Section Four: Reports of Bulgarian Non-Governmental Organizations
Summary Report of the Bulgarian Conservation Nongovernmental Organizations
Boriana Mihova
Overview
The report of the team of Bulgarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is presented in seven sections:
1. Introduction
This section provides background information on the team of NGOs contributing to the National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy, including a review of the selection process and summaries of each of the appointed NGOs' objectives and activities. The approach to the compiling of this report and the sources of information are also described here.
2. Expert Assessment of the Value of Biological Resources and Protected Areas in Bulgaria
This section summarizes the expert data compiled by the NGOs in the process of their present work. This information pertains to the diversity of the flora and fauna on a national and regional scale. It includes analysis of the status and dynamics of species, populations, and their habitats, as well as an assessment of the protected areas system. The existing legislation and institutional structure are also analyzed in the light of nature conservation objectives. The information here is presented in summary form so as to avoid overlapping the information presented by the team of biodiversity experts.
3. Evaluation of the Threats to Biodiversity in Bulgaria
This section expresses the perceptions of the NGOs and the general public - including local officials with the municipal and county governments, the State Forestry Departments, and the Regional Departments of the Ministry of Environment - on critical problems of biological resource use. This encompasses issues likely to arise from the ongoing process of privatization, expected changes in agricultural land management, and problems involving pollution and its sources, as well as the more typical problems associated with the conservation of biological resources. Emphasis is placed on five regions of Bulgaria that are considered to have high priority in terms of the species richness of plants and animals and habitats: the Danube River; the Balkan (Stara Planina) Mountains; the Rila and Pirin Mountains; the Rhodope Mountains; and the Black Sea coast and Strandzha Mountain.
4. Perceptions and Attitudes of Local People
This section summarizes the results of a survey of environmental attitudes among local residents, individuals with environmental interests, and administrators.
5. Opportunities for the Integration of Conservation and Development
This section discusses projects that have been proposed as means of integrating conservation and development.
6. Summary
7. Recommendations
This final section of the report includes the NGOs' recommendations for effective conservation of biological resources. This can be considered the most essential part of the report and represents the direct input of the NGO team to the elaboration of the Bulgarian National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy.
Introduction
This report provides an overview of the perceptions of five Bulgarian nature conservation NGOs. It is based mainly on the detailed reports of the NGOs prepared for the NBDCS workshop, and published in this volume. The information has been compiled and summarized by Boriana Mihova, the project facilitator of East European Program of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN-EEP).
The team of Bulgarian NGOs was appointed and began working in January 1993. The selection process was based on several strict criteria. The NGOs were required:
- to have been legally registered;
- to have elected officials;
- to have stated in their charters strong concern for the problems of the conservation and long-term survival of nature in Bulgaria; and
- to have been actively working on nature conservation issues on a regional or national basis over the last two years.
Five NGOs were appointed:
1. The Bulgarian Bird Protection Society (BBPS)
The BBPS, established in 1988, was one of the first nongovernmental, non-political organizations formed in the country. The national structure of the BBPS is well developed. They have some 602 members. Their main objective is to protect birds and their habitats throughout Bulgaria. They are involved in 11 projects specifically aimed at preserving threatened birds. The most important of these are: Conservation of Raptorial Birds in Bulgaria; Support for the Waterfowl in Atanasovsko Lake; and projects concerning the conservation of the Black Vulture, the Dalmatian Pelican, the Montegue's Harrier, and other threatened species.
The Society is cooperating fruitfully with other national and international NGOs, governmental institutions, and local communities on behalf of nature protection in Bulgaria. They are successfully involved in activities related to significant increases in the populations of some rare and endangered species, decreases in the degree of threat to some important bird habitats, and especially in building awareness in the local communities and acquainting young people with the ideals and philosophy of nature protection.
As a result of their activities, the Society has compiled significant scientific data in this field. It maintains a national ornithological database.
The Society is a member of, and the Bulgarian representative for, BirdLife International (formerly the International Council for Bird Preservation).
2. Green Balkans Movement (GBM)
The Movement is built on a regional basis and covers the entire southern part of Bulgaria. The first section of the Movement was established in 1988.
It is one of the most active NGOs in Bulgaria. Members are working on several ongoing inventories of the flora and fauna in the Strandzha and Rhodope Mountain regions, as well as in the Maritsa, Strouma, and Mesta River valleys. They have been actively campaigning to prevent decisions that contribute to the extermination of species. For example, they have taken action against the use of rodenticides in agriculture and the battle against wolves promoted by the High Hunting Council. The Movement has also been working to build public awareness and to monitor the impact of various anthropogenic factors on biodiversity.
3. Wilderness Fund (WF)
The Wilderness Fund was established in 1989. It is a society of experts from different fields of the natural sciences, with special interests in biodiversity conservation and the establishment and management of protected areas. The Fund has compiled a impressive amount of reliable data on Bulgarian biodiversity and the status and dynamics of the country's protected areas. Portions of this information have been submitted to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) in Cambridge, an organization associated with the IUCN that assists various directorates and prepares environmental publications.
Since January 1991, the Wilderness Fund has been working with the Bulgarian Union for the Preservation of the Rhodope Mountains on a WWF-International-funded project for the conservation of the Rhodope Mountains. It has also been appointed to serve as secretariat for the newly established Association of the Mountains of the Balkans (founded in Tichino, Italy in 1992). It is a member of the IUCN.
4. Independent Society Ecoglasnost - Varna (ISEV)
Ecoglasnost-Varna is a regional organization. It was officially registered on March 7, 1990, and thus became the first of the different Ecoglasnost sections to be legally registered. This NGO concentrates on the preservation of the specific values of the Bulgarian Black Sea coastline, the aquatic areas, and the typical continental landscape. It has been a member of the Council of Europe's Environmental Commission since December 1991 and is now working on a coastline monitoring project.
5. Bulgarian Union for the Preservation of the Rhodope Mountains (BUCRM)
The BUCRM was established in 1990 as a non-governmental, non-political organization. Its main objectives are the promotion of sustainable development in the whole Rhodope Mountain region; the establishment of a stable balance of uses of the Rhodope Mountain resources for the purposes of tourism, recreation, and traditional land uses; and conservation of the natural, cultural, and historical heritage of the area. There are 10 local sections of the Union in different parts of the Rhodope Mountains. At present they have some 4,000 members.
In addition to local and regional activities, the Union is trying to promote the policy of sustainable use of the Rhodope resources at the governmental level.
They have been working for two years on a WWF-International-funded project on the preservation of the Rhodope Mountains. They are involved in joint projects with the International Mountain Centre in France and the International Commission for the Preservation of the Alps. The Union is the in-country coordinator of the Ecological Bricks for Our Common European House initiative.
As a result of the Union's work, the Rhodope Mountains are now included in the list of Bulgaria's significant natural and cultural heritage sites. It has begun to elaborate a Regional Strategy for Sustainable Development and also conducts ongoing public awareness programs.
Sources of Information
The data on biological diversity included in this report has been compiled through investigations by the authors of the different reports or by the NGOs in the process of their work. Some of the information is based on published documents (other reports, etc.) produced by the organizations. Some unpublished data has also been included.
The information on human impacts on biological diversity is based on the experience of the different NGOs, and thus presents their expert assessment of these issues. This information has also been compiled in part through a specially commissioned sociological survey. The survey was conducted through a questionnaire and interviews with 500 persons in five regions of Bulgaria. It presents the opinions of local people on issues involving the conservation of biological diversity. The survey attempts to examine public understanding of the value of biological resources on several levels. The first is the local and regional level, and involves the link between the individual's interests and the institutional regulations for biological resource use. The second is the individual level, and involves the connection between cognitive values and emotional responses. The third level involves resource management trends, and includes technological, economic, political, and cultural aspects of conservation and evaluation of potential environmental risks. (The survey is discussed in the paper, "500 Opinions of Man and Biodiversity: Analysis of an Opinion Poll," which follows this summary report.)
Expert Assessment of the Value of Biological Resources and Protected Areas in Bulgaria
General Biogeographical Characteristics of Bulgaria
Richly endowed with a variety of landscapes, Bulgaria is extremely interesting in terms of nature conservation. The Stara Planina Mountain range (better known as the Balkan Mountains), with a length of 550 km and its highest peak (Botev) reaching 2,376 m above sea level, divides the hilly Danubian Plain from the Thracian Plain. In the south and southwestern regions of the country, the Rhodope, Pirin, and Rila Mountain massifs contain many high peaks, including Mussala - at 2,925 m the highest peak on the Balkan peninsula. To the east, the 380 km-long coastline marks the border between the country and the semi-saline Black Sea.
Agricultural lands represent 61.5% of the country's territory. Two-thirds of this (42% of the total area) is arable land. Forests cover some 35% of the nation's territory, while settled areas represent 3.6% of the total area.
Bulgaria is situated at the crossroads between Europe and Asia, which is one of the major reasons behind its high level of floral and faunal diversity. The country occupies a territory where three phytoclimatic regions - the European Deciduous, the Steppe, and the Mediterranean - meet and overlap. A third factor influencing the character of Bulgaria's biodiversity is the specific historical circumstance of species formation and migration processes. The result of these processes is the present coexistence of species belonging to different biogeographical regions - Central European, Eurasian, Kazakh Steppe, Asia Minor, and Mediterranean. Bulgaria itself is an active species-formation center, and home to many Bulgarian and Balkan endemic species. At the same time, these diverse influences account for the difficulty in the classifying Bulgaria biogeographically.
It is worth noting here that the scientific community in Bulgaria has not yet reached consensus on the phyto-geographical zonation of the country. According to one of the widely quoted classifications, Bulgaria falls into three botanic regions:
1. The European Broadleaf Forest region. The larger part of the country's territory falls within the boundaries of this region. The characteristic feature of this region are the broadleaf deciduous forests. It is divided to three provinces: a) Macedonian-Thracian; b) Ilirian (Balkan); and c) Euxinian.
2. The Euro-Asian Steppe and Forest-steppe region. This region is characterized by secondary vegetation, most commonly grass and shrub communities as well as xerothermic forests. Only one Bulgarian province is identified within the boundaries of this region - the lower Danubian Plain.
3. The Mediterranean Sclerophilic region. Only a small part of the country's area falls within this region's boundaries - the Strouma River valley. The region is characterized by transitional Mediterranean xerothermic deciduous forests.
The zoogeographical division of the country is somewhat better defined. The country belongs to the Palearctic region. The border dividing the European and Mediterranean sub-regions crosses the country. Many animal species have either their northernmost or southernmost limits of distribution in Bulgaria. At the same time, there is great differentiation between the species of the mountain regions and those of the plains. Most typical for the mountains are the Central European, Euro-Siberian, and Boreal species, while the Danubian plain is rich in habitats of a variety of steppe species and the area south of the Balkan Mountains is dominated by Mediterranean species.
The contemporary Bulgarian flora and fauna have been strongly influenced by the glaciations of the Quaternary Period. During the Quaternary the territory that is now Bulgaria was at the southern border of the glaciers. This gave some of the native species a chance for survival. These are the so-called Tertiary relicts. Of special interest are those that occur only on the Balkan peninsula or within Bulgaria - the so-called Tertiary paleoendemic species. At the same time, as the glaciers withdrew toward the north some typical boreal species remained in the higher parts of the mountains.
General Characteristics of the Bulgarian Flora
The Balkan peninsula in general is characterized by its immense floral diversity. The number of vascular plants in the region is approximately 7,000. A quarter of these are Balkan endemics. The flora diversity of the region is much considered much richer than that of the Apennine or Iberian peninsulas.
At present, the number of known species represented in the native Bulgarian flora is 12,360. The number of the vascular plants stands at about 3,550, which is twice the number of vascular plants in the flora of the British Isles and much higher than that of the German flora. The numbers of species per class are distributed as follows:
Algae approximately 4,000
Lichens approximately 640
Mosses approximately 669
Fungi approximately 3,550
Ferns approximately 50
Seed plants approximately 3,550It is worth noting that new species within the different groups are being discovered each year. The report of the Green Balkans Movement describes in detail the state of the flora in southern Bulgaria, where four vascular plants new to the Bulgarian fauna have been identified: Sorbus bobrasii, Sorbus mougeottii, Parvotricetum myrianthum, and Aegilops cosmosa.
The contemporary flora of Bulgaria is characterized by a high degree of endemism. At present, some 270 Bulgarian endemic species and sub-species have been recognized. Most of these are described in the Atlas of the Endemic Plants in Bulgaria. The Green Balkans are suggesting that 10-15 additional taxa be included when the Atlas is updated.
The number of endemic species demonstrates the potential of the species formation centers. Among the most significant of these is the central part of the Balkan Mountains. This is pointed in the report of the Wilderness Fund. According to them, this is due primarily to the fact that this is the region where different populations of the same species, as well as the populations of different species, meet. Proof of this statement can be found in the fact that there are 12 plant species and 1 sub-species considered to be local endemics: Silene balcanica (Urum.) Hayek, Rosa balcanica Dim, Alchemilla achtarovii Pawl., A. jumrukczalica Pawl., A. asteroantha Rothm., Trifolium pannonicum ssp.jurkovski Koz., Viola balcanica Delip., Seseli bulgaricum P.W.Ball., Primula frondosa Janka, Micromeria frivaldszkyana (Deg.) Vel., Betonica bulgarica Deg. et Neic., Centaurea karlovensis Friv., and Satureja pilosa Vel. The region contains 11 plant species and 2 sub-species that have been identified as Bulgarian endemics. To complete the characterization, the Wilderness Fund points out that 22 Balkan endemics are found in the region.
In addition to the central part of the Balkan Mountains, where a total of 90 endemic species are to be found, other important centers of species formation are: the Rhodope Mountains (with 80 endemics), the Pirin Mountains (70), and Rila (50). According to Ecoglasnost-Varna, 49 endemic plants inhabit the Black Sea coastline.
In terms of floral diversity, it should also be noted that the total number of plant communities occurring in Bulgaria is approximately 1,000. They vary in terms of composition, structure, ecology, productivity, and potential. Some 50% of these are forest communities, covering about 1/3 of the total area.
Bulgarian vegetation falls into five ecological geographic groups: the Nemoral, the Steppe, the Mountain-boreal, the Arctic-Alpine, and the Mediterranean.
The main representatives of Nemoral vegetation are forest formations dominated by broadleaf deciduous tree and shrub species. These include, for example, formations of northern red oak (Querceta roboris), cerris oak (Querceta cerris), beech (Fageta sylvaticae), hornbeam (Carpineta betuli) and bushes such as syringa (Syringeta vulgaris) and smoke-tree (Cotineta coggygriae). Also included in this group are a number of marshes, bogs, and grass formations. This is the basic vegetation cover type of the country. Its altitudinal range of distribution is up to 1,700-1,800 m.
Steppe vegetation is distributed primarily in the northeastern part of the country and along the Danube. It is represented by formations of xerophilic species of the Poa family and by some bush formations. These communities have now spread throughout the country, but this is a secondary type of distribution resulting from human activities. The altitudinal range of distribution is up to 600-700 m. In the mountains it occurs up to 2,000 m.
The Mountain-boreal vegetation type occurs in the high mountains, which were at the border of the Quaternary glaciations. Its most typical representatives are coniferous formations dominated by the Norway spruce (Picea abies), Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris), and silver fir (Abies alba). It is found from 1,400 to 2,000 m in the high Bulgarian mountains.
The Arctic-Alpine vegetation type also occurs in the high mountains. It is characteristic of areas above 2,000 m. More specific to this type are the formations of Siberian juniper (Juniperus sibirica), mugo pine (Pinus mugo), nard (Nardus stricta), blackberries (Vaccinium myrtillus), etc.
The Mediterranean vegetation type occurs in the southernmost parts of the country and along the coastline. Typical of this vegetation are the formations of the so-called pseudo-maquises. These are formations of broadleaf deciduous and evergreen trees and bushes, including scarlet oak (Quercus coccifera), hairy oak (Quercus pubiscens), syringa (Siringa vulgaris), and western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). They differ from the typical maquises in that they are poorer in over-all species richness and deciduous species are present within them. Within this group, the only dominant species whose formations occur above 700 m is the White Fir (or Macedonian) Pine (Pinus peuce).
According to current Bulgarian legislation, threatened plant species are protected under the Nature Protection Act (1967). Their protected status has been determined by placing them on the official List of the Protected Plants. The list now contains 330 species. The threatened plant species are described in the Red Data Book of Bulgaria. The Green Balkans are proposing that the status of 15 species be changed from "rare" to "threatened with extinction." Their argument is that NGO surveys are showing reduction in the habitats of those plants, which will inevitably lead to their disappearance. These species are: Amygdalus webbii, Astragalus aitosensis, Astragalus thracicus, Calluna vulgaris, Chamaecytisus frivaldzkyanus, Daphne pontica, Daphne laureola, Erica arborea, Ilex aquifolium, Juniperus sabina, Rhododendron myrtifolium, Salix hastata, and Saponaria stranjensis.
A considerable portion of the plant genetic pool has been preserved in the more than 95 strict nature reserves. It is notable, however, that only 10% of their total area has been studied in any systematic manner.
Thirty-one vascular plant species are considered to have disappeared from the Bulgarian flora over the last 70-80 years. According to the Red Data Book of Bulgaria, 158 species are considered endangered and 574 species are considered rare. In the IUCN Red Data Book of Threatened Plants (IUCN, 1978), 78 Bulgarian species are listed.
This is only a brief description of the characteristics of the Bulgarian flora and vegetation. It is intended to serve as background information for analyses of the main threats to the floral diversity of the country.
General Characteristics of the Bulgarian Fauna
It is believed that the Bulgarian fauna presently contains about 35,000 species. Reliable data has been compiled for about 15,000 of them. The vertebrate fauna is comparatively well studied. It contains 4.5% of the total number of fauna species and includes native and re-introduced species. The numbers of vertebrate species that occur in Bulgaria are as follows:
Fishes: 200
Amphibians: 17
Reptiles: 37
Birds: 383
Mammals: 90According to the Green Balkans Movement, the state of knowledge of the bat and reptile fauna in Bulgaria is far from satisfactory. Except for the insects, the invertebrate fauna has not yet been inventoried in a systematic fashion. The report of Ecoglasnost-Varna points out that the first complete study of the zooplankton in the Black Sea was completed in 1991.
The Bulgarian fauna is characterized by the presence of Quaternary and Tertiary relicts and of broadly spread European species. The majority of the Tertiary relicts are invertebrates - for example, some of the wood-lice (Cyphoniscellus bulgaricus, Balcanoniscus corniculatus), millipedes (Trachysphaera orghidani, Bulgarosomata orucis), and crustaceans (Troglophantes drenskii, Buressiola bureshii). Of the fishes, the most characteristic tertiary relicts are the pumped goby (Benthophilus brauneri), which is distributed in the brackish waters of the Black Sea, and Nemachilus bureshi, an inhabitant of the Strouma River. The glacial relicts are of boreal origin. They are common in the Bulgarian fauna, and are especially typical of the Rila and Slavyanka Mountain regions. It is also worth mentioning in this context the three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) and the Ural owl (Strix uralensis), which are also likely glacial relicts according to the Wilderness Fund.
Endemism in the Bulgarian fauna is relatively high. In terms of the invertebrate cave fauna, this is self-explanatory, given the isolation of their habitats. What is notable is that, despite Bulgaria's small total area and geographical position, it still contains some vertebrate endemics. Such are the Newton hamster (Mesocricetus newtoni), whose habitats tend to be found only in the steppe regions in Dobrudzha, and the mouse-like dormouse (Myomimus roachi bulgaricus), whose remaining European habitats are located in the southeastern part of the Balkan peninsula.
Of great conservation interest are the large mammals that have been successfully preserved either by conserving their habitats or by direct conservation measures. The Bulgarian populations of bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus), jackal (Canis aureus), wild cat (Felis silvestris), otter (Lutra lutra), Balkan chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica), and marbled polecat (Vormela peregusna peregusna, whose last European habitats are in Dobrudzha, are considered healthy. There are reasons to believe that further opportunities exist to ensure the long-term survival of some of the larger mammals, as stated in the report of Wilderness Fund. For example, this has already been promoted to a certain extent by the establishment of the Central Balkans National Park (an IUCN category II protected area).
Bulgaria is home to a number of species rare in Europe and even at the global scale. According to the BBPS, the number of bird species that occur in Bulgaria today is 383. The BUCRM states that the eastern part of the Rhodopes, including the Greek portions of the mountains, constitute the second most important nesting area in Europe for birds of prey (after Spain). Considering that one of the two major migratory flyways - the Via Pontica - crosses the territory of the country, it is not difficult to conclude that Bulgaria is a high priority country for bird conservation. Still, according to the report of the BBPS, urgent conservation measures are necessary. BBPS is monitoring the state of bird populations in Bulgaria, and the trends in bird populations are negative despite the occurrence of 30 newly discovered species.
The report of the GBM regarding the reptile and amphibian fauna identifies 8 species that are unique for Europe. Having been exterminated throughout the continent, these species have their last remaining habitats in the Balkans.
The ISEV report, after presenting summary information of the fish in the Black Sea, states that a large number of them are rare.
Several legal measures directly related to preservation of the fauna have been enacted, including the Nature Protection Law (1967), the Forestry Law (1958), the Hunting Act (1982), and the Fishing Act (1982). Up to 1991, the lists of protected animals included 44 mammal species, 327 birds, and 31 amphibians and reptiles.
The second volume of the Red Data Book of Bulgaria includes descriptions of 156 vertebrate fauna species. Among these are 19 mammal species, 100 birds, and 13 reptiles and amphibians. Fifteen vertebrate species are considered to be exterminated from Bulgaria; 89 species are threatened with extinction and 52 are rare. The 1990 IUCN Red Data List of Threatened Animals lists 27 Bulgarian vertebrate species under different categories. These should be considered globally threatened species requiring urgent conservation measures.
The main reason for the disappearance of animal species is the loss of habitat. The major threats to their habitats are the same as those of the plant species, and so the factors with the strongest negative effects will be jointly reviewed below.
The State of the Protected Areas System
The existing protected areas provide a considerable foundation for future elaboration. About 3.5% of the Bulgaria's total territory has been placed under different levels of protected status. A very high percentage of the total area of the strict reserves - 82% - and of the National Parks (II category IUCN) - 89% - falls within the mountainous regions. (To make this part understandable for the foreign reader, the IUCN categories are used in the description of the protected areas.)
There are 28 strict nature reserves (IUCN category I) larger than 1,000 ha. At present, 11 National Parks have been established. Only three of the parks - Pirin (established in 1963), Central Balkan (1990), and Rila (1991) - fall within IUCN category I. Their combined area is 221,000 ha. All the other parks are considered to be IUCN Category III, IV, and V protected areas. There are currently about 470 natural monuments (IUCN category III) in the country, with a total area of 22,850 ha (not including the thousand-year old trees); 99 protected sites (IUCN category IV and V), with a total area of 21,850 ha; and 972 historical sites, with a total area of 12,000 ha.
Over the last three years the total area under protection has increased about 1.5% due to the establishment of the two new national parks - Rila (107,923 ha) and the Central Balkans (73,923 ha). The report of the Wilderness Fund analyzes the approach taken in conserving the natural values of the central part of the Balkan Mountain range, based on the principles and the processes followed in establishing the Central Balkans National Park. It discusses existing gaps and weaknesses in the management of the area. This methodology might serve as a useful model in developing and strengthening the larger protected areas.
Unfortunately, it seems obvious that the regime of protection envisaged in declaring almost any protected area is far from being respected and enforced. According to the NGO team, most of the protected areas in Bulgaria are in a critical state. As the BBPS stresses, the "Srebarna Case" is only one well known example. The general conclusion of the NGOs is that Bulgaria is sorely lacking in legislative regulations that clearly define the functions of the protected areas and address the issues of protected area ownership, maintenance, management, and safeguarding.
The lack of adequate regulations is due to a complex set of factors. One of these is the irrelevance of current legislation in terms of modern trends in nature protection, and in particular in terms of the preservation of biological diversity.
A package of new legislative measures will soon be formulated. This package will include Acts regarding protected areas, protection of biological diversity, forests, and hunting and fishing. It is likely that those Acts will be able to regulate the use and conservation of biological diversity. The NGOs consider the submission and passing of these laws in Parliament to be a high priority, and critical to the effective preservation of the rich natural variety and variability that has survived in Bulgaria. The general concern of the team is that the legislative texts should provide for the protection of natural areas with high national or international value, despite the possibility of objections by the local governments or other institutions or sectors of the population. Legislation should address the need for reimbursement by the State when conflicts occur.
As noted previously, lack of enforcement of existing regulations is a serious problem. To a certain extent, this is related to the problem of the right to manage and use the protected areas. To date, these rights have been distributed among the State Forestry Departments and the respective municipal councils. This is at the root of the problems regarding institutional conflicts and divided executive power that we face today. Arguing that about 70% of the protected areas fall within forest regions, the Committee of Forests claims the right to manage and safeguard them. Control over protected areas is a responsibility of the Ministry of Environment as the highest nature protection institution in the country. On the other hand the forestry committee retains its functions regarding forest resource use (timber harvesting, hunting, international hunting, tourism, etc.). The chairman of the Committee has the power to enforce executive decisions concerning the use of natural resources, even in cases where they contradict the position of the Ministry of Environment on the same topic. A recent concrete example of this is Order No. 31/1.20.1993, which extended the waterfowl hunting season in Bulgaria until the end of February. It was enforced despite strong objections from experts in the Ministry of Environment, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and the NGOs. Such behavior is not, in any case, beneficial to the natural objects that have been preserved until now. It is widely agreed that the poor state of the protected areas is due mainly to this dualism in the executive power. This opinion is expressed directly or indirectly in all of the NGO reports.
The lack of general management plans to implement the nature preservation functions of the protected areas presents an additional obstacle to effective preservation of the biodiversity within their boundaries. The only documents stating management objectives are the forestry management projects. The development of long-term plans for management of protected areas is a standard practice throughout the world. With the expertise Bulgaria already possesses, and with some technical support and advice from countries or international organizations with proven skills in this area, it should not be difficult to elaborate such general management plans.
Another major flaw in the current system of protected areas is the lack of a specialized administrative structure responsible for their management and maintenance. According to the NGO team, only a few of the protected areas are organized to provide true safeguarding. In a formal sense, the responsibility for safeguarding most of the protected areas falls upon the Committee of Forests. The members of the NGOs report that, in the course of the many visits they have made to protected areas throughout the country, they have never been inspected by anybody. This leads to the conclusion that most of the protected areas exist only on paper. The fact that they have preserved representative samples of biological diversity is due mainly to the difficultly of access. It is the opinion of the NGOs that the people working for the protected areas system should be professionals committed to the protected areas and strongly motivated by conservation goals.
Some of the team members believe that the NGOs can and should actively participate in the management, maintenance, and safeguarding of the protected areas. This would make the task of the governmental conservation agencies much easier and would enable them to concentrate on the broader issues in this field.
The general proposals of the NGO team regarding the effective management of protected areas, as well as other gaps in biodiversity conservation in Bulgaria, are listed later in this report.
Evaluation of the Threats to Diversity in Bulgaria
The main factors threatening biodiversity in Bulgaria generally involve unsustainable and unreasonable methods of resource use and development. Only the main threats and their expected impact on natural resources will be discussed here.
1. Resource Use Practices
1.1. Use of Biological Resources
Direct uses of biological resources include hunting, fishing, and harvesting of forests (for both timber and non-timber products).
Hunting is a danger to the species subjected to such use. It is paradoxical that some of the species hunted in Bulgaria are listed in the IUCN's Threatened Animals in the World. Such is the case with the grey wolf (Canis lupus) as well as some bird species that, although not directly subject to hunting, are indirectly endangered because of insufficient knowledge and the general low level of conservation awareness. Among these bird species are the globally threatened pygmy cormorant (Phalacrocorax pygmeus), lesser white-throated goose (Anser erythropus), red-breasted goose (Branta ruficollis), marbled teal goose (Marmaronetta angustirostris), white-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala), corn crake (Crex crex), and slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris).
Hunting represents a serious threat to the genetic diversity within and among the populations of different species. The Wilderness Fund presents as an example the introduction in Bulgaria of Carpathian bears for hunting purposes. They differ from the local population and their release in the natural areas of Bulgaria threatens the genetic pool of the native bear population. The local Bulgarian subspecies of the ring-necked pheasant has practically lost its identity as a result of cross-breeding with a foreign subspecies introduced into the country by the Union of Hunters and Fisherman in Bulgaria.
Poaching is becoming an extremely serious problem. The lack of effective actions by those governmental institutions officially authorized to safeguard game animals, discussed previously, creates conditions under which poaching flourishes. According to the BUCRM, the abolition of the State Hunting Husbandries in the Rhodope Mountains and their current status as a part of the State Forestry Departments has actually facilitated poaching. This results in the disturbance or disappearance of the game populations that are selected for exploitation each year, which in turn relates to the degradation of the self-regulating natural systems in these areas. The report of the Union states that abolition of the former official residencies has resulted in serious degradation of the natural ecosystems in their territories. The Green Balkan Movement shares this opinion.
Fishing is an economically important activity in Bulgaria. We cannot say that fishing has been performed in a sustainable fashion. The report of Ecoglasnost- Varna discusses this activity within the Black Sea basin. The diminishing of fish resources there is due mainly to over fishing by Turkey and by the countries of the former Soviet Union. An attempt has been made to reach an international agreement on fishing in the Black Sea, but unfortunately some of the countries did not participate.
The different forms of trawling present an extremely serious threat to biodiversity. Despite various restrictions, this method of fishing is progressively increasing. According to the statements of local fishermen and divers, the bottom of the Black Sea is literally plowed by trawling ships. This either reduces fish resources directly or decreases their opportunities for reproduction. This also contributes to the increase in the hydrogen sulphide content of the Black Sea waters. This, together with eutrophication due to sewage pollution, results in decreased oxygen content in the water. Fishing in inland and near-shore ponds and lakes presents a threat, mainly to the bird fauna. According to the BBPS this is a serious problem, and in some cases hinders the effective functioning of protected areas (as in the case of Bourgas Lake).
The economic use of forests is a factor directly affecting biodiversity preservation. It is the common opinion of the NGO team that, in the past, non-rational economic use of the forests has resulted in the disappearance of the habitats of a number of species. In the literature there is data showing an increase in the forested areas, with about 1.5% due to reforestation of waste lands. Unfortunately, in most of these cases broad-leaf forest trees have been replaced with coniferous species. This is actually a case of ultimate alteration of natural habitats. Such is the case with the reduction of alluvial and very wet forest habitats (according to the CORINE biotope), which directly affects the status of the avifauna.
Timber harvesting directly damages the populations of some species, including bear, some kinds of bats, some rare species of woodpeckers, owls, some predatory birds, etc. A typical example of this is the extermination of the nesting populations of the Cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus) - a species of conservation concern at the European scale. Since the old primary forests along the southern boarder were cut, the species has no longer bred in Bulgaria.
Beyond such direct effects, timber harvesting involves other negative factors. One of these is the quite old equipment that is used in the extraction process. In general, these are heavy machines that require special forest roads. The building (and later abandonment) of such roads contributes to deep and extensive soil erosion.
Last but not least, the uncontrolled introduction of non-native seeding material may result in the genetic erosion of typical native forest formations.
The harvesting of non-timber products (mushrooms, herbs, snails, and frogs) from the forests, as well as the extremely popular capturing and breeding of snakes, should also be considered in this context. The incidence of almost industrial-level harvesting of these products is well known throughout the country. Unfortunately, they are usually exported as raw materials due to a lack of adequate processing methods. In this case, it is clear that neither the individual local businessman nor the country as a whole - not to mention the harvesters - benefit. Given the severe economic crisis the country is now experiencing, this situation is to a certain extent understandable. In the case of the captive breeding of snakes, however, a certain group of people has provoked a mania for this activity through the media. It has certainly not resulted in the promised quick profits. If the advice of specialists had been sought prior to the campaign, this could have been avoided. Finally, the increasingly frequent capture of songbirds, predatory birds, reptiles, and insects for commercial purposes deserves serious consideration.
For all these real and potential threats, effective preventive measures should be addressed in the legislation involving biodiversity and its conservation. In the case of degraded habitats - when it is not too late - restoration strategies should be developed.
1.2. Use of Non-Biological Resources
Under this category we may include the extraction of different mineral and non-mineral resources. The current practice of extracting ore, marble, stone, and other minerals using explosives is a serious factor disturbing wildlife populations. The NGO reports describe the negative impacts of this practice on a number of species, including nesting populations of endangered species such as the white-headed vulture, the Dalmatian falcon, and the black stork, as well as bat fauna.
The development of underground deposits of different minerals and ores disturbs hydrological functions, which in turn results in the alteration of habitats. According to the BUCRM this often happens in the Rhodopes. Recent increases in the extraction of different mineral resources, and the related changes in natural habitats, can be considered problems even more dangerous than the extermination of forest habitats, in so far as minerals, unlike forests, are non-renewable.
The extraction of natural gas and oil is a potential threat that should be kept in mind. Foreign corporations have begun to explore for such resources in northeastern Bulgaria. Very precise environmental impact assessments should be requested. Petroleum processing and frequent oil leaks and spills in the area of the Varna and Bourgas harbors represent a real danger. According to the ISEV, only this winter there were three serious incidents of oil pollution in Varna bay. As a result, a huge number of various wintering birds in the area were harmed.
For each of these activities it is necessary to think in advance and to insist on complete environmental impact assessments. Emphasis should be placed on the potential threats to biodiversity, and not only to human health.
2. Land Privatization
In so far as the restitution and privatization of land has not yet taken place on a scale that allows us to judge its actual impact on biodiversity, only a preliminary evaluation of the process can be presented.
The privatization and subsequent redistribution of land may result in the disappearance of extensive blocks of agricultural land and the appearance of new belts of bushes and trees in the landscape. This will provide new habitats for some species and place in danger the existence of others. In any case, it will pose a threat to species that require large open spaces or that cannot tolerate frequent or close human presence.
Considering the fact that the NGOs on the team have been working in different regions, the plurality of opinions in this area is understandable. Most state that the privatization of land is likely to have a net negative impact on biological diversity. Bearing in mind that previously landless people may receive properties in so-called waste-lands, the NGOs are stating that this will lead to the extinction of habitats in these areas. These consequences are expected to be more serious in the northeastern parts of Bulgaria, where the last remaining native steppe communities in Bulgaria are to be found. The drastic transformation of the steppe regions will probably place under serious threat populations of some extremely valuable species, including the marbled polecat (Vormela peregusna peregusna), the steppe polecat (Mustela eversmanii), the Newton hamster (Mesocicetus newtoni), the thick-billed lark (Melanocorypha calandra), the short-toed lark (Calandrela brachydactila), and the pink starling (Pastor roseus).
There is some expectation that land privatization in forest areas will pose a serious threat to species diversity. Since most of the areas important from a conservation standpoint fall within forested territories, the approach to the restitution of forestlands should be very strictly and carefully considered. About 16% of Bulgaria's forests were held by individuals prior to nationalization (this increased to about 20% as a result of afforestation in the "wastelands"). Of these, only 1.5% were areas over 50 hectares. Municipal forests constituted 56% of the total. With the severe economic crisis that Bulgaria is now experiencing, the potential threat is that the municipalities could use the restoration of their property as an easy way to make quick profits.
The BUCRM states that this problem does not exist in the Rhodope region, and that, on the contrary, restitution will have a positive influence on the preservation of biological diversity in the area. Their conclusion is based on a review of sustainable land-use practices that are traditional in the Rhodopes.
The common opinion of the NGO team is that the process of privatization will not affect the already protected areas. This is due to the provisions and enforcement of some of the newly elaborated legislative acts.
Inevitably, as privatization takes place and the actual development of private land begins, the conflicts between wildlife and the economic interests of the owners will deepen. The problems related to damage caused by wild animals on private farms and herds will become heavier, and the attitudes will be far from tolerant. One of the crucial questions will involve the ownership of wildlife inhabiting private lands. If incorrect or vague legislative regulations are authorized within the new Acts, many species will be placed in danger. This is a problem faced in privatizing all the kinds of property - agricultural lands, forests, and other types of real estate.
3. Agriculture
3.1. Agricultural Land Use Practices
The main problems facing biodiversity today result from the drive to increase the arable land base by draining wetlands and plowing meadows. At the same time, the unreasonable use of agricultural chemicals - defoliants, insecticides, rodenticides, etc. - has directly damaged many plant and animal species. This has led to the disappearance and decline in quality of many species' habitats. Most affected have been the lowlands in Bulgaria.
In addition to the extinction of plant species, communities, and whole ecosystem types through the draining of marshes, agricultural development has caused serious declines in the populations of steppe species. This has altered the few remaining European habitats of the rare marbled polecat (Vormela peregusna peregusna) and the Balkan endemic Newton hamster (Mesocricetus newtoni); the main habitats of both are localized in the southern parts of Dobrudzha.
The threat that mowing and reaping presents to ground-nesting birds is self-explanatory. The data of the BBPS show that these activities have a critical influence on the survival rates of meadow harriers (Circus pygargus), corn crakes (Crex crex), and other species.
The disappearance of several bird species from Bulgaria is due mostly to the intensive use of different chemicals. This process was most notable during the 1970s. The mass campaign to exterminate rodents that was undertaken in 1988 and 1989 has been a true disaster, and has resulted in the killing of thousands of birds and mammals. According to the BUCRM, the aerial fertilizing and spreading of pesticides in potato fields in the Rhodopes has caused serious damage to large vertebrates and to the fish fauna in the region.
3.2. Domestic Animal Breeding
This is a traditional aspect of agriculture in Bulgaria. There is again a notable polarization of opinions on this topic among the NGOs, due mostly due to differences in the regions in which they work. The Wilderness Fund, the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, Ecoglasnost Varna, and the Green Balkans share the view that animal breeding is one of the activities that most clearly reflects the antagonistic relationship between human beings and nature and has direct and strong negative effects. The example cited most often is the setting of traps and the use of different poisonous substances or tranquilizers in attempts to reduce wolf populations. This presents an extremely serious threat to populations of vultures, some of the larger eagles, and other birds of prey. In some regions of the country, the free grazing of sheep and goats and free raising of pigs are traditional practices. This has a pernicious influence on natural vegetation and on populations of different animals. To a great degree, domestic animals compete with the hoofed animals for food. They disturb and damage the populations of ground-nesting birds, such as the avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), stilt (Himantopus himantopus), pratincole (Glareola pratincola), and various species of sea gull. Unfortunately, this occurs even within the nature reserves.
Animal breeding farms, especially pig farms, pose another serious problem. They seem to be one of the greatest sources of pollution of rivers and wetlands in that the wastes are often thrown directly into them. It is quite sufficient to mention that the serious problems of Srebarna Lake are partially related to the pig farms that flourish on its banks. Such farms might also be affecting two of the cleanest rivers in Bulgaria - the Veleka and the Rezovska, both considered to be in near natural condition. This will alter the ecological balance in the rivers and damage the habitats of the stable otter populations (Lutra lutra) that occur there.
The Bulgarian Society for Conservation of the Rhodope Mountains holds a completely different opinion. They state that animal breeding (especially sheep breeding), as the most traditional occupation of the local population, has not only caused no danger to biological resources, but has promoted their preservation. According to this view, the successional dynamics of the Rhodopes are such that only grazing could have allowed subalpine meadow vegetation to establish itself within the watersheds. If grazing is prohibited or prevented, there is a serious danger that forests will invade and ultimately replace the highland meadows. This, in turn, will result in the disappearance of plant species, such as the orchids. For this reason, the BUCRM favors the introduction of some incentives to promote sheep breeding in the region.
4. Public Construction Projects
According to the NGO team, public construction projects pose an important threat, and one that should be more strongly stressed. Most building and development projects in general have never been accorded preliminary environmental impact assessments that describe the risks to wild nature. Such is the case with the construction of artificial lakes and dams on habitats of rare species. According to the BBPS, the main factor behind the disappearance of the pink pelican (Pelicanus onocrotalus) is the construction of the dam at Mandra Lake, leading to drastic alterations in habitat conditions. Under discussion at the moment is another construction project - the Gorna Arda reservoir system. Two of the NGOs - the Green Balkans Movement and the BUCRM - point to this problem in their reports. They state their strong disagreement with the decision to initiate the project prior to the preparation of a total environmental impact assessment. The whole system as proposed would be 70 km long. It will result in the disappearance of many species and habitats of rare and endemic plants and animals. According to the BBPS, the project in its initial design will cause immense disturbance to the ecosystem on both sides of the river.
The artificial lakes and dams also have indirect impacts on the habitats of different species. Access to well preserved natural areas is made easier and urbanization increases. These areas become more attractive for recreation on a local, regional, and national level. Very often these territories are inhabited by exotic species. Increased human pressure is expected to affect even the best preserved and most natural sites, and this threat should be kept in mind in regional development plans.
The construction of railways and highways is not undertaken in accordance with requirements to cause as little harm to biological diversity as possible. The report of the Green Balkans Movement discusses this problem in connection with the Blagoevgrad-Kulata railway, which is soon to be doubled. It will pass through protected areas and destroy a number of unique habitats. No careful environmental impact assessment has been done, nor have any plans for the restoration of damaged sites been drawn up.
Recreational and the tourism-related construction has also seriously affected various natural habitats, and even threatened protected areas. The Baltata Nature Reserve has practically been destroyed by the nearby construction of a huge recreational complex and a road across its territory. Many examples can be cited, but the most obvious is the disturbance of natural sites along the Black Sea coastline. The Zlatni Piasatcy National Park (IUCN category V) is urbanized to such an extent that it is not possible to speak of this park as performing any nature conservation function. Similar threats now face the Alepu, Ropotamo, and Poda Nature Reserves. The pressure on Alepu marsh is expected to be especially serious. A huge complex is to be built there shortly. The marsh will be confined to a tiny undisturbed area between the new complex and the tourist village of Duni. The same complex also threatens the Ropotamo Nature Reserve (IUCN category I). Another negative aspect of the tourism industry in Bulgaria is its role in encouraging the introduction of many exotic species, most often plant species that are intended to increase the scenic beauty of different places. Such is the case with the planting of the exotic amorpha (Amorpha fruticosa) on large areas along the Black Sea coast. This has severely disturbed and even destroyed unique dune complexes.
The increased pressure from tourism that is expected will make the survival of many protected areas and important habitats a critical issue. This should be considered in the process of elaborating new protective legislation.
5. Private Development
It is difficult for two main reasons to assess the threats posed by private development. First, private enterprise in Bulgaria is mainly in the non-productive branches of the economy. Second, private enterprise is still in its earliest stages. It is, however, possible to state hypothetically some of the threats that are expected to arise. One major threat will be the additional development of private tourism and associated services. Measures to prevent possible damages could and should be undertaken, based on new legislation and its proper enforcement.
6. Industrial Pollution
The unsustainable and unreasonable development of industry in Bulgaria in the past has now become a serious problem. It has resulted in substantial pollution of the air and waters, contamination of soils, and disturbance of the ecological balance in the country. The pollution of the Danube River and the Black Sea is an absolutely critical issue. The decrease of the oxygen content in the sea waters has resulted in diminished numbers of aquatic species and a decrease in fish resources. This problem is not simply national in scope, but involves transboundary sources and effects. Some solution must be sought on the international level. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that industrial pollution has not yet reached an irreversible stage. In this sense, the restoration of natural habitats is possible, and if achieved could allow for the reintroduction of native species.
It has already been stated that a significant part of Bulgaria's natural heritage has been preserved in an almost intact state in the remote areas, where access is difficult. Some measures to prevent industrial development in these areas should be undertaken.
7. Other Threats
According to the NGO team, the most serious threat to the biological diversity of Bulgaria is actually the low level of understanding and awareness of the problems among the general public. Most people have little or no knowledge about or exposure to nature conservation. This accounts for the damage to natural habitats by the local people, and the direct extermination of different plants and animals. For example, many harmless species of snakes, lizards, and bats are killed simply because of traditional prejudices, because the local population does not differentiate among them (i.e. cannot distinguish between poisonous and harmless snakes), or because their conservation value is not understood (as with the tortoises and bats).
There is no tradition of environmental education and awareness building in Bulgaria. It is more than clear that no effective conservation and protection of biological resources is possible without the support of the general public. Because there are no printed materials promoting the unique value and importance of the Bulgarian flora and fauna, the population of the country remains indifferent to the major issues of conservation. This problem could probably be overcome, especially as the NGOS and governmental institutions gain experience in communicating information and building awareness. The elaboration of a strategy to involve the general public in nature conservation is of paramount importance. Activities in this areas should be undertaken as joint efforts, involving everybody working for the preservation of nature at different levels. Otherwise, it is absolutely impossible to imagine how attempts to prevent different activities from damaging biological resources will be understood, accepted, and supported by the people. (As one example, the effort to address problems connected with the use of dancing bears failed due to the lack of public support.)
Perceptions and Attitudes of Local People
Attitudes about biodiversity and the problems associated with its protection and long-term preservation were the subjects of the opinion poll undertaken in connection with the NGO reports. The task of the survey was to assess attitudes toward the environment at both the personal and social levels through questions about different public activities and their impacts on biodiversity and on the environment in general. One hundred people were interviewed at each research point. They were selected from among the inhabitants of large and small towns (41.1% and 42.7% re-spectively) and small villages (16.2%).
Every hundred people interviewed included not only those that were randomly selected (54.1% of all those interviewed), but a smaller group selected from local units of the Bulgarian Hunters and Fishers Union, clubs, medicinal plant harvesters, mushroom harvesters, environmental protection activists, etc. These people, who have specific interests in environmental problems, we will provisionally call "committed." They represent 27.1% of the interviewees. A third group consisted of people working in the local municipalities - officers, mayors, employees in the Regional Inspectorates of the Ministry of Environment, police, etc. This group represents 18.8% of all those interviewed and will be provisionally called the "administrators." The diversity of respondents was no doubt important for collecting a broad range of information. It also provided some protection against distortion, since the survey was not representative.
On the basis of the survey results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Environment values, among all the main values, are basic and important in determining the quality of life.
2. In most cases, attitudes toward the environment and biodiversity are influenced by the individual's life needs. The first reactions are based on evaluations of the quality of the air, soils, and waters. Only then is attention paid to the problems of biodiversity preservation and the more reasonable use of biological resources.
3. The survey shows an aesthetic perception and appreciation of wild nature among the interviewed, and suggests that it may be possible to develop this into a cognitive attitude toward nature. The development of such a cognitive attitude towards nature is the first prerequisite for forming a general understanding in favor of nature conservation.
4. The survey reveals a general lack of environmental knowledge. The majority of people do not know what a protected area is, what its aims are, or what the rights of people in the areas are. Many of them do not differentiate between a hunting reserve and a nature reserve, and do not know that the national parks are protected areas. But a majority wishes a number of animals, plants, natural areas, and natural monuments to be protected.
5. Attitudes toward the development of private agriculture and other private activities is controversial. There is a clear division of attitudes. The percentage of people who see these activities as a real threat to biodiversity is about equal to those who consider private farming as a way to reasonably use biological resources are equal.
6. The basic concerns about land restitution involve forests. A legislative solution is expected for this.
7. Among those interviewed, the highest percentage cites building activities close to or within protected areas as the greatest danger (among those enumerated) for biodiversity.
8. There is also a clear opinion that imperfect, or totally non-existent, legislation and rulings in regard to ecological problems have had, and will have, the worst impact on the protection of the environment.
9. Similarly, those interviewed were of the opinion that the lack of changes in legislation, or the lack of application of existing provisions, hinders environmental protection. They see no changes in local administrative personnel, including the staff in charge of the environmental programs. In some cases the staff of the environmental departments of the municipalities is literally unknown, or is viewed negatively.
Opportunities for the Integration of Conservation and Development
The Green Balkans Movement has offered a concrete proposal for the integration of development and biodiversity conservation. They envision a plan to provide natural habitats for plant and animal species in the country's plains through linear corridors and "spots" (small areas inhabited by valuable species). According to the GBM, the existing facilities in these regions - channels, artificial ponds, fish farms - could be transformed into habitat more typical for the birds of the plains by planting appropriate broad-leaf trees and bushes along their banks. An especially interesting feature of this approach involves the fish farms, with their extensive and semi-intensive methods of fish production. They could be used to preserve the gene pool of the rare migratory birds that nest in Bulgaria during the winter and spring months. During those months, the fish farms are not used for fishing.
According to the NGO team and the local people interviewed in the survey, environmentally sound tourism is one of the main potential methods of achieving development without destroying nature. Many types of tourism - bird watching, photography, agricultural tourism, etc. - are cited as sustainable ways to derive benefits from the natural, cultural, and historical features of Bulgaria. The necessity of linking these three parameters is pointed out. Of course, there are some shared anxieties that uncontrolled or unregulated tourism in the protected areas might seriously disturb populations of rare animals and plants. The development of these forms of tourism requires investments in improvements, advertising, and other areas, but these will be investments for the future of nature in Bulgaria.
Summary
This report is a result of efforts by five of the most active conservation nongovernmental organizations in Bulgaria to assess the actual state of the country's biological diversity and its system of protected areas. Their assessments provide the background for comments on the major threats to the long-term preservation of Bulgaria's natural heritage. The report is based on the comprehensive data, most of which is unpublished, compiled by the NGOs in the course of their work.
It is worth stating here that, due to the differences in their character, each of the five NGOs have also prepared separate reports. In each of the NGO reports, the natural resources in the country are reviewed at a very high professional level. In this summary report, we have tried to avoid overlapping the reports submitted by the team of scientific experts. However, the most important scientific data are mentioned.
The emphasis in this report is on the status of the existing protected areas and problems associated with their management. However, since the Bulgarian con-stitution provides a good basis for effective preservation of biological diversity within the protected areas, more serious attention needs to be paid to the major threats to biological resources outside the protected areas and in areas with a lower degree of protection.
In reviewing the state of the existing protected areas, all five NGOs share the opinion that the present problems are due mostly to the system's institutional dualism, the absence of a single governmental structure to manage the protected areas and to preserve the immense biological diversity they contain, and the lack of trained professional staff to manage and safeguard the areas. The NGOs state that they have the ability, and are ready, to take on the task of managing and safe-guarding some of the smaller territories, thus providing support for the governmental institutions.
This report pays special attention to the existing and expected threats to biological diversity in Bulgaria. Activities identified as main factors impacting or directly damaging ecosystems and wildlife populations in the country are: unreasonable use of biological and non-biological resources; the process of privatization; expected changes in agricultural practices; industrial pollution; the potential development of natural areas as a result of the emerging private sector; and public construction projects.
Among current biological resource use practices, hunting and fishing are identified as the most serious threats. Hunting is responsible not only for the direct extinction of species, but for the introduction of non-native species. This is harmful to the gene pool of the populations of a number of species. Fishing practices, especially the two forms of trawling, are among the main reasons for declines in fish resources and species diversity. The harvesting of timber and non-timber resources, if it continues in its present fashion, will cause severe damage within and outside many protected areas.
The present period of change in land and property ownership should be used to introduce modern sustainable agricultural practices. This conclusion is drawn after a careful consideration of the consequences of the former unreasonable and unsustainable methods of extensive and intensive agriculture. To develop more sustainable strategies, the natural and historical roots of the country's regions should be kept in mind. For example, in the Rhodope Mountain region, land use practices that have been in place for a thousand years or longer have supported the survival and preservation of representative biological communities that are extremely rich in biological diversity.
The ongoing process of land privatization will inevitably lead to the disappearance of some habitats; at the same time, the resulting redistribution of land will result in the appearance of new habitats. This should be considered as new legislation concerning biological diversity is elaborated. Potential threats should be anticipated and prevented. It is reasonable to state that privatization of forest lands should be performed very carefully. Because some 56% of the Bulgarian forests were municipal property prior to nationalization, there is a danger that the municipalities might use their restored property as a easy way to make quick profits. In this context, private development should also be mentioned as a potential threat to biological diversity. If strong regulatory mechanisms are not included in future conservation legislation, the expected increase in demand for different services might result in further degradation of habitats and ecosystems.
Intensive industrial development in the past is considered to have a strong negative effect on biodiversity. The results are now becoming more and more obvious. Air and water pollution and soil contamination alter the state of natural habitats and ecosystems. Within the main branches of the non-manufacturing sectors of the economy, the major factor affecting natural sites is tourism and related recreational construction. Many examples are given to illustrate the direct and indirect impacts of tourism. The potential for transforming tourism into a more environmentally sound form is discussed. The report points out that Bulgaria has very good opportunities to develop different forms of ecotourism.
A sociological survey was carried out in five regions in Bulgaria to determine the opinions of local people on the uses and values of biological resources. Although the local people are fully aware of the beauty and importance of the natural elements in the vicinity of their settlements, they have little knowledge of conservation or nature protection principles. Often they are totally unaware of the existence of protected areas, and lack knowledge of the species and habitats they contain. However, in some cases the local population shows an intuitive sense of the factors that negatively or positively affect conservation and of ways to develop sustainably. Their general feeling is that incentives for environmentally friendly enterprises should be assured.
According to the NGO team, the most serious threat to biological diversity in Bulgaria is actually the low level of understanding and awareness of the problems among the general public. Most people have little or no knowledge about, or exposure to, nature conservation. It is clear that the conservation and protection of biological resources will not succeed without the support of the general public. For this reason, the elaboration of a strategy for educating and involving the general public in conservation is of paramount importance. Such a strategy should involve all those who are working for the preservation of nature, including educators, NGOs, and governmental agencies.
Recommendations
Legislative Recommendations
1. Priority should be given to elaborating and submitting to the Parliament a package of legislative acts concerning the protection of biological diversity. In developing legislation, the following measures should be considered:
- placing under protection all species listed in the red data books, as well as all habitats that are of national, European, or global conservation importance;
- making species and their habitats state property;
- regulating economic activities that affect biological diversity to minimize their impacts, and requiring environmental impact assessments by authorized institutions prior to development activities, even small private developments;
- using legislation to control the commercial use of biological resources.
2. The responsibility for making decisions concerning biological diversity should be given to the Ministry of Environment, with requirements established for consultation on these decisions with scientific institutions and NGOs.
Institutional Recommendations
1. The Committee of Forests should be deprived of the functions of managing and protecting biological diversity in areas of national and international importance. Its functions of managing forest resources for economic uses, hunting, and fishing, and for protecting smaller natural areas or sites of lower conservation status, should be preserved.
2. A single national institution should be established to manage protected areas for the conservation, maintenance, and safeguarding of their biological diversity and biological resources.
3. This institution should be responsible for the design, development, and implementation of general management plans and action plans for each protected area.
Scientific Recommendations
1. The population status and dynamics of rare and threatened species should be examined and special programs elaborated to monitor their status and their conservation.
2. The existing red data books need to be updated (and, where necessary, new red books prepared) for the different groups of flora and fauna. Red list categories should be brought into accordance with international categories.
3. The restoration of disturbed and vulnerable habitats is a paramount necessity. Elaboration of programs for restoring the most endangered habitats - sand dunes, wetlands, and steppe communities - should be initiated immediately.
4. The continuity of scientific research should be assured.
Recommendation for Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and Development
1. Develop and begin to implement sustainable development programs, especially in areas with high natural values where the standard approach to biodiversity conservation is impossible.
Additional Specific Recommendations
1. In light of their limited and vulnerable habitats, six plant species should be included in the list of those requiring protection plans: Schoenoplectus litoralis, Schoenoplectus triqueter, Bromus lanceolatus, Artemisia pedemontana, Urospermum pitcroides, and Reichardia picroides.
2. For the following species, the category of the degree of threat should be altered from rare to endangered: Juniperus sabina, Salix hastata, Rhodendron myrtifolium, Calluna vulgaris, Saponaria stranjensis, Erica arborea, Amygdalus webbii, Ilex aquifolium, Daphne pontica, Daphne laureola, Chamaecytisus frivaldzkyanus, Astragalus aitosensis, and Astragalus thracicus.
3. Urgent measures should be undertaken for the conservation of habitats or enlargement of protected areas where the habitats of rare species are found (a detailed list of 17 areas is included in the report of the Green Balkans Movement).
4. Urgent conservation measures should be undertaken to protect 54 larger areas containing rare plant and animal species; a detailed list of these is included in the report of the Green Balkans Movement.
5. The possibility of giving the NGOs responsibility for maintaining, managing, and safeguarding some of the protected areas should recognized and considered.
6. The emphasis in governmental policy-making should be shifted away from policies that simply aim to gain popular approval to policies that give real consideration to the problems of nature conservation and environmental protection, and subsequently involve the mass media to build broad public awareness of the issues.
7. Special environmental education programs should be developed, both within and beyond the official education sector, that stress nature conservation. Implementation of these programs should be promoted and facilitated.
8. A strategy for development of the botanical and zoological gardens should be elaborated. In the strategy, the possibilities of managing, maintaining, and using these gardens in accordance with environmental education programs to be implemented by the NGOs should be recognized and promoted.
Bibliography
Geography of Bulgaria: Physical Geography Natural Conditions and Resources. 1982. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
IUCN. 1990. Environmental Status Reports. Vol. II. IUCN East European Program.
IUCN. 1990. List of Threatened Animals. Compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Kingdom.
IUCN. 1991. Protected Areas of the World. Vol. II - Palearctic. Compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Kingdom.
Spiridonov, G. 1977. Oases of Living Nature. Sofia: Zemisdat.
Spassov, N. 1993. Personal communication.
Velcev, V., S. Kozuharov, and M. Ancev, eds. 1992. Atlas of the Endemic Plants in Bulgaria. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
500 Opinions on Man and Biodiversity: Analysis of an Opinion Poll
Julietta Penchovska
Introduction
Bulgaria is now a stage upon which many different processes are unfolding. The public conscience has opened itself to the consideration of problems that have always challenged humanity, but that, for many reasons, have not received high priority here. Now, as priorities are shifting, we have begun again to approve of such values as the quality of life, the quality of education, the enjoyment of one's job, communication with other people, freedom of choice, and democratic participation in decision-making. Within this realm of values are those that are shared by the new generation. The quality of the environment has a special place on this scale of preferences, gaining a higher position among other indicators of the quality of life.
Attitudes toward the environment - from which we cannot be separated and which is an inseparable part of our lives - and toward the natural world find a new place within the value systems of women and men. It is first expressed in changing attitudes toward the cleanliness of the environment. Once people have appraised the value of a clean environment, they gradually begin to understand the need to protect it, and to protect its biological diversity.
The starting point for this opinion poll was a basic question: what are current attitudes toward the importance of biodiversity and the problems connected to its protection and preservation? The task of the survey was to assess and analyze attitudes toward the environment at the personal and public level through the reaction of people to different public activities and their impact on biological diversity.
Procedures
We need to state at the outset that our conclusions, judgments, and recommendations have been made on the basis of a small sample of the Bulgarian people. The survey is not representative. It summarizes the opinions of people living in small towns and villages near Bulgaria's protected areas.
Five hundred respondents participated in the survey. They were encountered at five different research points in different regions of the country. Research points were selected according to the different types of protected areas and their value in terms of biodiversity protection. For this reason, the areas chosen were: the Rhodope Mountains, the Central Balkan Mountains, the area along the Strouma River, the area around the protected area Russenski Lom, and part of the Strandzha Mountain region down to the Black Sea coast.
Sample
One hundred people per research point were interviewed. They were selected as representatives of large and small towns (approximately 80%) and villages (20%). (Final figures showed that 41.1% came from large towns, 42.7% from small towns, and 16.2% from villages).
Every hundred people interviewed included, in addition to those selected on a random basis (54.1% of all interviewed), a smaller group selected from the membership of local units of the Bulgarian Hunters and Fishers Union, clubs, medicinal plant harvesters, mushroom harvesters, environmental protection activists, and other groups. These people have a specific concern with environmental problems, and we will provisionally refer to them as the "committed" group. They represent 27.1% of all the people interviewed.
A third group was composed of people working in the local municipalities - officers, mayors, police, staff of the regional inspectorates of the Ministry of Environment, etc. This group represented 18.8% of all the people interviewed, and will be provisionally referred to as "administrators."
This diversity of respondents was no doubt important in collecting from a broad base of information. And because the survey is not representative, it also provided protection against distortion of the information.
Method
Information for this opinion poll was gathered through a questionnaire and an interview. Combining the two methods provided us with the opportunity to incorporate information from both sources and in this way allowed us receive a more complete picture of the values and attitudes toward the environment of those surveyed.
Additional open interviews (upon request of the interviewees) were held with the idea of gathering additional information. This allowed everyone an opportunity to say what they wanted to say, and to express thoughts that they were unable to express in responding to the questionnaire. Another important fact to point out is that the interviewers were members of environmental non-governmental organizations. They have thorough knowledge of the regions in which the survey was made, and the survey process helped them also in collecting valuable information for their NGOs. This was a chance for them to contact people living in these regions and to introduce them to their organizations.
Results
The questions in the questionnaire establish indicators for the investigation of attitudes on two different levels. The first level involves the personal value orientation of the interviewees, measured through their position on the protected areas close to where they live. The aim was to define the priority that the interviewee attributes, among other values, to the environment. Based on this value system, a second level of attitudes is assessed: the position of interviewees on the protection and preservation of wild nature and, in this connection, their perspectives on possible threats to biodiversity and the source of these threats.
Personal Value Orientation
The first set of problems discussed in the survey involves the attitude of the respondents toward their immediate environment and toward nearby protected areas.
The survey data show that the interviewees know their immediate environment in terms of their daily needs. The percentage of those who did not answer the questions about the cleanliness of the air, soil, and water was small. But in most cases, the respondents added that these were their personal evaluations, and that there is a lack of reliable information on environmental conditions in official as well as local publications.
One cannot help but notice that the answers to questions about the environment are expressed not only in terms of environmental quality or cleanliness (i.e., pollution), but also in terms of the diversity of wild nature. Of those surveyed, 57% stated in their answers that there has been a decrease in the number, and even disappearance, of animal and plant species. In the follow-up conversations these answers were made more specific by identifying actual species and the probable reasons for their decrease. The group from Sozopol pointed to wild rabbits, water lilies, and Opuntia cacti on Snake Island as species that may disappear. They see in the bottom trawling of fishing ships a threat to fish diversity. The polluted air in Russe is not seen just as a threat to the people living in the city; many of those interviewed also expressed concerns about the effects on wild nature.
Another major source of concern among respondents (48.3%) is the high level of air pollution in regions near the protected areas and in the protected areas themselves. This percentage can be corrected by taking into consideration the fact that 93.5% of those in the Russe region think that the air in their region is polluted. The situation in the Strandzha region (Sinemorez, Veleka) and in the Rhodope and Central Balkan Mountains is quite different.
The towns and villages where the survey was conducted are, as previously mentioned, close to a large protected area or located within a national park. The intent was to gain answers to questions about public attitudes toward, and knowledge of, these protected areas. The information was used to determine how these areas are seen by the people nearby and how the "clean environment" value rated among other values.
The first point that needs to be made involves the lack of sufficient environmental knowledge and information about the protected areas. A high percentage of the interviewees do not know what a protected area is, what its aims are, how it functions, and what rights and duties citizens have when they are within one. In a number of cases, no distinction is made between a hunting reserve (which is considered to be a protected area, where hunting is allowed, but restricted) and a protected area. The national parks are not seen as protected areas. More widespread is the understanding that some specific species or objects are protected (old trees with fences around them, fish species that cannot be caught, animals that cannot be hunted).
The need for ecological education - education on issues of the protection and conservation of the environment - is obvious. From the interviews, which were conducted by members of the environmental NGOs, it is clear that this is an area where NGOs can be useful. Possible solutions include the development of environmental educational programs, establishment of "green" schools, and the organization of "green" health camps.
Emphasizing such educational programs and related activities would help to overcome the lack of interest and understanding of the principle of protected areas and their role in the preservation of wild nature. The fact that those interviewed in Russe and Svishtov do not know about the existence of the protected area Russenski Lom can only be cause for surprise and bewilderment. Their answers in the questionnaire relate only to the national park in Russe. The results were similar in the Rhodope Mountains, where one out of three persons does not know that she is living in a protected area.
The situation is somewhat different in Pirin, where 95% of those surveyed not only know about, but even like to go into, the protected area. A possible expla-nation for this is that the Pirin region has a long tourism tradition and most local people are connected to it in some way. In other words, knowing the natural resources is of extreme importance for them. The situation in the Central Balkans is similar.
The data from the survey show that the relationship between man and nature is not based only on consumption. The consumer's attitude does not prevail; nature is also conceived of as something of aesthetic importance. People go into the protected areas to enjoy nature, to have a rest, to go for a walk, to perform some of their favorite activities.
The frequency of park visits varies. The percentage of those who answered "I go there often" (28.5%) and "I seldom go there" (39.5%) are almost the same. At the same time, one of every four persons who know about the existence of the protected area have nevertheless never been there. The majority of those who have never been in a park did not answer the question about the ecological situation in their region.
The reasons for not visiting protected areas can be quite different. Some lack the inclination to commune with nature and hold a different understanding of what contact with nature should be. A lot of those interviewed - 6.4% - think that it is forbidden to go into protected areas. Another 15.4% do not know whether visits are allowed. If we add the number of those who did not answer, the result is that one out of five have no understanding of the status of the protected areas. This lack of knowledge is equal among all the three groups of respondents - 34.4% of the committed, 31.3% of the administrators, and 34.4% of the random sample.
According to some, the number of people going into protected areas should not be allowed to increase, since many people would, because of their lack of knowledge or care, destroy valuable species. Others hold an alternative opinion - that increasing the number of visitors would enrich the general degree of knowledge about environmental issues. This would depend upon the type of activities that are conducted in protected areas or parks. Some concerns were raised about the possibility of increased poaching (including the setting up of traps and pitfalls) and random picking of mushrooms, fruits, and herbs, which destroy the flora and the fauna. Some even suggested establishing a corps of "eco-police."
Further evidence of the non-consumption way of thinking about nature comes in the answers to the question: "What did you like most while being in the park?" Respondents were asked to cite four things. Most answers are connected with some aesthetic experience. Out of a total of 459 answers, 325 expressed some sort of aesthetic feeling. The highest percentage cited as one of their four choices the "beauty of nature" (110 frequency units); "animals" (77 f.u.); "plants" (75 f.u.); and "clean air" (56 f.u.), followed by such items as "quiet," "peacefulness," "birds," "water," etc. In other words, aesthetic comprehension was, according to the interviewees, fundamental to the mannature relationship. This aspect of the human attitudes toward nature suggests that aesthetic considerations could and should be used in further efforts to develop a better understanding of nature. As this better understanding of nature develops, it would also create a higher understanding of the needs and responsibilities for nature protection.
The lack of knowledge about conservation of nature is probably one of the reasons why there are no answers that mention other criteria besides the aesthetic ones. Here we are referring to activities involving environmental protection and conservation, such as public information, guards, transportation, places to rest, places for garbage, etc. There are at least three explanations for that: the interviewees have no knowledge about or interest in these criteria; these things are entirely absent and thus do not attract attention; or, the organization is so good that nobody notices it.
The answers to the question "What did you not like while being in the park (mention four things)?" again involve an aesthetic comprehension of nature (or the lack of such comprehension). One of every two interviewees pointed to pollution, litter and waste, lack of garbage cans, etc., as basic sources of discontent in their experiences. One of every three points to the annihilation of trees ("trees are cut off") (37 f.u.) and the lack of care for existing facilities (37 f.u.). Other answers included: "irresponsible attitude of visitors towards nature," "poaching," "building activities which have a destructive and deteriorating effect," "bad safeguards," and even "bad habits of the local population pursuant to nature" (meaning the arbitrary interference of man in nature, such as letting cattle go into the protected area, etc.) Such opinions are expressed basically by the group of the "committed."
Detailed analyses of the answers to these two questions establishes two types of attitude toward the environment. The first is the aesthetic attitude, noted above, which has as its basis a specific object in nature; contact with this object brings aesthetic delight. Among the objects specified are: mountain peaks, caves, rocks, and lakes; plants (wild flowers, grass, forests, duckweed, edelweiss, etc.); animals (wild animals, insects, etc.); and birds (partridge, sea gulls, etc.). This type of attitude typically places higher value on nature and the environment, and gives a higher rating to this value among other values.
The second attitude builds upon contacts with specific natural objects and is based upon previous knowledge about them. Among these natural monuments are: the Cherven fortress, the Vodenichkata, Russenski Canyon, Ropotamo, Haidushka Watermill, Suchuru, Paraklitsa, Liberators' Monument, etc.
A third type of contact with nature is based on understanding of the opportunities provided by the protected territories, such as rest, relaxation, entertainment, and tourism. As noted previously, understanding of these opportunities is relatively limited. Interviewees also cited the opportunities for educating children, preserving nature, and conducting research in protected areas.
These data and problems, and the analyses and conclusions reached, provide a general picture of the relationship between man and nature at the level of the personal value system. They reveal the means of achieving better understanding of nature as a value within the value system of the person.
Social Value Orientation
The second group of problems addressed by the survey involves the man-environment relationship at the level of social values. On the basis of their personal value system, interviewees were asked to evaluate different social activities and their impact on environment, and to identify the possible threats to the biological diversity of wild nature.
Previous surveys, expert evaluations, and analyses carried out in the five regions covered in this survey have dealt with the environmental impact of large enterprises, production processes, industrial wastes, etc. In contrast, this survey looked at other existing and potential threats related to changes in the economic situation in the country. These include the reestablishment of private farms, the opening of small enterprises, building activities, and new forms of tourism.
When asked the question "What will be the impact of private farms to the biodiversity?," 50.3% of those surveyed saw private farming as a potential threat. The highest percentage (67%) was in the Russenski Lom region, and the lowest (42%) in the Strandzha region. The threat of environmental pollution was the leading concern of these respondents.
At the same time, virtually the same proportion of people thinks that private farming may result in the reasonable use of nature. However, this percentage is subject to inexact interpretation due to the high number of those who did not provide answers. Between 15% and 57% expressed support for the adoption of standards for agricultural activities. The reasons for the relatively high level of indifference can be found in the lack of understanding and experience. Another possible explanation is the significant lack of knowledge in this area, which reduces the chance that people would offer answers. The most frequent offered explanations for not taking a stand on the question of standards are: lack of grounds on which to base a comparison; lack of legislative acts and rulings regulating future agricultural activities; and lack of knowledge about new rulings in this field.
It is a troubling fact that the lack of knowledge about the possible consequences of private farming is typical not only for the group of randomly chosen individuals, but also for the so-called administrators. One would expect that they, as representatives of the executive, would have more knowledge and better understanding of the issue.
The lack of certainty and understanding also applies to questions about private agricultural land. A high percentage of respondents - 25% - have not yet decided what to do with their lands. Only 13.6% have decided to become farmers. And this is the group that holds the opinion that private farmers can use biological resources in a reasonable way. The rest, though they have not yet made up their minds how to proceed with their land, have already formed attitudes about the influence of different activities on the environment. Among this group, 49% think that the restitution of private ownership of land is a way to protect the environment, while 64% express the opinion that development of the private sector is an opportunity for the reasonable use of natural resources. There is an almost equal percentage of such answers in all three groups of interviewees.
In future studies, it would be interesting to see how those who rate highly such values as a clean environment and biological diversity view the potential for reasonable use of biological resources through private agriculture.
Those who consider the environment as polluted are more optimistic that it will be used in a reasonable way. Among them, 47.8% are of the opinion that private farming may provide opportunities for nature protection, and 61.1% think that through private farming biological resources can be used in a reasonable way. Many do not see a threat in cattle grazing (66.7%) or in agriculture (55.9%).
When the survey results are analyzed, the percentages of those who gave both positive and negative answers to related questions are close. It may be that in the different situations the lack of experience does not allow the interviewees to give more precise answers.
The preceding statement is supported by the answers to the questions "Do you think that eco-tourism is appropriate for your region?" and "If you think that it is appropriate, how what contributions do you think it would make?" Only a very small number of interviewees did not answer these questions. Because all the regions surveyed include a protected area that is of significant interest for tourism, the interviewees have some experience with this activity and its influence on the environment. 83.4% are of the opinion that eco-tourism is appropriate for their region. In the Pirin region, the percentage is 94%; in the Rhodopes, 95%; in the Central Balkans, 88.4%; and in Strandzha, 81%. According to them, eco-tourism would create new jobs (57.3%), stimulate economic development and profit for the region (59.5%), and increase the level of ecological understanding (56.3%).
But the interviewees would add that while all of this is possible, if must be well organized, supported by good legislation and rulings, and involve fair allocation of tasks and responsibilities, effective enforcement, and knowledge about rights and duties. This statement is illustrated by the fact that 26.7% of those surveyed think that tourism is a possible threat to wild nature. It is clear from the follow-up conversations that they are referring to the behavior of tourists who pick fruits and herbs, cut trees, build fires, set traps for animals, or (in short) damage the ecological bal-ance in the park. According to them, this threat can be avoided through the measures mentioned above.
The greatest threat to biodiversity, according to those interviewed, are building activities. This refers not only to governmental activities (roads, industrial plants, etc.), but also private initiatives (houses, restaurants, cafes, motels, etc.). The highest percentage of those expressing such concerns was found in the region of Russe (75%); next in rank were those from the Black Sea region, and then the Rhodope Mountains and Pirin regions.
Another potential threat to biodiversity cited by those surveyed was the restitution of private ownership and the lack of legislative regulation in this area. In this respect they pointed primarily to the problem of forests and their protection. However, we should also mention that a large proportion of those surveyed (64.3%) think that restitution of private ownership will not have negative consequences for the environment if small enterprises (dairy farms, wood processing enterprises, craft industries, etc.) are established. Among the activities mentioned as having a deteriorating effect were: building activities (69.2%); restitution of private ownership (36.9%); small enterprises (35.7%); farming (27.7%); tour-ism (26.75%); and cattle grazing (26.3%).
The answers to the question "Have any changes taken place in the state administration and legislation concerning environmental protection?" reveal a troubling picture regarding public opinion of governmental structures and legislation. There is a deep mistrust of the authorities directly responsible for environmental protection. The lack of changes at the municipal level is stressed by 91% of those surveyed. Many do not even know about the existence of these local agencies. And the majority of those who do know about their existence hold the opinion that the persons working on environmental protection in these local agencies are not qualified for this job.
The attitude toward legislative changes is no less pessimistic; 79.8% think that such changes have not occurred. Unfortunately, neither the questionnaire nor the subsequent interviews can tell us whether this reflects a lack of knowledge about the effective laws in that field or a true lack of changes.
The same holds true with regard to funds from the state budget for the conservation, protection, and development of the reserves, parks, and other protected areas. Among those surveyed, 94% are of the opinion that there are no such funds. Many of them realize that, notwithstanding government funds, some additional sources must be found.
Many different proposals were offered in answer to the question "Can you describe two different ways to use natural resources that will be profitable for your region?" Most are compatible with the protection of biodiversity. Out of a total of 405 proposals, 233 involve the development of tourism. Most relate to eco-tourism opportunities, but there are also proposals for "eco-education," "eco-advertisement," "eco-colleges," etc. There are also many other tourism-related suggestions: hunting, farm tourism, fishing, sea tourism, etc. Other less frequently mentioned proposals involved small enterprises (23 f.u.; wood processing, dairy farms, local crafts); cattle raising (17 f.u.); and agriculture (12 f.u.; of particular interest were suggestions to use greenhouses and natural hot springs for vegetable production).
Ideas were also offered regarding the development of protected areas for entertainment tourism, with entrance tickets, small motels nearby, tourism guides, visitor centers, fines, and "eco-police." Also interesting were proposals to establish small water power stations and to develop sport activities. From these answers, it can be generally concluded that legislation is needed to implement these proposals.
The commitment of those surveyed to the idea of biodiversity protection and the reasonable use of natural resources is also expressed in the number of proposals regarding specific natural sites or protected species. It should be noted that many of these proposals relate to already protected sites and species. There are two possible explanations for this: either the interviewees are unaware of their protected status, or they are poorly maintained.
The many proposals fell into five groups. One group consisted of proposals that focused on the protection of plant species:
- lilac, yews, sycamore, rocky formations (close to the village of Sokolzi village), and forests in the Rhodope Mountains;
- centuries-old trees (Koritoto), Baikusheva white fir, the Big Fir Tree, thyme, and edelweiss in the Pirin region;
- wild raspberries, silver fir tree, alpine rose, high mountain cotton, edelweiss, and introduced sequoia in the Central Balkan region; and
- sand lily (Kavazite) and the dry tree in the Strandzha region.
A second group consisted of proposals concerned with the protection of certain animal species:
- partridge and fishes in the Black Sea region;
- wild goat, trout, and deer in the Central Balkans; and
- partridge, wild pigs, deer, fishes, and otter in the Rhodope Mountains.
The third group consisted of proposals concerned with the protection of rivers, lakes, waterfalls:
- the Gorno Smolian waterfall and the waterfalls in the Rhodope Mountains;
- the riparian areas of the Strouma River near Blagoevgrad as a bird migration site;
- the waterfalls, springs, and reservoirs of the Central Balkans;
- the Veleka and Ropotamo Rivers; and
- the environs of the Russenski Lom and Popovite Rivers and the Vardim wetlands.
The fourth group consisted of proposals that pertained to rocks, caves, and rocky formations:
- the rocks in the Rhodopes, and the "Snezhanka" cave;
- the Boichova cave, near the village of Logondar;
- rocky grottos (near the village of Ivanovo), the caves near Pirgovo and Cherven, the "Orlova chuka" cave, the rocks at the Beli Lon River, and the rock "Mashulia."
The fifth group consisted of proposals that involved particular areas:
- the Rhodope Mountains, Karamush, Kormisosh, Dzhenevra, Kemirov, the Roman Bridges;
- Rila and Pirin, Parangalitsa, the "Bodrost" area, the Kresna defile gorge, and the "Ivan Kozarev" fishery;
- Apostolova forest, Suchuru, Dzhendema, Kozia Stena, Stara reka, and Bashbunar in the Central Balkans;
- Kalani Brohtersnext to Ispiritsa, Snake Island, the sand strip at the Kavatsi, Koreniata, the Pearl, the Sea Garthen, the Botanic Garthen, the Aladzha Monastery, Pobitite Kamani, and Galata;
- the park Lipnik, "Obraztzov Chiflik," Kaleto, and Belenska forest next to Yantra river, connecting the Beli Lom protected area with the National Park next to Pisanets, Bear fishery, and the Saint Dimitrius Besarab monastery.
People who have expressed a higher degree of commitment to the environment and its protection, and who have also given specific advice and proposals, are primarily between 35 and 45 years old. In most cases, their profession or other activities are connected with nature. They are biologists, foresters, agronomists, rangers, people connected with tourism, anglers, hunters, etc. Represented to a lesser degree are those who work in the social sciences, teachers, artists, pharmacists, and physicians.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results and analysis of an opinion poll of 500 people conducted in five regions close to protected areas and valuable in terms of their wealth of wild nature, we can draw the following conclusions:
1. The environment is one of the basic values, and among the main values, in determining the quality of life.
2. In most cases, individual attitudes toward the environment and biodiversity are influenced by the person's life needs. Her first reaction is to evaluate the cleanness of air, soils, and waters. Only then will she pay attention to the problems of preserving biodiversity and achieving more reasonable use of biological resources.
3. The survey indicates that there exists an aesthetic perception of wild nature among those interviewed, and that it may be possible to develop this perception into a cognitive attitude toward nature. The development of a cognitive attitude toward nature is also the first prerequisite for forming a general understanding in favor of nature conservation.
4. The survey reveals a general lack of ecological knowledge. The majority does not know what protected area are, what their aims are, or what rights people in these areas have. Many of them do not differentiate between hunting reserves and a nature reserve, and do not know that the parks are protected areas. But the majority wishes to protect a number of animals, plants, areas, and natural monuments.
5. In this respect, one can see clearly the need for ecological education and the development of ecological awareness. This is where environmental NGOs can play an important role by initiating a wide range of activities (organizing eco-schools, green patrols, etc.). Their experts may organize seminars, workshops, and discussions, and communicate information through the national media (some of the NGOs have already begun this).
6. According to those surveyed, a reasonable way to use natural resources is to develop tourism. A majority holds the opinion that the development of eco-tourism can combine the need for economic development of the regions where they live with the protection and conservation of wild nature. However, there is some concern that the lack of legislation and regulations to develop eco-tourism opportunities may threaten some precious species.
7. The development of private agriculture, farms, and other private activities is controversial. There is a clear-cut division of attitudes. Those surveyed are equally divided between those who see these activities as real threats to biological diversity and those who consider private farming as a way to reasonably use biological resources.
8. The basic concern with regard to land restitution involves the protection of forests.
9. The highest percentage of these surveyed identified building activities close to or within the protected areas poses as the greatest danger (among those threats enumerated) to biodiversity.
10. There is also a clear-cut opinion that imperfect (or totally non-existent) legislation and rulings regu lating ecological problems have had, and will have, the worst impact on protection of the environment.
11. Accordingly, the lack of changes in legislation and the lack of application of existing provisions are seen as hindrances to environmental protection by those surveyed. They see no changes in the local administrative personnel, nor in the staff of agencies in charge of the environmental programs. In many cases, the staff personnel in the environmental departments of the municipalities are literally unknown, or are seen in a negative light.