University of Bucharest Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation

GRASSLANDS OF ROMANIA

Final report on National Grassland Inventory 2000-2003

This project was funded by the Programme International Nature Management/MATRA

of the Dutch Ministries of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and Foreign Affairs

Project partners in the Netherlands Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation

University of Bucharest Royal Dutch Society for Project co-ordinator Nature Conservation Anca Sarbu General Project co-ordinator Romania Peter Veen Netherlands

GRASSLANDS OF ROMANIA

Final report on National Grasslands Inventory 2000-2003

Prepared by

Sarbu Anca, Coldea Gheorghe, Negrean Gavril, Cristea Vasile, Hanganu Jenica, Peter Veen

This project was funded by the Programme International Nature Management/MATRA of the Dutch Ministries of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

and Foreign Affairs Project Partner in the Netherlands Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation

Grasslands of Romania is the 7th report in the series of Publication National Grasslands Inventory Projects in Central and Eastern Europe National publication to support the project implementation in Romania: Coldea Gh., Negrean G., Sarbu A., Sarbu I., 2001. Guide for identification and inventory of semi-natural grasslands from Romania, alo, Bucuresti, pp:58 Published by: University of Bucharest, 2004 Maps: Constantinescu Adrian Layout: Mihai Daniela Clara Issued: 100 copies ISBN: 973-86364-7-7

CONTENT GENERAL INTRODUCTION IN SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLANDS MAPPING PROJECTS ............................................................................ 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................

1.1. CURRENT SITUATION ........................................................................................................................ 1.2. CONSEQUENCES OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS................................................................

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterflow Habitat Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora - CITES Convention on the Protection of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats The Emerald Network The European Union’s Habitats Directive Convention on Biological Diversity The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation

1.3. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIODIVERSITY

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF ITS COMPONENTS IN ROMANIA..........................................................................................................................................

International and national Agreements Conservation, Administration and Policy National legislation - selection

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT .............................................................................. 3. WORKING METHODS IN THE PROJECT ...............................................................

3.1. LOGISTIC OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................................... 3.2. REMOTE SENSING ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 3.3. GIS DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 3.4. METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING .......................................................................................................... 3.5. DATA EVALUATION ...........................................................................................................................

Grassland habitat types description Evaluation of species diversity and nature conservation value Methodology for creating the regional maps

4. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................

4.1. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTORY ...................................................................................................... 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF GRASSLAND HABITAT TYPES ..........................................................................

4.2.1. DRY GRASSLAND ...................................................................................................................... Continental dune grasslands North-western pontic dune grasslands Pannonic and western pontic salin meadows Pannonic western pontic salt steppes Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands Xerophilous feathergrass (Stipa) steppe grasslands Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands Hill limestone steppe grasslands from Dobrogea Pale fescue grasslands on shinny limestone from hill-mountain belts Dealpinae mountain calcareous Sesleria rigida grasslands

4.2.2. MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND .................................................................................................. Hill mountain mesophilous meadows Hill mountain mesophilous manured meadows Mountain mesophilous manured meadows Mesophilous oligotrophic mountain pastures Mountain mesophilous tall herb meadows

4.2.3. HIGH-MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND ............................................................................................. Subalpine mesotrophic pastures Subalpine oligotrophic pastures Basiphilous subalpine pastures Subalpine acidophilous tall herb meadows Subalpine calciphilous tall herb meadows Acidophilous alpine pastures Basiphilous alpine pastures

4.2.4. WET GRASSLAND ..................................................................................................................... Meso-hygrophilous flood plain meadows Intramountain hygrophilous river meadows Hygrophilous meadows in the intramountain low valley Marsh-fens tall carex meadows Water-fringe reed canary-grass meadows Poor fen acid meadows Continental base-rich fen meadows

4.3. EVALUATION OF SPECIES DIVERSITY AND NATURE

CONSERVATION VALUES .................................................................................................................. 4.3.1. SPECIES DIVERSITY OF GRASSLANDS ................................................................................ 4.3.2. NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE OF GRASSLANDS .......................................................

5. GRASSLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ........................................

5.1. THE EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK............................................................... 5.2. MANAGEMENT OF GRASSLANDS IN ROMANIA .......................................................................... 5.3. GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT IN

AGRO-ENVIRONMENT POLICY......................................................................................................... 5.4. OPORTUNITY FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT

IN ROMANIA.......................................................................................................................................... Agro-environmental programmes Organing farming Multifunctional farms

5.5. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE: OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES.................................................

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... 8. REFERENCES............................................................................................................... ANNEX 1: METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING

ANNEX 2: THE LIST OF GRASSLAND MAPPING UNITS

ANNEX 3: REGIONAL GRASSLAND HABITAT MAPS

ANNEX 4: PROTECTED VASCULAR PLANTS FROM

ROMANIAN GRASSLANDS

ANNEX 5: MAPS OF DISTRIBUTION OF THREATENED SPECIES

ANNEX 6: THREATENED SPECIES FROM ROMANIAN GRASSLANDS

GENERAL INTRODUCTION IN SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLAND MAPPING PROJECTS In the framework of the Dutch Program International Nature Management (PIN-MATRA) semi-natural grassland projects were established in EC pre-accession countries by the Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation in close collaboration with local partners like ministries for environment and agriculture, other governmental bodies, scientific institutes, directorates of National Parks and non-governmental organisations. Main goal of these projects is to develop a national Geographical Information System (GIS) database concerning biodiversity aspects for semi-natural grassland ecosystems in Central - and Eastern European Countries in order to facilitate the input of biodiversity data in policy making processes like the designation of the Natura 2000 network, the preparation of agri-environmental schemes and the assessment of environmental impacts on project development in the rural areas. Also the database will be a flexible tool for a selection of so-called Important Plant Areas. Semi-natural grasslands belong to the most valuable ecosystems within the agricultural landscapes and are a result of stable agricultural management over centuries by using the grasslands as hayfields or as pasture fields. As a result of this stable management the grassland ecosystem is well developed and characteristic for the bio-geographical region. Also typical for semi-natural grasslands is the low input of nutrients in the grassland ecosystems which results in a rather low annual biomass production. As a result of this, less competitive grassland species are able to survive in these grasslands. Last but not least, semi-natural grasslands need management by continuation of farming traditions like pasturing and/or cutting of grasslands. If the semi-natural grasslands are not managed in the proper way, for instance by land abandonment or over-grazing, the biodiversity of the grassland community will decrease by development of shrub encroachment or dominance of some competitive grassland species. The national semi-natural grassland mapping projects follow generally speaking a six step approach as was defined during the technical workshop on national grassland inventory in Bratislava in 1999 (Veen en Seffer, 1999): 1. by satellite image processing the permanent grassland complexes will be identified as well as

the boundaries of the complexes; 2. in the screening phase all the potential sites are globally screened by grassland specialists on

actual agricultural use and other relevant issues like land abandonment. Also the field research areas will be defined in this phase taking into account the position of the grasslands in the national bio-geographical units and variation in abiotic conditions like climatic factors and soil types.

3. preparation of national vegetation mapping units in order to reach comparative outputs in the project by the different researchers. The vegetation units are described by selection of so called indicating species which can give an indication of the development of the vegetation at a local site. The selection of the indicating species is based on existing knowledge concerning threatened and endangered species, endemic species and species which reflect the environmental conditions of the grasslands, for instance for nutrient input, continuity in management, water management and others. In some countries even all grassland species are mapped within the designated sites.

4. During the mapping phase, the selected semi-natural grasslands are mapped in the field by mapping the different vegetation units, listing the species and drawing the boundaries of homogenic vegetation’s or mosaics of vegetation’s. For this purpose, the national project co-ordinators develop a manual for field mapping activities in which is included the system of identification of vegetation mapping units and of indicating species and other requirements like information regarding management of the sites and soil type.

5. On the base of all the outputs of the previous phases, the GIS database can be build up, including also information for land management, land use, history of land use, specific threats like land abandonment. The boundaries of the mapped vegetation units are digitised and stored also in the GIS. For reaching compatibility which other geographical information systems on the national level, in most countries national digital maps/satellite images are used as a background layer in the database.

6. Based on the information the project output exists of a flexible database which is available for policy makers and other specialists. The results of the project are interpreted and recommendations for protection and management are described. The results of the project will be disseminated by organising workshops and other activities.

Semi-natural grasslands can also provide an important habitat for other groups of species. For example, for butterflies 65% of the European Red List Butterfly species live in grassland habitats which are used for traditional farming (Van Swaay and Warren, 1999). Semi-natural grasslands can have also an important function for birds like the breeding birds Corn crake, Lesser Grey Shrike, Lesser Spotted Eagle, Red Footed Falcon and White Stork which have strong populations in the Central and Eastern European Countries compared with the Western European Countries (Tucker and Evans, 1997). This Estonian semi-natural grassland report is the first in a sere of reports which will be published in the coming period. It is planned that these grassland inventory projects in Central and Eastern European Countries will be finalised with a multi-country synthesis report in order to reach sustainable conditions for protection and management over all the countries. A preliminary assessment proved already that 12,3% of the total agricultural lands in Central - and Eastern European Countries are identified to be important as for semi-natural grassland (Veen and others in Brouwer, Baldock and la Chapelle, 2001). Peter Veen General Project co-ordinator Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation The Netherlands

1. INTRODUCTION Grasslands are an important part of our natural heritage. They form a significant group of habitat types (European Habitats Classification System) with an inestimable value for the diversity of plants and other organisms. In accordance with the differences in climate conditions they show a great variety across Central and Eastern Europe. The grasslands are still well represented in the vegetation of Romania: dry grasslands, mesophilous grasslands, high-mountain grasslands and wet grasslands. Our country is characterized by a temperate climate, a variety of relief forms and a remarkable diversity of vegetation. The main zones of natural and semi-natural vegetation are correlated with latitude and altitude as follow: (1) latitudinal units (steppe zone, forest-steppe zone and oak tree forests zone), (2) altitudinal units (nemorose level, boreal level, sub-alpine and alpine levels). The steppe zone is located in the South-East part of the country and includes two subunits: dry steppe of graminaceous plants (reduced to a strip along the Danube) and semi-dry steppe of graminaceous and dicotyledonous plants (the most abundant). The forest-steppe zone is still well represented and covers the lowland of the west plain, the Danube plain and the Moldavian plain. The oak tree forests are located on the highland in the southern and western parts of the country, the central part of the Transylvanian plateau and on the Moldavian plateau. The nemorose zone is the most significant and extends over the whole Carpathian mountain area. The boreal zone is located especially in the Oriental Carpathian and the subalpine and alpine zones - covering less extended areas in the upper part of the Carpathian mountains over 1600-1850 m high. The alpine and subalpine flora includes many alpino-carpatho-balcanian species (30%) as well as circumpolar ones (22%). The carpatho and carpatho-balcanian species (17% and respectively 10%) are also well represented. The steppe flora is mainly composed of pontic species (32%), continental eurasiatic species (27%) and some Mediterranean elements (15%). The hydrophilous flora is dominated by eurasiatic species (36%), circumpolar-boreal species (18%) and a few (13%) European cosmopolite and adventive elements. The majority of the Romanian alpine grasslands remained very close to a natural state and exhibit a high biodiversity that includes many endemic species. The upper parts of the Carpathian’s high mountains are covered by short grass pastures dominated by cyperaceous (Carex curvula, Juncus trifidus), graminaceous (Festuca airoides) and dicotyledonous (Silene acaulis, Minuartia sedoides etc.) plants, in complex with short shrubs vegetation, composed by species of Salix, Loiseleuria etc. From the phytocenologic point of view, these areas are populated by vegetative associations belonging to Juncetea trifidi, Salicetea herbacea and Seslerietea albicantis classes. The subalpine grasslands are often accompanied by shrub and open woodlands. Their structure includes both phytoceonological units from the previous alpine classes and also many belonging to Betulo-Adenostyletea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea. Grasslands are also found in the forest-steppe areas. They are continental grasslands dominated by species of Stipa (S. tirsa, S. lessingiana, S. ucrainica), Carex humilis, Chrysopogon gryllus etc. The Romanian forest-steppe vegetation was evidently changed by human activity. Some forests were cut and some areas were used for agriculture purpose. The steppe landscape is dominated by xerothermic grasslands with graminaceous species of Agropyron. In the dry halophytic steppe the representative species belong to genus of Artemisia, Puccinellia, Salicornia, Limonium etc. The majority syntaxonic units are included in the Festuco-

Brometea class and especially in Festucetea Brachypodio-Chrysopogonetalia, Brometalia erecti and Stipo-pulcherrimae-Festucetalia pallentis orders. The coastal and halophytic vegetation covers the sand dune systems and the sea side sandy areas. Remarkable examples are the danubian-balcanic (Puccinellia sp.) halophityc grasslands in complex with halophytic vegetation (Salicornia sp., Suaeda sp., Limonium sp.) and halophytic pontic grasslands with Scirpus maritimus var. compactus, Juncus gerardi, J. maritimus, Limonium gmelinii, Artemisia santonicum etc. The Romanian potential grasslands (CLC 1990) represent about 11% from the whole country territory. From the estimated number of Romanian flora (species and subspecies of higher plants, more than 4000) a significant proportion (~60%) is growing on grassland: alpine and subalpine grasslands, mountain pastures and meadows, psammophile, halophile and xerophile steppes, sandy dry grasslands, continental halophilous swards and rush meadows. The majority of our endemic, near endemic and threatened species (more as 90%) can be found on different types of our grasslands. More than 66% of the globally threatened species (IUCN Red List, Habitats Directive - Annex IIb, IVb and Bern Convention - App I) still present in Romania, are growing on grasslands. The scientific research on Romanian flora and vegetation began in the 19th century. The Romanian Flora was developed (1952-1976) and many vegetation maps with different degrees of resolution were elaborated (the newest in 1985). The existing data concerning the description and distribution of Romanian grasslands are 15-20 years old, fragmentary and mainly based on the Braun-Blanquet approach. They need to be up-dated, in accordance with the European standards concerning the vegetation unit classification system and species taxonomy (Flora Europaea). This aspects were also considerate in the frame of this project. 1.1. CURENT SITUATION The intensive development of agriculture, during the socialism period, from 1945 to 1989, based on large state farms and cooperatives induced many chronic and cumulative effects, marked by the structural changes concerning plant communities, species’ richness and original representatives within the remnants of the ancient natural landscape. About 50% of the grasslands that cover the territory of Romania were alterated for intensive purpose: conversion of meadows to arable fields, use of hybrids seed mixtures, over-fertilization s.o. The steppe grasslands from the South-Eastern part of the country have been destroyed by conversion to arable land. The flood plain meadows located along the Romanian side of the Danube river were strongly affected (1956-1987) by the hydrological changes of the Lower Danube River System (drainages, damming sand canalization) and about 50% of them were also dedicated to agriculture. Only the alpine grasslands remained very close to a natural state and still exhibit a significant plant diversity. After 1990, the socio-economic transition in Romania, like in other CEEC, became a complex and fast process. In this process were involved many sectors which were affected by the political and economical transition. The agricultural sector, which was highly dependent on financial support from the state and the subsidies received, showed significant changes on its economic structures. The privatization of the majority of state-owned enterprises and cooperative farms was accompanied by the loss of the state subventions. The decrease of the state subsidies induced a dramatic decline in the number of cattle and sheep associated with land abandonment. Many grassland areas were seriously affected by extensive invasion of weed, very competitive invasive species and shrubs. Large areas with high nature value, which are dependent on grazing, are threatened. The nature conservation value of many natural grasslands was reduced by the

dominance of a few species associated with the shrub invasion, advantaged by the discontinuous mowing and grazing. On another hand the intensive agriculture practiced by some of the new land owners, in order to increase agricultural production, induced losses of areas with high nature value. During a long period of time (including also the last 15 years) the traditional land use practices were (from different purposes) almost destroyed. The causes were diverse but the result was only one: the decrease of biodiversity. The sustainability of areas with high biological diversity as semi-natural grasslands are, required on integrated approach and adequate managerial practices in order to meet both agricultural and nature conservation objectives. This is one of the reasons for which such a project was started in Romania (in the framework of the EU enlargement process) supporting by scientific information, guidelines and recommendations the development of a sustainable relationship between agriculture and environment. 1.2. CONSEQUENCES OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS It is recognized that in the ongoing “Environmental for Europe” process, plant conservation is a key component of the biodiversity conservation strategy. A commune policy framework for protection and adequate management of the natural heritage is an important tool in forming a common European identity. The international agreements represent a significant background for this policy framework. The process of grasslands protection and conservation, as habitats rich in flora and fauna, with a high biological value is supported by several international conventions. Some of them were signed and ratified also by Romania. The Ramsar Convention (1971) Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterflow Habitat Ratified by Romania on 1991 (Low no. 5/1991) The objectives of this convention is to protect wetlands of international importance. Each country that has acceded to the Convention shall design at least one site to be included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance. In 1995 was signed a wider protocol and the adjacent semi-natural grasslands, the costal meadows and floodplain meadows were also protected under the Ramsar Convention. Two Ramsar sites from Romania have already been nominated: the Danube Delta and the Small Island of Br�ila (2000). Washington Convention (1973) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora - CITES Ratified by Romania on 1994 (Low no. 68/1994) The Convention was opened for signature in 1973 in Washington and entered into force in January 1975. It has become a major and complex instrument for controlling and monitoring wildlife trade. The Convention regulates trade between countries based on a system of permis and certificates for a given list of species. The Convention has two Appendixes:

• Appendix I - includes species threatened by extinction which are banned from trade other than in exceptional circumstance, e.g. for a reintroduction;

• Appendix II - includes species not yet threatened but that could become and need a control in trade.

This Convention is very important for many medicinal plants leaving in grassland and especially for some families like Orchidaceae, Campanulaceae, Asteraceae s.o. and for some species as Adonis vernalis, Arnica montana, Paeonia tenuifolia, Gnetiana lutea s.o. The Bern Convention (1979) Convention on the Protection of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Ratified by Romania on 1993 (Low no. 13/1993) The Bern Convention originated is a resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe elaborated in 1976. After negociations, a treaty was opened for signature at the 3rd European Ministerial Conference on the Environment, in Bern on 19 September 1979. The Convention came into force on 1 June 1982. The Convention has three aims:

- to ensure the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats; - to encourage cooperation between state; - to pay particular attention to endangered and migratory species.

The annex of the Convention list species that require special protection measures. Many of them are growing on the semi-natural grasslands. A number of 59 endangered vascular plants (rare, endemic and near endemic species) leaving in the Romanian grassland are included in the Bern Convention - Appendix I: strictly protected flora species. The Emerald Network In June 1989 the meeting of the Standing Committee made recommendations to develop a network of conservation areas under the Bern Convention. The sites, called Areas of Special Conservation Interest (ASCI’s), would collectively form the aptly named Emerald Network. This network it is for the countries that have acceded to the Bern Convention and it is optional. In Romania there are at this moment 16 declared ASCI. They include a significant diversity of grassland types. The European Union’s Habitats Directive (1992) Directive 92/43/EEC on the Convention of Natural Habitats and of wild Fauna and Flora, commonly known as the “Habitats Directive”, is the European Union’s principal legal instrument and policy for nature conservation in the European Community. It was established in April 1992 and applies to all 15 Member States where it has the force of law. The most important provision, not just for plants, is the obligation that Member States establish Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s) for the sites of a given list of habitats (Annex 1) and of species (Annex II for animals and Annex IIb, IVb, Vb for plants). Collectively the SACs and the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) created under the earlier Birds Directive will form the Natura 2000 network. Romania as a EU accessing country is preparing for Natura 2000 Network site selection. In this frame the scientific information, the data base and the GIS maps, which were developed under this project, will represent a significant background.

The Rio de Janeiro Convention (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity Ratified by Romania on 1994 (Low no. 59/1994) The Convention on Biological Diversity, popularly known as the Biodiversity Convention, was agreed and signed by 150 States at the Rio “Earth Summit” in 1992, and has since been ratified by over 170 nations, a record for any environmental agreement. The Convention objectives are:

- the conservation of biological diversity; - the sustainable use for the components of biological diversity; - the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

In the 42 articles, the Biodiversity Convention says precisely what has to be done and how it should be done, in order to maintain the balance between conservation, sustainable use and sharing of benefits. This is the core of the political bargain on which the Biodiversity Convention is founded. It is not acceptable for a country to implement one part of the objectives but not the others. Every country that joins the Biodiversity Convention has to prepare a national strategy or action plan for implementing the measures it contains. Romania has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity and of major significance this is legally binding within Romanian law. This not only underscores Romania’s commitment to the principle of biodiversity conservation, but it also provides a legitimacy for incorporating biodiversity protection into the Romanian regulatory framework. The difficult task has been to incorporate biodiversity conservation principles effectively into coherent policies in all economic sectors, to develop and implement clear management plans for protected areas, and to achieve enforcement of laws. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (2002) Part of the Convention on Biological Diversity The CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation was adopted by the 183 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in The Hague, April 2002. The new Global Strategy for Plant Conservation marks a new beginning and focus for safeguarding wild plants. The Strategy offers to the governments of the world a clear set of targets for protecting their native flora. The objectives of the Strategy are:

- understanding and documenting plant diversity; - conserving plant diversity; - using plant diversity sustainable; - promoting education and awareness about plant diversity; - building capacity for plant diversity.

In order to achieve Target 5 in the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) a special programme with the aim is to identify and protect a network of the best sites for plant conservation throughout Europe and the rest of the world was starting. IPA identification will provide essential information for the Natura 2000 Network of the EU Habitats Directive, the Emerald Network of the Bern Convention and the PEEN programme of PEBLDS. At its seventh meeting from 2004, the CBD Conference of the Parties will consider progress made in the implementation of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.

1.3. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF ITS COMPONENTS IN ROMANIA

International and national Agreements Romania has played an active role in many international environmental issues and is a Contracting Party to most international and regional environmental agreements and conventions. Romania has demonstrated its interest in, and commitment to, the conservation of biodiversity and natural areas through signing of international agreements, the passage of national regulations and the designation of a large number of protected areas. Despite these efforts Romania has experienced difficulties in implementing policies and strategies to achieve effective biodiversity conservation. There is a lack of a comprehensive conservation management strategy as well as appropriate institutional arrangements for biodiversity conservation. Coordination among the various governmental organizations involved with nature protection activities is often inadequate and the public participation into the decision-making process often occurs on an ad-hoc basis. Within Romania there is an excellent foundation of scientific research and well trained scientists and engineers. However scientific research is largely uncoordinated at the national level and data and information that is collected is neither centralized nor easily accessible. A well defined and coordinated institutional structure for evaluating, monitoring and managing protected areas in Romania is needed. Romania is also an active participant in regional environmental initiatives such as the Danube Environmental Programme, the Black Sea Environment Programme, and the Environment for Europe process. The Danube and Black Sea Programmes, which are largely focused on water quality improvement, have recognized the important connection that exists between land-use management and water quality. Through effective protected areas management and land use policies - in particular protection and restoration of wetland areas - water quality improvements in the Danube and Black Sea will be achieved. These improvements will not only benefit Romania but other countries as well. Romania is also participating in several European Union programmes including PHARE and activities working on improving environmental standards and conditions within Romania (and harmonized to EU standards). Conservation, Administration and Policy A variety of Romanian governmental organizations have responsibilities for some aspects related to biodiversity and it can be safely said that the institutional arrangements for biodiversity conservation and the management of protected areas are not clearly defined. The largest part of the responsibilities for nature protection and management belong to the Ministry of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection (MWFEP) and the branches or agencies affiliated with the MWFEP. The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, however, has its own management structure (assisted with international support). The Commission for the Protection of Nature Monuments of the Romanian Academy is the legal scientific authority for nature conservation and protected areas. For the protected areas located on forest land the management is ensured by foresters from the autonomous agency ROMSILVA. Local authorities are responsible for land-use planning but with no capacity and qualified staff for incorporating biodiversity/nature conservation into their policies. The 41 Environmental Protection agencies (EPAs) offices (County MWFEP offices) have legal responsibility for environmental

monitoring and nature conservation. It is important that the new laws stipulate the separation of the regulatory responsibilities, and the functions and management responsibilities for natural resources. Although there is considerable interest and recognition of the values of biodiversity in Romania it is clear that there are a number of institutional and regulatory weaknesses that hinder the protection and sustainable management of these resources. The National Biodiversity Strategy should seek to address these problems, which include:

• lack of a coherent policy and strategy for managing and conserving biodiversity in Romania; • subordination of the demands for biodiversity conservation to activities which have major

ecological impacts; • poor enforcement of existing laws; • lack of clear organization responsibilities and institutional structure for biodiversity

conservation; • incoherence of the legal and institutional framework for monitoring the exploitation of

natural resources; • need for the implementation of the economical and financial instruments to stimulate the

measures for the biological diversity conservation and sustainable use of its components. National Legislation - selection

• Law no. 137/1995 - Environmental Protection Law. • Order no. 125/1996 released by the Ministry of Water, Forests and Environmental

Protection for approving the settlement of economic and social activities, which have an impact on the environment.

• Law no. 82/1993 regarding the founding of the “Danube Delta” Biosphere’s Reservation. • Decision of the Romanian Government no. 457/1994 regarding the organization and

function of the Ministry of Water, Forests and Environmental Protection. • Decision of the Romanian Government no. 243/1995 regarding the founding, organization

and function on the National Comity for the Ozone Layer Protection. • Law no. 97/1992 for the ratification of the Convention between the Romanian Government

and the Bulgarian Government regarding the collaboration on environmental protection. • Law no. 98/1992 for the ratification of the Convention regarding the Black Sea protection

against pollution, signed in Bucharest on April the 21st 1992. • Law no. 24/1994 for the ratification of the Convention - frame of the United Nations upon

climatic changes, signed in Rio de Janeiro on June the 5th 1992. • Law no. 58/1994 for the ratification of the Convention regarding biological diversity, signed

in Rio de Janeiro on June the 5th 1992. • Law no. 14/1995 for the ratification of the Convention regarding the cooperation for the

protection and lasting use of the Danube river, signed in Sofia on July the 29th 1994. • Law no. 30/1995 for the ratification of the Convention regarding the protection and use of

transborder water courses and international lakes, concluded in Helsinki on March the 17th 1992.

• Law no. 462/2001 regarding the protected natural areas regime, conservation of the natural habitats, the wild flora and fauna.

• Law no. 5/2000 regarding the approval of the Landscaping Plan of the national territory - Third Section - protected areas.

• Decision of the Romanian Government no. 230/2003 regarding the limitation of the biosphere’s reservations, national and natural parks and the establishment of administrations for them.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The wider project objective is to promote and scientifically support the management and protection of the European grassland heritage. At the national level this project was focused on the establishment of the Romanian semi-natural grasslands inventory, in order to promote their conservation and management, in accordance with the European Strategy of sustainable use. The project results will support the development and the implementation of national biodiversity strategy and regional managerial plans, the programmes for protection and management of ecological and landscape values in agricultural areas as well as other projects, which can contribute to the establishment of a sustainable relation, between nature conservation and agriculture practices. The short term objectives of this project were developed in accordance with this general framework:

• identification of the existing grassland diversity in Romania, which in fact involves also the assessment of biological and landscape diversity;

• assessment of the extent of grasslands deterioration and vulnerability; • establishment of the grasslands conservation values; • development of the appropriate data base required by the future management programmes,

accessible for government conservation bodies and scientists as well. This very brief description of the project background proves that it can be used as an important source of data and scientific information, which are significant operational tools in order to achieve the European requirements and standards for Romanian grasslands sustainable use, protection and conservation. Six outputs were identified for this project:

• development of a classification and identification system for Romanian grasslands, in accordance with the European standards;

• identification of the Romanian areas with dominant semi-natural grasslands and selection of the most representative zones for biodiversity conservation, to be included in the mapping process;

• characterization and evaluation of Romanian selected grassland areas, for conservation reasons and management needs (400.000 ha of grasslands);

• development of digitalized maps valuable grassland ecosystems in Romania; • development of recommendation for management practices, in accordance with the Pan-

European Strategy of Natural Capital conservation and sustainable use. To achieve the project objectives and the proposed outputs, a set of special activities was developed: managerial activities, training for local experts in order to appropriate the project methodology, selection of mapping areas using Corine Land Cover images, publication of a working manual in Romanian language, gathering of existing data, field activity for mapping grasslands at the alliance level, data and images processing, development of the geographical information system, development and publication of the present report. This project represents the first national grassland inventory. It will support the Agro-Environment Programmes, SAPARD Programme, NATURA 2000 Network implementation and Important Plant Areas selection, as a requirement of Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.

3. WORKING METHODS IN THE PROJECT 3.1. LOGISTIC OF THE PROJECT Dr. Anca Sârbu from the University of Bucharest has acted as a project co-ordinator in Romania. The management team consisted of dr. Hanganu Jenic� (data base/GIS), dr. Coldea Gheorghe (responsible for classification system development) and dr. Negrean Gavril (control of field data). The field activity was co-ordinated, at the local level, by the leaders of the mapping teams (Cap. 7). Eight field working team, from 5 Romanian universities and 3 research institutes, including 30 field mapper specialists were involved in the field activity. Four technical workshops (for the working teams) and a working meeting (for the final report) were organized during the project period. They were good opportunities to evaluate our results, to identify the gaps, to propose additional works to support the project methodology, to establish the access to the data base, to discuss the administrative and financial aspects. The contribution of Mr. Peter Veen, general project co-ordinator to our technical workshops was significant for the implementation of this type of project in Romania. 3.2. REMOTE SENSING ANALYSIS The remote sensing analysis was done by the GIS Department of the Danube Delta Research and Design Institute from Tulcea. Supervised classification of Landsat TM satellite images from the year 2000 using ER mapper processing system was run in order to identify potential grassland over Romania. For the calibration of the satellite images grassland polygons from Corine Land Cover data base were used. Location of the grassland sites resulted from satellite image processing were checked against Land Cover Data. Potential grassland extracted from processing the satellite images is 49,900 Km2 and seems to be over estimated. Short term abandoned agriculture land vineyards and abandoned fruit tree were identified as grassland. Discriminations of CLC grassland polygons were made by photo interpreter expertise and using additional information as two sets of satellites image (form 90,s and 2000) topographical maps 1:50000 and available aerial photographs or SPOT satellite images. Corine Land Cover data base seems to be more suitable for estimating the potential grassland types in general and for identifying the grassland complexes to be included in the field work. Potential semi-natural grassland area in Romania is estimated at 26,133 Km2. To facilitate the selection of most representative grassland sites, a UTM grid which corresponds with a 1/25.000 scale map sheet was overlapped on a geographic map of Romania. For each selected map sheet, the grassland area percentage was calculated from Corine Land Cover data base. Further on selection of map sheets with most representative grassland sites was based on existing botanical data and the expertise of botanical experts. The selection was thought to cover all grassland types in the country. Eight Romanian institutions (universities and research bodies) were involved in the mapping process in their own region. Hard copy of the satellite image corresponding to UTM quadrates overlapped by grassland Corine Land Cover polygons and localities were printed at 1:25.000 scale. For better orientation in the field

additional topographical maps have been provided. The scale of the hard copy satellite image (falls colour) and topographical map was the same (1:25000). The working data set has also included transparent paper for drawing the grassland polygons in the field. Before starting the project, local experts were trained to identify grassland sites in the field form the satellite images. For this purpose one representative area was selected. On the printed satellite image of the site, the most common land cover classes has been pointed: broadleave forest, coniferous forest, mixt (broadleaves and coniferous) forest, grassland, large size agriculture fields, small size agriculture field, mixt area (grassland and agriculture), water body, roads, localities, rocks. The training work helped the mappers to learn how to discriminate between grassland areas and other land cover classes. 3.3. GIS DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT Grassland polygons drawn on transparent paper in the field were scanned and transferred in GIS environment. Data collected in the field was filled in a required format and put in the data base. After checking and corrected, the data has been processed using specialized software as ArcInfo and ArcView. A total number of 3660 polygons were mapped which include 130.680 species records. Each polygon has attached field data and GIS ID data.

GIS processing scheme

Scanning the map sheet and rectification of the images

(X,Y coordinates)

Digitizing the polygons

Assign spatial attribute for each polygon, editing ArcInfo & ArcView, build spatial data base

GIS processing

The data base structure Information collected in the field provided data for characterization and classification of habitat and vegetation types. Phytocoenological classification of semi-natural grassland communities is at alliance level. A total number of 28 alliances was identified and mapped. The distribution of the alliances over investigated area is shown in Annex 3. Red List species recorded is 293. Distribution of each Red List species and its presence in different polygons has been mapped. All the distribution maps are included in Annex 5. A summary statistics of number of species within polygon (five classes) and of protected species from Romanian Red List/polygon was also done. 3.4. METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING In accordance with the project proposal, it was planned that 400.000 ha of semi-natural grasslands should be included in the mapping process. The selection of the mapping areas was based both on existing botanical data and the expertise of our botanists. In order to reach representatives of the samples for the majority of geographical regions of Romania, the mapping areas were divided as much as possible all over the country. Grassland polygons from Corine Land Cover images and the polygons resulted from Landsat image processing, were printed on the selected quadrates. For a better orientation on the field, additional topographical maps were used. The standard methodology of mapping was used. It is based on the criteria of homogeneity of vegetation/polygon. The real layer of each potential polygon was determinated according this principle. The details of the methodology are in Annex 1. In the mapping process the classification system developed by Romanian grasslands experts was used. In this respect 29 type of grassland were identified. They are listed in the Annex 2. In order to detect compatibility between Braun-Blanquet system and the methodology used in this project some additional relevees, after Braun-Blanquet method were sampled in the typical mapped grasslands. The relevees were put together on the ground of characteristic and differential species of grassland associations and then these associations were included in syntaxonomical units of higher level as alliances, orders and classes (Annex 1). A number of 34 grassland associations were

Area of the polygon (m2) Perimeter of the polygon (m) Unique identification Identification of the filled form (number & institution) Name of the map sheet Name of the alliance Codification of the alliance Codification for T,L,C… Name of the specialist Polygon number from the scanned map Institution Number of species for the polygon Number of the protected species for the polygon

identified and outlined. For all these 34 grassland associations, analytical tables consisting one or more relevees were done. As a consequence, the grassland associations identified after Braun-Blanque method were found as related to the grassland type to which they belong from a floristical and ecological point of view. 3.5. DATA EVALUATION Grassland habitat types description The grassland habitat types are described based on geobotanical value, environmental parameters and management. For each of them a set of diagnostic species and the belonging associations were included. Each type is also compared from the syntaxonomical point of view, to existing units of Braun-Blanque classification and to the habitat types from the EU Habitats Directive. The data on average altitude, range of altitude, average slope, climate, geology, soil texture and soil types were derived from the field data (during 40 years of work) offered by the botanists from the Institute of Biological Research from Cluj-Napoca. The climate evaluation (temperature and humidity) was done according also to the climatic regions of the country, where the different grassland types typically occurs and the categories of soil texture and types according to the soil classification system in Romania. Average cover of woods and the management of the different grassland types resulted both from the data collection and mappers estimation. Evaluation of species diversity and nature conservation value The floristic value of the grasslands was evaluated on the base of vascular plants diversity and presence of protected plants (globally threatened - IUCN Red List, Habitats Directive & Bern Convention; European threatened - Habitats Directive & Bern Convention; national protected - Romanian Red List). As reference, a special list of protected plants (1026 species & subspecies) growing on the Romanian grasslands was prepared and used (Annex 4). Special maps showing the distribution of the richest polygons on vascular plants and on protected species were also done. In addition, for each protected specie identified during this inventory a map of distribution was also realized. A number of 37 pictures of protected plants were also included in Annex 6. Methodology for creating the regional maps The information about the dominant grassland types (each polygon was classified to particular grassland types according to the dominant habitat type) and alliances’ distribution, in the study areas was processed and outlined on maps. Two types of maps of distribution were realized:

• for each grassland habitat type was made a general map, showing its presence/distribution on all the mapped grassland areas;

• for each region of the country, included in this inventory a map showing the alliances presence/distribution was made.

4. RESULTS 4.1. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTORY The mapped polygons included 390.012 ha of grasslands. This amount was higher as the potential grasslands for mapped squares. From this amount, 371.894 ha were identified as permanent semi-natural grassland of different types, 16.484 ha were evaluated as degradated grasslands, which have not been recorded and 1.634 ha were represented by agricultural areas, built-up areas and water bodies. A number of 29 grassland habitat types were identified for Romania. From this amount 28 were recorded during this inventory. GRASSLAND HABITAT TYPES DRY GRASSLAND Cod 1. Continental dune grasslands ........................................................................................FBC 2. North-western pontic dune grasslands ........................................................................ ELG 3. Pannonic and western pontic salin meadows ................................................................PBJ 4. Pannonic western pontic salt steppes ........................................................................... FEP 5. Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands .............................................................FDS 6. Xerophilous feathergrass (Stipa) steppe grasslands......................................................SCE 7. Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands ............................................................CDB 8. Hill limestone steppe grasslands from Dobrogea .......................................................... PIT 9. Pale fescue grasslands on shinny limestone from hill-mountain belts........................... BFP 10. Dealpinae mountain calcareous Sesleria rigida grasslands.........................................SER MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND 11. Hill mountain mesophilous meadows .......................................................................CYN 12. Hill mountain mesophilous manured meadows.........................................................ARR 13. Mountain mesophilous manured meadows ................................................................POT 14. Mesophilous oligotrophic mountain pastures........................................................... VNG 15. Mountain mesophilous tall herb meadows. ...............................................................CAA HIGH-MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND 16. Subalpine mesotrophic pastures................................................................................ POA 17. Subalpine oligotrophic pastures................................................................................ PON 18. Basiphilous subalpine pastures ..................................................................................SEB 19. Subalpine acidophilous tall herb meadows ...............................................................CAV 20. Subalpine calciphilous tall herb meadows..................................................................FCT 21. Acidophilous alpine pastures ..................................................................................... JUT 22. Basiphilous alpine pastures.......................................................................................OXE WET GRASSLAND 23. Meso-hygrophilous flood plain meadows ................................................................. AAP 24. Intramountain hygrophilous river meadows.............................................................. CAL 25. Hygrophilous meadows in the intramountain low valley.......................................... MOL 26. Marsh-fens tall Carex meadows............................................................................... MAC 27. Water-fringe reed canary-grass meadows ..................................................................SGP 28. Poor fen acid meadows............................................................................................. CAF 29. Continental base-rich fen meadows ..........................................................................CAD

Grassland habitat types according to the study area (total mapped area 390.012 ha)

38.2%

39.1%

5.3%

12.7%0.4%4.2%

dry grasslands mesophilous grasslands

high-mountain grasslands wet grasslands

degradated grasslands non-representative

The grassland habitat types were divided in four categories in accordance with the moisture and altitude gradient: dry, mesophilous, high-mountain and wet grasslands. The best represented were mesophilous (39,1%) and dry grasslands (38,2%), follow by high-mountain grasslands (12,7%). The most commune habitat type from mesophilous grasslands group was Hill-mountain mesophilous meadow (CYN), covering 36% of the study area. From the dry grasslands group two habitat type were dominant: Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands (FDS - 16%) and Xerophilous feathergrass steppe grasslands (SCE - 11%). From the wet grassland group, a significant representation show only Meso-hydrophilous flood plain meadows (AAP - 9%). The other grassland types were present on the study areas in a smaller proportion: 8 of them between 4% - 1% and 16 under 1%. The amount of identified degradated grasslands was low (under 5%). The process of degradation was mostly induced by soil erosion and invasive of ruderal species, shrubs and threes. Only 0,4% of non-representative areas were found. This situation was induced by the fact that in the mapping process were included only very representative grasslands area which were results after a preselection process.

Distribution of grasslands (28 types) according to the study area

3974

8125

9715

11022

13475

13766

15732

16693

35021

41131

58943

133838

3154

2321

1424

963

586

552

505

379

335

124

45

30

24

10

7

3

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

SGP

CAA

CAF

OXE

FCT

MOL

BFP

CAD

SER

SEB

CAL

CAV

POT

ELG

CDB

FEP

JUT

ARR

VNG

PIT

MAC

FBC

PON

PBJ

AAP

SCE

FDS

CYN

area (ha)

Distribution of grasslands (28 types)

according to the study area

36%

16%11%

9%

4%

4%4%

4%3% 3% 2% 1% 3%

CYN FDS SCE

AAP PBJ PON

FBC MAC PIT

VNG ARR JUT

Other (16) each < 1%

4.2. DESCRIPTION OF GRASSLAND HABITAT TYPES DRY GRASSLANDS CONTINENTAL DUNE GRASSLANDS Diagnostic species: Achillea ochroleuca, Alyssum montanum ssp. gmelinii, Alyssum desertorum,

Anthemis ruthenica, Bassia laniflora, Bromus tectorum, Centaurea diffusa, Carex stenophylla, Chondrilla juncea, Dianthus diutinus, Festuca vaginata, F. beckeri, Erysimum diffusum, Euphorbia seguieriana, Polygonum arenarium, Plantago arenaria, Koeleria glauca, Helichrysum arenarium, Astragalus varius, Silene borysthenica, Gypsophila paniculata, Corynephorus canescens, Bassia laniflora, Secale silvestre, Peucedanum arenarium;

Syntaxonomical classification: Corynephorion canescentis Klika 1934, Bassio laniflorae - Bromion tectorum (Soó 1957) Borhidi 1996, Festucion vaginatae Soó 1929;

Associations belonging: Festucetum vaginatae Rapaics ex Soó 1929, Brometum tectorum Bojko 1934, Festuco vaginati - Corynephoretum Soó in Aszód 1935;

NATURA 2000: 2340* - Pannonic continental dune; Average altitude: 150 m; Range of altitudes: 120-280 m; Average slope: plain; Geological substrate: 90% - sands, 10% - alluvial sands; Climate: 84% - warm and very warm, 16% - cold, 84% - dry, 16% - moderately wet; Soil texture: 90% - light soils, 10% - no data; Soil types: 90% - sandy soil, 10% - sandy regosol; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 30% - grazing, 50% - no management, 20% - no data.

Continental dune grasslands (FBC)

DRY GRASSLANDS NORTH-WESTERN PONTIC DUNE GRASSLANDS Diagnostic species: Leymus racemosus ssp. sabulosus, Centaurea arenaria, Artemisia

tschernieviana, Eryngium maritimum, Convolvulus persicus, Scabiosa argentea, Silene thymifolia, Alyssum borzeanum, Stipa borysthenica, Carex colchica;

Syntaxonomical classification: Elymion gigantei Morariu 1957, Scabiosion ucranicae Bo�caiu 1975;

Associations belonging: Elymetum gigantei Morariu 1957, Secali - Alyssetum borzeani Morariu 1959; Xeranthemo - Scabiosetum argenteae Bo�caiu 1975;

NATURA 2000: 2120 - Pontic white dunes; Average altitude: 50 m; Range of altitudes: 40-80 m; Average slope: plain; Geological substrate: 100% - sands; Climate: 88% - warm and very warm, 12% - cold, 88% - dry, 12% - moderately wet; Soil texture: 100% - light soils; Soil types: 100% - sandy soil; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 100% - no management.

North-western pontic dune grasslands (ELG)

DRY GRASSLANDS PANNONIC AND WESTERN PONTIC SALIN MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Puccinellia peisonis, P. limosa, Hordenm hystrix, Pholiurus pannonicus,

Camphorosma annua, Lepidium cartilagineum ssp. crassifolium, Plantago maritima, P. tenuiflora, Triglochin maritimum, Bassia sedoides, Scorzonera parviflora, Beckmannia eruciformis, Ranunculus lateriflorus, R. pedatus, Rorippa sylvestris, Carex distans, Juncus gerardi, Aster tripolium ssp. pannonicus, Taraxacum bessarabicum;

Syntaxonomical classification: Puccinellion peisonis Wendelb. 1943, Puccinellion limosae Klika et Vlach 1937, Beckmannion eruciformis Soó 1933, Juncion gerardi Wendelb. 1943;

Associations belonging: Puccinellietum peisonis Franz et al. 1937, Puccinellietum limosae Soó 1936, Plantagini - Pholiuretum pannonici (Soó 1933) Wendelb. 1943, Hordetum hystricis Wendelb. 1943, Taraxaco bessarabici - Juncetum gerardi (�erb. 1965) Coldea 2000;

NATURA 2000: 1340* - Continental salin meadows; Average altitude: 180 m; Range of altitudes: 90-250 m; Average slope: plain; Geological substrate: 90% - alluvial deposit, 10% - no data; Climate: 88 % - warm and very warm, 12% - cold, 88% - dry, 12% - wet; Soil texture: 75% - heavy soil, 25% - moderately heavy soils; Soil types: 75% - solonetz, 25% - gley-solonchak; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 60% - mowing, 30% - grazing, 10% - no data.

Pannonic and western pontic salin meadows (PBJ)

DRY GRASSLANDS PANNONIC AND WESTERN PONTIC SALT STEPPES Diagnostic species: Festuca pseudovina, Limonium gmelinii, Lotus angustissimus, Plantago

schwarzenbergiana, Polygonum patulum, Lotus tenuis, Trifolium parviflorum, T. micranthum, Ornithogalum orthophyllum ssp. kochii, Cerastium pumilum, C. anomalum, Achillea setacea, A. collina, Scorzonera cana, Poa bulbosa, Trifolium parviflorum, Polycnemum arvense, Artemisia santonicum ssp. santonicum, Trifolium angulatum, Trifolium subterraneum;

Syntaxonomical classification: Festucion pseudovinae Soó 1933; Associations belonging: Achilleo setaceae - Festucetum pseudovinae Soó 1947, Artemisio

santonici - Festucetum pseudovinae Soó in Mathé 1933 corr. Borhidi 1996, Artemisietum santonici Soó 1947;

NATURA 2000: 1530 - Pannonic salt steppe meadows; Average altitude: 140 m; Range of altitudes: 75-220 m; Average slope: plain; Geological substrate: 100% - alluvial deposits; Climate: 85 % - warm and very warm, 15 % - moderately cold, 85% - dry, 15% - moderately wet; Soil texture: 85% - heavy soil, 15% - moderately heavy soil; Soil types: 90% - soloth, 10% - solonetz; Average cover of woods: 5%; Management: 70% - mowing, 20% - grazing, 10% - no data.

Pannonic western pontic salt steppes (FEP)

DRY GRASSLANDS HILL AND PLATEAU XERO-MESOPHILOUS GRASSLANDS Diagnostic species: Astragalus austriacus, A. exscapus, Dichanthium ischaemum, Carex humilis,

Cleistogenes serotina, Dorycnium herbaceum, Festuca valesiaca, F. rupicola, Oxytropis pilosa, Stipa capillata, S. tirsa, S. joannis, Allium albidum, Cephalaria uralensis ssp. uralensis, Centaurea trinervia, Salvia nutans, S. transsilvanica, Adonis vernalis, Phlomis tuberosa, Eryngium planum, Goniolimon tataricum;

Syntaxonomical classification: Festucion valesiacae Klika 1931, Danthonio - Stipion tirsae 1947; Associations belonging: Medicagini - Festucetum valesiacae Wagner 1941, Salvio nemorosae -

Festucetum rupicolae Zólyomi ex Soó 1964, Danthonio - Stipetum tirsae Ghi�a 1941; NATURA 2000: 4030 - Dry grasslands; Average altitude: 350 m; Range of altitudes: 200-450 m; Average slope: 25o; Geological substrate: 45% - marl deposits, 15% - calcareous rocks, 10% - flysh, 30% - no data; Climate: 80% - warm and very warm, 20% - moderately cold, 80% - dry, 20% - moderately wet; Soil texture: 80% - heavy soil, 20% - moderately heavy soil; Soil types: 25% - degraded chernoyem, 45% - humic-gley soil, 30% - brown acid; Average cover of woods: 5%; Management: 60% - mowing, 40% - grazing;

Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands (FDS)

DRY GRASSLANDS XEROPHILOUS FEATHERGRASS (STIPA) STEPPE GRASSLANDS Diagnostic species: Stipa lessingiana, S. ucrainica, S. dasyphylla, Festuca valesiaca, Agropyron

cristatum ssp. pectinatum, Cleistogenes bulgarica, Jurinea arachnoidea, J. mollis ssp. Transsilvanica, Nepeta ucranica, Cephalaria uralensis ssp. uralensis, Centaurea trinervia, Phlomis pungens, Ceratocarpus arenarius, Taraxacum serotinum, Galium octonarium, Bombycilaena erecta, Centaurea marschalliana, Adonis volgensis, Dianthus capitatus, Euphorbia nicaeensis, Bupleurum affine, Vinca herbacea;

Syntaxonomical classification: Stipion lessingianae Soó 1947, Ceratocarpo - Euphorbion stepposae Mititelu 1970;

Associations belonging: Stipetum lessingianae Soó (1927) 1947, Stipetum pulcherrimae Soó 1959, Festuco sulcatae - Caricetum humilis Soó 1945, Bombycilaeno - Botriochloetum Dihoru et Doni�� 1970, Ceratocarpetum arenarii Mititelu 1970;

NATURA 2000: 6240 - Subpannonic steppe grasslands; Average altitude: 250 m; Range of altitudes: 180-370 m; Average slope: 20o; Geological substrate: 65% - marl-clay deposits, 20% - grit-stone, 15% - sands; Climate: 85% - warm and very warm, 15% - weak cold, 85% - dry, 15% - few wet; Soil texture: 35% - heavy soil, 65% - light soil; Soil types: 35% - degraded chernozem, 65% - podzolic soil of depression; Average cover of woods: 3%; Management: 20% - mowing, 60% - grazing, 10% - no data.

Xerophilous feathergrass (Stipa) steppe grasslands (SCE)

DRY GRASSLANDS HILL AND PLATEAU XERO-MESOPHILOUS GRASSLANDS

Diagnostic species: Brachypodium pinnatum, Bromus erectus, Cirsium pannonicum,

Chamaecytisus austriacus, Danthonia alpina, Filipendula vulgaris, Inula salicina, Linum flavum, L. perenne, Carex flacca, C. montana, Hypochoeris maculata, Polygala major, Chrysopogon gryllus, Peucedanum cervaria, Ranunculus polyanthemos, Senecio integrifolius, Stipa tirsa, S. pulcherrima, Thesium linophyllon, Veronica austriaca, V. prostrata, Viola hirta;

Syntaxonomical classification: Cirsio-Brachypodion Klika et Hada� 1944, Festucion rupicolae Cs�rös et al. 1961;

Associations belonging: Carici humilis - Brachypodietum pinnati Soó 1942, Seslerietum heuflerianae Soó 1949, Danthonio - Brachypodietum Soó 1947, Danthonio - Festucetum rupicolae Cs�rös et al. 1961;

NATURA 2000: 6210 - Semi-natural dry grasslands; Average altitude: 350 m; Range of altitudes: 240-450 m; Average slope: 15o; Geological substrate: 60% - marl deposite, 25% - calcareous deposite, 15% - plaster stone; Climate: 75% - warm, 25% - moderately cold, 75% - dry, 25% - moderately wet; Soil texture: 60% - moderately heavy soil, 40% - light soil; Soil types: 60 % - podzolic brown soil, 25% - brown rendzina, 15% - rendzinic soil; Average cover of woods: 7%; Management: 25% - mowing, 55% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Hill and plateau xero-mesophilous grasslands (CDB)

DRY GRASSLANDS HILL LIMESTONE STEPPE GRASSLANDS FROM DOBROGEA Diagnostic species: Agropyron cristatum ssp. brandzae, Koeleria lobata, Festuca callieri, Thymus

zygioides, Pimpinella tragium ssp. lithophila, Euphorbia nicaeensis, Dianthus nardiformis, Artemisia pedemontana, Goniolimon besserianum, Allium saxatile, Scorzonera mollis, Potentilla bornmuelleri, Satureja caerulea, Teucrium polium ssp. capitatum, Carex liparocarpos, Valeriana officinalis, Seseli pallasii, Centaurea jankae, Moehringia grisebachii;

Syntaxonomical classification: Pimpinello - Thymion Dihoru 1970; Associations belonging: Agropyro - Thymetum zygioidis Dihoru 1970, Koelerio - Artemisietum

lerchianae Dihoru 1970, Festucetum callierii, �erb�nescu 1965; NATURA 2000: 6110 - Limestone few fallow steppe grassland from Dobrogea; Average altitude: 250 m; Range of altitudes: 200-300 m; Average slope: 15o; Geological substrate: 55% - limestone rocks, 30% - conglomerate rocks, 15% - gritstone; Climate: 85% - warm and very warm, 15% - moderately cold, 85% - dry, 15% - moderately wet; Soil texture: 70% - moderately heavy soil, 15% - light soil, 15% - heavy soil; Soil types: 70% - leached chernoyem, 15% - calcareos chernozem, 15% - chestnut steppe soil; Average cover of woods: 2%; Management: 40% - grazing, 60% - no management;

Hill limestone steppe grasslands from Dobrogea (PIT)

DRY GRASSLANDS PALE FESCUE GRASSLANDS ON SHINNY LIMESTONE FROM HILL-MOUNTAIN BELTS Diagnostic species: Festuca pallens, Phleum montanum, Thymus comosus, Melica ciliata ssp.

ciliata, Allium flavum ssp. flavum, Genista januensis, Cnidium silaifolium, Sedum hispanicum, Sempervivum marmoreum, Carduus candicans, Thalictrum foetidum, Seseli gracile, Helictotrichon decorum, Carex humilis, Poa badensis, Stipa eriocaulis, Seseli osseum;

Syntaxonomical classification: Bromo - Festucion pallentis Zólyomi 1936 corr. 1966; Associations belonging: Seseli gracile - Festucetum pallentis (Soó 1959) Coldea 1991, Melico -

Phleetum montani Bo�caiu et al. 1966, Thymo comosi - Festucetum rupicolae (Cs�rös 1959) Pop et Hodi�an 1985;

NATURA 2000: 6110* - Limestone saxicolous grasslands; Average altitude: 370 m; Range of altitudes: 300-550 m; Average slope: 20o; Geological substrate: 100% - limestone rocks; Climate: 65% - warm, 35% - moderately cold, 75% - dry, 25% - moderately wet; Soil texture: 100% - light soil; Soil types: 90% - black rendzina, 10% - red rendzina; Average cover of woods: 3%; Management: 20% - grazing, 80% - no management;

Pale fescue grasslands on shinny limestone from hill-mountain belts (BFP)

DRY GRASSLANDS DEALPINAE MOUNTAIN CALCAREOUS SESLERIA RIGIDA GRASSLANDS

Diagnostic species: Sesleria rigida, Seseli rigidum, Viola jooi, Saxifraga marginata, Primula veris

ssp. columnae, Dianthus petraeus ssp. petraeus, Centaurea atropurpurea ssp. atropurpurea, Edraianthus graminifolius, Asperula capitata, Dianthus spiculifolius, Alyssum repens, Aconitum anthora, Erysimum witmanni ssp. witmannii, Athamanta turbith ssp. hungarica, Draba lasiocarpa, Centaurea triumfetti;

Syntaxonomical classification: Seslerion rigidae Zólyomi 1936; Associations belonging: Asperulo capitatae - Seslerietum rigidae (Zólyomi 1939) Coldea 1991,

Helictotrichetum decori Domin 1932, Festucetum xanthinae Bo�caiu 1971; NATURA 2000: 8210 - Chasmophytic vegetation on the limestone rock; Average altitude: 600 m; Range of altitudes: 450-950 m; Average slope: 45o; Geological substrate: 90% - limestone rocks, 10% - conglomerate rocks; Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% -

moderately wet; Soil texture: 100% - light soil; Soil types: 85% - black rendzima; 15% - lithosol; Average cover of woods: 5%; Management: 15% - grazing, 85% - no management;

Dealpine mountain calcareous Sesleria rigida grasslands (SER)

MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND HILL MOUNTAIN MESOPHILOUS MEADOWS Diagnostic species: Agrostis capillaris, Bellis perennis, Cynosurus cristatus, Festuca pratensis, F.

rubra, Lolium perenne, Leontodon autumnalis, Phleum pratense, Trifolium repens ssp. repens, Gladiolus imbricatus, Linum catharcticum, Prunella vulgaris, Hypochoeris radicata, Potentilla reptans, Primula veris, Thymus pannonicus, T. pulegioides, Rhinanthus minor;

Syntaxonomical classification: Cynosurion R. Tx. 1947; Associations belonging: Festuco rubrae - Agrostetum capillaris Horv. 1951, Lolio - Cynosuretum

TX 1937, Trifolio repens - Lolietum Krippelová 1967; NATURA 2000: 6520 - Hill-mountain meadows; Average altitude: 550 m; Range of altitudes: 400-650 m; Average slope: 10o; Geological substrate: 70% - sedimentary rocks, 30% - sandy clay; Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% -

moderately wet; Soil texture: 70% - moderately heavy soil, 30% - light soil; Soil types: 70% - sandy soil, 30% - grey brown podzolic soil; Average cover of woods: 5%; Management: 60% - mowing, 25% - grazing, 15% - no data.

Hill mountain mesophilous meadows (CYN)

MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND HILL MONTAIN MESOPHILOUS MANURED MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Arrhenatherum elatius, Achillea millefolium ssp. millefolium, Avenula

pubescens, Campanula patula, Carum carvi, Daucus corota ssp. carota, Bromus hordeaceus ssp. hordeaceus, Crepis biennis, Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare, Dactylis glomerata, Heracleum sphondylium, Knautia arvensis, Lotus corniculatus, Pastinaca sativa ssp. sativa, Plantago lanceolala, Tragopogon orientalis, Geranium pratense, Pimpinella major, Trifolium dubium, Leucanthemum vulgare, Colchicum autumnale, Euphrasia stricta, Trifolium hybridum;

Syntaxonomical classification: Arrhenatherion W. Koch 1926; Associations belonging: Arrhenatheretum elatioris W. Koch, Poo - Trisetetum (Knapp 1951)

Oberd. 1957; NATURA 2000: 6520 - Hill-mountain meadows; Average altitude: 550 m; Range of altitudes: 450-750 m; Average slope: 5o; Geological substrate: 60% - sedimentary rocks, 20% - sandy clay, 20% - schale; Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% -

moderately wet; Soil texture: 60% - moderately heavy soil, 20% - heavy soil, 20% - light soil; Soil types: 60% - sandy soil, 20% - humic gley soil, 20% - gray brown podzolic soil; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 70% - mowing, 10% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Hill mountain mesophilous manured meadows (ARR)

MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND MOUNTAIN MESOPHILOUS MANURED MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Trisetum flavescens, Astrantia major ssp. major, Alchemilla monticola,

Anthoxanthum odoratum, Centaurea phrygia ssp. pseudophrygia, Heracleum sphondylium, Lychnis flos-cuculi ssp. flos-cuculi, Dactylis glomerata, Geranium phaeum, Primula elatior, Phyteuma spicatum, Anthriscus nitidus, Hypericum maculatum ssp. maculatum, Gentianella austriaca, Narcissus poeticus ssp. radiiflorus, Rhinanthus rumelicus, Trollius europaeus ssp. europaeus, Trifolium pratense, Polygonum bistorta;

Syntaxonomical classification: Polygono - Trisetion Br. - Bl. et R. Tx. ex Marshall 1947; Associations belonging: Geranio - Trisetum Knapp 1951, Astrantio - Trisetetum Knapp 1952; NATURA 2000: 6520 - Mountain meadows; Average altitude: 650 m; Range of altitudes: 550-750 m; Average slope: 10o; Geological substrate: 75% - crystalline schists, 25% - calcareous rocks; Climate: 75% - moderately cold, 25% - moderately warm, 75% - moderately wet, 25% -

moderately dry; Soil texture: 75% - moderately heavy soil, 25% - light soil; Soil types: 75% - acid brown soil, 25% - rendzine soil; Average cover of woods: 3%; Management: 70% - mowing, 20% - grazing, 10% - no data.

Mountain mesophilous manured meadows (POT)

MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND MESOPHILOUS OLIGOTROPHIC MOUNTAIN PASTURES

Diagnostic species: Agrostis capillaris, Arnica montana, Deschampsia flexuosa, Antennari dioica,

Alchemilla xanthochlora, Botrychium lunaria, Carex pallescens, Calluna vulgaris, Coeloglossum viride, Dianthus armeria, D. deltoides, Festuca ovina, F. rubra, F. tenuifolia, Nardus stricta, Omalotheca sylvatica, Hieracium pilosella, Potentilla erecta, Polygala vulgaris, Scorzonera humilis, Hypochoeris maculata, Viola canina, V. lutea, Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea;

Syntaxonomical classification: Violion caninae Schwickerath 1944, Nardo - Agrostion tenuis Sillinger 1933, Genistion Böch. 1943;

Associations belonging: Polygalo - Nardetum Oberd. 1957, Vaccinio - Callunetum Buk 1942; NATURA 2000: 6230* - Acidophilous mountain Nardus pastures; Average altitude: 650 m; Range of altitudes: 550-1100 m; Average slope: 10o; Geological substrate: 50% - cristalline schists, 50% - sedimentary rocks; Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% moderately

wet; Soil texture: 90% - medium texture soil, 10% - light texture soil; Soil types: 80% - podzolised soil, 20% - grey brown podzolic soil; Average cover of woods: 5%; Management: 60% - grazing, 20% - mowing, 20% - no data.

Mesophilous oligotrophic mountain pastures (VNG)

MESOPHILOUS GRASSLAND MOUNTAIN MESOPHILOUS TALL HERB MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Calamgrostis arundinacea, Deschampsia caespitosa, Festuca gigantea, F.

drymeia, Clinopodium vulgare, Centaurea mollis, Digitalis grandiflora, Laserpitium latifolium, Lilium martagon, Origanum vulgare, Poa chaixii, Potentilla thuringiaca, Juncus effusus, Epilobium angustifolium, Vicia sepium, V. sylvatica;

Syntaxonomical classification: Calamagrostion arundinaceae (Luquet 1926) Jenik 1961; Associations belonging: Calamagrostio arundinaceae - Digitalietum Oberd. 1957, Senecio sylvatici

- Epilobietum augustifolii R. Tx. 1950; NATURA 2000: 6430 - Mountain mesophilous tall herb meadows; Average altitude: 700 m; Range of altitudes: 650-1300 m; Average slope: 20o; Geological substrate: 85% - cristalline schists, 15% - volcanic rocks; Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40 - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% - moderately

wet; Soil texture: 90% - moderately heavy soil, 10% - light soil; Soil types: 90% - grey brown podzolic soil, 10% - podzolic brown soil; Average cover of woods: 7%; Management: 15% - mowing, 75% - grazing, 15% - no data.

Mountain mesophilous tall herb meadows (CAA)

HIGH MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND SUBALPINE MESOTROPHIC PASTURES

Diagnostic species: Poa alpina, Poa media, Geum montanum, Ligusticum mutellina, Potentilla

aurea ssp. chrysocraspeda, Phleum alpinum, Avenula versicolor, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Pedicularis verticillata, Deschampsia caespitosa, Festuca nigrescens, Senecio subalpinus, Campanula serrata, Prunella vulgaris, Veronica serpyllifolia;

Syntaxonomical classification: Poion alpinae Oberd. 1950; Associations belonging: Alchemillo - Poetum alpinae Beldie 1967; NATURA 2000: 4060 - Alpine grasslands; Average altitude: 1900 m; Range of altitudes: 1800-2100 m; Average slope: 5o; Geological substrate: 90% - crystalline schists, 10% - volcanic rocks; Climate: 75% - cold, 25% - moderately warm, 70% - wet, 30% - moderately dry; Soil texture: 100 - light soil; Soil types: 100% - alpine meadow soil; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 100% - grazing (information from the scientific literature). This type of grassland was not overhear during the mapping field work. The information on altitude, slope, geological substrate, climate, soil texture and types, average cover of woods and management were obtained from the existing literature combined with the data offered by our experts.

HIGH MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND SUBALPINE OLIGOTROPHIC PASTURES

Diagnostic species: Festuca nigrescens, F. airoides, Poa media, Potentilla aurea ssp.

chrysocraspeda (P. ternata), Campanula abietina, C. serrata, C. polymorpha, Scorzonera purpurea ssp. rosea, Geum montanum, Ligusticum mutellina, Leucorchis albida, Gentiana kochiana, Hieracium aurantiacum, Hypochoeris uniflora, Thymus balcanus, Deschampsia flexuosa, Avenula versicolor, Veronica officinalis, Viola declinata;

Syntaxonomical classification: Potentillo ternatae - Nardion Simon 1957; Associations belonging: Violo declinatae - Nardetum Simon 1966, Poetum mediae Cs�rös et al.

1956, Scorzonero - Festucetum nigricantis Coldea 1987; NATURA 2000: 6230* - Acidophilous subalpine Nardus pastures; Average altitude: 1600 m; Range of altitudes: 1450-1900 m; Average slope: 10o; Geological substrate: 90% - cristalline schists, 10% - volcanic rocks; Climate: 70% - cold, 30% - moderately warm, 70% - moderately wet, 30% - moderately dry; Soil texture: 90% - moderately heavy soil, 10% - heavy soil; Soil types: 40% - podzolic brown soil, 60% - alpine meadow soil; Average cover of woods: 2%; Management: 85% - grazing, 15% - mowing.

Subalpine oligotrophic pasture (PON)

HIGH MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND BASIPHILOUS SUBALPINE PASTURES

Diagnostic species: Agrostis alpina, Festuca amethystina, F. rupicola ssp. saxatilis, F. versicolor,

F. nitida ssp. flaccida, F. xanthina, Cerastium transsilvanicum, Alyssum repens ssp. repens, Linum perenne ssp. extraaxillare, Poa rehmannii, Carduus kerneri ssp. kerneri, Primula elatior, Dianthus spiculifolius, Potentilla thuringiaca, Thymus pulcherrimus, Sesleria bielzii, S. rigida ssp. haynaldiana, Carex sempervirens, Aster alpinus, Bupleurum diversifolium;

Syntaxonomical classification: Seslerion bielzii Pawłowski 1935, Festuco - Seslerii bielzii Coldea 1984;

Associations belonging: Diantho - Festucetum amethystinae Coldea 1984, Seslerio - Festucetum versicoloris Beldie 1967, Seslerio bielzii - Caricetum sempervirentis Pu�caru et al. 1956;

NATURA 2000: 6170 - Basiphilous subalpine pastures; Average altitude: 1800 m; Range of altitudes: 1750-2000 m; Average slope: 15o; Geological substrate: 100% - limestone rocks; Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% -

moderately wet; Soil texture: 100% - light soil; Soil types: 100% - rendzine subalpine; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 80% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Basiphilous subalpine pastures (SEB)

HIGH MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND SUBALPINE ACIDOPHILOUS TALL HERB MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Calamagrostis villosa, Campanula abietina, Crepis conyzifolia, Deschampsia

caespitosa ssp. alpicola, Festuca picturata, Hypericum richeri ssp. grisebachii, Gentiana asclepiadea, Omalotheca norvegica, Poa chaixii, Rhodiola rosea, Sempervivum montanum, Solidago virgaurea, Dianthus barbatus ssp. compactus, Festuca porcii, Heracleum carpaticum, Doronicum austriacum, Rumex alpestris, Adenostyles alliariae;

Syntaxonomical classification: Calamagrostion villosae Pawł. et al. 1928; Associations belonging: Hyperico alpigeni - Calamagrostetum villosae Pawł. et Wal. 1949, Phleo

alpini - Deschampsietum Coldea 1983; NATURA 2000: 6430 - Subalpine acidophilous tall herb meadows; Average altitude: 1850 m; Range of altitudes: 1650-2200 m; Average slope: 30o; Geological substrate: 90% - cristalline schist, 10% - volcanic rocks; Climate: 80% - cold, 20% - moderately warm, 80% - moderately wet, 20% - moderately dry, Soil texture: 90% - moderately heavy soil, 10% - light soil; Soil types: 85% - alpine meadows, 20% - lithosol; Average cover of woods: 10%; Management: 70% - grazing, 10% - mowing, 20% - no data.

Subalpine acidophilous tall herb meadows (CAV)

HIGH MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND SUBALPINE CALCIPHILOUS TALL HERB MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Festuca carpatica, Trisetum fuscum, Achillea distans, Astrantia major, Bartsia

alpina, Carex sempervirens, Cortusa matthiolii, Helianthemum nummularium, Luzula sylvatica, Parnassia palustris, Tanacetum corymbosum, Knautia longifolia, Phyteuma orbiculare, Scabiosa lucida, Doronicum carpaticum, Geranium sylvaticum, Festuca pratensis ssp. apennina, Laserpitium krapfii, Carduus kerneri ssp. kerneri, Luzula luzuloides, Rumex alpestris, Lilium jankae, Valeriana tripteris;

Syntaxonomical classification: Festucion carpaticae Belohlavkova et Fiserova 1989, Trisetion fusci Krajina 1933;

Associations belonging: Carduo kerneri - Festucetum carpaticae Coldea 1990, Diantho compacti - Festucetum porcii A. Nyár. 1966;

NATURA 2000: 6430 - Subalpine basiphilous tall herb meadows; Average altitude: 1650 m; Range of altitudes: 1400-1800 m; Average slope: 20o; Geological substrate: 45% - limestone rocks, 45% - cristalline schists, 10% - no data; Climate: 70% - cold, 30% - moderately warm, 70% - moderately wet, 30% - moderately dry; Soil texture: 90% - moderately heavy soil, 10% - light soil; Soil types: 90% - rendzine alpine, 10% - lithosol; Average cover of woods: 5%; Management: 90% - grazing, 10% - no data.

Subalpine calciphilous tall herb meadows (FCT)

HIGH MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND ACIDOPHILOUS ALPINE PASTURES

Diagnostic species: Juncus trifidus, Orechloa disticha, Carex curvula, Festuca airoides, Phyteuma

confusum, Sesleria coerulans, Potentilla aurea ssp. chrysocraspeda, Senecio carpaticus, S. incanus ssp. carniolicus, Hieracium alpinum, Campanula alpina, Primula minima, Agrostis rupestris, Avenula versicolor, Pulsatilla alba, Minuartia sedoides, Vaccinium gaultherioides, Armeria alpina, Omalotheca supine;

Syntaxonomical classification: Juncion trifidi Krajna 1933, Caricion curvulae Br. - Bl. 1925; Associations belonging: Primulo - Caricetum curvulae Oberd. 1957, Oreochloo - Juncetum trifidi

Szafer et al. 1927, Potentillo ternatae - Festucetum airoidis, Bo�caiu 1971; NATURA 2000: 6150 - Acid alpine pastures; Average altitude: 2200 m; Range of altitudes: 2100-2500 m; Average slope: 8o; Geological substrate: 90% - cristalline schists, 10% - volcanic rocks; Climate: 80% - cold, 20% - moderatley warm, 70% - wet, 30% - moderately dry; Soil texture: 80% - moderately heavy soil, 20% - light soil; Soil types: 100% - alpine meadow soil; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 80% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Acidophilous alpine pastures (JUT)

HIGH MOUNTAIN GRASSLAND BASIPHILOUS ALPINE PASTURES

Diagnostic species: Elyna myosuroides, Oxytropis carpatica, O. halleri, Erigeron uniflorus,

Dianthus glacialis, Lloydia serotina, Saussurea alpina, Cerastium lanigerum, Arenaria ciliata, Carex atrata, Luzula spicata, Pinguicula alpina, Pedicularis verticillata, Salix alpina, S. retusa, S. reticulata, Silene acaulis, Dryas octopetala, Polygonum viviparum, Festuca bucegiensis, Gentiana nivalis;

Syntaxonomical classification: Oxytropido - Elymion Br. - Bl. 1949; Associations belonging: Oxytropido carpaticae - Elymetum (Pu�caru et al. 1956) Coldea 1991; NATURA 2000: 6170 - Basiphilous alpine pastures; Average altitude: 2300 m; Range of altitudes: 2250-2400 m; Average slope: 5o; Geological substrate: 100% - limestone rocks; Climate: 70% - cold, 30% - moderately warm, 70% - moderately wet, 30% - moderately dry; Soil texture: 100% - light soil; Soil types: 100% - rendzine alpine; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 70% - grazing, 30% - no data.

Basiphilous alpine pastures (OXE)

WET GRASSLAND MESO-HYGROPHILOUS FLOOD PLAIN MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Agrostis stolonifera, Alopecurus pratensis, Crepis biennis, Deschampsia

caespitosa, Festuca arundinacea, F. pratensis, Fritillaria meleagris, Galium rubioides, Glechoma hederacea, Gratiola officinalis, Plantago altissima, Rumex confertus, Senecio erucifolius, Stellaria palustris, Allium angulosum, Lythrum virgatum, Clematis integrifolia, Oenanthe silaifolia, Scutellaria hastifolia, Viola elatior, V. stagnina, Carex vulpine;

Syntaxonomical classification: Agrostion albae Soó 1943, Alopecurion pratensis Passarge 1964, Potentillion anserinae R. Tx. 1937.

Associations belonging: Agrostetum albae Ujvárosi 1941, Carici vulpinae - Alopecuretum pratensis Soó 1971, Agrostio - Deschampsietum caespitosae Ujvárosi 1947;

NATURA 2000: 6440 - Alluvial flood plain meadows - Cnidion dubii; Average altitude: 325 m; Range of altitudes: 240-470 m; Average slope: more plain; Geological substrate: 75% - clayey marl, 20% - clay, 5% - sand; Climate: 75% - moderately warm, 25% - moderately cold, 75% - dry, 25% - moderately wet; Soil texture: 70% - moderately heavy soil, 20% - heavy soil, 10% - light soil; Soil types: 90% - alluvial soil, 10% - colluvial-alluvial soil; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 70% - mowing, 20% - grazing, 10% - no data.

Meso-hygrophilous flood plain meadows (AAP)

WET GRASSLAND INTRAMOUNTAIN HYGROPHILOUS RIVER MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Angelica sylvestris, Caltha palustris, Cirsium canum, C. oleraceum, C.

rivulare, Crepis paludosa, Equisetum palustre, Holcus lanatus, Myosotis scorpioides, Carex caespitosa, C. panicea, Chaerophyllum hirsutum, Filipendula ulmaria, Geranium palustre, Mentha longifolia, Scirpus sylvaticus, Valeriana officinalis, Senecio rivularis, Carex remota;

Syntaxonomical classification: Calthion R. Tx. 1937; Associations belonging: Scirpetum sylvatici Schwich 1941, Cirsietum rivularis Nowinski 1926,

Angelico - Cirsietum oleracei R. Tx. 1937; NATURA 2000: 6450 - Alluvial hill-mountain meadows - Calthion; Average altitude: 450 m; Range of altitudes: 375-650 m; Average slope: more plain; Geological substrate: 65% - clay alluvium, 25% - snad alluvium, 10% - marl; Climate: 60% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% -

moderately wet; Soil texture: 80% - moderately heavy soil, 20% - light soil; Soil types: 80% - alluvial soil, 20% - colluvial-aluvila soil; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 40% -mowing, 40% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Intramountain hygrophilous river meadows (CAL)

WET GRASSLAND HYGROPHILOUS MEADOWS IN THE INTRAMOUNTAIN LOW VALLEY

Diagnostic species: Molinia coerulea, Achillea ptarmica, Stachys officinalis, Carex tomentosa, C.

panicea, Dianthus superbus, Orchis militaris, Ophioglossum vulgatum, Potentilla alba, Serratula tinctoria, Juncus conglomeratus, Selinum carvifolia, Succisa pratensis, Succisella inflexa, Valeriana officinalis, Gentiana pneumonanthe, Gladiolus imbricatus, Sanguisorba officinalis, Galium boreale;

Syntaxonomical classification: Molinion Koch 1926; Associations belonging: Junco - Molinietum Preising 1951, Peucedano - Molinietum Bo�caiu

1965; NATURA 2000: 6410 - Hygrophilous meadows on the swampy soil (Molinion); Average altitude: 500 m; Range of altitudes: 400-650 m; Average slope: more plane; Geological substrate: 65% - clayey marl, 35% - clay alluvium; Climate: 50% - moderately warm, 50% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately wet, 40% moderately

dry; Soil texture: 60% - heavy soil, 40% - moderately heavy soil; Soil types: 60% - argilic brown forest soil, 40% - gray brown podzolic soil; Average cover of woods: 2%; Management: 20% - mowing, 60% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Hydrophilous meadows in the intramountain depressions (MOL)

WET GRASSLAND MARSH-FENS TALL CAREX MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Carex rostrata, C. acuta, C. acutiformis, C. paniculata, C. gracilis, C. elata, C.

pseudocyperus, C. riparia, C. vesicaria, C. vulpina, Equisetum fluviatile, Galium palustre, Glyceria maxima, Iris pseudacorus, Myosoton aquaticum, Peucedanum palustre, Phalaris arundinacea, Poa palustris, P. trivialis, Rorippa amphibia, Stachys palustris, Phragmites australis;

Syntaxonomical classification: Magnocaricion elatae Koch 1926, Caricion gracilis Neuhäusl 1959; Associations belonging: Caricetum acutformis Eggler 1933, Caricetum ripariae Knapp ex Stoffer

1962, Caricetum paniculatae Wangerin 1916, Caricetum gracilis Almquist 1929; NATURA 2000: 7160 - Marsh-fens rich in mineral salt; Average altitude: 450 m; Range of altitudes: 380-550 m; Average slope: plain; Geological substrate: 70% - clayey marl, 30% - peat sediments; Climate: 50% - moderately warm, 50% - cold, 70% - wet, 30% - moderately dry; Soil texture: 60% - heavy soil, 40% - light soil; Soil types: 60% - low-humic gley soil, 40% - peat; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 30% - mowing, 50% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Marsh-fens tall Carex meadows (MAC)

WET GRASSLAND WATER-FRINGE REED CANARY-GRASS MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Catabrosa aquatica, Glyceria fluitans, G. nemoralis, G. plicata, Leersia

oryzoides, Phalaris arundinacea, Agrostis gigantea, Calamagrostis pseudophragmites, Lycopus europaeus, Sparganium erectum, Myosotis scorpioides, Epilobium hirsutum, Veronica anagallis-aquatica, V. beccabunga, Galium palustre, Mentha longifolia, Phragmites australis, Nasturtium officinale, Stellaria uliginosa;

Syntaxonomical classification: Sparganio - Glycerion fluitantis Br. - Bl. et Sissingh 1942, Phalaridion arundinaceae Kopecky 1961;

Associations belonging: Phalaridetum arundinaceae Kopecky 1961, Catabrosetum aquaticae Rubel 1912;

NATURA 2000: 6420 - Higrophilous tall meadows; Average altitude: 400 m; Range of altitudes: 350-550 m; Average slope: plain; Geological substrate: 75% - clayey marl, 25% - clay; Climate: 65% - moderately warm, 35% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% - wet; Soil texture: 60% - heavy soil, 40% - moderatley heavely; Soil types: 60% - low-humic gley soil, 40% - grey brown podzolic soil; Average cover of woods: 0%; Management: 70% - grazing, 30% - no data.

Water-fringe reed canary-grass meadows (SGP)

WET GRASSLAND POOR FEN ACID MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Carex nigra, C. canescens, C. echinata, C. rostrata, C. lasiocarpa, C. diandra,

Epilobium palustre, Eriophorum angustifolium, Agrostis canina, Potentilla palustris, Rhynchospora alba, Carex limosa, Juncus filiformis, J. alpino-articulatus, Ranunculus flammula, Stellaria palustris, Cardamine pratensis, Pedicularis limnogena, Aulacomnium palustre, Calliergon stramineum, C. cuspidatum, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Sphagnum cuspidatum, S. flexuosum;

Syntaxonomical classification: Caricion fuscae Koch 1926 em. Klika 1934, Caricion lasiocarpae Van den Berghen ap. Lebrun et al. 1949;

Associations belonging: Junco - Caricetum fuscae Tx. (1937) 1952, Sphagno - Caricetum rostratae Steffen 1931, Sphagno - Caricetum echinatae Soó 1955;

NATURA 2000: 7110* - Acidophilous active peats; Average altitude: 700 m; Range of altitudes: 450-1000 m; Average slope: palin; Geological substrate: 70% - sedimentary rocks, 30% - volcanic rocks; Climate: 75% - moderatley, 25% - cold, 75% - wet, 25% - moderately dry; Soil texture: 80% - light soil, 20% - moderately heavy soil; Soil types: 100% - intermediate peat moss; Average cover of woods: 2%; Management: 80% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Poor fen acid meadows (CAF)

WET GRASSLAND CONTINENTAL BASE-RICH FEN MEADOWS

Diagnostic species: Carex davalliana, C. dioica, C. flava, C. lepidocarpa, C. panicea, C. hostiana,

C. paniculata, Dactylorhiza maculata, Epipactis palustris, Eriophorum lalifolium, Liparis loeselii, Parnassia palustris, Pinguicula vulgaris, Polemonium caeruleum, Primula farinosa, Schoenus nigricans, Sesleria caerulea, Tofieldia calyculata, Triglochin palustre, Valeriana dioica ssp. simplicifolia, Blysmus compressus, Campylium stellatum, Calliergon cuspidatum, Climacium dendroides, Cratoneurum filicinum;

Syntaxonomical classification: Caricion davallianae Klika 1934; Associations belonging: Orchido - Schoenetum nigricantis Oberd. 1957, Caricetum davallianae

Dutoit 1924, Carici flavae - Eriophoretum Soó 1944; NATURA 2000: 7230 - Basiphilous active peats; Average altitude: 500 m; Range of altitudes: 450-650 m; Average slope: plain; Geological substrate: 70% - sedimentary rocks, 30% - argillaceous marl; Climate: 65% - moderately warm, 40% - moderately cold, 60% - moderately dry, 40% -

moderately wet; Soil texture: 65% - moderately warm heavy soil, 35% - heavy soil; Soil types: 80% - peaty soil, 20% - base-saturated soil; Average cover of woods: 4%; Management: 80% - grazing, 20% - no data.

Continental base-rich fen meadows (CAD)

4.3. EVALUATION OF SPECIES DIVERSITY AND NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE 4.3.1. SPECIES DIVERSITY OF GRASSLANDS A total number of 2518 taxa (species and subspecies) were recorded during this inventory. They were distributed in 3660 polygons. In accordance with the species richness the polygons were grouped into five classes of nature conservation value:

• 1-40 taxa/polygon (1664 recorded polygons) • 41-80 taxa/polygon (1622 recorded polygons) • 81-120 taxa/polygon (328 recorded polygons) • 121-160 taxa/polygon (33 recorded polygons) • 161-200 taxa/polygon (13 recorded polygons)

As we can see from the graphs a significant proportion of polygons (~90%) contain 1-80 taxa of vascular plants and represent about 86% from the whole mapped area. Only ~10% of the polygons, depasse 80 taxa/polygon and they represent only 14% of the assessed grasslands. The reachest polygons are only 13 and they are located in the dry grasslands from Dobrogea and in the mesophilous grasslands from the Carpathian mountain. Species diversity value

45.5%

44.3%

9.0%0.9%

0.4%

1 -- 4041 -- 8081 -- 120121 -- 160161 -- 200

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000

1 -- 40

41 -- 80

81 -- 120

121 -- 160

161 -- 200

No.

of s

peci

es

Area of polygons (ha)

Distribution maps -

4.3.2. NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE OF GRASSLANDS The Red List of vascular plants from Romanian grasslands was established in the framework of this project. The list include 1036 taxa (25% of the whole Romanian flora) and is included in Annex 4. From this amount of Romanian Red List taxa, 293 taxa (28%) were recorded during this inventory. Their distribution maps are included in Annex 5. More as 40% (124 taxa) of this protected plants needs a special attentions and special measures of protection and conservation, because they are globally threatened, European threatened, Endemic or Nearendemic and rare or threatened at national level:

• 23 taxa - globally threatened (IUCN Red List, Habitats Directive, Bern Convention); • 35 taxa - European threatened (Habitats Directive, Bern Convention); • 66 taxa - national high importance (Romanian Red List - endemic or nearendemic and rare

or threatened). For all this 124 taxa, Important Plant Areas for protection and conservation will be established in the Romanian grasslands, as a requirement of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (part of the CBD) implementation in our country. The results of this project will support the grasslands IPA identification. From the total mapped polygons 55% (2023) contain protected species. They were grouped into five classes of nature conservation:

• 1-5 protected species/polygon • 6-10 protected species/polygon • 11-15 protected species/polygon • 16-20 protected species/polygon • 21-31 protected species/polygon

Polygons without protected species were evaluated as polygons with no special nature conservation value.

6.97%0.41%

0.03%

0.63%

47.24%44.73%

1 -- 5 species/polygon6 -- 10 species/polygon11 -- 15 species/polygon16 -- 20 species/polygon21 -- 31 species/polygonno protected species/polygon

Distribution maps -

5. GRASSLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 5.1. THE EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK The relationship between agriculture and biodiversity conservation is of particular significance in Europe, because of the limited remaining area of natural habitats of high nature value and the permanent decline of grasslands type diversity associated with the strong pressure on species of plants and animals leaving there. Many semi-natural grasslands are now threatened both by further intensification of agriculture and abandonment. The agricultural intensive practises have proved harmful to nature in general and plant diversity in particular, it has almost eradicated wild plants and numerous rare habitats have been destroyed. The need to reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment is a requirement for its conservation and sustainable use. The sustainable development is a concept, which brings together concerns for social and economic development along side protection of the environment. Those policies that result in environmental degradation of the natural resources are unlikely to be a sound basis for sustainable economic development. In the agricultural areas it is a clear interdependence between economic activities such as farming and the conservation of the environment qualities. In this frame the reform of the agricultural policy is considered a key element for the sustainable socio-economic development in Europe and the entire world. Sustainable development has been made an explicit objective of the European Union, which required to integrate the environment into EU policy sectors. In addition, rural areas are vital reservoirs of Europe’s wildlife and genetic diversity, which in many cases has been formed by generations of agricultural traditional activity, and were strongly affected in the last century by intensive and extensive agricultural practices. In the documents of the European Union as well as in those of different international conventions (to which Romania is part), there is a general recognition concerning the development of the ecologic methods in agriculture as well as the reorganization of the rural land use, in accordance with the multifunctional farms principles, which could be real solutions for overcoming the problems generated by the intensive agriculture. The EU enlargement process includes the adoption by the candidate countries of the EU regulations in sectors such agriculture and the environment. The EU agricultural legislation is designed to support a range of specific objectives including maintaining biodiversity on farmland and the promotion of organic farming, in order to ensure the conservation of biological and landscape diversity through the application of sustainable agricultural policy instruments. In Romania the process of the agricultural policy’s reform is still at the beginning. Although the direction of our country’s commitment is clear, considering it signed most of the international engagements and that it has clearly expressed its option for integration in the European Community. Although it is recognized as a priority in the national policies, elaborated after the Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the development of a sustainable agricultural management faces major difficulties due to a limited scientific base as well as to the lack of efficient transfer means of knowledge towards users.

5.2. MANAGEMENT OF GRASSLANDS IN ROMANIA In accordance with the results of this grassland inventory, the most frequent management practices grazing and mowing. We can see on the graph 77% of mapped grasslands are managed, 8% are not managed and there are no data about the management for another 15%. The dry grasslands are 60% managed, especially by grazing (35%) but also by mowing (25%) and 30% are not managed. The mesophilous grasslands are 85% managed, especially by mowing (48%) but also by grazing (37%). The high mountain grasslands are 85% managed by grazing. The wet grasslands are 80% managed, 60% by grazing and 20% by mowing. The lack of management data for this four groups of grasslands was variated between 8% (dry grasslands) to 20% (wet grasslands). Mapped grasslands according used management measures

54%

23%

8%

15%

grazingmowingno managementno data

This evaluation can be not generalized all over the country because of the limited areas of grassland, which was assessed in the frame of this project. 5.3. GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT IN

AGRO-ENVIRONMENT POLICY Current situation The agricultural development up to the beginning of the XX century, had an extensive character and it was accompanied by usage of traditional land use means. The trends in the second half of the XX century concerning the intensive and extensive development of the agriculture, which had the purpose to increase productivity, associated with mechanic agricultural technology, intensive use of chemicals, generalization of the irrigation, usage of performant species and races, had as a result the modification of the structure of the ecosystem complexes, a decrease of the biodiversity and negative effects upon the neighboring ecologic systems. Due to local deterioration of valuable soils, these were abandoned and people extended towards natural systems in areas more and more vulnerable. This type of intensive development proved to be unviable and incompatible with the requests for a sustainable socio-economic development. To all these we have to add, after 1990 the disorganization of the cooperative system, decrease of agricultural subventions, privatization, decrease of live stock (sheep, cows), land abandonment etc. Thus, the deterioration of the agro-systems and rural areas has become a complex and extended process.

Almost 62% of Romania’s surface is used know for agricultural production. Almost 33% out of these are semi-natural systems (pasture, hayfield). 5.4. OPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT

IN ROMANIA Agro-environmental programmes Romania has already signed some special agreements and some programmes are already applied (PHARE, SAPARD) to support the land reforms and to promote the modernization of the agricultural sector. PHARE was originally the main financial instrument for pre-accession, but other types of assistance, including technical assistance for the approximation of laws and standards and the provision of financial assistance for infrastructure have gradually been added. In the framework of Agenda 2000, two new pre-accession instruments were developed named ISPA and SAPARD. Both contain measures, which concern the environment, but only SAPARD is strongly related to the agro-environmental measures, intended to support biodiversity conservation. The SAPARD Programme is focused on agriculture and rural development and was established for the CEECs countries, in order to support them to better implement the European agro-environmental policy. The national SAPARD Agency is in charge with implementing the SAPARD programme measures in Romania. Up to 10 known pilot areas have already been organized. Organing farming The development of the organic farming system represents an important way to support sustainable agriculture. The organic farms as a part of the sustainable farming system are focused on organic production. The higher standards demanded for the EU market often cannot be met without this new instrument. The current situation shows that significant financial resources and a special assistance for farmers to become more market oriented are needed to develop such a production system. Several sources of finance are available, including SAPARD, multilateral assistance and foreign direct investment. This process has just begun in Romania. Multifunctional farms The multifunctional farms are created as structures capable to make use of the potential of the damp areas, for which the conservation and rehabilitation of the biodiversity as well as the control of the diffuse pollution become basic components of the activity. The conservation of the agro-diversity as important component of the multifunctional farms’ activity will be focused on the report and interactions between the transformed components and the natural and semi-natural ones of the rural space, referring to:

- the recuperation of the traditional agricultural practises and of the local varieties/races; - the rehabilitation, conservation and use of the natural capital’s components, including

the wild species and the semi-natural ecological structures; - the re-dimensioning of the semi-intensive agricultural practises reported to the

productive capacity and to the support of the natural capital; - the administration of the functional relations between the organizational components of

the farm which has a double purpose: (i) to increase the local activities’ efficiency, emphasizing the satisfaction of the needs and the implication of the local community, as well as (ii) the instrumentation of the functions at a macro-regional level.

The research programmes which regard the development and application of some pilot multifunctional farm types will have to guide the farmers, the production associations, individual users, administrators and planers of the territorial landscaping in planning, organizing and exploiting some new agricultural production forms which will satisfy the complexity of these criteria for the rehabilitation and use of the local productive potential, which consists in the heterogeneity and the characteristics of the considered rural space. The main problems and obstacles in developing the multifunctional farms in Romania regard the present situation - disorganization, leeway and crumble of the agricultural exploitations, lack of logistical, technical and financial means, but mostly the absence of a clear vision upon the frame, objectives and means to apply the sustainable agriculture, meaning the model of the multifunctional farms, also the pour knowledge of the productive and support capacities of the agro-systems and the associated semi-natural systems, the deficiency of the human resources skills, the lack of change in mentalities and the interests of main actors as well as the limits of the institutional and legal frame. It is very important to develop a proper and efficient frame to transfer the scientific knowledge towards users and decision people through decision assistance support systems (SSAD) for the management of the main ecological system types, including the administration of the National Ecologic Network (REN). Nowadays, Romania has some advantages and opportunities, which facilitate such a transition process in socio-economic development in general and for the agricultural development in special, some of these must be mentioned:

- the natural valuable and relatively well preserved base, which insure for the agro-systems and associated semi-natural ecosystems from the rural space, an appreciable productive and support capacity (ex. the percentage of the good and very good soil quality, the conservation of some important ecological structures from the perspective of using the multifunctional potential of the farms: damp areas, flower beds, forests etc);

- the ethnic culture diversity and the value of the human capital (the conservation of some agricultural practises, traditional customs and representations, the existence of a well prepared group of agricultural engineers and technicians etc.);

- Romania’s medium and long term strategy for sustainable development which expresses, as an official document to access the EC, the will of the political class and the civil society (Romanian Government, 1999);

- the support given through some international programmes for starting such a direction of the transition process (the SAPARD programme is the most current and representative for the development of the agriculture).

5.5. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE: OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES By observing the main accumulations and experiences on a conceptual, scientific and managerial level, regarding the agricultural development and the current situation of this sector in Romania we can see the general recognition of the necessity for re-organization of this important sector of the socio-economic activity. The general objective of the agro-environment strategy is to harmonize relations between the agriculture production and the conservation of the environment for the benefit of booth nature and humane society. A significant importance had the establishment of the SAPARD Agency, as a public institution with juridical personality being subordinated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Alimentation (Emergency Order no. 142 from the 21st September 2000). The purpose of the SAPARD Agency is

the technical and financial implementation of the Special Instrument for pre-accession for agriculture and rural development, named The SAPARD Programme. The national Plan for agriculture and rural development (PNADR), which was approved by the European Commission as basis for implementing the SAPARD Programme in Romania contains the following measures: • The development and the improvement of the rural infrastructure

General objectives - The improvement of the current situation of the infrastructure in the rural area, the

improvement of the life conditions as well as the work standards and keeping the population in the rural space.

- This measure allows the development of some integrated and sustainable measures and actions, which create real premises for realizing the other directions of the SAPARD Programme (the diversification of the agricultural exploitations), because most of the time the existence of a minimal infrastructure is a pre-condition of the projects’ success within the other measures.

• Investments in the agricultural exploitations

General objectives - Based on measures, it will be possible to insure the financial support for investments in

private agricultural exploitations, vegetal and life stock, insuring the reasoning and reorientation of the production to increase the quality of the products obtained by applying competitive technology and which could limit the pollution of the surrounding environment.

- This measure will contribute to the improvement of the income for the agricultural producers, to attract young people towards agricultural activities by improving their life and work conditions, as well as to the insurance of hygienic conditions and well fair for animals.

- The implementation of the measure will be done according to the 2nd Article from the Commission’s Settlement (EC) 2759/1999 and will insure the conditions for introducing the Acquis Communautaire in the agricultural exploitations.

• The development and diversification of the economic activities which will generate

multiple activities and alternative income General Objectives

- The introduction of economic integrated systems and their implementation in the rural areas.

- The diversification of the agricultural and forest activities and those strongly connected to the agriculture, which will insure multiple activities.

- Making use of the traditional practises associated to the agro-diversity conservation. • The improvement of the professional skills

General objective - The assistance is given for the professional skills development in order to contribute to

the improvement of the knowledge and professional competence of the farmers and other people involved in agricultural, fish and forest activities, processing of the agricultural, fish and aqua-crop activities, as well as their conversion to non-agricultural activities. This objective is in accordance with the 2nd article from the Council’s Settlement (EC) 1268/1999, with the 5th article from the Commission’s Settlement (EC) no. 2759/1999 and with the stipulations of the III chapter, title II from the Council’s Settlement (EC) no. 1257/1999.

• The improvement of the processing and the marketing of agricultural and fish products General objective

- The general objective of this measure is the improvement of the efficiency for processing and marketing of agricultural and fish products, which will lead to high quality products which will contribute to the implementation of the community acquis, increase of the competitiveness and in the same time to the promotion of some production methods which are friendly to the environment.

• Technical assistance

General objective - To insure technical assistance especially for implementing and supervising the PNADR

programme and possible future changes. The national legislation sustains the realization of all these measures associated to the sustainable development process of the agriculture and rural areas in accordance with the Community Acquis.

Emergency Order no. 142 from the 21st September 2000 - Released by - The Romanian Government regarding the founding, organization and function of the SAPARD Agency for the technical and financial implementation of the special pre-accession Instrument for agriculture and rural development Decision no. 339 from the 22nd March 2001 - Released by - The Romanian Government regarding the establishment, within the European Integration Ministry, of the Management Authority for the SAPARD Programme Law no 157 from 22nd September 2000 - Released by - The Romanian Parliament regarding the national Plan for agriculture and rural development from the SAPARD Programme for co-financing by the state budget Decision no. 859 from the 30th August 2001 - Released by - The Romanian Government regarding the use of the National Fund for SAPARD Programme and the establishment of the National Accreditation Comity for SAPARD Law no. 411 from the 18th July 2001 - Released by - The Romanian Parliament for introducing the Law no. 157/2000 regarding the national Plan for agriculture and rural development from the SAPARD Programme for co-financing by the state budget

Annex from 17th January 2002 - Released by - The Romanian Government to the Government’s decision no. 32/2002 regarding the approval of the actions Plan for the years 2002 and 2003 of the governing Plan Law no. 552 from the 14th September 2002 - Released by - The Romanian Parliament regarding the approval of the emergency Order no. 73/2002 to insure the necessary funds for elaborating the projects afferent to the SAPARD Programme, Measure 2.1 “The development and improvement of the rural infrastructure” Memoranda from the 11th December 2002 - Released by - The European Commission Finance Memoranda between the Romanian Government and the European Commission regarding the national PHARE Programme for 2002 (2002/000-586.01 - 2002/000-586.06)*) Decision no. 535 from the 8th May 2003 - Released by - The Romanian Government to approve the technical folders of the following measures 1.1 “Improvement of the processing and marketing of the agricultural and fish products”, 2.1 “Development and

improvement of the rural infrastructure”, 4.1 “Improvement of the professional skills” and 4.2 “Technical Assistance” from the national Programme for agriculture and rural development financed by SAPARD

Decision no. 916 from the 14th August 2003 - Released by - The Romanian Government regarding the financial assignments for realizing the primary measures approved through the National Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development, financed by the SAPARD Programme, and the financing sources within this one Decision no. 717 from the 25th June 2003 - Released by – The Romanian Government to increase the funds necessary to deduct the expenditures done with elaborating the feasibility studies afferent with the SAPARD Programme, Measure 2.1 “The development and improvement of the rural infrastructure” Decision no. 153 from the 12th February 2004 - Released by - The Romanian Government regarding the approval of the technical Folder of the 3.4 Measure “Development and diversification of the economic activities which can generate multiple activities and alternative incomes” from the National Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development financed by SAPARD funds Annex from the 15th January 2004 - Released by - The Romanian Government regarding the Actions Plan for 2004 of the governing Plan

The transition from the Integrated Rural Development (IRD 1970) to the sustainable development strategy of agriculture and rural areas is based also on the correct understanding of the agricultural biodiversity notion, which includes:

- The species used directly or indirectly as food resources and for agricultural production, by the human population as well as food for domestic animals, or as raw material (ex. fiber, combustibles, pharmaceutical products etc.);

- The habitats and species from outside the agricultural production system, but which contribute to the agriculture (the ecoton areas, the soil organisms, pollination species and wild species);

- The integrated ecological systems complexes in which we can find the services generated by the agro-systems: conservation of habitats and wild species, the process of the circuit and the maintenance of water and air quality, the sequestration of CO2 etc.

In the general frame of this approach is also located this project NATIONAL GRASSLANDS INVENTORY which support from the scientific point of view (through the information which it supplies) the current process of reorganization of the agriculture in Romania.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Grasslands are a very important feature of the Romanian vegetation. Our country is still reach, with various types of grasslands, not only due to its biogeographical position, but also to its geological, geomorphological and climate conditions. According to the existing data, 11% of the Romanian’s total area is covered with grasslands, with a significant floristic diversity and value. Some of them are less disturbed semi-natural habitats and exchibit a high diversity of vascular plants, but many were affected by the human impact. The Red List of vascular plants from Romanian grasslands includes 25% of the national flora, species which are under protection at national, European and global levels. The scientific research on Romanian grasslands is about 20 years old, fragmentary, mainly based on the Braun-Blanquet approach and needs to be up-date according to the European vegetation units classification and taxonomical system. Unfortunatelly the intensive development of agriculture in the last 50 years induced different damages to our natural environment. About 50% of the Romanian grasslands were affected by economic activities. Some of them are under threat, but many have been destroyed by conversion to arable land, over-fertilization and irrigation, deterioration of valuable soils, intensive grazing, use of hybrid seed mixture s.o. Landscape and biotopes have been considerably changed, the traditional land use practises were replace by large state farms and cooperatives and their natural value was strongly diminished. After 1990 the fast socio-economic transition, associated with the privatization of the state - owned farms, the loss of the state subventions, the fact that land has been given back to the original owners associated with the lack of financial means for the private owners lead to land abandonment, invasion of shrubs and weed, associated continuously with the grasslands degradation. Due to their extreme vulnerability, semi-natural grasslands can be considered at this moment, among the most vulnerable ecosystems. In the last period the agricultural policy has been changed from an intensive and extensive development to the sustainable agriculture, associated with the conservation of the environment. To implement this strategy more information about the current situation of grasslands diversity, natural value, distribution, conservation and management is required. In this general frame, started in 2000 the National Grassland Inventory project, which main objectives are to develop a classification and evaluation system for Romanian grasslands (according with the international standards) to identify and map the most representative semi-natural grasslands, to evaluate their conservation value, deterioration and vulnerability, to develop the appropriate data base accessible for government conservation bodies and scientists as well. The classification system which was developed by the Romanian experts includes 29 types of grassland, which were identified and evaluated on a syntaxonomical level (alliance in Braun-Blanquet’s phytosociological system) and are also in accordance with the habitat types from the EU Habitats Directive. To store the information gathered in the course of fieldwork a data base structure based on the geographic information system (GIS) was developed. A total area of 390.012 ha of grasslands located in different region of Romania was mapped. From this amount 371.894 ha were recorded as permanent semi-natural grasslands. A total number of 3660 polygons were mapped and evaluated, 2518 taxa (species and subspecies) representing 60% of the Romanian flora, were identified in 130.680 species records. The standard methodology of mapping was applied. In addition, for the typical mapped grasslands Braun-Blanquet relevees were done, in order to detect compatibility between the phytosociological system and the method used in this project.

Special maps of distribution were realized for each type of identified grassland, for each alliance and for each protected specie recorded during this inventory. The assessed grassland habitat types belong to four categories: dry, mesophilous, high-mountain and wet. According to the study area, the mesophilous grasslands and the dry grasslands were better represented. They were also recorded as grasslands with high diversity and nature conservation value. From the distribution point of view, the dry grasslands are mostly located in the Dobrogea region of Romania and the mesophilous grasslands on the Carpathian mountains. According to the existing data and to the study areas, which were considered in the frame of this project, only 8% of the mapped grasslands are not managed and there is no data about the management of another 15% of them. The dry grasslands are less managed as the mesophilous, high-mountain and wet grasslands. In general, the grasslands are managed by alternation (in different proportion) of mowing and grazing or only by grazing. Grazing is more frequent for dry, high-mountain and wet grasslands and mowing for mesophilous grasslands. Dry grasslands are low productive and there is no economic reason to mow them comparing with the mesophilous ones where the mow is required to be done two or three times a years. To conserve the grasslands as important biodiversity reservoirs and to use them in a sustainable way it is necessary to develop special management plans, in order to meet the desiderate of the sustainable socio-economic development. The grassland ecosystems offer goods and services, which represent their economical value. Many of the Romanian grassland areas, richest in biodiversity have declined and they require special management measures for rehabilitation and restoration. Some of them are still in good conditions and they need to be maintained. The research and monitoring activities are the background for the development of scientific data base which is necessary to predict (modeling) the relationships between drive variables and grassland ecosystem organization. Solid scientific information and justification for the conservation and sustainable management of our grasslands as very valuable ecological, environmental and economic resources are needed. By analyzing the different models of ecosystem organization according to the purpose, the adequate management practices can be selected. In this general frame, the present project, NATIONAL GRASSLANDS INVENTORY, which provides information about the semi-natural grasslands from Romania offers the scientific support for the implementation of international conventions (focused on biodiversity conservation) signed by our country and especially for agro-environment strategy applied in high nature value areas as the grasslands are.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the following mappers, for their significant scientific and technical contribution to the Grassland data base and GIS approach development. Eight working team, distributed allover the country and belonging to representative universities and research institutes from Romania were involved in this project. University “Al. I. Cuza”, Ia�i Members of the working team Prof. dr. �tefan Nicolae Prof. dr. Chifu Toader CP I dr. Sârbu Ion (team leader) Dr. Oprea Adrian Dr. Zamfirescu Oana Dr. Mânzu Ciprian University “Babe�-Bolyai”, Cluj-Napoca Members of the working team Prof. dr. Cristea Vasile (team leader) Biologist dr. Pu�ca� Mihai Drd. Ba�nou Corina Drd. Pal Frink Jozsef Drd. B�rbos Marius Ioan University of Bucharest Members of the working team Conf. dr. Sârbu Anca (team leader) Prof. dr. Cristurean Ioan CP I dr. Negrean Gavril Asist. dr. Anastasiu Paulina Asist. drd. Pascale Gabriela Tehnician Mihai Daniela Clara University of Craiova Members of the working team Prof. dr. Popescu Gheorghe (team leader) Dr. Boruz Violeta Dr. R�du�oiu Daniel Dr. Costache Iulian

University “Vasile Goldi�” Arad Members of the working team Prof. dr. Ardelean Aurel (local leader) Institute of Biological Research, Cluj-Napoca Members of the working team CP I dr. Coldea Gheorghe (team leader) CP II dr. Pop Adriana Danube Delta and Design Institute, Tulcea Members of the working team Dr. Hanganu Jenic� (team leader) Dr. Grigora� Ion Dr. Constantinescu Adrian Institute of Grassland Cultivation and Production, Bra�ov Members of the working team Prof. dr. Maru�ca Teodor (team leader) Prof. dr. Danciu Marius Prof. dr. Ularu Pantelimon Biolog dr. Pop Oliviu Grigore Lector univ. dr. Gurean Dan Marian

Arad

Cluj-Napoca

Ia�i

Craiova

Bra�ov

Bucure�ti

Tulcea

Distribution of the working teams

8. REFERENCES 1. ANONYM. 1994. World Reference Base for Soil Resource. Draft, ISSS-ISRIC-FAO,

Wageningen/Rome. 2. ter BRAAK C.J.F. & ŠMILAUER P. 2002. CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for

Windows, User’s Guide, Biometris, Wageningen & �eské Bud�jovice. 3. COLDEA Gheorghe (éditeur), SANDA Vasile, POPESCU Aurel & �TEFAN Nicolae. 1997.

Les associations végétales de Roumanie. Tome 1. Les associations herbacées naturelles. Cluj-Napoca: Presses Universitaires de Cluj, 261 pp.

4. DŽATKO M. & al. 1989. Agroklimatické regióny SR. Závere�ná správa, VCPÚ-ÚPVR, Bratislava.

5. GHI�A E. 1941. Cercet�ri asupra As. Stipetum stenophyllae cu Danthonia calycina în Transilvania central�. Bul. Gr�d. Bot. Cluj, 1941, 21(1-2): 56-67.

6. HILL M. O. 1979. DECORANA, A FORTRAN program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

7. KARÁCSONYI C. 1979. Asocia�ia Festuco vaginatae-Corynephoretum în România. Stud. Cercet. Biol., Ser. Bot. 31(1): 3-12.

8. MARHOLD Karol & HINDÁK František. (eds). Zoznam nižších a vyšších rastlin Slovenska • Checklist of of Non-Vascular and Vascular Plants of Slovakia. Bratislava: VEDA, vydavatestvo Slovenskej akadémie vied, 687 pp. ISBN 80-224-0526-4.

9. MITITELU D., MOIU Tamara & BARABA� N. 1973. Vegeta�ia Rezerva�iei de nisipuri de la Hanul-Conachi (jud. Gala�i). • Végetation de la Réserve Botanique de Hanul-Conachi. Stud. Comun., Muz. �ti. Nat. Bac�u, 6: 395-375.

10. MORARIU I. 1957. Contribu�ii la cunoa�terea vegeta�iei litoralului M�rii Negre. Bul. �ti., Biol. �ti. Agric. (Bot.), Acad. Român� 9(4): 361-390.

11. MORARIU I. 1959. Contribu�ii la studiul vegeta�iei litoralului M�rii Negre. Stud. Cercet. Biol., Ser. Biol. Veg. 11(4): 355-378.

12. NEGREAN G. 2001. Lista ro�ie a plantelor din România existente în paji�ti (inclusiv endemite �i subendemite). Pp. 30-58. In: Gheorghe COLDEA, Gavril NEGREAN, Ion SÂRBU & Anca SÂRBU. 2001. Ghid pentru identificarea �i inventarierea paji�tilor seminaturale din România. Bucure�ti Edit. alo. 58 pp.

13. OLTEAN M., NEGREAN G., POPESCU A., ROMAN N., DIHORU G., SANDA V. & MIH�ILESCU S. 1994. Lista ro�ie a plantelor superioare din România. In: M. OLTEAN (coord.), Studii, sinteze, documenta�ii de ecologie, Acad. Român�, Institutul de Biologie, Nr. 1: 1-52.

14. POP I. 1969. Contribu�ii la cunoa�terea vegeta�iei litoralului M�rii Negre din împrejurimile localit��ii Vama Veche (Dobrogea). Studia Univ. Babe�-Bolyai, Ser. Biol. /1969/(1): 9-19.

15. POP I. 1968. Flora �i vegeta�ia Cîmpiei Cri�urilor - Interfluviul Cri�ul Negru-Cri�ul Repede . Bucure�ti: Edit. Academiei Române, 280 pp. + /8/ tab. & h�r�i + /1/ erata.

16. POP I. 1969. Contribu�ii la cunoa�terea vegeta�iei litoralului M�rii Negre din împrejurimile localit��ii Vama Veche (Dobrogea) • Contribution à la connaissance de la végétation du littoral de la Mer Noire aux environs de la localité de Vama Veche (Dobroudja). Studia Univ. Babe�-Bolyai, Ser. Biol. /1969/(1): 9-19.

17. POP I. 1991. Considera�ii generale asupra ordinului Stipo eriocaulis-Festucetalia pallentis Pop 1968 emend. 1989. Studia Univ. Babe�-Bolyai, Ser. Biol. 36(2): 3-33.

18. SANDA V., POPESCU A. & NEDELCU G. A. 1997. Structura fitocenozelor halofile ale clasei Puccinellio-Salicornietea opa 1939 din România. Acta Bot. Horti bucurest. /1995-1996/: 153-204.

19. SÂRBU Anca. 1999. Survey of Romanian grasslands. Pp. 60-61. In: ANONYM, Proceedings of the technical workshop on National Grassland Inventory, Bratislava, 31 January - 2 February 1999. Slovacia.

20. SÂRBU Anca. (coord.) 2001. Ghid pentru identificarea �i inventarierea paji�tilor seminaturale din România. Bucure�ti Edit. alo. 58 pp. ISBN 973 - 99666 - 8 - 3.

21. SÂRBU Anca. (coord.) 2003. Ghid pentru identificarea importantelor arii de protec�ie �i conservare a plantelor din România. Bucure�ti: Edit. Alo, 113 pp. ISBN 973-86.364-0-x.

22. S�VULESCU T. (ed.). 1952-1976. Flora României. Bucure�ti: Edit. Academiei Române. Vol. 1-13.

23. SCHNEIDER-BINDER Erika. 1977. Considerra�ii asupra asocia�iilor din alian�a Stipion lessingianae Soó 1947 în România • Über die Pflanzengesellschaften des Stipion lessingianae Soó 1947 in Rumänien. Stud. Comun., �ti. Nat., Muz. Brukenthal 20: 91-113.

24. Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute. 2000. Soil Classification system of Slovakia. Bretislava: VEDA.

25. SOÓ R. 1947. Revue systematique des associations végétales des environs de Kolozsvár. Acta Geobot. Hung., Ser. Nov. I, 6(1): 3-50.

26. TUCKER G. M. & EVANS M. I. 1997. Habitats for Birds in Europe. A conservation Strategy for wider Environment. Birdlife, UK. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 6.

27. UCRA I. 1963. Îmbun�t��irea paji�tilor naturale din Dobrogea. Pp. 447-450. In: P. TOMOROGA, M. O�LOBEANU, S. TIMARIU & Alice S�VULESCU (red. princip.), Metode agrozootehnice pentru sporirea produc�iei vegetale �i animale în Dobrogea. Bucure�ti: Edit. Academiei Române.

28. UCRA I. & CHIFU T. 1989. Forma�ia �i seria de vegeta�ie folosite în clasificarea tipologic� a paji�tilor permanente. Mem. Sec�. �ti., Acad. Român�, Ser. IV, 1987, 10(1) : 273-279.

29. UCRA I., KOVÁCS A.J., RO�U C., CIUBOTARU C., CHIFU T., NEAC�U Marcela, B�RBULESCU C., CARDA�OL V., POPOVICI D., SIMTEA D., MOTC� N., DRAGU I. & SPIRESCU M. 1987. Principalele tipuri de paji�ti din R. S. România. CMDPA Bucure�ti, 115 PP. + 1 hart�.

30. UCRA I. & NEAC�U Marcela. 1983. Criteria of elaborating permanent meadow types in Romania. Rev. Roumaine Biol., Biol. Végét.29(1): 13-16.

31. UCRA I. & NEAC�U Marcela. 1984. Conspectul tipurilor de paji�ti din Dobrogea. Lucr. �ti., Inst. Cercet. Cult. Paji�tilor M�gurele-Bra�ov 9: 45-51.

32. UCRA I. & NEAC�U Marcela. 1986. Aspecte privind caracterizarea, cartarea �i bonitarea paji�tilor permanente (naturale). Lucr. �ti., Inst. Cercet. Cult. Paji�tilor M�gurele-Bra�ov, 1985, 10: 483-491.

33. UCRA I., NEAC�U Marcela & TUDOR Ana. 1984. Aspecte ale tipiz�rii paji�tilor din R. S. România. Lucr. �ti., Inst. Cercet. Cult. Paji�tilor M�gurele-Bra�ov 9: 31-43.

34. UCRA I. & PU�CARU-SOROCEANU Evdochia. 1963. A. Baza furajer�. Cap. I. P��unile naturale din Dobrogea. Pp. 441-447. In: P. TOMOROGA, M. O�LOBEANU, S. TIMARIU & Alice S�VULESCU (red. princip.), Metode agrozootehnice pentru sporirea produc�iei vegetale �i animale în Dobrogea. Bucure�ti: Edit. Academiei Române.

35. UCRA I., T�R�U Viorica, Erdélyi �t., SAVATTI M. & ILIE� Gh. 1971. Refacerea paji�tilor de Nardus stricta prin metoda radical�. Pp. 111-127. In: ANONIM, Cercet�ri experimentale pe nardete de joas� altitudine (�esul M�gurii-Budac-Bistri�a). Bucure�ti.

36. TUTIN T. G., BURGES N. A., CHATER A. O., EDMONSON J. R., HEYWOOD V. H., MOORE D. M., VALENTINE D. H., WALTERS S. M. & WEBB D. A. (eds, assist. by J. R. AKEROYD & M.E. NEWTON; appendices ed. by R.R. MILL). 1993. Flora Europaea. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Psilotaceae to Platanaceae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press xlvi, 581 pp., illus. ISBN 0-521-41007-X (HB).

37. TUTIN T.G., HEYWOOD V.H., BURGES N.A., MOORE D.M., VALENTINE D.H., WALTERS S.M. & WEBB D.A. (eds). 1964-1980. Flora Europaea. Vols. 1-5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

38. TUTIN T. G., HEYWOOD V.H., BURGES N.A., VALENTINE D.H., WALTERS S.M. & WEBB D.A. (eds, assist. by P.W. BALL & A.O. CHATER). 1964. Flora Europaea. Vol. 1,

Lycopodiaceae to Platanaceae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-xxxiv, 1-464 pp. + 5 maps.

39. TUTIN T. G., HEYWOOD V. H., BURGES N. A., MOORE D. M., VALENTINE D. H., WALTERS S. M. & WEBB D. A. (eds, assist. by P.W. BALL, A.O. CHATER & I.K. FERGUSSON). 1968. Flora Europaea. Vol. 2, Rosaceae to Umbelliferae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-xxx, 1-455 pp. + 5 maps.

40. TUTIN T. G., HEYWOOD V.H., BURGES N.A., MOORE D.M., VALENTINE D.H., WALTERS S.M. & WEBB D.A. (eds, assist. by P.W. BALL, A.O. CHATER & I.K. FERGUSSON). 1972. Flora Europaea. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-xxxvi, 1-439 pp. + 5 maps.

41. TUTIN T. G., HEYWOOD V.H., BURGES N.A., MOORE D.M., VALENTINE D.H., WALTERS S.M. & WEBB D.A. (eds, assist. by P.W. BALL, A.O. CHATER & I.K. FERGUSSON). 1976. Flora Europaea. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-xxx, 1-455 pp. + 5 maps.

42. TUTIN T. G., HEYWOOD V.H., BURGES N.A., MOORE D.M., VALENTINE D.H., WALTERS S.M. & WEBB D.A. (eds, assist. by P.W. BALL, A.O. CHATER & I.K. FERGUSSON). 1980. Flora Europaea. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, i-xxx, 1-439 pp. + 5 maps.

43. Van SWAAY C. & WARREN M. 1999. Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, Nature and Environment, vol. 99.

44. VEEN P. H. & SEFFER J. 1999. Proceedings of the Workshop National Grassland Inventory. Bratislava: KNNV/Daphne.

45. VEEN P. H. & al. 2002. In: BROUWER F., BALDOCK D. & la CHAPELLE C. 2001. The Relation between Agriculture and Nature Management, Conference, Wassenaar (NL), 22/24 January 2001.