Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania

Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania This document was developed under the project “Demonstrating and promoting natural values in support of decision-making processes in Romania - Nature4Decision-Making-N4D”, project financed by a grant from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (EEA 2009 - 2014) within the RO02 Program - Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, for which the Ministry of Environment is a Program Operator.

National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), project promoter, contributed to chapters 1, 3 ,4, 5: Roxana Mihaela STOIAN – project manager; Elena GIUREA – assistant manager; Roxana MIHAI - biodiversity expert coordinator; Silvia ENE – biodiversity expert; Laurențiu APOSTOL – biodiversity expert; Andreea BOGDAN – biodiversity expert; Ileana MATEI, Georgiana PÂRLAC – communication officers.

Romanian Space Agency (ROSA), partner in the N4D project, contributed to chapters 1, 3, 4, 5: Florian BODESCU – project manager; Marius-Ioan PISO – scientific coordinator; Alexandru BADEA – GIS and RS expert; Ion NEDELCU – DSS expert; Cristian MOISE – GIS and RS expert; Viorel IONESCU – ecology expert; Violeta Domnica POENARU – GIS and RS expert; Viorel MANCIU – statistics expert; Sandru Ioana VLAD – GIS and RS expert; Mihaela COMĂNESCU – biology expert; Roxana ION – biology expert; Iulia Florentina PAUCA – GIS and RS expert; Iulia MIU – assistant manager; Denisa BADIU – geograf specialist; Liliana BALTASIU – biology expert; Vlad Gabriel OLTEANU – GIS and RS expert; Cosmin NISTOR – IT expert; Florin SOARE – IT expert; Alexandru BOBE – IT expert; Irina MANCIU - statitics expert; Catalin FLORESCU – GIS and RS expert; Alina RĂDUȚU - GIS and RS expert.

WWF România, partner in the N4D project, contributed to chapters 1, 2, 5, 6: Monia MARTINI – project manager, Corina GHEORGHIU – project specialist green economy, Andrei MOARCAS – public policy specialist, Raluca DAN – public policy manager, Diana COASMOIU - regional coordinator public policy, Camelia IONESCU – freshwater manager, Cristina MUNTEANU – project manager freshwater projects, Radu MELU – senior forests specialist, Julio TRESIERRA – international technical expert.

The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), partner in the N4D project, contributed to chapters 1, 3, 5: Graciela RUSCH; Evind ARONSEN; Monica RUANO.

Scientifc Group (in alphabetic order) contributed to validation and testing of the methodology and evaluation results: Valeria ABAZA, Dan BĂLTEANU, Daniel DIACONU, Monica DUMITRAȘCU, Vladimir GANCZ, Petre GÂȘTESCU, Iuliana Florentina GHEORGHE, Cristian IOJA, Minodora MANU, Teodor MARUȘCA, Răzvan MATEESCU, Mircea MIHALACHE, Mirela Mădălina MOLDOVEANU, Marilena ONETE, Oliviu Grigore POP, Cristina RADNEA, Diana SILAGHI, Gabriel - Ovidiu VÂNĂU, Ruxandra VINTILĂ, Ana VÎRSTA

Only by integrating nature into public decisions at all levels can be ensured the upholding of biodiversity and, along with it, the long-term human well-being.

For more information project-related, please visit the N4D project website: maesromania.anpm.ro and for more information about EEA grants visit www.eeagrants.org, www.eeagrants.ro and www.eeagrantsmediu.ro.

Table of Contents

4 References Appendix 1-Thefunctionalzoning systemofRomanian forests 6. Glossary 5. Conclusions 4. DecisionSupportSystem 3.9. Summaryofresults 3.8. 3.7. Monetaryvalue assessmentmethods 3.6. Valuation ofecosystemservices 3.5. Assessmentresults 3.4. Assessmentofecosystemsandecosystemservices 3.3. Mappingresults 3.2. Mappingofecosystemservices 3.1. Mappingofecosystems 3. Methodologiesunderpinningscientificwork making towards aSustainableGreenEconomy 2.4. Recommendations forpolicyanddecision 2.3. Results ofthepolicyassessment:analysisandconclusions 2.2. AssessmentofRomanian sectoral policies 2.1. Policy analysismethodology 2. Selectionofecosystemsandecosystemservices 1.2. Background 1.1. Objectives of theReport 1. Introduction from Romanian forestusingreportednationalstatistics Economic v

aluation ofecosystemservices

190 187 184 180 172 171 149 145 138 134 134 130 70 49 48 46 40 13 9 8 4 4 2

EEA Grants 2009-2014 1 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Chapter 1 Introduction

2 1 the since adopt, to an opportunity beginning, the Romania, in process later the the Given of 2014. start by territory national their in services their and assistance of the Commission, to the map with States, and Member requires assess Strategy Biodiversity the the of state 5 of Action ecosystems framework altogether constitute theconceptual which raising, awareness communication/ and policy, capacitybuilding about science, is In fact,MAES Ecosystems andtheirServices. and Assessing that goesbeyonditstitle is acomplexprocess of Mapping MAES for decision-making). the Nature with – N4D (shortly Romania” 2015 in decision-making support March to natural values promoting in and “Demonstrating process project the MAES of implementation the launched services. their has and ecosystems Romania of state good achieve to step first a (MAES) Services Ecosystems andtheir The processof Mapping andAssessing natural systems. of functioning the on impact great with action human in sustainability to the point where we have finally admitted that we have been ignoring The complexity of today’s environmental problems has amplified was taken based on the following considerations: a policy analysis is a is analysis policy a considerations: following the on based taken was (Figure no.1). eeomn. f eesr, tkhles cpct t ue AS nweg nes o be built. to needs knowledge MAES use to capacity stakeholders’ necessary, If development. sustainable of context the in Economy Green Sustainable a stakeholders. achieve and loss biodiversity to relevant becommunicated avoid to order in policies public improve to to importance the on raised be must Awareness needs information scientific and mapped assessed, are services their resources and natural ecosystems with Once dealing management. policies environmental and public into integrated be to need services their and ecosystems on information scientific Governance, Ecosystems Good achieve to that The Figure 1.MAESconceptualframeworkunderpinning conceptual framework used for the MAES process in Romania is based on the fact the on based is Romania in process MAES the for used framework conceptual 1 used for the implementation of the N4D project the implementationofN4Dproject. ewe te or MAES four the between integrated approach

promoted by the European Commission is considered

pillars

EEA Grants 2009-2014 3 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania necessary complement to the scientific assessment of ecosystems and their services to be able to improve decision and policy making, using MAES process results in order to achieve Good Ecosystems Governance and sustainable development; also, awareness raising and capacity building of relevant institutions take time and are fundamental for the successful uptake of scientific information into decision and policy making since it is not possible to manage what it is not known. Assessing the economic value of all ecosystems services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level is to be done by 2020, so a follow up of the N4D project is also a necessity and a logical step towards achieving good state of ecosystems and their services and consequently human well-being.

1.1. Objectives of the Report The purpose of this report is to inform EU and Romanian Government and other stakeholders (scientific institutions, civil society) about the implementation of the MAES process in Romania, the results of the implementation and recommendations. This report is mainly addressed to national policy and decision makers as well as government administrations and institutions responsible for implementing national policies. It is primarily intended for the Ministry of Environment (MoE), responsible for the MAES process, and the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), with delegated responsibilities for implementing the MAES process at national level. Scientific circles including national research institutes, universities as well as independent experts also constitute a primary audience due to the strong link between scientific research and policy elaboration. This report is also relevant for civil society organizations active in the environmental and development fields on issues such as improvement of public policies, protected area management, natural resources management, sustainable production and consumption, etc. Finally, the European Commission is interested in Member State’s experience and progress towards implementation of the MAES process and thus, the report will be shared with their representatives.

1.2. Background The problem of biodiversity loss has been recognized globally along with the fact that adequate indicators are needed to address the global challenges of the 21st century such as climate change, poverty, resource depletion, health and quality of life, and last but not least, the consequent mounting migration phenomena of “political- 4 environmentally (resource) displaced people”. Economic indicators such as GDP were never designed to be comprehensive measures of prosperity and well-being. In 2007, the European Commission (EC), European Parliament, Club of Rome, OECD and WWF hosted the high-level conference “Beyond GDP” with the objectives to clarify which indices are most appropriate to measure progress, and how these can best be integrated into the decision-making process and taken up by public debate. In August 2009, the EC released the Communication “GDP and beyond: Measuring progress in a changing world” providing a roadmap made of five key actions to be undertaken in the near term: • Complementing GDP with highly aggregated environmental and social indicators • Near real-time information for decision-making • More accurate reporting on distribution and inequalities • Developing a European Sustainable Development Scoreboard • Extending National Accounts to environmental and social issues.2

2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/beyond_gdp/background_en.html biodiversity are avoided. being and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of appropriately restored for their intrinsic value and essential contribution to human well- and the ecosystem services it provides – its natural capital – are protected, valued and the society andnotonlythethought-to-be targetedeconomicactivity. in aclearway communicate which are not covered inclusion, by social GDP.and sustainability On environmentalthe other account hand, into such measures taking can level, be used society to at to politicians by used be can they hand, one the On twofold. least at is policy-making in GDP beyond go that measures of role The On March 2010 the EC adopted its adopted EC the 2010 March On Footprint-HDI findings growth, merely on than ratherwhich does not well-being necessarily mean well-being. and Sustainability policies that economics apply Ecological sustainable on debate the quantitative and tracking benchmarks science-based Indeed, contribute to focus and environmental endof2013, protection expenditures. the and services at goods environmental flow, adopted energy physical regulation, included asecond while account, flow material and environmentallyemissions, air modules: taxesthree related contains 2011, in adopted regulation, first A production. indicator for basis sound a provide to issues social and living and income The on conditions. statistics EU wide-ranging its developed has system statistical European the while exclusion” social or poverty of aggregate risk at an “people measuring indicator using followed now In is available. eradication now poverty are towards well-being progress particular, and life of quality on information objective provide On decisions. policy toinform the accurate sufficiently indicators environmental key of of issue the on Agency Environmental European the and Eurostat by made been also has Progress tested. and developed being are consumption EU of indices on environmental pressures at EU level and on the global environmental impacts over the last 3-5 years in the development of made been has progress that shows actions beyond” and “GDP on report EC 2013 The 6 5 4 3 the EUbiodiversity strategy to2020asexplained in Figureno.2 below. process their Services) contribution to averting global biodiversity loss, and a in the EU by2020, restore them in sofar as feasible, while stepping up the EU a includes Target - it Diversity, Biological on Convention international the at EU the by taken commitments the with line in also and March) 26 and 15 of conclusions Council Resulting from two commitments made by European leaders in 2010 (the Environmental 2020. by EU the in services ecosystem biodiversityand of loss the halt to aim the with the least, not but Last nuly h stain n h bss f st f niaos hwn oeal progress overall showing employment, productivity andsocialcohesion. indicators of of levels set high delivering economy a inclusive and green smart, of of objective the towards basis the on situation the annually

• • • and social side, indicators and indices as well as a solid basis to basis solid a as well as indices and indicators side, social quality oflifeand eeoig etrlvl clgcl otrn assmns o eue h gap the reduce economy withplanetaryboundaries. to assessments Footprint human the align to designed solutions awarenessbetween of implementation and Ecological sector-level Developing decision-making; Promoting the incorporation of the risk of global ecological overshoot into economic specific policyprescriptions; sector- into Footprintdiagnoses Ecological transforming in actors public Engaging http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/policy/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/index_en.htm Idem Idem To halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services system ofnationalaccounts can help achieve Sustainable DevelopmentGoals, can helpachieveSustainable including: was adopted on May 2011 May on adopted was EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 6 3 The coordinated by the EC falls under Target no.2 – Action no.5 of MAES (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and and Assessment MAES (Mapping that a given policy may affect many other elements of elements other many affect may policy given a that Europe 2020 strategy environmental indicators : two summary better monitor evaluate progress and 5

s en etne t environmental to extended being is 2050 Vision

and engaged to monitor to engaged and “early estimates” - 4 Our biodiversity better 2020

EEA Grants 2009-2014 5 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 2. Importance of Action 5 in relation to other supporting Actions under Target 2 and to other Targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (European Commision, 2013)

The scientific work under the MAES process focuses on assessing ecosystems capacity to provide ecosystems services that benefits individuals and the society in general. The European and national assessments are based on the definition and quantification of indicators representative of ecosystems functions responsible for the provision of ecosystems services. A further step in the MAES process is ecosystems valuation and the establishment of National Accounts for Ecosystems Services.

6 EEA Grants 2009-2014 7 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Chapter 2 Selection of ecosystems and ecosystem services

8 purpose A 2.1. Policyanalysismethodology and 4specificcriteriaexplainedinTable no. 1below. assessment The policy has beencarriedoutagainst achieving aSustainableGreenEconomy. recommendations transition Green Economy,andsuggest towards aSustainable 1 3 2 2 3 1 No. policies tothetransitiontowardsSustainableGreenEconomy Table 1.CriteriausedtoassessthecontributionofRomanian has been carried out under the N4D project with the with project N4D the under out carried been has policy analysis Assessment (NEA)as Ecosystem Approach National Ecosystems a resultoftheMAES General criteria–Areusedtodeterminetheeconomicparadigm instruments beyond Level ofintegration coordination aimed Biological Diversity Sustainable Green Economy Strategy Integration ofthe of theEcosystem according tothe Green Economy implementation integration and Convention on at Sustainable to assess whether current public policies stimulate public the current to whether assess Existence ofa Specific criteria–Areappliedtoeachpolicysectordealing Use ofpolicy Existence of Institutional Approach greening Criteria process underpinning developmentinRomania with naturalresourcesmanagement o mrv cret oiis n h drcin of direction the in policies current improve to eie te dpin f Ntoa Sustainable National a of adoption Development Strategy the Besides and torespectplanetaryboundaries. risks environmental avoid to principles the by inspired are Instead growth. of stimulation are the from innovation decoupled technological and efficiency Resources participation. Stakeholders management; based Knowledge use; and conservation between Balance timescales; management; of Adaptive Respect harmonization; global to Local capacity; adverse and functions ecosystem’s Management of limits the within functioning; and through structure ecosystem distortions of conservation Resilience, etc.; market Economic incentives, and subsidies ecosystems; to other on sensitivity impact adjacent of Consideration management; decentralized Subsidiarity, needs; and benefits of Equity respected: are activities, human and ecosystems of management sustainable 12 that is The Governance Ecosystem ecosystem. Good the reflecting of principles part as recognized is Man and demonstrating aparadigm shiftingapproach. Goals Development Sustainable the of achievement the (Sustainable Green Economy Strategy) exists to support economy inclusive and fair green, a of principles the on o anan csses n ter evcs beyond services Approach. their and conceptual and operational integration of the Ecosystem ecosystems maintain to design measures implement to spent are Ideally,funds used inthepolicycycle. available for decision and policy making and it is actually The MAES process has been finalized so that a full NEA is Interface. PolicyScience a - through linked society civil and circles includes and scientific authorities, place public from in stakeholders relevant is Economy Green a Sustainable of implementation the for and process MAES the for system governance Economy particular, a In sense. Green this in exist Sustainable a as Strategy. well Specific procedures and institutional structures as SDGs the implement to institutions public and ministries different the among action integrated and coordination is There Description 7 , a green economy strategy based 3 general criteria

EEA Grants 2009-2014 9 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania No. Criteria Description Specific criteria – Are applied to each policy sector dealing with natural resources management Use of MAES indicators MAES knowledge is used to improve EU reporting for EU reporting and obligations as well as to inform decision and policy 4 decision-making as making along with indicators beyond GDP such as well as Beyond GDP Ecological Footprint, Biocapacity, Global Green Economy indicators Index8.

Of all the relevant policies identified for the MAES process in Romania, the policy assessment has covered the following sectors: Water, Marine, Forestry, Biodiversity, Climate Change – Mitigation, Energy, Fisheries and aquaculture, Agriculture and Rural Development, Transport, Regional Development, Territorial Planning. In the next stage of MAES process implementation and follow-up to the N4D project, policies related to Air, Soil, Climate Change – Adaptation, Sustainable Development, and Tourism should also be assessed. Due to time and capacity constraints sectoral policies have been assessed at strategic level including national strategies and programs, action plans, environmental reports. Nevertheless, framework ordonnances have been analyzed for the agriculture sector, and the main law is analyzed for the forest sector since Romania does not have a forest strategy. The policy documents analyzed for each sector are listed in Table no.2 below.

Table 2. Policy documents analyzed for MAES relevant sectors (WWF-Romania, 2015)

Policy sector Analyzed policy document Water National River Basin Management Plan 2015-2021 National Strategy Monitoring Program for the marine environment 2014-2020 Marine Article 12 - Technical Assessment of the MSFD 2012 obligations: reports for the Regional Seas - Black Sea European Strategy for the forest sector Forestry Forest Code National Rural Development Program 2014-2020 (forest related objectives and measures) National Strategy Biodiversity Action Plan for biodiversity conservation 2014-2020 (11.12.2013) Climate National Strategy for Romania on Climate Change 2013-2020 (Part I – Reduction of GHG Change – emissions and growth of the natural capacity of absorption of CO2 from the atmoshpere) Mitigation and National Action Plan 2016-2020 on Climate Change (Chp. 1-3) (12.2015) 10 Adaptation National Strategy for the fishery sector 2014-2020 Fisheries and National Multi-Annual Strategic Plan for aquaculture 2014-2020 aquaculture Operational Program for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs 2014-2020

7 Chapter 8 of Agenda 21 (The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) calls on countries to adopt national strategies for sustainable development (NSDS) that should build upon and harmonize the various sectoral economic, social and environmental policies and plans that are operating in the country. This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets have been agreed upon in 2015 by Member States signing the Declaration (adopted with resolution A/RES/70/1 - Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development), and demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda, which builds on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld 8 The Global Green Economy Index (GGEI) is published by consultancy Dual Citizen LLC since 2010 and is now at its 5th edition (2016). It measures the green economic performance and perceptions of it in 80 countries and 50 cities along four main dimensions of leadership & climate change, efficiency sectors, markets & investment and the environment. http://dualcitizeninc.com/global-green-economy-index/ Consequently, the transition toaSustainable GreenEconomy. regarding policies public of matrix assessment overallso-called the summarizes below and compliance (that is implementation) whether sectoral policy policies sectoral are actually ensure implemented). to Tableallocated is no. 3 budget proper and place in are regulations whether is (that enforcement their not Economy,but Green Sustainable a underpinning criteria all cover policies sectoral whether is that of sectoral policies, Economy or instead sustain a grey economy referred to as Business relevance As Usual, regulations? Economy? Is budget allocated to implement the of aimed at sectoral Sustainable policies Green What regulations are in placetoensure implementation POLICY ENFORCEMENT Usual? Green Economy or grey economy that is Business As Do sectoral policies cover the issue of Sustainable POLICY RELEVANCE Policy sector Development Development Agriculture Territorial and Rural Transport Regional Planning Energy public policesregardingthetransitiontoSustainableGreenEconomy ta i wehr etrl oiis oe te su o Ssanbe Green Sustainable of issue the cover policies sectoral whether is that , Environmental Report fortheRegional Operational Program 2014-2020 Regional Operational Program 2014-2020 Environmental Permit (Aviz) no. 10938/Dec.2012 2011- 2020 updated 2007-2020, Romania of Strategy Energy the for Report Environmental Energy Strategy ofRomania 2007-2020,updated2011-2020 Environmental Report fortheGeneral MasterPlanforTransport ofRomania term (revisedfinal version) long and mid short, the in TransportRomania for of Plan Master General the on Report climate, Measure11–OrganicAgriculture) National Rural Development Program 2014 - 2020 (Measure 10 - Agro-environment and Partnership Agreement2014-2020 The CMEFoftheCAP2014-2020,PublicationsOffice EU, 2015 NO.363 din26mai2015) eco-conditionality of approvalnorms within the support schemes and on measures for 352/2015 farms in no. Romania MARD/MMAP/ANSVSA(MONITORUL OFICIAL Order firms Joint agriculture on no. 36/1991 Monitoring Official no. the in 191/23.03.2015) Law (published agriculture of in association of 2 forms other Art. and modifying and 2015-2020, during Urgency Ordinance no. 3/18.03.2015 on the approval of payment schemes in agriculture CAP the of Overview reform 2014-2020 - EC 2013, December no.5, Brief Perspectives Policy Agriculture Environmental Report fortheTerritorial Development Strategy ofRomania territorial competitiveness, development andequalopportunitiesforpeople” and Coheision 2035: Romania “Policentric Romania of StrategyTerritorial Development overall conclusions Table 3.OverallassessmentmatrixofRomanian ae en drawn been have Analyzed policydocument reason(s) whye.g.lackofawareness Economy actually implemented? Yes/No and Are sectoral policies aimed at Sustainable Green POLICY COMPLIANCE a SustainableGreenEconomy? Do sectoral cover policies all criteria underpinning POLICY SCOPE concerning the policy concerning

and scope 11 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania During the assessment of sectoral policies special attention has been given to the implementation of Good Ecosystems Governance together with the associated MAES process with the following specific objectives: 1. To assess the level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach into public policies for the period 2014-2020 and provide recommendations for the next programming period; 2. To prioritize ecosystems and propose9 those to be assessed quantitatively10 by April 2017, end of the N4D project, leaving to project follow-up the completion of a full National Ecosystems Assessment; 3. To identify the type of knowledge that MAES can provide, including to improve national reporting obligations towards the EU; 4. To identify relevant actors for establishing a Policy-Science Interface, and consequently to promote a governance system for the MAES process able to support the transition to a Sustainable Green Economy.

Comparing the level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach into public policies with the list of selected ecosystems for the MAES process by April 2017 before the end of the N4D project, it is possible to identify the existing gap between policy design and policy implementation. The opportunity lies in the possibility to improve policy design at the next evaluation phase of the respective policy cycle in order to achieve Good Ecosystem Governance and thus good ecosystem status at implementation level. Table no. 4 below summarizes the next evaluation cycle of the analyzed policies, which generally coincides with the programming period of EU funding (currently 2014-2020):

9 Under the policy pillar of the MAES process, ecosystems prioritization is based on information currently reported by Romania under the Habitats Directive and the State Of the Environment Report as well as on the level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach into public policies. Policy-oriented ecosystems prioritization is meant to identify policy domains that urgently need improvement in decision and policy making if Sustainable Development and a Sustainable Green Economy are to be achieved based on Good Ecosystems Governance. Results and actions will have to be further calibrated following the biophysical assessment of ecosystems, which will provide a prioritization of ecosystems based on a reality check of their status and their capacity to deliver ecosystems services. Also, the quantitative assessment of ecosystems and their functions is done under the scientific pillar of the MAES process based on data availability. 10 In scientific research, accounting for both the social sciences and the natural sciences, there are two main types of research analysis: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative research is used in social science to help draw conclusions about a topic and relies heavily on observation and inferences, rather than attempting to directly quantify data. Quantitative research, on the other hand, is usually relied upon in the natural sciences — and at times in the social sciences — to directly measure research results, often assigning exacts measurements. Between these two extremes is semi-quantitative analysis, which assigns approximate measurements to data, rather than an exact measurement. Often used in cases where a direct measurement is not possible, but inference is unacceptable, semi-quantitative analysis has many applications in both the natural and social sciences. http://www.wisegeek.com Policy sector Mitigation and Development Development Fisheries and aquaculture Biodiversity Agriculture Adaptation Territorial and Rural Change – Transport Regional Planning Forestry Climate Energy Marine Water 2020 and in2017willgothroughaStrategic Environmental Assessment. 2020 or maybe later recommendations since a new sector,Energy Strategy has been elaborated transport at the end of 2016 air the this datewillhave tobeconfirmedbasedonfurtheranalysis,market researches,etc. as such volatility concerning planning and investments are high limited to 2020, and recommendations beyond with sectors For or earlier. 2025 in example for Plan the updating by confirmed be haveto will horizon this beyond Transport. for Plan Master General the Taking of implementation into consideration the for the level horizon of the uncertainty is of 2030 long-term forecasts, recommendations plans. evaluation and indicators evaluation,ex-ante included has NRDP the of elaboration The ex-post2024. evaluationthe in and 2019 2017, due is version consolidated Report;the Implementation Annual the prepares and finalized, and funding of for selected indicators measures about data relevant with EC the presents Authority Monitoring the which CMEF,on the based implement to obliged is State NRDP,Member the each Concerning on theimplementationofdirectpayments andmarket measures. Throughout the programming period Member States send notifications to the Commission A morecompleteassessmentoftheimpactCAPisexpectedb evaluation oftheCAP2014-2020 willfocusonpolicyimplementationandfirstresults. In 2018 the first report to the European Parliament and to the Council on monitoring and xps assmn, n te rcdr assig h trioil mat f strategies, of impact programs andpolicieswithaterritorialprofileelaborated territorial by central authorities. the assessing procedure the and assessment, ex-post on the National Territorial Development Strategy implementation due 2035 including the will be included in the periodic Strategy Territorialreport Development National on the of the assessment implementation and monitoring of of the Results Stratey, the final report implementation oftheStrategy. the on report periodic the of conclusions the on based years 3 every approved; updated be and will it elaborated be should Plan Implementation the Strategy, Development Within 6 months from the publication of the legislation approving the National Territorial Evaluation cycleofMAESrelevantpolicies(onlyfortheanalyzedpolicies) 2027: Thirdmanagementcycle ends,finaldeadlineformeetingobjectives 2021: Secondmanagementcycle ends 2015: Mid-term deadline to meet environmental objectives, First management cycle ends codn t At 1 () f h Mrn Srtg, h bsln sau o ecosystems, of cycle startingin2018. status baseline the Strategy, Marine next the years, 6 every the updated be must measures and Program Monitoring objectives, of (2) 15 Art. to According implementation tostartin2016. in July 2014. The Program of Measures was supposed to be elaborated elaborated until 2015 was and its objectives strategic of update periodic and assessment ongoing the for The baseline status of marine ecosystems was assessed in 2012. The Monitoring Program 2020 achieving for 2020 deadlines established no are there objectives strategy forest national a Without half of2015andduring2020 2020 – Strategy revision and updated of strategic objectives is recommended in the first Table 4.EvaluationcycleofMAESrelevantpolicies y 2021. 13 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania 2.2. Assessment of Romanian sectoral policies Romanian ecosystems and human pressures In terms of ecosystems classification, the Romanian MAES process uses the methodology agreed at European level and reproduced in Table no. 5.

Table 5. MAES typologies of ecosystems (European Commision, 2013)

ECOSYSTEM TIPOLOGY Representation of habitats (functional dimension by Representation of land cover LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 EUNIS11/MSFD for marine (spatial dimension) (MAES) (MAES) ecosystems) Urban, industrial, commercial and transport Constructed, industrial and URBAN areas, urban green areas, mines, dump and other artificial habitats construction sites WOODLAND Woodland, forest and other Forests. AND FOREST wooded land Regularly or recently cultiva- CROPLAND ted agricultural, horticultural Annual and permanent crops and domestic habitats TERRES Grasslands and land domi- TRIAL GRASSLAND nated by forbs, mosses or Pastures and (semi-) natural grasslands lichens SAND DU- Sand dunes , scrub and tun- Moors, sand dunes and sclerophyllous vege- NES AND dra (vegetation dominated by tation SHRUB shrubs or dwarf shrubs) SPARSELY OR Unvegetated or sparsely ve- Open spaces with little or no vegetation UNVEGETATED getated habitats (naturally (bare rocks, glaciers and beaches, dunes and LAND unvegetated areas included) sand plains WETLANDS Mires, bogs and fens Inland wetlands (marshes and peatbogs)

FRESH RIVERS AND Inland surface waters Water courses and bodies incl. coastal lakes WATER LAKES (freshwater ecosystems) (without permanent connection to the sea)

Pelagic habitats: Low/reduced Coastal wetlands: Saltmarshes, salines and salinity water (of lagoons); intertidal flats Lagoons: Highly restricted Variable salinity water (of connection to open sea, reduced, often re- coastal wetlands, estuaries latively stable, salinity regime Estuaries and MARINE IN- and other transitional waters); other transitional waters: Link rivers to open LETS AND Marine salinity water (of other sea, variable, highly dynamic salinity regi- TRANSITIONAL inlets). me. All WFD transitional waters included sea WATERS Benthic habitats: Littoral rock lochs, marine salinity regime Embayments: and biogenic reef; Littoral Non-glacial origin, typically shallow, marine sediment; Shallow sublitto- salinity system. Pelagic habitats in this type MARINE ral rock and biogenic reef; include the photic zone, benthic habitats can 14 Shallow sublittoral sediment include it or not Pelagic habitats: Coastal wa- Coastal, shallow-depth marine systems that ters. experience significant land-based influences. These systems undergo diurnal fluctuations Benthic habitats: Littoral rock in temperature, salinity and turbidity, and COASTAL and biogenic reef Littoral sedi- are subject to wave disturbance. Depth is up ment; Shallow sublittoral rock to 50-70 meters. Pelagic habitats in this type and biogenic reef; Shallow include the photic zone, benthic habitats can sublittoral sediment include it or not

For analytical purposes, it is important to say that the concept of “natural habitat” as defined in the Habitats Directive is largely similar to the ecosystem concept and refers to “terrestrial or aquatic areas distinguished by fully natural or semi-natural

11 http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp?expand=#level_A 13 12 and EUNIS habitat classification system). at habitat, Palearctic habitat, CORINE used habitat, Emerald 2000, (Natura level systems European the classification main the in equivalents have which of many systems, Doniţ steppe forest cavehabitats.”– underground habitats, and steppe habitats, wetland and bog peat brush, subterranean and meadow and forest, terrestrial aquatic, the of characteristic environment. These are aquatic – are marine, coastal and fresh levelwater habitats, terrestrial – national the at geographical, abiotic and biotic features. Natural and semi-natural habitats encountered for the MAES process is the Common International Classification of Ecosystem of Services – Classification International Common the is process MAES the for level For into thescientificwork. different the between ecosystems correlation an matrix that suits the MAES purpose,allows for use of policy analysis results have a to order made in habitats Romanian has of systems project classification N4D the under out have been accepted inRomania. In 2005-2006, in theirpaper on “Romanian Habitats”, Table 6.OverviewofhumanpressuresandimpactsonRomanianecosystems Table no.6 below. in provided are sector policy each for Details changes. climate and growth, emissions degradation and fragmentation, depletion of natural resources, Green House Gas (GHG) of types following usechanges, land extractions, the in result which management, waste improper and mine invasivespecies, of introduction aquaculture, and fisheries intensive activities, are building of grey infrastructure, urban development, intensive agriculture and forest The sparsely orunvegetated land(0.01%). urban (0.12%), (11.09%), shrubs (0.16%), ecosystems wetlands (2.95%), lakes and coastal rivers (5.09%), ecosystems and marine (12.97%), ecosystems forest grasslands by followed (28.28%), (35.12%) surface the of most occupying ecosystems agricultural with Romania in ecosystems of types 9 identified has process MAES The Soil

sector Policy csse srie classification, the services ecosystem main pressures caused by human activities Romanianecosystems upon by human caused main pressures a Idem CBD FifthNationalR et al. have tried to establish the similarities between these different classification

CICES version4.3 Soil Natural source Re : pollution, habitat pollution, impact ontheenvironmentandecosystems: ALL (MAES Level eport -Romania (Englishversion), 2014 Ecosystem Typology 2) . restry the linkwithagricultureandfo from thereportisincludedgiven assessed inthepolicyanalysis,info Although thispolicysectorisnot Agriculture andforestwaste activities (Sectoral policy analysis &StateoftheEnvironment National Report2013/2014) Pressures fromhuman 12 13 Several systems of habitat type classification type Severalhabitat of systems

The fact that the scientific work carried methodology at European agreed

Soil pollution the EnvironmentNational policy analysis&Stateof from pressures(Sectoral Type ofimpactresulting Report 2013/2014)

15 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Type of impact resulting Ecosystem Pressures from human Natural from pressures (Sectoral Policy Typology activities (Sectoral policy analy- Re policy analysis & State of sector (MAES Level sis & State of the Environment source the Environment National 2) National Report 2013/2014) Report 2013/2014) Human settlements; industry (industrial and urban water treatment stations; facilities for iron and steel production as well as production of ferrous and nonferrous metals; production of organic/inorganic chemical substances; oil and gas refineries; opencast mining and Diffuse and point-source Rivers quarrying - ballast and sand pollution; Water Water and lakes extraction; production of cellulose hydromorphological changes from timber, paper and cardboard); Wetlands of the water body agriculture; fisheries and aquaculture; forest exploitations; accidental pollution sources; hydromorphological pressures (dams, derivations, regularizations, damming, shore defenses) due to hydropower, navigation or structural measures for flood protection Physical damage and loss – habitats destruction, coastal Commercial and leisure fishing; erosion; changes in thermal Marine inlets aquaculture; agriculture; nautical regime; water pollution from and transitional activities; extraction; deposits of contamination with dange- Marine waters substances from the atmosphere; rous substances; depletion Coastal thermal stations; marine traffic; of natural resources – urban expansion biological disturbances caused by the introduction of nutrients and organic matter Uncontrolled exploitation of wood- mass and illegal logging, especially Habitats fragmentation; soil Woodland and in forests recentrly returned to erosion or landslides; floo- Forestry forest original owners and not currently ding; micro-climate modifi- managed; wood industry; land use cations change Degradation, destruction and fragmentation of habitats and implicitely decline in natural populations; the extensive modification, sometimes above the critical threshold, of the structural configuration of watersheds Land conversion aimed at develop- and water courses, ment of urban, industrial, agricultu- associated with significant re, touristic or Transport and ener- reductions in the resilience gy infrastructure; development and of aquatic ecosystems versus 16 expansion of human settlements; pressures from human acti- Biodiversity ALL hydraulic works; over-exploitation vities; the excessive simpli- of natural resources (forest mana- fication of the structure and gement, grazing, illegal hunting, multifunctional capacity of exploitation of non-renewable ecosystems; destructuration resources); introduction of invasi- and reduced productivity of ve species biodiversity components in agriculture (increased vulnerability of the Romanian territory in front of geomorphological, hydrological and climate hazards as a result); pollution and nutrient loading tion and Adapta Mitigation Change – Climate Transport ment Develop- and Rural Agriculture aquaculture Fisheries and sector Policy

- Fish Natural source Re ALL ALL Grassland Cropland Coastal and lakes Rivers (MAES Level Ecosystem Typology 2)

consumption, improperdeposit) waste management(increasing use inotherindustrialprocesses), fossil sources-fuelsandtheir traffic), energy(productionfrom transport, intensificationofairplane sion, useofroadsasmainway of breeding), transport (urbanexpan chemical inputs,intensive animal illegal logging,mechanization, Agriculture (landusechange, activities (Sectoral policy analy- ding existingones new transport corridorsorexten Land usechangeaimedat building forest windbreaks rested areasandofdevelopment of activities, lackofexpansionaffo used), abandonmentofagricultural arable landorgrasslands intensely land usechange(grasslands into (mechanization, chemicalinputs), Intensification ofagriculture sis &StateoftheEnvironment National Report2013/2014) Pressures fromhuman

- - - - soluriagricole45,38%,fer sectorul agricultura (15.3%) 18.3%, emisiifugitive 9.6; structii 18.7%,transporturi tria prelucratoare sidecon energetica 39.4%,indus energie (69,23%)-industria umane/antropice (sectorul ta aintensificariactivitatilor cresterea GEScaoconsecin physical disturbances Biological, ecological,and cies offlora andfauna status ofhabitatsandspe impact ontheconservation mortality duetoaccidents; cies offlora orfauna;fauna lation density ofcertainspe bitats; changesinthepopu Loss orfragmentation ofha lack offorestwindbreaks change phenomenaduetoa ced manifestationofclimate the afforestation;pronoun gradation intheabsenceof animals and manure; soil de- nagement ofthenumber ons duetoinadequatema and increasingGHGemissi eutrophication ofwetlands, source pollutionofwater, constraints; riskofpoint in areasaffected by natural landscapes status,especially servation, soilquality, and effects onbiodiversity con abandonment hasnegative ral andforest land;land productivity ofagricultu as welltolowernatural ks frompestsanddiseases can leadtoincreasingattac Changing climaticconditions (4.93%)) vation 0,09%;waste sector the field0,60%,riceculti of agricultural residuesin nagement 9,89%,burning tion 44,04%,manurema 45,38%, entericfermenta re sector(15.3%)-soils emissions 9.6;agricultu transport 18.3%, fugitive struction industry18.7%, manufacturing andcon – energyindustry39.4% (energy sector(69,23%) intensified humanactivities increase inGHGbecauseof (4.93%)) 0,09%; sectoruldeseuri 0,60%, cultivarea orezului câmp areziduuriloragricole de grajd 9,89%,ardereaîn managementul gunoiului menta the EnvironmentNational policy analysis&Stateof from pressures(Sectoral Type ofimpactresulting Report 2013/2014) ţ ia enterică44,04%, ------17 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Type of impact resulting Ecosystem Pressures from human Natural from pressures (Sectoral Policy Typology activities (Sectoral policy analy- Re policy analysis & State of sector (MAES Level sis & State of the Environment source the Environment National 2) National Report 2013/2014) Report 2013/2014) Soil and air pollution from GHG emissions with impact on human health and biodiversity; hydromorphological changes of river ecosystems and GHG emissions from energy ba- reduced water debit for local sed on fossil fuels; construction of communities resulting from hydropower facilities; construction hydropower; birds’ mortality Energy ALL of wind power facilities interfering due to wind power; with birds’ migration routes; bio- invasive species resulting mass energy from plantations; con- from energy plantations struction of photovoltaic facilities affecting biodiversity; land use competition between biomass energy, agriculture and forests; land use competition between photovoltaic energy and agriculture Inadequate air quality and climate change; inadequate quantity and quality of water resources; Industrial activities, transport, pollution of soil and Regional De- agriculture, tourism, constructions, the environment in general; ALL velopment infrastructure for heating as well as deterioration of the natural water and waste management and built capital - loss and fragmentation of habitats and over-exploitation of resources; damage of human health

The level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach into Romanian policies In order to assess the level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach into Romanian policies designed for the period 2014-2020 and identified for the MAES process in Romania, an analytical framework has been developed and used under the N4D project; it combines the approach developed under the OPERAs project14 with the so-called Malawi Principles promoted by the Convention on Biological Diversity15 (Figure no. 3).

14 http://www.operas-project.eu 15 https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml services andnatural capitalintodifferentpolicyareas: of ecosystem of integration levels different three identifies project Briefly, OPERAs the • • • Figure 3.TemplatetoassesstheintegrationofEcosystemApproach of concrete policy tools and instruments that take up and implement the concepts availability the on based assessed is it implementation; policy practical in capital mlmnain integration Implementation integration Operational integration Conceptual objectives forsectoral policies is assessed based on the key strategic policy documents setting out the scope and natural capital into the overall premises and objectives of different policy areas; it to protectorinvest inecosystemsservices). measures and instruments of range a using (e.g. situations making decision and policy actual in ground the on integration achieve easures m concrete where i.e. into Romanianpolicies - refers to the uptake of ecosystem services and natural rfr t te nerto o eoytm evcs and services ecosystem of integration the to refers - - refers to the final stage of the integration process,

19 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania The policy analysis focuses on assessing conceptual and operational integration (Table no. 7).

Table 7. OPERAs report, Deliverable D 3.3, 2015

LEVEL OF CONCEPTUAL OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION Explicit recognition of all ecosystem services, Dedicated instruments exist for addressing Explicit and including the recognition of ecosystem services ecosystem services and natural capital in a comprehensive and natural capital as underpinning elements of comprehensive manner within a policy area. human wellbeing. Some explicit integration (e.g. some specific Some instruments exist that proactively Explicit but not ecosystem services), including some recognition address / build on the understanding of comprehensive of ecosystem services and natural capital as ecosystem services and natural capital within underpinning elements of human wellbeing. the policy area. No dedicated instruments exist for directly addressing ecosystem services and natural Implicit and indirect integration, generally focus Implicit and capital. Some aspects – mainly focusing on preventing negative impacts of a policy sector comprehensive on avoiding negative impacts on (some) on ecosystem services and natural capital. ecosystem services - integrated into sectoral instruments. No instruments exist that would in any way Without specific No recognition (direct / indirect) of ecosystem address ecosystem services and natural integration services and natural capital. capital.

Table no. 8 below shows the level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach according to the OPERAs project classification:

Table 8. Level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach into Romanian sectoral policies according to OPERAs project classification

Ecosys- Na- tem Ty- Policy tural pology Conceptual Integration Operational Integration sector Reso- (MAES urce Level 2) The financial instruments in place to cover the ne- The Water Framework Directive (WFD) does eds of the NRBMP and its Program of Measures are not explicitely mention the word “ecosystem linked to the use of financial allocations under the services”. However, the main objective of Operational Program for large infrastructure (Pro- the WFD is to secure good water quality and gramul Operational Infrastructura Mare) as well s quantity, which are important ecosystem to the application of the contributions system for services provided by freshwater ecosystems. the use of water as a resource from a quantitative At national level, neither the National River and qualitative point of view. Basins Management Plan (NRBMP) explicitely The contributions system includes payments, boni- mention the word “ecosystem services”. fications (“bonificaţii”) and penalties, and is part of The water resource is managed based on the business model of the National Administration standards including chemical, physical-che- Romanian Waters (Administrația Naţionala Apele mical and biological parameters that partly Române) having the objective to secure the provi- cover structural aspects of aquatic ecosys- sion of the water resource both quantitatively and tems but the functioning of the latter from qualitatively (Art.9 of the Water Directive). On one which depends the provision of ecosystem end, the underlining principles for the quantitative services, is not explicitely analized. The management are: cost recovery, polluter pays, maintenance of ecosystem services is only equal access to water resources, rational use of 20 Rivers indirectly supported by aiming to secure water resources. On the other end, the underlining Water Water and lakes good water quality and quantity, and not principles for the qualitative management are: Wetlands directly by implementing good ecosystem cautiousness and prevention, cost recovery, pollu- management. Likewise, aiming to prevent ter pays. negative impacts on water ecosystems by The system of contributions is about water admi- water users helps to protect water related nistrative and infrastructure services; consequ- ecosystem services but a sustainable ma- ently, only indirectly it recognizes the ecosystem nagement of human activities is not directly service of water provision. foreseen. Methods for the definition and assessment of water As a matter of fact, the environmental cost ecosystem services are lacking as well as the legal included in the cost of water services (admi- framework for their applicability. nistrative and infrastructure services for the The intervention logic of the WFD is not properly water sewage system and the supply of wa- transposed into Romanian water policy and there ter to users) is defined as the cost of pollu- are serious doubts on the method used for assess- tion (the cost of the environmental damage ing the ecological status of rivers: in the First NRB- produced as a result of loss or degradation of MP almost 3% of national rivers were assessed as water ecosystems due to pressures produced having “high ecological status” (139 water bodies) by a water user) as well as the cost of pre- while the Second NRBMP proposes their downgrad- venting environmental quality degradation. ing to “good ecological status” with only 1 water No beneficiary pays principle is applied. body being proposed with “very good ecological status”. sity Biodiver Forestry Marine sector Policy - Reso- tural urce Na- ALL rest and fo Woodland Coastal waters sitional and tran inlets Marine Level 2) tem Ty Ecosys- pology (MAES - - - and Innovation. National Strategy forResearch, Development gration oftheEcosystems Approachinthe feasibility studiesandbusinessplans;inte biodiversity values incost-benefit analysisfor plementation ofmethodologies thatconsider of ecosystemservices;elaboration andim mic valuation ofbiodiversity componentsand . among theactions:assessment andecono s e i viduals andsociety isdirectlymentioned c e p s the delivery ofecosystemservicestoindi e v The factthatbiodiversity isfundamentalfor i s a procedures tothesesectors. v n i applying environmental impactassessment g n i road transport onthenatural environment; l l o policy sectors;reducingtheimpactof r t n grating biodiversity conservation into these o c sectors, operational objectives include:inte ; s e ploitation ofnon-renewable natural resources i c e ment ofthetransport, energyandex p s In ordertoensuretheintegrated manage d l i w vourable conservation statusofprotected protected areasnetworkaswellthefa the efficientmanagementofnational tives. Thelatterincludealso:securing are includedamongthestrategic objec resulting fromuseofgeneticresources nents andequitableaccesstobenefits Sustainable useofbiodiversity compo support sustainabledevelopment. chnology forbiodiversity conservation to methods andpractices as wellasgreente into sectoral policies;promoting innovatory tems; integrating biodiversity conservation diversity lossandrestoringdegraded ecosys biodiversity conservation aimat:haltingbio The NationalStrategy andActionPlanfor Art. 11Par. 7(e),Art.15Par. 5(c). tem servicesarementionedinArt.6Par. 4, cessing ofwood.Furthermore,forestecosys community development basedonlocalpro about superiorvalorification ofwoodand the population;Art.60Par. 5(a)(b)speaks ks aboutsecuringfirewood availability for somehow mentioned:Art.60Par. 5(d)spea tribution offoreststohumanwell-beingis the processingofforestresources, and toachievingeconomicbenefitsfrom ting negative impactsoftheforestrysector hot spots.Althoughthefocusis mapping andsecuringofforestbiodiversity management aswelltheidentification, tions theimplementationofacertifiedforest Instead, thereisaForestry Codethatmen and itlooksrather like awishlist. horizon 2013-2022isnotofficiallyadopeted sures anddeadlines.Theexistingdraft with for theforestrysectorwithobjectives, mea Romania doesnothave anationalstrategy well-being. even thoughthereisnoreferencetohuman is consideredexplicitbutnotcomprehensive pacts, integration oftheEcosystemApproach Strategy isnotonpreventing negative im Given thatthefocusofNationalMarine ed under(i)by 2016atthelatest. The implementationoftheActionPlandefin Ecological Statusby 2015atthelatest;(ii) re theachievement ormaintenanceofGood elaboration ofanActionPlanmeanttoensu The MonitoringProgram includes:(i)The legislation inplace. update ofobjectives inaccordancewiththe for thecontinuousassessmentandperiodical and implementationofamonitoringprogram indicators; (iv)By15July2014,elaboration blishment ofenvironmental objectives and of marinewaters; (iii)By15July2012,esta 2012, assessmentofGoodEcologicalStatus activities onsuchwaters; (ii)By15July and oftheenvironmental impactofhuman ment ofecologicalstatusmarinewaters tives: (i)By15July2012,baselineassess The ActionPlanincludesthefollowingobjec habitat anditsfunctions. descriptors includingontheintegrity ofthe marine environment by 2020,defined by 11 to achieve theGoodEcologicalStateof The goaloftheNationalMarineStrategy is Conceptual Integration on preven thecon ------tem innotyet inplace. and T2).However, afunctionalcompensationsys functions ofnationalinterest(forestcathegoriesT1 tions ontheexploitationofforestswithprotection compensations forforestusersthatrespectrestric management restrictionforNatura 2000sites;and pensations forforestandlandusersthatrespect be usedfor:protectedareasmanagement;com Agriculture andRural Development (FEADR)should from theStatebudgetandEuropeanFundfor The biodiversity ActionPlanforeseethatfunding forest ecosystems. to have apositive impactonthemaintenanceof (“masura pentruprimaimpadurire”),both intended diu”) aswellforafirstafforestationmeasure mental-forestry measure(“masura desilvo-me gram 2014-2020provides fundingforanenviron- Furthermore, theNationalRural Development Pro tation isnotofficiallyadopted. PES) althoughamethodologyfortheirimplemen ments andpayments forecosystemservices(e.g. Art. 11and15foreseecompensatorypay ecosystems. for theprotectionofmarineenvironment end Affairs (POPAM) doesnotincludespecificmeasure The Operational Program forFisheriesandMaritime no officialinformationhasbeenfoundsofar. ned was supposedtobeelaborated until2015but of themarineenvironment isachieved ormaintai Action PlantoensurethatGoodEcologicalStatus the EcosystemApproachduetofactthat For themomentthereisnospecificintegration of Operational Integration ------21 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Ecosys- Na- tem Ty- Policy tural pology Conceptual Integration Operational Integration sector Reso- (MAES urce Level 2) Green Certificates are foreseen in national legislation to encourage energy production from renewable sources (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal); however, conditions for biodiversity conservation are not included with the risk of negative impact on the adaptation potential of ecosystems to climate change. Besides, the biodiversity Action Plan foresees instruments to be developed such as: payments for ecosystem services in the context of climate change to support adaptation; national bonifications scheme for afforestation, reafforestatin and conservation of virgin forests (a need foreseen in the National Biodiversity Strategy). Furthermore, related to Objective no. 4 under the Biodiversity Chapter no. 4.9 are foreseen actions such as: taking into consideration the phenomenon of climate change in establishing payments for ecosystems services; and taking into consideration economic arguments in favor of investments in na- The National Strategy for Climate Chan- tural solutions to address climate change. Also, the ge (Part I on Mitigation) mentions the Transport Chapter, Objective no. 1 mentions the capacity of Romanian forests to seques- introduction of economic incentives (e.g. price inter carbon as well as the fact that water struments) for a system of ecological transport and ecosystems from forest habitats (e.g. floo- includes a measure to raise taxes on carbon price, Climate dplains along river sectors, lakes, swamps, car registration, parking, etc. during 2016-2022. Change peat bogs, marshes) deliver ecosystems However, the approach is not efficient nor socially – Mitiga- goods and services that are important in fair (e.g. higher costs for using private transport) if tion (and ALL forest ecology. However, no explicit re- measures to improve public transport are not im- Adapta- f e r e n c e t o h u m a n w e l l - b e i n g i s m a d e . plemented first (Objective no. 2 and no. 3). tion) Furthermore, Objective no. 4 under the Bio- With respect to ES, the Strategy recognizes the diversity Chapter no. 4.9 of the biodiversity benefits from forest and aquatic ecosystems in Action Plan mentions the “assessment of reducing GHG emissions. Objective no. 4 of the ecosystem services and the implementation Action Plan - Biodiversity Chapter no. 4.9 foresees of the Ecosystem Approach in decision-ma- the „Assessment of ES and the implementation of king”. the Ecosystem Approach into decision-making”, with actions like: inclusion of ES assessment and Ecosystem Approach into management of natural resources; inclusion of Ecosystem Approach within the context of climate change into university programs; inclusion of climate change consideration in the development of PES and of economic arguments for investments in nature based solutions; improving the capacity of public authorities to understand ES values and the Ecosystem Approach in the context of climate change; establishment of an inter-governmental platform on biodiversity and ES to provide decision makers with the necessary knowledge to elaborate biodiversity policies in the context of climate change; training of natural resources managers and natural protected areas administrators on the Ecosystem Approach in order to adapt to climate change; assessment of ES delivered by natural protected areas or of the protected areas network contribution to climate change control. The concept of aquatic ecosystem is better integrated in the case of aquaculture given its clearer geographical delimitations. Less considerations and consequently less measures are provided for the fishery sector. Natu- ral ecosystems are recognized as well as the The Operational Program for Fisheries and Mariti- necessity to maintain biodiversity. The con- me Affairs (POPAM -Programul Operational pentru cept of ecosystem and in particular of marine Pescuit si Afaceri Maritime), includes a measure for Rivers 22 Fisheries ecosystems, are taken from UE legislation the improvement of the aquatic environmentl, whi- and aqu- Fish and lakes terminology. ch gives the opportunity to integrate the delivery of aculture Coastal Ecosystem services are mentioned only in ecosystem services e.g. water quality and quantity; the case of aquaculture; however, they are however, a clear and approved methodology for the not completely listed. The improvement of identification, maintenance and management of production capacity is especially mentioned. ecosystem services does not exist. The economic importance of aquaculture as well as of activity diversitification (in particular at local community level) is recognized. Thus, ecosystem services are indirectly recognized as underpinning well-being. port Trans ment Develop- Rural ture and Agricul- sector Policy - Reso- tural urce Na- land Grass ocean except and urban cluding ALL –in Cropland Level 2) tem Ty Ecosys- pology (MAES - - Furthermore, by encouraging organicagri environmental andsocio-economicbenefits. thus conservingsuchecosystemsprovides deliver ecosystemservicestosociety and recognizes thatHighNatureValue Farmlands tional Rural Development Program (NRDP) With regardstorural development, theNa on theirfarmland). deliver suchasconservation ofbiodiversity reward farmersforthepublicgoodstheycan delivering benefitsforsociety, whichwould decoupled payments toincentives aimedat the CAPneedstomove fromnon-targeted environmental pointofview called foramoreambitiousreformfromthe eventhough civilsociety inparticularhad Policy (CAP)aswellimproved equitability, been agreeningoftheCommonAgriculture As aresultofthe2013reform,therehas for projectdesignandconstruction;Correctly environment by selectingthebestmethods and reducedirectindirecteffectsonthe pean programs, strategies orplans; Prevent sector andincludedinothernationalorEuro measures withthoserelatedtothetransport during theplanningstage;CorrelateGMPT the ImpactAssessmentproceduresalready the Environmental ImpactAssessmentand tropization), mitigateorcompensate;Apply in caseoflargesurfacesorconsiderable an by habitat ansspeciesofcommunity interest of smallsurfacesoroutsideareasoccupied of Natura 2000sites,(outsidethesiteincase and projectdesign;Reconsider routesincase etc.) alreay from the stage of feasibility study ers suchaswater courses,mountainareas, areas, heavily populateareas, natural barri pensate sensibleareas(natural protected for biodiversity loss:Avoid, mitigate,com is notpossible,tomitigateandcompensate and recommendsmeasurestoavoid or, ifthis impact ofthetransport sectoronecosystems SEA oftheGMPTtakes intoconsideration the The Environmental Report resultingfromthe ments intransport infrastructure. linked totheoptimumplanningofinvest frastructura Mare) aswellotherdecisions Program (POIM–Programul Operational In 2014-2020 LargeInfrastructure Operational this objective isbasedtheelaboration ofthe lopment ofRomania. Ontheachievement of which isfundamentalfortheeconomicdeve- is efficient,sustainable,flexibleandsecure, the development ofatransport systemthat of theGMPTistoensureconditionsfor medium andlongterm,themainpurpose ter PlanforTransport (GMPT)intheshort, According tothereportonGeneral Mas on theecosystem. farming, whichclearlyhave differentimpacts differently basedonsmall versus largescale Besides, organicagricultureisnottreated tors. not beenassessedyet usingexistingindica nature conservation andtheenvironment has However, thecontributionofNRDPupon resources, arepursued. nance aswellprotectonofsoilandwater such asbiodiversity andecosystemsmainte culture objectives relatedtotheenvironment Prevent andcontrolpollution inthecon occupied by projectsincludedintheGMPT; land surfacespermanentlyortemporarily environmental protectionmeasures; Limit assess theefficiencyofimplemented insufficient. ver goodsand services(ecosystemslimits)is Information onecosystemscapacity todeli versity. necessary tocollectscientific data onbiodi both theamountoftimeand budget tion oftransport projects takes intoaccount resees thatthecalendarfor implementa Furthermore, theEnvironmental Report fo not toinvest. feasibility studiesdonotconsidertheoption tools/mechanisms arenotdeveloped and included intheGMPT. However, management ciated withtheimplementationofprojects change; Reduce environmental costsasso investments inthetransport sectortoclimate struction andoperating stages;Adaptnew Conceptual Integration (in particular, ------these opportunities. of wetlands),theNRDPhasnotincludedany of servation) andtheWFD(ecologicalreconstruction related toNatura 2000(habitatsandspeciescon gulation foreseesarticlesforachievingobjectives ted. Besides,althoughtheRural Development Re- However, theNatura 2000conceptisnotintegra- vironmental objectives. the NRDPhasnotdelivered with respecttoen other specificconstraints (Measureno.13). Sofar, (Measure no. 11),andforareasfacingnatural or (Measure no. 10),tostimulateorganicagriculture habitats typical ofHighNatureValue Farmlands compensations aregiven toconserve speciesand With regards to rural development, under the NRDP g) Transitional nationalaid. Simplified schemeforsmallfarmers; f) e) Coupledsupportscheme; d) Payment foryoung farmers; for theclimateandenvironment; c) Payment foragriculturepractices thataregood b) Redistributive payment; a) SingleAreaPayment Scheme(SAPS); 2020: in Romania duringprogramming period2014- The followingdirectpayment schemesareapplied res. green directpayment; rural development measu effects of various instruments:cross-compliance; be achieved by thecombinedandcomplementary (the so-calledgreening)oftheCAPisexpectedto nor fortheenvironment. So far, the on andexploitation/operation. four stagesofplanning,projectdesign,constructi system. Monitoringmeasuresaredefinedforthe ble fororganizingandcoordinatingthemonitoring frequency ofmonitoringactivities;whoisresponsi dicators tomeasureandmonitor;theduration and of theGeneral MasterPlan forTransport; whichin to monitorbasedontheenvironmental objectives The Monitoring Program defines the following: what ce theimpactorforremediationofaffectedareas. sing supplementaryprotective measuresthatredu negative effectsupontheenvironment by propo Plan forTransport identifiesandtries toprevent effect oftheimplementationGeneral Master The Environmental MonitoringProgram onthe CAP hasnotdelivered forbiodiversity Operational Integration Improved sustainability ------23 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Ecosys- Na- tem Ty- Policy tural pology Conceptual Integration Operational Integration sector Reso- (MAES urce Level 2) The main purpose of the 2011-2020 Energy Strategy for Romania is to produce energy based on the need to ensure security of energy provision, sustainable development and competitiveness by focusing on improving energy efficiency and promoting -re newable energy sources. Also, one of the fourteen strategic objectives is to reduce the negative impact of the energy sector on the environment; however, the Strategy does not foresee measures to prevent, reduce, compensate for such effects. Furthermore, the Strategy does not foresee a developmet plan for the different types of infrastructure necessary for the different types of renewable energy (e.g. small hydropower, wind, etc.) but only some general guidelines, which limits the possibility to correctly assess the environmental impact on ecosystems. Measures to reduce negative impact or conservation measures associated with infrastructure development, including indicators, are described in the Environmental Report resulting from the SEA of the Strategy and have been included in the Environmental Notification. It has been noted that indicators for conservation measures are not correctly associated. In the Strategy there is no reference to The 2011-2020 Energy Strategy for Romania inclu- ecosystem services potentially affected by ded the following instruments: Green Certificates the development of the energy sector. Also, (Law no. 220/2008 for establishing the system to the Strategy does not integrate other natio- promote energy production from renewable sour- nal strategies and plans such as the biodiver- ces); Certificates for the emissions of GHG; The stiy conservation strategy. Reference is made Romanian market and related platform for the ALL – in- to European objectives on the reduction of transaction of Green Certificates and Certificates cluding Green House Gases (GHG) under the Climate for GHG emissions (OPCOM - Operatorul Pietei de Energy urban Change Strategy but without a development Energia Electrica si Gaze Naturale din Romania). and plan for the energy sector it is not possible to Green Certificates focus on reducing pollution but except quantify the contribution of the Strategy at do not foresee biodiversity proofing on the exploi- ocean European or global levels. tation of renewable energy sources. Information on ecosystems capacity to deli- The validity of the Environmental Notification is ver goods and services (ecosystems limits) not accepted by all relevant institutions and thus that are relevant for the energy sector is not mitigation and conservation measures are not im- enough. plemented. Regarding the impact on the ecological status of rivers, the Environmental Report confirms certain analytical mistakes in the Strategy: related to environmental objectives OR no. 3 (water funtions) and no. 8 (maintenance and development of national protected area network), only potential negative effects of included measures have been identified; measure no. C.1.7.9 („Valorificarea eficienta a potentialului hidroenergetic, prin realizarea de noi capacitati de productie, inclusiv prin atragerea de capital privat) is among those scoring the highest values of potential negative effects on the environment (-6 points). Other problems include: the lack of an Action Plan for investments in the energy sector; lack of protected area management plans approved at the time when the Strategy was elaborate; lack of scientific data on biodiver- 24 sity; non recognition and thus non implementation of the Environmental Notification by the authorities subordinated to the issuing authority that is the Ministry of Environment (because of procedural matters); the monitoring methodology for conservation measures has been proved to be deficitary (e.g. improper correlation of indicators – for river conservation measures the performance indicator is the ecological status of reservoirs). ment Develop- Regional sector Policy Reso- tural urce Na- ocean except and urban cluding ALL –in Level 2) tem Ty Ecosys- pology (MAES - - state andthereductionofcarbonemissions. the maintenanceofsurfacewater quality and mentioned, onlyindirectlyitismentioned Finally, ecosystemservicesarenotexplicitly built environments, etc. as; harmonizationbetweenthenatural and conservation andvalorization ofleisureare tenance ofsurfacewater quality andstate; diffuse pollutionof water bodiesandmain sites inparticular;prevention ofpointand in natural protectedareasandNatura 2000 natural diversity, offauna,flora andhabitats projects; maintenanceandconservation of application ofEIAandSEAproceduresto taken duringex-ante evaluation ofthePOR: by the SEA–Environmental Report under investments fundedby PORasrecommended reduce theimpactuponenvironment of ve). Furthermore,measureswillbetaken to levels arespecifiedforeachtouristobjecti torial managementplanswhereprotection development shouldbecorrelatedwithterri a cleanenvironment (sustainabletourism servation ofnationaltouristresourcesand nearby anatural protectedarea;thecon ally whenatransport networkcrossesoris habitats importantforbirdspecies,especi ral heritagewillfocuson:theprotectionof promote anddevelop thecultural andnatu The actionsforeseentoconserve, protect, mental impact/pollutionprevention. given toresourcesprotectionandenviron- hensively integrated; instead,attentionis socio-economic development isnotcompre management asfundamentalconditionfor limits. Also, theconcept ofgoodecosystems tioned, noreferenceismadetoresources Although sustainabledevelopment ismen nistration. improving theefficiencyofpublicadmi strengthening ofinstitutionalcapacity and kforce. Animportantobjective isalsothe and sustainableoccupationofqualifiedwor in longlifeeducationandlearning,mobility clusion andpoverty eradication, investment On thesocialside,PORpromotesin re formajortransport networks. ble transport systemsandviableinfrastructu economy inallsectors,topromotesustaina support thetransition towards alowcarbon Innovation andtechnologyaremeantto progress. tion potential,andtointegrate technological protect theenvironment, tousetheirinnova- able tomanagerresourcesefficientlyand development ofregions;thelattermustbe services inordertoensurethesustainable and aquaculturesectors),infrastructure and enterprises fromtheagriculture,fishery of business(inparticularsmallandmedium communities by supportingthedevelopment as welllifeconditionsofregionalandlocal aims atimproving economiccompetitiveness gram (POR-Programul Operational Regional) The 2014-2020Regional Operational Pro Conceptual Integration ------ency. for supportingSMEsandtoinvest inenergyeffici mul Operational Regional) areidentified,especially 2020 Regional Operational Program (POR-Progra- instruments forinvestments throughthe2014- Based onex-ante evaluation ofthePOR,financial ans SEAprocedures. Ecosystem servicesarenotyet integrated intoEIA undertaken duringex-ante evaluaton ofthePOR. legislation andonrecommendationsoftheSEA are appliedtoprojectsbasedontheenvironmental tegic Environmental Assessment(SEA)procedures Environmental ImpactAssessment(EIA)andStra- Operational Integration - 25 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Ecosys- Na- tem Ty- Policy tural pology Conceptual Integration Operational Integration sector Reso- (MAES urce Level 2) The National Strategy for Territorial Develo- pment horizon 2035, briefly lists Romanian ecosystems as follows: natural and semi-natural ecosystems represents 47% of the national surface (forests, pastures, freshwater and salty ecosystems, marine and coastal ecosystems, underground ecosystems). Pro- tected areas recognized in Romania are also listed. The following five general objectives are pursued: The Environmental Report resulting from the SEA - ensuring the functional integration of the of the National Strategy includes an impact matrix national territory in Europe by supporting that assesses potential negative effects upon the the efficient interconnection of energy, environment including interconnections between transport and broadband networks; them. Chapter IX proposes measures to prevent, - improving quality of life by developing in- reduce and compensate the identified adverse frastructure and public services that ensure effects upon the environment. urban and rural areas of quality, attractive The National Strategy includes: Measure no. and inclusive; 4.2.3.7 for the protection of natural habitats again- - developing a network of competitive and st climate change; and, Measure no. 4.3.3.9 on cohesive local areas by supporting territo- the conservation of natural protected areas as well rial specialization and the development of as the biodiversity of mountain areas. Some Spe- functional urban areas; cific Objectives address the problem of balancing - protection of the natural and built environ- conservation and use and include measures with Territori- ment and valorization of territorial identity reduced impact on ecosystems (SO 4.1 – Heritage al Plan- ALL elements; protection and promotion of measures for natural ning - improving institutional capacity to manage capital restoration; SO 4.4 – To ensure the balan- territorial development processes. ced development of urban and rural areas by protecting resources associated with agriculture and The National Strategy recognizes that the forest land and by limiting the extension of urban inadequate exploitation of natural resources areas; SO 2.3 – To improve the attractiveness of can have a negative impact on the latter. urban and rural areas by improving their residential Furthermore, it mentions the possibility that functions, developing public spaces of quality as ecosystem services are affected because of well as transport services adapted to local needs climate change. Finally, the need to improve and characteristics). the management of natural potential is mentioned with the purpose to practice/develop However, the principle of management within tourism. ecosystem capacity and limits is not mentioned. In conclusion, the focus is mainly on avoiding nega- In conclusion, there is recognition of the tive impacts on the environment, ecosystems and country’s natural capital (listed ecosystems biodiversity. and protected areas), the importance of territorial cohesion and functionality, the need to protect and avoid negative impacts on natural resources, and the link between quality of life and quality/attractiveness/inclusiveness of urban and rural areas. Ecosystem services are generally mentioned in relation to climate change pressures. However, ecosystem services and natural capital are not explicitly integrated as underpinning well-being as well as the quality/attractiveness/inclusiveness of urban and rural areas.

26 to theCBDprinciples1-6: Table no. 9 (a) below shows the level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach according Marine Water sector Policy Table 9(a).LevelofintegrationtheEcosystemApproachintoRomanian Water Resour- Natural ce Coastal nal waters transitio- inlets and Marine Wetlands lakes Rivers and Level 2) tem Ty Eco po (MAES sectoral policiesaccordingtoCBDprinciples1-6 lo sys gy and nee- treated X –Not treated X –Not (1) Equ benefits ds from gement natural mana- urces reso- ity of - profit generation. management and from water related uld beseparated and controlsho stead, monitoring of interest;in potential conflict thus indicatinga control. monitoring and decentralized decision-making; X =Centralized water usage activity ofrenting the commercial bility alongwith ANAR’s responsi all remainunder ring andcontrol, the WFD, monito implementation of However, proper / custodians,etc). as administrators ral protectedare nicipalities, natu- water users(mu are transferred to lities ormeasures ment responsibi water manage Apei). Also, some de Gospodarireal (SGA -Serviciul for eachcounty nistration exists a water admi basin. Inaddition, important river Apa), oneforeach tratie Bazinalade (ABA -Adminis administrations 11 sub-river basin (ANAR) supervises Romanian Waters Administration  management of decentralized Subsidiarity, ecosystems – TheNational (2)

16 - - , ------treated X –Not account. are taken into characteristics transboundary impact and re thatrelevant region toensu same marine States inthe other Member program with monitoring borates the Romania ela (Art. 12.2), to theStrategy ! Consideration of ecosystem ment impact – According on adjacent ecosystems manage (3)

- - - the twoinstitu varies between infrastructure for thewater paid by users X =Thecost treated X –Not tions owningit. Management and integra- and benefits tion ofcosts ecosystems distortions of market affecting (4)

- not affected. particular are ecosystem in and benthic conserved, functions are structure and ecosystem ensures that of theseabed entire aspect monitors ifthe scriptor no. 6 Strategy; De included inthe descriptors are 11 qualitative gical Status Good Ecolo-  ecosystems. the functionsof and especially the structure into account but donottake of ecosystems components biological include some and quantity water quality monitoring analyzed for the parameters dies. However, of water bo logical Status eve GoodEco signed toachi Measures de Supplementary sures and some ! structure and of ecosystem conservation functioning Resilience, – BasicMea – To achieve (5)

------insufficient. and servicesis deliver goods capacity to ecosystems mation onthe ated. Infor X –Nottre treated X –Not functions and ecosystem’s ment within the limitsof Manage- capacity (6)

- - 27 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania (1) Equ- (4) ity of (3) Management (6) benefits (5) Ecosys (2) Consideration of market Manage- and nee- Resilience, Natural tem Ty Subsidiarity, of ecosystem distortions ment within Policy ds from conservation Resour- pology decentralized manage- affecting the limits of sector natural of ecosystem ce (MAES management of ment impact ecosystems ecosystem’s reso- structure and Level 2) ecosystems on adjacent and integra- functions and urces functioning ecosystems tion of costs capacity mana- and benefits gement  – Only cer-  – Forest X – Ge- tified forests Management nerally have a plan to plans allow the  – Although  – Forest treated in assess certain use of resour- State forests are management the Nati- social and en- ces within the centrally plans take onal Law vironmental limits while the Woodland administered, conservation of Forestry (Codul (implicitly X – Not treated law addres- and forest management is forest ecosys- Silvic) about ecosys- ses overuse. decentralized for tems and but not in tems) impact However, lack both State and functions into the sub- indicators. Abo- of forest roads private forests. account. sequent ve 40% of Ro- can lead to law. manian forests localized pre- are certified. ssures.  – SEA/EIA/ EA procedures applied to projects for the development ! – The Actin of transport Plan foresees and energy ! – The Stra- the harmo- infrastructure tegy mentions nization of and for the biocapacity management  – The Ac- exploitation of  – The Action versus ecolo- measures be- tion Plan puts nonrenewable Plan is implemen- gical footprint tween trans- high priority resources. ted by the Ministry of Romania, boundary na- on action D.3.3 Conservation of Environment however data tural protected to assess the ex-situ. Control and its subordi- used are from areas (Measure impact of of invasive spe- nated institutions 2006 while Biodiver- X – Not B.23). Fur- current incen- cies. Further- ALL including local more recent sity treated thermore, the tives, subsidies more, the Stra- agencies (e.g. data exist from law on natural and State Aid tegy considers NEPA/EPAs) as 2012. This protected areas on biodiversity fundamental to well as by natural information is foresees zoning conservation in value natural protected areas not necessarily as a mana- order to elimi- resources and administrators, used for inte- gement tool, nate those with ES delivered etc. grated strategy however it is perverse effect by well-functi- elaboration not sure how oning ecosys- across policy the Strategy tems, and to sectors. uses the infor- integrate costs mation. of conservation and restoration the costs assessment of sectoral policies.

28 aculture and aqu Fisheries lopment ble Deve- Sustaina on) Adaptati tion (and – Mitiga- Change Climate sector Policy - - - Fish Resour- Natural ce Coastal lakes Rivers and ALL ALL Level 2) tem Ty Eco po (MAES lo sys gy and nee- treated X –Not - equity. bility and accessi- isssues of address eded to are ne measures Further affected. tionally propor are dis groups nerable and vul case poor actions in ce ofthe acceptan the social to assess implies on Plan the Acti risks” of “Social Chapter all. The fits to bene deliver tems ecosys ze that recogni- on Plan the Acti tegy and the Stra-  (1) Equ benefits ds from gement natural mana- urces reso- ity of – Both ------ta. Furthermore, the DanubeDel implementation in responsible for ters; ARBDDis in controlmat other authorities supported by local branches, strategy withits plements the  gies. territorial strate FLAGs implement capacity. implementation thus improving private sectorand tici) includingthe Partenerilor Clima- (RPC -Rețele a climate partners of anetwork Establishment and authorities. - vant institutions involving rele working groups with technical Change (CNSC) sion onClimate National Commis nization ofthe  management of decentralized Subsidiarity, ecosystems – ANPA im – Reorga (2)

------X –Nottreated infrastructure) hydro-energy tems (e.g. on ecosys the impact respect to impact with environmental assessment of foresees the energy sources of renewable the promotion Action Plan  - Consideration of ecosystem ment impact on adjacent ecosystems manage – Inthe (3) -

- X – X –Nottreated 2 andno. 3). (Objective no. mented first are notimple public transport res toimprove port) ifmeasu private trans costs forusing (e.g. higher nor sociallyfair is notefficient the approach 2022. However, during 2016- parking, etc. gistration, ce, carre on carbonpri to raise taxes des ameasure port andinclu logical trans system ofeco ments) fora price instru incentives (e.g. of economic introduction 1 mentionsthe Objective no. port Chapter, - Management and integra- and benefits tion ofcosts ecosystems distortions of market affecting The Trans (4) -

------water resour king water and on 4.2–Drin X –UnderActi X –Nottreated dykes. as damsand measures such sical structural ments inclas tioned invest while aremen are lacking reconstruction for ecological and measures ces, objectives - structure and of ecosystem conservation functioning Resilience, (5)

------X –Nottreated urces. available reso capacity and between fishing equilibrium maintain an or theneedto ecosystems rather thenon human needs the focusison ment however nable Develop- under Sustai ! –Treated - functions and ecosystem’s ment within the limitsof Manage- capacity (6)

- - 29 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania (1) Equ- (4) ity of (3) Management (6) benefits (5) Ecosys (2) Consideration of market Manage- and nee- Resilience, Natural tem Ty Subsidiarity, of ecosystem distortions ment within Policy ds from conservation Resour- pology decentralized manage- affecting the limits of sector natural of ecosystem ce (MAES management of ment impact ecosystems ecosystem’s reso- structure and Level 2) ecosystems on adjacent and integra- functions and urces functioning ecosystems tion of costs capacity mana- and benefits gement  - Achi- eved through 2014- 2020 payment schemes  - Direct pay- such as ments decou- the redis- pled from pro- tributive duction since payment 2003. In 2014- on SAPS, 2020 coupled which support only can lead for sectors X – Promoti- to a sig- mentioned on of organic nificant in art. 52  - Eco-con- agriculture,  - APIA and increase  - Eco-con- alin. (2) of ditionality however inten- AFIR implement in pay- ditionality Reg. (UE) no. measures are sive agriculture Agricul- eco-conditiona- ments for measures are 1.307/2013, referred to continues to ture and lity norms; APIA, Cropland small and referred to undergoing water, soil, be business as Rural which has local medium water, soil, difficulties and biodiversity, usual and the Develop- Grassland structures, also sized fa- biodiversity, important from landscape, and impact of gree- ment implements direct mily far- landscape, and an environ- animal welfare; ning measures payments; control ms, the animal welfare mental and greening mea- designed by is also delegated payment socio-economic sures the last CAP for good point of view. reform is not environ- Besides, direct significant mental payments are and an income climate support for practi- farmers inde- ces, the pendent from payment market dyna- for young mics farmers, and the simplified small farmers scheme  – The En- vironmental Report consi- X – Not tre- ders the impact ated. Infor- of the trans- mation on the port sector on ecosystems ecosystems X – Not capacity to Transport ALL – X = Not applied X – Not treated X – Not treated and recom- treated deliver goods mends first and services of all to avoid for the trans- areas with high port sector are biodiversity insufficient. (e.g. natural protected are- 30 as) X – The National X – Conser- Authority for the vation mea- regulation of the sures for the energy domain development (ANRE - Autorita- of the energy tea Naţională de sector are in- Reglementare în cluded in the X – Not tre- domeniul Energi- Environmental ated. Infor- ei), which is con- Notification to mation on the trolled by the Par- the Strategy, ecosystems X – Not liament, oversees X – Not treated X – Not treated however indi- capacity to de- Energy ALL treated and coordinates the national elec- cators are not liver goods and tricity market and well correlated services for the issues regulatory and the Noti- energy sector acts. Transelectri- fication is not are insufficient. ca manages the recognized nor national electricity implemented network (it opera- by subordina- tes the transport ted institutions and energy sys- (due to proce- tems). dural matters) 16 ü ! =thecriteriaispartiallyornotclearlymet X =thecriteriaisnotmet Legend: 16 Planning Territorial ment Develop- Regional sector =thecriteriaismet Policy

order toavoid negative consequences uponriver ecosystems. negative impacts over such resources. Evidently, these two functions are in conflict and should be separated in both involved in the exploitation of water resources in the pursuit of profit and in the control and prevention of plants, gravel extractions, etc.) based on concessions, rentals and permits to potential investors. Thus, ANAR is According Resour- Natural ce ALL ALL o urn lgsain AA rcie rvne fo wtr aaeet ciiis (hydropower activities management water from revenues receives ANAR legislation, current to Level 2) tem Ty Eco po (MAES lo sys gy and nee- ness inclusive- and veness, attracti- quality, their tion with correla areas in and rural in urban lity oflife the qua proving on im objective neral  treated X –Not (1) Equ benefits ds from gement natural mana- urces reso- ity of –Ge - - - - - Finance. by the Ministryof ls, controlisdone done atlocalleve- implementation is cal administration, mented by thelo programs imple MDRAP except for are atthelevel of and monitoring Decision-making tly mentioned. but notexplici- is recognized decision making X –Decentralized Strategy. in theNational Plans synthetized nal Development elaborate Regio- Agencies, which nal Development (MDRAP); Regio- blic Administration lopment andPu of Regional Deve- within theMinistry ging Authority  management of decentralized Subsidiarity, ecosystems – PORMana (2)

- - - - (Cap. 4) environment cio-economic change, so waste, climate population, ge, landscape, cultural herita natural and tected areas, natural pro biodiversity, water, soil, underground air, surfaceand with respectto be affected could possibly of theareathat characteristics vironmental considers en tal Report Environmen  Procedures  Consideration of ecosystem ment impact on adjacent ecosystems manage – The – EIA/AA (3)

------X –Nottreated X –Nottreated Management and integra- and benefits tion ofcosts ecosystems distortions of market affecting (4)

. s a e r a n i a t sity inmoun and biodiver protected areas tion ofnatural the conserva- sure 4.3.3.9on affected. Mea se EScouldbe change, becau against climate natural habitats protection of 4.2.3.7 forthe ces. Measure natural resour tive impacton can have nega dequate use tion thatina  ments; etc. built environ- of natural and harmonization tected areas; within pro- conservation biodiversity objectives: vironmental  structure and of ecosystem conservation functioning Resilience, – Recogni- – En (5) -

------X –Nottreated X –Nottreated functions and ecosystem’s ment within the limitsof Manage- capacity (6)

31 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Table no. 9 (b) below shows the level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach according to the CBD principles 7-12:

Table 9 (b). Level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach into Romanian sectoral policies according to CBD principles 7-12

(7) (12) Mana- (8) Stakeholders gement Set-up of participation (9) based on long term in ecosystems Ecosys- Recognition (10) (11) appropri- objectives management Natural tem Ty- of ecosys- Balance be- Knowledge Policy ate spa- that respect Re pology tem changes tween conser- based ma- sector tial and timescales source (MAES through adap- vation and use nagement of temporal of ecosystem Level 2) tive manage- of biodiversity ecosystems scales processes ment including including lag connecti- effect vity  – The elaboration of river basin management plans includes a multi-stakeholders  – Comparing public consul- with the pre- tation process vious cycle of X – The objecti- where measures  – There river basin ma- ves of river ma- are presented is a Nati- nagement plan, nagement plans  – River basins but not thorou- onal River X – Not trea- the tendency are set in the management ghly discussed. Basin ted. Possible to balance con- Rivers long-term, until plans are based Also, there is in- Manage- perturbations in servation and and 2027, based on on scientific stu- sufficient trans- ment Plan the ecosystems water use exists Water Water lakes 3 management dies and experts parency with as well as (e.g. due to by including cycles. The judgement but regards to wa- Wet- Sub-river climate change) conservation timescales of do not consider ter data. Simi- lands basins are not analy- measures in the ecosystem local knowle- larly, river basin mana- zed. sub-basins ma- are not specifi- dge. management is gement nagement plans cally taken into based on a pu- plans. (e.g. wetland account. blic instrument restoration for e.g. the river habitats protec- basin manage- tion). ment plan, and a non-public instrument e.g. the river basin development plan.  – Coo- ! – Not sure peration  – INSPIRE protocols Directive; Glo- exist be- bal Monitoring tween Ro- for Enviri- mania and onment and Bulgaria Security Pro- at the gram (GMES); level of Framework for the Black collecting data Marine Sea ba- from the fishery inlets sin (e.g. sector; Shared and Black Sea Environmental Commis- Information 32 Marine transi- ! – Not sure X – Not treated X – Not treated tional sion). System (SEIS); waters However, Water Informa- based on tion System for Coastal the EC Europe (WISE) report on extended to the Art. 12 marine water; it is not European ob- known servation and whether data collection coopera- network for tion has the marine actually environment taken (ur-EMODnet) place. sity Biodiver Forestry sector Policy - Natural source Re ALL Level 2) forest and dland Woo tem Ty Ecosys- pology (MAES - - interest munity and com national areas of protected of natural network of the coherence logical the eco to ensure the need mentions Strategy  treated X –Not appropri- connecti- including temporal based on ate spa- gement tial and Mana- scales – The vity (7) - - X –Nottreated cover 10years nagement plans  of ecosystem including lag that respect – Forest ma timescales objectives processes long term Set-up of effect (8)

- X –Nottreated ded before change isnee king flexibility if however lac every 10years, and adapted are renewed nagement plans ! –Forest ma through adap tive manage- tem changes Recognition of ecosys- ment (9)

- - - - resources. non-renewable exploitation of and forthe infrastructure and energy of transport development projects forthe are appliedto EA procedures level. SEA/EIA/ county andlocal fied atnational, port areidenti of roadtrans reduce impact Measures to impact sectors. identified as urces policies, renewable reso ploitation ofnon energy andex for transport, ration ofpolicies given theelabo conservation is biodiversity  tical problems tem posesprac forest ecosys mic pressureon however econo ! –Well ruled, vation anduse of biodiversity tween conser Balance be- – Priority to (10)

------diversity that affectbio take decisions tant inorderto as very impor on ismentioned  every 5years is updated inventory (IFN) national forest ting (SILV); the annual repor is inplacefor tional system plans; ana management elaborate forest are usedto  nagement of ecosystems Knowledge – Fielddata – ESvaluati- based ma (11) -

- - - - management protected areas king fornatural decision ma communities in plication oflocal assess theim Plan foreseesto  consultations pared forpublic ted innorpre are notinteres re” stakeholders keholder cultu a lackof“sta 40%); dueto rests (above to certifiedfo usually applied ! –Newconcept in ecosystems Stakeholders management participation – TheAction (12)

------33 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania (7) (12) Mana- (8) Stakeholders gement Set-up of participation (9) based on long term in ecosystems Ecosys- Recognition (10) (11) appropri- objectives management Natural tem Ty- of ecosys- Balance be- Knowledge Policy ate spa- that respect Re pology tem changes tween conser- based ma- sector tial and timescales source (MAES through adap- vation and use nagement of temporal of ecosystem Level 2) tive manage- of biodiversity ecosystems scales processes ment including including lag connecti- effect vity  – The  – Stakehol- contri- ders have been bution of consulted for the Action the Strategy Plan to elaboration. The interna- principle is also tional included in the targets is  – The Action Action Plan. assessed Plan considers according the preventive to the principle but  – The Action Chapter also the flexi- Plan mention “Res- bility to adapt ons the need ponsibi- policy measures to assess ES ! – The Action lities and based on future and to adapt Plan includes interna- knowledge on  – One action the measures the assessment tional climate chan- under Objective accordingly. of ES and it can Climate targets”. ge. Actions no. 4 is about Furthermore, it be assumed Change – One of the monitoring and including ES says that deci- that this infor- Mitigati- actions assessment is assessment and sions must be ALL mation will be on (and includes thus conside- the Ecosystems based on proofs used to correla- Adaptati- “Research red important. Approach into and knowled- te climate chan- on) on the use Furthermore, natural reso- ge and should ge management of global biodiversity ac- urces manage- be pragmatic; measures with climate tions include the ment also, the newest the functioning models to “Establishment researches and of ecosystems. make pro- of management experiences jections at plans for natural should be used regional protected areas in defining the and local taking into ac- actions. scales in count the prin- order to ciple of adaptive obtain management. local assessments of climate change effects in different regions”.  – Ma-  – Payments ! – Reflected  – Existence of nagement for organic in the National a working group  – Stated in promoted aquaculture Strategy chap- also mentioned both the Nati- at farm and for the ter on Problem in the National onal Strategy level; improvement  – The Nati- and Solutions. Strategy pre- (vision) and also, of the aquatic onal Strategy Also the Opera- amble, including Rivers the Operational Fisheries measures environment are and the Opera- tional Program national public and Program for and aqu- Fish stimula- given based on tional Program for Fisheries administration, lakes Fisheries (PU1, aculture ting the this principle. for Fisheries are - Sustainable associations of PU2) although Coastal impro- Also an Order revised every 7 Development fishermen and certain data vement that prohibits years. chapter, men- processors, necessary for of the fishing is issued tions its desi- research institu- implementation aquatic annually based rability under tes, academics 34 are lacking. environ- on reproduction the Common and NGOs. ment periods. Fishery Policy.  - Ma- ! – Good use of nagement  - respect of working groups ! – Stakehol- promoted eco-conditiona- in the elabora- ders’ expertise at farm  - Conver- lity measures tion of 2014- is used for the level sion period as well as of 2020 strategy elaboration aims at of 5 years conservation and program of measures, Agricul- achieving considered by requirements but little trans-  - Measu- however sho- ture and Cropland simulta- measures for foreseen in the parency in de- res promoting uld be more Rural neously the transition measures e.g. cision-making Grass adaptation to involved in de- Develop- water, cli- towards orga- amounts of in- e.g. selection of land climate change cision-making; ment mate and nic agriculture; puts, harvesting NRDP Monito- also, the effecti- biodiver- conservation of periods asso- ring Committee veness of mea- sity ob- HNVF is a long- ciated with re- members sures should be jectives, term objective production and monitored on including feeding needs of the ground Natura species, etc. 2000 Energy ment Develop- Regional Transport sector Policy Natural source Re ALL ALL Level 2) ALL tem Ty Ecosys- pology (MAES - ! needs. ted areas of protec sideration  tegy sity Stra- Biodiver with the on exists correlati- tions. No contribu- Strategy national ment of an assess precludes ment plan a develop- the lackof however reduction, on GHG objectives Strategy te Change EU Clima- made to rence is treated X –Not appropri- connecti- including temporal based on ate spa- gement tial and Mana- scales - Refe – Con vity (7) - - - - - jects appraisal dures forpro EIA/AA proce consideration in be taken into processes could ! X –Nottreated document. is ageneral cause theGMPT It couldbe X –Nottreated. of ecosystem including lag that respect –Biological timescales objectives processes long term Set-up of effect (8)

- - - varies POR objectives frequency of that monitoring procedures and tions SEA/EIA Report men Environmental tly covered. The ! etc.) much, where, produce, how (e.g. whatto the Strategy integrated in planning isnot since detailed X –Notapplied ted areas,etc. natural protec alternatives on of thedifferent on theimpact blished based sed tobeesta jects aresuppo transport pro reseen infuture  through adap tive manage- tem changes –Notexplici Recognition of ecosys- – Routes fo ment (9)

------effects tion ofnegative on andpreven-  X –Nottreated biodiversity loss compensate for to mitigateand is notpossible, avoid or, ifthis measures to recommends ecosystems and port sectoron of thetrans tion theimpact into considera Report takes vironmental  vation anduse of biodiversity tween conser Balance be- – Conservati- – TheEn (10)

- - - - mentioned processes isnot ecosystems diversity and data onbio to obtainmore ted. Theneed X –Nottrea X –Nottreated on biodiversity. scientific data sary tocollect budget neces time andthe the amountof account both jects takes into transport pro plementation of dar fortheim that thecalen Report foresees vironmental  nagement of ecosystems Knowledge –TheEn based ma (11) -

------sufficiently. applied butnot participation is re forpublic legal procedu projects. The investments mentation of during imple- is notapplied the principle elaboration but the Strategy consulted for ders have been ! procedures ration. SEA/EIA Strategy elabo used inthe pation hasbeen public partici procedure for ! mentation during imple- is notapplied the principle elaboration but the Strategy consulted for ders have been ! in ecosystems Stakeholders management participation – Stakehol- – Thelegal – Stakehol- (12)

- - - 35 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania (7) (12) Mana- (8) Stakeholders gement Set-up of participation (9) based on long term in ecosystems Ecosys- Recognition (10) (11) appropri- objectives management Natural tem Ty- of ecosys- Balance be- Knowledge Policy ate spa- that respect Re pology tem changes tween conser- based ma- sector tial and timescales source (MAES through adap- vation and use nagement of temporal of ecosystem Level 2) tive manage- of biodiversity ecosystems scales processes ment including including lag connecti- effect vity  – Specific ! – Legal proce- Objectives dure for public including mea- participation in sures with redu- the Strategy ced impact on elaboration. No ecosystems: SO imposition of 4.1 on heritage stronger consul- protection and tation of local promotion of actors (NGOs, measures for business, etc.)  – Monitoring natural capital of Strategy restoration; SO implementation: 4.4 on ensuring annual report a balanced  – Mea-  – Yearly on the state of development sures for update of mo- the Romanian between urban trans- nitoring system territory (dy- and rural areas boundary with results namics of terri- by protecting areas feeding into torial develop- Territorial agriculture ALL aimed at X – Not treated Strategy revi- ment, economic Planning and forest land mana- sion. Update growth, mode resources and gement of the Strategy and extent of limiting the capacity implementation resources use, expansion of and coo- plan every 3 results of mea- urban areas; peration. years. sures against SO 2.3 on im- poverty and proving the disparities be- attractiveness tween people of urban and and territories) rural areas by improving residential functions, developing quality public spaces and transport services adapted to local needs and characteristics

Legend: X = the criteria is not met ! = the criteria is partially or not clearly met ü = the criteria is met

Status of Romanian ecosystems currently known and reported 36 The MAES process is meant to provide an in-depth evaluation of ecosystems status. So far, the 2007-2012 reporting on Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (National summary) and the State of the Environment National Report of 2013 and/or 2014 are the two official tools monitoring and reporting to the EU directly on the status of ecosystems and the environment and including information on land management, ecosystem characteristics and sources of pressure.17 Both documents have been examined to prioritize ecosystems and ecosystem services in order of urgency of needed intervention, and select those to be assessed by the end of the N4D project in April 2017. The prioritization is necessary due to time constraints given by project duration and the completion of NEA is still highly recommended to achieve Good Ecosystems Governance through improved decision and policy making. Also, the status of Romanian ecosystems currently known and highlighted in this policy analysis is meant to provide a baseline necessary for the further improvement of sectoral policies since it is not possible to change what we do not know. The

17 Both reports fall under the responsibility of the National Environmental Protection Agency that centralizes data received by other institutions for their respective field of competence. 18 18 Habitats the from (adjusted environment reporting, below 10 no. Table in Directive) to interpret information from Article 17 and the national state of the shown color-coding the Using Environment the of State the in used National Report. already is provided ecosystems information Romanian of the status because baseline the assessing in considered been not have EU the towards fulfils Romania that obligations reporting related environment Other ecosystems status. Romanian on information accurate more provide or confirm to going is process MAES functions andvalues; thisisthecaseforbiodiversity andenergy. policies clearly state that there is a need for more accurate information about ecosystem measures. an improvementoftherelatedpolicy objectives and thus and they that meaning status, bad almost U2 =Unfavorable U1 =Unfavorable

FV =Favorable Conservation Inadequate on informationofficiallyreportedbiodiversityandtheenvironment status Directive. Explanatory NotesandGuidelines fortheperiod2007-2012, Unknown. for grey and U2, for red U1, for amber ‘x’.an or sign minus equal, plus, a adding by unknown or declining stable, improving, is status the if indicate to qualified be should unfavorable is are that Conservation Status of Overall assessment. assessments an allow there information to insufficient available where used be can class “Unknown” The regionally). least (at extinct becoming of danger serious in type or species to FV but there is no danger of extinction in the foreseeable future; U2 is for habitat habitats the or species return to required is policy or management in change a where situations describes U1 policies; or situation where the habitat or species can be expected to prosper without any change to existing management and UnfavorableBad(U2): Inadequate (U1), Unfavorable adopted: Favorable(FV), basis. term natural its of component viable a future; there as is and will probably basis continue to be long-terma sufficiently large habitat a to maintain its populations on on a long- itself habitats; the natural maintaining range of the species is is neither being reduced nor it is likely to be that reduced for the foreseeable indicate concerned favorable. is exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future; the conservation status of its typical species are stable or increasing; the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance For habitats, FCS is defined as follows (Article 1e): should consider and the present) habitat or are species regions both more within the or Natura national 2 2000 where network all and country in a the across within wider countryside region assessed or marine sea. or is biogeographical by FCS (or territory extinctions. avoiding than more therefore is it maintained; and reached direct any by faced defined, be not to needs FCS (e.g. Directive, Habitats the threatened to According FCS. not in is it is that mean not species does risk) extinction or habitat a that fact The well. as future in so do to situation a prospects good with as and extent/population) and quality described both (in prospering be is species or type can habitat a where It Directive. Habitats the of 1 Art. in defined is it and interest community of Favorable Conservation Status (FCS) Bad Table 10.Codeofcolorsforinterpretingecosystemstatusbased 18 For reporting under Art.17 a format with three classes of Conservation Status has been of Conservation Status has Art.17 aformatwiththreeclasses For reportingunder For species, FCS is defined as follows (Article 1i): (Article follows as defined is FCS species, For

Conservation trends Ud =Unfavourable Us =Unfavourable Uu =Unfavorable Unknown Declining Stable it is possible to ecosystems see which For graphical representation, each class iscolor representation, each coded: For graphical is the overall objective to be reached for all habitat types and species on informationofficiallyreportedbiodiversity andthe need seriousmanagementinterventions Code ofcolorsforinterpretingecosystemstatusbased Almost Favorable status Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Almost Badstatus its natural range and areas it covers within that range population dynamics data on the species the on data dynamics population Finalversion, July 2011. environment Inadequate status Favorable status Bad status have a bad and bad a have FV describes the describes FV green for FV,for green

Some 37 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Table no.11 below provides an overview of the baseline status of Romania’s ecosystems evaluated within this analysis.

Table 11. Status of Romanian ecosystems derived and interpreted from official reportings

Ecosys- tem Ty- 2007-2012 reporting Natural Policy pology on Art. 17 of the Habi- State of the Environment National Report of 2013 Re sector (MAES tats Directive and/or 2014 source Level (National summary) 2) SOER2013: Total hydrographic basins: 59% good ecological status, 40.5% moderate ecological status; Heavily Rivers Freshwater habitats: 90% modified water bodies: 50% good ecological potential, and la- FV, 10% U1 50% moderate ecological potential; Natural lakes: 8% kes Water Water good ecological status, 88% moderate ecological status, 4% poor ecological status. Bogs, mires and fens Wetlands habitats: 37% U2, 44% U1 Marine inlets and transi tional waters SOER2013: The quality of bathing waters along the coast- line has been according to legal provisions in force and the compulsory value has been 100% met. Surfaces undergoing erosion processes: ~ 153 ha. The advancement of the shoreline for more than 10 m distance has been registered on ~ 12% of the total length while the retreat of the shoreline with more than 10 m has been registered on 52% of the total length, the remaining part of the shore being in dynamic equilibrium - the shoreline has withdrawn or advanced with +/- 10 m. Sea level: the annual average (2012) was with 3,3 cm above the multi-annual average from 1933-2011. Phyto- Marine plankton: the amplitude of phytoplankton development was much lower in coastal waters comparing to transitional and marine waters, with 2012 being characterized by the low development of phytoplankton communities. Coastal Zooplankton: 30 taxons were identified in the qualitative structure of zooplankton, which belong to 12 taxonomic groups, the highest value registered since 2004. Phyto- benthos: the opportunistic green alga has been predo- minantly observed in the Northern part of the Romanian seaside while the brown alga Cystoseira barbata has been observed in Mangalia, 2 Mai and Vama Veche where marine waters are known for their superior quality, which has 38 allowed for the restoration and existence of this key species for the marine ecosystem. Zoobenthos, an indicator for eutrophication status, continues to show a constant evolution of species diversity. The qualitative assessment of all the investigated water bodies (Sulina - Vama Veche) has led to the identification of 52 macrozoobenthos species, with the faunistic landscape maintaining its characteristics over the past years. tion Adapta tion and – Mitiga- Change Climate Forestry sity Biodiver aculture and aqu Fisheries sector Policy - - - Fish Natural source Re ALL Woo forest and dland ALL Coastal kes and la Rivers tem Ty Ecosys- pology (MAES Level 2) -

- - 41% U1. Forest habitats:14%U2, 40% U1 Dunes habitats:20%U2, nisation. agriculture, forestry, urba ral systemsmodifications, production; species:natu of materialsandenergy phies), miningextraction ses (withoutcatastro biotic andabioticproces modifications, natural culture, natural systems frequency -habitats:agri and threatswithhigher 81% U1.Mainpressures U1; Anthropods:3%U2, U1; Reptiles: 5%U2,80% lar plants:9%U2,43% 20% Uu.Species-Vascu trends: 38%Us,41%Ud, status: 3%U2,68%U1; Species -conservation Us, 41%Ud,20%Uu. 11% Uu;Species:38% trends: 64%Us,23%Ud, status: 4%U2,23%U1; Habitats -conservation Fish: 18%U2,79%U1 on Art.17oftheHabi 2007-2012 reporting (National summary) tats Directive -

------cantly comparedwiththelevel ofemissionsregisteredin other products”, and“Agriculture” hasdecreasedsignifi sectors like “Industrialprocesses”, “Useofsolvents and ons registeredin2012.Thelevel ofGHGemissionsfrom approximately 8,57% comparedwiththelevel ofemissi (excluding thecontributionofLULUCF) hasincreasedwith SOER2014: In2013,thelevel oftotalGHG emissions 8,8% morethanin2011 (14701 ha)hasbeennatural regeneration, whichmeans fund thathasundergonetheregeneration process,57,1% SOER2013: OutofthetotalsurfaceunderStateforest tant in2014. ased from0,30ha/inhabitantin2010to0,32ha/inhabi compared to2013.Forest areaperinhabitanthasincre SOER2014: Theafforestedareaisslightlygrowing(0.1%) nerated forestsisdecreasingcomparedto2006. ber isincreasingcomparedto2006.Thesurfaceofrege sites hasincreasedfrom17,84%to23,38%. tal percentageofcountrysurfacecovered by Natura 2000 covered by SCIin2007to17,4%2012.Overall, theto in 2007to15,5%2012;from13,8%ofcountrysurface new sites:from12,5%ofcountrysurfacecovered by SPA Natura 2000siteshasincreasedwiththedesignationof mammals andplants.Thecountrysurfacecovered by followed by amphibians,arthropods,reptils, molluscs, fishes have thelowestfavourable conservation status, with theEuropeanaverage. Amongassessedspecies, of unassessedspeciesinRomania issmallercomparing (with respecttotheEUaverage of17%)andthepercent of assessedspecieshasafavourable conservation status the Europeanaverage (54%inUE-25-SOER2010).18% for speciesofcommunity interest,Romania faroutstrips average value of 72%ofunfavourable conservation status while 5%hasatotallyufavourable status.Thus,withan cies hasanunfavourable inadecuateconservation status than 80%).Ahighpercentage(67%)ofallassessedspe is assessedwithunfavorable conservation status(more percentage ofmarshesandpeatbogshabitatcategory conservation statusareinthealpineregion.Avery high totally unfavorable status.Mosthabitatswithfavorable approximately 7%ofthemhadbeenassessedwitha reported have afavorable conservation statuswhile More than60%ofRomanian habitatsassessedand registered thelowestfavourable conservation status SOER2014: Amongthespeciesassessed,fisheshave GHG bothgloballyandregionally. os, moresignificantinthosewithhigherconcentrations of creases over thewholeRomanian territory, inallscenari 1989. Average annualtemperatures forecastsregister in and reforestedsurfaces to cuttings(about9026ha)have exceeded regenerated than theyear before.Surfacesthathave beensubjected been afforestation(artificialregeneration), with4,1%less State oftheEnvironmentNationalReport2013 21 and/or 2014 20 19 . Thevolume ofharvested tim , while42,9%(11.026ha)has

------39 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Ecosys- tem Ty- 2007-2012 reporting Natural Policy pology on Art. 17 of the Habi- State of the Environment National Report of 2013 Re sector (MAES tats Directive and/or 2014 source Level (National summary) 2) SOER2014: Soil pollution from agriculture and forest waste as well as residues is reported for 1140 ha of which 948 ha are very aggressively and excessively polluted with animal dejections. The latter type of pollution alters the chemical composition of soil due to nitrates aug- mentation, which can have toxic effects also upon the underground water. Are affected in varying degrees 4.937 ha of which 1.097 ha are moderately strong/excessively affected. Pesticides soil pollution is reported only in some counties for a total of 2.076 ha of which 1.986 ha are in Bacau county in the surroundings of the industrial compound Chimcomplex; in general, pollution is low and Agricul- moderate. Increase of fertilized area (from 3.640.900 ha Cropland ture and to 6.676.089 ha) and of the amount of fertilizers per ha Rural (from 35,4 kg to 48,2 kg); decreased use of phytosani- Develop- tary products (from 1,18 kg s.a./ha in 1999 to 0,72 kg ment s.a./ha in 2014). The surface arranged for irrigation represents, theoretically, 36,77% of total works, 115413 ha less compared to 1999; the surface arranged for draining/ drainage represents 36,71% of total works with a decrease of 115.413 ha in 2014 compared to 1999; the surface arranged with anti-erosion works represents 26,52% of total works with a decrease of 47891 ha in 2014 compared to 1999. Increase of organic agriculture surfaces; in 2014, only 6,5% of cultivated land is fertilized with organic fertilizers. Grass Grasslands habitats: 3% land U2, 12% U1

192021 2.3. Results of the policy assessment: analysis and conclusions Growth is the economic paradigm underpinning Romania’s development path. In 2008 Romania has adopted a National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) to 2013- 2020-2030 where reference is made to all forms of capital, natural, physical, human and social, but also to sustainable growth. The concept of Green Economy is mentioned in the strategy of the Ministry of Economy called “Competitive Romania”, however natural capital is considered as a driver for development and economic growth. No reference is made to planetary boundaries and measures mentioned to avoid environmental degradation in favor of production fall in the category of greening. Without a Sustainable Green Economy Strategy (general criteria no.1 in the policy assessment), chances to 40 ensure human well-being across the entire population of the country are little. The Romanian MAES process has begun in March 2015 with the implementation of the N4D project, due to time constraints only selected ecosystems (forests, agricultural, urban and freshwater) had been assessed quantitatively and semi-quantitatively. In any case, the methodologies developed for the MAES process are applicable to perform a NEA, which should be pursued as a priority as soon as possible (general criteria no. 2 in the policy assessment). Institutional integration and coordination is crucial to implement a Sustainable Green Economy (general criteria no. 3 in the policy assessment). An Inter-ministerial Committee (ImC) for coordinating the integration of the environmental protection domain in sectoral policies and strategies at national level has been established with

19 Natural regeneration happens in forest where cuttings have taken place, so not in stable forests. Natural regeneration of forest is directly proportional to cuttings. The more is cut the more is regenerated. Thus, information about natural regeneration should not be considered independently. 20 Cuttings do not mean that forest vegetation has totally been cut, which should be the case for natural regeneration to happen. 21 For clarity reasons, reporting about forest habitats needs a better correlation and explaination of data. sector. the energysectoris not followed by thetransport meeting anyprinciple policy mitigation followed by biodiversity and territorial on the planning; contrary, is climatechange on theEcosystemApproach meeting most of CBD principles treated in forestry as well as fisheries and aquaculture policy sectors. and use to Furthermore, and accordingly. services measures ecosystem policy assess adapt to need the mentioning energy and biodiversity,affect that decisions take to order of in important very issue as valuation services the ecosystem address sectors policy all management of ecosystems knowledge-based development, regional for Except planning. territorial and mitigation change climate development,rural and agriculture for except of benefits and needs from natural resources management partially. it Similarly, do aquaculture and fisheries as well as biodiversity while it does forestry only treated, not usually is and capacity of ecosystem’sfunctions Approach into public policies shows for example, that Governance.12 the of Use Ecosystem Good of principles CBD the all integrate sectors policy the of none Besides, conceptual andoperational level, andformarineatoperational level (seetable12). both at energy for integration specific no is finally, there level; operational at it does that is water, regional development, transport and territorial and planning, implicitly while biodiversity 4 level; comprehensively integrate conceptual the at Ecosystem Approach it at conceptual does and marine operational level, aquaculture, while mitigation, and change fisheries climate development, rural and agriculture forestry, is that level, but not comprehensively and integrate explicitly the biodiversity Ecosystem only Approach assessed, the integrate comprehensively at policies conceptual sectoral and 11 operational the at further Looking governance systemandtheImChasnotbeenmadeyet. Scientific Group made of publicly selected experts. However, developed been thea linkand betweenrepresentatives, has thetechnical MAES ministerial of process made Group Steering MAES MAES a including the for system governance a set-up: been have transition. Under the N4D project the premises for a national Policy – Science Interface Economy and the role that governmental institutions and should implementing play on 649/2016 monitoring altogether the is Sustainable Development Goals without reference to Sustainable to Green ImC ensure the no. the of Order focus current Ministerial The respectively. with 15/2015 no. updated and been have engagement of rules and of Ministry the with closely Environment working entity, according juridical to a not Government but Decision body no. consultative a 38/2015 is (Art. 12.1a). It Its 741/2011. no. composition Decision with reorganized and 1097/2001 no. Decision Government National River BasinManagementPlan2015-2021,Water Law Forest Code Marine Strategy Romanian Territorial PlanningStrategy Regional Operational Program 2014-2020 Energy Strategy forRomania 2007-2020 updatedfor2011-2020 General MasterPlanforTransport 2014-2020 National Program forRural Development Operational Program forFisheriesandMaritimeAffairs Romanian NationalStrategy onClimateChange2013-2020 National Strategy andActionPlanforBiodiversity Conservation Tabel 12.Levelofintegrationecosystemapproachinsectorialpolicies s o tetd y aie n eeg plc scos wie t s o clearly not is it while sectors, policy energy and marine by treated not is Art.11 Monitoring Program POLICY CBD principles Ecosystem Approach to assess the integrationthe assess Ecosystem to the of with biodiversity clearly mentioning balance between conservation between balance management within thelimits management at conceptual level; 4 explicitly 4 level; conceptual at CONCEPTUAL

is usually not treated The policysector OPERATIONAL

equity 41 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania The design of policy instruments beyond greening is practiced by some policy sectors such as transport, biodiversity, climate change mitigation and territorial planning but there is definitely space for more creativity. Table no.13 below provides an overview of assessment results against specific criteria.

Table 13. Assessment of Romanian public polices vis-à-vis specific criteria reflecting the transition to Sustainable Green Economy

SPECIFIC CRITERIA Integration of the Ecosystem Policy Level of Approach Policy sector relevance integration of according to Design of policy instruments beyond the Ecosystem the Convention greening Approach on Biological Diversity (12 principles) X = Financial allocations under the Operational Program for large infrastructure. Also, contributions system for the use of water (payments, bonifications and penalties) based on Conceptual and  = 5 cost recovery, polluter pays, equal Environmental Operational: Water X = 6 access to water resources, rational use factors Implicit and of water resources (for the quantitative incomprehensive ! = 1 management) and cautiousness and prevention, cost recovery, polluter pays (for the qualitative management). Consequently, only indirectly it recognizes the ES of water provision. Conceptual and Natural Agriculture  = 9 Operational:  = agro-environmental payments resources and Rural X = 1 contributing to ES delivery management Development Explicit but not comprehensive ! = 2 Conceptual:  = Elimination of taxes for FSC certified Implicit and  = 6 surfaces; compensatory payments; incomprehensive. PES under art.11 and 15 of the Forest Forestry X = 3 Operational: Code; due diligence; NRDP measures for Explicit but not ! = 3 agro-forestry, and first afforestation. All comprehensive. contributing to ES delivery Conceptual and  = 6  = compensatory payments; payments Fisheries and for the improvement of the aquatic Operational: X = 4 aquaculture Explicit but not environment. All contributing to ES comprehensive ! = 2 delivery Conceptual: X = The Monitoring Program to ensure that Good Ecological Status of the Explicit but not  = 3 marine environment is achieved Marine comprehensive. X = 6 or maintained was supposed to be Operational: No ! = 3 elaborated until 2015 but no official specific integration. information has been found so far. X = Ecosystem services are not yet Conceptual and Use of / impact  = 5 integrated into EIA ans SEA procedures Regional Operational: 42 upon natural X = 4 (valid for project assessment across development Implicit and resources policy sectors). Investments focused on incomprehensive ! = 3 energy efficiency and to support SMEs  = Monitoring Program to prevent Conceptual and  = 4 negative effects upon the environment Operational: Transport X = 7 by proposing supplementary protective Implicit and measures that reduce the impact or for incomprehensive ! = 1 remediation of affected areas. X = Green Certificates focused on reducing pollution but without Conceptual and  = 0 Operational: biodiversity proofing.Certificates for Energy X = 10 the emissions of GHG. Environmental No specific ! = 2 Notification including conservation integration measrues not recognized nor implemented. used in the policy assessment. economic potential the as to “Tiger referred of been the East” has during the economy 2000s. the press Romanian the in fact, of matter a As outlook. economic improved an to led have 2007 in EU the to accession Romania and 2000s early and 1990s late the in reforms 1989, in regime Communist the of collapse 23 22 a of result the are ecosystems and income market developing, upper-middle economy environment the on pressures Human Business asUsualscenario is met public policies stimulate the transition towardsSustainable GreenEconomy In conclusion, way the and facilitate different ministries,mainlyfromtheMAESSteeringGroup, reports toEU. to reporting aims EU and moment for the indicators at activity GDP ongoing Beyond an is as decision-making well as indicators MAES of use The criteria ofEcosystemApproachintegration Numbers reflect the total of CBD principles that meet, do not meet or partially meet the ü ! =thecriteriaispartiallyornotclearlymet X =thecriteriaisnotmet Legend: by total nominal GDP nominal total by issues Cross-cutting =thecriteriaismet relevance Policy the costofgood “x”incurrency2. represents “P2” 1, currency in “x” good of cost the represents “P1” 2, currency to exchange1 ratecurrency of power of each country’s currency. The relative version of PPP iscalculated as: S = P1/P2 where “S” represents made on the currency exchange rate between countries that allows the exchange to be equal to the purchasing be must that adjustment approximatestotal that the economics in theory a is It Power Parity – Purchasing price level. period. Nominal differs from real GDP in that it includes changes in prices due to inflation or a rise in the overall the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time Nominal GDP – Nominal GDP is gross domestic product (GDP) evaluated at current market prices, GDP being . Also, . Biodiversity Planning Territorial Adaptation) Mitigation (and Climate Change– none of the three general criteria used to assess whether Romanian whether to criteriaused assess none ofthethreegeneral any of the policy sectors is meeting all the four specific criteria specific four the all meeting is sectors policy the of any http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nominalgdp.asp Policy sector 22 ae o oe 1 mlin etrs f giutrl ad diverse land, agricultural of hectares million 10 over on based and the 13 the and

incomprehensive. Implicit and Operational: explicit. Comprehensive and Conceptual: incomprehensive Implicit and Operational: Conceptual and comprehensive Explicit butnot Operational: Conceptual and the Ecosystem integration of anddonoteven mention“greeneconomy”. Approach Level of http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ppp.asp Overall, th largest based on Purchasing Power Parity Power Purchasing on based largest The countrycontinuesto have aconsiderable sectoral policies continue to support the ! X =3  ! X =4  ! X =3  the Convention (12 principles) the Ecosystem Integration of on Biological according to = 2 = 7 = 1 = 7 = 8 = 1 Approach Diversity SPECIFIC CRITERIA

cathegories T1andT2). functions ofnationalinterest(forest exploitation offorestswithprotection users thatrespectrestrictionsonthe sites; andcompensationsforforest management restrictionforNatura 2000 for forestandlandusersthatrespect State andFEADRbudget;compensations  territorial identity elements. and builtenvironment andvalorization of ecological transport. climate change.Economicincentives for virgin forests.Naturebasedsolutionsto reafforestation andconservation of bonifications schemeforafforestation, adaptation toclimatechange.National without biodiversity proofing.PESfor energy fromrenewable sourcesbut  and rural areas.P attractiveness andinclusiveness ofurban as wellquality oflife basedonquality, territorial competitiveness andcohesion  Design ofpolicyinstrumentsbeyond = Supportaimedatimproving te 17 the , = Protectedareasmanagementusing = GreenCertificatestoproduce

th greening ags i te EU the in largest rotection ofthenatural 23 . The . 43 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania energy sources (coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, nuclear and wind), a substantial, although aging, manufacturing base and opportunities for expanded development in tourism in the Black Sea coast and in the mountains. (Economy of Romania, 2017) The main sectors of the economy are agriculture, forestry, fishing, industry and services (auto industry and IT & C). The volume of traffic in Romania, especially goods transportation, has increased in recent years due to its strategic location in South-East Europe. In the past few decades, much of the freight traffic shifted from rail to road. A further strong increase of traffic is expected in the future. The energy sector is dominated by state-owned companies. Fossil fuels are the country’s primary source of energy, followed by hydroelectric power. Due to dependency on oil and gas imports from Russia, the country has placed an increasingly heavy emphasis on nuclear energy since the 1980s. For domestic heating/cooking rural and small-town households use almost exclusively domestically produced wood as the main energy source. Romania has the largest wind power potential in Southeast Europe (in 2015 installed wind power was representing 11% of national energy grid). (Ministery of Energy, 2016) Under the N4D project, 9 types of ecosystems have been identified in Romania during the scientific assessment of the MAES process, with croplands occupying most of the surface (34.96%) followed by forest ecosystewith agricultural ecosystems occupying most of the surface (35.12%) followed by forest ecosystems (28.28%), grasslands (12.97%), marine and coastal ecosystems (11.09%), urban ecosystems (5.09%), rivers and lakes (2.95%), wetlands (0.16%), shrubs (0.12%), sparsely or unvegetated land (0.01%). The main pressures caused by human activities upon Romanian ecosystems are building of grey infrastructure, urban development, intensive agriculture and forest activities, intensive fisheries and aquaculture, mine extractions, land use changes, introduction of invasive species, and improper waste management, which result in the following types of impact on the environment and ecosystems: pollution, habitat degradation and fragmentation, depletion of natural resources, Green House Gases (GHG) growth, and climate changes. Given current knowledge on Romanian ecosystems status available from the 2007- 2012 National summary report under Art. 17 of the Habitats Directive and from the State of the Environment National Report (SOER) of 2013 and/or 2014, the following prioritization has been made: wetlands, croplands, forests, marine and coastal, freshwaters and grasslands. Wetlands deserve significant attention since bogs, mires and fens habitats have a bad conservation status. With regards to croplands, it is particularly important to gain further knowledge about soil, which is the basis for most ecosystem services, and are a priority ecosystem given intensification of agriculture, land conversion and abandonment. Freshwater ecosystems deserve consideration since rivers are reported to have a good and moderate ecological status, 92% of natural lakes 44 still have a moderate ecological status, but fish species have the worse conservation status. Forests also deserve attention since on one hand, under Art.17 of the Habitats Directive 14% of forests are reported to have an unfavorable bad conservation status and 41% are reported to have an unfavorable inadequate conservation status; on the other hand, SOER2014 presents a positive image of forests with the afforested area slightly growing (0.1%) compared to 2013 and the forest area per inhabitant having increased from 0, 30 ha/inhabitant in 2010 to 0,32 ha/inhabitant in 2014. No information is specifically available regarding urban ecosystems, shrubs and rocks. When discussed with the Scientific Group under the N4D project, the status and prioritization of ecosystems for the Romanian MAES process has been agreed as follows: grasslands, facing a declining status with a reduction in surfaces, production, fodder quality and biodiversity; forests followed by wetlands, both facing a declining status and with the need to better manage the supply of floods control and drainage regulation functions respectively; marine and coastal ecosystems with a stationary status; urban ecosystems, croplands, freshwaters, shrubs and rocks with an improving status. Considering data availability, the ecosystems selected for an in-depth assessment picture: institutional following the provided has EU, the towards reporting environmental and knowledge in Romania and Group to the systemcurrentlyinplaceforelaboration assess of public policies Steering MAES the of members to distributed questionnaire policy the Finally, Ecosystem Governance, andisrecommendedinthefollow-up phaseoftheN4Dproject. Good is that management, integrated sustainable through capital natural can provide a comprehensive picture on the effectiveness of public policies in protecting that a further operational assessment of public policies including regulations and norms, capacity constraints, as mentioned in the premises for the policy assessment, it follows Considering that sectoral policies have been assessed at strategic level due to time and no specificintegration atoperational level. the comprehensivenot under level,but integrationconceptual and at Approach Ecosystem the of Group Scientific ecosystems. forest the about Surprising, reportings marine ecosystems have by on in differences reported the explains it as Also, project. grasslands N4D of status and ofcroplands declining status thethe average itexplains the Similarly, species. explains fish further of level status operational bad and conceptual at Approach Ecosystem the integration comprehensive of not but explicit The 11%. for unknown for unfavorable declining, 23%, unfavorable 64%, for stable unfavorable is status habitats in trend the while unfavorableconservationstatus havean inadequate species of 67% why explain Approach level operational Ecosystem at integration comprehensive and implicit the the and level conceptual at of integration comprehensive and explicit The wetlands. of functional characteristics of water bodies. Also, it explains the bad conservation status riversand lakes and the bad status of fishof species, with little consideration being given tostatus the good the between contradiction the explains policy water the of level operational and conceptual at Approach Ecosystem the of integration comprehensive thatisGood Ecosystem Governance integrated management and forestry are such as biodiversity, water, fisheries and aquaculture, agriculturethat Romanianshows andof ecosystems status the and sectoral policies rural development, a comparison between the level of integration of the Ecosystem Approach into Romanian energy,Furthermore, development. forestry,urban and transport, exploitation, mining forestry,and urbanization, agriculture, the modifications, systems natural are energy species on and while materials production, of extraction mining catastrophes), (without processes abiotic frequency on habitats are agriculture, natural systems modifications, natural biotic and higher with threats and pressures main the that given making, policy to respect With freshwaters, forests, are 2017 April in croplands andurbanecosystems. project N4D the of end the by (quantitative) • • • services relatedknowledge ismainlyatconceptuallevel; indicators, and 2 about economic instruments. Also at institutional level, monitoring about 5 valuation, ecosystem economic about 2 assessment, and mapping about knowledge related haveservices to ecosystem representativessaid institutional 4 of notion the of definition clear a ersnaie fo Mnsr o Tasot Mnsr o Arclue n Rural and with specific attributesfordealing withecosystemservices; Agriculture of Ministry Transport, Development and of Ministry of Regional Development Ministry could not identify departments from representatives affirmatively; Administration, and the Ministry of Forest Agriculture National and the Rural NEPA, Forests,Development and haveWaters Environmentreplied of Ministry the from of sector,policy representatives their concerning laws and Ministry rules in found is concept the service ecosystem as the whether asked when such Contrariwise, system. governmental resources natural managing Transport; it fallouts the issue of a usable definition, one formally directly endorsed by the not ministries for the improvement of policy and decision making as well as biodiversity as well as making decision and policy of improvement the for not fully effective in protecting natural capital through sustainable promote an institutional environment ableto use MAES priority public policy sectors to be monitored are agriculture, average a good status ecosystem services s edd seily for especially needed is although there is explicit sectoral policies . The implicit and implicit The . 45 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania • the majority of institutions are satisfied with the information instruments currently available for reporting and decision-making while few are only partially satisfied; • the majority of institutions said that rules and laws on land and natural resources management do not cover all the activities under their policy sector; • on the question about the efficient integration of the ecosystem services concept within their policy sector, the National Forest Administration representative considers it to be inefficient, a representative from NEPA and the Ministry of Environment Forests and Water representative consider it to be insufficiently efficient, and the Authority for Payments and Interventions in Agriculture does not know; • all institutional representatives have agreed that major problems in the integration and implementation of the ecosystem services concept within public policies are: the fact that the concept is not understood, lack of information about ecosystem services, lack of implementation instruments, an ambiguous legislative framework, and unclear institutional responsibilities. Similarly, when asked what could be improved the majority said about raising stakeholders’ awareness, improving clarity of the legislative framework, and clearly defining responsibilities; • the type of information system used by each institution is not clearly defined, whether it is specific for activities managed by the institution and/or for ecosystems supporting activities managed by the institution and/or geographic/geospatial; • the need for an integrated information system with on-time information has been raised. Still, information from different information sources seems to be integrated and used in decision-making. However, a more comprehensive image about ecosystem services is necessary for decision-making. Overall, the following challenges have been encountered in the process of engaging institutional stakeholders: • understanding the relevance concerning the involvement within the MAES process of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Economy; • keeping continuity in institutional representation in the MAES process as well as ensuring communication between decision makers and technical personnel; • understanding the link between a sectoral policy and the environment. For example, Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Economy consider that the Ministry of Environment is overall responsible for environmental objectives; • lack of intra-institutional communication and coordination about reporting obligations, which makes finding the information a lengthy and beaurocratic process; • short-term involvement in project activities like the N4D project rather then engagement in a long-term process such as MAES, and lack of official intra- institutional communication about the personnel designated and the process itself.

46 2.4. Recommendations for policy and decision making towards a Sustainable Green Economy This report concludes with the following recommendations to policy and decision makers that are willing to implement a Sustainable Green Economy in the context of sustainable development: 1. To develop and implement a Sustainable Green Economy strategy correlated with the National Sustainable Development strategy. Strategy development should be based on business sector analysis about use of and dependence upon ecosystem services necessary to plan the transition to a Sustainable Green Economy. Furthermore, beyond GDP indicators should be used in decision and policy making such as Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity indicators as well as other green economy indicators. Also, the concept of Sustainable Green Economy defined for Romania should beintegrated into sectoral public policies dealing with ecosystems and natural resources management and implemented accordingly. 6. 4. 3. 2. 5.

communication betweendecisionmakersandtechnicalpersonnel process institutional throughout the representatives recommended is It level. national at strategies and policies for coordinating the integration of the environmental protection domain in sectoral be formalized and continued, for example through the Inter-ministerial Committee should project N4D the under implemented and system developedgovernance of Environment andgranted publicaccess. Ministry the byMAES, managed Paymentsas is such etc. Services, Ecosystem for produced and a that desirable is it Furthermore, Directive. INSPIRE granted be should data N4D project; also, to ensure more informed and timely decision-making geospatial to achieve s o sinii kolde n csses n ter evcs itisfundamental functional a services establish andtheir to on ecosystems knowledge scientific of use be explored,understoodandimplementedcorrectly. innovative policy instruments Besides, implemented. be should recommendations resulting then exists, already to assessment an and case In instruments. Governance such into Ecosystems assessment ecosystems integrate Good towards etc.) plans, management areas infrastructure projects, the Prioritized Action Framework for Natura 2000, protected the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure, the appraisal procedure of large could be also part of a follow-up to the N4D project. Particular attention should the assessing to attention given be Particular project. N4D the to follow-up a of part also be could relevance policies of public should be continued to integrationits on and policies used public be should principles CBD to according completed funding and coordination should be allocated to finalize the MAES process. accounts MAES the finalize to allocated pillar, scientific be the Under should coordination and funding Romania shouldbecontinued theconceptualframeworkforMAESprocess in All fourpillarsunder Inter-institutional integration and coordination Last but not least, Data on biodiversity,ecosystems of level the on assessment The assessment pillar,a building capacity the under Finally, stakeholders. all of reviewed and the general public). society,media, civil representatives, (government stakeholders all for elaborated further be should messages key and language non-technical into translated be to Governance. Under the communication pillar, scientific information should continue Ecosystems Good of achievement the and Approach Ecosystem the of integration be should regulations and norms analyzed in that addition (forests, to the means strategic assessment it ecosystems in order water; to find and selected entry points development, for the rural with and associated agriculture forestry, is that sectors ecosystems), urban and policy croplands, freshwaters, the for least at should be should ahr hn poe t i. en aae f n respecting and of aware Being it. to ecological limits opposed than rather to development to securecitizens’ improve policyelaboration in thenextpolicycycles . Under the policy pillar, the to also include actions for the further outreach and awareness raising awareness and outreach further the for actions include also to periodically updated i--i te mlmnain f Ssanbe re Eooy This Economy. Green Sustainable a of implementation the vis-à-vis Good Ecosystems Governance including shouldbeperformedandimplementedaccordingly. network ofexpertise involved in research projects including topics biodiversity conservation should be seen as well-being as well as preserving as well as

integration of ecosystemservicesvaluesinto national The N4D project communication strategy should be Policy-Science Interface Policy-Science public access and transparency and access public efficacy of current policy instruments policy current of efficacy the National Ecosystems Assessment should be the National Ecosystems Assessment in thelong-term. integration of the Ecosystem Approach into as follow-up to the N4D project and appropriate and project N4D the follow-upto as such as Payments for Ecosystem Services should based on research protocols defined under the under defined protocols research on based status and functions and full policy assessment to cover the issues of enforcement and of enforcement to cover theissues ecosystemsresilience . Also, to ensure understanding and understanding ensure to Also, . I ti cnet the context, this In . should be actively pursued actively be should database ofknowledge . Also, the as well as should be performed to keep thesame natural resources codn t the to according complementary training needs is fundamental is (for example (for assessment to ensure . MAES

47 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Chapter 3 Methodologies underpinning scientific work

48 represented inFigure4. schematically is scale national at mapping and identification ecosystem made available by different European institutions. The whole process of those and level national at both used been have information and data of ecosystems identified has been achieved. For this stage the available European level, a national cartographic representation of different types most important classification systems recognized and usedthe especially at with relationships establishing by it validating scale, national a on ecosystems classifying and identifying for typology the selecting After local, regionalandnationalscale. at applicable but level, international at especially developed typologies classification ecosystem important most evaluationlevelthe wasthe of towards identifying ecosystems and mapping the step ecosystems first at the project, national the by proposed objectives the to according policies and biodiversity of requirements the with starting context, this In 3.1. Mappingofecosystems seily o hbtt, oh t a-uoen n ntoa levels, national and used and accepted systems pan-European classification several at are there both currently habitats, for especially developed, been have classifications of number a decades, last the In applied tothenational biogeographical specificity. be can which level, typology,European unitary at a recognized identify The evaluation stage of the ecosystems classification typology sought to classifying ecosystems Typologies foridentifyingand Figure 4.Theprocessofidentifyingandmappingecosystems at nationallevel

49 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania both locally and regionally, nationally and internationally. Some of this classification systems are more detailed, for example the CORINE typology (1991), the PALEARCTIC classification (1996,1999) and the EUNIS classification (1997,2005), and others are briefer, including those types of habitats whose conservation requires adopting specific measures, like EMERALD (2000), The Habitats Directive (1992, adopted in 1999 and 2002) (Doniță et al, 2005). Besides the existing habitat classification systems for Europe, in most countries have been developed national systems for habitat or ecosystem classification. To meet the need of developing an uniform pan-European habitats/ecosystems classification, the first initiatives begun since the 1980s. The first harmonized classification system at European level based on land cover was developed through CORINE (European Environmental Agency (EEA) 1999 project, Heymann et al. 1993), and complementary to the CORINE Biotope classification, the purpose of this system its o track changes that occur in the land use at European level, analysed at timescales in order to capture evolution trends, highlighting degradation and/or anthropogenic pressures, identifying 43 classes of anthropic and natural elements. Both classification systems used Earth Observation techniques but did not reacha level of coverage across Europe. The CORINE Biotope classification, published in 1991, aimed to identify and describe habitats of major importance for conservation within the European Community. It is a hierarchical classification system, designed to cover all types of habitats but with an emphasis on natural and semi-natural habitats, a limited coverage of marine habitat types. Although it is based on the phytosociological approach, it also includes other factors, such as geography, climate, soil, and captures several types of habitats without vegetal cover. Another objective of the CORINE program is to bring together all the attempts that have been made over the years at different levels (international, community, regional and national) to get as much information as possible about the environment and how it changes. Starting with the CORINE program, the term habitat has been developed in Europe, which, stricto senso, means a place to live, that is to say, the abiotic environment in which a distinct body or biocenosis lives. But in the sense that it was given in the CORINE program and then in other classification systems that followed, the term habitat it was actually understood as an ecosystem, like a “habitat” stricto senso and the corresponding biocenosis that occupies it (Doniţa et al , 2005). The CORINE Biotope classification has been expanded to cover the whole of Europe by developing the PALEARCTIC classification system (Devillers Devillers-Terschuren 1996). Although the PALEARCTIC classification has extended geographical coverage, the classification of marine habitats has still remained deficient, and clear criteria for discretization of different types of habitats have not been developed. Several more recent classification systems have evolved in standards for habitat conservation at European level (e.g. EUNIS developed for AEM (Davies & Moss, 2002, European Environment Agency (EEA), 2003 and classification from Annex 1 Habitats Directive). The first version of the classification developed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive published in 1992 is a selection from CORINE Biotope classification (Evans, 2010), 50 identifying 233 types of habitats of conservative interest, the European Environment Agency establishing a correspondence between habitats codes from Annex I and the CORINE classification. Habitats are listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive and described in the Interpretation Handbook (European Commission 2007). Although the Interpretation Handbook provides more details than the list of habitats in Annex 1, there are still many problems when trying to identify the types of habitats on site, selecting sites, evaluating national lists for the proposed sites and monitoring them. Some of these problems arise from the flawed, sometimes overlapping, and definition of habitat types. This has led to differences in interpretation between different countries and regions. The classification in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive does not define ecosystems, this typology is still working with the term habitat, addressing in particular to natural and semi-natural habitats which requires the identification of a protection and conservation regime. In 1995, the European Environment Agency began drafting the EUNIS classification, the objective being the development of a ranked classification of land, freshwater and marine habitats for the whole Europe and its islands and seas. The EUNIS (European that the ecosystem is defined as a complex of flora and fauna in relationship with inrelationship ecosystems: terrestrial,freshwater andmarine (seeFigure5). and fauna of categories major three of 1 flora level at separates typology acomplex This environment. abiotic the as defined is ecosystem the that The MAES approach plans to develop a system of ecosystem classification, in the sense for identification. used information been developed and purpose have the to specific complexity of systems degrees different classification with These classifications. relational a existing to approach of specific model a by manner complementary a in used be can etc., European and classification2005) systemsal suchet as(Doniță EUNIS,Romania PALEARCTIC,of CORINEHabitats BiotopeThe /as CLC,such Naturaworks 2000, Reference usedfor one 24 subclassesofthePALAEARCTIC classificationsystem. the and classes especially 7 into fall that level, habitats of types 357 atEuropean described were There NATURA2000. used systems classification the with and (1991) territory, correspondence as well CORINE as systems, classification national habitats the 1999) (1996, PALAEARCTIC in the characterizations attempt and on names first found summed with a habitats them of of is most types 2005) main al., the et describe (Doniță consistently Romania to from Habitats work scientific The Directive, Habitats the of EMERALD andEUNIS(Sarbuetal., categories 2003)hasbeenoutlined. habitat with correspondence their and outlined of986entries number 1995a in belonging to 7 ranked reaching classification levels.has increased, Recently, 57 categories habitats of habitats have described been briefly and identified of number the years, the Over presented. were types habitats 240 over when the collaboration for the CORINE International Program began, occasion in which 1991, since established been has habitats identifying of problem the Romania, in Also identification keys, comparedwiththespeciesidentification keys. habitats forming parameters, specific these using developed criteria efficient is on based hierarchical, strictly is which classification, EUNIS The etc.). areas biogeographical levels (e.g. substrate type, dominant life form, humidity, depth, human use and impact, landscape different at discontinuities identifying in useful veryparameters, abiotic and the full help With of the EUNIS system, habitat types criterion. are characterized a using different specificvegetation biotic the that on so solely based environment, be cannot marine habitats the of enumeration in especially vegetation, by covered not are are they However,conservationists. and Europe, habitats biologists many most to of accessible hardly still parts many in ecologists some by understood well relatively are While phytosociological classifications (based on the identification of plant associations) Annex IoftheHabitatsDirective. in defined system classification the of development the underpin also which program, the PALEARCTIC classification, which extended the geographical coverage of the redefined classification EUNIS Directive. CORINE The Habitats EU the of I Annex with particular existing internationally, used those with systems national link to users allowed classifications in different between correspondence of development The Directive). Habitats I with the CORINE classification system and the Natura correspondence in 2000 developed classification also system is (Annex system classification EUNIS The habitats. ranked from natural to artificial, from land to freshwater and marine, identifying 5282 types of The strength of this classification is represented by the fact thathabitat it coversdescription all habitatand types harmonized data facilitate to developed system pan-European collection a is classification EUNIS across The Europe by using habitat identification criteria. regional classifications,arealsoachieved. and national the including classifications, existing other the with relationships first the identification keys for the first three classification levels (four for marine habitats), while 2004). An important aspect of this typology is the developing the criteria in the form of Classification Revised Habitat “(EUNIS area that in living animals and plants of species by and - hydrography,etc. climate, topography,soil, - conditions abiotic by primarily characterized cohabit, animals and plants of species which in space “the as defined is In the sense and is according to the purpose which of the EUNIS classification, Network), the term “habitat” Observation Information currently consideredacommonclassificationschemestrengthenedatEuropeanlev Environmental (European EIONET and for Nature Protection and Biodiversity (ETC / NPB el. 51 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 5. MAES Typology for ecosystem classification (European ecosystem assessment-concept, data and implementation, EEA Technical Report, no 6/2015)

52 type ofhabitatmentionedabove, correspondsto18habitat types. villosa Calamagrostis flexuosa, Deschampsia luzuloides, (Luzula flora acidophilic type herbaceous same the of beams fir spruce and beech beech, fir as well as woods beech pure thetypeof example, “9110 For habitat to another. system used classification ofhabitats one from level different detailed very The is mapping. field by ofdifferent validated fully onevaluations not based but experts theoretical, purely are level. systems European at classification habitats Most potential of types thousand several are there present At the Copernicusprogram (European Environment Agency, 2013). Environment (European Agency, 2010) which approach mentions the use of the CORINE Land Cover classes monitored in Baseline Biodiversity 2010 EU the on based is and at The MAES results methodology presents unitary the benefit ofachieving of its application across advantage all EUEuropean level. the member states and effectiveness various member in its demonstrating applied thus etc.) Switzerland successfully Netherlands, the Spain, (Austria, been Union European the of has states methodology specific MAES The coherent, unitarymanner. consistent for a in aggregated and level allow European at developed classification this with compatible be should types level. European Information ecosystem from a and more detailed local classification withnational higher spatial resolution must local, at for services and status ecosystem established of assessments classes key These mapping issues (applicationofCLC dataforspatialdelimitation). current account global into takes with and scale pan-European compatible a maintains is Europe), of and areas different between policies comparison (allows EU typological is It to classification. ecosystem relevant considered is approach This The proposal for MAES classification level 2 corresponds to EUNIS level 1 classification. for CLCclasses of acombination on explicit mappingofspacerelatedtoEUNIShabitattypes. based is classification ecosystems MAES for the Strategy,proposal Biodiversity 2020 EU the by established directions the Following of representation important balanced European ecosystems and a habitats listed in both Annex I of ensure the Habitats Directive. to undertaken ecosystem carefully of be provision should the services to contribution and status their for assessed be can that ecosystems or types habitat of selection The approaches. these between consistency the of analysis detailed a on relationship between land based cover classes and habitat is classification systems and ensuring aggregation This MAES. by proposed goal the an of result Land Cover (CLC) classes with a the types of ecosystems identified in Romania to achieve as mapping of ecosystems purpose the and the scale chosen. of on In the MAES approach, dependent this was done highly by aggregating delimitation the CORINE is that spatial typology agreed internationally the is ecosystems Mapping specific composition,resourcemanagement. etc.), vegetation of (type cover land use, of type conditions, hydro-geomorphological similarities between the ecosystem categories can be grouped into: climatic conditions, Concretely,factors. social and climatic biological, characterizedsimilar are by category (home range of a species, migration corridors, material flows). Ecosystems in the same delimitations (soil types, hydrographic basins, water depths, etc.), spatial relationships the on hydro-geomorphological species, a of area based the as such discontinuities, is of identification ecosystems of delimitation spatial approach, MAES the to According needs ofthemostimportantreportingpoliciesatEuropeanlevel. the manner,integratingreflecting an also typologyin aggregated unitary be this could level national and local at data the thus level, European at classification ecosystem of DG-ENV,type with this together on states, agreed havemember EEA, EU and The JRC , Vaccinium myrtillus Luzulo-Fagetum , etc.). For example, in the PALAEARCTIC classification, the PALAEARCTICclassification, the in Forexample, etc.). , ec frss o te aias ietv icue both includes Directive Habitats the of forests” beech 53 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania These classification systems (Table 14) show a number of similarities, but they are not identical and reporting at European level is therefore difficult. Moreover, international directives and conventions use different types of classifications, complicating the connections between them. Thus, the need for unitary characterization of the current distribution of ecosystems, structural and functional units generating goods and services emerges through a methodological approach of existing, unitary classification systems using the current relational database facilities for gaining relevance in the conceptual approach of the mapping methods for ecosystems.

Table 14. Comparative assessment of the most important habitats / ecosystems classification systems, useful information in selecting a unitary and usable classification system according to European requirements

Mapping and Habitatele Classification Corine Land Assessment din România system/ Natura 2000 EUNIS Cover (CLC) of Ecosystems (Doniță et al. Characteristics Services 2009) Natural, semi- Natural, semi- Types of Natural, semi- Natural, present in Natural and natural and natural and habitats/ natural and natural protected semi- natural anthropic anthropic anthropic areas habitats ecosystems habitats ecosystems Level Pan-European Pan-European Pan-European Pan-European National Discontinue (space Discontinue (only fragmentation the classification Space Continue by addressing Continue Continue of natural and representation only protected semi-natural habitats) habitats) Yes (CLC and Yes (few data of Yes (few data Spatial data data from some the natural and Yes only within the Yes/CLC availability of the national semi-natural protected areas) territories) national habitats) Different 1:100000 resolutions Resolution 1:10000 depending of 1:100000 - (25 ha MMU) the evaluated territory High data accessibility for Data available at Data available at Accessible and the protected regional scale, regional scale, but Spatial data usable data, but areas, limited but relatively relatively reduced Reduced accessibility on a regional data accessibility reduced at local at local and scale for the mapped and national national scale habitats within scale protected areas It captures both structural and functional 54 heterogeneity It captures Captures Captures (ecosystem the structural Captures structural structural services) both heterogeneity structural Relevance heterogeneity at heterogeneity for locally and of natural and heterogeneity at protected habitats habitats at local regionally (based semi-natural regional level level level on a combination habitats at of the main national level spatial and non- spatial CLC-EUNIS classifications); Using only the Non-spatial, CLC geometry Minimum detailed typology and the current mapping It only based on MAES classification Constraints/ unit is 25ha addresses Natura identification does not capture It can only be Limitation on (500x500m); 2000 sites. keys for habitat the structural applied to natural Ecosystem CLC Geometry types; difficult Limited data on and functional and semi-natural mapping at does not capture to map without habitat distribution heterogeneity habitats national level structural a spatial within protected of ecosystems heterogeneity at representation areas; for an optimal the local level of the ecological assessment of the systems. services they offer proposes for the identification and classification of ecosystems on a national scale an scale a national on ecosystems of classification and identification the for proposes upof made theconsortium National Environmental byMAES), Protection Agency, proposed Romanian Space (approach Agency classification and WWF From EUNIS - 1 Romanialevel the and typology MAES of 2 level to related onlyonthe classes Cover Land CORINE relying 44 and ofecosystems, and mapping classification identification, the ecosystems existing in Romania and the limitations of the existing approaches regarding In this context, taking into account the heterogeneity of the natural and anthropogenic conditions (presence ofcertainEUNISclassesonlyunder certainenvironmental conditions). environmental certain using or areas) geographical certain in only classes be can solved using identification based onOverlaps geographic criteria (e.g. presence of classifications. certain EUNIS different the between m m: type relationships the in differences defining for system expert support a as developed be can rules of set This type. habitat each to applicable rules of set a developing further and level, European at accuracy of degree high a with data sets, data spatial available identifying by done be can This data. spatial auxiliary using refined further be can classes CLC and EUNIS The type of relationships “many to many” identified in the correspondence between the countries. a for used be also can practical database comparison quantitativeof This all correspondence. provide Pan-European of classifications cannot and degree but those the developed them, on for different information between relationship a of existence the only The development of a relational database can link the different classifications, indicating than one systems isextremelyusefulfortheunitaryapproachofclassificationmethodologies. to more corresponds classification a in class in another classification). However, class matching between the different classifications (one m m: type the of often are correspondents these that fact the from particular in arise problems Interpretation is a complex task, it is essential for users to systems classification understand habitat different and between correspondences use these the Understanding same interpretation. andEuropean national bydifferent legislation. used systems classification habitats of approach helps classification science-based ofhabitat allowed users types to other make the and correspondence has between classification national and EUNIS international system data between in the relation unitary classification The level. European at EUNIS accepted classifications different the the between correspondence of development The typology ismade. thus the correspondence between all the habitat types listed in Annex 1 and the EUNIS At European level, a major importance is attributed to Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive, occurring differences between differentcountriesoreven betweendifferentregions atnationallevel. the Directive, Habitats the of I Annex in habitats of description the interpreting when identified was problem This level. European or national at documents used various the of interpretations local to due arise also Differences habitats. theexperts offieldassessments, case areinterpreted allocating in differentoccur habitats types of differences how habitats Such in to scales. the differences different mappedat major polygons, are also delimiting there the that identified have the shows experience ofthem most systems, classification potential to habitats develop relationships, several usually represented are as there correspondence tables. Although Current member statesoftheEuropeanUnion(Donițăetal., 2005). the of equivalence of the NATURA 2000 network, with the national handbooks ones, have been carried out in most of Such the coherent interpretation. a European habitat classification systems, especially those used in the implementation of and requires that equivalence operation of complex a system is them matching methods, working Because the most important habitats classification systems are often based on different systems Correspondence betweenhabitats/ecosystemsclassification 55 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania integrated methodology that preserves the principles of the MAES approach regarding the major categories of ecosystems and the services provided by them, but which aims to obtain the mapping of national ecosystems at a higher level of detail, using for this purpose the level 3 of the EUNIS typology. The justification for the use of Level 3 of the EUNIS classification comes fromthe need to optimally identify the heterogeneity of ecosystems at national level in terms of both the requirements regarding the assessment of ecosystem services as well as the available and, above all, usable data and information at national level. The identification and mapping of national ecosystems at EUNIS 3 level is supported by the fact that we now have selection criteria for habitat types elaborated within the EUNIS habitat classification methodology and identification keys for differentiating habitats upto EUNIS level 3 based on different parameters. This approach is based on the scientific foundation of the fact that ecosystems that have different specific compositions, defined by different abiotic factors and having different material, energy and information flows, also generate different ecosystem services (e.g. an ecosystem of riparian forests and galleries (EUNIS level 3 G1.1) provides different ecosystem services than a non-acidic peat forest ecosystem (EUNIS level 3 G1.4)). In order to identify as accurately as possible all types of EUNIS level 3 ecosystems at national level, it was necessary in the first stage to establish correspondences between the different typologies of habitat / ecosystem classification. Taking into account the important classification systems and the correspondence between these systems, the team of experts involved in the project has made the selection of the ecosystem types at national level, starting mainly from the habitat types identified in The Habitats of Romania (Doniță et al., 2005). In order to identify the national ecosystems according to the EUNIS typology, the table of correspondence of the national habitats classes with the main EUNIS, PALEARCTIC and Habitats Directives was analysed, a table already developed by Doniță et al in 2005 (Figure 6). For the types of national habitats for which Doniță et al (2005) did not identify correspondence with the EUNIS typology, the links with this classification system were made through thorough checks by the experts involved in the project of the correspondences between the national habitats and the PALEARCTIC classification systems, and The Habitats Directive, and afterwards the PALEARCTIC-Habitats Directive-EUNIS correspondence has been verified, and all existent national EUNIS 3 level habitats have been identified by cross-checks. In order to optimize the decision support expert systems, a MS Access databases have been developed in order to achieve all correspondences between the main EUNIS classification systems, the Habitats Directive, CORINE Land Cover, PALEARCTIC and MAES, the relationships between them being modelled as many to many (m:m) 56 relationships (e.g. a CLC class may contain multiple EUNIS or MAES classes and vice versa) (Figures 6, 7, 8). Figure 6.Extractfromdatabasesonthecorrespondencebetweendifferent Figure 7.Tableofrelationshipbetweenhabitatsclassificationsystens, types ofhabitatclassificationsystems(Donițăetal) Habitat DirectiveandEUNIS(Donițăetal) 57 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 8. Table of relationship between habitats classification systems, PALEARCTIC and EUNIS

Figure 9. Schematic representation of relationships between different classification systems

58 Following verification of all correspondence between the EUNIS habitat types and the most commonly used classification systems, 110 types of EUNIS level 3 ecosystems have been identified at national level.

Mapping national level ecosystems The MAES National Working Group proposes for the mapping of ecosystem types a typology that combines the Corine Land Cover (CLC) classes for a spatially explicit mapping with a non-spatial classification of habitats system (EUNIS). The practical approach proposed by MAES for the spatial delimitation of ecosystems is the use of parameters which define certain biotic and abiotic conditions specific to different types of ecosystems (ex. distribution of populations, soil types, river basins, feeding areas, vegetation types, climatic and geological characteristics, etc.) in order to identify the border areas and the discontinuities between different types of ecosystems. a high degree of detail on heterogeneity within high ecosystem complexes with high with similarity.complexes ecosystem high within heterogeneity on detail of degree high a spatial provide that specific materials (Table15), data through and maps available analyzed using techniques are analysis attributes associated and elements Geometry greater detailedlevel thanCLC class3. a at classified be to them allows and ecosystems anthropic and natural of distribution spatial of gain local a provides (scale 1:5000) plots LPIS the by represented theme CoverLand CORINE at the of association spatial The and identification (LPIS), System land usebeingalsodifferentiated. Identification Plots National classification system developed mainly for agricultural and pastoral land, other types of the by elaborated Cover classes The process of mapping ecosystems in Romania started from the (European Topic CentreforNatureProtectionandBiodiversity). thecorrespondence (2006), CLCclasses ETC-BD the developed by already being the systems EUNIS-CLC classification the between to them linking by firstly achieved was level national at identified types ecosystem EUNIS the of mapping the context, this In Cover CORINE Land system) identification plot (Agricultural LPIS Orthophoto map DTM LIDAR imagery SPOT Satellite Space theme Table 15.Inputdatausedformappingofecosystems Agency (EEA) European Environment Registration Cadastre andLand National Agencyof Registration Cadastre andLand National Agencyof Ministry ofEnvironment d’études spatiales) CNES (Centrenational and the the association with initial Source time series(1990,2000,2006and2012). The spatialdistributionof44landuseclasses,valid over adopted withintheLPISsysteminRomania. information systemandrepresentsthereferenceparcel physical blockisuniquelyidentifiedinthegeographical which may includeoneormoreagricultural plots.The purposes withstablenatural orartificiallinearlimitsand The delimitationoflandplotsusedforagricultural intensity orarea. (Becker etal., 2007,Sæbøetal., 2012),distinctin of eachecosystemandthusintheservicesprovided detail comesfromthedifferencesinfunctionality ecosystems. Theneedfordiscretizationatthislevel of national coverage, usedforthediscretizationofnatural orthophotographs processing.Orthophotomapswith georeferenced; Orthophotomapsareobtainedby photogrammetric cameras thatarerectifiedand Aerial imagestaken over by digitalairborne ecosystems andecosystemservices(Mooreetal., 1991). a largeheterogeneity inareduced spaceofassociated geomorphological processesatitssurface,resultingin major influenceon hydrological, biologicaland Also, topographical featuresofthelandhave a services (Quinnetal., 1991). mapping stageandintheassessmentofecosystem hydrological modellingprocesses,bothintheecosystem LIDAR /FLI-MAP digitalterrain modelsusedin distribution. account buildings,communicationroutesandvegetation distance betweentheaircraft and theground,takinginto scanning usesthelasertechniquetomeasure altitude datawithavery goodprediction.LIDAR LIDAR dataisaremotesensingtechnologyforproviding 2001; Xiaoetal. 2002). be extracted by supervisedclassification(Salajanuetal., based ecosystemsorconiferous forestecosystemscan classes inforestecosystems, forexample,whereforest- SPOT satellite imageryusedtodistinguishvery similar or anthropogenicactivities. forecasting events relatedtooceanography, climatology knowledge ofnatural resourcesby detectingand observation commercial imagerydesignedtobroaden SPOT satelliteimagesarehigh-resolution Earth Description high resolution spatial themes high 1: 100000 scale with the spatial level 3 Corine Land 1:100000 1:5000 1:5000 5 m Resolution 6 m MS: 5m– Resolution resolution Scale / 59 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Scale / Space theme Source Description resolution The geological map of Romania, disposed in 50 individual sheets (the layout and nomenclature respects the Gauss- Kruger projection), presents the geological sections (the main features of the depth structure of the territory of each map sheet) and the stratigraphic columns (the Geological Institute of Geological map ensemble of the existing formations, and formation 1:200000 Romania which do not appear up to date). The material presents a written part on the lithological and paleontological contents of the formations, their distribution and considerations regarding the geological evolution of the territory. National Research and Development The geological map of Romania, disposed in 50 individual Institute for Pedology, Soil map sheets, describes the pedological characteristics of 1:200000 Agrochemistry Romania’s territory to subtype level. and Environmental Protection DEM

-altitude EU-DEM: The Digital Terrain Model used is a combination European Environment of SRTM 90 and DTED data. SRTM (The Shuttle Radar -slope 100*100m Agency (EEA) Topography Mission) obtains large-scale elevation data to generate high-resolution digital models globally. -exposition

-landforms, etc. Data generated by interpolation of climatic data with a monthly average frequency. The variables included are WorldClim – Global Resolution 1 Climatic data annual precipitation, monthly average, minimum and Climate Data km2 maximum temperatures, and 19 derivatives bioclimatic variables. EuroVegMap 2.0.6 Map of the potential BfN, BOHN &NEUHAUSL Representing on a Europe-wide scale areas of potential natural 1:2,5 mil 200/2003 natural vegetation, which correspond to certain climatic vegetation of conditions, soil properties, flora specific to various parts Europe of Europe. Forest Type Map 2006 Forest type Joint Research Centre, 25*25m map EC Map of forest types, especially for coniferous, hardwoods and water bodies. The map of protected areas at community level and Natura 2000 especially the map of SCIs at national level. Within Ministry of Environment 1:5000 network map these areas, the habitat types in Annex I of the Habitats Directive are delimited at national level.

The first step in the creation of the geospatial database is to obtain a discretization of ecosystems at national level by using resources such as maps, plans, orthophoto maps, satellite images, different vector space themes and applying specific methods of interpretation / assisted / unassisted classification in order to obtain a more accurate 60 classification of land use classes and potential habitats / ecosystems at national level. These combined with the morphometric analysis of the terrain by the 1st order (slope, mountainsides exposure) and 2nd order (plane curvature, profile curvature, total curvature) morphometric indicators lead to the unitary identification of the whole area investigated in subunits, respectively ecosystems of interest which will then be subsequently validated by field observations. Based on the geodatabase scheme, this approach involves the following main activities (Figure 10): • Use of existing information (ex. plans, maps, CLC, LPIS, geology, pedology, hydrology, vegetation etc.) that will underpin the realization of digital models that will contribute to the differentiation of ecosystem types; • The morphometric analysis of the land will allow the differentiation of parameters of first order (slope, slope exposure, flow direction) and second order derivations (plane curvature, curvature in profile, total curvature) allowing functional identification (identification of water drainage, saturated ones, areas prone to erosion, floods etc.), in particular using digital terrain models. f UI hbtt, n soito dsge t ahee hge caatrzto of characterization higher a achieve to ecosystems. designed association an habitats, classification EUNIS non-spatial of the with correlated been have themes spatial the overlaps, CLC-LPIS from resulted themes spatial new the of validation and verification the After Figure 10.Graphicrepresentationofanexpertsystemdevelopedformapping • • types. will require the subsequent combination of field and office information on ecosystem and abiotic factors that allow for clear differentiation of ecosystem types - this stage

nlss f PT utseta stlie mgr wl alw etn and testing allow Validation and completing the information on vegetal associations and other biotic will imagery to bechecked onSPOT 6images. satellite indices etc.). The analysis multispectralwas initially done on SPOT 5 images and final results are SPOT parameterization of classification models of based on different indices (e.g. vegetation Analysis the potentialdistributionofhabitats/ecosystemsatnationallevel 61 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 11. Overlaps of EUNIS Level 3 Classes with CLC Level 3 Classes and MAES Types for National Ecosystem Identification

The correlation of the two (spatial and non-spatial) themes was done using a number of criteria, among which we can mention the type of soils, elevation, slope, geology, biogeographic regions, humidity level, temperature, rainfall, altitude classes, vegetation type, the intensity of human activities, in this way issues related to the existence of several types of EUNIS ecosystems overlapped on a single CLC class and vice versa (Figure 11) can be solved using identification based on, for e.g. on geographic criteria (e.g. the presence of certain EUNIS classes only in certain geographical areas) or using certain environmental conditions (the presence of certain EUNIS classes only under certain environmental conditions), the presence of plant associations only in certain areas etc. In order to increase the level of detail, to identify the discontinuities and to observe the structural and functional heterogeneity at the level of different types of national ecosystems, in this activity a correspondence has been made between the types of 62 national ecosystems classified EUNIS level 3, CLC level classes 3 and the MAES typology Classification of ecosystems. Having the national ecosystems identified and mapped at EUNIS level 3 is also supported by the habitat identification criteria from the EUNIS habitat classification methodology, identification keys that differentiate between level 3 habitats based of different parameters(Figure 12). automated the process of identification of EUNIS 3 level ecosystems and mapping of ecosystems atnational level (figure13). mapping and that ecosystems level ITapplication 3 EUNIS an of identification of process to develop the automated used were keys) (identification parameters These for thediscretizationofecosystemsatnationallevel. (figure13). of number A Figure 13.Databasesdesignedtoidentifythecriteriausedforecosystems deciduous forestshabitatsEUNISLevel3(RevisedHabitat Figure 12.Theparametersusedtodifferentiatethedifferent , identified according to the EUNIS methodology, were used methodology, were EUNIS the to according identified 182 criteria, identification atnationallevel Classification, Davies2004) 63 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania The main steps taken in the process of automatic identification and mapping of ecosystems at national level: • Plotting automation of EUNIS habitats, starting from CLC plotting by developing the EUNIS Tree browsing program in Access VBA with algorithm setting (logic scheme). • Primary evaluation of EUNIS criteria by estimating how criteria are assessed. • Identify the EUNIS departure criteria for each CLC code and identify on the CLC 2006/2012 map the parcels corresponding directly to a EUNIS level 3 habitats and the area occupied by each habitat obtained. • Adjusting the database defining the EUNIS Manual as a structure (design tables, queries, reports, relationships establishment) and data (completion and redistribution). • Creating custom applications (embedded / independent, ArcPython / Visual Basic, Visual C language), incorporate applications (ADD-IN) ARCGIS MAP, used programs ArcObjects 10.3 SDK for .NET + Visual Studio 2013 Express, ARCGIS Map integration – VS. • Generation of maps for EUNIS criteria related to different abiotic parameters (eg pedology, hydrology) that reflect the distribution of the values of each criterion at national level. • Developing the EUNIS habitats application, starting with primary data, adapting the existing application (with primary CLC data) to LPIS primary data (APIA). • Make spatial associations at national level from LPIS to CLC. • Elaborate the map at national level with the EUNIS habitats in the variants: • LPIS-CLC + spatial association CLC-EUNIS start-up association; • Table start association LPIS-EUNIS. • Reporting of the surfaces of the two map variants at national level with EUNIS starting levels (0, 1, 2, 3) and classes (A, B, C, .... J). • Application development for EUNIS habitats: creation of interface for automatic application of a criterion (criterion for which spatial information that exists). • Elaboration of the code for the automatic application of a criterion. Applying the principle of preserving the initial geometry and the principle of adopting the value of the criterion (decision) that occupies the maximum area on a given plot. • Identification of parcels with a certain combination (start CLC + EUNIS current) and determination of the value of the applied criterion on each plot and of the new current EUNIS code (by the direct individual search method in the tables and by the combination of the tables). • Application development for EUNIS habitats: Generalization for the application of all criteria for all plots associated with a specific CLC code. • Optimization by setting the EUNIS start code and a minimum Tree of Criteria according to the LPIS code combination | CLC code - identifying possible 64 combinations and associated EUNIS (creation of LPIS | CLC tables). • For automatic evaluation, generalization by choosing the primary data type (CLC, CLC | LPIS, LPIS, ...) from a list and changing the data sources of the controls according to this choice. For situations where identification could not be done automatically, it was developed the possibility to manually classify each plot and fit it into the EUNIS 3 level ecosystem type, which is extremely useful for further enhancing the classification process at the local level. Descriptive parameters: with land Mediterranean Dry Artemisia. other types ofshrubs,whereshrubslayer exceeds 10%isexcluded; with steppes low the and are unfertilized Included often productivity. grasses, or grass by dominated lands dry or Well-drained EUNIS level2,categoryE1 Descriptive parameters: habitats (I1),dominatedby cultivated herbaceousvegetation, suchasarable land. grown regularly Exclude lawns. and fields recreational as such pastures, managed and semiarid steppes with weed vegetation of sedges and herbs. Includes the grasses, semi-arid ferns, steppe macrolichens, with mosses, including plants, non-woody other and grasses vegetationcoverage.by 30% dominated than vegetationis more The year)with a half Non-coastal, dry or wet seasonal land (with water at or above ground level for less than moss orlichens EUNIS level1,categoryE - Meadows and land dominated by herbaceous vegetation, Description ofEUNISE1.1habitattypeandupperclasses component. mapping, the example, ecosystem spatial the developedfor having typology this using, habitats, national 2000 Natura habitat with correspondence EUNIS in 3 level used a of rules discretization the and analyse can process we the exemplify to order In • • • • •

Humidity characteristics: dry, arid. Coverage characteristics: vegetation> 30% dwarf lichens, bryophytes, weeds, plants vegetation, herbaceous species: Dominant Coverage characteristics: vegetation> 30% Dominant species:herbaceousvegetation, weeds, bryophytes, lichens Figure 14.Ecosystemsnationallevelmappingapplication –Drygrasslands Artemisia. Includes successive weed vegetation Artemisia isolated forbes. Includes 65 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania EUNIS level 3, category E1.1 Inland sand and rock with open vegetation Open vegetation, thermophilic sands or rock debris in the non-moral and local area, in the Mediterranean or boreal plain to Europe’s mountainous areas. Including open lawns from strong sands to limestone, and the vegetation formed mostly of annual and succulent or semi-succulent plants on decomposed rocks of edges, edges or mounds, limestone or siliceous soils. Descriptive parameters: • Dominant species: herbaceous vegetation, weeds, dwarf plants; • Coverage characteristics: vegetation> 30%, uncovered field> 30%; • Humidity characteristics: dry, unproductive; • Soil chemical parameters: preponderant alkaline/ basic; • Substrate types: sandy, detritus soils; • Phytosociological associations: Alysso alyssoidis-Sedion albi; Bromo pannonici- Festucion pallentis; Diantho lumnitzeri-Seslerion albicantis; Helianthemo- Globularion;Hyperico perforati-Scleranthion perennis; Koelerion aranariae; Koelerion glaucae; Sedion Anglici; Sedo albi-Veronicion dillenii; Sedo-Cerastion; Sedo-Scleranthion biennis.

The identification process of E1.1 habitats used the criteria gradient (gray cells) defined within the tree developed by the EUNIS typology (Figure 15).

66 Figure 15.TheEUNIStreeusedforidentificationtheE1.1habitat 67 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Table 16. Parameters used for E1.1 habitat identification

Parameter Value EUNIS level 1, category E Build habitats or highly anthropic NO Underground habitats NO Marin habitats NO Coastal influence NO Surface water NO Dominated by trees NO Humidity OTHER ( NO wetlands, NO permafrost) % of vegetation coverage >30% The dominant vegetation OTHER (NO scrubs) EUNIS level 2, category E1 The smouldering presence of the trees NO Saline areas NO Dominant species OTHER Climatic zone OTHER (NO alpine) Humidity ARID EUNIS level 3, category E1.1 Soils rich in heavy metals NO Mediterranean, arid and overgrazing NO Soil chemistry Basic Primary soils, open vegetation YES

To facilitate the identification and mapping of different types of EUNIS level 3 habitats existing within a CLC class, have been used both the correspondence with the most important classification systems (e.g. the Habitats Directive classification that also has a spatial representation of protected habitats -Table 17) but also the identification criteria developed by the EUNIS typology and discussed previously.

Table 17. The correspondence between EUNIS level 3 and the most important habitat classification typologies for the E1.1 habitat EUNIS 3 CLC 3 Habitats Directive PALEARCTIC Doniţă et al E1.1 321 6110, 6120 34.11, 34.12 R3403

For habitat mapping E1.1 we have identified the correspondences with the CLC spatial classes. As can be seen from Table 18, the relationship between the two classification types is not 1: 1, the space class CLC 321 corresponds to 16 EUNIS level 3 categories identified at national level.

Table 18. Correspondence between CLC class 321 and EUNIS level 3 habitat types 68 CLC level 3 EUNIS level 3 E1.1 E1.2 E1.5 E1.7 E1.9 E1.D E2.2 E3.4 321 E3.5 E4.1 E4.3 E4.4 E5.1 E5.4 E5.5 E6.2 16 to19). 2000 Natura LPIS, habitats, (CLC, soil types layers etc.) and information the use spatial of availabledefined identification overlapping parameters EUNIS by (Figures process types that mapping and identification habitat E1.1 EUNIS the of examples maps, some are Below habitat of EUNIS automation developedforthisprocessandexplainedearlier. problems identification the the through achieved was typologically CLC classes overlap withthesame to solution The ye o eoytm uig pta tee sc as such hydrography orwetlands. themes spatial different using of ecosystems of identification types of accuracy the proving (EUNIS E1.1) corresponds to class the parameters defining habitat LPIS-pasture 6120 the how see can (one detail cal Figure 18. Figure 16. Figure Increasing the degree of detail and im- and detail of degree the Increasing LPIS classes increase the degree of lo- of degree the increase classes LPIS environment for habitat6120(EUNISE1.1). abiotic characterizing identify soils sandy to (e.g. ecosystems used discontinuities abiotic identifying Figure 19. CLC class 321-pastures) overlaps E1.1) (EUNIS 6120 habitat potential that noticed be can (it cover land of type the scale regional a on define classes 3 Level CLC 17. Figure ol ye s n motn prmtr in parameter important an is type Soil 69 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania The map of national ecosystems is a working version resulting from automatic identification of EUNIS level 3 ecosystems based on predefined criteria according to accepted EUNIS typology, CLC and LPIS classes. The assessment of the fairness degree and validation of the identification results of the types of ecosystems to be selected for the subsequent assessment of ecosystem services at national level is achieved by field validation activities, the final results of the ecosystem map being delivered after completion of field validation.

3.2. Mapping of ecosystem services The national assessment and distribution of ecosystem services indicators values was carried out on 4 categories of ecosystems and 12 ecosystem services. We present a summary of the assessment maps of the indicators used in the cascade model applied for the assessment of ecosystem services.

Aquatic ecosystems Provisioning services Surface drinking water

Indicator Supply – Surface drinking water 1. Structural Area of lands covered by water Area covered by water in Romania has grown from 2013 to 2014, especially in Olt and Neamt Counties where the recorded growth was up to 0.5%

70 water Amount ofavailablesurface water Amount ofprocesseddrinking 2. Functional– sources and lakesusedassurfacewater Hydrographic network–rivers Indicator Supply–Surfacedrinkingwater 71 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Supply – Surface drinking water Necessary volume of water proportional to the population density

3. Evaluation – Quantity of surface drinking water extracted

Surface drinking water consumption for households (2014) 72 population Drinking waterpricefor 5. Value resources (households) benefiting fromdrinkingwater Number ofpeopledirectly 4. Benefit Indicator Supply–Surfacedrinkingwater

73 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Underground drinking water

Indicator Supply – Underground drinking water 1. Structural Number of underground drinking water stations

2. Functional – Available quantity of underground water

74 sources extracted fromunderground Quantity ofdrinkingwater 3. Evaluation– population Drinking waterpricefor 5. Value resources ofdrinkingwater benefiting fromtheunderground Number ofpeopledirectly 4. Benefit Indicator Supply –Undergrounddrinkingwater

75 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Regulating and maintenance services Hydrological cycle and water volumes maintenance

Indicator Hydrological cycle and water volumes maintenance 1. Structural Area of lands covered by water Area covered by water in Romania has grown from 2013 to 2014, especially in the Neamt and Olt Counties where the recorded growth was up to 0.5%

Hydrographic basins distribution

76 Digital ElevationModel • • by: hydrological volumesisreflected Potential capacityofmaintaining 2. Functional–

infiltrations the groundwaterthrough The potentialofsupplying evapotranspiration Maintaining themeanlevelof Indicator Hydrological cycle andwater volumes maintenance 77 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Hydrological cycle and water volumes maintenance Areas susceptible to drought – areas with low contribution of mean precipitation level (represented in red)

3. Evaluation – Surface of ecosystems with medium or high potential of modifying the hydrological volumes. Indicator based on Land Use maps querying in areas with high level of drought/floods

4. Benefit Number of people directly benefiting from negative effects 78 reduction of water volumes changes over the seminatural and anthropic ecosystems Indicator based on the level of population in the areas affected by drought / floods.

Nutrition –BiomassWildplantsandassociatedproducts Provisioning services Forest ecosystems the meancostsperhectare expressed asalinearfunctionof The area(inhectares)is methods (dams/irrigations) control throughalternative The costofwatervolumes 5. Value exceeded 5%. (recorded inBrașov) have not 5% andthepositive ones Cluj counties)have notexceeded differences (inOlt,Argeșand to 2013.Thebiggestnegative significant changescompared in Romania in2014hasno Area oflandcovered by forest expressed inhectares Area oftheecosystems 1. Structural Indicator Indicator Nutrition –BiomassWildplantsandassociatedproducts Hydrological cycle andwater volumes maintenance 79 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Nutrition – Biomass – Wild plants and associated products Forest ecosystems distribution

2. Functional – Density of plants depending on the ecosystem type (individuals / hectare)

Mean biomass per ha of berries (t) 80 products (consumers). benefiting fromthecollected Number ofpeopledirectly 4. Benefit ecosystems peryear products provided by theforest Quantity ofberry-based 3. Evaluation– (~4.7 kg/month) monthly basked O.U,G, 217/2000 according totheminimum per year (kg/year) – quantity perindividual Mean consumed Indicator

Nutrition –BiomassWildplantsandassociatedproducts

81 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Nutrition – Biomass – Wild plants and associated products Number of people indirectly benefiting from work rewarding (gathering)

5. Value Market value of non-wood products. Market price of non-wood products (berries-kg).

82 Materials –Materialfiberscomingfromplants exceeded 5%. (recorded inBrașov) have not 5% andthepositive ones Cluj counties)have notexceeded differences (inOlt,Argeșand to 2013.Thebiggestnegative significant changescompared in Romania in2014hasno Area oflandcovered by forest expressed inhectares Area oftheecosystems 1. Structural Forest ecosystemsdistribution Indicator Materials –Materialfiberscomingfromplants 83 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Materials – Material fibers coming from plants 2. Functional – Forest area with ground level cuts 2000-2014 (ha)

Areas with afforestation works (ha/year)

3. Evaluation – Wood volume quantity per ecosystem (cm) – information 84 derived from the National Forestry Inventory using the forest ecosystems distribution. (2000-2014) (cm) cuts processing fromgroundlevel extracted directlyorfor Quantity ofwoodvolume (%) other cuts(2013/2014/2015) used directlyforprocessingfrom Biomass quantity harvested / Indicator Materials –Materialfiberscomingfromplants 85 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Materials – Material fibers coming from plants

86 products processing) (people involved inwood benefiting by resourceusing Number ofpeopledirectly 4. Benefit (thousands ofRON) Wood marketvalue 5. Value 25%. have accumulatedlossesupto Counties like GorjorConstanta 25% insomeofthecounties. from 2013to2014withup forestry andfisheryhasgrown in thedomainsofagriculture, The humanresourceemployed forestry. Number ofpeoplehiredin Indicator Materials –Materialfiberscomingfromplants

87 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Materials – Material fibers coming from plants

88 Ground stabilizinganderosioncontrol Regulating andmaintenanceservices to therisk the populationexposed a significantimpactover erosion controlservicehas risk oferosion,areaswherethe to identifytheareaswithhigh Using theDigitalElevationModel Digital ElevationModel exceeded 5%. (recorded inBrașov) have not 5% andthepositive ones Cluj counties)have notexceeded differences (inOlt,Argeșand to 2013.Thebiggestnegative significant changescompared in Romania in2014hasno Area oflandcovered by forest expressed inhectares Area oftheecosystems 1. Structural Indicator

Ground stabilizinganderosioncontrol 89 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Ground stabilizing and erosion control Distribution of areas with flood risk

Soils map Indicates the areas with soils susceptible to erosion

2. Functional – Density / type of forest 90 This indicator allows the visualization of the water retention potential and the reduction of the effects caused by torrents / floods ground a protectionroleinstabilizingthe Map offorestecosystemshaving ground level cuts. protection rolebeingaffected by is representedby forestswith stabilizing role.Themajorrisk 500 mfromforestswithground Localities situatedlessthan destabilizing processes. the impactofground benefiting fromminimizing Number ofpeopledirectly 4. Benefit service hasthehighestvalues areas wheretheerosioncontrol Indicator allowingtovisualize the Map oferosionintensity(RUSLE) 3. Evaluation– Indicator Ground stabilizinganderosioncontrol

91 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Ground stabilizing and erosion control Value The value of the works addressing erosion. The map indicates the areas where the erosion control is done by specific works. One can observe the highest values in the Central Plateau of Moldavia and the Transilvanian Depression, as well as the Argeș, Mehedinți and Suceava Counties, all of them having a high rate of erosion. The costs of the works correspond to the ecosistemic service of erosion control.

Global climate regulation by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions

Indicator Global climate regulation by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions 1. Structural Area of the ecosystems expressed in hectares Area of land covered by forest in Romania in 2014 has no significant changes compared to 2013. The biggest negative differences (in Olt, Argeș and Cluj counties) have not exceeded 5% and the positive ones (recorded in Brașov) have not exceeded 5%.

92 Greenhouse gasemissions at ecosystemlevel carbon sequestration by biomass visualization ofthepotential This indicatorallowsthe Forest types 2. Functional– Indicator Global climateregulationbyreducingthegreenhousegasemissions 93 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Global climate regulation by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions

3. Evaluation – Carbon sequestration quantity by forest ecosystems Indicator allowing the visualization of areas with a higher level of carbon sequestration

4. Benefit Maintaining air quality 94 Air quality index shows the potential of maintaining the air quality and it may also flag high values at national level

natural environments The physicaluseofthelandscapeindifferent Cultural services Population density Population scale 1. Structural Indicator The physicaluseofthelandscapeindifferentnaturalenvironments

95 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator The physical use of the landscape indifferent natural environments Overnights

2. Functional – Forest proximity to localities

3. Evaluation – Areas of forest ecosystems with landscape physical use potential. 96 in theforestecosystems. for physicaluseofthelandscape Market valueoftourismactivities 5. Value of thelandscape benefiting fromthephysical use Number ofpeopleindirectly the physical useofthelandscape Number of people benefiting from 4. Benefit Indicator The physicaluseofthelandscapeindifferentnaturalenvironments

97 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Agricultural ecosystems Provisioning services Nutrition – agricultural crops

Indicator Nutrition – Agricultural crops 1. Structural

Agricultural ecosystems surface (ha)

It is to be noticed a low decrease in most of the counties and a growth with 1-2.5% in Cluj and Bistrița-Năsăud.

Agricultural ecosystems area – I1.1 Type (Ha)

The ecosystems of type I1.1 having a significant weight of approx. 90% from the agricultural ecosystems have a relatively constant use level (yellow) in most of the counties.

98 for 2013–2014. agricultural ecosystemsisTulcea in whatconcernstheuseof county withthehighestlosses southern partofthecountry. The and somesmalllosesinthe with somegrowthinTransilvania to theonescultivated in2013, the areascultivate in2014close The nationaltrendistomaintain grains Areas cultivated withcerealsfor Areas cultivated withvegetables Indicator Nutrition –Agriculturalcrops 99 EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Nutrition – Agricultural crops Areas cultivated with oleaginous plants

Areas cultivated with edible roots

Uncultivated arable land (orange – red) shows a massive loss at 2014 level (compared 100 to 2013). yellow) of thecapacity (predominant hectare showsthemaintaining Mean grain cerealproductionper per hectare(t/ha) 2. Functional–Meanbiomass yellow) maintaining (predominant production perhectareis Mean oleaginousplants (predominant yellow) production isalsomaintaining Mean ediblerootplant Indicator Nutrition –Agriculturalcrops

101

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Nutrition – Agricultural crops 3. Evaluation –Quantities of agricultural products (t) In what concerns the quantities of wheat products, the national trend respects the trend of mean production per hectare, with exceptions in Arad and Bihor counties which have recorded a higher efficiency per hectare.

Overall vegetable production is decreasing in most of the counties (orange)

Overall colza production increased at national level. 102 Overall ediblerootsproduction. crops. Nutritional benefitof vegetable agricultural cropslike grains. Nutritional benefitofthe resource from agriculturalcropsasfood Number ofpeoplebenefiting 4. Benefit Indicator Nutrition –Agriculturalcrops 103

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Nutrition – Agricultural crops Nutritional benefit of agricultural crops (edible roots).

Value of agricultural services The benefit may be interpreted as the number of persons having direct benefits from the agricultural activities. The value of the agricultural services is an indicator which underlines the availability of jobs in the agricultural sector in an indirect way. One may notice a growth in the demand for agricultural services in the norther, center and southern part of the country, with an exception in Teleorman county.

Number of employees according to CAEN 2 – agriculture, forestry and fishery 104 Nutrition –Farmanimalsandproducts values. associated vegetal production have recordedgrowthofthe Bistrița-Năsăud Countieswhich the Hunedoara, Harghitaand to 2014,withexceptions in at nationallevel from2013 crops, hasdecreasedalso and maintenanceofagricultural the costsforestablishment production, afterthedecreaseof The value ofthevegetal Value ofthevegetalproduction 5. Value dedicated togreenfodder. decrease oftheagricultural areas that mostofthecountieshave a animal products.Onecannotice animal breedingandobtaining resources atcounty level for show theweightofallocated This isanindicatormeantto Green foddercultivatedarea 1. Structural Indicator Indicator Nutrition –Farmanimalsandproducts Nutrition –Agriculturalcrops 105

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Nutrition – Farm animals and products Number of farm animals With respect to the number of animals, the cattle have a low growth tendency from 2013 to 2014.

Goats livestock has the highest increase, especially in the northern part of the country and in Dobrogea. (>20% from 2013 to 2014)

Sheep livestock is generally increaseing except for Caraș Serverin and Alba counties 106 (<10% from 2013 to 2014) Indicator variation between 2013 and 2014. Buzău andBrașov. Severin, Mehedinți,Covasna, with someincreasesinCaraș- national level from2013to2014, Swine livestock hasdecreasedat effectives. in thecountiesreportinglower cattle farms’efficiency, especially counties showsanincreaseinthe (>30%) reportedindifferent to 30%-red).Significantgrowth decreased from 2013 to 2014 (up Cattle biomasshasgenerally Biomass 2. Functional– orange). decreasing (predominant Poultry livestock isgenerally Indicator Nutrition –Farmanimalsandproducts 107

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Nutrition – Farm animals and products Sheep and caprine biomass has generally increased from 2013 to 2014, in line with overall trend.

Poultry live weight is characterized by a local dynamic.

The swine live weight has decreased from 2013 to 2014, with the biggest decreases 108 in Arad (>100%), but also increases (>40%) in Mureș, Brașov, Teleorman and Iași. (yellow). less thesameatnationallevel Milk productionismoreor eastern part. is maintaininginthecenterand western partofthecountryand decrease trendinthenorth- The eggproductionhasalow tendency (orange). presents alowdecrease Meet productionatlocallevel Quantity ofagriculturalproducts 3. Evaluation– Indicator Nutrition –Farmanimalsandproducts 109

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Nutrition – Farm animals and products The honey production is presenting a significant decrease at national level (orange and red).

4. Benefit Number of people benefiting from food resources

Benefit resulting from the use for nutrition purposes of meet resources stemming from animal farming.

Benefit resulting from the use for nutrition purposes of milk resources stemming from animal 110 farming. up to20%. and Galati)reporteddecreasesof Caras-Severin, Giurgiu, Prahova while othercounties(Arad, up to50%inVrancea county, growth from2013to2014,with has experiencedageneral The value ofanimalproduction Value ofanimalproduction 5. Value farming. resources stemmingfromanimal for nutritionpurposesofegg Benefit resultingfromtheuse Indicator Nutrition –Farmanimalsandproducts 111

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Regulating and maintenance services Pollination and seed dispersion

Indicator Adjustment – Pollination and seed dispersion 1. Structural Area cultivated with colza

Colza is just one example of cultivated plants which offer structural support for pollination. As it may be seen in the figure, in 2014 a national increase in the colza crops was reported.

Areas cultivated with productive orchards

Fruit orchards are one of the factors that influence the general market need of pollination services. The general trend in 2013-2014 was one of decrease in what concerns the areas cultivated with orchards.

112 risk. with potentialpollinationdeficit present habitatcharacteristics dependent ofpollinationbut Agricultural fieldswhichare deficit. Evaluation ofthepollination 3. Evaluation– Number ofbeekeepers/apiaries 4. Benefit Counties. up to20%inHarghitaandSibiu 2013 to2014withreductionsof increased withupto7%from The numberofbeefamilieshas Potential capacity–Beefamilies 2. Functional– Indicator

Adjustment –Pollinationandseeddispersion

113

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Adjustment – Pollination and seed dispersion 5. Value The value of honey production The honey production has reported a general decrease of up to 200% in counties like Harghita, Constanța, Ilfov, Ialomița, Dolj, Olt. The only county reporting an increase in the production was Suceava with less than 5%.

Cultural services Education

Indicator Cultural – Education 1. Structural Number of education facilities

114 university studies) Total numberofstudents(pre- Number ofpeopletrained 2. Functional– and graduate students. Total numberofundergraduate Number oftrainedpersons 3. Evaluation– Indicator Cultural –Education 115

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Cultural – Education 4. Benefit Number of trained people in different sectors

116 Resources –Undergrounddrinkingwater Provisioning services Urban ecosystems a slightdynamicatnationallevel. maintaining. Onecanalsonotice preparing thehumanresourceis that thefinancialofferfor indicator available. Thisreflects as therewas nootherspecific sector asasyntheticindicator, employees intheeducation we have usedthenumberof resource training foragriculture, In whatconcernsthehuman programmes. Value ofeducational 5. Value surface drinkingwater. exosystemic serviceofproviding intensity ofthedemandforan component aswellthe pressure putonthehydrological This indicatorshowsthe and itspopulation. Distribution ofurbanecosystems 1. Structural Indicator Indicator Resources –Undergrounddrinkingwater Cultural –Education 117

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Resources – Underground drinking water Length of the drinking water network.

The figure shows the length of the water distribution network in the administrative units. The length of the network is correlated with the size of the population, the largest networks being the ones in Bucharest, Iasi, Timisoara, Arad and Cluj-Napoca.

Surface of underground water bodies.

(Macalet, R. 2008 )

2. Functional – Quantity of drinking water used per capita. 118

The national trend is to reduce the household water consumption level in 2014 by comparison to 2013, with few exceptions in the norther, southern and eastern part of the country. This is due to the population adopting efficient technologies with respect to water consumption in their households.

water. Quantity ofundergrounddrinking 3. Evaluation water in2014. the countiestoprocessdrinking The figureshowsthecapacity of processing thedrinkingwater underground water/Capacityof Maintaining thequalityof 4. Benefit specific hydrographicbasin. Quantity ofpercolatedwaterat Indicator Resources –Undergrounddrinkingwater

119

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Resources – Underground drinking water Population using underground drinking water.

5. Value Value of drinking water for population.

120 Scent /noisevisualimpactcontrol Regulating andmaintenanceservices Distribution ofurbanecosystems 1. Structural speed anddirection) (precipitation, temperature,wind Meteorological data Indicator Scent /noisevisualimpactcontrol 121

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Scent / noise / visual impact control

Spatial distribution of potential visual / hearing / olfactory discomfort

2. Functional – Quantity of generated waste 122 areas ofgreeninfrastructure hearing andvisualimpactriskto Report ofareaswitholfactory, 3. Evaluation– risk andresidentialareas infrastructure areasinmediating Barrier effectofgreen 4. Benefit noise andvisualimpactcontrol Population benefitingfromscent, Indicator Scent /noisevisualimpactcontrol

123

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Scent / noise / visual impact control 5. Value The cost of controlling scent / noise / visual impact through alternative methods (noise reduction panel costs, non- drinking water costs for watering household waste in order to maintain a low level of scent dispersion

Global climate regulation by reducing the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions

Global climate regulation by reducing the concentration of greenhouse Indicator gas emissions 1. Structural Distribution of urban ecosystems

124 greenhouse gasemissions Distribution ofareaswith speed anddirection) (precipitation, temperature,wind Meteorological data Indicator Global climateregulationbyreducingtheconcentrationofgreenhouse gas emissions 125

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Global climate regulation by reducing the concentration of greenhouse Indicator gas emissions Area of green infrastructure elements

2. Functional – Mean greenhouse gas emissions level

2. Evaluation – Overall greenhouse gas 126 emissions unable to be seized greenhouse gasemissionsrisk Exposed populationtospecific 4. Benefit Indicator Global climateregulationbyreducingtheconcentrationofgreenhouse gas emissions

127

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Cultural services Esthetic

Indicator Esthetic 1. Structural Urban parks areas

2. Functional – Accessibility to urban parks

128 Green infrastructureareas 3. Evaluation– restaurants Employees workinginhotelsand 4. Benefit recreational activities Employees engagedin Indicator Esthetic 129

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicator Esthetic 5. Value Use value, overnights in green infrastructure areas

3.3. Mapping results All 9 major ecosystem categories existing on the national level where evaluated and 79 EUNIS level classed where identified, with category 80 containing those that did not pertain to other categories (noted as “unclassified”).

In conformity with the major categories, the following table shows the percentage allotted to each category, thus highlighting the ecosystems which are dominant as percentage of surface in the following order: agricultural 53.12%; forests 28.28%; grassland 12.97%; marine and coastal 11.09%; urban 5.09%; river and lakes 2.95%, wetlands 0.16%, shrubs 0.12%, sparsely or unvegetated land (0.01%) and 4.22% for ecosystems unclassified on the national level.

130 Forest ecosystems Agricultural ecosystems EUNIS Code EUNIS Code G1.D G4.C G1.C G1.A G1.1 G1.2 G1.6 G1.7 G1.8 G4.8 G4.6 G4.5 G3.5 G3.3 G3.2 G3.1 G3.E I1.1 I1.4 I1.5 I2.1 Number Number 518593 21496 75571 42617 18335 39821 14084 3185 3113 1732 5712 1418 145 739 155 168 82 22 3 1 8 Surface (ha) Surface (ha) 9381325.718 25245.77587 14640.96168 5.089478131 2775633.76 1530891.71 153880.35 820221.22 791042.50 230914.38 840082.31 69780.07 12911.17 52935.85 49774.35 4002.29 4345.46 8546.84 2544.77 94.80 94.56 percentage percentage National National 34.97% 10.35% 0.57% 0.00% 0.26% 0.05% 0.09% 3.06% 0.20% 0.00% 5.71% 0.01% 0.05% 2.95% 0.19% 0.86% 0.02% 0.03% 0.01% 0.00% 3.13% Agricultural percentage percentage 99.58% 37.78% 11.16% 20.83% 10.77% 11.43% Forest 2.09% 0.00% 0.95% 0.18% 0.27% 0.72% 0.00% 0.05% 0.16% 0.68% 3.14% 0.06% 0.12% 0.03% 0.00% 131

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Grassland ecosystems

132 Urban ecosystems

National EUNIS Code Number Surface (ha) Urban percentage percentage J1.1 33985 161161.6846 0.60% 11.81% J1.7 641 3062.325413 0.01% 0.22% J2.1 582099 688336.8131 2.57% 50.43% J2.3 42890 72900.13976 0.27% 5.34% J2.4 9041 60025.23255 0.22% 4.40% J2.7 281 1275.672134 0.00% 0.09% J3.2 79 7961.92053 0.03% 0.58% J4.2 111811 362406.0992 1.35% 26.55% J4.4 106 2258.142059 0.01% 0.17% J4.5 225 2861.769035 0.01% 0.21% J6.2 55 836.6080524 0.00% 0.06% J6.5 131 1950.368838 0.01% 0.14% Aquatic ecosystems EUNIS Code C1.6 C1.5 C1.3 C1.2 C1.1 C3.2 C2.5 C2.3 C2.2 Number 89042 1669 3420 6647 127 525 19 78 29 Surface (ha) 163903.40 373207.70 76475.89 82165.56 66760.89 20231.27 8438.24 96.92 7.21 percentage National 0.29% 0.31% 0.25% 0.03% 0.00% 0.08% 0.61% 1.39% 0.00% percentage Aquatic 10.38% 20.71% 47.16% 9.66% 8.44% 1.07% 0.01% 2.56% 0.00% 133

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania 3.4. Assessment of ecosystems and ecosystem services The evaluation of ecosystems so that their productive capacity can be continuously monitored, in order to give them the possibility to provide specific (ecosystem) services indefinitely, represents an absolute necessity in order to define a model of economic development based on principles of green economy. The evaluation of the condition of the ecosystems and the difference from reference, established as an optimum in the space-time evolution regarding the capacity of an ecosystem to provide ecosystem services at an optimal level, is necessary. Therefore, knowledge about the deviation from the optimum state of the ecosystems allows to highlight the existing degradation through specific structural and functional indicators. The evaluation of the condition of the ecosystem using the traffic-light method will allow to characterize it according to specific evaluation indicators so that the condition of the ecosystem is highlighted, i.e. maintaining or reducing its productive capacity, and also their tendencies. According to the concepts of systemic ecology applied to data structures developed through the N4D project, an integrated analysis module was developed at the RO- MAES-DSS level, which allows for evaluating the condition of the ecosystem from its productive capacity standpoint, and for showing the means of degrading of ecosystem from the structural and/or functional standpoint as well.

3.5. Assessment results The results of the evaluation demonstrate that Romania has significant potential in terms of the productive capacity of agricultural and forest ecosystems (see Figures 20, 21, 22, 23) but still there is an advanced degree of degradation of some of them amplified by current management.

134 Figure 20.Conclusionassessmentmapforservicecultivated crops fornutrition

135

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 21. Conclusion assessment map for service Reared animals and their outputs for nutrition

136 Figure 22.Assessmentmapofsoillossthroughsurfaceerosion (RUSLE 2015)

137

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 23. Forest ecosystems assessment map for productive capacity and risk for mass stabilization and control of erosion rates

3.6. Valuation of ecosystem services Introduction This report consists of one pilot case study of valuation of ecosystem services (ES) in Romania, i.e. economic valuation of forest ES based on reported national level statistics; and an overview of economic valuation approaches that have guided these analyses. 138 By using and ES approach to structure the analysis, the case study aim to draw the attention to the variety of benefits that forest and wetland ecosystems generate, as a basis to inform the examination of alternative development pathways towards a greener economy. The report consists of three sections. In the first part, we present current considerations of economic valuation of ecosystem services, up to date in the sense that it is informed by the ongoing work and experience in other ecosystem service assessments. Most weight will be on the advances within MAES related projects, i.e. EU funded projects to operationalize ES- assessment and valuation (OPENNESS and ESMERALDA), and published work under IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) where the current membership includes 125 countries. The background for the N4D project, of which this report is a part, is the headline target in the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020: “halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them as far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss”. Six sub-targets and 20 actions support this headline target. Action 5 requires “member relevance of monetary values depends on the context and the purpose for which the valuation ofESismeant. which for purpose the and context the on depends values monetary of relevance 24 tooanthropocentric ESconcept 2015) Silverton, e.g. (see that the and disciplines influential some too been from has scientists valuation monetary among perception a been monetary. has in measured there However, be can values all not that acknowledged and plurality, value the to valuable as nature treats extent it provides it benefits to humans. ES has always to a certain extent acknowledged that sense the in perspective anthropocentric an represents and nature, and humans variousinteractionsbetween the addresses it that decades as a framework to analyze socio-ecological systems. Specific to the approach is As mentioned in the introduction, the ES concept has become very prominent in the last not acquainted withtheacademicliterature andjargon. those for also helpful be hopefully will that perspective, broad a providing of aim simplicity,the on and put is weight more section, coming the in discussion theoretical (2016), the However, wealth in framework. al. ES a the provide of valuation-aspect studies et the These addressing information (2014). Jacobs of al. et (2016), Martín-López and al. (2015) al. et et Kallis Gómez-Baggethun (2015), Martín-López and Gómez-Baggethun (2013), Barton and Gómez-Baggethun (2015), al et Bunse (2014), al. et Boeraeve press), (in al. et Arias include perspectives different from valuation on (Braat et al,2014). Under the umbrella of the OPENNESS project peer reviewed articles policies” service ecosystem assess to methods valuation of integration for “Framework the on and 2014), report al, et art (Gómez-Baggethun services” “State-of-theecosystem of the valuation integrated project: this to relevance direct of published deliverables two several concept, ES the operationalize papers reveal different perspectives. to For instance, the OPENNESS project has produced projects EU-funded the Within About economicvaluationofecosystemservices among themosttimeconsumingpartsofthesestudies. been has relevantones and important were ones which select and identify to and data and spatial resolutions. This theme will temporal recur several different times in at this available report since be access to may programs different from data and importance, strategic vital of seem may data whom for institutions different among distributed are monitoring national frequently data as as 2017), al. et (Rusch well challenge important an be as can This programs. Directive, Framework Strategy Marine the Directive, data gathered in connection with the Birds and Habitat Directive, the Water Framework question that environmental data need to be integrated from different sources, such as practical important the solving involves services ecosystem of valuation economic the the of focus main theoretical section the that follows be below. will Third, as debate indicated in This controversy. the EU biodiversitysignificant strategy,of source the been has means value economic what exactly and broader is notion pay,the to willingness and money,prices with associated are frequently the values in economic account Although analysis. into taken are values whose as well as ambiguous, is value economic of concept the Second, place. take interactions these which in domain critical without a doubt is economics nature, and society between interaction of areas various the to refers ES since Nevertheless, controversial. been has framework ES the of component of this report, some main points will be discussed. In fair particular, a the monetary valuation received has concept the amount of criticism, that and although a full review of this discussion falls outside considering the scope worth 2003; is (MA, it However, Biodiversity 2010). and TEEB, Services Ecosystem of Economics The and Assessment concept ES some prominence, as was the the case gives target in EU the this previous First, reports this. by with connection the in Millennium made be can points main Three reporting systemsatEUandnationallevel by 2020”. values of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and and their services states, with the assistance of the commission, to

See alsotheresponse toSilv ME) n hi ntoa trioy y 04 ass te economic the assess 2014, by territory national their in (MAES) 24 . The goal of this theoretical section is to highlight that the that highlight to is section theoretical this of goal The . erton by Potschin etal(2016). map and assess the state of ecosystems 139

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Ecosystem services and value plurality Although it is common to think of economic values in terms of money, the field of ecosystem services has already explored many different kinds of economic value. This is not a break with economic science: According to the most common definition of economics, dating back to Robbins (1932), “Economics is a science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses”. The essence of this definition is competing use of scarce resources, which means prioritization and trade-offs. Valuation arises from this prioritization; there is nothing in the definition by Robbins referring to monetary values. The English word valuation comes from the Latin word valore, which means to attach importance to something. Trade-offs might be described, when context allows, in monetary terms, but also qualitatively e.g. in terms of prioritization between different ecosystem services (if our knowledge allows) or more generally as a ranking between different options. Robbins’ definition of the science of economics leaves out important aspects. Understanding these omissions is key to understanding the different valuation methods, the controversies in the field of ES valuation and the situations in which monetary valuation can be relevant. The discussion that follows refers to three main dimensions of valuation studies, i) the relative weight given to individuals vs groups or the society, ii) information costs and iii) value pluralism vs value monism. Through the discussion of these three dimensions, the paradigm of neoclassical economics is used throughout as illustration. This is not because it is the only paradigm or the leading paradigm, but because it provides a theoretical benchmark for understanding when monetary valuation is appropriate. The first dimension concerns the relative importance of individuals compared tothe society or groups. In Robbins’ definition of economics above, it is unclear whether we are dealing with prioritization made by or for individuals, or by or for social groups or the society. Are the preferences we prioritize individually formed, or do groups, society and culture significantly influence them? This is of course one of the main demarcation lines between different strands of political and ideological thinking. Neoclassical economics has an extreme focus on individuals, both regarding whose interests are given priority, and regarding the formation of preferences (see Sen, 1979; Daly, 1992). Theorists from a background in e.g. sociology would typically emphasize cultural influence. The second dimension concerns information costs. Robbins’ definition above does not say anything about prioritization or behavior in general, in the face of uncertainty. Neoclassical Economics in its simplest form assumes that anyone making a decision has all information and the ability to process this information in a sense similar to mathematical optimization. In the economic jargon, information costs are assumed to be zero. 140 As any introductory textbook in public finance will inform, the first welfare theorem says that if individuals behave as if they were optimizing their individual utility (in a mathematical sense, including some mathematical technical requirements) and information costs are zero in perfectly competitive markets, the outcome is efficient in the sense that no other outcome could make someone better off without someone else getting worse off. This includes the solution where one individual owns allthe goods in the economy (this individual would be worse off if you attempt a more fair distribution). If society prefers a different distribution of goods, the second welfare theorem postulates that governments can achieve any wanted distribution by a one- time transfer, which means a change in the initial allocation of goods. Then according to this perspective, the transaction process in the markets will achieve the efficient outcome. Thus, Neoclassical theory tends to emphasize the role of market solutions. Under this particular set of assumptions, prices will be all the information consumers need to make rational choices. water, atmosphericCO in concentration Nitrogen (e.g. indicators single with evaluated be often can condition environmental because likely 2008), al, et (O’Neill monism value acknowledge largely Alier et (Martínez-al, 1998). economics On the ecological other hand, of it has principles been founding claimed that the environmental economics of one as acknowledged is distinction between environmental economics and ecological economics: Value plurality monetary valuation, and it has been claimed that this dimension is also reflected in the has been a central dimension monism in value the vs controversiespluralism Valuevalue. around of economic measure valuation, relevant especially a as prices to object will and the rights of future generations to enjoy and use nature. In issues like these, many frequently issues environmental in comes in pluralism connection value with moral for values demand (Vatn, 2005), The such pluralism. as the value rights of species to exist vs Valuemonism section: this in mentioned dimension third the consider we if further The potential for prices to provide the relevant simplification of information is weakened in turn,theneedforinterventions inthemarket. Again, side effects of the decentralized market structure may accumulate and increase, huge. is system the of functioning continued the about accurately inform to prices for requirement information the Hence, 1997). (Perrings, exceeded are thresholds these characterized by discontinuities, i.e. we can have thresholds with abrupt changes when resources are most importantly interlinked in processes. Natural living systems are also Natural ecosystems. characteristics of functional for so especially is relevant This simplification. the necessarily not are prices information, simplify prices although that fact of system a in we are valuetrying to reach (Kallis and as Norgaard, 2009). The second objection price relates to the market current use unsustainable use, we we will see the value if less favorably than in the Thus, sustainable economy demand. given a reduced for is harvest if higher be will prices theory, economic to According fisheries. of an example, assume that harvest of fish is at unsustainable levels, i.e. overexploitation an unsustainable use of the system, In which negatively prices. affects the current supply in on the future. As influence be may demand the where demand, and supply current reflect prices current addition, an have not do generations future i.e. 2012), (Vatn, future, the in decisions for value represent to fail today, and situation prices the only First, reflect mentioned. be should approach this to objections general However, two providerelevantto the price the again. leading information of thus price, simplification side effects that can be readily assessed, information costs could beof Forcosts regulation. addedfor need increased to tolead expected, is what theto contrary case, market the on impact environment negative accumulates. Thus, of the form policy recommendation the of deregulation in may system in this economic this of effects side the when coordination of cost the increases knowledge, and decisions decentralizationof the i.e. successfully, work markets makes what (1990), Bromley by emphasized However,as re akt lk Hyk ii., rcn i the is pricing (ibid.), Hayek like markets free in believers strong for Indeed, environment. on costs including costs, all reflect prices if – consumers for problem information the ease still prices costs, information positive of assumption the Under 2011). (Kahneman,literally interpreted if false certainly are assumptions behavioral underlying the although 2007) (Maddison, context temporal a solutions based in and sense GDP limited the marketin – growth economic of terms in of success a be to seems economics neoclassical of recommendation the following the need for centralized planning. This may explain the seemingly contradictory findings context is that in markets, no one needs to possess all knowledge (Hayek, 1948), easing economic jargon, we now assume In 2011). positive Kahneman, e.g. information (see evidence costs. by indicated The profusely valueas – of perfect than markets less in this be may information this process to ability the and local be may knowledge economics, However, we can assume that instead of the costless information from baseline neoclassical 2 concentration, CO 2 sequestration capacity). superior a o poiig information. providing of way 141

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Individual and societal values Moral values may seem of less importance in a framework with extreme weight on individuals. A more radical departure from neoclassical economics allows the possibility that society or groups inform individual preferences, habits of thoughts and norms (see e.g. Daly, 1992; Vatn, 2005). This involves the possibility for different modes of rationality. Rationality in terms of what is best for the individual and rationality in terms of the group. This set of assumptions is necessary to understand a concept that has been discussed frequently in the literature on valuation, namely value articulating institutions (Jacobs, 1993; Vatn, 2005). The understanding of institutions in the Value Articulating Institutions (VAI) concept is broad, and does not only include formal institutions, but also habitual behavior within groups of people, like greeting by convention is done by a handshake in many cultures. Institutions in this broad sense may form or activate preferences, and the way we find it right to express them. In the description by Vatn (2005, pp.301-302), a VAI defines a set of rules concerning the value process. Rules for participation (who may participate, on what premises and how), rules for what counts as data (prices, weights, arguments, etc.) and rules for data handling. In the context of VAI then, the rule of participation of individuals according to neoclassical economics is through markets, and the environmental problems caused by individual decisions are viewed as a market failure. Further, the important data are prices. This is obviously a stylized description. However, an important point is that a valuation method with roots in the neoclassical paradigm that asks for willingness to pay provides a setting where the appropriate response is in terms of prices. Even if the respondent considers that the question is better answered in terms of what is best for society, the method constraints the value assessment to individually based rationality. In this sense, a valuation method is a VAI (Vatn, 2005). In contrast, valuation methods like citizen juries and deliberative methods invites to think in terms of group rationality and data in form of arguments instead of prices. Thereby, the choice of method will largely determine the kind of values captured in the assessment. This raises the possibility that increased dominance of e.g. market-based valuation methods will increase the prevalence of individual rationality at the cost of common norms. The net effect in the case of, for instance, nature conservation will then depend on the relative importance of self-interest vs social norms when analyzing human-nature interactions. Some empirical studies support this hypothesis (e.g. Frey, 1997, Frey and Jegen, 2001). Historical observations also indicate that what a society finds acceptable to trade in markets vary, suggesting that norms may be of a dynamic nature. It has been argued that more self-interest based rationality erodes moral and civic goods worth caring about (Sandel, 2012). On the other hand, it could be argued, as one prominent neoclassical theorist reflected on that: “we do not wish to useup recklessly the scarce resource of altruistic motivation” (Arrow, 1972, pp.354-355). Followed to the extreme, the theory of VAI thus suggests that the choice of valuation 142 method itself is at least partly a normative question. Following Norgaard (e.g.2009), we could also talk of a co-development of science and dominant ways of thinking, like a dominant market thinking could lead to scientific advances along this dimension of socioecological systems, but also reduce progress along other dimensions. In this context, one can understand Sandels’ (2013) claim that in the question if a good should be allocated by market principles or not, economics is a poor guide.

The importance of context in ES valuation If we accept value plurality, as the integrated valuation work in the OpenNESS project or the IPBES framework, it then follows that multiple ideas may be equally correct and still in conflict with each other (Mason 2006, 2013), which seems like complete agnosticism. The key to avoid this situation is context sensitivity when addressing an ES valuation problem. Context sensitivity has several aspects: First, we may talk of context sensitivity in terms of the relevance of the assumptions implied by the three major dimensions above. If the study concerns an individual business owner with reasonably nops E assmns ad t ue s lo eomne fr apn Es to ESs largely followsMononen etal(2015)andisdepictedinFigure24 below: mapping for recommended study also this informed has that version The 2012). is al, et (Maes making decision support use its and that assessments, elements different ES the encompass considers it because used, commonly been has is 2010) In integrated assessments, a version of the cascade model (Haines-Young and Potschin, find providing readily usableinformationforpolicysupport. they where (2015) of promise the al fulfill to assessments appraisal ES et for challenge review general a Martinez-Harms is there that in and findings (2013) al the et with Laureans consistent by very papers be to seems This decision-making. and valuation is done, the uncertainty in the assessments can still be a constraint for policy less policy relevant if important values are neglected. In addition, even if the integrated plurality information value (data) and time a constraints. Under this conditions, from the assessments may preferable be clearly is perspective, ES we can probably expect that simpler approaches will be of chosen because of valuation integrated if even Thus, as we assess across and aggregate errors across the measurement biophysical, sociocultural and and methodological monetary domains. conditionally dependent knowledge domains are cumulative, out, i.e. errors will accumulate points (2016) al. et Barton As requirements. data and information demanding fairly information to leads of this costs, information dimension and availability the of planning” terms and in However, making 2014). decision al. of et processes (Goméz-Baggethun to link their and valuation services integrated ecosystem of an for argued usually is approach it that “…explicitly recognizes the ecological, sociocultural and monetary values contexts such in in ES Thus, of misleading. assessment national of context the Romania, in it like is clear valuation, that to comprehensive only conduct a monetary valuation,In will be partial and potentially numbers, morequestionsconcerningvalue plurality andsoforth. imprecise more accept could we raising awareness is purpose differently, the Stated if legal processes, the required precision is very high (Gómez-Baggetun & Barton, 2014). is purpose or the litigation, of cases the in but moderate,If is precision required awareness-raising,the assessment. the underpin that data the of quality the and exercise valuation the of precision required the to refers here issue important The valuation. or assessment the of purpose the concerns context to related question important third A The purpose ofESvaluation Services (PES)inany situationorcontext. is there However, solutions. nothing in based the ES-framework that marketvalidates new institutions like of Payment for Ecosystem context a and economics neo-classical of assumptions the is departure of point the if sense makes which failures, market for that have underpinned the theory and practice in ES is to design instruments to correct important point in connection with this: One of the purposes of monetary valuation of ES the governance context (Laurans and Mermet, 2014; Primmer et al, 2015). There is an It is important to understand the compatibility of the valuation or appraisal method with UK and Romania, for instance, and the choice of the methods region or country should for which the reflectassessment is done. theseNorms might be differences. different in the prevailing in the institutions concerns specificity and context norms of aspect second A relevance. little relatively of be would economics neoclassical of assumptions the assessment, ES model for the case at hand. If on the other hand the valuation concerns a national scale working a providing thereby outcomes, determining in weight less comparativelyhave not because of the belief that the assumptions of the theory are true, but because they good information, the neoclassical framework could be a reasonable point of departure, 143

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 24. The cascade model (figure from Mononen et al, 2015).

This conceptual framework was obviously meant as a way of both addressing the values derived from ES as well as the ecological condition of the system that supports them. The practical use of it will be addressed in connection with the case studies below. Here we address the theoretical implications from the discussion above. In a strict sense, the valuation of ES, i.e. the importance that individuals, societal groups, or society at large attach to the benefits obtained from nature, is related to the last step in the cascade. However, the VAI framework described above (Vatn, 2005) indicates that there are a series of decisions along the different ‘boxes’ of the ES assessment following the Cascade model that involves values, including the choice of which values to elicit, of methodological tools and of which ES or benefits and beneficiaries to include (Vatn, 2009). As Jacobs et al (2016) point out, these choices imply “severe implication for the conceptualization of valuation, the valuation practice itself and the role taken by the scholars who perform the valuation”. Hence, the question of valuing ES, requires of other considerations than the mere estimation of the economic and social value of the benefits derived from nature. In the case of the MAES process in Romania, it is important to be aware of the implications, and to consider them in the analysis. For instance, the establishment of the scientific group, who are the members and which institutions they represent, define in part how ES are valued in the national assessment. Hence, if there is disagreement in the scientific community about which ES are important, the divergence of opinions should be transparent. Similarly, in the choice of indicators of benefits and values the 144 question of benefits and values for whom should be transparent during the valuation process because different social groups can hold different values. This brings us to the open-ended conclusion of this section. The discussion above is framed in terms of three important dimensions of the valuation context: i) the weight given to individuals vs groups in terms of who is making the decisions with an impact on nature, ii) the role of information costs when making these decisions, and related to the first dimension, iii) the consideration of value monism vs pluralism. One could ask whether there has been any progress in the field of ES valuation. Has knowledge advanced? Jacobs et al (2016) claim that the dust is setting on the nature valuation debate, that “from the applied perspective, the need for combining multiple disciplines and methods to represent the diverse set of values of nature is increasingly recognized”. However, the pathway of integrating science and policy for nature management still faces considerable obstacles. Cáceres et al (2016), for instance, ask why do “co- produced, policy relevant, adequately communicated science fails to influence policy implementation?” Above, the complexity of the problem in terms of uncertainty and conflicting values has been indicated as possible reasons. But Cáceres et al (ibid) test transfer method. costs, avoidance costs and in a significant way. The method can be useful, but one needs to be aware that the that aware be to needs assumptions may one in some cases be but wrong. In light of useful, the discussion above, the be method can method The way. significant a in prices the affect to not enough small are productivity in changes adaptability,the and behavior in restricted adjustments have consumers the if only for correct is value with however,the correct price, that or meaning not productivity) does timber approach forest This in price. market increase observed e.g. forest the in changes physical the multiplying simply by obtained be can case, this in emission reduced the of value monetary A oxides. nitrogen and dioxide sulfur as such pollutants of emissions the in indirect gains and or losses. direct An example could into be productivity an value to increase divided prices market in of use forest include be methods productivity direct the due where methods, to again a reduction can approaches preferences revealed The In benefit-based models, we either evaluate Benefit-based methods or We will start with benefit-based models in 3.2, including measures of valuation monetary the of be discussedasweproceed. many that will this of mind Implications tradition. economic neoclassical in the from the originate born techniques of be light should In it 1999). Bateman, above, e.g. discussion (see accessible readily are methods valuation monetary different the for guidelines Technical enough. precise still but economists, non- for read to will easy reasonably is that description a between strikebalance to a seek part this above, discussion theoretical the in As respectively.frameworks, IPBES and TEV the to according values instrumental or values, use we the detail, address mainly more thus in discussed are methods valuation monetary where section, this In ecosystem cultural for apply services (Chan,2016). typically values Relational nature. and and people people between between relations emphasize values Relational 2015). al et (Díaz values instrumental values that include all the use values in the TEV-framework, and relational and operates with three value dimensions: intrinsic broader even values is IPBES-classification The 2015). Martín-López, (non- monetary and (Gómez-Baggethun anthropocentric and sociocultural values), ecological, into classified are values TEEB-project, the In good nature the of existence the from satisfaction where use values include direct, indirect use and option values, and nonuse values include value (TEV) framework (Krutilla, 1967) that divides values into use and nonuse values, scientific the that wonder to categorize values. The main categorizations found include that in the total no economic is it ways different in resulted have discussion, nature value societies or individuals theoretical how into inquiries preceding the of light In 3.7. Monetaryvalueassessmentmethods about value monism vs value pluralism is just a reverberationdebate modern of the the all, 19 After times. several setting be may dust the Then well. as VAI relatively the influence although would these surely important, institutions are relations power If articulating change. can stable, value that discussed been incipient. already is has science ES It in aspects these of consideration the yet and ecosystems, of management and use access, mediate largely relations power that claims (2016) al et that best describes the process in a forest second protection the is case it that in conclude Argentina. and models Berbés-Blázques dynamic power and deficit information both utilitarian theory that the that theory utilitarian Mill’s Stuart on commenting latter the Bentham, Jeremy and Mill Stuart John between their revealed preferences. beliefs. Section 3.3 will cover cost-based methods, e.g. methods, cost-based cover will 3.3 Section utils Fnly scin . wl cvr h benefit- the cover will 3.4 section Finally, damage costs. might be a good measure of peoples of measure good a be might stated preferences , or for future generations. future for or per se, or revealed preferences stated but not of not but wants th century debate

preferences opportunity . 145

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania is applicable if there already is a market price; in this context monetary valuation may have social accept. The Travel Cost (TC) method has been widely used to measure the economic value of recreational activities. The simple idea is that consumers are willing to pay in terms of time and transportation costs. In the simplest case, time can be valued according to average salaries and transport costs can be estimated according to average costs based on available information on distance to cities, public transport, fuel costs and so forth. In general, the travel cost method assumes that demand for trips to a specific site is dependent on travel costs, income, availability and characteristics of the site and prices of substitutes etc. Based on this, demand curves can be derived. The method could fail if travel is not perceived as a cost (e.g. enjoyed as part of the trip), if people combine purposes in the trip (travel to a nature park because it is close to some family) or if people enjoy the site so much that they choose to move close to it. However, it is possible to meet these challenges by conducting detailed surveys. This would increase the cost of applying the method. In addition, the value that results is a use-value and does not capture other values, e.g. intrinsic value of nature. If the non-use values are important, the method will thus underestimate the true value. The Hedonic Pricing Method (HPM) is based on the idea discussed above, that prices provide simplified information. In many cases, market goods are traded at prices in which natural amenities are included, or internalized in the jargon. The classic example is property: The price of a house or summer house in natural surroundings is likely to be higher than a similar property without these surroundings. Or vice versa: the house close to the highway may be less expensive than a similar house away from the traffic nuisance. The HPM analysis starts with a regression of house prices against all their valuable characteristics and from this regression function the willingness to pay for a marginal change in these variables is assessed. HP data can be quite costly to collect, since residential property databases with enough data on all the necessary regressors is often lacking. Also in this model, the validity of the results may be questioned. For instance, in the case of neighboring beautiful scenery and a noisy highway, it is hard to calculate the effect we are interested in. This method also requires some competency; it is easy to forget an important confounding variable in the regression model, or to encounter collinearity. Conclusions in these cases would be spurious. Turning to stated preference methods (SP), these methods estimate the value of the environmental good by constructing a hypothetical market for the good. The strong side to these methods is that the hypothetic nature makes it possible to ask questions about willingness to pay in cases where there are no markets or prices to observe. However, the hypothetical aspect has frequently been acknowledged as a potential weakness. Worse however, is that willingness to pay in these contexts seem to be partially motivated by moral issues or previous experience (Kahneman and Knetsch, 1992; Spash, 2006), thus it could be argued that the willingness to pay indicator should be partially understood as 146 an indicator of sociocultural preferences, rather than market values (Chan et al, 2012). The SP methods can be divided into direct and indirect approaches, where the direct Contingent Valuation (CV) method is by far the most used method, even though recently the more indirect method of Choice Experiments (CE) has become more popular. A CV survey constructs scenarios that can offer different possible future government actions. Frequently the respondent is offered a binary choice between two alternatives, one being the status quo policy compared to a second alternative policy with a cost greater than maintaining the status quo. The respondent is then faced with the hypothetical question that the government will impose the stated cost (e.g. increased taxes, higher prices associated with regulation, or user fees) if the alternative to the status quo is provided. The respondent then provides a “like” or not. This is a discrete choice setting, but multiple choices can also be used. In Choice Experiments (CEs) individuals are ask to choose from alternative bundles instead of ranking them. Respondents are asked to pick their most favored out of three or more alternatives, and typically they will have multiple sets of questions. conservation inthiscase. the of costs opportunity the valueis forest commercial this Thus, forest. the exploiting protected is and excluded area from use, the forest opportunity cost of a conservation are the if forgone benefits of instance, For options. other pursuing not from benefit or of that is method based Damage costs could be e.g. the insurance value in flood events. Another important cost- avoidance costs can also be considered as part of the value of these the natural floodand control. area, the from away move to choose may people known, is area a particular of risk flood the If watershed. the in cover forest the of control flood natural the of of human-made flood control infra structure (e.g. dams, dikes) could by be used as aof methods value sub-categories different authors, but these categories different overlap to a large extent. For instance, into the cost divided been have methods Cost-based 2015). (TEEB, guidelines TEEB the in services regulating of context the in appropriate with high uncertainty the logic seems to be of methods less relevance. andsecond-best However, economics. neoclassical of assumptions setting the In a within in logically holds any first- case, it between is distinction considered The satisfied. not are conditions optimality some that implies best second where economics, in method second-best man-made water a e.g. of costs the I.e. ES. as considered frequently is It filtration. natural water the of the value for used is filtration of recreating a value in incurred provide costs artificially the ES that the is methods cost-based the in idea general The Cost-based methods the endproduct. the for premium price a and market latter.for marketprices a relevantand/or of inputs costs include also requirements Data is there because substitutes, perfect not are water example, we already drinking know the that In chemically treated inputs. water different and the natural with spring water correspondence good a has (outcome) good value. Depending on the concrete application, it may not be entirely functional evident relations in that the ecosystems, the and will thus final provide only a part of the economic all include not will function production the (Barbier,general, clear In made 1998). are products end for trade-offs potential and avoided are counting double of problems so of more than oneproduct.Then,the productionfunctionmustbecarefullyconstructed This 2015). al. will be particularly difficultet when the natural resource we(Åström assess support the production outcomes the and resource the relationship a of production about quality/quantity between information in scientific inputs much as demands it of second, thought and meaningfully systems, be can that resources for relevant only are they first, are functions production on based methods of limitations main The and treatment,avalue forthecleanwater isalsoaninput. with costs in changes the in changes different quality.water filtration of terms assess in clean input As less needs water to possible is it Then, for filtration qualities. water or different treatment the chemical for need the specify will form functional The etc. Possiblewater”. inputs are drinking water of different“clean quality,end-product contentthe of chemicals, function filtrationconcerns technology, production example The the given. of be will application method cost-based a of example an prelude, a as but section, next the in covered be will methods Cost-based method. function production the of application cost-based a have to possible also is It method. function production the of application benefit-based is This pollination. of value monetary a give then will price market the with multiplied production in change This changes. pollination when production in change estimate to possible then is it function production this on Based specified first, i.e. the functional relationship between pollinators and production of fruit. be some fruit, and pollinators provide input in this production. The production function is through examples: One example may be pollination. clearer The be commercially will traded This good yield. and may function ES “output”,typically,the and “input” between of commercially traded goods are estimated. The In production function specifies the relation Production Function methods, economic values for ES that contribute to the production . Opportunity costs are net foregone income foregone net are costs Opportunity opportunity costs. 147

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania The Shadow Price Method The Shadow Price method builds on mathematical theory for constrained optimization. The core idea in intuitive terms is that whenever society imposes a set of (environmental) regulations, there is at least an implicit valuation. If a rule is imposed with maximum quotas for a certain species of fish for instance, this will mean that profit in optimum in this fishery will decrease. This is maybe the hardest technique to explain in a short section, but as it is a method that has been fairly much used, some main points will be mentioned: Assume a simple consumer decision with only two alternatives of consumption x and y. This consumer wants to maximize his utility U from these two consumer goods, but the consumer also faces a budget constraint: The quantities of the two goods multiplied with their respective prices must be less than or equal to the budget m. For simplicity, equality will be assumed here. Thus in mathematical terms the consumer faces the optimization problem:

Obviously, one of the ways of solving this is by formulating the Lagrangian function:

Maximizing this function using the standard derivatives first order and second order conditions, we will find that the value of µ in optimum can be interpreted as the value of a marginal (“small”) change in m, i.e. the budget. This is what frequently is called a shadow price or shadow cost, which will be expressed in units of the objective function per unit of the budget constraint. In this simple example, the problem is designed as a consumer problem, with a monetary budget, and thus monetary valuation is not a logical problem. If the “budget constraint” were related to biodiversity and the objective function was related to profit from land development, we would face the problem with value plurality again: We would face a shadow price measured in money per unit biodiversity. Because this method satisfies the optimality conditions, it is called a first- best method. In the TEEB documents (2015) it is mentioned that an advantage with the method is that the shadow price reflect true economic value or opportunity cost to society. However, in practical terms the difference between the shadow price method and cost-based methods may not be significant. If we observe someone incurring the costs of e.g. erosion control artificially, we can only say that the benefit from erosion control is at least as big as these costs, but not the exact value. The same holds for shadow prices in many cases. If an area of forest is protected, a constraint is imposed on the optimization problem for the forest owner. In the zero information cost-scenario, the shadow price is equal to the value of a small change in the value of the constraint, or the true economic value in TEEB-terms (2015). However, assume a value plurality scenario, and assume as is relevant in the Romanian context, that areas of forest are 148 protected as genetic reserves. In this case the shadow price, in a properly constructed problem, will give an estimate of opportunity costs, e.g. market value of foregone forest harvest for small changes in protected area, but not the non-use values. Thus, in the value plurality scenario where the non-use values will be unaccounted for, the only reasonable interpretation is that the value of these genetic resources to society has to be at least as much as the shadow price, thus the same interpretation as in the cost- based methods. For much more details see Clark (2010).

Value transfer The general idea in value transfer (VT) methods is that an existing value for an ES from a study site can be transferred and applied in another. VT is frequently called benefit transfer, but in principle both benefits and costs could be transferred. Ideally, one would use new primary studies, however as funding and time may be of concern VT might be justified. There are four categories of value transfer methods (TEEB, 2015): Unit VT, adjusted unit VT, value function transfer and meta-analytic transfer. In unit VT, the change, the and provide, they services the considering the and importance of functions biodiversity conservation their and forest forests, adaptation to the climate of importance the on depending time, In categories. functional of lot a having subgroup each subgroups, 5 into divided was 19) (table forests of group first The role. protection secondary a and forests developing economic, social and scientific objectives; and (ii) follows: (i) functionality,their on Depending as protection. classified for are Romanianand forests was based on the concept that Romanian forest should satisfy both the need for timber Romania, the functional zoning In system, 2017). implemented (FAOsince development 1954 in historical forest and management, social economic, cultural, country’s the to (ha) according to the National Institute of In Romania, forests cover roughly 26% Statistics of the land area, or almost 6.4 million hectares (NIS), and forests are intimately linked as several regionalstudies. et al, 2014), national scale (e.g. Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment, 2014) as Busetto well (e.g. scale European at conducted been have ES forest map to aiming studies the Natura 2000 Network by 2020 (European Union, 2015). On this other background several among states, of member management adequate the to contribute plans forest national that ensure to things, request strategy Forest the and Strategy Biodiversity human activity (EU, 2015). In part as a response to these impacts, to due lost the degraded or be to reported are European benefits these provide that Union’snaturalcapital) the (i.e. species and habitats, ecosystems, the level, EU at recognized increasingly are forests of functions multiple the Although (ibid). recreation for opportunities important and air, carbon sequestration, erosion control, wood provision for different purposes and forests provide important ecosystem services (ES) to society such as for terrestrial biodiversitypurification in Europe (EU commission, 2015). In addition ofto biodiversity, water repository main the is and EU the in surface land the of 40% than more coverForests Background Romanian forestusingreportednationalstatistics 3.8. Economicvaluationofecosystemservicesfrom empirical valuation while studiestendtobepublishedingreyliterature, PhD-thesesetc. papers, interesting methodologically publish to a journals bias, for selection tendency publication is error environmental of source regarding third differences The characteristics. the physical are and there addition in mentioned; been has income in differences potential The transfer: the with connection in errors the Second, uncertainty in general, and the quality of the primary study is obviously also important. VT-methods(Brander in out et pointed al, been have 2006). errors of First, sources three errors general, In associated advantage. with the primary study. Valuation comes This increased complexity also increases the with VT.cost of the analytical method, thus reducing meta its main the of case the in characteristics) (size, scope different of studies several including by also and or transfer) function (value studies similar more or one on based function value complex more a transferring by this mitigate to seek transfer analytic meta transfer.and transferthe function in value done The generalizations the main weaknesses in VT and adjusted VT relate to the quality of the primary studies and which accounts for different levels of costs in different countries and exchange rate. The (PPP) ParityPower Purchase also context international in and income, for adjusting by instance for differences, these for compensate to seeks VT Adjusted income. average as such pricing, house different affect can that very factors various the of is terms in primary area the from new the if misleading be obviously could This area. new the to value of e.g. willingness to pay per household per year in one area is simply transferred hvn te an oe f rdcn tme fr h wo poesn industry, processing wood the for timber producing of role main the having , forests with specialprotectionfunctions Romanian functional zoning system developed continuously. , having the role of maintaining and production and protection 149

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania At the same time, forestry is an important economic sector in Romania. Romania had the largest forestry and logging workforce in Europe with 49 200 annual work units in 2010 (Eurostat, 2013). This reflects that forestry and logging in Romania is labor intensive, as removals per work unit or other measures of economic productivity are low (Eurostat, 2013). Gross value of forestry in Romania was reported to 521 million euros in 2005 and 898 million euros in 2010 (Eurostat, 2013). Romania also has some of the last remaining tracts of old growth forests in Europe, recognized for exceptional biodiversity with many endemic, rare and threatened species (Knorn et al. 2013). These forests, in relatively close proximity to a large number of people, also have the potential for important recreational values. At the same time, high population densities are often associated with infrastructure development and accessibility, and thus increasing the risk of logging by lowering opportunity costs (Schröter et al. 2017)

Data and conceptual model Our categorization of forest ecosystem services (ES) is based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), and indicators are organized according to the cascade model (Haines-Young and Potschin 2013). Our application of the cascade model is based on the national indicator framework from Finland found in Mononen et al. (2016). The cascade model in Mononen et al (2016) has some alterations compared to the original cascade model. Level 3 has been used as a headline for the ES in question, as it is believed this improves communicability and that ES are adequately described through the set of indicators from steps 1 and 2 for the biophysical part, through steps 4 and 5 for the human well-being components. Steps 1 and 2 aim to address preconditions for continued provision of the ES, and steps 4 and 5, the societal dependence on the ES in question. Mononen et al (2016) also state that the chain of indicators aims “to demonstrate the stepwise social-ecological nature of ecosystem delivery”. It could be argued that arrows in the opposite direction should also be included in figure 24. As an example, employment in forestry as an indicator or benefit, but can also be an indicator of overuse and ecosystem degradation in levels 1 and 2 if exploitation levels are not sustainable. In this report, in the cases where long-term data on all four levels, we will address the interdependencies between benefits and ecosystem condition to some extent. For instance, a typical indicator for step 1 could be area of suitable habitat for native biodiversity, e.g. ha of forest (of a particular type), or size of a wildlife population. Step 2 typically concerns productivity, e.g. growth rate of forests in m3/ha. Step 3 is the benefit, and could be the actual harvest of wood in 3m . Step 4 are indicators of value for the benefit. This could be in terms of trade or employment, but in general, value will here be understood in a broad sense, reflecting the importance attached to the benefits generated by the forest (Díaz et al. 2015). Thus, values could also be of various kinds 150 such as those related to human health. For a complete assessment and valuation of ES from forests in Romania within this framework, there are a series of data constraints. These constraints concern the existence of data, the rights to use the data and the resolution of available data (spatially and temporally). It also includes linguistic problems for those who do not speak Romanian, as not all relevant information exists in English. For example, wood production is an important provisioning service in Romania, and for this ES there is good data at national level provided by the National Institute of Statistics (NIS), Eurostat and The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). In contrast, potentially important recreational values or values associated with nature based tourism are difficult to assess based on available data and only derived values can be provided. In addition, studies that can clarify what kind of values are the most appropriate are lacking. For instance, in the Finnish case, those ES for which markets and market based valuation forms already exist were considered to be best valued in monetary terms. However, although the ES of carbon sequestration has markets and can be given a monetary value, many stress the public good values of this ES (Mononen et al. 2016). and notatregional,county orlocallevel (FAO 2014). level, National the for designed be to seem management forest sustainable supporting regulations and legislation policies, addition, In 2010). Dutca and Abrudan, (Stancioiu, owner.state challenges legal and institutional implied this that out pointed been has It different owners (Ioras and Abrudan 2006), which implies a huge change from a single At the end of this restitution process, it is estimated that forests are owned by 800 2005. and 2000 1991, in passed laws of series a through privatized) previous (i.e. to landowners restituted were governance forests the of forest % 45 almost in 2009, to 1989 from engaged instance, institutions the in changes following the revolution in 1989, implying considerable rapid challenges for management. For had has 1990. from free) Romania for least (at available are series time many that noted be should It present. Thesevalues willbesummarized attheend. at model cascade the in 2 and 1 steps for indicators good have not do we fishing, and indicators available are not sufficient for more precision. For some ES, including hunting nature- of the “recreation” culturalES of categories CICES the category includes 20 table in tourism based ES The NIS. by provided indicators some of relations functional expand with increased data availability and with better understanding of structural and would list the that noted be should It below. addressed Table ES main the outlines 20 Source: FAO,2014 from forestsinRomania. Seetable19below: is classified as G1, and the different subcategories of G1 give a picture of important ES under very special circumstances. Approximately 53% of the National ( Forest goup” Area functional (NFA)first the to belonging forests In G1 subgroups Total G1 G1.5 G1.4 G1.3 G1.2 G1.1 Table 19.ProtectedforestswithinG1subgroupspercentages climatic andindustrial ecological resources Protection ofwaters Scientific Interests, Protection against special geneticor Protection ofsoil harmful factors Recreational Description % ofG1 G1 ) logging is not allowed except allowed not is logging ) G1 100 10 11 42 31 6 Area (ha) 3604000 1513680 1117240 360400 396440 216240

000 151

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Table 20. Main ES discussed in the cascade framework below.

CICES CASCADE Sec.,Div., Class 1-Structure 2-Function 4-Benefit 5-Value Group Growth Rate Area (of productive) (m3/ha) Logging m3/ha Trade. Value in PS, Materials Wood forest (ha) Annual Allowable Employment Euros. Intrinsic. Cut (AAC) DATA: Timber volume statistics at county level from 1990 by timber type: resinous, beech, DATA: DATA: oak, various Sold wood reported Statistics of forest hardwood and in 1 000 Lei at cover available various softwood NIS 1990-1995, in online at NIS from (NIS). 1000m3 thereafter. 1990 at county and national level. DATA: Exported volumes Values for exported NFI of round-wood and imported Broad-leaved and yearly 1997- volumes at FAO. coniferous forest. 2014, 1964-1974, Share of forest that by timber types is productive from coniferous and non- Employment from NFI. coniferous (FAO25). Eurostat 2013, PwC, 2016.

Volumes for exported/imported sawn wood yearly 1964-2014 (FAO). Mitigation of CO emissions 2 Public good value of regulation, stable RMS, climate stability. Climate Carbon storing Carbon balance, climate Atmospheric regulation habitats (ha) sequestration rate. composition Euro value of CO Contribution 2 price per ton. to reach Kyoto protocol targets. GHG clearing DATA: Forest cover DATA: Basd on market prices. NSI.Age structure literature review. of forest NFI (2008- See below. 2012 cycle). Economic efficient prices from OECD. CS, Physical Nature Preferred natural Experience. Tourism revenue. and experiential based areas (ha). Participation in Employment. interaction tourism Accessibility. recreational activity. Intrinsic. Statistics on Data for arrivals and nights employment and at chalets and revenue in World Number of arrivals Mountain Resorts Travel and Tourism and nights at 152 at NIS. Available Council (2015) and chalets at NIS 1990-2015 for data for expenditure domestic and from Eurostat foreign tourists. 2017. Note: NFI = National Forest Inventory, NSI = National Institute of Statistics. FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, PS = Provisioning Services, RMS =Regulating and Maintenance Services and CS = Cultural Services, GHG: Green House Gases.25

25 http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/en/ 27 26 2017). (Romsilva, planting with ha 5930 and naturally ha 8640 regenerated, were ha 14570 or and to of rehabilitate about aim unused 15000 afforestation ha the annually have on of public and to land under 2011, their ha and administration. due In 1997 2016, between 22300 afforested be were Romsilva, farmland degraded to to part According 2014). large (FAO in schemes appears reforestation cover forest in increase The area inRomania in2015,considerably lowerthantheEUtotalforestcover of land total the of 29% approximately to amounts This hectares. million 6,4 than more in Romania in the last decade shows a slight increase (Figure 25) and forest area coveris forest now on Statistics data. satellite by supplemented be now can information This availableis that online. Romaniacover1990 in forest from of yearlydata provides NIS (Level 1,structure) Biophysical indicatorsofforeststocksandcondition Provisioning services:Timber by Romanianforests. Status andtrendsofselectedESgenerated A FAO document FAO A National The ES. generate inventories; the latestavailable isthe2008-2012cycle. to cycle five-year capacity on based the trends these on on information provides and (NFI) Inventory Forest forest the of functioning the on consequences has of and capital natural distribution the of relative decrement a the indicates age-class in younger increase An extraction. of levels and regime logging in shifts of indicators robust are distributions) class age stand (i.e. stock structure standing the the of in cover,changes forest the in changes to addition In advice. technical the National Forest Administration (NFA) Romsilva or by private owners are managed are owners by private by owned or Romsilva(NFA) whether Administration Forest now,National the Romania in Forests halted. been have use unsustainable of produce timber by reducing future AAC. According to the same document, these trends to capacity long-term the in changes to lead would which (AAC), Cut Allowable Annual the than larger Romaniahavebeen ratesin harvesting decades, last the in that shows

http://www http://www 26 Figure 25.ForestcoverRomania1990-2015(in1000hectares). Romsilva also supports private initiatives for afforestation of unfit farmland with .fao.org/docrep/w3722E/w3722e23.htm .rosilva.ro/articole/prezentare_generala__p_131.htm 27 also provides indications of changes in age structure. The report The structure. age in changes of indications provides also Source: NIS,2017.

38%.

153

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania according to forest management plans (FMP) which are reviewed every ten years and are in principle based on ecological sustainability (Stancioiu, Abrudan, and Dutca 2010). Regarding forest composition, it has been documented that the effects of past management practices can linger for a long time (Munteanu et al. 2015; Munteanu et al. 2016). The trend in Romania in the last 120 years is of an increased homogenization of the spatial distribution of tree species, and more even-aged stands (Munteanu et al. 2015). Thus, the time series starting from 1990 is rather short to evaluate this kind of impacts. Forest cover, age structure and tree species composition are all forest structures that influence wood volume. We are not aware of any available time series of age structure of forests in Romania with national coverage. Data from the Romanian National Forest Inventory (the 2008-2012 cycle) shows connections between species, age and volume per ha. Table 21 below shows different wood volumes for different forest types in three different historical regions in Romania. Table 22 shows wood volumes3 (m /ha) for different age groups, and table 23 shows percentages (of surface) of different age classes in the three regions.

Table 21. Wood Volumes (m3/ha) for different species and historical regions in Romania.

Forest Transilvania Tara-Rom Moldova Average Spruce 344 388 458 388 Fagus (Beech) 396 388 422 398 Oak 293 221 287 264 Hard Broadleaves 209 154 207 191 Soft Broadleaves 249 232 255 243 NFI, 2008-2012 cycle

Table 22. Wood volumes (m3/ha) for different age groups for three different historical regions in Romania.

Age Region <20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 >160 Transilvania 55 215 311 394 450 466 523 560 618 Tara-Rom 76 196 271 351 415 461 502 508 511 Moldovia 57 242 362 416 527 574 513 531 535 Average 63 216 310 387 459 491 515 558 558 NFI, 2008-2012 cycle 154 Table 23. Percentage of surface of age classes in three different historical regions in Romania

Age Region <20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 >160 Transilvania 13,08 21,05 18,45 18,66 14,23 8,52 3,62 1,64 0,76 Tara-Rom 18,67 21,05 19,72 16,39 11,29 6,6 3,38 1,94 0,48 Moldovia 10,69 20.51 18,55 14,93 14,46 10,18 5,4 3,43 1,86 Average 14,15 21,02 18,91 16,66 13,33 8,43 4,13 2,34 1,03 NFI, 2008-2012 cycle.

Figure 26 below shows the relationship between age and wood volume, indicating that wood volume scales in a non-linear way with age, with more rapid increase in the young classes, and reaching a plateau at around 130 yr. The figure also shows that NIS-data. 28 m 5,6 is increment annual net average forest of estimate official latest The Biophysical indicatorsoftimberproduction(Level2,function) 322m reports data NFI newest The volume. wood of estimates make this information, as well as the information on forest cover in Romania, it is possible to Using hectare. per volumes different with associated are species different addition, In lower percentages offorestolderthan140years thanthenational average.Transilvaniahave and Românească Țara Both decades. recent pressure in logging region stronger this comparativelyin a indicating years, 20 under classes age of Tara-Țaracontrast, In years. 100 than averageaboveRomâneascăpercentages shows older classes forest all i.e. forest, with Moldova growth old of percentage wood volume, average above and an having structure age in differences geographical are there is found in a Romanian report to the EU commission. EU the to report Romanian a in found is below 27 figure series time longer about information get to is order In 1990 NIS. at from available data about mentioned, As information below). render 27 figure (2014) (See FAOwood of in volumes harvested reported those and NIS, by provided Data Indicators ofbenefitsgeneratedbytimberproduction(Level4,benefits) writing thisreport,basedonthelatestNFI5year inventory cycle (2012-2016). of moment the at developed being is value updated An (1985). NFI on based is which 2,221 millionm

Figure 26.Distributionofwoodvolumesbasedonforeststandage. and theCouncil. SubmissiontotheEuropean Commision.Bucharest,2015. Information on LULUCF actions in Romania. Report under Art 10 of Decision 529/2013 of European ParliamentEuropean of 529/2013 Decision Romania.of in 10 Reportactions Art LULUCF under on 3 in total. Source: NFI. 28 The information still builds on builds still information The 3 per hectare or 3 ha/year, 155

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 27. Wood harvest (m3) Romania 1954 – 2012. Data from NIS, figure from Romanian report to the EU commission (see footnote 6 above).

Following the cascade structure of indicators, employment could be considered both as a benefit and as an indicator of economic value. Here employment will be considered under cascade level 5, economic value.

Indicators of economic value of timber (Level 5, value) This section will deal with economic values of production forest. Other values associated with forest ecosystems in Romania will be addressed below. Romania had the largest forestry and logging workforce in Europe in 2010 with 49200 annual work units (Eurostat, 2013). This reflects that forestry practices and logging in Romania are labor intensive, as removals per work unit or other measures of productivity are low (Eurostat, 2013). The gross value of forestry in Romania was reported to be 521 and 898 million euros in 2005 and 2010, respectively (Eurostat, 2013). With direct and indirect effects included, the forestry sector contribute with 1,7 billion euros to the state budget, and with about 3,5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) according to a report by PwC Romania (PwC, 2016). This report states that 128000 people are directly employed in the forestry sector and other 186 000 in related sectors. (For the sake of comparison with reported statistics, note that the Eurostat statistics are converted to annual work units). According to the PwC-report, there is a development potential in the forestry sector in Romania (PwC 2016). However, this potential is viewed through a higher extractive 156 pressure rather than increasing the forest productive capacity through management practices. PwC (2016) attribute the low productivity of the sector to outdated harvest technology and lack of infrastructure such as forest roads. Even if forest cover has increased according to the NIS, the available forest areas for harvest has decreased by 18 % since 1990 (PwC, 2016), which is likely a consequence of a high extraction level of mature forest in this period. Harvest technology and forest roads may be improved; however, the current forest cover of around 29% is below the target (40%) set by the Natura 2000 program, and the estimates and prognoses seem to disregard current AAC standards based on the ecological capacity of the forest to generate economic benefits. Another study criticizes Romanian forest management for having overly long rotation times, both regarding forestry and carbon sequestration (Bouriaud et al. 2016), without taking in to account that Romanian forestry promotes natural regeneration and the maintenance of forest stands with stable and sustainable structures. However, a FAO report (2014) stresses that “Romania attaches a great importance to sustainable forest management ensuring the integrity of forest land and even expanding forest area, which is an already constant target of forest policy. Providing functional stability and h cpct o odgot frs t sqetr CO sequester to forest old-growth of capacity The content indifferentkindsofwood. end estimate is highly sensitive to assumptions of both wood volume per ha and carbon the Romania,the in forest of coverwith considerable the given and change estimates, of improvement to likely are guidelines These and regions. moist climatic temperate dry cold temperate warm in growing forest between distinguish also guidelines The Wood 1,2. of volume Ground density which is Above given Totalas 0,48 for coniferous and to 0,52 for broadleaf forest, stems respectively. a standing provide from guidelines factor The density.conversion Wood x branches including volume Ground Above LULUCF,Total= for tons) (million Biomass Above-Ground guidelines as calculated is this practiceRomania For 2012). good (IPPC carbon stored of reporting for guidelines in temperate forests, with 1 ton of carbon being equivalent to 3,67 tons of CO of tons 3,67 to equivalent being carbon of ton 1 with forests, temperate in would translate into an average of ca 450 tons of CO of tons 450 ca of average an into translate would and Elofsson 2016). With the wood volume data from the National Forest Inventory this to be 0,912 tones CO tones 0,912 be to been has associated with effort different forestry practices. Carbon much content in wood has been estimated consequently change, emissions an carbon and wood, of kinds different climate in content carbon estimate become to dedicated of has carbon light of in Sequestration question growth. and important volume wood of function a is atmosphere, the from carbon absorb to ability the capacity,i.e. sequestration Carbon in ourcase,forests,whichwehave discussedabove. habitats, storing carbon of area need we model, cascade the in step structural the For Indicators offoreststocksandconditionforclimateregulation(Level1,structure) Climate regulation Regulating andMaintenanceServices(RMS): Source: FAO, 2017. Units: Volume in 1000m below: a net importer of coniferous wood and a net exporter of non-coniferous wood. See table According to FAO statistics of trade, Romania was a net importer of round wood in 2014, principles offorestmanagementinourcountry”(FAO 2014,p.60). basic are stability biosphere ensure to order in ecosystems forest of efficiency higher from USD using exchange rate 1 USD= 0,80128 euro), source: required. is processes complex of understanding pollution, air of reduction or purification, water regarding structural properties of carbon storage is not unique, also in other ES like e.g. more biological review see Luyssaert and coauthors (Luyssaert et al. 2008). This complexity store Carpathians comprehensive a For in 2013). al. forests et (Knorn forests managed growth and younger than old carbon that and stage the successional in forest forests or growth old that claimed been Carpathians Mountain has region store more carbon It per unit not area than accounts. any generally other ecosystem carbon are matter 2012) in organic al. considered soil et (Wardle and species vegetation forest slow-growth understory of the decomposition of role the because particularly budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/index_en.cfm Imported non-coniferous. Imported coniferous Imported roundwood(2014). Exported non-coniferous(2014). Exported coniferous(2014) Exported roundwood(2014) Category. 2 / m / Table 24.Romanianwoodtrade. 3 of wood in boreal forests and 1,459 tones CO tones 1,459 and forests boreal in wood of 90,65 917 1629,45 112,33 214,5 529,7 Volume 3 , and values in 1000 euros (converted 2 2 per hectare. There are official are There hectare. per s eeal underestimated, generally is 10147,97 59712,46 87150,78 16622,55 22400,58 49362,05 Value

http://ec.europa.eu/ 2 / m / 3 of wood of 2 (Vass 157

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania The reported Carbon Storage for Romanian forests is provided in table 25 below.

Table 25. Total (soil and above ground) carbon Storage Romanian Forests 1990-2015. (Million tons).

Year 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 Carbon 1105,43 1104,44 1108,80 1129,82 1381,04 Storage. Source: FAO, 2014.

Indicators of climate regulation function (Level 2, function) Forests will be a carbon sink if increase in living biomass exceeds carbon losses due to plant respiration, and biomass decomposition and combustion due to fires. Partly due to the ability of forests to sequester carbon, land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) is defined by the United Nations Climate Secretariat as a “greenhouse gas inventory sector that covers emissions and removals of greenhouse gases resulting from direct human –induced land use, land use change and forestry activities”. According to the United Nations Climate Secretariat 29, Romanian forests had a net annual sink

of 18455,6 Gg in 1989, and of 22462,5 Gg of CO2 equivalents in 2012. The total CO2 emissions in 2012 in Romania were 83860,6 Gg, so maintaining forest stands and cover considerably contributes to the magnitude of available carbon credits for trade under European offsetting mechanisms. It is reported significant changes in the net annual sink in Romania since the 90’ies due to changes in wood harvest (see figure 27 above) and also reforestation and afforestation schemes. Table 26 below shows contributions from LULUCF in selected categories in Romania for 2012. Land converted to settlements and land converted to other land both contributes positively to emissions, because they involve conversion from forest. “Forest land remaining forest land” is a complex category that according to the IPPC reflects changes in carbon stock from five carbon pools, biomass below and above ground, dead wood, litter, soil organic matter as well as non-CO2 emissions from those pools.

Table 26. Contribution of selected land sub categories to LULUCF annual net sink in Romania 2012.

Sink and Source Categories Emissions “+” / Removals “-“ 5A1 Forest Land Remaining Forest Land -19672,3 5A2 Land Converted to Forest Land -3047,7 5E2 Land converted to settlements 410,9 5F2 Land converted to other land 767,4 158 Source: Information on LULUCF actions in Romania. Report under Art 10 of Decision 529/2013 of European Parliament and the Council. Submission to the European Commission. Bucharest, 2015.

Observing the changes in wood harvest from 1989, (see figure 27 above) it is not surprising that LULUCF contributions in Romania have changed over time. Figure 28 below shows these changes from 1970-2012.

29 (https://unfccc.int/files/ghg_emissions_data/application/pdf/rou_ghg_profile.pdf First, it could be noticed that the target set under the Kyoto Protocol of a maximum a 2 of of Protocol increase Kyototemperature the under set target the that noticed be could it First, Indicators ofeconomicvalueclimateregulation byforest(Level5,value) is 1989. It is also important to note that the baseline for Romania according to the Kyoto protocol at atotalcostof115millioneurosduringtheperiod2015-2050. the relevant Kyoto commitment period with an emissions reduction target are allowed are target reduction emissions an with period Kyotocommitment relevant the of part are that countries Those (2008-2012). period commitment first the in emit to allowed were receivedcommitment, they amount reduction the AAUsto corresponding report Bank World The constraints. capacity are todeveloping there However, 2015). e.g.compared Bank World 2016; Elofsson this, and Vass 2017; Vassof achieving Münnich 2012; al. et (Capros way energy renewable efficient cost a as highlighted been has that strategy a is storage carbon forest in change positive net Kyoto and the protocol, in targets the reach to strategies possible different are There -2011. 2000 (2015) states that forestry can provide additional abatement of 1 of abatement additional provide can forestry that states (2015) CO of 27% removing is sector LULUCF The be discussedhere. not will and issue complex a is this to contribute Romanianforests which to extent the The main benefit one could identify is to actually avoid harmful climateIndicators ofclimateregulationbenefits(Level4,benefits) change. Obviously, Commission. Bucharest,2015. 529/2013 of European Parliament and the Council. Submissiontothe European Source: Information on LULUCF actions in Romania. Report under Art 10 of Decision a country the right to emit one ton of CO The Kyoto protocol introduced so-called Assigned Amount Units (AAUs). One AAU gives the limitationswillbediscussedinfollowing section. prices in carbon quotas and off-sets markets. This is not straight forward, however, and Economic values will here be provided based on the market method, i.e. on observable target istheproductofanegotiatedagreement betweennations. Figure 28.TrendsinRomanianGHGinventoryforLULUCF and itsmaincontributorsfrom1970-2012. O C can be regarded as a value, since to a large extent this extent large a to since value, a as regarded be can C 2 e. In principle, each country with an emission 2 emissions produced by other sectors from sectors other by produced emissions

828 kt CO kt

2 per year per 159

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania to trade AAUs. Romania had a surplus after the first commitment period corresponding

to 669 Mt of CO2e. Thus, from 2012 there was a potential for Romania to sell AAUs to countries that were part of the second commitment period from 2012. EU has introduced EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) as an important part of the strategy to meet Kyoto requirements. The EU ETS system places a cap on emissions from heavy industry and the power sector, which cover approximately 50% of EU emissions. Under this system EU allowances (EUAs) can be traded among companies. By design, each EUA is equivalent to a corresponding AAU and is also shadowed by one in the central EU registry. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) the Kyoto protocol established was essentially designed for the developed countries that were part of the commitment period. According to the Paris Agreement, the CDM will from 2020 be replaced with a Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) where all countries are expected to take part. All implications of this will not be discussed here. The important point is that trading of AAUs and EUAs takes place in a changing institutional structure, however, some important aspects will be highlighted. First, The Kyoto protocol allows countries to count net changes in gas emissions/sequestration from afforestation, reforestation, (improved) forest management and deforestation and it seems like this will continue in the European context. All European Union member states are committed under the Kyoto protocol to ensure that accounted greenhouse gas (GHF) emissions from land

use are entirely compensated by an equivalent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through actions in the sector up to 2020. A legislative process in EU is under way to renew these commitments after 2020, with a legislative proposal delivered from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on 20th of July 2016, and in this proposal the flexibility to buy and sell net removals to other member states are highlighted. (SOER 2015) 30. Second, as mentioned above the EU ETS systems originally placed caps on heavy industry and energy producers. Some companies, like airlines, have been exempted, and only 50% of emissions were covered. In phase three (2013-2020) more sectors are included (EU commission, 2017). Third, the caps on emissions, i.e. the total allowance, will decrease so total emission decrease over time. Fourth, all EUAs should now be auctioned by default, rather than given away for free (EU commission, 2017)31. Fifth, there is some debate if an AAU surplus from the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol should be transferred to the next period in full, as this will make later commitments easier. In summary of this section, although changes are to some extent unpredictable, it seems like market prices are relevant. If total emission allowance decrease, more sectors and all permits are auctioned, we could also see increased prices, although a surplus from the first commitment periods could keep price pressure down. 160 Variability in the price for AAUs /EUAs add uncertainty to the calculation of economic

value of offsetting CO2 emissions. Market based valuation should give a first best estimate according to standard economic theory. However, few believe that carbon markets are yet efficient in this sense. For instance, according to the OECD (OECD 2017) the lower end estimates of an economic efficient price of AAUs are around 30 euros. However, as shown above, not all sectors have been included in the cap system, and the OECD

estimates that only 10% of CO2 emissions within the member countries actually need to pay this much. The AAU price has fluctuated largely. For instance, a peak price of around 30 euros occurred in 2006, but was near zero through much of 2007, and, there has been considerable fluctuation in later years. In some studies, the price of one ton

of CO2 in 2050 is forecasted to be extremely high if emission targets are to be met. For instance, they have been estimated to be 306 euros (Münnich Vass 2017), between 240 and 1127 euros (median 521) in (Knopf et al. 2013) and between 147 and 370 euros in (Capros et al. 2012).

30 https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/countries-comparison/climate-change-mitigation 31 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/forests/lulucf_en price of EUR 5-10, the value for mitigating CO mitigating to for value the 5-10, EUR of price subject are short-term realistic a and prices tons, 600 level 455 18 of a accounts carbon to carbon contributions with net of 1989, for Future that see We dependent. uncertainty. political and context technological economic, highly are values These 32 future prices like 300 euros per ton of CO simulated model efficient forestry.If of value gross the of the 68% approximately of value a have to closer comes price the If forestry.sequestrationcarbon ton), per would euros forests (30 by OECD the to according price of value gross the of 10-20% to compare would estimates sequestration carbon price of value monetary conservative the ton, most per euros 10 the to 5 with of that seems it numbers, these on Based million 898 of Romania in euros in2010(989,24millioninflationadjusted2012number). forestry of value gross a show data Eurostat the reasons, comparativeFor euros. million 225 and 112 between be would value the prices, same CO Climate Secretariat, 2017. Hypothetical pricesbased on OECD,2017. Units: 1 Source: Contributions from Romanian forestry in 1989 and 2012 from United Nations qualifies, thus: be a simple linear function of price within a range of 5 to 300 euro. This value, the value of carbon sequestration (VCS Based on these estimates, values of carbon sequestered by Romanian forests are given A World Bank blog reports other EUcountriesisincreased. become a significant source of income for Romania if the flexibility to trade quotas with between 90 and 185 million euros. Considering 2012 CO 2012 Considering euros. million 185 and 90 between utrl S Pyia ad xeinil neato wt evrnet nature-based environment, with interaction experiential tourism. and Physical ES: Cultural the of validity increase also monetary values above. will outcome, probable a be may which quotas, sell and buy to flexibility increased with developments Institutional obligations. Kyoto meeting alternative for Romania would be to buy AAUs. However, Romania will have no problems achieve Kyoto targets, the monetary values contribute above would be forests relatively precise, since Romanian the that is to contribution forest abovenegative the on Romaniadepended If emissions. “negative” with shown is what that stressed be should it period 2016-2020. In light of this the numbers provided above seem relevant. However,the in euros billion 2 about generate to hope they that and 2013-2014, credits carbon 18 455600 25 22 20 compensation (tons ofCO Table 27.ValuesofthecontributionRomanianforestrytomitigation

2 000 462 500 000 , andvaluesinmill.EUR. CO2 for differentlevelsofnetCO2contributionsandprice1tonCO2. https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/new of CO2emissionsaccordingtotheGreenhousegasinventory 2 ) 92,28 125 112,32 100 EUR 5 184,56 250 224,63 200 32 EUR 10 that Romania collected about 260 million euros from selling p and the part of the total carbon sequestration 553,67 750 673,88 600 EUR 30 2 2 -bike-lanes-and-metro-stations-bucharest-paid-carbon-credits should turn true, carbon sequestration could 922,78 1 125 1 123,13 1 000 2 EUR 50 emissionsresult in an economic value 1 845,56 2 500 2 246,25 2 000 EUR 100 2 sequestration levels and the and levels sequestration 3 691,12 5 000 4 492,5 4 000 EUR 200 5 536,68 7 500 6 738,75 6 000 EUR 300

ton of ) will that

161

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Indicators of forest condition related to recreation and tourism (Level 1, structure) This is a service where values are potentially large, but where data to conduct adequate valuation is difficult to find, which is common for the valuation of this ecosystem service. A paper considering a framework for national indicators in the EU states that high quality indicators for cultural forest ecosystem services are not available (Maes et al. 2016) . Relevant indicators for the structural level could be area of forest related touristic attractions. As a start point, one could note that the total forest area protected for recreational purposes (no logging except special circumstances) is roughly 396 000 ha (FAO 2014). However, areas protected for recreational purposes will provide many other services, and touristic activities can be compatible with several of the other protection categories, as well as moderate timber harvest. The focus in this report is on a selection of ES that are important economically, and where data is available. Nature based tourism is one such potential ES. We do not have the data to develop indicators for recreational values. However, in the following section concerning structural qualities relevant for nature-based tourism, the discussion will obviously be relevant also for the categories of recreational services, and provision of habitat for native biodiversity. With approximately 210000 ha of old growth forest, Romania has more old-growth forest cover than any other central European country, and some of the last old growth forest types in Europe. The recreational value of old growth forests has no substitutions, so simple economic arguments based on scarcity could suggest a potentially large economic value of these forests (Krutilla 1967) both at national and regional scales. Structural habitat features are the biophysical characteristics more strongly associated with quality for recreational activities (Harrison et al. 2014), and old-growth forests have the potential to offer opportunities for recreation, in addition to offering other services such as the provision of habitat for native wildlife and flora, and a series of regulating services. Old-growth forest provide habitats for the largest European populations of brown bear (Ursus arctos), gray wolf (Canis lupus) and Lynx (Lynx lynx), the old growth forests in the Romanian Carpathians have been recognized for exceptional biodiversity including many endemic, rare and threatened species (Ioras and Abrudan 2006). Becoming extremely rare in Europe, these old growth forests have a very high conservation value both nationally and regionally e.g. at EU-level and hold a large potential for nature-based tourism. Old growth forest is characterized by more than stand age, and includes features such as large old trees, presence of deadwood components, dominance by late successional tree species, complexity of tree canopy and more (see Knorn et al, 2013, and references therein). It is estimated that old growth forest covered 2 million ha in Romania at the end of the 19th century, declining to 700000 ha in 1945 and to 400000 ha in 1984 (Veen et al. 2010). A study conducted between 2001 and 2004 estimated old growth forest to cover 210000 ha (ibid.), indicating a 162 reduction of 90% the surface in a period of approximately 100 years. The preceding section obviously relates to provision of habitats for native biodiversity, and it is equally relevant for recreation and for tourism. Another kind of structural information that will be exploited in the following is availability and capacity of accommodation in natural areas. There is data at NIS for arrivals and nights at Chalets (a kind of accommodation that includes hunting and fishing chalets) and arrivals a mountain resorts. The underlying assumption in the following is that tourists using these facilities care about forest at least to some extent. Combined with the habitat information above, it seems plausible that there is room for a spectrum of nature-based tourism in Romania, from extremely nature-based (e.g. bird and wildlife watching) to activities more loosely connected to nature in general or forests in particular. 33 visited as “useful information” visitors to National Parks if they considered a list of threatened species in the park they Surveys done in (Dumitras, Ariton, and Merce 2011; Dumitras and Dragoi 2006) asked of activities conducted. variety the of and setting, a as nature have that or nature experiencing to related are often related to the number of people who enjoy nature and/or engage in activities services recreation of demand of Indicators service. the for demand the the of about or awarenessservice of level the is what as such ES, the of dimension human the to However,with important. cultural services obviously it also is seems This necessary to foliage. ask for autumn functional relations of with respect burst the e.g. like changes, al et Mononen 2016). al. et then (2016) point (Mononen out the importance of the stability of the landscapes and of seasonal phenology” and events Natural same: the is services, cultural other all for as tourism, nature-based claimed for indicator function “the been that has It services. cultural for relations functional ecological no are There Indicators ofnaturebasedtourismfunction(Level2,function) 128573 in 2005, and in 2016 the number was 215087. This number is low. In a survey to declining 1991, in 576410 was chalets these in stays overnight of number The low. also are chalets these in stays overnight and arrivals of number surprisingly,the Not the Countryfrom1989. 1990, it is hard to judge the effect of the institutional changes that have taken place in change of accommodation class definition. In addition, like other time series starting in a reflect may onwards 2007 from increase the thus dates, specifying without data the 194. However, it is stated that ‘fishing’ and ‘hunting’ chalets have been assimilated into reaching 2008, since increase steady a had has but 2007, in 108 to 1990 in 226 from low.is declined guests) It 10 than more for capacity with those consider only statistics It also includes hunt and fishing chalets (NIS, 2017). The number of these chalets (the in mountain rest areas, nature at reserves, or spa resorts hiking and tourists other tourist for attractions” (NIS,necessary 2017). services other and meals “accommodation, tourist chalets, and the other arrivals at mountain resorts. The category ‘chalet’ includes 2017). Two of these series seem relevant for our purpose. One provides the number of (NIS, facilities. other and hostels hotels, at capacity accommodation of data are There tourism nature-based rather thanacomprehensive assessmentoftheimportance tourism relatedtoforests. of importance purposes illustrative economic for here done be will calculations the some Romania; the in activities of magnitude the of approximate estimation an make and statistics broader use to need we available, data the With for important“Natural Parks” like Bucegi and Natura 2000areas. across the EU could be a first step (Maes et al. 2016). In Romania, this would also hold that a consistent monitoring of the number and origin of people who visit national parks out pointed been has It 2002). Niskanen generally(Bori-Sanzand are lacking qualities their and forests to associated specifically activities tourism about knowledge fact, In however.Romania, areas withimportant for available readily statistics with such no are There associated qualities. natural andvisitors oftourists manifold,from number are the is nature benefits in andrecreation tourism experience to health benefits. based In any case, a natural nature indicator of the magnitude of of these benefits The Indicators ofbenefitsfromnature-basedtourism(Level4,benefits) activity. Unfortunately, updatednumbershave notbeen available. based tourism in the Country, with about 20000 tourists every year estimated for these in Romania (Popescu biodiversity and Zamfir of 2011) states awareness that there has that been an mean increase in nature- could conservation This issues is useful. relatively low. not A list strategic report this about considered the potential they for ecotourism i.e. disagreement, complete a expressed Cozia and Bucegi at visitors while useful, this awareness. «Useful information»,the term used by the authors, is vague. It is here interpreted as an indicator of interest or 33 . Only the visitors at Domogled National Park considered 163

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania done by park managers in Piatra Craului National Park (PCNP) in 2003, they documented 90000 visitors in the summer season alone (Candrea and Bouriaud 2009). Statistics of arrivals in these facilities show that June – September are the months with highest visitation, see figure 29a below for domestic and figure 29b for foreign arrivals. For the foreign arrivals, we notice that the numbers are much smaller but the seasonal effects are the same.

Figure 29a. Domestic tourist arrivals at chalets per month. Source: NIS, 2017. The high spikes corresponds to the month of August from 2010 and 2016, and the smaller spikes correspond to December.

Figure 29b. Foreign tourist arrivals at chalets per month. Source: NIS, 2017.

164

The other relevant time series at NIS that we consider is that of “arrivals of tourists accommodated in the structure of tourist reception by tourist destinations and tourist type” (NIS, 2017) for the category mountain resorts. Compared to chalets, the numbers are much higher, and show an increasing trend in the last years. See figure 30 below. economic impacts of tourist activities, since they carry different information, although information, different carry they since activities, tourist of impacts economic See estimate to useful be made. can series time resort be mountain and chalet below.Both can 28 table calculations crude some section, this in information the on Based of stay average of statistics have tourists in mountain areas NIS from 1995 to 2008, The with an average resources. considerableof 4,8 days (NIS, require implementation 2017). would and scheme planning monitoring this so registering or paying Romania without in areas protected the access to possible is it general, However,in respect. this in helpful be obviously could (2016) al et Maes in proposed as areas protected in visitors of monitoring consistent A exist. not do amounts these of statistics but area, tents (Popa et al. 2013). These tourists will obviously also some economic impact in the used tourist the of % 60 that PCNP. showed visited 2010 in PCNP at survey different A people 90000 conducted, thus was survey this 2009), summer The Bouriaud accommodation. any using and not (Candrea area the in day one only 17 spent visitors that the shows of 2003 % in managers park by conducted survey a (PCNP), Park National say could one tourism, CraiuluiPiatra the In (2016). al from et Mononen in like recreation recreation represent visits day that of ES the separate to available were data If vicinity ofthevisitedarea. centers and tourists may choose to spend the nights at other centers than those in the activities Parks or tourism Natural Parks in Romania and are National within relative popular close Several proximity distinction. recreational to important large population such one of is visits, day with importance associated asincluding the such distinguishing and notincluded, are visits, day beneficiaries qualities of of types withdifferent different Second, resorts forests. for mountain demand in differences explore could the effect of forests from effects of other variables. For instance,separate hedonicto pricinggenerally and studies needed, is resorts mountain these for forests the of importance regarding and However, studies recreation 2002). where Niskanen and land (Bori-Sanz forested place takes of tourism maintenance the on rely tourism nature and from the natural setting provided by surrounding forests, since recreational landscapes forests than things other in interested tourists many include likely will resorts mountain First, with thisindicator. indicator, we an as follow stays (Mononen overnight et al. using 2016). In However, Romania. in it forests is from important benefits to enjoy be aware of several weaknesses that people of considerableamount a is there that indicate indicators these Combined, Figure 30.Arraivalsatmountainresortsbetween1993and2016. per se, Source: NationalInstituteofStatisticsRomania,2017. likethese tourists likelyand similarfacilities.Still, skilifts have benefits 165

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania research is necessary to better interpret the statistics considering the different properties of the facilities. The two indicators may give information on different forest users. For instance, an interesting hypothesis to explore is whether chalet users have more intense preferences related to forests, biodiversity and other aspects of nature based tourism than visitors using other accommodation facilities. Further, both indicators are likely to exclude an unknown percentage of day visitors and tourists who sleep in tents, table 28 below shows the number of expected visitors considering underestimations of 30%, 50%, and 60% for the total number of beneficiaries. For the economic valuation in the next section, the mountain resort indicator will be used. Given the information that 90000 people visited PCNP one summer in 2003, we will see from the table below that the chalet indicator will significantly underestimate number of beneficiaries relevant for the valuation.

Table 28. Number of beneficiaries for chalet and mountain resort indicators.

Number of beneficiaries for chalet and mountain resort indicators. Number of persons + 30% +50% +60% (arrivals) NIS, 2017 (total only) (total only) (total only) 209213 total Chalet 1995 271977 313820 334741 206519 Romanian 116574 total Chalet 2000 151546 174861 186518 114092 Romanian 64480 total Chalet 2005 83824 96720 103168 59800 Romanian 73992 total Chalet 2010 71395 Romanian 96190 110988 118388 2597 Foreign 94976 total Chalet 2015 87503 Romanian 123469 142464 151962 7473 foreign 1055885 total Mountain Resort 983632 Romanian 1372650 1583827 1689416 1995 72253 Foreign 756380 total Mountain Resort 668521 Romanian 983294 1134570 1210208 2000 87859 foreign 827952 total Mountain Resort 715230 Romanian 1076338 1241928 1324723 2005 112722 foreign 814973 total Mountain resort 166 728320 Romanian 1059465 1222459 1303957 2010 86653 foreign 1528583 total Mountain resort 1356404 Rom 1987158 2292874 2445733 2015 172179 foreign 111847 total Average Chalet 145401 167770 178955

Average Mountain R 996755 total 1295781 1495132 1594808 Source: Time series for Chalet arrivals and mountain resort arrivals 1995-2015 NIS, 2017.

Indicators of economic value of nature-based tourism (Level 5, value) Obviously, when the indicators for benefit are uncertain, it follows that values based on these indicators are also uncertain. In this section, the mountain resort indicator will be used for two purposes. The first will be very concrete. Based on actual numbers of budget according to Eurostat. Romanians in Popescu and Zamfir (2011) had shorter had stays, thusscenario2haslowerexpendituresfordomestictourists. (2011) Zamfir and Popescu in Romanians Eurostat. to according budget tourist the of part largest the is accommodation and tourists, foreign for and domestic for same the is accommodation the since relevant be may 2 Scenario trips. domestic for trip per euros 185 of cost higher a assumes 2 scenario while euros, 747 foreigners Scenario 1 takes the statistics at face value, i.e. Romanians spend 91 below). euros 29 per table trip (see valuesand of range a for estimated be thus will resorts mountain at with the literature referred to above. The expenditure generated by the tourists arrived odds at seems that but expenditures, daily average than higher had (2007) Ceroni by the study either the in Maramures that in tourists the observe or high, we is days 4,8 euros, of stay average 91 estimated of expenditure trip average and euros, 38-75 of expenditure daily with instance, For areas. protected near and including landscapes The above numbers indicate uncertainty about the economic value of tourism in forested Zamfir (2011)presumablymeaningshorter stays (fewernights). tourists and Popescu to according Local ecotourism of programs” tourists. term “short in foreign participate typically are 10% approximately arrivals, resort mountain the the and Among 2017). meals, (Eurostat, 2017), euro 747 is (NIS, trips outbound accommodation, on Europe EU-28 in expenditure average from including are tourists day, foreign per the of euros Most guide. 70-100 and travel spend and week) a least (at stays longer have often ecotourists average. foreign on that more state spend (2011) Zamfir who and foreign, Popescu are tourists the of share a that know also We under prices) 2014 in what theyclaimaresimilareconomicconditions(Getzner2009). euros (74,9 day per euros 54 of expenditures daily estimated that study a to compare studies same these of Severalvalue. conservative a is it that euros of daily expenditures per visitor based on (Ceroni 2007), although they all argue and 2016) al. et (Popa in Piatra Craiului is study used in Popa et al (2013). These case studies all report an estimate of 27,1 a as used is Mountains Maramures The 2006). Dragoi and Dumitras 2011; Merce and Ariton, (Dumitras, Park Natural Fier de and Portile Park National Craiului Piatra Park, Natural National Bucegi Domogled Park, regarding National work Cozia other Park, in used is estimate This 2017). NSI, from (CPI (Ceroni 2007) estimates a daily expenditure of 27,1 euros or 37,6 euros in 2014 prices Maramures from study A less. considerably spend thus will relatives or friends with or tents in sleeping Those budget. the of part largest the is Accommodation 2014). from data 2017- (Eurostat, euros 24 is night per costs average and euros, 91 is night) one per expenditure average Eurostat, to According domestic trips,and34,5%longtrips(Eurostat,2017). long trips as 4 nights or more, and according to this 59% of Romanian trips were short and nights, 1-3 as trips short defines Eurostat 2009). Bouriaud and (Candrea week a day, 44% spent 2-3 days, 30% spent from 4 days to a week , and 9 % spent more than referred to 2003 above in found that PCNP among 90000 from arrivals survey in the The summer season, 2017). 17% spent (NIS, 1 days 4,8 was areas mountain in tourists of stay average the 1995-2008, from statistics NIS to according above, mentioned As of values generated fromnature-basedtourism moregenerally. the indicator will also be used as a point of departure for some provide However,some etc. indications private, from rooms include renting people not visits, day tents, thus in sleep who will those value This calculated. be will group this by generated value the arrivals, data of average stay from NIS, and data of average expenditure from Eurostat, in Romania (i.e. including at least at including (i.e. Romania in trip 167

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Table 29. Estimates of total expenditures by mountain resort tourists in Romania.

Total expenditures by mountain resort tourists. (Euros).

Scenario 1: Domestic travel 91 euros per trip, foreign 747 euros. Scenario 2: Domestic travel 185 euros, foreign 747 euros. Total arrivals Arrivals at MR Arrivals at MR Arrival at MR Arrivals at MR Arrivals at Domestic 1995 2000 2005 2010 MR 2015 1528583 Foreign 1055885 756380 827952 814973 1356404 983632 668521 715230 728320 172179 72253 87859 112722 86653 Expenditure Scenario 1: Domestic 89510512 60835411 65085930 66277120 123432764 Foreign 53972991 65630673 84203334 64729791 128617713 Total 143483503 126466084 149289264 131006911 252050477 Expenditure Scenario 2: Domestic 181971920 123676385 132317550 134739200 250934740 Foreign 53972991 65630673 84203334 64729791 128617713 Total 235944911 189307058 216520884 199468991 379552453

The calculations in table 29 are for illustrative purposes only. In scenario 1, domestic and foreign tourists contribute roughly equally to total expenditures. This seems unrealistic when we know that accommodation is the same, i.e. mountain resort, for both domestic and foreign tourists, and the number of domestic tourists generally is much higher. In scenario 2 the average contribution of foreigners is 32,5%. Domestic travel accounted for approximately 62,7 % of the total income from tourism in Romania in 2014 (World Travel &Tourism Council 2015). The higher numbers here may be realistic given that accommodation is the same, and the number of domestic tourists generally is much higher. Intuitively scenario 2 seems more reasonable, but there is not much data to back the claim. It seems like the minimum value for total expenditure in mountain resorts, i.e.126,5 million euros, (in 2000 and scenario 1) can be assumed to be unrealistically low depending on both a low number of tourists, and the low spending of domestic tourists under scenario 1. The maximum obtained of 379, 5 million euros (2015, scenario 2) obviously depends partly on the large number of arrivals in 2015. Thus, a range of values for expenditures from mountain resort tourists from 160-250 million euros / year can be guesstimated.

168 According to Eurostat (2017) total domestic tourism expenditure in Romania in 2014 was 1496 million euros. Our estimate of 160 – 250 million euros would then be between 10% and 16% of the total expenditure generated from nature-based tourism. If this is realistic depends on empirical data. An unreferenced claim in (Popescu and Zamfir 2011) states that the share of Romanian tourists interested in nature based tourism represents about 20% of the total, and they claim that nature is important for the foreign tourists. As discussed so far, the arrivals at mountain resorts certainly provide an indication about economic expenditures generated by nature based tourists. One could probably model a more general population of tourists around this time series, accounting for seasonal changes (probably less tents in winter), demographics and general economic variables. We do not have data for this exercise at present. However, for illustration we can assume the following: First, the total population related to nature-based tourism will be considerably larger than the group that is included in the statistics for accommodation at mountain resorts. Some will use tents and some will be on day trips etc. We have no way to assess how much larger the group is, but for the illustration just assume it is information isprovided intable30below. partial have we which for forests Romanian from services provisioning other on Data Provisioning Services Other ecosystemservices Romania isapossiblesignificantattraction fornature-basedtourism. conclusions are unwarranted. What could be said, however, is that nature resources in However,significant. quite be would strong indicators the of status uncertain given the directly Tourism 2014. amount the this, of 20% to up with in contributes tourism nature-based If employment). Romania in GDP total supported 205000 of jobs and had an indirect effect 1,6% of around 467 500 jobs with (5,5% of total directly contributed tourism TravelWorld(2015), Tourism the & Council from report recent a to According to 300millioneuros. 200 around of tourism nature-based from expenditure minimum a establish estimates conservative extremely Thus, accommodation. resort mountain chose who those from an additional 37,5 -75 million euros in expenditures compared to only the expenditures on Eurostat, we assume a more conservative (based expenditure of 50 euros per trip. We respectively then get population, from estimate trip per euro 91 the of Instead trips. day accommodate to spending low resort mountain and the stays short ratherhave these that assume us Let 28). than table in reported statistics more million 1,5 to Then this general population is between 1,5 and 3 million people (1995-2015), 750000 resort accommodation. the double, i.e. 100% larger than the group we have statistics for that choose mountain Seeds refreshing juices) and aromaticplants, products (medicinal Other Non-Wood mushrooms Truffles andotheredible Game (hunting) Berries osier willow) shrubs, Christmastrees, (ornamental trees, Other woodproducts Fish ES Area Area. habitat. Area ofsuitable species. habitat forgame Area ofsuitable suitable habitat Area offorestwith products for otherwood Area offorests in 2012). 2014) (836,8ha forests (FAO, and pondsin Area ofwaters Structural level Table 30.Otherprovisioningservices. Production. Data? Production. Data? predation. mortality and rate afternatural Population growth Unknown. Production. Unknown. Production. Functional level tons. at NIS. 2015:7 Volumes yearly* NIS. 2015:542,7 Tons yearly* at Recreation. hunting. associated with Cultural values Recreation. 481,9 tons. 2015 value: 3 NIS. Yearly* collected, Tons ofberries produced. esthetical, volume Cultural, tourism. Nature-based Recreation Benefits Data unknown. euro 2015: 731156 Yearly atNIS* (537998 euros) 2010) 2225,7 (1000lei, FAO, 2014: 1329445 Yearly atNIS* 2010) (FAO, 2014for (5497969 euro) Lei 22745100 608490 euro 2015: series* atNIS. Yearly time From angling? data) (NIS, 2017-2015 2498322 euro Economic value 169

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania ES Structural level Functional level Benefits Economic value Yearly at NIS* Honey Area Production Volumes 2015: 2230 euro. Yearly at NIS* Other sales.# 2015: 10907170 euro. # Other sales include “merchandise bocsa charcoal, confiscation of the wood to the amount received, exclusively-awards/incentives-according to the legislation in force; receipts from Hipica activity, agricultural products to be supplied to various consumers; granulated food” (NIS,2017). *these series had county level resolution until 2010, National level. Yearly resolution after 2010, not necessarily yearly at county level.

Cultural, and maintenance and regulating services As explained above, the Forest Law in Romania establishes a detailed typology of forest functions that can be mapped onto the regulating and cultural services classes of the CICES classification (Haines-Young and Potschin 2013) (For full table see Appendix 1). See table 31 below for indicators for regulating services: We use as a general indicator for value, in the sense of importance (Jacobs & Martín López et al, forthcoming) here, the area designated for different protective purposes.

Table 31. Other regulating services.

National Categories for 1990 (1000ha) 2000 (1000ha) 2015 (1000ha) protective function,n

Protection of Water 699,3 1052 1070 Protection of Soils 939,6 1433 1420 Protection against climatic 109,3 166,5 170 and industrial damage Scientific and biodiversity 196,7 308 320 conservation Source: FAO 2014

It is possible to give these areas a monetary value. For instance, the 1070 ha designated for protection of water resources could be used for different purposes, like for timber production. When the area is protected, this possibility is (temporarily) lost, so an estimation of economic value could be the opportunity costs of foregone income from 170 logging. However, any such calculation would require an integrated broader assessment since logging would have effects on net carbon emissions and the capacity of the forest to act as carbon sink, and to generate recreational possibilities and tourism activities. Several such trade-offs can be identified. E.g. the use of wood can substitute fossil fuels and other carbon intensive materials but can reduce the carbon stock in the forest. Importantly, it has been pointed out that in most semi-natural forests in Europe, efforts to promote carbon sequestration and biodiversity are mutually supportive (EEA, 2015)34. Optimal climate change mitigation strategies depend on sustainable forest management and will vary from place to place taking into account regional and local conditions. As such, protecting these forests should be a high priority in order to protect their generally large carbon stocks (EEA, 2015). As discussed above, the option of including the net value of the carbon absorbed by forests into emission trading and reduction targets is currently under consideration. Increased flexibility in emission trading would mean reduced costs of forest conservation, however a significant workforce is employed in logging implying important trade-offs that need to be assessed at both local and national scale. 34 https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/forests granulated food”(NIS,2017). tothe receipts from Hipica activity, force; agricultural products in to be supplied to various consumers; wood legislation the the to of exclusively-awards/incentives-according received, confiscation amount charcoal, bocsa “merchandise include sales *Other The Mainresultsandsourcesaregiven intable32below: 3.9. Summaryofresults Table 32.Dataavailabilityandvaluesforsomeimportantecosystemservices Total contributionofforestry (ornamental trees,shrubs, Other Non-Wood products plants, refreshingjuices) Truffles andotheredible (medicinal andaromatic Employment inforestry Gross Value offorestry Forest andornamental Christmas trees,osier Nature-based tourism Carbon Sequestration Other woodproducts Annual Work Unitsin Beekeeping Products Forestry andlogging nursery seedlings Hunting Products Fishing Products to GDP(2015) Berry Species Other Sales* mushrooms Category (Honey) willow) (2016) (2010) Seeds generated byforestsinRomania(nationallevel). 15166 (1000 3481,9 tons 542,7 tons Volumes 128000 pieces) People 49200 7 tons 2015 AWU 10907170 22745100 2498322 1329445 5497969 (1031,6) 160-300 731156 608490 92-250 2225,7 Value 2230 898 3,5 (CPI adjusted) euros (2010) Unit value lei (2010) EUR mill Mill EUR Mill EUR 1000 lei EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR % See table27above. short NIS, 2017.(Volumes) NIS. 2017.(Volumes) Qualified estimates. FAO, 2017(Values) FAO, 2014Values. Eurostat, 2013 Eurostat, 2013 PwC, 2016. term prices NIS, 2017. NIS, 2017. NIS, 2017. NIS, 2017. NIS, 2017. NIS, 2017. NIS, 2017. NIS, 2017. PwC, 2016 Source 171

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Chapter 4 Decision Support System

172 The RO-MAES-DSS willintegrate withSIMatthefollowinglevels: (species, habitats,protectedareasetc.). integrating satellite Environmental data Integratedand common of lists specific Components toby mainly project N4D within extended were SystemSIM Information - nature Data conservation systems. two the of Environmental Integrated with Information integrates System (SIM), application developed at software NEPA, ensuring the DSS compatibility the for requirements protection ofthenatural capitalidentifiedintheN4Dproject. operational current the integrating developed, was (DSS) system support a decision of component first beneficiary, a their and results project NAPM the by out carried processes the making decision the in use efficient of sustainability the ensure to order In and expandedsubsequently: to able be target will join, as the thefollowing groups results of the project user and of are the DSS and components developed organizations other results which to project groups, the of beneficiary main The the management. of results the use resource natural of awareness stakeholders and raise to and process MAES over take to policy-makers decision-makers’ and of capacity development the supports project the Moreover, completion ofthisproject. assessment of ecosystems at national level process to continue after the the for framework a creating thus Romania, in services ecosystem and of the N4D project it with the aim to map and evaluate key ecosystems The development of the DSS component is an integral part of the activities • • • • • • • • • • • NEPA Portal forDSS userauthentication; Media Specialists andindependentexperts NGOs Scientific organizations Government institutions Data display servicesforintegration withothersystems. for mechanism Catalogues andexistingcodelistsmaintainedwithintheSIM; approved and unique communicating withDSS stakeholders; a as System Messaging and uniforminterpretationofdatainany system; Lists and catalogues/common lists for maintaining quality standards for displaying andprocessingofgeoreferenceddata; GIS server-based on ArcGIS Server and specific processing services 173

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 31. Expanding the SIM by adding components developed within the N4D project

The SIM (an Integrated Environmental System platform) will also be expanded by storing intermediate results generated by DSS, providing extensive analysis possibilities (Figure 31). RO-MAES-DSS allows the development of some analysis processes that may vary in complexity from simple analysis based on data viewing in various combinations to analysis based on predefined scenarios (Table 33), using appropriate algorithms and mathematical models to respond to operational needs of maintaining the quality of natural ecosystems and planning the necessary investments.

Table 33. Predefined reports

Report Description / detailes No. 174 1 Ecosystem distribution Report on ecosystem distribution at national/ regional/ site level Report on ecosystems status – biophysical assessment at national/ 2 Ecosystems status regional/ site level 3 Ecosystem assessment Report on ecosystem services provided by each type of ecosystem Report on degraded ecosystems based on the level of ecosystem Level of degradation 4 services provided by each type of ecosystem compared with the (of ecosystems) specific reference values Report on management solutions analysis by generating assessment 5 Management solutions maps of ecosystem services at local level Report on economic assessment methods implementation by Ecosystem services 6 generating economic assessment maps of ecosystem services at the valuation local level Report on integrity of Natura2000 sites network that allows Integration of Natura characterization of ecosystem distribution, their biophysical state and 7 2000 sites from here the state of degradation at national / bioregion / Natura 2000 sites level data) willbeexposedaswebservicesthatcomplywithOGC(WMS, WFS, WCS). updated of other use assessments, ecosystem distribution, (ecosystem DSS permanent in used data all datasets, and expansion further for needs the account into Taking distribution ofecosystemservicesspecificindicators(Figure32). Map Location and CLM-Country the Assessment the Map of are the above ecosystems (ASM). mentioned The analysis ASM means the the geographicfor data input main The DSS will use stored and structured data according to a preliminary model that includes: The currentimplementationofDSS (seefigure33below): Implementation ConceptandWorkflows covered and analysis of processes the evaluation ofecosystemsatleastthenextthreelevels: allow to necessary components the contains DSS the Considering the stage of implementation of the MAES process in Romania, at this stage • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

nomenclatures (classificationofecosystems,ecosystemservicesetc.). Natura 2000 sites; biogeographical regions; protected natural areas; administrative-territorial units; ecosystem assessment; distribution ofecosystems; estimate theimpactsofecosystemchangesontheseindicators. to order in type scenarios “what-if” on based analysis some of development the including indicators, ecosystem-specific of estimation and assessment ecosystem criteria non-spatial and making spatial on combinations, based analysis in ecosystems various performing data specific measurements anddisplaying asetofpredefinedreports; ecosystems of analysis visual considering futurecategories ofusers; Architecture and technology enabling further extension and scaling given current / Location andAssessment Mapsdeveloped intheN4Dproject Country the by represented information core on based developed version Demo mandated organizations participatinginthenationalSDI; by Compliant) (OGC services web as published data reference and thematic Use means ofstandardGISinterfaceandpredefined reports; by analysis complex as well as simplified allowing tools of set a to access Provide interactive toolstodefineanalysiscriteria(query-builder); Figure 32.BiodiversitydatausedwithinDSS-DistributionSpecies and Habitats,ProtectedNaturalAreas

using 175

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania • A first entry point on the way to exploiting the MAES concepts and knowledge base and provide feedback on the main resources being developed; • Allow direct participation and contribution of the scientific community to the decision process based on shared knowledge and shared data.

Figure 33. DSS Implementation Concept

Given the operational requirements and implementation concept adopted, the architecture solution and technology environment selected had to answer in an apropriate manner to these demands (see figure 34 below).

Figure 34. DSS Architecture and Technology Map

176

The core data used (see table 34 below) in the current implementation of DSS is resuming mapping and assessment of the ecosystems as well as the status evaluation and impact on different types of changes on ecosystems state. idvriy ohr aa acse b mas f S; ne h areet exist, agreement the once support DSS; elevation, of satellite, decision and analysis further for means database – DSS the into registered by is data data assessment accessed existing – on data based other users biodiversity, authorized / scientists among Ecosystem assessment data integration into the DSS database is done after agreement at differentmomentsintime(seetheschemabelow). status and degradation, the DSS database sores records of indicators values estimated estimated based on specific methods. Due to the need to keep history of the ecosystems degradationEcosystems biophysicaland evaluatedis status valuesindicators on based Phenomena impact Ecosystem impact Economic evaluation Services evaluation Biophysical status Degradation status Ecosystems layer Figure 35.Ecosystemsstatusevaluation ecosystems biophysical anddegradation status indicate impactofvarious phenomenalike fires,drought,floodon e.g. transform agriculturefieldintoresidentialarea indicate impactofecosystemchangeduetovarious humaninterventions of evaluation andmethod evaluation oftheeconomic value attachedtoecosystems,includingdate date ofevaluation indicatorvalue andmethod evaluation ofdifferentindicator relatedtoecosystemservices,including status change;allowsretrieval ofstatusevolution recordperecosystem history ofbiophysical statusincludingdateofevaluation andreasonof status change;allowsretrieval ofstatusevolution recordperecosystem history ofdegradation statusincludingdateofevaluation andreasonof (polygon), biophysical anddegradation status, store spatialanddescriptive datarelatedtoecosystems:currentlimits Table 34.DSScoredata 177

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Figure 36. Ecosystems assessment workflow

RO-MAES-DSS is configured so that other data sources outside NEPA to be used, and allows access to RO-MAES-DSS both inside and outside NEPA. Registration of RO-MAES- DSS users will be done through a specific form (eForm_DSS). User authentication is through the NEPA portal and the existing SAP component within the SIM. Once logged in, users have associated roles that give them access rights to system resources; when you are not logged in, the application gives you visualization access of the published data within the system. User interface elements are displayed in both Romanian and English.

The visual analysis component allows: • to display and analyze existing datasets at the time of deployment and the possibility of later configuration to access other data sources; • to access and display data in vector, raster and alphanumeric format using predefined symbol sets; • specific map usage operations: zoom in, zoom out, identification, transparency; • to view alphanumeric details associated with spatial objects in the added layers; • to print and save generated data / tables / maps in Excel, Word, PDF or shp format, as applicable; • to generate and display the predefined reports in table 33, described in the 178 paragraphs below; • to save the work sessions in Web Map Context (WMC) format, to publish and share the documents other users.

RO-MAES-DSS users can run complex analysis with spatial and non-spatial criteria using interactive query-builder tools to define analysis phrases.

RO-MAES-DSS users can access: • graphical interface to interactively define query phrases (query builder); • and run the corresponding queries and perform the analysis using the existing data from the application, as well as subsequent datasets; • published queries from other users; • results of the analysis displayed in graphical and tabular form within the visual analysis component described above. The currentRO-MAES-DSS version allowsyou toruntwotypes ofscenarios: To scenariotype, userscan: runa“whatif” Scenario basedanalysis • • • • •

of interest. area certain an from ecosystems on drivers different of impact the of assessment is classification) (EUNIS ecosystem of substituted by another onedefined by theuser; type certain a when assessment impact resume theanalysisafterpartialchangeofparameters. set theparameters values fortheanalysisandsave thesetofparameters; .shp or.kmlfile a selecting by analyzed being phenomenon the of description spatial the Indicate 179

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Chapter 5 Conclusions

180 setting thepathtowards way, overall effective and equitable sustainable, a in objectives niomna rss n rset eooia lmt wie improving while limits ecological human well-beingandsocialequity. respects and risks opportunities such environmental of one is itself since it refers to a shift to an economic model that significantly reduces Economy Green Sustainable a of paradigm the preserved; and necessary) (if enhanced or maintained is services, ecosystem services ecosystems of provide to capacity integrationecosystems the that meaning the on progress to opportunities Economy. In fact, sectoral and horizontal policies can create important ecosystems and ecosystem services and ecosystems to is fundamental that follows It of strong consideration way; ecosystems functionsandtheecosystemservicestheyprovide. and sustainable understanding a and, in participation; activities stakeholders’ human as well as resources management, that is combined management of ecosystems and natural prosperity economic future identifies Approach Ecosystem the and their or negatively for responsible positively are influencing human-beings Thus, services. ecosystem to capacity its deliver on impact an have thus and it use they since dynamic ecosystem an of part are human-beings that and services ecosystems of form the in people to the benefits provide from ecosystems developed that recognition has It resources. natural of use and ecosystems of management sustainable economic of result a ensuring as long-term at the in aims that prosperity choices It making sustainably. of activities way human a is manage it since making policy and decision improved (examples are cost-effective means for water saving measures be can sectors policy sustainability different long-term of and efficiency resource the innovations, and jobs “green” solutions, nature-based of of the functioning of economic systems and encouraging the application costs the making by fact, of related to matter the a loss of As biodiversity way.and ecosystem equitable services an an integral in part being that support economic growth and sustainability as well as human well- Economy,Green benefits Sustainable multiple deliveringa to transition into the functioning of different economic sectors is a critical part of the integrating nature’s value into national, regional and local economies and SEEA). Worldwide examples and experience is increasingly showing that (UN- Accounts Economic and Environmental of the System Nations on United based accounts economic services ecosystem of development the as well as G20 the Economyin and Biodiversity2011-2020 for Strategic Plan the Green under subsidies harmful Sustainable environmentally of reform the a been have towards commitments policy Recent 35 the 21 brings transition a such that advantages environmental and socio-economic the understand to opportunity the have makers decision and policy Romanian Economy, To First of all, it is necessary to integrate the integrate to necessary is it all, of First policies arenotadjustedaccordingly. equality. However, on this opportunity based will population not continue its for of too well-being long if the public grant to model development in 2012, Biocapacity and Footprint Ecological national between gh 0.4 of deficit a and 2014 in Index Development Human High with countries among

stimulate the transition towards a Sustainable Green http://ec.europa.eu/en st Romania is still in theposition to choose Ranked Development. Sustainable centuryandachieve mainstreaming reduce the impact of human activities on the impactofhuman reduce vironment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/maes/en.pdf to address the crisis and challenges of to the crisis andchallenges address the Ecosystem Approach Ecosystem the

transition to Green a Sustainable 35

3 pillars of action , and to Ecosystem Approach the most suitable achieve policy achieve into policies : integrated : into 181

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania resulting from ecosystem service based water management and leading to increasing water efficiency, a cost-effective way for maintaining food security based on protecting the abundance and diversity of natural pollinators rather than having to replace natural pollination by artificial alternatives, etc).36 Obviously, capacity building and moral integrity are fundamental to avoid falling into ordinary greening measures that pursue growth as the ultimate goal regardless of planetary boundaries and social equity. There is no single recipe for the transition to a Sustainable Green Economy and it will proceed on different development paths for different countries since it depends on an area’s natural assets, economy and society, and priorities. Second of all, it is necessary to integrate MAES process results into decision and policy making since they provide knowledge about the functioning of ecosystems and their capacity to deliver ecosystem services that support and are essential for life on earth. Making decisions without taking into account such knowledge leads to policies that harm the country’s natural capital and consequently its social and financial forms of capital. Performing a National Ecosysstems Assessment is closely linked with the Ecosystem Approach since it is a precondition for Good Ecosystems Governance. Although the main responsibility for the MAES process in front of the EC lies in the Ministry of Environment (MoE), and in the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) given its delegated responsibilities for implementing the MAES process at national level, all ministries in Romania are encouraged to play a role in the transition towards a Sustainable Green Economy, in particular those in charge with policy sectors dealing with natural resources use and management including water, forestry, agriculture and rural development, fisheries and aquaculture, marine, biodiversity, transport, regional development, territorial planning, energy, climate change mitigation, but also air, soil, tourism, climate change adaptation, and sustainable development. Several tools have been already developed and tested to support policy and decision makers in the transition to a Sustainable Green Economy. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are particularly useful to model the impact of human actions on ecosystems and their services and take alternative choices. The N4D project has developed a RO- MAES-DSS complementary with the Integrated Environmental System (SIM – Sistem Integrat de Mediu) managed by NEPA, which uses MAES process results for analyzing development decisions. In conclusion, this report can be used by key governmental stakeholders to continue the MAES process in Romania after the N4D project is over in April 2017, and to implement necessary policy changes for Good Ecosystems Governance to achieve a Sustainable Green Economy and human well-being in the context of Sustainable Development. This report builds the case for pursuing Sustainable Green Economy in Romania, analyses whether Romanian policies stimulate the transition towards a Sustainable Green Economy, and 182 provides recommendations aimed at improving policy and decision making.

36 Idem 183

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Chapter 6 Glossary

184 tutrs boiest ad csse poess ht nepn the underpin that processes capacity ofanecosystemtoprovide ecosystemservices (TEEB, 2010). ecosystem and biodiversity structures, Ecosystem function to capacity the provide ecosystem services(MA,2005). in reduction persistent A Ecosystem degradation: to bearontheneedsofdecision-makers (UK NEA,2011). for human well-being, and management and policy options are brought science concerning the causes of ecosystem change, their consequences : Ecosystem assessment A social process through which the findings of terms (TEEB, 2010). good or service in a certain context (e.g., Economic valuation of decision-making) in monetary service ecosystem provision (TEEB, 2010). for requirements minimum and thresholds critical determine to indicators important are which of all resilience, or health, integrity, ecosystem of assessment Non-monetary Ecological value: or moredirectdrivers (MA,2005). anindirect one of change rateof or level the altering operatesby change of driver of accuracy; degrees be todiffering cantherefore measured and and identified processes ecosystem influences unequivocally or indirectly causes a change in an ecosystem. A direct driver of change Drivers ofchange abundance ofitspopulations(EEC,1992). on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and Conservation status (of a species) the as long-term survival ofitstypical species(EEC,1992). well as functions and its structure affect distribution, may natural that long-term species typical its and habitat natural a on acting Conservation status (ofanaturalhabitat): The sum of the influences biophysical processes,materialinputs). labor,requirements, (e.g.,surface costs physical the of measurements Biophysical valuation communities, inparticularvegetation. the interaction between the abiotic, physical environment and the biotic Biophysical structure Convention onBiologicalDiversity, 1992). (cf.ecosystems the of of and 2 species, Article between species, within diversity includes this part, are they which of complexes ecological the including inter alia terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and Biodiversity wants (TEEB, 2010). Benefits: Positive change in wellbeing from the fulfilment of needs and Assets and helpful to an intelligent but inexpert decision-maker (Parson, assembling, 1995). relevant are they that so means them communicating and knowledge existing Assessment problem. a summarising, organising, about interpreting, and possibly reconciling pieces think of or actions possible evaluate to responsibility of position a in someone helping of Assessment : Economicresources(TEEB, 2010). : The variability among living organisms from all sources, all from organisms living among variability The : : The analysis and review of information for the purpose the for information of review and analysis The : : Any natural or human-induced factor that directly that factor human-induced or naturalAny : : The process of expressing a value for a particular : Subset of the interactions between biophysical between interactions the of Subset : : The architecture of an ecosystem as a result of A ehd ht eie vle from values derives that method A : : The sum of the influences acting 185

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Ecosystem process: Any change or reaction which occurs within ecosystems, physical, chemical or biological. Ecosystem processes include decomposition, production, nutrient cycling, and fluxes of nutrients and energy (MA, 2005). Ecosystem service: The benefits that people obtain from ecosystems (MA, 2005). The direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing (TEEB, 2010). Ecosystem state: The physical, chemical and biological condition of an ecosystem at a particular point in time. Ecosystem status: A classification of ecosystem state among several well-defined categories. It is usually measured against time and compared to an agreed target in EU environmental directives (e.g. HD, WFD, MSFD). Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit (MA, 2005). For practical purposes it is important to define the spatial dimensions of concern. Energy inputs: Subsidies added to ecosystems such as fertilizers, fossil fuel, or labour that are required to turn ecosystem functions into ecosystem services and benefits. Functional traits: A feature of an organism that has demonstrable links to the organism’s function. Green Economy is “one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. It is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive”(UNEP). Another definition for green economy offered by the Green Economy Coalition defines green economy as “a resilient economy that provides a better quality of life for all within the ecological limits of the planet”. Habitat: The physical location or type of environment in which an organism or biological population lives or occurs. Terrestrial or aquatic areas distinguished by geographic, abiotic and biotic features, whether entirely natural or seminatural. Human well-being: A context- and situation dependent state, comprising basic material for a good life, freedom and choice, health and bodily well-being, good social relations, security, peace of mind, and spiritual experience (MA, 2005). Indicator: Observed value representative of a phenomenon to study. In general, indicators quantify information by aggregating different and multiple data. The resulting information is therefore synthesized. Natural Capital is the world’s stock of natural resources, which includes geology, soils, air, water and all living organisms. Natural capital assets provide people with a wide range of free goods and services, often called ecosystem services, which underpin our economy and society and some of which even make human life possible 186 Restoration: Refers to the process of actively managing the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed as a means of sustaining ecosystem resilience and conserving biodiversity (CBD, 2012). Socio-economic system: Our society (which includes institutions that manage ecosystems, users that use their services and stakeholders that influence ecosystems) Value: The contribution of an action or object to user-specified goals, objectives, or conditions (MA, 2005). The functionalzoningsystemofRomanianforests Appendix 1 1.2.h 1.1.h 1.2.g 1.1.g 1.2.d 1.1.d 1.2.b 1.1.b 1.2.a 1.1.a 1.2.e 1.1.e 1.2.k 1.2.c 1.1.c 1.2.f 1.1.f 1.2.j 1.2.l 1.2.i G.1 No. 1.2 1.1 Forests located inkarstareas Forests locatedonareaswithlandslides slopes oftroutfarms,withminimumarea110ha source fortroutfarmsandforestlocatedonimmediate Forests forprotectionofspringswhicharewater supply vulnerability toerosionandlandslides Forests located onlithologicsubstrate withvery high prone oferosionareas Forests aroundterrestrialminesareaandquarries, Forests locatedonpermanentlyswampy terrains Forests withfunctionsforprotectionofsoilandterrains Forests locatedonconsolidatedmobilesands their lanes Forest vegetation locatedin avalanche formationareasand Forests fromwatersheds orwithhightransport ofdeposits Delta andinternalmeadowoftherivers Forests locatedinembankment-shore areaformDanube on degraded landsoronunconsolidatedmobilesands Forest plantationsandspontaneousforestvegetation located landslides in ruggedterrain areasorareaexposedtoerosionand Forests aroundthehydrotechnical constructionslocated Forests locatedinlowerriverbeds floodplains without embankment-shore area)andthoselocatedinriver Forests fromDanubedeltaandfloodplain(isletsshore erosion andlandslides Forests locatedonterrains withvery highvulnerability to and hillsareas,thatsupplythenatural lakes andreservoirs Forests locatedonrivers andstreamsslopesfrommountain of greatinterestandnormalrailroads Forests locatedinruggedterrain borderingthepublicroads slopes erosion, withactive landslides,alsoonterrains withbig Forests locatedonrocks,debrisandinterrains withdeep natural lakes Forests locatedonimmediateslopesofreservoirs and industrial mineral water sources Forests locatedinareasforprotectionofpotableand Forests withfunctionsforwater’s protection Forest vegetation withspecialprotectionfunctions Group/Subgroup/Category Function type

3 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 4 2 2 3 2 187

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania No. Group/Subgroup/Category Function type Forests with protection functions against damaging climatic 1.3 factors and pests 1.3.a Forests located in steppe and external forest-steppe 2 1.3.b Forests located on the Black Sea vicinity and seashore lakes 2 1.3.c Forests located in internal forest-steppe 3 1.3.d Forest belts located around plain lakes and ponds 2

Forest shelterbelts for the protection of farmland, roads and 1.3.e 2 railroads, industrial objectives and settlements Forests located at high altitude with bad regeneration 1.3.f 2 conditions 1.3.g Bunches of forest spread at low altitude 3 Forests located in strongly affected by atmospheric pollution 1.3.h 2 areas Forests located in medium affected by atmospheric pollution 1.3.i 3 areas Forests located near dumps of sterile, ash and other 1.3.j 2 residuals Forests from alpine and subalpine regions, and also 1.3.k 2 mountain areas, bordering the alpine region Pinus mugo associations and natural clearings from 1.3.l 2 subalpine floor 1.4 Forests with recreational functions 1.4.a Forests specially planned for leisure purpose (forest parks) 2

1.4.b Forests destinated as green areas around the settlements 3

1.4.c Forests around the spa and climatic resorts and sanatoriums 3 Forests located along the communication ways of great 1.4.d 2 tourism interest 1.4.e Forests around cultural monuments 2 1.4.f Forests which protects special objectives 2 1.5 Forests of scientific interest and gene pool protection

188 1.5.a Forests destinated for genetic resources conservation 1 1.5.b Forests proposed for temporary protection 2 1.5.c Forests established as natural reservations 1 1.5.d Forests established as scientific reservations 1 1.5.e Forests established as landscape reservations 1 1.5.f Forests for protection of natural monuments 2 1.5.g Forests destinated for scientific research 2 1.5.h Forests established as seed reservations 2 1.5.i Forests established for protection of fauna species 2

1.5.j Century-old, virgin and semi-virgin forest with high value 2 1.5.k Dendrological parks and arboretum 2 1.5.m 1.5.n 2.1.b 2.2.a 2.1.a 2.1.c 1.5.l

No. 2.2 G.2

categories 1.5a,c,d,e Forests fromnatural parksnotincluded infunctional functional categories1.5a,c,d,e Forests frombiospherereservations notincludedin Forests with priority functions destinated to game species life other higheruses. Forests establishedforcellulosewood,rural constructionand Forests ofgamespeciesinterest Forests destinatedfortimberwoodproduction and fingerboardwood Forests destinatedforproductionofresonancewood,veneer categories 1.5a,c,d,e Forests fromnationalparksnotincludedinfunctional Forests withtimberproductionfunctions Forest vegetation withprotectionandproductionfunctions Group/Subgroup/Category Function type

4 4 6 6 6 5 1 189

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania References

190 valuations: pricing gorillas in the mist’,the in gorillas pricing valuations: Erik, and Dufrêne Marc. 2015. ‘How (not) to perform ecosystem service Boeraeve, Fanny, Dendoncker Nicolas, Jacobs Sander, Gómez-Baggethun relations’, 2016. Pascual. power social addresses Unai that approach services and ecosystem ‘Towardsan González, A. José Marta, Berbés-Blázquez, manual’,preference techniques:amanual. A techniques: preference stated with valuation ‘Economic 2002. Hanemann, Pearce. W Michael David and Day,Mourato, Brett Carson, Susana Loomes, Graham Jones-Lee, T Michael Hanley,TannisHett, Nick Richard J, Ian Bateman, Sustainability, 19:57-66. case a — study from implementation the policy South American to Chaco’, science policy-relevant from path Cáceres, Daniel M., Felicitas Silvetti, and Sandra Díaz. 2016. ‘The rocky can ‘What services? Aliterature review’, 2015. Luque. ecosystem of valuation monetary Sandra the to bring and approaches deliberative Rendon, Olivia Lukas, Bunse, management for searching analysis’, efficiency: policy of of theory ideology a ‘The 1990. W. Daniel Bromley, 33: 223-50. Meta-Analysis of the Literature’, a and Summary Comprehensive A Valuation:Wetland of Empirics ‘The Vermaat.2006. E. Brander,Jan and Florax, M. M.,G. LukeJ. Raymond policies.’, service ecosystem OpenNESS ProjectDeliverable assess to methods valuation of Llorente, E Kelemen, and H saarikoski. 2014. ‘Framework for integration Braat, L, E. Gómez-Baggethun, B. Martín-López, D. forests’, N. Barton, M García- beech and spruce Norway Ecosystems, 3:20. in production rules management wood legal limit ‘Romanian 2016. Schulze. Ernst-Detlef and Bouriaud, Olivier, Gheorghe Marin, Laura Bouriaud, Dominik European Forest Institute. Hessenmöller, Karelia North in areas (Finland), Scotland, and the Catalan Pyrenees.” study In three of development-analysis rural for tool a as tourism “Nature-based 2002. Niskanen. M.,Bori-Sanz,A. and 24: 187-97. ecosystem services. managing and mapping quantifying, for framework EPPS pillar five The Bastian, O., Syrbe, R.-U., Rosenberg, M., Rahe, D., Grunewald, K., 2013. Applied SystemScience. .’Network. P.Belief BayesianZ. a in (ed.), Niel IntegratedValuation Using Desicions Abatement LakeEutrophication of ‘Eutrophia: Vogt.2016. D R. Tominaga,and Romstad,K E. Orderud, I. G. Moe, J. S. Engebretsen, A. N.,T.D.Bergland, O. Barton, Andersen, exchanges’, and Affairs ‘Gifts 1972. J. Kenneth Arrow, methods.’, valuation Values. and values plural of taxonomy A services: ecosystem for space evaluative the ‘Widening 2017. Rincón. Arias-Arévalo, P., E. Gómez-Baggethun, B. Martín-López, and Alexander : 343-62. Current inEnvironmental Opinion Sustainability , 19:86-107. Ecosystem Services (Routledge: NewYork andLondon). Journal of environmental economics and Ecosystem Services . Environmental and Resource Economics, Economic valuation stated Economic with Current Opinion inEnvironmental 4:15–24. Biodiversity and Conservation Routledge Handbook of , 14:88-97. Internal Report no 7. Philosophy & Public Environmental , 19: 134-43. EU FP7 Forest

R , 191

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Candrea, Adina Nicoleta, and Laura Bouriaud. 2009. A stakeholders’ analysis of potential sustainable tourism development strategies in Piatra Craiului National Park. Capros, Pantelis, Nikolaos Tasios, Alessia De Vita, Leonidas Mantzos, and Leonidas Paroussos. 2012. ‘Model-based analysis of decarbonising the EU economy in the time horizon to 2050’, Energy Strategy Reviews, 1: 76-84. Ceroni, m. 2007. “Ecosystem Services and local economy in Maramures Mountains Natural Park, Romania. United Nations Development Programme, Bucuresti.” In. Chan, Kai M. A., Anne D. Guerry, Patricia Balvanera, Sarah Klain, Terre Satterfield, Xavier Basurto, Ann Bostrom, Ratana Chuenpagdee, Rachelle Gould, Benjamin S. Halpern, Neil Hannahs, Jordan Levine, Bryan Norton, Mary Ruckelshaus, Roly Russell, Jordan Tam, and Ulalia Woodside. 2012. ‘Where are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement’, BioScience, 62: 744-56. Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., 2012. Where are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. Bioscience 62, 744- 756. Chan, Kai MA, Patricia Balvanera, Karina Benessaiah, Mollie Chapman, Sandra Díaz, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Rachelle Gould, Neil Hannahs, Kurt Jax, and Sarah Klain. 2016. ‘Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113: 1462-65.

Clark, Colin. 2010. Mathematical Bioeconomics. The Mathematics of Conservation. 3 ed. (Wiley: New York ). CORINE biotopes Published by the COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 1991; CORINE Biotopes Manual – Habitats of the European Community, 1991; Daly, Herman E. 1992. ‘Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable’,Ecological Economics, 6: 185-93. Davies, C. E., Moss, D., & Hill, M. O., 2004, EUNIS habitat classification revised 2004, European Environment Agency — European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, http://eunis.eea. europa.eu/upload/EUNIS_2004_report.pdf; De Groot RS, Blignaut J, Van Der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Elmqvist T, Farley J, 2015. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biolology 27:1286-1293.Chan 2012. Developing conceptual framework for ecosystem mapping and ecosystem status 192 indicator, EEA Report, 2013; Díaz, Sandra, Sebsebe Demissew, Julia Carabias, Carlos Joly, Mark Lonsdale, Neville Ash, Anne Larigauderie, Jay Ram Adhikari, Salvatore Arico, András Báldi, Ann Bartuska, Ivar Andreas Baste, Adem Bilgin, Eduardo Brondizio, Kai M. A. Chan, Viviana Elsa Figueroa, Anantha Duraiappah, Markus Fischer, Rosemary Hill, Thomas Koetz, Paul Leadley, Philip Lyver, Georgina M. Mace, Berta Martin-Lopez, Michiko Okumura, Diego Pacheco, Unai Pascual, Edgar Selvin Pérez, Belinda Reyers, Eva Roth, Osamu Saito, Robert John Scholes, Nalini Sharma, Heather Tallis, Randolph Thaman, Robert Watson, Tetsukazu Yahara, Zakri Abdul Hamid, Callistus Akosim, Yousef Al-Hafedh, Rashad Allahverdiyev, Edward Amankwah, Stanley T. Asah, Zemede Asfaw, Gabor Bartus, L. Anathea Brooks, Jorge Caillaux, Gemedo Dalle, Dedy Darnaedi, Amanda Driver, Gunay Erpul, Pablo Escobar-Eyzaguirre, Pierre Failler, Ali Moustafa Mokhtar Fouda, Bojie Fu, Haripriya Gundimeda, Shizuka Hashimoto, Floyd Homer, Sandra Lavorel, Gabriela Lichtenstein, William Armand Mala, Wadzanayi Mandivenyi, Piotr Matczak, Carmel Mbizvo, Mehrasa Mehrdadi, Jean Paul Metzger, Jean Bruno Mikissa, Henrik Moller, Harold A. Mooney, Peter Mumby, Harini Nagendra, Carsten Nesshover, Alfred Apau Oteng-Yeboah, György Pataki, services forurbanplanning’, Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, and David N. Barton. 2013. ‘Classifying and valuing ecosystem of EcologicalEconomics. on ecosystem services valuationn.’ in J. Martínez-Alier and R perspectives Muradian Economics (eds.), ‘Ecological 2015. Martín-López. B. and E.,Gómez-Baggethun, and KTurner (eds.), and Methods in Ecosystem Services Valuation. .’ in M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fish Gómez-Baggethun, E., D. Barton, P. Berry, R. Dunford, and P. Harrison. 2016. ‘Concepts World WideFundforNatureDanubeCarpathianProgramme, Vienna.” In. Parks. National (SK) Raj Slovensky and Tatra(PL) in Services Ecosystem of Valuation A: Part Areas. Protected to Related Values Cultural and “Economic 2009. Getzner,M. FAO. 2014.“GlobalForest Resources Assessment2015,CountryReport Romania.” In. 9/2015. no Tehnicalreport, typology,EEA MAES the to baseline-adapted biodiversity 2010 EU Tehnical EEA implementation, and Report, no6/2015; data assessment-concept, ecosystem European under Action5oftheEUBiodiversityStrategyto2020. European Commision. (2013). under Action5oftheEUBiodiversityStrategyto2020. European Commision. (2013). EUNIS –EuropeanNatureInformationSystem, org/wiki/Economy_of_Romania https://en.wikipedia. Wikipedia: from 2017, Retrieved (2017). Economy of Romania. Maramures Mountains.’, BalticForestry, 22:327-40 the of Study Valuation Case Services a Ecosystem Scenarios: Management Different in method.’, some cost of Veterinary Medicine,Bucharest,CN63 values travel recreation by the of parks ‘Estimation Romanian 2006. Dragoi. S. and D.E., Dumitras, Agrobotanici the Romania.’,of of case the Parks: Assessment Natural and Economic National of Valuation Brief ‘A 2011. Merce. E. and Ariton, F. D.E., Dumitras, Dorian Moss,EUNIShabitatclassification–aguideforusers,2008; Environmental Sustainability ‘The IPBES Conceptual Framework Kazuhiko— connecting nature and people’, Sumaila, Rashid Smith, Peggy Takeuchi, Schultz, Spencer Maria Thomas, Madhu Verma, Rubis, Youn Jennifer Yeo-Chang, Roué,and Diana Zlatanova. Marie 2015. ecosystem services:Asystematic review’, and attributes biodiversity between ‘Linkages 2014. Turkelboom. F. L. R. and Bucur, Lommelen, Meiresonne, E. M. Geertsema, W. Blicharska, Geamănă, N. M. Garcia-Llorente, Haslett, M. Egoh, R. B. J. Dunford, Simpson, G. Berry, M. P. A., P. Harrison, EEA/IEA/09/003.” In. VersionCICES on consultation August-December4, FrameworkEEA 2012. Contract No Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin. 2013. “CICES V4.3-Revised report prepared following services andhumanwell-being’, Haines-Young, Roy, and Marion Potschin. 2010. ‘The links Deliverable between biodiversity, ecosystem the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services’, E Saarikoski, H Kelemen, Braat, M García-Llorente, Jaren L van den Barton, Bergh, P Arias, David and P Berry. Martín-López, 2014. Berta ‘State-of- Erik, Gómez-Baggethun, , 4. , 39. Routledge HandbookofEcosystemServices. (Edward Elgar). , 14:1-16. Ecological Economics MAES An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments MAES An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments Ecosystem Ecology:anewsynthesis . Ecosystem Services Bulletin of University of Agriculture and http://eunis.eea.eu.int , 86:235-45.

EU FP7 OpenNESS Project , 9:191-203. Notulae Botanici Horti (Routledge). Current Opinion in : 110-39. ; Handbook 193

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Hayek, F. 1948. Individualism and Economic Order (Routledge (UK), University of Chicago Press (US): London, New York). Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC – Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.92); Interpretation manual of european union habitats, EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG ENVIRONMENT, 2007; Ioras, F., and I. V. Abrudan. 2006. ‘The Romanian Forestry Sector: Privatisation Facts’, International Forestry Review, 8: 361-67. Jacobs, Sander, Nicolas Dendoncker, Berta Martín-López, David Nicholas Barton, Erik Gomez-Baggethun, Fanny Boeraeve, Francesca L. McGrath, Kati Vierikko, Davide Geneletti, Katharina J Sevecke, Nathalie Pipart, Eeva Primmer, Peter Mederly, Stefan Schmidt, Alexandra Aragão, Himlal Baral, Rosalind H Bark, Tania Briceno, Delphine Brogna, Pedro Cabral, Rik De Vreese, Camino Liquete, Hannah Mueller, Kelvin S. H. Peh, Anna Phelan, Alexander R Rincón, Shannon H. Rogers, Francis Turkelboom, Wouter Van Reeth, Boris T. van Zanten, Hilde Karine Wam, and Carla-Leanne Washbourne. 2016. ‘A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions’, Ecosystem Services, 22, Part B: 213-20. Kettunen, M. and ten Brink, P. (IEEP) Towards a framework for assessing current level of and future opportunities for ES/NC integration at different levels of governance, OPERAs D3.3 Knorn, JAN, Tobias Kuemmerle, Volker C Radeloff, William S Keeton, Vladimir Gancz, IOVU-ADRIAN BIRIŞ, Miroslav Svoboda, Patrick Griffiths, Adrian Hagatis, and Patrick Hostert. 2013. ‘Continued loss of temperate old-growth forests in the Romanian Carpathians despite an increasing protected area network’, Environmental Conservation, 40: 182-93. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York). Kahneman, Daniel, and Jack L Knetsch. 1992. ‘Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction’, Journal of environmental economics and management, 22: 57-70. Kallis, Giorgos, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, and Christos Zografos. 2015. ‘The limits of monetization in valuing the environment’, Ecological Economics, 112: 170-73. Kallis, Giorgos, and Richard B. Norgaard. 2010. ‘Coevolutionary ecological economics’, Ecological Economics, 69: 690-99. Knopf, Brigitte, B. J. Bakken, xd, Rn, Samuel Carrara, Amit Kanudia, Ilkka Keppo, Tiina Koljonen, Silvana Mima, E. V. A. Schmid, and Detlef P. Van Vuuren. 2013. ‘TRANSFORMING THE EUROPEAN ENERGY SYSTEM: MEMBER STATES’ PROSPECTS WITHIN THE EU FRAMEWORK’, Climate Change Economics, 4: 1-26. 194 Knorn, JAN, Tobias Kuemmerle, Volker C Radeloff, William S Keeton, Vladimir Gancz, IOVU-ADRIAN BIRIŞ, Miroslav Svoboda, Patrick Griffiths, Adrian Hagatis, and Patrick Hostert. 2013. ‘Continued loss of temperate old-growth forests in the Romanian Carpathians despite an increasing protected area network’, Environmental Conservation, 40: 182-93. Krutilla, John V. 1967. ‘Conservation Reconsidered’, The American Economic Review, 57: 777-86. Laurans, Yann, and Laurent Mermet. 2014. ‘Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy?’, Ecosystem Services, 7: 98-105. Laurans, Yann, Aleksandar Rankovic, Raphaël Billé, Romain Pirard, and Laurent Mermet. 2013. ‘Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot’, Journal of Environmental Management, 119: 208-19. sequestration to cost-efficiently meet the EUcarbon carbonforest with targetcompete forcannot 2050’,energies ‘Renewable 2017. Miriam. Vass, Münnich forests andtheirmanagement’, ‘Historical forest management in Romania is imposing strong legacies on contemporary Munteanu, Catalina, Mihai Daniel Nita, Ioan Vasile Abrudan, and Volker C. Radeloff. 2016. 107: 164-80. Király, Éva shape contemporary forestcover’, Géza Kaim, use land century 19th of ‘Legacies 2015. Radeloff. VolkerC. and Shandra, Oleksandra Dominik Halada, Lubos Konkoly-Gyuró, Griffiths, Jacek Kozak, Juraj Patrick Lieskovsky, Krzysztof Ostafin, Dobosz, Katarzyna Ostapowicz, Monika Balázs, Müller,Pal Keuler,Daniel S. Nicholas Kuemmerle,Tobias Catalina, Munteanu, Hidrology, 49pp. habitat EUNIS Cover, Land CORINE of nomenclature the the & and Ecology classification for NERC/Centre between Cross-references 2002 E. Cynthia Davies, Dorian; Moss, 1: 27-37. sustainability’,social–ecological of Measures indicators: M. Tolvanen, H. Aarras, N. Rönkä, Kamppinen, M. E. Viirret, T. Ahokumpu, L. Kumpula, and A. P. Auvinen, P.Vihervaara. 2016. A. ‘National L.,ecosystem service Mononen, Well-being: Human and Ecosystems Synthesis. Washington, DC.:IslandPress. (2005). 2. Assessment, Ecosystem Millennium anului 2050 Ministery of Energy. (2016). 2020, to Strategy Biodiversity EU Discussion paper–Final,EU, 2013; the of 5 Action under framework assessments analytical ecosystem An for Services their and Ecosystems of Assessment and Mapping ecosystem assessing 14-23. for framework 2020’,to Strategy Biodiversity indicator EU the of ‘An support in services 2016. Lavalle. Carlo and Zulian, Lillebø, I. Dania Abdul Malak, Sophie Condé, Ana Jon Moen, Bálint Grêt-Regamey,Czúcz, Evangelia G. Drakou, Grazia Adrienne Pérez-Soba, Marta San-Miguel-Ayanz, Jesus Estreguil, Christine TordSnäll, Marta-Pedroso, Cristina Gocheva, Kremena Bengtsson, Fernando Santos-Martín, Vytautas Naruševičius, Jan Verboven,Fiorina, Christel Henrique Degeorges, M. Patrick Pereira, Egoh, Jan Benis Bastrup- Piroddi, Chiara Annemarie Biala, Katarzyna Birk, Kristensen, Peter Zal, Nihat Gelabert, Royo Eva Meiner, Andrus Petersen, Jan-Erik Somma, Francesca Cardoso, Ana Grizzetti, Bruna Barredo, Paracchini, I. Luisa José Maria Erhard, Teller, Markus Anne Liquete, Camino Joachim, Maes, the EuropeanUnion’,in making decision and support policy for services ecosystem ‘Mapping 2012. Zulian. Philipp Schägner, Bruna Grizzetti, Evangelia G Drakou, Alessandra La Notte, and Grazia Jan Vihervaara, Petteri Liquete, Camino Willemen, Louise Egoh, Benis Joachim, Maes, Well-being: Human and Ecosystems Synthesis. In:Press,I.(Ed.).UN,Washington, DC. Assessment. Ecosystem Millennium 2005. MA, Press: London). 2007. A. Maddison, forest for results classification: habitat habitats, EEATechnical EUNIS Report no18/2015; the to data vegetation situ in Linking as globalcarbonsinks’, Dominik Knohl, Alexander Borner, Hessenmoller, Annett Beverly E. Schulze, Law, Philippe Ciais, and John Detlef Grace. 2008. ‘Old-growth forests E. Sebastiaan, Luyssaert, . Bucharest; Contours of the World Economy1-2030 AD Ecosystem Services Nature Strategia Energetică a României 2016-2030 cu perspectiva , 455:213-15. Forest EcologyandManagement Global EnvironmentalChange , 1:31-39. Ecological Indicators Ecosystem Services , 34:83-94. , 361:179-93. Renewable Energy Ofr University (Oxford , 61, Part 61, , , 17: , , 195

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania Martín-López, Berta, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Marina García-Llorente, and Carlos Montes. 2014. ‘Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment’, Ecological Indicators, 37, Part A: 220-28. Martinez-Alier, Joan, Giuseppe Munda, and John O’Neill. 1998. ‘Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics’, Ecological Economics, 26: 277-86. Martinez-Harms, Maria Jose, Brett A. Bryan, Patricia Balvanera, Elizabeth A. Law, Jonathan R. Rhodes, Hugh P. Possingham, and Kerrie A. Wilson. 2015. ‘Making decisions for managing ecosystem services’, Biological Conservation, 184: 229-38. Nicolae Doniţã, Aurel Popescu, Mihaela Paucã-Comãnescu, Simona Mihãilescu, Iovu Adrian Biriş, Habitatele din România, Editura Tehnicã Silvicã Bucureşti, 2005; Perrings, Charles. 1997. ‘Georgescu-Roegen and theirreversibility’of material processes’, Ecological Economics, 22: 303-04. OECD. 2017. Effective Carbon Rates (OECD Publishing). Potschin, Marion B., Eeva Primmer, Eeva Furman, and Roy H. Haines-Young. ‘Have Ecosystem Services Been Oversold? A Response to Silvertown’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31: 334-35. Popa, B., S. A. Borz, M. D. Nita, F. Ioras, E Iordache, * , F. Borlea, R. Pache, and I. V. Abrudan. 2016. ‘Forest Popa, B., C. Coman, S. A. Borz, M. D. Nita, C. Codreanu, G. Ignea, V Marinescu, F. Ioras, and O Ionescu. 2013. ‘Total Economic Value of Natural Capital-A Case-Study of Piatra Craiului National Park’, Notulae Botanici Horti Agrobotanici, 41. Popescu, R-I, and Andrea Zamfir. 2011. “Strategic Role of Ecotourism for Romania’s Regional Development.” In The Scale of Globalization. Think globally. Act locally. Change individually in the 21 century. . Ostrava: University of Ostrava. Primmer, Eeva, Pekka Jokinen, Malgorzata Blicharska, David N. Barton, Rob Bugter, and Marion Potschin. 2015. ‘Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis’, Ecosystem Services, 16: 158-66. PwC. 2016. “The forestry and wood processing industry in Romania has a contribution of 3.5% to the GDP when taking into consideration the indirect effects as well, according to a PwC Romania study.” In. PwC Romania. Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. (MacMillan: London). Rusch, G.M., N. Valland, M. De Stefano, F. Hanssen, R. Vang, B. Pedersen, and E. Aronsen. 2017. ‘Environmental data management. Policies and examples of their implementation in Norway. National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), Bucharest, pp. 1-44.’. Sandel, Michael J. 2013. ‘Market Reasoning as Moral Reasoning: Why Economists Should Re-engage with Political Philosophy’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27: 121-40. Sârbu A. (coord.), 2003, Ghid pentru identificarea importantelor arii de protecție și conservare a plantelor din România., Ed. Alo, Bucuresti, 113 p; Schröter, Matthias, R. Kraemer, S. Ceasu, and G.M. Rusch. 2017. ‘Incorporating threat in hotspots and coldspots of biodiversity and ecosystem services. ‘, Ambio. Sen, A. 1979. “Equality of what? The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Delivered at Stanford University 22 May ,1979.” In, edited by Stanford University. Silvertown, Jonathan. 2015. ‘Have Ecosystem Services Been Oversold?’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30: 641-48. Spash, Clive L. 2006. ‘Non-economic motivation for contingent values: Rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements’, Land Economics, 82: 602-22. —. 02 ‘niomna Gvrac: h Apc o Coordination’, of Aspect Mechanisms The Governance: Environmental Commons: Analytical and Challenges Political in BuildingGovernance ‘Environmental 2012. ———. Economics ———. 2009. ‘An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal’, World Travel &Tourism Council. 2015. “Travel & Tourism. Economic Impact economy: 2015 WorldRomania BankGroup.” resilient In. climate and D.C.Washington analysis. sector forestry carbon note; Dissimination analysis. sector forestry low a “Romania-Toward 2015. Bank. World and theirimplicationsforprotection’, 2010. ‘Virgin forests in Romania and Bulgaria: results of two national inventory projects Veen, Peter, Josef Fanta, Ivan Raev, Iovu-Adrian Biriş, Jacques de Smidt, and Bert Maes. Vatn, Arild.2005.‘InstitutionsandtheEnvironment’, 2050?’, to policy climate EU in cost-efficient sequestration products forest carbon and bioenergy forest of expense ‘Is the at 2016. Elofsson. Katarina and Münnich, Miriam Vass, Towards aPan-European EcosystemAssessmentMethodology, EEAReport, 2013 Terrestrial habitatmappinginEurope:anoverview EEATechnical reportNo1/2014; the Mainstreaming Biodiversity: and of TEEB. Ecosystems recommendations and conclusions of approach, the of synthesis A Nature: of Economics Economics The 2010. TEEB, Forestry Review forests in Romania: implications on management and administration’, Stancioiu, P. T., I. V. Abrudan, and I. Dutca. 2010. ‘The Natura 2000 ecological network and Journal ofForestEconomics , 68:2207-15. : 31. , 12:106-13. , 24:82-105. Biodiversity andConservation Land Economics , 19:1805-19. , 82:316-19. The International Ecological Global 197

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania 198 199

EEA Grants 2009-2014 Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in Romania This report is conducted within the project ”Demonstrating and promoting natural values in support of decision-making proces ses in Romania Nature for Decision-Making (N4D)”, with financial support from EEA grants 2009 - 2014, under the program RO02 - ”Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services” (in which the Ministry of Environment is a Program Operator). The project is implemented by the National Environmental Protection Agency, in partnership with The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, WWF-Romania and The Romanian Space Agency (ROSA).

For more information on EEA and Norwegian grants visit www.eeagrants.org.

April 2017