VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY Tetiana Kucher STRUCTURAL

Home , Bratslav, Chechelnyk, Haisyn, Illintsi, Khmilnyk, Koziatyn

VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF NATURAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY

Tetiana Kucher

STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL OPTIMIZATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK OF THE VINNYTSIA REGION

Master Thesis

Study Programme Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, state code 6211DX012

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Algimantas Paulauskas ______(signature) (date) Defended: Dean of the Faculty Natural Sciences Prof. Dr. Saulius Mickevicius______(signature) (date)

KAUNAS, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………….....3 SANTRAUKA…………………………………………………………………………………….4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………..5 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………6 1. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………………...8 1.1. Basic establishment principles of the ecological network………………………………...8 1.1.1 Organizing the establishment of an ecological network at European level…...……..8 1.1.1.1 Global international agreements (conventions)………………………….....8 1.1.1.2 Pan-European international agreements…………………………………..10 1.1.2 Legal support the formation in the Ukrainian ecological network…..………….....12 1.1.3 Scientific and methodological support in the formation of an ecological network………………………………………………………………….………………...16 1.1.3.1 Scientific and methodological principles of creating an ecological network…………………………………………………………………………....16 1.1.3.2 Scientific developments to ensure the formation of an ecological network……………………………………………………………………………17 1.1.4 Structural elements of the national ecological network…………..……………..….19 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………………………………………..23 2.1. Ecological and geographical characteristics of the research region…………………..….23 2.1.1. Geographical location and administrative-territorial structure…………………………………………………………………………………...23 2.1.2. Features of relief and hydroclimatic conditions in Vinnytsia region……………………………………………………………………………………...25 2.2. Methods of forming a regional ecological network………………………………………25 3. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………….28 3.1. Structure of the regional ecological network of Vinnytsia region………………………..28 3.1.1. Key areas…………………………………………………………………………...29 3.1.2. Connecting territories………………………………………………………………36 3.1.3. Restoration areas…………………………………………………………………...38 3.1.4. Buffer zones……………………………………………………………...... 39 3.2. Characteristics of biodiversity in Vinnitsa region……………………………...... 39 3.2.1 General characteristics of plant diversity in Vinnytsia region……………………...39 3.2.2. General characteristics of zoological diversity in Vinnytsia region………………………………………………………………………………….….40 3.2.3. Sozological assessment of zoological diversity of vertebrates of Vinnytsia region……………………………………………………………………………………..42 3.3. Structural-functional optimization of eco network in Vinnytsa region………………………………………………………………………………………….43 3.3.1. Structural and functional analysis of the protected area in Vinnytsia region……………………………………………………………………………………..44 4. DISCUSSION .…………………………………………………………………………….....49 4.1. Perspective directions and ways of formation of the regional ecological network of Vinnytsia region…………………………………………………………………………..49 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………………...... 54 REFERENCES...... 55 ACCESSORIES…………………………………………………………………………………..61

ABSTRACT Author of Master Thesis: Tetiana Kucher

Full title of Master Thesis: Structural and functional optimization of the ecological network of the Vinnytsia region.

Supervisor: prof. dr. Algimantas Paulauskas

Presented at: Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Biology, Kaunas, 23.06.2020

Number of pages: 59

Number of tables: 9

Number of pictures: 5

Number of appendices: 7

The purpose of this master's work is to study the spatial structure of the ecological network for the functional completeness and the effectiveness of ensuring the conservation of biodiversity. This research presents an analysis of the main normative and legal bases of forming an ecological network, the coverage of the current state of biodiversity. The study was done using analytical, descriptive, retrospective methods of analysis, the features of structure and functions of Vinnytsa regional ecological network. There were demonstrated dynamics of the formation of the NRF network and the distribution of protected objects among administrative regions with the help of statistical and comparative analysis of data. The results revealed the necessity to revise the current structure of eco- network and creation of new reserves in order to improve the functional efficiency of the network. The results suggest paying more attention to providing multifunctionality to eco-network elements, as well as avoiding the creation of island objects.

SANTRAUKA

Bakalauro darbo autorius: Tetiana Kucher

Bakalauro darbo pavadinimas: Vinycios regiono ekologinio tinklo struktūrinis ir funkcinis optimizavimas.

Vadovas: prof. Algimantas Paulauskas

Darbas pristatytas: Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Biology, Kaunas, 23.06.2020

Puslapių skaičius: 59

Lentelių skaičius: 9

Paveikslų skaičius: 5

Priedų skaičius: 7

Magistro darbo tikslas - ištirti ekologinio tinklo erdvinę struktūrą siekiant funkcinio išbaigtumo ir veiksmingumo užtikrinant biologinės įvairovės išsaugojimą. Tyrime išanalizuoti pagrindiniai normatyviniai ir teisiniai ekologinio tinklo formavimo pagrindai. Buvo apžvelgta dabartinė biologinės įvairovės būklė. Naudojant analitinius, aprašomuosius, retrospektyvius analizės metodus, buvo tiriamos Vinnitsa regioninio ekologinio tinklo struktūros ir funkcijų ypatybės. Atlikus statistinę ir lyginamąją duomenų analizę, buvo parodyta NRF tinklo formavimosi dinamika ir saugomų objektų pasiskirstymas tarp administracinių regionų. Rezultatai parodė, kad siekiant pagerinti tinklo funkcinį efektyvumą būtina peržiūrėti dabartinę ekologinio tinklo struktūrą ir sukurti naujus rezervus. Rezultatai rodo, kad reikia daugiau dėmesio skirti ekologinio tinklo elementų daugiafunkciškumui, taip pat vengti kurti salų objektus.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BR - Biosphere Reserve DADENR - Department of Agro-Industrial Development, Ecology and Natural Resources; DLR - Department of Land Resources DLR - Department of Land Resources; DP - dendrological park ECVSCC - executive committees of village, settlement and city councils. ERL - The European Red List; GIS - geographic information systems; NM - natural monuments, NNP - national nature parks, NR - nature reserves NRF – Nature reserve found PA - protected areas, PMLGA - park-monuments of landscape-gardening art. RBU – Red book of Ukraine; RDFH - Regional Department of Forestry and Hunting; RLP - regional landscape park, ІВА - (Important Bird Area)

INTRODUCTION Actuality of theme. Due to the intensive loss of biodiversity, in the twentieth century, the formation of a legal framework aimed at nature conservation activities, this lead to the development of methods and measures for conservation of landscape, ecosystem and genetic diversity began. Ukraine has ratified a number of conventions and treaties and launched a fundamentally new line of political activity aimed at preserving natural landscapes, species and habitats, as well as introducing a sustainable use of nature (Nagorniuk et al., 2017). An effective way to achieve all of these points is to create and optimize the eco-network at all levels of its organization - local, regional, national and pan-European. Each of them has its own specific structural elements and requires the use of an individual compound of methods, principles and criteria for the selection of territories for potential involvement. The physical and geographical conditions in the Vinnytsia region determine the qualitative and quantitative indicators of its diversity. Vinnytsia region is located in the central part of Ukraine, which serves as an explanation for its temperate continental climate with mild temperature fluctuations. The relief is heterogeneous, represented by an elevated plateau with numerous outcrops of rocks, which led to the formation of numerous valleys, beams, quarries, etc. An extensive river network is observed on the territory of the region, forming wetlands, which are habitats and breeding sites for species. Forests, steppe and meadow complexes are also natural for the Eastern Podillya, which provided conditions for the formation of a considerable diverse flora (Mudrak, et al., 2018a, Tkach et al. 2016) and fauna here. However, anthropogenic interference with the structure of biogeocenoses, and especially the uncontrolled influence of agro-industrial and agricultural activities, led to a decrease in the number or even to the destruction of many habitats and consequently species. The mission of the Vinnytsia Regional Ecological Network is to ensure the effective protection of natural areas and the re-naturalization of partially altered or degraded territories. Its structure is now branched, but still heterogeneous and fragmented. Expanding the territories and increasing the efficiency of the functioning of the structural elements of the regional network will provide a possibility to take real steps towards the conservation and restoration of the natural state of biodiversity of the country and Europe (as three sub-meridional eco-corridors passes through Vinnytsia region). That is the reason why biodiversity research and analysis of the spatial organization of Vinnytsia regional eco-network with the purpose of its optimization are topical issues and need special attention. The object of the study is the factors influencing the structural elements of the regional eco- network of Vinnytsia region, optimization, implementation, balanced use. The subject of the study is the structural elements of the ecological network of Vinnytsia region. 6

Purpose of the study: to identify ways of structural and functional optimization of the ecological network of Vinnitsa region. To achieve this, the following tasks have been set and need to be addressed: 1. to investigate the regulatory support for the formation of an eco-network at the pan- European, national and regional levels; 2. to study and analyze the ecological and geographical characteristics of the study area; 3. to find out the method of formation of regional ecological network; 4. to study and analyze the structure of the currently functioning regional eco-network of Vinnytsia region; 5. to find out the peculiarities of Vinnitsa biodiversity, to compile general characteristics of the flora and fauna diversity; 6. to make a sozological assessment of the zoological diversity of vertebrates of Vinnytsia region; 7. to analyze the previous experience and practical achievements in the formation of the ecological network of Vinnytsia region and to propose ways of structural and functional optimization of the network.

1. LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Basic principles of establishment of the environmental network 1.1.1. Organizing the establishment of an ecological network on the European level

The Ukrainian regulatory framework providing the formation of the ecological network and the protection of biodiversity was created by analogy and as an adaptation to the provisions of the European Strategy for the Conservation of Biological and Landscape Diversity (1995). In order to fulfil the requirements and recommendations of this Strategy, Ukraine adopted the National Program of Formation of the National Ecological Network of Ukraine for 2000–2015 of September 21, 2000, as well as the Law of Ukraine “About the Ecological Network of Ukraine” of June 24, 2004 (Vashchishin, 2014a). Therefore, it would be appropriate to first consider first some stages of the formation of European environmental law and international multilateral agreements, conventions, protocols, which were ratified by Ukraine and had a direct impact on the legal principles of conservation and protection of its landscape and biological diversity.

1.1.1.1. Global international agreements (conventions)

These agreements aim to develop methods and ways of the protection of species, genetic and ecosystem diversity. International conventions allow to clarify the definition of international legal relations; contribute to the improvement and complication of the national environmental regulatory framework (since it is focused on international, European legislation); provide a mechanism for financing environmental activities at the international level and stimulate scientific activity. 1) Ramsar Convention on wetlands, Ramsar, Iran, 1971. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Constitution of Ukraine, 1996). The purpose of the convention is to ensure the conservation of wetlands of international importance by rational use, visionary policies, the establishment of international cooperation, the creation of protected areas. It was ratified by Ukraine on 29.10.1996 (Mudrak et al., 2018e). According to this convention each Contracting Party will designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance, which then will be stored in the Bureau. The boundaries of each wetland will be accurately described and mapped. It may include coastal river and marine areas adjacent to wetlands, and islands or marine areas exceeding six meters in depth at outflow within wetlands, especially where, where there are important as a habitat for waterfowl. Wetlands should be selected for the List in view by their international importance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology. First of all, wetlands of international importance for waterfowl at any time of the year should be included (Constitution of Ukraine, 1996). 8

2) The World Heritage Convention, Paris, France, 1972 Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The purpose of the convention is to ensure the protection of cultural and natural heritage of unique and universal value through the compilation of World Heritage Sites. Ratified 4.10.1988 (Mudrak et al., 2018e). “For the purposes of this Convention, "natural heritage" means: natural monuments created by physical and biological entities or groups of such entities of outstanding universal value in terms of aesthetics or science; geological and physiographic formations and severely restricted areas, which are habitats of endangered species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value in terms of science or conservation; natural landmarks or severely restricted natural areas of outstanding universal value in terms of science, conservation or natural beauty” (Constitution of Ukraine, 1988). 3) CITES, Washington, USA, 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The purpose of the Convention is to regulate the export, re-export and introduction from the sea of species of wild flora and fauna, to prevent the over-exploitation of endangered species. Accession to the Convention of 14 May 1999 (Mudrak et al., 2018e; Constitution of Ukraine, 1999). 4) Bonn Convention, Bonn, Germany, 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. The purpose of the convention is to create conditions for the protection of migratory species whose conservation status is unfavorable and their natural environments by concluding relevant international agreements, strict introduction regulation (if appropriate), establishing a ban on extraction (Mudrak et al., 2018e; Constitution of Ukraine, 1999). Law of Ukraine on Accession to the Convention of March 19, 1999. 5) CBD, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. The purpose of the Convention is to conserve biological diversity, to make sustainable use of its components and to share on a fair and equitable basis the benefits associated with the use of genetic resources. The sharing of benefits should be made by providing the necessary access to genetic resources and by appropriately transferring corresponding technologies, taking into account all rights to such resources and technology as well as through proper funding (Constitution of Ukraine, 1999; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2001, 2004). Ratified by Ukraine on 11.29.1994. According to the provisions of the Convention, biological diversity is understood not only as living things, but also as their habitats, as ecosystems, as components of ecological complexes, emphasizing their inalienability (Global Biodiversity Outlook, 2001). Therefore, the Contracting

Parties undertake to develop and implement integrated strategies, plans, programs and measures aimed at the protection of territories and species (in-situ) and their sustainable use.

1.1.1.2. Pan-European international agreements

Europe-wide agreements clearly identify a strategy for biodiversity conservation in the context of the species' environment: initiating and supporting recreational processes in ecosystems, reducing the burden on particularly significant areas, increasing the number and area of such regions (Appendix 7), rational use of natural resources, including biodiversity (Miller, 1994; Heywood et al, Global Biodiversity Assessment, 1995; Mudrak& Nagorniuk, 2010b). 1) Berne Convention, Bern, Switzerland, 1979 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (including the Emerald Network). The purpose of the convention is the protection of populations of wild fauna and flora, especially those, which need to be protected by several States and those that are vulnerable or endangered (Constitution of Ukraine, 1996). Law of Ukraine on Accession to the Convention of 29.10.1996 A prerequisite for the establishment and adoption of the Berne Convention was the trend of declining populations of wildlife in Europe. Among the causes of this phenomenon, the most significant was the anthropogenic interference with the natural course of life processes of species. For example, pollution of ecosystems with industrial emissions, drainage, ploughing, depletion, salinization of land, use of herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers; unauthorized deforestation, overfishing, heavy tourist load, etc. All these factors change the state of the environment, thereby altering the distribution within the ecosystems and ecosystems. Because species are not able to adapt to new conditions so quickly, the ratio of dominant and sub-dominant often changes. Such changes might lead to degradation of the ecosystem, reducing its information content, incomplete use of resources, imbalance of material and energy flows. This in turn leads to a decrease in the competitiveness and ability of the species to withstand the biological invasion. The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats draws attention to biodiversity in the context of the conservation of not only species but also their natural habitats, which is necessary condition for the survival and maintenance of all life cycles, including the migration of certain species, whose protection require collaborations of several states. The Emerald Network is one of the effective projects created under the Berne Convention. The Emerald Network is a network of areas of special European significance with protected status. “It is developed, initiated and controlled by the Berne Convention to promote nature conservation in non-EU countries by establishing an agreement on the protection of the habitat network. Legislative 10 act - Directive 92/43 / EC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species of the NATURA 2000. It should be noted that the network is being developed in accordance with the Birds Directive (Directive No 2009/147 / EC on the Protection of Wild Birds) - Special Protection Areas and the Sites of Community Importance” (Mudrak et al., 2018e, p.78). NATURA 2000 sites exist in 27 EU countries and vary in size from several hectares to thousands of square kilometres, covering both land and much of the sea. This network, composed of sites which are types of natural habitats in general and habitats of certain species should allow maintaining or, where necessary, restoration of a favourable conservation status in their area of appropriate types of natural habitats and habitats of the relevant species (Vashchishin, 2014a). The Emerald Network and NATURA 2000 sites form the core of the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN). An important feature of the network is that it includes not only nature conservation sites and territories where any interference and anthropogenic loading is prohibited, but also privately owned land, which use is environmentally safe and appropriate. 2) Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Helsinki, Finland, 1992. The purpose of the Convention is to introduce and implement measures to prevent, limit and reduce water pollution, which is caused or may be caused by a transboundary impact; ensuring reasonable, rational use of water resources, their conservation, environmental protection and restoration of ecosystems (Constitution of Ukraine, 1992). Ratified on 19.03.1999. 3) European Landscape Convention, Florence, Italy, 2000. The purpose of the convention is to create a new tool for the protection (preservation and maintenance of important or characteristic features of the landscape), regulation (ensuring the permanent retention of the landscape to harmonize change) and the planning (improvement, restoration or creation of landscapes) of all landscapes in Europe. Ratified on 07.09.2005. Europe's geographical location determines the wide landscape, ecosystems and species diversity. Favourable conditions, including climatic conditions, enabled the multilateral evolutionary development of flora and fauna. The problem is that for many decades these natural resources have been rapidly depleting. Industrialization, agricultural and general anthropogenic, technological impact have contributed to the irreversible destruction of many settlements and, as a consequence, species. The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) was developed on the basis of many existing initiatives and programs, such as the Berne Convention, the European Conservation Strategy (1990), and the United Nations Conference on the Environment and 11

Development (1992), in response to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, Rio de Janeiro, 1992). The purpose of the strategy was to significantly influence the conservation and use of biotic and landscape diversity during 1996-2016. Primarily the aim was reduce the threat of degradation and extinction, to improve the propensity for recovery, to protect against exhausting use, and to involve the public in addressing environmental issues and problems. One of the priorities of the Pan-European Strategy was the creation of a Europe-wide network. Ecological network is a complex multifunctional natural system, which includes natural biotic elements (individuals, species, populations, biocenoses) abiotic elements (biotopes), ecosystems, altered and degraded landscape complexes (their elements), which are interconnected functionally and territorially, requiring conservation and restoration by non-exhaustive use (Mudrak et al., 2018e).

1.1.2. Legal support for the formation of the ecological network of Ukraine

As noted above, the national regulatory framework for the creation of an ecological network and the regulation of the issues of creation and operation of nature reserves has been established on a model and in accordance with the European one. All conventions and agreements ratified by Ukraine oblige it to fulfil the conditions and to promote the objectives of these documents, as they become a part of national law. Legal relations on environmental protection and conservation of biodiversity are regulated through the following legal acts: Laws of Ukraine “On Environmental Protection”, “On Environmental Expertise”, “On Waste”; and Codes - Water, Forest, Land, Subsoil Code. Regarding the more specialized resolution of the issues of biodiversity conservation, they are regulated by the acts: "On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine" (1992), Program for the Prospective Development of the Reserve in Ukraine " Zapovidnyky" (1994); Laws of Ukraine “On the Flora” (1999), “On the Fauna” (1993), “On the National Program of Formation of the National Ecological Network of Ukraine for 2000-2015” (2000), “On the Red Data Book of Ukraine” (2002), “On the Ecological Network” (2004). State environmental institutions of all levels (national, regional, local) form the national legal field of environmental activity, coordinate the work at the national level, check the current state of wildlife and biotopes in general, create inventories and databases, provide the financial component of environmental work (Mudrak et al., 2018e; Constitution of Ukraine, 1991, 2001).

The basis of the formation of environmental law is the Law of Ukraine "On Environmental Protection" (1991) and a derivative system of laws of natural resource and environmental legislation. This Law defines the legal, economic and social foundations of the organization of environmental protection for the benefit of present and future generations. The objective of the legislation on environmental protection is to regulate relations in the field of protection, use and reproduction of natural resources. Also ensuring environmental safety, preventing and eliminating the negative impact of economic and other activities on the environment, conservation of natural resources, genetic resources of wildlife, landscapes and other natural complexes, unique territories and natural objects related to historical and cultural heritage (Constitution of Ukraine, 1991). According to this Law, other regulatory acts were developed to regulate the relevant issues. It is important to note that it defines nature conservation areas and objects as a subject of special protection, establishes common principles of nature management for the first time. Due to the Law of Ukraine "On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine", lands of the nature reserve fund are defined as land and water areas with natural complexes and objects that have special nature conservation, ecological, scientific, aesthetic, recreational and other value. In accordance with the law, the status of the territories and objects of the nature reserve fund was granted to them (Mudrak et al., 2018e). The law defines the regime of territories and objects: ways of providing protection and requirements for the operation of the respective territories. Such territories and objects may be used only for research, wellness, recreational, educational and environmental purposes. Special use of natural resources belonging to the territories and objects of the nature reserve fund is possible only with the permission and within a certain limit. Thus, the managed use of natural resources is carried out (Mudrak et al., 2018e, Wisniewski et al., 2004). The main functions of nature conservation areas are: maintaining or extending of zones of the natural habitat of certain species; supporting or improving the distribution, migration and / or genetic exchange of certain species; restoration of quality of habitats; the protection of endangered, vulnerable, key or complex species. List of functions also includes support or improvement of hydrological functions; maintaining or improving environmental quality; erosion control; protection of valuable landscape forms; support for biocenosis in areas contaminated by radiation; and ensuring interconnection with neighbouring transboundary territories (State cadastre of territories and objects of the nature reserve fund of Ukraine, 2017, Ovchinnikova, 2018b). According to the records of the territories and objects of the Natural Reserve Fund of Ukraine, collected and submitted as of 01.01.2018, the Natural Reserve Fund of Ukraine has 8296 territories and objects with a total area of 4.318 million hectares within the territory of Ukraine (actual area of 3.985 million. ha) and 402500.0 ha within the Black Sea. The conservation rate reaches 6.6%. 13

On the basis of the two complex laws described above, and in accordance with the recommendations of the European Strategy for the Conservation of Biological and Landscape Diversity of October 25, 1995, a more specialized Law “On the National Program for the Formation of the National Ecological Network of Ukraine for 2000-2015” was formulated (1995) (Constitution of Ukraine, 2000). It is focused on the development and improvement of environmental law of Ukraine, where the main task is to involve Ukraine in the creation of a pan-European ecological network as a single spatial system of European territories with a natural or partially altered landscape. According to this Law, the ecological network is called a single territorial system, which includes areas of natural landscapes subject to special protection, and the territories and objects of the nature reserve fund, resort and health-improving, recreational, water protection and field protection areas. Natural regions, natural corridors, buffer zones are objects that are defined by the legislation of Ukraine as a part of the structural territorial elements of the ecological network (Constitution of Ukraine, 2000). The main objective is to expand the area of the territories in order to form a national ecological network, which will meet the requirements for its functioning in the pan-European ecological network. National ecological network should be able to perform the functions of conservation and restoration of natural landscapes and their diversity; providing opportunities for natural migration routes, preserving natural ecosystems, species and populations, promoting sustainable, sustainable use of nature. Law of Ukraine “On the National Program of Formation of the National Ecological Network of Ukraine for 2000-2015” (2000) defines the following components of the structural elements of an ecological network: 1) the territories and objects of the nature reserve fund as the main natural elements of the ecological network, namely - nature reserves, biosphere reserves, national natural parks, regional landscape parks, reserves (landscape, forest, botanical, general zoological, ornithological, entomological, ichthyological, hydrological, general-geological, paleontological and karst- speleological), natural monuments, as well as their protection zones. This category includes also artificially created objects (botanical gardens, dendrological parks, zoological parks, parks - monuments of landscape art); 2) water bodies (sections of the sea, lakes, reservoirs, rivers), wetlands, water protection zones, coastal protection strips, drainage strips, coastal strips of waterways and zones of sanitary protection forming the relevant basin systems; 3) forests of the first group; 4) forests of the second group; 5) resort and health-improving territories with their natural resources; 14

6) recreational areas for organizing mass recreation of the population and tourism; 7) other natural territories (areas of steppe vegetation, meadows, pastures, stone placers, sands, salt marshes, etc.); 8) land on which natural plant communities grow are listed in the Green Data Book of Ukraine; 9) land plots that are habitats or species of animals and plants listed in the Red Data Book of Ukraine; 10) partly agricultural lands of extensive use - pastures, meadows, hayfields, etc .; 11) radioactively contaminated land, which is not used and subject to separate protection, as natural regions with separate status. As the deadline for the implementation of the Program has already passed, we can summarize some of the results of its effectiveness. Undoubtedly, the beginning of the formation of the ecological network was initiated, and a number of measures were taken to achieve the goals and achieve the objectives of the Program, but in separate discrete directions. It can be concluded that there are positive changes in the way of forming a single eco-network, but it still lacks integrity, continuity and interconnection between its components. It is considered that one of the main reasons is the lack of specific mechanisms and uncertainty in the procedures of eco-network design, the listing of territories and objects of eco- network, accounting and monitoring (National Ecological Center of Ukraine, 2019 ; Lozo, 2014). In 2004, the Law of Ukraine "On the Ecological Network" was adopted (2004), which covered such basic concepts as eco-network, the summary scheme of its formation, eco-network objects and its structural elements. This Law defines the basic principles of the formation, preservation and use of the ecological network, its components, lists the ownership of land and other natural resources of the objects of the ecological network. Means to ensure the formation, conservation and rational use of the eco-network are indicated. The principles and grounds of management in the sphere of formation, preservation and use of the ecological network are covered. The laws of Ukraine “On the Ecological Network”, “On the National Program of Formation of the National Ecological Network of Ukraine for 2000-2015”, as well as the normative acts adopted in accordance with international treaties, have significant impact in the regulatory framework, which is responsible for the creation of a national ecological network. They regulate the relations associated with the formation, protection, conservation and rational, non-exhaustive use of the ecological network.

1.1.3. Scientific and methodological support for the formation of an ecological network

1.1.3.1. Scientific and methodological principles of creating an ecological network

The scientific and methodological principles of creating an eco-network are an integral part of its formation, because they provide an appropriate level of understanding between scientists, civil servants and the public. These principles simplify the management of activities aimed at addressing eco-networking issues at all levels (local, regional, national, pan-European). General scientific and methodological guidelines are necessary for research and work on such issues as specifics of the ecological network, its tasks and problems related to its formation; development and implementation of measures for the formation and expansion of the eco-network. They help to identify the relevance and correlation of the national ecological network to the PEEN (Pan-European Ecological Network); maintenance and control of ecological network compatibility with land use; information support (Mudrak, 2009). Mudrak identifies the following general principles and approaches to the construction of ecological networks (2009, p. 3): 1) integrity (is the continuity of communication between the structural elements of the eco- network at all levels); 2) unity (consists in the continuity of landscape and biodiversity with the functions they perform); 3) complementarity (implies mutual correspondence of eco-sites, biodiversity, settlements, functions, etc.); 4) diversity (meaning differentiated forms and measures for environmental protection); 5) recovery (refers to recreational processes and restoration activities); 6) conformity (conformity of nature of biogeographic territories); 7) hierarchy (implies the structure and subordination of ecosystems at different levels); 8) subordination (constituent elements and environmental functions that they perform); 9) traditional forms of management; 10) support of ecological homeostasis; 11) maximum (regarding the attraction of nature reserves and sites to the eco-network); 12) multifunctionality (involves the expansion and accretion of the eco-network due to the involvement not only of natural environments, but also those that have been affected to varying degrees by negative anthropogenic impact); 13) reliability (consists of constant effective protection against any negative influence); 14) emergence (linked to a holistic approach to the study of any system). 16

In terms of scientific-methodological approaches and principles of ecological network formation, scientists differ somewhat in their opinions. Different authors have different principles, but all of them are essentially aimed at achieving the same goals: the formation of an ecological network to preserve biogeocenotic diversity, where appropriate and possible, giving particular importance to relict flora and fauna, and unique objects of inanimate nature. Suggested methods are usually aimed at introduction of sustainable non-exhausting rational use of natural resources, control of agricultural land, in particular the conservation and restoration of biodiversity of agricultural landscapes. It should be remembered that the eco-network is a diverse complex system whose structural elements are characterized by uniqueness and representativity. When forming different components of eco-networks at different levels, some of the principles may partially lose their relevance or vice versa become of particular importance. Popovich formulated a generalized systematization to form a network of nature reserves (2007). It identifies the following basic scientific approaches: rare, categorical, functional, storage modes, monitoring. Also such principles: scientific (ecological, geographical, evolutionary); natural and social (cultural, educational, aesthetic, recreational, resource-economic). For Podillya region, which is famous for its rich biodiversity, it is best to use a comprehensive (landscape-ecological, biogeographical, geobotanical, forest-typological, agroecological, representative) approach and criterion of unique formation and sustainable use of an ecological network (National Organic Program USDA, 2005). It will allow the functional connection of the network of protected areas of the region with the system of territorial units of zoning and the typology and classification of natural objects (Mudrak, 2009).

1.1.3.2 Scientific developments to ensure the formation of an ecological network

In order to scientifically ensure the implementation of measures to form a national ecological network, the Program provides for fundamental and applied research. It is aimed at developing recommendations and methods for conservation and reproduction of landscape diversity, including assessment of the current state of natural landscapes, justification of the most effective measures to ensure balanced and inexhaustible use of their natural resources, inventory of natural complexes and their components, maintenance of inventories of natural resources and environmental monitoring within the national ecological network, the creation of appropriate data banks and geographic information systems (Constitution of Ukraine, 2000). Due to the information provided by the report on the implementation of the Law of Ukraine "On the National Program for the formation of the national ecological network of Ukraine for 2000- 17

2015." (2018), a number of measures were taken to ensure the implementation of the Program. The most significant of them will be considered below. In 2015, were published methodical materials - "Identification of areas suitable for announcement of objects of the nature reserve fund". “The purpose of this paper is to improve the procedure of forming an ecological network (which contains areas and objects with a heterogeneous degree of anthropogenic impact) and to develop methods and criteria for selection of natural areas, to protect and conservate biocoenotic diversity” (Final report on the results of the implementation of the "National program for the formation of the national ecological network of Ukraine for 2000-2015", 2018, p.26). In order to study the biocoenotic diversity, to develop the cartography of natural areas and objects, as well as monitoring and creation of geographic information systems, the mapping, monitoring, organization of improvement of the complex of nature reserves were provided (Methodical recommendations, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). In order to protect and establish the conservation regime of species listed in the Red Book of Ukraine, field taxonomic, population, ecological-coenotic and range studies were conducted. The results of these researches made a basis for the development of characteristics of individual populations of model critical species. They also served the creation of lists of species for inclusion in the Red Book and justification for each species, the development of specific proposals for measures to protect them (Final report on the results of the implementation of the Program, 2018). “A system of criteria for assessing the state of the components of ecosystems of nature reserves according to their scientific, recreational and social significance has been developed. Methods of economic assessment of nature reserves have been created” (Final report on the results of the implementation of the Program, 2018, p.26). Methods and manners of sozotechnical bases of biodiversity of nature reserve fund are developed and introduced. Concepts and strategies for the protection and management of ecosystems in national nature parks have been created (Final report on the results of the implementation of the Program, 2018). As part of scientific research, an assessment of the status of fish populations listed in the Red Book of Ukraine, which is covered in the publication "Rare ichthyofauna of freshwater in Ukraine (except the Carpathian region)." Proposals for improving the management system of reserves and national nature parks as components of the national ecological network have been developed. The state of fish populations listed in the Red Book of Ukraine has been assessed. A draft of the Procedure for state registration of rare and endangered species of fauna and flora listed in the Red Book of Ukraine has been created. A list of targeted measures aimed at gradually improving the situation to the level inherent in nature, reducing anthropogenic pressure and stopping the degradation of coastal 18 marine ecosystems of the Azov and Black Seas (Final report on the results of the implementation of the Program, 2018). Another example of scientific developments is the formation of a scientific model of the organization of environmental monitoring on the territories of the nature reserve fund and maintenance of the state cadastre of the nature reserve fund of Ukraine. In 2002, the Ministry of Environment and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine developed and approved the Nature Chronicle Program for nature reserves and national nature parks, which includes recommendations for annual observations (monitoring) of the state of the environment and natural complexes and objects. In 2008, proposals were developed to improve the management system of reserves and national parks as components of the national ecological network; to involve the nature reserves in the socio-economic development of regions and local populations in the development of conservation forms of economic activity (Final report on the results of the implementation of the Program, 2018). As can be seen from the data provided by the report on the implementation of the Law of Ukraine "On the National Program of Formation of the National Ecological Network of Ukraine for 2000-2015", for the entire period of the Law, a number of studies were conducted. The main objective of these researches was to develop specific recommendations, methods and measures for the protection, conservation and restoration of biocoenotic diversity.

1.1.4 Structural elements of the national ecological network

The Law of Ukraine "On the Ecological Network" defines the structure of the ecological network and its elements - the territories identified in accordance with their functions. There are the following structural elements: key areas or natural nuclei, connecting areas or eco-corridors, restoration areas and buffer zones. Key areas are the centers of functioning of ecosystems with the closest to the natural structure, which is the most valuable and characteristic of a particular region. Usually natural nuclei include habitats of rare, rare and endangered species, as well as landscapes of European importance. The choice of key areas is guided by the concept of naturalness and biodiversity of the territory, as these areas are aimed at maximally preserving the natural state of landscapes and biodiversity from anthropogenic impact. When choosing key areas, a representability should be the special feature. The area of the natural core may vary, depending on the area; species, landscape, genetic and ecosystem diversity that is inherent in it; environmental fragmentation, etc. Connecting territories - corridors between natural nuclei (key territories), crucial routes of migration, settlement, genetic exchange of species. The possibility of migratory fluctuations for migratory species is critical. It applies not only to genetic degeneration of isolated populations and 19 loss of genetic diversity, but also morpho-physiology. Many species require special individual characteristics of the environment to initiate breeding, proper offspring development, survival of maladapted offspring. In addition, eco-corridors also perform the function of hiding and protecting species from adverse conditions, as well as preserving ecological homeostasis. Planning and design of the biocentric network complex require special attention in each case, due to the performed functions and the characteristics of the area. The main attributes of the eco-corridor, the presence of which as an element, in general, ensures the existence of the eco-network as a network, are (Samoilenko, 2013, p.16): 1) a high degree of biolandscape naturalness; 2) adequacy of size (width and length) and favorable structure for the effective provision of the necessary biomigration, resettlement and metabolic functions; 3) the absence of barriers that are insurmountable for the implementation of the functions just identified; 4) compliance of edaphic conditions or type of biogroups with the same conditions or types of groups of nuclei that are combined; 5) a level of condition sufficient for the expediency of preservation; 6) related and others, including common with eco-network cores, positive for the environment, aesthetic, etc. properties. Depending on the ecological networks and the distance between them, eco-corridors are divided into: local, intra-regional, inter-regional (general basin, national, transnational, European importance) (Mudrak et al., 2018e). Local eco-corridors are relatively small, moderate in length and width. In the context of landscapes, they can take the form of meadows, wooded slopes, river valleys - elongated places with natural flora and fauna. Eco-corridors can also be considered parts of the urban area that have sufficient landscaping for the migration of birds (Davydenko et al. 2018) and insects from one biocenter (a limited area that plays a role in the distribution and protection of species) to another. Classification of ecological corridors by function (Grodzinsky, 2005, p. 126): 1) biotic-migratory; 2) anti-erosion; 3) waterproof; 4) slope-stabilizing; 5) water reclamation; 6) anti-deflation; 7) anti-noise.

Regional and interregional eco-corridors are connecting territories of the archipelago type, which have a much longer length than local ones and differ in structure. Unlike local ones, migration through regional and interregional transit corridors is not continuous, but takes place from one biocenter to another, involving adjacent local eco-corridors. It is believed that the width of the eco-corridor significantly affects the performance of its functions: the wider the corridor, the better its purpose. The width of such a corridor should be at least 15-20 km (Mudrak et al., 2018e). Restoration areas are areas that require priority restoration of the original natural state of biogeocenoses. The purpose of their creation is to provide key areas and the ecological network in general with prospects for expansion by minimizing the load on the regenerated areas, the implementation of measures for renaturalization (natural or artificial) of these areas. The criteria for the assessment and inclusion of regenerative areas in the network are currently unclear and need to be refined, as they are based on a somewhat subjective decision. At present, the potential recovery area must meet the criteria of conditional eligibility and real possibilities (Shelyag-Sosonko et al., 2004) for inclusion in the network. Conditional compliance means the theoretical possibility and feasibility of restoring the biogeocenosis for use as an extension of an existing key area or eco-corridor, or the creation of new ones. The criterion of real possibility means the practical possibility and expediency of implementing measures for renaturation. The components of the restoration areas include long-plowed, low-productivity; re-salted due to excessive irrigation; pasture failures, areas of cattle running and places of their constant concentration; weeded by quarantine weeds, including harmful to human health. Quarries, rock dumps, etc.; arable land on the slopes, which are allocated for soil protection strips, or permanent plots intended for breeding wild pollinating insects are also included. Slopes of embankments and exclusion zones along highways, railways, oil and gas pipelines, power lines and other communications, as well as areas of open soils where ravine and landslide processes occur or may develop, are included to thus category. Places of permanent recreation and other recreational areas; sites subject to long-term conservation due to radiation, chemical or other contamination that poses a threat to human and animal health; residential areas that are subject to reclamation - estates, abandoned farms, etc. can become a part of restoration area. The main criterion for the selection of restoration areas is the preservation of their habitats (biotopes), even if natural biodiversity is completely destroyed (Kondratyuk, 2016b). Buffer areas are areas with a natural or partially altered state of the landscape, the main function of which is to protect key areas and eco-corridors from the negative effects of external factors. They are created to manage, control, reduce impact and eliminate threats.

Buffer zones do not represent special ecological value. Primarily they carry out, economic functions, however as a part of an ecological network they play a protective role. Buffer zones should include water protection zones, coastal protection strips, drainage strips, coastal waterway strips and sanitary protection zones that form appropriate basin systems, as well as field protective forest strips that protect areas of steppe vegetation, meadows and pastures, agricultural land (Vashchishin, 2014b, Tkach et al. 2016). According to the Law of Ukraine "On the ecological network" (2004) the components of the structural elements of the ecological network include: a) territories and objects of the nature reserve fund; b) water fund lands, wetlands, water protection zones; c) forest lands; d) field protective forest strips and other protective plantings, which are not referred to the lands of the forest fund; e) health-improving lands with their natural resources; e) recreational lands used for the organization of mass recreation and tourism and sporting events; f) other natural territories and objects (areas of steppe vegetation, pastures, hayfields, meadows, stone placers, sands, salt marshes, land plots, within which there are natural objects of special natural value); g) land plots on which natural plant communities grow, listed in the Green Book of Ukraine; g) territories that are places of residence or growth of species of fauna and flora listed in the Red Book of Ukraine; h) partly agricultural lands of extensive use - pastures, meadows, hayfields, etc.; i) radioactively contaminated lands that are not used and are subject to separate protection as natural regions with a separate status.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Ecological and geographical characteristics of the research region

2.1.1. Geographical location and administrative-territorial structure

Vinnytsia region lies in the central part of Ukraine, located on the right bank of the Dnipro River within the Transnistrian Uplands and the Podolsk Plateau. Together with Khmelnytsky and Ternopil regions it forms Podillya, presents its eastern part. Vinnytsia region borders on Zhytomyr region in the north, Odessa region in the south, Cherkasy region in the east, Kyiv region in the northeast, Kirovohrad region in the southeast, Khmelnytsky region in the west, Chernivtsi region in the southwest. It shares borders with Moldova and unrecognized Transnistria. It covers an area of 26,517.6 km2, which is 4.5% of the entire territory of the country (Mudrak et al., 2018e; Reminny & Matviychuk, 2018). The administrative-territorial composition of the region includes 27 districts, 2 urban united territorial communities, 1 rural united territorial community, 28 settlement and 658 village councils, 1504 settlements, including 29 urban-type settlements, 18 cities, including 6 cities of regional significance (Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region, 2017) . Due to the ecological passport of Vinnytsia region (2017), the population is 1634.2 thousand people.

2.1.2. Features of relief and hydroclimatic conditions of Vinnytsia region

The modern surface of Vinnytsia region is represented by an elevated plateau, with a wavy and hilly surface, which tends to decrease in the direction from northwest to southeast, from Khmelnytsky to Odessa (Fig. 3.1). Most of the Vinnytsia region is located on the southwestern part of the Ukrainian Crystal Shield (massif), which is part of the Eastern European platform. The array or the so-called crystalline basement is formed by Archean-Proterozoic metamorphic and igneous rocks (age 1.5 - 3.5 billion years) (Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region, 2017). In the north and northeast, the foundation of the shield rises above the surface by 100-280 m above sea level. The relief of the foundation is complicated by numerous local tectonic uplifts and depressions (Tsitsyura et al., 2017).

Figure 2.1 Digital relief model of Vinnytsia region (2013). As for the southwestern part of the region, it lies on the Volyn-Podilska plate, which is characterized by the presence of a significant layer of sediment. The relief of Vinnytsia region is heterogeneous, as it was formed under the influence of various factors, such as climatic conditions, erosion of surface waters, neotectonic movements of the crust, etc. The Southern Bug River conditionally divides the territory of Vinnytsia region into the left bank, which lies on the Dnieper Upland and the right bank, which lies on the Podolsk plateau (Tsitsyura et al., 2017). Surface waters. Due to the geological and morphological structure and the specifics of climatic conditions, Vinnytsia has a relatively dense river network - on its territory flows about 1,200 rivers and streams of varying length and importance (Mudrak, 2010a). In the central part of the region from the north-west to the southeast flows the river Southern Bug, along the southwestern border of the region flows the river Dniester. There are 204 rivers over 10 km long in the region. They belong to the basins of the Southern Bug (Zgar, Riv, Dokhna, Sob, Savranka), the Dniester (Murafa, Lyadova, Markivka, Rusava, Nemiya) and the Dnieper (Ros, Gnilopyat, Guyva). Within the region, there are 56 reservoirs, with a total water surface area of 11,167 ha; the largest Ladyzhyn Reservoir (2.2 thousand hectares), 5356 ponds with a total water surface area of about 30.0 thousand hectares (Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region, 2017). Swamps, as biotopes are not widespread in the nature of Eastern Podillya, they occupy only 1.1% of the territory and are represented by eutrophic swamps. Occasionally there are terraced wetlands, but most of them are drained. Swamps formed on limestone rocks because of access to groundwater are rare here. Although 24 the swamps are not typical for the studied region, they are of great importance for the nesting of meadow-swamp bird species and the preservation of the flora of swamps listed in the Red Book of Ukraine. Climate. The climate of Vinnytsia is temperate-continental due to air masses: humid Atlantic and cold dry periphery of the Siberian (Asian) anticyclone. The air masses of the Arctic and the Mediterranean also have some influence. Vinnytsia, as well as the rest of Ukraine, is located in the temperate zone. Its geographical position in the middle latitudes determines the temperate climate of the region. The coldest month is January the warmest is July. The average amplitude of temperature fluctuations during the year does not exceed 25 °. Under the action of continental air masses in winter, the air temperature can decrease to -32 ° ...- 38 °, and in summer, it can rise to +37 ° С. Maximum precipitation occurs in May-July (130-170 mm). The least humid are the winter months. In December- February, it falls from 65 to 80 mm. The transition from one season to another takes place in stages (Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region, 2017; Tsitsyura et al., 2017). Favorable climatic conditions, along with other factors, became a prerequisite for the development of specific landscape and species diversity of the region.

2.2. Methods of forming a regional ecological network

In the context of planning and creation, the eco-network should be considered as an integrated system that has a special environmental status and an appropriate nature management regime. The main sets of criteria are designed for identification and determination of the natural significance and current state of areas in order to maintain and restore biodiversity. One of such criteria is the level of natural-frame significance of potential network elements. It involves determining the value of the properties and characteristics of certain areas for inclusion in a regional or local network. The particular site might be assigned to the existing or newly modelled elements of the ecological network depending on the simplex or complex typicality, uniqueness of components, content of ecosystems, migration value and other biotic and landscape criteria of the nature-frame level. Classification scheme of identification criteria and level of natural-frame significance of possible elements of regional and local eco-network due to Samoilenko (2013, p. 46-50): 1. Class of bioecosystem criteria: 1) biopopulation criteria; 2) biocoenotic criteria; 3) general bioecosystem criteria; 25

2. Class of geosystem criteria: 1) criteria of landscape uniqueness; 2) criteria of landscape diversity; 3) criteria of landscape representativeness; 4) criteria for the historical and cultural significance of landscapes; 3. Class of complex criteria: 1) criteria of biolandscape naturalness; 2) environmental and typical criteria; 3) territorial-typical criteria; 4) hydroinvironment criteria; 5) specific complex criteria. The next comprehensive criterion in assessing potential elements is the level of state of the simulation objects. It involves assessing the stability and reliability of areas and ecosystems. Stability means the ability of individual elements and the ecological network as a whole to maintain the homeostasis of the natural state under conditions of anthropogenic load and the action of adverse natural factors. Reliability is understood as the ability of natural complexes to renaturalize biotic and landscape diversity by strengthening geopositive and limiting geonegative processes. In general, the level of state of modelling objects in terms of their reliability reflects the degree of ability of the ecological network or its elements to perform possible or appropriate natural and socioeconomic functions (Samoilenko & Korogoda, 2013). Criteria for identification of the level of condition of regional and local eco-network modelling objects due to their stability, reliability and efficiency of operation due to Samoilenko (2013, p. 68-69): 1. Class of stability criteria: 1) Criteria for phase stability: a. phase anthropization resistance; b. phase-ethological stability; 2) Criteria for parametric stability: a. parametric process stability; b. parametric structural and functional stability; c. specific sustainability criteria; 2. Class of reliability criteria: 1) Criteria for iteration of the degree of reliability; 2) Simplified reliability criteria; 3. Class of criteria for the effectiveness of the eco-network: 26

1) Criteria of actual efficiency; 2) Criteria for the effectiveness of optimization solutions. Methods of forming regional and local eco-networks are developed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On Ecological Network" and the order of the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine dated November 13, 2009, № 604 - "Guidelines for developing regional and local eco- network schemes". The methodology approved in the order is of a recommendatory nature, as the process of forming an ecological network requires the adoption of individual selection criteria and a comprehensive assessment of areas that could potentially be included in the network for each individual region. Below we consider the general algorithmic scheme of eco-network modelling, proposed by Samoilenko and Korogoda based on research of experience of formation of ecological networks of various territorial levels. The algorithmic scheme involves the implementation of four interconnected, consecutive points (Samoilenko & Korogoda, 2013, p. 75): 1) creating a basic framework for modeling; 2) identification of nuclei and other areas (bands, zones) of biolandscape diversity; 3) target categorization of the studied area with the distinction and preliminary specification of the elements of the possible framework of the ecological network according to the conditions of their formation, condition, etc.; 4) modeling of the variant of the ecological network due to its main elements (natural nuclei, eco-corridors, buffer zones and zones of potential renaturalization). V.M. Samoilenko, N.P. Korogoda divide the process of geoinformation mathematical- cartographic modeling of the ecological network into two subprocesses: mathematical-cartographic and geoinformation. The first is the integrated use of logical-mathematical, cartographic, graphical modeling methods, as well as their combinations. The second is used to define the principles and approaches for the implementation of spatial analysis and modeling using GIS tools. Geoinformation modeling logically completes the mathematical and cartographic, as it is its visual embodiment.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Structure of the regional ecological network of Vinnytsia region

The tendency to reduce biodiversity is observed both at the national and regional levels. The specificity of this phenomenon for Vinnytsia region is the hyperfunction of agricultural activity, which causes the degradation of the composition and structure of soils; therefore ecosystems. The biodiversity of typical meadow and steppe pasture ecosystems located in the valleys of water bodies outside the coastal protection zones are the most vulnerable, due to afforestation without proper justification (Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region, 2019; Proceedings of the II Ukrainian Ecological Congress, 2008). Currently, the following factors have the significant negative impact on sites of eco-networks and biodiversity: ploughing of coastal protection zones of small rivers, artificial afforestation and creation of monocultural forest areas, excessive grazing in meadows and steppes. There are two governing documents adopted The Regional Program for Environmental Protection and Rational Use of Natural Resources for 2013-2018 (decision of the session of the Vinnytsia Regional Council №418 of December 18, 2012) and the Strategy for Balanced Regional Development of Vinnytsia region for the period up to 2020 (Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region, 2019). They are aimed to address the issues of conservation of landscape and biological diversity in the region. According to the data provided by the Department of Agro-Industrial Development, Ecology and Natural Resources of the Vinnytsia Regional State Administration, as of January 1, 2018 (2018) the Nature Reserve Fund of the Vinnytsia Region has: 1. National nature parks - 1 (area 20203.4 hectares) 2. Regional landscape parks - 4 (total area 18468.4 hectares) 3. Reserves of national importance - 21 (total area 13563.7 hectares) 4. Reserves of local significance - 130 (total area 11532.7 hectares) 5. Natural monuments of local significance - 186 (total area 685.6 ha) 6. Dendrological parks of local significance - 1 (area of 10 hectares) 7. Parks-monuments of garden and park art of national importance - 11 (total area 401 hectares) 8. Parks-monuments of garden and park art of local significance - 26 (total area 396.1 ha) 9. Protected tracts - 30 (total area 734.4 hectares). A total of 420 facilities with an area of 66,317.3 hectares, which is 2.51% of the region.

These territories became the basis for the formation of the regional ecological network of Vinnytsia region, which includes national natural nuclei, regional centers of biodiversity, eco- corridors, buffer zones and zones of potential renaturalization (Fig. 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Scheme of the regional network of Vinnytsia region (2018).

3.1.1 Key areas

National natural nuclei. On the territory of Vinnytsia region, there are three natural cores of national importance: Bugo-Desnyanske, Chechelnytske and Dniester-Murafske with a total area of 48067.4 hectares (1.8% of the region's territory). The largest in area is the Chechelnytske National Natural Core (23912.4 ha - 0.9% of the region's territory), located in the southern part of the region and lays within the Chechelnyk, Trostyanets and Kryzhopil administrative districts (Fig. 3.2). 29

Figure 3.2 Geographical position of the Chechelnytske national natural core (Yatsentiuk, 2011, p. 49). The protected areas of the Karmelyukove Podillya National Nature Park are biocenters of the regional ecological network, forming the basis of a key territory. These are the Brytavsky Botanical Reserve of national importance (with an area of 3259 ha) and the Krasnogreblyany Botanical Reserve of local significance (with an area of 1492 ha). Also smaller biocenters: the botanical reserve of local significance "Verbska Dacha" (with an area of 46 ha), "Tereshchuk Yar" Botanical Natural Monuments (area of 3.8 hectares) and "Romashkove" (area of 8.7 hectares) (Yatsentiuk, 2011). In the northern part of the region, Bugo-Desnyanske national natural core with an area of 16358.9 hectares (0.6% of the region) is located. It was formed within Vinnytsia, Kalynivka and Lityn administrative districts. Most of the nucleus is located in the Kalinovka district (Fig. 3.3). The basis of this key area (its biocenters) is the Bugo-Desnyansky general zoological reserve of national importance (1073 ha) and the forest reserve of local significance “Sosnovy bir” (17.7 ha) (Yatsentiuk, 2011).

Figure 3.3 Geographical position of the Bug-Desnyansky national natural core (Yatsentiuk, 2011, p.51). The Bugo-Desnianske national natural core is characterized by a unique set of landscape complexes of Vinnytsia. Forest and wetland biogeocenoses provide conditions for renaturalization of ecosystems, reproduction and settlement of species of flora and fauna (Mudrak, 2019; Shavrina & Tkach, 2017). The territory of this nature reserve is characterized by rare, endangered species of plants, animals and landscapes. The smallest is the Dniester-Murafa National Natural Core. Its area is 7796.1 hectares or 0.3% of the region. It was formed within the Chernivtsi, Mohyliv-Podilskyi and Yampil administrative districts. Most of the nucleus is located in the Yampil district (Fig. 3.4). This key area is confined to the river valleys of the Dniester, Murafa, Lozova, Vazluy, Bushanka. It is based on the existing regional landscape parks "Dniester" (5049.03 ha) and "Murafa" (3451.71 ha), as well as areas available for inclusion in these protected areas. Protected areas of the regional landscape parks, mentioned above, are represented by the botanical reserve of national importance "Bilyansky Forest" tract (218 ha), landscape reserve of local significance "Murafa" (220 ha), protected tract "Petrashivka" (167 ha), geological natural monument of national importance "Haydamatsky Yar tract" (96 ha), a complex natural monument of national importance "Stinka" tract (90 ha). They are, respectively, Bilyansky, Murafsky, Petrashivsky, Bushansky and Yaruzhsky biocenters as part of the national natural core. In addition, promising Loziv, Vazlui and Dniester biocenters are distinguished (Yatsentiuk, 2011).

Figure 3.4. Dniester-Murafa National Natural Core (Yatsentiuk, 2011, p.52). Within the Dniester-Murafa National Natural Core, forest and meadow-steppe ecosystems are of the greatest importance. Here, typical meadow-steppe areas with rare and endangered plant species have been preserved and are gradually being restored. Of particular value are the landscape complexes of Murafa's "Switzerland" with typical canyon-like sections of the river valleys of Transnistria, steep forest and meadow-steppe slopes, rocky cliffs, rocky outcrops, waterfalls, rapids and islands, niches, pockets and terraces. Dniester with caves and karst springs (Yatsentiuk, 2011). These three key areas have gained national importance and have been identified among other biocenters of Vinnytsia region due to the unique composition of ecosystems, the presence of groups of rare flora and fauna, protected by the Green and Red Books of Ukraine. The presence of habitats of plant and animal populations included in the protection lists of the regional, national and European levels has led to the formation of key areas of regional and national eco-networks in these areas. Regional centers of biodiversity. The regional ecological network of Vinnytsia region includes 38 regional biodiversity centers. They occupy an area of 135,983 hectares (5.1% of the area of Vinnytsia). 1. Transnistrian-Bernashivsky center with a total area of 3124.7 hectares. Located within the Murovanokurilovetsky and Mohyliv-Podilsky administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. It is located on the border with Khmelnytsky and Chernivtsi eco-networks. Features of landscape

32 diversity: landscape complexes of the Dniester canyon and its left tributaries Zhvan and Materka (oak-hornbeam massifs); slope tracts with meadow-steppe vegetation. 2. Zharsky center with a total area of 3472.2 hectares is located in Lityn and Zhmerynka administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. It is located on the border with the Khmelnytsky eco- network and associated with the Zgar River Valley (Appendix 1). Features of landscape diversity: natural wetlands of the Zgar River valley. 3. Sandratsky center with a total area of 748.4 hectares is located in Khmilnyk administrative district of Vinnytsia region. Associated with the floodplain and floodplain terraces of the Southern Bug Valley. Features of landscape diversity: natural wetlands of the Southern Bug river valley. 4. Pechero-Sokilets center with a total area of 744.2 hectares is located in Tyvriv, Nemyriv and Tulchyn administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. Associated with floodplains and floodplain terraces of the Southern Bug river valley. Features of landscape diversity: landscape complexes of the river valley of the Southern Bug, forest and steppe slopes, granite outcrops, floodplain meadows, islands and rapids. 5. Voronovytsia center with a total area of 4091.6 hectares is located in Vinnytsia, Tyvriv and Nemyriv administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. Features of landscape diversity: forest ecosystems, oak groves. 6. Samchynets-Raigorod Center with a total area of 2280.2 hectares is located in the Nemyriv administrative district of Vinnytsia region. Features of landscape diversity: forests, landscape complexes of the Southern Bug Valley. 7. Vinnytsia center with a total area of 4623.5 hectares is located in Vinnytsia administrative district. Features of landscape diversity: landscapes of forests. 8. Khmilnytskyi center with a total area of 6971.8 hectares is located in Khmilnyk and Lityn administrative districts. Features of landscape diversity: landscapes of forests of common oak (Quercus robur). 9. The Bereznyansky center with a total area of 1385.2 hectares is located in the Khmilnyk administrative district. Features of landscape diversity: hornbeam-oak forests. 10. Gubnytsia-Mytkiv Center with a total area of 476.7 hectares is located in Trostyanets and Haisyn administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. Features of landscape diversity: landscape complexes of the river valley of the Southern Bug, rapids and islands (Appendix 1). Features of landscape diversity: landscape complexes of the Southern Bug valley, birch plantings and steppe meadows.

11. Snyvodsky center with a total area of 1953.6 hectares is located in the Kalinovka administrative district of Vinnytsia region. Features of landscape diversity: landscape complexes of the Snyvoda river valley, wetlands and meadows. 12. Vendychansko-Serebriysky center with a total area of 1946.2 hectares is located in Mohyliv-Podilsky administrative district of Vinnytsia region. Features of landscape diversity: combination of landscapes on the Transnistrian slopes covered with forest tracts, deep-water ponds. 13. Lyadiv Center with a total area of 832.6 hectares is located in the Mohyliv-Podilskyi administrative district of Vinnytsia region. On the territory of this regional center, areas of natural steppe vegetation on the slopes of river valleys are of special environmental value. 14. Goryachkivsky center with a total area of 3037.6 hectares is located in Pishchanka and Kryzhopil administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. 15. Pishchansky center with a total area of 6327.5 hectares is located in Pishchanka and Kryzhopil administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. It has a special role in the neighborhood with the territories of the ecological network of the Republic of Moldova, thus it has both regional and international significance. 16. Mohyliv-Podilskyi center with a total area of 983.6 hectares is located in Mohyliv- Podilskyi administrative district of Vinnytsia region. It is located on the border with the territories of the ecological network of the Republic of Moldova, so it acquires both regional and international importance. Features of landscape diversity: slopes with meadow-steppe vegetation. 17. Yampil center with a total area of 2022.4 hectares is located in Yampil, Pishchanka and Kryzhopil administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. It is located on the border with the territories of the ecological network of the Republic of Moldova, so it acquires both regional and international importance. 18. Haydamatsky center with a total area of 7471.7 hectares is located in Trostyanets administrative district of Vinnytsia region. 19. Vapnyarsko-Kyrnasivsky center with a total area of 9789.6 hectares is located in Tomashpil and Tulchyn administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. 20. Ladyzhyn center with a total area of 3679.6 hectares is located in Gaisin and Trostyanets administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. 21. Illinetsko-Dashivsky center with a total area of 13709.6 hectares is located in Illintsi administrative district of Vinnytsia region. 22. Bar center with a total area of 1594.6 is located in Bar administrative district of Vinnytsia region. It is located on the border with the territories of the ecological network of Khmelnytsky region, has interregional significance.

23. Shpykiv Center with a total area of 6911.3 hectares is located in Tulchyn and Sharhorod administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. 24. The Bershad Center with a total area of 5,125.6 hectares is located in the Bershad Administrative District of the Vinnytsia Region. It is located on the border with the territories of the eco-network of Kirovohrad region, has interregional significance. 25. The Krushynivsky center with a total area of 1,098.3 hectares is located in the Bershad administrative district of the Vinnytsia region. 26. Gaisinsky center with a total area of 6932.2 hectares is located in Gaisin administrative district of Vinnytsia region. Unlike other biocenters, it does not have large protected areas. 27. Zhmerynsky center with a total area of 4558.6 hectares is located in Zhmerynsky administrative district of Vinnytsia region. 28. Murovano-Kurylovetsky center with a total area of 3489.4 hectares is located in Murovano-Kurylovetsky administrative district of Vinnytsia region. 29. Teplyk center with a total area of 523.8 hectares is located in Teplyk administrative district of Vinnytsia region. It is connected to the eco-network of Cherkasy region with the help of Udytsia regional eco-corridor. 30. Dyakavets center with a total area of 1119.1 hectares is located in Lityn administrative district of Vinnytsia region. It is located on the border with the territories of the ecological network of Khmelnytsky region. 31. Kozyatyn center with a total area of 1058.3 hectares is located on the outskirts of Kozyatyn city, Vinnytsia region. It is connected to the eco-network of Zhytomyr region with the help of Guyvin regional eco-corridor. 32. Hopchytsky center with a total area of 4018 hectares is located in Pohrebyshche district of Vinnytsia region. It is located on the border with the territories of the ecological network of Zhytomyr region. 33. Pohrebyshche center with a total area of 2369.5 hectares is located in Pohrebyshche district of Vinnytsia region. It is connected to the ecological network of Kyiv region with the help of the Roskyi regional eco-corridor. Peculiarities of landscape diversity: landscape complexes on the slopes of the Ros River valley with the presence of granite outcrops and valuable forest plantations of natural and artificial origin. 34. Tomashpil center with a total area of 2282.2 hectares is located in Tomashpil and Yampil districts of Vinnytsia region. 35. The Bratslav center with a total area of 3601.8 hectares is located in Nemyriv and Tulchyn districts of Vinnytsia region.

36. The Sumivskyi center with a total area of 2120.2 hectares is located in the Bershad administrative district of Vinnytsia region. 37. Teteriv-Snyvodsky center with a total area of 3573.1 hectares is located in the Khmilnyk administrative district of Vinnytsia region. It is located at the source of the rivers Snyvoda, Teteriv, Salnychka, Popivka and their tributaries. The territory of the Tetyriv-Snyvodsky center is divided between Vinnytsia and Zhytomyr regions, so this center has interregional significance. Features of landscape diversity: wetlands, forests, river valleys. 38. The Buzko-Dniprovsky center with a total area of 5934 ha is located in Kozyatyn and Kalynivka administrative districts of Vinnytsia region. The center is located at the source of the rivers Desna, Gnilopyat, Guyva and Rostavytsya. The eco-corridors of these rivers connect the Bug-Dnieper regional center of biodiversity with the elements of the regional ecological network of Zhytomyr region. Features of landscape diversity: wetlands and areas of possible existence and restoration of meadow steppes. The above-mentioned regional centers of biodiversity include reserves (forest, botanical, hydrological, ornithological, entomological, landscape, general zoological), natural monuments (botanical, zoological, hydrological, geological, complex), parks-monuments of garden- park art, landscape parks, protected tracts of local and/or national importance. Among the protected landscapes, majority belongs to forests, meadows and steppe slopes, wetlands, river valleys, locations of unique rock outcrops (granite, chalk), etc. They provide the necessary conditions for the survival of species and natural or poorly anthropogenic habitats (Mudrak & Nagornuk, 2008; UNESCO Geoparks Programme, 1999). Numerous species of flora and fauna have been found on the territories of these biocenters, which are of great value because they are listed in the Green and Red Books of Ukraine, are rare for Europe and Ukraine or rare for Vinnytsia region. These factors became the justification for the involvement of these biocenters in the regional centers of biodiversity.

3.1.2. Connecting territories

It is known that the migration routes of many species of animals of Europe pass through the territory of Ukraine, which is why the quantity and quality (width, length, naturalness) of the connecting territories play an important role in the preservation of populations. Vinnytsia is located in the central part of the country, many rivers flow through its territory, which are traditionally considered as model objects for the formation of ecological corridors (meet the requirements of length, width, continuity to eco-corridors of different scales).

On the territory of the regional ecological network of Vinnytsia region there are 22 connecting territories (ecological corridors) with a total area of 1522664 ha, which is 57.5% of the territory of the region. Three of them are of national importance the remaining 19 are regional. National eco-corridors. Table 3.1 National eco-corridors of Vinnytsia region. Ecocorridor Total area in ha % of the territory of the region

National connecting territories 1201772.1 45.4 Galicia-Slobozhansky sublatitudinal 1039199.0 39.2 eco-corridor South Bug eco-corridor 141973.3 5.4 Dniester submeridional eco-corridor 20599.7 0.8

The part of the southern branch of the Halych-Slobozhansky sublatitudinal national eco- corridor is the largest in area (see Table 3.1) and the widest connecting zone of Vinnytsia region. Its length is 165 km and width ranges from 73 km to 45 km, the shape is tortuous. The basis of this eco- corridor were forest-steppe landscapes, complexes of deciduous forests and associated meadow- steppe lands. The structure of landscapes, composition and types of soils are not homogeneous. However, among the natural landscapes of the western part of the ecological corridor deciduous forests predominate on their characteristic gray (light gray, dark gray) soils, and in the northern part - forest landscape complexes on sod-soil. The second largest ecological corridor in the region (table 3.1) is the South Bug National Submeridional Eco-corridor, which width vary from 1 km to 13 km. It connects the eco-network of Vinnytsia region with the eco-networks of Khmelnytsky and Kirovohrad regions. The structure of the ecological corridor is continuous, but heterogeneous and mosaic, associated with the valley of the Southern Bug River. The division of the territory of the connecting zone into forest complexes, water landscapes, meadows and anthropogenic areas (roads, settlements, arable land, etc.) depends on the waters fullness, on the section and width of river's valley. The wider the valley, the more intensive land use. The smallest is the Dniester National Submeridional Eco-corridor (table 3.1) with a width from 1 km to 5 km (maximum width in Ukraine). It is located in the southwestern part of the region and is of international importance, as it connects the regional ecological networks of Vinnytsia and Khmelnytsky with the ecological network of the Republic of Moldova. The structure is continuous, associated with the Dniester river valley. Among the natural landscapes, the most significant are wetlands, forests, meadow-steppe, rock-steppe complexes.

Regional eco-corridors. The eco-network of Vinnytsia region includes 19 eco-corridors of regional significance with a total area of 320,914.3 hectares, which is 12.1% of the region's territory. 17 of them are river-valley, as they are associated with the valleys of small rivers of the region (Snivoda, Gnilopyat, Guyva, Sob, Ros, Desna, Zgar, Riv, Silnitsa, Kamyanka, Savranka, Dokhna, Markivka, Rusava, Murafa, Lyadova, Udych), the rest were isolated due to their importance for the migration and settlement of wild animal species (Connecting territories of the ecological network of Vinnytsia region. Proceedings of the III All-Ukrainian Congress of Ecologists with International Participation, 2011). These are Khmilnytskyi-Chechelnytskyi and Yaltushkivsko-Dashivskyi. Khmelnytsky-Chechelnytsky eco-corridor is 267 km long and 1500 to 8000 m wide. It connects the ecological networks of Khmelnytsky, Vinnytsia and Odessa regions. It also connects the Bereznyansky, Khmilnytsky, Vinnytsia, Zhmerynsky, Shpykivsky, Vapnyarsko-Kyrnasivsky and Pishchansky regional centers of biodiversity with the Chechelnytsky national natural core. The Yaltushkivsko-Dashivsky eco-corridor is 284 km long and 400 to 9000 m wide. It connects elements of the ecological network of Khmelnytsky, Vinnytsia and Cherkasy regions. It also connects Shpykiv, Bratslav, Samchynets-Raigorod and Illinets-Dashiv regional centers of biodiversity. These eco-corridors are large and play an important role in maintaining the interconnection between the elements of the eco-networks of several areas, thus they are of interregional importance. They both cross the Galician-Slobozhansky sublatitudinal eco-corridor; therefore, play a role in migrations among national-level ecosystems.

3.1.3. Restoration areas

Zones of potential renaturalization. Restoration areas are areas that have the potential to restore the natural state of unique landscapes and settlements. They are created in order to reduce the anthropogenic load on partially changed landscapes and their long-term involvement in the existing key areas, eco-corridors or buffer zones. In Vinnytsia region, there are 31 such zones with an area of 73857.1 hectares (2.8% of the territory of Vinnytsia region). Currently the special attention and restoration are required for wetlands and watersheds of sources and tributaries of rivers, gullies, valleys of small rivers (Khmilnyk, Lityn, Kozyatyn Kalynivra, Pohrebyshche, Trostyanets, Mohyliv-Podilskyi districts of the region), forest landscapes, (Vinnytsia, Lypovets, Trostyanets, Mohyliv-Podilskyi districts), meadow, meadow-steppe landscapes (Mohyliv-Podilskyi, Chernivtsi, Chechelnyk, Kozyatyn, Lityn, Khmilnyk districts).

3.1.4. Buffer zones

The purpose of buffer zones is to protect national natural nuclei, regional biodiversity centers, national and regional eco-corridors. In Vinnytsia region, they are formed around the elements mntioned above and occupy approximately 20 percent of the region (Yatsentiuk, 2012). Since buffer zones are an important component of any ecological network, their condition and the effectiveness of their protection functions is one of the most important issues in creating an ecological network. Scientists in the field of environmental law are increasingly raising the issue of protection and conservation of buffer zones, as the last line between biodiversity and anthropogenic pressure. They emphasize the inconsistencies in the Law of Ukraine "On the Ecological Network", "On the National Program for the Formation of the National Ecological Network of Ukraine for 2000- 2015" and the Land Code, namely the uncertainty of the protection status of buffer zones (Kucher et al., 2019).

3.2. Characteristics of biodiversity of Vinnitsa region

3.2.1 General characteristics of plant diversity of Vinnytsia region

The plant diversity of Vinnytsia region includes about 1,200 (200 of which are rare) plant species, most of which are associated with the peculiarities of the landscapes, typical for the region. In the northern part of the region the most common meadow and swamp vegetation, respectively in the south - steppe. Forest and swamp-water vegetation is distributed throughout the territory. Depending on the location of the forests of Vinnytsia can be divided into deciduous and coniferous. The first are represented by oak-hornbeam, hornbeam-oak, alder and beech massifs. The second are pine-lichen, pine-thyme-lichen, pine-green moss, pine-cranberry, pine-blueberry, pine- low-sedge, pine-herbaceous associations (Tsitsyura et al., 2017). Of particular note are the species that grow on limestone, granite, chalk, gypsum outcrops of the rock. In areas that have suffered a strong anthropogenic impact and partially or completely lost the characteristic vegetation cover is dominated by invasive plant species (Shavrina et al., 2018). Among the adventitious species, the most common are Acer negundo (ash maple), Heracleum, Helianthus tuberosus, Solidago graminifolia L. Salisb., Cyclachaena xanthiifolia, Ambrosia artemisiifolia (ragweed). Ash maple displaces native tree species from biogeocenoses, heracleum cause damage to meadow-steppe lands and arable lands; in addition to displacing steppe

39 vegetation, ragweed has pollen, which is a strong allergen and causes severe attacks of allergies in the population throughout the flowering period. In Vinnytsia region, some rare (see Table 3.2) relict and endemic species of the region have been preserved: Aconitum besserianum subsp. Lasiostomum, Carlina cirsioides, Carlina onopordifolia Besser ex Szafer, Kulcz. et Pawt., Chamaecytisus blockianusChamaecytisus podolicus, Poeta versicoloris, Anchusa pseudoochroleuca, Tragopogon podolicus, Euphorbia klokovii Dubovik, Thymus podolicum L. and Thymus pulegioides; Asperula tyraica Bess., Minuartia thyraica, Galium tyraicum, Euphorbia valdevillosocarpa (Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region, 2017). Table 3.2 Species of protected flora (Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region, 2017, p.72) The total number of species of flora in the region, units 600 % to the total number of species of Ukraine 2.40 Species of flora listed in the annexes to the Convention on the Conservation of 48 European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, units Species of flora listed in the annexes to the Convention on International Trade 65 in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), units

The presence of habitats of rare, endangered plants in certain areas is the basis for the assignment of areas to the nature reserve fund. Within all national natural nuclei and regional centers of biodiversity, there are populations of species listed in the Red Lists and the Green Book.

3.2.2. General characteristics of zoological diversity of Vinnytsia region

Due to the results of research conducted by Mudrak (2014), the species diversity of fauna of Vinnytsia region is quite numerous: the number of invertebrate species reaches 15,000, and vertebrates - 312. Quantitative and qualitative composition of zoological diversity of territories depends on their landscape and plant diversity, as well as the degree of anthropogenization (Kucher et.al., 2018). Mudrak (2014) divides the fauna of Vinnytsia region according to the ecosystems in which it occurs: 1) forest fauna; 2) fauna of agroecosystems; 3) fauna of wetlands; 4) synanthropic fauna.

Table 3.3 Species diversity of the fauna of Vinnytsia (Mudrak, 2014, p. 72) Taxonomic category Number of species of Number of species of % of species of fauna fauna of Ukraine fauna of Vinnytsia of Vinnytsia region to region the total number in Ukraine In general, all 33606 15000 46.1 invertebrates Cyclostomata 2 1 50 Actinopterygia 176 30 17 Caudata 6 1 16.6 Salientia 13 9 69.2 Testudinata 1 1 100 Lepidosauria 20 6 30 Aves 422 194 45.9 Mammalia 132 70 53 In general, all 772 312 40.4 vertebrates Total fauna 34378 15312 44.5

The zoological diversity of Vinnytsia region is characterized by rich pedofauna and entomofauna, there is a significant variability of beetles and butterflies, bees, wasps, bumblebees, dragonflies, etc. Significant diversity of avifauna (The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds, 1997), represented by numerous species characteristic of forest-steppe and swamp-water ecosystems. Among amphibians, only 10 species remain (table 3.3), which is explained by the destruction of their natural habitats: drying of swamps, plowing of coastal protection strips, pollution of surface waters. Reptiles are represented by seven species (table 3.3), which is also explained by the destruction and degradation of their natural habitats (forests, steppes). The diversity of mammal fauna is associated with meadow-steppe and forest areas, as numerous rodents, artiodactyls, as well as predatory species represent it. The decline in their populations is due not only to anthropogenic impacts on their habitats, but also to hunting (Appendix 3) (Dubin, 2002; Vinokur, 1985). By their origin, the faunal complexes of Vinnytsia have a mixed character. Most vertebrates are typical of the deciduous and mixed forests of Europe. The number of Mediterranean and atypical boreal faunal complexes is insignificant. Of the ecological groups of animals, eurybionts predominate; hydrophilic, forest and steppe species are rare. Synanthropes is the least diverse group. Nevertheless, the percentage of the total number of species inherent in a particular ecosystem,

41 indicates that more vulnerable are meadow-steppe zoocenoses, where more than 50 percent of species need protection (Mudrak, 2014, p. 78).

3.2.3. Sozological assessment of zoological diversity of vertebrates of Vinnytsia region

A high level of biodiversity requires appropriate conservation status and conditions. Of the 871 species of fauna of Vinnytsia, 340 are under protection. The significant indicator pointes that insufficient measures have been taken so far to ensure the conservation of biodiversity. The above 340 species have acquired conservation status in accordance with the conditions and lists dictated by the ratification of international agreements and conventions, as well as the Ukrainian environmental list - the Red Book of Ukraine (table 3.4). Table 3.4 Species with conservation status (Mudrak, 2014, p. 79). The total number of known species of fauna in the Vinnytsia region 871 % of the total number of species of Ukraine 2.53 in particular protected, included in: 340 The (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (2001) 30 The European Red List (1991) 35 Species of fauna listed in the Red Book of Ukraine (2009) 99 Endangered species listed in the annexes to the Convention on International 36 Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973) Fauna species listed in the Annexes to the Convention on the Conservation of 183 European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention, 1979), including the Emerald Network Species listed in the Annexes to the Convention on the Conservation of 74 Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention, CMS) Species protected under the Agreement on the Conservation of Afro-Eurasian 31 Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA, 1995) Species protected under the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe 10 (EUROBATS, 1979) Regionally rare species 59

Animal species of the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2004). 30 species: - 5 species of invertebrates and 25 species of vertebrates (1 species of round- mouthed animals, 2 species of bony fish, 1 species of reptiles, 12 species of birds, 9 species of mammals) (Davey, 1998). 42

Animal species of the European Red List (1991). 35 species - 7 species of invertebrates and 28 species of vertebrates (1 species of round-mouthed, 2 - bony fish, 2 - reptiles, 13 - birds, 10 - mammals. Species of animals subject to protection under the Berne Convention. 183 species - 12 species of invertebrates and 171 species of vertebrates (1 species of round-mouthed, 5 - bony fish, 6 - amphibians, 9 - reptiles, 118 - birds, 32 - mammals). Bonn Convention. 74 species from 3 classes (fish rays - 1, birds - 63, mammals - 10), which are protected by the Bonn Convention. The Agreement on the Conservation of Migratory Afro-Eurasian Wetlands (AEWA) protects 31 species. Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (EUROBATS) - 10 species. Washington Convention. 36 species of animals from 4 classes (roundworms - 1, ray fish - 1, birds - 31, mammals - 3), which are subject to protection according to CITES. The Red Book of Ukraine 57, of which: 1 species of round-mouthed, 6 species of fish, 4 species of reptiles, 26 species of birds and 20 species of mammals (Mudrak, 2014). The presence of rare fauna was one of the reasons for the involvement of the territories in the key areas of Vinnytsia and the creation of national natural nuclei. Thus, the Chechelnytske natural core is distinguished by its richness of fauna and provides conditions for the existence of populations of such vertebrates as: black stork (Ciconia nigra), copperhead (Coronella austriaca), forest cat (Felis silvestris), badger (Meles meles), ermine (Mustela erminea), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The Bugo-Desnianske national natural core provides shelter for the following species of rare vertebrates: river otter (Lutra lutra), woodpecker (Crex crex), copperhead (Coronella austriaca), badger (Meles meles) and hazel (Muscardinus Kaup). The Dniester-Murafske National Natural Core is distinguished by the presence of the following rare vertebrates: river otter (Lutra lutra), hazel wolf (Muscardinus Kaup), Dnieper madder (Barbus borysthenicus), black stork (Ciconia nigra), European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus), yellow-bellied slug (Dolichophis caspius), copperhead (Coronella austriaca), badger (Meles meles).

3.3. Structural-functional optimization of econetwork of Vinnitsa region

Research and analysis of the structure of the modern regional ecological network of Vinnytsia region and its inherent biodiversity, allowed to understand which areas of optimization are relevant and effective for this network. The structural and functional analysis of the network of protected areas of the Vinnitsa region was carried out with a help of data collected by making a 43 literature review, landscape-ecological and general field researches (Ovchinnikova, 2018). The dynamics of the formation of the NRF network and the distribution of protected objects by administrative regions were studied with a help of statistical and comparative analysis of data. The data was collected by the Department of Agro-Industrial Development, Ecology and Natural Resources in Vinnitsa region (DAIDENDR) and NRF (Register of objects of the nature reserve fund). The influence of the structure and distribution of the NRF territories on the formation and perspective ways of optimizing the REN of the Vinnitsa region were studied, using analytical, descriptive, retrospective methods of analysis. Currently, most of the historically formed biogeocenoses have been altered, degraded or destroyed. The level of forest cover, despite artificial restoration, is not satisfactory for counteracting erosion processes; meadow-steppe complexes are ruined and used to expand agro-industrial activities, and wetlands become objects for drainage and further exploitation in agricultural activities. The ecological network of Vinnytsia region is quite branched, but heterogeneous and somewhat fragmented. Its structure is potentially capable of expansion and further optimization.

3.3.1. Structural and functional analysis of the protected area of Vinnytsia region

Structural and functional analysis of the protected network of Eastern Podillya - analysis of the spatial location and functioning of the territories and objects of the NRF, which are the basis of the structure of a functioning and perspective regional ecological network (Mudrak et.al, 2018b, 2018c). Currently, it is necessary for the formation of a holistic, functionally complete, structurally representative, socially oriented network of territories and objects of the NRF. It is supposed to solve not only the problems of biodiversity conservation, but also constantly provide a system of environmental services to the socio-economic benefits, improved living conditions, thus laying the foundations for balanced development of the region (Andrienko, 1998; Andrienko et al., 2001). Data collected by the Department of Agro-Industrial Development, Ecology and Natural Resources in Vinnytsia region shows that the modern NRF of Eastern Podillia (the last update - 03.03.2019 ) included 439 (virtually 425) objects and territories of protection. Their total area 66730.48 hectares, which is 2.52% of the total area of the Vinnitsa region (table 2.5, 2.6) (Ovchinnikova, 2019; DADENR, 2019). The basis of the NRF is the objects of protection of biotopes, species and landscapes: 1 national nature parks (NNP) (20203.4 ha) - 35.53% of the total area of the NRF; 4 - regional landscape park (RLP) (18468.38 ha) - 32.48%; 157 reserves (wildlife sanctuary) (25,204.18 ha) - 44.32%; 194 natural monuments (1,071.32 ha) - 1.88%; 29 protected areas (951.4 ha) - 1.67%; 1 44 arboretum (10 ha) - 0.018%; 39 park-monuments of landscape-gardening art (PMLG) (821.8 ha) - 1.45%. biosphere reserves (BR) and nature reserves (NR) are absent (Appendix 4, 5). Among the nature reserves that are part of the NRF of the region, the area is dominated by botanical ones (with a total area of 13,190.05 ha). The general ecological and landscape ones have close values (4722 ha and 4583 ha, respectively), hydrological and forest reserves (1442.06 ha) occupy a much smaller area and 368.7 ha, respectively) (Mudrak et al., 2015; Ovchinnikova, 2019; Lyubchak, 1990) (Appendix 5). Over the past forty years, the reserve indicator has been increased from 0.17 percent to 2.52 percent (table 3.6). It should be noted that the data for 2014-2016 are missing, because during this period, work on expanding the network was not carried out. Table 3.5 Features of the distribution of spatial-functional structure NRF of Eastern Podillya (as of March 5, 2019) (Ovchinnikova, 2019).

Number of administrative- 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 territorial units, units

Number of categories of - - 4 6 11 4 2 preservation, units

Table 3.6 The dynamics of the NRF of Eastern Podillya (Ovchinnikova, 2019). Year Number of territories and Area, ha Share of the total area of the objects region,% 1978 135 4714.0 0.17 1986 320 8907.0 0.35 1989 320 9193.2 0.40 1993 311 18600.0 0.70 1996 325 18820.79 0.70 2000 339 20624.69 0.78 2003 336 23763.54 0.89 2005 338 23841.3 0.89 2006 342 24001.92 0.90 2007 342 24001.92 0.90 2008 343 27353.26 1.021 2009 344 27401.82 1.034 2010 376 51200.37 1.95 2011 391 51794.37 1.96 2012 400 54634.0 2.06 2013 404 54880.5 2.07 2017 432 65748.17 2.49 2018 420 66317.3 2.51 2019 439 66730.48 2.52

The indicator of the level of conservation of the region does not reflect the real state of the ecological network. Due to State cadaster of territories and objects of the NRF of Ukraine (2017), a

45 significant proportion of this indicator is achieved due to individual protected areas. For example, NNP "Karmelyukove Podillya", the actual area of 20203.4 hectares, accounts for - 35.53%, RLP "Murafa" (3452.7 hectares) - 6.08%, "Middle Pobuzhya" (2618.2 hectares) - 4.61%, "Dniester" (6719.48 ha) - 11.82%, RLP "Nemyrivske Pobuzhzhya" (5678 ha) - 9.99% of protected areas in the region (table 3.5, 3.7) (Ovchinnikova, 2019). The results of the World Watch Institute (Washington) indicate that to maintain the proper functioning of ecosystems and landscape complexes, the area of "wild", undamaged sites within region should be at least 10-12% from the total area, and the optimal area of protected sites - 20%, while the reserve indicator for Vinnitsa region is 2.5% (Ovchinnikova, 2019). Table 3.7 Distribution of protected objects by administrative districts in Eastern Podillya (as of March 5, 2019) (Ovchinnikova, 2019). Number of NRF objects, units >10 10 -19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 6 15 3 4 - - The number of administrative units, units

The share of administrative-territorial units in the 1.42 3.53 0.71 0.95 - - total number of objects of the NRF, %

Data collected by the Department of Agro-Industrial Development, Ecology and Natural Resources in Vinnitsa region shows that of the total number of territories and objects of the NRF of the region, 80.24% (341 objects) with an area of up to 50 hectares have island character and do not fully ensure the conservation of biodiversity (table 3.8) (Ovchinnikova, 2019). Table 3.8 Functional and spatial analysis of the NRF of Eastern Podillia by area (as of 03/05/2019) Wildlife PML Arboret Area, ha NNP RLP NM PA Total sanctuary GA um < 1 - - - 108 - - - 108 1–5 - - 14 65 4 8 - 91 5.1–10 - - 9 7 8 6 1 31 10.1–25 - - 37 5 7 15 - 64 25.1–50 - - 30 3 7 7 - 47 50.1–100 - - 23 4 2 3 - 32 100.1–250 - - 24 2 1 - - 27 250.1–500 - - 8 - - - - 8 500.1–1000 - - 6 - - - - 6 1000.1–2500 - - 4 - - - - 4 2500.1–5000 - 2 2 - - - - 4 5000.1–10000 - 2 - - - - - 2 10000.1–25000 1 ------1 Total 1 4 157 194 29 39 1 425

Notes: NNP - national nature parks, RLP - regional landscape park, NM - natural monuments, PA - protected areas, PMLGA - park-monuments of landscape-gardening art. Among 27 administrative districts, the level of conservation of the territory (the share of the NRF of the total area of the district) is: a) Critical - up to 1% (12 districts, 44.4% of the total); b) Very poor - from 1.01% to 2% (7 districts, 25.9% of the total); c) Bad - from 2.01% to 3% (3 districts, 11.1% of the total); d) Very low - from 3.01% to 4% (2 districts, 7.4% of the total); e) Low - from 4.01% to 5% (1 district, 3.7% of the total); f) Satisfactory - from 5.01% to 8% (1 district 3.7% of the total); g) Good - over 8.01% (1 district, 3.7% of the total). Distribution by the number of protected sites (DAIDENDR, 2019; Ovchinnikova, 2019): a) up to 10 protected sites (8 districts, 29.6% of the total); b) 10-15 protected sites (12 districts, 44.4% of the total); c) 16–20 protected sites (1 district, 3.7% of the total); d) 21–25 protected sites (1 district, 3.7% of the total); e) 26-30 protected sites (2 districts, 7.4% of the total); f) 31–35 protected sites (2 districts, 7.4% of the total); g) 35 and more protected sites (1 district, 3.7% of the total). Distribution of NRF objects by area (Ovchinnikova, 2019; NRF, 2019): a) up to 1 ha - 149 protected sites (36.8% of the total); b) 1–5 ha - 64 objects (15.8%); c) 5.1-10 ha - 35 objects (8.6%); d) 10.1-25 ha - 47 objects (11.6%); e) 25.1-50 ha - 38 objects (9.4%); f) 50.1-100.0 ha - 26 objects (6.4%); g) 100.1–250.0 ha - 22 objects (5.4%); j) 250.1-500.0 ha - 9 objects (2.2%); k) 500.1–1000.0 ha - 5 objects (1.2%); m) 1000.1-2500.0 ha - 3 objects (0.7%); m) 2500.1–5000.0 ha - 4 facilities (0.9%); o) 5000.1–10000.0 ha - 1 object (0.24%); p) 10000.1-25000.0 - 1 object (0.24% of the total). Thus, a functional-spatial analysis of the structure of nature reserves and territories allows us to draw the following conclusions. On the territory of the Vinnitsa region, there are no protected objects of multifunctional significance with a strict nature reserve regime. On the territory of the Vinnitsa region, there are no protected objects of multifunctional significance with a strict nature reserve regime. The share of protected sites of a multifunctional purpose (NNP, RLP) is insufficient to ensure the conservation of species diversity. There is small

47 proportion of protected sites with an area of over 500 hectares (14 sites - 3.4% of the total), which would serve as a biocenter of a regional ecological network. The proportion of protected sites with an area of over 500 hectares is small (14 sites - 3.4% of the total), which would serve as a biocenter of a regional ecological network. The structure of the regional ecological network contains a large number of small protected objects (333) with an area of up to 50 hectares - 82.4% of the total. They have an island, localized character and cannot fully ensure the conservation of genetic and landscape diversity. Furthermore, there are significant imbalances in the functional structure, quantity, area of the Nature reserves and territories of the administrative areas. The largest number of nature reserves and territories are localized in Vinnitsa (45), Mogilev-Podolsky (33), Teplitsky (31), Trostyanetsky (30) districts, the smallest - in Kalinovsky - 5 (0.04% of the reserve), Oratovsky - 6 (0.3%), Lipovetsky - 6 (0.02%) (Mudrak et al., 2015; Ovchinnikova, 2019) At this stage of development, the ecological network of the Vinnitsa region has an insufficient level of conservation to ensure the normal functioning of ecosystems and landscape complexes. Among the 27 administrative-territorial districts, majority has a critical, very poor or poor level of preservation (Appendix 6). Most NRF objects are insular; therefore, they are unable to perform the function of biocenters, protecting unique species and habitats from anthropogenic interference. Analysis of the spatial and functional structure of the region’s ecological network showed the need for its revision, the creation of new zoological and landscape reserves in order to increase the level of conservation and improve the functional efficiency of the network (the ability to preserve genetic and landscape diversity). While forming the ecological network of Vinnitsa region, it is necessary to pay more attention to providing multifunctionality to its elements, as well as avoiding the creation of island objects.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Perspective directions and ways of formation of the regional ecological network of Vinnytsia region Optimization of national and regional eco-networks, in particular the eco-network of Vinnytsia region, should begin with a revision, complication and clarification of regulations aimed at their formation, as they contain certain inaccuracies in the selection of potential sites and areas that may be involved in the network. This issue is especially acute to determine the role, boundaries and control of the effectiveness of the buffer zones (Ремінний & Матвійчук, 2018; Klimov, 2016; Kondratyuk, 2016a; Bilyavsky, 2009). The direct purpose of buffer zones is the protection of natural nuclei and eco-corridors, territorial separation from economic zones, prevention of incompatible with the protection of activities. It is noted that the buffer zones themselves can be developed. The problem is that they do not have clear boundaries and therefore in practice it is impossible to track their actual effectiveness and therefore guarantee the protection of biodiversity in key and connecting areas. Another critical issue is the regulation of the use of water fund lands; these include water protection zones, coastal protection strips and coastal loams. For territories of this type, the regulatory framework establishes the appropriate environmental status and restrictions on economic activity, but in fact it is impossible to track the impact on these areas and the use of their natural resources. To address this issue, it is necessary to implement a number of organizational and economic measures developed in the context of regional support for the formation of the ecological network. The national natural nuclei located in the region are unique reserves of biodiversity. Their growth by attracting new nature reserves will increase the population of local flora and fauna. Usually, the expansion of key areas is due to the addition of local biocenters or renaturalization zones that have passed the stage of natural and / or artificial restoration (this is their direct purpose). That is why we consider it expedient to create new renaturalization zones near national natural nuclei in order to reduce the load on the territory with changed landscape, establish an additional buffer between critical areas and anthropogenic impact, provide growth prospects for natural nuclei. Vinnytsia region is characterized by a high degree of agricultural development (76.1%) and plowing (85.7% of the area of agricultural land). Meadow and steppe landscapes suffered the greatest burden from agricultural activities, which led to a significant reduction or loss of their productivity. Excessive and / or irrational use has resulted in eroded, swampy, flooded, irrigated, drained lands - areas that need to be removed from cultivation in order to further preserve and renaturalize their natural state and expand the ecological network.

An important resource in the formation of the ecological network is the use of mining and landscape complexes (abandoned quarries), the reclamation of which allows to restore vegetation and use them as elements of the ecological network - the restoration areas (Mudrak et al., 2015; Ovchinnikova, 2019). Given the geographical location of Vinnytsia region and the diversity of flora and fauna that have historically developed in its territory, forest landscape complexes play a key role in the formation of the regional ecological network. Currently, the share of forests is only 13.3%, when the minimum optimal value for ensuring ecological balance and combating soil erosion is 15%. Identification and allocation of genetically valuable forest areas is necessary for the creation of genetic reserves. Currently, about 285.3 ha of genetic reserves have been selected, about 53 ha of plus plantations have been certified, 123 plus trees have been included in the register, including 109 oak trees (Ovchinnikova, 2019; Neiko & Mudrak, 2009). Therefore, in order to preserve the biodiversity of the region, as well as to ensure the forest seed base of enterprises engaged in renaturalization of forests, it is advisable to develop research areas that can become potential genetic reserves. Their monitoring, systematization and involvement in natural biocenters should be provided (Ovchinnikova, 2019). The system of eco-corridors of the regional eco-network of Vinnytsia region is built in such a way that provides connections between all national natural nuclei, most regional biodiversity centers and existing renaturalization zones (Ovchinnikova, 2018a). They often intersect with each other, including with submeridional ecocorridors, which provides better interpenetration of species to different biocenters and facilitates the flow of migratory fluctuations. The problem is that the advantages of long land ecological corridors become their disadvantages in practice. It means that the connecting zone several tens or even hundreds of kilometers long will somehow intersect with the road. Such intersections are detrimental to many species, as they violate the reliability of the eco- corridor by interfering with its transit function. It is clear that it is impossible to avoid the formation of points of intersection of eco-corridors with roads, but the design of new ecological corridors and the improvement of already created ones requires a detailed consideration of ways to avoid wide and high-speed roads. Ecological corridors are usually created in association with rivers of different sizes, as they are model objects that meet most of the criteria for creation. Seventeen of the nineteen regional connecting territories are connected with river valleys (Appendix 1). Such association is appropriate and effective in view of species migrations and their settlement, but requires careful monitoring of the ecological status of surface waters, as many species of flora and fauna are sensitive to pollution. Thus, even if the landscape is preserved, the area is protected, but the river receives industrial emissions, the ecological network object does not fulfill its primary function - the protection of 50 biodiversity. Thus, the construction of an ecological network requires consistency with industrial activities and adaptation of the latter to the rational, harmless use of nature. As mentioned above, the leading role in the formation of the regional ecological network and biodiversity is assigned to reserves, but at this stage their concentration and location in relation to the designed eco-corridors are uneven, which necessitates the creation of new NRF facilities (table 4.1). Table 4.1 Program of formation of the ecological network of Vinnytsia region for 2019–2023 (Ovchinnikova, 2019). Name of measure (activity) Responsible performers Creating a database and defining reference sites for the formation of Regional Geodesy Center, DLR, structural elements of the eco-network DADENR Improvement and implementation of the regional scheme of the Regional Geodesy Center, DLR ecological network Development of land allocation projects for: Departments of Ecology and Industrial Development of Ivano- “Dniester Canyon” (219,113.01 ha) Frankivsk, Ternopil, Chernivtsi, Khmelnytsky, Vinnytsia regions NR “Zgarsky” (5,203.4 ha) DLR and DADENR of Vynnitsa region NNP "Central Podillya" (46,420 ha) DLR and DADENR of Vynnitsa region RLP "Murafski Tovtry" (26.3 thousand ha), "Bugo-Sobsky" (1536 ha), DLR and DADENR of Vynnitsa "Udytsky" (430 ha), region RLP “Lyadova” (3,563 ha), “Riv” (2,323 ha), “Nadrossia” (550 ha) DLR and DADENR of Vynnitsa region Expanding RLP "Murafa", "Middle Pobuzhya", "Dniester" DADENR of Vynnitsa region Creation of NNP "Bug rapids" (16,500 hectares) DADENR of Vynnitsa region Expansion of the Vinnytsia Zoo (up to 20 hectares) ECVSCC "Vinnytsiaobl-agrolis", Drawing boundaries in kind for NRF objects DLR Inventory of landscapes of the territories of the NRF of the region DADENR of Vynnitsa region Creation of protected objects of state (4) and local (96) significance DADENR of Vynnitsa region Providing DADENR software needed to create a GIS and NRF database DADENR of Vynnitsa region Inventory of species of plants and animals listed in the The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, ERL, international conventions and DADENR of Vynnitsa region agreements, RBU, regionally rare species, syntaxons listed in the Land Code of Ukraine Assessment of the state of animal and plant populations of RBU in the DADENR, RDFH region Inventory of steppe, meadow, forest areas of the Land Code of Ukraine DADENR, DLR Inventory of wetlands (Ramsar Convention) DADENR, basin concils Creation of landfills for artificial breeding of rare and endangered species DADENR, RDFH, NRF of plants and animals Creation and restoration of water protection zones and coastal protection DLR, basin concils, ECVSCC strips Creation and restoration of protective forest plantations and field RDFH, "Vinnytsiaobl-agrolis", protective forest zone, afforestation of degraded lands ECVSCC DLR, RDFH, "Vinnytsiaobl-agrolis", Land acquisition of degraded lands ECVSCC Note: DLR - Department of Land Resources; DADENR - Department of Agro-Industrial Development, Ecology and Natural Resources; GIS - geographic information systems; ERL - The European Red List; RBU – Red book of

Ukraine; RDFH - Regional Department of Forestry and Hunting; ECVSCC - executive committees of village, settlement and city councils. Potential objects for expanding the territories of the nature reserve fund: 1. NNP "Central Podillya" (46.4 thousand hectares). It is proposed to create on the basis of existing protected areas and forestry farms. The basis is the habitat of Red Book and regionally rare animals. 2. RLPs: "Bugo-Sobsky" (1.5 thousand hectares), "Udrynsky" (430 hectares), "Lyadova" (3.5 thousand hectares), "Riv" (350 hectares), "Nadrossya "(550 hectares)," Murafski Tovtry "(26.3 thousand hectares). To expand RLP "Dniester" (from 6,719.48 hectares to 18,230 hectares), "Murafa" (from 3,452.7 hectares to 10 thousand hectares). The basis - from the standpoint of geobotanical and physical-geographical zoning. 3. "Bugo-Desnyansky" and "Zgarsky" general zoological reserves of state importance. It is proposed to expand them due to the high level of biotic representativeness. 4. Mykulynetsky ponds (Lityn district), the valley of the Snyvoda river, the upper reaches of the Sandrak reservoir (Khmilnytskyi district), Harmak ponds (Bar district). To grant conservation status under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, mainly as a habitat for waterfowl (Constitution of Ukraine, 1996). 5. Viitovsky Zoological Reserve (Bershad District) and Ivanivsky Ornithological Reserve. These areas correspond to the IBA (Important Bird Area). 6. Landscape reserves "Bereznyanska dacha" and "Chudinovsky rapids" of NNP "Buzky rapids", uniting RLP "Middle Pobuzhzhya" (Collection of VNAU, 2007) and "Nemyrivske Pobuzhzhya" protected objects of rivers and floodplains of the Dniester and Southern Bug. The basis of the development is the protection and preservation of unique natural valley-river landscape complexes, in particular the system of cascades of river rapids. The creation of these reserves is directly related to compliance with the requirements of the European Landscape Convention. 7. Transboundary Biosphere Reserve "Dniester Canyon". It includes the Transnistrian canyon system formed by the Dniester River with its tributaries. It aims to unite the territories of Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernivtsi, Ternopil, Khmelnytsky and Vinnytsia regions, to expand the area to 250 thousand hectares. As a result, the effective conservation of biodiversity of the Podolsk biosphere core, its representation in the structure of the Pan-European Ecological Network (Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, 1996). It is necessary to indicate several promising areas that require renaturalization of biodiversity. Near the Pohrebyshche Regional Center for Biodiversity is an area that had meadow-steppe vegetation, as evidenced by the layer of chernozem in the soil structure. After a period of renewal and

52 rest from anthropogenic pressure, this area can become the basis for the creation of a regional biocenter. There are no large protected areas and facilities within the Bug-Dnieper Regional Center for Biodiversity. Wetlands and areas of possible existence and restoration of meadow steppes are of great value on its territory (Yatsentiuk, 2012). Due to the data provided by the register of nature reserves of Vinnytsia region as of 05.03.2019 (Register of objects of the nature reserve fund, 2019), the total area of nature reserves of Lipovets district reaches only 37.63 hectares. Although the district is slightly north of the center of the region, which determines the typical forest -steppe landscapes of its territories. In addition, there is a source of the river Sob, which determines the typicality of wetlands. The low level of protected areas and the lack of restoration zones within this area indicate an insufficient level of study of its biodiversity and the need for further research. This also applies to Tomashpil, Sharhorod and Orativ administrative districts, although their figures are slightly higher (Annex 7). Structural and functional optimization requires a comprehensive study and individual approach to each individual biogeocenosis, as any interference in the structure of the ecological network will cause a cascade of reactions that are difficult to predict.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The studied regional ecological network is quite developed and branched, but uneven. As a result it is not able to fully perform its main functions. In the perspective of development, it is possible to achieve greater integrity of its structure. However, further optimization should be carried out in the framework of conservation and restoration of species habitats and targeted activities to reduce anthropogenic impact on areas with altered and degraded landscape. 2. At this stage, the functional aspect of optimization of the ecological network in the Vinnytsia region is more relevant. Evaluating the effectiveness of such structural elements as eco- corridors and buffer zones will identify and correct design errors. 3. When forming the eco-network of Vinnytsia region, it is necessary to pay closer attention to providing multifunctionality to its elements and avoiding the creation of island objects. It is advisable to plan in the context of Ukraine and Europe, in order to create an integrated and efficient eco-network at all levels of the organization.

REFERENCES 1. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): United Nations Environment Programme.

2001. http://www.biodiv.org/world/parties.asp.

2. Convention on Biological Diversity. Chateliane, Swtzerland, 1994. 234

3. A.G. Davey. National System Planing for Protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, 1998. 71 p.

4. I., Davydenko, V.V., Serebryakov V.V., Kazannyk O.V., Mudrak. The territory redistribution of rook corvus frugilegus communities on the north of Ukraine in connection with land use changes. Smart Bio: 2-nd International Conference, Kaunas, 2018 03–05 May. Kaunas:

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania. 2018. P. 276.

5. European red list of Globally Threatened Animals and Plants. Geneve–New York,

1991. 153 p.

6. V.H. Heywood, Chair R.T. Watson ed. Global Biodiversity Assessment. Executive

Published for the UNEP by Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1995. 1140 p.

7. Global Biodiversity Outlook. Published by the Secretariat of the Convention on

Biological Diversity. Montreal, 2001. 282 p.

8. IUCN. Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Asseement. Gland-

Cambridge: IUCN, 2004. 191 p.

9. T., Kucher, Yu., Ovchynnykova, Y., Tarasiuk. Features of the structure of the collembola of antropic landscapes in Vinnytsia (Ukraine). SmartBio: 2 International Conference,

Kaunas, 2018 May 3–5. Kaunas, Lithuania. P. 34.

10. G.T., Miller. Living in the environment. Principles, connections and solutions: Eighth edition. California, 1994. 730 p.

11. A., Mudrak. Small Rivers of Podillya as Territorial Elements of Regional Ecological

Network. Trendy Ve Vzdělávání 2010: Mezinárodní vědecko-odborná konference konaná 24. Cervna

2010a v Olomouci. Р. 183–191.

12. A., Mudrak, O., Nagorniuk. Environmental education for balanced development of

Ukraine. Edukacia – Technika – Iunformatyka. Rocznik naukowy. 2010b. № 1. Część 1. Р. 325–330.

13. A., Mudrak, O., Nagornuk. Geoparkes as the perspective protected objects ecological network of Podillya. Inzynieria Procesow w Ochrone Środowiska: XXVI Moskowa Konferencja

Nauka. Rzeszow, 2008. Р. 242–246.

14. O., Mudrak, Yu., Ovchynnykova, H., Mudrak, H., Tarasenko. Taxonomic and typological structure of the flora of Eastern Podilia (Ukraine). Journal of the Lithuanian Academy of

Sciences. 2018a. Vol. 64, № 4. P. 285–296.

15. O.V., Mudrak, Yu.Yu., Ovchynnykova, G.V., Mudrak, O.M Nagorniuk. Eastern

Podilia as structural-functional system of European Environmental Network. SmartBio: 2

International Conference (Kaunas, May 3–5, 2018b). Kaunas, Lithuania. P. 44.

16. O.V., Mudrak, Yu.Yu., Ovchynnykova, G.V., Mudrak, O.M., Nagornyuk. Eastern

Podilia as a Structural Unit of a Pan-European Environmental Network. Journal of Environmental

Research, Engineering and Management. Vol. 74, № 3. 2018c. Р. 55–63.

17. O.V., Mudrak, Yu.A., Yelisavenko, V.M., Polishchuk, H.V., Mudrak. Assessment of forest ecosystems of Eastern Podillya natural reserve fund in the regional econet structure. Ukrainian

Journal of Ecology. 2019. № 9 (1). P. 187–192.

18. O., Nagorniuk, O., Mudrak, G., Mudrak, W., Sobczyk. Analysis of regulatory and legislative acts on the conservation of the planet’s biodiversity, ratified by Ukraine. Edukacja –

Technika – Informatyka. Kwartalnik Naukowy. 2017. № 4 (22). Rzeszów, 2017. № 4. P. 214–219.

19. National Organic Standard Board Recommendations. National Organic Program

USDA. 1995.

20. Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. URL: www.strategyguide. org.

21. V., Shavrina, E., Tkach. Rare plants of ecological network in connection areas of

Vinnytsia region. Agroecological journal. 2017. № 1. P. 115–120.

22. V.I., Shavrina, E.D., Tkach, V.P., Mykolayko. Synantropic flora in phytocoenoses of ecological network (the case of Vinnytsia region, Ukraine). Ukrainian Journal of Ecology. 2018. №

8 (1). P. 118–123.

23. The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds: Their Dsstribution and Abundance / Ed.

W.J.M. Hagemeijer, M.J. Blair. London: T. & A.D. Poyser, 1997. 903 p.

24. Ye., Tkach, V., Shavrina, V., Starodub. Taxonomic structure of agricultural landscape of connected areas in Vinnytsia region econetwork. Agroecological journal. 2016. № 4. P. 127–132.

25. UNESCO Geoparks Programme – a new initiative to promote a global network of geoparks safeguarding and developing selected areas having significant geological geatures. Hundred and fifty-sixth Session. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Executive

Board. Paris, 1999. P. 1–4.

26. J., Wisniewski, J., Dariusz. Gwiazdowics. Ochrona przyrody. Poznaniu, 2004. 460 p.

27. Агролісомеліоративні заходи та радіоекологічний моніторинг в оптимізації

збереження біорізноманіття при формуванні екомережі Полісся. Матеріали ІІ Українського

екологічного конгресу, (27–28 жовт. 2008, р. Київ).Київ, 2008. 264–267 с./ Agroforestry measures and radioecological monitoring in the optimization of biodiversity conservation in the formation of the ecological network of Polissya. Proceedings of the II Ukrainian Ecological Congress;

Kyiv, 2008, 27-28 October.

28. Т.Л., Андрієнко. Мережа міждержавних природно-заповідних територій як

показник сталого розвитку держави. Проблеми сталого розвитку України, 1998. С. 248–253./

T.L., Andrienko. Network of interstate nature reserves as an indicator of sustainable development of the state. Problems of sustainable development of Ukraine, 1998. P. 248–253.

29. Т.Л., Андрієнко, В.А., Онищенко, М.Л., Клєстов, О.І., Прядко, Р.Я., Арап.

Система категорій ПЗФ України та питання її оптимізації, 2001. 60 с./ T.L., Andrienko, V.A.,

Onishchenko, M.L., Klestov, O.I., Pryadko, R.Ya., Arab. System of categories of PZF of Ukraine and questions of its optimization, 2001. P. 60

30. Г. О., Білявський. Проблеми формування екологічної мережі України в контексті

збалансованого Вісник ЖНАЕУ. 2009. № 1.С. 117–129./ G.O., Bilyavsky. Problems of formation of ecological network of Ukraine in the context of balanced Bulletin of ZhNAEU. 2009. № 1.P. 117–

129.

31. М.Я., Ващишин. Особливості правового забезпечення формування екологічної

мережі в країнах Європи. Вісн. Львів. ун-ту. Сер. юрид. 2014a. № 60. С. 233-239/ M.Ya.,

Vashchishin. Features of legal support for the formation of the ecological network in European countries. Visn. Lviv. un-tu. Ser. jurid. 2014a. № 60. P. 233-239

32. М.Я., Ващишин Структура національної екологічної мережі. Наук. вісн. УжНУ.

2014b. № 26. С. 125-129./ M.Ya., Vashchyshyn Structure of the national ecological network.

Science. spring UzhNU. 2014b. № 26. P. 125-129.

33. І.С., Винокур. Історія лісостепового Подністров’я та Південного Побужжя. Київ-

Одесса, 1985. 124 с./ I.S., Vinokur. History of the forest-steppe Transnistria and Southern Pobuzhye.

Kyiv-Odessa, 1985. P. 124.

34. State cadastre of territories and objects of the nature reserve fund of Ukraine. Kyiv,

2017. http://pzf.menr.gov.ua.html

35. Dynamics of the structure of the nature reserve fund of Vinnytsia region. Vinnytsia,

2018. http://www.vin.gov.ua/dep-apr/zapovidna-sprava/12743-dynamika-struktury-pryrodno- zapovidnoho-fondu-vinnytskoi-oblast

36. Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region (2016). Vinnytsia, 2017. https://menr.gov.ua/files/docs/Reg.report/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%

86%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BF_2016.pdf

37. Report on the state of the environment in Vinnytsia region (2018). Vinnytsia, 2019. http://www.vin.gov.ua/dep-apr/stan-dovkillia/241-rehionalni-dopovidi

38. В.Г., Дубін Регіональні проблеми збереження рідкісних видів біоти у лісах

України. Український географічний журнал. 2002. № 2. С. 20–27./ V.G., Dubin Regional

58 problems of conservation of rare species of biota in the forests of Ukraine. Ukrainian Geographical

Journal. 2002. № 2. P. 20–27.

39. Ecological passport of Vinnytsia region for 2017. Vinnytsia, 2018. http://www.vin.gov.ua/dep-apr/stan-dovkillia/239-ekolohichni-pasporty/7520-ekolohichnyi- pasport-oblasti-za-2016-rik

40. Еколого-географічна характеристика перспективного РЛП «Середнє Побужжя»

в межах регіону Східне Поділля. Збірник ВНАУ. Вип. 31. Вінниця, 2007. 28–40 с./ Ecological and geographical characteristics of the promising RLP "Middle Pobuzhye" within the Eastern

Podillya region. Collection of VNAU. Vip. 31. Vinnytsia, 2007. P. 28–40.

41. Final report on the results of the implementation of the "National program for the formation of the national ecological network of Ukraine for 2000-2015". Kyiv, 2018. https://menr.gov.ua/news/32903.html

42. The Law of Ukraine "On the Ecological Network of Ukraine". Kyiv,

2004.http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1864-15

43. The Law of Ukraine "On the National Program for the Formation of the National

Ecological Network of Ukraine for 2000-2015". Kyiv,

2000.http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1989-14

44. The Law of Ukraine "On Environmental Protection". Kyiv, 1991. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/main/1264-12

45. The Law of Ukraine “On Accession to the Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance, Mainly as a Habitat for Waterfowl”. Kyiv,

1996.https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_031

46. The Law of Ukraine "On Accession to the Convention on the Conservation of

Migratory Species of Wild Animals". Kyiv, 1999.https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_136

47. The Law of Ukraine “On Accession to the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora”. Kyiv, 1999. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_129

48. The Law of Ukraine "On Accession to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural Heritage". Kyiv, 1988.https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_089

49. The Law of Ukraine "On Accession to the Convention on the Conservation of

European Wildlife and Natural Habitats".https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_032

50. The Law of Ukraine "On Ratification of the Convention on Biological

Diversity".https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_030

51. The Law of Ukraine "On Ratification of the Convention on the Protection and Use of

Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes". Kyiv, 1992.https://zakon.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/994_273?lang=uk

52. О. В., Клімов. Проблеми методичного забезпечення формування національної

екологічної мережі України. Проблеми охорони навколишнього природного середовища та

екологічної безпеки. 2016. № 38. С. 121-132./ O.V., Klimov. Problems of methodological support for the formation of the national ecological network of Ukraine. Problems of environmental protection and environmental safety. 2016. № 38. P. 121–132.

53. Т. М., Кондратюк. Окремі проблеми формування національної екологічної

мережі. Підприємництво, господарство і право. 2016a. № 5. С. 53-56./ T.M., Kondratyuk. Some problems of formation of the national ecological network. Entrepreneurship, economy and law.

2016a. № 5. P. 53-56

54. Т.М., Кондратюк. Структурно-функціональна характеристика відновлювальних

територій екологічної мережі України. Наук. вісн. НУБіП України. 2016b. № 243. С. 125-133./

T.M., Kondratyuk. Structural and functional characteristics of the regenerative territories of the ecological network of Ukraine. Science. spring NULES of Ukraine. 2016b. № 243. P. 125-133.

55. О.В., Лозо. Екологічна мережа як правовий формат регулювання та охорони

ландшафтів. Збірник наукових праць ХНПУ імені Г. С. Сковороди "Право". 2014. № 21. С. 90-

95./ O.V., Lozo. Ecological network as a legal format of regulation and protection of landscapes.

Collection of scientific works of KhNPU named after G.S. Skovoroda "Law". 2014. № 21. P. 90–95.

56. О.О., Любчак. Чарівне Поділля: Краєзнавчий нарис. Одеса: Маяк, 1990. С. 88./

O.O., Lyubchak. Magic Podillya: Local lore essay. Odessa: Mayak, 1990. P. 88.

57. Методичні рекомендації щодо визначення максимального рекреаційного

навантаження на природні коплекси та об’єкти у межах ПЗФ України за зонально-

регіональним розподілом. Київ, 2003a. 51 с./ Methodical recommendations for determining the maximum recreational load on natural complexes and objects within the NPF of Ukraine by zonal- regional distribution. Kyiv, 2003a. P. 51.

58. Методичні рекомендації щодо проведення естетичної оцінки території з метою

заповідання. Київ, 2003b. 28 с. / Methodical recommendations for conducting an aesthetic assessment of the territory for the purpose of the will. Kyiv, 2003b. P. 28.

59. Методичні рекомендації щодо режиму збереження лісових екосистем на

територіях ПЗФ України різних категорій. Київ, 2003c. 56 с. / Methodical recommendations on the regime of conservation of forest ecosystems in the territories of the NPF of Ukraine of different categories. Kyiv, 2003c. P. 56.

60. О.В., Мудрак. Зоорізноманіття Вінниччини: склад, рівні, характеристика.

Науковий вісник НЛТУ України. 2014. № 24.10. С. 71-81. / O.V., Mudrak. Zoological diversity in Vinnytsia region: composition, levels, characteristics. Scientific Bulletin of NLTU of Ukraine.

2014 № 24.10. P. 71-81.

61. О.В., Мудрак. Науково-методичні принципи і підходи формування екологічної

мережі. Наук. доп. НУБіП. 2009. С. 1-10. / O.V., Mudrak. Scientific and methodological principles and approaches to the formation of the ecological network. Science. ext. NULES. 2009. P. 1-10.

62. О.В., Мудрак, О.А., Матвійчук, Г.В., Мудрак, М.Д., Матвєєв, М. В., Дребет, І.С.,

Осадчук, М.М., Ганчук. Раритети тваринного світу Поділля: стан, загрози, збереження.

Вінниця, 2018e. 594с. / O.V., Mudrak, O.A., Matviychuk, G.V., Mudrak, M.D., Matveev, M.V.,

Drebet, I.S., Osadchuk, M.M., Ganchuk . Rarities of the animal world of Podillya: condition, threats, preservation. Vinnytsia, 2018e. P. 594.

63. О.В., Мудрак, Г.В., Мудрак В.М., Поліщук та ін. Еталони природи Вінниччини:

моногр. Вінниця, 2015. 540 с. / O.V., Mudrak, G.V. Mudrak, V.M., Polishchuk et al. Standards of nature of Vinnytsia region: monograph. Vinnytsia, 2015. P. 540.

64. І.С., Нейко, О.В., Мудрак. Лісова генетична компонента як основа ключових

територій екологічної мережі Східного Поділля. Вісник ЖНАЕУ. 2009. №2 (25). С. 170–174./

I.S., Neiko, O.V., Mudrak. Forest genetic component as a basis of key territories of the ecological network of Eastern Podillya. Bulletin of ZhNAEU. 2009. №2 (25). P. 170–174.

65. Ю.Ю., Овчинникова. Екологічна мережа Східного Поділля: основні етапи і

ресурси формування. Науковий вісник НУБіП. 2018a. № 287. С. 22–32. / Yu.Yu., Ovchinnikova.

Ecological network of Eastern Podillya: main stages and resources of formation. Scientific Bulletin of NULES. 2018a. № 287. P. 22–32.

66. Ю.Ю., Овчинникова. Науково-методичні основи оптимізації екологічної мережі

Східного Поділля: автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд.біол.наук. Київ, 2019. 24 с./

Yu.Yu., Ovchinnikova. Scientific and methodical bases of optimization of the ecological network of

Eastern Podillya: author's ref. dis. for science. degree of Candidate of Biological Sciences Kyiv, 2019.

P. 24.

67. Ю.Ю., Овчинникова. Типологічне ранжування ключових територій екологічної

мережі Східного Поділля. Науковий вісник НЛТУ. 2018b. Т. 28, № 2. С. 81–85./ Yu.Yu.,

Ovchinnikova. Typological ranking of key territories of the ecological network of Eastern Podillya.

Scientific Bulletin of NLTU. 2018b. T. 28, № 2. P. 81–85.

68. Official site of the Department of agro-industrial development, ecology and natural

62 resources in Vinnytsia region. Vinnytsia 2019. www.vineco.gov.ua.

69. М.Д., Гродзинський. Пізнання ландшафту: місце і простір: у 2 т. Київ: Вид.-

поліграф. центр «Київ ун-т», 2005. Т. 1. 431с./ M.D., Grodzinsky. Cognition of the landscape: place and space: in 2 volumes. Kyiv: Polygraph. Center "Kyiv University", 2005. Vol. 1. P. 431.

70. С.Ю., Попович. Природно-заповідна справа: Навчальний посібник. Київ, 2007.

480 с./ S.Yu., Popovich. Nature reserve business: Tutorial. Kyiv, 2007. P. 480 .

71. Т.В., Кучер, Е.М., Кавун, Ю.Ю., Овчиникова. Правові основи оптимізації

екологічної мережі Вінницької області. Матеріали міжнародної наукової конференції «Теорія

та практика сучасної науки та освіти» (29-30 листоп. 2019 р. Дніпро). Дніпро, 2019. 314 с./

T.V., Kucher, E.M., Kavun, Yu.Yu., Ovchinikova. Legal bases of optimization of ecological network of Vinnytsia region. Proceedings of the international scientific conference "Theory and practice of modern science and education" (November 29-30, 2019, Dnipro). Dnipro, 2019. P. 314 .

72. Register of objects of the nature reserve fund (as of March 11, 2019). Vinnytsia, 2019. http://www.vin.gov.ua/dep-apr/zapovidna-sprava/17514-reiestr-ob-iektiv-pryrodo-zapovidnoho- fondu-stanom-11032019

73. В.Ю., Ремінний, О.А., Матвійчук. Природа Вінничини. Земноводні та плазуни.

Вінниця, 2018. 128с./ V.Yu., Reminny, O.A, Matviychuk. The nature of Vinnytsia. Amphibians and reptiles. Vinnytsia, 2018. P. 128.

74. В.М., Самойленко, Н.П., Когорода. Регіональні та локальні екомережі:

Підручник Київ, 2013. 192 с. / V.M, Samoilenko, N.P., Kogoroda. Regional and local eco-networks:

Tutorial. Kyiv, 2013. P. 192.

75. Сполучні території екомережі Вінницької області. Матеріали ІІІ

Всеукраїнського з’їзду екологів з міжнародною участю. Вінниця, 2011 р 21-24 вересн.. 279-

282 с. / Connecting territories of the ecological network of Vinnytsia region. Proceedings of the III

All-Ukrainian Congress of Ecologists with International Participation. Vinnytsia, September 21-24,

2011. P. 279- 282.

76. Scheme of the ecological network of Vinnytsia region. Vinnytsia, 2018. http://www.vin.gov.ua/dep-apr/ekolohichna-merezha/12370-pro-zatverdzhennia-rehionalnoi- skhemy-ekolohichnoi-merezhi-vinnytskoi-oblasti-2

77. Digital relief model of Vinnytsia region. Kyiv

2013.http://mapgroup.com.ua/services/32-dem-ukraine/86-srtm-tsmr-vinnitsskoj-oblasti

78. Я.Г., Цицюра, Л.Ф., Броннікова, Л.В., Пелех. Ґрунтовий покрив Вінниччини:

генезис, склад, властивості та напрями ефективного використання. Вінниця, 2017. 452 с. / Y.G.,

Tsitsyura, L.F., Bronnikova, L.V., Pelekh. Soil cover of Vinnytsia region: genesis, composition, properties and directions of effective use. Vinnytsia, 2017. P. 452.

79. Ю.Р., Шеляг-Сосонко, М.Д., Гродзинский, В.Д., Романенко. Концепция, методы

и критерии создания экосети Украины. Киев, 2004. 144с. / Yu.R., Shelyag-Sosonko, M.D.,

Grodzinsky, V.D., Romanenko. The concept, methods and criteria for creating an eco-network of

Ukraine. Kiev, 2004. P. 144.

80. Ю.В., Яцентюк. Національні природні ядра екомережі Вінницької області. УГЖ.

2011. № 2. С. 48-52. / Yu.V., Yatsentiuk. National natural nuclei of the eco-network of Vinnytsia region. 2011. № 2. P. 48–52.

81. Ю.В., Яцентюк. Регіональна екомережа вінницької області. Людина та довкілля.

Проблеми неоекології. 2012. № 1-2. С. 77-85. / Yu.V., Yatsentiuk. Regional eco-network of

Vinnytsia region. Man and the environment. Problems of neoecology. 2012. № 1-2. P. 77-85.

ACCESSORIES APPENDIX 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONAL ECO-CORRIDORS Regional eco- River valley Length, Width Covered biocenters corridors km (range), m Snyvoda Snyvoda 58 300-4000 Snyvodsky and Teteriv-Snyvodsky; South Bug National Submeridional Corridor Hnylopiat Hnylopiat 29 350-1500 Buzko-Dniprovsky with elements of the ecological network of Zhytomyr region Huiva Huiva 27 800-2200 Buzko-Dniprovsky and Kozyatynsky with elements of the ecological network of Zhytomyr region. Sob Sob 127 340-8400 Illinetsko-Dashivsky, Haisynsky and Ladyzhynsky with the South Buza national submeridional corridor. Ros Ros 62 200-3400 Hopchytsky and Pohrebyshchensky with elements of the ecological network of Kyiv region. Desna Desna 80 600-4500 Bugo-Dniprovsky with Bugo-Desnyansky national natural core. Zghar Zghar 81 500-4100 Zgarsky with the Bugo-Desnyansky national natural core. Riv Riv 85 200-2600 Barsky and Zhmerynsky with the South Bug national submeridional corridor. Silnytsia Silnytsia 66 800-3800 Shpykivsky with the South Buz National Submeridional Ecocorridor. Kamianka Kamianka 38 600-1900 Goryachkivskyi and Pishchanskyi with elements of the ecological network of the Republic of Moldova. Savranka Savranka 66 500-3560 Pishchansky with elements of the ecological network of Odessa region. Dokhna Dokhna 72.5 200-3700 Pishchansky, Haydamatsky and Bershadsky with the South Bug national submeridional eco-corridor. Markivka Markivka 66 500-1800 Yampilsky with the Dniester National Submeridional Ecocorridor.

Regional eco- River valley Length, Width Covered biocenters corridors km (range), m Rusava Rusava 78 400-2500 Tomashpilsky with the Dniester National Submeridional Ecocorridor. Murafa Murafa 157 400-2300 Dniester-Murafa National Natural Core with the Dniester National Submeridional Ecocorridor. Liadova Liadova 87 400-1600 Murovano-Kurylovetsky and Lyadovsky with the Dniester National Submeridional Ecocorridor. Udych Udych 37.5 400-2700 Elements of the eco-network of Cherkasy region with Teplyk regional center of biodiversity and South Bug national submeridional eco-corridor.

APPENDIX 2 DYNAMICS OF THE NUMBER OF MAIN HUNTED SPECIES OF ANIMALS (Ecological passport of Vinnytsia region for 2017, 2018 p.77) Types of hunting animals 2016 year 2017 year 2018 year

Hoofed animals, heads: 10967.1 10682 10300 wisent 80.0 90 100 elk 19.0 14 0 red deer 239.1 214 200 spotted deer 705.8 859 700 fallow deer 145.1 170 200 roe deer 7115.3 7094 7500 moufflon 36.0 39 100 boar 2624.6 2202 1500 Fur animals, thousand heads: 75.5 76.3 75.6 lepus 47.3 47.7 47.3 squirrel 5.6 6.4 6.2 muskrat 10.0 9.1 8.8 beaver 0.3 0.3 0.4 fox 3.4 3.4 3.2 volf 0.0 0 0.1 badger 2.4 2.5 2.7 otter 1.3 1.4 1.5 beech marten 2.6 2.8 2.5 forest marten 1.0 1 0.9 forest ferret 1.6 1.6 1.8 forest cat - - 0.1 Feathered game, thousand 373.8 377.9 383.0 heads: geese 2.0 2 1.9 sandpiper 30.0 29.9 30.4 pigeons 58.5 62 62.2 pheasant 1.7 2.9 4.0 gray partridge 5.3 6.3 6.2 quail 36.6 36.3 39.8 ducks 135.5 134.4 135.8 swan 3.6 3.9 4.2 coot 61.9 61.4 61.7 common moorhen 23.2 22.9 21.4 great crested grebe 15.4 15.8 15.2

APPENDIX 3 PROTECTED SPECIES OF FAUNA (Ecological passport of Vinnytsia region for 2018, 2019, p.79] Years 2016 2017 2018 Species of animals listed in the Red Book of 90 90 90 Ukraine, units Endangered species listed in the Annexes to the 46 46 46 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), units Animal species listed in the annexes to the 346 346 346 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Berne Convention), units Species listed in the annexes to the Convention on 12 12 12 the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention, CMS), units Species protected under the Agreement on the 57 57 57 Conservation of Afro-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA), units Species protected under the Agreement on the 5 5 5 Conservation of European Bat Populations (EUROBATS), units

APPENDIX 4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER AND AREA OF TERRITORIES AND OBJECTS OF THE NRF OF THE REGION BY ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTS (AS OF MARCH 5, 2019) (Ovchinnikova, 2019)

Total protected Are part of other Actual Preservation Administrative districts areas protected areas area of area,% of the Name area, ha units area, ha units area, ha NRF, ha total area Bar 110 212 13 323.34 323.34 0.29 Bershad 128 583 12 781.67 781.67 0.61 Vinnytsia 91 878 34 1 197.77 1 27 1 170.77 1.30 Haisyn 110 247 14 483.42 1 50 433.42 0.44 Zhmerynka 117093 28 1 320.05 1 775.6 544.45 1.13 Illintsi 91452 12 637.24 637.24 0.70 Kalynivka 108578 4 42.7 42.7 0.04 Koziatyn 11 3131 14 244.26 244.26 0.22 Kryzhopil 8 8431 8 195.96 195.96 0.22 Lypovets 96 940 7 37.63 37.63 0.04 Lityn 95 983 13 2 582.06 2 2272,9 309.16 2.69 Mohyliv-Podilskyi 93 293 34 7 755.85 1081.9 7 755.85 8.31 Murovani Kurylivtsi 8 8647 26 2 093.57 2 093.57 2.36 Nemyriv 129 201 23 7 419.99 2 507.6 6 912.39 5.74 Orativ 87 235 6 261.21 261.21 0.30 Pishchanka 59 529 10 1 260.32 1 260.32 2.12 Pohrebyshche 119 989 10 1 107.44 1 107.44 0.92 Teplyk 80 892 34 889.92 889.92 1.10 Tyvriv 88 160 14 2 723.95 2 723.95 3.09 Tomashpil 77 849 9 121.31 121.31 0.16 Trostianets 94 510 32 3 171.85 1 1328.2 1 843.65 3.36 Tulchyn 112 381 16 1 144.82 1 21.8 1 123.02 1.02 Khmilnyk 125 325 10 1 618.76 1 618.76 1.29 Chernivtsi 75 908 9 2 743.73 2 2440.5 303.23 3.61 Chechelnyk 59 161 11 6 174.74 1 1328.2 4 846.54 10.44 Sharhorod 113 679 10 190.72 190.72 0.17 Yampil 7 8839 14 2 397.91 1 26.3 2 371.61 3.04 Vinnytsia city 91 035.54 12 178.97 1 3.8 175.17 0.20 439 (425 1.85 (1.52 Total: 2649287 49101.2 14 9863.8 40319.26 actual) actual) Note. Botanical natural monument of local significance "Aleia vikovykh lyp" is referred to Nemyriv district (its total area is 140 hectares, including Vinnitsa - 27 hectares, Lityn - 29.8 hectares, Nemyriv - 57.6 hectares, Tulchyn - 21.8 hectares, Vinnytsia - 3.8 hectares). General zoological reserve of national importance "Zgarsky" is calculated in Lityn district (its total area is 3018.7 ha, including in Lityn - 2243.1 ha, Zhmerynska - 775.6 ha). Geological natural monuments of national importance "Vidslonennia Hrushanskoi svity" (0.5 ha) in Mohyliv-Podilskyi district, "Haydamatskyi ravine" (69.7 ha) and landscape reserve of local significance "Murafa" (220 ha) in Chernivtsi district became part of the regional landscape park (RLP) "Murafa" (area 3452.7 hectares). RLP "Murafa" is referred to the Chernivtsi district (its total area is 3452.7 hectares, including in Chernivtsi - 2370.8 hectares, Mohyliv-Podilskyi - 1081.9 hectares). Geological natural monument of national importance “Haidamatskyi yar” calculated in Chernivtsi district (its total area is 96 hectares, including 69.7 hectares in Chernivtsi, 26.3 hectares in Yampil).

APPENDIX 5 NETWORK OF TERRITORIES AND OBJECTS OF THE EASTERN PODILLYA NRF (AS OF MARCH 5, 2019) (NRF, 2019) The share of № of Category, type of territories and objects of the Number Area, ha protected category NRF areas by area,% 1 2 3 4 5 I. Nature reserves - - II. Biosphere reserves - - III. National nature parks 1 20 203.4 0.76 18 468.3 IV. Regional landscape parks 4 0.70 8 V. Reserves 157 25 204.2 0.95 a) of national importance: 22 13 565.2 - landscape 4 1 208 - forest 1 295 V.1. - botanical, 15 7 970.5 of them: - botanical profile 15 7 965 - botanical and entomological profile - - - general zoological 2 4 091.7 b) of local significance: 135 11 639 56 3 797.1 - landscape 6 73.7 - forest 50 5 219.55 - botanical, of which: - botanical profile: 37 4 790.55 - botanical and hydrological profile 13 429 V.2. - botanical and entomological profile - - - hydrological 16 1 442.06 - ornithological, 4 462.97 of which: - ornithological profile - - - hydroornithological profile 4 462.97 - entomological - general zoological 1 13.3 2 630.3 VI. Natural monuments 194 1 071.32 0.04 a) of national importance: 9 320.5 - complex (geological and botanical profile) 2 143 VI.1. - botanical 2 12.5

- general zoological 1 69 - geological (geomorphological profile) 4 96

The share of № of Category, type of territories and objects of the NRF Number Area, ha protected areas category by area,% b) of local significance: 185 750.82 - complex 5 280.2 - geological, 15 30.75 VI.2. of them: - geomorphological profile 1 17.2 - stratigraphic profile 8 10.5 - paleontological profile - - - mineralogical and petrographic profile 1 0.05 - tectonic profile - - - picturesque profile 5 3 - picturesque profile 59 - - hydrological, 2 2.36 of them: - sources of rivers 57 - - sources - - - wetlands - - - botanical, 101 363 of them: - genetic reserves of the main 62 149.96 forest-forming species, reference, - - elite and plus plantings - - - plus trees 5 9.51 - age trees 21 148.98 - exotic trees 10 2.51 - reserves of forest, grassy flora 10 52.04 - reserves of wetland and meadow-swamp - - vegetation - - - reserves of steppe and meadow-steppe - - flora 1 15 - general zoological, - - from them: - ornithological profile 5 74.51 - herpetological profile 3 - - - VII. Protected tracts 29 951.4 0.04 VIII. Botanical gardens - - VIII.1. a) of national importance - - VIII.2 b) of local significance - - IX. Dendrological parks 1 10 0.0004 IX.1. a) of national importance - - IX.2. b) of local significance 1 10 X. Zoological parks - - X.1. a) of national importance - - X.2. b) of local significance - - XI. Parks-monuments of garden and park art 39 821.8 0.03 XI.1. a) of national importance 12 429 XI.2. b) of local significance 27 392.8 Total 425 66730.48 2.52 Are part of the territories of other NRF objects 14 9863.8 0.37 The actual area of the NRF of the region 425 56866.68 2.15

APPENDIX 6 SPATIAL ELEMENTS OF THE EASTERN PODILLYA ECO-NETWORK IN TERMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE-TERRITORIAL UNITS (Ovchinnikova, 2019)

Components of spatial elements of the ecological network of the region, thousand ha

territorial

territorial units,

nization

thousandha thousandha

orga

wetlands

vegetation

open wetlan

radiation lands

recreational areas

pastures and hayfields

coastal protection strips

forests and wooded areas

Units of administrative

Total area of ecological the network,

resort, medical and health areas

land withoutor with insufficient

Area of administrative

objects ofnature the reserve fund Bar 110.212 17.503 0.273 0.1 0.1 3.096 8.53 0.009 - 0.161 5.234 Bershad 128.583 14.169 0.781 0.04 1.765 7.92 - 0.02 0.171 3.472 Vinnytsia 95.485 15.718 1.352 0.6 1.451 8.7 0.013 0.014 0.296 3.292 Haisyn 110.247 17.561 0.925 0.35 1.960 9.69 0.01 - 0.581 4.045 Zhmerynka 112.740 21.767 1.227 0.775 0.75 1.837 10.42 0.048 0.06 0.299 6.341 Illintsi 91.452 15.409 0.620 0.7 2.046 7.84 - - 0.232 3.971 Kalynivka 108.578 16.712 0.0427 0.5 1.02 2.000 7.27 - - 0.220 5.659 Koziatyn 111.893 14.335 0.237 1.16 1.748 2.69 0.041 0.06 0.115 6.284 Kryzhopil 88.431 11.14 0.195 0.2 0.588 6.31 0.042 0.029 0.635 3.141 Lypovets 96.940 9.567 0.020 0.55 1.913 2.59 - - 0.113 4.382 Lityn 95.983 24.204 2.582 2.243 0.9 2.202 9.24 0.011 - 0.294 6.732 Mohyliv-Podilskyi 93.293 21.259 7.757 0.1 0.702 6.77 0.011 - 2.115 3.004 Murovani Kurylivtsi 88.647 15.586 1.494 0.15 1.123 7.52 - - 1.022 4.277 Nemyriv 129.201 22.056 1.749 0.5 2.662 10.49 0.107 - 0.872 5.676 Orativ 87.235 11.088 0.261 0.45 1.152 4.06 - - 0.132 5.033 Pishchanka 59.529 11.598 1.260 0.09 0.677 6.61 0.005 - 0.932 2.024 Pohrebyshche 119.989 19.196 1.020 0.46 1.886 6.05 - - 0.179 9.601 Teplyk 80.892 6.849 0.874 0.22 0.721 2.55 - - 0.151 2.333 Tyvriv 88.160 15.622 2.723 0.32 1.933 5.56 0.009 0.005 0.171 4.501 0.40 Tomashpil 77.849 9.272 0.121 0.25 0.482 4.9 - - 0.852 2.667 Trostianets 85.654 16.637 3.171 0.55 1.350 8.27 - 0.018 0.192 3.086 Tulchyn 112.381 18.512 1.144 0.56 1.367 10.92 0.027 0.026 0.112 4.356 Khmilnyk 125.326 18.764 1.618 1.6 2.907 5.62 0.007 - 0.441 6.571 Chernivtsi 59.161 9.736 3.770 0.12 0.742 2.58 0.007 - 0.269 2.248 Chechelnyk 75.908 17.488 2.020 0.48 0.841 9.92 - - 0.163 4.064 Sharhorod 113.679 15.879 0.191 0.44 1.371 8.75 0.006 - 0.589 4.532 Yampil 78.839 9.795 0.722 0.06 0.7 4.94 0.009 - 1.218 2.146 Vinnytsia city 6.840 0.624 0.178 0.001 - 0.074 0.002 0.013 0.126 0.23 Zhmerynka city 1.826 0.821 0.01 0.002 - 0.029 - - 0.68 0.10 Koziatyn city 1.238 0.003 - 0.001 - 0.002 - - - 0 Ladyzhyn city 8.856 1.54 - 0.5 - 1.03 - 0.006 0.31 0.144 Mohyliv-Podilskyi 2.163 0.552 0.015 - - 0.268 - 0.009 0.160 0.10 city Khmilnyk city 0.2049 0.683 0.075 0.001 - 0.12 0.134 - 0.003 0.35 Total 2649.259 421.6453 59.9983 3.618 14.39 41.222 188.68 0.496 0.154 12.876 118.901 0.4

* - the state statistical reporting does not provide water protection zones and lands under conservation. 72

APPENDIX 7 INDICATIVE MAP OF THE EUROPEAN ECO-NETWORK (BY WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL)