THE ADMINISTRATION
It is argued that many of the problems of environmental management in Central and Eastern Europe derive from the complex restructuring of institutions and regulations within the new political and economic systems. However David Turnock 1988 (p. 428) pointed out that in Romania despite the near total state ownership and control of all forestry operations under a single ministry it was still not possible to properly co-ordinate tree-growing and tree-felling. In discussing the administration of Bucegi National Park (see Map 7.) Leslie et al (1995) state "the situation is even worse when more than one ministry is involved, nothing appears to unify the efforts of the three controlling ministries of MWFEP, Agriculture and Tourism and often the activities of one diminish efforts of the others."
| The lack of integration and management capacity in Romania is highlighted by a range of authors and Romanian citizens know that chronic inefficiencies, poor administration and an absence of co-ordination were endemic under communist rule and are not a novel product of the transition to a market economy. |
|---|
Prospects for Administrative Reform
While there is hope that the passing of a Nature Conservation Act (see Legislation) will define and regulate the institutional arrangements for Protected Areas there are a number of entrenched interests which may place constraints on the necessary redistribution of power and responsibility.
Unfortunately even the passing of a Nature Conservation Act, within which the institutional arrangements for the management of Protected Areas will be laid out, will not necessarily solve the problems resulting from a plethora of interested bodies. Endemic difficulties in the reallocation of responsibilities within government and its advisors are evident in Romania.
| There are two basic options for institutional reform: |
|---|
