General National Id Romania_01 Site name Prut River Basin Summary The short term project objectives were to create 250 ha of wetland by raising the water level of the embanked area with a regulating water outlet structure, creation of a variety of habitats -from dry land to spots with deep water- by digging and opening up of old river meanders that had been filled up. The project is a good experience in the field of ecological restoration, involving purchase of land, participatory planning and co-operation with other organizations, including NGO’s. The project also had long term objectives related to the creation of a network of wetlands, integration and nature and water policies, the implementation of European directives and the strengthening environmental NGOs and education. The project was implemented by a Romanian regional water authority with the support of Dutch partners. The Ciobarciu project was evaluated at the end of the project by the project team and by a Romanian University, who interviewed 55 inhabitants of villages where the (previous) owners lived. After a period of five years, the project was evaluated again. Light or indepth? In-depth The in-depth description of the case study cs-ro-01-final_version.pdf NUTS Code Nord-Est RBD code RO1000 Transboundary 0 Data provider Imola Koszta, REC Source(s) Ciobarciu Wetland Project website Restoring Europe's Rivers - Case Study Ciobarciu Wetland Project A String of Pearls: Towards Restoration of Wetland Values in the Prut Basin The Costuleni Wetland Project Plan Pilot info Evaluation report Ciobarciu Wetland Ciobarciu Wetland Pilot Project on ecological Reconstruction ECRR Addressing practitioners How to facilitate the transfer of wtaer management knowledge Lessons from Dutch-Romanian project experiences for project implementers, advisors and financers Transferring Water Management Knwoledge How actors, interaction and context influence the effectiveness of Dutch-funded project in Romania Rivers by Design Ecological Restoration Project "Ciobarciu-Costuleni" (Iasi-Romania): Monitoring of the Birds' Fauna Evolution CONFERENCE "ECOLOGICALNETWORKS" Introduction to experiences and approaches River Basin Management Plan Prut-Barlad NWRM(s) implemented in the case study Floodplain restoration and management Wetland restoration and management Re-meandering Longitude 27.8597222 Latitude 47.0488889 Site information Climate zone cool temperate dry Mean rainfall 550 Mean rainfall unit mm/year Average temperature 9,19999980926514 Mean evaportranspiration 650 Mean evaportranspiration unit mm/year Mean runoff 82,8960037231445 Mean runoff unit 450 - 600 mm Average runoff coefficient 0,150000005960464 Type Actual Test Site Average slope range 0-1% Vegetation class grassland (Stipa sp.) Monitoring maintenance Monitoring impacts effects 1 Monitoring location Unknown Monitoring parameters birds and fauna evolution Performance Performance impact estimation method Laboratory Performance impact estimation information Field observations during two summers, 2007-2008. Birds monitoring: transect method, observation from fixed point, male sounds counting and band counting (for waders and aquatic birds) Design & implementations Application scale Field Scale Installation date 2006 Lifespan 50 Age 5 Performance timescale < 1 year Area (ha) 250 Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha) 250 Design capacity description Area flooded in spring, creating areas of waters with various depths, which drain gradually during summer. Aquatic surface of four ponds, two ponds have water about 0,5-1 m depth, the third presents small puddles and swampy areas, while the fourth can receive waters from the Prut River in case offlooding risks. First flooding of the area done in October 2006. Constraints n.a Favourable preconditions The site had high potentials for ecological restoration due to the possibilities to restore water flow in the Old Jijia, the absence of roads and buildings and the decline of agriculture. Plus it had a low economic value. Inflow volume 0,550000011920929 Inflow volume unit m3/sec Public consultation 1 Contractural arrangements 1 Design contractual arrangement Arrangement type Responsibility Role Comments Name Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the governments of Romania and the Netherlands (renewed in 2000) MOU ecological reconstruction signed: - County council - Environmental Prot. Insp. - Romanian Waters - Romanian Ornithological Soc. - Romanian Scouts Agreement with almost all land owners for selling the land (12 oppose) Design consultation activity Activity stage Key issues Name Comments 7 members Setting up of an Advisory Committe there was 1 meeting, following which Romanian project team fowund that working bilaterally with the committee members was more effective Implementation phase information on the benefits of the restoration and agreement on land purchase Personal visits to the landowners 400+ Other Information to the local people (meetings with villagers, posters, articles, media campaign, colouring contest in the school) Design of the area, implementation of the plan and management of the area Design land use change Land use change type Design authority Authority type Role Responsibility Name Comments Regional / sub-national water authority Implementation Apele Romane (Prut Directorate) Other Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) national institue Regional / sub-national water authority Regional Water Board Hunze and Aa†™s NGO Het Drentse Landschap (NGO for nature management) Lessons, risks, implications... Key lessons Experience in the field of ecological restoration,involving purchase of land, participatory planning and co-operation with other organizations, including NGOs. -careful consideration should be given whether there is an alternative for land purchase. If not, a concise overview of the land ownership situation should be done at an early stage. -early consensus on the goals and degree of participation. financing funding solutions The costs for the steering committee (time, travel and lodging) are not included in the project, because the steering committee meets not only for the Costuleni Wetland Project, but also for other projects of the existing RIZA-APELE ROMANE cooperation. Apele Romane pays the effort of the Romanian team members and other people from the office of Apele Romane and only receives money for the field works that have to be carried out and for expenses made. Hunze en Aas asks subsidy for the effort of their employee involved and the tickets for traveling to Romania. The time estimation is intently kept on a very low level: extra time spent will be paid by the organization itself, RIZA pays the boarding and lodging of Romanian team members on working visit in Holland and the tickets for the RIZA team members when going to Romania. RIZA asks a contribution in the personal costs, consisting in the costs for the time spend by team member B. Ottow (communication specialist). Het Drentse Landschap pays the costs of the own people working in the project and asks only a contribution from PIN MATRA for airplane tickets. Success factor(s) Success factor type Success factor role Comments Financing possibilities main factor Attitude of decision makers main factor Public participation main factor Existing staff and consultant knowledge secondary factor Communication activities secondary factor Financing Financing type Comments Other PIN-MATRA - Dutch governmental fund to protect and rehabilitate areas for nature in Eastern European countries of € 254.141,- (66%); The project partners supply the rest of the costs, namely: Apele Romane 22,900 EUR (6%); RIZA 87,100 EUR (22%);Het Drentse Landschap 23,712 EUR (6%) Barrier Barrier type Barrier role Comments Lacking financing sources main barrier Situation after 5 years showed that there were no funds for creating other wetlands, and the Ciobarciu wetland had not been functioning for two years due to construction works (e.g. beginning of June 2008 the water was lost through the outlet junction Ciobarciu). The absence of water in this period had been a disaster for the biodiversity of the area. Other secondary barrier Driver Driver type Driver role Comments Balancing different objectives main driver To develop ecological restoration measures which can lead to a win-win situation, profitable not only for nature, but also for the population in the area and what is socially acceptable Financing share Financing share type Share Comments Policy, general governance and design targets Policy description balance the water necessity on the territory, decrease flooding risk in the area Part of wider plan 1 Policy target Target purpose Improved Biodiversity Oher Societal Benefits Groundwater Recharge Runoff control Policy pressure Pressure directive Relevant pressure Policy area Policy area type Policy area focus Name Comments Policy impact Impact directive Relevant impact Policy wider plan Wider plan type Wider plan focus Name Comments Catchment-based Water A œstring of pearls a concept for ecological restoration and Environment and Biodiversity Policy requirement directive Requirement directive Specification Socio-economic Direct benefits information Increased possibility of non-comercial fishing Increased possibilities for horticulture along the Old Jijia Increased natural values (more birds and animals) Increased underground water. Ancillary benefits information Increased agriculture/horticulture along the Old Jijia Increased tourism, leading to potential economical benefits originating from the interest of investors Costs investment 388000 € Costs investment information 1)restoration of Old Jijia (topographic study, cleaning of the river bed, reconstruction of the Chiperesti Bridge, cleaning the streamed of the river-15km, management plan of the Chiperesti inlet) ; 2) development Restoration Plan Ciobarciu wetland (evaluation of the land in the project area; inventory of landowners and agreement, acquisition of land, field works: channel 1, breach in the dikes between comparts 1 and II and II and III); 3) stakeholder involvement, communication and participation at village level as well as at county level and beyond Costs land acquisition 180 Costs land acquisition unit €/ha Costs land acquisition information Evaluation price of land done in October 2003; 150 EUR/ha (Prisaceni) and 170 EUR/ha (Costuleni); During the purchase 1 EUR = 3.3-3.5 lei RON) Costs operation maintenance N/A info Costs total 388000 € Ecosystem improved biodiversity 1 Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity Contributed to the quality improvement of an important migratory route for waterbirds.The perimeter was used for seeking food by the birds during the migration period. The birds fauna list consisted of 105 species, out of which 29 bird species are included in the Annexe 1 of the Birds' Directive and 19 species are present in the Romanian Red Book of Vertebrates. (2007-2008) No available data for fauna, excepting the fishes presence after about 1 year from the flooding 8 fish species were recorded. During field observations different aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates groups, amphibians, reptiles and some small mammals were observed. Ecosystem provisioning services 1 Information on Ecosystem provisioning services Fishing can be practiced in some parts of the arranged area. Reed and reedmace can be used for traditional production of all kind of practical goods. Strengthening the educational possibilities for biological science and education. Ecosystem impact climate regulation No information available Information on Ecosystem impact climate regulation no information available Biophysical impacts Information on retained water N/A info Information on increased water storage N/A info Information on runoff reduction N/A info Water quality overall improvements N/A info Information on Water quality overall improvements N/A info Soil quality overall soil improvements Not relevant for this application Information on Soil quality overall soil improvements Not relevant for this application Full Context Pathway(aka Context) Default view Area(aka Level or Site) ALL