EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
The entire story surrounding Pirin is filled with so many myths, misconceptions, and false claims spread by the radical wings of both disputing sides that I can't resist a long post addressing the most prominent among them. The lack of reasonable discourse on the subject is appalling, and through it lies the only path to finding workable solutions.
1. No, there is no way Bulgaria can become like Switzerland or Austria. We don't have the geography, the money, the traditions, the markets. But it can easily be the number 1 ski destination in the Balkans with modern and well-developed Bansko, Borovets, Pamporovo, Vitosha and several other smaller resorts.
2. No, there is no way that 48% of Pirin National Park can be built on. First, it is physically impossible. Second, it makes no economic sense. Third, not even a hotel can be built within the park's boundaries, because the law explicitly prohibits it and no plan can override this prohibition.
3. No, the future of Pirin National Park cannot be decided by a local referendum. Because it is the property of the state, that is, of all of us. The local referendums for the use of state-owned underground resources, such as in Tran and General Toshevo, were just as inadequate.
4. No, we cannot continue with the invasion of car traffic within Pirin and Vitosha. In both places, terrifying situations are increasingly being created, both in summer and in winter. Lifts are the only sensible alternative.
5. No, those who travel around Pirin in the summer – the mass of protesters today – are not saints. Summer mountain tourism has a large and rapidly growing impact on nature. In fact, that is when thousands of people daily crowd into the most remote corners of the mountain, including the reserves. The erosion of the paths, the garbage, the feces, the disturbance of the peace of the animals grow with our daily appearance everywhere. In contrast, the winter madhouse of Shiligarnika is hyper-concentrated and manageable.
6. No, we cannot continue with the misery, the shortage of beds and the inadequate waste management in the huts. During summer weekends, Vihren and Tevno Lake turn into ecological nightmares. A completely new concept for hut management and investments is needed. Immediately.
7. No, there is no way that Bulgaria can have highly developed ski resorts and a significant part of the slopes not being in protected areas or zones– practically all high mountains in Bulgaria are either national or natural parks or at least in Natura. That is, we will not do without compromises.
8. No, it cannot be said that the concession of the Bansko ski area is “unsuccessful”. The facts are very simple: Bansko has become a world-class destination in a decade. It has jobs, people, income, opportunities and a future that 99% of the mountain municipalities in our country do not have. After all, this is the main goal of the concession. And the nature of Pirin is in better condition than in the late 90s, when meeting a chamois was a unique event. Today there are hundreds of them everywhere. And this is just one example.
9. No, it is not true that skiing was sentenced to death in Bulgaria because of global warming. Yes, the length of the ski season varies from year to year and location to location, but 90% of it remains between 3 and 5 months, and the trend in snowfall is rather positive. And the technologies for creating and retaining artificial snow are increasingly effective.
10. No, you can't punish people for the inadequate behavior of the authorities - and Vitosha-ski does exactly that by often not opening the lifts and not investing anything in their modernization. This is suicidal.
11. No, there is no way a mountain municipality can develop strongly economically based on tourism if there is no ski area. Skiing is simply the most widespread and highly paid mountain tourism. Everything else can be a good addition, but – as much as I don't like it – the main engine is the ski areas. We are not the Himalayas, Kilimanjaro or Costa Rica!
12. No, there can be no competition within a concession. The point of a concession is for someone to make a huge investment in a resource that the state wants, but cannot adequately utilize. And there can only be a return if that someone has a local monopoly on the benefits of the investment. In this sense, calls for creating competition in a ski area simply reflect economic ignorance.
13. No, I don't want to see significant competition for Bansko in Pirin. Because that would mean ski areas like Dobrinishte or Predela would be concessioned and developed – that is, there would be really serious logging and expansion of slopes, lifts, etc. No, thank you!
14. No, Vitosha cannot be treated as a reserve or a national park, because it is a de facto suburban park of Sofia. Vitosha needs investment and development of both the ski area and any infrastructure for mass mountain tourism – lifts, parking lots, attractions, restaurants. This way, Sofia will be able to fully use the cheap flights to Europe and become a strong destination.
15. No, the thesis “Czeco keeps Vitosha underdeveloped so that people go to Bansko!” is not adequate. If anyone benefits from the lack of skiing conditions on Vitosha, it is Borovets. I will not explain why.
16. No, I don't think that foreign resorts pay so-called environmentalists to hinder the development of skiing in Bulgaria. These people have a beautiful utopia that they are defending. And that is exactly what makes them simultaneously invincible, unreasonable and incapable of meaningful dialogue.
17. No, it doesn't matter who owns this or that company or bank, as long as the company in question brings net benefits to the sustainable development of a region with its activities. In the context of the economic situation of the mountain municipalities in Bulgaria, this means, above all, having income and work without any mass logging and destruction of nature. And in Bansko, this is exactly what is happening. The growth of forests in and around the park, since there has been a developed ski area, has been significant. However…
18. No, in the 21st century you cannot expect to manage a socially significant concession like those of Pirin and Vitosha and not be absolutely transparent. Yulen's behavior of the type "Me, I won't say who I am, because the law doesn't oblige me!" is inadequate and is at the root of public distrust of them. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. They must understand that only total transparency of their relations with the state and the municipality can change the attitude of citizens.
19. No, I don't think that we mountain runners have the right to limit access to high mountains for the "stupid", the "lazy", the "unworthy of sweat" to enjoy their beauty. At least a few sites should be easily accessible and the cleanest way to do this is undoubtedly the lift.
20. No, Bulgaria has long had no “virgin nature”. We cannot act as if our parks are like the Galapagos and the Serengeti. Their resources require active management with maximum utilization of the “experience of preserved nature” service. And ski tourism can happen in parallel with this. Otherwise, the locals will always look for ways to survive from direct uses – logging, hunting, harvesting, hydropower. We will not like the result.
21. No, there is no adequate long-term solution for the future of Pirin, Vitosha and skiing in Bulgaria within the framework of existing legislation. Changes are needed that reflect the reality and needs of all stakeholders.
22. No, we cannot preserve the nature of our national and natural parks while keeping them outside the real economy. If there is no mechanism for monetizing (such as entrance fees, for example) the pleasure we get from experiencing the high mountains, it will remain unusable for economic entities. In a market economy, all other ways of using the mountain resource will be preferred and, accordingly, clashes will be an everyday occurrence.
The comment was taken from the author's Facebook profile.
