Towards Protection Of The Dniester River Lower Stream Wetlands Of Moldova1
towardS PROTECTION OF THE DNIESTER RIVER LOWer STREAM WETLANDS OF mOLDOVA1
P. Gorbunenko, A. Andreev, I. Trombitsky
BIOTICA Ecological Society, Chisinau, Moldova
1. History. The consortium of Moldavian environmental NGOs (ALTAIR, BIOTICA, CHIMECO, FAUNA, INQUA-MOLDOVA, MOLD-ECO, TERRA NOSTRA) had initiated the talks with Environmental Department of Moldova and certain state institutions (State University of Moldova, Fishery Research Station), regarding the elaboration of large project on the Dniester River biodiversity conservation and its water quality improvement. In 1997 BIOTICA Ecological Society together with other NGOs had prepared the Project Concept and it was supported by the Environmental Department of Moldova (National GEF Focal Point). On May 4, 1999 the contract between the World Bank and BIOTICA Ecological Society was signed for development of the medium-size Project “Water Quality Management and Biodiversity Conservation of the Lower Dniester”.
After the contract with World Bank the Steering Committee of the Project had been created in composition of the Minister of Environment, Member of the Subcommittee for Environment of the Parliament of Moldova, Head of the State Environmental Protection Committee (Transdniestria), Vice-President of the State Forestry Agency, and President of the BIOTICA Ecological Society (implementing agency). Two National Consultants of the Project from the National Academy of Sciences were selected.
The Steering Committee had approved the organization structure of the Project. Five groups of experts were organized. The groups involved experts representing various research and governmental institutions: Ministry of Environment of Moldova, Ministry of Agriculture of Moldova, and the State
____________________________
1 The first stage of the GEF project was realised by the team of 43 experts from Moldova, including Transdniestria, under the leadership of Piotr Gorbunenko (Project Manager), Alexei Andreev and Lydia Romanciuc (project co-directors), and group leaders: Valentin Bobeica, Nilli Goreaceva, Vitalii Lobcenco, Andrei Munteanu and Andrei Negru.
University of Moldova, Fishery Research Station, Institute of Zoology of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, National Institute of Ecology of Moldova, State Forest Agency, State Water Management Concern, NGOs. Each group has included representative from Transdniestria.
On August 13-14, 1999, the Seminar with local users groups and other stakeholders was held in Talmaza village, which is supposed to become the key point on future protected area. Mr. N.Grosu, Talmaza Mayor, rendered the great assistance in seminar organization and carrying out. The main scopes of the Seminar were: to provide the wide information distribution on the Project, the Project Concept presentation and discussion, giving the idea of the Project to the representatives of local community and general public, to reveal the possible problems and find the ways for their optimal resolving and provision of the Project sustainability. The total number of participants was 83 persons, including representatives from the Parliament of Moldova, Ministry of Environment of Moldova, State Forest Agency, experts, NGO representatives from Moldova as well as from Odessa district - Ukraine, mayors of villages, local authorities, school- and university teachers, doctors, mass-media representatives, farmers, etc. As a result of seminar, the Recommendations have been prepared and the main kinds of work were outlined.
On October 8-9, 1999 the Seminar with Scientific and Environmental Public was held in Chisinau within the frame of the International Conference “Biodiversity Conservation of the Dniester River Basin”, organized by BIOTICA. Over 115 persons from Moldova, Transdniestria, Ukraine, Russia, USA and Germany took part in the Seminar, including representatives from state organizations, such as Parliaments of Moldova and Ukraine, Governments, Ministries, Agencies, Academy of Science, research institutions, local authorities, NGOs; scientific community, mass-media. The Project Concept, List of the Project-related objects were discussed and approved. Also, the main types of supposed activities were considered in detail, such as “green corridors” planting, fish spawning shops organizing, hydro-technical constructions problems, hydrochemical and hydrobiological monitoring organization, National Park creating with the main zone on Talmaza vicinities, recommendations on wastewater treatment process improving at industries situated alongside the Dniester within the zone of the Project, etc.
The audience has given comprehensive estimation of the problems and has proposed rational ways of their resolving. On this basis, the recommendations have been developed related to practical issues of the Project implementation.
On March 13, 2000 the Session with Mayors of villages from Moldova and Transdniestria was held in Slobodzea village. This was the first event with Mayors from Transdniestria and State Committee on Environment and Natural Resources participation. The participants were acquainted with the Project history, concept, its developments, etc. Local and regional authorities have taken an obligation to carry out an explanation work among the people with the scope to provide their approval of planned activities and to provide lands allocation and their legal status. Representatives of Moldova and its Transdniestrian counterparts have elaborated the Protocol of Intentions signed by the Session participants.
On September 22-24, 2000, BIOTICA together with the UNDP Mission in Moldova organized the International seminar on the co-operation of local authorities and NGOs in the nature conservation issues in the Lower Dniester, where local authorities and NGOs from Tighina county (Moldova), Slobodzea region (Transniestia) and Beliaevka region (Odessa county, Ukraine) discussed the attitudes and co-ordinates the activities to create natural protected areas. It is found, that the great majority of population in Moldova supports the idea of National Park, while in Ukraine it has contradictory points of view - see also [7].
Each group of project experts has developed all necessary documentation for Medium Size Project Brief preparation. All necessary field studies and visits were done within the frame of the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation project of BIOTICA “Revival of the River” (grant № 98-52673.FSU) [1-3, 5].
2. Main GEF Middle Size Project objective. The main project objective is to improve in-situ biodiversity conservation in the Lower Dniester River by strengthening protected areas and engaging local communities in their management to support international and regional importance.
Immediate Project Objectives
A. Create Lower Dniester National Park for biodiversity conservation through natural ecosystems rehabilitation and build capacity for its management.
B. Promote the sustainable development and natural resources use in local community via ecological carcass building [forest belts, meadows restoration], engaging in territorial management and tourist business.
C. Improve co-operation of Moldova with Ukraine on the protection of the transboundary wetlands of the Dniester River.
The Project area. The area is attributed to meander zone of the Dniester River uniting the valley and high terrace with their enough steep slopes. These special features distinguish future protected territory from surrounding reservations of the Danube, Prut, Dniester, Dniepr and other big rivers of the Black Sea basin. Some general characteristics of the area are in the Table.
Initial wonderful biodiversity of the Lower Dniester River area was formed owing to overlapping of three natural zones: sub-arid oak forests of silvo-steppe, wetlands and feather-grass steppes. Relief complexity and meandering of the river promoted conservation of various ecosystem components incl. rare plants, animals and communities despite extensive agricultural land development and various impact on water quality and regime.
Table. General features of the Project area
Geographic co-ordinates
N: lat.46o45’00’’, alt. 29o39’22’’
S: lat.46o22’55’’, alt. 30o05’30’’
W: lat.46o40’08’’, alt. 29o29’41’’
E: lat.46o24’48’’, alt. 30o09’40’’
Total area
49,991 ha
Natural territories (forest, meadow and steppe communities, lakes, bogs)
5,000 ha (10%)
The Dniester River water-protective band
151 km
Present protected areas
788 ha (1.58%)
Proposed strong protected or specially managed territories
2103 ha (4.21%)
Among vascular plants 868 species (47% of the country checklist) of 406genera and 100 families are known in the flora of the Lower Dniester and conserved now mainly in habitats of the Project zone. Algae include about 1300 taxa. Territory supports unique for Moldova wetland and other forests, valuable remainders of steppe and meadow vegetation. 83 fish species of the Lower Dniester exist in the Project area including 54 ones of small number. Rich terrestrial and semi-aquatic fauna inhabit locality, including game species, as noble deer, pheasant, etc. Thus, 188 bird species use the area where 95 species (interim number) are noted as nesting but 93 - only when seasonal migrations. “Talmaza Wetland” is important site for transboundary bird migrants on their mainline [3].
Many endangered plants and animals are conserved in that part of Moldova till now. Their list numbers 100 endogenous species plus 69 ones using the territory only during migrations, which are in Checklist of strict protected species of the Bern Convention, 88 species are nominated in the Red Data Book of Moldova and 7 - among Red Data Book of the World.
General features of endangered species composition are:
a)Dominance of wetland representatives in mammals, birds and amphibians;
b)Prevalence of inhabitants of semi-arid sites in reptiles, highest plants and insects.
General conditions for endangered fish species and populations are:
a) depriving of spawning places;
b) b) inadequate conditions for young larva when spawning takes place despite inconvenient situation.
Existent protected areas cover 1,18% of considering territory that is 1,7times less than in the country, and places with adequate level of safety are absent, despite so outstanding species richness and biodiversity on the whole. Present reserves consist of 2 neighbouring upland forest parcels (altogether 197ha), 2 flood-land forests (224 and 108 ha), wetland bog (50 ha), soil reserve under meadow and forest (200 ha) and 3 palaeontological monuments (9 ha); steppe reserves are skipped. One has emphasise, protection of these areas is rather nominative, besides ordinary defense by State Forestry Service.
There are three main problems for high scale solution concerning natural habitats:
i)isolation of terrestrial habitats and minimization of individual sites;
ii)biased water regime on the most valuable territory “Talmaza Wetland”;
iii)instability of main properly wetlands, internal water bodies, including old riverbeds, lakes and bogs, as well as grassy habitats.
Sequence: high risk of irreversible biodiversity declining.
Particular advantages for restoration measures arise owing to river protective zone form a backbone that are protected by water-protective legislation. However it development and capacity building are necessary to do the defense effective.
Distinctive circumstances of nowadays are:
1) due to transitional stage of land ownership, environmental legislation allows to transfer some necessary lots into the fund of protected areas without charges;
2) intensive use of some remote agricultural land losses benefits when market economics and may be utilized for restorative and nature protection measures;
3) there is clear and wide support of such proceedings by local community including population and authorities.
All these advantages may be lost later. The first – after privatization will finish. The second -when appearance of new possibilities owing to economical improvements. The third one could be in the case of further economical degradation. Creation of the National Park will change totality of conditions for balanced improvement.
General features of endangered species composition are:
a)Dominance of wetland representatives in mammals, birds and amphibians; b)Prevalence of inhabitants of semi-arid sites in reptiles, highest plants and insects.
Existent protected areas cover 1,18% of considering territory that is 1,7times less than in the country, and places with adequate level of safety are absent, despite so outstanding species richness and biodiversity on the whole. Present reserves consist of 2 neighbouring upland forest parcels (altogether 197ha), 2 flood-land forests (224 and 108 ha), wetland bog (50 ha), soil reserve under meadow and forest (200 ha) and 3 paleontological monuments (9ha); steppe reserves are skipped. One has emphasize, protection of these areas is rather nominative, besides ordinary defense by State Forestry Service.
There are three main problems for high scale solution concerning natural habitats:
i)isolation of terrestrial habitats and minimization of individual sites;
ii)biased water regime on the most valuable territory “Talmaza Wetland”;
iii)instability of main properly wetlands, internal water bodies, including old riverbeds, lakes and bogs, as well as grassy habitats.
5. Objectives background
A.Create Lower Dniester National Park for biodiversity conservation through natural ecosystems rehabilitation and build capacity for its management
There are numerous evidences of outstanding biodiversity, conserved in the project area (section 2.3., Annexes 4, 5). Moreover, the main natural cores area separately, all the more the complex of connected habitats brings features of a Ramsar site. In the same time serious threats, issued from the turned out conditions of the country, as well as predictable dangers are recognized (see above). The territory upholds originality distinguishing by deep meandering of the big river, which forms sometimes almost closed loops. It contains also palaeontological and geological memorials. Conservation of landscape diversity, presence of picturesque place and possibility of various recreations will promote eco-tourism and agro-tourism development, following infra-structural changes as well as involving of local population, authorities and business in the sphere of mutual environmentalist\’s interests. Altogether it forms a reason to create a National Park. Important circumstances are awareness of nature conservation in the local community despite current economical difficulties.
There is clear basis for the ecological network creation to de-fragment habitats here. Notion of Ecological Network corresponds here to Pan-European idea of a system of special protected areas, defensive zones, other valuable habitats and geosystem-important territories, united by topographic position and special corridors into an integrity, promoting biodiversity conservation. A peculiarity of Moldova that connecting elements of future national ecological network will have heightened value as sequence of too low ratio of conserved natural and semi-natural sites. Sense of the concept for making of ecological network conform to present landscape, economic and political conditions consists in the use of natural sites, linked by water-protective zones along rivers, as main connecting elements; recognition and creation of reserves as well afforestation here become priority direction.
The main area features from the viewpoint of network plan are:
1) habitat residence for rare and resource animal and plant species;
2) important place for moulting and rest of birds on artery of transboundary and inter-continental migrations;
3) presence of sites which are enough free from trouble pressure;
4) relative linkage of flood-land sites owing to water-protected plantings;
5) possibility to link isolated wood-lands creating forest corridors;
6) necessity to apportion steppe micro-reserve. Flood-land sites incl. restored ones compose the eastern sector. Upland forests have to be united by forest belts. It will form the western sector of the network. Creating strong protected area “Talmaza Wetland” (about 1200 ha) became the main core territory. Internal forest corridors will connect upland wood areas with flood-land existent micro-reserves and “Talmaza Wetland”.
This beautiful place should be released from impact consequences of antropic transformations in the river valley.
Possibility to restore meadow-haying lands instead of semi-legal degraded pastures is an economical basis for feasible ecological amelioration in the riverside protective stripe (i.e on the state lands), which is partly guarded by legislation. Meadow sites together with forest will improve integrity of the main corridor of network which became a part of Pan European (and Moldavian-Ukrainian) mainline.
Idea of National Park creates possibility to realize integral management in areas with differentiated degrees of protective regime in limits of park domain, including corridors and riverside protective band, to harmonize interests of sustainable use in forests and also meadows under public property. National Park existence creates infrastructure for handling by restoring meadow-spawning places in some river meanders and fish farm of endangered populations.
Besides properly biodiversity problem, conservation of natural sites using the idea of network issues also from necessity to prevent regional desertification and corresponding aggravation of social and economical tension. However it is impossible to withdraw all natural and semi-natural areas from productive circulation without significant conflict of interests. One must say also that patchy and net distribution of such sites in dense populated locality requires expressly integral management for them but simultaneously impedes it.
However, current Law on the Fund of Natural Areas, Protected by State, has to be amended, because stipulates inflexible and shortcoming system of zones. Correspondent development of regulations and connected legislation is also necessary to justify responsibilities.
B. Promote the sustainable development and natural resources use in local community via ecological carcass building, engaging in territorial management and tourist business.
The same time sustainable use of natural resources and associated development becomes the clear need for a locality where soil fertility in arable lands is abandoning, pastures are exhausting, and so-called useful biological agents are declining as in the whole region. The National Park, being permanent body in distinguishing from programs and action campaigns, can stable encourage implementation of sustainability principles among agents of transitional zone. Application of Seville Strategy ought to be mirrored in the management plans and practice of the National Park to mitigate probable conflicts of interests, support economical progress on the whole territory. Other side is financial stability provision for the Park to be independent on state financing which is too weak and unstable. Additionally, financial independence may be a factor promoting careful preservation of own resources in domain zones of the Park.
There are some main items for corresponding activity.
1. Ecological carcass completion on local community lands (eastern sector of the ecological network). It should include three components of the trice earmarking each.
Creation of forest corridors between isolated forest tracks is important for (a) sustainable agricultural, especially arable, land use (on private parcels) in semi-arid climate of enough windy locality; and (b) also to support biological agents, which realize natural pest control, crop pollination and soil formation. Simultaneously (c) it is necessary for habitat de-fragmentation of various species, including rare but also all main game animals, and integrity of ecological network. Local community has no facilities to embody that in current financial conditions and stage of private land ownership. This links biodiversity conservation with climate issues that is essential for al semi-arid line of South in the Eastern Europe.
Rehabilitation of local public-owned flood-land meadows for haying instead abandoned fields and implementation of qualified management will be: (a) evident transition to more effective and environmental friendly land use, (b) improvement of water protection and (c) multiform biodiversity support. It allows to avoid conflict of interests if land withdrawal for Natural Park and to unite interests of the Park (control of management for conservation), local authority (granting on lease) and population (leasing for haying which engages into protection).
1.3. Informing, awareness making and capacity building for future restoration and sustainable use of degraded upland pastures with the next consequences: (a) cessation of soil erosion and desertification, (b) productivity growth, (c) multiform biodiversity support, including useful biological agents for arable areas.
These activities will have immediate (1.2) effect for 2-3 years, instant environmental and postponed agricultural influence (1.1) and delayed consequences (1.3).
Promotion of service and underlying business in local community for ecological and rural tourism considering economical and cultural development, population employment.
Capacity building for sustainable development on the way to inter-sector collaboration as the obligate condition.
Both these items will have permanent significance for territorial development, covering the National Park and local community.
C. Improve co-operation with Ukraine on the protection of the transboundary wetlands of the Dniester River [in regional and international context]
The need of sustainable development has to be considered on international level because of ecosystem integrity of biodiversity independently from inter-state borders. This integrity is stronger for water system of the Lower Dniester. Presupposed future creation of International Park reflects possibility to build integral management on the higher level with most benefit for Black Sea basin and to increase global effect.
Sufficient assumption which is used for determination of the set of immediate objectives that legislative provision, infrastructure, system of zones, package of management plans and monitoring programs for the National Park “The Lower Dniester” has to be constructed in pattern allowing smooth transition to status of biosphere reserve [4, 6]. The additional legal framework has been created by the bilateral Dniester Convention, which is currently under discussion in the profiled ministries of Moldova and Ukraine [7].
References
1. Andreev A.V. The concept of “biodiversity network” in Moldova and the Dniester River. In: The problems of biodiversity conservation of the Middle and Low Flows of the Dniester River / Proc. of Int. Conf. Chisinau, 6-7th November 1998. Chisinau: BIOTICA, 1998. P. 11-13. (in Russian).
2. Andreev A.V., Gorbunenko P.N. The concept of the ecological network "Lower Dniester". In: Biodiversity Conservation of the Dniester River Basin. Proc. Int. Conf., Chisinau: BIOTICA Ecological Society, 1999. P.12-14. (in Russian).
3. Andreev A.V., Izverskaya T.D., Zhurminschi S.D. Scientific background on creation of the natural reserve "Talmaza Wetlands". Ibid., P.14-17 (in Russian).
4. Gorbunenko P., Trombitsky I., Andreev A. Current status, perspectives and gaps in transboundary environmental co-operation between Moldova and Ukraine. Ibid., P. 50-52 (in English).
5. Lobcenco V.V. e.a.. The system for fish reproduction in the Lower Dniester. Ibid., P. 132-133 (in Russian).
6. Rusev I.T. e.a.. The role of international co-operation in Dniester wetlands conservation. Ibid. P. 211-212 (in Russian).
7. Towards an Integrated Management Plan for the Dniester Delta Wetlands. EPCEM project report №. 2000/3. Wageningen, 2000. 121 pp.
Related articles::