Conservation of biodiversity in Romania

Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1187–1198, 2000. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Conservation of biodiversity in Romania VIOREL SORAN1 , JOZSEF BIRO2,∗ , OANA MOLDOVAN3 and AUREL ARDELEAN4 1 Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Sciences, ‘Lucian Blaga’ University, 2 Oituz Street, 2400 Sibiu, Romania; 2 Donath Street, V/64, RO-3400, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; 3 ‘Emil Racovitza’ Institute for Speological Researches, Cluj-Napoca Branch of Romanian Academy, 3400 Cluj-Napoca, 5-7 Clinicilor Street, Romania; 4 ‘Vasile Goldis’ Western University of Arad, 2900 Arad, 81 Revolution Avenue, Romania; ∗ Author for correspondence (e-mail: jbiro@go.com) Received 24 May 1999; accepted in revised form 15 December 1999 Abstract. This paper briefly discusses the history and development of nature protection in Romania. It summarises the current situation of protected areas, and discusses the ecological, ethical and philosophical ideas concerning biodiversity conservation in the country. Key words: biodiversity, ecoethics, ecosophy, nature protection, Romania Introduction Romania is a country which is in the south-central region of Europe (between 20◦15′ 07′′ –29◦41′ 24′′ eastern longitude and 43◦ 37′ 07′′ –48◦15′ 06′′ northern latitude), having a temperate-continental climate (Cocean 1993). In central and western regions of Romania (within the arc of the Carpathian Mountains) there is a temperate, central-European climate; towards southwestern Romania a sub-mediterranean-illyrian climate is characteristic. Finally, the southern and eastern regions of Romania are under the control of an irano-turanian climate (Cristea 1995). To these main categories of climate must be added the montane, subalpine and alpine climates of the Carpathian Mountains. These climatic influences have engendered great diversity among the fauna, flora and vegetation of Romania. In order to protect the biodiversity of the country, many types of protected areas have been established. Short history The history of ideas and practices concerning nature protection in Romania show that there has been ‘a long tradition or custom’. But the meanings of ‘tradition’ and ‘custom’ are, in many respects, different in western and eastern European countries. 1188 In the east, tradition is not a body of facts or initiatives without interruption, handed down from generation to generation as in western countries, especially England. It is rather a resumption, after a while, of some good enterprises of the past. Taking into account this state of affairs, we may divide the history of nature conservation in Romania into the following distinct periods: (a) precursory period; (b) scientific period between First and Second World Wars; (c) affliction period during communist rule in Romania, and (d) transition period of carelessness of the authorities after collapse of communist power in Romania. Precursory period Stephen the Great (1457–1504), king of Moldavia (eastern part of today’s Romania), was among the first rulers who tried to protect some wooded areas with their hunted wild animals (Topa 1972). Stephen the Great set up several ‘natural reserves’ named with an old Slavonic word braniste (branishte), which means a forest with a low density of trees and abundant grass vegetation. In such areas, the cutting of trees or hunting was forbidden. Similar royal reserves were also set up during that period (XIVth and XVth centuries) in Wallachia by some kings (Giurescu 1980). But from all these achievements only some terms (e.g. braniste, bran), topographic names (e.g. Branistea, Branisca), and tales remain today. Scientific period (between First and Second World Wars) During this period there were many Romanian scientists who showed a special interest in nature protection, for instance, Grigore Antipa (1867–1944), former pupil of Ernst Haeckel at Jena (1885–1891). But the main champions in this field were two biologists from the University of Cluj (Transylvania). The first was a botanist, Alexander Borza (1887–1971), who developed the applied science of nature conservation, and the second a zoologist, Emil Racovitsa (1868–1947), who took part in the ‘Belgica’ scientific expedition (1897–1899) in Antarctica. He dealt mainly with the theoretical aspects of nature protection following his valuable observations and studies on wildlife made in the memorable voyage towards South Pole (Borcea and Soran 1984). Borza’s main achievement was the drawing up of the first Romanian Law for the protection of ‘natural monuments’ (today we might say protection of ‘natural biotic areas’). He succeeded after 6 years of unceasing campaigning, the law being finally promulgated by Royal decree no. 2/478 on 4 July 1930. Soon after that, the Committee for Protection of Nature Monuments was set up, 36 scientific reserves, among them the Retezat National Park (South Carpathian Mountains), were founded. Borza (1924) was the first Romanian biologist who attended to ecological education. In 1924 he underlined that, “The lack of culture and of training, as well as 1189 wickedness and indolence permanently destroy the beauty of landscapes and natural monuments in Romania”. Unfortunately, his words are true even today. Racovitsa (1937) focused his attention on the problems of how to know and how to establish the ‘right’ size for a protected area. He said that if we want to have a sustainable scientific reserve or national park, it is necessary to make a reasonable choice followed by efficient ecological monitoring and administration. In order to achieve this goal, he advised the setting up of larger protected areas, rather than small ones. Affliction period during communist rule The first step made by communist rulers, immediately after the banishing of King Michael I of Romania (30 December 1947), was to repeal the royal constitution from 1923 and all constitutional laws of Romania. The country was ruled then (1948–1989) only by dictatorial decrees. Nature and environment protection in Romania lasted without any lawful settlement for several years (1948–1954). But from 1954 to 1985, the number of protected areas was increased about 11-fold and their total areas were expanded about 13 times (Table 1). This was possible after the publication of Ministry Council Resolution no. 518 in 1954 and which laid the ground for legal activity for nature protection in Romania. All these activities stimulated the botanist Emil Pop (1897–1974), formerly Borza’s pupil, to publish several important papers on this subject (1963, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1975). In a similar manner, the zoologist Valeriu Puscariu (1896–1987), formerly Racovitsa’s disciple (see Puscariu 1963, 1973) undertook the same. He managed nature protection in Romania from 1955 to near his death. The most important papers in this respect are those of Boscaiu (1973, 1975, 1976), Botnariuc (1968) Botnariuc et al. (1975), Cristea (1983), Puia and Soran (1980) Soran (1973, 1974), Soran and Borcea (1983, 1985) and Soran and Boscaiu (1974). But working with the communist rulers was not an easy task, because any idea that did not fit the Marxist pattern of thinking was always treated with suspicion. As Isaiah (6:9) said they “be ever hearing, but never understanding, be ever seeing, but never perceiving”. For this reason, nature, biodiversity and conservation were usually sacrificed on the altar to economic Gods. Table 1. Increase of protected areas in Romania (after Cristea 1995, 1996b). Year Number of scientific reserves Total protected areas (ha) 1940 1960 1970 1985 1991 36 No accurate data 130 395 539 1551 6581 43 683 222 545 1 140 388 (only proposals) 1190 Carelessness of the authorities after collapse of communist power in Romania (the so-called transition period) Unfortunately, throughout history, changes in outlook have been a very slow process. This is the reason why many communist ideas, even in the field of nature and environmental protection, are still alive in Romania. The methods used for establishment and administration of National Parks or nature reserves in Romania reminds us of Hardin’s (1968) ideas regarding the tragedy of the commons. The protected areas of Romania, with their forests, peat bogs, lakes, meadows, alpine and subalpine tundra, endangered species and wildlife generally, are subject to savage deforestation, poaching, and other ecological retrogressions. Moreover, in some counties, various new rich people, some former communist rulers, have built many luxurious houses within scientific and nature reserves. Very recently, during spring of 1999, several newspapers reported that in the Danube Delta, about 300 nests with eggs of pelicans (Pelecanus onocrotalus) (a very rare bird in the Red Book of European birds), were destroyed by unknown fishermen. This happened because the planned new law of environment and nature protection has been waiting for about 10 years in the Romanian Parliament! Despite these great drawbacks, several papers on biodiversity conservation in Romania were published (Boscaiu et al. 1994; Cristea 1994, 1995, 1996a; Soran et al. 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998). Protected areas in Romania Tables 1–4 summarise information on the protected areas of Romania. Table 1 suggests that biodiversity conservation in Romania is excellent. Compared with 1940, the number of protected areas have increased 15-fold, and their total surface around 735 times. But this first impression is misleading, as seen by Table 2. Romania has only one immense protected area in the Danube Delta and other 12 of extensive size. From this category (IV) only one, the National Park of the Retezat Mountains (about 24 000 ha), really exists. The other 11 (about 342 000 ha) National Parks are awaiting promulgation of the new law. Until then, they are vulnerable to adverse human impacts (Figure 1). But biodiversity conservation in Romania relies on only 7.4% of all the protected areas having efficient conservation management (types III, IV and V in Table 2) and another 16.3% of inefficient conservation (type II). But the majority (76.2%) of Romanian scientific and nature reserves have no conservation management. Moreover, 56.2% of the reserves which belong to type I have an area less than 5 ha! Indeed, most of them are only 1 ha or less. All these will require great input from Romanian ecologists and protectionists, because, as noted earlier, “the smaller the size of a protected area, the greater its upkeep” (Soran et al. 1998). We must notice here that the 1191 Table 2. Protected natural biotic areas of Romania understood from scale-ecology’s point of view. The size of scales in ha were computed taking into account the energetic needs of large mammals at the top of the ecological pyramid (after Soran et al. 1991, 1998). Types of protected areas Scale: size per protected areas (ha) Number and % of scientific reserves and other areas per type I. Botanical gardens and zoos 0.1–100 411 (76.2%) II. Small protected areas 101–1000 88 (16.3%) III. Protected areas with an average size 1001–10 000 27 (5.0%) IV. Protected areas large in size 10 001–100 000 12 (2.2%) V. Protected areas of great size 100 001–over 1 000 000 1 (0.2%) Notes on conservation effectiveness Without human mediation their conservation effectiveness is equal to zero Weak conservation effectiveness. Protect only some herbaceous plants and invertebrates Good conservation effectiveness for some birds and mammals. They have only a minimal sustainable community structure Good conservation of ecosystems. They have high ecological integrity Highest possible conservation value. They have multiple and dynamic ecological integrity categories III, IV, and V (Table 2) were set up by taking into account logistic and financial costs needed to sustain the populations of large species and those at the top of trophic pyramids, especially large herbivores and carnivores. Table 3 presents the same data but from the point of view of IUCN classification of world protected areas. This is very useful for accurate administrative management of various types of reserves. But these categories do not tell us anything about the spatial and logistical needs of the protected flora, fauna and ecosystems, and so, Tables 2 and 3 complement each other. Ecological, ethical and philosophical ideas on biodiversity conservation in Romania Biodiversity conservation depends on many factors, but the most important is to have complete and correct information from the field. In this respect Romanian protectionists suffered during the 45 years of communist power from the lack of normal scientific liaison with the Western world. 1192 Table 3. Protected natural biotic areas according to IUCN types (1985). The data in the table were collected and computed after a long list of protected areas in Romania published by Cristea (1995, 1996b). Types of IUCN protected areas Number of preserved areas I. Scientific Reserves and Strict Nature Reserves II. National Parks Already achieved∗ Still designed 46 Total N.P. III. National Monuments and Landmarks IV. Managed Wildlife Sanctuaries and Nature Reserves V. Protected landscapes VI., VII., VIII. There are none in Romania Besides IUCN categories: National Parks Total 3 10 Totalarea (ha) 96 260.9 Percentof protected areas 8.9 Lowest and highest size of a given area (ha) 0.5–24 250 661 100 268 478 61.1 24.8 24 400–580 000 11 600–60 100 13 134 929 578 1339.7 85.9 0.1 00 0.1–500 372 51 637.8 4.8 0.2–5336 18 – 2005.6 – 0.2 – 0.5–1014.8 – 2 1423 0.1 423–1000 585 1 082 245 100.0 – ∗ The three National Parks recognized by judicial laws in Romania are: Danube Delta (580 000 ha), Retezat Mountains (24 000 ha) and Rodnei Mountains in the North Carpathian Mountains (56 700 ha). The ecological ideas in Romania about nature and wildlife protection In spite of Racovitsa (1937) strongly advocating scientific wildlife protection, and the establishment of larger National Parks and reserves rather than smaller ones, Romanian protectionists took another path. Under economic pressures, but especially without knowing the ecological advances on the theory of island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson 1967), habitat fragmentation (Wilcove et al. 1986) and the new ideas on conservation biology (Primack 1993), the majority of Romanian conservationists believed that small protected areas were the best solution for biodiversity conservation. Only a minority (Soran and Borcea 1983, 1985; Soran et al. 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998) shared the contemporary ideas on scientific wildlife protection. The ‘SLOSS’ (= single large or several small) debate on protected areas, well known among western conservation biologists (Primack 1993), will only begin in Romania with the younger generation, because there is little hope that the older generation (over 40 years old) will appreciate the necessity for a change of mind. Even today, the method of establishing the right size for a protected area in Romania is based on the empirical practice that the ecosystem or a local landscape should give us an adequate solution, without any need to understand their structure, life and persistence. 1193 Table 4. Protected natural biotic areas, planned parks and multiple-use management areas in Romania (Oarcea 1999). Types of parks Area (ha) Already established N.P. Retezat Mts.a N.P. Rodnei Mts.b N.P. Danube Deltac 24 000 56 700 580 000 Planned N.P. Călimani Mts. N.P. Ceahlău N.P. Cheile Bicazului N.P. Bucegi Mts. N.P. Piatra Craiului N.P. Cozia N.P. Cerna Valley N.P. Cheile Nerei N.P. Semenic N.P. Drocea N.P. Western Carpathian Mts. Multiple-use management areas Maramureş Bucovina Monasteries Monasteries of West Moldavia West Carpathian Mts. Sebeş-Cibin-Lotru Porţile de Fier-Tableland of Mehedinţi Făgăraş Prahova Valley Vrancea 15 300 17 200 11 600 35 700 14 800 17 100 60 100 45 501 37 030 18 350 52 000 427 000 263 000 101 000 675 000 435 000 110 000 205 000 60 000 182 000 a 1935 = 13 000 ha; 1980 = 24 000 ha; South Carpathian region. It was specified as Biosphere reserve in 1980 (Jan. 10). In 1990, it was planned by sylviculturists with an area of 54 000 ha and by ecologists of Nature Monument Committee at 60 000 ha (these areas are not yet achieved). b North Carpathian region. It was specified as Biosphere reserve on 10 January 1980. In 1990, it was planned by ecologists of Nature Monuments Committee with an area of 56 700 ha, but was not yet achieved. c 1938 = 2825 ha, known as Letea Forest Scientific Reserve; 1961 = 24 435 ha within three scientific reserves; 1993 = 580 000 ha as a Biosphere reserve with 18 scientific reserves covering about 50 627 ha; the smallest has 50 ha and the largest 9625 ha. The total area has not yet been entirely achieved. Existing N.P. a and c have their own administration; b is guarded by the sylviculturist administration of Romania. The planned 11 N.P.s of Romania are not yet achieved; the smallest planned area is 11 600 ha, and the largest one is to be about 60 100 ha. Ethical and philosophical opinions of Romanian conservationists To be conscientious one must first be well educated. This truth was well understood in Romania by Marossy 20 years ago. Her first papers, published in Romanian, were summarised in English at two recent International Congresses (1995 and 1998). 1194 Figure 1. National Parks of Romania (modified from Oarcea 1999) A – N.P. Retezat Mts.; B – N.P. Rodnei Mts.; C – N.P. Danube Delta; I – N.P. Călimani Mts.; II – N.P. Ceahlău; III – N.P. Cheile Bicazului; IV – N.P. Bucegi Mts.; V – N.P. Piatra Craiului; VI – N.P. Cozia; VII – N.P. Cerna Valley; VIII – N.P. Cheile Nerei; IX – N.P. Semenic; X – N.P. Drocea; XI – N.P. Western Carpathian Mts.; i – Maramures; ii – Monasteries of Bucovina; iii – Monasteries of West Moldavia; iv – West Carpathian Mts.; v – Sebes-Cibin-Lotru; vi – Portile de Fier-Tableland of Mehedinti; vii – Fagaras; viii – Valley of Prahova; ix – Vrancea. For details about each are, see Table 4. Essentially she discovered that children are very responsive to the quality of their immediate environment, even at a young age (3–6 years). Particularly, they easily learn to adapt their elementary behaviour according to their surroundings, especially relating to the living world. The first elements of ecological education then follow. It is a loss that Marossy’s wonderful and original ideas and experiences did not produce a large echo in Romania. This happened because adults can acknowledge only with great difficulty that small children show strong signs of ecological consciousness. Until 1990, few Romanian ecologists had heard or read anything about the deep ecology of Devall and Sessions (1985) or Naess’ ecosophy (1988, 1989). Nevertheless, Soran (1974) was the first Romanian ecologist to draw attention to the ethical reason why nature, as a whole, as well as habitats and wildlife must be preserved for the future. He was devoted to Albert Schweitzer’s (1875–1965) spiritual ideal. This requires that one virtuous duty of man is also to assist all creatures, because life is the most venerable thing in this wonderful world (Schweitzer 1958). At that time (1974), Soran’s conviction was that there are two reasons for wildlife and nature protection: (a) a practical one, having an economic basis, and (b) a higher reason, belonging to moral commandments. The finalgoal of an ecological ethic in 1195 Soran’s opinion is getting the fundamental equation of the contemporary world right. This is: a balanced ratio between economic needs of mankind and ecological carrying capacity of Earth. The carrying capacity must be understood as the real capital of nations. Unfortunately, such an equation is still far from being well understood, or, especially, applied. This problem was restated and amplified later by Soran and Borcea (1985). The last Chapter (11th) of ‘Man and Biosphere’ Odum (1971) was translated for the first time into Romanian i.e. his ten ecological commandments. The interest of these authors on this subject has since been sustained for many years (Soran et al. 1987, 1990) and followed by Stugren (1988) and Cristea (1996b). The first philosophical approach in Romania concerning wildlife and biodiversity conservation was also made by Soran (1977) and Soran and Borcea (1985). Soran (1977) discussed various points of view on the relationship between nature and human culture. For the first time, Romanians heard and read about ancient Chinese and Indian philosophies, as well as the generous ahimsa and tat tvam asi commandments of the Hindu religion. But probably the most unexpected happening at that time (1977) was the introduction of listeners and readers to the disputed ideas of French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650), and of English philosopher and moralist Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Descartes maintained that animals are elementary biological machines, but Bentham argued that animals feel pain when they are wounded and must have a trace of consciousness. Stugren (1988) enhanced these ideas with additional information. He quoted the contributions of Saint Francis of Assisi, Calvin, Bacon, Hobbes, Hegel and especially Feuerbach, Marx and Engels on the development of modern doctrines regarding the man–nature relationship. Finally, we must mention that the younger generation is now showing some interest in ecological policy (Goia 1996). But the so-called ‘green parties’ in Romania do not have as many scientists as militants. A similar situation exists in non-governmental ecological organisations. Apart from a few praiseworthy members, others are amateurs without any serious knowledge in the field of scientific ecology. Some considerations about biodiversity conservation in Romania during the 21st century Taking into account the present economical crisis of Romania and its difficulties linked with the transition period from past estate economy to future free market would be very strenous to make an accurate forecast about biodiversity conservancy. The first difficulty is the absence of ecological education among common people. The second one is the unsympathetic feelings of many economists, businessmen and office holders about the needs of genuine nature. The third one is the fact that there are many older people within Nature Monuments Protection Committee of Romania that do not clearly understand the significance of biodiversity conservation. 1196 From our point of view there are three solutions to improve this ill-fated situation: 1. to instruct abroad young Romanian students in the field of nature conservancy; 2. to educate as many pupils as possible in the fields of ecology and wildlife; 3. to instigate strong laws on nature conservation and environmental protection with severe penalties for those who violate nature protection. Acknowledgements The authors thank Nigel Cooper, Catherine Murray and Michael Samways for correcting the English. References Borcea M and Soran V (1984) Emil G. Racovitza Ecologue et ethologue. Travaux de Musée d’Histoire Naturelle ‘Grigore Antipa’ (Bucharest) 25: 369–377 [in French] Borza Al (1924) Nature protection in Romania. Buletinul Grădinii Botanice şi al Muzeului Botanic de la Universitatea din Cluj (The Bulletin of Botanical Garden and Botanical Museum of Cluj University) 4(1): 1–29 [in Romanian] Boscaiu N (1973) Overview of operational researches for ecosystem and natural environment conservation. Ocrotirea naturii (Nature Conservation) 17: 69–76 [in Romanian] Boscaiu N (1975) Conservation problems of alpine and subalpine vegetation. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 19(1): 17–21 [in Romanian] Boscaiu N (1976) Potential vegetation and its significance for landscape amelioration and ecological restoration. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 20(2): 99–104 [in Romanian] Boscaiu N, Coldea Gh and Horeanu C (1994) Red List of extinct, endangered, vulnerable and rare higher plants of Romania flora. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 38(1): 45–56 [in Romanian] Botnariuc N (1968) The protection of Danube Holm and potential productivity of its waters. Ocrotirea naturii (Nature Conservancy) 12(1): 9–19 [in Romanian] Botnariuc N, Toniuc N and Filipascu Al (1975) The need to set up National Parks within the Danube Delta. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 19(2): 105–116 [in Romanian] Cocean P (1993) Romania, geographical hypostasis. Carpathica Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, Romania [in Romanian] Cristea V (1983) Ecological education in the contemporary world. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 27(2): 146–148 [in Romanian] Cristea V (1994) La reserve botanique de Suatu (Departament de Cluj, Roumanie). La Riserva Naturale di Torrichio (Camerino) 8: 19–25 Cristea V (1995) La conservation de la nature en Roumanie. Camerino (Macerata): Universita degli Studi, Italy Cristea V (1996a) Nature and environment protection – main problems of contemporary world. In: Cristea V, Denaeyer S, Herremans IP and Goia I (eds) Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului în România, pp 13–102. Cluj University Press, Cluj-Napoca, Romania [in Romanian] Cristea V (1996b) The nature protection in Romania. In: Cristea V, Denaeyer S, Herremans JP and Goia I (eds) Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului în România, pp 188–302. Cluj University Press, Cluj-Napoca, Romania [in Romanian] Devall B and Sessions G (1985) Deep Ecology. Smith, Salt Lake City Giurescu CC (1980) A History of the Romanian Forest. Romanian Academy Publishing House, Bucharest 1197 Goia I (1996) Ecological policy in Romania. In: Cristea V, Denaeyer S, Herremans JP and Goia I (eds) Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului în România, pp 303–318. Cluj University Press, Cluj-Napoca, Romania [in Romanian] Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248 IUCN (1985) United Nations List of Natural Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland MacArthur RH and Wilson EO (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey Marossy A (1995) The Implications of Ecological Education for Young Children. Abstracts of 7th European ecological congress. Budapest, Hungary, 259 pp Marossy A (1998) Collaboration between museums and kindergardens to shape ecological awareness. Proceedings of VII International Congress of Ecology (Intecol). Florence, Italy, 276 pp Naess A (1988) Deep ecology and ultimate premises. The Ecologist 18: 128–131 Naess A (1989) Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecôsophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Oarcea Z (1999) Nature Conservancy. Philosophy and Achievements; National Parks, Natural Parks, Timişoara, Romanian University Press Publishing House, 251 pp [in Romanian, with no English summary] Odum HT (1971) Environment, Power and Society. Wiley, New York Pop E (1963) Nature protection – a state problem. Ocrotirea naturii (Nature Conservancy) 7: 11–25 [in Romanian] Pop E (1968) Emil Racovitsa – nature interpreter. Ocrotirea naturii (Nature Conservancy) 12(1): 5–8 [in Romanian] Pop E (1972) The redressing role of biology for man’s life environment. In: Romanian Academy (ed) Probleme actuale ale cercetării ştiintifice, pp 97–105. Publishing House of Romanian Academy, Bucharest [in Romanian] Pop E (1973) The forest and the battle for nature and landscape protection. Ocrotirea naturii (Nature Conservancy) 17(1): 9–15 [in Romanian] Pop E (1975) Eulogy on Carpathian Mountains. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 19(1): 7–9 [in Romanian] Primack RB (1993) Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts Puia I and Soran V (1980) Agriculture, agroecosystems and environment protection. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 24(1): 13–20 [in Romanian] Puscariu Val (1963) Nature protection in our country. Ocrotirea naturii (Nature Conservancy) 7: 27–49 [in Romanian] Puscariu Val (1973) Contemporary outlook on national parks and nature reserves. Ocrotirea naturii (Nature Conservancy) 17(1): 21–36 [in Romanian] Racovitsa EG (1937) Les Monuments Naturells (M.N.). Definition, classification, norme pour l’application des lois et reglements. Ce qu’il faudrait faire et ce qu’il faudrai ne point faire. In Contribution a l’etude des Reserves naturalls et des Parcs nationaux. Societe de Biogeographie (Paris) 5: 15–27 [There are two previous papers on the same subject in Romanian, published in 1934 and 1935] Schweitzer A (1958) My Life and Thought. An Autobiography. George Allen and Unwin, London Soran V (1973) Natural resources of contemporary world and their conservation problems. Ocrotirea naturii (Nature Conservancy) 17(1): 53–57 [in Romanian] Soran V (1974) Ethical reason of nature conservation in contemporary world. Sargetia, Series Scientia Naturae Acta Musei Devensis (in Latin), (Deva, Romania) 10: 265–269 [in Romanian] Soran V (1977) The idea of nature in great nations which created culture. In: Preda V (ed) Nature and Culture, pp 55–65. Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Academy Cluj-Napoca Branch, Romania [in Romanian] Soran V and Borcea M (1983) Ethological and ecological criteria for establishing the optimal area of a preserved land. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 27(1): 5–10 [in Romanian] Soran V and Borcea M (1985) Man and Biosphere. Encyclopedical and Scientific Book Publishing House, Bucharest [in Romanian] 1198 Soran V and Boscaiu N (1974) World genetic pool as a natural resource and the problem of its protection. Ocrotirea naturii şi protecţia mediului înconjurător (Nature and Environment Conservation) 18(1): 15–21 [in Romanian] Soran V, Godeanu M, Borcea M and Godeanu S (1987) Ecological principles and ethical commandments for nature and environment protection. In: Godeanu M, Bejan V and Cotrau M (eds) Bazele biologice ale proceselor de epurare. Probleme medicale şi ecologice de protecţie a mediului înconjurător, pp 215–228. Romanian Society of Ecology, Iasi (Jassy) and Băltăţeşti [in Romanian] Soran V, Borcea M and Giurgiu V (1990) Ethical principles of forest protection and conservation. In: Giurgiu V (ed) Fundamente ecologice pentru silvicultura, pp 167–200. Ministry of Environment, Institute of Forest Research, Bucharest [in Romanian] Soran V, Borcea M and Almasan H (1991) Ecological space and environmental protection. Evolution and Adaptation (Cluj) 4: 145–152 Soran V, Bandiu C and Muntean D (1993) Criteria for establishment of minimal and optimal areas of an effective conservancy of forest ecosystems. Revista Pǎdurilor (Forestry Journal of Romania) (Bucharest) 108: 38–42 [in Romanian] Soran V, Racovitsa Gh and Dordea M (1995) Les principes racovitziens primordiaux de protection de la nature et leur developpement actuel. Evolution and Adaptation (Cluj) 5: 29–42 Soran V, Ardelean A, Nagy-Toth F, Borcea M, Maior C and Bucsa C (1996) Some considerations on optimal size of natural reserves. In: Toth E and Horvath R (eds) Proceedings of the ‘Research, Conservation, Management’ Conference, Aggtelek (Hungary, 1–5 May 1996) Vol 1, pp 245–250 Soran V, Ardelean A, Bucsa C and Maior C (1998) Suitable method assessment the optimal size of natural biotic areas and nature reserves. In: Uso JL, Brebbia CA and Power H (eds) Ecosystems and Sustainable Development. Advances in Ecological Sciences I, pp 147–154. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton-Boston Stugren B (1988) Philosophical implications of contemporary ecological crisis. In: Stugren B (ed) Ocrotirea naturii. Traditii – actualitate – perspective (Nature Conservancy – Traditions – Up-todateness – Prospects), pp 81–98. Dacia Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, Romania [in Romanian] Topa E (1972) Stephen the Great – forerunner of nature protection in Moldavia. Studii şi comunicări de ocrotirea naturii (Suceava, Romania) 2: 39–48 [in Romanian] Wilcove DS, McLellan CH and Dobson AP (1986) Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, pp 237–256. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts