Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DIAGNOSTIC REPORT Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy
March 3, 2014
Project co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through OPTA 2007-2013
2
Preface
The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) in Romania has requested
the World Bank to provide analytical or advisory services to elaborate an integrated sustainable
development strategy for the Danube Delta and to identify action plans to implement such a strategy. A
Reimbursable Advisory Service (RAS) agreement was signed to that end on September 4, 2013. The main
objective of the RAS is to assist MRDPA in planned and environmentally-sensitive development of the
Danube Delta region, which is an ecologically rich but economically challenged region of the eastern part
of Romania. This objective will be achieved through: (i) elaboration of a comprehensive development
strategy for the Danube Delta region, integrating key sectors; (ii) preparation of action plans to help
implement such a strategy during the EU 2014-20 programming and financing period; and (iii) support
for the development of a framework for implementing a new EU instrument called "Integrated
Territorial Investments (ITI)" in Romania, and identification, as feasible, of pilot ITI programs/regions.
This Diagnostic Report (DR) is the result of the diagnostic analysis and is the first report in the program.
It will be presented and discussed at a stakeholder workshop in Tulcea and at a meeting with the inter-
institutional committee for the Danube Delta strategy with representatives from relevant
ministries/agencies at both central and local government levels. The objective of the diagnostic report is
to integrate knowledge about available resources in the area and stakeholders’ aspirations, and assess
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) on various subjects. The report provides an
initial knowledge base to work from toward developing a Vision Statement for the Danube Delta region
with a horizon 2030. This will be followed by further needs assessment and strategic analyses of each
key sector, leading up to the Development Strategy for the Danube Delta area; and a set of defined
Actions (investment projects, capacity development initiatives, policy suggestions, etc.). Once
prioritized, these Actions will form the investment plan for implementation through 2020.
The World Bank’s study team was led by Toshiaki Keicho (Task Team Leader) and Anna Gueorguieva (Co-
Task Team Leader) and included Mats Andersson (overall report), Agi Kiss (environment, overall report),
Bianca Moldovean (climate change, overall report), Kirsten Homman (socio-economic, overall report),
Paula Restrepo-Cadavid (socio-economic, local government finance), Milena Nikolova (tourism), Hannah
Messerli (tourism), Randall Brummett (fisheries), Niklas Mattson (fisheries), Gabriel Ionita (agriculture,
rural development), Cesar Niculescu (environment, water), Jian Xie (climate change, solid waste
management), Simon Davis Ellis (transport), Florian Gaman (transport), Adrian Mihailescu (water, solid
waste management), Sebastian Ioan Burduja (education), Cristina Petcu (health), Oana Ivan (local
stakeholder consultations) with support from Argentina Stamm, Lynette Alemar, Cristina Zirimis, Adina
Fagarasan, and Ioana Irimia.
The study team would like to thank the MRDPA, Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, Tulcea and
Constanța County Councils, local authorities and communities, Association of Sustainable Development
for Tulcea County, Danube Delta National Research Institute, and other stakeholders, for the good
cooperation and valuable input provided during the preparation of this report.
3
Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 5
Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
SWOT Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 11
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 17
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................. 17
1.2. Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) ...................................................................................... 18
1.3. Approach Used ............................................................................................................................ 18
1.4. Structure of the Report ............................................................................................................... 19
2. Context ................................................................................................................................................ 20
2.1. Study Area Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 20
2.2. Main Regulations Impacting the study area ............................................................................... 22
2.3. Cross-border (Trans-National) Context ....................................................................................... 22
3. GDP, Population and Socio-Economic Trends: A Spatial Perspective ................................................. 23
3.1. Demographic Trends ................................................................................................................... 25
3.2. Economic Activity, Employment and Shared Prosperity............................................................. 29
3.3. Infrastructure and Related Services ............................................................................................ 34
4. Governance – Institutional Framework ............................................................................................... 38
4.1. Local Government ....................................................................................................................... 38
4.2. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) ................................................................................. 39
5. Local Government Finance .................................................................................................................. 41
5.1. Revenues ..................................................................................................................................... 41
5.2. Expenditures ............................................................................................................................... 44
6. Economy, Livelihood, and Economic Development ............................................................................ 46
6.1. Tourism ....................................................................................................................................... 46
6.2. Fisheries and Aquaculture .......................................................................................................... 58
6.3. Agriculture and Rural Development ........................................................................................... 68
7. Environment and Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 76
4
7.1. Environment and Environmental Protection .............................................................................. 76
7.2. Climate Change ........................................................................................................................... 93
8. Infrastructure and Related Services .................................................................................................. 105
8.1. Transport in Tulcea county & Access/Connectivity .................................................................. 105
8.2. Water Supply and Sanitation/Sewerage ................................................................................... 111
8.3. Municipal Solid Waste Management ........................................................................................ 117
9. Education and Health ........................................................................................................................ 126
9.1. Education .................................................................................................................................. 126
9.2. Health ........................................................................................................................................ 139
10. Concluding Comments .................................................................................................................. 146
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................. 147
Annex 1 Map of the DDBR .............................................................................................................. 147
Annex 2 Summary of Local Stakeholder Consultations .................................................................. 148
Annex 3 List of Communes/Municipalities in the study area ......................................................... 152
Annex 4 Population change by commune/municipality ................................................................. 153
Annex 5 Access to Services – Commune Level................................................................................ 154
Annex 6 Local government revenues .............................................................................................. 155
Annex 7 Definition of public finance terms .................................................................................... 156
Annex 8 Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) – International Examples ................... 158
Annex 9 Land use by Locality and Ownership in the Study area .................................................... 160
Annex 10 Analysis of Farm Structure in the Study area .................................................................... 161
Annex 11 The water operators serving local communities in the study area .................................. 163
Annex 12 Primary healthcare in the core Delta ................................................................................ 167
Annex 13 Main communicable diseases in Tulcea county ................................................................ 169
Annex 14 Addressing Depopulated Areas through “Soft” Projects – International Examples ......... 171
Annex 15 Examples of Strategic Documents and Plans Reviewed ................................................... 172
Annex 16 Study Schedule .................................................................................................................. 173
5
Abbreviations and Acronyms ANAR National Romanian Waters Administration
ANM National Meteorology Administration
ANPA National Agency for Fishery and Aquaculture
ASD Association of Sustainable Development
ATTA Adventure Travel and Trade Association
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CFR National Railway Company
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
DD Danube Delta
DDBR Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
DDBRA Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration
DMO Destination Management Organizations
DR Diagnostic Report
DWT Deadweight tonnage
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EEA European Economic Area
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETS Emissions Trading Scheme
EU European Union
EUROSTAT Statistical office of the European Union
EUSDR EU Strategy for the Danube Region
FDs Family Doctors
FM Family Medicine
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GRDP Gross Regional Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GP General Practitioners
GPP Green Public Procurement
HIH Health Insurance House
IBA Important Bird Area
IDA Intercommunity Development Association
INCDD Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development
INS National Institute for Statistic
ISU Emergency Situations Inspectorate
ITI Integrated Territorial Investments
IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
MBP Minimum Benefits Package
MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
6
MECC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
MoH Ministry of Health
MoLFSP Ministry of Labor, Family and Social Protection
MRDPA Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration
MSF Mediterranean Spotted Fever
MSW Municipal solid waste
MSWM Municipal solid waste management
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NHIH National Health Insurance House
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NTA National Tourism Authority
OECD The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OP Operational Program
PHD Public Health Directorate
PIT Personal income tax
PPP Public-Private Partnership
RAS Reimbursable Advisory Service
RE Renewable Energy
RNMCR Romanian National Motorways and Roads Company
RON Romanian Currency
ROP Regional Operational Program
SAPS Single Area Payment System
SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition
SCI Site of Community Importance
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
SMURD Mobile Emergency Service for Resuscitation and Extrication
SPA Special Protection Area
SWM Sold Waste Management
SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
TAC Total acceptable capture
TCC Tulcea County Council
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNWTO UN World Tourism Organization
VAT Value Added Tax
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organization
WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council
WWF World Wildlife Fund
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
7
Figures Figure 1: The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve provides important environmental services .................. 11
Figure 2: The population in the Danube Delta is declining more rapidly than in the rest of the study area
.................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Servicing the core Delta population will continue to require the use of the county hospitals ... 13
Figure 4: Small classes in the core Delta contribute to high per student costs .......................................... 13
Figure 5: The core Delta has much lower access to basic services than the Study Area and the rest of the
country ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 6: Map of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) ................................................................. 20
Figure 7: Study Area - core Delta (yellow) and Neighboring Area (green) ................................................. 21
Figure 8: Comparison of yearly GDP growth among Tulcea and neighboring counties ............................. 23
Figure 9: Tulcea county GDP is lower than its neighboring counties (million Euros, current prices) ......... 24
Figure 10: GDP per capita in Tulcea county has increased since 2000, but still ranks 24th among the 41
counties in 2010 .......................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 11: Population Decline in core Delta is higher than National or study area Trends across all age
groups ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 12: Communes in the core Delta are experiencing the Largest Population Decline ....................... 26
Figure 13: Urban Population Decline in the Danube Delta Region after the 90s ....................................... 27
Figure 13: Today, Tulcea has one of the lowest population densities in the country ................................ 27
Figure 14: Today, Tulcea has one of the lowest population densities in the country ................................ 28
Figure 15: The core Delta and study area have higher ethnic diversity than Romania .............................. 29
Figure 16: Agriculture, forestry and fishing remains the biggest employer in Tulcea county .................... 30
Figure 17: Formal Sector Employment by Locality (2013) .......................................................................... 31
Figure 18: Higher employment statistics in core Delta and study area mask the high seasonality of jobs 32
Figure 19: Income Distribution (by household expenditure quintiles) in Tulcea, Constanța and Romania
.................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 20: Aggregate Expenditure Density Distribution (Kernel) ............................................................... 33
Figure 21: The core Delta has much lower access to basic services than both the study area and the rest
of the country. ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 22: The core Delta has much lower access to piped water supply than both the study area and the
rest of the county ........................................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 23: The core Delta has much lower access to improved sanitation, including sewage connections,
compared to neighboring communes and the rest of the county.............................................................. 36
Figure 24: Most household in the core Delta use solid fuels as their main source of heating ................... 37
Figure 25: Communes in the core Delta have much higher per capita own source revenue than those in
the surrounding area. ................................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 26: core Delta communes have higher per capita non-earmarked transfers and shared revenues
.................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 27: Similar levels of earmarked transfers are found across communes in the study area.............. 42
Figure 28: Considerable variations exist of commune revenue in the study area. .................................... 43
8
Figure 29: Total Revenue Composition Inside and outside the Delta. ....................................................... 43
Figure 30: General public services, education and housing are the main expenditure items for communes
inside and outside the Delta. ...................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 31: Less dense communes in Tulcea and Constanța county spend more on general public services
by inhabitant than dense communes ......................................................................................................... 45
Figure 32: Total contribution of travel & tourism to GDP (2012), WTTC ................................................... 46
Figure 33: Tourism Developments Preserving Local Flavor ........................................................................ 51
Figure 34: Soft Visitor Infrastructure Examples .......................................................................................... 54
Figure 35: Capture fisheries have been declining since the 1980’s (FAO-FishStat). ................................... 58
Figure 36: The proportion of Gibel carp in DD landings over time ............................................................. 61
Figure 37: The structure of farms in the study area ................................................................................... 69
Figure 39: Multiannual mean changes (2011-2040 vs. 1916-1990): in air temperature (in °C on the left)
and in in precipitation (in % on the right) ................................................................................................... 94
Figure 40: Hydro-geological characteristic of the area is defined by 6 types of areas ............................. 111
Figure 41: Danube Delta ........................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 42: Waste composition in the study area ...................................................................................... 119
Figure 43: Tulcea population by relevant age groups (0-19) in 1990, 2000, 2005, and 2011 .................. 128
Figure 44: The number of students in Tulcea (in yellow) has decreased sharply, even compared to other
counties in SE region ................................................................................................................................. 128
Figure 45: Very small classes in the core Delta contribute to high per student costs. ............................. 129
Figure 46. Per capita Expenditures on Education in the DD ..................................................................... 130
Figure 47. Internet usage rates (as % of total residents) .......................................................................... 132
Figure 48. Teachers in smaller communities are likely to be more thinly stretched ................................ 133
Figure 49. School in Crișan, Danube Delta ................................................................................................ 134
Figure 50. Overall structure of the education sector ................................................................................ 136
Figure 51 Average life expectancy in Romania and Tulcea county ........................................................... 139
Figure 52: Servicing the core Delta population will continue to require the use of the county hospitals141
Figure 53: Number of nurses per 10,000 inhabitants in the study area ................................................... 141
Figure 54: Access to Services .................................................................................................................... 154
Figure 55: Local government revenues ..................................................................................................... 155
9
Tables Table 1: Governance Framework ................................................................................................................ 38
Table 2: Average per capita expenditures for different functional categories ........................................... 44
Table 3: Arrivals in the Danube Delta ......................................................................................................... 47
Table 4: Livestock (heads) ........................................................................................................................... 70
Table 5: Distribution of the Reserve's area in Romania by counties .......................................................... 79
Table 6: Agreed GHG targets and current status ........................................................................................ 95
Table 7: Throughput in Tons (Thousands) of Port Facilities ..................................................................... 106
Table 8: Public Ferry Services in the Delta ................................................................................................ 106
Table 9: Main Sector Entities Responsible for Management of the Transport Network ......................... 108
Table 10: Waste generation in Tulcea county .......................................................................................... 117
Table 11: Recyclable materials in the total waste stream ........................................................................ 118
Table 12: Proportion of biodegradable waste .......................................................................................... 119
Table 13: Waste collection capacity ......................................................................................................... 120
Table 14: Recycling facilities and capacity in Tulcea county ..................................................................... 121
Table 15: The target recycling rate for the next two EU budgetary cycles ............................................... 121
Table 16: Average number of students per school unit ........................................................................... 129
Table 17: Shares of students with one/both parents abroad ................................................................... 129
Table 18: Deaths under 1 year old, by cause of deaths in Tulcea county................................................. 139
Table 19. Visited Towns and Communes for Community Consultations .................................................. 151
Table 20: List of Communes/Municipalities ............................................................................................. 152
Table 21: Population change by commune/municipality ......................................................................... 153
Table 22: Table of fiscal categories equivalence....................................................................................... 157
Table 23: The Water Operators Serving Local Communities .................................................................... 163
Table 24: Primary healthcare in the core Delta ........................................................................................ 167
Table 25: Main Communicable Diseases in Tulcea county ....................................................................... 169
Table 26: Study Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 173
SWOT Analyses SWOT Table 1:Tourism SWOT Analysis ....................................................................................................... 56
SWOT Table 2: Commercial fishery SWOT Analysis .................................................................................... 65
SWOT Table 3: Recreational Fishery SWOT Analysis .................................................................................. 66
SWOT Table 4: Aquaculture SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................... 66
SWOT Table 5: Agriculture and Rural Development SWOT Analysis .......................................................... 74
SWOT Table 6: Environment and Environmental Management SWOT Analysis ........................................ 91
SWOT Table 7: Climate Change SWOT Analysis ........................................................................................ 102
SWOT Table 8: Transport in Tulcea county SWOT Analysis ...................................................................... 109
SWOT Table 9: Water Supply and Sanitation/Sewerage SWOT Analysis ................................................. 115
SWOT Table 10: Waste Management SWOT Analysis .............................................................................. 124
SWOT Table 11. Education SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................... 137
SWOT Table 12: Healthcare in the study area SWOT Analysis ................................................................. 144
10
11
Executive Summary
A dual challenge for the sustainable development of the Danube Delta is the conservation of its ecological assets and improvement of the quality of life for its residents. The Delta hosts extraordinary biodiversity and provides important environmental services. It is the largest remaining natural delta in Europe and one of the largest in the world. It is also the only river delta that is entirely contained within a Biosphere Reserve. Established as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and a Ramsar site in 1990, the Danube Delta is one of the continent’s most valuable habitats for specific delta wildlife and biodiversity. The most significant physical and ecological feature of the DDBR is its vast expanse of wetlands, including freshwater marsh, lakes and ponds, streams and channels. Only 9% of the area is permanently above water. Life for the 10,000 residents of the core Delta is challenging and access to essential social and economic services is limited. Water transport is often the only option to reach and travel from destinations in the core Delta. The area also has lower access to basic services, such as piped water and sewerage, than the neighboring rural areas. Health and education services are also constrained by inaccessibility and decreasing population. A word on terminology: the Danube Delta (the Delta) refers to the area of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) (see Figure 1). It includes three sections: first, the “core Delta”, the area between the Chilia and Sf. Gheorghe branches of the Danube River (see Figure 6); second, the lakes to the South; and third, an area along the Danube River west of Tulcea City. The study area also includes the neighboring areas to the Delta as shown in Figure 2, as these areas relate to the Delta. The next sections of this executive summary focus on analysis of the economy, quality of life and environmental protection.
1 This map is included as Annex 1 in a more readable format.
2 The study area includes the DDBR and its Neighboring Area.
Figure 1: The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve provides important environmental services
1
Figure 2: The population in the Danube Delta is declining more rapidly than in the rest of the study area
2
Source: www.ddbra.ro Source: Census 2002 and 2011
12
Economy: While Fishery and Agriculture will Remain Important for Employment, Nature-based Tourism Has Development Potential
Sustainable economic development requires access to markets, infrastructure, a workforce and some scale economies. Strong human resources, urbanization and connectivity have been important determinants of growth within Romania (WB Growth Pole report, 2013). In contrast, the core Delta remains – by nature – an isolated, inaccessible area, and – by choice of its residents – a region with a declining population. Out-migration, both to other counties and out of Romania, is one of the highest in the country, and has resulted in a steady population decline from about 14,000 in 2002 to about 11,000 in 2012 (Figure 2). Moreover, the population is aging with a median age of 47 in the study area versus 44 in the country. Furthermore, this small population is dispersed across a wide area, which presents significant constraints to infrastructure development. There are few jobs in the formal sector in the core Delta. In 2013, there were only 10.9 formal jobs per 100 working age adults3, half of the rate in the overall study area. The Tulcea county contributes only 0.84% to the country’s GDP4. Its GDP is just short of qualifying Tulcea as a lagging region. Meeting contemporary nature-based tourism demand will require joint destination management, developing the attraction portfolio of the region, and investing in visitor infrastructure. Tourism in the Danube Delta is currently underdeveloped. It holds potential for stimulating environmentally sustainable socio-economic development but requires careful planning based on well-understood trade-offs. A local mechanism5 for the development and management of the study area as an integrated tourism destination may help overcome some of the current national-level institutional and policy barriers. The types of tourism that are in harmony with nature and correspond to global demands for nature-based tourism are possible niche markets for the area. The current attraction portfolio is significantly underdeveloped, leading to low arrival numbers and very short lengths of stay. The Delta destination needs a competitive portfolio of attractions that features nature and biodiversity but also cultural heritage, traditional lifestyles, culinary traditions, religious experiences, and many others. The region has a rich variety of assets, which can be turned into competitive attractions. Well-planned investment in visitor infrastructure is needed, as well as addressing unplanned and unregulated private tourism development.
The commercial fishery is currently important for employment, but recreational fishing has good development potential. At present, the commercial fishery sector provides perhaps most employment opportunities in the core Delta. However, conventional commercial fishing and aquaculture face governance, management and economic constraints. Constraints related to governance and management include (a) apparently ineffective and allegedly corrupt fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance, contributing to over-exploitation and the decline of fish populations; (b) the introduction of an exotic species (the gibel carp), which is displacing valuable native species; and (c) reduced breeding and nursery areas due to poldering. The economic constraints are that commercial fishing and aquaculture as practiced in the Delta face strong competition and high transport and production costs, affecting economic margins and contributing to declining fishermen livelihoods. Recreational fishing, on the other hand, seems to offer good opportunities in the moderate-cost category. Experiences from
3 Lista Firme 2013, working age adults are 18-62 years old.
4 Eurostat 2010
5 There are different models for setting up Destination Management Organizations; in many cases they are based on public-
private partnerships.
13
economically more developed countries show a strong correlation between economic development and the expansion of recreational fisheries.
Agriculture is expected to remain the main occupation and income generating activity for the rural population in the study area. Agriculture’s share in the local economy is expected to decline gradually but the sector will remain a major employer. The best potential for agriculture in the Delta is organic agriculture on small- and medium-sized farms especially given organic farming’s compatibility with restrictions imposed by the Biosphere Reserve designation. The rural areas need sustainable development of the non-farm economy that would absorb part of the available active labor. Incentives to stimulate rural entrepreneurship, service provision related to agriculture, processing of agricultural goods, and rural tourism, would enhance employment and income opportunities in both the core Delta and the neighboring areas.
Quality of Life: Providing Needed Public Services in the core Delta is a Challenge
Poor accessibility has posed significant challenges to improving the living standards of residents in the core Delta. Transport accessibility of the core Delta is dependent on its myriad waterways (616 km). This provides potential for a natural transportation system, but is also a challenge for providing efficient accessibility. While some local all-weather roads may enhance accessibility in some parts of the core Delta, the area will remain reliant on the network of local waterways. Within the core Delta there are some significant constraints to road building both because of physical difficulties and because of environmental and economic constraints. Residents have expressed a need for all-weather accessibility to key social and economic services in Tulcea city. This has to be weighed against financial and environmental feasibility of such developments. Many residents have private boats and there are also subsidized public services, albeit with limited schedules. The public boat service is available over about half of the length of the waterways on five separate routes. For many Delta residents, this is the only means of regular transport. When the waterways are frozen, these services may not run and in medical emergencies a helicopter (one exists in Tulcea) is the only lifeline for some communities.
Figure 3: Servicing the core Delta population will continue to require the use of the county hospitals
Figure 4: Small classes in the core Delta contribute to high per student costs
Source: Census 2011 and Tulcea county Source: Census 2011 and Tulcea county
14
The health and education sectors are constrained by poor accessibility and low population density. Health care in the core Delta is not only constrained by the generally low quality of services in Romania but also by inaccessibility. In Tulcea county, one physician is responsible on average for 1,726 inhabitants, and – although lower than the national figure of 1,894 inhabitants per physician – servicing the dispersed population, especially in the core Delta, is difficult. With fewer physicians (Figure 3) and a dispersed population, core Delta residents will have to continue to rely on the county hospitals in combination with telemedicine. Telemedicine was piloted in 2012 with some positive initial results. The education sector faces similar challenges in terms of handling the inaccessibility and a declining student population. There are proportionally fewer certified teachers in the Delta (67 percent) as compared to the rest of the county (89 percent). Several communes have closed their schools because of low student numbers and high operating costs (Figure 4) and transportation to other schools has become a challenge. Moreover, schools struggle with lack of sanitation, heating, and in some locations safe water.
Poor accessibility and low density constraints are mirrored in the basic public services sectors. In terms of service coverage, rural communes inside the core Delta are much worse than rural communes in the neighboring areas. For instance, 62 percent of rural households in the core Delta have access to piped water while 83 percent of rural households in the study area have such access. Seven villages in the core Delta have no safe water supply while in five villages water supply is currently being set up. Except in Sulina, wastewater management is weak or non-existent in the core Delta. Improved wastewater management is needed in both the core Delta and the neighboring rural areas (Figure 5). The current solid waste management system is also generally inadequate, especially in the core Delta, with low waste collection and recycling rates, and infrequent pick-up and high waste transportation costs to the disposal facilities in Tulcea City.
Figure 5: The core Delta has much lower access to basic services than the Study Area and the rest of the country
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2011 Census.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
PipedWater
Sewage
CentralHeating
ElectricityROMANIA
STUDY AREA
CORE DELTA
15
Environmental Protection: A Complex Institutional Structure Hinders Conservation Efforts and Sustainable Economic Development
Environmental protection underpins livelihoods and economic development opportunities, especially fisheries and nature-based tourism. Environmental protection will foster the development of nature-based tourism and will support livelihoods such as fishing. Past attempts for economic developments in the Delta, which were not in line with protecting the resource base, have struggled to remain economically viable. During the communist era around 100,000 ha (about 30 percent) of the deltaic wetlands were converted into dry land for economic use, and the Delta’s biological resources such as reed and fish were intensively harvested. Most of these enterprises proved not to be financially viable once the economic system was changed in 1989, and currently, for instance, only about 20% of aquaculture sites in the study area are in operation, including some in DDBR.
Biodiversity is largely maintained by the current protection efforts but ecological systems show decline. The DDBR is largely meeting its objectives for conservation of globally significant biodiversity, especially birds. But the picture is less positive with respect to maintaining the ecological systems and natural resources. These systems underlie local livelihoods and prospects for sustainable economic development such as fishing. While the reliability of monitoring data is uncertain, there is a general consensus that the populations of commercially valuable fish species are declining. This is a result of reduction of wetland habitat, over-exploitation, and the spread of exotic species. Other damaging environmental trends are accelerated siltation and eutrophication along with the associated algal blooms in a number of the deltaic lakes and some adjacent areas in the Black Sea. The environmental decline is due in part to historical factors, such as large-scale habitat transformation. There are also ongoing factors, such as illegal fishing and unlicensed construction. The pressures leading to these negative trends are expected to continue. The capacity and effectiveness of the DDBR Authority (DDBRA) and other stakeholders needs to be strengthened in order to improve ecological conditions. Strengthening steps could include both technical and institutional aspects. Technical improvements are better data monitoring and analytical tools and models. Institutional initiatives should address building trust and collaboration among different agencies and stakeholders. Mechanisms to identify solutions and to negotiate compromises need to be strengthened. The institutional structure for managing the DDBR territory is complex and insufficiently coordinated which might hinder conservation efforts. This is an obstacle to achieving the goals of ecological conservation and environmentally sustainable development. A number of national and local agencies have significant, and sometimes overlapping or conflicting roles. Most significantly, of the 580,000 ha within the DDBR, about 12.3 percent is owned by the Tulcea County Council and 5% by the Local Councils. This includes the poldered areas that are leased to private concessionaires for agriculture, aquaculture and forestry use. These overlapping roles can make it very difficult to agree upon and implement important management decisions such as identifying areas for ecological restoration. The DDBRA itself has a wide range of responsibilities and functions. These are: (a) regulation (issuing of environmental permits); (b) land administration (for DDBR areas not under county or local jurisdiction); (c) conservation planning and protection; and (d) ecological education. In practice, local residents primarily notice DDBRA’s role in setting and enforcing restrictions on access and resource use.
16
Going Forward
Nature-based tourism has potential for development in the core Delta, and ensuring that local communities benefit from this would be a priority. The remoteness and low density, a constraint for development of other sectors, is an asset for nature-based tourism. While fisheries and agriculture will continue to be important for employment – these sectors appear to have rather limited potential in the long run in the Delta. As a relatively capital intensive and highly competitive industry, tourism requires the right public sector settings and policies to help make the opportunities and benefits available to local stakeholders. Successful tourism benefitting local population in other countries was led by a clear vision that determined direction and trade-offs. The authorities’ role is primarily to help create such common vision for the sector.
Investments in basic service provision will need to be accompanied by cost-recovery and operations and maintenance plans. With EU funds, the local authorities in Tulcea will be able to significantly improve their public infrastructure. A critical issue is to ensure that facilities will be designed and operated in a sustainable way. For example, centralized sewage collection may not always be a feasible option; local septic tanks in remote and low-populated areas are likely more viable solutions. Sufficient funding and appropriate institutional arrangements for operations and maintenance have to be planned. In the short term, full cost-recovery is not expected, though. The population in the core Delta currently receives a 50% user subsidy from the Central Government for water supply and solid waste management services. There is a need to strike a balance between the level of service provided, affordability, and level of subsidies. Successful management of protected areas requires close collaboration with local stakeholders. Unlike the situation in many Biosphere Reserves and other protected areas, the DDBRA is subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change rather than being directed by a multi-stakeholder Board. DDBRA also frequently relies on financial and political support from environmental NGOs and other national and international bodies. DDBRA is often viewed as the “agent” of external, nature-focused interest groups with little regard for local quality of life. Based on wide international experience, the management of protected areas is most successful when there is a combination of enforcement and collaboration with local stakeholders. This requires both building trust among the parties and concrete positive incentives for cooperation. Typically this means: (a) a meaningful role in management; and (b) a direct stake in the sustainability of the natural resources for the local stakeholders. Finding a balance between conservation and improving livelihoods will be critical. The core objectives for the sustainable development of the Danube Delta are the conservation of its ecological and biodiversity assets and improvement of the quality of life for its residents. Supporting a sustainable economic development and the livelihood of the residents in the Delta is challenging for the county councils, local authorities and DDBRA. Some of the main features of the "core Delta" are that the residents are few in number; dispersed over a wide area; relatively old on average (and likely to continue to age as young people continue to leave); and predominantly rural with livelihoods dependent on direct exploitation of the natural resources. The diagnosis in this report identifies both opportunities for development and possible threats. Future work will take into consideration development pathways that seem to have worked or failed in areas with some of these features.
17
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The Danube Delta is a unique environmental asset. The Danube Delta, declared as the World Natural Heritage by UNESCO in 1991, is the Europe’s second largest delta (after Volga) but the best preserved one of the European deltas, with a total area of 4,525 km2 (of which 3,510 km2 on Romanian territory and 955 km2 in Ukraine). There are 16 strictly protected areas in the delta where no economic activities are allowed, and areas for ecological rehabilitation, areas for economic activities, and buffer zones where tourist activities are permitted as long as the environment is protected. The delta hosts over 1,200 varieties of plants, 300 species of birds, as well as 45 freshwater fish species in its numerous lakes and marshes. The Danube Delta is perhaps one of the least inhabited regions of temperate Europe, with only about 11,000 people in 2012 in a port town and scattered villages. Isolation and harsh living conditions, based mainly on subsistence, also characterize the Delta. The ecological significance and economic and social challenges of this unique region of Romania makes it important to elaborate a comprehensive regional development strategy to guide the sustainable development of the region.
The Government of Romania - through its Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) – has requested the World Bank to provide analytical or advisory services to elaborate an integrated sustainable development strategy for the Danube Delta and to identify action plans to implement such a strategy. A Reimbursable Advisory Service (RAS) agreement between MRDPA and the World Bank (WB) was signed to that end on September 4, 2013.
The main objective of the RAS is to assist MRDPA in planned and environmentally-sensitive development of the Danube Delta region, which is an ecologically rich but economically challenged region of the eastern part of Romania. This objective will be achieved through: (i) elaboration of a comprehensive development strategy for the Danube Delta region, integrating key sectors; (ii) preparation of action plans to help implement such a strategy during the EU 2014-20 programming and financing period; and (iii) support for the development of a framework for implementing a new EU instrument called "Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI)" in Romania, and identification, as feasible, of pilot ITI programs/regions.
The program contains four main components: Component 1: Diagnostic Analysis and Preparation of a Vision for Danube Delta Territory Component 2: Elaboration of an Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy of the Danube Delta Component 3: Preparing the Implementation of an Integrated Territorial Investment Instrument (ITI) for the 2014-2020 Programming Period Component 4: Applying the Methodological Framework to Prepare ITI for the Growth Pole Constanța. This draft Diagnostic Report (DR) is the result of the diagnostic analysis under Component 1, and the first report in the program. It will be presented and discussed at a stakeholder workshop in Tulcea and at a meeting with the inter-institutional committee for the Danube Delta strategy. This committee has been established for the program through a Ministerial Order with representatives from relevant ministries/agencies at both central and local government levels.
18
The objective of the diagnostic report is to integrate knowledge about available resources in the area and stakeholders’ aspirations, and assess strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) on various subjects. The report provides an initial knowledge base to work from toward developing a Vision Statement for the Danube Delta region with a horizon 2030. This will be followed by further needs assessment and strategic analyses of each key sector, leading up to the Development Strategy for the Danube Delta area; and a set of defined Actions (investment projects, capacity development initiatives, policy suggestions, etc.). Once prioritized, these Actions will form the investment plan for implementation during 2014-2020. The program schedule is included as Annex 16. A brief household survey is being carried out in the study area at present. The results will be incorporated in the Needs Assessment Report to be produced by September 3, 2014. The data from the 2011 census in Romania was provided to the study team on January 20, 2014, and the results of the full analysis of this data will also be included in the Needs Assessment.
1.2. Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) Part of the program’s resulting investment plan is anticipated to be funded by EU funds, in particular through a new vehicle called Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI). This is a financial instrument to facilitate implementation of territorial strategies in an integrated way. It is not an operation, nor a sub-priority of an EU Operational Program (OP). Instead, the ITI allows implementation of OPs in a cross-cutting way, by drawing on funds from several priority axes of one or more OPs to ensure the implementation of an integrated strategy for a specific territory. It is a flexible mechanism for formulating integrated responses to diverse territorial needs, without losing thematic focus. The ITI instrument has significant benefits. ITI encourages collaboration among the local governments in a geographical area for strategy formulation and investment planning at area-scale. In addition, the ITI has the following potential benefits:
Better outcomes. ITI promotes the integrated use of EU Funds which has the potential to lead to a better aggregate outcome for the same amount of public investment, e.g. by unlocking under-utilized potentials at local levels;
Delegated management. An ITI program (called ITI from here on) may empower local actors to ensure their involvement in program preparation and implementation; and
Secure financing. As an ITI will have its various funding streams secured at its inception, there will be greater certainty regarding the funding for integrated actions.
1.3. Approach Used Following the inception of the RAS program on September 4, 2013, a multi-disciplinary team of more than fifteen international and domestic specialists conducted desk research and technical field visits to the Danube Delta and the neighboring areas, collecting data, visiting sites, and interviewing and discussing challenges and opportunities with stakeholders to produce this report. MRDPA, Tulcea County Council, Constanța County Council, and representatives of other local governments and national governmental agencies, provided great support. Consultation meetings with both public sector officials and other representatives of the communities were held in all towns and in most communes in the study area (a summary is found in Annex 2). A number of strategic documents and plans produced by earlier studies were reviewed, including some strategy documents developed by the local governments in the study area in recent years. The main such documents are listed in Annex 15.
19
1.4. Structure of the Report The demographic and spatial context of the study area is explained in Section 2. This includes basic data on population, administrative jurisdictions, geography/spatial structure, and how the study area is divided for analysis purposes. Main regulations impacting the study area and the cross-border (trans-national) context is also touched upon.
This is followed by analysis of GDP, population and socio-economic trends, and institutional characteristics of the area. Section 3 contains a summary of socio-economic factors such as demographic trends and the income distribution in the study area (a spatial perspective). Section 4 briefly describes key governance structures, and the prevalence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Section 5 highlights key features of the local public finances.
Further description and diagnoses of the economy and key livelihood sectors is in Section 6. Sub-Section 6.1 reviews the subject of tourism, including its relation to private and public infrastructure, and the environmental, biodiversity and cultural resources in the area. The subjects of fishery and aquaculture are then addressed in detail in Sub-Section 6.2 due to their importance in the Danube Delta. The diagnosis of the agriculture, animal husbandry, and rural development is included as Sub-Section 6.3.
As a designated Biosphere Reserve and one of the world’s premiere remaining wetlands, the Danube Delta is both dedicated to and economically dependent upon the maintenance of healthy ecosystems and environmental functions, including physical, biological and socio-economic elements. Section 7 reviews the status and recent trends in nature conservation, natural resource management and environmental protection in the DDBR, in relation to the objectives set out in the UNESCO “Man and the Biosphere” Program and in the Romanian law. This is based on available data and on the perspectives of DDBR managers, residents and other stakeholders. Particular emphasis is placed on key wetland functions such as hydrological processes (water flow and flood management), distribution of nutrients and sediments within the delta and passing to the Black Sea, and maintenance of locally and globally significant biodiversity. This section also reviews the institutional aspects of DDBR management including the legislative and regulatory framework, the roles and capacity of the DDBRA and other institutions, and the preparation and implementation of management plans and activities. Climate change aspects are addressed separately as Sub-Section 7.2, including potential impacts and indications of the need for adaptation and mitigation measures in the area.
Infrastructure and related services are closely related to the economic development. Section 8 covers the transport subject (water, road, ports, air, and rail), water supply and sanitation/sewerage, and solid waste management. Energy related matters, in particular energy efficiency potential, are included in the sub-section on climate change mentioned above.
Education and health are addressed in Section 9, describing related social issues of the core Delta, the study area and the county.
While the diagnoses have been made by subject, the eventual strategy will reflect a cross-sectoral and territorial focused approach. The concluding comments of the report (Section 10) briefly indicate a few potential opportunities for cross-sector synergies and development opportunities at area-scale. It also outlines the continued steps of the study to arrive at a strategy and a related investment plan for the Delta.
20
2. Context
2.1. Study Area Characteristics The Danube Delta (DD) is the area generally referred to as the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR). The DDBR area is shown in the map below. It covers:
(i) the area between the Sf. Gheoghe and the Chilia branches of the Danube river; in this report this is called the core Delta due to its particular socio-economic characteristics;
(ii) the Razim-Sinoe-Babadag lake system and adjacent land areas; and (iii) the area along the Danube river west of Tulcea City towards Galati.
Figure 6: Map of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR)
Source: DDBRA.ro
The study area, defined for the forthcoming Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy, is highlighted in green and yellow in Figure 7. It covers the DDBR and its Neighboring Area. It consists of Tulcea City, four towns (Babadag, Isaccea, Macin and Sulina) and thirty two communes.6 Four
6 The total number of communes in Tulcea county is 46.
21
of the communes (Corbu, Istria, Mihai Viteazu and Sacele) fall within the administrative boundaries of Constanța county; all four bordering the bay area of Razim-Sinoe lake. The study area can be divided as follows: Area Area 1 The Delta between the Chilia and Sfântu Gheorghe branches (channels) 2 Area to the south, including lakes/lagoons, e.g. L. Razim, L. Sinoe, and L. Babadag 3 Area along the Danube upstream from Tulcea city
In this report, Area 1 is referred to as the core Delta (in Yellow), and the Area 2 and 3 (including Tulcea City) are together referred to as the Neighboring Area (in Green) to the Delta.
Figure 7: Study Area - core Delta (yellow) and Neighboring Area (green)
Tulcea county is, at 8,499 km2, the fourth largest county in Romania, yet one of the least populated –with 201,462 inhabitants based on the 2011 Census. About 40 percent of the county’s area consists of wetlands. Of these the core Delta occupies 3,510 km2 and the bay area around Razim-Sinoe lake 1,015 km2, including 863 km2 of lakes. The county’s largest and capital city Tulcea, which has 73,707 inhabitants based on the 2011 Census, is often called the Gate of the Danube Delta, being conveniently located at the point of the Danube, where it divides into three branches forming the vast wetlands between the city of Tulcea and the Black Sea. The population in the study area, as per the 2011 Census, was 183,822, of which 170,345 in Tulcea county, and 13,477 in Constanța county. This represented 84.6% of the total population in Tulcea county in 2011. The population in Tulcea county decreased from 256,492 in 2002 to 201,462 in 2011, or 21.5%. The population in the study area passed from having 219,227 inhabitants to 183,822 inhabitants during the same period, losing 16.3% of its population (see Annex 4). As a benchmark, using the same data and for the same period of analysis, Romania lost 11.05% of its population.
22
The remoteness of many communes in the core delta, due to their dependence on waterways for transportation, reduces residents’ connectivity to markets and jobs. Some communes have only one village (e.g. Sfântu Gheorghe) and some more (e.g. Crizan with Mila 23 and Caraorman; Maliuc has five villages; etc.).
2.2. Main Regulations Impacting the study area Within the study area, there are special international considerations applicable to the Danube Delta, the whole of which was declared a biosphere reserve in 1990 by the Government of Romania and by the Romanian Parliament in 1993. The Danube Delta has special protection under Romanian law through its designation under three international conventions: (i) 1991 – UNESCO “Man and Biosphere Program”; (ii) 1991 - the List of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; and (iii) 1991 - Ramsar Convention.
2.3. Cross-border (Trans-National) Context The Danube river flowing through Tulcea county represents the border between Romania and Ukraine. Upstream of Tulcea city, the Danube splits into two branches Chilia and Tulcea, and from the Tulcea branch, the lower Sulina and Sfântu Gheorghe branches are formed. There are no bridges crossing the Danube river in Tulcea county. Although no border exist between Tulcea county and the Republic of Moldova, the close proximity and a biosphere area on the Moldovan territory makes coordination on environmental matters still important.
23
3. GDP, Population and Socio-Economic Trends: A Spatial Perspective
The Danube Delta and its surroundings is one of the most isolated areas in Romania. Given the county’s location – bordering Ukraine in the North and about three thousand square meters of marsh land extending to the Black Sea in the East, challenges in connectivity do not come as a surprise and are elaborated in detail in the Transport Section of this report. Yet, it is precisely these constraints that may have helped create the unique environment of the Danube Delta and preserve it against all odds.
Not surprisingly, Tulcea county’s GDP is among the lowest in Romania. Since 2002 Tulcea county has been losing in rank against other counties in terms of total GDP. While in 2002 the county was ranked 22nd among 41 counties, by 2010 it fell in ranks to position 39. Tulcea county GDP ranks lowest among its neighboring counties and is a fifth of that of Constanța county.
Figure 8: Comparison of yearly GDP growth among Tulcea and neighboring counties
Source: Computed from Eurostat [nama_r_e3gdp]
However, economic activity in Tulcea county is catching up. Real GDP in Tulcea county more than tripled during the last decade, starting from a low Euro 323 in 2000 to Euro 1,049 million in 2010. In terms of employment7, agriculture and forestry contributed to almost a third of all jobs, followed by aquaculture (fishing and fish farming), industry (construction) and services (tourism, transportation), each generating about 15 percent employment. Due to a large extent of informality8 and incentives to underreport revenues in fishing and tourism, Tulcea county’s GDP is likely to be higher than officially measured.
In 2011, Tulcea ranked among the top ten counties for attracting national investment and among the top five counties in terms of job creation. A recent report9 ranked Tulcea county 4th based on the number of jobs created by new investments (686), 5th based on the total amount of investments coming from inside the country (Euro 20.2 million) and 9th for total investments considering both national and
7 Strategy of the Danube Delta 2011-2015, Annex No.1 etc.
8 According to all accounts, there is a large number of unregistered businesses
9 Guvernul Romaniei (2012), Romania: Tabloul investitional regional in annii 2011 si 2012.
http://www.andreeavass.ro/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Raport-Tabloul-investitional-regional2.pdf
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
2007 2008 2009 2010
Tulcea
Constanta
Braila
Ialomita
24
foreign investments (Euro 29.5 million)10. The biggest investments correspond to activities in the retail sector (around Euro 10 million), followed by transport and energy sectors, with Euro 9.8 million and Euro 9.3 million, respectively. While these figures suggest Tulcea is one of the top recipients of national and foreign investments in the country for this particular year, investments are generally lumpy – with large variations from one year to the next – and therefore do not make for a conclusion of an improved investment climate, unless investment inflow can be studied over a longer period.
Figure 9: Tulcea county GDP is lower than its neighboring counties (million Euros, current prices)
Source: Computed from EUROSTAT, Tables on GDP (nama_r_e3gdp), Accessed June 28, 2013.
On a per capita basis, the average GDP of Romanian counties doubled between 2000 and 2010 despite large regional variations. Counties with the largest urban populations have kept pace with Bucharest in terms of population and economic growth, but other regions are being left behind. For instance, the ratio between Bucharest and Timis, the second richest county outside of the Bucharest area, has barely changed over the period. However, the ratio between Bucharest and the poorest county, Vaslui, has nearly tripled. Tulcea, despite showing positive economic growth, ranks with a GDP of Euro 4,300 per capita only 24th on a GDP per capita basis.
10 Bucharest and Ilfov were not included for this ranking.
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Braila
Constanta
Galati
Tulcea
25
Figure 10: GDP per capita in Tulcea county has increased since 2000, but still ranks 24th among the 41 counties in 2010
Source: Authors’ calculations based on EUROSTAT, Tables on GDP (nama_r_e3gdp), Accessed June 28, 2013
3.1. Demographic Trends Over the past decade the study area experienced a considerable population decline at much higher rates than what was observed at national level. Between 2002 and 2011 Romania lost 11.1 percent of its population. Over the same period population decline in the study area and the core Delta reached 16 and 25 percent, respectively, and is much above the national trend. In 2002, 220 thousand people resided in the study area versus 184 thousand in 2011. Likewise, about 14 thousand inhabitants were recorded in 2002 to live in the core Delta, whereas only about 11 thousand are assessed to live there today. The population decline in the study area and the core Delta is largest in age groups below 35 years, which reflects the fast demographic transition that this area is experiencing.
Figure 11: Population Decline in core Delta is higher than National or study area Trends across all age groups
Source: Computed from Census 2002 and 2011
-7%
-17%
-24%
7% 7%
-16%
-25%
-41%
-4%
13%
-25%
-36%
-50%
-8% -7%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Total population less than 15years
15-34 years 35-59 years more than 60years
National Study Area Core Delta
26
All communes and municipalities in the study area experienced a decline in their population with the exception of Corbu. The increase of the population in the commune of Corbu (8 percent) may be explained by its proximity to Constanța. The communities of C.A. Rosetti, Pardina and Chilia Veche in the core Delta have experienced the largest percent of population loss, ranging from 22.8 to 40.9 percent, when comparing 2011 levels to their 2002 baseline. Demographic changes could not be observed for the communes of Bestepe and Vacareni as they did not exist at the time of the 2002 Census. Bestepe was established in 2004, when a local referendum separated it from Mahmudia. Vacareni belonged to the Luncavita commune and split after 2003. Some of the decrease in the original communes of Mahmudia and Luncavita is due to the split off of these two new communes of Bestepe and Vacareni.
Figure 12: Communes in the core Delta are experiencing the Largest Population Decline
Source: Census 2002 and 2011
Starting from the 1990s, urban populations in all towns and municipalities in the region declined. Between the 1992 and 2002 census, this decline (9 percent) was mirrored by an equal reduction (8 percent) of the total urban population of Romania, and can partly be explained by the liberalization of passport regime and international travel allowance. After 2002, the total urban population declined from 11,435 thousand to 10,859 thousand in 2011, or by 5 percent, whereas the towns and municipalities in the Danube region declined by 14 percent, on average.
27
Figure 13: Urban Population Decline in the Danube Delta Region after the 90s
Source: National Institute of Statistics, Romania, and http://www.citypopulation.de
The aging of the study area and the core Delta will accelerate the population decline in the future. While in 2002 a third of the population in the study area and in the core Delta were between 15 to 35 years, today this age group has shrunk to 24 and 23 percent, respectively. The birth rate in Tulcea county has been declining constantly since 2007, reaching 8.3 live births per thousand inhabitants in 2011 compared to 9.2 at national level (see chapter on health). The decline of the younger age group is mirrored by the increase in the older age group: while in 2002, 16 (study area) and 19 (core Delta) percent of the population was above 60 years, their shares have increased to 22 and 23 percent, respectively. Comparing the age pyramids of the core Delta, the neighboring area and Romania – which all have shapes of slow population growth – the shape of the core Delta age pyramid shows a continuous decline of its younger population (lower base of the pyramid) which is typical of a shrinking population.
Figure 14: Today, Tulcea has one of the lowest population densities in the country
Core Delta Neighboring Area Romania
0
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
300.000
350.000
400.000
1948 1956 1966 1977 1992 2002 2011
Constanta
Galati
Braila
Tulcea
Babadag
Macin
Isaccea
Sulina
28
Population decline has led to a decrease in population density. While the demographic decline and subsequent decrease in population density was observed all over Romania, Tulcea county was one of the areas that saw the largest variations. As can be observed in the following figure, Tulcea county today has one of the lowest densities in Romania, having less than 50 inhabitants per square kilometer. The continuous decline in population and density is a challenge for service delivery, in particular for services in which economies of scale are important.
Figure 15: Today, Tulcea has one of the lowest population densities in the country
Source: Computed from EUROSTAT Population Tables (demo_r_d3dens)
The core Delta and the study area have higher ethnic diversity than Romania as a whole. In the core Delta around 10 percent of individuals identify themselves as Russian or Russian Lipovans, and 4 percent as having Ukrainian origins. The study area is also home to other ethnic minorities like Roma and people of Turkish origin. However, most of Roma households are concentrated in the surrounding areas of the Danube Delta: Babadag (14.21 percent), Mihai Viteazu (4.84 percent), Isaccea (3.91 percent) and Macin (3.89 percent) are among the communes having the highest percentage of Roma. The ethnic diversity of the Delta needs to be taken into account during the identification of priorities and specific projects, as minorities can be affected differently by interventions.
29
Figure 16: The core Delta and study area have higher ethnic diversity than Romania
3.2. Economic Activity, Employment and Shared Prosperity Agriculture remains the main economic activity in Tulcea county11 and the biggest source of employment. In 2009 much of Tulcea’s exports consisted of vegetable products, textiles and textile articles, metals, and other. Also important for the local economy are the construction industry, food (fish, meat, bakery and dairy), fisheries and tourism. Tulcea city has a port that serves the shipping of goods up to 18,000 tons per load, and processed annual cargo in 2012 of more than 2 million tons (see transport section). STX Europe, a Norwegian shipbuilding company, has shipyards in Tulcea city and Braila that offer services from building whole vessels to conversions and repairs, and employed 3,095 workers in Tulcea and 1,931 workers in Braila in 2011.
11
http://www.prefecturatulcea.ro/judetul_tulcea_populatie.html
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
National Study Area Core Delta
Per
cen
tage
of
the
po
pu
lati
on
wit
hin
eac
h e
thn
ic
cate
gory
Other
Non-declared
Greek
Ukranian
Macedo-Romanian
Turk
Roma
Russian / Lipovans
Romanian
30
Figure 17: Agriculture, forestry and fishing remains the biggest employer in Tulcea county
Source: Adapted by authors from INS (2013)
Main activities of private sector pertain to wholesale and retail trade, transportation and storage, and manufacturing. Using firm level data12 from 5,552 private and registered firms located in the study area, it is clearly discernable that firm level activity within the core Delta is less diversified, with only a few firms operating, mainly in support of the agriculture and aquaculture industries, providing logistic services (transportation, storage), or engaged in the retail business. Registered firms in the core delta provide only about 1.48 jobs per firm, on average, compared to larger agglomerations such as Tulcea city, where firms employ about 5.8 persons, on average.
The informal economy within the core Delta and its adjacent communes is large and is not captured by firm level data presented below. Evidence of the extend of informality is outlined in the fisheries and tourism section of this report, and is supported– for tourism – by the higher number of rooms per dwelling used for professional purposes in the core Delta compared to the neighboring area13. Moreover, 29 percent of the dwellings in the core Delta are reported as being secondary homes,
12
Data on economic activities by private entities was obtained through the “Lista Firme” database. Lista Firme includes over 600,000 Romanian companies which were active as of late 2013. However since most of the information in this database comes from different publications, web-site data and companies that are members to Lista Firme, it is possible that smaller firms who do not publish their data are not well represented in this database. 13
There is an average of 0.0096 rooms used for professional purposes in the Core Delta compare to 0.0058 in the adjacent area.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
OTHER SERVICE ACTIVITIES
ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION
HUMAN HEALTH AND SOCIAL WORK ACTIVITIES
EDUCATION
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEFENCE; COMPULSORYSOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICE ACTIVITIES
PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES
REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES
FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE ACTIVITIES
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICE ACTIVITIES
TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE; REPAIR OF MOTORVEHICLES AND MOTORCYCLES
CONSTRUCTION
WATER SUPPLY; SEWERAGE, WASTE MANAGEMENT ANDREMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
ELECTRICITY, GAS, STEAM AND AIR CONDITIONING SUPPLY
MANUFACTURING
MINING AND QUARRYING
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING
31
compared to 14 percent in the surrounding areas and 16 percent in Romania. The communities having the largest share of dwellings reported under these categories are Sulina, Crișan and C.A Rosetti – inside the Delta – and Babadag and Baia in the surrounding area. While having a secondary home does not necessarily suggest informality (unless these houses are bought for business purposes), it hints at the tourism value of the core Delta and its perhaps not fully utilized potentials.
Figure 18: Formal Sector Employment by Locality (2013)
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Lista Firme database
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TULCEA
MACIN
BABADAG
ISACCEA
CORBU
MAHMUDIA
JURILOVCA
SULINA*
SOMOVA
LUNCAVITA
MURIGHIOL
NICULITEL
SARICHIOI
BAIA
CHILIA VECHE*
CRISAN*
MIHAIL KOGALNICEANU
SFANTU GHEORGHE*
SMARDAN
FRECATEI
NUFARU
SACELE
VALEA NUCARILOR
ISTRIA
JIJILA
MALIUC*
MIHAI VITEAZU
MILA 23*
SLAVA CERCHEZA
VACARENI
CEAMURLIA DE JOS
CEATALCHIOI*
LETEA*
MIHAI BRAVU
C A ROSETTI*
I C BRATIANU
PARDINA* Crop and animal production
Forestry and logging
Fishing and acquaculture
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing
Electricity gas steam and ac
Water supply seweragewater management andremediationConstruction
Wholesale and retail trade
Transportation and storage
Accomoddation and foodservice
Information andcommunication
Financial and insturanceactivities
Real estate activities
Professional scientific andtechnical activities
Administrative and supportservice activities
Education
10
2
5
20
12
11
3
46
60
42
52
44
190
21
39
50
43
29
48
79
44
40
100
115
556
101
192
55
120
373
169
436
178
289
1164
Nr. Jobs Sectors
32
Reported unemployment in the core Delta or the study area is not different from elsewhere, but there are a higher percentage of claimants of unemployment benefits inside the Delta14. Indeed, reported employment, as percent of total population, is – according to the 2011 Census – higher in the core Delta compared to other areas: 44 percent versus 43 percent in the study area, and 38 percent in both Tulcea and Constanța county. One potential explanation is that those informally employed do not consider themselves unemployed. Employment statistics need to be interpreted with the caveat that – especially applicable to the core Delta – jobs are highly dependent on the season, and the typical wage earning activities with regard to fishing or tourism only last for 8 or 6 months, respectively. For instance, around 26 percent of workers in the core Delta identified themselves as being Self-Employed when compared to 15 percent in the neighboring area and 18 percent in Tulcea county.
Figure 19: Higher employment statistics in core Delta and study area mask the high seasonality of jobs
Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2011 Census
While there is no reliable data on earnings in the core Delta, largely due to informality, anecdotal evidence suggests that households are cash poor but asset rich in terms of house and land, on which they depend. The census does not offer insights to land ownership or home gardens, on which households may rely with respect to food consumption. These questions will be examined further in a household survey, fielded in support of the second implementation phase of this study.
According to household budget survey data from 2011, Tulcea county residents are poorer than both Constanța residents and the average Romanian citizen. Using expenditure quintiles one can see how a larger share of the population in Tulcea county (around 37 percent) belongs to the lowest income quintile in Romania when compared to Romania (20 percent) and Constanța county (27 percent of Constanța county population). In addition, a visual plotting of income shows that Tulcea county’s distribution is slightly thicker on the left tails, suggesting higher density at lower incomes. Since these
14
27 percent of people who declared themselves as being unemployed are receiving unemployment allowances in the Core Delta, compared to 24 percent in the neighboring area and 22 percent in Tulcea county.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Core Delta Study Area Tulcea Constanta Romania
Another economic situation
Supported from other sources
Supported by the state or by private orother
Supported by another person
Housewife
Pensioner
Pupil/student
Unemployed looking for first job
Unemployed looking to another job
33
statistics are based on a sample that is only statistically significant at county level, inference cannot be made for the core Delta or the study area. A complementary household survey to be fielded in March will provide more detailed information on assets in the core Delta communes.
Figure 20: Income Distribution (by household expenditure quintiles) in Tulcea, Constanța and Romania
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Household Budget Survey’s 2011
Figure 21: Aggregate Expenditure Density Distribution (Kernel)
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Household Budget Survey’s 2011
5 USD/day Poverty line
0
.00
005
.00
01.0
001
5.0
002
De
nsity
0 5000 10000 15000 20000Total per capita consumption, 2011 current year prices
Tulcea
Constanta
Romania
34
3.3. Infrastructure and Related Services The study area has much lower access to basic services than the rest of Romania. Access measured as the percentage of households having piped water, electricity, central heating and sewage, is even lower in the core Delta. While 67 percent of Romanian households have piped water connections, only 44 percent of households in the core Delta do. The Delta also has a much lower coverage of electricity (90 percent), which is almost universal (97 percent) in the rest of the country. Lower connection rates for sewerage and central heating in the core Delta is a likely reflection of the rural settings of these villages, and a preference for more cost effective alternatives (i.e. pit latrines, septic tanks) that do not require economies of scale. Within the core Delta, only Sulina has a sewage treatment plant, so reported access to sewage system by households during the census reflects arrangements that do not include any treatment. Likewise and as outlined in the section on water and sanitation, access to piped water supply is further conditioned to variations in quality and reliability.
Figure 22: The core Delta has much lower access to basic services than both the study area and the rest of the country.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2011 Census.
Basic services differ dramatically between communes within the study area. The following figures present access to services for each commune in percent of population, using the 2011 Census. All communes in the study area are included and the eight communes located in the core Delta are presented to the left of the graph. C.A. Rosetti, Ceatalchioi, Crișan are among the communes in the core Delta with the lowest access to basic services, while I.C. Bratianu, Istria and Slava Cercheza have the worst situation among communes in the neighboring area and within the study area. From the data available it is not possible to assess the quality of service delivery in any location. Additional information on service delivery performance, and current expenditure by households to maintain these services, will be collected in an upcoming household survey.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
PipedWater
Sewage
CentralHeating
ElectricityROMANIA
STUDY AREA
CORE DELTA
35
Figure 23: The core Delta has much lower access to piped water supply than both the study area and the rest of the county
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2011 Census.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%O
RA
S SU
LIN
A
CH
ILIA
VEC
HE
SFA
NTU
GH
EOR
GH
E
CR
ISA
N
PA
RD
INA
MA
LIU
C
C .
A .
RO
SETT
I
CEA
TALC
HIO
I
MU
NIC
IPIU
L TU
LCEA
OR
AS
MA
CIN
OR
AS
BA
BA
DA
G
SAR
ICH
IOI
SOM
OV
A
OR
AS
ISA
CC
EA
JIJI
LA
CO
RB
U
LUN
CA
VIT
A
JUR
ILO
VC
A
NIC
ULI
TEL
BA
IA
MU
RIG
HIO
L
FREC
ATE
I
VA
LEA
NU
CA
RIL
OR
MA
HM
UD
IA
NU
FAR
U
SLA
VA
CER
CH
EZA
MIH
AIL
KO
GA
LNIC
EAN
U
VA
CA
REN
I
SAC
ELE
BES
TEP
E
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
SMA
RD
AN
GR
IND
U
MIH
AI V
ITEA
ZU
ISTR
IA
I . C
. B
RA
TIA
NU
ACCESS TO PIPED WATER- SOURCE
Piped Water Public System Piped Water Own System No Piped Water
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
OR
AS
SULI
NA
CH
ILIA
VEC
HE
SFA
NTU
GH
EOR
GH
E
CR
ISA
N
PA
RD
INA
MA
LIU
C
C .
A .
RO
SETT
I
CEA
TALC
HIO
I
MU
NIC
IPIU
L TU
LCEA
OR
AS
MA
CIN
OR
AS
BA
BA
DA
G
SAR
ICH
IOI
SOM
OV
A
OR
AS
ISA
CC
EA
JIJI
LA
CO
RB
U
LUN
CA
VIT
A
JUR
ILO
VC
A
NIC
ULI
TEL
BA
IA
MU
RIG
HIO
L
FREC
ATE
I
VA
LEA
NU
CA
RIL
OR
MA
HM
UD
IA
NU
FAR
U
SLA
VA
CER
CH
EZA
MIH
AIL
KO
GA
LNIC
EAN
U
VA
CA
REN
I
SAC
ELE
BES
TEP
E
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
SMA
RD
AN
GR
IND
U
MIH
AI V
ITEA
ZU
ISTR
IA
I . C
. B
RA
TIA
NU
ACCESS TO WATER - LOCATION
In the Dwelling (Piped Water) Outside the Dwelling (Piped Water) No Piped Water
36
Figure 24: The core Delta has much lower access to improved sanitation, including sewage connections, compared to neighboring communes and the rest of the county.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2011 Census.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
OR
AS
SULI
NA
CH
ILIA
VEC
HE
MA
LIU
C
PA
RD
INA
SFA
NTU
GH
EOR
GH
E
CR
ISA
N
C .
A .
RO
SETT
I
CEA
TALC
HIO
I
MU
NIC
IPIU
L TU
LCEA
OR
AS
MA
CIN
OR
AS
BA
BA
DA
G
JUR
ILO
VC
A
MA
HM
UD
IA
OR
AS
ISA
CC
EA
BA
IA
LUN
CA
VIT
A
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
MU
RIG
HIO
L
NIC
ULI
TEL
MIH
AIL
KO
GA
LNIC
EAN
U
JIJI
LA
FREC
ATE
I
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
VA
LEA
NU
CA
RIL
OR
SOM
OV
A
SAR
ICH
IOI
NU
FAR
U
SLA
VA
CER
CH
EZA
CO
RB
U
BES
TEP
E
MIH
AI V
ITEA
ZU
ISTR
IA
VA
CA
REN
I
SAC
ELE
GR
IND
U
SMA
RD
AN
I . C
. B
RA
TIA
NU
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Connected to a public disposal plant Connected to a private disposal plant
Another situation No sewage disposal system
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
OR
AS
SULI
NA
PA
RD
INA
SFA
NTU
GH
EOR
GH
E
MA
LIU
C
CR
ISA
N
CH
ILIA
VEC
HE
C .
A .
RO
SETT
I
CEA
TALC
HIO
I
MU
NIC
IPIU
L TU
LCEA
OR
AS
MA
CIN
CO
RB
U
MA
HM
UD
IA
OR
AS
BA
BA
DA
G
OR
AS
ISA
CC
EA
BA
IA
SAC
ELE
SOM
OV
A
JUR
ILO
VC
A
MIH
AIL
KO
GA
LNIC
EAN
U
NU
FAR
U
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
SMA
RD
AN
NIC
ULI
TEL
MU
RIG
HIO
L
MIH
AI V
ITEA
ZU
BES
TEP
E
ISTR
IA
LUN
CA
VIT
A
FREC
ATE
I
JIJI
LA
SAR
ICH
IOI
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
VA
LEA
NU
CA
RIL
OR
GR
IND
U
VA
CA
REN
I
SLA
VA
CER
CH
EZA
I . C
. B
RA
TIA
NU
FLUSH TOILET
In the dwelling Outside within the buildingOutside the building Other type of toilet in the dwellingOther type of toilet outside within the building Other type of toilet outside the buildingNo toilet
37
The absence of communal heating sources has generated much reliance on solid fuels in most communes of the study area outside Tulcea city. Only few urbanized communes, such as Tulcea city, Sulina, Macin and Babadag have communal heating or receive gas from the public network. In turn, most communes, especially in the core Delta, use stoves with solid fuel as their main source. The use of solid fuels for heating – in particular firewood – could pose a potential risk to the environment, if collected from pristine areas, such as Letea forest within the Delta. It also poses potential health hazards to households, as exposure increases the risk of respiratory diseases.
Figure 25: Most household in the core Delta use solid fuels as their main source of heating
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2011 Census
The more urbanized the commune, the better the service access situation is. As expected, most households in Macin, Tulcea or Sulina have piped water connections to a public water system, and have flush toilets inside their houses that are connected to a sewage treatment plant. On the contrary, most of the predominantly rural communes inside the core Delta do not have piped water connections and use pit latrines as their main form of sanitation. The divergence in access between predominantly urban and predominantly rural communes mirrors the national level, as rural areas continue to lag behind both in access and quality of services.
Improving service delivery in the study area is a big challenge given the area’s low density and declining population. Bringing service delivery to EU standards (or Romania’s average) in the core Delta is an even bigger challenge. If local authorities wish to strengthen the role of tourism in the area, basic services need to be improved considerably.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Core Delta Study Area Tulcea Constanta Romania
No heating at all
Other type of heating
Electric energy
Stove with liquid fuel
Stove with solid fuel
Stove with liquefied gas
Stove with gas from public network
Cooker with liquified gas
Cooker wit gas from public network
(Dwelling) another type of energy used
(Dwelling) liquid fuel
(Dwelling) solid fuel
(Dwelling) liquefied ga
(Dwelling) Gas from public network
Central Heating (Public Heating center)
38
4. Governance – Institutional Framework
4.1. Local Government Tulcea county15 has 1 municipality (Tulcea City), 4 towns (Babadag, Isaccea, Macin and Sulina) and 46 communes. As shown in section 2.1 above (Figure 7), the study area includes the municipality, the four towns, 32 of the 46 communes, and also four communes belonging to the Constanța county16. A Prefect office and about 40 entities of ministries and other national government bodies are also located in Tulcea county. For example, Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration (DDBRA), Environmental Protection Agency, Romanian Road Authority, Department of Public Health, General Directorate of Public Finance, County Statistics, Forestry Department, School Inspectorate, and Office of Cadastre and Land Registration, to mention a few. The public sector governance framework in Romania is summarized in the table below.
Table 1: Governance Framework
Level Institutions in Tulcea Responsibilities/Goals
National Level Prefect – appointed for each county by the GoR
- The government’s representatives who only exercises administrative supervision
Regional Level17
(Facilitating role only) - 8 development
regions
- Tulcea belongs to the South-East Region
- Regional development agencies facilitate the Regional and the Competitiveness OPs
- No elected officials - Further regionalization is being
discussed within the government
- Reducing the existing regional imbalances - Linking sectoral government policies and activities
at the level of the regions - Fostering interregional, internal and international
cooperation - Encouraging participation in European
organizations concerned with economic and institutional development.
There is no subordination between the local councils and county councils.
County Level18
- 41 counties
The County Council and County President are elected for 4 years
- County development strategies - Administering state owned land in the county - County wide water supply and sewerage
infrastructure - Public transport - County roads - Social assistance to children - Higher Education
Local Level - 103 municipalities - 208 towns - 2825 communes
The Local Council and Mayor are directly elected for 4 years
- Housing and urban planning - Environmental protection - Waste management and public health - Local Transport infrastructure - Local water supply and sewerage system - Primary Education (except tertiary level) - Administration of the local heritage - Security, through the local police - Administration of green public areas.
15
Tulcea County Council has 31 members including the president. 16
Of these local authorities, the core Delta is for the purpose of this study defined as seven communes and the Sulina town. 17
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1756725&Site=COE#P252_29422 18
http://cor.europa.eu/en/about/nationaldelegations/Pages/romania.aspx
39
Local governments play an important role in Romania’s public sector. The national territory is divided into 41 counties (judete) and the city of Bucharest. These are then divided into various categories of second-tier local governments, often referred to as localities – communes, towns and cities and Bucharest districts. Both counties and localities have elected councils and directly elected presidents and mayors, but there is no subordination between the two levels of local government. These two levels are considered on the same level of responsibility but counties tend to have a larger political power. The vast majority of local governments’ discretionary revenues are derived from a system of tax sharing and equalization transfers. The primary source of revenues for the system is the personal income tax (PIT). The share of the PIT earmarked for equalization is supplemented by an annual appropriation from the government budget based on area and fiscal gap. For each county, the funds from their share of the PIT and the county’s share of the central government annual appropriation for equalization are combined into a consolidated pool. This is then shared between the county and the localities within that county according to a set percentage (World Bank 2011).
The functions over which local governments exert some management control consist of management of land under their jurisdiction, public utilities, and in larger jurisdictions, public transportation. These services are typically organized as public enterprises and are financed in part from tariffs. As a result, their claims on the discretionary budgets of local governments are limited. The majority of local discretionary spending is devoted to community infrastructure, street maintenance, cultural roles, the operation of school buildings, and social assistance programs and counterpart funds (World Bank 2011).
4.2. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Several NGOs focused on biodiversity conservation and/or community development are active in the study area both at a policy level (lobbying for supportive legislation) and on the ground, supporting and implementing small scale projects. Some NGOs are large international ones, while some are very local in particular communes. While they represent their own particular interests (e.g. wildlife conservation), they provide scientific knowledge and technical expertise, as well as supporting projects focused on community-based conservation and sustainable resource management. In addition, several NGOs exist in the area representing local ethnical groups. “Save the Danube and the Delta” Association is the most visible and active environmental NGO dedicated to the Danube Delta (and Danube River). Its main source of funding is the private sector. The projects undertaken by the association aim at the following objectives: to promote environmentally friendly actions, carry out concrete actions to protect the Delta, and promote environmentally responsible attitudes. Their recent publication “The Delta Warning Report” is a useful study. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has done substantial analysis and has an on-going project on re-wildification of the Delta. They have recently completed a study on the vulnerability of the Danube Delta to climate change and are currently working on adaptation. Their study on tourism zoning in the Delta has put on the table important trade-offs to be considered. The Romanian Ornithological Society (SOR) is part of the Scientific Council of the DDBRA and does monitoring and field conservation work for the birdlife in the Danube Delta. SOR lobbies local and national authorities for the implementation of legislation protecting birds. The organization has an office in Tulcea and works extensively with volunteers on spreading awareness and cooperates with educational programs. They are partnered with Birdlife International.
40
The Association Ivan Patzaichin – Mila 23 has developed creative community level projects in the area. The active organization is currently working on a boat share program, a concept similar to the popular bike and car sharing programs in big cities. It organizes a well-attended triathlon event in the Danube Delta called Rowmania with the goal of popularizing the Delta as an active tourism destination. The association also supports the Rowmania Ecotourism Centre (REC) in Crișan which promotes paddling tour packages. The Association of Sustainable Development (ASD), Tulcea county is an Inter-Community Development Association (as defined by current legislation), with the majority of the local authorities in Tulcea county as members. Only local authorities can be members of such associations in Romania. ASD is providing professional services to its members for strategic planning, economic development, and investment planning. In particular, they support its members in mobilizing EU funds by preparing project proposals and supporting related project implementations.
41
5. Local Government Finance
5.1. Revenues Communes in the core Delta have higher per capita own source revenue but much lower own source revenue in absolute values than communes in the Neighboring Areas. Although surprising, this might be explained by the demographic differences between these two areas as households in the Delta are smaller than in the surrounding area, and thus may have a higher number of contributing adults. On average households inside the Delta are composed of 1.83 members while households in the neighboring area are composed of 2.47 members. In absolute values, communes in this area have three times more own source revenue than those in the core Delta. Constanța communes have much higher own source revenues than communes in Tulcea county.
Figure 26: Communes in the core Delta have much higher per capita own source revenue than those in the surrounding area.
Source: Authors’ calculations based Local Government Finance data (Romanian Communes Association, 2012)
Non-earmarked transfers and shared revenues are also higher in the core Delta, reflecting equalization efforts made by the State and county. Non-earmarked transfers are equalization transfers supported by Personal Income Tax (PIT) or VAT. Shared revenues are generated by sharing the PIT from the area of collection between first-tier local governments and second-tier local governments using a predefined formula. Part of the shared revenues coming from the PIT is also allocated for equalizing at the level of county. On the contrary, similar levels of earmarked19 transfers are found across communes in the study area. This makes sense as earmarked transfers are generally assigned on a per capita basis (Number of beneficiaries, or number of teachers).
19
Earmarked transfers are state transfers with specific destination; for the first tier of local governments they are used for pre-university education and social welfare.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
Core Delta SurroundingArea
Project Area Tulcea Constanta
RO
N/P
erso
n
RO
N
Own source Own Source per capita
42
Figure 27: core Delta communes have higher per capita non-earmarked transfers and shared revenues
Source: Authors’ calculations based Local Government Finance data (Romanian Communes Association, 2012)
Figure 28: Similar levels of earmarked transfers are found across communes in the study area
Source: Authors’ calculations based Local Government Finance data (Romanian Communes Association, 2012)
Large variations in source of revenues of communes are observed in the study area. Communes located in Constanța county have overall higher shares of their revenue coming from own sources, as is the case of predominantly urban areas such as Sulina, Macin, Babadag and Tulcea. Pardina is an outlier.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
Core Delta SurroundingArea
Project Area Tulcea Constanta
RO
N/P
erso
n
RO
N
Non_earmarked transfers Non_earmarked transfers per capita
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
Core Delta SurroundingArea
Project Area Tulcea Constanta
RO
N/P
erso
n
RO
N
Shared Shared per capita
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
Core Delta SurroundingArea
Project Area Tulcea Constanta
RO
N/P
erso
n
RO
N
Earnmarked transfers Earnmarked transfers per capita
43
Tulcea City is the biggest recipient of shared revenues and Sfântu Gheorghe is the commune receiving the highest share of non-earmarked transfers.
Figure 29: Considerable variations exist of commune revenue in the study area.
Source: Authors’ calculations based Local Government Finance data (Romanian Communes Association, 2012)
What communes outside the Delta receive as own source revenue is more or less equivalent to the total revenue of the core Delta communes.
Figure 30: Total Revenue Composition Inside and outside the Delta.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
PA
RD
INA
CH
ILIA
VEC
HE
CR
ISA
N
CEA
TALC
HIO
I
C.A
.RO
SETT
I
SF.G
HEO
RG
HE
SULI
NA
MA
LIU
C
CO
RB
U
MU
RIG
HIO
L
SMA
RD
AN
MIH
AI V
ITEA
ZU
BA
BA
DA
G
VA
CA
REN
I
SAC
ELE
BA
IA
JUR
ILO
VC
A
TULC
EA
ISA
CC
EA
VA
LEA
NU
CA
RIL
OR
MA
CIN
BES
TEP
E
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
FREC
ATE
I
SOM
OV
A
MA
HM
UD
IA
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
GR
IND
U
SAR
ICH
IOI
NU
FAR
U
LUN
CA
VIT
A
I.C
.BR
ATI
AN
U
JIJI
LA
SLA
VA
CER
CH
EZA
ISTR
IA
NIC
ULI
TEL
MIH
AI K
OG
ALN
ICEA
NU
Own Source Shared Non_earmarked transfers Earnmarked transfers Other
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
18000000
20000000
Core Delta Surrounding Area Study Area Tulcea Constanta
RO
N
Own Source (Mean) Shared Non_earmarked transfers Earnmarked transfers Other
44
5.2. Expenditures Communes in the core Delta have much higher expenditures for General Public Services and Transport than those in the surrounding area. They also have higher expenditures in Health but lower expenditures in energy and environmental protection. On average, communes in the core Delta spend 501 RON per capita compared to 292 Ron per capita in the surrounding area. Similar numbers can be found for education and health, as can be observed in the figure below.
Figure 31: General public services, education and housing are the main expenditure items for communes inside and outside the Delta.
Source: Authors’ calculations based Local Government Finance data (Romanian Communes Association, 2012)
Despite having higher per capita own source revenues than their equals in the surrounding area, core Delta communes face higher per capita cost in providing general public services. Their per capita costs are higher as they do not benefit from large agglomeration economies given their low density of population. Figure 32 presents the inverse relationship between population and per capita expenditures in providing general public services.
Table 2: Average per capita expenditures for different functional categories
General P. Services Defense Education Health Culture
Social Assistance Housing Environment Energy Transport
core Delta 501.0 61.0 524.8 38.6 155.5 103.4 481.1 49.9 0.0 280.3
Study Area 331.6 18.1 381.5 17.6 159.8 114.2 316.1 103.7 8.1 137.7
Surrounding Area 292.1 8.1 348.1 12.7 160.8 116.8 277.7 114.5 10.0 104.5
Tulcea 347.4 18.4 377.5 20.1 189.5 120.2 396.1 104.5 5.9 125.4
Constanța 392.3 18.5 399.5 11.7 123.9 87.2 384.6 99.5 12.5 383.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Core Delta SurroundingArea
Study Area Tulcea Constanta
Transport
Energy
Environment
Housing
Social Assist.
Culture
Health
Education
Defense
General P. Services
45
Figure 32: Less dense communes in Tulcea and Constanța county spend more on general public services by inhabitant than dense communes
Source: Authors’ calculations based Local Government Finance data (Romanian Communes Association, 2012)
0
100
02
00
03
00
0
Pe
r ca
pita
expe
nd
iture
s in G
ene
ral P
ublic
Serv
ices
0 10000 20000 30000 40000Commune's population (Census 2011)
46
6. Economy, Livelihood, and Economic Development
6.1. Tourism
6.1.1. Current Situation
a) Characteristics
Tourism in Romania
Despite pockets of notable tourism activity, Romania overall is a relatively low tourism-intensive country. In 2012, tourism’s total contribution to the economy was 5.1% of GDP ranking 155 among 184 countries globally (WTTC, 2013).
Figure 33: Total contribution of travel & tourism to GDP (2012), WTTC
Source: WTTC, 2013 In 2012 tourism in Romania generated an estimated total of 479,000 jobs, which constituted 5.7% of total employment. This was achieved by Romania receiving a total of 7.9 million international arrivals in addition to domestic travelers. By comparison, in 2012 Austria (landlocked and with a much smaller population) received 24.2 million international arrivals and saw tourism generate 13.6% of total employment in the country.
Domestic travel is very important in Romania. According to the UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) in 2011 Romania recorded over 41 million domestic arrivals compared to 7.6 million international arrivals. The main destinations attracting foreign visitors in Romania are, first, Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains, and then the Danube Delta. The Constanța area, a series of coastal resorts along the Black Sea, attracts mostly domestic tourists who visit between June and August.
Tourism in the Danube Delta
All reviewed strategic assessments and analyses of Romania’s tourism potential identify the Danube Delta as an essential but underdeveloped element of the national tourism portfolio. The Danube Delta is included in the UNESCO World Heritage List and is frequently described as one of the most important natural areas in Europe.
The Danube Delta attracts both Romanian and international visitors, who come for leisure and recreational activities, enjoying nature, bird watching and fishing. This is complemented by business arrivals related to private sector activities in fishing and renewable energy among overall private sector development. Arrivals are both by road and water with very few (about 2000 per year) entering through
47
the airport in Tulcea (for technical limitations on Tulcea airport see the Transport section). Visitors stay in a variety of lodging establishments including resorts, land based and floating hotels, pensiones, rooms for rent and campsites. Tourism operators indicate a range of visitor stay patterns. For tour groups passing through Tulcea and visiting the Delta, the total stay can be 2-3 days while leisure travelers, particularly families and social groups in summer, typically stay for one week. On average, the length of stay is lower than desirable and reflects the underdeveloped, basic-level tourism product and local packaging.
Information on arrivals is collected by DDBRA. Their official data, as presented below, reveals a significant decline in visitors after 2008, which is attributed to the economic downturn and the overall contracting of the global tourism industry. It is worth noting that official numbers should be considered with care as they are generated on the basis of reporting by registered accommodations stays. Given the size of the informal sector in tourism (discussed later), the numbers below do not fully reflect the actual volume and potentially the depth of decline. Changed regulations and taxation in the last several years forced many accommodations into the informal sector, which translates into less reported arrivals.
Table 3: Arrivals in the Danube Delta
Year Number of Visitors
Domestic International
Arrivals Change % Arrivals Change %
2008 115.653 - 27.192 -
2009 93.979 - 18% 20.483 - 25%
2010 56.256 - 40% 16.072 - 27%
2011 48.110 - 14% 28.079 75%
2012 33.385 - 30% 28.303 0%
2013 20.444 - 39% 36.270 28%
Source: DDBRA
Given its globally noted significance and recognition by UNESCO as a natural World Heritage Site, the Danube Delta region is subject to a number of plans and strategies, a fair share of which have incorporated tourism as a vehicle for sustainable economic development. Many of these strategies and plans have remained on paper in part due to impractical assessment and insufficient planning, or the lack of resources and capacity to implement. Given the expanse, diversity, and importance of the area with its unique features, the Danube Delta has potential to become a competitive and prominent destination. However, this requires addressing multiple constraints.
b) Issues / Constraints
National Tourism Context
The overall situation of the tourism sector in Romania is characterized by a weak institutional and policy context. The national-level responsibilities for tourism policies and governance have shifted a number of times over the last years. Currently tourism is housed at the Ministry of Economy, SME and Tourism. Before April 2013 when the last institutional change was implemented, tourism was in the portfolio of the Ministry of Regional Development. Before 2009 the central tourism institution was separate from any ministry and operated as the National Agency for Tourism. These frequent changes lead to institutional weakness and lack of a consistent and clear vision about the development of the sector. This leads to the strong sense among tourism stakeholders, including in the Danube Delta region, that tourism is not a leading priority for the Romanian government.
48
Linked to the weak tourism institutions is the poor cooperation between public and private sector. The Consultative Council on Tourism, presided by the Minister of Tourism, includes leading representatives of the private sector and was intended to serve as a mechanism for collaborative crafting of policies and relevant legislation. Private sector members of the Council stated that discussions in the council do not have real influence over government decisions and, thus, do not facilitate effective policy and legislation development. For example, a draft Tourism Law has been in the works for several years and despite efforts by the private sector its finalization does not seem likely in the near future.
Weak institutions lead to weak implementation of tourism policies and strategies. Romania has three national-level documents that have been developed with international expertise and involvement of leading institutions:
National Tourism Master Plan 2007-2026 developed in partnership with the UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
New Tourism Destination Brand Romania 2010, developed by Asesores en Turismo y Hotelera Recreacion – Taylor Nelson Sofres (THR – THS) with funding from the European Union, and
Strategic and Operational Marketing Plan for Romania 2011 – 2015 developed by Horwath HTL
Despite the relevance and stakeholder acceptance of the documents, none of them are being fully implemented by the government. The UNWTO-supported National Tourism Master Plan includes an action plan but there is no evidence of an effective institutional body overseeing and coordinating implementation. The branding program of Romania has led to the design and launch of a new brand (a country logo with elements symbolizing nature, river and mountain) under the tagline “Explore the Carpathian Garden”. The program is funded through the EU and had a budget of more than 70 million Euros. Private sector representatives, including members of the Consultative Council indicated that most of the budget remains unspent and that there have been no substantive promotional activities. The same applies to the Strategic Marketing Plan, with many industry representatives having limited awareness of its existence. Lack of financial resources is usually cited as the main reason for lack of implementation of strategies and plans. The inability to spend the already available budget for the branding program, however, suggests that financial challenges are not the only problem. Political dynamics, limited capacity and weak institutional infrastructure seem to all contribute to the inefficiency in the sector.
This national level context creates serious barriers for the development and promotion of tourism in the Danube Delta. Despite the importance that local authorities in Tulcea county place on tourism as a vehicle for economic development, the absence of institutional mechanisms, funding and operational tools on a national level significantly limits the abilities of local and regional institutions to advance tourism in the Danube Delta region in a strategic manner. For example, the National Tourism Master Plan highlights the Danube Delta as the number one geographic and environmental strength of Romania as a travel destination and recommends detailed targeted measures (with specific sources of funding) towards enhancing the Danube Delta tourism offer. However, the lack of implementation of the Master Plan at the national level has resulted in lack of implementation of local measures as well.
The development and establishment of a regional institutional mechanism based on public private partnership and flexible decision processes may be one way to overcome some of the constraining institutional and policy issues resulting from national-level weaknesses. Unless the regionalization planned by the government transfers significant decision-making responsibilities to local authorities, a
49
regional solution can be a partial remedy; national-level interventions are still needed to facilitate relevant policies and regulation of tourism, including their proper enforcement.
Management and Monitoring of Tourism in the Danube Delta
A significant share of tourism activities in the Danube Delta is unofficial and remains unregistered by institutions responsible for the oversight of tourism. DDBRA issues permits for tourism activities including operation of accommodation facilities, entry into the reserve, professional photography taking, specific regulated leisure activities such as fishing, boating, etc. Based on the amount of issued permits DDBRA generates estimates of the number of tourists that visit the Delta and the amount of tourism activity that occurs in the protected area. Stakeholders consistently state that the permission regimes are ineffective and that most of the tourism activities are informal. This is openly acknowledged even by DDBRA representatives. For example, as per the official information provided by DDBRA the number of rooms in registered accommodation facilities in the Danube Delta is 4,278. Representatives of another local public institution found in an informal online search, that the number or beds promoted online (including in leading online portals such as Booking.com) is at least two times more. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, in addition, there is a significant amount of unregistered accommodation facilities that are not online at all. Consequently, despite a variety of cited numbers, there is no evidence of a realistic estimate of the actual accommodation capacity in the Danube Delta.
Evasion of taxes and controls are another major reason for the unwillingness of tourism operators and entrepreneurs to register their activities. Ineffective legislation imposes numerous standards on tourism facilities regardless of their size and level. Registered facilities are subject to checks and controls, many of which occur during the active tourist season. The high number of illegal players in the market puts legal operators at a great disadvantage. Amendments in relevant legislation could make regulations relevant for small and medium-sized accommodation facilities, and eliminate some of the reasons for the high share of unregistered operators. More effective enforcement is also essential for balancing market inequalities resulting from informal operations. In many countries, for example, tourism businesses belong to regional or local tourism destination management organizations (DMO)20 that serve as mechanisms for public private dialogue and promotion. Membership in these DMOs is associated with benefits such as ability to participate in destination management and destination-level promotion.
The monitoring of tourist entries into the reserve is also ineffective. Permits are issued by DDBRA and its local structures as well as rangers. Entry points into the Delta are many more than the points where permits are issued. Limited working hours (9am-4pm only during work days) are another reason why many visitors enter without permits.
The significant share of informal tourism in the Danube Delta region is associated with impossibility to plan and properly manage tourism development. Unregistered activities translate into uncollected fees and taxes, and significant missed opportunity for revenue generation. It is also impossible to control the service quality provided by unregistered tourism operators and entrepreneurs. This may lead to lower and inconsistent quality of the travel experience in the entire destination.
20
Destination Management Organizations (DMO) are national- or regional-level entities that manage a country or a region as an integrated travel destination. DMOs lead the planning of tourism in a destination, manage and oversee the implementation of strategies and plans, promote tourism and carry out monitoring and evaluation. There are different models for setting up DMOs but in many cases they are based on public-private partnerships that enable the private sector to influence planning, policies and marketing, as well as practically coordinate some of the regulation activities such as categorization, monitoring service quality and capacity building. See Annex 8 for more on DMO structures and functions.
50
The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve: Barrier or Opportunity?
There is an overwhelming perception among stakeholders that tourism development (and economic opportunity) and nature are in direct conflict. A wide range of stakeholders (on both the local and national level) express strong concerns about the restrictions on development and economic activities associated with the nature protection regime of the Danube Delta. While it is true that tourism development in and around protected areas is influenced by protection regimes, there seem to be two factors that lead to the sense that the protection status of the area is a curse rather than a blessing for tourism:
Many stakeholders, including those engaged in tourism, have limited understanding of the type of tourism that is usually developed in natural areas such as the Danube Delta. There is poor understanding of the demand for nature-based tourism as well as the corresponding nature of the supply that should be developed to meet the needs and wants of the target consumer. In more developed nature-based areas (including in other countries along the Danube such as Austria, Hungary and others) in-demand tourism offerings are small-scale low-impact and very much acceptable according to protection regimes (see illustrations below). Among the global demand trends that are very important for tourism in the Danube Delta, but that are currently not well understood by regional and national stakeholders, are the following:
o Travelers are increasingly interested in individual holiday experiences, which they design and book on their own rather than with the assistance of tour operators. There is a strong focus on authentic experiences revealing the local culture, tradition, and cuisine of visited places.
o Among the fastest growing forms of tourism is adventure tourism. While in the past it was predominantly associated with high-adrenaline experiences, today’s definition of adventure travel includes hard- as well as soft-adventure, including a wide range of diverse experiences such as hiking, biking, culinary experiences, etc. A recent market study by Adventure Travel and Trade Association (ATTA) and the George Washington University established that in 2012 adventure travel generated $263 billion marking a 65% growth since 2009. Four out of every ten global travelers include some form of adventure in their trip with 69% planning online.
o Travelers rely on technology to design and control their travel plans. Mobile technology (smart phones, tablets) is showing the fastest growth as a channel of information and reservation. Technology has not only transferred more control in the hands of customers but has introduced a high level of transparency in the sector: failure to provide information or attempts to mislead travelers can break businesses fast.
Protection regimes and policies guiding economic activities in the region do not secure any exclusive benefits for local stakeholders. The lack of exclusive benefits for local players makes it more appealing for them to try to evade restrictions and utilize natural resources illegally rather than feel ownership and be partners in the protection of the Delta.
These negative perceptions have produced a strong negative attitude towards DDBRA, which is naturally seen as the source of all restrictions. DDBRA is predominantly seen as an enemy even though it seems to be ineffective in controlling informal tourism or other economic activities. This negative attitude toward the institution is in itself a serious constraint for the partnership spirit that is needed for effective collaborative management of natural resources and nature-friendly economic activities. Better understanding of supply and demand in the context of nature-based tourism can help local stakeholders understand the importance of DDBRA, and motivate local stakeholders to support rather than challenge its efforts to protect the Danube Delta.
51
Figure 34: Tourism Developments Preserving Local Flavor
Greece, Crete: Milia Mountain Retreat
Switzerland: Whitepod Eco-frontiers Ranch, Poland (Carpathian Mountains)
Global Market Competition
While the Danube Delta has the potential to be positioned as a globally significant natural destination, joining the set of leading nature-based destinations means facing rigorous and challenging competition. Tourism is a very dynamic and extremely competitive industry. The world tourism map today includes many places and countries, which were not considered as potential places for vacationing just two or three decades ago. The contemporary traveler seeks diversity and new places, as well as contact with local cultures, people and nature. Destinations around the world have responded to these trends in demand by developing and marketing diverse nature- and culture-based experiences.
A good illustration of the competition that the Danube Delta faces is the development of the bird watching market. Birdwatchers tend to stay longer, spend more and are very respectful to nature. This makes them a lucrative market to develop further and compete for. On the global level, however, the Danube Delta would compete with the much richer in bird species destinations in Latin America (as per bird watching experts a tourist spending two weeks in Costa Rica or Panama can spot 2000 bird species compared to 200 in the Danube Delta), and the exotic up-and-coming Asian destinations (for example Mongolia). According to the 2012/2013 ITB World Travel Trends Report, travel to long-haul destinations outpaced travel within Europe. European travel to Asia-Pacific grew by a healthy 8% followed by travel to the Americas (+2%). The decline of intra-European travel, however is accompanied by growth of arrivals from the US, Japan and the emerging China and Brazil. Still, there is potential in the Delta both
52
for attracting European birders unwilling to visit a long haul destination and for others who want to include birding in a European vacation.
While global competition is challenging the Danube River is probably one of the most renowned and engrained in European culture landmarks. This gives the Danube Delta region an opportunity to develop offerings and use promotion that establish linkages with other destinations along the Danube that have already succeeded in leveraging the Danube River as a tourism asset. The Austrian Danube area for example, receives about 6.5 million arrivals and 14 million room nights each year. It attracts visitors with numerous opportunities to enjoy nature and culture along the Danube, including numerous biking and hiking trails, many cultural events and festivals, various cruises and boating experiences. A lot of the Danube-based experiences cross national borders and are available in other Danube countries too. The Danube Cycle Path is the most renowned biking route in Europe. It is well developed in Germany, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary but is just a plan in Romania and Bulgaria.
c) Opportunities/ Potential
Establish Common Vision based on Well-understood Trade-offs and Potential for Shared Benefits
The development of tourism in a destination such as the Danube Delta needs to be guided by a common vision of stakeholders and based on well-understood trade-offs that minimize risks and facilitate the generation of shared benefits. The most significant and obvious benefit of tourism is the generation of economic activity, creation of jobs (including for women, youth and at-risk groups) and opportunities for local entrepreneurship. Growing tourism triggers development in associated sectors, which are a source of supporting goods and services (such as construction, agriculture, entertainment, arts and crafts, etc.). Public and private investments in infrastructure and supporting services lead to an overall improvement of community environments and quality of life. Jobs and training facilitated by tourism leads to overall improvement and sophistication of local skills, which are inevitably transferred to other economic sectors.
In addition to increased income and quality of life for local residents, tourism generates socio-cultural benefits that are shared by all members of the community. Among these is pride in local culture and traditions, as well as stronger appreciation of local historical, cultural and natural assets. These surely lead to a decline in harmful activities (destruction, poaching, etc.) that put pressure on common-pool resources.
Introduce Public-Private Partnership (PPP)-based Destination Management Mechanism
Tourism is a private sector activity and while government plays an important role in guiding its development, private-sector players and local residents must be part of strategic decision making. Several associations representing tourism businesses of different size are well positioned to serve this role with solid public-private dialogue capacity and experience. Given the importance of tourism for the region the establishment of an effective public-private-partnership mechanism to manage the Danube Delta region as an integrated tourism destination represents an opportunity to strengthen the sector and manage its growth. To be effective this mechanism in the form of for example a regional tourism board should be participatory in nature and should include representatives of local government, private sector, environment protection entities engaged in the protection of DDBR, and local residents. A well-designed and balanced mechanism for participatory decision making should ensure that the interests of local stakeholders are not overridden by those of external developers*. Many destinations have developed successfully because they have ensured that the voice of local residents is heard along with the voices of public officials and businesses. Even if not engaged in local tourism residents of an area are
53
impacted by tourism and need to be able to influence decision-making when it comes to the quality and quantity of development. The early development of Whistler, British Columbia, is a good illustration of successful community-led development. Local residents reacted strongly to the fast changing face of their area resulting from an influx of tourism investments. This prompted the local municipal authorities to introduce a highly participatory process of developing and approving Official Community Plans to guide tourism development. Local residents were able to benefit from the economic opportunities generated but balance these with social and cultural preferences such as preserving a rural feel in certain areas. Through regular resident studies authorities monitor community preferences, facility needs and attitude towards the changing environment on regular basis.
Another illustration of the importance of people-based management of tourism development comes from the rural South Pembrokeshire, Wales. The initial focus on tourism was based on an opportunity for economic development supported by EU funding (EU Leader program). Community members from the 40 villages in the region were engaged from the very start and were given an opportunity to identify their priorities, as well as formulate trade-offs they were ready or not ready to accept. The local preference for “non-obtrusive” tourism that is environmentally sensitive led to the planning and development of a strategy for rural tourism development, which generated economic benefits but preserved the rural character of the place. Presently there are ongoing discussions nation-wide about a possible administrative reform that would decentralize government functions across many sectors. Regionalization is embraced by the tourism sector as a key opportunity to make the planning and governing of tourism more efficient. Government initiation of this process enable integrated design and introduction of a much needed local destination management mechanism.
Develop Attraction Portfolio and Visitor Infrastructure
With relevant product development and investment in quality visitor infrastructure the Danube Delta can develop a rich and competitive portfolio of attractions. Many tourism stakeholders identify the lack of promotion as the main barrier to attracting more international visitors in the Danube Delta region. While promotion is an important facilitator of success in international markets, the bigger opportunity lies in the development of more products supported by relevant services and visitor infrastructure. Diversifying tourism products translates into developing and socializing more attractions and creating more opportunities for “things to do”. Of utmost importance is also interpretation, which is currently lacking21. Light visitor infrastructure is also essential for diversification. Basic signage, route development, trail marking, resting points (benches, shelters, etc.), boatyards and docking areas (for light boats and canoes for example), recreational areas (picnic areas) are among the types of light visitor infrastructure that can facilitate a better experience and increased opportunities for experiences. In addition, visitor infrastructure is fundamental to managing visitor movement and access in an environmentally sensitive area. The images below show examples of appropriate visitor infrastructure that contributes to the diversification and enhancement of the visitor experience, and contribute to a better management of visitor flow in sensitive natural areas. Some of the images are from the Danube river in Austria and Germany.
21
Interpretation is the visitor information and storytelling that creates an experience around tourism attractions or activities. It includes sharing information that is new for the traveler (learning experience) in a way that engages their senses and emotions. For example, the Austrian Danube brochure promotes a mythical walk along the Danube with a fairytale expert Helmut Wittmann. Through storytelling the expert guide creates an experience that reveals not only the nature but the culture of the areas along the Danube. Interpretation involves production of information materials, installation of signage, making information services available but also relies on important soft skills. To be able to provide effective interpretation, tourism guides often need to undergo special training.
54
Figure 35: Soft Visitor Infrastructure Examples
In addition to expanding the portfolio of nature-based activities, the region has potential to expand its cultural heritage product offerings. Beyond religious sites, archeology and cultural monuments, there is significant potential in developing intangible cultural heritage (for example traditional lifestyle, local arts, culinary traditions, etc.). While culture is not the main draw to the region, in combination with nature-based experiences it can contribute to the diversification of the tourism attraction portfolio of the region. This is essential for extending the currently short length of stay as well as for encouraging more arrivals. In addition, the adding of cultural activities and local traditions to tourism attractions facilitates more and stronger linkages between tourism and supporting economic activities that become important sources of income for local residents.
The closeness to the coastal region of Constanța is also an opportunity for diversification and linkages. In addition to a developed sun and sand product, Constanța offers experiences, which are different from what can be developed in the Danube Delta, including a resort scene and large full-service accommodation facilities. Constanța is also an important channel for linkages to cruise tourism. Many tourists coming on cruises and landing in Constanța purchase trips to the Danube Delta.
Increase Destination Promotion in International Markets
Instead of relying on promotion done by individual tourism operators the Danube Delta can establish itself in international markets through integrated destination-level promotion. The lack of a clear and consistent identity of the Delta as a travel destination makes it difficult to achieve distinct positioning and recognition in competitive international markets. If tourism stakeholders come together around a
55
unified destination brand with relevant identity and communication strategy, the Danube Delta can capture increased demand from international markets. A distinct identity, fundamental to successful destinations, will guide product development ideas (discussed earlier) and will create opportunities for productive linkages with other similar destinations (in the region and on the global level). The discussed earlier linkages to already developed tourism offerings along the Danube can also facilitate the visibility of the Danube Delta.
d) Key Sector Entities and their Capacity
National Level
The main national institution responsible for the development of tourism policies is the Ministry of Economy, SME and Tourism. Until earlier this year tourism was attached to the Ministry of Regional Development before being transferred to the portfolio of the Ministry of Economy. A National Tourism Authority is tasked with execution of tourism policies and the national promotion of tourism in Romania.
The discussed earlier frequent changes and transformation in federal level institutions managing tourism have led to institutional weakness and ineffectiveness. Despite government declarations that tourism is a priority sector it does not seem to receive thorough and consistent attention. There is a lack of policies and legislation that enable growth. Existing legislation is ineffective and poorly enforced, which hampers development of a globally competitive sector nationally and in specific regions.
The relative centralization of policy decision making impedes the designing and adopting of effective strategies for tourism complicated. There is a national-level Consultative Council on Tourism, which is presided by the Minister of Economy, SME and Tourism. The Council includes key representatives of the private sector and the strong industry associations. The role of the Council is only consultative but even that does not seem to work well despite its public-private partnership based structure, in practice it does not influence strategic decision making. This represents a significant missed opportunity.
Regional/ Local Level
Tulcea is home to one of the 12 regional offices of the National Tourism Authority (NTA). The Tulcea office is staffed with one person. The activities of the local NTA office are limited to participation in national trade shows and some local events. Limited budget and inefficiencies on the national level limit the capacity and activities of the local structure.
There are several private-sector tourism associations in Tulcea and the Danube Delta region. A local good practice in public-private partnership is a Constanța-based association called Romanian Riviera – Danube Delta Tourism Promotion Board. Its members include private operators, as well as public entities such as the Constanța County Council, Constanța Municipality, Constanța Port, Tulcea County Council, etc. This regional organization was originally established to represent the county of Constanța but in the last three years has expanded to include the Danube Delta. Despite its regional character the organization is well connected to national-level leadership in government and private sector.
56
6.1.2. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Table 1:Tourism SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Attractive natural asset of European and global significance
- Distinct culture and lifestyle - Existence of some nature-based attractions
and service providers - Existence of assets and attractions
supplementing DD nature-based activities
- High share of informal tourism activity - Lack of tourism attractions, adequate
standard of visitor infrastructure, lack of interpretation
- Limited skills and knowledge of local stakeholders in tourism development and operations
- Lack of infrastructure critical to limiting negative impact of tourism (waste, waste water, destruction of natural resources)
- Lack of capacity to enforce protection regimes and limit non-sustainable behavior of some visitors
- Poor accessibility - Lack of stakeholder ownership and
committed involvement of stakeholders in the protection of DD
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Continuous growth in demand for nature-based, activity and other special forms of tourism (global)
- Low level of current development offering opportunity for effective development
- Proximity to Constanța (enabling access, expanded market and breadth of facilities)
- Potential improvement of local airport (enhancing destination access)
- High-level of willingness and commitment to tourism among local institutions and the private sector
- Weak tourism policies and management on national level
- Ineffective political dynamics influencing development of tourism on local level
- Corruption and ineffective law enforcement - Negative attitude among local stakeholders
towards nature conservation regimes, programs and institutions (DDBRA, NATURA 2000)
- Unrealistic vision about possible tourism development
- Potential conflicts between local and non-local tourism operators
- Destructive behavior and lack of respect for fragile nature asset by stakeholders (operators and tourists)
- Weak and somewhat unattractive image of Romania on international markets as a growing deterrent for travelers to come to the region
57
6.1.3. Potential Policy and Regulatory Topics to Address
Introduce rules and processes that foster private sector development and make it unappealing for tourism businesses to operate without registration (for example make participation in local DMOs or associations regional and national promotion channels only registered facilities)
Adjust requirements for small to mid-size family-owned tourism operators in DD (including taxation, property and facility requirements
Provide incentives for improvement of tourism capacities (training, service quality standards, improvement of physical capacity, etc.)
Reform permit system (for tourism operation and entry into the Reserve area) to improve collection and management of funds generated from tourism
Adapt data collection methods for key tourism indicators (based on National Tourism Master Plan)
Introduce incentives for locally operated businesses and entrepreneurs key to strengthening the tourism value chain
Establish and empower a participatory PPP-based mechanism for destination management
Potential medium to longer term interventions:
Define and implement tourism-specific policies and legislation in the DD region, including planning of areas with different intensity of tourism activities
Decentralization of tourism policy and management decision making
6.1.4. Conclusions
Tourism policy and management on national level are weak and inconsistent. This directly handicaps efforts at the regional level, including the Danube Delta region.
There is lack of a realistic strategic vision for tourism development in the Danube Delta region. Current ideas about possible tourism development are unrealistic and contradict contemporary tourism demand and supply trends in the context of nature-based tourism.
The DD is an underdeveloped destination with a solid set of assets that can be translated into an economically productive tourism value chain in the form of a competitive attraction portfolio complemented by job-generating support services.
The grey economy in the DD region leads to unproductive tourism development and limited ability to generate socio-economic benefits from tourism, including employment and linkages to other economic sectors. An integrated destination management mechanism combined with effective regulation can help overcome current challenges and link tourism to employment and other benefits more directly.
58
6.2. Fisheries and Aquaculture
6.2.1. Current Situation
a) Characteristics
There are three main categories of fishing recognized in the DDBR, commercial, recreational and family fishing. The commercial fishery currently comprises 1,448 licensed fishers and 744 boats. Typically, two licensed fishers operate each boat. The DDBR includes the adjacent marine areas to the 20-m isobath; registered commercial fish landings in 2012 amounted to some 2,227 t, of which 84.5% were freshwater species, 13.9% migratory species (e.g., Alosa sp.) and 1.6% marine species. Some 17,000 recreational fishing licenses are issued by the DDBRA, and approximately 2,500 local families (including families of licensed fishers) are authorized to catch fish for household consumption22.
Overall, capture fisheries have been declining since the 1980’s according to official statistics (see Figure 36) mostly as a result of pollution, habitat modification and over-fishing. Official statistics do not include fish traded on the black market, estimated by the DDBR at around 5,000 t, implying that in total, capture fisheries currently produce about 10,000 t per annum. Fisheries monitoring and enforcement in the DD is reported to be inefficient, ineffective and easily tempted into corruption.
Aquaculture is predominantly based on extensive culture of Chinese carps23 in large lakes and ponds with minimal supplementary feeding. There are about 26 former aquaculture sites in the DD totaling some 45,500 ha, of which only 5 are currently licensed for operation. Aquaculture in the DD takes the form of relatively large lakes that are minimally managed to slightly improve production over natural levels. Intervention is generally limited to the stocking of Chinese carps (80% of total harvest) along with the occasional pike or zander and recapture through a mixture of locally contracted commercial netting and fee-based recreational fishing. Highest reported production is 500 kg/ha, compared to 10,000 kg/ha on a typical US catfish farm. With production cost reported to be approx. €2.00 per kg (including 24% VAT) for preferred common carp that retail at around €2.25 in Bucharest, profit margins on these investments are low, at best.
Some 17,000 recreational fishing licenses are issued annually by the DDBRA. The average recreational fisher spends about 16 days fishing in a year. Each fisher is allowed to catch 5 kg per day or one fish equal to or in excess of 5 kg. The total quota (irrespective of species and area fished) is 1,371 t, but this is apparently not systematically monitored or regulated.
The iconic Beluga Sturgeon and others of its ilk are in serious decline and should be of greater interest as a conservation issue than as a fisheries resource. The overall lack of control in the fishery complicates sturgeon recovery. Some 16 firms are piloting aquaculture for caviar production and restocking. The
22
Patriche N., Talpes M. and Iorga V. (2013). Studiu de evaluare a resurselor acvatice vii, în vederea stabilirii capturii totale admisibile (TAC) pe specii si zone în R.B.D.D. (complexele lacustre din R.B.D.D., Dunărea si bratele sale, Marea Neagră) în anul 2013. Administratia Rezervatiei Biosferei “Delta Dunării”. Galati - Februarie 2013. 23
Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)
Figure 36: Capture fisheries have been
declining since the 1980’s (FAO-FishStat).
59
Danube Sturgeon Task Force (DSTF) as part of the EU Strategy for the Danube River (EUSDR) has developed a program for the protection and rehabilitation of the Danube sturgeon species24. b) Issues / Constraints
Fisheries Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing is a global problem and is also a major issue in the DD. Unless responsibly controlled and monitored, exploitation of “the commons” generates a race to depletion. Responsibility for the MCS of the fishery activities in the DD is shared between several agencies:
1. National Agency for Fishery and Aquaculture (13 inspectors in the DD) 2. DDBRA (34 inspectors) 3. Delta police (27 officers) 4. Border police 5. National Environmental Guard 6. Local police 7. Coast Guard 8. Environment Protection Agency
Although the mandates and responsibilities differ somewhat between the agencies, much of their functions in practice overlap. The latter two agencies are only authorized outside the DDBR, but interact with fishers that cross the DDBR border. The Coast Guard and Border police belong to the same organization and field a total of some 400 officers in the DDBR. Several independent informants report cases where inspectors allow or even encourage illegal fishing against a share of the profits. Fishers that complain about such activities are hassled, e.g. reported for offences they did not commit, have their gear confiscated etc. While difficult to corroborate, such claims should be a matter of concern and taken as an indication of need for urgent interventions to improve the situation.
The parallel roles of the MCS agencies appear ineffective and expensive. Reducing the complexity of MCS and ensuring appropriate/reasonable salaries of (fewer) inspectors would contribute towards a more transparent institution and reduce the risk for corrupt practices. Such reform should be coordinated with institutional support to fisher associations to take part in co-management of the fisheries resources, which would contribute to reduce the need for inspectors. The fisheries management plan would need to be re-formulated, including updated objectives and modalities of MCS.
Habitat Restoration
Planned restorations of former wetlands have been postponed. Canalization for navigation and poldering for agriculture and forestry was carried out mainly during the communist era. Modifications for aquaculture included the construction of ponds and channels for water supply. The area flooded each year has thus been substantially reduced from historical highs, and the area permanently covered by water has decreased from 34,000 ha in the 1960’s to some 26,000 ha today.
Restoration of wetlands has returned some of these areas to a more natural configuration. This involves closing of selected man-made channels, and breaking of dikes in hydrologically suitable
24
Sandu, C., Reinartz, R. & Bloesch, J. (Eds.) (2013): “Sturgeon 2020”: A program for the protection and rehabilitation of Danube sturgeons. Danube Sturgeon Task Force (DSTF) & EU Strategy for the Danube River (EUSDR) Priority Area (PA) 6 – Biodiversity (available at http://www.dstf.eu).
60
locations. Restoration works were carried out between 1994 and 2004 in the Babina (2,100 ha) and Cernovca (1,580 ha) islands, the Popina aquaculture polder (3,600 ha), and in the Fortuna silviculture polder (2,115 ha). The estimated total economic benefits of the Babina and Cerncova islands following restoration, in terms of fish, reeds and pasture, was estimated at €140,000 per year, less some minor maintenance costs25. This is a conservative estimate since the restored areas provide additional enhanced ecosystem services, e.g. nutrient removal, habitats, and water storage.
So far only some 2-3% of the converted wetlands have been restored. Following these successful initial restoration works, the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (INCDD) master plan of 2005 proposed to continue the restoration of large tracts of the delta, but so far only some 2-3% of this area has been restored. Much of the land in question is managed as concessions by Tulcea county. The concession contracts are valid for up to 49 years, and concessionaires have invested in infrastructure and appear to be resisting change. A further disincentive for restoration is the EU subsidies to agriculture and cattle raising, which are accessible to the concessionaires as long as their land remains poldered. For these and possibly other reasons it appears that the plans for further restoration have been postponed.
Any dredging must be carefully planned and based on hydrological and sediment transport data. The sediment transport into the delta has decreased in recent years due to improved watershed management upstream and the building of dams and barrages that capture sediments. Intermittent increased freshwater flow (there have been several major floods in recent years), coupled with foreseen sea level rise caused by global warming, point towards decreasing dry land in the Delta. At the same time, however, fishers complain that many channels are silting up preventing them from reaching former fishing areas by boat, and dredging of the channels is often voiced as a solution. Depending on location, dredging of channels that are connected to the Danube main stream can allow sediment-laden floodwaters into the lakes, causing these to fill up with sediments and hence reduce the fishable area.
Production Costs
Fish production in the DD is costly. A serious issue confronted by nearly all development in the DD is the high costs of inputs dictated in large part by the high cost of transport, especially in the core Delta. Much of the best fishing and aquaculture areas are difficult to get to, many are not connected to roads and are inaccessible during floods and freezes. Energy (electricity and diesel) represent major costs, just after feed (50% of production cost). Prices are further exacerbated by the isolation of the DD, increasing the competitiveness of imports from Hungary and Bulgaria, in particular, and keeping profit margins low. Some fish farmers have converted ponds to agriculture to take advantage of EU subsidies.
Biodiversity
Cormorants and pelicans consume a large proportion of the fish production. Protected piscivorous birds are a major tourist attraction, but consume large amounts of fish, in particular smaller species and juveniles, affecting both the capture fishery and aquaculture. Navodaru et al. (2006)26 estimated that the total annual fish consumption by birds in the DDBR, mainly by cormorants and pelicans, at about 7,400 t. Since the birds are protected, most potential counter measures are prohibited. Compensation
25
2004. 10 years of restoration in the Danube Delta. Edited by Schneider E., Ştiucâ R,m Tudor M. and Covaliov S., WWF Auen-Institut and Institutul National de Cercetare-Dezvoltare Delta Dunarii. 26
Navodaru I., Staras M. and Cernisencu I. (2006). Aquaculture in the Danube Delta during the transition period. In: Report and
Proceedings of the EIFAC Symposium on Aquaculture Development – Partnership between Science and Producers Associations.
Wierzba, Poland, 26-29 May 2004. EIFAC Occasional Paper. No. 37. Rome, FAO. 2006. 136p.
61
to fish farmers for fish lost to birds is provided through the Natura 2000 framework, but operators claim that the compensation does not cover the losses.
An exotic carp species has become the most abundant fish in the DD. Gibel carp27, Carassius gibelio, was reportedly introduced to the Danube Delta to enhance fish community composition. This species is amongst the most invasive and has been linked to genetic deterioration of the closely related, indigenous Carassius carassius, through hybridization as well as changes to the aquatic ecosystem. According to DDBRA, 47% of the current fish capture is of gibel carp, a major problem for the fishery as they are worth only about 1/10th the value of common carp on local markets. Whether the gibel carp are expanding because of intrinsic traits or due to exogenous
changes in the ecosystem to which they are more resistant than other species is unknown. The reduction through environmental degradation and over-fishing of important predatory species that would normally control the number of gibel carp (e.g., pike, zander) most likely contributes to their invasion.
c) Opportunities / Potential
Reform Capture Fisheries
There is limited scope for improvements in capture fisheries governance and management. High fishing pressure and illegal activities are putting severe pressure on the resource with concurrent downward pressure on resource rents and sustainability, to the point where fishers cannot make a decent living or pay taxes for basic services. The structure of the market and actions of the governing institutions do not reward fisher institutions for good resource stewardship. Fixing the DDBR fishery would involve realignment of policies and major changes in institutions and revised management plans, including a review of competition within the EU. The current policy of exporting fish from the delta (e.g. the planned fish auction) seems likely to make matters worse by indirectly promoting value added enhancements to take place elsewhere. Recreational fisheries is the most promising way to add more value locally. Local processing of fish is another area, especially in terms of improved supply to local restaurants and products for the market. Experiences from economically more developed countries show a strong correlation between economic development and the expansion of recreational fisheries. Thus, although there is some scope to improve productivity and profitability of the commercial fishery through reduced fishing effort and curbing illegal practices, this will be limited, especially when considering the alternative to instead promote recreational fishing, where the potential value added is much higher and more likely to benefit the local economy.
Develop Some Types of Aquaculture
Aquaculture margins are narrow but could be improved for some types of operations. There are
basically three types of aquaculture in the DD: 1) Sturgeon hatcheries; 2) Chinese carp hatcheries; 3.
Extensive, mixed (mostly carp) species pond farming. The bottom line for these 3 types of aquaculture in
27
A different species from the Chinese carp species mentioned in the aquaculture section.
Figure 37: The proportion of Gibel carp in DD landings
over time
62
the DD is that feeds and electricity are needed to reach a meaningful scale, but transport and electricity
costs are too high. Elsewhere in Romania, there are larger, more intensive carp farms strung out all
along the DD watershed, plus some trout operations up in the mountains, proving to be a substantial
competition. During the communist period major investments were made into aquaculture, but since
1989 most aquaculture operations have been abandoned. Aquaculture requires the import and export
of materials and the control of water level in ponds. Costs of transport and water pumping undermine
profitability. Interviews with the National Association of Fish Producers confirm that traditional
aquaculture is unlikely to be profitable in the delta (especially in the core Delta). During the communist
regime (1985) only 1 in 6 aquaculture farms was profitable, even with heavily subsidized energy
(Navodaru et al. 2006). Further, up to 25% of production is stolen by poachers. There appears to be
opportunities for culture-based fisheries, e.g. enhanced recruitment of zander in L. Razim. Another
potential business alternative may be aquaculture of high value products for niche markets, but this has
not been studied in detail, and above mentioned constraints would still need to be overcome.
Manage Recreational Fishing
Studies of inland fisheries have shown that their use as recreational fisheries can generate high, shared revenue, as sports fishers spend money on accommodation, food, services like guiding, boat rental, bait etc. In the US, for example, fish passed through the recreational fishing value chain generate $624 per lb in economic impact, compared to $21 per lb from commercial capture fisheries (NOAA, 2011). Costa Rican recreational fishing generates $279 million, compared to $16.6 million from the commercial capture fishery (Southwick et al. 2010). If developed responsibly, modern recreational fishing can be very environment friendly and compatible with the idea behind the DDBR. Recreational fishing has high potential value added and is more likely to benefit the local economy.
Increasing the potential for recreational fishing would require reduced commercial fishing and lessened IUU. The diversity of fish species and the unique environment makes the Danube Delta, in particular the core Delta, a potential paradise for recreational fishers. However, the current high fishing pressure and IUU have reduced fish stocks considerably, especially the large predators targeted by recreational fishers. If the DD could be restored to a state where the populations of large predatory fish are allowed to recover, the potential for recreational fisheries would increase substantially.
If fishing pressure is sufficiently reduced, predatory large species are expected to recover quickly. Important predatory species for recreational fishing include pike, zander, asp and catfish. If fishing pressure is sufficiently reduced, these species are expected to recover quickly, with large sized specimens becoming relativity abundant within a few years. The main non-predatory fish of interest to recreational fishers is the common carp, and with higher predation rates from an increased number of large predators (which tend to remove mainly smaller individuals and thus reduce competition for food), large carp would also become more abundant.
With an increased abundance of large predators the DDBR would become attractive to “specimen hunters”, who aim to catch large fish of specific species. This group of anglers is a potential prime target group for recreational fisheries management. Specimen hunters are willing to travel and spend money to fish in suitable locations. In the context of freshwater angling in the EU, specimen fishing is relatively high-cost, with e.g. fishing for salmon in Norway or Scotland at the top end. The species of interest in the DDBR belong to a lower-cost segment of the recreational fishing market, and main selling points, in addition to an abundance of large fish, would be the unique environment combined with low to intermediate costs.
63
Short-term challenges to sustainable recreational fishing are numerous. These include: 1) building capacity among DD inhabitants as service providers, 2) reducing fishing pressure, particularly IUU, 3) ensuring that investments and revenues do not bypass local population. With increasing numbers of recreational fishers, it will be essential to develop suitable regulations and infrastructure, including potable tap water, sewage treatment and solid waste management.
64
d) Key Sector Entities and Their Capacity
Fisheries Regulatory Agencies
The 8 regulatory agencies - see above section titled “Fisheries Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) - together represent substantial resources. However, regulatory policy appears fragmented and inappropriate, resulting in inefficiencies and potential for irregularities. An additional entity with a potential role in MCS is the Fisher Associations and their umbrella Fisher Federation; the capacity of the fishers to participate in MCS is yet untapped.
Fisher Associations
Fishers in the DD are insufficiently organized and lack the power to negotiate fish price. To obtain authorization for commercial fishing, fishers must sign a service contract with at least one cherhana28 owner. The cherhana functions as the first point of sale, and their license is conditional on meeting phytosanitary and environmental regulations. The cherhana is the primary source of basic fisheries statistics. Cherhana owners generally transfer market risk to fishers by not accepting fish that they don’t already have a buyer for. These are often the most abundant species in the catch (i.e., introduced gibel carp). The cherhana owners are middlemen, but they also lead the Fisher Associations, which dual role is indicative of the vulnerable position of fishers. Reportedly, fishers do not participate in any regular Fisher Association meetings.
Sport Fishing Associations
There are 200,000 members of recreational fishers’ associations in Romania. These have increasingly distanced themselves from a historical connection to hunting, to focus attention on management and conservation of aquatic habitats.
28
Licensed fish landing site
65
6.2.2. SWOT Analyses
SWOT Table 2: Commercial fishery SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Productive environment - Traditional fishery at appropriate effort is
compatible with DDBR strategy
- Informal trade in fish, limited market demand for legal DD fish (high competition)
- Over-harvest of desired species worsens gibel carp invasion.
- Overfishing, reduced production and value - Some illegal, destructive fishing methods - Primary producers institutionally disadvantaged,
price takers - Ambiguous, redundant responsibilities in
fisheries MCS - Loss of fishable areas due to silting - Fish spawning and nursery areas lost or blocked
by land reclamation, dams
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Streamlining and upgrading of MCS - Fisheries co-management institutions - More value added inside DDBR, e.g. by local
processing - Increasing legal fish supply to local tourist sector - Ecological restoration of former fish habitats
(valuation and business plan needed)
- Increased fishing effort, export of fish from DDBR
- Inequitable, competitive market - Price cartels - Corruption in MCS, marketing and policy - Perverse EU subsidies
66
SWOT Table 3: Recreational Fishery SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Vast areas with diverse fish populations and habitats
- Large potential number of recreational fisher visits from Romania, Europe and even globally
- High fishing pressure, incl. legal commercial and destructive methods, focus on export to market
- Large fishes are rare for most species - Limited infrastructure for tourism transport,
etc.. - Licensing for recreational fishing is centralized
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Reduced commercial fishing in favor of more profitable recreational fishing
- Develop infrastructure and services to enable more recreational fishing
- Promote best practice recreational fishing, e.g. catch and release
- Strengthen compatibility/synergy with DDBR, ecotourism
- Support local communities/pop to establish and operate businesses to cater for recreational fishers
- Unabated fishing pressure - Continued expansion of gibel carp - Illegal, destructive methods, e.g. electrofishing - Outside investments in tourist facilities cause
profit to be exported, bypassing local population - Increased focus on export of fish from the delta
(capture fisheries and to some extent recreational fishing)
SWOT Table 4: Aquaculture SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Low impact, extensive culture-based fisheries - Some existing infrastructure (may) reduce costs
- Costly transport and energy - Distance to major markets - Local market preference for wild caught fish - At national level competing with imported fish - Protected piscivorous birds
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Local product processing, value added - Pond based recreational fishing
- Rising energy costs - Import of subsidized fish
67
6.2.3. Potential Policy and Regulatory Topics to Address
In the short term management interventions could include:
Support/subsidies to fishers to reduce fishing effort
Minimizing the amount of fish exported from the DDBR
Reform of MCS functions and responsibilities
Capacity building for local people in service provision to tourists, especially recreational fishers
Capital/incentives for local tourism business development
Reform of recreational fishing licensing system to return more profits to management and fishing communities – could include decentralized sale of licenses, by e.g. hotels, and reserving all or part of the license fee for direct investments into the fishery;
Institutional support to Fisher Associations to better represent the interest of fishers and their families – the mandate of the Fisher Associations should probably include recreational fisheries.
In the medium to longer term management interventions could include:
Restoration of delta/floodplain functions to a more natural state.
Restock carnivorous fishes (e.g., pike, zander) to reduce low-value invasive gibel carp.
6.2.4. Conclusions
DD capture fisheries are over-exploited, ineffectively regulated and will be complicated to make productive and profitable.
Extensive aquaculture as practiced in the DD faces high competition and production costs.
Local economic development is constrained by the export of raw material (fresh fish) for value adding outside of the DD.
Fish population size and aquatic ecosystem productivity are reduced by the reduction in the flood plain due to poldering.
Siltation pattern is complicated and will require careful study to design appropriate dredging schemes.
Reduced profitability in the capture and recreational fisheries is associated with the expansion of the non-indigenous gibel carp.
Recreational fishing seems to offer realistic opportunities to develop the local economy within the ecological capacity of the DD.
68
6.3. Agriculture and Rural Development
6.3.1. Current Situation
a) Characteristics
Agriculture was always an important occupation for the population living in the study area, although in variable proportions depending upon the local natural conditions. The majority of soils on the “continental” part of the study area are favorable for intensive agriculture while, in contrast, the thin, underdeveloped soils present in the deltaic area have small organic matter content and their productivity is mostly provided by the easy access to (ground) water during the growing season. The climate of the area is also particular with low rainfall but prone to strong and permanent wind from East-North-East.
With 230,000 ha, of which 188,000 ha arable, the agricultural land represents 35% of the study area and 27% of the total county area. The historic tradition consisting of field crops cultivation (mainly cereals and tobacco) under dry farming on low lands, sheep breeding, mainly based on wild grazing, and vineyards, has gradually evolved and diversified in the 20-th century towards intensive practice to include more diversified corps, cattle breeding (cows and buffalo) and irrigation to address the rainfall deficit during summer. The access to irrigation (through infrastructure developed mainly during 1960s – 1980s) enabled the diversification of the cropping pattern, making room for vegetables, oil and technical crops (e.g. sun-flower, hemp, flax, etc.) while reducing the area with tobacco. Agriculture activity was complemented by fishing, particularly in the areas located close to Danube River or adjacent lakes: Razim, Sinoe, and Babadag, to mention just the largest ones.
The agriculture activities have gone through a structural reform after 1990. With the restitution of land to private ownership, the agricultural activity entered a strong reform process resulting in new farm structure and new cropping pattern, adjusted to the changing conditions. The gradual alignment to the principles of a market economy diversely affected not only the agriculture economics but also the living standards in the rural space all over the study area, positively and negatively, in various degrees.
The core Delta’s agricultural lands are mostly transformed wetlands under public ownership. In the study area, the agricultural land (230,000 ha) is mostly arable (82%) complemented by pastures (15%) and vineyards (3%). The private ownership of land predominates covering 78% of total agricultural and arable land, respectively, 99% of vineyards and 75% of pastures. The state/public ownership over agricultural land is still significant (12% of the total), with the County Council (32,158 ha) and State Land Agency (20, 238 ha) as the main administrators. Most of the state owned land (89%) is located in the study area and was reclaimed from the Danube River flooding areas, upstream of Tulcea and in the Delta. In the core Delta, the state owned land represents 73% of the total agricultural land excluding the land used for aquaculture. Details of the land use and ownership, including a breakdown by locality included in the study area are given in Annex 9.
The core Delta hosts the largest farms, which are under concession from the Tulcea County Council. The structure of farms in the study area is well matched to the dual structure present at county and national level. A very large number of small farms work a small share of the agricultural land and, in contrast, a small number of large farms run a large land share. About 83 percent of farms under 1 ha cover 4.2% of the land while 0.75 percent of farms over 100 ha cover 80.5 percent of the land. The fragmentation of farms is even higher in the Delta where 82% of total farms under 1 ha cover only 2% of the total area while 1% of farms have over 100 ha and cover 93% of the agricultural land (as shown in the graphs below).
69
The very large farms, which cover 34% of the total land and have an average of 1,900 ha/farm, are all located on the state land administered by the County Council, privately managed based on concession contracts. Some of them occupy a significant area of former state fish farms (4,000 ha – 12% of total fish farms) which is currently cultivated as agricultural land. The structure of farms in the study area, by zone and locality, is presented in Figure 38 below and detailed in Annex 10.
Figure 38: The structure of farms in the study area
Agricultural activity and productivity
The agricultural activity remains the main occupation of the rural population as well as of a significant share of the urban population of smaller towns. There are, however, particularities of agriculture practices by location. While in the area between Macin and Tulcea there are, practically, no special restrictions to agriculture (except the ones valid for the entire country), the area of the Delta, and the south area between Tulcea and Corbu (Constanța county) which is partly in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR), imposes some conditions for the agricultural activity but, also, more options for diversification of activities for local population including tourism and fishing. The field crops production and livestock breeding are the main activities practiced across the study area, while vineyard production is confined to traditional areas (e.g. Niculitel). The cropping pattern is quite similar to the county and country-wide situation: the cereals remain the main crop (60% and 70% of the annual cultivated area) followed by sun-flower (21%), forage (7%) and vegetables (3%). The vineyards cover about 3% of the total cultivated area, mostly for wine production (93%), while fruits are produced on a much smaller scale (0.5% of total), half of which in Isaccea (450 ha). It is important to mention that the area of land left fallow diminished gradually in the recent years (e.g. from 17% in 2006 to 2% in 2012).
The productivity of field crops is very low by European standards, below 50% of the average of the EU-15 countries. A number of factors contributed to this low productivity, the leading one being the existence of a still large share of subsistence and semi-subsistence farms in the study area, with very low productivity, most of them run by elderly farmers, either retired from old collective farms or former employees of the disappeared local industries (mainly fish processing and stone quarries). A second factor is the underdeveloped mid-size farms sector (10-100 ha) which, although it has an average area
82%
2%
16%
3%
0.7%
25%
0.3%
68%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
% of Total Farms % of Total Area
>1,000 ha
100-1,000 ha
10-100 ha
1-10 ha
0-1 ha
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Cattle (cows and buffalo) 32,244 30,450 31,460 29,751 29,308 28,931 30,280
Pigs 134,034 120,325 95,926 98,301 97,930 95,192 90,875
Sheeps 261,427 315,797 309,634 314,353 268,437 272,011 290,641
Goats 41,313 42,754 51,445 50,396 60,947 60,860 62,027
Horses 15,920 18,154 15,524 15,502 12,647 12,312 9,522
Poultry 1,120,537 1,047,650 1,010,029 892,730 778,604 769,679 700,185
Bees (families) 18,599 22,206 23,649 22,939 33,234 33,137 33,027
Livestock (heads)
per farm of 32 ha, covers only 8% of the total cultivated area. The expansion of the mid-size farm sector is critical as it could both absorb a part of the available labor (mainly young people willing to start a farming business) and promote commercial farming. A third factor is the variability of climate during the growing season, with dry summers, which require compensation of the water deficit by irrigation. To mitigate the drought risk, irrigation infrastructure was developed during 1960-1990 and covered over 156,000 ha, mainly pumped from the Danube and Southern lakes (Babadag, Razim, Sinoe) at high costs, even under the heavily subsidized energy prices set during the socialist regime.
Livestock breeding is equally important for the rural population and generates a substantial share of the revenues in the agriculture sector. The traditional sheep and goat grazing was gradually expanded to include cattle (cows and buffalo, favored by the local climate), pigs, and poultry (developed in “industrial systems”). Bee keeping remained an important occupation (although a niche one) mainly around the old and largest white lime tree forest in Europe, located in the central part of the county. The number of bee hives increased slightly in recent years. Livestock breeding in large, intensive farms was the norm during socialist times; these have been dismantled or privatized and replaced by smaller size farms with a reduced number of heads. While most of cattle and pig farms are small (many family farms) and can be found in almost all communes, some large cattle farms have been established both within and outside the Delta area. Buffalo have also adapted to the climate in the Delta and significant herds can now be found there. The development of cattle farms was favored by the existence of pastures, most of them owned by the local administration. Although many households in the area preserved the tradition of having a few sheep and goats for their own consumption, large herds are found mainly in the Delta, where the grazing conditions are better. However, conflict often arises between the shepherds and field crop farmers because of herds trespassing the cultivated fields. Poultry is mainly in small family farms and only recently a large farm (of about 30,000 heads) was set-up in Cataloi (Frecatei commune).
The review of the recent years (presented in Table 4) shows that while the number of goats increased and the cattle and sheep varied within confined intervals, the number of pigs and poultry decreased steadily reflecting increased prices of fodder.
Table 4: Livestock (heads)
Marketing of agri-food products is mainly done through well-established channels including local and international wholesale traders for cereals and livestock (particularly sheep), or towards local markets for fruits and vegetables. Meat, milk and eggs are also marketed to local retail stores, but to the neighborhood counties or Bucharest as well. The production of wool is also significant in the area given the large number of sheep grown. A steady drop in the meat and milk production was noted in the recent years, particularly triggered by the slow recovery from the economic and financial crisis. It is worth noting the sharp increase (nine-fold) of the goat milk production to respond to the increasing
71
market demand and high profitability. However, the access to agri-markets is easy for the mid- and large-size farms while the small subsistence farms are based on self-consumption. One significant shortfall is the underdeveloped sector of agri-food processing in the study area. Except for a leading company for meat processing (Carniprod) and a well-known wine producer (Sarica Niculitel), only a few small food processors are active in the area. Overall, about 87% of total agricultural output goes to markets while the rest remains in the farms for self-consumption.
Financial support for agriculture does not cover small farms under 1 ha. Financial support is available both from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and from the state budget as transfers to farmers to support their farming costs and some special priority programs (mainly targeted to livestock farms) or market development. The CAP-funded Single Area Payment System (SAPS) payments have been distributed in 2013 to 208,904 ha and 35,515 livestock heads in the study area. The farms with area below 1 ha are not eligible for SAPS payment, which means that, in the study area, 39,331 (small, subsistence) farms covering 9,568 ha did not receive any financial support.
Future rural livelihoods depend on the active integration of the rural population in a diversified rural economy. A diversified rural economy should be supported by adequate infrastructure and services while respecting environmental protection. The variability of living conditions in rural areas by location is a function of geographic conditions, ethnic composition of the population, local traditions, and not the least, the entrepreneurship spirit of the people and administration leaders. Although investments in infrastructure have systematically increased, the rural physical infrastructure is still lagging behind urban areas.
b) Issues / Constraints
Irrigated agriculture, which in the core Delta is on poldered land, can be economically viable only on a fraction (16%) of the arable land. Although, as mentioned earlier, irrigation infrastructure was developed in the socialist era, the gradual aligning of the electricity prices to the service costs, and the elimination of subsidies, made the cost of irrigation water unaffordable to most farmers. Thus, the irrigation activity dropped substantially, to about 1.5% of the total area equipped. Only the larger farms located on low lands close to water sources, such as those in the core Delta, could afford irrigation while the others had to invest more in varieties of drought resistant seeds. With the high water costs, it was proven that irrigation can be profitable only for market oriented farms and only for high value (vegetables, fruits) or crops that can be easily converted into higher value commodities (e.g. meat conversion). Recent studies have shown that only about 16% of the area historically equipped for irrigation (30,000 ha) is economically viable and should benefit from investment in modernization and rehabilitation of the infrastructure to enhance efficiency, reduce losses, and thus reduce the use of water.
The agri-food industry has undergone a strong decline during the transition years. This due to a series of shocks associated with the reduction of consumer purchasing power brought on by economic reforms, with the privatization and breakdown of vertically integrated, large production chains, with changes in subsidy structures, and with the costs of meeting stringent standards related to EU accession. The revised Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) enforced the requirements for better sanitary and veterinary controls and monitoring to include animal health and welfare, safety of livestock products, food control, and introduction of tight standards in the food industry. In addition, the growing cost of livestock feed increased steadily the prices of livestock raw products (meat, milk, eggs), with a direct effect on the prices of processed products.
The elderly farmers locked in subsistence farming on a significant share of the land, limits the options for the young farmers willing to start or expand a business in agriculture. The elderly farmers are
72
reluctant to invest in developing their farms despite opportunities for funding available under the EC Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), because with the age they turned very risk averse. They prefer to keep the traditional agriculture practices in the small farms and are not interested or cannot absorb the new technologies that promote high productivity. On the other hand, although the EC and the Government encourage establishment of young farmers through a special program, there is limited availability of land for such new farmers. This could be overcome however, either through incentives given to elderly to leave the farming activity and transfer the assets to specialists, and/or through the County Council offering, on concession, the public land to young specialists willing to become farmers, once the current concession contracts come to an end.
The rural population is aging and declining in number, with many youngsters leaving the area (or the country) looking for jobs. Therefore, the rural areas are in need of consistent and sustained investment in infrastructure and rural services, to support incentives for overall improvement and rural development. This will help increase the attractiveness of the rural areas especially for the young and educated people that account today for almost half of the rural employees. Their motivation might weaken if the living conditions do not improve, and the comfort and the future of their families are not secured. If not reversed, the rural brain drain could put at risk the success of all other policy interventions and the economic stability and sustainability of the rural areas.
A significant share of the rural population is at risk of poverty and social exclusion. A wealthy rural area builds on the motivation of its active people, driven by the level and the stability of their income and their ability to provide for their families. However, agriculture represents less than 10% of the permanent employees, while over 60% of rural dwellers are self-employed and contributing family workers. In addition, the primary sector wages are systematically lower than the secondary (by 25%) and tertiary (by 300%) sectors.
c) Opportunities / Potential
Livestock could play a substantial role in rebalancing the rural economy. However, it appears that the existing pasture area in the study area (34,000 ha) would not allow for a significant expansion of the number of cattle. In principle, with 30,000 cows, the grazing limit is being reached and more intensive breeding in consolidated farms should be considered. The situation is the same in the Delta where the pasture area (14,700 ha) appears sufficient for the existing cattle population (11,200 heads). It is also important that besides the milk cows, the process of adaptation of meat cows initiated in Romania is also implemented in the study area, including the preservation of the local breed (steppe cow). In particular, with a significant grain production (especially wheat and corn), and with proximity to waterways and large markets such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, the study area and Tulcea county are well positioned to further develop its pig, poultry and beef sectors, and take advantage of the growing external market opportunities.
While agriculture would remain the main occupation and income generating activity for the rural population, the rural space needs sustainable development of the non-farm economy. Such non-farm development could absorb a part of the active labor available. The diversification of income sources and increased income are correlated to new long-term employment, non-agricultural employment, and social employment, all linked to sustainable rural business development. Incentives to stimulate the rural entrepreneurship, to generate employment by creation and development of rural business, from servicing agriculture to transformation and processing of agricultural goods, to rural tourism, with accent on specific, traditional and regional products, would greatly enhance the employment/income opportunities and reduces the rural-urban income gap. Such intervention would also have a positive
73
impact on the active population released from (semi-) subsistence agriculture, on seasonal workers, and on the self-employed and contributing family workers in agricultural households, by offering perspectives for new, stable and consistent income.
The restrictions imposed by “Natura 2000” do not have, in general, a significant impact on the agricultural activities. However, development of large, intensive livestock farms in the close proximity of natural habitats is restricted to prevent any negative effects the former may have. In addition, a strict control of manure management is required to prevent groundwater pollution with nutrients from the manure deposits. Some indirect effects of the Natura 2000 restrictions have occurred though after most of the stone quarries were closed, and the released labor became unemployed and returned to agriculture, thus increasing the number of small subsistence farmers.
Sustainable development of reed use could also be an opportunity. The Danube Delta has the largest reed beds in the world, composed primarily of Phragmites and occupying 280,000 ha. Reed beds provide breeding grounds for many species, but if they are not harvested properly the accumulation of old and dead plants can lead to eutrophication and silting. Historically, reeds have been used as prime materials for the paper and cellulose industry, but most such processing plants have been closed. The average productivity29 is of 10t of dry mass per ha and the locals, who use it as construction material for fences, covers and household outbuildings, have a reed quota of 2t/household. Reed is currently being exported from the Delta as raw material, but has reasonable potential to be processed as thermo-insulation construction material or as biomass for energy production.
29
Vulnerability of the Danube Delta Region to Climate Change - Synthesis report”, 2012.
74
6.3.2. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Table 5: Agriculture and Rural Development SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Climate and soils favorable for agriculture - Highly productive soils in low land areas - Experience in diversified agriculture (field crops,
livestock, agro-processing) - Traditional livestock breeding (cattle, sheep) - Availability of water resources - Existing irrigation infrastructure - Natural conditions for diversification of activities
(tourism, fishing) - Good network of road communication with
neighboring counties - Willingness of population to diversify their
activities - Cheap labor - Interest in modern communication (Internet) in
rural areas - Preservation of certain traditions including
those of minorities (Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars) - Availability pf traditional products (e.g. sheep
cheese)
- High fragmentation of land ownership - High fragmentation of farms with large number
of subsistence farms - Substantial share of land located at high
elevations - Low level of rainfall during cropping season - Only 16% of the arable area can be
economically irrigated - Difficult access to markets, particularly from
Danube Delta, depending on water transport - Aging population and high migration of labor
(mainly young people) - Low development of non-farm rural economy - Low development of social capital (small
number of associations, NGOs, etc.) - Low employment opportunities for industrial
labor available after closure of local industries - Low level of diversified education – vocational
training - Low quality of local infrastructure (water,
sewage, communal and farm roads, village streets)
- Lack of a strategy for county development - Reluctance of aged population to assume risks
in investment projects
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Danube proximity – links with foreign countries - Availability of EC financing for agriculture and
rural development - Local conditions for niche activities (e.g. bee
keeping) - Demand for fresh food by tourist resorts (fish,
vegetables, fruits) - Development of organic agriculture on small
farms - The proximity to international waterways offer
opening for export to Europe, Middle East and CIS
- Potential for development of tourism both
- High migration of skilled labor - Difficult access to markets from the Delta - Depreciation of the quality of life with drop in
health, education and public services in many rural communities
- Taxes paid by wind farms may be taken over by the central government
- Floods in areas without proper protection against river or run-off flooding
- Small area of land available for young farmers - Reduction of tourist activity because of the
recent economic and financial crisis
75
6.3.3. Conclusions
Organic agriculture on small and medium sized farms especially in the core Delta might present an important niche market. Agriculture will remain one of the main occupations of the rural population but its share in the total income generating activities should decline gradually through increased diversification of non-farm activities, including services. However, the local conditions in the study area are good for development of organic production in small to mid-size farms, which could enhance the economic and financial viability of households, particularly in the Delta. Public land management through concessions, especially in the core Delta, and the perverse incentives of the EC subsidies, needs to be examined. Young entrepreneurs in the rural economy need to be supported through innovative mechanisms. Changing the structure of marketing of agri-products towards increased share of processed food in the total trade versus raw products (cereals, live animals, raw meat, etc.) would enhance the sector profitability and farmers’ profits.
EC funds, through the CAP channel, could be a significant opportunity. Absorption of a larger share of EC funds available through CAP would contribute to both farms’ economics and the development of the non-farm rural economy, job creation and occupational diversification, including development of agro-processing and expansion of organic production.
linked to recreational fishing, leisure, and ecumenical activities
- Development of wind farms brings new revenues to local administration
- Increasing demand for hosting leisure boats – new source of revenue
- Reorientation of fishermen towards agriculture - Programs for young farmers financed by EC - Courses for labor reconversion
76
7. Environment and Climate Change
7.1. Environment and Environmental Protection
7.1.1. Current Situation
a) Characteristics
Environmental protection in Romania
When Romania joined the EU in 2007, the basic legal and institutional infrastructure for meeting the country‘s environmental challenges was in place, and a financing mechanism—EU Funds--was available to meet the projected high investment costs of compliance, and to help strengthen administrative structures and competencies. The current legislation and regulations are based on several legal principles, as in the case of other EU member States, such as: (i) compliance with the environmental acquis communautaire; (ii) integration of environmental concerns into sectorial policies; (iii) monitoring and reduction of climate change risks; (iv) application of the “polluter pays” principle; (v) preservation of biodiversity and specific ecosystems; (vi) sustainable use of natural resources; (vii) disclosure of environmental information and public participation in decision-making; and (viii) international cooperation for environmental protection.
The basic legal act for environmental protection in Romania is Law No. 265/2006 (last revision in 2013) which established the “polluter pays” and the “user pays” principles, as well as the principle of sustainable use of natural resources. Accordingly, the Government has introduced a range of environment-related taxes and other charges. The pursuit of environmental objectives is, moreover, supported by various subsidy schemes. Green public procurement (GPP) and eco-labelling schemes have also been established. The requirements of EU Directive concerning the urban wastewater treatment, together with the geographical position of the country, in both the Danube River basin and the Black Sea region, made it necessary for Romania to declare its whole territory a “sensitive area” in the context of the EU Directive. Accordingly, the urban wastewater from sewage networks must be subject to a more stringent treatment, if they are discharged into sensitive areas. All municipalities with more than 10,000 population equivalent (p.e.) must ensure a wastewater infrastructure with advanced treatment (tertiary treatment for nitrogen and phosphorus). Action plans for municipalities have been prepared, together with an assessment of the current wastewater infrastructure and investments in this field.
Romania has aligned the strategic environmental assessment (SEA), environmental impact assessment (EIA) and permitting procedures with EU requirements. Its inspection system is broadly compliant with the Recommendations on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspection. While making good progress, Romania still needs to streamline and improve some of the elements of its system of environmental assessment and permitting, as a main regulatory function of the sector. Presently, this system is comprehensive but complex, and involves five separate procedures for all projects requiring an environmental assessment, which makes it overburdened. The quality of EIAs is still considered uneven and in many cases inadequate, in part because of a lack of clear operational guidelines for the content, methodology, and quality assurance of environmental reports.
Protecting the environment in the Danube Region - The Danube is the second longest river in Europe, with a length of 2,857 km, out of which 1,075 km is in Romania's territory. The Danube region covers parts of 9 EU countries (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria,
77
Romania and Croatia) and 5 non-EU countries (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Ukraine and Moldova).
After 2000, Romania has also pursued an active role in international cooperation on environmental protection and sustainable development. The most significant results have been achieved in trans-boundary cooperation on water, industrial accidents, and biodiversity conservation, particularly with regard to the Danube River basin. In June 2008, Romania together with Austria asked through a joint letter the European Commission for the development of a strategy for the Danube region. Therefore, a macro-regional EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR or SUERD in Romanian) was proposed by the European Commission on December 8, 2010, and the Member States endorsed it in April 2011.
For Romania, the Danube Strategy is reinforcing its position as the biggest gateway to the Black Sea. It helps tighten the economic relations and create new investment opportunities with its Central European partners. The ports on the lower Danube – Galati, Braila, and Tulcea – together with the Constanța port represent the relay among the European markets, on the one hand, and of South-East Asian and the Black Sea markets, on the other. Priority Area 05 of the EUSDR "Managing environmental risks" is coordinated by Hungary (Ministry of Rural Development) and Romania (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change), with the involvement of a wide network of key players and stakeholders from the 14 countries of the Danube Region. Romania also has a particularly significant role to play in Priority Area 06 of the EUSDR “Preserving Biodiversity, landscapes and the quality of air and soils” (coordinated by Hungary and Austria).
The Danube Delta
EU Strategy for the Danube Region
The EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) was jointly developed by the Commission, together with the Danube Region countries and stakeholders, in order to address common challenges together.
EUSDR provides a robust integrated framework for countries and regions to address issues which cannot be handled satisfactorily in an isolated way, but instead require transnational strategic approaches, projects and networking.
EUSDR is a united response to challenges affecting an area which stretches from the Black Forest to the Black Sea, including over 100 million inhabitants. Many of the region’s problems know no borders: flooding, transport and energy links, environmental protection and challenges to security all demand a united approach. The 14 countries in the region, with the support of the European Commission, are cooperating to develop projects and actions that meet these challenges and build prosperity in the Danube region.
EUSDR and its Action Plan are organized around four pillars that include 11 priority areas:
1) Connectivity – with priority areas on transport (mobility and multimodality), sustainable energy and culture/tourism issues
2) Protecting the environment – with priority areas on waters quality, managing environmental risks, preserving biodiversity, landscapes, quality of air and soils
3) Building prosperity – with priority areas on developing the knowledge society, competitiveness of enterprises, investing in people and skills
4) Strengthening the Danube region – with priority areas on institutional capacity & cooperation, and security
78
The Danube Delta is the second largest river delta in Europe and one of the biggest in the world. It is the only delta in the world entirely declared (in 1990) as a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO. Designated as a Ramsar site in 1990, it has the biggest area of compact reed beds on the planet. In the European Union it is designated as both a Special Protection Area (SPA) and a proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCI).
As Europe’s largest remaining natural wetland, the Danube Delta is one of the continent’s most valuable habitats for specific deltaic wildlife and biodiversity. While the Volga delta is larger, unlike the Danube delta a significant portion of it has been developed and is no longer considered a natural wetland. The Danube River and its tributaries form various riverine habitats in the delta, creating a variety of diverse and dynamic ecological territories with many unique plants and animals. Only 9% of the area is permanently above water, and it is a vitally important buffer between the hydrographical basin of the Danube River and the Black Sea, filtering out a large part of the nutrients, sediments and pollutants carried by the Danube, and thus helping to limit eutrophication of the sea. The constantly developing landscape of the delta is a labyrinth of waters and land, with numerous freshwater lakes connected by narrow channels, huge expanses of aquatic vegetation and flooded islets (plaur). The delta itself has three distinct areas: the fluvial zone in the upper part of the delta, characterized by sandy levees, and small, densely vegetated lakes; the transitional zone with less sedimentation and numerous larger lakes; and the marine zone dominated by sand-dune barrier beach complexes. The Razim-Sinoie complex to the south of the delta consists of several large brackish lagoons separated from the sea by a sandbar. The delta is an important stopover on major bird migration routes and is internationally significant for birds, both breeding and migratory, including for a number of globally threatened species.
Over the past several decades, the area of the Danube Delta has been influenced by multiple important changes in its functionality and status. Legal protection of areas within the Danube Delta began in 1938 with the declaration of the Letea Forest as a nature reserve, with additional nature reserves and other protected areas added over the next 40 years, culminating in a total area of 59,645 ha under legal protection in the Delta by 1979. However, mainly between 1960 and 1989 large areas (ultimately close to 100,000 ha) of the Delta were transformed for agricultural, aquaculture or forestry use, through the construction of dykes and dams (about 40,000 ha each of agriculture polders and fish farms and almost 16,000 ha for forestry use). In addition, the extensive reed beds were heavily harvested, mainly as a source of cellulose for paper production. These economic enterprises were managed by large State-owned companies. This program of “land reclamation” and intensive use of the Delta’s natural resources came to an end with the change of government and introduction of the new economic system in 1989, beginning the process that led to the establishment of the present day Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve.
The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR)
The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) is protected under both national law and international conventions. It is in fact a transnational Biosphere Reserve (BR), the only one in the world encompassing an entire large river delta, with a total surface area of 6,250 km2, out of which 5,800 km2 is on the Romanian territory, and the remaining 450 km2 on Ukrainian territory. However, this Diagnostic Analysis focuses only on the Romanian portion, which was declared a Biosphere Reserve in 1990 by the Government of Romania and by the Romanian Parliament through Law 82/1993, modified and completed through Law 454/ 2001 and 136/ 2011. In 1990, the DDBR received international recognition as part of the worldwide UNESCO “Man and Biosphere Program” and 312,400 ha within the DDBR were included in the List of strictly protected areas in the World Heritage List under the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Convention. In 1991 Romania ratified the Ramsar Convention “on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat” and the Danube Delta was the first area in
79
Romania designated as a Ramsar site. In 2007 the Danube Delta was identified as an Important Bird Area (IBA) at the EU level, and in the context of the EU Habitat and Bird Directives (Natura 2000 network), the Romanian Government (Decision No. 1284/2007) designated the Danube Delta and the adjacent Razim-Sinoe Lagoon Complex as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the conservation of wild birds, and has also proposed most of the area as a Site of Community Importance (SCI).
The DDBR comprises both the Danube Delta itself and some neighboring areas of high biodiversity and ecological importance. The Delta itself represents the largest component of the reserve, with a total area of about 4,178 km2 (3,510 km2 within Romania, in this study referred to as the core Delta, and the remainder in Ukraine, mostly comprising a secondary delta at the mouth of the Chilia branch of the Danube River). The other parts of the DDBR include the Razim – Sinoie lagoon complex (1,145 km2), 1,030 km2 of marine waters up to the 20m bathymetric contour (isobath), 13 km2 the bed of the Danube River between Cotul Pisicii and Isaccea, and 102 km2 the floodable plain of the Danube between Isaccea and Tulcea. The Reserve’s area in Romania is located on the administrative territories of three counties: Tulcea (87.73%), Constanța (12.23%), and Galaţi (0.14%): Over 90 percent of the area is owned by the State, sub-divided into areas administered by national, county or local level bodies. Much of the poldered land administered by county or Local Councils is leased to concessionaires for agriculture, fish farming or forestry. The remaining ten percent of the area has been recently ceded to private ownership.
Table 5: Distribution of the Reserve's area in Romania by counties
Distribution of the Biosphere Reserve’s area in Romania by counties Total area: 580,000 ha, of which:
Land area: 439,508 ha
Sea area 140,492 ha
Total area in Tulcea county: 508,851 ha, (87.73%) of which Land (continental) area: 410,359 ha
Sea area: 98,492 ha
Total area in Constanța county: 70,313 ha, (12.13%) of which Land area: 28,313 ha
Sea area: 42,000 ha
Total area in Galaţi county: 836 ha, (0.14%) of which Land area, including Ostrovul Prut (62 ha): 836 ha.
In keeping with the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve model for nature conservation and ecologically sustainable management, the DDBR’s territory is divided in different zones:
20 strictly protected areas, which represent about 8.7% (50,904 ha) of the total area of the DDBR, and are representative for the natural, land and aquatic eco-systems where the
Total Reserve area: 625,000 ha Area in Romania: 580,000 ha (2.5 % of Romania’s surface) Year of establishment: 1990 Location: between 28º 10’ 50’’ East (Cotul Pisicii), 29º 42’ 45’’ East (Sulina),
45º 27’ North (Chilia arm, km 43), 44º 20’ 40’’ North (Capul Midia)
80
environment is intended to be pristine and many of the most sensitive species are concentrated. In these areas, only activities such as research, conservation and maintenance are permitted;
13 buffer areas, which represent about 223,300 ha (38.5%) – areas established around strictly protected areas, intended to reduce the impact of the human activities on the strictly protected areas. In these areas permitted activities include research, commercial fishing, collection of reeds and other living natural resources using traditional methods, and ecotourism;
Economic zones, which cover about 306,100 ha (52.8%) – are areas where settlements and mainly traditional economic activities are permitted, compatible with sustainable management and development of the area’s natural resources. The areas that had been converted into polders for agriculture, fish farms and forestry in the past now fall within the Economic Zones. Some of these have been designated as areas for ecological restoration within the DDBR Management Plan.
The most significant physical and ecological feature of the DDBR is its vast expanse of wetlands, including freshwater marsh, lakes and ponds, streams and channels. Most of the DD plain is either permanently under water or flooded for several months of the year (in Spring and early Summer). Only a small part of the DD area (about 150 km2) is permanently dry. The marsh vegetation constitutes the largest intact reed bed in the world (about 284,000 ha of primarily Phragmites spp), divided into fixed vegetation and floating reed islands (plaur). There are also 688 lakes with a total area of 31,262 ha (9.3% of the total DD surface area), and about 3500 km of creeks and channels. As a largely natural wetland, the DD is a system in dynamic equilibrium, constantly changing as a result of seasonal dynamics and geomorphic influences, particularly the transport of sediment from the entire Danube River basin. Progressive deposition of sediment leading to siltation of water bodies and eventually the formation of new land, is a natural process in any wetland, but the rate and pattern of the deposition in the DD has been significantly modified by human activity, particularly the straightening of streams and the creation of artificial channels.
Though relatively small, the forested areas in the DDBR are ecologically and economically important. The “forest fund” within the DDBR comprises 22,656 ha and consists of all the areas under the jurisdiction of the National Forest Administration (Romsilva-Tulcea Forest Division), including areas of forests, plots of land destined for re/afforestation and other areas serving the needs of forest administration, production and culture. There are, in addition, approximately 3,000 ha of predominantly woody vegetation (trees and shrubs) located outside the registered forest fund, in the seasonally flooded areas of the DDBR. The total area of terrestrial forest (associations of trees and shrubs) is 15,377 ha, of which 8,845 ha (57%) are planted forests and 6,532 ha (43%) are natural forests, mainly species of willows (osier). This proportion is expected to change over time as the planted forests are being harvested and the DDBRA is encouraging the regeneration of natural forests. The Letea Forest represents the largest and most intact area of natural forest, with other patches found in areas such as the Caraorman natural levee deposits and in the meadows of the Chilia and Sfântu Gheorghe branches. The majority of the forest area (73%) is designated for protective functions, while 27% is used for wood production (95% soft wood, 5% hard wood), mainly through harvesting the annual growth. Both the National Forest Administration and private companies are engaged in wood harvesting.
The DDBR provides ecological services and functions that are essential for preserving globally significant biodiversity, for protection of the Black Sea, and for the local economy and livelihoods. The unique importance of the DDBR for global biodiversity conservation is well recognized. Its more than 30 ecosystems are home to almost 1700 species of plants (including the economically valuable reeds and many other species harvested for medicinal and other uses) and about 3800 species of animals, including 300 bird species and over 130 fish species. The local economy is largely based on the Delta’s
81
rich and abundant fish fauna (over 130 species), which also attracts birds from many parts of the world including the Mongolian, Arctic and Siberian eco-regions. Almost 180 species of birds breed within the DD—a larger number than in any other European delta—with another approximately 140 bird species regularly found in the area, 97 of which are listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, 151 under the Bonn convention on migratory species; 17 are globally threatened species. Particularly notable are the approximately 3500 pairs of great white pelicans, which constitute the largest breeding colony of this species in the world, along with a significant proportion of the world population of Dalmatian Pelicans – both listed as endangered species. The majority of the world populations of two other highly endangered species – the red-breasted goose and the pygmy cormorant – spend part of the year in the DDBR. About 60 percent of the fish species in the DD are freshwater species, while the remainder, including several endangered species of sturgeon, migrates from the Black Sea, through the DD into the Danube basin. Overall the DD provides an essential spawning and nursery area for enormous numbers of fish, including several of great economic importance. It is also one of the last remaining refuges for species such as the European mink, wild cats, otters, wild boar and jackals. In addition to its significance for biodiversity and local communities, the DD plays an essential role in reducing the destructive eutrophication of the Black Sea. Approximately 50 million tons of suspended solids, together with large quantities of nutrients and a wide array of heavy metals and other pollutants, move down the Danube River to the DD each year, where much of it is retained through physical and biological processes. As discussed below, however, the effectiveness of this buffering function of the DD has been reduced in recent decades due to the construction of manmade channels which allow water to pass quickly through the DD to the Black Sea without filtration.
b) Issues / Constraints
While the DDBR is largely meeting its objectives for conservation of biodiversity (particularly birds), the picture is less positive with respect to its ecological systems and the sustainable use of natural resources. While comprehensive, up-to-date data on flora and fauna of the DD are lacking30, surveys of high conservation interest (particularly water birds) indicate that populations appear to be stable, including maintenance of substantial breeding colonies. However, while the status of populations of commercially valuable fish species is unclear due to the lack of reliable monitoring data (see section on fisheries), they are generally reported by both commercial and sport fishermen as having declined significantly in recent years. Other notable and damaging trends include accelerated siltation and eutrophication of a number of the Delta lakes and in some adjacent areas of the Black Sea, along with associated algal blooms. This deterioration in the environmental status of the DD is due to both historical and ongoing factors, as discussed below.
Negative consequences of past development actions
Economic activities and infrastructure development in the DD have reduced the extent of its natural areas and diminished its natural resources and ecological functions. Construction of artificial channels (intended to enhance water flow and increase fish production) began in 1903. Construction of artificial channels continued in later years for both hydrological and access purposes. In the 1960’s-70’s there was large-scale harvesting of reeds for paper manufacturing. However, the greatest negative impact on the DD ecosystem came during the 1960’s-1980’s in the form of “land reclamation,” which involved the construction of dikes and dams to prevent the seasonal flooding of selected areas, creating artificial dry land for agriculture, fish farming and forestry use. This land transformation and hydrological disruption has had serious negative impacts on the DD ecology and biodiversity. Areas important for fish
30
A detailed flora and fauna survey of the DD is expected to begin soon, with funding from the EU, as part of a program to prepare an Integrated Management Plan for the DDBR, including Natura 2000 areas.
82
reproduction and as feeding and refuge areas for other fauna were destroyed and natural brooks and lakes were partially or completely blocked (e.g. Sontea, Lipoveni and Litcov streams; Furtuna, Uzlina, Puiu-Rosu Lakes), significantly altering water circulation patterns, particularly in the case of north/south channels which are perpendicular to the natural west-to-east flow across the delta. These changes affected the internal delta ecosystem and diminished its ability to retain sediments, nutrients and pollutants. While it previously acted as a natural buffer for the Black Sea, now it is less able to do so since a larger proportion of the Danube water flows quickly straight through artificial channels without passing through the natural wetland filtration process. The channels have also created artificial connections between water bodies and flooded areas, increasing nutrient entry into the traditionally nutrient-poor lakes of the DD, creating eutrophication, leading to decrease in dissolved oxygen, and resulting in a nearly 50% reduction in the species richness and surface area of the submerged aquatic plants that formerly dominated most of the shallow lakes. This created conditions for rapid growth of phytoplankton, including destructive algal blooms. Another effect is a significant reduction in aquatic invertebrates such as bottom-dwelling oligochaete worms, which are essential to the nutrient and energy cycles on which fish and other organisms depend. While it is difficult to distinguish it from the impacts of over-exploitation, these ecological changes have certainly played an important role in reducing fish populations and changing the fish species composition. Physical developments within the DD have also reduced its ability to attenuate incoming floods by spreading the water across large areas. The highly destructive programs of poldering and channel construction came to an end in 1989, but their legacy and impact remains, as only a small proportion of the polders have been “re-naturalized” to wetland and many of the artificial channels are actively maintained through dredging because residents and enterprises have come to rely on them.
Changes in the Danube River Basin upstream have also contributed to current ecological problems in the Danube Delta. By the start of this century, an estimated 80% of the former floodplains throughout the Danube basin have been lost, mainly through draining for agriculture and development (95% of the original floodplains lost in the Upper Danube, 75% in the Middle Danube, 72% in Lower Danube, and 30% in the Delta). Sediment transport in the Danube River has been influenced both by the construction of numerous large reservoirs that trap the sediments (decreasing sediment moving downstream) and by the loss of floodplains and erosion due to agriculture and infrastructure development (increased sediment moving downstream), with the latter apparently dominating as the volume of sediment carried to the DD is estimated to be about 70% lower today than it was prior to the wave of dam constructions. One impact has been a reduction in silica loads, which has resulted in a shift from delta phytoplankton communities dominated by diatoms towards those dominated by other forms, such as flagellates, which in turn stimulates algal blooms. Both processes have interfered with the natural seasonality of sediment flows to which the delta ecosystem is adapted. Pollutant and nutrient loads (particularly Nitrogen and Phosphorous) in the Danube peaked in the 1980’s, but have more recently been significantly reduced due to improved wastewater management throughout the Danube basin, along with the disappearance of many polluting industries after the 1990s. While this threat has thus declined, it remains significant. For example, an estimated 30 tons of mercury are deposited in the DD each year, with another 30-40 tons passing to the Black Sea, and mussels in the DD continue to contain elevated concentrations of heavy metals.
Impacts of recent and current development and economic activity
The remaining wetland areas and biological resources are threatened by unsustainable exploitation and environmentally damaging infrastructure development. The impacts of overfishing and expansion of exotic species is discussed in the section on Fisheries. Overgrazing, particularly involving sheep, also appears to be an issue in some areas (the grazing impact of cattle and of feral horses is hotly debated).
83
Water pollution from pesticides and fertilizers used in the agricultural polders is another concern that is raised by some stakeholders, although data on the extent of the use and impact are generally lacking. While the wholesale construction of artificial channels and dikes ceased in the late 1980’s, there is pressure from residents to maintain the already existing infrastructure. This includes dredging of channels which can lead to rapid siltation of lakes, particularly if (due to limited budget) the silt is only displaced rather than being physically removed. In some areas there are demands for reinforcement/ raising and even construction of additional flood protection works around new or restored residential areas and tourism facilities. Unplanned and in many cases unlicensed construction of buildings, many of them for tourism purposes, is a relatively new but increasingly urgent issue particularly where they encroach on buffer zones or even into strictly protected areas. More generally, it adds to the problem of inadequate infrastructure to deal with solid waste and wastewater. The rapid development of wind farms in areas surrounding the DD (not within the DDBR, where they are prohibited) presents another new but growing concern, increasingly interfering with flight paths for birds entering and leaving the Delta.
Management Objectives, Constraints and Trade-offs
The threats and challenges to the DD ecological systems discussed above are generally recognized, but action to address them is constrained by differing perspectives and conflicting priorities, needs and interests among local residents and other important stakeholders. As for all Biosphere Reserves, the management objectives of the DDBR include conservation of biodiversity, research and education, sustainable management of natural resources and providing a good quality of life and economic development opportunities for its residents. This is an ambitious agenda and very challenging to achieve in practice. Managing an area for both nature protection and conservation involves balancing the needs and priorities of different interest groups within realistic physical, economic and ecological parameters while seeking common ground where possible and compromise where necessary. Among the residents and stakeholders of the DDBR, there are a number of potentially conflicting objectives relating to key issues such as natural resource management (exploitation vs. conservation), economic activities, hydrology, sediment and flood management, and infrastructure development, particularly in relation to access and transport and (increasingly) to energy. In principle all stakeholders are likely to agree that economic activity and social development in the DD is desirable, but also that it should be sustainable and should not damage the delta’s underlying ecological values. However, stakeholders frequently disagree on allowable and sustainable off-take limits, access and appropriate allocation of resources, the importance of short-vs.-long term objectives and, overall, the balance between ecological and economic priorities. As the administrator of the DDBR on behalf of the Government, the DDBR Authority (see next section) is responsible for striking this balance, setting and enforcing restrictions on natural resource use, issuing (or withholding) permits for proposed works or enterprises, etc. Not surprisingly, some stakeholders consider the DDBRA’s management actions too restrictive while others find it too permissive.
Key examples of pressing conflicts and issues in the DDBR include:
Restriction vs. Access to Territory and Resources. A substantial part of the area formerly used by local communities for commercial fishing and habitation is now unavailable to them, either as a result of conversion to agricultural and forestry polders and fish farms controlled by private concessionaires, or by being included in the 51,000 ha of the DDBR’s strictly protected zones. A very significant portion of DDBR buffer zone (223,000 ha) is off-limits to any physical development and subject to fairly restrictive limitations in terms of permissible economic activities. Even in the remaining Economic Zones, access to the crucial fisheries resources has become restricted and controlled by others through a system of fishing licenses, quotas, area
84
concessions, and designated fish buying points. As argued by van Assche et al. (2011), despite the stated objective of harmonizing environmental protection and sustainable economic development, the establishment and operation of the DDBR, since its creation, has generally been “…marked by privatized common pool resources, criminalized traditional livelihoods, and lacking citizen participation.” All this is further complicated by the area’s depressed economy, the perception that the needs of animals such as fish-eating birds are prioritized over the peoples’ needs and the perception of widespread corruption and selective enforcement on the part of authorities. With this background it is not surprising if local residents resent the limitations imposed on their activities and see the Ministry of Environment, national and international environmentalists/conservationists and the DDBRA as alien forces aligned against them, or consider it acceptable, even admirable, to resist and evade this outside control. At the same time, some limitations on access, development and resource exploitation are clearly essential if the DD’s ecosystems and biological resources are to survive over the long term. The key question is how to engage the resource users, particularly local communities, in supporting reasonable limitations. This challenge is discussed in the “Institutional and Governance Framework” section below.
Ecological restoration (“re-naturalization) vs. maintaining artificially created agricultural, aquaculture and forest area (polders). As noted above, almost 100,000 ha (about 30%) of the original wetland area of the DDBR was isolated from the natural hydrological system for the establishment of agricultural and forestry polders and fish ponds. Both the DDBR Law and DDBR Management Plans identify ecological restoration of much of these areas as a priority. The first restoration project in 1994 restored 2100 ha in the Babina agricultural polder, and as of today just over 15,000 ha have been restored by removing barriers to water flow. While this is a substantial achievement it is far less than the 60,000 ha called for in the 2011 amendment to the law and the 2007-2012 DDBRA Management Plan. DDBRA has not been able to undertake further re-naturalization because the remaining poldered areas are under the legal jurisdiction of County or Local Councils, which have so far not agreed to restoration of any of the areas under their control. This is understandable considering that re-naturalization would not only terminate the current economic uses of these areas along with the associated tax revenues, but would also presumably involve returning these areas to the administration of DDBRA on behalf of the State. If the DDBRA is to continue ecological restoration activities, as mandated by law, it appears to be necessary to change the current structure of economic and political incentives, so that the County and Local Councils either directly benefit from the restoration of the areas within the DDBR currently under their administration, or that conversion and transfer of these areas does not represent a significant economic and/or political loss to them. Various options might be explored, such as reviewing subsidy programs that help to make agriculture viable in these areas, “environmental concessions” to compete with agricultural and aquaculture concessions, and “payment for environmental services” schemes whereby landowners are remunerated for dedicating their land to ecological uses.
Flood and sediment control—natural vs. engineering approaches: Like all river deltas, the DD is naturally subject to large seasonal variations in the inflow of water and sediment, including flooding during the Spring and early Summer. Under natural conditions the flood waters spread across most of the surface area of the delta, and the terrain is transformed as silt is deposited along the way. In addition to its essential role in maintaining the delta’s ecosystems and productivity, this process creates a naturally dynamic landscape as existing lakes and channels gradually fill up with silt over time and new ones are created. While the natural sediment distribution and flood dampening and retention functions of the river delta should be
85
maintained to the extent possible, there remains the need for some artificial measures to protect established residences and enterprises from excessive flooding and to maintain access to settlements, markets, fishing areas, etc. Therefore, the DDBRA engages in activities such as constructing flood protection dikes and de-silting of channels. In the highly complex hydrological system of the delta, predicting the impacts of such interventions requires sophisticated models and accurate, up-to-date data on sediment loads and distribution, water speed and depth, etc. Aside from the technical challenge, it can also be difficult to balance the conflicting interests of different stakeholders. For example, construction of a dike to protect a settlement or other infrastructure can block water from reaching important fishery areas, and closing off a canal to reduce siltation of a lake can at the same time impede the fishermen’s access to their fishing areas. This seems to be an aspect of management of the DD which will require ongoing negotiation and compromise.
Fish offtake limits and allocation: Fishing has long been and continues to be the major economic activity in the DD, engaging over 40% of the population in some way and representing the only significant economic activity in many locations. As discussed in the section on the Fisheries sector above, this includes a small number of commercial fishing firms, about 1500 individual local licensed commercial fishermen, the owners of fish-sale centers (cherhana), local families (allowed to fish up to 3 kg of fish per day per household member), sports fishing operators, and tourists. A few specialized interest groups such as aqua-culturists, for example, sturgeon breeders and scientists, are also allowed to take small numbers of fish for breeding and research purposes. The DDBRA sets quotas, in consultation with the Romanian Academy of Sciences, for commercial and family fishing, based on annual monitoring of populations of the commercial fish species. As the quantity and quality of fish stocks has been declining in recent years, there has inevitably been competition among the different fishing interests for the remaining fish, as well as pressure on DDBRA to increase fishing quotas particularly on the most commercially valuable species. However, DDBRA also has the mandate and a constituency for maintaining healthy aquatic ecosystems including viable populations of other species that can be affected by declining fish numbers. One example is fish-eating birds, including a number of endangered and protected species. While conservationists and tourism operators are concerned about maintaining large local populations of these species, fishermen are increasingly regarding them as too numerous as the size of their own catch decreases. While ecological restoration and other measures aimed at increasing the overall fish populations could help reduce the intensity to some extent, there will almost certainly always be competition over the allocation of this economically valuable resource. It is important to maximize the ability of DDBRA and others to monitor fish populations accurately and establish and enforce effective quotas based on a sound technical and ecological basis. Decisions on how to allocate the resource among different interest groups will be largely political, so the emphasis should be on promoting an effective and transparent decision-making process. This could include helping decision-makers define strategic options and priorities in an inclusive and transparent manner, providing data and analytical models to help stakeholders and decision-makers understand the short and long term implications of different alternatives, and strengthening the capacity of weaker or less well organized stakeholders to define and represent their interests effectively.
Tourism as an environmentally sustainable option for economic development: As discussed in a previous section, nature-oriented tourism is generally seen as an attractive avenue for economic development for local communities in and around Biosphere Reserves and other protected areas. However, in the absence of a clear and accepted strategy and careful planning, regulation and support, there is no guarantee that tourism will be ecologically friendly or that
86
local communities will capture any significant economic benefit from it. In fact, it could easily exacerbate existing problems of resource scarcity, solid waste management, conflict and competition among stakeholders, cost of living, etc. In the DDBR, exploration of the options and potential for tourism needs to take into consideration specific issues such as: whether any part of the currently strictly protected areas should be made available to (carefully controlled) tourism; whether local residents should be given special access or rights (e.g. to guide birdwatchers or sport fishermen in restricted areas) to help them compete with initially more competitive outsiders; the nature and location of any public infrastructure aimed at increasing tourist numbers; etc.
Institutional Framework and Governance
The institutional framework for management of the DDBR is complex and sometimes ambiguous, with a number of different national and local institutions with diverse and sometimes overlapping responsibilities and legal mandates, some at parallel levels within the government hierarchy and some subordinated to others. This presents a number of challenges as different elements of the landscape, ecosystem, resources and human populations of the Reserve for which the different institutions are responsible, are all themselves interconnected and interdependent. While the need for common objectives, effective coordination and clear and regular communication among the actors is therefore clear, the situation in reality is far from this ideal. It also means that residents and other stakeholders can easily become confused as to which institution has the responsibility and authority for which aspects of management, making it more difficult for them to raise concerns and seek explanations or redress for grievances.
The most visible and broad-based institution in the management framework is the DDBR Authority, which bears responsibility for maintaining the essential dual nature and quality of the Biosphere Reserve. The DDBRA was created in 1993, in Article 5 of law No. 82/7 which established the DDBR along with its own administration and scientific board. This was followed by Government Decision 248/1994 which defined the DDBRA’s structure and attributions, including the establishment of the “Environmental Guard” section of the DDBRA. From the beginning, the DDBRA was given the very challenging mission of: “…creating and applying a special regime of management in order to conserve and protect the biodiversity in the natural ecosystems of the reserve, to develop human settlements and to organize economic activities in correlation with the support capacity of these ecosystems.” This mission echoes the principles and objectives of a Biosphere Reserve (BR), as set out in the UNESCO “Man and the Biosphere Program,” which are to support both protection of biodiversity and ecosystems and local economic development based on sustainable use of natural resources. This is achieved in part by subdividing the Reserve into the three different functional areas (strictly protected, buffer and economic/transition zones), so that some parts of the territory are focused primarily on nature conservation and others primarily on supporting peoples’ livelihoods and sustainable economic development.
Local residents’ attitude towards the DDBR reflects their dissatisfactions with both its mandate and its operations. Certain restrictions and limitations are an intrinsic element of a Biosphere Reserve but, as noted above, many local residents are not really reconciled to them. As the responsible authority, the DDBRA is the entity that enforces the exclusivity of strictly protected zones and imposes restrictions on economic activities in the buffer areas and even in the designated economic zones. It’s perceived role is largely one of restriction, regulation and taxation (e.g. issuing or withholding environmental permits required for construction or other development, collecting license and entry fees, ejecting hunters and fishermen from the protected areas, etc.). While the DDBRA is also responsible for supporting sustainable economic development, it is generally not seen as doing this by the local communities. Its
87
community relations activities are focused mainly on awareness raising and education about the ecology and biodiversity of the DD, not on supporting community enterprises or development activities. And while the DDBRA is responsible for maintaining infrastructure such as dikes and canals, it lacks the resources to meet more than a minimal amount of the residents’ demands for these services. They largely seem to regard DDBRA mainly as the agent of national and international interests (particularly environmental NGOs) that are concerned only with nature protection and not with their needs or aspirations.
Local communities have minimal participation in DDBR management and little incentive to support it. The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve model places a strong emphasis not only on the balance between conservation and sustainable development objectives, but also on the active participation of local communities in decision-making and management, particularly of the natural resources that they depend upon. However, from the earliest days of the DDBR, local and international stakeholders have raised concerns about the low priority accorded to the needs of local communities and the lack of local consultation and participation. While DDBRA Management negotiates and consults with County and Local Councils on many management decisions, it is not clear to what extent local residents feel they are represented in this process, or feel their priorities and needs are seriously considered. A purely enforcement-based approach to nature protection is generally not effective or sustainable, given the perennial shortage of resources and continual pressures that Protected Areas authorities typically must contend with. This is particularly true in the case of a vast area such as the DDBR. Experience indicates that the best and perhaps only lasting path to sustainable nature conservation is to involve local communities, and based on interviews and comments heard, there appears to be considerable interest in principle among DD residents to have a larger role and more substantive participation in DDBR management. However, greater community participation will not contribute to better management unless the community members derive – and recognize -- concrete benefits from good management. Furthermore, at least some of these benefits must be visible in the short and medium-term. One option that could be explored is to give local households some form of ownership in the fisheries, along the lines of the “tradeable fishing quotas” and “community forestry” models that are used in many places as a way of ensuring that local communities have a direct stake in the productivity and sustainability of these natural resources. In addition to creating positive incentives for local communities to support sustainable ecosystem and natural resource management in the DD, there will likely be a need for a strong, proactive program for building communication and trust between the DDBRA and local communities, and also among the local community members themselves, as there is little history or experience of cooperative decision making and action between villages in the DD. Actual collaboration between DDBRA and local communities in natural resource management will likely need to start slowly, with small pilot projects. In most places NGOs tend to play an active role in supporting and helping to implement these kinds of pilot small projects and community capacity building activities.
Within the boundaries of the DDBR, the DDBRA is in many ways like a local government, without direct accountability to its citizens. Many Protected Areas around the world, including most Biosphere Reserves, are governed by multi-stakeholder Boards, which give them a certain level of accountability to, and legitimacy in the eyes of key stakeholders including local authorities, local communities and NGOs. When the DDBRA was first established its management was under the Scientific Council, which aimed to serve this purpose. However, this was changed with the amendment of the DDBR law in 2011, by which the Governor is appointed by the Minister, and the Scientific Council took on a purely advisory function. More recently it has been split into two advisory bodies: a Scientific Council comprised of representatives of specialist technical institutions and individual experts, and an Administrative Council comprised of representatives of local authorities and institutions. While these advisory councils play an important role and have a considerable amount of influence on DDBRA decisions, this arrangement does
88
not provide the same level of accountability to stakeholders, or the same degree of insulation from political pressures, since the DDBRA is subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and the DDBRA Governor is appointed by the Minister. Such a lack of involvement can understandably result in local residents and resource users rejecting and flouting regulations, particularly in a democratic country where citizens now expect to participate in choosing their government and shaping its laws.
The institutional framework for management of the DDBR territory and resources is complex and sometimes conflictive. County and Local Councils and other government bodies (rather than the DDBRA) are responsible for some of the restrictions and other concerns of DDBR residents, although the residents do not always make this distinction. The mandate and functions of the DDBRA exist in parallel with those of a number of other government agencies and bodies, with the lines between them sometimes overlapping or ambiguous. Of the 580,000 ha of the Romanian DDBR, 475,638 ha (82%) is administered by DDBRA on behalf of the national government, 71,292 ha (12.3%) are listed as public domain at the county level, and 28,281 ha (5%) listed at Local Councils, with the remaining 4,789 (0.8%) privately owned. The 17.3 percent controlled by County and Local Councils includes the agricultural polders and fish farms which are leased to private concessionaires and therefore unavailable to local residents as a whole. The division of responsibilities also sometimes creates tensions and conflicts in DDBR management, for example limiting DDBRA’s ability to carry out ecological restoration on much of the area designated in the law and the DDBR Management Plan. Control of other economic activities can be cumbersome due to the involvement of multiple agencies, each with a limited mandate. For example, DDBRA may license an enterprise to operate (e.g. harvesting reeds) subject to specific conditions. The National Environmental Guard is responsible for monitoring compliance, and can fine violators for breaking regulations, but cannot arrest them or stop them from operating (they must report the matter to local police or Border Police to carry out an arrest, and to DDBRA to suspend or revoke the license).
The wide range of DDBRA responsibilities might undermine its effectiveness in some respects. DDBRA’s responsibilities and functions include a regulatory role (responsible issuing of environmental permits throughout the DDBR), a land administration role (for areas within the DDBR that fall under national, as opposed to county or local jurisdiction), a conservation planning and protection role (science-based management of ecological systems and biodiversity throughout the DDBR) and an ecological education role. In many cases DDBRA obtains funding from external supporters (EU, WB, international NGOs, etc.) to help them carry out some of these many functions. This contributes to strengthen the local communities’ perception of DDBRA as an “agent” of foreign, nature-focused interest groups, making any collaboration or negotiation more difficult. Furthermore, with all these different roles, DDBRA can have a range of different and even conflicting relationships with other stakeholders, including both county and local governments and residents. The diversity of DDBRA’s roles has some potential to undermine its effectiveness through internal conflicts as well. For example, DDBRA is responsible for both the monitoring and research that forms the basis for setting annual offtake quotas and for spatial planning, and also for setting and enforcing the quotas and issuing development permits and operating licenses. Thus there is a lack of independence that could give resource users greater confidence that the quotas are truly based on solid scientific data as opposed to expediency or institutional self-interest.
At the same time, DDBRA has limited control or influence over some essential aspects of DDBR management. While DDBRA is responsible for planning and executing ecological restoration of previously converted lands, it does not own these lands and has been unable to carry out this mandate in the absence of agreement from the County and Local Councils. Similarly, the county and local governments have the responsibility for preparing spatial plans and for issuing and enforcing building
89
permits within the DDBR. DDBRA sets environmental conditions for construction in specific areas within the DDBR, and issues the required environmental permits for construction. This does not provide a sufficiently effective mechanism for ensuring the integration of ecological protection in local spatial/urban planning. DDBRA cannot take action against non-compliant structures, but only report them to the County Council. The problem of overfishing is not really within the control of DDBRA. As noted in the Section on Fisheries and Aquaculture, eight different agencies are responsible for different aspects of managing fishing.
Better cooperation among stakeholders is essential to realize the objectives of the DDBR, but will likely require significant changes in management approach. While there is an urgent need for better data (e.g. starting the planned updated flora and fauna survey as soon as possible), it seems clear that the sustainable development and local livelihoods aspects of the DDBR’s mission are not being adequately met. The protection of biodiversity, particularly with respect to aquatic and migratory birds, seems to be relatively successful at present but the increasing pressure and opposition from local communities presents a significant threat for the future, both in terms of the effectiveness of management efforts on the ground, and in terms of continued political support. The source of the opposition is not a failure on the part of local communities to understand the negative implications of continued deterioration of the DD’s ecological systems, and the impact it might have on their livelihood stability and prospects for economic development. The conflict arises from a combination of the necessity to prioritize immediate needs (for food, income, flood protection, etc.) over longer term ones, a lack of trust and confidence in the intentions, priorities, credibility and management capacity of the DDBRA, and the lack of a concrete stake in the success of the DDBR’s conservation objectives. The sustainability and long term prospects of the DDBR depend on changing the nature of the relationship between local communities, the DDBRA and other parties responsible for management of DDBR resources dynamics from mistrust and opposition to collaboration to achieve common objectives. In the past the emphasis has been on strengthening the DDBRA and other agencies’ capacity for enforcement (e.g. by increasing the number of ecological guards), but wide experience from Biosphere Reserves and other Protected Areas around the world indicate that biodiversity projection is most effective and sustainable when there is a combination of enforcement and concrete incentives for cooperation on the part of local stakeholders. The two actions most likely to create positive incentives are:
(i) increasing community participation in DDBR management, with a real role in making and implementing management decisions; and
(ii) giving local communities a direct share in the ownership of the DDBR’s resources, e.g. through a system of “tradeable fishing quotas” allocated to resident families, which they can either use or lease to others.
Increasing community participation in DDBR management will require a significant investment in awareness raising/education/outreach, community organization and capacity building. The long-time residents of the DD are intimately familiar with many aspects of its systems and resources, but reportedly have little history, experience or social systems for collaborative decision-making and action. Effective participation in natural resource management requires for example that communities have mechanisms for choosing suitable representatives and holding them accountable, for negotiating and prioritizing among the needs of different interest groups, for enforcing group decisions through social pressures and norms, etc. For example, based on experience there is a significant risk that well-connected families or individuals can capture and manipulate community decision-making processes to advance their own purposes. The necessary skills and systems take time, commitment and support to develop. At the same time there will probably be a need for institutional changes and building of awareness and skills within DDBRA to enable the organization to engage and collaborate effectively with
90
local communities. The aging nature of the DD population presents both a challenge and an opportunity for working towards greater community capacity and responsibility for DDBR management. On the one hand the popular approach of awareness raising through school programs might not be very effective with a very small school age population and, most likely a continuation of the trend for young adults to leave the area in search of better economic opportunities elsewhere. On the other hand, the cadre of older, respected community members provides a good target for awareness raising and leadership building, particularly if it helps to enhance their social position and influence within their communities. NGO’s such as WWF and the Romanian Ornithological Society can be useful allies in community capacity building as well as building bridges between local communities and Protected Area authorities. Although these organizations tend to be viewed negatively by DDBR residents, who see them as promoting nature and wildlife over local livelihoods and development, in reality they usually have a strong institutional commitment to the “community conservation” approach, seeing it as essential for the long-term survival of protected areas, and they have already initiated small pilot projects with a few local communities in the DDBR.
91
7.1.2. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Table 6: Environment and Environmental Management SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Strong national and international commitment, support and legal protection
- High biological diversity value, highly productive ecosystem, large part intact
- Stakeholders agree corrective action, common vision is needed
- Strong local technical expertise and experience - Local population with good knowledge of and
strong attachment to DD - Reduced nutrient and chemical pollution from
Danube basin in recent years
- Legacy of past environmental damage: impacts on fisheries, siltation
- Insufficient data and models to manage complex, dynamic ecosystem
- Tension between short term needs vs. long term sustainable development objectives
- Complex institutional structure controlling DD territory and resources
- Local population has limited trust, little incentive to accept restrictions
- Little local culture or experience of collective action for resource management
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Good ecotourism potential (unique assets) - Ecological restoration relatively easy from
technical perspective, and limited opportunity cost
- Vast and productive ecosystem, low human population = potential for sustainable natural resource use
- EU Interest (source of technical guidance, financial support)
- Technical tools are available for improving data collection, planning, monitoring
- Potential for greater local participation in resource management and benefits
- Increased pressure on fish resources from export market
- Impacts of ecological restoration on local revenues, employment
- Conflicting interests /priorities of different stakeholders (many management requires trade-offs, compromise)
- Difficult to engage widely dispersed, aging community in new approaches and opportunities
- External threats not under local control (i.e. upstream changes, cross-border issues, climate change )
- Replacement of long-time residents by outsiders lacking knowledge of DD
92
7.1.3. Conclusions
Biodiversity is largely maintained by the current protection efforts but ecological systems show decline. The DDBR is largely meeting its objectives for conservation of globally significant biodiversity, especially birds. But the picture is less positive with respect to maintaining the ecological systems and natural resources. These systems underlie local livelihoods and prospects for sustainable economic development such as fishing. While the reliability of monitoring data is uncertain, there is a general consensus that the populations of commercially valuable fish species are declining. This is a result of reduction of wetland habitat, over-exploitation, and the spread of exotic species. Other damaging environmental trends are accelerated siltation and eutrophication along with the associated algal blooms of a number of the deltaic lakes and some adjacent areas to the Black Sea. The environmental decline is due in part to historical factors, such as large-scale habitat transformation. There are also ongoing factors, such as illegal fishing and unlicensed construction. The pressures leading to these negative trends are expected to continue. The capacity and effectiveness of the DDBR Authority (DDBRA) and other stakeholders needs to be strengthened in order to improve ecological conditions. Strengthening steps could include both technical and institutional aspects. Technical improvements are better data monitoring and analytical tools and models. Institutional initiatives should address building trust and collaboration among different agencies and stakeholders. Mechanisms to identify solutions and to negotiate compromises need to be strengthened.
The institutional structure for managing the DDBR territory is complex and insufficiently coordinated which might hinder conservation efforts. This is an obstacle to achieving the goals of ecological conservation and environmentally sustainable development. A number of national and local agencies have significant, and sometimes overlapping or conflicting roles. Most significantly, of the 580,000 ha within the DDBR, about 12.3 percent is owned by the Tulcea County Council and 5% by the Local Councils. This includes the poldered areas that are leased to private concessionaires for agriculture, aquaculture and forestry use. These overlapping roles can make it very difficult to agree upon and implement important management decisions such as identifying areas for ecological restoration. The DDBRA itself has a wide range of responsibilities and functions. These are: (a) regulation (issuing of environmental permits); (b) land administration (for DDBR areas not under county or local jurisdiction); (c) conservation planning and protection; and (d) ecological education. In practice, local residents primarily notice DDBRA’s role in setting and enforcing restrictions on access and resource use.
Successful management of protected areas requires close collaboration with local stakeholders. The DDBRA is subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. A multi-stakeholder board usually directs many biosphere reserves and other protected areas. DDBRA also frequently relies on financial and political support from environmental NGOs and other national and international bodies. DDBRA is often viewed as the “agent” of external, nature-focused interest groups with little regard for quality of life for local residents. Based on wide international experience, the management of protected areas is most successful when there is a combination of enforcement and collaboration with local stakeholders. This requires both building trust among the parties and concrete positive incentives for cooperation. Typically this means: (a) a meaningful role in management; and (b) a direct stake in the sustainability of the natural resources for the local stakeholders.
93
7.2. Climate Change
Climate change will have a far-reaching impact on the earth. In addition to the on-going trend of global warming, climate change will pose a serious threat to human lives, economic development, and the planet itself, on which human survival depends. Like all other countries, Romania is not immune to climate change. The Danube Delta area is particularly vulnerable to the change.
Tackling the destructive effects of global warming is a global priority. Managing global warming is a two-fold challenge for most countries: mitigation of GHG emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. Controlling global warming will require action at international, national and local levels. The European Union (EU) is a leading force in international efforts to tackle climate change. The EU is committed to the development of a climate resilient and low-carbon economy. It has installed some of the world’s most ambitious climate and energy targets and passed binding legislation to ensure that they are achieved.
As an EU member state, Romania has made a commitment to combating global warming. The Romanian government has established its goals for GHG emissions reduction and climate adaptation, developed its national climate change strategy, both in terms of mitigation and adaptation, and it is obligated to implement actions tackling climate change. It is required that climate action be reflected not only in national but also in local development programs. Development activities in DD need to address climate change.
7.2.1. Current situation
a) Characteristics
The impact of climate change has already been felt in Romania. 2007 was Romania’s warmest year in two decades (average temperature 11.5° C), while the coldest average temperature (8.4°C) was registered in 1985. In 2005, Romania suffered from historic floods which caused 76 deaths and significant property damage, and 2007 brought the country’s most severe drought in the last 60 years. The effects of these extreme weather events adversely affected the country through economic loss in agriculture, water management, energy supply, and transport. In a scenario of increased global warming by 4°C, the challenges and impacts of climate change would certainly cause further deterioration in Romania.
Climate Patterns
Within the last 100 years, Romania has seen an increase in temperature and an accompanying decrease in precipitation. Romania has a transitional temperate-continental climate, and the average temperature in the Danube Delta region, for example, is 10-12°C. The mean annual air temperature rose by 0.8°C between 1901 and 2012. As for the precipitation, the analysis of the data recorded during the same interval revealed a decrease in the annual amount of precipitation (23.6 mm) 31. The Figures below show the changes.
31
“Romania’s Sixth National Communication on Climate Change and First Biennial Report” (NCCC) Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, 2013
94
Figure 39: Multiannual mean changes (2011-2040 vs. 1916-1990): in air temperature (in °C on the left) and in in precipitation (in % on the right)
Source: Romania’s First Biennial Report to the UNFCC.32
The same trends are expected to continue and accelerate during the XXI century. Long term, the mean temperature increase for Romania is expected to be about 3°C to 4°C for summer months in the interval 2061-2090 compared with the interval 1961-1990. In terms of precipitation, a reduction of mean rainfall in summer months, more pronounced for higher emission scenarios, and stronger as we approach the end of the 21st century, is expected. More intense and localized rainfall events are likely though rainfall patterns may become more chaotic and difficult to predict.
Large changes in seasonality are also projected, with Romania anticipating lower flows in summer and higher flows in winter. As a consequence, droughts and water stress are expected to increase, particularly in summer. Flood events are projected to occur more frequently in many river basins, particularly in winter and spring, although estimates of changes in flood frequency and magnitude remain uncertain. In general, the range of climate change impacts across Romania includes a likely increase in cold spells, heat waves, heavy floods, landslides, damaging frost, and the formation of ice-dams on watercourses.
The Danube Delta will be significantly impacted by the rise in average annual temperature and the increased frequency of extreme weather events. Air temperature will rise by an average of 1.5oC by 205033, which leads to higher evaporation, more extremely hot days, and a significant decrease of the snow cover period. Part of the study area, as part of the Dobrogea region, is even considered to be subject to the threat of desertification34. Projections have also shown that the changes in mean temperature and precipitation occur along with changes in extreme phenomena statistics, including the increased prevalence of draughts, flash floods, rainstorms, hail, etc.
The rise in the level of the Black Sea is of even larger concern due to its interaction with the other hydro-meteorological factors. The observed impact of climate change across Europe has been: an overall rise in sea levels in most coastal areas; changes to freshwater systems such as a decrease in river flows in the south and east; and an increase in reported flood events. Romania has estimated that the Black Sea level will rise by between 12-25 mm/year, or up to a 0.5 m by 2050 in a negative scenario35. The Black Sea is nearly enclosed and has relatively low salinity levels (12-19 ppt) 36 and tides. However, when compounded by the increased intensity and frequency of flash floods and rainstorms, it is possible
32
Ibid. 33
„Vulnerability of the Danube Delta Region to Climate Change,” Oleg Diakov, Ph.D.; Natalia Zakorchevnaya, Ph.D.; Mikhail Nesterenko; Oleksandra Kovbasko; Mikhail Zhmud, Ph.D.; Leonid Plotnitskiy, December 2012 34
National Strategy for the mitigation of the drought effect, preventing and combating land degradation and desertification in the short, mean and long range, Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2008 35
”Vulnerability of the Danube Delta Region to Climate Change”, 2012 36
Oceanographic prognosis by the National Research Institute for Marine Development “Grigore Antipa”
95
there will be increased coastal erosion, loss of freshwater fauna and flora, and significant damage to the costal infrastructure and settlements.
The Danube River and Danube Delta ecosystems are also affected by changes upstream, such as pollution and the manipulation of water discharge, sediment runoff in the Danube, and so on. This is something that is already seen, according to the Lower Danube River Administration, with reduced water depths, meaning that the number of days during which navigation restrictions are implemented is increasing.
EU Requirements for and Romania’s Commitment to Addressing Climate Change
The EU has taken a leading role in terms of climate change policies and set up ambitious targets to tackle climate change. As a leading force in international efforts to tackle climate change, the European Union (EU) is committed to becoming a highly energy-efficient, low-carbon economy. It has installed some of the world’s most ambitious climate and energy targets to date, which are due to be implemented by 2020, and the EU is the first region to have passed binding legislation to ensure that they are achieved. The EU’s climate and energy package outlines the "20-20-20 targets.” It is binding legislation, approved in December 2008, to ensure that the EU achieves a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, raises the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 percent, and improves energy efficiency by 20 percent. EU also recently proposed scenarios for 2030 targets as an intermediate step between the 20-20-20 goal of 2020 targets and the ambitious 80 to 95% reduction objectives of the 2050 Roadmap. This proposal includes specific targets of 40% reduction in GHG emissions, and higher shares of renewable energy (around 30%), energy efficiency improvements, and better and smarter energy infrastructure in investments by 2030.
The planning for low-carbon green growth policies for the 2014-2020 EC programming period is currently well underway. The programming in the next cycle of sectoral Operational Programs (OPs) needs to reflect and integrate climate action on mitigation and adaptation. The European Council determined in February 2013 that the Multiannual Financial Framework will mainstream climate objectives, stating that “Climate action objectives will represent at least 20 percent of EU spending in the period 2014-2020, and therefore be reflected in the appropriate instruments to ensure that they contribute to strengthening energy security, building a low-carbon, resource efficient and climate resilient economy that will enhance Europe's competitiveness, and create more and greener jobs.”
Romanian goals and commitments are as ambitious as the EU ones. The following table summarizes the EU 2020 targets and Romania’s 2020 agreed targets as well as its current status.
Table 6: Agreed GHG targets and current status
GHG Emissions Renewable Energy Energy Efficiency
EU 2020 target Reduce emissions by
20% by 2020, compared to 1990
RE sources contribute to 20% of final energy
consumption
Reduce primary energy consumption from the
baseline by 20%
Romania 2020 target Reduce emissions by
20% by 2020, compared to 1990
RE sources contribute to 24% of final energy
consumption
Reduce primary energy consumption from the
baseline by 19%
Romania actual status in 2012
Actual emissions are down by 52% in 2011,
compared to 1990
RE accounts for 20.8% of final energy
consumption
Actual primary energy consumption is down by 16.6% from the baseline
96
In addition, Romania will have new targets for non-Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) sectors. The previously established positive limit established for non-EU ETS sector (+19% compared to 2005), is being deconstructed, as of October 2013, through Decision 406/2009/EC, which has set national GHG emissions limits across non-ETS sectors, such as transport, agriculture and waste. These new requirements are reflected in the need for more extensive sectoral monitoring of GHG emissions. These responsibilities will have implications for project management and reporting within line ministries and soon enough for the local level as well.
The Commission has required that, during the 2014-2020 programing period, 20% of European funds be spent on tackling climate change, which is reflected in the structure of several operational programs. Climate change related policy priorities are particularly present in the OPs for Large Infrastructure, Regional Development, and Agriculture-Rural Development. The Romanian Regional Operational Program (ROP), for example, specified two mitigation aligned investment priorities: 3.1 Supporting energetic efficiency and the use of renewable energy in the public infrastructure, including in public buildings and in the housing sector; and 3.2 Promotion of strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions for all types of territories, in particular urban areas, including the promotion of sustainable mobility plans and of relevant steps for diminishing adjustments. Investments in projects driven by these priorities can be financed through the ITI instrument. However, it is still too early to know the exact allocation of the EU budget by type of fund and thematic objective.
National Legislation and Strategies
Romania ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and committed to reduce its GHG emissions. Since then it has been working to develop and implement coherent policies on climate change, including maintaining a GHG inventory, yearly reporting to the UNFCC of GHG emissions and the necessary legislation for the mechanisms under Articles 6, 12 and 17 of the Protocol. Romania has mainly used the Joint implementation mechanism and the UNFCC monitoring and verification requirements have been reinforced and amplified through EU legislation.
The Romanian Government recently approved a 2013-2020 National Climate Change Strategy with both adaptation and mitigation components, after its first national climate change strategy and action plan was adopted in 2005. Romania is working with the World Bank through an Advisory Service Program to operationalize its national climate change strategy and action plan and to ensure the integration of climate actions into sectoral operational programs.
However, there are no regional and local development strategies or programs explicitly addressing climate change concerns. Driven by an international agenda and EU, the climate-related concern and actions are primarily seen at the national level. Currently, little attention has been given by local governments, including those in DD, to addressing climate change. At the moment any local strategies that refer to climate change generally consider it a general environmental background, and do not employ the broader cross-sectoral thinking, policy instruments, and financial mechanisms climate change action is associated with in successful low carbon economies.
b) Issues and constraints
Institutional issues
Romania is making progress in addressing climate change, but there is much room for improvement institutionally. Coordination among government agencies over climate change is weak. Communication and data sharing among agencies are low and there is a lack of capacity for integrating and implementing climate action at the national and local government levels. Even though there is a high level of expertise among the researchers in various local institutions, there is limited outreach for cross-
97
sectoral analyses of climate change impacts. Furthermore, since climate change policies are mainly implemented by national authorities, local authorities have no incentive to become involved and informed of climate change developments. This is very true in the study area.
The awareness of climate change impacts among the public and local authorities is very low in the study area. There is basically no public education on climate change although some NGOs begin to raise public awareness. Local communities are concerned with the consequences of extreme events, but have not made the connection to climate change nor are they informed or aware of the impact climate pattern shifts may have on their life and property.
The effort to monitor GHG emissions by local authorities is quite limited. As GHG emissions targets continue to be debated at the international level, the complexity of monitoring requirements is increasing, particularly since the coming into force of the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation and the effort sharing decision. The only local institution concerned with gathering information on GHG emissions in the study area is the local EPA, but they only cover the installations subject to the EU-ETS scheme. Even if some monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the EPA will be extended, far more information on GHG emissions will need to be gathered and shared by all institutions.
Local authorities in the study area have limited disaster prevention and management capabilities in the core Delta. There is a significant lack of adequate cross-institutional emergency response policies, training and communication. This is most apparent when surveying disaster management policies: the warnings are issued by the ANM to national authorities and the ISU, who in turn correlates with county authorities, and eventually local authorities, who inform the locals and take any action they can. There is only one vessel in the core Delta that can intervene to evacuate in case of fires or flooded settlements. Helicopters are available, but their use is limited by weather conditions and the fact that they must travel from Constanța county. This is particularly problematic in the core Delta, where the lengthy response times, often over 8 hours, increase the risk of damages and loss of life.
Issues related to adaptation to climate change
Biodiversity in the Danube Delta is at risk due to climate changes amplified by human activities exploiting the natural ecosystem. The loss of biodiversity will unbalance the ecosystem and have a clear negative economic impact. Although detailed impact assessments are scarce, some assessments have indicated a number of potential problems, including invasive species, biodiversity reduction, and negative impacts on fish stocks. Regarding invasive species, warmer average air and water temperature, plus anthropogenic intervention in the ecosystem, has been aiding the spread of invasive alien species throughout the core Delta. Terrestrial and freshwater alien species better adapted to a warmer climate are mostly found on disturbed or altered wetlands or polder and are increasingly shifting the structure of the biocenoses, whether in terms of flora or fauna.37 38 The rise in the sea level due to more frequent wind and enhanced tidal events will result in a longer term under-flooding of the terrestrial floodplain ecosystems39, leading to changes in the vegetation formation towards salt-loving species which will adversely affect fresh-water species with limited tolerance for higher water and soil mineralization.40 Fish stocks and aquaculture would be negatively impacted by the increased incidence of draught and extreme weather temperature variations. This phenomenon would be amplified by algae bloom, the
37
“Management practices for invasive species in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (Romania) and Triglav National Park (Slovenia)” Doroftei Mihai, Mierlă Marian, Tina Petras-Sackl, Tanja Menegalija, Miha Marolt, March 2012. 38
“Vulnerability of the Danube Delta Region to Climate Change - Synthesis report”, 2012. 39
Ibid. 40
“Master Plan - support for sustainable development in DDBR Tulcea county/ Romania Logical Framework Analyse (LFA)” INDD and the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, February 2006.
98
salinization of freshwater bodies and habitat fragmentation and loss of breeding grounds due to anthropomorphic interventions in the ecosystem.41
Integrated water resource management is needed to ensure the development and integration of adaptation measures. Flood protection measures are essential for balanced sustainable development in the context of climate change. Intermittent increased freshwater flow (there have been several major floods in recent years), coupled with sea level rise caused by climate change, point towards dry land decreasing in the delta if no sufficient interventions were implemented. It has been argued that current water and ecological development activities in the Delta are causing habitat fragmentation due primarily to the extent and type of dams being built. Upstream water management policies may further alter the natural sedimentation and erosion functions of the Deltaic ecosystem as the hydrological system of the Delta is fundamentally interrelated with the rest of the Danube basin. The sediment transport into the Delta has decreased in recent years due to the building of dams and barrages upstream that capture sediments.42
Local infrastructure will likely be stressed by climate change and need to be more adaptive and resilient to the change. The following presents the key sectors of attention.
Settlements: Local houses in traditional villages as well as access roads and waterways to navigable channels and fishing grounds are now under varying degree of flash flood risks, depending on the age and quality of flood protection infrastructure in the area. Flood protection level inside the delta needs to be enhanced.
Transport: The waterborne transport infrastructure is vulnerable to the effects of more intense rainfall and increased frequency of flash floods as well as to freezing in low water level along some channels. Throughout the study area higher temperatures and more frequent heat waves are likely to cause problems with road and rail infrastructure. Asphalt roads for example may become soft and deform more under the weight of vehicles, causing traffic jams and disruption.
Energy infrastructure is likely to be negatively impacted by climate change. Due to the increasingly frequent extreme weather events such as thunderstorms, hail and stronger winds, extensive investments will be needed in energy transport and distribution networks.43 The local electricity supplier ENEL Energy has already encountered problems to provide reliable services in the past. Its system needs to be more resilient to climate change.
Agriculture is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change since its capacity of providing adequate food supply, delivering ecosystem services, and providing a safe living environment for rural communities is directly dependent upon favorable climatic conditions.
Public health infrastructure may be strained both by emergency situations and long term effects of climate change. The increase in the incidence of heat waves is a complicating factor for cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases. Flash floods are associated with an increase of cases of diseases connected with the consumption of polluted drinking water, such as cholera, hepatitis, leptospirosis and certain infections44. Slow emergency response, poor cooperation with other institutions, and limited access to health facilities may compound the issue.
41
Vulnerability of the Danube Delta Region to Climate Change - Synthesis report”, 2012. 42
“Danube Delta: a Natural Gateway to Europe Ecology and Economy in Harmony - Vision summary document” WWF International, January 2007 43
43
Vulnerability of the Danube Delta Region to Climate Change - Synthesis report”, 2012. 44
Ibid.
99
Issues related to the mitigation of GHG emissions
Energy efficiency: Improving the energy efficiency of the residential sector will present a good opportunity for GHG reduction and economic efficiency improvement. There have been a number of attempts by the government to improve the energy efficiency of the residential sector such as the “Casa Verde” program to promote energy efficiency improvement in residential buildings. According to the local EPA, in Tulcea county, in 2010 and 2011, an average of 180 projects/year were approved and financed solar panels, heating pumps, and biomass powered central heating units. There are on-going projects to thermally retrofit apartment buildings in the Tulcea county, but there is no effective data gathering system in place regarding building stock and monitoring and reporting energy savings. With the transposition of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive into Romanian law by spring 2014 the need for energy efficiency will increase.
Renewable Energy as another type of GHG mitigation measures has seen a boom in the region, but it is not without its constraints. The placement of wind power and micro-hydropower stations inside the territory of DDBR are forbidden by law due to their potential negative impacts on ecological systems. Solar power devices have only been used sparingly to date, generally for water heating, most often in tourist accommodations and in the DDBR administered buildings due to the relatively high unit cost of photovoltaic power cells. More studies on how to promote adequate renewable energy use are desired.
Although it generates only 12% of total GHG emissions of Romania so far, emissions from the transport sector have been increasing rapidly in the country. The study area will inevitably face the same situation. Among the different transport modes, road transport is the source of the largest majority of GHG emissions and is the area of attention for policy and interventions. As a climate friendly transportation means, inland waterway transport should be promoted and developed.
c) Opportunities and potential
Opportunities to adapt to climate change
Biodiversity. Despite sea water increasingly flooding freshwater areas, some of the local species have evolved to have some resilience to changes in salinity and will not suffer unless the change is consistent over a longer period of time. Appropriate design and operation of embankments, while allowing for some flooding, could offer a solution to protect biodiversity.
There are opportunities in the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to help address climate change challenges during the next programing period of 2014-2020 – in particular, the new rural development policy (Pillar II of the CAP) which has been significantly strengthened regarding actions for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Beyond rehabilitating at least part of the irrigation system and crop selection expertise, even minimal investments in rural infrastructure and improving the knowledge base could increase productivity and living standards of the rural population substantially. Other tools for consideration for reducing climate risks can include: i) insurance schemes against natural disasters and against pest and disease of livestock and crops; and ii) setting-up farmers' mutual funds for stabilizing incomes in case of price volatility or losses from natural disasters or livestock/crop diseases.
Energy, Transport and Buildings. These are areas with various opportunities for investments for adaptation to climate change, such as enhancing flood protection, and climate resilience of the energy and transport facilities and residential and public buildings.
100
Mitigation opportunities
GHG mitigation measures can have co-benefits in addressing climate change and promoting local economic development. High CO2 emissions are often generated when a process such as a power generation or heating supply is inefficient or not optimal. Energy, transport and building sectors are where a variety of mitigation measures exist, such as improving energy efficiency in residential and public buildings, increasing the use of renewable energy, developing public transit systems, and shifting transport modes from road to waterway. In the transport sector a comprehensive analysis of the public transport network and mode usage, including improvement and promotion of waterway transport inside the Delta to reduce energy consumption, traffic congestion, and air emissions, could help alter behavior, relieve stress and lessen the pressure to build new roadways. Also, a thorough study of the energy infrastructure and district heating access is necessary as data on these topics are scarce.
Climate changes in the study area are likely to be beneficial for wind and solar power generation, due to the increased number of hot days and wind power. Romania already has the highest wind power generation potential in South-Eastern Europe – 14000MW45. There are some on-going plans for villages and the DDBRA to install small wind power stations which would be used for consumption in public buildings and public lighting, and excess power being sold to energy distributors. The use of renewable energy sources has increased significantly since the introduction of the green certificate scheme, which has been scaled back since July 2013. In the Tulcea county, 214 wind power plant projects have gone through the SEA procedure, according to the local EPA, but at this moment there is no information at the county level of how many of these projects have been initiated or are currently in use.
d) Key sector entities and their capacity
Climate change policy is driven by international and European developments, and therefore most of the active institutions involved in climate change report directly to national level agencies rather than work through local authorities. While that is likely more effective in some ways, it also means that local authorities have less awareness of some indicators, potential policy instruments, and effective patterns. It also means that there will be less interaction between institutions under the authorities of different line ministries. Below is a summary of key entities involved.
National level institutions:
Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MECC) is the national competent authority responsible for climate change, such as transposing international climate change legislation, crafting national policies, monitoring, reporting and verification of GHG emissions.
Other line ministries including Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, Ministry of Economy (Department for Energy), Ministry of Transport, and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development have the responsibility for addressing climate change issues in their respective sectors.
National Meteorology Administration (ANM) provides aggregate or local climate scenarios and issues extreme events warnings. It is under the authority of the MECC.
Local level institutions:
Danube Delta Biosphere Reservation Administration (DDBRA) is responsible for the administration of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. It is subordinated to the MECC.
45
“Development and Assessment of Mitigation/Adaptation Climate Change Policy Portfolios for Romania”, Institute for Studies and Power Engineering: Anca BARDICI, Roxana IVAN, Mihaela PISLARU, Dr. Irina VODA, Camelia VASILE. 2013
101
Dobrogea-Coastline Water Basin Administration is a local branch of Romanian Waters responsible for water management and flood protection.
Tulcea Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for the implementation of environmental protection policies at the local level.
National Environmental Guard’s DDBR Commissariat is responsible for the enforcement of environmental protection policies. It is subordinated to and funded entirely by the MECC.
Delta Emergency Situations Inspectorate, Tulcea (ISU) is the local branch of the National agency responsible for the response to climate associated disasters (fires, landslides and flooding). It is under the coordination of the Ministry of the Interior.
Other institutions:
Public funded research institutes and centers: the National Research Institute – Marine Development “Grigore Antipa” (INCDM) and the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (INCDD)
NGO Involvement – There is some local engagement, but the most active NGOs are based in Bucharest and work with those in the region. They include WWF, Save the Danube and the Delta Association, The Romanian Eco-Tourism Association, and "Ivan Patzachin - Mila 23" Association. WWF Bucharest branch has carried out a thorough vulnerability report on the impact of climate change in the Danube Delta, focused primarily on biodiversity. It is also developing a strategy departing from the findings of the study together with local authorities.
102
7.2.2. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Table 7: Climate Change SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- High, and partially exploited, potential for renewable energy sources
- Relatively high interest in environmental protection and adaptation policies
- Sustained interest in using renewable energy and improving energy efficiency in the residential sector
- World natural heritage reserve which receives international attention and international support
- Increasing interest from tourists and investors in eco-tourism
- Existence of DDBRA as a main agency to coordinate and lead the natural conservation work in the core Delta
- Low awareness among the public and local administration of cross-sectoral climate change impact and policy requirements
- Poor communication/cooperation among emergency response units
- Limited/inefficient inter-institutional collaboration
- Limited data gathering and data sharing;
- Low energy efficiency and growing energy needs
- Limited to no GHG emissions monitoring, reporting and verification system
- Insufficient funds allocated to adaptation actions
- Rural villages are scattered in the core Delta, therefore there are high costs and a high degree of difficulty in providing public services.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Funding opportunities for climate change investments available from European funds as well as other sources
- Solid European legal framework and research networks available on climate change
- Active and informed environmental NGO network
- Increasing availability of new and innovative technologies, such as wind power stations, biogas and biomass facilities, and solar panels
- Increasing requirements regarding energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reduction, prompting a call to action
- Significant impact of climate change on environment, infrastructure, economy, health and functioning of the study area
- Inaction on climate change by authorities could be a threat to the locals’ life and wellbeing
103
7.2.3. Potential Policy and Regulatory Topics to Address
Integrating well documented, cross-sectoral climate change actions into local development strategies and action plans is the first essential step. The assessment of climate change impact on infrastructure and development of climate change-related disaster prevention and management systems are of particular concern. Better cross-sectoral data sharing and a coherent monitoring system for climate change data are necessary in order to properly respond to climate change. Avenues for improving data flow, inter-institutional coordination and better data integration into policymaking need to be investigated.
Generating a higher level of awareness of the impact, risks and potential benefits of climate change among the authorities as well as the public is vital. This includes not only educational programs and awareness campaigns, assessments and knowledge bases, but also the improvement of the system through which the public is informed to prepare for emergency situations. In addition, better communication between local authorities and other stakeholders will make for a better integrated approach and more effective policy implementation.
Well planned incentive mechanisms might attract investors, reduce pressure on local budgets and develop climate resilient infrastructure. Improving and modernizing inland waterway transport is a particularly attractive low-carbon option for the Danube Delta, where the public is familiar and comfortable with the option. Flood protection investments should be prioritized on the basis of updated flood hazard/risk mapping and careful accounting for impact on settlements as well as on the environment and future developments. Energy efficiency programs, as already funded by the EBRD in elsewhere in Europe will bring both poverty alleviation and cost cuts to the local and county budgets. Research and investment in biomass and biofuel production and usage could provide a boost to the local economy.
Recognition of climate change impact on transport and effective policy to promote low carbon transport modes is needed. Climate change can have complex effects though, for example, inland waterway transport will be affected with a change in water depth, while some channels may be more accessible to shipping farther inland because of sea level rise. Therefore, the navigability of shipping channels is likely to change and needs to be properly assessed. Well-planned policies to guide demand towards low-emission modes and technologies must be part of investment programs and projects. Such policies can reduce transport demand in the long run by changing the economic geography of cities and regions, but that will require close coordination of transport, urban, environmental, and health policies.
7.2.4. Conclusions
Low awareness and interest among authorities and the public means that no coherent planning or action is taken to address climate change in an area which is highly vulnerable to it. An area of natural biodiversity and complexity, the Danube Delta continuously transforms, creates and destroys, but it will not be able to withstand climate change and support the development of the area unless appropriate cross-sectoral climate-related policies are designed and implemented.
Several priority areas need to be addressed in order to prepare for climate change: These are: (i) a reform of institutions in the way climate change data is gathered, shared, and integrated in local strategies and policies; (ii) educational programs aimed at increasing climate change awareness among the general public as well as recommending behavioral changes in particularly sensitive sectors such as agriculture and fishery; (iii) a careful reevaluation of current policies under the light of projected climate change impact, particularly for transport, disaster and water management; and (iv) design of incentive schemes to prioritize financing of projects that will enhance the climate change resilience of the study area, whether in terms of awareness raising, energy efficiency, or crop selection.
104
Complementary mitigation and adaptation policies and investments can boost entrepreneurship and innovation. The timeframe for climate change scenarios and the project costs involved often function as a disincentive for potential public or private investors in modern inland waterway transport, nature based tourism, infrastructure rehabilitation, or energy efficiency. However, the requirement to apply 20% of European funds for climate change action, as well as the international interest and investment credit available for a World Heritage site, represent valuable financial opportunities for low carbon regional development.
105
8. Infrastructure and Related Services
8.1. Transport in Tulcea county & Access/Connectivity
The Danube Delta is an area of natural beauty that has the advantage of a network of waterways to provide a natural transport system. The area aims to develop its potential in tourism, fisheries and trade and an effective transport system is key to achieving this objective. An effective transport system should firstly connect the Danube Delta area with the rest of Romania and with neighboring countries. This should be done through a combination of improved infrastructure but also an improved environment to promote transport operations, multi-modal transport, and trade. Secondly, for people living in the Delta there has to be improved year round accessibility to essential social and economic services. This can be achieved through targeted low cost infrastructure improvements and minimum requirements for the provision of public transport services.
Within the context of the Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy a coherent transport strategy should be developed on both new investments and maintenance and management of existing infrastructure stock. Identifying financing sources will be key and in this respect the possibilities for private sector finance for certain types of infrastructure should be explored. Building sector institutions and promoting an integrated planning approach between modes will also be important.
8.1.1. Current Situation
a) Characteristics
The majority of the study area is taken up by the Danube Delta with its myriad waterways which provides potential for a natural transportation system but also the challenge of providing effective transport systems. Population is low which also makes cost effective interventions difficult. Generally the transport system is in poor condition with constraints both for internal accessibility and connectivity with the rest of the region and the country. This section addresses both accessibility and connectivity, and the physical infrastructure requirements as well as the need for transport services. With regard to the demand for transport in the Delta there will be a number of key drivers including the tourism industry, fishery, bulk cargo and the daily transport for the inhabitants of the Delta.
Water Transport - Bulk cargo movements
Tulcea county is benefitting from a substantial natural transport system through the main shipping channels and connecting waterways. The main 175 km shipping channel which is part of Rhine – Danube Corridor from Sulina to Braila was built and improved over time. Lately, the EU has financed dredging works to maintain a depth of 7.5 meters to allow 30,000 DWT maritime vessels to use the channel as far as Braila. In 2012, 1,467 vessels used the channel transporting about 2.4 million tons of cargo. The majority of vessels were under 6,000 DWT with about 15% being over that weight.
The ports are potentially well situated to service transport needs both within Romania and with neighboring countries. The main ports along Danube in the area are those in Tulcea, Galati and Braila. There are plans to develop these ports to improve inter-modal connections and to develop logistics platforms to relieve the need for road transport to neighboring regions. There is also potential, particularly in Tulcea, to develop the port for leisure activities including cruise ships and pleasure boats. Table 6 provides an overview of the characteristics of these ports. However, many of these ports are in poor condition and the feasibility of their rehabilitation should be studied.
106
Table 7: Throughput in Tons (Thousands) of Port Facilities
Port No. Berths
Length vertical / sloped Quays (m)
Port Throughput Tonnes (thousands)
2010 2011 2012
Tulcea Ports 41 330 / 2225 2,400 2,340 2,220
Galati Ports 56 4675 / 2390 6,351 5,134 3,989
Braila 25 797 / 2506 2,977 3,073 2,172
Source: http://www.romanian-ports.ro/html/trafic_gl.html
Accessibility in the core Delta
The core Delta provides a substantial network of local waterways (616 km) for its residents. Many residents have private boats and there are also subsidized public services in the area, provided by SC Navrom Delta SA Tulcea, a privatized company. Tulcea county maintains a 2% ownership stake. The company operates services over 256 km of waterways on five separate routes, and for many residents of the Delta this is the only means of regular transport. When the waterways are frozen these services may not run and in the case of medical emergencies a helicopter is the only lifeline for some communities (one helicopter exists in Tulcea for this purpose).
Table 8: Public Ferry Services in the Delta
Fast Boat Regular Boat Total
No. of passengers No. of passengers No. of passengers
Ferry Route Peak Off-Peak Peak Off-Peak Peak Off-Peak
Tulcea - Sulina 52272 23760 39600 54000 91872 77760
Tulcea - Sf. Gheorghe 17424 23760 26400 18000 43824 41760
Tulcea - Periprava 17424 23760 13200 9000 30624 32760
Crișan - Mila 23 16896 19200 16896 19200
Crișan - Caraorman 2904 3300 2904 3300
TOTAL 87120 71280 99000 103500 186120 174780
The waterways provide a key “draw” for tourists who are interested in fishing and experiencing the unique environment of the Delta. There is a considerable cruise ship industry for those travelling along the Danube River. The figures for 2013 show a total of 164 vessels bringing 21,700 passengers to the area. There are a number of key constraints that will need to be addressed both to promote tourism and to improve local connectivity. This includes dredging and clearing of the Delta waterways and providing improved mooring facilities particularly in Tulcea and Sulina.
Road Transport
The requirements for connecting the Delta with the rest of Romania and for improving the level of connectivity within the Delta were reviewed. The total road network in Tulcea county is 1330 km, of which 325 km are national, 610 km are county, and 395 km are communal roads. There is no accurate condition data available but the general consensus is that the national network is in fair condition and that the lower levels of the network are in poor condition. Tulcea county does currently have a number of road connections which provide reasonable access to the rest of the country. There are plans to
107
improve this access both through upgrading key corridors (such as the road Constanța – Tulcea – Braila/Galati) and by providing new corridors that would facilitate international movements to neighboring European countries (through the so-called Corridor 9 Rhine - Danube). A key constraint in providing improved connectivity to the Delta area is the lack of permanent crossings over the Danube. Currently there are two crossings available at Harsova and Cernavoda in the West - South West of the county for connectivity to Constanța county and the motorway Bucharest – Constanța, but there are no crossing in the North West of the county for links to Braila and Galati. Studies are currently on-going to look at the feasibility of either a bridge to Braila or a tunnel to Galati.
Within the core Delta there are some significant constraints to road building both because of the physical difficulties but also because of environmental and economic constraints. Residents have expressed a need for all-weather accessibility to key social and economic services in Tulcea city. This has to be weighed against financial and environmental feasibility of such developments.
Rail Transport
A large stock of rail investment exists but speeds and frequency deter its utilization. There is a simple nonelectric rail link from Tulcea to the main railway Bucharest–Constanța, through Medgidia, which provides the main rail connection to the Delta. At the moment journey times from Bucharest with changing the railway engine from electric to diesel in Medgidia, are much longer than by road (about 5.5 hours versus 3.5 hours by road). This makes rail a less attractive mode but if speeds and frequency of service would improve this could provide an attractive alternative to the road. Air Transport The airport in Tulcea is currently handling relatively few passengers (2000 per year), all of which are arriving through chartered services. The airport management believes that there is scope to support the cruise ship industry on the Delta but airlines are reluctant at the moment to use the airport because of the limited space for parking and turning of aircrafts. For this reason there are currently no scheduled flights. The airport is making some improvements to address this issue which will probably be sufficient to make the airport fit for scheduled flights.
b) Key Sector Entities and Their Capacity
Responsibilities for the network and operations are generally clear. There are multiple agencies responsible for the transport sector network and services in the Delta area with the main ones highlighted in Table 9 below. Based on an initial assessment, key responsibilities for the network and operations are generally clear, and, the agencies have the necessary expertise to fulfill their functions. However, particularly for the roads network, there is a lack of resources to adequately maintain the network and this is reflected in its poor quality. There is also evidence that some of the waterways in the Delta lack adequate maintenance, particularly related to the clearance of debris.
Many of the transport operators, whether at ports or for transport services, are recently privatized companies; some with a minor ownership stake by Tulcea county. The extent to which these companies are providing effective services will need to be studied as will the scope for having competition in the concession of services. For example, the ferry company is a private company that receives a subsidy to operate its services but at this stage it is unclear whether this subsidy is received on a competitive basis.
108
Table 9: Main Sector Entities Responsible for Management of the Transport Network
Responsible entity Responsible for
Roads
Romanian National Motorways and Roads Company (RNMRC)
Construction and maintenance of national highways
Tulcea county Construction and maintenance of county roads
Communes Construction and maintenance of local roads
Waterways
River Administration of Lower Danube Galati Dredging and navigation on shipping canal
Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority Dredging and clearing waterways in the Reserve
National Company Maritime Danube Ports Administration Galati
Tulcea/Braila/Galati port
SC Navrom Delta SA Tulcea Operating public ferry services
Air Transport
Tulcea county Council Operating Tulcea airport
Railway Transport Operating by CFR Infrastructure, National Freight Railway Company “CFR Marfa”, CFR Passengers
c) Issues / Constraints
There are challenges in providing effective transport in the Delta because of the relatively low population densities and the physical environment. These issues limit the economic effectiveness of any investment since the cost of interventions can be high relative to the number of people served. However, the location of the Delta, with the Danube as a natural transport system makes the area potentially attractive for regional trade and certainly attractive from a tourist perspective.
Transport development need to be based on a vision for the Delta. This vision needs to look at both transport issues within the Delta and connections to the rest of Romania and the region. There is currently a long list of investments proposed by TCC for the Delta which will need to be assessed in due course based on the strategic vision for the Delta. Any national level investments will need to be incorporated in the General Transport Master Plan which is currently being developed at the Ministry of Transport.
Finance for the sector will also need to be addressed both in terms of new investments and maintenance of the existing networks. Both will need to increase to develop a long term sustainable transport network. To effectively utilize European funds it is important that investments form part of an agreed and coherent development strategy and that the investments are ready to be implemented. The county should consider attracting private finance particularly for activities related to the tourism sector (e.g. improved mooring facilities) and the ports sector (operations).
109
8.1.2. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Table 8: Transport in Tulcea county SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Destination of natural beauty and outdoor living will generate transport demand
- Natural waterway system which can form the basis for the transport network
- Existing shipping channel Sulina – Tulcea is part of Rheine – Danube Corridor 9; can take maritime vessels to Braila
- A network of ports exists in the area with significant capacity and is well situated.
- Low population densities limits constant transport demand to/within the Delta
- Providing land based infrastructure is expensive because of the terrain and the small population to be served
- Accessibility in the Delta area is poor and communities can be isolated during the winter season
- Lack of crossings over Danube reduces connectivity with the rest of Romania and neighboring countries
- Local level road network is in poor condition and needs substantial upgrading
- Poor condition of ports limits landing operations
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Tulcea port provides an ideal environment for development of multi-modal transport
- Lower travel times to the Delta will increase tourism
- Some infrastructure improvements can be made at relatively low cost. For example low cost roads in the Delta to improve accessibility, or increasing parking space at the airport for aircrafts
- Both the logistics and tourist industries lend themselves to private sector participation
- Competition from Constanța is stiff as they benefit from better access and ports, airports, and rail connections
- Population numbers are decreasing in the Delta and qualified people are looking elsewhere for jobs
- Competition for national financial resources is intense and a lack of an integrated plan for transport in the Delta could limit access to these resources
- The role of Sulina in maritime transport will become increasingly marginalized with free movement of EU vessels.
110
8.1.3. Potential Policy and Regulatory Topics to Address
There is scope for increased private sector involvement in transport sector operations (e.g. ports, ferries, multi-modal operations). There is also a possibility to look at public-private partnerships (PPP) for certain infrastructure, such as marinas for private boats and tourist boats. To realize the potential of the private sector there has to be a policy at county level to promote private sector participation and to make sure the correct regulatory framework is in place.
There are some issues over ownership of infrastructure and land that will have to be addressed to provide accessibility within the Delta. For example, some dykes which are currently used by residents for road transport are owned privately or by entities not responsible for transport provision. It will also be important to ensure good coordination between the various stakeholders which is particularly important when addressing multi-modal transport operations.
8.1.4. Conclusions
There are two overarching objectives for transport development in the area:
Firstly, transport systems that effectively connect Tulcea county with the rest of Romania and with neighboring countries. These transport systems will consist of improved infrastructure but also promotion of transport operations, multi-modal transport, and trade. This is the “connectivity” objective.
Secondly, for people living in the Delta area there has to be improved accessibility to essential social and economic services. This can be achieved through targeted low cost infrastructure improvements and minimum provision of public transport services. This is the “accessibility” objective.
Both new investments and the maintenance and management of the existing infrastructure stock need to be addressed. Identifying sources of finance will be key and in this regard the possibilities for private sector finance for certain types of infrastructure should be explored. Building sector institutions and promoting an integrated planning approach between modes will also be important.
111
8.2. Water Supply and Sanitation/Sewerage
8.2.1. Current Situation
a) Characteristics
The study area can be classified into six hydro-geological areas (see Figure 40), with substantial differences.
Figure 40: Hydro-geological characteristic of the area is defined by 6 types of areas
Figure 41: Danube Delta
112
The connection rate of the population to a water supply system varies in Tulcea county from none in some remote areas of the core Delta to essentially 100% in Tulcea City. The rate of connection to reliable microbiologically controlled potable water is the lowest in the area of the core Delta (62 percent of the households have access to piped water). This is mainly due to hydro-morphological conditions in the area. The Delta is new-formed land, formed by layers of deposited sediments. This is one of the main concerns since it is not possible to build wells in many areas of the core Delta.
The population density constrains water supply. The study area has a population density of 28.9 inhabitants/km², nearly a third of the national average of 89.9 inhabitants/km². The density of the Danube Delta area is a tenth of the national average, or 3.5 inhabitants/km². The rural population is scattered over large areas, which increases the costs of providing water supply and sanitation services. Livestock and illegal dumping of manure, combined with lack of sewerage infrastructure, are matters of water pollution concerns in some areas.
The National Administration of Romanian Waters (ANAR) manages the water resources. The national body ANAR has a Dobrogea and Black Sea Coast Directorate and the Water Management System in Tulcea. These organizations monitor the water bodies in the area and periodically produce reports on the water quality. They monitor twelve natural water bodies and rivers, totaling 295.6 km. There are five water quality levels. According to the most recent monitoring data, the distribution among these levels is as follows: 15.6 kilometers (5.28%) are classified as good, and the rest of 280 km (94.72%) are classified as moderate water quality.
The Danube River is the main source of water in the study area and its water quality is assessed through eleven control sections. According to the monitoring data, the water quality corresponds to class 1 or 2 out of 5 (i.e. acceptable as source for drinking water treatment) in all eleven control sections. According to ANAR analyzed data from September to November 2013, the majority of the existing water bodies in the study area have a healthy status (1 and 2). Some small inland rivers were found to be category 3 and rarely 4 (unsuitable as source for drinking water treatment) due to nitrates pollution.46
As an EU member state, Romania needs to meet EU water and waste water directives standards. This entails reaching tertiary treatment of sewerage for localities with more than 10,000 population equivalent (p.e.) by December 31, 2015, complete collection and treatment of sewerage from all localities with more than 2,000 p.e. by December 31, 2018. In the core Delta all villages are under 2,000 inhabitants. However, the EU Directives and the related funding to date have focused on localities over 2,000 p.e.
In 2011, in order to reach EU objectives and improve living standards, the Tulcea County Council elaborated a Master Plan for water and sanitation at the county level. The Master Plan delineates territorial agglomerations based on population density for joint set-up of water and sewage systems. Five cities/towns, 29 agglomerations with population between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e. and 104 agglomerations with less than 2,000 p.e. were identified. The length of sewerage pipes should be less than 10m /p.e. in an agglomeration. In the county, most of the villages have a distance between them of more than 500 m, which did not qualify them to form agglomerations.
46
84% of the nitrogen load and 73% of the phosphorus load in the Danube water is caused by upstream countries.
113
The proposed water supply and sewerage investments in the Master Plan are divided in urban and rural investments.
Proposed urban are investments in the Master Plan are:
Improve the water quality and supply for Tulcea City and Macin. This includes extending the source Bogza, build a nitrate removal plant in Tulcea City, expand the underground water source for Macin, rehabilitate the water source in Satu Nou, and build a treatment plant in Babadag.
Expand the water distribution network in urban areas of Tulcea and Isaccea to 100% coverage.
Reduce water losses by rehabilitating transport and distribution pipes in Tulcea and Babadag.
Improve the maintenance system and rehabilitate a pumping station in Babadag.
Rehabilitate water tanks in Carierei, Satu Nou, Fabrica de zahar, and Cabanei.
Achieve a higher connection rate for sewerage collection.
Rehabilitate old sewers in order to eliminate pollution. Proposed rural area investments in the Master Plan are:
Provision of reliable water supply sources.
Rehabilitate and extend the transportation and distribution networks.
Invest in collection sewers or individual septic tanks.
Construct and rehabilitate water tanks.
Invest in sewage equipment and sewage transport trucks.
For the core Delta, where villages are under 2,000 p.e., the Master Plan proposes investments in new individual septic tanks. For villages over 2,000 p.e., the Plan suggests centralized sewer network, pumping stations, and small wastewater treatment plants (WWTP).
b) Issues / Constrains
The main challenge for water and sanitation management in the core Delta is to provide services to isolated communities. Improving coverage might not be financially feasible in isolated villages. While the current coverage in the core Delta is much lower than in other rural areas in the study area, the main problem is fairly concentrated with seven villages lacking water supply at present. Main constraints are: (i) difficult ground conditions for wells to be constructed in the core Delta, as the “ground” is formed from layers of organic and mineral materials, affecting the quality of any collected water; (ii) the only reliable water source in the Delta is the Danube River and its channels, leading to potential high cost of network and pumping due to the distance to the users; (iii) insufficient capacity of the local power supply, sometimes unable to cope with the increased power demand of water investments; and (iii) low financial capacity of the local population to pay for the operations and maintenance costs. The sanitation management needs to be improved, either with septic tanks or centralized sewerage system, in order to reduce nitrate pollution of small local rivers and the underground water table. For any system to be sustainable, the operations and maintenance costs will need to be manageable. Rain water harvesting is possible to supplement basic water supply service. Uninterrupted water supply and sanitation service is required to support any tourism development.
114
c) Key Sector Entities and Their Capacity
The main water operator in the area is Aquaserv in Tulcea, serving mainly the urban areas of Tulcea, Babadag, Isaccea, Macin and Sulina. The population served exceeds 110,000 and the volume of water supplied is over 7 million m3 per year. As a regional operator, Aquaserv was entrusted in 2007 by the Inter-community Water Development Association in Tulcea to operate the assets and provide the water supply and sanitation services for the mentioned five cities/towns. The water sources for drinking water vary by locality; Tulcea and Sulina use surface water, Babadag and Isaccea use groundwater, and Macin uses a combination of both. Households pay 4.41 lei/m3 for the water supply and 2.79 lei/m3 for wastewater services. The wastewater treatment facilities are not yet fully functioning in any of the localities; Aquaserv is currently running completion tests on the facilities. The extent of treatment entails different costs at each locality. With the tariff being the same for all households, the arrangement reflects a cross-subsidization across the localities. Payment of the water tariff is very good at present because the subsidy is provided only when the water bill is paid on time. The population living in the Danube Delta receives a 50% subsidy from the Central Government for the public utilities (mainly water service and solid waste collection). Many local authorities do not currently charge the full cost of the service provision though. A regional operator has an advantage of economy of scale, and could in time expand operations to include services to more communities.
As a regional operator, Aquaserv S. A. Tulcea provides the following services:
abstraction of raw water from three surface sources and four underground sources for treatment in four water treatment plants;
water supply 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in Tulcea City and in the four towns in the county;
storing and securing water supply in special tanks with a total capacity of 17,700 cubic meters;
operation and maintenance of 287 km of water supply network , serving 19,721 connections of which are 18,620 are metered;
operation and maintenance of 177 km of sewerage network serving 9,006 connections;
collecting, pumping and disposal of domestic wastewater and rainwater for the five locations; and wastewater treatment in Tulcea, Macin, and Isaccea.
115
8.2.2. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Table 9: Water Supply and Sanitation/Sewerage SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- County commitment to improve the standard of living in the area by providing better public water and sanitation services
- A dedicated team for the administration of the Inter-community Water Development Association
- Existence of a Master Plan for the sector addressing the needs in the county
- Experience gained from pilot project on Integrated Nutrient Pollution Control to monitor and reduce pollution from nitrates
- Lack of nearby reliable water source for some villages
- Lack of financial resources at local level - Lack of modern sanitation facilities in rural
areas (use of pit latrines) - Lack of awareness in rural areas about
nitrate pollution through dumping of manure
- Scattered villages
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Availability of EU funds for the sector - Existing regional water operator could act as
a technical capacity center for the sector - Inter-community Water Development
Association, an institution to possibly build on
- Low cost sanitation technology is available
- Implementation of modern technology in low income rural areas could be unsustainable
- Possibly low willingness to pay for improved services
- High cost of sewage collection from septic tanks and transport to closest WWTP
116
8.2.3. Potential Policy and Regulatory Topics to Address
Investments in basic service provision will need to be accompanied by cost-recovery and operations and maintenance plans. With EU funds, the local authorities in Tulcea will be able to significantly improve the water infrastructure. A critical issue is to ensure that those facilities will be designed and operated in a sustainable way. For example, centralized sewerage collection may not always be a feasible option; local septic tanks in remote and low-populated areas are likely more viable solutions. Sufficient funding to cover operations and maintenance costs has to be secured. However, this does not necessarily mean full cost recovery from the beneficiaries, particularly not in the short term. The population in the core Delta receives at present a 50% user subsidy from the Central Government for water supply. There is a need to strike a balance between the level of service provided, affordability for the users, and the level of subsidies, especially in poorer communities.
8.2.4. Conclusions
Poor accessibility and low density have posed significant challenges to providing water and sanitation services in the core Delta. The core delta communities fare worse on access to water and sanitation than the rest of the study area and the county. For instance, only 62 percent of rural households in the core Delta have access to piped water while 83 percent of rural households in the study area have such access. Seven villages in the core Delta have no safe water supply while in five villages water supply is currently being set up. Except in Sulina, wastewater management is weak or non-existent. Improved wastewater management is needed in both the core Delta and the neighboring rural areas.
117
8.3. Municipal Solid Waste Management
8.3.1. Current Situation
Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) has been considered as one of the most pressing environmental issues in Romania. Romania generates about 8 million tons of municipal waste each year. Most has been dumped in non-conforming landfills or illegal dump sites throughout the country (World Bank, 2011). In 2009, only 63% of the population in Romania benefitted from collection services; 84% in urban areas and only 38% in rural areas (EEA, 2013). As an EU member state, Romania needs to meet EU SWM standards which are much higher than its current status. The EU standards for SWM require the country to close over 200 existing non-conforming MSW landfill sites and over a thousand illegal dumpsites, and construct 65 EU-conforming landfills serving an average of 400,000 people by 2013. By now, about 30 of 42 already planned EU-conforming landfills have not been built according to the Managing Authority for the Environmental Operational Program. Romania is also required to fulfill the EU target of 50% recycling of MSW by 2020. However, only 1-2% of MSW collected so far was recycled as reported in the available literature. Clearly, Romania has a long way to go and the country would not meet the targets without making great efforts. a) Characteristics
Waste Generation
Waste generation in Tulcea county is steadily increasing since before the global financial crisis. Solid waste related data is generally missing in Romania. The data specifically for the Danube Delta does not exist. The table below shows the amounts of total waste generated in Tulcea county and the waste by type in 2004-2010. It includes cities and communes outside the DD area and exclude the four communes of the study area in Constanța Country. The total waste generated in Tulcea county reached 121,754 tons in 2008 from 74,747 tons in 2004, before it decreased sharply due to economic crisis and slowdown. The total generated municipal waste in 2010 in Tulcea county was only 40,250 tons, of which domestic household waste was 27,000 tons (67%). Due to low population density, declining population in the area, and slow economic activities in recent years, the total amount of MSW generated is still relatively low.
Table 10: Waste generation in Tulcea county
Unit 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total waste generated
tons 74747 89115 98493 88863 121754 81325 40250
Household waste collected
tons 35113 37925 49573 38182 62114 48931 26999
Not collected household waste
tons 28444 24812 22127 21939 18765 9539 3953
118
Domestic waste collected from companies and public entities
tons 9623 16614 19504 22855 23659 15728 6271
Garden waste tons 3 2625 1267 1742 1678 909 297
Waste from markets
tons 2 1 482 201 1378 1620 390
Street waste tons 303 5882 4287 2696 12919 3365 2341
Bulky waste tons 1259 1256 1253 1248 1241 1233 0
Population Persons 253,932 253,154 252,156 251,225 249,779 248,367 246,785
Index of generation of municipal waste
kg/ inh/year 294 352 391 354 487 327 163
kg/ inh/day 0.81 0.96 1.07 0.97 1.34 0.90 0.45
Data source: Local EPA. Waste composition shows room for waste separation and recycling. Understanding waste composition is essential to design a waste separation and recycling program. The tables and the figure below show the composition of the waste in Tulcea county (Tulcea EPA Feasibility Study 2012). It shows recyclable materials such as paper, plastic, metals, glass, etc. as being over 20% of the waste stream.
Table 11: Recyclable materials in the total waste stream
Waste composition
Urban Rural County weighted average
% % %
Paper and cardboard
9 4 7.36
Glass 3 1 3.43
Metals 3 1 3.2
Plastic 9 6 7
Wood 3 0 2.28
Textiles 3 2 2.33
Biodegradable 50 65 63.45
Minerals 8 3 4.65
Others 12 18 5.75
Total 100 100 100
119
Figure 42: Waste composition in the study area
Data source: Local EPA
Biodegradable waste is an important part of the waste stream and an area for attention. Data from the local EPA in Tulcea in Table 12 (2009) shows the proportion of biodegradable waste in the different types of municipal waste.
Table 12: Proportion of biodegradable waste
HH waste
urban HH waste
rural
Domestic waste from
non-residential buildings
Market waste
Street waste
Garden waste
Bulky waste
Proportion of biodegradable
waste 50 % 65 % 45 % 85 % 15 % 80 % 20 %
Data source: Local EPA
Situation of MSWM Services and On-going Government Efforts
Current MSWM practice in Tulcea county is inadequate. Although the amount of MSW is relatively small, the current MSWM system is generally inadequate, with low waste collection rate, especially in villages inside the core Delta, high and unsustainable costs of waste transportation services between scattered villages and landfill sites, and low recycling levels.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Urban Rural Countyweightedaverage
Waste Composition in Study Area
Others
Minerals
Biodegradable
Textiles
Wood
Plastic
Metals
Glass
Paper and cardboard
120
The waste collection rate is still low in rural villages in the core Delta despite its importance from a tourism development perspective. Statistics on waste collection in the Delta basically does not exist. According to the information from Tulcea EPA (2012), all communities in Tulcea county should have signed a sanitation contract with a public or private waste management operator. In the rural areas, collection is supposed to be weekly, mainly from collecting waste bags located and stored at designated collection points. But the actual coverage and frequency of waste collection and treatment services varies from community to community. In rural communities, especially the villages scattered in the core Delta, service providers simply do not have enough resources to provide waste collection services to all households. Many small villages inside the Delta are isolated and have to rely on boats for transportation, which makes the collection and transportation of waste difficult and expensive. The situation of waste collection in Tulcea City is much better. It is reported that the coverage rate of waste collection services is 100%. The frequency of collection varies between 1 and 5 days for households and weekly for companies and public entities. The collection service is performed door to door in the neighborhoods or blocks of flats and at waste collection points. Waste collection equipment is insufficient. More trash bins are still needed in rural areas for waste storage and collection. In terms of waste transportation equipment, Tulcea county reported in 2012 that the total collection capacity was 4438.9 cubic meters, representing 18 liters per person (28 liter/person in urban area and 8.15 liter/person in rural area). The waste collection capacity in Tulcea county (2012) is shown below.
Table 13: Waste collection capacity
Containers(liters) Bins (liters)
4000 3000 2000 1000 660 80 120 150 190 200 240
Total pcs 20 32 688 561 71 613 260 400 680 160 8240
Volume (m3) 80 96 1376 561 46.86 49.04 31.2 60 129.2 32 1977.6
Waste disposal methods can be much improved. Most of collected household waste has been landfilled. Inside the Delta, it is common that kitchen waste is mostly used for feeding animals or being dumped into the ground or rivers. Paper, cardboard and wood is used for making fire for cooking or heating. Open dumping or burning of other waste by local residents and littering by tourists is common inside the Delta since there is a lack of collection or other safe disposal methods locally. As a result, the county has to arrange trash removal from river branches at least twice a year.
Waste separation at source and recycling are also low, which further pushes up waste transportation and processing costs. Within Tulcea county, collected waste including recyclable materials are supposed to be transported to Tulcea City for processing and disposal. There is currently a sanitary landfill in Tulcea City, which also has a basic sorting facility for separating recyclable materials from garbage. Due to the local collection rate, this facility couldn’t get enough waste to process and the operator has been importing waste from Constanța county in order to keep the facility running. Because of some waste separation at source, the quality of separated waste at the sorting facility is low in terms of the commercial recycling value. A large portion of the separated waste still needs to be landfilled.
There are increasing efforts in separating recyclable materials from household wastes in recent years. To minimize waste for disposal, the county is making efforts for waste separation and recycling in streets. Some publicly owned service companies or private companies have put specially designed and colored containers for recyclable materials at collecting points in a number of places in the study area (e.g., 144 collecting points in Tulcea City). Households, offices and commercial entities are encouraged to separate plastics, metal, glass, paper and packaging materials from their garbage. The table below
121
provides the number of recycling facilities and capacity in Tulcea City and the towns in Tulcea county in 2012.
Table 14: Recycling facilities and capacity in Tulcea county
Locality No. of
collection points
No. of igloos Capacity (m³)
Tulcea 148 185 1.1
195 2.5
Isaccea 7 21 1.1
Macin 3 3 1.1
Babadag 25 25 1.1
Sulina 5 5 1.1
Total 188 434 750.4
However, the current recycling rate is still very low. In Tulcea City, it is estimated at 6-7% which is likely above the national average but still far below EU standards (over 50% recycling rate in already obtained in Germany and the Netherlands). In 2010, only 347 tons (0.85%) of paper and cardboard and 81 tons (0.2%) of plastic were recovered from household waste through the municipal services. There are private and individual recyclers who collect metal from households or collection points directly due to high commercial value of metal. Public awareness and participation in waste separation at source and recycling are still very low, and thereby significant room for improvement. Considering the importance of preventing plastic waste from entering the river channels, a special program for reduction and recycling of plastic bottle use by visitors could be considered. This could include provision of a reusable water bottle with the DDBR logo upon receiving the park permit. Tulcea County Council has set targets for increased recycling rates. The table below shows the target of recycling rate over the next two EU budgetary cycles.
Table 15: The target recycling rate for the next two EU budgetary cycles
Category of Waste
Existing 2014-2020 2021-2028
Urban % Rural % Urban % Rural % Urban % Rural %
Paper and cardboard 9.0 4.0 13.0 6.0 14.0 8.0
Plastic 10.5 6.0 13.0 7.0 14.0 8.0
Glass 6.0 3.0 7.0 4.0 8.0 5.0
Metal 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0
Recyclable 29.5 16.0 38.0 21.0 42.0 26.0
Biodegradable 50.0 65.0 47.0 62.0 45.0 59.0
Others 20.5 19.0 16.0 17.0 13 15.0
Clearly there is an urgent need to develop an integrated MSWM system to handle growing waste problems in the study area and prepare the region for tourism and overall economic development. Given the general concern over MSWM in the Delta, local governments are taking actions, from planning to investments. The first Tulcea county MSWM plan was prepared in 2004. It was reviewed and updated
122
in 2011 as the county aims to develop an integrated waste management system with a massive investment plan based on EU funds, with an estimated cost of 30 million Euro. These EU funds were recently approved by the Managing Authority of Environmental Operational Program under the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. According to the integrated MSWM plan, the county – among other investments - will build a new landfill and a biodegradable waste treatment facility. As the amount of the waste grows, e-waste and other hazardous wastes will be another area for assessment and management. Currently, there are licensed private companies in Tulcea City which collect and process e-waste and transport hazardous waste. Tulcea County Council also plans to collect the waste, including biomass, along the waterways in the Delta to promote tourism.
b) Issues and Constraints
Building an effective and affordable Solid Waste Management system will require actions at all levels– from measures to reduce the waste to territorial integration. The main issues and challenges of MSWM in Tulcea county can be summarized as follows:
Better SWM planning, including spatial and financial plans, to achieve MSWM in an integrated and sustainable way
Improve collection and transportation services including expansion of service coverage with optimal location of waste management equipment and facilities, and adaptation of affordable technologies to achieve cost-effective waste management
Promote waste separation at source (including household, business and public area waste)
Change the behavior of local residents and visitors in waste prevention, separation and littering
Address the affordability issues of local residents, especially for poor households in the Delta
Sustainable asset management for rapidly growing MSWM facilities financed by EU funds during the next several years.
The economic constraints of serving a small, dispersed population are quite significant with no clear solutions besides waste reduction at source. The constraints related to addressing the above issues in MSWM are:
Scattered population and low density causing difficulty and high cost of waste collection and transportation in rural areas
Poor SWM planning for waste collection and transportation in rural areas
Lack of or inadequate SWM facilities
Low public awareness and participation of waste collection and recycling
Lack of adequate cost recovery mechanism to cover the costs of waste collection and transportation, especially in remote villages which rely on boat transportation to collect waste.
c) Opportunities and Potential
The on-going and new EU-funded programs in SWM represent opportunities for local stakeholders to finance and solve many of their SWM issues. Solutions could be new investments in needed SWM facilities, equipment and capacity building, and public awareness campaigns and consumer behavior incentives aimed at improved waste collection and waste separation at source. The presence of more tourists may influence local residents to change their behavior in handling domestic waste.
d) Key Sector Entities and their Capacity
There are various stakeholders involved in MSWM. Institutionally, Tulcea County Council is responsible for preparing and revising the county MSWM plan. Local governments (e.g., municipal and commune
123
councils) in the Delta have the main responsibility for MSWM within their jurisdiction. County EPA, Environmental Guard, and DDBRA have a role in environmental monitoring, inspection and enforcement based on national regulations and rules on MSWM. The MSW collection and transportation services at the local level are provided by publicly-owned service companies, or private companies contracted by local governments. In 2012, there were eight registered sanitation operators in the county, of which two were publicly owned, five private, and one a joint venture. Rural communes sign contracts with sanitation operators for waste collection and transportation.
124
8.3.2. SWOT analysis
SWOT Table 10: Waste Management SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Political commitment to improving living standards in the area by providing better public services
- Willingness of Tulcea County Council to clean up the trash in waterways in order to further promote tourism development
- Support of the National Government for natural conservation and development in the Danube Delta area
- On-going investments for an integrated MSWM system addressing the infrastructure needs in MSW in the study area
- Efforts of Tulcea City to address SWM can provide experience to the towns and communes
- Lack of waste collection facilities in the rural areas
- Insufficient equipment and facilities for waste separation and recycling, especially in rural areas in the Delta
- Low public awareness and participation in SWM in remote rural area, especially in the Delta
- High unit cost of waste collection and transportation in the Delta due to scattered and low population as well as river-based transport
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Availability of financial support through EU funds to develop an integrated MSWM system in the county
- Availability of technical support from the international community.
- More tourists may contribute to increased awareness of waste management needs
- Participation by local groups and NGOs (two are involved already) in cleaning river channels in the Delta
- Insufficient funding for operations and maintenance of SWM facilities due to unwillingness of local residents to pay for improved SWM services
- Over-capacity due to poor design and quick spending of EU funds which may lead to an operational and financial burden, and unstable performance of the MSWM system
- If the tourism is growing rapidly and poorly managed, it could lead to more littering
- Difficult to change the behavior of local residents and tourists
- Poor performance of waste recycling caused by fluctuation of the price for recyclable materials
8.3.3. Potential Policy and Regulatory Topics to Address
To operate an efficient MSWM system in the long run, a comprehensive regulatory and policy framework and an effective implementation and enforcement system must be in place. Policy and regulation work should be developed and/or strengthened in the following areas: financial sustainability of SWM operations, inter-city or regional cooperation, private sector participation, enforcement of
125
MSWM, incentives for public participation in waste separation and recycling, and social inclusion and affordability. These aspects are discussed below.
Ensuring financial sustainability will be a priority for new investments. With the EU funds, Tulcea County will be able to significantly improve its infrastructure for MSWM. But the critical issue is to ensure that those facilities be operated in a sustainable way in the long run. Policy has to be introduced to secure sufficient funding to cover operations and maintenance costs of the MSWM system.
SWM can be managed in a more cost-effective way if communities can cooperate with each other to reduce costs and maximize the use of SWM facilities. The County Council and the Inter-community Development Association should introduce policy measures to aggressively promote inter-city/community cooperation.
Private sector participation can help bring in additional funding and improve the efficiency of the SWM system. This requires both national and local policies and rules which on one hand encourage the participation of private sector companies in MSWM, and on the other hand effectively guide and regulate them.
Monitoring and enforcement are critical elements for a successful implementation of a SWM system. Adequate measure need to be introduced in this regard. They include completion of waste management rules and standards, and capacity building of environmental enforcement bodies in the study area through training and equipping staff with necessary monitoring and enforcement means.
Participation by households in waste separation at source is vital for the success of any SW minimization. In addition to public education and awareness raising activities, incentives need to be in place. Polluter Pay Principle should be applied in MSWM. This requires that a user charge be applied to support the cost of the waste collection and disposal. A comprehensive incentive system will also include rewards that encourage good behavior in SWM, and in due course possibly a system of user charges based on the waste volume by household. The income and affordability of households need to be carefully studied and mitigation measures taken to avoid financial burden on low-income groups.
8.3.4. Conclusions
The current MSWM system is generally inadequate, with low waste collection rate, especially in villages in the Delta, low recycling rate, and insufficient and costly waste transportation services between Tulcea and the core Delta. There is much room for improvement in MSWM in the Delta in order to have the world natural heritage well protected along the any local economic development. Particularly, the area needs to: (i) significantly improve the waste collection rate, especially in the rural areas, through provision of reliable and financially sustainable waste collection and transportation services during the next EU budgetary cycle; (ii) enhance waste separation at source through awareness raising and behavior changes of local residents and tourists; and (iii) minimize the wastes disposed at landfill by promoting waste recycling and other waste treatment means.
Local governments in the Delta are committed to addressing SWM issues. A very significant SWM investment program has been designed by Tulcea County Council which will be financed by EU in 2014-15. In addition to physical investments, a comprehensive regulatory and policy framework and an effective implementation and enforcement system must be put in place to make the integrated MSWM system operate sustainably in the long run. Such framework needs to address the financial sustainability of SWM operations, inter-city or regional cooperation, private sector participation, enforcement of MSWM, incentives for public participation in waste separation and recycling, and social inclusion and affordability.
126
9. Education and Health
9.1. Education
9.1.1. Current Situation
a) Characteristics
Education is a vital component of any development effort and holds the key to ensuring the same start in life for all. This is particularly true for a region like the Danube Delta, featuring some of the lowest density areas in Romania, with inadequate basic services, poor accessibility, limited connectivity to major markets, and a peripheral position that hinders people’s access to opportunities. Education is one of the five pillars of the Europe 2020 strategy, including two specific targets: reducing school drop-out rates below 10%; and having at least 40% of 30-34 year olds completing third-level education.47 The EU Strategy for the Danube Region further underscores the importance of education: “The Danube Region can progress and grow in a smart and inclusive way by investing in people and skills and making best use of its human capital.”48 Along the same lines, the World Bank 2010 Functional Review of Romania’s Pre-University Education Sector makes a persuasive argument for supporting the education sector: “Romania’s ability to compete in the global market for goods and services will depend on its ability to transform itself into a knowledge-based economy. This depends on having a highly-skilled workforce, which depends, in turn, on the relevance and quality of the education received by its children.”49
This section focuses on the education sector in the Danube Delta, aiming to provide an overall perspective on relevant challenges, opportunities, and policy areas. Most of the data presented refer to Tulcea County and focus on the public pre-university system, as private and higher education remain underdeveloped in the region. The Tulcea county School Inspectorate notes that the only private sector academic institutions are a kindergarten in Tulcea City, with 26 children in total; and a post-high-school institution in Tulcea City, focused on training medical assistants, with around 550 students. There are no university-level opportunities in the immediate area; in fact, Tulcea remains the only county capital in the South-East Region that does not have any college-level institution.50 Students who go to full-time bachelor programs have options in cities like Galați, Constanța, and București.
The Education Sector in Romania: Overall Perspective and Challenges
Over the past 25 years, Romania’s education sector has struggled with many of the issues experienced by countries with a history of Communist-era, centrally planned and executed strategies. After years of under-investment in this sector (despite more recent progress, with the doubling of expenditures per student between 2000 and 2009), the quality of the education process has also suffered, leading to sub-par results in terms of academic achievement. The World Bank’s 2010 Functional Review found “Romanian 15-year old children were found to be one year behind their counterparts in Europe in science, two years behind in mathematics and three years behind in reading comprehension.”51 Teachers in Romania are some of the most poorly paid in the EU, at an average salary of roughly 470
47
See http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/ 48
EUSDR Report on Priority Area 09, June 2013, p.2. 49
World Bank, “Functional Review of Romania’s Pre-University Sector,” Final Report, October 2010 50
See http://www.adrse.ro/Documente/Planificare/PDR/2014/5.6_Infrastructura_educatie.2013.pdf, p.8 51
World Bank, “Functional Review of Romania’s Pre-University Sector,” Final Report, October 2010, p. 1
127
Euros (only 1.3 higher than the average wage).52 At the same time, school infrastructure has been improving, but not everywhere in Romania. Cities, towns, communes, and villages across the country have inherited a stock dominated by Communist-era kindergarten, school, and high-school buildings – generally poorly built and incurring high operating costs due to poor energy efficiency and inadequate insulation. In recent years, significant investments from a variety of sources have targeted the modernization of this infrastructure, including all aspects related to the educational process (e.g., actual reconstruction/insulation works, purchasing of computers and printers, sporting equipment, etc.). In early 2011, Romania adopted an important Law on National Education, which entailed an ambitious plan for the sector’s decentralization. The 2010 World Bank Functional Review of the pre-university education sector points to a number of other key challenges. These include: the inadequate coordination among various stakeholders; the excessive number of teachers and schools in the system; political instability and politicization; bureaucracy; lack of accountability for performance; inadequate capacity to absorb funds; lack of proper data management and analysis.
b) Issues/Constraints
Declining Student Population
Tulcea County and the Danube Delta struggle with unfavorable demographic dynamics and a declining student population. Data from the 2011 Census shows a worrisome picture: between 2000 and 2011, the total population of Tulcea county has declined by 21.5%, almost twice the national level. By age group, however, the population between 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19 years old has declined, respectively, by 13%, 15%, 44%, and 38% (see figure 43 below). Comparisons with the 1990 baseline are even starker: the 0-4 and 10-14 population segments have declined to less than half. Such dramatic changes are bound to affect the overall demand for education services, in the context of a relatively rigid supply (i.e., reductions in the number of schools and/or teachers are difficult to implement).
When looking at the student population in 2000 vs. 2012, across all types of pre-university education, the numbers are clearly declining. The reductions are very sharp, particularly in Tulcea county, even when compared to other counties in the South-East development region. Across the board, Tulcea fares the worst, with a decrease of 24% in pre-school enrolment, 37% in primary and secondary school enrolment, and a staggering 94% in the number of students attending professional schools (a broader trend than at regional and national levels). The one exception is the high school group, which has actually increased during this time period. This is a result of baby boomers in the late 1980s reaching high-school age but, going forward, this “anomaly” is expected to disappear in the context of post-communist declining demographic trends.
52
European Commission, “Teachers’ and School Heads’ Salaries and Allowances in Europe, 2012-2013”
128
Figure 43: Tulcea population by relevant age groups (0-19) in 1990, 2000, 2005, and 2011
Data Source: National Institute of Statistics
Figure 44: The number of students in Tulcea (in yellow) has decreased sharply, even compared to other counties in SE region
Data Source: National Institute of Statistics
A high teacher-to-student ratio in the core Delta is due to the low student population size. When looking at the total number of pre-university registered students divided by the total number of school units (i.e. average number of students per school), Tulcea is under the national-level average in both 2011 and 2012, which suggests that the current number of schools in operation may be adequate. The Delta has an average of only 135 students per school unit, although it is also true that many schools here
129
use simultaneous class teaching, including in Gorgova, Partizani, Beştepe, Plopu, Sarinasuf and Teliţa, where school management has been unable to “fill” full classes (data as of April 2013).53
Table 16: Average number of students per school unit
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
National Average 260.74 307.15 419.62 424.94 417.70 412.61 442.31 455.81 460.46
Tulcea County 270.56 265.04 527.92 442.13 429.35 445.42 512.28 433.19 423.37 Data Source: National Institute of Statistics
Figure 45: Very small classes in the core Delta contribute to high per student costs.
Source: Census 2011 and Tulcea county
Family Environment Challenges
Children with parents working abroad constitute an increasingly common occurrence, particularly in lagging areas in Romania where external migration is on the rise. Data from the Tulcea county School Inspectorate show that this situation cannot be ignored: between 5% and 10% of the students, depending on the age group, have one or both parents abroad. This creates a more difficult learning environment, with higher risks of under-performance and drop-out.
Table 17: Shares of students with one/both parents abroad
One parent abroad Both parents abroad Total student population
Pre-school 207 107 6385
Primary school 506 316 9873
Secondary school 621 307 8855
High school 512 260 7981
Source: Tulcea county School Inspectorate54
53
See for instance, “Schools in the Danube Delta Are Looking for Students,” Adevarul, April 13, 2013. 54
Tulcea county School Inspectorate, “Annual Report 2012-2013,” Presentation, p. 25
130
Inadequate Financing
Such significant demographic and social changes are bound to put pressure on the education system in the DD, particularly when it comes to shouldering costs for an over-extended network of schools. Moreover, national-level reforms adopted in January 2011, through the new Law on National Education, changed the rules that lie at the foundation of the public education funding. As article 9 warrants, the government is responsible for financing all mandatory education in the public system, “on the basis and within the limits of the standard cost per student … based on the principle that money should follow the student.”55 It is not surprising, therefore, that some school units in Tulcea county were shut down and their students relocated to other schools. Indeed, when looking at the number of classrooms, Tulcea county again shows one of the highest decreases in Romania between 2000 and 2012 at 17.7%, with only Teleorman surpassing this figure at 19.2%. From 2011 to 2012, after the implementation of the new funding rules, the total number of classrooms in Tulcea county decreased from 1,253 to 1,088.56
In the core Delta specifically, the effects of insufficient financing have been even more visible. Media reports note that by April 2011 these schools had already spent their budgets allocated for the entire year, with public authorities struggling to find the necessary resources to keep these units running.57 Eventually, eight of the schools had to be closed in the core Delta, despite initial public opposition, bringing the total number of schools in operation down to 9, with a total student population of 1,217. Local authorities in the region receive slightly higher public financing per student, but face much higher operating costs due to their small class size and isolation.
Figure 46. Per capita Expenditures on Education in the DD
Data Source: National Institute of Statistics
Low Accessibility
The reduction in the number of schools, while perhaps financially sound, poses increased challenges in terms of accessibility, particularly in a region like the Danube Delta where its transportation system remains quite poor. As some units close, transportation of the students who used to go there to the nearest school becomes a constraining factor. For instance, students in a few villages around Maliuc have to catch the once-a-day public boat to go to school in Maliuc. There are also reports in the media
55
Law on National Education, in “Monitorul Oficial,” Nr. 18, January 10, 2011. 56
2011 Census, National Institute of Statistics 57
“Schools in the Danube Delta Are Going Bankrupt,” Romania Liberă, April 5, 2011 <http://www.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/locale/scolile-din-delta-dunarii-in-faliment-221520.html>
0
200
400
600
800
1000
MA
LIU
C
C.A
.RO
SETT
I
SF.G
HEO
RG
HE
SULI
NA
CR
ISA
N
CEA
TALC
HIO
I
CH
ILIA
VEC
HE
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
GR
IND
U
Tulc
ea
MA
CIN
ISA
CC
EA
BA
BA
DA
G
s?ce
le
istr
ia
BES
TEP
E
SLA
VA
CER
CH
EZA
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
I.C
.BR
ATI
AN
U
LUN
CA
VIT
A
MU
RIG
HIO
L
MIH
AI…
JUR
ILO
VC
A
MA
HM
UD
IA
PA
RD
INA
VA
CA
REN
I
SMA
RD
AN
VA
LEA
NU
CA
RIL
OR
BA
IA
MIH
AI V
ITEA
ZU
FREC
ATE
I
JIJI
LA
corb
u
SAR
ICH
IOI
NU
FAR
U
NIC
ULI
TEL
SOM
OV
A
131
that local authorities simply do not have the resources to hire drivers for boats.58 Such situations need to be carefully addressed to ensure that children throughout the region continue to have the same access to educational opportunities. In simple terms, the easier it is for them to get to school every day, the more likely they are to stay in school. It is for the same reason that the 2010 World Bank Functional Review called for creating a list of “protected schools” – “schools whose closures would impair access to education” – before actually shutting down any units.59
Inadequate Infrastructure
Equally important, some of the schools in the core Delta continue to struggle with lack of proper sanitation and inadequate heating and running water. The Tulcea county Inspectorate noted that 10 schools did not receive health authorizations to function in the 2012/2013 academic year, for the following reasons:
Lack of running water in the locality (Letea, Periprava, and Caraorman)
Improper sanitation (Izvoarele)
Degraded school buildings (Cataloi, Poşta, Teliţa, Iulia, Trestenic, Iazurile)
Perhaps not surprisingly, several of these are in the core Delta, while others are just South-West of Tulcea, in the vicinity of Frecăței.
The challenge of decaying or inexistent basic infrastructure for schools in Tulcea county and the Danube Delta is related to the fact that school and local budgets are simply insufficient to cover the costs of upgrades. Data in section 5.2 above show that local authorities spend an important percentage of their budgets on “education” – but this simple picture can be misleading. In effect, these are earmarked transfers from the Ministry of Finance to cover operating costs for schools (e.g., teacher salaries). Budgets for actual investments in capital improvements are in high demand and short supply from both the national and local budgets.
At the same time, data from the SE Regional Development Agency shows that very few schools have been modernized with EU funds, despite the availability of such support from the EC. Specifically, only two schools in Tulcea county benefited from financing through the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) for upgrading the existing infrastructure and purchase of equipment (e.g., computers, teaching materials, etc.): Topolog and Greci. The total value of these projects was 4.8 million RON – lower than the average value of a single project of school infrastructure upgrade financed through the ROP (over 8 million RON). This is extremely small in comparison to the funds contracted by the entire region for upgrading of education infrastructure – i.e., 276.8 million RON – out of a total of 1.9 billion RON for Romania as a whole. It means that Tulcea’s share of the regional funds was only 1.73% and 0.21% of the national ROP funds for school improvements.60
Last but not least, internet usage remains low, particularly in the core Delta, where only a quarter of residents go online. Reportedly, internet is available only in some schools and a few rely on the neighboring Town Halls’ networks (e.g., C.A. Rosetti).
58
See “Education Reform Blocked in the Danube Delta,” Romania Libera, December 17, 2013 59
World Bank, “Functional Review of Romania’s Pre-University Sector,” Final Report, October 2010, p. 68 60
Data provided by the SE Regional Development Agency. See http://www.adrse.ro/Documente/Planificare/PDR/2014/5.6_Infrastructura_educatie.2013.pdf
132
Figure 47. Internet usage rates (as % of total residents)
Data Source: National Institute of Statistics
Lack of Certified Teachers
At the level of Tulcea county, data provided by the School Inspectorate puts the number of total teaching staff at 2,736, with 58% in cities and the rest in rural areas.61 The average number of students per teacher looks positive at only 12.25, with similar figures for urban and rural settings, although it is also true that the county is sparsely populated and there are some simultaneous teaching programs (see below). Of the total number of teachers, 2,672 (97.7%) have all the necessary qualifications.
There are fewer certified teachers in the DD as compared to the rest of the county. There are proportionally fewer certified teachers in the Delta (67 percent) as compared to the rest of the county (89 percent). Currently, teachers receive about 20% of the average salary as a bonus for locating in an isolated area, versus 80% that they used to be entitled to a few years ago. The map below tells an interesting story: on the one hand, it appears that the number of pupils per teacher and the number of hours per teacher are at reasonable levels, for most of the core Delta; on the other hand, given the prevalence of the simultaneous teaching model (with multiple classes held at the same time by the same teacher), these data should be interpreted with caution.
Based on data from the Tulcea county School Inspectorate, 845 primary school students (8.58% of the total) and 396 secondary school students (4.45% of the total) were enrolled in simultaneous teaching programs. Though the data are not segmented based on location, it is safe to assume that most of these programs are in the core Delta, where there are insufficient students to form single-grade classes, so students in different age groups attend courses at the same time. This obviously creates difficulties for absorbing the information and puts children who are enrolled in such programs (out of necessity, not personal choice) at a clear disadvantage.
61
“The State of Pre-University Education in Tulcea county: 2012/2013 School Year,” p.26
25% 33% 32% 30%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%
Core Delta SurroundingArea
Study Area Tulcea
133
Figure 48. Teachers in smaller communities are likely to be more thinly stretched
c) Opportunities/Potential
Educational Attainment
Despite some of the aforementioned challenges, the data pertaining to the quality of the educational process provide a positive picture, although disaggregated data at the level of the core Delta is lacking. For one, based on the data provided by the Tulcea county School Inspectorate, Tulcea county had a total number of 27,063 students registered in the beginning of the 2012/2013 school year for all pre-university types of education. Of the total number of students, 26,445 were still registered at the end of the school year, meaning that 618 students (roughly 2.2%) had relocated or dropped out, and another 1,250 were repeaters (i.e., failed to pass on to the next grade).62 Based on the number of days missed by students, the same report puts the actual drop-out number at 303, meaning an even lower drop-out rate of 1.1%. This compares very favorably to a reported national average of roughly 15%.63 Tulcea is also well under the Europe 2020 target for drop-out rates (10%, as noted earlier).
Graduation rates are also generally high, across the board. A remarkable 97% of students enrolled graduate from primary school, 81% finish secondary school, and 73% graduate 12th grade. 80% of students enrolled in professional education end up graduating from these courses. Some urban-rural discrepancies do exist, particularly for the high school grades, where students in rural settings are less likely to complete their education successfully. Women generally have higher graduation rates than men.64
The performance in Tulcea county on standardized tests is at the level of national average or better. For one, the National Evaluation at the end of 8th grade shows that an average of 82.3% and 62.5% of
62
“The State of Pre-University Education in Tulcea county: 2012/2013 School Year,” p.18 63
See, for instance, http://www.ziare.com/tulcea/stiri-actualitate/abandonul-scolar-la-tulcea-foarte-mic-fata-de-restul-tarii-3865339 64
These data are from the Tulcea county School Inspectorate, “Annual Report 2012-2013,” Presentation, p. 13-16
134
the students tested passed the exam for Romanian and Math respectively.65 Students in cities have slightly better results than their counterparts in rural areas, while girls generally test higher than boys. These figures are broadly in line with national averages; indeed, for 2013, 77.1% of students passed this exam at the national level.66 As for the final 12th grade exam, the National Baccalaureate, 62.7% of students in Tulcea county passed, compared to the national average of 56.4%.67
Figure 49. School in Crișan, Danube Delta
Source: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/73380950
Specialized Programs and Labor Market Alignment
As one example, Luncavita has a high school specialized in agriculture and tourism. All students take these subjects from 9th to 12th grade. Currently, there are 148 students in 5 classes (generally 1 class per year, with 2 classes in the 11th grade). The community realized that, in order to get a better price for their cereals, they had to get the processing star certified, which requires trained agricultural specialists. In addition, Luncavita is located about 7 km from the Delta and 7 km from the Măcin Mountains National Park, and no overnight accommodation facilities are available for tourists in the commune. Therefore, local authorities thought it would be a good idea to combine agriculture and agro-tourism as specialties (majors) in the high school to support local economic development.
Students responded very well to this initiative. Some of them convinced their parents to offer room-for-rent or turn their homes into guest houses. Some built new guest houses (“pensiuni”); seven were built with international financial support. Parents were also very helpful, giving their children an opportunity to stay in the area and not have to leave to find work elsewhere in Romania or abroad. The older generation was also engaged to teach the young generation traditional local handicrafts skills – this has helped the commune develop and create jobs.68 All in all, this is a positive example of how a more decentralized system, with curricula aligned to the specific profile of the local economy, can drive economic growth and development. Such initiatives should be replicated elsewhere in the Delta, with expected results likely, as long as they are the result of bottom-up consultations and strong commitment by local authorities to enact the necessary policies and support structures.
Beyond such promising initiatives, the reality is that schools in the Danube Delta and the broader Tulcea area need to respond, first and foremost, to providing a proper learning environment. In other
65
“The State of Pre-University Education in Tulcea county: 2012/2013 School Year,” p.20 66
See, for instance, http://adevarul.ro/news/eveniment/rezultate-evaluare-nationala-2013-evaluare-nationala-2013-1_51ced537c7b855ff56dd9fbb/index.html 67
See http://www.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/educatie/rezultate-finale-bac-2013-vezi-aici-notele-dupa-contestatii-307371.html 68
A similar attempt to establish a tourism program was made by the high school in Sulina some time ago. This program was later closed, however, due to an insufficient number of students choosing the program.
135
words, they need to ensure a safe learning environment, where children can focus on acquiring knowledge and not worry about cold temperatures, lack of running water, or improper school equipment. The analysis below summarizes these initial observations, reflecting on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the Danube Delta’s education sector.
Alternatives to simultaneous learning
There are multiple options for serving a declining student population in an area with poor accessibility. Specifically: (1) simultaneous learning; (2) daily commute for students in remote areas; (3) weekly commute for these students, with student housing close to a few “hub” schools; and (4) e-learning or distance learning programs. The first option is currently deployed, with unsatisfactory results, as multiple classes are taught at different levels, all by the same teacher, at the same time. The second option also applies currently, but is costly, hard to implement (particularly under severe weather conditions), and time-consuming for students. The third option would involve an initial capital expense, but promises lower operating costs overall because students are concentrated in a few hub locations. The fourth option would require IT&C infrastructure, but overall it would incur the lowest costs in the long run – a secure high-speed internet connection would enable instructors in one school to serve students in multiple locations, with the support of local supervisors and parents.
d) Key sector entities and their capacity
The legacy of centralization means that some of the critical decisions related to education policies, procedures, and curricula continue to be handled at the level of the Ministry of National Education (MNE). The MNE’s local representatives are the 42 Inspectorate Offices (subordinate to the MNE) and there are three other national-level actors, also dependent on the MNE, with key roles in ensuring the quality of the educational process: the National Center for Assessment and Examinations, the Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Pre-University Education and the Institute of Education Sciences. Most current expenses (e.g., teacher salaries) are also covered by the national level, with the Ministry of Finance earmarking funds channeled to local authorities precisely for this purpose – these expenses come out of the share dedicated in the annual state budget to the Ministry of National Education.
Executive boards are the main parties responsible for actually managing and administering the schools, while local authorities finance the bulk of investments in school infrastructure. Most often, Local Councils (City/Town Halls) in cities and communes bear the main costs of such interventions, although in some instances part of the funding can also come from other parties (e.g., County Councils, central-level programs, international institutions and corresponding grants, etc.). Over the past decade, local authorities throughout Romania have invested significantly in the modernization of school infrastructure, particularly with the help of EU funds – most notably, the Regional Operational Programme, which as of August 2013 had contracted projects for school rehabilitations exceeding 1.9 billion RON in total, with an average value of 8.2 million RON. Such interventions typically include both construction works and purchases of required equipment related to the educational process (e.g., whiteboards, maps, computers, printers, etc.).
A third category of stakeholders includes teachers’ unions, parents’ associations, and other organizations that are active in this sector. The figure below, from the 2010 World Bank Functional Review, provides a broad overview of the pre-university education sector’s complex institutional structure, which also holds for the schools in the core Delta region and helps put into perspective the question of who needs to lead and act, in collaboration with others, to remedy the observed shortcomings. The following sections focus primarily on the local level, but there is no doubt that any
136
meaningful progress with respect to the education sector in the Danube Delta will only result from an effective collaboration between stakeholders at different levels.
Figure 50. Overall structure of the education sector
Source: World Bank Functional Review of Romania’s Pre-University Educational Sector (2010)
69
69
Ibid., p. 29
137
9.1.2. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Table 11. Education SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Recognition at the local level of the importance of education for the development of the area (e.g., in the Tulcea County Development Strategy);
- Positive county-level results in terms of educational attainment (high graduation rates, low dropout rates, above-average standardized test scores);
- Successful initiative to create customized curricula that fit the profile of the local economy (e.g., Luncavita high school), with possibility of replication elsewhere in the core Delta;
- Low teacher-student ratios (although with some variance across schools).
- Declining, sparse student population continues to put pressure on the school system, which faces high operating costs in the context of “money follows the student” principle;
- Improper conditions (lack of running water, improper sanitation, degraded buildings);
- Insufficient financing for capital investments in local schools, coupled with lack of capacity/ knowledge for absorbing available EU funds;
- Low accessibility, coupled with recent school closures and lack of financial resources to contract boats and drivers;
- Low internet usage rates; - Lack of proper incentives to attract qualified,
certified teachers in the more remote locations; - Simultaneous teaching programs put core Delta
students at a disadvantage.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- High economic potential in tourism and agriculture ensures demand for qualified human capital in the area;
- Realignment of schools’ curricula to respond to the demand of the local market;
- Availability of EU funding for 2014-2020 for upgrading of schools and student housing;
- Allocation of an increased share of the national budget to incentivize teachers to relocate to more remote areas;
- Construction of student housing around main facilities to consolidate teachers and students;
- Introducing e-learning and distance learning (pilot and full-scale) instead of simultaneous teaching, to achieve lower costs and higher coverage of students;
- Keeping and teaching traditional skills and handicrafts to preserve the area’s unique multicultural heritage;
- Specialized academic and research programs related to the unique character of the Delta
- Continuous demographic decline, leading to even less financing and fewer opportunities to finance improvements in learning environments for remaining students;
- Weak local economy and inability to attract significant investment, forcing families to relocate in search of opportunities (and further reducing the student population);
- Rising migration rates among adults, leaving children without one or both parents living home;
- Lack of capital to sustain potential new student housing facilities in a more consolidated network of schools;
- Lack of proper IT&C infrastructure for supporting potential distance learning and e-learning, and lack of experience with such programs.
138
9.1.3. Conclusions
The Danube Delta’s education sector faces important challenges to which there are no easy solutions. Policies are rarely effective in stopping the kind of demographic decline witnessed by Romania on a national scale – and by Tulcea and the core Delta in particular – and, even so, in the short-to-medium term the situation is only bound to get worse in terms of the area’s declining student population. The more fundamental issue is to make the system work within the current “givens”– geographic, demographic, financial, and social.
The sector requires, first and foremost, a clear direction based on the latest data available to prioritize investments in hard infrastructure. Informed policymakers need to decide which schools will most effectively serve the Delta’s student population in the years to come. These units should then be scheduled for upgrades and purchases of required equipment. Given the lack of national/local budgets for such interventions, the main option is to tap into available EU funds through the 2014-2020 Regional Operational Program (ROP). The Managing Authority in the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) and particularly the South-East Regional Development Agency (as the ROP’s Intermediate Body) can play a key role in encouraging and supporting local authorities and schools in their efforts to attract needed financing. Depending on the specific proposals and eligibility rules, such funds could also be used to finance the construction and/or upgrading of student housing, if decision-makers opt for consolidating the network around several hubs. Regardless of the path chosen, children should have access to proper hard infrastructure – well-built schools, with comfortable temperatures year-round, running water, proper sanitation, and all the necessary equipment for this modern age.
Equally important, soft investments are needed to ensure that children have access to well-trained teachers who follow appropriate curricula, customized to local needs. Increased budgets are needed to attract qualified teachers in more remote locations; this is an absolute must, as even the best equipped, most modern schools will not effectively prepare students in the absence of proper instructors. Based on public consultations and in alignment with local and regional strategies for economic development, the schools’ curriculum should be adapted to match the area’s competitive advantage in the economic sphere. By working in tandem with the private sector, schools can enable children in the Delta to acquire the necessary knowledge and lay the foundation for professional accomplishment later in life, making sure that their practical training matches the needs of the economy. This will also benefit the region in the long term by motivating people to stay in the area – all that is needed is for residents to be confident again in their ability to put their children through proper schools and secure the right professional opportunities in the Delta.
To create the virtuous links between educational attainment, labor productivity, and economic development, the Danube Delta must rely on a functional and effective education sector. Currently, the area is trapped in a vicious cycle of: poor educational infrastructure, doubled by an inherent inability to attract qualified teachers to isolated areas; low professional skills and a relatively small, sparse, and declining labor force, implying a low level of attractiveness for investors; low average productivity and wages; reduced tax base at the local level, imposing severe budgetary constraints – and so on and so forth. Beyond market dynamics, the “givens” of geography and demographics make the challenge even harder, with relatively isolated localities and poor access to schools, particularly in rural areas. Some parents with sufficient financial means may send their children far away to enable them access to a proper education, though even this option is particularly challenging given the region’s poor connectivity. And, in any case, this is not an optimal solution. The message is simple: for sustainable and inclusive development, the Danube Delta needs a strengthened educational sector that ensures adequate access to opportunities for all.
139
9.2. Health
9.2.1. Current Situation
Health outcomes in Tulcea county are poor compared to the rest of Romania. Life expectancy at birth (average life) had increased between 2005 and 2008. However, during the last six years the trend has been reversed, so that the gap between the national average and the local one has returned to the state it was in 2006, as seen in Figure 51.
In 2010, Romania had the highest infant mortality rate in the European Union: 9.8 per 1,000 live births, more than twice the EU rate
of 4.1 per 1,000. In Tulcea county the mortality rate has had a variable
trend between 2007 and 2011. The most frequent causes of infant deaths were due to: infectious respiratory diseases, and acute diarrheal disease, but also a significant percentage of malformations, which could potentially be associated with environmental factors.
Table 18: Deaths under 1 year old, by cause of deaths in Tulcea county
Source: 2012 Statistic Bulletin
The healthcare system is challenged by the shifts in the demographic and epidemiological patterns. Since 1990, the population has been declining in number and aging in Tulcea, as detailed in section 3.1 of this report. The demographic change places a particular burden on the healthcare system, as it is associated with a shift in epidemiology patterns characteristic to each age group. In fact, Romania as a whole has had difficulties in identifying a comprehensive approach for reducing the burden of chronic diseases, while also dealing with a rising incidence of non-communicable diseases. For example, in 2011, the causes of deaths in Tulcea county were in 67% of the cases cardiovascular diseases, characteristic of an aging population, followed by cancer (16%), digestive disorders (5%), external causes such as injuries and poisoning (4%), and respiratory diseases (3%). The epidemiological profile of infectious diseases in Tulcea is similar to that of the entire country. Romania has achieved its targets for mandatory immunizations under the national vaccination schedule, but there remains a lack of vaccination in certain sub-populations, indicating a need for information campaigns.
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total number of deaths
57 37 37 40 28 28 35 18 32 31
Congenital malformation 12 4 6 7 5 11 9 4 6 5
Figure 51 Average life expectancy in Romania and Tulcea county
140
The hospitals are financed by a combination of adjusted payments and funds allocated from the central and local authorities’ budgets. According to national regulations, local authorities have control of hospital buildings, as well as major responsibilities in hospital management. Each county has a public general emergency hospital, which provides care in all basic specialties (internal medicine, cardiology, surgery, neurology, etc.). There are two hospitals in Tulcea: Tulcea County Emergency Hospital, and the Municipal Hospital in Macin. The Tulcea County Emergency Hospital has extensive facilities as it operates out of 4 buildings, and covers over 20 medical specialties, including 14 ambulatory specialties.
a) Characteristics
A Telemedicine Pilot Project for the core Delta began in March 2012 and seems to show positive initial results. It included 10 family doctors from the Danube Delta, 23 specialists with different specialties and 8 specialists from the Emergency Room of the Tulcea County Emergency Hospital. The Pilot Project was designed to test the concept and operation of telemedicine in rural and remote regions. The family doctors received the following digital medical testing equipment for use in the Pilot Project: EKG and Vital Signs Monitor, and three doctors received portable echography devices. Intermediate outcomes show that 840 medical requests sent by family physicians were resolved.
b) Issues / Constraints
Decentralization is creating many challenges for the healthcare system. Healthcare services need to be coordinated/regulated to introduce bigger catchment areas (and funding areas) for services that should be performed in intermediate areas. The fragmentation of policies and provided medical services creates overlaps and gaps, inefficiencies, low quality and inequity. At the same time, the capacity of institutions or professionals empowered until now to conduct preventive interventions – such as district public health authorities, school doctors and nurses, family doctors and nurses, health community assistants and health mediators, targeting the overall population, has decreased. The main risks incurred by the implementation of the decentralization policy are linked to the following elements: insufficiently developed institutional capacity at local level; inertia or lack of overall assumption of responsibilities; the lack of necessary supplies and equipment; the diminution of the response capacity of the central level, in case of need; and the vulnerability of public policies according to the changing priorities of the political agenda.
People in isolated areas in the core Delta still have difficulties in accessing primary care services. The means of transportation for the local population are often private cars, horses, carriages, buses, or boats which usually only run once in 2-3 hours. Sometimes people simply walk for 5-10 km to reach a family medical office or a local pharmacy. The issue of access is particularly problematic during severe winters with snowfalls and blizzards, when many localities are cut off or left without electricity. Conversely, during the summer time, due to tourism, a tripling of the number of persons in the area occurs stretching the stress on medical resources and facilities.
There are only a few primary health care providers in the core Delta. Twenty-four hour services are only provided within three “Permanency centers” while in remote areas only a single doctor and/or nurse can ensure services outside office hours. There are nine villages not covered by a family doctor. As can be seen in the figures below as well as in Annex 12, in the core Delta there are only four local family doctors, four part time family doctors travelling from Tulcea City, three nurses, and six medical community assistants.
141
Figure 52: Servicing the core Delta population will continue to require the use of the county hospitals
Figure 53: Number of nurses per 10,000 inhabitants in the study area
Source: Census 2011 and Tulcea county Source: Census 2011 and Tulcea county
The isolation, population size and age in the core Delta is a disincentive for providing medical services. The significant disadvantage of the core Delta is that it contains those areas where the population is low and aging, with many co-morbidities, and patients in need of home care. For the medical personnel, low salaries and the difficult working conditions in the public sector have created an incentive to move at least part time into private practices. Due to the lack of medical human resources, and the way doctors can divide their working time between public and private practices, the outcome is usually to the disadvantage of the public system.
Incentive policies are flawed, and private healthcare providers are faced with considerable financial uncertainty when operating in the core Delta. In order to incentivize family doctors to practice in remote or low-income areas like the Danube Delta, double capitation payments were introduced only for those practicing there in either individual cabinets or working points. The reimbursement mechanisms for family physicians within the health insurance system are based on capitation for individuals registered in the national health insurance system, as well as fee-for-service. There are a certain number of patients needed to establish a contract with the HIHs, but there is no contractual remuneration for the high investment and practice costs (i.e. renovation and maintenance of premises and equipment). Furthermore, healthcare practices have usually been placed on premises rented from local authorities, which is meant to be an incentive, but the contracts do not guarantee long-term use and therefore actually increase uncertainty with regard to any investment by a physician.
The local health infrastructure and its service delivery system have high operating costs and do not function efficiently. As many other public hospitals, the Tulcea County Emergency Hospital incurred significant financial arrears in 2013 (1,675 thousands lei in the first six months of 2013). The costs are high since they include the operation of four buildings, and cover inefficient practices like maintaining a high number of continuous hospitalization beds, extended hospitalization periods, and limited ambulatory services. In case of medical emergencies, boats are used to transfer patients from the Delta. However, it usually takes 2-3 hours for an emergency boat to reach the destination from Tulcea and boats are not available at night. SMURD is efficient in its interventions, but they do not have intervention ships, which restricts their access to isolated areas in the core Delta. A helicopter service provided by the Ministry of Interior is another transportation option during emergencies, but this service can only be used in extreme cases. These limitations cause delays in obtaining emergency care and may lead to fatalities and less favorable health outcomes.
142
The Danube Delta is prone to specific environmental risk factors, and there is a critical lack of information on their potential impact on humans. Climate change has major implications for health and nutrition - with impacts on food security, access to clean water and sanitation and the threat of an increased number of natural disasters. At the same time, due to transiting several regions and industrialized urban centers, Danube River is exposed to waste, toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, as well as organic matter, which can contaminate water with a considerable risk to public health. Human and animal pathogens of enteric origin are considered important contaminants of the environment, with transmission through soil, agriculture, water and sediments. Assessment and identification of fecal-origin-specific pathogens is a problem of utmost importance in terms of safety and protection of drinking-water sources. The main diseases present and some potential specific communicable diseases are presented in Annex 13 based on data from PHD Tulcea.
c) Opportunities / Potential
Emergency care has improved but better cooperation would raise efficiency. In the last four years, due to investments and training, the system has become more reliable, and the number of requests has continuously increased (more than 2.1 million in 2009, though some 20 percent of the healthcare costs have not been paid for by the NHIH). However, more could be done to clearly determine the role of each institution in the process, facilitate cooperation and avoid duplication.
Policy changes could lead to lower costs and higher efficiency for the Tulcea County Emergency Hospital. It would be possible to provide better quality of service on an efficient basis, by reshaping the available facilities into a sheltering model providing affordable accommodation services, for example for mothers while their children receive medical care, or for patients who live in remote areas. At the same time it is recommended to increase the efficiency of service provision by reducing the duration of hospitalization, develop ambulatory services and a network of hospital outpatient departments. This would translate into higher volume, lower costs and better quality care.
The transfer of the Public Health Directorate functions from the MoH to the Tulcea County Council may be an opportunity. To benefit from it, the local authorities should make a clear analysis and acknowledge any specific problems.
d) Key sector entities and their capacity
The Ministry of Health (MoH) is the main national authority of the Romanian healthcare system. The local institutions representing the (MoH) are the Tulcea and the Constanța Public Health Directorates (PHD).
The National Health Insurance House (NHIH) represents the main financial source of the healthcare system and is represented at the local level by the Tulcea and the Constanța Health Insurance Houses (HIH). In order to receive payments from the NHIH, both private and public healthcare providers need to enter into a Framework Contract through which services are contracted by the HIHs. The rule applies for hospitals as well as ambulatory care: clinic and para-clinic specialties, primary care, home medical care services and recovery care.
The health care is a complex system of providers at different levels, managed by different agencies. Primary care is provided by family doctors (FDs) and General Practitioners (GPs), nurses, and other types of para-medical staff. There are on average 1,726 inhabitants per physician at in Tulcea county compared to 1,894 inhabitants per physician at the national level. Specialized ambulatory care is provided within individual physician practices, and ambulatory centers for medical clinic or para-clinic
143
specialties. Ten private investors have developed ambulatory clinics in Tulcea City. Emergency services are provided by the county Ambulance Service and two private providers as well as hospitals which collaborate with the police departments, the Inspectorate for Emergency Situations (ISU) and the Mobile Emergency Service for Resuscitation and Extrication (SMURD). During the last four years, the MoH has invested in emergency vehicles and medical equipment as well as in staff training (doctors, nurses and firemen) with financial support from EU. Information and communication systems, including the use of a single call center, and medical protocols, have also been improved. As a result, the system has become more reliable, and the number of requests has increased continuously.
144
9.2.2. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Table 12: Healthcare in the study area SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- Awareness of the specific problems within the region by the local residents;
- Potential for local authorities to use their new authority over public health policies to meet the specific needs of the local communities;
- Investments made in emergency response units with potential for growth;
- Insufficiently developed institutional capacity at local level and lack of coherent cross-sectoral policies and cooperation;
- Healthcare facilities and personnel lacking or poorly distributed;
- Poor access to healthcare services and long emergency response times in isolated areas;
- Lack of supplies and equipment at the PHD and hospital level;
- Equipment and software issues for the developing telemedicine system;
- Lack of well-designed financial incentives for health care providers.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Increasing citizens’ awareness of and participation in decision-making processes
- Policy shifts, like ambulatory and day care services, could make more effective use of resources
- Initiating and maintaining better lines of communication among local policy makers would boost outcomes
- More financial flexibility and policy stability would reduce uncertainty and increase attractiveness of the core Delta for healthcare providers.
- Increasing healthcare accessibility through integrating the telemedicine system and establishing adequately equipped and staffed permanent centers
- The fragmentation of the health policy and the diminution of the response capacity of the central level, in case of need
- Vulnerability of public policy due to changing priorities in the political agenda
- Assignment of administrative responsibilities not supported by financial means
- Specific communicable diseases in the area with possible epidemics and epizootics
- Seasonal tourism increases pressure on service needs
- Low capacity for rapid emergency and pandemic response
- Decreasing capacity of empowered institutions to conduct preventive interventions on health-related matters
145
9.2.3. Potential Policy Areas to Address
Policy shifts are essential to improve healthcare provision throughout the study area. It is achievable for example to significantly cut costs and increase efficiency by reducing hospitalization periods, the number of hospitalization beds, and develop ambulatory services within hospitals as a network of hospital outpatient departments. Some reforms need to be considered to change the contract between NHIH and hospitals in order to give hospitals more flexibility, especially given the lack of human resources at the county level.
Placing more focus on prevention and information campaigns could also improve overall health outcomes and quality of life. Since many of the institutions that used to provide this function are no longer able to do so, prevention at the local level will require capacity building.
It is extremely important to foster collaboration between governmental institutions and other donors to promote sustainable use of resources and payment methods that reward performance. In the core Delta in particular, incentive schemes need to be better calibrated and allow for flexibility. Some national level primary care policy areas that would improve local effectiveness in remote settings are: (i) introduce and monitor financial and non-financial incentives, voucher systems for remote rural practice; (ii) optimize the division between capitation and fee-for-service payments; (iii) facilitate transfer of ownership of premises to family doctors; and (iv) stimulate involvement of local authorities in underserved areas to create and maintain permanent centers. This would help balance the distribution of the medical service provision across the study area. Some local authorities are already interested in primary care, such as Sfântu Gheorghe, and the possibility for better cooperation should be explored.
Integrating the telemedicine project and emergency services as well as creating a new health emergency and operative station should be assessed and considered. This would help decrease the response time for health services, lessen pressure on county resources and potentially decrease emergency costs. Regular prevention and medical care caravans in areas surrounded by water should also be taken into consideration.
Considering the number of environmental risk factors in the study area, assessments and in-depth studies could be done in order to estimate their likely impact on health. Risk assessment, prevention and control strategies could be developed based on the evaluation of the relationship between the quality of the physical environment (water, radiation, soil, habitat building, food) and health.
9.2.4. Conclusions
Health care services in the core Delta are not only constrained by the generally low quality of health services available in the country but also by inaccessibility. The particularity of the isolated geographical area, the age, income level and small size of population, the high number of insured patients needed for a contract with HIHs, and the large share of uninsured citizens, represent main causes for the lack of interest from medical professionals, particularly in remote areas. In addition there are persisting health inequalities, user dissatisfaction, and lack of access to quality care for the poor and other vulnerable groups.
County hospitals will continue to provide tertiary services and the emphasis should be on reducing hospitalization and providing better outpatient services. Improving primary health care and telemedicine might also hold some potential for addressing needs in the core Delta. Health services need to be coordinated and regulated to introduce bigger catchment areas (and funding areas) for services that should be performed in intermediate areas.
146
10. Concluding Comments
Finding a balance between conservation and improving livelihoods will be critical. The core objectives for the sustainable development of the Danube Delta are the conservation of its ecological and biodiversity assets and improvement of the quality of life for its residents. Supporting a sustainable economic development and the livelihood of the residents in the Delta is challenging for the county councils, local authorities and DDBRA. Some of the main features of the "core Delta", are that the residents are few in number; dispersed over a wide area; relatively old on average (and likely to continue to age as young people continue to leave); and predominantly rural with livelihoods dependent on direct exploitation of the natural resources. The diagnosis in this report identifies both opportunities for development and possible threats. The continued work will take into consideration development pathways that seem to have worked or failed in areas with some or all of these features.
The diagnosis is only the first step towards the strategy. The report provides inputs to the next phase in the development of a strategy for the Danube Delta – the development of a Vision Statement and related strategic goals for the Delta by 2030. This will provide strategic direction and guide a detailed assessment and analysis of needs - for policy, capacity, and institutional development as well as investments. A common vision among stakeholders will also help to make choices in crafting the Development Strategy and related Actions (projects). These projects, once prioritized, will form the investment plan for implementation during 2014-2020.70
A strategy is as strong as its support from stakeholders. The process of drafting the strategy is as important as the final product itself. Active participation of all stakeholders is necessary, including institutions from all levels of government (MRDPA, MEF, DDBRA, the County Councils, local authorities, etc.), the private sector, civil society, and, above all, the residents in the study area. All parties have provided input to this report and their continued involvement will be sought. Stronger institutional coordination and clearer delineation of responsibilities, especially for environmental protection functions, will be needed. To ensure that the strategy will be coordinated and gain broad support, an inter-institutional committee has been established with representatives from both central government ministries and local county councils.
The strategy will be accompanied by financing. An investment plan will be finalized by mid-2015. Its main financing source is expected to be a new instrument called Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI), accessing predefined EU funds for the strategy from various OPs. This instrument will foster coordinated implementation of the strategy and ensure that the interventions will benefit the residents of the Delta.
Synergies will be explored and tradeoffs will be needed. While the current diagnoses have been made by subject, the eventual strategy will reflect a cross-sectoral and territorial focused approach, capitalizing on possible synergies among the subjects. For example, any tourism development will likely need to be supported by infrastructure as well as initiatives in fishery and agriculture. The transport network and solid waste management are typical subjects that need to be addressed at area-scale. Above all, the eventual choice of development direction will need to be consistent with the conservation objectives of the areas main asset, the biosphere reserve and its natural resources. The DDBR was established to preserve specific ecological and biodiversity values. Going forward, a key question will be what types and levels of infrastructure development and economic activity the ecosystem in the Delta can support. The neighboring areas will be studied for opportunities for economic development interventions that benefit the study area as a whole.
70
The schedule for the continued study is included as Annex 15.
148
Annex 2 Summary of Local Stakeholder Consultations Between September and December 2013, consultations were held in all communes in the core Delta (i.e. the area between the Chilia and Sf. Gheorghe channels) and all towns in the project area (Babadag, Isaccea, Macin and Sulina). Two meetings were normally held in each locality, one with the mayor and a few public sector employees (councilors, teachers, nurses, border police, etc.), and one with a cross-section of residents (business people, fishermen, cattle herders, pension owners, service providers, etc.).At the consultations in Babadag, Macin, and Isaccea, officials from nearby communes also participated.71The meetings had two objectives: (a) to learn about key issues, concerns, development needs, and opportunities in the town/commune/village; and (b) seek the views of the participants about their vision for their town/commune/village and the Delta (“What do we wish the Commune and the Delta to be in 2030?”). This annex provides a summary of the main findings, divided between the core Delta and the neighboring areas. The project area towns and communes visited for the consultative meetings are shown in attachment.
(a) Community Consultations in the core Delta. The concerns expressed in most localities were:
Insufficient infrastructure, particularly for sanitation and solid waste management (weak garbage management); but also water supply in some villages (e.g. C.A. Rosetti and Ceatalchioi; only two hour supply in Chilia Veche; etc.).
Connectivity issues: limited availability and affordability of water transport services to Tulcea and Sulina; transport distances causing higher construction costs, and challenges in emergencies; most existing roads are in poor condition.
Limited health services.
The environmental protection rules/regulations: over time, increased environmental protection measures; more protected areas and restricted access to natural resources (“traditional livelihoods”) without compensations; tourism activities are seasonal and cannot support the
livelihood for the rest of the year; complicated and costly to obtain authorizations for any constructions; too many controlling institutions, particularly related to fishing, with contradictory rules; lack of local involvement and partnership with authorities on the subject.
Clogged channels: many secondary channels and lakes for tourism activities and fishing are partially clogged; need for improved waterway management/cleaning of channels to prevent further fish stock depletion, and secure transport(e.g. between Crișan and Caraorman).
Flood protection works (rehabilitation of dikes, etc.) are needed in some areas (e.g. in Patlageanca; Crișan, Ceatalchioi, Sf. Gheorghe).
Limited financial resources by local residents (and commune councils) for investments (e.g. in pensions and rooms-for-rent); investments and management of local resources therefore mostly by “outsiders”.
Difficult to access EU funds: lengthy, costly, difficult to understand processes to access EU funds
Concessions: most arable land is under concession by outside investors; local agriculture is mainly for subsistence.
Challenging market for cattle owners (no slaughterhouse in the delta; no milk collection in most areas).
Unclear property rights in some areas.
71
Additional visits to communes and towns were made on specific subject matters as part of the diagnoses of the respective subject.
149
A declining population (young people leave the delta, less children to justify schools).
Lack of proper environmental management by DDBRA; e.g. few(5) camp-grounds, weak/inconsistent law enforcement, no marked trails for tourism, etc.)
Abuse of power by enforcement agents of different authorities. Additional concerns were expressed depending on people’s livelihood; for example:
Decreased grazing areas for local cattle (due to concessions); in addition, increasingly required to be fenced; concessionaires do not allow cattle to cross dikes; etc.
Reduced fishing areas for local fishery due to concessions and/or clogging of waterways /low water levels.
Illegal fishing; poaching not stopped by the controlling institutions; and depleting fish stock for the fishermen with fishing license; fish (in nets) get stolen; fish collectors/buyers sometimes don’t register fish bought, preventing/complicating for fishermen to renew their licenses; and increased restrictions set by DDBRA and the tax regime have given fishermen and fish collectors stronger incentives to pouch and sell/trade without tax; and
Thoughts about the Future. The expressed development opportunities for the communes in the Delta (Vision with horizon 2030) were mostly related to tourism and fishing, but only provided the mentioned
concerns would be addressed over time. Potential is also considered to exist in reed harvesting in an environmentally friendly way. Regarding the future of the core Delta, most participants expressed pessimism though and considered the area having low prospect if the current environmental protection measures would not be more conducive for economic development, and the related enforcement arrangements improved. I.e. a more permissive legislation in the protected areas for the local residents. Mayors as well as residents saw significant potential in creating better collaboration – a more effective partnership - between the local communities and the higher authorities, the county Council, DDBRA, Border Police as well as other entities related to the national government, with delegation of some responsibilities to the commune level.
(b) Community Consultations in Towns and Communes in the Neighboring Areas to the core Delta. Since the towns and neighboring areas are having better infrastructure overall, a main concern is job creation, but significant development needs still exist for road improvements, flood protection and sewerage systems (Babadag and Isaccea), heating and energy efficiency in buildings, and bridge to Braila (Macin). While at present tourism in these areas is mainly along the road from Tulcea to Murighiol, with direct access to the core delta, significant tourism potential is considered to also exist between Tulcea and Macin. Frequent concerns expressed were:
Lengthy, costly and difficult to understand processes to access EU funds – frustrating
The tourism jobs tend to be only during 2-3 summer months (no jobs during winter-time)
Lack of pastures for cattle raising
Better management of the waterways needed to facilitate fishing
Poaching is not enforced enough, in spite of many (too many) entities (and the penalties are light)
150
Water supply and waste management is still an issue in some villages
Lack of camping grounds (banned inside the reserve)
DDBRA is very restrictive and leases land rights mostly to outsiders
A reformed system of guards needed to prevent abuse of power (e.g. rotation)
Young people need attractive public space and easier access to interne
Locals are at disadvantage versus outsiders due to a lack of finance and networks
Financial support is need for people to upgrade their houses (to offer “rooms-for-rent”)
Lack of unity /association among people, particularly fishermen Meeting was also held with the mayor and secretary of Mihai Viteazu Commune (located along Lake Sinoe), one of the communes in Constanța county included in the Danube Delta project area. Most of the area in this commune (and in the neighboring Istria)72 is subject to Natura 2000 (4000 ha), putting constraints for development (e.g. no wind farms, no construction). In addition, some areas along the lake are under protective regulations by DDBRA, restricting economic development, including fishing due to long periods of fishing prohibitions in the lake DDBRA’s policies are considered very constraining; e.g. wild pigs destroys things for farmers but can’t be hunted. The compensation to people for Natura 2000 protected measures is considered inadequate. The area attracts many visitors/tourists, but only a buffer area (300 ha) can be visited due to large protected areas around Lake Sinoe. Sinoe village (mostly Roma people) has no water supply system, and a new sewerage system is needed in the main village of the commune. Thoughts about the Future. While farming and cattle raising are the predominant economic activities in most of these neighboring areas to the core Delta at present, the expressed development opportunities were here as well mostly related to tourism (e.g. including vacation villages, and building on attractions beyond the Delta itself). Processing of beef and fish were also expressed as possibly having some potential. Concerns related to accessing EU funds, the current environmental protection regime, and the prospect of more collaborative efforts in the area, were similar to the ones in the core Delta. Overall the discussions in these areas reflected a somewhat more hopeful view about the future though.
72
The economies of the other two communes in the project area – Sacele and Corbu – are more integrated with Constanta through commuting for work.
151
Project Area Towns and Communes Visited for Community Consultations The table below shows the locations visited for community consultation by one or more members of the Bank team, discussing challenges and opportunities for the development of the respective community and the Delta. Meetings were held with local officials and other stakeholders. At meetings in Babadag, Macin, and Isaccea, officials from nearby communes also participated (noted in the last column).
Table 19. Visited Towns and Communes for Community Consultations
Name of City/Town(*) or Commune Population 2011
73
Visited by Bank team member(s)
Participation in town meeting
Babadag* 8940 X
Baia 4758 X
Bestepe 1667
CA Rosetti (and Letea village) 910 X
Ceamurlia de Jos 2163 X
Ceatalchioi 593 X
Chilia Veche 2132 X
Corbu 5689
Crișan (and Mila23 village) 1228 X
Frecatei 3426
Grindu 1356
IC Bratianu 1187
Isaccea* 5026 X
Istria 2443
Jijila 5312
Jurilovca 3935 X X
Luncavita 4244 X
Macin* 8245 X
Mahmudia 2341 X
Maliuc 856 X
Mihai Bravu 2356
Mihai Viteazu 3244 X
Mihail Kogalniceanu 2735 X
Murighiol 3217
Niculitel 4297 X
Nufaru 2273
Pardina 527 X
Sacele 2101
Sarichioi 5856 X X
Sfântu Gheorghe 797 X
Slava Cercheza 1666
Smardan 1077
Somova 4388 X
Sulina* 3663 X
Tulcea* 73707
Vacareni 2201
Valea Nucarilor 3266
Total 183822
73
Source: Preliminary results from Census data 2011
152
Annex 3 List of Communes/Municipalities in the study area
Table 20: List of Communes/Municipalities
county Name of Commune/Municipality
Tulcea Babadag
Tulcea Baia
Tulcea Bestepe
Tulcea CA Rosetti
Tulcea Ceamurlia de Jos
Tulcea Ceatalchioi
Tulcea Chilia Veche
Tulcea Crișan
Tulcea Frecatei
Tulcea Grindu
Tulcea IC Bratianu
Tulcea Isaccea
Tulcea Jijila
Tulcea Jurilovca
Tulcea Luncavita
Tulcea Macin
Tulcea Mahmudia
Tulcea Maluic
Tulcea Mihai Bravu
Tulcea Mihail Kogalniceanu
Tulcea Murighiol
Tulcea Niculitel
Tulcea Nufaru
Tulcea Pardina
Tulcea Sarichioi
Tulcea Sfântu Gheorghe
Tulcea Slava Cercheza
Tulcea Smardan
Tulcea Somova
Tulcea Sulina
Tulcea Tulcea
Tulcea Vacareni
Tulcea Valea Nucarilor
Constanța Corbu
Constanța Istria
Constanța Mihai Viteazu
Constanța Sacele
153
Annex 4 Population change by commune/municipality Table 21: Population change by commune/municipality
Commune / Municipality county Core Delta
Population (Census 2002)
Population (Census 2011)
Difference (2002-11)
BABADAG TULCEA
10037 8940 -10.9
BAIA TULCEA
5024 4758 -5.3
BESTEPE TULCEA
0 1667 ---
C.A. ROSETTI TULCEA 1 1179 910 -22.8
CEAMURLIA DE JOS TULCEA
2620 2163 -17.4
CEATALCHIOI TULCEA 1 752 593 -21.1
CHILIA VECHE TULCEA 1 3606 2132 -40.9
CORBU CONSTANȚA 5261 5689 8.1
CRIȘAN TULCEA 1 1414 1228 -13.2
FRECATEI TULCEA
3836 3426 -10.7
GRINDU TULCEA
1582 1356 -14.3
I.C.BRATIANU TULCEA
1304 1187 -9.0
ISACCEA TULCEA
5374 5026 -6.5
ISTRIA CONSTANȚA
2634 2443 -7.3
JIJILA TULCEA
5832 5312 -8.9
JURILOVCA TULCEA
5184 3935 -24.1
LUNCAVITA TULCEA
7074 4244 -40.0
MACIN TULCEA
10625 8245 -22.4
MAHMUDIA TULCEA
4826 2341 -51.5
MALIUC TULCEA 1 1060 856 -19.2
MIHAI BRAVU TULCEA
2640 2356 -10.8
MIHAI VITEAZU CONSTANȚA 3337 3244 -2.8
MIHAIL KOGALNICEANU TULCEA
3261 2735 -16.1
MURIGHIOL TULCEA
3778 3217 -14.8
NICULITEL TULCEA
4715 4297 -8.9
NUFARU TULCEA
2427 2273 -6.3
PARDINA TULCEA 1 712 527 -26.0
SACELE CONSTANȚA
2233 2101 -5.9
SARICHIOI TULCEA
7457 5856 -21.5
SFÂNTU GHEORGHE TULCEA 1 971 797 -17.9
SLAVA CERCHEZA TULCEA
2829 1666 -41.1
SMARDAN TULCEA
1171 1077 -8.0
SOMOVA TULCEA
4500 4388 -2.5
SULINA TULCEA 1 4601 3663 -20.4
TULCEA TULCEA
91875 73707 -19.8
VACARENI TULCEA
0 2201 ---
VALEA NUCARILOR TULCEA
3976 3266 -17.9
TOTAL STUDY AREA 219707 183822 -16.33
TOTAL CORE DELTA 14295 10706 -25.11
154
Annex 5 Access to Services – Commune Level Figure 54: Access to Services
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2011 Census
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
OR
AS
SULI
NA
SFA
NTU
GH
EOR
GH
E
CR
ISA
N
MA
LIU
C
CEA
TALC
HIO
I
CH
ILIA
VEC
HE
PA
RD
INA
C .
A .
RO
SETT
I
MU
NIC
IPIU
L TU
LCEA
CO
RB
U
OR
AS
MA
CIN
OR
AS
BA
BA
DA
G
MA
HM
UD
IA
OR
AS
ISA
CC
EA
SAC
ELE
SOM
OV
A
MIH
AIL
KO
GA
LNIC
EAN
U
NU
FAR
U
SMA
RD
AN
JIJI
LA
NIC
ULI
TEL
MU
RIG
HIO
L
BA
IA
MIH
AI V
ITEA
ZU
FREC
ATE
I
BES
TEP
E
ISTR
IA
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
JUR
ILO
VC
A
SAR
ICH
IOI
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
LUN
CA
VIT
A
VA
CA
REN
I
VA
LEA
NU
CA
RIL
OR
GR
IND
U
SLA
VA
CER
CH
EZA
I . C
. B
RA
TIA
NU
HOT WATER
in the dwelling from the public system in the dwelling from its own system
outside the dwelling from the public network outside the dwelling from its own system
outside the building from the public network outside the building from its own system
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CEA
TALC
HIO
I
C .
A .
RO
SETT
I
CH
ILIA
VEC
HE
MA
LIU
C
CR
ISA
N
PA
RD
INA
SFA
NTU
GH
EOR
GH
E
OR
AS
SULI
NA
NU
FAR
U
MIH
AIL
KO
GA
LNIC
EAN
U
MIH
AI V
ITEA
ZU
NIC
ULI
TEL
SMA
RD
AN
BES
TEP
E
VA
CA
REN
I
FREC
ATE
I
JUR
ILO
VC
A
ISTR
IA
SLA
VA
CER
CH
EZA
SAR
ICH
IOI
LUN
CA
VIT
A
I . C
. B
RA
TIA
NU
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
SAC
ELE
GR
IND
U
VA
LEA
NU
CA
RIL
OR
BA
IA
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
SOM
OV
A
MA
HM
UD
IA
OR
AS
BA
BA
DA
G
MU
RIG
HIO
L
CO
RB
U
OR
AS
ISA
CC
EA
JIJI
LA
OR
AS
MA
CIN
MU
NIC
IPIU
L TU
LCEA
TYPE OF HEATING
Central Heating (Public Heating center) (Dwelling) Gas from public network (Dwelling) liquefied ga
(Dwelling) solid fuel (Dwelling) liquid fuel (Dwelling) another type of energy used
Cooker wit gas from public network Cooker with liquified gas Stove with gas from public network
Stove with liquefied gas Stove with solid fuel Stove with liquid fuel
Electric energy Other type of heating No heating at all
155
Annex 6 Local government revenues
Figure 55: Local government revenues
0
20000000
40000000
60000000
80000000
100000000
120000000
140000000
160000000P
AR
DIN
A
CR
ISA
N
C.A
.RO
SETT
I
SULI
NA
CO
RB
U
SMA
RD
AN
BA
BA
DA
G
SAC
ELE
JUR
ILO
VC
A
ISA
CC
EA
MA
CIN
CEA
MU
RLI
A D
E JO
S
SOM
OV
A
MIH
AI B
RA
VU
SAR
ICH
IOI
LUN
CA
VIT
A
JIJI
LA
ISTR
IA
MIH
AI K
OG
ALN
ICEA
NU
Other
Earnmarked transfers
Non_earmarked transfers
Shared
Own Source
156
Annex 7 Definition of public finance terms Own Revenues: first tier local government revenues generated by local fiscal revenues (property tax, vehicle tax, company income tax for the companies owned by local authorities, juridical and notarial taxes, special taxes/betterment taxes other minor local taxes) and non-fiscal revenues (concessions, rents, penalties/fines, revenues from capital). The second tier local governments (county councils) have a much more narrow capacity on own revenues: company income tax for the companies owned by county authorities, tax on transport vehicles, some license fees, capital revenues, concessions and rents and other very small sources. Shared Personal Income Tax (PIT): revenues generated by sharing the PIT based on area of collection following the formula: 41.75% for the budget of tier 1 local governments (municipalities, small towns, communes), 11.25% for the budget of tier 2 local governments (county councils), 18.5% for equalizing at the level of the county using the same equalization formula used by the center government. This share of 13% should be considered non-earmarked grants – analyzed below. Non-Earmarked Grants: equalization transfers supported by PIT or VAT, allocated by counties and localities in two rounds: first round Ministry of Finance allocates equalization transfers based on VAT by counties, using a formula with two indicators: area (30% weight) and fiscal capacity per capita (calculated only based on PIT and used inverse proportional to obtain an equalization effect) (70% weight). From the total non-earmarked transfer at county level (what is allocated by MoF based on VAT and 18.5% from collected PIT within county administrative boundaries) the county council budget receive 27% and the rest is allocated among localities in the following manner: - 80% is allocated among localities using a formula with three indicators: fiscal capacity per capita
(calculated on PIT and used inverse proportional), population and urban area, excluding the agricultural land). The effective allocation is done by the de-concentrated office of MoF and it is realized in two steps. In the first step the transfers is allocated only for the local government units with the fiscal capacity per capita (calculated based on PIT) less than the average fiscal capacity per capita calculated at county level, using a formula with two indicators: population (75% weight) and permitted to build are (25%). In the second step, the non-allocated money are distributed to all local governments from the county inverse proportional with their fiscal capacity per capita;
- 20% is allocated among localities by county councils for three purposes, but without formula: the pay the arrears, to support the local development plans and to support the co-financing of investment projects.
Earmarked Grants are state transfers with specific destination: for the first tier of local governments they are used for pre-university education, social welfare (Minimum Income Guarantee program, disabled people, heating subsidies for poor families). At the county level the earmarked grants are essentially used to finance the social assistance services (for children, disabled persons and elderly). The allocation by local government units is done generally based on number of beneficiaries – in pre-university education is calculated mainly on teacher number. The reimbursement of EU funds are also an important component of earmarked grants, used essentially for investments – the value of EU non-investment projects at the level of local government is only marginal.
157
Other Revenues contains a number of small other revenue sources – with the exception of 2010, when apparently the reimbursements from EU funds have been included in this category (for this reason the share of this category is very high in 2010) This analysis is done based on international practice and OECD classification and specific categories for local government finance – unfortunately the Romanian classification and categories used in the budget execution is quite different.
Table 22: Table of fiscal categories equivalence
OECD – Intergovernmental Fiscal Categories Romanian Budgetary Categories – formula (Romanian language)
Own Revenues Venituri Proprii Total - Cota Defalcata din Impozitul pe Venit - Sume alocate din cotele defalcate din impozitul pe venit pentru echilibrarea bugetelor locale
Shared Personal Income Tax Cota Defalcata din Impozitul pe Venit
Non-Earmarked Grants Sume alocate din cotele defalcate din impozitul pe venit pentru echilibrarea bugetelor locale + Sume defalcate din TVA pentru echilibrarea bugetelor locale
Earmarked Grants Sume defalcate din TVA pentru finanţarea cheltuielilor descentralizate la nivelul judeţelor + Sume defalcate din TVA pentru finanţarea cheltuielilor descentralizate la nivelul comunelor, oraşelor, municipiilor, sectoarelor şi municipiului Bucureşti + Sume defalcate din TVA pentru drumuri + Sume defalcate din TVA pentru finanţarea Programului de dezvoltare a infrastructurii şi a bazelor sportive din spaţiul rural + Subvenţii + Sume primite de la UE/altii donatori in contul platilor efectuate si prefinantari
Other Revenues Alte Venituri
The Romanian Budgetary Categories are used in the data base with all consolidated budgets of local government, used by us in all calculations - http://www.dpfbl.mdrap.ro/sit_ven_si_chelt_uat.html
158
Annex 8 Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) – International
Examples Destination Management Organizations (DMO) is responsible for management and marketing of tourism within a defined geographic region. DMOs can be:
National tourism authorities (NTA) Regional DMOs, or Local DMOs
DMO structures vary tremendously across countries and regions but are typically based on some form of public-private partnership. In many countries national-level DMOs (NTAs) are housed in a public institution (Ministry or Agency) but have a decision-making body (council) that includes private sector leaders. On regional and local level DMOs not only include private sector representatives but actually “outsource” some of the operational activities to private sector entities (such as categorization or promotion for example). Depending on administrative structures and institutional setup, a country can have a system of regional as well as local DMOs, or only regional DMOs with a network of stakeholders that facilitate implementation on local level. On national level DMOs are usually institutionalized as national tourism boards, national tourism authorities/administrations, national tourism organizations, etc. Regional and local DMOs can be institutionalized as tourism boards, tourism councils, tourism forums, tourism associations, etc.
Example: Northwest England DMO Structures
The Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA) is responsible for the sustainable economic development in Northwest England, including of tourism, which is an important sector of the regional economy. The implementation of the regional tourism strategy is channeled through the following structure:
A Regional Tourism Management team is chaired by NWDA and includes representatives of Visit Britain and the five tourist boards (local DMOs) within the region. They are tasked with operational implementation of the strategy. A regional tourism executive group within NWDA is responsible for strategic direction of tourism in the region, providing funding and project management. It maintains direct relationships with local DMOs and sets up special teams (based on project needs) focused on ICT, skill development, research, regional marketing and business support;
Five sub-regional/ local tourist boards (DMOs) manage tourism on the local level, including destination marketing, industry relations, research, project delivery and operationalization of the tourisms strategy through Destination Management Plans.
159
Example for DMO Structure
Responsibilities & Functions: - Strategic vision for tourism at country level - National-level tourism strategy (master plan) - Policies & legislation - National-level promotion (branding & marketing)
Structure: usually housed at a public institution with a decision-making body that engages private sector leaders in policy and strategy development
Responsibilities & Functions: - Design of regional strategy (destination management
plan) in the context of the national strategy - Strategy implementation oversight - Regional policies and regulations (depending on
administrative structure and status) - Regional marketing - Feedback and recommendations to NTAs on policy,
legislation and strategy needs
Structure: could be housed at a regional authority or at a regional association but decision-making body is a council including representative of NTA, regional government, local DMOs and regional industry leaders; working groups established for special tasks or projects.
Responsibilities & Functions: - Design local destination management plan - Implement regional destination strategy/ plan - Regulation (based on responsibilities and status) - Feedback and recommendations to regional DMOs on
policy, legislation and strategy needs
Structure: could be coordinated by local authority but focus is on collaborating with industry to coordinate implementation of projects and programs included in strategy/ plans.
National
Tourism
Administration
Regional DMOs
Local DMOs
160
Annex 9 Land use by Locality and Ownership in the Study area
Locality
Total (ha) Private Ownership (ha)
Total Agricultural Land Total
Total Agricultural. Land Total
Tulcea 16,448 7,582 7334 7236
Babadag 10,154 2,775 2911 2773
Isaccea 10,168 4,491 5,802 4,421
Macin 5,256 4,925 5256 4925
Sulina 32,835 835 686 0
Baia 23,787 18047 18478 18036
CA Rosetti 26,638 3298 13145 3298
Ceatalchioi 11,495 3280 5266 2628
Ceamurlia 16,121 8294 8444 8232
Chilia 53,496 17123 1926 1772
Crișan 40,975 3073 324 130
Frecatei 9,848 7988 8706 7929
Grindu 12,611 6489 3356 3356
Jijila 11,983 10529 11083 10327
Jurilovca 30,263 8731 6720 6485
Luncavita 12,304 7660 8433 7628
Mahmudia 6,975 5116 3570 3327
Maliuc 26,372 5486 2860 2633
M. Bravu 8,438 7242 7284 7182
M. Kogalniceanu 14,016 12869 13220 12650
Murighiol 80,449 9474 7888 7271
Niculitel 9,367 4606 4695 4449
Nufaru 5,653 4276 4211 4178
Pardina 30,634 13075 1801 1736
Sarichioi 27,949 9918 9987 9750
Sf. Gheorghe 60,577 2510 852 782
Slava Crecheza 10,734 3832 3917 3784
Smardan 8,973 5716 3087 3087
Somova 14,497 5426 5564 5426
Valea Nucarilor 14,810 8938 8580 8253
I.C. Bratianu 5,597 4224 4336 4224
Bestepe 5,013 4772 4891 4772
Vacareni 7,289 7205 7255 7205
Total Study area 661,725 229,805 201,868 179,885
Annex 10 Analysis of Farm Structure in the Study area
Area / localities Area (ha)
No. of Farms
Average (Ha/farm)
Weight of Farms by Area farmed
0-1 ha 1-10 ha 10-100
ha 100-1000
ha >1000
ha
Zone 1 - West Tulcea
1 Macin 3,350 2,661 1.26 7% 16% 21% 56% 0%
2 Smardan 5,937 427 13.91 1% 1.50% 10% 88% 21.50%
3 Bratianu 4,005 575 6.97 2% 7% 12% 79% 0%
4 Jijila 8,086 1,948 4.15 5% 23% 17% 55% 25.70%
5 Grindu 3,223 509 6.33 4% 9% 6% 81% 46%
6 Luncavita 8,098 2,222 3.64 7% 25% 6% 62% 0%
7 Isaccea 4,538 2,300 1.97 10% 20% 10% 60% 0%
8 Frecatei 8,547 1,926 4.44 7% 4% 8% 82% 40.60%
9 Somova 6,213 2,074 3.00 8% 11% 9% 72% 19%
10 Niculitel 8,072 2,040 3.96 6% 8% 2% 84% 44%
11 Vacareni 5,715 941 6.07 2% 24% 10% 64% 0%
12 Tulcea 10,981 3,623 3.03 4% 15% 12% 69% 9%
Total Zone 1 76,764 21,246 3.61 5.29% 13.70% 10.12% 52.52% 18.37%
Zone 2 - South Tulcea
13 Mahmudia 4,723 1,152 4.10 3% 3% 7% 87% 0%
14 Bestepe 4,530 826 5.48 6% 2% 2% 89% 64%
15 Murighiol 11,276 2,433 4.63 4% 7% 6% 82% 38%
16 Nufaru 3,855 1,202 3.21 8% 12% 9% 72% 0%
17 Valea Nucarilor 9,351 1,660 5.63 5% 6% 4% 83% 15%
18 Baia 13,410 1,545 8.68 2% 6% 19% 73% 37%
162
19 Sarichioi 9,207 3,017 3.05 6% 5% 8% 81% 23%
20 Ceamurlia 8,190 826 9.92 3% 5% 14% 79% 14%
21 Mihai Bravu 7,304 1,021 7.15 4% 3% 6% 87% 32%
22 M. Kogalniceanu 10,705 1,102 9.71 3% 3% 10% 84% 20%
23 Slava Cercheza 3,711 1,463 2.54 8% 1% 3% 89% 54%
24 Jurilovca 6,800 1,869 3.64 6% 3% 11% 81% 37%
25 Babadag 3,514 2,878 1.22 12% 3% 17% 68% 0%
Total Zone 2 96,576 20,994 4.60 4.60% 4.64% 9.72% 54.29% 26.75%
Zone 3 - East Tulcea (Delta)
26 Sulina 371 1,127 0.33 19% 0% 0% 81% 0%
27 C.A. Rosetti 3,476 736 4.72 7% 9% 0% 84% 84%
28 Chilia Veche 18,127 881 20.58 1% 3% 1% 95% 65%
29 Crișan 2,672 577 4.63 4% 0% 0% 96% 96%
30 Pardina 15,392 153 100.60 0% 1% 1% 97% 62%
31 Sf. Gheorghe 5,343 408 13.10 1% 0% 0% 99% 99%
32 Maliuc 3,951 738 5.35 6% 9% 3% 83% 66%
33 Ceatalchioi 5,496 435 12.63 3% 5% 9% 83% 48%
Total Zone 3 54,829 5,055 10.85 1.93% 3.11% 1.83% 24.89% 68.23%
Total Project Area 228,169 47,295 4.82 4.19% 7.32% 7.96% 46.63% 33.90%
Zone 1 33.64% 44.92% 74.89% 126.18% 187.16% 127.20% 112.63% 54.18%
Zone 2 42.33% 44.39% 95.35% 109.79% 63.36% 122.09% 116.43% 78.91%
Zone 3 24.03% 10.69% 224.83% 46.10% 42.51% 23.01% 53.38% 201.30%
Annex 11 The water operators serving local communities in the study area
Table 23: The Water Operators Serving Local Communities
Name of City
or Commune Villages Population
2011 Service provider
Water Supply
Sewerage collection
Sewerage Treatment
Tulcea
73,707 AQUASERV S.A.
Tulcea Yes Yes Ongoing
Babadag
8,940 AQUASERV S.A.
Tulcea Yes Yes Ongoing
Macin
8,245 AQUASERV S.A.
Tulcea Yes Yes Ongoing
Isaccea
5,026 AQUASERV S.A.
Tulcea Yes Yes Ongoing
Sulina
3,663 AQUASERV S.A.
Tulcea Yes Yes Ongoing
Baia
Including villages Baia,
Camena, Caugagia,
Ceamurlia de Sus, Panduru
4,758 S.C. GOSCOM BAIA
S.R.L. Yes NO NO
Beştepe
1,667 Serviciu Publica BESTEPE S.R.L.
Yes NO NO
CA Rosetti
910 * Ongoing
investment NO NO
Ceamurlia
de Jos
Ceamurlia de Jos
1,090 Local Council Department
Ceamurlia de jos Yes NO NO
Lunca 1,073 Local Council Department
Ceamurlia de jos Yes NO NO
Ceatalchioi
593 * ongoing NO NO
Chilia Veche
2,132 AQUA PREST CHILIA
VECHE Yes NO NO
Crișan Crișan 462 APA SI CANAL CRIȘAN S.R.L.
Yes NO NO
Caraorman 309 * ongoing NO NO
Mila 23 457 * ongoing NO NO
164
Frecatei Frecatei, Cataloi,
Posta, Telita 3,426
Local Council Department
FRECATEI Yes NO NO
Grindu
1,356 Local Council Department
GRINDU Yes NO NO
IC Bratianu
1,187 * ongoing NO NO
Jijila Jijila 4,056
AGIL SERV COM JIJILA
Yes NO NO
Garvăn 1,256 HELIOS IMPEX S.R.L. GARVAN
Yes NO NO
Jurilovca
Jurilovca 2,121 Local Council Department JURILOVCA
Yes Yes Yes
Visina 727 * Yes NO NO
Salcioara 1,087 Local Council Department JURILOVCA
Yes NO NO
Luncavita Luncavita 3,432
SC Utilitati Publice SRL Luncavita
Yes Yes Yes
Rachelu 812 SC Utilitati Publice
SRL Luncavita Yes NO NO
Mahmudia
2,341 UTIL AQUA
MAHMUDIA Mahmudia
Yes Yes Yes
Maliuc
Maliuc 238 Local Council
Department Maliuc Yes NO NO
Gorgova 146 * NO NO NO
Ilganii de Sus 52 * NO NO NO
Partizani 374 * NO NO NO
Vulturu 46 * NO NO NO
Mihai Bravu Mihai Bravu 650 Local Council
Department MIHAI BRAVU
Yes NO NO
Mihai Bravu Turda 1,098 Local Council
Department MIHAI BRAVU
Yes NO NO
Mihail
Kogalni-Mihail
Kogalniceanu 1,631
Local Council Department M. KOGALNICEANU
Yes Yes Yes
165
ceanu Rindunica 614
Local Council Department M. KOGALNICEANU
Yes NO NO
Murighiol
Murighiol 1292 UTILITATI SI
SERVICII PUBLICE - Murighiol
Yes NO NO
Colina 126 UTILITATI SI
SERVICII PUBLICE - Murighiol
Yes NO NO
Dunavatu de Jos
586 UTILITATI SI
SERVICII PUBLICE - Murighiol
Yes NO NO
Dunavatu de Sus
199 * NO NO NO
Plopul 551 UTILITATI SI
SERVICII PUBLICE - Murighiol
Yes NO NO
Sarinasuf 456 UTILITATI SI
SERVICII PUBLICE - Murighiol
Yes NO NO
Uzlina. 7 * NO NO NO
Niculitel
4,297 Local Council Department NICULITEL
Yes NO NO
Nufaru
Nufaru 969 UTILITATI PUBLICE
NUFARU S.R.L Yes NO NO
Malcoci 953 * NO NO NO
Victoria 211 * NO NO NO
Ilganii de Jos. 140 * NO NO NO
Pardina
527 Local Council Department
PARDINA Yes NO NO
Sarichioi
Sarichioi 2775 Serv. Pub. Sarichioi Yes Yes Yes
Enisala 872 Serv. Pub. Sarichioi Yes NO NO
Sabangia 556 Serv. Pub. Sarichioi Yes NO NO
Visterna 329 Serv. Pub. Sarichioi Yes NO NO
Zebil 1324 Serv. Pub. Sarichioi Yes NO NO
Sfântu
Gheorghe 797
Uzina de Apa Sf. Gheorghe S.R.L.
Yes NO NO
166
Slava
Cercheza Slava
Cercheza 852
Local Council Department Slava
Cercheză Yes NO NO
Slava Rusa 814
Local Council Department Slava
Cercheză Yes NO NO
Smardan
1,077 Local Council Department SMARDAN
Yes NO NO
Somova
Somova 2,441 Local Council Department
SOMOVA Yes NO NO
Mineri 1,567 Aquaserv Tulcea Yes NO NO
Parches. 380 Local Council Department
SOMOVA Yes NO NO
Vacareni
2,201 Local Council Department VACARENI
Yes NO NO
Valea
Nucarilor
Valea Nucarilor including Aghighiol
2,486 Local Council
Department Valea Nucarilor
Yes NO NO
Iazurile 780
NO NO NO
Corbu - CTA
5,689 SC RAJA SA Constanța
Yes Yes NO
Istria - CTA Istria,
including Nuntasi
2,443 Local Council
Department Istria Yes Partial NO
Mihai
Viteazu CTA
Mihai Viteazu, including
Sinoe
3,244 Local Council
Department Mihai Viteazu
Yes Partial NO
Sacele - CTA
2,101 Local Council
Department Sacele Yes Partial NO
167
Annex 12 Primary healthcare in the core Delta Table 24: Primary healthcare in the core Delta
NR LOCALITY Existing facility
Primary health doctor
Nurse Medical community assistant
1 SULINA 1 1 1 1
2 C A ROSETTI
2A C A ROSETTI 1 1 1
2B SFISTOFCA
2C LETEA
2D PERIPRAVA
2E CARDON
3 CEATALCHIOI
3A CEATALCHIOI 1 * 1
3B PATLAGEANCA
3C PLAURU
3D SALCENI
4 CRIȘAN
4A CRIȘAN 1 * 1
4B CARAORMAN 1 *
4C MILA 23 1 *
5 CHILIA VECHE
5A CHILIA VECHE 1 1 2
5B CASLA
5C OSTROVU TATARU
5D TATANIR
6 MALIUC
6A MALIUC 1 *
6B PARTIZANI 1 * 1
6C GORGOVA 1 *
6D VULTURU
168
6E ILGANII DE SUS
7 SFINTU GHEORGHE 1 1 1** 1
8 PARDINA 1 * 1
* The family doctors are located in Tulcea municipality (part time FDs);
** The same person works as community assistant and nurse
169
Annex 13 Main communicable diseases in Tulcea county Table 25: Main Communicable Diseases in Tulcea county
Tuberculosis There are 223 patients included in Curative TB program in Tulcea county PHD.
An important challenge for the PneumoFtiziology Department from the county Emergency Hospital is linked to bacteriological positive pulmonary new cases incidents (78.8 in the first 9 month of 2013 compared to 63.5 nationwide), and relapse incidences (17.6 in the first 9 month of 2013 compared to 13.1 nationwide) and greater share of the burden by multi-resistant forms of treatment and highly resistant cases.
The incidence of TB in Romania is the largest in the EU27, both for new and for relapse cases.
Acute Hepatitis type A In 2013 the infectious diseases department from county Emergency Hospital Tulcea reported 107 cases, compared to 15 cases in 2012, 5 cases in 2011 and 15 cases in 2010.
Most cases reported in 2013 correspond to the seasonal summer time, usually spread by eating food or drinking water contaminated with feces carrying the virus, associated with a lack of safe water, inadequate sanitation and poor personal hygiene.
Salmonella spp., enteropathogenic
Escherichia coli and Vibrio cholerae
Cholera has been positively diagnosed in the past, the highest frequency being reported in the Danube Delta and its neighboring districts.
The major sources of cholera contamination were linked mainly to the drinking of surface water directly from the Danube, followed by Delta fish consumption and water consumption from fountains infected with cholera vibrio.
Over 624 strains of V. cholerae O1 were isolated in Romania in 1977–1995, the highest number (64%) originating in the Danube Delta area.
West Nile virus The vector for West Nile virus present in Romania is Culex spp. (molestus / pipiens), which is active from May to October each year.
Climatic conditions, temperature, humidity (rain, soil humidity, natural water reservoirs such as Danube Delta) and the presence of migratory and indigenous wild birds and horses favor the existence and multiplication of the Culex spp. mosquitoes.
Since 1997, active surveillance for West Nile virus in humans
170
has been done between May and October in all counties along the river Danube.
Avian influenza ("bird flu") An outbreak of H5N1 avian influenza was reported in October 2005 from a poultry farm in Tulcea, followed by cases in other parts of the country. The outbreak was declared over in April 2006, but new poultry cases were reported in May that year. The most recent outbreaks were reported in November 2007 from a poultry farm in the Danube Delta and in March 2010 in Tulcea. No human cases have been reported to date though.
Mediterranean spotted fever (MSF) or Boutonneuse Fever
There is a tick-borne disease caused by Rickettsia conorii and transmitted to humans by the brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus.
A serological survey conducted in the MSF endemic area of southeastern Romania in 2009 detected high rates in Tulcea county.
In Tulcea county from 2005–2010 were identified 442 suspect cases out of which 312 have been confirmed, most of them being in urban areas.
Anthrax It is a deadly infectious disease caused by spore-forming bacteria called Bacillus anthracis.
In Tulcea county, in 2000 (from July 12 to August 31) an epizootics of anthrax developed with 70 cases hospitalized out of which 32 were confirmed cases; other 28 cases have been suspected and 10 cases infirmed. The cases have occurred in most localities bordering Sfântu l Gheorghe of the Danube Delta: Mahmudia¸ Murighiol¸ Bestepe¸ Dunavatul de Jos si Pardina.
The main cause was villager animals kept in a half-domesticated condition on Danube reefs, without reporting them to authorities in order to avoid taxation. In 2012 the latest two anthrax cases were confirmed, located in Casimcea village.
171
Annex 14 Addressing Depopulated Areas through “Soft” Projects –
International Examples
Depopulation is a problem faced by many regions in Europe and elsewhere in the world. While connective infrastructure enables people in lagging areas access to opportunities in leading regions, many countries have also tackled depopulation by promoting policies to attract people to less densely populated areas through “soft” types of programs rather than “hard” infrastructure investments only.
Between 1994 and 1999, The European Union invested in depopulated areas in Sweden and Finland (called “Objective 6”) which established 6,400 new companies, created 4,100 jobs, and maintained 12,000 existing jobs. Over 100,000 people were engaged in educational activities, while the program developed a knowledge-based industry, and improved the role played by higher education and universities in the regional development. Information and communication technologies can be used not only to reverse economic decline, but also to increase the diversity and quality of social and healthcare services. For example, Lapland region in Finland developed a telemedicine project that allows small hospitals and health centers to consult a Central Hospital in the town of Rovaniemi and the University Hospital in the city of Oulu, and send over medical data for analysis. EU funds also fostered co-operation between Sweden, Finland and Norway in the Kvarken-Mittskandia area (one of the least populated regions in the EU) by supporting local firms, investing in infrastructures and local culture in the area.
Most of the time, local authorities are the engine of development in remote areas. Supportive measures are usually designed and carried out based on a partnership with local and social actors, and promoting co-operation between the affected communities and higher authorities. For example, 73 communities in Kansas in the United States offer an incentive package for people who are willing to move to the rural areas of Kansas from other states. The deal includes state income tax waivers for up to five years, and repayment of parts of student loans. Other states with large rural areas, such as Texas, offer different types of incentives to attract new residents, including free land, utility bill forgiveness, and tax breaks.
In the mid-1990s, France implemented tax exemptions and policies by establishing Rural Enterprise Zones. The program included a one-year payroll tax exemption on new hires for companies with less than 50 employees, permanent payroll tax exemptions in the non-profit sector, and corporate tax exemptions for new firms. However, this program did not make a significant impact on promoting employment, mainly because the rural context increased the problems faced by the companies due to lack of infrastructure and human resources.
PADIMA (Policies Against Depopulation in Mountain Areas), a project developed by eight partners in five EU nations with EU support from the European Regional Development Fund, produced policy guidelines for fighting depopulation in mountain areas and attract working people to such regions. The initiative encouraged diversification at the SME level, supported entrepreneurship and simplified the business creation process and recruitment, improved public and childcare services, and promoted the area as a nice place to live and work. In the mountain region of Buskerud County in Norway, six municipalities joined efforts to create a platform of job offers. In Dalarna region in Sweden, a non-profit organization and a few business entities created a public-private association that facilitates recruitment of husband/wife of people already working in the area. Lastly, in the province of Torino, Italy farmers in mountain areas established kindergartens and nursery services for kids where students learn how to stay in contact with the nature. Didactic farms have been created, where farmers introduce students and teachers to rural activities.
172
Annex 15 Examples of Strategic Documents and Plans Reviewed
”Master Plan - support for sustainable development in DDBR Tulcea county/ Romania Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)” developed by Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (INDD) for the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority (DDBRA), February 2006;
“Development plan for the Danube Delta Region”, National Research – Development Institute for Urbanism and Territory Development, July 2008
“The GEF Biodiversity Project in the Danube’s Delta: Where are the Community Benefits?”, Stockholm Environmental Institute, 2005
“Assessment of the status, development and diversification of fisheries-dependent communities – Danube Delta Case Study Report, Romania”, European Commission, 2006
“Sustainable Development Prospects for the Danube Delta Rural Communities”, Romanian Academy, Institute of Geography, September 2009
“Recreation and Tourism Zoning Strategy for the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve - A tool for nature conservation and local development”, Project Management Limited, Irlanda, commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature / Danube Carpathian Programme, Romania, with funding support from EC Phare, 2009
“Management Plan for the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (2008-2012)”
“Strategia de Dezvoltare a Municipiului Tulcea 2014 -2020”
“National Tourism Master Plan 2007-2026”, developed in partnership with the UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
“New Tourism Destination Brand Romania 2010”, developed by Asesores en Turismo y Hotelera Recreacion – Taylor Nelson Sofres (THR – THS) with funding from the European Union
“Strategic and Operational Marketing Plan for Romania 2011 – 2015”, developed by Horwath HTL
“Delta Warning Report - Functional Analysis of the Institutions Involved in Managing the Danube Delta” Biosphere Reservationi Delta, 2011, by The 'Save the Danube and the Delta' Association.
“Local Plan for Sustainable Development for Tulcea county” by Local Agenda 21, 2007
173
Annex 16 Study Schedule Romania: Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy
Table 26: Study Schedule
Activity No. Output Timing
1-1 and 1-2 Diagnostic Report for the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve and the Neighboring Areas
March 3, 2014
1-3 Provision of Resource Persons for 1 Workshop for Consultations with Relevant Actors on Draft Diagnostic Report
March, 2014
1-4 Development of Vision Statement for Danube Delta Region May 3, 2014
2-1 Report on Identification of Territorial Needs Based on the Diagnosis of the Danube Delta Area. This will Cover Sectoral Needs Assessment & Strategic Analyses of Each Key Sector
September 3, 2014
2-2 Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy November 3, 2014
2-3 Provision of Resource Persons for Two Public Consultations Meetings on the Draft Strategy
July 3, 2014 October 3, 2014
2-5 Formulation of ITI proposal for the Danube Delta (Programming Period for the 2014-2020)
May 3, 2015
2-6 Report on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) April 3, 2015
2-9 Provision of Technical Expertise for the Elaboration of a Booklet to Promote the Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy of the Danube Delta
February 3, 2015
2-4, 2-6, 2-7 and 2-10
Action Plan Including Priority Projects to Implement the Strategy, Institutional Arrangement, and Monitoring Mechanism.
June 3, 2015
2-11 Provision of Resource Persons for the Final Consultation for the Workshop to Discuss the Action Plan
June 3, 2015
2-3, 2-11 Final Report on Public Consultations June 3, 2015
2-12 Provision of Resource Persons for the Final Conference on Dissemination of the Project Results
July 3, 2015
