See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317579728

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN ROMANIAN FORESTS

Conference Paper · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 338

3 authors:

Robert Pache Bogdan Popa

National Forest Administration Romsilva Transylvania University of Brașov
4 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 553 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mihai Daniel Nita

Transylvania University of Brașov
73 PUBLICATIONS 759 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mihai Daniel Nita on 14 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN ROMANIAN FORESTS

Robert PACHE*, National Forest Administration-Romsilva, Bucharest, Romania

[email protected]
Bogdan POPA, Department of Forest Engineering, Forest Management Planning and Terrestrial
Measurements, Transilvania University of Brașov, Romania
Mihai-Daniel NIȚĂ, Department of Forest Engineering, Forest Management Planning and Terrestrial
Measurements, Transilvania University of Brașov, Romania

Abstract: The role of forest ecosystems in providing benefits to the population is well known. In the
context of developing the society the pressure on natural resources has becoming more acute challenging
the provision of these services at a level which will ensure a proper human welfare. Even if the concept of
the ecosystem services approach is not new, it is less used in related studies conducted in Romania, due
to the lack of review articles on ecosystem services in Romania as well as the lack of transposing the
research results obtained abroad. Therefore, in a broader international context, the paper identifies and
describes the most important ecosystem services in Romanian forests and the methods used to assess their
value, based on available literature and some qualitative research. The literature review has allowed the
authors to capture the growing importance given to the concept of ecosystem services in Romania and
around the world. The paper presents a correspondence between ecosystem services classification and
the Romanian functional categorizing system for forests. Thus, in the context of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy 2020, by which Member States must map and assess the ecosystem services at the national level,
the output of this correspondence represents a very useful tool for a rapid and efficient ecosystem
services mapping using the forest management plans.

Key words: forest ecosystem services, ecosystem services mapping

1. INTRODUCTION

Forests are one of the most valuable biomes that provide ecosystem services (ES) for insuring
the human wellbeing (Constanza et al., 1997), from the provision of timber, non-timber forest products, to
the regulation of climate, waters, soil erosion, natural hazard and to cultural services as recreation,
education, esthetical and spiritual values etc. Therefore, forests means more than trees and are essential
for food security and improved livelihoods (FAO, 2016). Until recently, these services were taken for
granted by those who benefit from them (Worboys et al., 2015). If the multitude of goods and services
that forest ecosystems provide will be used in a rational manner, they can become an ideal alternative for
long-term human well-being (Giurgiu, 1988).
The multifunctional role of forests in serving economic, social and environmental purposes is
emphasized within the new forest strategy at EU level. According to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, forests are biologically diverse systems, representing some of the richest biological areas on
Earth. The 2020 target for the EU Biodiversity Strategy is halting the loss of biodiversity and the
degradation of ecosystem services in the EU. All this provisions leads us to the need to secure especially
the multifunctional forests against anthropic pressure as unsustainable forest management, illegal logging,
habitat fragmentation, fires, as well as invasive species, pests, windfalls etc.
Regarding the monetary valuation, researchers believe that without realization of quantitative
assessments, these services tend to be ignored by decision makers involved in the land use management
(Nelson et al., 2009). Studies and projects on ES valuation showed that the evaluation process is difficult

99
and often relies on uncertainties and assumptions. There are people who believe that intangible elements
such as long-term environmental benefits and aesthetic environment cannot be assessed, but as long as we
are forced to make decisions on protection of ecosystems, we have to go through the assessment process
(Constanza et al., 1997).
According to the National Forest Inventory (www.roifn.ro), Romania has 6,9 million ha of area
covered with forest. The forest sector is heavily underfinanced, a fact confirmed even by the Romanian
Court of Accounts within an audit mission in 2014. This under funding has increased pressure on forest
the owners permanently being interested in obtaining immediate earnings. Protected areas system in
Romania has increased in the last years mainly due to the designation of Natura 2000 network, that
together with protected areas of national interest (national and nature parks, scientific and nature reserves,
natural monuments) represents about 25% of the total area of the country. Protected areas management is
also underfinanced, according to recent projects implemented in Romania. In order to bring into decision
makers the urgent need for funding the forestry and protected areas sectors, we need to conduct ES
valuation studies that reveals the importance of ES provided by forests and to communicate more intense
and more concrete these findings (Popa et al., 2013).
In the analysed literature we have identified several definition for the ES: “the many conditions
and processes associated with natural ecosystems that confer some benefit to humanity” (van Wilgen et
al., 1996), “the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions”
(Costanza et al., 1997), “the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species
that make them up, sustain and fulfil human life” (Daily, 1997), “the set of ecosystem functions that is
useful to humans” (Kremen, 2005), “benefits that people obtain form the ecosystems” (Sarukhán and
Whyte, 2005; TEEB, 2008) or “a collective term for the goods and services produced by ecosystems that
benefit humankind” (Jenkins et al., 2010). Researchers believe that ecosystem functions become
ecosystem goods or services when human values are implied” (de Groot et al., 2002).
The definitions given by different authors has made “ecosystem services” an expression that is
used when people refers to anything that comes from an ecosystem and that brings benefits to every living
thing (Nahlik et al., 2012).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) developed a classification system - the most cited
and used in the literature worldwide, that groups the ES services in 4 categories: 1) provisioning services-
that refers to the tangible goods as food (forest fruits, fish, game), wood, water, medicinal plants etc.; 2)
regulating services – that reflect the regulation of the essential ecologic and climatic processes (regulation
of water flows, soil erosion, greenhouse gases etc.), 3) cultural services – that refer to non-material
benefits gain from the ecosystems (spiritual, educational, recreation and ecotourism etc.). The 4th category
are the supporting services, that are the base for production of all the other ES (soil formation, nutrients
cycle, maintain lifecycle, biodiversity conservation etc.). Usually the supporting services are not included
in the ES valuation studies, because their value is already included in the other types of services (Hein,
2011). Other widely used systems are: TEEB – that represents an updated MEA classification system, to
support an assessment of the economic costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation (USEPA,
2015) and CICES – that is based on MEA and TEEB, but focused on the accounting field (Haines-Young
and Potschin, 2013).
Apart from the review on evolution of ES concept, we propose a practical mapping method for
spatial distribution of the forest ES, that is based on the correlation between forest functional zoning
system according to the approved forest management plans. The case study is focused on GIS database
available for the forests within Retezat National Park, the first national park established in Romania.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the view of the provisions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, Member States should map and
assess the ES by 2020. Thus, we have identified a method to map the forest ecosystem services based on
the provisions of the forest management plans. We made a correlation between the Romanian forest
functional zoning system and the ES classification system (according to Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment) that allows the mapping of the ES through the GIS project of the forest management plan.
For this correlation 4 codes were used, one for each ES category (Table 1).
Based on a database analysis, we have distributed the functional category into the corresponding
codes and then we have obtained maps with spatial distribution of the forest ES. Forest management plan
database allows establishing up to three functional categories, based on their importance in management.

100
 The ES mapping case study was conducted in Retezat National Park, based on the available data.
Retezat National Park is located at the west side of the Southern Carpathians, mostly in Hunedoara
County (94%). The park was established in 1935, being the first Romanian national park, and was
declared biosphere reserve within Man & Biosphere program of UNESCO, in 1979. It has been
designated as a Site of Community Importance and Special Protection Area in 2007 for 22 habitats, 10
species of mammals. The total area of the park is about 38 thousand ha, out of which about 20 thousand
ha (53%) represents forests. Half of the total area of forests is in the park core area, under non-
intervention regime, which is reserved for nature conservation, tourism and educational purposes. Forest
buffer zone represents about 10 thousand ha where sustainable forest management, hunting, fishing and
tourism activities are allowed (RNPA, 2016).

Table 1. Correlation between forest functional zoning system and the ES classification system

Functional group Functional subgroup ES category Code

1.1. Forests with water protection functions
Regulating
1.2. Forests with soil protection functions 2
Services
Group I - Forests with 1.3. Forests with protection functions against
special protection harmful climatic and industrial factors
functions 1.4. Forests with recreation functions Cultural Services 3
1.5. Forests of scientific interest and for the
Supporting
protection of Genetic Resources and Forestry 4
Services
ecofund.
Group II - Forests with
Provisioning
production & protection - 1
Services
functions

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Evolution of the research area on ecosystem services topic

The transition from ecosystem functions to ES started in 70’s. Afterwards, the concept is defined
and a classification of ES is done depending on how people benefit from them. This transition also
happened in Romania within more than 100 years. The functions fulfilled by the forest ecosystems were
officially recognized in Romania since the approval of the first forest Law in 1881. In 1954, a forest
functional zoning system was approved in order to apply differentiates forest management measures,
according to different functions provided by forest ecosystems. The first legal provision on the need to
assess the protective functions of forests was mentioned in the Forest Code approved in 1987. In the 1996
and 2008 Forest Code editions it was stated that the beneficiaries of the forests’ protective functions are
obliged to pay to the forest administrator the value equivalent to protective functions of forests. The
amendments to the Forest Code in 2015 included for the first time in Romanian legislation the concept of
ES and the compulsory payments for forest ecosystem services from the ES beneficiaries.
We have conducted a literature review to find out the scale of scientific developments worldwide
on ES topic. This was captured by analysing Web of Science, one of the largest databases in the world,
searching “ecosystem services” within the publication title. The results shows that about 8200
publications refers in the title at ES, with sum of the times cited of 71457, an average citation/item 18.57
and a h-index of 114. In order to capture the number of publications regarding ES in the field of forestry,
we have refined the results of the previous search adding forestry to the research area. The analysis of the
chart (Figure 1) shows that the publications number within this search has grown, reaching a peak in
2014. The figures in this search frame are: total number of publication: 254; sum of the times cited: 2596;
the average citation/item: 10.22; h-index: 25. Even though the forest ecosystems are one of the most
valuable in the context of providing services to society, only 3% of the publications that refers in the title
to ES are conducted in the forestry research area.
A qualitative assessment conducted within 5 national and nature in Romania, based on
interviews with the park managers and the parks’ management plans, have identified the most relevant
services provided by the national/nature park, as well as the importance of each ES (Bann and Popa,

101
2012). Here we can see that there is a variation between the analyzed parks in terms of ES provision, due
to: the protected area category that defines the protection and conservation goals, differences in parks’
natural features, experience in administration, management efforts and processes in place. Analyzing the
results and taking into account that the share of forest ecosystems in the park are about 70%, we can
assume that the presented ES are provided by the forest ecosystems.

Figure 1. Evolution of publications with the ES concept within the title and forestry research area

According to EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020, monetising the value of ES is important to raise
awareness of biodiversity values, and to ensure that they are reflected in decision-making at all levels. In
this context, we have identified TEEB database (van der Ploeg and de Groot, 2010) with 1310 monetary
case studies that allowed us to analyse and to draw relevant conclusion on the field of ES. The multitude
of case studies presented in the TEEB report and structured within the database, can help decision makers
to take the most appropriate decision on the use of natural resources.
We are aware that each service provided by ecosystems is extremely valuable and helps the
productivity of certain economic sectors and to human welfare. Even though, in order to find out which
were the most valuated ES, we have made a analysis of services taking into consideration the number of
evaluation studies per service (Figure 2), the most important ES being food, raw materials and recreation.

Figure 2. The number of TEEB valuation case studies per ecosystem service

102
 3.2. Valuation and mapping of ecosystem services

One of the first valuation studies of the world’s ES was conducted by Constanza and his
collaborators (1997), that estimated this value at – 33 trillion USD/year. The ES valuation continued with
initiatives as: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (TEEB), The Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network. The last one it was an
important study at EU level which estimated the value of the (terrestrial) Natura 2000 network benefits at
between € 200 and € 300 billion/year.
The review captured also the most used valuation methods in the research field, based on the
TEEB database analysis. The results are presented in the graph below (Figure 3). The graph shows that
the most used valuations methods within TEEB case studies were benefit transfer - that takes into account
the extrapolation of the results to other ecosystems more or less similar, and direct market pricing – that
have the advantage of using the market value of marketed goods and services.

Figure 3. ES valuation methods used within TEEB case studies

Further, we have filtered the database to find out the range of studies conducted on forest biome.
The results revealed that out of the total monetary case studies (1310), 7% (99) were conducted on forest
biome. This shows us again that forestry field it is relatively poorly studied, especially on the area of
forest ES assessment.
In Romania, one of the first projects that had a component of ES valuation were financed by
Global Environment Facility and implemented in Macin Mountains National Park and Maramures
Mountains Nature Park (2005-2009). These initiatives were continued within a project that aimed to
improve the financial sustainability of the Carpathian system of protected areas in Romania. Nowadays, a
series of projects, financed by the Norway Grants, intend to map and assess the ES within the frame of
EU biodiversity strategy 2014-2020 provisions.
In Figure 4 can be seen the spatial distribution of forest ES on each existing ES category. We can
observe that the regulating services and the supporting services are the most common. The cultural
services occur only around the touristic facilities. As we have mentioned, supporting services are the base
for producing the other services. This is validated within this analysis by the overlapping of the
supporting services and regulating ones.
The analysis revealed that within the park there are no production forests as main management
goal - provisioning services are not present, due to the fact that all the forests are included in the group I
of forests with special protection functions.
In the case study, about half of the forest units received in the management plan 3 functional
categories. The others have either two, or only one, even though the forest provides plenty of services.
Thus, we have made another analysis that shows the complexity of the forest unit (Figure 5).

103
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of forest ecosystem services in Retezat National Park

Figure 5. The complexity of forest units based on ES

In Romanian forest legislation, each functional category has a correspondence in forest

functional types that indicates the management measures at forest unit level. Total available data for
Retezat National Park represents about 15 thousand ha of forest and the distribution on forest functional
types is: TI 31%, TII 61%, TIII 7%, TIV 1%. Non-intervention area is about 4.700 ha (TI functional
type). Conservation works with no production goal (TII functional type – harvesting percent is about
10%/10 years) are foreseen in about 9100 ha. In the rest of the analysed area (about 1200 ha) sustainable
forest management harvesting is foreseen (TIII-TIV functional type). As we have mentioned above, the
total forest area within the park is about 20.000 ha. According to the park administration staff, the
difference of about 5.000 ha represents forest under non-intervention regime, for which we didn’t have
GIS database.

104
 4. CONCLUSION

The paper is not only a review that emphasize the evolution of the ES concept, definitions of the
ES, transition from ecosystem functions to ES, the research evolution on the field of ES, classification
systems, the most important forest ES and ES valuation methods. It also presents an innovative method
for rapid forest ES mapping, based on the correlation of forest functional system and ES classification,
through the forest management plan GIS database.
Within the review part of the paper we have seen that even though the ES concept is not new and
that an important number of publications were developed, the level of publications on the forestry
research area it is quite low (3% of the analysed publications). We conclude that the services provided by
forest ecosystems are relatively underrepresented in scientific research. This draw the need to conduct
additional research studies in this field.
The analysis on the TEEB valuation case studies per biome revealed that about 9% of the total
case studies are on forest biomes. According to this result, and taking into account that forest biome is
one of the most valuable terrestrial biome, we can draw the conclusion that additional valuation studies on
forest ES are required.
We have to emphasize again that all this publications and studies on ES valuation are very
important in order to raise awareness on the importance of forest ecosystems and the crucial need to
properly finance the forestry sector and protected areas system (e.g.: the costs for the administration of
private forest properties under 30 ha; compensations for private owners for the loss of income due to
restrictions based on protection functions established within forest management plans; the basic costs for
protected areas management; payments for ES from the ES beneficiaries to private owners/administrators
etc.).
Conclusions on the proposed method on mapping the forest ecosystem services are: the mapping
is limited at the ES category and to maximum three functional categories (due to the forest management
plan provisions) but we think that it is a rapid and useful tool that can use available data; it is obviously
that an integrated GIS system at the national level is essential to be prepared; we have seen that within the
analysed area of Retezat National Park there are areas with high touristic values that are not reflected
within the forest management plan. Thus, the forest management planning needs to be done more
carefully, in order to capture the most important services provided by the forest, especially where the
forest unit receives only one or two functional category.

REFERENCES

1. Bann, C., Popa, B., 2012. An assessment of the Contribution of Ecosystems in Protected Areas to
sector Growth and Human Well Being in Romania. UNDP, Bucharest.
2. Costanza, R., dʼArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,
OʼNeill, R.O., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and van der Belt, M., 1997. The Value of the
World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature – International Weekly Journal of Science,
vol. 387, pp. 253-260.
3. Daily G.C., 1997: Nature's Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press,
Washington DC, 392 p.
4. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J, 2002. A Typology for the Classification, Description
and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services. Ecological Economics, vol. 41(3), pp.
393-408.
5. FAO, 2016. State of the World’s Forests 2016. Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges and
opportunities. Rome.
6. Giurgiu, V., 1988. Management planning of forests with multiple functions. București: Editura Ceres.
7. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
(CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. Report to the European Environment
Agency. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.

105
 8. Hein, L., 2011. Economic benefits generated by protected areas: the case of the Hoge Veluwe forest,
the Netherlands. Ecology and Society, vol. 16(2), pp. 13.
9. Jenkins, W.A. et al., 2010. Valuing Ecosystem Services from Wetlands Restoration in the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley. Ecological Economics, vol. 69(5), pp. 1051-1061.
10. Kremen, C., 2005. Managing Ecosystem Services: What Do We Need to Know about Their Ecology?
Ecology Letters, vol. 8(5), pp. 468-479.
11. Nahlik, A. et al., 2012. Where Is the Consensus? A Proposed Foundation for Moving Ecosystem
Service Concepts into Practice. Ecological Economics, vol. 77(12), pp. 27-35.
12. Nelson, E. et al., 2009. Modelling Multiple Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity Conservation,
Commodity Production, and Trade-offs at Landscape Scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, vol. 7(1), pp. 4-11.
13. Popa, B. et al., 2013. The value of forest ecosystem services in Romanian protected areas – a
comparative analysis of management scenarios. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov,
Series II, vol. 6(55), no. 2, pp. 53-62.
14. Sarukhán, J., Whyte, A., (editors), 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment). Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.
15. van der Ploeg, S., de Groot, R.S., 2010. The TEEB Valuation Database – a searchable database of
1310 estimates of monetary values of ecosystem services. Foundation for Sustainable Development,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
16. van Wilgen, B.W., Cowling, R.M. and Burgers, Ch.J., 1996. Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Bio
Science, vol. 46(3), pp. 184-189.
17. Worboys, G. L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S. and Pulsford, I. (eds) (2015) Protected Area
Governance and Management, ANU Press, Canberra.
18. *** Retezat National Park Administration (RNPA), 2016. Management Plan of Retezat National
Park.
19. *** United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. National Ecosystem Services
Classification System (NESCS): Framework Design and Policy Application. EPA-800-R-15-002.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
20. *** The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2008. An interim report, Cambridge. URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf accessed on:
March 7, 2017.
21. *** www.roifn.ro accessed on: March 7, 2017.

106

View publication stats