sign in sign up
<<
Home , Afforestation, Forest management, Romsilva

and management in - migrating to and responsibility Ciprian Palaghianu, ” Stefan

To cite this version:

Ciprian Palaghianu, ” Stefan. Afforestation and reforestation management in Romania - migrating to sustainability and responsibility. Proceedings of the International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental , Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, 2018. ￿hal-02072215￿

HAL Id: hal-02072215 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02072215 Submitted on 2 Apr 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental , 2017

Afforestation and reforestation management in Romania - migrating to sustainability and responsibility

Ciprian Palaghianu „Stefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Faculty, Romania Corresponding author e-mail address: [email protected] (C. Palaghianu)

Abstract: Considering the present state of afforestation and reforestation management in Romania, the process of renewing the paradigm is analysed. Most of the management systems use an iterative method of improving the outcomes. Considering the classical phases Plan-Do-Check-Adjust, the management system is broken into pieces in order to reveal potential gaps from planning to system adjustments regarding forestation in Romania. The official data reports, national statistics and forest regulations represent evidences of a system that fails to progress. The weak integration of Pan- European criteria and indicators for sustainable , the lack of a robust planning system and the poor capacity of accessing European funds are considered major gaps. The whole framework of afforestation and reforestation should be revised to comply with recent realities and objectives (social, economic, environmental). At present time Romanian forest management still forges tomorrow’s using regulations fitted to communist era, without taking into account updated objectives regarding social needs, economic benefits, change mitigation or the new types of property. Several suggestions for improving the afforestation and reforestation framework were provided.

Keywords: afforestation, reforestation, forest management, responsibility.

1. Introduction environmental, economic, social and cultural. What we understand by Forest delivers a broad range of sustainability and responsibility ecosystem services concerning climate defines our relationship with the regulation, and quality, environment and the many resources , , we control. As we are increasingly sociocultural and recreational values. confronted with environmental, social Many of these eco services and economic issues, we need to became more visible in recent years reconsider how the community is and the society is aware of the responsibly involved in resource potential costs of it (Ninan & Inoue, management activities. Facing new 2013). Moreover, the last decade was realities requires an adequate response considerable influenced by the from the resource managers. publication of the Millennium Undeniable, nowadays forests Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) mean more than timber and we all which emphasised the ecosystem understand the importance of this services value. multifaceted resource which provides In this context, afforestation and benefits in different areas: reforestation represent a form of increasing or at least preserving forest

46

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental Resources, 2017 ecosystems benefits. For instance, technical regulations and tunings of afforestation, reforestation and the management systems. control are considered Numerous scientific researches the main types of highlighted the radical changes mitigation projects in the forestry produced in the Romanian forestry sector (Reyer et al. 2009). sector (Bouriaud 2005; Ioras and Considering forest as a natural Abrudan 2006; Dutcă and Abrudan resource which replenishes itself, the 2010; Palaghianu and Nichiforel 2016; forest management should avoid Munteanu et al. 2016; Scriban et al. caused by increased 2017) but fewer were focused on consumption. The key is forestation (Palaghianu and Dutca represented by sustainability which 2017). In light of this new realities it is guarantees long-term availability of thought-provoking to analyse the the forest. forestation management system of Sustainability should also involve Romania. responsible management. And by being responsible we understand 2. Forestation management taking action and adjusting locally the cycle economic, social and environmental issues and linking relevant It is common for a management stakeholders. system, whatever it refers to forest or How could we define responsible not, to use an iterative method of forestation? Keeping in mind that improving its results, processes, forestation role, in regard to products or services. sustainability, is to ensure forest We will apply a classical continuity or even increase forest management cycle Plan-Do-Check- cover, acting responsible in this Adjust for the forest management direction would imply to ensure the system, in order to reveal potential future resource needs, securing jobs, gaps from planning to system providing recreation and wood for adjustments regarding forestation in nearby communities, maintaining Romania. ecosystem functions or climate change The Plan – it is well known that mitigation role. during the communism period, the Swapping the socioeconomic plans were carefully developed and system after 1989 was a challenging executed. effort for Romanian forest After the massive management. The political and caused by the payment of war economic changes in Romania shaken compensations to Soviet Union in the forest management system, causing timber (Banu, 2004), Romania had a an unpredictable pattern of determined reforestation strategy transformation: legislative designed to reforest 1 million hectares. amendments, property fragmentation / The project was accomplished by the dynamic, adjustments of year 1963, due to an impressive endeavour of reforestation (e.g. 98,400

47

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental Resources, 2017 hectares afforested in 1953) (Negrutiu The National Rural Development et al. 1999). This effort continued Program encompassed the funding of consistently afterwards, and by the forest measures, including year 1976 nearly 2 million ha were afforestation. The target was to forest regenerated or forested (Law no. 15 thousand hectares by SAPARD 2/1976). (2000-2006), nearly 50 thousand The Law no. 2 / 1976 (National hectares by European Agricultural Program for the preservation and Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD development of the forestry fund) 2007-2013) and 10 thousand hectares projected forestation measures for FEADR (2014-2020). 1976-2010. The plan was to Do – Maybe the plan was not a concentrate on nurseries and solid one, but were the results and , with an average of actions better? approximatively 50,000 forested Despite some data inconsistency hectares per year (Palaghianu and between INS (National Institute of Dutca, 2017). After the communism Statistics) and Romsilva (National collapsed in 1989, plans for 2010 were Forestry Administration) reports, the interrupted by the political changes forestation effort seems to gradually and the Law no. 2/1976 was abolished decline after 1990 (INS and Romsilva in 1990. reports) to an average that ranges A new order, a new forestation between 10 and 15 thousand hectares plan and the interest in this field was per year. resumed. One important official Furthermore, the forestation objective of the National Afforestation funding mechanisms failed to achieved Programme (2004) and Forest Code their targets. The funding absorption (Law no. 46/2008), was the rate for SAPARD funds (2000-2006) afforestation of 2 million hectares of Measure 3.5 was 1.3% and for degraded till 2035. Later, the (EAFRD 2007-2013) Measure 221 interest in this forestation goal was (The first afforestation of agricultural reinforced by the Law no. 100 /2010 ) was 0.08% (Palaghianu and regarding the afforestation of degraded Dutca, 2017). lands. Check – A simple raw evaluation However, later versions of the is showing that results deviated far National Afforestation Programme enough from the expected targets. The (2010 and 2013) have resketched the Romanian forestation engine seems to goal, turning it from 2 million hectares have gripped over the past few decades to 0.422, respectively 0.229 million and the comparison with pre-1990 hectares (Palaghianu and Dutca, 2017). afforestation rate is not favourable to These negative adjustments of a present. national forestation plan cannot be Adjust – Observing the poor interpreted as robust actions towards results, how much the afforestation responsibility, but additional targets and reforestation framework was were set using the European systems adjusted in the last decades? of funding.

48

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental Resources, 2017

The Romanian forest management not trust the previous management is generally negatively influenced by system and they wanted to propose the strict regulatory system (Nichiforel new objectives and targets for their et al. 2017; Scriban et al. 2017). forests. Despite the overwhelming interest Even though the new version of in regulations regarding the harvesting the technical regulations were process and traceability of timber published in 2000 (10 years after the products, few adjustments were made fall of communism), they did not regarding afforestation and integrate new principles of forest reforestation management. management. Nowadays, forest regeneration In the context of sustainable forest framework is based on the old and management (SFM) at international extremely standardized technical level there were established criteria regulations used in the pre-1990 period and indicators for SFM (Pan-European (MAPM, 2000). criteria and indicators for sustainable After we went through the whole forest management Lisbon, 1998; cycle Plan-Do-Check-Adjust, we can Improved Pan-European Indicators for pinpoint some potential gaps in the Sustainable Forest Management, Romanian forestation framework. Vienna, 2003 and Madrid, 2015). Six criteria of SFM were 3. Beyond forestation recognized and remained unchanged regulations and at the 7th Ministerial Conference, held in Madrid in 2015 were endorsed Romania has a very strict system two resolutions: Resolution 1: Forest of regulations regarding forest sector in the centre of Green Economy regeneration and afforestation. The and Resolution 2: Protection of forests current technical framework was in a changing environment. republished in 2000 (MAPM, 2000), Nevertheless, none of the six but it is essentially based on the same criteria were explicitly included in versions of guidelines and procedures Romanian technical guidelines. There used prior to 1990. is a weak integration of Pan-European The forest owners, regardless of criteria for SFM, due to the fact that the type of property (state or private current technical guidelines were owned forests), are forced to comply republished in 2000 and they contain with several compulsory solutions minor changes from the previous regarding species composition or versions published in 1977 and 1987. planting density, even if these have not It stands to reason that numerous ever been scientifically validated. changes in the forestry management These solutions and regulations were system at international level have not questioned in the communist time, made since 1977/1987 which are not because they were tailored to integrated in current guidelines. centralised plans, but after the forest Nevertheless, neither of the property pattern was fundamentally provisions of the EU Forest Strategy changed, many of the new owners did

49

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental Resources, 2017

(EU 2013, 2015, 2018) have been designing new regulations has started integrated. and we are confident that we will Another sensitive issue which is witness a shift towards a sustainable not addressed by the current forest management. forestation regulations is represented Clearly, we will see some changes by the use of invasive alien species. in several key aspects regarding EU has clarified the management of afforestation and reforestation invasive alien species by Regulation framework. no 1143/2014 (EU, 2014). Still, the The procedure for species Romanian forestation technical composition selection should be framework offers some forestation simplified using a scheme based on solutions which use invasive alien forest types or nominating only the species. This issue is delicate and main species and its minimum debatable, especially in the context of percentage. It is important to have a degraded lands or concerning the use more flexible procedure because based of certain species (Nicolescu et al, on current species composition 2018). solutions we create the future forests, Moreover, the problem should be which will provide a great variety of shortly clarified so that forest ecosystem services for the next management does not contradict some generations. requirements of forest certification The density procedures should schemes (FSC / PEFC) concerning also be revised. It could be more invasive alien species. efficient to establish a minimum Additional technical aspects threshold and to check tree density at regarding current forestation stand closure not at the end of the regulations were previously planting activity. Furthermore, for highlighted (Palaghianu and Dutca several species tree density should 2017): decrease, according to practitioners • the procedures are too detailed and and studies (Nicolescu et al, 2003). very restrictive (e.g. regarding It is also important for forest species composition, density); owners to have an increased flexibility • current species composition in setting management objectives, solutions have not been more adequate to current realities. scientifically substantiated; • there are not emphasised new 4. Conclusion realities/targets expressing economic, social or climate-related Currently in Romania the official mitigation trends. data reports, national statistics and forest regulations represent evidences It is obvious that Romanian of a system that fails to progress. forestation technical guidelines should Unfortunately, forests created be updated and a change was today in Romania, forests of the future ineffectively attempted in 2016. In the generations will reflect the past recent months a new project for realities of 1970-1980 type of

50

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental Resources, 2017 management. There is a huge gap brand-new technical management between present realities / forestry framework, suited for objectives management system at international regarding social needs, new property level and the outdated framework of patterns, economic benefits or climate forestation used in Romania. change mitigation. The weak integration of Pan- European criteria for sustainable forest References management, the lack of a robust planning system and the poor capacity Banu F (2004) Asalt asupra economiei of accessing European funds are Romaniei de la Solagra la SOVROM considered major gaps. The whole (1936-1956). Editura Nemira, Bucuresti; framework of afforestation and Bouriaud L (2005). Causes of illegal reforestation should be revised to in Central and Eastern Europe. comply with recent realities and Small-Scale Forestry, 4(3): 269-291; Dutcă, I., & Abrudan, I. V. (2010). objectives considering the social, Estimation of Forest Land Cover Change economic and environmental pillars of in Romania between 1990 and 2006. sustainability. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of The Romanian forestry system had Brasov, Series II-Forestry, , plans to draw up, took action and had and Agricultural Engineering, 52(1), enough time to observe the effects of 33-36. the current management system. European Commission (2013). A new EU Considering the adaptative Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest- management cycle Plan-Do-Check- based sector. European Commission (2015). Multi- Adjust, now it is more appropriate to annual Implementation Plan of the new be oriented towards the adjustment EU Forest Strategy phase. European Commission (2018). Progress in New realities and the significant the implementation of the EU Forest role of forests in the environmental Strategy - A new EU Forest Strategy: for and social paradigm should help foster forests and the forest-based sector. new objectives and major updates of EU (2014). Regulation No 1143/2014 of the forestation management. the European Parliament and of the Currently Romania shapes its Council on the prevention and future forests with from the past. management of the introduction and The present forestation regulations spread of invasive alien species. Ioras F & Abrudan I V (2006) The were designed for a different Romanian forestry sector: privatisation socioeconomic environment. The facts. International Forestry Review, 8(3): socialist settings do not match the 361-367; present realities. INS (National Institute of Statistics), Adjustments were made, but (2006-2016) Romanian Statistical mostly on forestry legal framework. Yearbook; An outdated management system can Law no. 2/1976 (1976) Legea privind not be patched only by providing new adoptarea Programului national pentru sets of legal regulations. The robust conservarea si dezvoltarea fondului approach implies the design of a forestier in perioada 1976-2010 (National Program for the preservation and

51

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental Resources, 2017 development of the forestry fund during Ninan, K. N., & Inoue, M. (2013). Valuing 1976-2010); forest ecosystem services: what we know Law no. 100/2010 (2010) Legea privind and what we don't. , împădurirea terenurilor degradate (Law on 93, 137-149. Afforestation of Degraded Land) Palaghianu C, Nichiforel L (2016) MAPM (2000) Ministry of , Forests Between perceptions and precepts in the and - Technical dialogue on Romanian forests. Bucov. For. regulations on composition schemes and 16(1): 3-8. technologies for regeneration of forests Palaghianu, C., & Dutca, I. (2017). and afforestation of degraded lands, vol. Afforestation and reforestation in 1., Romania: History, current practice and MEA (Millennium Ecosystem future perspectives. REFORESTA,(4), 54- Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and 68. Human Well-being: Biodiversity Reyer, C., Guericke, M., & Ibisch, P. L. Synthesis. World Resources Institute, (2009). Climate change mitigation via Washington D.C. afforestation, reforestation and Munteanu C, Nita M D, Abrudan I V, & deforestation avoidance: and what about Radeloff V C (2016). Historical forest adaptation to environmental change?. New management in Romania is imposing Forests, 38(1), 15-34. strong legacies on contemporary forests Romsilva (2012) Raport privind modul de and their management. and îndeplinire a Programului de activitate al Management, 361: 179-193; RNP-ROMSILVA (Romsilva Activity Negrutiu F, Abrudan I V, Smith I (1999) Report 2012); Momente semnificative privind instalarea Romsilva (2013) Raport privind modul de artificiala a padurilor pe teritoriul îndeplinire a Programului de activitate al Romaniei, Analele Universitatii Oradea, RNP-ROMSILVA (Romsilva Activity (Fascicula Silvicultura), IV:37-46; Report 2013); Nichiforel, L., Keary, K., Deuffic, P., Romsilva (2014) Raport privind modul de Weiss, G., Thorsen, B. J., Winkel, G., ... & îndeplinire a Programului de activitate al Mifsud, E. G. (2018). How private are RNP-ROMSILVA (Romsilva Activity Europe’s private forests? A comparative Report 2014); property rights analysis. Policy, Romsilva (2015) Raport privind modul de 76, 535-552. îndeplinire a Programului de activitate al Nicolescu N, Petritan I, Vasilescu M, RNP-ROMSILVA (Romsilva Activity Ferreira & Henriques S (2003). Schemele Report 2015); de împădurire dese şi stabilitatea Romsilva (2016) Raport privind modul de monoculturilor de molid–este posibilă îndeplinire a Programului de activitate al realizarea unui echilibru de durată. RNP-ROMSILVA (Romsilva Activity Bucovina Forestieră, 11(2): 27-35; Report 2016); Nicolescu, V. N., Hernea, C., Bakti, B., Scriban R E, Nichiforel L, Bouriaud L, Keserű, Z., Antal, B., & Rédei, K. (2018). Barnoaiea I, Cosofret V C & Barbu C O Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) as (2017) Governance of the forest restitution a multi-purpose tree species in Hungary process in Romania: An application of the and Romania: a review. Journal of DPSIR model. Forest Policy and Forestry Research, 1-15. Economics.

52

ISSN 2537 - 3757, ISSN-L 2537 – 3757

Proceedings of the 4th Edition of the International Conference Integrated Management of Environmental Resources - Suceava, November 3-4th, 2017. Editura Universității „Ștefan cel Mare” Suceava, Romania.

Publisher:

Editura Universităţii „Ştefan cel Mare” din Suceava

Editors (eds.):

Sergiu-Andrei Horodnic, Mihai-Leonard Duduman, Ciprian Palaghianu

All papers in this publication were submitted on-line and have been edited to achieve a uniform format. Authors are responsible for the content of their paper.

Order to:

„Ștefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Forestry Faculty

Universității Street 13

720229 Suceava, Romania

Phone: +40 0230/522978 Fax: +40 0230/521664

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: http://silvic.usv.ro/imer2017/

All rights, including the right of reproduction, dissemination and translation reserved.