[size=75:3cuumam4]Sofia echo 2 April 2010

Protected Bulgaria

In most countries, protected natural habitats are usually revered as a way of preserving natural heritage in an increasingly consumer-driven world. Such territories are also considered a source of alternative income to remote communities who are often far removed from economic centres of activity.

The legal definition "
protected territories"
serves as a guarantee that this fragile natural balance will be kept intact. This guarantee is secured not just by law but also with the active co-operation of governments who long ago acknowledged the benefits derived by local communities and the wider population from such areas.

Historically, Bulgaria began granting protected status to its territories in 1931. The oak tree forest along the left bank of the Veleka river in Strandja mountain was declared its first ever nature reserve - under the name of Silkosiya. Two years later, Vitosha mountain was declared a nature park alongside the Parangalitsa reserve. Under communism, Bulgaria experienced a boom in protected areas, mainly in the mountains at the expense of river banks, coal mines and valleys that were used for widespread industrial production.

After the fall of communism in 1989, the growth in protected areas slowed due to economic and political reasons;
currently, no more than five per cent of Bulgaria enjoys protected status. The last such change in land status was in 2007 when, with the active role of the NGO Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation (BBF), Belassitsa mountain in southern Bulgaria, near the border with Macedonia and Greece, became the 11th Bulgarian nature park.

Contrary to preconceptions that Bulgaria has irrevocably lost much of its natural appeal due to aggressive construction along the Black Sea coast and in the mountains, Rossen Vassilev, an expert in biodiversity, believes the country still has one of the best preserved wild nature areas in Europe, a fact acknowledged by the European Commission and its Natura 2000 environmental conservation network.

This often surprises many Bulgarians, especially those abroad, Vassilev says. "
Industrial pollution has also been exaggerated a bit as an inheritance from the dark industrial days of communism. Industrial polluters do exist, such as in areas around Pernik or Kremikovtsi, for example, but they are too small to undermine the country’s overall natural balance,"
Vassilev says. "
We currently have large and beautiful forestry areas around rivers, dams and the Black Sea coast where, despite our concerns over construction, there are still well-preserved natural areas."


These areas have a potential without the need for bulldozers and concrete buildings to attract tourists. For this to happen, however, people living in the area must play a pro-active role. "
Protected territories provide many opportunities for the development of tourism, in most cases alternative tourism, which local communities can benefit from,"
Vassilev says.

Unfortunately, local communities are frequently unaware of this potential and are fearful of the repercussions if an area around their village is declared a protected zone. "
Protected"
does impose certain restrictions on what can and cannot be done within the territory concerned but the law provides enough opportunities for different types of tourism inside these zones.

"
It is true that big investors don’t see sufficient grounds for investing in alternative tourism because it does not bring quick revenue. At the same time, however, alternative tourism does not really require enormous funding but, instead, more careful planning,"
Vassilev says. He believes that people will be willing to pay above the cut to visit a site that has preserved its wild nature.

The state is also to blame for Bulgarians’ pessimism regarding protected territories, Vassilev says. "
In order to preserve nature by declaring a piece of land a protected territory, the state imposes some restrictions on local people. This happens all over the world. Unlike Bulgaria, however, other countries compensate them for forfeiting some of their rights over the land. In Bulgaria, on the other hand, there are only recommendations in various laws.

Hence the state has stopped declaring protected territories, fearing the reaction of locals as well as the possibility of compensation claims,"
Vassilev says.

On another level, most areas with protected territories potential are state-owned. "
Take forests, for example, which attract a great deal of interest because of timber. We get many calls from local people worried that state-owned forests around their villages are being exploited by timber companies,"
Vassilev says.

"
This opens the debate on how state forests are managed because these timber companies work in full compliance with the law. Unfortunately, the system of forestry management is extremely conservative and non-transparent. Unlike all other major investment plans that affect local communities, plans for cutting timber are not subject to public discussion,"
he says. He also notes that the practice of replanting trees is rarely applied by companies, although they are obliged to.

Legislative changes are needed to address the situation, Vassilev says. He notes that this means concrete actions instead of just intentions. "
Even in 2010, which has been declared the year of biodiversity, the state has planned many public events and demonstrations but few actions,"
he says.