Chapter: II

SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVERS AND PRESSURES

Valentina Doncheva, Snejana Moncheva, Ivelina Moncheva Institute of Oceanology-BAS, Varna 9000, POBox 152

INTRODUCTION

The large Varna Bay coastal region has been identified as one of the hot spots in the Black Sea basin, along the Bulgarian coastline (see Fig in Moncheva et al., this volume).

The main source of nutrients load and pollution is industry, shipping, the urban and agricultural effluents transported by the current flowing through the cascade system /Varna lakes - Varna bay (see the map in V. Doncheva, this volume).

The Provadijska river with its watershed 2330 km2, contributes substantially to the water quality and ecosystem degradation of the Varna bay coastal region. There is enough evidence that the system Lakes –Bay could be considered a continuum influenced mainly by the Provadijska flow (Rojdestvenskyi, 1977, 1991, 1992, 1996, Stoyanov, 1991, Moncheva et al.1992, 2002, 2002, Konsulova et al., 1991, Konsulova, Todorova, 2000, Shtereva, 2001, Shtereva et al., 2000, Shtereva et al., 1999, Trajanova et al., 2002, Stefanova, this volume, Trajanova, this volume).

According to the WFD typology the Beloslav and Varna lakes could be classified as “heavily modified” water bodies, due to dramatic alterations of both physico-chemical and biological elements, after the digging of the two channels connecting Varna Bay with the lakes. According to Annex II, system A -1.2.3 (WFD) the lakes correspond to Mediterranean ecoregion, by average annual salinity (about 16‰- Stoyanov , 1992, Rojdestvenskyi, 1991) are classified as mesohaline, and by the mean tidal range – as a micro-tidal. The system could well be classified as “transitional waters”, but the very small salinity (14,5 – 17 ‰) and environmental gradients call for further revision and consideration.

The aim of the present study is to present some of the most important socio-economic indicators for the Varna region to serve as a base for assessment the main drivers and pressures over the Black Sea coastal area.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The assessment is based on existing information, published in different statistical books (Economy status of the North-Eastern planning region, 2003; Yearbook of Bulgarian Municipalities, 2002; NHDR, 2004; NIHDR 2002;and papers (Totev S, N. Chkorev 2003, Minev, Jeliazkova, 2003).

RESULTS

General characteristics

The catchment is situated in the North-East Planning region of and occupies a total area of 19 973.4km2 (18% of the country). The population in the catchment is distributed among 11 municipalities (Varna, Beloslav, Devnia, , Vetren, Avren, , Novi Pazar, Hitrino, Venez, ) that

Black Sea Coastal Region 151 BULGARIA Ecological and Socio-economic Indicators Chapter: II

belong to two administrative districts – Varna and Schumen – Fig.1. Only part of district Shumen is located within the catchment area, excluding the Shumen itself, although its characteristics influence substantially the indicators values averaged for the district.

Fig.1. Municipalities map of Provadijiska river catchment

Population

The total population is 530991 inhabitants (6.7% from the country, excluding Shumen 427187 - 5.4%, census 2001) with highest density in the conurbation of Varna - Beloslav - - Provadiya. The general trend of population dynamic is decreasing as typical for most of the municipalities in Bulgaria, contrasting to Varna town, where the increase is mainly related to migration (Economy status of the North-Eastern planning region, 2003- Table.1.

Table 1 Districts and Municipalities Statistics

3 ,

2 )

2

,

8 n m )

.

9 o k

2 o i s 4 9 t / e g

m i 1 1 1 e h e 1 1 t

s k 0 i n u t n n

l ( n R i 0

a d n o o ( n o y 1

i i s 2 g i e r p s o

t t e t t i i n e s o s a y a c a i t c m l l t i t l a g i l u i a i n r 1 u e u s e a u

r r n s t s l n r t r p n p s n l g p u n t a c i i i e e w l o o e e o o n P D M T S T V P d I m p C P Country 111001.9 5336 240 5096 71.1 0 8190876* 7891095 7845841 North-eastern R 19973.4 939 39 900 65.3 -2932 1343682* 1304344 1294249 Varna District 3819.5 158 9 149 120.7 -54 440563* 461174 460001 Avren 353.8 17 0 17 24.5 212 8345 8714 8650 Beloslav 60.1 4 1 3 185.4 80 12145 11131 11138 Varna 237.5 6 1 5 1351.7 247 305737 320464 321009 292.3 10 0 10 23.5 -165 6964 7023 6861 Devnya 121.1 3 1 2 79.2 -268 9289 9683 9589 Provadia 517.9 25 1 24 49.1 -58 26185 25718 25422 Shumen 3389.7 151 8 143 60 -313 214877* 203383 201890 Venetz 222.6 14 0 14 36.1 -64 26185 25718 25422 Kaspichan 274.4 9 2 7 35.5 88 11082 9808 9749 Nonvi Pazar 317.6 16 1 15 61.6 150 20678 19559 19571 Hitrino 276.7 20 0 20 25.2 -69 8535 7045 6972 Shumen 652.3 27 1 26 159.4 -313 109042 104456 104002

Black Sea Coastal Region 152 BULGARIA Ecological and Socio-economic Indicators Chapter: II

Data source: *data for 1999, from 1-Yearbook of Bulgarian Municipalities,2002; 2- Economy status of the North-Eastern planning region, 3 –NHDR,2000, 4 –NHDR 2002

Municipalities’ typology and ranking

The Bulgarian district typology is based on 7 main characteristics, the first 3 playing the core role- (National Human Development Report. Bulgaria –NHDR 2003, 2004).The municipality ranking according to their typology ( F1 – Urban –rural type, F2 -Ethnic type, F3-Mountain-plains type, F4-Financial outlook (industrial type); F5-“Roma” unemployment, F6 - Good educational coverage type and F7 - Good demographic outlook. is presented on Table.2.

Table 2. Municipalities ranks according to typology (NHDR, 2003)

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 N Municpality Urbanisation Ethnic Mountain- Finansial Roma Eductional Demographic Population Plains outlook unemployment covarage outlook 1 Devnya 36 83 187 6 120 118 243 2 Varna 2 181 189 26 256 54 106 3 Beloslav 47 94 223 10 230 183 57 4 Shumen 13 85 191 46 178 30 187 5 Provadia 97 73 205 79 29 184 167 6 Novi Paza 84 50 148 221 84 42 171 7 Vetrino 228 80 192 149 123 185 245 8 Kaspichan 188 60 182 63 32 165 156 9 Hitrino 256 9 133 170 81 112 64 10 Avren 254 70 232 117 61 197 17 11 Venetz 241 2 124 215 58 102 142

F1 and F4 play the main role in municipality ranking, representing the two extremes – municipalities of the highest and the lowest rank, the level of urbanization (F1) being the major differentiating factor. The opposition “urban” versus“ rural” is based on indicators such as population density, share of reinforced concrete housing units, relative share of rural population, share of own revenues in municipal budget, unemployment among university graduates, share of population having access to sewerage, number of students in one school, and share of population with higher and secondary education.

F4 - financial typology of municipalities is mostly determined by the degree of industrialization. High average wages, net revenue from sales, tax revenue from sales, tax revenue per capita GDP, combine in the same typology with emissions of harmful substances and industrial waste. This set of indicators is typical for municipalities with well developed extraction industries and energy sectors. This corroborates observations from MHDI that financial success of (formal) economy of municipalities is based on the industrial sector.

The main typology of lakes-bay coastal region corresponds to highly industrialized urban area in contrast to the Provadijska river upstream region. The urban level is high (90.8% versus 60.5% average for the country), 75% of the total population in the catchment concentrated in one municipality (Varna) - (Minev, Jeliazkova, 2002).

Chemical industry (Devnya, Shumen) and mechanical engineering (Varna, Shumen) are the sectors with greatest output. Novy Pazar, Kaspichan and Beloslav account for 1/3 of the glass and porcelain and faience industry output.

Black Sea Coastal Region 153 BULGARIA Ecological and Socio-economic Indicators Chapter: II

According to the District index of Human Development (DIHD) Varna district is progressing in the country scale - ranked 7th in 2001, 6th – in 2002 and 4th in 2003. The Shumen district is far behind, ranked 20th during 2001 и 2002, in 2003 of even lower position – 21st. Thus Varna district is classified as of High HD, while Shumen as - Low - Table 3, Fig. 2. (NHDR 2000, 2002,2003).

Fig 2. Levels of human development index by municipalities in Bulgaria

Among the three components of HDI (1- Life expectancy (LEI), 2- Combined educational index and 3- Real GDP for final consumption per capita, a recalculated GDP of municipality in Purchasing Power Parity) GDP is of primary importance. The districts and municipalities leaders by GDP are at the top list of the overall HDI ranking while combined educational index and life expectancy index are less significant.

Table 3. MHDI and its components (LEI and GDP) in watershed municipalities.

GDP LEI LEI LEI GDP GDP GDP MHDI MHDI MHDI Municipality per capita 2002 2001-2002 rank 2003 PPP index rank 2003 rank rank in BGN 2001 Varna 72.3 0.789 36 3680 6754 0.703 29 0.819 14 High Beloslav 70.5 0.759 164 4385 8047 0.732 16 0.804 35 High Devnya 70.3 0.754 184 6342 11639 0.794 3 0.823 12 High Provadia 71.1 0.761 122 2196 4030 0.617 96 0.77 96 Medium Avren 70.3 0.755 182 1677 3079 0.572 191 0.745 199 Low Vetrino 70.3 0.755 180 1767 3.243 0.581 173 0.751 173 Medium Kaspichan 71.6 0.777 79 1862 3417 0.589 154 0.75 175 Medium Novi Pazr 69.8 0.747 199 2200 4037 0.609 110 0.757 139 Medium Venetz 69.8 0.729 215 1716 3149 0.576 183 0.74 214 Low Hitrino 71.3 0.772 105 1724 3164 0.577 180 0.75 178 Medium Shumen 71.3 0.772 103 3173 5824 0.678 38 0.798 39 High

Black Sea Coastal Region 154 BULGARIA Ecological and Socio-economic Indicators Chapter: II

Varna is among the districts with highest GDP and nominal GDP increase in Bulgaria (NHDR 2002). A positive trend is common for the two districts, but among the 28 municipalities, Varna district is progressing much faster than Shumen district (Fig.4). Varna district is ranked 5th in 2002 and 4th during 2003, and 2nd by nominal increase of GDP per capita (from 0.653 to 0.685) during 2002, in contrast to Shumen district – lowering its position in the ranking list from 19 (2002) to 21 during 2003. (NHDR 2000, 2002, 2003). Varna, Devnya and Provadia municipalities are with Highest GDP, in the GDP per capita exceeding the country average (4 398 BGL)- (Table 3, Fig.3)

Fig. 3. Level of GDP index by districts and municipalities.

Sectoral characteristics

The third sector –cervices is dominating in both districts reaching 61% of GVA in Varna district and 53% in Shumen district with respective industrial share of 30% and 22%. The agriculture sector is better represented in Shumen (25%) compared to Varna district (7%). (Economy status of the North-Eastern planning region, 2003) - Fig.4.Varna is among the leading districts by Foreign direct investments (FDI) – taking 4th position on a country-wide scale. Varna Varna Vrana 4500 2000 1000 Shumen Shumen 4000 1800 Shumen N G

] 3500 1600 ]

800 B N

N G n 1400

i 3000 G B . a B n t

1200 l

600 i 2500 n p m l [ a

1000 2000 c m A

[ r

P 400 800 e G 1500 P p

D 600 P

1000 G

200 D 400

G 500 200 0 0 0 199920002001 IndustryAgricultureServices 199920002001

A B C Fig.4. A- GDA per sector in Varna and Shumen Regions,B GDP per capita for the period 1999-2001; C – GDP for the period 1999-2001.

Black Sea Coastal Region 155 BULGARIA Ecological and Socio-economic Indicators Chapter: II

Generally by GDP index a sustained high internal differentiation among districts is clearly manifested. By economic growth (in 2000) several distinct groups could be discriminated. Leaders by GDP in the country are City, Vratza, , , Varna and , which have advanced far before the others, accommodating about one third of the population (2814178 people) in the country, while another third (2706651 people) is living in 14 districts of low development.

Table 4 Summary of different socio-economic indicators

t ]

n n n 2 i i i

n y t

N y

l

e e t d d t t t l . n

m

i r l e a l n n n y n n t s k

m u u c r a l e e e [ a a e % c ]

t i t m l l

i 2 p ] ] ] ] l y c p e .

s r i y y i m m m t f o u e e o t m r u m c v f l l o y y y a % % % % s c i p p o l r r e o i i [ [ [ [ k d

b b o o o e t n r [ l l l n p e o a a i n m D g S u r r o r p I p p v c e i m r c A t A A n e m m m M E c E E E E a U T Beloslav Varna 76 0.8 23.2 16.6 5401 28 60.1 38.9 23.38 Devnia Varna 83.6 1.5 14.9 18.1 4662 87.9 121.1 42.9 51.95 Varna Varna 28.1 0.9 71 9.6 158746 36.7 237.5 37.5 89.06 Avren Varna 9.8 34.3 55.9 27.8 3409 5.2 353.8 52.1 184.33 Provadija Varna 29.4 16.4 54.2 34.3 11054 17 517.9 60 310.74 Vetrino Varna 18.8 52.4 28.8 23.8 2750 8.8 292.3 70.9 207.24 Kaspichan Shumen 63.3 13.9 22.8 25.7 4303 23.4 274.4 56.5 155.04 Novi Pazar Shumen 56.6 9.1 34.3 27.7 9434 24.8 317.6 59.3 188.34 Shumen Shumen 41.8 5.9 52.3 13.2 50222 652.3 59.8 390.08 Hitrino Shumen 12.4 47.9 39.7 35.4 2977 9.9 276.7 65.6 181.52 Venets Shumen 17.7 20.2 62 39.5 3707 5.6 222.6 56.9 126.66

LEI index is traditionally predetermined by and highly correlated with the degree of infrastructure development, which besides an element of HDI is of high ecological relevance, the data being crucial in assessing urban systems diffusive nutrients input. Originally districts with high number of running water houses are at the top in LEI ranking. The same stands for the share of homes with in-house lavatories – Varna district is ranked 4th with 67%. (NHDR 2002) In Varna district 88.1 % (100% - urban and 41.6 - rural) from the population have access to waste water collection systems, while in Shumen - 63.2% (97.8 % from urban and 6.7 % from rural population). The urban areas normally have better developed infrastructure – in Varna district about 67.5% of the settlements (population > 10 000) are connected to waste water system. In Varna and Devnia municipality the coverage is more than 90%, while in the remaining settlements –between 30-60%. For example the settlements located upstream in the catchment, e.g. less urban area, the share of homes without house lavatory in some municipalities exceeds 90% (Table.5)

Table 5. Infrastructural components of HDI/LEI Share of homes Share of homes Share of homes Municipality District without running without sanitation without house water 2001 system lavatory Varna Varna 5.8 6.6 13.6 Beloslav Varna 6.4 12.3 45.4 Devnia Varna 5.7 10.7 44.7 Provadija Varna 21 28.7 66.2 Avren Varna 25.2 29.5 76.9 Vetrino Varna 15.2 18 90.7 Kaspichan Shumen 15.2 17.8 52.9 Novi Pazar Shumen 13.2 17.1 59.3 Venets Shumen 38.4 41.7 97.5 Hitrino Shumen 32.7 40.3 96.5 Shumen Shumen 8.2 9.9 28.3

Black Sea Coastal Region 156 BULGARIA Ecological and Socio-economic Indicators Chapter: II

Apparently the municipalities are divided into two poles –urbanized with well developed infrastructure such as Varna, Beloslav and Devnia and those that are not – the remaining portion of the water-shed area.

CONCLUSSION

The Provadiiska river catchment area consists of municipalities of high disparity and heterogeneity of socio- economic status and development. One of the most dramatic increases in unemployment rates in the country was observed in Devnia (from 5% in 1998 to 30% in 2000) and Novi Pazar (from 15% in 1998 to 33,3% in 2000). The unemployment rate in the Provadijska catchment in 2000 was between 13,7% (Varna) and 36,2% (Provadia) at average for the country about 18%. The urban concentration was and still remains high (90,8% versus 60,5% average for the country) and 79,4% of the total population in the catchment, concentrated in one municipality (Varna). Both, the population density and the share of the arable land in the catchment are higher than the country average (4,7% from the total population and 1,64% of the total arable land of the country). Varna is among the districts with highest GDP and nominal GDP increase in Bulgaria and high foreign investment (NHDR 2002) and well developed infrastructure (high HDI).

The reconstruction of industrial development in the catchment is featured by two contrasting patterns: while Varna district demonstrates features typical for Central European Countries, resulting mainly in shifting to dominance of services sector, Shumen district is a typical example of the “negative reconstructing pattern” – the reconstruction reflex in increasing the unemployment and the share of agriculture in GDP.

REFERENCES

Devilopment & Coastal Environment 2000 (Ed. B. Savov), 5-7 June 2000, Varna , 109-119. Economic status of North-eastern planning region, 2003 Ministry of economy- Department “Regional analysis”, Sofia, pp.45 Konsulova T., V. Todorova, 2000. Benthic macrofauna status – a relevant tool for environmental impact assessment in port areas.. Proccedings II-nd Int. Conf. Port Konsulova Ts., A. Konsulov, S. Moncheva, 1991. Ecological characteristic of Varna Bay (Black Sea) coastal ecosystem under summer “bloom” conditions. Compt. Rend. Acad. Bulg. Scien., 44 (8), pp. 115 – 117 Minev D., M. Jeliazkova, 2003. Socio Economic Drivers in Provadijska Catchments Area EUROCAT Report –CD. Moncheva ,S.,Trayanov, T. 1992. Thermal influence of thermoelectric powerstation “Varna”on Varna Lake ecosystem and ecological impact. Rapp. Comm.Int. Mer Medit., 33, 262. Moncheva S., V. Doncheva, Shtereva G., L. Kamburska, S. Gorinstein. 2002 “Application of eutrophication indices for assessment of the Bulgarian Black Sea coastal ecosystem ecological quality”, Water Science and Technology, vol 46, N8, 2002 National Human development Report (NHDR), Bulgaria 2003. National Human development Report (NHDR), 2002. Bulgaria Human Development Index Municipalities in the Context of Districts 2002: UNDP, Sofia, Bulgaria. pp.48 National Human development Report.Bulgaria (NHDR). 2000 The municipalities mosaic UNDP, Sofia, Bulgaria., pp.88 Rojdestvenskii A. 1977. Modification of chemistry, degree of pollution and hydrology of Beloslav Lake. Oceanology, No 2, pp.5-17. Rojdestvenskii A. 1996. Hydrochemical monitoring of the Beloslav lake during the period from 1975 till 1984. Proceeding of the Inst.of Fisheries, vol. XXIV, pp. 183 – 191.

Black Sea Coastal Region 157 BULGARIA Ecological and Socio-economic Indicators Chapter: II

Rozdestvensky, A. 1992. The Impact of Anthropogenic Factors on the Hydrology and on the Hydrochemistry of the Varna Lake., Proceedings.of Institute.of Oceanology, BAS, V. 1. 48-57. Rozdestvensky, A.1991. Long-term chemical monitoring of seawaters and lakes in Varna region. -In: Proc.of II Ecol. Conf.,29-30 Oct.1991,Varna, 3-9. Rural Regions: Overcoming Development Disparities (NHDR) 2004. UNDP, Sofia, Bulgaria. pp.104 Shtereva G. 2001. Heavy metals and organic pollutants in Varna Lake. J. of Balkan Ecology., v. 4, 4, 446-450. Shtereva G., A. Krastev, O. Hristova. 2000. Chemical Investigation of Varna and port Area., Proccedings II-nd Int. Conf. Port Devilopment & Coastal Environment 2000 (Ed. B. Savov), 5-7 June 2000, Varna, 171–180. Stoyanov ,A.1991. Negative Changes of Hydrochemistry of Beloslav Lake – Varna Lake – Varna Bay.-In: Proc.of II . Ecol. Conf., 29-30 Oct.1991,Varna. 38-46 Totev S., N. Chkorev, 2003. Economic Profile and Sustainable Development of Provadijska Catchments Area EUROCAT Report -CD Trayanova A., K. Stefanova , T. Trayanov, U. Niermann 2002 Zooplankton and Macrozoobenthic communities of the Varna-Beloslav Lake system 1906 - 2001: How economy and industry affected the ecology, a case study. In Proc. II Int. Conf. “Oceanography of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea”. Yearbook of Bulgarian Municipalities, 2002. http://www.flgr.bg/annual_2002/cat/html/

Black Sea Coastal Region 158 BULGARIA Ecological and Socio-economic Indicators