Available online at www.notulaebotanicae.ro Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 37 (2) 2009, 14-21 Print ISSN 0255-965X; Electronic ISSN 1842-4309 Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca Developments in the Romanian Forestry and its Linkages with other Sectors Ioan Vasile ABRUDAN1) , Viorel MARINESCU1) , Ovidiu IONESCU1) Florin IORAS2) , Sergiu Andrei HORODNIC3) , Radu SESTRAS4) 1) Transilania University, 1 Sirul Beethoen St., 500123 Braso, Romania; abrudan@unitbv.ro 2) Buckinghamshire New University, Queen Alexandra Road, Bucks HP11 2JZ - High Wycombe, United Kingdom; Florin.Ioras@bucks.ac.uk 3) University ?Stefan cel Mare?, 13 University St., 720229 Suceava, Romania; horodnic@usv.ro 4) University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Manastur St., 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; rsestras@yahoo.co.uk Abstract The evolution of the forestry sector in the last two decades in Romania has been significantly influenced by the post 1989 political and economic changes, forest restitution and the European Union accession process. Based on the analysis of forestry statistics, legislation and institutional changes this paper underlines the main developments in the forestry sector in the last twenty years and the linkages with other sectors that had an impact on its development. The significant change in forest ownership (based on which 45% of the Romanian forest is nowadays in non-state hands), the unprecedented re-organisation of the forest sector through the institutional separation of the regulatory, control and forest management functions, the changes in forest administration (including the establishment of more than 110 private forest districts) and the full privatisation of the wood harvesting and processing sector complemented by foreign investments have shaped the forest sector development in a context in which the forest resource remained almost unchanged. Major developments have been recorded in the establishment and management of large protected areas as National Forest Administration Romsilva is currently administrating 22 national and nature parks. Both positive and negative interactions of forestry with environmental protection, wood processing, agriculture, rural development, road infrastructure and tourism sectors have also impacted the evolution of the forest sector. Development policy options recommended by authors include among others the strengthening of the public authority responsible for forestry, reorganisation of the state forest administration and supporting the access of forest owners to the national and EU funding and compensation schemes for forestry. Keywords: cross-sectoral, forest policy, land restitution, Romania FORESTRY SECTOR: BASIC FACTS Romania?s forests and other wooded lands cover about 29% of the country (for the main features see Table 1) and include some of the largest tracts of natural forests still re- maining in Central and Eastern Europe. Forests have had an important role in Romania?s eco- nomic development, especially in the rural area, provid- ing an important source of income from wood harvesting, wood processing and non-timber forest product indus- tries (Poynton et al., 2000). Compared to other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, forestry based sector and industries are still a signicant contributor to the national economy: 3.5% contribution to GDP in 2007 (UNECE, 2009). Forest area According to the provisions of the recently approved Forest Code (Law 46/2008), forest is dened as an area of minimum 0.25 ha covered by trees whose height at matu- rity is at least 5m, under normal growing conditions. All Tab. 1. Main features of Romania?s forests Total forest and other wooded land area 6.649 million ha Forest ownership ( June 2009): State-owned forests 55% Non-state forests 45% Forest types: Coniferous (especially spruce) 30% Beech 31% Oaks 18% Other 21% National forest stock 1,347 million m3 Annual growth 5.4 m3/ha-year Geographical distribution of forests: Mountains 65% Hills 27% Plains 8% Functional distribution (2009): Protection forests (not protected areas) 51% Production forests 49% Forest area with no active intervention 161 thousands ha Abrudan, I. V. et al. / Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 37 (2) 2009,14-21 15 harvesting, 67,000 in the woodworking industry, 21,000 in the pulp and paper industry and 104,000 in the furni- ture industry (Istratescu et al., 2001). By 2008, the total number of employees in the forest based sector and indus- tries decreased to circa 161,000 (UNECE, 2009). In the period 1991 - mid 2009, the number of employees in state forest management (National Forest Administration - NFA Romsilva) decreased from 39,561 in 1991 to 27,098 in 1999 and about 21,400 in mid 2009 (Regia Nationala a Padurilor Romsilva, 2009). Whilst the signicant reduc- tion in the period 1991-1999 was due to the restructuring of NFA Romsilva and the externalisation of some of its previous activities, aerwards the restitution of forests has been another factor which aected the decrease of jobs in state forest administration. e contribution of the forestry (including the pro- cessing sector) to GDP ranged between 3.5 and 4.5% in the last decade (National Institute of Statistics, 1999- 2008). e export value and volume of wood products and furniture increased continuously in the last ten years, despite some uctuations of pulp, paper and cardboard ex- port (Ioras and Abrudan, 2006). e annual export value of forest products in the last three years (including pro- cessed timber and furniture) exceeded 2 billion US$ mak- ing Romania a net exporter of wood based products. For example, in the recent years Romania exported about 80% of its furniture production and the export of furniture was mainly directed to the major markets of the world: Ger- many, France, Holland, Italy, Austria, Great Britain, USA etc. (Cismaru, 2005). e non-pecuniary values of forests are, however, con- siderably larger than the nancial values, but traditional accounting methods have tended to mask this. A study commissioned by the World Bank in 1999 (Poynton et al., 2000) showed that the annual value of products and ser- vices (including the environmental ones) provided by the Romanian forests was around 3.1 billion US $. Forest and nature conservation e Romanian Network of Protected Areas covers more than 1.65 million ha or about 6.9% of the country?s area. Apart from the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve there are other 27 large protected areas - national parks and nature parks (22 of them administrated by NFA Rom- silva), including 134 nature reserves and natural monu- ments, and covering 1.17 million ha. More than 693 na- ture reserves and natural monuments are outside the large protected areas and cover 102,534 ha (Borlea et al., 2006; Abrudan et al., 2005). About 10.4% of the national for- est area is included in the national and nature parks and 160.429 ha of forests are strictly protected. Before 1999 none of the large protected areas had le- gally established administrative structures in place, except Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. is situation was due to the poor capacity of the state budged to nance the ad- ministration of protected areas. Under these circumstanc- such areas are included in the so called ?national forest fund?. It is also considered forest the area covered by forest protection belts, dwarf pine communities and the mead- ows covered by trees with a canopy closure index higher than 0.4 (Law 46/2008). Forest area has remained approx- imately unchanged in the last two decades in Romania: 6.6-6.7 million ha of forests and land partially covered by forests (National Institute of Statistics 1991, 2008). e slight uctuations of statistical data for the last two de- cades reect the statistical reporting inconsistencies rather than the real changes in the forest and forest land area in Romania. However, a slight increase in the aorestation of degraded agricultural lands aer 2000 should be noticed (Abrudan et al., 2003; Abrudan, 2006). Forest ownership Aer the fall of communist regime in December 1989, the Government embarked on a program of land restitu- tion. As an initial measure, under Law 18/1991, approxi- mately 353,000 hectares of forest land were returned to around 400,000 pre-1948 individual owners (up to 1ha per owner). In 2000, another land restitution law (Law 1/2000) was passed by the Parliament and according to this law all community, town and communal forests should be restituted to their former owners. e restitution was limited to 10 ha for individuals and 30 ha for churches, even if the size of their ownership before the 1948 nation- alization was larger than these imposed limits; protected forests were exempted from restitution. e third restitu- tion law (Law 247/2005) was passed in 2005 and accord- ing to its provisions all forest (including protected areas) should be restituted to the former owners irrespective of size, location and ownership type. Although not nalised yet, the implementation of the restitution laws determined a signicant change in forest ownership in Romania: by the end of June 2009, more than 45% of the Romanian forests were in non-state ownership and it is foreseen that, at the end of the restitution process, approximately 60% of the country?s forests will be owned by other owners than the state (Regia Nationala a Padurilor Romsilva, 2009). Forestry production In the period 1991-2008 the annual allowable cut var- ied between 15.5 and 18.5 million m3. It has never been exceeded by the actual harvest, excepting 1996, as a result of 1995 windthrow (Abrudan et al., 2005). e harvesting and wood processing sector is fully pri- vatised and there are more than 300 enterprises with more than 50 employees performing timber processing (except furniture sector) whilst the number of wood processing companies employing less than 50 employees exceeded 5,000 in 2005 (National Institute of Statistics, 2006). In 2005 there were about 2,900 companies which produced furniture or component parts for furniture. About 28,000 people were employed in 2000 in for- est administration and management, circa 15,000 in wood Abrudan, I. V. et al. / Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 37 (2) 2009, 14-21 16 es the only eective legal tool to protect the forests within the protected areas had been the forest management plan. According to the provisions of the forest management plans about 477,000 ha of forests were included in the na- tional network of protected areas and around a third of them were strictly protected In 1999 the World Bank ? GEF funded Biodiversity Conservation Management Project became eective and administrations for three large protected areas (Retezat National Park, Piatra Craiului National Park and Vanatori Neamt Natural Park ? a new protected area) were estab- lished within the NFA Romsilva, as part of the three main objectives of the Project: (1) Strengthening the national framework for biodiversity conservation; (2) Developing models for protected areas management, and (3) Building public support for biodiversity conservation (World Bank 1999). Despite the fact that the development of eective management plans for other ve protected areas (Ceahlau, Balta Mica a Brailei, Portile de Fier, Apuseni and Muntii Macinului) had been supported by international projects (Life Natura, Global Environmental Facility ? GEF etc.), none of them had legally established administrative struc- tures. In early 2002 the Board of NFA Romsilva decided the establishment of the administrations for all national and natural parks under its Protected Areas Service, consider- ing that in all of them the majority of the area is covered by forests. However, this was an internal decision and although it had signicantly contributed to the improve- ment of nature protection infrastructure, the public au- thority responsible for environmental protection had not approved ocially the establishment of these administra- tions. One year later, a legislative development in nature protection and protected area administration - the ?Go- ernmental Decision 230/2003 regarding the delineation of the biosphere reserves, national parks and natural parks and the establishment of their administrations?, approved in March 2003 ? created the proper framework for the ad- ministration of large protected areas. e administrative structures could be either (a) in the subordination of the public authority responsible for the environmental protec- tion or (b) under the coordination of the public authority responsible for the environmental protection, based on a contract with bodies capable to prove their technical, sci- entic, administrative and nancial capacity for protected areas administration. It also mentioned that the main land owner in a protected area had the right to administer the respective protected area (on a contractual basis) if the above mentioned capacity is proved. e minimum dura- tion for the administration contracts is 10 years. Under these new circumstances, the NFA Romsilva submitted its oer for the management of the national and nature parks and since February 2004 the public authority for environmental protection assigned the management of 22 national and nature parks to NFA Romsilva, on a con- tractual basis. FOREST SECTOR DEVELOPMENT AND ITS MAIN LINKAGES WITH OTHER SECTORS Sustainable forest management and the development of the forest sector in Romania is aected by three catego- ries of factors: (a) internal factors, residing within the for- est sector itself, (b) external factors, residing outside the forest sector and (c) international processes, including the EU membership (Abrudan et al., 2005). Considering the direct and indirect linkages between them, each of these categories of factors can be hardly separated from the oth- ers. e internal factors aecting the forest sector are mainly linked to the wood resource, the wood market and the institutional arrangements for forest management and administration. ere have been no signicant changes in the wood resource in Romania in the last decades, as the forest area and species composition remained almost unchanged. However, due to the slightly unbalanced age classes and the selective harvesting of valuable species in some parts of the country, it is expected that the size and quality of wood to be harvested on a medium-long term will decrease. On the other hand, the recent restitution of about 45% of the Romanian forests might lead to an increased harvest and wood supply from these forests - mainly for economic rea- sons - compared to the previous management practiced by the NFA Romsilva, which had an important ecological/ protection component. Despite the fact that the average price of wood (standing or roadside) has increased almost continuously aer 1990, as it was lower than in other Central and Western Europe- an countries, it is hard to anticipate its evolution in the fu- ture. On a medium term it might be possible that the prices for standing or roadside wood in Romania would become similar to those in other Central European countries. As Romania is a net exporter of wood and wood products the international evolution of wood product prices will clearly have an impact on the domestic market. e institutional changes in the forestry sector have known a tumultuous evolution aer 1990. If during the communist period the regulatory, supervisory and man- agement of the state-owned forest property functions were in one hand (Ministry of Forests), in early 1990 the rst two functions of the state were separated from the management function via the establishment of the NFA Romsilva (reorganized several times since then). Department of Forests (within the Ministry of Envi- ronment before 2001 and the Ministry of Agriculture aerwards) has been the public authority responsible for forests in Romania. In spite of the many changes, the regu- Abrudan, I. V. et al. / Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 37 (2) 2009,14-21 17 latory and supervisory/support functions were contained in dierent directorates of the Department of Forests. In 1999 the Forest Inspectorates were established, ini- tially with 7 territorial branches, which were expanded to 16 branches in 2001, as the restitution process was immi- nent. eir function was to enforce at regional level the supervision/support functions of the public authority for forests. Due to the Cabinet re-organization, in spring 2003 the Forest Inspectorates were transferred to the National Environmental Guard within the National Authority for Control and le the Department of Forests without any territorial structures. is situation changed in January 2004, when Territorial Inspectorates for Forest Regime and Hunting were established in each of the 8 develop- ment regions of the country and the capital. e Department of Forests has faced some diculties regarding the capacity and physical resources to undertake its roles and stang has not reached the initial planned level due to budgetary constraints. e National Forest Administration Romsila admin- istrates and manages the state forests and is a legal state- owned entity with an essentially commercial mandate. It has 42 branches and more than 360 forest districts and operates as a nancially autonomous organization per- forming forest management and silvicultural operations, engaging in non- timber forest products and services. It undertakes a wide range of public purpose activities and is responsible for the management of protected forest ar- eas and national parks, which have been functioning since early 2009 as distinct legal entities. NFA Romsilva also has in its administrative structure the Forest Research and Management Planning Institute. e NFA Romsilva is, like many state-owned organiza- tions, coming under increasing political pressure and pub- lic scrutiny regarding the stewardship of state assets under its management. Forest restitution has already reduced the state forest area managed by NFA Romsilva by up to 45% with consequent reduction in revenues and the greater im- pact on xed costs. e focus to date, despite the major issues facing the company, has been principally on stang at branch and district oces and less on processes, opera- tional eciency and exploring choices or options for its strategic development. An important institutional milestone in the evolution of the forestry sector in Romania aer the fall of commu- nism was the establishment of the rst private forest dis- trict (an administrative/management structure for private forests, similar to those of NFA Romsilva) in spring 2002. Since then, more than 110 private forest districts have been established (managing more than 1.1 million ha of for- ests) and in 2004 they established an umbrella association named Association of Forest Administrators from Roma- nia. e number of private forest districts is expected to increase in the coming years, in parallel with the reduction of NFA Romsilva forest districts, as a consequence of the restitution process. Although NFA Romsilva will remain the main player in forest management in Romania, the private forest districts will play an increasing role in the Romanian forest sector and on the wood market. e Association of Private Forest Owners (APPR) is a national umbrella organization established in 1998 and representing all categories of private forest owners in Ro- mania. Its membership includes local and county associa- tions, communes, town halls and individual members. e APPR has an important role to play in promoting sustain- able management of restituted forests as their owners or applicants under the restitution program are unaware not only of their rights and obligations but also of the value to be derived from the sale of timber and other products and the importance of sustainable forest management. Despite its important role, APPR is facing nancial and stang problems as well as conicting discussions between its dif- ferent types of members. Regarding the external factors, residing outside the for- est sector it should be mentioned that there is a complex network of public policies and legislation which directly and indirectly aects the development of the forest sec- tor in Romania: (a) policies establishing the institutional framework, (b) policies related to specic economic sec- tors, and (c) policies promoting development (Abrudan, 2002). In the last two decades the economic situation (and es- pecially economic growth) has signicantly aected the forestry sector, including forest management. For example, the years of econom-ic decline in the 90?s have negatively impacted on the activity of logging and processing compa- nies and indirectly reduced the volume and quality of for- est operations, as well as the income of the NFA Romsilva and its investment capacity. is situation has changed in the last ten years and the improvement of the economic situation is expected to continue. On the other hand, the budget allocation for forestry has been limited and many of the Governmental programmes related to forestry were only partially achieved. e restitution of forest land and the privatization of wood harvesting, transport and processing sector have prob- ably had the highest impact on the evolution of the for- estry sector and forest management in Romania. e size of the restituted forests according to Law 18/1991, which in many cases represented only part of the pre-nationaliza- tion individual ownership, created frustration among for- est owners. In addition, the poor capacity to enforce the forest legislation and to raise forest owners? awareness on sustainable forest management resulted in signicant en- vironmental damages in private forests. Although private forest management structures have been established, the general opinion is that in the short term, the forests res- tituted according to the 2000 and 2005 restitution laws, will face some management diculties. e reasons for this include: lack of capacity and knowledge; vested inter- est in gaining immediate economic benets; and improper law enforcement capacity. Abrudan, I. V. et al. / Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 37 (2) 2009, 14-21 18 e completed privatization of wood harvesting, trans- port and processing has had mainly positive eects on for- est management. Privatization resulted in a higher compe- tition for wood resources and increased prices for standing wood, with direct nancial benets for NFA Romsilva. e public nancing has a direct impact on the devel- opment of the forestry sector as the regulatory, control and extension functions of the state are depending on the annual budget allocation. Budgetary allocation for forest sector has been relatively small in the last two decades, thus particularly aecting the control and extension func- tions, as well as the public authority sta quality and com- mitment. A signicant improvement resulted from the implementation of the World Bank Forest Development Project (2003-2009), which provided resources for equip- ment, vehicles and training for forest inspectorates. In previous years the agricultural policies and legislation have had some important inuences on forest sector devel- opment. An important aspect of Romanian forestry is that any agricultural policy and regulation must not lead to the reduction of the public forest area. Indeed the aoresta- tion of degraded agricultural land has been a stated prior- ity within the Governmental policy to increase the forest cover. Such priorities also agree with EU agricultural and rural development policies, given that Romania?s forest cover per capita is presently lower than the EU average. Some agricultural policies as well as agricultural activities have negative eects on forests and forest management. Despite being forbidden by law, grazing represents by far the main problem, and the capacity to enforce the legisla- tion in this respect should increase. Game management and hunting legislation are also im- pacting on forest management. According to the existing legislation the central public authority for game manage- ment assigns the game management right to the legally established hunting organizations. is provision has cre- ated some conicts between hunting organizations and private agricultural and forest land owners, so this situa- tion should be addressed in the near future. e last decades have been characterized by an almost continuous dispute between the ministry responsible for forest management and the public authority responsible for wood harvesting and processing. While the rst one has taken measures towards a better use of forest resources, free competition for wood resources and harvesting methods fullling ecological requirements, the latter has been ght- ing and lobbying for a cheap resource and advantageous contractual terms for wood harvesting. In early 2001, the Cabinet approved the supervision of the reserve price for standing wood that the NFA Romsilva sold by auction. is was perceived as a state intervention to control the standing wood price in areas where the competition for wood resource is low, so it was removed ve years later, as it is not common in a free-market economy. In the period 1990-2000, forests, enironmental pro- tection and water management were under the same public authority (ministry) and as a result of this situation there were no major conicts between these sectors. e envi- ronmental protection strategies have included strategic objectives with direct positive inuence on forest devel- opment: extension of forest area; establishment of for- est belts in areas exposed to desertication; aorestation of degraded agricultural land and improvement of the legislation on forest protection. In 2001 the forests were moved under the authority of the ministry responsible for agriculture and since then there have been several major disputes between the environment and agriculture minis- tries; these were mainly related to the legislation initiatives regarding forest and wildlife protection, delineation and management of protected areas as well as the designation of Natura 2000 network. ere have been many linkages between forestry and nature conservation in the last century. While intensive logging had negative impacts on nature conservation in the rst half of the twentieth century, the close to nature approach that has been practiced extensively since the 1950s in Romanian forestry has reduced such impacts. Many forest ecosystems and wildlife species have been pre- served due to the eorts of foresters. Forest organisations have also been largely involved in most of the processes, programs and activities related to nature conservation in the last decades, including the establishment of the admin- istrations for the rst large protected areas in the Roma- nian Carpathians. Despite the fact that foresters and for- est organizations have signicantly contributed to nature conservation, there have also been situations when their actions have had negative impacts. ere are examples of negative cumulative eects of harvesting on water qual- ity, ora and fauna. However, in the last decade forest- ers have increasingly become more open to the dialogue with conservation organizations and the general public on nature conservation issues. e strong involvement of NFA Romsilva in the management of the vast majority of large protected areas in Romania will certainly improve its nature conservation skills as well as its cooperation with other stakeholders. ere are close linkages between tourism and forestry, especially in the Carpathian region and recently the co- operation between the public authorities responsible for tourism and forestry has improved signicantly. e na- tional authority for tourism participated actively in the development of the National Forest Policy and Strategy. e development of eco-tourism has become a priority action both for the forestry sector and the public author- ity responsible for tourism. While the presence of forest seems to have a positive impact on tourism, the latter has mainly had a relatively negative impact on forests: clear- felling to allow development and construction of hotels, restaurants, skiing facilities etc.; garbage le in the forest by tourists; illegal camping and picnicking; and forest res caused by the negligence of tourists are relevant examples. Abrudan, I. V. et al. / Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 37 (2) 2009,14-21 19 International processes regarding forest management or associated with forests have played and will continue to play an important role in the development of the forest sector. As signatory of several international conentions or agreements, Romania has the obligation to implement and enforce their provisions in the country. e resolutions of the Pan-European Ministerial Con- ferences on the Protection of Forests, the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997) are probably the international processes with the highest impact on the development of the forest sector in Romania, especially at the forest management level. Forest certication is also inuencing the development of the for- est sector and its benets cannot be neglected in a country which is a net exporter of wood and wood products. Integrating forest management and planning within the broader context of rural development, agriculture and landscape planning has become an important issue espe- cially in the context of EU accession and membership. Among issues with relevance to the forest sector in Romania as an accession and, aer 2007, an EU member country, harmonisation of national legislation with the EU legal framework stand out. A high priority has been accorded to the relevant regulations concerning forests and forestry: protection of forests against atmospheric pollution and forest re (the emphasis is on ensuring that arrangements for monitoring and prevention mechanisms are appropriate), the marketing of forest reproductive ma- terial, removal of market distortions and obstacles and the establishment of a European Forestry Information and Communication System (EFICS). Although not the di- rect responsibility of the forest sector, the establishment of the network of protected sites under the NATURA 2000 programme underpinned by the so-called ?Habitats Directive? and ?Birds Directive? have been also aected the sustainable management and conservation of forest ar- eas. It should be emphasized that Romania?s eort towards harmonization of national legislation and administrative arrangements with EU Directives and Regulations has led to a better inter-sectoral cooperation and coordination on specic cross-sectoral issues. POLICY OPTIONS In recent years the formulation of policy and develop- ment planning has been characterized by inter-administra- tive and governmental agency cooperation, as well as in- volvement of the main stakeholders, public participation and transparency. As many other sectoral policies, the Na- tional Forest Policy and Strategy was developed through an open, transparent and participatory processes, coordi- nated by the public authority responsible for forests. e following stakeholder groups were involved in the process: public authorities for forests, environmental protection, agriculture, waters, industry and trade, tourism; state for- est administration (all administrative levels); private forest Development and modernization of the road ina- structure (public and forest roads) have both negative and positive impacts on forest sector development. e nega- tive impacts result from forest clear-felling to make room for new public roads or motorways. In many cases the Government approves the clear-felling and exempts the development from the land use change tax. On the other hand, the development of the transport infrastructure has a positive impact on forest management, as it provides bet- ter access to forest resources, both for harvesting and tend- ing and maintenance operations. Although there is no separate public authority respon- sible for rural development, this sector ? coordinated by the ministry responsible for agriculture - is highly impor- tant, especially within the framework of the EU funding mechanisms. Romania developed a National Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development (NPARD) and sig- nicant EU support for the NPARD implementation in the period 2004-2006 was available to Romania under SAPARD. For the period 2007-2013, a National Plan for Rural Development (NPRD) was developed and EU is nancially supporting its implementation. Some of the measures eligible for funding under SAPARD and NPRD are directly related to forestry and have a positive inuence on forest sector development: aorestation of degraded agricultural lands, establishment of forest nurseries, con- struction of forest roads, modernization of wood harvest- ing and processing, establishment of local associations of private forest owners etc. Forestry education and research play an important role in the development of the forestry sector. Forestry high schools and the higher education institutions provide the technical sta employed by the sector and also carry out forestry research. e development of forestry higher education programs in seven new universities in the last two decades and the recent year ?ination? of graduates of both medium and higher education institutions have im- pacted mainly negatively on the development of the forest sector. e negative eect resulted from the lower level of knowledge of the graduates. e quality of education was aected by the increased number of students, despite the fact that the higher competition for a job in the forest sec- tor should lead to the employment of qualied sta. It is a clear need in a short-medium term to correlate the num- ber of students funded by the state with the employment capacity of the forestry sector. In recent years the elds of research have been adapted to the needs of the national and EU forest sector develop- ment. However, the research institute and the universities, like many other organizations with a mandate for for- est research, are nding it increasingly dicult to source funding. While they have the professional and technical expertise to implement management planning and re- search, they need to increase their capability in identifying national and international funding lines, including private sector. Abrudan, I. V. et al. / Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 37 (2) 2009, 14-21 20 eciency, as well as optimizing its contribution to the economy of Romania, through the sustainable manage- ment of state forest resources. e NFA Romsilva and the public authority responsible for agriculture should also de- cide on the position of the Forest Research and Manage- ment Planning Institute (ICAS) in the forestry sector as it is unusual to have such an institute within the state forest administration, especially aer the approval of the Forest Code in 2008, which species that ICAS will become an independent national research institute. e National Association of Private Forest Owners (APPR) as well as the local associations will play an im- portant role in the management of private forests and the promotion of private owners? interests. APPR should be supported to fulll its role in the sustainable development of restituted forests and their new forest owners through: facilitating the development and consolidation of local and county ownership associations; development and pro- vision of extension services; facilitating access and draw- down of EU and national funding; lobbying at national level and public awareness at national and local levels. With regard to future ownership, the maintenance of the ecological functions of the restituted forests (e.g. climate, soil and watershed protection, biodiversity etc.) should represent a priority, especially in the mountain areas. e development and enforcement of the appropriate regula- tions and the development of nancial mechanisms (- nancial assistance/compensations, tax exemptions, etc.) to support sustainable forest management, as well as the development of alternative income generating activities in rural areas, are potential ways to achieve this objective. Such development will however require a concerted and coordinated eort of the Department of Forests, Territo- rial Inspectorates, private forest districts, APPR, local as- sociations of private owners and the central and local au- thorities. owners (national and regional levels); private sector (for- est management planning, logging, primary processing); Environmental Protection Agency; local governments and councils; Romanian Academy; research (forest manage- ment, logging, wood processing); education (universities); administrations of protected areas; non-governmental organizations; development organizations (World Bank, European Commission oces in Romania); general pub- lic; mass-media. e National Forest Policy and Strategy developed in 2000 and revised in 2005 is in accordance with the national development strategy, and includes clear policy statements and strategic objectives (see Box 1). A series of priorities regarding the implementation of NFPS and the sustainable development of the forest sec- tor should be addressed in a short and medium term. e institutional strengthening of the Department of Forests should represent a priority for the development of the forestry sector. Apart from the strengthening of the existing Directorates within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development, there is now an urgent need to support the normal functioning of the nine Ter- ritorial Inspectorates for Forest Regime and Hunting. In the legislation development process the Department of Forests should enhance its collaboration and dialogue with the main forest stakeholders and interest groups (pri- vate owners, private sector, research and education, con- servationists, NGOs etc.) in order to adequately reect and represent their opinions and interests. While presently about 45% of the Romanian forests are in non-state ownership, the role and mandate of the NFA Romsila should be adapted to its new position in the Romanian forestry sector. e administrator of the state forests should reconsider its portfolio of activities and enhance its commercial mandate as it has to face the private sector competition. is would involve the devel- opment of its organizational, operational and commercial Policy: TO ENSURE FOREST MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DIVERSITY IN FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP Strategic objectives: ? Modification and development of the organizational structures for forest administration and control of law enforcement in order to adapt them to the diversification in forest land ownership ? Establishment of the institutional framework to implement the principles of sustainable forest management and the assurance of the necessary implementation framework through the forest management planning process ? Assurance of the integrity and enlargement of the forest fund, and enlargement of the area covered by forest vegetation on other lands ? Assurance of the stability and improvement in the functional efficiency of forest ecosystems ? Improvement in the accessibility of the forest fund ? Reconstruction of degraded forests (economic and ecological) ? Support of forest land owners for sustainable forest management ? Conservation of the forest ecosystem biodiversity and development of the necessary institutional framework ? Integration of representative forest ecosystems in the national network of protected areas ? Sustainable management of game and fish resources within the forest area ? Development of the supply of non timber forest products and services ? Awareness campaign for the public, forest land owners, decision makers and politicians regarding the national forest resources Box 1. e policy statement and the strategic objectives included in the National Forest Policy and Strategy Abrudan, I. V. et al. / Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 37 (2) 2009,14-21 21 Policy Development in Countries in Transitions. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Cismaru, I. (2005). Wood Industry in Romania ? Present and Perspectives. Proceedings of the 8th International IUFRO Wood Drying Conference, Brasov, Romania: 3-8. Ioras F. and I. V. Abrudan (2006). Romanian forestry sector ? privatisation facts. e International Forestry Review 8(3):361-367. Istratescu, C., A. Sereny and G. Parnuta, (2001). Romania?s Forest Products Markets. Forest Products Annual Market Review 2000-2001. Timber Bulletin ? Volume LIV (2001), No.3. FAO, UNECE, Rome, p: 21-32; National Institute for Statistics (1991-2008). Romania. Statistical Yearbook. Bucuresti. Poynton, S., A. Mitchell, G. Ionascu, F. Mc Kinnenn, J. Elliott and I.V. Abrudan (2000). Economic evaluation and reform of the Romanian forestry sector. Editura Pentru viata, Brasov. Regia Nationala a Padurilor Romsilva (2003). Buletin informativ (oct. 2003). Bucuresti. Regia Nationala a Padurilor Romsilva (2009): Raport de activitate pe semestrul I ? 2009. Bucuresti. UNECE-Timber Committee (2009). Data and Statistics. Forest Resources. Forest Products. http://timber.unece.org/index. php?id=84. World Bank (1999). Biodiversity Conservation Management Project. Project Appraisal Document. Washington DC. World Bank (2001). Support for the Romania National Forest Policy and Strategy. Final Report. Washington DC. World Bank (2003). Forest Development Project. Project Appraisal Document. Washington DC. Considering the high production and protection value of Romanian forests and the public services provided by forest ecosystems, as well as the ongoing changes in forest ownership there is a strong need for a continuous public awareness campaign on sustainable management and con- servation of forest resources. e campaign should target key stakeholders including: the general public, with par- ticular emphasis on communities living in forested areas; private forest owners (individuals and communities); Ter- ritorial Directorates; Government decision makers, and other inuential groups. References Abrudan, I. V. (2002). Cross-sectoral linkages in Romanian forestry. Report prepared for the FAO Forestry Department, Policy and Planning Division, Policy and Institutions Branch, Rome. Abrudan, I. V., C. Pahontu, F. Negrutiu and G. Florescu (2003). Aspects of aorestation work carried out in Romania, 1991- 2001 (in Romanian). Padurea si viitorul, Brasov, p: 97-100. Abrudan, I. V., V. Marinescu, G. Ignea and C. Codreanu (2005). Present situation and trends in Romanian forestry. Proceedings of the 6th IUFRO 6.13.00 Group Meeting: Legal Aspects of European Forest Sustainable Development. Ed. Universitatii Transilvania, Brasov, p: 157-171. Abrudan, I. V. (2006). Aorestation (in Romanian) Ed. Universitatii Transilvania, Brasov. Borlea, G., S. Radu and D. Stana (2006). Forest Biodiversity Preservation in Romania. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 34(1):21-27. Bouriaud, L. and I. V. Abrudan (2004). Recent forest policy developments in Romania and the main challenges ahead. p. 159-174. In: L. Jansky, R. Nevenic, I. Tikkanen and B. Pajari, (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Challenges in Strengthening of Capacities for Forest