WORKING TOGETHER TO INSPIRE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS
TECHNICAL REPORT RO 2014
SUSTAINABLE FINANCING IN THE MARAMURES PILOT AREA Author: Martini Monia
Contributors: Maya Bankova-Todorova, Edit Pop, Mara Cazacu Technical adviser: Julio Tresierra, PhD and independent consultant
Graphic design: Boyan Petkov, Ina Kalcheva Front cover photo: The valley between Mara and Cosau rivers with Rooster’s Peak Nature Reserve in the background. Copyright Mara Cazacu
Published by WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Romania. Any reproduction in full or in part must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. Prior approval of WWF-Romania for any reproduction is also preferable.
©2014 WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Romania All rights reserved
WWF-Romania 26A Ioan Caragea Voda Street, 010537, District 1, Bucharest Tel. +4 021.317.49.96, Fax +4 021.317.49.97 [email protected], www.wwf.ro wwf.panda.org/dcpo - The Danube PES Project
WWF is one of the world’s leading independent environmental organizations with 5 million volunteers and a global network, which operates in more than 100 countries. WWF’s team in the Danube- Carpathian region is responsible for leading and implementing WWF’s efforts to preserve, restore and sustainably manage the natural values of the Danube-Carpathian ecoregions. The team works across political borders developing model projects, influencing policy, capacity building, raising awareness and seeking solutions to the challenges that the region faces in order to ensure prosperity, sustainability and biodiversity conservation.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Abstract
This report describes the experience of the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme (WWF-DCP) in implementing the Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) approach in the Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului pilot area located in the county of Maramures, Romania. PES represents an innovative finance mechanism intended to reconcile nature conservation and development objectives and needs. Under the project Promoting Payments for Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Finance Mechanisms in the Danube Basin (Danube PES), WWF-DCP aimed at demonstrating and promoting PES and related financing schemes in the Danube River basin and to other international water basins.
Romania and Bulgaria are the two countries selected for establishing the conditions under which PES schemes work in the Lower Danube region, and particularly to develop and demonstrate models of public and private sector PES and related schemes (Outcome 1 of the Project). The methodology used has involved the following steps:
1. Analysis of the pilot area in terms of geography, biodiversity, demography and economy;
2. Identification of a well-defined environmental problem affecting the delivery of benefits or ecosystem services that individuals, businesses, and communities receive from nature;
3. Definition of the PES approach as possible answer to reconcile conservation and development needs, and analysis of the conditions necessary to implement it;
4. Analysis of stakeholders as well as of all the options available to solve the identified environmental problem, including the proposed PES approach;
5. Definition of technical aspects of the PES approach or of intermediate strategies identified to establish PES conditions, such as management and governance structure, legal framework, payment system, timeframe of implementation, monitoring and reporting.
In the Maramures pilot area, the project addressed the challenge that protected areas in Romania suffer from a lack of financial and human resources, which hampers effective management. In the analysis of the pilot area landscape degradation was identified as the main environmental problem, caused mainly by irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism behaviour. This is rooted in the fact that local tourism operators, particularly guesthouses, have a poor understanding of protected areas and do not recognise their values, while they could play a key role with respect to communication with tourists and improved use of natural resources. Also, a lack of infrastructure especially related to waste management and nature interpretation represent an important aspect of the problem as well as part of the solution. In response to this, the project team aimed at fostering the tourism sector contribution to conservation activities in protected areas and assessing whether a private funding scheme actually is a viable alternative to existing but insufficient public funding opportunities. With financial support from local guesthouses and tourism operators, landscape beauty affected by the irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism behaviour is to be maintained by promoting protected areas values and needs, improving the visiting infrastructure,
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 1 and encouraging a shift towards responsible tourism practices.
The original objective of achieving an operational PES scheme by end 2013 was reached based on a strategy to reposition protected areas in the perception of local stakeholders through the development of the pilot area as an ecotourism destination, thus leading to testing of PES under the protected areas framework. The designation of ecotourism destinations is a key priority in Romania officially launched at the end of 2012; so far, the pilot area is one the first two micro-regions that have positively passed the official evaluation process. Romania is also the first country in Europe to have adopted ecotourism destinations criteria as guidelines, and the experience matured in the pilot area can be regarded as a reference for the set-up of cooperation among stakeholders and in particular for the establishment of conservation and development funds (CSDF).
What is unique in the initiative of demonstrating the PES approach as adopted by the project team, is the fact that all options that can possibly solve the identified environmental problem of landscape degradation are analysed comparatively so that key stakeholders can see the net benefit of engaging in a sustainable local development strategy versus continuing with the Business As Usual behaviour. In the case of Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului pilot area, on one side guesthouses are invited to adopt responsible tourism practices while being offered the possibility to build their capacity to do so, and to improve their understanding of protected areas including the importance of preserving landscape beauty as cornerstone for the long-term profitability of their business. On the other side, protected areas administrators are invited to improve the promotion of local protected areas highlighting their specific role and values. These activities are crucial in changing perceptions of local stakeholders about each other as well as of external actors and individuals about the area. Throughout the entire process of engaging local stakeholders, transfer of ownership has been a fundamental guiding principle.
The strategy implemented in the pilot area is synthetised in the following Conceptual Model:
2 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Abstract
Landscape beauty vs degradation
Contribute to ES delivery Effective Implementation of management of responsible tourism protected areas practices
Provide the framework to enhance
Development of Implementation of ecotourism CSDF destination
Supervises Manages
Local Partnership
Ownership Sustainability principle principles Guide
Source: M. Martini
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 3 Abstract
The report includes the following recommendations, identified by the project team to ensure the successful testing of PES under the protected areas framework, which is continued after Project end and is aimed at fine-tuning the PES approach:
• The synergistic implementation of identified measures to protect and/or restore landscape beauty, including awareness raising, capacity building and the development of responsible tourism/ecotourism.
• The use of financial resources collected in the CSDF and/or complementary funds offered by private/public entities for the implementation of the measures based on a mid-term workplan.
• Focusing on development needs first as a crucial step to improve the behaviour of tourism stakeholders, particularly guesthouses, towards natural values and creating the context for responsible tourism and particularly ecotourism to become the main trend in the pilot area.
• Gathering more information concerning the nature of the selected environmental problem (landscape degradation).
• Developing and implementing a fundraising strategy to increase the amount of money collected in the CSDF as well as to proceed with the development of the ecotourism destination.
Overall, specific methods of analysis applied in the Maramures pilot area have included the cost-benefit analysis, cashflow analysis, multi-goal analysis, phased approach for the development of the finance mechanism, the sustainability concept, and the ecotourism destinations criteria. The analyses conducted have the following limitations:
• Lack of baseline data regarding socio-economic and environmental aspects.
• Adoption of the phased approach at a later stage during project implementation, which has affected the logical gathering of data.
Results of analysed data have shown that:
• Local economic activities are strongly dependant on natural systems and resources, particularly forests and grasslands;
• The younger population is increasingly detached from local traditions and the natural environment, whereas the European Funds offer alternatives to working in the city as solution to the problem of abandonment of rural areas;
• Rural actors need to develop market(ing) related capacity, particularly the ability to cooperate, to offer added-value products and to access/create local market opportunities;
• Irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism behaviour in protected areas is the main environmental threat, which can result in the loss of landscape value and can eventually minimize the value of the visiting experience in itself.
• Landscape beauty is the most relevant ES for local livelihoods as well as the most targetable through a well-defined finance mechanism.
4 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 6 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOT AREA 9 1.1. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION 9 1.2. BIODIVERSITY 10 1.2.1. FLORA, FAUNA AND SOILS 10 1.2.2. HYDROLOGY 11 1.3. DEMOGRAPHY AND LIVELIHOODS 12 2. ECOSYSTEMS SITUATION ANALYSIS 15 2.1. ECOSYSTEMS WITHIN THE PILOT AREA 15 2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES 18 2.3. ECOSYSTEMS VALUES 24 3. DESIGNING A FINANCE MECHANISM FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 25 3.1. PROGRESS OF PES UNDER THE PROTECTED AREAS FRAMEWORK 25 3.2. ENABLING CONDITIONS 29 3.2.1. LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 29 3.2.2. PROTECTED AREAS 31 3.2.3. WASTE MANAGEMENT 35 3.2.4. THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CSDF 36 3.3. STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS 37 3.4. AVAILABLE OPTIONS 44 3.5. THE MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 53 3.6. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 54 3.7. THE PAYMENT SYSTEM 55 3.8. IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME 57 3.9. MONITORING AND REPORTING 59 3.10. SUSTAINABILITY 61 CONCLUSIONS 63 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 65 LIST OF REFERENCES 68 ANNEXES 72
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Introduction
Over the last 25 years, the concept of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Sustainable Financing (SF) schemes have gained growing attention in both conservation and development circles as promising solutions to improve nature conservation and rural livelihoods. Particularly the harshening of the financial and economic crisis in recent years has prompted international institutions as well as an increasing number of organisations and institutions at national and regional level to acknowledge the fundamental role of natural resources and ecosystems in the development of today’s societies and businesses and to seek amenable solutions to strengthen the role of nature in decision-making processes. In this context, the European Commission (EC) launched the MAES initiative in 2012 to support the development of a coherent analytical framework to be applied in all Member States, and aimed at achieving Action 5 - Target 2 objectives under the 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy1.
As a result, more studies are being commissioned and projects implemented that hopefully will improve the understanding about how to reconcile natural science and economic thinking in order to achieve sustainable development, particularly by elaborating and harmonising adequate policies, by transforming harmful subsidies into effective financial resources with positive impact and by using innovative financing mechanisms for nature conservation. In this sense, the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme (WWF-DCP) has been playing a leading role in Europe particularly through the implementation of the project Promoting Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Related Sustainable Financing Schemes in the Danube Basin (Danube PES) between 2009 and 20142. According to the revised Project Document3, the Project Objective was to demonstrate and promote PES and related financing schemes in the Danube River basin and to other international water basins. Romania and Bulgaria are the main countries selected for establishing the conditions under which these schemes or financial mechanisms could work in the Lower Danube region; this Technical Report refers to the experience developed by the WWF-DCP Romania team in Maramures, one of the 5 pilot areas4 of the project.
The revised Project Document lists three expected Outcomes for the whole project. Activities implemented at pilot level refer to Outcome nr. 1 – Models of public and private sector PES and related schemes developed and demonstrated within the Danube basin in Bulgaria and Romania, and approach replicated in the wider region. To measure progress and achievement towards Outcome nr. 1, the revised Project Document states indicators and the following two out of three are relevant for activities implemented at pilot level:
1 European Union (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services, An analytical framework for ecosystems assessment under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Discussion Paper. From http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf 2 Panda.
6 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Introduction
1. A total of at least 5 local and national model PES schemes operational by end of 2013;
2. At least 5 MoUs for public/private partnerships covering PES schemes signed by end 2012.
In the Maramures pilot, under the One Europe More Nature (OEMN) project implemented in the period 2004-2009 the team had already started working on a private PES scheme focused on the protection of watershed ecosystem services in the Firiza-Runcu catchment area, namely the supply of clean water respecting drinking quality standards for the municipality of Baia Mare5. However, according to the local project coordinator a major investment project aimed at rehabilitating and modernising water supply and treatment facilities financed through ISPA (the Instrument for Pre-accession Structural Policy) resulted in a higher water price needed to recover investment costs and compromised the possibility to negotiate the PES.
Consequently, when the Danube PES project was granted financing from UNEP GEF in 2009, local conditions had changed and the WWF-DCP Romania team identified a new opportunity to test PES and/or SF schemes. This opportunity was based on the understanding that the key role of protected areas in preserving important habitats and species and in maintaining overall environmental integrity is being threatened by specific economic activities (both legal and illegal) - a global trend that is actually accelerated because of the financial and economic crisis which relegates the environment to a second priority place on the political agenda. Thus, the Project aimed at field testing the tourism sector contribution to conservation activities in protected areas and assessing whether this private funded scheme actually is a viable alternative to existing but insufficient public funded opportunities. With financial support from local guesthouses and tourism operators, landscape beauty affected by the irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism behaviour needs to be maintained by promoting protected areas values and needs, improving the visiting infrastructure, and encouraging a shift towards responsible tourism practices. In the analysis of the pilot area landscape degradation was identified as the main environmental problem, caused mainly by the irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism behaviour in protected areas. To put it in context, there is a lack of financial and human resources, which generally characterises the protected area system in Romania and which makes the management of protected areas difficult and limited. Additionally, local tourism operators, particularly guesthouses, have a poor understanding of protected areas and do not recognise their values, but they could play a key role with respect to communication with tourists and improved use of natural resources. Also, a lack of infrastructure especially related to waste management and nature interpretation represent an important aspect of the problem as well as part of the solution.
Protected areas are a priority for WWF worldwide, sustained through the Protected Areas Program for A Living Planet (PA4LP) global initiative aimed at promoting and supporting the implementation of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA), which was created within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Carpathian Ecoregion is one of the 5 priority regions where the PA4LP Program is implemented, and it is worthwhile
5 The PES scheme was designed to provide forest land managers/owners and grasslands owners with an extra incentive to direct payments offered through a trust fund, with the purpose to preserve the forests with a protection role on one side, and the current grasslands management practices on the other side. Financial support addressed investments in the protective infrastructure for waters e.g. torrent collection, arrangement of drinking places for animals on the fields to avoid the erosion of the water beds and avoid the loading of the water beds with nutrients, etc.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 7 Introduction
mentioning that complementary to the work on testing PES/SF in the Maramures pilot area, WWF-DCP elaborated in 2012, under the PA4LP initiative, the guidelines6 for the evaluation of goods and services offered by ecosystems within protected areas.
In Romania, WWF-DCP is active in protected areas both from the Carpathian and the Lower Danube region in order to strengthen their management, circulate information and knowledge, manage wilderness areas, protect endangered species (e.g. sturgeon) and create or maintain ecological corridors. Thus, the experience matured under the Danube PES project can be replicated elsewhere to achieve conservation and development objectives in a balanced way. The experience of the Maramures pilot is reflected in the present Technical Report as follows:
• Chapter 1 – The pilot area is described from the point of view of its geographical location, its biodiversity features and the opportunities for local livelihoods versus their relative impact on the environment;
• Chapter 2 – The status of ecosystems, existing environmental threats and opportunities, and the value of key Ecosystem Services are analysed.;
• Chapter 3 – The framework to test PES in relation to protected areas is explained, including considerations about the legal/institutional and policy context.
Conclusions derived from a 4-year experience are presented in the final section.
Finally, it is necessary mentioning that in December 2012 the Project team decided to enlarge the pilot area after considering using the opportunity provided by the designation of ecotourism destinations by the National Tourism Authority in order to improve the viability and ensure sustainability of the identified PES approach. For this reason the feasibility studies underpinning the report and carried out during 2010-2011 cover only partially the actual territory of the pilot area.
6 C. Bucur, D. Strobel, “Valuation of ecosystem services in Carpathians protected areas. Guidelines for rapid assessment”, in WWF Romania – Pilot (2011), Brasov, Green Steps Publishing House.
8 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 1. description of the pilot area
1.1. Geographical location
The area7 “Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului” is situated in the Maramures County (Figure 1 and 2), located in the North of Romania, at the border with Ukraine. More precisely, it falls in the part of the county known as Historical Maramures (former Tara Maramuresului - 3.381 km2), a region that extends into the Ukrainian territory. It covers a surface of approximately 621 km2 or 17,5% of the Historical Maramures territory. If only territorial administrative units (TAU) in the pilot area are considered, then it covers a surface of 462,72 km2.
Figure 1: Maramures County map Figure 2: Maramures pilot area map
Source: E. Lukacs, Program pentru protectia peisajului construit Source: C. Malos, GIS expert in Maramures. Localitatiile Budesti si Sarbi. Context geografic si historic, Romanian Order of Architects (OAR), 2009.
Table nr. 1 below summarizes the geography of the pilot area.
Table 1: Geography of the pilot area
Source: M. Martini
7 The main access routes are DN18 (National roadway) Baia Mare - Desesti - Sighetu Marmatiei, and DJ 109F (County roadway) Baia Mare - Cavnic - Ocna Sugatag - Sighetu Marmatiei.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 9 Description of the pilot area
Mara Valley and Cosau Valley originate in the Iza Valley corridor, which together with Viseu Valley belong to Tisa Valley, the main corridor in the Romanian Historical Maramures. In fact, these valleys follow the left affluents of the Tisa river (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Valley corridors in Historical Maramures
Source: E. Lukacs, Program pentru protectia peisajului construit in Maramures. Localitatiile Budesti si Sarbi. Context geografic si historic, Romanian Order of Architects (OAR), 2009.
1.2. Biodiversity
1.2.1. flora, fauna and soils
Mara-Cosau-Creasta Cocosului contains a depression area in the centre belonging to the wider Maramures depression (crossed by the above-mentioned valley corridors) and offering living space, partially surrounded by mountains (Ignis to the west, Gutai and Lapus to the south) that give a vertical structure to the resourses available to people: from everglades with fertile soil to hills with fruit trees, pastures and natural meadows, mountains with forests and alpine abruptions used for summer grazing.
Soils are an important aspect of Maramures local economies, mainly rural and based on agriculture activities. The depression area is characterised by brown and podsolic (ash composition or leached soils are formed mainly in cool, humid climates) soils in different degrees, with a reduced level of natural fertility. These are used for crops (agro-terraces with grass slopes) but mainly as pastures, meadows, and rarely as orchards. Arable lands have extended in the lower part of the depression hills on clay-alluvional soils, cultivated with potatoes, barley, rye, and forage plants with fruit trees.
The vegetation cover varies according to latitude and longitude. While deciduous forests such as those in Central Europe generally prevail, forests of coniferous as well as alpine grasslands appear at higher altitudes. The presence of mountain and alpine grasslands have contributed to the development of a traditional type of mountain grazing, with lower grasslands being used as meadows to satisfy the need for fodder during winter. Grasslands are formed from beech clearings or are found on riversides in the place of cleared beech and mixed forests.
10 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Description of the pilot area
In terms of fauna, forest habitats are the preferred home of wild mammals like the brown bear, lynx, Carpathian deer, wild boar, fox, squirrel, wolf, deer, hare, marten. These species can be frequently observed in the everglades of rivers and towards the alpine area. Furthermore, beech and mixed forests represent the specific biotop of many birds: grouse, great owl, jay, quail, species of hawk, common buzzard, falcon, spotted eagle, partridge, and several woodpecker species. 1.2.2. Hydrology
The hydrography of Historical Maramures is distinctive in the sense that it belongs entirely to a single basin, that of the upper Tisa river8, which is the longest tributary of the Danube (966 km), and the second largest by flow, after the Sava river. Besides, it is the largest sub-basin in the Danube River Basin. The importance of its affluents is determined by their size and population rate: the most important left affluent is Viseu, which drains the north-east and east part; the Iza river is the main collector in the southern depression area with its main affluent being Mara, which in turn receives water from Cosau on the right.
The Mara and Cosau river basins are the two main freshwater ecosystems in the pilot area. In the Mara river basin a total of 40 wetlands have been identified9. Table nr. 2 below provides an overview of the hydrologic regime of both rivers.
Table 2: Hydrological aspects of Mara and Cosau rivers
Source: M. Martini, adapted from Somes-Tisa Hydrographic Basin Management Plan.
Both rivers are extremely important for the communities that have developed along their main course and that depend from water for their daily activities such as agriculture, home gardening, animals breeding. In recent times, the capacity of river ecosystems to support human well-being has been affected by urban development and increasingly dry summer seasons.
8 The Tisa river has a dense hydrographic network and abundant waters, with precipitations reaching a peak in April while being low in winter time. Water flows can increase significantly also as a result of heavy summer rains or unstable temperatures in winter. It drains an area of 157,186 km² in five countries (Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Serbia), which have agreed on close transboundary cooperation, aiming to achieve an integrated management of the Tisza River Basin. The Tisa river can be divided into three main sections: the mountainous Upper Tisza in Ukraine, upstream of the Ukrainian-Hungarian border; the Middle Tisza in Hungary, which is joined by large tributaries including the Bodrog and the Slaná/Sajó (both fed by water from the Carpathian Mountains in Slovakia and Ukraine), as well as the Somes/Szamos, the Crisul/Körös River System and the Mures/Maros from Transylvania; the Lower Tisza downstream of the Hungarian- Serbian border, fed directly by Bega/Begej, and indirectly by other tributaries via the Danube – Tisza – Danube Canal System. 9 T. V. Chis, Zone Umede din Tara Maramuresului, Sighetu Marmatiei: Aska Grafika, 2007 10 Rowater.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 11 Description of the pilot area
1.3. demography and livelihoods
The majority of villages in Maramures are so-called “valley villages”, which appeared and have evolved in time in close relation with the valley itself and adapting to its geographical conditions. Thus valleys including those in the pilot area form traditional etnographic areas with their own characteristics in terms of natural and manmade environment, mentality and habits, and a different degree of preserved historical heritage.
A total of about 17.880 inhabitants live in the pilot area (approximately 11.000 people are living in the Mara Valley, while another 6.880 people have been registered in the Cosau Valley in 2002). The average population density in Historical Maramures is 62 inhabitants/km2 (almost half the density of the rest of the county); in the Cosau Valley it is even lower, at 45 inhabitants/km2.
Public information related to the local economy in the pilot area is presented in table nr. 3 below.
Table 3: Economic activities in the pilot area
Administrative centre Typical activities Main income generating activities
Budesti Agriculture Exploitation and processing of wood Animal breeding as well as of black andesitic rock Beekeeping Animal breeding Tourism
Ocna Sugatag Tourism Tourism Animal breeding Balneo-treatment Pomiculture Animal breeding
Giulesti Zootechnics Wood processing Agriculture Bakery Milk processing
Calinesti Agriculture Agriculture (potatoes in particular) Commerce Animal breeding Wood processing Pomiculture
Desesti Animal breeding Animal breeding Agriculture Wood and secondary forest products proccessing Forestry Tourism Tourism
Source: http://www.ghidulprimariilor.ro
Wood processing and animal breeding are the main sources of income for the local population. A so-called “wood civilisation” can still be observed in the pilot area: alongside handicrafts, wood (mainly oak due to its resistance, although diminishing reserves have stimulated a more intense use of coniferous, which
12 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Description of the pilot area
is easier to process and faster at regenerating) has also been preferred for the construction of housing complexes (the so-called gospodării), churches (some belonging to the UNESCO World Heritage) and in the making of working tools and ingeniously crafted installations (e.g. mills, whirlpools, brandy distilleries powered by water etc.). Today, although the progressive abandonment of the traditional architecture and handicrafts poses a serious threat to the continuation of the “wood civilisation”, forests rich in wood, game, mushrooms, and wild fruits are still securing the livelihood of a good part of the local population; fostering a local economy of timber and non-timber forest products with added-value represents a real challenge.
Agriculture in general is also a very common activity with about 4.000 families living out of farming in the pilot area11. Because of the mountaneous characteristics of the region, collectivisation did not succeed and farming continues to be small-scale (60% of farms are below 5 ha – average farm size is 2.15 ha in 3 or 4 plots – and 70% of farms have less than 5 cows), semi-subsistence and based on traditional practices. Data from the National Rural Development programme confirm that forest and extensive grassland systems as well as mosaic farming systems including low-intensity haymeadows, pastures, arable land and traditional orchards are typical in the pilot area12 (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Agriculture land use in Romania
Source: Ministerul Agriculturii si Dezvoltarii Rurale, Programul National pentru Dezvoltare Rurala 2007-2013 (2009).
11 Agency for payments and interventions in agriculture (APIA). 12 In general, Romania’s 3.9 million holdings can be classified as follows: 89% have less than 5 ha and account for about 37% of Romania’s UAA (Utilized Agriculture Area) – this is probably the result of the land restitution process; 7% have between 5-20 ha and account for 20% of UAA; 2% have between 20-50 ha and account for 3% of UAA; 2% have more then 50 ha and account for 40% of the UAA. While arable and more intensively farmed areas predominate in the south, the east and the extreme west of the country, livestock farming and permanent grasslands are concentrated in the northern and central areas of Romania. Nevertheless, isolated patches of High Nature Value grasslands are also found scattered across south and east Romania. Ministerul Agriculturii si Dezvoltarii Rurale (2009). Programul National pentru Dezvoltare Rurala 2007-2013. From http://www.pndr.ro.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 13 Description of the pilot area
At the moment, agri-environmental payments represent a key stimulus for the continuation of such practices and about 90% of eligible grasslands fall under Measure 214 – Package 1 or 213. Access to market for local products also needs to be strengthened and integrated throughout the supply chain in order to turn into a viable option in the medium and long term. Adding to the issue of economic viability, the ageing of the farming population (the average age of farmers is 50 years old) is threatening the survival of agriculture in rural areas. The National Rural Development Programme has been set to overcome this problem with a measure dedicated to young farmers14.
The project “Rural Development and High Nature Value Farming in Romania”, funded under the Swiss Cohesion Fund and implemented between 2013 and 2016 by a consortium of non-governmental organizations including WWF-Romania, will monitor trends in HNV farmlands and products including those in the pilot area, with the purpose to improve rural development policies and access to market on the one side, and the capacity of local and especially young farmers to make the best use of these opportunities on the other side.
The alienation of the younger population with respect to the traditional lifestyle and the environmental features that characterise it is mainly the result of the phenomenon of migration towards western countries for long periods, driven by more stable and substantial sources of income then those available in Romanian rural areas. Thus the traditional architecture and traditional/ HNV farming practices are sistematically being lost or left at the limited outreach of older people (both in terms of financial power and elderly age). The same problematic cause-effect circle also occurs between the boundaries of the country because of the increasing internal migration towards urban areas.
In recent years tourism has gained the interest of local people; many have seen in it an alternative or a complementary activity to farming. They have also been motivated by public funding available under the National Rural Development Programme, Axis 3 – Quality of life in rural areas and diversification of rural economy, Measure 3.1.3 – Encouraging tourism activities. According to the official register of the National Authority for Tourism (ANT), in the pilot area there are 37 accommodation places with a total of 704 beds; among these there are 24 accommodation places of the type “guesthouse” (pensiune turistica, pensiune agroturistica, popas turistic), with a total of 273 beds, the rest being hotels, villas, camping locations and touristic lodges.
13 Since January 2007, farmers in Romania have access to support measures funded through the financial instrument of the Common Agriculture Policy, constituted by the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The former supports direct payments under the Single Area Payment Scheme, while national complementary direct payments are supported jointly with State budget resources. EAFRD payments given under Axis 2 based on the NRDP 2007-2013 include surface based compensatory payments for losses of income and extra costs, suffered by users of agriculture land because they perform their activities in less favoured areas or voluntarily respect specific environmental commitments. Funded measures include: Measure 211 – compensatory payments for less favoured areas; Measure 212 – compensatory payments for less favoured areas from a specific and significant natural point of view; Measure 214 – agri-environment payments (Package 1 – high nature value grasslands; Package 2 – traditional agriculture practices; Package 3 – grasslands important for birds; Package 4 – green crops; Package 5 – organic farming; Package 6 – grasslands important for butterflies (Maculinea sp.); Package 7 – arable land important as feeding place for red-breasted goose). In the whole Maramures County, between 2008 and 2009 there have been 2.550 more applicants for agri-environmental payments (16.609 in 2008 and 19.159 in 2009), with an increase of 11.646 ha in the land surface under committment (66.012,86 ha in 2008 and 77.658,87 ha in 2009). 14 Ministerul Agriculturii si Dezvoltarii Rurale, op.cit.
14 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 However, weak entrepreneurial skills and lack of vision are generally being observed amongst guesthouse owners. Besides, environmental awareness is low; in particular, the values of protected areas are not perceived as benefits for their tourism business, mainly because nature has always been there. In this sense, the development of ecotourism destinations represents a viable framework within which the development of nature-friendly tourism practices and infrastructure that allow visitors to discover and enjoy nature (e.g. trekking and bicycle trails, information centres etc.) becomes more straightforward and relevant for tourism businesses.
Finally, because of the collectivist approach during the Communist regime, cooperation is not an attractive concept in Romania and particularly in rural areas, basically because of a lack of trust15. There are farmers associations in the pilot area which were established at the level of city halls or as private initiatives, but the extent to which they are able to foster and protect farmers’ interests effectively and comprehensively needs to be further explored and enhanced.
2. ecosystems situation analysis
2.1. ecosystems within the pilot area
Table nr. 4 and figure nr. 5 below show the main ecosystem types in the administrative territory of the pilot area based on the APIA register16 for physical units (bloc fizic17), which also allows for the identification of landowners or administrators. Although data have been gathered before the decision to extend the pilot area beyond the Maramures Heritage Trail18 (the greenway19), the ecosystem related information is representative for the entire surface of the pilot area and enough to tackle landscape related problems. In case issues related to carbon emissions with potential for carbon schemes are further tackled then more information about land property should be gathered.
15 It must be highlighted that the cooperative movement was well spread and flourished in the whole country before collectivization of the agriculture production during Communism. In 1938 there were 8.000 cooperatives in Romania, and about 1,4 million gospodarii mainly in rural communities had shares in cooperatives. Catara.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 15 Ecosystem situation analysis
Table 4: Typical ecosystems in the pilot area
Source: M. Martini. Adapted from EUROPEAN UNION, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystems assessment under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion Paper, 2013
20 Pastures and meadows. Comuna Budesti.
16 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Ecosystem situation analysis
Figure 5: Map of APIA land uses in the pilot area
Source: APIA, 2012
Table nr. 5 below provides an overview of ecosystem types at protected area level. For more detailed information, a profile of each protected area in the pilot area is included as Annex – Document 3.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 17 Ecosystem situation analysis
Table 5: Ecosystems within protected areas in the pilot area
Ecosystem Ecosystem Location (PA) Area (ha) typology (level 1) typology (level 2)
Grassland 182 (mountain pastures) Rooster's Peak 35,9 (meadows) 217,9 Rooster's Peak 454,2 Woodland and forest Craiasca Forest 44 (forests) Poiana Brazilor Swamp 3 Tatarului Gorge 5 506,2 Terrestrial Sparsely or unvegetated land Rooster's Peak (andesitic rock 3,2 formations)
Taurile Chendroaiei 2,6 Hoteni 2,5 Inland wetlands Morareni Lake 6 (peat bogs) Poiana Brazilor 5 Iezerul Mare Swamp 5 21,1
TOTAL 748,4
Source: M. Martini. Adapted from EUROPEAN UNION, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystems assessment under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion Paper, 2013 2.2. environmental issues: threats and opportunities
Several episodes during the last couple of years have highlighted the main environmental issues in the pilot area.
With respect to water, the administrative center of Ocna Sugatag, including Hoteni, Sat Sugatag and Breb villages, receives its public utility water from natural springs located in the buffer zone of the Rooster’s Peak Nature Reserve. In the summer of 2012, the population of Ocna Sugatag suffered from water shortages, a problem that particularly affected the business of local guesthouses. Although at the moment data related to changes in trends of catchment capacity, water use and tourism sector development are not known, independent discussions with the mayor of Ocna Sugatag and the representative of the Center for Ecology and Tourism (CET), a local non-governmental organization, have highlighted the following: • the number of guesthouses has increased; • the number of guesthouses with swimming pools has increased; • guesthouses do not pay a price for water that is equivalent to their level of consumption (regardless of changes in the local legislation).
18 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Ecosystem situation analysis
In terms of costs, the local public administration has created a new separate infrastructure for the villages of Breb and Hoteni; however, it has to be seen whether this will be enough, particularly in the context of increasingly dry summer weather. Concerning the guesthouses, many have had to cancel reservations since 2012 and have been struggling throughout the summer seasons to secure their individual supply of water from somewhere else, resulting in extra time, distribution and storage costs.
Looking at options to solve the identified water-related problem, besides improving the water reticulation system through investments in the water infrastructure, the local public administration has introduced the obligation to install water meters by January 2013 with the purpose to differentiate between the different water users based on their real demand; however, the Local Council decision is not being complied with. Finally, given that the catchment area is a mix of forest and pasture land, land use changes might also be implemented to improve water quantity.
With respect to flora, a tendency towards change in species composition has been observed in Craiasca Forest. However, more studies are needed in order to make a proper analysis and eventually agree on an action plan aimed at preserving a favorable conservation status. Water aspects should also be considered since land degradation has also been observed due to leakages in open air water channels. Overall, landscape value and beauty are affected.
Furthermore, the Rooster’s Peak Reserve was hit by a fire in the summer of 2012, which between the 6th of August and the 10th of September burned 62 ha of dry vegetation, namely grass and juniper bushes. Small enclaves of spruce trees took fire too. Beech forests were not affected at all. According to the custodian, the fire started outside of the SCI Gutai-Creasta Cocosului borders, on the surrounding meadows, and due to the prolonged drought the dry vegetation burned fast, reaching the edge of the beech forest next to the Baia Sprie forest district area. Once entered into the SCI territory the fire extended until the summit area below the Secatura Peak, burning the dry vegetation between the steep rocky walls (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Map of surface hit by fire in the summer of 2012
Source: Ecologic Association, custodian of the ROSCI0089 Gutai – Creasta Cocosului Natura 200 site including the Rooster’s Peak Reserve
Both water scarcity and inaccessibility to the burning area have hindered the interventions of volunteers and foresters. The origin of the fire is still under investigation, but irresponsible behaviour seems to be the main cause: inhabitants
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 19 Ecosystem situation analysis
of Desesti burning the local community grasslands in order to prove utilisation of grasslands and obtain agri-environment payments; tourists throwing cigarettes in the grass. Estimates of regeneration needs and costs have to be done by specialists but there are no funds available at this moment for this.
With respect to landscapes, improper visiting behaviour is an issue also in terms of waste management in protected areas. Particularly in the Rooster’s Peak and Craiasca Forest nature reserves, the urban and tourism types of waste represent a threat to environmental integrity. More precisely, in the management plan of the Roster’s Peak Nature Reserve it is stated that irresponsible camping (abusive fires places and abandoned waste, deterioration of the camping facility arranged in proximity of the reserve) contributes to landscape alteration, the effects being observed also on the pasture close to the rocky area that tourists like because it offers an open view over the Maramures depression area and the Gutai mountains plateau. However for a sound analysis on the environmental impact, more detailed information is needed in terms of quantities, type of waste and sources of pollution. At the same time, the impact of waste on tourism itself needs to be considered.
Furthermore, landscapes are affected by changes in traditional agricultural practices. Although in the proximity of villages hay continues to be collected and stored in traditional ways, young labor force migration towards Western Europe and urban areas in the past years has stimulated the phenomenon of meadows turning into pastures; this is accentuated by the fact that access of sheep flocks to village neighbourhoods is easier and less risky than grazing on alpine grasslands. At the same time, the risk of alpine grasslands turning into forests stems from the extension of forest tillers due to natural regeneration.
With respect to landscapes and fauna altogether, habitat fragmentation is a major issue for the large carnivores still living in this part of the country. The project “Open borders for bears in the Carpathians of Romania and Ukraine” (the Brown bear project) implemented by WWF-Romania aims at conserving the brown bears of the Romanian and Ukrainian Carpathians by maintaining favourable habitats22 and their connectivity23 through the reconstruction or sustainable management of migration corridors (Figure 9) - one of the basic requirements for the survival of brown bears, together with possibilities for feeding, resting, mating and dispersion24. As a consequence of human activities and socio-economic development in the region, important habitats for bears are more and more affected, being either destroyed or fragmented. The pilot area is entirely included in the connectivity map designed under the Brown bear project (Figure 8), as protected areas including the Natura 2000 site SCI Gutai-Creasta Cocosului play an important role in maintaining the favourable habitat for
22 Regardless of the presence of forest habitats in the Brown bear project area, forest habitats have been identified as the most favourable ones for the bear population. Bears select trees depending on two main factors, namely the type of forest and the age of the tree. In the Brown bear project area, mixed forests of deciduous and coniferous species are positively selected whereas beech is the dominant species. With regards to the age of trees, bears prefer those younger than 20 years or older than 100 years, the selection being determined based on the daily activity of the animal that comprises 2 peaks of intense work and 2 resting periods. Consequently, during periods of action the bear looks for mature trees where the food source is much more varied (seeds, forest fruits, insects, mushrooms, etc.), while for resting the bear selects most probably young trees with high forest density because there the chance to be disturbed is lower. 23 Connectivity in the Brown bear project area is based on four areas of major importance: Oaș-Igniș Mountains, Lăpușului-Tibleș Mountains, Rodnei Mountains and Maramureș Mountains. In particular, the areas with a habitat favourability index beyond the average have been considered as a single thematic layer, and then ecological corridors have been designed between those forest types that meet the following criteria: at least 2000 ha of forest are necessary for the bear to reproduce, and that 10000 ha of forest are considered a sufficient shelter for a minimum number of bear reproductive individuals. The overall result is a thematic layer of habitat connectivity (potential ecological corridors). 24 Asociatia pentru Conservarea Diversitatii Biologice, Report privind favorabilitatea habitatelor, Open borders for bears between Romanian and Ukrainian Carpathians project, 2013.
20 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Ecosystem situation analysis
brown bears (Figure 10). In the south-east of the SCI Gutai-Creasta Cocosului, in the direction Budesti-Cavnic, there is one of the critical areas identified for connectivity, which for the moment is still offering favourable conditions for the migration of the brown bear25.
Figure 8: Map of brown bear connectivity areas Figure 9: Critical areas for brown bear (ecological corridors) connectivity
Source: Asociatia pentru Coservarea Diversitatii Biologice, Raportul privind habitate favorabile, Open borders for bears between Romanian and Ukrainian Carpathians project, 2013
Figure 10: The Brown bear distribution in protected areas
Source: Asociatia pentru Coservarea Diversitatii Biologice, Raportul privind habitate favorabile, Open borders for bears between Romanian and Ukrainian Carpathians project, 2013
Table nr.6 below summarises the main environmental threats and possible consequences of human activity that deserve attention, respectively for habitats and species.
25 Cavnic is the only connectivity area between Igniș and Lăpușului – Țibleș Mountains. Because it is characterized by habitats with high favourability for the bear population, it necessarily deserves special attention in terms of habitats management: in case of obstruction, then the bear population from Oaș and Gutâi Mountains is isolated from the Țibleș Mountains area. Intensification of tourist activities, degradation of forest and secundary grassland (with bilberry) habitats can contribute to the degradation of the area as well as to the limitation of its functions as ecological corridor. At present, out of a 17 km long segment between Surdești and Budești, 2 parts respectively of 2,5 km south-west of Cavnic and 3 km north-east can still be considered as offering favourable conditions for the migration of the brown bear.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 21 Ecosystem situation analysis
Table 6: Overview of environmental threats in the pilot area
Source: M. Martini, J. Tresierra, M. Cazacu
The protected areas ranking (where nr. 1 corresponds to the highest priority area and nr. 4 to the lowest priority area) summarised below in table nr.7, which includes only those subjected to some sort of risk, confirms the fact that the Craiasca Forest and Rooster’s Peak Nature Reserves are to be regarded as priority areas.
22 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Ecosystem situation analysis
Table 7: List of priority areas with respect to environmental threats
Source: M. Martini, J. Tresierra, M. Cazacu
Biodiversity (including landscapes) is degrading in the pilot area because of changing trends in the lifestyle of communities (e.g. young people going abroad and refusing traditions when coming back) and the unilateral pursuit of development, reinforced by the need to overcome the economic crisis. Protected areas have played a key role so far in preserving important habitats and species and maintaining abundant natural resources and unique landscapes; however, specific economic activities (both legal and illegal) are threathening this role.
Given that protected areas are a priority for the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme, the Project team has identifiedPES under the protected areas framework as a possible answer to address the problem of landscape degradation in the pilot area caused by irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism practices. In particular, it has decided to work in the pilot area to create public-private partnerships that stimulate the transition towards ecotourism as a responsible type of tourism. On the one side, this implies working with tourism stakeholders to integrate nature and environment needs in general into their business on the other side, working with protected area managers to strengthen the effectiveness of their management and communication towards relevant stakeholders and the local communities.
Under these premises, the fine-tuning of PES conditions is still ongoing.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 23 Ecosystem situation analysis
2.3. ecosystems values
In table nr. 8 below, ecosystem benefits from the pilot area are prioritized according to the analysis of environmental issues presented in the previous chapter. It must be noted that the monetary value of these benefits was identified at the beginning of the Project as part of an economic valuation exercise by using different methods; thus, values have been calculated referring specifically to the greenway area. Also, comprehensive and correct assessment was very difficult because of poor data approximation and availability. The purpose of these estimates is to make the calculation of the total economic value of ecosystems (TEV) easier in the later stages. Therefore, an assessment of the TEV is recommended, but it was not a goal under the Danube PES project.
Table 8: Ecosystems values estimated in the pilot area in 2010
Source: C. Bucur, Identification and quantification of the ecosystem services standing behind The Maramures Heritage Trail in Historical Maramures, Romania, 2010. Adapted from the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), no 4.3.
The focus of the selected PES approach is on cultural and aesthetic ecosystem services (ES) on which tourism operators base the development of their businesses. Tourists are especially attracted by the beautiful landscape offered by High Nature Value Forests26 and High Nature Value Farmlands27, and which includes also the typical wooden architecture. In relation to the latter, it must be noted that although wood has clear superior qualities in comparison with those of masonry, the latter is preferred due to the fact that it is cheaper and the sensation of its durability is higher. Current pressures on the built environment
26 High Nature Value Forests or High Conservation Value Forests are those areas of forest that need to be appropriately managed in order to maintain or enhance the identified High Conservation Values. A High Conservation Value Forest may be a small part of a larger forest, for example a riparian zone protecting a stream that is the sole supply of drinking water to a community or a small patch of a rare ecosystem. In other cases, the High Conservation Value Forest may be the whole of a forest management unit, for example when the forest contains several threatened or endangered species that range throughout the forest. Proforest, “The High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit”, no 1 (2003), WWF and IKEA Cooperation on Forests projects. 27 High Nature Value Farmlands are areas in Europe where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where that agriculture supports, or is associated with, either a high species and habitat diversity or the presence of species of European , and/or national, and/or regional conservation concern, or both. A. Bartel, High Nature Value Farmland as an European evaluation indicator - definition, function and status quo, 2009.
24 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 come from the fact that youth working in Western countries want to ensure their own comfort and to show their prosperity by replacing traditional constructions with modern ones, which do not match the architectural features and style of the area.
Provisioning services of identified key ecosystems are also a priority although an estimate of their value was not possible (and therefore does not show in table nr. 8) because of the lack of consistent fiscal data related to small producers. Provisioning services are considered as a long-term perspective granted in the development of the pilot area as ecotourism destination; indeed, local products are of particular interest for tourists and the Project team already envisages the implementation of market mechanisms such as the use of the eco- destination logo on qualified products known as High Nature Value products, aimed at stimulating the maintenance of traditional agriculture practices and consequently of landscape beauty associated with High Nature Value Farmlands. The success of such endeavour goes in parallel with improvements of rural development policies.
3. design of a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
3.1. progress of PES under the protected areas framework
To address the problem of landscape degradation caused by irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism behaviour in the pilot area and particularly in protected areas, the Project team has developed a strategy aimed at repositioning natural protected areas in the perception of local community stakeholders. Natural values maintained especially through the establishment of protected areas are often taken for granted; the local lifestyle has historically developed together with and in synergy with the surrounding natural environment; still, human activities supporting local livelihoods can only thrive in the long term if natural systems are maintained functional and capable to deliver benefits (namely the ES) on a regular basis. This is particularly true for tourism businesses, which are directly dependant on the landscape beauty of the specific environment in which they operate. Consequently, the strategy is based on the development of the pilot area into an ecotourism destination: during the process, local stakeholders and particularly tourism operators mature awareness about the impact of development in general and tourism-related activities in particular on the environment and the consequent need to restore or maintain environmental integrity. While tourism operators learn about the role of protected areas, administrators of such areas recognise the importance of promoting natural values preserved through the management of protected areas. Furthermore, while tourism operators understand the positive impact of responsible business practices and begin to adopt them, public authorities are being brought together to work towards an integrated environmental policy-making and sound decision- making. As regards the actors in the tourism sector, the prospect of positioning their businesses better on the market has motivated them to financially contribute to biodiversity conservation.
Based on the strategy to develop the pilot area into an ecotourism destination, funds for conservation and development needs are mobilised in the following way.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 25 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
A Conservation and Sustainable Development Fund (CSDF) established in the form of a bank account in the national currency allows for the collection and distribution of financial resources in equal proportion towards nature conservation and development needs associated with ecotourism.
The conservation focus of the CSDF is to restore the integrity of landscapes in pilot areas within the selected priority protected areas with the purpose of maintaining and enhancing the delivery of the identified benefit of landscape beauty, a key ES for individuals (tourists), businesses (local guesthouses and tour-operators), and local communities.
Money is collected into the CSDF in the form of:
1. Annual fixed contributions from local guesthouses and tour- operators;
2. Revenues obtained through the selling of the Maramures Heritage Trail souvenir maps;
3. Other types of contributions from local producers, mid-size producers and local artisans (under development through the “Rural Development and High Nature Value Farming in Romania” project – see page 13 and other ideas are also being explored).
Complementary funds from projects or local budgets are harmonised within the strategic framework of developing the area Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului into an ecotourism destination and particularly in order to gather the necessary resources (both financial and human) to support and stimulate the changes in behaviour required from the tourism sector to move towards a responsible type of tourism - ecotourism.
Table nr. 9 below shows the measures identified to protect and/or restore landscape beauty, directly through the CSDF or through complementary funds, and the progress reached so far. Similarly, the flow of actions from different sources of funding for landscape beauty related measures/activities is shown in the chart below (Figure 11): current or future projects represent the main funding source for all types of measures; private contributions allocated directly or through the CSDF are identified as an important funding source of responsible tourism type of activities; local budgets should also contribute to activities related to awareness raising and responsible tourism but are also recognised as the most difficult to mobilise.
26 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Table 9: Measures to enhance landscape beauty and their progress
Source: M. Martini
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 27 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Figure 11: Flowchart of funding sources for measures designed to enhance landscape beauty
Source: M. Martini
The design of the finance mechanism for nature conservation through a repositioning of protected areas in the perception of local stakeholders based on an ecotourism development strategy included the need to identify risks and to define assumptions.
The fact that initial efforts are concentrated more on tackling development needs than on implementing concrete conservation activities can result in the dissemination of a wrong message, namely that social and financial capital forms are more important than the natural capital, when the ultimate purpose of the strategic approach designed for the pilot area is to re-establish an equilibrium in the field of sustainability. Based on the analysis of local circumstances, the WWF Project team has considered this risk in the following way: firstly, focusing on development at this stage is considered to be a crucial step in improving the motivation and behaviour of tourism stakeholders towards natural values and in creating the context that would allow responsible tourism practices to grow into the main trend in the pilot area; secondly, more information needs to be collected in relation to the nature of the selected environmental problem (landscape degradation); finally, more money needs to be collected in the fund in order to cover pure conservation measures and a fundraising strategy should be developed in this sense.
There is an assumption that new agreements are going to be signed in the mid- term involving new types of contributions, thus making more financial resources available to implement substantial conservation activities. Harmonised policies concerning in particular the issue of waste management are to be developed in the pilot area as it becomes an ecotourism destination and these are expected to contribute more or less directly to the achievement of conservation objectives.
Other risks regard the reluctance or lack of resources amongst guesthouses towards participating in trainings, uptaking recommendations and contributing to the finance mechanism.
28 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Another important assumption is that by the end of the Danube PES project, local leadership is consolidated and their capacity fully developed (in terms of both skills and financial resources) to be able to manage independently and professionally the finance mechanism on the one side and the ecotourism destination on the other side.
3.2. enabling conditions
This section of the report provides an overview of legal, institutional and policy aspects identified as enabling conditions for the successful implementation of the strategy designed to develop the pilot area into an ecotourism destination in order to reposition protected areas in the perception of local stakeholders. In general, all issues identified are manageable as long as financial and human capacity can be secured among local stakeholders for a management structure capable of performing the role played by WWF under the Danube PES project. In more technical terms, a Destination Management Organization (DMO) exemplifies this needed structure; such examples are missing in Romania and it is expected that ANT develops a set of terms of reference as well as official codes for employment positions as part of the designation process of national ecotourism destinations. 3.2.1. local governance and regional development
The main administrative centres in the pilot area are the communes28 of:
• Desesti – villages: Harnicesti, Mara
• Ocna Sugatag – villages: Hoteni, Breb, Sat Sugatag
• Budesti – villages: Sarbi
• Calinesti – villages: Valeni, Cornesti
• Giulesti – villages: Feresti, Berbesti, Manastirea
According to Local Public Administration Law nr. 215/2001, local mayors and councilors exercise their competencies in the commune, city and municipality where they are elected, while the county council and president are responsible for the managemement of public services at county level, the socio-economic development of the county, the management of the county heritage, and the inter-institutional cooperation. In particular, the county council has the role to coordinate the activitiy of the communal, city and municipality councils.
Following the initiative of WWF-Romania under the project “Protected Areas for a living planet”, the Maramures County Council has accepted the proposal to recognise and integrate natural values and ecosystem services in the 2007-2013 Sustainable Development Plan of the Maramures County, Chapter 3 – Protecting and improving the quality of the environment29. Furthermore, it has welcomed the initiative under the Danube PES project to develop the
28 A profile of each commune can be found at www.ghidulprimariilor.ro 29 Maramures County Council, Official letter Nr. 4877/639/09.09.2010.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 29 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
area Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului as an ecotourism destination30 and it has delegated the tourism information centre “MaramuresInfoTourism” as its representative in local stakeholders meetings. Similarly, 3 of the 5 mayors from the communes of Budesti, Ocna Sugatag and Desesti, are open to discussions and to participate in meetings.
In order to implement the EU Regional Policy, Romania was divided into 8 “development regions”, each including several counties, on the basis of an agreement between local councils and county councils; however, they do not have juridical personality, nor do they constitute TAUs31. In February 2013 the Ministry of Administration and Regional Development has launched the process of regionalisation/decentralisation, which will result in new regional territories with concrete financial resources and responsibilities, thus strengthening the role of local public authorities in promoting human wellbeing. At the time of publishing this report, the approval procedure of the proposal for the new decentralised system was still ongoing between the Government (with controversial debates on power-related issues) and the European Commission, with whom the Partnership Agreement concerning the use of European funds in the period 2014-2020 is to be signed.
Whether the strategy for the development of the pilot area as an official ecotourism destination will benefit from the regionalisation process is a matter of political will and understanding about the need to balance the three capital forms (social, financial and natural) and to define what is really of common interest, by involving all interested stakeholders. According to plans for the elaboration of the new European programmes, all development regions have started the revision of their regional development strategies and plans underpinning the programming period 2014-2020; thus it is crucial that the strategic need to develop the area Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului as an ecotourism destination is also now included in the new regional development strategy covering the Maramures County. Two major constraints hampering this are the lack of vision and strategic thinking of decision and policy-makers on one side and the lack of proper participatory planning due to time pressures (to avoid delays and thus the loss of funds from the 2014-2020 programmes), on the other side.
Still, the ecotourism market is gaining momentum in Romania and represents a favourable influence. In August 2012 the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism initiated the process of designating ecotourism destinations32 on the basis of selection criteria launched in November 2012 in collaboration with the Association of Ecotourism in Romania (AER). In this respect, Romania is the first country in Europe to have adapted the EETLS - European Eco-Tourism Labelling Standards to its national context (based on the international sustainable tourism criteria adopted by the Global Sustainable Tourism Council in 2011). In the spirit and definition of ecotourism, this type of destination promotes the natural and cultural values of a specific micro-region, reaching out to visitors interested in experiencing local traditions and natural wonders. Of the 9 micro-regions that have initially submitted an expression of interest, only 2 have finalized the first official evaluation round, amongst
30 Embassy of Italy in Bucharest, Official letter Nr.1301/25.03.13, and Maramures County Council, Official letter Nr.1963/11.04.13 31 Law nr.151/15.07.1998 on regional development in Romania, published in Monitorul Oficial nr.265/16.07.1998. 32 The legal framework for the initiative is given by the National Strategy for the Development of Ecotourism in Romania (2009), and the Ordinance Nr. 56/14.01.2011 emitted by the Ministry for Regional Development and Tourism regarding the establishment of an interministerial working group to develop ecotourism in Romania.
30 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
which the pilot area at the initiative of the Center for Ecology and Tourism, the Ecologic Association and Budesti City Hall as representatives of the wider Local Partnerhsip, with WWF-Romania facilitating the process in collaboration with AER.
Another instrument to achieve local policy objectives is the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) funded by the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The LEADER Programme is a key component of the NRDP and has the purpose to support sustainable local development in rural areas, based on a public-private partnership - Local Action Group (LAG) - between representatives of the civil society and the private sector on one side and the public sector on the other side, in proportion of 50% respectively. The beneficiaries are the LAGs and they implement a local development strategy in rural areas with a population of 10.000-100.000 inhabitants and a maximum density of 150 inhabitants/km2. Bigger areas fall under targets of the EU Regional Policy.
The LAG Mara-Gutai is active in the pilot area since 2010 and occupies the territory of the Mara Valley and the Gutai Mountains. It includes the communes of Bârsana, Budeşti, Călineşti, Câmpulung la Tisa, Deseşti, Giuleşti, Ocna Şugatag, Onceşti, Sarasău, Săpânţa, Vadu Izei, and the city of Cavnic33; it also includes 9 protected areas, 6 of which are nature monuments, and it extends into 4 Natura 2000 sites. The LAG Mara-Gutai has been approached to be the local partner in the project “HNVF and Rural Development in Romania” based on considerations of capacity, experience and willingness. 3.2.2. protected Areas
In Romania, in 2007, protected areas of national interest designated according to criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), covered about 8% of the total country surface, including 13 National Parks, 14 Natural Parks, and more then 900 other types of reserves (scientific reserves, nature monuments and nature reserves). By the end of the same year, these were almost entirely integrated in the network of protected areas of community interest known as Natura 200034. Thus, in 2009 the national network of protected areas covered 45.991 km2 or 19,20% of the country surface as follows35: 53 scientific reserves, 13 national parks, 227 natural monuments, 634 nature reserves, 14 natural parks, 273 SCI - sites of community interest, 109 SPA - special protection areas. In 2012, following the revision of proposals for Natura 2000 sites in Romania, these came to cover a surface of 22,6% (383 SCI, and 148 SPA) of the total country surface (compared to 17,84% initially proposed)36 (Figure 12).
33 The full list of members and local jurisdictions is available at www.gal-maragutai.ro 34 The following aspects distinguish the Natura 2000 network from protected areas designated at national level: designation of SCI/SAC and SPA is based on objective scientific information; protection addresses selected species and habitats based on their conservation needs; these sites are meant to form an „ecological network” with the purpose to reduce isolation and fragmentation of endangered species, thus contributing to biodiversity conservation. 35 Coalitia ONG Natura 2000 Romania, Protected areas of Romania. Threats to protected areas and problems with which administrators are confronted (2010). 36 Natura 2000.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 31 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Figure 12: Classification of protected areas in Romania
Scientific reserves – man is mainly observer, researcher (10x – 10.000x ha)
National parks – man is mainly tourist/visitor and traditional activities are allowed on part of the surface (1000x - 100.000x ha)
Nature reserves – purpose to maintain or reintegrate/recreate species or their habitat (10x – 10.000x ha)
Nature parks – charaterised by areas where sustainable human activity is allowed, but include also more restrictive areas (1000x – 100.000x ha)
Biosphere reserves – 1 or more scientific reserves and national/ natural
Natura 2000 parks, and areas of sustainable development (10.000x – 100.000x ha)
Nature monuments – purpose to prevent degradation or destruction e.g. fall, cave, forest, rocks, etc.
Source: WWF-DCP, Protected Areas in Romania: Introductory notions, 2009.
In the pilot area, a total of 7 protected areas of national and local interest and 2 Natura 2000 sites have been established with the purpose to preserve and sustainably manage the typical biodiversity and natural resources. Details are given in table nr. 10 below, which shows that protected areas in the pilot area correspond to 0,003% of the national surface covered by protected areas and to 0,021% of Natura 2000 sites surface at national level. Indeed the surface covered by protected areas in the pilot area is not significant; however the need to reposition protected areas (and more generally the environment as well as natural resources) in the perception of local stakeholders is felt throughout the national protected areas network37 and the strategy selected for the pilot area could be replicated elsewhere in Romania.
37 The project Improving the Financial Sustainability of the Carpathian System of Protected Areas funded by United Nations Development Program in Romania can also be considered for further reference. More information are available at http://undp.ro/projects.php?project_ id=57.
32 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Table 10: Overview of protected areas established in the pilot area
Source: M. Martini
The strategy or finance mechanism developed for the pilot area helps bring protected area values closer and visible to local communities through responsible tourism (ecotourism). In fact, the strategy to develop the pilot area as an ecotorusim destination ends up institutionalising a relationship between protected areas administrators and tourism operators based on complementary needs: protected areas need funding to function well and achieve their conservation objectives, while tourism operators need well maintained natural sites for long-term business prosperity.
• According to government ordinance OUG nr. 57/2007, art. 5, point 1 on protected areas regime and conservation of natural habitats as well as wild flora and fauna, approved by Law nr. 49/2011 on securing on-site special protection and conservation measures for the natural heritage38, protected areas of national interest are administered by:
38 Based on OUG nr. 57/2007, art. 5, point 1 approved by Law nr. 49/2011, a different protection, conservation and use regime is granted to the following categories of protected areas: of national interest – scientific reserves, national parks, natural monuments, nature reserves, natural parks; of international interest – natural sites of universal natural heritage, geo-parks, wetlands of international importance, biosphere reserves; of community interest or Natura 2000 sites - SCI, SAC, SPA; of local or county interest – established on the public/private domain of TAU.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 33 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
• a specific administrative structure such as the protected area administration in collaboration with the respective Scientific Council and Administrative Consultative Council, or
• a so-called “custodian” as a physical or juridical entity39.
Either one of these roles can be covered by: central public authorities for the environment (e.g. Administration for the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve); independent directorates, companies and commercial entities; local public authorities; scientific institutes for research and education from the public and private sector; museums; and non-governmantal organizations. Delegation of administrative responsibilities is based on a contract signed with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change that requires full allocation of the necessary financial and human resources (except for the Administration for the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, which receives support from the State budget).
In the 24 protected areas administered by ROMSILVA40, the allocated budget covers mainly the operational costs. The majority of funding opportunities have come from EU funds such as Life Nature and OP Environment, as well as private funds such as grants, donations, etc. It must be noted that during 2007-2013 EU funds have been mainly given for the drafting of management plans, which are needed as a basis for concrete conservation activities; however, funds have been difficult to access due to the bureaucratic management of Romanian institutions. At the same time, private funding is generally given on a limited and temporary basis. The drafting and validation of management plans is still a priority in Romania; in the pilot area only 3 protected areas (Rooster’s Peak, Craiasca Forest and Poiana Brazilor nature reserves) have a management plan.
On average, the number of employees in a protected area in Romania is 7/100 km2 (much below the EU average of 41/100 km2 and the global average of 27/100 km2). Similarly, the level of equipment is insufficient and is due to the lack of financial resources. Finally, capacity building is a real need, the majority of employees having an educational background in forestry and partially in nature conservation.
As a consequence, protected areas in the pilot area are also faced with difficulties related to administrative, financial and human resources aspects. With respect to management responsibilities, Hoteni Lakes is the only one currently without a custodian. With respect to the availability of resources, the chapter on financing activities in the management plan mentions the following potential sources: the local or State budget; ROMSILVA; own activities e.g. social entreprenourship; a system of tariffs; projects funded through local, national or international programs; subsidies, donations, sponsorships, contributions.
39 So far, administrative structures exist for national parks, natural parks, biosphere rezerves, SCI bigger then 50.000 ha and SPA bigger then 100.000 ha. About 80% of national and natural parks are administered by the national forest directorate (ROMSILVA – Regia Nationala Padurilor39). Scientific reserves, nature reserves, nature monuments, SCI smaller ther 50.000 ha and SPA smaller then 100.000 ha can be administered by custodians. So far, in Romania there are 3 Biosphere reserves: Parcul National Retezat (1979), Pietrosu Rodnei (1979), Delta Dunarii (1990). 40 Cit. 36
34 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
3.2.3. wAste management
The EU framework Directive nr. 2008/98/EC on waste has been translated at national level by: OUG nr. 78/2000 on waste regime approved by Law nr. 426/2001, modified and completed by OUG nr. 61/2006, approved by Law nr. 27/2007; and Government Decision nr. 856/2002 on evidence about waste management and approving the list of waste, including dangerous waste (it abrogates Government Decision nr. 155/1999).
As a result, Romania has elaborated and implements:
1. The National Waste Management Strategy (SNGD);
2. The National Waste Management Plan (PNGD);
3. The Regional Waste Management Plans (PRGD);
4. The County Waste Management Plans (PJGD).
SNGD and PNGD are approved by Government Decision nr. 1470/2004, annex 2 being modified by Government Decision nr. 358/2007. The current SNGD covers the period 2007-2013. PRGD are approved by the former Ministry of Environment and Water Management and the Ministry of European Integration through Order nr. 1364/1499/2006 and have been elaborated by each regional agency for environmental protection in collaboration with representatives from local environmental authorities as well as local and county public administration authorities. PRGD are revised every 5 years or whenever necessary based on the annual monitoring report and according to the methodology for regional and county plans approved by the Ministry of Environment and Water Management through Order nr. 951/06.06.2007. The purpose of these plans is to create the necessary framework to achieve waste management objectives; besides, PRGD constitute the basis to access related EU funding opportunities, which can be used to better address the persisting need of a proper waste management infrastructure in the pilot area.
Concerning waste management in protected areas, waste legislation does not specifically refer to it. Thus a protected area management plan can play an important role in this sense. However, although the plan and the internal rules attached to it regulate the visiting behaviour and responsibility in relation to waste, in reality this is not an effective enforcement tool particularly given the context of resource constraints faced by protected areas in Romania. Voluntary clean-up activities performed through non-governmental organisations represent one of the best available solutions but it cannot be regarded as a single long-term solution. The mountain rescue service (Salvamont) could also be an option, at the initiative of the protected area administrator since waste collection is not a responsibility contemplated by the Government Decision nr. 77/23.01.2003 on establishing measures to prevent mountain accidents and organise rescue activities in mountain areas. In general, the implementation of a visitors management plan is recommended, whereby tourist flows and related intervention areas and measures could be identified with the help of electronic monitoring systems.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 35 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
3.2.4. the FUNCTIONING OF THE CSDF
1) Collection of funds from individual contributors
The first issue was the fiscal justification of the financial contribution, an aspect that tour-operators in particular have highlighted. The legal pilot41 has pointed out that sponsorship contracts between the manager of the fund and individual contributors are the optimal solution, given that fiscal deductions granted by law are higher than with other contractual arrangements. In any case, this does not exclude the possibility of combining different ways to collect funds from individual contributors, including service delivery contracts and direct contributions; this only makes financial monitoring more complex. In order to justify the amount of money declared in the sponsorship contract, individual contributors should pay via bank transfer.
A second issue was the possibility for individual contributors of selling souvenir maps produced under the Danube PES project. In this case donation contracts first between WWF-Romania and the interested individual contributors and then between the latter and the fund manager have been preferred to service delivery contracts. The service to be delivered was identified in terms of marketing/ promotion of tourism activities taking place in the pilot area; however, not all guesthouses had such an item in their accounting system to be able to register the amount to be paid for the service received.
A third issue so far only marginally considered concerns the possibility to receive financial contributions through local taxes. According to the law, the income constituting the local budget and including local taxes is primarily allocated to cover local needs. Thus, only in case of a budget surplus a local tax can be used to serve the needs of the sector/activity that generated it or as sponsorship. A city hall that is able to make a sponsorship towards the manager of a fund has to comply to the same sponsorship law as the other categories of individual contributors42.
2) Administration of funds from individual contributors
The main issue under this category was the designation of the entity responsible with the management of the fund. Non-governmental organisations (e.g. associations, foundations, etc) have been identified as the optimal solution given that physical persons or organisations performing commercial activities cannot benefit from sponsorships and local authorities do not have legal attributes to manage activities such as a finance mechanism. Furthermore, the associative form has been preferred given the much lower amount of start-up capital required. However, the establishment of a foundation can be considered in the future, depending on the uptake of the finance mechanism amongst local stakeholders as well as on the evolving needs of local communities43.
3) Monitoring of funds allocation
The issue of financial monitoring according to the sponsorship law refers to the necessity that the sponsor itself verifies how collected funds are
41 Cerasela Barboni, „Legal Framework for a PES scheme in the Maramures pilot area” (2011) 42 Idem. 43 Idem.
36 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
being administered44. This was another reason why it has been decided that the Local Partnership creates a Consultative Committee to which the Administrative Committee reports specifically about the activity of the CSDF. In fact, the law does not mention a specific form of exercising control by the sponsor, but recommends that in the case of a plurality of sponsors at least one or a few among them are periodically involved in the financial monitoring.
4) Eligibility of beneficiaries of the funds
In this case the issue was the entitlement of protected area administrators to receive financial contributions. Custody or administration contracts45 directly provided the solution, given that under the chapter on rights it is specified that the protected area administrator can establish tariffs with the purpose to complement the financial resources necessary for the good management of the natural protected area.
5) Legality of the initiative
The law does not forbid the implementation of a finance mechanism and according to the legal pilot, funds can be collected into a bank account or a trust fund. However, although the existence of a legal background has not been a real issue, it is worthwhile mentioning that the process of designating ecotourism destinations in Romania has provided a stronger legal and policy context to the initiative. In fact, the existence of a functional mechanism through which the private sector contributes directly to the implementation of conservation measures through financial or in-kind support is part of Criteria D.3.4.3: The private sector directly contributes to nature conservation measures financially or in-kind46.
3.3. stakeholders analysis
Table nr. 11 below is a schematic representation of key local actors and their institutional power with respect to the environmental problem identified, namely landscape degradation due to irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism behaviour. Issues that might influence the design and/ or the implementation of a finance mechanism for nature conservation are also highlighted.
Overall, the civil sector is highly dynamic and supportive of the initiative, partly because WWF-Romania is probably the only organisation with a vision of local sustainable development and the capacity to facilitate and foster cooperation between stakeholders. The Ecologic Association is also well established and accepted among local public institutions as well as amongst private community stakeholders (particularly those from the greenway area). CET and Maramuresul Turistic have the capacity and willingness to play key roles in promoting local sustainable development and responsible tourism in particular.
Local public institutions generally lack the capacity to jointly develop and implement a vision of local sustainable development. At communal level, they have so far revealed themselves to be “followers” in the process of elaborating
44 Idem. 45 ROSCI0089 Gutai-Creasta Cocosului and protected areas of national interest 2.577 Creasta Cocosului and 2.568 Taul Morarenilor, Custody contract Nr. 209/29.03.2011; Protected area of national interest 2.574 Craiasca Forest, Custody contract Nr. 237/08.04.2011. 46 National Authority for Tourism, Criteria for the designation of Ecotourism Destinations in Romania (2013).
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 37 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
a strategy for the development of the pilot area into an ecotourism destination, with Budesti City Hall being particularly reactive and supportive. At county level, the County Tourism Information Centre “MaramuresInfoTurism” understands both environmental and development needs of the pilot area and thanks to the competence and determination of its human resources they can play a key role in promoting the cultural and natural values of the pilot area both in regional planning and policy-making processes as well as at national and international events.
The private sector is somehow divided: on the one side there are those who understand and support the initiative to define and develop the ecotourism market in the pilot area, including changing their own behavior towards responsible tourism. On the other side there are the skeptical ones, particularly guesthouse managers, who judge opportunities mainly based on immediate returns. Given the novel character of the PES approach, not all private sector stakeholders from the tourism sector have been approached from the beginning; now that the strategy to be implemented in the pilot area is clear, it is also easier to further plan the engagement of other stakeholders, particularly the local artisans and farmers/ producers based on their relative importance for the preservation of traditions and the vitality of the local economy.
Finally, tourists are a key stakeholder group difficult to address directly. All the other stakeholders play a key role in raising their understading and knowledge of the cultural and natural values of the pilot area as well as their awareness about what is considered to be a responsible visiting behaviour.
With respect to key ES identified in the pilot area, on the one hand PA administrators are considered to be the main providers of the landscape beauty benefit, although they are neither land owners nor land users. On the other hand, tourists are direct users of the landscape beauty service, while local guesthouses and tour-operators are indirect users with a direct influence on tourists and also direct users of natural resources.
More generally, tourism service providers should form a network of “quality services”, while policy-makers play a decisive role in shaping a positive context for sustainable local development (including responsible tourism and particularly ecotourism) to take place.
Local producers, mid-size producers and local artisans are considered direct users of natural resources and should be regarded as an alternative source of funds.
38 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation Overview of local stakeholders and their relative importance Overview of local stakeholders and their relative importance 11: Table Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 39 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
40 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 41 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
42 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation Source: M. Martini Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 43 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
3.4. AVAILABLE OPTIONS
In the following tables, all options (measures) available to address the problem of landscape degradation and improper use of natural resources as a result of irresponsible and uncontrolled tourism behaviour are presented for each of the key groups of stakeholders, namely the providers and users of landscape beauty identified as the key ES on which they depend for their respective livelihoods. Business As Usual is also taken into consideration. These options (measures) are then placed in the framework of four policy options based on a multi-goal analysis: Business As Usual is considered also as policy option along with the implementation of the Local Partnership’s strategy for the development of Mara- Cosau-Creasta Cocosului as ecotourism destination, the implementation of the official ecotourism destination development criteria, and legal enforcement. Although ecotourism destination development involves a broad spectrum of measures, for the purpose of addressing specifically the problem of landscape degradation and improper use of natural resources the finance mechanism designed for the pilot area focuses on three essential measures presented in chapter 3.1 on the progress of the PES approach, namely awareness raising, capacity building, and responsible tourism / ecotourism. Finally, options (measures) and policy options available to ES providers and users are weighed based on Cost-Benefit analyses (full versions are included in the annex). Cost- Benefit analyses are not exhaustive given that identification of items and estimation of monetary values is based on assumptions.
All options are feasible under existing funding sources, except for the legal action that requires enforcement by the Ocna Sugatag City Hall to make water users pay the real cost of water. Furthermore, these options are complementary and do not exclude one another - they can have a cumulative contribution in the effort to minimise the problem. Results from the exploratory Costs and Benefits Analysis highlight the net benefits for tourism operators of opting for more sustainable business practices.
44 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation Table 12: ES Providers Table Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 45 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
46 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation Source: M. Martini. Adapted from Equitable Payments for Watershed Services, A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium. Developing Guide To A Services, Adapted from Equitable Payments for Watershed Source: M. Martini. Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 47 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation Table 13: ES users Table 48 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation Source: M. Martini. Adapted from Equitable Payments for Watershed Services, A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium. Developing Guide To A Services, Adapted from Equitable Payments for Watershed Source: M. Martini. Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 49 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation presented hereafter with the purpose to evaluate potential trade-offs between different policy alternatives (including presented hereafter with the purpose to evaluate potential trade-offs between different policy alternatives (including is analysis Multi-goal A of desired objectives: the selected strategy to develop pilot area into an ecotourism destination) with respect achievement Table 14: Multi-goal analysis Table Source: M. Martini. Adapted from I. Bond, I. Porras, Equitable Payments for Watershed Services. A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium, 2009. Developing Guide To A Services. Adapted from I. Bond, Porras, Equitable Payments for Watershed Source: M. Martini. 50 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation Cost-Benefit and Multi-goal Analysis 15: Cost-Benefit and Multi-goal Table Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 51 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation Source: M. Martini. Adapted from I. Bond, I. Porras, Equitable Payments for Watershed Services, A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium, 2009. Developing Guide To A Services, Adapted from I. Bond, Porras, Equitable Payments for Watershed Source: M. Martini.
52 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
3.5. the management and governance structure
To manage the CSDF an Administrative Committee has been established with the 3 constituting organisations, namely WWF-Romania, the Association of Ecotourism in Romania (AER) and the Center for Ecology and Tourism in Maramures (CET). In particular, WWF-Romania plays the role of expert in nature conservation, AER provides expertise on ecotourism and CET fulfills the administrative functions. The latter conducts the management of financial flows, meaning collection of contributions from tourism operators and allocations to protected area administrators through the CSDF. Decisions are taken based on a qualified majority, each organisation having 1 representative in the Administrative Committee with 1 vote.
The Administrative Committee consults and reports to the wider group of members constituting the Local Partnership and acting as Consultative Committee. The relationship between these two entities is formalised in the manual of procedures (v 1.0/07.03.13) elaborated for the management of the CSDF.
The operational chart below (chart nr. 1) provides a visual representation of the finance mechanism management structure:
Chart 1: Operational chart of PES under the protected areas framework
Source: M. Martini
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 53 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
3.6. legal framework
The set-up of the finance mechanism is based on contracts.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) – Agreement Nr. 1/08.02.12 was signed by 3 entities in February 2012:
• WWF-Romania;
• Local guesthouses and tour-operators;
• The Maramures Impact Association.
The objective of the agreement is to mobilise resources for the conservation of the natural systems surrounding The Maramures Heritage Trail as well as the benefits they provide. Under these premises, local guesthouses and tour-operators agreed to redirect money to a local fund to be used as contribution for conservation activities in the protected areas linked through the greenway.
Locals chose Maramures Impact Association to be the manager of the fund (namely the Steering Committee) and contributing guesthouses were going to become members of the association (thus participating in the General Assembly). It was in their interest to have somebody local and known managing their money, and to be able to take part in the decision-making. The WWF team took this as normal in situations when people are engaged in something new and innovative; it is part of the trust building process.
It took about 8 months to discuss the legal arrangements and finally, following a series of circumstances47, Maramures Impact Association decided to withdraw from its role. The MoU was revised in May 2013 – Annex Nr. 1/14.05.13: the scope of the finance mechanism was enlarged from the greenway area to the whole pilot area; the name of the local fund changed from the Biodiversity Conservation Fund into the Conservation and Sustainable Development Fund, with the new general objective to also support local development needs related to ecotourism; the system of payment was modified; and CET was accepted as the new manager of the local fund together with WWF-Romania and AER, both having a technical assistance role.
The cooperation between CET, WWF-Romania and AER is formalised through a Partnership Agreement – Nr. 1/10.05.13.
At the same time of the MoU revision, discussions started with a wider range of local stakeholders from the public and public sectors, civil society and protected areas administrative organisations to adhere to a sustainable development vision for the pilot area in which to embed the innovative finance mechanism. As a
47 The Association had in time taken a major role in the Local Action Group Mara-Gutai and no longer had the capacity to engage in the management of the finance mechanism. In addition, when faced with the legal proposal including the necessary changes in order to integrate the finance mechanism initiative among other activities implemented by the Association, the latter felt it as an “intrusion in its own business”. Overall, this was an important lesson learnt for the WWF team under the Danube PES project, namely that ownership of schemes might be affected by many factors, including cultural issues. Bankova-Todorova et al., op.cit.
54 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
result, local representatives have agreed to sign by the end of October 2013 a Local Partnership Agreement for the development of Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului as an ecotourism destination – Nr. 1/15.07.13 and to take responsibility for the realisation of the vision and the related objectives48 according to an annexed Action Plan. The latter includes actions meant to achieve the specific objectives set in the development strategy for the pilot area and by using the evaluation criteria for the designation of ecotourism destinations in Romania as guidelines. The Action Plan is supposed to be regularly updated on a six-months or yearly basis.
So far 14 organisations have adhered to the Local Partnership, which remains open to other organisations interested in joining.
In general, the contracts underpinning the implementation of the finance mechanism have a duration of 2 years and are authomatically renewed, if no objection appears.
Financial contributions to the CSDF are based on donation and sponsorship contracts signed each specific year of collection or allocation of funds.
3.7. the payment system
The MoU represents the private sector commitment to contribute financially to nature conservation in the pilot area, where individual tourism businesses operate. According to the MoU, 7 local guesthouses and 3 tour-operators have agreed to redirect into the local fund on a yearly basis, 2 Ron each per tourist per every night spent at the guesthouse directly or through a program. When the Annex to the MoU was signed, the payment was redesigned into an annual fixed contribution in the following terms (table nr. 16):
Table 16: Payment system for ES users
2013 (for 2012) 2014 onward
Guesthouses < 5 rooms = 50 Ron/year (11 Euro/year) Guesthouses < 5 rooms = 100 Ron/year (22 Euro/year)
Guesthouses > 5 rooms = 150 Ron/year (34 Euro/year) Guesthouses > 5 rooms = 300 Ron/year (67 Euro/year)
Tour-operators = 250 Ron/year (56 Euro/year) Tour-operators = 500 Ron/year (112 Euro/year)
Exchange rate of 4,4589 on 4 February 2014, according to National Romanian Bank (www.cursbnr.ro).
Source: M. Martini
48 There are 8 objectives in the Local Partnership Agreement: 1. To create a network of quality services in the tourism sector; 2. To develop sustainably and promote the area Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului as ecotourism destination model; 3. To build members’ capacity to administer and promote the destination as well as the tourism services; 4. To create a visual identity for the destination and implement a coherent external communication strategy; 5. To conserve and build the value of natural protected areas as well as of the traditional landscape; 6. To implement a model finance mechanism for nature conservation; 7. To improve tourism related infrastracture at destination level; 8. To preserve and build the value of the traditional architectural heritage. Local Partnership Agreement Nr. 1/15.07.13.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 55 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
In both cases, the amounts have been negotiated between the WWF team and the local stakeholders based on the principle of willingness and capacity to pay.
During the first year of implementation of the financing mechanism, a total of about 500 Euro was collected into the CSDF. The amount is almost symbolic but, in fact, it reflects openness towards new initiatives mixed with a sense of responsibility and a “follower attitude”, the need to mature trust and confidence in a new way of doing things and the entrepreneurial effort to manage their own money differently. The difference between the two categories of stakeholders is in favour of tour-operators in terms of financial power as well as understanding and commitment towards responsible business behaviour.
It has to be mentioned that 1 guesthouse withdrew from the scheme at the moment of signing the Annex to the MoU, but a new guesthouse recently joined it, showing that innovation understood as a new way of thinking and doing things is a process, characterised by a so-called natural selection of those really interested in being part of the change.
Besides the annual fixed contribution, a souvenir map was produced under the Danube PES project and put up for sale as a complementary source of funds. Based on donation contracts, interested local guesthouses or tour-operators are entitled to sell a souvenir map for the minimum price of 5 Ron. In the future, other sources of funds are going to be explored, such as the 2% initiative49, a percentage of the selling price of local products and handicrafts, annual fees for the use of the local brand (logo) created to promote the ecotourism destination and its products, co-financing of local conservation projects by using CSDF funds and thus multiplying the overall amount of money actually invested in nature conservation.
As regards the allocation of financial resources collected into the CSDF, these are granted to protected area administrators responsible for the selected pilot areas based on a combination of the following criteria:
a) Total available amount collected;
b) Visibility/significance for the local community of measures identified to enhance landscape beauty.
Initially, the intent was to analyse the financial needs of the protected area. The WWF team has adapted the template created for PA administrations under the project Improving the Financial Sustainability of the Carpathian System of Protected Areas 50 51 to the needs of PAs under custody, which differs in terms of their relation with ROMSILVA and thus in the accounting system. However, when testing the template on the ground, protected areas administrators have admitted the difficulty to plan resources in a systematic and comprehensive way given that
49 Doilasuta.
56 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
surfaces of protected areas in the pilot area are small and funding availability is volatile. Additionally, for the WWF team this is also an indication of the need to build the capacity of protected area administrators with respect to financial planning and fundraising. 3.8. Implementation timeframe
Based on the experience of the WWF Programme on Equitable Payments for Watershed Services52, which uses a 3-phase approach for the implementation of PES schemes, the WWF team has organised data and information collected under the Danube PES project in a logical sequence. As a result, the process of designing and implementing the finance mechanism in the pilot area is also organised in stages or phases as shown in table nr. 17:
• Phase I (2010-2013) – In the beginning, a series of data and information was gathered in order to define the environmental problem representing the focus of the finance mechanism to be designed and demonstrated. Potential contributors and beneficiaries of PES under the protected areas framework (so-called buyers and sellers of ES) were also identified and engaged at this stage;
• Phase II (2014-2016) – Financial resources gathered under the identified PES approach through both the CSDF and other complementary sources are allocated in selected pilot areas, to the implementation of measures addressing the problem of landscape degradation. Changes in the behaviour of different stakeholders are also monitored and evaluated during this stage;
• Phase III (to be confirmed) – Ideally, this is the stage when ES buyers and sellers voluntarily sign legally binding agreements for the delivery of the established benefits. In the pilot area it is not yet clear whether there will be a phase III in which buyers will pay for the benefit of maintained landscape beauty or whether the mechanism will continue to be based on voluntary contributions to simply support the necessary land/protected areas management measures.
52 I. Bond, I. Porras, Equitable Payments for Watershed Services. A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium, 2009.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 57 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Table 17: Phased strategy for the repositioning of protected areas amongst local communities
Source: M. Martini
Between October 2012 and June 2013 the strategy to develop the pilot area into an ecotourism destination53 was also elaborated, based on consultations with local stakeholders. In July 2013 the WWF team elaborated the application through which Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului entered the evaluation process coordinated by NAT as an ecotourism destination; as part of the application procedure, representatives of the public and private sectors, protected area managers and civil society were invited to a working group to perform the autoevaluation of the area according to the official criteria. The visit of the evaluation commission from the National Authority for Tourism (NAT) took place in June 2014. The status of ecotourism destination is granted for 3 years and it includes recommendations to support the achievement of optimum requirements, overall strengthening the context for the improvement of local policies in the sense of greater sustainability and harmonisation between communities.
53 A. Blumer, Development concept for the destination Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului, Maramures, 2013.
58 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
3.9. monitoring and reporting
The monitoring of the finance mechanism is of 2 types, financial monitoring and technical monitoring.
Financial monitoring is done by CET during the financial contributions collection period, which takes place in the beginning of each calendar year, and according to monitoring criteria presented in table nr. 18 below.
Table 18: Financial monitoring criteria
Indicator Means of verification
Nr. and type of financial contributor Sponsorship contracts
Total amount of financial contributions available in the fund (bank account) Bank statement
Nr. of souvenir maps sold Donation contracts
Total amount of financial resources from selling of souvenir maps Bank statement
Source: M. Martini
The general financial monitoring is done by an external accountant at the end of each calendar year, after both collection and allocation phases are completed. The objective of this step of the financial monitoring is to verify whether the Administrative Committee has managed the funds under the CSDF according to legal agreements.
In order to monitor financial progress in time as well as to assure a sound management and particularly the sustainability of the CSDF, a cashflow analysis has been developed for the period 2012-2016 and based on this a business plan or fundraising strategy can be further elaborated.
Once a year (in December), a report is produced and distributed to members of the Local Partnership by the Administrative Committee.
The technical monitoring has the purpose to monitor the impact of the measures identified to maintain landscape beauty. The Administrative Committee together with relevant stakeholders will further develop a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Protocol to guide action towards the achievement of the proposed objectives. A checklist will be also included to better capture the extent to which progress towards the objectives is achieved year on year, but also the obstacles that may appear along the way.
The Administrative Committee monitors progress in the implementation of measures twice a year on a six-month basis. As regards the measures that depend on the establishment of a waste and visitors management infrastructure, monitoring will be possible once specific needs and feasibility aspects are further identified and discussed with relevant stakeholders (progress in their implementation will have to be monitored throughout the year based on an agreement between the protected area administrator and/or the city hall and the third party that is going to be responsible for the waste infrastructure management and waste collection). The technical monitoring criteria are presented in table nr. 19.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 59 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Table 19: Technical monitoring criteria
Source: M. Martini
54 A total of 784 tourists/season was estimated in 2009-2010. E. Pop, The Maramures Heritage Trail and its local guesthouses: a tourism perspective, 2010.
60 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
Once a year (in December), a report is produced and distributed to members of the Local Partnership by the Administrative Committee. At the right time, this will also include information provided by the protected area administrators related to the monitoring of the waste collection progress.
For transparency reasons towards the general public, news related to progress in the implementation of the strategy to develop the pilot area into an ecotourism destinations and particularly about the activity of the CSDF will be posted on WWF Romania’s PES Danube project web page and on the website of the Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului ecotourism destination.
3.10. Sustainability
This chapter considers all three aspects of sustainability related to the financing mechanism implemented in the pilot area, namely economic/financial, social and environmental sustainability. Given that the strategy to reposition protected areas in the perception of local stakeholders (through the development of the pilot area as an ecotourism destination) is used to reconcile nature conservation and economic development needs and objectives by showing their complementarity versus their perceived opposition, the WWF team has looked at principles of sustainability as a cornerstone for long-term results.
In the present case, economic/financial sustainability refers to:
• The management of the CSDF – According to the cashflow analysis for the period 2012-2015, fundraising needs appear starting Year 4 – 2015;
• The implementation of measures to enhance landscape beauty – Fundraising needs are reflected in the costs-benefits analysis;
• The implementation of actions to develop the pilot area into an ecotourism destination – Fundraising needs are reflected in the related concept or strategy document.
In order to gather the missing resources with respect to both directions, the WWF team has taken into consideration the elaboration of a fundraising strategy.
From a social point of view, all dimensions of social sustainability55 are ensured:
• Equity – the financing mechanism is based on equitable payments, meaning that both users and providers of landscape beauty as the key ES are able to pay according to their financial power; also, the costs-benefits analysis shows how opportunities and outcomes are identified for both.
• Diversity – the participation of different categories of community stakeholders (e.g. economic actors, protected areas administrators, public authorities, etc.) is promoted through the Local Partnership which is open to any entity that adheres to the vision and objectives of this partnership.
55 Wikipedia.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 61 Designing a finance mechanism for biodiversity conservation
• Social cohesion – the principle of networking is endorsed by the Local Partnership and encouraged particularly with respect to the creation of tourism-related quality services. In this sense, specific measures (e.g. ecotourism destination website, etc.) are aimed at developing supporting processes and structures that promote connectedness within and outside the community at the formal, informal and institutional level.
• Quality of life – the purpose of selecting a strategy for developing the pilot area as an ecotourism destination is that of improving business opportunities as well as natural resources management, overall strengthening the local economy and fostering a better quality of life for all members at the individual, group and community level (e.g. healthy food, housing, education/capacity building, employment), in a way that is putting in balance the ambition to innovate/grow and the need to preserve the local identity and traditional culture.
• Democracy and governance – decision-making processes with respect to the management of the CSDF as well as of the ecotourism destination are democratic processes, open to interested and willing stakeholders and accountable through monitoring structures/procedures.
• Maturity - the Local Partnership is also a good indicator of the stakeholders’ level of ownership of the selected PES approach and the financing mechanism; more generally, it proves acceptance of their responsibility and shows the acknowledgement that desired growth and improvement require such skills as multilateral communication, responsible behaviour, capacity building, and visioning.
Last but not least, environmental sustainability is tackled through the specific measures designed to stimulate the transition towards a responsible tourism behaviour, including reducing the pressure on the use of natural resources, and aimed at restoring landscape beauty. With respect to the use of natural resources, additional feasibility studies are recommended in order to improve understanding of water consumption trends and the related ecosystems capacity to supply water and the impact of grassland management practices on habitats evolution56. This could result in the so-called layering of ES (for example, water quantity could be added to landscape beauty), a possibility that highlights the flexibility and the integrated nature of the financing mechanism selected for the pilot area.
56 The Annex – Document 4 include preliminary research about land tenure and water management in Romania.
62 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Conclusions
While we are learning to value biodiversity and the benefits or services it provides for human well-being at individual, business and community level, and have made enormous scientific advances in exploring its potential, we continue to lose important species and habitats as confirmed by thousands of reports done by national, regional or international institutions. In this context, sustainable conservation financing is starting to play a crucial role in addressing several economic and financial limitations in the current efforts undertaken by individuals, companies, organisations and governments; some of these limitations are insufficient funds for protected areas and biodiversity conservation, subsidies and private investments with an adverse impact, undervaluation of the natural capital and underdevelopment of related markets, etc. While the positive outcome of some of the mechanisms has already been demonstrated, as it is for tourism user fees, bio-prospecting payments, debt-for-nature swaps conservation trust funds and carbon investment projects, other initiatives are still under testing, such as green bonds and other securitised instruments, payments for ecosystem services schemes, green insurance products, resource extraction fees (e.g. on oil/ gas exploration, logging, and mining) that are redirected towards environmental investment funds that support conservation-friendly enterprises57.
The innovative character of the PES approach identified for the pilot area within Maramures County in Romania and presented in chapter 2, lies in the fact that it considers PES under the protected areas framework and encompasses the financial needs of protected areas, the delivery of ecosystem services and the quest for sustainable development opportunities in rural areas. At the same time with the Danube PES project, another pioneering initiative in Romania is being implemented under the project Improving the Financial Sustainability of the Carpathian System of Protected Areas, funded by UNDP GEF58; however, although it has stressed the importance to protect the ecosystem services delivered by protected areas, it has mainly dealt with improving the legislative framework and the sustainable financing strategies of protected areas, on the one side, and the institutional and individual capacities of management authorities and other local stakeholders to implement those strategies, on the other side.
Experience in Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului is still at its early stages, but the Technical Report has put forward evidence that local, regional and national conditions are promising in several aspects, including stakeholders engagement, policy elaboration, improved conservation/environmental management within protected areas and responsible business development. In particular, the PES approach in Maramures:
• Aims at demonstrating the benefits of maintaining ecosystem services for local livelihoods, creating a viable partnership between protected areas administrators, public authorities and business stakeholders (particularly from the tourism sector), which will serve as an inspirational example of what can be achieved in rural communities located in High Nature Value areas;
57 Conservation Finance.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 63 Conclusions
• Focuses on turning the problems caused by a severe lack of funds and human resources for the implementation of conservation measures in protected areas into opportunities for people and nature alike, providing a clear business case for maintaining landscape beauty and natural ecosystems as well as for developing a responsible tourism business behaviour in Romania;
• Emphasises the value of ecosystem services, and based on a multi-level communication effort aims at raising awareness on the connection with and dependence of human activities on nature, thus stimulating a greater sense of pride in/value of existing habitats, species and unique landscapes;
• Recognises ecotourism as an evolving new market in Europe, addressing the urgent need to diversify local economies and limit the migration of young and educated population, and so re-establishing a balance between urban and rural areas. Moreover, by attracting visitors to enjoy exciting and true cultural and nature experiences, ecotourism contributes to the financial sustainability of nature conservation efforts.
Overall, this initiative is about exploring new ways for people to earn a fair living from nature while respecting nature, spreading a vision whereby a diverse range of actors are willing to use natural resources responsibly and to pay the full cost of nature that allows to maintain functional natural processes and to secure the delivery of benefits which we all enjoy either directly or indirectly. In this way, natural processes as well as interconnected habitats for important biodiversity and wildlife are maintained based on viable local development opportunities. Local organisations have already started to apply for funding according to the ecotourism destination development strategy and protected area administrators from other eco-destinations in Romania are looking at this experience for replication. Still, several challenges lie ahead: raising missing funds for conservation and related responsible business/sustainable development measures, gathering extra data and information as supporting evidence for ecosystem services delivery and maintaining stakeholders’ motivation and leadership/ ownership in the long term.
Finally, an essential lesson learned by the WWF team is that achieving a sustainable management of natural resources as well as the integration of the ecosystem services approach into decision-making in Romania, particularly in favour of attaining 2020 Europe Strategy and 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy objectives and other international commitments, requires a fundamental shift in the way people and institutions think and act; in particular, governmental authorities must develop the capacity to create visions of sustainable development correlated with the country’s natural endowements and to plan strategically in support of policies that are coherently and harmoniously elaborated. In this sense, the process leading to the formulation of the Partnership Agreement between Romania and the European Commisssion for the programming period 2014-2020 is being a valuable endeavour from which important lessons can be derived and further turned into successful common practice.
64 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Glossary of terms
Intervention area – The physical space where conservation measures are going to be applied in order to restore an ecosystem service or address an environmental problem. It can as well means the skills domain for which capacity building measures are designed to improve performance.
Pilot area – The (project) area selected for demonstration of the PES approach as well as the exact location where conservation measures are applied and monitored to verify progress towards restoring the selected ecosystem service or minimizing the targeted environmental problem.
Ecosystem Services – The multiple benefits that well functioning ecosystems bring to people. These benefits can be roughly divided into: supporting services – those services creating conditions necessary for the provision of all other ecosystem services, for example photosynthesis or soil formation; provisioning services – all products coming from ecosystems, for example food, fiber, fuel, herbs and medicinal plants, genetic resources, drinking water; regulating services – the capacity of ecosystems to regulate important natural processes, for example regulation of climate, quality and quantity of water; cultural services – non- material benefits from ecosystems, for example the aesthetic and recreational value of landscapes that we enjoy.
Provider of ecosystem services – land owners or administrators that by implementing appropriate land management practices contribute to preserving and maintaining key ecosystems functions, and thus ensure the delivery of environmental services to individuals, businesses, and communities.
User of ecosystem services – Juridical or physical entities willing to pay an equitable price for receiving a desired or needed environmental service.
Payment for Ecosystem Services – A voluntary transaction in cash or in- kind, between at least a buyer and a seller in exchange of at least a well-defined environmental service.
Sustainable Financing Mechanism – A method to help ensure long-term sustainable financing for projects or programmes conservation objectives beyond their lifespan. In this sense, the terms conservation finance and sustainable financing are used interchangeably. While traditional fundraising secures financial resources from government, non-governmental, corporate or individual sources generally in support of a project’s development and implementation, conservation finance aims at generating sustaining financial resources over the longer term (five or more years) by introducing innovative market-based approaches such as debt- for-nature swaps, environmental funds, payment for ecosystem services, etc.
National Parks - National parks are natural protected areas established with the aim of protecting and conserving representative samples for the national bio-geographic realm, containing natural elements with a special value from the point of view of physical-geographic, floristic, fauna-related, hydrologic, geologic, paleontological, speleological, pedological aspects. They can be visited for scientific, educational, recreational and touristic purposes. In the perimeter of national parks only traditional activities taken on by local communities are
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 65 Glossary of terms
allowed, and are regulated through the management plan of the protected area. National parks correspond to IUCN category II of protected areas.
Nature Parks - Natural parks are those natural protected areas whose aims are to protect and conserve landscapes in which the interaction between human activities and nature has created a distinct area over time, with an important landscape and/or cultural value and sometimes with a great biological diversity. The management of natural parks has to ensure the maintenance of a harmonious relationship between people and nature by protecting the diverse habitats and landscapes, promoting the traditional land uses, encouraging and consolidating traditional activities, practices and culture that define the local populations. They can also be visited for recreational and touristic activities; scientific and educational endeavours are encouraged too. Natural parks correspond to IUCN category V of protected areas.
Scientific Reserves - Scientific reserves are protected natural areas whose aims are to protect and conserve natural terrestrial or marine habitats, containing representative elements of scientific interest because of certain floristic, fauna- related, geologic, speleological, paleontological, pedological aspects. The management of scientific reserves ensure a strict protection regime through which habitats are preserved in a state as close to their natural state. Any human activities are forbidden in these areas; the exception to this rule are research, educational and ecotourism activities which can be undertaken under certain limitations specified in the management plans and approved by the competent scientific forum and by the administrator of the reserve. Scientific reserves correspond to IUCN category Ia of protected areas.
Nature Reserves - Nature reserves are those natural protected areas whose aims are to protect and conserve important habitats and species under floristic, fauna- related, forestry, hydrologic, geological, speleological, paleontological, pedological aspects. The management of these nature reserves is done in a differentiated manner depending on their characteristics, through active measures, so as to ensure the maintenance of the habitats and/or to protect certain species, groups of species or biotic populations. Apart from scientific endeavours, touristic and educational can also be organised and some sustainable uses of natural resources. Land uses and the exploitation of resources that undermine the aims of the reserves are strictly forbidden. These reserves correspond to IUCN category IV of protected areas.
Tourism destination – A geographic area with territorial limits and with the following characteristics:
• a consistent and coherent marketing image;
• a variety of tourism products that form the foundation of the image promoted to tourists;
• a network of general and specific services which allow for the tourism products to come to fruition in close correlation with the marketing image;
• the existence of an administrator/coordinator of the destination, with a defined policy and implementation instruments.
66 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Glossary of terms
Ecotourism destination – A tourism destination which further has the following characteristics:
• promotes a responsible marketing image;
• businesses managed in a sustainable way prevail within the destination;
• concrete support is given to local communities;
• tourists are informed of the natural character of the destination;
• concrete nature conservation measures are implemented within the destination.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 67 List of references Feasibility studies
Internal and external organic beef meat market, OEMN Project, 2008
WWF-DCP, Evaluation of ES delivered by forests and grasslands ecosystems in Runcu-Firiza catchment basin, 2008
POP, Edit, The Maramures Heritage Trail and its local guesthouses: a tourism perspective, 2010
BUCUR Costel, Identification and quantification of the ecosystem services standing behind The Maramures Heritage Trail in Historical Maramures, Romania, 2010
POP, Edit, Evaluation of ecosystem services provided by grasslands on the greenway territory, 2011
RUSU, Cristian, Water price policy in Romania, ANAR, 2011
BARBONI, Cerasela, Legal Framework for a PES scheme in the Maramures pilot area, 2011
MARTINI, Monia, Private PES scheme in the Maramures pilot area: Developement process and lessons learned, 2012
BLUMER, Andrei, SWOT analysis of the Maramures pilot area, 2012
BLUMER, Andrei, Development concept for the destination Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului, Maramures, 2013
68 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 List of references
Publications
WWF-DCP, Promoting Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Related Sustainable Financing Schemes in the Danube Basin. Project Document, 2009
WWF International, One Europe More Nature (OEMN) – European Challenges Natural Solutions: New Perspectives for People and Nature in Rural Areas, 2005
WWF International, Maramures – A WWF One Europe More Nature Pilot Project Site, 2005
WWF-DCP, Illegal logging in Romania, 2005
CHIS, Timur V., Zone umede din Tara Maramuresului, Sighetu Marmatiei: Aska Grafika, 2007
MOYE, Melissa, Resources for Implementing the WWF Project & Programme Standards, WWF-US Conservation Finance Program, 2007
LUKACS, Elisabeta, Program pentru protectia peisajului construit in Maramures. Localitatiile Budesti si Sarbi. Context geografic si historic, Romanian Order of Architects (OAR), 2009
MARTINI, Monia, The Rural Development Policy: What changes are needed? Rural Development Report Romania, FERN, 2009
WWF-DCP, Protected Areas in Romania: Introductory notions, 2009
BOND, Ivan, PORRAS Ina, Equitable Payments for Watershed Services. A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium, 2009
Coalitia ONG Natura 2000 Romania, Protected areas of Romania. Threats to protected areas and problems with which administrators are confronted, 2010
PAPP, Cristian R., BOURIAUD, Laura, BOURIAUD, Olivier, Climate change and forests, 2011
BIRDA, Alin, Financial analysis for the natural protected areas targeted by the project, determine their level of necessary funding and deliver training for the financial staff of the PA’s, 2011
BUCUR, Costel, STROBEL, David, Valuation of ecosystem services in Carpathians protected areas. Guidelines for rapid assessment, WWF-DCP, 2012.
EEA, Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Consultation Report, no 4.3, 2013
ASSOCIATION OF ECOTOURISM IN ROMANIA, Legislative problems of local guesthouses in Romania, 2013
BANKOVA-TODOROVA, Maya, MARTINI, Monia, LUCIUS, Irene, GRIGOROVA, Yulia, TRESIERRA, Julio, Lessons learnt from testing payments for ecosystem services in the Lower Danube Basin, 2013
EUROPEAN UNION, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystems assessment under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion Paper, 2013
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 69 List of references
Legal acts
Official letter Nr. 4877/639/09.09.2010, Maramures County Council
Official letter Nr.1301/25.03.13, Embassy of Italy in Bucharest
Official letter Nr.1963/11.04.13, Maramures County Council
Criteria for the designation of Ecotourism Destinations in Romania, National Authority for Tourism, June 2013
Memorandum of Understanding, Agreement Nr. 1/08.02.12
Memorandum of Understanding, Annex Nr. 1/14.05.13
Partnership Agreement Nr. 1/10.05.13
Local Partnership Agreement for the development of Mara - Cosau - Creasta Cocosului into an ecotourism destination Nr. 1/15.07.13
Custody contract Nr. 209/29.03.2011, ROSCI0089 Gutai-Creasta Cocosului and protected areas of national interest 2.577 Creasta Cocosului and 2.568 Taul Morarenilor
Custody contract Nr. 237/08.04.2011, Protected area of national interest 2.574 Craiasca Forest
Hydrographic Basin Somes-Tisa Management Plan
Rooster’s Peak Nature Rezerve Management Plan, Ecologic Association, December 2006
Cheile Tatarului Nature Rezerve Management Plan, Baia Mare Forest District
Criaiasca Forest Nature Rezerve Management Plan, Baia Mare Forest District
Poiana Brazilor Swamp Nature Rezerve Management Plan, Baia Mare Forest District
National Strategy for the Development of Ecotourism in Romania, 2009
National Rural Development Program 2007-2013, consolidated version, March 2009
National Forest Program, Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Rural Development, 2005
Government Ordonance - OUG Nr.139/2005 on Romanian Forests Administration, modified and completed by Law nr.38/2006
Ordinance Nr. 56/14.01.2011, Ministry for Regional Development and Tourism
Law Nr. 151/15.07.1998 on regional development in Romania
70 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 List of references
Websites http://www.apia.org.ro www.catara.ro www.conservationfinance.org http://www.gal-maragutai.ro http://www.ghidulprimariilor.ro http://www.madr.ro http://www.maramuresgreenways.ro http://www.mmediu.ro http://www.natura2000.ro http://www.panda.org http://www.rosilva.ro http://undp.ro http://www.en.wikipedia.org
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 71 Annexes: Document 1 Annexes
Document 1 – Cost-Benefit Analysis, M. Martini, 2013
Document 2 – Cashflow Analysis, M. Martini, revised version, 2013
Document 3 - Profiles of protected areas in the pilot area, adapted from protected areas management plans, M. Martini, 2013
Document 4 – Land tenure and water management in Romania, adapted from Water price policy in Romania (cit. feasibility pilot) and The Rural Development Policy: What changes are needed? (cit. publication), M. Martini, 2013
Document 1 - COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
72 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 1
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 73 Annexes: Document 1
74 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + CY CY 0 0 96 150 100 000 3 850 Euro
4 + 4 + 0 CY CY 0 Analysis :
3 + 3 + 0 CY CY 0 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + CY CY 0 0 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 0 CY CY 0 ear (CY) ear (CY) 350 Current Y 3 500 3 850 3 850 Current Y 100 000 100 000 100 000 2% Source of information WWF Romania WWF Romania Source of information WWF Romania entation and educational activities our toursim agency (for more information see http://www ble T As and of As needs ficially designated as As and of mobilizing As needs Assumptions (probable) The study area is of Romanian ecotourism destination and public funding is available for promotion Assumptions (probable) Guesthouses, tour-operators, camping facilities, city halls, local guides understand the importance of communicating to individual tourists about P mobilizing funding for P Guesthouses, tour-operators, camping facilities, city halls, local guides understand the importance of communicating to individual tourists about P funding for P fer area profile A s Peak Nature Reserve ’ , plastified) & ecodestination) A factsheets (P A distributed to guesthouses, tour-operators, camping facilities, city halls, local guides ( 100 copies each, recycled paper 100 Euro printing, 250 design Estimated cost of meetings with guesthouses, tour-operators, camping facilities, city halls, local guides (about 100 meetings, fuel from Baia Mare and return 150 lei/ 35 Euro) Estimated cost of P including activities, P Description Estimated value of marketing mix (participation to national and international tourism fairs - 2 /year for years including promotional material) Description s Peak Nature Reserve, including buf ’ alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implem rules, A alue) wareness Raising (ecotourism destination area, international au dience outreach) Rooster alue) A L andscape degradation - abusive fires places and urban waste from tourists
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly proba Association – Custodian of Rooster As in the context of
alue Discount Rate otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: Ecologic Costs Meetings to explain about P values and benefits. Communications materials T T Benefits Marketing of P the ecotourism destination T T Present V Problem: caused by irresponsible and unc ontrolled camping Intervention area: Option (action):
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 75 Annexes: Document 1 1 5 + 5 + 145 000 131 331 CY CY 1 81 145 000 3 060 1 500 500 2 000 768 505 828 452 59 947 Euro
4 + 4 + 1 500 500 2 000 145 000 133 958 CY CY 1 848 145 000 3 060 Analysis :
3 + 3 + 1 885 145 000 136 637 CY CY 1 500 500 145 000 3 060 2 000 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + 145 000 139 369 CY CY 1 500 500 2 000 1 922 145 000 3 060 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 142 157 50 980 145 000 CY CY 145 000 3 060 1 500 50 000 500 52 000 ear (CY) ear (CY) 1 500 Current Y 1 500 1 500 Current Y 145 000 3 060 145 000 145 000 2% Association Association rail in Historical Maramures, WWF Romania WWF Romania Source of information Ecologic Source of information Feasibility study: BUCUR Costel, Identification and quantification of the ecosystem services standing behind The Maramures Heritage T Romania, 2010 Ecologic entation and educational activities our toursim agency (for more information see http://www ble ficient T surface with open access A Method: tourism related income based on natural values estimated in the pilot area in 2010 Craiasca Forest does not sell as a stand alone program Assumptions Assumptions (probable) Maintenance should be performed maximum every 2 years; insuf resources and uncertain cashflow availability Electronic system used due to large P Designed based on tourist flows monitoring results obtained from tourist flows management system fer area s Peak Nature Reserve ’ or cultural points A -based visitor Estimated value of landscape beauty Estimated gains from selling of day program including visit to Craiasca Forest thematic trail: 85 Euro/person if basic program includes visit to another P of interest / 6 times per year with group 6 tourists - the added value of a guided tour in Craiasca Forest thematic trail is 5 Euro/person for a group of 6 tourists Estimated cost of information boards and trails maintenance Estimated cost of IT management system Estimated cost of waste management system (collection, monitoring) Description Description s Peak Nature Reserve, including buf ’ alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implem alue) Rooster alue) Responsible Tourism/Ecotourism L andscape degradation - abusive fires places and urban waste from tourists
experience -based visitor 1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly proba Association – Custodian of Rooster
alue Discount Rate otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V our programs). Remarks: Ecologic Costs Implementation of IT management system Implementation of waste management system (collection, monitoring) T T Benefits Better access to responsible tourism / ecotourism market T T Present V Quality of the tourists’ during individual or organised group excursions (e.g. Greenway T Problem: caused by irresponsible and unc ontrolled camping Intervention area: Option (action): Marking and maintenance of information boards and trails
76 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 0 CY CY ٠ 516 493 250 570 000 570 250 3 258 100 0 3 258 100 Euro
4 + 4 + 250 570 000 570 250 0 0 CY CY 526 823 Analysis : -
3 + 3 + 537 359 0 0 CY CY 250 570 000 570 250 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + 0 0 CY CY 570 250 250 570 000 548 106 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 0 0 CY CY 559 069 570 250 250 570 000 ear (CY) ear (CY) 570 250 250 570 000 Current Y 570 250 Current Y 0 2% 0 Maramures Mountains Nature Park (administration contract) Source of information Maramures Mountains Nature Park Source of information our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T surface with open A ficient resources available The minimum amount ficient resources available Assumptions access. applicable to physical persons is considered as yearly estimate Assumptions (highly probable) Clean-up is a time consuming activity; insuf It is impossible to identify law-breakers due to: insuf for monitoring; P Estimated cost of clean-up activities - 50 Euro/action * 5 actions/year = 250 Euro/year Estimated income loss corresponding to cost of sanctions established by law - Art. 48 c establishes 5.000.000 - 2.500.000 lei ( 1.140.000 - 570.000 Euro) for physical persons and 25.000.000 - 10.000.000 lei ( 5.700.000 - 2.278.000 Euro) for juridical entities Description Description As Usual alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) Landscape degradation - urban waste from locals and tourists Craiasca Forest Nature Reserve alue) Business
Art. 48 c). 1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate . 2001 / 462 . 2000 / 236 approved by otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: Option (action): Maramures Mountains Nature Park – Custodian of the Craiasca Forest Reserve Costs Non enforcement of law - 'Sanctions derived from not complying to Government Urgency Ordonance nr Law nr (Chp. 7 - Sanctions, T T Benefits T T Present V Problem: Intervention area: Long-term reduced landscape value – unpleasant view due to dispersed waste —
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 77 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 516 267 CY CY 570 000 272 300 570 000 300 3 254 958 3 256 672 1 714 Euro
4 + 4 + 300 570 000 300 526 592 CY CY 570 000 277 Analysis : -
3 + 3 + 283 537 124 CY CY 300 570 000 300 570 000 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + 547 866 CY CY 570 000 300 300 288 570 000 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 558 824 570 000 CY CY 294 570 000 300 300 ear (CY) ear (CY) 300 300 570 000 Current Y 300 Current Y 570 000 570 000 2% Source of information Maramures Mountains Nature Park Source of information Maramures Mountains Nature Park (administration contract) our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T surface with open access A Assumptions (slightly probable) Resources are available to cover P Assumptions (slightly probable) It is possible to identify individual law- breakers, so far sanctions have not been applied, thus the minimum amount applicable to physical persons is considered as yearly estimate Art. 48 c establishes 5.000.000 2.500.000 lei ( 1.140.000 - 570.000 Euro) for physical persons and 25.000.000 - 10.000.000 lei ( 5.700.000 - 2.278.000 Euro) for juridical entities Estimated cost of monitoring activities Estimated income corresponding to cost of sanctions established by law - Description Description alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) Legal Enforcement Landscape degradation - urban waste from locals and tourists Craiasca Forest Nature Reserve alue)
Art. 48 c). 1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate Art. 34 ) . 2001 / 462 . 2000 / 236 approved by otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: Option (action): Maramures Mountains Nature Park – Custodian of the Craiasca Forest Reserve Costs T T Costs T T Present V Problem: Intervention area: Enforcement of Rules for activities taking place in the Craiasca Forest Nature Reserve - Monitoring of tourism to establish impact and related protection measures (Chp. 2 , Enforcement of law - 'Sanctions derived from not complying to Government Urgency Ordonance nr Law nr (Chp. 7 - Sanctions,
78 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 0 0 CY CY 0 0 3 850 0 3 850 Euro
4 + 4 + 0 0 0 CY CY 0 Analysis : -
3 + 3 + 0 0 0 CY CY 0 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + 0 0 CY CY 0 0 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 0 0 0 CY CY 0 ear (CY) ear (CY) 3 850 3 500 350 Current Y 3 850 Current Y 0 0 2% Source of information WWF Romania WWF Romania Source of information our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T As and As needs As and of mobilizing funding As needs Assumptions of mobilizing funding for P Assumptions (probable) Guesthouses, tour-operators, camping facilities, city halls, local guides understand the importance of communicating to individual tourists about P Guesthouses, tour-operators, camping facilities, city halls, local guides understand the importance of communicating to individual tourists about P for P profile A , plastified) - & ecodestination) A factsheets (P A Estimated cost of meetings with guesthouses, tour-operators, camping facilities, city halls, local guides (about 100 meetings, fuel from Baia Mare and return 150 lei/ 35 Euro) Estimated cost of P including activities, P distributed to guesthouses, tour-operators, camping facilities, city halls, local guides ( 100 copies each, recycled paper 100 Euro printing, 250 design Description Description alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) wareness Raising Landscape degradation - urban waste from locals and tourists Craiasca Forest Nature Reserve alue) A
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate rules, values and benefits otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V A otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: Option (action): Maramures Mountains Nature Park – Custodian of the Craiasca Forest Reserve Costs T T Benefits T T Present V Problem: Intervention area: Bilateral meetings to explain about P Communications materials —
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 79 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 272 CY CY 300 453 500 500 300 5 354 1 414 6 768 Euro
4 + 4 + 500 500 300 277 CY CY 300 462 Analysis : -
3 + 3 + 471 283 CY CY 500 500 300 300 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + 288 CY CY 300 500 500 481 300 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 294 300 4 902 CY CY 300 5 000 5 000 ear (CY) ear (CY) 0 300 Current Y 0 Current Y 0 0 2% Source of information WWF Romania Source of information WWF Romania our toursim agency (for more information see http://www ficient T administration, city hall and A Assumptions (probable) Maintenance should be performed maximum every 2 years; insuf resources and uncertain cashflow availability Assumptions (probable) Good cooperation between P forest administration Estimated cost of thematic trail ( 5 information boards, marking) Estimated cost of waste management system (collection, monitoring) implemented by the city hall Description Description alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) Landscape degradation - urban waste from locals and tourists Craiasca Forest Nature Reserve alue) Responsible Tourism / Ecotourism
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: Option (action): Maramures Mountains Nature Park – Custodian of the Craiasca Forest Reserve Costs T T Costs T T Present V Problem: Intervention area: Marking and maintenance of thematic trail Implementation of waste management system (infrastructure, monitoring)
80 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 1
Cost-Benefit analysis of ES users - Local guesthouses and tour-operators
Policy Business Implementation of the strategy Legal options As Usual for the development of Enforcement (Policy A) Mara-Cosau-Creasta Cocosului (Policy D) as an ecotourism destination & Implementation of official ecotourism destination development criteria (minimum- optimum requirements) (Policy B/C)
Options Business Capacity Building & Legal (actions) As Usual Responsible Tourism/Ecotourism Enforcement
Net benefit - 1 825 840 1 554 783 not applicable
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 81 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 145 000 131 331 0 0 CY CY 145 000 0 963 452 Euro 963 452 4 + 4 + Analysis 145 000 133 958 0 0 CY CY 145 000 : -
3 + 3 + 145 000 136 637 0 0 CY CY 145 000 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + 139 369 0 0 CY CY 145 000 145 000 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 0 145 000 142 157 0 CY CY 145 000 ear (CY) ear (CY) 135 000 Current Y 280 000 280 000 Current Y 0 0 2% 145 000 rail T Source of information WWF Romania Feasibility study: BUCUR Costel, Identification and quantification of the ecosystem services standing behind The Maramures Heritage Source of information in Historical Maramures, Romania, 2010 our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T Between 3 - 1 extra nights, 15 beds average, 30 extra days during spring-autumn, 30 Euro/night, 10 guesthouses average Method: tourism related income based on natural values estimated in the pilot area in 2010 Assumptions (probable) Assumptions ficient marketing of natural values) Estimated lost income represented by the cost of potential prolonged stays (guesthouses in Ocna Sugatag due to degraded natural attractions close to the business - Craiasca Forest and insuf Description Description Estimated cost of lost landscape beauty (with impact at ecodestination level) As Usual alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) L andscape degradation and improper use of natural resources Ecotourism destination alue) Business
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: Local guesthouses Costs Inaccessibility of responsible tourism / ecotourism market shares Long-term reduces landscape value - modern construction vs loss of wooden traditional architecture T T Benefits T T Present V Intervention area: Option (action): Problem: —
82 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 244 547 270 000 0 0 CY CY 270 000 748 413 3 200 745 213 Euro 4 + 4 + Analysis 249 438 0 0 CY CY 270 000 270 000 :
3 + 3 + 254 427 270 000 0 0 CY CY 270 000 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + 0 CY CY 0 0 0 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 0 0 0 0 CY CY ear (CY) ear (CY) 3 200 Current Y 3 200 3 200 Current Y 0 0 2% Source of information WWF Romania Source of information WWF Romania our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T 5 trainings, at least 1 day each, ideally 1 day each for coaching/mentoring, max 20 participants each, 160 Euro/participant (including expert fee, food, cost recovery) (without travel costs) Assumptions ( slightly probable) Assumptions (probable) Between 3 - 1 extra nights, 15 beds average, 30 extra days during spring-autumn, 30 Euro/night, 20 guesthouses average , marketing, business planning, Estimated cost of trainings on service quality green management, certification Description Estimated increased income represented by the cost of potential prolonged stays (guesthouses in the ecodestination; better marketing of natural values) Description alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) L andscape degradation and improper use of natural resources Ecotourism destination alue) Capacity Building
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: Local guesthouses Costs Participation in trainings T T Benefits Increased service quality and accessibility of responsible tourism / ecotourism market shares T T Present V Problem: Intervention area: Option (action):
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 83 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 244 547 270 000 CY CY 270 000 471 520 520 748 413 4 271 744 142 Euro 4 + 4 + Analysis 249 438 CY CY 270 000 480 270 000 520 520 :
3 + 3 + 254 427 270 000 CY CY 270 000 490 520 520 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + CY CY 500 0 520 0 520 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 0 520 0 CY CY 520 510 ear (CY) ear (CY) 1 300 520 Current Y 1 820 Current Y 0 0 2% 1 820 Source of information AER CET Source of information WWF Romania our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T 10 guesthouses, 130 Euro/evaluation (without travel costs) 8 guesthouses, 65 Euro annual contribution Assumptions ( slightly probable) Assumptions (probable) Between 3 - 1 extra nights, 15 beds average, 30 extra days during spring-autumn, 30 Euro/night, 20 guesthouses average Eco-Romania Cost of annual contribution to CSDF Description Estimated increased income represented by the cost of potential prolonged stays (guesthouses in the ecodestination; better marketing of natural values) Description alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) L andscape degradation and improper use of natural resources Ecotourism destination alue) Responsible tourism / Ecotourism
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: Local guesthouses Costs Green certification Contributions to existing finance mechanisms for nature conservation T T Benefits Increased service quality and accessibility of responsible tourism / ecotourism market shares T T Present V Intervention area: Option (action): Problem:
84 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 0 0 CY CY 137 852 7 200 152 200 145 000 0 862 389 Euro - 862 389 4 + 4 + 0 0 Analysis CY CY 140 609 7 200 152 200 145 000 :
3 + 3 + 0 0 CY CY 143 421 7 200 152 200 145 000 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + CY CY 7 200 0 0 145 000 152 200 146 290 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + 7 200 CY CY 0 0 152 200 149 216 145 000 ear (CY) ear (CY) 145 000 145 000 Current Y Current Y 0 0 2% 145 000 rail in Historical T The Maramures Source of information WWF Romania Feasibility study: BUCUR Costel, Identification and quantification of the ecosystem services standing behind Heritage Maramures, Romania, 2010 Source of information our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T , 6 participants 600 Euro/customer average per mountain-bike program, 2 programs/season Method: tourism related income based on natural values estimated in the pilot area in 2010 Assumptions ( highly probable) Assumptions Estimated lost income represented by the cost of potential new tourist programs e.g. mountain-biking Estimated cost of lost landscape beauty (with impact at ecodestination level) Description Description As Usual alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) Business L andscape degradation and improper use of natural resources Ecotourism destination alue)
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate ficiently exploited our-operators otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: T Costs Marketing potential of the area insuf Long-term reduces landscape value - modern construction vs loss of wooden traditional architecture T T Benefits - T T Present V Problem: Intervention area: Option (action):
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 85 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 7 200 6 521 7 200 CY CY 0 0 33 937 300 Euro - 33 637 4 + 4 + 7 200 6 652 Analysis 7 200 CY CY 0 0 :
3 + 3 + 6 785 7 200 7 200 CY CY 0 0 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + CY CY 6 920 0 7 200 7 200 0 .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) 1 + 1 + CY CY 0 7 200 7 200 7 059 0 ear (CY) ear (CY) 300 300 Current Y Current Y 0 0 2% 300 Source of information WWF Romania Source of information WWF Romania our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T , 6 participants 1 fam-trip, 2 tour-operators 600 Euro/customer average per mountain-bike program, 2 programs/season Assumptions Assumptions Estimated costs of participation in fam-trips e.g. mountain-bike program, and cost of resources (HR, time) allocated for actual program design Estimated increased income represented by the cost of potential new tourist programs e.g. mountain-biking Description Description alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) Capacity Building L andscape degradation and improper use of natural resources Ecotourism destination alue)
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate our-operators otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: T Costs Resources related to new tourist programs testing T T Benefits Increased service quality and accessibility of responsible tourism / ecotourism market shares T T Present V Problem: Intervention area: Option (action):
86 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 1 5 + 5 + 7 200 6 521 7 200 CY CY 299 330 330 31 791 33 937 2 145 Euro 4 + 4 + 7 200 6 652 Analysis 7 200 CY CY 305 330 330 :
3 + 3 + 1 6 785 7 200 7 200 CY CY 31 330 330 otal PV Benefits: otal PV Costs: Currency: Cost-Benefit T T NET BENEFIT 2 + 2 + .maramuresgreenways.ro/en/) CY CY 6 920 330 7 200 330 7 200 317 1 + 1 + CY CY 330 7 200 7 200 7 059 330 324 ear (CY) ear (CY) 260 330 Current Y Current Y 0 0 2% 590 590 Source of information AER CET Source of information WWF Romania our toursim agency (for more information see http://www T , 6 participants 10 Euro annual contribution 2 tour-operators, 130 Euro/evaluation (without travel costs) 3 tour-operators, 1 600 Euro/customer average per mountain-bike program, 2 programs/season Assumptions (probable) Assumptions Eco-Romania Cost of annual contribution to CSDF Estimated increased income represented by the cost of potential new tourist programs e.g. mountain-biking Description Description alue) alue) Association sustains its conservation activities partly through Greenway Association promotes sustainable development based on projects implementation and educational activities alue) Responsible tourism / Ecotourism L andscape degradation and improper use of natural resources Ecotourism destination alue)
1. Ecologic 2. Ecologic 3. Probability of assumptions: not probable/ slightly highly probable
alue Discount Rate our-operators otal Costs (Present V otal Benefits (Present V otal Costs (Future V otal Benefits (Future V Remarks: T Costs Green certification Contributions to existing finance mechanisms for nature conservation T T Benefits Increased service quality and accessibility of responsible tourism / ecotourism market shares T T Present V Problem: Intervention area: Option (action):
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 87 Annexes: Document 2
Document 2 - Cashflow Analysis
Cashflow analysis 2014-2016
ASSUMPTIONS General
Monitoring activities take place once a year - costs are in-kind contributions of the responsible entities Collection refers to the previous year and is based on annual fees as specified in MoU annex (note: annual fees are double starting with Y2); furthermore, these funds can be complemented with additional revenues from other streams, based on fundraising strategies
At least 10 contributors are engaged based on ecotourism destinations criteria
Transaction costs representing banking fees are deducted directly from monthly total amounts in the CSDF bank account
Transaction costs representing capacity building during Y1-Y2 for CET to be able to act independently as main CSDF administrator are covered through the Danube PES project
Given the need to build CET's capacity first,, administrative/operational costs are covered starting from Y3 - public funding available for a Destination Management Organization
3000 souvenir maps produced in Romanian estimated to cover demands for the period 2012-2016; in any case, reprinting costs are evaluated at each annual budget review
Funds allocation has to be adjusted in order to ensure due budget balance
YEAR 1 - 2014 (collection for 2013)
Administrative/operational costs are covered by the Danube PES project
Annual fixed contribution from 8 local guesthouses and 3 tour-operators
Individual contributions based on selling of souvenir maps
YEAR 2 - 2015 (collection for 2014)
Administrative/operational costs are internalized under the ecotourism Destination Management Organization (estimate of 300 Euro/year)
At least 1 new contributor
Individual contributions based on selling of souvenir maps
YEAR 3 - 2016 (collection for 2015)
Administrative/operational costs are internalized under the ecotourism Destination Management Organization
Renewal of contracts
Individual contributions based on selling of souvenir maps
Acronyms PES - Payments for Ecosystem Services CSDF - Conservation and Sustainable Development Fund PA - Protected Area CET - Maramures Ecology and Tourism Center (CSDF main administrator)
88 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 2 Overview 0 Monthly average 296 345 49 49 0 0 345 Dec. 14 591 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 . 14 Starting of yearly budget - 1.1.201 4 Nov 591 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 Oct. 14 591 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 Sep. 14 591 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 Aug. 14 591 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 July 14 591 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 June 14 0 591 591 591 0 0 0 591 May 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 14 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YEAR 2 - 2015 (collection for 2014) . 14 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feb. 14 Jan. 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 4 1 0 s 2 i s y l a n w a o l f h s a otal incomes otal costs C Summary of cashflow Cash availability (beginning of the month) Overall cash availability (cash availability + incomes, before payments) Overall cash availability (end of the month) Incomes Individual contributions T CSDF management Funds allocation T Payments (cash/bank transfers)
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 89 Annexes: Document 2 Overview 25 Monthly average 646 655 49 49 49 74 729 Dec. 15 700 700 700 0 0 0 0 0 . 15 Starting of yearly budget - 1.1.201 5 Nov 700 700 700 0 0 0 0 0 Oct. 15 700 700 700 0 0 0 0 0 700 Sep. 15 700 700 0 0 0 0 0 700 Aug. 15 700 700 0 0 0 0 0 700 July 15 700 0 0 0 0 0 700 June 15 1 591 591 1 000 1 000 300 591 891 700 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 May 15 591 (if it is the case) . 15 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 Apr 591 . 15 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 Mar 591 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 Feb. 15 591 591 Jan. 15 591 0 0 0 0 0 591 6 1 0 2 Initial 591 591 0 0 0 0 0 591 - 4 1 0 s 2 i s y l Y1 - thematic trail in Craiasca Forest Nature Reserve a n w a o l f h s a otal incomes otal costs C Summary of cashflow Cash availability (beginning of the month) Overall cash availability (cash availability + incomes, before payments) Overall cash availability (end of the month) Incomes Individual contributions T CSDF management Funds allocation (Y1) T Organization (assumption) CSDF management costs - public funding available for a Destination Management Funds allocation Payments (cash/bank transfers) Operational Data (information not related to the cashflow)
90 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 2 Overview 25 Monthly average 100 83 83 75 100 83 183 Dec. 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 16 Starting of yearly budget - 1.1.201 6 Nov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oct. 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sep. 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aug. 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 July 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 June 16 0 200 1 000 1 000 300 900 1 200 1 200 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 May 16 200 (if it is the case) . 16 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 Apr 200 ١٦ . 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 Mar 200 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 Feb. 16 200 200 Jan. 16 200 0 0 0 0 0 200 6 1 0 2 Initial 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 200 - 4 1 0 s 2 i s y l Y2 a n w a o l f h s a otal incomes otal costs C Summary of cashflow Cash availability (beginning of the month) Overall cash availability (cash availability + incomes, before payments) Overall cash availability (end of the month) Incomes Individual contributions T CSDF management Funds allocation (Y2) T CSDF management costs - public funding available for a Destination Management Organization (assumption) Funds allocation Payments (cash/bank transfers) Operational Data (information not related to the cashflow)
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 91 Annexes: Document 3
Document 3 - Profiles of protected areas in the pilot area
CRAIASCA FOREST NATURE RESERVE
Padurea Craiasca (Craiasca Forest) is a nature reserve located in the Ocna Sugatag village (delimited on the west side by Valea Sarata, in the north by fruit tree orchards, on the east side the balneo-climateric resort, and in the south by the urban territory), established in 1977 with the purpose to conserve natural habitats and species of importance with respect to flora, fauna, forestry, and hydrology; thus, offering the possibility for organized scientific, educational, and touristic visits.
The exact location of the reserve is shown in the maps below:
92 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 3
With its 44 ha of state property (State Forest Fund), it falls under IUCN Cat. IV. In Romania it is classified as Functional Group I (protection), sub-group 5C (forests established as nature reserves) and 4C (forests in the proximity of bath-climate, climate and health resorts)59. The appearance of trees (verticality, crown, roundness and diameter up to 1m) clearly shows the value of their genetic material. The predominant age of trees is 180-200 years (oak and larch), one of them with a diameter of more then 2m having more then 300 years.
Specific zoning or provisions according to a draft management plan:
• The nature reserve can be visited for tourism purposes; however, access has to be granted by the PA administrator, and is allowed for educational and scientific purposes only to organized groups accompanied by a guide.
• Hunting is not allowed.
POIANA BRAZILOR NATURE RESERVE
Mlastina Poiana Brazilor (Poiana Brazilor Swamp) is a nature reserve belonging to the administrative territory of Giulesti commune (located in the Ignis plateau, and delimited by Valea Brazilor in the north, Valea Brazilor Dreapta on the west side, and south-east by Poiana Brazilor pasture), established in 1977 with the purpose to conserve natural habitats and species of importance with respect to flora, fauna, forestry, and hydrology; thus, offering the possibility for organized scientific, educational, and touristic visits.
The exact location of the reserve is shown in the map below:
59 Since 2005, the Baia Mare Forest Directorate (Directia Silvica) through the Mara Forest District (Ocol Silvic), manages the forest fund based on its forest management plan.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 93 Annexes: Document 3
This nature reserve is the lowest location where juniper can be found in Romania (970 m), and is situated at the junction of 2 extended swamps:
• forested swamp Valea Brazilor Stanga (1 km lenght, 100-150 m width)
• swamp with peat Valea Brazilor Dreapta (1 km lenght, 150-200 m width)
The general location of Poiana Brazilor Swamp is a depression crater-like area (with about 2 km diameter and andesitic rocks of more then 800 m thick) on the upper course of Brazilor valley.
It falls under IUCN Cat. IV. Over the total surface (5 ha) under state property, 3 ha are forest land within the State Forest Fund. In Romania it is classified as Functional Group 1.2.i - forests located on lands with permanent swamping, and 1.1.c - forests situated on the sides of rivers in mountain and hilly areas, which fill- in artificial and natural lakes.
Specific zoning or provisions according to a draft management plan:
• The nature reserve can be visited for tourism purposes; however, access has to be granted by the PA administrator, and is allowed for educational and scientific purposes only to organized groups accompanied by a guide.
• Hunting is not allowed.
94 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 3
TAUL MORARENILOR NATURE RESERVE
Taul Morarenilor (Morareni Lake) is a nature reserve covering a surface of 20 ha, located within the buffer area of the Rooster’s Peak Nature Reserve at the height of 882 m.
Specific zoning or provisions according to a draft management plan: about 6 ha (including the lake and the surrounding spontaneous flora, characterized by a complex association of vegetation typical of insect habitats like plain, hill, and mountain, with black alder, white alder, and mountain alder - the area offers the proper conditions for the development of wetland plants like Ulticularia Vulgaris, Drosera Rotundifolia a carnivore plant, damp clover, crowberry, and muss) have been designated as special conservation area.
IEZERUL MARE SWAMP NATURE RESERVE
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 95 Annexes: Document 3
Turbaria Iezerul Mare (Iezerul Mare Peat Bog) is a nature monument located in the Ignis mountains plateau at the height of 1014 m, and integrated in the management of the Ignis Natura 2000 site.
Vegetation in the reserve includes blueberry, cranberry, Drosera Rotundifolia, crowberry, cotton of the plains, Andromeda polifolia, blue grass, bulrush, and maountain cabbage.
HOTENI LAKES NATURE RESERVE
Taurile de la Hoteni (Hoteni Lakes) is a nature reserve of local interest consisting in an oligotrophic swamp and three eutrophic lakes with flora and fauna of scientific relevance. The peat layer floating over 4 meters deep water represents the perfect environment for carnivore plants (relicts species of the glacial era). Two more long-shaped lakes in the same area are known for the presence of over 150 species of algae, which give the typical color to the water surface and hide a unique variety of freshwater fishes and turtles.
96 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 3
ROOSTER’S PEAK NATURE RESERVE
Creasta Cocosului (Rooster’s Peak) is a nature reserve belonging to the administrative territory of Desesti (located in the Gutai Mountains between the basins of Cavnic and Mara valleys), except for part of the buffer area which belongs to Ocna Sugatag, established in 1954 with the purpose to conserve some natural elements with unique ecological, scientific, and landscape value; it prevents actions that exploit or use natural resources in a way that contradicts conservation objectives; and secures conditions for educational, recreational and scientific research activities.
Its surface totals 50 ha under communal property, and falls under IUCN Cat. IV.
Specific zoning or provisions according to the management plan (December 2006 version):
• Special conservation area, where the following activities are allowed: controlled tourism, education, and animal grazing by locals based on conditions settled in the Operational Rules and Management Plan of the reserve.
• Integral protection area (delimited within the special conservation area), where only controlled tourism and educational activities are allowed:
- Surfaces covered by forest vegetation, juniper and other shrubs, rocks, peat bogs and swamps.
- Rooster’s Peak (3,2 ha), designated as Nature Monument (IUCN Cat. III).
- Taurile Chendroaiei, a peat bog of 2,6 ha (in the buffer area).
- Morarenilor Lakes (5 ha) (in the buffer area).
• Buffer area with a total surface of 672.16 ha, including mountain pastures on the Gutai plateau (182 ha of communal land), meadows on the piedmont part of the Gutai mountains (35,9 ha), and forest under Cat. I. – Functional, special
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 97 Annexes: Document 3
regime for biodiversity (454.2 ha within State Forest Fund). Here, natural resources management as well as value-adding activities are allowed based on sustainable use principles, and according to the Management Plan of the reserve.
The hunting fund for the reserve is administered by AJVPS MM, which evaluated it as follows:
Nr. Hunting fund Surface (ha) Species Nr. animals Annual hunting registered in share for the spring 2004 period 2004-2005
1. Baia-Sprie-Cavnic 18039 Deer (cerb) 35 0
2. Baia-Sprie-Cavnic 18039 Deer (Căprioara) 45 3
3. Baia-Sprie-Cavnic 18039 Wild boar 70 14
4. Baia-Sprie-Cavnic 18039 Bear 5 0
5. Izvoare 11489 Deer (cerb) 30 0
6. Izvoare 11489 Deer (Căprioara) 25 0
7. Izvoare 11489 Wild boar 30 8
8. Izvoare 11489 Bear 5 0
98 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 3
CHEILE TATARULUI NATURE RESERVE
Cheile Tatarului (Tatarului Gorge) is a nature reserve belonging to the administrative territory of Desesti (Mara village), established in 1995 with the purpose to conserve natural habitats and species of importance with respect to flora, fauna, forestry, and hydrology; thus, offering the possibility for organized scientific, educational, and touristic visits.
The exact location of the reserve is shown in the maps below:
With its 15 ha of total surface (and 700 m length) under state property, it falls under IUCN Cat. IV.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 99 Annexes: Document 3
Tataru volcanic depression, with an important hidrographic network, has been drained through Cheile Tatarului; the latter is a narrow pass of andezitic rocks modelled by waters and created by the simultaneous gradual lowering of the base level of the Ignis-Mara mountain. While the west side is abrupt and rocky, the east side is made of detritus and forest areas (5 ha included in the State Forest Fund, functional cat. 1.2.a – forests situated on cliffs and detritus as well as on land deeply eroded and with active land slides, and steep land; and 1.1.b – forests situated on the direct sides of artificial and natural lakes).
A rare species of luminescent moss (Schistostega pennata) can be observed on the typical andesitic volcanic rocks; besides; due to insufficient light the latter are also covered by lichens of a rare yellow-golden color, which represents the perfect nesting place for vulnerable and bird species rarely seen in Romania like the blackbird (Mierla de piatra) and kestrel (Vanturelul rosu / Falcofinnunculus).
Specific zoning or provisions according to a draft management plan:
• The nature reserve can be visited for tourism purposes; however, access has to be granted by the PA administrator, and is allowed for educational and scientific purposes only to organized groups accompanied by a guide.
• Hunting is not allowed.
100 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 4
Document 4 – Land tenure and water management in Romania
Overview of land tenure issues
Private property as well as state and communal land cohexist as main forms of land tenure, with the specification that only private and communal types of property are in place with respect to grasslands.
National statistics from 2008 show the significant delay in the process of land restitution and proper attribution of forest property rights to legal and private entities, with only half or even less of forests owned in 1948 being actually returned (2,819,987 ha returned out of 5,699,142 ha validated). Even after the third stage of the legal framework on land property restitution (respectively 1991, 2000 and 2005), it can still be assumed that complicated administrative procedures and corruption maintain the situation unchanged60.
The table below shows the application of forest land property restitution laws up to 31 July 2008:
Property status Law nr. 18/1991 Law nr. 1/2000 Law nr. 1/2000 Surface Surface Surface not Surface Surface Surface not Surface Surface Surface Surface not validated returned returned validated returned returned demanded validated returned returned
Individuals 364379 362717 1662 432289 373745 58543 1120460 468421 350422 117999
Associative structures 0 0 0 660129 535526 124603 935487 245961 153868 92093
Religious units 0 0 0 83140 81061 2079 325972 38095 24509 13586 Territorial administrative units 0 0 0 884036 862364 21672 187869 98359 75775 22584 TOTAL 364379 362717 1662 2059594 1852696 206897 2569788 850836 604574 246262
Source: http://www.madr.ro.
60 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development, National Forest Programme (2005). From http://www.madr.ro
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 101 Annexes: Document 4
The restitution process had two major consequences: fragmentation into relatively small exploatations, and the development of a peculiar system of private ownership (proprietate particulara), which partially had the objective to overcome the former problem. Private owners can be physical persons as individuals or joined in associations61, communities in the form of the so-called composesorate, juridical persons meaning companies, city halls, foundations, religious authorities, etc. Each form of private ownership is obliged by law to sign a contract with a Forest District (Ocol Silvic), a legal administrative entity either under the state authority or private62. ROMSILVA manages 66% of Romanian forests of which 29% represents state property. The forests are managed through management plans issued either by private companies or by the Forest Research and Management Planning Institute, and approved by a Technical Committee of ROMSILVA. Drafting of the management plan is mandatory for state forest land and for private owners with a property of more than 100 ha, while those with less than 100 ha can ask even for a simple extras from the Forest District they belong to in order to find out general information about their land as well as information on exploitation criteria (e.g. allowable surface for cutting, etc.). Consequently, those private owners who have not signed any contract of administration are not allowed to perform any cutting or similar forms of exploitation; however, legislation does not prescribe any form of punishment and because there is a significant number of private owners with less than 100 ha this can be considered as a possible cause of illegal logging. Without concrete measures for legislation enforcement and effective monitoring activities and reporting, the overall system from extraction to selling of raw materials through primary processing actually leads to the latter problem, with private owners actually being the ones who benefit the less.
Overall, compared to state administration of forests, the private ownership system has increased efficiency and should be further pursued and strengthened, but complying with forests norms must necessarily come along. Furthermore, although a positive aspect of delaying further the restitution process could be seen in reduced land fragmentation, the complex administrative management under public authorities as well as a minimal transfer of resources for local development from private investments will continue to be observed63.
Illegal logging is a major issue of forest management planning. While the control system is well designed and should prevent/discover most of the illegal activities, however the lack of personnel and equipment at the level of institutes in charge with controls at various levels, and also corruption (generated mainly by the low salary levels of the foresters with direct responsibilities related to forest/harvesting area management) might make possible illegal cutting activities64. According to the former Ministry of Agriculture (MAFRD), Forests and Rural Development, starting with 1990 the volume of illegal cutting rose constantly and significantly (although it has never reached the levels from the 1950s and 1970s). This was due not necessarily to the change of the political system as to the natural process of cross-sectoral privatization linked with the economic transition towards capitalism. A report on the economic
61 The term “associations” above refers to those entities established through the voluntary assembling of their constituents, which have a legal status conferred by the judicial courts in accordance with the national legislation. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, op.cit. 62 Legislation regarding the setting-up of private Forest Districts is Government Ordonance OUG nr.139/2005 on Romanian Forests Administration, modified and completed by Law nr.38/2006. 63 M. Martini, The Rural Development Policy: What changes are needed?, Rural Development Report Romania, FERN, 2009. 64 WWF-DCP, Illegal logging in Romania, 2005.
102 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 4
sustainability of small-scale forestry (based on interviews with inhabitants of 7 communities) showed for example that harvests in Romania´s private forests were legal only in 60% of situations65. In 2005 at the UNECE Timber Committe conference in Geneva, the MAFRD representive reported that between 1996- 2002 there were 23,000 ha of forest illegaly clear cut, and arround 350,000 ha of private and community forests have the canopy reduced under the normal levels (less than 0,7 or 70%) because of abusive unsustainable wood harvesting. Unfortunately, only some references can be found in scientific abstracts and updated official reports are very few. Theofficial statistics in Romania regarding forest harvesting, wood processing and forest exploitation are not consistent and not complete, thus increasing the difficulty of controlling/monitoring wood-flows at the national level. In October 2008 as a result of the World Bank - Forestry Development Project and WWF/IKEA project on responsible forest management, the MAFRD considered the issue of controlling/monitoring the wood-flows as a major problem; also, the Romanian Government has aproved through Government Decision nr. 996 of October 2008 the SUMAL system for wood and timber tracking. However, the latter has faced a strong opposition from ROMSILVA due to the fact that the SUMAL system uses another software for calculating the standing wood volume66.
Concerning grasslands, the implementation of the EU Common Agriculture Policy and its relative forms of public payments has had a positive effect on clarifying property rights and management responsibilities. In any case land fragmentation remains an issue mainly related to the economic viability of small scale farming, which the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is currently addressing by working on a system/policy of stimulus towards land consolidation. Whether this will have positive or negative effects on landscape and biodiversity values provided by a traditional type of farming (the so-called High Nature Value Farming) as well as local livelihood, very much depend on rural development policy design and tools. At the same time it must be taken into account the fact that creating the proper incentives and market conditions for local products as sustainable livelihood remains a domain yet insufficiently recognized as an opportunity, and thus not properly supported; in this context, a limitation is represented by the low tendency to join collaborative forms of association (e.g. producers groups, farmers associations, etc.).
65 Forest Economics Laboratory and ENGREF/INRA. 66 Cfr. 31
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 103 Annexes: Document 4
Overview of water management issues
The following public institutions are major players in the Romanian water sector:
• Local or county councils have the competency to approve water prices for potable water and sewage and these are then forwarded to ANRSC (National Authority for the Reglementation of Community Services for Public Utilities);
• ANRSC is subordinated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration, and under the coordination of the Deputy Prime-Minister, and has the responsibility to rule, monitor, and control activities from the domain of community services for public utilities67;
• Ministry of Finance approves the level of contributions related to specific water management activities;
• ANAR (Romanian National Water Administration) is the public authority in the sector of water management, and issues authorisations for the management of water according to Water Law Nr. 107/1996, updated through the government ordinance OUG Nr. 64/2011 on the geological stocking of carbon dioxide, and modified through OUG Nr. 3/22.07.2010.
Public water services otherwise called public community services, are of two types:
• Water supply services having the purpose to catch, treat, and distribute water in the requested quantity, and respecting the quality imposed by current law and norms;
• Sewage services (including treatment of used water) having the purpose to collect and treat used water according to quality parameters set out in government decision Nr. 352/2005, and simultaneously to ensure the infrastructure for used water according to the dimensions of the urban settlement that is supposed to serve.
In the majority of cases, water supply and sewage services are provided by the same operator who also owns or manages the infrastructure needed for these services (local authorities, commercial entities, autonomous bodies); in this way the clients (communal bodies, industrial units, industrial agri-zootechnical units, energy producers - hydro, thermo, nuclear - irrigation systems, fishing units) benefit from a complete and efficient service68.
In particular, according to Law Nr. 241/22.06.2006, the public services related to water supply and sewage for urban settlements are under the management, coordination, and responsibility of the local public administration, which has the responsibility to supply, collect through the sewage system, and treat used water for all users within its administrative territory. In the case this responsibility is delegated to one or more operators, the local public authority transfers all its tasks and responsibilities on the basis of a contract called “delegated management contract”69.
67 According to Law Nr. 51/2006 and its amendments, ANRSC is the competent ruling authority for the following services of public utilities: water supply; sewage and treatment of residual water; collection, sewage and evacuation of rainwater. 68 C. Rusu, Water price policy in Romania, ANAR, 2011. 69 According to Law Nr. 241/2006 – Art. 20, Operators entitled to delegated management contracts are those stipulated by Law Nr. 51/2006.
104 Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 Annexes: Document 4
The final price that the consumer pays for the water supply and sewage service is given by the following financial costs (as prices contain VAT, the state only receives the share that represents the VAT):
• The cost representing the contribution for the administration of water resources70 (3-4% of the final price paid by the consumer), which in fact represents the cost of production;
• The cost of the actual water supply and sewage service71;
• The environmental cost72 (3-5% of the final price), which represents the cost for polluting the water resources.
Under the ongoing 1st cycle of the Water Basin Management Plans, only financial costs are considered, while starting with the 2nd cycle the component representing the costs of environmental externalities (namely the costs for preventing the deterioration of environmental quality that the water operator has to handle) is to be integrated73 .
The financial mechanism underpinning the domain of quantitative and qualitative management of water resources is based on the principle of cost recovery of financial costs through economic incentives for those that show a constant preoccupation for the protection of the quantity and quality of water as well as through penalties for those that waste or pollute the water resources. Besides contributions, the financial mechanism includes payments, bonuses, and penalties74 as ways to secure the functioning of the National System of Water Management, according to the Romanian Constitution - Art. 108, and with the purpose to ensure water resources both quantitatively and qualitatively, according to government ordinance OUG Nr. 107/2002, Art. 4, Par. 5, related to the setting- up of ANAR75.
70 The costs of the administration of water resources are handled by ANAR, which is the sole operator in the domain of surface water resources (natural or artificially arranged), regardless of the type of owner in case of artificial constructions, as well as of underground water resources, regardless of their nature and related infrastructure. 71 The costs of the actual water supply and sewage service are handled by the water operator, namely the service provider. 72 The environmental cost is calculated per tons of polluted water that has been evacuated. 73 Rusu, op.cit. 74 The contributions, payments, bonuses, and penalties system is based on the principle that the beneficiary or pollutant pays, depending on the activities undertaken as well as a rational use of water resources. According to Law Nr. 301/2004, ANAR is the sole body that has the right to apply the payments system for activities of water management to all the users, regardless of the type of owner of the construction and including underground sources, with the exception of geothermal water. 75 Rusu, op.cit.
Sustainable Financing in the Maramures Pilot Area | 2014 105 Sustainable financing in the RECYCLED
Maramures pilot area SUSTAINABLE FINANCING IN THE MARAMURES PILOT AREA
1,500,000 €
If traditional architecture is replaced in Mara-Cosau-Creasta Cocosului, the annual loss in terms of wood civilization, tourist income and rural development opportunities is much higher than the 45,000 ha estimated value for building it
With its diversity of natural ecosystems and mosaic farmlands on which local communities depend for living, the territory of Mara-Cosau-Creasta Cocosului is a unique landscape of high nature and cultural value
10,000 ha
Are considered a sufficient shelter for a minimum number of bear reproductive individuals. Ecological corridors ensure habitats connectivity and the # 1 Natura 2000 site Gutai-Creasta Cocosului includes RO one of such critical areas for large carnivores The Conservation and Sustainable Development Fund is the first local initiative aimed at preserving nature and cultural values based on tourism sector contributions WWF.PANDA.ORG/DCPO
Why we are here. To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.
http://wwf.panda.org/dcpo
This publication presents results from the GEF project “Promoting PES and other related sustainable financing schemes in the Danube river basin” implemented in Bulgaria and Romania. The project is coordinated by the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme with financing from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and implementation support from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The implementation of this project is also financially supported by the European Commission.