Report of the Bulgarian Bird Protection Society

Peter Yankov

Summary

The following report has been prepared by the Bulgarian Bird Protection Society (BBPS), the largest ornithological organization in Bulgaria. It presents the BBPS' view-point on the state of biological diversity - especially that of birds and their habitats - in Bulgaria, the existing threats to it, and ways to preserve it. A considerable amount of information and expert knowledge has gone into this report, ensuring that it is representative and objective.

The first part of the report, which has been prepared by ornithological experts, begins with an overview of the current status and trends in the biological diversity of bird species, bird habitats, ornithological communities, and protected areas established to conserve bird populations and habitats. We present a detailed analysis of the major national-scale threats to biological diversity, including the misuse of natural resources, privatization, construction of public utilities, various agricultural activities, industrial air, water, and soil pollution, the generation and deposition of waste, and other activities. Threats to particular bird species are examined through specific examples, with an emphasis on rare species and rare and vulnerable habitats and communities. Special attention is paid to protected areas established to protect bird species.

The overall state of biological diversity provides no reason for us to be optimistic. A considerable number of species (outnumbering the positive trend species) are in real danger of extinction, while habitats and communities that are valuable to biological diversity face great pressures. In reality, all of the activities that are analyzed pose a threat to globally endangered species and to the habitats and communities that are most valuable in terms of biological diversity.

We provide a thorough analysis of the efficiency of protected areas management and its impact on the conservation of biological diversity. The main reasons for the deplorable state of the majority of protected areas are enumerated: the double standard of state control and protection of protected areas, and the total absence of a system to maintain, manage, and provide security for the protected areas.

We also assess the impact of protected areas on local economies, showing that many possibilities have been left unexplored due to a lack of awareness of modern methods of nature protection and biological resource use and to the inadequacy of current economic structures. The potential of strong incentives to encourage local people to protect their natural resources has also been left unexplored.

The BBPS's viewpoint on important bird areas in Bulgaria (both protected areas and prospective protected areas) that require stronger protection is laid out. The specific activities and measures to be taken are elaborated. A special map of important bird places in need of stronger protection is included.

Supportive arguments on the institutional changes that the BBPS deems necessary to conserve Bulgaria's biological diversity are provided. The first of these is to put an end to the dualism in the control of protected areas (relieving the Committee of Forests of this responsibility and delegating it to a special agency or service of the Ministry of Environment). We propose that the NGOs, with government financial support, be more extensively involved in the direct maintenance, management, and security of protected areas.

We propose legislative changes to ensure the protection and conservation of areas of international and national significance - even if this entails bad feelings on the part of some local administrators. We also propose that the government reimburse local people or authorities for any damages that may occur as a result of conservationaz initiatives.

The BBPS also provides arguments in support of the idea that local revenues from "high quality" protected areas (e.g., those with interesting bird and plant species, beautiful landscapes, "wild" places, etc.) will provide the strongest guarantee of, and both moral and pragmatic motivation to local people for, the defense of protected areas. We also propose programs for sustainable development in regions that face difficulties in implementing the standard approaches to biological diversity.

The second part of the paper deals with the results of the survey that the BBPS conducted among 100 people from Rousse, Svishstov, and Vardim. We point out that the majority of people, although ignorant of specific elements of biological diversity (and they are not the ones to blame for this), are sensitive to the problems of the conservation of biological diversity and willing to participate directly in solving these problems.

Expert assessments of the major threats to biological diversity in the regions where the survey was conducted were prepared by the BBPS, and these are compared to the views of local people. The major threats include the misuse of natural resources, privatization, construction of public utilities, agricultural activities, private initiatives, industrial pollution, and waste generation and deposition. We also address questions involving the impact of protected areas on the local economy, necessary institutional reforms to strengthen the protected areas network, and possibilities for integrating nature protection and economic development. There are great similarities between the views of local people and the assessments of the BBPS.

Introduction

The Bulgarian Bird Protection Society (BBPS) was founded in 1988 as a nongovernmental, nonpolitical, and nonprofit organization. Its currently has 602 members, and branches in all of the country's larger towns and a number of smaller ones. The main purpose of the BBPS is to carry out activities involving the conservation of birds and their habitats. An essential part of its work is educating people in nature protection. The BBPS also works in close cooperation with other nongovernmental, governmental, and local organizations on matters of bird and nature protection in Bulgaria.

Some of the BBPS's positive accomplishments include a sharp increase in the number of some rare and threatened bird species, a weakening of the impact of some negative factors on birds and their habitats, the raising of public awareness, and the involvement of young, local people in nature protection. The BBPS, because of its firm stand on a number of issues, its healthy relations with related organizations, and its willingness to cooperate with other organizations, is highly respected both within the country and abroad. The BBPS is a member of BirdLife International (the former International Council for Bird Protection, or ICBP) and represents Bulgaria in this organization.

Information Sources

The following sources of information have been used in preparing this report:

Experts' Report

1. Trends in Biological Diversity

Bird Species

The present state of bird species diversity in Bulgaria can be characterized by the 383 species that have been identified on the territory of the country. Of these, four species (Gypaetus barbatus, Falco biarmicus, Tetrao tetrix, and Tetrax tetrax) are considered extinct in Bulgaria's fauna. However, over 30 new bird species have been identified in Bulgaria in the last few decades. It should be pointed out that this is due in part to the greater coverage of ornithological surveys, and to the fact that the status of the habitats of all 30 species is favorable. Taking into account the fact that nearly all the rare or endangered species whose habitats are threatened exhibit a negative population trend, we can very well assume that the overall trend in ornithological diversity in our country is negative. This assumption is supported by the fact that the 164 bird species that are endangered in one way or another (Yankov et al., 1988) far outnumber the newly found 30 species. These negative trends are easier to observe on a local scale, where not only is the area smaller but the changes in the species' status more markedly visible.

Bird Habitats

Of the major bird habitats listed in the CORINE Biotopes Project (Tucker and Heath, 1992), 37 can be found in Bulgaria: 8 Coastal and Halophytic Communities (nos. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19); 4 Non-Marine Habitats (nos. 21, 22, 23, 24); 7 Scrub and Grassland Communities (nos. 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38); 4 Woodlands (nos. 41, 42, 43, 44); 3 Bogs and Marshes (nos. 51, 52, 53); 3 Rocky Habitats (nos. 61, 62, 65); and 8 Agricultural and Highly Artificial Landscapes (nos. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88). Twenty-two of these are endangered in one way or another (from the point of view of their importance to birds). Ten habitats are threatened with extinction. The ones that have been most badly hit are the few small, unique habitats such as Mud Flats and Sand Flats, Salt Marshes, Coastal Sand Dunes, Islets and Rock Stacks, Lagoons, and Standing Water (brackish). Even small-scale, regional economic activities can bring an end to their existence in terms of bird life. This is, of course, very dangerous, since their extinction can only be recorded post factum.

There is another set of endangered habitats that falls into a different category: the larger dry calcareous grassland habitats, pseudosteppe, humid grasslands, and tall herb communities. Impending changes in land use may partially or completely alter them. Broad-leaved deciduous woodlands and alluvial and very wet forests can also be considered threatened habitats due to massive, uncontrolled deforestation and global warming. There is no doubt that a negative general trend in bird species diversity can be observed. The sharp reduction in their number (i.e., extinction on a regional scale) and the extinction of several species with strictly specialized habitats both point in this direction. These specialized species include Anthropoides virgo, Grus grus, Tetrax tetrax, and others.

Ornithological Communities

The trends in the state of ornithological communities can only be broadly defined due to the lack of any data on the development of the various types of ornithological cenoses. There are reasons for us to believe, however, that the diversity of ornithological communities is decreasing. This is especially true for some wetland, steppe, and petrophilic communities.

Ornithological Protected Areas

It can definitely be concluded that there is a positive trend in ornithological protected areas. They have increased in number since the early 1970s. Nevertheless, many ornithologically significant areas (some of them of international significance) are unprotected. The example of Shabla Lake says much on this point. This is the winter camp of some 100,000 (as of January 1993) wild geese, and virtually the entire population of Branta ruficollis on earth - 69,000 individuals.

2. Major Threats to Biological Diversity

Resource Utilization

a) Bird Species

It might sound paradoxical, but there are species in Bulgaria's Red Data Book that are at the same time pursued as hunting objects. Such is the case with Tetrao urogallu, which can only be found in high mountainous areas and whose total population amounts to just 500-800 pairs. The situation is the same with Scolopax rusticola, whose population in the country is only 10-15 pairs, and with Gallinago gallinago, which is extinct as a nesting species in Bulgaria. Hunting has also threatened the local subspecies of Phasianus colchicus colchicus, although the main threat it faces remains hybridization with foreign subspecies that have been introduced by the Bulgarian Hunters' Union.

Hunting, as an activity that uses natural resources, is also an indirect threat to protected species, which are often killed because of hunters' ignorance or poaching. Poaching has recently become quite widespread. Among the species affected are several globally threatened species: Phalacrocorax pygmeus, Anser erythropus, Branta ruficollis, Marmaronetta angustirostris, Oxyura leucocephala, Crex crex, Numenius teniurostris, etc. (Grimmett and Jones, 1989). Hunting is one of the major threats to a number of other low population species, including a number of the larger European birds (Code of Practice, 1992). There are 19 endangered species from this group in Bulgaria, 6 of which are hunted. In the past few years, there has been a trend toward the selling and keeping of songbirds, which will inevitably affect some rare and endangered species.

Some other harvesting activities, although not directly targeted toward birds, pose a threat to Bulgaria's ornithological diversity. Detonation mining threatens the nesting population of Gyps fulvus, one of the colonies of Falco naumanni, nesting places of Neophron percnopterus, Buteo rufinus, Ciconia nigra, and other species. Marble mining and quarrying threaten a number of rock-nesting birds, among which are some rare and vulnerable species. The use of forests for timber production is a serious threat to some rare species of woodpeckers, screech owls, daytime birds of prey, and others. A special place in this list of threats can be assigned to fish breeding in breeding ponds, which seriously threatens a number of highly vulnerable wading birds, such as Phalacrocorax pygmeus, Botaurus stelaris, and the two pelican species, Pelecanus crispus and P. onocrotalus.

Salt mining poses a special kind of threat to the many species whose living has always depended on it. Typical representatives of this group include Recurvirostra avosetta, Himantopus himantopus, and Charadrius alexandrinus. They may well disappear from Bulgaria's fauna if the conventional way of mining salt in the Atanasovsko and the Pomoriisko Lakes is changed.

b) Bird Habitats

The threat that some mining activities pose to bird habitats were only briefly discussed in the previous section. Our observations up until now have shown that habitats are much more seriously affected by this set of activities than the species themselves. Ranking these threats by their scope is not an easy task, but the timber industry is undoubtedly in the lead as the most dangerous. The timber industry has been developing at an ever-growing scale in the past few years and has hit hard the old primary forests along the Bulgarian border, which were known to be in prime condition. This is how the last nesting habitats of Aegypius monachus were destroyed in the Eastern Rhodopes back in the 1980s, which in turn was the main reason for the extinction of this bird as a nesting species. This, we can definitely speak of the massive, unchecked over exploitation of forests in the past three years as the principal threat to habitats.

The increase in marble and stone mining also comes as a threat to a number of rare bird habitats. Unlike forests, however, these habitats are destroyed once and for all. Here we should also mention the felling of hollow trees in forests, along river banks, and in other places. This deprives a number of species, including several that are rare and endangered, of their nesting places. Some of the affected species are Columba oenas, Aegolius funereus, Strix uralensis, and Coracias garrulus. Mining affects birds not only directly but, in many cases, indirectly. For example, this can happen when relatively wild areas inhabited by rare species or species that require isolation suddenly become centers of activity (e.g., the valley of the Biala Reka River in the Eastern Rhodopes). Sometimes only one step forward in mining activity is required to ruin a unique habitat of a strictly specialized local species. This is how one of the very few habitats of Glareola pratincola was destroyed near the salt mines in Pomorie.

c) Ornithological Communities/Ecosystems

We have already discussed the destruction of a petrophilic community in the Eastern Rhodopes as a result of detonation activities in one of the mines. The same can be observed with the mining of materials such as marble or stone (for example, each year sand-pits destroy populations of birds that nest underground).

Populations of birds related to hyperhalinic reservoirs are particularly vulnerable (and among the most threatened). There are currently only two such populations in Bulgaria, and even slight changes in mining technology will mean certain destruction for them.

d) Ornithological Protected Areas

Unfortunately mining threatens even protected areas. The most telling example is Vardim Island. The island happens to be one of the last remaining habitats of colonial nesting wading birds. It is also internationally significant in that it is one of Bulgaria's last two nesting habitats of Haliaeetus albicilla. Some time ago, however, Vardim was classified as a lower ranking reserve and the strict controls on activities there were lifted. At the moment, poplar trees are being planted on the reserve's territory, and hunting and other activities are allowed, making it impossible for the pair of sea eagles to survive.

Illegal wood harvesting activities in the 1980s inflicted considerable damage on the Valchi Dol reserve. Mining is still a threat to Kovankay, a natural landmark, and other sites.

Industrial fishing in Bourgas Lake keeps its protected west end from being the internationally significant ornithological area it can yet be.

Privatization

a) Bird Species

It is difficult to assess correctly the threat that privatization poses to various bird species because the process has not yet reached its peak. Therefore, we still do not know what the impacts on wildlife will be. If privatization leads to the disappearance of the huge blocks of monocultures and introduces shrub and tree zones into the landscape, this will be favorable to some species and detrimental to others. In any case, species of the vast, open areas that cannot tolerate frequent or close human presence (e.g., Otis tarda, Aquila heliaca, and Circus pygargus) will be threatened.

Privatization, if it leads to the cultivation of new fields adjacent to existing ones or to the distribution of land to new people, will also have negative impacts on species such as Crex crex, Vanellus vanellus, and Falco vespertinus.

The possibility of privatization of pastures in Dobrudzha and along the Black Sea Coast, and the potentially drastic modification of the steppe zones will place a question mark on the existence of a number of species that are typical for that region, such as Melanocorypha calandra, Calandrela brachydactyla, and Burhinus oedicnemus. There will be problems with the damage that birds inflict on private farms and the harsh treatment of birds by farmers.

The question of ownership of wild animals and plants that happen to occur within private property boundaries deserves special attention. If new legislation fails to settle this issue, a number of bird species will be threatened, especially those that live on agricultural lands, such as Otis tarda, Aquila heliaca, and Falco vespertinus (as well as those that depend on fisheries, forests, and other resources).

b) Bird Habitats

Privatization is equally dangerous to bird habitats. The efforts of new owners to expand their cultivated land base will inevitably harm habitats of birds that live next to private lands or in open fields and pastures. We have no reason to believe that farmers or other private land-owners will care about wildlife, birds in particular, in the same way that they care about their own property. Changes in the cropping patterns in Dobrudzha may affect the trophic structure of the habitats of wild geese, and destroy their Shabla and Durankoulac wintering grounds. The greater share of private property in the country's economy would lead to the maximum utilization of land. "Obscure" places that happen to be important bird habitats, together with those that are considered to have no value, would suffer or even disappear.

c) Ornithological Communities/Ecosystems

Privatization may pose a threat to some rare or sporadically distributed bird communities. Birds that depend upon salt have already been mentioned. The privatization and subsequent technological modernization of salt production would definitely put an end to the communities there.

d) Ornithological Protected Areas

If existing legislation is enforced (and not amended), protected areas should not be directly threatened by privatization.

Construction of Public Utilities

a) Bird Species

The information we have indicates that the various public utilities pose a serious threat to the survival of a number of scarce and rare bird species. For example, collision with utility lines accounts for 16% of the total number of deaths among Gyps fulvus (Yankov and Profirov, 1991). Our many years of observations in the region of the Atanasovo Lake Reserve have shown that it only takes one high voltage wire running across an area that is densely populated with birds to kill hundreds of individuals that belong to rare species (e.g., Larus genei, Recurvirostra avosetta, Sterna albifrons). High voltage wires are a serious threat to the white stork (Ciconia ciconia), swans (Cygnus spp.), both species of pelicans, some birds of prey, and other species.

Transformers are equally dangerous to some rare bird species, including Tyto alba. Highways and other heavy traffic roads pose a threat to some owls (Tyto alba, Asio flammeus, Bubo bubo), some daytime birds of prey (Falco columbarius, Circus spp., Caprimulgus europaeus), and, during cold winters, even Botaurus stellaris. In most cases, these birds go to the roads to find easy food.

Rare bird species can be led to total extinction by the construction of dams in the places they occupy. One of the main reasons behind the extinction of the pink pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus) was the transformation of Mandren Lake by a dam, thus changing drastically the species' habitat. The Bulgarian fauna lost two nesting species in a similar way (Grus grus and Gallinago gallinago) when the Batik Swamp was turned into a reservoir. Dams can also threaten birds indirectly, by attracting lots of people into secluded, not easily accessible places - the habitats of large birds that are intolerant of human beings. This is extremely dangerous in view of the further human invasion of the remaining patches of wilderness.

b) Bird Habitats

Public utilities are, as a rule, a large threat to the habitats of most bird species. This is particularly true of larger scale facilities, from the Black Sea coast all the way to the highest mountainous areas. For example, the Mandra dam and the Yasna Polyana dam disturbed greatly the hydrologic balance of the Ropotamo River. Many other examples could be cited. Sometimes small public utility projects turn out to be extremely dangerous because, unlike big projects, they may be built without any assessment by environmental experts, may be located in secluded places, or may be discovered too late for anything to be done about them.

c) Ornithological Communities/Ecosystems

The above discussion applies in full to ornithological communities because of the close link between them and the bird habitats.

d) Ornithological Protected Areas

Unfortunately, experience has taught us that it is entirely possible to destroy completely a natural reserve (specifically, the Baltata Reserve) by building a resort and constructing a road that cuts right through the middle of the reserve. The Alepu, Ropotamo, and part of the Poda Reserve are threatened in a similar way. The Alepu Swamp is in grave danger. If construction work on the planned international college is completed there, Alepu will find itself sandwiched between the college and the Duni resort village. The same college is also threatening the Ropotamo Reserve. Future intensive construction work will sorely tax the survival capacities of many protected areas in Bulgaria.

Farming

a) Bird Species

Many agricultural activities can be directly linked to the destruction of birds. It is well known that mowing and harvesting deplete the populations of birds that nest in the fields. Our data have shown that this factor is of particular significance for the survival of Crex crex, Circus pygargus, and other species. Pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals are directly responsible, too, for the destruction of birds. The campaign against rodents in the winter of 1988-89 is a sorry chapter that resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds. The laying of traps and the setting out of poisonous or sonorous baits for undesirable wild species can also be classified as direct threats to birds. Vultures, some of the large eagles, and other birds of prey are in particular danger. The extinction of some bird species, such as Coracias garrulus, in some regions in the country in the late 1970s coincided with the widespread use of pesticides. In some regions of the country (i.e., Bourgas), traditional wild hog breeding inflicts considerable damage on ground-nesting species, including Recurvirostra avosetta, Himantopus himantopus, Glareola pratincola, and seagull species.

b) Bird Habitats

Of all agricultural activities in Bulgaria, the draining of swamps has had the gravest consequences for bird habitats. Hundreds of square kilometers of wetlands have been destroyed (the Straldzha Swamp alone once covered over 100 km2). The wetlands that remain can hardly provide a secure future for the biological diversity of the bird species that are associated with them.

Other harmful agricultural activities include the use of fertilizers and pesticides that run off into reservoirs during rainy weather. The widespread burning of stubble fields in the last ten years has also had a negative impact on the habitats of a number of birds. Livestock breeding, to some extent, also poses a threat to some bird species. Goat breeding, for example, has led to extensive degradation of forest habitats. Pig farms and other farms located along rivers pollute the rivers and hence the habitats of a number of bird species that need clean water.

A new, quite serious threat might emerge with Bulgaria's closer ties to the European Community and the intensification of farming that is expected to result. Adopting the principle of maximum profit in farming might mean that no more insects and weeds, some of which are valuable food items for birds, will be tolerated. This will cause a sharp drop in habitat quality and will lead to a phenomenon that is well known in developed countries: the extinction of common, widespread bird species.

c) Ornithological Communities/Ecosystems

Practically all of the threats discussed above hold true for ornithological communities. Ornithocenoses and agricultural systems, of course, fall into the highest risk category, and in many cases other communities (mainly wading birds) will be affected.

d) Ornithological Protected Areas

The case of the Valley of Bustards Reserve is a well known one. This project was sabotaged by local people who had planned that this area would be farmed. We do not have in mind in this case the direct negative impacts of farming practices on protected areas, but such clashes of interests and the direct interference of farming with neighboring protected areas should not overlooked. For example, free-ranging hogs in the Bourgas region damage populations of rare and endangered species, including those found in protected areas (e.g., Atanasovsko Lake and Poda).

Private Initiative

a) Bird Species

We have no data on the negative impacts of small private enterprises or establishments on bird species, but we bear in mind the possibility that some of them may endanger some rare species once this sector becomes more diversified.

b) Bird Habitats

The course of private initiative up until now makes it difficult to predict potential threats to bird habitats. Some observations, though, suggest that it is possible for some small private hotels or restaurants to threaten the nesting or roosting places of rare birds that are located right next to them. We have reason to believe that with rising public interest in wildlife, the negative impacts of this factor will increase.

c) Ornithological Communities/Ecosystems

We have no data on threats resulting from these activities.

d) Ornithological Protected Areas

The expected increase in private construction projects will definitely lead to an increased threats to protected areas.

Industrial Air, Soil, and Water Pollution

a) Bird Species

The main threat to some rare species comes from oil spills and so-called oil traps. These threats have been identified along the Black Sea coast, mainly in the Shabla, Tuylenovo, and Bourgas regions, and south of Bourgas, where we have come upon dead birds from various species, including Tringa stagnatilis, Halietor pygmeus, Egretta alba, and Larus melanocephalus, all dripping with oil. This threat also exists within the country, where oil-related deaths have been reported for birds such as Accipiter gentilis. Many birds die in the reservoirs outside of Bourgas, and throughout the country, that are heavily polluted with oil and other chemicals.

b) Bird Habitats

Aquatic habitats and those near water suffer the most from pollution. A considerable number of wetlands near Bourgas are impossible for birds to use for this reason. Industrial pollution and other forms of pollution in rivers have destroyed the habitats of species such as Alcedo atthis and Cinclus cinclus. We can definitely say that important habitats, especially those close to industrial sites in the mountains, are being severely damaged or destroyed.

c) Ornithological Communities/Ecosystems

The poor quality of habitats as a result of industrial pollution inevitably damages ornithological communities. The pollution of wetlands in and near Bourgas accounts for the poor diversity of the wading bird communities and for the absence of any of the most sensitive (hence rare) species. The same holds true for other ornithological communities that reside near polluted reservoirs, as well as inland bird communities in areas of industrial pollution.

d) Ornithological Protected Areas

Of the protected areas that are threatened by industrial pollution, the protected area in the western part of the Vaya Lake faces the greatest threat because of the oil refinery that heavily pollutes its waters. The Poda protected areas and the Atanasovsko Lake Reserve are threatened by the same polluter.

Waste Generation and Accumulation

a) Bird Species

We have no data available on the damage due to waste or the direct threat that waste poses for birds. In some individual cases (rare vulture species, seagulls, etc.), birds feed in the territory of landfills, but no deaths have been reported.

b) Bird Habitats

The widespread practice (mainly in smaller towns and villages) of depositing household waste in reservoirs is a serious threat to the habitats of some rare species. In many cases, excellent wetland and aquatic habitats are clogged with waste (e.g., Novi Iskar and the sand quarries next to Slanchev Briag).

c) Ornithological Communities/Ecosystems

This factor is a threat to some ornithological communities near water, including rare wetland communities and communities of species that nest underground.

d) Ornithological Protected Areas

Although we have no data available on the direct threat that waste accumulation poses for protected areas, the northern bank of the Vaya River was used as a landfill until recently. (Remedial activities are now underway). The Poda Reserve near Bourgas is seriously threatened by the project (already completed) for draining polluted reservoirs through the protected area itself.

Other Damaging Activities

a) The capturing of rare species and foreign trade in eggs

This is still a small-scale phenomenon, and threatens mainly rare birds of prey that are suitable for falcon breeding.

b) Efforts to remove the protection of some birds of prey in order to legalize falcon breeding

A number of key officials in the Bulgarian Hunters' and Fishermen's Union have been working in this area. The legalization of falcon breeding and the lifting of restrictions on some species of birds of prey will inflict irreparable damages on the populations of all species of birds of prey in the country because of the inability of hunters to recognize different bird species.

c) Increasing numbers of stray dogs and other animals

Stray dogs, jackals, and wild boars, which have become quite numerous lately, seriously damage populations of ground-nesting species, including those in protected areas. The destructive eating of pelican eggs by wild boars in the Srebarna Reserve was brought to an end when the BBPS built a special fence around the pelican colony. The situation is similar in the Atanasovsko Lake Reserve, where artificial islands for the birds were built.

3. Adequate Maintenance of Protected Areas and Pres-ervation of Biological Diversity

It should be stated explicitly that, with few exceptions, there are no management plans for protected areas in Bulgaria, nor special managerial and maintenance staff assigned to them. (In developed countries, the owners of the respective protected areas can take on some of these functions.) It might sound paradoxical, but none of the protected areas in Bulgaria have any security staff - even though "on paper" a forest trooper is held responsible for each of them, and security personnel are obliged to report to the Committee of Forests. Over the past 24 years we have repeatedly visited protected areas throughout the country - hundreds of times, both individually and in groups - and we have never been approached by any security officer or been asked for any identification. Protected areas, for the most part, are protected on paper only. It is a wonder that most of them still retain their valuable natural features. At the same time, many protected areas are in a severely bad state; the Srebarna case is only the tip of the iceberg.

It can be concluded from this situation that regulations are not in place to establish adequate ownership, maintenance, and management and security practices for the protected areas. Under Bulgarian legislation, part of Bulgaria's protected areas can be used for recreational purposes. Most of them are highly valuable in terms of the landscape, ecosystems, and the animal species that inhabit them. Nevertheless, the use of protected areas for recreation has been widely abused. These sites have not been appreciated for what they are. People believe they are simply beautiful surroundings where they can carry out their normal activities (such as the building of resorts, hotels, and restaurants, as at Vitosha, The Golden Sands, Sinite Kamani), play sports just as in the park at home, harvest any natural resource (such as mushrooms, berries, and other fruits at Vitosha) or even annex illegally parts of them for farming (Rusenski Lom). There are very few people who do not seek tangible profits from such places. This might be due in part to the usual Bulgarian pragmatism, but the low level of environmental awareness and the lack of environmental education certainly plays a role. For example, one hardly ever sees people with binoculars out in the forests.

4. The Impact of Protected Areas on Local Economies

The examples given above only show that most people now have a very primitive and narrow-minded understanding of nature's resources and the appropriate ways to utilize them. As a rule, they use those resources directly in ways that inevitably damage nature, violating the principle of sustainable development. People, for the most part, are unaware of modern ways of doing business without violating the integrity of natural sites. International hunting tourism, for example, offers profound evidence in this respect, a somewhat sad fact (this does not apply to protected areas). Therefore it is not surprising that, in reality, protected areas do not bring any revenues to municipalities. This explains the lack of interest among local people and local authorities. It is paradoxical from a European point of view that local authorities would gladly transform a unique natural site into a pile of timber or a wagon full of fish as long as regulations do not get in their way. This explains the widespread poaching that has affected protected areas as well.

5. Sites in Need of Official Protection

A number of existing ornithological protected areas require additional measures to upgrade and maintain them. The important ornithological sites that require further protection are represented in the chart (see Appendix 1). Protected areas of no ornithological significance, together with some small ornithological protected areas (heron colonies, single nesting places, etc.) are not listed, even though measures are needed for their protection and maintenance. Some of the areas to be protected are described in the system of Important Bird Areas in Europe (Grimmett and Jones, 1989) and in BBPS' paper on important bird areas in the Rhodope Mountains (Petrov and Yankov, in press). These two types of areas are marked with red and green. It should be noted that Bulgaria's ornithological fauna has not been studied thoroughly, and therefore it is quite possible that some other areas requiring protection exist.

The first measure to be taken for the important bird areas is to ensure their protection. In some cases, when towns, roads, and other human features make it impossible to designate large protected areas, a more flexible approach should be adopted. Ways should be sought to combine the various categories of protected areas and to carry out the actual protection of the areas in line with the principles of sustainable development.

Stronger protection of areas that are already protected can be achieved by defining clearly their ownership, management responsibilities, and any other related functions, by hiring management and maintenance staff, and by adopting meaningful management plans.

6. Institutional Changes Necessary to Facilitate the Conservation of Biological Diversity

The most serious institutional problems involving the conservation of Bulgaria's biological diversity come from the existing dualism in the legal status of the protected areas. Because 70% of the protected areas belong on paper to the forest fund, the Committee of Forests is responsible for their management, security, and control. The Ministry of Environment, as the highest state nature protection institution, also exercises control over their conservation. At the same time, the COF performs a number of economic functions, including forest harvesting (logging, hunting, international hunting tourism, etc). What is more, the Chairman of the COF has the power to make decisions that enjoy the status of decrees, and that can contradict the Ministry's stand on different matters. (Such, for example, was Order 31/20.01.1993 of the Chairman of the COF, extending the hunting period for wading birds till the end of February. His Order was based on the Law on Hunting despite strong disapproval from MOE specialists.) This example illustrates well enough the deplorable state of protected areas management in Bulgaria.

We firmly believe that an immediate end should be put to this paradoxical situation. The COF should retain its economic responsibilities as an institution that plants and uses trees (protected areas excluded) and game animals (unprotected species only, under the provisions of the new hunting law), and should retain its supervisory functions within its sphere. The overall conservation of biological diversity and the protected areas should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment or its specialized agency. It is extremely important that protected areas of national and international importance be managed and protected by the MOE or by NGOs that are capable of handling the task.

We believe that NGOs should be involved a great deal more in managing, maintaining, and providing security for protected areas, and should receive financial support from the state for this work. This would not only ease the burden on the respective state institutions but would allow them to concentrate their efforts on problems of greater magnitude.

We also believe that legislation should be changed so as to guarantee the protection of areas of proven national and international importance, despite the opposition of local people and authorities - provided that the state reimburses the latter.

We definitely believe that increased funding should be allocated from the state budget for the conservation of the country's biological diversity. People working within institutions devoted to the conservation of biological diversity should, in addition to being highly professional, have strong inner drive and motivation.

7. Possibilities for Integrating the Conservation of Biological Diversity with Economic Development

We believe that protected areas and their biological diversity can be protected most efficiently if local people receive direct revenues from them, provided that the areas are not damaged or destroyed in the process. One possibility for this is ecotourism, where tourists enjoy nature's beautiful sites, experience wild nature, and observe interesting plants or animals in non-destructive ways. It is quite natural for people to prefer sites that are the best preserved or that abound in specific local plants or animals. If ecotourism develops in such a way that it brings revenues to local people - through trade, hotels, restaurants, transportation services, guides, etc. (such possibilities exist since this is a more expensive kind of tourism and does not require any large investments) - they will be strongly motivated to protect their natural features. The revenues from these activities will be the best guarantee that biological diversity is preserved by the local people themselves.

Unfortunately, even though international ecotourism began ten years ago in Bulgaria - BBPS has had ten years of experience with ornithological groups and other groups of nature lovers - it failed to become popular among local people.

It is obvious that ecotourism must change so that local people become more involved. This is in contrast to hunting tourism - something that can hardly be classified as a modern, ethical, or environmentally friendly kind of tourism - which has become widely popular in the country. It is in a very favorable position because it is organized and run by a state institution - the COF and its economic sub-divisions (the Mourgash company, for example) - and by the well-structured Hunters and Fishermen's Union in Bulgaria.

Implementing sustainable development programs is another way of integrating the conservation of biological diversity with regional economic development. Programs should be developed for each region by biological diversity specialists and by NGOs. Public hearings and other ways of involving local people in the preservation of the integrity of protected areas are the best guarantees of success.

Survey Results

1. General Notes

The survey was conducted February 7-11, 1993 in Rousse (protected areas in the region - Rusenski Lom, and the Beli Lom Reserve); Svishtov (the Persinski Swamps Reserve, Vardimski Oak, and Kaikousha); and the village of Vardim (Vardimski Oak).

One hundred people were surveyed by questionnaire. Thirty of these were people with special feelings towards nature (we will refer to them as "committed"). They were BBPS members, nature lovers, biology teachers, tourists, hunters, fishermen, and so forth. Fourteen of them come from Rousse, 12 from Svishtov, and 4 from Vardim. Another 20 people were local administration representatives (we will refer to the as "the administration"). They were local (municipal) council employees (including Rousse and Svishtov environmentalists), representatives of regional MOE subdivisions (i.e., the Rousse Regional Environmental Inspectorate), the COF, representatives of the National Police, and so forth. Fifteen of the people in this group were from Rousse and 5 from Svishtov. The other 50 people were randomly selected (we will refer to them as "random" survey subjects). Twenty-five are from Rousse, 17 from Svishtov, and 8 from Vardim.

Our general impression was that people readily shared their views with us. While no one in Rousse was skeptical of the usefulness of the survey, many of those interviewed in Svishtov were.

Many of those interviewed (with the exception of the committed and part of the administration) had only a slight, superficial sense of what biological diversity entails (we cannot speak of "knowledge," despite the fact that high school education is mandatory in Bulgaria). Still, they felt positive about wild plants and animals, and in some cases showed genuine concern for their fate. This shows that people are sensitive to the conservation of wildlife but still need to become actively involved in solving its problems.

The survey gave evidence of how blatantly oblivious ordinary people are to specific biological diversity sites, including the protected areas next to the places where they live. This is especially true of the larger towns. Hardly anyone from the random sample knew that there was such a place as the Rusenski Lom National Park. What is much more worrisome is that people are totally ignorant about the essence and concept of protected areas and in fact think off them as recreation parks or city parks.

2. Major Threats to Biological Diversity

Use of Biological Resources

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

The main threats to biological diversity in the areas surveyed by the BBPS (Rousse, Svishtov, and Vardim) are logging and hunting (especially international hunting tourism). These activities are carried out in close proximity to protected bird areas. This is a threat to the nesting rare species on Vardim and Belene Islands, and prevents the nesting of the sea eagle on Vardim Island. It is quite possible that logging and hunting take place within the protected areas themselves because of the fact that the inspectorate that is supposed to control protected areas and organize the above activities is one and the same: the forestry office in Svishtov. The situation is the same in Rousse. Local people illegally log trees in the Beli Lom Reserve under the pretext that they are withered.

b) Survey Results

The 118 answers to this questions can be broken down in the following way:

7.6% logging in protected areas;
5.1% poaching; 2.5% hunting;
0.9% growing poplar trees (there are poplar clusters on the unprotected part of Vardim Island)

All of the above activities are viewed negatively by the people. This adds up to a total 16.1%. In our view the low percentage is due to the fact that most of those interviewed do not know about the existence of protected areas.

Privatization

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

While it is hard to draw any definite conclusions about the threat that private property may pose to biological diversity in the studied region, there are reasons for us to believe that such a threat does exist. It is possible that the lands to be privatized include important bird habitats and might affect some rare bird species or their habitats. Finally, as a rule there will not be enough room for wild animals and plants on private lands because of the intensification of land use that is likely to ensue.

b) Survey Results

Out of a total of 88 respondents, 59.1% think that returning land to its previous owners threatens wild animals and plants in the region, and 40.9% think that it does not. The ratio of "Yes" to "No" answers among the different groups was: Committed - 66.7% : 33.33%; Administration - 63.2% : 36.8%; and Random - 53.3% : 46.7%

Construction of Public Utilities

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

The construction of public utilities in the next few years might take the form of expanding the existing road network, erecting electrical lines, expanding existing industrial plants (or building new ones), constructing international communication facilities between Bulgaria and Romania through the Danube river, etc. In any case, these will have a negative impact on biological diversity for reasons similar to the ones laid out above. None of these projects, though, compares to the possible completion and commissioning of the nuclear power plant between Svishtov and Belyane.

b) Survey Results

Of 90 respondents, 81.1% think that construction of public utilities threatens biological diversity, and only 18.9% think that it does not. The percentage of those who consider public utilities a threat is highest among the administration (84.2%); 83.0% of the random group and 75.0% of the committed considered public utilities a threat.

Agricultural Activities

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

The region is directly affected by the draining of swamps, especially the Belenska Lowlands (where the region around the Kaikousha protected area is still being drained). Agricultural activities such as illegal grazing and attempts to use patches of land for farming are carried out in the Rusenski Lom protected area. Fertilizers and other chemicals are used near sewer drains, which also pollute the waters in the region. We believe that these activities, together with other farming activities, are a threat to the region's biological diversity. What is more, some of the protected areas in the region are directly threatened by certain agricultural practices.

b) Survey Results

The answers of the 88 respondents show a very small margin between those who see agricultural activities as a threat to protected areas (51.1%) and those who consider these activities safe for wild animals and plants (48.9%). The margin is greatest among the committed (56.0 : 44.0). There was there no difference among the administration people (who split 50:50).

Private Initiatives

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

The majority of private initiatives (other than agricultural and industrial) are currently located in towns. Nevertheless, there are large possibilities for recreational activities. This is especially true for the Rousse region, where there are many picturesque sites abounding in natural, historical, and cultural landmarks. There is also heavy tourist traffic between Bulgaria and Romania. This is extremely favorable for the development of some services, such as private camps, hotels, and motels, which threaten the places of the greatest natural importance along with their flora and fauna. This will become extremely dangerous if these turn out to be only short-term activities whose main purpose is to generate large amounts of capital. On the other hand, small private businesses might be linked with production processes (e.g., wood-processing) that destroy bird habitats and other organisms. The impacts of people and environmental pollution will inevitably increase.

b) Survey Results

According to 39.8% of 98 respondents, private enterprises threaten biological diversity, and according to 37.8% they do not; 22.4% of the people could not say.

The majority of positive answers came from the random group (48.7%), followed by the administration (28.2%) and the committed (23.1%). Of those who think that private enterprises do not threaten biological diversity, 40.5% are from the random groups, followed by the committed (37.8%) and the administration (21.6%). Bearing in mind the specific characteristics of these groups, we think that the administration people might have the most realistic view on the role of private enterprises, since they know them best. In general, therefore, the respondents think that the impact of small private enterprises on biological diversity will be rather negative.

Industrial Air, Soil, and Water Pollution

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

This is one of the most heavily polluted industrial regions in the country. Rousse, Svishtov, and even Dardim are affected by transboundary pollution from the Guyrguy and Zimnich plants. The situation is most severe in Rousse, where pollutants include even chlorine gas. We believe that these forms of air pollution have affected soil and water purity.

In addition, the valleys of the rivers that flow into the Rusenski Lom River are also seriously polluted from industrial plants, including the Antibiotics Plant in Razgrad. Despite evidence of decreases in water and (to a degree) air pollution, this region (especially the Rousse part) is still an "environmental" catastrophe zone. Unfortunately there are no studies available on the impact of this kind of pollution on birds.

b) Survey Results

We can infer what the respondents thought of industrial pollution as a threat to biological diversity from the things that they mentioned they did not like when they visited a protected area. Out of a total of 118 answers, 11.9% have to do with "environmental pollution" and 6.8% with the flow of polluted water into the reserve.

Equally important are the answers to the questions about pure air, soil, and water. Out of a total of 96 respondents, 99.0% definitely think that the air they breathe is polluted, 93.5% of 77 respondents say the soil is contaminated, and 98.9% of 92 respondents think the same about soils.

Generation and Deposition of Waste

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

We have no evidence that waste or waste dumps in the region pose a serious threat to biological diversity. We must, however, deal with the household waste which one (unfortunately) encounters so often throughout the country. There is slightly more waste along the Danube River, but it presents no serious threat to wildlife.

b) Survey Results

Out of a total of 118 answers to the question about the things people dislike in protected areas, 7.6% deal with this type of pollution. There is no indication that this is seen to damage biological diversity. This corresponds to our experts' assessment of the impact of this factor.

Other Unfavorable Activities

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

In the area surveyed, especially around Rousse, there are additional threats to biological diversity because of the large number of historic sites (rock churches, fortresses, etc.). First, there is the high pressure on wild plants and animals exerted by tourists who are not aware of them and for whom conservation is not part of their value system. (Moreover, tourism in this area is carried out without any effective control of protected areas). Second, especially with regard to some rare bird species, insects, plants, and reptiles, there is the plundering of some natural landmarks by people who know quite well what their value is. Treasure hunting is a similar type of activity that is responsible in some cases for the destruction of the nests of rare bird species.

b) Survey Results

Out of a total of 118 answers to this question, 3.4% refer to "reckless tourists," 2.5% to "plant damage," 1.75% to treasure hunting, and 0.9% to the gathering of protected species. Thus, a total of 9.4% have named these activities as threats to protected areas in the region.

3. The Impact of Protected Areas on Local Economies

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

The region we surveyed is no different from other parts of the country. In a word, protected areas are not seen as significantly important to the economic development of municipalities for reasons already discussed. Basically, this comes down to the fact that people are unaware of modern methods of using nature's biological resources and that local economic structures are inadequate developed. It has been observed that protected and unprotected areas have the reverse effect on local economies. Svishtov, for example, profits from the planting and logging of poplar trees in the unprotected part of Vardim Island, and not from the neighboring Vardimski Oak protected area, which in most people's minds is a waste of resources.

b) Survey Results

Since there was no question in the survey regarding people's attitudes toward the economic benefits of protected areas, we can only make indirect conclusions. For example, of the 129 answers concerning the things people liked when they visited protected areas, not a single one mentioned or implied economic benefits from the protected area. Moreover, 43.4% believe that ecotourism has no future in their region or cannot say whether this is so. This shows that people not only do not profit from the environmentally friendly use of protected areas but do not even consider the possibility of such profit.

4. Institutional Changes Necessary for Strengthening the Conservation of Biological Biodiversity

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

The reforms that have been proposed for the whole country should be enforced in this region. Stronger measures to protect the protected areas should be enacted. Rusenski Lom, the Pursinski Swamps, and the Staria Dub should be designated as important international areas, and the Kaikousha and Beli Lom as important national areas. Their boundaries and status should be brought into compliance with the requirements for conserving their natural features. More specifically, the Staria Dub should be expanded in order to cover al of Vardim Island and its status as a reserve should be reinstated. More funds should be allocated to finance environmental (nature protection) offices at the municipal level, and government financial support for protected area management and maintenance plans should be considered. There is a pressing need to set up administrative offices for maintaining, managing, and providing security at Rusenski Lom and Vardimski Dub, and later on at the other protected areas in the region.

b) Survey Results

Out of a total of 100 respondents, 77.0% think that no legislative changes will be introduced, 92.0% that no funds are being allocated for nature protection, 91.0% that no reforms in nature protection have been carried out by local state authorities, and 50% that no changes have been introduced in this respect (80.0% answered "do not know" to certain of these questions). These numbers speak for themselves of the necessity of institutional changes in the region.

5. Possibilities for Integrating the Conservation of Biological Diversity with Economic Development

a) BBPS Experts' Assessment

There are excellent opportunities in the region to developing ecotourism because of the perfect combination of different landscapes (picturesque rock canyons along gorges, marshy lowlands, islands, etc.) and the great plant and animal diversity (the Rusenski Lom and the Belene-Vardim areas are among the richest in bird species in Bulgaria). The BBPS strongly believes in the region's great prospects based on the first-hand experience of British, Belgian, Dutch, and Italian ecotourism groups.

b) Survey Results

Out of a total of 68 respondents, 22.1% named tourism (visiting tourist sites) as one possibility for integrating protected areas with regional economic development. Another 22.1% believe ecotourism is such a possibility, and 11.8% hunting tourism. Out of a total of 99 respondents, 56.6% think ecotourism has a future in the region, and 89.6% think it will have a positive impact on the conservation of wild plants and animals (only 24.6% believe this will be a threat). Seventy-five percent think that ecotourism will lead to the opening of new jobs, 64.9% that it will facilitate the development of the private sector, 87.7% that it will bring economic revenues to the region, and 98.5% that it will promote environmental education.

Recommendations

1. The Red Data Lists of various groups of organisms should be updated (or drawn up) in compliance with international categories for endangered species.

2. All species in the national Red Data Lists, together with all internationally threatened habitats or habitats threatened in Europe, should be protected by law.

3. The species, habitats, communities, and protected ar-eas that are essential to Bulgaria's biological di-versity should be identified, and special programs for their conservation and monitoring developed.

4. By law, all organisms, habitats, and communities that are globally threatened or threatened on a European or national scale should become the property of the state, with all subsequent legal consequences.

5. Activities involving the use of natural resources, agricultural and industrial activities, and construction and other activities (including smaller projects) should be regulated so that the negative impact on biological diversity is minimized. This should include requirements for expert environmental assessments on small private projects, conducted by the respective authorities.

6. Immediate restoration of severely damaged habitats that are extremely valuable to biological diversity should be undertaken, following a systematic program (starting with wetlands that can still be saved).

7. The use of elements of biological diversity to make large profits should be prohibited by law.

8. Special measures (including state incentives) should be taken to develop ecotourism and to turn it into a source of revenues for municipalities and local people.

9. Sustainable development projects should be developed and implemented in regions that are crucial to biological diversity and where standard approaches do not work.

10. Legislation should be changed so that areas of proven international and national significance for biological diversity are designated as protected areas, even if there is resistance from local authorities. The state should reimburse the local administration.

11. Government decisions on biological diversity should be regulated by law and should be made by the Ministry of Environment only, in coordination with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the respective nature protection organizations.

12. A unified national system for the management, maintenance, and security of protected areas should be established, and specific management plans for each protected areas should be drawn up and implemented.

13. NGOs should be ensured a considerable participatory role in maintaining, managing, and providing security for protected areas, with government financial support.

14. The COF should be relieved of its responsibility for controlling and protecting biological diversity, while its functions in maintaining and utilizing the economic sectors of forests where hunting and fishing are concerned should be preserved.

15. A unified system of control over the conservation of biological diversity should be set up as a specialized agency or as a service to the Ministry of Environment.

16. In dealing with the problems of nature protection, greater emphasis should be placed on actively in-volving all of the mass media and increasing public awareness and commitment.

17. Special measures should be taken to improve training in nature protection for people who are directly involved with biological diversity (especially hunters) and to require that they be able to recognize and distinguish species.

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to everyone who contributed to this report, either directly or through our discussions, or by providing us with valuable data and observations. We would like to thank everyone who was understanding enough to take the time to answer the questions in our survey, especially those who were particularly concerned about nature and its wild plants and animals. We would like to thank the people in the regional administrative offices for their cooperation, and for sharing their opinions and experiences in nature conservation. We are especially grateful to the BBPS members from the Rousse and Svishtov offices for making our work on this statement enjoyable.

We are grateful to the following people for contributing directly to this report: Tanyo Michev, Luybomir Profirov, Vladimir Pomakov, Svetlana Petrova, Snezhana Kotseva, Stefka Tonkova, Rositsa Petrova, Eberhard Undjan, Nina Gatsova, Marian Stoyanov, Iskren Todorov, Svetlozar Dimov, and everyone else with whom we worked on this report. We are thankful to Lyudmila Capustina for her understanding, patience, and invaluable help in putting the whole report together and completing the map.

Bibliography

Code of Practice for the Conservation of Threatened Animals and Plants. 1992. Economic Commission for Europe. New York: United Nations. Pp. 1-61.

Grimmett, R. and T. A. Jones. 1989. Important Bird Areas in Europe. ICBP Technical Publication No 9, ICBP, IWRB, RSPB. Cambridge, UK.

Petrov, T. and P. Yankov. In press. Important Bird Areas in the Rhodope Mountains and Ways of Protecting Them. Proceedings from the Conference on the Protection of the Rhodope Mountains. Beglika, Bulgaria. May 1992.

Red Book of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. Volume II. Animals. 1985. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Pp. 1-183.

Tucker, G. M. and M. F. Heath. 1992. The Conservation Status of European Birds. ICBP, EOAC. Cambridge, UK.

Yankov, P., T. Michev, L. Profirov, and T. Petrov. 1988. Updating the list of birds in Bulgaria's Red Data Book. Pp. 92-94 in Proceedings of the National Scientific Conference on the Environment and Nature Protection. Plovdiv, Bulgaria, November 1988.

Yankov, P. and L. Profirov. 1991. The present state of the population of Gyps fulvus Hablizl in Bulgaria. Environment 24:44-52.

Report of the Bulgarian Union for the Conservation of the Rhodope Mountains

Jordan Danchev

Introduction

The Bulgarian Union for the Conservation of the Rhodope Mountains (BUCRM) was founded on March 9, 1990. Its first General Assembly meeting took place on May 11, 1990. The Union is a voluntary non-political organization whose object is to support the preservation of the natural and cultural wealth of the Rhodope Mountains. The Union works for the reasonable and ecologically sound utilization of the mountains as a living place, as a tourism and recreation area, and as a territory for the preservation of characteristic material civilization and arts, natural attributes, and valuable animal genetic resources.

Local branches of the BUCRM have been founded so far in Batak, Velingrad, Kovachevitsa, Kardzhali, Laki, Plovdiv, Smolian, Solishta, Sofia, Chepelare, and Shiroka Laka. Plans are in place to establish branches in Devin, Zlatograd, Nedelino, Momchilgrad, Krumovgrad, Yagodina, Trigrad, Dospat, Peshtera, Rakitovo, Bogutevo, Zaburdo, Rudozem, Smilian, Momchilovtsi, and in a still larger number of towns and villages. The Club and Museum of Speleology in Chepelare, the Society for the Revival of Batak, the United Fund for the Ecological Rescue of Kardzhali, the "Rodopski Vesti" newspaper, the Raikovo Civil Society, the Rhodope Dramatic Theatre, the "Rodopa" State Group, the Geneological Club in Smolian, and other organizations have also joined as group members of the Union. All told, about 4000 people belong to the Bulgarian Union for the Conservation of the Rhodope Mountains, including people from the United States, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, England, France, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Greece, and other countries.

In addition to the many activities that are carried out by the local branches, the BUCRM has a purposeful program for the protection and sustainable development of the mountains, which it pursues before the Parliament, the Presidency, the Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Environment, the Committee of Forests, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, and other governmental bodies. The BUCRM has worked with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and other groups to develop the ongoing "Protection of the Rhodopes" project; the International Center for the Preservation of the French Mountains; and the International Commission for the Protection of the Alps (CIPRA). The BUCRM is a member of the "Ecological Bricks for the Common European Home" initiative and is coordinator of the initiative in Bulgaria. In 1992, the BUCRM held its first meeting with Greek non-governmental organizations to expand the Rhodope preservation initiative into a joint Bulgarian-Greek effort. The BUCRM has contacts and cooperates with still more organizations, administrators, and private persons in Bulgaria and abroad.

As a result of BUCRM activities, various threats to the Rhodopes' natural and cultural wealth have been averted or halted, the mountains have been included in the list of significant Bulgarian natural and cultural heritage sites, and a strategy to preserve and sustainably develop the region has been formulated. The BUCRM is in the process of developing an educational program on these issues.

This report of the BUCRM was developed on the basis of scientific literature, editorials, reports, proposals, recommendations, and other materials concerning the natural and cultural heritage of the Rhodopes from the Union's archives. It also draws upon personal conversations with various experts and specialists, members and supporters of the Society, and people from the local communities. The opinions of the local people of the Rhodopes, expressed in the data from a survey of one hundred residents of two Rhodope towns and one village (Batak, Smolian, and Laki) situated within and near areas of rich biological diversity, have also provided information for this report.

Undoubtedly, the personal opinions of the author, formed during long periods of contact with the data from the literature and with the nature and spirit of the Rhodopes, are also presented in the report. In preparing this report, we decided not to include detailed data on the biological diversity, habitats, typical ecosystems, and protected natural areas of the Rhodopes. All of this will have been inevitably provided by the individual experts engaged in working out other parts of the national strategy. Our emphasis is on information about the specific problems and features of the Rhodope region. This will be of real use in developing a national strategy that reflects the thoughts of local people and that is grounded in the sphere of real life. It will also serve the strategy well when the time comes to apply it.

As an organization whose focus is the Rhodope Mountains, our report will be indisputably useful in developing the national strategy. Although our contributions relate specifically to only one region of Bulgaria, we would like to make note of several broadly relevant points. In as much as the development of global strategies takes a lot of time, very often the objects of their concern - in this case, biological diversity, valuable habitats and landforms, and significant cultural monuments - are subject to merciless exploitation and other pressures. For example, while we are here thinking and working to develop a strategy to conserve the biological diversity of the country and the Rhodope Mountains, the National Electric Company and the monopolistic "Energoproekt" designers' bureau - with the support of some government institutions and international banks - have began work on the "Gorna Arda" dam project. The project will erase the last 60 near-virgin kilometers of the largest river in the Rhodopes from the world map, flood forests and plant and animal habitats, and turn the unique river landscape of meanders, gorges, and meadows into a continuous series of reservoirs.

Many excellent reports and perfectly planned strategies are left unrealized and the funds spent for their development wasted. This is either because no provisions are made for their realization or because the strategies themselves are in some way inapplicable or fail to take into account many relevant factors. In the case of some poor strategies, this has turned out to be our country's good fortune! In both cases, however, the usefulness of the means and efforts has amounted to almost nothing. I myself am familiar with many such strategies. We wish strongly, and will do our best to ensure, that this strategy will not become one of these.

The Rhodope Mountains

The Rhodope Mountains occupy a considerable part of the Thracian-Macedonian massif, which is located in the center of the Balkan Peninsula. They spread over an area of about 18,000 km2 - 14,737 km2 in Bulgaria and the rest in Greece. Their length from east to west is about 250 km and their width from north to south about 100 km. The Maritsa River valley is generally accepted as their northern and eastern border, the Aegean lowland as the southern border, and the Mesta, Dreshenets, and Yadenitsa valleys as their western border. They cover about 1/7 of the Bulgarian territory and are situated in its southern part, along almost the whole length of the border between Bulgaria and Greece. The geological history of the mountains begins with the Precambrian and ends with the Oligocene.

There are significant differences in relief and vegetation between the western and eastern portions of the Rhodopes. For this reason, we divide them into the Western and Eastern Rhodope Mountains. The climate is varied. A montane climate is typical in the higher western parts, while the proximity of the Mediterranean is rather evident in the eastern portions. Because of several biogeographic factors - the Rhodope Mountains are the oldest dry land on the Balkan Peninsula; the continental and Mediterranean climatic influences meet on their territory; and they were not glaciated during the quaternary period - the Rhodopes are home to a rather rich and varied flora and fauna. This places the Rhodopes high among Bulgarian territories in terms of biological diversity and hence for outlining and carrying out special conservation measures.

About 1780 species of plants can be found in the Rhodope Mountains. This diversity of species is the highest of all the floral regions in the country (by comparison, the Stara Planina Mountains are home to 1727 species, Rila Mountain 1504, Pirin Mountain 1486, and the Thracian Lowland 1497). The Rhodopes contain 211 rare and threatened plant species listed in the Bulgarian Red Data Book. Fifteen species are tertiary and glacial relicts, 42 are Bulgarian endemics (15 of these are found only in the Rhodope Mountains), and 40 are Balkan endemics. The Rhodope Mountains are thus recognized as the richest massif in the Balkan Peninsula in terms of plant taxa.

The Rhodope Mountains are the stronghold of the spruce (Picea excelsa) in Bulgaria. Seventy percent of Bulgaria's coniferous forests are situated there, almost 30% of them natural primary forests of silver pine (Pinus silvestris), black pine (Pinus nigra), fir tree (Abies alba), and other species. Deciduous species - European beech (Fagus silvatica), oak (Quercus spp.), etc. - are well represented in the lower elevations.

High levels of diversity and endemism are also found among the Rhodope fauna. The invertebrate cave fauna, snails, some groups of insects, and other taxa are particularly rich in endemics. The alpine triton (Triturus alpestris) is a glacial relict. The Eastern Rhodopes, where 167 bird species nest, is the most richly populated ornithological area in Bulgaria. Some of these bird species are rare and threatened in our country and in Europe. The southern part of the Eastern Rhodopes, together with the Greek portion of the Rhodope Mountains, is the second richest region in Europe for raptorial bird species (after Spain). Unfortunately, the ornithofauna of the Western Rhodopes has not yet been well studied. Nevertheless, the Rhodope Mountains are known to support about 70% of the Bulgarian population of the wood grouse (Tetrao urogallus), and are the stronghold as well of the naked-headed vulture (Gyps fulvus). The black vulture (Aegypius monachus), too, likely nests only in the Eastern Rhodopes, near the Greek border. The Egypt vulture (Neophron percnopterus), the royal eagle (Aquila heliaca), the imperial eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), the white-headed hawk (Buteo rufinus), the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and the black stork (Ciconia nigra) - all of which are rare or threatened species for Bulgaria or Europe - also nest in the Rhodope Mountains.

Rare and threatened mammals - the brown bear (Ursus arctos), the wolf (Canis lupus), the wild goat (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica), the otter (Lutra lutra), the marten (Martes martes), some bat species, etc. - are well represented in the Rhodopes.

Fifty-seven animal species listed in the Bulgarian Red Data Book may be found in the Rhodope Mountains. The red deer, fallow-deer, wild boar, hare, wild cat, and other wildlife species are also found there.

In addition to being the most massive of the Bulgarian mountains, the Rhodopes are also characterized by their soft rolling landforms and vast pastures of Nardus stricta. About 860 caves, gorges, abysses, and rock bridges, and a great number of karst and mineral springs have been discovered and mapped there. The Trigrad, Yagodina, and Dobrostan Karst regions are well known, as are the Diavolskoto Garlo, Yagodinska, Ultsata, Lednitsata, Snezhanka, and many other caves. Other well known features include: the Trigrad and Buinovo gorges; the "Wonderful Bridges" (Er Kyupria); the Karadjov Stone nearby Mostovo; the Devil Bridge near Borino; the earth pyramids around Zimzelen, Povet, and Beli Plast; the Hubcha Karst springs near the village of Sokolovtsi; the Kleptuza springs near Velingrad; the Vrisia springs near Mugla; and the mineral springs around Varvara, Vetren, Mihalkovo, Beden, and Narechenski Bani. The Chaira and Smolian landslide lakes, rich in biological diversity, are also situated in the Rhodope Mountains. Innumerable other natural features that have made the Rhodopes famous in Bulgaria and throughout the world may also be found there.

In addition to their rich variety of natural features, the Rhodope Mountains have other characteristic features that distinguish them from other mountains. They have no analog in Bulgaria, nor even in the rest of Europe. The soft rolling form of the mountains, the low altitude (Perelik is the highest peak at 2191 m), the favorable climatic conditions, and especially the nearby Aegean Sea result in a winter season that is not very long and not very cold.

These characteristics, together with the rich vegetation and vast pastures, create favorable conditions for stock breeding, and account for the fact that the entire Rhodope Mountain region has been inhabited since the remote past. This also distinguishes it radically from the other Bulgarian mountain ranges (Pirin, Rila, and Stara Planina), where the settlements are situated mainly in the lower elevations - i.e., in their foothills. That is why, in addition to the considerable natural wealth of the Rhodopes, we find there a rich cultural heritage of national and international importance. For example, the sanctuary of the Thracian god Dionysus is now being searched for, and its discovery is expected to be the most significant archaeological event on the Balkan Peninsula and in Europe. The ethnographic heritage, the Rhodope architecture, and the local Rhodope dialects and folklore are also forms of cultural wealth.

All of these characteristic natural and cultural features compel us to search for and employ specific ways and methods to realize our conservation strategy in the Rhodope Mountains. That is to say, in developing the national biodiversity conservation strategy, it is absolutely necessary to recognize the presence of the local population in the Rhodope Mountains. A conservation strategy for the Rhodope Mountains that is forced down from the top (i.e., from the government), even one developed with a high level of expertise, will be doomed and the money spent for its development irretrievably lost if it is incongruous with the traditions, experience, and needs of the local population. In our case it has not been advisable to proceed in the accepted manner (i.e., creating and forcing the strategy from the top down). And so we suggest using the experience and traditions of the local population to define the strategy for that part of our country, and developing and introducing the strategy with the aid of that population. This is why we should adopt a "bottom to top" approach in the Rhodope Mountains.

Main Threats to Biological Diversity

It is clear that we are obliged to conserve not only the biological diversity and natural resources of the Rhodope Mountains, but also their cultural heritage. Moreover, because the Rhodopes are inhabited by over 650,000 people, living in 33 municipalities and over 400 towns and villages, the natural and cultural heritage of the mountains are almost inseparable. The fact that a rich diversity of plant and animal species still exists after such a long history of human presence in the mountains suggests that in fact the local people, with their traditional activities (i.e., moderate utilization of the natural resources, chiefly moderate pasturing and cutting), have contributed to its conservation. But technological advances, the modern idea of prosperity, and different pressures directed toward the Rhodopes through distant administrative channels (e.g., mining, tourism, hydroelectric power development) are the main threats to the rich biological diversity and cultural heritage of the region. Let us view the most important of them.

1. Ore mining and processing

The mineral ore resources - lead, zinc, copper, silver, uranium, and other ores - are among the natural resources of the Rhodope Mountains that we deliberately did not mention in the preceding section of the report. They are undoubtedly the reason that ore-mining - one of the oldest crafts - has been practiced in the Rhodope Mountains since the Thracians and Romans.

The Laki concession (near the village of Laki), created at the end of the last century, was the first state lead and silver ore concession in the Rhodope Mountains. The private concessions near the villages of Hvoina, Madan, Palas (Rudozem), and Boevo followed. But those activities developed slowly, mainly due to the lack of roads. The main threat to the vast virgin territories in the Rhodope Mountains that are important plant and animal habitats began in 1950, when the "Gorubso" Soviet-Bulgarian mining enterprise was founded. All lands in which it was possible to mine ore were reached, regardless of the natural features or any other preexisting conditions. Those activities, which have been totally heedless of all natural phenomena and ecological laws, continue today almost in full force (it is expected that uranium mining will soon be completely closed down). The results:

2. Mining of non-metal mineral resources

Even a passing glance at a map of the distribution of precious gems and minerals in Bulgaria shows that many of the deposits are concentrated in the Rhodope Mountains. More than half of the 85 deposits (43) are in the Rhodope Mountains. Of the 31 described minerals, 21 have been discovered in the Rhodope Mountains. Almost the whole mountain region, and especially its southeastern part, is strewn with quarries. The situation with the exploitation of the gemstones is somewhat better. "Only" 11 (20%) of the 55 currently active quarries in Bulgaria are in the Rhodope Mountains. The destructive processes are divided between the two main parts of the Rhodope Mountains. Five of the quarries - Lepenitsa, Vishteritsa, Katerovo dere, Sitovo, and Chepelare - are in the Western Rhodopes, and six - Ardino, Dolen, Momchilgrad, Kovil, Sveta Marina, and Zhelezino - are in the Eastern Rhodopes. Abandoned and unreclaimed quarries are more common.

3. Timber yield

The exceptionally great importance of the forests as a direct and indirect factor in the conservation of biological diversity is well known. Even in regenerating forests, the anomalous and excessive utilization of wood resources (timber and firewood in this case) threatens, sometimes to the point of extinction, a great number of plant and animal species. During the last several decades, legal and illegal cutting has brought about extremely poor conditions in the Rhodope forests. The dangers and problems may be reduced to the following:

4. Uncontrolled harvesting of mushrooms, herbs, and wild fruits

During the summers of 1990 and 1991, the Rhodope Mountains were subject to an unexpected and unprecedented invasion of mushroom gatherers. In addition to the local people, organized groups and other people from different parts of the country took part in these campaigns, leading to conflicts between the strangers and the local people. That boom in mushroom-gathering activities was generated by the strong interest of foreign mushroom processing enterprises in the cheap "raw material" and by the lack of legal restrictions. It is not necessary to go into detail on the actual and expected effects of this practice - which spared no part of the Rhodopes, including the reserves - on the conservation of biological diversity in the mountains. Furthermore, the same pressures are also expected to affect the Rhodopes' herbs, wild fruits, teas, pine tops, and other biological resources.

5. Poaching

The liquidation of the state game reserves in the Rhodope Mountains and their transfer to the state forest administrations have created conditions under which poaching has become more prevalent. This leads to disarray and destruction among populations of rare and valuable game species, and contributes to degradation of the processes of self-regulation in the natural environment.

6. Privatization

The process of privatizing agricultural and forest areas in the Rhodopes and its relation to the conservation of biological diversity and natural resources should be approached with utmost sensitivity. As has already been mentioned, the Rhodopes are totally inhabited; nobody wishes to depopulate it, and it would be impossible to do so in any case. In fact, much of the region's rich biological diversity has been preserved up until now despite the presence of people since the most ancient times. This indicates that strong native traditions conducive to the conservation of natural resources exist in the Rhodope Mountains. We have only to revive them. The nationalization and collectivization of land and forests in the mountains caused significant damage to the environment. But long before that, both lands and forests in the Rhodope Mountains were privately held. Logic indicates that they should become private again.

7. Hydroelectric power

Since 1946, the Rhodope Mountains have been extensively developed for hydroelectric power - more so than any of the other Bulgarian mountains - through the Batak, Ardino, Dospat-Devin-Vacha, and Belmeken-Sestrimo dam projects. Over twenty reservoirs already burden the mountains, causing many problems. They make us ask whether the "concreting" of the Rhodopes, at a cost of billions of levs, was a reasonable investment. The building of the Batak hydroelectric power system alone has spread over an area of 3600 km2 (almost 1/4 of the Bulgarian Rhodope territory), and includes 4 reservoirs, 70 water intakes, 81 km of channels, 72 km of tunnels. The first stage of the Dospat-Devin-Vacha system includes 6 reservoirs, 47 water intakes, 50 km of channels, and 88 km of tunnels.

This whole range of activities has taken place in the most forested part of the Western Rhodopes, a unique center of endemic and relict plant and animal species. Thousands of hectares of typical habitats of valuable rare and threatened species have been flooded or destroyed for construction activities. The forest ecosystem typical of the region has been destroyed or flooded over a large territory. The internal ecological connections among the species, their populations, habitats, and ecosystems have been permanently disturbed. Streams have been transformed into standing water bodies over the course of tens of kilometers. And that has led to fundamental changes in the animal communities connected with the river - full extinction of the species typical of running water, and their replacement by species typical of standing water. For example, many fish-eating species - the water starling, the grey wagtail, the black stork, the otter - are extinct. As a result of increasing humidity, the Mediterranean-type communities, characteristic for the region and rare for the country, are replaced by communities typical of the temperate climate. The reservoirs have become, over tens of kilometers, an ecological barrier, and a great number of reptiles and mammals from both sides of the river remain genetically isolated. This is one of the greatest threats to the species and their populations.

In the spring of 1949, plans for hydroelectric power development began to be carried out in the Eastern Rhodopes. The largest of the Rhodope rivers - the Arda - and its tributaries - the Cherna, Malka Arda, Davidkovska Arda, Borovitsa, Perperek, Krumovitsa, Boyuk Dere, Varbitsa, Oldjakdere, Madanska, Elhovska, and some smaller rivers - were involved. The plans provided for the construction of 15 reservoirs, and the notorious Ardino project (divided into three parts - the Upper, Middle, and Lower Arda). In 1957, the first part, the Middle Arda cascade, creating the "Studen Kladenets" reservoir, was completed. In 1963, the next dam, creating the "Kardzhali" reservoir, was completed. Construction of the Lower Arda dam, which created the largest of the reservoirs, the "Ivailovgrad," was completed two years later.

After a pause of about 30 years, the 2500-person staff of the monopolistic "Energoproekt" organization began a drive to complete their enthusiastic plans for the Arda River. A difficult fight to prove the benefit of the dams' existence has ensued. The updated project calls for constructing four new dams and reservoirs and five smaller ones along the remaining "uncorrected" part of the Arda River and its feeders. The "cultivation" of the last 60 km of the largest of the Rhodope rivers is now in progress.

It is worth mentioning that the greater part of the river included in these plans passes through an uninhabited, inaccessible, almost virgin region containing large, continuous areas of plant and animal habitat. It is an area, typical of that part of the Rhodope Mountains, that is extremely well suited for creating protected areas and opportunities for profitable ecotourism. For example, one of the most dense and healthy populations of the symbol of the Rhodopes, Haberlea rhodopensis (a Balkan endemic and tertiary relict), is found in this area on the river valley rock massifs.

The Bulgarian Union for the Conservation of the Rhodope Mountains has taken an explicit stand against the illegal decision of the Supreme Ecological Expert Council at the Ministry of Environment for approving and passing along to the next stage the plans for the "Upper Arda" cascade. We have lodged a complaint against that decision in the Sofia Regional Court.

8. Other construction

For decades, buildings have been raised in the mountains illegally or semi-legally but without any order or plan.

Resort complexes are developing spontaneously and uncontrollably. Let us take the Pamporovo resort as an example. It still has no officially formulated and approved town plan. The number of the beds in the complex has increased more than 18 times over the last forty years, and new building, reconstruction, and enlargement of the existing structures is now taking place in more than ten areas. As a result, the 4525 beds that now exist will increase by 1310. New sites for buildings are being prepared as well. Trees have been cut down in the central part of the complex for holiday houses for the State Council. Trees have been cut down and a road built in Raikovski Livadi area for holiday houses for the Plovdiv Engine-Powered Truck Works. New cuttings have been planned for the building of hotels. At the same time, the ski trails are in miserable condition due to erosion; while there is much quarrelling about their possession, no one is maintaining them. The huge ditch intended for a future ski-jump in the "Studenets" chalet region has been a gaping hole, abandoned to floods and winds.

The water supply of the complex is also an issue. The resort buildings were constructed first - and then their water needs were considered. At the cost of a cruel amount of nature destruction - the building of a highway-like road for 30 km through native coniferous forests - all water sources along the northern slopes of the Perelik massif have been appropriated. Only then was serious consideration given to the fact that these waters served the needs of the village of Mugla. Nobody had been interested in the ecological results of the capturing of these waters.

The most disturbing fact is that the building of the holiday houses, ski tracks, lifts, and other structures occurs chiefly on lands in the forest fund (85% of the complex' total territory). This takes place notwithstanding the fact that the plantations are referred to as "Special Purpose Forests." Some of the trees in this area are used as seed sources because of their good genetic qualities. Pamporovo is Pamporovo because of its forest - the chief environmental factor, which, in combination with the climate, relief, and high aesthetic value of the landscape, provided the original purpose for building the resort. But timber cutting in Pamporovo continues, and it has allowed the forest to come to resemble a torn rag, provoking the next tornado that visits to leave behind only the bare and protuberant concrete palaces.

The situation is the same with all the large resorts in the Rhodopes. A number of wealthy agencies (and, recently, private individuals) have already come to dislike the noisy places, and so they build new retreats in the more remote parts of the mountains. Convenient tarmac roads are built to those places. Three illegal buildings have been raised this winter on Snezhanka Peak, but nobody has yet established their illegality. And now, after Snezhanka, the glances are cast towards Perelik and Persenk.

9. Agricultural activities

In 1962 the cooperative farms in the Smolian, Chepelare, and Momchilovtsi lands plowed up the alpine pastures and planted them with potatoes. The senselessness of that act came to be understood two or three years later, and the potato fields were abandoned. Thereafter, those ridges of the mountains were subject to intensive erosion.

In the lower parts of the Rhodopes, where the former cooperative farms grew potatoes, fertilizers and pesticides were applied aerially. The damage to biological diversity, especially the large vertebrates and fishes, was considerable. This problem will decease automatically with the privatization of the agricultural areas in the Rhodope Mountains.

Recommendations

1. It is paradoxical that, despite their unique natural and cultural values, which rank first among the significant regions of the country, the Rhodope Mountains are the only part of the country where a significant protected area has not yet been created. It is also a paradox that, while national parks occupy from 30 to 100% of the territories of the Vitosha, Pirin, Rila, and Stara Planina Mountains, there is not yet a national park in the most significant and easily accessible - and thus most vulnerable - Bulgarian mountains. Furthermore, protected natural areas in the Rhodopes comprise only 1.2% of the territory.

That is why a national park should be declared at once in the Rhodope Mountains. The park should include within its boundaries Batak Mountain, Syutkia, Trigrad, Yagodino Karst, and Mursalitsa, and should connect through the Pamporovo, Rozhen, and Haidushki Poliani with the Prespan part of the Rhodopes, including Manastirishte, Krushevska Mountain, Gradishte, Dobrostan, and the Karakulas hills. In this way, the national park will unite the four Rhodope biosphere reserves - the Kupena, Mantaritsa, Dupkata, and Chervenata Stena - as well as the Beglika, Kastrakli, Kazanite, Shabanitsa, Amzovo, Soskovcheto, and Momchilovski Dol reserves, and even the Kazulcherpa reserve. The Tumra, Batashki Snezhnik, Sokola, Samodivska Poliana, Baltaboaz, Trigrad Gorge, Livadite, and Rozhen protected areas, as well as the Erkyupria and Buinovsko Gorge natural monuments, will also be located in the park territory. More than 200 caves will be protected, including the Snezhanka, Diavolsko Garlo, Led-nitsata, Yagodinskata, Bisernata, and many others.

The southern border of the park in the region of Trigrad and Pelerik will coincide with the Bulgarian national boundary. This will afford the opportunity to create an international park that includes a great part of the Rhodopes' territory in the Republic of Greece. A significant part of the eastern Rhodope Mountains, as well as some of the westernmost parts, may be further added to the park. All primary forests that, for different reasons, have not been cut down before now, as well as all valuable but unprotected territories, will also be included in the park.

The park will balance human activities as they affect the existing protected natural areas, and will create conditions that promote natural regeneration processes and biological productivity for the ecosystem as a whole. The national park will provide an opportunity to introduce scientific approaches to the regeneration and maintenance of forest ecosystems. It will contribute to the establishment of a complete system of plant associations in which natural dynamics and mutual relations will predominate. It will also contribute to the conservation of the Rhodopes' historical and archeological monuments, and the typical Rhodope culture and style of living.

2. New, effective legal barriers need to be established as soon as possible to prevent such activities as over cutting, promiscuous building in all its forms, poaching, intensive mushroom gathering, and all other activities that contribute to the anomalous and unnatural use of natural resources and threaten the stability of the region's biological diversity.

3. Means should be immediately secured to institute a broad educational program among the local people, who need to understand plainly that, in the end, by conserving biological diversity in the Rhodope Mountains they will ensure their own continued existence. Without the involvement of the local population as direct participants in those activities, many conservation concepts and measures will be doomed, if not to failure, then to only partial realization.

Opportunities for United Conservation and Development Actions

The soft, rolling terrain of the Rhodope Mountains, with its vast pastures, is one of the main reasons they have been inhabited so widely and for so long. From ancient times up to our own day, stock-breeding - principally sheep-breeding - has been one of the basic occupations of the Rhodope people. The most important quality for beneficial sheep-breeding in the Rhodope Mountains is their proximity to Aegean Thrace, where the numerous herds of the Rhodope people pastured during the winter. Consequently, stock-breeders could raise their animals with al-most no expenses for food - during the summer in the cool Rhodope pastures, during the winter in the region of the Aegean Sea. In this way, the Rhodope stock-breeders have achieved cheap production and high quality.

However, the progressive destruction of traditional stock-breeding practices in the Rhodope Mountains began to be observed after the coercive collectivization of the lands and animals in the Rhodopes after 1957. Now, with the reinstatement of private ownership of land in the Rhodope Mountains, the conditions are being created for a revival of this traditional occupation of the Rhodope people.

Without question, the Rhodope tradition of sheep-breeding lies at the base of the natural and cultural heritage that we have received from our ancestors. Erosion due to overgrazing of defined territories never existed here, because the Rhodope pastures have no boundaries and tacit consent has always existed for the distribution of the pastures among the herds. The moderate level of pasturing has hindered the eventual return of the climax vegetation, chiefly the forest community, to the grass associations, which would otherwise destroy the diversity of species and endemic flora that are so typical of the Rhodope Mountains.

Moderate hand mowing - in contrast to the mechanical mowing found in the Alps - also favors conservation of the grass associations, the sheep again being the critical factor.

As for the cultural wealth of the Rhodope Mountains, neither the fleecy rugs, nor the bells, dairy farms, woolen mills, fairs, barbecues, camps, bagpipes, or songs could exist without sheep.

In addition to all that, ecotourism may in the future find sheep to be a solid, ecologically clean food base. Many of the local people may secure their living by receiving tourists and sheep-breeding.

Results of the Survey

The BUCRM carried out a public survey in three Rhodope settlements to provide background information for the national conservation strategy. One hundred people from three settlements - a large town, a small town, and a village - were questioned. The larger town was Smolian, the smaller one was Batak, and the village was Laki. The questionnaires were distributed as follows:

Smolian 40
Batak 35
Laki 25

These settlements were not selected accidentally. When choosing them we were guided mainly by their proximity to rich centers of biological diversity, mainly protected natural areas (reserves, protected areas, etc.). The four biosphere reserves in the Rhodope Mountains (the Chervenata Stena, Mantaritsa, Kupena, and Dupkata reserves), the nature reserves Momchilovski Dol, Soskovtcheto, Shabanitsa, Kastrakli, Izgorialoto Gyume, Kazanite, and Beglika, and many other protected areas where the floral and faunal wealth of the Rhodope Mountains is concentrated rare located in or near a triangle marked by Batak, Smolian, and Laki.

Our general impression from the survey is that, despite the presence of these natural areas, almost all of those surveyed (excluding professionals and others somehow involved in biology - foresters, biologists, etc.) are unclear about the meaning and scope of "protected areas and sites." Very often the term "reserve", even "nature reserve," is confused with "hunting reserve," while the terms "protected area" and "national park" are either unknown or are used without an understanding of their real meaning.

The fact that questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were left unanswered in many of the questionnaires is an indication of this low level of nature protection literacy. Question 17 was also often left unanswered, or was answered abstractly, confirming the low level of ecological literacy and interest in at least half of those questioned. It should be mentioned here that the questionnaires were also offered to people of more extensive intellectual training. Otherwise, if we had relied on randomly chosen people, most of the questions would have been left unanswered.

That is why educating local people on ecological issues and nature protection, which we believe to be a basic need, needs to be undertaken at appropriate levels. People must be able to respond to the questions put to them. (For example, the animals and plants in Survey Question 1 are placed in the same sub-question. According to this logic, the animals should decrease and the plants increase, or vice versa, in a specific region.).

It should also be noted that no one from the three settlements who was asked to fill out the survey refused to do so. Moreover, a definite interest in ecological and knowledge about nature protection exists in the people. The most important aspect of this, in our view, is that education of the local population in the direction of so-called sustainable (ecological) development will help to conserve biological diversity and provide for the use of natural resources in a manner that is in harmony with nature.

Our impressions from carrying out the survey were written before the questionnaire results were received and processed. We provide this information, without corrections, so that we may compare our direct first-hand impressions to the results of the questionnaires. The results themselves are provided here in the order of the questions.

1. How do you appraise the condition of the environment in your region?

The interesting fact is that, regarding soil and air quality, the number of people surveyed who consider their region polluted is almost equal to the number who consider their region clean. But in terms of waters, the number of the people who regard them as polluted exceeds by almost three times the number who consider them clear. On this basis, we may conclude that of the three basic components of the environment - soil, air, and water - the waters are the most polluted in the part of the Rhodope Mountains that was surveyed. Sixty-one percent of those surveyed are of the opinion that the animals in their region are decreasing. Only 6% think that they are increasing. The other 94% are certain that the animals have not increased. The conclusion is indisputable; according to the local people, the animals are decreasing.

2. Do you have hunting reserves in your region?

and

3. Do you know about the protected natural territories in your region? (We unite the comments on these two questions because the first had been asked in order to distinguish hunting reserves and nature reserves).

While 89% of those surveyed know about the hunting reserves, and only 8% were unaware that there were such reserves in the region, only 69% know about the protected areas (which are much greater in number within the territories surveyed). Twenty percent stated that there are no protected areas in the vicinity, and 8% did not know. Our impressions about the low level of information and the urgent need for an educational policy in this direction was thus confirmed.

4. If you have an impression, what would you estimate the number of visitors to the reserves to be?

Notwithstanding the fact that this question, in our view, was not well formulated (visiting the reserves is forbidden, but such is not the case with the national parks, protected areas, and historical places), only 3% know that entrance to the reserves is forbidden. Most of the answers were along the lines of "little impression," "insufficient impression," "no impression," or "I cannot appraise."

5. Do you visit the national park or the reserve?

and

6. What do you usually do there?

The survey revealed that 18% of the people visit the reserves frequently (as still there is no national park in the Rhodope Mountains), and 36% visit them rarely. This proves categorically that the reserves are mistaken for recreation and tourism sites. And most of the people enjoy nature (22%) or hiking (19%).

7. Please list four things that you liked most when you visited the park/reserve.

and

8. Please list up to four things that you did not like when you visited the park/reserve.

A multitude of interesting answers were received to both questions. Twenty-seven of the one hundred people surveyed enjoyed the virgin natural surroundings, 9 enjoyed the silence, 10 the animals, 9 the plants, 7 the unpolluted air, and 6 the beauty of nature. Five people disliked the improper management of the area, 3 the poor guarding, 5 the cutting of trees, 2 the throwing out of waste, and only one mentioned poaching.

9. What in your view would be the effect of privatizing the agricultural sector on the wild animals and plants in your region?

The answers to this question (and sub-questions) are rather contradictory. Thirty-three percent of those questioned shared the opinion that pollution would increase after the extension of the agricultural sector (57% did not answer the question). Forty-one percent of the same sample believed that privatization would increase the opportunities for reasonable utilization of the environment (48% did not answer the question). Twenty-three percent thought that it would create possibilities for conservation of wild nature (66% did not answer the question). The answers to this question support in principle the stand of the BUCRM for the revival of sheep-breeding in the Rhodope Mountains.

10. In your estimation, do the small private enterprises (like dairy farms, woodworking and craft enterprises, service enterprises, etc.) threaten the forests, wild plants, and animals?

Sixty percent of those questioned were explicit that small enterprises do not threaten biological diversity, which coincides again with the stand of the BUCRM.

11. If land is returned to you, how would you use it?

Thirty-two percent of those questioned have no land or did not answer the question. Seven percent have not decided yet what to do with the land. Nine percent will rent it, 11% will deal with agriculture, 4% will breed animals, and 29% will join in a cooperative.

12. Do you think that the development of tourism, con-nected with the protection of and education about wild plants and animals (ecotourism), has a future?;

and

13. If you think that ecotourism is appropriate for your region, what do you think it would contribute to?

Ninety-five percent of those surveyed believe that ecotourism has a future in the Rhodope Mountains. That definitely coincides with the opinion of the BUCRM. This statement is also supported by the answers to the following question. Respondents stated that ecotourism would contribute to:

conservation of wild nature 57% (28%)
protection of threatened wild animals and plants 18% (55%)
opening of new work places 60% (34%)
expanding of the private sector 37% (53%)
incomes for the region 61% (38%)
ecological education and culture 56% (41%)

Only 4% answered that ecotourism is not appropriate. In order to get the full idea about the answers to these questions, the number of those surveyed who did not answer the corresponding sub-question is shown in brackets next to the result.

14. In your view, are wild plants and animals threatened by activities like __________ ?

The answers to this question confirm the stand of the BUCRM in favor of sustainable development of the Rhodope Mountains. The following activities were not seen as threats to biological diversity:

tourism 51% (24%)
animal breeding 46% (36%)
agricultural activities 44% (41%)
small enterprises 39% (34%)
the returning of private property 41% (32%)

Forty-six percent (32%) of those surveyed answered that construction threatens biological diversity.

15. In your opinion, have any changes come in the state bodies and laws concerning conservation of the environment?

Eighty-one percent of those surveyed expressed the opinion that there have been no changes in the laws. Ninety-one percent claim that no funds have been provided to protect the environment. Eighty-nine percent answered that no changes connected to environmental conservation have taken place in the local state bodies. These answers allow us to state that radical changes are needed in the legal foundation, funding, and activities of the local state bodies as they concern conservation and the environment.

16. Can you identify at least two ways to use natural re-sources so that they may yield a profit to your region?

The answers here were interesting and rather varied, but all support the position of the BUCRM in favor of sustainable development in the Rhodopes. Thirty-nine percent of the answers referred to tourism, 10% to stock-breeding, and 2% to the wood industry. Others were distributed among natural medicinal treatments, herbs, mushrooms, wild fruits, hunting, fishing, etc.

17. Is there a natural site (plant, animal, territory, cave, rock, etc.) that in your opinion should be conserved?

The answers here are very interesting. Two responses ranked first, with 5 citations each: "the entire Rhodope Mountains" and "the wood grouse." Three people answered "the forests." Almost all the popular wood animals, the lilac, the caves, and several natural and cultural sites typical of the corresponding regions received single answers. The most frequent general answers (the entire Rhodope Mountains and the forests) confirm the position of the BUCRM for conserving the Rhodope Mountains in their totality, with regard for both the natural and cultural features. One of the answers - "the Kemer Bridge in the 'Dupkata' reserve" - is a revealing example of the situation in the Rhodopes. The Roman bridge is so woven in with the wild landscape that it is considered a natural site.

Copies of this report have been sent to all the local branches of the Union. The other NGOs involved in the development of the national biodiversity conservation strategy, some international organizations (WWF, IUCN, CIPRA, etc.), and various other organizations and administrations will also receive it. Appropriate extracts from the text will be published in the "Rhodope News," a daily newspaper in Smolian, and in other regional Rhodope newspapers.

Back | Table of Contents | Next