Roundtable to discuss development, ownership and protected areas on the Black Sea Coast

EKIP economist Daniel Vassilev took part in the roundtable held on Wednesday in the National Assembly, which mainly discussed the topic of ownership and development along the Black Sea coastline, the categorization of territories, as well as ownership of dunes and the powers of private individuals and companies owning properties on which such formations exist. Here we will present his essay on the event and a brief comment.

The round table, which was attended by the Ministers of Regional Development and Public Works and of Environment and Water (respectively Lilyana Pavlova and Ivelina Vasileva), scientists from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, professional hotel organizations, owners of coastal properties and a number of “green” non-governmental organizations, began with a presentation by the two ministers of the evolution of the legislative framework for the categorization of terrains along the strip and the current state of ownership of dunes. In this peculiar first part, we learned that a significant part of the areas on which there are dunes are actually owned by private individuals (3272 decares out of 4654 decares of area on which there are such formations). [1] On the other hand, according to Minister Ivelina Vasileva, 65% of the coastal strip [2] falls into protected areas with different status.

More interesting was the second part, where the invited organizations had the floor to ask questions and make suggestions to the ministers present. Not surprisingly, a debate quickly broke out between business representatives and environmental organizations. The latter expressed concern about the abolition of the Zone A status for urbanized territories [3] and raised the alarm about illegal construction, but did not indicate a specific number of buildings, violators or any more detailed information. In fact, according to Minister Pavlova, 1 charge has been filed for illegal construction at the moment. [4] Of course, representatives of the “green” organizations insisted on even stricter regulations and even the thesis that the expropriation of private properties is not wrong, as long as it is in the name of the “public interest” crept in.

For their part, the investors pointed out that they comply with all the requirements of the not-so-easy procedure for issuing a construction permit, as well as that the discovery of dunes on private properties is used as a pretext for regulatory intervention against specific businesses. Other meaningful proposals were also heard, among which was the thesis of the chairman of the Bulgarian Hotel and Restaurant Association Blagoy Ragin, according to whom the heavy regulatory requirements drive investors out of the country. Addressing the environmentalists, he pointed out: "We will preserve nature, but for other peoples. Our children wash the dishes, and our great-grandchildren will not live in this beautiful country." For her part, Minister Pavlova committed her department to become a party to any case of illegal construction and that the preparation of the electronic cadastre is important for the ministry and for nature conservation.

While it is worth examining the various aspects of the proposals in depth, here we will briefly address the rhetoric of the “greens” and both ministers. It has been repeatedly stated that protecting nature is of “public interest”. This “term” makes no sense at all – only individuals, not an imaginary hypothetical “society”, can act and think and, respectively, only individuals can have an “interest”. When the concept of “public interest” is applied, some specific interested party must always define the “interest” in question, of course in its own favor. Another worrying concept is the thesis put forward by Koiril Petkov (from the organization “Let’s Save Coral”) about the non-existence of absolute private property, although de facto this is a concept that cannot be argued against – at the very least, absolute private property over one’s own body is necessary in order to carry out an argumentative process in the first place. And it is unlikely that Mr. Petkov would profess this position if at 4 a.m. a masked individual "socialized" ownership of his car.

We express concern that such meaningless concepts, as well as concepts about the non-existence of "absolute" private property, are being discussed at a forum of the rank of a round table in the National Assembly. We have discussed the enormous importance of the privatization of nature and clearly defined private property elsewhere.

[1] Here is the moment to note that, as was repeatedly pointed out at the roundtable itself, under Article 18 of the Constitution, the beach is “exclusive state property.” According to the law, construction on dunes is prohibited.

[2] Defined as the area with a depth of 2 km from the seashore to the land.

[3] "In Zone A, it is prohibited to erect dense fences, search and exploration for minerals, restrict pedestrian access, discharge of wastewater and waste, use of fertilizers and the development of industries that pollute the environment. Construction is permitted, but outside the territory of the sea beaches and in compliance with the requirements set by law. This includes dunes, as well as protected areas under "Natura 2000", which retain their protection regimes, i.e. construction is not allowed in them." ( Source )

[4] Despite hundreds of investment projects appealed by environmental organizations, with the majority of appeals having failed in court.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!