Country report - ROMANIA

-Wickerwork: 9155 tones/ 39,396 mil. RoLei;

-Forest Seeds: 36,2 tones/ 709 mil. RoLei;

-Forest Fruits + Mushrooms: 5627 tones + 409 tones/ 75,410 mil. RoLei;

-Game Meat + Live game: 182.5 tones + 150,170 pcs./ 76,609 mil. RoLei;

-Fish (mainly trout): 602,2 tones/ 30,564 mil RoLei;

The non-pecuniary values of forests are, however, considerably larger than the financial values, but traditional accounting methods have tended to mask this. A study commissioned by the World Bank in 1998-1999 showed that the annual value of products and services (including the environmental ones) provided by the Romanian forests is around 3.1 billion US $.

Nature conservation. The Romanian Network of Protected Areas covers 1,234,710 ha or 5.2 % of the country's area. Apart from the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve there are other seventeen large protected areas - national parks and natural parks, including 134 nature reserves and natural monuments (see Table 9), and covering 1,132,176 ha. 693 nature reserves and natural monuments are outside the large protected areas and cover 102,534 ha.

Before 1999 none of the large protected areas had legally established administrative structures in place, except Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. This situation was determined by the poor capacity of the state budged to finance the administration of protected areas. Under these circumstances the only effective legal tool to protect the forests within the protected areas had been the forest management plan. According to the provisions of the forest management plans about 477,000 ha of forests are included in the national network of protected areas and around half of them are strictly protected.

Table 8. Large protected areas in Romania

Source: Tamas and Abrudan, 2003

In 1999 the World Bank - GEF funded Biodiversity Conservation Management Project became effective and administrations for three large protected areas (Retezat National Park, Piatra Craiului National Park and Vanatori Neamt Natural Park - a new protected`area) were established within the National Forest Administration (NFA), as part of the three main objectives of the Project: (1) Strengthening the national framework for biodiversity conservation; (2) Developing models for protected areas management, and (3) Building public support for biodiversity conservation.

Despite the fact that the development of effective management plans for other five protected areas (Ceahlau, Balta Mica a Brailei, Portile de Fier, Apuseni and Muntii Macinului) has been supported by international projects (Life Natura, Global Environmental Facility - GEF etc.), none of them had legally established administrative structures.

In early 2002 the Board of the National Forest Administration decided the establishment of the administrations for all national and natural parks under its Protected Areas Service, considering that in all of them the majority of the area is covered by forests. However, this was an internal decision and although it has significantly contributed to the improvement of nature protection infrastructure, the public authority responsible for environmental protection had not approved officially the establishment of these administrations.

A recent legislative development in nature protection and protected area administration - the "Governmental Decision 230/2003 regarding the delineation of the biosphere reserves, national parks and natural parks and the establishment of their administrations", approved in March 2003 - created the proper framework for the administration of large protected areas. Article 8 specifies that the public authority for environmental protection will ensure in six months after the publication of the governmental decision in the Official Gazette the establishment of administrative structures for all biosphere reserves, national and natural parks. The administrative structures can be either (a) in the subordination of the public authority responsible for the environmental protection or (b) under the coordination of the public authority responsible for the environmental protection, based on a contract with bodies capable to prove their technical, scientific, administrative and financial capacity for protected areas administration. It also mentions that the main land owner in a protected area has the right to administer the respective protected area (on a contractual basis) if the above mentioned capacity is proved. The minimum duration for the administration contracts is 10 years.

Under these new circumstances, the National Forest Administration submitted its offer for the management of the national and natural parks and in February 2004 the public authority for environmental protection assigned the management of all national and natural parks (except Ceahlau) to NFA, on a contractual basis.

3. Main Issues

Sustainable forest management and the development of the forest sector in Romania is affected by three categories of factors: (a) internal factors, residing within the forest sector itself, (b) external factors, residing outside the forest sector and (c) international processes, including the EU accession process. Considering the direct and indirect linkages between them, each of these categories of factors can be hardly separated from the others.

The internal factors affecting the forest sector are mainly linked to the wood resource, the wood market and the institutional arrangements for forest management and administration.

There have been no significant changes in the wood resource in Romania in the last decades, as the forest area and species composition remained almost unchanged. However, due to the slightly unbalanced age classes and the selective harvesting of valuable species in some parts of the country, it is expected that the quality of wood to be harvested on a medium-long term will decrease. On the other hand, the recent restitution of almost a third of the Romanian forests might lead to an increased harvest and wood supply from these forests - mainly for economic reasons - compared to the previous management practiced by the National Forest Administration, which had an important ecological/protection component.

Despite the fact that the average price of wood (standing or roadside) has increased continuously after 1990, as it was lower than in other central and western European countries, it is hard to anticipate its evolution in the future. On a medium term it might be possible that the prices for standing or roadside wood in Romania would become similar to those in other central European countries. As Romania is a net exporter of wood and wood products the international evolution of wood product prices will clearly have an impact on the domestic market.

The institutional changes in the forestry sector have known a tumultuous evolution after 1990. If during the communist period the regulatory, supervisory and ownership (management of the state-owned forest property) functions were in one hand (Ministry of Forests), in early 1990 the first two functions of the state were separated from the management of the state-owned forest property function via the establishment of the National Forest Administration (reorganized several times since then).

Department of Forests (within the Ministry of Environment before 2001 and the Ministry of Agriculture afterwards) has been the public authority responsible for forests in Romania. In spite of the many changes, the regulatory and supervisory/support functions were contained in different directorates of the Department of Forests.

In 1999 the Forest Inspectorates were established, initially with 7 territorial branches, which were expanded to 16 branches in 2001, as the restitution process was imminent. Their function was to enforce at regional level the supervision/support functions of the public authority for forests. Due to the Cabinet re-organization, in spring 2003 the Forest Inspectorates were transferred to the National Environmental Guard within the National Authority for Control and left the Department of Forests without any territorial structures. This situation changed in January 2004, when Territorial Directorates for Forest Regime and Hunting were established in each of the 8 development regions of the country. They are supposed to perform the administrative, technical and extension functions of the public authority for forests, the supervisory/control one remaining with the National Environmental Guard.

The Department of Forests faces some difficulties regarding the capacity and physical resources to undertake its roles and staffing has not reached the initial planned level due to budgetary constraints. However, a World Bank loan (Forestry Development Project) for the forestry sector would significantly strengthen the institutional capacity of the Department of Forests, as the loan became effective recently.

The National Forest Administration (NFA) administrates and manages the state forests and is a legal state-owned entity with an essentially commercial mandate. It has 37 branches and 372 forest districts and operates as a financially autonomous organization performing forest management and silvicultural operations, engaging in non- timber forest products and services. It undertakes a wide range of public purpose activities and is responsible for the management of protected forest areas and national parks. NFA also has in its administrative structure the Forest Research and Management Planning Institute.

The NFA is like many state-owned organizations coming under increasing political pressure and public scrutiny regarding the stewardship of state assets under its management. Forest restitution has already reduced the NFA area by up to 30% with consequent reduction in revenues and the greater impact on fixed costs. This reduced area will contain a higher proportion of protection and public purpose forest. The focus to date, despite the major issues facing the company, has been principally on staffing at branch and district offices and less on processes, operational efficiency and exploring choices or options for its strategic development. The NFA should address a number of major issues in the short to medium term including: impact of forest restitution, continuance of public purpose activities in protection forests, functional organization, appropriate staffing levels, increasing pressure to privatize its non-core activities, information systems, management of protected areas etc. (World Bank, 2002).

An important institutional milestone in the evolution of the forestry sector in Romania after the fall of communism was the establishment of the first private forest district (an administrative/management structure for private forests, similar to those of NFA) in spring 2002. Since then, 61 private forest districts have been established (managing more than 600,000 ha of forests) and their number is expected to double in the next couple of years, in parallel with the reduction of NFA forest districts, as a consequence of the restitution process. Although NFA will remain the main player in forest management in Romania, the private forest districts will play an increasing role on the wood market.

The Association of Private Forest Owners (APPR) is a national umbrella organization established in 1998 and representing all categories of private forest owners in Romania. Its membership includes local and county associations, communes, town halls and individual members. The APPR has an important role to play in the sustainable management of restituted forests as their owners or applicants under the restitution program are unaware not only of their rights and obligations but also the value to be derived from the sale of timber and other products and the importance of sustainable forest management. Despite its important role, APPR is facing financial and staffing problems, but this situation will change soon as technical assistance to develop a medium term business development plan, support for a core permanent professional staff, basic office equipment and assistance with publications and extension services are expected to be provided to APPR in the frame of the Forest Development Project (World Bank loan).

Regarding the external factors, residing outside the forest sector it should be mentioned that there is a complex network of public policies and legislation which directly and indirectly affects the development of the forest sector in Romania: (a) policies establishing the institutional framework, (b) policies related to specific economic sectors, and (c) policies promoting development (Abrudan, 2002).

In the last decade the economic situation (and especially economic growth) has significantly affected the forestry sector, including forest management. For example, the years of economic decline have negatively impacted on the activity of logging and processing companies and indirectly reduced the volume and quality of forest operations, as well as the income of the National Forest Administration and its investment capacity. This situation has changed in the last four years and the improvement of the economic situation is expected to continue. On the other hand, the budget allocation for forestry has been limited and many of the Governmental programmes related to forestry were only partially achieved.

The restitution of forest land and the privatization of wood harvesting, transport and the processing sector have probably had the highest impact on the development of the forestry sector and forest management in Romania. The size of the restituted forests according to Law 18/1991, which in many cases represented only part of the pre-nationalization individual ownership, created frustration among forest owners. In addition, the poor capacity to enforce the forest legislation and to raise forest owners' awareness on sustainable forest management resulted in significant environmental damages in private forests. Although private forest management structures have been established, the general opinion is that in the short term, the forests restituted according to the second restitution law promulgated in 2000, will face some management difficulties. The reasons for this include: lack of capacity and knowledge; vested interest in gaining immediate economic benefits; and improper law enforcement capacity.

The almost completed privatization of wood harvesting, transport and processing has had mainly positive effects on forest management. Privatization resulted in a higher competition for wood resources and increased prices for standing wood, with direct financial benefits for National Forest Administration.

The public financing has a direct impact on the development of the forestry sector as the regulatory, control and extension functions of the state are depending on the annual budget allocation. Budgetary allocation for forest sector has been relatively small in the last decade, thus particularly affecting the control and extension functions, as well as the public authority staff quality and commitment.

In previous years the agricultural policies and legislation have had some important influences on forest sector development. An important aspect of Romanian forestry is that any agricultural policy and regulation must not lead to the reduction of the public forest area. Indeed the afforestation of degraded agricultural land is a priority within the present Governmental policy to increase the forest cover. Such priorities also agree with EU agricultural and rural development policies, given that Romania's forest cover per capita is presently lower than the EU average. Some agricultural policies as well as agricultural activities have negative effects on forests and forest management. Despite being forbidden by law, grazing represents by far the main problem, and the capacity to enforce the legislation in this respect should increase.

Game management and hunting legislation are also impacting on forest management. According to the existing legislation the central public authority for game management assigns the game management right to the legally established hunting organizations. This provision has created some conflicts between hunting organizations and private agricultural and forest land owners, so this situation should be addressed in the near future.

The last decade has been characterized by an almost continuous dispute between the ministry responsible for forest management and the public authority responsible for wood harvesting and processing. While the first one has taken measures towards a better use of forest resources, free competition for wood resources and harvesting methods fulfilling ecological requirements, the latter has been fighting and lobbying for a cheap resource and advantageous contractual terms for wood harvesting. In early 2001, the Cabinet approved the supervision of the reserve price for standing wood that the National Forest Administration sells by auction. This has been perceived as a state intervention to control the standing wood price in areas where the competition for wood resource is low, so there is an urgent need to remove this supervision which is not common in an free-market economy.

In the period 1990-2000, forests, environmental protection and water management were under the same public authority (ministry) and as a result of this situation there were no major conflicts between these sectors. The Medium-Term Environmental Protection Strategy includes strategic objectives with direct positive influence on forest development: extension of forest area; establishment of forest belts in areas exposed to desertification; afforestation of degraded agricultural land and improvement of the legislation on forest protection.

There have been many linkages between forestry and nature conservation in the last century. While intensive logging had negative impacts on nature conservation in the first half of the twentieth century, the close to nature approach that has been practiced extensively since the 1950s in Romanian forestry has reduced such impacts. Many forest ecosystems and wildlife species have been preserved due to the efforts of the foresters. Forest organisations have also been largely involved in most of the processes, programs and activities related to nature conservation in the last decade including the establishment of the administrations for the first three protected areas (two national parks and one natural park) in the Carpathians. Despite the fact that foresters and forest organizations have significantly contributed to nature conservation, there has also been situations when their actions have had negative impacts. There are examples of negative cumulative effects of harvesting on water quality, flora and fauna. However, in the last decade foresters have increasingly become more open to the dialogue with conservation organizations and the general public on nature conservation issues. The recent assignment of NFA to manage almost all large protected areas in Romania will certainly improve its nature conservation skills as well as its cooperation with other stakeholders.

There are close linkages between tourism and forestry, especially in the Carpathian region and recently the cooperation between the public authorities responsible for tourism and forestry has improved significantly. The national authority for tourism participated actively in the development of the National Forest Policy and Strategy. The development of eco-tourism has become a priority action both for the forestry sector and the public authority responsible for tourism. While the presence of forest seems to have a positive impact on tourism, the latter has mainly had a relatively negative impact on forests: clear-felling to allow development and construction of hotels, restaurants, skiing facilities etc.; garbage left in the forest by tourists; illegal camping and picnicking; and forest fires caused by the negligence of tourists are relevant examples.

Development and modernization of the road infrastructure (public and forest roads) have both negative and positive impacts on forest sector development. The negative impacts result from forest clear-felling to make room for new public roads or motorways. In many cases the Government approves the clear-felling and exempt the development from the land use change tax. On the other hand, the development of the transport infrastructure has a positive impact on forest management, as it provides better access to forest resources, both for harvesting and tending and maintenance operations.

Although there is no separate public authority responsible for rural development, this sector is highly important, especially within the framework of the EU accession process. Romania has developed a National Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development (NPARD) and significant EU support for the NPARD implementation in the period 2004-2006 will be available to Romania under SAPARD. Some of the measures eligible for funding under SAPARD are directly related to forestry and will have a positive influence on forest sector development: afforestation of land inappropriate for agriculture; establishment of forest nurseries; construction of forest roads, wood harvesting; wood processing and establishment of local associations of private forest owners. There is an immediate need to develop the capacity of the public authority for forests to support and monitor the implementation of the SAPARD forestry measures.

Forestry education and research play an important role in the development of the forestry sector. Forestry high schools and the higher education institutions provide the technical staff employed by the sector and also carry out forestry research. The recent years "inflation" of graduates of both medium and higher education institutions has impacted both positively and negatively on the development of the forest sector. The negative effect resulted from the lower level of knowledge of the graduates. The quality of education was affected by the increased number of students, while the higher competition for a job in the forest sector led to the employment of qualified staff. It is a clear need in a short-medium term to correlate the number of students with the employment capacity of the forestry sector.

In recent years the fields of research have been adapted to the needs of the forest sector development. However, the research institute, like many other organizations with a mandate for forest research is finding it increasingly difficult to source funding. While it has the professional and technical expertise to implement management planning and research, it needs to increase its capability in identifying international funding lines.

International processes regarding forest management or associated with forests have played and will continue to play an important role in the development of the forest sector. As signatory of several international conventions or agreements (see Table 9) Romania has the obligation to implement and enforce their provisions in the country.

Table 9. Status of ratification of major international agreements (2003)

Name of the document		Status
	International Plant Protection Convention - 1951		●
International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) - 1961		●
	Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) - 1971		○
Convention Concerning the Protection of World Culture and Natural Heritage (UNESCO World Heritage) - 1972		●
	Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) - 1973		●
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution - 1979		●
	Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitat (Bern convention) - 1979		●
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) - 1980		○
	Protocol to the 1979 "Convention on the Long-range Trans-boundary Air Pollution", on Long-term Financing of the Cooperative Program for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollution in Europe (EMEP) - 1984		●
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (Vienna Convention) - 1985		●
	Protocol to the 1985 "Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (Vienna Convention)", on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) - 1987		●
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (ESPOO Convention) - 1991		●
	Convention on Biological Diversity - 1992		●
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes - 1992		●
	Framework convention on Climate Change - 1992		●
Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" - 1997		●
	Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) - 1998		○
Pan-European Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests Resolutions (S, H, L, V)		○

● ratified or equivalent ○ signed or equivalent

The resolutions of the Pan-European Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests, the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997) are probably the international processes with the highest impact on the development of the forest sector in Romania, especially at the forest management level. Forest certification is also influencing the development of the forest sector and its benefits cannot be neglected in a country which is a net exporter of wood and wood products.

Integrating forest management and planning within the broader context of rural development, agriculture and landscape planning has become an important issue especially in the context of EU accession and adoption of the Acquis Communautaire.

Among issues with relevance to the forest sector in Romania as an accession country, harmonisation of national legislation with the EU legal framework stands out. It is the key feature of the pre-accession strategy, and a precondition for accession, which is expected to be concluded in 2007.

A high priority has been accorded to the relevant regulations concerning forests and forestry: protection of forests against atmospheric pollution²⁸ and forest fire²⁹ (the emphasis is on ensuring that arrangements for monitoring and prevention mechanisms are appropriate), the marketing of forest reproductive material³⁰, removal of market distortions and obstacles ^{31, 32}, and the establishment of a European Forestry Information and Communication System (EFICS)³³.