The target was to be achieved through a broad set of actions (as listed below) aimed at strengthening the national legislative, institutional, and financial framework for biodiversity conservation. These actions included: adopting the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; clarifying institutional mandates; increasing and training staff involved in biodiversity management; improving enforcement mechanisms; integrating biodiversity considerations into regional and local planning; and consolidating the legal framework for protected areas and species. Additional planned actions focused on improving the functioning of key financial instruments, including revising Environmental Fund guidelines, diversifying revenue sources, allocating dedicated budget lines for biodiversity, ensuring co-financing for LIFE projects, and establishing supplementary financial mechanisms such as counter-expertise funds and instruments to support ex-situ conservation.

Overall, while many of these actions were initiated or partially implemented—particularly those related to legislative updates, capacity building, and the use of EU-funded programmes—several critical financial and institutional mechanisms remained unfulfilled.

Despite these advances, several structural challenges limited full achievement of the target. The absence of a dedicated budget line for biodiversity, the failure to implement key financial mechanisms foreseen in the national strategy (e.g., 20% allocation from the Environmental Fund, co-financing for LIFE projects, counter-expertise fund), and the lack of a national programme and unified regulation for ex-situ conservation structures resulted in fragmented and unstable financing. Institutional instability, insufficient staffing in key agencies, and inconsistent data integration across projects further constrained progress. For future implementation, Romania will need to establish stable domestic financing mechanisms, strengthen inter-institutional coordination, improve long-term planning for protected areas and ex-situ infrastructures, and ensure full operationalization of management plans and monitoring systems under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

One effective action undertaken during the implementation period was the continuous consolidation of the national legislative framework for biodiversity conservation. The amendments to Government Emergency Ordinance 57/2007, although numerous, contributed significantly to clarifying institutional responsibilities, strengthening legal provisions for protected area management, and improving the alignment of the national framework with EU nature legislation. This process enhanced the ability of competent authorities to implement conservation measures and improved the overall coherence of the regulatory environment.

Significant steps have been taken to strengthen the legislative, institutional and financial framework for protected area management. The creation of the National Agency for Environment and Protected Areas (NAEPA) consolidated, at least formally, the responsibilities for environmental protection and protected area management within a single institution, although the anticipated improvements in coordination have not yet materialized. Management responsibilities have been allocated for most protected areas, either directly to NAEPA or through long-term contracts with authorized administrators such as Romsilva. A unified methodology for assigning management responsibilities (Order 1822/2020) and a standardized structure for management plans (Order 901/2023) are now in place, facilitating more coherent management planning. A complementary financing mechanism was also introduced through Government Decision 587/2025, allowing revenues generated within protected areas to be retained and reinvested.

However, several planned actions remain unimplemented. No comprehensive technical norms or a national methodology has yet been adopted to operationalize a coherent financial system for protected area management, despite recommendations produced under GEF-funded projects. Gaps persist in secondary legislation, and a number of site-level management plans have still not been finalized or approved. These shortcomings continue to limit the full implementation of the national target.

Progress towards this national target has been partial. Several foundational measures have been completed, including the formal consolidation of environmental and protected area responsibilities within the National Agency for Environment and Protected Areas, the allocation of management responsibilities for the majority of protected areas, and the adoption of a standardized structure for management plans (Order 901/2023). The establishment of a complementary financing mechanism through Government Decision 587/2025, enabling the reinvestment of revenues generated within protected areas, represents an additional institutional improvement. Collectively, these developments provide the basic framework necessary for more coherent planning and administration of protected areas.

The implementation of National Target B, aimed at ensuring coherence and efficient management of the national network of protected natural areas, directly contributes to: SDG 13 Climate Action, SDG 14 Life Below Water, SDG 15 Life on Land.

Implementation of National Target C has focused primarily on improving the legal and institutional framework for species protection, updating national lists of protected species, and initiating action planning for priority taxa. Key actions include:
Planned actions in the NBSAP relevant to this target 
C1. Updating the annexes regarding species of national interest in Government Emergency Ordinance 57/2007, approved with amendments and completions by Law no. 49/2011, with subsequent amendments
C2. Elaboration and adoption of specific regulations to ensure a favorable conservation status of strictly protected species of community interest and those protected of national interest located outside protected natural areas
C3. Creating and updating the National Red Lists and Books of wild flora and fauna species
C4. Adoption the national Red Lists of wild flora and fauna species by a legal instrument
C5. Establishing legal mechanisms through which the repatriation of confiscated species and the costs of their maintenance until repatriation are borne by the offenders/criminals
C6. Creation of 5 special centers for the takeover of confiscated wild species, based on a feasibility study to establish their locations and structure, within the number of positions approved by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
C7. Designation and establishment of mechanisms by which environmental and customs authorities will identify specimens of protected species harvested/captured, purchased and traded or parts thereof in a live or processed state
C8. Implementation of mechanisms by which environmental and customs authorities will identify specimens of protected species harvested/captured, purchased and traded or parts thereof in a live or processed state
C9. Analysis of the conservation status of strictly protected species and selection of species for which National Conservation Action Plans (NCAPs) should be developed
C10. Carrying out NCAPs for species identified as priority
C11. Implementation of NCAPs for 15 of the priority species
C12. Carrying out NCAPs for medium priority species
C13. Ratification of the AEWA amendments
C14. Ratification of the EUROBATS amendments
 

Progress toward National Target C has been partial, with the most significant advances occurring in the legislative and analytical components. The amendment of GEO 57/2007 through GEO 7/2025 established the legal basis for revising national species lists and clarified obligations related to species protection outside protected areas. Work has begun to align national species lists with reporting requirements under Articles 12 and 17 of the Birds and Habitats Directives.
Progress has also been made on national Red Lists, with the Red List for bird species formally adopted (Order 2015/2022) and Red List for marine species formally adopted (Order 488/2020), while earlier scientific Red Lists for other groups remain without regulatory endorsement. Several National and Regional Species Action Plans (PNACs) have been approved for birds, bats, brown bear, and Eurasian beaver, and additional plans are under preparation for multiple priority species.
Furthermore, projects such as COREHABS, ConnectGreen, and SaveGreen have improved knowledge on ecological corridors and species connectivity, including corridor mapping for brown bear.
Enforcement structures were strengthened through inspections by the National Environmental Guard, and procedural frameworks for the identification of CITES and protected species were supported through EU and national legislation. One specialized center for confiscated wildlife (bear sanctuary) exists, although the national network of five centers has not been completed.
Overall, progress has been strongest in strengthening the legal basis, improving alignment with EU requirements, and generating technical and scientific information needed for future species conservation measures.

2. Key challenges encountered and approaches for further implementation
Despite progress, implementation remains constrained by several challenges. The revision and formal adoption of national species lists has not been completed, delaying the operational use of updated protection statuses. Although GEO 7/2025 introduced important clarifications, specific conservation regulations for species outside protected areas are still absent, leaving a major gap in practical implementation.
Only 2 Red Lists - the list of bird species and marine species - have been legally adopted, while other taxonomic groups still lack validated national Red Lists. Many priority species continue to lack PNACs, and implementation of existing plans remains limited.
Institutional limitations affect enforcement efforts regarding the capture, trade, and handling of protected species. Key actions—such as developing mechanisms for repatriating confiscated specimens and establishing five dedicated reception centers—have not been achieved, forcing authorities to rely on temporary and sometimes inappropriate solutions through zoos or NGOs.
Progress on international obligations, including the ratification of AEWA and EUROBATS amendments, is still pending. Additionally, despite methodological advances and mapping of ecological corridors, a nationally established ecological corridor network does not yet exist, reducing the utility of existing scientific outputs.
Further implementation should focus on completing and adopting revised species lists, developing dedicated conservation regulations for species outside protected areas, expanding and operationalizing PNACs, establishing legal and institutional mechanisms for handling confiscated wildlife, and integrating ecological corridors into national planning and legislation.

The implementation of National Target C contributes primarily to SDG 15 (Life on Land) by supporting species conservation through updated legislation, Red Lists, and the development and implementation of Species Action Plans. Actions related to the assessment and protection of freshwater species and compliance with CITES also support SDG 14 (Life Below Water). Additionally, improving ecological connectivity and strengthening species resilience contributes indirectly to SDG 13 (Climate Action), by enhancing ecosystem capacity to adapt to climate-related pressures.

1. Summary of progress towards the target and main outcomes achieved

Key achievements include the development and adoption of economic valuation methodologies for biodiversity in business planning and feasibility studies, facilitating the integration of biodiversity values into decision-making processes. Legislative updates have been introduced, such as amendments to spatial planning laws, and specific provisions regarding landscape and natural heritage have been integrated into the legal framework.

Several strategic action plans and regulatory frameworks have been established, including the National Plan for wetland and degraded area restoration, local landscape policies, and standards for green urban spaces. Fiscal incentives and eco-labeling schemes have been developed to encourage sustainable use of biodiversity and greener urban infrastructure like terrace roofs.

Forest management has been strengthened through enhanced legal frameworks, institutional capacity building, and economic assessments of forest protective functions. Natural regeneration rates have improved through appropriate treatments, and forest area expansions have been initiated, including the rehabilitation of degraded lands.

In the agricultural sector, best practice guidelines and norms have been updated to promote agro-biodiversity conservation. New incentives and fiscal mechanisms are being developed to encourage sustainable agricultural production systems, maintaining biodiversity while improving economic efficiency. Efforts to characterize resilient crop varieties and livestock breeds for climate adaptation have advanced, alongside studies addressing soil fragmentation and land use changes.

2. Key challenges encountered and approaches for further implementation

Despite the progress, several challenges remain. One major challenge is the enforcement and consistent application of updated legislation, particularly regarding landscape protection, construction regulations, and forest management. Coordination among various local and national institutions is sometimes insufficient, limiting effective policy implementation and monitoring.

Financial constraints and limited institutional capacity pose difficulties in scaling restoration and conservation projects, especially in rural and degraded areas. Additionally, the integration of biodiversity values into economic and land-use planning still faces obstacles due to gaps in data, awareness, and the complexity of measuring ecosystem services.

Agricultural biodiversity conservation is hindered by fragmented land ownership, inadequate incentives, and the persistence of agricultural practices detrimental to biodiversity. Climate change poses an increasing threat, requiring adaptive management and resilient agricultural systems, but implementation of such adaptive strategies is still in early stages.

To overcome these challenges, further efforts should focus on strengthening institutional coordination and capacity-building, improving enforcement mechanisms, and enhancing stakeholder engagement at all levels. Expanding financial support and economic incentives for biodiversity-friendly practices will be crucial. Moreover, advancing data collection and monitoring systems, coupled with targeted public awareness campaigns, can foster better integration of biodiversity values into policy and land-use decisions.

Adaptive management approaches incorporating climate resilience, especially in agriculture and forestry, will be essential for sustaining biodiversity under changing environmental conditions. Cross-sectoral collaboration and alignment of biodiversity conservation with socio-economic development goals will increase the effectiveness and sustainability of implementation efforts.

Development and adoption of the National Plan for wetland and degraded area restoration (D5): This initiative has led to concrete action plans for the reconstruction and restoration of degraded and destroyed landscapes.

Updating legislation and regulatory frameworks (D1.2, D1.3, D2.3, D2.4): The updating of Annex III of Law No. 5/2000 and clarifications on enforcement responsibilities have improved spatial planning and landscape protection. Similarly, strengthening legal frameworks for forest management and biodiversity conservation has enhanced governance and compliance.

Introduction of fiscal mechanisms for greening existing built environments (D1.13, D1.14): Fiscal incentives such as subsidies and tax exemptions for green terraces and the reuse of existing building stock have encouraged sustainable urban development.

Development of eco-labeling schemes (D3): Initiatives focused on life cycle analysis of products have begun to promote sustainable production and consumption patterns.

Promotion of agrobiodiversity (D3.6, D3.7): Research and development efforts on the use of local varieties, hybrids, and traditional breeds have supported sustainable agricultural practices.

The implementation of National Target D aligns closely with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

SDG 15 – Life on Land: By improving forest management, and promoting sustainable agricultural practices, the target directly contributes to halting biodiversity loss and promoting ecosystem restoration.

SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities: Fiscal incentives for green urban spaces and terrace greening support the creation of more sustainable and resilient urban environments.

SDG 13 – Climate Action: The conservation and promotion of agrobiodiversity, along with landscape restoration efforts, enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to climate change adaptation.

SDG 12 – Responsible Consumption and Production: The development of eco-labeling schemes and life cycle analysis of products encourages sustainable production patterns and reduces environmental impact.

While Romania demonstrated partial progress towards ex-situ conservation, most actions were institutionally based and sector-specific rather than coordinated under a national strategy. Key efforts included maintaining botanical gardens, gene banks, zoos, and research facilities; cataloguing and preserving plant and animal genetic resources; and aligning regulations with EU standards. However, comprehensive national assessments and strategic planning for ex-situ conservation remain absent.

Planned actions in the NBSAP relevant to this target

E1. Assessment of the functioning of gene banks, centers for keeping wild animals in captivity and wild plant collections (seed banks, botanical gardens, arboretums, dendrological parks and the like.)

E2. Inventory and assessment of the conservation status of local indigenous species, varieties, hybrids and breeds used in agriculture and industry

E3. Establish and adopt new standards for the establishment and operation of zoos, taking into account their role in wildlife conservation and education

1. Summary of progress towards the target and main outcomes achieved

During the reporting period, Romania undertook multiple actions to support ex-situ conservation of wild species, plant varieties, and animal breeds. Key progress and outcomes include:

• Botanical gardens and plant collections: Major botanical gardens across Romania, including “D. Brandza” (Bucharest), “A. Borza” (Cluj), “A. Fătu” (Iași), and others, maintained collections of wild, endemic, rare, and endangered plant species. These collections contribute to the long-term preservation of plant biodiversity.
• Plant Genetic Resources: The Gene Bank of Suceava serves as the national focal point for PGRFA, maintaining over 46,000 seed accessions and supporting traditional landrace preservation. The Plant Genetic Resources Bank in Buzău preserves vegetable, floriculture, aromatic, and medicinal plants.
• Zoos and animal rehabilitation centers: Romania authorized 30 zoos, aquaria, and dolphinaria, and established 6 rehabilitation centers. Legislative measures aligned national regulations with EU standards, emphasizing conservation, education, and research.
• Microorganisms and aquatic species: National institutes maintain libraries of microorganisms for research and health purposes, while aquaculture monitoring ensures protection of species such as sturgeons under CITES regulations.
• Education and public awareness: Projects such as “The Gardens of Knowledge” promoted awareness of urban biodiversity and the importance of ex-situ conservation.

While concrete actions were implemented at institutional levels, progress was fragmented. No comprehensive national strategy or evaluation exists, but foundational frameworks for ex-situ conservation are in place, particularly in legal regulation, institutional recognition, and species collections.

Romania faces a lack of a unified national strategy and comprehensive evaluation of ex-situ facilities, with responsibilities fragmented across ministries and institutions. Collections of traditional landraces, local breeds, and rare plant species remain incomplete. Future efforts should focus on developing a national action plan, improving coordination among stakeholders, expanding genetic resource collections, and enhancing public education through botanical gardens, zoos, and biodiversity initiatives.

Ex-situ conservation efforts in Romania are implemented through key institutions such as the Suceava Gene Bank, the Plant Genetic Resources Bank Buzău, several major botanical gardens, authorized zoos and rehabilitation centers, and collections of microorganisms and aquaculture species. These institutions maintain genetic resources, support research and breeding, and contribute to education and species conservation, providing tangible but sector-specific outcomes. Despite these initiatives, a unified national strategy is needed to ensure systematic coordination and long-term effectiveness.

The implementation of National Target E on ex-situ conservation contributes to progress in several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and related international commitments, although the efforts remain fragmented and lack a cohesive national strategy.

Romania has implemented a series of actions to prevent the introduction and manage the spread of invasive alien species. Key measures include the development of a national list of invasive alien species, the establishment of public databases with risk information, and the approval of the National Action Plan for Priority Pathways (PNAACIP) to manage high-risk introduction pathways. Legislative measures and international commitments, such as ratification of the Ballast Water Management Convention, support the control of accidental introductions via shipping. Sector-specific monitoring and management projects have been conducted in aquaculture, deltaic ecosystems, and protected areas, while methodologies for rapid response, control, and eradication of invasive species have been developed and disseminated. Efforts also include the proposal of indicators for monitoring impacts and risk assessments to guide prioritization of management measures. Some areas, such as the creation of databases for economically introduced species and specialized mechanisms for invasive pets, remain under development.
Planned actions in the NBSAP relevant to this target
F1. Creating a national list of invasive species
F2. Creation and maintenance of a registry and database on non-native species
F3. Development and adoption of technical regulations on the introduction and control of non-native species originating from neighbouring and/or exotic regions
F4. Ratification by Romania's of the Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention and the development of subsequent implementation measures
F5. Development of the administrative mechanisms for monitoring alien species introduced for economic purposes
F6. Establishment of a reporting mechanism and/or a monitoring line for taxa or species used as pets with the highest invasive potential, to signal accidental or intentional release into the wild
F7. Mandatory monitoring of ballast water and fouling for ships that discharge ballast or carry out hull cleaning operations in ports, as well as monitoring of sediments from the bottom of ballast tanks where resistant forms may be present
F8. Development of publicly accessible databases with information on the risks associated with species intentionally introduced for various purposes
F9. Strict monitoring of non-native species introduced for aquaculture that may spread and become naturalized in aquatic ecosystems
F10. Development of management plans for high-risk pathways of introduction
F11. Implementation of management plans for high-risk pathways of introduction
F12. Assessing the risks that invasive species pose to native species in order to identify and prioritize their management options
F13. Developing indicators for monitoring the impact of invasive species
F14. Developing methods/methodologies for the limitation, control and eradication of invasive species
 

Romania has made substantial progress in managing invasive alien species, particularly in prevention, monitoring, and rapid response. A national list of invasive alien species has been established, and public databases with risk information have been made available. The National Action Plan for Priority Pathways (PNAACIP) has been approved and is under implementation, providing a framework for managing high-risk introduction pathways. Key international commitments, such as the ratification of the Ballast Water Management Convention, have been implemented, ensuring compliance with standards D1 and D2 for shipping. Methodologies for rapid response, control, and eradication of invasive species have been developed and disseminated, and indicators for monitoring impacts have been proposed. Sector-specific monitoring projects have provided valuable information for management decisions, particularly in aquaculture, deltaic ecosystems, and protected areas.

Challenges remain in creating comprehensive databases for economically introduced species and establishing specialized reporting mechanisms for invasive pets. Monitoring of ballast water and fouling in ports is not yet fully operational, and the evaluation of species introduced via aquaculture lacks a systematic national approach. Future implementation should focus on integrating these fragmented efforts into a coordinated national system, expanding monitoring and reporting mechanisms, developing targeted guidelines for economic introductions, and strengthening the link between risk assessments, impact indicators, and management actions to ensure a more effective and sustainable invasive species management framework.

Several measures implemented during the reporting period demonstrate concrete progress in managing invasive alien species in Romania. The national list of invasive alien species was completed under the POIM 2018–2023 project “Efficient management of invasive species in Romania”, which also developed a public platform with risk information for invasive alien species (specii-invazive.ro). The approval and ongoing implementation of the National Action Plan for Priority Pathways (PNAACIP, Order 3008/2022) provides a structured framework for preventing introductions and managing high-risk pathways. At the maritime level, implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention enables effective control of species introduced through ballast water, with standard D1 applied and standard D2 in progress. In aquatic ecosystems, dedicated monitoring projects such as IASON (2020–2023) and activities under POIM contributed to identifying invasive species and assessing their ecological impact, supporting management actions in deltaic and freshwater systems.

Relevant websites, web links and files

https://invazive.ccmesi.ro/ 

https://specii-invazive.ro/ 

https://zenodo.org/communities/ias_romania

Implementation of this target directly supports progress toward SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) by reducing pressures from invasive alien species on native biodiversity and ecosystems.

During the reporting period, Romania made progress in establishing the legal and institutional framework required for implementing the international ABS regime. The Nagoya Protocol was ratified through Law No. 36/2019, providing the formal basis for national compliance. Additional steps include the adoption of the General and Practical ABS Guidelines (Order MEWF No. 828/2023), which clarify procedures, stakeholders, and obligations related to access and benefit-sharing. Progress has also been made in strengthening the national intellectual property system through the National Intellectual Property Strategy 2024–2028 and the 2025 IP Commercialization Guide, which support innovation, technology transfer, and mechanisms for fair remuneration - though not specifically tailored to traditional knowledge or genetic resources. However, the Bonn Guidelines have not been adopted, and no national ABS monitoring indicators have yet been established.
Planned actions in the NBSAP relevant to this target
G1. Drafting the legal and institutional framework for the implementation of the Protocol on the ABS regime
G2. Adoption and implementation of the Bonn Guidelines
G3. Developing of the legal framework and financial mechanisms necessary for the recognition of intellectual property rights over access to genetic resources and traditions of genetic resource use
G4. Establishing the indicators for monitoring ABS implementation
 

Progress toward the target is partial, with the main achievement being the establishment of the legal basis for ABS through the ratification of the Nagoya Protocol and the issuance of national guidelines that support its implementation. Some steps have been taken toward strengthening intellectual property rights and financial mechanisms relevant to benefit-sharing. However, other components remain unfulfilled: the Bonn Guidelines have not been adopted, traditional knowledge and associated benefit-sharing mechanisms are not yet integrated into national frameworks, and no dedicated national indicators are in place to monitor ABS implementation. Overall, progress has focused primarily on legal alignment, while operational and monitoring components remain under development.

A key challenge is the absence of a comprehensive national system that integrates ABS procedures, traditional knowledge, intellectual property rights, and benefit-sharing mechanisms into a coherent operational framework. The lack of national monitoring indicators and methodological guidance limits the ability to track progress. The Bonn Guidelines have not been adopted, and sector-specific ABS procedures are not yet fully established. Moving forward, Romania should focus on developing national ABS indicators aligned with the Kunming–Montreal Framework, integrating traditional knowledge considerations, clarifying sectoral procedures for research and commercial use of genetic resources, and strengthening coordination across ministries, research institutions, and user communities.

Examples of progress include the ratification of the Nagoya Protocol (Law No. 36/2019), which formally established Romania’s commitment to the international ABS regime, and the issuance of the General and Practical ABS Guidelines (Order MEWF No. 828/2023), which provide procedural clarity for users and competent authorities. The adoption of the National Intellectual Property Strategy 2024–2028 and the 2025 IP Commercialization Guide also contributes indirectly to benefit-sharing by strengthening mechanisms for protecting and valorising research outputs. Although not specific to traditional knowledge or genetic resources, these tools offer institutional support for future ABS implementation.

Implementation of Target G contributes to progress under SDG 15, which calls for fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, as well as SDG 16 on institutional effectiveness and transparency. Strengthened IP mechanisms also support broader innovation goals under SDG 9, facilitating future benefit-sharing arrangements once ABS systems become fully operational.

Romania has taken several steps to develop a coherent policy framework for protecting and promoting traditional knowledge, practices, and innovations related to the use of natural resources and genetic resources. The Köln Guidelines have been adopted through the national ABS framework, supported by Law No. 36/2019 (ratification of the Nagoya Protocol) and Order MEWF No. 828/2023, which includes provisions relevant to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. Various Natura 2000, PNDR, LIFE and PDD projects have helped document traditional land management practices and assess their biodiversity impacts, although no national integrated inventory exists yet. Progress has also been made in strengthening the intellectual property framework through recent national strategies and the 2025 IP Commercialization Guide, in alignment with the new 2024 WIPO treaty on genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Some mechanisms for promoting traditional, biodiversity-friendly land use practices have been implemented through rural development and conservation funding schemes.
In parallel, Romania advanced cultural recognition efforts aligned with the UNESCO 2003 Convention, contributing to the documentation, classification, and safeguarding of practices such as haymaking, transhumance, and traditional mountain farming systems. These actions strengthened institutional cooperation between the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Culture, and the Ministry of Agriculture, laying the groundwork for a more integrated national approach to preserving traditional knowledge linked to biodiversity conservation.
Planned actions in the NBSAP relevant to this target
H1. Adoption of the Cologne/Koln Guidelines
H2. Inventory of traditional natural resource use practices and assessment of their impact on biodiversity conservation
H3. Development of regulations on intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge and methods of using genetic resources
H4. Establishing of mechanisms to promote the use of traditional practices conducive to the sustainable use of natural resources
 

Progress toward this target is substantial in terms of documentation and cultural recognition but remains partial in terms of legal and operational implementation. Important achievements include the adoption of the Köln Guidelines, increased visibility of traditional ecological knowledge through UNESCO-aligned inventories, and the integration of traditional practices into protected area management plans and eco-destinations. These efforts have highlighted Romania’s rich reservoir of community-held knowledge and its relevance for biodiversity conservation.

Studies—particularly in Transylvania’s mountain and submountain regions—have documented significant TEK that supports sustainable land management. Traditional practices linked to the religious calendar and seasonal cycles continue to shape small-scale agriculture and the stewardship of semi-natural landscapes. These positive outcomes demonstrate Romania’s institutional commitment to acknowledging and safeguarding intangible heritage connected to nature.

However, the absence of a specific national regulatory framework for the intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge remains a major gap, limiting community benefits and leaving traditional knowledge vulnerable to misappropriation. Although several strategies and frameworks are in place, implementation measures - especially those relating to sustainable use, safeguarding plans, and systematic national monitoring - are still underdeveloped.

Key challenges include the lack of a dedicated legal framework for intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge, the absence of a national integrated inventory of TEK linked to biodiversity, and limited mechanisms for turning documented practices into operational measures within environmental policy and rural development. Coordination among institutions, although improving, requires further strengthening to ensure coherent implementation between cultural heritage safeguarding and biodiversity conservation.

Future approaches should focus on: developing specific legal tools for the protection of traditional knowledge, aligned with the 2024 WIPO treaty; creating a national inventory of traditional ecological knowledge relevant to sustainable use and biodiversity, in cooperation with the Ministry of Culture under the UNESCO Convention; enhancing community participation and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms; operationalizing TEK within biodiversity strategies, protected area management, and rural development programs.

Several examples demonstrate the effectiveness of Romania’s actions. Traditional practices - such as haymaking, transhumance, and extensive grazing systems - have been documented and integrated into Natura 2000 management plans, where they contribute directly to the conservation of semi-natural grasslands and species-rich meadows. Multiple LIFE and PNDR projects have shown that maintaining traditional mowing dates, pastoral mobility, or orchard management practices supports biodiversity while preserving cultural identity.

UNESCO-aligned documentation efforts have recognized and promoted practices that shape cultural landscapes of high natural value, reinforcing the link between intangible heritage safeguarding and biodiversity conservation. These initiatives highlight how traditional ecological knowledge can guide sustainable land management and strengthen community engagement.

Relevant websites, web links and files

TEK can be track under the UNESCO Intangible Heritage Convention. There is also room for TEK related to nature and agricultural practices that can be defined under the convention and liaisons to the CBD to be realized.

https://ich.unesco.org/en/state/romania-RO    

Implementation of this target contributes significantly to SDG 15 (Life on Land) by supporting traditional practices that maintain biodiversity and ensure sustainable use of natural resources. It also advances SDG 2 (Sustainable Agriculture) through the promotion of agroecological knowledge, and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by valorising low-impact, traditional management systems.

During the reporting period, Romania implemented several actions aimed at strengthening scientific research and supporting technology transfer in biodiversity conservation. Important progress was achieved through the development and publication of species and habitat field guides, atlases and taxonomic tools, produced by universities, research institutes and NGOs. Research programmes under the National RDI Strategy (2022–2027) integrated ecosystem-based approaches, particularly through Programmes 5.6 (Challenges, including climate change and biodiversity) and 5.9 (Strategic Research), which include themes relevant to genetic resources, climate change adaptation and ecosystem management.

Progress was also made in applying molecular techniques in biodiversity monitoring and species characterization through publicly funded projects and the Biodiversa+ European partnership. Additionally, Romania has supported eco-innovation through national instruments such as innovation vouchers and broader EU-funded programmes (PNRR, LIFE, Horizon Europe), contributing indirectly to technology development in environmental protection.

Planned actions in the NBSAP relevant to this target

I1. Creation of the National Taxonomy Program

I2. Creating mechanisms to stimulate researchers to specialize in taxonomy

I3. Development of determinants, field guides and atlases of species and natural habitats in Romania

I4. Integrating special programs within existing funding lines for biodiversity conservation with the aim of supporting applied research to establish methods and techniques to mitigate the effects of climate change on genetic resources

I5. Integrating the ecosystem approach into the National Research, Development and Innovation Strategy

I6. Developing a database that integrates the results of studies and research conducted with public funds in the field of biodiversity conservation

I7. Creating of a legislative instrument that provides for tax deductibility for economic agents that apply technology transfer for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

I8. Establishing of the mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of new technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

I9. Establishing a mechanism to facilitate the patenting of new technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

I10. Establishing mechanisms to facilitate access to Community funds for eco-innovation in support of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan - ETAP roadmap

I11. Implementing of the molecular techniques in routine analyses for the characterization of species requiring conservation, invasive species, and the like

Progress towards this target is partial, with significant achievements in research output but limited advancement in institutional mechanisms. The development of taxonomic and field tools—such as the national bird monitoring guide (2021), the Atlas of Birds of Community Interest (2022), and the Illustrated Vascular Plants Determiner (2013) - represents a concrete contribution to biodiversity knowledge. Ecosystem approaches have been integrated into national RDI strategies, and molecular techniques are increasingly used to support conservation decisions, particularly for species of high management importance (e.g. large carnivores, sturgeons).

Some progress has also been made in integrating biodiversity research results into national databases, although this remains incomplete due to inconsistent data collection standards. Meanwhile, eco-innovation funding instruments continue to support technology uptake in environmental fields, although without a dedicated focus on biodiversity.

However, major components of the target remain unfulfilled. A National Taxonomy Programme has not been created, nor have mechanisms for stimulating specialization in taxonomy. There are no national mechanisms for technology transfer or patenting specifically for biodiversity conservation, and no fiscal incentives exist for economic actors applying technological innovations in this field. Overall, progress has been uneven—strong in research outputs but limited in institutional, financial, and technological structures.

Key challenges include the absence of a coordinated national framework for taxonomy, insufficient incentives for training and retaining taxonomic experts, and the lack of dedicated financial mechanisms for biodiversity-related technology transfer. Data integration remains hindered by non-standardized methodologies, and gaps persist in linking research outputs to practical management and innovation uptake. The private sector’s involvement in biodiversity-related innovation is limited due to the lack of fiscal incentives and specialized support for patenting or technological deployment.

Future implementation should focus on establishing a National Taxonomy Programme, creating incentives for taxonomic specialization, and developing dedicated funding lines for ecosystem-based research and biodiversity technology transfer. Strengthening national data platforms, establishing fiscal or innovation support mechanisms for biodiversity technologies, and operationalizing partnerships with the private sector will be essential. Expanding the use of molecular tools and aligning national research agendas with EU frameworks—such as Horizon Europe, Biodiversa+ and the EU Nature Restoration Law—would further support progress.

Several examples illustrate progress toward this target. The publication of national field guides and atlases—such as the standard bird monitoring guide (MEWF 2021), the national bird atlas (SOR & Milvus Group 2022), and the Illustrated Vascular Plants Determiner (2013)—has significantly improved field research capacity and standardized monitoring approaches. Molecular techniques applied in projects on large carnivores and sturgeon populations demonstrate the practical value of advanced scientific methods in supporting evidence-based conservation. The SINCRON platform and the NAEPA SIPOCA project have partially consolidated research outputs, improving access to biodiversity-related data for public authorities and researchers. EU programmes (e.g., Biodiversa+, LIFE) have supported the adoption of new technologies and methodologies, including remote sensing, molecular tools and decision-support systems.

Relevant websites, web links and files

https://www.brainmap.ro/ 

Implementation of this target contributes directly to SDG 15 (Life on Land) by improving scientific knowledge essential for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of natural resources. It also supports SDG 13 (Climate Action) through research on climate change impacts on genetic resources, and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) through eco-innovation funding instruments and technology transfer initiatives.

During the reporting period, progress toward strengthening communication, education, and public awareness on biodiversity was achieved mainly through actions in education and awareness campaigns, while institutional communication mechanisms advanced more slowly.

Key actions included:

• Adoption of the National Programme on Environmental Performance (2025), introducing internal monitoring and reporting obligations for public authorities, though not yet establishing a full internal communication strategy.
• Public consultations organized during the development of management plans for protected areas, ensuring a basic level of community participation.
• Educational measures, with biodiversity-related content continuing to be integrated into pre-university education through subjects such as Biology, Ecology, and Geography, as well as through school-level initiatives and optional activities (e.g., “Green Week”, “Forest Month”) and the continued development of university, postgraduate, and professional training programs relevant to biodiversity conservation.
• Awareness and outreach efforts, notably the "National Awareness Campaign on the Importance of Biodiversity Conservation through the Natura 2000 Network in Romania", which strengthened public understanding and institutional capacity.
• Volunteer activities in protected areas, especially in national and natural parks where organized activities and educational programs engage young people and local communities, despite the absence of a formal incentive system.
• CBD Clearing-House Mechanism, which was not updated, limiting access to centralized biodiversity information.

Planned actions in the NBSAP relevant to this target

J1. Establishing of an internal communication strategy at the level of environmental authorities

J2. Designation of the focal points for information management regarding biodiversity conservation at the level of all responsible parties and stability of functional communication networks between responsible parties for biodiversity conservation by central and local public authorities.

J3. Assessing the involvement of local communities in making important decisions regarding the management of protected natural areas

J4. Establishing of a system to stimulate voluntary involvement to support biodiversity conservation activities

J5. Developing the curriculum of pre-university education (primary, middle and high school cycles) to make it mandatory to introduce basic notions regarding biological diversity and the importance of its conservation

J6. Development and implementation of pre-university, university, postgraduate and advanced training programs in the field of natural capital conservation management

J7. Continuous maintenance and updating of CBD CHM

Implementation of National Target J shows uneven but notable progress, with stronger results in education and public awareness than in institutional communication.

Main outcomes achieved include:

• Education and training: Biodiversity topics remain integrated in pre-university curricula, while universities and training providers continue to offer programs focused on biodiversity conservation and protected area management.
• Public awareness: The national Natura 2000 awareness campaign significantly improved public understanding of biodiversity and supported capacity building among authorities.
• Community participation: Public debates were organized during the development of management plans for protected areas, enabling local stakeholder involvement. Volunteer activities, especially in national and natural parks, contributed to youth engagement and raised awareness.
• Professional development: Specialized academic programs and non-formal training (e.g., Propark) strengthened the skills of practitioners involved in biodiversity management.

Overall, progress is most visible where actions were linked to specific projects or existing educational structures, rather than systemic institutional reforms.

Other national indicators used for assessing progress towards the target:

• Number of workshops organized to disseminate information about ongoing projects.

• Number of websites dedicated to developed for disseminate the information

• Number of users that access the Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests

• Number of draft legal acts published for public consultation

The indicators presented in this section are those established under the previous National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. They were previously used to monitor national-level progress. We note that these existing indicators are not aligned with the structure and requirements of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) and will be reviewed and redefined during the upcoming revision of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, in order to ensure full alignment with the new framework and reporting format.

Key challenges encountered and approaches for further implementation

• Lack of institutional coordination: No functional national communication network or designated focal point system has been established across ministries.
• Incomplete internal communication framework: Despite new reporting requirements, environmental authorities lack a coherent internal communication strategy.
• Insufficient maintenance of CBD CHM, limiting transparent access to biodiversity information.
• Project-dependent progress: Awareness efforts tend to be short-term and not part of a sustained national strategy.
• Limited engagement in smaller protected areas without dedicated administration.

Further progress requires developing a coherent national communication and awareness strategy aligned with CBD and EU policies and establishing a functional network of biodiversity communication focal points across institutions. Regular updates of the CBD CHM are needed to ensure transparency and access to information. Strengthening monitoring of public consultations and volunteer activities, along with securing stable resources for long-term education and awareness programs, will support more consistent and effective implementation.

National Awareness Campaign on Biodiversity Conservation through the Natura 2000 Network
This campaign represented the most substantial national initiative in the reporting period. It successfully increased the level of public understanding regarding the role of Natura 2000 sites and highlighted their ecological and socio-economic importance. Activities included national and regional events, educational materials, media outreach, and capacity-building workshops. These contributed to improved awareness among both the general public and public authorities about biodiversity conservation obligations and opportunities.
Public participation in protected area management planning
Public debates organized during the elaboration of management plans for protected areas created opportunities for local communities to engage in decision-making processes. In many cases, administrations facilitated stakeholder meetings that helped improve transparency and identify local concerns related to land use, access, and resource management.
Educational initiatives in the pre-university and university systems
Integration of biodiversity topics in school curricula, particularly through Biology, Ecology, and Geography, has ensured that students receive fundamental knowledge related to conservation. University master's programs—such as those dedicated to protected area management—have trained new specialists who contribute directly to conservation efforts. In parallel, non-formal educational programs, including those organized by Propark, supported the professional development of protected area staff and NGO practitioners.
Volunteer involvement in national and natural parks
Volunteer programs, especially those targeting youth, contributed to awareness and capacity development through activities like habitat restoration, clean-up campaigns, and educational workshops. Although not part of a formal incentive system, these initiatives demonstrated strong public interest and engagement in biodiversity conservation.
 

Implementation of National Target J directly supports several Sustainable Development Goals by enhancing public participation, education, and institutional capacity in biodiversity conservation: SDG 4 (Quality Education) - Integration of biodiversity topics in school curricula and the expansion of university and training programs contribute to lifelong learning opportunities and environmental literacy; SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) - Awareness-raising activities and educational initiatives help the public understand the links between biodiversity, climate change, and sustainable land management.

Romania has made moderate but uneven progress toward Goal A, driven primarily by National Targets B, C, D, E and F, which cover protected area management, species conservation, sustainable use, ex-situ conservation, and invasive alien species. Improvements in the broader legislative and institutional framework (Target A) have indirectly supported these advances.
Under Target B, important progress has been achieved in strengthening the management of the national network of protected natural areas: the adoption of a standardized methodology for management plans, clarification of administration responsibilities, and improvements in monitoring systems for habitats and species of Community interest. These measures contribute directly to maintaining ecosystem integrity and resilience.
Target C has supported improvements in species conservation status through the development and updating of action plans for priority species (e.g., large carnivores, pelicans, sturgeons), updates to national lists of protected species, and the preparation of Red Lists for birds and marine species. While these initiatives represent major achievements, their implementation remains partial, and pressures such as habitat degradation, illegal killing, fragmentation, and climate change continue to affect species survival.
Target D contributes to reducing pressures by promoting sustainable resource use in agriculture, forestry and tourism, while Target F addresses a key driver of biodiversity loss— invasive alien species. Despite improved inventories and control efforts, a fully integrated national IAS management programme has not yet been established, and implementation remains uneven across regions.
Ex-situ conservation (Target E) has advanced through the activities of gene banks, botanical gardens and zoological institutions. However, in the absence of an integrated national framework, the contribution of ex-situ measures to species recovery remains limited.
Overall, Romania contributes partially to Goal A: progress in protected areas, species conservation and IAS management is significant, but large-scale restoration, ecological connectivity and extinction-risk reduction require more systematic implementation.
Additionally, in line with the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, Romania is currently undertaking the national process for identifying areas suitable for designation as strictly protected zones to contribute to the 10% EU target, as well as areas for the expansion of the Natura 2000 network to support the achievement of the 30% protected areas objective. This process includes scientific assessments of ecological representativeness, connectivity and conservation priorities, and will further strengthen Romania’s contribution to Goal A by expanding the coverage, coherence and long-term resilience of its protected area network.
 

Romania’s contribution to Goal B is shaped primarily by National Target D, supported by cross-cutting advances in the legislative framework (Target A) and protected area management (Target B). Target D covers a broad range of domains closely aligned with Goal B: sustainable use of natural resources, ecosystem services, agriculture, forestry, tourism and green infrastructure.

Biodiversity considerations have been increasingly integrated into environmental assessments (EIA/SEA), appropriate assessments (AA), forest management planning, pastoral planning, and infrastructure development. EU-funded initiatives (LIFE, PNDR, LIOP) have implemented targeted restoration activities, particularly in wetlands and high-nature-value grasslands, improving local ecosystem functions. However, restoration remains project-based and insufficient to reverse ecosystem decline at national scale.

Traditional biodiversity-friendly practices—such as late mowing, extensive grazing and transhumance—have been documented and integrated in some management plans (with indirect links to Target H), contributing to the persistence of semi-natural landscapes and the maintenance of ecosystem services.

Sustainable use in agriculture and forestry has progressed through agri-environmental schemes, updated forest technical norms and studies on soil and landscape fragmentation. Nevertheless, ecological outcome monitoring remains incomplete, and pressures—intensification, land-use change, infrastructure expansion—continue to affect ecosystems.

The ongoing national process to identify new Natura 2000 sites and strictly protected areas under the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 will also support Goal B by enhancing the ecological coherence of protected areas and securing the ecosystem functions and services associated with well-preserved and resilient natural habitats.

Ecosystem service assessment has advanced in research and project contexts, yet Romania still lacks a national unified methodology for valuation and integration into policy-making.

Overall, Romania contributes moderately but insufficiently to Goal B: enabling measures are in place and sustainable practices persist, but scalable ecosystem restoration and systematic integration of ecosystem services remain limited.

Romania’s progress toward Goal C is driven primarily by National Targets G and H, supported indirectly by improvements in institutional and legal structures under Target A. These actions have created the foundational framework for access and benefit-sharing (ABS) and for documenting and promoting traditional knowledge.

Under Target G, Romania has advanced the ABS framework through ratification of the Nagoya Protocol (Law 36/2019) and adoption of the General and Practical ABS Guidelines (Order 828/2023), which clarify institutional roles, user obligations and procedural requirements. While this represents a major structural achievement, operational benefit-sharing has not yet been implemented, and mechanisms for digital sequence information (DSI) are currently absent pending international guidance.

Target H contributes directly to Goal C through the documentation and safeguarding of traditional knowledge linked to biodiversity. Romania has strengthened alignment with the UNESCO 2003 Convention and documented practices such as transhumance, traditional haymaking and extensive mountain farming systems. However, the absence of a specific national framework for intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge constitutes a major gap, limiting legal protection and equitable benefit-sharing for knowledge-holding communities.

Although neither ABS procedures nor TK protection mechanisms are yet operational, Romania has made important conceptual and institutional progress. The increasing documentation of traditional ecological knowledge through PNDR, LIFE and Natura 2000 projects provides a strong foundation for future implementation.

Overall, Romania contributes structurally but insufficiently to Goal C: the legal basis is largely in place, but practical implementation of ABS, DSI governance, TEK protection and community-level benefits remains limited.

Progress toward Goal D is shaped mainly by National Targets A, H, I and J, which cover legislative and institutional development, traditional knowledge, scientific research and technology, and communication, education and public awareness. These are core enabling conditions of the KM-GBF, yet progress remains slow and fragmented.

Under Target A, Romania has improved the legislative and institutional framework for biodiversity governance. However, predictable national biodiversity financing mechanisms are still absent. No dedicated budget line exists, the Environmental Fund does not allocate resources for biodiversity, LIFE co-financing mechanisms are not operational, and biodiversity monitoring remains almost entirely dependent on EU project cycles.

Target I has generated substantial progress in biodiversity research: publication of field guides, atlases and taxonomic tools; use of molecular techniques in monitoring; and partial integration of ecosystem-based approaches in the National RDI Strategy. Nevertheless, Romania lacks a National Taxonomy Programme, dedicated technology-transfer mechanisms, and fiscal incentives to stimulate biodiversity-related innovation, which limits the translation of scientific advances into practical management tools.

Target H contributes by enhancing documentation and institutional cooperation related to traditional knowledge, but mechanisms for integrating TEK into national policies or benefit-sharing systems are not yet functional.

Target J has contributed significantly to communication and public awareness: biodiversity content remains part of school curricula, universities and training centres offer specialised programmes. However, Romania has not established a functional national biodiversity communication network, focal-point structure, or an updated Clearing-House Mechanism, limiting information flow and coordination.

Overall, Romania contributes partially to Goal D: the foundations for governance, education, research and awareness are in place, but long-term financing, institutional capacity, technology transfer and consistent national-level coordination remain key constraints.