www.nimfea.hu ◆ www.milvus.ro ◆ www.greenbalkans.org Foreword Europe’s biodiversity is in serious decline. At the species level, 42% of Europe’s native mammals, 43% of birds and 45% of reptiles are threatened with extinction extinction. That’s why we need Natura 2000, which – at least in principle - is a brave and encouraging policy to protect nature, to save Europe’s most vulnerable habitats and species for the future. Today there are more than 25,000 NATURA 2000 sites across the EU. There are national parks and protected nature areas in other countries as well, but NATURA 2000 is the only systematic and scientifically planned nature protection policy on a continent level, throughout almost the whole Europe. (Candidate countries and neighboring policy partners are also encouraged to participate it.) NATURA 2000 is not only about the pure nature, its sites very often include towns, villages, farms and businesses and the aim is to protect „living landscapes”. The EU laws specifically provide for businesses and local authorities to work together to find ways to protect biologically unique sites in ways that are both good for the environment and for development, in the spirit of the sustainable development. Farming, fishing, forestry and hunting can all continue. Even major development projects can be carried out as long as they do not destroy the ecological value of the site. When the EU talks about protecting biodiversity, we do not mean the conservation of one or two species. As Environmental Commissioner Dimas pointed out, “our real concern is with ensuring that our natural ecosystems continue to provide us with food, timber, clean water, flood protection, nutrient re-cycling, medicines, recreation and the many other goods and services that we currently receive free.” However in practice the sources for NATURA are limited, many times they are misused for simple agrarian subsidies. As a new MEP, in one of my first amendments – following the advice of the green NGOs - I proposed to guarantee a 21 billion euros fixed subsidy strictly for NATURA 2000 sites in the 2007-2013 budget, but it was voted down by a slight majority. In the next parliamentary period we should pass a similar rule, which guarantees that the EU funds for nature protection are strictly used for the original goal and shouldn’t misuse for other purposes. Wilderness is a special area of NATURA 2000. Around one percent of Europe’s territory is still untouched by the human civilization. In the name of the European Parliament I was the rapporteur on Wilderness, and I proposed to guarantee a special and stricter protection for those areas inside NATURA 2000 policy. My report has been favored almost unanimously in the European Parliament, and hopefully in the next period there will be a legislative action to provide better protection for European Wilderness. Gyula Hegyi Member of the European Parliament 1 www.ceeweb.org www.nimfea.hu ◆ www.milvus.ro ◆ www.greenbalkans.org ensure the survival and reproduction” of the bird species mentioned in Annex I. What is Natura 2000? of the Directive. Similar measures have to be applied ”for the regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I.”, and particular attention has to be paid ”to the protection of wetlands and particularly to wetlands of international importance”. The Commission’s role is to ensure the coherence of the SPA network. The designation of SACs compared with the designation of SPAs is a more complicated and longer process requiring cooperation between the Commission and Natura 2000 is a European ecological network of protected areas designated by the Member States. the EU Member States based on legally binding legislation: the Habitats and Birds Firstly, Member States draw up the list of proposed Sites of Community Interest Directives. According to Article 3 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), Natura (pSCIs) according to the criteria in Annex III stage I of the Habitats Directive. After 2000 is a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation this, the SCIs (Sites of Community Importance) are agreed between the Commission (SAC) and special protection areas for birds (SPA). and the Member States. In this process, the biogeographic seminars play a crucial The Habitats and Birds Directives are the most important legal instruments of role. Finally, the Member States designate the adopted list of SCIs as SACs (Special the European Union for protecting biodiversity. The aim of the Habitats Directive Areas of Conservation). is „to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural The SCI selection should have been completed within six years after the habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States notification (1992) of the Directive. After long delays all SCIs of the EU 15 have to which the Treaty applies” (Art 2.1). been adopted by the European Commission: Macaronesian region including Ma- The network consists of two types of protected areas: Special Protection Areas deira, Azores and Canary Islands (2001), the Alpine region (2003), the Atlantic and (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). SPAs are designated by the Member Continental regions (2004) and Boreal regions (2005) the Mediterranean (2006) and States according to the ”Birds Directive” (79/409/EEC). The Directive obliges the Pannonian region (2008). Regarding the Steppic and the Black Sea region, so far the Member States to ”classify the most suitable territories” as SPAs in order ”to the initial list of sites has been adopted as of 2009. Natura 2000 is a potential instrument to preserve natural values (Night heron - Nycticorax nycticorax) Further information: © Szőke Péter (Nimfea) ■ www.ceeweb.org ■ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm ■ http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28076.htm Source: ■ CEEweb for Biodiversity: Natura 2000 Site Designation Process with special focus on the Biogeographic seminars (Second edition for Romania and Bulgaria, 2007) 2 3 www.ceeweb.org www.nimfea.hu ◆ www.milvus.ro ◆ www.greenbalkans.org NATURA 2000 problems in Bulgaria and Indicative cases Natura 2000 problems with the protection of sites in Bulgaria After the accession of Bulgaria to the EU there are significant problems with the prevention policy concerning Natura 2000 sites. Numerous development projects affect Natura 2000 sites where assessments are either avoided or of low quality and conclusions for “lack of significant impact” prevail. As there are no sanctions on the part of the Bulgarian authorities, or in most of the cases their decisions are part of the problem, there are complaints already submitted to the EC with no progress what- soever. It is time for actions now, otherwise the message to investors and authorities alike are that violations of EU nature conservation legislation has no consequences and problems continue to aggravate. The main and most common violations of the European environmental legisla- tion are related to the lack of protection of NATURA 2000, namely: 1. Articles 4 (1) and (2) of the Habitats Directive for not proposing a com- prehensive list of scientifically accepted Natura 2000 sites, including 1 pSCI for habitats. 2. Article 6 (2)-(4) (appropriate assessment) of the Habitats Directive for not providing adequate protection of proposed Natura 2000 sites in conjunction with the Article 4 of the EIA Directive and Article 3 (2) of the SEA Direc- tive. Most common ways to avoid the real environmental impact assessments are: ■ Municipalities authorize projects without any appropriate assessment (AA)/ Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)/Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA) procedure (Western Rhodopes, Rila, Pirin, Strandzha, etc). ■ Not assessing cumulative impacts – thousands of separate screening deci- sions for no need of full assessment in case of projects in one and the same locality. Consequently almost all sites in the Black sea region are severely fragmented and even completely destructed. ■ Dividing projects into small pieces avoiding assessment of cumulative impact. ■ Bad and incomplete EIA/SEA reports (Kaliakra Cape, Strandzha Nature Park, etc). 4 5 www.ceeweb.org www.nimfea.hu ◆ www.milvus.ro ◆ www.greenbalkans.org ■ Not taking into account position papers of NGOs and scientific experts. No Kamchia, Pirin, etc.) and limited access to administrative or judicial proce- communication whatsoever of competent authorities with the respondents of dures to challenge illegal authorization acts (Strandzha, Whestern Rhodopes, the Natura 2000 sites. etc.). In fact, the legal base in Bulgaria leads to denial for justice since appeal ■ Hiding permissions and rejecting access to them in order to prevent court periods. appeals. These problems are not restricted to a certain number of sites. Such damage oc- For many of the sites submitted to the EC a large number of projects initiated currs in at least 60 potential SPAs and pSCIs across Bulgaria. Pressure on approved prior to accession have been authorised (tourist development, wind and hydropower SPAs/pSCIs from proposed investment projects continues to increase. In most of plants). All permissions are given with the conclusion that they do not affect species the cases the investment projects are related to building of summer villages, hotels, and habitats. However, cumulative impacts already deteriorate habitats and species golf-courses, ski-runs, extraction of sand, gravel, stones, wind farm and micro-hy- and thus make the ecological information in the Natura 2000