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

6.2. 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

Special publications on the nature of the most valuable natural areas of Moldova are mainly restricted by four collections of articles (Гербовец кий лес, 1970; Природа заповедника "Кодры", 1984; Rezervatia naturala "Codrii" - 25 ani, 1996), a section in the book Current state of environment in Moldova (Starea actuala mediului ambiant in Moldova, 1999), as well as a small number of scarce articles. The most diverse data are presented in the collection “Заповедники и памятники природы Молдавии (Кравчук, Верина, Сухов; 1976), but they have the form of scientific essays, which compromises the possibility of comparative analysis. All these data provide sufficiently detailed presentation of only the oldest reserve “Codru”.

Over the last three decades, the state of wildlife and vegetation changed to a large extent, which is reflected, e.g., in the growth of the number of threatened species, as well as pre-conditioned by widely known economic transformations. Therefore, an undetermined part of materials of previous years is outdated, on the background of the totality of information, which is far away from completeness.

It should be emphasized, that faunistic and floristic studies were outside the priorities of Moldavian Academy of Sciences over 1970-80s, were never provided with special or target financing, and were primarily performed at expense of scientific enthusiasm of researchers. In 1990s they were prevented by inadequate level of science financing.

Estimate of the main potential areas of the Eco-Network (chiefly, its core areas) was performed was mainly on the basis of the data of experts, which were published only partially. These data cover the majority of professional data available from research institutions.

Table 1 of below lists the most general data on estimates.

Table 1

The number of estimated areas of Moldova, which were categorized as core areas
(Int – International level, N - national, Z - zonal, L - local) or were not

¹ The number of areas without merging adjacent areas is given in round brackets;
² The number of areas, including those categorized at higher level, despite the scarcity of data on them, is given in square brackets.

Consequently, only 28.7% of positions were made possible to estimate, in the majority of cases, the estimate concerning each of them being based on the incomplete data. As a result, real significance of some areas requires a re-estimate using new data. Such re-estimate is extremely necessary from the standpoint of identifying the protection level.

Table 2 reflects relevant geological materials.

Table 2

Completeness of information on the most important areas of the Eco-Network of Moldova

Even those elements of the future Eco-Network, which are placed under state’s protection, are scarcely characterized, especially in terms of wildlife; additionally, data on flora are outdated, at least, partially. But the current situation is specific, because identification and biological justification of designation of new protected areas are even more fundamental.

It should be emphasized, that placing an area under protection or changing the status is not viewed as an obligatory withdrawing from economic use, as well as a reason for the improvement of land-use or prevention of degradation along with deterioration of qualities in terms of both their value for nature protection and economic value.

Imperfection of the structure of protected areas in terms of their management is strikingly evident. Probably, this structure reflects the history of designating areas for protection, rather than standardised criteria.

It should be mentioned that many agricultural enterprises listed in the table and in Law on the fund of natural areas, protected by the state, do not exist any longer. The law stipulates the jurisdiction of local authorities over appropriate reserves. However, they are not owners of these areas, which belong to the state, and not to the local communes. Formal transmission of these areas from previous state enterprises was not performed, and in legal terms, they do not have any owner. This is confirmed by the proposal of D. Kiseev, Prime Deputy President of Executive Committee of Gagauzia to surrender the aforementioned areas under jurisdiction of local public authorities (in response to the request of I. Trombitki, a Member of Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, nr. 92 of 15.12.00.).

During the developing of the concept, possibilities of expanding the system of protected areas were also found, as well as some options like buffer reserves (e.g., Radoaia), however, they require a survey on a different level.

Previous

Next