BWEA Position Paper on the Appropriate Assessment (AA) Report for Bulgaria’s NECP 2024
Тoday, June 8, 2026, the Bulgarian Wind Energy Association submitted a position paper regarding the published Appropriate Assessment (AA) Report for th Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria – 2024 Update (MOEW Consultation Link).
We recognize the significance of the NECP as a key strategic tool for fulfilling the commitments of the Republic of Bulgaria under the Paris Agreement, the European Green Deal, the “Fit for 55” package, the REPowerEU plan, and Directive (EU) 2023/2413, as well as for decarbonization and achieving climate neutrality. We also acknowledge the need to protect designated Natura 2000 sites, natural habitats, and the species they conserve.
In this sense, the AA Report is an important document that should not merely fulfill the requirements of Article 31 of the Biodiversity Act (BDA) formally, but also serve as a scientifically sound, legally defensible, and proportionate tool for impact assessment, based on individual analysis, up-to-date data, and applicable modern mitigation technologies.
However, as presented, the Report fails to meet these requirements and contains a number of significant legal violations, methodological defects, and scientific contradictions that call into question its applicability, justification, and compliance with the principles of European environmental and energy law.
Particularly concerning and unacceptable are the measures set out in Item 6.2, which introduce extremely restrictive limitations and prohibitions without legal basis and without scientific justification. The measures proposed in Item 6.2 of the AA Report to mitigate adverse impacts are methodologically and scientifically unfounded, lack the necessary reasoning, and do not stem from an objective analysis of potential impacts with clearly and indisputably established significant negative impacts on the subject and conservation objectives in specific protected areas of the national Natura 2000 network.
The proposed measures include extremely restrictive limitations, including a total ban on the deployment of wind farms within the boundaries of all protected areas of the national Natura 2000 network, as well as across entire geographical regions, including Dobrudzha, the Eastern Rhodopes, and parts of the Burgas region. Furthermore, buffer restrictions of 6 km and 2 km are envisaged around certain protected areas under the Birds Directive, unclearly defined as high- and medium-risk zones.
These measures are not supported or objectively proven by the necessary analytical justification, including a lack of specific analysis demonstrating that RES development in all indicated territories would lead to significant damage to the conservation subjects of the protected areas. There is no link between a specific policy/measure from the draft NECP, a specific protected area, a specific species or habitat, a specific impact mechanism, and a specific need for a ban or restriction.
Likewise, the determination of restrictive buffers (6 km and 2 km) around protected areas under the Birds Directive is highly subjective and not justified or reasoned with the necessary arguments.
It is unclear why these specific distances were chosen, on the basis of what scientific, regulatory, or methodological criteria they were determined, which species they apply to, what ecological functions they protect, and whether they correspond to real sensitivity zones for various bird species, including disturbance, displacement, fragmentation, changes in trophic habitat structure, and mortality. Furthermore, it is not clarified whether these restrictive buffers were determined based on up-to-date monitoring data, spatial risk modeling, flight activity analysis (models), cumulative risk, or any other objective criterion for their imposition.
The measures proposed in Item 6.2 of the AA Report are disproportionate and not differentiated according to the specific risk to the specific subject of protection (ornithological species or functional group). These measures introduce blanket prohibitions for entire geographical regions without distinguishing between areas of genuinely high risk and areas of low sensitivity, including territories of low ornithological value or sites where impact can be avoided by applying other proven mitigation measures.
Measures framed in this manner are not aimed at preventing specific, established significant damage, but instead introduce spatial prohibitions on a general principle, lacking the necessary methodological and scientific justification and reasoning.
A significant portion of the territories covered by the envisaged prohibitions and restrictions (agricultural lands outside protected areas) consists of intensively used agrocenoses. These areas are part of agro-ecological complexes with a high degree of anthropogenic transformation, characterized by annual tillage, mechanized agricultural activities, the use of mineral fertilizers and plant protection products, and limited biodiversity. Arable agricultural land per se does not constitute natural habitat types under Annex No. 1 of the Biodiversity Act (BDA) and cannot automatically be categorized as high-conservation-value territories subject to corresponding restrictive buffers. Such a restriction is unsupported by an analysis of the specific territories, their ecological characteristics, conservation value, or significance to the subject and conservation objectives of the protected areas.
Furthermore, in the AA Report, as part of the national and overall targets in the NECP under the “Decarbonization” dimension, it is incorrectly and misleadingly stated that wind power installations cannot be constructed in territories around protected areas, relying on plans with expired periods and no legal effect (NAPRES 2011–2020). This frankly speculative assertion was subsequently used as a basis for imposing extremely restrictive measures in Item 6.2 of the AA Report.
Applying the approach of carrying forward old restrictions into new procedures is not only methodologically wrong, but also devoid of legal sense. The cited plan has expired (NAPRES 2011–2020) and cannot be applied as a valid legal and environmental basis for introducing prohibitions in a new programming period—especially for a national plan with a different scope, function, and effect, such as the NECP.
The claim that the negative impacts of the policies/measures in the draft NECP related to wind energy development do not differ in essence from those evaluated in the NAPRES 2012–2020 procedure is entirely groundless.
None of this is supported by the necessary evidence, including comparative analysis, updated data, or reasons why conclusions from a previous planning document can automatically be applied to the current NECP. There is no corresponding evaluation confirming whether changes have occurred in the conservation status of species, in the spatial distribution of risk, in the presence of sensitive areas, in risk management technologies, or in the regulatory framework. From a regulatory and legal standpoint, linking different programming documents with different functions, such as NAPRES 2012–2020 and the Plan for Identifying Priority Zones for Wind Energy Development, when defining and applying mitigation measures in the NECP is utterly untenable. Furthermore, one plan has expired and lacks legal force (NAPRES 2011–2020), while the other (Plan for Identifying Priority Zones) has not been adopted and likewise lacks legal effect.
The measure recommended in Item 6.2 of the Report introduces unjustified and highly unacceptable territorial prohibitions and restrictions that:
- exceed the scope of authority of the assessment under Art. 31 BDA;
- contradict European Union law – Directive (EU) 2023/2413 (RED III), Regulation (EU) 2022/2577, EC Guidance SWD(2024) 333 final, and the REPowerEU plan;
- contradict Art. 5, Para. 10 of the Renewable Energy Act (REA);
- contradict the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, which requires an individual assessment;
- are not justified by a quantitative scientific assessment and fail to take into account modern mitigation technologies.
At the same time, the Report itself concludes in Item 9 that the implementation of the plan will have an insignificant impact on the integrity and structure of protected areas. Yet, it sets out the most extreme measures possible—complete bans and extensive restrictive buffer zones. This is logically inconsistent and internally contradictory.
In this sense, it cannot be accepted that the Report in its current form provides a reliable basis either for approving the NECP or for fulfilling the commitments of the Republic of Bulgaria under the Paris Agreement, the European Green Deal, the “Fit for 55” package, and the REPowerEU plan.
In light of the above, we consider that the Appropriate Assessment Report for the NECP – 2024 Update should not be approved in its current form, and the measures set out in Item 6.2 should be fully revised and revoked.
You can read the full position paper of BWEA in the file below:
