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:
Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
8 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
10 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
11Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
1. Description of the pilot area
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
12 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
1. Description of the pilot area
13Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
1. Description of the pilot area
14 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
1. Description of the pilot area
15Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
1. Description of the pilot area
16 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
1. Description of the pilot area
17Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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).
1. Description of the pilot area
18 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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”
1. Description of the pilot area
19Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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).
1. Description of the pilot area
20 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
1. Description of the pilot area
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
1. Description of the pilot area
22 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
23Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
24 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
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).
Pumping station Boianu II
Pumpingstation
Boianu ICentral drainage channel CII
Drainagechannel
Supply channel
Evacuation channel
Pumping station
Natural buffer area
Legend
25Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
26 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
Figure 12. Map of water sampling points under the water monitoring system for the Ciocanesti fish farm
Source: C. Munteanu (2012).
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.
Pumping station Boianu II
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.
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
27Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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).
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
28 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
Figure 14. Variations of nitrates in the nine water-sampling points in May 2013
Nitrates
Maximumvalues ofnitratesadmitted
Source: I. F. Gheorghe, C. Munteanu, M. Martini, “Guide for fish farms in the Lower Danube to monitor water quality” (2103).
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.
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
29Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
Figure 15. Variations of suspended matter in May and October 2013
May
Oct
Source: I. F. Gheorghe, C. Munteanu, M. Martini, “Guide for fish farms in the Lower Danube to monitor water quality” (2103).
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
Source: I. F. Gheorghe, C. Munteanu, M. Martini, “Guide for fish farms in the Lower Danube to monitor water quality” (2103).
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
Source: I. F. Gheorghe, C. Munteanu, M. Martini, “Guide for fish farms in the Lower Danube to monitor water quality” (2103).
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
30 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Source: P. Tibu, “Monitoring birds population in the Ciocanesti fish farm area” (2011).
44 Retrieved from � and �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buz u_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ialomi a_River.
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
31Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Source: P. Tibu, “Monitoring birds population in the Ciocanesti fish farm area” (2011).
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
Source: C. Munteanu (2012).
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
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
32 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Source: M. Martini (2014).
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.
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
33Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Source: M. Martini (2014).
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.
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
34 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
2. Ecosystem situation analysis
35Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
36 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
37Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Source: M. Martini (2014).
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
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
38 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
39Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
40 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
41Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
42 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
43Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Source: M. Martini (2014).
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
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
44 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
45Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
46 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
47Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
48 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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 5. Flooding unused basins with water and populating them with non-commercial fish species – breeding basins
Action 5. Flooding unused basins with water and populating them with non-commercial fish species – breeding basins
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 7. Birdwatching tower + 2 binoculars + 1 telescope
Action 7. Birdwatching tower + 2 binoculars + 1 telescope
Action 8. Infoboards on birdspecies
(included in the project approved under the DCC Biodiversity and Tourism call for proposals)
Action 8. Infoboards on birdspecies
Action 8. Infoboards on birdspecies
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
49Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
Source: M. Martini. Adapted from C. Munteanu, “Start-up project for PES in the Ciocanesti fish farm.” (2013)
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
50 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Source: M. Martini (2014).
PES foundations for biodiversity maintenance
WWF-Romania(expert support)
Figure 22. Operational chart of intermediate strategy to establish PES conditions
51Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
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).
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
52 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
Source: M. Martini (2014).
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.
53Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
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
?
Source: M. Martini (2014).
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.
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
54 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
Source: M. Martini (2014).
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
Responsible business diversification
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
Responsible business diversification
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
Source: M. Martini (2014).
Amount of biodiversity expert capacity built
1 0 Mentoring plan, minutes from meetings
0
55Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
3. Framework to establish conditions for financing of biodiversity conservation
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
56 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
57Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
58 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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.
59Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
60 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
61Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
62 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
64 Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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
Sustainable Financing in the Ciocanesti Pilot Area | 2014
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)
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.
,