A historical perspective on the Popina-Sfiștofca area

Sfiștofca is a village „in the heart” of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, Romania, situated bewteen the Chilia and Sulina arms. The village is inhabited by descendants of the Old Orthodox Rite of Russian-Lipovans, who settled in the Danube Delta the mid-18th century after fleeing from prosecutions. Those arrived here were already having a strong fisherman identity, fishing being considered worthy of a good Christian. Fishermen came for sturgeon fishing on the actual place of Sfiștofca – which was, at that time, just a small fishing camp along the seashore. Over time, this camp expanded in size, eventually evolving into the village of Sfiștofca. Meanwhile, the natural course of the Danube, as it flows into the Black Sea from the North, resulted in the accumulation of vast amounts of sand and soil at the mouth of Sfiștofca. Consequently, by the 21st century, the village found itself several kilometers inland from the sea. 

As this newly formed landmass and marshes took shape, neighboring villages began to utilize the area for both fishing and agriculture. This region came to be known as Popina, serving as an alternate resource for the surrounding communities.

The research uncovers the intricate connection between the fates of both Sfiștofca village and the Popina area, illustrating how the status of each has profoundly influenced the other. The history of Popina’s utilization can be divided into three distinct periods:

• Pre-1950s: Pre-Collectivisation Era (community administration)

During this time the Popina area was administrated and managed by local inhabitants. 

• 1950-1990: Collectivisation under Communist Regime (state administration)

During this period, the Popina area fell under the administration of the state. Resources and land management were controlled by government authorities. 

• After 1990: Post-Communist Era (diverse administration)

Following the dissolution of the communist regime in 1990, responsibility for the area became divided among various entities, including Tulcea County, the Biosphere Reserve Authority and private companies. This decentralization of administration marked a shift towards diverse and sometimes competing interests in the management of Popina’s resources.

The first period – „People’s Popina”. 19th century – 1960’s

During the first period, Popina operated under a model characterized by community stewardship and traditional practices. 

Community Responsibility: in its early stages, Popina served as a space for food production, with local inhabitants taking collective responsibility for maintaining the health of the environment. This involved ensuring the vitality of water sources, fish stocks, soil quality, and meadows. People adopted an approach of allowing nature to function naturally while also harnessing its resources. 

Traditional Utilization included:

– joint usage of the land by residents from neighboring villages,

– adaptation of economic activities in accordance with water levels, such as alternating between fishing, agriculture and reed harvesting, 

– limited human intervention, aimed at preserving the natural morphology of the land,

– enhancement of land functionality and efficiency through non-invasive methods  (INCDDD, Posthorn 1999).

This period was characterized by a sustainable and symbiotic relationship between human communities and the natural environment, with practices aimed at maintaining ecological balance and maximizing resource productivity.

In order to protect the agricultural crops in this land, the inhabitants of Sfiștsofca started, in 1927 the construction of a dike (Posthoorn 1999), delimiting a swampy land covered by reeds, from a higher, fertile land, where they could cultivate cereals. This first dike could not protect the area at high water levels, so from time to time the area was flooded. Flooding posed a risk to crops, but had a strong role in reducing soil salinity (INCDDD 1997, Bursan, Mitroi 2016).

In the northern part of Popina, characterized by fertile soil and infrequent flooding, agriculture was the predominant activity (Posthoorn 1999; INCDDD 1997). Residents of Sfiștofca and Periprava utilized this area for animal grazing, including cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. Conversely, the southern part, situated at a lower elevation with canals crisscrossing the landscape and rich fish resources, was primarily dedicated to fishing (Bârcă 1948). 

Popina served as a shared resource area, with local residents enjoying both responsibilities and decision-making rights over its use.

The second period – the construction of the Popina Fish Farm in the communist regime.1952 – 1989

During the second period, significant changes were introduced to the traditional land use in the Popina-Sfiștofca area. Starting with the 1960s the process of collectivization led to a profound transformation of Popina into fish ponds and agricultural area, fundamentally altering the traditional landscape. Under the state control, the management of Popina was centralized, with systematic damming and construction of canals and artificial fish ponds. 

The conversion of the meadow area into fish ponds resulted in a substantial loss for the populations of Periprava and Sfiștofca. Consequently, both villages experienced a significant decline in population (INCDDD; Bursan, Mitroi 2016). 

The third period – ecological restoration area. After 1990 

During the third period, the Popina fishpond farm underwent a significant shift in administrative control, transitioning from intensive damming and systematization to becoming part of part UNESCO’s World Heritage site, trough the establishment of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority (DDBRA). This period was characterized by a return to the alternation between fishery, agriculture and reed farming, albeit under a new framework involving the concession of basins to private investors. According to prevailing legislation, former agricultural and fishery facilities within the Danube Delta, fell under the jurisdiction of the Tulcea County Council, as part of the country’s public domain, while areas designated for ecological restoration were managed by the DDBRA. 

Popina remained a battleground between ecological restoration initiatives and the Tulcea County Council. Despite being concessioned to commercial companies, efforts for renaturation were simultaneously underway, carried out by local residents or environmental organisations. In the early 1990s, fishermen from Sfiștofca breached the dikes, restoring traditional fishing practices and leading to a period remembered as prosperous for fishing between 1990 and 2010. This grassroots action had socio-ecological benefits, as it allowed the river to flood the area, facilitating natural processes. Fishermen organized themselves, implementing rotational fishing practices and overseeing the care of saplings. However, the resurgence of non-traditional fishing and widespread poaching resulted in a drastic decline in fish resources, highlighting the complexities of balancing ecological restoration with socio-economic interests. 

Despite discussions dating back to the 1990s, Popina did not officially enter the ecological restoration program of the Biosphere Reserve Authority until a later period. The situation remained ambiguous for many years, with various institutional actors, including the Tulcea County Council, the DDBRA, and Piscicola Sulina, vying for administrative control. The primary objective of the ecological restoration effort was to revitalize natural resources, with the aim of enabling local populations to engage in traditional, sustainable practices. The aim of the ecological restoration, however, was: the redevelopment of the natural resources that should enable local populations to use these habitats in traditional, sustainable ways, such as traditional fishing, harvesting reed for traditional construction and heating, collection of medicianl plants etc. Local populations are also expected to enjoy the benefits of a sound ecosystem (Schneider in van Assche, Iordachi 2015: 95).

The restoration project put forward by international organizations and the Danube Delta Research Institute places the local population at the forefront of the ecological restoration process. It views restoration as a long-term endeavor that extends beyond mere intervention measures, emphasizing ongoing monitoring of ecological recovery and active engagement of local communities, with benefits accruing to them.

Central to this approach is the recognition of traditional practices as a key element contributing to the success of the restoration process. By incorporating traditional ways of land use, the project seeks to leverage local knowledge and practices that have sustained ecosystems over generations. This not only enhances the ecological resilience of the area but also ensures that local communities remain integral to the stewardship of their natural environment.

So, the restoration project wanted traditional fishing. But the persistent conflict between the DDBRA and Tulcea County resulted in a situation where local residents lost access to Popina. This contentious environment led to Popina being perceived as a “no man’s land”. Ongoing disputes rendered Popina a “forbidden” territory, inaccessible to those who historically relied on it for their livelihoods.

Consequently, faced with limited opportunities and resources, many individuals felt compelled to seek livelihoods elsewhere, ultimately leading to a decline in the local population.

Sustainability in the hands of people

For the people of Sfiștofca, a genuine “ecological” restoration project involves fostering a caring relationship between humans and natural resources, aligning with the original vision of the restoration project. The revitalization of Popina is primarily evaluated by the local population based on the abundance of fish resources. The presence or absence of fish serves as a key indicator of the overall health of the waters, as well as the value of the vegetation and landscape. In essence, the availability of fish serves as a barometer for the entire socio-ecological system of Popina and its potential for tourism. If fish resources are abundant, it indicates a thriving ecosystem with high ecological value and recreational potential. Conversely, a decline in fish populations signals ecological degradation and diminishes the attractiveness of Popina for both locals and tourists. Therefore, the local community views the restoration of fish resources as essential for the overall well-being and sustainability of the ecosystem.

From the perspective of the local community, state institutions have fallen short in their efforts to ecologically restore the Popina fish farm. This failure is perceived as a broader incapacity of the state to effectively rejuvenate the community itself, reflecting a deep-seated “territorial identity” (Mihăilescu and Nahorniac). Furthermore, locals feel that they possess specific knowledge regarding actions necessary to restore biodiversity in the Delta, yet their insights are often disregarded by institutional authorities.

In essence, the disconnect between local ecological knowledge and institutional action underscores a broader disparity between community perspectives and state-led initiatives, ultimately hindering effective ecological restoration efforts in the Delta.

Social and ecological problems

A functional socio-ecological system is one where the ecosystem is perceived and experienced as a “lived” environment, actively shaping and being shaped by human activities, as described by Tim Ingold. When communities lose responsibility and decision-making power over the natural environment upon which they depend, it can lead to significant destabilization of the social system. In cases where communities rely on natural resources, decisions are often made without considering the consequences for community members (Radu 2015). In such scenarios, it becomes crucial to “re-educate” people in order to modify their economic behavior and adapt to new conditions. 

Unfortunately, the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority (DDBRA) has not recognized this necessity. Instead, in a broader context, local people in the Danube Delta are often perceived as adversaries of the biosphere.

This failure to engage with and empower local communities not only undermines the sustainability of socio-ecological systems but also perpetuates a cycle of disempowerment and marginalization. To achieve true ecological restoration and sustainability, it is essential to recognize the vital role that local communities play and involve them as active participants in decision-making processes.

 In 1992, the Danube Delta Research Institute identified an increasing level of social disregard in the context of the newly established Biosphere Reserve and emphasized that achieving a favorable evolution of the deltaic ecosystems required the active participation of its inhabitants (Volcov 1992). The author stressed the importance of co-interest among residents in the administration of the territory. Subsequent studies, such as those by Boja and Popescu in 2000, highlighted the local population’s dependence on natural resources and described the region as an enclosed social system due to its geographical isolation and ethnic structure. In 2001, Nichersu and Bell characterized the Danube Delta as a “special species of place,” attributing pseudo-religious significance to it as a sanctuary for biodiversity protection. However, they noted the absence and marginalization of the local population. Researchers argued that institutions should strive to understand the relationship that locals have with the ecosystem in which they reside, emphasizing that this understanding is essential for biodiversity preservation.

The management plans based on scientific knowledge have been criticized for exacerbating the phenomenon of “moral exclusion” experienced by dependent populations (IMEW 2004, GEF in 2005, Rughiniș 2005). While „Unesco was never interested in the implementation of the projects in the DDBR (van Assche et al. 2011: 13), the overall governance of the Danube Delta reproduces a local that is  further ”silenced, exoticized, subjugated and marginalized” (van Assche et. al 2011: 15). This dynamic underscores the need for inclusive and participatory approaches to management that incorporate the perspectives and interests of all stakeholders, including local communities.

Socio-ecological resilience

Socio-ecological resilience refers to the ability of a system to adapt or transform in response to changes in socio-ecological systems, particularly unexpected changes, while still maintaining support for human well-being (Folke et al. 2016). The concept of social resilience is particularly relevant in analyses of human-environment interactions, as it provides a framework for examining dependent and vulnerable human communities that have lost social security as a result of losing access to ecosystems. This loss of access to ecosystems can significantly impact the livelihoods and well-being of these communities, highlighting the importance of understanding and enhancing social resilience in the face of environmental change. 

The establishment of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) implicitly placed the burden of self-reinvention on the local population, without providing adequate support or consideration for their needs and knowledge. The transition to a conservation regime prioritized top-down implementation, overlooking the valuable ecological knowledge held by local communities. Consequently, the shift from a natural-resource-dependent economy to one based on tourism, as suggested by the DDBRA, has proven to be a challenging and slow process, requiring significant adaptive capacity.

The critical question arises: Does the community of Sfiștofca village possess the capacity to redefine the significance of the natural environment within the context of this “new economic culture” (Mihăilescu and Nahorniac)? This involves not only adapting to new economic opportunities but also reinterpreting the relationship between people and their environment in light of changing circumstances. 

Sfiștofca  

In the case of Sfiștofca, the scenario of resilience through independent adaptation was not viable due to the community’s vulnerability resulting from the lack of access to natural resources and the absence of influential groups to advocate for their interests in administration matters. However, some efforts were made by external individuals to support Sfiștofca through cultural and research projects, including my own involvement in such initiatives. 

Photographers, artists, and researchers from various cities, including Cluj, Bucharest, and Vienna, organized cultural and scientific camps, events, and even established the “Sfistofca Art Association” to bolster the community. Master students from Vienna University of Technology provided reports, although these remained unpublished. Some Bucharest-based researchers initiated the establishment of an informal museum within the abandoned school building. Despite these efforts, the lack of effective local leadership and support led to the closure of the Russian Lipovan Governmental Community office a few years ago.

The cultural initiatives may have been insufficient or arrived too late, as Sfiștofca’s population has dwindled to fewer than 20 people today. However, the Old Russian Orthodox Church has been renovated, indicating the village’s continued significance as a spiritual center for the Russian Lipovans from Dobrudja. Given this context, there is potential for Sfiștofca to evolve into a spiritual hub for the Russian Lipovans in the region, as envisioned by Meinhard Breilling in 2014. This scenario suggests a shift towards a new identity for the village, one focused on cultural and spiritual heritage rather than economic sustenance.

In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of responsible environmental stewardship for achieving sustainability. Rather than imposing external regulations, sustainability necessitates a performative, contextualized, and locally-driven approach.

Further discussions on community resilience are warranted, considering the larger historical context of ethnically heterogeneous populations in regions like the Danube Delta and Dobrudja. However, a final question to end with: Is today’s Sfistofca the result of inadequate local management or is it the result of a global tendency towards unsustainability? The answer is yet hard to grasp, given the large number of actors and interests involved. It is certain, though, that social and cultural values are fading away along with the fish resources from Popina.