1. “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” University in Skopje
Faculty of forestry – Skopje, Macedonia
Dept. of Land and Water
'Study and Analysis of Innovative Financing for Sustainable Forest Management in the Southwest Balkans‘. – project overview
Prof. D-r Ivan BLINKOV
THE THIRD WORLD CONFERENCE OF WORLD ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
NEW CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION IN THE CHANGING WORLD SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES
August 22-26, 2016 Belgrade/ Serbia

2. Recognizing the close interrelation between forests and water
Recognizing the close interrelation between forests and water. Concerned that climate change will have severe effects on the frequency, scale and intensity of natural hazards such as floods, debris flow, avalanches, storms, and droughts and will have an impact on forest and water resources and their management. Stressing the role of forests and forest management in protecting water quality, managing water resources for the quantity of all waters, flood alleviation, combating desertification and soil protection as well as the importance of mountain forests in the reduction of land slides, erosion and effects of avalanches. Emphasising that the full economic value of forests has to be adequately recognised and in particular the value of providing ecosystem services

3. FOREST EUROPE (Ministerial Conference for Protection of Forests in Europe)
On the 5th Ministerial conference of Forest Europe held in Warszawa in 2007, were adopted joint declaration and 2 Ministerial resolutions:
The Warsaw Declaration recognizes the role of forests and their sustainable management in climate change mitigation and highlights the need to ensure adaptation of forests and forest management to climate change.
Warsaw Resolution 1 (Forests, Wood and Energy) urges the countries and the European Community to enhance the contributions of the forest sector to energy production and mobilization of wood resources.
Warsaw Resolution 2 (Forests and Water) called for action to coordinate policies on forests and water, as well as to promote the management of fresh water resources as part of sustainable forest management.

4. PROJECT
Taking in consideration close cooperation with CNVP (a legacy organisation of SNV in the Balkans for forestry and rural development) following the Warszawa resolutions, we prepared a proposal project - 'Study and Analysis of Innovative Financing for Sustainable Forest Management in the Southwest Balkans‘.
- 2 pilot case studies:
In Albania focus was on Forest –water relations, while in Kosovo on wood biomass energy.
CNVP was responsible for overall project management.
World Bank – PROFOR financed the project with total duration of 36 months in 2 phases. .

5. 'Study and Analysis of Innovative Financing for Sustainable Forest Management in the Southwest Balkans‘.
CNVP and Partners
KOSOVO case - NRS Kosovo, REGEA Croatia, Diava Consulting, Albania,
Albania Case: University in Skopje, Faculty of Forestry, Macedonia
Wageningen University, The Netherlands,
Regional Federation of Communal Forests and Pastures in Diber, Albania

6. ALBANIA CASE STUDY – PROBLEM
In the late 90’s of the XX century, significant part of the forest in the ULZA reservoir catchment was fully destroyed. It enabled high erosion processes and siltation of the UlZA reservoir. The main use of water from the reservoir is for energy production – Ulza HPP. Lower part of the forest in the reservoir catchment is under competences of the Communes and Communal forest associations. Forest cut is restricted. Citizens from the commune need fuel wood but they can not supply from their region. Beneficiary of cut restriction was State Energy Company of Albania. ( now ULZA HPP is sold)
Because is restricted right of communes to use the forest with aim to protect the Ulza Reservoir from siltation, beneficiary should indemnify the Commune . The possible instrument for this is Payment for Ecosystem Service. PES could be calculated based on model for erosion and sedimentation
WB and the Government of Albania were in the process of finalization of the expected new ESP (Environmental Services Project). The ESP will among others focus on specific environmental services and pilot for Payment for Environmental Services.
The study carried out in frame of this project on watershed management, demonstrated through sound scientific methodologies how payments for environmental services (PES) could benefit rural land owners and private dam operators while improving environmental sustainability. 
The baseline data generated formed the basis for a local PES scheme. 

7. Albania - Watershed case study
Context
Over 50% of total surface is forest
Large areas of abandoned agricultural land
High levels of soil erosion
Mountainous terrain
Unsustainable forest and agricultural practice
Increased communal forest management
Focus
Ulza hydro-power dam and watershed, Mati river basin area
Verification on forest management practices including community based resource management
The environmental services obtained by downstream stakeholders
UKIM – FFS – Skopje - erosion
Wageningen University - PES

8. Albania Watershed Case study Erosion related issues – UKIM - FFS
1 – EROSION MONITORING AND MODELLING
2 – MAPPING EROSION AND CALCULATION SEDIMENT PRODUCTUON and SEDIMNET YIELD
3 – BATHYMETRY OF THE ULZA RESERVOIR
4 – CROSS CUTTING ANALYSIS

9. CNVP team
Project management and field support
Peter Kampen – CNVP – check reports and control activities
Saso Petrovski – CNVP - check reports and control activities
Voislav Todorov – CNVP , Hamit Salkurt – CNVP , Durim Kaba – CNVP - participate in field activities
Communal Forest and Pasture association -Diber:
Shkelkim Hasa and Malvina Shehi, laboratory analysis for erosion monitoring
Farmers - observers, collecting data from field
Macedonian team:
Prof. d-r Ivan Blinkov, coordinator of all scientific-expert activities, preparation methodologies , responsible for erosion monitoring and modeling, checking and interpreting results from bathymetry and sedimentation, cross-cutting analysis and preparation all reports
Prof. d-r Trendafilov Aleksandar – erosion mapping, sediment calculation, bathymetry,
Ass.m-r Ivan Mincev – bathymetry, sediment calculation, all GIS calculations and modeling
other collaborators

10. I phase – preliminary studies
Analyze of basin characteristics
- defined basin area, all topographic parameters as perimeter, slope distribution, exposure..
- analyzed lithology pattern, analyzed soil distribution
- analyzed climatic elements, analyzed land cover distribution
Analyze of reservoir characteristics
- analyze of basic characteristics of the dam
- reservoir parameters
- analyze of previous bathymetry
- analyze of all related documents (environmental etc)
Analyze of forest and forestry in the area
- defined forest distribution per type, age, cover, silvicultural type etc
- analyze of forest practices in past
Developed basic GIS layers.maps

11. Study region: Ulza reservoir basin – Mati river
m asl
High roughness of the terrain
A = 1244 km2
Vl = 240 mil. m3

12. The Ulza Hydro Power Plant (HPP) is located on Mat River upstream from mouth of Fani River and near the village of Ulza and Burrel town. It is a 64 m high concrete gravity dam with straight axis with impounded volume of 240 mil m3. The reservoir created serves as a head pond for the Mat river cascade.
Downstream from Ulza Dam is located Shkopeti dam that is 50 m high concrete gravity dam with impounded volume of 40 mil m3.
Ulza dam has been constructed in the period of year 1952 to It is a concrete gravity dam with a straight axis. Water tightness of the dam foundation is achieved by a grout curtain.
The maximum height of the dam above foundation is 64.2 m and the crest length is 260 m. The crest elevation is at m asl and the maximum water level in the reservoir is at m asl (full supply level). Minimum foundation level is 67.5 m asl. The dam volume is 0.26 million m3.
The following are some basic characteristics of the Mat River:
• Annual discharge volume: 3,250 million m³
• Specific discharge: 40.1 l/s/km²
• Ratio of wettest month (December) to driest month (August): 10
• One in 10 years high flow: about 25 times the river module
• Storage capacity of Ulza reservoir: 240 million m³ (about 15% of annual flow of the Mat River)
The average annual inflow into the reservoir is million m3.
The reservoir total storage is 240 million m3 and
The active storage volume is 124 million m3.
Maximum water level is m asl, while
Maximum operation water level is little bit less, i.e m asl.
Minimum operation water level is 117 m asl.

13. Collection and analyze of existed data for the reservoir and national data

14. Develop of basic data for the study area
Dissected mountain ranges with Internal vali related to "Leptosol Luvisol-region" with cambisols, Regosols, vertisols,
Luvisols and Phaeozems
Pliocene limestone hills and
mountain ranges related to
"Leptosol-Cambisol region" with vertisols, and Phaeozems Fluvisols
(Zdruli p).
Forest (43%), TW+SV (30%),
G (13%), A+Pm (6%)
CCP (6%) other (2%)

15. Analyze of forest and forest practices related data for the area

16. ALL PREVIOUS ANALYSIS WERE NECESSARY TO BE DEFINED RIGHT METHODOLOGY (number of plots, plot distribution per slope/land cover, randomization etc.)

17. I phase Erosion and runoff monitoring
established 48 different plots on 3 exp. Locations (Klos, Lis, Suc),
42 were regularly shaped and with uniform slope, having and area of 100 m2.
6 irregular plots that simulate gully on bare land (first time)
Defined characteristics of each plot
Launched soil laboratory analyses
Defined correlation between R, S, and P
Defined correlation between R, S, and slope
Defined impact of land cover on R and S
Bathymetry
2 measurements were performed (1 on a lower water level, the second on maximal level)
defined quantity of deposed sediment into the reservoir
assessed lifespan of the reservoir
I phase

18. Comparative analysis of the results from the Final recommendations
Erosion and runoff monitoring
established 46 different plots on 2 exp. Locations (Klos, Lis, Suc),
42 Gavrilovic type, having and area of 100 m2 (11 new plots)
4 plots for gully monitoring using pins
Defined characteristics of new plots
Lunched 6 months monitoring
Defined correlation between R, S, and P and slope
Defined impact of land cover on R and S
Bathymetry
1 measurement was performed
defined quantity of deposed sediment into the reservoir
assessed lifespan of the reservoir
Erosion and sediments calculation using EPM
On-filed erosion mapping and creation eroson map
Development all necessary data for calculation
Calculation produced and transported sediments
Cross – cutting analysis
Erosion monitoring and modelling vs erosion and sediment calculations vs bathymetry
II phase
II Phase
Comparative analysis of the results from the
I and II phase results
Final recommendations

19. EROSION MONITORING Average runoff and sediment load per LC type
LCU
[L] RI
Slope %
dm3
I-B
12540
1,71
405
3,29 B
12226
1,66
23 – 23
397
3,23 A
11592
1,58
12 – 12
383
3,11 Py
10602
1,44
327
2,66 Pm
9895
1,35
37 – 22 O
248
2,02
9340
1,27
22 – 37
238
1,93 G
9224
1,25
21 – 21
207
1,68 F
7351 1
123

20. Erosion mapping and sediments calculation
using EPM

21. Sediments calculation (EPM)
Catchment Z F Rn W
Wsp G
Gsp
km2
m3/y
m3/km2.y
2 - Rreshanit
0,33
11,99
0,51
10640,37
887,27
5429,69
452,76
4 - Lazit
0,29
13,65
0,31
10645,86
780,14
3297,78
241,67
6 - Zalli i Tarit
0,44
87,68
0,59
108541,90
1237,92
63890,51
728,67
8 - Kurvajt
0,60
67,18
0,79
125786,87
1872,27
99320,49
1478,33
10 - Karices
28,10
0,48
22266,90
792,51
10787,65
383,95 9
0,27
8,17
0,34
5335,57
652,70
1816,21
222,18 11
0,26
23,20
15147,89
653,01
6624,72
285,59
12 - Zalli Hotes
0,43
31,72
0,64
38056,55
1199,87
24259,73
764,88 1
0,28
6,68
0,54
4846,72
725,76
2596,49
388,81 5
16,28
0,42
11350,74
697,10
4808,49
295,31 3
9,18
0,38
6101,55
664,71
2318,92
252,63
7 - Urakes
165,58
0,93
233513,90
1410,28
217996,72
1316,57
Mat
0,58
742,62
0,73
,44
1661,57
900320,11
1212,36
Average
1212,02
0,72
,27
1506,69
1108,45
Sum
,27
,52
Min
Max

22. COMPARISON OF RESULTS of erosion monitoring and bathymetry 2013 vs 2014
SEDIMENT
2013
2014
ratio
mean slope A
3,11 12
2.25
15,2 P
2,31 23
1,79
22,0 G
1,8
21,5
1,25
29,9 TW
1,9
34,1 F 1 39
56,2

23. Connections results form erosion monitoring to those from erosion mapping and sediment calculation and from bathymetry CONCLUSIONS and RECOMENDATIONS

24. WHY STILL HIGH EROSION INTENSITY in ULZA reservoir catchment

25. Ulza (Alb) vs Kalimanci (MKD)
Almost the same catchment area
1983
Z = 0,58
G = m3 y
2014
Z = 0.30
G = m3 y
2014
Z = 0,54
G = m3 y

27. Why decrease of sediment yield in the Kalimanci reservoir
Dry period (lower precipitation, lower discharge…)
Consolidation >>> “effective sediment”
(permanent decrease per years based on measuring)
Erosion control works

28. MASS AFFORESTATION

29. CHECK DAMS

30. During the filed visit of the ULZA reservoir catchment hasn’t been noticed any check –dam.
All natural factors are worse then in Kalimanci catchment.
BUT Focus on erosion control was on agricultural land where are noticed terraces.
Beside it were noticed forest plantations.
But should be payed attention on hydraulic structures in the torrential beds too.

31. Thank you for your attention!
SOIL Erosion
"The threat of nuclear weapons and man's ability to destroy the environment are really alarming. And yet there are other almost imperceptible changes –
I am thinking of the exhaustion of our natural resources, and especially of soil erosion - and these are perhaps more dangerous still, because once we begin to feel their repercussions it will be too late."
(p144 of The Dalai Lama's Little Book of Inner Peace: 2002, Element Books, London)
Thank you for your attention!