45_iordache 677..678

Large Rivers Vol. 15, No.1 ^ 4
Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl.155/1 ^ 4, p. 677^692, Mai 2005
Elements sustaining the lobby for the restoration
of Big Island of Braila, Danube floodplain
Virgil Iordache1, Florian Bodescu1 and Mihail Dumitru2
With 4 figures and 3 tables in the text
Abstract: There is not yet a consensus about how to restore the Lower Danube River System
(LDRS), and in particular one of its subsystems, the Big Island of Braila (BIB). In this
context, the aims of our study were: 1) to identify elements for a cost-benefits analysis of
the utilization of BIB, 2) to identify the potential interests of the users, and 3) to provide extra
arguments, at detailed level, about the opportunity of performing restoration activities in the
Big Island of Braila (BIB). Aims 1 and 2 were approached by mean of desk study (analyses of
the existing literature). To reach aim 3 we selected three representative complexes of farms in
BIB and identified the types and extent of the activities needed for maintaining the agricultural use of island. The results suggest that the current agricultural use of the BIB is efficient
in some parts of the island, but inefficient in the island as a whole. The political preference for
the minimal restoration scenario of LDRS, and implicitly the current state of BIB seems to be
due to the strong lobbying capacity of the farmers. We identified very large areas in BIB
requiring maintenance activities of high complexity and cost. The location of these areas is
associated to former channels and lakes, which still preserve part of the reference hydrogeomorphological characteristics. These areas would be most appropriate for restoration, as
part of the implementation of a scenario transforming the BIB into a multifunctional farming
system, with lakes, forest, and agricultural lands. In the areas located between the dike and
the Danube there are still natural and semi-natural ecosystems which could play a favourable
recolonization role in case of restoration.
Key words: River system, stakeholders, cost-benefit analyses.
Introduction
Restoring large and complex ecological systems is a difficult, but sine qua non
matter in the efforts towards sustainable development (Stanford et al. 1996;
Schiemer 1999; Vadineanu et al. 2001, 2003; Iordache 2003a; Anand & Desrochers 2004). Examples of such ecological systems are river basins and ecorAuthors' addresses: 1 University of Bucharest, Dept. of Systems Ecology, Spl. Independentei 91±95, 76201 Bucharest 5, Romania; E-mail: [email protected]. 2 Research
Institute for Soil Science and Agrochemistry, Bd Marasti 61, 71331 Bucharest 1, Romania;
E-mail: [email protected]
0945-3784/05/0155-0677 $ 4.00
° 2005 E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, D-70176 Stuttgart
678
V. Iordache et al.
Fig. 1. Structure of the elaboration approach for the LDRS management plan (after Vadineanu et al. 2001). Legend: S1±S3 = offer of goods and services, V1±V3 = value of the
system functioning in different rehabilitation scenarios to reference system (Sr, Vr).
egions (Iordache 2003a; Boon 2004). General principles for the river restoration
have been developed (Amoros et al. 1987; Petts & Amoros 1993; Stanford et
al. 1996; Schiemer 1999; Buijse et al. 2002), but in practice the restoration of
river systems faced difficulties due to high socio-economic interests (Gore &
Shields 1995). The need for Danube river restoration is recognized (Bloesch
2002) and is most active by now in the Austrian sector (Tockner et al. 1998;
Schiemer et al. 1999; Keckeis et al. 2003; Hein et al. 2004). Several projects have
also been implemented in the Danube Delta (Stiuca et al. 2002), but the restoration of the very large floodplain located upstream the Danube Delta is still in the
design stage.
There are two restoration strategies proposed for Lower Danube River System
(LDRS). One promotes the restoration of comparatively small surface areas consisting in small embanked landscapes which are abandoned by farmers due to their
Restoration of Big Island of Braila
679
Fig. 2. Composite image in normal colours showing the current structure of the northern
part of the Big Island of Braila (BIB) and the location of the three studied farms complexes. Black dotted lines indicate the limits of the studied complexes. The total surface
of BIB is about 750 km2, of which 710 km2 are inside the dike, and the rest between the
dike and the Danube channel. The maximum width of the Danube floodplain in this sector
is about 30 km. The other islands are part of the Small Island of Braila (a natural reserve
under normal flooding regime). The flow direction of the Danube is towards north (upward on the map).
680
V. Iordache et al.
extreme economic inefficiency. The other one promotes the restoration of an extensive surface consisting of a large landscape area (Fig. 1). From a political
perspective the first approach it is the one currently preferred. From the point of
view of most of the local scientists and the informed public the second approach is
the one preferred. Details concerning the first approach can be found e. g. in
Schneider & Gunther-Diringer (2004), and details concerning the second
approach can be found in Vadineanu et al. (2001), Bodescu (2001), Iordache
(2003b), Iordache & Bodescu (2004). The second approach is coupled with
complementary proposals concerning the management of the upland landscape
(in particular of the agricultural ones; Vadineanu et al. 2003). The areas proposed
for restoration in LDRS according to the second approach would cover over 1500
km2 (Vadineanu et al. 2001) distributed in several landscapes over a length of 500
km upstream the coastal Danube Delta (Iordache et al. 2001). One of these
landscapes is the Big Island of Braila (BIB, Fig. 2), the largest island of the
Danube floodplain, and part of the former inner Danube Delta. The largest agricultural business of Romania, in terms of land surface covered by farms, is located
here. A political decision for its restoration would have a symbolic value and
would open the way for the extensive restoration of LDRS.
In this context, the aims of our study are to support the lobbying for such a
political decision:
Aim 1: identifying elements for a cost-benefits analysis of the utilization of BIB;
Aim 2: characterizing the potential interests of the users; and
Aim 3: providing detailed arguments about the opportunity of performing restoration activities in BIB.
Methods
Aims 1 and 2 were approached by mean of desk study (analyses of the existing
literature). The economic evaluations are reported in Euro. The evaluations in US$
have been converted into Euro (conversion rate August 2004). To provide detailed
arguments for restoration (Aim 3), the Research Institute for Soil Science and
Agrochemistry has selected three representative complexes of farms in BIB (Blasova, Filipoiu and Lunguletu, Fig. 2) and identified the types and extent of the
activities needed for maintaining the agricultural use of BIB. These activities, if
fully performed (a must on the average term if it is to maintain conditions appropriate for agriculture) would strongly increase the investments cost, and consequently decrease the profits. This identification of the types of maintenance activities was done by mapping at a 1:5000 scale the morphological, hydrological,
pedological, and pedochemical parameters (Dumitru et al. unpubl. data), followed
by agro-economical interpretation of the data (ICPA 1978; Mihalache et al.
2001). The methodology of mapping the above-mentioned parameters is the standard one for such studies, involved field and lab work, and is presented elsewhere
Restoration of Big Island of Braila
681
(ICPA 1987). The University of Bucharest developed digital terrain models of the
BIB at different resolutions and processed by GIS the data provided by the Institute. Additionally, the University made an investigation of the dike-Danube part
of the island in order to estimate the recolonization potential of these areas in case
of restoration. The recolonization potential was estimated by GIS analyses of
forestry maps and by field investigations.
As the activity of the consortium is ongoing, and other farm complexes are
characterized, the results presented here should be seen as only illustrating the
current stage of the efforts for identifying the most appropriate solution for the
restoration of the BIB.
Results
Elements for a cost-benefit analysis of the utilization of the island
The production function of renewable resources delivered by natural or traditionally managed ecosystems in the Small Island of Braila (reference system for BIB)
has been estimated at total economic value of 242 e ha-1 year-1 (Vadineanu et al.
2003). For the only two regulation functions for which reliable data were available,
the estimate of total economic value was 967 e ha-1 year-1, according to the same
source. Adding 89 e ha-1 year-1 for maintenance of species and genetic resources,
and 88 e ha-1 year-1 from ecotourism, the total economic value of the island after
restoration would be of 1386 e ha-1 year-1.
Vadineanu et al. (2003) also roughly estimate the economic value produced by
the impoldered areas. For a surface of 560 km2 (which is equal to the surface of the
production state farms from BIB) one can calculate that the produced economic
value would be of 29.6 million e, while the maintenance cost would be of about 38
million e. This would lead to a loss of 8,454,799 e year-1, without taking into
consideration the losses due to the opportunities costs associated to the former
ecological services provided by embanked wetlands.
Sources that are favourable to the agricultural activity in BIB provide a slightly
different picture with regard to the efficiency in the above-mentioned state farms
for the year 2002 (Anonymous 2002, 2004; Voicu 2002; Banu 2003). The direct
investments (the maintenance cost: fertilizers, seed, material) for the production
state farms were 33 million e (5 millions lower than estimated by Vadineanu et
al. 2003). The estimated profit ranged between 1.9 and 3 million e (the realized
profit was not publicly reported). This would mean an estimated profit of 34 to
53.5 e ha-1 year-1.
The contractual tax that should be paid to the state by the administrators of the farms
was 2.43 million e. It is not mentioned in the cited sources if this tax was included in the
direct investments, or subtracted from the profit. If the tax was subtracted from the estimated profit, the net benefit for the administrators should have been about 0 in 2002. If
the tax was included in the direct investments, the productive economic value of the agri-
682
V. Iordache et al.
cultural land would roughly double, ranging, with a maximum of about 100 e ha-1 year-1
(half for the state and half for the administrators). However, even this figure is much lower
than the economic value of natural wetland estimated by Vadineanu et al. (2003).
Moreover, beside the direct investments, extra 16 million e have been invested in 2002
in the irrigation system and machines. Of these, 0.4 million e were spent for the rehabilitation of the existing irrigation system, and 4.5 for new (Dutch) irrigation technology.
40000 ha could be irrigated as a result. By 2003 the investments in machines have increased with other 6 millions e. Extra 40.5 millions e are planned to be invested in infrastructure for cattle, in order to use locally the vegetal production for animal production.
The number of farms in BIB is 30; they include 900 agroecosystems (parcels), and
cover a total surface of 56,000 ha. The crop structure in the production state farms area
was in 2002 the following: wheat 20,000 ha, barley 8,500 ha, soy bean 8,479 ha, corn
5,500 ha, sunflower 4,488 ha. The reed occupied the rest of 9,033 ha.
On the other hand, in the best agricultural areas of BIB, the profit is higher than the
figures mentioned above. In 2003 the maximum profit was up to 186 e ha-1 year-1, and in
2004, with a new technology, was up to 315 e ha-1 year-1 (Anonymous 2004).
It appears, based on the above information, that the current use of the island
as a system is socially inefficient compared to the natural state, but also that in
certain areas the current use is efficient from the point of view of crops production. This complex situation may be one of the factors explaining why the policies towards its restoration are not adopted and implemented. Let us analyse
now the users interested in the design of public policies dealing with BIB.
Potential interest of users
In the reference state of the Danube floodplain, the dominant user group was that
of fishers, followed by farmers and foresters (Antipa 1910). Currently the main
users are farmers. In 2002 1100 employees (700 permanent) were working in BIB
production state farms. After restoration ecotourism could become a further important user group as in the Danube Delta. Table 1 lists potential effects of restoration on current users interest. The following remarks interpret some of the
points made in Table 1 (Iordache 2004):
. Most local users gain by restoration, including fishers, but, their potential for
lobbying is low, compared with governmental users. However, the situation
should be improved from the fact that increasing benefits from natural capital
at local socio-economic level are in agreement with the Agenda 21 principles
and the National Strategy for Sustainable Development.
. Foresters reflect interests located both at governmental and at local level. They
have a high lobby potential and may be interested in restoration. However, their
incentives are attenuated by the long time needed for transforming agrosystems
into riparian forests.
. Farmers (with high lobby potential) are against restoration, as their benefits will
strongly decrease after restoration. As long as most of the embanked areas are
Restoration of Big Island of Braila
683
Table 1. Elements for analysing the influence of the potential development of LDRS by
restoration on the current users interests for such a development. Legend: ``+, ++º = increase in the production of resource/service, NA = not applicable, MWEP = Ministry of
Water and Environmental Protection, L = local (within LDRS), NL = not-local, Gov =
governmental, * excepting for Danube Delta and Small Island of Braila.
Resource/service
Direction of
change after
restoration
Resources
1. Fish
2. Wood and game
species
3. Medicinal plants,
honey
4. Systematic
agricultural crops
5. Traditional
agricultural crops
Time of benefits
manifestation
after change
Current user/
manager
++
+
medium
long
fishers
foresters
L
NL (Gov)
++
medium
villagers
L
±±
NA
farmers
NL (Gov)
+
medium
villagers
L
long
MWEP
NL
NA
industry
L
short/medium
MWEP
NL
short
medium
MWEP
MWEP
L
NL
long
none*
L
NA
transporters
L
Manifestation
after long time
decreases the
intensity of the
interest
If there is
no current user,
there is no
current interest
Final
beneficiaries at
G level are
more influential
than those at
L level
Services
6. Maintenance of
++
species diversity
and ecological
systems diversity
7. Absorption of
0
secondary products
8. Water quality
++
improvement
9. Flood mitigation
++
10. Regional
++
microclimate
improvement and
groundwater
recharge
11. Conditions for
++
tourism
12. Transportation
0
pathway
13. Remarks
Directly related
to the intensity
of the user
interest for
restoration
Level of final
current
dominant
beneficiary
684
V. Iordache et al.
Table 2. Elements for choosing the portfolio of objectives which maximize the potential
interest for the development of LDRS by large scale reconstruction. Legend: G = at governmental level, L = at local level, Gov = governmental, LA = local administration,
MWEP = Ministry of Water and Environmental Protection.
Societal objective of the LDRS
management
Basic objectives
. Sustainable production of high level
of natural resources and services
. Economic efficiency, economic
viability
Optional objectives
. Distribution equity
. Employment
. Export promotion and generation
of foreign exchange
. Decreasing urban-rural drift
. Maintaining a regional balance
of development
. Industry diversification
Potentially for
G
L
fisher
foresters
MWEP
fishers
foresters
Gov
Gov
Gov
LA
LA
Potentially against
G
L
farmers
farmers
Gov
Gov
Gov
state property, the economic inefficiency of farming can be masked by governmental subsidies.
. Conditions for tourism in restored areas of LDRS would be strongly improved
after restoration, but there are no current users at local level to lobby for this.
Some lobby for tourism at this moment could come only from the governmental
agencies responsible for the development of this economic sector.
. Water quality services will be strongly improved after restoration; however, the
setting of restoration for nutrients retention is already negotiated (ICPDR 2001).
The result of this negotiation lead to a restoration plan that we referred as ``the
first approachº in the introduction. This is the plan already accepted at governmental level.
In Table 2 the 8 main objectives for further development of the riparian societies are indicated. The following comments elucidate the possibilities:
. According to the literature (e. g. Charles 2001), and only partly reflecting the
usual practices in the real politics, the portfolio of objectives should include at
least the following ones (1 to 4 in Table 2): sustainable production of natural
resources and services, economic efficiency and viability, distribution equity,
and employment. Objectives 1 and 2 would make fishers, foresters and water
authorities to be interested in restoration, both at local and governmental level.
Restoration of Big Island of Braila
.
.
.
.
.
685
The inclusion of the objectives of distribution equity and of employment would
strongly enhance the interest of local people in restoration, and would also be of
relevance for the governmental social policies.
The Romanian administration (MAA 1999) notes that the increase in fish export
is limited, beside others, by the fact that there is not, on foreign markets, a high
demand for the currently offered dominant species. Restoration of LDRS might
change the situation in this respect by the fact that many economically valuable
fish species are depending on the improved lateral connectivity of large floodplains (Antipa 1910). Also the stocks dimension will increase, thus contributing to objective 5 (export promotion and generation of foreign exchange).
The area is currently dominated by the agricultural sector. Fishery post-harvest
sector development as a result of increasing stocks might contribute to objective
8 (industrial diversification). Various fish products might be produced for export
in the Western Europe, following the model already in place in the Danube
Delta.
Objective 7 (maintaining a regional balance of development) might be appropriate for the LDRS district socio-economic systems, which are suffering from
economic and social problems, as well as objective 6 (decreasing urban-rural
drift) for the local socio-economic systems, taking into consideration their
current depopulation trend (Cristofor 2000). The inclusion of these objectives
in the portfolio would be in tune with the European priorities too.
To sum up, it is highly recommended to include not only objectives 1±4 in the
portfolio, but also objective 5±8. In this way there would be a maximization of
the public services associated to the implementation of the management plan of
LDRS.
There is a potential conflict of interest between farmers and other sectors with
regard to the integrated development of LDRS. Such intersectoral conflicts are
recognized at governmental level in terms of conflicts between the strategies for
the development of different sectors: extraction, agriculture, forestry, energetic
or tourism (MAA 1999).
In this context, it seems that an advocate of the extensive restoration needs
extra arguments, at detailed level, about the opportunity of performing restoration activities in the Big Island of Braila. We will provide such arguments in
the next section, and will also indicate the location of the areas most suitable
for restoration, as well as the location of the areas appropriate for agricultural
activities, suggesting in this way the spatial structure of a scenario balancing
the interests of the different users.
Arguments for restoration derived from ecological data sets
Despite the efforts to homogenize the surface after reclaiming and draining, there
is still a high heterogeneity of local geomorphic units. Comparing the current state
686
V. Iordache et al.
Fig. 3. Distribution of the areas requiring maintenance activities of different complexities
(from 1, low complexity, to 3, high complexity).
with the reference state (as described in old topographic maps) we remarked as
major morphological change a filling of the former shallow lakes with a soil layer
of about 1 m depth. Most of the ecosystems have an average groundwater depth
lower than 1±2 m. Consequently, in the springtime large areas are covered by
stagnant surface water due to the underground infiltration from the Danube. Salts
accumulations in the topsoil also occur in certain areas.
There are more than 40 soil subtypes in the three farm complexes, which is a
surprisingly high diversity after 40 year of terrestrial regime and homogenizing
agricultural practices. This diversity, coupled with the morphometric diversity, is
Restoration of Big Island of Braila
687
Table 3. Types of maintenance activities needed in the studied complexes of farms (surface in ha).
favourable for an eventual restoration of the landscape. The soil subtypes are
grouped in three types; dominant are the not developed soils (on the former levees
and depression) and the hydromorphic soils (on the former channels, very shallow
lakes, and shallow lakes). Vertisoils, the third type occupies only a few percents of
the surface.
Based on the above information and on other pedological and pedochemical
parameters one could identify the areas requiring special activities for maintaining
or improving the agricultural potential. Fig. 3 presents the distribution of the areas
requiring maintenance activities of different complexities in the whole studied
areas. One can see that most of areas need maintenance activities of average
and high complexities. The numerical figures are included in Table 3. After inspection of the table one can conclude that soil surface homogenization, groundwater depth control, drainage channels cleaning, and stagnant water elimination
are needed on the largest areas (e. g. up to 99.3 % of the total surface in the Filipoiu
complex of farms). Reed invasion is not an important problem in this part of BIB,
by comparison with the southern part, so no major maintenance activities are
needed for its control.
None of the activities mentioned in the last paragraph are included as investments in the current cost-benefit analyses. Including them would increase the costs
and would make the current agricultural use of BIB even less profitable than it is
now. This is a strong extra argument for performing restoration activities on the
island. It seems that the most appropriate areas for restoration are the former
channels and lakes. These are the areas requiring the most complex maintenance
activities, leading to high investments.
In this context, the restoration solution balancing the interest of the farmers and
of other users could be a multifunctional farming system as suggested in Fig. 4. A
more or less developed riparian forest would separate the wetlands (shallow lakes)
from the agricultural fields, which also would include forest belts. A refined
hydrological management would be needed in order to maintain both the function-
688
V. Iordache et al.
Fig. 4. Distribution of the major types of ecosystems in a multifunctional farming scenario
of the proposed restoration.
ality of the lakes and of the agricultural fields. And as a first step a surface and
underground hydrological model of the BIB is urgently required.
If the proposed restoration will be feasible, we predict that the biological recolonization of the restored areas would occur fast, because the BIB ecosystems
located between the dike and the Danube are in a good, semi-natural state. A
detailed study in the north of BIB (Iordache et al. 2004) showed that natural
ecosystems cover still an important portion of the landscape. They are classified as
``unproductiveº by the foresters, include shallow and very shallow aquatic systems,
Restoration of Big Island of Braila
689
and show the lowest fragmentation of all ecosystems. The mentioned water bodies
are the largest ecosystems of the current landscape. Semi-natural forests also have
a relatively large surface (about one third of the landscape), but the managers
envisage to replace them with willow planted forests, believed to be more productive in terms of wood. Anthropogenic ecosystems (plantations of willow and
poplar) occupy the rest of the current landscape. The analyses of the distribution
of productivity classes show that most of the ecosystems belong to low productive
classes (scored 3 on a 1±5 scale). The causes of this situation are both the previous
overexploitation (reflected by the current age classes), and the hydrogeomorphic
characteristics of the ecosystems (mainly the high flooding potential). We believe
that the areas located between dike and Danube should benefit of a special management regimen, namely that they should be directed towards a state in which
they would effectively function as recolonization sources for the future restored
ecosystems.
Discussion and conclusions
An important problem is the source of money for restoring such large areas. Beside
international developmental loans, another potential source would result from the
internalization of the positive externalities of the LDRS in its current state (Iordache 2005). For instance, from the nutrient retention function of the current
wetlands (located mostly in the Danube Delta) benefit in Romania especially
socio-economic systems located on the Black Sea coast, in terms of intensive
tourism and connected economic activities. The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
Administration might lobby for financial measures allowing the creation of a fund
to be invested in pilot restoration of the floodplain located upstream the Delta.
The national public perception of the rationality of such measures is depending
on the degree of agreement within the scientific community. This agreement is
undermined to some extent by economic competition between organizations dealing with research, technology and development. It should be remarked that a
counter productive lack of Romanian scientific cooperation existed by the date
of this article in the case of the Lower Danube River System. There were noncommunicating approaches of LDRS both from scientific and managerial point of
view, and parallel projects. The restoration publications with regard to LDRS are
usually not citing one another. This situation has to be surpassed in the way
towards an integrated management of Danube wetlands, and implicitly in view
of the restoration of large landscapes such as BIB.
In conclusion, the current agricultural use of the BIB is inefficient globally, but
efficient in some areas. The political preference for the minimal restoration scenario of LDRS, and implicitly the current state of BIB seems to be due to the
strong lobbying capacity of the farmers. The very large areas requiring maintenance activities of average and high complexity represent extra arguments for the
690
V. Iordache et al.
restoration of BIB. The location of these areas is associated to former channels and
lakes, which still preserve part of the reference hydrogeomorphological characteristics. These areas would be the most appropriate for restoration, as part of the
implementation of a scenario transforming the Big Island of Braila into a multifunctional farming system. The multifunctional farms would include lakes, forests,
and agricultural lands. In the areas of the Big Island of Braila located between the
dike and the Danube there are still natural and semi-natural ecosystem which could
play a favourable recolonization role in case of restoration.
Acknowledgements
This research has been performed in the frame of the EC funded project RipFor (Hydraulic, Sedimentological and Ecological Problems of Multifunctional Riparian Forest Management, Contract No QLK5-CT-1999-01229-ammendment No 1) and of a project funded
by the Romanian National University Research Council. Special thanks go to Dr. F. Schiemer for his many constructive remarks on draft versions of this article, and to Dr. Tom
Buijse for offering us the opportunity to contribute with this less formal article.
References
Amoros, C., Rostan, J.-C., Pautou, G. & Bravard, J.P. (1987): The reversible process
concept applied to the environmental management of large river systems. ± Environm. Managem. 11: 607±617.
Anand, M. & Desrochers, M.R. (2004): Quantification of restoration success using complex systems concepts and models. ± Restoration Ecol. 12: 117±123.
Anonymous (2002): 33 millions of Euro in the Big Island of Braila [in Romanian]. ±
http://www.cotidianul.ro/anterioare/2002/economic/econ0814apr.htm
± (2004): News about the Big Island of Braila [in Romanian]. ± http://financiar.rol.ro/
stiri/2004/06/138449.htm
Antipa, G. (1910): Danube flooding area. Actual status and means of valorification [in
Romanian]. ± 318 pp., Inst. de Arte Grafice Carol Gobl, Bucuresti.
Banu, I. (2003): News about the Big Island of Braila [in Romanian]. ± Agricultura Romaniei 37, available at http://www.agriculturaromaniei.ro
Bloesch, J. (2002): The river Danube ± between conservation and restoration. ± Proc.
34th IAD Conf. in Tulcea, Romania. Limnol. Reports 34: XV±XX.
Bodescu, F. (2001): Design and development of the database for the management of biological diversity and ecological diversity in the lower sector of the ecological Danube system [in Romanian]. ± PhD thesis, Univ. of Bucharest, 125 pp.
Boon, P.J. (2004): The catchments approach as the scientific basis of river basin management. ± Proc. 35th IAD Conf. in Tulcea, Romania. Limnol. Reports 35: 11±20.
Buijse, A.D., Coops, H., Staras, M., Jans, L.H., Van Geest, G.J., Grifts, R.E., Ibelings, B.W., Oosterberg, W. & Roozen, F.C.J.M. (2002): Restoration strategies
for river floodplains along large lowland rivers in Europe. ± Freshwater Biol. 47:
899±907.
Restoration of Big Island of Braila
691
Charles, F. (2001): Integrated fisheries management. ± 300 pp., Blackwell Publ., Oxford.
Cristofor, S. (coord.) (2000): The Ecological Network of the Lower Danube (REDI). ±
Report to Major Research Project C89: 190 pp. Univ. of Bucharest, Dept. of Systems Ecology.
Gore, J.A. & Schields, F.D. (1995): Can large rivers be restored? ± Bioscience 45: 142±
152.
Hein, T., Barany, C., Reckendorfer, W. & Schiemer, F. (2004): Hydrochemical key
properties for the evaluation of restoration strategies in Austrian Danube. ± Proc.
35th IAD Conf. in Tulcea, Romania. Limnol. Reports 35: 65±74.
ICPA ± Romanian Research Institute for Soil Science and Agrochemistry (1978): Instructions for the agro-economic assessment of agricultural lands [in Romanian]. ± Internal document.
± (1987): The methodology for performing pedological studies, Vol. 1±3 [in Romanian]. ± Internal document.
ICPDR (2001): Joint action programme for the Danube River Basin. ± Internat. Comm.
for the Protection of the Danube River, Wien, 50 pp.
Iordache, V. (2003a): Hydraulic, Sedimentological and Ecological Problems of Multifunctional Riparian Forest Management, Appendix Management Guidelines. ± Final report to Contract No QLK5-CT-1999-01229 amendment No 1, EC-DGXII,
Bruxelles, 57 pp.
± (2003b): The difficulties in assessing the effects of the Yugoslavian conflict in the
Lower Danube River System pointed out the need for changing the monitoring system. ± J. Env. Protection and Ecol. 4: 557±563.
± (2004): Towards an integrated management of the Lower Danube Fisheries. ± Proc.
12th Internat. Symp. ``Deltas and wetlandsº, Tulcea, Romania: 124±132.
± (2005): Systemic allocation of property rights in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. ± Proc. 13th Internat. Symp. ``Deltas and wetlandsº, Tulcea, Romania, submitted.
Iordache, V. & Bodescu, F. (2004): Emergent properties of the lower Danube River System: The consequences for the integrated monitoring system. ± Proc. 35th IAD
Conf. in Tulcea, Romania. Limnol. Reports 35: 101±108.
Iordache, V., Bodescu, F. & Danciu, M. (2004): Optimization of floodplain management by action at the level of riparian forests. ± Proc. 12th Internat. Symp. ``Deltas
and wetlandsº, Tulcea, Romania: 163±168.
Iordache, V., Cristofor, S. & Vadineanu, A. (2001): Functional analyses of the Lower
Danube wetlands by FAEWE/PROTOWET procedure. ± Proc. ``Deltas and Wetlandsº Internat. Symp., Tulcea: 98±103.
Keckeis, S., Baranyi, C., Hein, T., Holarek, C., Riedler, P. & Schiemer, F. (2003):
The significance of zooplankton grazing in a floodplain system of the River Danube. ± J. Plankton Res. 25: 243±253.
MAA (1999): Study on the fishery sector and aquatic resources of Romania, elaborated in
cooperation with the Know How Fund. ± Ministry of Agriculture and Alimentation,
Bucharest, 55 pp.
Mihalache, M., Andreias, N. & Teaci, D. (2001): Agro-economical assessment [in Romanian]. ± Ed. Corvin, Deva, 240 pp.
692
V. Iordache et al.
Petts, G.E. & Amoros, C. (1993): Le concept d'hydrosysteme applique a la gestion ecologique des fleuves. ± In: C. Amoros & G.E. Petts (eds.): Hydrosystemes fluviaux: 257±274. Masson, Paris.
Rood, S.B., Gourley, C.R., Ammon, E.M., Heki, L.G., Klotz, J.R., Morrison, M.M.,
Mosley, D., Scoppettone, G.G., Swanson, S. & Wagner, P.L. (2003): Flows for
floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. ± Bioscience 53: 647±656.
Schiemer, F. (1999): Conservation of biodiversity in floodplain rivers. ±Arch. Hydrobiol.
Suppl. 115 (Large Rivers 11): 423±438.
Schiemer, F., Baumgarten, C. & Tockner, K. (1999): Restoration of floodplain rivers:
the `Danube' restoration project. ± Regulated Rivers: Research & Managem. 15:
231±244.
Schneider, E. & Gunther-Diringer, D. (2004): Ecological and restoration potentials of
the Lower Danube floodplains: problems and perspectives. ± Proc. 3rd Europ. conf.
on River Restoration, Zagreb, Croatia: 338±344.
Stanford, J.A., Ward, J.V., Liss, W.J., Frissell, C.A., Williams, R.N., Lichatowich,
J.A. & Coutant, C.C. (1996): A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. ± Regulated Rivers: Research & Managem. 12: 391±413.
Stiuca, R., Staras, M. & Tudor, M. (2002): The ecological restoration in the Danube
Delta. An alternative for sustainable management degraded wetlands. ± Proc. 34th
IAD Conf. in Tulcea, Romania. Limnol. Reports 34: 707±720.
Tockner, K., Schiemer, F. & Ward, J.V. (1998): Conservation by restoration: the management concept for a river-floodplain system on the Danube River in Austria. ±
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 71±86.
Vadineanu, A., Adamescu, M., Vadineanu, R., Cristofor, S. & Negrei, C. (2003):
Past and future management of Lower Danube Wetlands System: a bioeconomic
appraisal. ± J. Interdisciplin. Econom. 14: 415±447.
Vadineanu, A., Cristofor, S. & Iordache, V. (2001): Lower Danube River System biodiversity changes. ± In: B. Gopal, W.J. Junk & J.A. Davis (eds.): Biodiversity in
Wetlands: Assessment, Function and Conservation: 29±63. Backhuys Publ.
Voicu, I. (2002): News about the Big Island of Braila [in Romanian]. ± http://www.ccir.ro/
press/rom/mesager/2002/me_25.doc
Received: 16 October 2003; accepted: 23 November 2004.