Upload
nguyendieu
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Enhanced balanced relationship
between humans and biosphere
in four biosphere reserves in
Central Balkan National Park in
Bulgaria Final Project report
By Iordan Hristov Sofia, Bulgaria
2012
Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................................... i
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1
2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................2
3 Results and discussion ......................................................................................................................5
3.1 Status of conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores in four biosphere
reserves in Central Balkan mountain, Bulgaria ....................................................................................5
3.1.1 Conflict issues ...................................................................................................................5
3.1.2 Damage from large carnivores .........................................................................................8
3.1.3 Precautionary measures ................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans and large carnivores. .. 12
3.2.1 Areas with the highest number of conflict interactions. .............................................. 13
3.2.2 Proximity of interactions to biosphere reserves ........................................................... 14
3.2.3 Comparison of conflict cases between biosphere reserves and external to them
territories ...................................................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Model of precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive market approach to
raise awareness for positive attitude towards conservation of large carnivores ............................. 20
3.3.1 Trademark establishment ............................................................................................. 20
3.3.2 Feasibility of trade mark establishing ........................................................................... 21
3.3.3 Project outcomes .......................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Literature ............................................................................................................................................... 26
List of figures Fig. 1 Issues for conflict interactions in the CBNP ....................................................................................6
Fig. 2 Perceptions of interviewees to carnivores .....................................................................................7
Fig. 3 Profile of interviewees ....................................................................................................................7
Fig. 4 Proportion of attacks from bears and wolves ................................................................................8
Fig. 5 Proportion of domestic animals attacked by wolves and bears .....................................................9
Fig. 6 Comparison of bear attacks over domestic animals in CBNP and Western Rhodope mountains
............................................................................................................................................................... 10
Fig. 7 Precautionary measures for conflict mitigation .......................................................................... 12
Fig. 8 Products traded or produced ...................................................................................................... 20
List of Maps Map 1 Interview locations ........................................................................................................................3
Map 2 Areas where domestic animals were attacked by bears or wolves ........................................... 14
Map 3 Attacks around Dzendema biosphere reserve ........................................................................... 15
Map 4 Attacks around Tsarichina biosphere reserve............................................................................ 16
Map 5 Attacks around Steneto biosphere reserve ............................................................................... 16
Map 6 Attacks around Boatin biosphere reserve ................................................................................. 17
Map 7 Sensitivity map with conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores ................... 18
Appendices Appendix 1 Interview protocol .............................................................................................................. 27
Appendix 2 Images ................................................................................................................................ 29
i | P a g e
Summary
Central Balkan mountain range with its four biosphere reserves is one of the areas in the country that
holds the major stronghold of the large carnivore Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and European Grey Wolf
(Canis lupus lupus) populations in Bulgaria. Interactions between the National Park users with its
biosphere are a precondition for human-wildlife conflict. This study aims at enhancing a balanced
relationship between humans and large carnivores in four biosphere reserves in Central
Balkan mountain, Bulgaria. Two fulfil this goal one should 1) assess the current status of
conflict interactions between humans and carnivores, then 2) assess the role of biosphere
reserves for conflicts mitigation and 3) provide a model for precautionary conflict resolution
on the basis of positive market approach. As a result better conservation of large carnivores
and enhanced relationship between them and humans is expected.
Geographically the study focus is on four biosphere reserves in the Central Balkan National
Park in Bulgaria: Boatin, Dzendema, Steneto and Tsarichina. At these areas the main target
groups subject to surveying are four major users of the Park’s biosphere: shepherds, tourists,
local people from villages adjacent to the reserves and managers of mountain chalets. Their
interactions with large carnivores Brown Bear and Grey Wolf are investigated in areas
adjacent to the biosphere reserves and away from them. With the help of interviews,
literature review and consultations with the Central Balkan National Park Directorate
locations are appointed where large carnivores have attacked a domestic animal, a human
or have done any damage on people. These damages are considered a basis for human-
wildlife conflict. The damages and interactions are mapped with a GPS device. With the help
of Geographical Information System software, a map of areas sensitive to human-wildlife
conflicts is presented.
In total six conflict issues are identified in the survey. Results show that 76% of the conflict
issues between humans and carnivores are related to attacks over domestic animals. In
addition, conflicts are created on occasions of attacks to a person, or building entry. About
70% of the damages are caused by bears vs 30% from wolves. Data shows differences to the
species of animals attacked where 60% of the wolf attacks are over sheep and the other 40
are over cattle. Bear attacks are mostly targeted at cattle with 61% of their attacks. Over
25% of the bear attacks are over sheep and only 12% are over horses. Identical data from
other areas in the country suggests that damages from large carnivores are specific to local
settings and are highly dependent on precautionary measures that farmers take.
There are three main precautionary measures identified during the study: use of dogs (42%),
human presence (35%), and use of enclosures (23%). However, the effectiveness of these
depends on a number of factors and the local circumstances. For highest effectiveness a
combination of the three is recommended. In addition, infrastructure needs to be improved
by the National Park Directorate.
In total, 47 cases of attacks from bears and wolves are identified for the period 1980-2012.
The most sensitive area to human wildlife conflict is the area to the east of Dzendema
reserve where 11 out of 32 attacks are within 1 km from the borders of the reserve. The
second sensitive area is Tsarichina reserve where three out of five of the attacks are within
ii | P a g e
1km from the reserve. Steneto has negligible data on attacks and there are no attacks
around Boatin. In order to reduce the preconditions for conflicts in this area the CBNP
Directorate has to take a number of measures such as providing additional enclosures for
domestic animals in the most sensitive areas and provide dogs to shepherd.
Comparison of conflict interactions with other areas from around the National Park and
other mountains in the country suggest that the attacks in the Central Balkan National Park
are negligible with about 1% of the brown bears attacking domestic animals in an average of
2,13 cases per year. This low percentage suggests that biosphere reserves in the National
Park have positive role for mitigating human-wildlife conflict. However, it is important to
consider the forthcoming changes in the management regulations of biosphere reserves
which may be imposed by the Seville strategy.
There is a need for a positive market approach to additionally prevent human-wildlife
conflict. Results show that 61% of the National Park users trade with dairy products like
yoghurt and cheese and 28% trade with berries. Feasibility assessment suggests that berries
have higher chance of becoming a product with established label and high price. This high
percentage of resource use suggests that the products mentioned have the potential to
receive a biodiversity friendly trademark that is expected to raise the awareness of local
people to the value of natural resources.
On the basis of results and recommendations given in this report a balanced relationship
between humans and large carnivores will be enhanced.
1 | P a g e
1 Introduction
Central Balkan mountain range with its four biosphere reserves is one of the areas in the country that
holds the major stronghold of Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and European Grey Wolf (Canis lupus lupus)
populations in Bulgaria. Several years ago an agri-environmental scheme was started for pastoral
livestock grazing in the National Park. Thus a large number of domestic animals are taken every
summer to the National park for grazing. In addition, since the park is a part of the Pan Parks network
and is rich in natural resources, the area is regularly visited by a large number of tourists. The
mountain chalets adjacent to the biosphere reserves are some of the most visited in the country.
Thus interactions between the National Park users with its biosphere are a precondition for human-
wildlife conflict. Up to now, no study is known to exist for the region about the perceptions of
biosphere users about wildlife. Thus there is lack of understanding in conservationists about the
stakeholders’ perceptions. On the other hand, the administration of the Central Balkan National Park
envisages update of the management plan of the Park in the next years. This update is expected to
ensure equal consideration of both humans’ and biodiversity needs. Thus the outcomes of the survey
can immediately feed into the management plan update and ensure sustainable and proactive
biodiversity conservation with consideration of human needs.
The main research goal is to reduce conflict between humans and large carnivores in four
biosphere reserves in Central Balkan mountain, Bulgaria to enhance their role for
demonstrating a balanced relationship between humans and biosphere.
There are three main results that are expected from fulfilling the research goal: the first and
most important is that a balanced relationship between humans and the biosphere is
promoted and demonstrated; the second is that positive approaches to conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources with prevention of human-wildlife conflict are
demonstrated; the third is that the effectiveness of four biosphere reserves in Central Balkan
mountain in Bulgaria is enhanced for resolving human-wildlife conflict and thus common
understanding and cooperation at local, regional international levels is strengthened.
Research purposes:
1. Assess the current status of conflict interactions between humans and large
carnivores in four biosphere reserves in Central Balkan mountain.
2. Assess the role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans and large
carnivores.
3. Create a model of precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive market
approach to raise awareness for positive attitude towards conservation of large
carnivores.
Expected results from the research purposes:
1. The status of current conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores in
four biosphere reserves in Central Balkan mountain is assessed;
2. The role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans and large
carnivores is assessed;
3. A model is created for precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive
market approach to raise awareness for positive attitude towards conservation of
large carnivores.
2 | P a g e
Conflict interaction is here defined as a case for interaction when humans and carnivores
have competed over resources that has resulted in a loss of certain resource (e.g. livestock)
which results in a conflict.
It is important to note that currently the biosphere reserves in Bulgaria have not officially
implemented the requirements of the Seville Strategy for Biosphere reserves. Thus the
current regulations of the reserves do not allow any human presence there but for scientific
purposes only. On the other hand the reserves are primarily forested areas where no grazing
can occur. This regulation reduces the chances for accidental attacks and interaction
between humans and wildlife. However grazing is possible on the edge of the reserves
where attacks may occur. An important assumption here is that animals that have attacked
within 1 000 m from the theoretical borders of the reserves come from the biosphere
reserves and have not come from elsewhere. Since pastures are mainly above the tree line
and the reserves border with them this assumption is well acceptable because animals are
not expected to wonder large areas in the open alpine areas above the tree line. Although
they are known to often visit mountain pastures they are not expected to go far from the
forest edge. Thus interactions between humans and carnivores and the role of biosphere
reserves for conflict mitigation are assessed in relation to the proximity of attacks to the
reserves.
After describing the background and the need for the research, one needs to describe the
methods for fulfilling the project goal and objectives.
2 Methodology This section describes the methods used for fulfilling the project goal and research purposes.
First the geographical scope of the project is defined; second the main target group are
appointed; third the activities for fulfilling each of the research purposes are described. As a
result, the methodology for fulfilling the project goal is described.
Geographically the study is focused on four biosphere reserves in the Central Balkan
National Park in Bulgaria: Boatin, Dzendema, Steneto and Tsarichina. These are all the
biosphere reserves in the mountain range. The territory of the National Park holds about 200
brown bears (CBNP 2012) and a large numbers of wolves in Bulgaria, which is a precondition
for human-wildlife conflict.
The main target group subject to surveying are divided into four major users of the Park’s
biosphere: shepherds, tourists, local people from villages adjacent to the reserves and
managers of mountain chalets. These are the main users of biosphere resources and that is
why their perceptions are the most important to survey.
The large carnivores subject to the study are only the brown bears and wolves since they are
the major source of conflict over biosphere resources use.
The first project purpose will be fulfilled with the following three activities:
3 | P a g e
1.1. Identify conflict issues (e.g. interactions, competition over resources) and develop
understanding about the reasons in the basis of these issues according to local cultural
and socio-economic circumstances.
Two main methods are used to identify conflict issues: informal interviews and literature
review. At the beginning of the project a literature review was conducted to develop an
interview protocol (see Appendix 1). This protocol was filled up after every informal
interview. The interviewees were not recorded with a tape at the time of an interview to
avoid bias.
Interviewees with different background and profile at a spot are counted as two different
interviewees even if they are at one location because they would represent different case
study. However, if a group of people with identical profile were present at one location their
case description will be considered for one regardless of the number of people present.
Informal interviews are conducted on the field with 26 people from 23 locations in the
research area of the four biosphere reserves in the National Park. The locations are more
than the initially planned 12 locations1 which allows more detailed analysis and comparison
of results between locations. About 48 % of these 23 locations are on the edge of the
biosphere reserves and the other 52 % of the interview locations are in between the
reserves (See Map 1). Thus an equal number of interviews were conducted around the
reserves and away from them. The data from these interviewees is used for control on bias
for estimating the proximity of carnivores’ attacks to biosphere reserves. As a result,
comparison is made between human-carnivores interactions in areas adjacent and distant to
biosphere reserves.
Map 1 Interview locations
1 Boatin: Momina poliana chalet, Planinski izvori chalet, Komitski valog, Divchovoto and Ribaritsa
village ; Dzendema: Raj chalet ; Steneto: Dermenka, Ambaritsa, Dobrila chalets ; Tsarichina: Vezen,
Eho, Benkovski chalets
4 | P a g e
1.2. Assess damages from large carnivores: estimate number of victims and specifics of the
interactions (e.g. number of attacks, type of domestic animal killed, available
precautionary prevention measures – shepherd dogs, etc.).
These damages are estimated during the interviews. Interviewees are asked about the types
of interactions they have had with bears and wolves, the perceptions of interviewees after
the intervention and the outcomes from the interactions. In addition, information is
requested from the National Park Directorate for attacks for the territory of the whole
national park. As a result, the types of damages are assessed.
1.3. Propose precautionary measures according to existing practices from other countries
and local cultural and socio-economic circumstances.
With the help of literature review, an initial list of precautionary measures and existing
practices from other countries is prepared. During the interviews, understanding is
developed about cultural and socio-economic reasons standing behind potential conflict
interactions. As a result, an adapted list of precautionary measures is prepared according to
local cultural and socio-economic circumstances.
The second project purpose is fulfilled with the following activities:
2.1. Identify and map areas in Central Balkan mountain with the highest number of
conflicts between humans and carnivores to suggest areas of sensitivity for conflict
interactions.
The damages and interactions identified during the interviews on the field are mapped with
a GPS device Garmin GPSmap 62s. With the help of Geographical Information System (GIS)
software ArcMap 10, a map of areas sensitive to human-wildlife conflicts is prepared.
2.2. Estimate the proximity of conflict interaction cases to biosphere reserves.
After the areas with conflict interactions are mapped, their proximity to biosphere reserves
is estimated on the sensitivity map with the help of ArcMap 10, Map Source 6.15.11 and
Google Earth 6.1.0.5001. On the basis of this proximity the role of biosphere reserves for
conflict mitigation is descriptively assessed.
2.3. Compare numbers of conflict cases between biosphere reserves and external to them
territories within the Central Balkan National Park. As a result of the GIS analysis and the
interviews, the number of conflict cases is compared between areas adjacent and distant
to biosphere reserves.
The third project purpose will be fulfilled with the following activities:
3.1 Develop hypothetical trade mark of products from domestic animals grazing in areas
adjacent to biosphere reserves in the National Park and exposed to attacks from bears
and wolves.
During the interviews with shepherds, the products they produce are identified. Criteria are
developed for nominating a product as ‘biosphere friendly’ for promoting conservation and
raising awareness.
5 | P a g e
3.2 Assess the feasibility of establishing a trade mark and develop understanding on
perceptions of target groups of stakeholders on the created trade mark.
Interviewees are asked for their perceptions on production and consumption of biosphere
friendly products. As a result the feasibility of establishing a trade mark is assessed but only
with regards to potential customers’ perceptions. The survey does not include any market
study.
3.3 Communicate the project outcomes to stakeholders involved in conservation of large
carnivores
The project outcomes will be sent to stakeholders involved in conservation of bears and
wolves: the administration of the Central Balkan National Park, and NGOs after the final
report is endorsed by the UNESCO Secretariat.
3 Results and discussion
The results are presented in three main sections focused on each of the project objectives.
3.1 Status of conflict interactions between humans and large
carnivores in four biosphere reserves in Central Balkan mountain,
Bulgaria
This section describes the fulfilment of research purpose one: “Assess the current status of
conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores in four biosphere reserves in
Central Balkan mountain” with the following three project purposes: 1) Identify conflict
issues (e.g. interactions, competition over resources) and develop understanding about the
reasons in the basis of these issues according to local cultural and socio-economic
circumstances. 2) Assess damages from large carnivores: estimate number of victims and
specifics of the interactions (e.g. number of attacks, type of domestic animal killed, available
precautionary prevention measures – shepherd dogs, etc.); 3) Propose precautionary
measures according to existing practices from other countries and local cultural and socio-
economic circumstances.
3.1.1 Conflict issues
In total 8 cases of conflict interactions are identified during the survey and 13 are appointed
in the information submitted by the National Park Direktorate. On the basis of literature
review a list of 6 issues was prepared prior to the field interviews conducted (see Fig. 1).
From those only three turned relevant to the area. Most of the interactions (76%) between
humans and wildlife are related to attacks of carnivores over domestic animals that graze in
the park. Upon five occasions a human was attacked by a bear and two when a bear has
searched for food around a mountain chalet.
6 | P a g e
Fig. 1 Issues for conflict interactions in the CBNP
It is important to note that three of the preliminary identified conflict issues are insignificant
to the local settings. In other mountains of Bulgaria (e.g. Western Rhodope mountains) with
healthy populations of bears and wolves significant percentage of the interactions are
related to encounters of people with animals during berries and mushroom collection. In
Western Rhodopes for example most of the people would be walking in small groups or by
themselves. Thus they keep quiet and increase their chances to encounter a bear. In the
same area of Western Rhodopes bears would enter settlements and more than half of the
damages from them would be from breaking into bee-hives for honey collection (Brown bear
action plan for Bulgaria 2008). However, there are no such interactions around the
biosphere reserves because of their remoteness to settlements. In addition, the biosphere
reserves are ‘no go’ areas and there are no areas for forest berries collection. Furthermore
people collecting berries in the National Park are usually in large groups whereas in Western
Rhodopes people are usually by themselves or in small groups. That is how conflicts can be
created in the Rhodope Mountains.
Regardless of these conflict interactions nearly 80% of the interviewees have positive
attitude towards the carnivores (see Fig. 2). People that have negative perceptions are those
that have realized that they have not undertaken the needed precautionary measures. Even
at locations where bears regularly disturb domestic animals shepherds have positive attitude
to the carnivores and consider this for normal. This suggests that well established
precautionary measures are needed.
7 | P a g e
Fig. 2 Perceptions of interviewees to carnivores
To assess the meaning of this data one needs to present the profile of the interviewees (see
Fig. 3). Half of the people interviewed are chalet managers (50%). Another significant
percentage are the shepherds: 31% and berries collectors 12%).
Fig. 3 Profile of interviewees
Shepherds and chalet managers are the people that spend most of their time in the
mountains exposed to the highest risk of attacks and conflicts with carnivores. However the
positive attitude to carnivores of nearly 80% of the interviewees (Fig. 2) suggests that there
are positive preconditions for enhanced relationship between humans and carnivores.
After the conflict issues are defined and the perceptions of interviewees are appointed a list
of damages is described.
8 | P a g e
3.1.2 Damage from large carnivores
A list of damages is compiled during the interviews. Interviewees are asked for the types of
interactions they have had with bears and wolves, the perceptions of interviewees after the
intervention and the outcomes from the interactions. As a result, the types of damages are
assessed.
According to the data documented by the National Park Directorate and the interviewees
bears have produced nearly 70% of the attacks (see Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 Proportion of attacks from bears and wolves
The number of attacks from bears is more than 50% to the ones from wolves which is a
significant difference. There are several possible reasons for this difference. First and most
important is that wolves prefer densely vegetated areas whereas bears often search for food
in open areas. Thus herds of livestock that graze in areas above the tree line are rarely
exposed to attacks from wolves. Second possible reason is that bears are more used to
human presence whereas wolves tend to avoid them. Third reason is that wolves are
apparently able to find enough food sources away from people and domestic animals. It is
important to note that the information available is from the summer season months May to
September and only one case is from November. Summer is the season when livestock is
taken up to the mountains for grazing and no data is available for winter when wolves are in
packs. It is important to acknowledge that this is locally specific setting and conclusions
cannot be extrapolated to other areas in the country or other countries. It is also possible
that the number of wolves on the territory of the National Park is lower than the number of
bears. However, no data is known to exist about the number wolves and as a result, no
comparison is possible.
An important aspect in the difference in the number of attacks described here is that it does
not consider the animals killed but only the number of interactions. Wolves are known to kill
high number of animals and consume only a small proportion of them. Bears usually kill only
a few animals enough for them to satisfy their needs. Thus the number of animals killed by
wolves may be higher. Upon one occasion from the area of Rusalka chalet, its manager
9 | P a g e
reports a kill of 50 sheep from a pack of wolves. This number would be theoretically equal to
25-50 attacks of bears.
Preferences of wolves and bears to the types of domestic animals attacked differ in between
(see Fig. 5). It is important to note that the graph above considers the number of
interactions with no consideration on the number of animals killed or the number of animals
attacking. Results from the interviews and data protocols submitted by the CBNP Directorate
suggest that bears show higher fidelity to attacking cows and their calves rather than any
other livestock. Cows are often left with no human presence and calves are often left behind
of the herd which makes them suitable victims. Although some of the interviewees suggest
that no bear can approach a herd of livestock with adult cows data suggests that these are
some of the most often attacked animals.
Fig. 5 Proportion of domestic animals attacked by wolves and bears
The preference of brown bears to cattle is specific to the local setting. According to the
Brown Bear Action Plan for Bulgaria (2008), most of the damages from bears in the Western
Rhodope mountains in Bulgaria are on bee-hives and the main kill is sheep whereas here
there are no bee-hives and cattle constitutes over 60% of the bear attacks. In the Western
Rhodopes cattle constitutes 10% of the attacks and sheep is the main prey item with over
70%. This difference in the number of attacks between the two areas is because of the
specifics in the grazing practices and the landscape. It is important to acknowledge the
number of animals that graze in the two areas. According to data submitted by the CBNP
Directorate sheep are nearly 80% of the domestic animals that graze in whole territory of
the National park and cows with calves are 15%. This difference in the percentage of animals
that are present in the park suggests that cows are less protected and exposed to higher risk
mainly because they mostly graze without a shepherd. Identical data on the proportion of
domestic animals that are grazed in the Western Rhodopes is not available for the area
because of lack of centralized system for grazing control and management of pastures and
meadows.
It is interesting to note that the data gathered does not acknowledge any attacks of wolves
over horses (see Fig. 5). However, upon one occasion several dead horses were found that
were eaten by wolves. These horses were not killed by them but were frozen in the snow
10 | P a g e
and wolves have eaten them. That is why this case is not acknowledged in the data.
Interviewees at several locations suggested that horses are generally hardly exposed to
attacks mainly because the males severely protect their herd.
The specifics of the landscape in other mountains in Bulgaria like the Western Rhodopes are
a precondition for a different approach for obtaining food. Comparison of bear attacks over
domestic animals in the CBNP and the Rhodope mountains shows difference in the exposure
of domestic animals that may be subject to conflict (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6 Comparison of bear attacks over domestic animals in CBNP and Western Rhodope
mountains
Souce on Western Rhodope mountains data: Brown Bear action plan 2008
The graph shows that nearly 90% of the brown bear attacks in the Western Rhodopes are
over sheep whereas in the CBNP this percentage is 27%. The attacks over cows are 8% to
61% and attacks over horses are 4% to 12% in between the two areas. This difference is
mainly because of exposure of the animals to the wilderness areas and the corresponding
practices for grazing. Very seldom a herd will be left without supervision in the Western
Rhodopes. There is no practice for pastoralism on the same scale as in the CBNP and grazing
will occur only around well defined areas with settled enclosures. Since there is no data on
the proportion of sheep to cattle in the Western Rhodope Mountains it is difficult to judge
on the preference of brown bears and the reasons for this difference. It is highly possible
that sheep is the predominant domestic animal that graze in Western Rhodopes and that is
why it is the most preferred victim of the Brown Bear.
Thus results suggest that damages from large carnivores are specific to local settings and are
highly dependent on precautionary measures that farmers take. Because of these
differences and measures the types and scale of damages differ in between areas. To look at
the effectiveness of these measures we shall look at the different practices most often used.
11 | P a g e
3.1.3 Precautionary measures
With the help of literature review, a list of precautionary measures and existing practices
from other countries is prepared prior to the interviews. During the interviews,
understanding is developed about the reasons for potential conflict interactions. As a result,
an adapted list of precautionary measures is given below.
List of precautionary measures:
- Dogs are used
- Electrical fence is used
- Animals are kept in an enclosure
- Constant human presence around the animals
- Scaring devices are used – lights are used during the night when humans are not
around the animals
- Other mitigation measures
The results from the interviews suggest that one of the most common precautionary
measure is the use of dogs (see Fig. 7). In 42% of the interview locations shepherds had
dogs. However the effectiveness of dogs differs from site to site and is subject to several
important facts. First and most important is the state of a dog and its ability “to work”.
Second fact is the number of dogs and the corresponding size of the herd. Thus one of the
most effective ways to protect a herd will be with a large number of good working dogs
responsible for a fairly small herd. Upon several occasions shepherd were confirming the
effectiveness of a group of 4-5 dogs to protect a herd of 200-250 sheep. Upon one occasion
a shepherd had only two dogs with a herd of 600 sheep and he recently had a kill from a
bear. In addition to the lack of enough working dogs, sheep were not kept in an enclosure
and they would start wondering in the middle of the night with no supervision. In another
location farmers would have over 12 dogs for a herd of 250 sheep and they did not report an
attack from a carnivore for the last 6 years. That is why it is important that shepherds have
the appropriate number of dogs that are working well in a group and can limit attacks from
carnivores.
The second most effective approach for conflict mitigation is human presence. In 35% of the
occasions humans were present with the animals (see Fig. 7). However this condition is not
always relevant especially during the night when animals are left with no supervision. In
these occasions the only measures that can be effective are the use of dogs and use of
enclosure.
In only 23% of the occasions animals were kept in an enclosure (see Fig. 7). Some shepherds
suggest that this measure is not necessarily the most effective approach for conflict
mitigation and carnivores are not afraid to enter into enclosures. For example cows are
often left with no human presence and enclosure. That is why they are the most common
prey of bears. Nevertheless cows tend to stay together in the night when the majority of the
attacks are whereas sheep that are not kept in an enclosure tend to start wondering in the
middle of the night which exposes them to high risk of attacks. That is why most of the
enclosures that exist are mainly for sheep. However farmers find it difficult to build even
temporary ones because of difficulties for access and supply of building material.
12 | P a g e
Fig. 7 Precautionary measures for conflict mitigation
It is important to note that only one occasion was identified when electrical fencing was
used. However it is not reflected by the current data because the shepherd was not present
at the fenced area. There are several major challenges in setting up electrical fencing. One of
the most important is that it is too expensive for farmers. In addition they find it difficult to
supply electricity to the fencing.
The local socio-economic and cultural background is to some extent a precondition for
certain level for human-wildlife conflict interactions. People are not able to take the needed
precautionary measures on one hand because of lack of resources and capacity to buy and
feed enough working dogs and on the other hand the remoteness of the areas and difficulty
for access make it a challenge for infrastructure establishment. Thus even if only one of the
precautionary measures is missing animals are exposed to risk of attacks and grounds for
human-wildlife conflict are established.
To be able to fully protect animals shepherds should be able to ensure the whole suit of
measures. Use of shepherd dogs, enclosures and their presence are a must for any damages
to be reduced and conflicts to be avoided. In addition to these measures, conflicts are also
dependent on the landscape features and the proximity to territories of large carnivores.
Assuming that biosphere reserves hold the majority of the territories one needs to consider
the proximity of the documented attacks to the borders of the reserves.
3.2 Role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans
and large carnivores.
This section describes the activities that have contributed to fulfilling project purpose 2:
“Assess the role of biosphere reserves for reducing conflict between humans and large
carnivores.” The activities for fulfilling this project purpose are three: 1) Identify and map
areas in Central Balkan mountain with the highest number of conflicts between humans and
13 | P a g e
carnivores to suggest areas of sensitivity for conflict interactions. The damages and
interactions are mapped with a GPS device. With the help of Geographical Information
System (GIS) software ArcMap 10, a map of areas sensitive to human-wildlife conflicts will be
presented; 2) Estimate the proximity of conflict occasions to biosphere reserves. 3) Compare
numbers of conflict cases between biosphere reserves and external to them territories
within the Central Balkan National Park. As a result of the GIS analysis and the interviews,
the number of conflict cases will be compared between areas adjacent and distant to
biosphere reserves. These will be described below.
3.2.1 Areas with the highest number of conflict interactions.
In total, 47 cases of attacks from bears and wolves are identified for the period 1980-2012
(see Map 2). Since these attacks are a basis for conflict between humans and carnivores and
that is why these cases will be considered as conflict interactions between humans and
wildlife. It is important to note that only a part of these are officially documented by the
Park Administration. In addition there is a great number of cases for attacks that are not
documented by the authorities. In the data submitted by the CBNP Directorate is visible that
there are only 16 cases for attacks for the period 1999-2012 with 1-3 attacks in the first
years of the period to over 6 in the last years. This increase in numbers does not reflect an
increase in the number of attacks but an increase in the awareness and interest of
shepherds that want to be compensated for their loss of livestock. In addition to this official
data over 30 cases were documented in the process of interviews and literature review. It is
important to note that there are more attacks by carnivores but these are not officially
documented. As a result, the current analysis covers only the cases that are known. However
the sample used is considered for representative because the information presented here
combines all possible types of sources: official data, interviews – unofficially documented
cases from the practice and literature review.
From the map below (Map 2) is visible that the majority of the attacks documented are in
areas to the east of Dzendema biosphere reserve. In addition there are several cases of
attacks around Tsarichina and a few to the South East of Steneto but no attacks are
documented around Boatin. From the map below is visible that there is a number of attacks
outside the national park which suggests that there is number of Brown bears outside the
National Park that are left with no protection.
14 | P a g e
Map 2 Areas where domestic animals were attacked by bears or wolves
More detailed description on the proximity of the attacks to each of the biosphere reserves
will be given in the next section.
3.2.2 Proximity of interactions to biosphere reserves
After the areas with conflict occasions are mapped, their proximity to biosphere reserves is
estimated. On the basis of this proximity the role of biosphere reserves for conflict reduction
will be descriptively assessed. Each of the four biosphere reserves in the CBNP is reviewed
below according to the number of attacks in descending order.
Out of the four biosphere reserves in the National Park, the one with relatively highest
number of attacks is Dzendema (see Map 3). It is known as the one of the most difficult to
access reserves in the country and the Balkan Peninsula (CBNP 2012).
15 | P a g e
Map 3 Attacks around Dzendema biosphere reserve
Results suggest that 11 of the attacks were in locations within 1000 m from the borders of
the reserve and 21 are more than 1000 away from the reserve but still within the borders of
the National Park. An important assumption here is that the attacks that are within 1000m
from a reserve are cause by a carnivore that is from the reserve and has left it to search for
food. It is important to note that one third of the territory of the reserve is above the tree
line or is not forested. Significant percentage of this area is covered with cliffs. However
these large open areas that are not forested are a precondition for availability of grazing
animals and potential risk of attacks. This is the reserve with the largest open areas which
could be one of the reasons for the high number of attacks over domestic animals.
The second reserve in descending order in number of attacks is Tsarichina where three
attacks are within 1000 m from its borders.
16 | P a g e
Map 4 Attacks around Tsarichina biosphere reserve
Tsarichina is the third in its size reserve in Central Balkan mountain national park. Three out
of five of the documented attacks are within 1000 m from the borders of the reserve.
The third reserve in descending order in number of attacks is Steneto where four conflict
interactions are registered (see Map 5)
Map 5 Attacks around Steneto biosphere reserve
17 | P a g e
The majority of the interactions registered around Steneto biosphere reserve are within
1000 m from the borders of the reserve: three out of four. However it is important to note
that in one of the occasions in the South Eastern side of the reserve horses were found dead
because of meteorological conditions and wolves have eaten already dead animals. This
suggests that this occasion can be ignored because the carnivores have not killed the
animals. In the other of the two interactions in the south east of the reserve a cow was
found with a scar on its back from a bear attack but the animals has survived it and was
alive. This suggests that out of the three cases in proximity to the reserve only conflict case
can be considered where a bear has killed two cows on the southern edge of the reserve. In
both of the two occasions where cows were attacked the domestic animals were left with no
human presence.
The fourth biosphere reserve in the national park is Boatin where no cases for attacks from
large carnivores are documented (Map 6).
Map 6 Attacks around Boatin biosphere reserve
Results show that there is little grazing in the area of the reserve which reduces the
opportunities for conflicts with domestic animals. Some areas adjacent to the reserve are
visited by people for berries collection. However people are usually in large groups and make
a lot of noise which puts the animals away from them and reduces the opportunities for any
interactions.
The proximity of attacks to biosphere reserves help us to define several sensitive areas
where conflicts between humans and large carnivore may occur. The sensitive area is to the
18 | P a g e
South East of Dzendema reserve, followed by Tsarichina, Steneto and the areas to the East
of the national park (see Map 7).
Map 7 Sensitivity map with conflict interactions between humans and large carnivores
Values in the graph above show the sensitivity to attacks: as red the areas are, as higher the
concentration of attacks is. It is important to note that this high concentrations of attacks is
more than a km away from the reserve. This suggests that animals in the reserves are able to
find enough resources there and do not need to attack domestic animals.
These most sensitive areas should be an alarm to decision makers and local shepherds when
planning their activities in the area. In order to reduce the preconditions for conflicts in this
area the CBNP Directorate has to take several measures. The first and most important is that
enough information is communicated about possible risk of attacks in the area. Second an
appropriate number of enclosures is needed in this area to ensure safety to domestic
animals. Third governmental or non-governmental institutions should prioritise on the area
when distributing dogs to shepherds that have been attacked by carnivores.
3.2.3 Comparison of conflict cases between biosphere reserves and
external to them territories
Biosphere reserves in the CBNP are only a small percentage of the areas where bear and
wolves may occur. Out of the 47 cases of interactions between humans and large carnivores
documented in the current survey only about 15 (30%) are in immediate proximity to the
biosphere reserves within 1000 m of their borders. This number of interactions can be
19 | P a g e
considered for low and suggests that biosphere reserves are not areas where conflicts
between wildlife and people may occur.
Comparison in the percentage of animals that attack domestic animals in the Western
Rhodopes confirms the statement that the overall number of attacks in the CBNP is
insignificant. In total 47 cases for conflict interactions are documented for the period 1980-
2012 which is an average of 2,13 cases per year for the CBNP. This includes attacks over
domestic animals, encounters with humans and a few occasions when animals have entered
buildings. For the Western Rhodope mountains the Brown bear action plan for Bulgaria
describes an average of 2,00 case per year but significant number of additional damages are
done when over 100 animals were killed. It is important to note that the overall number of
bears documented in the Western Rhodopes is between 50 to 65 animals. Thus the
percentage of animals that attack is between 2 to 4,6%. The territory of the CBNP holds
about 200 brown bears and uncertain number of wolves. If the average number of attacks is
2,13 per year for 200 animals, this would be about 1% of the animals. These numbers can be
considered for evidence that the biosphere reserves have relatively low number of attacks
from carnivores in comparison to other areas.
There are several important reasons for the positive role of biosphere reserves for human-
wildlife conflict mitigation. The first and most important is the management regulations of
the reserves which do not allow grazing and human presence in the reserves. This is
important to consider in the lights of the adoption of the Seville strategy (UNESCO 1996)
which is expected to change the regimes of the reserves and allow an increased use of the
national resources in the biosphere reserves. That is why it is important to carefully plan the
borders of the areas and corresponding regimes that may create preconditions for human-
wildlife conflicts.
Second important reason for the positive role of biosphere reserves in conflict mitigation is
that most of the reserves are forested areas where there is not suitable grazing. Although
there are occasions of animals grazing in woodland adjacent to the biosphere reserves it is
mostly open meadows and pastures where domestic animals graze.
Third important reason is that carnivores are apparently able to find enough food in the
reserves and they rarely need to leave them to find food. This is especially important in the
lights of the Seville strategy when more access can be granted to the biosphere reserves.
This access should be carefully planned to avoid any damage on the available natural
resources.
On the basis of these factors we can conclude that biosphere reserves in the Central Balkan
mountain National Park in Bulgaria have positive role in conflict mitigation.
20 | P a g e
3.3 Model of precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive
market approach to raise awareness for positive attitude towards
conservation of large carnivores
This section describes the activities that have contributed to fulfilling project purpose 3:
“Create a model of precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive market
approach to raise awareness for positive attitude towards conservation of large carnivores”.
It will be fulfilled with the following activities: 1) Develop hypothetical trade mark of
products from domestic animals grazing in areas adjacent to biosphere reserves in the
National Park and exposed to attacks from bears and wolves; 2) Assess the feasibility of
establishing a trade mark and develop understanding on perceptions of target groups of
stakeholders on the created trade mark. 3) Communicate the project outcomes to
stakeholders involved in conservation of large carnivores. These are described below.
3.3.1 Trademark establishment
The aim of this trademark development is to provide an identity of products produced in
areas of wilderness where animals may have been exposed to risk of attacks from carnivores
and to outline the relation between people and nature. The trademark development consists
of identification of products suitable to be nominated as ‘local’ and development of criteria
for nominating a product as biosphere friendly that is locally produced.
Products from the National Park
During the interviews, people identified several products that are most often produced or
yielded from the natural environment (see Fig. 8).
Fig. 8 Products traded or produced
More than half of the interviewees (61%) produce or trade with milk or dairy products like
milk, yoghurt or cheese. However it is important to note that the majority of the sheep herds
21 | P a g e
are brought up to the mountains after their milking period. Thus only the herds that are in
the mountains from early in the season are used for dairy products. Cattle owners would
often produce small quantities mainly for personal use and would not trade on a large scale.
The main reason for this is the lack of infrastructure and market in the remote mountainous
areas. Thus the majority of the milk production is given either to the dogs or to calves if
available. Generally if the trade of dairy product are to be optimised there is a need for
several local dairy farms or a means for communal collection of milk from neighbouring
farmers. This suggests that more centralised approach is needed or large investment from a
single farmer so that he could ‘close’ the cycle for milk production and dairy products trade.
Significant percentage of people (30%) gather forest fruits (mainly blueberries and
cranberies). One of the interviewees suggested that in good years he can supply over 60 tons
of blueberries and cranberies. Berries collection is extremely well known to people and
hundreds of them will spend every day within a month to collect and sell berries. The large
scale entrepreneurs will hire people and would buy from others so that he can supply the
market needs. The bigger share of the current market for forest fruits is abroad in countries
like Italy. The price of berries in years with dry climate and lack of enough fruit can be
between 2-4 EUR/kg and in years with good weather and large supply the price can be 1,5-2
EUR/kg. Nevertheless people are known to follow the time of berries collection and change
altitude with the time. Thus they can collect berries for several months starting off from the
western end of the mountain range to the east. Because of the large number of people
present in the park carnivores are seldom seen and no cases were reported for an attack of
animals over people.
Meat production is insignificantly acknowledged by the data collected reported in only two
occasions. However it is possible that interviewees were not directly admitting the use of
animals. One of the main reason for people to take animals up the high mountainous alpine
pastures is the opportunity to obtain subsidies for pastoralism. Thus some farmers would
often buy animals in the beginning of spring, use the animals to graze and maintain the
habitat in mountainous pastures and then sell the animals in autumn. This saves the farmers
from taking care about the animals in winter and paying costs.
These figures can be used as a direction in establishing a brand for a local product. However,
when selecting such, detailed criteria has to be developed.
3.3.2 Feasibility of trade mark establishing
This section will aim at developing understanding on perceptions of target groups of
stakeholders on establishment of a local trade mark. As a result the feasibility of establishing
it will be assessed. The report will not include any market survey.
At the time of the interview several managers of mountain chalets expressed their
skepticism for the existence of a local label and the effects it may have on the trade of local
products. There are two main reasons for this. First and most important is the people do not
see any interest and support from institutions. Second they do not believe that this would
affect the prices of products. Most of the dairy products are traded on local scale and people
from the areas would not be willing to pay more for a product with certain label. Thus there
22 | P a g e
is a need for a detailed socio-economic survey that would understand and outline all
possible needs for a local label development before a local trademark is established.
At the current stage some of the potential products that can be nominated as locally
produced and biosphere friendly are the berries and dairy products. However considering
the small scale production of dairy products, the lack of infrastructure and lack of centralised
management of pastoralism it may be most feasible to focus on wild berries only. There is
little need for investment and forming a team of experts to certify products is feasible. The
berries are mostly traded on the international market where customers will be willing to pay
more for a ‘biosphere friendly’ label. This would lead to satisfaction of both customers and
local producers and is expected to increase the respect of berries collectors to the natural
resources. The only downside and lack of certainty in this product is its high dependence on
whether conditions in the mountains. Thus quantities are difficult to be guaranteed.
The relation between wild animals and the yield of forest fruits should be underlined in the
means of berries collection. This should be the ‘red line’ in the criteria for approving a
product as biosphere friendly. Some of the other important criteria would be the following:
Criteria for nominating a product as ‘biosphere friendly’
- Locally produced or yielded from the National Park;
- Produced from animals used for management of natural habitat in the National Park
(for dairy products);
- No preservatives are used for storing a product for long periods of time;
- Yielded in biodiversity friendly manner: with care about the plants (relevant for forest
fruits collection);
- Certain minimum quantity has to be ensured per defined time period;
- A product that would correspond to national and international market needs;
Strict control is needed to ensure fulfilment of the criteria for biosphere friendly product.
Upon several occasions people collecting berries were noted to dispose litter in the
mountainous areas. In addition they would not always consider protecting the plant and
investing in the sustainable yields. Often people will spend the night in the mountains and
would make a fire for heating or cooking although this is not allowed outside the designated
areas. Upon at least three occasions fires were left with no supervision which resulted in
large scale fire and burning of forest and alpine vegetation. All of these negative effects on
natural environment should be considered when approving products for biosphere friendly.
After a label is established, its quality should be promoted to national and international
markets so that potential customers are acquainted with them. There is need for use of
communication canals of the CBNP, Pan Parks and UNESCO that would reach specific target
group of customers with high environmental awareness. This would guarantee the effects of
the label as a promoter of the relation between humans and biosphere. In addition the
institutions suggested will be able to promote their vision. As a result a biosphere friendly
label will be established for products from the natural wilderness that would be selected
with well defined criteria and promoted to targeted audience.
23 | P a g e
3.3.3 Project outcomes
The project outcomes will be presented to stakeholders involved in conservation of bears
and wolves after the report is approved by UNESCO. Amongst the beneficiaries are the
administration of the Central Balkan National Park, and Balkani Wildlife Society. Either of the
stakeholders above is expected to acknowledge the contribution of the current report to
their daily work.
24 | P a g e
Conclusion The current study was conducted in the Central Balkan mountain Nation Park in Bulgaria
with the aim to enhance a balanced relationship between humans and large carnivores. Two
fulfil this goal one should 1) first assess the current status of conflict interactions between
humans and carnivores, then 2) assess the role of biosphere reserves for reducing potential
conflicts and 3) provide a model for precautionary conflict resolution on the basis of positive
market approach. As a result enhanced relationship should be established between humans
and large carnivores which should result in their effective and sustainable conservation.
The status of conflict interactions is assessed with description of the damages and issues for
conflict interactions and the measures that people undertake to reduce these conflicts. In
total three subjects of conflict interactions were identified. Results show that in 76% of the
conflict issues between humans and carnivores are related to attacks over domestic animals.
In addition, conflicts are created over a bear has attacked a person, or has entered a
building. About 70% of the damages are caused by bears vs 30% from wolves. Data shows
differences to the species of animals attacked where 60% of the wolf attacks are over sheep
and the other 40 are over cattle. Bear attacks are mostly targeted at cattle with 61% of their
attacks. Over 25% of the bear attacks are over sheep and only 12% are over horses. Identical
data from other areas in the country suggests that damages from large carnivores are
specific to local settings and are highly dependent on precautionary measures that farmers
take.
To prevent these conflicts from occurring precautionary measures are needed. An initial list
of six measures was identified but only three of those turned relevant to the area. The most
effective ones identified during this study are: use of dogs (42%), human presence (35%),
and use of enclosures (23%). However, results suggest that the effectiveness of these
measures depends on a number of factors and the local circumstances. For best
effectiveness a combination of the three is recommended. In addition, infrastructure needs
to be improved by the National Park Directorate. On the basis of the conflict issues
description and the precautionary measures undertaken, the status of current conflict
interactions between humans and large carnivores is assessed for the target areas.
The role of biosphere reserves for reducing potential conflicts is assessed by identifying the
locations for conflict interactions and their proximity to biosphere reserves. In total, 47
locations of attacks from bears and wolves are identified for the period 1980-2012. The most
sensitive area to human wildlife conflict is the area to the east of Dzendema reserve where
11 out of 32 attacks are within 1 km from the borders of the reserve. The second sensitive
area is Tsarichina reserve where three out of five of the attacks are within 1km from the
reserve. Steneto has negligible data on attacks and there are no attacks around Boatin. In
order to reduce the preconditions for conflicts in this area the CBNP Directorate has to take
a number of measures such as providing additional enclosures in the most sensitive areas
and provide dogs to shepherd.
Comparison of conflict interactions with other areas from around the National Park and
other mountains in the country suggest that the attacks in the Central Balkan National Park
are negligible with about 1% of the brown bears attacking domestic animals in an average of
25 | P a g e
2,13 cases per year. This low percentage suggests that biosphere reserves in the National
Park have positive role for mitigating human-wildlife conflict. However, it is important to
consider the forthcoming changes in the management of the biosphere reserves which may
be imposed by the Seville strategy. By identifying the locations for conflict interaction and
their proximity to biosphere reserves, their role for reducing potential conflicts is assessed.
After the status of conflict interactions is assessed and the role that biosphere reserves have
for reducing these conflicts, there is a need of sustainable solution to ensure long term and
balanced relationship between humans and large carnivores. Thus an innovative market
approach is needed that will convince people in the benefits they can have from preserving
the natural resources. By establishing a local trademark for products traded people are
expected to see benefits.
Results show that 61% of the interviewees trade with dairy products like yoghurt and cheese
and 28% trade with berries. This suggests that these products have the potential to receive a
biodiversity friendly trademark that may raise the awareness of local people to the value of
natural resources. Feasibility assessment suggests that berries have higher chance of
becoming a product with established label and high price. Thus a trade mark for them can be
established. This will result in a market model approach that is expected to raise the
awareness of people and their positive attitude towards conservation of large carnivores.
On the basis of the results and recommendations in this report a balanced relationship
between humans and large carnivores will be enhanced.
26 | P a g e
Literature CBNP. 2012. Central Balkan National Park website accessed on 1.11.2012
http://visitcentralbalkan.net/en/pages/read/t:the-park/c:fauna/s:/p:/o:brown-bear-
ursus-arctos
2008. Brown bear action plan in Bulgaria.
Ganchev, R. The Bear. (in Bulgarian). No publisher and date printed
Ganchev, R. 2009. A strap from a bear. Stara Zagora 2009. (in Bulgarian).
UNESCO. 1996. Biosphere reserves: The Seville strategy and the Statutory Framework of the
World Network. UNESCO, Paris.
27 | P a g e
Appendix 1 Interview protocol
Location: GPS: N S………….
1. Profile of the interviewee
a. Chalet manager
b. Shepherd
c. Tourist
d. Hunter
e. Local person
f. Fruit and mushroom collector
g. Other: ……………………………..
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ 2. Characteristics of the interviewee
a. Family
b. Shepherd
c. Temporal occupant
d. …………………………….
□
□
□
□ 3. Is there any conflict in between the natural resource users of the National park and the
large carnivores?
a. Yes. What are the reasons for these conflicts?
i. There are attacks over domestic animals
ii. An encounter during fruit and berries collection
b. No
□
□
□ 4. Have you seen a bear or a wolf with the animals?
a. Yes. What was the reaction of the wild animal? Was there an attack or it has just
followed the herd?
i. attack
ii. the carnivore follows the herd
............................ ............................ ............................ ............................
b. How did you scare it away?
i. With dogs
ii. With human presence
iii. With poison
iv. We shot it
c. We haven’t met carnivores
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ 5. What was your reaction when you saw the carnivore?
a. We closed the animals in an enclosure
b. We used scaring devices ( e.g. guns, sounds,
………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………. )
c. We used the dogs to scare the carnivores away.
□
□
□
6. Are there casualties from the carnivores?
a. Yes. In which locations …………………………………………………………………………….
b. No
□
□ 7. What are the most common casualties?
a. sheep
□
28 | P a g e
b. Cow and calves
c. Horses
d. Others ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
□
□
□
8. How often do you have casualties?
a. Every week
b. 2-5 times a month
c. Once a month
□
□
□
9. How many animals do you have killed by a carnivore?
a. 1-2
b. 2-5
c. 5+
□
□
□
10. Which carnivore attacks most often?
a. bear
b. wolf
□
□
11. Do you have dogs?
a. Yes
b. No
□
□ 12. How do you protect your animals?
a. With dogs
b. With electrical fence
c. We keep them in an enclosure
d. With human presence
e. Other means ……………………………………………………………………………..………………………….
□
□
□
□
□
13. Which animal product do you produce? Can it become an emblematic for the National park
and its reserves
a. Milk
b. Cheese
c. Meat
d. Wool
□
□
□
□
14. Do people buy local products
a. Yes
b. NO
□
□
15. What is the good mostly sold?
a. Milk
b. Cheese
c. Meat
d. Woold
e. Forest berries
□
□
□
□
□
29 | P a g e
Appendix 2 Images
Horse eaten by wolves
Cow with a scar that has survived a bear attack