A view on Natura 2000 in Bulgaria

08:00 Mon 19 Feb 2007

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

Comments

Comments by Mihail Dafydd Evans - 16:16 21 Feb 2007
	Martin MacDowell's stress that the future of Bulgarian tourism depends on preservation is a message that very much needs to be heard. However, I would quibble with his suggestion that a particular divide between urban and rural interests is at stake in current development proposals. As a British citizen he is probably not aware that the vast majority of Bulgarians still have some sort of inherited share in family lands and that when land is sold for development money is just as likely to go to city dwellers as local people. Indeed, in the case of the most contentions schemes, such as Irakli, the land in question is largely owned by speculators who bought it at bargain basement prices years ago. It would have been interesting to hear more from Mr MacDowell on the planning laws in the UK. Bulgarians would be very suprised to hear how house building is very heavily restricted in much of the countryside and how strong an emphasis there is on conservation. The stress UK planners place on the preservation of landscape would make a development such as Irakli completely impossible in the UK. This is ironic given that the sale of such developments is very largely targeted at UK citizens.
Comments by Andreas Beckmann - 10:21 23 Feb 2007
	Martin McDowell rightly points out the opportunities for socioeconomic development that lie in sustainable use of Bulgaria's rich natural capital. He also is right in stressing that Natura 2000 presents an opportunity to actually prevent killing the "goose that lays the golden eggs", for the benefit of present and future generations. However, McDowell reflects some popular misconceptions regarding Natura 2000. Protection under the network focuses on specific species and habitats of European importance. In contrast to national parks, e.g., protection measures are limited to whatever is needed to maintain target species or habitats. In many cases, socioeconomic and other activities can take place in Natura 2000 areas without restriction -- and in many cases are actually required, and can be supported by EU funds. Traditional farming practices are actually necessary for the maintenance of some rare species of orchids or birds -- far from restricting these activities, Natura 2000 actually will open to farmers new funding opportunities from EU agri-environmental support. The same goes for many forms of tourism, which does negatively impact target species and habitats -- here too, Natura 2000 can open new funding opportunities for environmentally-friendly local develompent through the Structural Funds. Natura 2000 will present some restrictions, but less than most fear; and it will create more opportunities than many seem to realise. Natura 2000 is Europe's safety for nature -- established by all EU members, not Brussels, to stop the ongoing and rapid loss of biological diversity in Europe and across the world, which ultimately provides the very basis for our societies and economies.