EXECUTORS

Taras Shevchenko Kiev National University

M.D.Grodzinskiy – Doctor of Geographical Science, Professor – Project Leader

Hydrobiology Institute, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

V.D.Romanenko – Doctor of Biological Science, Academician, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Botany Institute, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Yu.R.Sheliag-Sosonko – Doctor of Biological Science, Academician, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

                                                                                PROJECT RATIONALE

The idea of establishing an eco-network is considered as integral to organising the conservation of landscape and biodiversity and is key to implementing the European strategy aimed at conservation of landscapes and biodiversity (Sofia, 1995). The environmental network being created is viewed as a euronetwork intended to cover the whole European continent. That is why special importance is attached to studies that focus on designing eco-networks that will cover large areas of Europe and will be subsequently integrated into the European eco-network. The importance of these studies increases even further when it comes to transboundary regions. This reasoning provided the basis for the implementation of this Project. The Project focused on two major goals. First of all, it sought to develop principles, legal and regulatory framework and overall strategy for and ways of establishing an eco-network in the transboundary Dnipro River Basin. All this as well as analysis of regional parameters of landscape and biodiversity of the Dnipro Basin provided a methodological basis for the Project second and the main goal: to develop a master diagram of the eco-network for transboundary areas of the Dnipro River Basin.

The urgency of research on the development of an eco-network of the transboundary Dnipro Basin may be explained not only by the significance of this problem both at the European and national level but also by a great number of outstanding issues in this field. Incomplete understanding of these issues impedes efforts to create national eco-networks (Belarus, Russian and Ukraine) or the Dnipro Basin transboundary eco-network and to integrate the latter into the European eco-network. The key issues which require immediate attention include: absence of clearly-defined criteria for locating natural eco-network cores, which are consistent with European standards; gaps in the legal and regulatory framework governing eco-networking, absence of an agreed common strategy for designing an eco-network (particularly at the national level), application of the Basin-wide approach to eco-network designing, and absence of a list of network-building measures ranked on a geographical (regional) basis. Apart from this, enhanced landscape and biodiversity zones which should be looked upon as regional eco-network constituents have still not been identified in the Dnipro Basin. These and a number of other issues were identified as the Project main objectives.

1. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND OVERALL STRATEGY FOR ESTABLISHING THE TRANSBOUNDARY DNIPRO BASIN ECO-NETWORK

The eco-network of transboundary areas of the Dnipro River Basin should form part of the European eco-network which means that the two networks’ major goals should coincide. The European strategy of landscape and biodiversity conservation defines the European eco-network goals as follows [45]:

- Ensure conservation of the whole variety of ecosystems, habitats, biological species and their genetic diversity as well as of landscapes of European significance;

- Provide biological species with territories that are large enough to sustain them in normal environmental condition;

- Provide scope for migration and expansion of species;

- Arrange for restoration of key elements of disturbed ecosystems;

- Protect ecosystems from potential environmental threats.

These overall goals represent major goals of the designed network of the Dnipro Basin environmental corridors. At the same time, the Dnipro eco-network, particularly its transboundary section, must fulfill several specific goals, namely:

- Assign environmental corridor functions to ecosystems of rivers, floodplains and river valley terraces;

- Conserve and restore riverside biotopes and landscapes of the river valley as landscape and biological diversity centers;

- Ensure migration links among landscape and biological diversity centers located in different countries by creating transboundary environmental corridors;

- Create transboundary (bilateral and trilateral) landscape and biological diversity centers.

The aforesaid goals are of strategic importance and involve fulfilling a number of specific objectives by means of creating a network of environmental corridors in the Dnipro Basin. The main specific objectives are summarized in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Objectives of creating a network of environmental corridors in the Dnipro Basin

The above goals and objectives of the transboundary Dnipro Basin eco-network predetermine the overall strategy for designing it. Since the transboundary Dnipro Basin eco-network is expected to occupy a vast area it is designed on a basin-wide international scale. This includes constructing an eco-network master diagram, which will serve as a reference point at the subsequent design stage to be implemented on a regional scale. Finally, a detailed eco-network design plan is created at the local level. This hierarchical design strategy enables us to integrate local eco-networks into a unified system and to connect the Dnipro Basin eco-network to the European eco-network being currently designed. The overall eco-network design strategy for the Dnipro Basin is presented in diagram form in Fig. 1.1.

In the course of an analysis of the Dnipro Basin transboundary areas our primary concern is to locate areas that can be viewed as biological and landscape diversity conservation centers and are important for the entire territory under examination as eco-network cores. These should be interconnected by a network of environmental corridors. At the basin-wide eco-network design level the main task is to identify regions (zones) where it is advisable to create environmental corridors of basin-wide and regional importance. Another important task is the demarcation of the Dnipro Basin into areals (ranges) that differ from one another based on the necessity and expected efficiency of environmental corridors of regional and local significance. The eco-network master diagram provides insights into its general appearance. Subsequent design tasks are resolved at the regional and local level.

Fig.1.1. Ovl Strategy of Designing of the Dnipro Basin Eco-Network

2. CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING TERRITORIES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ECO-NETWORK

Only territories which meet one or several of the following general requirements were selected as natural cores (territories) of the Dnipro Basin eco-network.

1. They are characterized by enhanced or otherwise unique biodiversity;

2. They represent extant natural landscapes of high interregional significance;

3. They represent man-transformed landscapes of interregional cultural and historical importance.

These general requirements are used to establish a set of criteria for identifying natural cores of an eco-network. (Table 2.1)

Table 2.1. Criteria for identifying areas to be designated as natural cores of an interregional eco-network

In establishing criteria for designating areas as environmental corridors it is assumed that an environmental corridor is intended to serve as a connecting spatial link between biocenters and eco-network natural cores. Therefore, the primary criterion for identifying environmental corridors is a migration criterion, namely, an environmental corridor is one or several areals that may serve as a conduit for an exchange of genetic material and migration between biocenters (regional and natural cores) of an eco-network. This is possible subject to the following conditions:

1. The length of an environmental corridor does not exceed migration distances of most species inhabiting biocenters

2. The width of an environmental corridor enables populations to effectively use it as a migration and expansion (colonization) channel;

3. Edaphic conditions in an environmental corridor are identical or close to those of the biocenters (natural cores) it connects

4. An environmental corridor does not pose migration barriers and is free from other factors impeding migration and expansion of most species.

These conditions are used to establish criteria for identifying areas as environmental corridors (Table 2.2)

Table 2.2.. Criteria for identifying areas as environmental corridors

3. LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK GOVERNING THE CREATION OF THE ECO-NETWORK

A distinctive feature of the Dnipro Basin eco-network is that from the legal standpoint it is subject to three legislations. First of all, being designed as a constituent part of the European eco-network, the Dnipro Basin eco-network must conform to respective international legal rules. Second, the Dnipro Basin eco-network is being created as an interstate network and consequently must be based on trilateral and bilateral agreements of the Dnipro Basin countries. Finally, within the confines of each of the above-said countries the eco-network is subject to national environmental laws of that country.

This situation brings into sharp focus the following problems:

1) bringing legal rules in force at the three levels is a fairly complex task;

2) effective interstate cooperation agreements do not address all transboundary issues related to the creation of the eco-network;

3) relevant national laws of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine somewhat differ and have been finalized to varying degrees.

Nevertheless, the existing regulatory and legal acts provide a basis for creating the Dnipro Basin eco-network. Since the eco-network is expected to be incorporated into the European eco-network, it is necessary to resort to the relevant international legal documents. The major document in this field is the European strategy in the field of biological and landscape diversity (Sofia, 1995). To set up a network of interstate environmental corridors it is also necessary to take account of the Bonn Convention on the conservation of migratory wild animal species (1979). The Dnipro Basin countries, which are not part of the European Union, should identify natural cores of an eco-network of European significance taking into account the Convention on the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats (Bern, 1979) and relevant resolutions of the Convention standing committee that defined “areas of special conservation interest”. These areas must be integrated into Europe’s Emerald Eco-Network, which is considered to be analogous to the NATURA-2000 network for the EU member states.

In case of the Dnipro Basin, the natural cores of European significance are represented by areas listed in the Ramsar Convention on wetlands, protected areas awarded the European Diploma and areas designated as biogenetic reserves by the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, even though the Dnipro Basin countries have unique areas not found anywhere in Europe and characterized by relatively intact natural complexes, so far they have done very little to have these protected areas certified at the international level. In spite of the fact that most of the protected areas in the Dnipro Basin meet all the necessary criteria required to be awarded the European diploma or included in the wetlands list of the Ramsar Convention or, for local nature reserves and national parks to be recognized by the Council of Europe as having the European status, they have still not been granted this status. Therefore, in the light of the task of creating the Dnipro Basin eco-network as a constituent part of the European eco-network, the major strategic task now facing the Dnipro Basin countries is to step up and coordinate their efforts to have these protected areas certified at the international level.

It is possible to determine eco-network natural cores, i.e. landscapes of cultural and historical significance, on the basis of the criteria set out in the Convention on Worldwide Heritage adopted at the UNESCO general Conference in 1972. The Convention’s significance for the conservation of cultural landscapes increased even further after the adoption in 1992 by the UNESCO Worldwide Heritage Committee of revised criteria to be adhered to in the course of the implementation of the Convention.

The European Landscape Convention (Florentine Convention) adopted at the 718th meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe on July 19, 2000 created a very favourable environment for international cooperation in the field of assessment and recognition of cultural, historical and natural merits of landscapes. So far the Dnipro Basin countries have not signed it. However, we think that joining the Convention is necessary not only for the purposes of setting up an eco-network but also for resolving other numerous issues related to the conservation of landscape diversity.

The interstate legal mechanisms according to which the three countries should cooperate in setting up the Dnipro Basin eco-network have not been fully developed and this is hardly surprising since the idea of creating such a network is still in the process of being worked out.

Should this idea be officially approved it will be anchored by legal means. But even at this point in time the existing interstate agreements on environmental protection provide us with some legal mechanisms that enable us to design an interstate eco-network. In the first place these include legal rules governing the creation of transnational nature reserves which have a great role to play as natural cores of the eco-network. Within the transboundary Dnipro Basin such cores are first and foremost represented by transnational protected areas which are already regulated by respective interstate agreements. These include the Pripiat-Stokhod National Park (Belarus, Ukraine), “Briansk and Starogut Forests” biosphere reserve (Ukraine, Russia), and “Western Polesiye” biosphere reserve (Belarus, Ukraine and Poland).

It is apparent that the Dnipro Basin eco-network cannot be built now since there are too few bilateral and trilateral interstate protected areas in the region. Thus, the strategic priority for action is to create transboundary nature reserves in the transboundary Dnipro Basin.

5. REGIONAL ECO-NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES

The proposed strategy for designing the eco-network places special emphasis on dividing the Dnipro Basin into regions ranked in terms of their ability to accommodate regional and local eco-networks as constituents of the transboundary Dnipro Basin eco-network and in terms of the priority rating assigned to the creation of these networks in these regions.

The zoning was performed taking into account the degree of fragmentation of the natural vegetation cover, availability of nature reserves and protected areas, geographical distribution of endangered species’ areals and areas of great landscape diversity. The zoning map is shown in Fig. 5.1.

Depending on the type and priority rating of measures needed to create the eco-network the transboundary Dnipro Basin is divided into three regions: the right-bank Polesiye, Desna and the left-bank Slobozhanschina.

A distinctive feature of the right-bank Polesiye region is that much of it is already an environmental corridor and consequently there is no need to create one here. The natural cores located within the southern strip of this region (Little Polesiye) are typified by substantial landscape and biological diversity. However, most of them are small in size and their protection status does not allow them to effectively perform their function. Therefore, the expansion of the nature reserve network should be considered as a top-priority task for Little Polesiye. In addition, unlike the other regions Little Polesiye accommodates many natural cores and environmental corridors situated in direct proximity to large populated centers which have a certain impact on it. Special priority must be assigned here to the regulation of recreational activities, hunting and construction of cottages (country houses) in those city green belts which have been identified as environmental corridors.

Fig. 5.1. Zoning of the Transboundary Dnipro Basin on the basis of the priority rating attached to the creation of environmental

corridors and possibility of the creation of environmental corridors:

1 – Creating environmental corridors makes no sense since practically the whole area is covered by forest, (priority rating – 0),

2 – It is impossible to create environmental corridors since 100% of the area is arable land (priority rating – 0),

3 – Significant density of natural vegetation stretches requires creating several environmental corridors (priority rating – 3)

4 – Creation of an environmental corridor network should be considered a top-priority task given the medium fragmentation of the vegetation cover (priority rating – 4)

5 – High fragmentation of the vegetation cover complicates the process of creating environmental corridors (requires a lot of effort) (priority rating – 2)

6 – Since arable land accounts for much of the area the task of creating environmental corridors is extremely difficult (priority rating – 1).

In the Desna region of the eco-network, top priority should be assigned to the creation of large biogenetic reserves since the MSOP’s formal criteria currently require that only one core (biosphere reserve “Starogut and Briansk Forests”) be attributed to the natural cores of the European eco-network. It is necessary to create several natural cores of regional significance in order to enhance continuity of this eco-network. Top priority should be given to efforts to create such cores and environmental corridors in the districts of the Sumy region (Ukraine) located on the Ukrainian-Russian border because of breaks in many environmental corridors that go to Russia.

The left-bank Slobozhanschina region of the eco-network has its own specific features. Due to high fragmentation of the vegetation cover it is fairly difficult to create a ramified regional eco-network here and this task is not considered a priority. In contrast, great importance is attached to the migration links between the remaining small biocenters because of their importance for biodiversity conservation and particularly restoration efforts. That is why it is advisable to design and create local eco-networks here to offset inadequate continuity and other flaws of the regional eco-network. Creation of the local and regional eco-networks depends for its success on the identification and assessment of stretches that may potentially become renaturalization zones and over the longer term evolve into regional elements of the eco-networks.

6. ECO-NETWORK CONCEPT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

The implementation of the proposed concept of the transboundary Dnipro Basin eco-network depends on the coordination of national and international efforts to resolve numerous scientific, legal, organizational and educational problems involved in the creation of the eco-network. Below are listed top priority areas that are of strategic importance for the sustainable development of the Dnipro Basin.

Since the existing network of protected areas and sites in the Republic of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine cannot effectively serve as a basis for an eco-network that meets all the criteria and requirements established for the European eco-network, first priority should be assigned to the expansion of protected areas and sites located in the transboundary Dnipro Basin. This task involves resolving the following strategic issues:

- Identify (make an inventory of) areas with extant elements of natural landscapes and assess whether it is possible and worthwhile to grant them the status of protected areas;

- Expand the existing protected areas and sites which are part of the Dnipro Basin eco-network;

- Increase protective buffer zones around the existing protected areas and sites located in the transboundary Dnipro Basin.

Since the Dnipro Basin eco-network extends into the three countries it is necessary to create transboundary territorial elements of this eco-network and to establish consistent eco-network management regimes (methods). This task involves resolving the following strategic issues:

- Creation of contiguous protected areas in the border districts. In particular, paramount importance should be attached to the creation on the Belarus-Ukrainian border of the West Polesiye biosphere reserve, Rovenskiy nature reserve, and the Pripiat-Stokhod international park; on the Russian-Ukrainian border – of the Snovskiy nature reserve, Starogut and Briansk Forests national park and the Slobozhanskiy national park;

- Development and approval by the three countries of the common trilateral long-term network of transnational protected areas and sites;

- Development and approval of land management projects to be implemented on either side of the state border in the areas where transboundary territorial elements of the eco-network are located;

- Coordination and approval of projects focusing on water protection zones along the transboundary stretches of international watercourses.

Of paramount importance is the creation of the Dnipro Basin eco-network as a constituent part of the European eco-network and of national eco-networks of the riparian countries. This strategic task involves addressing the following priorities:

- International certification of the existing protected areas and sites of the Republic of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine as protected areas of international significance;

- Development of transboundary protected areas in compliance with criteria established for nature reserves of international significance;

- Making an inventory and assessment of cultural and historical landscapes with a view to including them in the UNESCO’s list of landscapes of global cultural importance;

- Recognition of wetlands as areas of international significance (in accordance with the Ramsar Convention);

- Creation of contiguous protected areas along the Polish border and integration of the Dnipro Basin eco-network into the Polish national eco-network (EECONET-Poland).

Given the fact that creating eco-networks is a new area in the environmental field a great many legal and regulatory issues remain unexplored and unregulated. Therefore legal regulation of the efforts to create the transboundary eco-network is a strategic challenge to the Dnipro Basin countries. This strategic task involves addressing the following priorities:

- Development of state programs aimed at the creation of national eco-networks in the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation and adoption of appropriate laws. Upon their approval the three sides will be faced with a task of coordinating them insofar as they relate to the Dnipro Basin;

- Adoption of regulatory and legal acts with the aim of regulating relations among subjects in the area of development of national eco-networks and the Dnipro Basin eco-network. Top priority should be assigned to the adoption of legal rules to coordinate activities carried out in certain branches of nature management in order to facilitate the development of eco-network constituents;

- Adoption of regulatory and legal acts relating to the establishment of environmental corridors and buffer zones of the eco-network, establishment of protection regimes and regulation of their utilization for business purposes. Of special importance is the harmonisation of rules established by legal and subordinate legal acts for sanitary protection zones, functional zones of nature reserves, water protection zones, protective shore-line strips and other zones used for environmental protection purposes. Apparently, this will call for the introduction of amendments and changes into the Water Code, Land Code, Forest Code, national environmental laws and other national environmental documents;

- Development of regulatory and legal acts that establish permissible anthropogenic loads for eco-network territorial elements. Given current nature management practices and existing legislation in this field, priority should be assigned to the adoption of laws establishing rules for and regimes of using eco-network areas for recreational purposes;

- Of paramount importance is the creation of an environment conducive to unconditional compliance with adopted laws and regulations governing the creation and functioning of the eco-network.

Since in terms of its content the eco-network concept is complex and innovative the resolution of many attendant issues is hindered by lack or inadequacy of respective scientific approaches.

Consequently, strategic significance is attached to the scientific justification of the Dnipro eco-network. The scientific tasks that need to be addressed in the first place include:

- Determination of optimum parameters of the eco-network (sizes of natural cores of different orders, length, width and configuration of environmental corridors, width and structure of buffer protection zones, etc.);

- Compilation of scientific maps needed to design and create eco-networks. Priority should be assigned to landscape, geobotanical and hydroecological maps for the Dnipro Basin. In so doing strategic significance should be attached to the harmonization of contour templates and explanatory legends of maps that are being created in the riparian countries;

- Development of scientific methods of assessing the current ecological state of populations, habitats, ecosystems and landscapes;

- Development of scientifically grounded methods of identifying and assessing the environmental, historical and cultural importance of ecosystems and landscapes;

- Development of scientific methods of assessing and preventing risks posed to eco-networks;

- Development of scientific foundations of monitoring and maintaining a cadastre of an eco-network and its individual elements.

Since the creation of the transboundary eco-network of the Dnipro Basin is related to activities of numerous different-calibre government bodies and affects different environmental objects (areas and sites) there is a need for organizational support in order to shore up measures to create the Dnipro Basin eco-network. The first-priority tasks include:

- Development of a master diagram of the Dnipro Basin eco-network and of regional eco-network diagrams compatible therewith;

- Establishment of mechanisms for coordinating eco-networking activities of central and local executive bodies, local government bodies and public environmental organizations;

- Formation of the riparian countries’ common database on the state of the eco-network sites and areas and creation of the eco-network geo-information system;

- In the long term particular significance will be attached to the establishment of a common trilateral monitoring center which will monitor the state of the entire Dnipro Basin eco-network.

Since the eco-network will encompass a large area and will require the implementation of a variety of complex measures entailing significant cash injections strategic significance is attached to the mobilization of financial resources required to establish the Dnipro Basin eco-network. The first-priority tasks include:

- Identification of eco-network self-financing sources such as natural resource usage fees (game, medicinal plants, timber, etc.) and establishment of mechanisms whereby the proceeds will be used for their intended purposes;

- Development and establishment of special nature management standards to regulate the use of land and soil, biological and water resources as well as air pollution within certain territorial eco-network elements. Development of environmentally-friendly forms of tourism within the eco-network area;

- Integration of financial resources obtained from different sources for the purpose of implementing the multifaceted eco-network development program;

- Attraction of foreign investment to finance the eco-network development projects.

Due to its novelty the idea of creating an eco-network has not as yet taken root in the people’s mind. This may strongly reduce its prospects for success and the very chance of it ever being realized. Therefore, the strategic priority for action is to popularize the eco-network and to assign to it educational, cultural and public-awareness raising functions. The first-priority tasks include:

- Develop programs involving public participation in the creation of the Dnipro Basin eco-network and local eco-networks which constitute it;

- Conduct pubic awareness campaigns to notify the public of the eco-network and its role;

- Conduct public hearings of regional and local eco-network development projects;

- Use the eco-network to develop environmental awareness among the citizenry in particular by using some environmental corridors as nature trails and tourist routes.