Forest ecosystem services in Romania: Orchestrating regulatory and voluntary planning documents

被引:11
作者
Nichiforel, Liviu [1 ]
Duduman, Gabriel [1 ]
Scriban, Ramona Elena [1 ]
Popa, Bogdan [2 ]
Barnoaiea, Ionut [1 ]
Dragoi, Marian [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Stefan Cel Mare Suceava, Fac Forestry, Suceava 720225, Romania
[2] Transilvania Univ Brasov, Fac Silviculture & Forest Engn, Brasov 500123, Romania
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
Forest management plans; Natura; 2000; Forest certification; Ecosystem services approach; Functional integration; NATURA; 2000; SITES; PROTECTED AREAS; MANAGEMENT; BIODIVERSITY; GOVERNANCE; POLICY; CERTIFICATION; CLASSIFICATION; IMPLEMENTATION; CONSERVATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101276
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Romania has traditionally dealt with forest ecosystem services (FES) using a regulatory process of designing forest management plans (FMPs). We set an analytical framework to assess the integrated approach between FMPs, Natura 2000 biodiversity conservation network, and the forest certification system. The results show that, despite some relevant additional inputs, the delivery of FES remains strongly related to the normative FMP process. The specific presence of protected species and habitats of community interest has been identified on 18% of the Natura 2000 area included in the analysis. The Natura 2000 management plans are largely conveyed in elusive and precautionary terms of reference, so adding opportunity and administrative costs supported by forest owners. The participatory approach used in the forest certification process resulted in the identification of additional cultural, regulating and habitat ecosystem services on 1.6% of the analysed area. Considering the discrepancies between de jure normative planning and de facto implementation, we discuss the need for adapting the regulatory FES governance framework by making use of e.g. bottom-up participatory approaches, monitoring indicators for the effectiveness of management measures, and valuation techniques that would make beneficiaries and civil society to consider the opportunity costs for the delivery of FES.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 79 条
[1]  
Abrudan IV, 2009, NOT BOT HORTI AGROBO, V37, P14
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1986, TECHNICAL RULES FORE
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2017, Eur. J. Geogr
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2007, ORDER 572007 REGIM 1
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2018, EIONET NATURA 2000 U
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2015, State of Europes Forest
[7]   An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making [J].
Armatas, Christopher A. ;
Campbell, Robert M. ;
Watson, Alan E. ;
Borrie, William T. ;
Christensen, Neal ;
Venn, Tyron J. .
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2018, 33 :1-18
[8]  
Arts B. J. M., 2010, IUFRO World Series, V28, P57
[9]   Certification Schemes and the Impacts on Forests and Forestry [J].
Auld, Graeme ;
Gulbrandsen, Lars H. ;
McDermott, Constance L. .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, 2008, 33 (187-211) :187-211
[10]   The role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites [J].
Bastian, Olaf .
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2013, 24 :12-22