Study of Freshwater Ecosystem Services in Croatia April, 2014 Carried out by: Dr. Sc. David Pithart MSc Ivana Petrov Rančić Petra Kutleša Aljoša Duplić IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK The project National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in Croatia is being implemented over a period of two years (from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2014). The Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, Nature Protection Directorate (MENP) is the government institution responsible for the implementation of the project and will act as the Executing Agency. The main implementing partner of the Ministry is the State Institute for Nature Protection (SINP), which is the central institution carrying out expert tasks of nature protection in Croatia. UNDP is involved as the GEF Agency for the project, and it is accountable to the GEF for the use of funds. The project is nationally implemented (NIM). The project National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in Croatia builds on the current status and achievements of Croatia with respect to its obligations vis-à-vis the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in particular the country’s biodiversity planning and Convention reporting processes, and its commitment to implement, at the national level, the CBD’s Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2020. The concept of ecosystem services that is directly connected to the Aichi Targets 14 and 15 of CBD, as well as the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, are still quite new for Croatia. Since 2013, three projects in Croatia were dealing with the economic valuation of biodiversity, where ecosystem services were used as a tool for sustainable management of nature protected areas (in Nature Park Vransko jezero and Nature Park Velebit), or for sustainable rural development. However, the concepts of “non-market forest functions” have been used in the forestry sector from the 1990s, as concepts in which the ecological and social benefits of the forest ecosystem were recognized and used in order to ensure sustainable forestry management. This topic has also been indirectly integrated in NBSAP 2008, within the chapters dedicated to the protection of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources (strategic objectives and action plans for cooperation with the sectors of agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing, water management and tourism). The Study for Freshwater Ecosystem Services (SFES), as a component of the project National Biodiversity Planning to Support the Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in Croatia, constitutes the first institutional initiative related to the assessment of biodiversity values and economic valuation of ecosystem services. It should provide arguments for the protection of freshwater ecosystems, based not only on their biodiversity, but also on other benefits that such ecosystems provide for human society or for the stability of the global ecosystem. These benefits should also be evaluated from the perspective of the economy. 2 Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Concept of ecosystem services in ecosystem evaluation ....................................................... 5 1.2. Values of floodplain ecosystems ............................................................................................. 6 1.3. Background reasons for the ecosystem services study ........................................................... 8 2. Character, values and threats of Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains (DSDF) .................................. 9 2.1. Floodplain ecosystems of the Drava, Sava and Danube basin ................................................ 9 2.2. Sava, Drava and Danube floodplains and nature protection ................................................ 12 2.3. Evaluation of Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains ............................................................... 13 2.4. Threats to Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains ................................................................... 14 3. Study area delimitation ................................................................................................................. 17 3.1. Drava, Sava and Danube floodplains (DSDF) ......................................................................... 17 3.2. Pilot study area (PSA) ............................................................................................................ 21 3.3. Alternative scenarios for ES evaluation in PSA ...................................................................... 41 3.2.1. State as-is ........................................................................................................................... 41 3.2.2. State with hydropower accumulations ............................................................................... 42 3.3.3. State of sustainable use ...................................................................................................... 42 4. Meetings with relevant stakeholders and experts ............................................................................ 43 5. Ecosystem services of DSDF and PSA ................................................................................................ 46 5.1. Identification of relevant ecosystem services ....................................................................... 46 5.2. Evaluation of particular ecosystem services ......................................................................... 47 5.2.1. Regulating ecosystem services ........................................................................................... 47 5.2.1.1. Flood mitigation .................................................................................................... 47 5.2.1.2. Nutrient retention ................................................................................................. 56 5.2.1.3. Carbon sequestration ............................................................................................ 60 5.2.2. Supporting ecosystem services ..................................................................................... 61 5.2.2.1. Habitat provision .......................................................................................................... 61 5.2.3. Provisioning services ........................................................................................................... 73 5.2.3.1. Wood production ......................................................................................................... 73 5.2.3.2. Fish provision ................................................................................................................ 80 5.2.3.3. Game animals provision ............................................................................................... 87 5.2.3.4. Drinking water provision .............................................................................................. 90 5.2.3.5. Gold provision (Gold prospecting, placer mining) ........................................................ 95 3 5.2.3.6. Sand and gravel provision........................................................................................... 96 5.2.4. Cultural services ............................................................................................................ 97 5.2.4.1. Recreation/tourism ...................................................................................................... 97 5.2.4.2. Art inspiration ............................................................................................................. 104 6. Incentives important for support and strengthening of ecosystem services in DSDF ................ 111 7. Summary and conclusions ........................................................................................................... 115 Literature ............................................................................................................................................. 119 LIST OF ACRONYMS CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity CICES - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services DSDF – Drava, Sava and Danube Floodplains ES – Ecosystem services GEF – Global Environment Facility HEP – Hrvatska elektroprivreda d.o.o. HEPP – Hydroelectric Power Plant MAES – Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services MAB – Man and Biosphere Reserve MENP – Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection MHS – Multipurpose Hydropower System Osijek NBSAP – National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NIM – Nationally implemented PAHPP North – Production Area Hydropower Plants North PSA – Pilot Study Area rkm – River kilometre SEE River – SFES – Study of Freshwater Ecosystem Services SINP – State Institute for Nature Protection TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TN – Total nitrogen TP – Total phosphorus UNESCO – The United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture UNDP – United Nations Development Programme VHS Osijek – Višenamjenski hidroenergetski sustav Osijek WFD – Water Framework Directive WMS – Web Map Server 4 1. Introduction 1.1. Concept of ecosystem services in ecosystem evaluation Increasing damage and devastation of natural ecosystems and the consequential loss of their functions, perceived as a disbalance of natural processes – e.g. the hydrological cycle or nutrient cycles and loss of their productivity – has led to