Generating momentum on water and forests in the Balkans

Alen Kish, Institute for Nature Conservation of Province,

Regional webinar, November 18-19, 2020 Ecosystem services / Nature’s contributions to people

UN MEA (2005) Ecosystem services: Conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life (Daily, 1997).

Ecosystem services are all material and non-material benefits that humans receive from nature • . Strongly depends on ecosystem functionality Forestry sector is the first which introduced

„Forest functions“, - Enviromental, - Economical and - Social

New concept is adaptable to broader public and diff. ecosystems Ecological integrity of water course and alluvium Clasification and usage

Ecosystem services are all material and non- material benefits that humans receive from nature. Ecosystem achieves its maximum and balanced provision of ecosystem services only in an optimal, natural or close-to-natural state.

The more transformed from its original shape, the more unbalanced and dependent on human interventions to compensate the loss of functions.

Why to make assessment of ES from an area? - policy impact, management partnerships (harmonisation of interests), fundraising. Example from Lowland Forestry Hidrographical position and vegetation

Increased water fluctiuations ’Fragile habitats’

Pessimum

Arable, Settlements Levee Natural fluctuations Pessimum

Before river regulations, oscilations < 2 m! After regulations up to 8m! Example of river training in lowlands

Global practice from XIX c.

Practice from 1980`s in Western Europe: flood prevention, nature conservation Forestry and Water management in the SEE Europe

Relation between forestry & water management is characterized by:

• Absence of dialog, • Obligation of forestry sector for paying drainage tax, • Inappropriate management of protective forests by water sector, forests delimitation problem between forestry and water sector, • disturbance of natural regimes of underground water by hydromeliorative activities and barrage construction with harmful impacts on forest ecosystems, • Lack of understanding water sector for mutual planning of infrastructural facilities (roads and bridges) of interests for forestry and water sector, • Disrespect of needs and interests of forest in water regime regulation and protection of water course and water accumulations, • Incompatibilities of Law on Forests and Law on Waters, as well as legal right of water sector for incompetent reviewing of forest management plans.

Cited from: Zingstra, H.L. & Kitnaes, K. (2012): Strengthening Regional Cooperation / Networking in the Forestry and Water Management Sector and Sustainable Development in the River Basins of the South-Eastern European Countries EU Policy integration

Source: EEA Law on Waters (Off. Gaz. Of RS, 2010): - Art 110: Protected areas “(5) areas intended for the protection of habitats or species where an important element of their protection is the maintenance or improvement of water status.“ - Protected areas should have dedicated water mangemnt plans - Yet to be implemented Integrated Water Resources Management is a cross-sectoral policy approach, designed to replace the traditional, fragmented sectoral approach to water resources and management that has led to poor services and unsustainable resource use. IWRM is based on the understanding that water resources are an integral component of the ecosystem, a natural resource, and a social and economic good. What is an EU Directive? Water Framework Directive & Forestry?

Directives are the most common form of EU legal act. It sets out an objective to be achieved, left to the individual countries to achieve this objective however they best see fit. It is obligatory.

It is a misunderstanding that the Water Framework Directives deals only with water management. The WFD is about the integrated management of Land & Water: what is happening on land impacts water and what is happening with water impacts land management (incl. forest management).

Article 1 (a) WFD: protection and enhancement of the status of aquatic ecosystems and with regard to their water needs and protection of terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on them.

Financial mechanism (RDP) and penalties (infringement procedure)

"Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy" Case study: Advocating ESAV in Forest Area Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in natural resource management

Open Regional Fund for South-East Europe - BIODIVERSITY (ORF BD) Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation (ESAV) in Future Course of Action in South-East Europe Region Why Bosut Forest?

1) Ecological, Economic and Social importance: Largest complex of alluvial oak-ash-hornbeam hardwood forests in SE Europe of extraordinary national an international conservation importance (IBA, 22 priority NATURA 2000 habitats), forestry and rural development. 2) Deteriorating: conservation status, forest vitality, flood safety! 3) Huge potentials for value-added from integrated management 4) To advocate the integrated management, impact the narrow policy! English oak is key species! 2012 2014

About 90% is disconnected from floodplain by dyke in 1930`s - Devitalized (higrophilous) forests - Deteriorating conservation status - Insuficient capacities for flood protection

(B&H) Stakeholders and their relations

Stakeholders mapping – example

I, II,III – importance levels - positive - negative - mutual hunting III academia II I forestry agriculture tourism locals water nature conservation

civil fishing societies

(from: ESAV Regional Guidelines; Stojnić et al., 2020; ESAV Case study Bosut Forest; Kiš et al, 2020) Stakeholder matrix

Stakeholder Position Interests/Needs Power Influence

Environmental National governance Protection of the natural values in Supervising PA Directing PA management in Protection Bosut Forest according to national management, developing a certain way on national commitments; sustainable, climate- subsidy program for level. smart management of the natural activities in PA, lobbying resources and governance support. Selection of ES

To addres the key stakeholders (managing the area, ecological processes and functionality):

➢ Water management ➢ Forestry ➢ Nature conservation ➢ Forest farming

Large herbivors are key species of the ecosystem! Regulate the vegetation - by grazing and trampling - providing micro-habitats - and food resources for other animals

In 1862 there was kept in the forest : From 2019 after long decline in farming „97 939 cattle and sheep and at least the same number of pigs” the ’pannage’ is forbidden! ES Tradeoffs and synergies

Divided where necessary

ES

timber timber

habitat

interior

farming

technical

retention retention

resilience

biological

stability&

regulation

traditional traditional production

(affected by the core habitat water quality quality water columns) high diversity (affecting the rows) Habitat high diversity / 1 1 2 1 2/-2 2/-2 1/-2 1/-2 maintenance interior habitat 1 / 1 2 0 1/-1 1/-1 1/-2 1/-2 core habitat 2 1 / 2 0 2/-2 2/-2 0 0 stability& resilience 2 2 2 / 2 2/-2 2/-2 2/-2 2/-2 Water quality water quality1 0 0 1 / 2 2 1 0 regulation regulation Flood attenuation technical retention 1 0 0 1 2 / 1 2/-2 2/-2 biological retention 1 0 0 2/-2 2 1 / 2/-2 2/-2 Food (meat) traditional farming 2/-2 1/-1 0 2/-2 1/-1 1/-1 0 / 1/-2 production Timber production oak timber1/-2 1/-2 0/-1 2/-2 0/-1 1/-1 1/-1 1/-2 / production

From ESAV Case study Bosut Forest (Kiš et al. 2020) Communication Billateral meetings with water management and forest management sectors, as well as traditional farmers

Two round tables: „World Caffee“: stakeholders ranked Methods in ES assesment

Quantitative and qualitative valuation in two scenarios: А - Business as usual (narrow sectoral planning) B – Integrated land use (Forestry & controlled water retention & Traditional farming)

Parameters: - Biodiversity indicators (selected species and habitats) - Forest health and timber quality - Risk and cost of flood management - Traditional farming (meat value and other benefits)

Data sources: Habitat mapping, Interviews, stakeholder roundtables, data-set provided by forest manager and water manager, previous projects, conservation study. Results: Timber production

What would be benefit of the optimized water suply in timber production? • In sanitation cuttings forestry losses 95 to 64% of timber value • Savings in optimized water supply: 30 – 50% (H20= key ecological factor)

Added values of “ B“ scenario

1 m3 of health oak timber worth from 300 € to 1.000 €, Dead-wood from sanitation less then 100 € Results: Traditional extensive farming (meat/habitat)

Meat production Fooder saving (compared to convetional): 50% (acorn, mussel, worms..) Increased capacity : 5-7 times ( pig number) without overgrazing Combined benefit: 10 to 14 times the actual Added Value: 500.000–700.000 €/year

Habitat maintenance (alternative cost): Mulching/Mowing: 500 - 700 ha X 100 €/ha = 50.000–70.000 €/year

(Law on Nature Protection, Decree on Ecological-network, Rulings on priority habitat types

Do not forget, we are in lowland-flatland, no steep erodible slopes! Results: Flood control

avoided cost

Temporal Water Retention in the forest might store the flood wave of 200 mill m3 in average height of 2 m (forest tolerance) at 10.000 ha. Twice the estimated water wave which flooded several vilages in & Serbia in 2014. Costs (Source: Watermanagemnet authorities) Value (RSD/Eur)

The implementation of the flood defense is on line I 300.000.000 line of defense Rehabilitation after the flood defense in 2014. 131.000.000 Total costs (Flood defence 2014 ) 431.000.000 rsd / 3,65 mil € (only costs of unexpected water management during and after the flood) Results: EU habitats and species*

Scenario А Advantage of Scenario B Advantage with regard to: habitat 3130 C B - conservation status < 30 ha 65-200 ha - habitat area habitat 3150 C B - conservation status < 10 ha 200-600 ha - habitat area habitat 3260 C A - conservation status < 2 m2 6-30 ha - habitat area habitat *91Е0 C В - conservation status habitat 91F0 C А - conservation status habitat 9160 В А - conservation status three-stamen waterwort C B - conservation status (Elatine triandra) (Lindernia palustris) C B - conservation status four-leaf clover (Marsilea C B - conservation status quadrifolia) water violet (Hottonia C B - conservation status palustris) water soldiers (Stratiotes C B - conservation status aloides) Debreceni horseradish C B - conservation status (Armoracia macrocarpa) summer snowflake B A - conservation status (Leucoium aestivum) narrow-leafed ash C В - conservation status (Fraxinus angustifolia) common oak (Quercus C А - conser vation status robur)

* Species of community concern (EU funds are available) Results: EU habitats and species

Scenario А Advantage of Scenario B Advantage with regard to: Plankton 100% - increase of area/volume great capricorn beetle B A - conservation status (Cerambyx cerdo) large copper (Lycaena B B - conservation status dispar) carp (Cyprinus carpio) C A - conservation status European bitterling C A - conservation status (Rhodeus amarus) crested newt C B - conservation status (Triturus dobrogicus) European fire-bellied toad C B - conservation status (Bombina bombina) European pond turtle C B - conservation status (Emys orbicularis): white-tailed eagle 6 - 7 10 – 15 - increase in nesting (Hаliаееtus аlbicillа) couples black stork (Cicоniа nigrа) 6 - 8 20 – 25 - increase in nesting couples collard flycatcher 700 – 1.100 2.000 – 28.000 - increase in nesting (Ficеdulа аlbicоllis) couples Eurasian otter (Lutra B B - conservation status lutra) Communication

Infographic billboards in 5 surrounding villages Post-project outreach

Radio and Television: • Filmed on-site reportage for TV Deutsche Welle • Filmed on-site reportage for TV Al Jazeera Balkans • Filmed on-site documentary for National Serbian TV (RTS), and interview on regional – Vojvodina Radio Television (RTV) • Presentation and video link during regional GIZ ESAV Conference

Plus: scientific conferences, online news, networking...

Results: Highly ranked GIZ project in by web hints! Project follow-ups Lessons Learned: -Floodplain restoration (key habitats & species) can be compatible with higher provision of the ecosystem services essential to forestry, flood control and local communities. -Floodplain restoration calls for multisectoral approach linked to the integrated land management in EU. (WFD + FD + Natura2000 + ...) Data sources:

Regional guidelines on ecosystem services assessment and valuation (ESAV) in processes of establishing (PAE) and managing (PAM) of protected areas in Western Balkans, (Stojnić, N., Kiš, A., Atanasovska, K., Bećirović, Dž., Lazić, M., Pokrajac, S., Selmani, J., Pavkov, S., Puzović, S., Pil, N., Bošnjak, T., Tucakov, M., Sabadoš, K., Emerton,L.), INCVP in support of GIZ and ORF BDU & BMZ. Novi Sad, Tirana, Belgrade, Sarajevo, Priština, Skopje, Banja Luka, Podgorica 2020

Case Study BOSUT FOREST piloting of the Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation Regional (Western Balkans) Guidelines Step by step implementation of ecosystem services assessment and valuation (ESAV) towards establishing and managing protected area (PAE and PAM) (Kiš, A., Stojnić, N., Pavkov, S., Sabadoš, K., Bošnjak, T., Puzović, S., Pil, N., Tucakov, M., Emerton, L.). INCVP in support of GIZ and ORF BDU & BMZ, 2020.

Follow up (ongoing): SavaParks II: Freedom for . EuroNature & Zeleni Prsten: Feasibility study for floodplain restoration Bosut – Spačva (transnational pilot) E.C.O. Austria.