The Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe REReP Record

Flying the Natura flag A new generation of activists puts up barricades to defend wilderness in Bulgaria and elsewhere in CEE by Pavel Antonov Each weekday morning Christina, 37, walks from her apartment block to the nearby avenue and hops onto a marshrutka, one of the many crowded minibuses that roll along Sofia’s hectic streets. At 8:30 A.M. she sets her morning coffee on her desk and starts work at the Bulgarian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works. As a ministry clerk Christina has a job that many in Bulgaria dream about, but her passion lies elsewhere: in nature protection. Christina has been spending part of every Thursday morning for the past three months in front of another government building—the Council of Ministers, which is where she coordinates a group of young people protesting against the ongoing destruction of Bulgaria’s wilderness heritage. The assault on biodiversity is nothing new in Europe, but efforts in opposition are also making history. On May 21, conservationists celebrated the 15th anniversary of the Habitats Directive, which many call the EU’s most important legal tool for preserving biodiversity. The directive’s key achievement thus far is Natura 2000, a network of protected areas in Europe that currently covers roughly one-sixth of EU territory. But among the EU laws Bulgaria had to digest quickly on its way to accession, it is Natura 2000 that has proven the most contentious so far. Mayors, construction firms, municipalities, government ministers – and even some NGOs – have been involved in a bitter row with the European network since last November. Christina and her friends, with the support of several green NGOs, are getting involved in the verbal fray as well, but pro-environment activists claim to be outnumbered. Overconstruction In the past three years an avalanche of construction projects has swept through Bulgaria’s most attractive tourist areas—e.g. the Pirin, Rila, Balkan and Rhodope mountain ranges, and the Black Sea coast. The Bulgarian government, local administrators, businessmen and their lobbyists in Parliament have generally embraced and defended such development schemes as an easy way to bring fresh capital into what is currently the EU’s poorest economy. Pro-development parties naturally view Natura 2000 as a threat to business and quick profits, but one neo-liberal think-tank, the Institute for Market Economy of Sofia, has gone so far as to call the provision an instrument of injustice and expropriation of private property. Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev was quoted by the media as saying that Bulgaria should not become Europe’s “nature preserve.” The PM’s government coalition also redrew proposed maps to reduce the amount of Natura 2000 sites from 35 percent of national territory to 18 percent, meanwhile postponing for “further clarification” any proposed coastal areas until October. On the other side, nature protection organisations like the Green Balkans Federation and the Bulgarian Birds Protection Society argue that the Bulgarian government is violating an EU law that requires Natura 2000 territories to be assigned according to purely scientific criteria. The two organisations were originally contracted by the country’s Environment Ministry to draft the Natura maps for network coverage in Bulgaria, and were summarily dealt the heaviest critical blows from Natura 2000 opponents. The two organisations joined with 15 other NGOs in April to form the Save Bulgaria’s Nature coalition, and met EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas in Sofia to air their concerns. One such concern was that more than 800 permits were issued in a single three-month period to carry out coastal construction projects on land originally designated Natura 2000 territory. Also, the original maps excluded land covered by urban development plans by 2004, but the government pushed back the deadline, thus giving municipalities an opportunity to redesign plans to better serve business interests by October 2007, the NGOs warned. Missing EU targets Natura 2000, often called “the backbone of Europe’s nature protection efforts,” is essential for halting biodiversity loss by 2010, a goal to which EU leaders committed themselves in 2001. Most member states have made good progress in establishing the network, although site designation has been difficult. Nonetheless, new member state Slovenia succeeded in allocating more than one-third of its territory to Natura 2000, the highest proportion of land of any EU country. However, according to the European Habitats Forum (EHF), other countries remain far short of meeting their European responsibilities. “Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria are examples of countries which must now accelerate designation of their Natura 2000 sites,” said BirdLife International’s Konstantin Kreiser. “It’s not just a legal obligation, it’s also essential if we’re to save European nature for our future generations. Endangered species, like the imperial eagle [Aquila heliaca], brown bear [Ursus arctos] or European bison [Bison bonasus] need places to survive, and we all need a diverse and healthy environment.” Voices of concern echoed in Brussels. After a few months of delay, the European Commission (EC) began sending a strong message of its own: Hands off Natura 2000! In June, Bulgarian daily Dnevnik cited Ladislav Miko, director of the EC Directorate for Protecting the Natural Environment, as saying that the complete list of Natura 2000 territories in Bulgaria would likely be received in July—or September at the latest. Miko also warned that legal proceedings will be launched against Bulgaria if unjustified delays continue. In a letter to Environment Minister Djavdet Chakarov the director criticised the investors’ lobby and the lack of information made available to the general public. EHF, a coalition of European conservation organisations, together with the European Environmental Bureau, recently published ‘Saving Biodiversity: Releasing Natura 2000’s Potential.’ The report identified the following priorities: better implementation and enforcement efforts from member states and the EC, setting conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites, full participation in the implementation process by all relevant stakeholders, a transparent and user-friendly information system on the exact location and status of protected sites, consistent interpretation of key legal definitions, and proper EU community cofinancing for network implementation. While policy recommendations take time, real life gets heated. Last June Bulgaria’s Supreme Court revoked the protected status of a natural reserve near Kamtchia River’s mouth to green-light yet another construction project. Last-minute changes by ruling coalition members in June have weakened the new law on the Black Sea coast. Expected to halt illegal construction and introduce strict regulations, the act has become “toothless” to accommodate construction industry interests, conservationists claim. Popular protest Skyrocketing development in public spaces and the government’s apparent inability to rein in the construction industry has brought at least one positive outcome. The latent anger that many Bulgarians feel led them to the streets and wild areas to protest. “We realised that we can’t depend on the state apparatus or the EU to prevent construction on Irakli, our favourite pristine beach area, that is why we took things in our hands” said Christina. Her Save Irakli campaign inspired others, and new committees in favour of Natura 2000—or simply against over-construction—have have emerged across the country. Similar developments in Poland and elsewhere in CEE bring hope for Europe’s remaining pristine nature areas, and for democracy and good governance in the region.

REReP Record Home