General
National Id
Romania_01
Site name
Prut River Basin
Summary
The short term project objectives were to create 250 ha of wetland by raising the water level of the embanked area with a regulating water outlet structure, creation of a variety of habitats -from dry land to spots with deep water- by digging and opening up of old river meanders that had been filled up.
The project is a good experience in the field of ecological restoration, involving purchase of land, participatory planning and co-operation with other organizations, including NGO’s.
The project also had long term objectives related to the creation of a network of wetlands, integration and nature and water policies, the implementation of European directives and the strengthening environmental NGOs and education. The project was implemented by a Romanian regional water authority with the support of Dutch partners.
The Ciobarciu project was evaluated at the end of the project by the project team and by a Romanian University, who interviewed 55 inhabitants of villages where the (previous) owners lived. After a period of five years, the project was evaluated again.
The project is a good experience in the field of ecological restoration, involving purchase of land, participatory planning and co-operation with other organizations, including NGO’s.
The project also had long term objectives related to the creation of a network of wetlands, integration and nature and water policies, the implementation of European directives and the strengthening environmental NGOs and education. The project was implemented by a Romanian regional water authority with the support of Dutch partners.
The Ciobarciu project was evaluated at the end of the project by the project team and by a Romanian University, who interviewed 55 inhabitants of villages where the (previous) owners lived. After a period of five years, the project was evaluated again.
The in-depth description of the case study
NUTS Code
Nord-Est
RBD code
RO1000
Transboundary
0
Data provider
Imola Koszta, REC
Source(s)
NWRM(s) implemented in the case study
Longitude
27.8597222
Latitude
47.0488889
Site information
Climate zone
cool temperate dry
Mean rainfall
550
Mean rainfall unit
mm/year
Average temperature
9,19999980926514
Mean evaportranspiration
650
Mean evaportranspiration unit
mm/year
Mean runoff
82,8960037231445
Mean runoff unit
450 - 600 mm
Average runoff coefficient
0,150000005960464
Type
Actual Test Site
Light or indepth?
In-depth
Average slope range
0-1%
Vegetation class
grassland (Stipa sp.)
Monitoring maintenance
Monitoring impacts effects
1
Monitoring location
Unknown
Monitoring parameters
birds and fauna evolution
Performance
Performance impact estimation method
Laboratory
Performance impact estimation information
Field observations during two summers, 2007-2008. Birds monitoring: transect method, observation from fixed point, male sounds counting and band counting (for waders and aquatic birds)
Design & implementations
Application scale
Field Scale
Installation date
2006
Lifespan
50
Age
5
Performance timescale
< 1 year
Area (ha)
250
Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha)
250
Design capacity description
Area flooded in spring, creating areas of waters with various depths, which drain gradually during summer. Aquatic surface of four ponds, two ponds have water about 0,5-1 m depth, the third presents small puddles and swampy areas, while the fourth can receive waters from the Prut River in case offlooding risks. First flooding of the area done in October 2006.
Constraints
n.a
Favourable preconditions
The site had high potentials for ecological restoration due to the possibilities to restore water flow in the Old Jijia, the absence of roads and
buildings and the decline of agriculture. Plus it had a low economic value.
buildings and the decline of agriculture. Plus it had a low economic value.
Inflow volume
0,550000011920929
Inflow volume unit
m3/sec
Public consultation
1
Contractural arrangements
1
Design contractual arrangement
| Arrangement type | Responsibility | Role | Comments | Name | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the governments of Romania and
the Netherlands (renewed in 2000) |
|||||
|
MOU ecological reconstruction signed:
- County council - Environmental Prot. Insp. - Romanian Waters - Romanian Ornithological Soc. - Romanian Scouts |
|||||
|
Agreement with almost all land owners for selling the land (12 oppose)
|
Design consultation activity
| Activity stage | Key issues | Name | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
7 members
|
Setting up of an Advisory Committe
|
there was 1 meeting, following which Romanian project team fowund that working bilaterally with the committee members was more effective
|
||
|
Implementation phase
|
information on the benefits of the restoration and agreement on land purchase
|
Personal visits to the landowners
|
400+
|
|
|
Other
|
Information to the local people (meetings with villagers, posters, articles, media campaign, colouring contest in the school)
|
Design of the area, implementation of the plan and management of the area
|
Design land use change
| Land use change type |
|---|
Design authority
| Authority type | Role | Responsibility | Name | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lessons, risks, implications...
Key lessons
Experience in the field of ecological restoration,involving purchase of land, participatory planning and co-operation with other organizations, including NGOs.
-careful consideration should be given whether there is an alternative for land purchase. If not, a concise overview of the land ownership situation should be done at an early stage.
-early consensus on the goals and degree of participation.
-careful consideration should be given whether there is an alternative for land purchase. If not, a concise overview of the land ownership situation should be done at an early stage.
-early consensus on the goals and degree of participation.
financing funding solutions
The costs for the steering committee (time, travel and lodging) are not included in the project, because the steering committee meets not only for the Costuleni Wetland Project, but also for other projects of the existing RIZA-APELE ROMANE cooperation.
Apele Romane pays the effort of the Romanian team members and other people from the office of Apele Romane and only receives money for the field works that have to be carried out and for expenses made.
Hunze en Aas asks subsidy for the effort of their employee involved and the tickets for traveling to Romania. The time estimation is intently kept on a very low level: extra time spent will be paid by the organization itself, RIZA pays the boarding and lodging of Romanian team members on working visit in Holland and the tickets for the RIZA team members when going to Romania. RIZA asks a contribution in the personal costs, consisting in the costs for the time spend by team member B. Ottow (communication specialist).
Het Drentse Landschap pays the costs of the own people working in the project and asks only a contribution from PIN MATRA for airplane tickets.
Apele Romane pays the effort of the Romanian team members and other people from the office of Apele Romane and only receives money for the field works that have to be carried out and for expenses made.
Hunze en Aas asks subsidy for the effort of their employee involved and the tickets for traveling to Romania. The time estimation is intently kept on a very low level: extra time spent will be paid by the organization itself, RIZA pays the boarding and lodging of Romanian team members on working visit in Holland and the tickets for the RIZA team members when going to Romania. RIZA asks a contribution in the personal costs, consisting in the costs for the time spend by team member B. Ottow (communication specialist).
Het Drentse Landschap pays the costs of the own people working in the project and asks only a contribution from PIN MATRA for airplane tickets.
Success factor(s)
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Financing possibilities
|
main factor
|
Without funding from the PIN-MATRA program. the project would have been financially not feasible. If no subsidy would have been received, Apele Romane would have tried to restore water flow in the Old Jijia, but the Costuleni Wetland Project would have not been carried out.Situation after 5 years showed that there were no funds for creating other wetlands. |
|
|
Attitude of decision makers
|
main factor
|
The mayors have been very much involved, both in the meetings and also in bilateral visits. They also participated in the Advisory Committee meeting. |
|
|
Public participation
|
main factor
|
local people have been invovled in different ways and at different stages |
|
|
Existing staff and consultant knowledge
|
secondary factor
|
personal motivation and dedication of all the team members contributed to the success |
|
|
Communication activities
|
secondary factor
|
Financing
| Financing type | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
|
Other
|
PIN-MATRA - Dutch governmental fund to protect and rehabilitate areas for nature in Eastern European countries of € 254.141,- (66%); The project partners supply the rest of the costs, namely: Apele Romane 22,900 EUR (6%); RIZA 87,100 EUR (22%);Het Drentse Landschap 23,712 EUR (6%)
|
Driver
| Driver type | Driver role | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Balancing different objectives
|
main driver
|
To develop ecological restoration measures which can lead to a win-win situation, profitable not only for nature, but also for the population in the area and what is socially acceptable
|
Financing share
| Financing share type | Share | Comments |
|---|
Policy, general governance and design targets
Policy description
balance the water necessity on the territory, decrease flooding risk in the area
Part of wider plan
1
Policy target
| Target purpose | |
|---|---|
|
Improved Biodiversity
|
|
|
Oher Societal Benefits
|
|
|
Groundwater Recharge
|
|
|
Runoff control
|
Policy pressure
| Pressure directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|
Policy area
| Policy area type | Policy area focus | Name | Comments |
|---|
Policy impact
| Impact directive | Relevant impact |
|---|
Policy wider plan
| Wider plan type | Wider plan focus | Name | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Catchment-based
|
Water
|
A œstring of pearls a concept for ecological restoration
|
and Environment and Biodiversity
|
Policy requirement directive
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|
Socio-economic
Direct benefits information
Increased possibility of non-comercial fishing Increased possibilities for horticulture along the Old Jijia Increased natural values (more birds and animals) Increased underground water.
Ancillary benefits information
Increased agriculture/horticulture along the Old Jijia
Increased tourism, leading to potential economical benefits originating from the interest of investors
Increased tourism, leading to potential economical benefits originating from the interest of investors
Costs investment
388000 €
Costs investment information
1)restoration of Old Jijia (topographic study, cleaning of the river bed, reconstruction of the Chiperesti Bridge, cleaning the streamed of the river-15km, management plan of the Chiperesti inlet) ;
2) development Restoration Plan Ciobarciu wetland (evaluation of the land in the project area; inventory of landowners and agreement, acquisition of land, field works: channel 1, breach in the dikes between comparts 1 and II and II and III);
3) stakeholder involvement, communication and participation at village level as well as at county level and beyond
2) development Restoration Plan Ciobarciu wetland (evaluation of the land in the project area; inventory of landowners and agreement, acquisition of land, field works: channel 1, breach in the dikes between comparts 1 and II and II and III);
3) stakeholder involvement, communication and participation at village level as well as at county level and beyond
Costs land acquisition
180
Costs land acquisition unit
€/ha
Costs land acquisition information
Evaluation price of land done in October 2003; 150 EUR/ha (Prisaceni) and 170 EUR/ha (Costuleni); During the purchase 1 EUR = 3.3-3.5 lei RON)
Costs operation maintenance
N/A info
Costs total
388000 €
Ecosystem improved biodiversity
1
Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity
Contributed to the quality improvement of an important migratory route for waterbirds.The perimeter was used for seeking food by the birds during the migration period. The birds fauna list consisted of 105 species, out of which 29 bird species are included in the Annexe 1 of the Birds' Directive and 19 species are present in the Romanian Red Book of Vertebrates. (2007-2008)
No available data for fauna, excepting the fishes presence after about 1 year from the flooding 8 fish species were recorded. During field observations different aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates groups, amphibians, reptiles and some small mammals were observed.
No available data for fauna, excepting the fishes presence after about 1 year from the flooding 8 fish species were recorded. During field observations different aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates groups, amphibians, reptiles and some small mammals were observed.
Ecosystem provisioning services
1
Information on Ecosystem provisioning services
Fishing can be practiced in some parts of the arranged area. Reed and reedmace can be used for traditional production of all kind of practical goods. Strengthening the educational possibilities for biological science and education.
Ecosystem impact climate regulation
No information available
Information on Ecosystem impact climate regulation
no information available
Biophysical impacts
Information on retained water
N/A info
Information on increased water storage
N/A info
Information on runoff reduction
N/A info
Water quality overall improvements
N/A info
Information on Water quality overall improvements
N/A info
Soil quality overall soil improvements
Not relevant for this application
Information on Soil quality overall soil improvements
Not relevant for this application
