Methodology for the assessment of damage and economic losses from harm to forest ecosystems as a result of armed aggression

In the context of the study, the author elaborated and identified four groups of sources:

To substantiate the claims for temporary loss of natural resources due to the Iraqi military invasion of Kuwait, the applicants used the Habitat Equivalency Analysis (“HEA”) methodology to determine the nature and extent of compensation to cover losses in environmental services (EPL, 2022b). The loss budget was calculated as an environmental project aimed at replacing ecosystem services provided by irreversibly damaged natural resources. The claims for compensation for environmental damage after the Iraqi aggression were examined by the UN Compensation Commission (UNCC, 2022), established as a subsidiary body of the UN Security Council in 1991.

The UN Compensation Commission has recognized that there are no specific methods of assessing damage in international law. However, the court has to evaluate the damage and determine the appropriate compensation in case the amount of damage caused and the reparation are duly justified. The amount of compensation includes the cost of restoration (EPL, 2022b).

In the case of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, the affected party used an “ecosystem approach”, predicting losses when 50 years is needed to restore the affected area. Nicaraguan experts contrasted the assessment based on the theory of “recovery payments” (EPL, 2022a).

The court stated that the impairment or loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and services, and the cost of the restoration of the damaged environment, were compensable under international law. Moreover, the evaluation of environmental damage should be viewed from an ecosystem perspective by making a general assessment of the deterioration or loss of environmental goods and services before restoration, rather than attributing value to specific categories of environmental goods and services and estimating recovery periods for each.

The Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, concerning the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), of 8 June 1977, prohibits the use of methods or means of warfare that are intended to cause or will cause long-term and serious damage to the environment (Part III, Section I “Methods and means of warfare”, Article 35 “Basic Rules”, paragraph 3) (Geneva Conventions Protocol I, 1977).

The UN Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992) foresees that “the environment and natural resources of people living in conditions of oppression, domination, and occupation must be protected… Therefore, states must respect international law, which ensures the protection of the environment during armed conflicts, and must cooperate, if necessary, in its further development.”

However, Russia completely ignores the norms and rules of civilization, and its aggression should be classified as genocide and ecocide.

To determine the types of damage, the following provisions are taken into account:

In determining the methods and indicators for assessing forest ecosystem services, the following provisions were used:

The methodology for assessing damage and economic losses from the harm to the forest ecosystems and objects within their borders caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression takes into account certain provisions of the Forest Code of Ukraine (1994), Land Code of Ukraine (2022), Economic Code of Ukraine (2022), Civil Code of Ukraine (2022), Laws of Ukraine on Environmental Protection (1991) and other laws and regulations materials that may be used in whole or in part (with appropriate references) to determine damage.

In particular, in determining the types of damage and losses used and supplemented the list specified in the procedure for determining the damage and losses caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation (Government of Ukraine, 2022).

The signs of loss of or damage to forest ecosystems used in the Methodology take into account the provisions of Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine on state control over land use and protection (2003), No. 963-IV, edition from 27.05.2021, Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On approval of fees for calculating the amount of damage caused to forests” from July 23, 2008 N 665 (Government of Ukraine, 2008), and “On approval of fees for calculating the amount of damage caused by violation of the legislation on nature reserves” of July 24, 2013, No. 541 (Government of Ukraine, 2013).

To determine the amount of pollution of forest lands, the provisions of the Methodology for determining the amount of damage caused by pollution and clogging of land resources due to violations of environmental legislation (Government of Ukraine, 2007).

To calculate the compensation for damage to land owners as a result of hostilities, the provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine (2022) (Section V, Chapter 24. Compensation to land owners and land users. Article 156. Grounds for compensation to land owners and land users), the Civil Code of Ukraine (2022), Chapter 3. Article 22. Compensation for damage and other methods of compensation for property damage).

When assessing the lost profit, the option of determining the net operating income is considered as specified in the Methodology for determining the amount of damage caused by the unauthorized occupation of land, misuse of land, damage to land, violation of the regime, regulations, and rules of their use (Government of Ukraine, 2020).

The provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine (2022), (Chapter 34, Article 201, item 3 in the wording of 01.01.2022) and the Methodology of normative monetary valuation of land plots (Government of Ukraine, 2021) was used to substantiate the costs of restoration.

The methodology is based on modern approaches to the assessment of forest ecosystem services according to their most common classification (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2012; Fisher et al., 2009; MEA, 2005; TEEB, 2010; Wallace, 2008; UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011).

Therefore, attention is focused on relevant sources, which set out methodological approaches to the evaluation of ecosystem services and direct indicators of the value of environmental goods and services.

In particular, the following classification of forest ecosystem services assessment was used: Provisioning Services; Regulating Services; Supporting Services or other ecosystem maintenance services; Cultural Services such as educational, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values, recreation, and tourism.

The results of research by a group of scientists were recognized by Costanza et al. (1997, 2014, 2017) who estimated the total value of forest goods and services consumed by humans during the year. The dynamics of the assessment show that the more profound the study of ecosystem services, the greater their value.

The publication of Costanza et al. (2017) traces the history of the issue, debate, and controversy that it caused. The authors also make recommendations for the future, pointing out the weakness of the main economic approaches to evaluation, growth, and development.

A review of methodological approaches to the assesment of ecosystem services showed their diversity, as the assessments addressed certain aspects in the context of the research topics.

In particular, Pagiola et al. (2004) proposed an assessment of the economic value of ecosystem conservation to examine the following aspects: the value of the overall flow of benefits from ecosystems; net benefits from interventions that change ecosystem conditions; distribution of costs and benefits of ecosystems; identifying potential sources of funding for conservation.

Kindu et al. (2016) conducted a study assessing changes in ecosystem services (ESVs) in response to the dynamics of land cover change (LULC) over four decades (1973–2012) using the example of the Munes-Shashemen landscape of the Ethiopian highlands. This study is valuable because, firstly, GIS was applied using LULC datasets from previous and current periods. Secondly, global value coefficients developed earlier, and modified conservative value coefficients were applied for the studied landscape.

Kindu et al. (2016) applied the maximum likelihood method in ArcGIS 10.5. ES coefficients were used to estimate the monetary value by applying the benefits transfer method published by Costanza et al. (2014).

This approach was also used by Mengist et al. (2022b). The same approach should be used to identify changes in landscapes before and after the hostilities in Ukraine.

Another study by Mengist et al. (2022a) argues that the value of forest ecosystem services (FES) varies depending on cultural, socio-economic, and environmental conditions. The authors propose to evaluate FES by studying the impact of social environment variables on the apparent variation in consumer value.

Grammatikopoulou & Vačkářová (2021) worked on the synopsis of forest valuation literature dating from 2000 to 2017. Their database aims to track the value of forests in Europe. The aim of the study was to identify the determinants of the value of forest ECs. The results were used in collecting supply and use forest ES accounts for the Czech Republic.

Ojea et al. (2016) recognize the role of climate change mitigation through forest sequestration and degradation (REDD) programs in mitigating climate change and point to the economic benefits of other forest ecosystem services. They conducted a global meta-analysis of primary forest surveys published over the past 30 years, assessed the economic benefits of various forest ecosystem services in the target REDD countries, and discussed the implications of considering these economic indicators in REDD decision-making.

The author suggests using the results of the above studies to calculate the losses of regulatory and ecosystem maintenance services.

The problem of assessment of ecosystem services is also paramount in the work of many Ukrainian scientists, whose contribution is taken into account in the methodology. In particular, the proposals of Soloviy (2016), and Vasyliuk & Ilminska (2020) concerning the assessment of the major provision services of forest ecosystems according to the relevant indicators and the evaluation methods of ecosystem regulation and maintenance services.

As an alternative to assessing the lost material resources of the forest, scientific and practical recommendations developed by a group of scientists from the Research Institute of Forestry and Agroforestry, AHEM. Vysotsky, can be used. (Torosov et al., 2019). The study identifies methodological tools and provides practical guidance on conducting a monetary assessment by types of forest resources, such as forest areas, enterprises, and regions of Ukraine. The suggestions of Furdychko et al. (2019) on the evaluation of forest ecosystem services based on remote sensing data were also considered.

The provisions of the methodology consider that the importance of forests is to provide a continuous, highly efficient performance of environmental, economic, and social functions at the local, national and global levels. Forest should be viewed as a complex natural system, in which interconnected subsystems create a special environment and conditions for the life of various organisms, people, and performance of vital ecosystem services. As a result of the hostilities, damage to forests has brought upon a great loss for Ukraine and the world. The method takes into account the following consequences of hostilities:

The methodology uses the following terms for damage and losses from harm to forest ecosystems and objects within their borders caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression:

The methodology for assessing the damage and losses from harm to forest ecosystems and objects within them caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression takes into account the following components:

The method includes the degree of damage: complete loss of resources; destruction of the forest ecosystem; resource degradation; deterioration of the forest ecosystem; postponing the possibility of implementing certain forest ecosystem services due to their condition or the level of destruction of forest infrastructure.

The assessment methods:

The methodology justifies claims to the subjects of armed aggression for compensation for damage and losses caused to forest ecosystems and objects within their boundaries in order to sue them.

Data sources for calculating losses from the harm to the forest ecosystems and objects within their borders caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression:

The methodology involves the primary data for the formation of loss statistics and applies a hierarchical approach established by the state forest management system (forestry; regional forestry and hunting departments; State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine), territorial organization of Ukraine for other owners of forest land. This involves the transfer and generation of data in the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine.

Therefore, it is advisable to form a unified approach to the statistical reporting expansion or the separate report formation on the loss of forest ecosystem services with compulsory confirmation of the facts.

The main provisions of the Order are included in the “Method development of the assessment of damage and losses caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation” approved by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on March 20, 2022, No. 326 (Government of Ukraine, 2022).

Suggested methods:

The component (resource) approach to calculate the damage to the forest ecosystem and its natural objects is used if their self-restoration is impossible.

In particular, the main objects of assessment are disturbed soils; destroyed and damaged forest plantations (lists by the degree of maturity and predominant species of stands), natural undergrowth and samosas, seedlings, saplings, nonwoody vegetation, fungi, berries, habitats of medicinal plants; destruction of wildlife, birds, and insects, damage or destruction of their dwellings and buildings, habitats and reproduction; destruction of or damage to forest infrastructure (Table 1).

For the calculations in Table 1, the formula is used:

1 Cres=∑ Ores×T, $${\rm{C}}_{{\rm{res}}} {\rm{ = }}\sum {{\rm{O}}_{{\rm{res}}} {\rm{ \times T,}}}$$

where C_res – the total cost of losses of forest ecosystem services;

These calculations are supplemented by an estimate of the lost profit that could have been obtained from the preserved resource, territory, or object; assessment of losses due to the lack of forest service and management; assessment of losses due to the lack of opportunities to provide living conditions for the population; an estimate of the costs incurred to prevent or reduce losses.

The assessment of lost profits that could be obtained from the preserved resource, territory, or object includes lost income from the sale of the main types of logging and processing activities; lost income from the sale of secondary forest resources (resin, stumps, bast and bark, wood greens, wood sap) and by-products of forest use (hay harvesting, cattle grazing, housing apiaries (beekeeping), harvesting wild fruits, nuts, mushrooms, berries, medicinal plants, forest litter collection, reed harvesting); lost income from tourism and recreational activities, hunting, sale of planting material (Table 2).

The formula used for the calculations in Table 2:

2 Clp=∑ Ores×P, $${\rm{C}}_{{\rm{lp}}} {\rm{ = }}\sum {{\rm{O}}_{{\rm{res}}} {\rm{ \times P,}}}$$

where C_lp – the total lost profits that could have been gained from the preserved resource, territory, or object as a result of armed aggression;

To calculate the damage to the forest ecosystem and its natural objects (Table 1) and assess the lost benefits that could be obtained from the preserved resource, territory, or object (Table 2), you can use the approaches proposed by Soloviy (2016), Vasyliuk & Ilminska (2020), Torosov et al. (2019).

The assessment of losses due to the lack of forest services and management includes forest losses due to the impossibility of forestry surveys, extermination work in pests and diseases, artificial reforestation, clearing of seedlings, new planting material, prevention of forest fires; deterioration of forests due to the impossibility of felling care, sanitary felling (Table 3).

The formula is used for the calculations in Table 3:

3 Clfs=∑ Ores×P, $${\rm{C}}_{{\rm{lfs}}} {\rm{ = }}\sum {{\rm{O}}_{{\rm{res}}} {\rm{ \times P,}}}$$

where C_lfs – the total cost of losses due to lack of forest care and management;

Assessment of losses due to lack of opportunities to provide living conditions for the population include loss of forestry income due to the inability to harvest firewood, peat for the population living within/near the forest; loss of household income due to the impossibility of harvesting mushrooms, berries, medicinal plants by the population of the community living within/near the forest (Table 4).

The formula is used for the calculations in Table 4:

4 Clo=∑ Ores×P, $${\rm{C}}_{{\rm{lo}}} {\rm{ = }}\sum {{\rm{O}}_{{\rm{res}}} {\rm{ \times P,}}}$$

where C_lo – the total cost of losses due to the lack of opportunities to use the natural resource potential to ensure the living conditions of the population due to armed aggression;

Estimation of costs incurred to prevent or reduce losses includes the cost of fighting fires, partial renewal of infrastructure, increased patrols of forests, organization and conduct of stationary and dynamic patrols. It is estimated on the basis of calculation (Table 5).

The comparative method is used in the case of forest damage, for the restoration of which no investment is required, as there is sufficient potential for self-restoration. In this case, the method of lost profits for the period of ecosystem self-restoration should be applied, using regulatory or similar indicators of intact ecosystems.

Thus, the assessment of losses of material components of the forest ecosystem due to their destruction, damage because of hostilities, lack of opportunities for forest services and management, and inability to use natural resources for production and providing living conditions for the population is carried out by the formula:

5 CPS= Cres+Clp+Clfs+Clo+Cprev, $${\rm{C}}_{{\rm{PS}}} {\rm{ = C}}_{{\rm{res}}} + {\rm{C}}_{{\rm{lp}}} + {\rm{C}}_{{\rm{lfs}}} + {\rm{C}}_{{\rm{lo}}} + {\rm{C}}_{{\rm{prev}}} ,$$

where C_PS – the total cost of losses of forest ecosystem services;

Suggested methods:

Capital expenditures for the restoration of the pre-war level of activity of forestry and owners of forest lands and territorial communities are assessed separately.

Suggested methods:

Compensation for the loss of cultural, aesthetic, recreational, and landscape components of forest ecosystems (fourth component) can be estimated using the above methods, as well as methods of travel costs, hedonic pricing, and conditional assessment (Table 8).

The total assessment of damage and losses from the harm to the forest ecosystems and objects within their borders caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression (for all components) is determined by the formula:

6 C = CRS+CREST+CREG+CCOM, $${\rm{C = C}}_{{\rm{RS}}} + {\rm{C}}_{{\rm{REST}}} + {\rm{C}}_{{\rm{REG}}} + {\rm{C}}_{{\rm{COM}}} ,$$

where C – total cost of damage and losses from the harm to the forest ecosystems and objects within their borders caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression;

In our opinion, this approach allows the assessment of the damage and losses from the harm to the forest ecosystems and objects within their borders caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression and allows to move to the formation of appropriate targeted funds to compensate for the costs and losses.