Facts rebutting the lies distributed for the NATURA 2000 ecological network have been distributed by the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast National Association in their statement:
In the public debate organized by MOEW on the amendments to the Biological Diversity Act introducing the management of Natura 2000 sites, "neoliberal extremists - "environmentalists" and a handful of "scientists" demanded the nationalization of 35% of the territory of Bulgaria and the management to be implemented by them with Bolshevik approaches. Why are these people lying? 1. Natura 2000 site is not an abstract concept, but it is part of the territory (land) of the Republic of Bulgaria. They want to own this native Bulgarian land without paying and managing it for the benefit of other countries, from which they receive money. 2. The government should be forced to allocate not a small part of the Bulgarian budget to neo-liberal extremists - "environmentalists" and a handful of "scientists". The budget of the Republic of Bulgaria is raised by the taxes of the Bulgarian citizens and is intended for pensions, social assistance, health care, education, defense, etc. 3. Appropriation of 35% of the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is a pure sample of creeping annexation. The creation of a new state "reserve" - "Jurassic Park" as called by director Andrei Slabakov from the territory of our country is threatening the national security. How are they lying? 1. Neo-liberal extremists and self-styled "environmentalists" say the Minister of Environment and Water alone would design and manage Natura 2000 sites. This is a lie! The Directives explicitly state that the STATE, not NGOs, designate and manage protected areas in the Natura 2000 network. The Minister of Environment and Water is the competent authority of the State. In the proposed amendments to the law, ADVISORY COUNCILS shall be created by the state governing bodies. This is a document showing that the government is not a single person. 
2. The same neoliberal extremists who want creeping annexation of the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria said that the proposed amendments are contrary to the Constitution and the European directives. This is a lie! In a letter received on 6 February 2019 by the European Commission to a large group of industry organizations regarding their inquiry on management of the "Natura 2000", it is said: "As regards the different ways of organizing the Natura 2000 management system, they fall under the competence of the Member State and are not defined by the European Commission." This is direct evidence from the European Commission that the determination of the Natura 2000 management type by the STATE complies and does not violate the European directives. We do not comment on their remarks about violation of the Constitution because they do not specify and the body responsible for complying with the Constitution is the Constitutional court, not "environmentalistic" NGOs. 3. Neoliberal extremists are lying about creating a Scientific Advisory Council. In the MOEW documents is written "Advisory Council". The Advisory Council body is set up to comply with the European directives that say conservation measures for the management of Natura 2000 sites "shall comply with economic, social and cultural requirements as well as regional and local peculiarities." European documents show that the economy, social status, culture and local peculiarities are leading. They are not leading "environmentalistic" NGOs and a group of "scientists" because they are not stakeholders. The place of serious scientists is to supply scientific information to the state, so it is written in the famous European directives. 4. Another lie is that the amendments to the Biological Diversity Act refer to the Bulgarian Protected Areas. The Biological Diversity Act is a law on protected areas. Protected areas in Bulgaria are governed by an individual law - the Protected Areas Act and no proposal for its amendment exists at the moment. 5. They lie that the changes in the BDA are directed against "environmentalists". The BDA is not a law on non-governmental organizations, so its changes cannot hurt or support NGOs. The Law on Non-governmental Organizations in Bulgaria is the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act. No change to this law is currently proposed. 6. It is a lie that the fossil of lynx faeces found in Grandma Pena's land is an intellectual property of an "environmentalist" or a "scientist" who found it there. The "environmentalistic" NGOs and the "scientists" group receive money from the Ministry of Environment and Water and from European funds for collecting primary data - the lynx faeces and they claim the finds are their property. The finds are the property of the one who paid - the STATE. If one wishes to conduct scientific research on a given territory, he/she must first enter into a contract for this activity with the landlord. Another kind of relationship is related to totalitarian periods of Bulgarian history, which do not exist at the moment. For reference: 1. There are no prohibition orders in any Member State but Bulgaria that cannot be appealed before the court. There are no 26 criminal procedures brought by the European Commission to Member States that do not have such an order in their laws. 2. In the Member States where the management of protected areas of the Natura 2000 network has been adopted, only two entities have been constituted - on the one hand, the state represented by the MoEW as the competent authority and on the other hand the stakeholders - property owners and users of any kinds of property (hunting, fishing, sports, industry) in protected areas. The competent authority determines the conservation measures and they are negotiated directly with the owner or the user or are consulted and adopted unanimously by Advisory Councils, which include owners/users. Scientific organizations negotiate separately their activities with the state and the owner / user. Outside this management, environmentalistic organizations and other public benefit organizations are committed to sustainable development and respect for the rights of nature, man and the economy combined. No criminal proceedings have been launched by the European Commission against the Member States that already have adopted a way to manage Natura 2000 sites. We have indicated above the ways of doing so. 3. Excerpt by the European Commission on the percentage of protected areas within the territory of the Member State Bulgaria-34.5% UK-8.6% Denmark - 8.4% Latvia-11.5% Lithuania-12.4 Belgium-12.7% France-12.9% Sweden – 13.4% Netherlands-13.3% Malta-13.3% Czech Republic - 14.1% Austria - 15.4% Germany-15.5% Estonia-17.7 Italy - 19%, and so on. Recently accepted member states: Bulgaria-34.5% Romania-22.7% Croatia-36.6% Let us ask ourselves whether we are screwed up by the triple coalition assisted by the neo-liberal extremists "environmentalists", who have put us the percentage, or are they proud that they have put us the percentage in a "biodiversifical" way? The responsibility for "putting" the Bulgarian people is the responsibility of the state. It would have to cease to be justified by the "strongest greens" or the European Commission because European directives and the European Commission are talking the opposite to the talk of some politicians. Source: www.skandal.bg
