I Impact O T of Th Oblasts E Conf S on Th Infr Lict in He
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
15 September 2014 Kiev IMPACT OF THE CONFLICT IN LUHANSK AND DONETSK OBLASTS ON THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY This paper presents a summary of the damage assessment in areas affected by the armed conflict of Luhansk and Donets oblasts in the period since the beginning of the conflict until 14 September 2014. As of 14 September 2014, 1,968 facilities (including social infrastructure, residential houses, and enterprises) were reported to receive the damage, amounting to a monetary loss of total UAH 5.958 bn hryvnias, or US$ 440 mln (estimated, without account of unconfirmed damages in the residential sector, disruption of contracts, and lost profits of business enterprises). Among those reported 995 facilities are located in Luhansk oblast (UAH 1.094 million), and 783 facilities are in Donetsk oblast (UAH 3.964 billion). 190 facilities, with an estimated loss of UAH 900 m, belong to railway infrastructure situated in the territory of both oblasts. As can be seen in the consolidated table (page 6 and 7), 1230 housing buildings were damaged (667 in Luhansk and 563 in Donetsk oblasts), and this affected the shelter of 6,618 families (including 1,844 in Luhansk oblast and 4,774 in Donetsk oblast). Due to different limitations in determining the exact number of affected families, the real number of affected families is, most likely, of a greater scale than presented in this report. Indirectly (by worsened access to public services) the conflict in Donbass affected the majority of the 6,6 million population of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. It is worth noting, that the report indicates another 1873 housing buildings damaged during the conflict, however no verification (geographical/address localization) was possible by the team of data collectors, and this number remained outside the main analysis in this paper. 659 public infrastructure facilities have been damaged (amounting to financial losses of UAH 5.54 billion), including: 561 social infrastructure facilities, with financial loss of UAH 4.55 billion; including 183 in Luhansk oblast – UAH 354.0 million, and 188 in Donetsk oblast – UAH 3.637 billion (the major share accounts for the Donetsk airport – UAH 3.23 billion); losses caused to railway infrastructure facilities is UAH 566.4 million; 53 bridges – UAH 235.5 million (of them 12 in Luhansk oblast – UAH 89.7 million, and 41 in Donetsk oblast – UAH 145.8 million); 1 45 road sections – UAH 750.8 million (including UAH 333.6 million for railways). The damages to public infrastructure per categories and regions are as follows: Table 1. Damages per categories, in number of facilities (breakdown as of 14.09.2014) Critical infrastructure* Donetsk Lughansk TOTAL Water supply 9 1 10 Electrical lines and infrastructure 53 2 55 Bridges (railway, auto and pedestrian) 17 12 29 Hospitals 22 830 Schools 26 35 61 Railway 1 23 Non-critical infrastructure Roads 2 43 45 Bus and train stations 7 5 12 Universities, colleges 7 7 14 Dormitories 6 3 9 Kindergartens 11 1021 Administrative buildings 21 17 38 Cultural institutions (centres, museums etc.) 3 9 12 Libraries 4 3 7 Churches 1 78 Sports infrastructure (youth sports centres, stadiums etc.) 6 7 13 Music/art schools 3 1 4 Natural gas related infrastructure 0 2 2 Trade and business facilities (shops, office buildings, hotels, restaurants, 17 39 56 banks, storage facilities etc.) Production enterprises 0 5 5 Damages to communal property/enterprises (communal markets, parks, 11 16 27 monuments, trolley bus depot, bus stops etc.) Children camps 0 2 2 Airport 1 12 Social care institutions 0 1 1 Sanitary-epidemiological and veterinary stations 3 0 3 TOTAL 231 238 469 Cross-regional railway lines (including 24 bridges) 190 190 GRAND TOTAL FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE 659 *attribution to critical or non-critical infrastructure is analytical and is based on key needs in terms of living conditions (water, electricity), health, uninterrupted secondary education and mobility. The damaged facilities can be divided into several categories, shares of which in the total financial value is following: 1) public infrastructure – 93.05%, including: - roads – 12.60% (railways included); - bridges – 3.95%; - social facilities – 76.50% (schools, preschool educational institutions, public utilities, administrative buildings, energy facilities, railway infrastructure facilities); 2) residential houses – 6.95 %; 2 3) enterprises (impact of the conflict upon the work of individual entrepreneurs) – 178 confirmed facts. The number of damaged facilities has increased from 596 to 1,968 since the time of the last report (prepared on 15 July 2014) by 1,372, or almost four times, and their cost has increased from UAH 4.38 bn to UAH 5.95 bn (by UAH 1.57 bn, or 36.0%). Such a mismatch between the changes in the number and the cost of the damaged facilities can be explained by the fact that the major share of financial losses accounts for the Donetsk airport with UAH 3,230.0 million. If this single facility is not considered, the damaged facilities’ cost growth rate is 136.98%. The information collected indicates that at least 178 business enterprises have suffered from the conflict, including 90 in Luhansk oblast and 88 in Donetsk oblast (both damages to buildings and property, as well as forced downtimes, redundancies, etc.). The following territories prevail in terms of the number of affected facilities: in Luhansk oblast – Luhansk city (328 facilities for UAH 314.7 million) and Lysychansk city (284 facilities for UAH 89.2 million); in Donetsk oblast – Donetsk city (266 facilities for UAH 3.4 billion), Kramatorsk city (276 facilities for UAH 108.2 million), and if to consider unconfirmed damages, the Slovyansk city. Besides, partners informed about damages caused to the residential sector in Krasny Lyman district (Zakatne village, Kryva Luka village, Illichivka village), Shakhtarsk district (Tarany village, Petrovske village, Uspenivka hamlet), and Batiuk city in Donetsk oblast as well as in Perevalsk and Krasnodon districts of Luhansk oblast. At the same time, the information provided does not allow for identifying a location and an exact number of damaged houses, therefore it was not included in the total result. The information is presented in a separate line in Table 2 below for reference. Summarized findings of the damage assessment are provided in the Table 2 below (page 6 and 7). 3 Data collection methodology and limitations Due to rapidly changing situation, and various limitations (e.g. lack of access) data presented in this report are preliminary, and can serve as a starting point in recovery planning. To ensure efficient data collection, as well as because of movement restrictions in targeted oblasts, local study coordinators were appointed to gather and verify information presented in the report. Data collection process was further complicated by evacuation of most partners to other oblasts of Ukraine as well as by on-going hostilities. The data collectors used , where available, official information from authorities and data provided by volunteers and partners. The study implementation involved more than 50 persons, including representatives of non-governmental organizations (Kreminna Business Association, Severodonetsk Agency for Development of Communities), Luhansk Oblast State Administration, Donetsk Chamber of Trade and Industries, and RFSE, as well as a network of Centres of Social Services for Family, Children and Youth of Donetsk oblast, acquaintances and relatives of all those engaged in the study process. For some reasons, the study had to rely, first and foremost, upon assistance from local residents. In particular, in some settlements their civilian administration (local state administrations or local governments) worked under control of self-proclaimed Lulghansk People Republic and Donetsk People Republic militia and was not accessible. In such cases, photographing infrastructure facilities would risk safety of people engaged into assessment. It should be noted that data presented in this paper cannot be fully comprehensive due to on- going conflict, lack of access to certain territories. Moreover, the assessment determines damages visible to public activists and citizens (thus omitting infrastructural ‘invisible’ damages like pipeline, electrical grids, heating system damages etc.). The report provides only a preliminary analysis of monetary losses because financial estimates are subject to a proper evaluation by engineers, and correct assessment is possible only when construction works are started (assessment needs to consider also the risks of Ukrainian currency volatility and changing prices). The calculations given in this report were verified in consultations with construction companies (Standartenerho LLC, Kaskad SD LLC as well as ASR’s other partners), on the basis of their experience of performing similar works with account of average rates for description of damages and parameters by study coordinators on the ground, and using various facilities’ photos. Worth noting, that assessments performed by different entities might differ from those provided in this report. Overall, 16 administrative territories affected by the conflict were monitored in Luhansk oblast (Shchastia city is formally part of Luhansk city), and 17 were monitored in Donetsk oblast (Ilovaisk and Zugres cities formally belong to Khartsyzsk city). It should be noted that some territories turned out to be inaccessible for experts because of on- going hostilities (e.g. Luhansk international airport, Metallist settlement in Luhansk oblast, Ilovaisk city in Donetsk oblast) or due to presence of aggressively disposed conflict participants (e.g. Luhansk and Donetsk cities). Despite this fact, work was carried out to find contact persons in such territories and an attempt was made to gather information by phone. However, no detailed information was collected that way. At present, it is hard to estimate the loss, which was caused to Donbas’s economy by shutting down of enterprises or by curtailment of production. For some territories, such data are absent, which is explained, inter alia, by enterprise management’s unwillingness to disclose information about their internal problems.