The Ministry of Environment recently published two images intended to illustrate new initiatives for biodiversity areas and electric fences in Romania. Upon closer inspection, these representations are highly problematic: they present an unrealistic picture of reality, and it is concerning if this is to be the Ministry’s official vision.

Images have a huge impact—especially when they are distributed officially. These examples show a lack of understanding of the real conditions, create misunderstandings, appear unconvincing, and raise doubts about competence and credibility. More attention is urgently needed: real scenes that reflect authentic practices and challenges—not AI-generated collages or staged images.

Traditional cultural landscape

The first image shows people in traditional costumes mowing hay on a pasture where cows and sheep are grazing at the same time. In reality, freshly mowed grass must dry before it can be collected, and a mixed herd would never graze on the same pasture at the same time. In the background, next to the traditional village, is a large new building that does not fit in with either the village or the landscape. Is this the house of the mayor, who would have approved the “protection” of this landscape, or a guesthouse, while the villagers serve as “exhibits” of a long-gone reality? For measures that should primarily ensure the strict protection of natural landscapes, other images – such as virgin forests or river deltas – would have been much more appropriate, not staged cultural landscapes.

Electric fences and wildlife

The second image shows a bear in front of an electric fence with eight wires crossing the winter landscape. The fence not only protects the individual farm with beehives in the background, but also cuts across the entire pasture. For wildlife, it is virtually impassable – not only for bears, but also for deer, foxes, and other animals. There are no domestic animals on the land beyond the fence, which is why the fences should be opened or deactivated to ensure permeability for wildlife. However, the image conveys the impression of an extremely restrictive and potentially dangerous measure, while the accompanying text talks about “avoiding conflicts without harming animals.”

Both scenes are poorly chosen for the measures in question and are unprofessional for a ministry that should prioritize environmental protection.