 Poster: A snowHead
|
The European Commission is investigating several Bulgarian ski resorts, following complaints by environmental groups that their developments involve illegal use of protected land, illegal deforestation and failures to apply for environmental consents. Construction of a 'Super Borovets' resort is a focus of concern.
This report from PlanetSKI.com
| Quote: |
| Bansko is accused by environmental groups of building on 150 hectares of National Park without an Environmental Impact Assessment act (EIA) and of cutting down trees to create ski runs without the proper authoristations. |
Presumably a lot of this has arisen from booming property sales (combined, of course, with inadequate policing of the developers).
Anyone know the current trends in apartment values in Bulgarian resorts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
| The accusations are simple. Environmentalists claim much of the expansion of the country’s ski areas has been done on land that is protected by international and national law. |
I am not clear how international law can be valid over the use of land in a sovereign nation. As for any violation of national law, that is a matter for the Bulgarian government. I can't see this is any business of the EC - not that that will stop it meddling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
This story, concerning another Bulgarian development - 'Super Perelik' - sheds a bit more light on that. According to this report, work has been suspended there:
http://www.balkantravellers.com/en/read/article/1174
| Quote: |
| The reason for the cancellation, according to the Let Nature Remain in Bulgaria release, is a letter to Bulgaria from the European Commission, saying that the construction plans have been adopted without the mandatory environmental assessment in 2007. That, the environmentalists say, would be a reason to start a penal procedure ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I am not clear how international law can be valid over the use of land in a sovereign nation.
|
I'm no expert in this, but I know (and am very glad) that an EU Habitats Directive has prevented some developments in Chichester Harbour. If EU member states don't give a tinker's cuss for European policy of this sort there's really no point in their joining. Given that member states have vested particular powers in the EU, and have promised to obey certain rules, the EU has every right to investigate apparent infringements. To call this "meddling" rather misses the point, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
David Goldsmith, thanks.
pam w, I don't think so. I think it is up to the governments (including local ones) to husband local land, and should not be a matter for the un-elected EC. As for whether so many powers should have been vested in the EU - well, I think that is going to be quite a subject at the next General Election. Things may change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
I am not clear how international law can be valid over the use of land in a sovereign nation.
|
I'm no expert in this, but I know (and am very glad) that an EU Habitats Directive has prevented some developments in Chichester Harbour. If EU member states don't give a tinker's cuss for European policy of this sort there's really no point in their joining. Given that member states have vested particular powers in the EU, and have promised to obey certain rules, the EU has every right to investigate apparent infringements. To call this "meddling" rather misses the point, doesn't it? |
again like Pam I, no expert but no developement can take place at Stonehenge becuase UNESCO have dicteted it to be a World Heritage site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boredsurfing, off-hand, I cannot think of a World Heritage site that has not be requested to become on by the local people. Moreover, the preservation of such a sit is a matter of convention and national pledges rather than law. The sites' best protection is the local outrage that would arise were they disturbed. Many sites are in danger; I have not heard of any threat to the governments concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rather think it is the money that drives everything behind.
A development company has to ask a bank for a loan to deveop the site. Compliance with International environmental practices enable the development valued, marketed and traded nationally and internationally so the bank is willing to paly ball. If the developement get fouled with the local laws or deviating from published international practices the facility will have a questionable commercial value and the investment by the bank may be fully recoverable.
It is like buying a grade-listed building in UK and converting to a buyer's taste without due regard to the restrictions. There may be nothing wrong with the modification but the future buyer may not be able to get a mortgagee willing to take the converted building as a collateral for the loan.
So the intention of the environmental people may be just sowing the seed of fear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
achilles, The MP whse constituecy covers Stonehenge recently suggested that Stonehenge was de-listed as a WHS to allow the existing visitors centre to be extended and re-developed, the short answer from UNESCO was no!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boredsurfing, nothing to stop the UK from telling UNESCO to get stuffed, in international law, AFIK. Hopefully, it won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
