Table of content:

Acknowledgements & Authors

Summary

List of abbreviations

Introduction

1. Ecological Network of Moldova

1.1. Components of Eco-Network

1.2. Geographical Aspects of NENM

1.3. Levels of Components of the Eco-Network

1.4. Eco-Network as Informational System

2. System of Criteria for Estimate of Value of Components of Ecological Network

2.1. Criteria for Attribution of Particular Status to Core Areas with Natural and Semi-Natural Ecosystem Cover

2.2. Criteria for Ranking Areas of the Eco-Network which are Not Core Areas

2.3. Principles for Designating Areas Intended for Ecological Restoration and for Establishing Biological Corridors in Conditions of Excessive Economic Land Use

2.4. Use of Lands for Establishing Biological Corridors and Restoration, which Not Meet Criteria of Areas Intended for Ecological Restoration

3. Operational Checklists

3.1. Operational Checklist of Vascular Plants

3.2. Operational Checklist List of Endemic Vegetation Associations

3.3. Operational List of Insects

3.4. Operational List of Terrestrial Vertebrates

4. Objects of Eco-Network

5. Main Actions Concerning National Eco-Network of Moldova

6. Estimation of Potential and Some Recommendations for Establishing National Ecological Network of Moldova

6.1. Main Conditions for Establishing NENM

6.1.1. Elaborating the Concept of Eco-Network in Moldova

6.1.2. Ecological and Socio-Economical Conditions of Forming Eco-Network

6.1.3. Analysis of Legal Framework for Establishing National Eco-Network

6.2. Comment on Results of Area Estimations, Based on Main Components of Ecological Network of Moldova (by Biological Indicators)

6.2.1. Estimation of Core Areas

6.2.2. Designated Components of Eco-Network in the Structure of the Country’s Area

6.3. Recommendations

6.3.1. Concerning the Development of a System of Management for Natural Protected Areas

6.3.2. Priorities of scientific estimation of core areas

6.3.3. Law on Modification and Completion of some Legislative Acts (Draft)

Conclusion

References

Map of the Ecological Network

6.1.2. Ecological and Socio-Economical Conditions of Forming Eco-Network

Ecological conditions for forming the Eco-Network are generally described in the National State of Environment Report for Moldova (2000) and some preceding documents and publications. This section considers other influential documentation.

Over historic time, three sets of extinctions and decline in biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems can be distinguished in Moldova. Now it should be realized that in 1990s the forth period started, its primary cause being increased direct over-use of forest, grass and aquatic ecosystems, accelerated degradation of cultivated lands.

At the same time, the process of local extinction of many species was triggered by the end of the last century, when the proportion between surface area of natural and secondary ecosystems changed (steppe and grassland communities were exposed to overgrazing, soils in cultivated lands and polluted aquatic ecosystems began to degrade, then the consequences of soil draining). The process has a cumulative statistical un-estimated component, with obviously high momentum. This aggravates the situation. Since the process is gradual, its danger is mainly not realized by society insomuch as to take efficient actions.

Mainly, European conservationists clearly understand that protective measures targeting exclusively better-preserved natural areas are insufficient and general restoration procedures are necessary. However, it should be deemed demonstrated that degraded ecosystems cannot be restored completely, however important this may be.

All this means that decline in biological diversity at local or regional level always has irreversible consequences on the continental and global scale.

It is a widely accepted that the minimum acceptable proportion between artificial and natural (which stabilizes the environment) ecosystems is 25-30% of a country’s surface area. It is implied that, on one hand, this proportion is insufficient for biodiversity maintenance, on the other hand, stabilizing effects of natural biocoenosa on artificial habitats are high enough, and if natural biotopes are dominated by forest areas it also stabilizes the climate.

It should be also emphasized that:

1. Stabilising effects of natural ecosystems (and their components that comprise biodiversity) on agricultural ecosystems for such country as Moldova is not just a general statement, but rather a factor of sustainable agriculture.
2. There is a large gap to be filled until recommended 30 % is achieved in Moldova.
3. Agricultural lands occupy the main part of surface area and should be viewed as significant habitats, differing in terms of diversity of biota.
4. Maintained natural habitats are fragmented, which complicates survival of many species.

Considering 20% of the area of Moldova is covered with natural biocoenosa, it should e understood that around half of it, i.e. that part which is covered with forests, has stabilizing effects, though sliding ones. The other part – pastures – in their current state present centres of desertification. Despite this, pastures are used without control or respecting regulations. Traditional land-use patterns are deeply rooted, thus complicating any solution to the problem.

The most significant socio-political circumstance is the privatization of land. It should be acknowledged that it was undertaken:

1. without simultaneous application of European experience of co-operation with smallholders;
2. against the background of devaluing national currency;
3. without withdrawing degraded areas, which should have been immediately earmarked for restoration fund, from the privatised fund;
4. without planning protective forest belts;
5. without effective mechanisms for determining responsibility for the state of objects having special ecological value;

In relation to the task of establishing the Eco-Network it has the following consequences:

1. Areas whose agricultural use is not justified economically and ecologically were included and the State is deficient in funds for buying them back.
2. Possibility of planning new protective forest belts was lost, as well as the economic and psychological motivation and mechanisms for maintaining existing forests.
3. Possibilities for using instruments of financial responsibility are limited by the existence of a large number of smallholders, who are insolvent.
4. Prior to restructuring land ownership or land use, the possibility of applying soil-friendly technologies is remote.
5. Among land-users, the number of people who are versed in land management, are few.
6. A number of the objects from within the Fund of state-protected natural areas, which were managed by dissolved agricultural enterprises were not re-allocated.

The main socio-economic conditions are:

1. difficult economic state of the country, including deficit central and local budgets;
2. qualifications of land-users are inadequate to find more acceptable actions to ensure sustainable use of natural resources;
3. understanding the importance of actions for nature conservation by rural population as the whole, on the basis of negative modifications to the environment;
4. at the level of local communities, the most critical influence is the local authority. However, possibilities are restricted not only by deficit budgets but also political conjuncture;
5. financing part of a reserve at the expense of local budgets in its current form encourages conflicts between stakeholders;
6. expanding areas uncultivated because of economic and ecological disorder;
7. lack of funding institutions within the country and underdevelopment of tourism business.

Another major condition is the existence of potential external sponsors and pan-European plans concerning environment.

Previous

Next