European Union Water Initiative + for Eastern Partnership Countries (EUWI+)

European Union Water initiative + for Eastern Partnership countries (EUWI+)

DNIPRO RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN Significant water management issues

Short summary for public consultations

July 2020

Contains

1. General overview 3 1.1 Surface waters 6 1.2 Groundwaters 8 2. Significant water management issues 9 2.1 Surface waters 10 2.2 Groundwaters 22 3. Risk assessment of the failure to achieve good ecological and chemical statuses 24 3.1 Surface waters 24 3.2 Groundwaters 29 4. Protected areas 29 5. Water monitoring 31 5.1 Surface waters 32 5.2 Groundwaters 32 6. Economic analysis 33

This document was prepared based on the reports of the European Union funded project “European Union Water Initiative Plus for Eastern Partnership countries” (EUWI + 4 EaP) and Project beneficiary – State Agency of Water Resources (SAWR). Its contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or governments of the Eastern Partnership countries and consortium of states implementing the project (Austria and France).

More detailed technical reports for the Dnipro RBMP are available on euwipluseast.eu

The goal of this document is to present the significant water management issues (SWMIs) identified in the Dnipro sub-basins to the specialists and wide public in frame of the preparation of Dnipro River Basin Management Plan (RBMP).

River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) is a document, which contains river basin analysis and the relevant program of measures to achieve the goals, identified for each river basin district in the defined terms. The need of RBMP development is stated in the Art. 132 of the Water Code of Ukraine as well as mentioned in the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. Strategic environmental goal of the RBMP for each of nine river basin districts is to protect or enhance surface and groundwater bodies to achieve good ecological status and artificial of heavily modified surface water bodies to achieve good ecological potential.

RBMPs are developed by the State Agency of Water Resources (SAWR) jointly with State Agency of Geology and Ores Exploration, central and local executive authorities, local self-government bodies and other stakeholders taking into account the decisions of the relevant Basin Councils, according to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 18 May 2017 № 336 «On Approval of the Order of the Development of River Basin Management Plan”. RBMPs should be developed by the end of 2024 and approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

Public informing and relevant consultations during the RBMPs development, namely after identification of SWMIs is envisaged by the EU Water Framework Directive (Art. 14. 1. b), as well as Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 336 (par. 8).

Significant water management issues are diagnosis of the state of the river basin, the list of its illnesses. They are identified based on the different information and data, namely monitoring, water use, population equivalent, economic activities data, the data on use of fertilizers and chemical plants protection etc. The SWMIs include the issues, which are proven to be problems at present. Identification of the SWMIs is important because the Program of Measures will be further directed towards the identified SWMIs aimed to protect or enhance good ecological and chemical status of water bodies in the river basin.

1. General overview

Dnipro is one of the largest rivers of Europe. Its length is 2 201 km (within Ukraine it is 1121 km), the total area of the catchment is 504 thousands km2. Dnipro river basin is transboundary: 20% of its catchment is in the Russian Federation, 23% – in the Republic of Belarus and 57% – within Ukraine. By its catchment, the river basin covers almost half of the territory of Ukraine (48%). Dnipro river basin district covers 19 oblasts of Ukraine and is fully located within 6 oblasts of Ukraine – Zhytomyr, Chernigiv, Poltava, Dnipropetrovsk, Rivne and Sumy oblasts.

Taking into account the large size of the Dnipro basin, river basin management is done by the basis of delineated subbasins. Within Dnipro river basin district, 5 subbasins were delineated, namely Upper Dnipro, Desna, Pripyat, Middle Dnipro and Lower Dnipro (Figure 1.).

Figure. 1. Map of Dnipro subbasins More than 80% of river discharge of Dnipro is formed in the upper part of the basin (upstream Kyiv), namely Dnipro itself with Berezyna and Sozh covers 35% of water discharge, Pripyat – 26% and Desna – 21%.  Catchment area of the Upper Dnipro subbasin, the smallest subbasin is 2 315 km2, and its river network consists of Sozh river and some small rivers.  Catchment area of Desna river subbasin is 33 482 km2.  Catchment area of Middle Dnipro subbasin – the biggest out of 5 subbasins is 109 527 km2. The subbasin includes 4 water reservoirs of Dnipro cascade: Kyiv, Kaniv, Kremenchug and Kamyanske with tributaries of different orders.  Catchment area of Lower Dnipro subbasin – the second by the catchment area out of 5 subbasins is 82 625 km2. The total length of Dnipro within the subbasin is around 440 km. The subbasin includes 2 water reservoirs of Dnipro cascade: Dniprovske and Kahovske with tributaries of different orders.  Catchment area of the Pripyat river subbasin is 114 300 km2, and its catchment within Ukraine is 68 400 km2. Pripyat is the biggest by the catchment, length and discharge right tributary of Dnipro/ The length of Pripyat is 775 km, including 254 km within Ukraine.

CLIMATE AND WATER REGIME

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. Climate is moderately continental, mild and relatively wet. The winter is with low snow, in the most years – stable, comparatively warm; summer is warm and relatively wet. The average amount of precipitation per year is 656 mm, varying from 607 to 704 mm along the catchment. Around 70 % from average amount of precipitation falls in the warm period of the year. Regime of Upper Dnipro and Desna is characterized by clearly visible spring flood, low summer low water period, which is sometimes interrupted by rain floods and sometimes increased water levels standing in autumn because of rains and in winter because of thaw. During spring flood, there are highest water level rises; the water enters the floodplain and it is the time of 40 - 80 % of the river discharge.

Middle Dnipro subbasin. Climate is moderately continental with warm and wet summer and mild winter. Winter is more severe at the east of the subbasin, where it lasts for 20 more days. The average amount of precipitation per year varies from 450 to 700 mm. Around 75% of annual precipitation comes from April to October. The water regime is characterized by spring flood, summer low water period with frequent rain floods, autumn high water levels and winter low water. Water discharge within the subbasin is overregulated by cascade of Dnipro water reservoirs and water reservoirs at the tributaries.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. Climate is moderately continental; continentality is increased towards South-East. The subbasin is characterized by short, cold winter with low snow with frequent thaws and insignificant snow cover, hot and dry summer. he average amount of precipitation per year varies from 450 to 550 mm. More than half (60% )of annual precipitation comes in warm season from April to October.

Dnipro discharge within the subbasin is completely overregulated by the cascade of water reservoirs. Interannual distribution of Dnipro discharge has been altered significantly. Winter low water is not typical for the basin. In most of the cases, the notion of spring flood is also lost, because water discharges in April – June are sometimes lower than in December – March. The decrease of water levels is typical for July – October, but it is due to daily and weekly flow regulation.

Pripyat subbasin. Climate at the territory of the subbasin is moderately continental with warm and wet summer and quite mild winter. Spring is long and unstable, with frequent changes of cold and warm periods; summer is warm and rainy. The average amount of precipitation per year is 550 – 600 mm.Water regime is characterized by long spring flood, summer low water period, which is interrupted by rain floods and almost annual autumn high water levels. The level of water increases by 1-4 m, at stretches with narrow floodplain – for 7 m. 65% of river discharge is in spring. There are increased water levels standing in autumn because of rains and in winter because of thaw. During spring flood, there are highest water level rises; the water enters the floodplain and it is the time of 40 - 80 % of the river discharge.

LANDSCAPE Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. The catchment area is mainly lowland, sometimes wavy landscape, as it belongs to Polissya lowland (north) and Prydniprovsk lowland. The lowlands are cut by river valleys; there are quite large forest “islands” and wetlands valuable for biodiversity conservation at the terraces.

Middle Dnipro subbasin. Right part of the subbasin is located within Ukrainian crystal shield, the left part - within Dnipro-Donetsk depression and partly at Ukrainian crystal shield. The border between Prydniprovsk highland and Prydniprovsk lowland crosses the subbasin. The valley of Dnipro itself is asymmetrical: right hills are steep and high and left ones are low and flat.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. The subbasin is located within Black Sea lowland, which is a steppe lowland with decrease towards south. The landscape is mainly lowland, crossed by river network, ravines and gulls

Pripyat river subbasin. The catchment area of the subbasin is located within Polissya lowland, southern-western part of the sub-basin is located at Volyn lowland. The landscape is mainly flat with low wavy lowlands and plains. Denudation forms of landscape, established at crystal rocks.

1.1 Surface waters

Surface water body (SWB) is a management unit of RBMP. It can consist of a single surface water body as a whole or its part. SWB should be unique, namely differ from others, for e.g. by hydrological features; it should be solid (it cannot cross with others or consist of a few water bodies); each SB has its start and the end. Ecological goals are set particularly to SWBs, and their achievement is assessed by SWBs as well. Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. SWBs were delineated for the three categories: rivers, lakes and heavily modified SWBs (Figure 2). Although there are no weirs at Desna or Sozh itself, half of the SWBs of the river basins are heavily modified because of impoundment (ponds, water reservoirs at the tributaries) and hydromorphological alterations. In total, 290 SWBs were delineated, which make only 7.5% from total number of delineated SWBs in Dnipro basin.

Figure 2. Distribution of SWBs by categories

Middle Dnipro subbasin. SWBs were delineated for the two categories: rivers and artifical and heavily modified SWBs (Figure 3). Almost of 40% SWBs of the river basin are heavily modified because of impoundment (ponds, water reservoirs at the tributaries) and hydromorphological alterations. In total, 1578 SWBs were delineated, which make 41% from total number of delineated SWBs in the Dnipro basin. There is none of the SWBs under the category “lakes”.

Figure 3. Distribution of SWBs by categories Lower Dnipro subbasin. SWBs were delineated for the three categories: rivers, artificial and heavily modified and transitional SWBs (Figure 2). 47% SWBs of the river basin are heavily modified because of impoundment (ponds, water reservoirs at the tributaries) and hydromorphological alterations. Lower Dnipro subbasin has the highest percentage (comparing with other Dnipro subbasins) of artificial WBs – 3,3%. Also it is the only subbasin with the category of “transitional waters”.

Figure 3. Distribution of SWBs by categories

Pripyat river subbasin. SWBs were delineated for the three categories: rivers, lakes and heavily modified SWBs (Figure 4). Half of the SWBs of the river subbasin are heavily modified because of impoundment (ponds, water reservoirs at the tributaries) and hydromorphological alterations. This subbasin has the highest (comparing with other Dnipro subbasins) percentage of the lakes – 1,4% (15 lakes). riverbed straightening. In total, 290 SWBs were delineated, which make only 7.5% from total number of delineated SWBs in the Dnipro basin.

In total, 1040 SWBs were delineated, making 27% from the total number of the SWBs in the Dnipro basin.

Figure 4. Distribution of SWBs by categories

In total, 3 879 SWBs are deliniated within Dnipro basin, out of them “rivers” category – 2 049 SWBs, «lakes» category – 16 SWBs, category «artificial WBs and pHMWBs» – 1812 SWB and category «transitional waters» – 2 SWBs.

1.2 Groundwaters

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. The area is located within the largest geological region of Ukraine – Dnipro-Donetsk artesian basin. Water bearing horizons belong to the zone of active water exchange, contain water of drinking quality and are used for centralized water supply of settlements and enterprises.

Middle Dnipro subbasin. The area is characterized by complicated hydrogeological conditions, as it is located within two hydrogeological regions of Ukraine – hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield and Dnipro-Donetsk artesian basin. It leads to different conditions of groundwater establishment – they are more favorable within the Dnipro-Donets artesian basin and less favorable – within hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. The area is characterized by the most complicated hydrogeological conditions, as it is located within four hydrogeological regions of Ukraine – hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield, Dnipro-Donetsk artesian basin, Black Sea artesian basin and Donets folded region. Besides it is located at south of Dnipro basin, where infiltration feeding is much less than at north.

Pripyat subbasin. The area is characterized by complicated hydrogeological conditions, as it is is located within three hydrogeological regions of Ukraine – Volyn-Podilsk artesian basin, hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield and Dnipro-Donetsk artesian basin. It leads to different conditions of groundwater establishment – they are more favorable within the artesian basins and less favorable – within hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield.

Groundwater body (GWB) is a management unit for groundwaters. For them, ecological goals are set. Depending on geological-hydrogeological conditions, 3 zero-head and 12 pressured GWBs are delineated in this subbasin. Zero-head GWBs belong to the youngest – quaternary stratums. Pressured GWBs are protected from pollution from surface by large powerful masses of water- resistant rocks, covering them. They belong to the stratums of different age – from quaternary to the oldest – Archaean crystal deposits and located at different depths. Groundwater resources within the subbasin differ depending on different hydrogeological regions.

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. 4 zero-head and 6 pressured GWBs are delineated in these basins. They are rich for groundwaters. At present, use of the groundwater at the subbasins in average is 3% from their predicted resources only.

Middle Dnipro subbasin. 4 zero-head and 10 pressured GWBs are delineated in this subbasin. The biggest groundwater resources are concentrated within the artesian basins, the smallest – within the hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield. At present, use of the groundwater at the subbbasin in average is 7,2% from their predicted resources only.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. 3 zero-head and 12 pressured GWBs are delineated in this subbasin. The biggest groundwater resources are concentrated within Dnipro-Donets and Black Sea artesian basins, much less – within the hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield and Donets folded area. At present, use of the groundwater at the subbbasin in average is 10,9% from their predicted resources.

Pripyat subbasin. 4 zero-head and 8 pressured GWBs are delineated in this subbasin. The biggest groundwater resources are concentrated within the artesian basins, the smallest – within the hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield. At present, use of the groundwater at the subbbasin in average is 5% from their predicted resources only.

In total, there are 51 GWBs in the Dnipro basin, out of them – 15 zero-head GWBs, pressured – 36 GWBs.

2. Significant water management issues

Having analyzed antropogenic activity and pressures in the Dnipro basin and its subbasins, the following significant water management issues were identified: 1. Organic pollution as a result of insufficient wastewater treatment or its absence; 2. Nutrients pollution as a result of insufficient wastewater treatment or its absence, as well as washing out from fields; 3. Hazardous substances pollution, which enter with wastewaters of industrial and municipal enterprises, pesticides and other means of chemical plants protection as well as result of washing out of hazardous sites or during emergency pollution; 4. Hydromorphological changes, related to flood protection, hydropower, flow regulation (ponds, water reservoirs), riverbed straightening.

In addition to these SWMIs, littering (namely by plastic) and climate change (floods and droughts) should be included. Program of measures in RBMP is directed towards these issues. It is worth to mention that these SWMIs are typical for many river basins of Ukraine and the European Union.

2.1 Surface waters

Pollutants enter waters by the two ways: from source discharges of wastewaters and diffuse ones in time and space. 2.1.1. Organic pollution Danger of the organic pollution is related to decrease of contains of dissolved oxygen in water till to critical for water inhabitants levels. Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. Organic pollution load is split between source and diffuse pollution as 38% and 62%. The impact of point sources is almost fully related to communal wastewaters; the share of industry is not more than 0.6%. There is only one large city in Desna subbasin with population more than 100 thousands – Chernigiv. It forms about one third of organic load at surface waters. The peculiarity of the sub-basins is that almost half of population lives in middle-size towns with population equivalent (ЕН) 10 - 100 thousands. ЕН reflects load by wastewater treatment facilities and equals to 60 g BOD5/day, becoming the main factor of organic pollution – 64%. The following rivers are under the biggest organic load – Bilous, Seym, Shostka. Diffuse pollution is related to households without wastewater treatment facilities. It is mainly rural population (settlements with ЕН < 2000) and partly towns. Within the subbasins, there are 68 settlements of town type, out of which only 18 ones are equipped by wastewater treatment systems. Such a system is absent in 8 middle-size towns with ЕН > 10 thousands.

Middle Dnipro subbasin. Organic pollution load is split between source and diffuse pollution as 54% and 46%. The impact of point sources is almost fully related to communal wastewaters; the share of industry is 3%. 44% of total population of the Dnipro basin lives within Middle Dnipro subbasin, among them towns dominate. Kyiv, capital of Ukraine with population of almost 3 mln people and 7 large cities with population more than 100 thousands – Poltava, Cherkassy, Zhytomyr, Sumy, Kremenchug, Bila Tserkva and Brovary. The total PE of the above mentioned cities is 4.4. mln. (ЕН reflects load by wastewater treatment facilities and equals to 60 g BOD5/day), becoming the main factor of organic pollution – 82%. The following waters are under the biggest organic load (in the order of decrease) – Dnipro cascade water reservoirs, Teteriv, Vorskla, Psel and Ros rivers. Diffuse pollution is related to households without wastewater treatment facilities. It is mainly rural population (settlements with ЕН < 2000) and partly towns. Within the subbasin, there are 14 settlements of town type (EH – 10-100 thousands) without wastewater treatment. They have total PE 280 492 (towns Verhivtseve, Grebinka, Baryshivka, Tarascha, Izhnya, Lohvysta, Karlivka, Gorodysche, Shpola, Kozyatin, Vilnogirsk, Obukhiv and Boryspil).

Lower Dnipro subbasin. Organic pollution load is split between source and diffuse pollution as 34% and 66%. The impact of point sources is almost fully related to communal wastewaters; the share 10

of industry is 0.3%. 35% of total population of the Dnipro basin lives within Middle Dnipro subbasin, among them in towns (84%) dominate. Dnipro, the second city by the size of population of almost 1 mln people and 6 large cities with population more than 100 thousands – Kherson, Zaporizhyzhya, Kryvyy Rig, Kamyanske, Pavlograd. The total PE of the above mentioned cities is 3.1 mln. (ЕН reflects load by wastewater treatment facilities and equals to 60 g BOD5/day), becoming the main factor of organic pollution – 75%. Samara river and Kakhovske water reservoir are under the biggest organic load. Ingulets, Mokra Moskovka, Dnipro downstream Kherson have the loads 5 times less. Diffuse pollution is related to households without wastewater treatment facilities. It is mainly rural population (settlements with ЕН < 2000) and partly towns. Within the subbasin, there are 8 settlements with total EH 192450 without wastewater treatment.

Pripyat river subbasin. Organic pollution load is split between source and diffuse pollution as 36% and 64%. The impact of point sources is almost fully related to communal wastewaters; the share of industry is not more than 1%. There are two large cities with population more than 100 thousands – Rivne and Lutsk. They form 37% of organic load at surface waters. The peculiarity of the sub-basin is that 44% of population lives in middle-size towns with population equivalent (ЕН) 10 - 100 thousands. ЕН reflects load by wastewater treatment facilities and equals to 60 g BOD5/day, becoming the main factor of organic pollution – 48%. The following rivers are under the biggest organic load – Goryn and Styr. Diffuse pollution is related to households without wastewater treatment facilities. It is mainly rural population (settlements with ЕН < 2000) and partly towns. Within the subbasin, there are 58 settlements of town type. Four of them not equipped by wastewater treatment systems have total PE 58878 (Zdolbuniv, Rozhysche, Lyuboml, Manevichi).

2.1.2. Nutrient pollution Increase of nutrients concentrations (nitrogen and phosphorus) causes eutrophication, leading to species diversity decrease, deterioration of water body status and water quality.

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. Between point and diffuse sources, this load is shared as 24% and 76% (Figure 6). Diffuse sources of nitrogen is mainly agriculture (mineral fertilizers, manure, erosion caused by ploughing); its input into the total load is more than 50%. The indicator of pollution load from diffuse sources of agricultural origin is nitrogen balance in soil, which in majority of administrative districts within the subbasins is positive. The highest load is fixed in the basins of small rivers Pakulka, Dubrovka, Polonka, Serna, Konopelka, Lyutistya, Rudka, Zheliznystya, Okonka, where excess nitrogen in soil is more than 100 kg N/ha. Catchment areas of the subbasins are covered mainly by sod-podzolic soils of light texture; because of it, nitrogen in form of easily dissolved nitrogen compounds is washed out by rains. Nature background contributes 22% into a general indicator of nitrogen emission.

Figure 6. Load by total nitrogen (TN) in subbasins of Upper Dnipro and Desna subbasins 1 - Torkna, 2 – Sudost, 3 - Svyga, 4 - Smyach, 5 - Roma, 6 - Ivotka, 7 - Shostka, 8 - Malotechka, 9 - Laska, 10 - Esmas, 11 - Stryzhen, 12 - Seym, 13 - Ubid, 14 - Doch, 15 - Mena, 16 - Bereza, 17 - Veresozh, 18 - Snov, 19 - Zamglay, 20 - Stryzhen_2, 21 - Bilous, 22 - Vzdvyzh, 23 - Staruha, 24 - Smolyanka, 25 - Oster, 26 - Znobivka, 27 - Rogozna, 28 - Golovesnya, 29 - Osota, 30 - Smolyanka_2, 31-39 - Desna, 40- 41 – Upper Dnipro

Point sources contribute more than 1100 tons of Ntotal annually. This value is almost by 99 % is related to the communal wastewaters. A little bit more than half of total load by nitrogen is brought by Chernigiv city, 44% is formed by towns with PE 10-100 thousands. Maximum load is fixed in Bilous and Shostka rivers because of wastewaters from Chernigiv and Shostka accordingly.

Annual load by Рtotal is 1172 tons, out of which 73% enters due to erosion and is in inactive form. There is a correlation between increase of phosphorus emission and increase of the share of ploughed land (Figure 7). 322 tons of Рtotal annually enter the surface waters in dissolved form. Between point and diffuse pollution, this load is shared as 83% and 17%. Impact of point sources, with which 270 tons Рtotal enters annually is almost completely related to communal wastewater treatment. Out of them 46% is brought by Chernigiv, 48% - towns with PE 10-100 thousands. The biggest load is fixed at Bilous, Seym, Shostka, Oster rivers. In general man caused share of phosphorus emission is 93%, share of natural conditions is 7%.

Figure 7. Load by Ptotal in Upper Dnipro and Desna subbasins 1 - Torkna, 2 – Sudost, 3 - Svyga, 4 - Smyach, 5 - Roma, 6 - Ivotka, 7 - Shostka, 8 - Malotechka, 9 - Laska, 10 - Esmas, 11 - Stryzhen, 12 - Seym, 13 - Ubid, 14 - Doch, 15 - Mena, 16 - Bereza, 17 - Veresozh, 18 - Snov, 19 - Zamglay, 20 - Stryzhen_2, 21 - Bilous, 22 - Vzdvyzh, 23 - Staruha, 24 - Smolyanka, 25 - Oster, 26 - Znobivka, 27 - Rogozna, 28 - Golovesnya, 29 - Osota, 30 - Smolyanka_2, 31-39 - Desna, 40- 41 – Upper Dnipro

Middle Dnipro subbasin. Between point and diffuse sources, this load is shared as 48% and 52% (Figure 8). Diffuse sources of nitrogen compounds is mainly agriculture (mineral fertilizers, manure, erosion caused by ploughing); its input into the total load is around 20%.

The indicator of pollution load from diffuse sources of agricultural origin is nitrogen balance in soil, which in majority of administrative districts within the subbasin is positive. The highest load is fixed in 33 SWBs: in Teteriv basin, small rivers Zhydok, Pihivka, Irpin and its tributaries, Zolotonoshka, Krutka, Irkliy, Kovray and its tributaries, Bataliy, Glyboka, Sula tributary of Buromka river, where excess nitrogen in soil is more than 100 kg N/ha. Catchment area of the subbasin is located within the zone with washed and periodically washed regime of soils, most of them are represented with hump humus; because of it, nitrogen in form of easily dissolved nitrogen compounds is washed out by water discharge. Nature background contributes 27% into a general indicator of nitrogen emission.

Figure 8. Load by total nitrogen compounds in Lower Dnipro subbasin

Point sources contribute more than 7101 tons of Ntotal annually. This value is by 94% is related to the communal wastewaters.

The biggest share (82%) of total load by nitrogen is brought by the largest cities with PE more than 100 thousands, and 16% is formed by towns with PE 10-100 thousands. The biggest load is fixed at directly at Dnipro reservoirs (among them the biggest load is with Kaniv water reservoir because of discharge of wastewaters of Kyiv). Among the tributaries the biggest load is fixed at Psel and Trubizh rivers.

Annual load by Рtotal is 3370 tons, out of which 12% enters due to erosion and is in inactive form

(Figure 9). 2965 tons of Рtotal annually enter the surface waters in dissolved form. Between point and diffuse pollution, this load is shared as 80% and 20%. Impact of point sources is by 98% related to communal wastewater treatment. Out of them 82% is brought by cities with EH > 100 thousands. Kyiv itself contributes 51% of pollution load by phosphorus.

Besides the water reservoirs, the biggest load is fixed at Psel, Teteriv and Vorskla. In general man caused share of phosphorus emission is 81%, share of natural conditions is 19%.

Figure 9. Load by Ptotal in Middle Dnipro subbasin

Lower Dnipro subbasin. The value of annual load of Ntotal in Lower Dnipro is more than 9360 tons. This is the only subbasin in the Dnipro basin, where role of point pollution is higher than diffuse ones

(Figure 10). Point sources contribute more than 4860 tons of Ntotal annually. This value is by 91% is related to the communal wastewaters. The biggest share (84%) of total load by nitrogen is brought by the largest cities with PE more than 100 thousands, and 15% is formed by towns with PE 10-100 thousands. The biggest load is fixed at directly at Kakhovske water reservoir. Among the tributaries the biggest load is fixed at Ingulets and Samara rivers. Comparing with them, the fixed load in Dnipro downstream Kherson, at Mokra Sura and Mokra Moskovska rivers is twice less. Another peculiarity of the Lower Dnipro is the fact that diffuse source of nitrogen compounds is mainly rural population; its input into the total load is 61%. This can be explained by low water contains of the basin. Positive nitrogen balance in soils of agricultural lands of the most of administrative rayons within the subbasin, cause potential danger of water pollution by agricultural sources. In Pokrovsk district of Donetsk oblast, the highest value for Ukraine is fixed (347 kg/ha); in Biloozersky district of Kherson oblast, its value is more than 100 kg/ha. The biggest danger of diffuse pollution is related to irrigation, conducted mainly in Kherson, Zaporizhyzhya, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. Washing out of nitrogen compounds in other oblasts has short term character and directly depends on precipitation intensity. Nature background contributes 12% into a general indicator of nitrogen emission.

Figure 10. Load by total nitrogen compounds in Lower Dnipro subbasin

Annual load by Рtotal is 2900 tons. Between point and diffuse pollution, this load is shared as 75% and 25% (Figure 11). Impact of point sources is by 99,9% related to communal wastewater treatment. Out of them 85% is brought by cities with EH > 100 thousands. Dnipro and Zaporizhyzhya itself contribute 58% of pollution load by phosphorus. Besides Kakhovske water reservoirs, the biggest load is fixed at Ingulets, Samara, Dnipro downstream Kherson, Mokra Sura and Mokra Moskovka rivers. In general share of natural conditions into phosphorus emission is 7%.

Figure 11. Load by Ptotal in Lower Dnipro subbasin

Pripyat subbasin. Between point and diffuse sources, this load is shared as 18% and 82% (Figure 12). Diffuse sources of nitrogen compounds is mainly agriculture (mineral fertilizers, manure, erosion caused by ploughing); its input into the total load is more than 50%. The indicator of pollution load from diffuse sources of agricultural origin is nitrogen balance in soil, which in majority of administrative districts within the subbasin is positive. The highest load is fixed in the basins of small rivers – Turya, Stokhid, Styr, Goryn and Uzh, where excess nitrogen in soil is more than 100 kg N/ha. Catchment area of the subbasin is covered mainly by sod-podzolic soils of light texture; because of it, nitrogen in form of easily dissolved nitrogen compounds is washed out by rains. Nature background contributes 18% into a general indicator of nitrogen emission.

Figure 12. Load by total nitrogen compounds in Pripyat subbasin

Point sources contribute more than 2393 tons of Ntotal annually. This value is almost by 91% is related to the communal wastewaters. Almost 40% of total load by nitrogen is brought by Rivne and Lutsk cities, 48% is formed by towns with PE 10-100 thousands. The biggest load is fixed at Goryn river because of discharge of wastewaters of Rivne, Novograd-Volynsky, Shepetivka and at Styr river – Lutsk and Varash cities.

Annual load by Рtotal is 822,5 tons, out of which 15% enters due to erosion and is in inactive form. There is a correlation between increase of phosphorus emission and increase of the share of ploughed land (Figure 13). 778 tons of Рtotal annually enter the surface waters in dissolved form. Between point and diffuse pollution, this load is shared as 85% and 15%. Impact of point sources is by 91% related to communal wastewater treatment. Out of them 37% is brought by Rivne and Lutsk, 48% - towns with PE 10-100 thousands. The biggest load is fixed at Goryn and Styr. In general man caused share of phosphorus emission is 80%, share of natural conditions is 20%.

Figure 4. Load by Ptotal in Pripyat subbasin

2.1.3. Hazardous substances pollution Hazardous substances include a large group of substances, mainly herbicides, insecticides, heavy metals and polyaromatic carbons with acute or persistent toxic effect and significant danger for human water use and life of water inhabitants. List of 45 priority substances, which should be monitored are identified in the Order of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine №45 dated 6 February 2017. Data about the surface waters pollution by hazardous substances, especially synthetic ones, are lacking. At present, it is planned to identify these substances in frame of water quality monitoring in the laboratories of SAWR. At present, in Ukraine around 190 active pesticides, as a part of 842 substances are allowed for use. Modern phosphorus-organic pesticides quickly deposit in environment up to non-toxic products. The main danger is in their overuse, spraying near sanitary zones.

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. None of the enterprises in the subbasins do not report about the discharge of hazardous substances.

Middle Dnipro subbasin. Middle Dnipro subbasin has the highest pollution load by hazardous substances. 3 enterprises (Kremenchug vodocanal, “Azot:, Cherkasy, Poltava vodocanal) in total per year discharge 91 kg of cadmium compounds and 386 kg of nickel compounds, which belong to priority substances. The other metals, belonging to priority substances include manganese, copper

and chrome. Out of them manganese and chrome are capable to concentrate in water inhabitants. It is recommended to include these metals into the list of basin-specific ones. Systematic pollution of Middle Dnipro reservoirs by heavy metals is proven by their accumulation in bottom sediments. The highest concentrations of heavy metal is fixed in sediments of Kremenchug water reservoir. There is a possibility of secondary mobilization of cadmium, which belongs to priority substances and manganese in natural water layer in the process of molecular diffusion. The following substances are discharges in large amounts – oil products – 20 tons per year (mainly from “Azot”, Cherkasy, Zhytomyr vodocanal) and synthetic surface active substances – 40,0 tons/year, mainly brought by Kyiv vodocanal. The above mentioned substances influence the oxygen regime; their toxic effect at water inhabitants is under discussion till now. It is recommended to include these substances into the list of basin-specific ones. Results of monitoring of surface waters and bottom sediments of Dnipro water reservoirs show absence of persistent chlorine organic compounds, included into Stockholm convention “On Persistent Organic Pollutants”. In upper and middle layers of bottom sediments, the contains of chlorine organic pesticides is by 2-5 orders lower than maximum admissible level. High level of pesticides use, which is over 3 kg/ha, in the basin is fixed in Sumy district of Sumy oblast.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. This subbasin has the high pollution load by heavy metals. Two enterprises (Dnipro vodocanal, Kamyanske vodocanal) in total per year discharge 2420 kg of nickel compounds, 102 kg of cadmium and 71 kg of lead, which belong to priority substances. The other metals, belonging to priority substances include manganese, copper and chrome. Out of them manganese and chrome are capable to concentrate in water inhabitants. It is recommended to include these metals into the list of basin-specific ones. Systematic pollution of Lower Dnipro reservoirs by heavy metals is proven by their accumulation in bottom sediments. The highest concentrations of heavy metal is fixed in sediments of Dniprovsky water reservoir and their absolute concentrations are in 4-5 times higher than the contains of the relevant elements in other water reservoirs of the cascade. There is a possibility of secondary mobilization of cadmium, which belongs to priority substances and manganese in natural water layer in the process of molecular diffusion. Results of monitoring of surface waters and bottom sediments of Dnipro water reservoirs show absence of persistent chlorine organic compounds, included into Stockholm convention “On Persistent Organic Pollutants”. In upper and middle layers of bottom sediments, the contains of chlorine organic pesticides is by 2-5 orders lower than maximum admissible level. In Dniprovsky reservoir downstream Dnipro city, the presence of heptachlor is fixed at the level of MACs. In this basin, the level of pesticides use is not more than 1-2 kg/ha.

Pripyat river subbasin. In Pripyat subbasin there are 3 enterprises (Lutsk vodocanal, wastewater treatment of Slavuta town, Poninska cardboard factory, Poninka village Polonsky rayon) in total discharge 26 kg of nickel compounds, which belong to priority substances. The other metals, belonging to priority substances include manganese, copper and chrome. Out of them manganese and chrome are capable to concentrate in water inhabitants. High level of pesticides use, which is over 3 kg/ha in the subbasin is fixed in Teofipolsky rayon of Khmelnitsky oblast and Turiyvsky rayon of Volyn oblast. 19

2.1.4 Hydromorphological alterations

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. More than half of SWBs are heavily modified. Out of them 58% of SWBs are hydromorphologically altered; 27% of SWBs have impoundments and artificial structures and 15% SWBs have impoundments and artificial structures and are hydromorphologically altered (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Types of heavily modified WBs Right side tributaries of Snov are significantly altered– 70% of SWBs (21 out 30) are pHMWBs; impoundment - 2 SWBs, hydromorphological alterations – 15 SWBs, impoundment + hydromorphological alterations – 4 SWBs. It is worth to mention Oster river basin, where 9 out of 10 SWBs are hydromorphologically altered. 62% of rivers of Bereza basin are also hydromorphologically altered: 7 out 13 SWBs are straightened, 1 SWB – straightening and impoundment. Out of 142 rivers of the subbasins only 42 rivers (30%) are not hydromorphologically altered.

Middle Dnipro subbasin. As it was mentioned above, 40% SWBs are heavily modified (624 SWBs). Out of them 86% SWBs have impoundments and artificial structures, 6% SWBs have impoundments and artificial structures and are hydromorphologically altered; and 9% SWBs are hydromorphologically altered (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Types of heavily modified WBs

Most of pHMWBs are located at right bank of Middle Dnipro subbasin. Ros river basin is the most hydromorpholigically altered: 52% of SWBs (170 out 329) are pHMWBs; impoundment - 158 SWBs, hydromorphological alterations – 3 SWBs, both impoundment and hydromorphological alterations – 9 SWBs. One can mention Tysmin river basin where 46% of SWBs (37 out 81) are pHMWBs; impoundment - 30 SWBs, hydromorphological alterations – 4 SWBs, both impoundment and hydromorphological alterations – 3 SWBs. Out of 506 rivers of the subbasin 201 rivers (40%) are not hydromorphologically altered.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. 47% SWBs are heavily modified (453 SWBs). Out of them 83% SWBs have impoundments and artificial structures, 11% SWBs have impoundments and artificial structures and are hydromorphologically altered; and 5% SWBs are hydromorphologically altered and 0,4% are under hydropeaking (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Types of heavily modified WBs Most of pHMWBs are located at right bank of Lower Dnipro subbasin. The following river basins are the most hydromorphologically altered: Vysun - 50% of SWBs (24 out 48) are pHMWBs because of impoundment. Kamyanka river (right side tributary of Dnipro) - 60% of SWBs (26 out 43) are pHMWBs; Mokri Yaly river- 76% of SWBs (19 out 25) are pHMWBs. Lower Dnipro subbasin is the only subbasin out of five ones, where 2 SWBs were delineated as pHMWBs because of hydropeaking. Out of 243 rivers of the subbasin, only 28 rivers (11,5%) are not hydromorphologically altered.

Pripyat river subbasin. more than half of SWBs are heavily modified (518 SWBs). Out of them 119 SWBs have impoundments and artificial structures, 93 SWBs have impoundments and artificial structures and are hydromorphologically altered; and 304 SWBs are hydromorphologically altered (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Types of heavily modified WBs The following river basins are the most hydromorphologically altered: - Turya river: 64% of SWBs (25 out 39) are pHMWBs; impoundment - 2 SWBs, hydromorphological alterations – 23 SWBs; - Styr river: 71% of SWBs (106 out 149) are pHMWBs; impoundment - 13 SWBs, hydromorphological alterations – 66 SWBs, both impoundment and hydromorphological alterations – 27 SWBs; - Goryn river: 41% of SWBs (191 out 486) are pHMWBs; impoundment - 78 SWBs, hydromorphological alterations – 77 SWBs, both impoundment and hydromorphological alterations – 36 SWBs. Out of 418 rivers of the subbasin only 104 rivers (25%) are not hydromorphologically altered.

2.2 Groundwaters

WATER QUALITY Water quality. Groundwaters are strategic source of drinking water. However, they alike surface waters are polluted by man-caused activities. Zero-head GWBs are under the highest pollution risk, as they are under the biggest pressure from human activities. On the contrary to zero-head SWBs, most of pressured GWBs have a water resistant cover, preventing entering point sources pollution.

GWBs are under the pressure of diffuse sources of pollution, including settlements, industry, agriculture (where pesticides and mineral fertilizers are used). As a results, zero-head GWBs are characterized almost everywhere by high contains of nitrogen compounds. Pollution from diffuse sources of pollution is concentrated in the upper part of soil, so they do not affect the pressured GWBs.

WATER QUANTITY Zero-head GWBs (except in wetland quarterly deposits) are used for individual consumption in rural settlements, pressured GWBs – for central water supply.

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. There are a lot of prognosed resources of groundwater at the territory of the subbasins: Sumy oblast - 3 432, Chernigiv – 8 326, Kyiv – 4 185 thousands 22

m3/day. Current level of their use is in Sumy oblast - 2,7%, Chernigiv – 1,3%, Kyiv – 5%. Such a low level of use of groundwater explains why there is no risk of their depletion and visa versa allows increasing significantly the volume of their extraction.

Middle Dnipro subbasin. The biggest share of prognosed resources of groundwater at the territory of the subbasin is located in Dnipro-Donetsk artesian basin. The groundwater resources of Vinnitsa oblast is 885,5, Dnipropetrovsk – 1092,6, Donetsk – 495,9, Zhytomyr – 628,6, Kyiv – 4 185,9, Kyrovograd – 212,1, Poltava – 4288,9, Sumy – 3432,2, Kharkiv – 1018,2, Cherkasy – 1523,8, Chernigiv – 8326,7 thousands m3/day accordingly.

Taking into account the current economic state of the country, current level of groundwater use is higher in administrative oblasts with significant economic potential and makes in Vinnistya oblast - 7,6%, Dnipropetrovsk – 12,1%, Donetsk – 26,5%, Zhytomyr – 9,6%, Kyiv – 5%, Kyrovograd – 6,6%, Poltava – 2,4%, Sumy – 2,6%, Kharkiv – 1,0%, Cherkasy – 4,7%, Chernigiv – 1,3%. Taking this into account there is almost no risk of their depletion and visa versa allows increasing significantly the volume of their extraction.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. The biggest share of prognosed resources of groundwater at the territory of the subbasin is located in Dnipro-Donetsk and the Black Sea artesian basins. Hydrogeological area of Ukrainian shield and Donetsk folded area have less amount of groundwaters. According to this, the groundwater resources of Dnipropetrovsk oblast is 1092,6, Donetsk – 495,9, Kherson – 2312,6, Zaporizhyzhya – 641,1, Kyrovograd – 212,1, Mykolaiv – 120,4 thousands m3/day accordingly. Taking into account the current economic state of the country, current level of groundwater use is higher in administrative oblasts with significant economic potential and makes in Donetsk – 26,5%, Dnipropetrovsk – 12,1%, Kherson – 9,2%, Kyrovograd – 6,6%, Zaporizhyzhya – 5,9%, Mykolaiv – 5,1%. Taking this into account there is almost no risk of their depletion and visa versa allows increasing significantly the volume of their extraction.

Pripyat subbasin. The biggest share of prognosed resources of groundwater at the territory of the subbasin is located in Volyn-Podilsk and Dnipro-Donetsk artesian basins. The resources of Volyn oblast is 3 432, Rivne – 3602,5, Kyiv – 4 185 thousands m3/day. Lviv, Khmelnitsky, Ternopil oblasts have less groundwater – 448,0, 860,4, 349,04 thousands m3/day accordingly. At the area of hydrogeological share of Ukrainian shield, there is less amount of prognosed resources of groundwaters: Zhytomyr oblast – 628,6 thousands m3/day. Taking into account the current economic state of the country, current level of their use is in Volyn oblast - 5,4%, Rivne – 2,7%, Kyiv – 5%, Lviv – 1,7%, Khmelnitsk – 10,1%, Ternopil – 1,4%, Zhytomyr – 9,6%. Such a low level of use of groundwater explains why there is no risk of their depletion and visa versa allows increasing significantly the volume of their extraction.

3. Risk assessment of the failure to achieve good ecological and chemical statuses

3.1 Surface waters

Risk assessment for point sources is done using two criteria: organic and nutrient pollution was assessed using index «Share of polluted wastewaters», for hazardous waters - «Indicator of wastewaters». Risk assessment for diffuse sources is done using the criterion “Balance in soil”, which allows assessing the impact of harvesting and index “Share of animal husbandry», which reflects the impact of cattle breeding.

In order to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status, results of risk assessment for point, diffuse sources and hydromorhological alterations are united. The final assessment of ecological status is done by the worst parameter. Because of very limited input data, risk assessment of failing to achieve good chemical status for SWBs was done based on expert judgement.

Upper Dnipro and Desna subbasins. Results show that 21 SWBs or 7% from the total number are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status because of point sources. Pollution of vast majority of SWBs are caused by municipal wastewaters. Results show that 13% from the total number of SWBs are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status because of diffuse sources of pollution, 27% are possibly at risk. Risks of water pollution are caused by plant growing, whereas the impact of cattle breeding is minimal. The general assessment of risk of failing to achieve good ecological status by SWBs is presented at Figure 18, and its space description – at Figure 19.

Figure 18. Final risk assessment of failing to achieve good ecological status, SWBs, %

Figure 19. Map of the risk of failure to achieve good ecological status by SWBs

Taking into account natural conditions, which favor decrease of toxicity and large buffer capacity of waters, one can say that there is no risk of toxic impact of hazardous substances for SWBs. Middle Dnipro subbasin. Results show that 72 SWBs or 4,6% from the total number are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status because of point sources. Pollution of vast majority of SWBs are caused by municipal wastewaters. Results show that 30% from the total number of SWBs are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status because of diffuse sources of pollution, 14% are possibly at risk. Risks of water pollution are caused by plant growing, whereas the impact of cattle breeding is minimal. The general assessment of risk of failing to achieve good ecological status by SWBs is presented at Figure 20, and its space description – at Figure 21.

Figure 20. Final risk assessment of failing to achieve good ecological status, SWBs, %

Figure 21. Map of the risk of failure to achieve good ecological status by SWBs Taking into account natural conditions, which favor decrease of toxicity and large buffer capacity of waters, one can say that there is no risk of toxic impact of hazardous substances for SWBs. There is a risk of failure to achieve good chemical status for 5 SWBs (0,3%) because of discharge of nickel and other heavy metals as a part of wastewaters. Preconditions are established for possible risk of pollution from washing out of pesticides in river basins of Sula, Samotkan, Sykhyy Tashlyk. Lower Dnipro subbasin. Results show that 50 SWBs or 6% from the total number are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status because of point sources. Pollution of vast majority of SWBs are caused by municipal wastewaters. Results show that 37% from the total number of SWBs are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status because of diffuse sources of pollution, 51% are possibly at risk. Risks of water pollution are caused by plant growing, whereas the impact of cattle breeding is minimal. The general assessment of risk of failing to achieve good ecological status by SWBs is presented at Figure 22, and its space description – at Figure 23.

Figure 22. Final risk assessment of failing to achieve good ecological status, SWBs, %

Figure 23. Map of the risk of failure to achieve good ecological status by SWBs Taking into account natural conditions, which favor decrease of toxicity and large buffer capacity of waters, one can say that there is no risk of toxic impact of hazardous substances for SWBs. There is a risk of failure to achieve good chemical status for 12 SWBs (0,8%) because of discharge of nickel and other heavy metals as a part of wastewaters.

Preconditions are established for possible risk of pollution from washing out of pesticides in canal Dnipro – Kryvyy Rig.

Pripyat subbasin. Results show that 48 SWBs or 5% from the total number are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status because of point sources. Pollution of vast majority of SWBs are caused by municipal wastewaters. Results show that 30% from the total number of SWBs are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status because of diffuse sources of pollution, 14% are possibly at risk. Risks of water pollution are caused by plant growing, whereas the impact of cattle breeding is minimal. The general assessment of risk of failing to achieve good ecological status by SWBs is presented at Figure 24, and its space description – at Figure 25.

Figure 24. Final risk assessment of failing to achieve good ecological status, SWBs, %

Figure 25. Map of the risk of failure to achieve good ecological status by SWBs

Taking into account natural conditions, which favor decrease of toxicity and large buffer capacity of waters, one can say that there is no risk of toxic impact of hazardous substances for SWBs. Discharge of nickel, which is in priority substances list with wastewaters of the three enterprises does not cause risk of pollution of the SWBs because of effective dilution. There is a risk of failure to achieve good chemical status for Ustya river, where Lutsk discharges its wastewaters. High percentage of pesticides use in Teophipolsky rayon of Khmelnitsky Oblast and Turivsky rayon of Volyn Oblasts creates preconditions for relevant 22 SWBs (2%) to be at risk.

3.2 Groundwaters

RISK OF FAILURE TO ACHIEVE GOOD QUANTITATIVE STATUS

Dynamics of groundwater extraction during the last decades from pressured GWBs has decrease trend. This allows expecting no risk of deterioration of quantitative parameters of GWBs, used for water supply. This is supported also by the general trend to insignificant reduction of population number. Taking about zero-head GWBs, there are no data on groundwater extraction, because those horizons are used by diffuse private water users, extracting water in small amounts, therefore risk of deterioration of quantitative parameters for these horizons is insignificant. At present use of groundwaters at the catchment of Middle Dnipro is 7.2%, catchment of Lower Dnipro – 10.9%, Pripyat subbasin – 5.1% of their prognosed resources.

RISK OF FAILURE TO ACHIEVE GOOD CHEMICAL STATUS From one side, following optimistic scenario of economic development, one can expect industrial growth and increase of man pressure at environment, including groundwaters. From other side, there is hope that industrial development will be based on the sustainability principles, so production will use less resources and comply with stricter ecological standards comparing to the current ones. So, one should not expect significant increase of man pressure at groundwaters. Regarding diffuse sources, the situation is different. Significant demand for food at world market supports permanent growth of agricultural production. This leads to increased use of fertilizers and means of chemical protection. As far as pressured GWBs are protected from surface impact, unprotected zero-head GWBs will face diffuse pollution. Middle Dnipro subbasin Having assessed chemical status of groundwaters, it is worth to mention that both pressured and zero-head GWBs in the southern part of the subbasin sometimes contain water with naturally high mineralization, which exceeds standards in 1 gr/dm3, requiring water preparation.

Lower Dnipro subbasin Having assessed chemical status of groundwaters, it is worth to mention that both pressured and zero-head GWBs in the southern part of the subbasin sometimes contain water with naturally high mineralization, which exceeds standards in 1 gr/dm3, requiring water preparation.

4. Protected areas

Protected areas are the areas, which require a special protection according to the existing national legislation depending of their use. Monitoring of such areas is done according to a special program (for e.g. drinking water intakes require additional monitoring of microbiological parameters. Out of five categories of protected areas three ones are delineated for the subbasins (Figure 8): - Emerald sites; - Drinking water intakes (zones of sanitary protection); 29

- SWBs / GWBs used for recreational, medical, recreational and rehabilitation goals as well bathing waters. Nitrates vulnerable zones will be delineated after adoption of the relevant national legislation. Fish protected areas and shellfish protected areas do not play a significant role in national economy and are not delineated, therefore it should be done in the next RBM cycle.

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. Protected area cover more than half of the area of the subbasins (53%), which is the highest percentage for Dnipro subbasins (Figure 26). In total there are 142 protected areas, out of them 25 Emerald sites, 80 drinking water intakes and 37 officially designated recreational zones.

Figure 26. Share of different protected areas categories

Middle Dnipro subbasin. Protected areas cover 18% of the area of the subbasin. In total 1189 protected areas are delineated; among them 38 Emerald sites, 925 drinking water intakes and 226 officially registered recreational sites (Figure 27).

Figure 27. Share of different protected areas categories

Lower Dnipro subbasin. Protected areas cover 15% of the area of the subbasin. In total 899 protected areas are delineated; among them 21 Emerald sites, 832 drinking water intakes and 46 officially registered recreational sites (Figure 28). 30

Figure 28. Share of different protected areas categories

Pripyat river subbasin. Protected area cover 33% of the area of the subbasin. In total 1172 protected areas are delineated; among them 33 Emerald sites, 1027 -drinking water intakes and 112 officially registered recreational sites (Figure 29).

Figure 29. Share of different protected areas categories

In total, there are 3 402 protected areas. Out of them 117 – Emerald sites, areas of sanitary protection - 2 864 and officially designated recreational zones – 421.

5. Water monitoring

State water monitoring is aimed to collect, process, generalize and analyze the data about the water bodies status, to prognose the trends in their change and to develop scientifically grounded recommendations for sound decision-making in the field of water use, protection and restoration. Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 19 September 2018 № 758 adopts a new order of the implementation of state water monitoring as it is done in the EU. The Order clearly distributes responsibilities between monitoring agents to avoid duplication; it states new monitoring parameters, which were absent in Ukraine before.

5.1 Surface waters

State monitoring program for surface waters include biological, hydromorphological (to be implemented by the State Agency of Emergency Situations (SAES)), priority and basin specific chemical parameters (to be implemented by SAWR) and physical-chemical parameters (to be implemented by SAES and SAWR at drinking water intakes. Three types of monitoring - surveillance, operational, and investigative monitoring should be implemented according to basin principle. New system of water monitoring envisages 6-year cycle of monitoring and classification by five classes of ecological status and 2 classes of chemical status. In order to implement state water monitoring, relevant state water monitoring programs are developed. At present, surveillance monitoring program for the Dnipro basin is under development and starts to be implemented in 2021. It will cover the SWBs at risk of failure to achieve good ecological and chemical statuses; at reference conditions, located within protected areas (especially at drinking water intakes) and transboundary ones. According to the new requirements SAWR at present transforms existing monitoring system to distribute monitoring functions between existing laboratories and in order to avoid duplication. In order to monitor priority substances, it equips 4 key laboratories. Water samples analysis for subbasins of Upper Dnipro and Desna, Pripyat and Middle Dnipro will be done by the laboratory of Northern region (Vyzhgorod, Kyiv Oblast). Water samples analysis for subbasins of Lower Dnipro will be done by the laboratory of Eastern region (Slovyansk, Donetsk Oblast). Obtained results will be uploaded at the web-site “Monitoring and ecological assessment of water resources of Ukraine”.

5.2 Groundwaters

State groundwater monitoring program envisages monitoring of their quantitative, chemical and physical-chemical parameters. Quantitative and chemical monitoring is done at the same monitoring stations (mainly wells). Groundwater monitoring system envisages 6-year monitoring cycle and classification by the two classes of chemical status. Surveillance monitoring program for groundwater of Dnipro basin is under development and starts to be implemented in 2021. At present the number of monitoring stations in the state groundwater monitoring network at the area of the Dnipro subbasins is decreased. According to the Order of implementation of state water monitoring, State Agency of Geology and Ores (SAGO) is responsible for development and optimization of existing groundwater monitoring system. It is envisaged that groundwater quality analysis for the Dnipro subbasins will be implemented by Central laboratory of Ukrainian geological company (Kyiv).

Upper Dnipro and Desna river subbasins. Monitoring network includes 13 wells: 6 – at zero-head groundwaters and 7 – at pressured waters. it is planned to add 18 monitoring stations – 5 wells at zero-head wells and 13 bores at pressured SWBs. Middle Dnipro subbasin. Monitoring network includes 56 wells only: 27 – at zero-head groundwaters and 29 – at pressured groundwaters. it is planned to add 79 monitoring stations, out

of them for zero-head GWBs – 13 monitoring stations (8 bores, 4 wells and 1 monitoring station for wetland GWB and 23 bores at pressured GWBs.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. Monitoring network includes 68 wells only: 20 – at zero-head groundwaters and 48 – at pressured groundwaters. It is planned to add 33 bores, including 5 - for zero-head GWBs and 28 –for pressured GWBs.

Pripyat river subbasin. Monitoring network includes 19 wells only: 9 – at zero-head groundwaters and 10 – at pressured groundwaters. It is planned to add 41 monitoring stations – 1 bore for zero- head GWB, 12 wells to monitor wetland GWBs and 23 bores at pressured GWBs.

6. Economic analysis

The goal of economic analysis of water use is to show economic development of the river basin, including the assessment of modern water use and to assess the level of cost recovery for different sectors of economy following the polluter pays principle. Dnipro basin is located within 19 oblasts, which differ significantly in terms of level of urbanization, industrial development and structure of agriculture. Assessment of the importance of water use in the Dnipro basin (48,8% of the country area) for the national economy and society is as follows: water use from Dnipro makes 75% of total volume of used water in Ukraine; the majority of water is used by industry – 46%, agriculture – 18%, housing and communal services – 10%; the main polluters include housing and communal sector, industry, agriculture; the volume of gross regional product in the Dnipro basin makes 64% of GDP of the country; share of employed in economy sector in Dnipro basin makes around 50% of all employed in the country; the champions in water use by sectors are housing and communal sector, energy production, industry and agriculture.

Figure 30. Rent fees for special water use and tax income for pollutant discharges

In total, there are 6 137 enterprises in the Dnipro basin, which reports for water use, 1 291 out of them are housing and communal sector. In total, the amounts of received rent payment for special water use (55% of which goes to state budget, the rest - 45% - to local budgets) and tax incomes for pollutants discharges directly to water bodies (45% goes to state budget, the rest - 55% - to local

budgets) in 2010-2018 have been increased in 1,5 times in Ukraine (Figure 9). In the same time, the total capital investments into wastewater treatment, soil rehabilitation, restoration of surface and groundwaters has been increased almost in three times. Calculated level of cost recovery of capital investments by these fiscal payments (rent payment for water and ecological tax) in 2018 was at the level of 45%.

Recently tariffs for water supply and water use by oblasts in the Dnipro basin are increased annually by 16-22%. However, population, budget organizations and other water users mainly cover the costs for central water supply and use (cost recovery coefficients are at the level of 90-120%). However, the cost recovery coefficients for the following category of water users – water supply and water use agents (water supply and treatment enterprises (vodocanals) and other) were at the level of 40- 60%. In the same time, tariffs for the above mentioned category are 1,5-3 times less than the ones for population, budget organizations and other water users.

Upper Dnipro and Desna subbasins. The level of rent payment within Chernigiv oblast is 2,9% from the total amount for the basin, within Sumy oblast – 1,5%. In Chernigiv and Sumy oblasts the volumes of tax incomes are at the level of 6-8 % from the total amount of all tax incomes in the Dnipro basin. Average weighted tariffs for water users, who are not economic agents in Chernigiv oblast are at the average level comparing with other oblasts (8,60 UAH for m3 of water supply and 8,41 UAH for water discharge), in Sumy oblast they are one of the lowest in the basin (7,13 and 6,15 UAH accordingly).

Middle Dnipro subbasin. The level of rent payment in Kyiv, Cherkasy and Poltava oblasts is the highest and makes 12,5%, 6,5% and 4,1% from the total amount for the basin. Besides, in Kyiv and Poltava oblasts, the amount of tax incomes for discharges are the highest comparing with other oblasts of the basin and are at the level of 8-9% of their total amount in the Dnipro basin. Average weighted tariffs for water users, who are not economic agents in Kyrovograd and Kharkiv oblasts are the highest comparing with other oblasts (11,20 UAH for m3 of water supply and 9,61 UAH for water discharge, 10,21 UAH and 5,22 UAH accordingly). In Zhytomyr and Vinnistya oblasts such tariffs are ones of the lowest in the basin (6,99 UAH and 7,88 UAH; 7,82 UAH and 4,75 UAH accordingly). The rest of oblasts (Kyiv, Poltava and Cherkassy) are at the average level.

Lower Dnipro subbasin. The level of rent payment for special water use in Zaporizhyzhya, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk oblasts is one of the highest and makes 22,4%, 13,4% and 6,5% from the total amount for the basin. In Mykolaiv and Donetsk oblasts, the amount of tax incomes for discharges are ones of the lowest comparing with other oblasts of the basin and are at the level of 2-3% of their total amount in the Dnipro basin. Kherson and Zaporizhyzhya oblasts get around 405 mln UAH, the leadership is with Dnipropetrovsk oblast – 6-7 mln annually. Average weighted tariffs for water users, who are not economic agents in Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhyzhya oblasts are at low or average level (7,15 UAH for m3 of water supply and 6,88 UAH for water discharge, 7,45 UAH and 7,39 UAH, 8,91 UAH and 4,75 UAH, 8,64 UAH and 6,02 UAH accordingly), whereas the Donetsk oblast these tariffs are one of the highest among the other oblasts in the basin (11,58 UAH and 7,83 UAH per 1 m3 accordingly). 34

Pripyat subbasin. The level of rent payment in Ternopil, Lviv and Volyn oblasts is the lowest and makes 0,3%, 0,8% and 0,9% from the total amount for the basin. It is a bit higher in Khmelnitsky, Zhytomyr and Rivne oblasts – 2,2%, 2,4% and 4,2% accordingly. The volumes of tax incomes are at the level of 4-6 % from the total amount of all tax incomes in the Dnipro basin in Volyn and Rivne oblasts and at the level of 8% in Zhytomyr oblast. Average weighted tariffs for water users, who are not economic agents in one third of oblasts are at the lowest level comparing with other oblasts (namely Volyn, Ternopil, Zhytomyr: 5,64 UAH for m3 of water supply and 5,88 UAH for water discharge, 5,69 UAH and 7,51 UAH, 6,99 UAH and 7,88 UAH accordingly). The rest of oblasts are at the average level – from 7,43 UAH to 9,26 UAH for 1 m3 for water supply and from 4,69 UAH to 9,64 UAH for 1 m3 for water discharge.