DRAFT FOR STAKEHOLDER
REVIEW AND COMMENTS
Methodology for assessment and mapping of
FRESH WATER ecosystems state and their
services in Bulgaria
1. Introduction
1.1. What is this methodology about?
The current methodology is not aimed at completing the full cycle of
ecosystem service valuation and reporting. It delivers a practical step-bystep guidance to the process of:
1. Assessing the state of the Fresh water ecosystems
2. Assessing the Fresh water ecosystems’ potential to deliver ecosystem
services (biophysical valuation).
The methodology is relevant to Fresh water ecosystems on the entire
territory of Bulgaria although its implementation will differ between NATURA
2000 zones and areas outside NATURA 2000 due to different data availability,
land use and the spatial distribution of ecosystems. It will form a part of a
wider national methodological framework (under development) which details
the theoretical background behind the ecosystems approach practiced in
Bulgaria, as well as the necessary steps to undertake towards fulfilling Action 5
of the EU Biodiversity strategy to 2020.
1.2.Who is this methodology for?
This methodology is to be used by:
 Organizations and scientists who perform ecosystems status
assessment and biophysical valuation of ecosystem services. Such
organizations are expected to include the beneficiaries/partners
under the programmes that have set aside funding for the national
1|Page
process of ecosystems mapping and assessment – for NATURA 2000,
the Operational Programme Environment 2014-2020 and outside
NATURA 2000 – programme BG03 Biodiversity and ecosystem
services 2009-2014
 National or local authorities who wish to contribute data they
produce to the Bulgarian biodiversity information system
 Project promoters and partners under other projects, including for
example research organizations and NGOs, who wish to perform
more detailed ecosystem and ecosystem services assessment and
biophyslical valuation on a regional or local scale in smaller scale
pilots
 Data users wishing to understand the contents and collection method
of data, including but not limited to, organizations involved in
environmental reporting, regional and local authorities,
environmentally responsible companies, NGOs, and other
stakeholders.
1.3.How to use this methodology?
The methodological framework provides a combination of information on
relevant information sources that may be of interest to a wider circle of
stakeholders, while the current methodology is dedicated to specific
guidance to assessing ecosystem status and ecosystem services (including
data collection and verification, and mapping guidance).
The wider introductory parts are more likely to be of interest to
policymakers and the general public. The more targeted use defined in the
current methodology will be mostly needed by professionals involved in the
national mapping and assessment exercise.
As the current methodology is a living document, comments are
welcome in order to shape it as a national, widely reviewed and adopted
guidance document.
5. Typology of ecosystems in Bulgaria
2|Page
5.1. Detailed ecosystem typology of fresh water ecosystems in Bulgaria
A selection of EUNIS classification on level 2 is proposed for detailed
typology as level 3 for target ecosystem type. Descriptions and relations
to other classification systems of proposed subtypes of are offered in
Table 2.
Table 3. Fresh water ecosystem typology (Level 3)
1.
Subtype
Description
Nomenclature(s)
FRESHWATER
ECOSYSTEMS
Rivers = lotic
(hydro)
ecosystems, incl.
riparian zones
Water courses of
all kinds (streams,
brooks, creeks,
irrigation canals)
EUNIS (SEBI,
Baseline), WWF, MA
Lakes (marshes,
water reservoirs) =
lentic (hydro)
ecosystems, incl.
littoral zones &
fringing
communities
Water bodies incl.
coastal lakes
(without
permanent
connection to the
sea)
EUNIS (SEBI,
Baseline), WWF,
MA, CLC
HRL small water
bodies
ECRINS
5.2. Data
5.2.1. Existing data sources – Annex 5
- NATURA 2000 habitat mapping
- Scientific publications
- EU data sources
- National data (MOEW, Басейнови дирекции, Общини)
5.3. Mapping of ecosystem types
Indicators and ecosystem services attributive fields
Output: Map of ecosystem types in Bulgaria – level 3/4
3|Page
6. Assessment of fresh water ecosystem condition
6.1. Assessment of Ecosystem condition - fresh water
Step 1: Identify the indicators of ecosystem condition for the given
ecosystem type - levels 3/4
Step 2: Identify the parameters of each indicator
Step 3: Collecting data – national data sets – Annex 5
Step 4: How to assess
Step 5: Fulfill the matrix (by Burkhard )
Step 6: Map of assessment of ecosystem condition
Output: Map of assessment of ecosystem condition
Methods to provide national level indicators that take into account
spatial diversity have to be assessed and developed based on spatial
databases available at national and European level (CORINE, GMES) and
for the purposes of facilitating international comparison.
Table 4 Rationales of ecosystem state (conditions) indicators
Ecosystem conditions
Rationales
Biotic diversity
Spatial or temporal variability of resources. Biotic diversity is
caused by organisms. It may occur even in absence of abiotic
heterogeneity. Positive relationships between plant species
habitat heterogeneity and animal species diversity are well
documented on different scales (Davidowitz&Rosenzweig, 1998),
but empirical and theoretical studies have showed contradictory
results (Tews et al., 2004). Effects of biotic heterogeneity may vary
considerably depending on what is perceived as a habitat by the
species group studied. Structural attributes of the vegetation that
constitute habitat heterogeneity for one group may be perceived
as habitat fragmentation by another taxonomic group (e.g. Okland,
1996).To determine biotic factors and wetland habitat
heterogeneity the following indicators are proposed:
4|Page
Abiotic heterogeneity
Energy budget
*Matter budget
Water budget
“Plant diversity” ,
“Animal diversity”,
“Invasive species”,
Possible indicator is:
“Other biotic heterogeneity indicators (NATURAlness etc.)”
Spatial or temporal variability of abiotic resources and factors.
Abiotic heterogeneity has abiotic origin. To determine abiotic
factors and abiotic heterogeneity the following indicators are
proposed:
“Soil heterogeneity”,
“Hydrological heterogeneity”
“Distwetlandce regime”,
Possible indicators are:
“Geomorphological heterogeneity”,
“Other abiotic heterogeneity indicators”
Energy is the lifeblood of ecosystems and of the biosphere as a
whole. At the most fundamental level, what ecosystems do is
capture and transform energy.
To account energy budget in wetlands ecosystems possible
indicators are:
“Energy balance (capture, storage)”,
“Entropy production”,
“Metabolic efficiency”,
“Other energy budget indicators”
Matter budget describes the cycle in which matter is transformed
from one state to another within the components of wetland
ecosystems. To account matter budget in wetland ecosystems the
proposed indicator is :
“Matter storage”
Other possible are:
“Matter balance (input, output)”
“Element concentrations (other state variables)”
“Efficiency measures”
The cyclical movement of water between the atmosphere and the
ground surface in wetland areas, considering precipitation,
evaporation, and runoff. The following indicator is proposed:
“Water balance (input, output)”,
Other possible are:
“Water storage”,
“Other state indicators”,
5|Page
“Efficiency measures”
State (Conditions) indicators assess environmental states (climatic, chemical,
physical, biological state of habitat) in fresh water ecosystems. We have
defined and quantified 44 indicators that are relevant for the fresh water
ecosystem conditions. The indicators represent the ecosystems structure and
ecosystem processes of fresh water ecosystems types.
The table with selected state indicators of fresh water ecosystems is
presented as Annex 6.
Step 3: Collecting data – national data sets – Annex 5
Given the broad spectrum of scientific disciplines that cover the concept
of ecosystem services, a full assessment of the impact of drivers and
pressures on the provision of ecosystem services requires an
interdisciplinary data combining approach. It requires coupling large
scale environmental data sets or even very complex models that
simulate processes taking place in the atmosphere, watersheds, soils and
ecosystems with models that simulate socio-economic and agricultural
systems in close relation with the consequences of resource use on land
dynamics. Such integrated assessment needs to be translated into
suitable indicators for wetland ecosystem functions and services and
subsequently to the benefits obtained from these services.
Some of data underlined are highly relevant for establishing indicators
(Statistics, reports, remote-sensing, EU and national database), but other data
sources as additional measurements must also be utilized:
MOEW - ExEA - CORINE project, national data bases – Annex 5
Scientific publications
Insitu data
Additional remote sensing data
EU data sources
Step 4: How to assess
6|Page
Table 5. Ecosystem state indicator assessment template
Indicator
type
Indicator
group
Indicator
Units
Asessment
scale
Category
n
0-2 species
1 (very bad)*
Abiotic
Red list
plant
species
Structural
Biotic
…………
Bio
Matter flow production
……..
Functional
Number/
UTM grid
quadrat
T/haY-1
10÷20 t
2 (bad)
Water flow
…….
……..
 ni = 3
*indicated condition: 1 – very bad; 2 – bad; 3 – moderate; 4 – good; 5 – very good
Explanation: for every indicator, according to the indicator measurement
an expert assessment in figures from 1to 5 is assigned, according to the
scale: 1 – very bad; 2 – bad; 3 – moderate; 4 – good; 5 – very good.
The assessment figures for every indicator measured arethen summed up (
 ni).
7|Page
An index of ecosystem performance (IP) is then calculated, as the ratio of
the sum of the indicator assessment figures to the maximum possible
indicator sum: - ni/ni(max)
Where:
ni – maximum of indicator assessment, i.e. 5 (ni)
ni(max) – sum of the maximum of indicator assessment (i.e. nх5)
IP – takes values between 0 and 1)
Step 5: Fulfill the matrix (by Burkhard )
The template of the matrix with the proposed subtypes is attached as a excel
format in ANNEX 6 (by Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S. & F. Müller 2012a. Mapping
supply, demand and budgets of ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 21, 17–29)
7. Assessment of ecosystem services
Ecosystem service assessments on various temporal and spatial scale in
fresh water ecosystems can support generation of maps of where ecosystem
services are supplied and /or demand, quantify the likelihood and its probable
impact on ecosystem functions and service supply/demand, and understand
the value and flow of benefits to human populations.
Assessment of ecosystem services in fresh water ecosystems focuses on
indicators of final ecosystem services as developed in MAES (2013). Additional
indicators and relevant parameters are listed in table 8 in order to support
more detailed assessment if needed for specific case-studies. The indicators for
most provisioning services provide for a more complete understanding of the
service than for most regulating and cultural services.
Step 1: Indicators for Ecosystem services assessment for fresh waters
The Table 8. Additional optional indicators, which could be applied in assessing and
mapping ESs in fresh water ecosystems is presented as Annex 8
Step 2: Collect data – national datasets – Annex 5
Step 3: How to assess
Table 9. Capacity for fresh water ecosystem services
8|Page
Potential Capacity for ES
Group of
services
Type of
services
Local
climate
regulation
Regulating
ecosystem
services
Ecosystem type 1
Realized ES
Capacity
(RES)
ES
Capacit
y
(ESC)
IP
3
0.6
0.12
4
0.6
0.16
5
0.6
0.2
Ecosystem type 2
ES
Capacit
y
IP
Ecosystem type 3
Realized
ES
capacity
ES
Capacity
IP
RESi/
RES(max)
Global
climate
regulation
Flood
protection
Etc.
Crops
Provisionin
g
ecosystem
services
Livestock
Timber
Etc.
Cultural
ecosystem
services
Recreation
&
aesthetic
values
Забележка:
1) Може да се използва IP индекса за корекция на потенциалния капацитет на
дадената екосистема да дава ЕУ като се умножат. Това дава третата колонка
„Realized ES capacity” (RES) по всяка услуга:
RES = ESC x IP
За цялата екосистема:
RES = (ESC x IP)/RESi(max)
– в този случай обаче трябва да се изработи скала за оценка по стойностите от тази
колонка – например:
от 0 до 0.3 - low;
от 0.31 до 0.6 - medium
от 0.61 до 1.00 – high
9|Page
Realized
ES
capacity
2) Втори вариант да не се използва RES. Тогава остават само първата колонка ESC.
Step 4: Fulfill the matrix
The ecosystem service matrices consist of ecosystem services on the xaxis and geobiophysical spatial units (e.g. the CORINE 8 land cover types used
here) on the y-axis. At the intersections, the different spatial units’ ecosystem
service potentials were assessed on a scale from 1 (no relevant supply or
demand) to 5 (maximum relevant supply or demand) for a hypothetical
‘normal’ European landscape at one time point in summer before harvest. For
further description of the method see Burkhard et al. (2009 and 2012a). The
normalization to this relative 1-5 scale aims at making different ecosystem
services (measured and assessed by various indicators and units) comparable
with each other.
The template of the matrix with the proposed subtypes is attached as a
excel format in ANNEX 7.
MAPPING
Step 8: Mapping





Improvement of maps and quantifications.
Site comparison: local peculiarities, spatial variations, times series
Map compilation for the different sites, showing spatial patterns of ecosystem integrity and
service.
Mapping the ecosystems subtype state – layers and symbolization
Mapping the ecosystem services – layers and symbolization
Combining maps between ecosystem types
LIST of ANNEXES
Annex 1
Terms definitions
Annex 2
List of acronyms
Annex 3
Table of ecosystem types
10 | P a g e
Annex 4
Map of ecosystem types
Annex 5
National data sets
Annex 6
Table 6 – Ecosystem state indicators
Annex 7
Matrix for assessing of ecosystem state and ecosystem services (by
Burkhard)
Annex 8
Common table – indicators of ESS
Annex 9
References
11 | P a g e