A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting Dobarsko in Blagoevgrad Oblast for a weekend.

A short walk from the village takes you onto a ridge from which the Rila, Pirin and Rhodope mountain ranges are visible. The views were stunning, all the more so because of the range of sceneries around. Each range has its own geology, flora and fauna. There really is nowhere else like it in Europe to the best of my knowledge.

Back in the village centre, my friends pointed out to me a poster advertising a rally against Natura 2000, the EU network of protected environmental zones. To a naive observer, particularly one from a small, heavily urbanised island, this can seem bizarre. People living in this beautiful, unique place were resisting a programme designed to preserve and protect the ecology around them. Pirin alone has more than 1300 plant species; why would anyone wish to jeopardise that?

However, as the Natura story has unfolded, increasingly it is easy to feel sympathy for those caught in the midst of it. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, a simple argument of land ownership; people are understandably angry that land is, as they see it, going to be "confiscated" from them. Land from which they could earn money will be appropriated from them, leading to loss of income and an even greater widening of income disparities. People who struggle to make ends meet are unlikely to welcome their means of production being taken from them, particularly at a time when the growth of real estate and tourism in the country means that they are potentially sitting on a cash cow. Add to this a very strong emotional and cultural attachment to the land, and you can understand the frustration of those affected.

Secondly, there is the socio-economic aspect; people in small villages and towns across Bulgaria have too often seen the urban elites rush ahead of them in wealth over the past decade. Many find it unpalatable that they are now not able to cash into Bulgaria's burgeoning economy with developments of their own. While it would be a paranoid few that see it as an attempt to repress the rural population, I suspect for many of those opposing Natura, the imposition of the zones smacks of top-down legislating and an inability of the Bulgarian Government to understand the situation in the countryside. Every weekend, tourists in nice cars descend on the countryside, indubitably enhancing the local economies, but doing so on a short-term basis, sampling the countryside, its ecology and its culture as a product and then returning comfortably to the towns. (I, by the way, am one of those people.)

Finally, there is a feeling that there is an element of anti-Brussels sentiment being harnessed by this issue. Feelings about the EU are currently running high in Bulgaria, due to the Kozloduy closures, limits on exports from Bulgaria, "safeguard clauses" and immigration controls imposed by the majority of member states. People are looking at the deal they get from Europe and are feeling sceptical.

However, these doubts point to a weakness in the way Natura 2000 has been promoted and the plans for its implementation than a convincing argument that the programme should be scrapped or radically reformed.

Firstly, the doubts about the EU and command from Brussels, are, in my view, justified in very many cases. But there are two issues here. Firstly, Natura 2000 should not be seen as some fiat imposed from above for the benefit of "Brussels". It is a programme to protect Bulgaria's ecology, to ensure that it is not denigrated and to preserve it for future generations. Bulgarian euroscepticism should not blind people to the benefits that EU rules and legislation can bring, as I am afraid it does at times in Britain.

Secondly, the argument that the law is being imposed by an urban class on the rural population. A significant issue here is a gulf between rural and urban not just in terms of income, but in communication, culture and understanding. Across Europe, people in rural areas often feel estranged from their city-dwelling compatriots. The Liberty and Livelihood movement in the UK is one by-product of this, albeit one supported by many who do not live in the countryside. There are many things that should be done about this; increased investment in smaller communities; an end to the trend of shutting down community public services; devolution of power to local authorities and a promotion of rural issues in central government. Attacking Natura 2000 does not get to the root of the problem; those who oppose it as a symptom of elitism would do better to look at the malaise itself. Natura 2000 has been poorly sold by those who promote it and wish to implement it.

In an age in which climate change and the destruction environment are often cited as "our greatest challenge", it is also disingenuous to see the countryside as the possession of those who live there. Bulgaria belongs to all Bulgarians, and they belong to it. Everyone has a stake in the preservation of the natural beauty and ecological diversity of their country, and that of the world. I would say that this is understood in Bulgaria to a more heightened extent than anywhere else in Europe. I have not yet been to many places where an appreciation for the land is so universal, and a belief in its cultural value so deep-seated.

This leads to my third point: the economics of Bulgaria's future in the countryside lies with its preservation. There is indeed much investment infrastructure to be done; roads, public services, utilities and some tourist facilities are needed. But overdevelopment would sell Bulgaria short. Bulgaria is currently seen as a great destination for a good-value beach or skiing holiday; this will continue.

The great untapped resources (by foreigners I mean!) of mountains, lakes, forests and spas will, however, need more delicate development. This is not a theme park for British tourists after a bargain. The development of tourism in Bulgaria presents great challenges in terms of preserving natural beauty and cultural diversity while bringing more people to see it; and Natura will add to the difficulties in the short term.

However, these are outweighed by the huge opportunities. Tourists from markets which have always enjoyed Bulgaria - and those that have, by and large, yet to discover it - are turning towards ecotourism, health tourism, agrotourism, trekking and adventure holidays. Bulgaria has an exciting and, yes, lucrative, future here. To ignore it for short-term profit is tempting, particularly for those in less affluent areas of the country, but the long-term benefits will be significant. It may be necessary that some Natura areas exclude tourism completely, but nonetheless the programme should be seen as an essential step to ensuring that Bulgaria remains the beautiful, wild country that it is, and so the nature tourism destination that it should be.

Andrew MacDowall, Editorial Manager, Oxford Business Group
www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com