CC BY
21
THE STATE AND PERSPECTIVES OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
V. Gulca
State Agricultural University, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, e-mail: vgulca@yahoo.com
Introduction
Located in the southeastern part of the European continent between Ukraine and Romania (45°28I-48°30I northern latitude and 26°30I - 30° 051 eastern longitude), Moldova has insignificant natural resources compared with other developing countries European (Albania, Bosnia etc.) or African (Sudan, Nigeria, Eritrea etc.). In the same time lack of fossil fuels (natural gas, oil and coal) and mineral ores have resulted in a strong economical and political dependence with regard to supplying countries (Russia and Ukraine). Total preference for agriculture over forestry over the last few centuries has led the country with richest soil in the world to now have a catastrophically diminished economy. This, in turn, jeopardizes the security of Moldova. Adam Smith mentioned two hundreds years ago that welfare of any country is obtained only by intelligent utilisation of all resources which are in its possession. In Sweden for instance it was the development of mining, forest and hydroelectric industries (indigenous raw materials) that enabled Sweden to become a modern industrial nation. Recently national energy policy of Sweden aims to develop the use of timber biomass for energy production, instead of atomic station. If Denmark becomes the world leader in straw combustion or if Norway develops its wood pellets market, then it is not an amenity but literally a matter of life and death that Moldova, which is 9,6% forested develops a wildlife strategy. This strategy must encourage farmers to invest money, land
and time in commencing commercial wildlife management practices aimed at developing a wildlife economy. According to the Constitution of Moldova (12) state must ensure rational exploitation of natural resources in conformity with national interests. Hence wildlife for Moldova becomes a question of economic independence, security, and social health. In order to investigate and write this paper we completed historical analysis, reviewed documents and literature relevant to the territory now called Moldova.
1. Habitat description
The relief of the country is complex and variable. There are sharp changes of altitude within relatively short distances, with valleys or deep cliffs. The most obvious formations of this type are situated on the central plateau of Moldova -Codrii, reaching an altitude of 429.5 m. The annual average temperature is 8-10°C, while precipitation oscillates from 560 mm in the northern part of country to 380 mm in the southern part.
The country is divided administratively into 10 counties, 1 autonomous - territorial unit, 15 municipalities, 50 towns, 66 localities member of towns (municipalities), 663 villages (communities), 886 rural localities in the frame of villages (commune) all together 1680 localities. The population of the Moldova constitutes 3617.7 thousand inhabitants, the average density of population being 119 per km2; rural people 58.6 % and urban people 41.4 % (19).
The total area 3 384 357 ha constitutes from 57.6% of agricultural lands, 9.1% of localities lands, 17.84% of reserve fond occupied by pastures, forest protected belts, roads, 1.8% of lands destined to industry, transports communications etc., 11.4% of forest fond, 0.06% land destined to nature protection, historical-culture value, etc., and 2.2% of water funds (18). The hunting fund of Moldova covers a surface area of 2,8 million hectares, with the largest part being occupied by open landscapes (16). According to Wildlife Law (1995), hunting lands are considered areas of land, forest and water funds that constitute the habitat for wildlife.
Forests as the most important refuge for wildlife during wintertime cover at present only 325 400 ha or 9,6% from all territory of the country. Qualitatively, forests of Moldova consist predominantly of broad-leaved trees 97.8% (oak, sessile oak, downy oak, black locust, European ash and hornbeam). The current group structure of stands is mostly unbalanced. The average life of a stand is 40 years, with young trees representing 26.3%, middle-life trees 43.7%, pre-exploitable trees 17.5%, and exploitable trees 12.5%, (Gulca and Herbst, 2005). This situation is worsened because whole forest fund is fragmented in 800 forest bodies with a surface from 5 to 1500 ha are distributed differently in the agrarian's ecosystems. Wildlife habitats are fragmented also by 1680 localities with average density of population being 119,0 per km2.
Table 1
Estimation of minimum and maximum optimal number of hunting animals also minimum and maximum sustained yield
Species Suitable habitat surface, ha Optimal number Annual natural growth, % Sustained yield Actual number
IV carrying capacity I carrying capacity IV carrying capacity I carrying capacity
lOOOha Total lOOOha Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Red deer 150000 1 150 20 3000 15 23 450 450
Roe deer 325000 12 3900 60 19500 20 780 3900 3800
Wild boar 325000 4 1300 20 6500 40 520 2600 1750
Hare 2800000 20 56000 100 280000 35 19600 98000 70000
Pheasant 325000 140 45500 700 227500 35 15925 79625 6500
Si
(S.
$
£*
a
J
1
C
3S
I
I
8.
OJ
2
s
iS
^1
S'
£
2. Wildlife evolution
According to (Averin, Gania, Uspen-skii, 1975), during XVIII-XIX centuries were disappeared from this region European bison, aurochs, Saiga tatarica, tarpan, moose, red deer, bear and lynx. During the last 100 years (1904-2004), the number of wildlife in the territory of Moldova varied markedly. The vestiges of forests (5% from all territory) harbour on the beginning of XX century only two species of ungulates: roe deer and wild boar. According to Tiscevici and Bordiug (1973), after the 2nd World War forest cover decreased until 4%, that led the populations of roe deer, wild boar, and marten to the limit of disappearance. Together with people restoration, in the beginning of second half of XX century was occurred a slow natural recovery of wildlife when leading factors of natural mortality were wolf predation, and disease/starvation.
During 1954-1982 period were realized in this region ten reintroductions of red deer (169 individuals), and introductions, four by hybridized deer (102 individuals), seven by sika deer (165 individuals) and two by fallow deer (25 individuals). As all these species were released mostly in the same habitats, the hotbeds of joint living were created. Prevalence of 4-6 years old individuals and 1+: 6> sex ratio in populations of Genus Cervus requires to correct management for conservation and hunting concerning to available options.
Interesting feature of this period was simultaneity of actions for wildlife restoration and protection (e.g. hunting prohibition or reintroductions of red deer) with actions, those led to wildlife (European mink, otter, bustard) extinction (e.g. bog draining or steppe fallowing on thousands of hectares). During the period of 19601970 over 20000 ha of slopes were worked (subsequently these areas were lost as a result of erosion and gliding); also over 80 000 ha of marshes were drained, etc; as a result land utilisation reached at end of 80th the limit of 90% (Capcelea, 1996). According to Gania (1968) in the postwar period application of dust DDT (1520 kg/ha) was made almost over all forest area of Moldova (209,9 thousands ha) that led to death of many wild vertebrates. The number of cases man-caused mortality (gun-wounds, poaching, forest and agriculture chemification, agriculture mechanisms, traffic accidents, stray dogs) had a tendency to increase, simultaneously with wildlife restoration actions.
Natural mortality of wildlife species in the third quarter of XX century included predation by wolves, foxes, racoon dog, pine martin, wild cat, polecat, other mammals, birds of prey, and death from disease and starvation. But concentration of agricultural production, intensive chemi-zation and irrigation, livestock industrial development was in permanent need of new land and more fodder. The limiting of wildlife habitats caused extinction of many wild predators and raptors. Later many of them were included in the Red Book. Moreover, most of predators and raptors were persecuted as harmful for agriculture, livestock and people. Wolf (as most dangerous) number was reduced from 300 exemplars in 1954 till 30 exemplars in 1969 (Uspenskii, 1972). In the middle of 80th wolf disappeared completely in Moldova. Sometimes during winter wolf could emigrate for a short time from Romania crossing the frozen Prut
river. Unfortunately stray dogs, which now are counted more then 10000 individuals, occupied wolf's niche. Steadier component of predator's community is fox, which number was during 1967-1968 period 20-25000 individuals while now its number varies around 12000 ones.
Past-war hunting legislation was mostly concentrated on the prohibition of hunting. As a result in the end of '70th the quantity of roe deer and wild boar passed the optimum number. Temporary from 1978 year was admitted only selection shooting of wild ungulate animals. Nevertheless, until the end of ‘80th, the hunting economy had not used the possibilities of hunting tourism and until nowadays never brought financial benefit. Moreover as a result of high density of wild boar, its population was suffered drastically during 1986-1987 years from the porcine plague. During the five years 1991-1995 the wildlife number was reduced to the level of the end of ‘60th. At the same time unexpected increasing of livestock in the farms of individual sectors as a result of inflation and lack of salary to the local people shrank increasingly specific area of wildlife and subsequently the wildlife number.
3.Carrying capacity
Sustainable wildlife management impose as a previous condition, to know as accurate as possible conditions provided by land for existence of hunting species. The conditions of any hunting unite to assure food, shelter, and breeding optimal conditions for a certain number of species is named carrying capacity. The term of carrying capacity, introduced in wildlife science by Leopold (1933) became one of the most common phrases in wildlife management. The author of this term and many other wildlife researchers meant carrying capacity as nutritional capacity, the base factor, which determines number of animals in habitat. Some of them are referring to other factors, which affect to a certain degree, and often limit caring capacity for hunting lands. According to (Caughley & Sinclair, 1994), this term cover a variety of meanings: ecological carrying capacity as natural limit of a population set by resources in a particular environment; economic carrying capacity as population level that produces the maximum sustained yield for culling or cropping purposes; and other senses to our particular land use requirements. With a goal to establish criteria for carrying capacity (table 1) in Moldova we have analysed methods and opinions from different countries (Gulca, 1997).
4. Management and legislation
According to Wildlife Law and Forest Code there are three principal authorities responsible for management and control of the hunting fund: first, forest authority, which wants to improve the hunting economy but does not have sufficient money to do this work; second, the environment authority, which wants to protect wildlife without exploitation; and third, local authorities who even nowadays feel game problems through wishing to participate in the privileged hunting as long ago. In consequence, agricultural lands as part of wildlife habitat are administered by local authorities and managed by the Society of Hunters and Fishers, while central forest authority manages about 800 forest bodies from 0. 5 ha to 1,500 ha spreading in on all agricultural territory. But the wildlife does not ask who is manager, and in winter many species prefer the forest while in summer they prefer corn or other fields. The problem is much more complicated, since agricultural lands are divided among a multitude of private owners who not accept wildlife damage to their agricultural crops.
5. Future tasks and problems
According to Caughley and Sinclair (1994) wild population may be managed in one of four ways: 1 make it increase; 2 make it decrease; 3 harvest it for continuing yield; 4 leave it alone but keep an eye on it. Three decisions are needed: (i) what is the desired goal; (ii) which management option is therefore appropriate; and (iii) by what action is the management option best achieved? The first decision requires a judgment of value, the others technical judgments. In Moldova, the main tasks of wildlife policy must be directed by the enhancement principle of the general utility (judgment of value) of wildlife. Management option should depend on case of natural reservation or hunting enterprise. The main objectives of wildlife management are: improve significance and economic viability of wildlife, provide suitable basis for recreation hunting, strengthen political support, educate culture in using of wildlife, strengthen anti-poaching efforts, ensure the sustainable use of wildlife. Thus we should develop our restoration goals for wildlife in light of both historic possibilities and current realities, (Morrison, 2002).
Discussion
The economical value of wildlife for Moldova was mentioned by voivode Dim-itrie Cantemir in his work “Descriptio Moldoviae” (1715). And it is not exaggeration because national natural resources of Moldova comprise only soils, forests, waters, wildlife, and mineral solid substance (clay, sand, and limestone). Preference for agriculture and ignorance of wildlife during centuries, led the country with richest soil in the world to have now catastrophically diminishing of agriculture and livestock production, which jeopardize the alimentary security of the country. This means that this area supports a lack of main natural resources and the exploitation of soil exceeds any reasonable limits. The wildlife crisis can be attributed to a range of factors: poaching, out-of-date legislation, lack of educated staff and capacity building etc. Investigations point out that wildlife management is also in conflict with unsustainable forest management, agriculture and livestock farming, which constitute the livelihood for most part of native population. This study highlights the fact that existing legislation presents an obstacle for communities to understand and realize utility from wildlife.
REFERENCES
Averin I., Gania I. & Uspenskii G. 1975. Importance of changes in bird and mammal composition for zoogeographic characteristic of Moldova. Actual question about zoogeography // Proceedings of VI Union zoogeographic conference in September 1975. - Chisinau pp. 4-5, (Russian).
Cantemir, D. 1715. Descriptio antiqvi et hodierni statvs Moldaviae, Bucureeti, 402 p.
Capcelea A.1996. The Republic of Moldova on the way to the sustainable development. - Chisinau: Publisher “Stiinta”. 192 pp.
Caughley G. & Sinclair A.R.E. 1994. Wildlife ecology and management. -Cambridge: Blackwell Scientific
Publications. 336 pp.
Gania I. 1968. Action of poison chemicals to wildlife // Journal “Ohrana prirodi”, Nr.5, “Cartea moldoveneasca”, pp. 65-69, (Russian).
Gulca V. 1997. Contributions to the establishing the criteria of hunting ground carrying capacity in Moldova. Ph.D. Dissertation. Brasov, 200 pp, (Romanian).
Gulca V., Herbst P. 2005. Moldawien: Nachhaltige Waldbewirtschaftung schafft Lebensqualitgt // “Forstzeitung”, 116. Jg, No. 9/2005, pp. 32-33.
Leopold A. 1986. Game management. - Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press. 482 p.
Morrison M. 2002. Wildlife restoration.
Techniques for habitat analysis and animal monitoring. - Washington: Island Press, 212 pp.
Tiscevici G., Bordiug V. 1973. Moldavian forests. - Chisinau: “Cartea moldoveneasca”, 164 pp., (Russian).
Uspenskii G. 1972. Hunting animals of Moldova and perspective of its utilization. Collection “Fauna of terrestrial vertebrates and problems of reconstruction”. -Chisinau: “Stiinta”, pp. 96-128, (Russian).
Uspenskii G. 1994. Constitution of Republic of Moldova. - Chisinau: “Universul”. 48 pp., (Romanian).
Uspenskii G. 1995 Wildlife Law no. 439-XIII, 27 April 1995, Monitorul Oficial nr. 62-63, 1995, pp.3-17, (Romanian).
Uspenskii G. 1996. Forest code. Nr. 887 from 21.06.96. - Official Monitoring of Moldova, nr.4-5, art. 36 from 16.01.1997 (Romanian).
Uspenskii G. 1997.Law “Concerning to natural resources”. Collection of Laws and normative acts for forestry specialists. - Chisinau, pp.254-265, (Romanian).
Uspenskii G. 2001. National strategy and plan for actions in the field of conservation of biologic diversity. - Nr.112-XV, April 27. - Chisinau: “Stiinta”, 108 pp., (Romanian).
Uspenskii G. 2002. Government Decision nr. 1415 concerning approving of Strategy for social - economic development of Republic of Moldova till the 2005 year. - Official Monitoring nr. 5-8, pp. 5-29, (Romanian).
Uspenskii G. 2003. Land general cadastre of Republic of Moldova, at 1 January 2003). - Chisinau, (Romanian).
Uspenskii G. 2003. Statistic yearbook of Republic of Moldova. - Chisinau: “Statistica”, 704 pp.,(Romanian).
СОСТОЯНИЕ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ РЕСУРСАМИ ДИКОЙ ПРИРОДЫ В РЕСПУБЛИКЕ МОЛДОВА
В. Гулка
Государственный Сельскохозяйственный Университет, Республика Молдова
Природно-климатические условия Республики Молдова благоприятны для развития охотничьего хозяйства. Однако игнорирование диких животных в течение столетий, привело на совре-
менном этапе страну с самой богатой почвой в мире к катастрофическому кризису в аграрной сфере и животноводстве, угрожающему пищевой безопасности страны. Существующее законодательство препятствует осуществлению рационального и неистощительного использования ресурсов диких животных.
Международная научно-практическая конференция
