, 6 lowest priority)
Table 5.1	MAC limits set in the riparian countries
Table 5.2	Summary of the key international commitments of the riparian countries of the Dnipro Basin
Table 5.3	Summary of the major problems and proposed actions for the improvement of the environmental management framework in Ukraine