Evaluation of Forest Ecosystem Services (FES) in the Republic of Moldova July 2015 This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content, findings, interpretations, and con clusions of this publication are the sole responsibility of the FLEG II (ENPI East) Programme Team ( www.enpi-fleg.org) and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Implementin g Organizations. Technical Report: Evaluation of Forest Ecosystem Services (FES) in the Republic of Moldova Prepared by: Transilvania University of Brașov (TUB) Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering The material in this publication is copyrighted. Any copying or transmitting portions of information without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The author encourages dissemination of this work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of this report. The interest and willingness of Moldovan forestry and environment protection sectors as well as other key stakeholders to actively engage in collaboration with the Transilvania University of Brașov team on a diverse range of topics is gratefully acknowledged. We render thanks to all stakeholders from forestry, water management, agriculture, and tourism sectors as well as to local public administrations and academia who actively participated in consultations undertaken by the TUB Team in predicting the evolution of variables for the two alternative scenarios, collecting data and applying the valuation techniques. Photos: Transilvania University of Brașov, ENPI FLEG Design: Transilvania University of Brașov & Amedia July 2015 TRANSILVANIA UNIVERSITY FROM BRASOV FACULTY OF SILVICULTURE AND FOREST ENGINEERING 1 Sirul Beethoven - BRAŞOV 500123 www.unitbv.ro/silvic Content Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7 1. Snapshot on the forestry sector of Moldova ................................................................... 7 1.1. Forestry sector ........................................................................................................ 7 1.2. Economic Impact of Forest Ecosystem Services (FES) ........................................ 12 2. Qualitative assessment of FES ....................................................................................... 13 2.1. Conceptual framework .............................................................................................. 13 2.2. Ecosystem services (ES) identification ..................................................................... 15 2.3. Brief description of ES that Moldovan forests provide ............................................... 16 3. Benefits of FES to local communities .............................................................................. 22 3.1. Wood and NTFPs for rural communities ................................................................... 22 3.2. Carbon sequestration benefit as a FES ................................................................... 29 3.3. Landslides and floods prevention.............................................................................. 30 3.4. Cultural and recreational benefits for local communities from forest ......................... 31 4. Methodological aspects ................................................................................................... 33 4.1. Sector Scenario Assessment (SSA) ......................................................................... 33 4.2. Targeted sectors and evidence of economic FES benefits ....................................... 37 4.3. Management scenarios design ................................................................................. 39 5. BAU and SEM scenarios description ............................................................................... 41 51. Business as Usual (BAU) .......................................................................................... 42 5.2. Sustainable Ecosystem Management (SEM) ............................................................ 42 5.3. Sectoral description of BAU and SEM scenario ........................................................ 43 5.3.1. Tourism .............................................................................................................. 43 5.3.2. Forestry .............................................................................................................. 45 5.3.3. Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 47 5.3.4. Water management sector ................................................................................. 49 5.3.5. Disaster risk reduction ........................................................................................ 50 6. Monetary valuation of FES .............................................................................................. 51 6.1. Tourism .................................................................................................................... 51 6.1.1. Baseline value .................................................................................................... 51 6.1.2. FES value for tourism sector in BAU and SEM scenarios ................................... 53 6.2. Agriculture ................................................................................................................ 56 6.2.1. Baseline value .................................................................................................... 56 6.2.2. FES value for agriculture sector in BAU and SEM scenarios .............................. 59 6.3. Forestry .................................................................................................................... 62 6.3.1. Baseline value .................................................................................................... 62 6.3.2. FES value for forestry sector in BAU and SEM scenarios .................................. 63 6.4. Domestic water supply sector ................................................................................... 66 6.4.1. Baseline value .................................................................................................... 66 6.4.2. FES value for domestic water supply sector in BAU and SEM scenarios ........... 68 6.5. Natural disaster risk and climate change mitigation .................................................. 70 6.5.1. Baseline value .................................................................................................... 70 6.5.2. FES value for domestic water supply sector in BAU and SEM scenarios ........... 71 7. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) mechanisms ................................................... 74 8. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 77 9. Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 78 References ......................................................................................................................... 81 3 TRANSILVANIA UNIVERSITY FROM BRASOV FACULTY OF SILVICULTURE AND FOREST ENGINEERING 1 Sirul Beethoven - BRAŞOV 500123 www.unitbv.ro/silvic List of figures Figure 1: National Forest (NF) of the Republic of Moldova .................................................... 8 Figure 2: Species distribution in the Moldovan NF ................................................................ 9 Figure 3: People usually collect walnuts from trees and use them mainly for food or cashing on local markets .................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 4: Logs and branches gathered at felling site are meant primarily as fuelwood (Forest Enterprise Straseni, Moldsilva) ............................................................................................ 18 Figure 5: Lake Beleu, the core area of the Nature Reserve “Prutul de Jos” (Moldsilva), is home to a great biodiversity and provider of fish and water to local communities. ............... 18 Figure 6: Moldova is not a mushroom country, but many people collect them for personal use ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7: Income shares by source for the three sample villages ........................................ 24 Figure 8: Frequency of forest product collection in the three sample villages ...................... 25 Figure 9: Value share of forest products collection in the three sample villages .................. 25 Figure 10: Value for cash/subsistence for main forest products .......................................... 26 Figure 11: RFI over income quintiles – centralized results for the three sample villages ..... 27 Figure 12: Chopped wood of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) sold as energy wood, placed on a road market along with other stuff for construction (Chisinau city, 2014) ......... 28 Figure 13: Oak plantation created within carbon sequestration projects by Moldsilva.......... 30 Figure 14: The National Park Orhei – Curchi church and forest landscapes are important objectives of the touristic trail (http://www.cuvintul.md/article/2093/) .................................. 33 Figure 15: Overview on the SSA approach (Flores, 2012)