Natura 2000 has become one of the most disputed issues in Bulgaria after the country’s accession to the European Union.
The wave of protests against Natura 2000, which is part of a European network designed to preserve biological diversity, was to be expected. Any other kind of reaction was unlikely after many Bulgarians found out that they no longer had full control over their own land. Imposing limitations on land use within sites included in the network, without clearly grounded reasons, undoubtedly damages the rights of owners.
Possessing property rights means absolute freedom to do with your property what you wish. This is an owner’s sole prerogative, and no one has the right to interfere and dictate how the land is to be used. We are not speaking about some kind of destructive egoism. It is precisely people’s imperative to use their resources in the most effective way possible that creates economic prosperity.
“Preserving” biological diversity through the Natura 2000 programme actually means protecting it from unwanted economic activities.
Essentially, this means “protection” from a certain type of investment. No good is likely to come of this type of approach. Allowing bureaucrats to define which investments are good and which bring threats is extremely dangerous and can have only negative consequences.
There is hardly a reasonable explanation for the goal of Natura 2000 to preserve the status of the sites included in the network. We can only be glad that the approach towards nature was different in the past. What kind of world would we be living in if the entrepreneurs of the past 200 years were forced to stick to the bizarre requirements of nature conservation programmes like Natura 2000 instead of investing all they had in business development?
Throughout history, people have benefitted from the gifts of nature. There is nothing immoral in doing so. The idea of preserving nature untouched is the antipode of the idea to preserve us from progress. The gifts of nature are the basic source of creating wealth. To stop benefitting from these gifts would be not only irrational, but even suicidal.
Conducting an environmentally friendly policy should not be done through direct interference and limitation of economic activity.
Consider the example of trusts set up and based on voluntary payments from people and nature conservation organisations.
In the UK, The National Trust preserves places of historical significance. This organisation is very active, thanks to the fact that for a small fee it offers membership to British citizens and to foreigners as well. Three philanthropists established the trust in 1895. It is a non-governmental organisation that takes care of nature and landmarks in the country. After more than a century of existence, the statistics on the trust’s activities speak for themselves: more than 248 000 hectares of land; more than 700 miles of sea coast; and more than 200 buildings and gardens (166 buildings, 198 castles, 47 industrial monuments, 498 churches) are under the care of the trust. Most of these properties are held by the trust and are open to visitors.
Membership of the trust currently includes about 3.4 million people and organisations. In 2004 these spots were visited by 50 million people, and 12 million of them paid entrance fees. The organisation has bilateral agreements with similar organisations in Australia, Malta, the Cayman Islands and Jersey.
The income of the trust for 2005 are formed by member fees (92 million pounds), business payments (47 million), testaments (40 million), rents (28 million), investment income (27 million), maintenance income (25 million), grants (21 million), etc.
This is an example of an organisation that functions effectively and is absolutely voluntary. It exists because of the desire of people’s desire to conserve nature. Its achievements are not the result of limiting individual freedom and imposing governmental priorities.
The National Trust is built on the basis of the values of its members.
Few would deny the greatness of nature or not be bewildered by its beauty. Yet, this beauty cannot cancel the basic rights that we all have. If we quote one of the most influential documents in history, the US 1776 Declaration of Independence, this would mean the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Right now, about a third of the Earth’s population is trying to escape poverty. Every attempt by these people to benefit from the progress of humanity and the gifts of nature should be admired. The ideologues of Natura 2000 do not think the same. Most of the supporters of the idea of preserving wealth and diversity of nature are terrified by the idea that those people may also achieve the living standard that we see in developed countries. In their view, this would increase the exploitation of nature to unacceptable levels.
Obviously, for them nature, and not people’s lives, takes first place.
As a matter of interest, why do these green activists not put their efforts into establishing private organisations like The National Trust, yet they do all they can so that nature conservation is imposed as an obligation through programmes like Natura?
A wonderful example of the attitude of “blind” defenders of nature is the recent documentary Mine Your Own Business by Phelim McAleer (from 2000 to 2003 he was the Romania/Bulgaria Correspondent for Financial Times), which shows us the terrible truth about the Romanian district of Rosia Montana and the clash between the idea of development and nature conservation.
The movie follows George, a 23-year-old unemployed miner from northern Romania, whose life has been put on hold after an anti-mining campaign orchestrated by foreign environmentalists. George explains his hopes and dreams for the future – which are different from those prescribed for him by foreign environmentalists. He then travels to other impoverished communities in Madagascar and Chile who are also desperately waiting for large mining projects. George finds people similar to himself with similar hopes and dreams of a decent job and house and a decent education and better life for his children.
Mine Your Own Business is now hugely controversial as it makes us all think about the unintended consequences of blindly supporting environmentalist/anti-development campaigns across the globe. It is a challenge to the cozy consensus that allows Westerners to deny progress to those who need it most.
Petar Ganev, Intern, Institute for Market Economics, www.ime.bg
