Project Team

PROJECT TEAM

Russia

T.A.Aleksandrova:	Project Manager, Chief of the Environmental Security and Monitoring Branch, Environmental Directorate, Smolensk Oblast
N.D.Kruglov:	Scientific Leader, Head of the Dept. of Zoology of the SGPU, Doctor of Science, Professor
N.N.Mankov:	Expert, Director of the Environmental Fund“Renaissance of the Dnieper
A.I.Biziukov:	Expert, Head of the Analytical Department of the Environmental Fund “Renaissance of the Dnieper”
V.V.Vladimirov:	Expert, Deputy Head, GUPROOS, Bryansk Oblast
M.V. Kumani:	Expert, Head of the Department, Kursk Pedagogical University, Candidate of Science
E.G. Glazunov:	Expert, Deputy Head, GYPROOS, Belgorod Oblast
V.N. Kostiushenkova:	Consultant, Associate Professor, Dept. of Hygiene and Ecology, Candidate of Science

Belarus

M.E. Nikiforov:	Director, Institute of Zoology, BR. Academy of Science, Candidate of Science
A.V. Pugachevsky:	Deputy Director, Institute of Experimental Botany, Candidate of Science
A.V.Kozulin:	Head of Laboratories, Institute of Zoology, Candidate of Science
A.E.Plenin :	Senior Research Scientist, Institute of Zoology, Candidate of Science
N.A.Yurgenson:	Department Head, National Center for Territorial Cadastre, Candidate of Science
A.N.Skurlatovich:	Senior Research Scientist, Institute of Experimental Botany

Ukraine

V.R. Sheliag-Sosonko:	Director, Institute of Botany, corresponding member, Ukr. Academy of. Science, Doctor of Science
M.D. Grodzinsky:	Department Head, Kyiv University, Professor, Doctor of Science
S.A.Afanasiev:	Deputy Director, Institute of Hydrobiology, Ukr. Academy of Science, Candidate of Science
B.V. Yaminsky:	Head of Laboratories, Institute of Experimental Botany, Ukr. Academy of Science

Project Rationale

PROJECT RATIONALE

The Dnipro Basin (Dnieper in English, Dniepr in Russian) is a region with an ancient history, multinational culture and plentiful natural resources. Owing to the irregular economic development of the territories under relatively inclement climatic conditions, local flora, fauna and ecosystems preserved in almost unchanged natural state in the greater part of the Dnipro Basin. The basin countries – Russia, Belarus and Ukraine – have long and rich traditions of biodiversity conservation. The system of protected areas has been in place for over a hundred years here. The foundations of forestry, sustainable use of hunting ground resources and biological resources of the sea were laid down centuries ago. Agricultural practices are becoming more environmentally friendly. The three countries’ national fundamental and branch sciences have created favorable conditions for the organization of activities aimed at biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, as well as for biodiversity identification, assessment and monitoring. At the same time, economy in these countries had long evolved under strict centralization, in isolation from the world markets and international partnerships. A lot of innovations, including environmental ones, were in low demand. The above and many other factors have affected the current situation in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. These countries have the potential to be among the world’s most advanced states with a well-organized system of biodiversity conservation.

At present, economic and social relations in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are undergoing dramatic and painful transformations. The countries are at the threshold of profound changes in their entire economic structures and their re-orientation towards the best accomplishments of international science and technology. These changes will certainly affect the environmental sphere, in particular, the conservation of biodiversity. However, economic and technological reforms take time, while nature and wildlife transform rapidly and incessantly. Immediate measures should be taken to preserve, and sometimes to save, certain plant and animal species, unique ecosystems and natural landmarks. Therefore this Project aimed to assess the potential and current state of biodiversity in the Dnipro Basin, and to identify prospective and priority areas of biodiversity conservation and their sustainable use.

This paper is a resume of the Final Report “Assessment of Protected Areas, Priority Ecosystems and “Problem” Biodiversity Areas” that summarizes the Project results and offers recommendations for the Strategic Action Plan for the Dnipro Basin. The Final Report is available in the Management Committee of the Dnipro Basin Environment Program, in the Regional Thematic Center Biodiversity, in the National Management Committees and the IDRC Kyiv Office.

(Editor’s note: the Russian term “problem” areas corresponds to the comparable terms “Areas of Concern” in the Great Lakes Basin, or terms “impacted” or “degraded” ecosystems used elsewhere).

Importance of the Dnipro River Basin for the Conservation of Global Biological Diversity

The Dnipro River, with its numerous tributaries, makes up an integrated ecological system covering most of Eastern Europe. The Dnipro Basin is of a global significance for the conservation of biodiversity both at the level of populations and species, and at the coenotic one. Situated in four zones, from the European Siberian conifer to the Mediterranean forest, the basin plays an important role in preserving biodiversity of different genetic origin, from boreal taiga to xerophytic steppe and xerothermic Mediterranean forest. The Dnipro upper flow is in the area of the main European divide. It was due to the basin strategic geographical position and its embracing several natural zones and provinces that an unusual population, species, coenotic and geo-systemic variety was formed in this territory. This is the first factor determining the importance of biodiversity conservation in the Dnipro Basin.

Degradation of biological diversity in the Dnipro Basin will hamper considerably the circulation of microelements and substances in all ecological systems and inhibit biological decontamination, particularly in aquatic ecosystems. This is the second factor determining the importance of biodiversity conservation in the Dnipro Basin.

Extensive pollution of the Dnipro Basin will inevitably lead to a global contamination of three sea basins, namely those of the Black, Caspian and Baltic Seas. The headwaters of many tributaries of the Dnipro, Volga and Western Dvina Rivers are situated within the basin at a fairly close distance from these. This is the third factor determining the importance of biodiversity conservation in the Dnipro Basin.

At the same time, acute pollution of the Dnipro River will cause contamination of artesian water formed in the Dnipro rift, in the territory of Smolensk river section. This is the fourth factor determining the importance of biodiversity conservation in the Dnipro Basin.

Overview of the Current State of Biodiversity in the Dnipro Basin

Species Composition of the Most Significant Animals and Plants in the Dnipro Basin

1.1. Species Composition of the Most Significant Animals and Plants in the Dnipro Basin

Specifics of biological diversity in the Dnipro upper stream (Smolensk oblast (District), Russia) are conditioned by the basin geographical position: two thirds of the total area of Smolensk oblast belong to the basin territory (50,000 km²).

The Dnipro headwaters (near the village of Dudkino, Sychevsky district) is situated very closely to the headwaters of the Obshcha and Mezha Rivers, belonging to the Baltic Sea Basin, and to those of some rivers of the Caspian Sea Basin (the Vazuza River) and the Black Sea Basin (the Viazma and Osma Rivers). The borders of two zoogeographical provinces lie within this area, accounting for both rich biodiversity and noticeable specificity of flora and fauna in the basin.

Biodiversity in the middle part of the Dnipro basin within the territory of Belarus and Briansk oblast (Russia) is also remarkable and determined by its formation history. Contemporary flora and fauna in the South-East of this large region of the Republic of Belarus started forming after the continuous Pleistocene glaciation about 150 thousand years ago, whereas the North-Eastern regions of the Dnipro Basin emerged from under the ice or ceased to be directly affected by the glacier only 10-15 thousand years ago. The second equally important characteristic feature of this area is the contemporary differentiation of its climatic conditions: climate in the South-East of the Republic of Belarus is the most continental, while that in the North-East it is the coldest. It is also noteworthy that the Dnipro valley functions as a large natural corridor, along which forest-steppe and steppe species used to migrate in the past and still migrate northwards, since the river flows in the longitudinal direction across several natural and climatic zones. Simultaneously, the river creates a barrier for the species migration in the latitudinal direction.

On the other hand, the Prypiat’ – the Dnipro largest tributary flowing from the West to the East – is also an essential environmental migration corridor. Besides, specific hydrological, landscape and microclimatic conditions, different from those in the rest of Belarus territory, exist in the plain low Prypiat’ valley that has a very slight grade and is permanently subjected to eutrophication. All this affects the biological diversity in the region and determines its territorial distinctness.

In the lower stretches of the Dnipro Basin, the species composition and current state of predominantly aquatic plants and animals of the Ukrainian part of the Dnipro Basin were studied and described, but less thoroughly analyzed as compared with the species of upland vegetation, mammals and birds. Besides, for the territory of Ukraine, aquatic organisms have an undisputable priority both in terms of their population size and in comparison with the territories of Russia and Belarus, where forest and wetland ecosystems are of primary importance.

Current Situation and Trends in the Size of Most Significant Species

1.2. Current Situation and Trends in the Size of Most Significant Species

This subject is studied for the main habitats on the basis of empirical research and data from literature. Significant species are defined as a component of biodiversity, which, in any habitat and in any ecosystem, accounts for the stability of biological processes. Their vital functions help to keep up a stable gas composition, to maintain the optimal ratios of mineral substances, to support environment self-purification, to maintain soil fertility and to obtain a balanced level of primary and secondary production.

Territorial Distribution of Protected Species

1.3. Territorial Distribution of Protected Species

An in-depth study of biological diversity in the Upper Dnipro Basin (Smolensk oblast, Russia) allowed to produce a complete inventory of plant and animal species (by major taxonomic groups) and to assess the intensity of anthropogenic impacts on many species of flora and fauna.

The study resulted in the most complete, to date, compendium of endangered and threatened species. In 1997, based on this compendium, the Read Book of Smolensk oblast was published describing 131 animal species, 87 plant species, 1 mushroom species and 2 moss (lichens) species.

The territorial distribution of protected species of the middle part of the Dnipro Basin within the territory of Belarus and Briansk oblast of Russia was analyzed in the Red Book of the Republic of Belarus and in the Red Book of Briansk oblast.

More than half of all plant and animal species entered into the Red Book of Ukraine are concentrated in the Lower Dnipro Basin and valley embracing Ukrainian territory as well as that of Kursk, Belgorod and Oriol oblasts of the Russian Federation. Special environmental importance is attached to the fact that in the Dnipro Basin there lie geographical and botanical-geographical boundaries of highest ranks within which population, species, coenotic, eco-systemic and landscape diversity of their respective areas is concentrated, which makes them particularly vulnerable. These are the great European rift in the upper Prypiat’, boundaries of Central European province and Eastern European province, deciduous forest and forest-steppe zones, forest and Mediterranean areas, etc.

Effectiveness of Existing System of Protected Areas and their Representative Capacity in Terms of Biodiversity Conservation

Current State of Protected Areas in the Dnipro Basin

2.1. Current State of Protected Areas in the Dnipro Basin

Specially protected areas (SPA) are parcels of land and areas of water surface having a great environmental, ecological, research, cultural, aesthetic, historical, recreational importance and withdrawn, in part or in full, temporarily or permanently, from commercial use, with a strict protection regime imposed.

The Dnipro Basin is situated in three countries – the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine. The SPA system of the Dnipro Basin is formed and develops in compliance with the national legislative frameworks of these countries. Certain difficulties in analyzing and summarizing the situation with specially protected areas in the Dnipro Basin arise from the differences in legislations of the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the Republic of Belarus. Because of these differences, this section presents a general picture of the SPA system of the Dnipro Basin.

In view of the region’s economic and geographical potential, the existing system of specially protected areas in the Dnipro Basin seems to be the most effective means of addressing a host of environmental issues in a comprehensive and cohesive manner. This system seems instrumental in preserving the populations of separate animal and plant species and their diversity, in conserving the most valuable natural sites and features and the components of cultural heritage, as well as in ensuring the sustainable use of biological resources.

Components of the SPA system of the Dnipro Basin are presented in Table 2.1.1 below.

Table 2.1.1. System of Specially Protected Areas (SPA) in the Dnipro Basin

№	*Specially Protected Areas*	*Russia*		*Belarus*		*Ukraine*
№	*Specially Protected Areas*	*Number*	*Area, hectares*	*Number*	*Area, hectares*	*Number*	*Area, hectares*
1	Reserves Biosphere Nature	7 2 5	28,977 26,846 2,131	1	85,149	7 2 5	209,197.7 133,397.6 75,800.1
2	National parks Nature Landscape	–	–	1	82,592	4 1 3	125830 51830 74000
3	Preserves Hydrological biological botanical zoological landscape integrated	270 21 150 – 99	500,517.3 1,897.4 418,090.4 – 80,529.5	45 3 32 10 –	464,984 73,200 164,396 227,388 –	78 21 38 31 7 18 1	150,294.5 23,929 31,535.5 25,007 6,528.5 56,930.7 37,900
4	Natural landmarks (heritage sites) hydrological biological botanical zoological integrated	570	16,116.8			23 5 12 8 4 6	1,744 161 468 399 69 1,115
5	Botanical gardens	1	78.6	–	–	–	–
6	Bird sanctuaries	8	23,750	–	–	7	6795
Total		856	569,439.7	47	632,725	119	493,861.2
% of the Dnipro Basin area			1.14		1.26		1.00
% of overall Dnipro Basin area occupied by SPAs		3.4

Shortcomings of the Existing System of Protected Areas

2.2. Shortcomings of the Existing System of Protected Areas

The role of the established network of specially protected areas of the Dnipro Basin in the regional biodiversity conservation can hardly be overestimated. Components of the SPA network are regarded as functional elements of the whole ecological framework of the Dnipro Basin. The ecological framework is a system of inter-related natural components ranked by their ecological/environmental significance, the interconnectedness of which leads to a natural ecological balance enabling the system to endure anthropogenic impacts.

The major functions of the region’s ecological framework are as follows: conserving biodiversity, fostering the ability of natural communities to restoration and development, supporting the role of live nature in regulating the environment. The system of specially protected areas of various types and ranks is, in and of itself, an ecological framework that performs the above functions.

Effective as the SPA system in the Dnipro Basin is, it still needs to be further improved and developed.

1. In general, the national biodiversity legislations of the three participating countries are fairly well developed. At the same time, their propensity to the “natural resources” approach and a frame character of many laws mean that in order to be properly implemented and enforced these laws should be supplemented by additional regulatory instruments or by-laws. As a result, emerging gaps should be filled in and inconsistencies remedied either by amending the effective legislation or by designing and developing new areas of legislative policy envisaged by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Given that the Dnipro Basin ecosystem is indivisible, the biodiversity legislation of the three riparian countries should be harmonized and unified, particularly in what concerns the regulation of specially protected areas.

2. Some territories with protection functions (such as green belts of cities and towns, recreational, resort areas, etc) are not included in the natural-reserve stock of the Dnipro Basin. A lot of specially protected areas still lack methodological support: plans of area management, plans of SPA establishment (especially for preserves of national importance whose boundaries are not always marked on the ground).

3. The national legislations on specially protected areas of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine are not always internally consistent. Thus, certain norms and provisions on natural-reserve stock of Forest Codes and Land Codes in all three countries contradict one another.

4. Complete inventory of biodiversity components in specially protected areas is still to be compiled, protection regimes are still to be formulated for each area and their specifications are still to be developed. Only most generalized methodological recommendations have been prepared so far, but they do not cover all specific characteristics of biodiversity, local social conditions and many other essential factors.

5. The distribution of specially protected areas over natural bio-geographic zones of the Dnipro Basin remains imbalanced. For example, protection forests and meadows of the forest-steppe zone are noticeably underrepresented. Since various bio-geographical zones are not evenly covered with protected areas, the issue remains open whether the whole network of specially protected areas in the Dnipro Basin is sufficiently representative.

6. A unified modern monitoring system and a relevant database are also absent at the moment. Environmental records kept at specially protected areas are outdated. Moreover, they are not kept systematically or regularly; nor are they used for any serious research conclusions and generalizations.

7. Until now, not all of the territories playing an important role in conserving and protecting biological diversity have been given a required environmental (protection) status.

Other Forms of Protecting Biodiversity, Their Role and Effectiveness

2.3. Other Forms of Protecting Biodiversity, Their Role and Effectiveness

The national environmental legislations of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine provide for the allocation of land for conservation purposes, namely, for setting up, alongside specially protected areas, dendrological parks, botanical gardens, water protection zones along riversides and waterfronts of other water bodies. Besides, according to these laws, economic activities are considerably restricted within the green belts of cities and towns, recreation and tourist zones, as well as resorts.

Priority Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation, their Current State and Major Threats

Priority Ecosystems, Essential for Conservation of Biological Diversity

3.1. Priority Ecosystems, Essential for Conservation of Biological Diversity

Table 3.1.1. List of priority ecosystems, essential for biodiversity conservation

*Russia*	*Belarus*	*Ukraine*
1. Wetlands Marshes and oligotrophic upland bogs, peat deposits, bogs that are headwaters of large or affluent rivers, bogs having a great impact on water regime of adjacent territories, floodplains and bayou ecosystems (“oxbows”, meander cut-offs)	1. Aquatic ecosystems Communities of river channels (in their natural state) Highly eutrophic lakes (or of glacial and relict origin) Floodplain lakes (in the valleys of large and mid-size rivers) Fish pond communities	1. Aquatic ecosystems Head- and shallow waters of the Dnipro reservoirs, firths and lakes in the estuarine parts of the Dnipro flood plain; Western Polessye lakes: Turskoye, Beloye, Peschanoye, Sviatoye, Luki; floodplain lakes of the Desna, Prypiat’ and Orel’ Rivers and Lake Lebedyn
2. Forest ecosystems Systems of natural origin (aboriginal), and those located on main rifts (divides)	2. Forest ecosystems Upland original old-age (90-240 years and older) oak forests with unique biotic complex of plants and animals Floodplain old oak groves Old hornbeam forests Communities of maple forests (of an exceptionally rare formation for the region) Communities of lime-tree forests (of an exceptionally rare formation for the region Old (over 60 years) ash forests Communities of old (over 60 years) black alder forests with biotic complex of lowland marshes	2. Forest ecosystems, accompanied in Ukrainian Polessye with complexes of aquatic ecosystems and wetlands. These are Tsumanska Pushcha forest; Slutch Switzerland; Reutsky, Slavutsky, Korostyshevsky, Teterevsky, Dzerzhinsky, Mezinsky and Dnipro forest areas. In the forest-steppe zone: Central Podolsky massive; Cherkassky Bor, Ichniansky, Kholodny Yar; Trostianetsky, Sredneseimsky, Dikansky and Verkhneinguletsky forest areas. In the steppe zone:Samarsky Bor and Saksagansky area of small forest, and arena forest areas of the Dnipro and its wetlands
	3. Lightwood and shrub communities Juniper shrub (Juniperus communis L.) Willow thickets in river flood-lands Communities with dominating birch trees (Betula humilis Schrank) on transitional bogs 4. Marsh ecosystems (wetlands) Open lowland sedge marshes, including calciphilous bog and acidophilous lowland marsh communities upland acid bogs transitional bogs, including herbal communities with dominating cotton grass (Eriophorum gen.) 5. Meadowland ecosystems Xerothermic herbal communities, Xerothermic psammophilous, Psammophilous Atlantic, Hygromesophilous flood-land Оxylomesophilous herbal, and Psychromesophilous meadow communities

Designation of Dnipro Basin Priority Ecosystems as Specially Protected Areas

3.2. Designation of Dnipro Basin Priority Ecosystems as Specially Protected Areas

Taking into consideration the great biocenotic value of peat-bogs, the Basin’s peatlands that are sources of rivers and springs and affect the water balance in adjacent areas should be taken under a special protection.

Apart from marsh complexes and wetlands, key territories for establishing an area-protection regime are river headwaters, primarily those of large (over 100-km long) and affluent rivers. There are about 50 such watercourses in the Upper Dnipro.

Should the above key natural complexes (reserves) be included in the SPA network of the Upper Dnipro, a system of specially protected areas uniting about 500 sites of various types and ranks and occupying about 15% of the Upper Dnipro Basin territory will be effectively established. This will also reform the current practice of the SPA network forming at the expense of sites in need of compensatory effort (rehabilitation). Preventative conservation of the key natural areas that are the most vulnerable will allow to preserve the whole diversity spectrum of biotic and abiotic nature and, thus, maintain regional environmental stability.

Aquatic ecosystems of the Upper Dnipro with the participation of Trapa borysthenica, T. rossica, Salvinia natans, Tchorea ramosissima, Nymphoides peltata etc, should also be given a status of areas under special protection. A protection regime should be established for the ecosystems of lakes Turskoye, Beloye, Sviatoye, Peschanoye and Lebedyn where unique alga populations have preserved.

In all of Polessye forest areas listed below, the best-preserved core ecosystems should be placed under protection. This core is represented by aboriginal pine, oak-pine and, to a lesser degree, oak and alder forests, as well as meso- and oligotrophic acid forest and grass-grown bogs, with the participation of a great number of relict and rare species. This core forest in Tsumanska Pushcha covers 10 thousand hectares out of its total area of 30 thousand hectares; in Reshutsky forest area it comprises 150 hectares of virgin lime-oak forests, not to be met anywhere else in the Right-bank Polessye; Slutch Switzerland has the area of 31 thousand hectares; Ubortsky forest area – of 8 thousand hectares and Slavutsky forest area – of 4 thousand hectares. In the steppe zone, Samarsky Bor forest area occupies 31 thousand hectares with the core area as large as 13 thousand hectares. Saksaganky forest area consists of several spots of oak forests covering 550-1,500 hectares. Reserve ecosystems make up at least 30% of the arena forest areas and wetlands. Proposals to designate the above ecosystems as specially protected areas have been put forward several times, but the matter still remains unresolved. Many of the listed sites should be included in Ukraine’s environmental network to be set up in 2000-2015. However, no work towards this end has been initiated so far.

Analysis of the Current State of Protected Areas and Priority Ecosystems from the Viewpoint of Identification of "Problem" Ecosystems

Major Threats, Their Causes, and Impacts on Biodiversity

4.1. Major Threats, Their Causes, and Impacts on Biodiversity

Table 4.1.1. Major threats, their causes and impacts on biodiversity in the Dnipro Basin

*Major threats*	*Causes*	*Impact on biodiversity*
Poor management of natural resource use.	Insufficient or deficient legislation on the SPA system management; lack of coordination across environmental agencies; absence of an inter-governmental agreements between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus on water use in transboundary river basins.	Unsustainable use of natural resources, degradation of natural ecosystems.
Disturbance of hydrological regime in the Dnipro Basin.	Climate change;ammelioration; building transportation facilities on wetlands; fluctuations in groundwater table.	Altered hydrological regime; deteriorating hydrochemical indicators; changed habitats and conditions for life; transformations in species composition.
Forestry operations	Predominant growing of monocultures; clear felling; forest fires; littering of forest territory.	Changes in natural forest composition; altered migration routes and bird and animal habitats; reductions in forest fauna and flora populations.
Hunting and fishing	Improper legislative regulations, poaching.	Reduction in fauna population size and species composition
Agriculture	Unsustainable agricultural practices; tilling soil down the slopes, floodplains, and within the SPA boundaries; impact of cattle breeding.	Altered habitats and living conditions; deteriororating hydrological and hydro-chemical regimes
Anthropogenic pollution	Contaminant discharges by industrial enterprises; forest fires; landfills; mining of mineral resources.	Deteriorating hydro-chemical composition; degrading natural ecosystems; reduced number and variety of habitats; altered species composition.
Urbanization	Urban sprawl along the major watercourses; growing threats to natural landscapes; extensive construction of individual homes around residential settlements(suburbia) building of transportation networks and infrastructure (roads, pipelines, etc.).	Disintegration and degradation of natural landscapes; reduced number and variety of habitats.
Environmental education	Shortage of teaching and methodological materials, environmental syllabi; lack of systematic awareness building campaigns on SPAs.	Unauthorized activities, impact on natural resources of the region.
Forest fires	Controlled burns for agricultural purposes, careless handling of fire; distortion of hydrological regime of bogs and marshes.	Altered species composition of flora; deterioration of living conditions and changes in habitats; loss of biodiversity components.
Dissatisfaction (anxiety) factor	Expansion of road networks, growing density of population, extensive hunting and tourism.	Reduction in population size and extinction of some species.
Transport and communications development	Development of international transportation corridors: №2 (Berlin –Warsaw –Minsk – Moscow), №9 (Helsinki – S. Petersburg – Pskov – Vitebsk – Kyiv – Chisinau – Plovdiv), №9B (Minsk – Vilnius – Klaipeda).	Increased anthropogenic pressures on the Dnipro Basin biodiversity.
Extraction of mineral resources (Kursk Magnetic Anomaly, Soligorsk industrial region).	Man-made contamination of environment; cluttering up land with wastes from minerals extraction.	Changes in natural landscape; disturbance of ecosystems.
Continuous contamination and volley contaminant discharges and anthropogenic sediment re-suspension in small rivers.	Authorized and unauthorized contaminant discharges, etc	Mortalities of organisms; intensified drift of invertebrates downstream to commonly more contaminated habitats, leading to exhaustion of upper streams of rivers, reduction of general stock of organisms and extinction of species susceptible to contamination, degradation of habitat communities.
Reduction of river habitats	Regulation of river flow.	Decreasing number of reophilic organisms constituting the basis of normal aquatic ecosystems.
Decreasing number of habitats least sensitive to contamination by diffuse sources and flooding.	Intensified erosion resulting from tilling lands in immediate vicinity of river banks, reduction of floodplain forests and excessive cattle grazing.	Reduced “reserve” stock of bottom invertebrates that serve as a source for replenishing lower river streams with species of xeno- and oligo- saprobes.
Increased proportion of river stretches susceptible to silting.	Damming of small rivers, intensified erosion, anthropogenic sediment re-suspension.	Reduced habitat diversity; decreasing number of habitats for litoreophilic species.
The issue of verifiable assessment of aquatic system conditions, defining their “normal” state, setting goals for restoring biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems and species associated with them.	Inadequate knowledge about species composition and biology of aquatic ecosystems, poor representation of organisms of micro-zoobenthos in the Red Book of Ukraine, absence of biological concepts of desired state of aquatic ecosystems.	A large-scale comprehensive hydrological study of the Dnipro Basin transboundary rivers should be conducted, in particular of their least affected sections; methodology of biological assessment and control of the state of the river environment should be developed.

The most significant “problem ecosystems” of the Dnipro Basin

4.2. The most significant “problem ecosystems” of the Dnipro Basin

Table 4.2.1. List of the most significant “problem ecosystems” of the Dnipro Basin

*Russia*	*Belarus*	*Ukraine*
Biological (zoological) preserves, natural landmarks. All wetlands in the Dnipro Basin. Forest stock of the region; newly created national park “Pridesniansky” in Briansk oblast; natural park “Khotmyzhsky” in Belgorod oblast. Hunting grounds and fishing areas, except for reserves. Headstreams of the Dnipro and Desna Rivers; transboundary sectors of the Dnipro, Desna, Sozh, Iput’, Vorskla and other rivers. Specially protected areas adjacent to developed commercial and industrial centers. Developed industrial centers and communications in the cities and towns of Smolensk, Viazma, Dorogobuzh, Fokino, Briansk, Kursk, Kursk Magnetic Anomaly; Highways М-1 “Belarus” (Moscow-Minsk); Oriol-Riga; Kursk-Kharkov (Russia). All specially protected areas, except for preserves, in Russia.	Marshland complex “Dikoye”, preserve of national importance, Ramsar site. Marshland complex “Zvanets”, preserve of national importance, Ramsar site. Marshland complex “Olmanskiye Bolota”, preserve of national importance, Ramsar site. Forest-and-marshland complex “Duleby”, preserve of national importance. Lake-forest-marshland complex “Vygonovsky”, preserve of national importance. Lake-and-marshland complex “Sporovsky”, preserve of national importance, Ramsar site. Lake-forest-marshland complex “Golubitskaya Pushcha”. Forest-marshland complex “Pukhovichskiye Bolota”. Floodplain system “Middle Prypiat’”, preserve of national importance. Floodplain system “Dnipro-Sozhsky”, preserve of national importance. Marshland complex “Stolinsky” in Belarus. The Dnipro River flood-lands (stretch from Zhlobin to Rechitsa). The River Sozh flood-lands (stretch from Vetka to Chechersk). Natural complex “Upper Dnipro”. Natural Complex “Besiadsky” (Klimovichi-Kostiukovichsky). Natural complex “Svisloch-Berezinsky”. Forest complex “Dobrushsky”. National park “Prypiatsky”. Berezin Biosphere reserve. Polessye State Radiation-and-Environmental reserve. Fisheries: “Selets”, “Novoselki”, “Beloye”, “Tremlia”, “Krasnaya Sloboda”.	*Group 1.* River-bank ecosystems that develop on sandy substrate. Within the steppe zone, on the Dnipro River bank sands (arenas) “Problem ecosystems” of sandy steppes. Vulnerable pine forest ecosystems in the forest-steppe and forest zones of the Dnipro Basin and along its tributaries, located on sandy crests of secondary terraces with sandy, soddy-podsolic, slightly humic soils. *Group 2.* Ecosystems of crystalline rock of Polessye on the edge of the Ukrainian crystalline formation. *Group 3.* Ecosystems of the small forests growing in steppe ravines of the Basin. *Group 4.* Ecosystems” with the steppe vegetation preserved on steep calcareous slopes of forest-steppe and steppe parts of the basin. *Group 5.* Marsh ecosystems affected by drainage amelioration.

Major Problem Territories in the Dnipro Basis Ecosystems

Recommendations for the Strategic Action Plan of Biodiversity Conservation and Rehabilitation in the Dnipro River Basin

5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND REHABILITATION IN THE DNIPRO RIVER BASIN

Table 5.1. Recommendations for the Strategic Action Plan of Biodiversity Conservation and Rehabilitation of the Dnipro River Basin

Review and improvement of the present legislative and regulatory framework for establishment of SPAs and conservation of biodiversity	1. Develop a uniform legal policy, improve the effective national biodiversity legislations and harmonize them among the three riparian countries. 2. Propose legislative amendments and mechanisms of building an infrastructure for managing specially protected areas of national and international importance. 3. Develop recommendations on optimizing the land use structure and plans of introducing environmentally friendly agricultural practices in Poless andye. Design and implement a series of measures to restore or maintain traditional commercial activities on pastures and hayfields of the Dnipro floodplain and those of its tributaries. 4. Review the national legislations on forestry, with the aim to amend it by providing for the conservation and development of biological and landscape diversity. 5. Amend the riparian countries’ effective legislations by including regulations on methods and systems of forestry management. 6. Amend the three countries’ legislations by envisaging a transition to intensive selective cutting and reduction of areas under clear-cutting. 7. Adopt a system of by-laws regulating the use, loading and restoration of biological resources and their quality categories, as well as relationships among the users with regard to biological resources. 8. Create conditions for the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted laws. To this end, develop feedback mechanisms and hold the authorized agencies responsible for the enforcement. The above responsibility should be governed by the law.
Improvement of the SPA system management	1. Set up a unified international body in charge of managing and developing the SPA system. 2. Develop uniform, theoretically substantiated principles of establishing specially protected areas. Design a basin-wide management scheme and a strategy of the SPA management and development. 3. The following measures should be taken to conserve biodiversity in the middle part of the Dnipro Basin: - Reorganize some of the existing SPAs and identify SPA protection zones, analyze the coverage of regions with maximum concentration of rare and protected plant species by the SPA system (Drogichin, Stolin, Pinsk, Dokshitsa, Gomel, Zhlobin, Kalinkovichi, Lelchitsy, Loev, Mozyr, Petrikovsk, Rechitsa, Khoinik, Borisov, Logoisk, Minsk, Pukhovichi, Smolevichi, Bobruisk, Osipovichi); - Design and implement plans of SPA management, particularly in what concerns the conservation of wetlands, including preserves “Millde Prypiat’”, “Vygonoshchansky”, “Olmanskiye Bolota”, “Dnipro-Sozhsky”, “Staritsa”, “Smychek”; - Develop environmentally sound structure of the region’s territorial planning that will regulate the location and development of residential settlements, industrial, agricultural and recreational sites and facilities, transport and engineering infrastructure with the aim of preserving biodiversity resources; - Promote the establishment of the following SPAs: national park “Svosloch-Berezinsky”, hydrological preserve “Golubitskaya Pushcha”, biological preserve “Danilevichsky”, and specially protected areas in the Dnipro flood-lands at the stretch Zlobin-Rechitsa and in the River Ubort flood-lands.
Forming the SPA cadastre (inventory)	1. Introduce an inter-state cadastre of specially protected areas of the Dnipro Basin.
Information support to management and environmental monitoring	1. Complete inventory of biological resources and the assessment of changes in ecosystem natural state, and plant and animal genetic pool in the Dnipro Basin. 2. Complete inventory of biodiversity of the Dnipro Basin ecosystems and the assessment of their environmental condition (environmental spectrum of species). 3. Organize monitoring of biodiversity of rare and endangered species, on one hand, and the biodiversity monitoring as a system of assessing quality of human, animal and plant habitats, on the other. 4. Further develop forest monitoring system, particularly focused on biodiversity conservation. 5. Organize a network of zoological monitoring sites in the region and include them into the inter-state environmental monitoring system. 6. Establish inter-state information systems on biodiversity conditions in the Dnipro Basin.
Conservation of landscape and biological diversity	1. Carry out measures for rehabilitation (re-introduction and natural restoration) of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna. 2. Set up an ecological network (ECONET) based on SPAs as key territories, and on protection forests and river valley wetlands as “green corridors” to ensure protection and spatial relationships of typical and rare natural complexes in the Dnipro Basin. 3. Further develop the system of the most significant SPAs at the international level as a unified ecological framework of the Dnipro Basin 4. In order to conserve biodiversity in the Upper Dnipro Basin, it is necessary to finalize the process of granting specially protected area status to water-divide sectors of three sea basins, namely: - First of all, SPAs should be set up on the Dnipro River. Its headstreams are in close vicinity of the River Vazuza tributaries (River Losminka), the Vazuza River – the Moskva River – the Oka – the Volga – the Caspian Sea. This region should receive a national park status, its boundaries should be clearly established and area recorded; - The headwaters of rivers starting in Viazma highlands should be placed under special protection. Here lies the border of the water divides of the Caspian Sea Basin (the Vazuza with its tributaries, numerous tributaries of the Ugra – all within the Volga system) and the Black Sea Basin (the Dnipro tributary Viazma); - Of special interest are the headwaters of rivers staring in Dukhovshchinskaya highlands, particularly the Khmost’ (the Dnipro Basin) and the Zherespeya (the West Dvina). Their headstreams are situated 2 km apart from each other. The region, especially the Zherespeya flood-lands, is a habitat of about 10 bird species indicated in the Red Book of Smolensk oblast and the Red Book of Russia. Therefore, a federal preserve shall be established here to preserve and protect the headwaters and rare bird species. - The area of Yelninskaya highlands where numerous Dnipro Basin rivers (the Khmara, the Desna, the Uzha, the Volost, etc) and the Volga Basin rivers (the Ugra with its multiple tributaries) start, requires special protection. A federal preserves should be created here to fulfill three important objectives: biodiversity conservation at the border of two sea basins; protection of the Vazuza hydro-engineering facilities supplying water to Moscow from contamination; and preservation of an important cultural heritage site – A.S.Griboyedov manor – situated in this area. 5. Continue the designation and description, according to the Ramsar criteria, of key wetlands in order to grant them an international or regional protection status. 6. Continue to identify key habitats of rare and endangered species beyond SPAs and place them under protection. 7. Develop theoretical substantiation and establish international biosphere reserves in transboundary territories, most significant for biodiversity conservation, design and implement transboundary Belorussian-Ukrainian projects of improving the SPA system in the Prypiat’ Basin. 8. Develop and implement action plans of conserving European endangered species: reedwarbler, double snipe and others. 9. Carry out a study of the trans-Polessye migration corridor and organize a regional center for ringing and studying bird migration. 10. Identify and protect the areas of the largest bird migration gatherings. 11. Revise land use practices in separate areas to ensure the conservation of rare plant populations; search for new habitats and assist in settling species in acceptable eco-topes (using active and passive methods); tighten control of anthropogenic impact. 12. Plant forest shelter-belts (with dominating original tree species) on eroded or erosion-susceptible soils. 13. Develop theoretically substantiated program of rehabilitating landscapes disturbed by human activities. This program should foresee a gradual installation of more effective treatment facilities and introduction of cleaner production technologies. 14. Develop a forecast of environmental impacts of reconstructing amelioration systems; prepare recommendations on mitigating its adverse impact on biotic complexes. 15. Design and implement a basin-wide program of using ineffectively drained lands and/or former peat mines (peat dug-outs), and of remedying adverse impacts of large-scale drainage projects in the Dnipro River Basin. 16. Design and implement a target program of forestation of exhausted peatlands and lands withdrawn from agricultural use. 17. Adopt a sustainable approach to regulating water drainage systems in the course of exploiting and re-vegetation of peateries to prevent uncontrolled fires. 18. Develop an inter-state basin-wide program of optimizing forest coverage. 19. Combine commercial forestry activities with environmental functions of the forests. 20. The following steps should be taken for biodiversity conservation in the Lower Dnipro Basin: - Withdraw 3.5 million hectares of arable land from agricultural use at the expense of eroded land and restore their natural biodiversity – forest, meadow, steppe and marsh in the following ratio: 1.5 : 1.0 : 0.5 : 0.5 million hectares; - Develop a new concepts of drainage amelioration in Polessye and a plan of biodiversity re-naturalization, first and foremost, within the boundaries of river drainage areas; - Carry out afforestation and establisment of meadows on eroded lands and ensure their use for designated purposes, paying special attention to afforestation and meadowing of steep slopes; - In the steppe zone, withdraw from agricultural use the erosion-susceptible land and ensure re-naturalization of steppe diversity there. It is desirable to plant forests in sectors with sufficient soil moisture; - Remove all river floodplains and other lands adjacent to water resources from the inventory of arable lands, and restore forests and meadows on them. Tilling all arenas of the Dnipro and its tributaries should also be stopped; - The Dnipro water reservoirs, with the total area of 700 thousand hectares, are of particular concern. The most accessible territories requiring limited financial resources and hydro-engineering works should be withdrawn from these water reservoirs. Contemporary geo-morphological, hydrological and technical conditions allow restoration of natural complexes, that used to exist in these territories, with regulated water regimes similar to polder systems. 21. Develop a strategic action plan of conserving forest ecosystem biodiversity. 22. Carry out forest certification.
State environmental control	1. Tighten up controls over the use of land within and beyond specially protected areas.
Environmental expert assessment	1. Introduce procedures of branch and strategic environmental impact assessment, including assessment of threats to biodiversity. 2. Tighten up requirements to environmental impact assessment at the project level, especially with regard to urban development and mining projects, including assessment of threats to biodiversity.
Environmental education and awareness	1. Design and implement a series of environmental awareness programs and educational activities in the region: develop informational and methodological materials for landowners and land users whose land parcels are included in SPAs or on whose land parcels protected species populations have been registered; organize special training for forestry workers and water resource managers in the basin.

Personal tools

dnipro

Sections

Document Actions

Strategic Resume of the Report “Assessment of Protected Areas, Priority Ecosystems and "Problem" Biodiversity Areas"