Initiatives Related to Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services in EECCA and SEE Countries

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in EECCA and SEE countries

Scoping Document

January 2015 This document was prepared by ECNC–European Centre for Nature Conservation under a Small-Scale Funding Agreement with UNEP.

Citation

Burbidge, T., K. Civic, B. Delbaere and A. Schrauwen (2015) Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in EECCA and SEE countries – Scoping Document. ECNC, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Available from:

ECNC–European Centre for Nature Conservation

PO Box 90154 • 5000 LG Tilburg • the Netherlands [email protected] • www.ecnc.org

Disclaimer:

ECNC is solely responsible for the content of this publication. It does not represent the opinion of UNEP, nor is UNEP responsible for any use that might be made of information appearing herein.

Contents Summary ...... 4 1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Situation overview in the EU Member States ...... 5 2. Methodology ...... 7 3. Results ...... 9 3.0 Key findings ...... 9 3.1 Albania ...... 15 3.2 Armenia ...... 17 3.3 Azerbaijan ...... 19 3.4 Belarus ...... 19 3.5 Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) ...... 20 3.6 FYRoMacedonia ...... 21 3.7 Georgia ...... 21 3.8 Kazakhstan ...... 21 3.9 Kyrgyzstan ...... 22 3.10 Moldova ...... 22 3.11 Montenegro ...... 23 3.12 Russian Federation ...... 24 3.13 Serbia ...... 24 3.14 Tajikistan ...... 26 3.15 Turkmenistan ...... 26 3.16 Ukraine ...... 27 3.17 Uzbekistan ...... 28 3.18 General ...... 28 4. Annexes ...... 30 Annex 1 Example of survey questionnaire ...... 30 Annex 2 respondents to the survey questionnaire ...... 34 Annex 3 received filled in questionnaires ...... 35 Annex 4 Detailed description of individual projects in different countries ...... 58 5. References ...... 71

Summary

In April 2013, 30 countries from the European and Central Asian region met in Batumi (Georgia) for the 6th Biodiversity in Europe Conference. Following the Conference it was clear that there is a need for capacity building and support to improve the way biodiversity and ecosystem services, concerns and requirements are reflected in sectoral, economic and development policies of the countries.

None of the countries has completed the mapping of ecosystem services at the national level. Also the ongoing initiatives across the Pan-European region apply a variety of approaches and methodologies to map and assess ecosystems and their services and use different classifications and conceptual models (e.g. market-based tools in environmental management such as Payment for Ecosystem Services-PES). Some of them focus only on a certain ecosystem (e.g. forest), or cover only a part of the country (e.g. a region or a province). Both in terms of mapping of ecosystems and assessing the services, the biggest challenge seem to be finding the right indicators and measuring of the services delivered.

This scoping document provides an overview of ongoing initiatives related to the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in EECCA countries (Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia) and five South East European countries. The results presented in this document will be used to identify priority areas for capacity building and cross-border cooperation in the target regions.

The extent to which mapping of ecosystems and their services is being carried out appears to be very variable between countries. None of the countries has completed a national level mapping of ecosystems and assessment of ESS, while the majority of the NBSAPs integrate the ESS concept and recognize their value to various extents.

Based on the gathered information there is a need for capacity building in the field of ESS work in all reviewed countries in the form of general awareness raising, organising training workshops for appropriate personnel and preparing appropriate information and training materials. More specifically this includes:

 general capacity building - increased understanding and awareness - on the basic concept and applicability of ESS (including linking to already ongoing work indirectly contributing to the ESS agenda)  importance of ESS for various sectors and their integration into economic and development planning;  sharing of best practice experiences (in the form of case studies) from more advanced countries, preferably EU Member States;  methodologies for valuation of ecosystem services (e.g. developing and approving methods of cost estimate of ecosystems services and cost estimate of biological diversity);  capacity to apply and utilize valuation in practical economic forecasting, planning and budgeting;  development of ESS indicators.

1. Introduction

In April 2013, 30 countries from the European and Central Asian region met in Batumi (Georgia) for the 6th Biodiversity in Europe Conference. The Conference Outcomes Document1, in line with the global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, the Pan-European 2020 Strategy for Biodiversity, decisions made during CBD COP11 and the interests and responsiveness from Central Asian countries, among other things, highlights the need for:

 Support to improve the way biodiversity and ecosystem services, concerns and requirements are reflected in sectoral, economic and development policies, including through TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity).

Countries have highlighted the need for support to develop national targets and indicators linked to Aichi Targets 1, 2 and 4 under strategic goal A of the global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-20202 and Action 7 of the Pan-European 2020 Strategy for Biodiversity3.

Sub-global ecosystem assessments and TEEB studies have been initiated at different scales during the last years. Although national activities (e.g. TEEB scoping study for Georgia) are being developed in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA) a countries and South East European (SEE)b countries there is currently no overview of knowledge on the subject for the entire region.

In Central Asia there is a request from countries to build capacity for a better understanding of ecosystem services (ESS) and their values and how to integrate these values into policy making through their NBSAPs.

The ongoing initiatives apply a variety of approaches and methodologies to map and assess ecosystems and their services and use different classifications and conceptual models. Case studies dealing with specific ecosystems and/or ecosystem services are developed in the framework of projects or research activities.

Therefore, the objective of this scoping document is to provide an overview of ongoing initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in EECCA countries and five SEE countries. The results of the survey will be used to identify priority areas for capacity building and to support the development of activities aimed at regional and cross-border cooperation and sharing of experiences and good practice between stakeholders in the two target regions.

1.1 Situation overview in the EU Member States For comparison, it is useful to look at the current state of mapping and assessments of ecosystems and their services across the EU. According to the results and conclusions of the 2012-2014 Synthesis Report of the EU project ‘Mapping of Ecosystems and their Services in the EU and its Member States’ (MESEU), shortly before the deadline of (the end of) 2014 for completing Action 5c (under Target 2) a Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. b Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia c Action 5: Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020. 5 of the EU Biodiversity strategy 2011-20204, the situation in the EU, generalised across all Member states, is that the vast majority is currently in the process of implementing or developing activities which can be considered part of Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy.

Some countries have completed a national scale mapping of ecosystems; many have regional (i.e. county or province level) case studies, which may be considered pilots for national level mapping. Several are building on Natura 2000 activities. Also, in several countries, specific ecosystem or sectoral (ecosystem service) studies are being conducted. Regarding the mapping and assessment of ecosystem services, the situation is that many Member states’ governments are involved in starting and supporting in some way scientific research projects, both at national and regional level.

In many EU countries, regional case studies are being (or have been) conducted. In some cases initiated by the national government, in other cases as part of EU research programmes or national scientific research programmes. Other countries are preparing to extend national biodiversity actions to ecosystem and services assessments.

Various stakeholders are involved in many of the case studies and planning in several of the EU Member states. Stakeholders involved are governmental and non-governmental organisations, representatives of different sectors (i.e. water, forestry, agriculture, transport, business), scientists, various interest groups (e.g. land owners and hunters), and even the general public. This involvement does not follow a particular pattern. In several cases the scientific community, guided by the policy departments is taking the lead and stakeholders are included to test outcomes. In other cases, stakeholders are consulted as part of the policy process.

In terms of the classification systems for ecosystem services used, country and regional case study specific classifications and selections occur widely. However, many countries report that they aim to converge to some kind of EU harmonised classification. The three major classification systems of the past 10 years are used across the EU: 1) Countries that started early with national ecosystem assessment activities mainly use the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; 2) Countries that were involved in some way with the TEEB study tend to use the TEEB classification; 3) The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) system as developed by the European Environment Agency is increasingly becoming the system of choice5.

Out of this short overview it can be concluded that some of the problems the EU member states are facing in this line of work are not that different from those in the EECCA and SEE countries. On the other hand, a lot is going on across the EU on the ‘Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services’ (MAES)d process and there are plenty of examples of good practice and lessons learned which could be of value to the countries of the EECCA and SEE regions.

d More information can be found on BISE at http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes 6

2. Methodology

To achieve the aims of this contract a desk study and internet search were carried out to provide an overview of ongoing initiatives related to mapping of ecosystems and assessment of ESS. This includes national and regional (both sub- and supra-national) initiatives implemented by governmental agencies or international organizations, projects, and research activities. Since much of the information was not available in English, a questionnaire was developed and circulated among contacts in the target countries. Contacts were offered the opportunity to complete the questionnaire by phone, if preferred. Prior to its distribution the questionnaire had been agreed with the UNEP and UNDP contacts working in the region.

The information collected through the desk study, the questionnaire, the review and the interviews was analysed and compiled into this scoping document summarizing the available information per country. An example questionnaire is available in Annex 1 . In addition to these questionnaires, 5th National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) were used to gather additional information, where available.

All of the received questionnaires are available in Annex 3.

This document provides an overview of ongoing initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in EECCA countries and five SEE countries.

It should be noted that due to the fact that English language is not widely spoken in the EECCA region it was not easy to get a response from the contacts identified in the countries, even after approaching different contacts on several occasions. Due to this fact the data is incomplete for some countries. Out of the 17 countries which were targeted by this study, we have received 10 completed questionnaires (Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYRO Macedonia, Georgia, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Serbia). Details about the respondents to the questionnaire are available in Annex 2. For the other 6 countries we were able to use the 5th National Reports to the CBD as these were available in English (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Russian Federation and Tajikistan), while for Kazakhstan we were also able to use a draft of the latest NBSAP (from September 2014). The overview of documents and information used in the process is given in table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Overview of the country reports and data used in this study

Internet Replied 5th National 4th National Revised search Country to Other Report Report (draft) NBSAP provided survey results Albania Yes Yes - Yes Yes - Armenia Yes Yes - Yes Yes - Azerbaijan Yes Yes - No Yes - No - in No - in Belarus Russian Russian - No No - Bosnia & Herzegovina Yes Yes Component 1 Yes Yes - FYRO Macedonia No Yes - Yes No - Georgia No Yes Yes Yes Yes - Stocktake form (09- Kazakhstan Yes Yes Yes No No 2013) Stocktake Kyrgyzstan No Yes Yes No Yes form Moldova Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Montenegro Yes Yes - No Yes - Russian Federation Yes Yes - No Yes - Serbia Yes Yes - Yes Yes - No - in Stocktake Tajikistan Yes Russian - No No form Stocktake form (09- Turkmenistan No Yes - Yes No 2013) No - in Ukraine No Russian Yes Yes No - Stocktake No (3rd in form (09- Uzbekistan No Russian) Yes Yes Yes 2013)

3. Results

3.0 Key findings The extent to which mapping of ecosystems and their services is being carried out appears to be very variable between countries. A short overview of the situation in the countries regarding the state of integration of ESS concept into NBSAPs is shown in table 3.1. Albania, Armenia and Serbia all have a considerable amount of MAES initiatives which are being or have been carried out (see table 3.4). In Belarus, Georgia (even though completed questionnaire suggested that there is high level of integration of ESS in the NBSAP, implementation is lacking), Russia, Tajikistan and Ukraine no initiatives originating in the country themselves could be found. This indicates a need for greater level of assistance in these countries. Belarus in particular had no evidence of MAES projects. Some countries, such as Russia, acknowledge the lack of awareness of ESSs and projects to assess ESSs in their country.

Table 3.1 State of integration of ESS concept into NBSAPs in EECCA and SEE countries

Integration of the ESS concept in the NBSAP

Detailed

Intermediate

Limited

Not Available

khstan

Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus & Herzegovina Bosnia Macedonia FYRO Georgia Kaza Kyrgyzstan Moldova Montenegro Federation Russian Serbia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan *

*currently being updated

Collected and analysed information indicates that in the SEE countries the ESS concept seems to be somewhat more integrated into the NBSAP but the actual implementation is still lagging behind in all target countries, partly due to the lack of capacity.

None of the countries has completed a national level mapping of ecosystems and assessment of ESS, as shown in table 3.2. The majority of the NBSAPs integrate the ESS concept and recognize their value to various extents. These documents also often foresee activities towards achieving the Aichi biodiversity targets on safeguarding the ecosystems and their services. There is a variety of methodologies and approaches suggested for achieving these targets, both in terms of mapping, classification and especially assessing the ESS. The largest gap in the whole process, across all countries in both regions, seems to be a lack of appropriate indicators to measure the state of various ecosystems and the services they provide.

Table 3.2 Progress of work on ESS mapping and assessment in EECCA and SEE countries

ESS mapping and assessment work progress at national level Advanced

Intermediate

Start-up

Not Available

Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus & Herzegovina Bosnia Macedonia FYRO Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Montenegro Federation Russian Serbia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan

Advanced: national framework agreed project ongoing; Intermediate: attempts being made to link the individual projects into a national framework; Start-up: ESS work in an early phase of implementation or only scattered pilot projects; Not Available: no information available

Based on the responses to the distributed questionnaires and based on the situation as depicted by the gathered information there is a need for capacity building in the field of ESS work in all countries and at all levels, in the form of general awareness raising, organising training workshops for appropriate personnel and preparing appropriate information and training materials. An overview of capacity building needs per country is given in table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3 Identified capacity building needs in the target countries

Country Needs for capacity building Albania Technical assistance in identification and development of ESS related indicators Armenia Training of appropriate personal on ESS concept General awareness & capacity building Case studies Bosnia and Technical assistance in identification and development of ESS related indicators Herzegovina Republic of How to reveal/ raise ESS concept to higher level, through legal frame, to Moldova Governmental level Then normative or regulatory capacity building (lower level) Need for assistance/professional work with the authorities as they established some services fees for utilization of natural resources without being aware that this is actually a fee for ESS How to regulate the coordination between authorities Turkmenistan Development of ESS related indicators Uzbekistan increased understanding and awareness of basic concepts and applicability of ESS and integration to economic and development planning within relevant government institutions (at all levels) Capacity to develop and practically undertake meaningful valuation Capacity to apply and utilize valuation in practical economic forecasting, planning and budgeting.

A short overview of the efforts on the mapping and assessments of ecosystem services in all countries is given in the table 3.4 below. Full details on all initiatives are available in Annex 4.

Table 3.4 Overview of ESS mapping efforts across all target countries Extent to MAES projects which ESSs are referenced Country Current Project Current Scale Scope NBSAP state Albania Frequently Payment for Ecosystem Ongoing National 1) develop carbon sequestration Services projects 2) develop payment for watershed services schemes Ecosystem mapping in Ongoing National Conducting socio-economic Protected Areas valuation of their natural ecosystems Afforestation and Ongoing National Undertake the reforestation of reforestation Project degraded lands activities: Assisted Natural Regeneration of Degraded Lands in Albania Trans-boundary Finished Multi- Foster the sustainable mountain massifs of national development of rural Prokletije / Bjeshkët e communities on the basis of Namuna in Montenegro conservation of biological and Albania diversity and traditional landscapes in Transboundary Protected Areas

Support to local Finished Regional To identify areas that are communities to establish important to human well-being regional protected areas: depending on biodiversity Assessment of the most valuable areas for biodiversity within Uleza commune and opportunities for ecotourism development

Armenia Infrequently Economic Valuation of Finished National Incorporate an ESS approach Ecosystem Services’ into existing decision-making processes, plans and budgets linking poverty reduction and environmental sustainability

Extent to MAES projects which ESSs are referenced Country Current Project Current Scale Scope NBSAP state Ecosystem Valuation Pilot Finished National Contribute to poverty reduction Study Armenia and improved well-being of poor and vulnerable groups through mainstreaming environmental issues into national development processes

Adaptation to climate Ongoing Regional Enhance national capacities to change impacts in the adapt to climate change Syunik mountain forest impacts ecosystems of Armenia In-situ conservation of Finished Multinat Focussed on the ESSs of crops crop wild relatives by ional and wild food means of information, advanced management and practical application Ecoregional Biodiversity Finished Multinat Assessing biodiversity Conservation Plan for ional Caucasus Introduction of Payment Finished Regional Introduction and application of for Ecosystem Services a system of payments for schemes in Upper ecosystem services Hrazdan Pilot River Basin Support Development of Finished Regional Economic valuation of the flora, Biodiversity Conservation forests and fauna Policies and Practices in Mountain Regions of the South Caucasus Four projects from UNDP Ongoing National Sustainable management and CO Armenia and RA / / environmental protection Ministry of Nature finished Regional Protection Azerbaijan Frequently Forest restoration Ongoing National Active restoration of forest habitats Greening projects in Baku Ongoing Regional Habitat restoration city and Absheron peninsula Capacity development Finished Multinat Elevate PES into policy-making and networking on PES in ional of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Central Asia and Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Belarus No* being - - - - updated (by

Extent to MAES projects which ESSs are referenced Country Current Project Current Scale Scope NBSAP state 2016) Bosnia & Frequently Living Neretva project - Finished Regional Mapping freshwater Herzegovina Towards EU standards in ecosystems the Neretva river basin Assessment of the Finished Regional Assessing ESS Ecosystem Services of the Hutovo blato Nature Park Feasibility Study for Finished Regional Cost benefit analysis for establishing Zvijezda establishing a PA Mountain Protected Area Development of Ongoing Multi- Evaluating current economic Economic Transferability national value Study of Plitvice National Park (NP) in Croatia to Una National Park (NP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina’

FYRO Frequently ESS valuations of Ezerane Finished Regional Map and evaluate ESSs Macedonia Park Nature Park and Matka Monument of nature and Tikvesh strict natural reserve Georgia Frequently - Kazakhstan Frequently Pilot assessment of Finished Regional Determine the economic value economic value of the of an SSPA based on the Karkaraly SSPA assessment of some of its ecosystem services Kyrgyzstan N.A. Integrating PES and Finished Regional Aim of improving sustainability Reducing Emissions from of water supply for the rural Deforestation and community of the Chon-Aksuu Degradation in Kyrgyzstan river basin by implementing the effective PES scheme Moldova Infrequently The Economic Value of Finished National Estimating the value of Ecosystem Services in the ecosystem services in tourism, Republic of Moldova forestry, agriculture, fishing, water supply, climate change and natural disaster mitigation Conducting an analytical Ongoing National Assessing forest ESSs study on forest ecosystem services

Extent to MAES projects which ESSs are referenced Country Current Project Current Scale Scope NBSAP state Montenegro Infrequently Catalysing Financial Ongoing National A pilot PES scheme Sustainability of the Protected Areas in Montenegro Russian N.A Ecosystem services Ongoing Multi- Assessing ESSs Federation evaluation in Russia and national other NIS countries of Northern Eurasia: first steps Serbia Frequently Analysis of Payment for Finished Regional Promoting payments for Ecosystem Services needs ecosystem services and related and feasibility in Serbia sustainable financing schemes Agro-biodiversity and Ongoing National An integrated approach to land-use change in assessment and monitoring of Serbia: an integrated agro-biodiversity biodiversity assessment of key functional groups of arthropods and plant pathogens

GreenNest Cities for Finished Regional Prevent the loss of biodiversity Biodiversity, Ecosystem of the insects providing Services and Well-being pollination as an essential in Europe ecosystem service Benefits of ecosystem Ongoing Regional The inclusion of biodiversity and services of the Đerdap ESSs into policy, planning and National Park for the local programmes for the promotion community of sustainable management and ESSs as a form of support to the economic growth

Dinaric Arc Parks Finished Regional An evaluation of ecosystem values as a basis for further work on ESSs Local Biodiversity Action Finished National Assessing ESSs Planning for Southeastern Europe Valuation of a part of Finished Regional Valuation of wood resources ecosystem services and selected non-wood forest provided by the National products Park Kopaonik Tajikistan N.A. - Turkmenistan Infrequently -

Extent to MAES projects which ESSs are referenced Country Current Project Current Scale Scope NBSAP state Ukraine Infrequently - Uzbekistan Frequently In-situ conservation of Finished Multinat Focussed on the ESSs of crops crop wild relatives by ional and wild food means of information, advanced management and practical application Introduction of the Finished National To protect the biodiversity of concept of Payments for local mountain ecosystems of Ecosystem Services to Uzbekistan by introducing the Uzbekistan concept of PES Conservation and Ongoing National To mainstream the Sustainable Use of conservation and use of fruit Agricultural Biodiversity tree biodiversity to enhance to Improve Regulating ecosystem services and Supporting Ecosystem Services in Agriculture Production

3.1 Albania Information provided from the questionnaires showed that the second NBSAP for Albania (completed in November) frequently mentioned ESSs in the section about Protected Areas integrated management, including their socio-economic valuation. The NBSAP mentions valuation of ecosystem services including the need for ‘Cost-benefit analysis for the protection and preservation of biological diversity’, but it does not give any details about the methods used.

Albania’s 5th National Report lists enhancing the benefits to all from ESSs as one of the national goals, however, precise details about how this will be carried out are not given.

MAES initiatives in Albania:

 ‘Payment for Ecosystem Services’ was started in 2014 by the Ministry of Environment and involving the Institute of Nature Conservation in Albania (INCA). The initiative aims to 1) develop carbon sequestration projects and 2) develop payment for watershed services schemes. The aim of the first component is to increase carbon sequestration through i) afforestation, and ii) reforestation on degraded lands. These activities will also support local incomes and livelihoods in impoverished rural areas, reduce erosion, provide watershed services and conservation of biodiversity. The aim of the second component is to establish a payment for watershed services mechanism that will allow long term sustainable financing for natural resource management. The sub-component will support local livelihoods, erosion prevention, biodiversity conservation, and climate mitigation.

 GEF-UNDP and GEF-WB are working to introduce ecosystems mapping in Protected Areas, with the intention of later extending to natural ecosystems. Some Management Plans of Protected Areas are currently in the process of elaboration, such as: Marine National Park Karaburun-Sazan (the first marine protected area in Albania) and National Park Divjake– Karavasta, which have conducted socio-economic valuation of their natural ecosystems (2013-2015)6. ESSs covered by these initiatives are: eco-tourism; bio products; and traditional handcrafts. The EU Habitats Directive classification was used for habitats, including respective codes. Water Framework Directive indicators were used for the environmental objectives assessment  ‘Afforestation and reforestation Project activities: Assisted Natural Regeneration of Degraded Lands in Albania’, started in 2004 by the Albanian Ministry of Environment, with the Forestry and Water Administration, Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development as Trustee of the BioCarbon Fund and has a planned duration of 60 years7. The project focusses on the ESSs carbon storage and grazing and will undertake the reforestation of degraded lands, by assisting the natural regeneration of vegetation that would result in improved biomass accumulation on degraded lands, reduced soil degradation, improved water quality, conservation of biodiversity and translates into improvement in the livelihoods of poor rural households.  ‘Trans-boundary mountain massifs of Prokletije / Bjeshkët e Namuna in Montenegro and Albania: assessment of the most valuable areas for Biodiversity’ (2009-2012) carried out in the framework of the programme ‘Sustaining Rural Communities and their Traditional Landscapes Through Strengthened Environmental Governance in Trans-boundary Protected Areas of the Dinaric Arc’ by INCA, Western Balkans Environment & Development Cooperation Programme Funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, IUCN, SNV and WWF.8 The ESSs covered were grazing, erosion control, non-timber forest products and cultural services. The proposed programme aims to foster the sustainable development of rural communities on the basis of conservation of biological diversity and traditional landscapes in Transboundary Protected Areas by improving regional cooperation and strengthening environmental governance, including the involvement and empowerment of civil society and local communities.  ‘Support to local communities to establish regional protected areas: Assessment of the most valuable areas for biodiversity within Uleza commune and opportunities for ecotourism development’ coordinated by INCA (Institute for Nature Conservation in Albania).9 In order to identify areas that are important to human well-being depending on biodiversity the project collected information on different ecosystem services provided in the study area. The ESSs included wood/timber production and non-timber forest products. Apart from provisioning of goods, natural ecosystems provide a series of supporting and regulation services. Relevant data and statistics on the scale and importance of supporting and regulating services, such as pastures, watershed protection/erosion and flood prevention, climate change mitigation/carbon storage provided by the natural ecosystem do not exist for the study area.

Responses from the questionnaires revealed that capacity building requirements include training workshops and sharing experiences from more advanced countries, preferably EU Member States.

Indicator identification and development is also an issue to be addressed in the future. Technical assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

3.2 Armenia Information provided from the questionnaires showed that ESSs are infrequently mentioned in Armenia’s NBSAP. Assessments of the states of ecosystems are presented in the CBD National Reports, Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Republic of Armenia (1999), National Action Plan for the Programme of Work on Protected Areas (2012), as well as in the Second National Action Programme To Combat Desertification in Armenia (2002) and Second National Communication on Climate Change (2010). However, steps have only been made in recent years to incorporate the ESS approach into existing decision-making processes, plans and budgets linking poverty reduction, protected areas management and environmental sustainability.

A law on innovative economic instruments in the environment sector was approved by the Government in 2013. It is proposed to submit an action / implementation plan to the Government related to this law. A new law on ecosystem services will be one of the implementation points. It is anticipated that this will establish a methodology on natural capital valuation and cover indicators on green growth and green funding. A new environmental law is also being developed with support from the Government of Germany. This umbrella law is expected to acknowledge the importance of the ecosystems services approach and the valuation of natural assets.

Armenia’s current NBSAP does not mention valuing ESS but it is envisaged for new NBSAPs, in particular in the Third National Action Programme to Combat Desertification in Armenia, which is under preparation with the assistance of the UNDP CO Armenia.

The 5th National Report of Armenia acknowledges that ESS are an indispensable natural wealth which impact standards of living. Deforestation, land degradation and pollution are considered crucial threats. The report highlights the need for better awareness of ESS, the valuation of ESS, the consideration of this value into decision-making and more appropriate legislation. A system of payments for ESS has been suggested, but in practice will not replace the system of environmental and nature use fees. Projects mentioned in the report are included below.

MAES initiatives in Armenia:

 ‘Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services’10 (2012-2014), a UNDP/GEF project, aims to equip decision makers and other stakeholders with tools and evidence demonstrating how to incorporate an ESS approach into existing decision-making processes, plans and budgets linking poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. The project builds on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment approach that expands the focus beyond how development affects ecosystems to include how development depends on ecosystems.  ‘Ecosystem Valuation Pilot Study Armenia’11 implemented in the frames of the joint global Poverty-Environment Initiative of UNDP-UNEP aimed to contribute to poverty reduction and improved well-being of poor and vulnerable groups through mainstreaming environmental issues into national development processes.

 ‘Adaptation to climate change impacts in the Syunik mountain forest ecosystems of Armenia’ (2008-2012) was conducted by the Government of Armenia along with GEF and UNDP.12 The goal of the project is to enhance national capacities to adapt to climate change impacts, through the incorporation of adaptation into the forest management framework, to improve climate change resilience of the forests to ensure the forest continues to deliver ecosystem services to local communities (including forest fire prevention and from forest resources).  ‘In-situ conservation of crop wild relatives by means of information, advanced management and practical application’ contracted by UNEP (2004-2011) focusses on the ESSs of crops and wild food.13 The project substantially expanded the world’s knowledge of crop wild relatives (CWRs), especially in developing countries. It included an assessment of the distribution, use and threats to these wild species. It organized existing national-level information and made it available on the CWR Global Portal. Some CWRs were assessed for their use in crop improvement for sustainable livelihoods and food security. Countries covered included Armenia and Uzbekistan.  ‘Ecoregional Biodiversity Conservation Plan for Caucasus’ (2011) is coordinated by WWF and covers the countries Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the North Caucasus part of the Russian Federation, north-eastern Turkey, and part of north-western Iran. 14 The work was mostly assessing biodiversity, but did include maps of ecoregions and areas for conservation priority. It was found that there is a process of restoration of degraded ecosystems in the near-border areas of the alpine zone.  ‘Introduction of Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes in Upper Hrazdan Pilot River Basin of Armenia’ (2011) deals with the piloting of the criteria of the ES payments guidelines developed by the UN/ECE with the aim of introduction and application of a system of payments for ecosystem services in the river basins of Armenia. For that a pilot area has been selected, which includes the Upper Hrazdan river basin till Qakhsi settlement along with the right hand tributaries – the Rivers Marmarik and Tsakhkadzor.  ‘Support Development of Biodiversity Conservation Policies and Practices in Mountain Regions of the South Caucasus’ (2011-2014) includes economic valuation of the flora, forests and fauna.  A pilot valuation has been implemented with the focus on evaluating the impact of mining industry on ecosystem services in Lori Region (2010-2014)15.  UNDP CO Armenia and RA Ministry of Nature Protection are responsible for the following initiatives along with RA Ministry of Economy, National Academy of Sciences and National Council on Sustainable Development as partners. The projects map ESSs to varying extents. The ecosystems covered by these initiatives are mountain, freshwater and forest ecosystems and the ESSs covered are: Water quality / quantity; air quality / dust; impact on the land resources; waste generation; impact on biodiversity; and noise. o ‘Clean Energy and Water Program’ (CEW) for USAID in Armenia (2011-2014) carried out by ME&A. o ‘Reducing Trans-boundary Degradation of the Kura-Aras River Basin’ (2011-2014) a UNDP/GEF project. o ‘Environmental Protection of International River Basins’ (2012-2015) ENPI East 2010.

o ‘Sustainable management of pastures and forest in Armenia to demonstrate climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits and dividends for local communities’ EU/UNDP. o ‘Developing the Protected Area System of Armenia’ (2010-2014)16 is a UNDP/GEF Project.

Capacity building needs which have been identified are the training of appropriate personal, awareness and sharing case studies from other, experienced countries.

3.3 Azerbaijan The 5th National Report of Azerbaijan mentions the ESS in a few places, mostly in describing goals and objectives, however no concrete actions are described. An ongoing UNDP-GEF project (2013- 2015)builds on the current status and achievements of Azerbaijan with respect to biodiversity planning and reporting. It aims to integrate Azerbaijan’s obligations under the CBD into its national development and sectoral planning frameworks through a renewed and participative ‘biodiversity planning’ and strategizing process. The project goals include that the 5th National Reporting and the 2nd NBSAP are revised/updated and fully integrate new aspects of the CBD strategic plan, such as mainstreaming and anchoring the implementation of the plan into national development frameworks, valuing ecosystem services and promoting ecosystem-based adaptation and resilience17.

MAES initiatives in Azerbaijan:

 The active restoration of 10,131 ha of forest habitat (7,385 ha of rehabilitation and 2,746 ha of seeding and cultivation, mentioned in the 5th National Report.  Eight large-scale greening projects underway in Baku city and Absheron peninsula, covering an area of 1,556 ha. Mentioned in the 5th National Report. No further details are given.  ‘Capacity development and networking on PES in Central Asia and Azerbaijan’ (January 2012 – June 2013) carried out by The Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC)18. The project covered water related ESS including water quality and quantity. The goal was to elevate PES into policy-making of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan through national dialogue, trainings and estimation of economic value of water-related ecosystem services.  ‘Ecoregional Biodiversity Conservation Plan for Caucasus’ (2011) also covers Azerbaijan11.

3.4 Belarus NBSAP of Belarus for the period of 2011 to 2020 makes no references to the ecosystem services concept. However, one of the foreseen actions (action 4, to be implemented 2012-2013) in the Action Plan, under the heading of ‘Improvement of the legal basis and economic mechanisms of conservation and sustainable utilization of biological diversity’, is: Developing and approving methods of cost estimate of ecosystems services and cost estimate of biological diversity.

However, there is an ongoing World Bank project: ‘Belarus Updating NBSAP in line with the COP10 Strategic Plan, Preparing 5th National Report, and Reenforcing CHM’ (2012-2016)19.

The 5th National Report for Belarus gives Belarus’s national targets set under each Aichi Target, with many references to Ecosystem services – this is a good indication that the NBSAP will be improved.

3.5 Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Information provided from the questionnaires indicated that the terms ecosystems and ecosystem services are frequently mentioned throughout the most recent NBSAP. This is particularly the case in the section ‘State of biodiversity towards 20 Aichi targets’, and especially under Aichi target 14 where different ecosystems and their services in BiH are identified. However, both the NBSAP and the 5th National Report concluded that so far no significant systematic research in this field has been undertaken, only a few pilot projects (mostly concerning the karstic ecosystems). One of the NBSAP goals (Goal 2) states that: ‘By 2020, the biodiversity values are integrated in development strategies and strategic plans, with an emphasis on rural development’; with one of the foreseen measures to reach it (to be implemented by 2018) being to ‘Prepare a Study regarding the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for BiH’.

Ecosystem services are also recognized as a priority issue in the two out of the four implementation plans of NBSAP, namely: 1) The Communication Strategy (as one of the communication tools e.g. publications on ecosystem services and their protection); 2) Plan for capacity building.

The 5th National Report provides a qualitative description of the state and importance of ecosystem services in BiH (estimates by experts involved in the NBSAP development).

MAES initiatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina:

 ‘Living Neretva project - Towards EU standards in the Neretva river basin’, organized by the WWF Mediterranean Programme and WWF Norway (funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008) the project involves mapping freshwater ecosystems20.  Pilot Project by WWF ‘Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of the Hutovo blato Nature Park according to the Protected Area Benefits Assessment Tool (PA-BAT)’ conducted in 2011 showed that Hutovo blato is one of the most productive ecosystems in BiH and its conservation is not only important for all living organisms that depend on it, but also for the economy of the entire region21.  Feasibility Study for establishing Zvijezda Mountain Protected Area, Municipality of Vareš (2014), made a cost-benefit analysis for establishing a protected area by valuing the ecosystems of Zvijezda Mountain applying the TEEB methodology.  Project ‘Development of Economic Transferability Study of Plitvice National Park (NP) in Croatia to Una National Park (NP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina’ (2014) evaluates current economic value of the NP Una using the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework and potential economic value of the NP Una if specific policies, activities and measures are transferable from the NP Plitvice Lakes. Evaluation of the TEV of the NP Una will be conducted using one of the available methods or combination of methods (market price method, avoided cost method, replacement cost method, mitigation cost method, production function-based method and benefit transfer method), taking into account available data on various ecosystem services, and activities within the park.

3.6 FYRoMacedonia Information provided from the questionnaires revealed that ecosystems and their services are frequently mentioned in Macedonia’s NBSAP. They are mentioned and developed through the GEF Protected Areas Project in Macedonia and included in the National Law for Nature, however they are seldom implemented. There is no mention of ESSs in the 4th National Report. The 5th National Report for Macedonia is not yet available.

MAES initiatives in FYRoMacedonia:

 ESS valuations have been done in Ezerane Park Nature Park and Matka Monument of nature and Tikvesh strict natural reserve. There has been an attempt to map ESSs as an initiative through the GEF PA Project between 2008 and 2010, predominantly covering aquatic ecosystems. The project was organized by the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of the Republic of Macedonia. PA mapping was done according to the Habitat and Birds directive and the preliminary assessment of Natura 2000 sites were mapped in GIS. No online resources are currently available.

3.7 Georgia The response to the questionnaire indicated that ecosystems and their services are frequently mentioned in Georgia’s NBSAP. Valuing ESSs are also mentioned but no specific methods are given. However, based on good cooperation results between MoE, UNEP and involved NGOs, the UNEP TEEB approach may be adopted. ‘TEEB Scoping Study – Georgia’ 22 was conducted to map most important sectors for TEEB, although this did not include mapping of ecosystem services.

The 4th National Report of Georgia is the most recent available. It describes the importance of ecosystem services such as water regulation, soil protection and climate stabilization, particularly the mountainous forest ecosystems that provide these ESSs. However, there is no mention of projects assessing or mapping these ESSs.

MAES initiatives in Georgia:

 ‘Ecoregional Biodiversity Conservation Plan for Caucasus’ (2011) also covers Georgia14

3.8 Kazakhstan The 5th National Report of Kazakhstan states that since 2012 procedures for the assessment of ecosystem services have been developed. Methods of regulating recreational loads, measurement of damage to wildlife and destruction of habitats are being developed. Biodiversity, as a value of ecosystem services, has not been evaluated from the economic perspective at the legislative level. Methods of regulating recreational loads and measurement of damage to wildlife, amongst other things, are being developed. The draft NBSAP (for the period up to 2030) has lots of references to ESS and commitments to valuing them.

MAES initiatives in Kazakhstan:

 A pilot assessment was conducted in 2013 in the Karkaraly SSPA, in order to determine the economic value of an SSPA based on the assessment of some of its ecosystem services. Replication of this practice in protected areas in Kazakhstan is expected to be carried out.

The valuation was performed using the methodology developed by international financial expert Lucy Emerton under the GEF / UNDP projects. The total annual value of ecosystem services in SSPA, as per these estimates, made up 86 million 371 thousand dollars.

Significant progress has been achieved in raising awareness about ESSs, however, the issues of valuation of ecosystem services are just beginning to be developed.

3.9 Kyrgyzstan There was no response to the survey questionnaire. The stocktaking form relating to the NBSAP revision for Kyrgyzstan states that the stage of gathering information about ecosystem services status and trends is complete, as is the stage of developing national targets and identifying specific strategies. The implementation of these strategies is in progress. However, details about strategies for ESSs are not available.

The Kyrgyzstan 4th National Report (the most recent available) describes the importance of ecosystem services such as forests protecting soil cover from erosion, medicinal herbs derived from grass ecosystems and humus formation in mountain ecosystems. The report describes international projects contributing to the identification and monitoring of species and ecosystems of Kyrgyzstan, but there is no specific reference to assessment of ecosystem services.

MAES initiatives in Kyrgyzstan:

 ‘Integrating PES and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) in Kyrgyzstan’ organized by The Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC) between 2011 and 2013.23 The project covered the ecosystem services of water supply and food production, with the aim of improving sustainability of water supply for the rural community of the Chon-Aksuu river basin by implementing the effective Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme.  ‘Arrears in exchange for ecology’ project relates to the protection of forest ecosystems, mentioned in the 4th National Report.

3.10 Moldova Information provided from the questionnaires showed that ESSs are infrequently mentioned in Moldova’s NBSAP. Maps of resources in Moldova are available (www.gismediu.gov.md) but no specific maps of ecosystem services have been created. There are maps of forestland managed by governmental Forestry Agency Moldsilva (covering 85% of the country’s forests) and data on agriculture providing ecosystem and social services in Moldova is also available.

The 5th National Report of Moldova frequently mentions the importance of ecosystem services. The report describes how biodiversity conservation management in the Republic of Moldova still faces problems related to the unreasonable use of natural resources and the negative impacts of these activities on the environment. There are known active processes of degradation of natural resources, particularly soil erosion, intensified landslides, salinization, agricultural land fragmentation, cutting of the protection strips of agricultural fields. It is recognized that violations of environmental laws lead

22 to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, but there is no mention of measure being undertaken to combat these crimes.

The 5th National Report sets out objectives in the field of ecosystem services in the Republic of Moldova, however, there are no specific methods as to how these objectives will be achieved.

MAES initiatives in Moldova:

 Within the GEF-UNDP project ‘National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in the Republic of Moldova and to establish the national goals On Biodiversity Conservation until 2020’ the Biological Diversity Conservation National Strategy and Action Plan in the Republic of Moldova for 2013- 2020 was developed and the report ‘The Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in the Republic of Moldova’24 was prepared. According to the data presented, the value of ecosystem services in tourism, forestry, agriculture, fishing, water supply, climate change and natural disaster mitigation in Moldova is estimated at just under $21,986 million (in 2011).  The EU funded Regional programme ENPI East FLEG II has an activity on ‘Conducting an analytical study on forest ecosystem services (FES)’25 for the period 2014-2015.

Responses from the questionnaires revealed that capacity building requirements include raising ESS to a higher level through the legal frame and at the Governmental level. There is a need for assistance and professional work with the authorities as they establish service fees for utilization of resources, which may already be implemented without the authorities realising that this is a ESS. Synchronization between authorities should also be regulated.

3.11 Montenegro The 5th National Report of Montenegro describes how ecosystem services contribute to socio- economic development and human wellbeing in numerous ways. They are recognized as important factors for preservation of water abundance and quality, protection from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion, climate regulation, food production and recreational services. However, the report states that valuation of ecosystem services and integration of real costs of using biodiversity in decision making is rare. The baseline economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from 2011 is included in the 5th National Report. So far, there have been no attempts to systematically assess impacts of declining biodiversity on ecosystem services and evaluate these in economic terms. It is recognized in the report that improved knowledge and data about ecosystem services values can be a powerful tool for helping to increase protection efforts and reach set objectives.

One of the objectives of the revised NBSAP is that the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services is integrated in national and local development strategies (including National Sustainable Development Strategy, forestry, rural development, energy and tourism strategies, and others) and, as appropriate, in the accounting and reporting systems. Another objective is to avoid subsidies harmful for biodiversity and promote sustainable use of land and natural resources through application of positive incentives (such as environmental taxes and charges, payments for ecosystem services, tradable construction permits, certification and labelling, green financing and funds, etc.). The

23 proposal of the new Law on National Parks will help achieve these objectives by introducing provisions regulating payments for ecosystem services.

MAES initiatives in Montenegro:

 ‘Catalysing Financial Sustainability of the Protected Areas in Montenegro’ is a GEF/ UNDP project, which will pilot a payment scheme for the National Park Durmitor. Activities are underway with completion of the PES scheme expected in 2014.

3.12 Russian Federation The 5th National Report of Russia states that since the 4th National Report there has been continued introduction of the ecosystem services concept into conservation practice. The most remarkable ecosystem services assessment results were obtained within TEEB project in Russia. Some of them are presented in the relevant sections of the National Report. The report examines importance of three groups of ecosystem services. The report states that the Russian Federation faces a severe issue of relation between global, national and regional interests in utilizing ecosystem services and their maintenance costs. Key threats to ecosystem services, defined in the 4th National Report, are expected to persist in the short term, as no measures are being taken to stop them. It is recognized that the assessment of ecosystem services is fundamentally important. The report acknowledges that Russia is far behind in using economic assessments and ecosystem services concept in living nature conservation. Priorities for the future are set to include development of the practice of using economic mechanisms in biodiversity conservation, economic assessments and ecosystem services concept in living nature protection, economic indexes in assessments of large industrial project impacts on living nature, in Strategic Environmental Assessments of mega-projects. However, there are no specific methods describing how this will be achieved.

MAES initiatives in Russia:

 ‘Ecosystem services evaluation in Russia and other NIS countries of Northern Eurasia: first steps’ (2013-2015)26  ‘Ecoregional Biodiversity Conservation Plan for Caucasus’ (2011).14

3.13 Serbia ESSs are frequently mentioned in Serbia’s NBSAP. The most recent NBSAP (2011-2018) considers ESSs in strategic sections, objectives and activities for protection of biodiversity. It has been noticed that many sectors rely on ESSs although these are not often recognised and valuated. Further integration of ecosystem services into policies is necessary.

The 5th National Report of Serbia contains many references to ESSs. The research on ESSs in Serbia is still in the initial phase. The term itself has not been clarified enough and accepted in the wider public, and more detailed analyses of ecosystem services have not been performed. However, some activities have been realized. The first steps in the evaluation of ESSs in Serbia were performed in the 1990s by the Institute of Economic Sciences. The inclusion of Serbia into the Global Partnership for Ecosystem Services was initiated in 2013 and the establishment of research into ecosystem

services in Serbia is implied. The goal of this partnership is Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services.

MAES initiatives in Serbia:

 ‘Analysis of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) needs and feasibility in Serbia’ was prepared as part of the Danube PES project: promoting payments for ecosystem services and related sustainable financing schemes in the Danube basin.27 The organization was by WWF, with the financial support of the GEF through UNEP and the European Commission. The PES concept is described as being relatively new in Serbia, not yet having been developed or implemented. Recent laws regulating the use of natural resources have enabled some basic environmental economics mechanisms, but they are focused on provisioning services (timber, water, flora and fauna), which leaves out other ecological services of great importance, such as natural flood protection and water purification. There are solid foundations for the further development of PES schemes in Serbia. Many of the existing financing mechanisms can be adapted so that they enable the effective and targeted financing of ecosystem conservation.  ‘Agro-biodiversity and land-use change in Serbia: an integrated biodiversity assessment of key functional groups of arthropods and plant pathogens’ is being carried out by the University of Belgrade (2011-2015). The project represents an integrated approach to assessment and monitoring of agro-biodiversity. One of the objectives is to evaluate the respective risks and impacts on biodiversity, with emphasis on the potential for preservation of biological control and pollination as important ecosystem services.  ‘GreenNest Cities for Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Well-being in Europe’ carried out by the University of Bologna along with 45 partners including the University of Bologna.28 The main goal of the project is to explore the state of the population of pollinators (prevalently Apidae) in urban and sub-urban areas in the City of Belgrade and to find the best ways and solutions to prevent the loss of biodiversity of this group of insects which have the main role in providing pollination as an essential ecosystem service.  ‘Benefits of ecosystem services of the Đerdap National Park for the local community’ started in 2014 as one of the segments of a wider project Bioregio Carpathians, which is financed from cross border cooperation programme for the Southeastern Europe. The Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia is implementing this project in partnership with the Đerdap National Park. The general aim of the study is to enable the inclusion of the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services into the economic and developmental policy, planning and programmes for the promotion of sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystem services as a form of support to the economic growth.  Within the ‘Dinaric Arc Parks’ project, realized by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and financially supported by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Norway and the MAVA Foundation, during the period between 2012 and 2014, an evaluation of ecosystem values will be made following the Protected Areas Benefits Assessment Tool (PA BAT) methodology, i.e. the evaluation of the benefits of parks in 50 protected areas in the whole region, including Serbia, which represents a basis for further work on ecosystem services. The activities in Serbia relate to the preparation and nomination of two parks for the ECST (European Charter for Sustainable Tourism), and the implementation of PA BAT methodology is planned for 4 national parks (Kopaonik, Fruška Gora, Tara and Đerdap).  ‘Local Biodiversity Action Planning for Southeastern Europe’ and the implementation of the Project ‘Biodiversity and ecosystem services for local sustainable development in the Western Balkans’, which are based on the concept of ecosystem services were realized in the period from 2009‒2013. They were implemented through partnership between

international organization European Centre for Nature Conservation, Regional Environment Centre and local authorities of 18 municipalities in the region of Southeast Europe.  Research on valuation of a part of ecosystem services provided by the National Park Kopaonik started at the end of 2013 and it includes valuation of wood resources and selected non-wood forest products. The evaluation of the wood mass is performed based on questionnaires and interviews performed with representatives of all larger sawmills on the territory of Raška municipality including the data on wood mass that has been exported or distributed outside Raška municipality. The data relates to the period from 2005 to 2013. The research also provided data on quantities of purchased blueberries, fungi and other forest fruit for the period between 2005 and 2013. Data should create a complex image of potentials and possibilities for the use of such a source of income for financing of the national park’s activities.

3.14 Tajikistan The most recent NBSAP revision stocktaking form for Tajikistan states that the stage of gathering information about ecosystem services status and trends is complete. The stage of developing national targets and identifying specific strategies, and the implementation of these strategies is in progress. However, details about these strategies for ESSs are not available.

The 5th National Report of Tajikistan frequently mentions the importance of ESSs. It includes information about the value of ESSs such as forestry and medicinal plants. However, exact details of how this data was collected are not given. The goal of developing a management plan for all ecosystems with consideration of intensity of ecosystem services by 2020 is stated and some targets are laid out for enhancing the benefits to all from biodiversity and ESSs, although no methodological data is given.

3.15 Turkmenistan Information provided from the questionnaires showed that ESSs are infrequently mentioned in Turkmenistan’s NBSAP. The NBSAP planning process included the valuation of ecosystem services in Turkmenistan. The country has performed the rapid ecosystem services identification and valuation exercise at the national level (ESVAL). The final technical report titled ‘Nature and Economy. Results of ecosystem services assessment in Turkmenistan’ is currently being reviewed by the government for publication. The results of the ESVAL are mentioned in the BD status document, strategy and action plan documents. The ESVAL process included the identification of the main ESS at the district level by relevant stakeholders and assessing the value of the most important of them. Eight ESSs were selected by the valuation, including provision of drinking and irrigation water, provision and support of habitats (protected areas) and medicinal plants. The ecosystem approach has been used in development of the action plan (BSAP) which reflects the priority actions and strategic directions for introducing the BD conservation in the work of the main economic sectors. The sectors involved into the planning process were Forestry, Tourism, Agriculture, Water and Fishery, Oil and Gas, Construction and Transportation. The assessment and valuation were done by a working group of experts, representing ministries of finance, economy and development, agriculture, water resources, union of economists, state university of management and economy, institute of strategic development and the ministry of nature protection. This technical working group was created under the BSAP process by the ministry of nature protection. The project hired Metroeconomica Ltd

(Britain) company economists to assist in capacity building and remote supervising the valuation process. The group was technical supported by project’s CTA. The ESVAL initiative was carried out from December 2013 until June 2014. Sources are available from PM/CTA for the BSAP project.

A capacity building need identified in the questionnaire was the development of ESS indicators.

The 5th National Report of Turkmenistan acknowledges that it is necessary to calculate the cost of ESSs at national level and make the related assessment of the ecosystems input into the global biosphere sustainability, although there is no information to suggest this has begun.

3.16 Ukraine Ecosystems and their services are infrequently mentioned in the Ukraine’s NBSAP and one of the goals of the Strategy of the State Environmental Policy of Ukraine (2010-2020) is ‘implementation of the sustainable nature management and natural ecosystem conservation’. The second phase of the Strategy (2016-2020) foresees the use of the ecosystem approach for the Strategy goals successful realization. The Strategy of the State Environmental Policy of Ukraine (2010-2020) and the National Action Plan on Environmental Protection (2011-2015) describe the development of the evaluation methods and classification for ESSs until 2015 including further use in practice and an informative campaign about the value of ecosystem services development and realization. The 4th National Report is the latest available for Ukraine. This document makes quite a bit of reference to ecosystem goods & services, however it is only available in Russian.

3.17 Uzbekistan Information provided from the questionnaires shows that the new NBSAP for period 2015-2025, currently under development but not yet approved, has frequent mention of ecosystem services. It contains regular references to the importance of understanding the values of ecosystem services in order to influence decision makers. It has a good understanding of the importance of ESS in Uzbekistan but recognises the lack of quantification of values/dependencies and the importance of this. The previous BSAP (1998-2008) also included frequent mentions of ecosystem services.

The NBSAP includes actions to develop capacity to undertake valuation of ecosystems services and to develop methodologies for actually incorporating these into national economic planning, however, specific valuation methodologies are not defined at this point. Currently there are no significant or systematic efforts made to value ecosystem services but such valuation is planned both in the new NBSAP and in various donor supported projects (i.e. GIZ and UNDP / GEF initiatives).

MAES initiatives in Uzbekistan:

 ‘In-situ conservation of crop wild relatives by means of information, advanced management and practical application’ contracted by UNEP (2004 – 2011) also covers Uzbekistan.13  ‘Introduction of the concept of Payments for Ecosystem Services to Uzbekistan’ (2011-2013), contracted by CAREC with the goal of protecting the biodiversity of local mountain ecosystems of Uzbekistan by introducing the concept of Payment for Ecosystem Services to the environmental management of the country.29 The ESSs covered are drinking water, grazing and irrigated agriculture.  ‘Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Regulating and Supporting Ecosystem Services in Agriculture Production’ 30 conducted by GEF (2013-2016). The goal is to mainstream the conservation and use of fruit tree biodiversity to enhance ecosystem services and thereby improve the resiliency of traditional agricultural production systems in water-scarce landscapes.

3.18 General The desk based search also provided some information about general initiatives which have been undertaken to map ecosystem functions and services in Eastern Europe. Projects covering more than one country have been included under the relevant country headings. Two examples of such projects which apply a broader regional approach to mapping and assessing the ESS and cover several neighbouring countries are:  ‘Mapping ecosystem functions and services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets’ (2012) was carried out by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and presented a set of models for assessing ecosystem functions (ESF) and ecosystem services (ESS)31. It mapped a diverse set of provisioning, regulating and cultural services, focusing on services that depend on the landscape structure. Services were mapped using global-scale data sets and included the countries Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedoniae, Moldova and Ukraine. The ESSs covered were food crop yield, wild food, carbon sequestration, erosion protection, flood protection, pollination, air quality and tourism. e In the remainder of this report ‘Macedonia’ or FYRoMacedonia refers to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 28

 ‘Mapping Ecosystem Functions and Services in the Ukraine Region and Central Europe’ (2011) was also carried out by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 32 It concluded that ESSs are available at different places to where they are needed. It included the countries Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. The ESSs covered were crop production, wild food, pollination, air quality regulation, carbon sequestration, flood risk protection and tourism.

These two general studies covering multiple countries that were identified were conducted in the Netherlands using global-scale data sets. No studies on such a large scale involving so many countries were found to have originated in the EECCA or SEE countries themselves, showing the value of the analysis carried out by institutes in other countries.

4. Annexes

Annex 1 Example of survey questionnaire

Scoping document questionnaire

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in EECCA and SEE countries; and support to the revision of NBSAPs

Name of the person completing the questionnaire: Capacity in which you are completing questionnaire: Organization Country Contact address/email

Introduction

Based on the outcomes of the 6th Biodiversity in Europe Conference (April 2013, Batumi, Georgia), countries have highlighted the need for support to create national targets and indicators linked to Aichi Targets 1, 2 and 4 under strategic goal A of the global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and Action 7 of the Pan-European 2020 Strategy for Biodiversity.

Sub global ecosystem assessments and TEEB studies have been initiated at different scales during the last years. Although national activities (e.g. TEEB scoping study for Georgia) are being developed in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA)f countries and South East European (SEE) countries there is currently no overview of knowledge on the subject for the entire region.

The ongoing initiatives apply a variety of approaches and methodologies to map and assess ecosystems and their services and use different classifications and conceptual models. Case studies dealing with specific ecosystem and/or ecosystem services are developed in the framework of projects or research activities.

In addition, in Central Asia there is a request from countries to build capacity for a better understanding of ecosystem services and their values and how to integrate these values into policy making through their NBSAPs.

This questionnaire has been prepared and distributed by ECNC on behalf of UNEP, with the aim:

 to provide an overview and get a better understanding of the ecosystem* and ecosystem services** mapping and assessment initiatives that are being developed in the EECCA countries and five SEE countriesg;

The results of the survey will be used to identify priority areas for capacity building, and to support development of activities aimed at regional and cross-border cooperation and sharing of experiences and good practice between stakeholders in the region.

By filling in this questionnaire you are helping frame these future actions and will be offered a chance to participate in any actions that will be implemented as a result of it.

*Definition of ecosystem, as used by the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services analytical framework (MAES): A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. For practical purposes it is important to define the spatial dimensions of concern.

** Definition of ecosystem service as used by the MAES: The benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. The direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being. The concept 'ecosystem goods and services' is synonymous with ecosystem services. The service flow in our conceptual framework refers to the actually used service.

f Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. g Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, FYRO Macedonia and Serbia 31

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

A.02: Does your country’s NBSAP mention valuing ecosystem services? (if yes, please specify which valuation method has been used and to what extend).

A.03: Have attempts been made, or are they being made, to map ecosystem services in your country? If yes, please list any ongoing or past initiatives, project s or studies to map and assess ecosystems and/or their services in your country.

A.04: Please specify the ecosystems that are covered by these initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives.

A.05: Please specify the ecosystem services that are covered by the initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives.

A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible)

A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative

A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative

A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative (please specify the language if the source is not available in English)

A.10: What capacity building needs do you consider you have for producing ecosystem services indicators?’

Annex 2 respondents to the survey questionnaire

Country Name Position Institution Contact Albania Elvana Ramaj Head of Biodiversity Ministry of the [email protected] Unit at the Environment Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas Albania Zamir Dedej President of NGO Inca NGO [email protected] Armenia Susanna Scientific Expert Institute of [email protected] ; Hakobyan Hydroecology and [email protected] Ichthyology of Scientific Center for Zoology and Hydrobiology, National Academy of Sciences Bosnia and Mehmed Cero CBD NFP Federal Ministry on [email protected] Herzegovina Environment and Tourism Georgia Tamaz Regional Partnership WWF Caucasus [email protected] Gamkrelidze and Communications Programme Office Manager Macedonia Branko President of NGO Bird Protection [email protected] Micevski Macedonia, Macedonian Ramsar Committee Macedonia Aleksandar Nature and Water EU Water Management [email protected] Ivanovski Management expert Project within the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of R. Macedonia Republic of Lilia Eladii Advisory Officer Ministry of Environment [email protected] Moldova

Serbia Jelena Ducic NFP Ministry of Agriculture [email protected] and Environmental Protection Turkmenistan Oleg NBSAP CTA and UNDP Turkmenistan [email protected] Guchgeldiyev Project Manager, Turkmenistan Ukraine Andriy-Taras Independent expert NGO Association [email protected] Bashta “Fauna” Ukraine Dr. Sergiy CBD NFP, Deputy Division of Econet [email protected] ; Gubar Director - Head of Development and Division Biosafety, Directorate of Natural Resources Protection Uzbekistan Irina UNDP-GEF Project UNDP [email protected] Bekmirzaeva National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011- 2020 Strategic Plan in Uzbekistan

Annex 3 received filled in questionnaires

Albania

Name of the person completing the questionnaire: Elvana Ramaj Capacity in which you are completing questionnaire: Head of Biodiversity Unit at the Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas Organization Ministry of the Environment Country Albania Contact address/email [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

- Bio products; - Traditional handcrafts A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible) UNDP-GEF for MPA Karaburun-Sazan – contact person Violeta Zuna e-mail: [email protected] KfW in Prespa National Park - contact person: Thimaq Lako e-mail: [email protected] JICA project in Divjake-karavasta National Park - contact person: Sajmir Hoxha [email protected] A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative Details above A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative All initiatives are currently on-going since 2013 and to be completed by the end of 2015 A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative (please specify the language if the source is not available in English) For Marine Protected Area of Karburun - Sazan and Prespa National Park links available at the web address: www.iwlearn.org A.10: Please specify the indicators per ecosystem / ecosystem service for every initiative separately Not available at the moment as the initiatives are on-going for the first time in Albania.

Capacity building requirements include training workshops and experience sharing with more advance countries in this matter, preferably EU Member States A.11: Please specify the quantification methods of the indicators (case specific field work, statistics, interpolation modelling, other; please indicate data sources whenever possible) Not available yet Indicators identification and development is an issue to be largely addressed in the future. Technical assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. A.12: If applicable, please specify for each initiative the EU Directive reporting indicators & data used (please indicate if the country / regional mapping study has made use of existing national reporting structures for the Habitat, WFD or Marine Strategy reporting obligations, and if so please refer to those, add examples/ copies, identify which indicators are used for both EU reporting and your ecosystem service assessment). For all three initiatives Habitat Directive classification have been used for habitats, including respective codes. WFD indicators are used for the environmental objectives assessment

Name of the person Zamir Dedej completing the questionnaire: Capacity in which you are President of INCA completing questionnaire: Organization Institute for Nature Conservation in Albania (INCA) NGO Country Albania Contact address/email [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

A.01: To what extend are ecosystems and their services mentioned in your countries NBSAP (National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans)?If mentioned, please provide some details

36 below. Not mentioned Frequently mentioned X Infrequently mentioned Extensively mentioned More the ecosystem that the services. Albania is preparing the new NBSAP A.02: Does your country’s NBSAP mention valuing ecosystem services? (if yes, please specify which valuation method has been used and to what extend). No, elaborated in 1999 this was yet not a priority. There is a point in the document referring to the need for “Cost-benefit analysis for the protection and preservation of biological diversity” A.03: Have attempts been made, or are they being made, to map ecosystem services in your country? If yes, please list any ongoing or past initiatives, project s or studies to map and assess ecosystems and/or their services in your country. There are few attempts in this direction for not saying there are not. In 2014 the Ministry of Environment started a project named “Payment for Ecosystem Services” A.04: Please specify the ecosystems that are covered by these initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. Forest A.05: Please specify the ecosystem services that are covered by the initiative(s).Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives.

A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible) Ministry of Environment A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative Institute of Nature Conservation in Albania, CVNP A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative N/a A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative(please specify the language if the source is not available in English) N/a A.10: Please specify the indicators per ecosystem / ecosystem service for every initiative separately N/a A.11: Please specify the quantification methods of the indicators (case specific field work, statistics, interpolation modelling, other; please indicate data sources whenever possible) N/a A.12: If applicable, please specify for each initiative the EU Directive reporting indicators & data used (please indicate if the country / regional mapping study has made use of existing national reporting structures for the Habitat, WFD or Marine Strategy reporting obligations, and if so please refer to those, add examples/ copies, identify which indicators are used for both EU reporting and your ecosystem service assessment). N/a

Armenia

Name of the person Susanna Hakobyan completing the questionnaire: Capacity in which you are Scientific Expert completing questionnaire: Organization Institute of Hydroecology and Ichthyology of

Scientific Center for Zoology and Hydrobiology, National Academy of Sciences Country Armenia Contact address/email 7 Paruyr Sevak St., 0014 Yerevan, Armenia / [email protected] ; [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

A.01: To what extend are ecosystems and their services mentioned in your countries NBSAP (National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans)? If mentioned, please provide some details below. Not mentioned Frequently mentioned Infrequently mentioned v Extensively mentioned In various extends assessments of the states of ecosystems are presented in CBD National Reports - Armenia (First - 1999, Second – 2001, Third – 2006, Fourth - 2009, Fifth - 2014)., Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Republic of Armenia (1999), National Action Plan for the Programme of Work on Protected Areas (2012), as well as in the Second National Action Programme To Combat Desertification in Armenia (2002) and Second National Communication on Climate Change (2010). However, only in recent years steps have been made to incorporate the Ecosystem Services (ES) approach into existing decision-making processes, plans and budgets linking poverty reduction, protected areas management and environmental sustainability. This is the goal of the UNDP/GEF project Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services (2012-2014). The overall objective of the project is to equip decision makers and other stakeholders with tools and evidence demonstrating how to incorporate an Ecosystem Services (ES) approach into existing decision-making processes, plans and budgets linking poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. The project builds on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment approach that expands the focus beyond how development affects ecosystems to include how development depends on ecosystems. A law on innovative economic instruments in the environment sector was approved by the Government in 2013. It is proposed to submit an action / implementation plan to the Government related to this law. A new law on ecosystem services will be one of the implementation points. It is anticipated that this will establish a methodology on natural capital valuation and cover indicators on green growth and green funding. A new environmental law is also being developed with support from the Government of Germany. This umbrella law is expected to acknowledge the importance of the ecosystems services approach and the valuation of natural assets. A.02: Does your country’s NBSAP mention valuing ecosystem services? (if yes, please specify which valuation method has been used and to what extend). No but envisaged in new NBSAPs, in particular in the Third National Action Programme to Combat Desertification in Armenia , which is under preparation with the assistance of the UNDP CO Armenia. A.03: Have attempts been made, or are they being made, to map ecosystem services in your country? If yes, please list any ongoing or past initiatives, project s or studies to map and assess ecosystems and/or their services in your country. UNDP-UNEP PEI Ecosystem Valuation Pilot Study Armenia UNDP/UNEP project “Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services” In different extends, directly or indirectly ecosystem services in Armenia are mapped in the following initiatives: ME&A currently carries out the Clean Energy and Water Program (CEW) for USAID in Armenia (2011-

2014) UNDP/GEF “Reducing Transboundary Degradation of the Kura-Aras River Basin” (2011-2014) ENPI East 2010 “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” (2012-2015) EU/UNDP Sustainable management of pastures and forest in Armenia to demonstrate climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits and dividends for local communities. UNDP/GEF Project “Developing the Protected Area System of Armenia” (2010-2014). A.04: Please specify the ecosystems that are covered by these initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. Mountain Ecosystems Freshwater Ecosystems Forest Ecosystems A.05: Please specify the ecosystem services that are covered by the initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. Water quality / quantity Air quality / dust Impact on the land resources Waste generation Impact on biodiversity Noise A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible) UNDP CO Armenia Armen Martirosyan E-mail: [email protected] Karen Jenderedjian E-mail: karen_ [email protected] RA Ministry of Nature Protection A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative RA Ministry of Economy National Academy of Sciences National Council on Sustainable Development A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative See A03 A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative (please specify the language if the source is not available in English) http://www.teebweb.org/countryprofile/armenia/ UNDP/UNEP project “Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services” http://www.undp.org/content/dam/armenia/docs/FINAL%20REPORT%20KARABERD-ENG.pdf UNDP/GEF Project “Developing the Protected Area System of Armenia” (2010-2014) http://www.mnp.am/?p=310 A.10/11. What capacity building needs do you consider you have for producing ecosystem services indicators Training of appropriate personal Awareness & capacity building Case studies A.10: Please specify the indicators per ecosystem / ecosystem service for every initiative separately - A.11: Please specify the quantification methods of the indicators (case specific field work, statistics, interpolation modelling, other; please indicate data sources whenever possible) - A.12: If applicable, please specify for each initiative the EU Directive reporting indicators & data used (please indicate if the country / regional mapping study has made use of existing national

39 reporting structures for the Habitat, WFD or Marine Strategy reporting obligations, and if so please refer to those, add examples/ copies, identify which indicators are used for both EU reporting and your ecosystem service assessment). N/A

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Name of the person Mehmed Cero completing the questionnaire: Capacity in which you are CBD NFP completing questionnaire: Organization Federal Ministry on Environment and Tourism Country Bosnia and Herzegovina Contact address/email [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

Ecosystems and their services have been emphasized in the first part of NBSAP document i.e. State of biodiversity towards 20 Aichi targets, particularly in Aichi target 14 (Preserved ecosystems and their essential services). In Aichi target 14, different ecosystems and their services are identified in BiH; however, it is considered that so far no significant research in this field has been undertaken. Ecosystems and their services are also described in other Aichi targets too, trying to explain the connection between e.g. pollution and degradation of ecosystems hence its services (Aichi target 8), importance of sustainable production and use of natural resources for sustaining ecosystems and their services (Aichi target 4), importance of sustainable agriculture, aquaculture and forestry for sustaining ecosystems and their services (Aichi target 7) etc. A.02: Does your country’s NBSAP mention valuing ecosystem services? (if yes, please specify which valuation method has been used and to what extend). Valuing ecosystem services gained very important place in the NBSAP document. The most relevant national goals and measures mentioned in the NBSAP linked to ecosystem services are, as follows:  National goal 2 “By 2020, the biodiversity values are integrated in development strategies and strategic plans, with an emphasis on rural development”; measure 2.5. “Prepare a Study regarding the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for BiH”. This measure and its activities are planned to be finished by 2018.  National goal 11 “By 2016, the specific biodiversity of BiH (canyon, mountain, high mountain and wetland ecosystems, karst field ecosystems and ecosystems of alluvial plains) are mapped and protected in accordance with the applicable spatial documents”; measure 11.2 “Preparation of analysis (including mapping) for planned/future protected areas”. This

measure and its activities are planned to be finished by 2016.

Ecosystem services are recognized as priority issues in the two out of four implementation plans of NBSAP as follows: 1. Communication Strategy (as one of the communication tool e.g. publications on ecosystem services and their protection); 2. Plan for capacity development.

According to the Fifth National Report to CBD (2014), no significant research in the field of valuing ecosystem services has been undertaken in BiH. However, this Report provides a qualitative description of the state and importance of ecosystem services in BiH (estimates by experts involved in the NBSAP development). Also, there have been a few research activities in BiH regarding assessment and valorisation of ecosystem services. The current studies are mostly independent and isolated attempts by the academicians, higher education students, and experts, to bring the topic closer to the stakeholders and the wider public. In addition to that, few studies and assessments were conducted within the framework of various projects and most of them are linked to certain locations (case studies).

When it comes to the protected areas, the trend of economic valorisation has just appeared in BiH. The perception in terms of nature protection that does not yield economic profit has been present here to date and the advantage is given to projects that have ‘existential importance’ while natural resources are being irreversibly destroyed in the process with short-term financial effects (Information on Protected Natural Areas of the Sarajevo Canton, 2007). A.03: Have attempts been made, or are they being made, to map ecosystem services in your country? If yes, please list any ongoing or past initiatives, project s or studies to map and assess ecosystems and/or their services in your country. Unfortunately, there have not been attempts for mapping the ecosystem services.

Past and current initiatives, projects or studies to assess ecosystems and/or their services are: 1. The World Wide Fund for Nature – WWF Pilot Project „Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of the Hutovo blato Nature Park according to the Protected Area Benefits Assessment Tool (PA-BAT)” (2011) was conducted in BiH for the first time, showing that Hutovo blato is one of the most productive ecosystems in BiH and its conservation is not only important for all living organisms that depend on it, but also for the economy of the entire region; 2. Feasibility Study for the Zvijezda Mountain Protected Area, Municipality of Vareš (2014) used a cost-benefit analysis for establishing a protected area by valorising ecosystems of Mountain Zvijezda with methodology of TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity); 3. Project “Development of Economic Transferability Study of Plitvice National Park in Croatia to Una National Park in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (2014) evaluates current economic value of the NP Una using the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework and potential economic value of the NP Una if specific policies, activities and measures are transferable from the NP Plitvice Lakes. Evaluation of the TEV of the NP Una will be conducted using one of the available methods or combination of methods (market price method, avoided cost method, replacement cost method, mitigation cost method, production function-based method and benefit transfer method), taking into account available data on various ecosystem services, and activities in the NP Una. A.04: Please specify the ecosystems that are covered by these initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. All three above mentioned examples concerned karst ecosystems in general.

A.05: Please specify the ecosystem services that are covered by the initiative(s).Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. 1. Ecosystem services that were analysed are: flood protection, total outputs of services from the ecosystem, value of wetland; 2. Ecosystem services analysed are: provisioning services (raw materials, non-timber forest products and medicinal resources), regulating services (carbon sequestration and climate regulation, purification of water and air, pollination, erosion control, pest and disease control), supporting services (supporting habitats), cultural services (recreational experiences and tourism); 3. Details are not yet available. A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible) 1. Zoran Mateljak, WWF, T: +387 63 319 141 email: [email protected] 2. Fethi Silajdžić, ENOVA d.o.o. Sarajevo, T:+387 33 279 101 email: [email protected] 3. Samir Bajrović, Environment Innovation Association, T:+387 33 279 109 email: [email protected] A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative 1. This study has been carried out as part of the partnership project between WWF and Oxfam Italia in the Project “The Unexplored Heart of Europe”. Project supports the creation and promotion of sustainable environment-based tourism in Bosnia and Herzegovina within the component “Pilot initiatives to promote local economies based on the sustainable development of the natural resources of two protected areas”. This component focused on two contrasting protected areas Sutjeska National Park and Hutovo Blato Nature Park. 2. No partner. 3. UNDP. A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative 1. Pilot project was developed in 2011; 2. Study was developed in 2014 (July-October); 3. Project is still in implementation phase. A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative(please specify the language if the source is not available in English) Report regarding the first initiative is sent by email; other do not have available links/sources to these documents. A.10: Please specify the indicators per ecosystem / ecosystem service for every initiative separately There are no specified indicators for ecosystem services. A.11: Please specify the quantification methods of the indicators (case specific field work, statistics, interpolation modelling, other; please indicate data sources whenever possible) There are no specified quantification methods of the indicators. A.12: If applicable, please specify for each initiative the EU Directive reporting indicators & data used (please indicate if the country / regional mapping study has made use of existing national reporting structures for the Habitat, WFD or Marine Strategy reporting obligations, and if so please refer to those, add examples/ copies, identify which indicators are used for both EU reporting and your ecosystem service assessment). /

Georgia

Name of the person Tamaz Gamkrelidze completing the questionnaire:

Capacity in which you are Regional Partnership and Communications Manager completing questionnaire: Organization WWF Caucasus Programme Office Country Georgia Contact address/email [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

A.02: Does your country’s NBSAP mention valuing ecosystem services? (if yes, please specify which valuation method has been used and to what extend). YES, but no specific method is mentioned. As a side note: Based on good cooperation results between MoE, UNEP and involved NGOs, most probably the UNEP TEEB approach may be adopted. TEEB is mentioned! A.03: Have attempts been made, or are they being made, to map ecosystem services in your country? If yes, please list any ongoing or past initiatives, project s or studies to map and assess ecosystems and/or their services in your country. None so far There was only “TEEB Scoping Study – Georgia” conducted to map most important sectors for TEEB, but no mapping of ecosystem services. Link to publication; http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teeb-georgia-scoping-study-2013/ A.04: Please specify the ecosystems that are covered by these initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives.

A.05: Please specify the ecosystem services that are covered by the initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives.

A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible)

A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative

A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative

A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative (please specify the language if the source is not available in English)

A.10: Please specify the indicators per ecosystem / ecosystem service for every initiative separately

A.11: Please specify the quantification methods of the indicators (case specific field work, statistics, interpolation modelling, other; please indicate data sources whenever possible)

A.12: If applicable, please specify for each initiative the EU Directive reporting indicators & data used (please indicate if the country / regional mapping study has made use of existing national reporting structures for the Habitat, WFD or Marine Strategy reporting obligations, and if so please refer to those, add examples/ copies, identify which indicators are used for both EU reporting and your ecosystem service assessment).

FYRO Macedonia

Name of the person Branko Micevski completing the questionnaire: Capacity in which you are President of completing questionnaire: Organization Bird Protection Macedonia, Macedonian Ramsar Committee Country Macedonia Contact address/email [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

A.02: Does your country’s NBSAP mention valuing ecosystem services? (if yes, please specify which valuation method has been used and to what extend). No A.03: Have attempts been made, or are they being made, to map ecosystem services in your country? If yes, please list any ongoing or past initiatives, project s or studies to map and assess ecosystems and/or their services in your country. No A.04: Please specify the ecosystems that are covered by these initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. - A.05: Please specify the ecosystem services that are covered by the initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. - A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible) - A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative - A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative -

A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative (please specify the language if the source is not available in English) Micevski, B., 2002. Inventory of Macedonian wetlands (as natural resources). BSPSM’s Special edition 2/02. pp.72. (only mapping of wetlands)

Micevski, B., 2000. LIS files of CORINE Biotopes Macedonia. Project Report, pp.105. (First Network of protected areas in Macedonia) ( only mapping of CORINE Biotopes in Mkd) A.10: Please specify the indicators per ecosystem / ecosystem service for every initiative separately - A.11: Please specify the quantification methods of the indicators (case specific field work, statistics, interpolation modelling, other; please indicate data sources whenever possible) - A.12: If applicable, please specify for each initiative the EU Directive reporting indicators & data used (please indicate if the country / regional mapping study has made use of existing national reporting structures for the Habitat, WFD or Marine Strategy reporting obligations, and if so please refer to those, add examples/ copies, identify which indicators are used for both EU reporting and your ecosystem service assessment). -

Name of the person Aleksandar Ivanovski completing the questionnaire: Capacity in which you are Nature and Water Management expert completing questionnaire: Organization EU Water Management Project within the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of R. Macedonia Country Macedonia Contact address/email [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

45 classification system used in the initiatives. Predominantly aquatic ecosystems A.05: Please specify the ecosystem services that are covered by the initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives.

A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible) Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of Republic of Macedonia A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative

A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative 2008-2010 A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative (please specify the language if the source is not available in English) Not online A.10: Please specify the indicators per ecosystem / ecosystem service for every initiative separately

A.11: Please specify the quantification methods of the indicators (case specific field work, statistics, interpolation modelling, other; please indicate data sources whenever possible)

Moldova

Name of the person Lilia Eladii completing the questionnaire: Capacity in which you are Advisory Officer completing questionnaire: Organization Ministry of Environment Country Republic of Moldova Contact address/email [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

There is also an analysis/study undertaken and one report published within GEF/UNDP NBSAP project 2009-2013 “The Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Republic of Moldova And Final Input on Financials of NBSAP”.

A.02: Does your country’s NBSAP mention valuing ecosystem services? (if yes, please specify which valuation method has been used and to what extend). Valuation of ecosystem services per sectors, from biodiversity point of view, was done.

From NBSAP> Evaluarea serviciilor ecosistemice Studiile efectuate pînă în prezent la nivel mondial arată că costurile degradării biodiversităţii sunt greu de stabilit, dar acestea sunt substanţiale şi în creştere. Raportul privind evaluarea economică a ecosistemelor şi biodiversităţii la nivel internaţional (CDB, 2008) estimează că pierderea anuală a serviciilor ecosistemice reprezintă echivalentul a 50 de miliarde EUR, iar până în anul 2050 pierderile cumulate se vor ridica la 7% din PIB. Deşi nu se poate stabili o valoare directă a biodiversităţii, valoarea economică a bunurilor şi serviciilor oferite de ecosisteme a fost estimată la 16-54 trilioane USD/anual. Valorile au fost calculate luând în considerare serviciile oferite de ecosisteme (producţia de hrană, materii prime, controlul climei şi al gazelor atmosferice, circuitul nutrienţilor şi apei, controlul eroziunii, formarea solului etc.). Valoarea medie a serviciilor oferite de ecosisteme (35 trilioane USD/anual) este aproape dublă faţă de produsul intern brut de la nivelul mondial (estimat în acelaşi studiu la 18 trilioane USD/anual). Pentru Republica Moldova a fost elaborat în a. 2013 un Raport special „Valoarea economică a serviciilor ecosistemice în Republica Moldova”, în cadrul proiectului implementat de Fondul Global de Mediu şi Programul Naţiunilor Unite pentru Dezvoltare „Planificarea naţională în domeniul biodiversităţii pentru a susţine implementarea Planului Strategic al CDB 2011-2020 în Republica Moldova” şi publicat pe pagina web al Oficiulu Biodiversitate, pe lîngă Ministerul Mediulu (http://bsapm.moldnet.md). În Raport sunt prezentate argumentele importante cu aspect economic pentru a sprijini managementul durabil al ecosistemelor, precum şi identificarea potenţialelor activităţi în cadrul sectoarelor economiei naţionale, care pot fi promovate în scopul încurajării gestionării durabile a ecosistemelor şi obţinerea valorilor economice cheie pentru reinvestire în conservarea biodiversităţii, după cum urmează: 1) Agricultura Păşunile şi ecosistemele agricole furnizează în Republica Moldova servicii de aprovizionare (furnizare de produse agricole) estimate în anul 2011 la 3900 milioane dolari USD. Această valoare nu ia în considerare serviciile de regularizare (retenţia apei, regularizarea scurgerilor de suprafaţă şi eroziunea solului, etc). Cele mai importante produse furnizate sunt produsele animaliere şi producţia vegetală. Conservarea biodiversităţii, înseamnă pentru creşterea animalelor şi culturile agricole, o gospodărire durabilă a păşunilor şi ecosistemelor agricole prin extinderea şi diversificarea produselor eco-agricole. Gestionarea durabilă a ecosistemelor în domeniul agricol poate adăuga economiei naţionale peste 1883,33 milioane USD în viitorii 25 ani. 2) Silvicultura şi cinegetica Ecosistemele forestiere furnizează servicii importante de aprovizionare cu produse lemnoase şi nelemnoase. Serviciile furnizate de ecosistemele forestiere în Republica Moldova sunt estimate la cca. 28,3 ml. dolari USD în anul 2011. Actualmente, sectorul forestier, în special din cadrul autorităţilor administraţiei publice locale, este afectat de tăierile ilicite şi de interesul scăzut al administratorilor de a utiliza produsele forestiere nelemnoase. Într-un scenariu de gestionare durabilă a ecosistemelor, cu descreşteri

însemnate în ceea ce priveşte tăierile ilicite şi o creştere a interesului pentru produsele nelemnoase ale pădurii, valoare prezentă netă (25 ani, rata de 10%) este estimată la 578,8 milioane USD. Chiar dacă serviciile de aprovizionare ale ecosistemelor forestiere pot scădea în viitorul apropiat, după 27 ani se estimează că aceste valori se vor recupera. Crearea fondurilor de vînătoare este o activitate costitoare şi autorităţile responsabile de crearea acestora şi de protecţia speciilor de vînat trebuie să creeze mecanisme de acordare a serviciilor ecosistemice de la folosinţa fondurilor de vînătoare, prin acoperirea cheltuielilor de conservare a biodiversităţii cinegetice. 3) Managementul apelor Prin conservarea biodiversităţii şi a integrităţii ecosistemelor se obţin capacităţi sporite a acestor componente de a furniza servicii de regularizare, cum ar fi retenţia apei, a scurgerilor de suprafaţă, regularizarea eroziunii solului. Reducerea cantităţii de sol erodat se transferă în diminuarea costurilor de tratare a apei de uz casnic. Valoarea din 2011 a costurilor de tratare a apei evitate, pentru Republica Moldova, este de 3,4 milioane USD în 2011, în timp ce, în cazul în care se va menţine integritatea ecosistemelor prin conservarea biodiversităţii, se pot adăuga costuri ratate în valoare de 3,5 milioane USD în viitorii 25 ani. Reducerea gradului de eroziune a solului va diminua semnificativ costurile de menţinere a funcţionalităţii sistemelor de irigare. 4) Piscicultura Ecosistemele acvatice furnizează servicii de aprovizionare, principalul produs fiind peştele. Acest sector este serios afectat de un nivel foarte ridicat al pescuitului ilegal, de degradare a bazinelor piscicole acvatice, lichidarea unor gospodării specializate de reproducere şi creştere a producţiei piscicole şi de creştere a peştelui pentru consum. Dacă va fi diminuată simţitor numai activitatea pescuitului ilegal, prin implementarea prevederilor legislaţiei în vigoare, contribuţia totală a sectorului la economia naţională se poate dubla, în timp ce costurile pentru gestionarea durabilă al resurselor biologice acvatice, ar rămâne aceleaşi. 5) Turism şi recreere Interesul pentru ecoturism este în creştere în Republica Moldova. Eco-turiştii apreciază din ce în ce mai mult locurile unde resursele naturale sunt protejate, fiind astfel beneficiari ai serviciilor ecosistemice culturale şi naturale: peisaj şi recreere. Ecosistemele nederanjate vor continua să atragă turişti în timp ce disponibilitatea lor de a plăti pentru acţiuni legate de conservarea biodiversităţii va creşte şi poate fi captată prin diferite mijloace (ex: tarife de vizitare). Traseele ecoturistice, de rînd cu obiecte ale patrimoniului natural, vor include monumente culturale şi istorice, situri arheologice şi alte obiecte ale patrimoniului cultural. Serviciile ecosistemice în sectorul ecoturismului sunt estimate în Republica Moldova la o valoare de 5,9 milioane USD în 2001 şi o valoare prezentă (rata de 10% pe 25 ani) de 79,8 milioane USD. În 2011, contribuţia directă şi indirectă a ecoturismului la PIB este estimată la 7,9 milioane USD. 6) Reducerea efectelor dezastrelor naturale Prin furnizarea de servicii de regularizare a apei şi solului (cum ar fi retenţia apei, reglarea eroziunii solului, controlul nutrienţilor) ecosistemele pot produce efecte importante în ceea ce priveşte reducerea efectelor inundaţiilor, eroziunii solului său alunecărilor de teren. Dacă funcţiile protective ale ecosistemelor ar servi la micşorarea efectelor calamitaţilor naturale cu numai 10%, atunci valoarea serviciilor de regularizare ale ecosistemelor în termeni de reducere a distrugerilor în Republica Moldova, este estimată între 13,4 şi 19,7 milioane USD pe an. Funcţiile de sechestrare a carbonului ale ecosistemelor forestiere ar putea genera adiţional 2,1 milioane USD (valori cumulative 25 ani) dacă numai proiectele actuale ar continua, şi nu s-ar considera şi altele.

A.04: Please specify the ecosystems that are covered by these initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. There are maps of forestland managed by governmental Forestry Agency Moldsilva (85% of countries forests) There is a lot of data on agriculture providing ecosystem and social services in Moldova (given the fact that 74% of country's territory is used for agriculture; 90% of the agricultural land is privatized).

A.05: Please specify the ecosystem services that are covered by the initiative(s). Please specify the classification system used in the initiatives. The same question as A.04

A.06: Please specify the organization or agency responsible for each initiative (please provide a contact person and details if possible) ??? A.07: Please specify the partners involved for each initiative The EU funded Regional program ENPI East FLEG II (www.enpi-fleg.org) has an activity on "Conducting an analytical study on forest ecosystem services (FES)" for the period 2014-2015.

A.08: Please specify the starting and ending date of each initiative 2014-2015 A.09: Please provide links/sources to available maps, reports, papers, etc. for every initiative (please specify the language if the source is not available in English) www.enpi-fleg.org A.10: What capacity building needs do you consider you have for producing ecosystem services indicators?’ - ES should be revealed/raised to higher level, through legal frame, to Governmental level - Then normative or regulatory (lower level) - ES in the country are not rationalized. Thus, there is a need of assistance/professional work with the authorities, as they established some services fees for utilization of one or another resource, without being aware that this is actually a fee for ES - Afterwards a synchronization between authorities should be regulated

Serbia

Name of the person Jelena Ducic completing the questionnaire: Capacity in which you are NFP completing questionnaire: Organization Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Country Serbia Contact address/email [email protected]

Initiatives related to mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.

A.02: Does your country’s NBSAP mention valuing ecosystem services? (if yes, please specify which valuation method has been used and to what extend).

See 5th National Report to CBD