Dr. Ivaylo Ivanov, Assoc. Prof.
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6546-9446
University of Forestry – Sofia, Bulgaria
Dr. Elena Dragozova, Assoc. Prof.
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6450-7474
University of Forestry – Sofia, Bulgaria
Stanislava Kovacheva, Assoc. Prof.
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5636-1225
University of Forestry – Sofia, Bulgaria
Prof. Dr. Ivan Paligorov
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7973-4733
University of Forestry – Sofia, Bulgaria
Dr. Momchil Panayotov, Assoc. Prof.
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1600-9352
University of Forestry – Sofia, Bulgaria
https://doi.org/10.53656/igc-2024.02
Pages 9-21
Abstract. The effective biodiversity goal achievement presupposes cross-sectoral policy coherence and implementation across EU, national and local levels. The goal implementation also depends on supportive behavioural responses by forest owners and managers who have to respond to multiple policy and socio-economic drivers forcing them to make trade-offs under uncertainty. This research is a continuation of previous research which suggests that cross-sectoral goal conflicts and failures to understand behavioural responses constitute major barriers to achieving desired forest biodiversity outcomes. The results of these survey for Bulgaria Case studies made it possible to explore behavioural change required for achieving conservation and biodiversity goals and establish management practices and attitudes in the field of biodiversity assessing synergies and trade-offs between policies, targets and benefits at the biodiversity-forest-climate-water nexus.
Keywords: biodiversity, trade-offs, behavioural responses, forest owners, conservation managers
JEL: Q01, Q23, Q57
- Introduction
Biodiversity and ecosystems degradation continue at an alarming rate in global level, especially in forest ecosystems that are harbouring 80% of terrestrial biodiversity worldwide (Ali, 2023; Ali et al., 2024; Bratanova-Doncheva & Gocheva, 2020; Dorado-Liñán et al., 2022; Durham et al., 2014; European Environment Agency, 2019; European Commission, 2020; Filchev et al., 2021). However, ambitious conservation and restoration targets (Bailey et al., 2023; Baldwin-Cantello et al., 2023; Kachova et al., 2018; Panayotov et al., 2016; Sabatini et al., 2020; Stoev et al., 2022; Van Allen et al., 2017; Zhelev & Aneva, 2019; Zhiyanski, 2020) are not enough to change the current global trend. Strong socio-ecological and policy related interdependencies exist between different goals relating to biodiversity, forests, climate and water, and global biodiversity goal achievement presupposes coherent policy frameworks at the international, national and local levels.
The effective biodiversity goal achievement presupposes cross-sectoral policy coherence and implementation across EU, national and local levels. At the European level, measures have been taken to achieve this goal through ERA Net project support to teams from leading scientific organizations in the field. Such a project with the participation of teams from 7 institutions from 6 European countries, including the University of Forestry from Bulgaria, is being developed more than two year. Project is BIOCONSENT: Decision‐making Support for Forest Biodiversity Conservation and Restoration Policy and Management in Europe: Trade‐offs and Synergies at the Forest‐Biodiversity‐Climate‐Water Nexus.
The project’s expectations are to support policy decision-making and management of forest diversity conservation and restoration in Europe in the form of: i) knowledge of potential synergies and trade-offs between different policy objectives and management practices; ii) methods for predicting the effect of introducing alternative policies and specific behavioural responses established at the sectoral level; iii) tools for modelling the quantitative expression of the results of implementing alternative forms of governance and iv) recommendations for policies and good practices in policy and governance decision-making.
The main goa of the research is to address knowledge gaps and policy needs by developing and providing decision support that will enable the achievement of the EU’s biodiversity targets and the SDGs and the beneficial interactions in the forest-biodiversity-climate-water nexus. The research will generate future support for decision-making that will support the conservation and restoration of forest biodiversity, while mitigating climate change, improving water quality, and ensuring sustainable and multifunctional use of forests. The goal implementation, however depends on supportive behavioural responses by forest owners and managers (Ananda, 2012; Blattert et al., 2023; Bratanova-Doncheva & Gocheva, 2020; Dorado-Liñán et al., 2022) who have to respond to multiple policy and socio-economic drivers forcing them to make trade-offs under uncertainty.
This research is a continuation of previous research which suggests that cross-sectoral goal conflicts and failures to understand behavioural responses constitute major barriers to achieving desired forest biodiversity outcomes (Dragozova et al., 2015; Dragozova-Ivanova et al., 2016; Paligorov et al., 2014; Paligorov et al., 2023a). The results of these survey for Bulgaria Case studies made it possible to explore behavioural change required for achieving conservation and biodiversity goals and establish management practices and attitudes in the field of biodiversity assessing synergies and trade-offs between policies, targets and benefits at the biodiversity-forest-climate-water nexus.
- Methodology
The methodology is aimed at mapping actors and analysing policy networks through:
– identify key stakeholders in biodiversity conservation and restoration at EU and national levels,
– map their policy values, preferences and resources, and
– explore their relationships and networks.
Basic Questions of research is:
- What is the degree of integration between policy sectors and implementing actors at the biodiversity-forest-climate-water nexus?
- What collaboration/conflicts between sectors/actors?
Methodology include:
– social network analysis and
– qualitative interviews/quantitative surveys of actors to map relationships between actor networks across EU and (sub-)national levels (BG).
The outcoming outputs for this research task would be:
– identified horizontal and vertical synergies and conflicts affecting decision-making, implementation and management practice;
– identified key actors, i.e. “agents of change” and “status-quo oriented actors” to be used as a bases in next stages/WP of project.
On this sense a scientific research methodology for stakeholders mapping in Bulgaria Case studies has been developed.
- Results and discussions
3.1. Development of scientific research methodology
Stakeholder mapping and policy network analysis at the national BG level was carried out by developing, testing and implementing a stakeholder opinion survey.
The questionnaire was developed as a result of meetings with stakeholders. The developed questionnaire was approved through a survey of 14 representatives of the stakeholders in the research Case Study areas for Bulgaria – municipalities Teteven and Velingrad. The survey was conducted in the period from April 26, 2023 to May 26, 2023, using the face-to-face method. The purpose of this trial survey is to identify imperfections in the questionnaire.
Figure 1. QR code is generated for accessing
The results from pilot survey and developed methodology of a survey approach of forest land owners and managers were reported at the international conference in RTU in 2023 (Paligorov et al., 2023b). After the results analysis of the pilot study, the questionnaire was improved and digitized. A QR code is generated for accessing the survey via a mobile device – Fig. 1. The last version of survey was distributed to stakeholders in Teteven and Velingrad.
In the period from July 1, 2023 to February 16, 2024, the opinions of 207 representatives of stakeholders were received. A thorough analysis of the results was made and the main part of it is the subject of the present study.
- Survey results analysis
Mapping of participants and analysis of the network of policies at the national BG level was carried out through the presented developed methodology.
The first part of the survey, containing 15 questions, aims to identify stakeholders regarding: type of ownership in forest territories, the type of forest, the dominant tree species in them; average growth; the stock of standing timber and the total forested area. It is clear from the results that representatives of stakeholder parties with public state property from the regional and national level strongly predominate – 82%. Logically, against this background, the representatives of the interested parties are mainly managers – 51%, of which those who do not have the authority to make decisions are larger part – 37%, 36% of the representatives in the study are participants in the forest management process, under one or another form. The most common tree species in the forest areas are oak, beech (Fagus silvatica L. and Fagus orientalis L.), Pine Silvestre and Blak Pine. These are also the main species of production importance in Bulgaria and they are mainly distributed in uneven-aged forests – 80%(from representatives opinion) and multi-species forests – 90%.
The next two part of the survey aim to explore current and possible future forest management practices. The results of this part of the survey are the basis for the creation of a common European policy for the preservation and restoration of biodiversity in the conditions of rapidly developing climate changes. The European forest management scenarios developed with the help of the BIOCONSENT Project have been refined with the aim of using them to develop policy modelling rules in the next stage of the project. The study of behaviour, behavioural changes and their drivers is the basis for adapting the scenarios to the conditions in Bulgaria.
This article presents only a small part of the results for the opinion of the stakeholder parties on a total of 45 questions from this essential part of the survey is presented. Thematically, the questions are focused on the following features:
– current and future forest management practices;
– behavioural responses to current and future challenges.
In the Table 1 are presented apart of the questions.
Table 1. Basic questions research oriented on the current and future forest management practices and the behavioural responses to challenges
| № | Question |
| 1. | How important are objectives and functions (forest ecosystem goods and services) that you are currently manage in your forest? |
| 2. | What are the main forest management practices to meet your forest management objectives? |
| 3. | How important are the following (are listed in the survey) decision-making principles for forest management practices? |
| 4. | How important are the following political, economic, social, technological and ecological factors (are listed in the survey) for shaping forest management decisions? |
| 5. | Which of the following EU Forest Strategy and EU Biodiversity Strategy policy objectives (are listed in the survey) for 2030 would convince you changing forest management practice the most? |
The results of stakeholders’s opinion survey in two Case studies for Bulgaria – municipalities Teteven and Velingrad on the first of the question (from Table 1) are presented in Fig. 2.
Figure 2. How important are objectives and functions (forest ecosystem goods and services) that you are currently manage in your forest?
It is clear from the figure that the respondents consider the functions of the forest as particularly important, such as: biodiversity; habitat protection; protection of animal and plant species and communities; protection of water and soil features; the of carbon capture possibilities; adaptation to climate change. These are functions with a proven and fully realized importance by the forest managers and users, because they estimate their importance to a degree almost equal to the assessment of the wood production functions of the forests. In studies were done 10-15 years ago, this was not the case (Paligorov et al., 2014; Dragozova, 2015; Dragozova-Ivanova, 2016).
The results of stakeholders’s opinion survey of the question No2 (from Table 1) are presented in Fig. 3 a), Fig. 3 b) and Fig. 3 c). The aim of the study is to understand the attitude of the stakeholders towards the use of different practices for managing forest territories. The survey focused on the management practices is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Forest management practice – object of the survey
| Forest management practice | How do you manage forest currently or in the future: to improve biodiversity or; to adapt management to climate change impacts? |
| 2.1. Main Cutting regime (drop down list) | |
| A) Clear felling | |
| B) Group selection | |
| C) Single tree selection | |
| D) No cutting | |
| E) No change from current management | |
| 2.2. Main Thinning regime (drop down list) | |
| A) Thinning from above (selects the larger trees for harvest, leaving smaller trees on site) | |
| B) Thinning from below (selects the smaller trees for harvest, leaving the larger trees on site) | |
| C) Thinning from all size classes | |
| D) No Thinning | |
| E) No change from current management | |
| 2.3. Main Tree species selection (drop down list) | |
| A) Maintain current composition | |
| B) Shift to broadleaves dominated forest | |
| C) Shift to conifers dominated forest | |
| D) Shift to mix species forest | |
| E) Use of non-native tree species | |
| F) No change from current management | |
| 2.4. Main Regeneration method (drop down list) | |
| A) Planting with regular planting material | |
| B) Planting with planting material obtained from tree breeding | |
| C) Natural regeneration | |
| D) Enrichment planting | |
| E) Coppice | |
| F) No change from current management | |
| 2.5. Main Biodiversity improvement method (drop down list) | |
| A) Set aside forest, with no active management | |
| B) Increasing deadwood and microhabitats in managed forests | |
| C) Increase diversity in tree sizes | |
| D) None | |
| E) No change from current management | |
| F) Other (please specify) | |
| 2.6. Post-disturbances management (drop down list) | |
| A) Salvage logging with planting | |
| B) Salvage logging with natural regeneration | |
| C) Leaving all wood with natural regeneration on the forest area affected by disturbances | |
| D) No post-disturbance management | |
| E) No change from current management | |
| F) Other (please specify) | |
The detailed research on the issue of using different management practices is very interesting. From the table it can be seen that the opinion about the use of the future tense was also studied. For the purposes of this study in Fig. 3, only the part of the survey focused on the 2.3. Main tree species selection for regeneration is presented. From the figure, it is striking that 32% of forest managers and users would not undertake a change in order to preserve biodiversity or to adapt to climate change, while the rest fully maintain the current practices. However, as a good trend we can note the preservation of the current most frequently applied management practice – switching to mixed forests.
a) 
b) 
c)
Figure 3. What are the main forest management practices (2.3. Main tree species selection) to meet your forest management objectives? a)-currently; b)- in the future to improve biodiversity; c)- in the future to adapt management to climate change impacts
To a large extent, this corresponds to the results presented in Fig. 4 and Fig.5. The figures show a tendency and stakeholders aspiration to preserve the current state and they demonstrate a difficult acceptance of the idea of future changes in: policy, standards, regulations, management of economic instruments, etc. in the area of forests, water, biodiversity and climate.
Figure 4. How important are the following (are listed in the survey) decision-making principles for forest management practices?
Figure 5. Which of the following EU Forest Strategy and EU Biodiversity Strategy policy objectives (are listed in the survey) for 2030 would convince you changing forest management practice the most?
This certain conservatism of forestry management is one of the necessary characteristics of human resources engaged in forests management. This, to a large extent, is the reason for the very good current state of forest resources in Bulgaria. The „big question“ is whether this approach would preserve forests, water and biodiversity in the future, when all forecasts point to a depth of climatic changes with strong impact on species diversity in forests and on many other forest functions that directly affect humans and animal species, or would major changes in thinking, leadership and policy were needed in the future.
- Conclusion and future trends of research
Scientific knowledge has been accumulated on research and analysis in the last 10-15 years in the field of biological diversity and policy in the field of protection, management and restoration of biological diversity in forests. The current changes in normative documents as of May 2024 were studied: international conventions, international agreements, acts of the European Union (directives and decisions), laws, rules and regulations in the field of management of biological diversity, forests and waters. As a result:
– The strategic views in the field of sustainable development and management of biological diversity, forests, water, and the environment in Bulgaria have been analysed, based on data from the Case studies in the North-West and South-Central Development Regions – Teteven and Velingrad municipalities;
– The opinion of 221 interested persons was studied through a questionnaire developed. The ownership of the forests and the role of the interested parties in the municipalities of Velingrad and Teteven have been identified. The current and future forest management practices are identified in terms of: the main logging system, the main scheme of plantation villages, the selection of leading tree species, the main method of regeneration, the main method of biodiversity enrichment, management after natural disasters;
̶ Behavioural responsibilities towards current and future challenges are explored in terms of: motivation for forest management, the influence of political, economic, social, technological and environmental factors on current and future forest management. The degree of influence of different policies that would force stakeholders to change forest management is analysed.
Based on the analysis, three scenarios for forest biodiversity conservation and restoration policies and management are developed and tested. These will form the basis of work during the next stage of research and project.
Acknowledgement
The research was carried out with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund at the Ministry of Education and Science, Bulgaria – No КП-06-Д002/1/02.06. 2022 under the BIOCONSENT project Decision‐making Support for Forest Biodiversity Conservation and Restoration Policy and Management in Europe: Trade‐offs and Synergies at the Forest‐Biodiversity‐Climate‐Water Nexus.
REFERENCES
Ali, A. (2023). Biodiversity-ecosystem Functioning Research: Brief History, Major Trends and Perspectives. Biological Conservation, 285, 110210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110210
Ali, R., García-Sànchez, I. M., Aibar-Guzmàn, B. & Rehman, R. U. (2024). Is Biodiversity Disclosure Emerging as a Key Topic on the Agenda of Institutional Investors? Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(3), 2116 – 2142. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3587
Ananda, J. (2012). Conflict Resolution in Forest Land Use Planning and Management: The Use of Multi-stakeholder Analysis. In S. Freire, K. Steinnocher, C. Aubrecht (Eds.), Land Use: Planning, Regulations, and Environment (pp. 53 – 73). Nova Science Publishers.
Bailey, S., Morris, D. & Dunning, K. (2023). Biodiversity Conservation, Advocacy Coalitions, and Science-focused Disputes: The Case of Caymanian Coral Reef Conservation and the Proposed Port Expansion Project. Frontiers in Marine Science, 10, 1204139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1204139
Baldwin-Cantello, W., Tickner, D., Wright, M., Clark, M., Cornelius, S., Ellis, K., Francis, A., Ghazoul, J., Gordon, J. E., … & Young, L. (2023). The Triple Challenge: Synergies, Trade-offs and Integrated Responses for Climate, Biodiversity, and Human Wellbeing Goals. Climate policy, 23(6), 782 – 799. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2175637
Blattert, C., Mönkkönen, M., Burgas, D., Di Fulvio, F., Caicoya, A. T., Vergarechea, M., Klein, J., Hartikainen, M., Antón-Fernández, C., … & Eyvindson, K. (2023). Climate Targets in European Timber-producing Countries Conflict with Goals on Forest Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. Communications earth & environment, 4(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00771-z
Bratanova-Doncheva, S. & Gocheva, K. (2020). Climate Change and Ecosystem Services in Bulgaria, or What We Lose When We Win. In: Nedkov, S. et al. (Eds.), Smart Geography. Key Challenges in Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28191-5_26
Dorado-Liñán, I., Ayarzagüena, B., Babst, F., Xu, G., Gil, L., Battipaglia, G., Buras, A., Čada, V., J. Camarero, J. J., … & Trouet, V. (2022). Jet Stream Position Explains Regional Anomalies in European Beech Forest Productivity and Tree Growth. Nature communications, 13(1), 2015. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29615-8
Dragozova, E., Ivanov, I., Kovacheva, S., Paligorov, I., Galev, E. & Stipcov,V. (2015). Demographic Factors for the Management of Forest Landscapes in the Velingrad Area. Economic Alternatives, 2, 50 – 61. https://www.unwe.bg/eajournal/en/journalissues/article/7768
Dragozova-Ivanova, E., Paligorov, I., Ivanov, I. & Kovacheva, S. (2016). Management Modelling for Forest Landscapes. Economics and Business, 28, 90 – 97, https://doi.org/10.1515/eb-2016-0013
Durham, E., Baker, H., Smith, M., Moore, E., & Morgan, V. (2014). The BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Handbook: Best practice guidelines for stakeholder engagement in research projects. BiodivERsA. https://www.biodiversa.org/1223/download
European Commission. (2020). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52020DC0066
European Environmental Agency (EEA). (2019). The European Environment – State and Outlook 2020: Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe. Publications Office of the European Union.
Filchev, L., Pashova, L., Kolev, V., & Frye, S. (2021). Challenges and Solutions for Utilizing Earth Observations in the “Big Data” Era. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.08886
Kachova, V., Hinkov, G., Popov, E., Trichkov, L., & Mosquera-Losada, R. (2018). Agroforestry in Bulgaria: History, Presence Status and Prospects. Agroforest Systems, 92, 655 – 665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0029-6
Paligorov, I., Ivanov, I., Dragozova-Ivanova, E., Kovacheva, S. (2014). Ecosystem of the Forest Landscape and Conflict of Interests of Stakeholders. Economics and Business, 25, 61 – 67. https://doi.org/10.7250/eb.2014.009
Paligorov, I., Kovacheva, S., Ivanov, I., Dragozova, E., Sotirov, M., Lindahl, K., Pecurul, M., Verkerk, H. & Kraxner, F. (2023a). Results on Implementation of SDG15 of the Global Sustainable Development Goals. Management and Sustainable development, 99(2), 6 – 13.
Paligorov, I., Ivanov, I., Kovacheva, S., Dragozova, E., Sotirov, M. & Panayotov, M. (2023b, October 12). The Responsibility of Forest Management: A Survey Approach of Forest Land Owners and Managers. Conference proceedings of 64th International Scientific Conference “Scientific Conference on Economics and Entrepreneurship” (SCEE’2023). https://www.rtu.lv/en/feem/for-reserchers-1/conferences-2/scee-1/scee-2023
Panayotov, M., Kulakowski, D., Tsvetanov, N., Krumm, F., Barbeito, I., & Bebi, P. (2016). Climate Extremes during High Competition Contribute to Mortality in Unmanaged Self-thinning Norway Spruce Stands in Bulgaria. Forest Ecology and Management, 369, 74 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.02.033
Sabatini, F.M., Keeton, W.S., Lindner, M., Svoboda, M., Verkerk, P. J., Bauhus, J., Bruelheide, H., Burrascano, S., Debaive, N., … & Kuemmerle, T. (2020). Protection Gaps and Restoration Opportunities for Primary Forests in Europe. Diversity and Distributions, 26(12), 1646 – 1662. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13158
Stoev, P., Hubenov, Z., Ganeva, A., Blagoev, G., & Barov, B. (2022). Biodiversity of Bulgaria: Characteristics, Protection and Trends. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 6, e95683. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.6.95683
Van Allen, B. G., Rasmussen, N. L., Dibble, C. J., Clay, P. A., & Rudolf, V. H. (2017). Top Predators Determine How Biodiversity is Partitioned Across Time and Space. Ecology Letters, 20(8), 1004 – 1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12798
Zhelev, P., & Aneva, I. Y. (2019). Climate Change, Biodiversity and Forest Genetic Resources: A Bulgarian Perspective. In M. Šijačić-Nikolić, J. Milovanović & M. Nonić (Eds.), Forests of Southeast Europe Under a Changing Climate: Conservation of Genetic Resources (pp. 409 – 427). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95267-3_34
Zhiyanski, M. (2020). Forest Ecosystems in Bulgaria Under Environmental Change – Carbon Sequestration Potential and Vulnerability Zones. In Nedkov, S., et al. (Eds.), Smart Geography: Key Challenges in Geography (pp. 417 – 441). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28191-5_31
