Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation Position on the Forest Act Amendments Law

№ 23/29.06.2012 National Assembly
Committee on Ogriculture and Forests
Re: Comments on Forest Act amendments law
Dear Mrs. Taneva,
Please acquaint yourself with our proposals for amendments and additions to the Forest Act amendments law.

26.06.2012 Respectfully,

Appendix 1
1. The following additions are made in Art. 13:
Line 2 is changed as follows – (2) Forestry plans for territorial divisions of state enterprises under Art.163 are made in accordance with the borders of forest territorial units, and include forest territories that are state property and those owned by physical persons, legal persons and their unions with area up to 2 hectares.
In line 3 after the word “properties” is added “from 2”
Line 7 is changed as follows: (7) The preparation of forestry plans and programs is financed by their owners, and for forest areas that are state property and those owned by physical persons, legal persons and their unions with area up to 2 hectares – by state enterprises under Art. 163.
In Art.11 at the end is added “and/or by the corresponding state enterprise under Art.163.”
Art.14 is created – “(14) If physical persons, legal persons and their unions, whose property is established as per regulation of line 2 do not wish to use the forestry plan, they use forest resource based on forestry program, whose preparation they finance.”
Motives – solves the problem of the big expenditure on preparation of forestry programs and their environmental assessments for small forest properties up to 20 decares. The proposal is that plans of forest resource use be made within the framework of preparation of forestry plans of state forestries and state hunting areas at the expense of state enterprises. If persons are not satisfied with the planning, they can themselves finance the forestry programs at their expense.

2. In Art.69 line 1, a new item is added “4. For the forest areas falling in the range of the surrounded areas and bases for intensive managing of game under the Hunting and Game Protection Act”
In Art.69, a new line 4 is added with the following content – (4) The right of use of forest areas – public state and municipal property, is established for a term of not more than 10 years.”

3. Art.71, line 1 is amended as follows: “A price which is set as per Art.86, line 2 is paid for the establishment of right of use on land properties in forest territories – state and municipal property, for activities related to search and research of underground natural resources as per the regulation of Underground Natural Resources Law, as well as for enclosure of forest territories for enclosed areas and bases for intensive managing of game as per the regulation of the Hunting and Game Protection Act.

Motives:
As per the Hunting and Game Protection Act there is the possibility of enclosing state, municipal and private forest territories for establishment of enclosed hunting areas and bases for intensive managing of game.
These fences:
- are done for profit;
- the higher density of game leads to damages of the environment;
- restrict citizens’ constitutional right of freedom of movement;
- restrict considerably the timber industry in the enclosed territory;
- cannot be used by anyone except by the firms with which joint activities contracts are signed, or are assigned as per the Hunting and Game Protection Act;
It is inadmissible such exceptional rights to be conferred gratuitously to the user. The proposed amendments create a mechanism for compensation of the conferring of the right to enclose hunting forest areas.

4. In principle, we are against income from change of use of forests or rights of use to be used for reforestation and forest roads.
We are against because we think that the natural reforestation is the most natural and economically advantageous way for restoration of forests. Forests in Bulgaria have a very good recovery capability and reforestations are justified in only a few percent of the cases in which they are done. It is as well rather perverse incomes from annihilation of forests to be used for building roads in old-growth forests areas – that is incomes from destruction of some forests to be used for destruction of other forests (where it is economically not profitable in principle to do felling). We propose money collected from change of use of forests to be used for buyout of private forests in protected areas. For that purpose, we propose a new line to be set in Art. 73 – “Incomes from change of use of landed properties in forest areas go to the state budget and are spent only for buyout of private forests in protected areas and zones.”

5. To be corrected paragraph 63 of the Property Act amendments law with the yield in all cases not to surpass 80% of the growth.
6. In Art. 187 a new line 3 with the following content is created – “(3) The activities for preventing violations in forest areas, with total area up to 2 hectares, property of physical persons, legal persons and their unions are performed by the state enterprises without compensation.
7. In Art. 188 the following additions are made – in line 1 after the expression “their property”, the expression “these per Art.187 line 3 and” is added.
Motives –small forest owners do not have financial and organizational capability to organize protection of their property, which leads to upsurge of poaching in private forests. And they, being incapable of protecting their property, are apt to look for a way to cut down their forests, in order to gain some income from them. The proposal includes the obligation that preventive actions, as well as activities for establishment and prevention of violation on these properties to be assumed by state enterprises as per the Forestry Act.