The European Commission (EC) is insisting that Bulgaria’s Cabinet add to the current list of Natura 2000 zones those areas that had been postponed from inclusion, as well as areas proposed for inclusion by the teams that worked on defining the zones.
After the EC sent Environment and Water Affairs Minister Djevdet Chakurov a critical letter on the current Natura 2000 list Bulgaria, EC DG Environment head Ladislav Miko said that by the end of July, or at the latest September 2007, the EC would have to receive the full list of zones to be included in the European ecological conservation network.
“If it turns out that the delay continues without objective reasons, we will start a penalty procedure,” Miko said on June 8.
He said that the EC letter to Chakurov had given no deadline because “the deadline expired long ago”.
Miko said that Bulgaria was already excessively late and the Ministry of Environment and Water Affairs (MOEW) should send the final list as soon as possible.
The Cabinet cut the list of zones proposed by environmental organisations to less than 18 per cent of Bulgaria’s territory, postponing many of the zones for a second evaluation in October 2007. The list was sent to Brussels in March, while the deadline was December 31 2006.
In its letter, the EC also criticised the lack of information given to the public about the aims of Natura 200.
Miko said that the letter also expressed criticism that the investors’ lobby had prevailed when the list of zones was decided.
“We are not looking for quantity but for comprehensiveness,” he said.
He said that the fact that the list of rare species did not tally with the zones proposed by the Cabinet clearly showed that the coverage of the network would be inadequate.
Miko said that the EC had received three versions of the Natura 2000 list in Bulgaria: one year ago, when the first proposal by environmental organisations was received, which was for 35 per cent of the territory; later the “academic proposal” for the network to include just more than 20 per cent; and finally, the Government’s proposal, which was the poorest.
As previously reported by The Sofia Echo, in April Miko visited Pirin mountain and saw what was happening there.
“Many mountain and seaside zones are missing (from the list) and it is logical to ask ourselves why,” he said. He also noted by objections by environmental organisations to building projects in protected zones.
The EC holds that the main reason for the problems with Natura 2000 is the lack of information given to people. A year ago, the EC warned Chakurov that the Government should do more to inform people about the aims of Natura 2000 and the provisions for compensation.
Information put out by the Government had reached only local authorities in some regions and lacked clarity.
After the Cabinet meeting on June 7, Chakurov said that he expected almost all postponed zones to be included in the final version of Natura 2000. In his opinion, the reproofs sent by the EC were “absolutely surmountable.”
Miko said the final Natura 2000 list might not include only the Government’s proposal.
The EC was collecting information from other sources, and after it receives the authorities’ list, will organise a “bio-geographical seminar” with MOEW representatives, the non-government sector, independent experts from EU member states and from the EC.
Shortcomings would be assessed and a decision made on the final list.
Miko said that any activities that could harm protected species in the proposed zones should stop. If they were not brought to a halt, legal action would be taken.
He said that illegal activities in protected zones should first be reported to local authorities, and only if these authorities did not co-operate should the complaints be put to EU authorities.
According to Miko, Bulgaria still has the chance to face only light penalties if the country sends the list in the summer.
The EC letter said that Chakurov would have to come up with a better approach to the compensation given to Natura 2000 landowners.
Each EU member state may award compensation using European funds and from its agricultural development plan. However, this was rarely done because this money was managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Bulgarian daily newspaper Dnevnik reported on June 10.
The MOEW said that a team had still not been assigned to do a second inventory of the postponed Natura 2000 zones.
In a letter to civic group For Natura 2000, the MOEW said that the team would be drawn from the Bulgarian Academy of Science (BAS), which would conclude a contract with MOEW. The head of BAS will appoint the group.
Organisers of weekly demonstrations in favour of Natura 2000 said in a media statement that it was on February 15 that the Cabinet had announced the decision to form this team, and the team had still not been set up. The protest organisers said that the delay in forming the team will make work on the Birds Directive more difficult because local migrating birds, which make up a large part of Europe’s bird heritage as well, will fly away in two months for the winter season and an inventory will not be possible.
For the theme of the June 14 weekly pro-Natura protest, the environmentalist group held up open green umbrellas symbolically over the unprotected zones, “the same way that the state opens umbrellas over the investors’ interests,” protest leader Genady Kondarev told The Sofia Echo.
Investors have their “protest-resistant” political umbrella, but nature does not, the protesters said.
Kondarev said that on June 16, the youth wing of the Bulgarian Socialist Party will hand BSP leader and Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev a document outlining the threats to the Natura 2000 zones, with the environmentalists’ demands and the latest petition for the protection of Strandja national park, which is facing a cut in size. Similar letters will soon be handed to the leaders of the other two parties in the governing tripartite coalition, Simeon Saxe-Coburg of the National Movement for Stability and Progress (formerly the National Movement Simeon II) and Ahmed Dogan of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms.
