Contract no. 633838

PROVIDE

PROVIding smart DElivery of public goods by EU agriculture and forestry

Call identifier: H2020-ISIB-2014-2; Topic: ISIB-01-2014

Funding scheme: Research and Innovation Action (RIA)

First case study region stakeholder workshop reporting [North-East Region of Romania]

Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this report:

Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi

Authors Costică MIHAI; Constantin-Marius APOSTOAIE; Alexandru MAXIM

2

Content

Content ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Unpacking the notion of public goods/bads ..................................................................................................... 4

3 Identification of hotspot issues in the case study area ..................................................................................... 8

3.1 Trends in public goods and bads ............................................................................................................ 8

3.2 Ranking of public goods and bads in the case study area ...................................................................... 8

3.3 mapping of main public goods and bads in the case study area ............................................................ 9

3

1 Introduction

This document reports the outcomes of the first workshop of the Case Study Stakeholder Platform of the

Romanian CSR, which was held in Iași on February 26nd. The aim of the workshop was to gather the views of

national/regional key stakeholders regarding the notion of public goods and bads from agriculture and forestry

systems, identify main PGs/PBs from agriculture and forestry and issues affecting their provision/demand and

map hotspots.

The Romanian CSR is the North-East Region, which is located in the north-east side of Romania. The

neighbours of the region are, as follows: Ukraine (North), Republic of Moldova (East), South-East Region of

Romania (South) and the Center and North-West Regions (West). The region has 6 counties: Bacău, Botoşani,

Neamţ, Iaşi, Suceava and Vaslui as territorial administrative units that correspond to NUTS 3 territorial

statistics units. The surface is around 36.850 sq.km (15.6% of Romanian’s total surface), the population sums

about 3.732.683 inhabitants with a density of 101.5 inhabitants/km2 (17.30% of Romanian’s population, of

which 56.3% living in rural areas).

The region is characterized by a harmonious arrangement among all relief forms: 30% mountains, 30% sub

Carpathian landforms, 40% plateau. The diversified relief offers plateau and plane areas suitable for a large

variety of agriculture, and mountain areas with spectacular landscapes favourable for tourism development.

The Regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the region rounds 9.199 million euros contributing thus with a

share of 11.8% to Romania’s total GDP. With regard to the contribution to the regional GDP, agriculture brings

about 12.85%, industry 22.65 % while services contribute with more than half (about 52.80%, of which civil

constructions 5.3%). The regional GDP/inhabitant is around 9.114 RON /inhabitant or 2.463 Euro /inhabitant,

representing 68.39% of Romania’s total share of GDP/inhabitant.

At the national level, agriculture is an important sector in Romania’s economy, both through its contribution to

the GDP growth of, as well as weight of labour force involved in the field. Romania’s territorial area includes:

61.3 % agricultural land (of which 64.2% arable land, 32.9% natural pastures and meadows and 2.7%

plantations of fruit trees and vines), 36.64% forests and other land with forestry vegetation. With respect to

the North-East Region, around 57,83% of its surface is represented by agriculture-dedicated lands while

33,46% of region’s surface is covered by forests. Therefore, about 2.1 million ha of the county is allocated to

agricultural area (14.5% of the agricultural national area), being divided into categories of use, and in private

property are about 2 million ha. (94.7% of the agricultural area). With regard to the forestry sector, the North-

East Region of Romania provides 26,7% of wood production of the country.

As to the civil occupied population in the Region, a number of 1,246,200 persons were last registered of which:

40.74% in agriculture, 18.97% in industry (17.08% in the processing industry) and 37.94% in the service sector

(4.88% in constructions). With regard to the structure of the research & development sector, from the total

number of 73 units: 16 are research and development units, 13 are university level units, 17 are agriculture

units, and 27 are units in various enterprises.

The main environmental problems of the North-East Region are linked to: poor management of the industrial

and housing waste (non-selective collection, decreased level of revalorisation and/or treatment of waste,

inadequate depositing, existing sawdust deposits on river shores alongside roads); the derelict former public

enterprises; deforesting, with implications in amplifying the land slips; soil erosion phenomena which affect,

mainly, the east side of the region; local or zone pollution.

4

2 Unpacking the notion of public goods/bads

Table 1 - List of public goods/bads provided by the Romanian stakeholders

Agriculture Forestry

Public Goods

thermal springs (accessibility); flood risk mitigation

landscaping function of the crops resulting from agriculture biodiversity enhancement

biodiversity conditions for practicing sports

apiculture (and its role in pollination) forest paths

landforms, agricultural landscapes and embankments healthy living conditions (e.g. clean air)

lawn and grassed areas improvement of tourism and recreational activities

a rivers’ flow (including the creation of a micro-ecosystem) protected areas

natural reserves carbon sequestration

pastures riverbeds (including the creation of a micro-ecosystem)

lakes availability of water in the soil

soil quality

availability of water in the soil

water quality

Public Bads

biodiversity reduction deforestation

lakes quality degradation biodiversity reduction

natural resources consumption landscape degradation

land abandonment

pollution

water pollution by nutrients in limited areas

Reduction of water availability

5

Table 2 - Table illustrating the positioning of the public goods and bads (local/global – public/private )

Agriculture

Public goods Private Public Global Local

thermal springs (accessibility); x x

landscaping function of the crops resulting from agriculture x x

biodiversity x x

apiculture (and its role in pollination) x x

landforms, agricultural landscapes and embankments x x

lawn and grassed areas X X

a rivers’ flow (including the creation of a micro-ecosystem) X X

natural reserves (seen as a combination of PGs)* X X

pastures (seen as a combination of various PGs)* X X

lakes (seen as a combination of PGs)* X X

soil quality X X

availability of water in the soil X X

water quality X X

Public bads Private Public Global Local

biodiversity reduction X X

lakes quality degradation X X

natural resources consumption X X

land abandonment X X

pollution X X

water pollution by nutrients in limited areas X X

Reduction of water availability X X

Forestry

Agriculture

Agriculture

Agriculture

Agriculture

Public goods Private Public Global Local

flood risk mitigation X X

biodiversity enhancement X X

conditions for practicing sports X X

forest paths X X

healthy living conditions (e.g. clean air) X X

improvement of tourism and recreational activities X X

protected areas X X

carbon sequestration X X

riverbeds (including the creation of a micro-ecosystem) X X

availability of water in the soil X X

Public bads Private Public Global Local

deforestation (private if illegally practiced on private lands) X X

biodiversity reduction X X

landscape degradation X X

* Some of the identified ‘public goods’ are actually representations of a more complex combination of

ecosystem services and other public goods

6

Some initial points of disagreement amongst the stakeholders were concerned with defining a good as

being public or private. The first impression, especially amongst private business representatives, was

that a good is public if it is administered / owned by the state. This was later clarified by interactive

discussions involving all of the present stakeholders and facilitators.

Another interesting issue was on grasping the extent of the impact that a certain good or bad can

generate i.e. if the impact is more local or more global. This was especially true in the case of

protected areas vs. reservations/public natural parks, as well as the availability of water in the soil vs.

surface waters.

It is worth noting that the majority of the stakeholders found it easier to discuss, focus and exemplify

public goods, rather than public bads. It was overall accepted by consensus that public bads can

generally be defined as mirror opposites of certain public goods – an aspect that was taken into

consideration during the mapping and ranking activities from the second part of the workshop.

7

8

3 Identification of hotspot issues in the case study area

The most important public goods identified by the Stakeholders in the North-East Region of Romania were, as

follows:

Team A: water flows, pastures and grasslands, national parks, landscaping, access / walking paths

Team B: water quality, air quality, biodiversity, water accessibility, rural vitality

Team C: water quality, air quality, rural vitality, soil functionality, biodiversity

Team D: water quality, air quality, soil quality, rural vitality, biodiversity

As seen, water quality and air quality are the most recognised public goods in the North-East Region of

Romania. Apart from these, other important public goods are: pastures and grasslands, national parks,

biodiversity, rural vitality, soil quality and water flows (impacting local ecosystems).

3.1 TRENDS IN PUBLIC GOODS AND BADS

Table 3 – Trends in public goods/bads for the Northeast of Romania

List of public goods/bads Increase Stable Under decline

water quality X

air quality X

soil quality X

biodiversity X

rural vitality X

national parks X

water flows

X

pastures and grasslands

X

landscaping X

water accessibility X

access / walking paths X

soil functionality X

Main points regarding trends of public goods/bads

the main public goods that are increasing in availability within the analysed region are: landscaping (with

a noticeable impact/change over the coming 10 years), access / walking paths, national natural parks /

natural reservations (50 years), soil functionality (5 years), water accessibility (10-15 years).

the main public goods that are present a stable availability are: water quality (20 years), air quality (10-

15 years), soil quality (5 years), rural vitality (10 years).

the main public goods that are decreasing in availability are: pastures and grasslands (over a time span

of 30 years), biodiversity.

3.2 RANKING OF PUBLIC GOODS AND BADS IN THE CASE STUDY AREA

The teams of stakeholders were asked to assess the importance of the public goods (and their mirror

image bads) using a value from 1 – not important to 5 – very important. Table 4 presents a

consolidated image of the rankings (average values for all teams).

9

The “Times mapped” column illustrates the number of times that a specific public good was selected

for the mapping exercise (thus ranking it in the top 3 most important public goods for a certain team).

Table 4 – Rank of public goods/bads for the case study area (Please, add rows in the table as needed)

List public goods/bads Average rank Times mapped

water quality 5 3

air quality 4.5 3

soil quality 5 1

biodiversity 3 1

rural vitality 3.5 1

national parks 5 1

water flows 5 1

pastures and grasslands 3 1

landscaping 5 -

water accessibility 4 -

access / walking paths 3 -

soil functionality 5 -

3.3 MAPPING OF MAIN PUBLIC GOODS AND BADS IN THE CASE STUDY AREA

The teams were invited to prioritize the identified public goods and then map the three most important ones

across the region. While this approach slightly deviates from the recommendations, it was chosen in order to

better leverage the diverse fields of expertise that the Stakeholders have and to provide a wider range of

public good mappings.

Table 5 – Problems and difficulties in mapping public goods/bads

List public goods/bads

Difficulty of mapping (high, average, low)

Reasons for the specified level of difficulty

water quality High Limited information and availability of data; difficulty of task can vary depending on stakeholders’ experience

air quality Low Easier to perceive directly; Existence of air quality sensors across region with public access; Various data sources are available

soil quality Average Depends on stakeholders’ practical experience and data sources

biodiversity High Limited information on the PG and inconsistent data

rural vitality High Requires direct assessment at the local level

national parks Average Major parks are well known and generate high tourist traffic, but local reservations are not always well mapped

water flows Low Stakeholders’ experience and promotion via media channels

pastures and grasslands

Average Limited direct assessments available, but can be deduced based on landscape traits and cultural and economic practices

The images below illustrate some of the more relevant public goods selected for mapping.

10

rural vitality water flows

national parks soil quality

11

air quality water quality

Public

good

Locations Characteristics of

this locations

Degree of

availability

Factors influencing

availability

Comments

water quality

Located

especially in

the basins of

the Prut and

Siret rivers and

in some

mountainous

regions, such as

Vatra Dornei

For the basins of

the Prut and Siret

basins – riverbeds

and wetlands with

associated

ecosystems

For the

mountainous

regions – rapid

mountain rivers

generate the public

good

High - low level of

industrial and

agricultural activity

intensiveness

- the presence of

wetlands and semi-

natural ecosystems

- the presence of

rivers across the

Carpathian

Mountains

This was one

of the two

most

frequently

mapped and

discussed

public

goods/bads

air quality Across the

entire

Northeast

region, with

particularly

high intensity

in the

mountains and

low intensity in

the area of

large urban

settlements

The Northeast area

is predominantly a

hilly and

mountainous

region with several

forested areas and

a low level of

economic

development

High - forested areas

(especially in the

mountains)

- large agricultural

areas (with mainly

extensive practices)

- low level of

industrial intensity

in the region

- predominance of

rural areas

This was one

of the two

most

frequently

mapped and

discussed

public

goods/bads

soil quality Located

especially in

the basins of

the Prut and

Siret rivers and

in lowlands of

the Carpathian

Mountains,

such as Vatra

Dornei

Predominantly

alluvial areas

associated with

major rivers; Low

intensity of soil

exploitation for

agricultural

purposes (limited

use of chemicals,

low mechanisation,

extensive and

ecological

practices)

High - low intensity of soil

exploitation for

agricultural

purposes

- alluvial composition

of soils

- temperate climate

Soil quality

recognition is

confirmed by

the

predominance

of the

agriculture

and forestry

sectors in the

region.

biodiversity Rich

biodiversity

exists across

High ecological

value (mountains

and wetlands), low

High - landform diversity

(mountains, hills,

plains, river beds)

Some rare

and/or

endangered

13

the Northeast

region, but a

higher density

is observed in

wetlands,

forests (near

Iași) and

mountainous

areas

population density - European and

national legislation

species

(protected by

Natura 2000

sites) are

present

exclusively

within the

Northeast

region

rural vitality

Viable and

populous rural

settlements

exist across the

entire

Northeast

region

The entire

Northeast region

comprises a high

number of viable

rural localities with

strong cultural and

traditional

practices

High - the conservation of

traditions and rural

practices

- relatively high

proportion of the

population is in

rural areas

- long term stability

of settlement in

rural areas over the

inhabitants’ lifetime

- EU and national

programs that

support the

development and

enrichment of rural

living conditions

Some

localities have

an aging

population, a

fact caused by

the high

intensity of

migration.

However, it is

expected that

a large

number of

migrants will

resettle in

these areas

after a certain

period.

national parks

Located mainly

in the

Carpathian

Mountains,

near Bicaz and

Vatra Dornei

Parks with a high

ecological value

(virgin forests,

diverse array of

plant and animal

life, well preserved

areas)

Medium - Limited economic

intensity

- Limited

infrastructure limits

the access of

mechanized

vehicles of

transport

Major parks

are well

known and

generate high

tourist traffic,

but local

reservations

are not

always well

mapped

pastures and grasslands

Predominant in

the

mountainous

and hilly areas

Large areas, rich

diversity of wild

plants and grass

Medium - Extensive

agriculture practices

- Traditional use of

common property

lands as grasslands

in rural areas

The provision

of grasslands

and pastures

is also

positively

influenced by

the

abandonment

of some

agricultural

lands