DANIEL WYNNE TAYLOR

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN A

REGION OF THE ROMANIAN CARPATHIAN MOUNTAINS

DATE OF SUBMISSION: MARCH/2004

Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Conservation Biology.

ii
ABSTRACT

Romania, as with many other East Central European countries is in developmental terms

still recovering from the legacies of the communist period. Until now, the transitional

period from communism to a more western style system has meant that several industries

have actually become de-intensified to the point that many are deemed to be sustainable.

This has to a large degree meant that biodiversity has been free of the numerous negative

impacts that western style development can bring, and consequently biodiversity levels

are still high in comparison to those of Western Europe. A number of factors, however,

are soon likely to jeopardise this position, with possible development threats, being EU

membership, restitution of land (particularly forests), and the general opening up of the

country to western markets. The answer espoused by many is strong sustainable

development, where economic progress is promoted in a manner not detrimental to the

natural environment. In order to assess whether such an approach is feasible, this report

will focus on a region of the Carpathian mountain chain, (presently one of Europe’s

richest areas for biodiversity) known as Zarnesti. Within this area the three industries of

agriculture, forestry and tourism, are investigated looking into each sector’s present

situation, likely future situation, and the changes required for sustainable economic

development and biodiversity conservation to become a working reality. The analysis

indicates that such a form of development is certainly achievable but only if a great

number of changes are made and needs met, (ranging from the local to international

level). Focusing on issues within European agricultural policy, eco-certificates,

education/training, associations, laws, land-use planning will be vital to the overall

i
process. Taken together, such factors need to be represented through an integrated rural

development policy with individuals at all levels working towards the common aim of

strong sustainable development.

ii
INDEX

iii
Section Page No:
1.0. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Sustainable Development and Biodiversity Conservation 1
2.0. STUDY AREA
8
3.0. METHODOLOGY
12
4.0. ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
4.1. Agriculture 14
4.2. Agriculture in Zarnesti (present situation) 16
4.2.1 Socio-economic issues and background information 17
4.2.2 Arable farming 20
4.2.3 Grassland meadows 25
4.2.4 Grassland pastures 28
4.3 Future predictions of agriculture
4.3.1 Arable farming 32
4.3.2 Grassland meadows 36
4.3.3 Grassland pastures 39
4.4. Required changes and needs 41

4.5. Forestry 45
4.5.1 Forestry in Zarnesti (present situation) 46

4.5.2 Future predictions of forestry 51

4.6. Required changes and needs 58

4.7. Tourism 61
4.7.1. Tourism in Zarnesti (present situation) 63
4.7.2 Future predictions of tourism 70

4.8. Required changes and needs 76

5.0 NON SECTOR SPECIFIC CHANGES AND NEEDS

79
6.0 CONCLUSION
82
Acknowledgements
85
References
86
Abbreviations
101
Appendix One
102

iv
SIGNED DECLARATION

The following dissertation is the candidate’s own work and has not previously been
published or submitted in candidature for any other degree or diploma.

………………………………………………(Daniel Taylor).

v
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in a Region of the Romanian

Carpathian Mountains

1.0. INTRODUCTION

The focus of this report is the maintenance and, where applicable, improvement in the

levels of biodiversity in a region of the Romanian Carpathians known as Zarnesti. The

potential for achieving this goal through integrating biodiversity conservation into

sustainable development is examined. Although biodiversity is already considered to be

part of sustainable development, it often receives very little attention and in most cases is

merely tagged on at the end of the environmental element. This report will re-adjust the

inner components of sustainable development so that biodiversity achieves a far greater

level of importance and in the process becomes a major driving force in the pursuit of a

strong form of sustainable development. The real driver of all forms of development

however will continue to be economics, and as such the challenge and the key to

achieving biodiversity conservation is the implementation of sustainable economic

development in a manner, which actually complements biodiversity protection. As the

focus is biodiversity and economics the social aspect of sustainable development will not

be considered (for a discussion of the social aspect see Harris, 2002; Henderson, 1994;

Kramer, 1996) whilst the environmental aspect will only be discussed if it is felt there are

direct consequences for biodiversity.

1
The topic is particularly appropriate and timely in Romania as the country is currently

undergoing a period of rapid change with respect to a number of issues associated with

development. Changes will result mainly from European Union (EU) accession (with

full EU membership in 2007), restitution of land, and the general opening up of the

country to western markets. The concern is that such changes will primarily focus on the

promotion of economic development with biodiversity merely seen as a barrier or

stumbling block. Biodiversity in many parts of Western Europe has already suffered

from the effects of such development, now one wonders is Romania, (which still has

much of is original biodiversity remaining) along with many other Eastern European

countries merely going to adopt the same damaging processes.

Within the framework of this report biodiversity conservation and sustainable economic

development will be examined through the three sectors of agriculture, forestry and

tourism. These were chosen due to the majority of the land area being taken up by these

activities, the direct effects they have on biodiversity, the importance of each to the

people of the area both in the present and in the future, and the changes that each is

undergoing namely through accession to the EU, forest restitution, and the increase in

tourism levels. Each of these sectors is examined in three main stages:

1. The ‘present situation’ in terms of each sectors influence over biodiversity and

economic development.

2. The ‘future situation’ with a particular focus on likely problems for the successful

implementation of strong sustainable development in each of the three sectors.

2
 Also included in small part are a number of possible solutions/changes to the

aforementioned problems.

3. The ‘required changes and needs’ for biodiversity conservation and sustainable

economic development to become a reality. These required changes and needs

will be presented in two separate sections, the first being sector-specific and the

second non-sector specific.

1.1. Sustainable development and biodiversity conservation

Due to the importance of sustainable development to the attainment of biodiversity

conservation it is perhaps appropriate to begin with a brief discussion of what this form

of development actually means. This is not as easy as one may think with sustainable

development meaning different things to different people, varying according to the values

and circumstances of individuals and social groups. In a review by Jacobs (1995) it was

found that there are at least 386 definitions of sustainable development. This

malleability, and the fact that it can be classified as ranging from very strong to very

weak (Turner, 1994), probably goes some way in explaining its popularity with a wide

range of groups. Often it can end up representing very little, however this is not to say

the concept is worthless, it still has a core meaning, which is both substantive and

important. This core meaning is very much based on the definition presented in the

Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), which states ‘Development that meets the needs of

the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs’.

3
The success of such a concept largely depends on the interactions between the three

components of economics, social aspects and the environment, which are of crucial and

in theory equal importance (Munasinghe, 1993). The problem, and the primary reason

for so many differing definitions, is that different people place varying degrees of

emphasis on each of the three individual components. To many the economic aspect still

dominates, with the original aim of the concept being to integrate environmental

considerations into central policy, which in the modern world is economics (Dresner,

2002) being diluted to the point that environmental considerations are now seen as mere

add-on concerns or useful political slogans. This is largely due to the old segmented and

sectoral approach to development and the segregation of economic, environmental and

social policy. In reality these three components often interact, adding value to the

development process. An example of this being the contribution that a beautiful and

diverse countryside makes to the economic sector of tourism, and the quality of life for

people living in such areas (Rural development regulation, 1999). It is not so much about

“trade-offs” or striking a balance between competing objectives, but rather facilitating

such inter-connectedness.

In the context of this report the economic and biodiversity elements of sustainable

development will be based on ‘strong’ sustainability principles. Under this interpretation

the possibility of limitless economic growth, particularly in developed countries, is

rejected (Daly, 1989), arguing for a steady-state global economy on the grounds of a

perceived need to preserve natural resources and the contribution of ecosystems to

4
maintaining the functional integrity of natural processes. Here most, or at least many,

natural resources are regarded as critical natural capital, and sustainable development is

regarded as requiring adherence to the constant natural assets rule (Markandya, 1989).

This means that the total stock of natural capital assets should remain constant, or rise,

through time in terms of quantity and quality. An important point however is that strong

sustainability does not necessarily mean that the chosen economic activity becomes less

economical, rather the very character of the economic activity changes towards

environmental (and social) sustainability (Baker, 1997). In the context of strong

sustainability a more relevant definition now becomes the one put forward by WWF in

1991, which states that ‘sustainable development is used to mean improving the quality

of life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems’.

Such interpretations, which emphasize ecological aspects, are largely due to the ever-

increasing loss of the world’s biodiversity. Biodiversity here will be based on the

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) definition as “the variability among living

organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic

ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity

within species, between species and of eco-systems” (CBD, 2001). Conservation

biologists have realized that the present reductions in biodiversity (with tens of thousands

of species predicted to become extinct in the coming decades (May 1995; Smith, 1993))

are largely due to the impacts of a particular phase or model of capitalist development,

which may be termed ‘developmentalism’ (McMichael, 1996). Thus, the best method by

which to halt and reverse such losses in biodiversity involves changing the very structure

5
of development, and in many respects working with development. This has resulted in an

integration of conservation and development and is seen through concepts and

approaches such as Integrated Conservation Development Projects (ICDP’s), (Brandon,

1993, 1992; Sanjayan, 1997), Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme (Batisse, 1985,

and 1997; Castellanos, 2002), the Eco-region approach (Holt, 2001; WWF, 2003) the

Natural areas concept (English Nature, 1999; Hewston, 1996; Tilzey, 1997), and locally

run schemes such as the CAMPFIRE projects in Zimbabwe (Child, 1995; Metcalfe,

1994).

This new approach to biodiversity conservation is also seen through policies,

conventions, government documents, and laws, each emphasizing the integration of

development and conservation. The process first began in 1980 with the World

Conservation Strategy, the original global conservation blueprint. This was the first

influential conservation document aimed at government officials and development

practitioners, as well as at conservationists (Robinson, 1993). Echoed throughout the

document is the premise that sustainable development is a process in which conservation

and development are mutually dependent. Thus the concept of conservation through

sustainable development was born. Its successor a decade later was Caring for the

Earth: A strategy for Sustainable Living (1991). Caring for the Earth goes one step

further in stating that ‘conservation and development are essential parts of one

indispensable process’, in essence that conservation is an inevitable consequence of

sustainable development. Shortly thereafter in 1992 came the Earth Summit held in Rio,

which produced the CBD (Chapter 15 of Agenda 21). The CBD and the Amsterdam

6
Treaty, which finally committed the EU institutionally to the principle of sustainable

development (Duff, 1997), are today the main impetus for the incorporation of

biodiversity and sustainable development issues into policies across a range of sectors.

The most recent step taken by the European Community (EC) in fulfilling its

commitments under the CBD is a number of biodiversity action plans, through which the

EC aim to integrate the protection of biodiversity into the areas of Conservation of

Natural Resources, Agriculture, Fisheries and Development and Economic Co-operation.

The prime objective to be achieved by 2010 related to biodiversity is ‘to protect and

where necessary restore the structure and functioning of natural systems and halt the loss

of biodiversity both in the European Union and on a global scale’ (EC, 2001a,b).

Leading Romania’s policy commitment to biodiversity conservation through sustainable

development is ‘The National Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation

and Sustainable use of its components’ - Romania’s direct response to the CBD (1996).

Another vital piece of legislation, having particular relevance to Romania (the country

covers 55% of the Carpathians) is the ‘Convention on environmental protection and

sustainable development of the Carpathians (2003)’. There is then a whole plethora of

less influential conventions, initiatives, and programs (for a full list see Romania’s

National strategy and Action plan - 1996), which in their own right represent varying

degrees of importance to development and conservation.

Such conventions and documents are bursting with grand aspirations replete with various

commitments/aims/objectives all clearly requiring considerable resources if they are to be

7
realised. In essence these same aims/commitments are the inspiration and focus of this

report, with the resulting document examining what is required for the many verbal aims

to become a reality within a sample area of Romania.

2.0. STUDY AREA

Research was concentrated on an area called Zarnesti (location: N 45º 33’ 41’’ / E 25º 18’

57’’), which is located in the elbow of the Carpathians in southern Romania. A precise

definition of the entire study area is quite simply any area of land (table 1 demonstrates

the division of land-uses and the zones they occur in), which falls within the municipality

of Zarnesti (see figure 1). It was decided to use the municipality as the study area as this

approach grouped a certain number of people together that share similar characteristics.

For instance they are all governed by the same town hall, they farm similar areas of land

and use similar practices, they face similar socio-economic problems, and they are more

likely to have similar opinions and aspirations. It merely makes it easier to understand

the complexities of an area and the factors, which affect biodiversity conservation and

sustainable development when the people are grouped together with certain common

linkages. From a biological perspective it would probably have made more sense to

focus only on the national park, however this would have involved people from different

villages, towns, and counties thus making it extremely difficult to draw representative

conclusions from the information collected and make recommendations.

8
9
Image Legend and land-use according to each zone:

Arable land

Grassland meadow

Combination of forest, pasture, buildings and arable land

Location of shepherd camps (based on year 2002 locations)

------- Border of PCNP

Zone One Grassland meadow

Roughly half forest with the remainder made up of small farms, grassland
Zone Two meadows and arable land
Predominantly meadow and pasture land, with small areas of forest and a
Zone Three few buildings

Zone Four Predominantly arable land

Zone Five Roughly half forest, and half grassland pasture

Zone Six Arable land

Zone Seven Predominantly forest, with lesser areas of arable land and buildings
Predominantly forest, with lesser areas of grassland pastures and one area
Zone Eight of rock face (see inside the boundaries of PCNP)

10
Table One: Division and zones of land-use within Zarnesti
Land-Use Area in Area as a % Zone(s) land-use
hectares of the total occurs in
surface area
Arable farming 1360 6.6% 2,4,6,7
Grassland pastures 3462 16.9% 3,5,8
Grassland meadows 1425 7% 1,2,3
Forest 13081 63.9% 2,3,5,7,8
Built environment 1147 5.6% -
and other
Total 20475 100% -
Source: Judetean, 2002

Zarnesti itself is split into three parts, including Tohanu Noua (noua = new), Tohanu

Vechi (vechi = old) and Zarnesti. Although originally separate they all now fall under the

jurisdiction of Zarnesti town hall. The population in 2003 was 26,763, with the populace

heavily concentrated within the borders of the town. Of greatest concern in the area is

the 75% unemployment rate, mainly due to the recent part-closure of the two ammunition

factories (from 15,000 employees to a present 2,000). The area also has poor

infrastructure with an inadequate sewage and waste disposal system, and poor water and

electricity supplies (Promberger, 2001).

The biodiversity of the area is particularly rich, both in flora and fauna. In faunal terms,

and from a European perspective, the area is unique in that it contains healthy

populations of almost all the original large carnivores¹, and mammal species, with the

exception of bison (Bison bonasus) and moose (Alces alces) (Promberger, 1998). High

numbers of bird species can also be found (108 at the present count – Olivio Pop,

_______________________________________________________________________
_
¹The study area as a whole is considered to be prime habitat for large carnivores. In fact the entire study
area was originally planned to be included in a biosphere reserve (of some 600,000ha) with the focus on
large carnivore conservation.

11
personal communication, August 2003), (for further information relating to birds found in

the area see Feneru, 2002). There are also around 90 butterfly species, with some

endemic to the area (Pop, 2002). In terms of aquatic fauna, ten fish species and sixty-five

species of invertebrates have been found to date (Tatole, 2001). Finally, the area has a

rich diversity of amphibians and reptiles including fire salamander (Salamandra

salamandra), red mountain frog (Rana temporaria temporaria), and mountain viper

(Vipera berus).

In terms of flora, one of the most important habitats with respect to species diversity is

the semi-natural grasslands used for hay collection, including species such as the globe

flower (Trollius europaeus) and common twayblade (Listera ovta) (Mihailescu, 2001).

Other groups of plants represented include three hundred fungi species, two hundred and

twenty lichen species, and more than one hundred mosses and liverworts² (Pop, 2002). A

more thorough discussion of biodiversity will be given in the relevant sections.

3.0. METHODOLOGY

The study was undertaken in the summer months of 2003, totalling sixty-seven days of

fieldwork. In total 112 people were interviewed with 90 of these being from the local

farming community (see appendix one for a full list of non-farming individuals

interviewed). The high proportion devoted to agriculture is due to the fact that its
_____________________________________________________________________________________
²It must be noted that the species counts for these three groups of species were done in the park as a whole
and my study area does not include the whole park. However the area I have included (both in the parks

12
boundaries and outside) is largely representative of the park as a whole, thus both the species type and
variety are also relevant to this study.

management is undertaken by hundreds of individuals in the area, whilst management of

forestry is presently undertaken by only one organization - the National Forestry

Association (NFA), and tourism is managed by a handful of individuals. Interviewees

from the farming community were selected from people seen working their land.

Data collection was in the form of interviews, semi-structured interviews, and literature

& internet searches. Interviews were done with representatives from each of the key

stakeholders. Relevant groups included the town hall, national government (the ministry

relevant to tourism, and the SAPARD agency), NFA, Carpathian Large Carnivore Project

(CLCP) ³, Piatra Craiului National Park (PCNP), Zarnesti Eco-Tourism Association

(ZETA), and local people who are a part of agriculture and tourism. Within each group

the people spoken to were involved in or aware of policy, laws and regulations,

certification schemes, management practices, land-usage, and biodiversity. Interviews

were either done in English or Romanian through an interpreter. All interviews were

recorded and then translated in order to check that the questions being asked were

producing the necessary information. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out

with representatives from conservation organizations, research institutes and individuals

who had carried out past research in the area. Finally literature and internet searches were

undertaken focusing on technical reports from governmental agencies, research institutes,

_______________________________________________________________________
_
³CLCP was established in the area in 1993 as a joint initiative of Romsilva (now the NFA) and the Munich
Wildlife Society, with the aim of establishing community-based conservation of large carnivores and their
habitats in the model region of the Piatra Craiului. Although originally focusing on scientific research the

13
project now has elements consisting of education, community development, eco-tourism and in the near
future a large carnivore centre.
conservation and environmental organizations, and the European Union.

4.0. ANALYSIS AND REVIEW

The analysis and review will examine each of the sectors (agriculture, forestry and

tourism) in three main stages: the present situation, the future situation and the required

changes and needs. Each of these three stages will be framed within biodiversity

conservation and sustainable economic development.

4.1. AGRICULTURE

The sector of focus in this report is agriculture, not so much due to the importance of this

sector to the area of choice, but because of the importance of the sector to Romania as a

whole, and Europe at large. In the EU 44% of the total land area is farmland, whilst in

Romania it is 62.4% (51% arable/permanent crops; 33% permanent pasture; 16% semi-

natural grasslands (FAOSTAT), employing 41.7% of people, and making up 15.5% of

GDP (EUROSTAT, 2000). The importance of the sector in terms of effects to

biodiversity are also clear, with the experience of Western Europe vividly demonstrating

the possible negative effects the sector can have. One of the most thorough studies

undertaken by Donald (2001) investigated 52 species of farmland birds across Europe

between the period 1970-1990. The results found that population declines and range

contractions were significantly greater in countries with more intensive agriculture,

namely Western European countries, whilst declines were significantly lower in former

14
communist countries which have less intensive forms of farming. Further ornithological

research conducted on the negative effects of intensive agriculture includes work by

Crick (1997) and Tucker (1997) with the results largely replicating Donald’s. Such

findings are particularly worrying when one considers that birds are thought to be key

indicators of overall farmland biodiversity (Gregory, 2000). Large-scale studies (in time

and number of species investigated) highlighting the negative effects of intensive

agriculture have also been conducted on wild plants (Korneck, 1988), arable weeds

(Wilson, 1991) and trees (Oldfield, 1998).

Such negative effects are often complex and in many cases species-specific. However, in

the bigger picture much of this loss of biodiversity can be attributed to two main factors;

intensification and land abandonment. Intensive agricultural practices that have an

impact on biodiversity include:

• Increased fertilizer and pesticide use,

• Simplified cultivation and crop rotations,

• Monocultures (reduction in number of species/races/varieties),

• Higher livestock densities,

• Greater mechanization,

• Inappropriate drainage and irrigation operations,

• Re-parcelling (larger parcel size, disappearance of field margins: hedges, ditches

etc). (Boatman, 1999; Jahn, 1991; UNEP, 2001).

15
Land abandonment is often ignored, however its occurrence across Europe is on the

increase, and in Southern Europe it is even regarded as a greater threat to biodiversity

than intensification (Boatman, 1999). In Romania the main concern is the abandonment

of semi-natural grasslands, which are often extremely rich in species diversity (Apostol,

2002).

Conversely, it is also worth remembering that agriculture can be, and is in many parts of

Europe, beneficial for wildlife. A large proportion of Europe’s most valued habitats have

arisen from agricultural management of the natural environment over a very long period

of time (Bignal, 1996; Meeus, 1990). The key point however is that this wealth of

biodiversity is largely dependent on the continuation of appropriate farming activities

(EC, 2000), with ‘appropriate’ farming activities being low-intensity, mixed or organic

farming systems (McCracken, 1995; Pain, 1997).

4.2. Agriculture in Zarnesti (present situation):

Agriculture in Zarnesti is based on three major forms of farming:

Arable farming consisting of cereals (predominately wheat, with small areas for oats and

rye), and potatoes.

Hay collection on grassland meadows.

1. Livestock farming on grassland pastures.

16
Each will be discussed separately laying out the practices used and the

importance/relevance of each to biodiversity. First a brief discussion of socio-

economic issues and background information (relevant to all forms of farming)

largely based on the findings of the interviews will be presented.

4.2.1. Socio-economic issues and background information:

Agriculture in Zarnesti is unlike farming found throughout most of Western Europe. This

is immediately apparent both visually and spatially with the traditional farmhouse and

surrounding land an almost non-existent sight. Instead the normal situation is for an

individual to have their land divided between zones four, and six (one area consisting of

cereals the other potatoes, each of equal size), with an area of meadow in zone one. In

each of these locations individual pieces of land are not cordoned off in any way, rather

each individual will have for example four rows of potatoes in one field consisting of

perhaps 100 rows. The only time in which this is not the case is in zone two, where there

are a handful of farms (albeit with similar total sizes of land) with areas for pasture,

crops, and meadow often all in one small locality. In response to the question of whether

the owner’s agricultural land was all in one location not one respondent in zones one,

four or six stated that it was, whilst 50% in zone two stated the same point (many of these

people had all three forms of agriculture on land surrounding their house).

The next most striking thing about farming is that it is extremely small scale; 2.54 ha

being the average size of land parcel (consisting of 0.64ha arable and 1.91ha hay

17
meadow) owned by persons questioned (2.7 ha is the average nationwide (FAO data)),

with only nine families owning more than 10ha (Judetean, 2002). Whilst individual

ownership sizes are similar, cumulatively agriculture as a land use is far more important

at the national level than in Zarnesti. Nationally 62.4% of the surface area is devoted to

agriculture, and in Zarnesti only 30.5% is used (55.4% pasture; 22.8% hayfields; 21.7%

arable/permanent crops (Judetean, 2002)). This small scale is reinforced by only 6-8% of

the local population practicing agriculture, again in contrast to national figures. Such

features can largely be attributed to the areas past history. Until recently there were two

large factories employing around 15,000, with people having to be brought in from the

surrounding regions, as the town itself did not have the necessary population to fill the

jobs. With the expansion of the industrial sector many people left agriculture (1966 =

1388 people involved in agriculture; 1992 = 506), whilst at the same time the population

was almost doubling (1966 = 12843; 1992 = 20608) (Muica, 1999).

Historically, in most rural areas, people settled due to the suitability of the land to meet

their needs, whereas in Zarnesti the two factories caused human migration because of the

availability of jobs. In effect this has artificially inflated the population creating a

situation whereby the density of people to land area is extremely high: 1 human/0.77 ha.

When the two factories part-closed the area was left with a population of 26,763, with

75% unemployment (Judetean, 2002). Today, people appear unwilling to enter into

agriculture, especially when productivity is so low and the land in most areas is largely

inaccessible.

18
Although agriculture is practiced on a small scale, with low numbers of people involved,

the importance of this sector for the fortunate ones with land is extremely high. Many

receive no form of income rendering them highly dependent on their small piece of land.

With respect to the interviewees it was found that:

• 55% receive an income from a pension (thousands of people in the town were

given pensions when the two factories part-closed),

• 24% receive no income whatsoever,

• Only 21% are in employment.

The importance of farmland was also expressed with comments such as ‘if it wasn’t for

this piece of land I don’t know how I would survive’.

An additional feature, is that farming is based on families doing the work, with very few

people actually employed in the sector, and even when someone is employed it is usually

no more than one or two individuals often only working on a part-time basis. The

interviews demonstrate this point, with 93% being family run, and only 7% actually

employing someone. One final issue related to socio-economics is whether the arable

produce is sold. Only one person of all 90 individuals sold crops commercially with the

buyers being a local mill and surrounding restaurants. Three further individuals sold to

friends or neighbours, and twelve exchanged crops, usually potatoes for cereals or vice

versa. The lack of commercial sale was also assessed by carrying out a small number of

semi-structured interviews at the local market. As expected, local produce was not on

19
offer, being sourced instead from other surrounding towns. Previous research and limited

checks by the author however indicate the complete opposite for livestock farming. Each

shepherd camp employs between 3-7 people and the produce (or what is left of the

produce once the local people have taken their share), particularly milk and cheese, are

sold at a local market each week in Zarnesti town centre.

4.2.2. Arable farming:

The practices used by the people of Zarnesti within arable farming are presented in Table

2 below. Results from both interviews and visual checks are shown:

Table Two: Arable-farming practices as used by the people of Zarnesti.

Results from the ²Results from the Additional comments
Farm Practice ‘individuals’. associations.
(Interviews) ¹Sample Size = Sample size = 5
80 (expressed as (expressed as the
a % of users). number of users
(U) and as a % of
land surface
(LS)).
Soil Fertility A further point not demonstrated
Organic and 96% U: 5/5 here is that not only is synthetic N
composted fertilizers used less by ‘individuals’ but it is
LS: 92.4% applied in smaller amounts and with
(OCF)
less frequency. OCF’s
Synthetic fertilizers 54% U: 5/5 predominantly take the form of
LS: 86.9% manure with only one individual
Green manure One individual - using ash.
Insecticide Insecticides are primarily used for
Synthetic 91% U: 5/5 the Colorado beetle (Leptinotarsa
decemlineata), which only occurs on
LS: 39.1% potatoes, thus this is why the land
surface is relatively low for the
Natural (manual 9% - associations. If only focusing on
removal, or some form of
potatoes then insecticides are
plant extract)
applied 100%. The associations also
apply insecticides in greater
quantities and with more regularity.
Herbicides The majority of chemical herbicides
Chemical/hormone 30% U: 5/5 are applied to cereals. 62% of

20
herbicides LS: 85.4% ‘individual’ herbicide users apply
Natural (manual 70% - herbicides to cereals, whilst
removal – hoeing) herbicides are applied to 100% of
cereal fields in associations.
Crop Crop rotations mainly occur in zones
Manageme 93% U: 5/5 four and six with each crop
(potatoes and cereals) rotating
nt LS: 91% locations each season.
Crop rotations (Crop
rotations in time)
Farm Practice Comments
(Visually checked)
Intercropping/companion cropping Due to the way farming is organized you tend to get large
(Crop rotations in space) areas of homogenous crops (particularly in zones four and
six). Zone two exhibits the exact opposite with arable,
livestock and grass lands often all occurring in a small
area.
Stubble In all zones stubble is left for the winter period, and is
turned in spring
Field Margins In zones four and six where the majority of arable farming
(incl. hedges, grass edges, scrub, woody occurs hedges, grass edges etc have been kept at an
fencerows etc) absolute minimum in order to maximize the surface area.
This is in stark contrast to Zone two, which still has such
features mainly as a means of dividing ones land from the
neighbours.
¹80 is given as the sample size instead of 85 as not every person interviewed has arable land (some merely
have hay meadows). ²Five of the 90 interviews consisted of associations, with each association applying
the same farming practice to every member’s piece of land. These five associations, which are the only
associations occurring in Zarnesti (more precisely Tohanu Noua and Tohanu Vechi as Zarnesti does not
have associations) represent in terms of farming practices around 750 individuals (according to each
individual having 0.64 hectares of arable land – associations do not manage hay meadows) and a total area
of 458 hectares. They have not been included as a part of the total sample size as associations and
individuals are likely to have different farming practices, thus creating the possibility that the results will be
more weighted in favour of associations with the end result being more a representation of farming in
associations, not farming in the area at large.

Before commenting on the relevance of each practice for biodiversity it must be stated

that the discussion will focus on farming run by individuals. Even though the focus will

be individuals, the relevance to associations is also quite clearly applicable.

As the interviews demonstrate about one in two individuals use synthetic N-fertilizer in

Zarnesti. A key point however is that it is applied in relatively small amounts and low

frequency, with the main source of Nitrogen being from OCF’s or, in the case of Zarnesti

manure (nitrogen content in manure is variable and it releases nutrients more slowly).

21
Having manure as the main source of Nitrogen can be beneficial to wildlife as the organic

component of manure is important to many invertebrates, including earthworms, which

are a major food source for some mammals and birds (Andrews, 1994). Furthermore,

usage of manure instead of synthetic-N will partly avoid high levels of nutrient leakage.

Such leakage causes particular problems for aquatic biodiversity with the most serious

threat being eutrophication (EPA, 1995). Negative consequences of agroecosystem N-

leakage can also be seen to terrestrial plant (Wedin, 1996) and insect communities

(Haddad, 2000), including beneficial arthropods (Pfiffner, 2000). Effects on wildlife can

also be indirect via modification of food, nesting and protective cover (Jepson, 1989;

O’Connor, 1992).

Pesticides, especially insecticides are commonly used. However, as with fertilizer usage,

amounts and frequency are kept low probably due to the costs involved. Pesticide prices

are comparable to Western European prices, and in some cases are even more expensive.

With such high costs it is clearly understandable that many people choose to solve the

problem of weeds manually (insects being more difficult to remove manually), resulting

in an extremely low usage of herbicides. Negative effects of pesticide usage are most

immediate when it comes to both non-target plants (Agra Europe, 1991; Andreasen,

1996) and invertebrates (Ewald, 1999; Greig-Smith, 1995; Moreby, 1994). Such

negative effects however do not end there; plants and invertebrates are a key food source

for numerous species and as such affect many other species through the food chain. For

instance one literature review cites more than 35 reports documenting adverse effects to

avian, and mammalian wildlife populations (Robinson, 1991). Pesticides have also been

22
shown to affect aquatic and marine communities due to runoff into surface water bodies

(Havens, 1995).

A clearly beneficial practice is the maintenance of cereal stubbles through the winter.

Birds benefit with an improvement in breeding habitats, foraging habitats and an added

winter food source for seed-eating birds (Boatman, 1999). Many late-flowering arable

field plants also need winter stubble in order to complete their life cycle (van Elsen,

1999). Furthermore research in the Netherlands has indicated that the near extinction of

hamsters may be due to the short period in which this species may gather grain before

hibernation (van Oorschot, 1998). Although not directly relevant to Zarnesti, such

factors are likely to affect other small mammals, which do occur in the area.

Crop rotations are also said to be beneficial, with the practice being applied across the

entire farming community in Zarnesti. It has been found that crop rotations help maintain

soil structure and organic matter content (Soil Association, 2003), whilst at the same time

reducing the build up of harmful pests and diseases and increasing biodiversity

(Lampkin, 1990). Crop rotations however work best when used in conjunction with

intercropping or companion cropping (crop rotations in space). Such practices result in

high crop diversity that is vital for the ecological requirements of many species. For

instance brown hares (Lepus europaeus), which occur in Zarnesti, graze different crops at

different times of the year (Tapper, 1986), whilst many bird species have different habitat

requirements during the breeding season (Salamolard, 1999; Stoate, 1998; Wilson, 1997).

23
It makes ecological sense that due to inter-species differences there will be greater

biodiversity in landscapes offering high crop and structural diversity. Such structural

diversity also provides the added benefit of landscape and aesthetic diversity, which

many Europeans place great value on. These benefits however are being lost all across

Europe with simplification of cropping systems and geographic polarization of arable and

livestock farming (Boatman, 1999). The same can largely be said in Zarnesti where you

have one large block for cereals, and one for potatoes. The only area where crop and

structural diversity is high is in zone two.

Adding to such structural diversity are field margins. As with the above practice

however field margins are not commonplace, except in zone two. In terms of biodiversity

this is a severe weak point of farming in Zarnesti, with field margins being particularly

valuable areas due to the variety of habitats they contain, and their role as potential

corridors for dispersal of species within the agricultural landscape (Boatman, 1994).

With respect to field margins acting as corridors, it has been shown that their presence

and management can enhance or inhibit inter-patch movement of plants (Burel, 1990;

Verkaar, 1990), small mammals (Fahrig, 1985; La Polla, 1993) and invertebrates

(Sherratt, 1993). Field margins have also been found to provide higher numbers and

diversity of birds (Brae, 1988; Stein-Bachinger, 2000), and plants (Cobb, 1999). Finally

much work has been done on insects, with evidence suggesting that field margins can

enhance species richness (Dennis, 1992; Dover, 1991) and may even help to restore

predator-prey relationships (Chiverton, 1991; Thomas, 1991).

24
Due to differences in management of the various farming practices, general conclusions

as to whether farming on arable land in Zarnesti is a benefit or a hazard to biodiversity

are difficult to make. However, it would seem to be the case that in broad terms there are

three main systems in place, each exhibiting different degrees of positive or negative

influence. Clearly, the best system, or combination of practices, occurs in zone two, with

the only weakness being the use of pesticides and synthetic-N, although frequency and

amounts are kept to a minimum. Of intermediate quality is farming run by individuals in

zones four and six. The main weaknesses here are again use of pesticides, but with the

added weakness of simplified structural diversity, which is clearly represented by the lack

of companion cropping/intercropping, and field margins. The worst system is farming

managed by associations, with all the weaknesses mentioned thus far, but with greater

use of synthetic-N and pesticides. The greater usage of pesticides by the associations

provides a useful indication of what farming may well be like if more money was

available. If comparing with agriculture in Western Europe one could say that farming in

the associations is close to what we know as conventional farming (but still with less

usage of pesticides, and synthetic-N) whilst farming in zone two is closer to what we

know as organic farming.

4.2.3. Grassland meadows:

Romania is extremely fortunate in that it still has much of its semi-natural grasslands

remaining, with the total area of this habitat (2,332,730 ha) representing 30% of all that is

left in CEE10⁴ countries (FAOSTAT data, 2001). This is in stark contrast to Western

25
Europe where intensification of grassland management and conversion of grass to arable

cultivation has destroyed much of what is the richest vegetation type in plant species in

temperate Europe (Fischer, 2002; Klimes, 2000). The experience of countries such as the

Netherlands (IKC-NBLF, 1994) Switzerland (Fischer, 2002) and the UK demonstrates

such loss, with for instance a 92% decline in the area of ‘unimproved’ grassland in the

UK between the 1930s and 1980s (Fuller, 1997). This has resulted in a consequent

decline in biodiversity, especially that of plants and invertebrates (Green, 1990) with

knock on effects for species such as bats and birds.

As with semi-natural grasslands everywhere, the most important element in their

continuation is some form of human management, as without it the area would soon be

taken over by shrubs and trees. In Zarnesti the economic situation ensures that people

still use the meadows for hay, and in a manner, which is non-intensive. Many individuals

clearly cannot afford to purchase livestock feed, thus creating the situation whereby

people have to cut hay for themselves, with the consequent management being perfect for

the maintenance of such habitats and high levels of biodiversity. Management involves

the use of scythes (only two individuals out of 75 actually used modern machinery), with

cutting taking place once or twice a year. Fertilization by manure, albeit at very low

amounts, is similarly carried out twice a year (once in the spring, and once in the

autumn), with the area being cleaned following rain, by which time the nutrients have

leached out. Cumulatively management probably only involves around a weeks work.

_______________________________________________________________________
_
⁴CEE10 (Central and Eastern European Accession Countries): Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

26
Such practices are in many ways beneficial for biodiversity:

• The use of scythes over modern machinery stops soil compaction and a flat

topography. Soil compaction can stop a number of species from developing,

whilst an uneven topography separates species providing different niches. Hand

cutting also allows birds and mammals to escape prior to cutting.

• The fact that people cut each year avoids the process of succession whereby the

most vigorous plants, which are usually the commoner grasses come to dominate

(Andrews, 1994). Halting the successional process also avoids the formation of a

dense canopy, which can exclude many light-demanding plants (Bakker, 1980;

Kotanen, 1997; Mitchley, 1995).

• There is the timing of cutting, which is of vital importance, with individuals

cutting very late on when the majority of plants have produced seeds.

• The fertilization process is done in such a way that fields tend to have low

nutrient values. Over-fertilization increases biomass production and decreases

diversity (DiTommaso, 1989; Willems, 1985) because grasses and legumes may

increase, while characteristic species, such as many forbs and orchids, which are

weak competitors, are excluded (Dahler, 1993; Mountford, 1993).

• A regularly mown meadow avoids the effects of litter accumulation. In un-mown

meadows above ground biomass can be composed of between 40-80% litter,

whilst in meadows regularly mown this figure drops to 30-40% (Klimes, 2000).

This is important, as litter accumulation has been shown to significantly reduce

27
 species richness (Foster, 1998; Huhta, 1998; Milton, 1997) especially at smaller

scales (Klimes, 2000).

As a result of such management Zarnesti’s meadows are today an extremely valuable

biodiversity resource, with recent surveys supporting this fact. At the last count 450

species of plants were found just in zone one. Of this total, orchids (Orchidiaceae) seem

to be particularly well represented with 41 of Romania’s 58 species being found in the

area (Olivio Pop, personal communication, August 2003). Such a rich habitat clearly has

knock-on benefits for a range of other species. For instance many bird species, which are

rare in Western Europe have been identified in the area including the red-backed shrike

(Lanius collurio), lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina), and white stork (Ciconia

ciconia) (Feneru, 2002; Ionescu, 2000). Many small mammals including the field vole

(Microtus agrestis), common vole (Microtus arvalis) and wood mouse (Apodemus

sylvaticus) also use the habitat either as a source of food, or as an area for shelter. There

is also a range of bat species such as the Brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus), and

whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus), which use the meadows as a source of insects

(Murariu, 2001). Benefits of the habitat to various other species continue throughout the

food chain, in the end reaching the large carnivores.

4.2.4. Grassland pastures:

Throughout Europe low intensity grazing has created pastures rich in wildlife, benefiting

species such as low-growing plants, invertebrates and birds, which need open conditions

28
(Andrews, 1994). Management of grazing should be adaptable with respect to the

species one hopes to protect. This includes controlling the level of grazing intensity and

the type of livestock used.

Within Zarnesti eight shepherd camps were investigated, the locations of which are

widely distributed and can be seen on figure one (the total number of camps in Zarnesti is

between 10-12). Such locations, however, are not permanent as the shepherds have a

transhumance lifestyle. Starting in late May, most herds move from the camps at the foot

of the mountains into permanent camps in the alpine areas where they stay until the

middle of September. Some herds, however stay in the lower base camps and walk every

day to meadows in or around the forest. During winter, sheep are either brought lower

down where it is warmer or are returned to their owners in the villages or towns.

Cumulatively the eight camps contain 2100 sheep, with an average of 262 to each camp

(ranging from 30 to 600). Information on cows and pigs was not collected, however their

numbers are generally far lower. For instance in a three year study of 28 shepherd camps

in the region the average number of sheep per camp was 388, whilst cows averaged 43

and pigs 7.6 (Mertens, 2001).

Successful management of the grassland pastures is dependent on two groups. The first is

the town hall that owns the pastures and administers the whole process and the second is

the shepherd camps. The town hall regulates details such as the length of the grazing

season, the number of animals allowed, the rental charge for the area, the amount of

cheese livestock owners receive from shepherds and so forth. A number of these

29
regulations such as those limiting the numbers of animals, and grazing period are

primarily in place to try and ensure that the pastures are not under or overgrazed and that

some kind of sustainable grazing occurs. Added to this are various laws such as the law

of grassland management: Legea Pasunatului, No. 8/1971, and the law of livestock

raising: Legea zootehniei No. 72/2002. There are also fines for shepherd camps that do

not look after their area of pasture, and finally with a proportion of the rental charge the

town hall is supposed to manage the area (scythe the weeds, dung the grass etc).

Unfortunately it would seem that the system is not working, with grazing in the future

likely to be put in jeopardy by present day practices. Laws mean very little, the rental

charge is so low that the town hall does not have enough to pay for management or to

check the area, fines are not imposed and when they are they are too low to act as a

deterrence, and the shepherds often lie about the numbers of livestock in a camp

(research in nearby PCNP found that of seven camps, four had lied about their livestock

sizes often declaring only half the real figure (Marusca, 2000)). Furthermore, many

camps are located differently each year, thus the shepherds are not concerned with

maintaining the quality of the grass for following years (of the eight camps checked in

Zarnesti four had changed locations from the previous year). Such failings have resulted

in high levels of overgrazing, with a clear reduction in biodiversity.

Where overgrazing occurs species richness is decreased, the composition is altered and

productivity is low. In advanced stages of overgrazing economically valuable species

(high feeding value) such as red fescue (Festuca rubra) and colonial bentgrass (Agrostis

30
capillaries) are replaced by mat-grass (Nardus stricta), a species, which prefers soils with

low nutritive value (Marusca, 2000). Furthermore towards the end of the grazing season,

when plants begin to dry as a result of trampling and intensive use of the pasture, the

sheep begin to search for alternative fodder (Ioras, 2001). Not surprisingly the sheep

enter into the surrounding forest and alpine rocky areas where plants are richer in

nutrients and water content. In the process much forest vegetation is destroyed such as

calcicole endemic plant species and consequently sheep take the food resources from

wildlife such as deer and chamois.

A particular concern for the forest ecosystem is that sheep damage half the Norway

spruce seedlings involved in the natural regeneration process. Initially sheep forage

Norway spruce seedlings of one to two years (under 15cm) but as time progresses they

will accept much taller saplings (45cm) (Ioras, 1999). Clearly the present form of

grazing is unsustainable, with a reduction in the numbers of animals in accordance to

pasture capacity an urgent priority. However, large-scale reductions, which would

threaten the economic viability of the activity, can partially be avoided by introducing

better management. For instance, shepherds should be given the same area each year

encouraging them to be better stewards. Such stewardship could involve the following

practices (1) cleaning the area of dung to avoid over-nitrification, (2) moving the

enclosures every 3-5 days (according to how much it rains) so that the sheep trample the

weeds and dung the soil in just the right amount, (3) clean area of plants not eaten by

animals, and remove weeds and plants, and (4) over sow the area with local plants.

31
4.3. Future predictions of Agriculture:

4.3.1. Arable farming:

Since beginning the process of acquiring membership to the EU (otherwise known as

‘accession’) agriculture in Romania has begun to be increasingly influenced by policy.

Present policy is driven by both the Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural

Development (SAPARD)⁵ and the governments own policy programme, with this being

the case until 2007 at which point the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will be

applied.

Such influences however seem to be of little benefit to the small farmer in Zarnesti. Of

80 individuals questioned 19 received help in the form of synthetic Nitrogen, and 1

individual who owned a large area of land received fuel (over 10 ha is required to receive

fuel). Associations on the other hand receive far higher levels of support with 4 out of 5

benefiting from subsidized cereal seeds, fuel, machinery (up to 55% reduction) and

Nitrogen (the option to receive advice and training was also available). The prime

objectives of SAPARD and the government’s own policies are to create farms, which can

compete on the European market, thus both production (productivity per ha is presently

two-three times smaller than in the Western states) and an increase in size of farms are

_______________________________________________________________________
_
⁵SAPARD (pre-accession instrument 1268/1999) is based on the National Plan for Agriculture and Rural
Development (NPARD), which contains eleven measures and receives an annual allocation amounting to
297.561 million euro. NPARD is primarily used as a means of preparing the agricultural sector and rural
areas for participation in the CAP and the single market. Its two broad objectives aim to facilitate the

32
adoption of the communitarian legislation (acquis) and to help solve specific problems related to the
sustainable development of the agricultural sector and of rural areas (NPARD, 2000).

encouraged. Such an approach is represented in the various measures and the allocation

of funds. For instance production related measures receive the majority of funding and

farms over 10 hectares are offered greater benefits. With production related measures

primarily based on subsidies for increased inputs (pesticides, fertilizers, machinery etc) it

is clearly just a matter of time before such practices become commonplace. One has to

remember that the only reason such practices are not used to a high degree at the present

time is due to the fact that people are unable to afford them (it is unlikely to be due to

some environmental conscience or as a means of benefiting biodiversity). Lessons from

the past support such a statement with input usage of fertilizers and pesticides under

central planning (pre 1990) equal to usage in EU-15 countries (this is in contrast to recent

figures that puts usage to at least half of EU-15 countries) (FAOSTAT and EUROSTAT

data).

SAPARD however is not merely based on increasing production, there are also separate

measures for agri-environmental schemes where farmers are paid for delivering

environmental goods and services which go beyond the reference level of good

agricultural practices in the country or region concerned (see Rural development

regulation (RDR) 1257/1999, Articles 22 & 23). The implementation of agri-env

measures over the whole of the EU constitute the core of the community’s environmental

strategy and are seen as a means of meeting biodiversity and sustainable development

targets as set out in the CBD and Amsterdam Treaty (Article 3c). In their extreme such

schemes are represented by organic farming, which in recent years has received

33
increasing levels of support. The main reason for this support is that under organic

farming there is a substantially reduced loss of biodiversity (for biodiversity comparisons

with conventional agriculture see Azeez, 2000; Elsen, 2000; Hald, 1999; Letourneau,

2001; MacNaeidhe, 2000; Paoletti, 1999ab; Rydberg, 2000; Stolze, 2000; VanMansvelt,

1998), production is only marginally less than conventional agriculture (Padel, 1994; Soil

association, 2001; Stanhill, 1990), and due to lower input costs and favourable price

premiums profit margins are comparable if not higher than conventional agriculture

(Hanson, 1997; Smolik, 1995; Stonehouse, 1996). Furthermore the market for organic

produce is continually expanding (Lotter, 2003) and many have argued that it would be

relatively easy for accession countries to adopt organic farming as agriculture is already

low input and in many cases already based on organic farming methods.

The likelihood of organic farming becoming a commonly practised form of farming

however is severely limited by the fact that only 3% of the SAPARD budget in Romania

is allocated to agri-env schemes (NPARD, 2000). Furthermore agri-env schemes are

being implemented as pilot projects (in pilot areas), which Zarnesti is highly unlikely to

be one of. There is also the issue that although the organic market is growing it is still

relatively small (with a range of between 1-10% in individual EU-15 countries) and as

such Romania has to react to market demands, which at the present time is for cheap food

produced on conventional farms. An additional barrier is that so long as incomes do not

increase in Zarnesti a large proportion of the people will continue to keep their land, as it

is a cost effective method of producing food. As such the development of farms, which

are big enough to sell produce abroad (the domestic market for organic foods is

34
understandably non-existent) is therefore highly unlikely. Individuals hoping to purchase

large areas of land in order to sell produce will quite simply go to the plains where

productivity is higher and access is easier. Associations constitute another set of

problems mainly due to the fact that there is no produce to sell (all food is distributed to

association members), thus there is no economic gain from ethical or green price

premiums. The reason why organic farming is expanding in Western Europe is because

with a combination of price premiums and agri-env payments organic farming for the

farmer becomes economically comparable to conventional agriculture. In effect both the

consumer and European Union are paying for beneficial environmental practices,

however when the consumer is taken out of the equation price premiums disappear and as

such a major financial resource and incentive is lost. Consequently the practices of

organic farming are only likely to be followed if levels of compensation or payments are

increased so as to make up for the lower production levels and extra costs involved. At

the present time, however, it would seem that organic farming methods and the beneficial

effects on the environment and biodiversity are not yet valued enough for payments to

increase to the required level. Therefore, organic farming on arable lands in Zarnesti is

extremely unlikely; the argument for organic farming is more likely to be fought on the

plains.

In Zarnesti it is expected that arable farms are likely to become larger and more

intensified, with the transformation occurring through the use of associations, not large

single land ownerships. With the present benefits being offered to large farms it simply

makes sense to form associations and thereby receive subsidies meaning lower costs and

35
higher production levels. Economically it will be unsustainable as agriculture will be

increasingly dependent on subsidies (as is the case in most 1st world countries), however

for its members it will mean increased amounts of produce at a comparable cost.

Ultimately in time one would hope that agri-env schemes could be applied to

associations. However, with only a 3% allocation of funds and with the various other

complications the take-up rate is probably going to be extremely minimal. As such it is

likely that associations will merely become more intensified with obvious negative

consequences for biodiversity.

4.3.2. Grassland meadows:

In terms of conservation value the semi-natural grassland meadows represent the jewel in

the crown of farming in Zarnesti. Unlike arable farming where intensification is the main

concern, land abandonment on grassland meadows is the principal issue because in the

absence of constant management the land will convert to scrub and eventually forests.

Management in Zarnesti comes from hundreds of families working with scythes cutting

the grasses for animal feed. Such a situation is almost unheard of elsewhere with many

countries having to recruit volunteers or staff to carry out similar practices for nature

conservation purposes (for such a scheme see Ulaak, 2000). With no encouragement for

people to continue such practices however it is likely that the practice of cutting the

grasses each year will disappear in the near future. Visually the negative affects of land

abandonment on grasslands are already evident with the forest line on the west side

(Barsa Valley; Zone one) of PCNP slowly encroaching down into the valley, where

people have recently abandoned grass cutting. The same situation is mirrored across

36
Romania and particularly in mountainous areas where the majority of grassland meadows

occur (Apostol, 2002).

Driving the abandonment of grassland meadows is the conversion from horse to car

(subsequently reducing the need for feed), and the fact that the younger generation are

not so willing to do such strenuous work for so little financial reward. At the local level

there is concern that Zarnesti town council will ignore county land-use laws and allow

people to build in Barsa Valley, where the majority of the meadows occur. This will

significantly increase the price of the land and as such many people may well be tempted

to sell their individual plots. From an economic point of view this will make sense as the

money saved from cutting hay is less than the money that could be gained from selling

the land. The obvious consequence is that biodiversity will suffer, with the landscape

gradually becoming dominated by forest and holiday homes.

Clearly action is required, whereby there is a clear economic benefit to the people for

keeping grassland meadows in their present state and under continuous management. At

present the CLCP through their CDCF fund are slowly purchasing areas of meadow, with

the premise that local people can still use the land for cutting hay. Due to financial

constraints, however, it is unlikely to be enough (increased levels of CDCF funding may

soon be possible from the profits of the large carnivore centre). Without some form of

continual payment people will likely continue to abandon the land. In the authors

opinion there is no reason why agri-env schemes, which in part have been developed to

achieve nature conservation goals through agriculture, could not be applied to meadows

37
in Zarnesti. Schemes that offer a financial incentive for good practice are already in

place in many other parts of Europe, and are commonly used when land is in or in close

proximity to a National Park. Payments could be partially financed by PCNP, as

management would meet many of the parks own nature conservation goals. Relations

with local people would be improved and in a small way the park would be contributing

to economic development in the surrounding area. Probably of most immediate

importance however is the swift resumption of the county land-use plans. Due to the

present lack of financial rewards from hay cutting it would only take a relatively small

increase in price of land to encourage people to sell with no-shortage of likely buyers in

such a scenic area.

The above changes are certainly a possibility, but the present local situation does not

bode well. Although CLCP will continue its purchasing of meadows, the future existence

of the meadows is probably more in the hands of the town council and the park. Both the

park and the town hall should be working together to put in place strict land-use laws,

and attempting to acquire funding whether it be through SAPARD, other European funds

or the Romanian government. The town hall has to put its own interests aside and realise

that nature conservation can indeed, in the long term, create money and that sustainable

development can best be achieved if the meadows remain in local ownership.

Furthermore, the park has to increase its involvement in the community and realise that

nature conservation on grassland meadows is in all probability only achievable with the

help of local people. Only with such changes in the mind-set and actions of these two

38
groups of people are we likely to see the continuation of the biodiversity rich meadows

we see today.

4.3.3. Grassland pastures:

As with meadows it is likely that land abandonment will occur. Driving such

abandonment is the availability of cheap imported cheese (cheese being the main product

of traditional livestock raising) from the EC, thus reducing the demand for cheese

produced at mountain livestock camps. Recent socio-economic changes have also raised

expectations of higher living standards with many livestock producers and shepherds now

finding the harsh working conditions and low financial returns of their lifestyle

unacceptable.

The process however is likely to be quite gradual with many people still very dependent

on the milk, cheese and meat, which are produced from such camps. One may well

comment that a certain level of land abandonment is a good thing as overgrazing is

presently negatively affecting biodiversity. Unfortunately this premise is dubious with

the worst-case scenario being one where demand for produce drops to such an extent that

camp numbers are reduced. Pastures in the abandoned areas will slowly change to scrub

and forests, whilst pastures in the remaining camps will continue to be overgrazed.

Unfortunately the solution is not so simple, with a reduction needed in grazing intensity

(in other words a reduction in the number of animals in accordance with pasture capacity)

but not in the number of shepherd camps.

39
In terms of biodiversity the best solution is to encourage the continuation of shepherd

camps, but at the same time to encourage a lesser number of livestock. With lesser

livestock numbers, however, it will become increasingly difficult to make a profit thus

again encouraging the abandonment of shepherd camps. In such circumstances the

difference in lost profit needs to be made up. Again agri-env style payments need to be

applied where shepherds are subsidised for keeping the number of sheep according to the

carrying capacity of the pastures, and for management practices (such as having different

breeds of livestock, and water troughs so as animals don’t trample vegetation in streams)

that beneficially impact on biodiversity. Such payments would further be in line with

recent changes to the CAP where headage subsidies have been removed and replaced

with the new single payment system (SPS) (Europa, 2003). Added to this shepherds

should be encouraged to diversify by, for example, having tourists (those in search of the

rural experience) visit the camps in return for a small charge, or by selling cheese at a

local tourist market. For many camps, however, this may not be enough, in which case

an option could be to try and export produce to the European market.

The exportation of produce, however, would require substantial investments in

infrastructure so as to meet the rigorous EU hygiene, animal welfare and quality

requirements. In turn this would mean that camps would have to form associations in

order to raise the necessary funds and to have enough produce to sell. Clearly, in order to

survive, shepherd camps are going to have to adapt. If they do not the transhumance

lifestyle, which has existed for generations, will likely slowly disappear and along with it

40
the practice of grazing that when undertaken in an appropriate manner can be highly

beneficial to biodiversity.

4.4. Required changes and needs:

In order for biodiversity conservation and sustainable economic development to become

a reality within the study area then a number of changes and needs are required. Such

changes will ensure that many of the present unsustainable practices do not continue into

the future. With respect to agriculture there are both present and future concerns.

Present concerns are related to intensification on grassland pastures, whilst future

concerns are related to intensification on arable land with progressive land abandonment

of both grassland pastures and meadows. The required changes and needs are:

• Greater use of agri-env payments. This particularly applies to payments under

SAPARD (more precisely the RDR), but also has relevance to payment schemes

by the Romanian government or even other EU programmes. At present

payments for farmers are determined by reference to the compensation required to

cover the loss of income entailed by complying with specific environmental

restrictions and the management cost of actions required. In addition to a

premium calculated on the basis of available farm costs-accounts, a top-up of up

to 20% can be added in order to provide an incentive sufficient to cover the high

transaction costs entailed in many schemes (Baldock, 2002). In an area such as

Zarnesti, where farming is based on self-subsistence, the 20% formula becomes

41
 irrelevant and in any case it would probably not act as an adequate enough

incentive for farmers to practice such methods as organic farming or even to stay

on the land. Payments almost have to be viewed as a wage for the farmer, not

calculable by income but, relative to size of land and the benefit of the practices to

biodiversity and sustainable development in the wider community (i.e. area

payments not linked to production). In addition, payments have to be used on

land such as grassland meadows, where payments are clearly needed to maintain

the practice for biodiversity and also for the aesthetic value for tourism. In fact

such payments and programmes do exist but, individuals at the local level are

often unaware of them.

• Monitoring and training of local people. If payments are to be increased and

widened according to beneficial management then local people will have to be

trained in these new management techniques. Training is needed to both ensure

local people understand, which practices benefit biodiversity and also to increase

production levels. Contrary to what one may think this does not mean turning the

clocks back to outdated methods of farming, rather all the modern technological

methods available should be used in a process of sympathetically modernizing

farming (for a number of these techniques please refer to the references given in

Bignal, 1996). Furthermore, management will then need to be monitored to

ensure that, for instance, pesticides are not being used, or that meadows are

indeed being cut with scythes. Ideally such training and monitoring should be

conducted by organisations at the local or regional level, however the problem

42
 lies in the fact that very few individuals at these levels have the necessary

knowledge, and as such SAPARD should provide training. Unfortunately this

does not seem to be in the current remit of SAPARD. SAPARD only seems to act

as a funding mechanism, thus if the people asking for the money do not know (or

have no way of finding out) how to practice organic farming, for example, then

such practices will quite simply not be used. With such a situation it would be

surprising if even the 3% set aside for agri-env schemes was actually utilised.

• Further research into linkages between agriculture and biodiversity. Although

many examples of the effects of various agricultural practices on biodiversity

already exist (see earlier sections) further research is needed, particularly at the

local and species-specific level.

• Diversification. This is a must if agriculture is to continue particularly in the case

of the shepherd camps where shepherds will soon need to find additional sources

of income (especially if livestock numbers are reduced in accordance to pasture

capacity). Full-time farmers throughout Europe are becoming increasingly rare

and many have to supplement their income with other jobs or diversify their

businesses to target new niche markets. Frequently cited as a new market, is

tourism, and in Zarnesti tourism certainly has the possibility to play a vital role.

There is already a small grants program offered by PCNP for individuals to

develop their homes for tourism, and CLCP as part of their nature trips often visit

a shepherd camp where tourists can meet shepherds and sample a range of

43
 cheeses. Much of the wool used for making gifts in the souvenir shop (see

tourism section) is also sourced from sheep in the shepherd camps. Such

schemes, and others, need to be continually developed and expanded upon.

• Better use of Associations. When used correctly associations can provide many

benefits. For instance, on arable land, associations provide a means of acquiring

SAPARD/government funding and make the issue of monitoring, and the

introduction of environmental/biodiversity standards, far simpler. Also, on

grassland pastures they can help to pull produce together thus producing a surplus

so it can be sold commercially. In a few parts of Romania this is already being

done with, for example, milk, butters, and cheeses often being sold as speciality

products. It can also be a means of drawing capital together thus providing the

possibility of introducing many of the changes that are required in order to sell

abroad. The main difficulty regarding associations however is that many

Romanians still see them as part of the communist era, where cooperation was

enforced on a grand scale and as such many individuals are now reluctant to form

associations.

• Linkages with neighbouring towns. This is fundamentally related to solving the

problem of overgrazing on grassland pastures. The present situation means that in

relatively small regions you can have patches that are over-grazed and others that

are under-grazed (both negative for biodiversity). This comes down to the fact

that each commune takes care of their own pastures and is not aware of what is

44
 happening in nearby communes. If communes were linked then grazing could be

better dispersed and rotated according to sustainable levels.

4.5. FORESTRY

Forests the world over are recognized as key economic resources, and Romania is

particularly fortunate in this respect in that it has one of the most valuable forestry

resources in Europe. Covering an area of 6,342,538 ha, the forests account for 28% of

the country’s total land surface, a figure close to the European average (NPARD, 2000).

Of this area about 90% are found in mountainous and hilly regions (10% occur in the

plains), with forest composition consisting of 70% broad leaved and 30% coniferous

species (Puumalainen, 2003). In 1999, the country exported wood, and wood products

totalling about US $1 billion, representing 11% of total exports. Of this more than half

were processed wood products, such as furniture, plywood, and pulp (Beckman, 2001).

The value of environmental services associated with forests are, however, considerably

larger. A recent study conducted by the World Bank (1999), estimated that the annual

value of all products and services provided by Romania's forests (including

environmental services but excluding value-added from forest industries), is in the order

of US $3.1 billion.

Forests though are not merely economic resources; they are also key areas for

biodiversity. Within Europe’s forests it is generally considered that there is an east-west

gradient with biodiversity being richer in the east (Angelstam, 1997). The reasons for

this has been attributed to the long history of intensive land use (such as changes in forest

45
cover, composition and structure) in the more developed west (Angelstam, 1996). The

existence of such an east-west gradient is certainly applicable to Romanian forests, which

are considered to be one of the most diverse in Europe, both in terms of tree species and

as habitats for other species such as lichens, mammals, birds, and butterflies. Particularly

noteworthy is the fact that west of Russia, Romania’s forests contain the highest

populations of large carnivores (5,500 bears, 3,000 wolves, and 1,500 lynx (WWF,

2001a)) and the largest natural forested area – maybe the largest remaining virgin forests

(300,000 hectares or 4% of all forest) in all Europe (Beckman, 2001).

As a further note it is worth pointing out that the forestry sector will largely be framed

within Romania, and not so much Zarnesti. This is because management of forests are

largely undertaken at the national level, and changes, which are occurring, are occurring

nationally. Forestry in Zarnesti largely mirrors the national picture of forestry (in terms

of management, forest composition, division of restituted forests etc) and as such each

point raised is clearly applicable to the local situation.

4.5.1. Forestry in Zarnesti (present situation):

In Zarnesti forests cover 63.9% of the land surface totalling 13.081ha making it, in terms

of surface area, the most important form of land use. Although such figures are not

representative of the country at large, they are somewhat representative of mountainous

areas; whereas large-scale agriculture, and small-scale forestry dominates in the plains,

the opposite is true in the mountains. The main area of forest is in zone eight (with a

46
proportion of this occurring inside PCNP), with smaller areas in zones five and two.

Management of the whole area is presently undertaken by Zarnesti forest district, which

is an arm of the NFA (the NFA presently manage around 90% of the countries forests

(World bank, 2002)). Whilst the NFA are responsible for management, separate

institutions under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests (MAFF) - principally the

Department of Forests (DOF) with its Directorates of Strategy, Policy and Legislation;

and the Forest Inspectorate are responsible for regulatory, monitoring, and supervisory

functions on all forest lands. The overall law for Romanian forests is called ‘the forest

code’ (Law No. 26/24 April 1996), with management being based on a ten-year

management plan (the last management plan for Zarnesti was drawn up in 1996). Within

the management plan are a number of different functional categories (such as clear

felling, shelter wood system, and low-intensity felling) that are applied to each area of

forest or forest compartment. Thus in theory each area of production forest has a set

management prescription, which each forestry district has to abide by.

Forest composition in Zarnesti, which largely determines what form of management takes

place, is similar to the national division of 70% broadleaved and 30% coniferous.

Coniferous species such as pure spruce, tend to occur at higher altitudes (such as in zone

eight along the west side of PCNP massif) with patches of oak (Quercus alba) forests and

beech (Fagus sylvatica) forests lower down (600-1000 metres). There are also large

areas of mixed forest (the upper half of zone eight being a prime example) containing

species of spruce (Picea abies), beech, fir (Abies alba), and smaller areas of sycamore

(Ficus Sycomorus), elder (Sambucus) and ash (Fraxinus) (Promberger, 2001). Within

47
these forests natural regeneration is used as much as possible, with the shelter wood

system being the most commonly used method. Beech forests use 100% natural

regeneration, mixed forests between 60-70% and only spruce uses complete artificial

regeneration (spruce forests are clear-cut with the maximum allowable cut being 3

hectares). Such approaches mean three things:

1. Very little fragmentation.

2. The continuation of mixed forests, containing native species (instead of the uniform

coniferous forests, such as Norway Spruce), which in recent decades have spread

throughout Europe beyond their natural range.

3. A possible increase in genetic diversity due to the genetic characteristics of the seed

being site adapted (Spiecker, 2002).

In the first instance, limited fragmentation allows for the exchange of seeds, pollen, and

individual animals and it can be important for many processes including, among others,

the persistence or re-colonization of cutover areas and the exchange of genes among

populations (Noss, 1992). Species benefiting from limited fragmentation include large

carnivores (Linnell, 1999), many woodland plants (Graae, 2000; Matlack, 1994), and

fungi (Komonen, 2000). Secondly, the continuation of mixed forests are preferred due

to the fact that coniferous stands offer less space for light-demanding tree species and

ground vegetation to exist, therefore resulting in a reduction of biodiversity (Mitchell,

1989).

48
Further beneficial management practiced by the NFA involves leaving dead and decaying

biomass such as dead standing trees, snags, and down logs. Such structural components

are important not least for the many species with specialized habitat needs (Andersson,

2000). Particularly noteworthy is that such practices provide nest sites and food sources

for many bird species. Species to benefit in the area include the tree creeper (Certhia

brachydactyia), and several woodpecker and tit species including the black woodpecker

(Drycopus martius), and crested tit (Parus cristatus). Also likely to benefit are many of

the bat species occurring in and around PCNP such as the Bechsteins bat (Myotis

bechsteinii) and Pygmy pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) (Murariu, 2001).

Protection of forests is also a vital element of forestry; 53% of Romanian forests are in

some way classed as protected, with varying degrees of protection according to whether

the forest is:

• Inside a national park (the Zarnesti area of PCNP which is forested is between

1,500-2,000 ha, with logging strictly prohibited in the core area, but seemingly

allowed in the buffer zone);

• Whether it is virgin forest (with Zarnesti having patches both inside the park and

in zone eight);

• On a hillside, next to rivers, or around towns (technical issues).

In terms of virgin forests lack of accessibility has meant that Zarnesti still has relatively

large areas remaining, with numerous publications documenting the high biodiversity

49
levels found in such forests (Rose, 1999; Watkins, 1990). Finally, by law it is prohibited

to reduce an area of forest, thus after felling, the land use cannot be changed to say

agriculture or construction. Sooner or later the area is regenerated whether artificially or

naturally. NFA management seems to meet many of the biodiversity principles relevant

to sustainability, with this point supported recently in a 31,611 forest stewardship council

(FSC) test site in the Forest Park of Vanatori-Neamt in Moldovia (Ioras, 2001). Apart

from a number of practices, which affected water quality and as such water borne

biodiversity, all further issues related to biodiversity were quite clearly met.

Economically, forestry is facing a bit of a crisis, both at the national and local level with

Zarnesti being a case in point. For instance, the local pulp factory in 1986 once

processed 60,000 cubic metres, and now only processes 15,000 cubic metres (Dragos

Lipan, personal communication, September 2003). This reduction is likely due to the

breakdown of eastern (predominantly soviet) markets (INUFOR, 2000a). Nationally, in

the year 2000, NFA’s revenues were US$172.73 million, including an estimated US$32

million from non-timber forest products. The profit outturn was equivalent to 9.3% on

sales before interest and tax, which compares poorly, for example, with returns of 24%

and 21% for state- owned forest management authorities in Ireland and Sweden (World

bank, 2002).

It is generally considered that Romanian forests are not creating the economic returns

they should, and as such the NFA is facing increasing pressure from the government to

change its management practices to more intensive forms of forest production. While it

50
is true that practices such as shelter-wood and patch cutting create higher costs (one study

in western Canada demonstrating that such methods are 10 – 38% more expensive than

clearfelling (Phillips, 1996)), there are wider management issues (not just technical

management), which deserve more immediate attention. In particular marketing of

products, economic restructuring and corruption are key areas requiring urgent change. It

would seem that although the NFA have long term technical plans (every 10 years) they

do not have the associated long term economic and marketing plans, with such planning

seemingly being undertaken on a yearly basis. Despite such low returns the sector

remains a significant provider of rural employment and income. In the year 2000,

approximately 30,000 people were employed in forest management; 67,000 in logging

and primary processing; 21,000 in pulp and paper industries, and over 100,000 in

furniture manufacturing (World bank, 2002). Furthermore, forest based tourism and the

collection and sale of non-timber forest products provides employment for large numbers

of the Romanian rural population. One has to wonder just how much more significant the

sector could be as a rural employer if the industry was to become yet more competitive

and profitable.

4.5.2. Future predictions of Forestry:

The major changes occurring in forestry are a part of the wider process of land re-

privatisation, which is occurring across the former socialist countries of eastern and

central Europe. In terms of forestry the process involves giving back areas of forest to

the original owners prior to nationalization, which occurred in 1948 (Zupancic-Vicar,

51
1994). In Romania the process known as ‘restitution’ or privatization is being

implemented through the application of Law No.1/2000 and will involve about 3 million

hectares – roughly half of all forests. Included under the umbrella of restituted forests are

five different groups including (1) individuals (2) churches and education institutions (3)

municipalities, towns or communes (4) communities and undivided private ownership,

and (5) ‘expatriate Romanians’ (Zarnesti does not contain the group ‘undivided private

ownership’ or expatriate Romanians). In Zarnesti the restitution process is due for

completion by the end of 2003, and out of a total forest area of 18,041ha⁶, 10,641 will be

restituted, leaving 7,400 for the state or NFA. How the area of forest is to be restituted

between the various groups is shown below in table three:

Table Three: Areas of forest to be restituted to individuals and organisations from

Zarnesti.
Main groups in Zarnesti Sub-groups Area of forest (ha)
1. ¹Individuals 1991 280
2001 600
2. Churches and educational Zarnesti 90
institutions ²Poiana Marului 11.5
Sinca Noua (church) 23
Sinca Noua (School) 30
3. Municipalities, towns and Zarnesti 6,434.6
communes Moieciu 463.6
Poiana Marului 1114.6
Sinca Noua 1594.4
Total 10641.7³
¹Areas of forest were also given back to individuals in 1991 (Law of the Land No.18/1991), with each
individual only allowed between 1-2 ha. Today the maximum allowed is 10 ha, with the average in
Zarnesti being between 1-2 ha (the average nationwide is 1ha (INDUFOR, 2000b)). ²As can be seen a
number of towns/villages from outside of Zarnesti have forest within the area of Zarnesti, with the reverse
also being the case. ³A proportion of this land (around a third) will not be in Zarnesti but in neighbouring
towns.

Management of the forests are to be based on forest management plans, which are legally
_______________________________________________________________________
_⁶Although 18,041ha is given as the total forest area, part of this occurs in neighbouring towns. The total
forest area actually occurring only in Zarnesti is around 13.081ha (based on relatively old information and
as such this figure has probably increased slightly due to pasture or meadow areas being taken over by
forests). 18.041ha merely represents the size of forest area owned by people from within Zarnesti itself.

52
binding. To put these plans into practice owners have the option to either sign a contract

with the state (NFA) or establish their own private forestry district (Zarnesti for the

moment have a contract with the NFA). With the second option management still has to

adhere to the original management plan, but the owners have power in all other areas

such as organizing the budget, hiring equipment etc. Individuals however are not obliged

by law to have a legally binding management plan, and instead have what is called a

summary management plan. In theory, whenever they want to cut down trees they need to

gain approval. If one decides to cut without permission then it can be construed as

breaking the law. In this respect the forestry inspectorate play a key role - their primary

task is to supervise, regulate and monitor sustainable forest management activities. They

should also provide extension and advisory services to meet the needs of the new private

forest owners.

The main concerns in terms of effects on biodiversity are centred on the individual

owners. The previous restitution in 1991, which consisted of only individuals and

covered about 350,000 hectares, resulted in approximately one third of the area being

clear-felled within three years (Beckman, 2001). The total economic cost of this event

measured in terms of loss of watershed protection functions, erosion, related flooding

damage, reduced timber production, and reduced wildlife habitats has been

conservatively estimated to be in the order of US $1.5 billion (World bank, 2002). The

effects were also felt locally with 60% of the 100 hectares of forest returned to

individuals in what is now PCNP, being clear-felled by the year 2000 (Ioras, 2001).

53
Concerns are raised when considering that more than fifty years of alienation from

private property have cut the ‘emotional ties’ of owners with their land and resulted in a

loss of basic skills and knowledge about how to manage forests (WWF, 2001b).

Furthermore laws in Romania generally mean very little, and this is demonstrated in

forestry by the lack of convictions made in the last privatizations. As such for an

individual who is facing economic difficulties (as most Romanians are, particularly in

rural areas such as Zarnesti), has no skills for forest management, and does not fear

prosecution, then the temptation to quickly clear the section of forest in order to make a

rapid economic gain is clearly understandable. In Zarnesti this is a key concern as the

area is a vital link for the movement of animals and migration of plants within the

Carpathian system (Muica, 1999), with individual owners having forest in key parts of

this chain. These key parts include extremely sensitive areas such as inside the national

park itself (10% of the 70% (the other 30% is rock, meadows etc) of forests within the

park are to be restituted). Nationwide the problem is even greater with 900,961ha

(around 15% of Romania’s forest) being restituted to individuals raising the possibility of

large-scale habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

Concern, however, is not just limited to the forests restituted to individuals; concerns are

also being raised with regards to municipality owned forest, which is the largest category

(in terms of land area: 1,280,763ha) of restitution. Town councils, who own these

forests, have two options, either they have the NFA manage the area or alternatively they

manage it themselves. By having NFA manage the forest the town council pay for

management but expect a certain return from wood sold. If the return is not as high as

54
the town council wants then, they can if they so wish manage the area themselves. It is

also likely that in the near future there will be private companies competing with the

NFA for the management of the forests, offering higher returns. Although management

still has to be based on the original set management plan, such competition is likely to

drive down production costs largely through changed practices and cutting of corners.

Furthermore with hundreds of different companies and town halls managing forests it is

clearly going to be more difficult to control how forests are logged. In such

circumstances the owners (in this case the town halls) have a clear opportunity to benefit

economically, with one would hope the money at the very least being used to improve the

infrastructure of the area at large. Unfortunately in this scenario the cash windfall will be

more short-term, clearly not being economically sustainable, and with consequent

negative implications for the biodiversity.

With the loss in size of production forest the NFA is expected to face further economic

problems and pressures. This is likely to again necessitate a change in practices towards

more western style management, such as coniferous plantations and clear-cutting. In an

effort to fend of such consequences the NFA are trying a different approach on a major

area of their forests. The approach, which is being carried out with the help of WWF, is

FSC certification (for a full description of FSC certification please see http://www.fsc

oax.org), with the Romanian government making a commitment to certifying 1 million

hectares of its forests (WWF, 2001b). The commitment was made two years ago, and to

date progress has been painfully slow, however a pilot area in Vanatori-Neamt has been

successful and training of people in the certification process is due to begin at the end of

55
this year. Such an approach for the NFA would seem almost natural with about 80%

(Ioan Abrudan, personal communication, July 2003) of requirements already met under

present NFA management. Furthermore, with the types of sustainability criteria put

forward by FSC it is easier and less costly for large tracts of forest with one owner to

adapt - this is clearly suited to Romania’s state forests (Sedjo, 1999). Particular benefits

arise when it comes to the implementation of uniform sustainability standards and chain-

of-custody tracking. Such factors, however, make the use of FSC in restituted forests

extremely difficult to implement, particularly forests owned by individuals, which are

small in size.

Problems for state forests in attaining certification are mainly related to health and safety

issues, such as the way skidding is done, the provision of personal protective equipment,

better protection of rivers, and the provision of public information in relation to

monitoring (Abrudan, 2003). One could also add to this, the mindset of foresters. The

NFA is a very old institution and foresters have been used to managing the forests how

they want, and don’t necessarily understand why things have to be done in a different

way, making change difficult to accept and thus also difficult to implement. If Romania

can get over such problems then FSC certification represents a clear opportunity for

avoiding the traditional clash between economics and biodiversity protection.

Economically, with the low conversion costs, greater market access and the price

premiums people are willing to pay (Ozanne, 1996) an increase in returns, particularly

long-term, would seem highly likely.

56
In terms of biodiversity and in a country such as Romania, where biodiversity friendly

practices are largely already in place, then FSC certification is likely to at least maintain

biodiversity and in many cases through the improvement of other practices increase

biodiversity (Gullison, 2003). Such benefits were highlighted in a major European study

of FSC, which found that FSC certification acts as an incentive to render forests into a

state closer to their potential natural vegetation. This is done by increasing the diversity

of trees and mixed stands, improving the protection of rare and threatened species and

their habitats, and reducing the use of chemicals in forest management (Rametsteiner,

2003). Furthermore, it is generally considered that the standards of the FSC, in

comparison to certification schemes at large, are the most rigorous of all the certification

systems with respect to biodiversity (Gullison, 2003).

Ultimately it would seem that Romania is in a particularly fortunate position in that a

number of circumstances related to the present situation of forestry (practices, ownership,

access to environmentally sensitive markets in western Europe) make FSC certification a

cost effective tool in promoting economic sustainability and biodiversity conservation

and in the process achieving strong sustainability. A final point, which one has to be

aware of, is that Zarnesti is not presently included in the 1 million ha to be certified,

however there are hopes that the 1 m/ha can be extended in the future. For Zarnesti to be

included in future FSC certified forests a number of factors and changes are needed

(these will be raised in section 4.6).

57
4.6. Required changes and needs:

Under restitution forestry is facing a huge challenge with the whole system likely to be

altered in the immediate future. The challenge is to facilitate the restitution process so

that the loss of production forest does not threaten present NFA sustainable management

practices and that the new owners are encouraged to see the forests as a sustainable

source of income and in turn practice sustainable management. The main concerns as

regards to forestry are:

1. Clear-cutting and over-use of restituted forests.

2. An increase in unsustainable practices in state owned forests.

3. Logging within PCNP.

The required changes and needs are:

• Establishment of associations/co-operatives for local and national forest owners.

This is presently underway, but extra funding is needed and in retrospect it

should have been undertaken prior to the restitution process. Furthermore,

associations should not only be formed between private individuals but also with

each of the other groups (i.e. town halls, churches, undivided private ownership)

and also with state forests and even adjoining towns. Former contiguous forest

plots will soon be broken up (Zarnesti being a case in point) making monitoring

and management extremely difficult, thus escalating the costs of logging, which

in turn will mean that FSC certification (or sustainable management in general)

58
 increasingly becomes an uneconomical choice (even for state forests).

Associations on every level would make management far easier and increase the

possibility of attaining FSC certification for all group’s especially private owners.

Such co-operative schemes, however, remain discredited in the eyes of many

private forest owners (who, after 50 years of socialist domination do not wish to

team up with their neighbours) and as such overcoming the widespread dislike

for associations might turn out to be a lengthy process (INDUFOR, 2000a).

• A strong drive for sustainable forest certification in private individually owned

forest (due to this category being the greatest cause of concern). This is only

likely to be achieved through private individual owner associations, Latvia

(PEFC framework) and Estonia (FSC framework) providing useful examples

(INDUFOR, 2000b; WWF, 2001c). In such instances a group certification is

often used where one certificate covers the area of several forest holdings. This

requires an extensive communication to, and training of, forest owners and

forestry professionals in order to make participants fully aware of the

requirements of the certification standard (INDUFOR, 2000b). Such certification

however is extremely expensive and, in this regard, is unlikely to be applicable to

the almost 1m/ha of individually owned forest, and when it is applicable it is

more likely to be under the PEFC framework. PEFC certification however is not

so well regarded by the market (Ioras, 2001) and as such in most cases will not

produce the necessary economic benefits to cover the costs. All this means is

that for certification to be achievable on the majority of individually owned

59
 forests then restituted areas have to consolidate (see previous bullet point) in

order to form joint ownerships that are subject to an overall management plan.

Furthermore, wherever possible the FSC framework should be applied, however

this should not rule out suitable alternatives. Herein a case, by case approach

should be applied and where a different framework is suitable then this too can

be used (it is also worth remembering that there is a certain amount of flexibility

within FSC according to each areas needs).

• Buyer groups in place for FSC wood. This is presently being done in partnership

with WWF (through the Global Forest and Trade network that encompasses 700

companies in 35 countries (WWF, 2002)) and will act as an added

encouragement for all forest owners if they can see buyers are already in place.

• A range of additional measures to promote sustainable forest management in

private individually owned forest. It is likely that a large number of individuals

will not form associations preferring to manage the forests themselves. In this

case the state should attempt to encourage sustainable management through

providing the new owners with the necessary technical skills, education, access to

equipment, and even payments based on good practice and loss of income (as in

Czechoslovakia (Turnock, 2002)). The state should also this time around

prosecute people for breaking their management plans. Enforcement of

management plans is a particularly important issue in the first few years and as

60
 such the forest inspectorate needs to be urgently strengthened. Without which

there is a risk that the rate of restitution will outpace the inspectorate’s capacity.

• Complete economic evaluations of logging to include full costs to such things as

watersheds, soil erosion, biodiversity, tourism, and global warming. Added to

this could be the possible introduction of the ‘polluter pays principal’ and in the

future schemes where payments are made for carbon sequestration.

• A strictly enforced ban on logging in PCNP. This is applicable to both logging

by the NFA and restituted forests. Sustainable logging is presently carried out by

the NFA within the park, yet in theory this is illegal. The reason for this

inconsistency is that when the present forest management plan was drawn up in

1996 (the next forest management plan is due for 2006) the park did not even

exist thus its presence was not taken into account. Clearly this needs to be

overturned immediately and any forests, which are to be restituted to private

owners’, need to be relocated to more suitable sites.

4.7. TOURISM

Worldwide tourism is considered to be one of the most important industries, representing

5.5% of global GNP and employing 212 million people. Furthermore, its contribution is

only expected to grow; whilst the number of tourist arrivals in 1997 stood at 613 million,

there is expected to be 1,600 million international arrivals by the year 2020 (Steck, 1999).

61
As such, tourism can represent a key source of revenue for many countries, and in many

cases whole regions are almost completely dependent on this one industry. In Romania

the domestic industry was, until the revolution of 1989, considered to be quite large with

around 10 million tourists (CNPS, 1995). This figure dramatically declined and in 1997

was just half of what it had been in 1989 (Erdeli, 1997). In terms of foreign visitors

international tourism receipts fell by 214.6% between 1980 and 1991 (Hall, 1995) and

there was a further fall in arrivals of 31% between 1993 and 1995 (WTO, 1997). Since

this period, figures seem to have stabilized ranging between 4.7 and 5.5 million per year

(WTO, 2002).

In a country, which has such a wealth of natural and cultural attractions, tourism is an

obvious choice for economic development, and is clearly an enticing prospect for

attracting foreign capital (Roberts, 1996). However, as with the other sectors discussed

thus far, the key is ensuring that such an economic opportunity does not result in

unsustainable practices. Unfortunately, unsustainable forms of tourism are the norm with

no shortage of available examples, ranging from the large scale, such as the deforestation

of mountainsides associated with tourism in the Alps (Holden, 2000), to the gradual

drainage of local wetlands to feed a guesthouses’ water supply. More often than not

short-term economic benefits predominate over secondary objectives such as preserving

cultural heritage, environment, and fair distribution of economic growth (Tosun, 2001).

62
4.7.1. Tourism in Zarnesti (present situation):

When discussing tourism in areas such as Zarnesti, which contain elements of extreme

natural beauty, unique geography, rich biodiversity, and are in rural settings with the

accompanying rural ‘way of life’, one is basically referring to forms of tourism

encompassing nature tourism, cultural tourism, rural tourism and eco-tourism (see

Rauschelbach, 2002 and Roberts, 1996 for a further discussion of these forms of

tourism). Furthermore, due to the fact that the area also contains a national park,

biodiversity becomes a key selling point and therefore the tourism industry is highly

dependent on the maintenance of biodiversity for its success. Due to such a clear

dependence it becomes vital that economic growth is compatible with biodiversity

conservation. The ideal form of tourism growth would be a strong form of sustainable

tourism, however such a form in an area like Zarnesti is extremely difficult to achieve

what with the high number of tourists and the variability in tourists needs – most will be

mass tourists with far reaching implications for biodiversity. Ultimately tourism in

Zarnesti will consist of a multitude of needs, with the development of sustainable-tourism

being able to meet the needs of only one particular niche market. In such circumstances

the approach has to be based on reality and be relevant to the particular socio-economic

circumstances of the chosen area.

In terms of the present situation Zarnesti has a carrying capacity of 379 beds, with a split

of 276 in pensiunea’s and 103 in cabanas (data from Zarnesti tourism office and CLCP).

A pensiunea is a guesthouse or bed and breakfast, whilst a cabana is more basic and

63
along the lines of a youth hostel. The only available figure for visitor numbers is 80,000

and this represents the number that visit the park annually (Zotta, 2003). However as

Zarnesti has very little else to offer this figure is probably quite representative of the

number coming to Zarnesti as a whole. It is also worthwhile to note that this figure is

increasing all the time from both domestic and foreign travellers.

In order to assess whether the present industry practices sustainable tourism with benefits

also reaching biodiversity, all analysis will be focused on tourism developed through the

CLCP. Analysing the development of CLCP’s tourism program can highlight issues such

as peoples’ attitudes towards sustainable tourism, the practices used by the guesthouses,

the opportunities and barriers for tourism development, whether biodiversity is valued in

the process - all issues relevant to tourism in Zarnesti. There is also the point that if

CLCP’s tourism program is not based on sustainable principles then, there is little hope

that tourism at large will resemble anything like sustainable. Furthermore, such an

analysis can provide various indicators, which help to understand the direction tourism is

taking and ultimately predict what form or forms of tourism are likely to be in the area in

the future.

CLCP began its tourism program in 1997 with the express aim of demonstrating to

people the economic value of wildlife, in the hope that this would encourage them to

protect it. The organization found guesthouse owners who were interested in the idea,

developed a number of different wildlife/nature tours, and brought in foreign paying

groups through the use of tour-operators. Although CLCP provided the guesthouses with

64
paying guests very little direct financial help was given. The focus of tourism

development was the guesthouses, with other initiatives like local tour guides, mountain

bike rental, gift shop and horse and carts stemming from the success of the guesthouses.

Additionally, the scheme was to be managed along eco-tourism principles, through

Zarnesti Eco-Tourism Association (ZETA).

Since its beginnings the idea has been a resounding economic success. From 1997 to

2000 the tourist program generated around 585,000 euro of which about 277,000 went to

the local community through the guesthouses, and other initiatives (see above)

(Groosman, 2001). Furthermore, growth continues to this day, whereas in the year 2000

there were 33 people employed in activities related to tourism, this figure is now around

100. In terms of numbers employed the gift shop has been a particular success

employing around 80 local people each receiving an average Romanian wage. The

number of visitors also represents economic growth; since 1997, the number of

international arrivals to the area has almost doubled each year, growing from 77 in 1997

to 961 in 2002 (Promberger et al, 2002). Early figures for 2003 indicate that visitor

numbers are levelling off and maybe the point has come whereby as Christoph

Promberger forecast in 2000 ‘the number of people willing to spend US $1,000 or more

for a week is limited and that the current tourism program alone will probably not reach a

sufficient amount of visitors’ (Promberger, 2000).

It is quite clear that economically it has largely been a success but has it produced

sustainable economic development and what of the effects to biodiversity? Economically

65
there is one main concern, which is that much of the economic gain is too focused on the

guesthouse owners. Thus far economic growth has been so great that figures for one of

the three guesthouses (capacity of 35 individuals) involved in the project demonstrate that

within two years all original investments, including the construction of the guesthouse

were fully recuperated. Such financial recuperation is unheard of in Western Europe, and

such an example is not only limited to the one guesthouse, similar returns are also

demonstrated by the others.

A number of factors have created this situation, the first is that the market is based on

‘groups’ of people on organized tours, who wish to stay together. As such CLCP has had

to react to market demands, which means large guesthouses (small guesthouses cannot

accommodate large groups) with proceeds going to the one owner. The second is that

CLCP have been so determined to demonstrate to people in Zarnesti that wildlife can

produce an income that they have been wary to introduce measures which distribute too

much of the income. A major problem with developing nature tourism in such areas is

getting people involved in the first place (this is particularly so in the early stages) –

measures which would have meant a wider distribution of the income would only have

heightened this problem and deterred even the most enthusiastic individuals. Certainly as

more people choose to visit the area and more people become involved in managing

tourism then this problem should be remedied. With increased numbers of people

wanting to become partners, then CLCP will have more leeway to pick and choose and

also to introduce stricter controls on how tourism should be managed by guesthouse

owners.

66
Another problem is that many of the practices used by the guesthouse owners are not in

line with sustainable tourism. For instance, local and organic foods are not used; instead

most of the shopping is done at a German supermarket one hour away. Additionally,

environmentally friendly cleaning products are substituted for the cheapest products, and

recycling is not even considered. Finally one of the guesthouse owners even has a cabin

in the national park (which is illegal, and located in a species rich meadow) where he

entertains guests (it must be stated that this cabin was already within the parks boundaries

before the tourism program began and such an activity is certainly not in line with the

wishes of CLCP). Trying to change such practices is extremely difficult, especially when

people have no concept whatsoever of issues related to sustainability, conservation and

the environment and merely see such changes as involving extra costs and effort. Added

to this is the mindset of people where they have no confidence in the future, and have

been struggling for money all their lives (both legacies of the communist era). Such

factors promote the ‘quick buck’ mentality and make sustainable tourism a very difficult

concept to instil in people.

The main mechanism used to encourage sustainable tourism in the guesthouses is ZETA.

ZETA is based on common worldwide eco-tourism principles, with members from the

guesthouses, the local tour-operator and CLCP. ZETA was basically set up by CLCP to

promote eco-tourism principles and for there to be some kind of organization overseeing

_______________________________________________________________________
_
⁷It has always been the contention that CLCP would leave after ten years and as such CLCP merely puts
the necessary infrastructure in place whereby local people can continue the work afterwards whether it be
scientific research, education in schools, or eco-tourism.

67
events, which is run by the local people when CLCP leaves⁷. The problem with ZETA is

that it has no power to bring about change, and with most of the members being the

guesthouse owners it is doubtful whether the majority would even want change. Instead

ZETA is largely used by the guesthouses as a way of promoting themselves under the

guise of eco-tourism. One of the three guesthouses is not even a member, which further

demonstrates the lack of influence of the association.

In conclusion, it must be stated that CLCP’s tourism program has achieved a great deal,

including providing vitally needed funds for conservation and development activities,

employment for local people, education for both locals and international visitors, and

probably most importantly demonstrating that nature does indeed have an economic

value and is worth protecting from a financial viewpoint. Despite this one could still say

that tourism in respect of the guesthouses is more based on a weak form of sustainable

tourism. Furthermore, the only reason why there is an element of sustainable tourism at

all is because of the linkage between the guesthouses and CLCP – take away CLCP and

you are left with a traditional guesthouse that has very little relation to sustainable

tourism. As with ZETA it would seem that the guesthouses are primarily using the CLCP

because of the economic gain that CLCP bring to the relationship. Interestingly one of

the best outcomes of tourism related to the guesthouses is the 75euro charge for every

paying individual. This 75euro is then put into a Community Development and

Conservation Fund (CDCF), and the money is used for activities related to nature

68
conservation⁸ and eco-tourism development (such as horse and carts, and gift shop). The

scheme’s success is probably due to the fact that it is out of the hands of the local people

running the guesthouses, and is instead controlled by the tour operators, with CLCP

directing where the money goes.

CLCP’s difficulties in trying to achieve a strong form of sustainable tourism are related to

a number of issues, however in many respects the present situation is very much what one

would have expected based on the circumstances. It would seem that CLCP have almost

been trapped in a catch-22 situation. In the early days of developing tourism it was

extremely difficult to find individuals who were willing to invest and take the risk of

starting a guesthouse – if CLCP had insisted on certain practices related to sustainable

tourism (that would likely reduce profits in the short-term) then it is doubtful whether

there would even be a tourism programme today. One suspects that CLCP originally

believed that once the guesthouses were up and running they could then gradually

introduce practices suitable to sustainable tourism; the idea was that if they could bring

paying customers, and educate guesthouses about the concept of eco-tourism then over

time the ideal would become a reality. Unfortunately although such ideals may seem

perfect to a conservationist it certainly does not mean that local people will also subscribe

to such ideals (even if in the long term their business depends on practising sustainable

tourism today – mass tourism will ultimately damage the natural and cultural elements of

the area and in the process deter the kind of tourists who choose to visit such an area in

the first place).

_______________________________________________________________________
_

69
⁸Nature conservation activities are defined as activities in and around PCNP, which contribute to the
conservation of large carnivores and their supporting habitats. An example of such an activity could be the
purchasing of hay meadows (Promberger, 2003).

In such circumstances the only way to influence change is through economic pressure,

however CLCP had no direct financial input and as such does not have this tool to apply.

The fact that CLCP introduced the majority of paying customers to the area, and is the

only reason that the guesthouses make such high profits in the first place seems to have

gone unnoticed. The guesthouse owners prefer to see it as it was they who provided all

the original finance and consequently through their eyes they took all the risks. Naturally

they also consider that they should dictate any practices that will have an impact on

profits, particularly short-term profits. Combined with the fact that local people have an

almost complete disregard for the concept of sustainability then development of

sustainable tourism is a near impossible task and as such CLCP have made the best out of

an almost impossible situation.

The attitude of the guesthouse owners seems to be a representation of a common problem

in developing sustainable tourism in such areas. In such projects and areas the key to

success is partnerships that work both ways, with all parties willing to contribute to

sustainable development and conservation. CLCP’s case provides an excellent example

of where such partnerships are clearly lacking with all the good work coming from

CLCP. Certainly a great deal more could have been achieved if both local people and

organisations such as the guesthouse owners, the park authority, local town council, the

70
forestry service etc were more amenable to the concept of sustainable tourism as CLCP

are. These are key lessons and ones that have to be learnt particularly by any donors and

development/conservation practitioners who may be hoping to contribute to strong

sustainable development through sustainable tourism in the coming years.

4.7.2. Future predictions of Tourism:

All predictions for the industry’s future indicate continuous growth, particularly with the

scheduled building of a large carnivore centre. Forecasted visitor numbers for the centre,

which is expected to be built by the end of 2004, are in the region of 100,000 people

(Groosman, 2001). Although this number will consist of many people already visiting

the park and as such not represent a real increase in tourism numbers overall it is

expected that a large proportion will be people who would otherwise not have visited the

area. Thus, total visitor numbers for Zarnesti as a whole are expected to be between 150-

200,000 people. Many of the new visitors are expected to come from a share of the

400,000 tourists who visit nearby Bran Castle (with half of its visitors from abroad)

(Zotta, 2003). Furthermore, it is hoped that with the addition of such an attraction people

will be encouraged to stay for longer periods of time, thus increasing the economic

benefit to the community at large. Such factors have meant CLCP alone have projected

visitor numbers to increase from 610 in 2001 (Promberger, 2001) to a forecast of 2260 in

2005 and 2870 in 2010 (Groosman, 2001).

71
It may be merely a matter of time before tourist numbers rapidly increase; recent

expansion in visitor numbers to national parks and mountainous areas in nearby countries

such as the Czech Republic (Beskydy region), Poland and Slovakia (Tatra National Park:

3 million visitors annually) (Turnock, 2002) show similar trends. A key point however is

that the majority of visitors will be domestic tourists, or everyday mass tourists with eco-

tourism alone not being able to satisfy their particular requirements. Thus the clear

challenge for the future will be not to find a means of inserting small numbers of

environmentally aware visitors into pristine environments; rather it is to devise

sustainable forms of mass tourism. In other words can forms of mass tourism be

developed that are environmentally benign (Wall, 1997)?

Clearly the market for tourism is there, the issue is whether Zarnesti as a whole (not only

CLCP) is capable of reacting to it in the best possible way. To assess this, a number of

sustainable tourism components, each related to economic and biodiversity factors will be

analysed. Probably the most important economic aspect of sustainable tourism is

ensuring a fair spread of profits across all sections of the community. If people do not

feel they are benefiting economically from sustainable tourism they will reject its

principles almost immediately. One of the best ways to achieve such a benefit is to have

small style accommodation similar to home stays. The application of such an approach is

also becoming more feasible as increasing numbers of individual travellers choose to visit

the area, particularly foreign travellers: a phenomenon that has only just started to occur

in the last two years, and in large part is due to the increased awareness amongst foreign

individuals that the CLCP project has brought to the area (Christoph Promberger,

72
personal communication, August 2003). The perfect area for such an approach is zone

two, due to its picturesque rural setting, availability of farmhouse style small holdings,

and where every individual asked (with one exception) expressed an interest in such an

idea.

However there are many limiting factors to this approach. The first the lack of capital

available to people to refurbish and extend their homes is a widespread problem. Interest

rates are notoriously high, and people are not yet accustomed to taking out loans. There

is also the issue of training people in basic tourism care, foreign languages, marketing,

and so on. The question then remains of who is going to organize such an approach, the

local town hall do not have the necessary skills and seem more interested in larger scale

projects, CLCP will soon be leaving, and national government - which currently has no

strategy for promoting and developing eco-tourism (Zotta, 2003) - are instead focusing

all their efforts on three grand plans for tourism⁹. Furthermore, the area is fast becoming

a prime location for the development of holiday homes (for foreign individuals or people

from Bucharest), which are not in keeping with the traditional rural image that tourists

want to see. With such little support and direction one will most likely see a further

increase in holiday homes, and larger scale guesthouses. Such guesthouses are also likely

to be built by already wealthy individuals from outside the region and in areas, which are

used for traditional farming such as species-rich hay fields.

A second method of achieving some kind of economic benefit for the community, which

can also be used for biodiversity conservation, is some form of charge, like CLCP have

implemented through the 75euro fee. Such a charge does not only have to be limited to

73
_______________________________________________________________________
_
⁹Romania’s National tourism strategy is based on three main strategies (1) Dracula park, (2) Development
of Danube Delta and (3) Super schee (ski area) in the Carpathians.
the guesthouses, with possible charges attached to all things tourism-related such as entry

into the park, use of public transport, and car park charges, (obviously local people would

be exempt from such a tax/charge, and rates would have to be adjusted for Romanian

tourists). As CLCP’s 75euro charge has shown such taxes/charges can raise vast amounts

of money for community development and biodiversity conservation schemes, and in the

process help to mitigate the negative effects that tourism can have. The main drawback,

however, is that local authorities and governments are often so concerned that such

charges will threaten the growth of tourism that they are loathe to introduce such

schemes. One can imagine the continuation of the 75euro charge, but it is doubtful that

Zarnesti town hall, particularly in the light of the extreme socio-economic pressures

facing the region would be brave enough or visionary enough to introduce such similar

schemes. It would seem that the opportunity tourism represents is not being realized by

the local town council with no plan of action or tourism strategy laid out.

There is also the issue of how tourism could possibly affect biodiversity. A particular

concern here is building in sensitive areas such as in zone one (otherwise known as

Barsa-Valley), which is both inside and outside of PCNP (and which according to county

land-use laws is illegal to build in). Already there are two large guesthouses, with the

accompanying infrastructure such as roads, waste sites and so on. Such buildings and

infrastructure take up valuable habitat, particularly species-rich meadows, which

dominate in this area. Furthermore the valley is periodically used as a corridor for large

carnivores (Christoph Promberger, personal communication, August 2003), and with the

74
large fences Romanians are so fond of, and increased levels of both traffic and people,

the use of the corridor is likely to be greatly reduced. Such an issue is particularly

important with the park being such a small size (14,822.7 hectares (UNEP/WCMC)); a

number of different species need to migrate, and activities on the outskirts of the park can

also affect biodiversity within the park, with the river running through Barsa Valley being

a prime example. Individual taxa and habitats both inside and outside of the park do not

exist in isolation; rather they interact with each other and influence each area’s

biodiversity (DETR, 2000). Of equal importance is ensuring that developments do not

actually damage the species rich habitats in the valley itself, which many other species

are also dependent on for their survival, particularly birds. In the majority of cases

accommodation should be placed within the town centre, lessening the effect to the

surrounding countryside and also encouraging tourists to spend their money in Zarnesti

itself. Unfortunately, it would seem that as long as people are willing to pay or bribe then

they can build where they want, which is often in the most scenic spots rich in

biodiversity.

Linked to the above issue is some form of control over where people are allowed to go,

zoning and group sizes. Such issues will be vitally important as more and more people

visit the area, and in particular PCNP. High numbers of people invariably cause damage

to biodiversity through such things as picking wild flowers, taking wood for fires or

merely by making noise and disturbing the behaviour of wild animals (Rauschelbach,

2002). Already 80,000 people is a large amount for such a small park, and the effects can

visually be seen with the wearing away of the limestone along the ridge. There is no

75
reason why many tourists (the majority of whom don’t climb the mountain, but come for

the scenery and the belief they will see a large carnivore) could not go on walks in one of

the many valleys surrounding the park such as in the upper area of zone eight and in the

process take away some of the pressure from the park.

To assist in such an aim more marked trails are necessary, as well as, interpretation

facilities in the area, zoning, increased use of guides, and limits on the size of groups

within the park. PNPC have expressed an interest in developing some of these ideas,

most notably zoning, and the use of guides. Zoning remains an idea, and is largely

dependent on funding once the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funds dry up at the

end of 2004. Guides, however, have recently been trained (even-though CLCP have

already trained guides and offered their services to the park if they so wish). The next

key step is finding tourists willing to pay for guides, which may prove difficult due to the

fact that Romanians are not willing to pay, and foreign tourists have no contact with park

authorities. Foreign tourists often stay in guesthouses associated with CLCP and it would

seem to be present park policy not to interact with CLCP, and furthermore to have very

little contact with communities outside of its borders, which is where the majority of

guesthouses are located.

Based on future predictions it is clear that tourism has the potential to be a key industry

providing essential cash input into the area and greatly assisting the process of

development. Disappointingly however it would seem that the opportunity is likely to be

wasted with the wrong form of development occurring. This can largely be put down to

76
the lack of forward planning, with virtually non-existent co-ordination between the

interested parties (town hall, PCNP, CLCP), and extremely limited restrictions imposed

on such actions as building in sensitive areas, and style of buildings. The course of action

seems to be more based on one of ‘let’s just see what happens’, with the result being

more a free for all. Unfortunately, with such an approach both the community and

biodiversity of Zarnesti is unlikely to see much of the economic benefits of tourism.

4.8. Required changes and needs:

The main concerns as regards to tourism are partly to do with present day unsustainable

practices, but more importantly are to do with a future mass influx of tourists and the

associated negative effects mass tourism often brings. As such the required changes and

needs are mainly concerned with preparing the area for the future by putting the

necessary laws, training, land-use planning, and financing in place. With such changes it

is hoped that the area will be able to benefit economically, whilst at the same time not

degrading the areas biodiversity and natural beauty. The required changes and needs are:

• Some form of organisation on the ground directing tourism. This would be

similar to ZETA, but greatly expanded to include training of local people in what

western tourists want, ensuring sustainable tourism principles are adhered to,

organising trips (i.e. wildlife walking, bear hide watching, horse-riding etc),

marketing, negotiating links with tour operators etc (as in many respects CLCP is

already doing). Preferably this should be undertaken by a local partnership

77
 between the tourism office, CLCP, PCNP and town hall with funding from

outside (such as SAPARD) or generated through some form of internal

commission. In reality however it is more probable that an outside organisation

would be required to facilitate the whole process (particularly with CLCP soon to

leave). A primary focus of such an organisation would be capacity building within

the local populace so as in time local people will eventually be able to manage the

whole process themselves.

• A range of local and national laws. Of most immediate concern here is the

resumption of county land-use planning laws (included should be laws related to

local architectural styles). Added to this could be laws such as limiting the

number of foreign individuals allowed to build in the area as in Lesachtal

(Austria), or not allowing more than a certain proportion of the surface area to be

used for winter sports for example, as in Hindelang (Germany). Without such

laws the area risks ruining the very thing that is attracting the tourists in the first

place. Added to local laws there needs to be a range of national laws, which help

to promote sustainable tourism. For instance, law No. 145 (1994), which is

relevant to all rural areas in Romania, states that guesthouses with between 3 and

20 rooms do not have to pay income tax. A small adjustment to this law, with

benefits being directed to individuals with between 2-10 rooms for example,

would help encourage smaller style accommodations. This could mean that

architectural styles would be more in keeping with the surrounding area and

economic benefits would be more widely spread.

78
• Financing projects. A major obstacle to local people becoming involved in

tourism at the present time is the absence of financing. Bank loan interest rates

are notoriously high and people are not yet used to the practice of taking out

loans. Therefore loans should be increasingly made available through EU funds

(i.e. through SAPARD’s rural diversification programme), with extremely low

interest rates and tied to guidelines on running a guesthouse along sustainable

tourism principles.

• Selection of suitable tour operators. This is of key importance in encouraging

sustainable tourism. An area such as Zarnesti, which has high levels of

biodiversity and is just starting to develop tourism, should be targeting the type of

tourist who is interested and respectful of the natural environment and the local

culture. Due to the majority of foreign guests arriving through an operator the

operator can be a vital partner in ensuring that people are aware of how to adhere

to sustainable tourism principles. Furthermore, the tour operator themselves have

to demand that the guesthouses are practising sustainable tourism principles.

Tourists also have to be aware that standards in Eastern Europe are not what they

are in Western Europe, and that in many respects this is a good thing for

sustainable tourism. The majority of western tourists have to lower their

expectations, and realise that eco-tourism or sustainable tourism is not merely

about taking a few pictures of the biodiversity and rural way of life and then

returning to their usual lifestyle.

79
 • A fund for biodiversity conservation. It is vital that some of the economic gains

from tourism are used to protect biodiversity. A good model and first step is

CLCP’s present 75euro charge. In the future, however, this would need to be

expanded to also cover domestic tourists (obviously with a far lower charge).

Such funds could be used to mitigate the effects of tourism through introducing

schemes like zoning, trained guides, marked trails, monitoring of illegal camping

and so on.

5.0. NON SECTOR SPECIFIC CHANGES AND NEEDS

Besides sector specific changes and needs there are a range of broader changes and needs

that are relevant to all sectors. These will act as drivers for the transition towards

biodiversity conservation and sustainable economic development in the whole area.

Many have already been mentioned under individual sectors, however their relevance to

all sectors has not yet been explained. Furthermore, many are interlinked, for example if

one wants to introduce say EU environmental laws (applicable to all three sectors) then

this can only effectively be achieved if there is increased education, greater co-ordination

between the various stakeholders, training on how to implement and meet such laws, and

increased levels of funding. The various changes and needs are presented below along

with an explanation of their relevance:

Required changes Relevance/comments

and needs
Education Education needs to be targeted at a range of groups, including schools, the local
adult population, the various stakeholder groups (e.g. ZETA, and the

80
 NFA) and even overseas groups such as tour operators and visiting tourists.
With regards to environmental, biodiversity, and sustainable development
issues current levels of knowledge are extremely low. People need an
understanding of each concept and know why such issues are important.
Trying to introduce development with a strong element of biodiversity
conservation will certainly be far easier if the people have some knowledge of
the reasons for protection in the first place and their mindset is more geared
towards an environmental ethic. Furthermore, a critical mass of
environmentally conscious citizens and consumers can act as a vital driving
force in the transformation towards strong sustainable development (at the end
of the day it will be the citizens and consumers who decide what form of
development is practised).
Greater co- Each stakeholder group can be affected both negatively and positively by the
ordination between other, and thus it is clearly in one’s interest to co-ordinate. All stakeholder
groups (including the local populace) should be working towards the common
the various aim of strong sustainable development through sharing skills, experience,
stakeholders resources and even funding. Unfortunately present levels of co-ordination are
almost non-existent, even between groups such as PCNP and CLCP, which
have common interests not working together. For instance CLCP have
suggested that PCNP incorporate their visitor centre as part of the Large
Carnivore centre, CLCP have also offered their educational material, their
nature guides and even wanted to give PCNP 25% of the money going to the
CDCF fund only to be turned down on every occasion. It would seem that
everyone wants (bar CLCP who seem to have little choice) to work in isolation,
which is clearly not a framework for promoting strong sustainable development
across an entire community.
Use of eco- Eco-certificates can be used by all sectors, with their use often acting as a
certificates marketing tool that can benefit sales and the economic aspect. However
wherever possible eco-certificates should be used that are clearly recognisable
by the target audience (this may be local, national, European or even
international). For instance, a local eco-certificate for forestry, which has an
international target audience, would be of little use. One also has to be aware
that through promoting too many different eco-certificates there is the risk that
they ultimately appear meaningless to the general public and as such common
European or international eco-certificates should always be chosen.
Direction/training on This is an urgent priority as the methods for implementing biodiversity
the ground conservation and sustainable development are completely new to the majority
of people in Zarnesti – without this vital first step progress will virtually be a
non-starter. Direction/training is needed on a range of issues such as how to
access various funds, what practices are likely to benefit biodiversity, how can
sustainable economic development be promoted, what do foreign
markets/individuals want etc. Furthermore, such training needs to be targeted
at a range of people from individual farmers or guesthouse owners to whole
organisations like the NFA or the local town council.
Large-scale Economic and demographic statistics clearly show that Europe’s rural needs
modifications to the are increasingly becoming less about agriculture and more about development
issues (a case in point being Zarnesti). As such there needs to be a shift in
role of the RDR funds from Pillar One to Pillar Two (i.e. from agricultural production to rural
within SAPARD and development). The huge scale of Pillar One funds overshadows the limited
CAP. RDR resources (under CAP the RDR is to increase from 10% to 15% by 2007
at which point this level will be maintained until 2011) and reduces the
incentive to participate in Pillar Two schemes (LUPG/WWF, 2002). The RDR
itself then needs to adapt to focus more on:
• Increasing usage of agri-env schemes. Such schemes should encourage
whole farm systems such as organic farming rather than methods like

81
 integrated farming systems (IFS), and integrated crop management (ICM)
where in practice, limited changes are required.
• Encouraging more diverse rural businesses that can help to support
sustainable land management. Closer links are also needed between farming
and rural businesses, such as tourism, that depend on the quality, and hence on
the sustainable management of the landscape and nature.
• Assisting and training with the implementation of EU environmental law.
• Defining simpler conditions and procedures to enable a more effective
implementation of existing measures. This has to be done in conjunction with
providing training, technical support and capacity building at the local level so
as rural communities and officials are better prepared to deliver the various
measures.
• Promoting better integration with other European and national land-use
policies and funds, in particular: between existing RDR measures; between the
RDR and the Structural Funds, the Water Framework and Habitats Directives
at EU level; and between the RDR and state aids at national level.
(The above adaptations should also be applied to any rural development and
agricultural programmes run by the Romanian government).
Appropriate land-use As already mentioned this is an urgent priority for all sectors and particularly
planning vital for biodiversity conservation purposes. It is ludicrous to have county
land-use plans, which are law and then for the local town council to ignore
them. Such plans should incorporate all relevant stakeholder groups in their
planning phase and be long term in their approach. Without such plans the area
risks losing any chance of long-term sustainable resource use and degrading
the very things that both the people and biodiversity depend on.
Introduction of EU The full raft of EU environmental laws should be gradually introduced. As
environmental laws previously mentioned however their introduction will be more easily achieved
when done in conjunction with other changes. Laws in Romania have for a
long time been introduced without the associated changes in the wider
community to allow for their easy implementation. Due to this, laws have
come to mean very little and when strictly enforced authorities can at times be
met with extreme aggression. For instance, in the past it has been known for
foresters to be killed when trying to enforce restrictions (World Bank, 2002).
Further research into Although much research already exists within this field, further research would
linkages between help in making future land-use decisions. Research could help for instance to
highlight which farming practices are beneficial or negative for biodiversity,
land-use and effects where not to build that guesthouse or what form of forestry management to
to biodiversity pursue. Another important factor to take into account is that certain practices
can have beneficial effects on certain species, and negative effects on others
(an example could be the benefits that conifer plantations bring to the red
squirrel in the UK). In this case it has to be decided which species need
protecting over others, and adapting the management practices as required.
Deciding on which species to protect over others involves taking a national and
at times an international perspective.
A range of financial Economics is the single biggest driver behind people’s decision-making; the
incentives and majority of individuals will invariably choose the form of management or
practice that makes them the most money. Therefore, through financial
disincentives incentives and disincentives it becomes possible to guide people towards
responsible stewardship. A variety of financial incentives and disincentives
could consist of direct payments through agri-env schemes, a range of tax
incentives, the polluter pays principle, schemes for carbon storage and so on.
At the end of the day it has to become economical to use sustainable practices,
which benefit strong sustainable development. For too long strong sustainable
development has only created added costs with both short and long term
reductions in profit.

82
Greater use of Associations are particularly appropriate for agriculture and forestry where
associations plots owned, are in the norm, extremely small. Combining land together can
make management far easier, allow access to funding, reduce overall costs, co-
ordinate land usage etc. The tourism sector is also likely to benefit with
associations making the task of marketing the area to a wide audience possible
and small home-stays can co-ordinate their bookings so as large groups
become easier to accommodate.
Access to funding Almost every change and need (whether sector or non-sector specific)
mentioned thus far requires money, with funding for such schemes presently at
too low a level. In terms of the different sectors forestry and tourism need
financial assistance mainly for start up costs with over time the two industries
becoming in most cases economically self-sufficient. Continuous costs for
such things as marketing or monitoring should and can (again in time) largely
be acquired in-house. Agriculture on the other hand will require continual
financing at an almost continuous level, particularly in terms of agri-env
payments. Such funds need to come from a range of sources with many
already being mentioned (SAPARD, other EU funds, Romanian government,
nature conservation organisations, various other trusts etc). The various donors
also have to realise that the level and need for funds is likely to be at their
greatest in the most immediate future when the building blocks for strong
sustainable development are being put in place.

6.0. CONCLUSION

The challenge of this report has been to describe a form of development that promotes the

conservation of biodiversity both now and in the future. Achievement of this has been

based on developing a type of sustainable development in which biodiversity largely

dictates the economic element rather than vice versa. Such dictation however has not

been at the expense of economic development rather it has been as a means of promoting

sustainable economic development where biodiversity also benefits. Economic

development is an essential element driving development issues and with the various

developmental challenges Zarnesti (along with Romania and various other East Central

European countries) is soon to face it’s correct management will quite simply become the

key to achieving biodiversity conservation. By marrying the two, a move towards strong

83
sustainable development is made possible, whereby the long-term concerns of both

wildlife and people are taken into account.

For such a situation to be met however, a great number of changes are required. These

changes range from the local to international level, and call for the involvement of all

relevant individuals and organisations each working towards the common goal of strong

sustainable development. Ultimately a holistic approach is needed with this being

represented through an integrated rural development policy. Furthermore this has to

mean integrated in the fullest sense of the word with integration between stakeholders

(CLCP, PCNP, town hall etc), laws and policies (local, national and European), and the

various sectors (including agriculture, forestry, tourism and more). Through such

integration there has to be developed the necessary conditions (legal, institutional,

economical, etc) whereby a full range of incentives and disincentives operate, thus

making it easy for people to do the right thing and hard for them to do the wrong thing.

At the end of the day it has to seem like a natural progression to strong sustainable

development with people actually choosing to participate in the process. Also vital to

achieving this goal is immediate action to lay a foundation on which the path to strong

sustainability can begin as of now. Unsustainable development can occur in a very short

time frame and once in place it becomes extremely difficult to undo – a lesson we in the

west are just beginning to learn.

To conclude one has to remember that even with such action it is unlikely that it will be

enough to reverse many of the problems already facing the area specifically a certain

84
amount of rural migration. Furthermore strong sustainable development is an

overwhelming challenge and is far from being an easy solution to implement, as

demonstrated by the shortage of positive real world examples. Despite this it is a far

better solution than any other likely alternative and if we are serious about creating

sustainable development and protecting Europe’s biodiversity then it is the only solution.

85
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The successful completion of this report is thanks to the involvement of a great number

of people. First and foremost I would like to thank Christoph Promberger from the

Carpathian Large Carnivore Project (CLCP) who provided invaluable support in terms of

advice, contacts and part-funding without which this report would not have been possible.

Secondly I would like to thank all the individuals who took time out to be interviewed,

particularly the local inhabitants involved in agriculture. Finally thanks are extended to

my advisor for his time and inputs.

86
REFERENCES:

Abrudan, I.V. 2003. Forest certification in Romania and the market perspective. Seminar
on ‘Strategies for the sound use of wood’, Poiana Brasov, Romania. 24-27 March.

Agra Europe. 1991. Agriculture and the Environment: how will the EU resolve the
conflict? Agra Europe Special Report No.60.

Andersson, F.O., Feger, K.H., Huttl, R., Krauchi, N., Mattsson, L., Sallnas, O., and
Sjoberg, K. 2000. Forest ecosystem research – priorities for Europe. Forest Ecology and
Management, 132: 111-119.

Andreasen, C., Stryhn, H., and Streibig, J. 1996. Decline in the flora in Danish arable
fields. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33: 619-626.

Andrews, J., and Rebane, M. 1994. Farming and Wildlife: A Practical Management
Handbook. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Bedfordshire. UK.

Angelstam, P. 1996. The ghost of forest past: natural disturbance regimes as a basis for
reconstruction of biologically diverse forests in Europe, pp287-337. In: DeGraf, R.M.,
and Miller, R.I (Eds). Conservation of faunal diversity in forested landscapes. Chapman
and Hall, London.

Angelstam, P., Anufriev, V.M., Balciauskas, L., Blagovidov, A.K., Borgegard, S.,
Hodge, S.J., Majewski, P., Ponomarenko, S.V., Shvarts, E.A., Tishkov, A.A., Tomialojc,
L., and Wesolowski, T. 1997. Biodiversity and sustainable forestry in European forests:
how East and West can learn from each other. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25 (1): 38-48

Apostol, D., and Immerova, B. 2002. Background Study on the Link Between Agriculture
and the Environment in Accession Countries: National Report for Romania. Institute for
European Environmental Policy, London.

Azeez, G. 2000. The Biodiversity Benefits of Organic Farming. Soil Association: UK.

Baker,S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D., Young, S. (Eds.). 1997. The Politics of
sustainable development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union.
Routledge, London.

87
Bakker, P.J., Decker, M., and De Vries, Y. 1980. The effect of different management
practices on a grassland community and the resulting fate of seedlings. Acta Bot. Neerl,
29: 469-482.

Baldock, D., Dwyer, J., and Vinas, J.M.S. 2002. Environmental Integration and the
CAP-A Report to the European Commission, DG Agriculture. Institute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP), London. Available for download at URL: http://europa.eu.
int/comm/agriculture/envir/report/ieep_en.htm (10 December 2003).

Batisse, M. 1985. Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves. Environmental Conservation, 12

(1): 17-26.

Beckman, A. 2001. More than green gold – Interview with Ioan Abrudan. Central
Europe Review,Vol 3, No.14.

Batisse, M. 1997. Biosphere Reserves: a challenge for biodiversity conservation &

regional development. Environment, 39 (5): 1-25.

Bignal, E.M., and McCracken, D.I. 1996. Low-intensity farming systems in the
conservation of the countryside. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33: 413-424.

Boatman, N.D. and Stoate, C. 1999. Arable farming and wildlife – can they co-exist?
British Wildlife.

Boatman, N., Stoate, C., Gooch, R., Carvalho, C.R., Borralho, R., Snoo, D.D., and Eden,
P. 1999. The Environmental Impact of Arable Crop Production in the European Union:
Practical Options for Improvement. A report prepared for Directorate-General XI of the
European Commission. Available for download at URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm
/environment/agriculture/pdf/arable.pdf (10 December 2003).

Boatman, N. (Eds). 1994. Field margins: integrating agriculture and conservation.

British Crop Protection Monograph, Vol. 58. British Crop Protection Council, Farnham.

Brae, L.H., and Petersen, B.S. 1998. Fuglefaunen pa Konventionelle og okologiske

landbrug. Miljoprojekt 102, Miljominsteriet, Miljostyrelsen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Brandon, K.E., and Wells, K. 1993. The Principles and Practice of Buffer Zones and
Local Participation in Biodiversity Conservation. AMBIO, 22 (2-3): 157-162.

Brandon, K.E., and Wells, K. 1992. Planning for People and Parks: Design Dilemmas.
World Development, 20 (4): 557-570.

Burel, F., and Baudry, J. 1990. Hedgerow networks as habitats for forest species:
implications for colonising abandoned agricultural land. In: Bunce, R.G.H., and Howard,
D.C. (Eds). Species Dispersal in Agricultural Habitats. Belhaven Press, London.

88
Castellanos, A., Arriaga, L., and Lopez, C. 2002. El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve: A Case
Study of Conservation and Development in Mexico. Natural Areas Journal, 22 (4): 331-
339.

CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity. 2001. Handbook of the Convention on

Biological Diversity. Earthscan Publications Ltd: London.

Child, B. 1995. The Practice and principles of community-based wildlife management in

Zimbabwe: the CAMPFIRE program. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5 (3): 369-398.

Chiverton, P. 1991. The value of conservation headlands to ground beetles important as

predators of cereal aphids. The Game Conservancy Review of 1990, 22: 54-56.

Cobb, D., Feber, R., Hopkins, A., Stockdale, L., O’Riordan, T., Clements, B., Firbank,
L., Goulding, K., Jarvis, S., and MacDonald, D. 1999. Integrating the environmental and
economic consequences of converting to organic agriculture: evidence from a case study.
Land Use Policy, 16: 207-221.

(CNPS) Comisia Nationala pentru Statistica. 1995. Anuarul turistic al Romaniei 1995.
Comisia Nationala pentru Statistica, Bucharest.

Convention on environment, protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians

(ratified by Romania in Kiev, 2003) (Carpathian Convention). URL: http://www.
mtnforum.org/resources/library/cpsdc03a.htm (11 December 2003).

Crick, H.Q.P., Bailey, S.R., Balmer, D.E., Bashford, R.I., Dudley, C., Glue, D.E.,
Gregory, R.D., Marchant, J.H., Peach, W.J., and Wilson, A.M. 1997. Breeding Birds in
the wider countryside: their conservation status (1971-1995). BTO Research Report
187. BTO: Thetford.

Dahler, W. 1993. Langfristige Auswirkungen menschlicher Eingriffe in alpine

vegetation. Beitrage zur geobotanischen Landesaufnahme der Scheiz, 69: 1-130. – ask
anja for translation.

Daly, H., and Cobb, J.B. 1989. For the Common Good: Restructuring the Economy
Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Boston MA: Beacon
Press.

Dennis, P., and Fry, G.L.A. 1992. Field margins: can they enhance natural enemy
population densities and general arthropod diversity on farmland. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 40: 95-115.

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 2000. Report from the
Workshop on Landscape ecology, habitat fragmentation and land use change scenarios.
Available for download at URL: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifecountryside/ewd
/rrrpac/index.htm (11 December 2003).

89
DiTommaso, A., and Aarssen, L.W. 1989. Resource manipulation in natural vegetation: a
review. Vegetatio, 84: 9-29.

Donald, P.F., Green, R.E., and Heath, M.F. 2001. Agricultural Intensification and the
collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, (B) 268, 25-29.

Dover, J.W. 1991. The conservation of insects on arable land. In: Collins, N.M., and
Thomas, J.A (Eds). The conservation of insects and their Habitats. Academic Press,
London: UK.

Dresner, S. 2002. The Principles of Sustainability. Earthscan Publications Ltd: London.

Duff, A (Eds). 1997. The Treaty of Amsterdam: Text and Commentary. Sweet &
Maxwell.

EC. 2000. Communication of the European Commission to the Council and to the
Parliament on a European Community Biodiversity Strategy. COM (98) 42 – Policy area
6) Energy and Transport. Available for download at URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm
/environment/docum/9842 sm.htm (11 December 2003).

EC. 2001a. Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice. The 6th Environment Action
Programme of the EC 2001 – 2010. Available for download at URL:
http://europa.eu.int /comm/environment/ newprg/index.htm (11 December 2003).

EC. 2001b. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament. Biodiversity Action Plans in the areas of Conservation of Natural Resources,
Agriculture, Fisheries, and Development and Economic Co-operation. Introduction
available for download at URL: http://biodiversity-chm.eea.eu.int/convention/cbd_
ec/strategy/BAP_html (11 December 2003).

English Nature. 1999. Natural areas: helping to set the regional agenda for nature.
English Nature: Peterborough.

EPA. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. U.S. EPA,
Office of Water. Washington, DC.

Erdeli, G., and Manescu, L. 1997. Trends in the development of Romanian tourism,
pp67-75. In: Light, D., and Dumbraveanu-And one, D (Eds). Proceedings of the second
Liverpool-Bucharest geography colloquium. Liverpool Hope Press.

EUROPA. 2003. The European Union on line – CAP reform. URL: http://www.europa.
eu.int/comm/agriculture/mtr/index_en.htm (11 December 2003).

90
EUROSTAT (Statistical database of the European Union). 2000. URL: http://europa.eu
.int/comm/eurostat (11 December 2003).

FAOSTAT (Statistical database of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations). URL: http://www.fao.org/waicent/portal/statistics_en.asp (11 December 2003).

Fahrig, L., and Merriam, G. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival.
Ecology, 66: 1762-1768.

Feneru, F., Ghiurca, D., Lengyel, P., Feneru, M., and Munteanu, A. 2002. A Pilot Bird
Survey in Piatra Craiului National Park, 2001-2002, pp277-288. In: Pop, O., and
Verghelet, M (Eds). 2003. Research in Piatra Craiului National Park. Piatra Craiului
National Park Administration (Vol 1). Phoenix Publications.

Fischer, M., and Wipf, S. 2002. Effect of low-intensity grazing on the species-rich
vegetation of traditionally mown subalpine meadows. Biological Conservation, 104: 1-
11.

Foster, B.L., and Gros, K.L. 1998. Species richness in a successional grassland: Effects
of nitrogen enrichment and plant litter, Ecology, 79: 2593-2602.

Fuller, R.M. 1987. The changing extent and conservation interest of lowland grasslands
in England and Wales: a review of grassland surveys. Biological Conservation, 40: 281-
300.

Graae, B.J. 2000. The effect of low landscape fragmentation and forest continuity on
forest floor species in two regions of Denmark. Journal of Vegetation Science, 11: 881-
892.

Green, B.H. 1990. Agricultural intensification and the loss of habitat, species and
amenity in British grasslands: a review of historical change and assessment of future
prospects. Grass and Forage Science, 45: 365-372.

Greig-Smith, P.W, Thompson, H.M., Hardy, A.R., Bew, M.H., Findlay, E., and
Stevenson, J.H. 1995. Incidents of poisoning of honeybees (Apis mellifera) by
agricultural pesticides in Great Britain 1981-1991. Crop Protection, 13: 567-581.

Gregory, R.D., Noble, D.G., Campbell, L.H. and Gibbons, D.W. 2000. The state of the
UK’s birds. Sandy, Bedfordshire: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and British
Trust for Ornithology.

Groosman, B., and Yaron, G. 2001. A cost-benefit analysis of the sustainable

development options for the community of Zarnesti – eco-tourism and quarrying. A
report for and funded by the Nando Peretti Foundation.

91
Gullison, R.E. 2003. Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx, 37 (2): 153-
165.

Haddad, N.M., Haarstad, J., and Tilman, D. 2000. The effects of long-term nitrogen
loading on grassland insect communities. Oecologia, 124 (1): 73-84.

Hald, A.B. 1999. Weed Vegetation (wild flora) of long established organic versus
conventional cereal fields in Denmark. Annals of Applied Biology, 134 (3): 307-314.

Hall, D. 1995. Tourism change in Central & Eastern Europe, pp221-244. In: Monatnari,
A., and Williams, A.M (Eds). European Tourism. Wiley, Chichester.

Hanson, J.C., Lichtenberg, E., and Peters, S.E. 1997. Organic versus conventional grain
production in the mid-Atlantic: an economic and farming system over-view. American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 12 (1): 2.

Harris, J., Wise, T., Gallagher, K., Sen, A., Goodwin, N.R., and Wyman, J.S. 2002. A
Survey of Sustainable development: Social and economic dimensions. Society & Natural
Resources, 15 (6): 558-560.

Havens, K.E., and Steinman, A.D. 1995. Aquatic Systems. In: Rechcigl, J.E (Eds). Soil
amendments: impacts on biotic systems. Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton.

Henderson, H. 1994. Paths to Sustainable development – The Role of Social-Indicators.

Futures, 26 (2): 125-137.

Hewston, G.D., and Cooke, R.J. 1996. Issues facing nature conservation in England: a
natural areas perspective. English Nature Research Report No. 165. English Nature:
Peterborough.

Holden, A. 2000. Environment and Tourism. Routledge, London.

Huhta, A.P., and Rautio, P. 1998. Evaluating the impacts of mowing: a case study
comparing managed and abandoned meadow patches. Ann.Bot.Fenn, 35: 85-99.

IKC-NBLF (Information and Knowledge Centre, Nature, Forest, Landscape and Fauna,
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries). 1994. Toestand van de
Natuur 2. IKC-NBLF, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

INDUFOR & ECO. 2000a. Implications of land restitution for achieving the World Bank
– WWF Alliance targets in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Region – Country case
study Romania. Contract No.7109895 for the World Bank/WWF Alliance. Produced and
distributed by: WWF-International Danube-Carpathian Programme Office, Austria.

INDUFOR & ECO. 2000b. Implications of land restitution for achieving the World Bank
– WWF Alliance targets in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Region. Report

92
prepared for the World Bank – WWF Alliance. Produced and distributed by: WWF-
International Danube-Carpathian Programme Office, Austria.

Ionescu, D.T., and Draghici, M. 2000. Some Ornithological observations in Piatra

Craiului National Park, pp275-276. In: Pop, O., and Verghelet, M (Eds) 2003. Research
in Piatra Craiului National Park. Piatra Craiului National Park Administration (Vol 1).
Phoenix Publications.

Ioras, F., Muica, N., and Turnock. 2001. Approaches to sustainable forestry in the Piatra
Craiului National Park. GeoJournal, 54: 579-598.

Ioras, F., Render, M., Voiculet, M. and Veghelet, M. 1999. The effects of mountainous
grazing on forest vegetation and management. Revista de Silvicultur, 1-2 (9-10): 40-46.

IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth: a strategy for sustainable living. Gland,
Switzerland.

IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1980. World Conservation Strategy. Living resource conservation

for sustainable development. Gland, Switzerland.

Jacobs, M. 1995. Sustainable Development – From Broad Rhetoric to Local reality.

Conference Proceedings from Agenda 21, Cheshire County Council, Document No. 493.

Jahn, L.R., and Schenck, E.W. 1991. What Sustainable Agriculture means for fish and
wildlife. Journal of Soil and water conservation. July-August, pp 251-255.

Jepson, P.C. 1989. Pesticides and Non-target Invertebrates. Intercept, Wimborne, UK.

Judetean. 2003. Strategie de Dezvoltare Durabila Si Conservare a Biodiveritatii in Zona

Orasului Zarnesti (Strategy of Sustainable Development and conservation of Biodiversity
in the zone of Zarnesti town). Draft version.

Klimes, L., Jongepierova, I., and Jonepier, J.W. 2000. The effect of mowing on a
previously abandoned meadow: a ten-year experiment. Priroda, Praha, 17: 7-24.

Komonen, A., Penttila, R., Lindgren, M., and Hanski, I. 2000. Forest fragmentation
truncates a food chain based on an old-growth forest bracket fungus. Oikos, 90: 119-126.

Korneck, D., and Sukopp. H. 1988. Rote Liste der in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
ausgestorbenen, verschollenen und gefahrdeten Farn- und Blutenpflanzen und ihre
Auswertung fur den Arten- und Biotopschutz. – Schrr. Vegetationskunde 19, Bonn,
Germany.

Kotanen, P.M. 1997. Effects of gap area and shape on recolonization by grassland plants
with differing reproductive strategies. Canadian Journal of Botany, 75: 352-361.

93
Kramer, J.M., and Johnson, C.D., 1996. Sustainable development and Social
development: Necessary partners for the future. Journal of Sociology and social welfare,
23 (1): 75-91.

Lampkin, N. 1990. Organic Farming. Farming Press, UK.

La Polla, V.N., and Barrett, G.W. 1993. Effects of corridor width and presence on the
population dynamics of the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Landscape
Ecology, 8: 25-37.

Lawton, J.H., and May, R.M (Eds). 1995. Extinction Rates. Oxford University Press:
Oxford.

Letourneau, D.K., and Goldstei, B. 2001. Pest damage and arthropod community
structure in organic vs. conventional tomato production in California. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 38, 557-570.

Linnell, J.D.C., Swenson, J.E., and Andersen, R. 2000. Conservation of biodiversity in

Scandinavian boreal forests: large carnivores as flagships, umbrellas, indicators, or
keystones? Biodiversity and Conservation, 9: 857-868.

Lotter, D.W. 2003. Organic Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 21 (4): 59-
128.

LUPG (Land Use Policy Group) & WWF. 2002. Europe’s rural futures – Emerging
messages for EU Rural Development Policy. Institute for European Environmental
Policy, London.

MacNeidhe, F.S., and Culleton, N. 2000. The application of parameters designed o

measure nature conservation and landscape development on Irish farms. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 77 (1-2): 65-78.

Marusca, T., Pop, O., Voda. A., and Verghelet, M. 2000. Evaluation of grazing pressure
on the Piatra Craiului National Park’s pastures and management issues, pp130-140. In:
Pop, O., and Verghelet, M (Eds). 2003. Research in Piatra Craiului National Park. Piatra
Craiului National Park Administration (Vol 1). Phoenix Publications.

Matlack. G.R. 1994. Plant species migration in a mixed-history forest landscape in

eastern North America. Ecology, 75 (5): 1491-1502.

McCracken, D.I., Bignal, .M., and Wenlock, S.E., (Eds). 1995. Farming on the edge: the
nature of traditional farmland in Europe. Joint Nature Conservation Committee:
Peterborough.

McMichael, P., 1996. Globalisation: myths and realities. Rural Sociology, 61, 25-26.

94
Meeus, J.H.A., Wijermans, M.P., and Vrook, M.J. 1990. Agricultural Landscapes in
Europe and their transformation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 18, 289-352.

Mertens, A., and Gheorghe, P. 2001. Livestock depredation, pp33-36. In: Promberger, C.,
et al (Eds). (2001). Carpathian Large Carnivore Project: Annual Report 2001. HACO
International Publishing.

Metcalfe, S. 1994. The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Programme for

Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). In: Natural Connections: Perspectives in
Community-Based Conservation. Washington DC: Island Press.

Mihailescu, S. 2001. Protected Plant Species and Fragile Habitats of Piatra Craiului
Massif. Pp119-129. In Pop, O., and Verghelet, M (Eds). 2003. Research in Piatra
Craiului National Park. Piatra Craiului National Park Administration (Vol 1). Phoenix
Publications.

Milton, S.J., Dean, W.R.J., and Klotz, S. 1997. Thicket formation in abandoned fruit
orchards: processes and implications for the conservation of semi-dry grasslands in
Central Germany. Biodiversity Conservation, 6: 275-290.

Mitchell, P.L., and Kirby, K.J. 1989. Ecological effects of forestry practices on long-
established woodland and their implications for nature conservation. OFI Occasional
papers 39, 172pp.

Mitchley, J., and Willems, J.H. 1995. Vertical canopy structure of Dutch chalk grasslands
in relation to their management. Vegetatio, 117: 17-27.

Muica, N., Roberts, L., and Turnock, D. 1999. Transformation of a border region:
dispersed agricultural communities in Brasov County, Romania. GeoJournal, 46: 305-
317.

Munasinghe, M. 1993. Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development.

Environment Paper No.3. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Murariu, D. 2001. The faunal state and the estimation of the preservation categories of
the mammal species of Piatra Craiului National Park, pp289-300. In: Pop, O., and
Verghelet, M (Eds). 2003. Research in Piatra Craiului National Park. Piatra Craiului
National Park Administration (Vol 1). Phoenix Publications.

NPARD. 2000. National Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development (2000-2006)-
Romania. URL:http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/external/enlarge/countries
/romania/plan/plan1_en.pdf (11 December 2003).

Noss, R.F. 1991. Landscape connectivity: different functions at different scales, pp 27-
39. In: Hudson, W.E (Ed). Landscape linkages and biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
California.

95
O’Connor, R.J. 1992. Indirect effects of pesticides on birds. Pests Dis., 9A-3: 1097-1104.

Oldfield, S.C., and MacKinven, A. 1998. The World List of Threatened Trees. World
Conservation Press: Cambridge, UK.

Ozanne, L.K., and Vorsky, R.P. 1996. Willingness to pay for Environmentally certified
wood products: A consumer perspective. Forest Products Journal, 47 (6): 39-48.

Padel, S., and Lampkin, N.H (Eds). 1994. The economics of organic farming. CAB:
Wallingford, UK.

Pain, D.J., and Pienkowski, M.W. 1997. Farming and Birds in Europe: the Common
Agricultural Policy and its Implications for Bird Conservation. Academic Press, London.

Paoletti, M. 1999a. The role of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as

bioindicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 74: 137-155.

Paoletti, M. 1999b. Using bioindicators based on biodiversity to assess landscape

sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 74: 1-18.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A., and Barbier, E.B. 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy.
Earthscan Publications Ltd: London.

Pfiffner, L. 2000. Significance of Organic farming for invertebrate diversity – enhancing

beneficial organisms with field margins in combination with organic farming. In: Stolton,
S., Geier, B., and McNeely, J (Eds). 2000. The Relationship between Nature
Conservation, Biodiversity and Organic Agriculture, IFOAM, Germany.

Phillips, E.J. 1996. Comparing silvicultural systems in a coastal montane forest:

Productivity and cost of harvesting operations. FERIC Special Report, No. SR-109.

Pop, O., et al. 2002. Piatra Craiului National Park information booklet.

Promberger, C. 2003. Guidelines for preparing project proposals to the Community

Development and Conservation Fund. Unpublished.

Promberger, C., et al. 2002. Carpathian Large Carnivore Project: Annual Report 2002.
HACO International Publishing.

Promberger, C., et al. 2001. Carpathian Large Carnivore Project: Annual Report 2001.
HACO International Publishing.

Promberger, C., Promberger-Furpass, B., and Mertens, A. 2000. A Large Carnivore

Centre for Piatra Craiului – Project Design. HACO International Publishing.

96
Promberger, C., et al 1998. Carpathian Large Carnivore Project: Annual Report
1997/1998.

Puumalainen, J., Kennedy, P., and Folving, S. 2003. Monitoring forest biodiversity: a
European perspective with reference to temperate and boreal forest zone. Journal of
Environmental Management, 67: 5-14.

Rametsteiner, E., and Simula, M. 2003. Forest certification-an instrument to promote

sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental management, 67: 87-98.

Rauschelbach, B., Schafer, A., and Steck, B. 2002. Cooperating for Sustainable Tourism-
Proceedings of the FORUM INTERNATIONAL at the Reisepavillon. Published by
Kasparek Verlag on behalf of Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ).

Roberts, L. 1996. Barriers to the Development of Rural Tourism in the Bran Area of
Transylvania, pp185-196. In: Robinson, M., Evans, N., and Callaghan, P (Eds). 1996.
Tourism and Culture: Image, Identity, and Marketing-Conference Proceedings.
UNESCO and University of Northumbria at Newcastle.

Robinson, A.Y. 1991. Sustainable agriculture: the wildlife connection. American Journal
of Alternative Agriculture, 6 (4): 161-167.

Robinson, J.G. 1993. The Limits to Caring: Sustainable Living and the Loss of
Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 7 (1): 20-28.

Rose, F. 1999. Indicators of ancient woodland. The use of vascular plants in evaluating
ancient woods for nature conservation. British Wildlife, 1999, 241-251.

Rural Development Regulation (RDR). 1999. Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 on support
for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF). Available for download at URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/
leg/1257en.pdf (11 December 2003).

Rydberg, N.T., and Milberg, P. 2000. A survey of weeds in organic farming in Sweden.
Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 18 (2): 17-185.

Salamlolard, M., and Moreau, C. 1999. Habitat selection by Little Bustard (Tetrax tetrax)
in a cultivated area of France. Bird Study, 46: 25-33.

Sanjayan, M.A., Shen, S., and Jansen, M. 1997. Experiences with integrated-
conservation development projects in Asia. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Sedjo, R.A. Goetzl, A., and Moffat, S.O. 1999. Sustainability of Temperate Forests.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

97
Sherratt, T.N., and Jepson, P.C. 1993. A metapopulation approach to modelling the long-
term impact of pesticides on invertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 30: 696-705.

Smith, F.D.M., May, R.M., Pellew, R., Johnson, T.H., and Walter, K.R. 1993. How much
do we know about the current extinction rate? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8: 375-
378.

Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., and Rickerl, D.H. 1995. The relative sustainability of
alternative, conventional and reduced-till farming systems. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, 10 (1): 25.

Soil Association. 2003. Key Elements of Organic Farming – Briefing Paper.

Soil Association. 2001. Organic food and farming: Myth and reality report.

Spiecker, H. 2002. Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance

of forests in Europe-temperate zone. Journal of Environmental Management, 67: 55-65.

Stanhill,G. 1990. The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment. 30 (1-2): 1-26.

Steck, B (Ed). 1999. Sustainable Tourism as a development option: Practical Guide for
local planners, developers and local decision makers. Federal Ministry for economic co-
operation and development, Germany, Bonn.

Stein-Bachinger, K.B., Saacke, S., Fuchs., Sperzel, H., Petersen, M., Flade., and Peil, J.
2000. Nature preservation strategies on leys (legume-grass crops) – effects on ground-
breeding birds, fodder quantity and quality for ruminants of organic within the
Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere reserve. In: Stolton, S.B. and McNeely, J (Eds). 2000. The
relationship between nature conservation, Biodiversity and Organic Agriculture,
IFOAM, Germany.

Stoate, C., Moreby, S.J., and Szczur, J. 1998. Breeding ecology of farmland
Yellowhammers (Emberiza citrinella). Bird Study, 45: 109-121.

Stolze, M., Piorr, A., Haring, A., and Dabbert. S. 2000. The environmental impact of
organic farming in Europe. In: Organic farming in Europe: economics and policy.
University of Hohenhim: Hohenheim, Germany.

Stonehouse, D.P. 1996. Initial technical and economic comparisons of different farming
systems in Ontario, Canada. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 13: 371-386.

Tapper, S.C., and Barnes, R.F.W. 1986. Influence of farming practice on the ecology of
the brown hare (Lepus europaeus). Journal of Applied Ecology, 23: 39-52.

98
Tatole, V. 2001. Research on Aquatic Invertebrate Fauna of Piatra Craiului National Park
(I). Pp217-231. In: Pop, O., and Verghelet, M (Eds). 2003. Research in Piatra Craiului
National Park. Piatra Craiului National Park Administration (Vol 1). Phoenix
Publications.

The National Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable use
of its components (Romania’s direct response to the CBD). 1996. Available for download
at URL: http://www.grida.no/enrin/biodiv/biodiv/nbsap/rostrat.htm (11 December 2003).

Thomas, M. 1989. Management of fields and filed boundaries to encourage natural

enemies of cereal aphids. The Game Conservancy Review of 1988, 20: 71-72.

Tilzey, M. 1997. Agriculture and Natural Areas. English Nature Research Report
No.247, English Nature, Peterborough.

Tosun, C. 2001. Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world:

the case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 22: 289-303.

Tucker, G.M., and Heath, M.F. 1994. Birds in Europe: their conservation status.
Cambridge, UK: Birdlife International.

Turner, R. K., Pearce, D., and Bateman, I. 1994. Environmental Economics: An

Elementary Introduction. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Turnock, D. 2002. Ecoregion-based conservation in the Carpathians and the land-use

implications. Land Use Policy, 19: 47-63.

(DEFRA) UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 1998. Conference on
Biodiversity and a Sustainable Countryside 9 and 10 March 1998. Available for
download at URL: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/biodiversity/debate.htm
(11 December 2003).

Ulaak, Z., Vinceecova, K., and Travniaek, R. 2000. Organic agriculture and landscape
management – does the public care? In: Alfoldi, T., Lockeretz, W., and Niggli, U (Eds).
Proceedings 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference, IFOAM, Germany.

UNEP/Council of Europe. 2001. Pan European Biological and Landscape diversity

strategy. High level Pan-European conference on agriculture and Biodiversity: Towards
integrating biological and landscape diversity for sustainable agriculture in Europe
(COM) 162. final – Vol III. Available for download at URL: http://www.nature.coe.int
/CONF_AGRI_ 2002agri33e.01.doc (11 December 2003).

UNEP/WCMC. Protected Areas Programme – Prototype Nationally Designated Protected

Areas Database. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/data/nat2.htm (21
December 2003).

99
Van Elsen, T. 1999. Species diversity as a task for organic agriculture in Europe.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 77 (1-2): 101-109.

Van Mansvelt, J.D., Stobbelaar, D.J., and Hendrks, K. 1998. Comparison of landscape
features in organic and conventional farming systems. Landscape and Urban Planning,
41 (3-4): 209-227.

Van Oorschot, P., and Van Mansvelt, E. 1998. Natuurbehoud 2, pp: 6-8. Vereniging
Natuurmonumenten, s-Gravenland.

Verkaar, H.J. 1990. Corridors as a tool for plant species conservation? In: Bunce, R.G.H.,
and Howard, D.C (Eds). Species Dispersal in Agricultural Habitats. Belhaven Press,
London: UK.

Wall, G. 1997. Is Ecotourism Sustainable? Environmental Management, 21 (4): 483-491.

Watkins, C. 1990. Woodland management and conservation. Britain’s Ancient

Woodland. David and Charles, New Abbott, London.

Wedin, D.A., and Tilman, D. 1996. Influence of Nitrogen loading and species
composition on the carbon balance of grasslands. Science, 274 (5293): 1720-1723.

Willems, J.H. 1985. Growth form spectra and species diversity in permanent grassland
plots with different management. In: Schreiber, K.F (Ed). Sukzession auf
Grunlandbrachen. Munstersche Geographische Arbeiten. Muenster, Germany, 20: 35-43.

Wilson, J.D., Evans, J., Browne, S.J. and King, J.R. 1997. Territory distribution and
breeding success in Skylarks (Alauda arvensis) on organic and intensive farmland in
southern England. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34: 1462-1478.

Wilson, P, 1991. Factors affecting the distribution of rare arable weeds. Game
Conservancy Review of 1990. Game Conservancy.

World Bank. 2002. Project appraisal document on a proposed loan in the amount of
US$25.00 million to Romania for a forest development project. Document of the World
Bank, Report No. 25131-RO.

World Bank. 1999. Economic Valuation and Reform of the Forestry Sector, Romania.
World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future.

Oxford University Press.

World Tourism Organisation. 2002. Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. 54th edition, WTO,
Madrid.

100
World Tourism Organisation. 1997. Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. 49th edition, WTO,
Madrid.

WWF. 2003. The Ecoregion Approach - Global 200 – Blueprint for a living planet. URL:
www.panda.org/global200/ (25 December 2003).

WWF. 2002. Counting on the Forest – FSC in Eastern Europe. Octopus media, Dreieich,
Germany.

WWF. 2001a. The Carpathians: Kingdom of the Carnivores. WWF International:

Danube-Carpathian Programme.

WWF. 2001b. The Status of the Carpathians – The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative.
WWF International.

WWF. 2001c. WWF Newsletter: Forestry and wood certification. No. 7 – January.

Wynen, E. 1996. Biological diversity on ecologically managed farms – grassland fungi.

Ecology and Farming, No. 13, IFOAM, Germany.

Zotta, M., Verghelet, M., and Lane, B. 2003. A Sustainable Tourism Strategy for Piatra
Craiului National Park-Draft 6. PCNP, Romania.

Zupacic-Vicar, M. 1994. The Influence of the Reprivatization of Land on Nature

Protection and Protected Areas, pp145-147. In: Munasinghe, M., and McNeely, J (Eds).
Protected Area Economics and Policy: Linking Conservation and Sustainable
Development. World Bank, Washington DC. Available at URL: http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/

101
ABBREVIATIONS:

CAP: Common Agricultural Policy

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity

CDCF: Community Development and Conservation Fund

CEE: Central and Eastern Europe

CLCP: Carpathian Large Carnivore Project

DOF: Department of Forests

EC: European Community

EU: European Union

FSC: Forest Stewardship Council

GEF: Global Environmental Facility

MAFF: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests

NAPARD: National Action Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development

NFA: National Forestry Association

OCF: Organic and Composted Fertiliser

PCNP: Piatra Craiului National Park

RDR: Rural Development Regulation

SAPARD: Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development

SPS: Single Payment System

102
APPENDIX ONE:

Listed below are the twenty-two key individuals/organisations who were interviewed as
part of the research. (Names in bold represent interviews conducted by e-mail).

1. Christoph Promberger. Head of CLCP.

2. Barbara Promberger. Joint head of CLCP.
3. Annette Mertens. Former employee of CLCP (extensive work on wildlife-human
conflicts with regards to the shepherd camps).
4. Ioan Abrudan. Transylvania University of Brasov, Romania (faculty of
Silviculture and Forest Engineering).
5. Erika Stanciu. WWF Austria – Danube/Carpathian project (co-ordinator for the
process of FSC certification of Romanian forests).
6. Lucian. Forestry engineer in Zarnesti’s NFA office.
7. Gheorghe Prodyo. Forestry Research and Management Institute (ICAS), Brasov.
8. Dragos Lipan. Consultant in land-use/GIS and former employee of PCNP.
9. Mircea Verghelet. PCNP Manager.
10. Olivio Pop. PCNP Biologist.
11. Mihai Zotta. Tourism expert within PCNP.
12. Zarnesti tourism office.
13. Hermann Kuermes. Head of ZETA.
14. Marilena Buretea. Member of ZETA.
15. Gheorge Pavulescu. Ministry of Tourism.
16. Head of Rural development. SAPARD regional office, Brasov.
17. Catalina Mushat. SAPARD head office, Bucharest.
18. Florin Carstea. Individual in charge of Agriculture in Zarnesti town hall.
19. Teodor Marusca. Grassland Research and Development Institute, Brasov.
20. Potato Institute – Brasov.
21. Mihai Constantin Orleanu. President of the Centre for Mountain Ecology, Moeciu
de Sus, Romania.
22. Natalie Orleanu. Vice President of the Centre for Mountain Ecology.

103
104