SUSTAINABLE FINANCING IN THE CIOCANESTI PILOT AREA · Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014 I ABSTRACT This report describes the experience of the WWF Danube-Carpathian

WORKING TOGETHER TO

INSPIRE SUSTAINABLE

SOLUTIONS

RO

TECHNICALREPORT

SUSTAINABLE FINANCING IN THE CIOCANESTI PILOT AREA

Author: Martini Monia

Contributors: Maya Bankova-Todorova, Cristina Munteanu, Mara CazacuTechnical advisor: Julio Tresierra, PhD and independent consultant

Graphic design: Boyan PetkovCover photo: © Cristina MunteanuBack cover photo: © Alexander Ivanov

Published by WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Romania. Any reproduction in full or in part must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. Prior approval of WWF-Romania for any reproduction is also preferable.

© 2014 WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Romania. All rights reserved.

WWF-Romania26A Ioan Caragea Voda Street, 010537, District 1, BucharestTel. +4 021.317.49.96, Fax +4 021.317.49.97

[email protected], www.wwf.rowww.panda.org/dcpo - The Danube PES Project

WWF is one of the world's leading independent environmental organizations with 5 million volunteers and a global network, which operates in more than 100 countries. WWF's team in the Danube-Carpathian region is responsible for leading and implementing WWF's efforts to preserve, restore and sustainably manage the natural values of the Danube-Carpathian ecoregions. The team works across political borders developing model projects, influencing policy, capacity building, raising awareness and seeking solutions to the challenges that the region faces in order to ensure prosperity, sustainability and biodiversity conservation.

Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014

ISustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014

ABSTRACT This report describes the experience of the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme (WWF-DCP) in implementing the Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) approach in the Ciocanesti pilot area located in Calarasi County, in Romania. PES represents an innovative finance mechanism intended to reconcile nature conservation and development objectives and needs. Under the project Promoting Payments for Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Finance Mechanisms in the Danube Basin (Danube PES), WWF-DCP aimed at demonstrating and promoting PES and related financing schemes in the Danube river basin and other international water basins.

Romania and Bulgaria are the two countries that were selected for establishing the conditions under which PES schemes can work in the Lower Danube region, and particularly for developing and demonstrating models of public and private sector PES and related schemes (Outcome 1 of the Project). The methodology used has involved the following steps:

1. Analysis of the pilot area in terms of geography, biodiversity, demography and economy;

2. Identification of a well-defined environmental problem affecting the delivery of benefits or ecosystem services that individuals, businesses and communities receive from nature;

3. Definition of the PES approach as a possible answer to reconcile conservation and development needs, and analysis of the conditions necessary to implement it;

4. Analysis of stakeholders as well as of all the options available to solve the identified environmental problem, including the proposed PES approach;

5. Definition of technical aspects of the PES approach or of intermediate strategies identified to establish PES conditions, such as the management and governance structure, legal framework, payment system, timeframe of implementation, monitoring and reporting.

In the Ciocanesti pilot area, the project aimed at testing the integration of “environmentally friendly” measures into usual aquaculture business management with financial support of the Operational Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013 and assessing whether this EU-funded aqua-environmental scheme actually encourages a shift towards responsible aquaculture.

With financial support, incoming water quality affected by intensive agriculture practices on land surrounding the fish farm needed to be raised and access of ichthyophagous birds for feeding had to be improved by draining fewer fish basins, reducing excessive net coverage and managing reed overgrowth. However, the application of the Local Partner S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L. for funding was rejected because of the weak system of monitoring the impact of proposed “environmentally friendly” measures. Consequently, the project team decided to redirect efforts first of all towards improving the specific measures under which aqua-environment payments are being granted.

Abstract

II

Moreover, feasibility studies (step nr. 1) highlighted that insecurity of business viability, affected by external factors such as market related fluctuations in the aquaculture sector, harmful public subsidies, the effects of the financial crisis on supply chains and price instability, was the main driver for adopting “non-friendly” practices by the Ciocanesti fish farm management. This has lead to the loss of wetland habitat and dependant bird species, which was recognised as the main environmental problem (step nr. 2). In step 3, PES under the ecotourism umbrella was identified as a potential answer. As a prerequisite for the functioning of such a PES mechanism, the project team supported the Local Partner in securing start-up funds for building small tourism infrastructure and capacity in the pilot area, and engaged the Local Partner in a strategy of business diversification towards ecotourism or multi-functional aquaculture development and fundraising for testing “environmentally friendly” measures contributing to responsible aquaculture development. Mobilisation of funds was only achieved during April - May 2014. One of the project is funded under Operational Program Fishery, Axis 2 – Aquaculture, fishery in inland waters, procession and marketing of products from fishery and aquaculture, Measure 2.1 – Aquaculture, Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection. The other project is funded by the Danube Competence Center under the Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals.

Given that the original deadline for achieving an operational PES scheme, i.e. by the end of 2013, could not be achieved and implementation of projects approved during April - May 2014 are to function as intermediate strategy for sustainable business development that creates the necessary conditions for further testing of PES under the ecotourism umbrella, step nr. 5 describes the technical aspects of their implementation, while a clear finance mechanism has not yet been defined.

What is unique in demonstrating the PES approach as it has been adopted by the project team is the fact that all options that can possibly solve the identified environmental problem of biodiversity loss are analysed comparatively so that key stakeholders can see the net benefit of engaging in a sustainable business development strategy (in preparation for PES under the ecotourism umbrella as possible long-term answer) versus continuing with the Business As Usual behaviour. This is synthetised in the following Conceptual Model:


Source: M. Martini (2014).

Compliance with environmental legislation related to Natura 2000

IS FURTHER DEMONSTRATION OF PES UNDER THE ECOTOURISM UMBRELLA NECESSARY?

The report includes the following recommendations, designed by the project team to ensure the successful implementation of the intermediate strategy for sustainable business development, which is to be continued after the project ends and is aimed at creating conditions for further testing of PES under the ecotourism umbrella:

Partnership Agreements signed with the Ciocanesti fish farm administration to define roles and responsibilities, including expert support from WWF-Romania to implement the two projects approved under the Operational Programme for Fisheries and the Danube Competence Center and operationalizing the intermediate strategy for responsible business development.

Elaboration of a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Protocol together with the Ciocanesti fish farm administration to guide action towards PES under the ecotourism umbrella. A checklist should also be included to better capture to which extent progress is achieved year on year, but also obstacles that may appear on the way.

Timely fundraising for necessary monitoring costs to measure the extent to which the testing phase managed to establish foundations for further demonstration of PES under the ecotourism umbrella.

Overall, the methods of analysis applied in the Ciocanesti pilot area included a water quality monitoring system, cost-benefit analysis, multi-goal analysis, a phased approach for achieving progress towards PES under the ecotourism umbrella and the sustainability concept. The analyses conducted have the following limitations:

Lack of baseline data regarding socio-economic and environmental aspects

Adoption of the phased approach at a later stage during project implementation, which affected the logical gathering of data with a consequent but not crucial delay in the implementation of the general methodology

In conclusion, the concept of multi-functional fish farms is not seen only as an alternative business model to improve performance in the context of unstable financial and economic conditions; by adding the integration of “environmentally friendly” measures into usual aquaculture business management, the necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES are also likely to be created (delivery of ecosystem services and definition of both buyers and sellers) and a balance between conservation and business viability or economic development needs is pursued.

Thus, a clear finance mechanism is not yet defined and experience from the Ciocanesti fish farm has reached the stage of testing whether necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES can be created. Still, there is evidence that local, regional and national conditions are promising in several aspects, including stakeholders' engagement, policy elaboration and ecotourism development. Also, a PES approach seems to be a viable option in the quest for sustainable development opportunities in rural areas.

Several challenges lie ahead: fundraising for monitoring and evaluating the extent to which the testing phase has managed to establish PES conditions, promoting the pilot area as an ecotourism destination, maintaining stakeholders' motivation and ownership in the long term, and advocacy work using the Ciocanesti pilot as study case to further mainstream the PES approach in the EU programming period 2014-2020 and in the second River Basins Management Planning under the Water Framework Directive. Futher correlations between water and agriculture policies would be useful and it is worth highlighting that the method developed for implementing a water quality monitoring system in fish farms in the Lower Danube is

III

Abstract


Abstract

IV

not only viable, but it also allows for monitoring the quality of both the incoming water and the water used and evacuated from fish basins; hence, this is a valuable tool in addressing external pressures on aquaculture activities coming from intensive agriculture practices.

Finally, an essential learning of the WWF team is that achieving sustainable natural resources management as well as integration of the ecosystem services approach into decision-making in Romania, particularly in favour of attaining 2020 Europe Strategy and 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy objectives and other international commitments, require a fundamental cultural shift; government authorities in particular must develop the capacity to create visions of sustainable development based on the country's natural endowements and to plan strategically in support of policies that are coherently and harmoniously elaborated. In this sense, the process leading to the formulation of the Partnership Agreement between Romania and the European Commisssion for the programming period 2014-2020 is a valuable endeavour and an opportunity to derive important lessons that can be further transformed into successful common practice.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 6

1.1. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION 10

1.2. BIODIVERSITY 11

1.3. DEMOGRAPHY AND LIVELIHOODS 18

2. ECOSYSTEMS SITUATION ANALYSIS 232.1. ECOSYSTEMS IN THE PILOT AREA 23

2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES 24

2.3. ECOSYSTEMS VALUES 33

3. FRAMEWORK TO ESTABLISH CONDITIONS FOR FINANCING OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 363.1. PROGRESS TOWARDS PES UNDER THE ECOTOURISM UMBRELLA 36

3.4. OPTIONS TOWARDS RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR 44

ANNEXES 62

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOT AREA 10

3.2. ENABLING CONDITIONS 38

3.3. STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS 42

3.5. THE MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 50

3.6. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 51

CONCLUSIONS 56

1.2.1. FLORA, FAUNA AND SOILS 11

1.2.2. HYDROLOGY 13

3.2.1. THE LEGAL CONTEXT 38

3.2.2. WATER PRICE MANAGEMENT 39

3.2.3. THE POLICY FRAMEWORK 39

3.2.4. THE VIABILITY OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 40

3.8. TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION 52

3.7. THE PAYMENT SYSTEM 51

3.9. MONITORING AND REPORTING 53

3.10. SUSTAINABILITY 55

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 58

LIST OF REFERENCES 60

INTRODUCTIONOver the last 25 years, the concept of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Sustainable Financing (SF) schemes have gained growing attention in both conservation and development circles as promising solutions to improve nature conservation and rural livelihoods. The harshening of the financial and economic crisis in recent years has prompted international institutions and an increasing number of organisations and institutions at national and regional level to seriously acknowledge the fundamental role of natural resources and ecosystems in the development of today's societies and businesses and to seek amenable solutions to enhance the role of nature in decision-making processes. In this context, the European Commission (EC) launched the MAES initiative in 2012 to support the development of a coherent analytical framework to be applied in all Member States and aimed at achieving Action 5 - Target 2 objectives under the 2020 EU

1Biodiversity Strategy .

As a result, more studies are being commissioned and projects implemented that will hopefully improve the understanding of how to reconcile natural science and economic thinking in order to achieve sustainable development, by elaborating and harmonising adequate policies and by transforming harmful subsidies into effective financial resources management, including the use of innovative financing mechanisms for nature conservation. In this context, the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme (WWF-DCP) has been playing a leading role in Europe particularly through the implementation of the project Promoting Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Related Sustainable Financing Schemes in the Danube Basin

2 3 (Danube PES) between 2009-2014 . According to the revised Project Document , the Project Objective was to demonstrate and promote PES and related financing schemes in the Danube river basin and other international water basins. Romania and Bulgaria are the two countries that were selected to establish the conditions under which these schemes or financial mechanisms can work in the Lower Danube region; this Technical Report refers to the experience developed by the WWF-DCP

4 Romania team in Ciocanesti, one of the 5 pilot areas of the project.

The revised Project Document lists three expected Outcomes for the whole project. Activities implemented at pilot level refer to Outcome nr. 1 – Models of public and private sector PES and related schemes developed and demonstrated within Danube basin in Bulgaria and Romania and approach replicated in the wider region. To measure progress towards Outcome nr. 1, the revised Project Document states a set of indicators,the following two out of three being relevant for activities implemented at pilot level:

6 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014

1 European Union (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services, An analytical framework for ecosystems assessment under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Discussion Paper. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf. Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/black_sea_basin/danube_carpathian/our_solutions/green_public_funds/pes/the_danube_pes_project/. N. Varty, �Annex 10 - Suggested revision to project objectives and outcomes and associated indicators and targets�, in Mid-Term Review report (2012). The pilot areas under the Danube PES project are: for Romania, Mara-Cosau-Creasta Cocosului in Maramures County, Iezer fish farm and Ciocanesti fish farm in Calarasi County; for Bulgaria, Persina Nature Park occupying territories in Belene and Svistov municipalities and Rusenski Lom Nature Park in Ruse County. Idem.

2

3

4

1. A total of at least 5 local and national model PES schemes operational by end of 2013;

2. At least 5 MoUs for public/private partnerships covering PES schemes signed by end 2012.

In the Ciocanesti pilot, the project aimed at field testing the introduction of “environmentally friendly” measures into usual aquaculture business management with financial support of the Operational Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013 and assessing how the EU-funded aqua-environment scheme for environmental protection might work in order to encourage a shift towards responsible aquaculture. Feasibility studies led to the identification of biodiversity loss as the specific environmental problem in the pilot area, caused by the adoption of “non-friendly” practices such as land abandonment, net coverage to protect fish production, etc. Also, this scheme was thought to be of particular benefit to fish farmers who are outside of Natura 2000 sites, thus not eligible for existing Natura 2000 payments, but who nevertheless have farms with high biodiversity value. The project team developed “environmentally friendly” aquaculture measures and meant to use the results from field testing in follow-up advocacy work with Managing Authorities to better include the PES approach in aqua-environmental payments in the next EU programming period. Finally, the “environmentally friendly” aquaculture measures designed by the project team were supposed to improve implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) by offering a study case in the calculation of environmental costs related to water.

However, during project implementation the assumption that funds for environmental protection through aqua-environment measures under the Operational Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013 would be easily accessed by the Local Partner S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L. proved to be wrong. As a matter of fact, in 2012, Local Partner S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L. failed to access funds under Operational Programme Fishery, Axis 2 – Aquaculture, fishery in inland waters, procession and marketing of products from fishery and aquaculture, Measure 2.1 – Aquaculture, Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection. For the project team, the availability of “start-up” funds was a necessary condition to test the effectiveness of the “environmentally friendly” aquaculture measures. This explains the delay in demonstrating and achieving an operational PES by the end of 2013.

In addition, feasibility studies conducted in the beginning of the project highlighted that insecurity of business viability, affected by external factors such as market related fluctuations in the aquaculture sector, harmful public subsidies and the effects of the financial crisis on supply chains and price instability, is the main driver for the adoption of “non-friendly” practices by the Ciocanesti fish farm management. Thus, PES under the ecotourism umbrella was identified as a potential answer by complementing income from aquaculture production with income from ecotourism. In order to establish the necessary conditions to further demonstrate the identified PES approach, the project team had to secure “start-up” funds also for building small tourism infrastructure in the pilot area and to engage the Local Partner in a strategy of business diversification towards ecotourism or multi-functional aquaculture development. With respect to the latter, an initial reluctance manifested by the Local Partner has contributed to the delay in demonstrating and achieving an operational PES by the end of 2013.

Consequently, the project team decided to redirect efforts first of all towards improving the specific measures under which access to aqua-environment payments is being granted. The main reason for rejecting the

7

Introduction


initial application submitted by the Ciocanesti fish farm administration was the weak system of monitoring the impact of proposed “environmentally friendly” measures, when the scheme needs to be able to show that it has a positive impact on biodiversity and can contribute to global biodiversity gains; otherwise its value for financing biodiversity conservation initiatives is unknown. The following action plan was developed and followed by the project team:

Development of a system to monitor water quality in fish basins in order to improve robustness of indicators for the elaborated “environmentally friendly” measures. In this sense, it was necessary to proceed with water sampling and analysis throughout one year of a complete technological process.

Lobby for inclusion, as examples, of adjusted elaborated “environmentally friendly” measures into guidelines to access aqua-envrionmental payments under the Operational Programme Fisheries 2007-2013. The low interest in Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection observed during the first call for proposals (only 3 applicants and 1 contracted project) combined with the specific experience of the Ciocanesti fish farm administration led the project team to also believe in the lack of clarity for potential beneficiaries with regard to the type of measures they should include in project proposals.

Support re-submission of a project proposal by the Ciocanesti fish farm administration in the second call for proposals for Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection (November-December 2013).

Elaboration of a guiding paper related to the establishment and implementation of a water quality monitoring system in fish farms along the Lower Danube. Using Ciocanesti pilot as study case, this action is meant to support the inclusion of the PES approach in aqua-environmental payments in the next EU programming period, leading to the replication of “environmentally friendly” measures in similar fish farms in Romania.

Second of all, the project team invested efforts in improving the Local Partner's understanding of ecotourism and how it can become an opportunity for improved business viability. In this sense, the following action plan was developed and followed by the project team:

Participation in “familiarisation events” organised at Ciocanesti fish farm with potential target groups (e.g. visitors such as students, researchers) on Wetlands Day, Birds Migration Day etc.

Search for funding opportunities to develop small tourism infrastructure at the Ciocanesti fish farm

Support submission of a project proposal by the Ciocanesti fish farm administration in the Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals launched by the Danube Competence Center in April 2014

Between April and May 2014 both project proposals were approved. These important achievements (mobilisation of additional necessary funding and the Local Partner's engagement based on project partnership agreements), allow the project team to re-focus on pursuing the original project objective by implementing an intermediate strategy to establish necessary conditions for PES under the ecotourism umbrella. The intention is to continue after the project ends, supporting the Ciocanesti fish farm administration during the implementation of projects, both in the testing phase of


Introduction

“environmentally friendly” measures and in the development of a multi-functional fish farm.

In conclusion, so far the project team has managed to secure funding to establish the necessary conditions for PES but a clear finance mechanism has not yet been defined, and it is not possible to say at this stage whether it is or it is not PES. The experience in the Ciocanesti pilot is reflected in the present Technical Report as follows:

Chapter 1 – The pilot area is described from the point of view of its geographical location, its biodiversity features and the opportunities for local livelihoods versus their relative impact on the environment

Chapter 2 – The status of ecosystems, existing environmental threats and opportunities and the value of key ecosystem services are analysed

Chapter 3 – The framework to establish the necessary conditions for PES under the ecotourism umbrella is explained, including considerations about the legal/institutional and policy context

Conclusions derived from a 4-year experience are presented in the final section.

Introduction

9Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014

Figure 1: Ciocanesti pilot area map

1. 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOT AREA1.1. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

Pilot area

The Ciocanesti pilot area corresponds to the territory of the fish farm operating under the management of S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L. It occupies a total surface

2of 233,37 ha (2,3 km ), at an average altitude of 10–14 m. It is located south-east of 5Romania in Calarasi County , which neighbours south with the Bulgarian province

of Silistra, in the embanked area of the Danube floodplain (on the former location of Boianu-Sticleanu pond), about 120 km south-east of Bucharest, 2 km distance from the Danube river, 300 m south of Ciocanesti village and 30 km west of Calarasi city. Access to the farm is made from DN 31 Calarasi-Oltenita, on a 3 km long back road.

5 Additional geographic and socio-economic information is provided about Calarasi County with the purpose to provide a contextual description to the relatively small surface of the pilot area. The county of Calarasi has a total area of 5.088 km² representing 2,1% of the

thnational territory and the 28 biggest county out of 42 in Romania. It occupies the southern part of the Baragan Plain, and it is crossed by small rivers with deep valleys. On its southern and south-eastern sides it is delimited by the Danube river (from km 300 - Cernavoda - to km 450 - Gostinu) which, on the eastern side, splits into a number of branches that once formed islands that are now drained; on the western side, the rivers Arges and Dambovita form a wide valley before flowing into the Danube. Retrieved from . www.calarasi.ro


Romania

1. Description of the pilot area

1.2. BIODIVERSITY

In terms of biodiversity and (wetland) landscape in general, the Ciocanesti pilot area is representative of many fish farms along what were once vigorous marshlands in the Lower Danube, which were diked and drained during the communist time to

6provide additional tillable land and turn Romania into “the granary of Europe” .

The following fish species are reared at the Ciocanesti fish farm as part of the main aquaculture activity:

1.2.1. FLORA, FAUNA AND SOILS

OMNIVOROUS SPECIESCarp (Cyprinus carpio / crap)

PHYTOPHAGOUS SPECIESBighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis / novac)Grass carp (Ctenopharingodon idella / cteno)

PLANCTONOPHAGOUS SPECIESPrussian carp (Carassius auratus gibelio / caras)Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix / sânger)

NON-PHYTOPHAGOUS SPECIESCatfish (Silurus glanis/ somn)Pike (Esox lucius/stiuca)

In general, due to economic efficiency reasons, the share of non-phytophagous or raptors fish species is limited, and these are usually introduced to eliminate sick individuals. There is willingness to reintroduce native species such as Tinca tinca and Leuciscus idus but the phytophagous fish species eat their feed. The species of

7Caracuda has disappeared because of pollution .

Although fish farms are usually associated with fish species, spontaneous statements that biodiversity at Ciocanesti fish farm means first of all bird species are easily understood. In fact, a significant number of local, national and international bird species rely on the area as an important place for feeding, nesting or migrating. As shown in table nr. 1 below, out of 100 different species observed, with more than 10,000 estimated individuals, 31 species including 1,708 individuals need special protection areas designated for their conservation based on Annex I of the Birds Directive (European Council Directive nr. 79/409 EEC); furthermore, other 18 species including 219 individuals represent species of national interest that need strict protection based on Annex 4b of Urgency Ordinance nr. 57/20.06.2007 about

8 natural protected areas management and particularly conservation of wild fauna . These figures are in line with the standard form of the Natura 2000 site (ROSPA0021 Ciocanesti – Dunare) that includes the pilot area; also, they are representative compared to the total number of birds known to populate the Natura 2000 site, which according to the standard form, during migration period hosts more than 20,000 wetland birds .9

6 Retrieved from � . http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunca_Dun rii C. Munteanu, Interviews with Marin Hodorogea - administrator of S.C. Ciocanesti P iscicola S.R.L. (2010). P. Tibu, �Monitoring birds population in the Ciocanesti fishfar m area� (2011). Natura 2000 working group (2006). Natura 2000 Standard Form for Special Protection Areas, ROSPA0021 Ciocanesti � Dunare. Retrieved from . www.natura2000.ro

789


Protection status

Birds protected at European level

31Species

Table 1. Protected species and individuals in the pilot area

Ciocanesti is also particularly important for the diversity of plant species. A number of 139 groups or taxons have been identified, among which a representative number of the Hydropterididae family, 117 herbaceous vascular plants and 21 woody

10 plants . Diversity is high due to the fact that the area hosts typical wetland plants, aquatic plants and numerous ruderal plants, the antropic influence being strong.

Furthermore, sheep and cows are bred as a way to manage weed growth on pathways and dykes borders; also they contribute to land consolidation.

11 At county level , the geographical relief is characterised by plain fields, meadows and lakes. Plain fields dominate and are grouped in four major units: Baraganului Mostistei (Baraganul Sudic), Vlasiei, Burnazului and Lunca Dunarii. This is shown in figure nr. 3 containing types of relief at hydrographic basin level: mountains, hills and plain fields follow one another from north to south.


10 I. F. Gheorghe, C. Munteanu, �Structure of flowers and vegetation associated with the water basins within the Ciocanesti fish farm area, and their role in carbon sequestration and retention� (2010). Retrieved from . www.calarasi.ro


Birds protected at national level

18

Birds without protection status

51

1,708Individuals 219 8,709

Source: P. Tibu, “Monitoring birds population in the Ciocanesti fish farm area” (2011)

Figure 2. Relative proportion of birds categories in the pilot area

Source: P. Tibu, “Monitoring birds population in the Ciocanesti fish farm area” (2011).

Birds protected at European level

Birds protected at national level

Birds without protection status

16%

2%

82%

11



Figure 3. Pilot area and types of geographic relief in the Hydrographic Basin “Buzau - Ialomita”

Legend

Altitude

0 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 150

150 - 200

200 - 250

250 - 300

300 - 500

500 - 800

800 - 1200

1200 - 1400

1400 - 1800

1800 - 2000

2000 - 2200

2200 - 2400

Pilot area0 12.5 25 50

Km

Source: Retrieved fromhttp://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20Spatiului%20Hidrografic%20Buza/Planul%20de%20management%20al%20spatiului%20hidrografic%20Buzau%20-%20Ialomita/Plan%20Management%20SH%20Buzau-Ialomita%20-%20text.pdf, pag. 10

The county of Calarasi belongs to the Hydrographic Basin “Buzau - Ialomita”, which is managed by the Water Basin Administration “Buzau - Ialomita” (ABA Buzau - Ialomita), one of the 11 territorial units under the National Romanian Waters Administration (ANAR) created by H.G. nr. 981/1998 and responsible for the management and valorisation of water resources. In particular, the Calarasi Water Management System (SGA Calarasi), a non-juridical entity under ABA Buzau

13 - Ialomita, is responsible for the management of water resoures at county level .

1.2.2. HYDROLOGY

12Soils include different types of chernozem and alluvional soils and are particularly fertile.

Forest vegetation occupies 4,3% of the county's surface and is mainly made of species such as the American poplar, acacia, gray oak, white willow, narrowleaf ash, Fastigiata Koster English oak, elm, linden and maple Tartar.

The typical fauna includes species of cinegetic interest among which the wild boar, deer, pheasant, rabbit, fox. In ponds and lakes it is possible to see geese and wild ducks. Moreover, among fish species there is the crucian, carp, bream, perch, zander and pike, while in the Danube and Borcea there are catfish, sturgeons and the Black Sea shad.

12 Retrieved from . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernozem Retrieved from . http://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/default.aspx13

²ABA Buzau - Ialomita covers a surface of 22,289 km , which includes the Buzau and Ialomita hydrographic river basins as well as the inter-rivers areas Ialomita - Buzau and Danube - Arges - Ialomita. As shown in table nr. 2, this area consists of hydrographic sub-river basins such as Ialomita, Buzau, Mostistea and Calmatui; at the same time, water uses (e.g. industry, agriculture, fishery, tourism) in this area are facilitated due to availability of water from the neighbouring hydrographic river

14 basins of Arges, Siret and Danube . This area's climate is temperate - continental,

but because of the variety of geographic relief three main climate types can be distinguished: mountain, hill and plain. The average annual temperature is 11,8 ºC and the average multi-annual precipitations have values between 1,000 – 1,400 mm in the mountain area, 600 - 800 mm in the hilly area and 300 - 550 in the plain.

Figure 4. Romania Water Basin Administrations

Source: Retrieved from http://www.rowater.ro/default.aspx.

Figure 5. Water management units under ABA Buzau - Ialomita

Source: Retrieved from . http://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/default.aspx

14 National Institute of Hidrology of Water Management, �Central and Eastern Europe Climate Change Impact and Vulnerability Assessment�, in Project Nr. 037005 CECILIA (2008), European Commission Six t Framework Program 2002-2006.



According to the Management Plan, the Hydrographic Basin “Buzau - Ialomita” covers a territory that crosses 9 counties from which Calarasi county stands out with

16 the fourth biggest share of territory and a sixth of population (see table nr. 3) .

Retrieved from . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic_basin Retrieved from http://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/Planul%20de%20M anagement%20al%20Spatiului%20H idrografic%20Buza/Planul%20de%20management%20al%20spatiului%20hidrografic%20Buzau%20-%20Ialomita/Plan%20M anagement%20SH%20Buzau-Ialomita%20-%20tex t.pdf.

15

Table 2. Buzau - Ialomita Hydrographic Basin

River and sub-river basins

Buzau

Ialomita

Calmatui

Mostistea

15Danube and Endorheic Area

TOTAL

2Surface (km )

5.264

10.350

1.668

1.758

7.165

22.289

Main water course

Buzau

Ialomita

Calmatui

Mostistea

Prahova (tributary of Ialomita)

From total length of water courses

Length (km)

308

400

144

98

176

5.424



Source: Retrieved from .http://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/default.aspx

Figure 6. Buzau - Ialomita Hydrographic Basin

Source: National Institute of Hidrology of Water Management, “Central and Eastern EuropeClimate Change Impact and Vulnerability Assessment”, in Project Nr. 037005 CECILIA (2008), European Commission Sixt Framework Program 2002-2006.

Legend

0 - 25

25 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 150

150 - 200

200 - 300

300 - 500

500 - 750

750 - 1000

1000 - 1250

1250 - 1500

1500 - 1750

1750 - 2000

2000 - 2550

Sub-basins boundary

Hydrometric station

Meteorological station

Rain gauge

0 20 40Km

16

A total of 20 natural lakes have been identified as part of the Hydrographic Basin “Buzau - Ialomita” (see figure nr. 7), of which 2 in Ilfov county, 1 in Buzau county, 6 in Braila county, 8 in Ialomita county and 3 in Calarasi county, some of them being used for fishery or therapeutic purposes. The Ciocanesti pilot area or Ciocanesti Lake is one of the natural lakes identified in Calarasi county; its general characteristics are presented in table nr. 4.

Table 3. Administrative and demographic characteristics of the Hydrographic Basin “Buzau - Ialomita”

17 Retrieved from � and � http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buz u_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ialomi a_River.



Source: Retrieved from http://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20Spatiului%20Hidrografic%20Buza/Planul%20de%20management%20al%20spatiului%20hidrografic%20Buzau%20-%20Ialomita/Plan%20Management%20SH%20Buzau-Ialomita%20-%20text.pdf.

No. County

Brasov

Covasna

Buzau

Braila

Prahova

Dambovita

Ialomita

Calarasi

Ilfov

TOTAL:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Hydrografic 17basin

Buzau

Buzau

Buzau

Buzau

Ialomita

Ialomita

Ialomita

Danube

Ialomita

Surface 2(km )

297

705

5190

3242

4716

1686

4453

4015

395

24699

% of total basin surface

1,21

2,85

21,01

13,12

19,13

6,82

18,0

16,26

1,6

100

Population (inhabitants)

3321

18866

417823

360733

821013

294933

290563

252037

50017

2509306

0,13

0,75

16,65

14,38

32,72

11,75

11,58

10,04

2,00

100

% of total population at basin level

Figure 7. Surface water bodies in the Hydrographic Basin “Buzau - Ialomita”

Source: Retrieved fromhttp://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20Spatiului%20Hidrografic%20Buza/Planul%20de%20management%20al%20spatiului%20hidrografic%20Buzau%20-%20Ialomita/Plan%20Management%20SH%20Buzau-Ialomita%

, pag. 5520-%20text.pdf

Legend

Delineation water courses

Water courses – RIVERS:

Permanent

Non-permanent

Artificial

Water courses – LAKES:

Reservoirs

Natural lakes

Settlements

Danube river

Borders of the hidrographic basin

Pilot area

At the Ciocanesti fish farm, water necessary to execute aquaculture-related processes comes partially from precipitations and indirectly from the Danube river as well as from the Mostistei Valley. As shown in figure nr. 8, water is taken both from the Boianu precinct through draining channels surrounding the farm and from the channel Botul Dunaricii. From the central irrigation channel, water is distributed into a network of smaller channels from which basins for reproduction, feeding, wintering and for the reproducers are supplied. Sluces are used to control water level in the basins; also, they are used to empty and fill the basins in spring and autumn, when fish populations are moved from winter basins into breeding basins and viceversa. Water efficiency is achieved by recirculation through the channels network and is oxigenated by agitation. When basins are emptied, excess water reaches the surrounding draining channels by gravitational gradient, and from here it goes into the Botul Dunaricii channel. Finally, water returns into the

18 Danube .

Water is taken through electrical pumping. While water delivery into the basins happens especially in the spring, from April to June (although it can continue with smaller quantities all over the year), water discharge happens especially in autumn, from November till the end of December (although small quantities can be discharged throughout the year according to fish-related needs).

Table 4. Characteristics of Ciocanesti Lake

Hydrographic sub-basin

Danube



Source: Retrieved from http://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20Spatiului%20Hidrografic%20Buza/Planul%20de%20management%20al%20spatiului%20hidrografic%20Buzau%20-%20Ialomita/Plan%20Management%20SH%20Buzau-

, pag. 105Ialomita%20-%20text.pdf

Name and code of water body

Ciocanesti Lake

LW14.1_N1

Name of lake/unit arranged for fishery or aquaculture

Fish

management

facility

(amenajare

piscicola)

Type of activity (fishery, nursery, farming) / fish species

Hatchery or

nursery / Carp

and crucian

(Cyprinus

carpio,

Carrasius

gibelio auratus)

Surface (ha) used for fishery / aquaculture

198

Abiotic typology and symbol

Lake situated

in the plain

field, very

small depth,

alcalinity

moderate-high

ROLN02

Altitude (m)

15

Average Depth (m)

2,5

Geology

Silicon

18 I. F. Gheorghe, C. Munteanu, M. Martini, �Guide for fish farms in the Lower Danube to monitor water quality� (2103).

1.3. DEMOGRAPHY AND LIVELIHOODS

Ciocanesti is a commune of 4,998 inhabitants. It is composed of a single village, 19,20

Ciocanesti, covering a total area of 12,715 ha , where the urban area is 529 ha and the rural area is 12,186 ha.

21 Figure nr. 9 below shows that arable land is the main land use in the pilot area .

Figure 8. Spatial orientation within Ciocanesti fish farm and distribution of the canals network

Source: C. Munteanu (2012).

19 Retrieved from . www.ghidulprimariilor.ro Overall, the county of Calarasi has 2 municipalities, 3 towns, 50 communes and 159 villages, with the county seat being the municipality of Calarasi. In terms of demography, considering that about 45% of the national population live in rural areas, the level of urbanization in the county is below the country average: in 2009 the county population totalled 312,879 inhabitants (1.5% of national population), of which 38.5% living in urban areas and 61.5% in the countryside. In general, arable land is the main land use at county level where it occupies 97.3% of the total county agriculture area (426,200 ha by end of 2008, about 2.9% of the country's agriculture surface and more than 84% of the county's surface).



20

21

Pumping station Boianu II

Drainage channel CI

Pumpingstation

Boianu I

Central drainage channel CII

Drainagechannel

Supply channel

Evacuation channel

Pumping station

Legend

According to table nr. 5 below displaying public information about the local 22

economy, agriculture is the main activity in the pilot area .

Figure 9. Type of land uses in the Hydrographic Basin “Buzau - Ialomita”



22 From an economic point of view agriculture is more generally the main industry in the county, generating about 3% of of the entire agriculture output of the country. Other industries include metallurgy, food processing, textiles, and construction materials. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C l ra i_County� � � . Based on the Register of Aquaculture Units published on the website of the National Agency for Fishery and Aquaculture (ANPA)

thsubordinated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, on 18 September 2013, in Romania fish farms are registered as either fish management facility (amenajare piscicola), trout farm (pastravarie), or aquaculture unit (unitate de acvacultura), and perform one or more of the following main activities: hatchery (crescatorie), nursery (pepiniera) and artificial reproduction station (statie de reproducere). Sometimes nurseries are acting also as hatcheries. The terms fish management facility and aquaculture unit are equivalents designating stews, ponds, fishwell, artificial reproduction station or other facilities used for aquaculture. M. Martini, �Proposal for a methodology to implement PES addressing the aquaculture sector - The case of Romania� (2012). Retrieved from � and �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buz u_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ialomi a_River. C. Sut, �Analysis of aquaculture units in Romania� (2013)

Source: Retrieved from http://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/Planul%20de%20Management%20al%20Spatiului%20Hidrografic%20Buza/Planul%20de%20management%20al%20spatiului%20hidrografic%20Buzau%20-%20Ialomita/Plan%20Management%20SH%20Buzau-Ialomita%20-%20text.pdf, pag. 11

Administrative centre

Ciocanesti

Typical activities

Agriculture

Growing of cereals and other plants

Animal breeding

Commerce

Main income generating activities

Agriculture

Commerce

Services

Industry

Table 5. Economic activities in Ciocanesti commune

Source: Retrieved from . http://www.ghidulprimariilor.ro

Although aquaculture is not among the main activities at communal level, fish 23

farms are typical in the Lower Danube where they have been built on former locations of lakes and ponds because of their proximity to water sources, the Danube

24 itself and its tributaries, which generally implies reduced production costs . The

total number of registered fish farms in Romania is 547 (excluding trout farms, halls for sturgeon growth within cities and floating nurseries) with about 17 fish farms being located in Calarasi county and 131 in Lower Danube counties (Braila, Calarasi,

25 Costanta, Dolj, Giurgiu, Mehedinti, Olt, Teleorman, Timis, Tulcea) .

23

24

25

Legend

Urban areas

Industrial areas

Arable land

Permanent crops

Borders of the water administration body

Forests and shrub

Wetlands

Water bodies

Danube river 50

Km

403020100 5

Regarding the pilot area, the Ciocanesti fish farm is managed by S.C. Ciocanesti 26Piscicola S.R.L. based on Concession Contract Nr. 142/18.08.2006. During the

communist regime the Ciocanesti fish farm was meant to be the fish supplier for the 27

south of Romania ; during 1989-1999 it developed as a public-private form of association and has become subjected to market economy rules and implications. Mr. Hodorogea owns 60% of the property (infrastructure and fish stock) and for the last 30 years he has been working at the fish farm, obtaining the concession from the state over the underground land (namely the land under the water) in 1999. Mr. Deacu owns the remaining 40% of the property (including concession of underground land) and cooperates harmoniously with Mr. Hodorogea. Under Law Nr. 317/2009, fish farmers are allowed to buy the land under the water basins, although they can ultimately choose whether to buy the underground land or to remain concessionaries; however, the process is delayed by the fact that documents are still being transferred from the state domain to ANPA (meaning that the Register of Aquaculture Units can still suffer important changes). Agriculture land is also

28 under concession. Mr. Hodorogea is registered both as farmer and fish farmer .

Land use in the pilot area is organised according to table nr. 6 below.

26 Retrieved from . http://www.ciocanesti-piscicola.ro C. Munteanu, Interviews with Marin Hodorogea - administrator of S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L. (2010). M. Martini, �Model site card� (2010). Depending on the system used to manage water resources, in Europe one may distinguish between different freshwater fish production systems such as pond fish farming, flow-through systems, recirculation systems and cage cultures in freshwater lakes and rivers. One may also find mixed systems where two types are combined. Production of freshwater fish in ponds is often considered as the oldest fish farming activity in Europe, dating back to medieval times. Typical fish ponds are earthen enclosures in which the fish live in a natural-like environment, feeding on the natural food growing in the pond itself from sunlight and nutrients available in the pond water. Fish pond production remains �extensive� or �semi-intensive� (with supplementary feeding) in most countries. In traditional flow-through aquaculture systems, water passes through the culture system only once and is then discharged back to the aquatic environment. The flow of water through the culture system supplies oxygen to the fish and carries dissolved and suspended wastes out of the system. Water is taken from the river, circulated through the farm and treated before being released downstream. All water in the farm is renewed at least once a day. The most widely-practiced form of flow-through aquaculture in Europe is trout farming, which is spread throughout Europe. Recirculation Aquaculture Systems (RAS) are land-based systems in which water is reused after mechanical, chemical and biological treatment. These systems present several advantages, such as: water saving, a rigorous control of water quality, high biosecurity levels and an easier control of waste production as compared to other production systems. They have however high capital and high operational costs including high energy consumption. The main freshwater species produced in RAS are eel, trout and catfish. Cage cultures in freshwater lakes and rivers also provide limited but important possibilities for freshwater aquaculture in certain water bodies. Atecma (N2K Group), �Guidance document on aquaculture activities in the context of the Natura 2000 Network�, in Contract N°07.0307/2011/605019/SER/B.3, European Commission (2012).



27

28

Table 6. Type of land uses in the pilot area

No. Type of land use

Water basins

Surface covered by reed

Agricultural land

Access roads, dykes, buildings

TOTAL

1

2

3

4

Surface

187,613 ha

10,386 ha

29,51 ha

5,86 ha

233,369

Source: C. Munteanu. Adapted from “Raport la bilantul de mediu, nivel I si II, SC Ciocanesti Piscicola SRL, Comuna Ciocanesti, Judetul Calarasi” (2007), SC Enviro SRL.

29

The production system at the Ciocanesti fish farm is one of freshwater aquaculture in ponds, recognised worldwide for its “extensive” or “semi-intensive” (with

29supplementary feeding) character . In particular, the aquaculture activity at the Ciocanesti fish farm consists of growing small fish (up to 200 gr/fish) to populatate water basins and big fish (about 2 kg/fish) for consumption.

The large proportion of production is of young fish and especially for populating water basins (year I and II small fish); thus the Ciocanesti fish farm is able to secure 40% of fish material for population purposes for units in the counties of Calarasi, Ialomita, Giurgiu, Ilfov, Brasov and Prahova. Similarly, all sizes of breeded fish are being sold either to other farms or to local markets. In terms of income, 80% comes from selling the small fish. Except for granulated fodder, no hormones or growth stimulators are being added to the normal feeding with cereals. Proper hygienisation

30is a usual water basin management practice, contributing to fish health .

Currently, public support under Operational Programme Fishery, Axis 2 – Aquaculture, fishery in inland waters, procession and marketing of products from fishery and aquaculture, Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.2 – Transition towards organic aquaculture, is affecting the Ciocanesti fish farm's market share while posing a fundamental challenge: business diversification versus adaptation to the organic market. On the one side, the potential for business diversification is good especially towards tourism based on opportunities under Axis 4 – Sustainable development of fishery areas; the local development strategy of the Fishery Local Action Group (FLAG) Dunarea Calaresana also includes tourism under Priority 2 – Creating conditions for sustainable development of fishery areas, Objective 2.3 – Conservation and valorification of cultural and natural heritage for development/promotion of tourism and ecoturismului (leisure activities), and Priority 3 – Building capacity of local actors supporting implementation of the development strategy, Measure 3.1.1 – Training, information, dissemination aimed at developing new skills by people employed in the fishery sector and supporting sectors (e.g. tourism, gastronomy). Besides, there is the Danube Competence Centre, a regional platform with the goal of promoting the Danube river as a tourism destination; the support it gives for

31cooperation between, and marketing of members is another important opportunity .

On the other side, adaptation to the organic market should not be regarded as the only opportunity based on considerations that in Romania, as in Central and

32 Eastern Europe in general, semi-extensive freshwater fish production in ponds is

the usual practice and it is by definition to meet sustainable aquaculture requirements, such as carrying capacity and others related to water, nutrients, farm location and energy. However, while legislation and certification schemes (including the processes, systems, procedures and activities related to three functions of standard setting, accreditation and certification) for organic aquaculture are already well-established and recognised at international, European and national levels, so far there are no exhaustive and usable criteria to certify the level of sustainability in

34, 35aquaculture .

21

30 M. Martini, �Business profile of Ciocanesti fish farm� (2010). Retrieved from . http://www.danubecc.org The natural development of the pond is assisted by more managed production methods (originating from traditional combined forms of fish farming) such as the introduction of fry from hatcheries into the sites and provision of supplemental feed or the cleaning and fertilizing of ponds every winter, thus intensifying the presence of micro-organisms that form the base of the aquatic food pyramid. This encourages the development of marketable fish harvest at a higher yield than that of the natural ecosystem. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/aquaculture_methods/index_en.htm. Carrying capacity in aquaculture is defined as the maximum biomass of a farmed species that can be supported without violating the maximum acceptable impacts to the farmed stock and its environment. Carrying capacity depends, inter alia, on the capacity of the ecosystem to re-supply substances such as oxygen, consumed by all farmed animals, or phytoplankton, consumed by filter-feeding bivalves. Atecma (N2K Group), op.cit. Several initiatives are continuously developing and updating the code of conduct, indicators and certification systems with the purpose to achieve agreements and acceptance by decision-makers about sustainability in aquaculture and how it can be put into practice. To name few: FAO �Code of conduct for responsible fisheries" (1995), FEAP �Code of conduct for European Aquaculture" (2000), EVAD �Guide to the co-construction of sustainable development indicators in aquaculture� (2008), Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and GLOBALGAP convention for the development and harmonisation of worldwide certification systems for the aquaculture sector (2009),

31

32

33

34



35

CONSENSUS (2005-2008) - an EU-funded project that developed a set of sustainability indicators as base for a certification system in aquaculture focused on low environmental impact, high competitiveness and resposibility with respect to biodiversity and animal welfare, and SustainAqua (2006) a project funded under the EU Sixth Framework Programme that identified technological improvements contributing to sustainable aquaculture production in Europe and in a way anticipating future legislation. SustainAqua � �Integrated approach for a sustainable and healthy freshwater aquaculture� (2009). SustainAqua handbook � A handbook for sustainable aquaculture. Also relevant is the Aquaculture Stewardship Council ( ), founded in 2010 by WWF and IDH (Dutch Sustainable http://www.asc-aqua.orgTrade Initiative) as an independent not-for-profit organisation aimed to be the world's leading certification and labelling programme for responsibly farmed seafood; its primary role is to manage the global standards for responsible aquaculture, which were developed through the WWF Aquaculture Dialogues.

While aquaculture has been growing globally at an annual rate of 6.9%, in the EU this level of growth has not been achieved and production has remained at the same level since at least 2000. Under the Common Fisheries Policy Reform, the European Commission is seeking to promote the expansion of the aquaculture sector, and has published a Communication on Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of the industry. According to COM(2013) 229, the Strategic Guidelines highlight four priority areas for improvement: reducing administrative burdens; improving access to space and water; increasing competitiveness; exploiting competitive advantages due to high quality, health and environmental standards. On the basis of these guidelines, an Advisory Council for Aquaculture for stakeholder consultation and advice is created, and Member States are called to elaborate multiannual national plans for the development of sustainable aquaculture. At the same time, EU �horizontal� legislation, such as environmental protection requirements, public health protection rules for fisheries products, animal health law is applicable to aquaculture industry and its products as appropriate. Retrieved from .http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/official_documents/com_2013_229_en.pdf

Payments are granted as follows: 800 Ron/ha (approximately 190 Euro/ha) for up to 35% loss of income, and 1000 Ron/ha (approximately 237 Euro/ha) for up to 50% loss of income.

In short, current aqua-environment payments under Operational Programme Fishery, Axis 2 – Aquaculture, fishery in inland waters, procession and marketing of products from fishery and aquaculture, Measure 2.1 – Aquaculture, Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection, and Operation 2.1.4.2 – Transition towards organic aquaculture, represent a key stimulus for the adoption of sustainable practices in aquaculture, and businesses with a long-term vision can use this opportunity to set the basis for their competitiveness and be prepared when market mechanisms and legislation for sustainable aquaculture are established. The administration of the Ciocanesti fish farm has applied twice under Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection, which confirms the interest in improving the business' environmental responsibility, and at the second attempt they received a positive response. The Ciocanesti fish farm has also benefited from payments under Operation 2.1.4.3 –

36 Sustainable aquaculture in Natura 2000 sites and has received a total of 80,000 Euro for two years (40,000 Euro/year) as compensation for lost income.

In conclusion, business development support is necessary both for diversification towards ecotourism and for integration of responsible aquaculture practices as opportunities to improve livelihood in the pilot area.

36



2. ECOSYSTEMS SITUATION ANALYSIS

2.1. ECOSYSTEMS IN THE PILOT AREA

Table nr. 7 below shows the main ecosystem types in the pilot area.

Source: M. Martini. Adapted from EUROPEAN UNION, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystems assessment under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion Paper, 2013

Table 7. Typical ecosystems in the pilot area

Ecosystem typology (level 1)

Terrestrial

Typical wetland habitat, which overall includes wetland vegetation and water surfaces, is the main ecosystem in the pilot area occupying a total surface of 198 ha or 84,84% of the pilot area.

The territory occupied by the Ciocanesti fish farm represents 25,8% (904 ha) of the Natura 2000 site ROSPA0021 Ciocanesti – Dunare (figure nr. 10), a Special Protection Area (SPA) established by the Governmental Decision nr.1284/2007 for its importance in hosting protected bird species (21 under Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, 69 species included in annexes of the Bonn Convention on migratory species and 5 globally endangered species) and located entirely on the Calarasi county territory. According to the site standard form, the main habitats are indeed rivers and lakes in proportion of 58% (524,3 ha of which 44,5% belonging to the pilot area), crops with 18% arable land and deciduous or broad-leaved forest with 24%

37(located south at about 3 km from the Danube).

Freshwater

Total cover

Ecosystem typology (level 2)

Cropland

Inland wetlands (wetland vegetation - reed)

Sparsely or unvegetated land (access roads, dykes, buildings)

Rivers and lakes (ponds - water basins)

Total area (ha)

29,51

10,386

5,86

187,613

233,369

% of pilot area

12,64

4,45

2,51

80,39

100


37 Natura 2000 working group (2006). Natura 2000 Standard Form for Special Protection Areas, ROSPA0021 Ciocanesti � Dunare. Retrieved from . www.natura2000.ro

2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES

With respect to the key wetland habitat and consequently bird species dependent on it for nesting and/or feeding, the following environmental issues are identified in the pilot area:

Quality of water in fish basins – Water coming from Mostistea River is already 39

significantly charged with nutrients . Similarly, water used to fill fish basins that runs through agriculture land surrounding the Ciocanesti fish farm into the draining channels poses the risk of diffused pollution with nutrients due to the intensive practices adopted in time, including additional nutrients inputs and use of pesticides. Because of the lack of buffer areas made of natural vegetation strips

2. Ecosystem situation analysis


Source: Retrieved from . http://natura2000.mmediu.ro/site/36/rospa0021.html

Figure 10. Map of the Natura 2000 site ROSPA0021 Ciocanesti - Dunare

CiocanestiLake

Danube river

Thus, the wetland habitat plays a key environmental role both in the pilot area and in the Natura 2000 site, and its maintenance in the pilot area is particularly important with respect to Natura 2000 site designation.

38Furthermore, Ciocanesti - Dunare is a potential Ramsar site , which highlights the international relevance of the pilot area.

38 Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance, designated under the Ramsar Convention. The Ramsar Convention is an international agreement signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, which provides for the conservation and good use of wetlands. So far Romania has 12 designated Ramsar Sites, totaling 923,597 ha. Ramsar sites are under the coordination of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Retrieved from . http://www.ramsar.org

In 2009, the report sent to the European Commission by the Ministry of Environment and Forests classified it as eutrophic, meso-eutrophic and hiper-eutrophic.

39

Ciocanesticommune


between the agriculture land and draining channels surrounding the Ciocanesti fish farm, water sources are already of bad quality when threshold values specified and admitted by Government Decision nr. 100/2002 are taken into account; the Government Decision nr. 100/2002 approves quality norms that have to be respected by surface waters for the production of drinking water and norms on

40 related sampling procedures . Only water from the main irrigation channel passes

through an area of typical wetland vegetation (figure nr. 11), made of submerged swamp plants, which improves significantly its quality from the point of view of nutrients content, organic charge and transparency.

Figure 11. Map of natural buffer areas at the Ciocanesti fish farm

Source: C. Munteanu (2012). Modified by M. Martini (2014).


Pumpingstation

Boianu ICentral drainage channel CII

Drainagechannel

Supply channel

Evacuation channel

Pumping station

Natural buffer area

Legend


40 Values specified according to Government Decision nr. 100/2002 are taken as reference given that water evacuated from fish farms located along the Lower Danube in the end reaches the Danube River, which is the main source for the supply of drinking water to nearby cities (Calarasi, Braila, Galati, Tulcea, Sulina, Sfantul Gheorghe, etc.). Retrieved from � and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buz u_Riverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ialomi a_River. �

Drainage channel CI

Information about water quality is derived from the implementation of a water monitoring plan that the project team designed during 2013 to understand and improve water management in the pilot area. Water samples had already been taken in April 2010 and in August 2012 in order to gain information about water status; however, with less frequency and a smaller number of significant parameters. The decision to develop the water monitoring plan was taken based on results from preliminary water analyses, which have shown values beyond the admitted thresholds stipulated in the Government Decision nr. 100/2002; also, these analyses were not sufficient for a comprehensive understanding of dynamics between water flows in/out of the fish basins and of the aquaculture technological process at the Ciocanesti fish farm. As shown in figure nr. 12, a total of 10 water sampling points are introduced in the monitoring plan, 6 located inside fish basins, 1 in the channel (belonging to the irrigation network) where water from fish basins is evacuated, and 3 near pumping stations. The 3 sampling points near pumping stations (P1, P2, P3) have the role to establish the quality of water with which fish basins are filled, while the sampling point belonging to the irrigation network (P10) has the role to establish the quality of water evacuated from fish basins. The other 6 sampling points (P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9) are located in the centre of each type of basin and have the role to

41establish the quality of water in each basin.



Figure 12. Map of water sampling points under the water monitoring system for the Ciocanesti fish farm


Modified by I. Gheorghe (2013)

41 Retrieved from � and �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buz u_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ialomi a_River.


Drainage channel CI

Pumpingstation

Boianu ICentral drainage channel CII

Drainagechannel

Supply channel

Evacuation channel

Pumping station

Legend

The following parameters have been monitored, which are sensible to changes happening at farm level or in the surrounding agriculture land:

Transparency (solid suspensions) – reflects the degree of suspension of sediments;

pH – it reflects water reaction;

Water temperature – it is measured only in case water supply is supplemented with groundwater;

Physically dissolved oxygen – it reflects water aeration conditions;

Hardness - reflects loading of mineral salts, indicating indirectly the degree of salinity;

CBO5 and CCO-Cr - highlights loading of biodegradable and non-biodegradable organic substances and oxygen consumption in water;

Nutrients – the ratio between total nitrogen/total phosphorus and chlorophyll a reflects eutrophication degree;

Heavy metals (Pb, Cu, Zn);

Phytoplankton and zooplankton – reflects the eutrophication status and the potential available feed for planctonofage species;

Macrofite – reflects the eutrophication status and potential available feed for 42phytophag species.



42 Retrieved from � and �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buz u_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ialomi a_River. Organic aquaculture practices set allowed fish production at 1,500 kg/ha of water surface and limit fish feeding.

Frequency of sampling covers seasonal variations linked with the aquaculture technological process. In the case of the Ciocanesti fish farm, the water monitoring system has shown that the current fish basin management does not add to eutrophication of surface waters and that incoming nutrient load from agricultural practices is a problem, which should be specifically addressed in order to effectively achieve water quality in fish basins in combination with „environmentally friendly” aquaculture measures. It is expected that even certification of the first organic fish farms in Romania will have to deal with establishing a proper duration for the

43 conversion period to organic aquaculture . In this regard, the monitoring system designed for the pilot area can be used to identify the period of time necessary for water to fulfil standard requirements of organic fish production.

The first water-sampling which was carried out in May-July 2013, when water is introduced into the fish basins, has shown that in sampling points P1 P2 and P3, representing supplying sources of water in fish basins, concentrations of suspended matter (MTS), CCO-Cr and nitrates are a lot above admitted thresholds, sampling point P1 registering the highest value of suspended matter and P2 the highest value of CCO-Cr (see figures nr. 13 and 14 below).

43

Suspended organicmatter (MTS)

Maximum valuesof MTS admitted

CCO-Cr

Figure 13. Variations of MTS and CCO-Cr in the nine water-sampling points in May 2013

Source: I. F. Gheorghe, C. Munteanu, M. Martini, “Guide for fish farms in the Lower Danube to monitor water quality” (2103).



Figure 14. Variations of nitrates in the nine water-sampling points in May 2013

Nitrates

Maximumvalues ofnitratesadmitted


With respect to suspended matter and CCO-Cr, the second water-sampling was carried out in October 2013, during the evacuation of water from the fish basins and has shown a considerable improvement of water quality in all sampling points, with a reduction of 75% in values related to suspended matter (see figure nr. 15), while CCO-Cr values have decreased below the maximum admitted thresholds of 125 mg/l.



Figure 15. Variations of suspended matter in May and October 2013

May

Oct


However, figure nr. 16 highlights the problem of nitrates values exceeding the admitted threshold of 1 mg/l in the majority of sampling points compared to May 2013.

Figure 16. Variations of nitrates in the nine water-sampling points in May and October 2013

May

Oct


Figure nr. 17 highlights another problem, a significant increase in the levels of sulfates, about 5-6 times higher than in May 2013. The fact that higher values were registered also in points representing supplying sources of water indicates that it is not a problem caused by current aquaculture practices and does not originate from within the fish basins. In the case of the Ciocanesti fish farm, the most plausible explanation is that gypsum or other salts of sulfuric acid are used as soil amendments to agricultural land surrounding the fish farm. The increase in sulfates values explains the reduction in suspended matter values, given that sulfates have a coagulation-flocculation role.

Figure 17. Variations of sulfates in the nine water-sampling points in May and October 2013




As regards the impact on biodiversity, planktonophag and phytophag fish species are tolerant to water charged with mineral and organic substances and also accept a

44 reduced content of physically dissolved oxygen in water ; birds are known not to

be affected by water quality either. The same applies to consumers, given that the Ciocanesti fish farm has health and veterinary authorizations to sell fish on the market. Still, water quality is an issue of concern with respect to WFD objectives and related legislation and needs further exploration.

Availability of food for birds – The typical wetland habitat of the Ciocanesti fish farm is important for most bird species and individuals. According to figures nr. 18 and 19 on relative shares of food-related needs, fish is a primary source of food for 21% of species and 56% of individuals observed.

May

Oct

Figure 18. Relative shares of food-related needs for bird species

Insectivores

Ichthyophagous

Vegeterians

13%

38%

21%

28% Carnivores


44 Retrieved from � and �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buz u_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ialomi a_River.



The downside of the fact that the Ciocanesti fish farm plays an important conservation 45

role is in the 60% annual average productivity loss due to fish-eating birds . What is interesting about the pilot area is that birds also come from Sreberna Nature Reserve, located on the other side of the Danube river in Bulgaria (figure nr. 20).

Figure 19. Relative shares of food-related needs for birds individuals

Insectivores

Ichthyophagous

Vegeterians

56%

Carnivores


38%

5%1%

45 C. Munteanu, Interviews with Marin Hodorogea - administrator of S.C. Ciocanesti P iscicola S.R.L. (2010).

Figure 20. Map of relative distance between the pilot area / ROSPA0021 Ciocanesti – Dunare and Sreberna Nature Reserve in Bulgaria


To maintain business viability, the management of the Ciocanesti fish farm has made a fair compromise: nets are used to cover about 40 ha of total fish basins surface; while offering protection to fishes (initial losses where at about 75% of production), nets do not harm birds. However, the need to continue to pursue a balance between conservation needs and business-related or economic needs is crucial.

Bird vulnerability to noise – Until 2012, a total of 3 gun simulators were used at the Ciocanesti fish farm as a way to manage productivity loss. Today, gun simulators no longer represent a threat to bird species.

Romania



Land abandonment and land use change – The whole land managed by S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L. is indeed being managed efficiently; except for a small area partially covered by reed, all basins are filled with water and used for aquaculture. However, due to external pressures affecting business viability (e.g. market related fluctuations in the aquaculture sector, harmful public subsidies, effects of the financial crisis on supply chains and price instability), the Ciocanesti fish farm administrators are often concerned about realistic long-term perspectives and have been considering alternatives such as abandonment of aquaculture activities (reduction in the number of basins) or transition to agriculture activities (conversion to cropland).

Table 8. Overview of environmental threats in the pilot area


Ecosystem typology(level 1)

Terrestrial

Species

Ecosystem typology(level 2)

Cropland

Habitat

Arable land

Environmental threats

Not applicable

Intervention area

-

Potential consequences of environmental threats

-

Inland wetlands

Wetland vegetation - reed

Not applicable - -

Sparsely or unvegetated land

Access roads, dykes, buildings

Not relevant - -

Freshwater Rivers and lakes

Ponds - water basins

Reduced water quality due to chemicals used on the agriculture land surrounding the pilot area

P1, P2, P3 (Figure nr.13)

Reduced water quality

Reduced fish quality (depending on species vulnerability)

Reduced water surface due to permanent draining as a result of external pressures on the fish farm business (competitiveness affected by public support for organic aquaculture, fluctuations in water price, reduced liquidity in the supply chain due to the financial crisis)

Water basins (187,613 ha)

Loss of wetland habitat

Environmental threats Intervention area

Effects from pressures

Birds species dependent on wetland habitat for resting, nesting and/or feeding

Reduced access to fish due to permanent draining of water basins (due to external pressures on the fish farm business) or reed overgrowth (due to improper reed management) or excessive net coverage of water basins (due to high productivity loss suffered by the fish farm)

Permanent draining or reed overgrowth: P3 (small fish basins covering 2 rows above 4B).

Net coverage: basin EC1A and EC1B on the side of the main road, EC2 towards the exterior of the fish farm opposite of buildings, 4A, and P3 (several small fish basins).

Species loss

Compacting of reed surface due to improper reed management

P3 (small fish basins covering 2 rows above 4B).

Disturbances due to use of gun simulators (due to high productivity loss suffered by the fish farm)

No longer applicable

Table nr. 8 below summarises the main environmental threats and possible consequences of human activity that deserve attention, respectively for key habitats and species identified in the pilot area.



46 Multifunctional farms are farms where the various elements are systematically integrated into the farming practice and where an increasing ratio of income derives from various non-fish farming activities. Such farms are becoming more widespread. Usually the first step towards multi-functionality is to convert some usually small size ponds of the farm into angling ponds and to start to provide services for anglers. This is followed by the provision of other types of services such as shops, restaurants, hotel services, etc. Nowadays, pond fish farms offer a wide range of various services - not only for specific customers such as anglers, hunters and tourists but also for the society as a whole through the maintenance of biodiversity, the improvement of water management and the maintenance of traditional culture and lifestyle. This is because (semi)extensive fish ponds are usually surrounded by reed belts and natural vegetation, thus providing important habitats for flora and fauna. Retrieved from . http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/518/the-special-case-of-multifunctional-fish-farms

Market related fluctuations in the aquaculture sector, harmful public subsidies, the effects of the financial crisis on supply chains and price instability, overall undermining business viability, have led to the adoption of “non-friendly” practices in the pilot area, such as land abandonment, net coverage to protect fish production and lack of reed management, which threaten important biodiversity such as wetland habitat and dependent bird species.

Given that wetlands are a priority for the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme, the project team has identified PES under the ecotourism umbrella as a possible answer to address the problem of biodiversity loss in the pilot area caused by external pressures on business viability. In this sense, the project team decided to implement an intermediate strategy in the pilot area to support a) business diversification towards ecotourism, and b) integration of biodiversity related measures (namely water and vegetation management practices) into usual business management so as to stimulate the transition towards responsible aquaculture. Overall, the intermediate strategy is meant to establish the necessary conditions for further demonstration of the identified PES approach.

The project team therefore decided first to mobilise public funds in 46

support of responsible and multi-functional aquaculture business development and to address the Local Partner's concerns with respect to ecotourism development.

Under these premises, a clear finance mechanism has not yet been defined.

2.3. ECOSYSTEMS VALUES

In table nr. 9 below, ecosystem benefits from the pilot area are prioritised according to the analysis of environmental issues presented in the previous chapter and they are also classified into existing and potential ecosystem services (ES). In fact, the development of responsible and multi-functional aquaculture necessary to establish conditions for further demonstration of the identified PES approach highlights the potential of the pilot area for both layering and boundling of ES.

Opportunity

ES Layering

ES Boundling

Biodiversity maintenance

Provisioning of fish

Existing ES

Water quality

-

Recreation

-

Potential ES

Table 9. Classification of ecosystem benefits and related opportunities in the pilot area


Furthermore, table nr. 10 below presents the monetary value (use value of ecosystem services, mostly direct and to a lesser extent indirect use values) of ecosystem benefits, identified at the relative beginning of the project in the pilot area and estimated by using different methods. However, it should be noted that a comprehensive and correct assessment was very difficult because of poor data approximation and availability. The purpose of this is to make the total economic value of ecosystems (TEV) process at a later stage easier. Therefore, an assessment of the TEV is recommended, but it is not the goal under the Danube PES project.



Type of Ecosystem Service (ES)

Provisioning

47Table 10. Ecosystems values estimated in the pilot area in 2010 and 2013

Group of ES

Nutrition

Description

Fish production

Actual Value (Euro/year) - 2010

592,000 (3,202 €/ha)

Actual Value (Euro/year) - 2013

-

Regulation and maintenance

Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions

Water quality - 48 Monitoring: 8,500 (Y1) + 1,100 (Y1+n);

Measures: 69-138 €/ha and/or 4,719 €/ha

Biodiversity maintenance

- Hunting penalties for protected bird species

49 19,500(77 €/ha)

-

Cultural (recreation)

Hunting penalties for protected bird species

- -Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems,and landscapes

Source: M. Martini. Adapted from the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), no 4.3.

Among existing ES, biodiversity maintenance is the most relevant and it has to be regarded in a broader sense that includes wetland habitats (water and specific vegetation) and species (birds). So far, the Ciocanesti fish farm was rewarded for the preservation of important birds species dependent on wetlands through aqua-environmental payments (Operation 2.1.4.3) for sustainable aquaculture in Natura 2000 sites granted under the Operational Programme for Fisheries.

47 Webster dictionary defines the term �value� as the quality of a thing according to which it is thought of as being more or less desirable, useful, estimable or important. Using this definition the value of an ecosystem might be defined in terms of its beauty, its uniqueness, its irreplacability, its contribution to life support functions or commercial or recreational opportunities, or its role in supporting wildlife or reducing environmental or human health risks, or providing many other services that benefit humans. Retrieved from http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/Indicators/economvalind.htm.

According to the additional feasibility study performed during October 2012-2013 to develop a water monitoring plan for the pilot area, approximately 8,500 Euro in the first year and 1,100 Euro in each subsequent year (due to a decreasing number of monitoring stations and frequency of water analysis) are estimated to implement such plan at farm level, which further allows the development of a water quality management system (applicable also in other Lower Danube fish farms) including the adoption of specific measures contributing to water quality. Gheorghe, Munteanu, Martini, op.cit. The project team elaborated two measures that contribute to water quality with a value of respectively 69 or 138 Euro/ha and 4,719 Euro/ha. C. Munteanu, �Start-up project for PES in Ciocanesti fish farm� (2013).

Hunting penalties are calculated according to Law nr. 407/2006 on hunting and protection of the hunting fund. Considering that the project team has referred only to penalties related to restrictions on hunting of protected species and not of hunting fund species, the value calculated for biodiversity maintenance could be higher. Hunting penalties are a good indication of the specific value of a killed bird. More generally, the significant value of maintaining biodiversity is reflected by aquaculture payments for Natura 2000 sites, which during 2007-2013 were granted based on annual requests, for maximum two years, and in the amount of 40,000 Euro/year. As opposed to hunting penalties, Natura 2000 payments are given based on estimated income loss related to productivity loss as a result of specific legal provisions.

48

49

Recent approval of project application to aqua-envrironmental payments (Operation 2.1.4.1) for environmental protection has opened the possibility to strengthen biodiversity maintenance by testing the “environmentally friendly” measures related to improved water and vegetation management.

Water quality regulation is seen as a potential ES whose delivery will also be stimulated through the aqua-envrironmental payments (Operation 2.1.4.1) for environmental protection. Although difficult to quantify at the moment, the total intrinsic value of delivering water quality actually refers also to the possibility of preparing a fish farm for the implementation of sustainable aquaculture standards under development at European level, which finally translates into access to new market shares associated with the development of green labels. Finally, it is difficult to say in what way the improvement of water quality in the pilot area (and similarly in the Lower Danube fish farms) also contributes (both in technical and monetary terms) to the overall quality of the Danube river. According to the WFD, the positive impact is significant and relevant with respect to the specific water body where improvements in the quality of water are registered. Thus, the impact on the specific water body is still to be investigated. The other existing ES is provisioning of fish, which is recognised by the

50market and stands out as the most valued ecosystem service .

Finally, based on conclusions that pursuing a balance between conservation and business viability is crucial for the local livehoods, recreation (known as cultural services) also becomes a relevant and potential ES whose provision will be stimulated through business diversification towards ecotourism under the recently approved project application to the Danube Competence Center. Although it was not possible to quantify the potential recreational services, the estimated value of biodiversity maintenance suggests the importance of diversifying farm activities towards ecotourism.



50 Indeed, aquaculture represents a growing contributor to the production of aquatic food worldwide given that most fisheries in the world are currently near or above sustainable exploitation limits. In parallel, global consumption of fish as food has constantly grown since the 1970s. The relevance of this ES for local livelihoods also in Romania is expected to improve and consolidate under the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy reform, which also aims to develop the full potential of EU aquaculture in line with the Europe 2020 objectives: sustainability, food security, growth and employment. Atecma (N2K Group), op.cit.

3. FRAMEWORK TO ESTABLISH CONDITIONS FOR FINANCING OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

3.1. PROGRESS TOWARDS PES UNDER THE ECOTOURISM UMBRELLA

To address the loss of wetland habitat (water and specific vegetation) and dependent bird species as a result of external pressures on business viability, the project team has identified a strategy of responsible business development in order to establish the necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES under the ecotourism umbrella, namely a) business diversification towards ecotourism (responsible business diversification), and b) integration of biodiversity-related measures into usual business management (responsible aquaculture development). This is to be regarded as an intermediate strategy towards a finance mechanism for nature conservation, which is now possible to implement having achieved, on the one hand, mobilisation of public funds for testing “environmentally friendly” measures and building of small tourism infrastructure, and on the other hand the engagement of the Local Partner in the implementation of the intermediate strategy. During the advocacy process, local and national stakeholders have matured awareness and knowledge about how to integrate nature-related needs and costs into usual business management as well as into public policy-making. The perspective of positioning the aquaculture business better on the market has motivated the fish farm administration in the pilot area to engage in responsible business development; at the same time, the possibility to stimulate access to European funds has motivated policymakers and Operational Programme managers to improve the design of aqua-environment measures. Furthermore, regional funds administrators have seen in the pilot area an opportunity to enhance sustainable tourism development along the Danube river. Consequently, the framework for establishing basic conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation through PES is provided by the two projects approved during April - May 2014.

In November 2013, the Managing Authority of the national Operational Programme for Fisheries re-opened Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection after integrating specific feedback developed by the project team to turn the measures into real opportunities for potential beneficiaries who wish to adopt responsible aquaculture practices. The Ciocanesti fish farm administration has applied for a second time and in May 2014 they received an official positive response.

The testing of the “environmentally friendly” measures the project team has designed in order to help improve the management of water and vegetation in the pilot area is expected to start by mid 2014. WWF-Romania is interested in supporting the implementation of the project, as assessment of the extent to which biodiversity maintenance is strengthened and water quality is improved will be crucial for the definition of key ES to be traded under the identified PES approach.


In April 2014, the Danube Competence Center launched the Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals and has selected the project “Improving tourism accessibility to enjoy birds' diversity at Ciocanesti fish farm”, which is expected to start by mid 2014. WWF-Romania is an implementation partner, as assessment of the extent to which recreational services are created will also be crucial, not only for the definition of key ES to be traded under the identified PES approach but also for the identification of ES Buyers.

3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation


Table nr. 11 below summarises the progress reached in the action plan elaborated by the project team to tackle changes that have caused delay in demonstrating and achieving an operational PES.

Intermediate strategy

Mobilisation of public funds

Table 11. Progress of actions to tackle changes versus original project objectives

Activity

Development of a system to monitor water quality in fish basins in order to improve robustness of indicators for the elaborated “environmentally friendly” measures

Progress

Achieved

Advocacy work to integrate measures developed by the project team into Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection

Achieved

Re-opening of the Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection by the Managing Authority of the national Operational Programme for Fisheries

Achieved

Support the Ciocanesti fish farm administration to apply for funding targeted at achieving environmental objectives through responsible aquaculture practices

Achieved

Search funding opportunities for building of small tourism infrastructure

Achieved

Support the Ciocanesti fish farm administration to apply for funding targeted at responsible tourism development

Achieved

Elaboration of a guiding document in support of establishing and implementing a water quality monitoring system in fish farms along the Lower Danube, using the Ciocanesti pilot as study case, to be used in advocacy work to further mainstream the PES approach in the EU programming period 2014-2020

Elaboration of guiding document achieved; advocacy work ongoing

The Ciocanesti fish farm administration accesses funds for testing “environmentally friendly” measures designed by the project team

Achieved

The Ciocanesti fish farm administration accesses funds for developing ecotourism infrastructure and capacity

Achieved

Responsible aquaculturedevelopment

Responsible business diversification


This section of the report provides an overview of legal-institutional and policy aspects that are relevant for the implementation of the intermediate strategy designed to establish the necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES under the ecotourism umbrella. The extent to which these aspects can work as enabling conditions for the development of responsible aquaculture and ecotourism in the pilot area is an important indicator of the possibility to reconcile conservation with business viability and, more generally, economic development. Because the identified issues are not all under the direct control of the Ciocanesti fish farm administration or the project team/WWF-Romania, the following success factors are identified: interest and capacity of public stakeholders to improve policies in a relatively short time, and continued interest and determination of key local stakeholders with respect to sustainable business development or multi-functionality at fish farm level.

3.2. ENABLING CONDITIONS



Law nr. 317/2009 approving Government Urgency Ordinance nr. 23/2008 on fishery and aquaculture is the main legal provision governing aquaculture in Romania. Environmental protection is poorly mentioned in this piece of law. However, Art. 43, Chapter V on aquaculture stipulates that water use is subject to water legislation, while Art. 44 refers to environmental protection as well as to the support of organic production as principles of the fishery policy.

Water Law nr. 107/1996, Art. 11 stipulates that in artificial lakes or reservoirs whose water is used for human population needs, feeding fish is forbidden and in other cases, the use of fish fodder should not influence the water quality downstream. Moreover, Art. 27 stipulates that any activity concerning water in a minor riverbed, in protected areas or in areas of water protection, should not produce negative effects on water, banks of rivers and riverbeds, banks of lakes and lake bowls, nature monuments, constructions, existing works or equipment, and should influence as little as possible the water usage by other users. The degradation of water quality is forbidden in any situation. Thus, from a legal point of view, aquaculture practices and related technologies are considered as “non-pollutant” given that environmental permits do not include restrictions concerning the use of fish fodder.

Law nr. 265/2006 regarding environmental protection contains some provisions targeting water bodies and protected areas. Art. 55 specifies that “Protection of the surface and underground water should target the improvement of water quality and biological productivity”, and Articles 49 and 52 refer to the obligation of landowners to apply and respect the measures imposed by environmental authorities or included in the approved management plans of protected areas. Finally, Art. 98 punishes the burning of herbaceous vegetation, although it is not clearly specified that it is forbidden in protected areas.

Fish farms situated in protected areas, including Natura 2000 sites, and where protected bird species are nesting, resting or feeding, are subject to restrictions stipulated by Law nr. 49/2011 approving Government Urgency Ordinance nr. 57/2007 on the regime of natural protected areas and the conservation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna species. Aquaculture activities are only allowed in areas designated for sustainable development and in the case of protected bird species, killing or

3.2.1. THE LEGAL CONTEXT

catchment of birds, destruction of nests or eggs and the disturbance during the breeding and maturation periods are forbidden. If other protected species such as frogs, snakes or plants are present in the area, aquaculture activities are subject to similar restrictions as in the case of birds. Usually, restrictions are specified in the environmental permits issued by the local Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA), but sometimes they are only very general endorsements of the legislation. The same situation applies to protected areas management plans, many of them including only general conservation measures that do not take into account the

51specificity of the area.



The implementation of “environmentally friendly” measures to improve water and vegetation management in fish farms is inevitably linked with water price options and relative obligations.

In the pilot area, until July 2012 annual contracts were signed with the National Agency for Territorial Amelioration – Calarasi county branch (ANIF-Calarasi) for water delivery services through the pumping station Boianu I. Since August 2012 and until December 2015 the contract is signed with ANAR – ABA Buzau - Ialomita for the use of water resources (Contract nr. 5429/10.08.2012).

Prices are set by the institution providing water-related services and are specified in the contract, along with estimated quantities requested by the water user and terms for delivery, payment, etc. 2010 was a particularly difficult year for the Ciocanesti fish farm administration due to the price of water which tripled. Once the infrastructure delivering water to the pumping station Boianu II was rehabilitated, it was possible to create a new contractual relationship with ANAR, which has brought stability from the business point of view. In general, differences in the pricing system concerning water services offered by different providers are an issue that should be further addressed and ideally harmonisation should be achieved based on a principle of equity.

3.2.2. WATER PRICE MANAGEMENT

Policies provide the framework for actions and funding opportunities and their design and correlation is therefore of high importance since it affects the level of success of the PES approach in the pilot area.

In this sense, it is important to address the problem of water pollution caused by intensive practices on agriculture lands surrounding fish farms, as seen in the pilot area. Payments for agriculture practices that contributed to WFD objectives provided an opportunity under the EU Rural Development Regulation nr. 1698/2005; with the ending of the programming period 2007-2013, it is important that such an opportunity is maintained in the next programming period and that specific examples of measures are provided to Member States.

Furthermore, in view of the advocacy work to further mainstream the PES approach in the EU programming period 2014-2020, reward opportunities for positive actions should also be looked for in the new FEPAM Regulation besides aqua-environment payments, which still follow an income loss compensation logic (based on eligible

3.2.3. THE POLICY FRAMEWORK

51 Martini, op.cit.

surfaces). A particular need to cover monitoring costs and capital investments costs (not related with income loss) is being felt; when covered, the possibility to implement “environmentally friendly” measures would open up in such a way that the responsible business vision and the real needs of the fish farm would be simultaneously reflected.

The statute of S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L. already includes tourism among the activities that can be performed: Article nr. 7 refers to code nr. 9272 – Other recreational activities of the Classification of activities in the national economy (CAEN).

Thus, the first issue is about raising the attractiveness of the Ciocanesti fish farm, a key factor for successful business diversification. First of all, it implies significantly improving the tourism profile of the pilot area. Second of all, marketing and promotion activities will have a crucial role in raising the interest of tour-operators, individual visitors (e.g. cyclists, families) and companies, for capacity building programmes, team-building or business meetings, etc.

A second issue has to do with obtaining the approval for building small tourism infrastructure from both the local environmental protection agency (EPA-Calarasi)

52and the protected area administrator . Given that the pilot area is located within a Natura 2000 site and according to the Habitats Directive, Art. nr. 6.3-4, the first step is to determine whether the plan or project has a significant effect upon the Natura 2000 site conservation objectives. If this is the case, the plan/project should undergo an Appropriate Assesment (AA) as illustrated in figure nr. 21 below.

3.2.4. THE VIABILITY OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

52 The Natura 2000 site ROSPA0021 Ciocanesti � Dunare is under the custody of the Echilibru Association, a non-governmental organisation based in Bucharest. In 2009 Echilibru Association has drafted a Management Plan but it has not yet been approved by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Although the draft Management Plan does not impose special measures on the Ciocanesti fish farm, a positive notice from the custodian is necessary for any kind of plan/project implementation.





Figure 21. Flow chart of procedure under Art. 6.3-4 of Habitats Directive

Source: Atecma (N2K Group), “Guidance document on aquaculture activities in the context of the Natura 2000 Network”, in Contract N°07.0307/2011/605019/SER/B.3, European Commission (2012).

Stage 1: Screening

Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment

Stage 3: Derogation - Art 6.4

No NoYes Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No Yes

Yes No

YesNo

Is the PP directly connected with, or necessary to the management of the site

for nature conservation purposes?

Is the PP likely to have significant effects on the site?

Assess implementation for site’sconservation objectives

Can it be concluded that the PP will notadversely affect the integrity of the site?

Are there alternative solutions?

No

Does the site host a priority habitat or species?

Redraft the PPEg. with mitigation

measuresOR

Propose a new planor project

No

Are there human health or safetyconsiderations or important environmental

benefits?Are there imperative reasonsof overriding public interest?

Authorisation mustnot be granted

Authorisation may be grantedfor other imperative reasons of

overriding public, followingconsultation with the

Commission.Compensation measures have

to be taken

Authorisation may be granted

provided adequatecompensation

measures are takenand the Commission

is informed

Authorisation may be granted

Finally, a positive context for the development of tourism along the Lower Danube is slowly emerging. Existing positive initiatives and tourism attractions include: “EuroVelo, the European cycle route network”, a project managed by the European Cyclists' Federation (ECF) in cooperation with national and regional partners with the

purpose to build and link bicycle routes across the EU “Greenways along the 53

;Danube”, a project funded under the South-East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme with the aim to develop two bicycle routes (not far from the pilot area) which will link Bucharest with the Danube; the FLAG Dunarea Calaresana local development strategy financing tourism development; the proximity and relative easy access to two important neighbouring destinations for nature lovers, Rusenski Lom Nature Park and Sreberna Nature Reserve (with the possibility to cross the Danube by boat not far from the pilot area); and the proximity of Comana Nature Park, located between Bucharest and Ciocanesti, which now has a well-developed ecotourism infrastructure.

53 EuroVelo 6 is the route going from the Atlantic to the Black Sea. Retrieved from http://www.eurovelo.org

Table nr. 12 below is a schematic representation of key local actors and their institutional power with respect to the environmental problem identified, namely the loss of biodiversity (in the present case wetland habitat and dependent bird species) because of external pressures on business viability. Issues that might influence the establishment of necessary foundations for further demonstration of PES under the ecotourism umbrella are also highlighted.

Overall, the civil sector plays or has the potential to play an expert role from different points of view including the development of ecotourism and particularly eco-trails, nature conservation and protected areas management. However, for the moment WWF-Romania is the only organisation with an established partnership with the Ciocanesti fish farm administration.

The public sector can be divided in at least two categories. On the one hand there are institutions such as ANAR and EPA, which are particularly responsible for implementing specific legislation. On the other hand, there are local and regional authorities that should play an important policy-making role and their further interaction and cooperation should be facilitated.

The private sector is a key stakeholder and can be divided between those with a role in tourism “products” development and those regarded as potential buyers of tourism “products” (e.g. medium and big enterprises).

The general public is also a key stakeholder, particularly visitors, who should be subject to a more detailed analysis underpinning marketing and promotion strategies as well as overall business planning.

3.3. STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS



Table 12. Overview of local stakeholders and their relative importance

Name

General public

Visitors (families, bird watchers, bikers, etc.)

Role

Should choose responsibly provided that there is a sustainable tourism offer

Interest

To have their free time expectations satisfied

Importance and attitude in relation to the problem and the identified solution

Must be informed about visiting rules that reflect birds and wetland habitat needs

Schools Children education To find alternative sources of education (for example for the week dedicated to “Școala altfel” programme)

Should stress understanding about biodiversity needs and benefits provided by nature; usually no budget available to cover costs of trips

Researchers Elaborate studies and analyses, monitor trends

To obtain field data To provide input data for policy elaboration; usually must be paid

Civil society

Echilibrum Association Natura 2000 site administrator (ROSPA0021 Ciocanesti-Dunare)

To manage the site based on the management plan

Must implement the site management plan

Asociatia Cycling Romania

To offer tourists an adventurous way to discover Romania

To identify and map bicycle routes along the Lower Danube

Supportive towards ecotourism development

Cycling Romania Association

Promotion and development of ecotourism in Romania

To develop quality (eco)tourism “products” in Romania

Has expertise in the design of thematic trails.Feasibility study under project “Greenways along the Danube”

WWF-Romania Promotion of nature conservation along the Lower Danube

To implement a finance mechanism for nature conservation and to preserve wetlands

Expertise recognised by local and national stakeholders; supportive towards ecotourism development



Private sector

SC Piscicola SRL (Ciocanesti fish farm)

Manage aquaculture activities of the fish farm

To improve business viability Willingness towards adoption of responsible aquaculture practices and ecotourism development

Détente Consultans srl Consultancy Sustainable tourism development in Romania

Feasibility study under project “Greenways along the Danube”

Transport companies Tourism agency To sell tourism products (offers based on nature mainly)

Should be interested in ecotourism packagestargeting the pilot area

Tour-operators / Travel agencies

Promote, sell and implementtours / Promote and sell tours

To sell tourism “products” Should support ecotourism promotion and should be interested in developing packages targeting the pilot area

Medium and big enterprises

Human resources management To offer team-building opportunities or alternative meeting locations

Should be interested in holding meetings and team-building activities in the pilot area

Name Role Interest Importance and attitude in relation to the problem and the identified solution

Local hotels and guesthouses

To offer food and accommodation services

To attract clients Crucial for the development of long-stay tourist programmes but not sufficiently developed near the pilot area

Local artisans Producers of souvenirs made with local natural resources and of specific cultural value

To sell their own products Usually they are relatively old people and must be able and willing to work; alternatively, the profession must be revived amongst the young, through local and rural development policies

Public sector

Ciocanesti City Hall Local policy maker To address local needs Should support ecotourism development

Calarasi County Council

Regional policy maker To address regional needs

Giurgiu County Council Regional policy maker To address regional needs Should support ecotourism development; should accept and contribute to the idea of a joint tourist programme with the Ciocanesti fish farm

Comana Nature Park administration

Protected Area administrator To manage the protected area based on the management plan

Has implemented a wetland restoration project; should accept and contribute to the idea of a joint tourist programme with the Ciocanesti fish farm

Should support ecotourism development; should accept and contribute to the idea of a joint tourist programme with the Ciocanesti fish farm

FLAG Dunărea Călăreșană

Implementation of a local development strategy under the LEADER programme

Submission of project applications by members

Supportive towards ecotourism development

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Calarasi

Management and coordination of the operational system forintegrated monitoring of environmental parameters at county level

Authorization of economic and social activities with impact on the environment and verification of conformity with legal requirements

Environmental legislation is respected Cooperates with the Regional and National Environmental Protection Agency; must evaluate feasibility of building an ecotourism infrastructure in the pilot area

ANAR – ABA Buzau- Ialomita

Management and valorization of water resources

Water legislation is respected Provides water services based on the contract for the use of water resources

Table 12. Overview of local stakeholders and their relative importance


In table nr. 13 below, options available to address the problem of loss of wetland habitat and dependent species in the context of achieving a balance between conservation and business viability are presented for the Ciocanesti fish farm administration, the key stakeholder as provider of (strengthened) biodiversity maintenance identified as key ES and potential provider of water quality and recreation related benefits, all relatively important ES for other identified stakeholders. Measures also include Business As Usual, compliance with environmental legislation related to Natura 2000 and the two essential measures included in the intermediate strategy, namely responsible aquaculture development and responsible business diversification.

These options (measures) are then placed in the framework of three policy options based on a multi-goal analysis (table nr. 14): Business As Usual is considered also as policy option along with the ongoing process to develop European standards and certification systems for sustainable aquaculture in Europe.

Finally, options (measures) and policy options available to the ES provider are weighed based on Cost-Benefit analyses (full versions are included in the annex). Although Cost-Benefit analyses are not exhaustive given that identification of items and estimation of monetary values is based on assumptions, there is a net benefit from engaging in the transition towards responsible business development.

3.4. OPTIONS TOWARDS RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR



54 Managing Authority of the Operational Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013, �Applicant's Guidelines for Measure 2.1 � Aquaculture� (2011). Compensations are granted for 2 years after designation of Natura 2000 sites and for aquaculture units performing activities in the Natura 2000 territory prior to site designation. Payments are calculated in 2 steps: first of all, average productivity loss (%) is calculated based on breeded fish species and 800 lei/ha are allocated for up to 35% losses, while 1000 lei/ha are allocated for up to 50% losses; second of all, payments are calculated based on declared surface and using the formula P = W * S where P represents the value of the payment in lei, W is the value of the avereage productivity loss in lei/ha, S is the value of the declared surface in ha. Idem. Compensation is granted for the surface declared under commitment, but no more than 800 lei/ha; for projects with a total value of more then 100,000 Euro, payments are given in the first year of project implementation, in 2 installments per semester. Managing Authority of OP Fisheries 2007-2013, op.cit. (2013)

55

56

Av

ail

ab

le o

pti

on

s

S.C

. P

isc

ico

la S

.R.L

.P

rob

lem

: lo

ss o

f w

etla

nd

ha

bita

t a

nd

de

pe

nd

en

t sp

ecie

s a

s a

re

sult

of

ext

ern

al p

ress

ure

s o

n b

usi

ne

ss v

iab

ility

Inte

rve

nti

on

are

a:

Cio

can

esti

fish

fa

rm

Bu

sin

ess A

s U

su

al

Po

ss

ible

ac

tiv

itie

s

No

fund

ing

is a

cces

sed

for

impl

emen

ting

resp

onsi

ble

aqua

cultu

re p

ract

ices

Aqu

acul

ture

con

tinue

s to

be

the

mai

n ac

tivity

of t

he fi

sh fa

rm

(with

out p

ursu

ing

mul

ti-fu

nctio

nalit

y)

man

aged

in th

e co

ntex

t of e

xter

nal

pres

sure

s up

on th

e bu

sine

ss

Wh

ere

(p

ilo

t a

rea

s)

Fis

h fa

rm

Me

an

s o

f im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

-

Co

sts

Pro

duct

ion

loss

es fr

om

Icht

yoph

agou

s bi

rds

Be

ne

fits

-

Co

mp

lian

ce w

ith

en

vir

on

men

tal

leg

isla

tio

n r

ela

ted

to

Natu

ra 2

000

Res

pect

ing

rest

rictio

ns s

tate

d in

the

envi

ronm

enta

l per

mit

(nr.

161/

12.0

9.20

12)

Fis

h fa

rm-

Loss

of i

ncom

e ca

lcul

ated

ac

cord

ing

to m

etho

dolo

gy

appr

oved

by

the

OP

Fis

herie

s M

onito

ring

Com

mitt

ee

54

(Dec

isio

n nr

. 16/

04.2

010)

Nat

ura

2000

pay

men

ts b

ased

on

the

appl

ican

t's r

eque

st fo

r fu

ndin

g an

d ca

lcul

ated

acc

ordi

ng to

m

etho

dolo

gy a

ppro

ved

by th

e O

P

Fis

herie

s M

onito

ring

Com

mitt

ee

(Dec

isio

n nr

. 16/

04.2

010)

55

Resp

on

sib

le

aq

uacu

ltu

re

develo

pm

en

t

Acc

ordi

ng to

the

proj

ect a

pplic

atio

n:

M

easu

res

for e

nviro

nmen

tal

p

rote

ctio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t

M

easu

res

for c

onse

rvat

ion

o

f nat

ural

reso

urce

s

and

gen

etic

div

ersi

ty

Mea

sure

s fo

r man

agem

ent o

f

lan

dsca

pe a

nd tr

aditi

onal

ele

men

ts in

aqu

acul

ture

are

as

Fis

h fa

rm

For

mea

sure

s re

late

d to

ha

bita

t man

agem

ent

it is

spe

cifie

d:

repr

oduc

tion

basi

n nr

. 28,

ba

sins

4B

and

4C

Pro

ject

app

rove

d un

der

Act

ion

2.1.

4 –

Mea

sure

s fo

r aq

uatic

env

ironm

ent,

Ope

ratio

n 2.

1.4.

1 –

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

-P

roje

ct e

ligib

le c

osts

56

Resp

on

sib

le

bu

sin

ess

div

ers

ific

ati

on

Sta

tuto

ry c

hang

es a

nd r

eque

st

for

perm

its

Bui

ldin

g of

sm

all t

ouris

m

infr

astr

uctu

re e

.g. t

hem

atic

trai

l

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g in

bus

ines

s pl

anni

ng a

nd e

coto

uris

m

deve

lopm

ent

Dev

elop

men

t and

pro

mot

ion

of e

coto

uris

m o

ffers

Fis

h fa

rm

Pro

ject

app

rove

d un

der

the

DC

C B

iodi

vers

ity a

nd T

ouris

m

call

for

prop

osal

s

Con

trac

ts w

ith to

ur-o

pera

tors

, on

line

prom

otio

n

Adm

inis

trat

ive

cost

s

In-k

ind

cont

ribut

ion

in th

e fo

rm

of s

alar

ies

Ann

ual s

alar

y pa

id fo

r hi

ring

a m

arke

ting

spec

ialis

t

Pro

ject

elig

ible

cos

ts

Est

imat

ed in

com

e fr

om

PE

S in

clud

ed in

sal

es o

f ec

otou

rism

offe

rs



Ta

ble

13

. O

ptio

ns

ava

ilab

le t

o t

he C

ioca

ne

sti f

ish

fa

rm a

dm

inis

tra

tio

n

So

urc

e:

M.

Ma

rtin

i. A

da

pte

d f

rom

Eq

uita

ble

Pa

ym

en

ts f

or

Wa

ters

he

d S

erv

ice

s, A

Gu

ide

To

De

ve

lop

ing

An

In

no

va

tive

Fin

an

ce

Me

ch

an

ism

, W

WF

-CA

RE

Co

nso

rtiu

m.



A Multi-goal Analysis is presented hereafter (table nr. 14) with the purpose to evaluate potential trade-offs between different policy alternatives with respect to the achievement of the desired objectives.

Table 14. Multi-goal analysis

Source: M. Martini. Adapted from I. Bond, I. Porras, Equitable Payments for Watershed Services. A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium, 2009.


ES providers

Options

Who counts (priority to stakeholders with direct impact)

Policies A and B are considered to be realistic

S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L.

Impact on biodiversity in terms of wetland habitat and dependent bird species

EXPECTED IMPROVEMENT:Maintenance of biodiversity: improved reed management; at least a stable number of birds species and individuals; improvement of water qualityImproved tourism profile and viability of ecotourism at the Ciocanesti fish farm: building of small tourism infrastructure, development and selling of tourism products

Indicators (ways to monitor): Maintenance of biodiversity: As set-up by vegetation management measures elaborated by the project team

Results of birds monitoring feasibility study used as baseline

As set-up by water monitoring plan designed for the Ciocanesti fish farm (feasibility study)

Improved tourism profile and viability of ecotourism:

1 thematic trail

Business plan

Building of marketing and ecotourism capacity

Timing:Minimum 3 years to see effects of implementation of responsible aquaculture measures as well as of responsible business diversification (ecotourism)

Required thresholds:Implementation of measures included in the project approved under Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection

Implementation of activities included in the project approved under the DCC Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals

Negative side-effects:No viability of ecotourism market targeting the pilot area

Costs and Benefits COSTSImproved tourism profile and viability of ecotourism:

Administrative costs underpinning the transition towards ecotourism

In-kind contribution (salaries) under the project approved in the DCC Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals

Annual salary paid for hiring a marketing specialist

Future monitoring activities (e.g. birds, water)

BENEFITSMaintenance of biodiversity:

Eligible costs under project submitted under Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection

Improved tourism profile and viability of ecotourism:

Eligible costs under the project approved in the DCC Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals Estimated income from sales of ecotourism offers

Value of Costs and Benefits

Policy A

261,896 Euro

Policy B

40,683 Euro

Policy A

0 Euro

Policy B

97,822 Euro

Trade-offs (Net benefit)

Policy A = -261,896 Euro

Policy B = 57,139 Euro

Business case Viability of responsible business development strategy (business diversification towards ecotourism)

Table 15. Cost-Benefit and Multi-goal Analyses

Source: M. Martini. Adapted from I. Bond, I. Porras, Equitable Payments for Watershed Services, A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium, 2009

It must be mentioned that the project application submitted under Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection does not reflect entirely responsible aquaculture measures elaborated by the project team and recommended for the pilot area; this is because the Applicant's Guidelines requested as objective the “development of aquaculture that includes improvement and protection of the environment, of natural resources, of genetic diversity as well as management of landscape and traditional elements of aquaculture areas”. Table nr. 16 below exemplifies the extent to which the Ciocanesti fish farm administration's proposal is in line with the project team's proposal.

57 In scenario 1, water-related measures will be targeting the same basins, with some effect on water quality of basin EC2. However, the effect might not be so evident because the basin has a great quantity of non-biodegradable organic matter. Scenario 2 could maximize the effect of fodder reduction by focusing on basin EC1B, which is affected by nutrients charge, while maintaining the effect of reed management on basin EC2, which was in a better state regarding organic charge than other basins. Scenario 3 could maximize the effect of fodder reduction but the effect on bird nesting is reduced because of a smaller area of reed maintained. Results of autumn water samples (October 2013) and thus of the overall water monitoring plan design for the pilot area are not integrated in the proposed scenarios, which could in the end look slightly modified. If none of the scenarios is implemented, Business As Usual will continue to cause poor water quality. However, as mentioned in relevant chapters of the report, if the problem of pollution of water coming from agriculture lands surrounding the fish farm is not tackled at the same time, the responsible aquaculture measures developed might still not have a significant effect. Munteanu, Start-up project for PES in Ciocanesti fish farm

Details are available in the project application, which is included in the annex (Romanian version). 58



Responsible aquaculture measures 57developed by the project team for the pilot area

Scenario 1. Water measures implemented in basin EC2, not the most affected by nutrients charge

Scenario 2.Implement fodder reduction in EC1B (affected by nutrients charge) – 36 ha and reed maintainance in EC2 – app. 3 ha

Scenario 3.Implement water management measures in EC1B (affected by nutrients charge) – 36 ha and app. 1 ha of reed

Environmental protection measures chosen by the Ciocanesti fish farm administration

58(project proposal)

Action 1. Reduction of fertilizers (grain fodder) – basin EC2 - 41 ha

Action 1. Reduction of fertilizers (grain fodder) – basin EC1B - 36 ha

Action 1. Reduction of fertilizers (grain fodder) – basin EC1B - 36 ha

Measures for environmental protection and improvement – Measure 1 - fish farm

Action 2. Monitoring of action 1 effect – water quality analysis

-Action 2. Monitoring of action 1 effect – water quality analysis

Action 2. Monitoring of action 1 effect – water quality analysis

Action 3. Measuring the reed area on basin EC2

-Action 3. Measuring the reed area on basin EC2

Action 3. Measuring the reed area on basin EC2

Action 4. Maintaining the area covered by reed – basin EC2 - app. 3 ha

Could be through:Measures for managing landscape and traditional elements in aquaculture areas – Measure 1

Action 4. Maintaining the area covered by reed – basin EC2 - app. 3 ha

Action 4. Maintaining the area covered by reed – basin EC1B - app. 1 ha

Action 5. Flooding unused basins with water and populating them with non-commercial fish species – breeding basins

Measures for managing landscape and traditional elements in aquaculture areas – Measure 2 – reproduction basin nr.28, basins 4B and 4C

2(40,000 m )



Action 6. Monitoring the effect of action 5 - bird monitoring

-Action 6. Monitoring the effect of action 5 - bird monitoring

Action 6. Monitoring the effect of action 5 - bird monitoring

Action 7. Birdwatching tower + 2 binoculars + 1 telescope

(included in the project approved under the DCC Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals)



Action 8. Infoboards on birdspecies

(included in the project approved under the DCC Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals)



Other measures with positive biodiversity effects:

Measures for environmental protection and improvement – Measures 2, 3, 4, 7, 11

Measures for conservation of natural resources and genetic diversity – Measures 2, 3, 4

62,091 Euro or 64,720 Euro 61,946 Euro or 64,430 Euro 52,872 Euro or 55,356 Euro 81,334 Euro

Table 16. Comparative analysis of responsible aquaculture measures for the pilot area


Source: M. Martini. Adapted from C. Munteanu, “Start-up project for PES in the Ciocanesti fish farm.” (2013)




Overall, the project application submitted under Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection is a good one. Notwithstanding good informal cooperation between the Ciocanesti fish farm administration and WWF-Romania, a formal partnership agreement is desirable in order to support project implementation and thus to ensure that the project contributes to the establishment of the necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES under the ecotourism umbrella. Furthermore, the comparative analysis of responsible aquaculture measures for the pilot area shows the need to raise (public) funds to cover monitoring costs.

Within the framework to establish the necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES under the ecotourism umbrella (intermediate strategy of responsible business development), the management of approved projects follows a decentralised model whereby funds managers are the Danube Competence Center and the Managing Authority for the Operational Programme for Fisheries, respectively for measures contributing to the provision of recreational services and (strengthened) biodiversity maintenance. Financial flows follow specific rules set by each fund manager, as with decisions about granting of funds to potential beneficiaries, which follow specific selection procedures. Conditions under the Applicant's Guidelines for Measure 2.1 - Aquaculture, Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection, and under the Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals can be made available by the project team upon request.

The Ciocanesti fish farm administration acts as beneficiary of public funds and has to respect legal commitments, while WWF-Romania plays the role of expert in nature conservation and green economy issues. In the relationship with the Ciocanesti fish farm administration both parties have implicitely applied the partnership principle for decision-making.

The operational chart (figure nr. 22) below provides a visual representation of this management structure.

3.5. THE MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Projectinstalments

Projectinstalments

Sustainablebusiness

diversification

Sustainableaquaculturedevelopment

ManagingAuthority

OPFisheries

SCCiocanestiPiscicola

SRL

DanubeCompetence

Center


PES foundations for biodiversity maintenance

WWF-Romania(expert support)

Figure 22. Operational chart of intermediate strategy to establish PES conditions



The implementation of the intermediate strategy is based on contracts and partnership agreements. Contracts regulate the use of public funds, while partnership agreements describe the cooperation between the Ciocanesti fish farm administration and WWF-Romania.

A partnership statement was signed on 28 March 2014 between WWF-Romania and S.C. Ciocanesti Piscicola S.R.L. for implementing the project “Improving tourism accessibility to enjoy birds' diversity at Ciocanesti fish farm” approved by the Danube Competence Center under the Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals. Contracts will be signed by end of May 2014 and the project will run for one year, starting in June 2014.

A similar approach will be followed for the project approved under Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection. In general, the Operational Programme for Fisheries is managed according to Council Regulation CE nr. 1198/2006 related to the European Fisheries Fund for the period 2007-2013.

3.6. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Funds mobilised to tackle changes occurred during project implementation and to implement the intermediate strategy to establish necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES under the ecotourism umbrella, have been granted in the form of:

1. Annual one-off payments under the Operational Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013;

2. Project-related instalments by the Danube Competence Center, including in-kind contributions from the Ciocanesti fish farm administration and WWF-Romania.

Instalments related to the implementation of the project “Improving tourism accessibility to enjoy birds' diversity at Ciocanesti fish farm” will be defined under contracts which are to be signed by end of May 2014. The project has a total budget of 24,975 Euro of which 16,488 Euro (66,02%) represents the Danube Competence Center's contribution and 8,487 Euro (33,98%) represents the applicants' contribution (SC Ciocanesti Piscicola SRL and WWF-Romania). Out of the donor's contribution, 13,614 Euros are allocated for the building of small tourism infrastructure including a thematic trail, equipment and completion of a visitor/educational center.

Funds granted for the implementation of “environmentally friendly” measures are allocated in the first year of project implementation in the amount of 800 lei/ha (about 180 Euro/ha) based on declared surface, and in 2 instalments per semester

59in case the project exceeds the total amount of 100,000 Euro . According to the project application submitted by the Ciocanesti fish farm administration, potential

60eligible payments amount to 81,334 Euro. Although the project has been approved, the exact payment order resulting from project evaluation and related financing decision is currently being processed by the Managing Authority.

3.7. THE PAYMENT SYSTEM

59 Managing Authority of OP Fisheries 2007-2013, op.cit. (2013) Retrieved from http://www.madr.ro/docs/fep/2014/cereri-finantare/04.aprilie2014/evidenta-cereri-finantare-pop-03.04.2014.pdf60

The actual financial flows are represented in the chart below (figure nr. 23).




Figure 23. Flowchart of funding sources to establish conditions for PES under the ecotourism umbrella

PRIVATE FUNDS(SC CIOCANESTI PISCICOLA SRL)

& IN-KIND

CONTRIBUTIONS (WWF-Romania)

RESPONSIBLEAQUACULTUREDEVELOPMENT

DANUBECONFERENCE

CENTRE

PUBLICFUNDS

EU OPFISHERIES

RESPONSIBLEBUSINESS

DIVERSIFICATION(ECOTOURISM)

Overall, 106,309 Euros (24,975 Euro plus 81,334 Euro) represent the minimum amount of financial resources necessary for implementing the intermediate strategy to establish necessary foundations for PES under the ecotourism umbrella. In order to implement all “environmentally friendly” measures recommended by the project team, an extra amount of 7,835 Euro (of which 1,380 Euro for Action 2, 195 Euro for Action 3 and 6,260 Euro for Action 6) is necessary, representing monitoring costs.

In principle, additional funds necessary at least to monitor the results of implementing the intermediate strategy are mobilised by the Ciocanesti fish farm administration either in the form of direct investment or as follow-up project applications under existing funding opportunities.

The implementation of the selected intermediate strategy of responsible business development goes inevitably beyond the lifetime of the PES Danube project. Based on the experience of the WWF Programme on Equitable Payments for

61Watershed Services , which uses a 3-phase approach for the implementation of the PES approach, the project team has organised the data and information collected under the Danube PES project in a phased sequence. As a result, the process of demonstrating PES in the pilot area is also organised in stages or phases as shown in table nr. 17, namely:

Phase I (2010-2013) – In the beginning, a series of data and information were gathered in order to define the environmental problem to be addressed through a PES approach. When changes that affected the pursuit of original project objectives occurred, the project team identified an intermediate strategy to establish necessary conditions first; this included redirecting efforts to mobilise public funds and to grow the engagement of the Local Partner.

3.8. TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION

61 I. Bond, I. Porras, Equitable Payments for Watershed Services. A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium, 2009.(position nr. 669

Phase II (2014-2016) – Implementation of projects approved as a result of public funds mobilisation, focusing on testing the effects of “environmentally friendly” measures on biodiversity maintenance and water quality, and on creating recreational benefits. Monitoring of ES delivery and evaluation of impact are to continue towards the end of this phase.

Phase III (to be followed-up) – At this stage the conditions to clarify the type of finance mechanism suitable for the pilot area should be established. With regard to the possibility of PES under the ecotourism umbrella, it is ideally the stage when buyers and sellers of ES are defined, a tradeable ES becomes salient (e.g. strengthened biodiversity maintenance in combination with recreational services) and stakeholders voluntarily negotiate and sign legally binding contractual agreements. In the pilot area it is not yet clear whether there will be a phase III.



Phase I

Feasibility studies on hydrology and water quality, water policy, tourism trends and ecotourism development opportunities, valuation of ES, public-funding opportunities

Stakeholders' engagement

Fundraising for selected responsible business development strategies, including testing “environmentally friendly” measures developed by the project team and business diversification (ecotourism development)

Table 17. Phased strategy towards the PES approach in the pilot area

2010-2013

Phase II

Testing of “environmentally friendly” measures:

Water management, including water quality

Vegetation management

Monitoring and evaluation

Development of ecotourism (e.g. infrastructure, “products”)

2014-2016

Phase III

Conditions for PES:

Integration of responsible aquaculture practices into usual business management Achieving multi-functionality of the fish farm

Existence of a tradeable ES (e.g. strengthened biodiversity maintenance in combination with recreational services)

Definition of ES buyers and sellers

?


Both financial monitoring and technical monitoring are necessary in order to measure the success of the intermediate strategy to establish conditions for PES under the ecotourism umbrella, namely responsible business development (integration of responsible aquaculture practices into usual business management and business diversification towards ecotourism).

Financial monitoring is seen mainly as the responsibility of the Ciocanesti fish farm administration. Monitoring criteria are presented in table nr. 18 below.

3.9. MONITORING AND REPORTING

Technical monitoring is seen mainly as the responsibility of WWF-Romania and has the purpose to monitor the impact of the selected intermediate strategy for responsible business development on the delivery of ES (e.g. strengthened biodiversity maintenance in combination with recreational services). It is suggested that a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Protocol is elaborated together with the Ciocanesti fish farm administration to guide action towards PES under the ecotourism umbrella. A checklist should also be included to better capture the extent to which progress is achieved year on year, but also possible obstacles. The technical monitoring criteria are presented in table nr. 19.




Strategy (measure)

Responsible aquaculture development

Indicator

Amount of funds raised to cover monitoring costs (Euro)

Means of verification

Sponsorship contracts, private investment decisions, project applications

Timeline

2015-2016


Nr. of tourism “products” sold

Contracts with tour-operators, individual bills

End 2015

Table 18. Financial monitoring criteria

Table 19. Financial monitoring criteria

Strategy (measure)

Responsible aquaculture development

Activity

Implementation of project application Action 2.1.4 – Measures for aquatic environment, Operation 2.1.4.1 – Environmental Protection (if approved)

Indicator

Nr. of measures aligned with project team recommendations

Expected result

5 out of a total of 8 “environmentally friendly” measures elaborated by the project team (the 3 measures related to impact monitoring are included under the financial monitoring of the intermediate strategy)

Baseline

4

Means to monitor

Formalised partnership agreement


Implementation of the project approved under the DCC Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals

Nr. of thematic trails 1 0 Concept of thematic trail, pictures on the field

Nr. of business plans 1 0 Business plan proposal

Amount of marketing capacity built

1 0 Mentoring plan, minutes from meetings

Nr. of ecotourism “products” developed

22 Ecotourism “products” proposals

Multi-functional fish farm operation

Amount of ecotourism “products” sold

Average of 10/year (tbc based on business plan)

0 Contracts signed

Multi-functional fish farm operation


Amount of biodiversity expert capacity built

1 0 Mentoring plan, minutes from meetings

0



This chapter considers all three aspects of sustainability (economic/financial, social and environmental) related to the intermediate strategy implemented in the pilot area to establish conditions necessary to further demonstrate PES under the ecotourism umbrella. Considering that the strategy to support responsible business development in the pilot area (namely ecotourism and responsible aquaculture) is used to reconcile nature conservation and business viability/economic development needs by showing their complementarity, the WWF team has looked at principles of sustainability as a cornerstone for long-term results.

In the present case, economic/financial sustainability refers to:

Mobilisation of funds to cover monitoring costs

Sound business planning for ecotourism promotion, where the project “Improving tourism accessibility to enjoy birds' diversity at Ciocanesti fish farm” approved by the Danube Competence Center is an important step in this direction

From a social point of view, the intermediate strategy designed for the pilot area is expected to have a positive impact at community level. Ideally, a total of at least 4 jobs could be created in the context of business diversification (1 marketing specialist, 1 ecotourism guide, 2 craftsmen).

Last but not least, environmental sustainability is tackled through the integration into usual business management of specific measures designed to stimulate the transition towards responsible aquaculture, including water and vegetation management aimed at reducing pressures on the use of natural resources and aimed at strengthening maintenance of traditional wetland habitat important for birds.

The so-called layering and boundling of ES (see chapter 2.3) is envisioned in the medium-long term, a possibility that highlights the flexibility and the integrated nature of the PES approach selected for the pilot area.

3.10. SUSTAINABILITY


CONCLUSIONS

While we are learning to value biodiversity and the benefits or services it provides for human well-being at individual, business and community level, and have made enormous scientific advances in exploring its potential, we continue to lose important species and habitats, as confirmed by thousands of reports by national, regional or international institutions. In this context, sustainable conservation finance is starting to play a crucial role in addressing several economic and financial limitations experienced in current efforts of individuals, companies, organisations and governments, such as insufficient funds for protected areas and biodiversity conservation, subsidies and private investments with an adverse impact, undervaluation of natural capital and underdevelopment of related markets, etc. While the positive outcome of some of the mechanisms is already demonstrated, as it is with tourism user fees, bio-prospecting payments, debt-for-nature swaps, conservation trust funds and carbon investment projects, other initiatives are still under testing, such as green bonds and other securitized instruments, payments for ecosystem services schemes, green insurance products, resource extraction fees (e.g. on oil/gas exploration, logging and mining) redirected towards environmental

62investment funds that support conservation-friendly enterprises . The innovative character of the PES approach identified for the pilot area in Calarasi County, in Romania and presented in chapter 2 resides in the fact that it considers PES under the ecotourism umbrella. The concept of multi-functional fish farms is not seen only as an alternative business model to improve performance in the context of unstable financial and economic conditions; by adding “environmentally friendly” measures to usual aquaculture business management, the necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES are created (delivery of ecosystem services and definition of both buyers and sellers) and a balance between conservation and business viability or economic development needs is facilitated.

However, a clear finance mechanism is not yet defined and experience from the Ciocanesti fish farm has reached the stage of testing whether the necessary conditions for further demonstration of PES can be created. Still, as the Technical Report has put forward, there is evidence that local, regional and national conditions are promising in several aspects, including stakeholders' engagement, policy elaboration and ecotourism development. Also, a PES approach seems to be a viable option in the quest for sustainable development opportunities in rural areas.

Overall, it is about exploring new ways for people to earn a fair living from nature while respecting nature, spreading a vision whereby a diverse range of actors are willing to use natural resources responsibly and to pay the full cost of nature that allows the maintenance of functional natural processes and the delivery of benefits which we all enjoy either directly or indirectly. In this way, natural processes as well as habitats for important biodiversity are maintained based on viable local development opportunities. However, several challenges still lie ahead: fundraising for monitoring the extent to which the testing phase has managed to establish PES conditions, promoting the pilot area as an ecotourism destination so as to ensure

62 Retrieved from www.conservationfinance.org


Conclusions

business viability, maintaining stakeholders' motivation and ownership in the long term and advocacy work using the Ciocanesti pilot as study case to further mainstream the PES approach in the EU programming period 2014-2020 as well as in the second cycle of the River Basin Management Planning under WFD. Further correlation between water and agriculture policies is important and it is worth highlighting that the method elaborated for implementing a monitoring system related to water quality in fish farms along the Lower Danube is not only feasible, but it also allows for monitoring the quality of incoming water and the quality of water evacuated from fish basins; this is important in addressing external pressures on aquaculture activities stemming from intensive agriculture practices.

Finally, an essential learning of the WWF team is that achieving sustainable natural resources management as well as the integration of the ecosystem services approach into decision-making in Romania, particularly in favour of attaining the 2020 Europe Strategy and 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy objectives but also other international commitments, requires a fundamental cultural shift; in particular, government authorities must develop the capacity to create visions of sustainable development correlated with the country's natural endowements and to plan strategically in support of policies that are coherently and harmoniously elaborated. In this sense, the process leading to the formulation of the Partnership Agreement between Romania and the European Commisssion for the programming period 2014-2020 is a valuable endeavour from which important lessons can be derived and further transformed into successful common practice.


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Intervention area – The physical space within the pilot area where conservation measures have to be applied in order to restore an ecosystem service or to address an environmental problem. It can also mean the skills domain for which capacity building measures have to be applied to improve performance.

Pilot area – The (project) area selected for demonstration of the PES approach. The same term is used to indicate the exact location within the pilot and intervention areas where conservation measures are applied and monitored to verify progress towards restoring the selected ecosystem service or minimising the targeted environmental problem.

Ecosystem Services – The multiple benefits that well-functioning ecosystems bring to people. These benefits can be roughly divided into: supporting services – those services creating conditions necessary for the provision of all other ecosystem services, for example photosynthesis or soil formation; provisioning services – all products coming from ecosystems, for example food, fiber, fuel, herbs and medicinal plants, genetic resources, drinking water; regulating services – the capacity of ecosystems to regulate important natural processes, for example regulation of climate, quality and quantity of water; cultural services – non-material benefits from ecosystems, for example the aesthetic and recreational value of landscapes.

Provider of ecosystem services – Land owners or administrators who contribute to preserving and maintaining key ecosystems functions by implementing appropriate land management practice, thus ensuring the delivery of environmental services to individuals, businesses and communities.

User of ecosystem services – Juridical or physical entities willing to pay an equitable price for a desired or needed environmental service.

Payment for Ecosystem Services – A voluntary transaction in cash or in-kind between at least one buyer and one seller, in exchange of at least one well-defined environmental/ecosystem service.

Sustainable Financing Mechanism – A method to help ensure long-term sustainable financing for projects or programmes conservation objectives beyond their lifespan. In this sense, the terms conservation finance and sustainable financing are used interchangeably. While traditional fundraising secures financial resources from governmental, non-governmental, corporate or individual sources generally in support of a project's development and implementation, conservation finance aims at generating sustainable financial resources over the longer term (five or more years) by introducing innovative market-based approaches such as debt-for-nature swaps, environmental funds, payments for ecosystem services, etc.

Special Protection Area (SPA) – An area designated under the European Union Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (known as the Birds Directive). Under the Directive, Member States of the European Union have a duty to safeguard the habitats of migratory birds,particularly threatened birds. Together with Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), the SPAs form a network of protected sites across the EU called Natura 2000.


Glossary of terms

Aquaculture – Aquaculture should be understood as the rearing or cultivation of aquatic organisms using techniques designed to increase the production of the organisms in question beyond the natural capacity of the environment. The organisms remain the property of a legal person throughout the rearing or cultivation stage, up to and including harvesting. Aquaculture can be characterised in a number of different ways, including the farmed organisms, the culture environment, the production intensity and the type of production system used. An understanding of these is key to

63determine the effects of aquaculture operations on the environment.

Aquaculture production intensity – As regards the production intensity, it is common knowledge that in extensive aquaculture there is no external supply of feed and this type of culture depends entirely on natural processes of production and supply of feed. In semi-intensive aquaculture, some supplementary feed may be used to complement the natural capacity to increase the production of fish. In intensive

64culture systems there is a greater dependency on the use of external feeds.

Integrated aquaculture - In scientific literature, this term is used to refer to different forms of aquaculture, which may include polyculture, multi-trophic aquaculture and the integration of aquaculture with other activities, such as agriculture, etc. At the aquatic farm level, the term integration can be interpreted under two main concepts: rearing various species in the same production unit; rearing

65a single species downstream from another.

63 Atecma (N2K Group), op.cit. Idem. Idem.

64

65


LIST OF REFERENCES

FEASIBILITY STUDIESGHEORGHE, Iuliana Florentina, MUNTEANU, Cristina, MARTINI, Monia, Guide for fish farms in the Lower Danube to monitor water quality, 2013

MARTINI, Monia, Business profile of Ciocanesti fish farm, 2010

MARTINI, Monia, Model site card, 2010

MARTINI, Monia, Proposal for a methodology to implement PES addressing the aquaculture sector - The case of Romania, 2012

MUNTEANU, Cristina, Start-up project for PES in Ciocanesti fish farm, 2013

TIBU, Paul, Monitoring birds population in the Ciocanesti fish farm area, 2011

PUBLICATIONSATECMA (N2K GROUP), Guidance document on aquaculture activities in the context of the Natura 2000 Network, Contract N°07.0307/2011/605019/SER/B.3, European Commission, 2012

BANKOVA-TODOROVA, Maya, MARTINI, Monia, LUCIUS, Irene, GRIGOROVA, Yulia, TRESIERRA, Julio, Lessons learnt from testing payments for ecosystem services in the Lower Danube Basin, 2013

BOND, Ivan, PORRAS Ina, Equitable Payments for Watershed Services. A Guide To Developing An Innovative Finance Mechanism, WWF-CARE Consortium, 2009

EEA, Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Consultation Report, no 4.3, 2013

EUROPEAN UNION, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystems assessment under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion Paper, 2013

MANAGING AUTHORITY OF OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR FISHERIES 2007-2013, Applicant's Guidelines for Measure 2.1 – Aquaculture, 2011

MOYE, Melissa, Resources for Implementing the WWF Project & Programme Standards, WWF-US Conservation Finance Programme, 2007

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HIDROLOGY OF WATER MANAGEMENT, Central and Eastern Europe Climate Change Impact and Vulnerability Assessment, Project Nr. 037005 CECILIA (2008), European Commission Sixt Framework Programme 2002-2006

SC ENVIRO SRL, Raport la bilantul de mediu, nivel I si II, SC Ciocanesti Piscicola SRL, Comuna Ciocanesti, Judetul Calarasi, 2007

SUT, Cristina, Analysisi of aquaculture units in Romania, 2013

VARTY, Nigel, Annex 10 - Suggested revision to project objectives and outcomes and associated indicators and targets, Mid-Term Review report, 2012

WWF-DCP, Promoting Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Related Sustainable Financing Schemes in the Danube Basin. Project Document, 2009


List of references

LEGAL ACTSConcession Contract Nr. 142/18.08.2006

Water services Contract nr. 5429/10.08.2012

Law nr. 407/2006 on hunting and protection of hunting fund

Law nr. 317/2009 approving Government Urgency Ordinance nr. 23/2008 on fishery and aquaculture

Water Law nr. 107/1996

Law nr. 265/2006 regarding environmental protection

Law nr. 49/2011 approving Government Urgency Ordinance nr. 57/2007 on the regime of natural protected areas, and the conservation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna species

WEBSITESwww.calarasi.ro http://www.ciocanesti-piscicola.ro.

www.conservationfinance.org

http://www.daubecc.org

http://ec.europa.eu

http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org

http://www.en.wikipedia.org

http://www.eurovelo.org

http://www.ghidulprimariilor.ro

http://www.google.it

http://www.madr.ro

http://www.mmediu.ro

http://www.natura2000.ro

http://www.panda.org

http://www.ramsar.org

http://www.rowater.ro

http://www.thefishsite.com

ANNEXES


Source: M. Martini (2014)

Policy options

Options (actions)

Definition of methodology to stimulate adoption of water monitoring plan by Lower Danube aquaculture units & Harmonization of local development initiatives, particularly with respect to tourism (ecotourism) development (Policy B)

Net benefit 57 139

Cost-Benefits analysis of ES providers - SC Ciocanesti SRL

Business As Usual (Policy A)

Business As Usual

- 261 896

Responsible Aquaculture Development & Responsible Business Development

DOCUMENT 1 - COSTS-BENEFITS ANALYSIS

63

Annexes

SC

Cio

can

esti

Pis

cic

ola

SR

LP

rob

lem

: L

oss

of w

etla

nd h

abita

t and d

ependent

speci

es a

s a r

esu

lt of

ext

ern

al p

ress

ure

s on b

usi

ness

via

bili

tyIn

terv

en

tio

n a

rea:

Cio

canest

i fis

h farm

Op

tio

n (

acti

on

): B

usi

ness

As

Usu

al

Curr

en

cy: E

uro

Pro

duct

ion lo

ss fro

m

ichty

ophagous

birds

Est

imate

d c

ost

of

pro

duct

ion lo

ssM

axim

um

am

ount of

money

that ca

n b

e

obta

ined p

er

year

when

the ich

tyophagous

birds

are

pre

sent and n

o

equip

ment is

use

d

for

pro

tect

ion (

10%

dis

count beca

use

40 h

a

are

cove

red b

y nets

)

SC

Cio

canest

i P

isci

cola

SR

L

(WW

F-R

om

ania

)

261 8

96

00

00

0

Tota

l Cost

s (F

utu

re V

alu

e)

261 8

96

00

00

0

To

tal

Co

sts

(P

res

en

t V

alu

e)

261 8

96

00

00

0

Tota

l Benefit

s (

Futu

re V

alu

e)

00

00

00

To

tal

Be

ne

fits

(P

res

en

t V

alu

e)

00

00

00

Pre

sent V

alu

e D

isco

unt R

ate

2%

PV

De

no

min

ato

r1,0

01,0

21,0

41,0

61,0

81,1

0

Co

st

Ben

efi

t A

naly

sis

To

tal

PV

Be

ne

fits

:

0T

ota

l P

V C

os

ts:

2

61

89

6

NE

T B

EN

EF

IT:

-2

61

89

6


De

sc

rip

tio

nA

ss

um

pti

on

s

So

urc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

Cur

rent

Ye

ar (

CY

)C

Y +

1C

Y +

2C

Y +

3C

Y +

4C

Y +

5

Be

ne

fits

De

sc

rip

tio

nA

ss

um

pti

on

s

So

urc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

Cur

rent

Ye

ar (

CY

)C

Y +

1C

Y +

2C

Y +

3C

Y +

4C

Y +

5

Co

sts

Rem

ark

s: 1. P

robabili

ty o

f ass

um

ptio

ns:

not pro

bable

, sl

ightly

pro

bable

, pro

bable

, hig

hly

pro

bable

2

. T

imefr

am

e o

f 5 y

ears

(C

Y+

4)

Annexes


Co

sts

SC

Cio

can

esti

Pis

cic

ola

SR

LP

rob

lem

: Loss

of w

etla

nd h

abita

t and d

ependent

speci

es a

s a r

esu

lt of

ext

ern

al p

ress

ure

s on b

usi

ness

via

bili

tyIn

terv

en

tio

n a

rea:

Cio

canest

i fis

h farm

Op

tio

n (

acti

on

): R

esp

onsi

ble

Aquacu

lture

Deve

lopm

ent

Curr

en

cy: E

uro

Monito

ring c

osts

of bio

div

ers

ity

(wate

r qualit

y,

vegeta

tion, birds)

De

sc

rip

tio

nA

ss

um

pti

on

s

(pro

ba

ble

)S

ou

rce

of

info

rma

tio

n

Estim

ate

d c

ost

s fo

r im

ple

menta

tion

of A

ctio

n 2

, 3, and 6

Fu

ll im

ple

me

nta

tion

of

"en

viro

nm

en

tally

frie

nd

ly"

me

asu

res

de

velo

pe

d b

y th

e p

roje

ct t

ea

m in

20

16

WW

F-R

om

ania

7 8

35

Tota

l Cost

s (F

utu

re V

alu

e)

00

7 8

35

00

0

To

tal

Co

sts

(P

res

en

t V

alu

e)

00

7 8

35

00

0

Be

ne

fits

De

sc

rip

tio

nA

ss

um

pti

on

s

(hig

hly

pro

ba

ble

)S

ou

rce

of

info

rma

tio

n

Tota

l Benefit

s (F

utu

re V

alu

e)

81 3

34

00

00

0

To

tal

Be

ne

fits

(P

res

en

t V

alu

e)

81 3

34

00

00

0

Cur

rent

Ye

ar (

CY

)C

Y +

1C

Y +

2C

Y +

3C

Y +

4C

Y +

5

Cur

rent

Ye

ar (

CY

)C

Y +

1C

Y +

2C

Y +

3C

Y +

4C

Y +

5

Pre

sent V

alu

e D

isco

unt R

ate

2%

Co

st

Ben

efi

t A

naly

sis

To

tal

PV

Be

ne

fits

:

81

33

4T

ota

l P

V C

os

ts:

7

53

1

NE

T B

EN

EF

IT:

7

3 8

03

Rem

ark

s: 1. P

robabili

ty o

f ass

um

ptio

ns:

not pro

bable

, sl

ightly

pro

bable

, pro

bable

, hig

hly

pro

bable

2

. T

imefr

am

e o

f 5 y

ears

(C

Y+

4)

Elig

ible

co

sts

un

de

r p

roje

ct s

ub

mitt

ed

un

de

r A

ctio

n 2

.1.4

– M

ea

sure

s fo

r a

qu

atic

en

viro

nm

en

t,

Op

era

tion

2.1

.4.1

–

En

viro

nm

en

tal

Pro

tect

ion

Valu

e o

f elig

ible

cost

sP

roje

ct im

ple

me

nta

tion

to

sta

rt b

y m

id 2

01

4A

ppro

ved p

roje

ct

applic

ation

81 3

34

65

Annexes

Co

sts

SC

Cio

can

esti

Pis

cic

ola

SR

LP

rob

lem

: Loss

of w

etla

nd h

abita

t and d

ependent

speci

es a

s a r

esu

lt of

ext

ern

al p

ress

ure

s on b

usi

ness

via

bili

tyIn

terv

en

tio

n a

rea:

Cio

canest

i fis

h farm

Op

tio

n (

acti

on

): R

esp

onsi

ble

Busi

ness

Deve

lopm

ent

Curr

en

cy: E

uro

Adm

inis

trat

ive

cost

s un

derp

inni

ng tr

ansi

tion

tow

ards

eco

tour

ism

De

sc

rip

tio

nA

ss

um

pti

on

s

(pro

ba

ble

)S

ou

rce

of

info

rma

tio

n

Est

imat

ed a

dmin

istr

ativ

e co

sts

per

year

2% o

f inc

ome

(gro

ss in

com

e =

1.80

0.00

0 R

on),

BN

R x

-rat

e (3

0.05

.14)

= 4

,39,

3-

year

bus

ines

s pl

an

WW

F R

oman

ia

(SC

Cio

cane

sti

Pis

cico

la S

RL)

8 2

00

Tota

l Costs

(F

utu

re V

alu

e)

8 4

87

08 7

24

0

To

tal

Co

sts

(P

res

en

t V

alu

e)

8 4

87

08 3

85

8 2

21

8 0

60

0

Be

ne

fits

De

sc

rip

tio

nA

ss

um

pti

on

s

(hig

hly

pro

ba

ble

)S

ou

rce

of

info

rma

tio

n

Tota

l Benefit

s (

Futu

re V

alu

e)

16 4

88

00

00

0

To

tal

Be

ne

fits

(P

res

en

t V

alu

e)

16 4

88

00

00

0

Cur

rent

Ye

ar (

CY

)C

Y +

1C

Y +

2C

Y +

3C

Y +

4C

Y +

5

Cur

rent

Ye

ar (

CY

)C

Y +

1C

Y +

2C

Y +

3C

Y +

4C

Y +

5

Pre

sent V

alu

e D

isco

unt R

ate

2%

Co

st

Ben

efi

t A

naly

sis

To

tal

PV

Be

ne

fits

:

16

48

8T

ota

l P

V C

os

ts:

3

3 1

52

NE

T B

EN

EF

IT:

-1

6 6

64

Elig

ible

cos

ts u

nder

pro

ject

ap

prov

ed u

nder

DC

C

Bio

dive

rsity

and

Tou

rism

ca

ll fo

r pro

posa

ls

Valu

e of

elig

ible

cos

tsP

roje

ct im

plem

enta

tion

to

star

t by

mid

201

4A

ppro

ved

proj

ect

appl

icat

ion

16 4

88

8 2

00

8 2

00

In-k

ind

cont

ribut

ion

(sal

arie

s)

unde

r pro

ject

app

rove

d un

der

DC

C B

iodi

vers

ity a

nd T

ouris

m

call

for p

ropo

sals

Valu

e of

in-k

ind

cont

ribut

ion

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

n to

sta

rt by

mid

201

4A

ppro

ved

proj

ect

appl

icat

ion

8 4

87

Ann

ual s

alar

y pa

id fo

r hi

ring

a m

arke

ting

spec

ialis

tE

stim

ated

val

ue

of y

early

sal

ary

Gro

ss a

vera

ge s

alar

y in

20

14, 3

-yea

r bus

ines

s pl

an,

BNR

x-ra

te (3

0.05

.14)

= 4

,39

http://codfiscal.net/

40036/castigul-salarial-

mediu-brut-2014

523

523

523

8 7

24

8 7

24

Est

imat

ed in

com

e fro

m s

ales

of

eco

tour

ism

offe

rsE

stim

ated

val

ue o

f PE

S1

offe

r sta

rting

from

Y3

incl

udin

g P

ES

= 1

0 E

uro/

pers

on,

grou

p of

10

pers

ons,

2 g

roup

s/m

onth

for 3

mon

ths/

year

, 3-

year

bus

ines

s pl

an

WW

F-R

oman

ia600

600

600


Rem

ark

s: 1. P

robabili

ty o

f ass

um

ptio

ns:

not pro

bable

, sl

ightly

pro

bable

, pro

bable

, hig

hly

pro

bable

2

. T

imefr

am

e o

f 5 y

ears

(C

Y+

4)

http://codfiscal.net/40036/castigul-salarial-mediu-brut-2014





Danube River basin forests and grasslands

store carbon with total value

500 €

500 million €

29 million €

20,000 migratory birds

To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and

Why we are here.

to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

http://wwf.panda.org/dcpo

Essential Danube region

�SUSTAINABLE FINANCING IN THE CIOCANESTI PILOT AREA

WW

F.PANDA.ORG/DCPO

RECYCLED

of 29 million € per year

If 100,000 ha of Danube floodplains

are restored at an average cost of

500,000 €/km², this would cost less

than the damages caused by floods

1 hectare of functioning Lower Danube floodplain

provides benefits worth as much as 500 € per year

(water cleaning, flood mitigation, fish spawning)

The Natura 2000 site Ciocanesti-Dunare

hosts more than 20,000 migratory wetland

birds including protected species of national,

European and international importance.

ecosystem services

RO

This publication presents results from the GEF project “Promoting PES and other related sustainable financing schemes in the Danube

river basin” implemented in Bulgaria and Romania. The project is coordinated by the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme with financing

from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and implementation support from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

The implementation of this project is also financially supported by the European Commission.

,

Documents

SUSTAINABLE FINANCING IN THE CIOCANESTI PILOT AREA · Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014 I ABSTRACT This report describes the experience of the WWF Danube-Carpathian