FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE …€¦ · FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ON...

1

National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE PROJECT

Pilot test of ecosystem extent and condition account in

physical unit

THEME: 05.1 – PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTS AND CLIMATE

CHANGE RELATED STATISTICS

GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER No. 05122.2017.003-2017.644

Duration: 01.02.2018 – 31.03.2019

Prepared by:

Stefan Tsonev

Ivaylo Rangelov

Lyuba Yaneva

Project leader: Peter Petrov

NSI of Bulgaria

Sofia, March 2019

2

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Main target of the project ....................................................................................................................... 4

3. Inventory of the existing spatial data sources ......................................................................................... 4

3.1 EU data sources ................................................................................................................................ 4

3.2 Data sources in Bulgaria ................................................................................................................... 4

4. Some elementary requirements to data sources in context of their usability for the purposes of the

ecosystem accounting ................................................................................................................................. 5

5. Review of existing data sources in Bulgaria and their usability for ecosystems accounting ................ 5

6. Extent accounts....................................................................................................................................... 5

6.1 Combining Corine Land Cover with national grid 1x1 km2............................................................. 6

6.2 Combining of Corine Land Cover classes split on a grid and their corresponding MAES

ecosystem types in Natura 2000 protected sites ..................................................................................... 9

6.3 Combining of Corine Land Cover classes split on a grid with mapped ecosystem types under

MAES ................................................................................................................................................... 12

6.3.1 Calculation approach for ecosystems types ............................................................................. 12

6.3.2 Urban Ecosystems ................................................................................................................... 13

6.3.3 Cropland .................................................................................................................................. 14

6.3.4 Grassland ................................................................................................................................. 17

6.3.5 Forest ....................................................................................................................................... 18

6.3.6 Marine ..................................................................................................................................... 20

6.4 Cadastre data .................................................................................................................................. 22

6.5 Data from Agricultural census 2010............................................................................................... 23

6.6 Combining Forest Cadastre Data with BANSIK Survey ............................................................... 24

7. Soil map of Bulgaria ............................................................................................................................. 26

7.1 Survey on land market and rents in agriculture .............................................................................. 27

8. Game and non-wood forest products .................................................................................................... 28

9. Combining cadastre data with data from Statistical survey on market price of dwellings and real

estates ....................................................................................................................................................... 32

10. Condition accounts ............................................................................................................................. 32

11. Capacity building and developing a community of practice .............................................................. 33

12. Benefits and conclusions .................................................................................................................... 33

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. 34

ANNEX .................................................................................................................................................... 35

3

1. Introduction

GDP is the sum of the values (market) of the goods and services produced in the country for a given

period of time. Two types of capital are included in the production of goods and services – human and

natural.

Unlike human capital, the value of natural capital is very often underestimated or not accounted. Such is

the case with the ecosystem services, widely exploited by the society but underestimated.

To avoid future economic development without taking into account the condition of the ecosystems, a

set of measures are foreseen by the EU. In the “EU biodiversity strategy to 2020/COM(2011) 244/”,

under Action 5 is written:

“Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU Member States, with the assistance of

the Commission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national

territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration

of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020.”

The part of the text where mentioned “accounting and reporting systems” is directly aimed at the

statistical offices of member countries which have the responsibility for developing national and

environmental accounts methodology and the corresponding data reporting.

The ecosystem accounts can use data, obtained mainly from three data sources, classified according to

the purposes they serve – statistical, administrative and scientific. An important requirement to be taken

into account - most of the data sources should be georeferenced.

To improve the knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU Member States, a knowledge

innovation project on an integrated system for natural capital and ecosystem services accounting (KIP

INCA) was started in 2015. Partners in the project are Eurostat, DG Research and Innovation (RTD),

DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA).Eurostat is a co-

ordinator and project manager1.

The project has two main phases:

1st - aims to map and assess ecosystems and their services in the EU;

2nd

- aims to evaluate ecosystem services and integrate them into accounting and reporting

systems.

The first phase (2015- 2016) is finalized. The second phase (2016 – 2020) is ongoing. This project is

developed as an activity under phase 2.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/capital_accounting/pdf/KIP_INCA_final_report_phase-1.pdf

4

2. Main target of the project

Up to now in the NSI of Bulgaria there is no experience in the field of ecosystems accounting. So the

project is a first attempt in this area and the main targets of the project are:

Pilot test of ecosystem extent and condition accounts;

Improve the usefulness of existing data source and extending the source data available,

including geo-referenced data;

Capacity building and developing a community of practice organizing workshops,

conferences or seminars with national stakeholders dealing with specific aspects of

ecosystem accounting and potential users;

Enlarge the knowledges of statisticians about ecosystems and ecosystems accounting.

Taking into account the initial stages of work, the review of the data sources will include physical asset

accounts, but not monetary ones.

3. Inventory of the existing spatial data sources

Some of spatial data sources on ecosystems are developed by EU as a result of the EU political designs

and others - by national authorities at country level.

3.1 EU data sources

Natura 2000, which is an ecological network composed of sites designated under the Birds Directive

(Special Protection Areas, SPAs) and the Habitats Directive (Sites of Community Importance, SCIs, and

Special Areas of Conservation, SACs)1;

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services – MAES, georeferenced data, resulting

in the mapping activities of Bulgaria as a EU member state, according the above mentioned action 5 of

EU biodiversity strategy to 20202;

There are also EU data sources serving other purposes, but providing data for ecosystems: Corine Land

Cover (CLC), a Copernicus Land Monitoring Service3;

Land Use and Coverage Area frame Survey (LUCAS), a European field survey program funded and

executed by Eurostat4.

3.2 Data sources in Bulgaria

On national level, in Bulgaria, there is a wide variety of possible data sources like cadastre maps,

geographic and administrative maps, specialised maps and others. The choice of the data sources

depends on the specific cognitive tasks and the accessibility of the data.

The above mentioned task “Capacity building and developing a community of practice…” was aimed to

serve the building of a support infrastructure among other institutions including data accessibility.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/db_gis/index_en.htm

2 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes

3 https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover

4 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/LUCAS_-_Land_use_and_land_cover_survey

5

4. Some elementary requirements to data sources in context of their usability

for the purposes of the ecosystem accounting

From practical point of view we defined some requirements for the data needed for ecosystem

accounting which do not differ from those for the traditional statistical data1.

The data coverage should be the same as other environmental economic accounts – the whole

country.

Observations should refer to a same period of time - one or several years. Data referring to

different periods of time may have limited usage or be completely unusable.

Variables to be presented at strong scales of measurement. Variables with no numerical value

may have limited usage or be completely unusable.

If data are not produced by a comprehensive survey, data should be collected by representative

sampling surveys. Sample selection methodology, procedures and field visits should be

documented. Unrepresentative data and/or data with no documented observations may have

limited usage or be completely unusable.

5. Review of existing data sources in Bulgaria and their usability for

ecosystems accounting

As the ecosystems are spatial objects, their main characteristics are length, perimeter, area and altitude.

The available spatial data sources with information about ecosystems are:

Corine Land Cover (CLC), a Copernicus Land Monitoring Service;

BANSIK Bulgarian Survey of the Agricultural and Economic Conjuncture;

Natura 2000 maps;

MAES maps;

Bulgarian Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Agency maps;

Institute of soil science, agro-technologies and plant protection “Nikola Pushkarov”

(ISSAPP) maps;

GEOSTAT 1km2 population grid.

It was clear at the very beginning of the work that only the data from CLC and BANSIK are meeting the

requirement for observations that refer to a given period of time – CLC every six years and BANSIK

annually.

6. Extent accounts

According to the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting 20122, page 23:

Ecosystem extent refers to the size of an ecosystem asset. For ecosystem assets, the concept of

extent is generally measured in terms of surface area, for example, hectares of a land-cover type.

Ecosystem extent accounts show the opening and closing stock of land in a spatial unit (ha or

km²) for a range of ecosystem types.

1 “In this context, it is noted that general statistical quality frameworks, such as the United Nations National Data

Quality Assurance Framework, are applicable to biophysical data as well as socioeconomic data. These

frameworks are tools designed to assure that data are collected and compiled according to international standards

and are subject to appropriate quality assessment procedures”.

SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, United Nations New York, 2014 page 38 2 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/6925551/KS-05-14-103-EN-N.pdf

6

In developing ecosystem extent we have strictly followed the typological approach which divides

different ecosystem assets into ecosystem types – classes that can occur at more geographical

locations (i.e., temperate broadleaf and mixed forests).

According to the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting 2012, page 25:

A basic spatial unit (BSU) is a small spatial area. Ideally, the BSU should be formed by

delineating small areas known as tessellations (e.g., of 1 square kilometre (km2), typically by

overlaying a grid on a map of the relevant territory, but BSUs may also be land parcels delineated

by a cadastre or by using remote-sensing pixels. Grid squares, each ideally a BSU, are delineated

to be as small as possible given available information, landscape diversity and analytical

requirements. The model can also accommodate different scale grids through spatial nesting (e.g.,

nesting of a grid of 100 square metres (m2) within a 1 km

2 grid). It is particularly advantageous for

each BSU to refer to the same spatial area over time.

The next step of our work is to integrate the available data sources into a common framework.

6.1 Combining Corine Land Cover with national grid 1x1 km2

Our approach based on Corine Land Cover data includes aggregation and splitting of the Corine Land

Cover polygons into the standard 1x1km2 population grid.

As a result we obtained information about the area of every cell distributed by land cover classes. The

sum of the distributed area equals to 1 km2. This way the attributive table of the grid is stored into Excel

file.

The files for every year of CLC inventory have 180271 rows and 48 columns. The first column

contains the grid ID’s and the first row contains the land cover codes (44). Each cell contains the area

(km2) covered by the given land cover class. There are also additional columns with the number of the

population in the grid cell and other information. Every change during the years can be identified within

one square kilometer.

Here it is important to note that the same “grid” approach is applied where possible to other spatial data

sources.

For ecosystem calculations the above table with 44 land cover classes can be aggregated into 10 types

of ecosystems. Next is the table used for this purpose:

7

Table 1. Correspondence between Corine Land Cover and MAES ecosystem classes

CLC Level 3 Ecosystem types level 2

1.1.1. Continuous urban fabric

Urban

1.1.2. Discontinuous urban fabric

1.2.1. Industrial and commercial units

1.2.2. Road and rail networks and associated land

1.2.3. Port areas

1.2.4. Airports

1.3.1. Mineral extraction sites

1.3.2. Dump sites

1.3.3. Construction sites

1.4.1. Green urban areas

1.4.2. Sport and leisure facilities

2.1.1. Non-irrigated arable land

Cropland

2.1.2. Permanently irrigated land

2.1.3. Rice fields

2.2.1. Vineyards

2.2.2. Fruit trees and berry plantations

2.2.3. Olive groves

2.3.1. Pastures Grassland

2.4.1. Annual crops associated with permanent crops

Cropland 2.4.2. Complex cultivation patterns

2.4.3. Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation

2.4.4. Agro-forestry areas

3.1.1. Broad-leaved forest

Woodland and forest 3.1.2. Coniferous forest

3.1.3. Mixed forest

3.2.1. Natural grassland Grassland

3.2.2. Moors and heathland Heathland and shrub

3.2.3. Sclerophyllous vegetation

3.2.4. Transitional woodland shrub Woodland and forest

3.3.1. Beaches, dunes, and sand plains

Sparsely vegetated areas

3.3.2. Bare rock

3.3.3. Sparsely vegetated areas

3.3.4. Burnt areas

3.3.5. Glaciers and perpetual snow

4.1.1. Inland marshes Wetlands

4.1.2. Peatbogs

4.2.1. Salt marshes Marine inlets and transitional

waters 4.2.2. Salines

4.2.3. Intertidal flats

5.1.1. Water courses Rivers and lakes

5.1.2. Water bodies

5.2.1. Coastal lagoons Marine inlets and transitional

waters 5.2.2. Estuaries

5.2.3. Sea and ocean Marine

After processing the Excel data tables the summarized results in the changes of the stocks for 1990-

2012 are presented in the next table:

8

Table 2: Ecosystem extent accounting including stock and change of area for 10 ecosystem types at

national level, based on Corine Land Cover (CLC) for the period 1990 – 2012 in square kilometers

(km²).

MAES ECOSYSTEM TYPES LEVEL 2

AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TOTAL Urban Cropland Grassland

Woodland and forest

Heathland and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated

areas

Inland wetlands

Rivers

and

lakes

Marine

inlets and transitional

waters

Marine

Ecosystem extent 1990 5440.4 55113.0 8575.1 45579.1 331.4 653.4 107.0 1129.2 11.9 2183.5 119124.2

Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 27.8 2194.2 395.3 3257.3 8.9 78.1 2.3 36.0 0.0 1834.1 7834.0

Additions to initial ecosystem extent 35.1 438.0 72.4 720.1 0.5 10.2 3.1 1.5 0.0 16.9 1297.8

Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) 7.3 -1756.2 -322.9 -2537.1 -8.4 -68.0 0.8 -34.5 0.0 -1817.2 -6536.2

Net additions as % of initial year 0.1 -3.2 -3.8 -5.6 -2.5 -10.4 0.8 -3.1 0.0 -83.2 -5.5

Total turnover of ecosystem

extent(reductions + additions) 62.9 2632.3 467.6 3977.4 9.4 88.3 5.4 37.5 0.0 1851.0 9131.8

Total turnover as % of initial year 1.2 4.8 5.5 8.7 2.8 13.5 5.1 3.3 0.0 84.8 7.7

Stable ecosystem stock in km2 5412.6 52918.7 8179.9 42321.8 322.5 575.3 104.7 1093.2 11.9 349.5 111290.2

% of ecosystem stock that was stable 99.5 96.0 95.4 92.9 97.3 88.0 97.8 96.8 100.0 16.0 93.4



Additions to initial ecosystem extent 547.1 4986.6 1715.0 3365.1 31.4 139.0 13.9 112.9 3.7 6.5 10921.3 Net additions to ecosystem

extent(additions - reductions) -171.2 323.4 -112.7 -384.7 -56.3 -37.1 -2.8 59.8 3.4 -6.9 -385.1

Net additions as % of initial year -3.1 0.6 -1.4 -0.9 -17.4 -6.3 -2.6 5.5 28.2 -1.9 -0.3









Net additions to ecosystem

extent(additions - reductions) 41.2 13.2 -49.9 -7.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0

Net additions as % of initial year 0.8 0.0 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 63.4 344.4 66.2 395.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.1 876.5








Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) -122.6 -1419.5 -485.5 -2929.0 -64.8 -104.2 -1.9 27.0 3.4 -1824.0 -6921.3

Net additions as % of initial year -2.3 -2.6 -5.7 -6.4 -19.5 -15.9 -1.8 2.4 28.2 -83.5 -5.8







9

The table shows that the ecosystems Cropland (47,8 %) followed by Woodland and forests (38,0 %)

have the predominant part covering most of the area in Bulgaria and have a major role in providing

ecosystem services.

Between 1990 and 2012 cropland and forests have shown a decreasing trend. The extent of cropland

has a net decrease of 2.6 % (1 419 km2) and forests and woodland has a net decrease of 6.4 % (2929

km2) between 1990 and 2012.

The largest reductions are accounted in broad leaved forests 7.5 % ( 2964.21 km2) and the smallest in

coniferous forests 4.7 % (652.40 km2). On the other hand the mixed forests have a net increase of 2.4 %

(151.04 km2).

The decrease in forest area can be partly explained by the by active deforestation and timber logging.

The decrease in cropland area can be explained with the fact that after 1990 there has been a reduction

in the number of agricultural holdings and agricultural land. The additions to land principally occupied

by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation (2050.22 km2) and a net increase of 1.6 %

(167.4 km2) show positive trend.

The grasslands have a net decrease of 5.6 % (485.5 km2) between 1990 and 2012. The pastures have a

net decrease of 5.2% (215.01 km2) and natural grassland have a net decrease of 6.1% (270.5 km2).

The urban ecosystems have a very small net decrease of 2.5 % (122.6 km2) between 1990 and 2012.

From them the green urban areas have a net decrease of 12.7 % (6.19 km2).

The area of river and lake ecosystems and marine inlets show an expansion between 1990 and 2012.

This can be attributed mainly to an increase in rivers and other water bodies. The water bodies have a

net increase of 3.6 % ( 22.7 km2) and rivers of 0.8 % (4.3 km2).

The loss of а vulnerable ecosystem, wetlands, seems to have levelled off for the first time in the period

1990-2000, halting the long-term trend. Between 1990 and 2012 there is a small net decrease of

wetlands in Bulgaria of 1.8% (1.9 km2).

Vulnerable ecosystems such as heathland and sparsely vegetated land (dunes, beaches, sand plains,

glaciers and bare rocks) continued to disappear between 1990 and 2012. The net decrease in heathland

of 19.5% (64.8 km2) and sparsely vegetated land of 15.9% (104.2 km2).

6.2 Combining of Corine Land Cover classes split on a grid and their

corresponding MAES ecosystem types in Natura 2000 protected sites

Natura 2000 is the key instrument to protect biodiversity in the European Union. It is an ecological

network of protected sites, set up to ensure the survival of Europe's most valuable species and habitats.

By September 2016 a total of 339 protected sites are designated in Bulgaria by Natura 2000 with the

following count:

SITETYPE Number

A -SPA (Special Protection Areas) 106

B - SCI (Special Conservation Interest) 220

C - both SPA and SCI 13

Grand Total 339

The initial work file is downloaded from the site of the European Environment Agency (EEA) - Natura

2000 and 2016 – Shapefile (Natura 2000 Spatial Data) containing the following attributes:

10

Table 3. Attributes of Natura 2000

Field name Field definition Note Data type

SITECODE

Unique code

which forms the

key-item within

the database.

The unique code comprises nine characters and

consists of two components. The first two

codes are the country code the remaining seven

characters, which serve to create a unique

alphanumeric code for each site.

text(9)

SITENAME Site name in the

local language. Site name in the local language. text(240)

RELEASE_DA

TE

Date in which the

information is

publicated

The date when the information reported for the

site was last changed. The data field takes the

form of the year (four digits) followed by the

month in numeric form (two digits).

date/time

MS

Two digit

country code the

site belongs to

BG text(2)

SITETYPE

Type of

classification for

the site.

A: SPA (Special Protection Areas); B: SCI

(Special Conservation Interest); C: both SPA

and SCI.

text(1)

The first step of our work includes the elimination of the overlapping polygons in the initial Natura

2000 protected sites layer which will lead to double accounting of the coverage area. The layer includes

Bird Directive areas: SPA sites = A types; Habitat Directive areas: SCI = B types; and the sites that are

designated as both SPA and SCI = C types. The full Natura 2000 network is calculated by combining all

site types (A + B + C).

After cleaning the overlaps between A+B site types (C were deleted) the number of the polygons was

reduced to 236 site codes with a total area including the aquatory of 40907 km2.

The data source is the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MOEW)1

The extent of the ecosystems and the reductions, additions and total turnover changes in the main 10

ecosystem types covered in Natura 2000 were calculated following the same approach.

We used as target the layers containing the split Corine Land Cover classes into the 1x1 km grid for

1990, 2000, 2006 and 2012.

The final map for 1990, 2000, 2006 and 2012 was created by joining the objects from layer with the

cleaned Natura 2000 polygons without overlapping and duplicates with the layers containing the split

Corine Land Cover classes into the 1x1 km grid. Next the CLC classes are aggregated into 10 MAES

ecosystem types. The final results are presented in table 2:

1 https://www.moew.government.bg/static/media/ups/tiny/file/Press/Konsultacii/2013/Oktober/NPRD.pdf

11

Table 4: Ecosystem extent accounts for stock and change of area (km²) by ecosystems in Natura 2000,

according to CLC 1990 – 2012

AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland

and forest

Heathland

and shrub

Sparsely vegetated

areas

Inland

wetlands

Rivers and

lakes

Marine

inlets and

transitional waters

Marine


Reductions to initial ecosystem

extent 1190.2 8596.2 1293.7 5919.9 13.0 106.3 16.0 273.9 3.3 1061.9 18474.5



extent(additions - reductions) -1185.3 -8540.2 -1286.1 -5643.5 -12.5 -106.1 -13.3 -273.4 -3.3 -1045.8 -18109.7

Net additions as % of initial year -61.1 -45.5 -25.0 -20.4 -3.9 -18.6 -13.0 -37.6 -24.9 -80.6 -32.1



Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 749.0 10172.5 3844.1 21692.5 307.8 463.3 86.6 454.1 10.0 235.5 38015.4

% of ecosystem stock that was

stable 38.6 54.2 74.8 78.6 96.0 81.3 84.4 62.4 75.1 18.2 67.3



extent 108.1 1141.7 659.0 1550.9 80.5 119.0 11.4 14.7 0.3 7.9 3693.4



extent(additions - reductions) -21.5 23.1 8.1 -52.0 -50.5 -10.2 -4.6 41.6 3.3 -4.4 -67.0

Net additions as % of initial year -2.8 0.2 0.2 -0.2 -16.4 -2.2 -5.2 9.1 33.4 -1.7 -0.2



Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 645.8 9086.8 3192.7 20418.0 227.8 344.5 77.9 439.9 9.7 243.8 34686.8 % of ecosystem stock that was

stable 85.7 88.8 82.9 92.9 73.9 74.3 87.3 96.8 96.8 96.9 90.4



extent 5.0 30.4 17.0 62.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 115.2




Net additions as % of initial year 1.2 0.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total turnover of ecosystem



Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 727.4 10221.2 3842.9 21854.9 257.7 453.2 84.7 495.5 13.4 247.3 38198.0 % of ecosystem stock that was

stable 99.3 99.7 99.6 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 99.7




extent 1282.7 9559.7 1922.1 7293.5 93.1 223.3 24.9 280.1 3.6 1064.8 21747.8 Additions to initial ecosystem

extent 84.7 1051.8 630.4 1592.6 30.0 107.3 7.0 48.9 3.7 14.7 3571.1

Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) -1198.0 -8507.8 -1291.7 -5700.9 -63.1 -116.0 -17.9 -231.1 0.0 -1050.1 -18176.7

Net additions as % of initial year -61.8 -45.3 -25.1 -20.6 -19.7 -20.4 -17.5 -31.7 0.1 -80.9 -32.2 Total turnover of ecosystem




% of ecosystem stock that was

stable 33.9 49.1 62.6 73.6 71.0 60.8 75.7 61.5 72.7 17.9 61.5


12

The final results show that the forests ecosystems cover 57.2 % , cropland ecosystems cover 26.8 % and

grasslands cover 10 % of the protected sites under Natura 2000 network in 2012. The woodland and

forest has a net decrease of 20.6 % (5700.9 km2) ,cropland has a net decrease of 45.3 % (8507.8 km2)

and grasslands has a net decrease of 25.1 % (1291.7 km2) between 1990 and 2012 year.

The largest decrease is accounted in urban ecosystems 61.8 % (1198 km2) and marine ecosystems 80.9

(1050.1 km2). One of the reasons is that according to Corine Land Cover data for 1990 , the marine

aquatory of the country covered 1297 km2 and from 2000 to 2012 it decreased to 247.3 km2.

The inland wetlands and freshwater ecosystems which are the most important water habitats for the

protected water bird species under Natura 2000 also decreased between 1990 and 2012.

6.3 Combining of Corine Land Cover classes split on a grid with mapped

ecosystem types under MAES1

The MAES data cover about 67% of the country's territory, which is outside Natura 2000. According

MAES typology there are three classification levels of ecosystems, presented in the next table:

Table 5. Mapped ecosystem types outside Natura 2000

6.3.1 Calculation approach for ecosystems types

Each classification class is stored as a separate spatial layer. The calculations are made by layers in

same way as we proceeded with CLC. The only difference is that we used CLC data already distributed

in a grid 1x1 km.

During the working process of we found out some discrepancies between Corine Land Cover and the

Shrubs and Wetland ecosystems data. The removing of these inconsistencies is not the subject of this

project. That’s why we haven’t presented the data for these ecosystems. We shall inform the data

producers about our findings.

1 Data obtained as a result of the projects conducted by the Ministry of Environment and Waters of Bulgaria

13

6.3.2 Urban Ecosystems

The area of the urban ecosystems increased with 1 % (23.5 km2) between 1990 and 2012 year. The data

are presents in the next table.

Table 6. Ecosystem extent accounts including stock and change of area for urban ecosystems combined

with CLC classes for 1990 – 2012 in km²


AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland

and forest

Heathland

and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated areas

Inland

wetlands

Rivers

and lakes

Marine inlets and

transitional

waters

Marine





extent(additions - reductions) 20.1 -15.6 -4.2 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net additions as % of initial year 0.9 -0.7 -1.5 -0.2 -6.8 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 -0.1 0.0









extent(additions - reductions) -14.3 13.8 15.7 -16.2 -0.1 -1.6 0.2 2.9 0.0 -0.1 0.3

Net additions as % of initial year -0.6 0.6 5.8 -3.4 -60.9 -20.1 7.3 8.9 0.0 -0.4 0.0 Total turnover of ecosystem








Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) 17.7 -9.6 -6.2 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net additions as % of initial year 0.8 -0.4 -2.2 -0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0











extent(additions - reductions) 23.5 -11.4 5.3 -18.7 -0.1 -1.6 0.2 3.2 0.0 -0.1 0.3

Net additions as % of initial year 1.0 -0.5 1.9 -4.0 -63.5 -19.6 7.3 9.9 0.0 -0.5 0.0






14

Figure 1. Tendency in the changes presented by the categories “increase”/ “decrease” of the area of

mapped urban ecosystems for 1990-2012

6.3.3 Cropland

The area of the cropland decreased with 5.8 % ( -72.9 km2) between 1990 and 2012.

15

Table 7. Ecosystem extent accounts including stock and change of area for cropland ecosystems

combined with CLC classes for 1990 – 2012 in km²


AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland

and forest

Heathland

and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated

areas

Inland

wetlands

Rivers

and

lakes

Marine

inlets and

transitional

waters

Marine




extent(additions - reductions) 1.9 7.5 -10.6 2.8 -0.1 -1.0 0.3 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net additions as % of initial year 0.1 0.0 -0.8 0.1 -43.2 -5.8 4.0 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0









extent(additions - reductions) -82.8 167.8 -68.4 -22.2 -0.1 1.5 0.1 12.2 0.0 0.1 8.1

Net additions as % of initial year -6.6 0.6 -4.9 -0.9 -65.0 8.6 1.2 12.2 1.0 3.7 0.0








Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) 8.0 8.0 -18.1 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net additions as % of initial year 0.7 0.0 -1.4 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 -0.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 Total turnover of ecosystem









extent(additions - reductions) -72.9 183.3 -97.1 -16.6 -0.2 0.5 0.4 10.6 0.0 0.1 8.1

Net additions as % of initial year -5.8 0.6 -6.9 -0.7 -80.1 3.0 5.3 10.6 1.0 4.8 0.0






16


mapped cropland ecosystems for 1990-2012

17

6.3.4 Grassland

The area of the grasslands increased with 4.5 % (44.9 km2) between 1990 and 2012.

Table 8. Ecosystem extent accounts including stock and change of area for grassland ecosystems

combined with CLC classes for 1990 – 2012 in km² MAES ECOSYSTEM TYPES LEVEL 2

AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland

and forest

Heathland

and shrub

Sparsely vegetated

areas

Inland

wetlands

Rivers and

lakes

Marine

inlets and

transitional waters

Marine





extent(additions - reductions) 0.3 1.9 -4.0 1.1 -0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net additions as % of initial year 0.1 0.1 -0.4 0.1 -10.8 4.3 0.9 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0










extent(additions - reductions) -26.9 11.2 53.9 -33.5 -1.4 -5.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 -1.3

Net additions as % of initial year -6.4 0.3 5.4 -2.3 -62.2 -25.7 42.0 2.9 2.0 2.3 0.0





















Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) -24.4 16.1 44.9 -32.6 -1.7 -4.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 -1.3

Net additions as % of initial year -5.8 0.5 4.5 -2.3 -66.3 -22.4 43.2 3.2 2.0 2.3 0.0






18


mapped grassland ecosystems for 1990-2012

6.3.5 Forest

The area of the woodland and forests decreased of 0.1 % (20.1 km2) between 1990 and 2012.

Table 9. Ecosystem extent accounts including stock and change of area for forest ecosystems combined

with CLC classes for 1990 – 2012 in km²


AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland

and forest

Heathland

and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated areas

Inland

wetlands

Rivers

and lakes

Marine inlets and

transitional

waters

Marine





extent(additions - reductions) 0.8 -5.2 -5.2 10.0 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net additions as % of initial year 0.2 -0.1 -0.5 0.1 -2.2 -0.5 0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0


Total turnover as % of initial year 0.4 0.2 1.1 1.0 2.7 9.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 4.6


% of ecosystem stock that was stable 99.9 99.8 99.2 99.6 97.5 95.1 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.6



19


AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland

and forest

Heathland

and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated areas

Inland

wetlands

Rivers

and lakes

Marine inlets and

transitional

waters

Marine





extent(additions - reductions) -9.0 82.1 -40.5 -27.0 -3.7 -7.6 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 -2.7

Net additions as % of initial year -2.8 1.9 -4.2 -0.2 -50.6 -17.6 10.4 4.2 3.2 0.0




















Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) -5.1 78.0 -48.5 -20.1 -3.8 -7.5 0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 -2.8

Net additions as % of initial year -1.6 1.8 -5.0 -0.1 -51.7 -17.4 10.8 6.5 3.2 0.0 Total turnover of ecosystem






20


mapped forest ecosystems for 1990-2012

6.3.6 Marine

The area of marine ecosystems decreased of 85.6 % (1819 km2) between 1990 and 2012.

Table 10. Ecosystem extent accounts including stock and change of area for marine ecosystems



AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland

and forest

Heathland

and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated areas

Inland

wetlands

Rivers

and lakes

Marine inlets and

transitional

waters

Marine




extent(additions - reductions) 0.0 0.1 -0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1811.3 -1811.3

Net additions as % of initial year 0.0 0.5 -5.1 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -85.2 -81.8









extent(additions - reductions) 2.6 -2.5 -0.3 1.1 0.0 -1.3 0.0 -0.2 0.2 -8.1 -8.6

Net additions as % of initial year 12.8 -13.9 -3.3 7.4 -15.4 0.2 -1.7 2.0 -2.6 -2.1

21


AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland and forest

Heathland and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated

areas

Inland wetlands

Rivers

and

lakes

Marine


waters

Marine









extent(additions - reductions) 0.5 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net additions as % of initial year 2.3 -1.7 -0.7 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0









extent(additions - reductions) 3.1 -2.7 -0.7 1.2 0.0 -1.3 0.0 -0.2 0.2 -1819.4 -1819.8

Net additions as % of initial year 15.3 -15.0 -8.9 8.2 -15.2 0.2 -1.7 2.0 -85.6 -82.2 Total turnover of ecosystem







mapped marine ecosystems for 1990-2012

22

6.4 Cadastre data

Another valuable data source used for the purposes of developing ecosystem extent accounts is the

cadastre - cadastral map of Bulgaria.

The Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Agency has officially presented to NSI extract of the cadastral

map in Esri Geodatabase format covering 10 309 627 polygons in Projection WGS 84, UTM 35N.

This geodatabase of the cadastre includes two vector layers: layer Buildings and layer Immovable

covering the immovable property. The main field we used from layer Immovable is the RN_Usagetype

field which provides the link to the land use nomenclature.

The RN_Usagetype codes from the cadastral map as being related to ecosystems are selected (see table

1 in the Annex).

Using the Cadastre data, we created 28 layers at NUTS3 level with the polygons having the codes from

the above presented table. Using the gridded CLC data, the area of each polygon was distributed in 44

classes according to the land cover nomenclature. This was done for all CLC inventories. Next, the 44

CLC classes were aggregated into 10 MAES ecosystem types. The results are presented in the next

table:

Table 11. Ecosystem extent accounts including stock and change of area for cadastre ecosystems



AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland and forest

Heathland and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated

areas

Inland wetlands

Rivers

and

lakes

Marine


waters

Marine




Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) 1.6 0.3 -18.1 21.6 -0.4 -5.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.4

Net additions as % of initial year 0.3 0.0 -0.4 0.1 -0.2 -1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.3 0.0









Net additions to ecosystem extent(additions - reductions) 12.3 -16.7 -24.6 -7.3 -5.8 -7.2 2.5 29.0 0.0 0.0 -17.7

Net additions as % of initial year 2.5 -0.2 -0.6 0.0 -2.6 -1.8 3.8 6.1 0.0 1.8 0.0









23


AREA IN KM2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Woodland

and forest

Heathland

and shrub

Sparsely

vegetated areas

Inland

wetlands

Rivers

and lakes

Marine inlets and

transitional

waters

Marine


extent(additions - reductions) -85.2 -45.2 34.9 122.3 -19.8 -5.1 -1.6 7.6 3.3 0.0 11.1

Net additions as % of initial year -17.1 -0.6 0.8 0.5 -9.2 -1.3 -2.4 1.5 50.4 2.4 0.0











extent(additions - reductions) -71.2 -61.6 -7.8 136.6 -26.0 -17.8 0.8 36.7 3.3 0.1 -7.0

Net additions as % of initial year -14.7 -0.9 -0.2 0.5 -11.7 -4.4 1.3 7.7 50.4 3.0 0.0







Comments of results

In 2012 the forest and woodland ecosystems cover 67% of the area from the cadastre polygons,

followed by cropland - 17.7 % and grasslands in third place 10.7 %.

The results show that between 1990-2012 the net increase of the forests is of 0.5% (136.6 km2). The

other ecosystem types with increased area are: inland wetlands 1.3 % (0.8 km2), river and lakes 7.7 %

(36.7 km2), marine inlets 50.4 % (3.3 km

2) and marine 3 % (0.1 km

2).

The decrease of cropland of 0.9 % (61.6 km2) and grassland - 0.2 % (7.8 km

2) is insignificant.

6.5 Data from Agricultural census 2010

To produce maps for livestock density - number per km2, we selected information from the Agricultural

census 2010. The following categories were selected: bovines, buffalos, equines, goats, sheep, number

of bee hives.

Note: there is additional information related to grazing of animals on the farm, which can be used for

future valuation of a related ecosystem service.

The thematic maps (and the corresponding tables) are produced at the level of the polygons of the

settlements.

24

Figure 6. Number of bee hives per km2 by grouped by settlements

6.6 Combining Forest Cadastre Data with BANSIK Survey1

As it is known Corine Land Cover (CLC) and LUCAS (Land Use/Cover Area frame Survey) provide

different types of information on the European Union. The target of CLC is mapping land cover with a

relatively coarse scale, while LUCAS aims at computing statistical estimates at EU level with fine scale.

In Bulgaria Land Use/Cover Area frame Survey is called BANSIK.

The BANSIK survey is based on a fixed set of 3123 square segments on the territory of the country. The

distance between the centers of the segments is 6 km. Each of those segments contains 36 points, with a

distance of 234 m between points. The total number of points is 112428.

1 Bulgarian Survey of the Agricultural and Economic Conjuncture

25

Figure 7. BANSIK survey observation segment and points

Since 1998, annual observations are made for each point. The Nomenclature used for the classification

of the observations is attached in the table 2 in the Annex.

For the purposes of calculating extent accounts of the woodland and forest ecosystems we combined the

cadastre layer of state owned forests with the BANSIK point layer.

A selection of 25095 points located within the cadastre polygons were made.

The area of the polygons is divided by the number of the points within the polygon. Next, the type of

land cover/use of the area is classified according the cadastre code from the table above. The final

results are presented in the next table:

Table 12. Percentage of the area in the state forests covered with different types of trees, for the period

1998-2018, according BANSIK

% of area

Year Broadleaved forest Coniferous forest Sparse tree cover-

wildwood

Mixed – woodland (broadleaved

and coniferous)

1998 51.93 18.84 1.07 9.74

1999 51.91 18.84 1.07 9.75

2000 51.96 18.79 1.04 9.82

2001 52.03 18.72 1.07 9.83

2002 52.03 18.58 1.25 9.95

2003 52.09 18.70 1.21 9.93

2004 52.57 18.73 1.18 9.61

2005 52.81 18.69 1.05 9.75

2006 52.90 18.75 1.02 9.76

2007 53.04 18.75 1.07 9.73

2008 52.91 18.69 1.17 9.82

2009 53.95 18.70 1.53 9.73

2010 54.05 18.78 1.59 9.67

2011 54.13 18.81 1.66 9.75

2012 54.13 18.81 1.68 9.75

2013 56.47 18.55 1.69 10.97

2014 56.67 18.61 1.75 10.99

2015 56.71 18.66 1.81 11.11

2016 56.65 18.68 1.82 11.10

2017 56.65 18.69 1.81 11.10

2018 56.62 18.68 1.83 11.09

26

The results show that for the period 1998-2018 the area covered by broad leaved state forest and mixed

forests is increasing and coniferous forest remains stable. The area of broadleaved forests has increased

from 51.9 % (1998) to 56.6 % (2018). The area of mixed forests also increases from 9.7 % (1998) to

11.1 % (2018). Area of coniferous state forest is stable around 18 % for the period 1998-2018.

Figure 8. Extraction of the combined map where objects from State Forest contain points from BANSIK

7. Soil map of Bulgaria

For studying the ecosystems as a factor influencing the ground rent, another factor should be taken into

account - the soil fertility.

The source of the soil map of Bulgaria is the Institute of soil science, agro-technologies and plant

protection “Nikola Pushkarov” (ISSAPP).

27

Figure 9. Map of soil types in Bulgaria

7.1 Survey on land market and rents in agriculture

The survey on land market and rents in agriculture is conducted annually by the NSI of Bulgaria. From

the survey data average rent per unit of area on national and regional levels can be calculated.

The next map presents the data for the rents at the level of settlement polygons for 2017:

28

Figure10. Rent below and above the country’s average by settlements for 2017

8. Game and non-wood forest products

The game and non-wood forest products are commodities provided by ecosystems. Data source for

game and non-wood forest products is the Executive forest agency. The information is available by

State Forest and Hunting Holdings.

Spatial data about the borders of the State Forest and Hunting Holdings is not available, this only data

tables are presented.

29

Table 13. Number of the game species and fish in State Forest and Hunting Holdings from 2002 to 2017

Name of the game 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cervus elaphus 92 39 52 85 118 103 135 117 131 150 173 271 291 237 249 430

Dama dama 34 22 28 26 51 74 53 119 133 96 89 298 94 92 89 127

Ovis musimon 38 31 31 27 33 46 71 64 71 94 127 107 70 58 70 56

Capreolus capreolus 96 90 218 213 213 324 305 420 421 348 316 407 293 416 493 556

Sus scrofa 1852 1392 2517 2552 3700 4725 4554 5340 5921 4428 4900 6282 5735 5243 6706 7544

Rupicapra rupicapra 23 29 29 28 46 26 36 26 28 36 24 42 24 108 30 43

Lepus europaeus 4975 2952 5840 5237 5551 4914 5713 4036 3011 3532 3715 3219 1970 2044 1088

Perdix perdix 4431 9481 11431 13350 13653 16952 23008 24441 30553 24388 15644 21912 21296 23571 21897 14106

Alectoris sp 7 37 2 40 743 129 93 108

Coturnix coturnix 120502 49097 97939 104491 114706 151226 184880 234323 180523 152906 138497 157351 218030 122202 69185 79315

Tetrao urogallus 34 17 38 33 21 48 49 51 231 24 29 29 31 29 25 22

Phasianus 5587 4412 6139 4548 5062 6121 8916 11554 13403 11208 9203 11566 10235 8239 8969 6463

Columba Streptopelia sp 35626 25049 31249 23953 25484 37320 36803 56476 47508 50250 35032 48637 50640 46509 36333 33350

Anser sp 1342 122 282 37 17 294 183 282 284 147 233 215 329 115 111

Anas 3337 2314 2703 2037 3104 8498 12844 19302 17965 12735 15258 16730 16594 14914 14099 10774

Scolopax, Gallinago, Numenius 678 346 3275 1828 2389 1838 2477 4346 4055 4110 2948 3164 4755 4016 4438 2211

Others 150 364 1110 229 133 61 417 2464 694 2926 4269 2446 4062 6035 2868 350

Ursus arctos 4 2 5 1 1 2 2 4 5 9 5 2

Canis lupus 194 250 360 340 401 324 348 304 154 76 74 42 66 50 46 66

Vulpes 1381 1336 2812 3075 3382 4080 4990 5995 6722 3497 5611 5143 4973 4812 3585 3076

Martes 66 102 199 294 471 406 358 492 657 254 481 328 394 374 263 189

Mustelidae 16 10 17 46 18 22 19 13 42 33 32 35 20 30 22 11

Meles 11 7 7 4 25 16 6 70 39 57 39 23 36 22 5

Felis sylvestris 218 235 360 575 642 204 1 10 13 60

Canis aureus 5286 10065 18483 18372 20950 17744 21519 24205 13863 3388 4796 4569 4429 5240 4765 3241

Wandering dogs 1291 3597 2806 2129 1847 2236 2802 3788 4132 2935 3513 2631 3066 2515 1929 1150

Other carnivores 204 211 3 43 4 163 77 178 175 388 659 1215 1296 2072 2057

Sold game meat on the market 92 906 466 3331 10 57 711 4804 1277 5449 7090 13 7832 1334 5613 3162

including export 4707 0 3142 0 0

Sold fish on the market 665 40 1780 1544 2360 3139 2741 2935 3444 2410

including salmo sp 0 40 2360 2057 3139 2741 2935 3444 2410

Cyprinus carpio 0


including Salmo trutta 5727 4732 6185 6535 12519 14250 2215 0 0 0

Cyprinus carpio 0 350 150 270 0

Total 198010 122646 195221 196906 215631 273619 312980 406407 334599 287569 254342 293683 363144 255656 192908 174431

30

Table 14. Meat gained from game species in State Forest and Hunting Holdings from 2002 to 2017, kg

Name of the game 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cervus elaphus 7507 4101 4997 7015 10031 7872 9940 8156 7993 9679 13304 17769 20045 18523 18688 29541

Dama dama 1358 562 947 871 1993 1968 952 2515 2444 1092 1405 2804 3074 3206 2941 3856

Ovis musimon 697 427 445 394 604 810 883 710 740 1095 1533 1524 985 650 740 733

Capreolus capreolus 978 637 1227 1395 1861 2831 2317 2937 2737 3200 2693 3309 2768 2826 3708 3233

Sus scrofa 22176 20023 31483 36540 50534 67195 54040 55346 49270 44467 49301 62456 57594 60377 86481 82091

Rupicapra rupicapra 346 317 322 312 499 337 294 290 190 221 266 214 202 148 74 177

Lepus europaeus 1561 9 0 463 10 12 57 980 113 200 0 4 0 1 0

Perdix perdix 58 41 0 32 0 47 86 134 58 191 3 480 0 0 0 0

Alectoris sp 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coturnix coturnix 1488 54 60 175 400 322 887 1781 1196 564 355 0 500 168 0 0

Tetrao urogallus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phasianus 2660 1364 980 1073 1358 1671 3961 6326 5435 5217 2457 3765 1314 574 2144 448

Columba Streptopelia sp 2149 300 300 275 500 360 762 1667 973 619 103 0 109 0 0 0

Anser sp 4247 42 0 0 33 6 36 162 24 84 0 0 0 0 0

Anas 2390 386 80 6 392 502 1116 2493 2589 2087 655 2 64 11 0 0

Scolopax, Gallinago, Numenius 40 10 0 0 0 20 2 18 22 7 0 1 77 330 225 30

Others 10 0 100 35 0 0 17 41 188 108 200 0 0 616 260 0

Ursus arctos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canis lupus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vulpes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Martes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mustelidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Meles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Felis sylvestris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canis aureus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wandering dogs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other carnivores 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sold game meat on the market 10882 6543 14846 17895 25773 25251 36938 41905 35063 27588 10640 17877 16969 10379 12844 31041

including export 89 165 0 2167 615


including salmo sp 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cyprinus carpio 1275


including Salmo trutta 400 0 0 501 2911 0 9589 4890 1673 3599

Cyprinus carpio 9 8 0 0 107

Total 59456 34997 55787 66982 102088 109229 129444 134192 112590 96272 86545 116598 103705 97808 128106 151150

31

Table 15. Non-wood forest products gathered from in State Forest and Hunting Holdings from 2002 to 2017

Non-wood forest products Measuring Unit 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Christmas trees Number 68828 38892 51381 42768 45910 36533 33373 20611 21617 17770 13573 21106 17052 21110 8895 9024

Hay Tons 25758 6599 3110 8105 7950 6278 8352 14155 20103 16303 17583 85376 9227 12885 4390 5451

Nuts Tons 10303 12653 8549 20062 22302 14584 2884 9135 19995 24891 26825 25374 14894 533 5969 11958

Walnuts Tons 8803 6732 7597 20011 22299 14381 2882 7485 19784 24825 6825 25373 14293 526 5749 11329

Wild mushrooms Kilograms 7357529 3825069 5101696 7906068 4821806 573323 155094 541768 375691 184368 237804 26549 21213 13109 9257 10792

Boletus Kilograms 4276023 1872095 2602200 3839478 2210178 215356 61701 208547 126222 62350 110198 15877 8195 5009 703 3465

Cantharellus cibarius Kilograms 756642 509242 850616 1565948 1051712 57247 58473 78806 126932 71290 31573 10670 12964 3050 6200 5611

Marasmius Kilograms 947187 495756 290049 357827 175685 34950 5290 23445 41789 8064 8435 0 0 0 1 0

Lactarius deliciosus Kilograms 190725 204556 453196 439215 588938 113600 15340 160970 27780 6270 61675 0 0 0 0 0

Morchella esculenta Kilograms 14890 1350 4850 2976 4810 950 1870 580 430 450 600 0 0 0 50 100

Tricholoma terreum Kilograms 152405 34230 31595 51240 135599 350 0 2680 0 1300 4279 0 0 0 0 0

Gyromitra esculenta Kilograms 59594 2680 0 0 9980 0 500 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0

Calocybe gambosa Kilograms 104971 72010 146889 125409 105432 2120 8250 1550 2380 2700 3410 0 0 0 0 0

Suillus Kilograms 193700 266515 203500 447314 292623 112800 0 11000 10700 2700 7355 0 0 0 0 0

Other wild mushrooms Kilograms 661392 366635 518801 1076661 246849 35950 3670 54190 39458 29244 9779 2 54 5050 2303 1616

Forest fruits Kilograms 1611409 2013786 1278060 1841025 2747715 826579 208180 348167 664594 425655 346266 138484 121125 222472 154860 122011

Rubus idaeus (raspberry) Kilograms 79890 139420 14920 1430 15900 36000 8700 83800 8100 37006 5000 13500 2400 54000 13030 10000

Rubus ursinus (blackberry) Kilograms 706375 616817 345650 513350 850262 211750 46300 3550 175450 151805 91643 95550 69400 76200 37300 53000

Vaccinium myrtillos and Vaccinium

vitis-idaea (bilberries and lingonberries)

Kilograms

319994 468952 108680 189800 768692 104034 92770 127955 373793 127630 173963 11630 25350 27250 15230 3205

Prunus spinosa (blackthorn) Kilograms 228500 431650 611000 573770 799320 188600 3600 100912 50000 2200 21130 5000 1000 8360 56700 20300

Other forest fruits Kilograms 276650 356947 197810 562675 313541 286195 56810 31950 57251 107014 54530 12804 22975 56662 32600 35506

Tilia flowers Kilograms 267130 427387 435876 433707 558083 620728 561800 180042 267630 236173 370871 393670 346724 350225 348069 364667

Rosa canina (dog rose) Kilograms 306136 204319 291450 303230 401445 186274 148520 74540 117052 83020 38330 23500 19100 17030 11220 72070

Forest saplings Number 4080653 864349 422967 605453 913770 879494 829441 299586 423277 521530 624765 805544 1195443 959277 652583 834187

Forest seeds from Coniferous trees Number 1168938 266747 225567 247989 271686 310959 309062 36070 110927 75626 70362 133239 98037 46690 56860 60969

Forest seeds from Broadleaved trees Number 2911715 597602 197400 357464 642084 568535 520379 263516 312350 445904 554403 672305 1097406 912587 595723 773218

32

9. Combining cadastre data with data from Statistical survey on market

price of dwellings and real estates

The statistical survey on market price of dwellings covers the real estate transaction prices when a deal

is registered in the Registry Agency.

The information is presented on quarterly and annual basis. For each registered transaction there is a

cadastral number of the sold real estate.

We have combined the real estate transactions in BGN for 2015 registered in in a town with the

cadastre layer of immovable properties. The information is combined through the cadastral number of

the sold real estate.

Figure 11. Real estate transactions registered on the map of a town

10. Condition accounts

Main data sources for the condition accounts are expected to be the results from Natura 2000

and MAES activities, for which the responsible institution is MOEW.

The application of the minimum requirements about usability of the data for statistical

purposes shows the following results:

The data coverage is not documented, overlapping exists, but at least in theory Natura 2000

plus MAES is expected to cover the whole country;

The observations should refer to a same period of time – like BANSIK, but they are made in

different periods of time;

33

Most of the variables, even when using numbers, are presented as scales, for example “lower”

to “upper”, or as indicators defined within intervals, for example from “very bad” to “very

good”.

The available data are not supported with a description about the data collection methods

(comprehensive survey or sampling, selection of measurement points, routes, sampling errors,

etc.);

Some of the data are produced by undocumented models and/or expert assessments.

11. Capacity building and developing a community of practice

With the authorities responsible for collecting information on ecosystems, we have worked together

and exchanged data. There was constant correspondence between NSI and stakeholders. We had

contacts with the persons responsible for the information at the Ministry of Environment and Waters,

the Executive Environment Agency, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Bulgarian Geodesy,

Cartography and Cadastre Agency. From these administrations we have been given contact persons

with whom to cooperate in the project work. The meetings and contacts supported the role of the

National Statistical Institute in the preparation of ecosystem accounts.

12. Benefits and conclusions

Benefits of the project

For the first time, the NSI's attention was focused on acquiring a knowledges about ecosystems.

The project contributed to obtain more clear picture of the potential data sources on the ecosystems,

their usefulness and challenges for integration in ecosystems accounting.

During the project a wide range of spatial data from different sources were collected, processed and

integrated. We have gained experience in using GIS tools and applied them in our statistical practice.

This exercise with ecosystems is very important for statisticians, as they have to develop a statistical

product for ecosystem accounts.

We identified the discrepancies in the spatial data collected from different sources and analyzed the

changes in ecosystems stocks where time series of data are available.

Conclusions

During the work on this project the questions asked were more than the answers received.

In this context it became clear that Corine Land Cover and BANSIK are meeting the statistical

information requirements.

The state cadastre is a reliable base for the future work.

In the near future data from the Population census presented on grid will provide a big number of

applications related to ecosystem accounts.

Data from several statistical surveys were presented in this project, but the list of the statistical sources

is much longer. For example we did not include data from the environmental statistics surveys because

we decided that it was more important to spend efforts to obtain data from outside sources – other

institutions and statistical structures than from the computers in our unit.

34

Also where necessary new data collection can be started – for example the data from the State Forest

and Hunting Holdings can be collected with a specialized statistical survey. A similar survey can be

prepared for the Executive Agency of Fisheries and Aquaculture (EAFA).

While preparing this report an information for a new Tourist Register became available. First data are

expected at the end of 2019 and a whole set of annual data at the end of 2020. This information could

be valuable in the future for evaluation of cultural services provided by ecosystems.

At this moment, it is difficult to make a list of all possible information sources for ecosystem accounts

and to predict their real usefulness.

At this stage, regardless of expectations, the available information from Natura 2000 and MAES

seems unusable for production of data which have to be integrated into accounting and reporting

systems at EU and national level by 2020. The low quality of existing data on the ecosystems is not

problem only for the statistics. The use of inaccurate information can lead to improper political

decisions for management of ecosystems and biodiversity.

Probably there is a mismatch between economic and statistical standards on the one hand and the

standards of the scientific community engaged in studying the ecosystems.

It seems that the following observation, which can be found in an issue of the Ecological Economics

journal, is still valid:

“... two main problem areas. First, the fundamental incompatibility of economic and ecological spatial

and time scales and, second, the questionable emphasis placed on data artificially generated with the

help of hypotheses rather than on data based on empirical observations. The following discussion

leads to the consequence that monetary valuations of environmental facts should be avoided.” 1

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Eurostat for provision of Grant which enabled carrying out this pilot project.

This is only the beginning stage of our work on the ecosystems accounting. The work on this topic can

be continued in the future according to the national and European priorities.

1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800998000871

35

ANNEX

36

1. SELECTED CADASTRE CATEGORIES, RELATED WITH

ECOSYSTEMS

code Cadastre categories

3301 Coastal lake

3302 Lagoon

3303 Firth

3304 Wetland

3431 Nature park

3432 National park

3441 Sea beach

3442 Sand dune

3443 Island

2540 Field for wild animals

3030 Area - trees, shrubs

1440 Ski slope

1450 For winter sports facilities

1460 For hunting base and shooting

1470 Water sports facilities

1600 For cottage building

1620 For a holiday camp

1630 Tourist base hut

1640 For sanatorium sanatorium, Prophylaxis

1650 For a resort hotel, vacation home

1660 Camping, motel

2300 For ropeway

2560 Abandoned arable land

2840 Forests and shrubs in agricultural land

2950 Another type of forest for wood production

3000 Goliath

3040 Another type of non-wood forest area

3050 Another type of forest property

3100 Watercourse, river

3430 Protected area

3440 Coastal beach

3450 For deposits of mud

3460 For other natural resources for preventive protection

2700 Meadow

2710 Unused meadow

2720 Abandoned meadow

2800 Гrassland

2820 Мountain pasture

2900 Coniferous forest

2910 Deciduous forest

2920 Mixed forest

2930 Coppice forest

2940 Squat

3010 Meadow

3060 Forest nursery

3110 Lake

3120 Swamp

3130 Slough

3150 Water

37

code Cadastre categories

3140 Dam

3160 Fishpond

3400 Reserve

3410 Monument

3420 Maintained reserve

3720 Degraded meadow

3730 Another type of degraded land

3900 Rocks

3910 Sands

3920 Scree

3930 Gully

3950 Pits

38

2. PHYSICAL NOMENCLATURE OF THE BANSIK SURVEY

Code Land cover/use classes 01 Overseas

02 Indefinite territory (can be used only at first crossing)

11 Salt-pit, shallow mild salt-water lakes

12 Lakes, basins, shallow fresh-water lakes

13 Rivers, channels, gullies

14 Wetland areas, swamps, (marshland and peateries included) free of permanent agricultural use

15 Rocks

16 unes, beaches – sandy or rocky

17 Broadleaved forest areas

18 Coniferous forest areas

19 Sparse tree cover - wildwood

20 Mixed – woodland (broadleaved and coniferous)

21 Cluster of trees

22 Isolated trees

23 Wheat

24 Barley

25 Rye and triticale

26 Oats

27 Maize

28 Rice

29 Other cereals (sorghum, millet, buckwheat included), mixed cereals

30 Sugar beet

31 Industrial fiber crops (cotton, flax, hemp)

32 Sunflower

33 Tobacco

34 Industrial oleaginous crops

35 Other industrial crops (aromatic, medical and essential oils included)

36 Potatoes

37 Beans, peas, broad beans

38 Lentils, chickpeas and other dry pulses

39 Fresh vegetables apart from beans and peas (melons and water-melons included)

40 Nurseries (forest trees, essential oils, aromatic and medical included); floriculture and ornamental plants

41 Earthed-up fodder crops

42 Other fodder annual crops

43 Grassland under legumes

44 Grassland under cereals

45 Permanent productive grassland

46 Alpine pastures

47 Grassland with tree or shrub cover – rough grazing

48 Meadow - orchards

49 Fallow land

50 pricots ( Prunus armeniaca)

51 Cherry-trees and morello-trees

52 Peach-trees

53 Plum-trees

54 Pear-trees

55 Apple-trees

56 Other fruit-bearing tree species

57 Mixed fruit-bearing tree plantations

58 Mixed – various fruit-bearing trees and other production

59 Vineyards (plain crop)

60 Mixed: vineyard - orchard

61 Mixed: vineyard – other crops

62 Small fruit and other various crops

63 Kitchen gardens

64 Lawns (in the broad sense)

65 Unutilized agricultural land

66 Infertile land, shrub land

67 Hedge-rows

39

Code Land cover/use classes 68 Areas for temporary agricultural use

69 Building site: buildings, public works

70 Other terrains with changed relief due to extraction activities (stone-pits, sand-pits, mines, excavations)

71 Other terrains with changed relief due to different depots (dumps, mine waste, slag, cinders, embankment)

72 Cemetery

73 Non built-up areas within urban areas

74 Farm yards and adjoining areas for different use

75 Non built-up area features with trees

76 Non built-up area features without trees

77 Non built-up linear features with trees

78 Non built-up linear features without trees

79 Complex structure parks

80 Buildings with 1 to 3 floors, roofed

81 Buildings with more than 3 floors, roofed

82 Greenhouses, shelters, high penthouses

83 Roofed constructions without walls

84 Temporary constructions - dismountable

85 Other industrial and public works

86 Abandoned constructions

87 Urban zone, family gardens under 500 m2 in populated areas included

88 Industrial zone

99 Forbidden zone

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE …€¦ · FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ON...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE …€¦ · FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ON...