europeanization of the spatial planning system in bulgaria

Pavel YANCHEV Europeanization of Spatial Planning System in Bulgaria

1

Europeanization of the

Spatial Planning System

in Bulgaria

Thesis research paper

H02S0A

Student:

Pavel Yanchev

Promoter:

Loris Antonio Servillo

Readers:

Frank Moulaert

Jan Schreurs

Master of Human Settlements,

Faculty of Engineering,

ASRO, KU Leuven

2011-2012


2

Abstract

The paper examines the overall process of Europeanization of the spatial planning system of

Bulgaria in the period 1989-2011. The research follows the dynamics of the different

dimensions of the planning system through a timeline and marks significant episodes of

institutional changes. The paper argues that Bulgaria has done significant efforts to introduce

new planning instruments and legislation related mostly to regional development, but

abandoned the reformation and integration of the traditional modes of spatial planning. The

regional and spatial planning still addresses in extremely separated legal and practical

methods private and public investments.

Thesis submitted to KU Leuven ASRO Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning by Pavel

Yanchev in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Human Settlements.

Note: This thesis has been elaborated as a parallel research to the one conducted in the same period by

Mircea Munteanu for the "Europeanization of the Spatial Planning System in Romania" under the

supervision of Loris Servillo, within the framework of a thesis for the Master of Science in Urbanism

and Strategic Planning of the same department of KU Leuven. The chapters "Literature Review",

"Methodology" and "Comparative study Romania-Bulgaria" have been co-authored with him.

Correspondence address: [email protected]


3

Contents

1. Introduction / Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 5

2. Literature Review* ................................................................................................................................ 7 Spatial Planning as a System ....................................................................................................................... 7

Spatial Planning Systems Typologies ......................................................................................................... 8

The Social Construction of Planning Systems ............................................................................................ 9

Europeanization of Spatial Planning and its Mechanisms ......................................................................... 14

The Eastern European Context .................................................................................................................. 18

3. Methodology* ...................................................................................................................................... 22

4. Results from Empirical Research ...................................................................................................... 26 Spatial Planning System of Bulgaria before 1989 ..................................................................................... 26

Identifying Episodes of Europeanization after 1989 ................................................................................. 30

Episode 1 – In Search for Political Identity 1989 – 1999 .......................................................................... 32

- Socio-political dimension ............................................................................................................. 32

- Spatial Patterns ............................................................................................................................. 33

- Technical dimension ..................................................................................................................... 34

- Cognitive dimension ..................................................................................................................... 36

- Discoursive dimension .................................................................................................................. 37

- Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 37

Episode 2 – Reformation period – 1998-2001........................................................................................... 38





- Discursive dimension .................................................................................................................... 43

Episode 3 – Rise of Real Estate Mortgage Loans – 2002-2007 ................................................................ 44


- Spatial Patterns: Rise in Real Estate Investments ......................................................................... 44


- Cognitive dimension: Planning Education in Bulgaria ................................................................. 51


- Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 53

Episode 4 – Being a Member state – 2008-present ................................................................................... 53






- Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 60

5. Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 61 Spatial planning system in Bulgaria after 1989 ......................................................................................... 61




- Discursive Dimension ................................................................................................................... 66

6. Findings and Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 69 Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 69

Role of the EU ........................................................................................................................................... 72

Comparative Study Romania – Bulgaria* ................................................................................................. 74

7. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 77

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................. 78 * co-authored with Mircea Muneanu


4

Abbreviations CBC Cross Border Cooperation

CEC Commission of the European Communities

CEMAT European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional/Spatial Planning

DSP Detail Spatial Plan (Подробен устройствен план)

EC European Commission

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective

ESP European Spatial Planning

ESPON European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion

ETC European Territorial Co-operation (INTERREG)

EU European Union

GSP General Spatial Plan

ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management

IUDP Integrated Urban Development Plan

MEUF Ministry of the EU Funds (Министерство на европейските фондове)

MEW Ministry of Environment and Waters (Министерство на околната среда и водите)

MRDPW Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (Министерство на регионалното развитие и

благоустройството)

NCRD National Centre for Regional Development (Национален център за териториално устрийство)

NDP National Development Plan

NICH National Institute for Cultural Heritage (Национален Институт за Недвижимо Културно

Наследство)

NSS National Spatial Scheme (Национална комплексна устройствена схема)

NSP National Spatial Plan

NSRD National Strategy for Regional Development

NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework

NSTD National Strategy for Territorial Development

OP Operative Program

RD Regional Development

RDA Regional Development Act (Закон за регионално развитие)

RSP Regional Spatial Plan

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SP Spatial Planning

SPA Spatial Planning Act (Закон за устройство на територията)

TSPA Territorial and Settlement Planning Act (Закон за териториално и селищно устройство)

TC Territorial Cohesion

UACEG University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Sofia (УАСГ, София)

UNDP United Nations Development Programme


5

1. Introduction / Problem Statement

This paper attempts to frame the overall process of Europeanization of the spatial planning

system in Bulgaria in the past decades. The aim is to describe how does the Bulgarian spatial

planning system transform and adapt to the context of the emerging European spatial planning

model. The research makes an overview of the history in the dynamics in spatial planning

approach after the falling apart of the Soviet Bloc until now. From all major changes occurred

the paper tries to distinct the influences from the EU policies and discourses in four socio-

economic episodes of the contemporary history of Bulgaria. In the episodes the story keeps

track on four major dimensions of transformation of the planning system. Those are: (1)

socio-political; (2) technical; (3) cognitive and (4) discursive dimensions. The paper

represents a co-work with Mircea Munteanu, whose parallel research on the process of

Europeanization of Romanian spatial planning system is taken into account and appears as a

comparison between the two countries in the findings and conclusions chapter.

Bulgaria is a Parliamentary Republic and is one of the newest EU member states and together

with Romania have been part of the last enlargement of the Union in 2007. This membership,

not only for those two countries, but for all new EU Member states, came as a political reward

for their efforts to manage the political confusion of their peoples in post-socialist period. The

years immediately after 1989 were a sudden paradigm shift, marked in history as the end of

the Cold War period of political and military tension between the Western countries and the

Soviet Bloc. The countries passed through crises, depopulation, radical change of values,

swinging from the extreme communism towards ultra-liberalism.

In order to understand the shifting attitude of the societies towards spatial planning in Eastern

Europe and particularly in Bulgaria, one should be aware of the planning as a tool of political

oppression. Planning was meant for the public and in the same time performed without the

public.

All those political concussions have certain impact on the adjustment and ability of the

societies in Eastern European countries to plan their future and more particularly their

territory. In Bulgaria “planning” and “spatial planning” was understood as an almost

forbidden word immediately after 1989 and in the same time extremely fashionable political

term at the end of 2010s. The strive to be part of the European community and to receive the

approval of Brussels had transformed totally some aspects and means of spatial planning and


6

have left absolutely unchanged others. The sectorial funding that has been adopted afterwards

has influenced the formation of new institutional structures. It also induced changes in the

discourses, planning education and actors’ behaviour that are all part of the territorial

governance process.

Currently Bulgaria is a country with a territory of around 110’994km² and population of

7’364’570 people1 and around 1/5 of them (1’291’591p.) live in the capital of Sofia. The

territory is quite equally spread with settlements and district centres. In the past 30 years there

has been gradual urbanization of population. Another trend has been shaped after 1989 – a

mass migration of population towards Western Europe and North America. For the period

1990-2011 the country’s population has dropped with nearly 1,3 million people. Looking at

the GDP per capita, Bulgaria is the poorest country in the EU.

For the purpose of this research the recent aspects of transformation of the spatial planning

system in Bulgaria will be classified in the broader frame of the Europeanization.

Europeanization is a broader concept used to explain political transformations in different EU

member states after their domestic institutions begin to interact with the European

institutional instruments. These dynamics are studied by the scholars as part of the debate

about the emerging of so called European spatial planning model. Some of the main trends of

Europeanization are discussed according to the social construction and transformation model

of planning systems of Servillo and Van den Broeck (2012). The aim is to describe the degree

to which Bulgarian planning system has been a part of the process of mutual transnational

learning and cooperation in what is described as European spatial planning.

1 National Statistical Institute (www.nsi.bg), census 2011


7

2. Literature Review*

* co-authored with Mircea Muneanu

Spatial Planning as a System

Spatial planning is not a term coming from the United Kingdom or deriving from English,

instead it is a Euro-English term. It appeared in the process of shaping an European position

in the field of planning and spatial development, intended as a neutral term and not directly

linked to any particular country (Böhme, 2002:11). The term spatial planning has been

appearing in the last decade in literature, education and media in its literal translation from

English into Bulgarian (пространствено планиране) or Romanian (planificare spațială), with

a similar meaning to the French aménagement du territoire (устройство на

територията/amenajarea teritoriului) and sometimes trying to substitute the existing one, but

also being challenged by new terms such as territorial development (dezvoltare teritorială).

Spatial planning includes all intentions, instruments and actors that take part in the

development of a certain territory. Spatial planning is seen as strongly connected to the

particular cultural and political background of nation states to develop their settlements,

landscape and natural resources, as well as a sign of sovereignty and identity. The need to

untangle the complexity of different actors in spatial planning and the dynamics of their

activities and interactions has led to the conceptualization of spatial planning as a system. The

systemic approach has been widely used in the fields of political science and governance

(Bache & Flinders, 2004; Meadows, 2009) in order to recognize and discuss the changing

environment in institutions and their relation to society. In the case of spatial planning, the

‘system’ refers to “the ensemble of territorial governance arrangements that seek to shape

patterns of spatial development in particular places” (Nadin and Stead, 2008) and “steer

spatial dynamics and process of land organization and transformation” (Servillo and Van den

Broeck, 2012).

Such a systemic approach does not necessarily imply that a particular ensemble of territorial

governance arrangements must have reached a certain degree of complexity in order to be

called “spatial planning system”. Instead it highlights that in a given territory the forces

seeking to shape spatial development are inter-linked and must be viewed in a holistic way.


8

The relevant context defining a spatial planning system varies from author to author, with

several approaches possible. First spatial planning can be considered in relation to its legal

and administrative structures, but according to Nadin and Stead (2008) this leads to an over-

emphasis on the formal system of planning. Second the focus can be enlarged also to the

system in operation, albeit still within the confines of the formal public sector structures.

Finally, spatial planning can be considered in relation to the broader societal environment,

closely linked to the concept of spatial planning culture. One such a model is the one

proposed by Servillo and Van den Broeck (2012) which sees the spatial planning system as a

multi-dimensional and multi-actor social construct.

Spatial Planning Systems Typologies

Following the previously described models, several attempts have been made to compare and

classify the European spatial planning systems. Davies et al. (1989) distinguish between the

planning systems rooted in the English common law (built up case-by-case as decisions of the

courts are recorded) and those linked to Napoleonic codes (seeking to create a complete set of

abstract rules and principles in advance of decision-making), categories identified also by

Faludi (1987) as 'indicative' and 'imperative' respectively. Newman and Thornley (1996)

expanded the scope to a broader selection of countries and, focusing also on the legal and

administrative structures, identified the Nordic, British, Napoleonic and East European types.

The process of shaping an European position in the field of planning also produced the EU

Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems (CEC, 1997) which, albeit still largely working

within the confines of the formal structures, enlarged the focus to include several other criteria

apart from the nature of system of law, such as the scope of the planning system, the extent

and type of planning at national and regional levels, the locus of power, the relative role of

public and private, the maturity and completeness of the system and the distance between

expressed objectives and outcomes. Instead of classifying the systems in fixed typologies, the

Compendium defined four planning traditions based on the 15 studied states: Regional

economic, Comprehensive integrated, Land use management, Urbanism. These traditions

were meant as mere 'ideal types', against which a system could be measured.

The ESPON 2.3.2. study on Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local

Level (2007), further attempted to extended the Compendium to assess also the New Member

States in relation to the four EU15 related traditions.


9

Classification of spatial planning systems in Europe. Source: Nadin & Stead (2008)

The Social Construction of Planning Systems

- Spatial Planning Culture

A useful concept in understanding the broader societal contextual complexity of spatial

planning analysed as a system is the concept of spatial planning culture. The underlying idea

is that spatial planning systems are embedded in and strongly influenced by their

environments.

Such contexts refer to “wider models of society” (Stead and Nadin 2009:283), “specific socio-

economic patterns and related cultural norms, values, traditions, and attitudes” (Knieling and

Othengrafen 2009, xxviii) and are structured by actors, actors constellations, rules, norms,

values or collective ethos (Getimis 2012). Several authors positioned planning culture in


10

relation to the spatial planning system, but definitions vary. We distinguish three main

categories among these.

First, planning culture can be seen as a broad realm including the planning system itself. More

than planning instruments and procedures, it is “the aggregate of the social, environmental,

and historical grounding of urban and regional planning” (Young 2008:35) and it includes

“the different planning systems and traditions, institutional arrangements of spatial

development and the broader cultural context of spatial planning and development” (Knieling

and Othengrafen 2009, xxiv).

Second, planning culture can be seen as complementary to, rather than including the planning

system, being the mechanisms operationalizing spatial planning. This mechanisms include

“the ways, both formal and informal, that spatial planning in a given multi-national region,

country or city is conceived, institutionalized and enacted” (Friedmann, 2005:184), „the

typical way of working (organizing, deciding, managing, communicating etc.) during the

process of planning, as a result of the accumulated attitudes, values, rules, standards and

beliefs shared by the group of people involved“ (CULTPLAN 2007:11), the “actual behaviour

of actors involved in planning processes (officials, politicians, investors), which may favour

particular economic interests on the account of their societal and environmental impacts”

(Maier 2012). Thus the notion of planning culture sits between the characteristics of spatial

planning system and the wider models of society in which it is embedded (Stead and Nadin

2009:283). In supporting this view, Nadin and Stead (2008) have also shown the underlying

correspondence between these social models and the models of planning presented in the

previous section.

Finally, planning culture can be seen as just the attitude of planners, more specifically “the

collective ethos and the dominant attitude of planners regarding the appropriate role of the

state, market forces and civil society in influencing social outcomes” (Faludi, 2005:285,

Sanyal 2005:22).

Concluding, despite the various approaches on planning cultures and their relation to spatial

planning systems, certain common characteristics emerge. These were synthesised by Getimis

(2012) as “the role perceptions, values, interpretations, beliefs, attitudes and collective ethos

of the actors involved in planning processes. In other words it refers to the mental

predispositions and shared values of those involved at all stages of the planning processes


11

(agenda setting, decision making and implementation) influencing their behaviour and

action.”

Consensus building Coercion/ imposing decisions

Anticipation

Planning with the support and

participation of the community

Rational planning and programming

Adaptation

Incrementalist, pluralist, fragmented

policy making style

Contingent and opportunistic top-down

decision-making

Culturally embedded planning systems (CULTPLAN 2008)

Strategic-relational institutionalist approach

Following a strategic-relational institutionalist approach, Servillo and Van den Broeck (2012)

propose a model of a spatial planning system considered in relation to the broader socio-

cultural environment, and argue that planning systems are socially constructed.

According to this interpretation at the core of the planning system lies a technical dimension,

which is embedded in a broader 'institutional frame' composed also of a cognitive, socio-

political and discursive dimension. The institutional frame privileges certain actors, uses and

outcomes over others, and hence structures the broader institutional field in which a planning

system is embedded. These privileged individual and collective actors are conceptualized as a

relevant social group called the ‘temporary supportive coalition’, as they, even unconsciously,

strategically sustain the planning system and its operation. Over time, new relevant actors can

emerge that challenge the current 'hegemonic configuration' described above, leading to new

shapes of the dynamic institutional frame (Servillo, Van den Broeck 2012).

This model splits a spatial planning system in four dimensions of the institutional frame:

1. Discursive dimension – key words, understandings, values, principles, rhetorics and issues

2. Socio-political dimension – role of the state in planning, political environment, welfare

system, financial distribution of the state etc.

3. Cognitive dimension – analytical, monitoring and knowledge based structures, planning

schools with their approaches

4. Technical dimension – planning instruments and institutions, tools, rules, formal

procedures, governmental competences and interactions


12

The discursive dimension (1) is represented by all understandings, values and principles that

are in the basis of all development and planning theories and practices in the given context.

Servillo (2010) gives a broader view on the discourses by naming some of them as

‘hegemonic’. That is a way to present the discursive dimension as a stage of debates between

hegemonic and counter-hegemonic values and viewpoints on the development and the

territory. The discourses of sustainability, territorial cohesion, competitiveness, subsidiarity,

etc. can be seen as ‘hegemonic’.

The socio-political dimension (2) encompasses the role of the national state of the planning

process and development, the economic and welfare model of the state, the financial system

etc. (e.g. the shift from communist one-party model of the state to capitalist free market model

in Romania and Bulgaria, with enormous implications on the planning discourses and

viewpoints).

The cognitive dimension (3) is the one that includes all analytical, monitoring and knowledge

based structures all spatial planning schools with their academic discourses towards the

spatial development and planning. Adams et al. (2011) distinguish between knowledge

resources (data, ideas, argument), knowledge arenas (arenas of action) and knowledge

channels (interface between the two above) in understanding the dynamics of this dimension.

The technical dimension (4) consists of all planning institutions, formal public and private

actors, rules and regulations. This is the part of the planning systems that have always been

the core of the policy debate (Servillo and Van Den Broeck, 2012) and were also central to

the typological studies presented before.

European Spatial Planning

European spatial planning is a concept that emerged in conjunction with the development of

the political system of the European Union. Formally, spatial planning has never been a filed

among those for which regulatory or financial instruments were adopted at the European

level, instead being a competence consciously left aside. Some member states perceived the

idea of supra-national political intrusion in the planning of their territory as a vulnerability, a

potential violation of sovereignty. However, increasingly more evidence showed that sectoral

policies emanating from the EU have a spatial component and clear implications upon the

territories of the Member states. These were in particular the sectors of environment, regional

policy, transport and agriculture (Dühr, et al., 2010). A debate emerged among scholars and


13

politicians on how far should Europe go in steering this development in the member states,

and the concept of European spatial planning was developed. Nevertheless “so far European

spatial planning has been a matter of voluntary cooperation among member states.” (Faludi,

2002)

The emergence of European spatial planning is often shown in contrast to the planning

traditions in the United States where the concept of the planning for the whole territory of the

country is lacking (Dühr, et al, 2010; Faludi, 2002). The territory of the US has been

envisioned mostly through city and regional planning – similar to the ‘town and country

planning’ practice in the UK. Thus the debate of the European spatial planning has been used

also in the US in order to raise the question of larger scale conceptualisation of spatial

development.

The debate process shaping the European position in the field of planning was marked by a

series of major events (Kunzmann, 2006):

1975 – European Commission establishes the European Regional Development Fund – an

idea of the British government that aims to help the regions that are lagging behind.

1983 – CEMAT (The Council of Ministers of Regional Development) adopts the

Torremolinos Charter where the term ‘spatial planning’ is probably used for the first time

(Kunzmann, 2006). According to the Charter ‘Regional/spatial planning seeks at one and the

same time to achieve, balanced socio-economic development of the regions, improvement of

the quality of life, responsible management of natural resources and protection of the

environment, and rational use of land’

1997 – The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems report is prepared for the EU15

countries.

1999 – CEMAT publishes the European Spatial Development Perspective which is

considered to be the cornerstone document of the process, promoting a) polycentric spatial

development (polycentrism), b) a new urban-rural relationship, c) parity of access to

infrastructure and knowledge and d) wise management of the natural and cultural heritage.

A diffuse European model of spatial planning was thus emerging, as “a method of securing

convergence and coordination between various sectoral policies” (Report on Community

Policies and Spatial Planning 1999)", leading to a general "transformation of the style of


14

spatial planning, from allocating space for anticipated growth to stimulating economic

development by proactive measures" (Healey et al., 1997:290).

The process continued and, despite the lack of competency, the EU constructed an implicit

territorial agenda (Faludi, 2009), leading eventually to the current four 'pillars of European

spatial planning': (1) the institutionalization of the ESPON, (2) the mainstreaming of the

European Territorial Cooperation objective (former INTERREG IIIB/IVB programme), (3)

the process behind the adoption of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union' (DE

Presidency 2007a) and (4) the debate introduced by the publication of the 'Green Paper on

Territorial Cohesion' (CEC 2008) (Waterhout 2011).

Concluding, Giannakourou (2012) shows that European spatial planning "reflects mainly an

understanding of planning as a strategic tool for spatial integration with multi-sector and

multi-level cooperation and coordination as its core elements. This type of strategic and

coordinative planning implies fundamental departures from many national planning models,

especially those embedded in the urbanism' and land-use' traditions of planning (CEC, 1997)".

Europeanization of Spatial Planning and its Mechanisms

- The concept of Europeanization

Europeanization is quite a fashionable research topic especially in the field of political

sciences. It is a generic term used to explain the process of “domestic adaptations to the EU-

Europe” (Lenschaw, 2006). It is important to notice the broader sense of the term, including

not just the identification of top-down political influence over the member states but as well

all types of co-operation and the resulting mutual learning process. In that sense Lenschaw

(2006) makes the clear difference between Europeanization and European integration, as the

latter has the connotation of member states’ loss of identity. He argues that the mutual

learning, vertical and horizontal political co-operation between nation states can be seen as an

entire process of EU governance, rather than transfer of policies between EU levels.

“Europeanization research focuses on processes (and limits) of national

transformation. Such transformations affect shifts in capacity and responsibility, hence

issues of effectiveness and accountability; they also affect actor and power

constellations, hence issues of political voice and ultimately the legitimacy of

governance in Europe and the European states.”


15

According to Radaelli, Europeanization consists of processes of construction, diffusion, and

institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, “ways

of doing things” and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the

EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational)

discourse, political structures and public policies.’ (Radaelli, 2003:30).

An investigation into Europeanization is not an attempt to understand weather a nation is

Europeanizing or not, but rather seek to explore the complex dynamics - either vertical,

horizontal or circular in nature - that entwine and contribute to the modification of the

supranational and domestic spheres (Stead and Nadin 2011). In this sense Lenschow (2006)

concludes that there are three main directions of Europeanization: bottom-up (national

state→EU), top-down (EU→national state), horizontal (state→state) and roundabout

(national state→EU→national state).

Furthermore, this process of Europeanization, understood in its common sense of impact of

the EU on domestic policies and practices, is “not an end state, but rather an evolutionary

process of continuous interplay between the EU and Member States” (Waterhout, Mourato,

Böhme, 2009).

- Europeanization and Spatial Planning

Europeanization of spatial planning generally describes the process of “increasing influence

of EU policy within the member states, the support given to transnational cooperation on

spatial development, and the learning effects that are expected to come with such

cooperation” (Dühr, et al. 2010). This Europeanization process is directly connected with the

emergence of European spatial planning as a network among members states of diverse

planning systems, which cooperate and share knowledge at various scales. “The motto of the

EU ‘united in diversity’, could be applied equally to the diversity of planning systems in its

member states and the different disciplines involved in spatial planning” (Dühr, et al., 2010)

In the last decade there have been several attempts to show the impact of Europeanization on

specific domestic contexts. Among others, Tewdwr-Jones and Williams focused on the

impact on British Planning (2001), Böhme explored the 'echoes' in the Nordic countries

(2002), Giannakourou looked at the Mediterranean countries, Waterhout at the Dutch case

(2007), Peterlin and Kreitmayer McKenzie at the Slovenian case (2007), Zaucha at the Polish

one (2007) or Karel Maier at the Eastern countries with a focus on the Czech context (2012).


16

In the same time, several studies dealt with the effects of Europeanization in a comparative

manner looking at all territories involved in the process. Such were the various “territorial

impact assessments” of specific EU policies and initiatives, conducted through the ESPON

network or as part of the policy making process within the European Commission.

- Mechanisms of Europeanization

One EU level research focused on the application and effects of the ESDP in the Member

States (ESPON, 2007a). While the research does not directly refer to Europeanization, it

actually provides a good overview of the mechanims that characterize this process.

- Themes – refer to the discourses that are set in the ESDP e.g. polycentric spatial

development, new urban-rural relationship etc.

- Ways of impact – vertical, horizontal or spatial integration.

- Means – through cross-border co-operation (Interreg IIIA), transnational co-operation

(Interreg IIIB), urban governance or structural funds

- Effects – institutional changes, changes in planning policies, practices and culture,

changes in spatial representation

- Levels/Scales – European, national, regional or local

- Actors involved – European Commission, other EU institutions, national, regional or

local authorities

In close connection to such research, several attempts have been made recently to define

workable theoretical frameworks for studying the Europeanization of spatial planning

systems.

Threads

Böhme and Waterhout (2008) distinguish between three threads of Europeanization:

- Planning for Europe which includes policies for supra-national and cross-border

territorial development (ESDP, ESPON, Territorial Cooperation, Territorial Agenda of

the EU, Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion)

- The influence of planning-for-Europe policies on the planning in Europe as within the

planning systems in the member states.


17

- Influence of EU sectorial policies and European integration on planning in Europe.

Catalysts

According to Healey (2006), three driving forces can be identified in any process of change in

spatial planning: rules, resources and ideas. Böhme & Waterhout (2007) operationalized this

framework for the process of Europeanization of spatial planning in the Member states,

identifying the following catalysts of Europeanization:

- EU regulations

- EU spending policies

- EU spatial planning discourses

The EU regulations consist of all hard rules which the European Commission sets in the

directives and regulations. They have been adopted by the member states through the

domestic legal frame that regulates directly or indirectly also the spatial planning process. The

EU spending policies are connected to the funding and the way it is distributed among

priorities and projects. The discourses relate to the process related to the emerging European

spatial planning field described previously. It must be stressed however, that "whilst it is

possible to analytically distinguish between these three drivers, in reality the Europeanization

of planning will often be the result of a combination of all three of them." (Waterhout, 2007)

Ways

The ways proposed by Lenschow (2006) have been proved valid also for spatial planning

(Böhme and Waterhout 2008):

- top-down (EU→national state), relating mainly to the Europeanization thread of

influence of EU sectoral policies and European integration on national policy goals,

choices and instruments in spatial planning

- horizontal (state→state), referring to processes of cooperation and mutual learning

especially through transnational, cross-border and inter-regional territorial

cooperation, but also to "spatial positioning" (Williams 1996), which relates to the

growing awareness of domestic actors that they are part of something larger than a

member state


18

- round-about (national state→EU→national state) referring to processes through which

national positions and discourses are "uploaded" the European level, leading

eventually to a cyclical effect back on the domestic spatial planning system

Hard / Soft

Building on the other theoretical approaches, Giannakourou (2012) distinguishes other two

major mechanisms: Europeanization through soft coordination and learning and the one

through hard regulation and compliance. The first is connected more with the emergence of

the European spatial planning and the planning for Europe. It implies the process of

knowledge based horizontal communication and networking between communities. It does

not presupposes top-down pressure from the EU institutions but is more based upon Open

Method for Coordination. The hardware of Europeanization on the other hand refers to the

institutional changes, transformation of domestic regulatory frameworks in compliance with

the EU, or the creation of new institutional bodies and functions.

The Eastern European Context

Eastern European states share a common Soviet-dominated past which also had a strong

spatial planning style associated with it, marked by “totalitarian dirigisme” and classifiable as

“rational planning and programming” under the culturally defined planning styles (cf.

CULTPLAN 2008:127, Maier 2012).

As the transition to a market economy was proceeding, a set of similar characteristics

emerged, grounded in the common past:

- “The nation state is more important for people in East-Central Europe than in the

established democracies of the West.” (Maier 2012) Therefore every political decision

towards introducing and discussing supra-national political influence for spatial

planning or giving more power to regional authorities might create anxiety and

opposition.

- The development of self-reliant local governments (Altrock et al. 2006). After 1989

strong devolution was introduced, which made communities and municipalities the

‘local bases for democracy’, but with limited resources. The regions, on the contrary,

were given responsibilities but weak power. That configuration made coordinated

development hard to achieve. (Maier 2012)


19

- The issue of diversity which reflects two ways. Different local conditions and

governance which is not tolerated by the government and the result in growing spatial

and social disparities between regions , in particular “the ‘transformation winners’ in

the Western part and the ‘transformation losers’ in the Eastern part” of each New

Member state (Altrock et al 2006)

- “The privatization of the public domain has been the most significant change in the

countries of East-Central and Eastern Europe” (Maier 2012). That was a radical

transformation that started from a non-existent private sector.

- “The divestiture of the socialist production units (which also effectively ended the

dominant influence of socialist industrial policy on settlement systems)” (Altrock et al

2006).

Eastern European spatial planning has been distinguished as a distinct group from the

Western European models in the early transition period, as was the case in Newman and

Thornley’s work in 1996. Yet only some years had passed since the fall of the communist

regimes in 1989, they observed that “new planning systems in these countries do not yet exist.

The problems in creating a market in land and property, and in many countries the lack of

political stability needed to pass the necessary new legislation, have delayed the establishment

of a market-oriented planning system.” They also notice the spatial planning methods in the

Eastern countries to “involve using the previous planning approach and adapting it to new

conditions”. (Newman and Thornley, 1996)

A viewpoint from inside was also given by Maier (1998), who talked about the spatial

planning system transformations in Czech Republic. He emphasized the sharp difference

between the centralized governmental planning of the communism versus the abandonment of

planning in the post-socialist period. The analysis of the Czech spatial planning policy

transformation, while clearly contextualized, contained nevertheless certain aspects that can

be generalized to the neighbouring countries, in the context of similar spatial patterns

emerging in Eastern Europe immediately after 1989: “The challenge of basic changes from

real socialism towards a market-driven society caught Czech planners as well as most of their

colleagues in other East-Central European countries off guard. The overwhelming rejection of

any kind of planning, including urban and regional planning, was not only a result of a radical

revolutionary atmosphere but also a reaction to a lack of readiness, passivity and previous


20

conformity among planners” (Maier, 1998). But this rejection of planning was not necessarily

translated in the legal framework. On the contrary, Adams et al. (2011: 32) argue that “CEE

countries tend to be characterized by SP approaches of a more formal and regulatory nature

(…) partially in contrast with the prominence of 'softer' non-regulatory approaches in many

old Member States”.

"As the process of Europeanization was becoming increasingly consistent in the Eastern

European countries in the context of EU enlargement, there emerged also specific Eastern

patterns of adaptation to it. It has even been argued that the extent of change due to

Europeanization processes may be more profound in the new member states than in Western

Europe (Duhr et al., 2007), as the changes required in response to the acquis communitaire

prior to accession had many effects, including administrative and legal changes, new regional

institutions, new administrative boundaries and new powers (O’Dwyer, 2006), underlined by

less institutional resistance to policy change than in the old member states (Grabbe, 2001).

Furthermore, Adams et al. (2011) see “EU enlargement as a window of opportunity to

develop radical processes of change at the policy level”. However, while the influence of

Europeanization on planning systems are evident and manifold, “there are also concerns that

learning effects and cooperation results may not spread beyond the circle of spatial planners”

(Duhr et al. 2007)."

Apart from the various commonalities among the New Member states, it must be stressed

however that such generalizations are limited. These countries all have different geographical

specificities and pasts, which triggered different transition paths. Geographically, three

macro-regions can be distinguished within the Eastern European member states, in relation to

the EU and the supra-national territorial cooperation frameworks. First there are the Baltic

States, with a clearly distinguishable different position, but also a distinct recent past as part

of the Soviet Union itself. These differences were also translated in their partnership within

the Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea cooperation framework. Then there are those

countries in Central-East Europe situated across the border from older Member states in

Central Europe and all part of the 2005 enlargement group. The spatial planning systems of

these countries are also all “embedded in the Hapsbug monarchy reforms of the eighteenth

and nineteenth centuries and the functionalist traditions from the inter-War period” (Finka

2011:108), with the particular case of Poland, which sits in-between the two categories from

above. Bulgaria and Romania on the other hand, formed a distinct and more distant group in


21

the enlargement process (joining the EU just in 2007), but have themselves quite different

backgrounds which will be presented in more detail in chapter 4.

Such differences have also been emphasized by specific studies, which showed for example

how Slovenia (Peterlin and McKenzie 2007) and Poland (Zaucha 2007) with the location

proximity advantage, had the favourable opportunity to develop faster their transnational co-

operation in the INTERREG programs and ESPON network. Both researches focus on the

‘spontaneous’ learning process, originating from the projects from the ‘soft’ transnational

planning.

Altrock et al. (2006) highlight as well the “highly heterogeneous situation“ in Eastern Europe,

with “ vast differences in the degree of fiscal and administrative decentralisation as well as in

geographical size“ and with re-considered “pre-soviet legacies (such as resurrected traditions

and historical (transport-connections)“.

Regarding the role of the EU in the East-Central European context, Maier concludes:

”The European spatial planning agenda has established a new layer above and/or apart from

the national planning systems, but it only started to penetrate and influence them through the

national planning policies. Instead of an adjustment in national structure of planning

instruments, the need to comply with formal requirements related to the EU structural funds

in some cases resulted in new ad hoc instruments that have been established solely for the

purpose of EU funding” (Maier 2012).


22

3. Methodology*

* co-authored with Mircea Muneanu

In building a methodology for addressing the recent dynamics of change in the spatial

planning systems in Romania and Bulgaria on the one hand, and highlighting those changes

brought about by Europeanization on the other hand, we started by framing the historical

background of spatial planning in each country. This provided relevant data on the underlying

traditions of the institutional and administrative arrangements, but also on the planning and

governance culture legacy.

The main body of the empirical research was focused on the period when Europeanization

was likely to have played a role and when significant changes in the spatial planning systems

occurred due to the transition from communist totalitarian regimes towards market economy

and democracy. The specific choice for the period resulted from the historical background

coupled with the information on the macro-regional context coming from the literature review

on the Eastern European particularities of spatial planning.

For structuring the empirical data, we chose a theoretical model of spatial planning systems

that could reveal the dynamics of implicit and explicit change, by relating to the broader

context, including formally external but highly relevant elements such as Europeanization.

The model, developed by Servillo and Van den Broeck (2012), sees the spatial planning

system as a social construct enabled by and enabling particular actor groups and structured in

four dimensions: socio-political, technical, discursive and cognitive (explained in detail in the

Literature review chapter).


23

Hegemonic and counter-hegemonic coalitions and their interactive process at the base of the dynamics in

planning systems (Servillo and Van den Broeck 2012)

For the purpose of this research, the model was developed as follows: for the core of the

system - the technical dimension - a sub-framework with a set of five subcategories has been

constructed to untangle the changes within this dimension, departing from the European

Compendium (CEC 1997):

- the scope, the stated goals of the spatial planning system

- the scales at which planning has competences in relation to the locus of power

- the related programmes

- the actual planning practice

- the territorial multi-level, multi-sector and multi-actor governance arrangements

Along the way, where relevant, these changes were put in the context of Europeanization, the

impact of which was assessed per each change identified. We have decided not to structure

the research according to the types of Europeanization, because "whilst it is possible to

analytically distinguish between these three drivers, in reality the Europeanization of planning

will often be the result of a combination of all three of them." (Waterhout 2007) and the

studied Romanian and Bulgarian systems experienced severe changes over the period,

requiring a framework very sensitive to the dynamics in the system.

The social construction model allowed for the identification of a series of episodes that

emerged first from the changes in the socio-economic dimension, but then found

correspondence in all other dimensions as well. Instead of a 22 year long time-line, the results


24

of the empirical research were structured by these episodes, allowing for connections between

the different dimensions of the system to be made easier.

For gathering the empirical data we used 3 macro types of sources:

- academic literature addressing our spatial planning systems, but also other

Europeanization national case studies in order to verify the type of documents needed

to be analysed

- official documents

- opinions of experts or key figures from the process, expressed in journals or in direct

interviews, used to verify the official data and to collect evidence on the system in

operation and on planning and governance culture.

The selection of official documents, which formed the core of the data sources, followed 4

categories at every scale (EU, transnational-cross-border, national, regional, county

(Ro)/district (Bg) and local level). All categories refer to documents in the field of spatial

planning, but also those that should incorporate aspects of spatial planning (e.g. on

regional/economic/sustainable development):

- laws (directives or regulations in the case of the EU level; irrelevant for some levels

such as the regional one without legislative power)

- strategies, white papers, agendas

- policy and programmes documents, spending policies

- plans

Following a synthesis of the dynamics over the entire period, the interpretation of the results

was structured in two main parts: on the one hand the findings relating to the national spatial

planning system, on the other hand a comparative analysis of the Europeanization in the

Romanian and Bulgarian spatial planning systems.

The findings on the national case include a sub-chapter on the 'role of the EU' where the

changes brought about by Europeanization observed per each change and episode were

synthesised following the theoretical framework proposed by Böhme and Waterhout (2008)

following Healey (2006), structuring the drivers of Europeanization in rules (EU directives


25

and regulations), resources (EU spending policies) and discourses (European spatial planning

discourses).

INSTITUTIONAL FRAME

SOCIO-POLITICAL

DIMENSION

SPATIAL PATTERNS

COGNITIVE DIMENSION

CHANGES

IN THE

SPATIAL

PLANNING

SYSTEM

→

DISCURSIVE DIMENSION ROLE OF EUROPEANIZATION

TECHNICAL DIMENSION

→

RULES RESOURCES IDEAS

SCOPE OF THE

SYSTEM

SCALE &

COMPETENCES

↓

PROGRAMMES

PLANNING PRACTICE

→

GOVERNANCE COMPARATIVE STUDY RO-

BG

↑↓

ACTORS

1989

2012 >

Methodology diagram (Source: authors)


26

4. Results from Empirical Research

Spatial Planning System of Bulgaria before 1989

Historical Overview

This chapter presents the spatial planning system’s development and transformation

throughout the new history of Bulgaria. “New history” is considered the period after 1878,

when the country gained partial autonomy and was no longer part of the Ottoman Empire,

until present days. In the first decades, due to the high urban migration, territorial planning

was focused mainly upon the cities and not so much on the rural lands. In the following

period 1944-1989 planning was totally reformed into totalitarian economic and spatial

planning that followed the communist ideas of centralised state development. The period

thereafter, can be viewed as a transition to democracy and a cultural shift towards the Euro-

Atlantic values. The last chapters focuses in detail on that last period 1989-2011, which is

divided into four main episodes according to the major changes in the socio-political

environment, and the levels of Europeanization that has brought changes in the spatial

planning system.

Planning the Kingdom of Bulgaria 1878-1944

The transformation of spatial planning in Bulgaria was a dynamic process that followed the

disruptions of the political discontinuity of the country’s political agenda from the end of XIX

century until now. In the years after the Liberation from the Ottoman Empire, quite a number

of territorial changes occurred under the tension of the wars in the region. Four major

moments of physical territorial change occurred and that were: San-Stefano Treaty in March

1878, Berlin Treaty in July 1878, Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine in 1919 and Treaty of Craiova

in 1940.

The reminiscences of the Ottoman administration and governance were abolished almost

completely. The new socio-political system accepted capitalism and tried to attract

investments and cultural influences from Western Europe. The private initiative was strongly

encouraged and that resulted in urban industrialization and economic growth.

The institutionalization of spatial planning in Bulgaria began with the formation of the

modern Bulgarian governmental structures, immediately after 1878 with the first Human


27

Settlements Public Work in the Kingdom of Bulgaria Act (1882). The act had to regulate the

development of the territories mostly within the human settlements. That was reducing spatial

planning to pure urban planning or urbanism practiced mostly by architects and landscape

architects. Planning education and practice were strongly influenced by the Austro-Hungarian

and German traditions. A new generation of Bulgarian architects received their education

abroad. They began to change completely the look of the cities. On a larger scale territorial

plans were done only for the development of the settlements’ street and green structure.

Foreign architects and town planners from Germany, Austria, Russia and France were

consulted or hired for those commissions. The urban plans were elaborated by the city

governments but they were not too rigid, marking nothing more than the position of the street

system. Yet in the 1930s the need for more comprehensive plans were realised (Hirt, 2005)

Most of the ideas of the Garden City movement and later on the Modern movement appeared

in some of the street patterns. Some of the town plans done at that period appeared to be more

sensitive towards the existing natural and street structure of the cities (e.g. Josef Schnitter’s

plan of Plovdiv, 1891). Others were extremely relentless towards any Ottoman legacy in the

city and have changed completely the city fabric (e.g. the first plan of Sofia, 1880).

The changes of the state borders, the transfer of territories and the continuous wars within the

Balkan countries brought along a vast amount of migrating population towards Bulgaria.

Meanwhile the cities began to industrialize and more and more population was employed by

that sector. Cities became even more attractive for migrants which were finding their way

from the villages to the poorer urban neighbourhoods. Those waves of migration were one of

the challenges for the spatial planning of the bigger cities, where new territories were

continuously annexed to the building limits of the towns and surrounding them villages. The

most extreme case was the city of Sofia which managed to grow in population from 20’000 to

105’000 people for the period 1879-1910 (Lampe, 1984). The elaboration of urban plans by

the city government was unable to catch up with the speed of migration. It has been simply

adding new territories to the city building limits by giving the outlines of basic street

structure. Nevertheless the city centres managed to bear modernization and development.

They changed completely the image of the previously shaped Ottoman towns where the

minarets of the mosques were the highest structures in the skyline.

Urban planning was mostly distracted from the citizen participation and actor involvement. A

striking example of that was the development of the First Sofia Master plan of Adolf


28

Muesmann made in 1938. Muesmann himself had visited Sofia six times and was reluctant in

his contacts with citizen groups, also refused to meet any local architects. The plan he

elaborated was kept in secret until it was adopted. Later the city government never managed

to implement it (Lampe, 1984; Hirt, 2005).

A change in the planning legislation was done in 1941 by adopting the The Human

Settlements Public Work Act whose role was to divide the planning instruments into sectors –

some regulated the street structure, others the land plots etc. That act brought also building

standards as a requirement. It was active until 1949. (Kovachev, 2009)

Planning the Communist Bulgaria 1944-1989

A strong shift in territorial values came in the post-war years. Bulgaria became part of the

Soviet Bloc as a satellite country of the Soviet Union together with Yugoslavia, Romania,

Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Germany. The state adopted the single-party

communist governmental system that controls and plans the entire economy and hence the

development of the territory in its whole.

Spatial planning “proceeded within the institutional and ideological framework of a single-

party system; limited local autonomy, which implied that local governments simply

channelled down state decisions to the local level; and almost full state ownership of land,

property and means of production.” (Hirt, 2005). All private property was forcibly and in

cases violently nationalised and grouped. Territory was not any more perceived as a private

property but as a common asset that is developed only by the state government. Every spatial

development intervention beyond the single land plot was considered a governmental

planning concern. The first act that tackles this political shift was the Human Settlements

Planning Building Act (1949). This legal document was also the first that tackles the

development of the territory not only within the settlements but outside its building borders

(Kovatchev, 2009).

Spatial planning was distinctly separated but following the economic planning of the

government. The state had the famous “five-year plans” for the development of the economy

which was distributing the emergence of new economic, industrial and agricultural activity

throughout the territory of the country. The spatial planning of the regions and cities was

extremely technocratic. Plans were projected predominantly by planning professionals and

experts, the language of the plans were not understandable enough to be understood by the


29

wider public. Architects and planners have been given enormous power to shape territories

and cities according to their understandings and values. Lack of private initiative and the

totalitarian governance manner guaranteed no involvement in the planning process of citizen

groups or other actors whatsoever. The settlement planning was based on technocratic norms

of living deriving from Marxism. “Technocracy was the most defining characteristic of

communist urban planning” (Hirt, 2005). Level of settlement development was made upon a

prognosis how many people will be transferred to work in the newly projected industrial

enterprises.

The centralised state and the respective spatial development in the 1950s-1960s continued to

favour the very strong economic presence of the capital city Sofia. It had continued to be the

city with biggest growth and influx of working migration though it was strictly controlled by

the government.

A new act was issued in 1973 addressing already the whole territory of the country. Two

major planning zones were distinctly created in order to manage city growth – urban and

countryside zones. A hierarchy of spatial planning have been created in order to be able to

elaborate big scale visions and strategies for the development of the country. Meanwhile in

the 1960s and 1970s in order to analyse and plan the industrial transformation of the

settlements large planning state owned companies were founded. Those companies delivered

plans in various scales including development schemes for the territory of the whole country,

for regional, municipal and local scales. First plans and strategies for city agglomerations

have been produced. The principles of spatial planning were following strong segregation of

functions and systems – labour, habitation, leisure, public services, infrastructure and natural

environment. In charge of all development plans were only the Ministry of Territorial

Development and Public Works2. This was also one of the most reformed institutions by the

different governments. In particular moments it was also split in two Ministries – one

responsible for infrastructure and building regulation, another responsible for planning,

architecture and development. No competences or responsibilities for planning were delegated

to the lower levels – regions or municipalities.

2 The actual name and competences of that Ministry was changed 15 times for the period 1944-1989 thus this institution can

be found under different names in literature.


30

Identifying Episodes of Europeanization after 1989

Spatial Planning in Post-Communist Bulgaria after 1989

The Europeanization of spatial planning is a process that can be generally time-framed in the

post-communist period of Bulgaria after the falling of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This moment

is of political paradigm shift is also referred as “the Changes” or “the Transition”. The present

research is focusing mostly on that period by dividing it in basic socio-political episodes.

Those socio-political episodes are chosen on the basis of the general political tendencies –

political continuity, reformist political will, stages of European integration in the field of

spatial planning and territorial development. Four major episodes are distinguished:

- In Search for political identity – 1989-1997

- Reformation period – 1998-2001

- Rise of real estate mortgage loans – 2002-2007

- Being a Member state – 2008-present

After 1989 in the political regime of Bulgaria was transformed from single-party communist

state-owned economy to multi-party democratic market economy. The whole understanding

about spatial planning system has been reformed. The repressive experience of the state-

driven planning of the territory was still fresh in the collective memory. Spatial (similar to

economic) planning was totally overthrown and abandoned as limiting the entrepreneurship

and economic freedom. Less government control and more freedom for private economic

activities were proclaimed as a premise for economic growth and welfare. The land, once

totally nationalized in 1944 was fully returned in a period of 10 years. The process of land

restitution started right away with agricultural land and until 1999 all land and a significant

number of large industries were taken by private owners.

In the years 1989-1996 the political battle between the former communists and the newly

formed democrats resulted in political discontent, devaluation of the Bulgarian currency, and

great unemployment and inflation. The country has passed through one of its biggest

economic crises resulting in around 1 million Bulgarians migrating towards Western-

European and North-American countries – trend that can be observed for large number of the

Eastern European population.


31

The actors that led and steered the process Europeanization were changing gradually. At first

those were the democratic and liberal parties that emerged as opposition of the communist

regime. For long time the successors of the communist party were still trying to keep the

influence of Russia, its investments, projects and methods of planning. Still the pro-European

actors were gaining more and more positions. At some point they also could be differentiated

in two groups. Some were focusing on the values and discourses of the EU. They could be

able to argue and discuss the European values as well as to contribute to the politics on supra-

national level. Others just mentally substituted the leadership of the Soviet Union with the one

of the European Union and saw Bulgaria as an enclosed entity which has no common goals

with all European countries.

After 1997 the Bulgaria elected democratic government which was the first that was not

overthrown ahead the schedule. It had strong reformation will and introduced unpopular

moderate right-wing politics for recovery from a deep financial crisis of the post-communist

transition period. Bulgaria has issued its candidacy for the EU membership in 1998. The

decision made was crucial for the future values and geopolitical direction of the development

of the country. The territorial reform began by introducing two completely new acts that

treated the spatial planning and regional development in order to prepare Bulgaria for further

compliance with the European legal and financial frame. Bulgaria received access to pre-

accession European funding.

Due to the strong reforms after 1997 for the period 2002-2007 Bulgaria experienced strong

economic growth. The annual growth of economy was between 4,1 and 6,6%, GDP almost

doubled, the unemployment shrank from 20% to 5,6% and the direct foreign investments

raised 4,5 times3. After 2002 the accession period of Bulgaria as an EU candidate continued

with active change of the legal framework. Many acts contributed to the proper adoption of

the EU directives in the domestic context. The governments were following the previously set

pro-European direction. The period is marked with rise of real estate crediting and building

production resulting in wave of new development of settlements – in bigger cities as well as

in the mountain and sea coastal resorts. Strategic development documents were elaborated.

Still the planning was lacking the spatial plans and schemes for the settlements which had its

negative results in terms of shortage of infrastructure.

3 Data from Ministry of Finances of Bulgaria (http://www.minfin.bg/) and National Statistical Institute (www.nsi.bg)

http://www.minfin.bg/

http://www.nsi.bg/


32

The last period is connected mostly with the fact that in 2007 Bulgaria is already a EU

Member state as well as member of NATO from earlier in 2004. Bulgaria began to be more

active participator in those to absorb the European funding for domestic and international co-

operation projects. Meanwhile the world credit crisis struck Bulgaria after the end of 2008. As

in 2007 35,2% of all foreign investments were in the real estate market, the sector was one of

the most affected by the crisis. The austerity measures were and still are the major solution for

the government to invert the trend of the slowing economy.

The following chapters connect the four episodes and examine make a more detailed

overview of some major events and aspects of Europeanization of the spatial planning system

in Bulgaria. Each episode presents a short introduction of more detailed socio-political and

economical dimension; description of the basic spatial development patterns; technical

dimension; cognitive dimension; discursive dimension. Most extended is the technical

dimension – most of the reforms and changes in the spatial planning system are generalized

and listed.

Episode 1 – In Search for Political Identity 1989 – 1999

- Socio-political dimension

A new political turn, land reform and devolution

The period of political change in Bulgaria happened quite peacefully and was not supported

by casualties. Two main reasons behind the unrest against the communist regime can be

identified. First was the fight against human rights violation – between 1970s and 1989 the

Bulgarian Communist Party (BKP) had performed mass forced change of names among the

Muslim minority in the south of the country. The second was the environment – the wave of

environmentalism had appeared as a care for the nature destroyed by the state-owned

industrial enterprises. Those two facts were creating unrests and were perceived by anti-

communists as arguments, powerful enough, to rally the people against the totalitarian

government.

The actual change of the power happened within the government and the Communist Party

after the falling of the Berlin Wall on November 9th

1989. Shortly the first secretary Todor

Zhivkov resigned after 33 years of control. In the following months a multi-party government

system was introduced and the Communist party was deprived from its total power. The


33

country was flooded with street protests which supported either the ex-communist or the new

forming democratic organization. A Round table decided the future of the new Constitution

and the first democratic elections were held.

Bulgaria makes its first diplomatic contact with the EU in August, 1988. Due to the political

situation, the first trade agreements between Bulgaria and the EU are done after the changes

in May 1990. Soon after in September 1990, Bulgaria enters the PHARE program for

gratuitous financial aid for political reform and preparation for EU membership.

- Spatial Patterns

Meanwhile in the spatial and territorial policies major changes occur. The land which was

previously nationalized after 1944 was a subject of restitution – returned back to their

previous owners. People received the freedom to invest in and develop their land. The process

started with the agricultural land, which during communist regime, was grouped in collective

farms. The land was given back in their real borders or compensated with the same quantity

and quality of lands. Around 700’000 housing units in social housing blocks built by the state

between 1958 and 1989 was privatised in the favour of the present owners. Land restitution

and privatization might be assumed as one of the most significant spatial transformations, not

only in Bulgaria, but equally in the whole former Soviet bloc.

A strong reform towards devolution of administrative power was introduced by the approval

of the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act in 1991. By the power of that

document the local level of the administration, the municipalities and settlements, received

exclusive rights to manage and develop their territory. Bulgaria was divided in 264

municipalities that could elect their local mayor and council and respectively to approve

spatial and strategic plans. Municipalities were gathered in 9 districts which did not have

elected government but it was assigned from the government and had mostly control

functions.


34

Source: author


35

- Technical dimension

Spatial planning system – reforms and reminiscence of the totalitarian state

Looking at the larger picture of spatial reform – spatial planning institutes that used to

produce all types of land-use plans were dismantled. Almost the entire production of land-use

plans was redirected towards the private sector – newly emerging private architectural (thus

spatial planning) companies made by people from the liquidated state project companies. The

exception was Sofia where the municipal planning company Sofproekt became entirely part

of the Municipal Urban Planning and Development Department. Other planning company –

the National Centre for Territorial Development – became part of the Ministry of Regional

Development and Public Works but was left without subsidy, to fully depend on the market

dynamics and compete for public procurements and tenders.

The main act which regulated the spatial planning process was the Territorial and Settlement

Planning Act (1973) which was cosmetically modified in order to regulate the building

permission process in the market environment. Even though the act had been substituted later

in 1998, the planning instruments by their nature remained the same as those in Communist

Bulgaria. Generally they were grouped in two main categories – spatial schemes and spatial

plans. Schemes were referring to larger scale – national, regional (district), and plans were

referring to municipalities, settlements, neighbourhoods. Plans were also divided in general

plans and detailed plans. All those documents have a hierarchical order. Similar to the

principles of the communist planning, the National Spatial Scheme was subordinated to the

National Economic Development Plan. All other spatial documents were subordinated to the

National Spatial Scheme. (Figure)

Following the totalitarian principles, those land-use plans were not able to communicate a

planning concept and become a stage for debate and agreement. Therefore they were

perceived by society and the emerging business more as restrictive technocratic documents

that slow down the freedom of land development, as merely useless governmental regulation

and repression. Spatial planning became just a bureaucratic means of issuing building permits

and architects making them were reduce to legal building advisors and land distributors. The

spatial planning remained too rigid and inadequate to react to the investment activities. Plans

were presenting a fixed state of the settlement being completely distracted the dynamics of

market forces and the budget frames.


36

Introducing the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Environment

Preservation Act

In the period 1989-1997 the main EU influences in the field of spatial planning policies

occurred in the environmental sector. As mentioned earlier the environment and its

preservation became a significant concern after the long period of planned creation of

industrial entities throughout the country’s territory. Until that moment the act which was

regulating the environment protection was the Nature Preservation Act from 1967. That Act

was in effect a mere recommendation character rather than an obligation to recognize and deal

with the problem of pollution and the dangers to the biodiversity in the country. From the

language of the act, one could not conclude, what is really under prohibition and even what

was exactly considered pollution.

After the Changes act that tackled the environment and its planning and protection the

Environment Preservation Act was approved in October, 1991. It has a basic character and

shapes the framework of the preservation of the environment by implementing the

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) instrument. The act has followed the EU directive

85/337/ЕЕС for assessment of environmental effects.

One may consider EIA as one of the first implementation of EU legislation directly affecting

the spatial planning. EIA had to be developed for every spatial plan. The EIA basic principle

was to create multidisciplinary assessment of the plans by 30-40 different professionals. Also

EIA should have become a stage for public discussion of the plans – such was traditionally

foreseen in the Territorial and Settlement Planning Act from 1973, but no authority was

bound to follow the recommendations of the public. Professionals, qualified to elaborate EIA

for spatial plans, were inscribed in a register updated by the Ministry of Environment and

Waters (MEW).

- Cognitive dimension

The epistemic community that led the process of spatial planning were mostly the architects.

It was inherited form the communist regime that all spatial plans were done especially by

architects who have received their Master degree with town planning specialisation.

Architects and planners were educated only in the University of Architecture, Civil

engineering and Geodesy (UACEG) in the capital city Sofia. Most of the planning knowledge

before 1989 was condensed in the UACEG and in the big architecture and planning


37

companies. The dismantling of the state-owned companies and the following individualistic

behaviour disrupted strongly the planning community network. Great deal of experience from

the planning groups might be assumed could not be easily shared and transferred otherwise

than through architectural education. Besides that the first INTERREG cross-border co-

operation has joined forces of the border regions of Bulgaria and Greece in 1994.

- Discursive dimension

One of the hardest challenges of the spatial planning immediately after the Changes is to

escape the anonymity of technocracy and to find its new role in the free market economy.

And the liberal free market approach was standing pretty much against planning. Moreover

the planning itself has turned into a term with bad connotation, emanating ‘planning of

economy’, hence communism.

Nevertheless the need of urban planning in the state of totally liberalized market was clearly

realized by architecture and planning communities. Some began to express the necessity for

new urban plans especially in Sofia where the first signs of traffic congestion and

indiscriminate building patterns have emerged. Naturally civil calls for planning were heard

by the successors of the communist party which announced themselves pro-planning. Thus

planning as such hardly found supporters outside the planning community.

Important input of new spatial planning discourses comes from the presence of Bulgaria at the

CEMAT meetings. Those influences, however, affected only few professionals as the

language problem was still a barrier for absorbing knowledge and concepts from abroad. Also

influences were coming from Rio (1992), resulting in emerging environmental awareness.

- Conclusion

In conclusion one may assume that the period 1989-1997 was characterized with devolution

of power to the local municipal level. The private initiative was untied by starting the land

reform. The slow reaction of the planning instruments resulted in non-planning. The traditions

in spatial planning from the communism were partially abandonment and kept just as a

fictitious instrument without really reforming the planning system in depth. The major effect

of Europeanization is in the assessment of the environmental aspect and involving different

disciplines and the public in the spatial planning discussion through the EIA instrument. In a

later moment after 2004 the experience gained in EIA was used for the implementation of


38

Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) in projecting the regional development plans. First

influences from outside

Episode 2 – Reformation period – 1998-2001


The year 1997 was marked by protests sparked by the severity of the economic and bank

crisis. After a period of stagnation and lack of reforms, in January 1997 the monthly inflation

reached 242%4. After massive national discontent Bulgaria elected the first government that

was not overthrown and managed to keep the political and economic stability of the state. It

had almost totally reformed some of the governmental systems – financial, banking, spatial

planning etc. Thereafter some of the biggest state owned enterprises and industrial grounds

were privatized. The country was stabilized. The candidacy of Bulgaria to become a Member

state of the EU has been accepted and negotiations between the two parties started in March,

1998.

- Spatial Patterns

As mentioned one of the partially reformed sectors was spatial planning. The Territorial and

Settlement Planning Act (1973) was cancelled and a new Spatial Planning Act (2001) was

elaborated and approved. A process of regionalization began by approving the Regional

Development Act (1999) which introduced a whole new set of planning and strategic

documents which followed the recommendations from the EU for planning and the adoption

of European funds.

The reformed financial sector allowed gradual increase in real estate development. The

patterns of the post-socialist cities development – indiscriminate, often illegal, building,

individualist approach towards property, weak or almost none public contribution in

infrastructure and public space – had strengthen their presence in the urban fabric. Certain

protected areas have been invaded by ad hoc investment projects.

4 Data from National Statistical Institute, Bulgaria; www.nsi.bg

http://www.nsi.bg/


39


A New Spatial Planning Act

The most important change in the spatial planning system was the cancellation of the

Territorial and Settlement Planning Act (1973) and the adoption of the new Spatial Planning

Act (though it was not influenced by the EU regulations and programs). This document and

the attached decrees tried to propose a new framework for negotiation between spatial

planning and the private land owners. There is quite a fundamental shift in the understanding

about the territory of the country. The previous act from 1973 was mostly focused on the

difference between two types of territory – urban and rural. Therefore the regimes of

development of those types of territories were different and it was supposed to be regulated

with the respective plans – urban (settlements) plans and rural (outside settlements) plans.

Those plans were embedded in a larger set of hierarchically structured spatial schemes and

plans that could exclude the possibility of unregulated development outside building limits.

With the new Spatial Planning Act (2001) the philosophy of managing the territory has

shifted – all territories received the same regime and possibilities for development. The

opportunities and restrictions of each plot were to be regulated by the General or Detailed

spatial plans which fixed the status and the functions that can be performed upon it. That

practically transferred all the land-use power in the plan itself and gave all land-use plans the

status of a law.

However no fundamental shift came for the methods of planning and developing spatial plans.

The plans kept unchanged their rigidity and technocracy towards private or public

interventions. The set of plans, their principles of content, structure and the way they are

elaborated were still timeless and non-negotiable. By that shift of territorial understanding

were stopped the speculations with land, done by including de jure land plots in the building

limits of the settlements. Nevertheless it resulted in different practice of introducing

individual changes of the land-use of the plots in the approved plan. Later, the history

revealed that in the times of the rise of mortgage loans, the Spatial Planning Act is the act

with most amendments, done by the Parliament (52 amendments until May 2012)

Actually the new Spatial Planning Act did not reform the planning documents and their

hierarchy. Nevertheless it gave them bigger importance, the responsibilities and time frames

for elaboration and renewal of spatial schemes and plans were not strictly defined. That


40

resulted in postponement of the National Spatial Scheme and many of the other spatial plans

until present days. Around 70 % of the municipalities followed the example of the Ministry

and did not produce General Spatial Plans because of low expert capacity and weak political

will. Many local governments are justifying this fact by declaring that the upper level spatial

plans in the hierarchy (national, regional, district) are missing so they lack guidelines for the

municipal level spatial priorities (Boesten, 2012).

Origins of Regionalization in Planning – approving the Regional Development

Act

The application of Bulgaria to become a Member state of the EU was followed by imminent

reform of the regional administrative structure and its role in spatial planning. We might

consider regionalization as one of the influences of the EU politics over the spatial planning

system in Bulgaria with strongest implications. Regionalization in Bulgaria was not

experienced so much in the shift of the territorial level of electoral power as it was in finding

new instruments for successful territorial governance, rather than in creating a parallel to the

existing planning level. Through the approval of the Regional Development Act there a

completely new set of strategic development documents were implemented. The strategic

planning has been seen as the better way of achieving the public investment in spatial

development than the existing inflexible land-use plans. In this case, most of the planning

documents (which were produced much later after 2004) were lacking the spatial component.

They had no legal relation with any of the already existing spatial planning documents,

regulated by the Spatial Planning Act. Nevertheless the new strategic development documents

had clear spatial effect upon the different territorial units.

In principle the Regional Development Act from 19995 aims at:

- creation of preconditions for sustainable and balanced development in the particular

regions of the country;

- decreasing of the interregional disparities in employment and income;

- carrying out the interregional and cross-border co-operation and European integration.

5 The Regional Development Act was remade and reintroduced once in 2004 and once more in 2008.


41

Source: author


42

Bulgaria accepted the system of NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) and

according to their characteristics implemented planning instruments on all levels – NUTS I (2

regions); NUTS II (6 regions); NUTS III (28 districts) and LAU 1 (264 municipalities). In

order be able to get access to the European funds Bulgaria should have elaborated strategic

planning documents for all of these territorial units that formulate the regional and local

priorities. The strategic environmental impact of all those priorities also had to be assessed by

the Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) instrument.

From the newly introduced planning levels, only the local (municipalities) has actually

government that is elected by the residents of that territorial unit. The 28 districts have

governors appointed by the Council of Ministers. All other higher territorial units have

Development Councils consisting of the district governors and municipal mayors.

In this still fully unreformed planning system, regional planning and its instruments found its

place almost displacing the current spatial plans, especially the upper level spatial schemes. In

the first years after the adoption of Regional Development Act none of the requested

strategies were produced. The actual fulfilment and elaboration of those planning documents

began after 2004. The reason was that after the introduction of set of completely new planning

documents, their purpose was not clearly assigned and explained by the requesting authority –

in that case MRDPW. Also they were not clearly linked with financial resources. The

Regional Development Act from 1999 did not considered the financial aid from the EU funds.

It neither created connections between the different sectors (financial, environmental,

transport and local institutions) that had to co-operate in a quite complex process of setting

priorities, planning and approving projects and financing and implementing them.

In the planning system some new levels of consideration of priorities have emerged. Strategic

regional planning documents have emerged on all governance levels. Nevertheless many of

them were not ‘dressed’ in electoral power, but mostly followed a regionalization model of

planning taken from the EU. The partially reformed spatial planning documents did not bear

any practical change but were given more importance for the process of physical development

of land and the building management.


After the acceptance of Bulgaria as a EU applicant, the parliament ratified the participation in

co-financing programs ISPA, SAPARD and PHARE. Territorial co-operation was introduced


43

and the INTERREG programs began activity. Co-operations are created with Romania

(1999), Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey and Macedonia (2003).

Until the 2004 the main actors participating in the INTERREG IIIB and INTERREG IIIC

were the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, UACEG, Technical University, Sofia Muncipality,

the National Association of Municipalities in Bulgaria. Sole projects were done also by

smaller cities and municipalities but still by administrations with more significant expert

potential. Projects developed are

However either because of the distance and no direct border from the EU15, or because of

lack of momentum, the INTERREG programs did not gain lots of popularity in Bulgaria.

Projects were started but the effect on the process of sharing knowledge was not as rapid as in

the countries like Czech Republic., Poland and Slovenia.

In July 1999 the Local Agenda 21 UN program has been adopted and it resulted in financing

and supporting 30 projects all over the country. However the most funded fields has been

government (56%), infrastructure (17%) and industry (15%) and the rest supported healthcare

and social development.

Another attempt to introduce new methods of governance was made in 2000-2003. The World

Bank UN Habitat and Cities Alliance financed a Sofia City Development Strategy. The

strategy tried to organize as many stakeholders – citizen groups, NGOs, scholars and business

– in order to formulate priorities and goals. The process went through summits and workshops

for nearly two years. The strategy was fully integrated with the existing planning documents.

Such process of strategic integrated planning was not achieved thereafter in such scale.


The implemented regional policy has followed the discourses presented in the Torremolinos

Charter (CoE, 1983). The Charter was proclaiming the region as the best planning scale in

order to achieve balanced development, improved quality of life, responsible management of

resources and environment as well as rational land-use all over EU Member states.

Between 1998 and 2001 the Protected Areas Act, Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the

Energy Efficiency Act are introduced for the first time. This might be perceived just as a piece

of legislature, but as well as shift in the strengthening of the environmental and sustainability

concerns in the spatial planning field. The decision for those acts comes as an aftermath of the


44

adoption of the Local Agenda 21 and co-operation between UN and the Ministry of

Environment and Waters of Bulgaria.

Curious fact from the post-socialist history is the ideological gaze at the totalitarian

monuments and buildings which symbolized the communist regime – some of them in the

urban cores, some among significant natural landmarks. More radical movements called for

destruction for some of them in the previous period when a Soviet Army monument was

approved to be dismantled (1993). Yet the Sofia Council decision was never accomplished.

The newly elected government was revanchist towards some of the urban artefacts and this

resulted in a dynamite destruction of the Mausoleum of the communist leader Georgi

Dimitrov in the centre of Sofia. The discussion about the communist build legacy is still on-

going.

Episode 3 – Rise of Real Estate Mortgage Loans – 2002-2007


The reformation of the financial system increased the confidence in the investment climate

and paved the road for private domestic and foreign investments in real estate. This create

enourmous momentum in real estate development. In the years after 2001 a new government

was elected. In the first years it was passive in continuing the reforms in the spatial planning

and developing strategies (Marinov, 2006). The European integration became a priority, a

spetial Ministry in the Council of Ministers was created in order to guide the institutional and

legistative transformation towards the acceptance in 2007.

- Spatial Patterns: Rise in Real Estate Investments

Meanwhile, as mentioned before, the newly created regional planning instruments, requested

from the EU, did not have much in common with the actual spatial plans. And the latter

gained much importance with the rise of direct foreign investment in real estate, the rise of

mortgage loans and respectively the rise of the construction after 2002. Similarly to how this

same process went in countries like Spain, the extensive investment in real estate was focused

into larger cities and regional centres, in the sea coast towns and resorts and in the mountain

ski resorts. The positive effect was increasing of tourism and employment. However, for

many of those settlements that experienced fast enlargement, new General Spatial Plans were

not prepared at all (Nesebar, Slanchev bryag). For others, the plans were delayed with


45

procedural claims and were not to be implemented on time (Sofia, Varna). Thus, in many

cities and towns, uncontrolled building of mostly housing blocks, hotels and later golf resorts

occurred. The building permits often have been given not on the base of a new entire spatial

plan for the settlement but on the basis of an individual plan, affecting only for the given land

plot and the surrounding existing structures. That manner of building permission could easily

manipulate the characteristics of the building in the process of project approval and execution

control.

Sourse: author; data: www.nsi.bg

Most real estate stakeholders and investors were oriented in achieving the short-term goals,

rather than looking in the long-term sustainable development opportunities. So did the

planners and local authorities. The sustainable development was not at the focus of public

attention and values or was not understood entirely. The incapacity of the spatial plans to

manage the private investment process in real estate, could be felt later in the years, when the

municipalities lagged behind with providing adequate infrastructure for the growing

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

18 000

20 000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Revenue from Construction by Kind [Receipts in mln BGN] 1 EUR = 1,95 BGN fixed rate

Total Residential Construction Non-Residential Construction Civil Construction


46

settlements. Compared to the evolving practice in regional planning, the spatial planning

process was mostly represented by stuck-in- time land-use plans, which were able to provide

neither any negotiation with local businesses or stakeholders, nor any investment

opportunities or solutions. Problems have emerged mainly in the fields of water treatment,

waste management, energy consumption and road infrastructure. Whole newly urbanized

parts of settlements remained without road infrastructure (Bansko). Others – mainly Black sea

coast resorts – experienced electricity and water supply shortages in the peaks of their tourist

seasons.


Regionalization – first generation of planning documents

Preparation of regional strategic documents was a very important moment for Bulgaria’s

integration as a future EU Member state. It had created a momentum of political awareness

about strategic planning as well as the emergence of strategic spatial planning culture and

practice especially at a local municipal level. UNDP (United Nations Development Program)

has been issuing reports in 2004 and 2006 about the awareness and readiness of the

municipalities, local NGOs and businesses to absorb financing through strategically

prioritised plans, programs and projects. The reports had shown that municipalities have

gained experience and awareness about the challenges of setting strategic priorities and

implementing them through projects. Also the capacity of local governments to create

partnership with neighbouring settlements and municipalities, upper level institutions as well

as NGOs and local private actors had improved. Marinov (2006) argues that besides those

transformations, the quality and content of the planning documents could be improved. He

adds that the process of regionalization of planning was useful in the end but had created a too

complex system of planning with structure not enough clear, with not clear source of funding

and with strategies that might end up not being implemented at all.

At the present moment three parallel planning instruments are used for planning the territory

of Bulgaria. All three lines of planning are under the Ministry of Regional Development and

Public Works. Shortly they consist of:

(Economic) Development Strategies

Regional Development Plans and Programs


47

Spatial (land-use) plans, schemes and projects

The development strategies are giving the basic economic analysis and priorities. The

regional planning is given way forward to foster and drive the investment in the territory. The

spatial planning as a land-use is put aside as a pure technique for land and building regulation.

Scholars pay attention to the artificial separation of the two processes and recommend

through the years that both processes should be connected and harmonized by some means.

(Marinov, 2006; Dimitrov, 2010)

.

Source: Sofia Municipality, 2006. Scheme, showing the supposed, but not legally based and implemented

interrelation between RD and SP documents on different levels.

Critics and recommendation about the performance of the Regional Development Act itself

have been written by Marinov, Evrev, Petrova in 2002 and later again by Marinov in 2006.

Marinov (2006) argues that nevertheless the act did not function in the beginning it had

started a process of discussion, “learning by doing” and formation of planning culture.

Partnership between institutions in national, regional and local level began to emerge.

Marinov (2006) also explains that regional planning elaborated good working practices in

preparing set of projects on different administrative levels but there is the danger of tendency

of “planning for the sake of planning”. Moreover he gives example that preparing regional

development plans has merely lead to their actual implementation. The plans had been

produced mostly to be fulfilled the requirements of the EU simply those plans to exist.


48

Source: Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, 2004 (taken from Marinov, 2006)

Abbreviations: RDA = Regional Development Act, CM = Council of Ministers, DDS = District Development

Strategy, LSGLAA = Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act, NOPRD = National Operational

Programme for Regional Development, SBA = State Budget Act, SIA = Special Impact Areas (areas for targeted

interventions), STA = Physical and land-use planning act, SSA = State Aids Act

The UNDP reports (2006a; 2006b) show certain trends in the potentials of the municipalities

and local actors to participate in the governance of the public spatial planning process and the

following co-funding with the EU. In 2006 the bigger municipalities were the actors with

more potential in the territorial governance. The least potential and certain difficulties with

the spatial planning procedures have the municipalities with population under 10’000 people

which consists of 38% of all the municipalities. The UNDP reports also reveal that the local

NGOs are ready and willing to participate in the planning process – 74% would like to be

active participants, whereas the businesses declare only 37% willingness to participate.

However both NGOs and businesses did not seem enough prepared to enter into the planning

process.

New actors have emerged in the process of creating the new strategic and development

documents. The consultants that elaborated the regional planning documents were mostly


49

private subcontractors. The low financial and expert capacities in the municipalities have led

to the gradual withdrawal of professionals from the public administration in order to be

commissioned as a private strategic and development consultants. The practice often

criticized by professional is the lack certification required for the private actors to produced

development plans. Hence the evaluation of those plans’ efficiency was not enough clear and

straightforward positive. At some particular municipalities those facts have also contributed

for the superficiality of the planning process and the poor quality of the plans submitted and

approved.

Domestic legislation alignment – the case the Public Procurements Act

The period 2002-2007 was marked by a lot of changes in the legal framework of the country

under the tension of the EU requirements of aligning the legislation of Bulgaria with the one

of the EU. Changes have been done in quite a number of acts, each one with bigger or smaller

spatial impact. Some pieces of legislature with spatial dimension influenced directly from the

EU were introduced for first time. Such are Energy Efficiency Act (1999 and 2005),

Biodiversity Act (2002, following NATURA 2000 protected areas network), Waste

Management Act (2003), Chambers of Architects and Engineers Act (2003), Public

Procurements Act (2004). All those legal documents more or less have introduced new rules

and restrictions in the territorial governance process. A lot of them had given an answer to an

already growing concern in the domestic context that was waiting for its political and legal

action.


50

Source: author


51

One of them is the Public Procurements Act – a major improvement caused by the

implementation of a European practice through a directive 2004/18/EC. Public Procurement

Act has lot of non-spatial aspects; nevertheless the one aspect mainly related to spatial

planning is the possibility to regulate urban planning and architectural competitions. They

could potentially become more transparent and easily accessible for more professionals, hence

the results – open for the wider public and media. The act could provide opportunities for

debates and involvement of actors to enter the spatial planning process. As the first

architectural and planning competitions have been organized, it turned out that all other

procurements and planning activities cannot be assessed with the same criteria – lowest price

and shortest time for fulfilment. Those mismatches and misreading of the basic principles of

the act have brought a number of competitions that have been won by projects with contested

and arguable qualities, but accepted because of the lowest price and shortest project duration.

A decree was attached to the act later on (2009). It particularly recognized urban planning and

architectural competitions as a method of increasing the quality of the planning tools. Still the

act and the decree remained neither with obligatory, nor with encouraging character, for the

public institutions and entrepreneurs to take the initiative and organize competitions. Most of

the public spatial projects remain distributed and planned through in-close decision methods

by loopholes in the procedure. Projects, financed with a European funding, have similar

outcome with the explanation that for such financial instruments one could apply only with an

already prepared project. Some public institutions find their way out of the situation by

making the public projects through public procurements for “engineering service” which

meant that the architect or the urban planner would be subcontracted by the building

company.

In 2003 the Chamber of Architects has been legitimized by the relative act. The professional

body certifies the professional qualification, at first, of architects, and later of landscape

architects and urban planners. The merging of the three professions under the already

authoritative wing of the architecture might be one of the reasons why the other two are still

lacking acceptance among society and state administration.

- Cognitive dimension: Planning Education in Bulgaria

Until 2002, urban and spatial planning process was lead mainly by architects. This practice

remains as a legacy of the socialist planning approach that treats the architect as a leader of a

top-down territorial management. In 2002, a broader spatial planning bachelor and master


52

education was introduced, in order to satisfy the administrative need for planners. The

program was founded in the Urbanism Department in the University of Architecture, Civil

Engineering and Geodesy in Sofia and currently is training 25 urban planners every year. The

educational program had been prepared in collaboration with the planning departments of

Trinity College in Dublin and Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. In 2002 the recognition

of the Erasmus program had an effect and the first exchanges of students with European

planning universities occurred. In 2009, the Urbanism Department was accepted as full

member of the AESOP network of planning schools. This reform in architectural and

planning education was aiming to train more spatial planning professionals, with an emphasis

on sociological and institutional knowledge as well as interdisciplinary research approach.

The professionals should be equally acquainted with European trends in spatial planning as

well as the local planning traditions (Dimitrova pers. comm.).

In 2005, a Regional Development and Policy bachelor program had been introduced in the

Geography and Geology Department of Sofia University. The program is introduced as a

direct response to the political turn towards the EU discourse of regionalization of spatial

planning. The emphasis is on the political, social and geographical dimensions of planning

and territory. The education is less project-oriented than the Urban Planning in UACEG but

both programs try to tackle planning on all national scales. The European scale is presented

mostly as knowledge about the European realities and planning systems. GIS education is

introduced in both programs. However the GIS education in Sofia University ends up as being

more extensive and having success in training GIS professionals.

Since 2008 the Philosophical faculty of Sofia University began a Master program in Urban

Studies with more focus on project and cultural management, anthropology and sociology.

The program is open to all kinds of professionals and is aiming at creating a multi-

professional debate over contemporary problems in cities.


In this period could be noticed much stronger influence and permeation of EU discourses.

However this happens mostly on the national level through the adoption of the first set of RD

plans and programs – National Development Plan, National Strategic Reference Framework.

The turn towards strategic planning and territorial governance can be noticed in the planning

documents. The concepts of polycentrism, competitiveness and territorial cohesion have been


53

used in the higher level documents. However the prioritizing of projects still shows that

Bulgaria develops two major points of centrality – Sofia and the Black Sea Coast.

- Conclusion

One could assume as the Europeanization process in Bulgaria in an early age led to quite a

transformation of the spatial planning system. The process opened up a lot of opportunities

for financing of wide range of spatial planning activities and instruments, education and

learning processes. Meanwhile it also restricted the development of the territory especially

with the means of sustainability, environment preservation, renewable energy and energy

efficiency. Some of the mechanically adopted policies though needed more time for

understanding and fitting in the already existing spatial planning system. Two independent set

of planning instruments in the spatial planning system were finally shaped – the regional and

the spatial. The regional ended up steering the public investments while the spatial regulated

the private. Besides the critics this segregation of functions receives from scholars and

professionals, the government has shown no signs so far that the two planning practices might

be bound together.

Episode 4 – Being a Member state – 2008-present


Becoming a Member state, hit by crisis

After being accepted as a member state in 2007, the momentum of the massive real estate

investments was still continuing for quite a long time. The socialist government at the same

time, did not recognize at all the signs of an upcoming crises, even long time after the first

strong reminders like the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September, 2008. Indeed, some

political figures spread the belief that the Bulgarian economy was immune to the turmoil in

the global financial markets. The crisis was felt in Eastern Europe late after 2009. In 2009,

new liberal government was elected and the cabinet ‘Borisov’ has been composed. Huge part

of its strategy for fighting the crisis ended up being the adoption of the European funds, as

well as the better performance in setting priorities for future co-operation on European level.


54

- Spatial Patterns

The crisis of credit had considerably hampered the real estate boom from the beginning of

2000s. The small scale real estate development gave way to large rail and road infrastructure

projects, renewable energy solar and wind power plants, agricultural development – sectors

which were subsidized and were guaranteeing sustainability. Government promoted

renovation of the social housing blocks and urban regeneration projects.


Priority Projects in Transport

After 2007, Bulgarian government had adopted the Operational Programs, the main emphasis

of the priority projects was on the transport. Transport infrastructure is still seen as the factor

that will eventually drag Bulgaria out of the economic and financial crisis and will foster

growth in the regions. This decision was a continuation of a line of thought and a vision from

back in the 1970-80s, according to which Bulgaria was seen as a crossroad on the Balkans

and bridge between the continents. The country was lagging behind with the development of

the road infrastructure – projects for motorways, roads and railways had stayed unfinished in

appalling condition. In the last three governments, there were declared political will and

attempts those projects to be continued. Yet, the projects

Prioritization of the transport axes has its origin from two main supra-national factors:

- Pan-European transport Conference in Crete (1994) where the most important road

and rail transport networks throughout Central and Eastern Europe has been set up.

The conference was not an EU initiative but was organized by the CEE countries as a

response to the opening of the borders of the Soviet bloc after 1989. The axes were set

to shape a coherent transport network through all countries and to connect the old

EU15 with Asia. The corridors forming the Pan-European transport network are still

used as a reference for the future strategic planning of the national transport

infrastructure.

- TEN-T program and the priority transport projects that it developed after 2006 with

Bulgaria. Those projects are of EU importance and are set on supranational level

together with the different member states. They do not try to interfere in the domestic

spatial planning priorities but to shape points and axes of European importance – in


55

the case of Bulgaria those are a motorway, a railway, intermodal terminals, different

support infrastructure for ports, air traffic, navigation etc.

Operational Programs ‘Transport’, ‘Environment’ and ’Regional Development’ set priority

projects with highest overall budget among all other OPs. The biggest priorities are four

motorways, a metro system in the capital of Sofia, major rail corridors to Turkey and

Romania, a second bridge over the Danube to Romania. In the first years, there have been

identified abuses of power and frauds with adoption of EU funds. The problems were created

mainly because of the unclear management of European money. After once some of the funds

had been frozen from the EU, an administration reform was passed and a new Ministry of

European Funds had been created, responsible especially for auditing and supervising all

spending practices connected to EU funds. That helped for strengthening the partnership and

co-operation between domestic institutions on different levels and the EU authorities.

The regionalization of priorities and the attempt to improve the transport structure couldn’t

stop the strengthening of the capital city as a main point of investment attraction. That process

began back in the 1970s and had continued through the 1990s and 2000s with the mass

migration from the smaller settlements with high unemployment towards Sofia and the bigger

district centres. The newly planned and building infrastructure is favouring mainly those

attraction centres. The larger projects as lead by the government itself were and still are

implemented. The problems were experienced at the local level in the smaller municipalities

with not enough expert capacity to produce strategies, to prioritise projects and to follow them

through implementation (Dimitrov, 2010)


56

Source: author


57

Integrated Urban Planning

In 2010-2011 the MRDPW decided to implement a new planning tool in order to integrate the

different sectors in the urban development in some 36 agglomerations of settlements all over

Bulgaria. Those are the Integrated Plans for Urban Renewal and Development. Integrated

spatial planning is to be only on municipal level and have to be developed in the next 2 years

in order to be implemented in the next EU budgeting period 2014-2020. The integrated plans

are following the discourses of the Leipzig Chart (2007), the Toledo Declaration (2010) and

the EU Territorial Agenda 2020. The land-use plans legitimizing the planning procedures are

still going to be used as a tool for issuing of building permits. Nevertheless the integrated

plans are giving field for discussion and participation of different sectors like mobility,

environment, waste management and water cycle into implementing new territorial policies.

The problem emerging is the elaboration of these plans may become the next public scheme

where strategic documents are done because their existence is requested but there is no

political will to be followed and put into action.

Such suspicions can be found in scholars’ statements – Dimitrov (2010) claims that the

methodological guidelines for elaborating the integrated plans are not enough clear and all 36

agglomerations might end up each with a totally different outcome. Some of the plans he

argues will look like good old spatial plans, some will be more like a written strategy, some

other just an analysis of the current situation and development plan. Other problem is that

there is still no requirement for certification that will bind the plans to be elaborated by

companies with certain professional profile. These facts undermine the expectations about the

quality of the outcomes from those planning instruments and their future

The procurements on for those integrated plans are still on-going


The new professionals were meant to be able to manage the institutional change towards

territorial governance and introduce new forms of spatial planning approaches and tools.

Nevertheless the urban and spatial planner profession has hardly been recognized by politics,

legislation, institutions and private actors and involve them in the planning process. Urban

planners have not gained enough recognition in order to create their own professional body

that would stand for their position in the planning system. Thus until the present moment the

profession has not been enough institutionalized and included in the legal framework. An


58

example is that the national, regional and municipal development plans and strategies do not

require legal necessity of urban planners to take part in the planning process. At present the

education and the profession exists for already 10 years without enough implementation in the

planning process. At present the Urban Planning program bears discontinuity as the

department had randomly changed or entirely dropped educational modules which was caused

by the lack of lecturers, without actually trying to attract more qualified ones (Dimitrova,

pers. comm.).

European Territorial Co-operation Programs

One of the strongest effects for the spatial planning in Europe after the publishing of the

ESDP by the European Commission one was the INTERREG program. It is a program for

territorial co-operation between countries and regions within and around the territory of the

EU. INTERREG has three active dimensions:

Cross-border co-operation – aiming at strengthening regions in border areas of the EU

countries. Bulgaria formed co-operation with Greece (2000-2006) as a candidate

member state. Then in the 2007-2013 with Greece, Romania, Serbia, Macedonia,

Turkey and in the Black Sea region (with all coastal countries)

Transnational co-operation – connecting countries in programs by larger geographic

areas, sea basins or mountain ranges. Bulgaria is part of South-East Europe program

together with Italy, Austria, Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia,

Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Macedonia, Moldova, Greece and Montenegro.

Other co-operation project in the region is the Danube strategy among 5 countries.

Interregional co-operation – connecting regions from different countries throughout

the whole EU. This dimension contains also horizontal support programs like ESPON,

INTERACT and URBACT.

Bulgaria has taken part in those programs, applying with projects first in the period of

accession (2000-2006) and later already as a Member state (2007-2013). INTERREG is part

of the ‘soft’ approach towards planning on European level which fosters international co-

operation and creation of networks instead of ‘hard’ regulatory policies. The underlying aim

of projects of that kind is the ‘learning by doing’ process through working with people from

different cultural contexts and professional backgrounds. The effect upon Europeanization of

the planning systems can hardly be measured objectively beyond the statistics of number of


59

projects approved and budgets absorbed. That is why, due to time limitation, this paper

focuses only upon one exemplary project with its particularities that can give an idea what

kind of difficulties and privileges such co-operation might bring.

The project ATRIUM is approved under the co-operation program South-East Europe.

Initiated by the municipality of Forli, Italy, ATRIUM stands for ‘Architecture of Totalitarian

Regimes of XX century in Urban Managements’. The theme about the built heritage of the

communist and other totalitarian regimes has turned into apple of discord in most of the

Eastern European countries. Thus the project is an occasion for a scientific approach towards

the touchy subject, neglected for years in some regions.

ATRIUM project unites eleven countries from South-East Europe – six scientific and

educational institutions and twelve local governments. The aim of the project is to create a

cultural tourist route of the European Council and meanwhile to give a solution for the urban

management of the architectural heritage from the past century – a problem still not clearly

solved in Bulgaria. Differences in the approach towards totalitarian architecture artefacts

appear in the process of co-operation between actors in the project. For the Italian institutions

the question ‘should we keep and maintain the totalitarian legacy or not’ does not stand at all,

their goal is to achieve knowledge of maintaining it and presenting it as a tourist product the

same way they do with the Roman Empire heritage. They initiate the project with the idea that

the countries from the former Soviet Bloc might have already enough experience to share.

What they expect as an outcome from the project is a ‘prescription’ what to do, whereas for

the countries like Bulgaria the question of demolition still stands. The history after 1944 had

not been enough studied, there are strong disagreements upon certain themes, therefore the

question ‘is totalitarian architecture heritage?’ does not have an unilateral answer, yet.

The ATRIUM project is still on-going, some studies are already made and the first output is

already produced. Kaleva (2012), co-ordinator of the project from Bulgarian side and the

National Institute of Cultural Heritage, sees it as a good chance to study the communist

architectural heritage and to promote it for tourist purposes. Nevertheless the project had

faced dropping of some of the actors involved, Kaleva gives the project as an example of

good mutual learning between the institutions of all the 11 countries. The project gives useful

knowledge and experience of international project management, but Kaleva argues that it

might not be easy the activities behind the project to continue after its end in 2013. For


60

Kaleva and the institute she represents, the project is a way to get in contact with a broader

network of professionals in the field and search for eventual future collaborations.


After 2008 Bulgaria has gained more experience in projects of the ESPON and INTERREG

networks, as well as with regional development planning. However the potential of those

epistemic networks have not been fully used as the projects and institutions involved are still

too small. A gradual change in professional generations occurs, more people in spatial

planning and public administration field had already received their education abroad and

brought back knowledge, different ways and approaches.

The director of Operational Program Regional Development in Bulgaria (Nikolova, 2012)

noted in an interview that the old spatial planning approach is outdated as it is too fixed for

the dynamics of the contemporary urban environment. The spatial planning should focus on

more territorial specificity, social, economic and cultural context of a given planned territory

(Nikolova, 2012, pers comm.). Ex-Deputy Chairman of the Sofia City Council (Zaimov,

2012) commented that the old General Spatial Plans are not at all sensitive towards the urban

fabric and the new Integrated Urban Plans should become more effective platform for the

lacking urban debate (Zaimov, 2012, pers. comm.).

- Conclusion

One might assume that the newly introduced planning tools inspired from the EU are

enriching the abilities of the authorities to achieve the public investments in spatial

development. Though it is clear that public and private investment still continue to go in

different pathways, to be regulated by different legislation and intuitions, and they hardly

might combine their interest in order to achieve common goals. The EU has influenced the

introduction of almost new spatial planning system that has displaced the previous

unreformed one without solving the problems of lack of resilience. On the other side the so

called ‘soft’ measures of European spatial planning like INTERREG have certain potential to

bring new networks of planning professionals and to raise unaddressed questions and put

them on the table.


61

5. Summary

Spatial planning system in Bulgaria after 1989


Looking back at the last 23 years, we might conclude that the socio-economic environment in

Bulgaria has gradually overcome the primary post-socialist confusion and moved towards

more balanced and clear of purpose political system that seeks to adapt to the values of the

EU. The free market values, once that have been introduced, now seem harder to be coerced.

The economy and the banking system have been gradually strengthened from the massive

crises and market instability of the early 1990s. The society has gain much respect for values

like private property, law supremacy, civil rights and sustainability. Spatial planning has

gained at first much hatred from society whereas later it became the panacea for the strategic

structuring of the public priorities and funding.

However the period of non-planning has broadened the gap of disparities between the capital

Sofia, the district centres and the smaller municipalities. Severozapaden in Bulgaria remains

the poorest EU region. The trend of population decline that have been observed throughout

the whole transition period, is still on-going. Population continues to migrate with slow temps

toward urban areas.

- Spatial Patterns

The liberal free market environment has unleashed massive real estate development, timid at

the early 1990s, and reaching its peak around 2005. The outdated spatial plans, that were

supposed to regulate the growth of the settlements and tourist resorts, did not manage with it.

Meanwhile, in contrast to the booming private investments, growing lack of infrastructure

was felt. More than a decade, settlements did not invest and modernize the water, sewage and

waste management, irrigation systems, energy grids, road and rail networks. The capital Sofia

became the extreme model of congested city with poor urban management and post-socialist

patterns of development.

The crisis of 2008 had turned the trends upside down – the private investments considerably

dropped whereas the governmental programs and urban managements gradually realized the


62

need of infrastructure investments. Authorities saw the subsidized with EU funds

infrastructure renewal as the revitalization for the stagnating economy.


As mentioned in the methodology, the transformation of the technical dimension of the spatial

planning system in Bulgaria is structured as follows: Scope; Scale; Plans and Programs;

Planning Practice; Governance

In Scope of the system

Looking back in the early 1990s, the spatial planning system in Bulgaria was entitled to only

land-use allotments and building permits. The government and the municipalities were

supposed to generate rigid and timeless spatial plans which had little in common with the

investment intentions of the property owners. Public spatial development was regulated with

the same plans, but shown as a still moment in the future without any link with funding

opportunities.

The transformation that occurred after the new Regional Development Act in 1999 did not

interfere in the relations between the local authorities and the private property owners. It did

however create a parallel level of spatial planning policies for the public investments. The

regionalization introduced more flexible time-framed strategic documents which allowed

project-driven development with feasible funding. Urban and interregional infrastructure

projects appeared to be possible and useful investment in the frame of the regional planning.

Spatial planning however remained on a certain insurmountable distance from the private

initiative, from the idea of territorial governance and actor involvement.

Thus, in Bulgaria at present there are two parallel levels inside the planning system. One is

regulated by the Regional Development Act, introduced in 1999 and changed in 2004 and

2008. The other is regulated by the Spatial Planning Act (2001) which formulates the land-use

planning instruments on different scales – from national to individual land lots. Both planning

levels work individually and have no connection in between whatsoever. The two Acts and

their sub decrees function independently without explicitly mentioning each other or sharing

spatial planning responsibilities. The strong differentiation has been born after the introducing

of the region as an important territorial unit. The political decision for that implementation


63

seems that took for granted the EU regionalization policies while trying to foster development

and investment.

Scale

The transition of locus of power fits in the model that emerged throughout most of the Eastern

European countries – significant power was transferred to the local level but without

delivering considerable resources. Regions were introduced as a territorial unit, but its

responsibilities in the development of territory are backed with power. The responsibility and

budgeting are spread between electoral and non-electoral bodies and hardly achieves effective

territorial governance process. Yet, structured in this way, the model continues to make the

whole territory of the country extremely dependent on decisions from the nation state –

tradition, kept unreformed from the communism in that sense.

Gradually, the projects through transnational co-operation on EU level has gained popularity

among institutions and created the arena for sharing knowledge for planning approaches

among EU member states.

Plans and Programs

Development and planning became more project-driven than plan-driven. Thus, plans already

did not have such strong power on the large visions of the territory whereas they were still

very powerful on the land-use level. The newly introduced two generations of development

strategies (in the period 2000-2013), plans and programs covered all territorial levels and

justified certain amount of public projects. However projects were more successful in bigger

municipalities or on national level. Some localities still lag behind with expert potential and

respectively with quality of planning documents.

Despite the obvious division of regional from spatial planning, steps towards integration

between them had not been taken despite the call of the scholars and planners.

Planning Practice

All spatial plans on national and regional levels, requested by the Spatial Planning Act, were

never updated after 1989. Attempts were made to be produced plans only on local municipal

level but the experience from bigger cities like Sofia and Varna proved that the process of

projecting and approving them takes around 5-10 years. Such a time span makes their primary

goals and analysis out of date in the moment of their approval. Spatial plans were simply not


64

introduced by nearly 70% of all municipalities as the legislation was not obliging them to do

so. In February 2012 only 87 from 264 local municipal governments had updated General

spatial plans. The lack of spatial plans did not actually stop municipalities to issue building

permits. Those facts show how the actual spatial planning, that is supposed to work on all

territorial levels, actually works only in municipal and settlement level. Another post-effect

was the almost complete disappearance of urban design as a means of creating quality urban

spaces.

We might as well conclude that since the regional development plans were assuring the

implementation of the public projects, the spatial plans turned into outdated and almost

useless documents that did not bear any conceptual change for the past 40 years.

On the other side stands the practice of regional planning which gradually gained momentum

in order to be able to prioritize more projects. During the first budget period (2007-2013) the

full capacity of the regional development was not utilised and the projects were not enough in

order to absorb the funding. Besides the successful projects, in some cases the regional

planning was done superficially and with hardly any relevant outcome.

The overall practice in the territorial co-operation programs and projects could hardly be

tracked down in this research. So far the ETC format has given stage for creation of fruitful

professional networks with sustainable outcome, but as well opportunities for superficial

absorption of funding.

Territorial Governance - public and private relations and actors involvement

The assessment of the transformation of the public and private will be done through looking

at two activities – the investments and the planning itself. Here the research focuses on how

these two activities are positioned in public/private relations.

Investments

Public investments in spatial development are strongly supported by the EU funds. Most are

driven by the state only through the development programs. Public-private partnerships are

rare as the act that is supposed to regulate those relations is still not fully active (Public-

private Partnership Act – approved in June, 2012). Thus in regional and local development

projects the private participation is hardly ever sought or achieved. The investments are often


65

a shared between municipal or governmental budgets and structural, cohesion or regional

development funds.

Most of private investments in spatial development are subject of regulation from the Spatial

Planning Act and its decrees. Building permits are issued under the supervision of the local

authorities and on the base of the spatial plans where they exist. If not the property owners

have the right to update the plans with own proposal.

Planning

Nevertheless the public investments in spatial planning and development increased in the past

10 years, public regional or spatial planning almost does not exist. The exceptions are the

company Sofproekt, which deals with the General Plan of Sofia. It is a municipal company

under the direct supervision of the architect-in-chief of Sofia. It is a successor of the project

enterprise which functioned before 1989. Sofproekt and its work upon the General Plan of

Sofia is described in more detail by Hirt (2005) as she doubts that the methods of planning the

socialist and the post-socialist city did not transform much.

Other public planning entity is the National Centre for Territorial Development which works

as part of the MRDPW. The Centre produces most of the development strategies on a national

level. However it is a government entity, it has no assigned budget and is participating in the

public procurements for different projects as a project company with a private status.

Actually spatial planning is with time became suddenly totally private and the two mentioned

public planning enterprises are the ones saved from dismantling. All other planning is done by

smaller companies with often not enough expert potential. When a project for a spatial land-

use plan is commissioned, the municipalities request a certificate for planning. The certifying

authority in that case is the Chamber of Architects in Bulgaria. That is not the case for the

regional development plans, regulated by the Regional Development Act. Plans and strategies

are often produced by NGOs and no certification is requested in order a regional strategy to

be produced. This fact undermines the quality of the spatial strategies and questions their

abilities to play as a visionary and priority setting documents.

Actors

The main actor in driving spatial planning in Bulgaria is the Ministry of Regional

Development and Public Works. It structures the priorities for spatial development and


66

follows their implementation. Together with the newly founded Ministry of European Funds,

it controls and the spending of the public funding in the direction of spatial and regional

development. MRDPW is also the one contributing most to the multi-level governance

process by leading the communication between municipalities, OPs and EU.

Other strong actors in the process are the municipalities and municipality coalitions. They

plan and execute their strategies often by subcontracting strategic planning to NGOs or other

private planners. The UNDP reports (2006a; 2006b) show certain trends in the potentials of

the municipalities and local actors to participate in the governance of the public spatial

planning process and the following co-funding with the EU. NGOs are much willing to

participate actively


Education system makes an attempt to adopt new concepts and readings of the spatial

planning process by introducing some new programs. The most important are the bachelors

and masters in Urban Planning programs in UACEG, Sofia and the Masters in Regional

Development and Policy program in Sofia University. The programs looked in the planning

discourses of the EU planning schools and combined them with the local planning knowledge

and values. Those programs have tried to fill in the gap of planning professionals in the

political environment. However there is an observation that the recognition of the planner’s

profession and activity by the authorities and society is still weak.

Cognitive influence is coming from the European Territorial Co-operation programs

(INTERREG) as the international projects contribute strongly to the learning process,

exchange of practices and knowledge. The created networks between scholars and

professionals seem in some cases to lead to continuous relations and further co-operation.

- Discursive Dimension

The conceptual debate in the spatial planning field has gradually moved from total rejection

of planning towards searching in the proper planning instruments that can be a platform for

debate. The first strong calls of the liberal free market movement was for no planning, as

planning was merely equal to communism. The first ideas of sustainability has emerged in the

early 1990s and got stronger towards the 2000s under the influence of Local Agenda 21.


67

The influences of CEMAT, ESDP, INTERREG and all mutual learning from transnational

and interior co-operation, professionals, educated abroad, have gradually given results in the

multi-level governance process. Planning professionals and the administration has been much

more aware about the specificity of the planning within different levels and among

institutions.


68

Spatial planning system of Bulgaria – Dynamics 1989-2011; source: author


69

6. Findings and Discussion

Findings

The active reform and gradual Europeanization of the spatial planning system in Bulgaria had

happened after the year 2001 when the two main normative documents, concerning spatial

planning, were approved: the Regional Development Act and the Spatial Planning Act. Since

then the regional development planning managed to carry out the public investment much

better than the traditional spatial planning. Moreover while the development planning was

gaining speed, the traditional spatial planning was abandoned by most of the municipalities

and the government. Spatial planning proved that has turned into an administrative step for

issuing building permits. In order to explain the reason for this transformation, one might see

who gained and who lost from this transformation.

The adoption and growth of the development planning separately from the spatial planning

has surely made a lot of public investments feasible – in terms of planning, funding,

supervision and quality. In this sense the national and local governments gained an instrument

that had given them much better opportunity to create a complete cycle of planning activities

and achieve goals.

Meanwhile, the adoption of development planning had created completely new stratum of

planners – private companies who are not necessarily certified spatial planners, but have the

opportunity to be experts and develop regional, district and municipal strategies, programs

and plans. Since large quantity of the architects and urban planners did not find necessity to

find their place among strategic regional planners, this additionally contributed to the

separation of the planning practices. Hence not all plans and programs have encountered the

strategic spatial component of the documents they elaborate.

The society is surely the winner from the growth of regional development planning because of

the influx of funds into the urban and rural spatial development. The quality of the projects

and their feasibility is not guaranteed by the authorities, because of the tendency of ‘planning

for the sake of planning’ (Marinov, 2006)

On the other side from the slowing down of the actual spatial planning was in favour mostly

for the private property owners. In the places where spatial plans were updated, they have


70

been postponed by heavy claim procedures initiated by property owners. Were plans were not

done, owners could apply, make proposal for an individual plan and issue a building permit.

The overall sustainable management of the non-urbanized territories, protected areas,

wetlands, forests etc. is heavily affected by the spatial non-planning. A third government in a

row has not been making the effort to start the national and regional spatial planning schemes.

This allows speculations and violations of forests and other protected areas to be performed

through loopholes in other acts (e.g. Forestry Act).

One might speculate that passive not-planning is favouring that model of plot-by-plot

individual planning practice as well as large scale projects that aim to take possession of

valuable landscapes in favour of tourist industry. The shift in planning practices and

instruments have kept strictly separated public from private planning not allowing

interrelation between the two sectors. Thus governing both public and private investments in

the whole spatial development process is still not often practice. Thus the planning system is

yet far from being fully integrated entity that functions efficient within all its dimensions. The

process of Europeanization has surely introduced new modes of territorial governance, but did

not achieved effective reform of the old ones. Besides the mechanical institutional change, the

Europeanization still did not manage to radically transform the paradigms, values and

understandings about spatial planning and territorial governance.

Bulgarian Spatial Planning System according to ESPON 2.3.2. (2007)

In 2007 the ESPON network issues the ESPON 2.3.2 report that attempts to give a broader

overview of the planning systems, based on the EU Compendium (CEC, 1997) criteria and

conclusions. As a new Member state Bulgaria is included in the research and its planning

system is compared within the European framework. The Compendium suggests four ideal

types of spatial planning system – land-use management; comprehensive integrated; regional

economic; and urbanism. The planning system of Bulgaria is classified under the ideal model

of “comprehensive integrated” planning system. The definition given to this ideal type is:

“It has a wide scope and its main goal is to provide horizontal (across sectors), vertical

(between levels) and geographical (across borders) integration spatial impacts of

sectorial policies. It does this by multi-level arrangement of plans that are intended to

coordinate spatial development. It has strong public sector component.” (Dühr, et al.,

2010)


71

ESPON 2.3.2. (2007) report gives an optimistic development prognosis for the evolution of

the spatial planning approach in Bulgaria based on the political will in the first years of

implementing the regional planning. The report examines the development and

implementation of the Sofia Master Plan (General Spatial Plan as referred here) developed

after 1999. The plan is given as an example for a representative planning practice in Bulgaria.

The practice in Bulgaria, according to the report, is based upon “the involvement of a number

of partners in the elaboration of plans”. Actually the General Spatial plan of Sofia has been

finished after numerous procedural difficulties in 2009 and it has given an insight how

prolonged could be the development of land-use plan on the basis of the outdated practice.

There are still doubts in the present moment if the General Spatial Plan of Sofia is really

followed and gives in reality the direction of city development. The type of plan that the law

expects to be developed is still too rigid and does not provide the opportunity for a

constructive debate over the problems of the settlements.

“[C]urrent political culture is marked by the replacement of old political elites by new ones,

with a more pluralistic outlook” states also the report. A quite objective observation is the

shift of the political elite which has been evolving throughout the years. There is an on-going

influx of younger generation of professional educated abroad that enter into the authorities.

However the reformation and integration of the planning instruments is a necessary step

towards providing more open and pluralist approach to spatial planning.

The report claims that the biggest difficulties in the Bulgarian spatial planning system are “the

implementation of the requirements for accession to the EU. It imposes the need of

strengthening and development of the framework with respect to the applied policy, the

programming and management capacity of the public administration in Bulgaria and of the

judicial system, so that the country can be in a position to introduce and apply the EU

legislation” (ESPON 2.3.2).

As the current research is revealing the Europeanization of spatial planning system has

gradually evolving in different directions and has adopting influences from outside. The

planning system is still on certain distance from being fully integrated. It surely still addresses

in extremely separated legal and practical methods private and public investments. The

system continues to be closed and sometimes non-transparent in the field of public projects

prioritization, whereas it often shows clientelist approach towards the private investments and


72

actors, instead of trying to attract them in the public debate. A continuing trend is the

segregation of spatial and regional planning approaches and the lack of integration between

the new emerging integrated planning methods with the unreformed outdated once.

Role of the EU

While establishing its mutual relations, Bulgaria and the EU have shaped certain manner of

communication and attitude. Every once in a while journalists make a note upon the

expectations of Bulgarian politicians to receive guidelines of behaviour, punishment or

assistance in internal affairs, referring to the relation Bulgaria-Soviet Union before 1989.

Nevertheless this is just a media exaggeration, it does give an idea about the ways EU policies

and rules has been used by Bulgaria as an opportunity to radically transform the spatial

planning system based on a ready-made model from outside. The model has been

implemented without fully reform and adjust the already existing planning model.

The role of the EU in the changes that occurred in Bulgarian spatial planning system will be

concluded and structured in several aspects – the influence of the EU spending policies, of the

EU regulations and finally the EU learning environment – professional networks and

programs (Böhme and Waterhout, 2008).

EU Regulations

The European legislation is the strongest and hardest top-down compliance that every

Member state has to perform. Bulgaria used the Europeanization as an opportunity to update

its legal framework with new approaches towards issues that have been neglected or

underestimated before. In the accession period a separate Ministry (of European Integration)

has been created to steer the process of compliance. One of the goals of the politicians was the

attempt to perform a radical change of the spatial planning system, hence but approaching

mostly towards the ‘hard’ regulatory part of it. In this sense the EU regulations, one might

assume, have been meticulously transferred into the Bulgarian legislation. That was not

always the case with ‘softer’ approaches to spatial planning like education and the recognition

of the planning profession.

EU regulations no doubt had created a transformation in the legal framework of the spatial

planning on a lot of levels. Some of the EU regulations addressing environment protection

have been transferred really early in 1991, followed by regulations in energy, water and waste


73

management, protected areas, clean air that created more regulations for the spatial planning

process but were accepted by the society and professionals as a progress. The regulation that

probably affected most the private investment process was and created collisions were the

introduction of the NATURA 2000 network of protected areas.

Spending policies and INTERREG

Spending policies remain a strong leverage of Europeanization that manages to drive political

action and reform of the spatial planning in Bulgaria. The principal of subsidiarity has forced

politicians to create a whole new set of institutions and levels of regional development

planning in order to be able to prioritize projects and later on finance them through EU funds.

The political system of absorbing funds did not work so well in the beginning and Bulgaria

faced restrictions and suspension of funding after famous corruption scandals. Thereafter, the

spending of the EU funds have been observed by a separate Ministry of EU Funds that

supports and stimulates the actual communication between different ministries, municipal,

district and regional authorities, as well as co-operates for the communication with the EU

level. The MEUF have proven far to be effective instrument in the governance process. The

mutual confidence between Bulgaria and the EU has been restored by the currently

guaranteed transparency.

In the case of INTERREG the spending policies had stimulated in the softer approaches

towards Europeanization, namely for acquiring and exchanging knowledge, and networking.

The Open Method of Coordination has not boosted the expected effect in Bulgaria in the

accession period. Later in the current budgeting period Bulgaria is already participant in

significant number of projects. The INTERREG and ESPON networks and still remain as an

unused potential for steering knowledge and discourse.

EU Discourses

EU discourses and knowledge is the European factor whose potential was not fully used by

the Bulgarian authorities, institutions and agencies. The idea behind European spatial

planning is still vaguely understood. The opportunities given by the knowledge networks have

been underestimated. The transformation of the knowledge institutions is not complementing

enough the lack of professionals and contemporary spatial planning knowledge in the overall

process of transformation of the system.


74

Europeanization permeated mostly through the harder institutional aspects of the planning

system, whereas the soft planning approaches and culture of planning is still experiencing

adaptation and transformation towards better.

Comparative Study Romania – Bulgaria*

* co-authored with Mircea Munteanu

Romania and Bulgaria emerged as a distinct duo in the EU accession process, being

confronted often with similar challenges and opportunities. Given our individual interest in

the dynamics of the Bulgarian or Romanian spatial planning systems in the context of

Europeanization, it made sense to develop our research in tandem. This proved particularly

beneficial as the need to contextualize the empirical findings in a broader frame emerged as

increasingly important throughout the research.

The empirical evidence revealed several common issues shared by both planning systems,

from the underlying path of slow reforms, to the emergence of regional development

instruments overlapping with spatial planning. However, a large array of differences emerged

as well, from the historical, cultural or geographical particularities to the distinct ways in

which certain spatial planning instruments adapted to the Europeanization process.

Historical backgrounds

The countries shared a common history from the brake away from Ottoman influence during

the 19th Century, going through the building of modern nation states following Western

European models and eventually under the Soviet influence. In the same time, aspects such as

the larger size and population, the Habsburg influence in North-West, the French affinities

facilitated by the language, or the pursue of a somewhat distinct policy in the last decades of

communism in Romania, show also major underlying historical differences between the two

states.

Changing institutional frames

Socio-political dimension

The countries entered the transition period simultaneously, both marked by poverty, a process

of privatization, with a shared slow path of reforms becoming the laggard duo of the EU

accession process. They experienced a booming growth in the mid-2000s followed by the

abrupt impact of the crisis in 2008, but also the demographic decline with mass migration


75

towards the West and the rise in social and spatial inequalities. This translated in similar

patterns of spatial development, with abandonment of industries, ad-hoc development or

underdeveloped infrastructure before the mainstreaming of EU funds. In the same time

particularities did exist, such as the more severe crisis in Bulgaria in the first half of the '90s

or its stronger commitment on the development of certain sectors such as its tourism industry.

Cognitive dimension

A common issue of both countries was the dismantling of planning institutes after

communism, the splintering of professional practices, and the challenging of the profession by

the emergence of other professionals with no spatial planning background elaborating

strategic development plans and programs. Over the two decades however it appears that

Romanian planners developed relatively more knowledge channels than their Bulgarian

counterparts, both within the profession and with the political sphere, due to the scale of the

country, but also to the different planning tradition.

Discursive dimension

Following the ideological shift, both countries were dominated by anti-planning discourse,

leading in Romania to a rebranding of the field and timid positioning on the political agenda

despite its unpopularity, while in Bulgaria even if the formal perception of planning did not

change in practice it was practically abandoned. The discourse on regional development

planning emerged in both cases as a clear sign of Europeanization and shadowed spatial

planning, but in Romania this served also as a legitimizing tool for spatial planning.

Technical dimension

Scope of the system, scale and competences

Even if spatial planning became a taboo in both countries, this was translated in very different

ways in the two cases: Bulgaria was cautious to adopt radical reforms of the planning

approach and instruments, so the communist planning act was kept and cosmetically amended

to accommodate building permits, while in Romania the law was repealed altogether to be

replaced by new instruments of French or German inspiration, which however were only

incorporated in bits of legislation and did not differ in nature to those in Bulgaria.

The radical change for both cases was the introduction of the regional level. In both cases

regional planning was steered from above, with a notion of local democracy through lower


76

level representatives (county presidents in Romania; municipality mayors in Bulgaria), albeit

with limited financial control leading to restrictive local development. In both countries

regional policy had no references to spatial planning. In Bulgaria the integration was never

achieved whereas in Romania spatial planning tries to reform itself in an attempt to underlie

regional policy. This can be linked to the French cultural affiliation and the fact that Romania

adopted 'amenajarea teritoriului' after 1990, as the French 'aménagement du territoire' played

an important role in the EU regional policy design itself by requiring the accompaniment of a

larger-scale plan or concept (Faludi and Waterhout 2002). Yet in both countries the making of

the development and spatial plans still remains a formalist process which in some cases only

seems to exist for EU funds absorption.

Plans, programmes and practices

EU funded programmes have played a central role for spatial planning in both countries, with

regional policy and the environmental assessment instruments being symbols of

Europeanization. A significant number of public investments in infrastructure, urban renewal

and environment had been implemented, but often the programming was just formal and had

no true strategic nature.

Formally, Romania seemed to develop more programmes related to spatial planning and to

draft plans at all levels and recently even integrate them with regional planning, while

Bulgaria didn't draft its larger scale spatial schemes and general plans in a lot of settlements

since 1989, and there appear no intentions to integrate spatial with regional development

planning. However in both countries the two types of planning largely overlapped and

contradicted each other, with only local exceptions of successful integrations.

Governance

The large gap between the stated goals of planning and the development outcomes was in

both countries the product of a governance tradition marked by hierarchy and authority with

funds still strongly steered from the central level, but also individualism, clientelism and

inequality, with principles of effectiveness, accountability and transparency gaining ground

only recently and to a limited extent. Positive experiences are linked in both countries to the

participation in territorial co-operation projects which catalysed the emergence of a different

planning and governance culture.


77

Private interest has been very strong throughout the transition in both cases, but recently

differences emerged. Romania strengthened the role of the public administration in

controlling land use, with the discretionary decisions moving towards less numerous but

financially more significant private interests, while in Bulgaria the freedom of most owners to

amend changes is still strong, given that it is in accord with the neighbours. Trying to create a

functiona dialogue between property owners, public authorities and society is still far.

Despite their particularities and the fact that both countries have built formal spatial planning

systems, these seem to produce similar effects, in particular in terms of the distance between

their goals and the outcomes. Thus the spatial development continues to be disintegrated and

only partially implemented.

7. Conclusions

The process of Europeanization in the last 23 years has introduced new aspects of the spatial

planning approach. The regional planning has managed to operate with public investments

and priorities, the ETC that has included Bulgaria in wider EU professional networking.

However some traditional aspects of the spatial planning has been left behind and unreformed

for quite a long time. Hence their functions were slowly taken over by the planning

instruments that were introduced in the process of Europeanization. The follow up attempts of

spatial planning reform should take into account the need of integration of different spatial

planning approaches. They will be a platform for better territorial governance process.


78

Bibliography

Adams N., Cotella G., Nunes R. (eds.) (2011), Territorial Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning.

Knowledge and Policy Development in an Enlarged EU. London/New York: Routledge.

Adams N., Alden J, Harris N., (eds.), (2006), Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged

European Union, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Hampshire, England

Altrock, U., Guentner, S., Huning, S., & Peters, D. (2006) Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the

new EU Member States: From Adjustment to Reinvention (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate).

Bache I., Flinders M., (2004), Multi-level Governance, Oxford University Press Inc., New York

Boesten R. (2012) – Environmental planning consultant, NGO sector, personal communication

Böhme K., (2002), Nordic Echoes in European Spatial Planning: Discursive Integration in Practice, PhD

Thesis, Nordregio Report 2002:8

Böhme K., & Waterhout, B., (2008), The Europeanization of planning, in: A. Carbonell & A. Faludi (Eds)

Gathering the Evidence – The Way Forward for European Planning?, pp.225–248 (Luxembourg: Lincoln

Institute of Land Policy)

CoE, (1983), European regional/spatial planning Charter / Torremolinos Charter; adopted on 20 May 1983 at

Torremolinos (Spain)

CoE, (2007), Leipzig Chart for Sustainable European Cities, adopted in Leipzig on May 24-25th

, 2007

CEC, (1997), EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, Regional Development

Studies, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

CEC, (1999), European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of

the Territory of the EU (ESDP), Luxembourg

CEMAT – European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning (2007a) The Territorial

Agenda of the European Union: Towards a more Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions,

Luxembourg.

CEMAT – European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning (2007b) The Territorial and

State Perspectives of the European Union, draft 29 January 2007, Luxembourg.

CULTPLAN (2007) Cultural Diversity in Europe – Inventory / Research concerning cultural diversity in

Europe. www.cultplan.org accessed 28.01.2010, cited in Maier, K. (2012) Europeanization and Changing

Planning in East-Central Europe: An Easterner's View. Planning Practice and Research 27(1): 137-154.

CULTPLAN (2008), Cultural Differences in European Co-operation. Learning from INTERREG Practice

www.cultplan.org accessed 28.01.2010, cited in Maier, K. (2012) Europeanization and Changing Planning in

East-Central Europe: An Easterner's View. Planning Practice and Research 27(1): 137-154.

Davies, H. W. E.; Edwards, D.; Hooper, A. J.; Punter, J.V. (1989): Comparative Study. In: Davies, H. W. E.

(ed.) Planning Control in Western Europe. London: HMSO, pp. 409–442.

De Arriba Bueno R., (2005), Restitution and Market in the Bulgarian Land Reform, Department of Applied

Economy University of Valencia (Spain), available here.

Dimitrov S., (2010), For Over 20 years Now There Is No Clear Concept for Regional Development (Вече

повече от 20 години няма ясна визия за регионалното развитие), interview (in Bulgarian)

http://eaces.info/news/WP-5-05.pdf


79

Dimitrova E., (2012), Professor at Urbanism department at UACEG, Sofia, Bulgaria, personal communication

ESPON (2005) Project 3.2. Spatial Scenarios and Orientations in relation to the ESDP and Cohesion Policy.

Second Interim Report Accessed on 5.06.2012, available here.

ESPON (2007a) Project 2.3.1. Application and Effects of the ESDP in the Member States. Final Report,

Luxemburg. Accessed on 30.03.2012, available here.

ESPON (2007b) Project 2.3.2. Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level. Final

Report, Luxembourg. Accessed on 11.03.2012, available here.

Faludi A., (1987), A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. As quoted in:

Nadin, V.; Stead, D. (2008) European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning. DisP 172(1): 35-

47.

Faludi, A. (2005) The Netherlands: A culture with a soft spot for planning. In Sanyal, B. (ed.) Comparative

planning cultures: 285-308. Routledge, New York.

Finka, M. (2011) Evolving Frameworks for Regional Development and Spatial Planning in the New Regions of

the EU. In Adams, N., Cotella, G. and Nunes, R. (eds.) Territorial Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning.

Knowledge and Policy Development in an Enlarged EU. London/New York: Routledge.

German Presidency (2007) Territorial Agenda of the European Union: Towards a More Competitive and

Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Agreed at the occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban

Development and Territorial Cohesion (Leipzig, 24–25 May 2007). Accessed on 15.04.2012, available here.

Getimis P., (2012) Comparing Spatial Planning Systems and Planning Cultures in Europe. The Need for a

Multi-scalar Approach. Planning Practice and Research 27(1): 25-40.

Giannakourou G., (2012), The Europeanization of National Planning: Explaining the Causes and the

Potentials of Change, in Planning Practice and Research, No 27, Vol. 1, pp. 117-135, Routledge

Grabbe, H. (2001) How does Europeanisation affect CEE Governance? Conditionality, diffusion and diversity,

Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), pp. 1013 – 1031

Healey, P.; Khakee, A.; Motte, A.; Needham, B. (1997): Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in

Europe. London: UCL Press.

Healey, P. (2004) The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 281: 45-67

Hirt S., (2005), Planning the Post-Communist City: Experiences from Sofia, in International Planning Studies

Vol. 10, No. 3–4, 219–240, Routledge

Janin Rivolin U., (2012), Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: a Proposed Conceptualization and

the Implications for Comparison, in Planning Practice and Research, No27. Vol. 1, pp. 63-85, Routledge

Kaleva E., (2012), Manager of the ATRIUM project (financed by South-East Europe ETC program) in National

Institute for Cultural Heritage, personal communication

Kotzev A., (2012), assistant professor in GIS, Sofia University, personal communication

Kovachev A., (2009), Territorial Development, Pensoft, Sofia (in Bulgarian)

Kunzmann K., (2006), The Europeanization of Spatial Planning in Adams N., Alden J., Harris N., eds.

Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union, Ashgate Publishing Ltd.,

Aldershot, Hampshire, England, pp 43-63

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/CoordinatingCrossThematicProjects/Scenarios/2.ir_3.2-full.pdf

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/PolicyImpactProjects/ESDPImpact/fr-2.3.1-full_rev_Jan2007.pdf

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/PolicyImpactProjects/Governance/fr-2.3.2_final_feb2007.pdf

http://www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/Reference%20Documents/Territorial-Agenda-of-the-European-Union-Agreed-on-25-May-2007.pdf


80

Lampe J.R., (1984), Interwar Sofia versus the Nazi-Style Garden City: The Struggle Over the Muesmann Plan,

Journal of Urban History, No 11, pp. 39-62.

Lenschaw A., (2006), Europeanisation of Public Policy in European Union Power and Policy-making, ed. J.

Richardson, 3rd

. ed., Abigdon, Oxon, Routledge, pp. 55-71

Maier K., (1998), Czech planning in transition: Assets and deficiencies, International Planning Studies, 3:3,

351-365

Maier K., (2012), Europeanization and Changing Planning in East-Central Europe: An Easterner's View, in

Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 137–154, Routledge

Marinov V., (2006), The Regional Development Planning System in Bulgaria: Progress, Pitfalls, and Lessons

Learned, paper presented at the Conference “Regional Development: Policies and Practices in Central and

Eastern Europe”, Chisinau, Moldova, 28-29 June 2006

Medarova-Bergstrom K., (2011), Pathways to Sustainability: The Case of Environmental Policy Integration in

EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in Bulgaria, Budapest, Central European University, PhD Thesis

Medarova-Bergstrom K., (2012), Senior Policy Analyst in Institute for European Environmental Policy,

personal communication.

Meadows D.H., (2008), Thinking in Systems, ed. Diana Wright, Earthscan, London; (c) Sustainability Institute

Munteanu M., (2012), Europeanization of the Spatial Planning System in Romania, Master Thesis in ASRO,

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

Nadin V., & Stead D., (2008), European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning, disP, 172, I

Newman, P.; Thornley, A. (1996), Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition, National Systems,

and Planning Projects. London: Routledge.

Nikolova D., (2012), Managing Director of Operational Program “Regional Development” in Bulgaria, personal

communication.

O’Dwyer, C. (2006) Reforming regional governance in East Central Europe: Europeanization or domestic

politics as usual? East European Politics and Societies, 20(2), pp. 219 – 253.

Peterlin M, Kreitmayer Mckenzie J., (2007), The Europeanization of spatial planning in Slovenia, Planning

Practice and Research, 22:3, 455 - 461

Radaelli C., (2004) Europeanisation: Solution or problem? In European Integration online Papers (EIoP) Vol. 8

(2004) N° 16; available here.

Sanyal, B. (2005): Hybrid Planning Cultures: The Search for the Global Cultural Commons. In Sanyal, B. (ed.)

Comparative planning cultures: 285-308. Routledge, New York.

Servillo L. A., & Van Den Broeck P., (2012), The Social Construction of Planning Systems: A Strategic-

Relational Institutionalist Approach, in Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1–24, Routledge

Thornley A. (1993), Letter from Sofia: Building the Foundations for a Market-oriented Planning System in

Bulgaria, Planning Practice & Research; Vol. 8, Issue 4, pp. 27,

Tsenkova S., (2011), Venturing into unknown territory: Strategic spatial planning in post-communist cities, in

Urbani izziv, vol 22, no. 1

Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Williams, R.H. (2001) The European Dimension of British Planning (London: Spon)

Tewdwr-Jones M., (2002), The Planning Polity – Planning, Government and the Policy Process, Routledge,

London

http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-016a.htm


81

UNDP, (2006a), Assessment of the capacity of NGOs and Business for Participation in Absorbtion of Funding

from the Structural and Cohesion Funds, by Marinov, Garnizov, Georgiev (in Bulgarian)

UNDP, (2006b), Assessment of the capacity of Municipal and District Administrations for Participation in

Absorbtion of Funding from the Structural and Cohesion Funds, by Marinov, Garnizov, Georgiev (in Bulgarian)

Waterhout B., (2007), Episodes of Europeanization of Dutch national spatial planning in Planning

Practice and Research 22(3): 309–327.

Waterhout B., Mourat, J, Böhme K. (2009) The Impact of Europeanisation on Planning Cultures. In:

Knieling, J. & Othengrafen, F. (eds.) Planning Cultures in Europe: Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban and

Regional Planning: 283-299. Ashgate, Farnham UK and Burlington VT.

Waterhout B., (2011), European Spatial Planning: Current State and Future Challenges. In Adams, N.,

Cotella, G. and Nunes, R. (eds.) Territorial Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning. Knowledge and Policy

Development in an Enlarged EU. London/New York: Routledge.

Williams, R.H. (1996) European Union Spatial Policy and Planning (London: Chapman).

Zaimov M., (2012), Ex-Deputy Chairman of the Sofia City Council, personal communication

Zauha J., Is Spatial Planning a Driver for Sustainable Development in Poland? Planning, Practice & Research,

Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 463 – 471, August 2007