Report of the Wilderness Fund on the Status and Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Central Part of the Balkan Mountains
Nikolai Spassov, Kiril Georgiev, and Pavel Vassilev With the support and advice of the expert team of the Wilderness Fund
Introduction
This report synthesizes data on the flora, vegetation, vertebrate fauna, and protected areas of Bulgaria's Central Balkan (or Stara Planina) Mountains. It has been compiled with the aim of describing the ecosystems and biological diversity of this relatively intact part of the country. The status of the region's species and communities, the anthropogenic impacts on them, and the attitude of the local people toward nature are analyzed. This report includes recommendations for more effective conservation of this mountain territory and its exemplary natural attributes.
In preparing this report, we have reviewed the basic literature related to the relevant questions. In addition, we have used unpublished data from experts, as well as personal data and observations. Finally, to gain a better understanding of the attitudes of the local people toward biological diversity and the conservation of the mountains, we conducted a survey in three communities in the region.
Physical Geography of the Central Balkan Range
In a geomorphologic sense, the Balkan (Stara Planina) Mountains are divided into two parts: the Main Range and the Fore-Balkan. The central part of the Main Chain, from Zlatitsa Pass in the west to Vratnic Pass in the east, is the narrowest but most massive portion of the Balkan Mountains. High passes (Ribarishka at 1,570 m, Troyan at 1,520 m, Shipka at 1,200 m) split the ridge of this part of the Main Chain, which drops sharply to an altitude of 680 m in the Borushtensko-Rodovsko area around the Republica Pass. Along their total length of 185 km, the Central Balkan Range includes several sub-regions: Zlatishko-Teteven (Vezhen Peak - 2,198 m), Troyansko-Kaloffer (Botev Peak - 2,376 m), Shipchensko-Tryavna (Isspolin Peak - 1,524 m), and Eleno-Tvarditza (Choumerna Peak - 1,536 m).
The average altitude in the Central Balkan Range is 961 m. The southern slopes, from the ridges to the foot-hills, are very steep. The northern slopes are steep only in their higher parts, up to the height of the hills that connect the Main Chain and the Fore-Balkan. The highest parts of the mountains, at altitudes of 1,800-1,900 m, consist of rounded (Paskal Peak and Botev Peak) and flat (Zhaltetz Peak) ridges, in strong contrast to the steep fault slopes below.
Because of its location and relatively high altitude, the Balkan Range, and its Central part in particular, form an important climatic barrier. Its ridges constitute the border between the European Continental and the Transitional-Continental climatic zones. This is responsible for the differences in temperature and precipitation between the northern and southern slopes. The greatest average annual rainfall in the country during the years 1931-1970 was recorded at Ambaritsa Chalet (1,360 mm).
A belt of the brown and dark mountain-forest soils is found in the mountains within an altitudinal range of 700-800 m to 1,700-2,000 m. This forms the Balkan Range Soil Province. Light brown mountain-forest soils, characterized by a shallow profile (up to 60 cm) and poor humus horizon (from 12-15 cm), are dominant. Above 1,700-2,000 m is found the High Balkan Range Soil Province, a part of the mountain-meadow soils belt. Turf mountain-meadow soils, developed under the meadow grass formations, are characteristic of this soil province. Their profile extends from 80-90 cm (in the lower parts of the slopes) to 40 cm (in the highest parts of the ridges). Black-earth and secondary mountain-forest meadow soils occur rarely (see Geography of Bulgaria, published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 1982).
Biodiversity of the Central Balkan Range
1. Flora and Vegetation
The flora and vegetation of the Central Balkan Range have been the subject of numerous studies. This section summarizes the results of data published in the specialized literature, and also presents new data derived from research conducted by the authors. Transect and semi-stationary methods of sampling floral and phytocenological diversity have been used. Geobotanical descriptions have been used to define the plant communities and their basic characteristics, using the methods specified in the Short Field Guide for Geobotanical Surveys (1952) and in the five-volume work Field Geobotany (1959, 1960, 1964, 1972, 1976).
The Central Balkan Range plays an important role as a climatic border, and offers a wide variety of habitats on both its northern and southern slopes. In addition, the great altitude of the mountain ridge (Botev Peak - 2,376 m) allows for the appearance of vertical distribution in the vegetation.
Flora
Many floristic studies have shown that the Central Balkan Range has a rich diversity of species and is an active species-formation center. Different populations of the same species, as well as different species from northern and southern Bulgaria, have migrated and met in the Central Balkan Range. As proof of this statement, we point out that in the terrain of the range 12 species and 1 sub-species of local endemic plants have been classified. They are found only in the Central Balkan Range. These are: Silene balcanica (Urum.) Hayek, Rosa balcanica Dim, Alchemilla achtarovii Pawl., A. jumrukczalica Pawl., A. asteroantha Rothm., Trifolium pannonicum ssp. jurkovski Koz., Viola balcanica Delip., Seseli bulgaricum P.W.Ball., Primula frondosa Janka, Micromeria frivaldszkyana (Deg.) Vel., Betonica bulgarica Deg. et Neic., Centaurea karlovensis Friv., and Satureja pilosa Vel.
In the Central Balkan Range, another 11 species and 2 sub-species of plants endemic to Bulgaria have been described. These are: Minuartia bulgarica (Vel.) Graebn., Sedum stefco Stef., Sedum kostovii Stef., Sempervivum erythraeum Vel., Chamaecytisus kovacevii (Vel.) Rothm., Trifolium medium ssp. skorpilii Vel., Epilobium alsinifolium ssp. parviflorum I. Ganchev, Veronica krumovii Peev, Anthemis sanctijohannia Turril, Centaurea kernerana Janka, Alopecurus riloensis (Hack.) Pawl, Luzula deflexa Koz., and Jasionella bulgarica Stoj. et Stef.
A full account of the endemic plants of the Central Balkan Range must also mention, in addition to the Bulgarian 23 species and 3 sub-species, the 22 Balkan endemics. These are: Pinus peuce Griseb., Dianthus stribrny Vel., Sempervivum velenovskyi Ceschm., Alchemilla bulgarica Rothm., A. cathachnoa Rothm., A. indivisa (Buser.) Rothm., A. usteroantha Rothm., A. gracillina Rothm., Acer heldreichii Orph., Genista rumelica Vel., Trifolium velenovskyi Vandas, Armeria rumelica Boiss., Carum graecum Boiss. et Heldr., Angelica panciccii Vand., Androsace hedracantha Griseb., Gentianella bulgarica (Vel.) Holut, Haberlea rhodopensis Friv., Campanula moesiaca Vel., Senecio panciccii Deg., Campanula lanata Friv., Festuca riloensis (Hack. ex Hayek) Markgr., Iris reichenbachii Heuff.
Of these endemic plants, and some other rare and endangered plants from the Central Balkan Range, 8 species have been included in the "List of Rare, Endangered, and Endemic Plants in Europe" (see Appendix 1). Many of the Central Balkan Range species are listed in Volume II of the Red Book of the People's Republic of Bulgaria (1984). The category "endangered plants" includes 11 species (see Appendix 2); 78 species are listed as "rare plants" (see Appendix 3).
Many of the endemic plant species mentioned above, as well as those on the "List of Rare, Endangered, and Endemic Plants in Europe" and in the Bulgarian Red Book, occur rarely or their populations are small in number. Man, with his economic activities, turns out to be the main threat to the survival of these species. The ecology and biology of some of these species have been studied; other species have found their place on the List of Protected Plants of Bulgaria; still others have populations within the existing protected areas. However, the conservation measures undertaken have not yet covered the populations of all valuable species. Large-scale and extremely important work is needed in Bulgaria to further the study and preservation of this exceptional wealth.
Vegetation
Due to the specific location of the Central Balkan Range within the phytogeographic divisions of the country, its vegetation falls into the European broadleaf forest region, Iliric (Balkan) province, Central Balkan County (Geography of Bulgaria, 1982). The vegetation is characterized primarily by beech forests. Durmast and yoke-elm also occur, and in the higher elevations spruce and silver fir forests are common. The north- and south-facing slopes differ in climatic terms. This is reflected not only in the number of distinct vegetation zones, but also in the presence of different species with primary significance in forming the vegetation cover. The distribution of vegetation along altitudinal gradients is clearer on the northern slopes, where there are belts of xerothermic oak forest (up to 700 m), mesophylic and xeromesophylic oak and yoke-elm forest (from 600-700 to 900-1,000 m), beech forest (from 900-1,000 to 1,300- 1,500 m), partially developed evergreen forest (from 1,300-1,500 to 2,000-2,200 m), subalpine forest stands, mugo pine scrub forests, and juniper bushes (from 2,000-2,200 to 2,500 m). Elements of the Alpine belt are also present.
On the southern slopes, the upper border of the forest is considerably lower in elevation. These slopes are to a great extent deforested. There are only remnants of the first two vegetation belts, and in many places the natural vegetation cover has been completely replaced by grass communities or by conifer and acacia plantations. The belt of beech forests is fragmented and not fully developed. Secondary grass communities now play a major role in the vegetation, having replaced some of the beech forests and the totally extinguished belt of evergreen forests. The deciduous species Quercus cerris, Q. frainetto, Q. dalechampii, and Carpinus betulus occur in the first two belts on the northern slopes, whereas on the southern slopes the more thermophilic Quercus pubescens, Q. virgiliana, and Carpinus orientalis are present.
Xerothermic Oak Forest Belt
The cerris oak forest is a basic formation on northern slopes. It is found on silicate substrates with grey forest soils. The terrain is plain and the lay of the land concave. The natural vegetation includes stands dominated by cerris oak, but we also consider Quercus frainetto forests to be natural. Mixed tree formations with Carpinus betulus, Acer pseudoplatanus, and Fraxinus excelsior also occur. Because of anthropogenic influences (logging and grazing), the tree formations are secondary, and the grass understory includes no rare or relict plants. Ruderal plants are more common.
The Quercus frainetto formation, though of limited distribution due to its intensive exploitation, occurs on areas of convex relief with southern, eastern, or western exposures. The rock base of these forests is also mainly silicate with grey forest soils. Most of the described communities are mixed tree formations and are natural forests, despite the changes they have undergone. Derivative communities of Carpinus orientalis and forest- grass complexes (of Quercus frainetto, Chrysopogon gryllus, Festuca valesiaca, and Dichantium ischaemum) are also found. They are used intensively for wood, leaf fodder, and grazing.
A basic formation on southern slopes is that of Quercus pubescens. Other trees occurring in this formation include Quercus frainetto, Carpinus orientalis, and Fraxinus ornus. The formation occurs on different soil types - maroon forest soils, humus-carbonate, etc. - all of them more or less eroded. These communities are found on sites with convex relief and sunny exposure. Their distribution is very restricted due to their having been intensely used and destroyed.
The Quercus cerris-Quercus frainetto formation occurs on both northern and southern slopes. Better preserved forests are to be found on the northern slopes, on silicate terrains with grey forest soils. On the southern slopes, the soils are of the maroon forest type. The sites are slightly inclined, with convex relief, and western, eastern, or southern exposure. Crataegus monogyna, Cornus mas, and Cotinis coggygria are found in the understory of secondary forests of this type. In the grass understory Brachypodium pinnatum, Poa nemoralis, and Dactylis glomarata occur profusely and widely.
The forest types described above play a definite environment-forming role, protect the soil from erosion, and have a transforming influence on the climate.
Because of their proximity to human communities, the xerothermic oak forests all have signs of anthropogenic influence. Degradation has turned the vegetation from forest into shrub and grass communities. In some places, the terrain has been completely denuded. Some are now abandoned after their having been used as arable lands. Derivative communities of the Carpinus orientalis formation occur widely. The sites they occupy are, more often than not, steep, heavily eroded, and fully exposed to the sun. The rock substrate varies. Dampness is meager. Communities dominated by Carpinus orientalis predominate. The stands of trees vary in density and height. Still, they are of some economic importance and play a role in maintaining the environment.
The role of grass communities in this vegetation belt is quite large. The most frequently occurring communities are those of Chrysopogon gryllus, Festuca valensiaca, Dichantium ischaemum, and Poa bulbosa.
The Chrysopogon gryllus formation occurs widely on the slopes of the Central Balkan Range. The communities are found mostly on sites with slight inclines and sunny exposures. The rock substrates are either silicate or lime-stone. The soils are well developed and belong to the grey forest, maroon forest, or humus-carbonate soil types. Of the different associations containing Chrysopogon gryllus, the mono-dominant formation is found most frequently, especially on northern slopes. Mixed grass formations - with Festuca valesiaca, Agrostis capillaris, Dichantium ischaemum, etc. - are also found. The grass formations of the Chrysopogon gryllus communities are relatively rich in species. They are used for grazing and hay-growing. The Chrysopogon gryllus communities perform environment-forming, water-protection, and erosion-control functions. They are sensitive to trampling and this has contributed to their deterioration.
The Festuca valesiaca formation occurs on both northern and southern slopes, but usually in places with sunny exposure. It is characterized by a rich variety of species. All these communities are of a derivative nature and tolerate the trampling that grazing causes. The productivity and fodder qualities of Festuca valesiaca grass communities are good.
The formations of Dichantium ischaemum occur primarily in this vegetation belt. The sites they occupy usually have southern exposures. The soils are primarily eroded and dry. Mono-dominant communities are most widely found. The most frequently occurring mixed community is the D. ischaemum and Festuca valesiaca association. This formation is derivative and represents one of the last stages in the degradation of the vegetation cover.
The degradation of vegetation in this belt due to the influence of human economic activities has had serious environmental consequences. Climatic conditions have changed dramatically. Accelerated erosion processes have been triggered. Decertification processes have been initiated. These negative consequences have stimulated the efforts to create new pine and acacia plantations.
Mesophytic and Xeromesophytic Oak and Yoke-elm Forests
In this belt - especially on the northern slopes - the Quercus dalechampii formation is the most common. The sites are silicate and moderately damp. The soils are well developed, of the grey forest type on the northern slopes and of the maroon forest type on the southern slopes. In some cases, these communities are also found on brown forest soils. They prefer northern exposures. Communities with mono-dominant tree formations are most common. Quercus dalechampii also occurs in mixed formations with Quercus cerris, Carpinus betulus, C. orientalis, and other species. Despite degradation by man, the Quercus dalechampii communities have the highest productivity of any of the oak forests.
The Carpinus betulus formation is found in limited quantities on the northern slopes of the mountains. The sites it occupies are moderately damp with northern exposures. The soils are grey forest, with a silicate rock base. The associations are mainly dense, mono-dominant tree formations. The grass understory is poor in species composition and consists of typical sciophytes. The Carpinus betulus communities are mainly secondary in origin and low in productivity.
Rarely occurring in the Central Balkan Range - in damp ravines, near rivulets, and on limestone terrains - are the communities of the Ostrya carpinifolia formation. The grass understory consists of typical sciophytes, such as Poa nemoralis and Melica uniflora. The relict species Haberlea rhodopensis can be found in some places. These communities play a definite water-protection role.
Secondary communities of Corylus avellana, usually replacing Quercus dalechampii, occupy moderately damp sites with well developed soils.
Grass communities occurring largely in this belt are the associations Chrysopogon gryllus-Agrostis capillaris and Agrostis capillaris. These grass formations have good fodder qualities. They are derivative in nature.
The Central Balkan belt of mesophytic and xeromesophytic oak and yoke-elm forests, which once had an important environment-forming function, has changed considerably. It has been most seriously affected on the range's southern slopes. In some places, absolutely no vegetation remains. The derivative vegetation in these areas has reached the last stages of degradation.
Beech Forests
The belt of beech forests occupies a large area, especially on the northern slopes of the mountains. The basic formation consists of Fagus sylvatica, which was a component of the original vegetation. It occurs on varied exposures and on different rock bases. The soils are of the brown forest mountain type. They are well developed and relatively damp. The diversity of beech community types is great. Most widely occurring are the mono-dominant tree formations. Mixed tree formations are formed with Carpinus betulus, Ostrya carpinifolia, Acer pseudoplatanus, and other species. The association Fagus sylvatica-Laurocerasus officinalis is extremely interesting. These relict communities, with their evergreen understory, have been found on the northern slopes; they occupy the largest area in the Gabrovo Balkan. Everywhere in the beech forest belt, the grass of the forest floor includes mesophilic species such as Galium odoratum, Poa nemoralis, Dactylis glomerata, and Geranium macrorrhizum. In highly dense tree formations, there is no grass on the forest floor. The beech forests are of great economic importance for their timber productivity. They influence climatic conditions, protect soils, and regulate water flow. The extent of the beech forests has been considerably reduced, especially on the southern slopes, due to continuous exploitation.
Fagus sylvatica also forms mixed tree formations with the conifers Picea abies, Abies alba, and, more rarely, Pinus nigra. These formations occupy quite damp, thick, and rich dark-brown forest soils. The mixed beech-evergreen communities have great productivity and are of high economic significance.
In the belt of the beech forests, large areas are occupied by grass communities. Most widely encountered is the Agrostis capillaris formation. It occurs on brown forest, grey forest, and mountain-forest dark soils, usually in places with a northern exposure. The Agrostis capillaris communities are derivative in nature. A number of associations have been described in this formation. Subdominant to Agrostis capillaris are some species of Trifolium, Festuca nigrescens, Festuca valesiaca, etc. All of these have good fodder qualities.
Especially extensive are the Pteridium aquilinum formations, replacing forests of Fagus sylvatica, Carpinus betulus, and Quercus dalechampii.
Vegetation in the beech forest belt has been under intense anthropogenic pressure, and serious degradation has taken place. Many places have been stripped of forests, or the forests have been reduced to shrubs and grasses. In many places, reforestation with Scotch and Austrian pine is taking place.
Evergreen Forests
The belt of evergreen forests occurs only rarely in the Central Balkan Range. Among these forests, of definite interest is the Pinus peuce formation. It is found in the Vezhen part of the mountains. Pinus peuce is a Balkan endemic and this is the most northeastern habitat in its range. The species occupies steep slopes with a northern exposure or exposures with a northern aspect. The rock base is mainly silicate. The soils are dark mountain forest, quite damp, and rather stony. Most associations are mono-dominant. The usual codominant species in mixed formations is Picea abies. These communities are rich in shrubs and bushes of all sizes, such as Daphne mezereum, Vaccinium myrtillus, Vaccinium vitisidaea, and Juniperus sibirica. Among the grass species, most frequently found are Lerchenfeldia flexuosa, Calamagrostis arundinacea, and Luzula luzuloides.
The Picea abies formation covers limited areas with northern exposures or slopes with a northern aspect. The rock base is silicate. The soils are of the dark mountain forest type, strong and rich. Moisture is great and evenly distributed. In addition to the mono-dominant tree formations, Picea abies also occurs in mixed tree formations with Pinus peuce, Abies alba, and Fagus sylvatica. Shrubs (Vaccinium myrtillus) and grasses (Oxalis acetosella, Calamagrostis arundinacea, Luzula luzuloides) are also represented. Mosses are abundant. The Picea abies communities retain elements of the original vegetation. Exploitation has greatly reduced the area they cover.
Abies alba forests occur mostly in the Zlatishko-Teteven and Troyansko-Kallofer regions. They are not a major part of this vegetation belt. The Pinus sylvestris formation is limited and includes primarily plantations.
Tree formations of the evergreen forest belt have been removed and replaced by formations of shrubs, small bushes, and grasses. Shrub formations of Juniperus sibirica, Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitisidaea, Bruckenthalia spiculifolia, and other species are found. Grass formations of Festuca nigrescens are widely encountered. It is associated most frequently with Agrostis capillaris, Nardus stricta, Lerchenfeldia flexuosa, Bellardiochloa violaceae, etc. All these communities are derivative. The grass communities are used for grazing.
Subalpine Tree Formations, Dwarf Pine, and Juniper Formations
The belt of subalpine tree formations occurs largely along the ridges and on the northern and southern slopes of the mountains. Shrubs and small bushes play a major role in this zone.
The Pinus montana formation is represented by isolated communities at certain spots on the ridges and on the northern slopes of the Zlatishko-Teteven Mountain. These communities are evidence that the formation was formerly more widely distributed.
The Juniperus sibirica formation is the most extensive in this belt and is found at elevations of between 1,500-1,700 and 2,200 m. Juniperus sibirica communities can be seen on sites with various exposures and slopes. The rock base is mainly silicate. Subdominants in the communities include Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitisidaea, Bruckenthalia spiculifolia, and Lerchenfeldia flexuosa. Seven associations have been described. The wide occurrence of Juniperus sibirica formations can be attributed to its derivative origins, i.e., its development in the place of primary tree communities that have been destroyed. The Juniperus sibirica communities are used for grazing. Frequent fires have resulted in the formation of bush-and-grass complexes of Festuca nigrescens, S. airoides, Belardiochloa violacea, etc. The Juniperus sibirica communities have a definite soil protection role to play.
The Vaccinium myrtillus association includes 20 formations. Prevailing are mixed communities with Vaccinium vitisidaea, V. uliginosum, Bruckenthalia spiculifolia, Festuca nigrescens, and Agrostis capillaris. Almost all of these communities are derivative and have appeared in the place of destroyed forests.
The Vaccinium uliginosum formation is represented by communities of limited occurrence. The sites are silicate, with northern exposures. The soils are damp, and of the dark mountain-forest type. It occurs in 11 described mixed communities with Vaccinium myrtillus, Sesleria comosa, Bruckenthalia spiculifolia, and others. We assume that these communities represent remnants of the original vegetation.
The Arctostaphylus uva-ursi formation is represented by one association only. The area it occupies is small and of no great significance for the vegetation of the belt as a whole.
The Vaccinium vitisidaea formation is represented by only one association.
The Bruckenthalia spiculifolia formation occurs on southern exposures, sites with convex relief, and eroded terrains. Four associations have been described.
In this vegetation belt, formations of Festuca airoides, Juncus trifida, Lerchenfeldia flexuosa, Festuca balcanica, Bellardiochloa violacea, Calamagrostis arundinacea, Deschampsia flexuosa, and others also occur. They make the vegetation of this belt highly specific and unique. A limited number of these associations have been studied.
Definitely important, with its wide occurrence, is the Nardus stricta formation. Regardless of the exposure, altitude, moisture, soil type, etc., these communities find favorable conditions for their development, even under continuous grazing and, hence, trampling. The deteriorated conditions for aeration allow for the expansion of the area of Nardus stricta communities. Five associations have been described. The species include these of Festuca nigrescens, Poa media, Festuca airoides, Bellar-diochloa violacea, Agrostis rupestris, etc. It has been established that, despite the large area occupied by Nardus stricta communities, cattle avoid and do not graze the sharp leaves of Nardus stricta; furthermore, these communities are low in productivity. The Nardus stricta communities form dense grass mats; when cattle pass, these are easily damaged and small portions of turf are torn away. These communities play a definite role in protecting soils.
Alpine Vegetation
As there are no areas in the Central Balkan Range with altitudes above 2,500 m, the alpine vegetation belt per se has no clear or distinguishable presence. However, individual elements of this belt occur in the Central Balkan Range at lower than usual altitudes. This, we suppose, is due to cold air masses that come into the region without impediment from the north and northwest. Vegetation communities typical of alpine vegetation consist of Agrostis rupestris, Juncus trifidus, Sesleria comosa, Festuca airoides, Alopecurus gerardii, and other species. These are found only in limited areas, but nevertheless are of special scientific interest. They are not economically important.
2. Fauna
According to most surveys performed in the region, the Balkan Mountains should be placed in the so-called Balkan Biogeographic Province (Spiridonov, unpub.). The mountains are situated at a crossroads where animal and plant species of the European Broadleaved Zone, the Mediterranean, the Continental Steppes, and the alpine regions meet. In the Balkan Mountains the Central European and Euro-Siberian faunal elements dominate. The most typical groups of species are those of the Boreal and Arctic-Alpine fauna.
The fauna of the Central Balkan Range distinguishes it from other parts of the mountain chain. This is due to the lay of the land and its relatively high elevation. Owing to these characteristics, the central range was less affected by human activities, and primary biocenoses and species that no longer occur in the other parts of the Balkan Mountains have survived.
Species Diversity
In the so-called High Balkan Mountains, 220 higher animal species breed: 7 fishes, 10 amphibians, 15 reptiles, 139 birds, and 49 mammals. These species are grouped into several faunistic complexes (FC) according to the ele-vations where they are distributed: the low mountain FC, the mountain beech and spruce-beech forest FC, the mountain coniferous forest FC, and the subalpine FC (after Spiridonov, 1983).
Many of the fish species occur in the low mountain FC, while one appears in all the complexes.
The amphibian species are also concentrated in the low mountain FC (8 of the 10 species occur there). Their diversity in the mountain beech and fir-beech FC is relatively high, and two species thrive in the subalpine FC. One versatile species occurs in all of the complexes.
The greatest diversity of reptiles also occurs in the low mountain FC (7 of the 15 species). Five species are found in the mountain beech and fir-beech forest FC, four in the mountain coniferous forest FC, and two in the subalpine FC.
Of the 139 bird species of the Central Balkan Mountain, 28 are threatened with extinction. They are classified into several categories according to the degree of threat (Spiridonov, 1983), as follows:
Extinct and nearly extinct: grey heron (Ardea cinerea), bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus), Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), griffin vulture (Gyps fulvus), Cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus), imperial eagle (Aquila heliacea), saker falcon (Falco cherrung), capercallie (Tetrao urogallus).
Threatened with extinction: black stork (Ciconia nigra), lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina), booted eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), northern hobby (Falco subbuteo).
Endangered: sparrow hawk (Accipiter nisus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus), stock dove (Columba oenas), white-backed wood-pecker (Picoides leucotus lilfordi), black wood-pecker (Dryocopus martius).
Rare: golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), long-legged buzzard (Buteo rufinus), eagle owl (Bubo bubo), Ural owl (Strix uralensis), Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus), wallcreeper (Trichodroma muraria).
The avifauna of the Central Balkan Mountains is characterized by the richness of forest species that have not yet been sufficiently studied. In the different complexes the dominant bird species are determined by the types of forest ecosystems and their exposures, which means that they are also determined by elevation. In the Boatin and Tsaritchina reserves, the representative bird species and the ornithocenological complexes and groups have been well studied. In the beech forests of the Boatin reserve, the chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), European robin (Erithacus rubecula), blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla), European nut-hatch (Sitta europaea), and great tit (Parus major) are dominant (Spiridonov et al., 1983). In the Tsarichina reserve, a little further east, the dominant species are almost the same, except for the last two. In addition to the four other species mentioned above, two other species commonly occur in the mixed spruce-beech forests of the Tsarichina reserve: the gold-crest (Regulus regulus) and wood warbler (Phylloscopus collybitus). In the mixed spruce-white fir forests of the reserve, the chaffinch (Frangilla coelebs), firecrest (Regulus ignicapillus), chiff-chaff (Ph. collybitus), European robin (Erithacus rubecula), and goldcrest (Regulus regulus) are dominant (Spiridonov et al., 1987).
The ornithofauna of the subalpine zone differs substantially from that of the forest zone, although half of the dominant and subdominant species are forest species. Species of the open and semi-open forests occur there - including rock pipit (Anthus spinoletta), alpine accentor (Prunella collaris subalpinus), tree pipit (Anthus trivialis), whichat (Saxicola ruberta), black redstart (Phoenicurus ochrurus), and dunnock (Prunella modularis). The alpine pastures are less rich in species than the subalpine zone. In the Tsarichina reserve for example, only 13 species are found, including the dominant rock pipit (Anthus spinoletta) and shoe lark (Eremophila alpestris balcanica) (Spiridonov et al., 1987).
In the old forests of the Central Balkan Range, large parts of which fall within the boundaries of the strict nature reserves and the National Park, rare woodpecker species occur. They are listed in the Red Book of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. A representative subspecies - the southern white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos lilfordi) - deserves special attention. Some one hundred pairs of this species breed in the reserves of the Central Balkan Range. It inhabits the old beech and mixed forests and feeds on xylophagous insects (Spiridonov, 1985). The black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) also inhabits the old forests. The last habitats of the capercallie in the Central Balkan Range are in the Tsarichina reserve; the most recent observation of this species dates from 1980.
Among the birds of prey, the griffin vulture (Gyps fulvus) is extremely rare. It has been observed only occasionally over the last 25 years. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) has bred in the Stara Reka reserve and the long-legged buzzard (Buteo rufinus) has been observed there since 1982 during its nesting period.
The nocturnal birds of prey of the Central Balkan ecosystems are of special conservation interest. Research in the late 1970s and 1980s (Spiridonov et al., 1982; Spiridonov and Mileva, 1988) verified for the first time the nesting of the Ural owl (Strix uralensis) in Bulgaria. It is found in the Boatin, Tsarichina, and Steneto reserves in old beech and mixed forests. The same studies also indicated the existence of Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus), thus establishing a new Bulgarian habitat for the species (it also occurs in the Rila Mountains). It is also interesting to note the data concerning the pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), which is considered extinct in Bulgaria and in the past was observed only in the Rila Mountains. The last observation took place in Rila in 1955. On the other hand, sightings and calls between pairs were recorded in 1975 and 1983 in Tsarichina and Steneto (Spiridonov et al., 1987; Spiridonov and Mileva, 1988), which suggests that the species likely inhabits the old coniferous forests of the Central Balkan Range.
The small mammals are typical of the European forest-mountain fauna. The total number of species is 33. The number of species is different in the different forest formations. Population density varies from year to year, depending on environmental conditions. Research at Tsarichina (Zemanek, 1987) suggests that in the old beech forests the density of rodents is low compared to that of the spruce forests, but higher than that of the white fir forests. On the other hand, species diversity in the old beech forests is higher than in the other two formations.
The distribution of the large mammal fauna indicates that the low-mountain FC, the mountain (beech and fir-tree forests) FC, and the mountain (coniferous) FC are highest in value.
The large mammals of the Central Balkan Range are represented by 14 species. In addition, there are several species that occur only occasionally, where conditions are suitable. These include the marbled polecat (Vormela peregusna peregusna), which occurs in several rocky regions (Steneto), and the jackal (Canis aureus), which in recent years has only rarely been found in lower parts of the river valley. The raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) has been observed only once, in the lower parts of Teteven Balkan Mountain, and this was probably a wandering individual. In the past - up to the 1960s - the European lynx (Lynx lynx) was found in some parts of the mountains.
Detailed studies in Tsarichina allow us to classify the characteristic large mammals into several categories according to the frequencies of their occurrence:
- Occurring very often: the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and fox (Vulpes vulpes);
- Occurring often: the stone marten (Martes foina), red deer (Cervus elaphus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), and weasel (Mustela nivalis);
- Occurring rarely: the bear (Ursus arctos) and pine marten (Martes martes);
- Occurring very rarely: the otter (Lutra lutra), wild cat (Felis silvestris), badger (Meles meles), and pole-cat (Mustela putorius).
This classification does not include the Balkan chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica) or wolf (Canis lupus). It reflects the relative density of the populations and the occurrence of the species on the north slopes of the Central Balkan Range, and does not include its lower parts (mainly in the Boatin and Tsarichina Reserves). The last group of species - the wild cat, badger, and black polecat - have large populations.
The north slopes of the mountains are characterized by high humidity, and are rich in terms of vegetation. They are thus suitable for ungulate species. The density of ungulates decreases in the upper parts of the forests, even in the deciduous forests, in winter. During these periods, the animals graze on the south slopes, some of them even migrating to them across the main crest. It is interesting to note that, in addition to the mass migration of animals to the lower parts of the mountains, the reverse process can also be observed. When the snow cover is deepest, the fox and deer can also be found above the forest line (Spiridonov et al., 1987). The deer also graze in the alpine meadows during the period when they drop their antlers. Sometimes even the badger (Meles meles) can be found in the subalpine zone (it has been observed in the middle of May at an altitude of 1,900 m).
The breeding habitats of most of the large mammals species are located in the forest zone. Most of the species use the forest and subalpine zones as a trophic base. It is worth mentioning, in this context, studies of doe propagation at the Boatin and Tsarichina Reserves from 1988 to 1992, which determined that the main period of fawn births occurs from the middle of May until the end of June. This is the earliest such period yet determined in Bulgaria (Spiridonov et al., 1987). Early birth of the weasel (at the beginning of May) has also been determined in Boatin, near the Komitsky valog (Spassov and Spiridonov, unpub.).
The absence of predatory animals such as the wolf (which since the mid-1980s has returned to these localities) and lynx, and the significant propagation of deer, wild boars, and especially roe deer, has resulted in disturbance of the balance of the primary ecological systems preserved in the national park. Actually, the predatory function of these animals is now performed by poachers only - recently without any scruples whatso-ever. The disturbance of predator-prey relationships is possibly due to the ungulates' lack of experience with the permanent chase and their resultant inability to defend themselves against real predatory animals. For example, dozens of roe deer were killed in one or two winter seasons by just one predatory animal - a wolf-dog hybrid - in the valley of the Zavodna River in 1983-1984 (Spiridonov et al., 1987). Another example of the degradation of predator-prey relationships is the increase in the populations of roe deer and foxes in the absence of their traditional enemies. The group hunting that has been observed among foxes is a consequence of this population growth.
The Central Balkan Range provides habitat for a number of globally or nationally threatened species, including the wolf, bear, otter, marten, and Balkan chamois. The populations of most of these species are healthy and typical for the region.
Wolf (Canis lupus)
Listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book. This species inhabited the region until the 1960s, when it began gradually to disappear. This decline coincided with the low point in its population in the country generally. The restoration of the species in the Central Balkan Mountain began in the early 1980s. It is likely that the region has been repopulated by migrants from the Sredna Gora Mountains. The considerable density of roe deer and wild boar, and the inaccessibility of their habitats in the almost intact natural areas of the national park, will ensure a stable population in the region.
Bear (Ursus arctos)
Listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book as rare. It inhabits the central part of the Balkan Mountains but has disappeared from the eastern and western parts. The population on the southern slopes of the mountains is 86 individuals (Raichev, 1989). According to data obtained in a survey of the forestry departments, the bears in the Central Balkan Range number approximately 210 (Spiridonov and Mileva, 1989, 1990, unpub.). Thus the highest density of the species is in this region. Their traditional habitats are situated on the southern and northern slopes at an altitudes above 800 m (Spiridonov and Spassov, 1990). The dens are situated between 800 and 1,800 m, but usually above 1,200 m (Spiridonov and Spassov, 1990). Only pregnant bears enter true hibernation. Early in the spring and sometimes in the autumn the bears will attack herds of domestic animals grazing in the mountain meadows. For that reason, bears are hunted by people.
In 1984, a bear hunting reserve was established and Carpathian bears were introduced there. This has damaged the genetic purity of the bear population in the Central Balkan Range. The release of captive-bred bears and supplementary feeding of the animals has sharpened the antagonistic bear-man relationship. This has led to an increase in bear aggressiveness (Spiridonov and Mileva, 1987; Spiridonov and Spassov, 1990).
This species was declared protected in January 1993. Securing suitable habitats and missing pieces in the reserve network would improve the situation for this isolated population. It would also be useful if some of the bears introduced from the Carpathians were eliminated.
Pine marten (Martes martes)
Listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book. Its habitats in the Central Balkan Range are very important for the survival of the species in the country. A typical species of old coniferous and beech forests, it has perfect habitat conditions in the region. The population in Bulgaria has decreased due to intensive hunting, deterioration of its habitats in the plains, and anthropogenic impacts on the balance in its competitive relationship with the stone marten. The stone marten (Martes foina) dominates the broadleaved zone, but often occurs as well in typical pine marten habitats - old mixed and coniferous forests, mainly near huts and in rocky regions (Spiridonov et al., 1987). It is possible, however, that the preserved old forests in the national park will contribute to the long-term survival of the marten in the Central Balkan Range.
Otter (Lutra lutra)
This species is listed as threatened in Bulgaria's Red Data Book. The otter's typical habitats are not found in high mountain regions; it is found there mainly during the summer months. For these reasons the otter population in the Central Balkan Range is not very large. Over the last few years, however, otters have begun to spread to the mountainous regions. For example, otters have been observed in the lowest parts of the Boatin Reserve and in the buffer zones of the Tsarichina Reserve. This is probably due to the contamination and decrease of fish food sources in the middle and lower currents of the rivers.
Wild cat (Felis silvestris)
The only species examined here that has not been listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book. According to the available data, however, the species is vulnerable due to the potential for hybridization with the domestic cat (Spassov and Spiridonov, unpub.). Studies indicate that in some regions of Bulgaria the degree of hybridization is very high and will affect the genetic purity of the population. Because the Central Balkan Range is relatively poor and sparsely populated, with unfavorable living conditions for people, the threat of hybridization in this area is considered insignificant. As an inhabitant of forests with high rodent population densities, the wild cat hardly occurs in the higher parts of the mountains. On the other hand, their density in the mixed beech-hornbeam and pure beech forests (at altitudes up to 1,000-1,200 m) is very high.
Balkan chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica)
A subspecies listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book. It is of special interest as a Balkan endemic. It is found on southern slopes, mainly in the higher parts of the mountains. In the beginning of the century the species was distributed from the Vezen to the Tvrdishki Balkan (Spiridonov, unpub.) Poaching has been the principal threat to the subspecies. The population now numbers about 200 individuals (Spiridonov and Mileva, unpub.). The Balkan Mountain population is concentrated in the Central Balkan National Park and is the smallest in the country. It is therefore considered to be the most threatened (including the threat from genetic deterioration). The species is subject to hunting. The Bulgarian Red Data Book identifies poaching, sheep flocks, and the influence of tourism as negative factors. Its status is regulated by law, and the Balkan Mountain population is effectively preserved within the boundaries of the national park. The number of the population in the park is expected to reach over 500 (Spiridonov, unpub.).
Lynx (Lynx lynx)
A species of special importance to conservation for monitoring faunistic complexes and ecosystems in the Central Balkan Range is the lynx. Unfortunately, it has disappeared from the country. According to available data (Spiridonov and Mileva, unpub.), the lynx was last observed in 1940 near the town of Karlovo. The almost intact state of the potential habitats, the existing vegetation, the lay of the land, the system of protected areas, and the high number of the roe deer (the main prey of lynx in this region) will, it is hoped, enable the species to be reintroduced in its previous habitats (Spiridonov, 1985). The first steps toward reintroduction have been taken by the Ministry of Environment, including a visit from an expert from the National Hunting Service of France to assess potential habitats.
Threats to Faunal Diversity
The system of protected areas in the Central Balkan Range ensures that good opportunities will exist for the preservation of the region's faunal diversity. However, a number of different threats exist. They vary according to the species and their ecological circumstances. The degree of threat also depends very much on the relationship between the species and people, and on the attitudes of the local population. Poaching, for example, is one the most serious direct threats.
Measures Needed for Species Conservation
1. Establishment of an institution to provide effective control and safeguarding of the protected areas.
2. Enlargement of buffer zones in the areas where hunting tourism has developed and around the protected areas.
Protected Areas in the Central Balkans
At present, a model system of protected areas exists in the central part of Balkan Mountains. The Central Balkans National Park, designated in 1991, includes 9 large reserves (only one of them is smaller than 1,000 ha). The reserves, their sizes, and their dates of desig-nation are listed in Table 1. The total area of the reserves is 20,020 ha, and that of the national park 73,261.8 ha. The location of the park was the result of a 20-year-long process during which surveys and other steps were undertaken to expand the area of the reserves and to set up enforceable buffer zones (Spiridonov, unpub.). Eight of the reserves are within the park's territory.
Nowhere in the rest of the Balkan Mountains (or the Sredna Gora) can such a high concentration of wildlife of such quality be seen. This assertion is based on the fact that the greatest variation in altitude is observed here - from 600 to nearly 2,400 m a.s.l. (including a well- formed subalpine belt and an emerging alpine belt around Botev Peak). This creates conditions for the richest climatic, biotic, and cenotic diversity. Within the park's boundaries are both northern and southern mountain slopes, with their rich biotic and cenotic diversity, allowing for the migration of a large number of bird and large mammal species to the protected areas on a seasonal basis (Spiridonov, unpub.).
Within this area is also one of the three most important silicate-base centers of species formation in Bulgaria - the Kalofer Mountain and Triglav Peak (Koz-huharov,1977). In the rest of the area, endemic species are either rarely found or are scattered over a large area (as in the Sredna Gora). The Central Balkan Range also has the richest flora of all the botanical and geographical regions of the country - over 2,000 species and subspecies (Kozhuharov et al., 1980). Rare and endangered animal species are more numerous here than in any other region of the Balkan Mountain and Sredna Gora region.
Table 1. Reserves in the Central Balkan Range, their sizes, and their dates of designation
Reserve Area (ha) Designated in Boatin 1,597.2 1948 Tsarichina 3,519.0 1949 Kozya Stena 904.3 1987 Steneto 3,578.8 1979 Northern Djendem 1,610.0 1983 Peeshti Skali 1,465.7 1979 Stara Reka 1,974.7 1981 Djendema 4,220.2 1953 Sokolna 1,250.0 1979 The deciduous broad-leaf forests of the Nemoral type are widespread in the areas over 800-1,200 m. These are, with minor exceptions, European beech forests and form the upper boundary of the forest, covering most of the mountains on both northern and southern slopes. The Central Balkan Range, along with Vasilyovska Mountain to the north and the Sredna Gora to the south, form the most impressive beech bioclimatic zone in Bulgaria. For natural or anthropogenic reasons, the other representative forest ecosystems have only limited, fragmentary distributions in the region. This holds true even for the common hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and durmast (Quercus daleschampii). One exception is the spruce forest (covering over 500 ha) in the Steneto Reserve and the pine, spruce, and oak forests in the southeastern end of the Ribaritsa State Forestry Department.
The mixed broad-leaf forests in the low mountainous areas (up to 1,000 m on average) should be considered representative ecosystems. Their communities, consisting mainly of Micean and European oak, hornbeam, or durmast, form a giant jigsaw mosaic.
When the national park was designated, a special effort was made to include the maximum number of the Central Balkan Range's valuable plant species (1800- 1900 out of a total of 2050 higher plant species and subspecies), the species formation center and its core (Kalofer Mountain and Triglav Peak), and the habitats of the maximum possible number of species listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book (93 out of a total 110 in Central Stara Planina). Every effort was made to include within the park's boundaries all the Central Balkan habitats of threatened and endemic species with limited distribution.
Of the 228 vertebrate species (Spiridonov, unpub.) that breed in the Central Balkan Range, 200 fall within the boundaries of the national park. This is more than half of the vertebrate species (excluding freshwater fish) that breed within Bulgaria. Rare and threatened species are protected in a similar way. The park preserves 33 species that are listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book, five of which are included in the World Red Book (1988). Another two species listed in the World Red Book are not in Bulgaria's Red Data Book: Testudo hermanni and Nyctalus noctula.
The park plays a major role internationally in the protection of the brown bear (Ursus arctos), white-backed woodpecker (Picoides leucotos lilfordi), wolf (Canis lupus), marbled polecat (Vormela peregusna), and otter (Lutra lutra) (Spiridonov, unpub.). The population of bears includes 50 individuals. The long-term protection of this population is ensured through contact with the rest of the Balkan Mountain population. The park is the only way to provide large-scale protection for the white-headed woodpecker (around 100 pairs) in all its subspecies forms. The park also provides important protection at the national level for the pine marten (Martes marates), Ural owl (Strix uralensis), pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus), hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia), golden eagle (Aquila Chrysaetos), black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius), goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus), honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus), eagle owl (Bubo bubo), stock dove (Columba oenas), long-legged buzzard (Buteo rufinus), and Aesculapian snake (Elaphe longissima).
The population of the Balkan chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica), which was listed in the World Red Book 5 years ago, remains isolated due to the size and character of its habitats.
Nature Reserves and Other Protected Areas
The Boatin Reserve is located beneath the Tetevenska Baba Peak on the land of the village of Cherni Vit. Over 60% of the beech forests in the reserve are between 170 and 220 years old. They are perfect examples of climax beech forest, where trees 45-50 m high and 2m wide are commonly found. Beech forests grow up to 1440-1680 m in elevation, where the spruce belt begins. This belt averages some 220 m wide in altitude, while the age of the communities ranges between 80-100 years. About 80 bird species nest on the territory of the reserve and its buffer zone (30% of all the breeding birds in Bulgaria). About 557 plant species and 17 animal species from Bulgaria's Red Data Book have been found there (Mikhalic, in press).
The watershed of the Bolovandzhika River forms the core of the Tsarichina Reserve. The altitidunal variation between the watershed basin in the Ribaritsa Valley and the Vezhenski peak is 1350 m. These is rocky, impenetrable terrain with many 45m slopes. The reserve includes 3 entire biotic belts and part of a fourth. Alpine communities can be found above 2000-2100 m. Beech-fir and beech forests cover the largest area (about 70% of the forests), with some forests reaching 1500-1700 m in altitude and 160 years in age. Spruce and white fir forest (the only compact area of its kind in the Balkan Mountains) form a well developed belt at altitudes between 1500 and 1900 m. Higher plant species number 600, 23 of which are in Bulgaria's Red Data Book. Seventy-seven bird species have been identified in the reserve, 16 of which are in the Red Data Book. There are 13 different species of large mammals, including bear, wolf, otter, and marten.
The Kozya Stena Reserve covers the northern slopes of the Boba and Colicon Peaks and Kozya Stena, a natural landmark. Its terrain is rocky and impenetrable and covered with ancient beech and fir forests. The rocky northern slope of the Kozya Stena Peak (1670 m) is a treeless, 60m slope. The rock face (stena) itself is perpendicular. The limestone and dolomite rock tends to retain moisture and thus provides excellent conditions in the summer for relict species and communities (more typical of treeless, highland zones) to grow under 1,700 m. At least 35 species are included in the Bulgarian Red Data Book.
The Steneto Reserve includes the impressive canyons above the Cherni Osam river and the surrounding forests. The largest area of virgin forest in the country is found there. Beech forest covers about 2,000 ha, 90% of which are old growth forests; 1,400 ha consist of forests 150-250 years old. Mixed beech forests (with fir, common hornbeam, and water hornbeam) comprise a small area. Mixed beech-spruce forests are found in the highlands, and above them 500 ha of spruce forest. The flora of the reserve (which is also a Biosphere Reserve) is exceptionally rich. Mikhalic estimates that more than 1,000 higher plant species occur there. Some of the rare and threatened species are: Taxus baccata, Juniperus sabina, Acer heldreichii, Daphne blagayana, Saxifraga marginata, Caraum graecum, and Haberlea rhodopensis. The ornithofauna in the reserve is richer than that of the other Stara Planina reserves, 82 breeding species having been identified so far (Spiridonov and Mileva, 1988). Four of the large mammals are in Bulgaria's Red Data Book: marten, otter, wolf, and bear.
The Stara Reka Reserve covers lands in the Stara River watershed above the town of Karlovo. The vegetation is amazingly rich; the forests resemble the mixed forests of the Rhodope Mountains. Over 45 plant species from Bulgaria's Red Data Book are found there, of which 20 are endemic species. So far 65 breeding animal species have been registered, 11 of which are listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book. Most are birds of prey - honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus), long-legged buzzard (Buteo rufinus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), hobby (Falco subbuteo), goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus), eagle owl (Bubo bubo). Species from the Red Data Book include the Balkan chamois, bear, and wolf.
The Northern Djendem Reserve covers the watershed of the Byala River between Botev and Ravnets Peaks, the headwaters of the Tundzha River, and the gorge of the Tuzha river. This is one of the largest and most inaccessible reserves in Bulgaria. About 70% of its area is covered by forests, 2/3 of which are beech (or predominantly beech) forests. Virgin forests cover nearly 500 ha in impassable terrains at 1400-1600 m. In some places they are mixed with hornbeam and fir trees. Most are around 150 years old. Hornbeam trees grow in the forests both in the lower areas in the reserve (1,000 m) and up to 1600 m. Most of these forests are between 100 and 150 years old. The spruce and fir forests are ancient, but cover only 100 ha. Less than 1/4 of the reserve's area consists of sub-alpine vegetation. The flora of the reserve, although it has only been partially studied so far, is extremely rich. Djendema is in the heart of a contemporary plant species formation center based on the silicate rocks in the central part of Stara Planina. The number of plants there that have been registered in the Red Data Book is even greater than that of the Stara Reka and Sokolna Reserves, which are famous floral refugia.
The Peeshti Skali ("Singing Rocks") Reserve covers the left initial tributaries of the Rositsa river. Its beech forests are 145-165 years old on the average. Of the rare animals, the bear (Ursus arctos), pine marten (Martes martes), stone marten (Martes foina), Balkan chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica), golden eagle (Aquila chrisaetus), hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia), and black woodpecker (Dryocarpus martius) have been identified.
Table 2. Representative ecosystems with areas over 100 ha in the reserves larger than 1,000 ha in the Central Balkan National Park
Reserve Area (ha) Number He of arctic-alpine type He of boreal type He of nemoral type Dwarf pine Others Oak Euc Other Djendema 4220 +6 - 500 100 1950 - 630 Steneto 3578 2 - - 630 1970 - - Stara Reka 1974 6 - - 660 750 - 300 S. Djendem 1610 +1 - 600 - 900 - - Peeshti Skali 1465 +1 - 150 - 1000 - - Tsarichina 3419 +4 - 250 470 460 - - Boatin 1597 2 - - 150 1110 - - Sokolna 1250 2 - - - 750 - 100 Notes:
+ - subalpine ecosystemsThe Sokolna ("Falcon") Reserve is located in the southeastern part of the Triglav massif. It is characterized by its sparse tree cover, which is scattered among impressive rocks around the canyon of the Sokolna River. The predominantly limestone rocks create favorable conditions for salicylic vegetation, high species diversity, and a high number of rare and threatened species (around 40). Some of the animals included in the Red Data Book are the bear, Balkan chamois, golden eagle, and black woodpecker.
Table 2 provides data on the area of the representative ecosystems found in these reserves.
There are relatively few protected areas outside the park. The largest of these is the Kamenshtitsa Reserve (1018 ha). It covers the forested gorge of the Eninska River and its two tributaries, the Stara Reka and Kamenshtitsa. It is inaccessible and is inhabited by interesting rare plants and animals. The number of higher plant species is about 250, 15 of which are new for the Central Balkan Range, and 8 of which are endemic. The vegetation includes 19 plant associations. Kamenshtitsa is the most important bear habitat in the eastern part of the Balkan Mountains and is the most promising area for reintroducing Balkan chamois east of the Triglav massif. It is also within the area of the plant species formation center that falls between the Ambaritsa Peak and the Triglav massif.
The Leshnitsa Reserve (390 ha) is mostly covered with mature (70-150 years in age) beech forests. The portion to the east of the Leshnitsa River is rocky and dry.
There are a number of small reserves along the northern slopes of Eleno-Tvardishkata Mountain. Savchov Chair (102 ha) is about 800 m a.s.l. Its forests are dominated by misian beech, but 20% of its territory consists of coniferous forest. Other small reserves in this area are Byala Krava (91 ha) (located in the Chumerna region), Haidoushki Chukar (34 ha), and Sini Bryag (40 ha).
The Chamdzha Reserve (65 ha) is several kilometers south of the Kozya Stena. It preserves 40 ha of natural Austrian pine (Pinus nigra) forest, in which most of the trees average more than 180 years in age.
Botev-Zhaltets (580 ha) is the only protected site in the region.
The region's natural landmarks are quite numerous, both inside and outside the national park. Most are small waterfalls already included in a nature reserve. Chertigrad, located between the villages of Lopyan and Cherni Vit, is somewhat larger. It is a rocky abyss with an area of about 200 ha and a thin cover of beech. Kozi Dol has been designated as a protected areas in order to protect the old beech forest that covers its 195 ha.
Development of the Protected Areas
The process of designating protected areas in the Central Balkan Range began with the designation of the Boatin Reserve in 1948. It covered only 35 ha in its original configuration. The following year the Tsaritchina Reserve (10 ha) and Zelenikovets Reserve (136 ha) were established. In 1953 the Djendema Reserve (one of the key reserves within the national park network) was also designated. Its initial size was 2,500 ha.
A 20-year period of stagnation ensued.
1979 can be considered a very successful year for the conservation of wildlife in the Central Balkan Mountains. The Peeshti Skali and Sokolna Reserves were established. The Steneto Reserve (1,607 ha) was also designated, and then expanded (by another 1,028 ha), that same year. Chemerikata (250 ha) was also protected as a natural landmark. In 1981 the Stara Reka Reserve was established. The Tuzhansko Zhdrelo (886 ha) and Severen Djendem (1,610 ha) Reserves were designated in 1983. The following year the small Sarpkaya Reserve was added to the newly established Leshnitsa Reserve (388 ha), and Konski egrek was added to the Kameshtitsa Reserve (1,018 ha).
Several natural landmarks, with a total territory of 60 ha, were designated in 1987, and the Kozya Stena Reserve (557 ha) was designated the following year.
In 1991, when the Central Balkan National Park was established, the Boatin, Tsarichna, Kozya Stena, Steneto, Stara Reka, and Djendema Reserves were enlarged to their present sizes.
At present, the total area of the protected areas in the Central Balkan Range is around 78,000 ha, with approximately 1/3 of them under strict protected status.
Threats to the System of Protected Areas
The system of protected areas in the Central Balkan Range provides a strong start for the conservation of biological diversity in this part of Bulgaria. There are, however, a number of examples of conflicts between wildlife and the increasing greediness of humans.
The current state of Bulgaria's economy has been, and still is, driving many people to collect large quantities of herbs, mushrooms, berries, and other forest resources. This would not have be a serious threat if those resources were being consumed in the forests. But roads leading deep into the mountains make it easy for people to harvest huge quantities of different species - some of which are even listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book) - and to take them home. Mountain chalets play a role in this business as well, since they facilitate mass herb-collecting trips. One of the most striking recent cases involved several people who were caught with thousands of edelweisses from the Kozya Stena Reserve. People are encouraged to engage in such activities by the total lack of punitive measures for those who violate the law, and by the absence of an active administrative body responsible for nature protection and the education of local people and tourists.
Privatization should not pose a serious threat in this region of the country. Only a small part of all the forests in the region once belonged to private individuals. If the process of designating new protected areas maintains its pace and if adequate legislation and educational programs are put into place, "peaceful coexistence" between humanity and wildlife, profitable to both parties, is quite possible. It is also possible that people moving away from cities and starting small private businesses - wood processing plants, dairies, small hotels, etc. - could be a threat, but only if the maximization of profits becomes the sole guiding principle.
Construction associated with the public utilities also poses a potential threat to biodiversity in the region - if preliminary expert environmental assessments are not carried out and if strict government and public control is lacking. A good example of the role that public opinion can play in such cases is the cancelled Cherni Osam dam project, which was to have been built on the border of the Steneto Reserve. Unfortunately, quite a few roads had already been built in that area, cutting deep into and through the mountain, prior to the project's cancellation. Such are the roads to the Vezhen chalet over the village of Hristo Danovo, to the Djendema Reserve, to the Mazalt chalet, to the Tuzha chalet, and to the Trojan-Karnare Pass, among others. Most of these roads should be closed, and all departures from their routes prohibited.
Agriculture is underdeveloped in the Central Balkans due to the specific features of the region, and has little impact on biological diversity. Where conflicts exists, they are local in character and easily resolved. There is some danger in giving land back to people since private owners might be totally ruthless toward wildlife. The largest problems involve cattle breeders, but if goat grazing is strictly prohibited and grazing limits set for the other domestic animals, it will be possible to preserve floral diversity. The risks to the large predators, especially the bears and wolves, are greater. Reimbursement funds should probably be established to respond to damage claims.
It is difficult to estimate the threat to biological diversity posed by the development of private businesses. In the past the idea of mass tourism has been strongly embraced, and vacation trips to the mountains were quite popular. This led to the construction and improvement of a huge number of mountain chalets. Most of these chalets are now rented out, and the drive to make large profits from them might result in their being turned into hotels (especially the ones that have roads leading to them). One striking example is the road that was built to allow construction of a cable car line and a new hotel directly adjacent to the Steneto Reserve. Fortunately, this project has almost come to a halt, but the surrounding area has already been badly damaged.
There would be additional risks if private entrepreneurs become interested in the idea of establishing hunting grounds or developing ski tourism.
The Central Balkan Range is one of the cleanest areas in the country, but the dangers of pollution - posed, for example, by the plant in Srednogorie, the chain of plants at Sopot, Karlovo, and Kazanlak, and the plants in the industrial towns to the north - should not be overlooked. Fortunately, there are no major pollution sources in the mountains themselves.
International hunting tourism was a large problem until recently, and to a degree still is. For example, the establishment of a specialized hunting ground for bears on Kalofer Mountain was incompatible with nature protection. Thanks to the Law on Hunting, the 1941 population of 90 individuals in the Balkan mountains had risen to over 200 (newborn cubs excluded). In 1984, bears were officially designated as game species. Prior to this, there was no threat to the species. Only meat-eating bears were killed, just as always. Subsequently, however, bears have been artificially bred and then set loose, while "wild" bears have been fed, losing their fear of people and even seeking contacts with them. These contacts have often had fatal results for people. There have been cases of "tame" bears in the Balkan Mountains entering houses, looking for food in backpacks, etc. With the importation of individuals from Romania's Carpathian Mountains, bears have become more aggressive, since northern bears tend to eat more meat. Moreover, the genetic purity of the Balkan subspecies of bears has been upset - an irreversible phenomenon.
Legislation and Institutions
The Law for Nature Protection from 1967 is still in force. A new draft law is due to be submitted to Parliament. It will define the existing categories of protected areas, introduce new categories to meet today's needs, and allow greater flexibility in categorizing the protected areas. Work in now underway to pass other specialized laws, such as the Law for Medical Plants, the Hunting Law, the Fishing Law, and the Biodiversity Law. Their quick passage by Parliament will facilitate greatly the conservation of biological resources. One further example of efforts in this area is Bulgaria's signing of a number of international conventions in the past few years, including those prepared at the Rio de Janeiro conference on the environment and development (UNCED).
Unfortunately, it must be noted that the existing overlap in institutional responsibilities may prove fatal to the system of protected areas, which has taken decades to put into place. There is a pressing need to set up a specialized institution responsible not only for the management and security of the protected areas, but for the conservation of their biological diversity. It is absolutely unacceptable for this institution to be a branch of an organization that carries out or profits from economic activities. Its only responsibility should be the management and security of the protected areas, based not only on compulsory measures but on extensive educational work at all levels.
Sociological Survey
A survey was carried out from February 7 to 10, 1993, in the town of Karlovo, the town of Apriltsi, and the village of Ribaritsa. These communities were chosen due to their location in the Central Balkan Range and their immediate proximity to protected areas. One hundred people were questioned as requested in the instructions. Of those surveyed, 67.7% live in Karlovo and Apriltsi, and 32.3% in Ribaritsa. The ratio of men to women was 58.2:41.8. The age distribution was as follows: up to 25 years old - 22.2%; from 25 to 35 - 20.2%; from 35 to 45 - 32.3%; from 45 to 55 - 20.2%; and over 55 - 5.1%. The proportion of "committed" people - that is, those having some direct interaction with natural features (e.g., tourists, hunters, mushroom-gatherers, chalet-holders, etc.) - was 30%; of administrators, 20%; and of those randomly chosen, 50%.
The first question sought an appraisal by the people interviewed of the environment in the region. On the whole, the people consider the air, water, and soil unpolluted, although there was some evasiveness concerning soils and waters. In conversations conducted during the survey, most of the people confided that they have no real information and rely only on their personal opinion.
Answers to the question "Are wild animals and plants decreasing?" were divided between "yes" (57%) and "no" (43%), but the impressive fact was that almost 80% an-swered "no" to the question "Are the wild animals and plants increasing?" This contradicts to a great extent the impression from the personal conver-sations, in which people complained about the increasing number of the wild boar. In Apriltsi, the town council considered whether guns should be given to everyone who wants one after certification by a psychiatrist. The argument was that guns are necessary for self-protection from the populations of wild animals. However, the wolf and other carnivores were not mentioned anywhere. The only animals blamed were those that appeared to be rivals for potatoes, fruit orchards, and other agricultural products. It was noted that people who have fenced their lands rarely have problems.
Sixty-five percent answered in the affirmative the question "Do you have hunting grounds in your region?" - notwithstanding that the hunting reserves had recently been closed. A great many of the people do not differentiate between the hunting grounds and the nature reserves. The prohibition on visiting both types of reserves is a good reason to consider them one and the same thing. The percentage of people answering "yes" was highest in the random sample (44%) and lower among the "committed" (36.5%) and the administrators (19%).
The third question sought to ascertain the number of people who know about the protected areas in the region. Eighty-six percent answered that they did know, with a understandably high correlation among the "committed" people and administrators. It should, however, be noted that 14% of the people who answered the question thought that no protected territories were in the area or did not know of any - notwithstanding the fact that the borders of the protected areas were within 1-2 kilometers of the centers of the three communities.
Almost 60% appraised the number of visitors to the protected areas as "small" or "enough." Only 3.1% considered the number "great." The "committed" people and the administrators were more categorical in their appraisal, while a large part of the random group answered "I have no view" or "I cannot appraise." But it should be mentioned that 70% of the people who held that visiting the protected areas was prohibited are from the random group (50% of the total sample), and only 10% were administrators. The total percentage of people who answered that visiting was prohibited was also 10%.
The fifth question sought to reveal how often the local people visited the protected areas. Only 25.5% answered that they visit them frequently, and 62.5% of these were from the "committed" group. The percentage of people who had never visited the protected areas was also 25.5%. The next survey question was "What do you usually do there?" Little preference was indicated for any of the activities. Few engaged in "tourism," "fishing, "bird watching," "hunting," "wood harvesting," "resting," or "visiting cultural and historical landmarks"; negative answers for these categories were around 90% or higher. Some preference was given to "observing plants" (39.4% answered "yes"), "enjoying nature" (36.4%), "walking" (23.2%), "gathering herbs, mushrooms, etc." (21.2%). The people in the "committed" group were mainly fishing (100%), visiting cultural and historical landmarks (60%), observing plants (50%) or engaging in tourism (40%). The administrators hunted (50%), camped (55.5%), and harvested wood (50%).
Question number seven was an open question, asking people to point out four things that they liked most during their visit to the park/reserve. Out of a possible total of 400 answers, 167 were received. The answers given more than once were:
27 - the nature
16 - the animals
16 - the air
13 - the water
12 - the plants
8 - the natural beauty
7 - the calmness
5 - the venerable forests
4 - the silence
3 - the birds
3 - the rivers
3 - the landscapesMany of the other answers fall into two groups. Nine mentioned places they liked and seven spoke (but with different expressions) of the "natural beauty."
The eighth question was also an open one: list four things that they did not like in the park/reserve. Out of a possible total of 400 answers, 89 were received. Answers that were given more than once were:
9 - littering
6 - irresponsibility of the visitors
6 - inappropriate management
5 - poaching
5 - cutting of the woods
4 - destruction of the forests
4 - waste
3 - destruction of the plants
3 - injuring of the trees along the walks and destruction of the signs
3 - non-utilized fallen trees
2 - looking after the animalsSome of the other answers fall into three general groups. The first and most impressive consists of opinions disapproving of activities and the way of maintaining protected areas. Sixteen people cited "cattle," "bad guarding," "irresponsibility of the executive power," "intervention in hunting grounds," etc. The number of people with these opinions would place this group first on the list, and the 29 who cited inappropriate ownership, poaching, pollution, cutting of woody species, and waste should be added to it. Thus, the total number of people disapproving of the management and maintenance of protected areas reached 45 (50% of the people who responded to the question). The number of people who mentioned that natural features were being destroyed or natural resources decreasing was also considerable. Seven people noted that trees had been damaged, bushes set on fire, herbs and mushrooms gathered, waters decreasing, etc. A number of people in the survey (6) held that natural objects were not used enough. Remoteness from towns and villages and the lack of secured transport and access were also cited by more than one person.
The ninth question was "How would the extension of the private agricultural sector affect biological diversity?" Almost 90% thought that there was a direct connection between them. There are no explicit opinions, but 74.6% answered that plants and animals would be threatened with extinction and 58.1% believed that pollution would increase, while 65.1% were of the opinion that private agriculture would contribute to the reasonable utilization of wild nature. The relatively high percentage of people who think that there is a risk is due mainly to the answers of the randomly chosen group (about 55% for each of the two questions). It should be noted that 72.7% of the administrators were of the opinion that private agriculture would not contribute to the conservation of wild nature. The percentage of people not responding to the different question was significant - between 28% and 43%.
Question number ten concerned the potential danger to forests, wild plants, and wild animals from small private enterprises. Although 62.2% thought there is no risk, 37.7% were of the opinion that there is a danger, or could not give an appraisal. It is interesting that the administrators (80%) and "committed" people (77%) were more categorical in believing that there is no danger, while the random group was more cautious (48%). In personal conversations, the prevailing opinion was that a lot depended on the type of enterprise and on the owner.
Question number eleven was, "If land is going to be returned to you, how will you use it?" Only 3.4% intend not to use it or sell it. The percentage of people who plan to join cooperatives is highest (29.5%). Another 17% will engage in agriculture. Notwithstanding the fact that the region is a mountainous one, only 8% intend to breed cattle. The number of people who have no land or who have not yet decided what they will do with it is comparatively high (35.2%).
The aim of the twelfth question was to establish people's opinions on the prospects for developing tourism opportunities connected to conservation of and education about wild plants and animals in the region (ecotourism). Almost 90% thought that such tourism has a future. The administrators (90.5%) and the "committed" people (96.2%) explicitly supported the idea. The people from the randomly chosen group were more reserved (84.6%). Seventy-five percent of those who could not give an appraisal were from the random sample, which indicates the need to popularize ecotourism.
The next question reconfirmed that ecotourism is expedient for the region (only 5.1% are against it) and would contribute to the incomes of the region (87.7%), to ecological education and culture (85.3%), to the conservation of wild nature (80.6%), and to the opening of new work places (77.3%). But it should be mentioned that the people are not naive; 30% fear that ecotourism may threaten wild nature, and that percentage is evenly distributed among all the groups. Another peculiarity is that, despite the high percentage of those who agree that ecotourism will present opportunities to open new work places and receive new income, fewer people connect this with the expansion of the private sector (only 56.3%). Here the ratios for and against the contribution of ecotourism to the private sector are almost equal for the random and "committed" groups - 50% for and 50% against among the randomly chosen group, and 57% for and 43% against among those in the "committed" group. The high percentage of people who did not answer - about 30% - is important here.
According to answers given to the fourteenth question, tourism ranks lowest (23.8%) among the mentioned threats to biological diversity. Livestock rearing was mentioned by 32.5% and other agricultural activities by 40.8%. Small enterprises were appraised as a certain threat (54.9%), as were construction (58.9%) and the restoration of private property (59.5%). The distribution among the different groups was also interesting. When appraising the risk to biological diversity from livestock, the administrators and "committed" people answered firmly that there was no such risk, while those in the random sample chance were 52.8%. Regarding agricultural activities, the opinion of the administrators was equally divided. Small enterprises were seen as a threat by 72.7% of the random sample, 50% of the "committed" people, and only 25% of the administrators. The appraisals of the threat from construction were similar: 73.5% of the random sample, 60.9% of the "committed," and only 25% of the administrators considered it a threat. The percentage of people who did not answer the question was considerable - about 25%.
The next question tried to gauge people's thoughts about changes in the state authorities and the laws for conservation of the environment. Most of the people answered "no" to all the offered answers. The percentage of people who answered explicitly that "there are no any changes" is relatively small (46.5%), which may mean that there are changes but they were not mentioned in the survey, or that people are not sure in their answers. The relatively small percentage of those who did not recognize changes in legislation or in the local state bodies is due to the opinion of the administrators (46.7% and 50% respectively) among all those who answered that there had been changes.
Question number sixteen was an open question: "Can you point out at least two ways to utilize the natural resources so that they may be profitable for your region?" Out of a possible total of 200 answers, 88 were received. Answers given more than once were:
24 - tourism
7 - ecotourism
5 - livestock rearing
3 - international tourism
2 - ecological production
2 - reasonable management
2 - wide advertisement of the natural featuresFive other single answers referred to different forms of tourism. Thus, the total number of people citing tourism was 41, or almost 50% of all answers. Some of the other answers can be generalized as economic measures - retaining the profits from hunting in the region, more careful attention to the quality of drinking water, creating a fishing industry, local processing of timber, etc. Ten such answers were offered altogether. It is significant that two other measures - the "introduction of ecology and tourism lectures in the schools" and establishment of "eco-schools" - were considered necessary for the reasonable utilization of natural resources.
The final question sought to identify the sites that the local people thought should be conserved. Out of a possible total of 100 answers, 45 were received. Answers that were given more than once were:
6 - all natural sites
3 - the edelweisses
2 - Stara Reka river
2 - "Praskaloto" waterfallIt is worth mentioning that recommendations for conservation were distributed almost equally among animate and inanimate natural features.
This survey was not representative. The purpose was not only to gain an idea of people's opinions, but to provoke conversations and a free and spontaneous exchange of opinions between the interviewers from the Wilderness Fund and the local people. Great interest was shown in the survey, and it that may serve as a good basis for future work with the local people.
It is encouraging that many people go to the mountains, and to the protected areas in particular, not so much for the material benefits as for the contact with original wild nature. The opinions recognizing the true value of the natural resources and the need for their reasonable management are no less important.
The great number of opinions against the current way of managing the protected areas is impressive. Since it is not possible to separate the protected areas from the rest of the mountains, those opinions are also entirely valid for the management and maintenance of lands outside the protected areas. Opinions concerning the "exploits" of the poachers, not reflected in the survey, but shared with the interviewers, should be mentioned. Grooved guns with optical sights are becoming more common, and even laser devices are now used at night. Probably the manufacturing plants in the sub-Balkan countries contribute to the easy access to such specialized equipment.
The high percentage of people who did not answer questions or who had no firm opinion about the risk to biological diversity from human agricultural activities is also significant. That questions is rarely considered; even more rarely is anything done about it.
Tourism is definitely considered to have very high potential. Different forms of tourism are mentioned, from the usual holidays in the holiday houses to modern forms of ecotourism (rural tourism, photography, etc.). New tourism opportunities often involve traditional activities and are a good basis for future development.
Changes in legislation and institutions (as far as there are any) have brought about almost nothing at the local level. Only the administrators know anything about these changes, but they remain laws on paper only, and the attitude toward local authorities is rather distrustful.
Summary and Recommendations
This report of the Wilderness Fund summarizes some of the new and existing data on the flora and vertebrate fauna of protected areas in the Central Balkan Range. Its purpose is to analyze the region's natural features, the state of the species and communities in the mountain areas, and the ways to protect them. To this end, the major published papers on these topics have been collected and reviewed. Unpublished information, oral communications, and personal data and observations have also been used.
A survey was carried out in three settlements in the region and numerous personal interviews were undertaken to determine the degree of anthropogenic impact on wildlife and the attitudes of local people toward biological diversity in the region and the ways to protect it.
Several facts can be cited in support of the value of the Central Balkan Range from the standpoint of biological diversity:
- Twelve species and one subspecies of local endemic plants have been identified in the region. Eleven species and 2 subspecies are endemic to Bulgaria and another 22 species are endemic to the Balkans. Some of these species are included in the "List of Rare, Endangered, and Endemic Plants of Europe." Of the species in the Central Balkan Range, 11 are listed in Bulgaria's Red Data Book as threatened and 78 as rare. Compared to all the other botanic and geographic regions of Bulgaria, the Central Balkans contain the richest fauna, with over 2,000 species and subspecies.
- The Central Balkan Range, together with the Vasiluyvska Planina on the north and the Sredna Gora on the south, form the largest unbroken expanse of oak forest in Bulgaria.
- There are more than 200 animal species (228 according to the latest data) breeding in the areas over 1,000 m a.s.l. Rare and threatened animal species are more numerous (48) than in any other region of the country.
- The establishment of protected areas in the Central Balkan Range began in 1948 with the creation of the Boatin Reserve (35 ha). This process has gone through low and high points to reach a present total of 78,000 ha of protected area (1/3 of that area being in strict reserves). The Central Balkan National Park (73,000 ha) was established in 1991 and includes 9 large reserves with a total area of over 20,000 ha. This system of protected areas provides a good starting point for the long-term conservation of biological diversity in the Central Balkan.
- If the process of designating protected areas continues at its present pace, and if it is backed up by adequate legislation and educational programs, the network of protected areas may be considered a model for other regions.
There are, however, a number of conflicts between man and wildlife in the Central Balkan Range.
The harvesting of non-timber products, in all its forms, is facilitated by the existing systems of mountain huts and roads that reach deep into the mountains. One striking example is the thousands of edelweisses that were recently picked in the Kozya Stena Reserve.
It is difficult to assess the potential dangers of privatization. Only a small portion of the forests in the region once belonged to individuals, but intensive land use by emerging private businesses does pose some risks.
Construction projects associated with the public utilities can also pose a threat if no expert preliminary environmental assessments are carried out and no strict state and public regulations are enforced. Most existing roads should be closed, and all departures from their routes through the mountains prohibited.
Agriculture in the region is underdeveloped due to the specific features of the landscape and has had little impact on biological diversity. There are problems associated with cattle raising, but they are not insurmountable.
International hunting tourism was a serious problem and in some ways still is. One example is the importation of Carpathian bears from Romania. Official hunting departments do not exist in their old form, but the willingness and financial motivation on the part of the state husbandries to develop this kind of tourism does exist. Control over this activity should be extremely strict, and hunting reserves should not be allowed to share boundaries with protected areas. If this is not possible, buffer zones that are large enough to protect the animal populations in the protected areas should instead be established .
A few words about the questionnaire and survey. The survey was not representative. Its purpose was to give us an idea of the way local people felt about these issues and to challenge them to share freely their opinions with the interviewers.
There are quite a few people who seek communion with wildlife. Unfortunately, there are also quite a few local people whose "exploits" did not register in the survey. It is not uncommon for them to poach using essentially military guns with powerful optical sights. These weapons were most likely obtained from nearby military arms plants.
Legislative and institutional changes, to the extent that they exist at all, are not noticeable at the local level, and caused no alteration in the way local governments operate. They are known to the administrators, of course, but the laws exist on paper only and the local attitude toward the authorities remains skeptical.
It can certainly be stated that all forms of tourism, from common recreational tourism to modern tourism fashions like agricultural tourism, photography, etc., are considered to have extremely promising potential. Some involve traditional activities and seem to provide a good basis upon which to build.
The number of negative opinions about the style of managing protected areas is significant - about 50% of all the answers. The responses to an open question on this issue were extremely valuable in formulating these general conclusions. Since the boundaries of the park and the reserves in question are not clearly marked, the answers are also relevant to lands outside the protected areas.
Many concrete recommendations could be made for the protection of biological diversity in the Central Balkan Range. We believe that all of them can be subsumed under two major recommendations that, if followed, could directly or indirectly solve most of the existing problems. It should also be pointed out that these recommendation, upon analysis, also hold true for other sites throughout Bulgaria.
1. As a high priority, Parliament should pass new laws concerning the conservation of nature.
2. An institution, independent of any institutional or economical interests, should be established to put an end to the existing dualism in the execution of executive powers. It should be responsible for protecting biological diversity throughout the country and for managing and safeguarding the protected areas. An important part of its obligations will be the development and implementation of educational and public awareness programs.
Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely thank all members of the Wilderness Fund who contributed advice and information to this report. We are particularly grateful to Lazar Bechev and Borislav Tonchev.
Appendix 1. Bulgarian plant species from the Red Data "List of the Threatened and Endemic Plants in Europe" (8 species)
1. Anthemis sancti-johannis Stoj., Stef. et Turril - rare
2. Centaurea kernerana Janka - rare
3. Primula frondosa Janka - rare
4. Seseli bulgaricum Ball. - endemic5. Elatine alsinastrum L. - vulnerable
6. Sedum kostovii Stef. - rare
7. Sedum stefco Stef. - rare
8. Dianthus stribrnyi - vulnerableAppendix 2. Endangered plant species from the Bulgarian Red Data Book (1984) (11 species)
1. Allium montanum F.W.Schmidt.
2. Herminium monorchis (L.) R. Br.
3. Arabis nova Vill.
4. Alchemilla mollis (Buser.) Rothm.
5. Lathyrus montanus Bernch.
6. Cortusa matthioli L.7. Gentiana punctata L.
8. Gentiana acaulis L.
9. Menyanthes trifoliata L.
10. Galium rubioides L.
11. Verbascum boevae Stef.Appendix 3. Rare plant species from the Bulgarian Red Data Book (1984) (78 species)
1. Diphasium alpinum (L.) Rothm.
2. Cystopteris regia (L.) Plesl.
3. Juniperus sabina L.
4. Festuca rupicola Heuff.
5. Festuca xantina Roem. et Schult.
6. Juncus acutifolius Ehrh.
7. Luzula deflexa Koz.
8. Lilium jankae Kern.
9. Fritillaria pontica Wahl.
10. Orchis globosa L.
11. Spiranthes automnalis Rich.
12. Thesium limophyllon L.
13. Minuartia saxifraga (Friv.) Graebn.
14. Dianthus stribrnyi Vel.
15. Awuilegia vulgaris L.
16. Trollius europaeus L.
17. Anemone narcissiflora L.
18. Sedum stefco Stef.
19. Sedum kostovii Stef.
20. Sempervivum velenovskyi Ceschm.
21. Saxifraga marginata Sternb.
22. Rubus vepallius Sudre
23. Alchemilla plicatula Gaud.
24. Alchemilla anisiaca Wettst.
25. Alchemilla grossidens Buser.
26. Alchemilla erythropoda Juz.
27. Alchemilla bulgarica Rothm.
28. Alchemilla achtarovii Pawl.
29. Alchemilla jumrukczalica Pawl.
30. Alchemilla catachnoa Rothm.
31. Alchemilla indivisa (Buser.) Rothm.
32. Alchemilla asteroantha Rothm.
33. Alchemilla gracilliana Rothm.
34. Alchemilla pyrenaica Dufour.
35. Linum ununerve (Roch.) Borb.
36. Acer heldreichii Orph.
37. Tilia rubra DC.
38. Daphne oleoides Schreb.
39. Daphne blagayana Freyer40. Daphne cneorum L.
41. Viola balcanica Delip.
42. Elatine alsinastrum L.
43. Sison amomum L.
44. Carum graecum Boiss. et Heldr.
45. Seseli bulgaricum Ball.
46. Oenanthe angulosa Griseb.
47. Oenanthe millefolia Janka
48. Meum atamanticum Jacq.
49. Angelica pancicii Vand.
50. Laserpitium siler L.
51. Laserpitium krapfii Grantz.
52. Rhododendron myrtifolium Schtt. et Kotschy
53. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng.
54. Androsace hedracantha Griseb.
55. Primula frondosa Janka
56. Gentianella amarella (L.) Born.
57. Gentianella praecox (A.et J.Kern.) Dostal
58. Asperula capitata Kit. ex Schultes
59. Micromeria frivaldskyana (Deg.) Vel.
60. Stachys bulgarica (Deg. et Neic.) Hayek
61. Atropa belladona L.
62. Veronica austriaca L. ssp. neicevii (Deg.) D.Peev
63. Veronica chamaedrys L. ssp. kramovii D.Peev
64. Pedicularis oederi Vahl.
65. Rhynchocorys elephas (L.) Griseb.
66. Haberlea rhodopensis Friv.
67. Valeriana montana L.
68. Campanula latifolia L.
69. Symphyandra wanneri (Rochel.) Heufl.
70. Phyteuma confusum Kern.
71. Leontopodium alpinum Cass.
72. Senecio panciccii Deg.
73. Senecio umbrosus Waldst. et Kit.
74. Cirsium oleraceum (L.) Scop.
75. Centaurea kernerana Janka
76. Anthemis sancti-johannis Stoj., Stef. et Turril.
77. Leontodon rilaensis Hayek
78. Taraxacum megalorrhizon (Forsk.) Hand.-Mazz.Bibliography
Raitchev, R. 1989. Prouchvane varhu zapasite, biologiata i ekologiata na kafiavata metchka (Ursus arctos L. 1758) v Stara planina. Doctoral dissertation - VLTI.
Spiridonov, G. 1983. Teritorialnoto opazvane na grubnachnata fauna vuv visokite dialove na Sredna Stara Planina. Pp. 41-51 in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Relationships in Man-Mountain Ecosystems, Project No. 6 of the MAB Programme, Vol. II. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Spiridonov, G. 1985. Svobodno miasto za risa. Nature Protection Magazine 10:16-17.
Spiridonov, G. Unpublished manuscript. Divata planina jivee (The Wild Mountain Lives).
Spiridonov, G., L. Mileva, N. Spassov, and P. Simeonov. 1983. Gnezdovata ornitofauna v biosfernia rezervat Boatin. Pp. 83-90 in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Relationships in Man-Mountain Ecosystems, Project No. 6 of the MAB Programme, Vol. II. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Spiridonov, G. and L. Mileva. 1987. Prouchvane varhu ekologiata na mechkata (Ursus arctos L.) v rezervat Stara reka. Pp. 218-221 in Contemporary Findings of the Bulgarian Zoology. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Spiridonov, G. and L. Mileva. 1988. Zastrasheni redki vidove ptici v biosfernia rezervat Steneto. Pp. 99-105 in Ornithological Informational Bulletin 23-24. Sofia: Institute of Zoology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Spiridonov, G. and L. Mileva. 1989-90. Anketa s gorskite stopanstva. Unpublished.
Spiridonov, G., L. Mileva, and N. Spassov. 1987. Gnezdovata ornitofauna na biosfernia rezervat Tsarichina. Pp. 104-121 in Tsaritchina Biosphere Reserve. Krakow, Poland: Polish Academy of Sciences.
Spiridonov, G., L. Mileva, and N. Spassov. 1982. Novi svedenia za razprostranenieto na uralskata ululitca (Strix uralensis) i pernatonogata kukumiavka (Aegolis finereus). Pp. 341-343 in [editor]: Proceedings of the National Conference on the Renewal and Preservation of the Environment, Vol. I. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Spiridonov, G., N. Spassov, and L. Mileva. 1987. Krupnie mlekopitaushtie biosfernih rezervatov Boatin i Tsaritcina. Pp. 93-102 in Tsaritchina Biosphere Reserve. Krakow, Poland: Polish Academy of Sciences.
Spiridonov G. and N. Spassov. 1990. Status of the Brown Bear in Bulgaria. Aquilo ser. zool. 27:71-75.
Zemanek, M. 1987. Vidovoi sostav, gustota i kormovie otnoshenia melkih grizunov v glavnih biotopah rezervata Tsarichina. In: Tsaritchina Biosphere Reserve, PAS, BAS.
Addition background information was derived from the Red Data Book of People's Republic of Bulgaria, Volume II (Animals) (1985) and the General Geography of Bulgaria - Physical Geography (1982), both published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.