So the Natura 2000 die is cast. The Government has at last approved the areas it wishes to be included in the environmental network, after a last-minute withdrawal of 32 territories from the list. The decision came after months of protest that descended in recent days to pro-Natura demonstrators marching through Sofia in pyjamas, while students opposed to the programme pitched tents in the city centre. It seemed the fitting conclusion to a campaign characterised by disinformation, confusion and delay.
The decision seems to have pleased no one. As The Sofia Echo reported, the WWF slammed the decision to use “investment interests” as criteria for deciding which territories to include in the network as “in clear contravention of EU as well as national law”.
The Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds also claimed that the decision contravened an EU directive.
The decision to take economic factors into account is a controversial one and it remains to be seen if the EU will take punitive action if indeed there has been a breach of the directive.
The position of the central Government in aiming to “guarantee availability of conditions for sustainable and fast economic development of the various regions”, in the word of the prime minister, is understandable. Every worthy government aims to safeguard the economic and social wellbeing of its people, and what’s more, red-neck geese don’t vote, but people do. Equally, municipalities are keen to keep developing, ensuring that the money keeps coming in.
Less understandable is the omission of areas such as Trigrad and Melnik from the list. There is little doubt that, were large-scale development to be proposed in these areas, there would be a storm of protest. It may be that they are not currently being protected due to a feeling that they are not in need of protection; they may be included in Natura’s extension in October. Again, we shall see.
Fears about the effect that Natura will have in the reserved areas were indicated by the glut of construction permits granted in the run-up to the programme’s introduction. More than 2880 were issued in the last quarter of 2006, according to the National Statistical Institute. Local authorities were apparently happy to go along with developers in ensuring that developments were secured as soon as possible. The hurry to build so much at this stage, say Natura’s supporters, shows the importance of securing land for nature before it’s too late.
It will be interesting to see if this headlong rush proves worthwhile; for there are strong signs that the construction sector in Bulgaria, at least in the holiday homes and tourism sector, is stabilising. This should prove good news indeed for the supporters of Natura and the natural environment as a whole; as demand has its sting drawn, construction will have to slow if yields and rents are not to fall destructively. According to a Colliers International report published in the second half of 2006, supply of holiday homes was at that stage outstripping demand, with “most of the supply under construction”; i.e. in two or three years there will be a very high stock of available homes complete, making rapid further development unnecessary. Indeed, overall holiday home supply growth of 37 per cent year-on-year to June 2006 (and a staggering 152 per cent increase in the mountain regions), coupled with the pre-Natura boom in coastal and mountain areas, seems set to guarantee supply for the medium term. With current absorption rates standing at 56 per cent on the coast and 60 per cent in the mountains, oversupply seems a considerable risk. Colliers predicts that prices will stabilise the market matures and is driven by “rational buyers”. Bulgaria, in the future, will have a real estate market like those of Western Europe, driven by trading properties with relatively low levels of Greenfield construction. While the large, swift gains of recent years will become a thing of the past, a mature and stable real estate market is hardly something to be afraid of.
Natura or no Natura, holiday real estate development should slow and reach an equilibrium in the near future. If Natura can slow expansion while protecting the environment, yes, there will be losers, but the effects will not be disastrous and could indeed be beneficial in forcing more rational, careful and higher-end development in the countryside rather than construction fever.
Andrew MacDowell is Editorial Manager of the Oxford Business Group in Bulgaria.
www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com
