Enhanced balanced relationship

between humans and biosphere

in four biosphere reserves in

Central Balkan National Park in

Bulgaria Final Project report

By Iordan Hristov Sofia, Bulgaria

2012

Contents

Summary ................................................................................................................................................... i

1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................2

3 Results and discussion ......................................................................................................................5

3.1 Status of conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores in four biosphere

reserves in Central Balkan mountain, Bulgaria ....................................................................................5

3.1.1 Conflict issues ...................................................................................................................5

3.1.2 Damage from large carnivores .........................................................................................8

3.1.3 Precautionary measures ................................................................................................ 11

3.2 Role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans and large carnivores. .. 12

3.2.1 Areas with the highest number of conflict interactions. .............................................. 13

3.2.2 Proximity of interactions to biosphere reserves ........................................................... 14

3.2.3 Comparison of conflict cases between biosphere reserves and external to them

territories ...................................................................................................................................... 18

3.3 Model of precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive market approach to

raise awareness for positive attitude towards conservation of large carnivores ............................. 20

3.3.1 Trademark establishment ............................................................................................. 20

3.3.2 Feasibility of trade mark establishing ........................................................................... 21

3.3.3 Project outcomes .......................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 24

Literature ............................................................................................................................................... 26

List of figures Fig. 1 Issues for conflict interactions in the CBNP ....................................................................................6

Fig. 2 Perceptions of interviewees to carnivores .....................................................................................7

Fig. 3 Profile of interviewees ....................................................................................................................7

Fig. 4 Proportion of attacks from bears and wolves ................................................................................8

Fig. 5 Proportion of domestic animals attacked by wolves and bears .....................................................9

Fig. 6 Comparison of bear attacks over domestic animals in CBNP and Western Rhodope mountains

............................................................................................................................................................... 10

Fig. 7 Precautionary measures for conflict mitigation .......................................................................... 12

Fig. 8 Products traded or produced ...................................................................................................... 20

List of Maps Map 1 Interview locations ........................................................................................................................3

Map 2 Areas where domestic animals were attacked by bears or wolves ........................................... 14

Map 3 Attacks around Dzendema biosphere reserve ........................................................................... 15

Map 4 Attacks around Tsarichina biosphere reserve............................................................................ 16

Map 5 Attacks around Steneto biosphere reserve ............................................................................... 16

Map 6 Attacks around Boatin biosphere reserve ................................................................................. 17

Map 7 Sensitivity map with conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores ................... 18

Appendices Appendix 1 Interview protocol .............................................................................................................. 27

Appendix 2 Images ................................................................................................................................ 29

i | P a g e

Summary

Central Balkan mountain range with its four biosphere reserves is one of the areas in the country that

holds the major stronghold of the large carnivore Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and European Grey Wolf

(Canis lupus lupus) populations in Bulgaria. Interactions between the National Park users with its

biosphere are a precondition for human-wildlife conflict. This study aims at enhancing a balanced

relationship between humans and large carnivores in four biosphere reserves in Central

Balkan mountain, Bulgaria. Two fulfil this goal one should 1) assess the current status of

conflict interactions between humans and carnivores, then 2) assess the role of biosphere

reserves for conflicts mitigation and 3) provide a model for precautionary conflict resolution

on the basis of positive market approach. As a result better conservation of large carnivores

and enhanced relationship between them and humans is expected.

Geographically the study focus is on four biosphere reserves in the Central Balkan National

Park in Bulgaria: Boatin, Dzendema, Steneto and Tsarichina. At these areas the main target

groups subject to surveying are four major users of the Park’s biosphere: shepherds, tourists,

local people from villages adjacent to the reserves and managers of mountain chalets. Their

interactions with large carnivores Brown Bear and Grey Wolf are investigated in areas

adjacent to the biosphere reserves and away from them. With the help of interviews,

literature review and consultations with the Central Balkan National Park Directorate

locations are appointed where large carnivores have attacked a domestic animal, a human

or have done any damage on people. These damages are considered a basis for human-

wildlife conflict. The damages and interactions are mapped with a GPS device. With the help

of Geographical Information System software, a map of areas sensitive to human-wildlife

conflicts is presented.

In total six conflict issues are identified in the survey. Results show that 76% of the conflict

issues between humans and carnivores are related to attacks over domestic animals. In

addition, conflicts are created on occasions of attacks to a person, or building entry. About

70% of the damages are caused by bears vs 30% from wolves. Data shows differences to the

species of animals attacked where 60% of the wolf attacks are over sheep and the other 40

are over cattle. Bear attacks are mostly targeted at cattle with 61% of their attacks. Over

25% of the bear attacks are over sheep and only 12% are over horses. Identical data from

other areas in the country suggests that damages from large carnivores are specific to local

settings and are highly dependent on precautionary measures that farmers take.

There are three main precautionary measures identified during the study: use of dogs (42%),

human presence (35%), and use of enclosures (23%). However, the effectiveness of these

depends on a number of factors and the local circumstances. For highest effectiveness a

combination of the three is recommended. In addition, infrastructure needs to be improved

by the National Park Directorate.

In total, 47 cases of attacks from bears and wolves are identified for the period 1980-2012.

The most sensitive area to human wildlife conflict is the area to the east of Dzendema

reserve where 11 out of 32 attacks are within 1 km from the borders of the reserve. The

second sensitive area is Tsarichina reserve where three out of five of the attacks are within

ii | P a g e

1km from the reserve. Steneto has negligible data on attacks and there are no attacks

around Boatin. In order to reduce the preconditions for conflicts in this area the CBNP

Directorate has to take a number of measures such as providing additional enclosures for

domestic animals in the most sensitive areas and provide dogs to shepherd.

Comparison of conflict interactions with other areas from around the National Park and

other mountains in the country suggest that the attacks in the Central Balkan National Park

are negligible with about 1% of the brown bears attacking domestic animals in an average of

2,13 cases per year. This low percentage suggests that biosphere reserves in the National

Park have positive role for mitigating human-wildlife conflict. However, it is important to

consider the forthcoming changes in the management regulations of biosphere reserves

which may be imposed by the Seville strategy.

There is a need for a positive market approach to additionally prevent human-wildlife

conflict. Results show that 61% of the National Park users trade with dairy products like

yoghurt and cheese and 28% trade with berries. Feasibility assessment suggests that berries

have higher chance of becoming a product with established label and high price. This high

percentage of resource use suggests that the products mentioned have the potential to

receive a biodiversity friendly trademark that is expected to raise the awareness of local

people to the value of natural resources.

On the basis of results and recommendations given in this report a balanced relationship

between humans and large carnivores will be enhanced.

1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

Central Balkan mountain range with its four biosphere reserves is one of the areas in the country that

holds the major stronghold of Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and European Grey Wolf (Canis lupus lupus)

populations in Bulgaria. Several years ago an agri-environmental scheme was started for pastoral

livestock grazing in the National Park. Thus a large number of domestic animals are taken every

summer to the National park for grazing. In addition, since the park is a part of the Pan Parks network

and is rich in natural resources, the area is regularly visited by a large number of tourists. The

mountain chalets adjacent to the biosphere reserves are some of the most visited in the country.

Thus interactions between the National Park users with its biosphere are a precondition for human-

wildlife conflict. Up to now, no study is known to exist for the region about the perceptions of

biosphere users about wildlife. Thus there is lack of understanding in conservationists about the

stakeholders’ perceptions. On the other hand, the administration of the Central Balkan National Park

envisages update of the management plan of the Park in the next years. This update is expected to

ensure equal consideration of both humans’ and biodiversity needs. Thus the outcomes of the survey

can immediately feed into the management plan update and ensure sustainable and proactive

biodiversity conservation with consideration of human needs.

The main research goal is to reduce conflict between humans and large carnivores in four

biosphere reserves in Central Balkan mountain, Bulgaria to enhance their role for

demonstrating a balanced relationship between humans and biosphere.

There are three main results that are expected from fulfilling the research goal: the first and

most important is that a balanced relationship between humans and the biosphere is

promoted and demonstrated; the second is that positive approaches to conservation and

sustainable use of natural resources with prevention of human-wildlife conflict are

demonstrated; the third is that the effectiveness of four biosphere reserves in Central Balkan

mountain in Bulgaria is enhanced for resolving human-wildlife conflict and thus common

understanding and cooperation at local, regional international levels is strengthened.

Research purposes:

1. Assess the current status of conflict interactions between humans and large

carnivores in four biosphere reserves in Central Balkan mountain.

2. Assess the role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans and large

carnivores.

3. Create a model of precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive market

approach to raise awareness for positive attitude towards conservation of large

carnivores.

Expected results from the research purposes:

1. The status of current conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores in

four biosphere reserves in Central Balkan mountain is assessed;

2. The role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans and large

carnivores is assessed;

3. A model is created for precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive

market approach to raise awareness for positive attitude towards conservation of

large carnivores.

2 | P a g e

Conflict interaction is here defined as a case for interaction when humans and carnivores

have competed over resources that has resulted in a loss of certain resource (e.g. livestock)

which results in a conflict.

It is important to note that currently the biosphere reserves in Bulgaria have not officially

implemented the requirements of the Seville Strategy for Biosphere reserves. Thus the

current regulations of the reserves do not allow any human presence there but for scientific

purposes only. On the other hand the reserves are primarily forested areas where no grazing

can occur. This regulation reduces the chances for accidental attacks and interaction

between humans and wildlife. However grazing is possible on the edge of the reserves

where attacks may occur. An important assumption here is that animals that have attacked

within 1 000 m from the theoretical borders of the reserves come from the biosphere

reserves and have not come from elsewhere. Since pastures are mainly above the tree line

and the reserves border with them this assumption is well acceptable because animals are

not expected to wonder large areas in the open alpine areas above the tree line. Although

they are known to often visit mountain pastures they are not expected to go far from the

forest edge. Thus interactions between humans and carnivores and the role of biosphere

reserves for conflict mitigation are assessed in relation to the proximity of attacks to the

reserves.

After describing the background and the need for the research, one needs to describe the

methods for fulfilling the project goal and objectives.

2 Methodology This section describes the methods used for fulfilling the project goal and research purposes.

First the geographical scope of the project is defined; second the main target group are

appointed; third the activities for fulfilling each of the research purposes are described. As a

result, the methodology for fulfilling the project goal is described.

Geographically the study is focused on four biosphere reserves in the Central Balkan

National Park in Bulgaria: Boatin, Dzendema, Steneto and Tsarichina. These are all the

biosphere reserves in the mountain range. The territory of the National Park holds about 200

brown bears (CBNP 2012) and a large numbers of wolves in Bulgaria, which is a precondition

for human-wildlife conflict.

The main target group subject to surveying are divided into four major users of the Park’s

biosphere: shepherds, tourists, local people from villages adjacent to the reserves and

managers of mountain chalets. These are the main users of biosphere resources and that is

why their perceptions are the most important to survey.

The large carnivores subject to the study are only the brown bears and wolves since they are

the major source of conflict over biosphere resources use.

The first project purpose will be fulfilled with the following three activities:

3 | P a g e

1.1. Identify conflict issues (e.g. interactions, competition over resources) and develop

understanding about the reasons in the basis of these issues according to local cultural

and socio-economic circumstances.

Two main methods are used to identify conflict issues: informal interviews and literature

review. At the beginning of the project a literature review was conducted to develop an

interview protocol (see Appendix 1). This protocol was filled up after every informal

interview. The interviewees were not recorded with a tape at the time of an interview to

avoid bias.

Interviewees with different background and profile at a spot are counted as two different

interviewees even if they are at one location because they would represent different case

study. However, if a group of people with identical profile were present at one location their

case description will be considered for one regardless of the number of people present.

Informal interviews are conducted on the field with 26 people from 23 locations in the

research area of the four biosphere reserves in the National Park. The locations are more

than the initially planned 12 locations1 which allows more detailed analysis and comparison

of results between locations. About 48 % of these 23 locations are on the edge of the

biosphere reserves and the other 52 % of the interview locations are in between the

reserves (See Map 1). Thus an equal number of interviews were conducted around the

reserves and away from them. The data from these interviewees is used for control on bias

for estimating the proximity of carnivores’ attacks to biosphere reserves. As a result,

comparison is made between human-carnivores interactions in areas adjacent and distant to

biosphere reserves.

Map 1 Interview locations

1 Boatin: Momina poliana chalet, Planinski izvori chalet, Komitski valog, Divchovoto and Ribaritsa

village ; Dzendema: Raj chalet ; Steneto: Dermenka, Ambaritsa, Dobrila chalets ; Tsarichina: Vezen,

Eho, Benkovski chalets

4 | P a g e

1.2. Assess damages from large carnivores: estimate number of victims and specifics of the

interactions (e.g. number of attacks, type of domestic animal killed, available

precautionary prevention measures – shepherd dogs, etc.).

These damages are estimated during the interviews. Interviewees are asked about the types

of interactions they have had with bears and wolves, the perceptions of interviewees after

the intervention and the outcomes from the interactions. In addition, information is

requested from the National Park Directorate for attacks for the territory of the whole

national park. As a result, the types of damages are assessed.

1.3. Propose precautionary measures according to existing practices from other countries

and local cultural and socio-economic circumstances.

With the help of literature review, an initial list of precautionary measures and existing

practices from other countries is prepared. During the interviews, understanding is

developed about cultural and socio-economic reasons standing behind potential conflict

interactions. As a result, an adapted list of precautionary measures is prepared according to

local cultural and socio-economic circumstances.

The second project purpose is fulfilled with the following activities:

2.1. Identify and map areas in Central Balkan mountain with the highest number of

conflicts between humans and carnivores to suggest areas of sensitivity for conflict

interactions.

The damages and interactions identified during the interviews on the field are mapped with

a GPS device Garmin GPSmap 62s. With the help of Geographical Information System (GIS)

software ArcMap 10, a map of areas sensitive to human-wildlife conflicts is prepared.

2.2. Estimate the proximity of conflict interaction cases to biosphere reserves.

After the areas with conflict interactions are mapped, their proximity to biosphere reserves

is estimated on the sensitivity map with the help of ArcMap 10, Map Source 6.15.11 and

Google Earth 6.1.0.5001. On the basis of this proximity the role of biosphere reserves for

conflict mitigation is descriptively assessed.

2.3. Compare numbers of conflict cases between biosphere reserves and external to them

territories within the Central Balkan National Park. As a result of the GIS analysis and the

interviews, the number of conflict cases is compared between areas adjacent and distant

to biosphere reserves.

The third project purpose will be fulfilled with the following activities:

3.1 Develop hypothetical trade mark of products from domestic animals grazing in areas

adjacent to biosphere reserves in the National Park and exposed to attacks from bears

and wolves.

During the interviews with shepherds, the products they produce are identified. Criteria are

developed for nominating a product as ‘biosphere friendly’ for promoting conservation and

raising awareness.

5 | P a g e

3.2 Assess the feasibility of establishing a trade mark and develop understanding on

perceptions of target groups of stakeholders on the created trade mark.

Interviewees are asked for their perceptions on production and consumption of biosphere

friendly products. As a result the feasibility of establishing a trade mark is assessed but only

with regards to potential customers’ perceptions. The survey does not include any market

study.

3.3 Communicate the project outcomes to stakeholders involved in conservation of large

carnivores

The project outcomes will be sent to stakeholders involved in conservation of bears and

wolves: the administration of the Central Balkan National Park, and NGOs after the final

report is endorsed by the UNESCO Secretariat.

3 Results and discussion

The results are presented in three main sections focused on each of the project objectives.

3.1 Status of conflict interactions between humans and large

carnivores in four biosphere reserves in Central Balkan mountain,

Bulgaria

This section describes the fulfilment of research purpose one: “Assess the current status of

conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores in four biosphere reserves in

Central Balkan mountain” with the following three project purposes: 1) Identify conflict

issues (e.g. interactions, competition over resources) and develop understanding about the

reasons in the basis of these issues according to local cultural and socio-economic

circumstances. 2) Assess damages from large carnivores: estimate number of victims and

specifics of the interactions (e.g. number of attacks, type of domestic animal killed, available

precautionary prevention measures – shepherd dogs, etc.); 3) Propose precautionary

measures according to existing practices from other countries and local cultural and socio-

economic circumstances.

3.1.1 Conflict issues

In total 8 cases of conflict interactions are identified during the survey and 13 are appointed

in the information submitted by the National Park Direktorate. On the basis of literature

review a list of 6 issues was prepared prior to the field interviews conducted (see Fig. 1).

From those only three turned relevant to the area. Most of the interactions (76%) between

humans and wildlife are related to attacks of carnivores over domestic animals that graze in

the park. Upon five occasions a human was attacked by a bear and two when a bear has

searched for food around a mountain chalet.

6 | P a g e

Fig. 1 Issues for conflict interactions in the CBNP

It is important to note that three of the preliminary identified conflict issues are insignificant

to the local settings. In other mountains of Bulgaria (e.g. Western Rhodope mountains) with

healthy populations of bears and wolves significant percentage of the interactions are

related to encounters of people with animals during berries and mushroom collection. In

Western Rhodopes for example most of the people would be walking in small groups or by

themselves. Thus they keep quiet and increase their chances to encounter a bear. In the

same area of Western Rhodopes bears would enter settlements and more than half of the

damages from them would be from breaking into bee-hives for honey collection (Brown bear

action plan for Bulgaria 2008). However, there are no such interactions around the

biosphere reserves because of their remoteness to settlements. In addition, the biosphere

reserves are ‘no go’ areas and there are no areas for forest berries collection. Furthermore

people collecting berries in the National Park are usually in large groups whereas in Western

Rhodopes people are usually by themselves or in small groups. That is how conflicts can be

created in the Rhodope Mountains.

Regardless of these conflict interactions nearly 80% of the interviewees have positive

attitude towards the carnivores (see Fig. 2). People that have negative perceptions are those

that have realized that they have not undertaken the needed precautionary measures. Even

at locations where bears regularly disturb domestic animals shepherds have positive attitude

to the carnivores and consider this for normal. This suggests that well established

precautionary measures are needed.

7 | P a g e

Fig. 2 Perceptions of interviewees to carnivores

To assess the meaning of this data one needs to present the profile of the interviewees (see

Fig. 3). Half of the people interviewed are chalet managers (50%). Another significant

percentage are the shepherds: 31% and berries collectors 12%).

Fig. 3 Profile of interviewees

Shepherds and chalet managers are the people that spend most of their time in the

mountains exposed to the highest risk of attacks and conflicts with carnivores. However the

positive attitude to carnivores of nearly 80% of the interviewees (Fig. 2) suggests that there

are positive preconditions for enhanced relationship between humans and carnivores.

After the conflict issues are defined and the perceptions of interviewees are appointed a list

of damages is described.

8 | P a g e

3.1.2 Damage from large carnivores

A list of damages is compiled during the interviews. Interviewees are asked for the types of

interactions they have had with bears and wolves, the perceptions of interviewees after the

intervention and the outcomes from the interactions. As a result, the types of damages are

assessed.

According to the data documented by the National Park Directorate and the interviewees

bears have produced nearly 70% of the attacks (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Proportion of attacks from bears and wolves

The number of attacks from bears is more than 50% to the ones from wolves which is a

significant difference. There are several possible reasons for this difference. First and most

important is that wolves prefer densely vegetated areas whereas bears often search for food

in open areas. Thus herds of livestock that graze in areas above the tree line are rarely

exposed to attacks from wolves. Second possible reason is that bears are more used to

human presence whereas wolves tend to avoid them. Third reason is that wolves are

apparently able to find enough food sources away from people and domestic animals. It is

important to note that the information available is from the summer season months May to

September and only one case is from November. Summer is the season when livestock is

taken up to the mountains for grazing and no data is available for winter when wolves are in

packs. It is important to acknowledge that this is locally specific setting and conclusions

cannot be extrapolated to other areas in the country or other countries. It is also possible

that the number of wolves on the territory of the National Park is lower than the number of

bears. However, no data is known to exist about the number wolves and as a result, no

comparison is possible.

An important aspect in the difference in the number of attacks described here is that it does

not consider the animals killed but only the number of interactions. Wolves are known to kill

high number of animals and consume only a small proportion of them. Bears usually kill only

a few animals enough for them to satisfy their needs. Thus the number of animals killed by

wolves may be higher. Upon one occasion from the area of Rusalka chalet, its manager

9 | P a g e

reports a kill of 50 sheep from a pack of wolves. This number would be theoretically equal to

25-50 attacks of bears.

Preferences of wolves and bears to the types of domestic animals attacked differ in between

(see Fig. 5). It is important to note that the graph above considers the number of

interactions with no consideration on the number of animals killed or the number of animals

attacking. Results from the interviews and data protocols submitted by the CBNP Directorate

suggest that bears show higher fidelity to attacking cows and their calves rather than any

other livestock. Cows are often left with no human presence and calves are often left behind

of the herd which makes them suitable victims. Although some of the interviewees suggest

that no bear can approach a herd of livestock with adult cows data suggests that these are

some of the most often attacked animals.

Fig. 5 Proportion of domestic animals attacked by wolves and bears

The preference of brown bears to cattle is specific to the local setting. According to the

Brown Bear Action Plan for Bulgaria (2008), most of the damages from bears in the Western

Rhodope mountains in Bulgaria are on bee-hives and the main kill is sheep whereas here

there are no bee-hives and cattle constitutes over 60% of the bear attacks. In the Western

Rhodopes cattle constitutes 10% of the attacks and sheep is the main prey item with over

70%. This difference in the number of attacks between the two areas is because of the

specifics in the grazing practices and the landscape. It is important to acknowledge the

number of animals that graze in the two areas. According to data submitted by the CBNP

Directorate sheep are nearly 80% of the domestic animals that graze in whole territory of

the National park and cows with calves are 15%. This difference in the percentage of animals

that are present in the park suggests that cows are less protected and exposed to higher risk

mainly because they mostly graze without a shepherd. Identical data on the proportion of

domestic animals that are grazed in the Western Rhodopes is not available for the area

because of lack of centralized system for grazing control and management of pastures and

meadows.

It is interesting to note that the data gathered does not acknowledge any attacks of wolves

over horses (see Fig. 5). However, upon one occasion several dead horses were found that

were eaten by wolves. These horses were not killed by them but were frozen in the snow

10 | P a g e

and wolves have eaten them. That is why this case is not acknowledged in the data.

Interviewees at several locations suggested that horses are generally hardly exposed to

attacks mainly because the males severely protect their herd.

The specifics of the landscape in other mountains in Bulgaria like the Western Rhodopes are

a precondition for a different approach for obtaining food. Comparison of bear attacks over

domestic animals in the CBNP and the Rhodope mountains shows difference in the exposure

of domestic animals that may be subject to conflict (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6 Comparison of bear attacks over domestic animals in CBNP and Western Rhodope

mountains

Souce on Western Rhodope mountains data: Brown Bear action plan 2008

The graph shows that nearly 90% of the brown bear attacks in the Western Rhodopes are

over sheep whereas in the CBNP this percentage is 27%. The attacks over cows are 8% to

61% and attacks over horses are 4% to 12% in between the two areas. This difference is

mainly because of exposure of the animals to the wilderness areas and the corresponding

practices for grazing. Very seldom a herd will be left without supervision in the Western

Rhodopes. There is no practice for pastoralism on the same scale as in the CBNP and grazing

will occur only around well defined areas with settled enclosures. Since there is no data on

the proportion of sheep to cattle in the Western Rhodope Mountains it is difficult to judge

on the preference of brown bears and the reasons for this difference. It is highly possible

that sheep is the predominant domestic animal that graze in Western Rhodopes and that is

why it is the most preferred victim of the Brown Bear.

Thus results suggest that damages from large carnivores are specific to local settings and are

highly dependent on precautionary measures that farmers take. Because of these

differences and measures the types and scale of damages differ in between areas. To look at

the effectiveness of these measures we shall look at the different practices most often used.

11 | P a g e

3.1.3 Precautionary measures

With the help of literature review, a list of precautionary measures and existing practices

from other countries is prepared prior to the interviews. During the interviews,

understanding is developed about the reasons for potential conflict interactions. As a result,

an adapted list of precautionary measures is given below.

List of precautionary measures:

- Dogs are used

- Electrical fence is used

- Animals are kept in an enclosure

- Constant human presence around the animals

- Scaring devices are used – lights are used during the night when humans are not

around the animals

- Other mitigation measures

The results from the interviews suggest that one of the most common precautionary

measure is the use of dogs (see Fig. 7). In 42% of the interview locations shepherds had

dogs. However the effectiveness of dogs differs from site to site and is subject to several

important facts. First and most important is the state of a dog and its ability “to work”.

Second fact is the number of dogs and the corresponding size of the herd. Thus one of the

most effective ways to protect a herd will be with a large number of good working dogs

responsible for a fairly small herd. Upon several occasions shepherd were confirming the

effectiveness of a group of 4-5 dogs to protect a herd of 200-250 sheep. Upon one occasion

a shepherd had only two dogs with a herd of 600 sheep and he recently had a kill from a

bear. In addition to the lack of enough working dogs, sheep were not kept in an enclosure

and they would start wondering in the middle of the night with no supervision. In another

location farmers would have over 12 dogs for a herd of 250 sheep and they did not report an

attack from a carnivore for the last 6 years. That is why it is important that shepherds have

the appropriate number of dogs that are working well in a group and can limit attacks from

carnivores.

The second most effective approach for conflict mitigation is human presence. In 35% of the

occasions humans were present with the animals (see Fig. 7). However this condition is not

always relevant especially during the night when animals are left with no supervision. In

these occasions the only measures that can be effective are the use of dogs and use of

enclosure.

In only 23% of the occasions animals were kept in an enclosure (see Fig. 7). Some shepherds

suggest that this measure is not necessarily the most effective approach for conflict

mitigation and carnivores are not afraid to enter into enclosures. For example cows are

often left with no human presence and enclosure. That is why they are the most common

prey of bears. Nevertheless cows tend to stay together in the night when the majority of the

attacks are whereas sheep that are not kept in an enclosure tend to start wondering in the

middle of the night which exposes them to high risk of attacks. That is why most of the

enclosures that exist are mainly for sheep. However farmers find it difficult to build even

temporary ones because of difficulties for access and supply of building material.

12 | P a g e

Fig. 7 Precautionary measures for conflict mitigation

It is important to note that only one occasion was identified when electrical fencing was

used. However it is not reflected by the current data because the shepherd was not present

at the fenced area. There are several major challenges in setting up electrical fencing. One of

the most important is that it is too expensive for farmers. In addition they find it difficult to

supply electricity to the fencing.

The local socio-economic and cultural background is to some extent a precondition for

certain level for human-wildlife conflict interactions. People are not able to take the needed

precautionary measures on one hand because of lack of resources and capacity to buy and

feed enough working dogs and on the other hand the remoteness of the areas and difficulty

for access make it a challenge for infrastructure establishment. Thus even if only one of the

precautionary measures is missing animals are exposed to risk of attacks and grounds for

human-wildlife conflict are established.

To be able to fully protect animals shepherds should be able to ensure the whole suit of

measures. Use of shepherd dogs, enclosures and their presence are a must for any damages

to be reduced and conflicts to be avoided. In addition to these measures, conflicts are also

dependent on the landscape features and the proximity to territories of large carnivores.

Assuming that biosphere reserves hold the majority of the territories one needs to consider

the proximity of the documented attacks to the borders of the reserves.

3.2 Role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans

and large carnivores.

This section describes the activities that have contributed to fulfilling project purpose 2:

“Assess the role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans and large

carnivores.” The activities for fulfilling this project purpose are three: 1) Identify and map

areas in Central Balkan mountain with the highest number of conflicts between humans and

13 | P a g e

carnivores to suggest areas of sensitivity for conflict interactions. The damages and

interactions are mapped with a GPS device. With the help of Geographical Information

System (GIS) software ArcMap 10, a map of areas sensitive to human-wildlife conflicts will be

presented; 2) Estimate the proximity of conflict occasions to biosphere reserves. 3) Compare

numbers of conflict cases between biosphere reserves and external to them territories

within the Central Balkan National Park. As a result of the GIS analysis and the interviews,

the number of conflict cases will be compared between areas adjacent and distant to

biosphere reserves. These will be described below.

3.2.1 Areas with the highest number of conflict interactions.

In total, 47 cases of attacks from bears and wolves are identified for the period 1980-2012

(see Map 2). Since these attacks are a basis for conflict between humans and carnivores and

that is why these cases will be considered as conflict interactions between humans and

wildlife. It is important to note that only a part of these are officially documented by the

Park Administration. In addition there is a great number of cases for attacks that are not

documented by the authorities. In the data submitted by the CBNP Directorate is visible that

there are only 16 cases for attacks for the period 1999-2012 with 1-3 attacks in the first

years of the period to over 6 in the last years. This increase in numbers does not reflect an

increase in the number of attacks but an increase in the awareness and interest of

shepherds that want to be compensated for their loss of livestock. In addition to this official

data over 30 cases were documented in the process of interviews and literature review. It is

important to note that there are more attacks by carnivores but these are not officially

documented. As a result, the current analysis covers only the cases that are known. However

the sample used is considered for representative because the information presented here

combines all possible types of sources: official data, interviews – unofficially documented

cases from the practice and literature review.

From the map below (Map 2) is visible that the majority of the attacks documented are in

areas to the east of Dzendema biosphere reserve. In addition there are several cases of

attacks around Tsarichina and a few to the South East of Steneto but no attacks are

documented around Boatin. From the map below is visible that there is a number of attacks

outside the national park which suggests that there is number of Brown bears outside the

National Park that are left with no protection.

14 | P a g e

Map 2 Areas where domestic animals were attacked by bears or wolves

More detailed description on the proximity of the attacks to each of the biosphere reserves

will be given in the next section.

3.2.2 Proximity of interactions to biosphere reserves

After the areas with conflict occasions are mapped, their proximity to biosphere reserves is

estimated. On the basis of this proximity the role of biosphere reserves for conflict reduction

will be descriptively assessed. Each of the four biosphere reserves in the CBNP is reviewed

below according to the number of attacks in descending order.

Out of the four biosphere reserves in the National Park, the one with relatively highest

number of attacks is Dzendema (see Map 3). It is known as the one of the most difficult to

access reserves in the country and the Balkan Peninsula (CBNP 2012).

15 | P a g e

Map 3 Attacks around Dzendema biosphere reserve

Results suggest that 11 of the attacks were in locations within 1000 m from the borders of

the reserve and 21 are more than 1000 away from the reserve but still within the borders of

the National Park. An important assumption here is that the attacks that are within 1000m

from a reserve are cause by a carnivore that is from the reserve and has left it to search for

food. It is important to note that one third of the territory of the reserve is above the tree

line or is not forested. Significant percentage of this area is covered with cliffs. However

these large open areas that are not forested are a precondition for availability of grazing

animals and potential risk of attacks. This is the reserve with the largest open areas which

could be one of the reasons for the high number of attacks over domestic animals.

The second reserve in descending order in number of attacks is Tsarichina where three

attacks are within 1000 m from its borders.

16 | P a g e

Map 4 Attacks around Tsarichina biosphere reserve

Tsarichina is the third in its size reserve in Central Balkan mountain national park. Three out

of five of the documented attacks are within 1000 m from the borders of the reserve.

The third reserve in descending order in number of attacks is Steneto where four conflict

interactions are registered (see Map 5)

Map 5 Attacks around Steneto biosphere reserve

17 | P a g e

The majority of the interactions registered around Steneto biosphere reserve are within

1000 m from the borders of the reserve: three out of four. However it is important to note

that in one of the occasions in the South Eastern side of the reserve horses were found dead

because of meteorological conditions and wolves have eaten already dead animals. This

suggests that this occasion can be ignored because the carnivores have not killed the

animals. In the other of the two interactions in the south east of the reserve a cow was

found with a scar on its back from a bear attack but the animals has survived it and was

alive. This suggests that out of the three cases in proximity to the reserve only conflict case

can be considered where a bear has killed two cows on the southern edge of the reserve. In

both of the two occasions where cows were attacked the domestic animals were left with no

human presence.

The fourth biosphere reserve in the national park is Boatin where no cases for attacks from

large carnivores are documented (Map 6).

Map 6 Attacks around Boatin biosphere reserve

Results show that there is little grazing in the area of the reserve which reduces the

opportunities for conflicts with domestic animals. Some areas adjacent to the reserve are

visited by people for berries collection. However people are usually in large groups and make

a lot of noise which puts the animals away from them and reduces the opportunities for any

interactions.

The proximity of attacks to biosphere reserves help us to define several sensitive areas

where conflicts between humans and large carnivore may occur. The sensitive area is to the

18 | P a g e

South East of Dzendema reserve, followed by Tsarichina, Steneto and the areas to the East

of the national park (see Map 7).

Map 7 Sensitivity map with conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores

Values in the graph above show the sensitivity to attacks: as red the areas are, as higher the

concentration of attacks is. It is important to note that this high concentrations of attacks is

more than a km away from the reserve. This suggests that animals in the reserves are able to

find enough resources there and do not need to attack domestic animals.

These most sensitive areas should be an alarm to decision makers and local shepherds when

planning their activities in the area. In order to reduce the preconditions for conflicts in this

area the CBNP Directorate has to take several measures. The first and most important is that

enough information is communicated about possible risk of attacks in the area. Second an

appropriate number of enclosures is needed in this area to ensure safety to domestic

animals. Third governmental or non-governmental institutions should prioritise on the area

when distributing dogs to shepherds that have been attacked by carnivores.

3.2.3 Comparison of conflict cases between biosphere reserves and

external to them territories

Biosphere reserves in the CBNP are only a small percentage of the areas where bear and

wolves may occur. Out of the 47 cases of interactions between humans and large carnivores

documented in the current survey only about 15 (30%) are in immediate proximity to the

biosphere reserves within 1000 m of their borders. This number of interactions can be

19 | P a g e

considered for low and suggests that biosphere reserves are not areas where conflicts

between wildlife and people may occur.

Comparison in the percentage of animals that attack domestic animals in the Western

Rhodopes confirms the statement that the overall number of attacks in the CBNP is

insignificant. In total 47 cases for conflict interactions are documented for the period 1980-

2012 which is an average of 2,13 cases per year for the CBNP. This includes attacks over

domestic animals, encounters with humans and a few occasions when animals have entered

buildings. For the Western Rhodope mountains the Brown bear action plan for Bulgaria

describes an average of 2,00 case per year but significant number of additional damages are

done when over 100 animals were killed. It is important to note that the overall number of

bears documented in the Western Rhodopes is between 50 to 65 animals. Thus the

percentage of animals that attack is between 2 to 4,6%. The territory of the CBNP holds

about 200 brown bears and uncertain number of wolves. If the average number of attacks is

2,13 per year for 200 animals, this would be about 1% of the animals. These numbers can be

considered for evidence that the biosphere reserves have relatively low number of attacks

from carnivores in comparison to other areas.

There are several important reasons for the positive role of biosphere reserves for human-

wildlife conflict mitigation. The first and most important is the management regulations of

the reserves which do not allow grazing and human presence in the reserves. This is

important to consider in the lights of the adoption of the Seville strategy (UNESCO 1996)

which is expected to change the regimes of the reserves and allow an increased use of the

national resources in the biosphere reserves. That is why it is important to carefully plan the

borders of the areas and corresponding regimes that may create preconditions for human-

wildlife conflicts.

Second important reason for the positive role of biosphere reserves in conflict mitigation is

that most of the reserves are forested areas where there is not suitable grazing. Although

there are occasions of animals grazing in woodland adjacent to the biosphere reserves it is

mostly open meadows and pastures where domestic animals graze.

Third important reason is that carnivores are apparently able to find enough food in the

reserves and they rarely need to leave them to find food. This is especially important in the

lights of the Seville strategy when more access can be granted to the biosphere reserves.

This access should be carefully planned to avoid any damage on the available natural

resources.

On the basis of these factors we can conclude that biosphere reserves in the Central Balkan

mountain National Park in Bulgaria have positive role in conflict mitigation.

20 | P a g e

3.3 Model of precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive

market approach to raise awareness for positive attitude towards

conservation of large carnivores

This section describes the activities that have contributed to fulfilling project purpose 3:

“Create a model of precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive market

approach to raise awareness for positive attitude towards conservation of large carnivores”.

It will be fulfilled with the following activities: 1) Develop hypothetical trade mark of

products from domestic animals grazing in areas adjacent to biosphere reserves in the

National Park and exposed to attacks from bears and wolves; 2) Assess the feasibility of

establishing a trade mark and develop understanding on perceptions of target groups of

stakeholders on the created trade mark. 3) Communicate the project outcomes to

stakeholders involved in conservation of large carnivores. These are described below.

3.3.1 Trademark establishment

The aim of this trademark development is to provide an identity of products produced in

areas of wilderness where animals may have been exposed to risk of attacks from carnivores

and to outline the relation between people and nature. The trademark development consists

of identification of products suitable to be nominated as ‘local’ and development of criteria

for nominating a product as biosphere friendly that is locally produced.

Products from the National Park

During the interviews, people identified several products that are most often produced or

yielded from the natural environment (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 8 Products traded or produced

More than half of the interviewees (61%) produce or trade with milk or dairy products like

milk, yoghurt or cheese. However it is important to note that the majority of the sheep herds

21 | P a g e

are brought up to the mountains after their milking period. Thus only the herds that are in

the mountains from early in the season are used for dairy products. Cattle owners would

often produce small quantities mainly for personal use and would not trade on a large scale.

The main reason for this is the lack of infrastructure and market in the remote mountainous

areas. Thus the majority of the milk production is given either to the dogs or to calves if

available. Generally if the trade of dairy product are to be optimised there is a need for

several local dairy farms or a means for communal collection of milk from neighbouring

farmers. This suggests that more centralised approach is needed or large investment from a

single farmer so that he could ‘close’ the cycle for milk production and dairy products trade.

Significant percentage of people (30%) gather forest fruits (mainly blueberries and

cranberies). One of the interviewees suggested that in good years he can supply over 60 tons

of blueberries and cranberies. Berries collection is extremely well known to people and

hundreds of them will spend every day within a month to collect and sell berries. The large

scale entrepreneurs will hire people and would buy from others so that he can supply the

market needs. The bigger share of the current market for forest fruits is abroad in countries

like Italy. The price of berries in years with dry climate and lack of enough fruit can be

between 2-4 EUR/kg and in years with good weather and large supply the price can be 1,5-2

EUR/kg. Nevertheless people are known to follow the time of berries collection and change

altitude with the time. Thus they can collect berries for several months starting off from the

western end of the mountain range to the east. Because of the large number of people

present in the park carnivores are seldom seen and no cases were reported for an attack of

animals over people.

Meat production is insignificantly acknowledged by the data collected reported in only two

occasions. However it is possible that interviewees were not directly admitting the use of

animals. One of the main reason for people to take animals up the high mountainous alpine

pastures is the opportunity to obtain subsidies for pastoralism. Thus some farmers would

often buy animals in the beginning of spring, use the animals to graze and maintain the

habitat in mountainous pastures and then sell the animals in autumn. This saves the farmers

from taking care about the animals in winter and paying costs.

These figures can be used as a direction in establishing a brand for a local product. However,

when selecting such, detailed criteria has to be developed.

3.3.2 Feasibility of trade mark establishing

This section will aim at developing understanding on perceptions of target groups of

stakeholders on establishment of a local trade mark. As a result the feasibility of establishing

it will be assessed. The report will not include any market survey.

At the time of the interview several managers of mountain chalets expressed their

skepticism for the existence of a local label and the effects it may have on the trade of local

products. There are two main reasons for this. First and most important is the people do not

see any interest and support from institutions. Second they do not believe that this would

affect the prices of products. Most of the dairy products are traded on local scale and people

from the areas would not be willing to pay more for a product with certain label. Thus there

22 | P a g e

is a need for a detailed socio-economic survey that would understand and outline all

possible needs for a local label development before a local trademark is established.

At the current stage some of the potential products that can be nominated as locally

produced and biosphere friendly are the berries and dairy products. However considering

the small scale production of dairy products, the lack of infrastructure and lack of centralised

management of pastoralism it may be most feasible to focus on wild berries only. There is

little need for investment and forming a team of experts to certify products is feasible. The

berries are mostly traded on the international market where customers will be willing to pay

more for a ‘biosphere friendly’ label. This would lead to satisfaction of both customers and

local producers and is expected to increase the respect of berries collectors to the natural

resources. The only downside and lack of certainty in this product is its high dependence on

whether conditions in the mountains. Thus quantities are difficult to be guaranteed.

The relation between wild animals and the yield of forest fruits should be underlined in the

means of berries collection. This should be the ‘red line’ in the criteria for approving a

product as biosphere friendly. Some of the other important criteria would be the following:

Criteria for nominating a product as ‘biosphere friendly’

- Locally produced or yielded from the National Park;

- Produced from animals used for management of natural habitat in the National Park

(for dairy products);

- No preservatives are used for storing a product for long periods of time;

- Yielded in biodiversity friendly manner: with care about the plants (relevant for forest

fruits collection);

- Certain minimum quantity has to be ensured per defined time period;

- A product that would correspond to national and international market needs;

Strict control is needed to ensure fulfilment of the criteria for biosphere friendly product.

Upon several occasions people collecting berries were noted to dispose litter in the

mountainous areas. In addition they would not always consider protecting the plant and

investing in the sustainable yields. Often people will spend the night in the mountains and

would make a fire for heating or cooking although this is not allowed outside the designated

areas. Upon at least three occasions fires were left with no supervision which resulted in

large scale fire and burning of forest and alpine vegetation. All of these negative effects on

natural environment should be considered when approving products for biosphere friendly.

After a label is established, its quality should be promoted to national and international

markets so that potential customers are acquainted with them. There is need for use of

communication canals of the CBNP, Pan Parks and UNESCO that would reach specific target

group of customers with high environmental awareness. This would guarantee the effects of

the label as a promoter of the relation between humans and biosphere. In addition the

institutions suggested will be able to promote their vision. As a result a biosphere friendly

label will be established for products from the natural wilderness that would be selected

with well defined criteria and promoted to targeted audience.

23 | P a g e

3.3.3 Project outcomes

The project outcomes will be presented to stakeholders involved in conservation of bears

and wolves after the report is approved by UNESCO. Amongst the beneficiaries are the

administration of the Central Balkan National Park, and Balkani Wildlife Society. Either of the

stakeholders above is expected to acknowledge the contribution of the current report to

their daily work.

24 | P a g e

Conclusion The current study was conducted in the Central Balkan mountain Nation Park in Bulgaria

with the aim to enhance a balanced relationship between humans and large carnivores. Two

fulfil this goal one should 1) first assess the current status of conflict interactions between

humans and carnivores, then 2) assess the role of biosphere reserves for reducing potential

conflicts and 3) provide a model for precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive

market approach. As a result enhanced relationship should be established between humans

and large carnivores which should result in their effective and sustainable conservation.

The status of conflict interactions is assessed with description of the damages and issues for

conflict interactions and the measures that people undertake to reduce these conflicts. In

total three subjects of conflict interactions were identified. Results show that in 76% of the

conflict issues between humans and carnivores are related to attacks over domestic animals.

In addition, conflicts are created over a bear has attacked a person, or has entered a

building. About 70% of the damages are caused by bears vs 30% from wolves. Data shows

differences to the species of animals attacked where 60% of the wolf attacks are over sheep

and the other 40 are over cattle. Bear attacks are mostly targeted at cattle with 61% of their

attacks. Over 25% of the bear attacks are over sheep and only 12% are over horses. Identical

data from other areas in the country suggests that damages from large carnivores are

specific to local settings and are highly dependent on precautionary measures that farmers

take.

To prevent these conflicts from occurring precautionary measures are needed. An initial list

of six measures was identified but only three of those turned relevant to the area. The most

effective ones identified during this study are: use of dogs (42%), human presence (35%),

and use of enclosures (23%). However, results suggest that the effectiveness of these

measures depends on a number of factors and the local circumstances. For best

effectiveness a combination of the three is recommended. In addition, infrastructure needs

to be improved by the National Park Directorate. On the basis of the conflict issues

description and the precautionary measures undertaken, the status of current conflict

interactions between humans and large carnivores is assessed for the target areas.

The role of biosphere reserves for reducing potential conflicts is assessed by identifying the

locations for conflict interactions and their proximity to biosphere reserves. In total, 47

locations of attacks from bears and wolves are identified for the period 1980-2012. The most

sensitive area to human wildlife conflict is the area to the east of Dzendema reserve where

11 out of 32 attacks are within 1 km from the borders of the reserve. The second sensitive

area is Tsarichina reserve where three out of five of the attacks are within 1km from the

reserve. Steneto has negligible data on attacks and there are no attacks around Boatin. In

order to reduce the preconditions for conflicts in this area the CBNP Directorate has to take

a number of measures such as providing additional enclosures in the most sensitive areas

and provide dogs to shepherd.

Comparison of conflict interactions with other areas from around the National Park and

other mountains in the country suggest that the attacks in the Central Balkan National Park

are negligible with about 1% of the brown bears attacking domestic animals in an average of

25 | P a g e

2,13 cases per year. This low percentage suggests that biosphere reserves in the National

Park have positive role for mitigating human-wildlife conflict. However, it is important to

consider the forthcoming changes in the management of the biosphere reserves which may

be imposed by the Seville strategy. By identifying the locations for conflict interaction and

their proximity to biosphere reserves, their role for reducing potential conflicts is assessed.

After the status of conflict interactions is assessed and the role that biosphere reserves have

for reducing these conflicts, there is a need of sustainable solution to ensure long term and

balanced relationship between humans and large carnivores. Thus an innovative market

approach is needed that will convince people in the benefits they can have from preserving

the natural resources. By establishing a local trademark for products traded people are

expected to see benefits.

Results show that 61% of the interviewees trade with dairy products like yoghurt and cheese

and 28% trade with berries. This suggests that these products have the potential to receive a

biodiversity friendly trademark that may raise the awareness of local people to the value of

natural resources. Feasibility assessment suggests that berries have higher chance of

becoming a product with established label and high price. Thus a trade mark for them can be

established. This will result in a market model approach that is expected to raise the

awareness of people and their positive attitude towards conservation of large carnivores.

On the basis of the results and recommendations in this report a balanced relationship

between humans and large carnivores will be enhanced.

26 | P a g e

Literature CBNP. 2012. Central Balkan National Park website accessed on 1.11.2012

http://visitcentralbalkan.net/en/pages/read/t:the-park/c:fauna/s:/p:/o:brown-bear-

ursus-arctos

2008. Brown bear action plan in Bulgaria.

Ganchev, R. The Bear. (in Bulgarian). No publisher and date printed

Ganchev, R. 2009. A strap from a bear. Stara Zagora 2009. (in Bulgarian).

UNESCO. 1996. Biosphere reserves: The Seville strategy and the Statutory Framework of the

World Network. UNESCO, Paris.

27 | P a g e

Appendix 1 Interview protocol

Location: GPS: N S………….

1. Profile of the interviewee

a. Chalet manager

b. Shepherd

c. Tourist

d. Hunter

e. Local person

f. Fruit and mushroom collector

g. Other: ……………………………..

□

□

□

□

□

□

□ 2. Characteristics of the interviewee

a. Family

b. Shepherd

c. Temporal occupant

d. …………………………….

□

□

□

□ 3. Is there any conflict in between the natural resource users of the National park and the

large carnivores?

a. Yes. What are the reasons for these conflicts?

i. There are attacks over domestic animals

ii. An encounter during fruit and berries collection

b. No

□

□

□ 4. Have you seen a bear or a wolf with the animals?

a. Yes. What was the reaction of the wild animal? Was there an attack or it has just

followed the herd?

i. attack

ii. the carnivore follows the herd

............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

b. How did you scare it away?

i. With dogs

ii. With human presence

iii. With poison

iv. We shot it

c. We haven’t met carnivores

□

□

□

□

□

□

□ 5. What was your reaction when you saw the carnivore?

a. We closed the animals in an enclosure

b. We used scaring devices ( e.g. guns, sounds,

………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………. )

c. We used the dogs to scare the carnivores away.

□

□

□

6. Are there casualties from the carnivores?

a. Yes. In which locations …………………………………………………………………………….

b. No

□

□ 7. What are the most common casualties?

a. sheep

□

28 | P a g e

b. Cow and calves

c. Horses

d. Others ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

□

□

□

8. How often do you have casualties?

a. Every week

b. 2-5 times a month

c. Once a month

□

□

□

9. How many animals do you have killed by a carnivore?

a. 1-2

b. 2-5

c. 5+

□

□

□

10. Which carnivore attacks most often?

a. bear

b. wolf

□

□

11. Do you have dogs?

a. Yes

b. No

□

□ 12. How do you protect your animals?

a. With dogs

b. With electrical fence

c. We keep them in an enclosure

d. With human presence

e. Other means ……………………………………………………………………………..………………………….

□

□

□

□

□

13. Which animal product do you produce? Can it become an emblematic for the National park

and its reserves

a. Milk

b. Cheese

c. Meat

d. Wool

□

□

□

□

14. Do people buy local products

a. Yes

b. NO

□

□

15. What is the good mostly sold?

a. Milk

b. Cheese

c. Meat

d. Woold

e. Forest berries

□

□

□

□

□

29 | P a g e

Appendix 2 Images

Horse eaten by wolves

Cow with a scar that has survived a bear attack

30 | P a g e

Shepherd

Shepherd dog

31 | P a g e

In action Iordan Hristov – identity photo

Final Project report

By Iordan Hristov

Bulgaria

2012