The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity Cristian Ioan Ioja ˘ a , Maria Pa ˘troescu a , Laurent ßiu Rozylowicz a, * , Viorel D. Popescu b , Mircea Verghelet ß c , Mihai Iancu Zotta c , Mihaela Felciuc c a Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies (CCMESI), University of Bucharest, 1 N. Ba ˘lcescu Ave., 010041 Bucharest, Romania b Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, 5575 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME 04469, USA c Romanian National Forest Administration (Romsilva), Protected Areas Unit, 31 G. Magheru Ave., 010325 Bucharest, Romania article info Article history: Received 1 August 2009 Received in revised form 1 June 2010 Accepted 14 June 2010 Available online 6 July 2010 Keywords: Protected areas Efficacy Natura 2000 Management Romania Pan-European network abstract Romania’s protected areas network currently covers 19.29% of the national territory, a significant increase from the 4.1% protected prior to 1989. The increase occurred over the past 20 years with the cre- ation of 27 National and Natural Parks, and recently of 382 protected areas as part of the pan-European Natura 2000 network. Considering the recent increase in number and area of protected lands, we inves- tigated two core topics critical to achieving conservation goals: (1) conservation value and (2) resources for conservation. The newly created Natura 2000 sites overlapped 96.19% of the existing protected areas network, generating up to three different protection statuses for some sites. Conservation goals were often unclear, as the focus switched to protecting species and habitats of European-level concern. Despite the fivefold increase in protected area, many ecoregions were poorly represented in the new system. Planning for conservation neither involved the local communities nor utilized principles for spatial pri- oritization. Over 80% of the species of European conservation concern were included in at least one pro- tected area, but plants and invertebrates were underrepresented. Administrative bodies were generally under-staffed and poorly financed, conditions that were reflected in a poor enforcement and implemen- tation of conservation goals. Overall, Romania shares many conservation concerns with other Eastern and Central European countries. A regional approach to conserving biodiversity based on spatial prioritiza- tion, rigorous scientific documentation, and social acceptance is needed for the Natura 2000 network to achieve its goals. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Protected lands are set aside to conserve relatively intact eco- systems and threatened species and constitute the most wide- spread instrument used in conservation planning (Margules and Pressey, 2000). Besides their inherent ecological value (Gaston et al., 2008), in developing countries many protected areas (PAs) are created for their potential to alleviate social and economic is- sues faced by local communities (Silva, 2009). However, in spite of usually substantial political support for conservation, not all PAs are able to meet their conservation goals due economic and social constraints on exploiting the existing natural resources (Cabeza and Moilanen, 2006; Young et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2007). There are numerous instances (i.e., so-called ‘‘paper parks”) in which PAs generate, rather than alleviate, social conflicts; this is usually associated with insufficient funding (Strange et al., 2006; Hajkowicz et al., 2008) or lack of interest in conservation by local authorities and communities (Moore et al., 2004; Stolon, 2008). The efficacy of PAs in conserving biodiversity depends on the interaction among three factors: (1) optimal design (i.e., sufficient area to conserve ecosystem integrity, overlapping boundaries with biodiversity hotspots or threatened species ranges, self-sustain- ability in the face of financial scarcity) (Hess et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2009b), (2) optimal conservation strategies (Moilanen, 2008; Wilson et al., 2009a), and (3) adequate implementation of management activities and enforcement (Balmford et al., 2003; Walker, 2009). The main policy instruments that govern the conservation of biodiversity in Europe are the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, and the European Union’s (EU) Habitats and Birds Directives (Gaston et al., 2008; Pullin et al., 2009). In some countries, the implementation of the Habitat Directive might have led to a decentralization of the national-level conservation policies and promoted multilevel governance (Mauerhofer, 2010). As a result, the responsibility for biodiversity conservation is shared among local and national governments and the European 0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.013 * Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +40 213103871. E-mail addresses: [email protected](L. Rozylowicz), dan.v. [email protected](V.D. Popescu), [email protected](M. Felciuc). Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2468–2476 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity
Cristian Ioan Ioja a, Maria Patroescu a, Laurent�iu Rozylowicz a,*, Viorel D. Popescu b, Mircea Verghelet� c,Mihai Iancu Zotta c, Mihaela Felciuc c
a Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies (CCMESI), University of Bucharest, 1 N. Balcescu Ave., 010041 Bucharest, Romaniab Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, 5575 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME 04469, USAc Romanian National Forest Administration (Romsilva), Protected Areas Unit, 31 G. Magheru Ave., 010325 Bucharest, Romania
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 1 August 2009Received in revised form 1 June 2010Accepted 14 June 2010Available online 6 July 2010
Romania’s protected areas network currently covers 19.29% of the national territory, a significantincrease from the 4.1% protected prior to 1989. The increase occurred over the past 20 years with the cre-ation of 27 National and Natural Parks, and recently of 382 protected areas as part of the pan-EuropeanNatura 2000 network. Considering the recent increase in number and area of protected lands, we inves-tigated two core topics critical to achieving conservation goals: (1) conservation value and (2) resourcesfor conservation. The newly created Natura 2000 sites overlapped 96.19% of the existing protected areasnetwork, generating up to three different protection statuses for some sites. Conservation goals wereoften unclear, as the focus switched to protecting species and habitats of European-level concern. Despitethe fivefold increase in protected area, many ecoregions were poorly represented in the new system.Planning for conservation neither involved the local communities nor utilized principles for spatial pri-oritization. Over 80% of the species of European conservation concern were included in at least one pro-tected area, but plants and invertebrates were underrepresented. Administrative bodies were generallyunder-staffed and poorly financed, conditions that were reflected in a poor enforcement and implemen-tation of conservation goals. Overall, Romania shares many conservation concerns with other Eastern andCentral European countries. A regional approach to conserving biodiversity based on spatial prioritiza-tion, rigorous scientific documentation, and social acceptance is needed for the Natura 2000 networkto achieve its goals.
� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Protected lands are set aside to conserve relatively intact eco-systems and threatened species and constitute the most wide-spread instrument used in conservation planning (Margules andPressey, 2000). Besides their inherent ecological value (Gastonet al., 2008), in developing countries many protected areas (PAs)are created for their potential to alleviate social and economic is-sues faced by local communities (Silva, 2009). However, in spiteof usually substantial political support for conservation, not allPAs are able to meet their conservation goals due economic andsocial constraints on exploiting the existing natural resources(Cabeza and Moilanen, 2006; Young et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2007).There are numerous instances (i.e., so-called ‘‘paper parks”) inwhich PAs generate, rather than alleviate, social conflicts; this isusually associated with insufficient funding (Strange et al., 2006;
Hajkowicz et al., 2008) or lack of interest in conservation by localauthorities and communities (Moore et al., 2004; Stolon, 2008).
The efficacy of PAs in conserving biodiversity depends on theinteraction among three factors: (1) optimal design (i.e., sufficientarea to conserve ecosystem integrity, overlapping boundaries withbiodiversity hotspots or threatened species ranges, self-sustain-ability in the face of financial scarcity) (Hess et al., 2006; Wilsonet al., 2009b), (2) optimal conservation strategies (Moilanen,2008; Wilson et al., 2009a), and (3) adequate implementation ofmanagement activities and enforcement (Balmford et al., 2003;Walker, 2009).
The main policy instruments that govern the conservation ofbiodiversity in Europe are the Convention on Biological Diversity,the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife andNatural Habitats, and the European Union’s (EU) Habitats andBirds Directives (Gaston et al., 2008; Pullin et al., 2009). In somecountries, the implementation of the Habitat Directive mighthave led to a decentralization of the national-level conservationpolicies and promoted multilevel governance (Mauerhofer, 2010).As a result, the responsibility for biodiversity conservation isshared among local and national governments and the European
Commission (Paavola et al., 2009). In addition, the EU conservationobjectives are integrated into other sectoral policies such as theSustainable Development Strategy, the Common AgriculturalPolicy, the Common Fisheries Policy, and the Water FrameworkDirective (Rauschmayer et al., 2009). The main target of the EUconservation policy is to create a pan-European protected areasnetwork – the Natura 2000 network – that will facilitate the pro-tection of species and habitats of European conservation interest(Fontaine et al., 2007). However, Natura 2000 sites do not act aswildlife refuges or strictly PAs (Apostolopoulou and Pantis, 2009).Anthropogenic activities that do not affect but rather facilitatethe protection of species and maintenance of habitat integrity,such as traditional agricultural practices (i.e., manual hay mowing),limited grazing and logging, gathering of non-timber forest prod-ucts (e.g., berries, mushrooms, medicinal plants), fishing, and hunt-ing, are supported (Gaston et al., 2008). To achieve the proposedconservation and social goals, the Natura 2000 network requiresa massive 5.58 billion EUR/year for administration in EU developedcountries alone (Bladt et al., 2009). As a comparison, approximatelythe same amount is invested yearly in conservation worldwide,with developing countries accounting for <12% of the total (Jameset al., 2001; Bruner et al., 2004).
The coverage of the European Natura 2000 network is impres-sive: 22,419 terrestrial Sites of Community Importance (SCI, forhabitats and/or species) covering 719,992 km2 (13.6% of EU) and5242 terrestrial Special Protection Areas (SPA, for bird protectiononly) covering 547,819 km2 (11.1% of EU) (Anonymous, 2009).Overall, the network confers protection status to 986 vertebrates(64.8% of EU species), 164 invertebrates (0.1% of EU species) (Fon-taine et al., 2007; Primack et al., 2008) and 1288 plants (10.3% ofEU species) (Steck and Pautasso, 2008).
Historically, conservation planning in Romania evolved frommostly ‘‘paper parks” before 1990 to weakly funded, scattered con-servation efforts between 1990 and 2006 (Primack et al., 2008). In2007, the conservation focus switched again in response to theEuropean Union provisions on expanding the Natura 2000 net-work. Starting in 2007, habitats and species of European-level con-cern became the focus of conservation efforts in Romania (Hartelet al., 2010). As a result, the Ministry of Environment, with the helpof independent experts, proposed new Natura 2000 sites using cri-teria for declaring SCIs and SPAs from Annex III of the HabitatsDirective. Furthermore, each site underwent a qualitative evalua-tion focused on the representation (presence/absence) of speciesand habitats of conservation concern. For the new sites that passedthe qualitative screening procedure, quantitative criteria, such asthe 20–60% representativity rule (Papp and Tóth, 2007) – excellentrepresentation if >60% of habitat or species range was included inthe Natura 2000 network, and insufficient representation if <20%was included – was used to select the final set of new Natura2000 sites.
In many EU countries, the creation of the new Natura 2000 sitesled to confusion related to the protection status (i.e., overlapamong national, EU, and IUCN statuses) of existing and new pro-tected areas (Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2004; Maiorano et al., 2007).Moreover, the local communities included in the Natura 2000 siteswere informed about their incorporation only after the PAs werecreated, which led to new social tensions (Paavola et al., 2009;Rauschmayer et al., 2009).
The overarching goal of this study is to evaluate the efficacy ofthe Romanian PAs network in conserving biodiversity followingthe recent spatial expansion of the Natura 2000 network. Specifi-cally, the research objectives are: (1) to document the representa-tion of the natural regions (ecoregions) in the pre- and post-Natura2000 PA system; (2) to analyze the overlap between the newly cre-ated PAs and the distributions of plant and animal species of Euro-pean-level conservation concern; (3) to quantify the financial,
human, logistic, and institutional resources available for PA man-agement; and (4) to evaluate the outcomes of management activ-ities in PAs that have functional administrations and compare theireffectiveness pre- and post-Natura 2000 expansion.
2. Methods
2.1. GIS coverage and species data
To evaluate the representation of Romania’s ecoregions(Vadineanu et al., 1992) in the PAs network, we used a spatiallyexplicit approach (Oldfield et al., 2004). Our analysis relied on aseries of GIS coverage readily available for download from variousdata repositories. The PAs boundaries, ecoregions (Romania’snatural regions), Romania’s national boundary, and populationdensity (100 � 100 m grid) in 2008 were downloaded from theMinistry of Environment website (http://www.mmediu.ro, accessedAugust 2009). The elevation distribution of the PAs (ranging from0 to 2544 m above sea level) was analyzed using the digital topo-graphic data (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, v4), a 90 m-reso-lution raster dataset.
We used ArcGIS 9.2 (Environmental Systems Research Institute,Redlands, CA) and PASW Statistics 18 (SPSS Inc.) for all the analy-ses. We confined our analysis to only the PAs overlappingRomania’s terrestrial ecoregions by explicitly excluding any overlapwith the marine national territorial waters (i.e., the Black Sea). Inaddition, because many PAs fell in more than one category of pro-tection, for our analyses we considered the highest protection levelonly; Natura 2000 SCIs and SPAs had the highest priority, followedby the National PAs (NPA) level statuses pre-Natura 2000 (i.e.,National and Natural Parks).
We quantified the representation of the species of Europeanconservation concern in the pre- and post-Natura 2000 PA systemusing a non-spatial approach. We used the species lists from thescientific documentation required for establishing each PA(http://www.mmediu.ro, accessed August 2009) to identify thespecies that were included in at least one existing or new PA. Theselists include all species occurrences documented in a PA, regardlessof their abundance and endangerment status.
2.2. Financial and administrative aspects
We gathered data on the financial resources allocated to Roma-nian PAs between 2005 and 2008 by submitting questionnaires tothe administrations of National Parks (n = 13), Natural Parks(n = 10), and the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. We requestedinformation regarding: (1) financial resources, (2) staff, (3) logis-tics, and (4) known threats to biodiversity. The available financialdata fall within the recurrent management costs category only(i.e., wages, travel costs, overhead, and small-scale investmentsin infrastructure and equipment), because other costs, such asacquisition or opportunity costs, were not available for all pro-tected areas in our study. To compare the monetary resources allo-cated to Romanian PAs to other similar studies worldwide, weaccounted for the purchasing power differences between yearsby transforming the current costs to the international dollar ($)using purchasing-power-parity exchange rates (Balmford et al.,2003; IMF, 2008).
The staff data summarized the PA administration structure in2008: number of employees, educational background, and positionwithin the administration. To evaluate the logistics available forlaw enforcement, the questionnaire required information on thepresence/absence of the administrative headquarters and numberof vehicles used for monitoring activities and enforcement (i.e.,cars and boats).
Further, we investigated the overall efficacy of the managementprocess by quantifying: (1) the financial shortfalls faced by PAswith functional administrations by comparing their available re-sources to those estimated at the European and global level forthe proper operation of PAs networks and (2) the managementeffectiveness by weighing the level of threats, the cost of monitor-ing, the benefits of monitoring activities, and the probability ofcatching a rule-breaker, using Walker (2009) scoring system formonitoring dilemma variables. Area of PA covered by a rangerwas defined as the ratio of the number of individuals involved inenforcement to the total area of exploitable resources (e.g., foreststands, beaches, pastures, etc.) in a particular PA. The probabilityof catching a rule-breaker depends on the number of enforcementpersonnel, resource category, and access.
3. Results
In 2009, the PAs network covered 45,991 km2 (19.29%) ofRomania, mostly in the newly created SCIs (13.81% of Romania).The conservation of biodiversity is the focus for the majority(99.85%) of the PAs (Primack et al., 2008). The post-Natura 2000PAs network includes 1323 sites: 53 scientific reserves (equivalentto IUCN category Ia), 13 National Parks (IUCN II), 227 natural mon-uments (IUCN III), 634 natural reserves (IUCN IV), 14 Natural Parks(IUCN V), 273 SCIs (Natura 2000), and 109 SPAs (Natura 2000). Ofthese, three are Biosphere Reserves (Danube Delta, Retezat Na-tional Park, and Pietrosul Rodnei), five are Ramsar sites (DanubeDelta, Small Island of Braila, Mures� Floodplain Natural Park, Tech-irghiol Lake, Dumbravit�a Fishery), and one is a UNESCO World Her-itage site (Danube Delta).
3.1. Status of the protected areas network
Of the 1323 sites, 34.53% are designated as having three differ-ent protection statuses (Fig. 1a). Thus, in many instances, manage-ment and conservation goals for one site are contradictory (SCIversus SPA, National Parks versus SCI and/or SPA). Romania’s PAsystem pre-Natura 2000 was almost entirely (96.19%) engulfedby the new SCIs and SPAs, and there is significant overlap(40.61%) between SCI and SPA (Fig. 2). Given the high degree ofoverlap between statuses, the provisions for managing the new
only SPA 11 321 sqkm24.62%(b)
only SCI14 230 sqkm30.94%(a)
SCI and SPA18 688 sqkm40.63%(c)
(SCI and SPA) and NPA15 880 sqkm34.53%(e)
only NPA1 752 sqkm3.81%(d)
a + b + c + d = PAs network; e = overlap between all PAs categories
Fig. 2. Romania’s protected areas system: overlap between various protectionstatuses.
Natura 2000 sites gained primacy over the management plans ofNPAs (Fig. 1b).
The creation of Natura 2000 sites did not address one of themain flaws of the existing PAs network: the uneven representationof Romania’s ecoregions. The Danube Delta and the Carpathiansstill benefited from the most protection (92.8% and 26–56.3% ofthe area of the ecoregions, respectively), while <10% of all the hills,plains, and plateaus ecoregions were included in PAs. However,significant increases in area covered by Natura 2000 sites occurredfor the Danube Floodplain (+26.4%), Dobrogea Plateau (+25.56%),and Transylvanian Plateau (+15.42%), which are ecoregions charac-terized by substantial abandonment of agricultural lands (Reyet al., 2007; Hartel et al., 2010) (Table 1).
The allocation of PAs by elevation follows closely the pattern ofdistribution by ecoregions. PA isolation and distance from settle-ments affect the protection status; elevations >2000 m and remoteflood-prone areas are most protected, with 89.16% (0.48% of Roma-nia) and 94.03% (1.63% of Romania) in PAs, respectively (Fig. 3).
3.2. Representation of species of European conservation concern
Overall, the Romanian post-Natura 2000 system seeks to pro-tect 562 species listed in the EU Habitats and Birds Directives.According to scientific documentation of the 273 newly createdSCIs, 518 species are protected under the Habitats Directive: mam-mals (n = 41), reptiles (n = 23), amphibians (n = 18), birds (n = 149),fish (n = 37), invertebrates (n = 164), and plants (n = 86). The 109SPAs aim at protecting 193 bird species (all bird species protectedin SCIs are also protected in SPAs). Twenty-eight new species ben-efited from the increase in protected area following the creation ofSCIs and SPAs. Most of these are plants (n = 11), invertebrates(n = 6), and birds (n = 6) (Table 2). Among the newly created SCIs,37.7% protect less than three listed species, which are also included
in other PAs. In addition, 19.7% of listed species are not included inthe post-Natura 2000 PAs network.
With respect to taxonomic group, herpetofauna benefit fromfull protection. All amphibian species and 22 of 23 reptile speciesare included in SCIs (the only species not included was the sandboa [Eryx jaculus], whose presence is uncertain in Romania).Among mammals, only three of the 41 species listed in the Habi-tats Directive are not protected: the moose (Alces alces), only acci-dentally occurring in Romania (Primack et al., 2008); the Europeanbeaver (Castor fiber), reintroduced in 1998; and the Mediterraneanmonk seal (Monachus monachus), extinct in Romania (Murariu andMunteanu, 2005). Birds also have a favorable protection status;only 25 of 193 species listed in the Birds Directive are not includedin SCIs and SPAs (Table 2). Most of these species occur only rarelyin Romania (i.e., Aegypius monachus, Eremophila alpestris), andsome are abundant (i.e., Nucifraga caryocatactes). Three listed fishspecies are not included in the SCIs: Misgurnus fossilis, Percarinademidoffi, and Stizostedion volgensis.
The representation of listed invertebrates and plants in SCIs isless optimal compared to the other groups. Sixty-seven inverte-brate species (40.9%) and 16 plant species (18.6%) are not protected
Table 2Representation of the species listed in the Habitats (Annexes II and IV) and birdsdirectives in Romanian protected areas pre- and post-Natura 2000 (the species mustbe present in at least one SCI or SPA).
in SCIs (Table 2). Of the excluded plant species, three are presumedextinct in Romania, and among the remaining species, Centaurearuthenica is critically endangered (Sârbu, 2007).
3.3. Resources available for managing the protected areas network
3.3.1. Financial resourcesIn 2008, public investments in the pre-Natura 2000 PA system
totaled 0.006% of Romania’s GDP ($13.7 million), which yieldedan average investment in PAs of $817/km2/year. In spite of differ-ent protection statuses, as well as different management prioritiesof National and Natural Parks (i.e., conservation and research ver-sus conservation and sustainable use of local resources), these twocategories of PAs receive the same amount of funding overall(Mann–Whitney U = 60, p = 0.53) (Table 3). The average costs perunit area decreased with park area (q = �0.41, p = 0.04) but werenot correlated with local population density (q = �0.26, p = 0.22).
Only six relatively small National Parks (3.92% of the Nationaland Natural Parks’ total area) received funds above the EuropeanUnion average. All parks in the Western Carpathians – BanatMountains ecoregion are under-funded (Cheile Nerei-Beus�nit�a Na-tional Park, Semenic-Cheile Caras�ului National Park, Domogled-Va-lea Cernei National Park, Iron Gates Natural Park). The DanubeDelta alone uses 40% of all conservation resources invested inRomania, but given its considerable size, the allocated resourcesare still below the EU average (Table 3).
The majority of the public funds invested in PAs are associatedwith direct personnel costs (i.e., wages). In 15 National and NaturalParks these costs add up to >50% of the annual expenses. In con-trast, investments in research and education comprise only a smallfraction of the budgets allotted to each PA (an average of 2.2% and6.3%, respectively).
Starting with 2004, the self-financed state company RomanianNational Forest Administration (Romsilva) assumed managementof the majority of National and Natural Parks (85.5%). In 2009,two Natural Parks (Lower Prut Floodplain Natural Park, Mehedint�iPlateau Natural Park) did not have administrations. T�ara Hat�egului
Table 3Staff and financial resources available for the 24 Romanian PAs with functional administrative bodies pre- and post-Natura 2000 (N2K = Natura 2000).
Protected area Area (km2) Available funds($/km2)
Area of PA covered by a ranger (km2) Probability ofcatching a rule-breaker
Geopark is administrated by the University of Bucharest, and theDanube Delta is managed by the Romanian Ministry ofEnvironment.
3.3.2. Enforcement and monitoringThe average size of the staff employed in PA administration,
management, and enforcement is seven individuals/100 km2
(range = 1–24). Of these, an average of two individuals/100 km2
(range = 0.04–10) were responsible for law enforcement. Thus,each enforcement person was responsible for controlling an aver-age of 28.66 km2 (range = 2.61–124.04) (Table 3). Natural Parksand the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve had significantly higherarea-to-enforcement personnel ratios compared to the NationalParks (50.59 ± 35.14 km2 per individual versus 10.1 ± 6.49 km2
respectively, Mann–Whitney U = 7, p < 0.001). The enlargement ofthe PAs network post-Natura 2000 will potentially decreaseenforcement activities in the 24 National and Natural Parks, giventhat the available funds and personnel will not change; one indi-vidual will now be responsible for controlling an average of32.33 km2 (range = 2.61–124.04) (Table 3). Moreover, the logisticsavailable for enforcement were already scarce, averaging only 1.21vehicles/100 km2 (range = 0.09–4.78).
In terms of the education and training of personnel, only 11% ofthe individuals involved in administration and enforcement hadsome conservation background, such as courses in environmentalscience, biology, ecology, or practical conservation experience.However, almost half of the staff (48.9%, mostly park rangers)had forestry training.
The efficiency of enforcement expressed as the probability ofcatching a rule-breaker (Table 3) was independent of PA type(Kruskal–Wallis: v2
4 = 6.12, p = 0.19) or size (Kruskal–Wallis:v2
4 = 6.28, p = 0.18). Some PAs, such as the Vânatori-Neamt� NaturalPark, had a high probability of successful enforcement, while inothers, such as Bucegi and Iron Gates Natural Parks, enforcementwas less likely to yield positive outcomes. Overall, successful lawenforcement was unlikely on 65.28% of the protected lands, whileonly 12.14% of the total area may benefit from adequate lawimplementation.
The management strategy in all study PAs was based on a top-down approach (carrot-and-stick types; Walker, 2009), and wasindependent of PA category (Mann–Whitney U = 39, p = 0.58),and size (Mann–Whitney U = 47, p = 1).
4. Discussion
4.1. Are Natura 2000 sites conserving biodiversity?
The vision of the Natura 2000 network as a social rather thanecological network limits its potential for conserving biodiversity(Maiorano et al., 2007), especially in Eastern European countries(Young et al., 2007; Bladt et al., 2009). Habitat disturbance, overex-ploitation, poaching, pollution, invasive species, disease, sub-opti-mal PAs design, and lack of enforcement of conservationregulations all plague Romanian conservation (Primack et al.,2008). These threats to biodiversity could only be addressed bydesigning a PAs network that confers long-term protection to alarge number of species and habitats while making efficient useof the available resources (Wilson et al., 2009a).
The massive expansion of Romania’s PAs network by the addi-tion of new Natura 2000 sites (from 7.14% of Romania in protectedlands in 2005 to 19.29% in 2009) radically changed the way theconservation of biodiversity was put into practice. Only a few eco-regions, such as the Danube Floodplain, the Dobrogea Plateau, andthe Transylvanian Plateau gained extensive protection. New PAswere designed primarily in ecoregions that already benefited fromextensive protection but that generally included industrial forestrylands that were logged intensively (mostly through clearcutting);these areas therefore likely have a diminished conservation value(Strîmbu et al., 2005). The Western Carpathians – Banat Mountainsecoregion has the second largest percentage of PAs (after the Dan-ube Delta), and the PAs protect unique species and habitats such asthe Banat black pine forests and subcontinental peripannonic scrub(Patroescu et al., 2007). The new Natura 2000 sites did not includethe less protected ecoregions, such as hills (3.95% increase in areafrom 2005 to 2009) and plains (3.89% increase). However, theseecoregions shelter species (e.g., Mustela lutreola, Testudo hermanni,
Vipera ursinii rakosiensis, Pulsatilla pratensis hungarica) and habitats(e.g., Xeric sand calcareous grasslands, Ponto-Sarmatic steppes,Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands) of high conservation concernand are also under high anthropogenic pressure (Schmitt and Ra-kosy, 2007; Kuemmerle et al., 2009). Despite the substantial in-crease in protected lands, the number of protected speciesincreased only by 5%, which further calls into question the ecolog-ical and conservation basis for declaring the new PAs. The under-representation of plants and invertebrates in SCIs is likely anartifact of the knowledge gaps regarding their current distributions(Sârbu, 2007; Schmitt and Rakosy, 2007). Similar to other Easternand Central EU countries, the distributions of threatened andendangered species, as well as the extent and intensity of threatsto them, are not well known (Primack et al., 2008; Martin-Lopezet al., 2009).
The European Union considers the current Natura 2000 networkto be incomplete and promotes the addition of new sites (Anonymous,2009). The planning process for new SCIs and SPAs is conducted byeach EU country using the principle of subsidiarity (Rauschmayeret al., 2009) and following country-specific methodologies (Paavolaet al., 2009). Moreover, the Central and Eastern European countrieslagged behind their Western counterparts, mainly due to anundeveloped institutional conservation framework and lack offunding (Papp and Tóth, 2007; Cogalniceanu and Cogalniceanu,2010). As a result of the 20–60% representativity rule, the exhaus-tive list of species and habitats of European conservation concernrequiring protection, as well as the extremely short duration ofthe PA enlargement process, the resulting PAs network completelylacked any form of spatial conservation prioritization (Margulesand Pressey, 2000; Primack et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2009a).The most common strategy for creating Natura 2000 sites was tore-use large existing PAs (IUCN categories II and V and DanubeDelta Biosphere Reserve) and to expand smaller PAs (IUCN categoriesI, III and IV). One notable exception is the Southern Transylvanianrural landscape, where entirely new PAs were created (Hartel et al.,2010).
Given the already scarce resources allocated for conservation inRomania and the lack of awareness about biodiversity conserva-tion, the extended PAs network is likely to generate unwanted eco-nomic effects and social tensions rather than advance conservation(Sutherland et al., 2009). Designing PAs in areas that would other-wise generate revenue (i.e., through timber harvesting, exploita-tion of mineral resources, etc.) or potentially be developed willaccentuate the perpetual dilemma of balancing economic growthand the environment and calls into question the rationale for con-servation, especially in cases where law enforcement capacity isreduced (Young et al., 2007; Walker, 2009; Lu et al., 2007). More-over, several newly created PAs included private lands, thus poten-tially infringing on private property rights. In these areas, neitherthe public nor the private stakeholders were involved in settingthe conservation objectives, and no alternative strategies for main-taining the economic value of the land were provided (Pierce et al.,2005), leading to a view of PAs as a nuisance rather than a benefit(Paavola et al., 2009; Rauschmayer et al., 2009).
4.2. The capacity of the protected areas system to function as a self-sustaining entity
Public funding for the Romanian PAs is below the Europeanaverage of $1941/km2/year (James et al., 2001), which is similarto many developing countries (Mansourian and Dudley, 2008).There was a negative correlation between PA area and cost per unitarea, which is similar to the global trend (Balmford et al., 2003),but our analysis did not yield a correlation of such costs with thelocal population density.
Financial resources for conservation are generally scarce (Kaposet al., 2008), and many PAs worldwide are not receiving any fundsto implement management actions (James et al., 2001). Moreover,the global deficit for funding PAs in developing countries was esti-mated at $1.3 billion per year in 2004 (Bruner et al., 2004). An effi-cient Natura 2000 network requires $12,356/km2/year (Stolon,2008). For Romania, this translates into an extra $910 million peryear (0.34% of the 2009 estimated GDP). In comparison, the Minis-try of Environment was allocated 0.29% of the GDP in 2009, ofwhich only a small fraction (1.72%) was directed towardsconservation.
The majority of Romanian PAs neither benefit from constantfunding from public funds (the exceptions are the 24 Nationaland Natural Parks and the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve) norare financially self-sustaining. Instead, the PAs rely mainly oninfrequent and limited funding from private sources (i.e., grants,donations). Perhaps the most important source of funding for con-servation in the past decade (besides public funds) was EU’s LIFENature program. From 1999 to 2006, Romanian LIFE Nature pro-jects totaled 7.8 million EUR, which represents only a small frac-tion (0.54%) of the total LIFE Nature program budget. This levelof funding is common for Central and Eastern EU countries, whichwere awarded 56.4 million EUR (8.86% of the total budget), com-pared to 580.8 million EUR in developed EU countries for the sameperiod (COWI, 2009).
For the 24 publicly funded PAs, the level of funding does notcorrespond to the existing threats, and the various budget catego-ries are strongly imbalanced towards personnel costs. Despite this,the average size of the staff employed in PA administration, man-agement, and enforcement was well below the European averageof 41 individuals/100 km2, or the global average of 27 individu-als/100 km2 (James et al., 1999). The personnel generally lack con-servation-related training as well as overall field experience. Insome large PAs, some locations are never visited, and the responseto violations of conservation regulations is either delayed or non-existent, given the limited personnel and logistical resources(Oszlanyi et al., 2004). This leads to a potentially poor implemen-tation of management objectives, such as monitoring or inventory,as well as weak law enforcement (Walker, 2009). For example, themajority of monitoring resources in the Danube Delta BiosphereReserve, which uses 40% of all conservation funds in Romania,are spent on reducing poaching and controlling illegal fishingactivities (Gâs�tescu and S�tiuca, 2006). Moreover, enforcement incases of poaching, unregulated development, or overgrazing is inmany cases unsatisfactory, while being associated with many‘‘gray areas” in current legislation. Exploitation of various re-sources within the SCIs and SPAs is contingent upon a relativelybrief environmental impact assessment study (Keulartz, 2009),which could potentially lead to conflicts between economic activ-ities and PA management for biodiversity.
Ninety-five percent of the pre-Natura 2000 PAs had eitheradministration structures (the triad Administration, ScientificCouncil, and Consultative Council for each Biosphere Reserve, Na-tional and Natural Park), or custodians (mostly environmentalNGOs and local governments for natural reserves and natural mon-uments). The Romanian post-Natura 2000 PA network will under-go significant management changes: (a) the SCIs and SPAsoverlapping with National and Natural Parks and the DanubeDelta Biosphere Reserve will be managed by the already existingadministrative bodies; (b) new administrative bodies will becreated to manage large new Natura 2000 sites that do not overlapwith existing PAs; and (c) custodians (i.e., local governments,non-governmental organizations, private businesses) will be respon-sible for the management of all remaining PAs, although they arenot legally required to allocate personnel for enforcement andimplementation of conservation objectives. The total protected
area actively managed by administrative bodies will increase by18% (�3000 km2) (Table 3). The majority of pre-Natura 2000 PAswill maintain their original boundaries, but some noteworthyincreases in protected area, of up to four times, will also occur(i.e., Calimani and Macin National Parks).
5. Conclusions
Overall, the efficacy of Romania’s PAs network seems to havedecreased following the creation of the Natura 2000 sites. At thetime the Natura 2000 sites were created, the existing PAs networkwas still in its infancy, and the scarce resources for conservationwere not evenly allocated among PAs. The sudden increase in pro-tected lands, combined with little knowledge on species and hab-itat areal distributions, poor communication of conservation goalsto the public, and financial issues, did not significantly improve theconservation status of species and habitats of European concern.Moreover, the personnel and logistical issues faced by existingadministrative bodies contribute to an overall lack of enforcementand implementation of conservation goals in most extant PAs andnew Natura 2000 sites. A thorough reassessment of the representa-tion of listed habitats and species in the PAs must be undertaken,accompanied by the re-evaluation of the most viable protectionstatus of PAs when multiple statuses are in place (i.e., SCI or SPAversus National or Natural Park).
Furthermore, Romania’s conservation concerns and the impactsthat the Natura 2000 had on the extant PAs network are not singu-lar among the European countries (Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2004;Apostolopoulou and Pantis, 2009; Rauschmayer et al., 2009). A bet-ter approach would be to promote policies that facilitate the prior-itization of Natura 2000 sites based on the land use history andregional endangerment status of the species and habitats. In thiscontext, trans-border PAs could provide a viable alternative to pro-tecting European biodiversity at the regional level.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Richard Primack for supporting theideas that formed the basis of this manuscript, Rachel Morrisonand Iulia Patroescu-Klotz for proofreading, and three anonymousreviewers for their valuable comments.
References
Anonymous, 2009. Natura 2000 Barometer – Update November 2009. In: Natura2000 European Commission Nature and Biodiversity Newsletter, vol. 27, pp. 8–9.
Apostolopoulou, E., Pantis, J.D., 2009. Conceptual gaps in the national strategy forthe implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece.Biological Conservation 142, 221–237.
Balmford, A., Gaston, K.J., Blyth, S., James, A., Kapos, V., 2003. Global variation interrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservationneeds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 100, 1046–1050.
Bladt, J., Strange, N., Abildtrup, J., Svenning, J.C., Skov, F., 2009. Conservationefficiency of geopolitical coordination in the EU. Journal for NatureConservation 17, 72–86.
Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Balmford, A., 2004. Financial costs and shortfalls ofmanaging and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries.Bioscience 54, 1119–1126.
Cabeza, M., Moilanen, A., 2006. Replacement cost: a practical measure of site valuefor cost-effective reserve planning. Biological Conservation 132, 336–342.
Cogalniceanu, D., Cogalniceanu, G.C., 2010. An enlarged European Union challengespriority settings in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 19, 1471–1483.
COWI, 2009. Ex-Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities under the LIFEProgramme. Final Report. Directorate General Environment. Unit E.4. LIFE.
Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Memtsas, D., Troumbis, A.Y., 2004. Questioning theeffectiveness of the Natura 2000 special areas of conservation strategy: thecase of Crete. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13, 199–207.
Fontaine, B., Bouchet, P., Van Achterberg, K., Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A., Araujo, R.,Asche, M., Aspöck, U., Audiso, P., Aukema, B., Bailly, N., Balsamo, M., Bank, R.A.,Barnard, P., Belfiore, C., Bogdanowicz, W., Bongers, T., Boxshall, G., Burckhardt,
D., Camicas, J.-L., Chylarecki, P., Crucitti, P., Deharveng, L., Dubois, A., Enghoff, H.,Faubel, A., Fochetti, R., Gargominy, O., Gibson, D., Gibson, R., López, M.S.G.,Goujet, D., Harvey, M.S., Heller, K.-G., Van Helsdingen, P., Hoch, H., De Jong, H.,De Jong, Y., Karsholt, O., Los, W., Lundqvist, L., Magowski, W., Manconi, R.,Martens, J., Massard, J.A., Massard-Geimer, G., Mcinnes, S.J., Mendes, L.F., Mey,E., Michelsen, V., Minelli, A., Nielsen, C., Nafría, J.M.N., Van Nieukerken, E.J.,Noyes, J., Pape, T., Pohl, H., De Prins, W., Ramos, M., Ricci, C., Roselaar, C., Rota, E.,Schmidt-Rhaesa, A., Segers, H., Strassen, R.Z., Szeptycki, A., Thibaud, J.-M.,Thomas, A., Timm, T., Van Tol, J., Vervoort, W., Willmann, R., 2007. The EuropeanUnion’s 2010 target: putting rare species in focus. Biological Conservation 139,167–185.
Gâs�tescu, P., S�tiuca, R. (Eds.), 2006. Delta Dunarii. Rezervat�ie a Biosferei. EdituraDobrogea, Constant�a.
Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.E., Nagy, A., Cantu-Salazar, L., Johnson, M., 2008. Protectedareas in Europe – principle and practice. Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences 1134, 97–119.
Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A., Miller, C., Marinoni, O., 2008. Targeting conservationpayments to achieve multiple outcomes. Biological Conservation 141, 2368–2375.
Hartel, T., Schweiger, O., Öllerer, K., Cogalniceanu, D., Arntzen, J.W., 2010.Amphibian distribution in a traditionally managed rural landscape of EasternEurope: probing the effect of landscape composition. Biological Conservation143, 1118–1124.
Hess, G.R., Koch, F.H., Rubino, M.J., Eschelbach, K.A., Drew, C.A., Favreau, J.M., 2006.Comparing the potential effectiveness of conservation planning approaches incentral North Carolina, USA. Biological Conservation 128, 358–368.
IMF, 2008. International Monetary Fund – International Financial Statistics.International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
James, A., Gaston, K.J., Balmford, A., 2001. Can we afford to conserve biodiversity?BioScience 51, 43–52.
James, A.N., Green, M.J.B., Paine, J.R., 1999. A Global Review of Protected AreaBudgets and Staff. WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Kapos, V., Balmford, A., Aveling, R., Bubb, P., Carey, P., Entwistle, A., Hopkins, J.,Mulliken, T., Safford, R., Stattersfield, A., Walpole, M., Manica, A., 2008.Calibrating conservation: new tools for measuring success. ConservationLetters 1, 155–164.
Keulartz, J., 2009. European nature conservation and restoration policy – problemsand perspectives. Restoration Ecology 17, 446–450.
Kuemmerle, T., Muller, D., Griffiths, P., Rusu, M., 2009. Land use change in SouthernRomania after the collapse of socialism. Regional Environmental Change 9, 1–12.
Lu, H.F., Campbell, D., Chen, J., Qin, P., Ren, H., 2007. Conservation and economicviability of nature reserves: an emergy evaluation of the Yancheng BiosphereReserve. Biological Conservation 139, 415–438.
Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A., Garton, E.O., Boitani, L., 2007. Contribution of the Natura 2000network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology 21, 1433–1444.
Mansourian, S., Dudley, N., 2008. Public Funds to Protected Areas. WWFInternational, Gland, Switzerland.
Martin-Lopez, B., Montes, C., Ramirez, L., Benayas, J., 2009. What drives policydecision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation 142,1370–1380.
Mauerhofer, V., 2010. Missing links: how individuals can contribute to reservepolicy enforcement on the example of the European Union. Biodiversity andConservation 19, 601–618.
Moilanen, A., 2008. Generalized complementarity and mapping of the concepts ofsystematic conservation planning. Conservation Biology 22, 1655–1658.
Moore, J., Balmford, A., Allnutt, T., Burgess, N., 2004. Integrating costs intoconservation planning across Africa. Biological Conservation 117, 343–350.
Murariu, D., Munteanu, D., 2005. Fauna României: Carnivora. Editura AcademieiRomâne, Bucures�ti.
Oldfield, T.E.E., Smith, R.J., Harrop, S.R., Leader-Williams, N., 2004. A gap analysis ofterrestrial protected areas in England and its implications for conservationpolicy. Biological Conservation 120, 303–309.
Oszlanyi, J., Grodzinska, K., Badea, O., Shparyk, Y., 2004. Nature conservation inCentral and Eastern Europe with a special emphasis on the CarpathianMountains. Environmental Pollution 130, 127–134.
Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., Kluvánková-Oravská, T., 2009. Interplay of actors, scales,frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. EnvironmentalPolicy and Governance 19, 148–158.
Papp, D., Tóth, C., 2007. Natura 2000 Site Designation Process with a Special Focuson the Biogeographic Seminars, second ed. CEEWEB Office, Budapest. p. 36.
Patroescu, M., Chincea, I., Rozylowicz, L., Sorescu, C. (Eds.), 2007. Banat Black PineForests – Natura 2000 Site. Editura Brumar, Timis�oara.
Pierce, S.M., Cowling, R.M., Knight, A.T., Lombard, A.T., Rouget, M., Wolf, T., 2005.Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning:interpretation for implementation. Biological Conservation 125, 441–458.
Pullin, A.S., Baldi, A., Can, O.E., Dieterich, M., Kati, V., Livoreil, B., Lovei, G., Mihok, B.,Nevin, O., Selva, N., Sousa-Pinto, I., 2009. Conservation focus on Europe: majorconservation policy issues that need to be informed by conservation science.Conservation Biology 23, 818–824.
Rauschmayer, F., van den Hove, S., Koetz, T., 2009. Participation in EU biodiversitygovernance: how far beyond rhetoric? Environment and Planning C –Government and Policy 27, 42–58.
Rey, V., Groza, O., Ianos�, I., Patroescu, M., 2007. Atlas de la Roumanie. Reclus,Montpelier, Paris.
Sârbu, A. (Ed.), 2007. Arii speciale pentru protect�ia s�i conservarea plantelor înRomania. Victor B. Victor, Bucures�ti.
Schmitt, T., Rakosy, L., 2007. Changes of traditional agrarian landscapes and theirconservation implications: a case study of butterflies in Romania. Diversity andDistributions 13, 855–862.
Silva, C.N., 2009. Protected areas and regional development in Europe: towards anew model for the 21st century. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En SocialeGeografie 100, 129–131.
Steck, C.E., Pautasso, M., 2008. Human population, grasshopper and plant speciesrichness in European countries. Acta Oecologica – International Journal ofEcology 34, 303–310.
Stolon, S. (Ed.), 2008. Assessment of Management Effectiveness in EuropeanProtected Areas. Sharing Experiences and Promoting Good Management.Bundesant für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany.
Strange, N., Thorsen, B.J., Bladt, J., 2006. Optimal reserve selection in a dynamicworld. Biological Conservation 131, 33–41.
Strîmbu, B.M., Hickey, G.M., Strîmbu, V.G., 2005. Forest conditions and managementunder rapid legislation change in Romania. Forestry Chronicle 81, 350–358.
Sutherland, W.J., Adams, W.M., Aronson, R.B., Aveling, R., Blackburn, T.M., Broad, S.,Ceballos, G., Côté, I.M., Cowling, R.M., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Dinerstein, E., Ferraro,
P.J., Fleishman, E., Gascon, C., Hunter Jr., M., Hutton, J., Kareiva, P., Kuria, A.,MacDonald, D.W., MacKinnon, K., Madgwick, F.J., Mascia, M.B., McNeely, J.,Milner-Gulland, E.J., Moon, S., Morley, C.G., Nelson, S., Osborn, D., Pai, M.,Parsons, E.C.M., Peck, L.S., Possingham, H., Prior, S.V., Pullin, A.S., Rands, M.R.W.,Ranganathan, J., Redford, K.H., Rodriguez, J.P., Seymour, F., Sobel, J., Sodhi, N.S.,Stott, A., Vance-Borland, K., Watkinson, A.R., 2009. One hundred questions ofimportance to the conservation of global biological diversity. ConservationBiology 23, 557–567.
Vadineanu, A., Oltean, M., Gâs�tescu, P., Vîjdea, V., Coldea, G., Munteanu, I., Manoleli,D., Donit�a, N., 1992. The concept of ecological zonation and the identification ofecoregions of Romania. Mediul Înconjurator 3, 3–6.
Walker, K.L., 2009. Protected-area monitoring dilemmas: a new tool to assesssuccess. Conservation Biology 23, 1294–1303.
Wilson, K.A., Cabeza, M., Klein, C.J., 2009a. Fundamental concepts of spatialconservation prioritization. In: Moilanen, A., Wilson, K.A., Possingham, H.P.(Eds.), Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods andComputational Tools. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 16–27.
Wilson, K.A., Carwardine, J., Possingham, H.P., 2009b. Setting conservationpriorities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162, 237–264.
Young, J., Richards, C., Fischer, A., Halada, L., Kull, T., Kuzniar, A., Tartes, U., Uzunov,Y., Watt, A., 2007. Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and humanactivities in the Central and Eastern European countries. Ambio 36, 545–550.
![PARTENERIienerefugeehub.eu/uploads/network/newsletter1/147-iene_8... · 2019. 1. 26. · {/u }P ]](https://static.documente.net/doc/80x56/60eb5b2798710f5e5b7318f1/par-2019-1-26-u-p-.jpg)
![PREZOS - santiagoturismo · - dincolo de nisipuri / mÁis alÁ das areas [1975] - felix si otilia / felix e otilia [1972] - hotel de lux [1992] - independenta romÂniei / a guerra](https://static.documente.net/doc/80x56/5e2e930b8fdbd5512d184e27/prezos-dincolo-de-nisipuri-mis-al-das-areas-1975-felix-si-otilia-.jpg)
