`
Ameco Environmental Services, Utrecht
Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg
European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg
Borrowed Nature, Sofia
WWF Danube Carpathian Programme, Bulgaria Office, Sofia
Development of a National System for Monitoring Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Bulgaria PPA03/BG/715
Final Report April, 2006
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 1 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
Colophon
Title: Development of a National System for Monitoring Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Bulgaria EVD PSO pre-accession Programme
Final Project Report
Project Code: PPA03/BG/7/1
Submitted by: Ameco Environmental services Koningslaan 60 3583 GN Utrecht The Netherlands phone: 00-31-30-2545840 fax: 00-31-30-2545376 Contact : Drs. H.A.W. Kleinjans e-mail: [email protected]
Consortium partners: - Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg - European Centre for Nature Conservation - Borrowed Nature Association, Sofia - WWF Danube Carpathian Programme, Sofia
Client: EVD Pre-accession programmes P.O. Box 20105 2500 EC The Hague The Netherlands Contact: Drs. L. Kartier Tel : 00-31-70-778 8250 Fax : 00-31-70-373 5100 e-mail: [email protected]
Counterpart: Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW), Bulgaria
Beneficiary: Land, Bio-Diversity and Protected Areas Department of the Executive Environment Agency, Bulgaria
Date: April, 2006
Summary: The overall objective of this project was to assist the Bulgarian Government in fulfilling their obligations in order to become a full member of the European Union. The purpose of the project is to assist the Beneficiary with the implementation of the EU Birds (79/409/EEC) and Habitats (92/43/EEC) Directives, specifically on requirements for development and implementation of a monitoring system. Ameco was contracted by EVD as leading partner for the implementation of this project, which commenced in January 2004. In this report the outcomes of the project are described, and assessed with regard to their effect, impact, and sustainability. Also, the report describes lessons learned during the course of the project, and gives recommendations for follow up.
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 2 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
Table of contents
1. Introduction...... 4
2. Project outcome ...... 5
2.1 Results...... 5 2.1.1 Result 1...... 5 2.1.2 Result 2...... 7 2.1.3 Result 3...... 8 2.2 Effect...... 9 2.3 Impact...... 11 2.4 Sustainability ...... 12
3 Lessons learned and recommendations ...... 13
3.1 Lessons learned...... 13 3.2 Recommendations...... 14
5 Annexes ...... 15
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 3 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
1. Introduction
EVD has contracted Ameco to provide assistance to the Bulgarian Government for the implementation of a national biodiversity monitoring system in line with requirements of the European Birds and Habitats Directives. This project, titled “Development of a National System for Monitoring Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Bulgaria”, is implemented by a consortium of Ameco Environmental Services, Bureau Waardenburg, Borrowed Nature, the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme, and the European Centre for Nature Conservation.
The project is being supported in the framework of the PSO Pre-Accession programme (PPA). This programme aims to assist the candidate member states in Central and Eastern Europe in meeting the criteria for EU membership through projects dealing with the implementation of European legislation.
The purpose of the project is to strengthen the capacity of Bulgarian authorities for monitoring bio-diversity and protected areas to ensure conformity with the EU-Directives 92/43/EEC (Habitat Directive) and 79/409/EEC (Bird Directive). This is to be achieved through the following project results: 1. A national programme for monitoring of the biodiversity and protected areas has been elaborated, including an action plan for its implementation; 2. Strengthened capacity at the Executive Environment Agency (ExEA) regarding the monitoring of the bio-diversity; 3. Improved capacity of the Regional Environment and Water Inspectorates’ and Protected Areas Authorities’ staff for implementing the action plan activities in the field of bio-diversity monitoring.
This eighth progress report reflects project progress and findings in the period October 1st – December 31st 2005. In this reporting period most of the focus was on revising the NBMS document on the basis of lessonos from the monitoring pilot experiences; on developing the database for the NBMS, and on further developing the handbook for data collection. Also, the last remaining monitoring hardware has been delivered.
This report describes the project activities above in more detail, as well as outlining the expected project progress in the following project period, which is proposed to be from 1st January to the 7th April 2006.
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 4 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
2. Project outcome
2.1 Results
2.1.1 Result 1: A national programme for monitoring of the bio-diversity and protected areas has been elaborated, including an action plan for its implementation.
Implementation overview
Activity Planned Planned Started Completed Adjustments starting completion on on date date 1.1 Establish national Task 1/4/04 1/6/04 13/6/04 30/7/04 On request of ExEA, postponed until Force and Product Teams, after Work/training visit to the NL define ToRs 1.2 Work/training visit to 14/6/04 26/6/04 6/6/04 12/6/04 No significant adjustments Netherlands 1.3 Prepare outline 1/5/04 1/7/04 1/5/04 15/10/04 Completion delayed as consequence monitoring programme of late start of Task Force and work plan 1.4 Facilitate work of 1/6/04 1/11/04 1/6/04 14/1/05 Completion delayed as work Product Teams to achieve involved for some PTs turned out to consensus on monitoring be significantly larger than expected. approaches, collect information, and prepare conclusions and recommendations to the Task Force 1.5 Produce draft 1/7/04 1/11/04 15/9/04 14/1/05 Start and completion delayed as programme (incl. action consequence of delays in act. 1.3 plan) in Task Force and and 1.4 sub-teams 1.6 National consultation 8/11/04 12/11/04 28/1/05 28/1/05 Seminar date brought forward due to seminar on the delay in act. 1.5 programme 1.7 Complete and submit 1/1/05 1/3/05 - 28/2/06 Planning revised to complete NBMS programme (incl. action and action plan at later stage to plan) incorporate all lessons learned from pilots, handbook and database development 1.8 Develop and maintain 1/6/04 1/9/05 1/6/04 05/04/06 Ongoing from project inception to biodiversity/habitats project completion monitoring website 1.9 Closing conference 14/11/05 25/11/05 5/4/06 5/04/06 Brought forward in view of need for more time for database development (act. 2.5), and to find a suitable date.
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 5 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
Activities for result 1 implemented during last reporting period (1-1-2006 to 7-4-2006)
Act. 1.7: Complete and submit programme (incl. action plan) During the last and previous reporting periods, the NBMS has been thoroughly revised and updated. This has been primarily an activity of ExEA, who have also ensured that the language of the final text corresponds to Bulgarian practices for such type of policy texts. An action plan has been added as Annex 2 to the NBMS (Annex 1 being the list of species and habitats for monitoring). Both documents have been presented to the MoEW in February and are, in principle, ready for formal adoption. ExEA has however decided to present the materials for a further round of consultation with stakeholders, in order to secure as broad support as possible for it. The closing seminar (act. 1.9) has been used for this, and a further one-month period is given to stakeholders to submit comments and suggestions.
Given the fact that this latest version of the NBMS has been revised mostly by ExEA and following their views, it has been agreed that the document will also be represented as an ExEA document – for which ExEA also accepts the responsibility to finalise, present for formal adoption, and to update in the future as and when required. The final deliverable of the Consultants for this activity is therefore the Consultant’s proposal for the NBMS document, combined in a ‘Consultants’ Background Materials’ report together with reports from the pilots, as well as materials produced in the various Product Teams.
Act. 1.9 : Closing Conference The closing conference was held on 5 april, in the hall of the Central Military Club in Sofia. Some 120 people participated representing stakeholders in biodiversity monitoring in Bulgaria. The Netherlands side was represented by the Dutch Ambassador Mr van Ee, and Ms Milenova of the agricultural council of the Dutch Embassy; by Ms Lysianne Katier of EVD, and by Dutch project team members (Koen Peters, Bobbi Schijf, Gerard Smit).
The conference was opened by keynote addresses from: • [Ms Nevonka [Spell?], chef of cabinet of the Ministry of Environment and Water • Drs. W.A. van Ee, Ambassador for the Netherlands • Mr. V. Vergiev, Director of ExEA
In the next block of presentations, main project achievements were presented by members of the project team and the recipient.
Subsequently, the floor was opened for questions, comments and suggestions from stakeholders. During a period of almost three hours, many people took the opportunity to present their views or clarify details. Many remarks and questions centred around issues of implementation and budgets (which are to be sorted out through approval of the action plan); or specifics of species and habitats that are to be monitored. The debate was generally very constructive, as well as detailed.
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 6 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
Remarks on the implementation of activities for result 11 • In general, the implementation has followed closely the scheme of activities as described in the inception report. The main change has been to postpone the completion of the NBMS and action plan, in order to make full use of lessons from the pilots, and from the development of the handbook and database (rather than only incorporating comments from consultation). This change proved wise, as the final version does indeed reflect numerous improvements based on these lessons • The implementation has had some delay in relation to the original scheme. This was caused by a variety of reasons, but the main reasons were as follows: - In the beginning of the project, more time was required than initially envisaged to establish a common understanding with ExEA on what would eventually be the outline of the management plan, and particularly who would be involved in what capacity to draft it. Spending rather more time on this, however, later on paid off in the quality of the cooperation and mutual understanding. - The elaboration of monitoring details at the levels of species and habitats, and agreeing upon them among the Bulgarian experts, turned out to be a much more elaborate task than initially envisaged. Specifically, completion of reports on methodologies proved to be a task that needed much effort. Furthermore, particularly the habitats Product Team had difficulties to arrive at broadly-supported conclusions. Finally, for some species groups it was difficult to obtain commitment of suitable Bulgarian scientist within the planned period; this was in particular the case for higher plants.
2.1.2 Result 2 Strengthened capacity at the Executive Environment Agency (ExEA) regarding the monitoring of biodiversity and protected areas
Activity Planned Planned Started Completed Adjustments starting completion on on date date 2.1 Assess current 3/5/04 14/5/04 16/8/04 31/1/05 Implemented through two visits, and capacity versus required 15/1/05 31/1/05 partially included in the work of PT 4 capacity, develop strategy (see result 1) for capacity strengthening 2.2 Recommend 1/11/04 1/2/05 1/11/04 5/04/06 Ongoing activity throughout the partnerships and support project networking 2.3 Draft handbook on 1/11/04 1/5/05 1/1/05 15/3/06 Integrated in handbook for data biodiversity monitoring 1/7/05 1/9/05 collection (see result 3), plus manual and reporting for ExEA for database produced by MAPEX 2.4 Establish 1/11/04 1/1/05 1/11/04 1/8/05 Followed from work of PT3 (see requirements for result 1), completion delayed due to information systems delay in R1 and contract procedures (database, internet data with external experts (MAPEX) exchange platform) 2.5 Develop database 1/1/05 1/4/05 1/7/05 30/3/06 Delayed start due to delay in and website contracting procedures for MAPEX, completion further delayed because 1 Implementation aspects of the individual activities have been describedof unforeseen in more amounts detail in of the work on quarterly progress reports. database development Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 7 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
and website 1/7/05 1/9/05 contracting procedures for MAPEX, completion further delayed because of unforeseen amounts of work on database development 2.6 Train ExEA staff on 4/4/05 29/5/05 1/1/06 7/4/06 Start dependent on development of handbook and database 2.5 system management
Activities for result 2 implemented during last reporting period (1-1-2006 to 7-4-2006)
Activity 2.2: In practice this has been an ongoing activity in the project. Where appropriate the consortium provided advice on partnerships between the ExEA and monitoring stakeholders. During this reporting period the ExEA has worked closely with some of the species experts and organisation involved in the pilot monitoring activities, which will bolster future co-operation on monitoring between these parties.
Activity 2.3: In practice this manual has been limited to the manual prepared by MAPEX on the database use and maintenance; other aspects relevant for data processing by ExEA have been incorporated in the manual on data collection. The manual of MAPEX has been completed in April.
Activity 2.5: Mapex commenced with the NBMS database development earlier reporting periods. As explained in earlier reports, their schedule implied that they would need to continue their work into February 2006 with the development of the basic framework, while work on testing and finetuning of the database would extend beyond the project period. In view of more complexity of the database development than originally foreseen, work on the database eventually continued in March and April. During February, Mr Tom van der Meij had a mission concentrating in particular to support MAPEX and ExEA with the database development and discuss any difficulties they had encountered, in particular with the use of Dutch TRIM software for statistical data analysis.
Activity 2.6: In April, a training was held for ExEA staff on the use of the database – but as ExEA staff had been continuously and intensively involved in the database development work by Mapex, they gained a lot of ‘on-the-job’ training as well. The timing of the ‘formal’ training on the NBMS database was, naturally, linked to the development of the database. This training was combined with the training on the handbook on data collection, and organised back-to-back with the closing conference.
2.1.3 Result 3 Improved capacity of the Regional Environment and Water Inspectorates’ (REWI) and Nature and National Parks staff for implementing the action plan activities in the field of bio-diversity monitoring
Activity Planned Planned Started Completed Adjustments starting completion on on date date 3.1 Assess current 1/4/04 1/6/04 1/11/04 15/12/04 Implemented through a visits in capacity versus required December 04, and partially included Amecocapacity • BuWa(SWOT • ECNC analysis, • 8 inNational the work Monitoring of PT 4System (see resultfor Biodiversity 1) and, gapBorrowed analysis) Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
capacity versus required December 04, and partially included capacity (SWOT analysis, in the work of PT 4 (see result 1) gap analysis) 3.2 Draft handbook on 1/11/04 1/4/05 15/1/05 15/3/06 Start subsequent to completion of biodiversity monitoring draft NBMS; completion of and reporting for REWIs consultants’ version subject to and PAA evaluation of pilot outcomes and database development; final completion done by ExEA 3.3 Train REWI/PAA staff 4/4/05 20/5/05 4/4/05 7/4/06 Partially executed through ‘on-the- dealing with biodiversity job’ training included in pilots; further conservation on ‘formal’ training for all REWIs and implementation of the PPA staff on 7 april 2006, back-to- handbook back with closing seminar. 3.4 Carry out pilot for 4/4/05 1/7/05 4/4/05 31/8/05 According to schedule agreed with selected area and species ExEA and EVD 3.5 Establish Network of 1/11/04 1/9/05 1/11/04 7/4/06 Ongoing during entire project Biodiversity and Habitats duration Monitoring Experts
Activities for result 2 implemented during last reporting period (1-1-2006 to 7-4-2006)
Activity 3.2: A draft handbook prepared by the consultants was completed in the previous reporting period. The handbook includes general instructions for monitoring that have been developed by the project team, as well as more specific instructions for certain species groups, and some individual species. The latter are the result of the work done by the Product Teams and pilot monitoring species experts. The handbook will also include an extensive set of field forms and key cards which have been developed and tested in the pilot activities.
With assistance from the Consultant, ExEA made further revisions to field forms extended the amount of field forms and instructions. This included completion of instructions and field forms for habitats, for which the relevant PT could not complete their work earlier. These revisions were partly done in December but full completion expanded into the first quarter of 2006.
The final handbook has been formally presented to ExEA by the Netherlands Ambassador during the closing seminar.
Activity 3.3: In part, training of REWI and Nature and National Park staff was included the pilot activities. Additional training has provided back-to-back with the closing conference.
Activity 3.5: Similar to activity 2.2, this has been an ongoing effort that will came to an end when the project was completed.
2.2 Effect
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 9 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
The intended effect of the project is described as the project purpose. In the logical framework matrix, this purpose together with its indicators and means of verification, was described as follows:
Project Purpose Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification To strengthen the capacity of • National programme for biodiversity • Letter of Satisfaction/ the Bulgarian government for monitoring adopted Observation monitoring biodiversity and • ExEA capable to manage national • Project evaluation against protected areas in conformity monitoring of biodiversity of protected baseline assessment with the EU Directives species and habitats • Verification sources for 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) • REWI staff dealing with biodiversity individual results and 79/409/EEC (Birds conservation trained on biodiversity Directives) monitoring
At the end of the project, it can be concluded that this purpose has been fully achieved. In practice, this means the following:
• The framework for the monitoring system has been adequately described in the NBMS document. The same applies to the action plan, describing what needs to be done to develop the NBMS further, and start its implementation. The system is developed as a ‘growth model’, meaning it will have to evolve over time – so the document describing the framework will need to be updated from time to time too. Nevertheless, these documents that have been prepared to date provide ExEA and other stakeholders with a clear basis and direction to start implementation. • Due to various capacity building activities, but mostly as a result of extensive and continuous discussions between the Consultants and the recipient, the capacities of ExEA staff to take the NMBS implementation further have increased. While already at the beginning of the project ExEA staff were quite capable in defining there needs and requirements, the Consultant has noted that the involved ExEA team members have grown considerably over the course of the project in their ability to take charge of the process, and define not only their needs but also lead in the identification of solutions. Indeed, the Consultant has been impressed, particularly during the second half of the project, by the ownership and commitment demonstrated by ExEA in developing the NBMS, their understanding of the topic and tasks ahead, as well as their skills in getting all stakeholders ‘lined up’ in the elaboration of details. • ExEA has now also access to the basic tools to start implementation: in particular, a database; and a handbook for data collection and processing. Both tools will be, as much as the NBMS, subject to further development, testing, and refinement as the NBMS gets implemented during the following years – but are available as fully functional starting points now. • External Bulgarian stakeholders have been involved in the development of the NBMS throughout the project - including representatives of REWIs, National Park Directorates and Nature Park Directorates, but also from scientific institutions and expert NGOs. This gives ExEA access to a network of stakeholders that will prove very valuable for the further implementation and growth of the NBMS. • Key (formal) stakeholders for data collection (REWIs, National and Nature Park Directorates) have all been given training on their role in the system. The entire group of stakeholders have been given formal training on the use of the handbook; a smaller group of them have been given also practical training as part of the pilot activities.
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 10 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
Further practical experience will need to be gained over time, in particular during monitoring seasons (for most species, this is spring and early summer).
2.3 Impact
The impact of the project relates to the degree that the project results have helped achieve the higher, overall, objective. In the logical framework, this was described as follows:
Overall Objective Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification To assist Bulgaria with the Full and effective implementation of the EU Progress Reports of the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives European Commission Birds and Habitats Directives, Accession to the European and in doing so support the Union accession to the European Union
On completion of the project, the following can be concluded: • Although Bulgaria still needs to complete major tasks towards full implementation of the two Directives, it has made important steps in recent years. The aspect of monitoring and reporting is one of the areas in which such steps have been made • Reseach in the beginning of the project, including the study visit to Hungary, Netherlands and Brussels, have demonstrated that the two Directives do not describe very concretely what is required in terms of monitoring and reporting. Among the European Commission and EU member states, discussion is yet ongoing on how such monitoring could be established most effectively and efficiently. In this field, therefore, Bulgaria could not rely very much on European guidelines and other countries’ experiences but had to find its own way. • Concretely, the project has helped the Bulgarian government to adequately address the issues of monitoring and reporting in the two Directives; and to establish the capacities within the relevant government organisations to take on their responsibilities in this field. Assuming the NBMS and its action plan are being endorsed by the Minister for Environment and Water and implemented as described, this should mean that Bulgaria is now fully capable to deliver on the monitoring and reporting requirements in the context of these two Directives. • Aside from these concrete steps forward, there are also secondary benefits of the project in relation to EU accession. The project has helped Bulgarian experts to take a look at how other EU member states are addressing EU requirements in the field of nature conservation; and has helped these experts to establish (informal) relations with experts in these member states as well as the European Commission. This will help the involved organisations to be better prepared for other accession tasks with similar processes, in related areas.
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 11 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
2.4 Sustainability
Assumptions • Continued political commitment towards EU accession • BG government and non-government organisations willing to cooperate on biodiversity monitoring
Both assumptions stated in the logical framework have proven to be valid. Over the course of the project, however, it also became clear that two important assumptions were not made explicit in this matrix, namely: • that the Ministry of Environment and Water will formally adopt the NBMS proposal and action plan proposal of ExEA and give it adequate legal status • that ExEA (and stakeholders with key roles in data collection) will be given adequate resources (staffing, funding, equipment etc) to carry out their tasks in the implementation of the NBMS
At this stage of the project, it is not entirely clear yet to which extend these two assumptions can be expected to hold sufficiently true. The MoEW has, during the course of the project, always been supportive to the project and has clearly not made any objections against any of the outcomes produced. On the other hand, until now the MoEW has not yet demonstrated that it also gives this topic a sufficiently high priority and will support it with political force. Obtaining this support and, subsequently, formal approval and resources for the NBMS implementation, are therefore now the main assumptions determining the long-term sustainability of the project.
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 12 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
3 Lessons learned and recommendations
3.1 Lessons learned
• The consortium applied a very participative approach throughout the project – involving not only the beneficiary but also other important Bulgarian stakeholders, including scientist and NGO experts. These actors were not only there to comment, but actively contributed to the project in a very substantial and meaningful way. This has costed the team quite some effort and time in the early stages of the project, but it clearly paid off later when prepared products were put to the public for comments. In general, materials have been very well accepted, and have been endorsed as ‘Bulgarian’ solutions. • The consortium feels that this is in fact the only sensible way to implement such an international cooperation project. What comes from the ‘west’ is not always the best – and even if it was, every country still needs to find its solutions in its own way. Therefore, international consultants should limit their role to providing know-how and examples, and guiding the process, but leave the decisions to be made to Bulgarians. • Learning in practice works better than learning from theory. The study visits to Hungary, the Netherlands and Brussels, and the practical pilot testing of monitoring approaches, were clearly the most important activities to demonstrate Bulgarian stakeholders what could work, and what should be avoided. The field activities took place in situ, and in testing problems emerged that were not apparent when working out the methodologies on paper. • The Dutch Consortium has tried throughout the project to reduce the ambition levels of Bulgarian partners in relation to the amount of information they wanted to collect, number of species to be monitored, and methods to be used. This has gradually been accepted by the Bulgarian partners – although more slowly by external experts who considered it a government responsibility to meet these ambition levels, then by the government experts themselves. • High ambition levels complicated the development of the database and methodology – unfortunately leaving still some aspects to be resolved for the future. With the adoption of the action plan, and with good communication and some common sense on the site of the database developers, these issues should be addressable, however. • Some of the ‘Dutch’ views were poorly accepted by Bulgarians in the beginning, but have been gradually adopted throughout the course of the project. An important aspect is the use of volunteers – which got often confused with ‘non-experts’, but also conflicted with expectations of how government responsibilities are to be met. At the end of the project, pilot demonstrations had shown that volunteers (including non-experts!) can play a role in monitoring, and over time the role of volunteers may still grow. Old habits die hard, however – it will take time before the use of volunteers will be acceptable practice in Bulgaria. • Another idea that got gradually accepted is that systems such as these must grow: start soon and small, learn in practice and adapt. Learning-by-doing is valuable not only because it demonstrates in the local context that a new approach can work (in
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 13 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
this case volunteer monitoring), but also because it gives local people the confidence that they can shape the new approach to their liking. • A number of further aspects helped to make this project successful: the project benefited from a strong beneficiary, who had a clear need, a dedication to solve this, and a professional and problem-oriented approach to getting the most out of this project. This has made cooperation and communication a great deal, and helped to define the problem and solutions much more easily. The beneficiary also took leadership in the project, and made sure that the assistance provided was eventually going to address their needs. • Finally, the project was helped enormously by the fact that Borrowed Nature could provide an excellent Secretariat role to the Task Force and Product Teams, assisted by their good network and excellent working relations with many key experts in this field.
3.2 Recommendations
Our recommendations should be very logical from the previously stated: • We recommend the MoEW to formally adopt the NBMS document, and free up the resources to implement the action plan • We recommend ExEA and other stakeholders to start implementing the NBMS initially with limited ambitions, allowing time to develop experiences, networks, and methodologies • We recommend partnerships and networks to be maintained and nurtured. The implementation of the NBMS should be the responsibility of all stakeholders, not of ExEA alone. ‘Processes’ should get equal attention as ‘content’. • For future capacity building project such as these, we recommend to use a similar participative approach as used for this project – essential for its sustainability
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 14 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
4. Annexes
Annex 1. Updated Logical framework Annex 2. Budget realisation (planned versus actual) Annex 3. Letter of Satisfaction from the Executive Environment Agency Annex 4. Letter of Observation from the Ministry of Environment and Water Annex 5: Materials produced in the project: a) NMBS, including action plan b) Handbook on data collection and processing c) Description of database d) Consultants’ background materials Annex 6: Reports of Closing Seminar and Manual Training
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • 15 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas, Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 National Biodiversity Monitoring System (NBMS)
Consortium proposal
Updated April 2006
1 Colophon
Title: National Biodiversity Monitoring System for Bulgaria (NBMS)
Consortium proposal
Prepared by: This document has been prepared by Ameco Environmental Services, together with its partners Bureau Waardenburg and the Borrowed Nature Association, in close co-operation with the Land, Bio-Diversity and Protected Areas Department of the Executive Environment Agency of the Ministry of Environment and Water, Bulgaria.
Supported by: The development of the NBMS is supported by a project titled “Development of a National System for Monitoring Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Bulgaria” (Ref. No. PPA03/BG/715). This project is funded by the EVD (Agency of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs), within the framework of the PSO Pre-Accession programme (PPA). This programme aims to assist the candidate member states in Central and Eastern Europe in meeting the criteria for EU membership through projects dealing with the implementation of European legislation.
Contact: For more information on the NBMS, contact:
the Borrowed Nature Association 20-B, Alexander Stamboliyski Blvd (floor 5) Sofia 1301, Bulgaria phone: +359 (2) 9816615 e-mail: [email protected]
For more information on the supporting project, contact:
Ameco Environmental services Koningslaan 60 3583 GN Utrecht The Netherlands phone: +31 (0) 30 2545840 e-mail: [email protected]
or visit the project website at: http://chm.moew.government.bg (from the main page, go to Project 2)
Date: December 2005, Updated April 2006
Summary: This draft text outlines the National Biodiversity Monitoring System that was proposed for Bulgaria by the consortium outlined above. It is based on the results of a number of working groups of Bulgarian experts that have determined specific details of the NBMS. The Executive Environmental Agency has developed the final Bulgarian NBMS on the basis of this proposal.
2 Table of contents
1. Justification for the NBMS ...... 4 1.1. Introduction ...... 4 1.2. Legal basis for development of the NBMS...... 5 1.3. Monitoring and the EU Directives...... 6 1.4 Reading guide to this document...... 8 2. Nature of the NBMS...... 9 2.1. Definition of the NBMS...... 9 2.2 The ‘Growth Model’ ...... 9 2.3 Data and monitoring frequency ...... 10 2.4 Basic requirements for monitoring ...... 11 3. Objectives of the NBMS ...... 14 3.1 Main objective...... 14 3.2 Concrete objectives ...... 14 3.3 Main questions to be answered by the NBMS ...... 14 4. NBMS objects...... 16 4.1 General...... 16 4.2 Criteria for selecting species...... 16 4.3 Selected species...... 18 4.4 Criteria for selecting habitats...... 24 4.5 Selected habitats...... 25 5. System for assessment and analysis of monitoring results ...... 26 5.1 Definition of the system for assessment and analysis ...... 26 5.2 The indicator approach: indicator definition ...... 26 5.3 Structure of the system for assessment and analysis ...... 27 5.4. Balance in the choice of indicators ...... 28 6. Information management of the NBMS ...... 29 6.1 Administrative and institutional requirements to the information system ...... 29 6.2 Type and hierarchy of the information...... 30 6.3 Information flow...... 30 6.4 Specialised software...... 31 7 Organisation of the NBMS and reporting...... 32 7.1 Roles and responsibilities...... 32 7.2 Quality control over monitoring data ...... 34 7.3 Analysis and evaluation of monitoring data...... 36 7.4 Access to and provision of information: Reporting...... 36 7.5 Resources and Funding ...... 36 7.6 Agreements and Contracts ...... 36 8. Implementation of the NBMS...... 38
3 1. Justification for the NBMS
1.1. Introduction Worldwide, nature is under threat by pressures such as loss of natural area, environmental pollution, climatic change, and extensive use of resources. Bulgaria is no exception. Sustainable use of resources and protection of Bulgaria’s unique flora and fauna is part of Bulgaria’s policy. This policy is stimulated by the international commitments Bulgaria is party to, including the European Union ‘acquis communautaire’ which will provide a binding legal framework for Bulgaria upon its entry as a full member.
To develop effective sustainable use and protection policies, information on Bulgaria’s biodiversity is necessary. Such information is also required to fulfil EU and other international obligations on Bulgaria to report on the state of its natural heritage. Although some biodiversity monitoring is already ongoing in Bulgaria, it is performed mainly for individual projects rather than within a structural and systematically coherent framework. What is needed is a nation al system for biodiversity monitoring, which will ensure long-term and systematic observation of the variety of nature.
The Executive Environment Agency (ExEA) of the Ministry for Environment and Water is developing such a National Biodiversity Monitoring System (in short NBMS). The first stage of this process has been completed. The result is a document that outlines the main principles, concepts and rules for the establishment and operation of the NBMS1. During the second stage, which is now well underway, the concrete details of the monitoring system are determined. To work out these details several working groups of Bulgarian experts were put together. In these working groups government agencies responsible for nature conservation, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and NGOs were represented. The conclusions of the working groups are now available for consultation and presented in this report. The complete working group reports are added as annexes. Following the release of this draft document, all parties with an interest in monitoring and conservation will have a chance to contribute their ideas to the development of the NBMS.
The development of the NBMS is imposed by: • necessity of long-term surveillance of all aspects of biodiversity in Bulgaria; • necessity of strict implementation of the Bulgarian legislation and fulfilment of the Bulgarian commitments towards international organisations; • necessity of systemized data in format convenient for decision making; • necessity of greater publicity and access to information on biodiversity so as to raise the public awareness on the biodiversity conservation; • necessity of a system, reflecting the European and world trends in terms of biodiversity data exchange; • necessity of lasting and sound connection between science and management.
The purpose of the NBMS will be to provide timely and reliable information about the state of biodiversity on a genetic, species and habitat level on the main kinds of ecosystems in Bulgaria. It will identify the adverse impact of human activity and will warn about possible adverse consequences for biodiversity in Bulgaria. The NBMS will enable an evaluation of the effectiveness of national nature conservation policy and the execution of timely measures to prevent biodiversity loss. The development of the NBMS also provides an opportunity to integrate the accomplishments of EU legislation and internationally ratified conventions and agreements on European and global scale.
National biodiversity monitoring schemes exist in several countries, but there is as of yet no unified system that follows a certain agreed approach. This has given the flexibility needed to develop the Bulgarian NBMS in accordance with Bulgaria’s unique flora and fauna and Bulgarian social and institutional possibilities. Existing knowledge and experience with monitoring, from Bulgaria and elsewhere, are used where possible, but additional knowledge is needed, especially concerning
1 The document is titled ‘Framework for Development of a National Biodiversity and Protected Areas Monitoring System in Bulgaria.’ More information can be found at http://monitoring.biodiversity.bg.
4 monitoring methods and standardisation. For the coming years it is important to gain more experience in Bulgaria with the systematic collection and analysis of a broad range of monitoring data. The NBMS needs to be a flexible system, which can be expanded and changed, in response to new insights which will follow from such experience. Therefore the NBMS will be developed in accordance with a “growth model”, which involves regular evaluation, improvement and expansion of the system.
1.2. Legal basis for development of the NBMS
The legal basis for development of the NBMS is formed by the normative acts as defined in the national, European and global legislation. An overview is given below.
National legislation ! Environmental Protection Act (published in 2002) – it stipulates the development and functioning of the National system for environmental monitoring which comprise the national monitoring networks including the biodiversity monitoring one. (art.144). ! Biodiversity Act (published in 2002) – it stipulates a number of direct and indirect requirements for monitoring of the biodiversity – organisation of a system for monitoring the state of biodiversity and development of data bases and geographical information systems for registration of the state and to ascertain changes in biodiversity (art.115). ! Protected Areas Act (published in 1998) – it defines the use and protection regime of the protected areas by categories, which includes their environmental monitoring. According to art. 50, monitoring of the environmental components’ qualities is organized in the protected areas. The elaboration of the protected areas management plans requires short and long term action plans related to the scientific work and the monitoring of the environmental components. ! Hunting and Game Protection Act (published in 2000) – the reserves and game management, including the trade with game and game products require monitoring of the state of the game species’ population. ! Medicinal Plants Act (published in 2000) – it regulates the establishment of a system for surveillance and assessment of medicinal plants and specialized map and register (art. 43). A system for long term monitoring and assessment of the wild medicinal plants and their exploitation shall be organized and implemented (art. 43). ! Forestry Act (published in 2000) – it requires carrying out of activities related to forestry monitoring and monitoring of the state of forestry resources. ! Fishing and Aquacultures Act (published in 2000) – the species listed in Annex _ 2 of the act are subject of monitoring of the state of their populations.
European legislation The two main European directives related to the conservation of the species and the natural habitats are known as the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. Both directives require regular reporting to the European Commission as follows: ! Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – according to art.11 the Member States shall undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in article 2 and draw up a report containing information on the main results from the surveillance (art. 17). ! Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds – according to art.10 the member States shall encourage research and any work required as a basis for the protection, management and use of the population of all species of bird referred to in article 1.
Global / pan European legislation Bulgaria is a party under the signed and ratified global and/or pan European conventions on the biodiversity conservation as follows:
5 ! Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – it directly requires biodiversity monitoring through article 7 (Identification and monitoring) and it represents the legal framework for setting up of a National system for monitoring of the biodiversity. ! Convention on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat (Ramsar convention) – it directly requires setting up of a system for monitoring of the state of the objects which are part of the wetlands of international importance’ list. ! Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) –its effective implementation requires quality assessment of the state of the population of the species listed in Annexes I, II and III. ! Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Bern convention) – it does not directly require monitoring although the enforcement of a number of decisions requires monitoring of the state of the population of some species. ! Convention on the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage (WHT/UNESCO) – it indirectly requires setting up of a system for monitoring of the state of the objects which are part of the list of the world cultural and natural heritage. ! Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals (Bonn convention) – it indirectly requires monitoring of the state of the migratory species of wild animals and their habitats, including the migratory routes.
1.3. Monitoring and the EU Directives Since the EU monitoring obligations have formed the main impetus for developing the Bulgarian NBMS, special attention will be paid in this text to the relevant EU directives. Monitoring is an obligation arising from Article 11 of the Habitats Directive. It is required to track the trends in conservation status for all habitats and species of Community interest. This provision therefore concerns habitats listed in Annex I and species listed in Annex II, IV and V of the Directive. The provision is not restricted to Natura 2000 sites. The main results of this monitoring have to be reported to the Commission every six years according to Article 17 of the Directive.
EU monitoring all about favourable conservation status A monitoring programme of habitat types and species must be designed in a way that it is able to provide an objective and comparable basis for reviewing progress at both member state and EU level. In other words: are measures taken sufficient to maintain (or to adapt) populations of, for example, wild bird species to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, etc; and are measures sufficient to maintain (or restore) the “favourable conservation status” of the habitat types and species of European interest? Thus, the information required from any monitoring or surveillance activities should provide answers to the core questions concerning ‘conservation status’.
Favourable Conservation Status within the Habitats Directive and IUCN system Favourable Conservation Status is a key concept within the Habitats Directive, because it is specifically this aspect that the Directive requires reporting on by member states. The Habitats Directive defines favourable conservation status separately for habitats and species (Article 1(e) and (i)). Conservation status refers, in the case of habitats, to the sum of the influences that act upon the natural distribution, structure and function of a habitat as well as the long-term survival of its typical species. In the case of species, conservation status is the sum of influences that may affect its long-term distribution and abundance. Simply speaking, for both species and habitats this status can be considered favourable if the conditions required for long-term maintenance of the habitat or species are in place and its natural range is not reduced. For the conservation status of a habitat to be favourable, the conservation status of its typical species needs to be favourable as well.
In determining whether the conservation status of a habitat or species is favourable, the IUCN red listing system can be helpful. The concepts of “natural range” and “areas it covers” in the definition of conservation status in the Habitats Directive are similar to “Geographic range” and “area of occupancy” that are defined by IUCN. IUCN includes the term “threats”, which parallels the “influences” of the conservation status definition. IUCN works with categories of extinction risk. The
6 Directive works with a ‘favourable conservation status’ where the extinction risk is negligible in the foreseeable future, and ‘unfavourable conservation status’, which includes situations with higher risk of extinction. The Habitats Directive also defines species of Community interest (Article 1(g)) (those species which are endangered, vulnerable, rare or endemic) that have reference to the red-listing categories and system of IUCN.
When comparing the IUCN system with the definitions of conservation status in the Directive, it is clear that any species which fits the criteria for red-listing as regionally extinct, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or near-threatened, will not be able to fit the definition of favourable conservation status. Conversely all species with favourable conservation status must fall in the IUCN category ”least concern”. However, species with unfavourable conservation status can fall in a range of IUCN categories including least concern, because the least concern category is very broad and can include e.g. declining abundant species (up to near 30 % decline can be acceptable in the least concern category).
An assessment of whether a species is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its habitats is included in the definition of favourable conservation status. Such an assessment can be very difficult and subjective if no guidelines are provided. The IUCN system provides both general and specific guidelines on how to categorize populations of species in this regard. These guidelines can also be very relevant in relation to the assessment of conservation status. In order not to “re-invent the wheel” and make use of existing synergies, it is proposed to use (& where necessary adapt) the widely accepted IUCN red-listing criteria to assess conservation status of species of community interest. This could include assessments on EU and bio geographical level.
The monitoring program should provide information for evaluation at national level as well as information that can be aggregated to provide a ‘supranational’ overview of the conservation status of, for example, a particular habitat type or species across the EU. This can be used to identify common problems, and information can also be deployed at lower spatial scales to help support or justify decisions concerning site selection and impact assessment (on protected areas or concerning protected species outside the Natura-2000 network). Aggregated information is also essential in considering whether there is justification to adapt the annexes to the nature Directives to reflect new and better knowledge and understanding of the conservation status and needs of the relevant habitats and species.
Information requirements of the Directives In most cases Member States will have to use representative data from both outside and inside the Natura 2000 network to make a meaningful assessment of conservation status (context information and location-specific information are needed). As far as possible, the Natura 2000 database should be used also for monitoring and assessment of conservation status (adaptations of that database might be considered). When assessing conservation status, besides the element of ‘diagnosis’ based on available condition data, there is also an important element of ‘prognosis’ (foreseeable future) based on influence data. Data reported to the EC Commission on conservation status will have to include information on each species and habitat according to a format that is not yet defined. However the data needs to be comparable and compatible with data from other Member states in order to allow for analysis on EU level. In Chapter 6 the information requirements for EU reporting are described in more detail, particularly the obligation for monitoring information to be compatible with Natura 2000 information.
Methodological requirements of the Directives The EU does not prescribe methods for monitoring. In principle the choice of methods is up to the member states, however a process of harmonisation among experts to ensure consistency and comparability of data is recommended.
7 1.4 Reading guide to this document Chapter 2 gives a definition of the NBMS and briefly describes its nature. The continuous process of evaluation, improvement and expansion that the NBMS will follow (the ‘growth model’ process) is described in this chapter.
Chapter 3 presents what the aims of the NBMS are. The formulated objectives are further defined by concrete key questions which are to be answered with the information that the NBMS can provide. These key questions are listed in this chapter.
Chapter 4 describes how the species and habitats, which are the objects of the NBMS, have been selected. The selection criteria used are outlined here. These are followed by some basic information on the conservation status, distribution, present knowledge, existing monitoring activities and monitoring priorities for each species group and for habitats. More detailed information, including the lists of species and habitats included and the recommended methods for their monitoring, can be found in a separate document per species group.
Chapter 5 outlines the system for assessment and analysis of the monitoring results of the NBMS. This system is based on a biodiversity indicator approach, which is also explained in this chapter. A more detailed description of the indicator approach is given in the Framework for Development of a National Biodiversity and Protected Areas Monitoring System in Bulgaria1.
Chapter 6 defines the requirements for information management for the NBMS, this includes aspects such as information flow, and the storing, processing and analysis of data using specially developed databases and software. A more detailed description on the information system requirements of the NBMS is available in a separate document.
How the NBMS will be organised is described in Chapter 7. This chapter outlines the roles and responsibilities of the different parties involved in the monitoring system. A general indication of how the NBMS will be resourced is also given.
Steps planned for the implementation of the NBMS in the coming months and years are given in Chapter 8. These steps will directly follow consultation and adoption of the NBMS.
8 2. Nature of the NBMS
2.1. Definition of the NBMS The Bulgarian National Biodiversity Monitoring System is a system for distinguishing and summarising the long-term changes in biodiversity in Bulgaria. The NBMS will realise this by means of long term surveillance of selected biodiversity elements. On the one hand, the NBMS will consist of the collection, processing, storage and transfer of monitoring data, and on the other hand the NBMS includes assessment and analysis of this data. On the basis of this assessment and analysis, conclusions can be drawn on the state of biodiversity, trends in biodiversity, impacts on biodiversity and the measures undertaken or needed in order to prevent its loss. The NBMS will be the main instrument supporting decision making related to the conservation of biodiversity in Bulgaria and attempts to serve the information needs of as many users as possible.
2.2 The ‘Growth Model’ The development of a monitoring system is a long-term process. It is not possible to draw up a complete and detailed monitoring program for each species group or habitat that should be monitored at the very start of monitoring. Not only are the resources not available to carry out such extensive monitoring, the complexity of information about species ecology, species distribution, population parameters, field methods, statistical analyses does not allow this. Instead the NBMS that is presented here will be evaluated, improved and expanded according to a staged process that follows a ‘growth model’ as described below.
To improve the standardisation of the different monitoring activities in a monitoring system such a growth process is particularly important. Any national monitoring system requires standardisation of field work methods and uniform registration of data using standard data forms. Although the NBMS draws on monitoring experience elsewhere, the system itself is specific to Bulgaria and therefore the required level of standardisation has to be developed within the system. Field methods for monitoring should be standardised throughout the country, but will vary depending on the species, species groups and habitats, the required detail level of information for each species, group or habitat and the type of information (presence, abundance, distribution, etc.) that is needed. Where possible and appropriate, international standards should be used, to ease the comparison of data between countries.
Several periods of data collection will be necessary before statistical trends can be calculated and the effectiveness of monitoring methods can be evaluated. It is important that methods (including tools for data analysis) are sufficiently flexible to allow improvement of methods over time, without the data that has already been collected losing any relevance.
Following the ‘growth model’, the NBMS, once adopted will be improved through the process described below: 1. Development of field work methods and tools The first step considers the development and testing of fieldwork methods and tools (GPS, detection tools, field forms etc.) and registering the collected data for species or species groups (numbers, abundance classes and other data). After a pilot year, the fieldwork methods can be improved and their application extended based on the experience gained. For example, the number of species counted may be increased increasing or new areas for counting may be added. Also, new methods can be introduced when appropriate. After the first period of data collection (also usually one pilot year) the efficiency of the used data forms, the process of collecting data forms and pre-processing and storing data can be improved. All aspects in this process are evaluated and any bottlenecks should be corrected for. This evaluation step can be skipped for methods and data collection processes that have already proven to be successful.
2. Testing the set of collected data Double-checking a selection of sampling sites can be required to control the quality of collected data. This can be particularly important for limited data series that require a high
9 quality standard for statistical trend calculation. After a pilot period the data set is statistically tested. Preferably this is done after the first year of monitoring, if sufficient data is available for analysis. Points of interests are the number of zero counts, the variation between count periods and between sampling sites. As a result of this data testing guidelines for fieldwork, data forms or data input might need to be reformulated.
3. Evaluating methods and tools for data analysis This involves developing and/or testing the methods used for the processing and analysis of collected data. In this step it will become more clear exactly which data is needed for which analysis process. In addition the analysing procedure can be refined in order to obtain more detailed information for specific areas or to answer specific biodiversity questions.
4. Evaluation of trend calculation and use of monitoring results In general statistical trend calculation will become more reliable when more data becomes available. This means that as the number of years that the NBMS has been in place increases, trends in biodiversity can be drawn from the data with more certainty. Most likely, a monitoring period of three years will yield some trend indications that are adequately sound to be published, but a period of at least five years is often considered to provide a solid basis to calculate reliable trends in biodiversity. Conclusions on trends in monitoring data may be publishable earlier, especially concerning species and habitats on which monitoring information was already available prior to the implementation of the NBMS. The evaluation of the process of trend calculation deserves continuous attention and can lead to further refinement of fieldwork, analysing methods and other monitoring procedures. The results of monitoring projects of different species and habitats should be combined to improve the use of information. The use that can be made of the results trend calculation process in policy decision-making should also be evaluated in this step.
Each step needs to take into account the successive steps and can be evaluated for feedback of earlier steps in order to refine the process of monitoring, trend calculation and use of published information. The general process of evaluation and improvement of the NBMS described here is iterative, and will take place continually to strengthen and expand the system further.
2.3 Data and monitoring frequency Long-term trend monitoring programs collect information on the conservation status of species and ecosystems. Species trends can be reflected in changes in the species distribution (presence / absence of a species in a given location) and its population numbers. Monitoring of species is therefore preferably based on distribution and population data. Such data supports reporting to the EU on the conservation status of species and habitats of importance (see Chapter 1). Trend monitoring programs can have a general approach. If negative trends are detected, a more specialized monitoring program can be undertaken to detect the cause of decline and the effect of possible measures. Such specialised programs focus on the problem area, and have a higher intensity than trend monitoring. Their methods will be tailor-made for the identified problem.
Knowledge of a species’ distribution is essential for designing a species’ monitoring network of sites where counting will take place. Such distribution knowledge is not always available, or it may be out- dated or fragmented. In cases where distribution information is not available the first step in monitoring will be the collection of observations for updating or completing the distribution maps. Similarly, monitoring of population numbers cannot always be put into practice directly due to lack of available methods, limiting resources and high costs involved. Also, a species’ registered occurrence might be too rare for trend calculations. In those cases, concentrating on collecting data on the distribution of such a species will be the best available approach.
To keep costs and resource-use reasonably low, monitoring with different intensities can be applied. Where species and habitats are stable, rudimentary baseline monitoring (see 2.4) can be sufficient. Where detailed counts are not feasible, collecting presence/absence data only might be appropriate. In cases where environmental stress is high, species are in decline or other signs of problems show up
10 (early warning approach), a more intense monitoring can be applied in order to understand the extent of the problem. The existing management system in an area will probably also influence the monitoring intensity. In large, relatively untouched areas, the monitoring frequency will be low. In regularly managed areas the monitoring frequency will likely be higher and involve counting sampling plots where possible.
2.4 Basic requirements for monitoring Including a basic species monitoring approach in the NBMS. (Approach for habitat monitoring is not discussed here)
Within the NBMS a large number of species is proposed for surveillance. For the National Biodiversity Monitoring System a national coverage of monitoring activities is necessary for most, if not all, species groups. One of the main recommendations of the NBMS consultation seminar held in January 2005 is to aim for application of simple, widely applicable indicators or methods. For broadly distributed species it is recommended to include a program within the NBMS that can be applied widely,. For species that need a specialized approach (e.g. rare species, vulnerable species, ‘difficult’ species) the program should be refined and intensified to meet the standards required for the monitoring of those species.
.Baseline monitoring aims to track changes in the species coverage. It primarily focuses on the species presence or absence on a selection of locations. Comparison within time series (different years) and between plots requires standard field methods. This standardization is important to prevent or reduce bias in detection probabilities of a species.
Basic monitoring requirements: Specialized monitoring program Knowing the species Good field knowledge of species behavior and site preference is required Standard plot size and survey time Primary focus is assessing the species population Standard survey method Secondary focus is assessing the cause of detected trends Standard survey period Standard plot size and survey time Standard number of visits Standard survey method Standard parameters: presence / absence Standard survey period Standard registration: standard data form Standard number of visits Standard registration: standard data form Register a species numbers Register additional parameters Mapping preferably every year Suitable for early warning of trends Suitable for threatened species Suitable for assessing environmental impacts Suitable for evaluating measures Relatively high costs (high input per mapping unit)
Knowing the species The correct identification of a species is essential for monitoring. Without the correct identification reliable trends cannot be calculated for the species as such, since data of similar species might bias the result. The influence of this bias can be unknown. This does not necessarily imply that every observer needs to have a basic knowledge of all species included in a species group. When a sample site is for example only relevant for 1 species, and no confusion with similar species can be expected because they do not occur in the area, knowing the characteristics of that 1 species is elementary. For similar species with similar or overlapping distribution patterns, monitoring the species as a group can be more practical or the only possible approach (for example when identification requires DNA sampling).
Standard plot size and survey time, Standard survey method, Standard survey period, Standard number of visits These parameters are crucial for comparing the results between visits and between different sampling sites. The guidelines are defined for each species(group). Standard survey method can include guidelines for choosing the actual transect or sampling site in the field. Preferably, the selection of a
11 transect or sampling site and introduction of the survey method is done on site with supervision of a trained expert.
Standard parameters: presence / absence For trend detection it is important not only to register the species observations, but also the so-called zero values. A zero value is registered when the species is surveyed following the standard method but not observed on the sample site.
Standard registration: standard data form Every survey visit the collected information is registered on a standard data form. Filling in the data form provides the minimum information required for monitoring. Strict guidelines for the use of the data form are necessary. The lay out of the data form should allow for efficient input in the national database. Questionable data is omitted. Relevant information for validation of the field method and observation should be included in the form (for example if the standard survey time is 1-hour, the start and end time can be included).
Monitoring frequency Basic monitoring can be performed at different frequencies, or example yearly to every 6 years (the reporting period of the EC-Habitat Directive). For early trend detection a yearly frequency is preferred. The frequency may vary depending on the local situation and the expected variation in a species presence. In general species with short life cycles (small mammals) require a higher monitoring frequency than species with longer life cycles (trees).
Monitoring and mapping The knowledge of a species distribution pattern is essential for designing the species monitoring network. This applies to species that are monitored on basic presence / absence as well as to species with specialized programs for detecting population trends. For national trend calculation knowledge of the species coverage is essential. The coverage of a species (local, regional or national) determines the number and distribution of sampling sites. Basic monitoring methods provide useful information for mapping the species distribution pattern. In this respect it can be complementary to specialized programs. Where species are stable, basic monitoring can be sufficient. Where environmental stress is high, species are in decline or once signs of problems show up (early warning approach), a more specialized monitoring can be applied in order to understand the extent of the problem. This two- pronged approach can keep costs and resource-use reasonably low.
Participation by non-experts For species that are easy to observe in the field, participation by non-experts is recommended to achieve wide (national) coverage of sample sites. Participation by non-experts is suitable for species that are: • Easy to recognize (no confusion with similar species) • Easy to observe (simple method, no specialized or expensive equipment, good detection probability, preferably no treatment, catching or manipulation of specimen) • Easy to access (sampling sites are near human settlements, or otherwise easy to access) • Not vulnerable or sensitive for disturbance by humans For the field survey it is often necessary to enter the species habitat, for some species basic handling (catching) might be required. Species that are easily disturbed (or rare) are not suitable for direct observation on a large scale. Species or methods that require specific conditions might not be suitable for participation by non-experts. For example night observations in nature areas by single observers are not advisable for safety reasons.
Issues with non-expert involvement Most common issues are the continuation of monitoring and the distribution of sample sites. In practice participation of non-experts relies on involvement of volunteers. Volunteers can stop monitoring for various reasons (moving, illness, change of job conditions etc.). As a consequence gaps will occur in the dataset. Statistical tools for trend calculation (such as the Statistics Netherlands TRIM software) can deal with these gaps. Volunteers will have a preference for sampling sites near human settlements. This can easily result in under- and oversampling of areas, which can be corrected by applying weight factors relative to the surface of the distribution area.
12 Role of the (species) expert Non-experts will need proper training in recognizing species and the application of field method as well as proper instructions for filling in the data form and presenting it to the data collection organisation. A (species) expert provides the training for observing the species. It is recommended to do this in the field on site. The expert is responsible for selecting the sample site and if relevant, assessing transect or sampled (observed) locations within the sample site. Where and when a specialized approach becomes necessary the expert can collect additional information (parameters) or monitor additional sampling sites more frequently and more intensively. It is recommended that an expert describes each sample site in the field. Site description involves relevant species parameters as well as general characteristics (site characteristics, land use, management etc.).
Random observations Random observations are defined as observations that are not collected according to standard field methods. In general random observations can be used in mapping the species distribution pattern. They also can indicate where changes can be expected. However random observations have limited value for trend detection or assessing a species absence. Random observations often cannot be related to survey intensity (no data can indicate no species or no survey intensity). It is recommended to collect random observations but prevent mixing them with monitoring data. In a database they should be labeled or stored differently from monitoring data.
13 3. Objectives of the NBMS
3.1 Main objective The NBMS has one overall objective: it should provide the information base for effective national nature protection policy. This main objective has been translated into 5 concrete sub-objectives, as described in 3.2.
3.2 Concrete objectives • The NBMS shall provide systematic surveillance of biodiversity elements and processes that have an impact on the state of biodiversity, by means of scientifically reliable methods for data collection and processing. • The NBMS shall provide assessment and analysis of: the state of biodiversity; influence of anthropogenic factors on biodiversity; and the measures initiated for prevention of the loss of biodiversity. • The NBMS shall serve as a main instrument for implementation of the national legislation and the commitments of the country towards the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international conventions and shall be a reporting tool towards the responsible European and world institutions. • The NBMS shall operate as a system for early warning of processes and trends leading to biodiversity loss. • The NBMS shall provide information on the state of biodiversity in a user-friendly format, thus playing an essential role in providing formation for a responsible civil society in Bulgaria.
3.3 Main questions to be answered by the NBMS To further specify how the objectives above will be met, a list of key questions has been formulated in the document ‘Framework for Development of a National Biodiversity and Protected Areas Monitoring System in Bulgaria’ (see Chapter 1). These key questions have been drawn up within the framework of the Convention of Biodiversity as applied to Bulgaria. The final NBMS is to provide much of the information needed to answer there questions.
Key questions that concern the fulfilment of international and national commitments in the biodiversity field in general: • What and to what extend is changed in the Bulgarian biodiversity? (state) • What has caused the occurred change? (impacts) • What is the importance of the Bulgarian biodiversity as a resource? (use) • What is done in response to the occurred or potential changes? (response) • Does Bulgaria have the capacity to formulate and implement adequate measures aiming at limitation of the harmful trends? (measures)
Questions concerning the state of the biodiversity: • What is the present state of biodiversity in Bulgaria in terms of ecosystem/habitat, species and at genetic level? • What is the abundance of the species and/or their distribution (is it an even distribution)? What is the species diversity? To what extent is the integrity of the natural ecosystems secured? • How many of the species, populations and habitats of global and regional conservation importance are at risk of loss? • What is the rate of biodiversity loss and how is this rate changing? • What is the trend of the occurred changes in the Bulgarian biodiversity? • What are the quantitative changes concerning biodiversity loss in the country (types of landscapes/ecosystems, natural habitats, species and genetic resources)? • Does ‘early warning’ exist for problems that require an urgent intervention and appropriate measures?
14 Questions related to the impact on biodiversity: • How important is the effect of the threats for biodiversity? • What is the extent of the threats’ impact? Is their impact constant, decreasing or increasing? • What is the level of the threat for biological resources, the types of ecosystems and the habitats of poorly explored taxonomic groups? • What human activities have the most important impact on the present state of biodiversity? What are the social and economic preconditions that cause the occurred changes resulting from human activities? • Is human impact on biodiversity direct or indirect?
Questions related to the measures undertaken with the purpose of improving the state of the biodiversity: • Are the political and management efforts (including increase of human and technical capacity) aiming at limitation of the most important threats for biodiversity targeted? • What is the progress in achieving the main political and management goals, especially those related to the decrease and prevention of the loss of biodiversity? • What is the effect of political and management decisions on the state of biodiversity? • Is a protected areas network existing in Bulgaria and to what extent is this network developed? • What is the effectiveness of the measures related to the implementation of the international conventions and agreements in Bulgaria? • What is the effectiveness of the implementation of the acquis communautaire in the field of biodiversity in Bulgaria?
15 4. NBMS objects
The principle, monitoring data that will be collected in the field for the NBMS relates to species and habitats, these are the main objects of monitoring. This chapter describes the species groups and habitats that have been selected for inclusion in the NBMS, and their associated methods for monitoring. Detailed information on each species group, including existing knowledge about their status and available field methods is available in separate document. Likewise for each selected habitat, a separate document with detailed information is available. 4.1 General The NBMS comprises the types of objects as follows: • Species and habitats for which monitoring is obligatory in accordance with the national legislations and the international agreements signed by Bulgaria; • Species and habitats of national importance; • Objects from the three levels of biological organisation – genetic, of species, of habitats/ecosystem; • Objects that are part of thematic Convention on Biological Diversity work programs – agricultural biodiversity, forest biodiversity, mountain biodiversity, inland water biodiversity, sea and coastal biodiversity.
At present not all selected species and habitats can actually be monitored under the NBMS. Existing knowledge about distribution and/or field methods may be insufficient and the available resources (budget, number of specialists, etc.) is limited. For an efficient use of available resources and development of the monitoring system the NBMS will: • Start with methods already applied and for which experience is available. • Try to apply these methods for other species of interest and combine species with the same monitoring method within one monitoring project of the NBMS. The same method may even be applied for species of different species groups. For example bird counting may be combined with mammals counting for some species.
4.2 Criteria for selecting species The criteria for determining which species should be nationally monitored are as follows:
1. Conservation significance; 2. Indicative importance for the status of other species and habitats; 3. The species is already used in existing monitoring schemes; 4. Key ecological importance; 5. The species is typical for habitats where most drastic changes are expected to take place; and 6. The species is convenient as a monitoring subject.
The criteria above have been applied to each of the different species groups. Every criterion includes a factual element as well as an element of expert evaluation. Although every criterion needs equal consideration, some of them are more important than others. The criteria are listed here according to their significance.
Conservation significance This selection criterion includes a certain degree of endangerment on international, European and national scale. The species selected have to be included in an official lists of endangered animals or have special status according to the following documents:
National: • Appendix 2 of art. 6, par.1, it.2 and Appendix 3 of art. 37 of the Biodiversity Act; • The Red Data Book of Bulgaria;
16 International: • Species of special importance for Europe; • species which belong to the Red List of the IUCN; • species of the Appendices of the EC Birds Directive; • species of the Appendices of the EC Habitats Directive; • species of the Appendices of the Bern and Bonn Conventions and the Afro-Eurasian Waterfowl Conservation Agreement (AEWA);
Indicative importance for the status of other species and habitats This criterion includes a proven capacity of the species to be an indicator for the status and trends of other species, groups of species, sites, habitats or the environment as a whole. This includes the following aspects:
• close preference of the species for a particular habitat and possibility for easy determination of the habitat status through the status of this species; • sensitivity of the species towards negative changes in the environment, seen as an easily detectable drop in the number of species or its disappearance from certain sites; • possibility for the species monitoring data to be compared to other species data and thus to complement them; or, through presence/lack of compliance, to allow checking the trends identified through the other species; • possibility to allow “checking” of data, acquired by habitat monitoring; • ability to reflect the condition of a certain environmental factor in the whole country or a considerable part of it, as well as throughout the whole year or a considerable part of it.
These species are of great importance to other elements of the environment and even its overall condition. They are particularly important because of the possibilities they offer for an ecological assessment of whole regions. For example, the presence/lack and the number of blackbirds may be an effective and quick way of locating pollution of the upper courses of rivers.
The species is already used in existing monitoring schemes This criterion concerns the use of a certain species in established, standard schemes, or schemes with proven effectiveness used in Bulgaria, the EU countries or in Europe as a whole. This criterion includes the current European strategy for bird monitoring.
Key ecological importance A species on which a lot of other species depend. For example, it might be a major food source for other species, or a major consumer of other species, or have another similar role.
The species is typical for habitats where most drastic changes are expected to take place This criterion applies for species that are typical for habitats where major changes are expected in the process of future country development (agricultural regions, wetlands, coastlines, forests etc.) or where climatic changes are expected (wet grasslands, some types of water reservoirs, highland habitats etc.).
Economic significance This concerns all species with a major economic role, either because it inflicts damage in some branches of economy or as a subject of major economic interest, such as game species.
The species is convenient as a monitoring subject This relates to species for which monitoring can be easily undertaken and/or species for which standard (and well established) monitoring methods exists. Monitoring results from such species can be straightforwardly compared in a European context.
Invasive significance This criterion applies to introduced and/or aggressive species and domesticated breeds, as well as species naturally increasing in number and occurrence.
17 4.3 Selected species The list of species groups below is not yet complete, as it has not been possible to prepare a report on the higher plants on time for this draft document. This information will follow shortly.
Mosses (Bryophytes)
Conservation status The Bulgarian bryophytes consists of 705 species reported up to date: 173 liver, 2 horned sporangium and 530 foliaceous moss species (Ganeva & Natcheva, 2003; Natcheva & Ganeva, in press), which represents more than 40% of the total of bryophyte species in Europe. Currently, a total of 13 Bulgarian species are listed under international conventions and directives targeted at conservation of biodiversity at global and European scale. After the foundation in 1990 of the Permanent Committee for Endangered Bryophyte Species (PCEBS) at the International Association of Bryologists (IAB), bryophyte conservation became an important aspect of conservation biology. The need for cooperative efforts to protect mosses was the subject of discussion during the First International Conference on Endangered Bryophytes in Upsala, Sweden, 1990. Shortly after the conference, the group of expert bryologists within the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was established. The IUCN Red List of bryophytes, published in 2000, contains 85 species in total, 15 of them found in Europe.
In 1995 the European Committee for Conservation of Bryophytes published, a Red Data Book of European Bryophytes (ECCB, 1995). A total of 1687 species are listed in the Red Data Book of which 284 are regionally endemic. Out of these, 174 are threatened by extinction. Of the listed species in the Red Data Book 24 are found in Bulgaria. The preliminary list of rare and threatened species in Bulgaria (Ganeva 1998) contains 201 species (21 threatened, 33 vulnerable, 112 rare and 35 with insufficiently studied distribution). Annex II of the Biodiversity Act of Bulgaria (2002) includes 4 bryophyte species: Buxbaumia viridis, Dicranum viride, Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus and Mannia triandra.
Distribution Bryophyte species diversity is irregularly distributed across the territory of Bulgaria, and is mainly concentrated in the high mountains: Rila (382 species), Pirin (362), Vitosha (313), West Stara Planina (292), Central Stara Planina (258), West Rhodopes (241), Central Rhodopes (257). The reasons behind this distribution pattern are twofold: higher diversity of habitats in the mountains, and higher scientific interest in the mountain areas of Bulgaria. In contrast, data about bryophyte diversity in regions such as the valleys of Mesta and Struma rivers, the Thracian and the Tundzha Lowlands, Predbalkan, East Rhodopes, Sredna Gora and Strandzha mountains is relatively scarce.
Present knowledge, available data, information gaps Regarding the character of field studies, floristic notes are dominating. Quite often these notes lack (or do not specify clearly) the site locations of species. This makes the recent confirmation of historic data quite a difficult task. No population studies of particular species have been carried out. The number of bryophyt specialists has always been very limited in Bulgaria (as in other countries). The first species lists of Bulgarian mosses was published by Velenovsk_ (1902), followed by floristic studies of Nikola Arnaudov in the early 1920’s. Subsequent, including more recent, studies rely on a few specialists only. For example, Slavcho Petrov was the only Bulgarian bryologist between 1954 and 1975. Mosses are a difficult taxonomic group. They are small-sized plants whose species (and sometimes even genus) identity can only be determined in laboratory conditions by means of a microscope. For these reasons, the estimation of populations’ sizes and the number of specimens is quite difficult.
Monitoring schemes in operation In the recent years, more active work has started with the purpose of updating the species diversity of Bulgarian mosses, confirmation of old location sites, and assessment of moss diversity in some protected areas (Ganeva 2000a, b; Ganeva 2002, Natcheva 2003), accompanied by notes on the risk status of endangered species and the state of their home habitats. Nevertheless, there is no unified and operational monitoring scheme for bryophytes in Bulgaria.
18 Priority steps The most urgent tasks for Bryophyte monitoring is to start as soon as possible with national monitoring for a limited group of 5 high-priority species (see the full Bryophyte report in the Annex), to confirm the localities for 8 species, to build capacity for national monitoring of the full list of 13 proposed species, and to allocate the necessary financial sources to enable these tasks. Since there is no approved standardised international methodology for moss monitoring, the particular approach methods for long- term observation of particular species’ populations are elaborated for each species, depending on monitoring objectives, funding and technical backup.
Mammals (not including bats)
Conservation status Bulgarian mammals have a high significance in biodiversity conservation. Due to specific natural, geographic and social reasons, the territory of Bulgaria is inhabited by species regarded as exotic for Europe or for large parts of the European continent (for example, the Marbled and Russian polecats, European souslik, Jackal). Bulgaria is even inhabitated by unique species with quite limited global distribution (such as the Newton’s hamster and the Bulgarian Mouse-tailed dormouse). Some species, while very rare for the whole Europe, still remain in relatively good status within the country. Such Bulgarian populations are of substantial importance for their conservation in Europe (Brown bear, Wolf, Wild cat, European river otter). Monitoring of Bulgarian mammal fauna can be considered as highly indicative for the status of species of European interest.
Distribution In general, mammals are distributed in two main types of regions in Bulgaria: mountain chains (both the alpine and forest zones), and lowland territories, including forests, steppes, coastal and riverside areas.
Present knowledge, available data, information gaps Bulgaria is relatively rich in mammal diversity compared to other European countries. After nearly 100 years of research, 42 taxa of small mammals have been described. Of the large mammals, 23 species are registered as native in Bulgaria up to this date (14 of Carnivora, 1 of Pinnipedia, 3 of Cetacea and 5 of Artyodactyla). It is also known that a number of exotic and/or unsuccessfully introduced species exist in Bulgaria. Nonetheless, there are many information gaps concerning insufficiently studied areas, inventories of local species, taxonomic status of closely related species, habitat quality and threats, actual conservation status of some endangered and rare species, and conservation problems of important habitats.
Monitoring schemes in operation At present, specially developed monitoring schemes are proposed for the three national parks (Rila, Pirin, Central Balkan). Their operation has just recently started. Particular studies including some systematic monitoring activities are done for particular species under particular projects only.
Priority steps Mammals with a global and/or European threatened status are proposed as priority species for monitoring. Species which are not threatened in Europe, but are quite endangered in Bulgaria are also included. Some species are perfect indicators of environmental changes and in addition are convenient for monitoring. The proposed list includes a total of 16 species, belonging to 4 orders and 1 family, for which the monitoring could be feasible and could be performed on a regular basis. The list includes also species without direct threats, but for which a number of potential risk factors can exercise rapid negative effects. Some of these species are of high importance for biodiversity conservation at a European scale.
Most of the species proposed for monitoring come from the Weasels family (Mustelidae). From those 16 species, 10 are in need of urgent monitoring as follows: Spermophilus citellus, Mesocricetus newtoni, Cricetus cricetus, Ursus arctos, Felis silvestris, Lutra lutra, Martes martes, Mustela eversmanni, Rupicapra rupicapra _ Phocaena phocaena. For the Bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the Porpoise (Phocaena phocaena) collecting more data about their actual situating has first priority.
19 Monitoring of all the 16 proposed species should be performed once per year in a two-year period. The concrete current status of each species must be assessed by an expert commission, which may recommend shifting to rarer or more frequent observations. For some species the development of monitoring methodologies should be the first step. Volunteers must be trained for field observations with the help and supervision of established experts. Additional steps involve the recruitment and training of observers (volunteers), designing of field forms, manuals etc.
Bats (Chiroptera)
Conservation status Considering their high vulnerability, importance for ecosystems, low reproduction potential and progressively decreasing numbers, the bats are a group of mammals with an extraordinarily high conservation status. All species (except those discovered in the last 2 years) are protected under the Bulgarian Biodiversity Act (2002), the Bern Convention, the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and the special Agreement for the conservation of bats in Europe (EUROBATS). 14 European bat species are designated as globally threatened in the IUCN Red Data List (2003).
Distribution For Bulgaria 33 bat species’ presence has been confirmed, out of 35-36 species known for the Europe in its entirety. Therefore, the Bulgarian bat diversity is extremely high, especially considering the relatively small country territory. The species richness is complemented by their extremely high numbers in many of the source locations known to date (Benda et al. 2003). Highest concentrations of specimens in a single place can be observed throughout the wintering period (December-March) and the breeding season (June-July). Depending on the species, the number of specimens in a given dwelling may vary between few hundred and more than 100 000. In terms of their habitats, the bats in Bulgaria are separated in 3 main groups: bats in caves and other underground habitats; forest bats; wetland bats.
Present knowledge, available data, information gaps The first data from a systematic nationwide census of cave-dwelling bats in Bulgaria are found in the (never published) report of Beshkov (1989) for the then Environment Protection Committee (now Ministry of Environment and Water). These results include a list of underground dwellings being most important for the breeding and wintering of bats. 13 places of extreme importance are listed. Until 1996, periodical visits and counts of bats have been organised in particular regions. At the end of the 1990s, systematic winter and summer counts of cave-dwelling bats were conducted. The current status and significance of caves and mine galleries has been evaluated. Recently, surveys of cave-dwelling bats have been conducted for some important bat caves only. Diversity and abundance of forest and wetland bats are studied using bat boxes and/or ultrasonic detectors, which in Bulgaria is a relatively new practice and very limited experience has been gained to date.
Monitoring schemes in operation In 2001 - 2004 a study was carried with more than 200 bat boxes, which were checked 2-4 times per year. The results are promising, it was determined that bats of at least 6 species (Myotis bechsteinii, Nyctalus noctula, N. leisleri, M. blythii etc.) settle in the boxes and even tend to form colonies. At present at nearly 200 new locations bat boxes are installed throughout the country. These places can be regarded as ready monitoring objects for forest bat observations in Bulgaria. In 2001 studies on the species diversity and number of bats in some wetlands along the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria were started, using an ultrasonic detector. The data accumulated shows the significance of wetlands as resting and feeding sites during migration of some bat species (e.g. Nyctalus noctula, Pipistrellus nathusii).
Priority steps Next to assess the relative abundance and diversity of bats in regional and national scale it is important to understand more of the reasons underlying the decline of bat habitats and feeding sites quality. A total of 13 species (less than 1/3 of all Bulgarian bats) are proposed for coverage under the NBMS, of which 9 are proposed as high-priority species. For coverage of proposed species the available resources should be increased. This includes the training of volunteers, because to date only experts have been
20 able to undertake bat monitoring. Appropriate field forms must be designed as soon as possible, based on national and foreign experience.
Birds (Avifauna)
Conservation status The avifauna of Bulgaria is relatively well known. 417 bird species have been discovered in Bulgaria up to the end of 2004, which represents around 41% of the avifauna of Europe. Of the globally threatened bird species, 22 are found in Bulgaria (from a total of 33 in Europe), and 13 of them (Yankov, 2002) are included in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2000). Another 203 bird species, in addition to the indicated 22 species, are considered endangered on the territory of Europe (Kostadinova, 1997).
Distribution Bird species can be found across the whole territory of the country. Areas of highest variety of species are the Black Sea coastline, the Danube riverside, all hilly and mountain regions, the waterside of all major rivers and various separate sites (mainly wetlands, canyons in the lowlands, vast lowland forests, dry valleys and some of the major towns). Among the main reasons for the extraordinarily large variety of bird species in Bulgaria is the country’s geographical location on the border of Europe and Asia Minor, its proximity to the largest water basins in the southeast part of the continent, the considerable altitude range (from sea level up to 2925 m a.s.l.), the exceptional habitat diversity, and the high degree of habitat preservation, especially in the mountains, which is due to lack of intensive country development during the whole second half of the twentieth century).
Present knowledge, available data, information gaps For a large number of species there is a lack of contemporary distribution maps of the different species on the territory of Bulgaria, as well as an estimation of the nesting populations of birds. The first national Atlas of nesting birds of Bulgaria is in preparation and lists not only the exact national natural ranges of 273 birds, but also their national population sizes up to the year 2000, which offers a chance to use the current year 2005 as a starting point of the future bird monitoring in compliance with the EU requirements.
Monitoring schemes Bird species monitoring has established for more than 5 decades in the international ornithological practice, including Bulgaria. Unified programs are developed, which provide data for considerable number of species simultaneously (sometimes over 60-70 species). Most of the monitoring practices have been adopted by the executive bodies of different countries, and the monitoring results are used for decision making. Currently there is an ongoing process of harmonizing the existing bird monitoring activities on European level and achieving compliance with the requirements of the European Commission and the needs of the governments of the separate countries on the engagements they undertook in this direction. It is expected that this would be accomplished through the Pan-European Bird Monitoring Strategy developed by BirdLife International (Bennun and Nagy, 2003).
Priority steps For a complete coverage of the selected species five of the fundamental monitoring techniques are proposed to be included in the NBMP. Species and sites for monitoring by means of specific monitoring techniques are defined, including the Important Bird Areas. A group of 24 priority species is proposed for immediate monitoring, for 6 priority species the start of monitoring is strongly recommended within a period of 10 years. Existing programs that can be implemented in the NBMS are the Common Birds Monitoring Scheme, the Mid-Winter Waterfowl Census and the Bird Monitoring in Important Bird areas.
Amphibians and Reptiles (Herpetofauna)
Conservation status The European herpetofauna can be considered relatively poor in species number. The areas with comparable geographic latitudes in North America are significantly richer in amphibians and reptiles. In
21 Europe, after the last ice age, a few dispersal corridors were created which allow for infiltration and enrichment of the herpetofauna from north to south. Among them, the most important one – the Black Sea corridor – is located exactly on the territory of Bulgaria. This fact, as well as the intermediary geographic location of the country, are the main reasons for the complicated genesis and richness of its contemporary Bulgarian herpetofauna, which consists of 52 species in total, 48 of them being constant residents.
The leading priority in the selection of species for national monitoring is their conservation status. The number of selected species is 21 (6 amphibians and 15 reptiles). One (Crysemys scripta elegans – Red- cheeked turtle) is an alien species in Bulgarian fauna and has an invasive instead of conservation significance, which is a reason for its monitoring. All other species are included in one or another international or national conservation document, even though the level of rarity and endemism of Bulgarian herpetofauna is generally low.
Distribution The following faunistic elements can be found in the recent herpetofauna of Bulgaria: Central European, Oriental-Mediterranean, South European, purely Mediterranean, Euro-Siberian, Pontic, Iranese-Turanic, North-African/Iranese-Turanic, Mid-European etc. In general, amphibian and reptile species are distributed all over the country’s territory, but the corridors of strongest Mediterranean climatic influence are richest in species. There are some lesser explored areas where the exact number of species is unknown. The search for localities where rare species can be found is an ongoing process.
Present knowledge, available data, information gaps The above considerations give an impression of the high importance of the need to conserve Bulgarian herpetofauna as an element of common European herpetofauna. The faunistic studies of herpetofauna in Bulgaria started in 1892 and were most intensive in 60s, 70s and 80s of the past century. However, the lack of sufficient recent data about the distribution, population status and trends of the Bulgarian reptile and amphibian species reported up-to-date is a point of serious concern.
Monitoring schemes in operation In Bulgaria there is almost no practical experience with herpetofauna monitoring. Among the most important criteria for preparing the list of 21 species to be monitored, is the information collected throughout the last few years, which gives (to the extent possible) the best available snapshot of the herpetofauna status in Bulgaria.
Priority steps At present the number of trained observers and technical capacity is too limited to start a national monitoring program. Of course, this is valid not only for the herpetofauna, but this group is a clear example. Therefore the first step, before the practical start of monitoring, should be the conduction of training courses for field observers. This is a practice in those European countries where the national monitoring has already started. A program for such courses can be developed by experts and includes species recognition and field methods.
Fishes (Ichtoyfauna)
Conservation status According to contemporary studies, the ichtyofauna of Bulgaria consists of 217 species. Out of them 42 species are listed under various national and/or international legislative acts, such as the Biodiversity Act of Bulgaria, the Bern Convention and the EC Habitats Directive, or are listed in the Red Data Book of Bulgaria and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. All endemic species are included in these lists.
Among the main threats are the mass-scale planning and construction of hydro-technical facilities, uncontrolled timber harvesting in the mountains, pollution and rapid economic development along the entire Black Sea coast.
Distribution Even though different fish species can be found in virtually every type of water basin in Bulgaria, the following habitats are of primary concern due to increasing human pressure:
22 • Upper courses and upper parts of middle courses of rivers; • Lower courses of rivers mouthing directly into the Black Sea; • Coastal lakes along the Black Sea.
Other threatened habitats of fish are: • Marshlands, old river beds and other similar habitats across the country; • Black Sea shelf fields grown with Sea weed (Zoostera sp.).
Present knowledge, available data, information gaps In the NBMS 51 species are proposed for a regular national monitoring. A total of 16 species are considered as priority species for urgent monitoring. For the remaining 35 species monitoring is desired but can begin at a later stage when the necessary capacity is created. Bulgarian fish studies through the years have been dominantly faunistic. A targeted, restricted environmental monitoring of fish is absent. Moreover, some isolated and hardly accessible water basins are less studied than others. Scientific disputes are going on for some species, including concerning their taxonomic position.
Monitoring schemes in operation Up to date no monitoring schemes are ongoing in Bulgaria. Some longer-term population studies have been performed within particular projects (mostly for marine species), they are taken into consideration due to the absent of other similar ones.
Priority steps The influence of invasive species becomes more and more significant and its control and monitoring fall within the leading priorities, as does the destruction of natural fish habitats. The first step will be the development of basic resources. In order to elaborate monitoring programs the three major scientific institutions conducting research on fish need financial and technical provisions to do monitoring activities and to train observers (volunteers) on a sustainable basis. Urgent practical work includes the update of existing field forms and development of new ones for particular species.
Invertebrates
Conservation status Important invertebrate taxa are usually considered to be the endemic, relict and stenotopic ones. Significant invertebrate species for conservation and monitoring have been selected based on their occurrence on the international red lists, conventions or legal documents, as well as their protection under Bulgarian legislation. A number of 252 species is proposed for monitoring.
Distribution Up to date there are about 27 000 species of invertebrate animals described in the Bulgarian fauna. They are distributed nationwide, in practically all types of terrestrial and water ecosystems. Many of them are common and usual species, but a substantial part are endemics, relicts or stenotopes. Among endemics there are many rare taxa (on species and/or subspecies level), such as some local endemics. Other endemics exist in high numbers and are widely spread across large areas, such as some Balkan endemics. Some of them are even observed in mass scale (calamities) during particular years. The relicts can also demonstrate a high variation in numbers. The typical representatives of the relict species have small, fragmented and isolated ranges. Aside from these, there are relict species with wider ranges formed during the ice ages, distributed in high numbers within the orophytic zones of the mountains.
Present knowledge, available data, information gaps Several generations of Bulgarian and foreign zoologists have undertaken research on invertebrates in Bulgaria in the past century. Nevertheless, there is almost no data about the structure of faunistic complexes in weakly affected ecosystems (except for some stagnant water communities). Due to the strictly regional character of conditions in Bulgaria, foreign studies can only be used partially (mostly for methodologies). For invertebrates relatively few monitoring studies are carried out, even though they are considered as important indicators of ecosystem changes. The extensive species diversity combined with the shortage of highly qualified experts limits the number of studies. In Western Europe monitoring of certain invertebrate taxa has started much earlier, around 30-40 years ago. More advanced studies can be found on the water invertebrates, since they are indicators of the status of water
23 ecosystems and the saprobic parameters of the water. In the recent years, monitoring studies cover with progressive frequency various groups of terrestrial invertebrates as well. Most experienced countries in this respect are Germany, Holland, Switzerland and Belgium.
Monitoring schemes in operation Monitoring studies on the invertebrate fauna of Bulgaria on a national scale would be a pioneering step. In Bulgaria there are no schemes for invertebrate monitoring in operation. Particular studies are performed within certain independent projects only. Monitoring studies of water invertebrates as indicators of water saprobic indexes are done, but terrestrial invertebrates are rarely used as monitoring objects and often in a non-systematic way. In 2000-2001 the Bulgarian-Swiss Biodiversity Conservation Programme funded some monitoring studies on the terrestrial invertebrate fauna of the Central Balkan National Park.
Priority steps The number of species proposed for monitoring is 252. For 74 of them monitoring should start as soon as possible. The final list can be drawn up after practical experience with monitoring is gained. For several species more information is needed concerning habitats, status, spatial distribution and indicator value of the given habitat before drawing up a monitoring program or analysing monitoring results will be possible
Monitoring studies of invertebrates cover a long period of time. In most cases, the character of changes can be regarded stable if confirmed for not less than 10 years. In order to achieve a full picture of contemporary status of the invertebrate fauna and predict its future change, it is necessary to cover all systematic groups of invertebrates in both quantitative and qualitative aspect. Taxa that have a high conservation status should have priority.
The invertebrate monitoring program will have a high demand in terms of time, workload, and human resources. Training observers (volunteers) by experts, in particular in taxonomic groups, is an essential step in realising the invertebrate monitoring program.
4.4 Criteria for selecting habitats The conservation significance of habitats is undoubtedly the most important criterion of the determination of habitat monitoring priorities for the NBMS. For the achievement of greater objectiveness in the expert evaluations over this criterion, two indicators with possible parallel implementation – territorial and qualitative – have been chosen.
Habitats such as forests, scrub and grasslands, having a large total area in the country and wide separate massifs, as a rule are characterised by high species diversity and cenotic diversity. They are also dwellings for a great number of endangered, endemic and relict animals and plants, and also to species that require wide territories for long-term maintenance of their vital populations (wolf, bear, large bird species). For forest habitats the size of the area occupied by them has been used as a criterion for the determination of the monitoring priorities.
For habitats with small areas (dunes, bat caves, peats, etc.), features such as high level of naturalness, species wealth, presence of endangered and endemic species, etc. are important for the evaluation of their conservation significance.
Furthermore, the rarity or uniqueness of a habitat (at European or national level) is considered a selection criterion. Protected habitats that are common are not considered as high priority for intensive monitoring.
The social and economic importance of habitats has also been used as a criterion during the determination of the monitoring priorities. In the most cases a balance needs to be found between the conservation and the utilisation of habitats.
24 4.5 Selected habitats
Conservation status The EC Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention require the establishment of networks of territories for conservation of the endangered habitats – Special Areas for Conservation (SACs) in the Natura 2000 network, respectively Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASCIs of the Emerald network). All the Bulgarian habitat units, which are in the annexes of both documents, will be assessed a priori when choosing habitats for monitoring. The Bulgarian habitats in the annexes of both documents almost completely include all national habitats that are important at European level.
Detailed information about the status and position of the protected habitats that are distributed more uniformly within the country, is missing. This makes it difficult to identify sites for monitoring at this phase. To assess the status of these habitats becomes one of the first tasks at the very start of the habitat monitoring system.
Distribution The selected habitats cover non marine waters, river systems, peat bogs and marshes, meadows, forest types and inland rocks. Some of them have a large distribution, but endangered habitats with a local distribution, as for example Important Underground Habitats of Bats, are also included.
Monitoring schemes Monitoring schemes for water habitats exists for quality parameters and in several cases are already applied by the ExEA. Monitoring schemes are also available in other EU countries, and are being developed in the process of implementing the EU Water Frame Work. A method for monitoring the rivers and streams that intermittently dry up must be developed or adapted, because an approved one is still absent. For coastal communities methods used in the project entitled “Inventory of the meadow communities in Bulgaria” and “Natura 2000 in Bulgaria” may be adapted for use in the NBMS, and the methodical experience gained in the exploration of the dune complexes can be used.
For the monitoring of scrub and grassland communities the methods used in the project “Inventory of the meadow communities in Bulgaria” and the project “Natura 2000 in Bulgaria” can be adapted.
The monitoring of forest habitats is proposed for 34 habitats and 8 elementary habitat units in beech forests. The required data can be extracted from available monitoring schemes, but will need conversion into Palearctic habitat units. If necessary, this data can be obtained every year.
For peat-bogs, marshlands and swamps no proven methodology exist. Methodologies can be adapted from the existing ones for Scrubs and meadow communities.
Monitoring of Inland rocks, screes and sands focuses on the important caves with bat colonies (Important Underground Habitats of Bats – IUHB). Monitoring is performed each year during the breeding and/or the winter periods.
In general monitoring programs are carried out with a frequency of 2 – 5 years, depending on the habitattype.
Priority steps For several habitat types appropriate monitoring schemes still need to be selected or developed and tested. Selecting locations for monitoring is the next step. To aggregate information at higher than national level, and for international reporting requirements, it will be of crucial importance to make the reporting format fully compatible with the one proposed by the Habitats Scientific Group, the Habitat Committee and the Working Meetings of the EC Member States. This format must be embedded into the habitat monitoring foundations as a standard format for information being collected on the different habitats.
25 5. System for assessment and analysis of monitoring results
The information generated by monitoring of biodiversity in the field needs to be assessed and analysed in order to draw conclusions and report on existing trends in biodiversity in Bulgaria. This is a complex aspect of monitoring. The NBMS imposes a specific system for assessment and analysis of monitoring results, based on the biodiversity indicators as outlined in the report ‘Framework for Development of a National Biodiversity and Protected Areas Monitoring System in Bulgaria’. These indicators are directly related to the questions posed in the previous chapter. The system for assessment and analysis of the NBMS is described in this chapter, the complete list of indicators can be found in the annex.
5.1 Definition of the system for assessment and analysis
The system for assessment and analysis within the NBMS consists of a balanced set of indicators for biodiversity. These indicators have been developed to represent the state of the biodiversity, impacts on biodiversity and the effectiveness of the measures undertaken to prevent biodiversity loss. The system for assessment and analysis provides the bridge between the monitoring data collected, and the conclusions from these results which can be reported nationally and internationally, and serve as a basis national policy decision-making in the field of the biodiversity.
5.2 The indicator approach: indicator definition
The system for assessment and analysis is built on the basis of the indicator approach, recommended by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD Resolution V/7- SBSSTA, paragraph 1 (b)).
Biodiversity Indicators form the information tools for summarising the data on impact, status and trends. They register the changes (rather the positive trends than the negative trends or the permanent state) measured in time and/or space (depending on the indicator), against a preliminarily defined initial (background) state. The state of the indicator is registered by means of parameters.
The use of indicators has four main advantages: they make the format of the end-results simpler, they have a quantitative expression, they are based on standard, largely accepted methodologies and they are interrelated.
There are different approaches to the elaboration of a system of indicators for monitoring of biodiversity. The PSR model has been chosen for the elaboration of NBMS, as it corresponds most fully to the requirements posed by the first and the main objective of CBD “For preservation of the biodiversity”. According to this model, indicators belong to three categories:
• The indicators for pressure on biodiversity register the direct and indirect pressure caused by human influences on biodiversity. Indirect pressures relate to demography, economy, technology, culture and forms of management. Direct pressure is linked to land use, exploitation of biological resources, the introduction and distribution of invasive species, climatic changes, the emissions of nutrients and pollutants, fragmentation of habitats, etc. • The indicators for state are connected with abiotic characteristics of soil, water and air, as well as with the state of biodiversity at the ecosystem/habitat, species and genetic level. The indicators for state register the richness of biodiversity, the integrity and the potential of ecosystems and reserves of biological resources. • The indicators for response are linked to the measures undertaken to limit negative pressure, improvement of the state of biodiversity and sustainable use of biological resources. These are the measures for in situ and ex situ preservation of biodiversity, as well as the steps undertaken for increasing the capacity for implementing obligations under the CBD – increasing knowledge, data, technologies, successful models, carrying out of monitoring, adequate staffing, institutional development, providing of the respective legislation and ensuring the funds needed.
26 The protection of the biodiversity goes beyond national boundaries. Therefore, it is necessary that the system for assessment and analysis of the NBMS considered the European and world-wide requirements, standards and trends in the field of the monitoring of biodiversity. For that reason, the development of the indicators for the NBMS has occurred with regard to the indicators proposed by the Biodiversity Convention, the first set of priority indicators of EU and the core set of indicators of the European Environmental Agency have been considered
During the development of a system for assessment and analysis of biodiversity a balance between indicators registering the state, the pressures and the measures undertaken at the three levels of biological organisation – genetic, species and ecosystem/habitat - was sough
Depending on their purpose the indicators of biodiversity could offer singular or combined information. In this sense simple and complex indicators can be distinguished. Simple indicators are measured with singular parameters (for example a number of species or a percentage of a given quantity). The complex indicators are measured by a combination of parameters, very often these parameters are mathematically combined in indexes.
5.3 Structure of the system for assessment and analysis
The system for assessment and analysis will comprise a full list of indicators, a selection of headline indicators and priority sets of indicators. Each of these groups should meet an individual type of selection criteria. These groups are open for addition or removal of indicators. At the same time it is crucial that the criteria for selection of the indicators are taken into consideration in the process of replacing, adding or removing a given indicator from the system. The indicators are replaceable, while the criteria for their selection guarantee continuity and succession in the further development and functioning of the NBMS.
General information about the indicators is given here, but further elaboration of each indicator is still required before the indicators can be fully used for assessment and analysis of monitoring results. The development of concrete parameters and methodologies for each indicator will be addressed at a later stage of implementation of the NBMS.
5.3.1 The long list of indicators
The first step in the process of selecting indicators for the system for assessment and analysis of the NBMS is identifying those that could be used for managerial decision making (policy indicators). These are different from the indicators used for assessment of an individual element of biodiversity (management indicators), in that they give more summarised information in a format suitable for use at the political and administrative level.
5.3.2 Core set of indicators
The core set of indicators represents the very core of the system for assessment and analysis of the biodiversity of the NBMS.
The further development and the inclusion of all the indicators of this set into a working system, the combined interpretation of the results and the final conclusions shall make a finalised version of the system for assessment and analysis of the NBMS. The indicators of this set give the most comprehensive insight into the state of biodiversity in Bulgaria, and provide the most precise answers to the questions posed in Chapter 3.
27 The core indicators outline those aspects of biodiversity that should be subject to monitoring. The approach to selection of the indicators of this set has been the following: • Selection from the long-list of indicators; • Proposal for indicators which reflect the national specificity and satisfy the need for registering the state of biodiversity Bulgaria, the pressure it suffers and the measures undertaken for its preservation.
The core set of indicators is divided between 13 main topics:
A. 01. State and preservation of habitats of special interest A. 02. Distribution and abundance of selected species A. 03. State of plant, fungi and animal species of conservation significance A. 04. Habitat and species diversity in landscapes A. 05. Genetic diversity of agricultural animals and cultivated plants, which are of the greatest social economic importance for Bulgaria A. 06. Planning and establishment of the national ecological network (NEN) A. 07. Management and state of NEN A. 08. Sustainable use of resource species A. 09. Mainstreaming of biodiversity protection in agriculture A. 10. Mainstreaming of biodiversity protection in forestry A. 11. State of the ecosystems of the Black Sea and the coastal territories A. 12. State of the fresh water aquatic ecosystems A. 13 Mainstreaming of the principles of preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in sectoral policies in the country
5.3.3 Priority set of indicators
The system for assessment and analysis offers a selection of indicators from the core set – a priority set of indicators.
The indicators of the priority set register the implementation of the most urgent tasks arising from the national legislation and the international commitments of Bulgaria. They also represent the most significant changes in the state of biodiversity in general and especially of its components that are of significance for conservation.
5.3.4 Headline indicators
Headline indicators have also been separately selected for the system of assessment and analysis of the NBMS.
The headline indicators are a small number of simple, easy to understand indicators, which serve to demonstrate the basic and most general trends in the state of biodiversity. Aside from their use for decision-making in Bulgaria, they can provide insight for the large public.
5.4. Balance in the choice of indicators from the system for assessment and analysis (core set of indicators)
The core set of indicators represents a balanced sum, including indicators for pressure, state and response, indicators registering the changes at each of the three levels of biological organisation – genetic, species and habitat/ecosystem - as well as indicators from the main thematic working programs of the Biodiversity Convention (agriculture biodiversity, forest biodiversity, mountain biodiversity, biodiversity of inland water, marine and coastal water biodiversity).
28 6. Information management of the NBMS
The NBMS will generate a great deal of monitoring data which will have to be carefully managed. The information requirements for the NBMS have been worked out and are briefly described here. These relate to aspects such as data formats, data hierarchy, data flow and the software required to store, manage and analyse the monitoring information. A more detailed description on the information system requirements of the NBMS is available in a separate document
6.1 Administrative and institutional requirements to the information system Information system requirements according to international conventions and directives The legal basis for the development of the NBMS is defined in Chapter 1 of this report. This legal basis confronts Bulgaria with several obligations to the EC concerning monitoring, which are further described here.
Reporting requirements to the EC impose the following requirements to the Information System (IS) serving the NBMS: • An obligatory integration with the Natura 2000 National Information System and an insurance of a two direction, dynamic connection between the two information systems – Natura 2000 IS and NBMS IS. This two directional correspondence will ease future integration with the software for reporting on biodiversity monitoring at a European level, which will be developed and managed by the European Topic Center for Nature Protection and Biodiversity (ETC/NPB), the institution which is responsible to the EC and the European Environment Agency (EEA) for management and verification of Natura 2000 data and biodiversity data. • The analysis of trends in biodiversity monitoring parameters should be included as compulsory and a main element of the information system structure. The forecast and definition of the trends will be the base for motivation, correction and any future intervention concerning Natura 2000 borders and protected areas borders, as well as an instrument for their management; • Obligatory linking of the NBMS information system with a geographic information system (GIS), according to the last requirements of the General Directorate Environment, EC and the technical specification for managing and processing of spatial data for Natura 2000 network, defined by Spatial Application Division, KU Leuven R&D (SADL). • The architecture of the NBMS IS should ensure: - Quality and conformity of data; - A structure adequately flexible to allow for change, development and compatibility with the European Information System for Biodiversity Monitoring, having in mind any future submission of national data for further analyses at European level.
Having in mind that the Habitat Directive uses the concept for biogeographical zoning, the approach for monitoring and reporting should also provide for organisation of the information by biogeographical regions.
In practice, reporting according to article 17 (1), should include data and information for: • Habitats and species of Community Interest; • Natura 2000 sites.
The data and information for habitats and species of Community interest should include: • Conservation status; • Quantitative parameters; • Qualitative parameters; • Distribution data • Trends; • Threats and pressure.
29 Data for Natura 2000 sites should include: • Ecological information (section 3 from Natura 2000 Standard Data Form); • Updated information for site character, quality, importance, vulnerability (section 4 from Natura 2000 Standard Data Form); • Updated information for impacts and activities (section 4 from Natura 2000 Standard Data Form).
Information system requirements according to national legislation. According to the law for environment conservation, and Biodiversity law (article 115, point 10 and 13), for the needs of information insurance and annual reporting to the Environmental Executive Agency it is necessary to develop a flexible information system for input, processing and analysing of the biodiversity information, as well as forecasting of trends in the conservation status of habitats and species of national interest.
6.2 Type and hierarchy of the information • Objects in the context of the information system for the NBMS are species and habitats, habitat types, taxonomy groups as a whole or other type ecological units. • Every single object is represented by a defined number of parameters depending on the monitoring methodology. The parameters are the lowest level of information. • The next level of information is indicator (or index), which is a result from the parameters’ processing of the certain object for exact period of time. The indexes are the first level of information, which might be used for policy and strategy decision making. • The analysis of indexes according to deferent criteria creates the highest level of information – area, which gives a vision for the conservation status for certain object or group of objects.
All data, which are inputted, processed or outputted from the system are registered on an exact date, this is often the input date. The output information should also be registered on an exact date or for an exact period of time. It will be formed by the indexes, their parameters and the objects, according to their last definition before the date of request.
6.3 Information flow The information system for the NBMS is defined by four main processes: • data input; • statistical processing and data analyses; • archive and storage of data; • output of data.
Input of data The sources of data and the basic requirements of data format may be the following: • Field inventories – the data are filled into a standard data form for biodiversity monitoring (specific for each taxonomy group). • Existing databases for biodiversity – such existing databases must be organised or converted into a Microsoft Access databases – mdb files, with a specified unique identification (code) for relation. • Input of data through the Internet – part of the web services of the information system will be input of monitoring data, directly through the internet, managed by the web server of the system.
The proposal for the organisation of the information flow, and particularly for input, analyses and reporting is made analogue to the organisation of the information flow of Natura 2000 data, where there are three operational levels, functioning by the scheme below.
An important element for the whole process of information data flow is the verification of input and output data. The verification is mainly a control and check of the data correctness and consistency, for instance correctness of the species and habitats codes, logical values of the parameters of habitat and species characteristics etc.
30 Statistical processing and data analyses For aRegionalnalysis amodulend statistical processing of the biomonitoring data of the different taxonomy groups of speciefors alocalnd h biodiv.abitats it is planned to use TRIM software (Trends and Indices for Monitoring Data) with Central EU module some demonitoringvelopments. TRIM is used byNational Statist imodulecs Netherlands for analyses of the biomonitoring data and has been databasedeveloped and checked for funforcti biodiv.onality several times. The purpose offor T RbiodiversityIM is a definition of indexes and trends in biomonitoring, monitoringas well as an assessment of the effect omonitoringf covariates on these Regional module database indexesfor andlocal trends. biodiv. TRIM is built completely databason statistical methods and models. monitoring e The analyses databasof spatial data is a basic element of the analyses module of the whole Information System. This part of the analysese will be performed using GIS-software.
Archive and storage of data Regional The Module for archive and storage of data will contain the archived data by periods and topics and will module for local performNatura the following 2000 main functions: • Creation of metadata; National Central EU databas module for • Archiving of data by periods; module for e Natura 2000 Natura 2000 • RestorationRegional of data by periods; module for local databas database • Output of data by periods. Natura 2000 e databas e Data output The IS will generate the following types of output: • Output of data for reporting to international and national institutions; - Print out of Standard Data Forms and maps; - Export of databases and geodatabases; • Output of metadata; • Output to web clients and web services.
6.4 Specialised software The software the information system of the NBMS will be an easy-to-use MS-Access application, with different functionality at its deferent operational levels, depending on whether it is used on a workstation or on a desktop.
The software for the information system will be made in the same manner as the Natura 2000 software, but with additional possibilities for input of and output to ORACLE databases, geodatabases and some other types of databases. In practice, it will be functioning at two operational levels: regional operational level and national operational level
31 7 Organisation of the NBMS and reporting
7.1 Roles and responsibilities An important aspect of creating a workable monitoring system is clarifying and allocating monitoring responsibilities within it. In this chapter two main roles in the NBMS are outlined, the management role and the operational role.
Management role Basically, this role is related to decision-making with regard to the nature and functioning of the NBMS. The owner and administrator of the NBMS performs that role – this is the Executive Environmental Agency (ExEA). In general, the management role of the ExEA is comprised of: • Organisation of the working process for the establishment of the NBMS; • Operation and management of the NBMS after its establishment; • Provision of the information, which is collected and analysed in the NBMS, to the respective responsible national and international institutions; • Provision of access to the opportunities of the system for use by interested institutions, as well as the information collected by the system for a broader circle of users through the regulations for use.
Operational role Basically, operational aspects relate to the actual operation of the NBMS – these include administrative and technical organisation of data flow from long-term observations of components of biodiversity into the NBMS. Different parties can have an operational role in the collection, processing, storage and transmission of data to the system for assessment and analysis of the NBMS.
The institutions and organisations, which appear to be interested parties (stakeholders) and hence may participate by gathering and providing data and information about the NBMS, can be divided most generally into four groups and are listed below. : • A/ State administration; • B/ Scientific and academic institutions; • C/ Non-governmental organisations; and • D/ Companies and branch organisations.
The legal entities under items B/, C/ and D/ are identified on the basis of their existing activities, their presence or absence in this document does not result in any obligations and/or responsibilities. In the process of developing and implementing the NBMS, part of those legal entities’ responsibilities and commitment can be undertaken in regard to collection or provision of data to the system within the framework of their regular activity. All procurement procedures for gathering data for the needs of public sources, which are funded by the state budget or other public sources, will be implemented pursuant to the acting legislation, and particularly in accordance with the Public Procurement Act.
Institutions and organisations making monitoring observations will provide information and data on the basis of preliminary agreements between the ExEA and the respective institution. Coordination of the NBMS functioning will be implemented by the ExEA. This coordination will involve control over the timely and efficient gathering and provision of data with fulfilment of the requirements for filling-out the field forms and the file format of summaries.
32 A/ State administration Ministry of Environment and Water, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Ministry of Regional Development and through: through: Public Works, through: - National Nature Protection Service - Agro-ecology Department, - Regional Development (NNPS), - Agro-statistics Directorate, Programming Directorate General, - Regional Environment and Water - Executive Agency for selection and - Cadastre Agency. Inspectorates (REWI), reproduction in stock-breeding, - Ministry of Transport - National Parks Directorates (NPD). - Executive Agency for sorts testing, - Ministry of Economy approbation and seeds control, - National Statistical Institute - Executive Agency for fishing and - Ministry of the Interior aqua-cultures, - Customs Agency - National Forest Administration (NFA) and its related structures – Regional Forest Administrations (RFA), Directorates of Nature Parks (DNP), State Forestry Offices (SFO), State Game Breeding Stations (SGBS), etc.
B/ Scientific and academic institutions - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - National Centre of Agricultural - Sofia University, Faculty of (BAS), Institute of Botany Science /NCAS/, Institute for Plant Biology - BAS, Institute of Zoology Genetic Resources - Sadovo - Sofia University, University - BAS, Central Laboratory of - NCAS, Institutes specialized in Botanical Gardens General Ecology various groups of cultural plants - University of Forestry - BAS, Botanical Gardens - Agro-Bio-Institute - Medical Academy, Faculty of - BAS, Institute for the Forest - NCAS, Institute of Fishing and Pharmacy - BAS, Institute of Oceanology Aqua-cultures - Varna - Plovdiv Agrarian University - BAS, Institute of Microbiology - NCAS, Institutes related to - Plovdiv University Paisii - BAS, National Museum of Natural different types of stock-breeding Hilendarski, Department of Botany History - The Thracian University
C/ Non-governmental organisations; The main non-governmental organisations possessing database and/or having experience and capacity to undertake monitoring on different levels of biological organisation, are as follows: • Bulgarian Association for Protection of Birds • Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation • Green Balkans Federation - Plovdiv • Balkans Wild Nature Association • Bioselena • Nature Fund Association • Bulgarian Hunting and Fishing Union • Specialized non-governmental organisations: Bulgarian Botanical Association, Bulgarian Mycological Association, Bats Research and Protection Group, Bulgarian Herpetological Society, Bulgarian Lepidopterological Society, Birds of Prey Protection Society etc.
D/ Companies and branch organisations: Bulgaria is a country that is rich in biological resources and there are many organisations whose subject of activity is to gather, process, trade in and export such resources. Those firms and branch organisation are mainly in the sectors of agriculture, forestry, gathering and trade in wild fruit, herbs and mushrooms, in the sphere of hunting, fishing and tourism. In accordance with the commitments under the Biodiversity Convention, Bulgaria is obliged to provide conservation and sustainable use of biological resources in the country. Consequently, it is necessary to take measures to involve the businesses in three main directions in the biodiversity monitoring: • Provision of data for the volume of exploitation of biodiversity, within frames and format which are not at variance with keeping trade secrets; • Provision of summarised data from the territorial forestry management plans; • Financial support of some monitoring-related activities, particularly of biological resources.
Responsibilities Responsibility for the quality of the initial observations shall be borne by institutions and organisations performing those observations by virtue of contracts or agreements with the ExEA. Institutions and organisations participating in monitoring observations are responsible for the correctness and quality data that they provide. Incorrect or poor-quality data undermine the authenticity of the conclusions, which experts will make on the basis of the results of assessment and analysis of monitoring results. In this context, the responsibility of the institutions providing data is extremely high. All data providers
33 will be publicly notified and each of them will bear an individual responsibility for the particular data which is submitted to the NBMS.
The ExEA, in its capacity of a data receiver, will check correct application of the methodology and follow the correct completion of the forms, but not the specific values of parameters.
Information flow Information is collected on a regional level by maintaining regional database, and is aggregated on a national level in the so-called National Database (NDB), which is a part of the NDB of the National Environment Monitoring System. For the purpose of the NBMS Bulgaria is divided into 15 Regional Environmental and Water Inspectorates (REWIs) and 3 National Park Directorates (NPD), i.e. 18 regional structures in total. The paper forms with field information collected on the territory of a certain REWI or NPD are submitted to the respective REWI or NPD. They transfer the data from the paper forms to the local database and submit it to the ExEA in order to be included into the NDB. The collection of field information onto unified paper forms is carried out by the specific participants in the NBMS – academic and scientific organisations, NPD, Directorates of Nature Parks , REWI, NGOs, volunteers, companies and branch organisations.
Institutions and organisations, carrying out monitoring on a national level and maintaining national database, send the unified electronic forms directly to the ExEA. In this case the ExEA submits information to the regional structures.
The two ways to collect and submit information are presented on the scheme on the next page
7.2 Quality control over monitoring data An important responsibility, which is required to be fulfilled in accordance with the NBMS, is about ensuring the authenticity (dependability) of monitoring data. Each monitoring system requires constant control over monitoring data, so that it can ensure it is of a sufficiently good quality. In particular, control can establish and correct systematic deviations /distortions/ in information.
Data control is expressed into: ! Check of the monitoring methodology; ! Check of the correct application of methodology; ! Check of data derived from initial protocols.
Control is exercised on a national and regional level: ! On a national level – it is conducted by the ExEA through control/check of the monitoring methodology or organisation of parallel observations/counting of an independent body for a part of data, as well as through control over activity of regional structures for implementation of their responsibilities regarding biodiversity; ! On a regional level – it is conducted by the REWI and DNP. All institutions/ organisations, which make observations, draw up schedules for fieldwork, which are coordinated with the respective REWI or DNP. A representative of the respective regional body exercises control over the correct application of the methodology and/or check of data from initial protocols, by participating in some observations.
For full exercise of control it is necessary that each working methodology contain a developed part entitled Control over Quality of Observations and Data Received. To ensure control of data, 10 % is added per observation (when planning financial resources) for control exercised by an independent evaluator. This control system will be particularly important in the first five years of the functioning of the NBMS functioning, when methodology and indicators will become more strictly defined.
34 35 7.3 Analysis and evaluation of monitoring data For the purpose of representativeness of the data for the state of biodiversity, observations will be made • in test areas in all regions of the country – for species distributed in the whole country; • in specific locations – for species with local distribution or found in single localities.
The monitoring information is collected, and consequently assessment and analysed by the ExEA, using the indicator approach described in Chapter 5. If necessary, the ExEA forms working groups of experts in separate (specific) spheres for drafting the analyses and evaluation.
7.4 Access to and provision of information: Reporting The ExEA is responsible for reporting the summarised biodiversity monitoring data – both on national and international levels. All data from the system is published within the web page of the Bulgarian CHM (Clearing House Mechanism), which is a forum for exchange of biodiversity information, hosted by the Ministry of Environment and Water. The data that is exempt from publication is: • data submitted by third parties on the condition of confidentiality, • data, the publication of which would put in risk the conservation of endangered species, • data which is the subject of commercial secret.
Data and evaluation of the state of biodiversity are published in quarterly and annual bulletins for the state of environment. Additionally, the ExEA publishes reports, brochures, newsletters, articles and publications on the Internet which are designed for the different target groups, such as: • Political decision makers; • Regional structures of the state administration – national parks, nature parks, REWI, RFA; • Other participants in monitoring observations, involved in field or laboratory work; • The broad public, with the aim of introducing and involving them in the problems of biodiversity conservation.
7.5 Resources and Funding The responsibilities for collection, processing and control of biodiversity monitoring data require additional capacity strengthening on a regional level (regional structures of the Ministry of Environment and Water and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) and on a national level. To this end, it is necessary to increase the staff in the ExEA, REWI, NPD, DNP and SFO with experts whose direct obligations are exactly those related with biodiversity monitoring.
Currently, the necessary equipment is not available – the availability of suitable computers, software, Internet access, as well as equipment for fieldwork and off-road vehicles is very limited in the DNP and the REWI. After a detailed appraisal of the need for equipment and additional personnel, an account will be made of the initial expenditures for introducing the NBMS and the necessary funds for its annual implementation. Target funds restricted for this purpose will be laid down in the state budget. The Enterprise for Management of Environmental Activities (EMEA) will also support some of the activities just like it does for the rest of the NBMS monitoring programmes.
Due to the specificity of biodiversity monitoring, a bigger part of the activities for collecting data about biological objects (outdoor observations) will be implemented through contracts and agreements with external institutions. Expenditures will be covered by different sources – EMEA, state budget, own funds of the respective organisation, industrial organisations. Simultaneously, international funding will be sought.
7.6 Agreements and Contracts In order to collect information for all biodiversity indicators (which means not only the status of biological objects, but also the factors of impact and measures which are undertaken for their
36 conservation) agreements and contracts for provision and exchange of data will be drafted for data provision and exchange, and namely: • Agreements between the ExEA and other governmental institutions (mainly the specific ministries or their structures) for provision of information from their programmes and organised databases; • Contracts between the ExEA and experts, who will be invited for consultations for any emerging problems; • Contracts between the ExEA and the institutions/organisations, which directly conduct biodiversity monitoring.
The contracts and agreements between the REWI and the respective institutions/organisations will generally contain: • Specific obligations and responsibilities; • The level of detail of data provision; • The scheme for submission of data (e.g. regularity of data provision); • Administrative procedures of data provision; • Ownership/copyrights over the data; • Description of the data control system; • Requested file format; • The information canal for data transfer from the regional databases to the server of the system for analysis and evaluation; • Financial conditions ensuring a long-term (continuous) provision of data.
37 8. Implementation of the NBMS
Chapter 2 described a general growth model that will be followed for the development of the NBMS over the years. The steps required for further elaboration and implementation of the NBMS in the more immediate future are outlined in this chapter. In the coming months, and in the first 3 years after the NBMS is put into practice, the following steps are required for successful realisation of the NBMS:
1. Formal adoption of the NBMS at the appropriate government level The NBMS will need to be formally adopted at the proper government level to ensure it has a legally binding status. Formal adoption should also contribute to ensuring that adequate resources are being made available for its implementation, in terms of personnel, equipment and financial resources.
2. Development of data collection forms and monitoring guidance (handbook) Using existing methodologies, data collection forms will need to be prepared, and practical guidance materials for field data collection will need to be developed.
3. Development of a database and GIS system The software for the database system and GIS system will need to be developed and installed.
4. Development of handbook and procedures for data processing and evaluation A handbook for data processing and evaluation will be prepared. The main operators of the database and GIS system (i.e. ExEA staff) will receive training on these procedures.
5. Preparation of contracts with initial data collection partners for first year (pilots) Contracts will be established with a limited number of data collecting partners for the first year of data collection.
6. Processing of results of first year pilots; Evaluation/review of methodologies, information system, and guidance materials Data provided through the first year contracts will be processed in the database/GIS system. Based on the experiences with these contracts, various elements of the system may need to be reviewed (e.g. data collection forms, procedures, contract terms)
7. Preparation of contracts with further data collection partners for second and third years Using the experiences from the pilot, the NBMS can be rolled out to cover more objects and/or more data collecting partners.
8. Evaluation/review after second year Based on the experiences in the second year, various elements of the system may need to be reviewed (e.g. data collection forms, procedures, contract terms)
9. Evaluation/review after third year Based on the experiences in the third year, various elements of the system may need to be reviewed (e.g. data collection forms, procedures, contract terms).
Steps 1-7 should be completed in 2005, enabling to test the NBMS set-up in practice. Following years will allow for a more substantial implementation of the NBMS.
Steps 2-6 can be partially supported by the ongoing Dutch funded project “Development of a National Biodiversity Monitoring Programme for Bulgaria” (ref. code PPA03/BG/7/1).
38 `
Ameco Environmental Services, Utrecht
Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg
European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg
Borrowed Nature, Sofia
WWF Danube Carpathian Programme, Bulgaria Office, Sofia
Development of a National System for Monitoring Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Bulgaria PPA03/BG/715
Overview of project results April 2006
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2004 `
Colophon
Title: Development of a National System for Monitoring Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Bulgaria Senter PSO pre-accession Programme
Overview of the project results
Project code: PPA03/BG/715
Submitted by: Ameco Environmental services Koningslaan 60 3583 GN Utrecht The Netherlands phone: 00-31-30-2545840 fax: 00-31-30-2545376 Contact : Drs. H.A.W. Kleinjans e-mail: [email protected]
Consortium partners: - Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg - European Centre for Nature Conservation - Borrowed Nature Association, Sofia - WWF Danube Carpathian Programme, Sofia
Client: Senter Internationaal Pre-accession programmes P.O. Box 93144 2509 AC The Hague The Netherlands Contact: Drs. L. Kartier Tel : 00-31-70-3735211 / 281 Fax : 00-31-70-373 5605 e-mail: [email protected]
Counterpart: Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW), Bulgaria
Beneficiary: Land, Bio-Diversity and Protected Areas Department of the Executive Environment Agency, Bulgaria
Date: April, 2006
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2004 `
Project results overview
In January 2004, the EVD contracted Ameco to provide assistance to the Bulgarian Government for the implementation of a national biodiversity monitoring system in line with requirements of the European Birds and Habitats Directives. This project, titled “Development of a National System for Monitoring Biodiversity and Protected Areas in Bulgaria”, was implemented by a consortium of Ameco Environmental Services, Bureau Waardenburg, Borrowed Nature, the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme, and the European Centre for Nature Conservation.
The project was supported in the framework of the PSO Pre-Accession programme (PPA) of the Dutch government. This programme aims to assist the candidate member states in Central and Eastern Europe in meeting the criteria for EU membership through projects dealing with the implementation of European legislation.
The purpose of the project was to strengthen the capacity of Bulgarian authorities for monitoring bio-diversity and protected areas to ensure conformity with the EU-Directives 92/43/EEC (Habitat Directive) and 79/409/EEC (Bird Directive). This was to be achieved through the following project results: 1. A national programme for monitoring of the bio-diversity and protected areas has been elaborated, including an action plan for its implementation; 2. Strengthened capacity at the Executive Environment Agency (ExEA) regarding the monitoring of the bio-diversity; 3. Improved capacity of the Regional Environment and Water Inspectorates’ and Protected Areas Authorities’ staff for implementing the action plan activities in the field of bio-diversity monitoring.
The project was carried out from January 2004 to April 2006. In that time a number of concrete project results were achieved, in close co-operation with the Executive Environmental Agency of the Bulgarian Ministry for Environment and Waters, and a range of Bulgarian species experts. The products that have been produced in the course of the project will be presented at the project closing seminar, are available on the project website (see http://chm.moew.government.bg/iaos/indexE.cfm - click on project 2) and will be delivered to the EVD together with the evaluation report. This overview lists the project approach, the various project products, and explains how they relate to each other.
Project Approach:
To tap into the available Bulgarian expertise in this area, the project involved a range of Bulgarian stakeholders. At the start of the project a Task Force was established, which consisted mostly governmental representatives with responsibilities for biodiversity monitoring. The Task Force was responsible for the main contents and directions of the National Biodiversity Monitoring System (NBMS).
The Task Force was supported by four product teams, each consisting of a selection of Bulgarian experts. The Product Teams looked at specific aspects of the NBMS, including species to be monitored, monitoring methodologies, institutional arrangements and database
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • page 1 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
requirements. The Task Force supervised the work of the product teams. Both the Task Force and the Product Teams were supported by the projects’consultants.
The product teams’ proposals were integrated into the first draft of the NBMS main text, which was the first main output of the project. This text contains a description of the NBMS, the NBMS approach and action plan. Once a first complete draft was produced, it was subjected to a broad consultation process, during which a range of stakeholders gave their opinion on the NBMS. Comments could be made in writing or by e-mail, but the most important input into the NBMS came from the consultation seminar. This seminar was attended by over a hundred participants, including representatives of national and regional governmental agencies, the Bulgarian Academy of Science, and a range of NGOs with an interest in nature.
In the next phase, the NBMS approach was tested in a number of monitoring pilots. Pilots were developed for different locations and species, and involved the application of different methodologies. Those involved in the pilots received training by monitoring and species experts. As instruction, the pilots used a draft handbook for monitoring in the field, which was partly based on the NBMS text, but mostly on the methodologies developed or proposed by the Bulgarian experts in the Product Teams. The methodologies had been translated into handy key-cards and monitoring field forms. The pilots also trailed the concept of non-expert monitoring. This is a well developed method in the Netherlands, by which non-expert volunteers collect data for national monitoring purposes.
Then, a NBMS database was developed to facilitate collection, storage and processing of the monitoring data. The database was developed by a Bulgarian company, under close supervision of Dutch and Bulgarian experts, as well as the Executive Environmental Agency. A database handbook and training session were developed to assist those that will be working with the database.
Finally, the NBMS main text was revised under the lead of the ExEA, the authority ultimately responsible for biodiversity monitoring. The consultation responses, final product team reports and pilot monitoring experiences were all incorporated into the final NBMS. At the project closing seminar the results are presented and a training session offered to government authorities with monitoring responsibilities.
Project products:
- NBMS main text, This text outlines the basic principles, practical approach and organisation arrangements for the Bulgarian NBMS. It also includes and action plan for implementation of the NBMS in the coming years. There are two versions:
! Consultant proposal, developed by the consortium consultants’ team, in consultation with the ExEA and on the basis of Dutch experiences with monitoring. This document served as a background report for the final NBMS. ! Final NBMS main text version, prepared under the authorship of the ExEA.
- Product Team reports. ! Product team 1: Species monitoring
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • page 2 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 `
This PT produced reports on different species groups. Each report gives a general introduction to the species group, and lists the priority species and locations for monitoring. Monitoring methodologies for the species are also described.
! Product Team 2: Habitat Monitoring This team produced a report, but their work showed that this issue is too complex to start national monitoring in Bulgaria. There are yet unresolved issues concerning, for example, classification of habitats, that make monitoring problematic.
! Product Team 3: Information Systems Requirements This product team provided conceptual design for the NBMS database as well as a terms of references for the development of the database system. Their report also containa proposed structure per species group.
! Product Team 4: Institutional, administrative and financial organisation of the NBMS The PT4 report specifies roles, responsibilities and information flow in the NBMS.
- Pilot Monitoring results For each pilot a report on the monitoring experiences was produced. The general conclusions on lessons learned are summarised in a separate report.
- Field Monitoring Handbook This is a set of resources, including a general outline and instruction for setting up monitoring activities and reporting on monitoring information, as well as key cards to help identify species in the field, and filed monitoring forms.
- Database Handbook This is a Handbook explaining how the NBMS database functions, especially how information should be added and processed so that trends in biodiversity can be calculated.
In this compilation the NBMS consultant’s proposal and the pilot reports have been compiled. The Product Team reports are also included, on CD.
Ameco • BuWa • ECNC • page 3 National Monitoring System for Biodiversity and, Borrowed Nature • WWF DCP Protected Areas Bulgaria, PPA03/BG/7/1, April 2006 Lessons learned from the Pilot in 2005 of the Bulgarian National Biodiversity Monitoring System
Below, broad conclusions are presented concerning the pilot projects on tortoise, chamois, souslik and maiden fern pilot monitoring activities. For detailed conclusions and recommendations, we refer to the separate pilot result reports
For practical reasons, recruitment of volunteers for the Pilot started in summer 2005. Some of the volunteers recruited were school children, although summertime is not the best period for recruitment of volunteers at schools, due to vacations, or school children having tasks in supporting their family during summer. A number of the children that had shown an interest in monitoring had applied for different schools and they had to arrange their moving in the same period.
The following pointers can be drawn from the pilot monitoring experiences:
1. Organizing school children to assist in monitoring programs can best be carried out after the summer holiday, in the beginning of September. 2. The most motivated and capable students are in the 9th and 10th grade, or higher. Preference should go to those with a biology curriculum or other interest in nature. It is advisable to involve pupils that are already taking part in some form of ecological training. Their engagement to the task is expected to be higher when they are given a longer and more detailed training. 3. Within the organisation of monitoring participants it is recommended to see schools and teachers as permanent participants in monitoring, and students as temporal. The teachers collect the data forms and send them to the NBMS. 4. It is recommended to include volunteers from regional NGO’s in the monitoring program. They have knowledge of the local situation and can assist with collecting data and instructing students. 5. It is important that communication between all participants is clear; who collects the data forms, when and how should the forms be delivered, who can be approached for assistance etc etc. 6. The field forms where well received and implemented in practice without difficulty, even by the youngest participants in the training. 7. Chamois - Chamois monitoring is a highly specialized activity, intended for professionals. However, when carrying out an expanded campaign during a certain period or day, non-expert volunteers can effectively be assigned to be primary counters in order to maximize the effect of the monitoring. 8. Adiantum capillus-veneris - The beginning of September is considered as the most appropriate time for monitoring of Adiantum capillus-veneris with involvement of non-experts. 9. For some species, such as the souslik, the actual field work starts in spring and can be combined with short holidays in this period of the year. Recruitment of volunteers for those species can start in wintertime. 10. Prior to undertaking monitoring, the actual presence of the species to be monitored in the area that is subject to monitoring should be mapped. This is necessary for the selection of appropriate sites. In case of the souslik, mapping was not restricted to any season, but this may differ per species.
Overall conclusion The pilot monitoring activities have shown that involvement of non-expert volunteers, including school-students, in monitoring is feasible. However, there should be a low-threshold to participation (simple instructions, easy accessible terrain) and proper instructions or training are required. If school students are involved, it is most effective to work with older students (9th grade or older) with an interest in nature. For expert monitoring, such as that of the Chamois, the benefit of non-expert participation is expected to be limited. Model for involving student in monitoring The Souslik pilot monitoring approach (developed by by V. S. Stefanov ) was shown to be a useful scheme for involving students in the NBMS monitoring. This model is as follows:
A teacher/leader of the student group is selected. This person is considered the main person in charge and organizer of the monitoring activities. The monitoring itself shall be carried out by the students. Each transect selected will be passed by a group of students (or possibly by one person, in case older students or students with strong interests in biology are involved), and the tasks for each in the group will be different: - one person walking along the transect line, controlling observance of the directions and measuring the distance; - another person closely following him and counting the souslik holes (these may be two persons to double the report for greater validity); - a third person is documenting the information. Other students may also take part in the group; they can compile detailed information about the local population’s habitat, such as the regime of pasturing, haymaking and other data.
Data will be collected and submitted to the processing centre by the teacher/leader of the group.
If following this working scheme, it is proposed here that the teacher’s work be officially recognized and approved in some way by the Ministry of Education and Science. This should provide an additional motive for participation. Report on the NBMS training for REWI and National and Nature Park staff
Project: ‘Development of a National Biodiversity Monitoring System’ (PPA03/BG/7/1)
Date: 06 April 2006, Thursday, from 09:30 a.m. to 16:00 p.m. Location: ExEA Attended by approximately 35 participants, including 5 species experts that introduced the relevant manual chapters.
Programme: 09.30 Opening and introduction to the goals of the training; - Koen Peters, Project manager - Ameco Environmental Services / executive Bulgarian- Dutch consortium - Stoyan Yotov, Secretary and project coordinator – Borrowed Nature Association / executive Bulgarian-Dutch consortium
09:40 Introducing the NBMS Practical Handbook with detailed explanations on the example of a selected sample of species groups: - Katerina Rakovska, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme; - Anna Ganeva (Institute of Botanics at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - BAS) – specialist-bryologist, author of the methodology for the monitoring of mosses and a manager of the moss pilot testing; - Tihomir Stefanov (National Museum of Natural History, BAS) – specialist- ichthyologist, author of the methodology for the monitoring of fish; - Georgi Popgeorgiev (Bulgarian Society for Bird Protection (BSBP) – specialist- bryologist,co-author of the methodology for the monitoring of dry-land tortoises and director of the pilot test for dry-land tortoises; - Vladimir Stefanov (Sofia University – Faculty of Biology) – specialist in small mammals, author of the methodology for the monitoring of the European hamster and director of the European souslik pilot test.
10.40 Questions and answers concerning the Practical Handbook and the presented groups of species 11:10 Coffee break 11:30 Questions and answers concerning the Practical Handbook (continued)
12:30 Lunch
13:00 Introduction of the Common Birds Monitoring Scheme, developed and administered by the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSBP / BirdLife Bulgaria):
- Svetoslav Spassov (BSBP / BirdLife Bulgaria)
13:30 Detailed introduction of the database developed for the purposes of NBMS: - Radoslav Stanchev, Environmental Executive Agency (EEA), Department of Land Monitoring, Biodiversity and Protected Territories at the Directorate of Environmental Monitoring - Yuliyan Matev, Mapex Ltd. demonstration of the database.
14:45 Questions and answers 15:15 Coffee break 15.30 Questions and answers,
16.00 Summary and closing the session.
Training report:
After more general introductions, Mrs. Krakovska explained the NBMS in more detail. She emphasized that it is a flexible system, things can be added/replaced, and the organizational chart in the manual. Following this, she gave a brief introduction to the species groups as presented in the handbook, and to the forms (what type of information is collected).
After this presentation, experts that were involved in pilot monitoring and the working groups explained gave more detailed explanations of monitoring of certain species. The presentations often used photos of work done in the field, and gave a good practical demonstration of the how monitoring should be undertaken. One of the experts, in particular, emphasized that the pilot experience proved that volunteers are an important resource. The description of habitat was most difficult for volunteers, but with some explanation even that was successful.
Later in the afternoon a detailed demonstration of the NBMS database was provided by Mapex. The presentation included many images of the electronic versions of the fieldforms that the participants will be using for monitoring.
Questions and Anwers: A range of questions were raised during the reserved Q&A times. The main points are highlighted below:
- Concerning the details Bryophytes: some species are indicative, the forms designed so that they can be applied to different species. Included is a checklist to determine if a site has potential for a target species or not. In the latter case further the survey can be omitted. - Question about status of monitoring instructions, REWIs etc cannot be asked to follow the methodology unless it is an official ordinance, signed by the minister. Nevena (of the ExEA) explained that that after comments are collected, the NBMS will be finalized and presented to minister for official signature (approximately one month after the training). - Comments were provided on details of the fish form and the mammals form, as well as the bear form. For the latter the indication of park location on forms is not clear for all situations. Also bear monitoring should also take place outside parks, methodologies should also be accepted and used by Ministry of Agriculture. - Explanation was given on the European NUTS code - * category: are not necessary to fill in. The forms have several of optional field marked by an asterix. - Concerning the computer facilities, Radoslav explained that there are powerful computers at EXEA for central processing, at regional level the software and hardware requirements are low. - There was some confusion about the fact that the same form can be used for different purposes (location types etc). ExEA explanated that not all fields in the form apply in all cases. - It is necessary to arrange stable monitoring teams to ensure consistency and minimum bias, especially for large mammals. - Seasonal variation is not adequately addressed in the forms, again especially for large mammals. - Sensus data concerning forestry should be used with caution, these may have been purposely distorted to increase harvest quota. - The capture – recapture method was not provided for the large mammals, and should be included. - Monitoring of tortoises requires handling of animals, which is prohibited by law. REWIs are asked by local research groups for permits to handle the animals but they are not authorized for this. Gerard Smit provides some information on the issue of handling animals in monitoring and the related legal prohibitions. In the Netherlands the organization that coordinates the monitoring can issue personal licenses for registered observers but the can only handle the animals following the strict guidelines given in the manuals. It might be a problem in Bulgaria because handling can be illegal, but may be necessary for monitoring. - Monitoring can be based on secondary signs, if direct observation of animal is difficult. In the case of the Sousliks the dwellings are monitored. - On the Balkan peninsula, there is a very comprehensive monitoring programme for birds, 100% of the work is undertaken by volunteers (emphasis on cost effectiveness). This programme was in development for 2 years, first year organization and setting up network, this year actual monitoring. Already 200-300 volunteers are active, and the number is growing. - Some discussion whether the forms of the NBMS could be more simplified, like the bird forms. The forms of other species groups are different because of the different ecology and additional information that is requested. If in practice it is shows that the forms are to complicated or information can not be recorded efficiently or correct, the forms will be adapted and simplified. - Can National Parks and REWI’s have acces to volunteer data of the bird monitoring? National Parks and REWI’s as unit can be regarded as a volunteer and so participate in monitoring and receive training.
Overall, many positive comments were made by the participants on the NBMS. At the end of the seminar one of the project team members asked the participants to give some evaluatory remarks on the training. The participants were unanimous in their opinion that the NBMS as a whole, and the training session specifically, were useful. Report on the closing seminar, National Biodiversity Monitoring System
Project: ‘Development of a National Biodiversity Monitoring System’ (PPA03/BG/7/1)
Date: 05 April 2006, Wednesday Location: Central Military Club – Hall 1 (groundfloor); 7, Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd., Sofia 1000 Time: 13:00 – 17:00
Programme: 13.00 Opening address by Mrs Nevonka, standing in for the Deputy Minister for Environment and Water 13.05 Keynote address by Drs. W.A van Ee, Ambassador of the Netherlands in Sofia, on Dutch-Bulgarian cooperation in the field of EU accession and Nature Conservation 13.10 Keynote address by Mr Dimitri Vergiev, Director of ExEA 13.20 Presentation of project results o Introduction, by Koen Peters (Ameco), Project leader and Stoyan Yotov (Borrowed Nature), BG Project leader o Presentation of NBMS, by Nevena Ivanova (ExEA) o Pilot experiences, by Katarina Rakovska (WWF-DCP) o Demonstration of handbooks and database, by Radoslav Stanchev (ExEA) 14.30 – 14.50 Coffee break
14.50 – 17.00 Discussion of elements of the NBMS
Panel members: - ExEA - Project team experts (Dutch and BG)
14.50 Discussion on NBMS objectives, scope and objects (in the NBMS text: Chapters 2, 3 and 4)
15.50 Discussion on NBMS scheme for the collection of information, information analysis and assessment, institutional, administrative and financial organization (in the NBMS text: Chapters 5, 6 and 7)
16.50 Discussion on the further development of NBMS.
17.50 Conclusions
18.00 Reception Seminar report:
The keynote addresses all emphasized the importance of good quality information for decision-making. The Dutch Ambassador Mr. Van Ee, noted that biodiversity is at risk and must be protected, and should be integrated into economy and planning processes. He also encouraged political acceptance of the biodiversity system. Mr. Vergiev stressed the importance of involving stakeholders in the NBMS, as well as the importance of co-operation between ministries.
The keynote speaker all reflected positively on the project outcome, Mrs. Nevonka and Mr. Vergiev thanked the Dutch government and the project team for their support.
After the team leader, Koen Peters presented an overview of the project approach and results, Mrs. Nevena Ivanova provided more detail on the NBMS. She noted its key features (Flexible system (growth model), and lists of species and habitats selected for monitoring based on standard criteria developed by the expert team), as well as its future development. In particular, the NBMS will link into the development of biodiversity indicators, and decision- making on management of nature. She noted the volunteer component and mentioned that in the future more agreements for provision of information between organizations will de signed. In the next 5 years, NBMS development will be characterized by: testing, optimization, enhancing administrative and financial capacity, and building relationships with organizations involved in monitoring (including contracts).
Following Mrs. Ivanova, Katerina Krakovska of WWF elaborated on the Pilot Monitoring experiences. The pilot purpose included creation of volunteer networks, and strengthening of the relationships between the organizations involved. This was achieved in different administrative regions by monitoring selected groups of species through field work by experts as well as fieldwork by non-experts. The field experience lead to corrections and modification of the paper forms, the resulted forms are included in the handbook.
Overall, the pilot experience was positive, already the project team and ExEA has been contacted by volunteers who participated in the pilot, and would like to participate again in the upcoming season.
Finally, Mr. Radoslav presented the information system and demonstrated the information flow from on-site data forms to regional experts to regional database and to national database. He also showed an example of a field form.
Discussion session:
General written comments were presented by several institution or organizations to the ExEA before the seminar.
The verbal comments are stated in more detail below. Most were addressed by the ExEA staff present. The overall impression is that the NBMS approach is well accepted and the need for a system as the NBMS is beyond question. The comments on the seminar addressed mainly certain NBMS details that should be elaborated further. Several participants addressed:
• Volunteer involvement and quality control; • How will feedback to the involved organizations be realized? • The use of different systems of habitat classification; • Capacity and budget for implementation; • Setting priorities for selected species; • Roles and responsibilities.
Detailed overview of discussion points raised:
• (Vasil Petrov Rila Park Director:) Presentation of species: format in which these are presented should be unified, more columns should be provided for additional information. Description of locations should be more structured. For example, some amphibians are no longer indigenous to the park. Also formulation should be stricter, there are 3 dry lakes in Rila, not just one. Mr. Petrov feels that detailed updating of information is needed, in co-operation between directorate and experts. All the structures like parks etc should be involved in determining details of locations etc. He also: - Asked who would be in charge of monitoring? - Suggested to include a column for the implementer (in the forms), also to facilitate allocation of resources. Currently, some authorities will be overburdened, resources are not sufficient. Especially concerning the software products needed. - First annex, only one classification for habitats should be in the NBMS, not two. Classification should follow EU Directive. - The texts of the monitoring system are not precise enough. Concerning the obligations of authorities, should quote relevant articles of law. - Idea of volunteer involvement is good, but not worked out in a regulatory document, which makes it difficult in practice. Volunteers needed to supplement staff, but there should be regulatory basis.
• (Prof Alexandrov:) The chapter on habitats and forests is not complete, accurate, amateurish approach. Specifically, the types of forests listed are not correct, and there is some inaccuracy in the English translation (example black pine forest). (Professor Alexandrof comments are later refuted, he is suggested to have too limited knowledge of the NBMS. Mrs Todorova responds that his information on forestry types identification is wrong, renowned experts were involved, criticism is surprising (i.e. not amateurish). But as part of NBMS development, further corrections will be made, and experts will be involved in this through consultation.
• (Vladimir Stevanov:) The feedback loop is missing from the diagram for collection and processing of information. Analysis should be done with experts of scientific and other institutions involved. Monitoring sites listed in the text are not correct, there was no testing of the methodology in some of the sites. Here feedback could have avoided this mistake. Mrs Todorova responds that clarification of the sites will take place, but that there is some difficulty at this stage with identifying the right authorities etc that should be involved at which locations. The system is open, and will develop further. The agreements/contracts are a form of partnership, a mode of co-operation, not a way to reallocate responsibilities. Some agreements follow from regulation, others are voluntary. An ordinance on the NBMS is to be developed and will come into affect this year. Also, there will be feedback, dataflow from ExEA to regional level, two-way communication. • (Mr. Stoyan:) Habitat classification still needs to be resolved. Is was proposed for the working group to use the Paleartic classification in the beginning. But the final classification was not determined, so now it shows the translation of the codes between the two classifications.
• (Mr. Spirodonov:) Habitat classification: EU Habitat classification is mandatory because of Bulgaria’s commitments. Palearctic classification does not match. But there is no need to be disturbed by the different names, as long as it is clear which is which. Mr. Gosev added that the working group did not work as as amateurs, classification is complicated. We need to keep the codes accurate, English names are trivial.
• (Biologist, oceanology institute in Varna:) Proposes inclusion and exclusion of some species and pointed out that there is relevant information in the oceanology institute. The ExEA staff resond that resources will be available, but not to build capacity in scientific institutions. However, institution can have direct communication/feedback, according to the agreements.
• (Mr Gorgiev, MOEW:) The species list includes species that are not well known, and some that do not have conservation significance. Some species have indicator value, but this should be made more clear in the NBMS. Some species can be removed, because they are too rare and are not ‘informative’ species. Mrs. Todorova responds that the ExEA will need assistance from experts to prioritise species, still some more prioritization can be done.
• (Antoinetta Petrova:) The discrepancy on criteria for species selection is due to allocation of points according to criteria. The practical difficulty in applying criteria, leads to expansion of selection list. There should be a limit on the number of species for a country such as Bulgaria. Radoslav Stanchev notes that from a technical point of view, modification of species included is possible. But experts need to agree, and give their approval.
• (Alexi Popov, National History Museum:) There are limited resources and people so it is not possible to do all the species on the list. But we should be happy with this well thought-through list, we can select more species to monitor over the years. He supports the idea of monitoring especially there where there are threats in a specific habitat.
• (Georgi of the UNEP Rhodope project:) As stakeholder he is aware that drafting the NBMS was difficult. In the Rhodope project monitoring activities are implemented, similar to NBMS activities. In the monitoring steps control at regional level is envisaged. The REWI structure will not be able to ensure quality control, due to specificity. It will be better to define minimum and maximum values, so that there can be no mistake. Also, linkage between national system and GIS are important. Information should be directly translatable to GIS, this is a coding issue. GIS can then be used for analysis. Furthermore, it is important to create an institutional structure to collect data. Monitoring cannot be commercialized. There are experts that have data, and this should be shared, not sold too expensively. Finally, resources will be needed, even when working with volunteers. • Mrs Todorova states that there was doubt in beginning that non-experts could provide information of adequate quality. But she became convinced in the process, also in response to experience in the Netherlands. Bulgaria now needd to think about how to establish a network of volunteers. Resources are needed of course, but also an appeal to contribute so that there can be joined efforts.
• (Mr. Hristov of the UNEP Rhodope project:) Prioritisation of activities is needed, and to make distinction between monitoring and non-expert species. Monitoring is related to decision-making, it is an important matter.
• (REWI Plevin:) The participant did not understand prioritization of habitats, and selection of habitats for monitoring, and proposed for specific species, to include monitoring sites in Plevin region, because currently already monitored. Also suggest inclusion of species that have economic value (frogs) about which they get questions from those that want to harvest these species. He also asked: Will results be used from monitoring that follows a different methodology? Which methodology should have precedence. Mrs. Todorova responds that there was an effort to use unified methodologies, and the NMBS forms etc are a prerequisite. There is an approval procedure for new methodologies.
• Mr. Gerard Smit of the project team outlines an example from the Dutch context: reptile monitoring which is doen by volunteers but under expert guidance.
• (Mr Michov, Wetlands project:) We should trust more the state authorities, but there should be more clarification of responsibilities division of institutions and agencies in relation to sites. Who is responsible for what area. Most likely time is needed to organize this well. The NBMS should link into Natura 2000 projects, to avoid duplication.
• Mrs Todorova outlines the financial framework: 2 million has been budgeted for the next five years. One of the main activities to undertake in the next five years are inventories. In parallel there will be drafting of specific methodologies. In 2010 ExEA wants to have practical results, not just ideas.
• (Mr Chipev laboratory general ecology BAS, member council biodiversity:) The connection between the NBMS and decision-making is still too weak. The NBMS system has been developed, tremendous work was done, and now this should be developed further. First problem is methodology, discrepancies need to be resolved. Also, he did not find Carpathian lynx, some species will not be there every year. Further, system should be constantly improved. Secondly, how shall we interpret the results, this is a different step from analysis. Third, Mr Chipev suggests that a command chain should be developed on the basis of the decision-making system. When to react and who should react, how to raise alarm and provide feedback.
• Mrs. Todorova notes that the system of indicators was too ambitious, but a good start. Indicators have to be developed further. The results will be published annually, but continually uploaded on the web (real-time).
In conlusion, Mrs. Todorova stated that the ExEA will a new draft of the NBMS after close examination of all comments. Monitoring Handbook for data collection Practical effect of the National Biodiversity Monitoring System
Draft for consultation 17-10-2005
Note: The objective of this handbook is to provide information for non-specialists who contribute to the NBMS. This draft includes available and relevant information of all species groups and habitats of the NBMS. For several groups there is at present no method available that can be applied by non-specialists. Methods might become available in the near future, when Bulgaria as well as other countries, become more experienced in monitoring and reporting to the EC Directives. In the final version of this handbook only the groups relevant for non-specialists will be included. The handbook is designed in such a way that programs that become available in the near future can be added as easy extensions without issuing new prints of the whole handbook.
1 2 Table of contents
1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 General introduction ...... 5 1.2 Main goal of the handbook...... 5 1.3 Reading guide tot this document ...... 5 2 Co-ordination of the monitoring...... 7 2.1 Introduction ...... 7 2.2 Coordination and responsibilities within each monitoring...... 7 2.2.1 Collection of field observations on standardised forms...... 7 2.2.2 Enter data into databases...... 8 2.2.3 Data analysis and reporting...... 9 3 Building a network ...... 11 3.1 Introduction ...... 11 3.2 Capacity building with volunteers ...... 11 3.2.1 Recruiting observers...... 11 3.2.2 Training observers/ Quality control ...... 12 4 Monitoring in practice ...... 13 4.1 Monitoring species conservation status...... 13 4.2 Basic requirements for monitoring...... 13 4.3 Monitoring objects ...... 14 5 Monitoring programs...... 17 6 Data processing ...... 19 7 Contracts and Ownership of information ...... 21 Annex 1 List of target species...... 23 Monitoring Programs of the NBMS...... 25 Monitoring Bryophytes...... 27 Monitoring Plants...... 29 Monitoring Mushrooms...... 31 Monitoring Mammals ...... 39 Monitoring Bats...... 47 Monitoring Birds...... 49 Monitoring Amphibians...... 51 Monitoring Reptiles...... 55 Monitoring Fishes ...... 63 Monitoring Invertebrates...... 65 Monitoring Habitats...... 67
3 4 1 Introduction
1.1 General introduction The handbook before you is a practical guide for the gathering of information within the National Biodiversity Monitoring System (NBMS). The handbook is based on the system as described in the document ‘National Biodiversity Monitoring System’.
The NBMS-document describes the structure of the NBMS. The practical implications of the NBMS will be described in two handbooks to guide the people involved in the NBMS. The process of the collection, processing, storage and transfer of monitoring data will be described in the handbook before you. The handbook is written for all institutes responsible for monitoring (like REWI and the management of Nature and National parks) and all people involved in gathering the data in the field. Data assessment and analysis within the NBMS will be discussed in an additional handbook (title).
1.2 Main goal of the handbook The main goal of the handbook is to guide/instruct all people involved in the gathering of biodiversity information. This includes people who are responsible for the co-ordination of the field work, species specialist who instruct potential observers, people who actually do the field work (professionals and volunteers) and people who are responsible for the in put of data in to the data base. Because the different chapters of this handbook are written for different groups of people each chapter is bound separately and can be taken without the other chapters.
1.3 Reading guide tot this document • The coordination of the NBMS is discussed in chapter 2. This chapter describes the responsibilities of the different parties involved. • Areas that don’t have a biodiversity monitoring program yet will need to build a network of people and/ or increase existing capacity. Chapter 3, ‘Building a network’, presents strategies on how to increase capacity by training and/ or recruiting observers. • Monitoring in practise is described in chapter 4. This chapter gives a description of all field methodology that can be chosen • In chapter 5 the methodology, field forms and materials is given. Every species group is treated separately. • Chapter 6 describes the in put of data from field form into the computer. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of the methodology of trend analyses (based on the handbook for data assessment and analyses within the NBMS). • Whenever the government and Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) work together questions about ownership of information arise. Chapter 7 discusses the implications of government and NGO relationships and presents a contract that can serve as an example to prevent possible issues that could disturb a fruitful co- operation.
5 6 2 Co-ordination of the monitoring
2.1 Introduction The building of a monitoring system requires a network of people performing different tasks. People process data, coordinate and recruit observers and make the actual observations in the field. Every step in the process is important to keep the monitoring system running. But who is monitoring the process? Who is responsible for the quality of monitoring and the organisation? Who co-ordinates the monitoring in a certain area, making sure no important locations and species are missed? This chapter will explain the co-ordination within the network of the NBMS and answer the question: ‘Who is responsible for what within the NBMS?’
2.2 Coordination and responsibilities within each monitoring Figure 1 (Flow chart) gives an overview of all monitoring steps and the institutes and organisation involved in these steps. An explanation of the different steps in the red square is given after the flow chart.
Figure 1 Flow chart overview of all monitoring steps and the institutes and organisation involved.
2.2.1 Collection of field observations on standardised forms The ExEA has appointed the REWI’s to co-ordinated the monitoring activities within their area. Building a network of observers is one of the first actions that needs to be taken. This network can consist of two types of people: species specialist and non-specialist observers (see chapter 3). In co-operation with the species specialists the locations of monitoring are determined. Once the network is in place the REWI will provide materials needed for the
7 monitoring (like field forms and field equipment). All filled in field form will be collected by the REWI for further processing.
Tasks REWI Build network of observers Appoint monitoring locations (in co-operation with specialists) Provide field equipment and field forms Gather filled in field forms
The ExEA/ REWI?? hires the species specialists. Their job is dual: training and guiding of participants to maintain a high quality of monitoring and performing monitoring themselves. Species specialists are responsible for the quality of monitoring in their area. They train and guide observers in using the NBMS methodology (see 3.x capacity building/ training observers). Filled in field forms of observers are checked for inconsistencies by the specialist before send to the REWI for processing. In some cases this species specialist can be someone from the REWI itself, sometimes a specialist needs to be hired. Species specialists also take part in the actual monitoring itself. When these monitoring tasks are performed as part of their job requirements in their contract with the ExEA/REWI?? the results are sent to the REWI. When the monitoring activities are performed as a member from a national NGO, the results will be sent to the NGO who will process the data further. Depending on the contract between the NGO and the ExEA (see chapter 5) the NGO database will be integrated into the NBMS-database.
Tasks Species Specialist Train and guide potential observers in using NBMS methodology Check collected field forms Perform monitoring Send data to REWI or NGO depending on status of the monitoring activity
The monitoring within National parks and Nature parks within a REWI area will be co- ordinated by the park management. In addition to the network of observers described above, park rangers can also play an important role in the monitoring in a NP. Park rangers can perform their monitoring tasks under the guidance of a species specialist or directly under the supervision of the park management, depending on their level of expertise. Because of their large knowledge of the area and their frequent out door activities, park rangers can be a valuable profit to the NBMS-network.
Tasks NP management Within NP: Building a network of observers (include park rangers) Appoint monitoring locations (in co-operation with specialists) Provide field equipment and field forms Gather filled in field forms
2.2.2 Enter data into databases The data gathered by the REWI’s, National parks and Nature parks is put into a regional database using the format and procedures mentioned in § 4.4. The information is sent to the ExEA on a yearly base or more frequent if necessary.
NGO’s that monitor species on a national level insert their data directly into their national species database. Every year the information is sent to the ExEA using the same procedure as the REWI’s and NP’s. The implications of a Non Governmental Organisation providing data to the ExEA are discussed in chapter five.
8 Data input REWI Insert data into regional database Sent regional database to ExEA NP management Insert data into park database Sent park database to REWI NGO Insert data into national species database Sent national species database to ExEA
2.2.3 Data analysis and reporting The data analysis and reporting are both the responsibility of the ExEA. The procedures that need to be followed for these tasks are discussed in the handbook for the ExEA.
Tasks ExEA Gather all regional databases Gather national species databases Insert all databases in NBMS database Analyse NBMS database Report results
9 10 3 Building a network
3.1 Introduction A structure like described in chapter two is not in place yet. In addition of their current job descriptions the REWI’s and NP-management will have to take on new tasks adding to their workload. Also the actual monitoring in the field requires a lot of people. Currently monitoring of specific species groups is preformed by NGO’s on regional and even national level. Within protected areas park management usually has some running monitoring programs of target species. In order to be as efficient as possible the NBMS will aim to work together with already existing monitoring programs. In many chases however observers still need to be found. This chapter will give suggestions on were to find and how to recruit participants. Suggestions on training will help guarantee a high quality of monitoring with in the NBMS.
3.2 Capacity building with volunteers 3.2.1 Recruiting observers A network of observers is in many cases not in place yet. For most species groups the potential of trained professional staff is limited. Next to species specialists observers can be non specialists that are assigned to monitoring as part of their professional task (park rangers) or volunteers with an interest in biodiversity or specific species. Recruiting observers including volunteers is the responsibility of the region co-ordinator. In most cases this is the local REWI. Within National parks the NP-management is responsible for observer recruitment.
Finding volunteer observers requires some creativity. Two examples: In a nature park in the centre of the Netherlands a park ranger and distance runner noticed he sometimes encountered slow worms, a difficult to find reptile species on trails when running in the forest. As a member of a running society he asked his fellow runners to register if and where they encounter slow worms during training. Many people participated and it turns out the reptile was seen more frequently than expected. The simple increase of survey potential resulted in an extensive increase of data with observations. An other example involves the use of postcards. In order to get some insight in the distribution of love beetles and humble bees postcards were designed with pictures of most common species. The postcards were distributed among houses all over the country. People were asked to indicate near the pictures on the postcard the number of love beetles or humble bees they had seen in their garden and return the postcard to the distributor.
In general in order to find observers for participating in the NBMS one needs to look in places were people are interested in nature, nature conservation and/or biodiversity. Below are some possible places for recruiting observers.
Visitors centre of national parks/ nature parks One obvious place to look for people interested in nature is among visitors of NP’s. At visitor centres people can be invited to report species they encounter during their stay in the park on a standardised form. An identity card at the back of the form can help people identify some simple key species (base line monitoring / see §4.3). People that are interested to play a more active role in the NBMS can be referred to a NP or REWI nearby their house were they can sign up for a short training by a specialist (see below).
School children Baseline monitoring can also be part of the nature education for school children. In addition to information from books biology teachers bring their students outside the classroom to learn about nature. By participating in a monitoring project students learn about the importance of biodiversity. For participation students use the standardised form identical to the form in the NP-visitors centre. Their participation can be a valuable contribution to the NBMS baseline monitoring. Schools with an extended biology curriculum or with clubs involved in nature activities have a good potential for motivated students. A proper introduction of potential
11 students to biodiversity and the ecology and necessity for monitoring of the target species is essential.
Local NGO’s Local NGO’s may in some areas already have some ongoing monitoring activities of species. When these organisations can be persuaded to use the NBMS methodology the results of their efforts can be implemented in the NBMS. Thereby contributing not only to the regional but also to national conservation of the species.
Reading houses (community centres) In addition to the potential observers mentioned above participants could be recruited by promoting the NBMS in local societies. People can be reached using media like newspapers, television and Internet. In addition community centres, libraries, etc. can be asked to hang NBMS-flyers on locations many people visit. The information in the media and on the flyers can consist of a small introduction about the NBMS, a general indication of the work that needs to be done (the nature of the work, the purpose and how many days a year) and a be reference to a local National Park or RIEW were they can sign up for a short training by a specialist (see below).
Working with volunteer observers is relatively new to Bulgaria. However, the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds has worked with volunteers for monitoring for several year with success.
Before starting the recruitment of observers a coordinator should be aware that observers need proper training and introduction to the NBMS often by a species specialist. The observer is assigned to a specific location and will be instructed about the organisation including filling in and deliver field forms. Before recruitment starts the following things need to be in place: • Flyer • Overview of available monitoring sites • Overview of available species specialist and possible training planned • Capacity within the organisation to take on the coordinating role
3.2.2 Training observers/ Quality control The training of observers is the responsibility of the species specialists hired by the ExEA /RIEW. Training will consist of a workshop meeting with all participants. The meeting starts with a brief introduction about the targets of the NBMS and the methodologies and materials used for monitoring, including an explanation of the field form. After this introduction the training of the field method and use of the field form is demonstrated by a specialist ‘on site’ in the field. At the start of the monitoring season it is advised to instruct new observers before their first field visit. This can be done by organising field excursions where a specialist points out important biotopes for target species and checks if the participants understands the tasks that they are expected to fulfil. Field forms are collected by a local coordinator or send directly to the project coordinator of the ExEA. A specialist checks the collected field forms for inconsistencies and if necessary discuss the results with the observer. The check provides the observer as well as the specialist with feedback about methodology and use of the field forms. Mistakes can be corrected and unclear instructions can be improved. When the data meet the required standard quality the ExEA accepts them for data processing.
The training of all participants should at least address the following topics: • The role of the observer within the NBMS; emphasis the responsibility and importance of a correct use of methodology and field form. • Explanation of methodology and field form • Discuss possible danger (aggressive animals, toxic plants or animals or risk of deceases) • Practise of methodology and field form on site, supervised by specialist
12 4 Monitoring in practice
4.1 Monitoring species conservation status The monitoring programs presented in this handbook track changes in the distribution and abundance of species in order to gain information on the conservation status of species and ecosystems. They are long-term trend monitoring programs. The programs focus on recording species coverage (presence / absence), relative population size or total number of individuals in the population(s). For most species the sensitivity for trend detection increases from monitoring presence / absence to monitoring total numbers. Monitoring presence / absence is widely used because it can provide basic information on the distribution of species and requires lesser investment in time and people than counting the individual specimen. For information on the abundance of species, counts of population size are usually more suitable, although the usefulness of the chosen method (for absence/presence and counts as well) depends strongly on specifications like frequency, number and distribution of sample sites, etc.
Trend monitoring programs have a general approach. If negative trends occur a more specialized program can be necessary to define the cause of decline and the effect of possible measures. Those programs focus on the problem area, are specialized and have a higher intensity than trend monitoring. The methods will be tailor made for the identified problem and are not presented in this handbook.
Monitoring versus mapping surveys Field surveys to assess the presence of a species and its (local) population status in a certain area provide useful information for mapping a species distribution pattern. The mapping of a species is essential for determining the conservation status of the species. But the distribution pattern by itself does not provide information on (trends in) population size. In addition a program for monitoring trends in population size is needed. In mapping a species distribution pattern all available information on presence / absence can be used. Monitoring presence / absence relies strictly on standard methodology. When the number of sampling sites is sufficient and dense enough monitoring presence / absence can provide information on relative population size.
4.2 Basic requirements for monitoring Monitoring requires standardization of fieldwork and uniform registration of data using standard data forms. Methods are described in manuals and preferable follow international standards in order to exchange information and experiences on international level. Baseline monitoring aims to track changes in the species coverage. It primary focuses on the species presence or absence on a certain location. Comparison within time (different years) and between plots requires a standard method. This standardization is important to prevent or reduce bias in detection probabilities of a species.
Basic monitoring requirements: Knowing the species Standard plot size and survey time Standard survey method Standard survey period Standard number of visits Standard parameters: presence / absence Standard registration: standard data form
Specialists and non-specialist observers (volunteers} Baseline monitoring can require a minimum of training for species that are easy to recognise and easy to observe. For those species baseline monitoring is a suitable approach for large scale projects as national monitoring in the NBMS. Specialists are required for selecting
13 sample sites, training of observers and quality control and interpretation of data. Observers can be non-specialists as for example field staff of national parks and nature parks, or volunteers. The monitoring of some species is labour intensive, requires a complex methodology or involves species that are vulnerable. For those species professional observers (specialists) are necessary.
Basic approaches The three basic approaches for monitoring are mapping the coverage of species (e.g. plant coverage), transect sampling or mapping point locations (single observations).
Species can have limited local distributions that, with little training, are easy to identify in the field. For example plant species can cover areas as the dominant species, while burrowing animals like the Souslik have colonies, which cover a certain area that can be recognised by their holes. Mapping the coverage of those species on a sample site is a widely used approach. Usually the sample site has an overlay with grid cells. For each grid cell the presence / absence of the species is registered as well as the percentage of coverage or counted number of individuals or holes. The standard grid size depends from the species; sphagnum species in a peat bog require a different scale than tree species. As a rule of thumb a grid of 100 x 100 m is used for species with local distributions. The calculation of the trend index is based on the number of grid cells with observations or the average presence (percentage or counts).
Species with large local distribution areas are monitored using sampling techniques. Transect sampling is a common approach. It is practical for species that can be observed along trails near streams, road verges, forest borders etc. In homogenous terrain transects are marked in the field. A transect is usually divided into subsections. For each subsection the presence / absence of the species is registered as well as the percentage or number of observations. As a rule of thumb the transect length is 1000 m with subsections of 100 m. The calculation of the trend index can be based on the number of subsections with observations, the average presence (percentage or counts) per subsection or the total observed number of individuals.
For species that only occur local or have low densities the exact (point) location where it is observed or found is indicated on a (grid) map. The survey is carried out on fixed routes or by standard survey times. The field method is basically the same as the two approaches above. Instead of coverage the number of point locations were the species is found are registered. The calculation of the trend index is based on total counts.
4.3 Monitoring objects The following groups are monitored in the NBMS: • Bryophytes • Birds • Plants • Amphibians and Reptiles • Mushrooms • Fishes • Mammals (excluding Bats) • Invertebrates • Bats • Habitats
Within these groups species or habitats were selected according to selection criteria mentioned in the NBMS. A list of all selected species can be found in Annex 1. The list of species selected for monitoring is extensive. Because of lack of capacity (available budget and resources in ExEA REWI, observer potentials) and limited experiences with monitoring it is not possible to start monitoring for all species groups. It is suggested to start monitoring with a few key species. Selection criteria for these key species are as followed: The species and/or traces of its activity can be easily determined; The species is included in the priority lists proposed by PT-1; The species is widely distributed; Low-cost monitoring methods applicable; Species for which the national coverage data are missing and necessary;
14 The species is an indicator for certain habitats (ecological approach).
Chapter 5 gives a general methodology per species group. For some species groups a few species have a species-specific methodology, field form and key card. When the time and need are present, additional specific methodologies, key cards and field forms can be developed and added to the document.
15 16 5 Monitoring programs
The NBMS requires large-scale monitoring programs. Bulgaria has limited experience with large-scale national monitoring programs. The monitoring of birds, and to some extent bats, is an example of national monitoring. In the past also monitoring surveys were carried out for other species groups. Those surveys were part of scientific studies often in restricted areas and where specialists do the work. The experiences of those surveys are valuable. The surveys themselves are due to their specific character not directly suitable for large-scale monitoring.
For the NBMS there are new monitoring programs developed for some species groups. In the future new programs will be added and existing programs might be updated. This Handbook is designed in a way that new information can be inserted in the Handbook for reference.
In the second part of this Handbook you will find the species groups and available monitoring programs. They are given as separate Annexes. The available programs are presented as Key cards. The Key cards will help you in easy recognising species. The cards also include an example of the field form for registering your observations. Each field form comes with instructions for using the form and with instructions for the fieldwork; how and were to find and observe the species. The forms on the Key cards can be copied. The copy is used for fieldwork. After the fieldwork the forms are send or handed over to the (local) project coordinator.
17 18 6 Data processing
P.M. – to be completed This chapter describes briefly the flow of data processing, how the information from the field form is processed and produce trend indexes. This chapter is not a manual for the database.
19 20 7 Contracts and Ownership of information
Due to the specificity of biodiversity monitoring, a bigger part of the activities for collecting data about biological objects (outdoor observations) will be implemented through contracts and agreements with external institutions. In order to collect information for all biodiversity indicators (which means not only the status of biological objects, but also the factors of impact and measures which are undertaken for their conservation) agreements and contracts for provision and exchange of data will be drafted for data provision and exchange, and namely: • Agreements between the ExEA and other governmental institutions (mainly the specific ministries or their structures) for provision of information from their programmes and organised databases; • Contracts between the ExEA and experts, who will be invited for consultations for any emerging problems; • Contracts between the ExEA and the institutions/organisations, which directly conduct biodiversity monitoring.
The data collected throughout the pilot monitoring activities will constitute an integral part of the NBMS database and is therefore property of the ExEA. Nevertheless it is the intention of ExEA to make the monitoring data publicly available, including via the National Mechanism for Exchange of Biodiversity Information (a.k.a. CHM). Each expert engaged in the pilot monitoring activities has the rights to use and publish any data collected by him/her during the work for the NBMS, but these rights are not exclusive. Hence, in whatever publications fully or partially based on data collected for and/or derived from this pilot monitoring, the NBMS must obligatorily be cited as a source of information (see appendix xx and xxx for the outline of the ToR and basic contract for species specialists).
21 22 Annex 1 List of target species p.m.
Bryophytes
Plants
Mushrooms
Mammals (excluding Bats) Bats Birds Amphibians and Reptiles Fishes Invertebrates
23 24 Monitoring Programs of the NBMS
25 26 Monitoring Bryophytes Description The Bulgarian bryophytes are rich in species. Several of them are severely threatened. Up to date 705 species are reported, which represents more than 40% of the total of bryophyte species in Europe. Currently, a total of 13 Bulgarian species are listed under international conventions and directives. Of the species listed in the European Red Data Book of Bryophytes 24 are found in Bulgaria. For national monitoring a limited group of 5 high- priority species are selected, for another 8 species the localities need to be confirmed.
Distribution / habitat Bryophyte species diversity is irregularly distributed across the territory of Bulgaria, and is mainly concentrated in the high mountains. In the mountains the diversity of habitats is higher than in the lower part of Bulgaria.We have to bear in mind though that in several regions such as the valleys of Mesta and Struma rivers, the Thracian and the Tundzha Lowlands, bryophyte data is relatively scarce.
Identification of species Taking into account the large number of species, of which some are closely related, bryophyte survey is a job to be carried out by specialists. Nevertheless there are some species that, with a little training, can be easily identified in the field by non-specialists. For those species Key cards are provided to help finding and identification in the field.
Methodology Bryophyte species are in general monitored by mapping their coverage or by transect sampling. The latter approach is especially useful along streams.
Monitoring frequency and planning of fieldwork The main requirements for monitoring bryophytes are: • The sample site has to be accessible. • Snow or leaves may not cover the soil of the sample site. Monitoring bryophytes can therefore be carried out during most of the year but the possibilities in autumn and winter might be limited.
Bryophyte communities are rather stable (large fluctuations between years are not expected). This implies that, given the condition that the sample site is not changed, the monitoring frequency might vary from yearly up to once in 3 years. For early trend detection yearly visits are recommended. Alternatively sites can be checked yearly for possible changes (e.g. in land use) and mapped once in three years or earlier when potential change is registered.
Weather conditions In general monitoring bryophytes is weather independent as long as the site is accessible by the observer or not covered by snow, leaves or other material.
Explanations Key card Key card not available
Check list for fieldwork • Map of the sample site • GPS (optional) • Identification guide / Key card • Field form • Writing material / pencil • Suitable clothes and footwear for difficult terrain conditions
27 28 Monitoring Plants Description The Bulgarian flora is rich in species. Several of them are endemic or severely threatened. Up to date X species are reported. For national monitoring a limited group of X high-priority species are selected.
Distribution / habitat P.M. (Summary taken from PT report)
Identification of species Taking into account the large number of species, some are closely related; plant survey is a job to be carried out by specialists. Nevertheless there are species that are well known to public and others that, with a little training, can be easily identified in the field by non-specialists. For those species Key cards are provided to help finding and identification in the field.
Methodology Plant species are in general monitored by mapping their coverage or by transect sampling. The latter approach is especially useful along trails, streams or mountain slopes.
Monitoring frequency and planning of fieldwork The main requirements for monitoring plants are: • The sample site has to be accessible. • The plant should be visible and well developed for proper identification. Monitoring plants is best carried out during the flowering season of the species. Some plants flower in early season (spring), others flower in summer time or even late season. Check the Key card for the best period to plan your field visit.
Pant communities are rather stable. For most plant species large fluctuations between years are not expected, although seed of some annual plants only develop under favourable conditions. This implies that, given the condition that the sample site is not changed, the monitoring frequency might vary from yearly up to once in 3 years. For early trend detection yearly visits are recommended. Alternatively sites can be checked yearly for possible changes (e.g. in land use) and mapped once in three years or earlier when potential change is registered.
Weather conditions In general monitoring plants is weather independent as long as the site is accessible by the observer or not covered by snow, leaves or other material. For monitoring flowering species rain and strong wind should be avoided.
Explanations Key card P.M.
Check list for fieldwork • Map of the sample site • GPS (optional) • Identification guide / Flora / Key card • Field form • Writing material / pencil • Suitable clothes and footwear for difficult terrain conditions
29 30 Monitoring Mushrooms Description Over 5200 fungal species are found over in Bulgaria (Table 2). It is imminent to be found thousands of new species for the country, including new for the science. A “European red list of the macromycetes” is in the process of preparation, which will become the basis for proposed revision of determined clauses in the “Bern convention” and “Directive 92/43 of __ for conservation of the wild flora and fauna in the natural habitats”. In Bulgaria , is a “Red list of the fungi in Bulgaria” was developed including totally 212 species.
Table 1 Mushroom species selected for monitoring in the NBMS
Species Species Boletus dupainii Boud. Suillus sibiricus Singer Gomphus clavatus (Pers. : Fr.) Gray Clathrus archeri (Berk.) Dring. Hapalopilus croceus (Pers. : Fr.) Donk Boletus permagnificus Pöder Hericium erinaceum (Bull. : Fr.) Pers. Boletus regius Krombh Hygrocybe calyptriformis (Berk. & Broome) Fayod Amanita caesarea (Scop. : Fr.) Pers. Myriostoma coliforme (With. : Pers.) Corda Sparassis crispa (Wulfen : Fr.) Fr. Podoscypha multizonata (Berk. & Broome) Pat. Cortinarius violaceus (L. : Fr.) Fr. Sarcosphaera coronaria (Jacq.) Boud Gomphidius roseus (Fr. : Fr.) Gillet
Distribution / habitat Habitats with mushroom target species vary from old forests, meadows, pasture and parks. Habitats range from mountains to valleys an target species are found in national parks, along the black sea coasts, in Rhodopi mountains and in Struma valley among other places. Some species are known from a restricted area as Clathrus archeri (Berk.) Dring, which is known form 1 locality only. Other species seem to be more widespread as Amanita caesarea which is found in an area that includes the Black sea coast and western and eastern Rhodopi mountains.
Identification of species Taking into account the large number of species, some are closely related; mushroom survey is a job to be carried out by specialists. Nevertheless there are species that are well known to public and others that, with a little training, can be easily identified in the field by non- specialists. For those species Key cards are helpful in finding and identification in the field.
Methodology Mushrooms can be monitored by transect sampling or plot sampling in habitats, characteristic for the respective type fungi. Sample sites are 1000 m2, the number of the observed fruit bodies are registered. For species with a restricted coverage all known sample sites are counted. For monitoring different field forms are developed.
Monitoring frequency and planning of fieldwork The main requirements for monitoring mushrooms is: • The sample site has to be accessible. The visits of the sampling sites should be 3-5 times per year. Monitoring mushrooms is best carried out when the fruit bodies are visible. The suitable period for visiting the site depends form the target species as well as the climate characteristics during the year of observation.
The number of observed fruit bodies can vary between years due to annual characteristics as for instance dry and wet years. For early trend detection yearly visits are recommended.
Weather conditions In general monitoring mushrooms is weather independent as long as the site is accessible by the observer or not covered by snow, leaves or other material. The weather conditions in the period previous to a field visit can be of importance for the detection probability of the fruit bodies. Good communication between observers can increase the results.
31 Explanations Key card Key card not available
Check list for fieldwork • Map of the sample site • GPS (optional) • Identification guide / Key card • Field form • Writing material / pencil • Suitable clothes and footwear for difficult terrain conditions
32 Field form for tree substrate
Species Boletus dupainii Boud.* Podoscypha multizonata (Berk. & Gomphus clavatus (Pers. : Fr.) Gray * Broome) Pat Suillus sibiricus Singer * Boletus permagnificus Pöder Boletus regius Krombh.* Sparassis crispa (Wulfen : Fr.) Fr. Amanita caesarea (Scop. : Fr.) Pers.* Cortinarius violaceus (L. : Fr.) Fr. Hapalopilus croceus (Pers. : Fr.) Donk Gomphidius roseus (Fr. : Fr.) Gillet Hericium erinaceum (Bull. : Fr.) Pers
1. Region 2. Locality 3. Geographical coordinates 4. Above – sea level. 5. UTM-Grid. 6. Latin name of the tree species, with which the fungus is in mycoriza. 7. Author of the name (and the combination, if present) of the tree species, with which the fungus is in mycoriza. 8. Habitat and/or ecologic specialties. 9. Date of the observation. 10. Name of the observer (and the collector, when a sample for deposition in mycological collection is collected). 11. Number from the mycological collection (when there is a deposited sample). 12. Number of the fruit bodies- exact number of the established fruit bodies is pointed. 13. Area of the population - as far as may be established on the base of the found fruit bodies. 14. Accompanying species – pointed if possible. 15. Present or potential threats for the habitat and area. 16. Notes for the collection* (only relevant for the marked species) 17. Notes.
33 Explanation of the field form
Locality In the rubric “Locality” are pointed as exact as possible the geographical data for the locality: Administrative area, mountain (if the deposition is mountain), the nearest village or other starting point (site, natural landmark, hut, top, river, lake, circus, etc.), geographical direction according to this starting point and other useful data (left or right bank steep by the stream of the river, km from the starting point if it is near road, etc.).
After the geographical data for the locality, follows a rubric with information for the trophical characteristics of the species : for saprothrophic and parasitic species – information for the substrate, respectively of the hospitable (Latin name); for the mycoriza – forming species – information for the tree species, with which the fungus is in a mycoriza (in case of difficulty to be determined a concrete tree species , the tree species near the deposition are pointed); for saprotrophs by organism substrate with other character (soil, dung, coals, etc.) or with broad specialization for the substrates – information for the established during the observation substrate.
In the rubric “Existent or potential threats for the habitat and the area „the threats are enumerated, following the practice and the nomenclature of the threats, recommended by IUCN and used during the categorization of the state of jeopardy of the species (IUCN 2003a, b).
The rubric “Notes for the collection” is lead in during the monitoring of resource species or for species, which are without economic significance, but mordant. Observations over the number of collectors , if the collectors are coming for the day or camping for shorter or longer period, way of organization of collecting and buying, etc. are pointed.
In the rubric “Notes” may be unscripted observed changes during the present visit, in comparison with previous observations, some important morphological features and other notes, which cannot be reflected in the previous rubrics. Here may be written the information for made color pictures of the terrain.
34 Field form for non-tree substrate
Hygrocybe calyptriformis (Berk. & Broome) Fayod Species Myriostoma coliforme (With. : Pers.) Corda Sarcosphaera coronaria (Jacq.) Boud. Clathrus archeri (Berk.) Dring.
1. Floristic region 2. Locality 3. Geographical coordinates 4. Above – sea level. 5. UTM-Grid. 6. Substrate 7. Author of the name (and the combination, if present) of the tree species, with which the fungus is in mycoriza. 8. Habitat and/or ecologic specialties. 9. Date of the observation. 10. Name of the observer (and the collector, when a sample for deposition in mycological collection is collected). 11. Number from the mycological collection (when there is a deposited sample). 12. Number of the fruit bodies- exact number of the established fruit bodies is pointed. 13. Area of the population - as far as may be established on the base of the found fruit bodies. 14. Accompanying species – pointed if possible. 15. Present or potential threats for the habitat and area. 16. Notes.
35 BULGARIAN MYCOLOGICAL SOCIETY
1 ______2 PLEASE, DO NOT FILL IN! 3 SAMPLING PLOT 4 MAP SHEET
______
5 NAME OF SAMPLING PLOT 6 COORDINATES 7 ALTITUDE ° ´ ° ´ ...... ______N ______E ______m
8 DISTRICT / FLORISTIC REGION 9 OBSERVER’S CODE 10 PLEASE, DON’T FILL IN!
...... ______
11 OBSRVER1 (LEADER) NAME: ………………………………………………… ADDRESS: ………………………………………………… POSTAL CODE ___ TOWN/VILLAGE: ………………………………………………… TEL: ………………………………………………… E-MAIL: …………………………………………………
12 OBSERVER 2 (ASSISTANT) 13 OBSERVER 3 (ASSISTANT) NAME: NAME: ………………………………………………… ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ………………………………………………… POSTAL CODE POSTAL CODE ___ TOWN/VILLAGE: TOWN/VILLAGE: ………………………………………………… TEL: TEL: ………………………………………………… E-MAIL: E-MAIL: …………………………………………………
14 MORE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF OBSERVATION: S O COMMENTS LAND USE ......
IRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ......
VEGETATION/HABITAT ......
......
......
......
15 NOT TO BE FILLED IN BY THE OBSERVER! DATE OF RECEIPT DATE OF THE CHECK DAT EOF THE PRINTING
______
PLEASE SEDN THE COMPLETED FORM BEFORE 1 JANUARY TO THE BULGARIAN MYCOLOGICAL SOCIETY: Bulgarian Mycological Society Acad. Georgi Bonchev St., Bl.. 23, 2nd floor (Institute of Botany) 1113 Sofia
36 16 No of sampling plot Date of visit 1 Date of visit 2 Date of visit 3 Date of visit 4 Date of visit 5
Observer No Observer No Observer No Observer No Observer No ______
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of fruiting groups fruiting groups fruiting groups fruiting groups fruiting bodies bodies bodies bodies bodies ______, ______
Amanita caesarea
Amanita citrina
Amanita gemmata
Amanita muscaria
Amanita rubescens
Astraeus hygrometricus
Boletus badius
Boletus edulis s. lat. etc.
37 Monitoring Mammals Large, marine and small mammals excluding Bats
Description of the group Due to specific natural, geographic and social reasons, the territory of Bulgaria is inhabited by species regarded as exotic for Europe or large parts of the European continent (for example, the Marbled and Russian polecats, European souslik, Jackal). Bulgaria is even inhabited by unique species with quite limited global distribution (such as the Newton’s hamster and the Bulgarian Mouse-tailed dormouse).
Today mammal species have disappeared from many places in Bulgaria and some are close to extinction or even became already extinct. Strong negative influences have exerted from the cultivation of natural habitats and the collection of species for eating, pets and/or pseudo-traditional medicines. In order to prevent extinction the Bulgaria biodiversity Act and international treaties protects all mammal species. Bulgaria is inhabited by 42 native small mammals and 23 native large mammals (excluding bats). From this 17 species are selected as target species of the NBMS (see table 1).
Table 1 Mammal species selected for monitoring in the NBMS Bulgarian name Scientific name Small mammals Spermophilus citellus Mesocricetus newtoni Cricetus cricetus Felis silvestris Lutra lutra Martes martes Mustela eversmanni Vormela peregusna Nannospalax leucodon Large mammals Ursus arctos Canus lupus Canis aureus Rupicapra rupicapra Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica Bolcay Cervus elaphus Marine mammals Phocaena phocaena Tursiops truncatus
The three groups require a different monitoring approach ad therefore large mammals, small mammals and marine mammals are presented as separate species groups.
Large mammals Habitat/Biotope description The habitat and biotope varies per species. Animals like the chamois life high up in the mountains while for example wolfs generally prefer lower more forested areas. Some large mammals like the bear can even adjust to the anthropogenic changes in their environment and
39 may life at the borders of human settlement. In general the distribution of large mammals is restricted to the large nature areas.
Recognize the sexes or age classes For many large mammals only a specialist can identify the males and females of a species. For some species like the chamois a trained non-specialist observer can distinguish between males, females and even different age classes. Relevant keys for identifying sexes or age classes are given on the key cards.
Methodology Large mammal monitoring can be done in two ways: Stationary observations and transect monitoring. The stationary method takes place at a pre-determined site location (feeding site or near a nest/hole). Observation periods are long and done under specified conditions. The different seasons and conditions of the population determine which method is most appropriate. The routes and sites are specified in the areas of distribution of the species. The selection of the route for transect observations on depends on the season, especially for migrating species. During the walk, short stops for a more detailed observation of stationary sites are allowed. The observers should have the necessary mountain equipment and tools. Powerful spotting scopes and binoculars can be a plus. For some of the more illusive animals the monitoring will be based on the observation of tracks rather than the animals themselves. For observing tracks special weather conditions like snow can be favourable providing the species is active in winter.
Wolfs, bears and chamois are already subject to monitoring in specific areas (mainly national parks). These monitoring programs do not cover all potential habitats for these species.
!!!Attention: Some of the larger mammals can be aggressive and very dangerous when provoked. It is in the interest of your health to follow some simple rules. Behave calm and stay at distance of species that are known to be dangerous, especially when juveniles are present. In addition all animals may carry and transfer diseases or to be infested with parasites. If you must handle animals, faeces or other tracks wash your hands with soap before you touch your face, food or belongings related to feeding. Always carry with you a little water for washing and some soap. A small bottle of medical alcohol (available at the pharmacy) can additionally be used to disinfect your hands. To avoid a direct contact with animals, you can take a plastic bag and use it like a glove.
Duration and frequency of monitoring The presents and activity of a species varies per species depending on the dynamics of the migrations, matting season and birth season. There should be at least one observation round during the most active season of a species. Table 2 shows the most active period of the selected large mammal.
Table 2 Optimal survey periods of large mammals Species J F M A M J J A S O N D Ursus arctos Canus lupus Canis aureus Rupicapra rupicapra Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica Bolcay Cervus elaphus High probability Limited probability no activity
40 Field form and explanation Field forms vary per species depending on the animal’s behaviour (solitaire or social, migrating or not). See the key cards with explanation. Filled in field forms should be send to your local coordinator.
Checklist of all materials needed for monitoring • Field map • Field form (or inquiry form) • Pen • Watch • Ruler • Water and soap /Medical spirit for disinfecting of the hands after handling animals • Binocular • In some cases mountain/hiking equipment.
41 TO be inserted Key card chamois Field form and explanation wolf Field form and explanation brown bear
42 Marine mammals Habitat/Biotope description Marine mammals live, as their group name suggests, in marine waters. Monitoring of marine mammals concerns the Black Sea.
Recognize the sexes or age classes Recognising the species requires training.
Methodology Both selected species are part of the ‘whale’ family and can only be observed while surfacing or underwater using hydrophones. The monitoring of surfacing animals takes place by moving along a transect using a boat or airplane. In addition hydrophones can be placed on buoys, recording all sounds the animals make within a certain range of the hydrophone. Analyses of the recording can give an indication of the number of animals and the type of species, which inhabit the waters surrounding the buoy.
Marine mammals are usually monitored by specialists. Data collected by non-specialist can provide additional information. This data can for example consists of observations that are collected during ferry boat trips or other boat trips that have a standard rout and frequency.
Duration and frequency of monitoring Montoring marine mammals is performed annually.
43 Small mammals Habitat/Biotope description The habitat and biotope varies per species. Some animals are rare and only life in certain nature areas. Other species are more tolerant towards disturbance and can even live in cultivated land. Relevant habitat types are presented in the key cards.
Recognize closely related species and sexes Some mammal species are closely related and not easy to distinguish. For some small mammals only a specialist can identify the males and females of a species. For other species a trained non-specialist observer can distinguish between sexes. Relevant keys for identifying sexes or species will be accessible on the key cards.
Methodology Small mammals can be monitored using transect sampling. While walking the transect observed animals, tracks or holes may be counted and mapped. Especially for animals, like the European souslik, living in colonies counting holes is a good way of monitoring changes in number and distribution. More detailed information about the field work is given on the key cards.
Duration and frequency of monitoring Monitoring of small mammals can take place ones every two or three years, providing there is no indication that circumstances have changed in the habitat (for example cultivation of the land, cutting trees or increased tourism). In order to know if the habitat has changed a short site visit scan should be performed in between the monitoring years. When observations during the scan indicate changes in habitat the monitoring should be done the same season.
Planning of field visits (season, time of the day) Some of the small mammals are monitored during their most active season. Others, like the European souslik are monitored by counting the holes. This type of monitoring is not affected by weather or season. Most small mammals are active from spring till autumn. Table 2 shows all selected small mammals and their period of activity. The most active period during the day strongly varies depending on the species. Some animals are active during daylight while others are mainly nocturnal. Relevant information about the appropriate seasons and the appropriate time of the day will be accessible on the key cards.
Weather conditions Monitoring tracks or holes is weather independent. Most species are active mainly at night or around twilight. Heavy rain or hard wind will influence activity.
Field form and explanation Field forms vary per species depending the monitoring method. See key cards for more information. Filled in field forms should be send to your local coordinator.
44 Key card souslik
45
Monitoring Bats Description of the group For Bulgaria 33 bat species’ presence has been confirmed, out of 35-36 species known for the Europe in its entirety. Therefore, the Bulgarian bat diversity is extremely high, especially considering the relatively small country territory. Considering their high vulnerability, importance for ecosystems, low reproduction potential and progressively decreasing numbers, the bats are a group of mammals with an extraordinarily high conservation status. All species are protected and 12 species are designated as globally threatened in the IUCN Red Data List (2003).
The species richness in Bulgaria is complemented by extremely high numbers in many of the source locations known to date . Highest concentrations of specimens in a single place can be observed throughout the wintering period (December-March) and the breeding season (June- July). Depending on the species, the number of specimens in a given dwelling may vary between few hundred and more than 100 000. In terms of their habitats, the bats in Bulgaria are separated in 3 main groups: bats in caves and other underground habitats; forest bats; wetland bats.
Monitoring bats is an activity of the Bulgarian bat Society. For more information or if you like to participate in a Bat Monitoring program please contact:
NAME ADRES WEBSITE
47 48 Monitoring Birds Description of the group The avifauna of Bulgaria is relatively well known. 417 bird species have been discovered in Bulgaria up to the end of 2004, which represents around 41% of the avifauna of Europe. Of the globally threatened bird species, 22 are found in Bulgaria (from a total of 33 in Europe), and 13 of them are included in the IUCN Red List. Another 203 bird species, in addition to the indicated 22 species, are considered endangered on the territory of Europe.
Bird species can be found across the whole territory of the country. Areas of highest variety of species are the Black Sea coastline, the Danube riverside, all hilly and mountain regions, the waterside of all major rivers and various separate sites (mainly wetlands, canyons in the lowlands, vast lowland forests, dry valleys and some of the major towns).
Bird species monitoring has established for more than 5 decades in the international ornithological practice, including Bulgaria. Unified programs are developed, which provide data for considerable number of species simultaneously (sometimes over 60-70 species). Existing programs relevant for the NBMS are the Common Birds Monitoring Scheme, the Mid-Winter Waterfowl Census and the Bird Monitoring in Important Bird areas.
Monitoring birds is an activity of the Bulgarian bird Society. For more information on bird monitoring or if you like to participate in a Bird Monitoring program please contact:
NAME ADRES WEBSITE
49 50 Monitoring Amphibians Description of the group The Bulgarian amphibians consists of salamanders, newts, frogs and toads. The total number of native species is 16, from which 6 species are selected as target species of the NBMS (see table 1). The loss of habitat is the major threat for amphibians.
Table 1 Amphibian species selected for monitoring in the NBMS Bulgarian name Latin name Triturus alpestris Triturus cristatus dobrogicus Bombina bombina Pelobates fuscus Pelobates syriacus balcanicus Rana graeca
Habitat and biotope Amphibians are mainly found in or near isolated waters. Rana graeca is mainly found near rivers and streams up to 1500 meters altitude. It is found at Kresnenska Klisura gorge and Erma river gorge. Also both Triturus species can be found near streams. Triturus alpestris is the only species that occurs in the high mountains up to 2500 m altitude. Other species are found near swamps, lakes and arable land near villages.
A description of the habitats will be given on the key cards.
Recognize species and sexes Recognising amphibian target species require some training. Species can be identified at several stages like type of eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults. Identifying eggs and larvae requires special training. Adults are relatively easy to distinguish. The characteristics of the target species will be given on the key cards.
Methodology Observers may participate in the monitoring program in two ways: • By executing field monitoring using transect sampling or whole site survey. For this purpose, you should carefully read the information below, in order to plan your field trips in the nature. • By registering occasional observations like road kills and other observations.
Duration and frequency of monitoring Every year 5 to 7 on-site visits are needed, each lasting for 2 or 3 days. The visits are scheduled according to expert’s judgment but at least 3 visits should be made during mating season in order to cover the beginning, the culmination and the end of season.
Table 2 Optimal survey periods of selected amphibian species Species J F M A M J J A S O N D Triturus alpestris Triturus cristatus dobrogicus Bombina bombina Pelobates fuscus Pelobates syriacus balcanicus Rana graeca most activity limited activity no activity
51 Weather conditions Calm warm days with no wind are preferred for field surveys. The absence of wind gives a smooth water surface, which is ideal for sightings of eggs or animals. For a chorus of calling males, warm and preferable humid nights are recommended.
Checklist of all materials needed for monitoring • Field map • Field form (or inquiry form) • Pen • Rubber boots and rubber chemical socks for each member of the team • Halogen flashlights, head-lights, Petromax lanterns for each team • Long-handled (telescopic) fishing nets to catch animals • Inflattable boat • Digital camera for photo registration of specimens • Thermometer • Binoculars, spotting scopes, tripods • Precision (electronic) scales
52 Field form / Key card?
53 54 Monitoring Reptiles Description of the group The Bulgarian reptile group consists of tortoises, turtles, lizards and snakes. The total number of native species is 36, from which 15 species are selected as target species of the NBMS (see table 1). During the first half of the 20th century most species were abundant. Today reptile species have disappeared from many places in Bulgaria and some are close to extinction or even became already extinct. Strong negative influences have exerted (and will continue to exert) from the cultivation of natural habitats and the collection of species for eating, pets and/or pseudo-traditional medicines. In order to prevent extinction all species are protected by the Bulgaria biodiversity Act and international treaties.
Table 1 Reptile species selected for monitoring in the NBMS Bulgarian name Latin name Mauremys caspica rivulata Testudo hermanni boettgeri Testudo graeca ibera Crysemys scripta elegans Lacerta vivipara Lacerta praticola pontica Ophisops elegans ehrenbergii Pseudopus apodus thracius Eryx jaculus turcius Coluber rubriceps thracius Elaphe q. quatuorlineata Elaphe q. sauromates Elaphe situla Telescopus fallax Vipera ursinii
Habitat and biotope The habitat and biotope varies per species. Some reptiles can adjust to different habitat types where other species have very specific demands for their environment. For example both tortoises can be found in forest and bushes, open pastures and meadows and small gardens, vineyards of other mixed places. A description of the habitats is given on the key cards.
Recognize closely related species and sexes Some reptile species are closely related and not easy to distinguish. Males and females can sometimes only be identified by a specialist. Relevant keys for the identification of species or sexes is given on the key cards.
Methodology Observers may participate in the monitoring program in two ways: • By executing field monitoring using transect sampling. For this purpose, you should carefully read the information below, in order to plan your field trips in the nature. • By filling down the inquiry form for the relative number of reptiles in your area, and to inquire other people who, in your opinion, may have information on the species distribution in the past and present (for example see tortoises inquiry form in the appendix).
The search for reptiles is done by walking through areas looking for the species of your interest in/near appropriate habitat. It is not obligatory to determine the route in advance – it is enough to move through appropriate places during this walk. It is however required to repeat the same route during the following visits, since this is the only way to compare data and possibly discover trends.
55 There are two ways to find a appropriate monitoring site: • Find an area (region) in your region with approximately 20 hectares of appropriate habitats (for example, 450 / 450 m, 200 / 1000 m, 100 / 2000 m). If you live in a place, where there are not too many natural habitat is remaining but reptiles are still found, the monitoring area may be eventually smaller. • Contact the nearest REWI or National Park. Address information can be found on the Internet at www…………… or in your local telephone book. You will receive a simple form and a map of the site selected for you.
Reptiles are sought out in two ways: • First, carefully watch the ground ahead and aside while walking (5-10 meters around you) and at the same time listen for a sound of moving animals. • Second, at each 30 steps, stop for 5-10 seconds, in order to listen carefully without the adverse noise of your own steps and/or breathing. While listening, you should look around a perimeter of 10-20 meters for animals that are trying to avoid you or trying to hide. If you hear a potential reptile slowly move towards the point from where the sound is coming, until you see the animal. After several hearings of reptiles, you will be able to distinguish them easily from the noise of birds, small mammals or the wind. It is desirable that you walk alone. Friends may walk in parallel with you, but on another route, approx. 30 meters apart from you. If however you prefer to be with two or more people, walk one by one, do not speak too much and in no case loudly!
!!!Attention: All animals may carry and transfer dangerous diseases or to be infested with parasites. In addition some reptiles can bite and/or be poisons. It is in the interest of your health to follow some simple rules. Stay at distance of species that you don’t know or species that are known to be dangerous. If you must handle animals wash your hands with soap before you touch your face, food or belongings related to feeding. Always carry with you a little water for washing and some soap. A small bottle of medical alcohol (available at the pharmacy) that you can additionally use to disinfect your hands (especially if you cannot wash them well) will be a plus. To avoid a direct contact with animals, you can take a plastic bag and use it like a glove.
Duration and frequency of monitoring A location should be visited 3 times a year. It is desirable to have at least one observation round during the most active season. The duration of one observation should be 1 hour. If observations are done for more hours, separate forms need to be filled in for each hour. One location should at least be observed for one or two hours (1 or 2 forms), but 5 or 10 hours of observations (with the corresponding number of filled forms) would be better.
Planning of field visits (season, time of the day) Reptiles are observed in their activity season. The probability of detecting animals depends from the period of the year, the time of the day in combination with the weather conditions and monitoring region. Most reptiles are active from spring till autumn. Table 2 shows all selected reptiles and their period of activity. The most active period during the day also varies depending on the species. In general reptiles can be found between 10 and 16 o’clock during springtime. In summertime when the temperature increases, activities are limited to early morning till approximately 11 o’clock and in the late afternoon from approximately 17 till 19 o’clock.
56 Table 2 Optimal survey periods of all selected reptile species (to be completed) Species J F M A M J J A S O N D Mauremys caspica rivulata Testudo hermanni boettgeri Testudo graeca ibera Crysemys scripta elegans Lacerta vivipara Lacerta praticola pontica Ophisops elegans ehrenbergii Pseudopus apodus thracius Eryx jaculus turcius Coluber rubriceps thracius Elaphe q. quatuorlineata Elaphe q. sauromate Elaphe situla Telescopus fallax Vipera ursinii most activity limited activity no activity
Weather conditions Reptiles are cold-blooded animals. Therefore reptiles are particularly active when the weather is warm. The best temperature is between 18 and 28 degrees centigrade when in the shadow a man can stay in a T-shirt and feel comfortably. In early spring, during sunny days, reptiles may appear even in colder weather. They can be observed at small open spots where they warm up near sheltering vegetation or rocks. The animals prefer the sunny weather, but if it is warm enough, clouds are permitted. Reptiles don’t like strong wind, even if it is sporadic only, just as they don’t like the rain. In such weather most animals will be hiding. Also, most reptiles will be hiding if the previous days were rainy and the ground surface is still very wet. Is this true for (almost) all reptile species?
Checklist of all materials needed for monitoring • Field map • Field form (or inquiry form) • Pen • Watch • Ruler • Water and soap /Medical spirit for disinfecting of the hands after handling animals
57 Field form and explanation National System for Monitoring the Biodiversity Field form for observation of reptiles by non specialist observers A.* Temporary number of the observation route (by the observer): Date: Day Month Year
B. *Start time: End time: (1 hour in total !)
C. * Name: profession / occupation: body height in cm: Contacts (optional): address: phone: E-mail: D. Municipality: Settlement (site name): Location site code* (if available):
E. * Name of the site, situation towards the closest settlement, characteristic landmarks – roads, hamlets etc. (if no code is available yet): I wish to receive a site code number for constant observations F. * Habitat type description (to be filled in after finishing the route). Fill in the approximate minutes of walking within any of these habitat types: 1. x …..minutes. 2. xx …..minutes. 3. xxx …..minutes. 4.xxxx…..minutes. G. * Weather description (to be filled in after finishing the route). Mark the valid answer: 1. sunny changing cloudy cloudy 2. cool warm hot 3. silent weak wind strong wind 4. no rain slight shower from time to time strong short shower constant raining 5. ground surface is dry ground surface is wet H * Species: Approx. length: Sex : Habitat type How was this Distance for example M – male (enter corresponding Specimen (steps) 1- up to 5 cm F – female number from line F) found? between your 2- up to 10 cm S - seen trail and the H – heard animal: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
For example see tortoise key card with tortoise field form.
58 Explanation of field form Line A Fill in the site number and the date as requested.
Line B Fill in the start and finish time of your observation.
Line C In line c some personal information is asked. The information on body height gives an indication on your chances of visual observation of species. If you give us your name and address (electronic or postal) you may receive the information bulletin containing the results of the NBMS and species conservation. Adding this information is of course optional.
Line D Fill in the information as requested.
Line E If no site number is available yet; please enter the closest settlement and some brief site characteristics (landmarks like roads)
Line F Note somewhere during your walk how much time you have been passing through any of the appropriate habitats pointed in line F of the form. Fill in the minutes in the boxes when finished with the observations. The exact habitat types will differ between the different reptile species.
Habitat descriptions of tortoises (see also tortoise key card) The light forests and bushes are marked by number 1. You will distinguish them from the shady and moist forests by the presence of light spots, grass cover on the ground, bushes in the forest (and not only thick layer of leaves). Such are mainly the oak forests, and particularly the forests with southern exposition. These bushes and forests may be sparser and may still feature small areas with more open places. However, when the forest or the bushes become even more stripped with grasslands, such place is already classified as number 2 – sparse forests and bushes. In the same category are put the sparse forests of pine-tree, the pastures and the meadows with thicker or sparser bushes. Appropriate for seeking tortoises are also the open pasturelands and meadows (number 3), but only when nearby (within 100 meters) there are bushes or a forest. In such cases it is best to walk on the border between the forest and the grasslands. Therefore, if you have passed through pastures and grasslands, which possess only single trees and bushes, and there is no forest or bushes within 100m, you must classify them as number 4. Another appropriate habitat is number 5. These are the places, where small gardens, vineyards or other mixed places with pastures, bushes, trees, gullies and land – borders are found. Places without forest or bush vegetation, or with cultivated areas which are fused into larger parcels (more than 100 meters) without boundary strips, should be avoided.
Line G Mark the valid weather condition behind the five parameters.
Line H When you notice or hear a reptile, locate the animal and begin filling in the table in line H. The following steps should be taken: Determine the species (species specific information on the key card). Estimate length of the animal, use a ruler if possible. Write down 1, 2 or 3, as marked in the form (species specific information on the key card). If possible try to determine the sex and write down M or F in the appropriate field. Write down the habitat type, in which you have found the animal, using the codes in line F of the form. Write down how exactly (seen) the specimen has been noticed, using one of the two possible letters in the table. Write down the distance between you and the location of animal (an important information, which will help the specialists to calculate the number of reptiles per unit of area). There are two possibilities to do this: A – if you have seen it, go perpendicularly towards the imaginative line of the route which you were walking before you have discovered the tortoise (not towards the point from which you have seen it) and count the s teps to this line. B – if you have heard it, count the steps to the point where you have initially heard it.
After this, your work is done and you may continue the walk on your route.
Collection of the field forms Filled in field forms should be send to your local coordinator: This can be done at the following address xxxxxxx Field forms can also be filled in electronically at the following website: xxxxxxxx
59 Appendixes Key card tortoises A4 size, black and white
60 Tortoises inquiry form Aim: Inquiry near municipalities in order to collect information about the relative abundance of tortoises and the potential factors threatening their conservation. (Correct answers should be circled) Name of closest bigger town in the area ………… Name of the settlement (or site name) ………………………. Date of inquiry: day ………. month ……….… year Inquirer : ………………………………………………….. Are there any terrestrial tortoises (local names provided) recently seen around your settlement: YES NO If yes, How many tortoises can you see at maximum? (most suitable place/under best conditions): One per year Several per year Several per month Several per week 1-2 daily 1-5 per hour More than 10 per hour Can you specify some site names, for which you know for sure, that tortoises can be frequently found (if possible incl. in direction from the settlement– south, north, east, west)? …………………………………………………………. ……………………………...... …………… …… What is your information source of the above three questions? Personal observations Tortoises killed on the road Conversations with other people Other ……………………………… During the last five (5) years, the tortoises in your area are: Decreasing Stable in number Increasing When decreasing, what do you think are the reasons behind this: Catching Pesticides Wild boars Land use change Other: ………………… When increasing, what do you think are the reasons behind this: Stop of catching Stop of pesticide use Decrease of wild boars Land use change Other: ……………………………………………………………………... Why do people catch tortoises in your area? Food Pets Making souvenirs Trade Pseudo-traditional medicine Other………………………………………………………………………………………….. Who collects the most tortoises in your area? Local people Local and external people External people Foreigners Others……..…………………………………………………………………………….. Your observations over the nature in the last 5 years are the result of your work as: Hunter Fisherman .....Shepherd Farmer Forestry worker Officer in the local State Forestry Department Other…………………………………………………….. Additional notes and interesting observations: ……………………………………………………………………………
(If the inquirer is a visitor, it is advisable not to fill up the questionnaire in front of local people, especially if it is not sure, that this will not make them feel insecure. He/she must therefore learn the questions by heart in order to collect the necessary information in free conversation, after which may immediately start filling up the form when getting alone).
Filled in inquiry forms can be send the same address as the field forms.
61 62 Monitoring Fishes Description of the group According to the contemporary investigations, the ichtyofauna of Bulgaria consists of 217 species. There is a substantial gap in the information about the biological potential of the fish resources, the dynamics of their biomass, the nutrition basis, the reproduction, the real conservation status of the rare species, etc..
From a total of 217 fish species described for Bulgaria, 51 are proposed as target species for the NBMS. For 16 species the monitoring should be started as soon as possible. Those species are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Vis species selected as priority for monitoring in the NBMS Bulgarian name Species Huso huso Acipenser gueldenstaedti Acipenser ruthenus Acipenser stellatus Acipenser nudiventris Acipenser sturio Cyprinus carpio (wild form) Barbatula bureschi Salmo trutta Leuciscus borysthenicus Chalcalburnus chalcoides Gobio kessleri Gobio uranoscopus Rutilus frisii
Recognize closely related species and sexes Some fish species are closely related and can only be identified by a specialist.
Methodology Fish monitoring is done with fishnets, dragnets or electro-catching. Specialists carry out the survey.
Duration and frequency of monitoring Annual monitoring is preferred.
Field forms & material There are no methods available for non-specialists.
63 64 Monitoring Invertebrates Description of the group Up to nowadays, more than 27 000 species of invertebrate animals are described for the Bulgarian fauna. They are distributed in the whole country, practically in all kinds of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. Many of the invertebrate animals are common species, but an important part of them are endemic, relict or stenotopic. Among the endemic ones there is plenty of rare taxonomic groups (at the level of species and/or subspecies), and also some local endemics. The invertebrate animal species proposed for monitoring are a total of 252. 74 species of them are recommended for immediate monitoring. For a complete list of species we refer to the NBMS report.
Distribution / habitat p.m. / tbc
Identification of species Taking into account the large number of species, of which some are closely related, invertebrate survey is a job to be carried out by specialists. Nevertheless there are some species that, with a little training, can be easily identified in the field by non-specialists. For those species Key cards will be provided to help finding and identification in the field.
Methodology Terrestrial species are monitored using on-ground traps. They are useful for work with live organisms and for collection of fixed material for laboratory investigations. Aquatic species are sampled with nets. Some species are monitored using visual counting methods. Specialists carry out the survey.
Duration and frequency of monitoring Annual monitoring is preferred.
Field forms & material There are no methods available for non-specialists.
65 66 Monitoring Habitats Description In the habitats directive a list of habitats is given that deserves protection on an international level. The list of habitats relevant for Bulgaria is presented in the NBMS report.
Identification of habitats Habitats are defined by specialists based on species composition.
Methodology Specialists carry out the survey. Monitoring can be done by remote sensing techniques (aerial photo’s satellite images) combined with on site field surveys. Species monitoring programs can provide valuable information on the species composition and quality development of habitats.
Duration and frequency of monitoring Habitats are rather stable. Under natural conditions there are no short-term fluctuations in habitat size and quality expected. This implies that the monitoring frequency, the mapping of habitats, can be once in 6 years. Alternatively sites can be checked yearly for possible changes (e.g. in land use) and mapped when potential change is registered.
Field forms & material There are no methods available for non-specialists.
67