Wetland restoration in Ciobarciu, Romania

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

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

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

Age

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

Contractural arrangements

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	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

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

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

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

Collection(aka Doorway or Gallery)

Case Studies

Pathway(aka Context)

Default view

Area(aka Level or Site)

ALL