Ecosystem Services and Hydropower: Pilot Application of European Tools in the River Basin of the Eap Countries

Ecosystem services and hydropower: pilot application of European tools in the river basin of the EaP countries

Re-granting Project 2020 Working group 3 Ecosystem services and hydropower: pilot application of European tools in the river basin of the EaP countries

Policy paper

Chisinau • Eco-TIRAS 2021 Descrierea CIP a Camerei Naționale a Cărții

Ecosystem services and hydropower: pilot application of European tools in the river basin of the EaP countries: Policy paper / compiled by: Ruslan Havryliuk, Olga Cazanteva, Ilya Trombitsky [et al.]. – Chişinău: Eco-TIRAS, 2021 (Tipogr. “Arconteh”). – 68 p. Referinţe bibliogr.: p. 65-68. – Produced with the ﬁnancial support of the European Union. – 600 ex. ISBN 978-9975-3404-8-9. 574.5 E 15

POLICY PAPER Compiled by: Ruslan Havryliuk, National Ecological Center of Ukraine Olga Cazanteva, International Association of River Keepers “Eco-TIRAS”, Moldova Ilya Trombitsky, International Association of River Keepers “Eco-TIRAS”, Moldova Aram Gabrielian, “KHAZER” Ecological and Cultural NGO, Armenia Elchin Sultanov, Azerbaijan Ornithological Society, Azerbaijan Oksana Stankevych-Volosianchuk, NGO “Ecosphere”, Ukraine Sergiy Savchenko, National Ecological Center of Ukraine

ABSTRACT The policy paper “Ecosystem services and hydropower: pilot application of European tools in the river basins of the EaP countries” presents an overview of the European experience of mapping and assessment of ecosystem and their services, in particular the current typology of ecosystems and ecosystem services, mapping tools and assessment methods. On the example of pilot river basins of the Eastern Partnership countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Ukraine, a pilot application of tools for mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services to determine their value and loss under the inﬂuence of hydropower was performed. Recommendations for the implementation of mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in the procedures of Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment to take into account the integrated impact of hydropower programs and projects. Thіs publication was produced within the framework of the project “Ecosystem services and hydropower: pilot application of European tools in the river basins of the EaP countries”, implemented by the International Association of River Keepers “Eco-TIRAS” together with the National Ecological Center of Ukraine, “KHAZER” Ecological and Cultural NGO (Armenia), Azerbaijan Ornithological Society and NGO “Ecosphere” (Ukraine). The project beneﬁts from support through the EaP Civil Society Forum Re-granting Scheme (FSTP) and is funded by the European Union as part of its support to civil society in the region. Within its Re-granting Scheme, the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP CSF) supports projects of its members that contribute to achieving the mission and objectives of the Forum. Grants are available for CSOs from the Eastern Partnership and EU countries. Key areas of support are democracy and human rights, economic integration, environment and energy, contacts between people, social and labor policies.

This publication was produced with the ﬁnancial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole re- sponsibility of International Association of River Keepers “Eco-TIRAS” and its partners and do not necessarily re- ﬂects the views of the European Union.

Editarea și tiparul: SRL „ ARCONTEH” str. Transnistria, 4 © The Project emblem – Eﬁm Elitsa, Chisinau © Eco-TIRAS International Association of River Keepers 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... 5 Ecosystem Service Deﬁnitions ...... 6 Executive Summary ...... 8

1. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services ...... 11 1.1. A typology of ecosystems for mapping ...... 12 1.2. A typology of ecosystem services ...... 13 1.3. Mapping of ecosystem and ecosystem services ...... 16 1.4. Ecosystem service mapping tools ...... 17 1.5. A tiered approach to mapping and assessing ecosystem services ...... 17 1.6. Assessment framework for the ecosystem pilots ...... 18

2. Pilot application of European tools in the river basins of the Eastern Partnership countries ...... 20 2.1. Case studies for the Argichi River basin (Armenia) ...... 20 2.1.1. Characteristics of the pilot basin ...... 20 2.1.2. Hydropower in the basin ...... 21 2.1.3. Types of ecosystems and their conditions ...... 22 2.1.4. Mapping and valuation of ecosystems and their services ...... 23 2.2. Case studies for the Kura River basin (Azerbaijan) ...... 25 2.2.1. Characteristics of the pilot basin ...... 25 2.2.2. Hydropower in the Kura River basi ...... 27 2.2.3. Types of ecosystems and their conditions ...... 29 2.2.4. Mapping and valuation of ecosystems and their services ...... 30 2.3. Case studies for the Dniester River basin (Moldova) ...... 31 2.3.1. Characteristics of the pilot basin ...... 31 2.3.2. Hydropower in the basin ...... 32 2.3.3. Types of ecosystems and their conditions ...... 33 2.3.4. Mapping and valuation of ecosystems and their services ...... 36 2.4. Case studies for the Uzh River basin (Ukraine) ...... 40 2.4.1. Characteristics of the pilot basin ...... 40 2.4.2. Hydropower in the basin ...... 41 2.4.3. Types of ecosystems and their conditions ...... 44 4

2.4.4. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services ...... 44 2.4.5. Application of the InVEST tool for assessment of ecosystem services ...47

3. Recommendations for integration of Ecosystem Services into the practice of En- vironmental Assessments of Hydroenergy Programs and Projects. Moldova and Ukraine ...... 58 3.1. Recommendations for Integration of Ecosystem Services Valuation into Hy- dro-Construction Practice in Moldova ...... 58 3.1.1. Using the results of mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in the practice of hydro-construction ...... 58 3.1.2. Identiﬁcation of the main barriers to the implementation of ecosystem services valuation in the practice of hydro-construction . 58 3.1.3. The main directions of integration of the assessment of ecosystem services into the practice of hydroelectric construction ...... 59 3.2. Recommendations for Integration of Ecosystem Services Valuation into Hy- dro-Construction Practice in Ukraine ...... 60 3.2.1. Basis and state of implementation of ecosystem services assessments .60 3.2.2. Identiﬁcation of the main barriers to the implementation of ecosystem services assessment ...... 61 3.2.3. The main directions of integration of ecosystem services assessment .. 62

Conclusions ...... 64 References ...... 65 5

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ARIES The ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CICES The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Service DHPC Dniester hydropower complex ES Ecosystem service ESMERALDA Enhancing ecoSysteM sERvices mApping for poLicy and Decision mAking EUNIS European nature information system HPP Hydropower plant INCA Integrated system of Natural Capital and ecosystem services Accounting InVEST The Integrated Tool to Value Ecosystem Services and their trade-offs MAES Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services MEA (MA) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment NCA Natural capital accounting OpenNESS Operationalization of Natural capital and Ecosystem Services: from concepts to real-world applications OPERAs Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity WFD EU Water Framework Directive 6

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Ecosystem: a dynamic complex of Ecosystem structures: biophysical plant, animal, and microorganism architecture of ecosystems; species communities and their non-living en- composition making up the architec- vironment interacting as a functional ture may vary (TEEB, 2010). unit (MA, 2005). For practical pur- Ecosystem functions: intermedi- poses it is important to define the spa- ate between ecosystem processes and tial dimensions of concern. services and can be defined as the ca- Ecosystem assessment: a social pacity of ecosystems to provide goods process through which the findings of and services that satisfy human needs, science concerning the causes of eco- directly and indirectly (de Groot et al., system change, their consequences for 2010). human well-being, and management Intermediate ecosystem servic- and policy options are brought to bear es: biological, chemical, and physical on the needs of decision-makers (UK interactions between ecosystem com- NEA, 2011). ponents. E.g., ecosystem functions Ecosystem condition: The capacity and processes are not end-products; of an ecosystem to yield services, rela- they are intermediate to the productive to its potential capacity (MA, 2005). tion of final ecosystem services (Boyd For the purpose of MAES, ecosystem and Banzhaf, 2007). condition is, however, usually used as a Final ecosystem services: Direct synonym for “ecosystem state”. contributions to human well-being. Ecosystem function: Subset of Depending on their degree of con- the interactions between biophysical nection to human welfare, ecosystem structures, biodiversity and ecosystem services can be considered as interme- processes that underpin the capacity diate or as final services (Fisher et al., of an ecosystem to provide ecosystem 2009). services (TEEB, 2010). Ecosystem service supply: refers Ecosystem process: Any change or to the capacity of a particular area to reaction, which occurs within ecosys- provide a specific bundle of ecosystem tems, physical, chemical or biological. goods and services within a given time Ecosystem processes include decom- period (Burkhard et al., 2012b). De- position, production, nutrient cycling, pends on different sets of landscape and fluxes of nutrients and energy properties that influence the level of (MA, 2005). service supply (Willemen et al., 2012). Ecosystem services: contributions Ecosystem service demand: is the of ecosystem structure and function– sum of all ecosystem goods and ser- in combination with other inputs–to vices currently consumed or used in a human wellbeing (Burkhard et al., particular area over a given time peri- 2012a). od (Burkhard et al., 2012b). 7

Ecosystem service providing time which can also be referred to as units/areas: spatial units that are its quality. the source of ecosystem service (Syr- Ecosystem status: An ecosystem be and Walz, 2012). Includes the to- state defined among several well-de- tal collection of organisms and their fined categories including its legal traits required to deliver a given eco- status. It is usually measured against system service at the level needed by time and compared to an agreed target service beneficiaries (Vandewalle et in EU environmental directives (e.g. al., 2009). Commensurate with eco- Habitats Directive, Water Framework system service supply. Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Ecosystem service benefiting ar- Directive), e.g. “conservation status”. eas: the complement to ecosystem Habitat: The physical location or service providing areas. Ecosystem type of environment in which an or- service benefiting areas may be far ganism or biological population lives distant from the relevant providing or occurs. Terrestrial or aquatic areas areas. The structural characteristics of distinguished by geographic, abiotic a benefiting area must be such that the and biotic features, whether entirely area can take advantage of an ecosys- natural or seminatural. tem service (Syrbe and Walz, 2012). Commensurate with ecosystem ser- Human well-being: A context- and vice demand. situation-dependent state, comprising basic material for a good life, freedom Ecosystem service trade-offs: The and choice, health and bodily well-be- way in which one ecosystem service ing, good social relations, security, responds to a change in another eco- peace of mind and spiritual experi- system service (Millennium Ecosys- ence (MA, 2005). tem Assessment, 2005). Value: The contribution of an action Ecosystem state: The physical, or object to user-specified goals, ob- chemical and biological condition of jectives or conditions (MA, 2005). an ecosystem at a particular point in

Source Crossman et al., 2013, and Maes et al., 2014. 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This analytical document was pre- and Ukraine have approved at the legis- pared to review the European expe- lative level some intentions intention to rience of mapping and assessment of introduce an ecosystem approach to all ecosystems and their services, in par- areas of socio-economic development ticular the current typology of ecosys- as a basis for achieving good environ- tems and classifications of ecosystem mental status. The strategy of the state services, mapping tools and methods ecological policy until 2030 envisages of their assessment, as well as iden- the development of the institution of tifying opportunities and barriers to ecosystem services, which should pro- mapping and assessing ecosystems vide opportunities for balanced (sus- and their services in the countries of tainable) development of society. It is the Eastern Partnership, on the exam- assumed that by 2030 the biological di- ple of their river basins. versity of Ukraine, which provides eco- Until now, ecosystem services of system services, should be preserved, rivers and adjacent ecosystems remain assessed and restored accordingly. out of focus when considering hydro- In order to implement practi- power development plans and individ- cal tools for mapping and assessing ual hydropower projects in countries ecosystems and their services, the of the Eastern Partnership. The proce- countries of the Eastern Partnership, dures for their strategic environmental should benefit from the European ex- assessment and environmental impact perience gained in implementing the assessment do not require the identi- EU Biodiversity Strategy until 2020 fication and assessment of ecosystems and plans to conserve and restore riv- and the services they provide. Ignor- er ecosystems under the new EU 2030 ing the ecosystem approach leads to Biodiversity Strategy. increased negative impact on ecosys- The concept of ecosystem services tems by hydropower, their further deg- has been actively developing in the radation, loss of many vital ecosystem European Union over the last decade. services. In addition, it contributes to It is seen as a comprehensive basis for the spread of unsubstantiated ideas the analysis and adoption of compro- about the relative cheapness of elec- mise decisions. The inclusion of eco- tricity generated by HPPs and PSPs. system services in impact assessment Given the largely critical condition of procedures (strategic environmental rivers due to their over-regulation and assessment and environmental impact over-operation, as well as the growing assessment) expands their scope from impact of climate change, which leads purely environmental considerations to depletion of water resources, the to other aspects of human well-being. implementation of ecosystem services Ecosystem services can be used at all and the decision-making process on stages of impact assessment, includ- sites is essential. ing scoping (to indicate the service In accordance with its European in- on which the activity depends and on tegration commitments, like Moldova which it affects), consultation (helping 9 to focus discussions and stakeholder applying a multilevel approach, which engagement), impact assessment and provides the optimal choice of tools trade-offs of alternative solutions, and for mapping and evaluation of ecosys- proposing mitigation measures. tem services in accordance with the The Working Group on Mapping information requirements needed to and Evaluation of Ecosystems and make management decisions, is not- Their Services (MAES), established as ed. One of the tools that can be used at part of the implementation of the EU different levels is the InVEST software Biodiversity Strategy until 2020, has package developed by Stanford Uni- developed a typology of ecosystems versity as part of the Natural Capital that includes 12 main types that corre- Project, which is a set of models that spond to the highest levels of EUNIS help to quantify and reflect the value habitat classification. The same work- of ecosystem services. ing group proposed to use the CISES The choice of a pilot river basin is classification of ecosystem services, primarily due to the long-term impact which is considered to be the refer- of hydropower on river and related ence and to allow the transition from ecosystems in the Carpathian region. other common classifications. The Mapping of the ecosystems of the Uzh aim of CICES is to classify finite eco- river basin was performed using an system services, which are defined as open map of the Copernicus Global the contribution of ecosystems to hu- Land Cover. This service was available man well-being. These contributions from May 2019, and from September are determined by what “ecosystems 2020 it displays dynamic data of the make directly” for humans. The latest earth’s surface for 5 years – annually version of CICES (V5.1) also includes from 2015 to 2019. At the same time, inanimate parts of ecosystems, such the mapping of ecosystems highlight- as water, mineral resources, wind and ed a common problem for the East- solar energy, which is important for its ern Partnership countries, which is application in the field of hydropower. the lack of coverage territories of the Ecosystem mapping provides in- countries with the Corine Land Cover formation on their spatial distribution map – the basis for the map of ecosys- and distribution of major types and tems of Europe. is the starting point for assessing the The use of the InVEST software status of each ecosystem and, subse- package to assess the ecosystem servic- quently, the identification and evalua- es of the river basin has already shown tion of ecosystem services. the lack of necessary information on Within the framework of a num- the state of the environment. The list ber of projects supported by the Eu- of data needed for evaluation includes ropean Union, such as ESMERALDA, such parameters as precipitation and OPERAs, OpenNESS and others, the their distribution, evapotranspiration, existing tools for the assessment of root layer depth, water evaporation ecosystem services were considered by plants, available water content in and the experience of their application soils, types of land use, boundaries of was systematized. The expediency of basins and sub-basins, etc. 10

Analysis of the availability and ac- field of environmental protection and cessibility of the necessary input data the basis for the preservation and res- for the assessment of ecosystem ser- toration of river and associated eco- vices shows that at the national level systems. the data are either mostly absent or are The Eastern Partnership countries available with limited or paid access, should work more actively with Eu- such as data on precipitation, temper- ropean institutions responsible for ature, flow of the river. There are also the development of the ecosystem ap- no available digital boundaries of river proach and ecosystem services. As a basins and sub-basins, and their allo- party to the Convention on Biological cation is quite a time-consuming task. Diversity, Ukraine should participate Identified barriers to the intro- more actively in the work of the In- duction of ecosystem services in the tergovernmental Scientific and Policy hydropower sector are compiled into Platform on Biodiversity and use the several groups: legislative, institu- experience of the platform and the tional, regulatory and methodologi- European Working Group MAES to cal. Overcoming them should be one develop a regulatory framework for of the priorities of state policy in the ecosystem approach and projects. 11

1. MAPPING AND ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEMS AND THEIR SERVICES

Mapping and assessment of ecosys- tations (helping to focus debate and tems and their services (MAES) are im- engagement of stakeholders), assess- portant in the decision-making process ing impacts and trade-offs of develop- for the development of territories, in- ment alternatives as well as propos- cluding when considering plans for the ing mitigation measures (Geneletti & development of hydropower or individ- Mandle, 2017). ual hydropower projects. The ecosys- Nevertheless, there is still a need tems (ES) concept provides a compre- to develop guidance and criteria on hensive framework for trade-off analy- how to apply ES within different sis, addressing compromises between planning contexts as well as through competing land uses and assisting to fa- the decision-making process (Fürst, cilitate planning and development deci- 2017). Furthermore, integration of sions across sectors, scales and admin- various MAES methods and tools are istrative boundaries (Fürst et al. 2017). required to address the complexity of ES mapping and assessment results socio-ecological systems, and support can support sustainable management of the decision-making process across natural resources, environmental pro- different scales and sectors. tection, spatial panning, and landscape Development of mapping and as- planning; and can be applied to the de- sessment of ES in the European Union velopment of nature-based solutions was connected with implementation of and environmental education (Genelet- the EU Biodiversity (BD) Strategy to ti and Adem Esmail, 2018). ES can be 2020. Action 5 of the EU BD to 2020 included within the impact assessment called Member States to map and as- procedures (e.g. Strategic Environmen- sess the state of ecosystems and their tal Assessment of plans and programs, services in their national territory with and Environmental Impact Assess- the assistance of the European Com- ments of projects), thus extending the mission. They had to also assess the scope of impact assessment from purely economic value of such services, and environmental considerations to other promote the integration of these values dimensions of human well-being. into accounting and reporting systems ES mapping and assessment can at EU and national level by 2020 (see improve the overall outcome of ac- Target 2, Action 5). It was established tions, reduce the likelihood of plan a Working Group on Mapping and As- or project delays due to unforeseen sessment of Ecosystems which devel- impacts, and reduce reputational risk oped common analytical framework to public authorities and developers for MAES as well as typologies of eco- from unintended social impacts. ES systems for mapping and a typology of can be applied in all stages of impact ecosystem services for accounting1. assessment, including scoping (to in- 1 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/na- dicate ES on which action depends ture/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/ as well as services it affects), consul- index_en.htm 12

1.1. A typology of ecosystems for mapping

An ecosystem is usually defined as MAES proposed typology distin- a complex of living organisms with guishes 12 main ecosystem types their (abiotic) environment and their based on the higher levels of the EU- mutual relations. The EU Habitats NIS Habitat Classification2, which is a Directive does not define ecosystems European reference classification with but natural habitats. Natural habitats cross linkages to the habitat types list- mean terrestrial or aquatic areas dis- ed in Annex I of the Habitats Direc- tinguished by geographic, abiotic and tive3 (Table 1.1). biotic features, whether entirely natural or semi-natural.

Table 1.1. Typology of ecosystems for mapping (from Maes et al., 2013)4 MAES MAES level 2 level 1 ecosystem Description ecosystem type category Urban, industrial, commercial and transport areas, Urban urban green areas, mines, dumping and construction sites. The main food production area including both intensively managed ecosystems and multifunctional areas supporting many semi- and natural species along with food production (lower intensity management). Cropland Includes regularly or recently cultivated agricultural, horticultural and domestic habitats and agro- ecosystems with signiﬁcant coverage of natural vegetation (agricultural mosaics). Areas covered by a mix of annual and perennial grass and herbaceous non-woody species (including tall forbs, Grassland mosses and lichens) with little or no tree cover. The two main types are managed pastures and semi-natural (extensively managed) grasslands. Areas dominated by woody vegetation of various ages or with succession climax vegetation types on most of the Woodland and Terrestrial area, supporting many ecosystem services. Information forest on ecosystem structure (age class, species diversity, etc.) is especially important for this ecosystem type.

2 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eunis-habitat-classiﬁcation 3 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm 4 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAES- WorkingPaper2013.pdf 13

Heathland and shrub are areas with vegetation dominated by shrubs or dwarf shrubs. They are mostly Heathland secondary ecosystems with unfavourable natural and shrub conditions. They include moors, heathland and sclerophyllous (small, hard-leaved) vegetation. Sparsely vegetated land often has extreme natural Sparsely conditions that might support particular species. They vegetated land include bare rocks, glaciers and dunes, beaches and sand plains. Inland wetlands are predominantly water-logged specific plant and animal communities supporting Wetlands water regulation and peat-related processes. Includes natural or modified mires, bogs and fens, as well as peat extraction sites. Permanent freshwater inland surface waters, including Freshwater Rivers and lakes water courses and water bodies. Ecosystems on the land–water interface under the Marine inlets influence of tides and with salinity higher than 0.5 and transitional %. Includes coastal wetlands, lagoons, estuaries and waters other transitional waters, fjords and sea lochs and embayments. Shallow coastal marine systems that experience significant land-based influences. These systems Marine Coastal undergo diurnal fluctuations in temperature, salinity and turbidity, and they are subject to wave disturbance. Depth is between 50 and 70 m. Marine systems away from coastal influence, down to the shelf break. They experience more stable temperature Shelf and salinity regimes than coastal systems, and their seabed is below wave disturbance. They are usually about 200 m deep. Marine systems beyond the shelf break with very stable Open ocean temperature and salinity regimes, in particular in the deep seabed. Depth is beyond 200 m.

1.2. A typology of ecosystem services Ecosystem services provide a range disasters such as flooding; and cultural of benefits, and can be separated into ecosystem services, which include rec- three main categories: provisioning reation and leisure, education, aesthet- services, which include food provi- ic and spiritual benefits5. These ser- sion or timber production; regulating vices can be considered flows, derived services, which include air and water 5 Natural capital accounting. Overview and filtration, pollination and climate reg- progress in the European Union : 6th report ulation and protection against natural (2019) https://doi.org/10.2779/819449 14 from stocks of ecosystem assets. Such Assessment (MEA) and The Econom- stocks are referred to as Natural Capi- ics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity tal, a term which describes Earth’s nat- (TEEB), and in many aspects, it fol- ural assets, including soil, air, water, lows the concepts of these initiatives. and living things, existing as complex The CICES classification is consid- ecosystems – as well as the related eco- ered to provide a flexible and hierar- system services that human societies chical classification that can be adapt- need in order to survive and thrive. ed to the specific situation and needs. Three international classification CICES has a five-level hierarchical systems are available to classify eco- structure (section – division – group system services: – class – class type). The more de- • MEA or MA (Millennium Eco- tailed class types makes the classifica- system Assessment); tion more user-friendly and provides • TEEB (The Economics of Eco- greater clarification on what ecosys- systems and Biodiversity); tem services are included within each • CICES (The Common Interna- class. Using a five-level hierarchical tional Classification of Ecosys- structure is in line with United Na- tem Services). tions Statistical Division (UNSD) best In essence, they relate to a large practice guidance as it allows the five extent to each other; all three include level structure to be used for ecosys- provisioning, regulating and cultur- tem mapping and assessment, while al services. Each classification has the first four levels can be employed its own advantages and disadvantag- for ecosystem accounting without re- es due to the specific context within ducing the utility of the classification which they were developed. for different users. MAES was proposed to use the CIS- CICES aims to classify final ecosys- ES classification6 that builds on the tem services, which are defined as the existing classifications (MEA, TEEB) contributions that ecosystems make but focuses on the ecosystem service to human well-being. These contribu- dimension. In the CICES system ser- tions are framed in “what ecosystems vices are either provided by living or- do most directly” for people. Final ganisms (biota) or by a combination of services are distinct from the goods living organisms and abiotic process- and benefits that people subsequently es. CICES developed for environmen- derive from them and from functions tal accounting purposes is proposed or characteristics of ecosystems that as classification system of ecosystem come together to make something a services as it offers a structure that service. In principle, CICES covers links with the framework of the UN contributions that arise from living System of Environmental-Economic processes. However, the latest ver- Accounts (SEEA 2003). was intended sion (V5.1) includes also the nonliv- as a reference classification that would ing parts of ecosystems, for example, allow translation between different ES water, mineral substances, wind, and classification systems, such as those solar energy. used by the Millennium Ecosystem CICES V5.1, released in 2018, has been developed on the basis of the 6 https://cices.eu/ 15 review of relevant scientific literature ment Agency and during workshops and feedback from CICES user com- held as part of the EU funded ES- munity (e.g., expressed in the survey MERALDA and OpenNESS Projects) conducted by the European Environ- (Tabl. 1.2). Table 1.2. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services ver. 5.1 (CICES V5.1) to the group level Biotic ES Group Section Division Group Code Cultivated terrestrial plants for nutrition, materi- 1.1.1 als, or energy Cultivated aquatic plants for nutrition, materials, 1.1.2 or energy Reared terrestrial animals for nutrition, materi- 1.1.3 als, or energy Biomass Reared aquatic animals for nutrition, materials, 1.1.4 or energy Wild plants (terrestrial and aquatic) for nutrition, 1.1.5 materials, or energy Provisioning Wild animals (terrestrial and aquatic) for nutri- 1.1.6 tion, materials, or energy Genetic material from Genetic material from plants, algae, or fungi 1.2.1 all biota (including seed, spore, or gamete Genetic material from animals 1.2.2 production) Mediation of wastes or toxic substances of anthro- Transformation of bio- 2.1.1 chemical or physical pogenic origin by living processes inputs to ecosystems Mediation of nuisances of anthropogenic origin 2.1.2 Regulation of baseline flows and extreme events 2.2.1 Lifecycle maintenance, habitat, and gene pool 2.2.2 protection

nance Regulation of physical, chemical, biological Pest and disease control 2.2.3 conditions Regulation of soil quality 2.2.4 Water conditions 2.2.5 Regulation and mainte- Atmospheric composition and conditions 2.2.6 Direct, in situ and out- Physical and experiential interactions with natu- 3.1.1 door interactions with ral environment living systems that depend on presence Intellectual and representative interactions with 3.1.2 in the environmental natural environment setting Indirect, remote, often Spiritual, symbolic, and other interactions with 3.2.1 Cultural indoor interactions natural environment with living systems that do not require Other biotic characteristics that have a nonuse 3.2.2 presence in the value environmental setting 16

Abiotic ES Group Section Division Group Code Water Surface water used for nutrition, materials or en- 4.2.1 ergy Ground water for used for nutrition, materials or 4.2.2 energy Other aqueous ecosystem outputs 4.2.X Non-aqueous natural Mineral substances used for nutrition, materials 4.3.1 abiotic ecosystem out- or energy puts Non-mineral substances or ecosystem properties 4.3.2

Provisioning used for nutrition, materials or energy Other mineral or non-mineral substances or eco- 4.3.2 system properties used for nutrition, materials or energy Transformation of bio- Mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances by 5.1.1 chemical or physical non-living processes inputs to ecosystems Mediation of nuisances of anthropogenic origin 5.1.2 Regulation of physical, Regulation of baseline ﬂows and extreme events 5.2.1 chemical, biological Maintenance of physical, chemical, abiotic condi- 5.2.2 conditions tions Other type of regula- Other 5.3.X Regulation tion and maintenance and maintenance service by abiotic processes Direct, in-situ and out- Physical and experiential interactions with natu- 6.1.1 door interactions with ral abiotic components of the environment natural physical sys- Intellectual and representative interactions with 6.1.2 tems that depend on abiotic components of the natural environment presence in the environmental setting Indirect, remote, often Spiritual, symbolic and other interactions with the 6.2.1 indoor interactions abiotic components of the natural environment with physical systems Other abiotic characteristics that have a non-use 6.2.2

Cultural that do not require value presence in the environmental setting Other abiotic charac- Other 6.3.X teristics of nature that have cultural signiﬁ- cance

1.3. Mapping of ecosystem and ecosystem services Mapping ecosystems provides in- Ecosystem mapping is the spatial formation about the spatial extension delineation of ecosystems following and distribution of the main ecosys- an agreed ecosystem typology (ecosystem types: it is the starting point for tem types), which strongly depends on assessing the condition of each eco- mapping purpose and scale. system. Biophysical quantification and rep- 17 resentation of the ES data on maps is Biophysical data can be gathered ei- fundamental for social and economic ther by direct observations and meas- mapping and assessment. Both eco- urements, by indirect methods such as nomic and social mapping and assess- proxies or spatial extrapolation, or by ment can be conducted without pre- modeling. In practice, multiple differ- cise biophysical quantification for case ent methods are often used together, studies, however reliable biophysical e.g. via integrated modeling platforms data is required for sustainable use such as InVEST or ARIES, or through and management of ecosystems, eco- purpose-fitted selection of appropri- system services and natural capital ate data and methods (Vihervaara et accounting at country and EU level. al., 2018).

1.4. Ecosystem service mapping tools A widely applied ecosystem service available in InVEST varies from prox- mapping and valuation tool is InVEST, ybased mapping (tier 1) to simple bio- the Integrated Tool to Value Ecosys- physical production equations (tier 2). tem Services and their trade-offs. It But the tool has the ability to include is an open access GIS-tool collection third-party complex, site-specific pro- developed under the Natural Capital cess models (tier 3). The main inputs Project7. It includes separate models to InVEST are land cover data and for different ecosystem services to be other environmental variables as rel- applied and combined to analyse spa- evant, and outputs are the estimate of tial patterns of ecosystem services or ecosystem services in biophysical and track changes caused by land cover in some cases monetary units8. change. The complexity of the models

1.5. A tiered approach to mapping and assessing ecosystem services The vast variety of biophysical provides guidance in the selection of mapping methods complicate the se- methods and enhances the compa- lection of an appropriate approach rability of different approaches used, that provides useful information to which facilitates communication and decision makers in a specific con- supports monitoring over time. Usu- text, i.e. a certain stage of the de- ally, a tier 1 approach uses readily cision-making process at a specific available information while the level scale, for a particular set of services, of detail of the method increases with and given particular data availability higher tier levels. Examples of the im- options. Tiered approaches are a well- plementation of the approach include known instrument to structure the va- The Economics of Ecosystems and Bi- riety of methods by assigning them to odiversity (TEEB) tiered approach, or different tier levels. A tiered approach the ecosystem services model suite In- VEST (Vihervaara et al., 2018).

7 https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford. 8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013. edu/software/invest 02.001 18

A tiered approach for ecosystem ies of these services, as well as gov- services mapping has been suggested ernmental and non-governmental by Grêt-Regamey et al. (2017). The institutions. In this step, the system different tier levels are distinguished boundaries relevant for the mapping, according to the purpose and the lev- as well as the scale, should be made el of detail of the ecosystem service explicit. Once these components have analysis that is required. This allows been defined, the tier level and asso- the resulting maps to provide relevant ciated method can be selected, guided information to decision makers, and by a decision tree (Vihervaara et al., avoid the application of over-complex 2018). The scale of a study determines or over-simplified methods. the accuracy of the data needed for the Before the identification of the rel- mapping. evant tier and associated methods, The different tier levels are not relat- the goal of the assessment and the ed to a certain scale: a tier 1 approach can different components of the analyzed be applied at the local scale to get a first human-environment system should understanding of the presence, absence be described together with their in- and abundance of ecosystem services; teractions and dependencies. These a tier 2 or tier 3 approach is required to components include the ecosystems, better target national or even pan-Euro- the services they provide, beneficiar- pean land management measures.

1.6. Assessment framework for the ecosystem pilots

The MAES conceptual model (Fig. 1.1.). In order to provide opera- builds on the premise that the deliv- tional recommendations to both EU ery of certain ecosystem services upon and its Member States, the proposed which we rely for our socio-economic work structure for the 4 ecosystem pi- development and long-term human lots is based on a 4 step approach: (i) well-being is strongly dependent on Mapping of the concerned ecosystem; both the spatial accessibility of eco- (ii) Assessment of the condition of the systems as well as on ecosystem con- ecosystem; (iii) Quantiﬁcation of the dition. This working hypothesis has services provided by the ecosystem; been translated into a working struc- and (iv) Compilation of these into ture that has been adopted to guide an integrated ecosystem assessment the work of the ecosystem pilot cases (Fig. 1.1.). 19

Fig. 1.1. A common assessment framework for the ecosystem pilots 20

2.PILOT APPLICATION OF EUROPEAN TOOLS IN THE RIVER BASINS OF THE EaP COUNTRIES

2.1. Case studies for Argichi River basin (Armenia) 2.1.1. Characteristics of the pilot basin The Government of the Republic of teau, from an altitude of 2600 m asl. Armenia encourages the construction Length – 51 km, catchment area – 384 of small hydropower plants under the km2. The river flows into Lake Sevan pretext of “increasing energy securi- at an altitude of 1900 meters above ty and sustainability”, guarantees the sea level. Recharge is mainly thawed purchase of generated electricity and (55%) and groundwater (36%), floods sustainable profitability for the own- are observed in May-June. The aver- ers of hydropower plants. As a result age annual flow rate is 5.18 m3/s, the of the implementation of the small hy- flow rate is 163 million m3. Freezes dropower development program (the in winter. Water is used for irrigation number of operating small hydropow- and energy production. er plants reached 188, 23 more con- The following specially protected ar- struction licenses were issued), natu- eas have been created in the river basin: ral river ecosystems in the Republic of 1. Reserve “Lichk-Argichi” covers Armenia have been lost. an area of 1175 hectares (land – 482 For a pilot study of ecosystem ser- hectares, water – 693 hectares). It vices, the Argichi River with its drain- includes the Lichk nature reserve, as age basin was selected. well as the mouths of the Tsakkar, Li- The Argichi River (Ayridzh, Ish- chk and Argichi rivers. The purpose of khanaget, Koti) flows in the basin of the reserve is to preserve the Lichka Lake Sevan in the Gegharkunik re- mineral springs, the remains of ponds gion of the Republic of Armenia. It in the mouths of the Argichi and Lichk starts from the northern slope of the rivers, spawning grounds and the de- Gndasar massif of the Geghama pla- velopment of endemic Sevan trout.

Fig. 2.1. Upper reaches of the Argichi river 21

2. Natural monuments: utaries ﬂowing down from the • gorges of the Argichi river with its northern slopes of the Vardenis tributaries (Gridzor and others); ridge, the remains of a natural • meanders of the Argichi river, forest. swampy valley, gorges of trib-

2.1.2. Hydropower in the basin A small HPP (SHPP) “Argichi” with of the derivation and pressure pipeline an installed capacity of 9.72 MW has is 9527 meters. In other words, the Ar- been built and has been operating gichi River is taken into the pipes of since 2013 on the Argichi River in its the SHPP along the 9.5 km long river middle and lower reaches. The length bed.

The estimated pressure at the SHPP is formed due to the difference in eleva- tion along the relief from the intake unit to the SHPP. It is interesting to note that according to the certificate of the Public Services Regulatory Commis- sion (PSRC) dated October 1, 2015, the height difference is 274.8 m; for the project – 253.1; according to company information – 223 meters.

The annual electricity supply to the of electricity supplied to the SHPP is energy system of the Republic of Ar- 24.8 drams ($ 5 cents). The opera- menia is 20.3 million kWh (from year tor of the small HPP “Argichi” is “Gi- to year this ﬁgure ranges from 15 to drokorporatsiya” CJSC. 35 million kWh). The cost of 1 kWh

Fig. 2.2. Water intake node of the Argichi SHPP and the gorge of the Argichi river below this node

Fig. 2.3. Water intake unit and ﬁsh passage of Argichi SHPP 22

The photographs show that the riv- strophic impact on both the quantity er bed is completely blocked by a dam, and species composition of the entire which is prohibited by Article 32 of ichthyofauna. Thus, it can be argued the RA Water Code, and the ﬁsh pas- that both in the commercial sense and sage with its construction cannot en- in the meaning of the natural ecosys- sure the movement (migration) of ﬁsh tem (including the cichthyofauna), along the river bed. the Argichi River ceased to perform It can be stated that the Argichi the function of providing ecosystem SHPP had a profound, almost cata- services.

2.1.3. Types of ecosystems and their conditions The basin of the Argichi River is lo- Sevan National Park and satellite im- cated on the territory of 8 settlements ages of the area. For this, the ArcGIS with their administrative boundaries. 10.5 software package was used. The The ecosystems of the basin were available cartographic materials are mapped using cadastral maps of set- shown in the same format (shapeﬁle) tlements, cartographic materials of the and the same coordinate system.

Fig. 2.4. The Argichi River basin map The heights in the river basin range termines the diversity of ecosystems from 1900 m to 3400 m asl, which de- and land use forms in the river basin. 23

Fig. 2.5. Land use of Argichi River basin

2.1.4. Mapping and valuation of ecosystems and their services Below are the results of mapping market price method. Using the Mod- and assessment of ecosystem services elbuilder tool of the ArcGis software in the Argichi river basin, obtained in package, a tool was created that allows the framework of the project “Ecosys- to integrate the values of all ecosystem tem services and hydropower. Pilot services into one layer, due to which application of European instruments the value of ecosystem services was in the river basins of the Eastern Part- classiﬁed (from 0 to 875,000 AMD) nership countries”. and a map of ecosystem services was Taking into account the possibili- compiled. ties of the project, an assessment was made of the cost of direct use of eco- Findings system services in the river basin. Research on ecosystem services The area of each ecosystem is cal- should lead to the development and culated. Then the value of ecosystem implementation of payment schemes services was calculated for each unit of for ecosystem services. They must area of each ecosystem (forest, grass- become economically viable mech- land, pasture, horticulture, arable anisms to regulate and mitigate the land, irrigated arable land) using the harmful eﬀects of hydropower on eco- 24

Fig. 2.6. Assessment of ecosystem services in Argichi River basin systems and people, who must reap Payment instruments for ecosys- the benefits of the ecosystem. For this, tem services must be justified, social- it is necessary to adopt the RA Law ly acceptable and clearly quantified “On Ecosystem Services”, to introduce (monetized) so that at the monitoring public-private schemes for “payment stage they can form the basis for quan- for ecosystem services”. They may titative conclusions. be voluntary at first. Voluntariness is The introduction of a payment sys- from the sphere of social responsibil- tem for ecosystem services cannot re- ity, while obligatory ones are quanti- place the existing system of environ- tatively substantiated environmental mental payments; it should become a and economic figures. Volunteerism, separate tool. if successful, can become a “fuse” for Payments for environmental pro- the dialogue of interested local com- tection and nature management, as munities with the business commu- well as payments for ecosystem ser- nity, and administrative intervention vices, should be aimed at creating eco- can help to make this service of gen- logical civil investment funds owned eral value. First, a real “public-pri- by the citizens of Armenia, which will vate partnership” should take place, be aimed at restoring ecosystems and and not a “State-Private partnership”, ecosystem services that contribute to which contains the risks of corruption the socio-economic development of and tends to form an oligarchy. local communities and the country. 25

2.2. Case studies for the Kura River basin (Azerbaijan) 2.2.1. Characteristics of the pilot basin The Kura River is located in the tively small (17.5 km long and 94 km² South Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan) in area) and has a simple paddle de- and Turkey. The largest river. in the vice. However, earlier the delta was Caucasus. The length is 1364 km (ac- much more complex and had a larg- cording to some sources, 1515 km), the er size. The change in the Kura delta catchment area is 188 thousand km2. is influenced by the fluctuation in the The sources of the river are located level of the Caspian Sea. in Turkey, on the Kara Highlands. It Hydroelectric dams are used to enters the territory of Azerbaijan just control the Kura water level during above the mouth of the river, 122.8 km floods. Mingachevir reservoir with an from the mouth of the river (near the area of 605 km² is the largest fresh wa- city of Sabirabad), the largest tribu- ter reserve in Azerbaijan. In addition, tary flows into it – the r. Araz. When it in Azerbaijan, the Kura waters are in- flows into the Caspian Sea, it forms a tensively used for irrigation. delta with an area of 100 km2. The volume of water resources in The main tributaries are: on the the Kura river basin is: the Kura river right, Paravani, Khrami, Agstafa, basin without the Araz (Arax) – 16.8 Shamkir, Terter, on the left – Bolshoi km3. It should be noted that the vol- Liakhvi, Aragvi, Gabirry, Ganikh, Ag- ume of 1.3 km3 in the Kura basin is richai, Turianchay, etc. Belongs to the formed on the territory of Turkey and group of rivers with spring floods. The Iran. Outflows for these two river ba- water is cloudy. It annually carries out sins are separately 11.8 and 5.8 km3 an average of 18.5 million cubic me- (17.6 km3 in total). In the Transcauca- ters of sediment to the Caspian Sea. It sian part of the river. In the Transcau- is widely used in irrigation. It is navi- casian part of the Kura basin, the local gable to Yevlakh. flow is 21.2 km3, the inflow from Tur- The Kura River recharge sources is key and Iran is 4.7 km3 and the total mixed: 36% snow, 30% underground, resources are 25.9 km3. 20% rain and 14% glacial. The aver- Directly on the territory of the age annual discharge on the border Republic of Azerbaijan, a runoff is of Turkey and Georgia is about 30 m3 formed in the amount of 7.81 km3. / sec, in Tbilisi 205 m3 / sec, at Min- From the neighboring territories of gachevir 402 m³ / sec, at the mouth Georgia and Armenia, Russia, Turkey 575 m3 / sec. The main part of the and Iran, 20.3 km3 of water flows. runoff (up to 70%) falls on the spring. Calculations have shown that the The spring flood occurs from March water balance of the Kura River basin to May, sometimes dragging on until for an average water content year, tak- June. The water of the Kura is turbid ing into account all water withdraw- (in the lower reaches the turbidity als, is characterized by the following reaches 2.325 g / m³). values: precipitation 556 mm (104.5 The Kura Delta is currently rela- km3) river runoff 152 mm (28.6 km3), 26 of which 87 mm (16.31 km3, 57%) falls ies within the range of 0.30-0.34, and on the surface, 65 mm (12.3 km3, 43%) for the entire basin it is on average 0.27. – on the groundwater runoff. The av- The average long-term annual erage long-term annual flow mod- amount of precipitation falling on the ule for the entire basin as a whole is territory of Azerbaijan is 427 mm. Ac- 8 l/s/km2). The total evaporation in the cording to water balance calculations, basin is 404 mm or 75.89 km3. The run- the total evaporation is 308 mm, and off coefficient before the confluence of the local runoff is 119 mm, i.e. evapo- the Araz River into the Kura River var- ration is 2.6 times the runoff.

Fig. 2.7. Map (scheme) of the Kura River basin After the construction of dams mainly for irrigation of wheat, as well and the development of irrigated ag- as of revived viticulture and cotton riculture, the Kura River valley be- growing, fodder production. In many came densely populated, as a result places, water is used for drinking. The of which increased pollution of the Mingachevir reservoir and its sur- river, increased soil salinity in many roundings are used for recreation. places due to the filtration of water Use of water resources of Azerbai- from numerous irrigation canals. The jan. The main part of the country’s anthropogenic load on the landscape water resources is the waters of trans- has sharply increased and the natural boundary rivers, which creates prob- semi-desert territories have signifi- lems in meeting the needs of various cantly decreased. water users. It should be noted that Water is used primarily for irri- within the republic itself, water losses gation of fields, in the past – for the in irrigation canals and water supply production of cotton and grapes, now systems are quite high. These loss- 27 es amount comprise about 34.2% of water use accounting shows that for water withdrawals. Only 65.8% of the 1990-2013 the annual volume of water withdrawn water from water sourc- withdrawals was 16.2–12.5 km3 (Table es is delivered to water consumers. 2.4). Water withdrawals from under- The main water user in Azerbaijan is ground sources amounted to 1.54-0.51 agriculture, which uses 69.8% of wa- km3. During this period, the volume of ter withdrawn from water sources in water withdrawals decreased by about 2013; industry used 25.0% of water 1.3 times, which is caused by econom- withdrawals in the same year. The ic reforms carried out in various sec- main loss of water occurs in agricul- tors of the economy, water tariffs and ture. The analysis of official data on economical use of water.

2.2.2. Hydropower in the Kura River basin After the Sovietization of Azer- The Mingachevir reservoir, result- baijan in 1920, small electrical en- ing from the construction of the hy- terprises were nationalized, and the droelectric power station, lies at an problems of developing the republic’s altitude of 83 m above sea level, and energy economy were solved in the the city is under this most dangerous GOELRO plan. accumulation of water, but the securi- On July 6, 1945, the Central Com- ty and technical control system is very mittee of the All-Union Communist well established, although it did not Party (Bolsheviks) and the USSR do without accidents. This artificial Council of People’s Commissars de- sea was filled for six years – from 1953 cided to resume the construction of to 1959. the Mingechaur hydroelectric com- A program for the development plex and carry out irrigation work on of the energy sector of the Republic the Kura-Araz lowland. of Azerbaijan for 2017-2030 is being It should be noted that, in gener- developed. It provides for an annual al, many unique developments were growth of electricity consumption at applied to the construction of a new the level of 4%. A connection has been hydroelectric power station in Azer- created between the energy system baijan. For example, for the first time of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the in the history of Soviet hydraulic con- energy systems of the Russian Federa- struction, a high-pressure earthen tion, Georgia, Iran and Turkey. This is dam was erected not from previously also one of the serious factors contrib- accepted soils, but from sandy-gravel- uting to the further development of ly with reinforced concrete structures interrelationships between countries, and structures in the body of the dam. maintaining peace, stability and secu- This kind of dam is not afraid of earth- rity in the region. quakes. The dam was built 81 m high, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the its length was 1.550 m, and the vol- most important hydroelectric power ume was 15.6 million cubic meters. m. plants in the Republic of Azerbaijan. The thickness at the base is 500 m, in other words, half a kilometer. 28

Table 2.1. Large hydroelectric power plants of the Republic of Azerbaijan

City Original Power Name (neighbor- Information title (MW) hood)

Yenikənd Su 1. Yenikend HPP Elektrik Stan- Yenikend 150 - siyası

Füzuli 2. Fizuli HPP Su Elektrik Fizuli 25 - Stansiyası

Varvara Su Yevlakh, In 2017 it was modern- 3. Varvara HPP Elektrik Mingachevir, 16.5 ized[9]. Stansiyası Goygol

Arpaçay-1, HPP Arpachai-1, Arpaçay-2 4. Arpachai-2 (small Sharur 21.9 Launched in 2014. Su Elektrik HPP, 0.7 MW) Stansiyaları

Biləv Su Elek- 5. HPP Bilyav Ordubad 22 Started work in 2010 [10]. trik Stansiyası

Şəmkirçay Su Shamkirchay Started work in November 6. Elektrik Stan- Shamkir 25 HPP 2014 [7]. siyası

Şəmkir Su 7. Shamkir HPP Elektrik Stan- Shamkir 380 Built in 1982. siyası

Araz hydroelec- Located in the territories tric complex Araz Su Elek- of Azerbaijan and Iran. 8. Nakhichevan 44 (Hydroelectric trik Stansiyası Half of the station’s capac- power station) ity is supplied to Iran

Located above the Samur River and the reservoir Taxtakörpü of the same name. The Takhtakorpu 9. Su Elektrik Shabran 25 construction of the hydro- HPP Stansiyası electric power plant began in 2007 and began work in 2013.

The largest hydroelectric Mingachevir hy- Mingəçevir Su power plant in Azerbaijan 10. droelectric power Elektrik Stan- Mingachevir 402 is located on the Kura Riv- station siyası er. Commissioned in 1954.

Tərtər Su Terter hydroelec- Located on the Tartar 11. Elektrik Stan- Terter 50 tric power station River. siyası 29

Table 2.2. Small HPPs of the Republic of Azerbaijan

Name Original title City Power (МW)

1. Vaikhir HPP Vayxır Babek 5

2. Goychay HPP Göyçay Goychay 3.1

3. HPP Ismailly-1 İsmayıllı −1 Ismailly 1.6

4. HPP Ismailly-2 İsmayıllı-2 Ismailly 1.6

5. HPP Balakyan-1 Balakən-1 Balakyan 1.5

Fig. 2.8. Mingachevir HPP Fig. 2.9. Varvara HPP

Fig. 2.10. Ismayilli-2 hydroelectric power plant with an installed capacity of 1.6 MW

2.2.3. Types of ecosystems and their conditions In the Kura River basin, four large pronounced watershed. orographic complexes are distin- To the east of the lower course of guished: the Greater Caucasus, the the river Ganykh (Alazani) to the riv- South Caucasian intermountain de- er Girdymanchay, there are low ridges pression, the South Caucasian high- and depressions of the Ajinohur low lands, a section of the Elburs moun- mountains. A vast low-lying part of tain system – the Talysh mountains the Kura depression stretches from with the Lankaran lowland. The the Mingachevir reservoir to the Cas- Greater Caucasus extends from north- pian Sea. It is called the Kura-Araz west to southeast for 1100 km and is lowland and is divided into a number an integral system of ridges with a of smaller plains. The most western 30 part of it is the Ganja-Gazakh plain, grow with an admixture of caucasian where the cones of the rivers flow- oak and hornbeam. Plains and foot- ing down from the Lesser Caucasus hills up to 400-600 m are represented formed wide plumes. by semi-deserts with drought-resist- The mountainous areas of the Kura ant shrubs and grasses (ephemera and River basin are characterized by de- ephemeroids). ciduous forests of the lower (up to 500 Ecosystem services are practically m), middle (500-1700 m) and upper not assessed, but they can be rough- (1770-2400 m) mountain-forest belt. ly calculated based on environmen- The upper mountain forest belt is also tal impact assessment work carried called subalpine, where forests alter- out during the installation of asphalt nate with alpine meadows. Plain and roads, tons of pipelines, as well as dur- tugai forests (forests along rivers in ing reconstruction. the semi-desert zone) are character- The influence of hydropower facili- ized by long-peaked oak, hornbeam, ties can be partly clarified when famil- various types of elms, poplar and wil- iarizing with the EIA on projects for low. In the middle mountain zone, the construction of hydropower plants beech dominates, and in the upper in recent years, however, the impact of mountain zone, oriental oak, birch, hydropower plants built in the Soviet maples, aspen predominate, in dry era cannot be established using such places – juniper. In the dry foothills, documents, since they are not availa- forests of wild pistachio and juniper ble. Special research is needed here.

Fig. 2.11. Ecosystem of the Kura River basin

2.2.4. Mapping and valuation of ecosystems and their services Ecosystem services are practically out during the installation of asphalt not assessed, but they can be rough- roads, tons of pipelines, as well as dur- ly calculated based on environmen- ing reconstruction. tal impact assessment work carried 31

Fig. 2.12. The Kura River Basin Map

2.3. Case studies for the Dniester River basin (Moldova) 2.3.1. Characteristics of the pilot basin

The Dniester is one of the major Eu- The Dniester is the largest river in ropean rivers flowing into the north- Moldova and the third largest river in western part of the Black Sea. The Ukraine. The total length of Dniester Dniester basin is located on the terri- is about 1362 km, from the source in tory of three countries – the Republic the Ukrainian Carpathians (near the of Moldova, Poland and Ukraine. village Volchye at an altitude of 932 m above sea level) until the confluence within the Dniester estuary, separated from the Black Sea by a sand spit. Ukraine owns the upper reaches of Dniester and its estuarine part with a total length of 705 km, a section of the river 220 km long is adjacent to Ukraine and Moldova, and a part of the river 437 km long is located on the territory of Moldova. Only a small sec- Fig 2.13. The Dniester River basin tion of the river Strvyazh, the upper 32 left tributary of the Dniester, belongs The Dniester river basin is located on to Poland 9. the territory of three states – Poland, The area of the Dniester basin is 72.3 Ukraine and Moldova. Despite the thousand km2, of which the Ukrainian fact that the specific part of Poland’s part is 52.7 thousand km2 (72.8%), the territory in the Dniester basin is only Moldovan part is 19.4 thousand km2 0.4%, it belongs to the transboundary (26.8%) and the Polish part is 226 km2 river basins of the European Union11. (0.4%).The length of the Dniester basin is about 700 km, the average width 2.3.2. Hydropower in the basin is about 100 km (the maximum is 140 km in the mountainous part and the Three channel reservoirs and a narrowest is 60 km). A characteristic reservoir of a pumped storage power feature of the Dniester hydrographic plant (PSPP) have been built on the network is the absence of large trib- river. The reservoirs of the Dniester utaries with a large number of small HPPs have a multipurpose and meet (more than 16 thousand tributaries up the needs of irrigation, water supply, to 10 km long)10. flood control, power generation, ship- The Dniester basin covers significant ping, recreation, etc. parts of the territories of seven regions The restructuring of the river and of Ukraine (Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, estuarine ecosystems of Dniester be- Chernivtsi, Ternopil, Khmelnytsky, gan in 1955 with the construction of Vinnytsia and Odessa) and most the Dubossary hydroelectric power (56.34%) of the territory of the Repub- station. The Dubossary reservoir, lic of Moldova (19 districts and Trans- filled in 1954-1956, carries out season- nistria). On the territory of the basin, al, weekly, and in floods – daily flow within the borders of Ukraine, there regulation. The purpose of the res- are 62 cities and 95 urban-type settle- ervoir is to meet the needs of hydro- ments, and within Moldova there are 4 power, irrigation, fisheries and water municipalities and 41 cities located on supply. It is a medium-sized reservoir the left and right banks. Almost 8 mil- with shallow depths. lion people live in the adjacent territo- Second wave of significant changes ries of Ukraine and Moldova, of which in the 1980s in ecosystems of Dniester over 5.0 million people. – on the terri- is connected with the commissioning tory of Ukraine and 2.74 million – on of the Dniester hydroelectric complex the territory of Moldova. (the modern name is the Dniester cas- The Dniester river is a border river. cade of hydroelectric power plants and pumped storage power plants) 9 Dniester Commission website. Region. (Fig. 2.14). https://dniester-commission.com/bassejn-reki-dnestr/region/ 11 Management of the transboundary basin 10 Dniester transboundary river basin man- of the Dniester: the establishment of ref- agement plan. Part 1: General charac- erence indicators for assessing the eco- teristics and assessment of the condi- logical status of surface water bodies / tion. https://dniester-commission.com/ ed. S.O. Afanasyev, O.V. Manturova. – К.: wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Dniester_ Кафедра, 2019. – 376 с. ISBN 978-617- TDA_July2019.pdf 7301-75-1 33

Fig 2.14. Linear layout of hydropower stations and reservoirs

Dniester reservoir, commissioned In the early 2000s, work began on in December 1981, carries out season- the construction of a pumped storage al – with elements of multi-year – reg- power plant. After the launch of the ulation of the Dniester flow. The char- first hydroelectric unit of the PSPP in acteristic features of the reservoir are 2009, the buffer reservoir is used as its great length and depth, relatively the lower reservoir of the PSPP. It car- small width and significant tortuosity. ries out daily and weekly regulation The purpose of the reservoir is flood and belongs to small, shallow channel control, water consumption, hydro- water bodies. On the right bank of the power, irrigation. buffer reservoir, an upper reservoir of Buffer reservoir was formed in a hydroelectric power station has been 1987 by the construction of a dam at created. In terms of morphometric HPP-2 20 kilometers below the Dni- characteristics, it belongs to bulk res- ester HPP-1 to equalize the flow rate ervoirs with medium depths. of water that comes from the Dniester reservoir 12.

2.3.3. Types of ecosystems and their conditions Due to the fact that the scale of the Dniester hydropower complex to the Dniester basin is large enough, the es- river mouth was divided into seven timated territory was subdivided into parts, with their own sets (clusters) of smaller sections. Thus, the ﬂoodplain ecosystems (Table 2.3). of the Dniester in the section from the

12 Rules for the operation of the reservoir of the Dniester cascade of hydroelectric power plants and pumped storage power plants at the NPU 77.10 m buﬀer reservoir. Report and recommendations for the updated draft of the Rules, 2018: https://dniester-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/recommendations_operation-rules_Dniester_Serra_Oct2018_Rus- 1.pdf 34

Table 2.3. Area of ecosystem types (km2) in the Moldovan part of the Dniester River basin Clusters

Eco- system Total Ichel – Bic Bic – Botna Raut – Ichel Botna – Liman Dubasari – Raut DHPC -Dubasari Dubasari reservoir

Aquatic 23.6 64.1 1.5 4.6 20.8 5.2 17.8 137.6 Lakes 0.1 0.3 0.5 4.9 5.8 Wetland 0.7 5.2 0.2 0.8 32.0 38.9 Forest 2.8 3.8 0.3 2.6 32.8 7.1 29.4 78.8 Grassland 25.9 13.8 3.1 22.9 95.3 46.2 135.2 342.4 Perennial 0.7 1.8 0.1 8.7 12.8 11.1 13.1 48.3 Arable 82.1 82.1 Localities 2.5 5.0 2.04 16.6 3.8 21.6 51.6 Total: 56.1 93.7 5.0 40.9 178.8 74.7 336.3 785.6 1According to Ecosystem types of Europe – version 3.1. Breakdown of the Dniester ﬂoodplain into clus- Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/ ters to study the ecosystems and their services data/ecosystem-types-of-europe-1

The deﬁnition of clusters (sub-ba- tems (more than 1200 sites) – wa- sins) that provide water-related eco- ter (25.4%), forest (8.35%), grass system services in the Moldovan part (47.64%), wetlands (2.5%), as well as of the Dniester river basin was based perennial plantations (7.49%), arable on the principles of the European Wa- land (3.49%), built-up areas (5.15%) ter Framework Directive13. (Fig. 2.15). According to this document, Mol- dova is located in two ecoregions: the Pontine Province (12) and the Eastern Plains (16). The dominant geology of the Dni- ester basin is siliceous; limestone rocks predominate in the northern part. It was also taken into account that within the studied area there are two Ramsar sites – “Ungur-Holosh- nitsa” and “Lower Dniester”. Fig. 2.15. The ratio of ecosystem The considered territory (785.62 areas in the Moldavian part 2 km ) includes the following ecosys- of the Dniester river basin 13 WFD, 2000: The EU Water Framework Directive – integrated river basin man- At the same time, the set of ecosys- agement for Europe. Available at: https:// tems for each cluster diﬀers both in its ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html\ composition and in the ratio of areas. 35

So, for example, the section next to the area occupied by different ecosystems, dam (from the dam of the hydroelec- the ongoing territorial changes should tric complex to the tail of the Dubossa- be included as one of the variables of ry reservoir), having an area of 56.1 such an assessment. km2, includes the following ecosys- The solution to this problem can be tems – aquatic (42.1%), forest (5%), considered by the example of analyz- grass (46.2%), wetlands (1.2%), as ing changes in the areas of individual well as perennial plantations (1.2%), ecosystems at the key site located 20 built-up areas (4.5%). km downstream of the Dniester hy- Economic valuation methods can droelectric dam. be used to identify changes in the val- In the area of the village of Naslav- ue of ecosystem services under the cha, in the Dniester floodplain, there influence of a wide range of different are several small islands near the factors, including hydropower. Since banks of the river (Fig. 2.16). the valuation of ecosystem services is In this figure, the two left maps re- based, along with purely natural and flect the state of this natural complex biological factors, on accounting the in the periods before and after the

Fig. 2.16. Maps of the studied area before (left) and after (right) the construction of the Dniester hydroelectric complex, as well as a Google map of the studied area as of 2018. construction of the hydroelectric com- hydroelectric complex revealed the plex: in 1979 and 2018, respectively. presence of several territorial trends: Changes in the size and structure of 1) reduction in the area of the river the components of this natural land- due to its overgrowth and trans- scape are clearly visible. formation into swampy areas Comparative analysis of the are- (wetland); as occupied by diﬀerent ecosystems 2) increase in the area of forest eco- within the studied key area before and systems due to a decrease in her- after the construction of the Dniester baceous (grassland) (Table 2.4). 36

Table 2.4. Changes in the studied area (1979-2018) 1979 2018 Change Ecosystem кm2 % кm2 % кm2 % Surface water 1,0599 80,20 1,0598 68,64 -0,0001 -11,56 Wetland 0 0,00 0,1756 11,37 0,1756 11,37 Forest 0,0996 7,54 0,2669 17,29 0,1673 9,75 Grassland 0,1620 12,26 0,0421 2,73 -0,1199 -9,53 Total 1,3215 100,00 1,544 100,00 0,2225

So, on the territory under con- by the same amount. The increase in sideration, practically after the con- the forest area due to the decrease in struction of the Dniester hydroelectric herbal ecosystems was about 10%. complex, the area of open water sur- Along with the change in the areas face decreased by 11%, and the area of ecosystems, their structure has also of wetlands, respectively, increased changed (Fig. 2.17.).

Fig. 2.17. Ecosystem structure of the assessed areas for two compared years (1979 – left; 2018 – right) The quantitative parameters of and regulating ecosystem services, as the identiﬁed dynamics were used well as regulating ecosystem services to assess the change in the value of of wetland ecosystems (by 9 and 11%, ecosystem services in water-related respectively). At the same time, eco- ecosystems (forest, grass, wetland). system services of herbal and aquatic Trends in area changes suggest an in- ecosystems are decreasing, incl. due crease in forest ecosystems producing to reducing their area.

2.3.4. Mapping and valuation of ecosystems and their services Provisioning services duality, the ﬁrst component consists Surface water. The total cost of from water supply cost, e.g., operating providing water includes its full eco- and maintenance expenditures and nomic cost and environmental exter- capital charges. In turn, ecosystems nalities, associated with public health maintenance depends on water avail- and ecosystem maintenance. In this ability. The most diﬃcult element in 37

EV of water services is to determinate age price for 1 m3 of drinking still wa- its market price, usually taken as aver- ter (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5. The Dniester annual runoﬀ (km3) before and after DHPC construction P e r i o d s Post Change 1951-1980 1991-2015 Zalishchyky 7.03 7.28 0.25 Mohyliv 8.89 8.33 -0.56 Bender 10.22 9.15 -1.07

Such approach, as useful for EV Fishery. The long-term dynamics of impacts on water resources, was of the volumes of commercial fish- applied to evaluate losses of the Dni- eries in the Dniester River indicates ester River provisioning services due its significant reduction (Fig. 2.18). to the Dniester Hydropower Complex This reduction is undoubtedly asso- (DHPC) operation. The estimations ciated with HPPs construction: the were based on comparing the stream- first sharp reduction took place in the flow volume (Q) at hydrological posts 1950s and was caused by the Dubasari Zalishchyky, located upstream DHPC, HPP construction; the second reduc- and Mohyliv-Podilskyi and Bender – tion, occurred in the 1990s, was due downstream in periods before (1951- to the commissioning of the Dniester 1980) and after (1991-2015) DHPC hydropower complex. construction (Table 2.3.). Q decrease Along with a general decrease of downstream the DHPC in 1991-2015, fish stocks, the stock of commercially against its increase upstream, indi- valuable species is especially signifi- cates its undoubted impact that re- cant. sults in annual economic losses of $30 For EV of the fishery losses, two ap- million in Mohyliv and above twice proaches have been used: more – in Bender (at a water price of Cost of direct losses. Based on the $25/m3). world price of freshwater fish ($ 2.35/ kg in 2019), the annual losses in Dni- ester part, e.g. from Rybnitsa to Palan- ca, were more than $ 172 thousand. The costs of maintaining the fish habitat. The cost of 150.2 tons of various fish species fries, launched in 1998-2018 in Dubasari reservoir for maintaining its fish stock, amounted ~360,4 USD; this figure can be considered as an equivalent of EV of fish Fig. 2.18. Trends of fish catches losses. in the Dniester River 38

Regulating services There are examined the regulating were considered as “hot spots” in the services that to one degree or anoth- economic assessment on the example er relate to climate change and river of the Ramsar site “Lower Dniester” streamﬂow. As a study area, wetlands (Fig. 2.19.).

Fig. 2.19. Ramsar site “Lower Dniester” as a case study

Carbon deposit by the Low Dni- EUR. Based on forest species com- ester forest ecosystems (2.1.1.2). An- position and area that each occupies nual CO2 accumulation for Moldova’s in the Lower Dniester, the resulting main forest-forming species (oak, current EV of their annual carbon de- poplar, white acacia and other spe- posit service is 1.53 million USD, vary- cies) is 7.7, 10.7, 8.4 and 4.1 ton/ha, ing across the territory from <5 to 105 respectively. In March 2020 an aver- thousand USD (Fig. 2.20.). age price of CO2 allowance was 24.1

Fig. 2.20. Spatial distribution of the economic value of an annual CO2 deposit service by the Lower Dniester forest ecosystems 39

Water protection and regulation redistribution of surface runoﬀ, occu- (2.2.5.1). The areas with slopes >5°, py more than 20% of the Lower Dni- where forest ecosystems contribute ester territory (Fig. 2.21). most of all to the surface-underground

Fig. 2.21. Distribution of sloping forest ecosystems in the Lower Dniester

This factor provides a significant the underground water accumulation increment in ecosystem waterregu- here is ~485,000 m3. With a payment lating functions. This service consists for water for industrial enterprises in equalizing seasonal fluctuations in of ~32 MDL/m3, the total economic a river runoff, preventing its sharp effect of such accumulation is about reductions, to reduce floods intensi- 11.9 million MDL. ty by redirecting a surface runoff into Economic valuation of the sorption ground. So, depending on a sloping (water-cleaning) function of swamps forest area in the Lower Dniester, is based on a comparison of the fil-

Fig. 2.22. Spatial distribution of the economic value of swamps water-cleaning function 40 tering ability of their ecosystems with ing further and in 2010-2015 this bird the filtering capacity of an industrial has almost disappeared from the delta treatment plant. Based on the swamps as a breeding species. area of this Ramsar site, the econom- According to the Ukrainian legis- ic value of their absorption services is lation the penalty for the death of one about 107 USD or 91 USD per ha on av- glossy ibis is about 434 USD. Consider- erage. However, this value, expressed ing this fine as a kind of compensation in mapping units, varies from 1,000 to for the loss of this environmental ser- more than 30,000 USD (Fig. 2.22.). vice, the economic value of glossy ibis Habitat services (2.2.2.3). The wa- disappearance due to hydropower ad- ter-regulating DHPC has changed the verse impacts on the Dniester delta can volume and seasonal distribution of be estimated of 1.0-1.3 million USD. the Dniester’s streamflow, often caus- ing its delta draining. Such destructive impact on main representatives of the delta’s natural ecosystems has result- ed in a catastrophic reduction in pop- ulations (by 70-99%) of almost 80% of its fauna. So, a glossy ibis (Fig. 2.23), which is listed in the Red Books of Moldova and Ukraine, was the most widespread bird in the Dniester delta, where 2,500-3,000 of its adult individuals nest steadily in 1970-1982. Howev- er, already in 1988-2002 a number of breeding loafs decreased manyfold here, rangiing from 100-350 adults individuals; the decrease was continu- Fig. 2.23. Glossy ibis

2.4. Case studies for the Uzh River basin (Ukraine) 2.4.1. Characteristics of the pilot basin The Uzh River originates in the of the Polonyn ridge, near Uzhhorod it mountains in the northwest of the reaches the plain territory of the Pan- Zakarpattia region of Ukraine. On the nonian lowland. southern slopes of the Verkhovyna The Uzh River flows into the river watershed, near the Uzhitsky pass, at Laborec in Slovakia. In the upper and an altitude of 970 m above sea level, middle reaches the river Uzh has a two mountain rivers Uzh and Uzhok mountainous character, below Uzhgo- merge into a single river, which first rod in the Pannonian lowlands – plain. flows in a wide intermountain gorge, The length is 133 km, the area of the and then, skirting the western slopes basin is 2.750 km2 (within Ukraine 107 41

Fig. 2.24. Basin of the river Uzh km and 1950 km). The width of the val- of the river is mainly 15–30 m, near ley increases from 15 m (in the upper Uzhhorod – up to 135 m. The slope of reaches) to 100–300 m, in the low- the river is 7.2 m/km. Normal water lands it reaches 2–2.5 km. The ﬂood- consumption is 29 m/s. The shores are plain is intermittent, often asymmetric, steep, 1-2 m high, sometimes up to 6-8 50–500 m wide, and up to 1 km in the m, the bottom in the upper and middle lower reaches. The channel is winding, reaches is rocky, and in the city of Uzh- moderately branched, in the upper and horod and below the shores it is silted middle reaches it is porous, there are up. Recharge sources – snow and pre- low waterfalls, many alluvial islands cipitation. Used for water supply and overgrown with vegetation. The width as a source of hydropower.

2.4.2. Hydropower in the basin Interest in the energy resources of It was according to Czech designs the mountain rivers of Transcarpathia that the Onokivska (2.65 MW) and arose in the last century, in particu- Uzhhorod (1.9 MW) MHPPs were lar in the Czechoslovak period (1919- built on the Uzh River in 1937 and 1939). The scheme of hydropower put into operation in 1942. These hy- use of the rivers of the Tisza basin, in draulic structures on the Uzh River particular the river Uzh and its tribu- have been operating for more than 70 taries – the river Luta, was made by years without reconstruction. This is a Czech specialists. At that time, it was very original project of cascade power planned to build 14 small hydropower plants, which are located in a specially plants on the rivers of Transcarpathia, created derivation channel, more than with a total capacity of up to 62 MW, 10 km long (Fig. 2.25). which were to generate up to 340 million kWh in a year. 42

Fig. 2.25. The scheme of regulation of the river Uzh

It is known that in the historical was reclaimed, and the main channel past near the city of Uzhgorod, the riv- was regulated by a stone fortification er was divided into several branches, and embankment dams, where today so the city periodically suffered from there are very beautiful Uzhhorod em- floods and inundations. For a long bankments. The derivation canal itself time, all city quarters were built only performs two functions: water supply on hills. Uzhhorod grew in size after of the old (right) part of the city (wa- the last side channel of the Maly Uzh ter intake is up to 6 million m3 per River was taken into a pipe and filled year) and water supply to the turbines up during the construction of the der- of two HPPs, which at that time fully ivation canal. The swampy floodplain supplied the city with electricity.

Fig. 2.26. Onokiivska (left) and Uzhhorod MHPP

Water from the river Uzh is drained Since 2017, after cleaning the bottom into the derivation channel by a trans- of the canal from silt, the overflow on verse dam in the village of Kamyan- the dam does not work, only during ytsia, located at a distance of 8 km from the seasonal floods – short periods in Uzhgorod. The height of the dam is March and November. Thus, for a long 3.5 m. All this time, until 2017, the dam time of the year, a section of the Uzh operated in overflow mode (Fig. 27). River, 11 km long, is on the verge of 43 drying up. Due to the deepening of the take from the riverbed for the purposes canal bottom, the volume of water in- of electricity generation has increased.

Fig. 2.27. Dam near the village Kamyanytsia during the overflow period (November, 2020) The dam of this cascade of the dam is low, overflowing, Grizzly type. MHPP is not equipped with a fishing There are fish protection structures, vessel. That is, it is a physical barrier to bypass step fish. The reservoir, as fish migration. Currently, an obstacle such, is virtually absent. A low-flowing to fish migration is also the lack of wa- shallow creek is formed in the upper ter in the riverbed in the lower reaches. reaches. The maximum water con- During the limited period, fish and fry sumption is 0.9 m3/s. In our opinion, fall into the trap of shallow water, when the biggest problem of this HPP is der- the river turns into many puddles. ivation – about 6 out of 20 km of the In the basin of the Uzh River there river are driven into the pipe for the is another cascade of backup and der- operation of this cascade of HPPs. ivation MHPPs, already built on the Influence of the MHPP dam on Shypit River: HPP “Shypit-1” (com- the Uzh River. The dam in the vil- missioned in 2012, capacity 1.02 MW) lage of Kamyanytsia makes the river and HPP “Shypit-2” (2014, 0.99 MW). impassable in this area. As a result, HPP “Shypit-1” is a transverse dam the species structure of ichthyofauna 36 m wide and 4.6 m high. A reservoir in the river in the upper reaches and with an area of 1000 m2 has been cre- lower reaches is probably very differ- ated in the upper reaches. The aver- ent from that which existed before the age depth of the reservoir is 1.5 m, the construction of the dam. For example, maximum depth is 4.6 m. The length semi-permeable species of fish in the of the derivation (in the pipe) is 2950 upper reaches are absent: aspen (As- m, the maximum water flow is 2.3 pius aspius), pike perch (Sander lu- m3/s. For the first 1.5 years, the HPP cioperca), catfish (Silurus glanis). In operated without a fishing vessel. As a the river they live exclusively in the result of protests from environmental lower reaches. Above the dam in a typ- organizations a bypass stepped fish ical area from Perechyn to Uzhhorod boat was built. Its effectiveness has there are species that do not migrate not been proven to date. during spawning. During floods in Upstream is HPP “Shypit 2”. The Uzhhorod, river trout (Salmo trutta length of the derivation is 2769 m. The morpha fario), which lives only in the 44 mountain tributaries of the Uzh, are wagtail (Motacilla cinerea Tunstall), sometimes demolished. There is cur- sea buckthorn (Cinclus cinclus) and rently no chance for trout to return to embankment (Actitis hypoleucos) – the mountain cold rivers, except in the common species for mountain rivers upper reaches of Slovak rivers. – were found. Prolonged state of high During the studies of the season- water level in the river, for example, al dynamics of the species structure during the construction of a retaining of bird communities of the middle dam and increase the water level in course of the river Uzh during 2015- the upper reaches by 2-3 m, leads to 2020 the negative effect of raising the extinction of these species in such the water level in the river for small areas of the river. snake (Charadrius dubius), mountain

2.4.3. Types of ecosystems and their conditions According to published estimates, in the upper reaches (16.2%): beech- the forest cover of the Uzh River ba- fir and beech-spruce forests. The sin is 71%. Of these, operational for- group of types of maple-beech forests ests occupy 36.1%, nature protection is very rare and is confined to Uzhan- – 25.1%, recreational and health for- sky NNP. ests of the green belt of settlements The age structure of the forests of – 14.4%, protective forests, which per- the basin is as follows: young forest form an important hydrological and occupies 11.7% of the area, medieval anti-erosion function – 15.1%, forests forests cover 59.1% of the territory, on reserve lands and shrubs – 9.4%. ripening – 12.9%, mature and over- The Uzh basin is dominated by beech ripe forests occupy 16.3%. forest formations (81.4%): pure beech, The remaining 29% of the basin hornbeam-beech, maple-beech, co- area, according to published esti- niferous-beech. Oak groves (2.4%) mates, are settlements, agricultural also grow in the lower reaches: horn- landscapes, roads – big roads, soils beam-oak and beech-oak forests. For- and railways. All of them are concen- mations of fir and spruce forests grow trated in the valley of the river Uzh.

2.4.4. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services We have already used data from surface for 5 years – annually from the Copernicus Global Land Service 2015 to 2019. (CGLC) for mapping ecosystems in the The main source data for the ser- river basin. This is the ﬁrst such service are PROBA V satellite obser- vice with a resolution of 100 m, which vations, organized into millions of displays coverage for ten basic class- equivalent Sentinel-2 tiles measuring es of the earth’s surface for the entire 110x110 km. Processing in this tile planet. This service was launched in grid in UTM projection ensures high May 2019, and from September 2020 quality and promotes the continuity of it displays dynamic data of the earth’s Sentinel-2 observations. 45

An important feature of Coper- comparable to the ecosystem types nicus Global Land Service is the dis- listed in the MAES classification, the play of surface classes according to Copernicus Global Land Cover map the UN-FAO Land Classification Sys- was used as a basis for developing tem (LCCS), which are comparable to the Uzh River Basin Ecosystem Map the MAES classification (Table 2.6). (Fig. 2.28, 2.29). Since the data on land cover types are

Table 2.6. Comparison of CGLC surface classes and MAES ecosystem types

Land Cover Classes (CGLC) Types of ecosystems (MAES)

Forests Woodland and forest

Shrubland Heathland and shrub

Herbaceous vegetation Grassland Moss & Lichen

Snow & Ice Sparsely vegetated land Bare / Sparse vegetation

Cropland Cropland

Built-up Urban

Herbaceous wetlands Wetlands

Permanent water bodies Rivers and lakes

Fig. 2.28. Use of the Copernicus Global Land Cover resource to determine the types of ecosystems of the territory according to the MAES classiﬁcation (on the example of the Uzh river basin) 46

Fig. 2.29. Algorithm for building ecosystem maps

The mapping was performed as The obtained mapping data show close as possible to the methodology that ¾ the area of the basin is represent- used in the EU to build an ecosystem ed by forested areas and forests, which map of the latest version, where the is slightly higher than the published es- source information is the Corine Land timates. Arable land occupies another Cover (CLC) data set with the con- 1/5 of the territory. In general, wooded trol year 2012. Given that CLC does areas and arable land cover 95% of the not cover the territory of Ukraine and basin area. Other selected ecosystems other Eastern Partnership countries, of the 2nd level according to the KOEP these data cannot currently be used method make up 1–3% of the territory. to map the ecosystems of these coun- These are urbanized areas, pastures, tries. rivers and lakes (Fig. 2.30).

Fig. 2.30. The ratio of areas of ecosystems in the Uzh River basin 47

Potential ecosystem services have value to people. Sometimes goods are been identified for each of the iden- considered more tangible, as in the tified types of river basin ecosystems. case of recycled wood, which can have Ecosystem services were established a monetary value. Ecosystem “results” according to CICES classification V5.1. may be less tangible, in which case The list of ecosystem services (Table they are often described simply as 4) is not exhaustive and can be supple- benefits. For example, in the case of mented according to the level of study forests, this may include the creation of the basin area. of a forest structure that promotes A fundamental characteristic of end recreation as a cultural service. services is that they remain connected Assessing all the benefits (specific to the basic functions, processes and goods and benefits) of certain river ba- structures of the ecosystems that gen- sin ecosystem services is a large-scale erate them. It is important to highlight task that requires both reliable data those characteristics of a living system on the state of the environment and that combine to form services. information on the existing use of eco- For example, in the case of wood system services, as well as the availa- used for building materials, they will bility of the necessary tools. include attributes that make a particu- A number of applications have lar wood “workable” as a building ma- been developed to quantify ecosys- terial, and include characteristics such tem services, which are mainly based as hardness, strength and durability on the use of GIS tools. In particular, of wood fiber. All these attributes will the following tools have become wide- depend, in turn, on the basic struc- spread: tural properties of the forest, which • ARIES; includes the composition of trees, • BeST; soil type, nutrient status and growth • Co$ting Nature; processes that have formed the oper- • EcoServ-GIS; ational stands. The amount of wood • GI Valuation Toolkit; ready for felling is accepted as a ser- • i-Tree Eco; vice in CICES. • InVEST; Services form goods and benefits, • Natural Capital Planning Tool; as in the case of wood, when it is har- • ORVal; vested and crosses the “production • Participatory GIS; boundary”. Goods and benefits are • SENCE; essentially seen as derivatives of eco- • TESSA; system services, they ultimately have • Viridian.

2.4.5. Application of the InVEST tool for assessment of ecosystem services One of the most widely used tools Natural Capital Project – is the soft- for assessing ecosystem services in ware package InVEST – Integrated the world is developed by Stanford Valuation of Ecosystem Services and University in the framework of the Tradeoffs, ie a tool for integrated as- 48 sessment of ecosystem services and It currently offers a set of free, open trade-offs between them. source software that covers 19 differ- InVEST is a model that helps to ent terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and quantify and reflect the value of ecosys- marine ecosystem services. InVEST tem services. InVEST is a spatial mode- has been used in mapping and evalu- ling tool that takes into account chang- ating ecosystem services in various re- es in ecosystem services, biodiversity search projects around the world, es- conservation and levels of commodity pecially to analyze trade-offs between production. Such an approach to quan- ecosystem services and to compare tifying and spatializing the production different alternative potential devel- of ecosystem services can help make opment scenarios. decisions to preserve the environment InVEST models are a standalone and manage natural resources more ef- application that does not depend on ficiently and effectively. GIS software. You will need GIS soft- Initially, InVEST was developed as ware such as QGIS or ArcGIS to view a free extension of the ArcGIS toolkit. the results.

Table 2.7. Ecosystem services of the river basin According to the CICES V5.1 classification Type of Class of ecosystem services Code ecosystem Rivers and Cultivated terrestrial plants (including fungi, algae) grown for nutrition- 1.1.1.1. lakes al purposes Fibres and other materials from cultivated plants, fungi, algae and bacte- 1.1.1.2 ria for direct use or processing (excluding genetic materials) Plants cultivated by in- situ aquaculture grown for nutritional purposes 1.1.2.1 Fibres and other materials from in-situ aquaculture for direct use or pro- 1.1.2.2 cessing (excluding genetic materials) Animals reared by in-situ aquaculture for nutritional purposes 1.1.4.1 Fibres and other materials from animals grown by in-situ aquaculture for 1.1.4.2 direct use or processing (excluding genetic materials) Wild plants (terrestrial and aquatic, including fungi, algae) used for nu- 1.1.5.1 trition Fibres and other materials from wild plants for direct use or processing 1.1.5.2 (excluding genetic materials) Wild animals (terrestrial and aquatic) used for nutritional purposes 1.1.6.1 Hydrological cycle and water flow regulation (Including flood control, 2.2.1.3 and coastal protection) Regulation of the chemical condition of freshwaters by living processes 2.2.5.1 Regulation of chemical composition of atmosphere and oceans 2.2.6.1. Regulation of temperature and humidity, including ventilation and tran- 2.2.6.2. spiration Characteristics of living systems that that enable activities promoting 3.1.1.1. health, recuperation or enjoyment through active or immersive interactions Characteristics of living systems that enable activities promoting health, 3.1.1.2. recuperation or enjoyment through passive or observational interactions 49

Type of Class of ecosystem services Code ecosystem Characteristics of living systems that enable scientific investigation or 3.1.2.1. the creation of traditional ecological knowledge Characteristics of living systems that enable education and training 3.1.2.2. Characteristics of living systems that enable aesthetic experiences 3.1.2.4. Characteristics or features of living systems that have an existence value 3.2.2.1. Surface water for drinking 4.2.1.1. Surface water used as a material (non-drinking purposes) 4.2.1.2. Freshwater surface water used as an energy source 4.2.1.3. Ground (and subsurface) water for drinking 4.2.2.1. Ground water (and subsurface) used as a material (non-drinking pur- 4.2.2.2. poses) Maintenance and regulation by inorganic natural chemical and physical 5.2.2.1. processes Natural, abiotic characteristics of nature that enable active or passive 6.1.1.1. physical and experiential interactions Cities -- Arable land Cultivated terrestrial plants (including fungi, algae) grown for nutrition- 1.1.1.1 al purposes Fibres and other materials from cultivated plants, fungi, algae and bacte- 1.1.1.2. ria for direct use or processing (excluding genetic materials) Cultivated plants (including fungi, algae) grown as a source of energy 1.1.1.3. Animals reared for nutritional purposes 1.1.3.1 Fibres and other materials from reared animals for direct use or process- 1.1.3.2 ing (excluding genetic materials) Animals reared to provide energy (including mechanical) 1.1.3.3 Pastures Cultivated terrestrial plants (including fungi, algae) grown for nutrition- 1.1.1.1. al purposes Animals reared for nutritional purposes 1.1.3.1. Wild plants (terrestrial and aquatic, including fungi, algae) used for nu- 1.1.5.1 trition Fibres and other materials from wild plants for direct use or processing 1.1.5.2 (excluding genetic materials) Wild plants (terrestrial and aquatic, including fungi, algae) used as a 1.1.5.3 source of energy Wild animals (terrestrial and aquatic) used for nutritional purposes 1.1.6.1. Control of erosion rates 2.2.1.1. Hydrological cycle and water flow regulation (Including flood control, 2.2.1.3 and coastal protection) Wind protection 2.2.1.4 Seed dispersal 2.2.2.2 Wastelands Wild animals (terrestrial and aquatic) used for nutritional purposes 1.1.6.1. and shrubs Wind protection 2.2.1.4 Control of erosion rates 2.2.1.1 50

Type of Class of ecosystem services Code ecosystem Forest Wild plants (terrestrial and aquatic, including fungi, algae) used for nu- 1.1.5.1 areas and trition forests Fibres and other materials from wild plants for direct use or processing 1.1.5.2 (excluding genetic materials) Wild plants (terrestrial and aquatic, including fungi, algae) used as a 1.1.5.3 source of energy Wild animals (terrestrial and aquatic) used for nutritional purposes 1.1.6.1 Fibres and other materials from wild animals for direct use or processing 1.1.6.2 (excluding genetic materials) Seeds, spores and other plant materials collected for maintaining or es- 1.2.1.1. tablishing a population Hydrological cycle and water flow regulation (Including flood control, 2.2.1.3. and coastal protection) Wind protection 2.2.1.4 Decomposition and fixing processes and their effect on soil quality 2.2.4.2. Regulation of chemical composition of atmosphere and oceans 2.2.6.1. Regulation of temperature and humidity, including ventilation and tran- 2.2.6.2. spiration Characteristics of living systems that that enable activities promoting 3.1.1.1. health, recuperation or enjoyment through active or immersive interactions Characteristics of living systems that enable scientific investigation or 3.1.2.1. the creation of traditional ecological knowledge Characteristics of living systems that enable education and training 3.1.2.2. Characteristics of living systems that enable aesthetic experiences 3.1.2.4. Ground (and subsurface) water for drinking 4.2.2.1.

InVEST models are spatially ex- ecosystem services provide to hu- plicit, using maps as sources of infor- mans. Environmental decision-mak- mation and generating maps as source ers inevitably need to assess trade-offs data. InVEST produces results either between different types and scenari- in biophysical units (eg tonnes of car- os of natural resource use. InVEST’s bon sequestration) or in economic multiservice modular design pro- units (eg net present value of this car- vides an effective tool for studying the bon sequestration). Spatial resolution possible consequences of alternative analysis is also flexible, allowing users management and climate scenarios, to address issues locally, regionally or as well as for assessing trade-offs be- globally. tween sectors and services. For exam- The tool is modular – you do not ple, government agencies may use In- need to model all these ecosystem ser- VEST to make territorial management vices, but you can choose only those decisions to provide the desired range that need to be evaluated. of benefits to people or to mitigate the InVEST provides information on effects, to support natural benefits to how changes in ecosystems can lead society. Environmental organizations to changes in the flow of benefits that can use InVEST to better align their 51 biodiversity objectives with activities provide the highest rates of car- that improve people’s living condi- bon sequestration, biodiversity tions. Businesses can use InVEST to and tourism? decide how and where to invest in nat- • Where can reforestation achieve ural capital to ensure the sustainabili- the greatest benefits of down- ty and security of their supply chains. stream water quality while InVEST can help answer the fol- maintaining or minimizing loss- lowing questions: es in water flows? • Where do ecosystem services • How will climate change and come from and where are they population growth affect ecosys- consumed? tem services and biodiversity? • How does the proposed forest • What benefits does marine spa- management plan affect biodi- tial planning bring to society in versity, water quality and recre- addition to fisheries and aqua- ation? culture products and safe places • What types of coastal and fish- for renewable energy facilities? eries policies will work best for InVEST uses a simple structure that sustainable fishing, shoreline separates “supply, service, and value” protection and recreation? to relate productive functions to the • Which parts of the catchment benefits people receive (Fig. 2.31).

Fig. 2.31. Chain of supply of ecosystem services “Supply” represents what is poten- example, where people live, impor- tially available in the ecosystem (ie tant cultural sites, infrastructure, etc.) what can provide the structure and “Value” includes social benefits and functions of the ecosystem). For ex- allows the calculation of economic ample, supporting a diversity of fish and social indicators (for example, the fauna or high water quality in a river, number of people who used the servic- which supported by the free flow of es of fishing or recreation, the amount the river. “Service” includes demand of water used for water supply of the and therefore uses information about required quality, etc.). the beneficiaries of the service (for 52

The Reservoir Hydropower Pro- Uzh River Basin, given the use of the duction model (also known as Water river to generate electricity on the der- Yield) of the InVEST software package ivation channel by Onokiviyivska and is used to assess the ecosystem servic- Uzhhorod HPPs (near Uzhgorod). It is es of river basins. 14. This model allows assumed that constant current of the to estimate the relative contribution river should be provided to support the of water from different parts of the river and coastal ecosystems of the Uzh landscape, offering an understanding River in the section of the flow from of how changes in land use patterns af- the dam in the village. Kamyanytsia to fect annual surface water and hydro- the place of return of the derivation ca- power production. However, the capa- nal in the Uzh River (see fig. 3). With a bilities of the model are much wider. flow rate of less than 10 cubic meters / In particular, it was used to assess the s, which in recent years has been ob- change in the provision of three hy- served from June to October (Fig. 10), drological ecosystem services to the it is assumed that the diversion of the Llobregat River Basin (Spain), which flow from the river bed will have neg- provides drinking water to Barcelona. ative consequences for ecosystems, as These are water supply (regulation) a result of which the ecosystem servic- and regulation (water purification and es of river are lost on this section of erosion control) services.15. river. Among such ecosystem services The idea of this study was to assess according to the CICES classification the feasibility and obstacles in the ap- it is possible to allocate 1.1.6.1, 2.2.1.3, plication of the “Water Yield” model 2.2.5.1, 2.2.6.1, 2.2.6.2, 3.1.1.1, 3.1.2.1 to assess the ecosystem services of the and others (Table. 4).

Fig. 2.32. Flow rates of the Uzh River in the area of the city of Uzhgorod

14 https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest-models/reservoir-hydropower-production-water-yield 15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.016 53

At the same time, it should be not- pollutants by landscapes, which ulti- ed that the operation of two HPPs on mately do not enter the river bed. The the created derivation channel is the benefits of such an ecosystem service use of ecosystem service 4.2.1.3. Thus, can be assessed through the higher the deepening of the derivation chan- quality of water used for water supply, nel and almost complete drainage of through the determination of the total water from the natural channel for content of priority pollutants such as the use of one ecosystem service has nitrogen and phosphorus. a negative impact on a number of oth- Modeling the relationship between ers, at least for this section of the river. landscape changes and hydrologi- In this and similar cases, the as- cal processes is not simple. Complex sessment of the impact of hydropow- models of these connections and re- er facilities on the environment using lated processes (such as the WEAP the Water Yield model of the InVEST model) require significant resources software package allows to assess the and data and require significant expe- water consumption of both existing rience. InVEST Water Yield maps and HPPs and other ecosystem services by models the average annual water con- maintaining continuous free flow, as sumption for a particular landscape well as to predict possible changes in used for hydropower generation, rath- water flow. with land use change and er than directly considering the im- climatic factors, which is extremely pact of land use and land cover chang- important for planning water basin es on hydropower. Instead, the model management activities. calculates the relative contribution of Additionally, the Water Yield mod- each land plot to the average annual el can be used, for example, to assess hydropower production and the value an ecosystem service on water treat- of this contribution in terms of energy ment. It consists in the trapping of production.

Fig. 2.33. Conceptual scheme of a simpliﬁed method of water balance in the Water Yield model 54

The model has three consecutive bution, evatranspiration, root layer components. First, the amount of wa- depth, water evaporation by plants, ter flowing from each pixel is defined available water content in soils, types as the amount of precipitation minus of land use, boundaries of basins and the proportion of water that evapo- sub-basins (Tab. 5). rates. Pixel-scale calculations allow The analysis of the availability and to present the heterogeneity of the accessibility of the necessary source main driving factors of runoff forma- data for the use of the InVEST Water tion, such as soil type, precipitation, Yield model shows that all the neces- vegetation type, etc. (Fig. 2.19). Sec- sary data at the national level are ei- ond, according to the average annual ther mostly absent or available with runoff, the model calculates the share limited or paid access, such as rainfall of surface water that is available for data, temperature, river flow. There hydropower production. Third, the are also no available digitized bound- model estimates the energy produced aries of river basins and sub-basins. by water. At the same time, the availability Using the InVEST Water Yield of open data resources covering the model requires data that must be in entire planet, including Ukraine (see the same coordinate system. The list Table 5), allows the use of ecosystem of required data includes, in particu- services assessment models, such as lar, such parameters about the basin InVEST, although at the first assess- area as precipitation and their distri- ment level.

Fig. 2.34. Estimated actual evapotranspiration, mm 55

The results of the evaluation of the bution to the total runoff of the basin. river basin already illustrates the pos- Further research to assess ecosystem sibilities of the InVEST Water Yield services should be aimed at refining model in particular regarding the as- the model on the basis of actual data sessment of precipitation distribution, and its verification. evapotranspiration (Fig. 2.20), contri-

Table 2.8. Basic data required for the operation of the InVEST Water Yield model № Parameter name Data need Data accessibility in Ukraine 1. Workspace (envi- Optional (neces- Available on any PC ronment) sary to save model data) 2. Suffix Optional (neces- Available on any PC sary for scenario differentiation) 3. Precipitation (mm) Necessarily No precipitation data are freely available 4. Average annual Necessarily No national data. reference evap- Proceedings of the International Agricultural Research otranspiration Advisory Group (CGIAR) based on WorldClim climate (mm) data https://cgiarcsi.community/data/global-aridi- ty-and-pet-database/ Crop evaporation – Guidelines for calculating water needs http://www.fao.org/3/X0490E/X0490E00. htm 5. Root restricting Necessarily No national data. layer depth (mm) European Soil Database https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa. eu/content/european-soil-database-derived-data FAO Harmonized Soil Database – https://webarchive. iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/External-World-soil-database/HTML/ 6. Water content Necessarily No national data. available to plants European Soil Database https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa. (Share from 0 to 1) eu/content/european-soil-database-derived-data U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) materials https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/software/download/?softwareid=492 7. Land use / land Necessarily There are no current national data. It is possible to use cover (LULC codes a cadastral map.Data of Copenicus Global Land Cover must correspond to – https://lcviewer.vito.be the values of “lucode” Data of Climate Change Initiative (CCI) – http://maps. in the biophysical elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/index.php table ) Data of GlobeLand30: Global Geo-information Pub- lic Product http://www.globeland30.org/defaults_ en.html?type=data&src=/Scripts/map/defaults/En/ browse_en.html&head=browse 8. Watersheds Necessarily No national data. (shape-file) HydroBASINS: http://hydrosheds.org/ InVest Auxiliary Tool “DelineateIT” 9. Sub watersheds Necessarily No national data. (shape-file) HydroBASINS: http://hydrosheds.org/ InVest Auxiliary Tool “DelineateIT” 56

10. Biophysical table Necessarily – (.csv). Each row is a land use / land cover class, and the columns should be named and deﬁned as follows:

10.1. lucode (Unique inte- Necessarily It is determined by the type of land use. ger for each class of No national data. It is possible to use a cadastral map. LULC) Data of Copenicus Global Land Cover – https://lcviewer.vito.be

10.2. LULC_desc (De- Optional It is determined by the type of land use. scriptive name of the No national data. It is possible to use a cadastral map. land use / land cover Data of Copenicus Global Land Cover – https://lcview- class) er.vito.be

10.3. LULC_veg (vegeta- Necessarily It is determined by the type of land use. tive land use, 1 or о) There are no current national data. It is possible to use a cadastral map. Data of Copenicus Global Land Cover – https://lcviewer.vito.be

10.4. root_depth (The Necessarily No national data. maximum root European soil database https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa. depth, mm) eu/content/european-soil-database-derived-data Harmonized FAO soil database https://webarchive. iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/External-World-soil-database/HTML/

10.5. Kc evaporation rate Necessarily No national data. of plants, from 0 to Guidelines for calculating water needs http://www.fao. 1.5) org/3/X0490E/X0490E00.htm

11. Z parameter ( Float- Necessarily Estimated parameter ing point values of the order of 1 to 30, which corresponds to the seasonal distribution of precipitation)

12. Demand table Necessarily, when – calculating the water deﬁcit or assessment

12.1. lucode unique inte- Necessarily It is determined by the type of land use. ger for each land use There are no current national data. It is possible to use class) a cadastral map. Data of Copenicus Global Land Cover – https://lcviewer.vito.be

12.2. demand (сwater Necessarily No national data consumption in pixels, cubic meters / year) 57

13. Hydropower as- Necessarily, if the Provided by the HPP operator. sessment table assessment is carried out The U.S. National Inventory of Dams: http://nid.us- 13.1. ws_id (unique inte- Necessarily ace.army.mil/ ger value for each Global Reservoir and Dam (GRanD) Database: http:// HPP) www.gwsp.org/products/grand-database.html World Water Development Report II dam data- 13.2. station_desc (name Optional base: http://wwdrii.sr.unh.edu/download.html of a HPP) 13.3. eﬃciency (HPP eﬃ- Necessarily ciency, usually from 0.7 to 0.9) 13.4. fraction (the propor- Necessarily tion of water used by hydropower plants) 13.5 height (pressure on Necessarily HPP, m) 13.6 kw_price (cost of Necessarily kV * h) 13.7 cost (annual cost of Necessarily HPP operation) 13.8 time_span (duration Necessarily of HPP operation, years) 13.9. discount (discount Necessarily rate,%) 58

3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTEGRATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INTO THE PRACTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS OF HYDROENERGY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS. MOLDOVA AND UKRAINE

3.1. Recommendations for Integration of Ecosystem Services Valuation into Hydro-Construction Practice in Moldova 3.1.1. Using the results of mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in the practice of hydro-construction The attractiveness of the concept of ranking of investments in the use and ecosystem services lies in taking into protection of ecosystems; provision of account a wide range of functions of payments, credits, loans, grants to pre- natural capital and is based on its inte- serve ecosystems and their services. grational, inter- and transdisciplinary Various methods for assessing ES nature, on the connection of environ- are an important stage in mak- mental and socio-economic aspects. ing management decisions in the Evaluation of ecosystem services is field of hydroelectric construction. necessary to solve a number of en- The introduction of accounting the vironmental and economic prob- value of ecosystem services in busi- lems of the development of hy- ness planning is rapidly developing in droelectric construction, such as the world. Within the European Un- the economic justification of alterna- ion, territorial modeling and mapping tives for the development of the territo- of ecosystem services for local busi- ry; substantiation of additional costs in ness planning have acquired the projects (programs) for environmental greatest interest. In Moldova, there is protection measures, which, togeth- still a process of realizing the im- er with environmental, have a large portance of economic assessment of economic effect; prioritization and biodiversity and ES.

3.1.2. Identification of the main barriers to the implementation of ecosystem services valuation in the practice of hydro-construction The practical application of the organization of natural ecosystems, as concept of ecosystem services is large- well as insufficient knowledge of the ly hampered by the lack of adequate functions and ongoing processes. In methods for assessing their value. The addition, the collection, analysis and objective reason for the difficulties exchange of information on the as- that arise in the economic assessment sessment of eco-services is an impor- of eco-services is the complexity of the tant stage in the implementation of 59 the assessment of ecosystem services not available in the public domain, as in the practice of making management well as publicly available information decisions. However, in Moldova there bases that integrate indicators for as- is no monitoring system for ecosys- sessing ES. When obtaining the neces- tem services, and monitoring of natu- sary information, significant obstacles ral ecosystems (with the exception of arise, including those associated with forests) and components of biological its high cost. diversity is extremely incomplete and When compiling maps, the most does not correspond to the modern problematic issues are the choice of level of technology. Bioresource ac- ES of specific landscapes, operational counting systems do not provide com- territorial units, the display of con- plete data about their condition. The flicts of interest when assessing ES, reliability of the official data is low. which is associated with both insuffi- Many data on the state and dynamics cient knowledge of the problem and of natural objects and processes are information limitations.

3.1.3. The main directions of integration of the assessment of ecosystem services into the practice of hydroelectric construction The positive experience of many ed methodology for assessing ES countries proves the inevitability of and guidelines for their use for spe- drawing attention to economic assess- cialists making managerial decisions ment, monitoring and an adequate in the field of environmental manage- information base of the elements of ment. Legislative consolidation natural capital. The use and imple- of obligations, development of mentation of various mechanisms additional requirements for EIA and for accounting the ecosystem servic- control over their implementation can es (payments, EIA, etc.) is impossible give a positive environmental effect. without the development of an infor- The effectiveness of a rational atti- mation retrieval system for those tude to nature is ensured at the EIA indicators that will subsequently be stage in the planning of hydraulic monitored or taken as elements in the construction. calculation of economic assessments To create a solid foundation for (payments / damages). It is necessary ecosystem-safe hydro construction, a to immediately begin to form a na- transition to the stage of developing tional system for monitoring and as- standard solutions and scenar- sessing ecosystem services, as well as ios for interaction with design- taking their value into account when ers and builders should be en- making decisions that affect natural sured, and monitoring the state of systems. Its absence threatens envi- ecosystems and ES should be carried ronmental security and sustainable out using GIS technologies under the development of Moldova. It is also control of special security agencies. necessary to create a generally accept- 60

3.2. Recommendations for Integration of Ecosystem Services Valuation into Hydro-Construction Practice in Ukraine 3.2.1. Basis and state of implementation of ecosystem services assessments Fulfillment of European integra- system. Ukraine’s biodiversity, which tion commitments poses a task for provides ecosystem services, must be Ukraine to fully and comprehensively preserved, assessed and restored by implement the ecosystem approach. 2030. Ukraine’s commitment to the eco- The implementation of the ecosys- system approach as the basis for sus- tem approach and the implementation tainable development is enshrined in of the Strategy is primarily possible the Strategy of State Environmental through the Strategic Environmental Policy until 2030, adopted in 2019, Assessment (SEA) and Environmen- which defines the principles of state tal Impact Assessment (EIA) proce- policy transformation, in which envi- dures recently introduced in Ukraine, ronmental protection is identified as a in accordance with the requirements new key priority. The aim of the state of the Association Agreement between environmental policy is to achieve Ukraine and the European Union. good environmental status by intro- However, there is no legal and meth- ducing an ecosystem approach to all odological basis for the introduction areas of socio-economic development of the ecosystem approach in Ukraine, of Ukraine in order to ensure the con- as in other Eastern Partnership coun- stitutional right of every citizen of tries. Ukraine to a clean and safe environ- In Ukraine, the ecosystem ap- ment, introduction of balanced nature proach has not been used in SEA and management and preservation and EIA procedures not only for hydro- restoration of natural ecosystems. power plans and programs, but also in The strategy determines that the general. This is confirmed by numer- introduction of an ecosystem ap- ous reports on EIA of HPP construc- proach to sectoral policies is one of tion projects, published in the Unified the components on Ukraine’s path to a Register of EIA, which ignore public modern systemic environmental poli- recommendations on the application cy implemented in the member states of the ecosystem approach based on of the European Union. One of the five the identification and assessment of basic goals of the Strategy is to reduce ecosystem services provided by river environmental risks in order to mini- and associated ecosystems. mize their impact on ecosystems, so- Existing SEA and EIA practices cio-economic development and public show that they focus, at best, on im- health. pacts on certain species of living or- The strategy recognizes that the de- ganisms within certain habitats and velopment of ecosystem services will do not provide an objective assess- create opportunities for sustainable ment of environmental impacts in development of society and the eco- terms of ecosystem impacts. 61

Ecosystem services of rivers are the free ﬂow of 25 thousand km of riv- ignored, and their economic value is ers, as well as the UN Declared Dec- not assessed and taken into account, ade for Ecosystem Restoration 2021- which leads to ignoring their loss in 2030, which was conceived as a mean the implementation of hydropower of highlighting the need for much en- programs and projects, as well as to hanced global cooperation to restore unreasonable ideas about the relative degraded and destroyed ecosystems. cheapness of electricity produced at The application of the ecosystem HPPs and PSPs. approach – identiﬁcation and assess- The introduction of ecosystem ser- ment of ecosystems and their services, vices is especially relevant in the con- prevention of their negative changes text of the new European Union Bio- and losses due to the impact of hydro- diversity Strategy until 2030, which, power facilities – is a tool for the tran- among other things, aims to restore sition to a balanced hydropower.

3.2.2. Identification of the main barriers to the implementation of ecosystem services assessment The concept of ecosystem services Legislative obstacles include the has been actively developing in the lack of regulation at the legislative lev- European Union over the last decade. el of the implementation of the eco- In particular, the ESMERALDA pro- system approach in sectoral policies ject analyzed existing methods and and the legal framework for ecosys- generalized experience in assessing tem services. ecosystem services. There are also cas- The lack of a legal framework iden- es of estimating the loss of ecosystem tifies gaps in institutions that would be services for plans and projects in the responsible for identifying and map- field of hydropower (Guihua Wang et ping ecosystems, determining their al., 2010), which confirm the possibil- status, and implementing appropriate ity and necessity of implementing eco- monitoring. The results of the assess- system services in the decision-mak- ment of ecosystems and their services ing process. for the river basin have already shown Ukraine’s experience in ecosystem the lack of necessary information on services is still limited to scientific the state of the environment required publications with an overview and for the assessment of ecosystems ac- recommendations for the use of eco- cording to the conceptual model of system services (Gavrylenko, 2018, MAES adopted in the EU (see Fig. Prykhodko et al., 2020). 1.1). The problem of the absence of a The main obstacles to the intro- system of remote (satellite) monitor- duction of ecosystem services in the ing of the territory of Ukraine should hydropower sector can be divided into be singled out, which does not allow several groups: legislative, institution- to conduct actual mapping of eco- al, regulatory and methodological. systems, to monitor changes in their boundaries and condition. 62

Regulatory barriers include the lack consequences of gaps in the regula- of approved methods for assessing tory framework are the further deg- ecosystems and their services in SEA radation of vital river and associated and EIA procedures for hydropower ecosystems and their services due to programs and projects. There are no the operation of existing hydropower tools for economic evaluation of eco- facilities and the construction of new system services, poorly developed di- ones without taking into account and rection of scientiﬁc substantiation of compensating for losses to ecosystems evaluation of ecosystem services. The and other users of ecosystem services.

3.2.3. The main directions of integration of ecosystem services assessment

Ukraine, having a difficult history imize residual impacts and to com- of ruthless exploitation of the major pensate for measures required in the rivers (Dnipro, S. Bug, Dniester, etc.), event of ecosystem disturbance and needs to introduce an ecosystem ap- lost ecosystem services. This approach proach primarily to preserve and re- should ensure the preservation of store river and associated ecosystems. free-flowing rivers, the role of which As a party to the Convention on remains underestimated, mitigate the Biological Diversity, Ukraine should impact of existing hydropower facili- participate more actively in the work ties through their modernization and of the Intergovernmental Scientific application of the best available solu- and Policy Platform on Biodiversity tions, restoration of ecosystems. and use the experience of the platform Especially important is the intro- and the MAES working group to de- duction of economic evaluation of velop a regulatory framework for im- ecosystem services, which requires a plementing an ecosystem approach in thorough scientific substantiation. In SEA and EIA procedures, in particular this regard, it seems appropriate to for hydropower programs. and pro- establish a national scientific expert jects. group to identify key areas of research Methodical documents on conduct- needed to implement the ecosystem ing SEA and EIA of hydropower pro- approach and ecosystem services, in grams and projects should be based particular in the hydropower sector. on the ecosystem approach, provide In addition, such a group should aim for the establishment of ecosystems in to address the general guidelines for the area affected by the planned activ- mapping and assessing ecosystems ities, determine their status, identifi- and their services and to support the cation and assessment of ecosystem process of their implementation in services they provide. The purpose of national policies. Recommendations such assessments should be to pre- should be based on the experience of vent significant adverse impacts on implemented European projects, such ecosystems and their services, to min- as ESMERALDA and OpenNESS, as 63 well as best European and global prac- protection should aim at reforming tices in the use of the ecosystem ser- the monitoring system, which would vices tool. allow obtaining the necessary data Ukraine should aim to fully join the for mapping and assessment of eco- European system of ecosystem map- systems and their services, as well as ping, which is carried out using the ensuring convenient formats and free service of monitoring the earth’s sur- access to data, synchronization of data face of the EU program Copernicus16. with relevant European data registers. To do this, Ukraine should adopt the For the comprehensive implemen- typology of ecosystems used in the EU tation of ecosystem services in deci- (see Table 1.1). sion-making processes in different ar- A key element not only for the im- eas and at different levels, including in plementation but also for the wide- the procedures of SEA and EIA of hy- spread use of the ecosystem services dropower programs and projects, it is tool is the improvement of the envi- recommended to develop and approve ronmental monitoring system. State at the governmental level a framework policy in the field of environmental guideline based on European princi- ples17.

17 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/pdf/SWD_2019_305_ 16 https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/bio- F1_STAFF_WORKING_PAPER_EN_V2_ diversity/mapping-europes-ecosystems P1_1042629.PDF 64

CONCLUSIONS Over the last decade, the concept of require the identification and assessment ecosystem services has been actively de- of ecosystems and the services they provide. veloping in the European Union. As part Ukraine, having a difficult history of of the implementation of the EU Biodi- ruthless exploitation of major rivers (Dni- versity Strategy until 2020, a typology of pro, s. Bug, Dniester, etc.), needs to intro- ecosystems has been developed, a general duce an ecosystem approach primarily to international classification of ecosystem preserve and restore river and associated services CISES has been proposed, exist- ecosystems. ing tools for assessing ecosystem services Pilot assessment of ecosystems and have been considered and experience in their services for the river basin has al- their application has been systematized. ready identified a number of problems in The introduction of ecosystem services the use of ecosystem services. They are is especially relevant in the context of the related both to the lack of legal regulation new European Union Biodiversity Strate- and to the lack of the necessary registers of gy until 2030, which is an integral part of open data on the state of the environment, the European Green Course and, inter alia, as well as methodological gaps. All of these aims to restore the free flow of 25 thou- groups of barriers to the use of ecosystem sand km of rivers and the UN Declaration services are interconnected and need to be on Ecosystem Restoration of 2021-2030. addressed comprehensively. The European Commission has devel- It is recommended to develop meth- oped a guidance document for the inte- odological documents on SEA and EIA gration of ecosystem services in the de- of hydropower programs and projects, cision-making process, which notes that which should be based on the ecosystem SEA and EIA procedures provide key op- approach, the need to identify and map portunities for the integration of ecosys- ecosystems in the area affected by the tems and their services in the planning and planned activities, determine their status, approval of programs, plans and projects. identify and assess ecosystem services At the legislative level, Ukraine has ap- they provide. This approach should ensure proved the intention to introduce an eco- the preservation of free-flowing rivers, the system approach to all areas of socio-eco- role of which remains underestimated, nomic development as a basis for achieving mitigate the impact of existing hydropow- good environmental status. The strategy of er facilities through their modernization the state ecological policy until 2030 en- and application of the best available solu- visages the development of the institution tions, restoration of ecosystems. of ecosystem services, which should pro- Systematic solutions need to be ad- vide opportunities for balanced (sustain- dressed to improve environmental mon- able) development of society. However, itoring, which should provide up-to-date Ukraine’s experience in ecosystem servic- information on the state of ecosystems, as es is still limited to scientific publications well as access to information related to the with an overview and recommendations environment. for the use of ecosystem services. Ukraine, together with other Eastern Until now, ecosystem services of rivers Partnership countries, should deepen co- and adjacent ecosystems remain out of fo- operation with the EU to develop an eco- cus when considering hydropower develop- system approach and ecosystem services. ment plans and individual hydropower pro- Such cooperation should be comprehen- jects in Ukraine. The procedures for their sive and include areas of scientific coop- strategic environmental assessment and eration, development of regulatory and environmental impact assessment do not methodological framework, etc. 65

REFERENCES

Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are eco- lenges in integrating the concept of system services? The need for stand- ecosystem services and values in land- ardized environmental accounting scape planning, management and de- units. Ecological Economics 63, 616– cision making. Ecological Complexity 626. 7, 260–272. Burkhard, B., de Groot, R., Costanza, R., Dniester Commission website. Region. Seppelt, R., JArgensen, S.E., Potsch- https://dniester-commission.com/ in, M., 2012a. Solutions for sustaining bassejn-reki-dnestr/region/ natural capital and ecosystem services. Dniester transboundary river basin man- Ecological Indicators 21, 1–6. agement plan. Part 1: General char- Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Mul- acteristics and condition assessment, ler, F., 2012b. Mapping ecosystem ser- 2019: https://dniester-commission. vice supply, demand and budgets. Eco- com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ logical Indicators 21, 17–29. Dniester_TDA_July2019.pdf Cazanteva O., Sirodoev G., Corobov R. and Economic valuation in the monitoring Trombitsky I., 2019: Some approaches of ecosystems services: Methodical to the economic valuation of the wet- guide / R. Corobov, O. Cazanteva, Gh. lands biodiversity in Moldova. J. Sci. Sirodoev, I. Trombitsky; PROJECT Res. Stud. 6(3): 34-45. BSB165 “HydroEcoNex”. – Chişinău : CICES (Version 5.1), 2018: https://cices. Eco-Tiras, 2020. – 88 p. eu/ Ecosystem types of Europe – version Corobov R., Cazanteva O., Sirodoev Gh., 3.1, 2019: https://www.eea.europa. Trombitsky I. Economic evaluation in eu/data-and-maps/data/ecosys- the monitoring of Ecosystem servic- tem-types-of-europe-1 es. Methodical Guide. Project BSB165 FAO. 2020. GLOBEFISH Highlights Oc- “HydroEcoNex”, Chisinau: Eco-TI- tober 2019 ISSUE, with Jan. – Jun. RAS, 2020. 86p. 2019 Statistics – A quarterly update Creation of a system of innovative trans- on world seafood markets. Globefish boundary monitoring of the transfor- Highlights no. 4–2019. http://www. mation of ecosystems in the rivers of fao.org/3/ca7459en/ca7459en.pdf the Black Sea basin under the influ- Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., ence of hydropower development and 2009. Defining and classifying ecosys- climate change. HydroEcoNex project. tem services for decision making. Eco- – Chişinău: Eco-TIRAS, 2019. – 35 c. logical Economics 68, 643–653. ISBN 978-9975-9611-8-9. Fürst C., Luque S., Geneletti D., 2017. Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, Nexus thinking – how ecosystem ser- S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, vices can contribute to enhancing the I., Drakou, E. G., Martín-Lopez, B., cross-scale and cross-sectoral coher- McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alke- ence between land use, spatial plan- made, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M.B., ning and policy-making, International Maes, J., 2013. A blueprint for map- Journal of Biodiversity Science, Eco- ping and modelling ecosystem servic- system Services & Management, 13(1): es. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 4–14. https://doi. 412-421. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001. Gavrylenko O. (2018) Managing ecosys- de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., tem services: strategy of implementa- Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Chal- tion in Ukraine. Visnyk Kyivskogo na- 66

cionalnogo universytetu imeni Tarasa power sector of EaP countries: state Shevchenka GEOGRAFIYA [Bulletin and challenges / R. Havrilyuk, A. Ga- of Taras Shevchenko National Univer- brielian, E. Sultanov, I. Trombit- sity of Kyiv, Geography], 1 (70), 29-35 sky, O. Stankevych-Volosianchuk, O. GEF, 2018: GEF guidance documents to Tarasova. – 2019. – p. 76. economic valuation of ecosystem ser- Implementation plan of strategic guide- vices in IW projects, GEF IW:LEARN, lines for adaptation to climate 171 p. https://iwlearn.net/resolveu- change in the Dniester basin, 2017: id/0ff c8834-af39-488a-852a- https://www.osce.org/files/f/docu- 4348fee97b85 ments/0/6/366726.pdf Geneletti and Adem Esmail, 2018. Guide- La Notte, A., Vallecillo, S., Polce, C., Zu- lines and recommendations to support lian, G. & Maes, J., 2017b. Imple- the application of the final methods. menting an EU system of accounting Deliverable D5.4, EU Horizon 2020 for ecosystems and their services. In- ESMERALDA Project, Grant agree- itial proposals for the implementation ment No. 642007 of ecosystem service accounts, EUR Geneletti D. & Mandle L., 2017. Map- 28681 EN; Publications Office of the ping of ecosystem services for impact European Union, Luxembourg. assessment. In: Burkhard B, Maes J Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Grizzetti B, (eds.). Mapping Ecosystem Services. Barredo JI, Paracchini ML, Condé S, Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, 374 pp. Somma F, Orgiazzi A, Jones A, Zulian Grêt-Regamey, A., Weibel, B., S.-E.Rabe. A, Vallecilo S, Petersen JE, Marquardt & Burkhard, B., 2017. A tiered ap- D, Kovacevic V, Abdul Malak D, Marin proach for ecosystem services map- AI, Czúcz B, Mauri A, Loffler P, Bas- ping. In book: Mapping Ecosystem trup-Birk A, Biala K, Christiansen T, Services, Editors: Benjamin Burkhard, Werner B, 2018. Mapping and Assess- Joachim Maes, pp.213-217. Pensoft ment of Ecosystems and their Services: Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria. Ananalytical framework for ecosystem Guihua Wang, Qinhua Fang, Luoping condition. Publications office of the Zhang, Weiqi Chen,, Zhenming Chen, European Union, Luxembourg Huasheng Hong. (2009). Valuing Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Conde, S., the effects of hydropower develop- Vallecillo Rodriguez, S., Barredo Cano, ment onwatershed ecosystem servic- J.I., Paracchini, M., Abdul Malak, D., es: Case studies in the Jiulong River- Trombetti, M., Vigiak, O., Zulian, G., Watershed, Fujian Province, China. Addamo, A., Grizzetti, B., Somma, F., Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science Hagyo, A., Vogt, P., Polce, C., Jones, 86 (2010) 363–368. doi:10.1016/j. A., Marin, A., Ivits, E., Mauri, A., Rega, ecss.2009.03.02 C., Czucz, B., Ceccherini, G., Pisoni, E., How the Dniester hydroelectric complex Ceglar, A., De Palma, P., Cerrani, I., affects the state of Dniester: an as- Meroni, M., Caudullo, G., Lugato, E., sessment of Moldovan and Ukrainian Vogt, J., Spinoni, J., Cammalleri, C., experts. https://dniester-commission. Bastrup-Birk, A., San-Miguel-Ayanz, com/novosti/kak-dnestrovskij-gi- J., San Román, S., Kristensen, P., drouzel-vliyaet-na-sostoyanie-dn- Christiansen, T., Zal, N., De Roo, A., estra-ocenka-moldavskix-i-ukrain- De Jesus Cardoso, A., Pistocchi, A., Del skix-ekspertov/ Barrio Alvarellos, I., Tsiamis, K., Ger- Implementation of ecosystem approach vasini, E., Deriu, I., La Notte, A., Abad and ecosystem services in hydro- Viñas, R., Vizzarri, M., Camia, A., Rob- 67

ert, N., Kakoulaki, G., Garcia Bendito, ey, A., Perez-Soba, M., Degeorges, P., E., Panagos, P., Ballabio, C., Scarpa, S., Beaufron, G., Lillebø, A., Malak, D.A., Montanarella, L., Orgiazzi, A., Fernan- Liquete, C., Condé, S., Moen, J., Öster- dez Ugalde, O. and Santos-Martín, F., gard, H., Czúcz, B., Drakou, E.G., Zu- Mapping and Assessment of Ecosys- lian ,G., Lavalle,C., 2014. Mapping and tems and their Services: An EU ecosys- Assessment of Ecosystems and their tem assessment, EUR 30161 EN, Pub- Services: Indicators for Ecosystem As- lications Office of the European Union, sessments Under Action 5 of the EU Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76- Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Publi- 17833-0 (online),978-92-76-22954-4 cations Office of the European Union, (supplement), doi:10.2760/757183 Luxembourg. (online),10.2760/519233 (supple- Management of the transboundary basin ment), JRC120383. of the Dniester: the establishment of Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Liquete, reference indicators for assessing the C., Braat, L., Berry, P., Egoh, B., Puy- ecological status of surface water bod- darrieux, P., Fiorina, C., Santos, F., ies / ed. S.O. Afanasyev, O.V. Manturo- Paracchini, M. L., Keune, H., Wittmer, va. – К.: Кафедра, 2019. – 376 с. ISBN H., Hauck, J., Fiala, I., Verburg, P. H., 978-617-7301-75-1 Condé, S., Schägner, J. P., San Miguel, Management plan for the Ramsar area J., Estreguil, C., Ostermann, O., Barre- “Lower Dniester”, 2017:. http://www. do, J. I., Pereira, H. M., Stott, A., bioticamoldova.org/library/Plan%20 Laporte, V., Meiner, A., Olah, B., Royo managerial%20Nistrul%20de%20Jos. Gelabert, E., Spyropoulou, R., Peters- pdf en, J. E., Maguire, C., Zal, N., Achille- Management Scenario for Ramsar Site os, E., Rubin, A., Ledoux, L., Brown, No. 1500 “Ungur-Goloshnitsa” (draft). C., Raes, C., Jacobs, S., Vandewalle, http://www.bioticamoldova.org/li- M., Connor, D. and Bidoglio, G., 2013, brary/SGF%20ManPlan_rus_fin.pdf ‘Mapping and Assessment of Ecosys- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, tems and their Services. An analytical 2005. Ecosystems and human well-be- framework for ecosystem assessments ing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washing- under action 5 of the EU biodiversity ton, DC. strategy to 2020’, Publications office Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. of the European Union, Luxembourg Ecosystems and Human Well-being. (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ UNEP, Island Press, Washington DC, nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assess- 155 р. https://www.millenniumassess- ment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper 2013. ment.org/documents/ document.356. pdf) accessed 26 August 2020. aspx.pdf Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Murphy, OSCE, 2019: Analysis of the impact of the res- P., Paracchini,M.L., Barredo ,J.I., ervoirs of the Dniester HPPs on the state Grizzetti,B., Cardoso, A., Somma, F., of Dniester. https://zoinet.org/wp-con- Petersen, J., Meiner, A., Gelabert, E.R. tent/uploads/2018/01/Dnestr.pdf ,Zal, N., Kristensen, P., Bastrup-Birk, Prykhodko, M., Arkhypova, L., Horal, L., A., Biala, K., Romao, C., Piroddi, C., & Kozhushko, S. (2020). Concept of Fiorina, C., Santos, F., Nar- uševiči- ecosystem services and its implemen- us, V., Verboven, J., Pereira, H.M., tation in Ukraine. Journal of Geology, Bengtsson, J., Gocheva, K., Marta- Geography and Geoecology, 29(2), Pedroso, C., Snäll, T., Estreguil, C., 387-397. https://doi.org/10.15421/ SanMiguel, J., Braat,L., Grêt-Regam- 112034 68

R. Korobov (ed.), 2004: The climate of sa, 258 p. https://www.eco-tiras.org/ Moldova in the XXI century: projec- books/dead_birds.pdf tions of changes, influences, respons- Strategic guidelines for adaptation to cli- es. American Foundation for Civil Re- mate change in the Dniester basin, search and Development for the For- 2015: https://www.osce.org/files/f/ mer Soviet Union, Chisinau; Concept documents/0/f/260316.pdf of a regional strategy for adaptation to Syrbe, R.-U., Walz, U., 2012. Spatial in- climate change: 2012. Public organiza- dicators for the assessment of ecosys- tion “Ecospectrum”. Bender. tem services: Providing, benefiting and R. Korobov, I. Trombitsky, G. Syrodo- connecting areas and landscape met- ev, A. Andreev, 2014: Vulnerability to rics. Ecological Indicators 21, 80–88. Climate Change: Moldovan part of the TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosys- Dniester basin. International Asso- tems and Biodiversity: Ecological and ciation of River Keepers Eco-TIRAS, Economic Foundations. In: Pushpam Chisinau. Kumar (Ed.), Earthscan, London and Reserve “Yagorlyk”. Reconstruction and Washington. management plan as a way to preserve UK NEA, 2011. The UK National Ecosys- biological diversity / Internation- tem Assessment Technical Report. al ecolog. Association of river keep- UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. ers “Eco-TIRAS”. ; scientific. ed. G.A. Vihervaara, P., Mononen, L., Nedkov S., Shabanov. – Dubossary: Eco-TIRAS, Viinikka, A., et al., 2018. Biophysical 2011. – 128 c. https://www.eco-tiras. mapping and assessment methods for org/docs/Iagorlyk_small.pdf ecosystem services. Deliverable D3.3 Rules for the operation of the reservoir EU Horizon 2020 ESMERALDA Pro- of the Dniester cascade of hydroelec- ject, Grant agreement No. 642007. tric power plants and pumped storage WFD, 2000: The EU Water Framework power plants at the NPU 77.10 m buff- Directive – integrated river basin er reservoir Report and recommenda- management for Europe. Available tions for the updated draft of the Rules, at: https://ec.europa.eu/environ- 2018: https://dniester-commission. ment/water/water-framework/index_ com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ en.html\ recommendations_operation-rules_ Willemen, L., Veldkamp, A., Verburg, Dniester_Serra_Oct2018_Rus-1.pdf P.H., Hein, L., Leemans, R., 2012. A Shchegolev I.V., Shchegolev S.I., Shche- multi-scale modelling approach for golev E.I., 2016: Endangered water- analysing landscape service dynamics. birds in the river deltas of the North- Journal of Environmental Manage- ern Black Sea region. Volume 1, Odes- ment 100, 86–95.