final technical report on implementation of the …€¦ · final technical report on...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Ecosystem extent 2000 5447.7 53356.8 8252.2 43041.9 323.0 585.5 107.9 1094.8 11.9 366.4 112588.0
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 718.3 4663.2 1827.6 3749.8 87.8 176.1 16.7 53.1 0.3 13.5 11306.4
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 1265.4 9649.8 3542.6 7114.8 119.2 315.1 30.6 166.0 4.0 20.0 22227.6
Total turnover as % of initial year 23.2 18.1 42.9 16.5 36.9 53.8 28.4 15.2 33.6 5.5 19.7
Stable ecosystem stock in km2 4729.5 48693.6 6424.6 39292.2 235.3 409.4 91.2 1041.6 11.6 352.9 101281.7
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 86.8 91.3 77.9 91.3 72.8 69.9 84.5 95.1 97.3 96.3 90.0
Ecosystem extent 2006 5276.6 53680.2 8139.5 42657.2 266.7 548.4 105.1 1154.5 15.2 359.4 112202.9
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 11.1 165.6 58.1 201.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 438.3
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 52.3 178.8 8.1 194.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.1 438.3
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
Total turnover as % of initial year 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8
Stable ecosystem stock in km2 5265.5 53514.6 8081.5 42455.9 266.7 548.4 105.1 1152.4 0.0 359.4 111764.7
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 99.8 99.7 99.3 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 0.0 100.0 99.6
Ecosystem extent 2012 5317.8 53693.4 8089.6 42650.1 266.7 549.2 105.1 1156.3 15.2 359.5 112202.9
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 739.4 6641.5 2199.8 6820.7 96.6 244.2 16.4 80.9 0.3 1840.7 18680.7
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 616.8 5222.0 1714.3 3891.7 31.9 140.0 14.5 107.9 3.7 16.7 11759.4
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 1356.2 11863.5 3914.1 10712.5 128.5 384.2 30.9 188.7 4.0 1857.4 30440.0
Total turnover as % of initial year 24.9 21.5 45.6 23.5 38.8 58.8 28.9 16.7 33.6 85.1 25.6
Stable ecosystem stock in km2 4701.0 48471.4 6375.3 38758.4 234.8 409.2 90.6 1048.4 11.6 342.8 100443.5
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 86.4 87.9 74.3 85.0 70.8 62.6 84.6 92.8 97.3 15.7 84.3
Ecosystem extent 2012 5317.8 53693.4 8089.6 42650.1 266.7 549.2 105.1 1156.3 15.2 359.5 112202.9
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
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 1939.2 18768.7 5137.8 27612.4 320.8 569.6 102.6 728.1 13.4 1297.4 56489.9
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
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 4.9 56.0 7.6 276.4 0.4 0.2 2.7 0.5 0.0 16.1 364.9
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 1195.0 8652.2 1301.4 6196.3 13.4 106.5 18.7 274.4 3.3 1078.1 18839.4
Total turnover as % of initial year 61.6 46.1 25.3 22.4 4.2 18.7 18.3 37.7 24.9 83.1 33.4
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
Ecosystem extent 2000 753.9 10228.5 3851.8 21968.9 308.2 463.5 89.3 454.6 10.0 251.6 38380.2
Reductions to initial ecosystem
extent 108.1 1141.7 659.0 1550.9 80.5 119.0 11.4 14.7 0.3 7.9 3693.4
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 86.6 1164.8 667.2 1498.9 29.9 108.7 6.8 56.3 3.7 3.5 3626.4
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 194.8 2306.5 1326.2 3049.8 110.4 227.7 18.1 71.0 4.0 11.3 7319.7
Total turnover as % of initial year 25.8 22.5 34.4 13.9 35.8 49.1 20.3 15.6 39.8 4.5 19.1
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
Ecosystem extent 2006 732.4 10251.6 3859.9 21916.9 257.7 453.2 84.7 496.2 13.4 247.3 38313.2
Reductions to initial ecosystem
extent 5.0 30.4 17.0 62.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 115.2
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 13.8 39.7 3.2 56.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 115.2
Net additions to ecosystem
extent(additions - reductions) 8.8 9.3 -13.8 -5.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
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
extent(reductions + additions) 18.8 70.1 20.2 118.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 230.3
Total turnover as % of initial year 2.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6
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
Ecosystem extent 2012 741.2 10260.8 3846.1 21911.6 257.7 453.6 84.7 496.9 13.4 247.3 38313.2
Ecosystem extent 1990 1939.2 18768.7 5137.8 27612.4 320.8 569.6 102.6 728.1 13.4 1297.4 56489.9
Reductions to initial ecosystem
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
extent(reductions + additions) 1367.4 10611.5 2552.5 8886.2 123.0 330.6 31.9 329.0 7.3 1079.5 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 70.5 56.5 49.7 32.2 38.4 58.0 31.1 45.2 54.8 83.2 1.6
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 656.5 9209.0 3215.7 20318.9 227.7 346.3 77.6 448.0 9.7 232.6 34742.0
% 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
Ecosystem extent 2012 741.2 10260.8 3846.1 21911.6 257.7 453.6 84.7 496.9 13.4 247.3 38313.2
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
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 2292.7 2194.1 273.0 472.9 0.2 8.1 3.3 32.1 0.7 12.8 5289.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.2 33.7 8.2 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.3
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 20.3 18.2 4.0 7.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 50.3
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 20.5 51.9 12.2 15.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 0.9 2.4 4.5 3.2 6.8 1.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.1 16.9
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 2292.5 2160.4 264.8 464.8 0.2 8.0 3.3 32.1 0.7 12.8 5239.5
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 100.0 98.5 97.0 98.3 93.2 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.0
Ecosystem extent 2000 2312.8 2178.5 268.8 472.0 0.2 8.1 3.3 32.7 0.7 12.8 5289.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 202.3 315.8 63.5 66.7 0.1 3.2 0.2 2.5 0.0 0.1 654.5
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 188.0 329.6 79.2 50.5 0.0 1.6 0.5 5.4 0.0 0.0 654.8
Net additions to ecosystem
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
extent(reductions + additions) 390.3 645.4 142.7 117.2 0.1 4.9 0.7 7.9 0.0 0.1 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 16.9 29.6 53.1 24.8 61.7 60.2 21.9 24.3 0.1 1.2 16.9
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 2110.5 1862.7 205.3 405.3 0.1 4.8 3.0 30.1 0.7 12.7 4635.3
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 91.3 85.5 76.4 85.9 38.7 59.9 92.7 92.3 100.0 99.2 87.6
Ecosystem extent 2006 2298.5 2192.3 284.5 455.7 0.1 6.5 3.5 35.6 0.7 12.8 5290.1
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 2.8 16.5 6.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 29.6
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 20.5 6.9 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 23.3 23.3 7.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 1.0 1.1 2.5 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 16.9
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 2295.7 2175.9 277.9 452.4 0.1 6.5 3.5 35.3 0.7 12.8 5260.6
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 99.9 99.2 97.7 99.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 100.0 100.0 99.4
Ecosystem extent 2012 2316.2 2182.7 278.3 454.2 0.1 6.5 3.5 35.3 0.7 12.8 5290.1
Ecosystem extent 1990 2292.7 2194.1 273.0 472.9 0.2 8.1 3.3 32.1 0.7 12.8 5289.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 199.8 350.7 73.1 73.5 0.1 3.2 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.1 703.1
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 223.3 339.3 78.4 54.8 0.0 1.6 0.5 5.6 0.0 0.0 703.5
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 423.1 689.9 151.5 128.2 0.1 4.8 0.7 8.0 0.0 0.2 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 18.5 31.4 55.5 27.1 64.3 60.1 21.9 25.0 0.1 1.2 16.9
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 2092.9 1843.5 199.9 399.4 0.1 4.8 3.0 29.7 0.7 12.7 4586.7
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 91.3 84.0 73.2 84.5 36.1 60.1 92.7 92.4 100.0 99.1 86.7
Ecosystem extent 2012 2316.2 2182.7 278.3 454.2 0.1 6.5 3.5 35.3 0.7 12.8 5290.1
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
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 1255.7 29073.5 1406.5 2422.0 0.2 18.0 7.5 100.6 0.6 2.0 34286.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.4 199.6 11.1 13.3 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 226.5
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 2.3 207.1 0.5 16.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 226.5 Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 2.7 406.8 11.6 29.4 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 452.9
Total turnover as % of initial year 0.2 1.4 0.8 1.2 43.2 7.2 4.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.3
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 1255.3 28873.9 1395.4 2408.7 0.1 16.9 7.5 99.8 0.6 2.0 34060.3
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 100.0 99.3 99.2 99.5 56.8 93.5 100.0 99.2 100.0 100.0 99.3
Ecosystem extent 2000 1257.6 29081.1 1395.9 2424.8 0.1 17.0 7.8 99.8 0.6 2.0 34286.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 98.9 411.2 69.9 56.7 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 637.8
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 16.1 579.0 1.6 34.5 0.0 2.2 0.2 12.2 0.0 0.1 645.9
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 115.0 990.2 71.5 91.2 0.1 3.0 0.4 12.2 0.0 0.1 1283.6
Total turnover as % of initial year 9.1 3.4 5.1 3.8 65.0 17.7 4.7 12.2 1.1 3.7 3.7
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 1158.7 28669.9 1326.0 2368.1 0.0 16.2 7.7 99.8 0.6 2.0 33649.0
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 92.1 98.6 95.0 97.7 35.0 95.4 98.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.1
Ecosystem extent 2006 1174.8 29248.8 1327.5 2402.6 0.0 18.5 7.9 112.0 0.6 2.0 34294.9
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.1 31.1 18.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 56.2
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 8.1 39.1 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 56.2
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(reductions + additions) 8.2 70.2 18.1 14.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 0.7 0.2 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 2.6
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 1174.7 29217.7 1309.4 2396.6 0.0 18.5 7.9 111.2 0.6 2.0 34238.7
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 100.0 99.9 98.6 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 100.0 100.0 99.8
Ecosystem extent 2012 1182.8 29256.8 1309.4 2405.4 0.0 18.6 7.9 111.2 0.6 2.1 34294.9
Ecosystem extent 1990 1255.7 29073.5 1406.5 2422.0 0.2 18.0 7.5 100.6 0.6 2.0 34286.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 93.5 461.0 98.0 62.0 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 716.3
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 20.5 644.2 0.9 45.4 0.0 2.2 0.5 10.6 0.0 0.1 724.4 Net additions to 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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 114.0 1105.2 98.8 107.4 0.2 3.9 0.5 10.6 0.0 0.1 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 9.1 3.8 7.0 4.4 80.1 21.6 7.2 10.6 1.1 4.8 2.6
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 1162.3 28612.6 1308.5 2360.0 0.0 16.4 7.5 100.6 0.6 2.0 33570.4
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 92.6 98.4 93.0 97.4 19.9 90.7 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9
Ecosystem extent 2012 1182.8 29256.8 1309.4 2405.4 0.0 18.6 7.9 111.2 0.6 2.1 34294.9
16
Figure 2. Tendency in the changes presented by the categories “increase”/ “decrease” of the area of
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
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 421.1 3421.0 1005.4 1432.2 2.5 21.5 1.0 26.3 0.0 0.6 6331.6
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.4 17.8 10.7 25.1 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.5
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 0.8 19.7 6.7 26.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.5
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 1.2 37.5 17.5 51.4 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 0.3 1.1 1.7 3.6 10.8 14.2 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 14.1
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 420.7 3403.2 994.6 1407.1 2.3 20.4 1.0 26.2 0.0 0.6 6276.2
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 99.9 99.5 98.9 98.2 89.2 95.1 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 99.1
Ecosystem extent 2000 421.5 3422.9 1001.3 1433.3 2.3 22.4 1.0 26.2 0.0 0.6 6331.6
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 67.5 422.9 190.2 169.4 1.7 11.2 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 864.4
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 40.6 434.1 244.1 135.9 0.3 5.4 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 863.1
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 108.0 857.0 434.3 305.3 2.0 16.6 1.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 25.6 25.0 43.4 21.3 90.4 74.2 105.4 12.2 2.0 2.3 14.1
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 354.0 3000.0 811.2 1263.9 0.5 11.2 0.7 25.0 0.0 0.6 5467.2
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 84.0 87.6 81.0 88.2 23.7 50.0 68.3 95.4 100.0 100.0 86.3
Ecosystem extent 2006 394.6 3434.1 1055.2 1399.9 0.9 16.6 1.4 27.0 0.0 0.6 6330.3
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.7 7.9 5.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 2.9 10.9 0.3 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 23.0
Net additions to ecosystem
extent(additions - reductions) 2.1 3.0 -5.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net additions as % of initial year 0.5 0.1 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 3.6 18.8 5.5 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 14.1
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 393.8 3426.2 1050.0 1390.7 0.9 16.6 1.4 27.0 0.0 0.6 6307.3
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6
Ecosystem extent 2012 396.7 3437.0 1050.2 1399.6 0.9 16.7 1.4 27.1 0.0 0.6 6330.3
Ecosystem extent 1990 421.1 3421.0 1005.4 1432.2 2.5 21.5 1.0 26.3 0.0 0.6 6331.6
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 67.4 433.1 198.8 191.4 2.0 10.3 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 904.5
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 43.0 449.2 243.7 158.8 0.3 5.5 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 903.2
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 110.3 882.3 442.5 350.2 2.3 15.7 1.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 26.2 25.8 44.0 24.5 91.4 73.2 105.4 12.6 2.0 2.3 14.1
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 353.7 2987.9 806.6 1240.8 0.5 11.2 0.7 25.0 0.0 0.6 5427.1
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 84.0 87.3 80.2 86.6 21.2 52.2 68.9 95.3 100.0 100.0 85.7
Ecosystem extent 2012 396.7 3437.0 1050.2 1399.6 0.9 16.7 1.4 27.1 0.0 0.6 6330.3
18
Figure 3. Tendency in the changes presented by the categories “increase”/ “decrease” of the area of
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
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 321.8 4231.5 973.9 13684.3 7.4 43.2 2.2 62.0 0.0 1.1 19327.4
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.3 7.5 8.0 61.4 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 1.0 2.3 2.8 71.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6
Net additions to ecosystem
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 of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 1.3 9.8 10.8 132.9 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 892.1
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
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 321.6 4224.0 965.9 13622.9 7.2 41.0 2.2 61.9 0.0 1.1 19247.8
% 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
Ecosystem extent 2000 322.6 4226.3 968.7 13694.4 7.2 43.0 2.2 61.9 0.0 1.1 19327.4
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 18.5 96.1 65.0 230.9 3.7 10.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 425.1
19
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 321.8 4231.5 973.9 13684.3 7.4 43.2 2.2 62.0 0.0 1.1 19327.4
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.3 7.5 8.0 61.4 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 1.0 2.3 2.8 71.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 9.6 178.2 24.6 203.9 0.1 2.9 0.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 422.3 Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 28.1 274.3 89.6 434.9 3.8 13.4 0.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 8.7 6.5 9.2 3.2 52.5 31.1 26.3 4.5 3.2 4.6
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 304.1 4130.2 903.6 13463.4 3.5 32.5 2.0 61.8 0.0 1.1 18902.3
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 94.3 97.7 93.3 98.3 48.4 75.6 92.1 99.8 100.0 97.8
Ecosystem extent 2006 313.7 4308.4 928.2 13667.4 3.6 35.4 2.4 64.5 0.0 1.1 19324.6
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.5 2.5 2.9 47.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.7
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 3.5 3.6 0.1 44.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 53.7
Net additions to ecosystem
extent(additions - reductions) 3.0 1.1 -2.8 -3.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net additions as % of initial year 1.0 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 4.1 6.1 3.1 92.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.6
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 313.2 4305.9 925.3 13619.6 3.6 35.4 2.4 64.5 0.0 1.1 19271.0
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 99.8 99.9 99.7 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7
Ecosystem extent 2012 316.7 4309.5 925.4 13664.2 3.6 35.7 2.4 66.0 0.0 1.1 19324.6
Ecosystem extent 1990 321.8 4231.5 973.9 13684.3 7.4 43.2 2.2 62.0 0.0 1.1 19327.4
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 18.2 97.1 70.6 247.0 3.9 10.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 447.4
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 13.1 175.1 22.1 226.9 0.1 2.8 0.4 4.1 0.0 0.0 444.7
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
extent(reductions + additions) 31.2 272.2 92.7 474.0 4.0 13.2 0.6 4.2 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 9.7 6.4 9.5 3.5 54.1 30.5 26.7 6.8 3.2 4.6
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 303.7 4134.4 903.3 13437.3 3.5 32.8 2.0 61.9 0.0 1.1 18880.0
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 94.4 97.7 92.8 98.2 47.1 76.0 92.0 99.8 100.0 97.7
Ecosystem extent 2012 316.7 4309.5 925.4 13664.2 3.6 35.7 2.4 66.0 0.0 1.1 19324.6
20
Figure 4. Tendency in the changes presented by the categories “increase”/ “decrease” of the area of
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
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
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 20.2 18.2 8.1 14.1 0.0 8.5 2.7 9.5 8.8 2124.7 2214.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1826.8 1828.1
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 16.9 Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1842.3 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 0.0 7.1 6.3 6.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.7 40.3
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 20.2 17.6 7.6 13.8 0.0 8.5 2.7 9.5 8.8 298.0 386.7
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 100.0 96.7 94.3 98.1 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 14.0 17.5
Ecosystem extent 2000 20.2 18.3 7.7 14.4 0.0 8.5 2.7 9.5 8.8 313.5 403.6
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 1.1 4.6 0.6 1.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 13.2 22.4
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 3.7 2.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.1 13.9 Net additions to ecosystem
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
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 4.7 6.6 0.9 3.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 18.3 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 23.3 36.2 11.9 20.7 24.6 0.7 1.8 4.8 5.8 221.1
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 19.2 13.7 7.1 13.5 0.0 6.8 2.7 9.3 8.7 300.2 381.2
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 94.7 74.9 92.4 93.4 80.0 99.7 98.3 98.6 95.8 94.4
Ecosystem extent 2006 22.8 15.7 7.4 15.5 0.0 7.2 2.7 9.3 9.0 305.3 395.0
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem extent(reductions + additions) 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 5.3 2.3 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 225.8
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 22.5 15.4 7.4 15.3 0.0 7.2 2.7 9.3 9.0 305.3 394.1
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 98.5 98.0 99.3 98.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8
Ecosystem extent 2012 23.4 15.5 7.4 15.3 0.0 7.2 2.7 9.3 9.0 305.4 395.0
Ecosystem extent 1990 20.2 18.2 8.1 14.1 0.0 8.5 2.7 9.5 8.8 2124.7 2214.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 1.0 4.5 1.1 0.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 1833.3 1842.7
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 4.1 1.8 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 13.9 22.9 Net additions to ecosystem
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
extent(reductions + additions) 5.2 6.3 1.4 2.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 1847.2 892.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 25.6 34.6 17.8 19.0 25.2 0.7 1.8 4.8 86.9 40.3
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 19.2 13.7 7.0 13.4 0.0 6.8 2.7 9.3 8.7 291.4 372.1
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 94.9 75.2 86.6 94.6 79.8 99.7 98.3 98.6 13.7 16.8
Ecosystem extent 2012 23.4 15.5 7.4 15.3 0.0 7.2 2.7 9.3 9.0 305.4 395.0
Figure 5. Tendency in the changes presented by the categories “increase”/ “decrease” of the area of
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
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
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 485.5 7127.4 4266.7 26838.2 222.5 400.9 64.9 474.6 6.5 1.8 39888.9
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 0.3 14.6 20.6 172.0 0.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 216.6
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 1.9 14.9 2.5 193.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 216.2
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 2.2 29.6 23.1 365.5 0.4 11.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total turnover as % of initial year 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.4 0.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 485.2 7112.8 4246.1 26666.2 222.0 392.2 64.9 474.5 6.5 1.8 39672.3
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.4 99.8 97.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 99.5
Ecosystem extent 2000 487.1 7127.7 4248.6 26859.7 222.0 395.4 64.9 474.7 6.5 1.8 39888.5
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 13.0 153.7 78.7 342.8 8.4 31.8 2.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 632.3
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 25.3 136.9 54.1 335.5 2.7 24.6 4.7 30.9 0.0 0.0 614.6
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 38.3 290.6 132.8 678.3 11.1 56.3 6.9 32.7 0.0 0.0 1247.0
Total turnover as % of initial year 7.9 4.1 3.1 2.5 5.0 14.2 10.6 6.9 0.0 1.8 3.1
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 474.2 6974.1 4169.9 26517.0 213.6 363.6 62.7 472.8 6.5 1.8 39256.1
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 97.3 97.8 98.1 98.7 96.2 92.0 96.6 99.6 100.0 100.0 98.4
Ecosystem extent 2006 499.4 7111.0 4224.0 26852.5 216.3 388.2 67.4 503.7 6.5 1.8 39870.8
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 99.4 306.0 254.2 214.9 23.0 40.3 3.0 5.8 0.3 0.0 947.0
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 14.2 260.8 289.1 337.2 3.2 35.2 1.4 13.4 3.6 0.0 958.1
23
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
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 113.7 566.7 543.4 552.0 26.2 75.5 4.5 19.2 3.9 0.0 1905.1
Total turnover as % of initial year 22.8 8.0 12.9 2.1 12.1 19.5 6.6 3.8 60.1 2.4 4.8
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 400.0 6805.0 3969.8 26637.6 193.3 347.9 64.4 497.9 6.2 1.8 38923.8
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 80.1 95.7 94.0 99.2 89.4 89.6 95.5 98.8 95.2 100.0 97.6
Ecosystem extent 2012 414.3 7065.8 4258.9 26974.8 196.4 383.0 65.8 511.3 9.8 1.8 39881.9
Ecosystem extent 1990 485.5 7127.4 4266.7 26838.2 222.5 400.9 64.9 474.6 6.5 1.8 39888.9
Reductions to initial ecosystem extent 100.9 396.7 304.7 545.2 26.9 74.9 2.5 6.7 0.3 0.0 1458.9
Additions to initial ecosystem extent 29.7 335.1 296.8 681.8 0.9 57.1 3.4 43.4 3.6 0.1 1451.9
Net additions to ecosystem
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
Total turnover of ecosystem
extent(reductions + additions) 130.6 731.8 601.5 1227.0 27.8 132.0 5.9 50.1 3.9 0.1 2910.7
Total turnover as % of initial year 26.9 10.3 14.1 4.6 12.5 32.9 9.1 10.6 60.1 4.6 7.3
Stable ecosystem stock in KM2 384.5 6730.7 3962.1 26293.0 195.6 325.9 62.4 467.9 6.2 1.8 38430.0
% of ecosystem stock that was stable 79.2 94.4 92.9 98.0 87.9 81.3 96.1 98.6 95.2 99.2 96.3
Ecosystem extent 2012 414.3 7065.8 4258.9 26974.8 196.4 383.0 65.8 511.3 9.8 1.8 39881.9
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
Sold fish on the market 20 5082 450 70 6669 674 0 0 0 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
Sold fish on the market 0 0 0 1275 0 0 0 0 0 0
including salmo sp 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cyprinus carpio 1275
Sold fish on the market 409 8 0 0 2911 0 7027 4890 1673 2798
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