UKRAINE BUILDING CLIMATE RESILIENCE IN AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY December 2021 © 2021 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org All rights reserved This work is a product of the staff of the World Bank Group. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Direc- tors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guar- antee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of the World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dis- semination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommer- cial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2021. Ukraine: Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry. 2021. © World Bank.” All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������XII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ XIV CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 1.1 The Analytical Framework��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 CHAPTER 2: HOW WILL UKRAINE’S CLIMATE CHANGE IN THIS CENTURY? �������������������� 7 2.1 Summary ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7  ecent Climatic Changes in Ukraine���������������������������������������������������������� 8 2.2 R Projections at the Oblast Level����������������������������������������������������������������� 15 2.4  Projections at the City Level���������������������������������������������������������������������� 15 2.5  Other Climate and Vulnerability Indicators������������������������������������������������ 20 2.6  MPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON AGRICULTURE����������������������������������������������24 CHAPTER 3: I 3.1 Summary of Key Findings������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 3.2 Yield Projections���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25 3.3 Impact of Water Availability on Crop Yields ���������������������������������������������� 32 Agricultural Production Projections����������������������������������������������������������� 32 3.4  Agricultural Value Projections�������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 3.5  Effects of Changes in the Growing Season���������������������������������������������� 35 3.6   imitations of the Analysis of Climate Change Impact on Agriculture������� 35 3.7 L THE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE CHAPTER 4:  ON AGRICULTURE��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 4.1 Summary of Key Findings������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 4.2 The Share of Agriculture in the National and Oblast GDP����������������������� 41 Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture 4.3  and Household Income and Expenditure�������������������������������������������������� 42 Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Poverty����������������������������� 46 4.4  Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry iii CHAPTER 5: IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FORESTS�������������������������������������������������������� 50 5.1 Summary��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 50 Climate Vulnerability Indices for Forests��������������������������������������������������� 51 5.2   ffect of Climate Change on Key Forest Species������������������������������������� 55 5.3 E 5.4 Impact on Forest Fires ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 58 5.5 Analysis Limitations ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS: CHAPTER 6:  OBLAST-LEVEL ANALYSIS����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 6.1. Spatial Distribution of Potential Benefits for Agriculture �������������������������� 61  patial Distribution of Potential Risks 6.2 S from Climate Change for Agriculture��������������������������������������������������������� 65  CTIONS TO BUILD CLIMATE RESILIENCE CHAPTER 7: A IN AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 Strengthen Institutions, Policy and Planning��������������������������������������������� 72 7.1   romote Transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry ���������������� 74 7.3 P REFERENCES������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������76 ANNEX 1. METHODOLOGY�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 ANNEX 2. PROJECTED SEASONAL CHANGES���������������������������������������������������������������������������������112  ATA FOR AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT ANNEX 3. D & DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������116 ANNEX 4. DATA FOR FORESTRY ASSESSMENT��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 ANNEX 5. BENEFITS OF ADAPTION MEASURES��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 143 iv Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Ukraine..................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Methodology......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Climatic Zones in Ukraine, 1980-2016................................................................. 9 Figure 4: Projected Annual Mean Temperature Increases.................................................. 10 Figure 5: Annual Temperature Change............................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Annual Temperature Change............................................................................... 12 Figure 7: Annual Precipitation Change (map)..................................................................... 13  onthly Precipitation Change in RCP 4.5............................................................ 14 Figure 8: M  onthly Precipitation Change in RCP 8.5 – End of Century Figure 9: M Compared to Baseline ........................................................................................ 14 Figure 10: Projected Changes in Temperatures and Precipitation by Oblast....................... 16 Multi-Year Mean Monthly Temperature and Temperature Change Figure 11:  for Different Climatic Periods and the Baseline................................................... 18  Figure 12: Multi-Year Mean Monthly Precipitation Sums (lines) and Projected Changes (histograms).................................................................. 19 Temperature in the Hottest and Coldest Months Figure 13:  for the Baseline period (1991-2010) and at the End of the 21st Century Under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5................................................................. 21 Figure 14: Changes in Frost Nights...................................................................................... 22 Figure 15: Changes in Tropical Nights................................................................................. 22 Figure 16: Seasonal Precipitation in RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5................................................. 27 Figure 17: C  rop Yields [tons/ha] in 2010 and Changes in Yields [%] in 2030 and 2050 for Selected Crops ................................................................. 29 Figure 18: Impact of Optimal Water Availability in 2030....................................................... 33 Figure 19: Difference Between RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 for 2030........................................... 34 Figure 20: Changes in Total Agricultural Production by Oblast, RCP 8.5............................ 36 Figure 21: Changes in Total Value by Oblast, RCP 8.5........................................................ 37 Figure 22: Agriculture as a Share of GDP ($US) in 2010, by Oblast................................... 41 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry v Changes in Income by Oblast for 2030 Due to Price Increases......................... 43 Figure 23:  Increase in Income from the Change in Value of Agricultural Figure 24:  Output due to Climate Change, Mean Projection (2030).................................... 44 Changes in Income Under the Three Projections Figure 25:  by Oblast for 2030 (both Income and Price Effects)......................................................................... 45 Changes in Expenditure by Oblast for 2030 Figure 26:  (Effect of Price Increases only) in the Mean Scenario........................................ 46  eadcount Poverty, Poverty Gap and Severity of Poverty: Figure 27: H Values for the Baseline Period [%] and Changes in 2030 Relative to the Baseline [%], Low Projection...................................................... 48 Gini Сoefficient Сhanges in 2030 Relative to the Baseline [%].......................... 49 Figure 28:  Figure 29: Forestland Across Ukraine’s Oblast.................................................................... 51  elative Changes of Vorobjov’s Heat Availability Figure 30: R Index to Climate, 1991-2010.............................................................................. 53 Relative Changes of Vorobjov’s Moisture Figure 31:  Availability Index to Climate, 1991-2010............................................................. 54 Impact of Climate Change on Areas with Growing Potential Figure 32:  for English Oak and European Beech, 2100...................................................... 56 Impact of Climate Change on Areas with Growing Potential Figure 33:  for Selected Forest Species, in 2050.................................................................. 57 Figure 34: Total Burned Areas and Numbers of Forest Fires in Ukraine............................. 59 Figure 35: Relative Changes in Wheat Productivity, Through 2030.................................... 61  hange in Value of Agricultural Output in 2030 Relative Figure 36: C to 2010 for the Mean Projection Scenario: Optimal Water Availability vs. Water Scarcity Projection Scenario..................... 64 Difference in the Value of Agricultural Production Figure 37:  Between Optimal Water Availability and Water Scarcity Projections in US$ million/year.............................................................................................. 66 Figure 38: Share of Agriculture in National and Local GDP, by Oblast................................ 69 Figure 39: Reduction in Agriculture Production Values, by Oblast, Through 2030.............. 70 Combined Changes in Household Income, Figure 40:  Poverty, and Inequality, Through 2030............................................................... 70 vi Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Figure 41: Effect of Use of Multi Model Ensembles for Temperature and Precipitation........ 90 Mean Annual Air Temperature Change (left) and Values for Percentiles Figure 42:  over the RCM Ensembles (right) for Three Periods and Two RCPs................... 91  ean Annual Precipitation Change (left) and Values for Percentiles Figure 43: M over the RCM Ensembles (right) for Three Periods and Two RCPs................... 92  imulations Prepared for RCP 4.5 for CORDEX-Adjust Output (left) Figure 44: S and for Euro-CORDEX Output (right)................................................................. 95 Simulations Prepared for RCP 8.5 for CORDEX-Adjust Output (left) Figure 45:  and for Euro-CORDEX Output (right)................................................................. 95 The Continental Climate Ivanov Index for Historic Periods (E-OBS) Figure 46:  and Ensembles of the RCMs by Periods of the 21st Century............................. 97 Figure 47: De Martonne Aridity Index................................................................................... 98 Figure 48: Crop Growth Processes in the WOFOST Model...............................................100 Figure 49: Simulation Model (WOFOST) for Crop Yield Assessment.................................103 Figure 50: The IMPACT Model System by IFPRI...............................................................104 Figure 51: Workflow for Forests Vulnerability Assessment to Climate Change................... 105 Figure 52: Distributional Analysis Workflow........................................................................ 109  hanges in Warm-Season Length in the Recent Period Figure 53: C 1991-2010 (E-Obs), Near-Future (RCP 8.5) and the End of the Century (RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5)..............................................................112  hanges in Growing Season Length in the Recent Period Figure 54: C 1991-2010 (E-Obs), Near-Future (RCP 8.5) and the End of the Century (RCP4.5 and RCP 8.5)...............................................................113  hanges in the Active-Vegetation Season Length Figure 55: C in the Recent Period 1991-2010 (E-Obs), Near-Future (RCP8.5) and the End of the Century (RCP4.5 and RC8.5).............................................114 Changes in the Summer Season Length Figure 56:  in the Recent Period 1991-2010 (E-Obs), Near-Future (RCP8.5) and the End of the Century (RCP4.5 and RC8.5).............................................115 ncrease in Expenditure Needed to Keep Wellbeing Constant Figure 57: I with Food Price Increases..................................................................................117  ange of Change in Income for all Deciles between Low Figure 58: R and High Scenario, RCP 8.5, 2030....................................................................125 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry vii  patial-Temporal Dynamics of Vorobjov’s Figure 59: S Moisture Availability Index for Forests...............................................................137 Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of the Suitability Ombroregime (Om) Figure 60:  of Climate for Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.)...................................................138 Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of the Suitability Ombroregime (Om) Figure 61:  of Climate for English Oak (Quercus robur L.)................................................... 139 Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of the Suitability Ombroregime (Om) Figure 62:  of Climate for European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.).........................................140 Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of the Suitability Ombroregime (Om) Figure 63:  of Climate for Norway Spruce (Picea abias L.)..................................................141  ensity of Forest Fires in Ukraine by Oblast in Forests Subordinated Figure 64: D to the State Forest Resources Agency of Ukraine, 2007–2020.........................142 viii Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry TABLES Table 1: Increases in Average Annual Temperature and Precipitation................................ 10 Table 2: Changes in Yields Across Oblasts for Major Crops Due to Climate Change........ 26  hange in Total Production (Millions of Tons) for Major Crops Table 3: C as Compared to the Baseline (with Change in Land Area Allocation for Each Crop)....................................................................................................... 34  haracteristics of Climatic Seasons in Ukraine in Two Past Periods Table 4: C (E-OBS data) and Three Future Periods Under the RCP4.5 Scenario (Ensemble of 34 RCMs from Euro-CORDEX Data).............................................. 38  haracteristics of Climatic Seasons in Ukraine in Two Past Periods Table 5: C (E-OBS data) and Three Future Periods Under the RCP8.5 Scenario (Ensemble of 34 RCMs from Euro-CORDEX Data............................................... 38  ffect of Measures to Maintain Optimal Water Balance Table 6: E on Change in the Value of Agricultural Output for Selected Crops (for the mean yield projection) .............................................................................. 63  blasts Most Affected by the Impacts of Climate Change Table 7: O on Agriculture, by Category................................................................................... 68  umber of CORDEX Datasets Processed by Combination of RCMs Table 8: N and Overarching GCMs......................................................................................... 88  ist of CORDEX-Adjusted Outputs Based on Combinations Table 9: L of GCM-RCM-Ensemble-Adjustment.................................................................... 93 Table 10: Minimum Input Weather Data Required for WOFOST........................................ 101 Table 11: Criteria Used in the Integrated Assessment Tables............................................. 109 ntegrated Criteria Assessment of Oblasts with the Highest Share Table 12: I of Agriculture in Their GDP in the Near Future.................................................... 111 Table 13: Weight of Agriculture in Relation to GDP (US Dollars) in 2010, per Oblast......... 116 Table 14: Agricultural Production by Type of Unit in Ukraine, 2019.................................... 118 Table 15: Percent Changes in Value of Selected Crops in Ukraine, 2010-2030................. 118 Poverty Consequences of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Table 16:  (Only Price Effects Considered) RCP 8.5, 2030.................................................. 120 Poverty Consequences of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Table 17:  (Low Scenario) RCP 8.5, 2030............................................................................ 121 Poverty Consequences of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Table 18:  (Mean Scenario) RCP 8.5, 2030......................................................................... 122  overty Consequences of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Table 19: P (High Scenario) RCP 8.5, 2030........................................................................... 123 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry ix Base Values of the Gini Coefficient and Changes Table 20:  in the Coefficient RCP 8.5, 2030......................................................................... 124 Table 21: Rating of Oblasts with the Highest Share of Agriculture in GDP......................... 127 Table 22: Rating of Oblasts by the Highest Change in Agriculture Production................... 129 Table 23: Rating of Oblasts by the Combined Social Changes.......................................... 131 Table 24: Average Annual Air Temperature in Forest Regions of Ukraine.......................... 133 Changes in the Area of Vorobjov’s Heat Availability Index (T) Table 25:  for Forests of Ukraine, %.................................................................................... 135  hanges in Area of Climatic Zones for Vorobjov’s Table 26: C Humidity Index (W) for Forests, %...................................................................... 136 Table 27: Distribution of Forest Areas by Classes of Natural Fire Hazard.......................... 142 Effect of Adaptation Measures to Maintain the Optimal Water Table 28:  Availability on Change in the Value of Agricultural Output for Selected Crops (mean projection)................................................................. 143 Effect of Adaptation Measures to Maintain the Optimal Water Table 29:  Availability on Change in the Value of Agricultural Output for Selected Crops (low projection)..................................................................... 144 Effect of Adaptation Measures to Maintain the Optimal Water Table 30:  Availability on Change in the Value of Agricultural Output for Selected Crops (high projection)................................................................... 145 Change in Value of Agricultural Output Relative to 2010 (Maize): Table 31:  Water Optimal vs Water Scarce Projection......................................................... 146 Change in Value of Agricultural Output Relative to 2010 (Soybean): Table 32:  Water Optimal vs Water Scarce Projection......................................................... 148 Change in Value of Agricultural Output Relative to 2010 (Sunflower): Table 33:  Water Optimal vs Water Scarce Projection......................................................... 150 x Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry BOXES Box 1: Description of Methodologies.................................................................................... 5 Box 2: Urban Vulnerability to Temperature Extremes........................................................... 20 Box 3: Impact of Water Shocks on Agricultural Yields.......................................................... 39 Box 4: Impact of Climate Change on Forests and Decline of Ecosystem Services............. 58 Box 5: National Climate Policy and Coordination: A Variety of Approaches......................... 73 Box 6: Examples of Climate-Smart Agriculture.................................................................... 75 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry xi ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ATR Annual temperature range CSA Climate-smart agriculture EU European Union EURO-CORDEX European branch of Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment FPIC Free prior and informed consent GDP Gross domestic product GIS Geographic information system ha Hectare IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IMPACT International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LTA Long-term average NCRC National climate resource center RCM Regional climate model RCP Representative concentration pathway TPM Third-party monitoring UHMI Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Institute URIFFM Ukrainian Research Institute of Forestry and Forest Melioration WOFOST World Food Studies Crop Simulation Model xii Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The team thanks the World Bank’s Management in Europe and Central Asia, especially Arup Banerji, Director, Eastern Europe; Steven N. Schonberger, Regional Director for Sustainable Development, Europe and Central Asia; and Asli Demirguc-Kunt, Chief Economist. The team is especially grateful for the unceasing support and guidance of Kseniya Lvovsky, Practice Manager, Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy Practice for Europe and Cen- tral Asia. The cooperation, information and insights provided by officials of the Government of Ukraine, especially Ms. Iryna Stavchuk, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resourc- es, is gratefully acknowledged. The team appreciates the time and feedback provided by all stakeholders in Ukraine who participated in consultations during the study. The team is grateful to the following peer reviewers at the World Bank for their valuable con- tributions at various stages of the study: Erick C.M. Fernandes, Stephane Hallegatte, Rich- ard Damania, Urvashi Narain, Tamer Samah Rabie, Sergiy Zorya, and Will Martin. The team benefited from the insights and feedback of Baher El-Hifnawi, Kanta Kumari Rigaud, Philippe Ambrosi, Gayane Minasyan, Ana Bucher, Daniel Besley, and the Agricultural Practice team. This report was prepared by a World Bank team which included Madhavi M. Pillai, Elena Strukova Golub, Michael M. Lokshin, Oksana Rakovych, and Thanh Phuong Ha. Valenti- na Fomenko and Sara Feinstein Held provided editorial input and Nadia Kislova, Linh Van Nguyen and Grace Aguilar provided administrative support throughout the process. The report benefited from input on climate adaptation policy and institutional issues by Oksana Davis and gratefully acknowledges the additional resources received from the NDC Partnership’s Just- in-Time program for this work. The background technical studies were led by Anil Markandya of Metroeconomica, Spain; Svitlana Krakovska and Oleksii Kryvobok at the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Institute (UHMI); Ihor Buksha at the Ukrainian Research Institute of Forestry and Forest Melioration named after G. M. Vysotsky (URIFFM); Kristina Govorukha at Technische Universität Berga- kademie Freiberg, Germany; Francisco Greño, Elena Paglialung, Itziar Ruizgauna, and An- doni Txapartegi (Metroeconomica, Spain) and a team of experts from the Basque Centre for Climate Change, Spain. Thanks to Vira Balabukh, Anastasiia Chyhareva and Tetiana Shpytal, all from UHMI, for their contribution to the technical reports. Special thanks are due to Claas Teichman, Scientist, Climate Service Centre, Hamburg, Germany for valuable guidance and review of the methodology for climate projections, and to Anatoly Shvidenko, Emeritus Re- search Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria, for feedback on the impact of climate change on forests. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ukraine has made impressive progress on key reforms and restored macro-financial stability, but weak growth and poverty remain a concern. The Maidan Revolution of 2013– 14, the events in Crimea in 2014, and the ongoing armed conflict in the eastern region since 2014 have all played an important role in undermining economic growth. A weak recovery since 2015 reflects both lower potential growth and the severity of the 2014-15 economic crisis. While poverty has declined relative to its peak during the crisis, it remains higher than during the pre-crisis period: In 2019, 23% of the population lived below the national poverty line, versus 8% in 2013 (World Bank 2021d). Despite these economic challenges, Ukraine recognizes climate change as the most consequential factor this century, affecting the economy and future generations. The country updated its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) in 2021 and recently af- firmed its commitment to the European Green Deal. However, in the absence of dedicated analyses, the nature of climate impacts on Ukraine’s economy are not yet fully understood. The present study is the first detailed assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on Ukraine, with a focus on agriculture, a key driver of the economy and jobs. It was designed as a bottom-up study, based on detailed climate projections for over 7,400 grid points covering the country — which together with biophysical modeling, were used to estimate the impact on key crops and forest timber species. This analysis provides an insight into the spatial dimension of climate change — how these changes would be experienced in different oblasts in the country. The results point in the direction of actions to avoid negative impacts, and reveal potential to tap into new opportunities. The study focused mainly on two scenarios, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, which are compatible with a global 2.4°C and 4.3°C warm- ing limit by 2100, respectively (IPCC 2021). This report is supported by four background technical reports on climate projections, impact on agriculture, impact on forests and distributional analysis. In addition, climate datasets of over two terabytes generated for this assessment are housed at the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Institute, Kyiv. The results of this study are expected to inform Ukraine’s national adaptation strategy, which is now being finalized. This study also paves the way for the development of sub-national and sectoral adaptation strategies with the spatially disaggre- gated information that has been generated for all oblasts. It will also inform the World Bank’s programs in Ukraine — the Climate Change and Development Report in particular. Key Findings: Climate Ukraine’s climate has changed significantly over the last 60 years, with accelerating warming since the 1980s resulting in the rates of 0.4-0.6°C per decade that exceed the mean value in Europe and are higher than the global rate by a few times. This caus- es changes in the precipitation regime: While total annual precipitation has not changed xiv Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry significantly in recent decades, greater precipitation was observed in the autumn and less precipitation in other seasons, with the most decreases occuring in summer. Rising air tem- peratures causing increased evaporative demand with uneven precipitation have resulted in lower accumulations of moisture in the soil, leading to an increase in the frequency and intensity of droughts in the last decade. The strongest annual temperature increases of over 4°C are projected for RCP 8.5 at the end of the century with the largest effect on the east and northeast of Ukraine (Kharkivs- ka, Luhanska, Sumska oblasts) and the smallest in the west (Ivano-Frankivska, Lvivs- ka, Volynska oblasts). In the scenario with lower GHG concentrations (RCP 4.5), estimated warming is projected to be approximately twice as small. Cities could experience intense tem- perature increases by the end of the century (over +5.0°C in summer in Luhansk and in winter in Kyiv), aggravated by the urban heat island effect. These impacts will need to be further ana- lyzed for their effect on the heating and cooling needs of the population, especially the health considerations of vulnerable groups, and for their effect on urban infrastructure. Annual temperature cycles are expected to be altered during the century due to higher projected monthly temperature increases in summer months in warmer regions, and in winter months in colder regions. These temperature increases will likely result in continuing reductions in the annual temperature ranges already observed and the decreasing continen- tality of the climate. These changes will have significant implications for ecosystem dynamics and vegetation growth. Rising temperatures in summer could result in heatwaves and increas- es in aridity in Ukraine’s south and east. Over the course of the year, minimum temperatures at night are expected to rise most sharply in the cold season, while daily maximum temperatures will increase the most in the summer season. It will result in a decrease in the number of days and nights with negative temperatures while the number of tropical nights with temperatures over 20°C and summer days with mean daily temperatures over 15°C will increase. More than 100 tropical nights and up to 135 summer days per year are projected for the south- ern steppe by the end of the century under RCP 8.5. In all scenarios, annual precipitation in Ukraine is projected to increase, with larger increases  towards the end of the century, especially under RCP 8.5. Precipitation is projected to increase significantly in the winter months for almost the entire country. Larger precipitation increases are expected in northern oblasts (especially in the northwest, e.g., Rivnenska, Volynska). The summer months are projected to have a relative decline getting larger over time under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. By the end of the century, changes under RCP 8.5 show not only twice higher warming but broader ranges of precipitation variability across oblasts, suggesting strong spatial differences. The southern and central areas are characterized by the lowest increase in precip- itation, with a significant decrease in warmer months exacerbating with temperature rise. Over- all, the southern and central oblasts are projected to become drier, and northern and western oblasts wetter with rising uncertainty of the delineation between these two opposite tendencies under RCP 8.5. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry xv The frequency and intensity of extreme weather and climate events, including heat- waves, thunderstorms, heavy precipitation, pluvial and river flooding, droughts, hail- storms, squalls, tornadoes, heavy snowfalls, freezing rains, accumulation of wet snow, icing, etc., are expected to rise with higher warming. Extreme events especially, those known as “low-likelihood, high-impact events,” (IPCC 2021) could have additional and signif- icant consequences on all sectors and ecosystems, resulting in a significant number of lost jobs and livelihoods. Most losses would be concentrated in sectors of middle and lower-in- come workers – manufacturing, utilities, retail, and tourism. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC AR6) assigns low confidence levels to the occurrence of these events, which does not exclude the possibility of their occurrence, but instead, is a reflection of the limits of predictability of these events. The potential impacts of such events on Ukraine need to be analyzed through a separate study. Key Findings: Agriculture and Forests With no adaptation interventions, the range of possible yield outcomes is large as is the risk of outcomes below expectations in any given year. Yields of selected crops (winter wheat, barley, maize, soybean, and sunflower) were modeled with a probability distribution for low and high projection: i.e., the 5th percentile of the distribution and the 95th percentile, respectively. Under RCP 8.5 yields of all crops, except wheat and soybean, face significant decline in 2030 and in 2050. In percentage terms, the decline is greater for barley followed by maize. However, the projected decline in maize yield is more important, since it is a critical export commodity. While climatic conditions become favorable for higher productivity of winter wheat in the near future period and up to the mid-century under both RCP 4.5 and 8.5, the unpre- dictability of precipitation patterns make oblast-level adaption planning very essential to prepare the agriculture sector for this climatic shift. Based on the projected changes in precipitation (autumn, winter), increased CO2 concentration, and decrease in the number of frost nights, yields are projected to increase 20-40% by 2050 as compared to the 2010 base- line period in the north and northwestern parts of the country first. This result is also in line with projections for the EU states in the recent PESETA IV study (Feyen 2020). Conditions for increased productivity of winter wheat also become favorable by mid-century for more areas of the country under RCP 8.5, based on the increase in autumn and winter precipitations pro- jected under this scenario. However, the unpredictability of precipitation patterns especially for the latter part of the century under RCP 8.5 makes it essential to pay greater attention to projected changes at the local level. The detailed projections from this study could be used to develop regional or local adaptation plans. The productivity of maize, sunflower and barley could also see an increase by mid-cen- tury, provided that climate-smart water management interventions are deployed for their production. Climate-smart strategies for water management could increase overall yields by 20-40%, and up to 80% for maize and 40-80% for sunflower. xvi Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry With optimal water availability, benefits for maize, soybean and sunflower crops could reach US$112 million per year over the 10-year period from 2026- 2035 under the mean projection.1 Simulations of low and high yield projections show that the annual benefits of maintaining optimal water balance could amount to US$264-504 million or 2-4% of Ukraine’s GDP for agriculture in 2019. The highest benefit of better water management in relative terms is expected for soybean output that could increase by 26-40%. The highest impact is estimat- ed at US$92.7 million for maize. To benefit from higher agricultural value, it is essential to carry out an assessment of the feasibility of different water management options. While an assessment of water re- sources was not part of this study, carrying out such assessments as part of oblast adaptation planning would be imperative to understanding the costs and suitability of different options for water management and water availability. Water management strategies adopted to offset cli- mate impacts could vary by crop and by oblast, and could include planting of drought-resistant varieties, use of cover crops, conservation agriculture, and drip-irrigation, among others. In addition, for winter crops, sowing dates may need to be shifted to later times (October-Novem- ber), when increases in temperature and precipitation are predicted. For spring crops, sowing dates would need to be earlier, with harvests before the dry weather conditions at the end of July and August, especially in the south of Ukraine. Based on the temperature and humidity conditions projected under both RCPs, a significant reduction is expected in the area suitable for the growth of spruce, beech, pine and oak. Less than 3% of the country’s forest areas would have optimal conditions for Norway spruce, Scots pine and beech under RCP 8.5 projections and just 8% of the territory will have optimal condi- tions for English oak. By mid-century, under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, only the Carpathians will remain a suitable zone for Norway spruce. In the Carpathians, the forest boundary is ex- pected to move to a higher altitude. The projected changes are likely to exacerbate disturbances and stressors such as wildfires and insects. During prolonged droughts, a significant proportion of forest biomass becomes combustible, increasing the fuel load of the forest. In addition, pest infestations which have been documented with warming conditions can result in the deterioration of forest health and increased tree mortality. These will, in turn, enlarge the fuel load available for com- bustion in wildfire events. Pine forests in the southern and northern steppe and forest-steppe areas will also be at high risk due to the drier conditions expected there under both RCPs. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Inequality by Oblast Climate change will have a greater impact on some oblasts than others based on its impact on agricultural production, and the resultant impact on poverty indica- tors. The top five oblasts with the highest impact in absolute terms by 2030 are Cherkaska, Khersonska, Kirovohradska, Poltavska, and Vinnytska. Kirovohradska oblast has the highest agricultural GDP in Ukraine and the value of its agricultural production will also be considera- 1 The low projection considered for this analysis reflects the lowest production potential of the selected crops under climate change. These values describe the worst-case scenario, in which the potential reduction in the agricultural production values will be the most significant. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry xvii bly impacted by the changing climatic conditions in this century. By mid-century Kyivska and Zhytomyrska oblasts will undergo significant changes in climatic conditions. With a consistent rise in dry and hot conditions, Kyivska and Chernivetska oblasts will be exposed to extremely high temperatures, as indicated by the increasing number of tropical nights that may result in increase of extreme weather events. The most significant loss in household incomes and the highest increase in poverty and inequality due to lower agricultural production values is projected to be in Kharkivska, Kirovohradska, Lvivska, Luhanska, and Zhytomyrska. Although the agricultural sector ac- counts for a relatively minor share in the GDP of most of these oblasts, the projected chang- es in agricultural production values will have significant implications for inequality measures. These oblasts would be most susceptible to the rise in food prices and reduction of income from agricultural production caused by the warming climate. Among the five oblasts, Lvivska and Zhytomyrska oblasts will be most exposed to the reduction of projected precipitation in spring and summer in relative terms, with potentially significant losses of agricultural produc- tion value in the near future period. Opportunities and Priorities for Climate Action Ukraine must take action to address the potential risks and opportunities that climate change will present for agriculture and forestry, and in turn livelihoods and poverty levels, across the country. Based on the analysis presented in this report, as well as inter- national experience, actions are recommended along three broad streams: • Strengthen Institutions, Policy and Planning • Increase Scientific Capacity and Research • Promote Transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Strengthen Institutions, Policy, and Planning Establish a national level institutional mechanism to coordinate climate change poli- cy and actions across all line ministries. Enabling fiscal risk assessment of climate ac- tions, policy and planning and climate budget tagging will be necessary to prepare critical sectors such as energy, infrastructure, health, and agriculture to address climate impacts. Establish a mechanism to integrate climate change action within the Ministry of Agrari- an Policy and Food (MAPF). Strengthening climate expertise and functions will equip MAPF with the necessary knowledge and technical capabilities to support effective and coherent climate policies and programs for farmers. It will also be important for MAPF to regularly carry out agriculture sector climate vulnerability assessments and develop action plans (every five years). Include climate change risk assessment in oblast development planning. Carrying out more comprehensive impact assessment reviews at the oblast level will be important to iden- tifying specific climate risk considerations for development planning and tailoring action to the sectors that face highest risk in the oblast. xviii Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Increase Scientific Capacity and Research Enhance institutional capacity for collecting, maintaining, analyzing, and disseminat- ing climate data through a National Climate Resource Center. Strengthen the Ukraine Hydrometeorological Institute (UHMI) and the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Center (UHMC) as a National Climate Resource Center (NCRC). Both institutions fall under the jurisdiction of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine, and combining them under the umbrella of an NCRC can ensure systematic research on hydrometeorology, agrometeorology, and climate science, including up-to-date climate projections, assessment of risks and impacts at the sec- toral, national, and regional levels. This will help strengthen the capacity and resources of the UHMI and UHMC to analyze and manage big data for climate planning. This study filled an important data gap by generating over two terabytes of highly granular data on a range of climate indicators for Ukraine using the latest available global and regional climate models. It will be necessary to continue analyzing and updating this data for sub-national adap- tation planning, which will require significant hardware and software capacity as well as trained personnel within these institutions. It will also help Ukraine participate in and take advantage of the EURO-CORDEX2 experiment and develop highly disaggregated climate projections that could be used to estimate climate risks in different sectors of the national economy and on the sub-national level. Promote Transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Promote climate-smart agriculture including, better soil and water management (e.g., through contour ploughing, contour bunding, conservation tillage, surface mulching, and revegetation and reforestation of areas around farmlands), agroforestry (planting combinations of trees and crops), drought-resistant varieties of key crops and cov- er crops, and expand landscape diversity and connectivity to increase the ability of ecosystems to adapt to changing climate conditions and stresses. Maintain or restore riparian areas, wetlands, peatlands and floodplains to help regulate water balance and reduce soil erosion; give incentives to farmers through agro-tourism and eco-tourism programs to manage non-arable lands to maintain biodiversity and natural habitats. These approaches have been shown to protect agriculture from environmental and climate stresses. Promote Farmer Information Systems and Precision Agriculture Technologies. Provide farmers with reliable and accessible knowledge about climate-smart agriculture and enhance their capacity for adaptation. An information system for farmers through mobile, online and in-person extension services will be key to raising awareness and initiating action on the ground. Promoting the use of precision agriculture (including Variable Rate Technology, or VRT, remote sensing and drones) would help move Ukraine towards more climate-friendly technol- ogies by reducing wastage of water and other inputs. To develop and maintain such systems, Ukraine can leverage its significant capacity and large pool of talent in information technologies. 2 EURO-CORDEX is the European branch of the international CORDEX initiative, a program sponsored by the World Climate Research Program (WRCP) to organize an internationally coordinated framework to produce improved regional climate change projections for all land regions world-wide. See https://euro-cordex.net/. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry xix Improve targeting of subsidy programs and develop insurance products for climate risks. Agricultural loans and subsidies could be redesigned and better targeted to incentivize the adoption of climate-smart technologies by farmers. Another approach would be to in- crease farmers’ resilience to climate change via the coverage of residual risks not addressed by adaptation actions. Products such as parametric crop insurance would help in areas where adverse weather events such as droughts and long-lasting heatwaves are expected and there is limited capacity for adaptation. As a part of the wider adaptation strategy, index insurance protects farmers’ investments from weather volatility and climate uncertainty. As the forest sector requires sustainable management with long-range climate risk planning, it is especially important to include climate risk management in the forthcom- ing Forest Strategy 2030 and the country’s associated plans for reforestation/affores- tation. A regularly updated national forest inventory will be key, in addition to field trials, to monitor growth and plan the planting of timber. Increasing capacity in geospatial technologies is essential for the management of forest fires. It is crucial to plan for this sector as it impacts the hydrological balance and soil conditions for agriculture. xx Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Despite its economic challenges and the COVID-19 pandemic, Ukraine is making efforts to- wards a green transition. There has been impressive progress on key reforms and the res- toration of macro-financial stability, but weak growth and poverty remain concerns. However, Ukraine has recently affirmed its commitment to the European Green Deal and updated its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) in 2021. Recognizing climate change as the defining factor of global development in this century, Ukraine has begun focusing on climate risks and planning for adaptation. Ukraine’s climate policies have traditionally focused on mitigation, given its status as one of most carbon-inten- sive economies in Europe, but there is increasing urgency to understand the impact climate change could have on key sectors such as agriculture and forestry. Figure 1: Map of Eco-regions of Ukraine Source: Buksha et al. 2020 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 1 Agriculture is a key driver of the economy, contributing about 10% to the national GDP and employing 17% of the labor force. The sector accounted for about 44% of total exports in 2018 (World Bank 2021d). Agriculture also contributes significantly to the subsistence, food security, and livelihoods of the rural population, with about four million farmers farming 15 million hectares. However, Ukraine’s agriculture exports are of low value (€436 per hectare compared to Poland €2030, Germany €630/hectare (UN 2021; FAO 2021b). Farmers face high input costs, particularly for fertilizers, and lack access to financing due to fragmented and poorly designed subsidies (World Bank 2021d). Despite very high potential, agriculture could face risks due to climate change. The ongoing decentralization reforms and the establishment of an agricultural land market of- fer an important opportunity to address climate change. Territorial communities are expected to take charge of local development budgets and the management of (some) natural resources, including environmentally critical lands in Ukraine. This, combined with the opening of agricul- tural land markets, is expected to give communities and farmers greater control over land and resources, leading to sustainable land management. Empowering local level decision-making is recognized internationally as a good practice for better development outcomes. However, it is critical to ensure that the newly empowered decision-makers have the resources and infor- mation to make the right decisions, including on impending climate change risks. The Government has started taking steps toward adaptation but there is a need to enhance the knowledge base. The President of Ukraine’s Decree of March 23, 2021 (№ 111/2021) in- dicates that ecological security is being linked to national security and emphasizes the need to address climate change and adaptation. The Government has drafted two documents em- phasizing the importance of increasing the resilience of forest ecosystems to climate change: National Strategy on Environmental Security and Adaptation to Climate Change through 2030 and State Strategy of Forest Management of Ukraine until 2035. However, there remains in- sufficient information to underpin policies and action plans. This study lays the foundation for developing detailed adaptation planning at the national and sub-national levels. It presents a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of climate change, with a deep dive into the agriculture sector and a limited analysis of climate impacts on forests. The approach and data generated can be used for deep dives in other sectors and for developing oblast-level adaptation plans. 1.1 The Analytical Framework The study was conducted in four stages, starting with climate projections and biophysical and economic impact assessments, followed by distributional analysis and identification of hotspot oblasts which are most likely to be affected by poverty and inequality. (Box 1, and Annex I for more details). The first stage involved projections of key climate variables for three future periods: the near future (2021-2040), mid-century (2041-2060), and end of the century (2081-2100) under RCP 2.6 (compatible with a 2°C global warming limit by 2100), RCP 4.5, (compatible with a 2.4°C global warming limit), and RCP 8.5 (compatible with a 4.3°C global warming limit). Seven key climate variables were simulated: min, max, and mean air tempera- ture; precipitation; surface wind speed; and relative humidity. Additional climate indexes were also calculated for sectoral analysis. 2 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry The second stage assesses the biophysical impacts of climate change on forestry and the agricultural sector. Specifically, the forestry assessment studies changes in the ecological amplitude (zones of tolerance) for eight main forest-forming species in three future periods under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. These species include Norway spruce, European beech, com- mon hornbeam, Scots pine, English oak, black alder, silver birch, and black locust. The as- sessment under RCP 2.6 was not conducted due to limited climate data for this scenario. The agricultural analysis simulates changes in yields and production for five prominent crops in the near future (2026-2035) and mid-century (2046-2055) under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. These are barley, maize, soybean, sunflower, and winter wheat, which together accounted for 61% of production volume in 2018 (Ukraine Statistics 2021). Figure 2: Methodology Climate protection Biophysical Impact Economic impacts Distributional impact For: Near Future On: Agriculture and On: Agriculture Impact analysis of the (2021-2040). Forestry effects on agriculture by Mid-Century For: Near Future, income group, impact (2041-2060), For: Near Future, Mid-Century on poverty and Gini End of century Mid-Century coefficient Scenario: (2081-2100) Scenario: SSP2 & RCP 8.5 For: Near Future Scenario: RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5, RCP 8.5 Resolution: ~ 10 x 10 km Euro CORDEX Agriculture: WOFOST Agriculture; IMPACT Model Local data on household (GCMs & RCMs) Model (change in yield) for (change in production & and expenditures five major crops value) for five major crops Core climate indicators: min, max and mean temperature, precipitation, surface wind speed, Forestry: assessment of Impact of increases in relative humidity eight key forest species consumer/producer prices for ecological amplitude and agricultural income using local forest typology change on poverty and Gini Climate indicators for models coefficient sectoral analysis, and vulnerability indicators Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 3 During stage three, economic impacts of climate change on agriculture were estimated by assessing changes in production values for the same three future periods under RCP 8.5 (fu- ture crop prices are not available under RCP 4.5). During stage four, utilizing the agricultural assessment results, the distributional analysis assessed the impacts of climate change on households’ real incomes through its impacts on food prices and agricultural income. Based on existing socio-economic data and all analysis results, “hotspot” oblasts were then identified and highlighted for prioritizing adaptation actions. Similar analysis for the impact of climate change on forests was not conducted due to the lack of socio-economic data at subnational levels and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis was conducted at a highly granular level, but most of the results are reported at the oblast level to present spatially meaningful results. Most of the analysis was conduct- ed at the individual grid level, covering more than 7,400 grid cells over the entire territory of Ukraine. Then the results were aggregated at the oblast level to facilitate appropriate and tailored decision-making and planning at the local administrative level. Reporting results at the oblast levels also allow inter-regional comparisons and prioritization of locations that need adaptation solutions. Caveats and Limitations of the Methodology 1.2  The climate projections presented in this report have uncertainty ranges and should not be interpreted as forecasts. The uncertainties in constructing and running climate models are in- herent and manifold. Climate models cannot fully capture the complexities of climate systems. When constructing climate models, simplifications, assumptions, and choices of parametriza- tions are made, resulting in model and projection errors. Although certain methods have been applied to reduce these systematic and inherent errors, climate projection results are reported in ranges with upper and lower limits of confidence intervals. Since the projected climate varia- bles are used as inputs for agricultural assessments, the results for agricultural projections are also presented in a probabilistic distribution. The study did not consider extreme events due to the complexity in data analysis on this spe- cific aspect of climate change and higher uncertainty of their projections. The analysis focused on the long-term impacts of climate change on specific sectors. The frequency and intensity of extreme weather and climate events, including heatwaves, thunderstorms, heavy precipita- tion, hailstorms, squalls, tornadoes, heavy snowfalls, freezing rains, accumulation of wet snow, icing, etc., could have significant impact on the yields and value of agricultural production but are not modeled in this study. Estimation of mean changes is justified for this study due to a higher uncertainty of extreme projections, especially for granular approaches such as the CORDEX experiment (Seneviratne 2012). However, extreme events, especially those known as “low-likelihood, high-impact events,” (IPCC 2021) could have additional and significant con- sequences on all sectors and ecosystems, resulting in a significant number of lost jobs and livelihoods. Most losses would be concentrated in sectors of middle and lower-income work- ers – manufacturing, utilities, retail, and tourism. The AR6 report assigns low confidence levels to the occurrence of these events, which does not exclude their possibility, but instead reflects the limits of these events’ predictability. Potential impacts of such events on Ukraine need to be analyzed through a separate study. 4 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Box 1: Description of Methodologies A detailed description of the methodology and models used is given in Annex I. Climate projections. Datasets from the European branch of the International Coordinated Regional Down- scaling Experiment (EURO-CORDEX) initiative at a resolution of 0.11 degrees (~12.5 km) are obtained to pro- duce daily climate projections over approximately 7,400 grid points for the entire territory of Ukraine for more than 100 years. Over 300 datasets for seven climate variables under three RCPs are obtained for the projec- tions from various combinations of multiple Regional (RCM) and Global (GCM) climate models. Historical and baseline data are obtained from the E-OBS v20.0e gridded dataset with the same spatial resolution. The three RCPs are selected based on the availability of data and include RCP 2.6 (compatible with a 2°C global warm- ing limit by 2100), RCP 4.5 (compatible with a 2.4°C global warming limit), and RCP 8.5 compatible with a 4.3°C global warming limit). Systematic errors inherent in climate modeling are reduced through the utilization of multi-model ensembles for climate projections and bias-correction of climate data, resulting in probabilistic projections (i.e., climate variables are projected in ensemble ranges with upper and lower limits at 95% confidence interval). The means of the ensembles are reported as they represent the most probable values. The results are report- ed as future changes in climate variables compared to the base period (1991-2010). The historical period (1961-1990) is also used to compare the results with older studies and the changes that have already taken place between this period and the baseline. Forestry impact assessment. The forestry assessment was conducted using Vorobjov’s climate-related forestry typology model and Didukh’s model of suitable environmental condition for plants. Vorobjov’s for- estry typology model consists of three climate indexes with the most significant effects on forest growth, condition, productivity, and biodiversity: humidity (the ombro-regime), continentality, and frostiness (the cryo-regime). Based on these three indexes, the lower critical (minimum) and upper critical (maximum) limits and the interval between them (referred to as “zone of ecological amplitude”) are established for each of the eight forest-forming species, using the methodology developed by Didukh. Key climate variables are used to calculate Vorobjov’s three indexes to determine changes in the zones of ecological amplitude for these species in three future periods compared to the baseline of 1991-2010. An open-source geographic information system application (Q-GIS) was used to perform spatial analysis and visualize the results. Agricultural impact assessment. The World Food Studies Crop Simulation (WOFOST) model is used to assess the biophysical impacts of climate change on yield potentials of five key crops in the near future and mid-century, relative to the baseline period (2006 – 2015), using meteorological inputs from climate projections. The WOFOST was calibrated and adapted for Ukraine by the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Institute (UHMI). The yield projections were then combined with changes in land areas under each crop in 2030 and 2050 and changes in prices for those years under the combined SSP2 – RCP 8.5 scenario from the International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) developed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) to estimate changes in production and production values relative to the baseline period. The reported results are centralized values for 2010, 2030 and 2050 in three sets of projections: low, mean, and high, which reflect an uncertainty range associated with the uncertainties in climate projection. Distributional analysis. The analysis utilizes comprehensive data collected for 250- 500 individual house- holds for each oblast, which allows for identification of variations in income distribution due to climate-in- duced changes in the agricultural sector. It provides two key outputs: increases in the prices of key food products as a result of climate change, which allows for estimates of 2030 price increases for key agricultur- al commodities under RCP 8.5 and RCP 4.5; and changes in agricultural incomes as a result of the effects on yields, production, and production values. Identification of “hotspot” oblasts. Using the results from climate impacts on agriculture, “hotspot” oblasts are grouped based on the: i) change in oblast GDP due to the projected changes in agricultural production; ii) change in agricultural production values; and iii) change in household incomes, poverty, and inequality. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 5 The study also does not consider the effects of pests and diseases on agriculture and forestry and analysis of more climate change scenarios. Damage caused by pests and diseases is triggered by a warmer and drier climate, which could be more relevant for Ukraine’s south and east, were not analyzed. (See Figure 31.) The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) is expected during the latter part of 2021, and further analysis using CMIP6 data can provide information on these parameters. It should be also noted that climate projections were available from only three regional climate models (RCMs) at the time of the study to estimate precipitation for RCP 2.6 scenario, while for RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, the full ensembles consist of 43 and 34 RCMs, respectively. Therefore, results for RCP 2.6 are only indicative and are not used in further agriculture and forest vulnerability assessments. 6 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry CHAPTER 2: HOW WILL UKRAINE’S CLIMATE CHANGE IN THIS CENTURY? 2.1 Summary Winters are expected to be warmer, and summers hotter; a consistent trend of increases in annual average temperatures is expected across the country with progressively higher increases towards the end of the century. Over the course of the year, daily minimum temperatures rise most sharply in the cold season, while daily maximum temperatures increase the most in the summer season. The projected ranges of average annual temper- ature increase for the three periods [the near future (2021-2040); mid-century (2041-2060); and end of the century (2081-2100)] and under RCP  4.5 already exceed the observed historical range of changes during the 1991-2010 baseline period. The highest increase in average annual temperature for the entire country – by nearly 4.3°C – is projected under RCP 8.5 at the end of the century. In all scenarios, monthly precipitation will increase by 2100. Precipitation also follows a complex trend in all three future periods, with its pattern changing in different ways in cold- er and hotter seasons. In the period at end of the century, wetter weather is expected in colder months and drier weather in warmer months, particularly in the south and east, but this pattern is not consistent and there are significant variations across regions. By the end of the century, the projected precipitation changes spread increases, with higher ranges anticipated under RCP 8.5. The precipitation pattern is characterized by major increases in winter months for most of Ukraine. The ranges of changes are much lower in summer months. The projected mean increase rises to almost 10 mm in December in the far future. The projections made under RCP 4.5 show comparatively smaller precipitation ranges. Annual seasonal cycles will be altered. In particular, the projected monthly temperature in- creases are generally higher in all three periods during the summer months in warmer regions and during the winter months in colder regions. These temperature increases will likely result in continuing reductions in the annual temperature ranges already observed. Additionally, the number of ice days and frost nights are expected to decrease while the number of tropical nights will increase. These changes will have significant implications for ecosystem dynamics and vegetation growth. The southern and central oblasts will become drier, and northern oblasts will become wetter. At the end of the 21st century, the southern regions will experience an average daily maximum July temperature above 34°С, a level never before observed in Ukraine, with the southern steppe remaining the hottest area until the end of the century. Rising temperatures in sum- mers will result in heatwaves and increased aridity in the south and east. Under RCP 4.5, summer days will start earlier in the year and end later; and under RCP 8.5, the number of summer days will increase by an average of 42 days by the end of the century. The largest temperature increases are expected in the east and northeast of Ukraine (Sumska, Kharkivs- ka, Luhanska) and the smallest in the west (Volynska, Lvivska, Ivano-Frankivska). Higher Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 7 increases in average daily minimum temperatures indicate warmer nighttime temperatures, which could increase the need for indoor cooling for longer periods each year. The largest precipitation increases are projected for the northern oblasts (Rivnenska and Volynska), while the lowest precipitation increase (and even a decrease in the warm months) are expected for the southern and central areas. Changes under RCP 8.5 show broader rang- es of precipitation variability across oblasts, suggesting strong spatial differences. Cities are projected to experience intense temperature increases toward the end of the centu- ry (over +5.0°C in summer in Luhansk and winter in Kyiv), aggravated by the urban heat island effect. The highest warming in summers is expected for Kyiv in July. During the end of century period, warming will reach +5.0°C in cities in almost every part of the country in every month. Recent Climatic Changes in Ukraine 2.2  Ukraine’s current climate reflects significant changes that the country has been experiencing as the result of climate change. The current climate of most of the country (85%) is temperate continental, or “cold,” as classified according to the Koppen-Geiger climate classification (see Figure 3). The country consists of several climate zones. The cold zone with no dry season and warm summer (Dfb) covers over 70% of the territory in the west, north, and central parts of the country, as well as the Crimean Mountains, and corresponds to the forest and forest-steppe eco-regions. The zone with hot summer humid continental climate (Dfa) includes over 14% of the country, across the southeast and the northern steppe. The cold semi-arid climate zone (BSk) corresponds to the southern steppe and covers over 14% of the south including most of the Crimean Peninsula. The subarctic climate zone (Dfc) covers the Carpathian Mountains, where tundra climate (ET) is found at the highest altitudes. The humid subtropical climate zone (Cfa) and temperate oceanic climate zone (Cfb) cover the southern coast and northern part of the Crimean Mountains. Each of these four climate types account for less than 1% of the country’s territory. Ukraine’s climate has changed significantly over the last 60 years, with temperatures rising at an increasing rate. Since the late 1990s, the mean annual air temperature has been con- sistently higher than that between 1961 and 1990. Since 2007, it has exceeded the norm by 1.5o C. The last decade, especially the years since 2015, were the warmest ever in Ukraine, and in the Northern Hemisphere in general. In some years, the increase in mean annual air temperature surpassed 2.0 °С (2.2°С in 2007, 2.3 °С in 2015, and 2.7 °С in 2019). The daily minimum temperature rise is largest in the cold seasons, while maximum daily temperature in- creases the most in summer. Such changes have led to a decrease in the duration of the cold season, the number of frost days, and the severity of winters. At the same time, the changes have resulted in a longer and hotter growing season, an increased number of summer days, and, accordingly, a longer recreation season. Consequently, the number of hot days and the duration of the hot spells, heat load, and heat stress on the human body are also increasing. The precipitation regime in Ukraine has also changed: While total annual precipitation has not changed, there has been a redistribution of precipitation levels among different seasons. Increases in precipitation levels are observed in autumn, and decreases in winter, with even greater decreases in the summers. Furthermore, the unevenness of precipitation and its in- tensity have increased, causing an extension in the duration of the dry periods. Rising air 8 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Figure 3: Climatic Zones in Ukraine, 1980-2016 Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyiv Kyivska Lviv Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Kropyvnytskyi Luhansk Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odesa Crimea Köppen-Geiger climate classification (1980–2016) BSk Arid, steppe, cold (14.3 %) Cfa Temperate, no dry season, hot summer (0.3 %) Cfb Temperate, no dry season, warm summer (<< 0.1 %) Dfa Cold, no dry season, hot summer (14.1 %) Dfb Cold, no dry season, warm summer (70.4 %) Dfc Cold, no dry season, cold summer (0.9 %) ET Polar, tundra (<< 0.1 %) Source: Beck et al. 2018. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 9 temperatures and uneven precipitation have resulted in lower accumulations of moisture in the soil, leading to an increase in the frequency and intensity of droughts. Drought episodes have almost doubled in the last twenty years with the dangerous tendency of increasing the recurrence of arid conditions in the Polissya eco-region, which was previously sufficiently wet, and also causing aridity in the northern regions of the forest-steppe. Annual Temperature and Precipitation Projections 2.3  The temperature and precipitation trends show greater changes toward the end of the century. The expected increases in average annual temperature and precipitation during this century are presented in Table 1. Projected average annual temperature change by the end of the century for RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, compared to the base period and the differences between the two scenarios, are presented Figures 4a, 4b, and 4c. Table 1: Increases in Average Annual Temperature and Precipitation 2021-2040 2041-2060 2081-2100 temperature / precipitation temperature / precipitation temperature / precipitation RCP 2.6 0.8±1.4°C / 3 % 1.0±1.7°C / 2 % 0.9±1.8°C / 6 % RCP 4.5 0.9±1.4°C / 6 % 1.5±1.7°C / 5 % 2.1±1.8°C / 6 % RCP 8.5 1.1±1.5°C / 4 % 2.0±1.7°C / 5 % 4.3±2.1°C / 8 % Figure 4 : Projected Annual Mean Temperature Increases  rojected Annual Mean Temperature Increase Figure 4a: P (compared to baseline 1991-2010) for RCP 4.5 at the End of the Century 10 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  rojected Annual Mean Temperature Increase (compared to base- Figure 4b: P line 1991-2010) RCP 8.5 at the End of the Century Temperature Differences Between the Two Scenarios at the End Figure 4c:  of the Century Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 11 The RCP 4.5 emission scenario (which as- sumes some climate policies) causes a mi- Figure 5: Annual Temperature Change nor difference in temperature increase in the near future but has a greater impact in RCP 8.5 End of century: 2081-2100 mid-century and even more so at the end RCP 8.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 of the century. The range of mean changes RCP 8.5 Near future: 2021-2040 in annual air temperature is approximate- RCP 4.5 End of century: 2081-2100 ly +2.0±0.2°C under RCP 4.5 and is much RCP 4.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 more pronounced (4.2±0.2°C) under RCP RCP 4.5 Near future: 2021-2040 8.5. The difference between the projected Historical period: 1991-2010 temperature changes under RCP 4.5 and 1 2 3 4 5 RCP 8.5 rises sharply from 0.5°C in 2041- Temperature change [°C] 2060 to 2.2°C in 2081-2100. The spatial distributions of temperature rise under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 are similar over time, with the highest temperature increases in the northeast and the lowest in the west and northwest and near the Black Sea coast. The highlighted territories are most exposed to warming under the highest emission scenar- io (RCP 8.5) without mitigation measures. Figure 6: Annual Temperature Change Small increases in the annual precipitation totals are projected for all periods across all RCP 8.5 End of century: 2081-2100 RCP scenarios. The ranges for the project- RCP 8.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 ed changes in precipitation and tempera- RCP 8.5 Near future: 2021-2040 ture and historical data for the base period RCP 4.5 End of century: 2081-2100 (1991-2010) are given in Figure 5 and Figure RCP 4.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 6 on the box-whisker-plots.3 These figures RCP 4.5 Near future: 2021-2040 present the spreads of changes in average Historical period: 1991-2010 annual temperature and precipitation over -50 0 50 100 150 the territory of Ukraine, showing the mean, Precipitation change [mm] minimum, and maximum values under each RCP in every period. In all three future periods, precipitation fol- lows a complex trend, diverging between colder and hotter seasons. The pattern of monthly changes in precipitation is expected to be wetter in colder months and dryer in warmer months, particularly in the southern and eastern regions. However, significant differences are expected across regions, and this pattern is not observed everywhere. In general, monthly precipitation projections confirm the previous findings of precipitation 3 This figure and later the box and whisker diagrams: the lower and upper hinges of boxes correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). The upper whisker extends from the hinge to the largest value no further than 1.5o (inter-quartile range) from the hinge. Inter-quartile range is the distance between the first and third quartiles of data distribution. 12 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Figure 7: Annual Precipitation Change (mapped) RCP 4.5 Near future: 2021-2040 RCP 4.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Odeska Khersonska Khersonska AR Krym AR Krym RCP 4.5 End of century: 2081-2100 RCP 8.5 Near future: 2021-2040 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Odeska Khersonska Khersonska AR Krym AR Krym RCP 8.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 RCP 8.5 End of century: 2081-2100 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Odeska Khersonska Khersonska AR Krym AR Krym Annual precipitation change to base period 1991-2010 [%] -10% — -5% -5% — 0% 0% — 5% 5% — 10% 10% — 15% 15% — 20% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 13 redistribution in the annual cycle with more noticeable changes under RCP  8.5, par- Figure 8: M  onthly Precipitation Change ticularly during summers (Figure 8). Monthly in RCP 4.5 – End of Century precipitation is projected to increase under Compared to Baseline both RCPs by 2100 (Krakovksa et al. 2017), by which time the impacts become more pro- nounced, especially during winters. 20 The projected monthly temperature increas- 10 es in all three future periods are generally higher in the summer months in hotter re- 0 gions and in the winter months in colder -10 regions. Monthly temperature changes, par- ticularly changes in the annual temperature -20 range (ATR), are of special interest for future climate impact assessments. The ATR signi- fies the difference between the average tem- September December November February January October August Annual March June April May July peratures of the warmest and coldest months Precipitation change [mm] in a year. Historical data show that ATR has generally been declining in Ukraine (Balabu- kh and Malitskaya 2017), and the projections indicate that this decline is likely to continue. The main reason for this decline is the rela- tively higher increase in temperature during  onthly Precipitation Change Figure 9: M the coldest months. in RCP 8.5 – End of Century Compared to Baseline 20 10 0 -10 -20 September December November February January October August Annual March June April May July Precipitation change [mm] 14 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Projections at the Oblast Level 2.4  Regional temperature changes show a consistent increase until the end of the century under RCP  4.5 and RCP  8.5, with increases higher in average daily minimum temperatures than in daily maximum temperatures. Figure 10 shows both precipitation and temperature projec- tions for each oblast for both scenarios. For each projected period, the increase in minimum, maximum, and mean temperatures [°C] is compared to the base period. Under RCP 8.5, tem- peratures are higher than under RCP 4.5, but most notable is the increase in minimum tem- peratures (blue bars) in both scenarios. It is much more intense than the increase in maximum temperatures, indicating increasing aridity and warming in the summer months and fewer cool days in the winter. The width of the bands describing the range of precipitation changes in the scenarios and projection periods shows a significant increase in regional variability, which becomes more pronounced at the end of the period. The projected warming temperatures and shift in precipitation patterns caused by global warming will, in turn, lead to increased water demand due to higher evapotranspiration rates. These climate trends are of critical importance for regions with a higher proportion of ru- ral population which is dependent on agricultural income, as distributional effects of climate change on household incomes are expected to be stronger in oblasts where households rely on agricultural production. These oblasts are Chernivetska, Dnipropetrovska, Ivano-Frankivs- ka, Kirovohradska, Rivnenska, Ternopilska, Vinnytska, Volynska, and Zhytomyrska. The regional variations in precipitation become stronger by the end of the century. For precipi- tation, projected changes are more heterogeneous across RCPs and time horizons. In general, the southern and central areas are characterized by the lowest increase in precipitation, with decreases even in warm months. In case of RCP 4.5, in both near future and middle-of-centu- ry periods, a low increase in the average annual precipitation level, with the highest decrease in summers, is registered for the southeastern (Khersonska, Zaporizka, Donetska, Luhanska, Mykolaivska, and Odeska) and western oblasts (Zakarpatska). In contrast, larger precipitation increases are recorded in the northern oblasts (especially in Rivnenska, and Volynska in the northwest). Projections at the City Level 2.5  Cities are projected to experience intense temperature increases through the end of the cen- tury (over +5.0°C in summer in Luhansk and in winter in Kyiv), aggravated by the urban heat island effect (see Box 2). Monthly mean temperatures and precipitation — as annual cycles with their projected changes over the base period (1991-2010) — are presented and analyz- ed for five representative cities in different geographical regions of Ukraine, including Kyiv (north), Lviv (west), Kropyvnytskyi (center), Luhansk (east), and Odesa (south). They are also aggregated for the entire country. For all periods, the annual cycle of air temperature has the same pattern, with July as the hottest month and January as the coldest. Historical monthly temperature data from E-OBS (1991-2010 period vs. 1961-1990) shows that the most warm- ing has taken place in winter and summer months, with slight cooling in December in all cities except Lviv; Luhansk (-0.3°C in May) and Kropyvnytskyi (-0.1°C in May). Warming during the other winter months (from historical to the baseline period) is comparable with temperature increases projected throughout the mid-century period under RCP 8.5 and increases in max- Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 15 Figure 10: Projected Changes in Temperatures and Precipitation by Oblast 16 Temperature change Precipitation change Temperature change Precipitation change Temperature change Precipitation change 2021-2040 2021-2040 2041-2060 2041-2060 2081-2100 2081-2100 Cherkaska Chernihivska Chernivetska Crimea Dnipropetrovska Donetska Ivano-Frankivska Kharkivska Khersonska Khmelnytska Kyivska Kirovohradska Lvivska Luhanska Mykolaivska Odeska P ol tav s ka Rivnenska Sumska Sevastopol Ternopilska Vi nnyts ka Volynska Zakarpatska Zaporizka Zhytomyrska 0 °C 1°C 2 °C 3°C 4 °C 5 °C 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0 °C 1 °C 2 °C 3 °C 4 °C 5 °C 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0 °C 1 °C 2 °C 3 °C 4 °C 5 °C 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% RCP 4.5 Temperature change Precipitation change Temperature change Precipitation change Temperature change Precipitation change 2021-2040 2021-2040 2041-2060 2041-2060 2081-2100 2081-2100 Cherkaska Chernihivska Chernivetska Crimea Dnipropetrovska Donetska Ivano-Frankivska Kharkivska Khersonska Khmelnytska Kyivska Kirovohradska Lvivska Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Luhanska Mykolaivska Odeska P ol tav s ka Rivnenska Sumska Sevastopol Ternopilska Vi nnyts ka Volynska Zakarpatska Zaporizka Zhytomyrska 0 °C 1 °C 2 °C 3 °C 4 °C 5 °C 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0 °C 1 °C 2 °C 3 °C 4°C 5 °C 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0 °C 1 °C 2°C 3 °C 4 °C 5 °C 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Absolute change in regional temperatures to base period Min temperature Max temperature Average temperature RCP 8.5 imum temperatures are projected in the cities of Kyiv (+2.4°C) and Luhansk (+2.3°C), where lower winter monthly temperatures are typically observed. The highest summer temperature increases have been recorded in Kyiv in July (+1.8°C/ from historical to baseline period), caused by the urban heat island effect. In the near future projections, the highest temperature rises are in March for all cities under both RCP scenarios. And the warming is over the 5-95% range only in March for RCP 4.5 in the ensemble of RCMs. In other months and scenarios, uncertainties of the ensemble of RCMs are significant, resulting in low confidence of the estimates. During the middle of the century period between 2041-2060, the differences between the two scenarios become apparent, and in Ukraine’s cities, strong temperature signals are observed for almost all months, giving rise to high confidence in the warming projections. Warming in other winter months is comparable to the temperatures projected – through the middle of the century under RCP 8.5 and through the end of the century under RCP 4.5, with the maximum increases projected for Kyiv (+2.4°C) and Luhansk (+2.3°C), where lower winter monthly temperatures are typically observed. During the end of the century period (2081-2100), the tendency for increased warming in colder regions in both the winter and summer months is even more pronounced than previ- ously understood, and the difference between scenarios is the largest (between +2.0°C to +2.7°C). During the 21st century’s last 20-year period, warming will reach +5.0°C in almost for every month in cities in every region. With further warming, annual precipitation will increase for all regions during all periods, with redistributions occurring during different months throughout the year. • Kyiv (north): The highest warming has been recently recorded during winter in January (+2.4°C) and during summer in July (+1.8°C), caused by the urban heat island effect. Further warming is expected through the end of the century under the highest emission scenario, RCP 8.5, which can result in higher monthly temperatures each year; this means an absence of winter seasons, even in the north of the country, and mean monthly sum- mer temperatures over +25°C. We see the month with maximum precipitation shift from July to June. This shift has already begun, and is visible in a comparison of historic data (1961-1990) to the baseline period (1991-2010). It continues for most periods under both RCPs (with the exception of the warmest period 2081-2100 under RCP 8.5, during which the same precipitation amounts are projected for both June and July). • Lviv (west): Precipitation in the annual cycle reaches its maximum in June-July in the historic period (1961-1990). The annual distribution of precipitation changes in the base period, with more precipitation in May than June. This trend continues in all three future periods. Increased warming is likely to result in a completely new shape of the annual precipitation cycle, with maximum precipitation amounts in May and July through all three future time periods, except under RCP  4.5, when the annual cycle will likely be similar to the shape of the historic period (1961-1990) at the end of the century, with one sharp maximum in July. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 17  ulti-Year Mean Monthly Temperature and Temperature Change Figure 11. M for Different Climatic Periods and the Baseline4 KYI V (NORT H) ODESA (SOUT H) 30 30 25 25 20 20 Temper atur e Temper atur e 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 -5 0 -10 -5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec M onth M onth L UHANSK (EAST ) L VI V (WEST ) 30 30 25 25 20 20 Temper atur e Temper atur e 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec M onth M onth KROPYVNYST SKYI (CENT ER) UKRAI NE 30 30 25 25 20 20 Temper atur e Temper atur e 15 15 10 10 Temper atur e 5 5 0 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec M onth M onth I RCP4.5 I RCP8.5 II RCP4.5 II RCP8.5 III RCP4.5 III RCP8.5 E-Obs 2000-1980 I RCP4.5 I RCP8.5 II RCP4.5 II RCP8.5 III RCP4.5 III RCP8.5 E-Obs 1961-1990 E-Obs 1991-2010 4 In these graphs, lines indicate absolute values, while bars show incremental value compared to the baseline (1990 – 2010). 18 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  ulti-Year Mean Monthly Precipitation Amounts (lines) and Projected Figure 12. M Changes (histograms) for Different Climatic Periods, Observations, and Scenario Datasets for Cities in Different Regions and Ukraine as a Whole KYI V (NORT H) ODESA (SOUT H) 90 60 80 50 70 Pr ecipitation, mm Pr ecipitation, mm 40 60 50 30 40 20 30 10 20 0 10 0 -10 -10 -20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec M onth M onth L UHANSK (EAST ) L VI V (WEST ) 70 120 60 100 50 Pr ecipitation, mm Pr ecipitation, mm 80 40 60 30 40 20 20 10 0 0 -10 -20 -20 -40 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec M onth M onth KROPYVNYT SKYI (CENT ER) UKRAI NE 70 90 60 80 70 Pr ecipitation, mm Pr ecipitation, mm 50 60 40 50 30 40 20 30 20 10 10 0 0 -10 -10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec M onth M onth I RCP4.5 I RCP8.5 II RCP4.5 II RCP8.5 III RCP4.5 III RCP8.5 I RCP4.5 I RCP8.5 II RCP4.5 II RCP8.5 III RCP4.5 III RCP8.5 E-Obs 1961-1990 E-Obs 1991-2010 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 19 Box 2: Urban Vulnerability to Temperature Extremes With climate change, high temperature extremes will become more frequent and more severe, while the intensity and frequency of extreme low temperatures will gradually decrease (Naumann et al. 2020). A heat wave is a period during which the maximum daily air temperature over five consecutive days exceeds the mean maximum historical air temperatures by 5°C (Shevchenko et al. 2014a). Ukraine had the highest incidence of heat waves during 2001-2010, with the longest being the 24-day heatwave in Luhansk (Shevchenko et al. 2014b). Heatwaves are likely to become more frequent, intense, and long- lasting following a 20% increase in projected average daily maximum temperatures (see Figure 13) in the south of the country compared to the period 1990-2001. If global warming reaches 2°C and 3°C, the occurrence probability of heat waves will increase by a factor of 10 to 20, respectively, compared to the 1981-2010 period (Naumann et al. 2020). With a disappearing winter season and mean monthly summer temperatures over +25°C, heat waves are likely to increase in frequency. This is particularly important for Kyiv, Kharkiv and Luhansk, which are already affected by heat waves (Shevchenko et al. 2014b). Impact on health, infrastructure, and the economy. Heat stress affects quality of life, especially in cities due to the urban heat island effect — increased air temperature in the central part of a city compared to its suburbs. With an increasing number of hot days (Figure 15) heatstroke and cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases could become more prevalent (Naumann et al. 2020). Extended high temperatures can damage concrete infrastructure and public transportation, and adversely affect the operation of thermal and nuclear power plants (Platts 2018). Other Climate and Vulnerability Indicators 2.6  Significant increases in the regional average daily maximum temperatures in the hottest month are projected under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. Monthly means of daily maximum tempera- tures over 30°С in the hottest month were observed mainly in the southern steppe of Ukraine in the baseline period (1991-2010). This region will remain the hottest until the end of the cen- tury under both the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, but projections show that the area with daily maximum temperatures above 30°C will expand to the entire southern and central parts of Ukraine (Figure 13). In the south of the country, the average daily maximum temperature in July will exceed 34°С. Such a temperature has never been observed in Ukraine in the recent past (Balabukh and Malitskaya 2017). The number of ice days and frost nights will decrease dramatically—by 22 days—in the south of Ukraine under RCP 4.5, as shown in Figure 14. An increase in air temperature, especially minimum temperature during the cold season, will cause a significant reduction in the number of frost nights by the end of the century for both scenarios. Under RCP 4.5, by the end of the century Polissya may experience an additional decrease of 34 (or more) frost nights. More than 100 tropical nights and up to 135 summer days per year are projected for the south- ern steppe during the end of century period under RCP 8.5. Rising summer temperatures will result in heatwaves and increased aridity in the south and east. 20 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  emperature in the Hottest and the Coldest Months for the Baseline Figure 13: T Period (1991-2010) and at the End of the 21st Century Under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 Mean Maximum Near-Surface Air Temperature E-Obs v20.0 Bias-Adjusted Mean Maximum Near-Surface Air Temperature RCP4.5 in the hottest month (July) 1991-2010 in the hottest month (July) 2081-2100 Lattitude Lattitude Longitude Longitude Maximum temperature (Celcius) Deg. C Bias-Adjusted Mean Maximum Near-Surface Air Temperature RCP8.5 Mean Minimum Near-Surface Air Temperature E-Obs v20.0 in the hottest month (July) 2081-2100 in the coldest month (January) 1991-2010 Lattitude Lattitude Longitude Longitude Deg. C Minimum temperature (Celcius) Bias-Adjusted Mean Minimum Near-Surface Air Temperature RCP4.5 Bias-Adjusted Mean Minimum Near-Surface Air Temperature RCP8.5 in the coldest month (January) 2081-2100 in the coldest month (January) 2081-2100 Lattitude Lattitude Longitude Longitude Deg. C Deg. C Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 21 Figure 14: Changes in Frost Nights Figure 15: Changes in Tropical Nights Change in Frost Days 1991-2010 vs 1961-1990 E-Obs v20.0 Change in Tropical Nights 1991-2010 vs 1961-1990 E-Obs v20.0 Number of days where minimum temperature is below 0 degree Celcius Number of days where minimum temperature is above 20 degrees Celcius Lattitude Lattitude Longitude Longitude change in days change in days Change in Frost Days in 2081-2100 RCP4.5 Change in Frost Days in 2081-2100 RCP4.5 Number of days where minimum temperature is below 0 degree Celcius Number of days where minimum temperature is above 20 degrees Celcius Lattitude Lattitude Longitude Longitude change in days change in days Change in Frost Days in 2081-2100 RCP8.5 Change in Frost Days in 2081-2100 RCP8.5 Number of days where minimum temperature is below 0 degree Celcius Number of days where minimum temperature is above 20 degrees Celcius Lattitude Lattitude Longitude Longitude change in days change in days Note: The scale shows a decrease in number Note: The scale shows how tropical nights of frost days from the baseline period (top) to increase in a range between 8 to 72 trop- mid-century (middle) to far future (bottom). ical nights a year from the baseline (top) Shades of blue represent a range from 2 to to mid-century (middle) to end of century 30 fewer frost days in a year compared to the (bottom). Lighter colors indicate a smaller baseline. Shades of red mark a more dramatic increase in tropical nights over the year decrease in the number of frost days predict- compared to darker shades. ed for RCP 8.5: from 34 to 70 fewer frost days in a year compared to the baseline 22 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry The highest warming in summers is forecast for July in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, demon- strating the effects of urbanization. Under the RCP 4.5 scenario, in the southern steppe, the number of summer days will significantly expand as compared to the base period, with Odes- ka and Luhanska oblasts reaching more than 100 summer days and rising by an additional 19 days (in the range from 5-32 days) in the end of century period (Figure 15). These changes will be more than twice as high under RCP 8.5, with summer days projected to increase by an average of 42 days (the full range being 19 to 62 days) by the end of the century, exceed- ing 90 days in almost all of Ukraine, except the Carpathians, Prykarpattia, and Polissya, and reaching a maximum of over 135 days in the southern steppe. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 23 CHAPTER 3: IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON AGRICULTURE The impact of climate change on agriculture is assessed by modeling change in yields of key crops. The World Food Studies Crop Simulation (WOFOST) Model5 was used to assess the biophysical impacts of climate change on yield potentials of five key crops for the near future and mid-century periods, relative to the baseline period (2006 – 2015), with the latest climate projections. The yield projections were combined with changes in land areas under each crop in 2030 and 2050, and changes in prices for those years under the combined SSP2 – RCP 8.5 scenario from the International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) to estimate changes in production and production values relative to the baseline period. Variability and uncertainty in the projections of future yields and production due to climate change is reflected in the “low,” “mean,” and “high” agriculture projections for each RCP scenario.6 The specific uncertainty ranges (+/- values) allow for systematic interpretation of the modeling results. The mean projection represents the mean value of the modeled yield potential throughout the oblast. Low and high projections are the lower and upper limits of the modeled yield potential, as determined by the confidence interval. This high- lights the uncertainty associated with the variations of local soil and climatic conditions within an oblast territory; such variations can be significant and are critical for estimating potential production and values of agricultural outputs. 3.1 Summary of Key Findings An increase in crop yields for almost all oblasts is expected under the “high” projection scenar- io, and in the mean projections scenario for soybean and wheat in both 2030 and 2050 under both RCPs. Under a low projection scenario, yields of barley, maize, and sunflower would decrease in almost all oblasts. As the range of projected yield changes across the oblasts is large, so is the risk of outcomes below expectations in any given year. In the mean projections, the yields of barley under RCP 4.5 range from negative to positive in 2030, all negative values in 2050, and all negative for both periods under RCP 8.5. The yields of maize and sunflower vary from negative to positive under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, but the decreases will be 5 Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations can increase yields at lower temperature increases. The WOFOST model ac- counts for CO2 fertilization. Higher levels of CO2 can significantly increase photosynthesis causing an increase in the total biomass generation and yield for wheat, barley, sunflower, and soybean and are less relevant for maize. 6 Mean scenario can be interpreted as the most likely realization of climate conditions that affect the crops’ yield and productiv- ity. Respectively, low and high projections resemble the most unfavorable and most favorable realization of climate conditions affecting the crop yield and productivity. High projections promote higher crops’ yield and productivity with strong regional differences due to volatility of local climate conditions. 24 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry more pronounced for both crops in all oblasts under RCP 8.5 in 2050. The simulations show a consistently negative trend for barley and sunflower production and a clear positive trend for wheat and soybean under both RCPs. However, these trends should be interpreted as indicative, with considerable uncertainty ranges in the production of each crop in each region. The projected higher prices for wheat and maize make it especially attractive to increase land areas under these crops, especially in oblasts where the yield gains through the mid-century period are significant. The increase in productivity, combined with a growing trend in price of wheat, is expected to make it a very advantageous crop in the future. The value of wheat production goes up by 29%- 59% in 2030, and by 57%- 120% in 2050. The price of maize is expected to increase sharply by 2030 and to almost double by 2050, making it attractive to grow even if yields decline. The price of soybean is also expected to increase, but less so than maize (by 32%- 48% relative to 2010, respectively). All oblasts are expected to see increases in the value of their soybean crops by 2030, and even more so by 2050, as compared to 2010. The value of barley production in 2030 and 2050 decreases in all oblasts despite the increase in prices due to the drop in yield. Therefore, the changes in the values of barley production both in 2030 and 2050 are not significantly different from the baseline. In the mean projection scenario, the value of production goes up in all oblasts but more so in the eastern and central-eastern oblasts. Under the low projection, all oblasts experience declines in the values of production in 2030, but twelve out of the 25 oblasts will see increas- es by 2050. Under the high projection, all oblasts experience increases in production values, with even larger increases in 2050 than in 2030, assuming the stated adaptation measures will take place. Comparisons of results without adaptation7 and with simulated adaptation measures clearly indicate the benefits of adaptation for all oblasts, especially those with higher reliance on agriculture (Cherkaska, Dnipropetrovska, Kirovohradska, and Poltavska). With adaptation measures the total production value of the five crops is projected to increase by 29% (with an uncertainty range of -32% to +91%) in 2030 and 56% (with an uncertainty range of -1% to +112%) in 2050, compared to 2010. The uncertainty range of climate change impacts on production values is large in both sets of projections (with and without adaptation), but the uncertainty range for simulation with adaptation shifts towards the possible increase in value, signaling strong confidence in risk reduction potentials of adaptation measures. 3.2 Yield Projections Changes in seasonal precipitation and temperature are the primary drivers of projected yield [tons8/ha] changes in Ukraine.9 The results on yields show a complex set of projections for the different crops under two scenarios in the two time periods, 2030 and 2050. The projec- tions also have a certain degree of uncertainty, reflected in a probability distribution. Table 2 below shows the ranges of changes in yields for the different oblasts. Under RCP 8.5, all 7 Change in land allocation, availability of water and shift in sowing times. 8 Ton is used throughout this document to indicate Metric Ton equal to 1000 kg. 9 The De Martonne Aridity Index was also used for this analysis. See Annex I. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 25 oblasts will face a decline in yields in the range of -12% to -15% in 2030, with the negative trend continuing until 2050. The decreases in yields for maize and sunflower become more pronounced for both crops in all oblasts under RCP 8.5 in 2050, with a range between -23% and +3% for maize and -21% to +8% for sunflower. Additional measures aimed at maintain- ing optimal water balance are needed to ensure sunflower and maize yields until 2050. For wheat, yields show an increase for all oblasts in both 2030 and 2050 under both RCP sce- narios. An expected high return is partially offset by a relatively high risk of outcomes below expectations in any given year. While projected precipitation changes are complex, the upward trend in temperature coupled with an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are crucial factors for estimating crop yields. As detailed in Chapter 2 of this report, the temperature trend is increasing overall for all seasons. In general, winters are becoming wetter and summers dryer. The range of possible yield changes across the oblasts is large, as is the risk of outcomes below expectations in any specific year. The modeling of yields gives a probability distribution for the ranges of values (see Table 2). The modeling also provides a low- and a high-projection scenario based on the distribution: the 5th percentile of the distribution (low) and the 95th per- centile (high). These data points show the risk ranges at the two ends of the distribution. The changes in high projection are positive and often more than double the mean scenario, while the low scenario changes are often negative. The high yield projection shows an increase in crop yields for almost all oblasts in the country, and the low projection indicates a decrease in yields of barley, maize, and sunflower for almost all oblasts. Given the high resolution of the analyzed data (7,400 grid cells), yield ranges reflect regional differences in climatic conditions. The detailed map representation of yields is provided in Figure 17. Table 2: Changes in Yields Across Oblasts for Major Crops Due to Climate Change10 2030 2050 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 Barley -2.3% to +7.5% -15.1 to -11.5% -11.0% to -0.3% -15.8% to -5.2% Maize -17.2% to +14.1% -22.0% to -2.3% -18.8% to +4.3% -22.9% to +3.0% Soybean +8.6% to +27.9% +8.8% to +31.7% +18.3% to +30.4% +21.1% to +46.7% Sunflower -25.1% to +8.1% -9.4% to +6.1% -10.6% to +16.0% -20.9% to +7.6% Wheat +8.6% to +44.1% +13.9% to +40.7% +11.9% to +49.1% +20.8% to +63.5% 10 Figures are for the mean projection and changes in yield [tons/ha] relative to 2010 levels. 26 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Figure 16: Seasonal Precipitation in RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5 Near future: 2021-2040 RCP 4.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Winter Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Spring Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Summer Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Autumn Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Change in bias-adjusted precipitation to baseline [%] -25% – -15% -15% – -5% -5% – 5% 5% – 15% 15% – 25% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 27 RCP 8.5 Near future: 2021-2040 RCP 8.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Winter Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Spring Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Summer Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Luhanska Luhanska Autumn Vinnytska Vinnytska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Change in bias-adjusted precipitation to baseline [%] -25% – -15% -15% – -5% -5% – 5% 5% – 15% 15% – 25% 28 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  rop Yields [tons/ha] in 2010 and Changes in Yields [%] Figure 17: C in 2030 and 2050 for Selected Crops Base period ~2010 Productivity of crops Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Wheat Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Sunflower Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Maize Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea 0—3 3—6 6—9 9 — 12 12 — 15 15 — 18 Productivity in base year [t/ha] Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 29 30 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 31 3.3 Impact of Water Availability on Crop Yields For this analysis, the WOFOST model estimates the water-scarce crop yields by oblast in 2030 under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios in the absence of adaptation measures. To estimate the potential benefits of adaptation measures, water-scarce crop yields can be compared with yield projections under optimum water availability (i.e., when the water limitations are overcome) for two crops, maize and sunflower, for which the impact is the highest (Figure 11). In the WOFOST model, crop productivity is defined by the planting date, CO2 concentration, radiation, and temperature. In the case of optimal water availability yield, the WOFOST mod- el assumes that there is no water supply constraint — i.e., that water supply is optimal. The model does not have specific assumptions on measures to maintain optimal water availability. The simulations show a considerable increase in yield assuming optimal water availability for maize (about 20%- 40%) and sunflower (about 60%- 80%) in both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios (Figure 18). Moreover, irrespective of the RCP scenario until mid-century, the im- pacts of climate change will depend on other factors, such as solar radiation, if water supply is sufficient. For some oblasts, these other factors are likely to play minor roles in the overall climate change impacts on agriculture (Figure 19). Agricultural Production Projections 3.4  Simulations of agricultural value at the oblast level are based on projected yields and assump- tions of changes in agricultural land areas driven by relative changes in yields and relative prices for relevant crops in future years. Higher prices for wheat and maize make it more at- tractive to increase land areas under these crops, especially in oblasts where the yield gains from climate change are significant. The changes in allocation of crop lands were based on the analysis carried out by IFPRI (see IFPRI 2016, 2019). These changes are further discussed in are further discussed in Chapter 7 in the discussion on the benefits of adjusting land areas as a form of adaptation. The projected changes in areas allocated for each crop for the entire country are as follows: barley: +2% in 2030 and -6% in 2050; maize: +12% in 2030 and +29% in 2050; soybean: 0% in 2030 and -6% in 2050; wheat: +10% in 2030 and +15% in 2050. No changes are projected for sunflower, as it was not modeled by IFPRI. Wheat and soybean show a clear positive trend to mid-century in both scenarios, whereas barley and sunflower show a consistently negative trend. The changing climate conditions un- til mid-century will become beneficial for maize. However, these trends should be interpreted as indicative, with considerable uncertainty ranges for the production of each crop in each region. It is important to note that the crop production simulation assumes the reallocation of land for each crop. The estimated changes in yields, combined with simulated changes in land areas for each crop, based on the IFPRI model, were used to estimate changes in production under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, with and without shifting of land allocation for each crop, respec- tively (Figure 20). 11 Impact of water availability was estimated for soybean, but the impact is significantly lower. 32 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Figure 18: Impact of Optimal Water Availability in 2030 RCP 4.5: Crop productivity with RCP 8.5: Crop productivity with optimal water availability optimal water availability Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska [% to base ~2010] Near future ~2030 Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Maize Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska [% to base ~2010] Mid-century ~2050 Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Maize Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska [% to base ~2010] Near future ~2030 Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Sunflower Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Mid-century ~2050 [% to base ~2010] Kyivska Kyivska Sunflower Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea no change up to 20% 20% - 40% 40% - 60% 60% - 80% 80% - 100% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 33 Figure 19: Difference Between RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 for 2030 Difference between RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 Difference between RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Near future ~2030 Near future ~2030 Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Sunflower Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Luhanska Luhanska Maize Vinnytska Vinnytska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Odeska Khersonska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Sumska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Mid-century ~2050 Mid-century ~2050 Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Sunflower Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Luhanska Maize Vinnytska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Zakarpatska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea irrigated ∆ ~ 0% ∆ 5% - 10% ∆ 15% - 20% not irrigated ∆ < 5% ∆ 10% - 15% ∆ 20% - 25% ∆ Betweeen RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 [%]  hange in Total Production (Millions of Tons) for Major Crops as Compared Table 3: C to the Baseline (with Change in Land Area Allocation for Each Crop)12 2030 2050 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 Barley - 3% - 11% - 14% - 15% Maize - 12% - 3% 12% 15% Soybean 20% 22% 13% 19% Sunflower - 11% - 3% - 8% - 5% Wheat 32% 34% 43% 55% 12 Figures are based on estimated production [millions of tons] for the mean projection, changes in crop yields [tons/ha] multiplied by the crop areas [ha] in each oblast are relative to 2010 levels. 34 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Agricultural Value Projections 3.5  The total production value of the five crops is projected to increase by 29% (with an uncer- tainty range of -32% to +91%) in 2030 and 56% (with an uncertainty range of -1% to +112%) in 2050, compared to 2010 (Figure 21). The uncertainty range is clearly large in both sets of projections, with and without changes in land allocation. However, with changes in land allo- cation the uncertainty range is on the positive side, while without changes in land allocation, negative impacts are quite possible. For example, in 2050 in Kirovohradska oblast, shifting of land allocation has a stronger positive impact on mean agricultural value. The range shifts from between -31% to 56%, to between 0% to 107%. All oblasts follow the same trend indi- cating that a shift in land allocation helps avoid losses in the value of agricultural production. Figure 21 provides information on how to identify oblasts where additional support and adjust- ment measures can be most helpful. The oblasts in bold currently have a large share of the total value of the agricultural sector in Ukraine’s GDP; in these oblasts, the agricultural sector has a significant share in the domestic GDP of the oblasts. Adaptation measures can signifi- cantly, though not completely, reduce the potential negative impact on the value of the sector through the mid-century period. Under the mean projection, the value of production goes up in all oblasts, with larger increases in the eastern and central-eastern oblasts. Under the high projection, all oblasts experience increases in production values, with even larger increases in 2050 than in 2030, assuming the stated adaptation measures take place. Effects of Changes in the Growing Season 3.6  As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, climate change will result in changes to climatic seasons across the board, most notably to the growing season (t>50C). While the near future changes result in a 7% increase in the length of the growing season under both RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios compared to the baseline period 1961-90, longer-term projections diverge, with a middle-of-the-century increase of 10% under the RCP4.5 scenario and a 13% increase under the RCP8.5 scenario. By the end of the century, growing seasons are expected to become 13% longer in the RCP4.5 scenario and 27% longer in the RCP 8.5 scenario. The the growing season start day will shift by 13 days under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios compared to the baseline period 1961-90. By mid-century, the change will be 17 and 20 days, respectively, and by the end of the century, the growing season will shift by 22 days under RCP 4.5 or 41 days under RCP 8.5. Additional information is presented in Annex 2. Limitations of the Analysis of Climate Change Impact on 3.7  Agriculture Increases in temperature and precipitation changes have a twofold effect depending on the crop type: contributing to increased productivity of certain crops, but also increasing the risk of extreme weather events which can negatively affect crop production. Temperature increase has a positive effect on winter crops during cold periods of vegetation, reduces the risk of frost damage on spring crops and the time to maturity of certain crops. Together with CO2, fertiliza- tion, and increased precipitation in vegetation periods, this leads to an increase in productivity of winter wheat (Figure 17), and an increase in the value of agricultural output for soybean and sunflower (Figure 34). Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 35 Figure 20: Changes in Total Agricultural Production by Oblast, RCP 8.513 36 With change in crop With change in crop Without change in crop Without change in crop land allocation land allocation land allocation land allocation 2030 2050 2030 2050 Cherkaska -32% 44% -15% 47% -36% 31% -18% 27% Chernihivska -41% 108% -6% 90% -45% 91% -16% 68% Chernivetska -44% 61% -4% 52% -48% 46% -20% 26% Crimea -53% 135% -28% 162% -53% 112% -35% 129% Dnipropetrovska -38% 63% -11% 68% -36% 47% -16% 48% Donetska -37% 59% -8% 63% -31% 42% -11% 44% Ivano-Frankivska -39% 74% -3% 71% -44% 59% -18% 46% Kharkivska -46% 53% -13% 43% -43% 40% -17% 28% Khersonska -37% 78% -10% 89% -37% 61% -16% 67% Khmelnytska -37% 59% -12% 50% -42% 46% -24% 30% Kyivska -38% 51% -17% 53% -43% 38% -29% 30% Kirovohradska -38% 55% -14% 56% -39% 40% -21% 35% Lvivska -35% 76% -15% 85% -41% 61% -27% 60% Luhanska -46% 69% -13% 71% -39% 50% -15% 49% Mykolaivska -31% 66% -13% 72% -29% 48% -16% 50% Odeska -34% 77% -8% 84% -35% 60% -15% 60% Poltavska -37% 47% -5% 45% -40% 33% -18% 22% Rivnenska -41% 58% -24% 45% -45% 47% -30% 33% Sumska -42% 67% -5% 58% -46% 52% -18% 34% Ternopilska -33% 64% -6% 59% -39% 50% -19% 37% Vinnytska -32% 52% -8% 55% -37% 39% -20% 33% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Volynska -37% 87% -13% 76% -42% 72% -24% 54% Zakarpatska -38% 80% 5% 89% -44% 63% -15% 54% Zaporizka -42% 70% -13% 76% -36% 51% -16% 55% Zhytomyrska -41% 51% -26% 45% -47% 38% -39% 21% -100% 0% 100% 200% -100% 0% 100% 200% -100% 0% 100% 200% -100% 0% 100% 200% Low High Mean 13 Changes in production [millions of tons] are estimated as yields [tons/ha] multiplied by the crop areas [ha] allocated for each crop in each oblast relative to baseline 2010 level of production. Figure 21: Changes in Total Value by Oblast, RCP 8.5 With change in crop With change in crop Without change in crop Without change in crop land allocation land allocation land allocation land allocation 2030 2050 2030 2050 Cherkaska -32% 64% 2% 91% -44% 42% -28% 46% Chernihivska -45% 130% -3% 129% -52% 108% -19% 96% Chernivetska -52% 83% -3% 93% -59% 62% -32% 46% Crimea -55% 168% -32% 238% -61% 136% -48% 184% Dnipropetrovska -21% 97% 10% 125% -41% 58% -23% 72% Donetska -13% 99% 21% 122% -36% 53% -15% 67% Ivano-Frankivska -45% 96% -2% 118% -51% 78% -25% 77% Kharkivska -30% 87% 9% 92% -50% 50% -23% 45% Khersonska -29% 103% 2% 141% -40% 74% -19% 99% Khmelnytska -41% 76% -15% 82% -48% 60% -35% 49% Kyivska -44% 70% -22% 90% -52% 51% -44% 49% Kirovohradska -26% 85% 0% 107% -44% 51% -31% 56% Lvivska -40% 94% -21% 129% -47% 76% -38% 91% Luhanska -25% 109% 14% 133% -45% 63% -19% 75% Mykolaivska -9% 105% 12% 133% -33% 61% -22% 76% Odeska -21% 109% 8% 142% -39% 75% -20% 91% Poltavska -34% 73% 7% 90% -50% 44% -29% 38% Rivnenska -46% 73% -29% 71% -50% 60% -38% 51% Sumska -46% 91% 0% 98% -55% 68% -25% 56% Ternopilska -37% 81% -7% 94% -44% 64% -28% 59% Vinnytska -32% 70% -7% 92% -42% 50% -30% 53% Volynska -42% 107% -16% 112% -48% 88% -32% 79% Zakarpatska -47% 109% 10% 154% -54% 88% -23% 97% Zaporizka -22% 108% 10% 137% -41% 64% -22% 82% Zhytomyrska -53% 71% -41% 77% -59% 54% -62% 37% -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Low High Mean 37  haracteristics of Climatic Seasons in Ukraine in Two Past Periods Table 4. C (E-OBS data) and Three Future Periods Under the RCP4.5 Scenario (Ensemble of 34 RCMs from Euro-CORDEX Data) Length of seasons, days Season start day Season end day Active vegetation season Active vegetation season Active vegetation season Summer season Summer season Summer season Growing season Growing season Growing season Warm season Warm season Warm season (t > 10oC) (t > 15oC) (t > 10oC) (t > 15oC) (t > 15oC) (t > 10oC) (t > 0oC) (t > 5oC) (t > 0oC) (t > 5oC) (t > 5oC) (t > 0oC) 1961-1990 283 219 172 117 56 96 116 142 260 288 314 339 1991-2010 301 223 173 121 39 90 114 143 264 288 314 341 2021-2040 305 235 181 129 37 83 111 137 267 292 318 342 2041-2060 309 241 188 137 35 79 108 134 269 295 318 342 2081-2100 318 247 193 143 29 74 104 130 271 297 320 345 Season start and end days: numbers in the table indicate the day of the year (i.e., 56th day of the year).  haracteristics of Climatic Seasons in Ukraine in Two Past Periods Table 5: C (E-OBS data) and Three Future Periods Under the RCP8.5 Scenario (Ensemble of 34 RCMs from Euro-CORDEX Data Length of seasons, days Season start day Season end day Active vegetation season Active vegetation season Active vegetation season Growing Season Summer season Summer season Summer season Growing season Growing season Warm season Warm season Warm season (t > 10oC) (t > 15oC) (t > 10oC) (t > 15oC) (t > 15oC) (t > 10oC) (t > 0oC) (t > 5oC) (t > 0oC) (t > 5oC) (t > 5oC) (t > 0oC) 1961-1990 283 219 172 117 56 96 116 142 260 288 314 339 1991-2010 301 223 173 121 39 90 114 143 264 288 314 341 2021-2040 304 235 185 133 40 83 109 135 268 294 318 344 2041-2060 315 247 194 141 30 76 105 132 273 299 322 346 2081-2100 340 279 213 160 16 55 94 122 283 307 333 356 38 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry This could potentially increase the competitiveness of Ukraine’s agricultural products in the inter- national market. However, extreme temperature increases combined with insufficient precipitation can lead to droughts and a decrease in the productivity of crops and provoke natural disturbances such as pests and diseases. Thus, the comparative advantage projected with these temperature increases for Ukraine’s agriculture may be affected by extreme weather events which were not covered by this study. Modeling the impact of water resources is limited by the capabilities of the integrated assessment model (Figure 10). The WOFOST model can produce water-limited simulation results when soil moisture determines whether the crop growth is limited by drought stress. In the water availabil- ity simulation, the effect of soil moisture on crop growth is optimal. Optimal soil moisture can be achieved through measures such as irrigation and other water balance management approaches. Uncertainty in food prices and food security under climate extremes is not accounted for in the modeling approach. The food prices projected by the IMPACT model for 2030 did not consider price peaks such as those that occurred in 2010 due to the drought in Russia, which reduced wheat yields by about one third. This drought also had significant long-term effects: in 2011 the lowest income decile spent 17% more on food supplies than in 2007. The distributional effects of extreme events on changes in food prices and food security directly through changes in yields and through disruption of transport and markets remain a challenge for further analysis, as extreme events are likely to become more frequent in the near future. Box 3: Impact of Water Shocks on Agricultural Yields Water shocks include both dry shocks and wet shocks, defined as an occurrence of rainfall that is at least one standard deviation below or above the long-term average (LTA) level in the region (Damania et al. 2017). Dry shocks. The driest regions are most sensitive to rainfall variability. This is particularly important for Ukraine with dry climate types projected to account for about 63.2 to 69.6% of the country’s territory in the middle of the century under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, respectively (see Figure 31). Global data indicates that dry shocks can reduce agricultural productivity by approximately 14%, while wet shocks increase agricul- tural productivity by approximately 17% (Damania et al. 2017). Drought like the one Ukraine experienced in 2010 (Shevchenko et al. 2014b) is likely to return every two-three years when global warming reaches 2°C, or every year when global warming reaches 3°C. In 2019, a heat wave which led to a strong rainfall deficit was recorded in Ukraine, with substantially dri- er-than usual conditions in some regions with rainfall accumulations below 5 mm. However, cumulative rain- fall was within the limits of the LTA in most of the western, southern, and eastern parts of Ukraine, while the north (Zhytomyrska, Kyivska, Cherkaska, Chernihivska, Sumska, Kharkivska, Donetska and Luhanska) ex- perienced a rain deficit of around 40% relative to LTA (EC 2019a). Those rainfall events slowed the progress of harvesting of summer crops, with maize and soybean experiencing 7.4% and 2.2% lower yields than in 2018, and they also delayed cropping activities and hampered the emergence of winter crops (EC 2019b). Wet shocks.14 Historical analysis (1986–2010) shows that heavy rain is the most common climate extreme in Ukraine, accounting for 53% of all occurrences of extreme events in the period (Balabuch et al., 2018). Extreme rains are most common in the western region, specifically in Lvivska, Ternopilska, and Chernivets- ka oblasts, and the Crimean Mountains and highlands. Extreme rain events have become more common in Ukraine, increasing with a probability of 99% over the 1971–2010 period. Along with the projected increase in annual precipitation (see Figure 7), extreme wet shocks will also increase. Increased annual precipitation is likely in almost the entire country, but most pronounced in Ivano-Frankivska, Chernivetska, Lvivska, Rivn- enska, Khersonska, and Zhytomyrska oblasts. 14 The paragraph is based on Balabukh et al., 2018. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 39 CHAPTER 4: THE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON AGRICULTURE 4.1 Summary of Key Findings The distributional analysis of the impact of climate change on households’ real incomes is assessed through its impacts on the price of foods and agricultural incomes. The increase in food prices is expected to increase household expenditures by 0.7% to nearly 3% across all households, depending on the oblast. The effects are regressive, as households in the lower income quintiles face larger increases in real expenditures. The changes in the values of farm outputs increase household incomes for all oblasts and all household deciles under the mean projection, in a range between 0.2% and 1.6%. The combined effects of the changes in food prices and incomes depend on the projection and share of agricultural income in the house- holds’ income structure in each oblast. In the mean projection, the changes range between -1 and +1%. In the high projection, household income gains between 0.5 to 3% for all oblasts. In the low projection, the projected loss of income is between -1 and -3%. The five oblasts with the largest predicted decreases in income are Zhytomyrska, Sumska, Chernivetska, Rivnen- ska, and Volynska. Both the increase in food prices and changes in farm outputs will impact poverty headcounts, however the impact is not significant under any of the projections (low, mean, and high). The poverty gap, however, does not increase in all cases: in seven oblasts, it decreases slightly while in the others, it increases. The severity of poverty also slightly declines in six oblasts but increases in the rest, with the biggest decrease in Chernihivska (1.3%) and highest increase (0.8%) in Khemelnytska. When considering only food price increase, the Gini coefficient results indicate an increase in inequality in all oblasts, except Ivano-Frankivska. The effect on inequality is tracked through changes in real income per household. The combined effects of price increase and changes in agricultural outputs result in a decrease in inequality for six oblasts in the mean projection scenario but in most cases the decrease is very small. With the low projection scenario, the inequality measure increases by small amounts in all oblasts (i.e., 1.4% in Vinnytska and 1.07% in Sumska), except for Ivano-Frankivska. In the high projection, all oblasts see an increase in inequality, with the most significant increase in Donetska (8.3% increase in the Gini coefficient) and Ivano-Frankivska (3.5%). However, this analysis has not investigated all possible effects of climate change on welfare. Further work should be carried out to examine other factors that influence household incomes, including climate-related morbidities and un- employment, which are not covered in this analysis. 40 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 4.2 The Share of Agriculture in the National and Oblast GDP The share of the agricultural sector in Ukraine’s GDP has been declining over time, but the importance of the sector for the GDP of some oblasts is particularly high. The latest data (for 2019) estimates that agriculture, forestry, and fishery account for 9% of GDP, or $13.8 billion. The size of this sector as a percentage of GDP varies considerably across oblasts (Figure 22).15 For example, agriculture contributes significantly to the GDP (2010 data) in Kirovohrads- ka (29.25%), Vinnytska (23.45%), Khersonska (21.52%), Cherkaska (20.72%), Khemelnytska (17.19%), Sumska (15.97%), and Ternopilska (15.77%), which means that any negative im- pacts of climate change on agricultural production are likely to have significant impact on their economies. At the same time, agriculture in Kirovohradska, Vinnytska, Cherkaska, Postavska, and Dnipropetrovska oblasts constitutes relatively large shares of the country’s GDP, and the climate risks to agriculture in those areas are more likely to impact the national economy. The full set of data is presented in Annex 3. Figure 22: Agriculture as a Share of GDP ($US) in 2010, by Oblast 30.00% Kirovohradska Vinnytska Khersonska Share [%] of agricultural sector Cherkaska in oblast GDP [$US] in 2010 90th percentile 20.00% Khmelnytska Ternopilska Sumska Mykolaivska Poltavska Chernihivska 10.00% Chernivetska Zaporizka Odeska Rivnenska Volynska Crimea Kharkivska Zhytomyrska Dnipropetrovska 90th percentile Ivano-Frankivska Luhanska Donetska Zakarpatska Lvivska Kyivska 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% Share [%] of oblast's agricultural sector in Ukraine GDP [$US] in 2010 15 Annex 3 shows the GDP and agricultural value in 2010 per oblast. In this case, the values for 2010 are presented, as the value of agriculture by oblast is only available for that year. It is also the baseline year used in the report, as explained below. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 41 The distributional analysis assesses the impact of climate change on households’ real in- comes through its impacts on the price of foods and agricultural incomes. The agricultural impacts assessment in Chapter 3 provides two key outputs: i) increases in the prices of key food products due to climate change and estimates of price increases in 2030 for key agricul- tural commodities under RCP 8.5 and RCP 4.5 (based on the IFPRI model); and ii) changes in agricultural incomes due to the climate change effects on yields, production, and production values. These data were inputs for the distributional analysis of the impacts on households. The analysis of income considers three sets of projections: low, mean, and high. They reflect the results of the WOFOST model projecting the impacts of climate change on agriculture, in which, for a given date and climate projection, the model provides a distribution of likely out- comes for changes in yields and production for the selected crops (i.e., barley, wheat, maize, sunflower and soybean) between 2010 and 2030. The resulting changes by oblast are provid- ed in Annex 5 for the selected crops. The low and high projection scenarios represent the 5th and 95th percentile of the distribution of yield changes provided, at a very fine scale for each oblast. Changes in real incomes and indicators of poverty and inequality are estimated for RCP 8.5 in 2030.16 The analysis is limited to 2030 because by 2050, the baseline expenditure data cannot be considered as a reasonable point of comparison. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Household 4.3  Income and Expenditure The increase in food prices is expected to increase household expenditures by between 0.7% and nearly 3% across all households, depending on the oblast. The effects are regressive as households in the lower income quintiles face larger increases of real expenditures up to a maximum of nearly 3 percent (see Annex 5). The increase in food prices is expected to reduce incomes by 0.7% to 1.2% across all households, depending on the oblast (shown in Figure 23). The changes in the values of farm outputs increase household incomes for all oblasts, and all household deciles, in the range between 0.2 percent and 1.6% under the mean projection (shown in Figure 24). The households in lower (first) income deciles experience an increase of up to 1.6% in Luhanska oblast, where the bottom decile’s income rises by 1.6% and the top decile’s income by 0.8%. The smallest gain is for Zhytomyrska, with an increase for the bottom decile of only 0.2% and for the top decile of 0.1%. So, for example, in Cherkassy oblast, the bottom decile has a gain in income of between UAH 54 and 265 per month, with the average gain being UAH 132. That is 0.4% of average income for that decile. In the low projection, households in all oblasts experience a decline in income from agriculture, with the highest changes in the lowest three, ranging from -0.9% to -2.8%. The largest losses are in Chernivetska, Sumska, Ternopilska, Volynska and Zaporizka, where households in the lowest decile lose about 2% of income. The smallest losses are in Dnipropetrovska, Donetska, and Mykolaivska (around 0.1% to 0.2% across all deciles). In almost all cases, the changes in in- come become smaller as we go up the deciles, meaning that the changes in income (whether positive or negative) can be considered progressive. 16 The distributional effects required price projections, which were taken from IFPRI. These were only made for RCP8.5. Addi- tional information is available in Chapter 2. 42 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  hanges in Income by Oblast for 2030 Due to Price Increases Figure 23: C Ternopilska -0.7 % Sumska -0.72 % Chernivetska -0.77 % Chernihivska -0.78 % Zaporizka -0.79 % Volynska -0.79 % Poltavska -0.8 % Rivnenska -0.83 % Ivano-Frankivska -0.83 % Luhanska -0.84 % Zakarpatska -0.84 % Kharkivska -0.86 % Kirovohradska -0.88 % Zhytomyrska -0.9 % Khmelnytska -0.91 % Vinnytska -0.92 % Lvivska -0.92 % Cherkaska -0.93 % Kyiv City -0.93 % Dnipropetrovska -0.93 % Kyivska -0.96 % Mykolaivska -0.96 % Khersonska -1 % Odeska -1.1 % Donetska -1.2 % -1.2% -1.0% -0.8% -0.5% -0.3% 0.0% The range between the low and high projections for all income deciles indicates that for some oblasts, the low-income deciles tend to experience a wider range between the low and high projections. As shown in Annex 3, these oblasts include Chernivetska, Lvivska, Ternopilska, and Volynska in the west; Poltavska and Chernihivska in the central north; and Luhanska in the east. This suggests that climate change and associated impacts on agricultural production may have a significant impact on low-income households, more so than on the households in the upper-income deciles in these oblasts. The combined effects of the changes in food prices and incomes vary by scenario and the share of agricultural income in household income structure in each oblast, as illustrated in Fig- ure 25. In the low projection, there is a 1% to 3% loss of income, with Zhytomyrska, Sumska, Chernivetska, Rivnenska, and Volynska oblasts affected the most. In the mean projection, the changes range between -1% and +1%. In the high projection, almost all oblasts experience gains of 0.5% to 3%. The exceptions are Donetska oblast and Kyiv city, which lose even in the case of the high projection. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 43 ncrease in Income from the Change in Value of Agricultural Output Figure 24: I due to Climate Change, Mean Projection (2030) Group 1 Group 2 1.5% 1.5% Increase in income [%] Increase in income [%] Group 1 Group 2 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 0.5% Increase in income [%] Increase in income [%] 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% Decile 10 Decile 10 Decile 1 Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Decile 1 Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 0.5% 0.5% Income Deciles Income Deciles Cherkaska Kyivska Zakarpatska Donetska Khmelnytska Odeska 0.0% 0.0% Chernihivska Vinnytska Zhytomyrska Khersonska Lvivska Rivnenska Decile 10 Decile 10 Decile 1 Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Decile 1 Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Group 3 Group 4 Income Deciles Income Deciles 1.5% Cherkaska Kyivska Zakarpatska 1.5% Donetska Khmelnytska Odeska Chernihivska Vinnytska Zhytomyrska Khersonska Lvivska Rivnenska Increase in income [%] Increase in income [%] Group 3 Group 4 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 0.5% Increase in income [%] Increase in income [%] 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% Decile 10 Decile 10 Decile 1 Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Decile 1 Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 0.5% 0.5% Income Deciles Income Deciles Chernivetska Ivano-Frankivska Kirovohradska Mykolaivska Sumska Volynska 0.0% 0.0% Dnipropetrovska Kharkivska Luhanska Poltavska Ternopilska Zaporizka Decile 10 Decile 10 Decile 1 Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Decile 1 Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Income Deciles Income Deciles Chernivetska Ivano-Frankivska Kirovohradska Mykolaivska Sumska Volynska Dnipropetrovska Kharkivska Luhanska Poltavska Ternopilska Zaporizka 44 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry The range between the low and high projections for all income deciles indicates that for some oblasts, the low-income deciles tend to experience a wider range between the low and high projections. As shown in Annex 3, these oblasts include Chernivetska, Lvivska, Ternopilska, and Volynska in the west; Poltavska and Chernihivska in the central north; and Luhanska in the east. This suggests that climate change and associated impacts on agricultural production may have a significant impact on low-income households, more so than on the households in the upper-income deciles in these oblasts. The combined effects of the changes in food prices and incomes vary by scenario and the share of agricultural income in household income structure in each oblast, as illustrated in Fig- ure 25. In the low projection, there is a 1% to 3% loss of income, with Zhytomyrska, Sumska, Chernivetska, Rivnenska, and Volynska oblasts affected the most. In the mean projection, the changes range between -1% and +1%. In the high projection, almost all oblasts experience gains of 0.5% to 3%. The exceptions are Donetska oblast and Kyiv city, which lose even in the case of the high projection. Figure 26 shows the effect of only price increases on these and other regions which have little income from agriculture and are thus particularly vulnerable to increases in food prices.  hanges in Income Under the Three Projections by Oblast for 2030 Figure 25: C (both Income and Price Effects) Mykolaivska -1.2 % 1.2 % Zaporizka -1.3 % 1.2 % Donetska -1.3 % -0.068 % Dnipropetrovska -1.3 % 0.37 % Kharkivska -1.4 % 0.56 % Kyiv City -1.5 % -0.17 % Khersonska -1.6 % 0.88 % Ivano-Frankivska -1.7 % 0.73 % Cherkaska -1.7 % 0.31 % Vinnytska -1.8 % 0.78 % Odeska -1.8 % 1.7 % Lvivska -1.8 % 0.67 % Zakarpatska -1.9 % 0.98 % Luhanska -1.9 % 2.8 % Kirovohradska -2 % 2.2 % Poltavska -2.1 % 1.6 % Kyivska -2.2 % 0.61 % Chernihivska -2.4 % 2.9 % Ternopilska -2.6 % 2.8 % Khmelnytska -2.6 % 1.6 % Volynska -2.7 % 3% Rivnenska -2.8 % 1.7 % Chernivetska -2.9 % 1.9 % Sumska -3.1 % 3% 25% 50% 75% Zhytomyrska -3.2 % 1.5 % -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% Relative change in Household Income [%]: Low High Mean Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 45  hanges in Expenditure by Oblast for 2030 (Effect of Price Increases Figure 26: C only) in the Mean Scenario Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea Change in income [%]: only effect of price increase in the mean scenario -1.1% -1.0% -0.9% -0.8% Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Poverty 4.4  Both the increase in food prices and changes in farm outputs will impact poverty head- counts. The extent of the impact depends on the low, mean, or high projections but the changes are not significant under any of the three. An increase in food prices alone results in an increase in the headcount poverty ratio by between 0% and 1.6% (see Annex 3). The poverty headcount declines in eight of the 25 oblasts, remains unchanged in four, and increases in the others. The declines are small, between 0.3 and 1.3%, as are the increases: the highest is 1.3%. Under the high projection, poverty headcount declines in all oblasts except five (Cherkaska, Ivano-Frankivska, Kyivska (excluding the city), Vinnytska, and Zakarpatska). The Kyivska oblast (excluding the city) will see an increase, while the remaining four oblasts will not experience any changes to the poverty headcount, (see Figure 27). 46 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry The poverty gap,17 however, does not increase in all cases in the low projection; it declines slightly in seven oblasts while increasing in the remaining oblasts, (see Figure 27). The se- verity of poverty also slightly declines in six oblasts but increases in the rest. The highest in- crease is 0.8% (Khemelnytska). The poverty gap does not always increase, because as more households are added to the poverty group, the gap for them is smaller than the average for the group prior to the change. The poverty gap declines in seven oblasts and increases in the rest. The severity of poverty declines in nine oblasts and increases in the others. The highest decline is by 1-3% (Chernihivska) and the highest increase is by 0.95% (Vinnytska). Given the uncertainties regarding the impacts of change on household incomes, this separate analysis is a valuable indicator of the broader effects of climate change on consumers.  limate Change Impact on Agriculture 4.5 C and the Gini Coefficient18 of Inequality An increase in food prices alone leads to an increase in inequality. The combined effects of price increase and changes in agricultural outputs result in a decrease in inequality in the mean projection. The effect on inequality is tracked through changes in real income per household. With the low projection, the inequality measure increases by a small amount in all oblasts, except for Ivano-Frankivska, where the decline is more substantial at 2.75% (see Annex 3). Other significant increases are in Vinnytska (1.4%) and Sumska (1.07%). Under the mean projection, six of the 25 oblasts experience a decrease in equality, but the decrease is very small in most cases, (see Figure 28). In the high projection, all oblasts see an increase in inequality, with the largest being in Donetska (8.3% increase in the Gini coefficient) and Ivano-Frankivska (3.5% increase). When considering only food price increase, the Gini coef- ficient results indicate an increase in inequality in all oblasts, except Ivano-Frankivska. The increase is in the range of 0.1 to 1.4%. However, this analysis has not investigated all possible effects of climate change on welfare. Further work should be carried out to examine the other factors that influence household incomes, including climate-related morbidities and unemploy- ment, which are not covered in this analysis. 17 The poverty gap is an estimate of the amount by which income must increase across all poor households to take them above the poverty line. It is the sum of the difference between the income level of each household below the poverty line and the poverty line, reported as a percent of the poverty line. 18 Gini index measures the extent to which income distribution among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution (World Bank 2021c). Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 47  eadcount Poverty, Poverty Gap and Severity of Poverty: Values for the Figure 27: H Baseline Period [%] and Changes in 2030 Relative to the Baseline [%], Low Projection Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Chernihivska Sumska Volynska Rivnenska Rivnenska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Volynska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Zhytomy Kyivska Kyivska Kyiv Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Lvivska Poltavska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Lvivska Lvivska Khmelnytska KhmelnytskaKhmelnytska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Ternopilska Cherkaska Cherkaska Ternopilska Ternopilska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Vinnytska Luhanska Luhanska VinnytskaVinnyt Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Zakarpatska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska ChernivetskaChernivetska Dnipropetrovska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Chernivetska Donetska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska MykolaivskaMykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Odeska KhersonskaKhersonska Ode Crimea Crimea Crimea Headcount Poverty: Base Period [%] Headcount Poverty Gap:Poverty: Change Base Period [%] to Base [%] Poverty Severity G of Pove -0.50% 0.00% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 15.0% 17.5% 20.0% 22.5% 4.00% 5.00% Chernihivska Chernihivska ska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Chernihivska Rivnenska Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Volynska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Zhytomy Kyivska Kyivska ka Lvivska Kyivska Poltavska Lvivska Kyivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Ternopilska Khmelnytska Cherkaska Ternopilska Khmelnytska Cherkaska Khmelnytska Luhanska Ternopilska Vinnytska Cherkaska Luhanska Ternopilska Vinnytska Cherkaska Luhanska Ternopilska Ivano-Frankivska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinny Zakarpatska Ivano-Frankivska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Ivano-Frankivska Kirovohradska Ivano-Frankivska ropetrovska Chernivetska Zakarpatska Dnipropetrovska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Zakarpatska Dnipropetrovska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Donetska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Chernivetska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Mykolaivska Zaporizka Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Zaporizka ka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska mea Crimea Crimea Crimea Crimea eriod [%] Poverty Gap: Base Headcount Period Poverty: [%] to Base [%] Change Poverty Severity Gap:Base of Poverty: Change to Base[%] Period [%] Severity of P -0.50% 20.0% 15.0% 17.5% 20.0% 22.5% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 0.00% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% Chernihivska a Volynska Sumska nihivska Rivnenska Chernihivska Chernihivska Sumska Volynska Sumska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Kyivska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Khmelnytska Poltavska Kharkivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Ternopilska Khmelnytska Cherkaska Khmelnytska ska Luhanska Ternopilska Cherkaska Luhanska Ternopilska Cherkaska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Vinnytska Vinnytska Ivano-Frankivska Kirovohradska Ivano-Frankivska ohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Kirovohradska petrovska Chernivetska Zakarpatska Dnipropetrovska Zakarpatska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Donetska aivska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Zaporizka Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Odeska Khersonska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Khersonska ea Crimea Crimea Crimea Crimea [%] to Base [%] hange Poverty Severity of Gap: Poverty: Change Base to[%] Period Base[%] Severity of Poverty: Change to Base [%] -0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.60% 22.5% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 2.0% 48 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Limitations of the analysis The study is based on the partial equilibrium Gini Сoefficient Сhanges Figure 28:  approach which gives a good approximation in 2030 Relative to the Base- of the likely loss of wellbeing or change in real line [%] expenditure from the increase in prices of key agricultural commodities. Thus, future stud- Low ies can benefit from wider use of input-output tables or microeconomic simulation models Volynska Rivnenska Chernihivska Sumska which were not available at the time of the Zhytomyrska Kyivska study. The impact of changes in consumer Lvivska Khmelnytska Poltavska Kharkivska prices on food demand was taken from var- Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Kirovohradska ious studies across European countries as Zakarpatska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska similar studies were not available for Ukraine Mykolaivska Zaporizka specifically (Femenia 2019). Additionally, Odeska Khersonska Ukraine is in the process of expanding and Crimea improving its household income and expend- iture surveys using the methodology for the Mean EU Household Final Consumption Expendi- ture Surveys.19 The harmonization process it Volynska Chernihivska not yet complete and information on several Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska cross-sectional variables have not yet been Lvivska Khmelnytska Kyivska Poltavska Kharkivska collected in Ukraine, which complicates data Ternopilska Ivano-Frankivska Vinnytska Cherkaska Luhanska analysis. Zakarpatska Chernivetska Kirovohradska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea High Chernihivska Volynska Sumska Rivnenska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea Change in Gini -8.30% -2.70% 0.00% 0.30% 0.60% 1.50% 19 See https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/hbs_esms.htm. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 49 CHAPTER 5: IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FORESTS 5.1 Summary The projections show a significant shrinking of zones for optimal growth, in term of climate humidity, for most species during the second half of the twenty-first century, especially during the end of century period. The projected changes in climatic conditions, especial- ly under RCP 8.5, will particularly impact adult tree species, as they have low adaptive capacity. This will lead to a deterioration in the condition, productivity, and biodiversity of forest species. Based on the temperature and humidity conditions projected under both RCPs, a signif- icant reduction is expected in the area on the suitability scale for the growth of spruce, beech, pine and oak. Less than 3% of the country’s forest areas would have optimal con- ditions for Norway spruce, Scots pine, and beech under RCP 8.5 projections. Only 8% of the territory will have optimal conditions for English oak under the same scenario. Under RCP 4.5 projections, conditions suitable for forest growth will remain only in the Carpathians, western forest-steppe, western part of Polissya (in the form of a new cli- mate type), and parts of the north of Chernihivska and Sumska oblasts. The steppe and Polissya are expected to undergo significant changes in the hydrological regime. These changes will lead to the deterioration of forests and a possible reduction in total forest areas, particularly in the left bank forest-steppe, steppe, and Polissya. In the Carpathians, the forest boundary is expected to move to a higher altitude. The projected changes are likely to exacerbate disturbances and stressors such as wildfires and insects. During prolonged droughts, a significant proportion of forest biomass becomes combustible, increasing the fuel load of the forest. In addition, pest infestations which have been documented with warming conditions, can result in the deterioration of forest health and increased tree mortality. These will, in turn, enlarge the fuel load available for combustion in wildfire events. Forest fires may increase due to the occurrence of forest diseases and pro- longed droughts. According to the PESETA study, forests in the Polissya region with a high concentration of pine trees have a high risk of fire due to the increase of temperature and dry spells expected in most of Europe. In Ukraine, pine forests in the southern and northern steppe and forest-steppe areas will also be at high risk due to the drier conditions expected there under both RCPs. 50 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Climate Vulnerability Indices for Forests 5.2  Ukraine ranks 36th among 46 European countries for forest cover. Forest covers about 15.9% of Ukraine’s territory, about 9.6 million hectares (see Figure 29). Forest cover in Ukraine is di- vided almost equally between coniferous forests (about 42%) and hardwood broadleaved for- ests (43%). The most common species are Scots pine, oak, Norway spruce, European beech, silver birch, black alder, European ash, European hornbeam, and silver fir. Pine accounts for about 35% of the forest cover; oak (Quercus spp.) 28%; beech (Fagus silvatica) 9%; spruce (Picea spp.) 8%; and birch (Betula pendula) 7% (World Bank 2020). The beginning of this century was marked by several strong waves of decline of forests over nearly the entire country. This decline has had a particularly negative impact on ecosystem functions and services in the country’ east and south. Projected trends in key climate indica- tors such as temperature and precipitation, as illustrated in Figures 30 and 31, indicate further degradation and endangerment of Ukraine’s forests. Climate variability and, in particular, fre- quency and severity of climatic extremes, have the potential to significantly exacerbate future projections. The longer annual warm period projected under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 would result in a significantly shorter annual frost period. The increase in the duration of the warm period (t>5 °C) will prolong the growing season for trees throughout Ukraine relative to the baseline period by an average of 20-30 days in the mid-century period, and by 30-50 days (depending on the projections) during the end of century period. The period with a stable temperature above 5 °C will occur earlier in the spring and later in the fall. Figure 29: Forestland Across Ukraine’s Oblast Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 51 Based on the projections for both RCP scenarios, the boundaries of climatic zones will shift toward the north. This change happens in terms of heat supply according to Vorobjov’s Heat Availability Index20 for forests. In 1961-1990, Ukraine had four heat zones. These range from relatively moderate (c) in the Carpathians to warm (f) in the southern steppe forest region, pre- dominantly temperate in the plains (d) in Polissya and part of the forest-steppe, and relatively warm (e) in the remainder of the forest-steppe and in the northern steppe. The baseline period (1990-2010) has already seen an extension in the relatively warm (e) (up to 70% of Ukraine’s territory) and warm (f) (up to 17.7%). If this trend continues, we will see new types of heat zones (g/very warm, and h/hot), which were not described by Vorobjov in the baseline period (See Annex 4). Heat Availability Index projections are presented in Figure 30. Projections under both RCPs project an increase in annual precipitation relative to the baseline period (1991-2010) in all forested regions except for the Carpathians which will experience a drier cli- mate. These changes are reflected by the changes in Vorobjov’s humidity index, accompanied by changes in the hydrological regime, groundwater levels, etc. Climatic conditions cause the formation of respective zonal hydrological conditions (hygrotopes) and intrazonal types under the influence of local landscape, soil type, and moisture availability. For this reason, changes need to be analyzed in high spatial resolution. Vorobjov considers 2 – 6 types of climate hu- midity as favorable for forest growth. The changes of Vorobjov’s humidity index are presented in Annex 4; this change is shown in Figure 31. Both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 project a further increase in aridity and a shift in the humidity limits to the north. A new type of climate, extremely dry, which was not described by the Vorobjov Index, is expected to appear in the south (see Annex 4). Water scarcity causes forest degra- dation, as forests are especially sensitive to droughts and other climate extremes that cause changes in hydrological conditions as drop in groundwater levels. Ukraine has a poor water resource endowment and very unstable water flow. In recent years, water reserves in rivers and reservoirs amounted to only 80% of the long-term average (Schvidenko et al, 2018). In- tensive processes of drying and morbidity of major forest tree species, including pine, spruce, oak, and beech, are observed in forests. The southern part of the country is under particular risk, with ongoing losses of forests due to drought estimated by remote sensing at about 20- 30% of forested area. Under the RCP 4.5 projections, conditions suitable for forest growth will remain only in the Carpathians, western forest-steppe, western part of Polissya (in the form of a new climate type), and parts of the north of Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts. The areas of wet and fresh climate types are expected to decrease (as shown in Annex 4), and dry climate types to in- crease. The total area with dry conditions will occupy 63.2% of the country’s territory in the middle of the century, and 70.5% at the end of the century. Under the RCP 8.5 projection, the process of aridification will accelerate. Dry climate types are expected to account for about 69.6% of the country’s territory in the middle of the century and 89.7% at the end of the century. Accordingly, the area of climate conditions suitable for forest growth will decrease significantly, up to 30.4% in the middle of the century and 10.3% at the end of the century. 20 Other indices which have a strong influence on tree growth, such as the continentality index, were also taken into account for this analysis. Details of the continentality index are given in Annex I. 52 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  elative Changes of Vorobjov’s Heat Availability Index to Climate, Figure 30: R 1991-2010 RCP 4.5 Near future: 2021-2040 RCP 8.5 Near future: 2021-2040 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea RCP 4.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 RCP 8.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea RCP 4.5 Far future: 2081-2100 RCP 8.5 Far future: 2081-2100 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Change in heat supply of warm season (monthly sums) to base period: 1991-2010 [%] 0% — 7% 9% — 11% 13% — 15% 17% — 19% 37% — 39% 7% — 9% 11% — 13% 15% — 17% 35% — 37% 39% — 41% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 53  elative Changes of Vorobjov’s Moisture Availability Index to Climate, Figure 31: R 1991-2010 RCP 4.5 Near future: 2021-2040 RCP 8.5 Near future: 2021-2040 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea RCP 4.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 RCP 8.5 Mid-century: 2041-2060 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea RCP 4.5 Far future: 2081-2100 RCP 8.5 Far future: 2081-2100 Chernihivska Chernihivska Volynska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Donetska Mykolaivska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Odeska Khersonska Crimea Crimea Change in humidity index by Vorobjov (W) to base period: 1991-2010 [%] -120% — -100% -100% — -80% -80% — -60% -60% — -40% -40% — -20% -20% — 0% 54 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Effect of Climate Change on Key Forest Species 5.3  The boundaries of zones with satisfactory conditions for English oak are expected to further shift toward the northwest, while the conditionally unsuitable zone will expand to the south. Conditions in the Carpathians are becoming more favorable for this species. In the middle of century climate, comparatively minor changes are anticipated (Figure 33), including narrowing of the zone of unsatisfactory conditions in the Carpathians and the southern steppe. Accord- ing to the projection under RCP 8.5 at the end of the century, the conditions in the Carpathians are expected to be satisfactory in the highlands and optimal on the plains; and most of Ukraine will be characterized by conditionally unsuitable and unsatisfactory conditions21 (Figure 33 and maps in Annex 4). Under RCP 8.5 projections, the areas with optimal conditions for European beech will diminish to 2% of Ukraine’s territory. A shift toward the northwest was already taking place in the base- line period (1990-2010). In particular, the optimal zone for European beech in the western part of the forest-steppe decreased. During the same time period, conditions for beech improved in the Carpathians, from unsatisfactory to satisfactory. A further shift of boundaries and shrinking of the area suitable for forest beech growth is anticipated. In the mid-century, under RCP 4.5, conditions suitable for beech could be preserved in 23.8% of Ukraine’s territory (Figure 33). By the end of the century, the western part of the forest-steppe and Polissya will consist of mostly unsatisfactory and conditionally unsuitable zones, and the Carpathians and a small area in the western forest-steppe will consist of zones ranging from optimal to satisfactory (Figure 32 and maps in Annex 4). Conditions suitable for Scots pine growth will remain in the Carpathians (ranging from optimal to satisfactory), the western part of the forest-steppe, and Polissya (predominantly unsatisfac- tory). Between 1990 and 2010, boundaries shifted slightly toward the north and the zones with optimal and suboptimal conditions narrowed. The south had small zones of conditionally un- suitable areas for pine growth. In the future, minor changes are expected, leading to improved conditions including the expansion of optimal zones in the Carpathians and suboptimal zones in most of Polissya and the western part of the forest-steppe. Conditions will be satisfactory in the forest-steppe and unsatisfactory in the steppe. It is expected that borders will further shift to the northwest, and the conditionally unsuitable zone will expand. By mid-century, under RCP 4.5 the conditionally unsuitable zone will cover about 37.1% of Ukraine’s territory, and under RCP 8.5, 45.4% (Figure 33 and maps in Annex 4). In the mid-century, under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, only the Carpathians will remain a suit- able zone for Norway spruce. In the rest of Ukraine, climate conditions will be conditionally unsuitable for spruce. Regional studies of climate change impacts on forests in the Ukrainian Carpathians came to a similar conclusion. Spruce forests areas are expected to decrease from more than 60% to 25% under RCP 4.5, and to 10% under RCP 8.5 (Kruhlov et al. 2018). In the end of the century, climate conditions suitable for spruce are projected to disappear in the north/northwest (Polissya), and the western part of the forest-steppe, with most Ukrainian territory becoming conditionally unsuitable (Figure 33 and maps in Annex 4). 21 See Figure 32 for the full suitability scale for growing forest species; the scale ranges from conditionally unsatisfactory to optimal. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 55 The impact of climate change on forests in Ukraine is exacerbated by a simultaneous loss of ecosystem services. Additionally, based on some estimates, carbon sequestration by forests could decrease significantly. Box 4 summarizes some of the impacts which are not addressed in this report, but could negatively affect resilience of natural landscapes, reduce agricultural productivity, and threaten biodiversity in Ukraine. mpact of Climate Change on Areas with Growing Potential for English Oak Figure 32: I and European Beech, 2100 56 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry mpact of Climate Change on Areas with Growing Potential Figure 33: I for Selected Forest Species, in 2050 English oak Scots pine European beech Norway spruce 100% 2.6% 2.2% 2.1% 2% 1.6% 2.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 4.3% 1.5% 2% 2.3% 2% 8.1% 3.2% 3.7% 3.2% 6.6% 7.6% 18.4% 28.1% 20.9% 17.5% 19.6% 27.2% 21.9% 22.3% 75% 38.1% 18.1% Suitability scale for growing 19.2% 1.3% forest species: Share [%] of the Ukrainian territory 21.3% 23.1% 29.5% optimal 1% 23.7% 21.8% 30.7% suboptimal 50% 95.5% 96.4% 93.9% satisfactory 1.1% unsatisfactory 21.5% 36.3% 27% extremely 64.6% unsatisfactory 21.7% conditionally 55.9% unsuitable 25% 45.4% 42.4% 37.1% 20.3% 26.8% 19.2% 19% 2.5% 0% Current climate 1991-2010 RCP 4.5 2041-2060 RCP 8.5 2041-2060 Current climate 1991-2010 RCP 4.5 2041-2060 RCP 8.5 2041-2060 Current climate 1991-2010 RCP 4.5 2041-2060 RCP 8.5 2041-2060 Current climate 1991-2010 RCP 4.5 2041-2060 RCP 8.5 2041-2060 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 57 Box 4: Impact of Climate Change on Forests and Decline of Ecosystem Services Carbon sequestration. Ukrainian forests provide very high potential for carbon sequestration – in 2018 about 50 thousand tons of CO2-equivalent per year, a figure 21% lower than in 1990 (NIR 2020). This is one of the highest values of forest sink in Europe and is explained by a large share of forests with a re- stricted regime of wood harvest (~50%) and share of young and middle-aged forests (~70%) (Shvidenko et al. 2017). However, following the traditional trends of forest sector development in Ukraine assuming an extensive model of forest management and a “business as usual” scenario (assuming no adaptation), the next 30 years will lead to a more than twofold decline in carbon sequestration potential (Shvidenko et al. 2014). It is very likely that the situation will worsen by the end of this century, as there are high risks of reaching a “tipping point,” when an ecosystem is driven to a new state or collapses entirely. Figure 32 indicates change potential for growing the selected forest species by geographic area. Productivity of forests. The warmer and drier climate will affect the productivity of forests and make pest outbreaks more common. The area of forest affected by pests and diseases doubled from 4% in 2000 to 8% in 2011. More such changes will take place in the future, as temperatures reach 5°C and 10°C earlier in the year (see Table 5). Projected changes in monthly mean temperatures can disrupt the synchroni- zation of tree leaf development and lead to a rise in diseases and pathogens, including fungal infections (Shvidenko et al. 2018a). Water regulation. Forest degradation can cause water scarcity, as forests are of paramount importance in providing water regulation functions. They can contribute to maintaining sustainable crop yields and the ecological stability of landscapes (Shvidenko et al. 2018b). Forest degradation will disturb hydrological cycles and associated impacts on agricultural yields and can have a significant impact on the economy. However, these effects are not easily modeled even by specialized ecosystem-economy models and the magnitudes of effects can be only anticipated (Johnson et al. 2021). Impact on natural habitats and preservation of biodiversity. The loss of forest species (see Figure 32), which is itself a loss of biodiversity, promotes the ongoing losses (including extinctions) of dependent spe- cies and ecosystems. Biodiversity loss reduces the ecosystem’s resilience to shocks and limits provision of valuable ecosystem functions and services to people. Loss of forest cover induces loss in pollination sufficiency, especially important for agricultural crops that are dependent on wild pollination (Johnson et al. 2021). 5.4 Impact on Forest Fires Data for the period 2007-2020 shows a general decrease in the number of forest fires but a sharp increase in the area burned. The analysis of data on forest fires in Ukraine for the period 2007-2020 shows that the 2020 fire season was the most catastrophic in the country’s mod- ern history, with a number of fires classified as large on the national forest fire classification scale occurring in the northern and eastern parts of the country, resulting in unprecedented environmental, social and economic damage. This is consistent with the recent trend in other European countries, where large forest fires have become more frequent in recent decades (de Rigo et al. 2017). Regional forest fire density data shows the highest concentration of incidents in the southeast regions of the country. Research by the Forest Ecology Laboratory of URIFFM determined that the density of forest fires increases from the northwest to the southeast. (See Annex 4.) Typically, forest fires are most highly concentrated in Khersonska (1.9 cases per 1,000 ha of 58 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Figure 34: Total Burned Areas and Numbers of Forest Fires in Ukraine 10000 100000 Burned area, ha Number of fires 0 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Burned area 12731 4521 4575 1239 612 3311 220 16677 2625 1101 5474 1367 1065 74623 Number of fires 5024 3231 4922 2368 1761 1743 806 1486 2225 945 2371 1297 1261 2598 Source: State Forest Resources Agency of Ukraine, 2020. forested area), Zaporizska (1.4 cases per 1,000 ha), Dnipropetrovska (1.3 cases per 1,000 ha), Luhanska (1.1 cases per 1,000 ha), and Donetska oblasts (1.1 cases per 1,000 ha). The projected changes in climatic conditions in Ukraine will likely have significant implications for forest fires risk. Climate change projections for Ukraine show a consistent trend of in- creases in annual average temperature under both RCPs, with progressively higher increases toward the end of the century (2.1±1.8°C under RCP 4.5 and 4.3±2.1°C under RCP 8.5). The spatial distribution of temperature rise under both emission scenarios are similar over time, with the highest temperature increases in the northeast and the lowest in the west, northwest and areas near the Black Sea coast. Rising temperatures in the summer will result in heat- waves and increased aridity in the south and east of Ukraine. The southern regions will expe- rience an average daily maximum temperature above 34°С in July, with the southern steppe remaining the hottest until the end of the century. The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) by the IPCC indicates that every additional increase of 0.5°C in global average temperature causes discernable increases in the intensity and frequency of heat extremes such as heatwaves and ecological droughts (IPCC 2021). These factors will, in turn, enlarge the stock of forest fuel available for combustion in wildfire events (de Rigo et al. 2017). The PESETA study assumes a high level of vulnerability to forest fires in the northwestern parts of Ukraine, particularly in Polissya with its large areas of pine forests with high risk of fire. The study projects a rise in the number of days per year with high to extreme wildfire danger nearly everywhere in Europe due to higher temperatures and increased dry spells. The vul- nerability is measured as percentage of biomass lost in case of fires. The risk of fires is even higher for the pine forests growing in these regions, although the total area of pine forests here is not as large as that in Polissya. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 59 5.5 Analysis Limitations Due to the lack of reliable forest inventory data in Ukraine (World Bank, 2020), the study was not able to address the impact of climate change on forest productivity and ecosystem servic- es with the same analytical approach and for the same spatial disaggregation used in other parts of this study. This analysis could be conducted in follow-up studies. Similarly, the impact of climate change on forest fires was assessed using historical data. This analysis could be further improved by complementing climate indexes developed in this study with specific in- dexes for potential frequency and intensity of forest fires in Ukraine. 60 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry CHAPTER 6: THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS: OBLAST-LEVEL ANALYSIS 6.1. Spatial Distribution of Potential Benefits for Agriculture The analysis of climate change from the preceding sections presents two important findings for the agriculture and land use sector in Ukraine: (i) Ukraine could benefit from increased productivity of winter wheat, if cropping areas shift to the north-west (Figure 35). (ii) other export crops (maize, sunflower and soybean) could benefit if measures are taken to maintain optimal water balance. Figure 35: Relative Changes in Wheat Productivity, Through 2030 Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea Key: Darker shades of green indicate a higher increase in wheat productivity in the oblast, relative to the baseline. Productivity is measured in millions of tons. Red borders show oblasts with the highest yield increases through 2030 in the high projection with most beneficial climate conditions for agriculture. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 61 The northwest oblasts will experience warmer winters with more precipitation, creating condi- tions favorable for winter crops. Increase in wheat yield [tons/ha] (see Figure 18) and change in crop land allocation will allow for high wheat productivity [millions of tons] in these oblasts. Change in climate periods induced by new climate conditions (see Table 4 and 5) will have a positive effect on sowing and harvesting of winter wheat. These favorable conditions are distributed regionally, with the northwest oblasts Zhytomyrska, Chernihivska, Zakarpatska, Ivano-Frankivska, and Volynska benefiting most. Measures to maintain optimal water balance under climate change could result in an increase in agricultural production. These potential benefits are estimated by comparing the WOFOST modelled values in 2030 under RCP8.5 of water-limited production and with the production under optimal water availability.22 The WOFOST model delivers yield projections under opti- mum water availability for three selected crops: maize, soybean, and sunflower. The change in value is estimated by multiplying the change in total production by the change in real crop prices. The analysis then proceeds to determine the potential benefits if certain measures are taken to maintain optimal water balance in the agricultural sector to address the projected climate change. Under the optimal water availability scenario, compared to the no changes to water manage- ment scenario for the three selected crops, benefits could reach US$112 million per year until 2030 in the mean projection. This amounts to about 0.8% of 2019 GDP in agriculture, forests and fishery. According to the latest data (WDI 2021), the sector’s GDP comprises US$13.8 billion and contributes 9% to Ukraine’s GDP. Over the 10-year period from 2026- 2035, the benefits from maintaining an optimal water availability measure calculated by the WOFOST model amount to as much as US$550.7 million, with a range of US$354- 780 million (Table 6 and Annex 5). In other simulations of yield (both low and high projections), the economic impact of maintain- ing optimal water availability can amount to US$264-504 million or 2-4% of Ukraine’s GDP for agriculture in 2019 (Annex 5). The extent of the benefits of these water balance measures depends on the type of crop. The highest benefit in relative terms (39.6%) is expected for soybean. Suitable measure for maintaining optimal water availability can lead to an increase of 26% to 40% in the values of agricultural output (Table 6). The largest absolute benefit (dif- ference between the optimal water availability vs. the loss under water stress scenarios) is expected for maize, estimated at a US$92.7 million loss. The benefits of maintaining optimal water availability also have strong regional differences. These differences are illustrated in Figure 36. In the figure, the oblasts are ordered by the change in value of agricultural output in each projection relative to the base year 2010 values. The changes in values of agricultural output under optimal water availability are presented in blue. Generally, the benefits are distributed unevenly among oblasts and crops. As indicated by the yellow and blue bars, for maize, Kyivska, Cherkaska and Poltavska oblasts would enjoy the largest benefits from maintaining optimal water availability. Figure 36 shows the change in value in US$ million. However, for sunflower, Khersonska, Mykolaivska and Odeska would benefit the most from implementing adaptation measures. Zakarpatska oblast also shows a significant benefit; however, the initial value of sunflower production is low. For soybean, Chernivetska, Ternopilska and Khemelnytska show the largest gain. Adaptation measures 22 Price changes for the RCP 4.5 scenario are not available, therefore the analysis focused on the RCP 8.5 scenario. 62 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry would likely have the most notable benefits in Khersonska oblast (see Figure 36). For some oblasts, these measures may not produce significant benefits, specifically: Rivnenska, Lvivs- ka, Zakarpatska, Ivano-Frankivska and Volynska oblasts for soybean; Lvivska and Volynska for sunflower; and Chernihivska for maize.  ffect of Measures to Maintain Optimal Water Balance on Change in the Table 6: E Value of Agricultural Output for Selected Crops (for the mean yield pro- jection) Value of Change* in Adjusted Change† Impacts of maintaining Agricultural the Value of in the Value of optimal water availability Output Agricultural Output Agricultural Output (per year) (10-year total) ‡ US$ million % US$ million % US$ million US$ million US$ million 2010 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030 2026-2035 Maize 1700.8 18.7% 317.8 13.2% 225.1 92.7 453.8 Soybean 34.6 26.5% 9.2 39.6% 13.7 4.6 22.3 Sunflower 809.1 3.8% 30.8 5.7% 46.1 15.2 74.6 Total 2544.5 10.9% 277.8 6.5% 165.3 112.5 550.7 Change [%] in the value of agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production. Value in Million US$ is * given for real prices. The estimated adjusted change in the value of water scarce agricultural production as a percentage of the value in 2010 of † agricultural production by oblast in 2030 with maintaining water availability measures in the agricultural sector. The net present value (to base year 2019) of cost of inaction over the period of climate projections for the agricultural outputs ‡ 2026-2035, with 6% interest rate. An assessment with 3% and 10% interest rates is provided in Annex 5. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 63  hange in Value of Agricultural Output in 2030 Relative to 2010 for the Figure 36: C Mean Projection Scenario: Optimal Water Availability vs. Water Scarcity Projection Scenario23 Maize Chernihivs Chernihivs a a Vinnytsk Vinnytsk ka ka Za Crim ets Za Crim ets Iv ka ka Iv an ka ka ka Don an ka Don riz rp o- riz rp o- ea ka ea a Fr at po Fr sk at ts po an 0% sk an 0% t ny sk Za ny ki Za ki el a el a vs vs ka m ka m Kh a Po Kh a Po ltav -10% ilsk ltav -10% ilsk ska n op ska n op Ter Ter Volyn -20% Volyn -20% ska ska s ka Luhan s ka Luhan Sumska -30% Dnipropetrovska Sumska -30% Dnipropetrovska Kha Kha ska rkiv ska rkiv Lviv ska Lviv ska a Ch Ch sk er ka er lai v niv vs niv ko ets lai ets My ka ko Ch a My ka Ch a sk sk er de er de a Zh ka a Zh ka sk O sk O sk dska Kyiv yto sk dska Kyiv Rivnenska yto on Rivnenska a on a my ers my ers ska ohra ska ohra rsk Kh rsk Kh a Kirov a Kirov Soybean a ivetsk a ivetsk Iva Crimea Iva Voly ka Crimea no Chern Voly ka ils no Chern -F ils n op -F ra 60% ska n op ka ra 60% nk rn ska ka ts nk rn ivs Te Za ts 50% ny ivs Te Za 50% ny ka el ka ka rp el hm ka rp 40% hm 40% at K at sk ka K sk a a ka 30% yts 30% yts n Vin n Lviv Vin Lviv 20% ska 20% ska dska dska vohra 10% vohra 10% Kiro Kiro Rivnensk Rivnensk 0% a 0% a Luhanska Luhanska Donetska Donetska Kyiv Kyiv ska ska ka ska k ivs ar kiv Su K har Su ms Kh ms ka ka ka ka vs vs lta lta Kh Kh Po Po er ka er ka so so Zh es Zh es ska ns ska ns Od Od yto Mykol yto Mykol Zaporizka Zaporizka ka ka v v my my etro etro rsk rsk aivska aivska rop rop a a Dnip Dnip Water scarcity Optimal water availability 23 For each projection, oblasts are ordered by the change (%) in value of agricultural output relative to the value of agricultural production in 2010. The circle defines a baseline - 0%. For maize, negative percentage changes signal losses in the value of agricultural output. Implementing adaptation measures can be expected to reduce the losses to the value of maize production as an effect of climate change. For sunflower, implementation of adaptation measures results in greater gains in the value of agricultural output – the case in all but three oblasts that show losses: Ternopilska, Khemelnytska and Vinnytska. For soy- bean, all oblasts experience a positive change in the value of agricultural production that increases if adaptation measures are introduced. 64 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Sunflower Sunflower ska ska Ternopilsk Ternopilska a rpatska Ternopilska Ternopilska Khm Khm Khm Khm sk ka ska Zakarpat Zakarpat ka ka 15% 15% Zakarpat 15% 15% ons eln eln ons ons eln eln on Zakaa ka Vi Vi ka ka yts yts sk Vi Vi ers ers yts yts ers ers vs nn nn vs vs nn n iv a ka ka ny ai Kh a yt Kh ka 10% ai yt ka 10% ai Kh yt Kh 10% Vo 10% ol Vo ol Vo ol Vo sk ol ts sk sk yk l yk l yn yk yn l yk ka l yn a yn a a M sk ka M sk a M sk ka M sk k a a a es esk a a es es Lv Lv 5% Od 5% Od Lv ivs Lv 5% 5%Od Od ivs ivs ka ivs ka v ska sk a ka ka v ska ska olta ltav olta ltav P Po P Po Crimea Crimea 0% 0% Crimea Crimea 0% 0% ihivska ihivska ihivska ihivska Chern Chern Chern Chern -5% -5% -5% -5% Rivnenska Rivnenska Rivnenska Rivnenska Kirovohradsk Kirovohradsk Kirovohradsk Kirovohradsk a a a a a a ka ka etsk etsk Sum ivets ivets Sum Sum Che rniv rniv Sum Che rn Che rn ska ska Che ska ska a a tsk a tsk a Iva Iva e tsk tsk Iva Iva ne ne n ne no no Do no no Do Do -F -F Do -F -F ra ka ra ka ra ra ka nk a nk Ky Ky ns ns Kharkivska nsk nk nk Ky ivs Ky ivs ns ka ivs i ka ivs iv ha ha vs ka ka Zh Zh ka iv ka iv ha ha sk ka ka Lu Zh rizka Lu Zh as rizka as ka sk sk Dnipro Dnipro Kharkivska Kharkivska Lu Lu rizka as rizka as a y to yto Dnipro Dnipro Kharkivska erk erk a a yto yto erk erk my my Zapo Zapo Ch Ch my my Zapo Zapo Ch Ch rsk rs petro petro rsk rs petro petro ka a ka a v v ska ska v vs k a ska Water scarcity Water scarcity Optimal Optimal water water availability availability Authors’ estimates using IFPRI data and Ukrainian statistics on agricultural Source:  croplands in 2019. Spatial Distribution of Potential Risks from Climate Change 6.2  for Agriculture Using the results from climate impacts on agriculture, “hotspot” oblasts are grouped based on the: i) change in oblast GDP due to the projected changes in agricultural production; ii) change in agricultural production values; and iii) change in household incomes, poverty, and inequality (Table 7). As discussed in the preceding chapters, the south and the east of Ukraine are expected to experience these changes more than the north and west of the country. All oblasts are grouped and ranked by the magnitude of the impacts on these parameters. The detailed tables for this analysis are provided in Annex 5. This analysis is intended to provide information on climate “hotspots” where potential risks from climate change are the highest based on the impact on agriculture (yield and value of production) and the resultant impact on household income and inequality. This analysis does not account for other factors which could affect agricultural production such as availability of skilled labor, supply chains, or access to finance. The assessment results until the mid-21st century24 under RCP 8.5 were selected to identify the potentially most impacted oblasts. This RCP was chosen following recent international studies of climate impact, e.g., PESETA IV in the EU and IFPRI IMPACT (EU Science Hub 2021, IFPRI 2015), which consider RCP8.5 as a core scenario for climate risk analysis. 24 There are many challenges to extending the agricultural impact assessment beyond 2050 and distributional analysis beyond 2030. The uncertainty becomes too high to permit sensible statistical estimations. This challenge is well recognized in the scientific literature and described by the IPCC (2007) as “…scientifically controversial to assign a precise probability distribution to a variable in the far distant future determined by social choices such as the global temperature in 2100…” Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 65  ifference in the Value of Agricultural Production Between Optimal Figure 37: D Water Availability and Water Scarcity Projections in US$ million/year1 Maize Soybean Sunflower Chernihivska Zakarpatska Ivano-Frankivska Zaporizka Mykolaivska Donetska Lvivska Volynska Chernivetska Luhanska Rivnenska Khersonska Crimea Ternopilska Odeska Dnipropetrovska Kirovohradska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Sumska Zhytomyrska Vinnytska Poltavska Cherkaska Kyivska 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Changes in Figure 36 are given in relative values (%). Therefore, when estimating the effect of adaptation changes for each crop and oblast, it is helpful to consider absolute changes – differences in the value of agricultural production between optimal water availability and water scarcity projections in million US$ per year, e.g., although Chernivetska oblast shows a positive relative change of 42% in the value of agricultural output of sunflower relative to 2010, sunflower has a minor change in the absolute value of the agricultural output, especially in comparison with Mykolaivska and Odeska oblasts (Figure 37). 66 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry According to Jafino et al., (2021), a strong synergy between development policies and climate change adaptation, i.e., practical inseparability of development and adaptation strategy, may make benefits of adaptation less noticeable. The observable impact of adaptation reflects only residual impact of climate change after autonomous adaptation is implemented on a national, sectoral or sub-national level. Most of the initial climate damage that may accrue in a coun- terfactual “no adaptation” scenario is not present in development scenarios built to consider changing climatic conditions. The RCP8.5 emissions pathway, coupled with the low agricultur- al yield projections scenario, could be considered a stress test that reveals residual damage and highlights the vulnerability of different sectors and oblasts. This approach addresses the uncertainty of climate projections and climate impact assessments. The effects of climate change on agriculture will have a greater impact on some oblasts than on others. Table 7 shows the top five oblasts across three selected ranking lists: (1) highest share of agriculture GDP at oblast and at national level; (2) biggest decrease in agriculture production; and (3) largest change in combined poverty indicators. Kirovohradska, Zhytomyrs- ka and Lvivska appear in more than one of these three top-five groups, indicating higher over- all vulnerability of their agricultural sectors to climate change impacts. Kirovohradska oblast has the highest agricultural GDP in Ukraine (see Annex 5) and the value of its agricultural production will also be considerably impacted by changing climatic conditions. Lvivska and Zhytomyrska will be most exposed to the adverse impacts of climate change, with potential losses of agricultural production value amounting to 34% and 48%, respectively, in the near future period. The substantial losses in agricultural value will have implications for individual household incomes and poverty. Kirovohradska oblast is ranked highest in Group 1 and ap- pears again in Group 3, indicating high impacts on household income. In Group 2, Zhytomyrs- ka and Lvivska will experience the largest reductions in their agricultural production and value due to the changes in local climatic conditions. They are also ranked the highest in Group 3, which indicates significant potential impacts on household incomes. The top five oblasts with the highest share of agricultural GDP are Khersonska, Kirovohrads- ka, Poltavska, Vinnytska and Cherkaska (Figure 38; see Annex 3 for complete data). In the near future (2021-2040), these oblasts are likely to experience significant losses in house- hold incomes and negative changes in poverty and inequality indicators due to the projected changes in the value of agricultural production. Although the relative reductions in the values of agricultural production in these oblasts are not among the highest in Ukraine, the climate change impacts on the respective oblasts’ GDPs in absolute values will be the strongest due to the high shares of the agricultural sector in their local economies. The top five oblasts that will experience the largest decreases in agricultural production values attributed to climate change until the mid-21st century are Zhytomyrska, Kyivska, Chernivets- ka, Rivnenska and Lvivska (Figure 39).25 The agricultural production values under considera- tion are from the low projection, which reflects the lowest production potential of the selected crops. These values describe the worst-case scenario, in which the potential reduction in the agricultural production values will be the greatest for the selected oblasts. The decline in the value of agricultural production can be up to 48%, in the case of Zhytomyrska oblast. 25 All oblasts are ranked by the reductions in the value of agriculture production in both the near future and mid-century. Annex 7 provides the details on the integrated index for ranking all oblasts by the magnitude of the impact in in both near future and the mid- century. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 67  blasts Most Affected by the Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture, Table 7: O by Category Oblasts ranked by highest share Oblasts ranked by biggest decrease in Oblasts ranked by biggest change in combined of agriculture GDP at oblast and at agriculture production† poverty indicators‡ national level* Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Khersonska Zhytomyrska Lvivska Kirovohradska Kyivska Zhytomyrska Poltavska Chernivetska Kharkivska Vinnytska Rivnenska Luhanska Cherkasska Lvivska Kirovohradska  ased on the data represented in Annex 3 that describes the share of agricultural sector in the national and local GDP. *B  ased on the findings of the analysis of changes in agricultural production due to climate change. These oblasts show consistent †B reductions in the value of the agricultural production in 2030 and 2050 under RCP 8.5, assuming no endogenous adaptation measures. Based on the results of the distributional analysis. These oblasts will undergo the biggest changes in poverty indicators, ‡ including poverty headcount, poverty gap, and severity of poverty. 68 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry In the near-future period, Zhytomyrska, Kyivska, and Lvivska oblasts will undergo signifi- cant changes in climatic conditions, with Kyivska oblast facing a new and drier climate type. Although the agricultural sector in these oblasts accounts for relatively minor shares in ei- ther the local or national GDP, the projected changes in agricultural production values will have significant implications for inequality measures. The anticipated loss in household in- comes and rise in poverty headcount in Zhytomyrska and Kyivska will be substantial. With a consistent rise in dry and hot conditions, Kyivska and Chernivetska oblasts will be exposed to extremely high temperatures, as indicated by the increasing number of tropical nights. The top five oblasts with the most significant loss in household incomes and the highest increase in poverty and inequality are Lvivska, Zhytomyrska, Kharkivska, Luhanska, and Kirovohradska (Figure 40). Agriculture accounts for less than 5% of GDP in these oblasts and the oblasts are ranked highest in term of potential household income loss due to rising food prices caused by adverse climate change impacts on agricultural production. The rank- ing reflects the combined impacts of climate change and induced changes in the agricultural sector on the key poverty indicators, including poverty headcount, poverty gap, and severity of poverty. Annex 3 presents the detailed ranking of all oblasts in Ukraine based on these indicators. In the near future, all oblasts in this group will be exposed to warmer and drier climates. These changes in climatic conditions will be most pronounced in southern Ukraine. Figure 38: Share of Agriculture in National and Local GDP, by Oblast Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea Darker shades of blue denote a higher share of agricultural sector in GDP of Ukraine Key:  and oblast. Red borders show the oblasts analyzed in detail in the integrated crite- ria assessment tables. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 69 Figure 39: Reduction in Agriculture Production Values, by Oblast, Through 2030 Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea Darker shades of blue denote a higher negative impact on agricultural production Key:  and its value in the oblast. Red borders show the oblasts analyzed in detail in the integrated criteria assessment tables.  ombined Changes in Household Income, Poverty, and Inequality, Figure 40: C Through 2030 Chernihivska Volynska Rivnenska Sumska Zhytomyrska Kyivska Lvivska Poltavska Kharkivska Khmelnytska Ternopilska Cherkaska Vinnytska Luhanska Ivano-Frankivska Zakarpatska Kirovohradska Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska Donetska Mykolaivska Zaporizka Odeska Khersonska Crimea Darker shades of blue denote a higher impact on poverty headcount, poverty gap, and Key:  severity of poverty in the oblast. Red borders show the oblasts analyzed in detail in the integrated criteria assessment tables. 70 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry CHAPTER 7: ACTIONS TO BUILD CLIMATE RESILIENCE IN AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY This report details many of the projected changes in climate Ukraine will experience over the course of the 21st century. It provides a detailed assessment of the potential impacts these changes could have on the country, with a focus on agriculture, a key driver of the economy and jobs. Empowered with highly granular data on a range of climate indicators across 7,400 geographic points generated for this study using the latest available global and regional cli- mate models, and analysis for three time periods and three climate scenarios, Ukraine can adapt to meet the projected risks of temperature increase, shifts in seasons, and changes in precipitation patterns. With proactive planning, the country may even be able to benefit from the long-term impacts of climate change on agriculture and forestry. Recommended adap- tation actions for Ukraine, based on the country context and international good practice are outlined below. Recommendations are grouped into three sections: 1. Strengthen institutions, policy, and planning: • Establish a national level institutional mechanism for climate policy • Establish a mechanism to integrate climate change action within the Ministry of Agri- culture Policy and Food • Include climate risk assessment in oblast development planning 2. Increase scientific capacity and research: • Enhance capacity of national scientific institutions on climate change 3. Promote transition to climate-smart agriculture and forestry: • Promote climate-smart agriculture • Promote farmer information systems and precision agriculture technologies • Improve targeting of subsidy programs and develop insurance products for climate risks • Include agroforestry and forest management in adaptation planning Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 71 Strengthen Institutions, Policy and Planning 7.1  Establish a national level institutional mechanism to coordinate climate change policy and actions across all line ministries. Enabling fiscal risk assessment of climate actions, policy and planning and climate budget tagging will be necessary in order to prepare critical sectors such as energy, infrastructure, health, and agriculture for climate impacts. Establish a mechanism to incorporate climate change action within the Ministry of Ag- riculture Policy and Food (MAPF). Strengthening climate expertise and functions will equip MAPF with the necessary knowledge and technical capabilities to support effective and coher- ent climate policies and programs for farmers. It will also be important for MAPF to regularly carry out agriculture sector climate vulnerability assessments and develop action plans (every five years). Include climate change risk assessment in oblast-level development planning. It will be important to carry out more comprehensive impact assessment reviews at the oblast level to identify specific climate risk considerations for development planning, tailoring action to the sectors that face highest risk in the oblast. While this study is not an in-depth assessment of vulnerability, the analysis has identified oblasts with varying levels of vulnerability, based on the share of agriculture in their respective GDPs and resulting household income inequalities: • Khersonska, Kirovohradska, Poltavska, Vinnytska, and Cherkasska: could face greater negative impacts. Adopting climate-smart agricultural practices for maintaining op- timal water balance should be among the focus areas for development planning. • Zhytomyrska, Kyivska, Chernivetska, Rivnenska, and Lvivska: economic impacts could be less profound due to a lower share of agriculture in their respective GDP. Howev- er, climate change could still cause significant changes to agricultural production, entailing the need for diversification of their production structure. • Kirovohradska, Zhytomyrska, and Lvivska: would need to focus on developing overall adaptation capacity based on their vulnerability to climate change. More comprehensive impact assessment reviews should be carried out at the oblast level to identify specific climate risk considerations. Increase Scientific Capacity and Research 7.2  Enhance institutional capacity for collecting, maintaining, analyzing, and disseminat- ing climate data through a National Climate Resource Center. Strengthen the Ukraine Hydrometeorological Institute (UHMI) and the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Center (UHMC) as a National Climate Resource Center (NCRC). Both institutions are under the jurisdiction of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine and combining them under the umbrella of an NCRC can ensure systematic research on hydrometeorology, agrometeorology, and climate science, including up-to-date climate projections, assessment of risks and impacts at the sectoral, na- tional, and regional levels. This will help strengthen the capacity and resources of the UHMI and UHMC to analyze and manage big data for climate planning. This study filled an important data gap by generating over two terabytes of highly granular data on a range of climate indi- cators for Ukraine using the latest available global and regional climate models. Continuous 72 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Box 5: National Climate Policy and Coordination: A Variety of Approaches Indonesia. The State Ministry for National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agen- cy (BAPPENAS) is responsible for implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation (RAN-API), including dissemination to provincial governments. The BAPPENAS formed a core group with the Ministry of Environment, the Agency for Meteorology, Clima- tology and Geophysics and the National Council on Climate Change when initiating the RAN-API. It organized meetings with central ministries, provincial governments, universities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (UNFCCC 2014). Japan. The National Plan for Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change was formulated to systemati- cally address the impacts of climate change. The National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and its Center for Climate Change Adaptation are responsible for analyzing and providing information about climate change impacts and adaptation. The NIES also provides technical advice to local governments and Local Climate Change Adaptation Centers to help formulate their climate adaptation plans and sup- port the implementation of adaptation measures by central and local governments and other stakeholders (CCCA 2021). The Netherlands. The National Climate Adaptation Strategy (NAS 2016) and the Delta Program (DP 2010) are at the center of the Dutch Climate adaptation policies. These documents were prepared through an inclusive participatory process. The implementation of the NAS is governed by a board of directors from all relevant ministries of the Dutch Government, and the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Envi- ronment has the coordinator role. Sub-national Provinces and Cities develop and implement their own programs, based on NAS. The DP is jointly planned and implemented by the municipalities, district water boards, provinces, and the central government. Climate change impacts and resilience are integrated into environmental assessment procedures, disaster risks management, and some sectoral planning. (Climate-ADAPT 2021). Mexico. The National Climate Change Strategy (2007) proposes concrete adaptation and mitigation measures for all sectors. Climate change strategies and action plans have also been developed at the subnational level for some cities and states. The Inter-Ministerial Commission on Climate Change is re- sponsible for formulating and coordinating the implementation of national climate change strategies and incorporating them in sectoral programs; promoting national climate change research; and promoting GHG emission reduction projects. The Commission receives advice from the Consultative Council on Climate Change, composed of scientists and representatives of civil society and the private sector. The CCF has a technical committee chaired by the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, with representatives from many agencies (GoM 2020; UNDP 2021). analysis and updating of this data will be needed for sub-national adaptation planning, for which significant hardware and software capacity will be required within these institutions. It will also help Ukraine participate in and take advantage of the EURO-CORDEX experiment and develop highly disaggregated climate projections that could be used to estimate climate risks in different sectors of the national economy and on a sub-national level. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 73 Promote Transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture 7.3  and Forestry As a long-term adaptation strategy, Ukraine can increase its agriculture resilience through an integrated approach of natural resource management and sustainable soil management. Ukraine is committed to improving measures to rebuild irrigation infrastructure as one of the main technologies to counter climate change and improve agricultural production efficiency. However, irrigation alone is not sufficient to support resilient agricultural production. Additional measures and technologies to help Ukraine adapt to climate change are proposed below. Promote climate-smart agriculture (CSA) including agroforestry (planting combinations of trees and crops), drought-resistant varieties of key crops, cover crops, etc., and increase landscape diversity and connectivity to increase the ability of ecosystems to adapt to chang- ing climate conditions and stresses. Maintaining or restoring riparian areas, wetlands, peat- lands and floodplains helps maintain water balance and reduce soil erosion. Give incentives to farmers through agrotourism and ecotourism programs to manage non-arable lands for maintaining biodiversity and natural habitats. These approaches have been shown to benefit agriculture from environmental and climate stresses. Promote farmer information systems and precision agriculture technologies. Provide farmers with reliable and accessible information about, and systems to support, climate-smart agriculture, including crop land allocation, to enhance their capacity for adaptation. Based on the information in this study, changes in crop land allocation, and shifting vegetation periods and growing seasons for major crops should allow farmers to increase resilience to changing climate (See Annex 1.2). Farmers need information so they can make these adaptations. An information system for farmers through mobile, online and in-person extension services will be key to raising awareness and initiating action on the ground. Promoting the use of precision agriculture (including Variable Rate Technology (VRT), remote sensing and drones), would help in moving Ukraine towards more climate-friendly technologies by reducing waste of wa- ter and other inputs. Ukraine can leverage its significant capacity and large pool of talent in information technologies to develop and maintain such systems. Improve targeting of subsidy programs and develop insurance products for climate risks. The Government already provides financial support for the development of agriculture in Ukraine through direct subsidies, low/free-interest loans, and other instruments. Howev- er, financial assistance remains difficult to access for most agricultural producers, especially small farmers. A targeted program with banks and agriculture departments could ensure that loans and subsidies are linked to adoption of climate-smart technologies and approaches. This will offset the initial risk for the farmers and the lending institutions. Residual risk insurance could increase farmers’ resilience to climate change via the coverage of residual risks not addressed by adaptation actions. This type of insurance could be consid- ered in oblasts where adverse weather events such as droughts and long-lasting heatwaves are expected, and there is limited capacity to adapt. 74 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Box 6: Examples of Climate-Smart Agriculture The following groups of adaptation measures have been documented to strengthen the resilience of agri- cultural systems in many locations around the world. Soil Management: Interventions should aim at enhancing soil fertility and water availability, reducing run- off and erosion. Well-documented interventions with such benefits include contour ploughing or contour tillage on sloping land, contour bunding, conservation tillage, surface mulching, and revegetation and reforestation of areas around farmland (i.e., shelter belts), among others. Water Management: • Bio mulching (covering fields with biodegradable mulch films and other biomaterials) • Conservation farming practices (a combination of direct seeding and covering crops with different tillage systems: no-till, mini-till, strip-till, etc.) • Precision agricultural practices that minimize water and material inputs • Planting drought-tolerant species and varieties with long growing periods Forestry and Agroforestry: Incorporating trees in farming systems has been shown to improve soil qual- ity, which leads to higher and more stable crop yields. Agroforestry practices also increase the moisture absorptive capacity of soil and reduce evapotranspiration, while tree canopy covers help reduce soil tem- perature for crops planted underneath and decrease runoff velocity and soil erosion from heavy rainfall. Source: Adapted from CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change (2021). Include agroforestry and forest management in adaptation planning. The country can also engage in agroforestry, a win-win measure for both climate change adaptation and miti- gation of negative impacts on agricultural and forest productivity due to higher temperatures, increased aridity, and soil erosion. Agroforestry includes planting orchards with cultivation of perennial grasses, plantations of bioenergy crops, developing agroforestry practices on the agricultural land occupied by self-planted forests and other solutions. Planting orchards will diversify production, reduce risks of climate change and increase food security. However, the greatest potential to develop agroforestry is generated by the restoration of protective shel- terbelts. Shelterbelts are important for improving soil quality and thermal regulation, retaining or increasing soil moisture content, increasing crop production, generating additional incomes from forest and non-timber products, and protecting biodiversity. As the forest sector requires long-range sustainable management and climate risk planning, it is especially important to include climate risk management in the forthcoming Forest Strategy 2030 and associated plans for reforestation/afforestation in the country. A regularly updated national forest inventory will be key, in addition to field trials to monitor growth and plan plant- ing of timber. Increasing capacity in geospatial technologies is essential for management of forest fires. It is crucial to plan for this sector as it impacts the hydrological balance and soil conditions for agriculture. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 75 REFERENCES Balabukh V., Lavrynenko O., Bilaniuk V., Mykhnovych A. & Pylypovych O. (2018). Extreme Weather Events in Ukraine: Occurrence and Changes. In: Extreme Weather. InTech. https:// doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77306 Balabukh V. O., Malitskaya L. V. 2017 Assessment of the current changes in the thermal regime of Ukraine. Geoinformatika, 64(4), 34–49 (in Ukrainian). Balabukh V., Malytska L. (2017). Impact of climate change on natural fire danger in Ukraine. IDŐJÁRÁS –Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service. V121, N 4, P. 453—477. https://www.met.hu/en/ismeret-tar/kiadvanyok/idojaras/index.php?id=583. Beck, H.E., N.E. Zimmermann, T.R. McVicar, N. Vergopolan, A. Berg, E.F. (2018). Wood: Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution, Nature Scientific Data. Bondaruk, M.A., Tselischev, O.G. (2015). Evaluation of satisfiability of ecotypes environ- mental conditions and predictive modeling of populations of species of forest flora rarities. In Forestry and Agromelioration: Kharkiv. Volume 126, 188–201 (in Ukrainian). Buksha І.F. (2010). Study of clіmate change іmpact on forest ecosystems, and the develop- ment of adaptatіon strategіes іn forestry of Ukraіne in І.F. Buksha, Clіmate Change Іmpacts on Forest Management іn Eastern Europe and Central Asіa: Dіmensіons, іmpacts, mіtіgatіon and adaptatіon polіcіes. Forests and Clіmate Change Workіng Paper 8. Csaba Matyas, Edіtor. Food and Agrіculture Organіzatіon of the Unіted Natіons. 157–179. Buksha I.F., Pasternak V.P. (2020). Strategic directions of mitigation and adaptation to climate change in forestry of Ukraine. Proceedings of the 1st All-Ukrainian Scientific and Practical Conference: Climate Adaptation in Ukraine: Status, Challenges and Prospects (dedicated to World Climate Protection Day). Kherson: KhSAU. 2020, 11-16 (in Ukrainian). Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2019). Irrigation and drainage strategies in Ukraine for the period up to 2030. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/688-2019-%D1%80#Text. Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2020). Order “On Approval of the Rules of Maintenance and Conservation of Forest Smoothies Located on Agricultural Land.” #650. July 22, 2020. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/650-2020-%D0%BF#Text. Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2021). Order “Approval of the National Economic Strate- gy for the period up to 2030.” #179. March 3, 2021. https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/pro-zat- verdzhennya-nacionalnoyi-eko-a179. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). (2021). At https://csa.guide/csa/practices. 76 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Center for Climate Change Adaptation (CCCA). (2021). About Us. https://ccca.nies.go.jp/en/ about/index.html. Climate Action Tracker. (2021). Ukraine: Current Policy Projections. https://climateaction- tracker.org/countries/ukraine/current-policy-projections/. Council of National Security and Defense of Ukraine. (2021). Decision: On Challenges and Threats to Ukraine’s National Security in the Environmental Sphere and Priority Measures to Neutralize Them. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/n0018525-21/print (accessed on May 25, 2021). Damania, R., Desbureaux, S., Hyland, M., Islam, A., Rodella, A. S., Russ, J., & Zaveri, E. (2017). Uncharted waters: The new economics of water scarcity and variability. World Bank Publications. De Rigo, D., Libertà, G., Houston Durrant, T., Artés Vivancos, T., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. (2017). Forest fire danger extremes in Europe under climate change: variability and uncer- tainty, EUR 28926 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN: 978- 92-79-77046-3, doi:10.2760/13180, JRC108974. De Wit, A., H. Boogaard, D. Fumagalli, S. Janssen, K. van Diepen. (2019). 25 years of the WOFOST cropping systems model. Agricultural Systems, Volume 168, January 2019, Pages 154-167. Didovets, I. et al. 2017. Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources in Three Representative Ukrainian Catchments Using Eco-Hydrological Modelling in Water 9, 204. Didukh, Y. P. (2011). The Ecological Scales of the Species of Ukrainian Flora and Their Use in Synphytoindication; Phytosociocentre: Kyiv, Ukraine; 176. Didukh, Y. P. (2012). Backgrounds of Phytoindication; Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine; 344. (In Ukrainian). Didukh, Y. P. (2021). Climate Change Assessment Based on Synphytoindication Method. In: Lackner M., Sajjadi B., Chen WY. (eds) Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adapta- tion. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6431-0_137-1. EURO-CORDEX. (2021). Guidance for EURO-CORDEX climate projections data use. Ver- sion1.1. 2021.02 https://www.euro-cordex.net/imperia/md/content/csc/cordex/guidance_for_ euro-cordex_climate_projections_data_use__2021-02_1_.pdf. European Commission. (2019a). Extent and impacts of the heatwaves in Europe. In JRC MARS Bulletin. Crop monitoring in Europe., edited by European Commission and Joint Re- search Center. Vol 27 No 6. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 77 European Commission. (2019b). Challenging harvesting and sowing conditions. Rapeseed sowing and emergence particularly affected. In JRC MARS Bulletin. Crop monitoring in Eu- rope., edited by European Commission and Joint Research Center. Vol 27 No 10. Femenia, F. A (2019). Meta-analysis of the price and income elasticities of food demand. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02103880/document. [University works] Inconnu, 78 p. ‌ European Climate Assessment & Dataset (ECA&D). (2021). E-OBS gridded dataset. At https://www.ecad.eu/download/ensembles/download.php. EU Science Hub. (2021). JRC PECETA IV. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/peseta-iv. Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices (ETCCDI). (2021). http://www.clivar. org/organization/etccdi/etccdi.php). FAO. (2013). Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper 172., 122. FAO. (2019). Irrigation and drainage strategy in Ukraine until 2030. http://www.fao.org/ faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC190984/. FAO. (2020a). Guideline on effective shelterbelt models management. http://www.fao.org/3/ ca9554uk/CA9554UK.pdf FAO (2020b). Practical training “Ways to improve the economic efficiency of shelterbelts”. https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-presshall/3150730-skola-fermera-fao-krasi-agrolisomeliora- tivni-praktiki.html FAO. (2021a). AQUASTAT - FAO’s Global Information System on Water and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/ FAO. (2021b). FAOSTAT: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC Femenia, F. (2019). A meta-analysis of the price and income elasticities of food demand. [University works] Inconnu, 78 p. hal-02103880. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal- 02103880/document. Feyen L. et al. (2020). Climate change impacts and adaptation in Europe. JRC PESETA IV final report. EUR 30180EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Forest Ecology Laboratory of URIFFM. 2020. FOREST EUROPE. (2020). Adaptation to Climate Change in Sustainable Forest Manage- ment in Europe. Liaison Unit Bratislava, Zvolen, 52. 78 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Forzieri G., Girardello M., Ceccherini G., Mauri A., Spinoni J., Beck P., Feyen L. and Ces- catti A. (2020). Vulnerability of European forests to natural disturbances, EUR 29992 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-76-13884-6, doi:10.2760/736558, JRC118512. Gensiruk S.A., Shevchenko S.V., Bondar V.S. et. al. (1981). Complex forest zoning of Ukraine and Moldova (edited by S.A. Gensiruk), Kyiv. – Naukova Dumka. – 360 p. (In Rus- sian). Government of Mexico (GoM). (2020). Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources Actions and Program. Trust: Climate Change Fund (SEMARNAT). https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/ac- ciones-y-programas/fideicomiso-fondo-para-el-cambio-climatico-semarnat. Hellerstein, D., Vilorio, D., and Ribaudo, M. (editors). (2019). Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. EIB-208, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 2019. Herger, N., Sanderson, B. M., and Knutti, R. (2015). Improved pattern scal- ing approaches for the use in climate impact studies. In Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/2015GL063569. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2015). The International Model for Pol- icy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT). Model Description for Version 3. IFPRI Discussion Paper Nº01483. IFPRI, Washington DC. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2019). IMPACT Projections of Food Pro- duction, and Prices to 2050, With and Without Climate Change. 2019 GFPR Annex Table 5. IPCC. (2000). Summary for Policymakers. IPCC Special Report Emissions Scenarios. Sum- mary for policymakers. A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III. Geneva: Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. (2001). Climate change 2001: IPCC third assessment report. Geneva: Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change Secretariat. IPCC. (2007a). Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The AR4 Synthesis Re- port. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. (2007b). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. edited by B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 79 Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535. IPCC. (2014). Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (AR5). Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. URL: https:// www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf IPCC. (2014). Annex II: Glossary [Mach, K.J., S. Planton and C. von Stechow (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 117-130. IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. May- cock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press. Jacob, D., Petersen, J., Eggert, B., Alias, A., Christensen, O. B., Bouwer, L. M. et al. (2014). EURO-CORDEX: New high-resolution climate change projections for European impact research. Regional environmental change, 14(2), 563-578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113- 013-0499-2. Jacob, D., Teichmann, C., Sobolowski, S., Katragkou, E., Anders, I., Belda, M., et al. (2020). Regional climate downscaling over Europe: perspectives from the EURO-CORDEX commu- nity. In Regional Environmental Change, 20(2), 1-20. Jafino, B.A., Hallegatte, S. and Rozenberg, J. (2021). Focusing on differences across sce- narios could lead to bad adaptation policy advice. In Nature Climate Change, pp.1-3. Janowiak, M. K. et. al. (2016). Adaptation Resources for Agriculture: Responding to Climate Variability and Change in the Midwest and Northeast. US Department of Agriculture. Wash- ington D.C. Johnson, J. A., Ruta, G., Baldos, U., Cervigni, R., Chonabayashi, S., Corong, E., Gavryliuk, O., Gerber, J., Hertel, T., & Nootenboom, C. (2021). The Economic Case for Nature. Interna- tional Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington. Knutti, R. and Sedláček, J. (2013). Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), pp.369-373. Kolomyts E.G. (2010). Local humidification coefficients and their values for ecological fore- casts. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - No 5. – 61-72 p. (in Russian). 80 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Krakovska S.V., Gnatiuk N.V., Shpytal Т.M., Palamarchuk L.V., (2016). Projections of surface air temperature changes based on data of regional climate models’ ensemble in the regions of Ukraine in the 21st century, Naukovi pratsi Ukrainskoho hidrometeorolohichnoho instytutu. N 268. P. 33—44 [in Ukrainian] Krakovska S.V., Palamarchuk L.V., Gnatiuk N.V., Shpytal Т.M., Shedemenko I.P. (2017). Changes in precipitation distribution in Ukraine for the 21st century based on data of region- al climate model ensemble. Geoinformatica. N 4(64), 62—74 (in Ukrainian). Krakovska S.V. & Shpytal Т.M., (2018). Dates of air temperature transition over 0, 5, 10 and 15 °С and corresponding lengths of climatic seasons from the second part of the 20th to the middle of the 21st century in Ukraine. Geoinformatica. N 4(68), 74—92 (in Ukrainian). Kropff, M.J., and H.H. Van Laar. (1993). MODELING crop–weed accurately be simulated. Application of a descriptive interactions CAB Int., Wallingford, Oxon, UK. Kruhlov, I., Thom, D., Chaskovskyy, O. et al. (2018). Future forest landscapes of the Car- pathians: vegetation and carbon dynamics under climate change. Reg Environ Change 18, 1555–156. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1296-8. Kryvobok O.A. (2015). Calibration for the mars crop yield forecasting system over Ukraine, report under the contract CCR.IES.C390895 European Commission JRC “Improved input data and calibration for the MARS crop yield forecasting system over Ukraine”, p.18, Euro- pean Commission JRC. Kryvobok O.A., Kryvoshein O.O., Adamenko T.I. (2018). Peculiarities of technological adap- tation of the CGMS system for agricultural crops monitoring in Ukraine. Ukraïnsʹkij gìdrome- teorologìčnij žurnal, Issue 22. Available at http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Uggj_2018_22_9. Kunreuther, H., Gupta, S., Bosetti, V., Cooke, R., Dutt, V., Ha-Duong, M. & Weber, E. (2014). Integrated risk and uncertainty assessment of climate change response policies. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth As- sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 151-206). Cam- bridge University Press. Law of Ukraine # 985-IX “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine on State Support of the Ag- ricultural Sector of Ukraine”. O5.11.2020. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/985-20#Text. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF). https://es- gf-node.llnl.gov/search/esgf-llnl/. Lopushnyak, G.S. and Shandar, A. M. (2017). The poverty problem of rural population of Ukraine as complex social and economic phenomenon. Institutional Repository of the State Higher Educational Institution Kyiv National Economic University named after Va- dim Hetman. Issue https://ir.kneu.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/2010/22595/151-160.pdf?se- quence=3&isAllowed=y. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 81 Ministry for Development of Trade, Economy and Agriculture (MDTEA). (2020). “State sup- port of Agriculture sector in 2021”. Presented on-line by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. December 25, 2020. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine (MEPNR). (2020a). Priorities of the Ministry for the period 2020-2024. https://mepr.gov.ua/content/prioriteti.html. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine (MEPNR). (2020b). The Second National Determined Contribution. https://mepr.gov.ua/news/36563.html. Navarro-Racines, C., Tarapues J., Thornton, P., Jarvis, A., and Ramirez-Villegas, J. (2020). High-resolution and bias-corrected CMIP5 projections for climate change impact assess- ments. In Scientific Data. 7:7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0343-8. Naumann, G., Russo, S., Formetta, G., Ibarreta, D., Forzieri, G., Girardello, M., & Feyen, L. (2020). Global warming and human impacts of heat and cold extremes in the EU. JRC PESETA IV Project, Task, 11. NIR. (2020). Annual National Inventory Report (NIR) for Submission under the United Na- tions Framework. Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Ministry of Energy and Environmental Protection of Ukraine, National Center for GHG Emission Inventory, Kyiv, Ukraine. (For sector-specific uncertainty, see Table A7.1 in the Annexes of NIR). OECD. (2008). Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, Paris. OECD. (2011). Divided We Stand – Why Inequality Keeps Rising, Paris. URL: www.oecd. org/social/inequality.htm / www.oecd.org/fr/social/inegalite.htm. Palamarchuk L. V. & Shedemenko I. P., (2020). Statistical evaluation of temporal changes in annual precipitation in the plain territory of Ukraine. Physical Geography and Geomorpholo- gy, 101–102(3–4), 7–18 (in Ukrainian). https://doi.org/10.17721/phgg.2020.3-4.0X. Platts. (2018). European Power Daily. S&P Global 20 (151). President of Ukraine. (2021). Order on Decision of the Ukrainian National Security and De- fense Council of March 23, 2021. About the Challenges and Threats to the National Security of Ukraine in the Ecological Sphere and the First Steps for their Neutralization. 23.03.2021. https://www.rnbo.gov.ua/ua/Ukazy/4856.html. Rybchenko, L.S. and Savchuk, S.V. (2015). Potential of the Climatic Solar Radiation En- ergy Resources in Ukraine // Ukr. geogr. z. 2015, N4:16-23 https://doi.org/10.15407/ ugz2015.04.016. 82 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Seneviratne, S.I., N. Nicholls, D. Easterling, C.M. Goodess, S. Kanae, J. Kossin, Y. Luo, J. Marengo, K. McInnes, M. Rahimi, M. Reichstein, A. Sorteberg, C. Vera, and X. Zhang, (2012). Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adap- tation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- mate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, 109-230. Shevchenko, O., Vlasiuk, O., Stavchuk, I., Vakoliuk, M., Illiash, O., & Rozhkova, A. (2014a). National climate vulnerability assessment: Ukraine. In Climate Forum East (CFE) and NGO Working Group on Climate Change. Shevchenko, O., Lee, H., Snizhko, S., & Mayer, H. (2014b). Long term analysis of heat waves in Ukraine. International Journal of Climatology, 34(5), 1642-1650. Shvidenko, A., Buksha, I., Krakovska, S., Lakyda, P. (2017). Vulnerability of Ukrainian For- ests to Climate Change. Sustainability, 9, 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071152. Schvidenko, A., Buksha I., Krakovska S. (2018). Vulnerability of Ukraine’s forests to climate change. Monography. Kyiv, Nika-Centre, 184. Shvidenko, A., Buksha, I., Krakovska, S., & Lakyda, P. 2017. Vulnerability of Ukrainian for- ests to climate change. Sustainability, 9(7), 1152. Schvidenko, A., Lakyda, P., Shepashenko, D., Vasylishin R., Marchuk I. (2014). Carbon, Climate and Land Management in Ukraine: The Forestry Sector. Korsun-Shevchenkivskii NUBIP i MIPSA. Shvidenko, A., Kraxner, F., & Shchepashchenko, D. (2018b). Ensuring a sustainable future for forests: The case of Ukraine. IIASA Policy Brief No18. Soil Capital. (2019). Case study on regenerative agriculture. https://www.soilcapital.com/cap- ture-carbon. Spittlehouse, D., & Stewart, R. (2004). Adaptation to climate change in forest management. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 4(1), pp. 1-11. URL: https://jem-nline.org/index. php/jem/article/view/254. Teichmann, C., Jacob, D., Remedio, A. R., Remke, T., Buntemeyer, L., Hoffmann, P., et al. (2020). Assessing mean climate change signals in the global CORDEX-CORE ensemble. Climate Dynamics, 1-24. The European Climate Adaptation Platform Climate-ADAPT. (2021). The Netherlands. https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries/netherlands. The European Climate Adaptation Platform Climate-ADAPT. (2021). Spain. https://cli- mate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries/netherlands. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 83 Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Center. (2021). https://meteo.gov.ua/ua/33345/services/#2. Ukrainian State Forest Agency. (2019). Ukrainian Statistics. (2021).Statistical Committee of Ukraine. http://ukrstat.org. United Nations (UN). (2021). UN Comtrade Database. At https://comtrade.un.org/. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2021). Climate Change Adaptation. Mexico. https://www.adaptation-undp.org/explore/mexico. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Adaptation Commit- tee. (2014). Institutional arrangements for national adaptation planning and implementation. 2014 Thematic Report. https://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/adaption_commitee_ publication_-_web_high.pdf. Van Diepen, C.A., J. Wolf, H. van Keulen, C. Rappoldt. (1989). WOFOST: a simulation mod- el of crop production, Soil use and Management, V.5, Number 1, 1989, 16-24. Williams, A., Jordan, N.R., Smith, R.G. et al., (2018). A regionally adapted implementation of conservation agriculture delivers rapid improvements to soil properties associated with crop yield stability. In Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-8. The World Bank. 2019. Ukraine Economic Update: May (2019). https://pubdocs.worldbank. org/en/677701558601578072/Ukraine-Economic-Update-Spring-2019-en.pdf. World Bank. (2020). Ukraine Country Forest Note. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/34097. The World Bank. (2021a). The World Bank in Ukraine. https://www.worldbank.org/en/coun- try/ukraine/overview#3. The World Bank. (2021b). World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/ source/world-development-indicators#. The World Bank. (2021c). Data Bank. Metadata Glossary. https://databank.worldbank.org/ metadataglossary/gender-statistics/series/SI.POV.GINI. The World Bank. (2021d). Ukraine Systematic Country Diagnostic: 2021 Update. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2021/09/06/ukraine-scd-2021. World Food Program (IFAD) (2011). Weather Index-based Insurance in Agricultural Devel- opment. A Technical Guide. https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ communications/wfp242409.pF Yang, W. et al. (2010). Distribution-based scaling to improve usability of regional climate model projections for hydrological climate change impacts studies, Hydrology Research, 41 (3-4): 211–229. 84 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry ANNEX 1. METHODOLOGY A 1.1 Climate Projection As projections of climate change depend heavily on future human activities, climate mod- els are run against scenarios that make certain assumptions about how these activities will evolve. Climate models rely on several different scenarios, each making a number of assump- tions for future greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, technological development, population, economic development, and other driving forces. Such scenarios form the basis for future atmospheric GHG concentration projections. The scenarios from the Special Report on Emis- sions Scenarios (SRES) were used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), published in 2001, and in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007. For the Fifth As- sessment Report (AR5), a new set of scenarios was developed, the so-called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) that consisted of: i) the RCP 2.6 scenario, which assumes a strongly declining emissions trend, compatible with a 2°C global warming limit by 2100; ii) the RCP 4.5 scenario, which assumes a slowly declining emissions trend, compatible with 2.4 °C global warming limit by 2100; iii) the RCP 6.0 scenario, which assumes a stabilizing emissions trend, compatible with a global 2.8°C warming limit by 2100; and iv) the RCP 8.5 scenario, which assumes a rising emissions trend, compatible with a global 4.3°C warming limit by 2100. Climate data is processed on a daily basis for a base period and three future time horizons. These include 1991-2010 (base period), 2021-2040 (to allow a range value for the year 2030 to be calculated), 2041-2060 (to allow a range value for the year 2050 to be calculated), and 2081-2100 (to allow a range value for the year 2090 to be calculated). Key climate variables (i.e., temperature and precipitation) in future periods are measured against the base period 1991-2010 to determine the extent of changes. The historical period 1961-1990 is also used to compare the results with older studies and assess the projected future changes against the changes that have already happened between this period26 and the base period. Such comparison is significant, considering the climate in Ukraine has been changing considerably since late 1980s. It should be noted that for several reasons, the base period used for the forestry and agricultural assessment are different. Specifically, the base period for forestry analysis is 1961-1990, as many field data were obtained and methodologies developed during this time. For agricultural analysis, the base period is 2006-2015, since 10-year periods are sufficient for significant changes to take place in the sector, and thus, it also makes the most sense to compare the projected changes against the most recent period with available data. Climate projections are obtained by running numerical models of the Earth’s climate, which may cover either the entire globe or a specific region. These models are referred to as: i) Global Climate Models (GCMs), also known as Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Mod- els (AOGCMs) and Earth System Models (ESMs), which provide projections with resolution 26 The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) advocates using a historical base period (1961-1990) for assessing climate change, as well as the most recent 30-year period, in order to standardize and harmonize across institutions. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 85 of around 100km2 covering a variety of landscapes; and ii) Regional Climate Models (RCMs), which are applied over a limited area, taking into account the large-scale climate information from GCMs as initial and boundary conditions, and provide projections at much higher reso- lutions. Presently, modelling is conducted through a series of Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIP), of which the latest is CMIP6. The climate projections in this study are based on the European Coordinated Regional Down- scaling Experiment (Euro-CORDEX) time series27 with the most advanced RCMs covering Ukraine. GCMs can only simulate earth processes in coarse grid-cells, which are not suitable for local impact assessment studies. Dynamical downscaling, using RCMs with boundary and initial conditions from GCMs as inputs, increases the resolution of climate projections. RCMs provide information on much finer scales, including more detailed specifications of land and water bodies and simulation of mesoscale processes (Navarro-Racines et al. 2020), to support more detailed impact assessment and adaptation planning. RCM outputs have been made available recently through the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX), a program sponsored by the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) to produce improved regional climate change projections for all land regions worldwide. Euro-CORDEX is one of the 14 domains of the international CORDEX initiative with the most advanced RCMs provid- ing the highest resolution, at 0.11 (~12.5km), and covering the entire territory of Ukraine. The Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) framework provides a basis for selecting the combined ensembles of various RCMs and overarching GCMs and assessing the level of associated certainty. Simplifications, assumptions, and choices of parametrizations have to be made when con- structing climate models, resulting in model and forecast errors. Climate models are numerical models that parameterize the relevant physical processes and their interplay and feedback to project weather and climate from time scales of days to centuries. The uncertainties in constructing and running these models are inherent and manifold and originate from different initial and boundary conditions, as well as structural uncertainties (IPCC 2007b; EURO-COR- DEX 2021). Initial condition uncertainty is related to the value of observations used to initialize numerical climate models. This type of uncertainty is most relevant for forecasts over the shortest time scales, but not significant for long-term climate projections, which are often averaged over decades and therefore are largely insensitive to variations in initial conditions. Uncertainty in boundary condition is introduced when datasets are used to replace an interac- tive part of the system. Parameter uncertainty stems from the parameterization of small-scale processes in all components of the climate system using bulk formulas when these processes cannot be explicitly resolved due to computational constraints. Structural uncertainty refers to any uncertainty originating from the choices in the model design. As a true climate system is highly complex, it is impossible to describe all the system processes in a climate model. Thus, choices must be made on what processes to include and how to parameterize them (Kunreuther et al. 2014). Multi-model ensembles are used in climate projections to improve the skill, reliability, and con- sistency of model forecasts. A multi-model ensemble is a set of model simulations from struc- turally different models (i.e., different initial and boundary conditions and parameterization). 27 The high-resolution and bias-adjusted CORDEX data only became available in late 2019. This study takes advantage of this new data for the analysis and provides significantly more insights compared to previous studies, where limited availability and the complexity of dealing with large datasets have hindered the broader use of this source. 86 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Combining models to enhance climate projections rests on the assumption that errors tend to cancel if the choices are made independently for constructing each model, and uncertainty should decrease with an increasing number of models. Experiences from weather- and cli- mate-related applications also show that seasonal forecasts and El Ninõ Southern Oscillation (ENSO) predictions from multi-model ensemble are generally better than those from single models. Studies indicate that multi-model ensemble performs dramatically better when consid- ering an aggregated performance measure over many diagnostics, as illustrated in Figure 1. Multi-model ensembles also help quantify model uncertainty. Uncertainty in projected climate variables (i.e., temperature and precipitation) can be estimated using quantitative metrics such as (inter-model) standard deviation and range. In this study, we estimate the range or spread in the projections for each climate variable from the different RCM-GCM combinations in the ensemble to quantify the degree of uncertainty. This range is herein referred to as the “ensem- ble range.” The ensemble range represents all possible realizations of the simulated climate variables under each RCP in each time horizon under study, while the means of the ensemble represent the most probable values of the average changes for the modeled variables. We have evaluated the performance of five driving GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble, using the R-based GCMeval tool. These five GCMs were initially selected by the scientist commu- nity for a high-resolution regional climate change ensemble established for Europe within the EURO-CORDEX initiative. In general, the GCMeval tool is used to assess and choose a sub- set of GCMs from the CMIP5 based on their relative performance (in terms of the spread of the projected temperature and precipitation changes), compared to the entire ensemble. This tool is opensource and available online at https://gcmeval.met.no. The GCMeval tool is cur- rently under further improvements, so not all CMIP5 models are included, and the results are aggregated over just SREX IPCC regions28 for prescribed periods and seasons. In this study, we utilize the outputs for the Central Europe region, which is much larger but covers the en- tire territory of Ukraine. Another caution is that estimations of the GCMeval tool are available for two slightly different time periods, specifically 2021-2050 and 2071-2100 over the present period 1981-2010. However, it is currently one of the best tools for selecting and assessing a subset of CMIP5 GCM ensemble for Ukraine. Overall, the subset of five GCMs corresponds reasonably well with the entire CMIP5 ensemble and shows consistency and balance in their representation of temperature and precipitation changes. The ensemble ranges of the subset are slightly lower (38-55% for temperature) and higher (35-63% for precipitation), compared to those of the entire CMIP5. In term of mean values, the precipitation values of the 5 GCM sub- set are also similar to those of the CMIP5 ensemble, with slightly higher values (wetter con- ditions) in winter and annual estimates. For temperature, both summer and annual means of the subset and the entire CMIP5 ensembles are very close under both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 in both periods. To form RCM ensembles, this study employs a so-called “fitness-for-purpose” method. This means when we want to project changes in only one independent in climate variable (i.e., air temperature or precipitation), all available RCMs are included in the ensemble – up to 43 28 The 26 SREX regions include Alaska/NW Canada (ALA), Eastern Canada/Greenland/Iceland (CGI), Western North America (WNA), Central North America (CNA), Eastern North America (ENA), Central America/Mexico (CAM), Amazon (AMZ), NE Brazil (NEB), West Coast South America (WSA), South- Eastern South America (SSA), Northern Europe (NEU), Central Europe (CEU), Southern Europe/the Mediterranean (MED), Sahara (SAH), Western Africa (WAF), Eastern Africa (EAF), Southern Africa (SAF), Northern Asia (NAS), Western Asia (WAS), Central Asia (CAS), Tibetan Plateau (TIB), Eastern Asia (EAS), Southern Asia (SAS), Southeast Asia (SEA), Northern Australia (NAS) and Southern Australia/New Zealand (SAU). Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 87 RCM runs for RCP 4.5 with bias-adjusted data. When the projected results are intended to be used as inputs for further modeling (i.e., crop productivity), all meteorological variables from the same RCM runs are utilized. Even when a less sophisticated model is used (i.e., for forestry), where there is no need to directly use daily data (since multi-year monthly values give enough temporal resolution to estimate the differences among scenarios), we still use the same number of RCM runs in ensembles for air temperature and precipitation for both RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Two types of EuroCORDEX datasets for seven climate variables were obtained from the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) website (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/esgf-llnl/). These include: i) the bias-adjusted outputs for daily precipitation and daily mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures; and ii) the raw outputs (without bias adjustments) for daily surface wind speed, relative humidity (RH), and downward shortwave solar radiation (RSDS). COR- DEX-adjusted outputs covering Ukraine were available for five GCMs and seven RCMs. The different combinations of these models produce 96 datasets for RCP 8.5, 132 for RCP 4.5, and only 12 for RCP 2.6. As only three RCM datasets were available for RCP 2.6, only daily precipitation and daily mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures are calculated for this scenario (see Table 8). The CORDEX raw outputs were available for five GCMs and three RCMs. There are 33 datasets for RCP 4.5 and 56 for RCP 8.5 from the combinations of these models.  umber of CORDEX Datasets Processed by Combination of RCMs Table 8: N and Overarching GCMs Number of CORDEX bias- adjusted Number of CORDEX datasets datasets without bias adjustment RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 Mean temperature 3 43 34 - - Maximum temperature 3 23 14 - - Minimum temperature 3 23 14 - - Precipitation 3 43 34 - - Surface wind speed - - - 11 22 Relative humidity - - - 11 12 Downward shortwave solar radiation - - - 11 22 88 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry For historical and baseline data, we used the E-OBS v20.0e (EC&D 2021) gridded dataset with the same spatial resolution (0.11o) as the RCM data from EuroCORDEX. There was no data in grid cells for some climate variables from RCMs in these past periods. For example, data for relative humidity (RH) and sunshine duration (SD) during 1961-1990 are absent from the RCM datasets, but are needed for forestry assessment. In this case, the most suitable data available are used based on a physical consistency approach. In particular, since RH does not have a significant inter-annual variability, we use multi-year means over just 5 years (2006-2010) from 11 available RCMs in RCP 4.5 runs for both past periods. For SD, we inter- polate in grid cells the data of 38 Ukrainian stations for the period 1991-2013 (Rybchenko and Savchuk 2015). Bias-correction is necessary to make the climate projections more realistic, as RCM outputs are also subject to errors due to uncertainties associated with both the structure of the RCMs and the boundary conditions of the driving GCMs. Bias-correction improves the realism and sometimes, resolution of climate model outputs (i.e., when projections are made at coarser spatial resolution), using different types of statistical techniques, assuming that those outputs are already plausible representation of future climate characteristics. Existing bias correction methods cannot fundamentally correct future climate change trends (Navarro-Racines et al. 2020). The data for air temperature and precipitation has been bias-adjusted by the data provid- er EuroCORDEX using the Distribution-Based Scaling (DBS) method.29 The DBS approach reproduces the variations generated from RCMs and preserve their adjustments to the key hydro-meteorological variables, precipitation and temperature, to obtain more realistic inputs for hydrological modeling (Yang et al. 2010). These bias-adjusted data are inputted in to the WOFOST model for crop yield simulations. The DBS method clearly improves the representa- tion of temperature and precipitation distribution, as shown in Figure 41. Column (a) repre- sents the raw data received directly from the RCM model developed by Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM). Column (b) represents the CNRM model data that was bias adjusted with the DBS method. Columns (c) and (d) show ensembles of 8 and 34 bias-adjusted RCMs (including the CNRM model) for RCP 8.5. Column (e) shows the reanal- ysis ERA5 data30 that approximate observational data for the 2006-2015 period. Comparing temperature and precipitation maps, we notice that RCMs usually have more difficulties in rep- resenting precipitation, not only extremes, but also seasonality and even annual averages.31 It is evident from Figure 1 that the bias-adjusted precipitation distribution map of the individual 29 General information on bias-adjustment is provided at https://cordex.org/data-access/bias-adjusted-rcm-data/. A summary of bias adjustment methods applied to CORDEX simulations can be found at http://is-enes-data.github.io/CORDEX_adjust_ summary.html. 30 Climate reanalyses combine past observations with model simulations to generate a consistent time series of multiple climate variables. Reanalyses are among the most-used datasets in the geophysical sciences since they provide a comprehensive description of the observed climate as it has evolved during recent decades, on 3D grids at sub-daily intervals. ERA5 is the latest climate reanalysis produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), providing hourly data on many atmospheric, land-surface and sea-state parameters together with estimates of uncertainty (https:// www.ecmwf.int/en/research/climate-reanalysis). 31 In previous assessments of projected precipitation distribution based on the FP6 project ENSEMBLES data only four out of 14 RCMs were able to represent the annual cycle of precipitation in Ukraine (http://www.geology.com.ua/en/7195-2/). Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 89 RCM (b) is visually closer to that of the ERA5,32 indicating the benefits of the DBS method in markedly improving RCM outputs with cold and wet biases for hydrological modeling (Yang et al. 2010). Moreover, the level of similarity to the maps by ERA5 increases with the larger number of RCMs, as shown in column (d), compared to column (c). However, the maps of the 8 RCM ensemble (c) are sufficiently similar to those of the ERA5. This shows that the subset of 8 RCMs is a reasonable representation of the full 34 (43) RCMs ensemble and can be used to assess agricultural impact. Finally, even bias-adjusted outputs in the full ensemble of 34 RCMs are still colder and wetter than the ERA5 reanalysis data, showing that warming and drying in this period in Ukraine were higher than simulated. Figure 41: Effect of Use of Multi Model Ensembles for Temperature and Precipitation Temperature Precipitation (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Raw data from CNRM’ CNRM’ model bias Ensemble 8 RCMs, including Ensemble of 34 RCMs, Approximated observation model adjusted by DBS45 CNRM’s model including CNRM’s model data (ERA5) Further bias-correction by the delta method was conducted within the framework of this study. The delta-method involves deriving a change factor, or a “delta” from the GCM and then add- ing it to the observation dataset. The change factor is defined as the difference between the long-term mean of a climate variable in the future and the base period. In this study, the ob- servational data for Ukraine for the base period 1991-2010 is obtained from the E-OBS v20.0e gridded dataset with the same spatial resolution (https://www.ecad.eu/download/ensembles/ download.php). Subsequently, the differences in temperatures (in degrees Celsius) and pre- cipitation ratios (mm per month or year) in the future periods from the RCMs were added to (for temperature) and multiplied by (for precipitation) values in the base period. This procedure 32 For the periods after 2010, E-OBS climatological data clearly diverges from the reanalysis ERA5 data that heavily relies on modern satellite data (see https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-reanalysis). One of the reasons could be an absence of up- to-date meteorological data for Ukraine in the European Database E-OBS after 2010. That is why we used E-OBS only till 2010, and ERA5 for subsequent years. 90 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry has resulted in some reduction in number of grid points mainly due to the differences in coast- line masks of the Black and Azov Seas in E-OBS and RCMs. The use of both bias-adjusted (temperature and precipitation) and non-adjusted variables (wind speed, RH, and RSDS) in this study is justified. The combination of bias-adjusted and raw data can be an issue when impact models are to provide outputs on a daily basis. In this study, multi-year means of most climate variables are used for forestry analysis. For agricul- ture, where daily data were inputs for the impact model and many processes were parame- terized based on thresholds, it was more crucial to have proper distributions of precipitation and temperature rather than consistency across variables, some of which are less influential on agricultural model outputs. The ensemble ranges of annual mean temperature and precipitation totals under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 in three periods are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The ensemble range of warming levels in Ukraine slightly grows under RCP  4.5 and substantially increases under RCP  8.5 by the end of the century (see Figure 42). The ensemble range of annual precipitation totals under RCP 4.5 show a rather stabilizing trend from the middle to the end of the century. In contrast, the ensemble range under RCP 8.5 widens significantly toward the far future period, indicating that half of the RCMs in the ensemble project up to 56 percent higher precipitation levels (see Figure 3), and annual precipitation totals are likely higher under under RCP 8.5 than RCP 4.5.  ean Annual Air Temperature Change (left) and Values for Percentiles Figure 42: M over the RCM Ensembles (right) for Three Periods and Two RCPs RCP 4.5 16 14 12 10 Projected temperature range Temperature [°C] max-min 8 95th-5th RCP 8.5 percentile 16 75th-25th percentile 14 median 12 10 8 2021-2040: 2041-2060: 2081-2100: Near future Mid-century Far future Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 91 RCP4.5 RCP8.5 percentile 2021-2040 2041-2060 2081-2100 2021-2040 2041-2060 2081-2100 max 11.1 12.0 12.7 11.3 12.4 15.4 95pctl 10.9 11.7 12.5 11.1 12.1 14.9 75pctl 10.2 10.9 11.5 10.4 11.3 13.9 50pctl 9.7 10.3 10.9 9.8 10.7 13.1 25pctl 9.2 9.7 10.2 9.3 10.2 12.3 5pctl 8.3 8.6 9.2 8.2 9.0 11.1 min 8.3 8.6 9.2 8.2 9.0 11.1 range 2.8 3.4 3.5 3.0 3.4 4.2 Note: The plot displays the distribution of data based on 5-95th percentile range in or- ange and a five-number statistic summary: minimum, first quartile (25th percentile), me- dian (50th percentile), third quartile (75th percentile), and maximum. The plot directly compares three time periods under each RCP scenario.  ean Annual Precipitation Change (left) and Values for Percentiles Figure 43: M over the RCM Ensembles (right) for Three Periods and Two RCPs RCP 4.5 1000 800 600 Precipitation change [mm] Projected precipitation range 400 max-min 95th-5th percentile RCP 8.5 75th-25th 1000 percentile median 800 600 400 2021-2040: 2041-2060: 2081-2100: Near future Mid-century Far future 92 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry RCP4.5 RCP8.5 2021- 2041- 2081- 2021- 2041- 2081- percentile 2040 2060 2100 2040 2060 2100 max 919 920 942 921 944 1036 95pctl 883 882 888 880 906 1011 75pctl 741 732 736 737 744 770 50pctl 655 649 651 649 651 664 25pctl 573 569 572 565 566 566 5pctl 436 431 439 416 429 420 min 420 431 439 416 429 420 range 498 489 503 505 515 616 Note: The plot displays the distribution of data based on 5-95th percentile range in blue and a five-number statistic summary: minimum, first quartile (25th percentile), median (50th percentile), third quartile (75th percentile), and maximum. The plot directly compares three time periods under each RCP scenario.  ist of CORDEX-Adjusted Outputs Based on Combinations Table 9: L of GCM-RCM-Ensemble-Adjustment33 CORDEX-Adjust output RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 2.6 Id GCM Ensemble RCM Adjustment t max t max t max t min t min t min tas tas tas pr pr pr 1 CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 CLMcom-CCLM4-8-17 v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         2 CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 CLMcom-CCLM4-8-17 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         3 CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 CNRM-ARPEGE51 v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         4 CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 CNRM-ARPEGE51 v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         5 CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         6 CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         7 CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         8 CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         9 EC-EARTH r1i1p1 KNMI-RACMO22E v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         10 EC-EARTH r1i1p1 KNMI-RACMO22E v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         33 Simulations chosen for the agriculture research are highlighted in gold. Mean (tas), maximum (t max) and minimum (t min) temperature and precipitation (pr) highlighted in green for three scenarios were available and used. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 93 CORDEX-Adjust output RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 2.6 Id GCM Ensemble RCM Adjustment t max t max t max t min t min t min tas tas tas pr pr pr 11 EC-EARTH r1i1p1 KNMI-RACMO22E v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         12 EC-EARTH r1i1p1 KNMI-RACMO22E v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         13 EC-EARTH r3i1p1 DMI-HIRHAM5 v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         14 EC-EARTH r3i1p1 DMI-HIRHAM5 v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         15 EC-EARTH r3i1p1 DMI-HIRHAM5 v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         16 EC-EARTH r3i1p1 DMI-HIRHAM5 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         17 EC-EARTH r12i1p1 CLMcom-CCLM4-8-17 v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         18 EC-EARTH r12i1p1 CLMcom-CCLM4-8-17 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         19 EC-EARTH r12i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         20 EC-EARTH r12i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         21 EC-EARTH r12i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         22 EC-EARTH r12i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         23 IPSL-CM5A-MR r1i1p1 IPSL-INERIS-WRF331F v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         24 IPSL-CM5A-MR r1i1p1 IPSL-INERIS-WRF331F v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         25 IPSL-CM5A-MR r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         26 IPSL-CM5A-MR r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         27 IPSL-CM5A-MR r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         28 IPSL-CM5A-MR r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         29 HadGEM2-ES r1i1p1 CLMcom-CCLM4-8-17 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         30 HadGEM2-ES r1i1p1 KNMI-RACMO22E v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         31 HadGEM2-ES r1i1p1 KNMI-RACMO22E v2-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         32 HadGEM2-ES r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         33 HadGEM2-ES r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         34 HadGEM2-ES r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         35 HadGEM2-ES r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         36 MPI-ESM-LR r1i1p1 CLMcom-CCLM4-8-17 v1-METNO-QMAP-MESAN-1989-2010                         37 MPI-ESM-LR r1i1p1 CLMcom-CCLM4-8-17 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         38 MPI-ESM-LR r1i1p1 MPI-CSC-REMO2009 v1-IPSL-CDFT21-WFDEI-1979-2005                         39 MPI-ESM-LR r1i1p1 MPI-CSC-REMO2009 v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         40 MPI-ESM-LR r1i1p1 MPI-CSC-REMO2009 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         41 MPI-ESM-LR r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         42 MPI-ESM-LR r1i1p1 SMHI-RCA4 v1-IPSL-CDFT22-WFDEI-1979-2005                         43 MPI-ESM-LR r2i1p1 MPI-CSC-REMO2009 v1-SMHI-DBS45-MESAN-1989-2010                         94 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  imulations Prepared for RCP 4.5 for CORDEX-Adjust Output (left) and Figure 44: S for Euro-CORDEX Output (right)  imulations Prepared for RCP 8.5 for CORDEX-Adjust Output (left) and Figure 45: S for Euro-CORDEX Output (right) Additional climate and vulnerability indicators were estimated from temperature and precipita- tion variables from the model ensembles: continental climate Ivanov index (especially for the impact assessment on forestry) and the De Martonne aridity index (especially for the impact assessment on agriculture). To assess the impacts on forests, climate continentality must be taken into account as an additional limiting factor for the growth of this tree species. Climate has been getting less continental, as revealed by comparing the two past climatic periods of 1961-1990 and 1991- 2010 (Figure 46). The estimated values of the Ivanov Continentality Index on the territory of Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 95 Ukraine, which is calculated as a combination of annual (ATR) and daily (DTR) temperature ranges, varies from 100 to 168. The indicator generally grows in the direction from the north- west to southeast. The lowest values are observed in the Carpathian Mountains area, as well as in the northwest (Volynska oblast, partially adjacent areas), where the values are in the range of 100-120. The highest values of the Continentality index, up to 160-168, are in eastern and southern Ukraine. In some parts of the coast, the values of this index are lower due to the influence of the Black and Azov Seas on ATR and DTR. Climate continentality34 will exhibit a more a contrasting pattern in Ukraine in the future espe- cially under the RCP 8.5 scenario. The zone with low values of 120-130 observed in the past only in the northwest is projected to expand towards southeast and cover not only Volynska, but Rivnenska and Lvivska oblasts. At the same time, the continentality index is expected to increase significantly in the south (Khersonska and Zaporizka oblasts, Crimea) and east (Donetska and Luhanska oblasts) of Ukraine, mostly due to rising DTR, especially under the RCP 8.5 scenario. To assess the impacts on agriculture and forests the De Martonne aridity index (Figure 47) along with additional indicators has been used. The De Martonne aridity index combines an- nual precipitation total and mean temperature has shown drier conditions in the past for the south, north and some west oblasts and is projected to stay at the same level for all areas and over all projections in Ukraine. It reflects a combination of predicted increasing temper- ature combined with increased precipitation. This combination explains the impact of climate change on the sectors of the economy, dependent on temperature and water regimes, like agriculture and forestry. For agriculture, the analysis used daily temperature, precipitation, and humidity indicators, as well as solar radiation and surface wind, which have been elabo- rated under this study. For forestry, climatic indicators based on monthly air temperature and precipitation as well as relative humidity and sunshine duration during certain periods of the year are required including highly important growing season length and its start (end) date for different temperature thresholds. A set of around 70 indicators has been generated. 34 Climate continentality is characterized by the average daily temperature range, as well as the annual temperature range. Ivanov Continentality Index is calculated using the following equation: (Ry + Rd + 0.25D0) *100% Kn ivanov= 0.36 + 14 where Ry is the annual air temperature range (°C), that is, the difference between the warmest and coldest months; Rd – mean daily air temperature range (°C), which is the difference between the average maximum and minimum air temperatures for each month that were then averaged for the year; D0 – average annual deficit of relative humidity, %; 0.36– linear dependence of the three aforementioned components on geographical latitude ,°; 14 – the sum of the components of the numerator at the equator. 96 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  he Continental Climate Ivanov Index for Historic Periods (E-OBS) and Figure 46: T Ensembles of the RCMs by Periods of the 21st Century Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 97 Figure 47: De Martonne Aridity Index 98 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry A 1.2 Agricultural Impact Assessment The agricultural impact assessment provides a comprehensive and granular regional analysis of the future production potential for five crops that collectively accounted for 61%of Ukraine’s agricultural production volume in 2018. The objective of the assessment is to estimate the losses and gains in crop yield, production, and production values by Ukrainian oblasts under the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios in the near future (2030), and the middle of the century (2050), using 201035 as the base year. The analysis is conducted in three steps: i) estimation of the changes in yield (tons/ha) for each crop, including uncertainty ranges; ii) estimation of the changes in agricultural production (tons) for each oblast by combining yield simulation results with expected changes in the areas for each crop; and iii) estimation of the changes in the values of production by applying price projections for the crops in 2030 and 2050. The models employed for the analysis include the WOrld FOod STudies (WOFOST) model, which was adapted and calibrated by the Ukrainian Hydro Metrological Institute UHMI, and the Inter- national Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) by the In- ternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The five crops analyzed are barley, maize, soybean, sunflower, and winter wheat, which in total accounted for 61 percent of production volume in 2018 (FAO 2021b). The analysis was carried out within the 10-year time periods that drive agricultural practices and at a highly granular level, covering more than 7,400 grid cells. Such granular analysis requires an enormous amount of climate data and extensive modelling with a deep understanding of soil conditions and requirements of specific crops. The simulations built in simplified endogenous adaptation measures to show the benefits of appropriate adaptation actions. By integrating simplified endogenous adaptation measures, such as changes in the allocation of land compared to 2010 in response to changes in relative yields, the simulations allow for a comparison between adaptation and no adaptation. The estimated changes in the agricultural production and production values help show the benefits of adaptation measures in each oblast. The results of this assessment indicate the importance of forming effective adaptation strategies in the agriculture sector of Ukraine. The assessment of climate change impact on yield and production is conducted using the WOrld FOod STudies (WOFOST) model, which was adapted and calibrated for Ukraine by the Ukrainian Hydro Metrological Institute UHMI. The WOFOST crop simulation model has been one of the key components for monitoring crops and predicting yield in Europe. It is implemented in the Monitoring Agricultural Resources (MARS) system. Originally, WOFOST was developed to simulate crop production potentials in the tropics. However, the biophysical core of the model is generally applicable, and the model can be easily used to estimate annual crops in Europe (De Wit et al. 2019). WOFOST is a mechanistic model with a solid biophysical basis and is widely used to simulate the effects of climate change on the growth, develop- ment, and yield of major crops like wheat, maize, barley, soybean, sunflower, and others. It simulates crop growth on the basis of various eco-physiological processes, including pheno- logical development, carbon (CO2) assimilation (or photosynthesis), transpiration, respiration, assimilate partitioning, and dry matter production with a time step of one day (Van Diepen et al. 1987; de Wit et al. 2019). The model simulates the phenological development from sow- ing to maturity based on crop genetic properties and environmental conditions. The inputs 35 Data is processed for the periods of 2006 – 2015, 2026 – 2035, and 2045 – 2055 with reported central values for 2010, 2030, and 2050, respectively. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 99 required for WOFOST include weather, crop, phenology, and agro-management data. Table 9 gives minimum input weather data required for WOFOST. The adaptation and calibration were conducted through: (i) the generation of a new soil database based on a soil map of Ukraine 1:2,500,000 with spatial resolution 10×10 kilometers (km); the data obtained for 40 soil types were correlated with WRB (World Reference Base for Soil Resources) soil classification and correspondent soil physical characteristics; and (ii) the calibration of phenological coefficients for crops (i.e., sowing date, sum of temperature from sowing to emergence, emergency to anthesis, and anthesis to maturity) based on phenological observations at local agrometeoro- logical stations (Kryvobok 2015, Kryvobok et al. 2018). Figure 48: Crop Growth Processes in the WOFOST Model Source: Kropff and van Laar, 1993. Projected changes in climatic conditions are included in the WOFOST simulations to show the combined effects of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration, temperature, precipi- tation, and other meteorological variables on biomass production. Higher levels of CO2 sig- nificantly increase photosynthesis for wheat, barley, sunflower, and soybean crops (all C3 plant species), but less so for maize crop (C4 plant species), and thus, lead to increases in the generation of total biomasses and yields. This is referred to as the carbon fertilization effect. Temperature can influence biomass production in different ways. Higher temperature has a positive effect on winter crops during cold periods of vegetation and reduces risks of frost damages for spring crops, but shortens crop maturity time (or vegetation stages), which 100 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Table 10: Minimum Input Weather Data Required for WOFOST Input Description Minimum temperature Minimum temperature Maximum temperature Maximum temperature Sunshine hours Bright sunshine duration Calculated radiation Daily global radiation Wind speed Daily mean wind speed at 10 m Rainfall Daily rainfall Vapor pressure Daily mean vapor pressure leads to decrease in yields. Higher temperature shifts the sowing, emergence, anthesis, and maturity dates, which can have different effects on biomass and yield production, depending on each crop. An increase or decrease in the annual precipitation totals has different effects on yield production for most parts of Ukraine, but it is more important to estimate its effect in combination with temperature and other meteorological data. For example, the differences between precipitation and evapo-transpiration indicate the arid conditions (low values of soil moisture), which will reduce biomass and yield production. Optimal values of soil moisture depend on crop development stage (DVS); most crops need high values of soil moisture on earlier DVS up to anthesis and low values on later DVS. Daily meteorological input data for the base year 2010 and 2030 and 2050 projections are generated by 8 RCMs for 7,344 grids. Sowing date, as required phenological information to start the simulation, is estimated as optimal sowing date assuming optimal temperature, precipitation and evapotranspiration conditions for each grid which continued during last 10 days. The simulations are finished when crops reach maturity stage. It should be noted that the assessment methodology cannot directly incorporate climate extremes such as heat and cold waves, drought, windstorms, and river and coastal flooding. In this study, the WOFOST model simulates two production levels: potential and water-limited. The simulation for potential production is only limited by temperature, day length, solar radi- ation, atmospheric CO2 concentration, and crop features. This simulation assumes that the soil moisture level is optimal or that water is fully available for crop growth. In the water-limited simulation, water shortage also plays a role in determining the production outcome. Therefore, a soil-water balance is calculated that applies to a freely draining soil, where groundwater is so deep that it does not influence the soil moisture content in the rooting zone. In both the potential and water-limited simulations, an optimal supply of nutrients is assumed, and the damages caused by pests, diseases, weeds and/or extreme severe weather events (i.e., Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 101 flooding, hail, strong wind, etc.) are not considered. So, to make the simulations as realistic as possible, we define special coefficients between the actual yields, obtained from official sta- tistics, and simulated yields at the oblast level for base year, and then use them for the 2030 and 2050 two projections. The outputs of WOFOST simulations include crop indicators (i.e., biomass-potential productivity level, storage organs biomass-potential productivity level, total biomass-water limited productivity level, and storage organs biomass-water limited productiv- ity level), potential leaf area index, water-limited leaf area index, soil moisture, development stage, main phrenological dates (i.e., sowing, emergence, anthesis and maturity), and total water requirement. The yield projections from the WOFOST model have been aggregated to provide estimates at the oblast level. The modeled yields for each grid point on the map of Ukraine show an overall potential based on the conditions projected by the climate model. The final yield level for each oblast is estimated as mean value of all grids within the corresponding oblast. Such aggre- gation of data, while reducing detailed spatial variability, allows policymakers to examine the significant differences among the administrative regions in Ukraine regarding climate change impacts on agriculture, and facilitate decision-making and planning accordingly. These confidence intervals have been estimated as follows: Confidence interval = y ± z ∗ σ √n where ȳ is the mean simulated yield for each region for time periods: 2006 – 2015, 2026 – 2035, and 2045 – 2055, with reported central values for 2010, 2030, and 2050); z is the confidence (95%); σ is the standard deviation between actual and simulated yield for 2006-2015. Assuming relative error for 2026-2035 and 2045-2055 periods is the same as for 2006-2015, we can estimate σ for each period; and n is the sample size| (10 years). Variability and uncertainty in the projections of the future yields and production levels in the face of expected climate changes is reflected in the low, mean, and high projections for each RCP scenario. Like the climate models, the agricultural model also undergoes an intensive process of “bias correction”, where it is trained to simulate observational processes. Howev- er, uncertainties in the agricultural analysis persists. This is due to the fact that the projected climate variables from the 8 GCM-RCM ensemble are used as meteorological inputs for the WOFOST model. As such, crop yield projections also have an uncertain range stemming from the uncertainties associated with climate projections. The uncertainty range (+/- values) in agricultural modeling results in three sets of projections: low, mean, and high under each RCP. Thus, the results should not be interpreted as forecasts. Considering all three sets of projections is a justified and recommended approach (Herger at al. 2015). The mean projec- tion represents the mean value of the modeled yield potential (or crop productivity) within each oblast. Low and high projections are the lower (5th percentile) and upper (95th percentile) limits36 of the modeled yield potential, as determined by the confidence interval. The larger is 36 0-5th and 95-100th percentile ranges are defined as “low likelihood, high impact” outcomes. 102 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Figure 49: Simulation Model (WOFOST) for Crop Yield Assessment the difference between the low and high projections, the larger is the uncertainty range. Such range highlights the uncertainty associated with the variations in local soil and climatic condi- tions, which could influence yield potentials and production outputs, within an oblast territory. The projected changes in production and production values are calculated using the estimat- ed changes in land areas under each crop and crop prices in 2030 and 2050 from the IFPRI IMPACT model. Changes in production are estimated by multiplying the changes in the land area under each crop (ha) by the projected yields (tons/ha). The change in land areas are calculated from the IMPACT model, based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 2 (SSP2) GDP and Population Trends. Data on cropland areas in 2010 (both irrigated and rainfed) by oblast and by type of grain was used as the base. Finally, the changes in production values are estimated by multiplying the change in total production by the changes in crop prices. The IMPACT model uses IPSL Climate Models and Global Environmental Multiscale Models to estimate the future changes in crop prices. The IMPACT model gives prices of four grains (maize, barley, wheat, and soybean) for 2010, 2030 and 2050 under two sets of scenarios: SSP2 RCP 8.5 IPSL and SSP2 RCP 8.5 HGEM. The mean value of these two scenarios has been used to obtain a single projection under RCP 8.5. Price changes for the RCP 4.5 scenario are not available. For sunflower, the 2010 price was taken from the FAO Producer Prices Stats , as the IMPACT model data does not include sunflower seed prices. The ratio of price changes for maize in 2030 and 2050 from IMPACT is then used to get the 2030 and 2050 prices of sunflower. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 103 Figure 50: The IMPACT Model System by IFPRI Climate Impact Water Water Models Models Demand Crop Models IMPACT Global Macroeconomic (DSSAT) Multi-market Model Trends Outputs Yirelds Harvested Areas Production Commodity Prices Trade IMPACT is a network of linked economic, climate, water, and crop models. The core of IMPACT is a partial equilibrium multi-market economic model that simulates national and global markets for agricultural commodities and includes 159 countries. The core model is linked to modular models (i.e., climate, water, crop simulation, land use change, value chain, and others) in a consistent equilibrium framework that supports longer-term scenario analysis. Some of the model communication is linear while some captures feedback loops. Agricultural production is specified by models of land supply, allocation of land to irrigated and rain-fed crops, and determination of yields. Production is modelled at a sub- national level, including 320 regions called food production units (FPUs). FPUs are linked to the water models and correspond to 154 water basins. Figure 10 shows the links between the various models. The links to water and crop models support the integrated analysis of changing environmental, biophysical, and socioeconomic trends, allowing for in-depth analysis on a variety of critical issues of interest to policymakers at national, regional, and global levels. The core model of IMPACT simulates the production, trade, demand, and pricing for 62 agricultural commodities across the globe, representing the bulk of food and cash crops. The model specifies supply and demand behavior in all markets. Currently in IMPACT, there are three main types of commod- ities (i.e., crops, livestock, and processed goods). Crop production in IMPACT is simulated through area and yield response functions and is specified sub-nationally at the level of FPUs. This regional disaggrega- tion permits linking with water models and provides the added benefit of smaller geographical units for ag- gregating climate change impacts, which can vary significantly from one location to another. Land used for crop production is divided into irrigated and rain-fed systems, capturing the significant differences in yields observed across these cultivation systems and linking directly with the water models, which treat irrigated and rain-fed water supplies separately. The system solves for prices, allocations of land, and outputs of different agricultural outputs simultaneously, with changes in the allocations of land depending on changes in yields of crops and the prices of the crops. 104 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry A 1.3 Forestry Impact Assessment The assessment of climate change impacts on Ukrainian forests is conducted for the main for- est-species, using Vorobjov’s climate-related forestry typology model and Didukh’s model of suitable environmental condition for plants. Assessing the potential impacts of climate change on forests needs to consider general trends in climate variables, short-term climate variability, and the interactions with biotic and abiotic disturbances (Lindner M. et al. 2010). The analysis is carried out at two levels: i) assessment of changes in core climatic indexes that are impor- tant for forests based on Prof. D. Vorobjov’s climate-related forestry typology classification model; and ii) assessment of the favorable climatic conditions for eight main forest-forming tree species based on the scales of ecological amplitudes for natural flora of Ukraine by Prof. Ya. Didukh. The main tree species that form most of the forest stands in Ukraine include Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), common oak (Quercus robur L.), beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), spruce (Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.), birch (Betula pendula Roth.), black alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.) and robinia (Robinia pseudoacacia L.). These tree species are prominent in more than 86 percent of the forest areas37 in Ukraine and constitute coniferous forests (43 percent, of which 35 percent is pine) and hardwood plantations (43 percent, of which 37 percent are oak and beech). An illustration of the step-by-step process of assessing forest vulnerability to climate change is shown in Figure 51. Figure 51: Workflow for Forests Vulnerability Assessment to Climate Change 37 Lands covered in forest vegetation. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 105 The climate-related forest typology classification model of Vorobjov’s is based on the close connections between forest typologies and climatic conditions (Vorobjov 1961). Specifically, the forest plot types under homogeneous parent materials and landforms are defined by the impacts of humidity and heat. The formation of forest types and boundaries of individual forest plots are tied to climate continentality. Additionally, within the limits of an individual forest type, the productivity of forest stands is directly connected to the level of heat. Thus, three climate indexes with the most significant effects on forest growth, condition, productivity, and biodiver- sity are employed to assess the suitability of future climatic conditions for Ukrainian forests. These include humidity (Ombro-regime), continentality, and frostiness (Cryo-regime) The climate humidity index, or Ombro-regime (Om) is one of the most important en- vironmental factors, reflecting the aridity / humidity of climate. This index characterizes air humidity associated with precipitation, evaporation and transpiration, soil moisture, and groundwater level, etc. The Om index integrates the effects of precipitation and thermal resources of a given area and is defined as the difference between annual precipitation (W) and evaporation (E0): Om = W – E0 (mm) Evaporation is the potential evaporation from the surface, which has unlimited reserves of moisture. Among the methods suggested for calculating E0, the method developed by Kolomyts (2010) seems most reasonable for the parts of the country where forests are concentrated–specifically, mixed forests, forest steppe, and Carpathian zones: E0 = 1384 – 161,6 * tmax + 6,245 *t2max , where tmax is the long-term average air temperature of the warmest month of the year. The method by Kolomyts reflects well the impacts of extreme events (i.e., droughts) on forest species. The Continentality of climate (Kn) is among several indexes of climate continental- ity. The formula suggested by Ivanov (1959) seems most appropriate for territories of Ukraine: (Ap + Ad + 0.25D0) * 100% Kn = 0.36 φ + 14 where Ap is the yearly amplitude of air temperature (the difference between the warm- est and coldest months) in 0С; Ad is daily air temperature (annual average), defined as difference between average maximal and minimal temperature in 0С; D0 is the average annual deficit of relative air humidity in %; 0.36φ is the linear dependence of all three components of geographical latitude φ in degrees; and 14 is the sum of components of the numerator at the equator. 106 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Based on the three indexes Ombro-regime (Om), Continentality (Kn) and Cryo-regime (Cr), the lower critical (minimum) and upper critical (maximum) limits and the interval between them (referred to as “zone of ecological amplitude”) are established for each of the eight forest-form- ing species, using the methodology developed by Didukh (2011, 2012). The critical limits refer to the thresholds, above or below which the organisms cannot survive (Didukh 2012). The ecological amplitude are the boundaries of the environmental conditions within which an or- ganism can live and function. Understanding such amplitudes of the eight main forest-forming tree species is essential in diagnosing the conditions of their ecotopes and forecasting the development of their populations and phytocoenoses. The amplitudes of forest species in terms of both edaphic and climatic factors are significantly narrower compared to those of other ecological communities (i.e., meadows, steppe, wetlands). The state of tree species un- der study and characteristics of forest stands, the ability to form stable forest cenosis, and the ability to provide ecosystem services vary with the gradients of the ecological amplitude. The center of the ecological amplitude is where the conditions for growth are optimal. The condi- tions become less optimal further from the center. The ecological optimum can be assessed using plant parameters such as vitality, productivity, yield, biomass, height, diameter, density, abundance, leaf area index, canopy close, or projective cover for grasses, etc. Based on the Om, Kn and Cr indexes, the degree to which the projected climatic conditions support healthy and productive growth of the main forest-forming species in Ukraine is de- termined using the scale of optimal environmental conditions developed by Bondaruk and Tselischev (2015): • Optimal (combined index scores of 91-100/100): conditions are optimal for the spe- cies (i.e., high viability of the species population with maximum productivity values with class I forest land fertility index (bonitet) and others). • Suboptimal (71-90/100):conditions are close to optimal for the species (i.e., a certain decrease in productivity to class I-II bonitet with a sufficiently high viability). • Satisfactory (51-70/100): conditions are satisfactory for the species (i.e., decrease in productivity (i.e., phyto-mass, stock, growth, etc.) of the species to class II-III bonitet). • Unsatisfactory (21-50/100): conditions are not satisfactory for the species (i.e., re- duction of productivity to class III and sometimes class III-IV bonitet, deterioration of stand sanitary conditions, and reduced competitiveness). • Extremely unsatisfactory (1-20/100): conditions are extremely for the species unsat- isfactory (i.e., significant decrease in productivity to class III-IV and sometimes class IV-V bonitet, further deterioration of stand sanitation conditions, disruptions to the cy- cle of phenological development, gradual decrease of natural recovery, weak resist- ance to pests and diseases, and reduced competitiveness). • Conditionally unsuitable (up to 1%): conditions are disruptive for the species (i.e., population regression, loss of productivity (class IV-V bonitet), unsatisfactory stand sanitary conditions, damages due to pests and diseases, loss of reproductive capacity, disruptions to the cycle of ontogenesis, and loss of cenosis-forming function). Key climate variables and the average values for Vorobjov’s indexes under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 were calculated for each of the approximately 7,400 grid cells for the base period 1961- 1990, the recent period 1991-2010, 2021-2040 (to allow a range value for the year 2030), Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 107 2041-2060 (to allow a range value for the year 2050), and 2061-2100 (to allow a range value for the year 2080). As the life cycle of forest development extends over very long periods of time, we use 1961-1990 as the base period. Additionally, a significant part of the existing for- ests in Ukraine was formed during the recent period 1991-2010, thus we include this period in the analysis to allow for sufficient comparisons. The analysis examined areas of suitable climatic conditions for eight main forest-forming species based on Vorobjov’s indexes (Om, Kn, and Cr) for all administrative and forestry regions of Ukraine. The open-source Geograph- ic Information System (Q-GIS) was used to perform spatial analysis and visualize the results. A 1.4 Distributional Analysis The distributional analysis assesses the impact of climate change on households’ real in- comes through its impacts on the price of foods and agricultural incomes. The agricultural impacts assessment provides two key outputs: i) increases in the prices of key food products due to climate change and estimates of price increases for 2030 for key agricultural commod- ities under RCP 8.5 and RCP 4.5 (based on the IFPRI model); and ii) changes in agricultur- al incomes due to the climate change effects on yields, production, and production values. These data were inputs for the distributional analysis of the impacts on households. Like the agricultural impact assessment, the analysis of income considers three sets of projec- tions: low, mean, and high. They reflect the uncertainty range in the results of the WOFOST model simulations for changes in yields, production, and production values for the selected crops (i.e., barley, wheat, maize, sunflower and soybean) under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 in 2030 and 2050, relative to 2010. Such a range reflects a distribution of likely outcomes. The low and high projections represent the 5th and 95th percentile of the distribution of yield changes pro- vided, at a very fine scale for each oblast. Changes in real incomes and indicators of poverty and inequality are estimated for RCP 8.5 in 2030. The analysis is limited to 2030 because by 2050, the baseline expenditure data cannot be considered a reasonable point of comparison. The analysis is based on comprehensive data collected for 250 to 500 individual households for each oblast, which allows for identification of variations in income distribution due to cli- mate-induced changes in the agricultural sector. The modeled climate impacts data is com- bined with Ukrainian Household Expenditure Survey (HES) data for the latest available year (2018) to examine the effects on households at different levels of income. The changes in values of different commodities (which may be negative or positive, depending on the sce- nario) in turn affect the income of households to the extent they derive their incomes from the production of these commodities. The HES provides details of expenditure by commodity and the amount of income from the sale of agricultural products for each household in each oblast. Data are anonymized, with between 250 and 500 individual households for each oblast. This enables an estimation of the real expenditure needed to make up for the increase in prices, as well as the actual changes in real income due to the change in revenues from agricultural products. The two sets of data at the household level can be used to assess how the distribu- tion of income is affected by climate change impacts on the agricultural sector. 108 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Figure 52: Distributional Analysis Workflow Climate Change Impacts on Key Agricultiral Commodities in Ukraine Ukraine Household Effects of Changes Effects on Higher Expenditure Survey by in Agriculutral Prices of Foods Oblast 2018 Incomes Combined Effects in Terms of Changes in Poverty and Inequality A 1.5 Identification of “hotspot” oblasts Using the results from climate impacts on agriculture, “hotspot” oblasts are grouped based on several factors. These factors include: i) change in oblast GDP due to the projected changes in agricultural production; ii) change in agricultural production values; and iii) change in house- hold incomes, poverty, and inequality. Table 11: Criteria Used in the Integrated Assessment Tables Criteria Change in Indicates the emergence of new climate types or continuous expansion of arid areas. Reflects the climate types combined effects of changes in annual precipitation and temperatures. The de Martonne aridity index and its classification of climate types is widely used to describe these joint changes. (See Figure 7). Impact of Reveals the increased likelihood of extreme weather events until the end of the century. climate This criterion is based on the estimated changes in two climate indicators: number of frost and tropical extremes nights per year for every location in Ukraine. (See Figures 14 and 15 in Chapter 2). Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 109 Criteria Value of Changes in the value of agricultural production stemming from changes in crop yields, which are agriculture sensitive to the main climate indicators such as temperature, precipitation, and seasonal shifts. The value of agricultural production explains changes in the incomes of households in the agricultural sector. This parameter is estimated for the selected crops. For 2030, values are given as the cumulative effect of value changes from the low, mean, and high projections, assuming no adaptation measures in place. For 2050, values are given for two estimations: with adaptation and without the adaptation. There are two adaptation measures incorporated in the model-based analysis: an endogenous optimal choice of seeding dates for each crop and optimal adjustments of the land allocated to each crop type in response to the changing climatic conditions. Availability One of the key adaptation measures for reducing adverse climate change impacts on agricultural of irrigation production. infrastructure The assessment shows that the availability of water is crucial for minimizing the adverse impacts of climate change, especially in the central and northwestern parts of Ukraine. This factor should be considered for the evaluation of future adaptation measures. Income loss Describes changes in household incomes as the results of the changes in food prices and the value of agricultural production. These changes are driven by the variability in the climate indicators. Is based on the comprehensive data collected for 250 to 500 individual households for each oblast. Data is used to identify variations in income distribution among households at different levels of income due to climate change-induced changes in the agricultural sector. Poverty Describes the deviation of a household’s income from the subsistence level. headcount The percentage of all households below the subsistence income level (household equivalent). Inequality Describes the deviation of the observed income distribution from the theoretic level of equal measure – distribution of income. changes in the The Gini coefficient measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, Gini coefficient consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. The Gini index measures the difference between the hypothetical line of absolute equality and the actual distribution of the cumulative income over the cumulative number of households receiving the income. A Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 1 implies perfect inequality. 110 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Integrated Criteria Assessment of Oblasts with the Highest Share Table 12:  of Agriculture in Their GDP in the Near Future Climate type Value of Potential risk Loss in the Poverty Impact on (temperature and agriculture reduction via households’ Headcount inequality precipitation) irrigation income Gini coefficient 2021 -2040 2021-2040 change % low or high 2021-2040 change % base%+change % 2021-2040 the area under this climate to base potential to base to base base % / change % type is rising or to base decreasing Semi-humid and Kirovohradska Mediterranean -25 % high -2.0% 17%+2% 0.31 0.5% Humid and Vinnytska -28% high -1.8% 11%+0.9% 0.33 1.4% semi-humid Humid and Cherkasska -32 % high -1.7% 15%+1.6% 0.31 0.6% semi-humid Humid and Poltavska -32 % high -2.1% 16%+0.7% 0.35 0.8% semi-humid Khersonska Semi-arid -25% low -1.6% 24%+1.5 % 0.31 0.3% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 111 ANNEX 2. PROJECTED SEASONAL CHANGES  hanges in Warm-Season Length in the Recent Period 1991-2010 Figure 53: C (E-Obs), Near-Future (RCP 8.5) and the End of the Century (RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5) 112 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  hanges in Growing Season Length in the Recent Period 1991-2010 Figure 54: C (E-Obs), Near-Future (RCP 8.5) and the End of the Century (RCP4.5 and RCP 8.5) Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 113  hanges in the Active-Vegetation Season Length in the Recent Period Figure 55: C 1991-2010 (E-Obs), Near-Future (RCP8.5) and the End of the Century (RCP4.5 and RC8.5) 114 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  hanges in the Summer Season Length in the Recent Period 1991-2010 Figure 56: C (E-Obs), Near-Future (RCP8.5) and the End of the Century (RCP4.5 and RC8.5) Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 115 ANNEX 3. DATA FOR AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT & DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS Table 13: Weight of Agriculture in Relation to GDP (US Dollars) in 2010, per Oblast38 Oblast GDP Agricultural value Weight (%) Cherkaska 2,857,808,904 592,117,263.27 20.72% Chernihivska 2,106,574,368 232,681,729.88 11.05% Chernivetska 1,114,455,551 100,749,797.76 9.04% Crime 4,101,072,695 296,416,732.28 7.23% Dnipropetrovska 13,812,309,960 651,102,780.98 4.71% Donetska 16,436,244,077 435,703,123.88 2.65% Ivano-Frankivska 2,227,200,337 74,471,167.23 3.34% Kharkivska 8,067,363,553 533,231,318.82 6.61% Khemelnytska 2,214,641,971 380,806,627.01 17.19% Khersonska 1,913,487,374 411,870,822.94 21.52% Kyivska 25,397,707,265 448,587,023.80 1.77% Kirovohradska 2,051,491,271 600,015,846.79 29.25% Luhanska 5,996,086,314 298,154,852.75 4.97% Lvivska 4,945,012,214 153,535,047.47 3.10% Mykolaivska 2,887,855,492 355,172,783.72 12.30% Odeska 6,205,995,595 578,678,861.43 9.32% Poltavska 5,238,799,486 657,352,685.33 12.55% 38 The five types of crops have been incorporated in an aggregate form. 116 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Oblast GDP Agricultural value Weight (%) Rivnenska 1,804,097,884 148,288,560.15 8.22% Sumska 2,284,746,506 364,953,365.43 15.97% Ternopilska 1,447,096,233 228,236,810.39 15.77% Vinnytska 2,862,959,797 671,406,894.97 23.45% Volynska 1,612,504,839 120,898,988.46 7.50% Zakarpatska 1,757,683,060 52,990,606.28 3.01% Zaporizka 5,431,881,552 477,918,964.09 8.80% Zhytomyrska 2,266,873,098 164,100,290.30 7.24% ncrease in Expenditure Needed to Keep Wellbeing Constant with Food Figure 57: I Price Increases Group 1 Group 2 3.2% 1.6% 2.8% Increase in real expenditure [%] Increase in real expenditure [%] 2.4% 1.2% 2.0% 1.6% 0.8% 1.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Income Quantiles Income Quantiles Cherkaska Kyivska Zakarpatska Donetska Khmelnytska Odeska Chernihivska Vinnytska Zhytomyrska Khersonska Lvivska Rivnenska Group 3 Group 4 1.2% 1.2% Increase in real expenditure [%] Increase in real expenditure [%] 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Income Quantiles Income Quantiles Chernivetska Ivano-Frankivska Kirovohradska Mykolaivska Sumska Volynska Dnipropetrovska Kharkivska Luhanska Poltavska Ternopilska Zaporizka Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 117 Table 14: Agricultural Production by Type of Unit in Ukraine, 2019 Production in Tons Unit Number Area (Ha) Ave. Size Wheat Maize Barley Sunflower Soya of Units (Ha) Personal Peasant 3,975,100 6,133,600 1.5 8,060 13,631 3,258 3,373 1,096 Households Personal peasant households as % of total production: 28% 38% 37% 22% 30% Farm Companies 38,268 15,877,235 414.9 20,268 22,249 5,659 11,881 2,603 Agro Holdings 38,428 27,841,691 724.5 Total 49,852,526 28,328 35,880 8,917 15,254 3,699 % of total production: 31% 39% 10% 17% 4% Sources: https://feodal.online/, Ukrainian Statistics 2021. Table 15: Percent Changes in Value of Selected Crops39 in Ukraine, 2010-2030 Oblast 2010 Mn Hrv. Percent Change to 2030 Low Medium High Cherkaska 530.59 -32.09% 15.92% 63.94% Chernihivska 228.53 -37.92% 35.41% 108.75% Chernivetska 97.41 -47.37% 14.28% 75.94% Crimea 287.99 -42.12% 43.37% 128.86% Dnipropetrovska 547.83 -19.65% 36.05% 91.75% Donetska 349.58 -12.30% 41.25% 94.81% Ivano-Frankivska 72.77 -39.49% 22.41% 84.32% Kharkivska 446.91 -28.93% 27.95% 84.83% 39 Selected crops include barley, wheat, maize, sunflower, and soybean. 118 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Oblast 2010 Mn Hrv. Percent Change to 2030 Low Medium High Khemelnytska 377.89 -37.25% 15.97% 69.19% Khersonska 384.58 -25.42% 32.79% 91.06% Kyivska 435.98 -40.36% 11.92% 64.20% Kirovohradska 515.89 -24.86% 27.47% 79.81% Luhanska 241.56 -24.52% 41.00% 106.52% Lvivska 152.28 -34.41% 23.18% 80.78% Mykolaivska 286.92 -7.86% 43.74% 95.35% Odesska 510.87 -18.79% 38.43% 95.64% Poltavska 588.95 -32.67% 19.17% 71.02% Rivnenska 150.02 -42.46% 12.46% 67.38% Sumska 349.25 -42.42% 21.00% 84.43% Ternopilska 227.11 -32.51% 19.52% 71.55% Vinnytska 648.93 -28.98% 16.89% 62.76% Volynska 120.67 -36.58% 28.05% 92.69% Zakarpatska 49.94 -41.56% 27.04% 95.65% Zaporizka 398.1 -20.41% 39.95% 100.32% Zhytomyrska 160.66 -48.20% 8.34% 64.88% Source: World Bank staff calculations Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 119 Poverty Consequences of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Table 16:  (Only Price Effects Considered) RCP 8.5, 2030 Poverty Headcount Poverty Gap  Severity of Poverty Oblast  Base % Change % Base % Change % Base % Change % Cherkaska  14.85%  1.06%  15.2%  0.34%  4.0%  0.22%  Chernihivska  16.48%  0.38%  22.5%  0.40%  8.9%  -0.88%  Chernivetska  18.18%  0.96%  15.6%  0.17%  3.9%  0.08%  Dnipropetrovska  15.07%  0.24%  20.3%  0.63%  6.4%  0.28%  Donetska  21.18%  1.47%  19.2%  -0.02%  5.5%  0.08%  Ivano-Frankivska  9.65%  0.00%  13.13%  1.93%  3.1%  0.47%  Kharkivska  23.17%  1.17%  19.9%  -0.14%  5.9%  0.01%  Khemelnytska  20.75%  0.00%  20.8%  1.00%  6.4%  0.44%  Khersonska  24.17%  0.76%  17.5%  0.44%  5.8%  -0.78%  Kyivska  15.61%  1.12%  14.9%  -0.39%  3.7%  -0.24%  Kyiv City  10.74%  0.31%  19.4%  0.94%  6.7%  0.38%  Kirovohradska  16.86%  0.38%  21.5%  -0.57%  7.2%  0.11%  Luhanska  15.18%  1.56%  16.5%  -0.64%  4.5%  -0.14%  Lvivska  12.14%  1.43%  20.8%  -0.98%  6.1%  -0.17%  Mykolaivska  17.11%  1.07%  14.9%  0.03%  3.4%  0.05%  Odeska  18.79%  1.45%  15.5%  0.02%  3.9%  0.07%  Poltavska  15.55%  0.00%  15.2%  0.95%  3.8%  0.28%  Rivnenska  17.99%  0.36%  18.1%  1.49%  5.1%  1.15%  Sumska  15.27%  0.30%  14.1%  0.57%  3.7%  0.14%  Ternopilska  16.36%  0.91%  17.0%  -0.05%  4.8%  0.03%  Vinnytska  11.21%  0.00%  23.0%  0.99%  8.3%  1.29%  Volynska  23.11%  1.33%  22.23%  -0.27%  7.7%  -0.07%  Zakarpatska  12.18%  1.52%  16.5%  -0.51%  4.3%  -0.08%  Zaporizka  15.85%  0.27%  19.0%  -0.12%  4.3%  -0.05%  Zhytomyrska  20.88%  1.20%  23.6%  -0.36%  8.4%  -0.03%  120 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Poverty Consequences of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Table 17:  (Low Scenario) RCP 8.5, 2030 Oblast  Poverty Headcount Poverty Gap Severity of Poverty Base % Change % Base % Change % Base % Change % Cherkaska  14.85%  1.59%  15.2%  0.67%  4.0%  0.30%  Chernihivska  16.48%  2.30%  22.5%  -0.56%  7.9%  -0.15%  Chernivetska  18.18%  1.44%  15.6%  1.94%  3.9%  0.62%  Dnipropetrovska  15.07%  0.48%  20.3%  0.70%  6.4%  0.30%  Donetska  22.28%  0.37%  19.2%  0.18%  5.5%  0.14%  Ivano-Frankivska  9.65%  0.00%  13.13%  1.93%  3.1%  0.47%  Kharkivska  23.17%  2.05%  19.9%  -0.25%  5.9%  -0.01%  Khemelnytska  20.75%  0.41%  20.8%  2.13%  6.4%  0.84%  Khersonska  24.17%  1.53%  17.5%  0.87%  4.9%  0.33%  Kyivska  15.61%  1.86%  14.9%  0.85%  3.7%  0.22%  Kyiv City  10.74%  0.61%  19.4%  1.38%  6.7%  0.48%  Kirovohradska  16.86%  1.92%  20.6%  -0.21%  7.2%  -0.10%  Luhanska  15.18%  2.53%  16.5%  -0.39%  4.5%  -0.07%  Lvivska  12.14%  1.90%  20.8%  -0.46%  6.1%  0.00%  Mykolaivska  17.11%  1.07%  14.9%  0.28%  3.4%  -0.04%  Odeska  18.79%  1.45%  15.5%  0.69%  3.9%  0.24%  Poltavska  15.55%  0.71%  15.2%  2.08%  3.8%  0.61%  Rivnenska  17.99%  2.52%  18.1%  0.56%  5.1%  0.30%  Sumska  15.27%  1.80%  14.1%  1.67%  3.7%  0.43%  Ternopilska  16.36%  2.27%  17.0%  0.55%  4.8%  0.24%  Vinnytska  11.21%  0.93%  23.0%  1.88%  8.3%  0.95%  Volynska  23.11%  1.78%  22.2%  1.39%  7.7%  0.51%  Zakarpatska  12.18%  1.52%  16.5%  0.56%  4.3%  0.23%  Zaporizka  15.85%  1.09%  19.0%  -0.54%  4.3%  -0.21%  Zhytomyrska  20.88%  2.81%  23.6%  -0.23%  8.4%  -0.03%  Source: World Bank staff calculations Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 121 Poverty Consequences of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Table 18:  (Mean Scenario) RCP 8.5, 2030 Oblast Poverty Headcount Poverty Gap Severity of Poverty Base % Change % Base % Change % Base % Change % Cherkaska 14.85% 0.53% 15.20% 0.53% 4.00% 0.27% Chernihivska 16.48% 0.38% 22.50% -0.74% 8.90% -1.31% Chernivetska 18.18% 0.48% 15.60% 0.00% 3.90% 0.03% Dnipropetrovska 15.07% 0.00% 20.30% 0.30% 6.40% 0.19% Donetska 22.28% -1.29% 19.20% 0.82% 5.50% 0.32% Ivano-Frankivska 9.65% 0.00% 13.13% 1.93% 3.10% 0.47% Kharkivska 23.17% 1.17% 19.90% -0.65% 5.90% -0.15% Khemelnytska 20.75% -0.83% 20.80% 1.27% 6.40% 0.52% Khersonska 24.17% 0.76% 17.50% -0.27% 5.80% -1.00% Kyivska 15.61% 1.12% 14.90% -0.39% 3.70% -0.24% Kyiv City 10.74% 0.31% 19.40% 0.68% 6.70% 0.31% Kirovohradska 16.86% 0.00% 20.60% -0.38% 7.20% -0.12% Luhanska 15.18% -1.36% 16.50% 0.79% 4.50% 0.27% Lvivska 12.14% 0.95% 20.80% -0.94% 6.10% -0.17% Mykolaivska 17.11% -0.80% 14.90% 0.98% 3.40% 0.23% Odeska 18.79% -0.87% 15.50% 0.78% 3.90% 0.27% Poltavska 15.55% 0.00% 15.20% 0.00% 3.80% 0.04% Rivnenska 17.99% 0.36% 18.10% 1.01% 5.10% 0.34% Sumska 15.27% -0.90% 14.10% 0.65% 3.70% 0.19% Ternopilska 16.36% -0.45% 17.00% 0.33% 4.80% 0.12% Vinnytska 11.21% 0.31% 23.00% 1.80% 8.30% 0.82% Volynska 23.11% 0.00% 22.23% -0.36% 7.70% -0.09% Zakarpatska 12.18% 1.02% 16.50% -0.51% 4.30% -0.09% Zaporizka 15.85% -0.27% 19.00% -0.34% 4.30% -0.09% Zhytomyrska 20.88% 0.80% 23.60% -0.17% 8.40% 0.04% Source: World Bank staff calculations 122 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Poverty Consequences of Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change Table 19:  (High Scenario) RCP 8.5, 2030 Oblast Poverty Headcount Poverty Gap Severity of Poverty Base % Change % Base % Change % Base % Change % Cherkaska 14.85% 0.00% 15.2% 0.11% 4.0% 0.17% Chernihivska 16.48% -1.15% 22.5% -0.66% 8.9% -1.32% Chernivetska 18.18% -1.91% 15.6% -0.04% 3.9% 0.01% Dnipropetrovska 15.07% -1.44% 20.3% 1.49% 6.4% 0.63% Donetska 21.18% -0.55% 19.2% 0.47% 5.5% 0.20% Ivano-Frankivska 9.65% 0.00% 13.13% 1.93% 3.1% 0.47% Kharkivska 23.17% -1.17% 19.9% 0.47% 5.9% 0.17% Khemelnytska 20.75% -1.66% 20.8% 0.52% 6.4% 0.25% Khersonska 24.17% -0.51% 17.5% -0.47% 5.8% -1.07% Kyivska 15.61% 1.12% 14.9% -0.39% 3.7% -0.24% Kyiv City 10.74% -0.31% 19.4% 0.80% 6.7% 0.44% Kirovohradska 16.86% -2.68% 21.5% 0.32% 7.2% 0.53% Luhanska 15.18% -3.31% 16.5% 1.12% 4.5% 0.35% Lvivska 12.14% -0.48% 20.8% -0.05% 6.1% 0.05% Mykolaivska 17.11% -1.34% 14.9% -0.25% 3.4% -0.10% Odeska 18.79% -1.73% 15.5% 0.17% 3.9% 0.10% Poltavska 15.55% -1.41% 15.2% -0.90% 3.8% -0.14% Rivnenska 17.99% -1.08% 18.1% 0.01% 5.1% -0.04% Sumska 15.27% -2.40% 14.1% -0.39% 3.7% -0.04% Ternopilska 16.36% -1.82% 17.0% -0.61% 4.8% -0.15% Vinnytska 11.21% 0.00% 23.0% -0.59% 8.3% 0.58% Volynska 23.11% -2.22% 22.23% -0.71% 7.7% -0.18% Zakarpatska 12.18% 0.00% 16.5% -0.48% 4.3% -0.10% Zaporizka 15.85% -1.37% 19.0% -0.05% 4.3% 0.04% Zhytomyrska 20.88% -1.61% 23.6% 1.19% 8.4% 0.53% Source: World Bank staff calculations Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 123 Base Values of the Gini Coefficient and Changes in the Coefficient Table 20:  RCP 8.5, 2030 Oblast  Percentage Change in Gini Base Value With Income and Price Effects Only Price Agricultural Impact Scenario Effect Low Medium High Cherkaska 0.31 0.58% 0.19% -0.13% 0.32% Chernihivska 0.3 0.40% -0.10% -0.51% 0.11% Chernivetska 0.32 0.81% 0.17% -0.29% 0.30% Dnipropetrovska 0.33 0.39% 0.00% -0.34% 0.25% Donetska 0.34 0.47% 0.21% -8.27% 0.40% Ivano-Frankivska 0.32 -2.75% -3.23% -3.51% -3.05% Kharkivska 0.3 0.42% 0.12% -0.06% 0.27% Khemelnytska 0.3 0.50% 0.19% -0.10% 0.30% Kherson 0.31 0.34% 0.37% 0.42% 0.34% Kyivska 0.31 0.76% 0.08% -0.38% 0.22% Kyiv City 0.38 0.60% 0.38% 0.22% 0.43% Kirovohradska 0.31 0.46% 0.05% -0.30% 0.27% Luhanska 0.31 0.60% -0.10% -0.62% 0.33% Lvivska 0.31 0.62% 0.32% 0.07% 0.41% Mykolaivska 0.29 0.34% -0.03% -0.29% 0.29% Odeska 0.34 0.38% 0.34% 0.33% 0.34% Poltavska 0.35 0.81% 0.14% -0.39% 0.37% Rivnenska 0.29 0.73% 0.29% -0.02% 0.39% Sumska 0.31 1.07% -0.01% -0.87% 0.29% Ternopilska 0.35 0.55% 0.23% -0.04% 0.39% Vinnytska 0.33 1.40% 1.15% 0.63% 1.36% Volynska 0.33 0.64% -0.02% -0.42% 0.26% Zakarpatska 0.32 0.71% 0.41% 0.29% 0.53% Zaporizka 0.32 0.32% 0.08% -0.08% 0.22% Zhytomyrska 0.33 0.66% 0.18% -0.08% 0.24% 124 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  ange of Change in Income for all Deciles between Low and Figure 58: R High Scenario, RCP 8.5, 2030 5% Cherkaska Chernihivska 2% 0% -2% 5% Chernivetska Dnipropetrovska 2% 0% -2% 5% Donetska Ivano-Frankivska 2% 0% -2% Range between High and Low scenarios [%] 5% Kharkivska Khersonska 2% 0% -2% 5% Khmelnytska Kyivska 2% 0% -2% 5% Kirovohradska Lvivska 2% 0% -2% 5% Luhanska Mykolaivska 2% 0% -2% 5% Odeska Poltavska 2% 0% -2% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Deciles Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 125 Rivnenska Sumska 5% 2% Range between High and Low scenarios [%] 0% -2% 5% Ternopilska Vinnytska 2% 0% -2% Volynska Zakarpatska 5% 2% 0% -2% 5% Zaporizka Zhytomyrska 2% 0% -2% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Deciles 126 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Table 21: Rating of Oblasts with the Highest Share of Agriculture in GDP Oblast GDP ($) in Agricultural Share (%) of Share (%) of Rating Normalized 2010 value ($S) in agricultural agricultural rating 2010 sector in the sector in oblast GDP Ukraine GDP Kirovohradska 2,051,491,271 600,015,846 29% 0.47% 6.6 1 Vinnytska 2,862,959,797 671,406,894 23% 0.53% 7.6 0.95 Cherkaska 2,857,808,904 592,117,263 21% 0.47% 8.5 0.91 Khersonska 1,913,487,374 411,870,822 22% 0.32% 8.8 0.89 Poltavska 5,238,799,486 657,352,685 13% 0.52% 10.9 0.79 Khemelnytska 2,214,641,971 380,806,627 17% 0.30% 10.2 0.82 Sumska 2,284,746,506 364,953,365 16% 0.29% 10.7 0.8 Odeska 6,205,995,595 578,678,861 9% 0.46% 12.8 0.7 Mykolaivska 2,887,855,492 355,172,783 12% 0.28% 12.3 0.72 Zaporizka 5,431,881,552 477,918,964 9% 0.38% 13.6 0.66 Ternopilska 1,447,096,233 228,236,810 16% 0.18% 11.7 0.75 Kharkivska 8,067,363,553 533,231,318 7% 0.42% 14.9 0.6 Dnipropetrovska 13,812,309,960 651,102,780 5% 0.51% 16.1 0.54 Chernihivska 2,106,574,368 232,681,729 11% 0.18% 13.9 0.65 Crime 4,101,072,695 296,416,732 7% 0.23% 15.9 0.55 Luhanska 5,996,086,314 298,154,852 5% 0.23% 18.2 0.44 Rivenska 1,804,097,884 148,288,560 8% 0.12% 16.9 0.5 Zhytomyrska 2,266,873,098 164,100,290 7% 0.13% 17.5 0.47 Donetska 16,436,244,077 435,703,123 3% 0.34% 20.6 0.32 Chernivetska 1,114,455,551 100,749,797 9% 0.08% 17.2 0.49 Volynska 1,612,504,839 120,898,988 7% 0.10% 18 0.45 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 127 Oblast GDP ($) in Agricultural Share (%) of Share (%) of Rating Normalized 2010 value ($S) in agricultural agricultural rating 2010 sector in the sector in oblast GDP Ukraine GDP Kyivska 25,397,707,265 448,587,023 2% 0.35% 22.8 0.22 Lvivska 4,945,012,214 153,535,047 3% 0.12% 23.3 0.19 Ivano- 3% 2,227,200,337 74,471,167 0.06% 25.3 0.09 Frankivska Zakarpatska 1,757,683,060 52,990,606 3% 0.04% 27.3 0 TOTAL 127,041,949,396 9,029,442,932 Min 6.58 0.00 Max 27.25 1.00 Mean 15.26 0.58 Rating values do not have specific interpretation and only serve to establish the order of oblasts by the value of the share of agriculture in GDP of the oblast and Ukraine. The values are estimated as: r = In(Share (%) of agricultural sector in the oblast GDP) * ln(Share (%) of agricultural sector in Ukraine GDP) 128 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Table 22: Rating of Oblasts by the Highest Change in Agriculture Production     Change in the value of agricultural production without adaptation measures for the low projection Oblast Rating Normalized For 2030 For 2050 rating Zhytomyrska 0.25 1 -59% -62% Kyivska 0.53 0.83 -52% -44% Chernivetska 0.59 0.8 -59% -32% Rivnenska 0.66 0.76 -50% -38% Lvivska 0.72 0.72 -47% -38% Khemelnytska 0.78 0.68 -48% -35% Sumska 0.82 0.66 -55% -25% Volynska 0.83 0.66 -49% -32% Poltavska 0.88 0.63 -50% -29% Zakarpatska 0.92 0.6 -54% -23% Ivano-Frankivska 0.94 0.59 -51% -25% Kirovohradska 0.95 0.58 -45% -31% Kharkivska 1.03 0.54 -50% -23% Vinnytska 1.05 0.53 -42% -30% Ternopilska 1.06 0.52 -44% -28% Cherkaska 1.06 0.52 -44% -27% Chernihivska 1.09 0.5 -52% -19% Luhanska 1.3 0.38 -45% -19% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 129     Change in the value of agricultural production without adaptation measures for the low projection Oblast Rating Normalized For 2030 For 2050 rating Zaporizka 1.33 0.36 -41% -22% Dnipropetrovska 1.33 0.36 -41% -23% Odeska 1.5 0.26 -39% -20% Khersonska 1.53 0.24 -40% -19% Mykolaivska 1.67 0.16 -33% -22% Donetska 1.94 0 -36% -15% Min 0.25 0 Max 1.94 1 Mean 1.03 0.54 Rating values do not have specific interpretation and only serve to establish the order of oblasts by the magnitude of the consecutive impact on the value of agricultural produc- tion between the two time periods. The values are estimated as: r=ln(Change in the value for 2030) * ln(Change in the value for 2050) 130 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Table 23: Rating of Oblasts by the Combined Social Changes Oblast Rating Normalized Poverty Headcount: Poverty Gap: Severity of Rating Change to Base [%] Change to Poverty: Change Base [%] to Base [%] Lvivska -0.06 1 1.90% -0.46% 0.00% Zhytomyrska -0.07 0.97 2.81% -0.23% -0.03% Kharkivska -0.07 0.97 2.05% -0.25% -0.01% Luhanska -0.09 0.91 2.53% -0.39% -0.07% Kirovohradska -0.09 0.9 1.92% -0.21% -0.10% Mykolaivska -0.1 0.89 1.07% 0.28% -0.04% Chernihivska -0.11 0.84 2.30% -0.56% -0.15% Ternopilska -0.12 0.81 2.27% 0.55% 0.24% Rivnenska -0.12 0.81 2.52% 0.56% 0.30% Zakarpatska -0.13 0.77 1.52% 0.56% 0.23% Donetska -0.14 0.76 0.37% 0.18% 0.14% Kyivska -0.14 0.76 1.86% 0.85% 0.22% Zaporizka -0.14 0.75 1.09% -0.54% -0.21% Odeska -0.14 0.74 1.45% 0.69% 0.24% Cherkaska -0.14 0.74 1.59% 0.67% 0.30% Khersonska -0.15 0.7 1.53% 0.87% 0.33% Volynska -0.18 0.62 1.78% 1.39% 0.51% Sumska -0.18 0.62 1.80% 1.67% 0.43% Dnipropetrovska -0.18 0.6 0.48% 0.70% 0.30% Chernivetska -0.21 0.52 1.44% 1.94% 0.62% Kyiv City -0.22 0.48 0.61% 1.38% 0.48% Poltavska -0.25 0.39 0.71% 2.08% 0.61% Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 131 Oblast Rating Normalized Poverty Headcount: Poverty Gap: Severity of Rating Change to Base [%] Change to Poverty: Change Base [%] to Base [%] Vinnytska -0.25 0.38 0.93% 1.88% 0.95% Khmelnytska -0.3 0.23 0.41% 2.13% 0.84% Ivano-Frankivska -0.37 0 0.00% 1.93% 0.47% Min -0.37 0 Max -0.06 1 Mean -0.16 0.69 Rating values do not have specific interpretation and only serve to establish the order of oblasts by the magnitude of the impact on three indicators of poverty. The values are estimated as: ln( Headcount Poverty Change ) r= ln( Poverty Gap Change ) * ln( Severity of Poverty Change ) 132 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry ANNEX 4. DATA FOR FORESTRY ASSESSMENT Table 24: Average Annual Air Temperature in Forest Regions of Ukraine Time Carpathian Polissya Right-bank Left-bank Mountain Northern Southern periods / Forest- Forest- Crimea Steppe Steppe projections steppe steppe Average annual temperature, Т оС 1961-1990 6.5±1.5 7.1±0.4 7.7±0.4 7.3±0.5 9.3±0.8 8.4±0.5 10.1±0.5 1991-2010 7.1±1.4 8.1±0.4 8.5±0.4 8.2±0.4 9.8±0.8 9.1±0.5 10.7±0.5 RCP 4.5 2021- 7.9±1.4 8.9±0.4 9.3±0.4 9.1±0.4 10.5±0.9 10±0.5 11.5±0.5 2040 RCP 4.5 2041- 8.4±1.4 9.5±0.4 9.9±0.5 9.7±0.4 11.1±0.8 10.6±0.4 12.1±0.5 2060 RCP 4.5 2081- 9.1±1.4 10.1±0.4 10.5±0.5 10.3±0.4 11.6±0.8 11.2±0.4 12.6±0.5 2100 RCP 8.5 2021- 8.1±1.4 9.1±0.4 9.5±0.4 9.3±0.4 10.7±0.8 10.2±0.5 11.7±0.5 2040 RCP 8.5 2041- 9±1.4 10±0.4 10.4±0.4 10.2±0.4 11.6±0.8 11.2±0.4 12.6±0.5 2060 RCP 8.5 2081- 11.3±1.3 12.3±0.4 12.8±0.5 12.7±0.4 13.9±0.9 13.6±0.4 15±0.4 2100 The average temperature of the coldest month, Cr, оС 1961-1990 -5±1.1 -5.9±0.9 -5.1±0.5 -6.8±0.6 -1.4±0.5 -5.6±1.1 -2.5±1.1 1991-2010 -3.4±1 -3.4±0.6 -3±0.3 -4.3±0.5 -0.6±0.6 -3.6±0.7 -1.3±0.9 RCP 4.5 2021- -2.5±1 -2.3±0.5 -2±0.3 -3.1±0.5 0.1±0.6 -2.6±0.7 -0.5±0.9 2040 RCP 4.5 2041- -2.3±1.1 -2.2±0.5 -1.8±0.3 -3±0.4 0.5±0.6 -2.3±0.7 -0.2±0.9 2060 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 133 Time Carpathian Polissya Right-bank Left-bank Mountain Northern Southern periods / Forest- Forest- Crimea Steppe Steppe projections steppe steppe RCP 4.5 2081- -1.3±1.1 -0.9±0.5 -0.7±0.3 -1.9±0.5 1±0.5 -1.5±0.6 0.5±0.8 2100 RCP 8.5 2021- -2.9±1.1 -2.7±0.6 -2.5±0.4 -3.7±0.5 -0.2±0.6 -3.1±0.7 -1±0.9 2040 RCP 8.5 2041- -1.7±1.1 -1.5±0.6 -1.2±0.4 -2.6±0.5 0.9±0.6 -2±0.7 0.2±0.9 2060 RCP 8.5 2081- 1.4±1.2 2±0.5 2.1±0.4 0.9±0.5 3.2±0.6 1.1±0.6 2.8±0.8 2100 The average air temperature of the warmest month, Тх, оС 1961-1990 16.2±1.7 18.4±0.5 18.7±0.9 19.9±0.6 20±1.1 21.1±0.4 22.2±0.4 1991-2010 17.6±1.6 20.1±0.5 20.3±0.9 21.3±0.5 21.2±1.1 22.5±0.3 23.5±0.3 RCP4.5 18.4±1.5 20.7±0.5 21±1 22±0.5 22.3±1.2 23.4±0.4 24.5±0.3 2021-2040 RCP4.5 18.9±1.6 21.2±0.6 21.6±1 22.7±0.6 22.9±1.1 24.1±0.4 25.2±0.3 2041-2060 RCP4.5 19.5±1.5 21.9±0.6 22.2±1 23.3±0.5 23.4±1.2 24.7±0.4 25.7±0.3 2081-2100 RCP8.5 18.6±1.6 21.1±0.6 21.3±1 22.3±0.5 22.4±1.1 23.6±0.4 24.8±0.3 2021-2040 RCP8.5 19.5±1.6 21.9±0.6 22.2±1 23.4±0.6 23.5±1.2 24.8±0.4 25.8±0.3 2041-2060 RCP8.5 21.8±1.6 24.2±0.7 24.6±1.2 26±0.7 26.5±1.2 27.6±0.5 28.7±0.4 2081-2100 134 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Changes in the Area of Vorobjov’s Heat Availability Index (T) for Forests Table 25:  of Ukraine, % Type of climates RCP4.5 RCP8.5 by Vorobjov’s heat 1961- 1991- availability index for 1990 2010 2021- 2041- 2081- 2021- 2041- 2081- forests 2040 2060 2100 2040 2060 2100 c – relatively temperate 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0 d – temperate 41.0 10.6 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.1 e – relatively warm 48.5 70.2 63.2 43.0 27.3 53.2 26.1 1.1 f – warm 8.7 17.7 31.1 46.1 54.5 40.1 56.1 4.5 g – very warm* 0 0.3 3.0 8.6 15.4 5.3 15.8 67.0 h – hot* 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.5 27.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 * types of climate not described by Vorobjov Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 135 Changes in Area of Climatic Zones for Vorobjov’s Humidity Index (W) Table 26:  for Forests, % Climatic zones of Vorobjov’s 1961- 1991- RCP4.5 RCP8.5 humidity index for forests 1990 2010 2021- 2041- 2081- 2021- 2041- 2081- 2040 2060 2100 2040 2060 2100 Extremely dry (-1)* 0 0 0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.7 18.7 Very dry (0) 12.4 18.6 21.9 28.7 36.1 25.4 35.6 28.7 Dry (1) 35.8 31.0 32.4 34.4 33.7 34.8 33.3 42.3 Fresh (2) 31.0 40.1 37.3 30.4 24.0 34.1 25.1 7.8 Moist (3) 17.2 7.3 5.6 3.9 3.5 3.1 3.0 1.2 Humid (4) 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.2 Wet (5) 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.1 Very wet (6) 2.2 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 * not described by Vorobjov 136 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  patial-Temporal Dynamics of Vorobjov’s Moisture Availability Index Figure 59: S for Forests Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 137  patial-Temporal Dynamics of the Suitability Ombroregime (Om) Figure 60: S of Climate for Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) 138 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  patial-Temporal Dynamics of the Suitability Ombroregime (Om) Figure 61: S of Climate for English Oak (Quercus robur L.) Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 139  patial-Temporal Dynamics of the Suitability Ombroregime (Om) Figure 62: S of Climate for European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) 140 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry  patial-Temporal Dynamics of the Suitability Ombroregime (Om) Figure 63: S of Climate for Norway Spruce (Picea abias L.) Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 141 Table 27: Distribution of Forest Areas by Classes of Natural Fire Hazard Forestry regions Classes of natural fire hazard Average (by Gensiruk) class of I II III IV V natural fire hazard Forested area, thousand ha /% Carpathians 164.4/9.8 125.7/7.5 684.1/40.8 701.7/41.9 0.01/0.0 3.15+0.02 Polissya 654.2/27.3 759.1/31.7 574.424.0 393.0/16.4 17.3/0.7 2.32+0.01 Right-bank Forest-Steppe 101.0/6.3 262.0/16.4 990.0/62.0 239.6/15.0 5.1/0.3 2.87+0.01 Left-bank Forest-Steppe 72.8/8.0 294.0/32.5 420.3/46.5 109.2/12.1 8.6/1.0 2.65+0.02 Mountain Crimea 48.9/19.4 110.2/43.6 93.2/36.9 0.2/0.1 0/0 2.18+0.04 Northern Steppe 77.0/13.7 329.6/58.4 125.0/22.2 31.7/5.6 0.7/0.1 2.20+0.02 Southern Steppe 58.6/31.6 82.6/44.6 29.3/15.8 11.5/6.2 3.4/1.8 2.02+0.04 Ukraine 1176.9/15.5 1963.2/25.9 2916.4/38.5 1487.0/19.6 35.1/0.5 2.64+0.01  ensity of Forest Fires in Ukraine by Oblast in Forests Subordinated Figure 64: D to the State Forest Resources Agency of Ukraine, 2007–2020 Source: Forest Ecology Laboratory of URIFFM, 2020 142 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry ANNEX 5. BENEFITS OF ADAPTION MEASURES Effect of Adaptation Measures to Maintain the Optimal Water Availability Table 28:  on Change in the Value of Agricultural Output for Selected Crops (mean projection) Value of Change1 in Adjusted Change1,2 Costs of the Absence of Agricultural the Value of in the Value of Adaptation Output Agricultural Output Agricultural Output (per year) (10-year sum)3 3% 6% 10% [Million $] [%] [Million $] [%] [Million $] [Million $] [Million $] 2010 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030 2026-2035 Maize 1700.8 -18.7% -317.8 -13.2% -225.1 -92.7 -643.0 -453.8 -292.3 Soybean 34.6 26.5% 9.2 39.6% 13.7 -4.6 -31.6 -22.3 -14.4 Sunflower 809.1 3.8% 30.8 5.7% 46.1 -15.2 -105.7 -74.6 -48.0 Total 2544.5 -10.9% -277.8 -6.5% -165.3 -112.5 -780.3 -550.7 -354.7 1 Change [%] in the value of agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production. Value in million US$2010 is given for real prices. 2 The estimated adjusted change in the value of water scarce agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 with adaptation measures in the agricultural sector directed to maintain the optimal water availability. 3 The net present value (to base year 2021) of costs of inaction over the period of climate projections for the agricultural outputs 2026-2035. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 143 Effect of Adaptation Measures to Maintain the Optimal Water Availability Table 29:  on Change in the Value of Agricultural Output for Selected Crops (low projection) Value of Change1 in Adjusted Costs of the Absence of Agricultural the Value of Change1,2 in Adaptation Output Agricultural the Value of Output Agricultural (per year) (10-year sum)3 Output 3% 6% 10% [Million $] [%] [Million $] [%] [Million $] [Million $] [Million $] 2010 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030 2026-2035 Maize 1700.8 -75.0% -127.,3 -51.4% -874,6 -401.6 -2785.8 -1966.0 -1266.4 Soybean 34.6 8.9% 3.1 14.8% 5,1 -2.0 -14.1 -10.0 -6.4 Sunflower 809.1 -24.2% -195.8 -11.8% -95,5 -100.3 -695.5 -490.8 -316.2 Total 2544.5 -57.7% -1469.0 -37.9% -965,0 -504.0 -3495.4 -2466.8 -1589.0 1  Change [%] in the value of agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production. Value in million $2010 is given for real prices. 2 The estimated adjusted change in the value of water scarce agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 with adaptation measures in the agricultural sector directed to maintain the optimal water availability. 3 The net present value (to base year 2021) of costs of inaction over the period of climate projections for the agricultural outputs 2026-2035. 144 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Effect of Adaptation Measures to Maintain the Optimal Water Availabili- Table 30:  ty on Change in the Value of Agricultural Output for Selected Crops (high projection) Value of Change1 in Adjusted Change1,2 Costs of the Absence of Agricultural the Value of in the Value of Adaptation Output Agricultural Output Agricultural Output (per (10-year sum)3 year) 3% 6% 10% [Million $] [%] [Million $] [%] [Million $] [Million $] [Million $] 2010 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030 2026-2035 Maize 1700.8 37.7% 640.7 45.9% 780.8 -140.1 -971.8 -685.8 -441.8 Soybean 34.6 44.0% 15.2 65.0% 22.5 -7.3 -50.3 -35.5 -22.9 Sunflower 809.1 31.8% 257.5 46.3% 374.3 -116.8 -810.0 -571.6 -368.2 Total 2544.5 31.8% 913.4 46.3% 1177.5 -264.2 -1832.1 -1293.0 -832.9 1 Change [%] in the value of agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production. Value in Million US $2010 is given for real prices. 2 The estimated adjusted change in the value of water scarce agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 with adaptation measures in the agricultural sector directed to maintain the optimal water availability. 3 The net present value (to base year 2021) of costs of inaction over the period of climate projections for the agricultural outputs 2026-2035. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 145 Change in Value of Agricultural Output Relative to 2010 (Maize): Water Table 31:  Optimal vs Water Scarce Projection Oblast Value of Change in the value1 Ratio of water- Adjusted change in Agricultural [%] optima to scarce the value3 [%] 2 Output yield [Million $] 2010 2030 2030 2030 low mean high low mean high low mean high Crimea 5.69 -46 -31 -16 74 71 68 -12 -9 -5 Chernihivska 0 0 0 0 50 46 41 0 0 0 Kyivska 121.91 -64 -23 18 49 44 39 -33 -13 25 Volynska 10.03 -56 -20 16 46 42 38 -30 -12 22 Khersonska 100.21 -63 -21 22 45 40 34 -35 -12 30 Zhytomyrska 77 -61 -22 18 44 39 34 -34 -13 24 Rivnenska 14.23 -63 -21 21 42 38 34 -37 -13 28 Cherkaska 212.04 -61 -21 20 39 33 27 -37 -14 25 Sumska 109.35 -74 -17 41 36 31 26 -48 -12 51 Luhanska 16.88 -124 -22 81 36 30 24 -80 -15 100 Zaporizka 8.58 -124 -23 78 34 30 25 -81 -16 98 Mykolaivska 12.73 -91 -16 58 33 28 24 -61 -12 72 Poltavska 281.03 -65 -15 35 32 28 24 -44 -11 43 Odeska 43.58 -104 -16 72 30 27 23 -73 -12 88 Donetska 10.61 -127 -23 81 31 26 22 -87 -17 99 Zakarpatska 25.65 -69 -3 63 28 26 24 -50 -2 78 Vinnytska 173.18 -73 -23 27 29 25 22 -51 -17 33 Kharkivska 88.67 -102 -19 64 28 23 18 -73 -14 76 Khmelnytska 15.08 -75 -20 34 26 23 20 -56 -16 41 146 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Oblast Value of Change in the value1 Ratio of water- Adjusted change in Agricultural [%] optima to scarce the value3 [%] Output yield2 [Million $] 2010 2030 2030 2030 low mean high low mean high low mean high Lvivska 24.59 -70 -15 40 25 22 18 -53 -12 47 Dnipropetrovska 58 -119 -19 82 25 21 17 -90 -15 96 Kirovohradska 165.12 -84 -15 53 22 18 15 -65 -13 61 Ternopilska 53.86 -80 -18 43 17 15 13 -66 -16 48 Chernivetska 48.87 -86 -16 53 14 12 11 -74 -14 59 Ivano-Frankivska 23.91 -75 -9 56 12 12 11 -66 -8 62 Total 1700.8 -75 -19 38 32 28 24 -51 -13 46 1 Change in the value of agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 for water scarce mean projection. It is taken from the technical report on Agriculture. 2 The estimated ratio of the water-optimal yield to the water- scarce yield by oblast in 2030. 3 The estimated adjusted change in the value of water scarce agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 with adaptation measures in the agricultural sector directed to maintain the water optimum. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 147 Change in Value of Agricultural Output Relative to 2010 (Soybean): Table 32:  Water Optimal vs Water Scarce Projection Oblast Value of Change in the Ratio of water-optima Adjusted change Agricultural value1 [%] to scarce yield2 [%] in the value3 [%] Output [Million US$] 2010 2030 2030 2030 low mean high low mean high low mean high Crimea 1.45 -10 15 40 65 63 61 -3 25 65 Volynska 0 0 0 0 63 61 59 0 0 0 Zhytomyrska 0.06 -2 29 59 62 60 58 -1 46 93 Kyivska 1.42 1 31 61 62 59 57 2 50 95 Rivnenska 0 0 0 0 61 59 57 0 0 0 Sumska 0.39 4 30 56 54 52 50 6 46 83 Khmelnytska 15.71 18 34 50 52 51 50 28 52 75 Lvivska 0 0 0 0 52 51 49 0 0 0 Vinnytska 2.44 14 33 51 51 50 49 21 49 76 Poltavska 5.48 -1 19 38 51 50 49 0 28 56 Khersonska 0.23 17 29 41 53 49 46 26 43 60 Zakarpatska 0 0 0 0 50 49 48 0 0 0 Odeska 0.85 -5 21 47 50 49 47 -3 31 69 Ternopilska 0.05 23 38 52 49 48 48 34 56 78 Chernivetska 0.19 29 42 55 49 48 48 43 62 81 Zaporizka 1.04 7 26 44 50 48 45 11 38 64 Mykolaivska 2 5 28 51 49 47 46 7 41 75 Ivano- 0 0 0 47 47 47 0 0 0 Frankivska 0 148 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Oblast Value of Change in the Ratio of water-optima Adjusted change Agricultural value1 [%] to scarce yield2 [%] in the value3 [%] Output [Million US$] 2010 2030 2030 2030 low mean high low mean high low mean high Kharkivska 0.55 -10 13 37 49 47 45 -5 19 53 Luhanska 0.14 -13 32 76 49 46 43 -7 46 109 Kirovohradska 1.16 13 32 50 47 46 45 19 46 72 Dnipropetrovska 1.12 1 25 49 47 46 44 2 37 71 Donetska 0.31 -33 12 56 47 45 44 -18 17 81 Total 34.59 9 26 44 52 50 47 15 40 65 1 Change in the value of agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 for water scarce mean projection. It is taken from the technical report on Agriculture. 2 The estimated ratio of the water-optimal yield to the water- scarce yield by oblast in 2030. 3 The estimated adjusted change in the value of water scarce agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 with adaptation measures in the agricultural sector directed to maintain the water optimum. Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 149 Change in Value of Agricultural Output Relative to 2010 (Sunflower): Table 33:  Water Optimal vs Water Scarce Projection Oblast Value of Change in the Ratio of water- Adjusted change Agricultural value1 [%] optima to scarce in the value3 [%] Output yield [%] 2 [Million US$] 2010 2030 2030 2030 low mean high low mean high low mean high Crimea 12.31 -56 14 83 78 77 75 -12 24 145 Khersonska 1.25 -36 8 52 61 58 55 -14 13 81 Chernihivska 3.09 -27 5 38 59 56 53 -11 9 58 Kyivska 75.69 -24 3 30 58 55 52 -10 5 46 Volynska 0 0 0 0 54 51 49 0 0 0 Zaporizka 84.65 -34 2 38 54 50 47 -16 3 55 Zhytomyrska 0.21 -28 3 34 53 50 47 -13 5 50 Cherkaska 32 -20 2 23 54 50 46 -9 2 34 Luhanska 57.62 -34 1 36 53 49 45 -16 2 52 Mykolaivska 61.61 -16 8 33 52 49 46 -8 12 48 Rivnenska 0.03 -28 0 28 51 48 46 -14 1 42 Sumska 13.99 -26 4 34 50 47 44 -13 6 49 Donetska 87.61 -30 1 31 50 47 44 -15 1 45 Odeska 64.61 -15 7 29 50 47 44 -8 10 43 Poltavska 61.91 -15 6 28 49 46 44 -7 9 40 Kharkivska 88.56 -21 2 26 47 43 40 -11 4 36 Dnipropetrovska 102.1 -24 3 29 46 43 40 -13 4 41 Vinnytska 18.9 -23 -1 20 45 42 40 -13 -1 28 Kirovohradska 7.82 -18 5 27 42 40 38 -10 7 38 150 Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry Oblast Value of Change in the Ratio of water- Adjusted change Agricultural value1 [%] optima to scarce in the value3 [%] Output yield2 [%] [Million US$] 2010 2030 2030 2030 low mean high low mean high low mean high Khmelnytska 32.46 -29 -2 25 41 39 37 -17 -1 34 Zakarpatska 0.24 -19 11 41 39 37 35 -12 15 55 Lvivska 0 0 0 0 39 37 34 0 0 0 Ternopilska 0.46 -28 -3 22 34 33 32 -18 -2 29 Chernivetska 1.84 -27 1 28 32 30 29 -18 1 36 Ivano-Frankivska 0.19 -23 4 31 30 29 29 -16 5 39 Total 809.13 -24 4 32 50 47 44 -12 6 46 1 Change in the value of agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 for water scarce mean projection. It is taken from the technical report on Agriculture. 2 The estimated ratio of the water-optimal yield to the water- scarce yield by oblast in 2030. 3 The estimated adjusted change in the value of water scarce agricultural production as a percent of 2010 value of agricultural production by oblast in 2030 with adaptation measures in the agricultural sector directed to maintain the water optimum Ukraine. Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture and Forestry 151