Document Actions

Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Dnipro River Basin

Executive Summary

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.

Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION

The Dnipro River is the third largest in Europe (after the Volga and the Danube) and the second-largest river emptying into the Black Sea. It drains an area of 511,000 square kilometres and has a total length of 2,200 km. The Dnipro River is a transboundary system, with 20% of the river basin within the territory of the Russian Federation, 23% in Belarus, and the largest portion, 57%, in Ukraine.

The Dnipro is a great river, owing not only to its hydrology, but also to its role and significance in the formation and development of the three Slavic nations. Indeed, the past history, present environmental and economic conditions, and future destiny of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are deeply entwined with the Dnipro.

The Dnipro Basin has been described as a “classic example of unsustainable development”, due to the past legacy of trying to convert a traditionally agricultural region into a major industrial one within a span of a few decades. The situation has been complicated by the extreme social and economic difficulties faced by all three riparian countries in their transition to market economies.

Despite ongoing social and economic difficulties, all arms of government in the three Dnipro countries are making significant efforts to improve the environmental situation. In February 1997, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine approved the “National Programme for Dnipro Basin Rehabilitation and Improvement of Drinking Water Quality” – the first national environmental programme in Ukraine based on the basin approach. Similar regional environmental programmes are also being implemented in the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus.

Under conditions of limited state financing, international co-operation will play a significant role in the rehabilitation of the Dnipro River. Awareness of the fact that the environmental problems of the Dnipro Basin cannot be solved by one country alone has promoted the development of the “Programme for the Dnipro Basin Rehabilitation” among the three riparian nations. This has been carried out under the framework of the UNDP-GEF Project “Preparation of a Strategic Action Programme for the Dnipro Basin and Development of Mechanisms for its Implementation”.

In June 1996, the Ministers of Environment from the three riparian countries signed a statement in Helsinki expressing their intention to provide resources and participate equally in the development of a programme for the rehabilitation of the Dnipro Basin. This was a clear statement of commitment by the governments of the region, and shows their intention to work closely together towards clearly defined common goals.

As a result of this process, the first Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) was completed and submitted in 1997. A key recommendation of the first TDA was the need for a more comprehensive study that examined social and economic issues and the need for a more inter-sectoral approach towards managing the Dnipro Basin.

Consequently, the preparation of the 2002 TDA has involved the identification of major environmental issues existing in the Dnipro Basin and its transboundary sections, together with an analysis assessing the significance of these issues in the context of the Basin as a whole and its riparian countries using the best available verified scientific information. It also defines the immediate, sectoral and root causes of environmental deterioration in the Basin and identifies the most urgent transboundary issues and priority areas that require further co-operation between the GEF and the riparian countries participating in the project. The 2002 TDA is an objective assessment and not a negotiated document.

The TDA working group, involving leading specialists from the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, was established to carry out tasks defined within the UNDP-GEF Programme. The Project Management Unit and Regional TDA Co-ordinator have managed and co-ordinated the activities of the working group. International experts including Laurence Mee and Martin Bloxham (UK) and Jan Barica (Canada) have assisted the working group in preparing the TDA in line with international requirements and current methodological approaches such as the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA).

The development of the 2002 TDA has proceeded in several stages. This has included the preparation of nine chapters by the TDA authors/expert groups set up in the Regional Thematic Centres (RTC’s) using available official data (Table 1.1).

Although advice on the development of the TDA and SAP approach has been limited in the past, the GEF is currently developing more formal guidelines to assist with the preparation of TDAs and to ensure inter-regional comparability. With this in mind, the UNDP/Global Environment Facility Dnipro Basin Environment Programme determined that a modified version of the GIWA methodology developed by the University of Plymouth should be used for the purposes of the Dnipro basin TDA. This TDA uses the information already gathered and drafted in the nine chapters produced by the TDA authors/speciality teams drawn from the Thematic Centres and is graphically illustrated in Figure 1.1.

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

Table 1.1 TDA chapters produced by the country experts

2. The TDA Methodology 2.1 The GIWA methodology for preparation of the TDA and Strategic Action Plan (SAP) - Brief description of the GIWA methodology; - Approaches to identification of immediate and root causes of deteriorated environmental situation in the Basin.	6. Cause-effect analysis of existing transboundary and national environmental issues in the Dnipro Basin (using the GIWA methodology) 6.1 Analysis of efficiency of natural resource uses; unsustainable management of natural resources - Water budget for the Dnipro Basin. Water resource availability by country - Mitigation of adverse effects of water-related issues 6.2 Pollution monitoring. Review of its efficiency 6.3 Identification of hot spots and analysis of their potential transboundary impact 6.4 Environmental effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident 6.5 Transboundary pollution flows (flow diagrams, schemes etc.) 6.6 Impact of anthropogenic pollution and human activities on biodiversity of the Dnipro Basin 6.7 Social and environmental effects of anthropogenic pollution: deteriorated human health and degraded natural ecosystems in the Basin - Identification of ecologically sensitive areas (ecosystems) within the Basin
3. Environmental Situation in the Dnipro Basin 3.1 Global trends in the environmental situation in the Basin (on the basis of the UNEP data) 3.2 Characterisation of environmental situation in the Dnipro Basin on the basis of data provided by the Regional Thematic Centres (RTC) 3.3 Assessment of the state of environment in the Basin using techniques adopted in the riparian countries and the GIWA methodology 3.4 Review of the 2000-2001 field survey results. Assessment of impact of transboundary pollution flows on the Basin environment (local and global effect). 3.5 Projection of future trends in the environmental situation in the Dnipro Basin and potential transboundary pollution loads (using historic data over the period of 1985-1991 and 1991-2001) 3.6 Identification and scaling of issues caused by deteriorated environmental situation and impeding nature uses in the Basin
	7. Attitude of the public and other stakeholders of the Dnipro Basin 7.1 Environment protection and nature resource management priorities in the Basin 7.2 Root causes of deteriorated environmental situation in the Basin 7.3 Remedial actions to be taken to improve the situation in the Basin
4. Review of the socio-economic situation in the Dnipro Basin 4.1 Socio-demographic and natural resource potential of the region 4.2 Analysis of the state of production assets in the Dnipro Basin. 4.3 Social development and living standards in the Dnipro Basin - Sanitary situation and water-borne diseases 4.4 Projected development scenarios and distribution of production capacities in the Dnipro Basin - Projected trends in the natural resource uses in the Basin. 4.5 Issues of socio-economic development in the context of regional policies of riparian countries 4.6 Legal, regulatory and environmental economic mechanisms of environmental policy development in the Basin countries 4.7 Overall social, legal and institutional context and its implications for the environmental policies

	8. Diagnostic study of the root causes of deteriorated environmental situation in the Basin Synthesis of Chapters 4-7
	9. Strategy for the environmental rehabilitation of the Dnipro Basin 9.1 The TDA as an integral part of the SAP 9.2 Environmental rehabilitation strategy: key development areas 9.3 Priority setting: - Political solutions, - Cost-benefit analysis, - Socio-economic analysis, - Public/stakeholder involvement, - Business development opportunities 9.4 Classification and prioritisation of issues on the basis of identified priorities; search for potential options to address them (cost-benefit analysis). 9.5 Scenario development and strategy selection 9.6 Enhancement of monitoring and control of implementation of the preferred strategy 9.7 Identification of potential funding sources: - national budgets; and - evaluation of incremental costs.
5. Review of the national environmental policies. Similarity and differences of legislative and regulatory framework of nature use management 5.1 Analysis of options for environmental policy (and legislative/regulatory framework) development in the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine 5.2 Similarity and differences in the identified environmental policy priorities of the riparian countries. Comparative review of existing national standards and regulations (maximum admissible limits) 5.3 Public awareness raising and involvement in the decision-making process

Methodolgy

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Background

As discussed in Chapter 1, advice on TDA and SAP approaches presented in relevant GEF documents has been rather limited. The rapid development of information technology and the experience of a number of GEF projects involved in the design of TDA/SAPs has provided the GEF with an opportunity to develop more formal guidelines to assist with their preparation and to ensure inter-regional comparability. A recently commissioned comprehensive programme study for GEF indicated that such scientific and technical assessments are needed to:

1) Identify, quantify, and set priorities for the environmental concerns that are transboundary in nature; and

2) Identify their immediate, intermediate and fundamental causes. The identification of causes specifies practices, sources, locations and human activity sectors from which environmental degradation arises or is threatened.

A methodology for conducting exercises such as those described above has been developed for the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) by the University of Plymouth, UK^[1]. The Global International Waters Assessment is a UNEP funded project (GF/FP/1100-99-01) which aims to produce a comprehensive and integrated strategic assessment, encompassing the ecological status and causes of environmental issues in transboundary freshwater basins and their associated coastal and ocean systems. This integrated assessment will be used by GEF and its partners to identify priorities for remedial and mitigatory actions in international waters. It is being undertaken from the perspective of: water quality and quantity; associated biodiversity and habitats; their use by society; the societal causes of the regionally identified issues; and scenarios of future conditions based on projections of demographic, economic and social changes associated with the process of human development. The GIWA methodology:

- Is holistic in nature and primarily regional in execution;

- Assesses transboundary issues within natural boundaries defined by catchments and their associated coastal and ocean systems;

- Examines the issues from the perspectives of the integrity of biological diversity and habitats as well as their use by human society;

- Examines the causes of the issues within human society; and

- Seeks to evaluate the likely future perspectives for IW issues based upon various human development scenarios.

The Dnipro Basin TDA is based on a modified version of this methodology and uses information already gathered and drafted in the nine chapters produced by the TDA authors/expert groups drawn from the Thematic Centres (Figure 1.1). It examines:

- the current state of the environment;

- the impacts and immediate causes of each environmental issue on the natural environment and human society;

- the sectoral pressures and socio-economic root causes for its degradation.

It focuses on transboundary issues without ignoring national concerns and priorities and identifies information gaps, policy distortions and institutional deficiencies. The analysis is cross-sectoral and examines national economic development plans, civil society (including private sector) awareness and participation, the regulatory and institutional framework and sectoral economic policies.

___________________________________

[1] Global International Waters Assessment, Mee, L.D., Bloxham, M.J., Glegg, G.A., Hart, V., Beaumont, N. C. and Payne, S., University of Plymouth, 2001.

Dnipro Basin TDA Methodology

Identification of the priority transboundary issues

The first stage in the TDA process was to agree on the transboundary issues. Initial consultations had already highlighted the main issues but it was important to revisit them, agree on whether or not the list was complete, examine their transboundary relevance, determine preliminary priorities and examine the geographical and temporal scope of the identified issues.

During the preparatory phase of GIWA, a classification was developed of the 5 major concerns related to the degradation of international waters and their associated living systems, together with a list of 22 key issues underlying these perceptions. In order to determine the geographical scale of the system to be examined and to assess the importance of each of the 22 GIWA issues within the system in terms of their environmental and socio-economic impacts, a scaling and scoping methodology was developed.

This methodology was considered too complex and prescriptive for the TDA approach. However, a simplified prioritisation exercise based on the scoping component of the GIWA methodology was carried out in order to determine the severity of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the 22 GIWA issues and also to determine the relevance and transboundary nature of each issue. Each transboundary issue was scored on a scale of 0 (no impact) to 3 (severe impact) for both environmental and socio-economic impacts.

Development of an indicator based approach for the state of the environment report and environmental impact assessment

2.2.2 Development of an indicator based approach for the state of the environment report and environmental impact assessment

It is important that detailed information is gathered on the consequences of each of the transboundary issues in the Dnipro Basin. The approach should (a) describe the issue itself (using available survey data showing changes over time, etc.); (b) examine the impact of the issue from an environmental perspective (e.g. high concentrations of chemical pollutants may be an issue but what is the evidence of impact on the natural environment?); and (c) examine social and economic impacts of the issue (e.g. How many people have their health impaired by chemical pollution? What is the economic cost of the damage to health and the natural environment?).

It was therefore necessary to develop a set of status/impact indicators that would reflect this approach. The development of pressure indicators was also required for the immediate cause/causal chain analysis. Some of the indicators developed would also be used as important monitoring tools in the SAP. The starting point for the development of indicators relevant for the Dnipro river Basin was the GIWA environmental impact methodology.

The GIWA methodology includes a suite of indicators, the information of which was thought to be accessible throughout all the 66 GIWA sub-regions. The GIWA methodology defines each of these indicators, gives units of measure, sources of information, errors associated with their measurement and use and reporting forms. Inevitably, many of the indicators developed for GIWA are specific to a particular feature of a biogeographical region and are not applicable to others (e.g. coral reefs, mangroves, boreal wetlands).

The GIWA methodology was found to be very generic and not designed as a tool for TDA development. Therefore the focus was concentrated on screening the GIWA indicators using the following criteria:

- Is the indicator relevant to the Dnipro Basin?

- Is the information required for this indicator in the existing chapters?

- If not, is the information/data readily available?

Further, all indicators were scored in the following manner:

+ Relevant to the Dnipro Basin

+ + Relevant to the Dnipro Basin/information available

+ - Relevant to the Dnipro Basin/information not available

- Not relevant to the Dnipro Basin.

The indicators selected from this process were then categorised as pressure, state, impact or response indicators according to the Driver/Pressure/State/Impact/Response (DPSIR) approach (Figure 2.1). The status indicators are used in the TDA to describe the Dnipro Basin and the priority transboundary issues in the Basin (Chapters 3 and 4). Impact indicators are used to quantify the impacts of each transboundary issue in the Basin (Chapter 4). The pressure indicators are used to substantiate each causal chain developed for the priority transboundary issues (Chapter 4). The full list of indicators is shown in Annex 1.

Development of causal chains for the priority transboundary issues

2.2.3. Development of causal chains for the priority transboundary issues

This is one of the most useful aspects of the TDA for the development of future corrective actions. The causal chain relates the issues with their immediate physical causes and their social and economic underlying causes. The approach used in this TDA is to examine the separate role of various economic sectors and then integrate the results in a single framework. This ‘sectoral analysis’ approach helps to translate the findings into potential actions. Beyond the sectoral causes however, are deeper root causes of the problems, often related to fundamental issues of macroeconomy, demography, consumption patterns, environmental values and access to information and democratic processes. Most of these are beyond the scope of GEF intervention but it is useful to document them. The reason for this is that some proposed solutions may be unworkable if the root causes of the issue in question are overwhelming. The completed causal chain analysis should help to locate potential areas of intervention for the GEF.

The GIWA causal chain methodology examines the causes of individual GIWA issues within the GIWA sub regional context. The methodology itself is based upon a number of templates that help the causal chain team through the process in a stepwise manner. Having selected the priority issue to be addressed by the chain, the team of experts examines the immediate causes of the issue. The team then assesses from which sector of the human economy the immediate causes have arisen through a sectoral analysis approach using seven generic sectors: agriculture, industry, urban development, energy production, transport, fishing and recreation (including tourism). For each of the sectors, report sheets have been developed that facilitate the identification of the most significant resource uses or practices that contribute to the particular immediate cause and GIWA issue.

Figure 2.1 Driver/Pressure/State/Impact/Response Framework for GIWA: The Continuous Feedback Process

The methodology then explores the social and economic reasons for the key resource uses and practices. This tertiary stage in the chain also includes a simple analysis of existing measures taken to limit the cause. It explores factors related to governance, legislation and stakeholder involvement and provides important information for examining future options for intervention. It is also the first step in a more comprehensive governance analysis to be completed in parallel with the causal chain.

The final step in the methodology is a simple analysis of underlying or root causes. Existing and/or emerging transboundary environmental issues can be attributed to a range of socio-economic and legal root causes. The Socio-economic root causes themselves represent social and economic issues whereas the Legal root causes are associated with policy, legal and governance issues. Economic, political, legal and governance issues constitute a suite that in itself is a cause of social issues and underlying sectoral causes, (resource uses and practices).

As with the GIWA impact analysis, the causal chain analysis is very generic and prescriptive in its nature and was developed as a tool to enable some degree of intercomparison between GIWA sub regions. It was not designed as a tool for TDA development. The third stage in the development of the TDA methodology concentrated on the modification of the GIWA approach and the production of draft causal chains for the priority transboundary issues. The complete causal chain methodology will be presented in a Dnipro Basin TDA Methodology Report.

An illustration of the layout of a generic TDA causal chain outlining the root, underlying sectoral and immediate causes of transboundary issues is presented in Figure 2.2.

Part 1: Immediate cause analysis

The immediate causes listed for each environmental issue in the GIWA methodology were considered to be too generic for the Dnipro Basin TDA. However, pressure indicators are in essence indicators of immediate causes and consequently, the list of pressure indicators developed in stage 2 were rephrased as immediate causes and reviewed by the TDA expert team. The complete set of immediate cause report sheets will be presented in the full Dnipro Basin TDA methodology report. There was general agreement between the experts that the GIWA approach to assigning significance of the contribution of each sector to the immediate cause using percentages was not appropriate. Therefore an alternative method using a simple scoring exercise on the scale 0-3 was applied where 0 indicated no significant contribution and 3 indicated a very significant contribution.

Part 2: Underlying sectoral analysis

The general headings within the resource use and practice and social and economic cause components of the sectoral analysis were acceptable, if simplistic. However, it was considered that determining the significance of cause to the issue and the determination of perceived trends in the prescriptive manner required by GIWA would not result in the level of detail required for TDA causal chains. The sectoral analysis was used as a means of focusing the expert team allowing them to rephrase or alter the resource uses and practices and social and economic causes when constructing the causal chains, so that they fully reflected the situation in the Dnipro Basin.

Part 3: Root cause analysis

The root cause section was also considered to be too generic for the TDA. Therefore a draft list of underlying causes was developed. The underlying causes were divided into social and economic causes together with a list of over-arcing policy and legislative barriers.

Part 4: Governance

No changes were made to this section.

Figure 2.2 Outline of the approach employed for the causal chain analysis

Description of the Basin

Physical and Geographical Characteristics

3.1. Physical and Geographical Characteristics

The Dnipro Basin is a multi-sectoral region of natural and socio-economic importance. Not only does it contain natural resources of social value (e.g. water, land and forest resources) but it is also a valuable asset for a number of stakeholders including commercial, industrial and governmental organisations (e.g. industries, land users, water users, governmental bodies, regulatory and control authorities etc). It sustains major urban centres and a large number of small and medium-size towns.

The Dnipro River extends into the territories of three Eastern European countries, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine. It is the third largest European transboundary watercourse after the Danube and the Volga, draining a basin of 511,000 km², and the fourth longest river in Europe (2,200 km), next to the Ural, the Volga and the Danube. 19.8% of the Dnipro Basin is within the territory of the Russian Federation (about 100,500 km²), 22.9% in Belarus (116,400 km²), and the largest portion, or 57.3% is in Ukraine (about 291,400 km²). A map of the Dnipro Basin is shown in Figure 3.1 and a full description of the basin is provided below in the Dnipro Basin Passport.

Figure 3.1 Map of the Dnipro Basin

DNIPRO RIVER BASIN PASSPORT
Geography and Nature Resources
Total area of the Basin:	511,000 km² (catchment area is about 509,000 km²)
*Within the* *Republic* of *Belarus*	116,400 km² (22.9%)
*Within the* *Russian Federation*	100,500 km² (19.8%)
*Within* *Ukraine*	291,400 km² (57.3%)
Administrative and Territorial Division
Oblasts	30
*By country:*	- 5, - 6, - 19
Districts	385
*By country:*	- 62, - 81, - 242
Cities/towns	220
*By country:*	- 64, - 44, - 180
Townships	447
*By country:*	- 20, - 64, - 363
Rural settlements	28,020
*By country:*	- 11,110, - 1,260, - 15,650
Land uses in the Dnipro Basin:
Area of arable land	55.4% (283,000 km²)
*Republic* of *Belarus*	29.2% (34,000 km²)
*Russian Federation*	42.8% (43,000 km²)
*Ukraine*	70.3% (206,000 km²)
Forests	33.8% (172,400 km²)
*Republic* of *Belarus*	48.6% (56,600 km²)
*Russian Federation*	31.6% (31,700 km²)
*Ukraine*	17.1% (87,100 km²)
Wetlands	% (km²)
*Republic* of *Belarus*	36% (41,900 km², including area of drained land)
*Russian Federation*	1.8%
*Ukraine*
Urbanised (built-up) area
*Republic* of *Belarus*	4.0% (4,700 km²)
*Russian Federation*	2.0% (2,000 km²)
*Ukraine*	3.9% (11,400 km²)
Area of drained and irrigated land
*Republic* of *Belarus*	Drained area: 2 million ha
*Russian Federation*	Drained area: 0.38 million ha, Irrigated area: 0.04 million ha
*Ukraine*	Irrigated area: 2.6 (2.2) million ha Drained area: 2.5 million ha Total: 5.1 million ha
Area of land contaminated by radionuclides:
*Republic* of *Belarus*	41,640 km² (as of 2001, level of contamination by Cs-137 >1 Curie/km²)
*Russian Federation*	17,061 km²
*Ukraine*	54,600 km²
Water bodies
*Republic* of *Belarus*	0.3% (400 km²)
*Russian Federation*	0.6% (600 km²)
*Ukraine*	3.9% (11,400 km²)
Area of protected territories	1.6% (8,100 km²)
*Republic* of *Belarus*	3.0% (3,100 km²)
*Russian Federation*	1.3% (1,300 km²)
*Ukraine*	1.1% (3,200 km²)
Mineral Resources
*Republic* of *Belarus*	Oil: 60 deposits, 38 under exploitation, 13 under exploration, 9 suspended. Natural gas: annual extraction 252 million m³. Peat: 3 billion tonnes. Potassium salts: the Starobinsky deposit (capacity 5,698.0 million tonnes) is under exploitation. Rock salt: the Mosyr and Starobinsky deposits. Building stone: three deposits. Ferruginous quartzite: the Okolovsk deposit in Minsk Oblast (capacity about 500 million tons; average iron content 26%). Rare-metal deposit in the Gomel Oblast, containing ores used as a raw material for production of beryllium and rare-earth metals of cerium group.
*Russian Federation*	The Upper Dnipro Basin within the Russian Federation has scarce fuel/energy resources, limited to small deposits of low-grade coal and peat. Bryansk Oblast: only peat is extracted in considerable quantity. Belgorod Oblast: major part of the iron-ore deposit (the Kursk Magnetic Abnormality) lies in this Oblast and extends into the Dnipro Basin, although mining sites/activities are located beyond the Basin. Kursk Oblast has a number of iron-ore deposits associated with the Kursk Magnetic Abnormality, the largest of them is the Mikhailovsky deposit containing up to 400 million tonnes of ore (iron content 58%) and 1 billion tonnes of ferruginous quartzite (iron content 30-40%). The Oblast has deposits of building materials (chalk, marl, sand, sandstone, clay, and tripoli. Smolensk Oblast has deposits of low-grade brown coal (410 million tonnes), peat, and building stone (estimated capacity 90 million m³).
*Ukraine*	4,464 (or 57% of the country total) mineral resource deposits are located in the Dnipro Basin, 1,759 of them are exploited. Key mineral resources: oil, gas, brown coal and coal, peat, iron ore, manganese ore, titanium/zirconium ore, kaolin, bentonitic clay, building materials. The Dnipro Basin contains 29.5% of the country’s coal reserve, 53% of oil reserve, 67% of natural gas reserve, 84% of iron ore reserve, 85% of brown coal reserve, and 100% of titanium/zirconium ore reserve. Major mineral deposits located in the Dnipro Basin: the Krivy Rih – Kremenchug iron ore deposit; the Nikopol manganese ore deposit; the Dnipro-Donetsk oil/gas deposit; the Dnipro lignite deposit; the Western Donbass coal deposit. In the Krivy Rig area (the right-bank of the Dnipro River), iron ore was extracted in 10 open-cast mines and 23 mines (at present the majority of them are closed). The total area of all quarries is 40.5 km², total void space is 6.5 km³, and their depth is up to 300 m. The depth of ore mines is up to 1,100 m. In the Kremenchug region (the left bank of the Dnipro River), 2 quarries are in operation, with volume 0.8 km³ each, and depth up to 150 m. Samara River Basin (left tributary of the Dnipro River), 10 coal mines in operation. The Dnipro-Donetsk oil/gas deposit (the Middle Dnipro Basin) has about 300 deposits; production output: 2.0 million tons of oil per year, 12 billion m³ of natural gas per year, and 1.0 million of gas condensate per year. The Dnipro brown coal deposit (the Middle Dnipro Basin): annual output is 1 million tonnes per year. Manganese ore deposit is located in the area of Nikopol, where 10 quarries and 7 mines are in operation. Titanium and zirconium ore deposits are concentrated in the right-bank Dnipro tributary catchments in the Zhitomyr and Dnipropetrovsk Oblasts.
Population
Total (2001)	32.4 million
*Republic* of *Belarus*	6.3 million (19.4%)
*Russian Federation*	3.6 million (11.1%)
*Ukraine*	22.2 million (68.5%)
Urban population, million people (%):	4.60 (73%) 2.40 (66.7%) 14.92 (67.2%)
Rural population, million people (%):	1.70 (27%) 1.20 (33.3%) 7.28 (32.8%)
Average population density	64 persons/km²
*Republic* of *Belarus*	52 persons/km²
*Russian Federation*	35.6 persons/km²
*Ukraine*	75.7 persons/km²
Population growth in the Dnipro Basin
*Republic* of *Belarus*	- 25,000 persons/year (2000)
*Russian Federation*	- 35,900 persons/year (2000)
*Ukraine*	- 222,500 persons/year (average for 1995-2000)
Life expectancy	HDI Report, 2000
*Republic* of *Belarus*	68.1 years
*Russian Federation*	66.7 years
*Ukraine*	69.1 years
Economy
Gross domestic product (GDP)
*Republic* of *Belarus*	Country total, in actual prices: 9,134 million BR
*Russian Federation*	95.9 billion RR (2000, the Dnipro Basin)
*Ukraine*	Country total, in actual prices: 172,952 million UAH (2000)
GNP growth
*Republic* of *Belarus*	105.8%
*Russian Federation*	105% (1999); 118% (2000) (the Dnipro Basin)
*Ukraine*	105.8% (2000)
Real GDP per capita
*Republic* of *Belarus*	2,198 USD (1998)
*Russian Federation*	832 USD (2000, the Dnipro Basin)
*Ukraine*	873 USD (1998)
GNP by sector
Industry	26.5% 33% (2000) n/a
Agriculture	11.6% 18% (2000) n/a
Services	39.9% 39% (2000) n/a
Unemployment
*Republic* of *Belarus*	2.1% (2000) of the able-bodied population
*Russian Federation*	221,000 people
*Ukraine*	The ILO estimate: 2,707,600 people (2000, ); Officially registered: 1,155,200 people (2000)
Industry
Industrial output growth
*Republic* of *Belarus*	107.8% Average annual growth in 1996-2000 was 10.5% (the country average; growth rate is similar in the Dnipro Basin)
*Russian Federation*	In 2000: –38% of 1990 level; or +19% of 1997 level
*Ukraine*	In 2001: 114.2%, when compared to the previous year
Energy
*Republic* of *Belarus*	109.3%
*Russian Federation*	In the Dnipro Basin: 46 billion kWh (2000)
*Ukraine*	Country total: 173 billion kWh (2001)
Agriculture
*Republic* of *Belarus*	Average annual decrease in 1996-2000 was 6%
*Russian Federation*	In 2000: 68% of the 1990 level
*Ukraine*	Country total, % to the previous year: 114.2 % (2001)
Water resources and uses (the Dnipro Basin)
Surface waters
*Republic* of *Belarus*
Internal flow
Mean annual flow	16.9 km³/year
Low-flow year (95%)	10.7 km³/year
External inflow
Mean annual inflow	19.1 km³/year
Low-water year inflow (95%)	9.1 km³/year
Flow discharge
Mean annual discharge	36.0 km³/year
Low-flow year discharge (95%)	19.8 km³/year
Hydrographic network
Total length	45,400 km
*Russian Federation*
Internal flow
Mean annual flow	15.5 km³
Low-flow year (95%)	10.7 km³
Flow discharge
Mean annual discharge	15.5 km³
Low-flow year discharge (95%)	10.7 km³
Hydrographic network (rivers)
Total length	39,500 km
*Ukraine*
Internal flow
Mean annual flow	22.1 km³
Low-flow year (95%)	9.0 km³
External inflow
Mean annual inflow	31.9 km³
Low-water year inflow (95%)	22.1 km³
Flow discharge
Mean annual discharge	52.01 km³
Low-flow year discharge (95%)	31.14 km³
Hydrographic network (rivers)	15,423 rivers
Total length	78,500 km
Groundwater (usable reserve)
Projected reserve
*Republic* of *Belarus*	9.27 km³/year
*Russian Federation*	2.31 km³/year
*Ukraine*	12.80 km³/year
Explored reserve
*Republic* of *Belarus*	1.117 km³/year
*Russian Federation*	0.681 km³/year
*Ukraine*	n/a
Groundwater abstraction
*Republic* of *Belarus*	0.687 km³/year (2000)
*Russian Federation*	0.379 km³/year (2000)
*Ukraine*	1.027 km³/year (2000)
Water resources per capita
*Republic* of *Belarus*	7,580 m³/person
*Russian Federation*	2,640 m³/person
*Ukraine*	3,520 m³/person
Water reservoirs
Quantity	564
Water surface area	775.6 km²
Capacity	46.2 km³
*Republic* of *Belarus*	102 reservoirs, water surface area 345 km², capacity 1.044 km³ 730 ponds, water surface area 93 km², capacity 0.164 km³
*Russian Federation*	Ponds: water surface area 180 km²
*Ukraine*	564 reservoirs, including 6 major ones, water surface area 688 km², capacity 43.8 km³ 13,283 ponds; water surface area 12. km², capacity 1.8 km³
Total annual freshwater consumption (2000)	10.68 km³/year
*Republic* of *Belarus*	1.040 km³/year
Industry (%)	29.0%, or 0.302 km³/year
Agriculture (%)	8.7%, or 0.090 km³/year
Of that, irrigation	0.4%, or 0.004 km³/year
Municipal sector (%)	43.8%, or 0.455 km³/year
Other sectors (%)	18.1%
*Russian Federation*	Total volume used: 0.715 km³/year
Industry (%)	Extracted 55.4% (0.396 km³/year)
Of that, energy	36.5% (0.261 km³/year)
Agriculture (%)	15% (0.107 km³/year)
Of that, irrigation	0.4% (0.003 km³/year)
Municipal sector (%)	28.2% (0.202 km³/year)
*Ukraine*	8.87 km³/year
Industry (%)	58%
Agriculture (%)	14.9%
Of that, irrigation	9.7%
Municipal sector (%)	22.1%
Other sectors (%)	5%
Average annual water consumption per capita (2000)
*Republic* of *Belarus*	204 l/day per capita
*Russian Federation*	0.249 km³/year (domestic/potable consumption) 0.283 km³/year (industrial consumption)
*Ukraine*	n/a
Wastewater discharge (point sources) (2000)
*Republic* of *Belarus*	0.818 km³/year
*Russian Federation*	0.425 km³/year (0.243 km³/year of polluted wastewater)
*Ukraine*	5.6 km³
Level of flow regulation	- 0.1%, - 3%, - 22%
Flow diversion to other basins
*Republic* of *Belarus*	2 schemes (0.29 km³/year)
*Russian Federation*	None
*Ukraine*	6 channels, 5 water ducts, 3.14 km³/year (2000)
Water losses at transportation (2000)
*Republic* of *Belarus*	380 million m³/year
*Russian Federation*	22 million m³/year
*Ukraine*	1,660 million m³/year
Biodiversity
Rare and endangered species
*Republic* of *Belarus*	214 plant species, 97 vertebrate species, 85 invertebrate species
*Russian Federation*	Species included into the Red Data Book: 22 plant species, 7 invertebrate species, 26 vertebrate species
*Ukraine*
Water Protection
Water protection expenditures
*Republic* of *Belarus*	49,240 million BR (61. 5 million USD)
*Russian Federation*	75 million RR (2.4 million USD)
*Ukraine*	136.6 million UAH (25.5 million USD) (2000)
International Agreements in the Field of Environment Protection
*Republic* of *Belarus*	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Wetlands, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, UN Convention on Climate Change, Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, NIS Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Ecology and Environment Protection
*Russian Federation*	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention of the World Meteorological Organisation, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention of the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter, Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution, Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (observer status), Convention on Conservation of European Wild Fauna, Flora and Natural Habitats (observer status), Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (observer status), Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, NIS Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Ecology and Environment Protection
*Ukraine*	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention of the World Meteorological Organisation, Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Convention on Biological Diversity, The Convention of the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter, Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution, Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), Convention on Conservation of European Wild Fauna, Flora and Natural Habitats, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, NIS Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Ecology and Environment Protection