Crossing Borders: Natura 2000 in the Light of EU-Enlargement

Edited by Markus Leibenath, Sandra Rientjes, Gerd Lintz, Carsten Kolbe-Weber and Ulrich Walz

european centre for nature co nservation

Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development

Crossing Borders: Natura 2000 in the Light of EU Enlargment Proceedings of an international workshop held in Dresden, May 7, 2004 Edited by Markus Leibenath, Sandra Rientjes, Gerd Lintz, Carsten Kolbe-Weber and Ulrich Walz European Centre for Nature Conservation Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development

Published by: European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg, The Netherlands, and Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development, Dresden, Germany

Copyright: © 2005 European Centre for Nature Conservation

and Leibniz Instiutute of Ecological and Regional Development

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, for resale or other commercial purposes without the prior written permission of ECNC and the Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development.

ISBN: 90-76762-20-1 Cover image by: Sabine Witschas, Dresden Cover printed by: Drukkerij Groels, Tilburg, The Netherlands Content printed by: Verdivas Communicatieproducties Available from: European Centre for Nature Conservation

PO Box 90154 5000 LG Tilburg The Netherlands ecnc@ecnc.org Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden Germany info@ioer.de

3

Contents

Foreword Sandra Rientjes........................................................................................................................................5

Natura 2000 – transboundary challenges of EU enlargement Markus Leibenath.....................................................................................................................................7

Part I Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany

Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in Poland Małgorzata Makomaska-Juchiewicz ......................................................................................................13

Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in the Czech Republic Petr Roth ................................................................................................................................................21

Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in Germany Axel Ssymank ........................................................................................................................................25

Part II Transboundary ecological networks in Europe

Spatial connectivity of biotopes: A foundation of nature conservation Carsten Kolbe-Weber.............................................................................................................................43

Ecological networks: From the continental level to the regional, and back Sandra Rientjes and Mihály Végh..........................................................................................................49

German-Polish co-operation on nature conservation, particularly with regard to Natura 2000 Georg Moskwa .......................................................................................................................................55

Part III Natura 2000 geodata management

GIS for Natura 2000: Harmonised data management and access to information Danny Vandenbroucke...........................................................................................................................61

Natura 2000 geodata flow in the Czech Republic Ludvík Škapec, Michal Tomášek and Jan Zárybnický...........................................................................75

Data hunt – experiences in mapping Natura 2000 sites in border areas Sabine Witschas ....................................................................................................................................83

4

Part IV Influencing factors for decision-making processes

Cross-border decision-making processes regarding Natura 2000: Some theses on key factors Gerd Lintz, Markus Leibenath................................................................................................................97

Natura 2000 in the context of EU Accession: Establishing a transboundary coherent network along the German-Polish border Pieter Zwaan ........................................................................................................................................107

Thoughts about cross-border coordination concerning the designation of Natura 2000 sites: The Polish perspective Wojciech Jankowski and Krzysztof Świerkosz.....................................................................................121

Natura 2000 sites in the Czech Republic: Political and institutional factors of the designation process from cross-border perspective Vlastimil Karlík......................................................................................................................................129

Part V Conclusions

Cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites between “new” and “old” EU Member States: Still an unfinished business Markus Leibenath, Sandra Rientjes, Gerd Lintz, Carsten Kolbe-Weber, Ulrich Walz .........................135

List of participants .............................................................................................................................141

5

Foreword Sandra Rientjes

There is no doubt that within Europe Natura 2000 is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, instru-ment for nature conservation. It ensures protection for a wide selection of habitats and species, the legal power behind it – the Birds and Habitats Directives – is strong, and the European Commission has shown that it is quite prepared to take Member States to Court if they do not meet their obliga-tions under these Directives. Of course Natura 2000 is not perfect – nothing in life is. But its contribu-tion to European nature conservation is great in that it gives governments no choice: protect nature, or else ….

The European Centre for Nature Conservation – ECNC is closely involved in plans to develop an eco-logical network that covers the entire continent of Europe. Via a system of core areas, buffer zones, and corridors this network would ensure ecological connectivity from Russia to the Atlantic and from the North Cape to the Mediterranean. Completing the Natura 2000 designation process will be a ma-jor step forward in the development of this Europe-wide ecological network, as most of the Natura 2000 sites will become its core areas. But of course an ecological network goes beyond designating core areas: ecological networks are all about protecting or restoring ecological connectivity. The Habi-tats Directive itself already reaffirms the importance of connectivity between sites. The Commission, however, so far has given completing the designation process precedence over further work on the issue of connectivity. And with good reason – after all you have to have something to network with first. Still, the number of countries and regions that at their own initiative are starting to develop eco-logical networks is growing. Poland, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, for example, have been working to ensure coherence and connectivity between their natural areas for the past decade. Fairly recently, Germany also included the concept in its national policy.

This development poses an interesting question: will these national and regional ecological networks automatically merge into a European ecological network? If there is ecological coherence throughout Europe on the regional level, does that automatically imply ecological coherence on the European scale?

A practical example may illustrate some of the problems that can arise. A few years ago a region in the Netherlands was developing its ecological network, and so was the neighbouring region in Ger-many. However, they were not discussing their plans with each other. It is easy to guess what hap-pened. Both regions chose a border-crossing river as an important ecological corridor, but they chose two different rivers. Each ended up with an ecological corridor that stopped at the border – and an opportunity to enhance cross border connectivity was lost. Lack of communication between regions on different sides of a border is not restricted to the Netherlands and Germany (and luckily there are also many examples of constructive German-Dutch cooperation).

Last year, ECNC carried out a survey among European nature conservationists to assess their opin-ion on the ecological network concept, both in general and as a policy instrument in their own country or region. The respondents were asked whether in their country the development of ecological net-works in border regions was coordinated with the neighbouring country. Only 7 per cent said this was always the case, 64 per cent said it happened sometimes, and 5 per cent said ‘never’. The rest did not know.

There is reason to assume that for practical reasons measures to enhance ecological coherence are planned and implemented most effectively on the regional level. However, to resolve border-crossing issues such as the ones mentioned, some form of super-regional, or even super-national coordinating framework is obviously useful. ECNC is working on this topic e.g. through the development of indica-

6

tive maps of sections of a pan-European ecological network, which tentatively indicate the location of border crossing core areas and corridors.

It is easy to make a general statement that cross-border cooperation between regions in restoring ecological connectivity and achieving a coherent network of sites should be promoted. Put like this, it sounds straightforward and simple. In reality it is not. Nature conservationists on different sides of a border work under different legal and policy systems, have to deal with different politicians with differ-ent agendas, use different data sets, and sometimes even adhere to different ecological theories. And of course – sometimes they literally speak different languages. In this sense, establishing ecological networks is as much about connectivity between social and policy systems as it is about connectivity between ecosystems. It is difficult to say which of the two is more complicated to achieve.

The workshop on cross border cooperation in establishing Natura 2000 organised jointly by the Leib-niz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development and the European Centre for Nature Conserva-tion addressed many of the issues briefly highlighted in this foreword. It showed that there is a strong interest in the nature conservation world to move beyond the designation of sites – and to move be-yond national borders. The proceedings of this workshop not only provide a good overview of the cur-rent state of thinking in this field, but also indicate directions for the way forward.

The workshop was attended by 70 participants from 8 countries. I hope that in these proceedings you will be able to find traces of the cooperative spirit and the sincere willingness to work together in Europe that was so noticeable during the workshop itself.

7

Natura 2000 – transboundary challenges of EU enlargement Markus Leibenath

1 Protecting biodiversity across national boundaries

The Habitat and the Birds Directives form the most prominent parts of European biodiversity legisla-tion. They laid the foundations for Natura 2000, the emerging coherent ecological network of pro-tected areas. Its approach is very ambitious: to halt the loss of biodiversity and to keep the habitats and populations of wild animals and plants in a favourable conservation status.

The date 1 May 2004 has marked the by far biggest enlargement of the European Union. The new Member States show an astonishing richness in biodiversity. However, these treasures are under enormous threat, because the adoption of the Common agricultural policy or the implementation of pan-European infrastructure networks will bring about major landscape changes. Thus, the historical date of EU enlargement offers both opportunities and challenges to the protection of biodiversity.

One of the greatest opportunities of enlargement in the field of nature conservation arguably is the extension of Natura 2000. The new Member States will significantly increase the land area of the EU, covering many unspoiled landscapes, forests, parks and wetlands and thus increasing the Commu-nity’s biodiversity. But what about the cross-border coherence of Natura 2000? It is commonplace that ecosystems are not shaped according to national borders. Environmental policies are a prime argu-ment underpinning the need for transboundary cooperation and coordination. This applies in similar measure to the prevention of air pollution, to water pollution control and to the protection of biodiver-sity. The Habitat Directive acknowledges explicitly that the threats to natural habitats and wild species are often of a transboundary nature so that it is necessary to take measures at Community level in order to conserve them (preface of the Habitats Directive).

In nature conservation the coordination of measures across national borders seems to be even more important than in other fields of environmental policy. This has several reasons: In many cases a par-ticularly high percentage of threatened species and of sensitive, rare biotopes can be found at the fringes of nation states. This is certainly due to the fact that the level of economic activities as well as population density often are relatively low in border areas when compared to other parts of the re-spective countries. Furthermore, long stretches of political borders actually match natural barriers like mountain ranges, which are less favourable to most human activities anyway. That is why a large number of species and habitats from annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive can be found in border regions.

The directive makes no references to the idea of a spatially coherent network in general. The only exception is article 10, which encourages the Member States to establish – on a voluntary basis – linkages and stepping stones between Natura 2000 sites to improve the ecological coherence of the network. Nevertheless the directive acknowledges the importance of cross-border connectivity of Natura 2000 sites: it prescribes to consider in the second stage of the process of assessing potential Natura 2000 sites

• the migration routes of certain species, and

• whether a site is part of a continuous ecosystem situated on both sides of a frontier (Habitats Di-rective, annex III).

8

This leads to the conclusion that the directive acknowledges on the one hand the transboundary character of conservation efforts on European level, although on the other hand it does not provide for any horizontal coordination mechanisms between Member States.

Having in mind the importance and the difficulties of connecting protected areas across borders, one has to ask whether the Accession of ten new Member States will lead to a mere increase in the num-ber of Natura 2000 sites or whether it will also improve the quality and spatial coherence of the net-work. With regard to the borders between “new” and “old” EU Member States, this basic concern leads to an array of more detailed questions: Are there any natural habitats or wild species of Com-munity interest which require a coordinated designation of Natura 2000 sites? Are there any coordina-tion processes taking place, and if so, what kind of coordination processes are these? And finally: which influencing factors determine success or failure of such coordination attempts?

2 Objectives of the workshop

Against this background the workshop “Crossing Borders: Natura 2000 in the Light of EU Enlarge-ment” of 7 May 2004 was designed for a target group of experts from ministries, technical agencies, non-governmental organisations and research institutions from Poland, the Czech Republic and Ger-many. In addition, professionals from other European countries were invited in order to inspire a wider dialogue.

There were three main intentions for this workshop. The first was to exchange experiences with Natura 2000 in Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany. This implies having a look at the proc-esses and the state of implementation in each of the three countries. The particular interest was to learn more about cross-border coordination processes related to Natura 2000.

The second objective was to get information on existing problems and deficits with regard to cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites, but also to discuss proved ways of overcoming potential obstacles and shortcomings.

The workshop was co-organised by researchers from the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) and the Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), Dresden. Because researchers are at least as interested in new questions as in answers to old ones, it was thirdly in-tended to identify needs for future research and collaboration. With “collaboration” both transnational cooperation and cooperation between researchers and practitioners are meant.

The workshop was held in the framework of an ongoing research project of the IOER. Based on se-lected case studies from the Polish-German and the Czech-German border, the project analyses to what extent the various habitats and populations of Community interest have been considered in the process of selecting Natura 2000 sites. The project’s main function is to analyse the interplay between multi-level implementation of European biodiversity policies and horizontal cross-border coordination processes.

3 Structure of the workshop proceedings

The proceedings are structured in the same way as the workshop, which had three main sections (see fig. 1). For the broader view, Section A (chapter 2 of the proceedings) centres around the imple-mentation of Natura 2000 in border areas. Three representatives of conservation authorities from Po-land, the Czech Republic and Germany present their views on cross-border implementation and co-herence of Natura 2000.

9

Plenary session Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany

Section A

Parallel working groups Section B

Transboundary ecological networks in Europe

Natura 2000 geodata management

Influencing factors for decision-making processes

Plenary session Needs for political action and further research

Section C

Section B was split into three working groups in order to allow for intense discussions. Natura 2000 is not the first attempt to establish a Europe-wide network of protected areas. There are other concepts that can support Natura 2000 and that are rooted in ecological considerations on the interdependen-cies between different habitats. Therefore the first working group (chapter 3 of the proceedings) dis-cussed biological issues of the cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites. This is linked to con-cepts of spatial connectivity of biotopes and of transboundary ecological networks on European and national scales.

Figure 1: Structure of the International Workshop on 7 May 2004 in the Institute of Ecological and Regional Development in Dresden

Without information on environmental problems and concerns, no strategies or measures can be adopted. That is why the provision of accurate information plays a crucial role in formulating and tack-ling environmental requirements. Even if the Habitat Directive has established consistent criteria for selecting, managing and monitoring Natura 2000 sites, a sufficient flow of information between Mem-ber States is hard to achieve, because technical systems and routines can differ significantly from each other. The second working group (chapter 4 of the proceedings) highlighted the problems and achievements related to the capturing of local data-sheets for Natura 2000 sites and their integration into national and European databases as a central theme.

Given the fact that Natura 2000 sites need transboundary coordination and assuming that sufficient information flows can be assured, coordinated selection and designation of Natura 2000 are still not guaranteed, as many actors from different levels of government as well as from non-governmental organisations take part in the respective complex decision-making processes. Because of this, the third working group (chapter 5 of the proceedings) was concerned with those actors and institutional settings that are relevant to cross-border coordination of the designation of Natura 2000 sites. The group tried to identify critical influencing factors from the perspective of social and political sciences.

In Section C (chapter 6 of the proceedings) was the closing session in which the results of each of the parallel working groups were presented. Finally, conclusions on needs for political actions and further research were discussed.

10

11

Part I

Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany

12

13

Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in Poland Małgorzata Makomaska-Juchiewicz

1 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to show the Polish approach to the selection of the Natura 2000 sites and to describe cross-border cooperation during this process. The text presents the successive stages of work on Natura 2000 in Poland and their results, with particular reference to sites selected on the State borders with Germany and Czech Republic. The initiatives related to cross-border implementa-tion of the network are mentioned. Finally, reasons for a general lack of closer cooperation are indi-cated and suggestions how this cooperation should be in future are made.

2 Approach to the designation of Natura 2000 sites in Poland

As a new EU Member State Poland had to designate Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) under the Birds Directive (BD) and to present a complete national list of proposed Sites of Community Impor-tance (pSCI’s) under the Habitats Directive (HD) by 1 May 2004. The work on site selection started with identifying habitat types and species of Community Importance that occur in Poland. It was found that annex I of the BD included 130 bird taxa noted in the country, and annex II of the HD 88 other animal taxa (including 13 priority ones) and 46 plant taxa (including 11 priority ones) belonging to the fauna and flora of Poland. As to annex I of the HD, it appeared that 76 natural habitat types (including 16 priority ones) were represented in Poland. Because some of the identified species are already ex-tinct in Poland or occur only sporadically, or because there were no precise data on their present oc-currence, sites were selected only for a smaller number of species than indicated above.

Finally, SPA’s were indicated for 79 bird species listed in annex I of the BD. In addition, 95 other spe-cies (not only migratory) were taken into account in site selection. The criteria for this selection were developed on the basis of BirdLife International recommendations (Gromadzka, Gromadzki 2003). The pSCI’s were selected for 74 natural habitat types, for 74 animal taxa and for 38 plant taxa. The annex III criteria and some other domestic site selection guidelines were used (Makomaska-Juchiewicz et al. 2003).

The selection of sites was difficult in Poland for several reasons:

• Lack of an overall national inventory of habitat types. (Habitat types represent a new concept in Polish nature conservation as well as a new object of protection. Thus they have not been mapped as yet.)

• Uneven knowledge of the distribution and national resources of species, except for birds and some more spectacular, rare taxa of other animals and plants.

• Lack of qualitative data on the local occurrence of most species, except for birds.

• Difficult access to recent information. (New data often are unpublished and remain in the “drawers” of specialists.)

These problems concerned mainly the selection of pSCI’s. Information on birds was much better. As Polish nature conservation authorities decided to base the identification of pSCI’s on existing know-ledge, existing information was the starting point for site selection. This included information on all

14

valuable natural areas in Poland, such as national parks, nature reserves, landscape parks, CORINE biotopes, areas already identified as deserving legal protection etc. In the next step, available infor-mation on particular plant communities (indicators of most habitat types) and on the populations and the distribution of particular species was used. The Polish approach was to select fewer but large sites with high biodiversity, which are important for the conservation of many natural habitat types and many species of Community importance.

3 Designation process

The process of designating SPA’s and selecting pSCI’s in Poland included five stages (Baranowski 2003) that are described in the following sections.

Preliminary stage (1998-2000)

Work started with a pilot study entitled: “Implementation of the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive in the Karkonoski Park Narodowy and the Krkonoski Narodni Park”. This project was realized by an international team of experts with Marek Baranowski (Poland-UNEP/GRID) as a team leader. The pilot study1 was aimed at testing procedures of the identification of Natura 2000 sites on the basis of two national parks in two neighbouring countries. As a result, the full documentation of two Natura 2000 sites with standard data forms (SDF’s), site maps, maps of the occurrence of selected habitat types and species as well as other analyses was prepared separately for each national park (Bara-nowski 2003).

Stage I (February 2000-May 2001)

The first stage of Natura 2000 designation included a project entitled: “Conception of Natura 2000 network in Poland”. It was realized by a team of experts, including Marek Baranowski and Maria Andrzejewska (UNEP/GRID-Warszawa), Anna Dyduch-Falniowska (Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Science – PAS, Kraków), Jerzy Solon (Institute of Geography and Spatial Management PAS, Warszawa), Marek Górski (University of Łódź), Tomasz Żylicz (University of War-szawa), and other specialists from UNEP/GRID as well as from the Institute of Nature Conservation of the PAS. The project was based to a large extent on the results of the CORINE biotopes project, car-ried out in Poland in the years 1992-1996. The CORINE biotopes data base comprised information on 956 sites, covering in total about 20 per cent of the territory of Poland (Dyduch-Falniowska et al. 1999). Information on CORINE biotopes was completed with new information on valuable natural ar-eas as well as on species and habitat types of Community importance. One of the most important tasks was to identify among the existing protected areas in Poland those sites that met the criteria of the BD and the HD.

As a result of this project, 285 sites (180 SPA’s and 181 pSCI’s) were identified (Baranowski et al. 2001). They varied from one to 166,000 hectares in size, and covered altogether about 45,000 square kilometres (i.e. about 15 per cent of the territory of Poland). It was the first conception of the network which was to be a basis for further work.

1 Preparation for Natura 2000 in the Krkonose/Karkonosze National Park (the Czech Republic and Poland).

Project no. 85.3100.20 09 EEA – Phare Environment Consortium (c/o Carl Bro International a/s, Denmark), June 1999-March 2000.

15

Stage II (December 2001-March 2003)

This was the main stage of Natura 2000 site selection, realized by a much larger team of experts from all the regions of Poland and involving a consultation process. A project entitled “Implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Poland” was carried out by a team of four institutions:

• the National Foundation for Environmental Protection: responsible for coordinating the technical work and the consultation process,

• the UNEP/GRID-Warszawa: responsible for the spatial data base and maps,

• the Department of Ornithology of the PAS: responsible for the identification of SPA’s and for es-tablishing the SPA data base, and

• the Institute of Nature Conservation of the PAS: responsible for the identification of pSCI’s and for establishing the pSCI data base.

In addition, 16 voivodship working teams, including the voivodship nature conservators, scientists- naturalists, representatives of forest service and NGO’s, e.g. WWF, Naturalists’ Club and Salaman-dra, took part in the work. Marek Baranowski from UNEP/GRID-Warszawa was the project coordina-tor.

The main tasks of the project were

• to verify and complete the list of sites proposed as the result of the earlier project from stage I (see above),

• to indicate selected pSCI’s which should be designated under one of the already existing types of protected areas (e.g. national parks, nature reserves, landscape parks, sites of ecological interest etc.),

• to formulate the programme and organisational principles of conservation for Natura 2000 sites not included in the national system of protected areas,

• to have consultations with nature conservation authorities at the voivodship level and to obtain the opinions of marchals’ offices, which represent self-government on voivodship level,

• to formulate the main principles of conservation for particular habitat types and species in Natura 2000 sites, including recommendations for land-users,

• to define the scope of work for the preparation of conservation plans for Natura 2000 sites,

• to indicate ecological corridors linking larger Natura 2000 sites and to formulate guidelines for their functioning, and finally

• to unify and to prepare full documentation of the national list of designated SPA’s and pSCI’s.

Within the framework of the consultation process, there were seminars organised in 16 voivodships. They had the objectives

• to present the proposed elements of the Polish Natura 2000 network to a forum consisting of gov-ernmental and self-governmental voivodship authorities, representatives of different stakeholder groups, NGOs, scientists etc.,

• to get comments and remarks on the proposed sites, and

• to facilitate the preparation of the opinion of the Voivodes and self-governmental authorities about the proposed network.

Discussions during these seminars were difficult. Most questions concerned principles of manage-ment of Natura 2000 sites, and expected prohibitions and limitations of economic activities in particu-lar sites. Many doubts were expressed by representatives of State Forests and Regional Boards of Water Management. The former protested against the designation of large forest areas as Natura 2000 sites, expecting problems in forest management, the latter against designation of river valleys,

16

arguing that flood control could not be reconciled with nature conservation. The users of the potential Nature 2000 sites were also interested in funding, but sources of financing Natura 2000 are still un-clear. Agri-environmental measures are of limited use. In Poland there are many sites of forest char-acter and most forests in Poland are state owned. Foresters are afraid that they will be forced to fi-nance Natura 2000 forest sites from their own budget etc.

The network that was proposed as the result of stage II comprised 420 sites: 141 SPA’s and 279 pSCI’s with a total area of about 56,000 square kilometres, including 46,800 square kilometres on land (about 18 per cent of the Polish territory). The projected area covered between 3.5 and 33.8 per cent of the area of each voivodship. The largest proportion of the area (more than 20 per cent) was proposed for designation as Natura 2000 in north-west, north-east and south-east Poland. Forests covered about 42 per cent of the SPA’s area and about 57 per cent of the pSCI’s area, while agricul-tural land covered 32 and 30 per cent respectively (Andrzejewska et al. 2003).

Stage III (October 2003-December 2003)

In April 2003, by virtue of the Treaty of Accession, new species and habitat types were added to an-nex I of the BD and annexes I and II of the HD. The habitat types and species were proposed by the accession countries and accepted by the EC experts. During stage II of work on Natura 2000 in Po-land, some important sites for conservation of these habitat types and species were not selected. That is why a separate project was launched. It was realized from October to December 2003 by

• the National Foundation for Environmental Protection (NFOŚ),

• the Institute of Nature Conservation PAS,

• UNEP/GRID-Warszawa, and

• invited experts.

The bird species that had been added to the Birds Directive did not require additions to the Polish list of proposed SPA’s. As to the Habitats Directive, additions to annexes I and II required selection of additional sites for

• twelve habitat types (three new codes and nine old codes with extended definitions),

• 22 animal species, and

• 20 plant species.

Sites that are important for their conservation were first identified among the already selected sites and then new sites were proposed, if needed. Altogether 39 new sites were added to the existing Natura 2000 proposal: 16 for habitat types, 17 for animal species, and 6 for plant species (NFOŚ 2003).

During stage III of the work, also a few other pSCIs were identified as the result of an analysis of the extent to which the proposed network covered the national resources of certain species and habitat types.

Stage IV (February 2004-March 2004)

This was not a formal stage of work. At the beginning of 2004, the list of SPA’s and pSCI’s together with SDF’s and maps which were the product of joint work of several institutions, voivodship working teams and a number of experts, was once more subjected to consultations on the ministerial and communal levels. Consultation about the list also took place with representatives of State Forests, Regional Boards of Water Economy, Regional Boards of Public Roads etc. The list put forward for consultation initially included 141 SPA’s and 323 pSCI’s plus 28 sites that were independently pro-posed by NGO’s.

17

As the result of these consultations and as the result of ministerial decisions the final national list, pre-pared for submission to the European Commission, was reduced to 72 SPA’s (7.8 per cent of the country area) and 184 pSCI’s (3.7 per cent of the country area). The final list comprises altogether 248 sites (including eight sites of type C which were both SPA and pSCI), covering in total 10.3 per cent of the country area.

4 Natura 2000 sites on state borders

22 sites (including two of type C) along the border with Germany, covering in total about 12,452 square kilometres, were selected during stage II of the Natura 2000 designation process in Poland. They included two national parks, seven landscape parks and 28 nature reserves. These were mostly sites connected with the Odra and Nysa Łużycka river valleys, i.e. sections of the valleys, adjacent forest complexes, the estuary of the Odra river and mouth sections of its tributaries, e.g. Warta, Pliszka, and Ilanka. Among these sites were 14 pSCI’s and eleven SPA’s. The Puszcza Zgo-rzelecko-Osiecznicka (Zgorzelec-Osiecznica Forest) that covers 91,000 hectares was the largest among the pSCI’s and the Zatoka Pomorska (Pomeranian Bay), covering about 591,000 hectares, was the largest among the SPA’s. As a result of the final consultations, the number of pSCI’s on the Polish border with Germany was reduced to two. These were the Estuary of the Odra River and Szczecin Lagoon as well as Wolin and Uznam. The number of SPA’s was reduced to six, including the mouth of the Warta River, the Lower Odra Valley, the Świdwie Lake, the delta of the Świna River, the Szczecin Lagoon, and the Pomeranian Bay.

Six pSCI’s and one SPA along the border with the Czech Republic were identified during stage II of the designation process. The final list comprises only two pSCI’s (Karkonosze Mountains and Góry Stołowe Mountains) and no SPA.

5 Cross-border implementation of Natura 2000

How did it look like in the past?

The start was good. The first project in the preliminary stage of the Natura 2000 designation process in Poland (see above) aimed at the preparation of documentation for selected Natura 2000 sites: two “twin” national parks in Poland and the Czech Republic. The project was based on international co-operation. But at the further stages of the designation process, the Polish teams that were engaged in site selection (Stages I-III) did not cooperate with similar teams from neighbouring countries (Ger-many, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic) when identifying sites along state borders. However, if a valuable natural site was located adjacent to an external border, this fact was treated as an important additional value supporting its selection as pSCI. Cooperation existed to some extent on the regional level during Stage II of designation process, particularly in such voivodships as Dolnośląskie (Lower Silesia), Lubuskie and Zachodniopomorskie (West Pomerania). This cooperation was based, among others, on individual contacts between specialists engaged in projects as the Odra Atlas (Świerkosz and Obrdlik 2002). There were also contacts at the ministerial level between Poland and Germany.

The lack of official co-operation in the designation process had several reasons. First of all, particular countries were at different stages of the Natura 2000 process. When Germany had already almost completed the work, Poland was in the phase of site selection, while the Czech Republic was per-forming an overall national inventory of habitat types (mapping). The other reason was that the teams from the Institute of Nature Conservation PAS and the Department of Ornithology of the PAS, which are responsible for the designation of pSCI’s and SPA’s in Poland, were too small and the schedule

18

too tight to find time for establishing contacts and permanent exchange of information and consulta-tions on the international level.

However, some international meetings were organized on the initiative of the Polish Ministry of Envi-ronment. One was held in Zakopane-Jaszczurówka in September 2002 with representatives of minis-tries, nature conservation authorities and working teams from the Czech Republic, the Slovak Repub-lic and Poland. The parties informed each other about their principles and conditions of Natura 2000 designation and about the present stage of the designation process. It appeared that the approaches taken to the designation process in the Czech Republic and in Poland were quite different. The Polish side learned that the Czech Ministry decided to start work on Natura 2000 with mapping of habitat types on the national scale. They also allocated large funds to support this work and engaged a large group of specialists that was much larger than the Polish team. At that time (autumn 2002), both sides were at different stages of the process. The Polish side – with the exception of a few voivodships – was starting the final phase of site selection (stage II), while the Czech side was still in the phase of mapping habitat types. The Czech officials could only present their SPA’s along the border with Po-land. The parties declared their intentions to cooperate, exchange information etc. However, these declarations did not turn into facts.

The other meeting in Lubniewice with German colleagues had a different character and different aims. It was organized in September 2003 when the Polish side already finalised the main stage of the des-ignation process. The German side was represented by officials of three Länder who showed the strategies of Natura 2000 implementation and the principles of conservation in these administrative units. From the Polish side, the meeting was attended by representatives of the Ministry of Environ-ment, Regional Boards of State Forests, Regional Boards of Water Economy, NGOs and institutions involved in the Natura 2000 designation process in Poland. The presence of representatives of eco-nomic sectors was very important because one of the main goals of the meeting was to convince them that Natura 2000 is not a threat to their activity, and to show how German colleagues solved the potential conflicts. It was expected that, as a result of the meeting, at least some users of Natura 2000 sites would change their hostile attitude towards the network. To some extent this hope came true.

How should it be in the future?

It seems that cross-border implementation of Natura 2000 should be realized on three levels: site, regional and national levels. Regular cooperation should be established between the managers of adjacent (“twin”) Natura 2000 sites on each side of a border. Such cooperation should be targeted at the following objectives:

• adjustment of conservation plans,

• joint monitoring of specific species and habitat types,

• development of conservation measures for species crossing borders, and

• organizing an exchange of information and regular meetings.

In the case of already existing protected areas which have an equivalents on the other side of a state border, ongoing cooperation between the administrations of the “twin” sites might provide a basis for the cross-border implementation of Natura 2000. This applies for instance to the Lower Odra Land-scape Park, the Karkonosze National Park, the Pieniny National Park, the Tatra National Park and the Bieszczady National Park, some of which are also designated as biosphere reserves.

In addition to necessary contacts on the ministerial and regional levels, cooperation should be estab-lished between the institutions responsible for scientific aspects of Natura 2000 implementation in par-ticular countries, i.e. methodological support, data bases, monitoring, improvement of Natura 2000 coherence, etc. These institutions should also be responsible for cross-border implementation of Na-ture 2000 (exchange of information, joint activities etc.).

19

It would be desirable to exchange documentation (SDF’s and maps) on all sites situated on state bor-ders, both on sites that are already proposed and submitted to the EU and on sites that are merely projected. In the case of sites that do not have an equivalent on the other side of the state border it is important to get information from the neighbouring country about land-use in the undesignated areas adjacent to the Natura 2000 site, in order to identify and minimize potential threats. This problem can-not be addressed without international cooperation. Identification and effective protection of trans-boundary ecological corridors, which also needs joint international efforts, poses another set of impor-tant questions. In addition, concerted actions should be organized with regard to the designation of some transboundary sites that have been identified but not yet submitted officially to the EC by one or both sides.

References

Andrzejewska, M.; Baranowski, M.; Gromadzki, M.; Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Weigle, A. (2003): Wdrażanie koncepcji sieci NATURA 2000 w Polsce w latach 2001-2003. Sprawozdanie końcowe (umowa nr 989/2001/Wn50/NE-PR-TX/D), Warszawa, Kraków and Gdańsk: NFOŚ, IOP PAN, ZO PAN and GRID-Warszawa.

Baranowski, M. (2003): Prace nad siecią NATURA 2000 w Polsce, in: Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Tworek, S. (eds.): Ekologiczna sieć Natura 2000: problem czy szansa, Kraków: IOP PAN, 219-227.

Baranowski, M.; Andrzejewska, M.; Dyduch-Falniowska, A.; Górski, M.; Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Mróz, W.; Perzanowska, J.; Solon, J.; Tworek, S.; Żylicz, T. (2001): Koncepcja sieci Natura 2000 w Polsce. Raport końcowy projektu PL 9608.01.04, Kraków and Warszawa: IOP PAN and GRID.

Dyduch-Falniowska, A.; Kaźmierczakowa, R.; Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Perzanowska-Sucharska, J.; Zając, K. (1999): Ostoje przyrody w Polsce (Natural sites in Poland), Kraków: Instytut Ochrony Przyrody PAN.

Gromadzka, J.; Gromadzki, M. (2003): Kryteria stosowane do waloryzacji Obszarów Specjalnej Ochrony, in: Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Tworek, S. (eds.): Ekologiczna sieć Natura 2000: problem czy szansa, Kraków: IOP PAN, 31-39.

Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Perzanowska, J. (2003): Ogólne zalecenia dla ochrony typów siedlisk oraz gatunków zwierząt (poza ptakami) i roślin wymienionych w załącznikach I i II Dyrektywy Siedliskowej, przewidywane na terenach Specjalnych Obszarów Ochrony sieci Natura 2000 w Polsce, http://www.iop.krakow.pl/natura2000: 02.08.2004.

Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Tworek, S.; Cierlik, G. (2003): O kryteriach typowania Specjalnych Obszarów Ochrony, in: Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Tworek, S. (eds.): Ekologiczna sieć Natura 2000: problem czy szansa, Kraków: IOP PAN, 41-58.

NFOŚ (= National Foundation for Environmental Protection) (2003): Wykonanie przekrojowych analiz badawczych propozycji sieci NATURA 2000, z uwzględnieniem zagadnień problemowych związanych z jej uszczegółowieniem i wdrożeniem, Warszawa, Kraków and Gdańsk: 30 listopada 2003 (Raport końcowy dla Ministerstwo Środowiska).

Świerkosz, K.; Obrdlik, P. (2002): Natura 2000 in the Oder River Valley, Wrocław: Dolnośląska Fun-dacja Ekorozwoju and Worldwide Fund for Nature.

20

21

Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in the Czech Republic Petr Roth

1 Introduction

The modern history of nature protection in today’s Czech Republic began in 1838. At that time count Buqoy established three forest reserves on his land in southern Bohemia. The following 166 years were very rich in events and achievements. The most recent period, since adoption of the new Act on Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection in 1992, seems to be the most important. In 1995, the Czech Republic decided to apply for EU membership. The agreement to this effect was signed in 1996, confronting the country with many new obligations as a result. In the field of nature protection the most challenging obligation has been the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. The selection of SPA’s (Special Protection Areas according to the EU Birds Directive) was carried out on the basis of materials of the Czech Ornithological Society; pSCI’s (proposed Sites of Community Importance according to the Habitats Directive) proposal followed the original methodology developed in the Czech Republic. By the date of accession, the lists of both SPA’s and pSCI’s were not passed to Commission but were closed, although the Czech habitat mapping process is still continuing. Cross-border coordination during the designation process of Natura 2000 sites in the Czech Republic took place with Germany, but not with Slovakia, Poland and Austria.

2 Czech attitude towards Natura 2000 obligations

Preparations for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network started in early 1999. At the very be-ginning, the principal decision was made to literally follow the requirements of both Birds and Habitats Directives. With regard to the Birds Directive, the „Dutch Case“1 was taken as an indication of the ap-proach. For the selection of pSCI’s, the basic criteria of annex III of the Habitats Directive provided the minimum requirements for selecting sites.

In 1999, the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic (ACNLP), an expert and technical body of the Ministry of Environment, was made responsible for all preparatory activities.

2.1 Sites for bird protection

The national list of SPA’s was commissioned from the Czech Ornithological Society. The basis for the proposal was the IBA (Important Bird Areas) project for the Czech Republic. 16 IBA’s had been identi-fied by 1998. Criteria for proposing SPA’s specifically for the Czech Republic were adapted during consultations with BirdLife International. In 2002, a draft proposal of SPA’s containing 48 sites (includ-ing 16 IBA’s) was delivered. Following additional consultations with BirdLife International, this draft proposal was slightly modified. The final proposal contained 41 sites for 48 bird species. According to Czech legislation, each of the sites has to be established by a governmental decree.

1 This relates to a decision of the European Court of Justice that the minimum requirement for selecting SPA’s

is the expert proposal of so-called Important Bird Areas proposed by BirdLife International, and that the Gov-ernment is not allowed to select fewer than this minimum number of sites.

22

2.2 Sites of Community Importance according to the Habitats Directive

The long standing ornithological tradition of the Czech Republic is the reason that a vast amount of data existed on the occurrence of birds. Therefore the SPA’s were relatively easy to identify, whereas pSCI’s (in Czech called “Sites of European Importance”) were very difficult to select.

This is as especially the habitat classification according to annex I of the Habitats Directive is quite unique. There were no relevant data available for the territory of the Czech Republic. Therefore the decision was made in 1999 to perform a comprehensive habitat-mapping programme for the whole territory of the country. The objective was to identify all relevant habitat types from annex I of the Habitat Directive and finally to propose sites specifically according to the criteria of annex III. This de-cision was confirmed at the top level of the Ministry of Environment and consequently the pilot map-ping started in 2000, followed by regular mapping from 2001 to 2004. A special arrangement was made for this purpose at the ANCLP where an independent structure of regional coordinators was established. More than 550 experts were hired to perform the mapping based on a unified, scientifi-cally reviewed methodology. The occurrence of the 60 habitat types occurring within the Czech Re-public has been mapped. Their surface areas have been measured, the best of them have been as-sessed, and finally sites were proposed to an extent which makes the selection really representative for the country.

Concerning species, the situation was remarkably easier: A considerable amount of data was either owned by the ACNLP or distributed among various (known) agencies, universities and private ex-perts. It was possible to gather this data in a manner representative enough to require additional mapping or field data collecting only for a small number of taxa or groups. Thus, between 1999 and 2003, data for all species of annex II of the Habitats Directive occurring in the Czech Republic (76 animal, 39 plant species) were consolidated and sites for these species were proposed.

By overlapping the GIS layers with sites for the protection of habitats and species, a single layer of pSCI’s originated. This layer is complete for the Panonian biogeographical region but probably not satisfactorily complete for the Continental region. Because of political commitments concerning Ac-cession to the EU, it became necessary to limit the layer of habitat sites to data from mapping com-pleted before the end of September 2003. However, additional data will be available after the 2004 mapping has been processed, and the Czech Republic will be ready to discuss the next steps with European Commission.

The pSCI draft proposal, delivered in May 2004, was negotiated with a number of stakeholders prior to being passed to the Government for approval and of course also prior to being sent to Brussels. It comprised 100 sites in the Panonian region and 805 sites in the Continental region. These figures changed to 100 and 783 sites respectively after completion of the negotiation process.

3 Transboundary coherence of Natura 2000 network

3.1 The issue of coherence

Coherence is explicitly mentioned in the Habitats Directive, without, however, any clear explanation. There is much confusion about this term. It seems to be useful to try to clarify it at this point.

Natura 2000, according to article 3.1 of the Habitats Directive, should be “a coherent European eco-logical network of special areas of conservation … set up under the title Natura 2000… It … shall in-clude the special protection areas classified by the Member States pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC”.

The term “network” has more than one meaning, as is not unusual in English. One of them is a real “network”, i.e. interconnected nodes. The other one is “system”. There is no doubt that the latter meaning is correct, as in the case of national systems of protected areas. This does not exclude the possibility of connecting the sites within the system by ecological corridors (if appropriate). Providing

23

connectivity between core areas by means of various types of ecological corridors, however, repre-sents quite a different issue when compared to the systems of protected areas in general. This fully holds true for Natura 2000. Natura 2000 is not about connectivity, but about the representativity of habitats and species. Otherwise there would be no article 10 in the Directive which mentions the pos-sibility of improving ecological coherence of Natura 2000 by encouraging the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora, and which are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species. If the network itself was already by definition coherent in the sense of being connective, there would have been no need to improve co-herence by introducing any elements or measures for connectivity.

In this sense, one may understand the unsatisfactorily explained demand for “coherence” of Natura 2000 in terms of sufficiency of all sites which – according to annex III – have to be designated (and, first, proposed) by Member States. Some of them are connective by their natural structure, e.g. rivers, floodplains, and – sometimes – transboundary sites. However, as “coherence” and “connectivity” are in principle terms with quite different (ecological) meanings, one cannot say that if two particular sites are not connected the system is therefore immediately incoherent. Clarification of the term “coher-ence” particularly for the Natura 2000 network would be desirable, but if it is taken into account that the sites for bird protection (SPAs) form an integral part of Natura 2000 one can hardly imagine an-other explanation of the requirement of “coherence” than the one given above.

3.2 Transboundary coherence of Czech Natura 2000 sites

The Czech Republic has four neighbours: Slovakia, Poland, Germany and Austria. The first two are new EU Member States that are in the process – unfortunately – of separately establishing their Natura 2000. Regarding the “old” Member States, there has been no cooperation between the Czech Republic and Austria. On the other hand, very good cooperation exists between the Czech Republic and Germany. There is a Czech-German working group for nature protection at the ministerial level, which has operated since 1999. Much earlier, in 1991, official cooperation between Prague and Saxony began – both at the ministerial level and at the level of the adjacent national parks Czech and Saxonian Switzerland. This is why both countries repeatedly assessed the transboundary coherence of their proposed Natura 2000 sites. The result is very illustrative. The best example is the SPA along the Czech-Saxon borderline.

Three SPA’s have been proposed on the Czech side (for all scientific and technical data concerning the Czech Republic, see “www.natura2000.cz”) and about five on the German side. In fact, none has a counterpart on the opposite side of the border. Is this an evidence of lack of coherence? The an-swer is “no”, at least in most cases.

First, one has to check for what species the SPA’s are proposed on either side of the border. At the Czech side, more sites have been proposed for protecting black grouse, and one site for falcon (Elbe Sandstones). In Saxony, the sites were classified for quite different bird species. Is it really the case that the occurrence of a given species ends exactly at the state border?

The answer lies in the historical events of the past 60 years which were reflected by land-use. Imme-diately after World War II vast border areas in the Czech Republic along the border to Germany were given up by their original inhabitants and subsequently neglected. Three years later, in 1948, the state boundary between the Czech Republic and Germany was impenetrably closed. While life continued on the Saxon side, abandonment on the Czech side increased. In 1961, after the Berlin Wall had been constructed, the Czech-Saxon border became more open, as both countries belonged to the same political grouping. However, the Czech side remained very sparsely populated as a result of the policy of depopulating this zone, which had been applied in the preceding 13 years. Agriculture was – if it was present at all – only extensive. Most former settlements disappeared without leaving any trace and in vast areas natural processes had a chance to develop.

This was not the case at the Saxon side: Settlements there remained alive with the original population and they were much more densely populated. Agriculture was more intensive and tourism much more

24

developed. Thus, the natural conditions became really quite different and changed abruptly at the borderline. The bird species recognized the difference and settled on respective sides of the border. The only exception is the falcon: It flies freely between the Czech and the Saxon sides of the Elbe Sandstone mountains and, therefore, its living conditions on both sides of the border have remained the same According to the requirement for “transboundary coherence” given in the Directives, the demand for a transboundary site would be justifiable only in the case of the falcon. Therefore, if there will be any criticism by the European Commission upon discovering that the SPA’s on the Czech-Saxonian border have no counterparts in the neighbouring countries, it will be justified only in the case of the SPA Elbe Sandstones (the habitat of the falcon). Thus, it is evident that the Natura 2000 network undoubtedly is coherent on the Czech-Saxon border, even if it is not connective.

4 Further tasks

Much work remains to be done in the Czech Republic even concerning the process of designating sites. The proposed SPA’s have to be approved by the government as well as the pSCI’s. After sub-mitting the national lists to Brussels, a period of consultations about sufficiency of the proposed sites will begin. We are trying to establish cooperation with the Austrian authorities, as well as with the Pol-ish Ministry of Environment. Contacts with Slovakia are traditionally good because of the similar lan-guages. We are also planning to discuss the site proposals at both sides of the state boundary. We have to think simultaneously about the management and funding of proposed Natura 2000 sites, as well as about improving public awareness which is generally very weak. Therefore, the next years will show us whether the concept of Natura 2000 is viable. At this moment of time, we hope it is and we will do our best to contribute to its proper implementation.

25

Cross-border implementation and coherence of Natura 2000 in Germany Axel Ssymank

1 Natura 2000 in Germany – an introduction

Building the European network of protected areas “Natura 2000” includes a suite of specific needs for coherence both inside Member States and across Member State borders. As Germany after the EU enlargement is situated in the centre of the European Union and is surrounded by 8 other Member States, coherence will be a major concern.

First of all an analysis of the specific situation of proposing sites for Natura 2000 in Germany is given referring to the full German list of proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI) which is planned for January 2005 and covering 9-10 per cent of the total national territory. Based on the definition and the importance of coherence in the Habitats Directive the specific situation for Germany will be ana-lysed and experiences and problems with possible solutions will be discussed. After looking into legal references to coherence in the Nature Directives of the EU, technical aspects of coherence including technical data control and GIS-data validation are discussed and illustrated with typical examples.

Coherence in proposing sites and in implementing the network in relation to different methods of site delimitation is a major topic and there is a need for habitat and species-specific actions. Cross-boundary coherence across Member States is comparable to cross-boundary coherence between the Länder in Germany and basically requires the same measures.

1.1 The ecological and legal situation in Germany concerning Natura 2000

With the enlargement of the EU seven biogeographic regions are distinguished, including the new pannonian region. Germany has 3 biogeographic regions: the northern rim of the Alps in the Alpine region, and major parts of the Continental and Atlantic regions. Meanwhile, Germany is almost com-pletely surrounded by 8 EU Member States (with the exception of Switzerland), with Poland and the Czech Republic as new partners for the Natura 2000 network in the east. Thus cross border imple-mentation is an important topic for Germany.

Marked biogeographical gradients exist within Germany both from north to south and from west (subatlantic influence) to east (subcontinental influence). A large variety of geological substrates from acidic bedrocks to limestone, schist and volcanic rocks, and the presence of all altitudinal zones in-cluding the northern rim of the Alps result in the occurrence of 87 habitat types of annex I and 112 species of annex II (see fig. 1a). Another four habitat types and 20 species listed in the enlarge-ment treaty in most cases also have minor representations in Germany (Balzer et al. 2004a: 145 ff., 2004b: 341 ff.). In comparison to the situation in the EU, annex II species play a minor role in Natura 2000 in Germany (see fig. 1b), while habitat protection of annex I is a very important issue together with naturally species-poor groups like fish, mammals and amphibians. There is a large overlap in the occurrence of habitat types of annex I with most Member States, especially along the border with the new Member States Poland and the Czech Republic.

The legal implementation of the Habitats Directive in Germany into federal (national) law of Nature Conservation as a framework law was only achieved in 1998 (Bundesregierung 1998: 823 ff., for legal aspects see Gellermann 2001: 1 ff.), with amendments to include the marine environment beyond 12 nautical miles in the Exclusive Economical Zone in the year 2002. In Germany nature conservation is the responsibility of the 16 Länder, which have their own ministries of environment and their own agencies. This federal structure leads to different ways and methods in site selection, site manage-

26

ment and protection within the Länder and implies the necessity for national coordination in order to achieve a coherent network for Natura 2000. National coordination is carried out by the Federal Minis-try of Environment and – both technically and scientifically – by the Federal Agency for Nature Con-servation (BfN, Bundesamt für Naturschutz), Bonn. The complex process of proposing sites in Ger-many starts with site selection in the Länder, followed by political and public consultations in the Länder. These site proposals are sent to the federal government only after a cabinet decision. Here once again political consultations have to be done, e.g. with national traffic planning and military land use. At the same time the national assessment of sites is done at the Federal Agency for Nature Con-servation. The results of consultation are sent back to the Länder authorities and they finally decide which sites (delimitations and data) will be officially proposed by Germany. In addition to scientific co-ordination and national assessment according to criteria of annex III, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation in Bonn is involved in data handling, habitat interpretation and background data for habitats and species on national level.

Figure 1 a/b: Number of habitat types and species to be protected in the Natura 2000 network in Germany (fig. 1a, upper diagram) and in the European Union (fig. 1b, lower diagram) (modified from Ssymank et al. 1998: 15)

The implementation of Natura 2000 in Germany is of course based on the legal framework of the re-spective EU-Directives and closely follows the recommendations and official documents of the Habitat Committee and its Scientific Working Group (SWG). As the habitats of annex I require a definition for the implementation of the protection regime, the most important document apart from legal texts is

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

other invertebrates

insects

fish

amphibiens/rept.

mammals

mosses

angiosperms

birds, annex I

habitats

priority non priority

priority

non priority

0 100 200 300 400

other invertebrates

insects

fish

amphibiens/rept.

mammals

mosses

angiosperms

birds, annex I

habitats

27

probably the EU-Interpretation Manual (former version EUR15, now EUR25: European Commission, DG ENV 2003a: 1 ff., including amendments of the enlargement DG ENV 2003b). For a consistent use within Germany this manual had to be adapted to the specific situation in Germany. The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation produced a German Interpretation Manual for annex I habitats with details on definition, mapping hints, specific characteristic plant and animal species occurring in Ger-many, distribution maps etc. (Ssymank et al. 1998: 73 ff.). For the national assessment of pSCI’s ac-cording to annex III in Germany, a system of about 70 natural regions (ecoregions) was used. One important reference point needed for the national evaluation is the total area of annex I habitats pre-sent (Ellwanger et al. 2000: 488 ff.) and an estimation of the total population size of annex II species (Ellwanger et al. 2002: 37 ff.) in Germany and its three biogeographical regions.

Germany was very late and incomplete in proposing sites, and therefore was convicted by the Euro-pean Court on 11th of September 2001 (Case C-71/99) for not having proposed enough pSCI’s for Natura 2000. The first site proposals were mainly based on already protected sites, but the “strictly” protected sites like nature conservation areas and national parks covered only about 2.8 per cent of the land surface in Germany (Ssymank 2000: 22); furthermore, many were too small to be proposed directly as Natura 2000 sites. Thus a second and third “tranche” of sites was proposed successively by the Länder. The first set of biogeographical seminars on EU level for the Atlantic and Continental biogeographic region were held without German site proposals, and during the last biogeographic seminars (held for the Atlantic region in The Hague in June 2002 and for the Continental region in Potsdam in November 2002) both regions still showed a considerable lack of Natura 2000 site pro-posals. An overview of the results of biogeographic seminars in Germany is given by Ssymank et al.

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# ###

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

###

###

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

##

# ###

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

## # #

##

#

#

##

#

#

###

# #

#

#

# ##

#

##

# # # ###

#

## # #

##

##

# # #

### #

# #

##

# # ##

#

#

#

#

#

##

# ## #

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

#

##

# ##

#

# # #

##

#

##

#

##

# #

##

##

#

# #

# #

#

##

##

#

# #

#

#

#

# # # #

#

# #

#

#

#

## # #

#

##

#

##

# # # ##

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

##

# #

##

#

##

## #

##

#

##

#

#

## #

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

# #

#

# ##

#

##

#

## #

## #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

## ###

# ###

#

#

#

#####

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

###

#

# #

## #

#

#

#

##

#

## #

#

##

#

##

#

## ## # #

#

##

###

##

## #

## #

# #

# # #

# #

#

##

##

# #

##

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

# # #

# #

##

#

#

#

# # ## #

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## ##

#

# ###

#

### #

#

##

##

##

#

##

#

## ## ##

##

##

#

#

#

# #

###

#

#

# # ## #

#

##

##

#

#

###

#

#

## #

#

##

#

##

####

###

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

## ##

## #

#

#

#

# # #

#

##

## #

#

# #

#

##

##

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

##

###

#

#

##

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# # #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

###

#

# #

#

#

##

## #

#

# # ## ## #

# #

#

# # #

# #

# ##

## #

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

###

# ##

#

#

#

## ##

# #

##

#

# ###

###

##

##

#

# ##

##

# # #

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

# #

##

#

##

#

#

#

###

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

# ## # #

##

##

#

#

#

#

# ## #

# #

#

#

##

## ##

##

###

#

# # #

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

# #

# # # #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

###

# #

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# ##

##

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

# #

##

# #

# ## ##

#

#

###

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

# ##

#

# ## #

#

# ##

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

##

##

##

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

# # ##

## #

## #

##

##

## #

# # #

##

##

##

## #

##

##

#

#

#

#

## ##

#

# #

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

## #

###

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

##

# #

# ##

##

#

# ####

# #

#

##

#

#

#

### # #

###

##

## ##

#

# #

##

##

#

#

###

##

#

### #

#

##

#

##

#

##

# #

##

# #

#

##

#

#

#

# # #

# #

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

##

#

#

####

#

#

#

#

##

##

## #

##

#

#

##

#

# #

#

#

##

###

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

## # #

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# ###

#

## # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

## # #

# #

##

##

##

## #

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

# #

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

## #

## ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

## #

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

####

## #

##

#

##

##

# ###

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

###

# ##

##

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

# #

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

##

#

#

#

#

#

# ## #

#

# ##

#

#

##

# ##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

# ##

# #

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

##

## #

# #

## #

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

# #

##

##

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

##

### #

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

###

##

###

#

#

#

#

##

# #

#

# #

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

# #

##

#

## ##

## #

#

# ## ##

###

# #

# #

## #

#

### # #

##

##

##

#

#

# ##

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

##

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

## #

##

##

# #

##

#

#

# ## #

#

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

## #

##

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

####

#

###

#

## # #

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# ## #

#

# #

# #

##

## #

#

# ##

###

#

#

# #

##

##

#

##

## #

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

### #

##

###

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

####

##

#

#

#

# #

# ##

###

#

#

###

#

##

##

#

#

# ##

#

# ## #

##

###

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#####

#

##

#

#

#

## #

#

# #

#

#

# ###

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

##

# ###

# #

##

## # #

#

# # ##

# ###

#

####

#

#

# # #

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

###

## #

#

###

#

## #

#

#

#

###

###

## # #

##

###

#

#

#

##

#

# ##

#

#

##

## #

#

##

##

##

# # # #

#

#

#

## #

## # #

#

#

## ## #

# #

##

##

###

##

##

##

#

#

###

## #

#

# #

#

#

###

##

##

##

#

#

#

# ## #

#

#

#

#

#

## #

##

#

##

#

##

###

## #

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

##

# # #

# ###

##

#

# #

##

# #

#

#

#

# #

##

#

# #

###

#

#

#

#

##

##

## ##

#

#

##

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

###

#

##

#

#

# # #

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

###

#

###

#

#

#

#

##

#

## ###

#

###

# #

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

##

####

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

# #

#

# ##

#

## # #

##

##

#

#

##

##

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

## #

## #

#

##

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

##

# #

#

##

# #

##

#

# #

#

## #

###

##

#

###

#

###

#### #

#####

##

#

##

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

##

## # #

# #

# ##

#

#

##

# # #

#

#

##

# ##

## #

# #

#

####

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

## #

#

# #

#

# #

#

## #

# # # # #### #

#

##

#

##

# #

#

##

#

##

#

#

##

##

####

##

##

#### #

#

#

#

##

## # #

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

# #

# #

#

## #

##

#

#

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

## ##

#

# #

# #

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

# #

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# # #

#

##

##

##

#

#

# ##

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

# ##

##

##

## #

##

# ## #

# #

##

#

##

#

# ##

##

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

#

# #

#

##

# #

## #

#

## #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

###

# ##

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

# # # #

# #

# # ##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

# ##

#

#

# #

##

##

# ##

# #

#

#

#

# ### # #

##

##

## #

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

## # # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

# #

##

#

## #

##

#

##

#

#

# # #

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

## #

#

#

###

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

# #

#

#

# ###

#

#

##

##

##

#

##

# # ##

# ##

##

##

###

#### # # #

##

#

#

#

# ###

#

##

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

D70

D65

D36

D53

D66

D30

D18

D34

D05

D38

D57

D59

D03

D73

D19

D35

D64

D12

D47

D63

D04

D28

D61

D22

D23

D31

D54

D55

D25

D60

D72

D56

D48

D27

D58

D45

D02

D10

D46

D21

D20

D52

D11

D29

D16

D08

D26

D09

D39

D62

D17

D42

D01

D13

D06

D33

D67

D24

D41

D37

D14

D32

D51

D44

D07

D49

D50

D43

D68

D40

D15

D69

FFH-Gebiete Deutschland

Massstab 1 : 3 .300.000

NNaturraumgrenzeBiogeograph ische RegionBundeslandgrenze

FFH-Gebiete über 1000 haFFH-Gebiete unte r 1000 ha#

0 50 100 150 200 km

Büro Stelzig Figure 2:

Proposed sites for Natura 2000 in January 2004

28

(2003: 268 ff.), showing that in the Atlantic region more than 40 per cent of habitats and species had clear insufficiencies and in the Continental even more than 60 per cent. However, the insufficiencies were often of a geographical character and unevenly distributed over the Länder.

At that time, Germany had proposed approximately 6.7 per cent of its terrestrial surface as pSCI‘s, in total 2,398,864 ha terrestrial and an additional 773,000 ha marine and Wadden Sea biotopes. The total of 3,535 pSCI’s included 43 sites in the alpine, 420 in the Atlantic and the majority of 3,072 sites in the Continental region (see fig. 2).

Given these results, the European Commission initiated a second Procedure against Germany at the EU Court in April 2003 to impose possible fines. In January 2004 the Commission together with the ETC/NPB from Paris negotiated possible new site proposals from Germany in order to solve the prob-lem and to ensure complete lists before the official procedure of site proposals by Germany.

New site proposals of approximately another 2-2.5 per cent are in preparation and follow a strict time-table for each Land, ending in January 2005 with the last Land Lower Saxony (see fig. 3). Länder per-centages of pSCI surface and planned proposals vary from about 5.5 per cent to 12 per cent, reflect-ing both different methods of site delimitation and differences in natural richness of the landscapes. It can be assumed that Germany will finish its Natura 2000 network with 9-10 per cent pSCI’s in 2005. A part of the Länder has already sent in the new pSCI’s according to the agreed timetable. Meanwhile, the marine sites in the EEZ (External Economic Zone), which are the responsibility of the federal gov-ernment, were sent to the Commission in April 2004 with 8 pSCI’s (945,296 ha) and 2 SPA’s (514,499 ha) in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

Figure 3: Länder: pSCI‘s in preparation (without additional sites necessary according to insufficient representa-tion during the January 2004 negotiation); Legend Länder: RP = Rhineland-Palatinate, BB = Brandenburg, SH = Schleswig-Holstein, SL = Saarland, BW = Baden-Wuerttemberg, MV = Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, TH = Thuringia, HE = Hessen, SN = Saxony, BY = Bavaria, ST = Saxony-Anhalt, HH = Hamburg, NI = Lower Saxony, HB = Bremen, BE = Berlin, NW = North-Rhine/Westphalia, Ger = Germany; In the maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) meanwhile 8 pSCI’s which cover 28.6 per cent of the EEZ have been proposed (figure by A. Kehrein)

The segregated responsibilities at Länder level and the federal structure of Germany result in a di-verse situation, which at least partly mirrors the problems that arise when it comes to cross-border coherence on EU level.

Proposed Sites of Community Importance of the Länder andGermany in total (20.01.2004)

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0

10,0 12,0 14,0

RP BB SH SL BW MV TH HE SN BY ST HH NI HB BE NW Ger Länder / Germany

per c

ent o

f nat

iona

l ter

ritor

y

intended proposals from 2004 officially proposed sites (pSCI's) until 2003

11,0 12,1

11,2 10,6 10,6 10,3 10,0

9,2 9,2 9,1 8,7

7,0 6,5 6,1 6,0 5,4

9,2

29

1.2 “Coherence” in the EU nature directives and in the German Federal Law on Nature Conservation

There are a number of legal references in the text of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC, Council 1992) to the term coherence, which will be shortly commented. However no precise definition of the term itself is given in rt. 1.

The first reference is the definition of Sites of Community Importance (SCI, art. 1 (k)): It is defined as a site which

• “contributes significantly to the maintenance or restoration at a favourable conservation status of a natural habitat type ... or of a species (annexes I and II), and

• may also contribute significantly to the coherence of Natura 2000 referred to in art. 3, and/or

• to the maintenance of the biological diversity within the biogeographic region or regions con-cerned”.

Article 3 demands to build up a coherent European ecological network (including the SCI’s and the SPA’s of the Birds Directive) and furthermore in art. 3(3) refers to an improvement of the ecological coherence “by maintaining and where appropriate developing features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora, as referred to in article 10.

During stage 2 of site selection (assessment of the Community importance of sites according to an-nex III) the ecological coherence forms part of the assessment criteria under point 2(e), here referred to or summarized under “global ecological value of the site”.

Article 10 (2) gives details on the kind of features that could ensure the coherence. naming specifi-cally

• linear and continuous structures and

• stepping stones, and

• defining the principal aim

• “which are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species”.

In article 4 it is stated that the coherence plays a role in establishing conservation priorities for site designation (art. 4(4)).

Later on, for the future management of the Natura 2000 network, article 6 claims with regard to impact assessments that the “overall coherence of the network has to be protected” in the case of plans or projects with negative impacts (art. 6(4)).

Within the Birds Directive there is a reference to a network of SPA’s, using the term “network” in a sense similar to the coherent ecological network in the Habitats Directive. The Birds Directive does not give explicit explanations on how to ensure the integrity of this network.

The quotations from the Habitats Directive clearly show that “coherence” does not only refer to annex I-habitats and annex II species, or to Natura 2000 sites only. It aims rather at maintaining and restor-ing the full biodiversity of all habitats and wild species in the European Union; it covers also annex IV and V species and applies both within the Natura 2000 sites and outside the Natura 2000 sites. Func-tional aspects like migration, dispersal or genetic exchange are covered as well.

Apart from the obligations to implement Natura 2000, Germany introduced in 1998 a new article on Habitat connectivity in the German Federal Law on Nature Conservation (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz – BNatSchG, art. 3, see text box, see fig. 4). This regulation requires the establishment of a net of con-nected biotopes on at least 10 per cent of the Länder-surface.

30

German Federal Law on Nature Conservation Habitats Directive, art. 10

BNatSchG § 3 (1): The Länder shall create a net of connected biotopes, ... that includes at least 10 p of their surface § 3 (2): … it shall guarantee a long term conserva-tion of the indigenous animal and plant species including their habitats and communities and the conservation restoration and development of sound functional ecological interrelationships

“to encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora” “in particular to improve the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network” linear continuous structure (e.g. rivers, field bounda-ries) or their function as stepping stones essential for migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species

Figure 4: Comparison of habitat connectivity according to § 3 BNatSchG (German Federal Law for Nature Con-servation) and art. 10 of the Habitats Directive

The German BNatSchG can partly cover the requirements for coherence in the Habitats Directive and can be interpreted as a major contribution for legal implementation of article 10 of the Habitats Direc-tive. The 10 per cent requirement focuses on existing high-quality occurrences (core areas), which is to a certain extent comparable to occurrences of annex I habitats (approx. 4-5 per cent in the final proposal of Germany) or occurrences of annex II species within pSCI’s. However, no list of exclusive or endangered biotopes such as annex I exists and the German regulation has to be used for all in-digenous plant and animal species including their habitats and communities. A working group of the Länder together with the BfN has discussed methods of implementing this new regulation of Habitat Connectivity in detail and produced a technical report, major results being published already (Burkhardt et al. 2003: 418 ff.). The rules being set up from a scientific point of view will be applied in the Länder, but a detailed analysis of to what extent this will lead to a consistent approach to fully im-plement art. 10 of the Habitats Directive still remains to be done.

2 Technical coherence of data and GIS

2.1 General aspects

Technical coherence of data is essential when using digitized data in a GIS (Geographical information system), especially if these data have to fit into officially used topographical map systems and are to be used for purposes of exact site delimitation on the level of site protection regime and management. Requirements are high to cover a large variety of scales and different purposes.

The main problems occurring when using GIS-data from different origin for Natura 2000 can be cate-gorized in:

• Problems related to the use of different GIS-software, i.e. concerning data formats and their con-version. In Germany, most digital geo-data are produced using the software programme ArcInfo or ArcView.

• Problems related to the use of different mapping scales, projections and projection dates. In Ger-many, within the Länder, homogenous projection in official topographic maps exists but all over Germany 4 different topographical map systems at the scale 1 : 25,000 with both Bessel ellipsoid and Krassovsky-projection exist. Data are usually delivered in the Gauss-Krüger-coordinate sys-tem. To minimize map errors from west to east, different reference longitudes are used, beginning with 2nd main meridian in the Saarland, up to the 4th main meridian in Saxony. Data digitized from official topographical maps in the scale 1 : 25,000 thus have to be transferred for a coherent set of data into the same reference meridian (3rd main meridian equalling 12° E).

31

• Digitizing problems resulting in mathematical incorrect borderlines in GIS-systems for adjacent sites or exclusions from sites, together with incorrect handling of attributes of polygons and lines or missing metadata-information.

• Use of different scales of topographic maps as the basis for digitization: In Germany, the majority of the Länder uses the scale 1 : 25,000 for Natura 2000 sites following a recommendation from the Federal Agency for Natura Conservation. However, some sites are given at 1 : 50,000 scale (Lower Saxony) and the “small” Länder like the city of Berlin use even more detailed topographic map systems. In the marine environment, only nautical maps exist with a completely different pro-jection system.

In many cases inconsistencies occur, especially at administrative borders within Member States as well as in border crossing situations along Member State borders. Different authorities and adminis-trative competences with no or only occasional cooperation are one of the reasons, besides technical problems which can only partly be solved by technical data standards (however these standards have never been set by the EU, as digitized GIS data did not belong to the obligatory data of a pSCI or SPA according to the Habitats / Birds Directive).

The relatively wide-spread use of ArcView as a substitute for professional GIS-systems such as ArcInfo/ArcGIS often leads to double overlapping lines at neighbouring sites or overlapping polygons, which are not acceptable in a GIS-system (examples see fig. 5).

Figure 5:

Typical examples for tech-nical incoherencies in GIS: multipolygone-sites (fig. 5a, upper part) and digitizing problems on common borderlines (5b, lower part)

boundaries inside sites due to paper map oradministrative bounderies

sites with many separatepolgones (up to >120 !): some polygones lackidentification

excluded polygones not belonging to pSCI: often not correctly identified they get lost or included during data export / transfer within GIS-systems

accidential overlap ofneighbouring sites

accidential gap betweenneighbouring sites pSCI “B”

“A” pSCI

32

2.2 Technical data control at BfN

At the BfN a series of technical data checks are regularly carried out in order to ensure good data quality. This includes both GIS-data and Standard Data Forms (SDF – data according to decision 97/62/EC). The following list summarizes some criteria for the assessment of maps and geo-data:

• Control of digitizing errors or double lines

• Control of completely filled in attributes for every polygon/line

• Simple control of completeness of maps/files for all sites sent officially to the Commission

At the same time similar problems occur on the EU level and the Commission is validating GIS data (GIS Val-software) via external contracts producing regular reports of inconsistencies in GIS-data sent by the Commission to Member States. For Germany these procedures are extremely difficult, be-cause the full data set changes almost constantly as new sites or changes to already proposed sites are sent by the Länder separately, until the final proposals will be complete in January 2005. For the purpose of the biogeographic seminars and for the negotiation meeting in January 2004 the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation put the actual data of the Länder together in a homogenous data-base for SDF’s. However, site overlaps along Länder borders in GIS-data have not yet been cor-rected.

As for the data in electronic SDF‘s Germany applies its own input-software, which uses German checklists for species and habitats. Thus, mistakes are minimized and for example entering species which do not occur in Germany or misspelling of species names is not possible. A number of technical cross-checks for coherence of data are carried out automatically. Synonym-databases for species (e.g. at least 3 different nomenclatures of higher plants used in standard determination keys in Ger-many) are included and a back tracing of exact sources and year of observation for habitats and spe-cies is already implemented, which will be a prerequisite for reporting changes under article 17 of the Habitats Directive.

3 Coherence in proposing sites and implementing Natura 2000 within Germany

It will be impossible to analyse all the aspects of coherence in detail here, but a few basic ideas will be developed. First of all, a number of different “components” can be distinguished for practical pur-poses:

• Coherence on the site level of individual Natura 2000 sites (e.g. functional integrity of sites, ques-tions of full inclusion of occurrences of annex I habitats or annex II species). A good example is the question on how to deal with a species that has meta-populations in and outside a pSCI.

• Coherence in a protection regime for species of annex IV (both inside and outside Natura 2000).

• Protection and management or restoration of landscape elements according to art. 10 to ensure the coherence.

• Functional aspects within and outside Natura 2000 sites, for example watershed areas for cal-careous fens and buffer zones for oligotrophic habitat types.

• Finally the situation of the surrounding landscape and interactions with the Natura 2000 network: barriers for migration, dispersal or genetic exchange of species, protection of the full biodiversity of natural habitats and wild species etc.

As site delimitation for Natura 2000 is not standardized and a matter for the Member states – in Ger-many this is a responsibility of the Länder – it is evident that the specific method of site selection used leads to quite different basic situations for analysing and later ensuring the coherence of Natura 2000.

33

Within Germany, the principles of site delimitation vary greatly and can be broadly classified as in fig. 6:

1. Large complex sites (often multi-interest-sites) with a comparably lower percentage of annex I habitats or annex II species, but including buffer zones and representing more or less functional units.

2. Small isolated or fragmented sites, which often are “single-interest” sites (one annex I habitat or one annex II species only) with site delimitation more or less restricted to the actual known occur-rence of annex I habitats or annex II species.

3. Sites with exclusions (holes) for certain land uses or planned land uses like roads with small agri-cultural areas within the site or with incomplete inclusion of occurrences of habitats or species present over the site boundary.

Figure 6: Methods of site selection

In reality, all three cases often even occur in the same region, but with clear differences between the Länder reflecting the different principles of site delimitation on the Länder level. For instance there is a strong tendency to propose many small or fragmented in Hessen and Baden-Wuerttemberg versus larger and fewer sites in Rhineland-Palatinate. All intermediate forms exist as well. The average size of a pSCI in Germany was in January 2004 (3,535 sites) only about 900 ha, with a range from almost punctual size (< 1 ha) to the size of about 450,000 ha for the Wadden Sea National Park in Schleswig-Holstein. The ETC/NPB claimed in its data analysis for planned pSCI’s in January 2004 that about 50 per cent had less than 100 ha in size. Both the average size of pSCI’s and site fragmen-tation (in the sense of many geographically separated parts and polygons belonging to one site) are extreme in comparison with other EU member States. Germany on average has the smallest and – especially in some regions – the most fragmented pSCI’s in the EU, with up to 120 polygons for 1 site which means that 120 different unconnected pieces are formally put together in one standard data sheet! During the negotiation on planned pSCI’s with the Commission (General Directorate Environ-ment) in January 2004 a clear recommendation was made to propose larger and less fragmented sites. It is quite obvious that large coherent sites will generate a situation where a higher degree of coherence may be present initially and further measures to ensure the coherence can be smaller,

91E06210

9110

91E06210

9110

91E06210

9110

large sites:a few big sitesbuffer zones includedpublic acceptance often lowsim ple m anagem entlow adm inistrative costs

tiny sites:m any sitesno buffer zones large edge effects and im pactsno functional unitsim pacts from outside not under controlm anagem ent difficultadm inistration costly

excluding:„holes“ where no habitat type/ species has been foundom itting private property wehreeverpossibletraffic facilities91E0

6210

9110

91E06210

9110

91E06210

9110

large sites:a few big sitesbuffer zones includedpublic acceptance often lowsim ple m anagem entlow adm inistrative costs

tiny sites:m any sitesno buffer zones large edge effects and im pactsno functional unitsim pacts from outside not under controlm anagem ent difficultadm inistration costly

excluding:„holes“ where no habitat type/ species has been foundom itting private property wehreeverpossibletraffic facilities

a few big sites bufferzones included public acceptance often bw simple management bw administrative costs

large sites:

“holes” where no habitat type / species has been found om itting private property where ever possible traffic facilities

excluding:

many sites no bufferzones large edge effecs and in pacts no functional units impacts from outside not under control management difficult administration costly

tiny sites:

34

than in the case of small fragmented or isolated pSCI’s. With respect to the situation of site delimita-tion in Germany it can be expected that Germany has to do more than other Member States with a higher percentage of pSCI’s and larger complex sites to reach the same level of coherence within Natura 2000. At the same time it is clear that this will imply different measures and efforts among the German Länder.

Coherence has to be regarded on a habitat by habitat or species by species basis. Inconsistencies often exist along administrative borders and a few typical examples can illustrate this. River habitats (habitat numbers 3,260 and 3,270) and fish species along Länder borders are only selected from one side. As administrative borderlines are – historically – frequently in mid-river, the immediate results are proposals of half river-sites for example on the Elbe (these problems will in most cases be cor-rected in the final pSCI-list in 2005), or proposals of incomplete estuaries. When a river crosses the same border several times, such as the Werra between Thuringia and Hessen, this may result in very incoherent fragmented pSCI’s or in a number of individual pSCI’s that could be easily combined into one single site (see fig. 7). Similar situations are often found for forest habitats, a typical example be-ing the excellent rich hill-top beech forests (habitat number 9,130) of Kuppenrhön proposed by one Land and the adjacent high quality forest on the same hill-top, but on the other side of the border, not being included.

Figure 7: Examples for habitats or species in good conservation status, selected only on one side of the border:

Left side: Forests along the border of Hessen and Thuringia in the Kuppenrhön with beech forests of habitat type 9130 on hill-tops: adjacent forests of the same good habitat quality (indicated by blue ar-rows) are not proposed or simply omitted from the list of pSCI’s due to an administrative borderline (red dotted line).

Right side: Rivers along borders with the example to the river Werra crossing the border between two Länder several times and only selected by one Land, resulting in a fragmented site proposal due to administrative borders (pSCI’s in Hessen in red colour, pSCI’s in Thuringia in green colour).

The BfN has carried out a cross-check along the Länder borders for obvious problems of incoherent site proposals in order to give the Länder a better possibility to correct or avoid problems of cohe-rence for the final site proposals until 2005. The Scientific Working Group of the Habitats Committee carried out an analysis of Germany’s planned additional pSCI’s for the bilateral meeting in January 2004 (Ssymank 2003: 408 ff.) and identified in a separate chapter around 75 cases along Länder bor-ders where an adjustment of pSCI’s may be necessary. However, it has to be stated, that a simple analysis of neighbouring sites or sites stopping at the border line is not sufficient: We clearly know a number of cases where the occurrence of a habitat or species stops right on the administrative bor-derline (for example Berlin-Brandenburg), due to historically different situations in the landscape,

river

Werra

Hessen

Thuringia

river

Werra

Hessen

Thuringia

35

farming practices etc., especially for habitats or species which are dependent on anthropogenic influ-ence.

Another reason for problems with coherence results from the fact that a number of protected sites, e.g. Nature Conservation areas, were included in their entirety without reflecting that the initial pur-pose of protection was different from the requirements of the Habitats Directive, and in some cases the occurrence of the annex I habitat or annex II species is only partly covered or even covered only to a minor extent by the protected area. In these cases a future enlargement of the protected area would be wise which follows the necessity of a larger pSCI proposal.

With regard to habitat types, the main factors of threat are closely related to questions of coherence and can be grouped into two main categories: direct loss of an area and degradation in quality. These two categories are consequently used in the National Red Data Book of Biotopes (Riecken et al. 1994: 1 ff.). Direct loss of a habitat type can be total destruction, e.g. by expansion of urban and in-dustrial sites or intensification of land use, but can also refer to the partial loss of a habitat complex. Quality degradation often occurs in relation to fragmentation of the habitat and to changes or intensifi-cation of land use, but also due to an increase of adverseness of the surrounding landscape; species typical for the habitat type are restricted in their natural dispersion, migration or genetic exchange, and (semi-)natural stepping-stones are getting rarer. Specifically for highly endangered habitat types it can be expected that ensuring the coherence of Natura 2000 will require a refined and larger set of measures in order to ensure coherence and a long-term stability in a favourable conservation state.

For annex II species in general a coherent approach demands that the population should be inside pSCI’s, regardless of political or administrative borders. In theory this is a clear situation, but in a few cases the data deficiencies on actual distribution lead to difficulties: fish species in the Danube (en-demics for this river system), for example, occur just outside Germany. Even if they can be expected in Germany as well, for political reasons it will not be able to propose a pSCI in the Member State where no occurrences are known at the moment.

However, specific problems occur for a number of animal groups:

• Migrating species, especially anadromous fish species. During site assessment and site selection a differentiated concept was used for site selection, based on the biology of the species, that in-cluded only sites which are critical or essential for a longer part of the life cycle such as spawning grounds and areas essential for the up growth of young fish or adaptation to salinity in the estu-ary. For the other part of the rivers stepping-stones were accepted in many cases as sufficient site proposals. In consequence the missing parts of the migration routes will completely fall under art. 10 as linear landscape elements, connecting the whole habitat of the fish-species in question.

• Species using large areas as otter, lynx, and wolves. For these species full protection of popula-tions in large protected areas including the entire habitat is not possible, as they may be widely dispersed over large areas in low abundances naturally. Here only core areas for reproduction or core areas for development can be protected by a site protection regime; additional measures of species protection on a species by species approach have to be taken over large areas. This situation is common also for a number of birds, e.g. many birds of prey of annex I of the Birds Di-rective.

• Species using geographically separated areas as part of their habitat, e.g. bats (nursing roosts, wintering roosts, hunting areas ...). The situation is quite different as no completely homogenous way of proposing sites was chosen by the Länder. To take the example of bats, in some cases roosts were combined in one pSCI with (possible) hunting areas in nearby forests. In other cases isolated roosts were proposed, either with separate pSCI’s including (part) of the hunting area or without any other essential habitats within Natura 2000. In the latter case other types of roosts, hunting areas, wintering places etc. have to be identified for each population and the migration between these different habitats must be ensured. The same applies to some invertebrate spe-cies that require a certain mosaic of biotopes or habitats to accommodate their full life cycle.

36

• Species with meta-populations, e.g. Maculinea species (Butterflies, Rhopalocera: Lycaenidae). Locations with a regular exchange of individuals, belonging to one meta-population, should ideally be combined into one pSCI. However, often this is not the case and at least some part of the smaller interlinked populations is located outside pSCI’s. To ensure favourable conservation status of core populations inside Natura 2000 it is then essential to consider all interlinked popula-tions as landscape elements under article 10, to give them special protection and to ensure the functionality of genetic exchange between these populations.

During national assessment of sites a coherent evaluation approach also had to take into account the different situations of site delimitation. Highly representative occurrences of “A” representativity were downgraded to a “B”-evaluation if a significant part of the occurrence of the species or habitat in the locality was outside the Natura 2000 site. However, in cases of fragmented site delimitation where an isolated site might have been assessed as a “B” or even “C” representativity, all small pSCI’s contain-ing in their total proposal the full occurrence of a highly representative habitat type were assessed as “A” representativity.

4 Cross-boundary coherence between Member States

The coherence of Natura 2000 in principal has the same requirements across member-state borders as was exemplified with the Länder-site proposals within Germany. On EU level perhaps a double integral approach has to be made: a first step to check coherence within biogeographical regions, fol-lowed by a second step across borders of biogeographical regions wherever necessary in order to achieve a coherent network fully integrating SCI’s under the Habitats Directive and SPA’s under the Birds Directive. This will be a major step towards the 2010 target of the CBD (Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity), i.e. to stop the loss of biodiversity until the year 2010.

Until now no consistent complete check was carried out on the federal level along the German border with other Member States. This has two major reasons: Firstly, the late-comer Germany and to a cer-tain extent also France have not yet completed their pSCI-lists, and secondly the data sets of new Member countries were not available before the first of May 2004. Furthermore, from a scientific point of view the pSCI’s in the Czech Republic and Poland are far from complete. However, some of the Länder already have established contacts and exchanged planned pSCI’s, which has lead to some fruitful adaptations. An analysis will be done on cross-boundary coherence after the final list of pSCI’s of Germany has been completed in 2005.

Specific problems still exist for the EEZ: a selection of the habitats and species were set aside during biogeographic seminars under a “marine reserve” and were not taken into consideration. As soon as Member States have proposed sites in the EEZ an analysis for sufficiency has to be carried out for these habitats and species comparable to the biogeographic seminars. However, the procedure is not easy because there will be cases of inconsistency between the limit of the 12 mile-zone and the EEZ, where site proposals have to be harmonized.

Technical aspects of homogenous data quality have been recognized early by the Commission and play a major role both in technical reports of the Paris ETC/NPB in preparation for the biogeographical seminars and in the GIS-data evaluation carried out by the GIS-unit of the University of Leuven for the European Commissions DG Environment.

On EU-level a discussion on coherence under article 10 of the Habitats Directive is only just begin-ning; different concepts are being developed in Member States which will contribute to ensuring the coherence of Natura 2000.

37

5 Future tasks for transboundary coherence

Since May 2004 the European Union was enlarged to 25 Member States, with 10 new members join-ing the Union. This had, of course, a number of consequences and for nature conservation new adapted regulations for the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive came into force (Beitrittsvertrag 2003: 667 ff.; Accession Treaty). The Natura 2000 network is under development in the new Member States and site proposals have already been sent to the Commission.

The biogeographic seminars on EU-level dealt with the question whether the quantity of proposed Sites of Community Importance is scientifically sufficient to guarantee the favourable conservation status of each natural habitat of annex I and of each species of annex II. However, problems of co-herent site delimitation and coherence especially across Member State borders have not been ana-lysed, while they are an inherent obligation of the Habitat Directive and the Natura 2000 network.

For Germany coherence will be of major concern. With regard to technical and administrative coher-ence, different problems have to be solved, such as for example a homogenous GIS-cover for Natura 2000 sites throughout Germany and adaptation of pSCI’s along borders in the final site proposal of Germany for 2005.

Future tasks of ensuring coherence for Natura 2000 include, for example, management plans, imple-mentation of art. 10 (landscape elements), reporting obligations and impact assessments. In Germany a good basis for assuring coherence of Natura 2000 is a complementary new regulation on Habitat Connectivity in the 2002 revision of the German Federal Law of Nature Conservation. International Cooperation is only in its early stages with, for example, the Green Belt projects along the former iron curtain throughout Europe.

Future tasks for building a coherent network of Natura 2000 sites are closely linked to the steps of implementation in the Member States:

First of all the lists of SCI’s have to be finished for all biogeographic regions including the site list for marine sites in the EEZ. Checks for coherent site delimitation and coherence across Member States and biogeographical regions have to be carried out.

Especially for sites along member State borders it is necessary to ensure

• coherent management plans with setting of targets, common standards for management, possible co funding etc.,

• coherent protection measures,

• coherence in impact assessments for example in TEN (trans-European networks) projects, includ-ing aspects of alternatives across Member State borders and consistent methods of impact as-sessment of plans and projects according to art. 6,

• coherent methodical approaches for annex II species and annex I habitats mapping as a status quo for reporting,

• coherent methodical approaches for annex IV species mapping,

• coherence in ecological networks where international activities like the green belt activities along the former iron curtain (Engels et al. 2004) and joint bi- and trilateral projects play an important role,

• coherence in landscape elements,

• functional coherence for migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species,

• coherence as a consequence of EU enlargement (including questions of amendments of annexes and their consequences),

• coherence beyond the actual framework of the Habitats Directive, especially concerning the still neglected process of SPA designation in Germany and other Member States,

38

• coherent methods for reporting and monitoring (art. 11 and art. 17 obligations) as a major tool for monitoring the effectiveness of Natura 2000 and allow for necessary adjustments in a 6 year cy-cle; this includes a common approach of defining the thresholds and parameters for the assess-ment of Favourable Conservation Status (FCS), and

• coherent approaches to research projects.

This list is of course only indicative and incomplete, but highlighting some of the future tasks where coherence plays an important role in the transboundary implementation of EU Nature Directives.

Acknowledgements

M. Ersfeld, Bonn kindly helped with examples for technical coherence and GIS. I wish to thank A. Kehrein, Bonn, for critical discussion of the text and for providing figure 3.

Please note:

As the text treats the specific situation in Germany, in most cases the EU-documents in the German language version are given as references, with the exception of direct quotations referring to the Eng-lish language version.

References

Balzer, S.; Schröder, E.; Ssymank, A. (2004a): Ergänzung der Anhänge zur FFH-Richtlinie aufgrund der EU-Osterweiterung, Natur und Landschaft 79 (4), 145-151.

Balzer, S.; Schröder, E.; Ssymank, A.; Ellwanger, G.; Kehrein, A.; Rost, S. (2004b): Ergänzung der Anhänge zur FFH-Richtlinie aufgrund der EU-Osterweiterung: Beschreibung der Lebensraumty-pen mit Vorkommen in Deutschland, Natur und Landschaft 79 (8), 341-349.

Beitrittsvertrag (2003): Akte über die Bedingungen des Beitritts der Tschechischen Republik, der Re-publik Estland, der Republik Zypern, der Republik Lettland, der Republik Litauen, der Republik Ungarn, der Republik Malta, der Republik Polen, der Republik Slowenien und der Slowakischen Republik und die Anpassungen der die Europäische Union begründenden Verträge. – Anhang II (Liste nach Artikel 20 der Beitrittsakte), 16. Umwelt, C. Naturschutz, Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, Reihe L 236, 667-703.

Bundesregierung (Hrsg.) (1998): Zweites Gesetz zur Änderung des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes vom 30. April 1998, Bundesgesetzblatt 1998, Teil I, Nr. 25, 823-832.

Burkhardt, R.; Baier, H.; Bendzko, U.; Bierhals, E.; Finck, P.; Jenemann, K.; Liegl, A.; Mast, R.; Mir-bach, E.; Nagler, A.; Pardey, A.; Riecken, U.; Sachteleben, J.; Schneider, A.; Szekely, S.; Ullrich, K.; van Hengel, U.; Zeltner, U. (2003): Naturschutzfachliche Kriterien zur Umsetzung des § 3 BNatSchG “Biotopverbund“, Natur und Landschaft 78 (9/10), 418-426.

Council (1992): Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal of the European Communities No L 206, 7-50.

Ellwanger, G.; Balzer, S.; Hauke, U.; Ssymank, A. (2000): Nationale Gebietsbewertung gemäß FFH-Richtlinie: Gesamtbestandsermittlung für die Lebensraumtypen nach Anhang I in Deutschland, Natur und Landschaft 75 (12), 486-493.

39

Ellwanger, G.; Petersen, B.; Ssymank, A. (2002): Nationale Gebietsbewertung gemäß FFH-Richtlinie: Gesamtbestandsermittlung, Bewertungsmethodik und EU-Referenzlisten für die Arten nach An-hang II in Deutschland, Natur und Landschaft 77 (1), 29-42.

Engels, B.; Heidrich, A.; Nauber, J.; Riecken, U.; Schmauder, H.; Ullrich, K. (Eds.) (2004): “Perspec-tives of the Green Belt”. Chances for an Ecological Network from the Barents Sea to the Adriatic Sea? (= BfN-Skripten 102), Bonn-Bad Godesberg.

European Commission, DG ENV (2003a): Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. EUR 25, April 2003, Brüssel.

Gellermann, G. (2001): Natura 2000, Berlin.

Riecken, U.; Ries, U.; Ssymank, A. (1994): Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen der Bundesrepub-lik Deutschland, Bonn-Bad Godesberg.

Ssymank, A. (2000): Rahmenbedingungen für die naturschutzfachliche Bewertung großer Räume und fachliche Anforderungen an ein Bundesvorrangflächensystem für den Naturschutz, in: Ssymank, A. (Bearb.): Vorrangflächen, Schutzgebietssysteme und naturschutzfachliche Bewertung großer Räume in Deutschland, Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 11-47.

Ssymank, A. (2003): Bericht des SWG-Vertreters zur Beurteilung der Vollständigkeit der geplanten Nachmeldungen von FFH-Gebieten in Deutschland für das Netz Natura 2000, Unpublished re-port, 19.12.2003.

Ssymank, A.; Hauke, U.; Rückriem, C.; Schröder, E. (1998): Das europäische Schutzgebietssystem Natura 2000. BfN-Handbuch zur Umsetzung der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie (92/43/EWG) und der Vogelschutzrichtlinie (79/409/EWG), Bonn-Bad Godesberg.

Ssymank, A.; Balzer, S.; Biewald, G.; Ellwanger, G.; Hauke, U.; Kehrein, A.; Petersen, B.; Raths, U.; Rost, S. (2003): Die gemeinschaftliche Bewertung der deutschen FFH-Gebietsvorschläge für das Netz Natura 2000 und der Stand der Umsetzung, Natur und Landschaft 6, 268-279.

40

41

Part II

Transboundary ecological networks in Europe

42

43

Spatial connectivity of biotopes: A foundation of nature conservation Carsten Kolbe-Weber

1 Introduction

The ongoing high rate of loss of biodiversity indicates that the current efforts of nature protection are not sufficient. The dynamic of landscape and habitat fragmentation could not be stopped. Landscape and habitat fragmentation is one of the main causes of decreasing biodiversity and one of the most serious problems nature protection is facing. Questions of spatial connectivity of biotopes – based on different models and theories – have been discussed strongly for more than thirty years. Today, con-cepts of ecological networks represent a central strategy to achieve spatial connectivity in the light of continuously intensifying land use and fragmentation of landscape.

The Habitat and the Birds Directives lay the legal basis of the Natura 2000 network which is currently the most far-reaching effort to ensure biodiversity. Against this background and along the lines of scientific discussion the article shows that modern concepts of spatial connectivity of biotopes are useful and indispensable for nature conservation.

In the following chapters the loss of biodiversity and habitat fragmentation is analysed. Then basic concepts of spatial connectivity and ecological networks are presented and assessed. After that, exis-ting initiatives towards establishing ecological networks discussed. Finally, conclusions regarding the need for spatial connectivity of Natura 2000 sites are drawn.

2 The problem – loss of biodiversity

2.1 Loss of biodiversity in Europe

Globally a species goes extinct every twenty minutes. This adds up to 26,000 species per year. 34,000 plants and 5,200 animals are currently endangered (BfN 2001: 10). An important aspect is the coextinction of one species, caused by the loss of another species. In addition to the 12,257 endan-gered species declared by the IUCN in 2003, another 6,300 species could be coendangered (Koh et al. 2004: 1632). A study from the European Environmental Agency from 1999 shows that wildlife is drastically threatened as many semi-natural habitats are degraded or lost in Europe. For example 38 per cent of birds and 45 per cent of butterfly species are under the threat of extinction and more than 60 per cent of wetlands areas have been lost (Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaft 2002: 2).

Figure 1 shows the percentage of extinct or endangered mammals in Europe at the level of nation states. The highest percentage of endangered mammals (51-75 per cent, dark areas) is located in the centre of Europe. As biological diversity has a high value in social, economic, scientific, educational and cultural terms (UNEP 1992: Preamble), the loss of biodiversity is a serious problem.

44

Figure 1: Percentages of extinct or endangered mammal species in Europe

2.2 Reasons for the loss of biodiversity

The loss of biodiversity is chiefly caused by high densities of settlements and transportat infrastruc-ture as well as by an intensification of agriculture and forestry. These factors lead to an alteration of ecosystems and also to the fragmentation of landscapes (BfN 2002: 71; Jedicke 1994: 32 ff.). In gen-eral, when fragmentation occurs, nutrient cycling, carbon and water fluxes and many other functions are altered (Solé, Montoya 2001: 2044 after Borval et al. 2000).

As a consequence of the increased intensity of land-use and the cumulative effects of fragmentation of landscape, protected areas more and more become islands in a “hostile” environment. Therefore a central question is how negative effects caused by landscape fragmentation can be reduced.

Habitat fragmentation divides large areas of natural habitats into smaller patches. The results are an overall loss of habitats, a reduction of the size of the remaining habitats and increasing isolation. Small fragments with a high ratio of perimeter to area are more vulnerable to edge disturbance that can be caused by agriculture, highways, or tourism. The sharpness of habitat edges, i.e. the contrast and interface between natural areas and developed landscape and infrastructures, is especially hard when buffer zones are absent and the remaining patches are small (Bennett 2003: 13 ff.). On the other hand the total number of species can also increase because of immigration of species, re-placement of stenecious by euryecious species and an increasing number of small habitats (Jedicke 1994: 55 ff.).

45

According to a recent prognosis, the consumption of new land for transport infrastructure, settlement and economic activities will further increase (BfN 2002: 71). The EU enlargement of 2004 will also contribute to this development, particularly in border regions, e.g. through the improvement of infra-structure systems.

As fragmentation of habitats and populations is a major reason for the loss of biodiversity, spatial connectivity of biotopes ought to be a key element of modern conservation strategies.

3 Biological foundations of spatial connectivity

Connectivity is a parameter of landscape function, which measures the processes by which sub-populations of organisms are interconnected into a functional demographic unit. Connectedness also refers to the structural links between elements of the spatial structure of a landscape. It can be de-scribed on the base of mappable elements (Bouwma et al. 2002: 23). This article follows Bennett who uses the term connectivity in both ways (Bennett 2003: 49 ff.).

A lot of species need inter-linkages between several sub-habitats for different purposes like feeding, breeding, resting or migrating. Such linkages can be achieved by different elements of connectivity such as habitat mosaics, stepping stones and habitat corridors.

Three ecological theories give basic hints why and how patches in the landscape should be con-nected:

• Equilibrium theory of island biogeography,

• metapopulation models, and

• the concept of minimal viable population (MVP).

The equilibrium theory of island biogeography postulates that the number of species occurring on an island tends towards an equilibrium. This is determined by a dynamic balance between the rate of colonisation by new species and the rate of extinction of species resident on the island. Main aspects are the correlation between the number of species and the size of the island, the turnover of species and the distance to the next island (like a stepping stone), which have a positive influence on the colonisation rate and the number of species (Bennett 2003: 38 f.; Halle 2002: 135). Basically biodiver-sity is seen as a dependent variable of the size of the island and of its distance. Although there are obvious parallels, it seems that the equilibrium theory of island biogeography can not be applied with-out any limitations to real landscapes. Fragmented landscapes and their habitats are embedded in

Figure 2:

Process of habitat fragmen-tation (drawing by Kolbe-Weber)

46

other structures than islands within an ocean. The borders in real landscapes are less hard and dif-ferent exchange correlations exist in the landscape (e.g. shift of species). The equilibrium theory of island biogeography is generally important to understand the problem of isolation and its conse-quences for the development of ecological networks which include a differentiated assessment of isolation effects for single species (Jedicke 1994: 56 f.). For the application to nature protection the theory seems mainly to be practicable for protected areas on a small scale and for approaches which cover the whole geographical extension of species (Jedicke 1994: 83 f.). On the basis of the equilib-rium theory of island biogeography the metapopulation model focuses on different single populations which form a network of exchange by movements of individuals. Most commonly it is referred to as a “metapopulation” or “population of populations”.

The metapopulation model was developed because most populations are divided into local popula-tions. The local populations settle on suitable habitats which are separated from other populations by areas of poorer quality. Extinction and colonisation occurs within the local populations, resulting in a pattern of distribution, which changes over time. Habitat patterns which assist animals to move through the landscape reduce the risk of extinction in one habitat, enable recolonisation by individuals and genetic interchange more rapidly and support the overall persistence of the species on the re-gional level. The local populations interact in the landscape on different scales, depending on the kind of species and on their diameter of movements. Local populations can also interact via different land-scape structures. In figure 3 the metapopulation model of a diverse set of local populations is disperse in the landscape (patchy population model). If a population on one of these patches was extinct, im-migrants from the other patches would have the opportunity to establish a new local population (Ben-nett 2003: 40 ff.; Halle 2002: 137 f.).

The minimal viable population (MVP) is a concept that defines for single species a minimal habitat area that ensures survival in the long term. Thus the MVP concept defines the smallest isolated viable population size with a specific surviving rate (Hovestadt et al. 1992). The MVP concept is appropriate for protection measures for single species in their specific habitat (Jedicke 1994: 83). But most re-serves are too small to sustain viable populations and natural ecological processes (Bennett 2003: 160).

The different theories and models like the equilibrium theory of island biogeography, the metapopula-tion model and the concept of minimal viable populations are important for the development of con-cepts of nature and biodiversity protection and for policy making. The ecological network concept integrates, as a result of discussions during the last decades, different spatial approaches and strate-gies into a holistic concept.

Figure 3:

Patchy population model: Each patch represents a local popula-tion. The arrows indicate the links between the different popula-tions which constitute the metapopulation (Bennett 2003: 40, slightly modified)

47

4 Ecological network concepts

Ecological networks have different elements to reduce negative influences from the surroundings and to reach spatial connectivity. Core areas should be surrounded by buffer zones. Buffer zones sepa-rate them from intensive land use in the outside areas and reduce negative influences. Additional space is needed are needed to develop buffer zones and core areas (see figure 1 in the article of Rientjes and Végh in this volume).

Elements of connectivity like stepping stones, small patches and habitats, corridors, gaps, multiple pathways, tree canopies, shrubs, ground vegetation and all sizes of linear corridors like hedgerows or streams should be part of a network (see Bennett 2003: 153 ff.). They can connect local populations with other populations and extent resources for feeding, breeding and so on. Landscape corridors and restoration areas are important elements of an ecological network in intensively used landscapes.

Different species need different features of the landscape and different elements of ecological net-works. They have e.g. different patterns of mobility and also different vulnerability to e.g. disturbance (see fig. 4). Also the protection of one important species can be a contradiction to the development of another species at the same place. Therefore the elements of ecological networks must be based in every single case on the needs of species and habitats of the network, also on different spatial levels (local, regional, national and international).

Figure 4:

Different species need different elements of an ecologic network (drawing: unknown author; text: Kolbe-Weber)

5 Conclusions

The previous chapters showed that biodiversity is seriously threatened in Europe. Some of the main reasons are the reduction of the size of natural and semi-natural habitats as well as their fragmenta-tion: The smaller the size of a habitat and the more it is isolated, the fewer species can use it and the higher is the risk of extinction.

Ecological networks, i.e. a system of spatially linked protected areas, can significantly reduce the isolation of individual sites. Ecological Networks have the ability to integrate different human and na-ture protection needs including appropriate changes of land use. Because of their larger sizes they are useful to face fragmentation of landscapes and strengthen spatial connectivity. Cross-border co-operation can also contribute to a regional sustainable development, like international experiences demonstrate.

The Natura 2000 network can be important to improve spatial connectivity and reduce the fragmenta-tion of landscape elements. Natura 2000 could strengthen ecological networks in general if they be-come part of other ecological networks (integrated landscape approach) and if cross-border coordina-tion ensures spatial connectivity in border areas.

48

References

Bennett, F. A. (2003): Linkages in the landscape. The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation, IUCN, in: The World Conservation Union (ed.): IUCN Forest Conservation Pro-gramme, Conserving Forest Ecosystems Series No. 1, Australia.

BfN (Bundesamt für Naturschutz) (2001): Biologische Vielfalt – das Netz des Lebens, Bonn.

BfN (Bundesamt für Naturschutz) (2002): Daten zur Natur 2002, Bonn.

Bouwma, I. M.; Jongman, R. H. G.; Pickaver, A. (2002): Theoretical background and experiences with designing ecological networks, in: Bouwma, I. M.; Jongman, R. H. G.; Butovsky R. O. (eds.): In-dicative Map of the pan-european ecological networks for central and eastern Europe. Technical background document. Prepared under the co-ordination of ECNC in co-operation with Alterra. European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg.

Halle, S. (2002): Biodiversität braucht Platz, in: Bayrische Akademie für Naturschutz und Land-schaftspflege (ed.): Das Ende der Biodiversität, Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Artenvielfalt und seiner Bedeutung und der Maßnahmen, dem Artensterben entgegen zu wirken, 5. Franz-Ruttner Symposium, Laufen/Salzach, 135-143.

Hovestadt, T.; Roeser, J.; Mühlenberg, M. (1992): Flächenbedarf von Tierpopulationen als Kriterien für Maßnahmen des Biotopschutzes und als Datenbasis zur Beurteilung von Eingriffen in Natur und Landschaft. Berichte aus der ökologischen Forschung 1, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich.

Jedicke, E. (1994): Biotopverbund, Grundlagen und Maßnahmen einer neuen Naturschutzstrategie, Stuttgart.

Koh, L. P.; Dum, R. R.; Sodhi, N. S.; Cowell, R. K.; Proctor, H. C.; Smith, V. S. (2004): Species Coex-tinctions and the Biodiversity Crisis, Science 305, 1632-1634.

Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (2002): Natura 2000, Arbeitsdokumente der Kommissi-on, 27.12.2002, Generaldirektion Umwelt C 5115/1, Brüssel.

Solé, R. V.; Montoya, J. M. (2001): Complexity and fragility in ecological networks, The Royal Society, 268 (1480), 2039-2045.

UNEP (United Nation Environmental Programme) (1992): Convention on Biological diversity. [Online] Avaible: http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp (download: 05.04.2004).

49

Ecological networks: From the continental level to the regional, and back Sandra Rientjes and Mihály Végh

1 Introduction

Over the past decade, the concept of ecological networks has become prominent in nature conserva-tion policies as a measure to counteract fragmentation and increase ecological connectivity (Bennett, de Wit 2001). The concept can – and is – applied at different levels of geographical scale, from the regional to the continental. This poses the question to what extent ecological network activities at the different levels of scale are coordinated and synergetic. Will the regional and national ecological net-works in Europe automatically merge into a Pan-European ecological network? Another question is the relation between Natura 2000 and ecological network initiatives, especially at the European level.

2 The ecological network concept

Primarily, the ecological network concept is a response to the damage that had been inflicted on Europe’s natural heritage. Economic development, industrialisation of agriculture and population growth had caused significant damage to natural areas and rural space, resulting in loss of habitats and fragmentation of what remained by roads, urban development and areas of intensive agriculture. The basic premise of the ecological network concept is straightforward: the fragmentation of habitats can be counteracted by creating buffer zones to protect the remaining natural areas; these core areas will be connected by stepping stones and corridors which allow species to colonise new areas and to move freely through a wider area in search of food or a mate.

Figure 1:

Schematic example of an ecological network (Source: ECNC)

Core area

Restoration area

Stepping stone corridor

Linear corridor

Bufferzone

Landscape corridor

Core area

Core area

50

Scientifically, the concept is rooted in island theory and meta-population theory, both of which provide insight in the survival chances of isolated populations (Bennett, Wolters 1996: 11). Politically, it is linked to wider trends in nature conservation policy making:

• The drive to take a wider approach to nature conservation, recognising that the traditional ap-proach of focussing on the protection of individual sites and species would in the long run not be sufficient, and that semi-natural areas and the wider countryside were of crucial importance for the survival of species.

• The wish to make nature conservation policy making more strategic, to develop consistent plan-ning instruments which would set priorities for a longer period of time, based on transparent crite-ria and latest insights in ecology.

In the 1980’s, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the former Czechoslovakia were among the first coun-tries where conservation and landscape ecologists working on the borderline of research, planning and practical conservation action started exploring the notion that the fragmentation of habitats in their countries could be counteracted by creating buffer zones, stepping stones and corridors. Hungary and the Baltic Republics followed a few years later.

It is worth noticing that the countries where the ecological network idea was born have some charac-teristics in common: they are among the smaller countries in Europe, they have relatively few areas of ‘undisturbed’ nature, but large semi-natural areas and areas of agricultural land use. They also have in common that the national government had a strong role in developing and implementing nature conservation policy, and that there is a tradition of centralised rural planning.

Interest in ecological networks as a policy concept initially remained limited to a small number of countries. Especially larger countries and countries with relatively large areas of un-fragmented na-ture had difficulties to see the relevance of ecological networks at any scale. In the past years, this has begun to change. There are now ecological network initiatives in a large number of European countries, including countries that were initially hesitant or critical of the concept such as France and Spain. Often initiatives in these countries are on the regional level; in Germany and the UK, however, the development of a national ecological network is now making its way into national policy.

3 International ecological networks

There are also initiatives to develop ecological networks at the international level. For the purposes of this paper the Emerald Network, Natura 2000 and the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN) are most relevant.

In June 1989 the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention adopted a recommendation aimed at the development of a network of areas (the Emerald Network). The Bern Convention provides a framework for the international designation of important sites inside and outside the EU; it also en-courages the conservation or restoration of ecological corridors although it does not require their ex-plicit designation (Council of Europe 2004).

Although the EU’s Natura 2000 process up till now focuses on the designation of sites, the concept of ensuring ecological connectivity is incorporated in the legislation on which is it based (the Habitats Directive). This rather ambivalent character is the result of a political compromise achieved during the drafting of the Habitats Directive between proponents and opponents of the ecological network con-cept.

In 1991, final discussions on the EU Habitat Directive coincided with the Netherlands’ Presidency of the European Union. The Netherlands strongly backed efforts to achieve consensus concerning the Habitat Directive and the establishment of Natura 2000. However, a difference of opinion occurred when the Netherlands suggested to introduce ecological corridors into Natura 2000. A number of

51

Member States already felt that the claims made for nature conservation under the draft Habitats Di-rective were too excessive and would jeopardise economic development. The European Commission had reservations as to whether it would be wise to introduce an even more ambitious ecological net-work concept in the European conservation policy arena. In the end, a political compromise was reached: the concept of coherence between Natura 2000 sites was introduced into the Habitats Direc-tive, without imposing on the Member States a formal obligation to identify and designate corridors (European Commission 1992; Rientjes, Roumelioti 2003: 15).

Until very recently, the European Commission remained slightly wary of any plan to establish a Euro-pean Ecological Network including corridors before Natura 2000 is fully implemented. However, the recent review of the EC Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan showed that attention is growing for the issue of ecological connectivity in the framework of Natura 2000 implementation (European Commis-sion 2004).

The PEEN was introduced at the 3rd Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference in Sofia (1995), where the plan to develop a complete ecological network (i.e. including core areas, corridors, and buffer zones) for the whole of Europe was endorsed by the European Ministers of the Environment. The underlying philosophy of the PEEN is to promote synergy between existing nature policies, land use planning and rural and urban development; it is not as such a new policy instrument in its own right. Activities are undertaken within the political framework of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, but there is no legal or mandatory obligation for the European states involved in the PEBDLS process to contribute to the establishment of PEEN. Recently, commitment to the PEEN initiative was reaffirmed in the Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity (Fifth Ministerial Conference-Environment for Europe 2003) which set the following aims:

• By 2006, the PEEN (core areas, restoration areas, corridors and buffer zones, as appropriate) in all States of the Pan-European region will be identified and reflected on coherent indicative Euro-pean maps, as a European contribution towards a global ecological network.

• By 2008, all core areas of the PEEN will be adequately conserved and the PEEN will give guid-ance to all major national, regional and international land use and planning policies as well as to the operations of relevant economic and financial sectors (UN-ECE 2003).

4 Appreciation of the ecological network concept in Europe today

A survey among researchers and policy makers in the field on nature conservation (carried out by the European Centre for Nature Conservation in 2002) indicated that widely in Europe, ecological net-works are considered to be relevant for the protection of habitats and species, at least in theory. Prac-tical relevance is considered highest if a network focuses on specific species or habitats, and does not exceed a specific level of geographical scale. The regional (i.e. sub-national) level is considered most appropriate for the development of ecological networks, followed by the local and the national level. International ecological networks are considered effective, particularly if they have a well-defined bio-geographical basis such as an international river or a border-crossing mountain range. There are some doubts about the possibilities to create an effective international ecological network without such a clear bio-geographic focus. Ecological networks are considered to be relevant for most ecosystem types, but effectiveness is considered to be medium for alpine systems, and low for the marine ecosystem (Rientjes, Roumelioti 2003: 23).

The survey indicated that conservationists are in general positive about the practical relevance of ecological networks for their country, and about the feasibility of developing such networks. Respon-dents from larger countries are just as likely to consider national ecological networks feasible as re-spondents from smaller countries. However, respondents from countries with a federative structure are slightly less likely to consider national ecological networks feasible than respondents from non-

52

federative countries. This would indicate that doubts about feasibility, and relevance, are not as such related to the size of the area to be covered by the network. These doubts could be related to the legal or administrative problems that are foreseen when an ecological network covers different admin-istrative areas or ‘jurisdictions’ (Rientjes, Roumelioti 2003: 26).

Creating an ecological network on paper is relatively easy, but developing the network on the ground can be (and is) extremely difficult. Lack of resources, insufficient understanding of the concept among key decision makers, and insufficient expertise to explore the concept adequately rank high in the list of experienced problems. The availability of data apparently causes fewer problems in reality than expected, whereas the translation of the concept from the national to the regional level proves more difficult.

Developing an ecological network means involving land-users, economic sectors and other govern-mental departments. Experiences show that researchers and conservation NGOs are most outspo-kenly positive about ecological networks, closely followed by conservation policy makers and own-ers/managers of existing protected areas. Planning departments and the forestry sector take a more or less neutral position. Farmers and other landowners are most clearly critical, but during the process of network development these ‘opponents’ of ecological networks have been known to move from ‘critical’ to ‘neutral’ or ‘supportive’ (Rientjes, Roumelioti 2003: 27-28).

5 Establishing the Pan-European Ecological Network

The survey carried out by ECNC shows that PEEN is considered to provide an added value com-pared to other international conservation initiatives. However, its ‘formal’ status in international nature conservation policy remains somewhat unclear. This applies especially to the relationship between PEEN, Natura 2000 and the Bern Convention. For some, Natura 2000 and PEEN are so closely inter-twined that the implementation of Natura 2000 is equivalent to the first phase of establishing PEEN (identifying the core areas), with the Bern Convention providing a legal framework outside the EU and

From the international to the regional level: Practical approaches to achieve a PEEN

In 2001, ECNC published a map which indicates the possible location of core areas and corri-dors of the PEEN in Central and Eastern Europe. Potential core areas were identified based on an inventory of sites designated under international conventions and frameworks (Ramsar, Bern Convention, Natura 2000 etc.) and other key sites such as important bird areas. The map also indicated existing ecological corridors, such as rivers, and tentatively located the areas where other corridors could be developed to ensure connectivity between the core areas. The map provides a framework for the development of national and regional ecological networks which will take into account international connectivity requirements (Klijn, van Opstal, Bouwma 2003).

A good example of regional cross border cooperation in the development of ecological networks can be found between Hungary and Croatia. The two countries are involved in developing an ecological network in the Danube-Drava area, which will incorporate the Hungarian Duna-Drava National Park and the Croatian Kopacki Rit Nature Reserve. Based on a joint exercise of data gathering, mapping and planning, concrete plans were developed to establish a continuous wa-terway from the Hungarian side, via the international waters of the Danube to the innermost wa-ter bodies of the Croatian nature reserve. Restoration works were carried out (such as remov-ing man-made barriers, building new habitats, and improving water movement between differ-ent parts of the sites) that ensure the ecological connectivity of this river system and allow it to function as a real ecological network.

53

the Accession Countries. Others see Natura 2000 and the Emerald Network merely as a first step in the establishment of PEEN core areas and feel that other areas could also be part of PEEN. Within the European Commission there are some reservations concerning the desirability of actively pursu-ing the establishment of PEEN as long as the implementation of Natura 2000 is not completed. As long as core areas are not designated and protected under a legal framework, practical problems are foreseen with creating a functional and sustainable ecological network on a European scale (Rientjes, Roumelioti 2003: 16-17).

Generally, a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches is considered necessary to estab-lish PEEN. Practical implementation of ecological networks can only be done on a fairly limited geo-graphical scale, and the building blocks of PEEN would be national and regional ecological networks. However, there is little support for the idea that PEEN will develop automatically if and when all coun-tries of Europe have developed national ecological networks. Experience shows that the development of national or regional ecological networks is not consistently placed in an international perspective, even when the network is being developed in a border region. Therefore establishing a PEEN will require a certain amount of top-down guidance to ensure that ecological connectivity across Europe is eventually achieved (Rientjes, Roumelioti 2003: 33-37).

6 Challenges for the future

One challenge will be to provide this top-down guidance without introducing a heavy structure of in-ternational regulation and the ensuing bureaucratic burden on all involved. Initiatives such as the de-velopment of indicative maps of sections of the PEEN can play a constructive role in this process, by making national and regional policy makers aware of the fact that they can contribute to the develop-ment of transcontinental ecological corridors. At the same time, such maps will provide the necessary guidance to bridge the gap between regional and national initiatives on the hand, and international initiatives on the other. An even more important challenge is to promote that the concept of ecological connectivity is integrated into policy-making at the local, regional, national and international levels, and that policies are developed and implemented in consultation with relevant stakeholder groups.

References

Bennett, G.; Wolters, R. (1996): A European ecological network, in: Nowicki, P. et al. (eds.): Perspec-tives on ecological networks, Tilburg, 11-17.

Bennett, G.; de Wit, P. (2001): The development and application of ecological networks: a review of proposals, plans and programmes, Amsterdam.

Council of Europe (2004): The Emerald Network, a network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest for Europe [Online] Available: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Cooperation/Environment/Nature and_biological_diversity/Ecological_networks/The_Emerald_Network/02General_information.asp#TopOfPage

European Commission (1992): Council directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Brussels.

European Commission (2004): Message from Malahide: halting the decline of biodiversity – priority objectives and targets for 2010, in press.

Klijn, J. A.; van Opstal, A. J. F. M.; Bouwma, I. M. (2003): Indicative map of the pan-European Eco-logical Network for Central and Eastern Europe, Tilburg.

54

Rientjes, S.; Roumelioti, K. (2003): Support for ecological networks in European nature conservation, Tilburg.

United Nations – Economic Commission for Europe (2003): Report of the fifth Ministerial Conference Environment for Europe, Geneva.

55

German-Polish co-operation on nature conservation, particularly with regard to Natura 2000 Georg Moskwa

1 Introduction

Poland´s countryside has great natural value in terms of biodiversity. The current state of the preser-vation of nature is relatively good. Co-operation between Germany and Poland with respect to envi-ronmental protection and conservation of nature is based on the treaty on friendly neighbourhood of June 17, 1991. Since then two bilateral committees on conservation of nature have been in place. Implementing the European Natura 2000 network is one of the most important objects of this coopera-tion.

2 A personal report about German-Polish co-operation on nature conservation in general and Natura 2000 in particular

2.1 Biodiversity in Poland

The current state of the preservation of nature in Poland is relatively good. The country has a large share of rural areas with great natural value. Nevertheless, there are deficiencies in the fields of legis-lation, implementation, and administration. Before explaining this in more detail, I will address Po-land's efforts to preserve its natural beauty.

According to the European biogeographical classification Poland belongs to the continental region, with the exception of the Tatra and the Krkonose/Karkonosze Mountains, which are part of the alpine region. The first Polish national park “Bialowieza” was already established in the 1920’s and was fol-lowed by many more: The most recent national park “Warta Estuary” (Ujscie Warty) was established just three years ago. At the moment there are 23 Polish national parks, most of which meet the re-quirements for being classified as national park (category 2) of the World Conservation Union IUCN. All national parks are managed centrally from Warsaw. Since they are outside the sphere of influence of local governments, their status compares to that of extraterritorial areas.

The nature reserves (rezerwaty przyrody) are also centrally managed by the national government. Their status as well as the status of nature monuments is comparable to those in Germany. A wide-spread form of nature conservation is the so called “landscape park” (parki krajobrazowe) which can be established by the voivode, a state deputy in a Polish province. The aims and regulations of a “landscape park” may vary strongly. Currently, there are more than 100 “landscape parks” in Poland, and their design ranges from a nature park to a national park in the German sense. The weakest form of a Polish nature reserve is a “landscape protection area” (tereny chronionego krajobrazu), often dubbed as “conservation of nature on paper”.

In the past, the less intensive cultivation of large areas of former national agricultural enterprises (most of them in northwest Poland) caused interesting types of “passive renaturation”. This process was accelerated after the political change in the early nineties by the privatisation of the national agri-cultural enterprises. Some parts of the former agricultural areas have been transformed into protected areas, e.g. in the lower Odra valley and in the Warta Estuary (Ujscie Warty) region.

56

Although there are remarkable efforts to conserve nature in Poland, the preservation of nature strug-gles with deficiencies and threats: the Polish administration in charge of the preservation of nature suffers from a “scarce staff policy”. Often, a so-called voivodship-nature-conservator has no more than three employees at his disposal to take care of an area the size of the German federal state of Brandenburg. This is the case, for instance, in the voivodship Western Pomerania. Low wages and the political strategy of replacing employees after a change in government result in weak incentives for staff members, and hence to a negative selection in this labour market with little hope for im-provement.

The Polish administration of nature protection lacks financial resources as well as instruments in order to translate its ideas into action. Moreover, it is still common thinking in Poland that nature is a com-mon good, which should be made available to everybody without any charge. The authorities there-fore cannot apply impact mitigation regulations, compensatory measures nor fines or monetary com-pensations for impairments of nature. In case of conflicts nature conservation is often inferior to pow-erful interest groups who are promoting traffic and water infrastructure projects as well as conven-tional forestry. There is only a sporadic financial support by the Polish National Fund for Environment. Moreover, since the authorities in charge of nature conservation form part of the overall state admini-stration, they do not have access to external financial sources by law. Finally, the cooperation with private institutions and the establishment of public-private partnerships such as leagues failed be-cause of a mutual lack of confidence.

The co-operation between nature conservation administrations and NGO’s is making painfully slow progress. The reasons for this can be found on both sides: For example, the modernisation of the “Polish Nature League”, an old and traditional organisation, is not effectuated consistently. Most of the conservationist clubs are not respected by the administration, because of their often enthusiastic but unprofessional members. What is more, it is not unusual that this organisation is tainted with corrup-tion. However, WWF opened an agency in Warsaw a few years ago. Since then, WWF has been suc-cessfully developing a well-structured NGO-platform in Poland, thereby setting an example for the leagues as well as for the Polish administration.

Finally, I would like to address the administrative cooperation between Brandenburg and Poland con-cerning environmental protection and conservation of nature.

2.2 German-Polish co-operation in terms of nature conservation in general

The cooperation between Germany and Poland with respect to environmental protection and conser-vation of nature is based on the treaty on friendly neighbourhood of June 17, 1991. In this context the German-Polish Council of the Environment was founded. This cooperation is effectuated by different councils, supervised by the Council of the Environment and by the neighbourhood commission as its executive organ.

In Brandenburg, deputies of the ministry for Agriculture, Environment and Spatial Planning and the State Environment Agency play an active role in all relevant bodies. Last but not least, Brandenburg holds a special position in the German-Polish cooperation due to its 260 km long border with Poland. However, Brandenburg coordinates its decisions closely with the German Federal Ministry of Envi-ronment as well as with the federal states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saxony (which also share borders with Poland). In order to intensify cooperation with the adjacent Polish voivodships, i.e. the voivodships Szczecin, Gorzów Wielkoposlki and Zielona Gora, Brandenburgs first environment minister Matthias Platzeck signed a joint declaration with the Polish voivodes in August 1996. This declaration has been renewed and confirmed by his successor Dr. Eberhard Henne, after the admin-istrative reform in Poland in 1999. This declaration has also been signed by the voivodes and mar-shaleks of the new voivodships Zachodniopomorskie (Western Pomerania) and Lubuskie.

57

The bilateral Polish-German committees on conservation of nature include

• the German-Polish council “Internationalpark Lower Oder” and

• the German-Polish team “Transboundary Conservation of Nature”

Both institutions are chaired jointly by the German Federal Ministry of Environment in Berlin and the Ministry of Environment in Warsaw. The annual meetings take place alternately in Germany and Po-land. The cooperation is based on mutual information on recent developments, on implementation and realisation of common projects, as well as on the solution of relevant problems.

These are some examples of joint Polish-German projects in the field of nature protection:

• The creation of transboundary protected areas in the Lower Odra Valley, and

• supporting the WWF initiative “green ribbon along the rivers Oder/Odra and Neisse/Nysa”.

2.3 German-Polish co-operation regarding Natura 2000

In the year 2000 a joint “German-Polish Handbook of Nature Protection” was published. The Hand-book gives insights into the legislative framework as well as into technical terms, structures and actors in the field of nature protection in both countries. The Natura 2000 network plays an important role therein. Some of Brandenburg’s Special Protected Areas (SPA’s) under the Birds Directive and some of the Sites of Community Importance (SCI’s) under the Habitat Directive are located along the rivers Oder and Lausitzer Neisse adjacent to Polish landscape reserves. This offers the opportunity to ex-tend the status of these areas in Poland, since the country has entered the EU.

Actors form Brandenburg shared their experiences with Natura 2000 with Polish partners through discussions, lectures and publications.

The German federal states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saxony also gave a copy of their list of proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI’s) to the Polish officials.

The first draft of the Polish list of pSCI’s from 2001 showed a far-reaching conformity with the list for Brandenburg. However, the proposed areas in Poland were usually larger than those in Brandenburg. By the end of 2002 we finally got a revised version of the Polish list of pSCI’s. Early in 2003 the Polish Ministry of Environment presented the Natura 2000 concept in all 16 voivodships.

Brandenburg´s Ministry of Environment got the chance to participate in two of the regional presenta-tions, which took place in the voivodships Zachodniopomorskie (Western Pomerania) and Lubuskie. There we noticed that only the deputies of the water management and forestry adminstrations, both of which are supervised by the Ministry of Environment, were present. Nevertheless, there was enough opposition from these deputies to force the Polish minister to solve the open conflicts with Natura 2000 with us in September 2003. From my point of view this meeting was successful for both sides.

At the moment Poland, is revising its national list of pSCI’s for the second time. Hopefully, not too many areas along the border will be removed from the list.

Poland’s Accession to the European Union will give a new drive to cross-border cooperation. For sev-eral years now Brandenburg has been supporting the Polish voivodships along the border through workshops and internships in our ministry for Polish civil servants. In the last two years, four of the participants came from the administration of Polish national parks. Their main interests were on envi-ronmental protection, Natura 2000 and wildlife preservation. Brandenburg supports the Polish coun-terparts not only in the fields of environmental protection and conservation of nature, but also in the field of agriculture. We will continue to offer joint workshops on topical issues of EU environmental legislation, as well as on immediate cross-border projects based on the EU Community Initiative IN-TERREG.

58

3 Future tasks

Poland has made the first steps in realising the Natura 2000 network since it became a EU Member state in May 2004. The national list of pSCI’s is much smaller than proposed in 2003. Perhaps it represents the first part of a “stet-by-step” strategy. We are optimistic. The cooperation of the two bilateral committees on nature conservation, the German-Polish council “International Park Lower Odra” and the German-Polish team “Transboundary Conservation of Nature” will be continued.

References

Moskwa, G.; Fleckenstein, M. (1993): Strukturen der Naturschutzverbände in Deutschland, Swiebod-zin: Lubuski Przeglad Przyrodniczy.

BfN (= Bundesamt für Naturschutz); BBN (= Bundesverband Beruflicher Naturschutz) (2000): Deutsch-polnisches Handbuch zum Naturschutz, Bonn and Warschau.

Moskwa, G.; Buryn, R. (2000): Europäisches Netzwerk NATURA 2000 – Erfahrungen aus Branden-burg mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Internationalparkes Unteres Odertal, Szczecin: Cong-ress report of Szczecin University.

Moskwa, G.; Zyska, W. (2000): Europäisches Netzwerk NATURA 2000 in Polen, insbesondere West-pommern, Szczecin: Wojewodschafts-Umweltbericht.

Moskwa, G. (2002): Bilanz der brandenburgisch-polnischen Zusammenarbeit im Bereich Umwelt und Naturschutz (= Schriftenreihe der Landesakademie für öffentliche Verwaltung Brandenburg, vol. 2), Neu Fahrland.

Moskwa, G. (2002): Brandenburgisch-polnische Zusammenarbeit im Bereich Umwelt- und Natur-schutz – Kontinuität und Entwicklung (= Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie, vol. 32), Cottbus.

Moskwa, G. (2003): Gemeinsam bewahren: Deutsch-Polnischer Naturschutz im Überblick (= Bran-denburger Agrar- und Umweltjournal 14), Potsdam.

59

Part III

Natura 2000 geodata management

60

61

GIS for Natura 2000: Harmonised data management and access to information1 Danny Vandenbroucke

1 Introduction

In January 2000, the European Commission launched a project called “GIS for Natura 2000”. Its aim is to bring together all spatial and related information on Natura 2000 sites of Europe in one single system. The resulting database should make it possible for Commission staff and in the long run eventually for a larger public, to consult information on the geographical extent of the Natura 2000 network.

Natura 2000 will include around 15,000 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) according to the Habitat Directive, and around 3,000 Special Protection Areas (SPA) according to the Birds Directive. Alto-gether they will cover between 12 and 15 per cent of the territory of the European Union2. To ensure that the obligations deriving from the Directives are met, both the Commission and the interested par-ties within the Member States need ready access to information about the location and characteristics of Natura 2000 sites.

The paper describes the background of the “GIS for Natura 2000” project and the work carried out so far. It indicates the type of problems related to the construction of the Natura 2000 geographical data-base and data harmonisation issues in particular. The paper also explains how the system will or could be used for handling complaints and monitoring the network by integrating it with other high quality spatial data.

The “GIS for Natura 2000” project is a clear example of the need for a European Spatial Data Infra-structure (ESDI). The article develops some ideas on how the application of the INSPIRE3 principles could help to resolve data harmonisation problems as well as problems in accessing nature informa-tion in general.

2 The “GIS for Natura 2000” project

The project called “GIS for Natura 2000” has been set up to establish an operational database and to develop a system to exploit the data and make them of use for the work of European Commission officials and other users.

The data about the sites are compiled by the competent national authorities and submitted to the European Commission.4 It comprises: (1) a paper map and data form for every site, (2) a descriptive database in Microsoft Access for the information on the site and (3) a digital spatial data set of the

1 The article is based on a project of the European Commission (DG ENV). SADL/K.U.Leuven R&D is the con-

tracting party for this project. 2 These figures refer to the 15 ‘old’ Member States. 3 INSPIRE = “INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe”, a project of the European Commission. 4 The standard data form (SDF) used to provide these data has been defined by the Commission Decision of

18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites, OJ L 107, 24/4/97.

62

respective site.5 The final aim of the GIS project is to construct an integrated Natura 2000 database with the spatial delimitations of the sites that can be connected to the descriptive database mentioned above.

Figure 1: Example of a site with some of its descriptive information (Sweden)

The construction and management of the geographic data layer of Natura 2000 is done through a collaborative effort between the Directorate-General Environment of the European Commission (DG Environment), the Institute for Environment and Sustainability of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the GISCO service of EUROSTAT. DG Environment is calling upon the services of the Spatial Appli-cations Division of Leuven / Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Research & Development (SADL/K.U.Leu-ven R&D) for the validation of the data and the integration of the data in one database, and to develop the system. The management of the descriptive database is done by the European Topic Centre for Nature Protection and Biodiversity (ETC/NPB). The project was prepared in 1998-1999, while the validation of data and the construction of the database started at the beginning of 2000. The project is now in its fifth year.

All the spatial data are delivered to the European Commission at scale level 1 : 100,000 (or the near-est available scale), exceptionally at a smaller scale (e.g. 1 : 250,000), often at a larger scale (e.g. 1 : 25,000 in the case of topographic maps and up to 1 : 1,000 in the case of cadastre maps).

One would think that bringing similar data from different Member States according to well defined scientific criteria is a straightforward process. But it is not. A lot of problems were encountered when receiving the data from the Member States. It is not the aim of this paper to line out all the details of these problems. However, some of them are due to the lack of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure and should at least be mentioned:

5 The digital spatial data are not an obligation, but in reality all the Member States do provide this information to

the Commission as well.

63

• Spatial data is often in different formats (a problem which can be resolved quite easily).

• There is a lack of meta-information.

• Different projection systems are used and information on the parameters used is lacking.

• Delimitation defined on the basis of different kind of topographic maps.

In addition, there are several data harmonisation issues: In general, data harmonisation is guaranteed through the SDF for the information regarding the species and habitats of the sites and for all other descriptive information (based on the annexes of the Directives).

Figure 2: Example of data harmonisation problems at the Finnish-Swedish border

However, the spatial data harmonisation is not as straightforward as one could expect. Member Sta-tes often define the boundaries of the sites on field inventories, on topographic and/or cadastral maps, on CORINE Land Cover classifications or on a mixture of all of these. As a result, the way the de-lineation is done differs. Some Member States define large areas containing the habitats to be pro-tected, whilst other Member States delimit the boundaries of the habitats themselves. Figure 2 shows an example at the Finnish-Swedish border. The Swedish government decided to define a complex hydrological network including some specific habitats very precisely, while the Finnish Government decided to define the same habitats in a very rough way. For monitoring the network this does not change a lot since what counts is what happens in and close to the site(s), but nevertheless it would have been better to define sites in the same way. The European Commission developed some tech-nical guidelines, but they leave room for interpretation and they do not cover such aspects.

Another problem is related to the validation and quality assessment of the data itself. The validation process is a long and complex process, comprising different steps. In the initial stages of this activity, a validation of the paper maps and of the digital spatial data provided by the Member State is re-

64

quired. The first validation is needed since the paper map remains, together with the paper form, the only legal reference document.6 This validation comprises the following steps:

• Verification of the completeness of the maps to ensure that, for each site, a map has been offi-cially sent to the European Commission.

• Verification of the usability of the paper maps for validation of the spatial digital data (such as well known reference points, projection information, scale, readability etc.).

• Verification of the completeness of technical information of the spatial digital data (such as projec-tion information, proper site coding etc.).

All this information is stored in catalogues and analysed in detail. This first stage results in a report for the Member State, indicating whether the information received is fit for use, and ready to be validated in detail. In the second stage, the digital geographic information for every single site is validated. It comprises the following steps:

• Running the GISVal module7 to compare the spatial digital data of the Natura 2000 sites with the descriptive database and the GISCO reference database8 (EUROSTAT).

• Evaluation of the shapes of the sites in digital format and of the sites on the original paper maps.

This second stage results in another report for the Member States. All the sites where differences are found between the different sources of information for the area, position and shape, are reported as being potentially erroneous. The GIS functionality is also used to verify some of the other parameters as defined in the descriptive database: altitude, distribution of land and water, NUTS9 region(s) in which the site falls, relation with the CORINE10 biotopes and relation amongst the sites.

By the end of 2003, 12,501 sites were validated. 10,502 of them succeeded all the tests. The reports and remaining problematic sites are discussed between the technical staff of the respective Member States and SADL/K.U.Leuven R&D which is acting on behalf of the DG Environment. In some cases the problems related to an error in the descriptive database, e.g. a wrong area value, and sometimes to errors in the spatial database, e.g. if shapes were wrongly digitized. The differences can also be due to the fact that sites were redefined but not updated in the database, or because marine areas are not digitized but taken into account for the calculated area of the descriptive database, etc.

It is expected that the geographical information of the remaining sites will be validated before the end of 2004. Only then will the complete Natura 2000 spatial layer be prepared for integration into the GISCO database.

From the experience of the last five years, it became clear that intense collaboration between the Commission and the Member States is crucial. The active validation procedure including collaboration with Member States has improved the flow of data, resulting in increased awareness of how to avoid anomalies and inconsistencies in the data provided.

6 In fact, the future digital information system can only be used when the digital sites corresponds entirely with

the paper information. 7 GISVal is a tool written in the Avenue language of ArcView by the Joint Research Centre of the European

Commission. 8 GISCO is the Geographic Information System of the European Commission (see http://www.europa.eu.int/

comm/eurostat/ for more details). 9 NUTS = Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales, the territorial classification system of the European Union. 10 CORINE = CoORdination of INformation on the Environment, a former project of the European Commission.

65

3 What will the “GIS for Natura 2000” be used for?

Alongside the development of an operational geographic data layer, a user-friendly GIS application has been developed by the JRC and was implemented by SADL/K.U.Leuven R&D. Its functionality was determined in the first place through a user needs assessment. An intranet application is under development and will allow full (read-only) access to the data and other useful background informa-tion. It is intended to make the same information available to the general public over the internet through an EU-portal. To make full use of the latest GIS technology, the database with descriptive as well as with spatial data is currently transferred to a geo-server environment.

3.1 Different use cases

The Natura 2000 information system currently being developed is intended to satisfy the need for managing and disseminating a broad range of information on protected sites and therefore can be used to support different activities.

In the first instance, the establishment and the follow up of the Natura 2000 network is a heavy task which demands a lot of information. The system should cope with the needs to evaluate, to assess and to report on areas proposed or designated for Natura 2000.

On the other hand, this kind of system should allow the European Commission to offer information on Natura 2000 sites to the general public, provided that the dissemination of data is not putting at risk the conservation of habitats and species hosted by the sites.

The user needs assessment carried out in the European Commission revealed the existence of six main types of database use. In the next paragraphs, three of the most common cases are described: Handling complaints, evaluating LIFE-nature projects and providing opinions on co-financed projects.

• Handling complaints: Currently, DG Environment is dealing with more than 1,200 formal com-plaints. Of these, 50 to 60 per cent are directly or indirectly related to nature conservation prob-lems. One has to add to this all the written and oral questions tabled by members of the European Parliament as well as petitions. Below, this will be illustrated by an example.

• Evaluating LIFE-Nature11 projects: The key task in evaluating a LIFE-Nature project lies in the verification of the type of the site(s) (SPA or SAC) and of the boundaries of the site(s). Other ele-ments that might need crosschecking include the distribution of cited species across Europe, the overlap with existing LIFE-Nature projects, the eligibility for community funding, etc. Visualization of related data on the screen is the most important functionality to be incorporated in the GIS ap-plication. In some cases, LIFE projects are also subject to complaints. This is an additional reason to incorporate information on LIFE projects into the system from the beginning.

• Providing opinions on co-financed projects: In some cases, DG Environment is requested to pro-vide an opinion regarding proposed projects under one or another Commission funded program12, since they may have a considerable – often negative – impact on the natural environment. For this task, the visualization of the area affected by the proposed project and its relative position to one or more Natura 2000 sites needs be verified. This can serve as basis of an impact assess-ment. The display of additional data about the area in question might also assist DG Environment to identify areas that should have been designated as Natura 2000 sites, but have not or not yet been proposed by the respective Member State.

11 Regulation (EC) 1655/2000 Official Journal (O.J. L 192 of 28/7/2000). 12 Typical examples are the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, Trans European Networks, etc.

66

3.2 Handling complaints

An element of major importance for handling a complaint obviously is the presence or absence of a Natura 2000 site in the area concerned. In case there is a Natura 2000 site in place at the location under examination, retrieving all available information about it is a prerequisite to evaluate the rele-vancy of the complaint. Furthermore, the availability of information about sites and projects that are operational in the surrounding area may be of key importance to handle the complaint in question correctly. The ability to display this information, together with the visualization of nearby locations for which a (similar) complaint has been filed, will contribute to a better understanding of the overall situa-tion of the area in question.

C O MMU N E A

Site X

Commune A

Farmers’ interventionLand cover (main classes)

DISCONTINUOUS URBAN FABRIC

NON-IRRIGATED ARABLE LAND

PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED LAND

COMPLEX CULTIVATION PATTERNS

LAND PRINCIPALLY OCCUPIED BYAGRICULTURE, WITH SIGNIFICANTAREAS OF NATURAL VEGETATION

SHRUB AND HERBACEOUS VEGETATIONASSOCIATIONS

TRANSITIONAL WOODLAND-SHRUB

BEACHES, DUNES, AND SAND PLAINS

SPARSELY VEGETATED AREAS

PEATBOGS

SALT-MARSHES

SALINES

WATER COURSES

WATER BODIES

COASTAL LAGOONS

ESTUARIES

UNCLASSIFIED LAND SURFACES

source: EUROSTAT-GISCO and DG ENV 0 1 3 km Figure 3: Example of a complaint related to nature conservation and agricultural practices in a wetland

It is often not sufficient to know merely the location of Natura 2000 sites. Additional background infor-mation sometimes proves to be essential in order to formulate a correct and just answer to the com-plaint that has been filed. The listing below gives an impression of what additional data are to be checked:

• In which administrative region is the location of interest situated?

• Which (major) roads run through the area of interest?

• How do the altitude and the slope vary?

• Where cities or villages located and what are their population numbers?

• How are different types of land cover or land-uses distributed in the area?

• Where are potentially polluting industrial nuclei situated?

• Does the location of interest lie in an area eligible for community funding?

67

In the example illustrated in figure 3, agricultural practices were considered as conflicting with eco-logical systems. In the complaint, reference was made to activities that could lead to the drainage of the lagoons in part of this area: farmers blocked the entrance of the lagoon area to prevent the salini-sation of their agricultural land. The CORINE Land Cover raster version of 100 metres was used to indicate the land cover classes, such as agricultural land, lagoons, wetlands and rivers, and saline land. Although this only gives a temporary snapshot for the year 1990, it makes it possible to locate the problem. The agricultural areas are located very close to and even within the Natura 2000 site. The figure also makes clear that the activities blamed for the potential drainage of the area took place inside the site, in the northern part of the lagoon (see the spot on the map). This last element can be derived from the relative position of the commune A. From the descriptive database, information can be extracted regarding the nesting populations, the habitats, etc. In this example, the information sys-tem could provide sufficient information to understand the problem and to formulate an opinion. How-ever, this is not always the case as will be illustrated in the next chapter.

4 Need for a European spatial data infrastructure

In general, answering complaints requires a lot of data, not only from the Natura 2000 database but also information that often can be found on typical topographical maps, as well as thematic and even statistical data. In the first test cases to handle complaints carried out at DG Environment, it became evident that data at different scale levels are needed, from the global or European scales to the local scale. At the same time, the data needed should be dynamic: Natura 2000 sites themselves, but also the surrounding areas evolve continuously. Finally, it also became clear that from an organizational point of view there is a need for a strong collaboration between the European, the national and re-gional level to cope with data issues: exchange and harmonisation of data, standards, procedures, etc.

4.1 From global to local

As explained before the Natura 2000 data sets are usually at scale 1 : 100,000 as specified by the data forms which accompany the Directives. Member States should provide the Commission with a paper map at least at that scale. But in reality, the Natura 2000 sites are very different in size. Sites can vary from less than 1 ha up to 550,000 ha! In reality, the very small sites were defined at scales between 1 : 50,000 and 1 : 1,500. In some cases the information provided to the Commission (paper map, digital data) were at that scale, too. In other cases the Member State provided the Commission with a generalized version of the information at the scale of 1 : 100,000.

This means that, in general, the Natura 2000 data can only be used together with some of the GISCO reference data, i.e. the SABE layer (municipalities) and CORINE Land Cover which are also at scale 1 : 100,000. But since some of the sites are very small and at a more detailed scale, more detailed topographic data are needed, too. This is especially true since the type of questions to be answered require this more detailed data.

One example to illustrate this is the Monte Russu site (ITB000006) in Sardegna. There were some discussions regarding the boundaries of this site. The regional authority provided via the Ministry in Rome not only the boundaries of the Natura 2000 site, defined at scale 1 : 100,000, but also a scanned topographic map at scale 1 : 250,000. The European Commission wanted to know whether a new settlement area would touch or even be within the Monte Russu site.

As can be seen from figure 4, the topographic map does provide a precise position of the road along the coast. In reality the road lies partially outside the site and forms at some places the border of the

68

site. To have an idea of the differences, the same road was added from the GISCO road layer (1 : 1,000,000). None of the additional data sources can be used as could be expected.

Figure 4: Monte Russu site in Sardegna

On the basis of this example, it is clear that more detailed and integrated data are needed. Especially relationships between spatial objects should be part of the data, e.g. indicating that a site boundary is a border of a commune at the same time. It became also clear that one should use cartographic data such as the (old) scanned topographic maps very carefully. Even when the scale is more appropriate, the positions of the objects are a function of the cartography and thus are not necessarily at the real position of the spatial object.

Another specific problem is that although the descriptive information about the natural features hosted by sites is stored in the descriptive database, their precise position within the sites is not. It would be very useful, for the habitats and species to be monitored, to know the place where they can be found within the site.

In several cases, these more detailed data are available from LIFE projects. An example is given in figure 5. It refers to the site Val Grande in Italy. Data that are available in one coherent database in-clude amongst others: soils, vegetation, management practices, ownership, etc.

All these examples show that there is a need for data at different levels: from global scale to local scale. Data at scale level 1 : 100,000 (and smaller) can be used to locate the site and the problem under investigation. Some of the data from the GISCO database like CORINE Land Cover and the SABE layer can be used for this purpose.13 Additionally, in collaboration with the Member State or the region concerned, it is possible to obtain more detailed data of the surrounding area and the site in 13 Sometimes, it is even useful to take the data sets at scale 1 : 1,000,000 to have a better understanding of the

general situation in a region, especially when the data are linked to statistics.

N2000 Site : ITB000006 MONTE RUSSU

0 1 20,5 Kilometers

SARDEGNA

ROADS

URBAN AREAS (CLC)

69

question to get a better picture of all the spatial aspects. Although LIFE and other EU funded projects have already proven to be good instruments to provide additional information, the use of harmonised data and standards and the link to the European Spatial Data Infrastructure (ESDI) are becoming crucial.14 All levels from global to local should be involved to put in place all the necessary technical and organizational specifications.

Figure 5: Site Val Grande, additional information about the ownership within the site

4.2 The need for dynamic data: the time aspect

If GI/GIS want to play an important role in supporting policies at any level, the time issue has to be considered somehow. ESDI also needs to tackle the fact that many existing attempts to create pan-European data have created layers which are static and do not respond to the dynamics of the spatial phenomena in question. A good example of this is the CORINE Land Cover layer which was gener-ated in the mid-nineties and gives the coverage of the land roughly at the end of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties respectively. The European Environmental Agency is currently preparing a new version which will give the status of the land at the end of the nineties and the beginning of the new century respectively.

First of all, the time dimension includes the future, i.e. the planned measures. For policy preparation and assessment of policy measures, all the planning layers should be integrated in the long run. This is also the case for the nature policy of the European Union. When deciding on a proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCI) or when monitoring the accepted sites, it is of utmost importance to have the information on plans of the other sectors (and probably vice versa): planned roads with the different alternative routes, extension of urban or industrial zones, new leisure infrastructure, specific

14 Of course, the existing data from LIFE projects are not consistent between Member States and very few EU-

wide layers exist at scales more detailed than 1 : 100,000. This stresses the need for an ESDI.

PARCO NAZIONALE VAL GRANDE

70

agricultural practices, etc. The GISCO database already contains information about certain aspects of planned infrastructure, e.g. roads and railways that will become part of the Trans European Network. However, it was detected that it is not always the latest or final planned infrastructure. Therefore it should be envisaged to foresee special temporary layers with the different alternatives envisaged during the planning process (see fig. 6 for an example).

Figure 6: Planned motorway A20 in Germany with different alternatives for crossing the river Peene site

Secondly, with regard to monitoring and managing Natura 2000 sites, there is a need for regular up-dates of the information on the status of the sites. This is now done through updates of the data in the descriptive database. Every form can be changed at several occasions (e.g. change in habitat). But it is very difficult to make an in-depth assessment without having the spatial changes over time within the sites.

The following example will illustrate this. In 2000, the Administration for Environment, Nature, Land and Water Management of the Flemish Government carried out an in-depth study for the lake areas in the Province of Limburg, Belgium. These areas include several Natura 2000 sites. The aim was to collect historical information about the vegetation within these areas and to carry out a trend analysis for a period of more than 50 years. Air photographs from 194515, 1957, 1970, 1983 and 1998, with scales ranging from 1 : 15,000 to 1 : 27,000, were integrated in one database and classified according to twelve vegetation and land cover classes. For the zones close to the borders of the lakes, even more detailed classes were defined.

In the table below, the overall evolution of the main types of vegetation and land cover are given for the areas around the lakes and for the lake areas itself.

15 Photographs from 1945 originate from the Secret Military Service of UK, the others from the National Geo-

graphic Institute of Belgium.

71

Class 1998 1983 1970 1957 1942-47

Agriculture 1.3 2.4 1.7 7.1 20.3

Grassland 25.1 28.6 38.7 46.2 29.3

Buildings 12.9 10.4 6.2 2.6 1.5

Forest and wood 55.3 48.6 42.7 23.1 19.1

Heath 2.8 6.5 7.6 14.2 22.2

Bog 0.8 1.3 1.8 3 1.2

Brushwood 0.7 0.9 0.1 2.1 4.1

Shrub 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.8

Other 0.5 0.8 0.7 1.5 0.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 1: Percentages of main vegetation and land use classes in the zones around the lakes in Limburg

Class 1998 1983 1970 1957 1942-47

Dense vegetation 20.0 16.1 18.9 9.3 10.9

Scattered vegetation 4.4 6.7 8.1 11.8 6.6

Open space 8.2 7.3 11.8 22.8 26.6

Open water 36.4 39.9 27.5 19.0 17.2

Water vegetation 6.1 5.2 9.3 14.1 15.9

Shoreline vegetation 24.9 24.8 24.4 23.0 22.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 2: Percentages of detailed vegetation and land-use classes in the zones near the lakes of Limburg

Some interesting conclusions could be made from the figures in the light of what is needed in an ESDI:

• There is a clear dynamic process of land cover change over time. For example: heath is disap-pearing. We know on the basis of the overlay of the time series, that heath was converted into woodland. While, despite the fact that there are relatively strict zoning plans and that building of houses and other infrastructure is restricted, the built-up areas extended, even in the last 15 years. It would be interesting to have a new set of airial photos for the current period to verify whether this trend goes further and thus whether the nature policy has an impact.16

• Although there are data on general trends over a period of 55 years, it is remarkable to see the sometimes abrupt changes between two periods. This is due to the fact that changes in land cover are influenced largely by human activity which can take place in a very short period of time. For example, the open water surface is increasing and decreasing very locally: sometimes lakes are deflated for one or another reason and vice versa. Of course this has an impact on the habi-tats and species that can be found there.

• Part of the lake areas covered by the study were defined as a Natura 2000 site in order to pre-serve the thin reed zones at the edge of the lakes that house some rare birds species. Since these birds did occur more frequently in the past, it was thought that this was because in the past broader reed zones existed. The study suggests that this was not the case. But what is confirmed is the decrease of scrub and brushwood, together with the fact that the borders were more ‘streamlined’. Probably the reed zones are only used for brooding, while the other zones are used

16 In most cases, such photos exist across Europe.

72

for other activities. Because of the decline of the latter, the species disappeared too. This could lead to the conclusion that other measures are needed on top of the existing ones.17

In the above example of the lake areas in Limburg, one can conclude the need to integrate time se-ries for spatial data, especially for land cover, land-use and vegetation data sets. Also in this case, the European level should collaborate within an ESDI for exchanging data, results of studies, etc.

4.3 The INSPIRE initiative

The early experiences of the “GIS for Natura 2000” were – together with some new insights in the GI world – used to launch the INSPIRE initiative in 2001 to tackle the problems of data harmonisation, of the use of standards and of access to spatial information in general. The INSPIRE initiative does not need to be described in detail, but the basic philosophy shall be outlined briefly since it should result in the future in an easier access to spatial information, including information regarding nature conser-vation.

INSPIRE stands for “INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe”. The vision paper states: “The INSPIRE initiative intends to trigger the creation of a European spatial information infrastructure that delivers to the users integrated spatial information services. These services should allow the users to identify and access spatial or geographical information from a wide range of sources, from the local level to the global level, in an inter-operable way for a variety of uses. The target users of INSPIRE include policy-makers at European, national and local level and the citizens and their organisations. Possible services are the visualisation of information layers, overlay of information from different sources, spatial and temporal analysis, etc. The spatial information infrastructure addresses both technical and non-technical issues, ranging from technical standards and protocols, organisational issues, data policy issues including data access policy and the creation and maintenance of geo-graphical information layers for a wide range of themes, starting with the environmental sector.” (Eu-ropean Commission 2002)

INSPIRE is based on 6 key principles. These are supposed to guarantee easy access to harmonised data:

• Data should be collected once and maintained at the level where this can be done most effec-tively.

• It must be possible to combine seamlessly spatial information from different sources across Europe and share it between many users and applications.

• It must be possible for information collected at one level to be shared between all the different levels, e.g. detailed for detailed investigations and rather general for strategic purposes.

• Geographic information needed for good governance at all levels should be abundant and widely available under conditions that do not inhibit its extensive use.

• It must be easy to find out which geographic information is available, fits the needs for a particular use and under what conditions it can be acquired and used.

• Geographic data must become easy to understand and interpret because it can be visualised within the appropriate context and selected in a user-friendly way.

INSPIRE should make it possible to develop European, national, local and cross-border applications in the field of nature, disaster management, spatial planning, etc. The programme is under implemen-tation now: several position papers were written and agreed upon, a legal initiative is under way at the European level and several pilot projects are elaborated – including cross-border projects – to test the standards and architecture. The “GIS for Natura 2000” project will be further developed according to the INSPIRE principles (use of Web Mapping Services and Web Feature Services in an OpenGIS

17 However, it is concluded that more investigation is necessary before coming to an absolute conclusion.

73

environment). The project will cooperate with stakeholders in the Member States and with the Natura GIS project18 which intends to bring nature information to a broader public through web services.

5 Conclusions

The “GIS for Natura 2000” project reveals the need for a comprehensive and complete database if the information system is to be used to monitor the status of Natura 2000 sites and when impact assess-ments are to be carried out.

It will be necessary to integrate not only the global scales between 1 : 1,000,000 and 1 : 100,000, but also the local scales between 1 : 50,000 and 1 : 1,500. It is also clear that for carrying out impact as-sessments, the time dimension should be integrated in one way or another. There are two elements with respect to this: the need for historic data, regular snapshots of land cover, land use, etc., and the need for layers of planned infrastructure like roads, housing, etc. (with their alternatives).

A collaborative approach is proposed so as to be able to gather all the information on the Natura 2000 sites and the more detailed local information as well. Therefore, the “GIS for Natura 2000” project should rely on the work done in the framework of INSPIRE and ESDI with regard to standards, work-ing procedures, metadata, etc. It could be a first step to foresee this already in the EU funded pro-jects.

The “GIS for Natura 2000” system described above should be seen as the first contribution at EU level to establish an infrastructure which would enable all stakeholders to make wider use of spatial information in order to define, implement or monitor nature protection policies.

The success of the project launched by the European Commission will require first to complete it as initially foreseen and then to integrate it into the INSPIRE initiative. Once the designation of Natura 2000 sites will be finished, additional duties requested by EU nature legislation are also to be fulfilled. More and better data are needed to complete the system which can no longer exclusively address the needs for information on the Natura 2000 network, but on the whole set of EU nature policies and measures. The construction of such a system should become integral part of the construction of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure.

At this point, one should consider:

• The urgent need to define metadata for nature protection policies data according to European standards.

• To think about protocols to list and divide tasks to build “GIS for Natura 2000” as part of the ESDI. If standards and protocols are clear, they could be integrated in the LIFE program.19

• To define really interoperable systems via internet and the need to subscribe with the new Natura 2000 system to this strategy.

• It would be desirable to focus initially on the implementation of topographic data layers that could be the basis for many and diverse projects, across different scales.

The INSPIRE initiative will create the framework for implementing this.

18 “Nature GIS” is a project of the 5th European Research Framework Programme. 19 Not all the LIFE projects necessitate a GI component. However, it is highly desirable.

74

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Administration of Environment, Nature, Land and Water Manage-ment of the Flemish Ministry, Belgium, for allowing the use of the results of the vegetation inventory and trends analysis of the Lake District in the province of Limburg.

Thanks also to Amandine de le Court, SADL/K.U.Leuven R&D for their contribution to the article and the preparation of the maps.

References

European Commission, Directorate General of Environment (1997): Natura 2000 Standard Data Form and accompanying Explanatory Notes [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/natura_2000_network/standard_data_forms/pdf/jol_en.pdf

European Commission (2002): INSPIRE vision, Brussels.

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2004): EC GI & GIS Web Portal [Online] Available: http://www.ec-gis.org

De Roeck, E.; Vandenbroucke, D.; Salsi, A.; Peedell, S. (2001): Land Cover in the context of the Natura 2000 network, in: European Environment Agency (ed.): Towards Agri-environmental indi-cators, Topic report 6/2001, Copenhagen, 60-74.

Vandenbroucke, D.; Neys, L.; de Belder, J.; Wellens, J. (2002): Vegetatiekartering en trendanalyse in het Vijvergebied Midden-Limburg en aanpalende vijvergebieden (= final report for the Administra-tion of Environment, Nature, Land and Water Management), Hasselt.

Weiers, S.; Wissen, M.; Bock, M.; Schade, B. (2000): Integration of satellite data in a habitat monitor-ing GIS – case study from Northern Germany, in: European Commission (ed.): Proceedings of the 5th EC-GIS workshop, Stresa, Italy, 28-30 June 1999, EUR 19018 EN.

75

Natura 2000 geodata flow in the Czech Republic Ludvík Škapec, Michal Tomášek and Jan Zárybnický

1 Introduction

Setting up of the Natura 2000 network has been a challenge for nature conservation, especially with regard to data collection and processing. It was necessary to elaborate a methodology and to gather data representing the whole area of the Czech Republic. However, experience was available mainly from studies performed at the local level, e.g. inventories and management plans for Specially Pro-tected Areas or the delineation of the territorial system of ecological stability. But there were also ex-periences with CORINE Biotopes and Emerald projects that could be used for Natura 2000 geodata flow planning.

Some information about the occurrence of species of Community interest was available in existing databases. However, most information had to be extracted either from literature review or from former mappings and data collections, which had to be revised and verified in the field. The acquired data then were digitized.

The nation-wide mapping of habitat types of Community interest had never been performed in the Czech Republic before the Natura 2000 project started. Nevertheless, the team of experts could build on published phytosociological works, phytosociological surveys and inventories, the Red List of Plant Communities (Moravec et al. 1983, 1995) and the Czech National Phytosociological Database (Chytrý 1997). All the information sources with the exception of phytosociological database were stored in an analogue format.

The aim of this article is to outline the importance of the geodata flow for the whole process of prepar-ing the technical national list of proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI’s) – from data gather-ing and preparation through the delineation of sites up to the finalisation of the list. Therefore the arti-cle describes the process of selecting pSCI’s in the Czech Republic by the Agency of Nature Conser-vation and Landscape Protection (AOPK) as well as the utilized geodata sources, and it explains the function of geodata in this context. Finally, the limitations of geodata utilization are summarised and possible remedies are proposed.

2 Establishing a geographic database for Natura 2000 in the Czech Republic

Figure 1 gives an overview on geodata sources that are used for establishing the Natura 2000 net-work. Those sources are taken both for the delineation of sites and for filling in the Standard Data Forms (SDF’s). A Geographic information system (based on GIS software products from ESRI) is used as the standard tool for handling spatial and tabular data.

76

2.1 Integration of already existing data

The mentioned spatial data sources are part of existing information systems in the field of nature con-servation as well as in other related sectors. Most are available in ESRI software formats (ArcView shapefile or Arc/Info coverage). If necessary, GIS software supports the conversion of the digital data into this data formats.

The information system of the Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic (ISAOPK) comprises internal primary geodata sources. The systems consists of sev-eral modules (Kopecká 1996), including inter alia: Specially Protected Areas, Fund of Lands in Pro-tected Areas, Species Data, Territorial System of Ecological Stability, Landscape Programmes, Bio-logical Diversity and Intranet. Data from three modules (Specially Protected Areas, Species Data, and Territorial System of Ecological Stability) were used for the delineation of pSCI’s and completion of the SDF’s.

The geographical databases for forest management and from the Hydroecological Information Sys-tem of the T.G.M. Water Research Institute (HEIS) were used as external geodata sources. Forest Management Plans and Regional Plans of Forest Development have been important sources for the delineation of sites and completion of the SDF’s. Layers from HEIS (Protection Zones of Water Re-sources, Protected Areas of Natural Water Accumulation) were used additionally to complete the SDF’s.

Digital topographical products were successfully applied in habitat mapping and site delineation, es-pecially a rasterized topographic map at a scale of 1 : 10,000 (ZABAGED2) and black-and-white orto-photographic maps (from 2004 colour ones). A digital contour model was used for the altitude descrip-tion in the SDF’s.

2.2 Research projects on databases for nature conservation

According to article 11 of the Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC, a proposal for the surveillance of species and habitats of Community interest is being prepared in the framework of the national research and development project No. 610/04/01 (Monitoring of the specially protected species of wild flora and fauna and of natural habitat types important for the legislation of the European Communities). One of

Figure 1:

Natura 2000 geodata sources in the Czech Republic. ISAOPK – Information Sys-tem of the Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection; HEIS – Hydroecological In-formation System; LHP – Forest Management Plan; OPRL – Regional Plan of Forest Development; SDF – Standard Data Sheet; ZABAGED2 – rasterized topographic map in a scale of 1 : 10,000

77

the results of the project shall be a proposal for the structure of a geographical database that could be used for storing and processing surveillance data.

The outputs of another national R&D project (No. 620/2/03; Inventory of national categories of small-scale Specially Protected Areas) shall be used for maintaining the favourable conservation status of pSCI’s. One of the supposed results will also be the formation of a geographical database.

2.3 Mapping species and biotopes

As a next step, the extracted and newly collected species data (topographic location and other de-scriptive population parameters) were digitized. Both the layer with the localities and the database were stored in a parallel way in the ISAOPK module “Species Data”. The ZABAGED2 layer was used as a basis for digitization.

The project on biotope mapping has been coordinated by the AOPK since 2001. The aim of the pro-ject was to gather data on the distribution and quality of biotopes in order to prepare an expert pro-posal of Natura 2000 sites for the protection of habitats. The catalogue of biotopes that was published by the AOPK (Chytrý et al. 2001) and elaborated by experts from universities and the Academy of Science, provides detailed descriptions of all biotope types of the Czech Republic. It serves as a manual for mapping. The developed national codes of biotopes are compatible with the habitat types listed in annex I of the Habitat Directive. Hundreds of experts with a botanic background have partici-pated in the mapping project.

The outputs of the Czech biotope mapping programme comprise the following elements:

• Delineation of biotope segments in topographic maps at a scale of 1 : 10,000 and on translucent paper.

• A database of biotope segment attributes according to annex III, part 1 of the Habitat Directive.

• Final report for each mapped territory.

• A set of vegetation relevés and the photographic documentation.

Figure 2: Areas in which the biotope mapping has been completed by April, 2004

78

Until now AOPK has taken over 2,303 final reports, including databases and 3,310 map sheets (see fig. 2), from hundreds of participating experts. The biotope mapping programme will be finished in 2004.

A comprehensive system of vector data processing was developed stage by stage on the basis of changing input conditions (modification of the methodology, “technological insubordination” and forced data verification, reclassification etc.). Especially the urgency of verification of various types of data required substantial programming effort. New functions and tools were programmed by means of the programming language Avenue, which is incorporated in the ArcView software. Tools are organ-ized in an ArcView project. The procedure of geodata processing in GIS medium is illustrated in fig-ure 3.

Figure 3: Biotope data processing

Biotope segments are divided during the automatic vectorization of scanned maps into three layers – a point layer; a line layer; and a polygon layer. The final output layer comprises only of polygons (see fig. 4). Punctual and linear biotope segments (e.g. springs, small rivers), which have been repre-sented in the first place as points and lines, have been converted into polygons in a second step. This was achieved by buffering them according to the estimated values of the point area or line width in the database.

79

Figure 4: Output polygon layer of biotopes mapping

3 Technical national list of proposed Sites of Community Importance

3.1 Delineation of sites

Site boundaries were delineated only for habitats of Community interest. The boundaries of pSCI’s for the protection of species had already been marked in the original data used. Therefore, only partial adjustments were needed for cases with unsuitable original delineation. Rasters of ZABAGED2, orto-photographic maps and biotopes mapping layers were involved in the adjustment process.

PSCI’S for the protection of habitats were delineated based on the quantitative and qualitative evalua-tion of variables (inter alia biotope distribution, biotope area, representativity, conservation status) received during biotopes mapping. Control parameters are strictly defined in the manual “Guidelines for the sites proposal” (Anonymous 2003) and they are incorporated in the developed software tool (ArcView project). The main result is the set of individual habitat site layers together with the accom-panying reports, which are deposited in the site data warehouse.

3.2 Selection of sites

A modified analogue approach according to annex III, part 1 of the Habitat Directive (Anonymous 2003) leading to a set of individual species layers was used for the selection of pSCI’s for the protec-

80

tion of species. Those layers are overlaid and integrated. The distribution of individual species is shown in a composite layer, i.e. a layer of species richness.

The selection of pSCI’s for the protection of habitats is performed again on the basis of the quantita-tive and qualitative evaluation of variables received during the biotopes mapping. Selected sites are merged into the single output layer.

3.3 Technical national list of pSCI’s

The origin of the technical list is documented in figure 5. The process of layer creation connected to site delineation and selection is also apparent from the scheme. The layers of the technical list are the result of integrating selected species and habitat sites, which are differently processed with geo-graphic analysis tools.

Figure 5:

Integration of selected species and habitat sites. A – animal species; H – habitat; P – plant species

The procedure includes several phases:

• Several layers with sites for the protection of different animal species are united, and result in an integrated animal layer.

• The integrated animal layer is united with the plant layer, and together they result in an integrated species layer. This integrated species layer retains intersected boundaries of the original sites.

• Habitats from biotope mapping data are delineated and selected in a habitat layer.

• The integrated species layer and the habitat layer are united, and result in an integrated sites layer.

• Then a conservation aim layer originates by the reclassification of the integrated sites layer (see fig. 6). Additional information from the attribute table concerning the conservation aim (animal species, plant species, habitat and their combinations) is assigned to every polygon. The conser-vation aim layer shows very clearly for what reason a site has been selected – either for the pro-tection of animal species, plant species, habitat types or combinations of them.

81

• The conservation aim layer undergoes the GIS procedure “dissolving”, in which the boundaries within complexes of adjacent sites are deleted (see fig. 6). This leads to a final layer of pSCI’s. In-formation about the purpose of a site is typed into the attribute table (protection of species, pro-tection of habitats, or integrated site for the protection of both).

Figure 6: Layers of the national technical list of pSCI. Conservation aim layer: A – animal species; H – habitat; P – plant species; HA – habitat/animal species. pSCI layer: HS – habitat site; IS – integrated site; SSA – species site (animal); SSP – species site (plant)

4 Discussion

Internal and external geodata sources made a significant contribution to the proposal of Natura 2000 sites in the Czech Republic. Spatial data has been applied both in the planning process as well as in finalising the outputs, especially the SDF’s and the national list of pSCI’s. GIS can be considered as a standard tool of spatial data analysis and manipulation for the environmental sector in the Czech Re-public since 1992.

82

The use of existing geodata, and the creation of new, is non-centralised in the framework of the pro-ject. The geodata originate at the regions level, and the transfer of geodata is accomplished partly through the Internet. An intensive project has been launched concerning a Web-map server. There will be software applications for browsing existing data, but also for online-updating of data.

It was decided to use the scale of 1 : 10,000 as a basic scale for all purposes of Natura 2000 data capture. This to some extent limited the use of existing geodata, which were prepared to a smaller scale and thus did not have the required accuracy. However, there was also the opposite problem in those cases where geodata had been created in a larger scale. The latter requires model solutions, e.g. the transformation of biotope mapping data into forest maps.

The integration of data from different projection systems is not really problematic with regard to the application of geodata for transboundary cooperation, such as research projects or site management. Although there is no unified coordinate system in place in Central Europe, transforming and displaying the data in a GIS can be adequately dealt with. Moreover, major advances have also been achieved in converting data into different data formats.

The availability of geodata protected by copyright can be regarded as a more serious problem. Utiliza-tion of licensed geodata from external sources is manageable – user or project specific (e.g. black and white ortophotographic maps can be used only for Natura 2000 needs). It is necessary to extend license agreements for effective use of suitable data in the near future.

There is no doubt that geodata applications will play a prominent role in the future development of the Natura 2000 network. This requires defining standards for digital data quality and for the organisation of layers in a geographic database in order to achieve a better geodata management. Experiences from transboundary national parks like Krkonoše / Karkonosze, České Švýcarsko / Czech-Saxon Switzerland and Šumava / Bayerischer Wald, e.g. concerning frequently used layers, missing layers, and spatial accuracy, can contribute significantly to achieving a better geodata organisation.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. Pokorný, D. Vačkář, U. Walz and M. Leibenath for their helpful comments on a draft of the manuscript.

References

Anonymous (2003): Metodiky výběru lokalit do národního seznamu a jejich oponentura (Ms., AOPK ČR), Praha.

Chytrý, M. (1997): Česká národní fytocenologická databáze: počáteční stav a perspektivy, Zprávy České Bot. Společn., Mater. 15, 27-40.

Chytrý, M.; Kučera, T.; Kočí, M. (2001): Katalog biotopů České republiky, Praha.

Kopecká, V. (1996): Základní principy Informačního systému ochrany přírody ISOP (Ms., AOPK ČR), Praha.

Moravec, J.; Balátová-Tuláčková, E.; Hadač, E.; Hejný, S.; Jeník, J.; Kolbek, J.; Kopecký, K.; Kra-hulec, F.; Kropáč, Z.; Neuhäusl, R.; Rybníček, K.; Vicherek J. (1983): Rostlinná společenstva České socialistické republiky a jejich ohrožení. Severočeskou Přír., Příl. 1983/1, 1-110.

Moravec, J.; Balátová-Tuláčková, E.; Blažková, D.; Hadač, E.; Hejný, S.; Husák, Š.; Jeník, J.; Kolbek, J.; Krahulec, F.; Kropáč, Z.; Neuhäusl, R.; Rybníček K.; Řehořek, V.; Vicherek J. (1995): Rost-linná společenstva České republiky a jejich ohrožení. Severočeskou Přír., Příl. 1995, 1-206.

83

Data hunt – experiences in mapping Natura 2000 sites in border areas Sabine Witschas

1 Introduction

The Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Dresden (IOER) is not directly involved in the Natura 2000 designation process. Yet in 2003, a team of scientists started a research project to analyse especially the cross-border coordination of this network. To solve the related research ques-tions it was necessary to locate suitable border sections, which would exemplify the Natura 2000 des-ignation process and the problems of the related transboundary cooperation.

Searching for relevant geodata and exploring them lead to some general problems of cross-border cartography, as well as to specific questions concerning the Natura 2000 geodata flow. Conclusions concern the needs for geodata harmonisation on local, national and European levels.

2 General issues of cross-border cartography

IOER spatial research projects of the last ten years often focussed on transboundary areas along the German-Polish and the German-Czech border (see fig. 1). These efforts resulted not only in a number of maps and map series but also in valuable knowledge about issues of cross-border cartography concerning both geodata and geonames.

Figure 1:

Selected study areas of the IOER cross-border cartography – (striped areas: Natura 2000 case studies) (Source: IOER, Witschas 2003)

84

2.1 Geodata

Geodata represent an important base of spatial research. However, it usually takes several proce-dures to include geodata into a geographic information system (GIS). Transboundary mapping condi-tions influence each of these work steps (see fig. 2) in a specific way.

Figure 2:

Steps of the geodata workflow (Source: IOER, Witschas 2003)

The search for geodata covering both sides of a border normally leads to the approved responsible national geodata providers. Mapping cross-border areas soon reveals that national geodata sets such as national boundaries are not geometrically adjusted to each other. One consequence is that the lines in the map do not fit accurately into each other (see fig. 3).

Figure 3: Example of not adjusted administrative boundaries (Source: IOER, Witschas 2004)

Thus, geodata users appreciate homogenised geodata sets offered by European or global data pro-viders. On the other hand, these data sets often are not up to date (e.g. ESRI ArcData) or they lack large-scale and even medium-scale accuracy (EUROSTAT GISCO, the Geoinformationsystem of the European Commission).

Geo-portals or simple search engines support the search for special thematic geoinformation on the internet. In this case, knowledge of languages is necessary to input the correct translated search terms and to understand the delivered meta-information or potential copyright notices.

Since download possibilities are still scarce the purchase of the data normally takes time, which can be unacceptable for urgent map-making. Paying the invoice then should actually be the last step be-fore geodata workflow can start. However, there is one more obstacle to overcome: more and more providers supply their geodata with copyright restrictions. Thus, geodata users have to invest time and efforts to gain copyrights and they have to pay extra fees for this “license for use”.

Geodata sets acquired from different sources may have identical names but can have surprisingly different content. It is thus necessary to take a closer look at data quality, which is a result of the vari-ety of data collection techniques. The institutions in charge generate the data according to diverse criteria. They might capture the data at different points of time; use different regional statistical refer-ences, record differing features and characteristics as attribute data etc. Geometrically the geodata may vary in accuracy and projection parameters. Last but not least, a diversity of technical specifica-tions such as file format or file options complicates matters considerably.

85

Since especially cross-border maps have to present data generated by different institutions, it is nec-essary to scrutinise the specific data qualities and assure their comparability. GIS provide tools to assist geodata harmonisation (see fig. 4): re-projection tools support the geo-rectification of both raster and vector data, interfaces allow the transfer of file formats. Following a number of logical and mathematical operations, attribute data can be tuned to each other.

Figure 4:

Some data quality issues and GIS tools for harmonisation (Source: IOER, Witschas 2004)

In any case, geodata metainformation is necessary. Without this descriptive information about the data specifics, it is difficult or even impossible to evaluate the data quality and to accomplish the re-quired measures.

Even after comparing the geodata sets and harmonising them, they can still turn out to be less suit-able for GIS-aided data visualisation and processing. Inappropriate attribute field options within the data set can hinder proper queries or classification. To give a simple example: String attribute fields do not allow numerical requests. Another example is the widely used data set EUROSTAT, which is offered by the European Commission and which includes administrative borders only on the base of NUTS (Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistiques). Within this classification, Polish Woiwod-ships are equated with German districts (“Regierungsbezirke”) and with groups of districts (“krajs”) in the Czech Republic, which does not correspond to the hierarchy of administrative units.

The GIS procedures might also be hampered by language barriers as a typical cross-border issue. Unintelligible string values in the attribute tables or illegibly displayed type fonts hinder data analyses.

Maps usually become a part of the communication process. They are published in workshops, re-ports, and websites. According to the requirements of the users and the specifics of the publishing media, the map design has to be customised. Moreover, the publication of geodata is subject to the copyright of the data originator. According to ethical codes (e.g. URISA 2003) as well as rules of good practice for scientists, it should be sufficient to name utilized geodata and their originators in the map imprint. However, most of the national data originators insist on particular permissions for each publi-cation. Transboundary research projects have to face double efforts, time, and costs for such li-censes.

2.2 Geonames

For reasons of orientation and communication, geographic objects in maps appear with their individ-ual names which are called geonames or toponyms. In different language areas, the same geo-graphical entities may have different geographical names. The local name for an object within a lan-guage area is termed endonym (e.g. Warszawa). Outside this language area, the same object may have other names according to the respective language (e.g. Warsaw, Warschau). These variations are called exonyms.

86

Figure 5: Babylon in Europe

There are boards of experts which deal with the problems of geoname standardisation on interna-tional level such as the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) and “Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen” (StAGN – Permanent Committee on Geographical Names) which is working in the German language area. The printed and electronically distributed publications of these bodies recommend the use of endonyms. However, widely used exonyms can be provided additionally.

Transboundary maps can present English exonyms as an alternative to multilingual geonames. This certainly meets the requirements of international cooperation projects communicating in English. It also avoids trouble with the variety of diacritics. Country names and place names of capitals are sup-posed to be well known outside the English language area, but many other geonames demand trans-lation (e.g. Ore Mountains – Erzgebirge). Thus, more toponyms would be necessary.

The use of endonyms leads to problems of endonym availability, pronunciation aids and last but not least to the integration of special characters into digital map layouts. There are different technical so-lutions via UNICODE, table of symbols or keyboard options. However, not all procedures prove to be convenient or well engineered. There is still a lack of instructions or tutorials explaining the inter-dependencies between system software, application software, printer typesets etc. Special characters and diacritics are missing and require extra treatment. Therefore it is no surprise to find maps and other documents without diacritics and special characters.

2.3 Résumé

Due to the advancing transnational cooperation in an enlarging European Union, there is an increas-ing need for cross-border cooperation. Cross-border mapping does not only challenge the respective

87

cartographer. Communication technologies and geoinformation software generally support quick cross-border mapping. Technical developments and up-dates demand attention.

Improvements in data availability and accessibility depend on technical opportunities like those which the internet provides, but also on organisational conditions (e.g. horizontal and vertical coordination of Europe’s geodata providers) and on legal regulations (e.g. freedom of information legislation). Copy-right restrictions for geodata should be eased especially in the non-profit fields of spatial research and planning.

Geodata usability is subject to both data quality and data publishing regulations. Harmonisation of different data requires metainformation to evaluate the data quality and to accomplish the required measures.

Language is an issue affecting cross-border cooperation in general and cross-border mapping in par-ticular. Improving language skills and using endonymic geonames represent challenges to all mem-bers of society. Appropriate maps can support this process. Technical feasibility, e.g. the integration of suitable type fonts, is a precondition in this regard.

3 Natura 2000 geodata

In 2003, a team of IOER scientists started a research project to analyse especially the cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites. The research aim is to identify needs and potentials for trans-boundary nature protection measures at the borders between Poland and Germany and between the Czech Republic and Germany respectively, to analyse transboundary coordination processes related to Natura 2000 and to draw conclusions about supportive and hampering factors for these processes.

Solving these research questions required the location of habitat types and species of Community interest in selected border areas, which represent the basis for case studies. The basic intention relat-ing to geodata was to compare the occurrence of transboundary habitat types and species of Com-munity interest with the official proposals for Sites of Community Importance and to check whether they are congruent or to what extent there are discrepancies.

3.1 Creating a transboundary base map

It is desirable to use a consistent base map showing the main topographic features such as borders, surface waters, forests, settlements and transport infrastructure for each of the selected border areas. We have used a printed map, which had to be scanned and re-projected as a raster file, and serves as a background image (see fig 6). Existing digital geodata actually allow to generate such a base map, too. However, it takes a lot of time and efforts to find the necessary data, to process and design them – including the name labelling. Therefore, it is more efficient to use completely designed maps. The major problem was to find a map, which covered the study areas entirely on both sides of the respective border.

Unexpectedly, it took great efforts to integrate the Natura 2000 geodata as the desired thematic in-formation into the case study map.

88

Figure 6: Map of one of the selected border areas (GIS ESRI ArcView)

3.2 Integrating the Natura 2000 geodata

Mapping preliminary or officially proposed Natura 2000 sites implies the five geodata workflow steps described in figure 2. The generic cross-border cartography problems affect Natura 2000 geodata flow as well: For instance, one has to face technological, organisational and language issues in searching the necessary data (workflow step 1). The Natura 2000 geodata had to be acquired from the responsible nature protection authorities. The interlingual term “Natura 2000” permits the un-complicated usage of search engines on the internet, which leads to the relevant web pages on Euro-pean, national and sub-national levels. Basic language skills are indispensable because in many cases the information on the state of the process and the selected sites is not available in English.

Another problem concerning cross-border analyses is the fact that the process of selecting pSCI’s is not yet finished in any of the three countries Poland, Czech Republic and Germany. Thus, there is the risk that the acquired data sets are getting out of date very soon.

According to the European convention on access to information (Arhus Convention from 1998 and related national laws), environmental information is supposed to be freely accessible and in simple cases free of charge. That is certainly one reason for the large number of Natura 2000 websites. Un-fortunately, free access to ready-to-use Natura 2000 geodata is an exception. Purchase procedures and copyright restrictions demand selective measures.

The quality of all acquired Natura 2000 geodata sets has to be assessed. Fortunately, the wide-spread usage of ArcView made ESRI Shape files the common data format and avoids further trouble with data conversion. Yet the content (structure and information in the attribute tables) and geometry (projection, accuracy) of the different Natura 2000 data sets is not always comparable. Missing metainformation sometimes complicates the data harmonisation considerably. It can become an al-most excruciating procedure to identify projection settings or the political status of a list of sites.

89

Due to the variety of options within one projection, some visible deviations remained between several data sets. They can negatively affect the accuracy of GIS geodata analysis.

Natura 2000 geodata representing the state of the proposal in one country are available – but in dif-ferent forms and different technical qualities. Especially in online presentations, simple lists coexist with rasterised paper maps and web GIS applications. The crucial point for users of Natura 2000 geo-data is whether the sites are offered as “view only” (see fig. 7a) or as vector data sets “ready-to-use” in a GIS (see fig. 7b).

The quality of the published Natura 2000 geodata varies. Concerning, for instance, the spatial accu-racy there can either be precise geodata contour lines or only central co-ordinates (see EUNIS Euro-pean Nature Information System fig 7c). The included attribute information relating to habitats, spe-cies and protection aims show differences. The major problem is commonly the lack of metainforma-tion. The confusion about differing and partly contradicting data sets could have been avoided by appropriate metainformation about the complexity of the designation process in general.

Figure 7a:

Natura 2000 online information in Saxony – Web GIS presentation of view only vector data (Source: Natura 2000 Sachsen www.umwelt.sachsen.de, 2004)

Figure 7b:

Premium offer published secretly – Bavarian Natura 2000 vector data are ready for download (free of charge) (Source: Natura 2000 Bayern www.bayern.de/lfu/ natur/schutzgebietskonzepte/ffh, 2004)

Figure 7c:

EUNIS European Nature Information System displays the centroids of Natura 2000 sites (Source: EUNIS, http://eunis.eea.eu.int/index.jsp, 2004)

90

3.3 Geodata flow in the Natura 2000 network

The process of selecting and designating Natura 2000 sites according to article 4 of the Habitat Direc-tive is relatively straightforward (see “simple line” in fig. 8a): Each Member State has to propose a list of SCI’s, and then the European Commission establishes a final list of SCI’s in agreement with the Member State. Finally, the Member State designates the sites as Special Areas of Conservation.

Reality reveals that the Natura 2000 information flow is far more complex than the directive suggests, especially in a federal system like in Germany. The site selection is supported by other actors, mainly NGO’s, which make so-called “shadow lists” or preproposals (ppSCI). This way the originally linear information flow gets more “branches“ (see fig. 8b). The number of actors involved is reflected by the number of differing geodata sets existing simultaneously.

The European Commission does not always agree with the first national list of pSCI’s. In these cases the national lists have to be discussed and modified. This results in one or more sequels to the pro-posal procedure. The so-called “tranches” generate new, updated proposal lists and new geodata sets. In view of the number of Natura 2000 geodata sets which were created within one country, it is important to identify the correct date and state of the specific geodata sets. Since file names only seldom contain this information, additional metainformation is necessary.

The Natura 2000 geodata flow is part of the general information flow related to the Natura 2000 net-work. A specially designed Natura 2000 standard data form (SDF) which has been published by the European Commission (EC Natura 2000 standard data form) is the central document in this regard. Among others, it includes questions concerning the site location. According to the alphanumerical (non-graphical) concept of the information flow, this spatial information appears mainly numerical: longitude and latitude of the site centre location, area in hectares, site length in kilometres, minimum-maximum-mean altitude in metres, coverage of a NUTS region in percent.

Since all persons concerned have to know the precise extent of the sites, detailed mapping is indis-pensable. Thus, maps are required to accomplish the designation process. Some general require-ments concerning the digitizing scale and base map are part of the Natura 2000 SDF explanatory notes (EC Natura 2000 standard data form explanatory notes).

As GIS are very widely used, Natura 2000 geodata is mostly captured in a digital format on sub-national and national levels. However, there is no Natura 2000 standard for the technical specification of the output geodata, because the European Commission does not intent to complicate the national activities by too detailed prescriptions. Thus, the experts who are concerned with creating one unified European Natura 2000 dataset have to homogenise the variety of national datasets. Maintaining such a GIS for Natura 2000 brought up comparable experiences with geodata and metainformation as have been described above (Vandenbroucke, Peedell 2003).

91

Figure 8:

Natura 2000 designation process (FFH) – a = “simple line” of informa-tion flow, b = “branches”, and c = cross-border coordination of national proposals between different states (Source: IOER, Witschas 2004)

92

4 Conclusions

Natura 2000 started as a huge European project and, despite all difficulties, fortunately turns out to be successful. The obligation to implement the environmental aquis communautaire including Natura 2000 lead also to great efforts and results in the new EU Member States.

Geodata plays a decisive role in the selection and designation process. Topographic maps and the-matic environmental information represent the basis for site delimitation. The resulting proposals for Natura 2000, which are visualised in maps, become part of the communication process and enable or even enforce substantial coordination. Contrary, geodata might also hinder coordination – in case of non-availability, restrained accessibility, poor usability caused by data heterogeneity, missing metain-formation or copyright restrictions.

Considering these aspects, the question arose, whether the people in charge had considered that harmonisation of the Natura 2000 geodata is a vital issue of Natura 2000 cross-border coordination. The research and project experiences allow the following statements:

• Within one country, the “vertical” data flow seems consistent.

• The availability of Natura 2000 geodata is improving. The proof is a growing number of national and regional Natura 2000 online map presentations, e.g. in Saxony and or in the frame of the European online database EUNIS (see fig. 7c).

• The comparison of data sets from two and more Member States reveals harmonisation problems and thus a lack of horizontal coordination. Cross-border cooperation, especially in an early state of elaborating national lists of pSCI’s, seems to be not well considered or even solved.

Generally, geodata harmonisation is increasing in importance within transnational data flows. Techni-cal regulations such as standards and guidelines might be one way to achieve homogenised geodata. Whenever centralised prescriptions fail, only sufficient metainformation admits harmonisation proce-dures. Standards for metainformation on a European level are in preparation. The INSPIRE initiative “Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe” is going to develop a legal norm for European and national data infrastructures such as ESDI “European Spatial Data Infrastructure” and GDI-DE “Geo-data Infrastructure Deutschland”.

Unrestricted access to geodata is a precondition for qualified spatial analyses such as those neces-sary for Natura 2000 site designation. Recent studies prove the reasonability of low-cost or even no-cost geodata supply (Geoagentur 2003). Freedom of information (FOI) has become a topic in Euro-pean and national legislation. It should become practice to offer more data online, free of charge and without copyright restrictions. While the German Federal Government is still preparing a law on FOI, four German Länder (Brandenburg, Berlin, Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia) have already adopted FOI.

More transparency is necessary about the complexity of the Natura 2000 designation procedures. Being familiar with the “branches and tranches” and the different terms and abbreviations makes it much easier to identify the content and state of a specific Natura 2000 geodata file. People who work with Natura 2000 geodata can profit from open communication about their problems and achieve-ments.

Experiences concerning the Natura 2000 geodata flow should be utilised for similar European projects in the future. They can influence ongoing projects like INSPIRE. Finally yet importantly, they should be considered by those who are responsible for Natura 2000 network itself. Once a site is designated, it has to be maintained and to be kept under surveillance. Geodata can play an important role for both of these tasks. Basically, cross-border connections between Natura 2000 sites require transboundary coordination which includes harmonised geoinformation.

93

References

BfN – Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2004): Site selection and designation process at EU level [Online] Available: http://www.bfn.de/en/03/030302_euverfahren.htm

BKG – Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie (2002): Entgeltregelung des Bundesamtes für Kar-tographie und Geodäsie für landschaftsbeschreibende (topographische) Geobasisdaten [Online] Available: http://www.ifag.de/gi/Produkte_lief/Entgeltregelung.htm

BMU – Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit) (2004): Beteiligungsrechte im Umweltschutz – Was bringt Ihnen die Arhus-Konvention [Online] Available: www.wrrl-info.de/docs/broschuere_betlr_aarhus.pdf

EC – European Commission (1998): Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998 [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/aarhus/

EC – European Commission (2004): Bird protection [Online] Available: http://www.birdlife.org/action/awareness/eu_birds_directive/birdlife_directive.html

EC - European Commission (2004): Natura 2000 [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/mission_statement/index_en.htm (27.05.2004)

EC - European Commission (2004): Natura 2000 standard data form [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/natura_2000_network/standard_data_forms/pdf/en-notes.pdf

EC - European Commission (2004): Natura 2000 standard data form explanatory notes [Online] Avail-able: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/natura_2000_network/standard_data_forms/pdf/en-notes.pdf

EEA – European environment Agency (2004): EUNIS European Nature Information System [Online] Available: http://eunis.eea.eu.int/index.jsp

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2004): INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe [Online] Available: http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/

Geoagentur – Serviceeinrichtung des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Geowissenschaftler (2003): Was dürfen Geodaten kosten? [Online] Available: http://www.geoagentur.de/aktuelles/

Innenministerium Nordrhein-Westfalen (2002): Informationsfreiheitsgesetz (Law on freedom of infor-mation) [Online] Available: http://www.im.nrw.de/bue/56.htm

Meynen, E. l.; Schmithüsen, G. (1959): Handbuch der naturräumlichen Gliederung Deutschlands, Remagen.

URISA – Urban and Regional Information System Association (2003): A GIS Code of Ethics approved by the URISA Board of Directors [Online] Available: http://www.urisa.org/ethics/code_of_ethics.htm

Vandenbroucke, D.; Peedell, St. (2003): GIS for Natura 2000 – Example of the need for a European Spatial Data Infrastructure [Online] Available: wwwlmu.jrc.it/Workshops/8ec-gis/cd/papers/4_pa_dv.pdf (07.02.2004)

Witschas, S. (2003): Puzzle work – geodata and geonames, in: Cross-border Cartography. Proceed-ings of the German-Polish Workshop, Universität Greifswald (unpublished).

94

95

Part IV

Influencing factors for decision-making processes

96

97

Cross-border decision-making processes regarding Natura 2000: Some theses on key factors Gerd Lintz, Markus Leibenath

1 Cross-border coherence without coordination?

The directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 – “Habitat Directive”) calls for cross-border coherence of Natura 2000 sites. According to annex III, the fact whether an area belongs to a continuous ecosystem on both sides of a national frontier has to be considered in the process of selecting Sites of Community Impor-tance (SCI). However, this applies only to the second stage of the selection process (see fig. 1) in which the EU Commission assesses the national lists of proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI’s). Cross-border connectivity of sites can also be an issue with regard to the migration routes of certain animals that are mentioned in annex III.

Figure 1: Selection and designation of Natura 2000 sites (based on: Habitats Directive, art. 4)

Other than for instance the directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of wa-ter policy (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000) or the directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001), the Habitat Directive does not include any provisions for horizontal consultation or coordination processes be-tween the Member States. That is why any cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites takes place

Stage 1: Proposal of the Member State to the European Commission

Stage 2: Decision of the European Commissionin agreement with the Member State

Stage 3: Designation by theMember State

Proposed Sites of Community Interest (pSCI’s)

Sites of Community Importance (SCI’s)

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s)

98

in a regulatory void. Given this situation, the question arises how cross-border coherence can yet be obtained.

The basic assumption underlying this paper is that cross-border coherence needs coordination. The term coordination firstly means the coordinated designation and management of Natura 2000 sites. There can be two different cases in this regard (see fig. 2): In the first case, a single habitat or a popu-lation of a certain species extends across a border. The second type relates to fragmented habitats or populations that include several areas as for instance in the case of migrating species. A coordinated approach would imply to designate the entire transboundary habitat or set of habitats (see fig. 2, right side).

Figure 2: Coordinated designation and management of Natura 2000 sites across borders

The term “coordination” has yet another meaning that relates to processes: Coordinated designation and management of Natura 2000 across boundaries can hardly be obtained without transboundary decision-making processes.

The objective of this paper is to outline some theses on key factors for the success or failure of such coordination processes. Before doing so it is necessary to identify the relevant arenas of interaction. Basically there are two of them – a vertical arena between the EU Commission and the Member Sta-tes and a horizontal arena between different Member States (chapter 2). Based on this analysis, hy-potheses for both arenas are formulated. The hypotheses derived from theory are directly juxta-posed with some first empirical evidence (chapters 3 and 4). In the final chapter, conclusions are drawn (chapter 5).

2 Arenas for the cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites

Basically there are two types of arenas for the cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites: The first type includes all vertical coordination arenas between the different Member States and the Euro-pean Commission. The second type comprises horizontal interactions between national and subna-tional organisations from the Member States.

The European legislation that laid the foundations for Natura 2000 is a good starting point for under-standing the character of the vertical arena. The term “Natura 2000” was introduced only in the Habi-tat Directive as of 1992. However, article 3 of the Directive lays down that the network shall also in-

Natura 2000 sites without transboundarycoordination

Natura 2000 sites with transboundary coordination

99

clude those protected areas that have been designated according to the Directive on the conservation of wild birds (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 – “Birds Directive”).

The selection process of Special Protected Areas under the Birds Diirective (SPA’s) is simple com-pared to that of the SCI’s. The Birds Directive just obliges the Member States to put as many areas under conservatory status as are needed to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for those species listed in the annex of the Directive. The directive does not in-clude any further details regarding the selection process (Birds Directive, art. 2 f.).

In contrast, the provisions of the Habitat Directive are much more detailed. Moreover the scope of the directive is wider as it comprises not merely a single class of animals like the Birds Directive, but basi-cally all threatened wild animal and plant species as well as their natural habitats.

The so-called biogeographical regions play a major role in the process of designating Natura 2000 sites on the European level. The territory of the future 25 EU Member States plus the two Accession States Bulgaria and Romania has been divided into nine such regions. The Polish-German and the Czech-German border regions both belong to the Continental region.

The implementation process is based on two types of spatial units: the territories of the EU Member States and the biogeographic regions. It passes through several stages (article 4, Habitats Directive; cf. also Kehrein 2002: 3; Ssymank et al. 2003: 268 f.):

• Stage 1: The national governments submit lists of pSCI’s to the EU Commission. The original deadline for doing so was May 1995.

• Stage 2: The European Commission establishes lists of SCI’s in agreement with the Member States. To that end it organises at least two assessment seminars (“biogeographical seminars”) for each biogeographical region in which representatives of the European Commission, of the European Topic Centre for Nature Protection and Biodiversity (ETC/NPB – a subunit of the Euro-pean Environment Agency), of the respective national governments and authorities and of non-governmental organisation (NGO’s) as well as scientists participate. In case of insufficient repre-sentation of habitat types or species, the Member States have to revise their lists of pSCI’s until an agreement with the European Commission is reached. Phase 2 had to be completed by May 1998. The new EU Member States had to submit their national lists by the date of Accession.

• Stage 3: Finally the appropriate national authorities designate the SCI’s as special areas of con-servation (SAC’s) based on national laws. This had to be achieved by May 2004 (see fig. 1).

As there were substantial delays on the side of some Member States, the second biogeographical seminar for the continental region took place only at the end of 2002. The first seminar was held in March 2000 (Ssymank et al. 2003: 269).

The decision-making processes related to elaborating the national lists of pSCI’s differ significantly from Member State to Member State. They depend on the structure of the political system in general and on the organisation of nature conservation in particular. These selection and designation proc-esses are of a vertical nature because they mainly involve coordination between the European Com-mission and the national governments of the Member States. Depending on the degree of devolution within the Member States, the subnational level also comes into play, e.g. in the case of Polish voi-vodships and German Länder. The only arena for cross-border coordination between Member States within this vertical structure is the assessment of national proposals by the European Commission and the ETC/NPB. Theoretically these two institutions could check the national proposals for inconsis-tencies concerning cross-border coherence. Then they could try to push the Member States to modify their proposals in a way that cross-border coherence of sites would be guaranteed. The biogeo-graphical seminars seem to be of outmost importance in this regard because there the repre-sentatives of different Member States are meeting with EU officials, independent scientists and NGO representatives. Thus, the first arena for cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 is based upon the European Commission’s competency to assess the Member State’s proposals as part of the vertical selection and designation process (see fig. 3).

100

Figure 3: Selection of Natura 2000 sites in a multi-level and multi-actor setting (Nat. gov. = national govern-ment, Subnat. gov. = subnational government)

The second type of arena is horizontally oriented in the sense that it comprises interactions between actors from the national and subnational levels of the Member States, but not from the European le-vel. In the end, all forms of coordination of Natura 2000 sites that occur in these horizontal arenas are voluntarily because the Habitats Directive does not explicitly include any such obligation. But just by taking a first look at the Polish-German and the Czech-German borders a range of cross-border inter-actions concerning Natura 2000 becomes evident, for instance a Czech-German working group for nature conservation or informal Polish-German meetings. This underpins the observation that there are several different horizontal arenas for cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites between national and subnational actors from EU Member States.

The complex of cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites is an example of multi-level govern-ance. The term describes the phenomenon

• that decision-making is partly spun away from Member States – up to supranational institutions like the EU and down to diverse units of subnational government, and

• that public policy is developed and implemented through a broader spectrum of private and public agencies than those traditionally associated with elected government. As a consequence, part-nerships, networks and contracts have become integral parts of the political scene (Carmichael 2002: 5; Marks 1993: 402).

In the next two chapters some theoretical propositions on enabling and hampering factors for a suc-cessful coordination of Natura 2000 sites in both types of arenas will be introduced.

State b State c State a

Subnat. gov. Subnat. gov. Subnat. gov.

Other actors Other actors Other actors

Subnational level

European level EU-Commission Other actors

Nat. gov. Nat. gov. Nat. gov.

Other actors Other actors Other actors

National level

Vertical typeof arena

Horizontal typeof arena

101

3 Key factors for coordination in the vertical arena

The range of actors involved in cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites within the vertical tier is quite diverse as it includes not only actors from national and subnational levels but also from the European level. The following are the main groups of actors (see fig. 3):

• The European Commission

• The ETC/NPB as technical agency of the European Commission

• European NGO’s, e.g. WWF European Policy Office or the European Habitats Forum which is an association of all European NGO’s dealing with Natura 2000

• National and subnational governments

• Technical agencies on the national and subnational levels, e.g. the AOPK or the Saxon Environ-ment Agency

• NGO’s that are acting on the national and subnational levels

• Others, e.g. scientists from universities as well as local and regional stakeholders.

It seems advisable to distinguish between governments and their related technical agencies because they have different functions and views: Whereas government officials act mainly as politicians or at least as employees of a political executive authority, the representatives from technical agencies can judge from a scientific and more neutral point of view.

The actors of the subnational level are in most cases involved in selecting sites within the Member States. However, only the European Commission, the ETC/NPB, the European Habitats Forum, rep-resentatives from national governments, and independent scientists participate in the biogeographical seminars (EC-DGE, Ecosystems Ltd 1998: 1).

Having in mind that the provisions of the Habitats Directive concerning cross-border coherence relate only to the second stage of the selection and designation process, the European Commission plays a prominent role in ensuring that type of coherence. Concerning the resources of the European Com-mission, it has to be said that the Commission could control the formal implementation of the Habitats Directive into national laws with relatively little effort. However, to control the physical implementation of the Natura 2000 network is a much more difficult task that requires a lot of manpower and technical resources. In reality the Commission does not have sufficient capacities to manage such a task. The-refore this relies either on the willingness of the national governments to cooperate with each other, or on the “watchdog function” of NGO’s and attentive citizens (Knill 2003: 165-167 and 212).

Cross-border coordination can only be ensured in the vertical arena if the issue is on the agenda of the relevant actors. Furthermore the actors must attribute a greater importance to the issue of cross-border coherence than to other, competing issues and goals, e.g. to avoid conflicts with the Member States (Knill 2003: 167). Empirical analyses show that the European Habitats Forum, other European NGO’s as well as scientists did not put much emphasis on cross-border coherence during the bio-geographical seminars. The official conclusions of the second biogeographical seminar for the conti-nental region do not include any evidence that cross-border coherence would have been addressed there (EC-DGE & EEA 2002).

Finally, the European Commission would need a differentiated set of options to impose sanctions flexibly upon the Member States in case of irregular implementation. But the political options of the Commission in fact are limited, and after all not very flexible. The case of Germany illustrates this: The federal government submitted its list of pSCI’s in several “tranches” before the end 2001, which means that there was a delay of more than six years compared to the deadline fixed in the Habitat Directive. The European Commission still does not consider the German list complete, and urged the government to finalise its proposal by mid-2004. Moreover the European Commission took the Ger-man government to the European Court of Justice, which ruled against Germany in September 2001. The European Commission has not yet made use of the opportunity to again bring the case before

102

the European Court in order to have a lump sum or a penalty payment imposed upon Germany ac-cording to art. 228 of the EC Treaty. Ironically, such a payment probably would have to be borne by the federal government, although it has hardly any influence on the respective activities of the Länder who are in charge (Kehrein 2002: 5; SRU 2004: 118-135). This leads to the conclusion that the Euro-pean Commission relies largely on the means of argumentation and negotiation if it does not want to use the relatively harsh instrument of penalty, but there are no flexible sanction mechanisms avail-able.

Thus it is clear that a coordinated designation and management of Natura 2000 across national bor-ders requires horizontal coordination processes between the Member States.

4 Key factors for coordination in the horizontal arena

As already described, horizontal coordination of the designation of Natura 2000 sites refers to cross-border interactions of actors on the same political-administrative levels, i.e. on the national or subna-tional levels. In this respect all above mentioned actors can be involved except those on EU level. In contrast to vertical coordination which in the end is executed on the basis of order and sanctions in a hierarchical setting, horizontal coordination can only be achieved by voluntary cooperation (Kester-mann 1997). Apart from the EU Commission which surely wants the countries to cooperate, the ac-tors are entirely free to decide whether to inform each other about plans, to discuss goals and strate-gies or even to adjust their own proposals of Natura 2000 sites to the plans of the neighbouring coun-try or region.

Of course, as in the case of vertical coordination, the functioning of horizontal cooperation can not be taken for granted (cf. Kieser, Walgenbach 2003): it depends on several key factors. Firstly, extensive coordination implies e.g. that the sites are designated at the same time. That means that the countries have enough time to exchange information and that both sides are equally flexible so that adjust-ments of ideas and plans are possible. Then all parties involved can contribute to a common goal of effective and efficient nature conservation in the same way. Unfortunately, Germany has al-most completed its list of Natura 2000 sites. Thus extensive cooperation is not possible any more.

Secondly, drawing on simple insights of economic theory one can say that cooperation is more likely to occur when, from the perspective of the actors, the perceived benefits of coordinated nature con-servation are higher than the perceived costs (Fürst, Ritter 1993: 59 f.). Concerning the costs, one must generally state that Natura 2000 sites are quite often regarded as an obstacle for economic de-velopment. Therefore the countries or regions tend to minimise the costs of Natura 2000 by designat-ing sites which compromise plans of economic development the least. In this context coordination may necessitate to make sacrifices: to choose a site in the course of coordination which due to certain reasons has originally not been selected can lead to disadvantages.

The main benefits of coordination can be seen in more effective and more efficient nature conserva-tion on European level: important species and habitats can better be preserved for a sustainable de-velopment of the continent. One problem is that the retained or even increased ecological value even-tually benefits all Europeans and all European countries. So there is an incentive to become a free rider on the beneficial conservation and coordination efforts of other countries instead of eagerly con-tributing to the Natura 2000 network in the best way.

More favourable for cooperation are the gains which mostly benefit the cooperating country or region itself. Like coordinated nature conservation in general, Natura 2000 provides real opportunities for economic development, e.g. in the field of tourism (Ten Brink et al. 2002: 8-14). Clever coordination can safeguard or enlarge areas for nature conservation and recreation across the borders, making the region more attractive. Moreover, the mere fact of having Natura 2000 sites in a tourist region can be

103

used for marketing purposes (Leibenath 2001: 78-80 and 96-103). Unfortunately, the economic op-portunities of Natura 2000 are often not appreciated sufficiently.

It is important to point out that the costs and benefits of cooperation cannot be assigned to a country as a whole. In fact, in every country there are many actors who suffer or benefit from the coordination efforts, for instance land owners, road construction companies, tourists or environmentalists. The fac-tual coordinative behaviour of a country as a system of actors depends in the end on the interplay and the political power of the actors involved. In this context the employees of the environmental authori-ties need mentioning. They have a certain room to move concerning cooperation. Depending on their technical will or passion they can make a difference.

All in all we can assume from the national perspective that the costs of the cross-border coordination of the designation of Natura 2000 sites are more or less perceived higher than the benefits of coordi-nation. This already does not speak in favour of cooperation. But there is still a third key factor to be discussed. While the mentioned costs and benefits simply refer to the outcome of coordination, now the costs of coordination itself, the transaction costs, must be considered which also tend to impede cooperation.

This type of costs highlights the fact that effort is needed to perform economic transactions. If some-one wants, for instance, to buy clothes, he must know where to buy them. He must go to different shops. Maybe he must negotiate with the sales-person. And he has to make sure that in the end he really gets what he has ordered. The same costs occur in connection with cross-border cooperation. One problem in this case is that there are institutional asymmetries between the countries, e.g. differ-ent planning systems, so that someone who would like to start cooperating may not know to whom to talk. Of course there are also different languages which hamper cooperation as much as the different understanding of technical terms or different ideas and traditions of thinking about nature do (cf. gen-erally to Roch, Scott, Ziegler 1998: 41-49).

It is of utmost importance that these transaction costs can be reduced by institutions and experience. For Natura 2000 it is very important that bilateral treaties and related institutions have already been put in place. So it has been relatively easy to use existing cross-border working groups and commit-tees for the exchange of information regarding Natura 2000. Good personal relations from one coun-try to another can be decisive. Such relations lead to mutual trust and there is less fear of getting be-trayed. It is also helpful when there are shared visions and shared feelings of the need to cooperate (De Jong, van Tatenhove 1998: 173; Zbicz 2001: 199). Moreover, for the reduction of transactions costs good general cross-border relations might facilitate package deals. That means that a country can accept possible disadvantages in the field of nature conservation because there is a kind of com-pensation in another field of policy, e.g. in infrastructure policy.

Concerning transaction costs, it has in any case to be kept in mind that the intensification of the coop-eration at the Polish-German and the Czech-German border has just begun and experience is only in its first stage of growth (cf. e.g. Grimm 2000). All in all we must assume that at the moment transac-tion costs are significant and hamper cooperation.

5 Conclusions

Considering the key factors of the functioning of the cross-border decision-making processes regard-ing the coordinated designation of Natura 2000 sites, it must be highlighted that these processes take place in a complex multi-level and multi-actor setting. There are two main arenas for coordination. The vertical arena refers to the hierarchical coordination for which the European Commission is re-sponsible. Due to a lack of steering capacity, to different priorities and to insufficient power to impose flexible sanctions, cross-border coherence of Natura 2000 cannot be achieved by vertical coordination alone. Therefore cross-border coordination depends on activities in the horizontal arena. Unfortu-

104

nately, horizontal coordination also suffers from a lot of shortcomings. The costs of coordinated nature conservation are mostly regarded as being higher than the benefits. Moreover the transaction costs of cooperation are still significant.

So, all in all, not too much cross-border coordination can be expected. Against this background the relatively weak cooperation activities in the horizontal arena that are already actually going on are almost surprising. One key factor for that seems to be the technical passion of the people in the envi-ronmental administrations. They are the actors closest to possible cooperation activities and use their room to move to a certain extent in favour of coordination. The second explaining key factor can be seen in the institutional basis for cross-border cooperation which already existed. This made coordi-nation much easier.

On the whole, cross-border coordination regarding the designation of Natura 2000 sites, under the current framework conditions is unlikely to be sufficient. According to the principle of subsidiarity, the main approach to solve the problem is to enhance horizontal cooperation. As general cross-border relations and cooperation concerning Natura 2000 in the border areas between Poland, Czech Re-public and Germany still are in their formative phase, it can be assumed that learning and trust-building at least leads to improvements of the preconditions for cooperation in the field of managing Natura 2000 sites. This should be accompanied by intense marketing efforts of the EU and the Mem-ber States to make clear the possible advantages of Natura 2000. But the main issue is probably that EU legislation should directly provide regulations or special incentives to ensure the necessary cross-border cooperation like it did for instance in the case of the Water Framework Directive.

References

Carmichael, P. (2002): Review of Public Administration. Briefing Paper: Multi-level Governance [Onli-ne] Available: www.rpani.gov.uk/multilevel.pdf

De Jong, D.; van Tatenhove, J. (1998): The Institutionalization of Dutch-German Cross-Boundary Na-ture Policy, Sociologica Ruralis, 38/2, 163-177.

EC-DGE (= European Commission, Directorate-General Environment); Ecosystems Ltd (eds.) (1998): natura 2000 newsletter, issue 6, June 1998 [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/news/natura/nat6_en.pdf

EC-DGE (= European Commission, Directorate-General Environment); EEA (= European Environ-ment Agency, European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity) (2002): Continental Region, Conclusions on representativity within pSCI of habitat types and species. Seminar held in Potsdam, Germany, November 2002 [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/natura_2000_network/biogeographic_regions/continental/pdf/conclusions_continental.pdf

Fürst, D.; Ritter, E.-H. (1993): Landesentwicklungsplanung und Regionalplanung. Ein verwaltungs-wissenschaftlicher Grundriß, Düsseldorf.

Grimm, F.-D. (2000): The German-Polish frontier and the border region on the Oder and Neisse ri-vers, in: Mayr, A.; Taubmann, W. (eds.): Germany ten years after reunification, Beiträge zur regi-onalen Geographie des Instituts für Länderkunde Leipzig, Leipzig, 237-244

Kehrein, A. (2002): Aktueller Stand und Perspektiven der Umsetzung von Natura 2000 in Deutsch-land, Natur und Landschaft 77(1), 2-9.

105

Kestermann, R. (1997): Kooperative Verfahren in der Raumplanung. Phänomenologische Betrach-tungen, in: Adam, B. (Hrsg.): Neue Verfahren und kooperative Ansätze in der Raumplanung, RaumPlanung spezial, Ergebnisse der Jahrestagung des Informationskreises für Raumplanung e. V. 1995 in Dortmund, Dortmund, 50-78

Kieser A.; Walgenbach, P. (2003): Organisation, Stuttgart

Knill, C. (2003): Europäische Umweltpolitik. Steuerungsprobleme und Regulierungsmuster im Mehr-ebenensystem, Opladen, Leske + Budrich.

Leibenath, M. (2001): Entwicklung von Nationalparkregionen durch Regionalmarketing, Frankfurt/M.

Marks, G. (1993): Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC, in: Cafruny, A.W.; Rosen-thal. G. G. (eds.): The Maastricht Debates and Beyond, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 391-410.

Roch, I.; Scott, J.; Ziegler, A. (1998): Umweltgerechte Entwicklung von Grenzregionen durch koopera-tives Handeln (= IÖR-Schriften. Vol. 24), Dresden

SRU (= Der Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen) (2004): Umweltgutachten 2004. Umweltpo-litische Handlungsfähigkeit sichern [Online] Available: http://www.umweltrat.de/02gutach/downlo02/umweltg/UG_2004_lf.pdf

Ssymank, A.; Balzer, S.; Biewald, G.; Ellwanger, G.; Hauke, U.; Kehrein, A.; Petersen, B.; Raths, U.; Rost, S. (2003): Die gemeinschaftliche Bewertung der deutschen FFH-Gebietsvorschläge für das Netz Natura 2000 und der Stand der Umsetzung, Natur und Landschaft 78(6), 268-279.

Ten Brink, P.; Monkhouse, C.; Richartz, S. (2002): Promoting the Socio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000. Background Report for the European Conference on ‚Promoting the Socio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000’ Brussels, 28-29- November 2002, Brussels: IEEP and WWF.

Zbicz, D. C. (2001): Crossing international boundaries in park management – a survey of transbound-ary cooperation, in: D. Harmon (ed.): Crossing Boundaries in Park Management: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands, Hancock, Michigan: The George Wright Society, 197-203.

106

107

Natura 2000 in the context of EU Accession: Establishing a transboundary coherent network along the German-Polish border1 Pieter Zwaan

1 Introduction

This paper addresses the establishment of a European-wide coherent network of protected areas called Natura 2000. Based on the Bird and Habitat Directives, Natura 2000 sets the minimum stan-dards for biodiversity conservation in the EU Member States and aims to create a “coherent European ecological network”. Deriving from an ecological perspective, which stresses the need for spatial con-nectivity of nature areas (Jongman 1995: 124-125) this contribution deals with a concern that seems to be inherent to the creation of a coherent European network: cross-border coherence.

The paper will focus on how the coherence of the Natura 2000 network is addressed along the Ger-man-Polish border. Therefore it will not describe a concrete project, but it will take Natura 2000’s aim to create a coherent ecological network as a starting point. This aspect will be addressed from a Pol-ish perspective, thereby examining whether the objective of creating a coherent network along the Ger-man-Polish border is taken into account and by what means this is done. Therefore, also a more gen-eral overview of the designation process of Natura 2000 in Poland is given. The establishment of Natura 2000 in Poland will be assessed from an institutional perspective, which will focus on the so-called institutional capacity in Poland to deal with this (environmental) planning issue. This capacity will be assessed from a planning perspective dealing with participation, integration and the capacity for strategic action. The institutional capacity of Poland will furthermore be placed in this contribution in the light of its accession to the EU and will be described by using the concept of Europeanisation.

Section 2 will start by setting out the institutional approach applied here and will describe the concepts of institutional capacity and of Europeanisation. The concept of institutional capacity will be specifi-cally related to cross-border policy. This concept will provide the framework for describing the relation between Poland and the EU and to assess Poland’s capacity to implement Natura 2000 and to ad-dress the network’s cross-border concern. Following the framework of Europeanisation the so called EU adjustment pressures will be described in section 3 and 4. These sections will describe the vari-ous EU policies and requirements for the Member States concerning the establishment of Natura 2000 (section 3) and the concern of cross-border coherence (section 4). Section 5 will go into more detail about the Polish situation and will show how these pressures affect the institutional setting in Poland. Poland’s so called intervening variables will therefore be discussed and an assessment of the Polish situation will be made based on the concept of institutional capacity. Section 6 will make clear in which way this eventually affects how the concern of cross-border coherence is addressed. It thereby stresses how the institutional setting and policy outcome are related. The paper concludes by summarizing the main issues and by giving some further recommendations.

1 This article is largely based on the author’s Master thesis Building on soft soil: Natura 2000: a cross-border

coherent network in Poland? (2004). The research therefore has been conducted within the framework of the project Cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites: An analysis of decision-making processes, carried out by the Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development.

108

2 An institutional approach

The implementation of Natura 2000 and its cross-border coherence will be regarded here from an in-stitutional perspective. This approach derives from sociology and regards policy making “as a social practice through which those concerned with specific [issues] collaborate to produce strategies, poli-cies and plans to help guide specific decisions” (Healey 1997: 21). This social practice, however does not take place in a vacuum, but is embedded in a social context which frames our attitudes and val-ues (Healey 1997: 21, 35). This social context is what I regard as institutions. These institutions for example will affect which actors are involved in the decision-making process, what strategy options and preferences these actors have, and in which setting these actors will deal with each other. By influencing this, the institutional setting will eventually affect the policy outcome (Scharpf 1997: 43-49). Below this institutional approach will first be further discussed and this approach will be related to the enlargement of the EU.

2.1 Institutional capacity

To give a normative assessment of the institutional setting from a planning perspective, the term insti-tutional capacity is helpful. It is based on a framework of Jänicke that describes the capacity for envi-ronmental policy. This term will be used to describe Poland’s institutional setting in terms of participa-tive capacity, integrative capacity and capacity for strategic action (Jänicke 2002: 10).

The first aspect which is part of the institutional capacity is referred to as participative capacity. This emphasises the importance of the input structures of the policy process. Jänicke argues that decen-tralisation and strong local communities are seen as favourable conditions for participation. The openness of the legal system to ‘protective’ interests can further be of importance to stimulate partici-pation (Jänicke 2002: 10). This aspect describes how the institutional setting affects which actors are involved in the policy process; an aspect that has been discussed since the beginning of the 1960s and continues to play an important role in the debate about planning.

The second aspect, integrative capacity, plays a role at different levels and is strongly related to the first aspect. The first level is referred to as the ‘intrapolicy cooperation’ and describes the internal in-tegration of a policy field between the different levels of the political system. This process is often de-scribed as ‘vertical coordination’. The second field of integration is ‘interpolicy coordination’ or hori-zontal coordination and emphasises the importance of cross sectoral integration in policy making. The third field of integration describes the integration with external parties within the process of policy making. Processes like this are often referred to as ‘network management’. Often mentioned advan-tages of the involvement of external parties in the network management are policy innovation, for in-novators are integrated at an early stage into the decision making process, and a more successful implementation of a certain kind of policy, since the policy goals are based on a broad consensus.

The third and last aspect is defined by Jänicke as the capacity for strategic action and can be defined as the ability to implement long term policy objectives against short term special interests (Jänicke 1997: 11). Strategic action requires the integration of preferences and has to take into account future goals. The ability to trade interests of some actors for other interests is considered to be of impor-tance.

2.2 Cross-border cooperation and coordination2

The institutional capacity is obviously related to how one deals with the cross-border concerns. I will therefore make a distinction between cross-border cooperation and coordination through which cross-border concerns can be addressed. I will first discuss cross-border cooperation which takes place if 2 Although the literature on cross-border cooperation and coordination uses both terms interchangeable and the

acronym cbc is often used referring to both terms, I will make a clear distinction between both in this article.

109

there is an active approach from both sides of the border. Then I will discuss cross-border coordina-tion.

Cooperation can take place based on a more sectoral approach: specific issues need to be ad-dressed involving other countries. Issues such as environmental concerns, water management or transportation are clear examples of these kinds of coordination issues. These forms of cooperation are often based on bilateral agreements and there is an active approach towards cross-border issues. On the other hand we can include cross-border cooperation which is more related to the regions or municipalities near the border that have specific problems and concerns related to the border. The development of the latter form of cooperation is strongly related to the processes of regionalisation and the integration of the EU and has become the focus of cross-border cooperation research.

Cross-border issues are ideally addressed by cooperation, as this form of dealing with cross-border issues is often initiated by nation states/regions themselves and both side acknowledge their com-mon interest. From a planning perspective this is a favourable condition, as there is an understanding of the problems and it becomes possible to integrate various cross-border concerns in the policy mak-ing process. In this case there is a good integrative capacity. Next to the decision making process cooperation will contribute to a more successful implementation of a certain kind of policy, since the policy goals are based on a consensus and a commitment of both sides to work together.

Addressing cross-border issues however can also take place from one side. One country can take into account the situation on the other side of the border without any active cooperation. In this case there is only cross-border coordination. This situation is a plausible situation with regards to the cross-border coherence on the German-Polish border as both countries have a different time scheme for establishing the Natura 2000 network. In this latter case the institutional setting in one country for es-tablishing the Natura 2000 network is of specific importance as it will depend on this setting which actors are participating in a policy making process, how they behave and which interests are taken into account (Scharpf 1997; Healey 1997). The capacity of the institutional setting to integrate cross-border concerns and to let the ‘advocates’ of this concern participate in the policy making process becomes important (Jänicke 1999).

2.3 Europeanisation

In the light of the EU enlargement an interesting question becomes in what way joining the EU will change the institutional setting of the new Member States. This question becomes even more inter-esting if we take into account the transformations these countries have been going through since the late 1980’s. We have to realise that the institutional settings in these countries are completely different from those in the current Member States and that the centrally led regimes in the accession states have resulted in a lack of institutions, especially at the decentralised level. Furthermore, it is of inter-est to realise that these new Member States did not play any role in the formulation of EU policy, but are confronted with it by joining the EU. This situation thus can be characterised as a ‘soft soil’ to im-plement EU policy.

The framework of Europeanisation can give insight in this issue as it describes the influence of the European Union on the domestic institutional setting and its capacity. It refers to the change in do-mestic institutions of governance and politics as a consequence of the development of European-level institutions, identities and policies (Olsen 2001). Europeanisation describes how the Member States are affected by referring to the EU’s adjustment pressure on the one hand and the Member States’ intervening variables on the other hand (see Fig. 1). EU adjustment pressure includes requirements, recommendations, suggestion, or indirect pressure. These various pressures can be exerted by vari-ous means such as EU legislation and providing funds but also through, for example, benchmarking, giving advice or communicative action. On the other hand, there are intervening variables, which will mediate the response of the Member States to the described EU adjustment pressure. These include country dependent variables such as (economic) vulnerability, political institutional capacity, policy legacies, policy preferences and discourse (Schmidt). These variables can help us to describe the

110

relation between the EU and the future Member States and can help us understand the way how the EU influences the domestic institutional setting and capacity. To predict by forehand, however, what the outcome will be of the EU’s pressure on the one hand and the intervening variables on the other, remains difficult.

Figure 1: Europeanisation (based on Schmidt 2001)

3 Natura 2000

The most important EU adjustment pressures will be described below, starting with the requirements related to Natura 2000. These affect all Member States. Moreover, the pressures which have been exerted on the new Member States will be discussed and specifically those pressures that are related to the cross-border coherence of the network.

3.1 Implementing the Habitat and Birds Directives

The clearest pressure of the EU regarding Natura 2000 is the transposition of the Habitat and Birds Directive into the national legislation of the Member States, and more concretely that the EU Member States have to help creating the Natura 2000 network. Two stages in the Habitat Directive are there-fore distinguished in which the spatial aspects of nature protection are the central focus. The first stage envisages the creation of an ecological network by selecting and formally designating sites as protected nature areas. The second stage envisages a decision making framework for projects or ac-tivities which can be a potential threat to these designated protected areas (Buunk 2003: 223). I will mainly focus on the first stage: the designation procedure.

The Habitat Directive sets out a detailed procedure for the selection of sites which will be part of the network. The first stage in the selection procedure is the selection of sites by the Member State. The selection of sites is based on various criteria, such as the degree of representativity of the natural habitat type on the site and the area of the site covered by the natural habitat type in relation to the total area covered within the national territory. This latter criterion is of importance in making clear that the selection of sites is a planning issue. Political decisions have to be made on which sites will be designated as part of the Natura 2000 network. The selection of sites will be based on the interests that are at stake. The institutional capacity for the implementation of Natura 2000 is therefore of sig-nificance, for it affects how these different interests are addressed in the designation process and how various stakeholders participate. Based on these criteria the Member States will propose a list of Sites

EU adjustment pressure

Country’s intervening variables

Interaction Institutional settingand capacity Policy outcome

111

of Community Importance (pSCI). The Member States thus play an important role in this initial stage of establishing the Natura 2000 network.

Based on this proposal the Commission, in agreement with each Member State, establishes a draft list of Sites of Community Importance (SCI). The Commission does this by taking into account the significance of a site within the so-called bio-geographic region to which it belongs.3 The Member States will then designate those sites as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) as soon as possible and within six years at the latests (Council of European Communities 1992). Besides the SACs the Natura 2000 network will be based on so called Special Protection Areas (SPAs) which are desig-nated under the Birds Directive. Unlike the Habitat Directive the Birds Directive does not set out a de-tailed procedure for the designation of SPAs. The Member States are only obliged to communicate there main provisions in national law to the European Commission (Council of European Communi-ties 1979).

The lists of pSCIs had to be submitted in June 1995, while the lists of SCIs had to be established 3 years later in June 1998. The Member States, as already mentioned, then designate those sites as a SACs as soon as possible and within six years at the latest, “establishing priorities in the light of the importance of the sites for the maintenance or restoration …”. Accordingly, the deadline for the estab-lishment of SACs is June 2004 (Council of European Communities 1992).

Experiences in the EU15 however have shown that the designation has been greatly delayed by the lack of planning, resources and commitment of several governments. This has been reflected in the fact that various Member States have been condemned by the EU Court of Justice for failing to des-ignate sites. Furthermore there have been problems with the quality of data for both SPAs and pSCIs; forms and maps were missing for many sites (European Commission: DG Environment (1999-2003)). Uncertainties about the implications of Natura 2000, i.e. the question whether landowners should be compensated for restrictions on their activities and a lack of understanding about who should pay the costs of conservation management, is mostly blamed for causing problems. This has caused reluc-tance on part of some national and regional authorities to propose Natura 2000 sites (WWF 1999).

These problems however cannot be seen without taking into account problems which arise from dif-ferent perceptions of ecological networks. National approaches to ecological network development differ from country to country as the establishment of the networks is based on specific legislative frameworks, levels of scientific knowledge, resources and priorities for biodiversity management (Ó’Riain, Tubrid 2002: 25). Combining one’s own national approach toward ecological networks with a European approach can cause difficulties. Buunk (2003: 279) points this out for North Rhine-Westphalia and stresses that the approach of the EU, in which a set of criteria concerned with habi-tats form the basis of the establishment of an ecological network, is completely different from most national approaches in which key ecological features form the basis. Below these issues will be dis-cussed for Poland.

3.2 Accession negotiations

The adoption of the EU legislative framework, the so-called acquis communautaire, by the new Mem-ber States has been one of the most important preconditions for joining the EU. This aspect has been a focal point in the accession process, being one of the Copenhagen criteria which were formulated in 1993. In 1998 the real negotiations started between the EU and Poland. It was decided to negotiate on the basis of the different chapters of EU legislation, including chapter 22 on environment, often referred to as the environmental acquis. The environmental acquis covers a wide range of measures, mostly in the form of Directives, and covers ‘sectoral’ issues as standards for air, water management 3 To address the designation of Natura 2000 sites the EU territory has been divided into various so-called bio-

geographic regions, which are defined loosely, based on the type of vegetation, soil infra-structure and the types of habitats and species. The original Habitat Directive distinguishes 6 regions: Alpine, Atlantic, Boreal, Continental, Macaronesian and Mediterranean. With the enlargement of the EU three new biogeographic re-gions are added: Pannonic, Steppic and Black Sea.

112

and nature protection, including Natura 2000, as well as ‘horizontal’ issues such as Environmental Impact Assessments and access to information in the field of environment.

For Poland the negotiations on this chapter started in December 1999 and the chapter was closed in December 2002. The general principle since the beginning of the negotiations was that transitional measures should be limited in time and scope. For the transposition of the Habitat and Birds Directive this meant that there has been no transitional period and by the day of accession various steps had to be undertaken by the accession states. (EU online (a)) The new Member States consequently had to submit all relevant data of the national list of SPAs and a list of pSCIs to the European Commission at the day of accession.

According to a recent status report on the establishment of Natura 2000 in the new Member States, published in June 2004 by the WWF, most new Member States submitted their lists of proposed Sites of Community Importance several weeks after the day of accession. Lists of Latvia, Estonia, Lithua-nia, Poland, and Slovakia had been received by the European Commission, while those for Malta and Slovenia were reported (at that time) to be on their way (WWF 2004: 9).

4 Cross-border coherence

Regarding the cross-border coherence of the Natura 2000 network, the central concern in this paper, there are hardly any requirements in the Habitat Directive. This has much to do with the conception of the concept of coherence, as will become clear below. The concern for cross-border coherence is very much derived from the scientific conception of an ecological network which has been stressing the need for spatial connectivity of nature areas. The cross-border implications of establishing a Eu-ropean coherent ecological network are obvious. Natura 2000, however, reflects the complexity of decision making and compromise seeking, and in the selection procedure of the Habitat Directive the concern of spatial coherence is less prominent. There is no explicit reference to the spatial coherence of the Natura 2000 network, and coherence is interpreted differently by the European Commission, the Member States and NGO’s. The use of a vague concept as ‘coherent network’ is as such illustra-tive for EU decision making and the compromises that have to be found during the formulation of EU pol-icy by the Member States and the Commission.

Thus, the Commission is interpreting coherence at the moment to mean the inclusion of all the rele-vant habitat and species in protected sites. This interpretation is further supported by the Commis-sion’s approach towards Natura 2000. This regards the designation of sites as a scientific/statistical process rather than a planning process. The designation of Natura 2000 sites is consequently con-cerned with the quantity of sites rather than with their connectivity. The Commission’s focus on the quantity of sites is further of importance since most large sites appear to be not located along the bor-der. Border sites thus have lower priority. As a result Natura 2000 is according to some at the moment rather a collection of sites than a spatial network (Zwaan 2004: 27-28).

Although there is relatively little attention for the coherence of the network and there is no explicit ref-erence in the Directives which make up the Natura 2000 network about cross-border coordination, the issue is not completely neglected. The cross-border concern is addressed in the identification of Sites of ‘Community Importance’ by the European Commission and the Member States. A criterion in this phase, prescribes that the “geographical situation of the site in relation to migration routes of species (…) and whether it belongs to a continuous ecosystem situated on both sides of one or more internal Community frontiers” has to be taken into account (Council of European Community 1992: annex III). The cross-border coherence of the Natura 2000 network is thereby addressed through coordination by the European Commission, based on the proposed list of Sites of Community Importance of the Member State. This thus requires some kind of coordination or cooperation on the Member State level in the first place.

113

The EU pressures on the Member States are, however, limited in this phase since the creation of the Natura 2000 network is based on Directives. As such the implementation reflects the subsidiarity prin-ciple, one of the key features of European Union decision making. The general idea behind this prin-ciple is that, as Smith puts it (2001: 10) “decisions should be taken by the sphere of government near-est to the citizen that is effective for the purpose in question”. Based on Directives, Natura 2000 gives Member States the possibility to interpret the Directive for the practical implementation of specific measures and leaves a large margin of manoeuvre (European Commission 2000: foreword). The Directive only insists on the results to be achieved which have to be transposed into national legisla-tion. Using a Directive thereby creates the possibility to deal with issues on a case-by-case basis. As a consequence there are however neither provisions for articulating the concern of cross-border co-herence nor any requirements for the institutional setting in terms of the participation or integration of actors and their interests. How this issue is addressed will thus mainly depend on the institutional set-ting for cross-border coordination or cooperation in the Member States.

4.1 Communicative action

For the European Commission it is difficult or even impossible to guide the Member States in their administration of establishing the Natura 2000 network with formal instruments. But on the other hand the Commission can and should play an important role by communicating and promoting the issue of (cross-border) coherence. At the moment, however, Natura 2000 is not presented pointedly as a con-nected network by the Commission, due to its mere quantitative approach towards the establishment of the Natura 2000 network.

But the issue of connectivity for the Natura 2000 network is gaining more importance. Article 10 of the Habitat Directive is seen as an important instrument to establish connectivity. The article can play an important part in achieving spatial coherence of the Natura 2000 network as it indicates that (Council of European Communities 1992):

“EU Member States should endeavour in their land-use planning and development poli-cies to encourage and manage features of the wider landscape which are of importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and con-tinuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.”

The European Commission can promote this aspect by using its right to draw up an interpretation guide for a Directive. Although these interpretations are no more than one view and not of a binding nature, (European Commission 2000(a): foreword) the European Commission can give, besides her interpretation of the Directives, also examples of good practice in most Member States. Interpretation guides have been written for various articles of the Habitat Directive, including article 6, which con-cerns the management of Natura 2000 sites, and article 8 of the Directive that deals with Natura 2000’s financial aspects. Of interest is that the latter interpretation guide has pointed out that the so called INTERREG fund, which supports cross-border cooperation, is one of the most important finan-cial source for the management of Natura 2000; it thereby contributes to the cross-border coherence of the network (Natura 2000 benefits 2004). By using article 10, however, connectivity is reached more by adaptation after the designation process, rather than during the designation process itself (Zwaan 2004: 28).

4.2 Community funding

As already mentioned, Community funding can play an important role regarding the cross-border co-herence of Natura 2000, as the Structural Funds since 1989 direct funding for specific regional aid for border areas through the INTERREG programme. The INTERREG programme entered its third term

114

in 2000 and has three strands (EU online (b)): A – Cross-border cooperation, B – Trans-national co-operation, and C – Inter-regional cooperation.

The first two strands can be supportive of the cross-border coherence of the Natura 2000 network. INTERREG III-A includes in its priority topics “encouraging the protection of the environment”. INTER-REG III-B stresses its role to “promote the preservation of the environment and good management of natural resources, in particular water resources”. The latter strand refers explicitly in the list of Priori-ties and Measures to the Natura 2000 network: “Contributing to the further development of a Euro-pean ecological network (NATURA 2000), linking protected sites of regional, national, trans-national and Community importance” (Natura 2000 benefits 2004.) The INTERREG fund has been used espe-cially to promote the enhanced management of trans-boundary sites between Member States and has proved to be an important source of funding.

The new Member States have been supported since 1989 by the so called PHARE fund. The fund was set up to support the Eastern European accession states. In 1994 PHARE CBC was introduced in response to the specific problems faced by border regions. Its objective is to promote co-operation between the border regions of Eastern Europe and the EU and to promote co-operation in the border regions of the joining countries in Eastern Europe (IWE 2002: 13; European Commission 2001: 10). Related to the cross-border concerns of the Natura 2000 network the PHARE fund has been mainly providing funds to NGO’s. The PHARE fund, for example, has been supporting the project Nature Protection in Transboundary Natura 2000 Sites in Czech Republic and Neighbouring Countries through Network of NGOs. In this project Czech, Slovak, Polish, German and Danish NGOs partici-pated. Another supported project was the “Identification of Natura 2000 sites in the Odra valley”, in which German, Polish and Czech NGOs participated (WWF Deutschland and WWF Auen Institut 2000; WWF 2003).

5 Natura 2000 in Poland

This section will give an overview of the establishment of Natura 2000 in Poland. It will therefore de-scribe the intervening variables of Poland and will make clear how these variables, in relation to the EU pressure, affect the institutional setting and capacity to implement Natura 2000. An explicit as-sessment of the institutional capacity will be made after that, including the participative and integrative capacity. The capacity for strategic action will not be taken into account as the description here is mainly concerned with the ‘scientific’ phase of the selection of sites. This description is further only concerned with the selection of sites under the Habitat Directive. In section 6 this capacity will be re-lated to the cross-border coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

5.1 Policy legacy and preference

The process of designating Natura 2000 in Poland can be divided into a more scientific phase dating from 1999 until 2002, and a more consultative phase that started after that since the beginning of 2003. The results of the research presented here provide an overview of the Polish situation until Oc-tober 2003 and mainly provide an overview of the scientific phase.

The first stage in the designation of sites in Poland took place in the framework of the above men-tioned PHARE project “conception of NATURA 2000 network in Poland” (WWF 2003: 43). The project aimed at developing a list of habitats to be proposed to the Natura 2000 network and was presented in March 2001. Various NGOs and local experts, however, objected to the proposed list by arguing that the sites were based on outdated and insufficient data and that regional authorities and nature experts were not consulted. The process of designating was a ‘desktop study’ based on the available data at that time. This data however, dated back 8 years and was incomplete and outdated.

115

The lack of sufficient data on habitats is to a large extent the result of Poland’s so called ‘policy leg-acy’ concerning the collection of data on habitats and species. Contrary to the Habitat Directive the designation process of nature areas in Poland was not based on a uniform set of criteria. Polish na-ture conservation did not prescribe a precise data collection of habitats and species in Poland as the protection of habitats was not an explicit objective of Polish nature protection. Scientific data on habi-tats and species is mostly concerned with those in Nature Parks as the focus of nature conservation lay here. Furthermore much data is based on outdated and incomplete biotope data (Makomaska-Juchiewicz 2003). By joining the EU however, Poland is confronted with this EU policy as a recipient of EU policy, while it did not play a role in formulating this policy.

This policy legacy has had a concrete consequence for Poland’s institutional setting as it made the participation of various actors necessary in order to obtain sufficient data. To do so the Polish gov-ernment took the initiative to set up working groups at the regional level which were headed by a Voivodship Nature Conservator (VNC) and included representatives from Landscape Parks, the for-estry- and shipping industry and NGOs. The tasks of the working groups were threefold (Makomaska-Juchiewicz et al. 2003):

• check the correctness of the existing data of a former list;

• check which data is missing; and

• propose new sites for the Natura 2000 network.

Opposite to Poland’s policy legacy, which favours the involvement of various actors in the selection process, we find a policy preference in Poland which is not in favour of establishing the Natura 2000 network, and which has consequences for the institutional setting. As a result of this policy preference the establishment of the working groups was not successful in all cases. Firstly this was due to the fact that the establishment of these working groups was not compulsory but voluntary, and in the first place depended on the willingness of the VNC. The VNC, however, is appointed by the Voivode, the head of the Voivodship; the designation of Natura 2000 sites is thereby highly politicised. The estab-lishment of these working groups strongly depends on the Voivode’s position towards the objectives of Natura 2000. Secondly, joining the working groups is up to the different important parties them-selves and will strongly depend on whether it is in the interest of a party to do so. The designation of Natura 2000 sites in Poland is, however, very controversial and there is an unfounded fear that it will do harm to the economy.

This policy preference in Poland is further reflected in a reluctance to find sufficient financial and per-sonal resources to implement Natura 2000 and to involve other parties in the consultative phase. This consultative phase started in the beginning of 2003 and was coordinated by the Ministry of Environ-ment. The Ministry of Environment would coordinate the designation of the sites with other ministries and foresaw in a consultation process at the Voivodship level. Therefore, meetings in all Voivodships were organised at the beginning of 2003 to present the results of the work on Natura 2000 in each Voivodship, and to seek the opinion of the provincial governments about the proposed sites and to discuss possible implications of Natura 2000 designations for different economic sectors, for the fu-ture development of the region etc. The meetings were attended by the National and Landscape Park Service, foresters, representatives of the District Management of Public Roads, District Management of Water Economy, and representatives of NGOs. However, hardly any farmers or private land own-ers and representatives of municipalities attended these meetings (Zwaan 2004: 49-50).

At the national level this policy preference was reflected in a reluctance to start formal discussion with other ministries. Some blame the political situation in Poland, with a lack of political stability over the recent years. Having minority government during the selection phase made it hard to take a decision. As a result the designation process of Natura 2000 sites had been placed at the Voivodship level as much as possible. The political instability caused further difficulties, for the people involved in the process quickly change and have few competencies to deal with the designation of Natura 2000 sites. Others blame Poland’s communist policy legacy; there is little experience in seeking compromises since people are not familiar with negotiating and discussing different objectives. As a result people

116

are reluctant to change their attitudes towards Natura 2000 and do not want to see how they can combine Natura 2000 with different objectives (Zwaan 2004: 51).

5.2 Institutional capacity

An assessment of Poland’s institutional capacity shows a mixed picture. During the scientific process, working groups at a regional level were established and NGOs were involved in most Voivodships. Taking into account the aspect of decentralisation, participative capacity is assessed positively from a planning perspective. At the same time, however, we see that there is not enough openness in the selection process for protective interests. This is further expressed in a reluctance to provide informa-tion on Natura 2000 and its consequences, which led to actors being ill-informed. Poland’s participa-tive capacity, in this sense was insufficient to secure the involvement of the various actors and inter-ests in the working groups. Below we will see in more detail how the regional working groups func-tioned in the Voivodships bordering Germany. The participative capacity in the consultation phase, however, is assessed less positively as hardly any farmers, private land owners and representatives of municipalities have been involved in this process.

An assessment of Poland’s integrative capacity, which consists of the capacity for intrapolicy, inter-policy, and external cooperation, also provides us with a mixed picture. Poland’s ‘intrapolicy coopera-tion’, which describes the internal integration of a policy field between the different levels of the politi-cal system, can be assessed positively, with the involvement of Voivodship Nature Conservators in the scientific phase and with the involvement of the Voivodship in the consultative phase. On the other hand, however, there is no involvement of the local level in the implementation of Natura 2000. Poland’s ‘interpolicy cooperation’ is obviously not assessed positively with hardly any formal discus-sion with other ministries. Poland’s capacity for external cooperation, finally, is very much related to its participative capacity, which has been assessed positively during the scientific phase and negatively during the consultative phase. The capacity for external cooperation is consequently assessed in a similar way.

6 Cross-border coherence along the German-Polish border

Section 4 has shown us that the issue of cross-border coherence has so far received relatively little attention and that there are hardly any concrete EU adjustment pressures for this concern on the Member States. The pressure the EU can exert for this aspect is limited to communicative action and giving incentives through Community funding. Addressing the concern of cross-border coherence will thus mainly depend on the Member States. Section 2 has made clear that the issue of cross-border coherence can be addressed through cooperation or coordination. Firstly, a short overview of the cross-border cooperation regarding Natura 2000 is given. Then cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 will be examined. Therefore the institutional setting in the three Voivodships will be discussed as on this it will depend if the concern of cross-border coherence is taken into account.

6.1 Cross-border cooperation?

If we examine the cooperation regarding the Natura 2000 network we must come to the conclusion that this has been limited so far. Although there are various cross-border institutions, for example cross-border regions and sectoral forms of cooperation such as the German-Polish Spatial Planning Commission and the German-Polish Commission on Environmental Protection, there have been hardly any efforts to deal with Natura 2000. At the national level so far, formal cooperation has only been taking place between the Ministries of Environment of Poland and Brandenburg. This consisted

117

of the sending of Brandenburg’s list of 16 Natura 2000 sites to the Polish Ministry of Environment in 2000. Furthermore a meeting between ‘Warsaw’ and ‘Brandenburg’ took place at the end of the summer of 2003. This meeting served mainly as an exchange of experiences regards the selection of sites and the exchange of proposed sites. However, cooperation in the sense of a joint selection of sites has not taken place.

The asymmetric relation described above can also be found within the International Park Lower Oder River Valley, a nature park established in 1992. Here there has not been any cooperation concerning the process of designating Natura 2000 sites between the German and Polish side of the park. The main reason for not cooperating along the border has been that Brandenburg already had proposed its sites and this gave no incentives for further cooperation. The fact that the park at the moment is an International Park is of importance, raising an awareness for the cross-border concerns of nature con-servation and a ‘moral’ pressure, for the EU would be surprised if both sides would not have been selected.

6.2 Cross-border coordination?

Since there has been no cross-border cooperation regarding Natura 2000, we will here turn to the aspect of cross-border coordination. Section 2 has shown that in this case the institutional setting is of much importance. The case of Poland demonstrates this. Regarding the issue of cross-border coher-ence the policy legacy and policy preference in Poland and their opposing claims for the participation of actors have been of importance, as in the three Voivodships along the German border these work-ing groups were not established due to objections of the Voivode, the head of the Voivodship. Data on species and habitats however was necessary and this was consequently provided by private experts and NGO’s, who formed semi-formal working groups at the regional level. The formation of these groups has been of significance for the cross-border coherence as these experts had been involved in various informal NGO CBC projects dealing with nature protection along the German-Polish border.

Whereas there has been hardly any formal cross-border cooperation in relation to the designation of Natura 2000 sites, at an ‘informal’ NGO level there have been various projects, such as: Grünes Band Oder-Neiße, Oder-Auen Atlas and Natura 2000 in the Oder River Valley in which the collection of data on species and habitats played an important role. The latter project was supported, as mentioned above, by the PHARE CBC programme. As this data was concerned with species and habitats on the German-Polish border the concern of cross-border coherence was taken seriously into account within this scientific phase. Also of importance was that the fact that Polish NGOs which participated actively in the semi-formal site selection in Western Poland had good contacts with their German counter-parts.

The issue of cross-border coherence thus has been a concern during the selection process and addi-tional arguments for some proposals of sites were that they border on similar sites on the German side. NGO’s thereby played an essential role in addressing the issue of cross-border coherence and could play this role due to the (lack of an) institutional setting. It is, however, important to realise that taking into account these cross-border concerns within the scientific phase is not enough; this con-cern should also play a role in the consultative phase. Unfortunately this research can not provide a complete image of how the concern of cross-border coherence has been taken into account in the consultative phase. It is therefore necessary that other cross-border institutions (regions, councils) play an important role in the designation process, including the consultative phase. This furthermore is of importance in relation to the management of the sites as these institutions can be an important party in this and can contribute to the network’s coherence (Zwaan 2004: 58-59).

118

7 Conclusion and recommendations

The establishment of the Natura 2000 network and its cross-border coherence has been related in this paper to the EU enlargement. The institutional approach taken here and the concept of Europe-anisation have provided a sufficient framework to analyse how the issue of cross-border coherence is addressed along the German-Polish border.

The first part of this contribution focussed on the EU adjustment pressures and has demonstrated that regarding the issue of cross-border coherence the EU pressures are limited due to the subsidiarity principle. The usage of a vague concept of coherence in EU policy making has further proven to be problematic. Even a spatial concept such as an ecological network, at first sight scientifically funded, is at a policy level an expression of various interests and of compromises. Control over land remains a controversial issue, and the concept of a coherent ecological network can be interpreted, if one so wishes, in a non-spatial way. To stress the importance of cross-border coherence the EU depends on communicating ideas and on giving incentives. The European Commission needs to stress the impor-tance of this aspect and communicate it better to the Member States. Natura 2000 is too much a col-lection of sites and only a network in words. The first steps have already been taken in this direction by giving more attention to article 10 of the Habitat Directive. By using its right to draw up an interpre-tation guide, the EU can provide examples of best practice and give suggestions on this issue to the Member States.

The issue of cross-border coherence is thus much depending on efforts by the Member States to deal with this. The institutional setting in Poland has therefore been described and the analysis has shown how this setting is affected by EU adjustment pressures on the one hand and Poland’s intervening variables on the other hand. This part has given an insight in the Polish efforts to establish the Natura 2000 network. The main conclusion regarding Natura 2000 and its coherence must be that, although in the scientific process the concern of cross-border coherence has been taken into account, there is insufficient attention to this concern in the consultative phase. The issue of cross-border coherence is only addressed by NGOs due to the (lack of an) institutional setting. Cross-border institutions (re-gions, councils) however should play a more important role in the designation process then they did so far. The complex relations along the border and the various interests that are at stake, have to be taken into account in the designation process for a successful network. Institutions as the German-Polish Commission on Environmental Protection and the various Euroregions should get more in-volved in the selection process.

References

Buunk, W. W. (2003): Discovering the locus of European integration. The contribution of planning to European governance in the cases of Trans European Networks, Structural Fund programs, Natura 2000 and Agri-Environmental measures, Nijmegen.

Council of European Communities (1979): Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild Birds [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/bird-dir.htm

Council of European Communities (1992): Council Directive 92/34/ECC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/habdir.htm

EU online (a): http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/negotiations/chapters/chap22/index.htm – Oc-tober 2003.

EU online (b): http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/enlargement.htm – October 2003.

119

European Commission; DG XI (1999-2003): Natura 2000 Barometer Issues 8-16 [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/news/natura/index_en.htm

European Commission (2000): Managing Natura 2000 sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitat’ Directive 92/43/EEC [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/art6_en.pdf

European Commission (2001): Regular Report on Poland’s progress towards accession [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2001/pl_en.pdf

Healey, P. (1997): Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies, Houndmills.

Institute for World Economics (2002): The management of Accession to the European Union in Po-land and Hungary [Online] Available: http://www.vki.hu/workingpapers/wp-128.pdf

Jänicke, M. (2002): The Political System’s Capacity for Environmental Policy: The Framework for Comparison (original version: ‘National Environmental Policy’ (1997)), in: Weidner, H.; Jänicke, M. (eds.): Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy, Berlin, 1-18.

Jongman, R. (1995): Ecological Networks in Europe; Congruent developments, in: Landschap, vol. 12 (1995)3 [special issue: Ecological networks], 123-129.

Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M. (2003): The Natura 2000 Network and its role in conservation of Poland’s Biodiversity [Online] Available: http://www.nbu.ac.uk/biota/bioplatform_archive/3549.htm

Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M.; Tworek, S.; Perzanowska, J.; Institute for Nature Conservation PAS (IOP) (2003): Designation of the Natura 2000 network in Poland (= presentation given Friday, 4th July 2003 at the Conference “Integrating NATURA 2000, Rural Development and Agrienviron-mental Programmes in Central Europe” organised by the IUCN Office for Central Europe in co-operation with the Institute for Sustainable Development, Session III: “NATURA 2000 – how to design and successfully implement”, Goniądz, Poland) [Online] Available: http://www.iucnce.org.pl/natura2000/en/3

Natura 2000 benefits [Online] Available: http://www.natura2000benefits.org/uk/uk2.htm, 2004

Olsen, J. P. (2001): The Many Faces of Europeanisation, ARENA Working Papers WP 01/2 [Online] Available: http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp02_4.htm

Ó’Riain, G.; Tubrid, M. (2002): A preliminary study of the needs associated with a National Ecological Network [Online] Available: http://www.epa.ie/r_d/Research_Reports.htm

Scharpf, F. W. (1997): Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centred Institutionalism in Policy Research, Oxford/Colorado.

Schmidt, V. A. (2001): Europeanisation and the Mechanics of Economic Policy Adjustment, European Integration online Papers (EIoP) vol. 5 (6), [Online] Available: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-006a.htm

Smith, J. (Director Local Government International Bureau, London) (2001): no title, in: European Commission (ed.): Public Hearing – 16 March 2001, Brussels. European Governance: Moving Towards a Better Use of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, 10-11, [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/speeches_en.pdf

Working Group on article 8 of the Habitats Directive (2002): Final Report on Financing Natura 2000 [Online] Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/final_report_en.pdf

WWF Deutschland; WWF Auen Institut (2000): Oder Auen Atlas [Online] Available: http://www.atlas.odra.pl/de

WWF (1999): Environmental policy: Natura 2000 opportunities and obstacles [Online] Available: http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/opportunitieobstacles.pdf

120

WWF (2003): Progress on Preparation on Natura 2000 in Future EU Member States: Synthesis and country reports for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia [Online] Available: http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/n2000progressmailing20030122.pdf

WWF (2004): Natura 2000 in the new EU Member States: Status report and list of sites for selected habitats and species; Covering the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, and with status reports for Cyprus, Estonia and Latvia as well as Bulgaria and Romania [Online] Available: http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/n2000reportweb_he2p.pdf

Zwaan, P. J. (2004): Building on soft soil; Natura 2000: a cross-border coherent network? (Master thesis, University of Nijmegen), Nijmegen.

121

Thoughts about cross-border coordination concerning the designation of Natura 2000 sites: The Polish perspective Wojciech Jankowski and Krzysztof Świerkosz

1 Introduction – simple questions and simple answers …

Do we need cross-border cooperation and coordination in the designation and management of Natura 2000 sites? Are we able to do it? Are our institutions, rules and structures of decision-making proc-esses comparable? These are the types of problems we want to touch upon in this short article. The answer to the first question appears to be simple. Of course, we really need cross-border cooperation and coordination. We need cooperation to create a set of rules for preparing management plans, to work out rules for conflict resolution, to share experiences so that we can to learn from each others successes and failures. The answer to the other questions appears to be more difficult.

In the following section this contribution takes stock of the present state of cooperation. Section three deals with the current problems of cooperation and possible common actions. In the last section the tasks of the Polish side are highlighted and a short summary is given.

2 Present cross-border cooperation in relation to Natura 2000

The history of cross-border cooperation in relation to Natura 2000 between the Czech Republic, Ger-many and Poland is not very long. Currently the cooperation is pursued on three different levels. We would like to briefly describe some of the activities undertaken. Each type of activity involves different categories of actors and different decision-making patterns.

2.1 Cooperation on international level

On the international level the following two examples of cooperation can be given. Firstly, under the sponsorship of the Polish and German Ministries of Environment, a Nature Protection Working Group has been operating for several years. The Polish side is represented by officials from the government (the Ministry of Environment) and by self-governmental bodies from three border provinces. The German side is represented by officials from three federal states (Länder) and the Federal Ministry of Environment.

Secondly, since 1999 the International Commission for Protection of the Odra River against Pollution (Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Oder gegen Verunreinigung) has been functioning. It is based on an agreement between the governments of Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. One of the Commission’s working groups was the “Ecology” Working Group V, whose main task was “Indi-cation of areas and objects demanding protection, especially areas deserving inclusion in the Natura 2000 network”. The group started studies on cross-border coordination of the Natura 2000 sites (common nomenclature, vocabulary, lists of species and habitats proposed to be monitored). The Ecology Group, however, was cancelled during the reorganization at the beginning of 2003 and trans-formed into the group “Biological and hydrological aspects”. The study on the designation of Natura 2000 sites was cancelled, while the status of biologists working in the Ecology Group (except one)

122

changed from “members” to “experts”; this means that they now are not invited to participate in meet-ings of the working group.

The actors on the international level are officials from governmental institutions and experts hired by the government. However, the dependence of officials and experts on higher levels of administration results in lengthy decision-making processes. The preparation of documents takes months, which weakens the ultimate result. The path from the first concept (idea) to the final report is too long to be effective in practice. There are no special working groups of experts or scientists to help to solve the problems more quickly.

2.2 Cooperation on provincial (Land-Kraj-Voivodeship) level

For example, on the level of the Lower Silesian province (south-western Poland), cooperation be-tween officials is complicated, since the province governor (Voivode) is responsible for nature protec-tion, while for international cooperation responsibility lies with the head of the provincial self-government (Marszałek). The head of the province self-government has signed an agreement (treaty) on cooperation, including environmental protection with the German federal states of Saxony and Brandenburg, and with three out of four Czech provinces (Kraj) bordering Lower Silesia. The coopera-tion with Saxony is fruitful, but real cooperation with the Czech provinces has not started yet.

Concerning the actors involved, in our opinion, the basic problem is partial duplication of the official structures in Poland. Also, the position of the administrational structures in the three countries is dif-ferent. In Germany the Länder Government has got far-reaching independence and can take many important decisions (e.g. selection of Natura 2000 sites). A Voivode in Poland is dependent on the central Government, and many of the decisions pertaining to nature protection need approval of the Ministry of Environment. A Voivodeship’s position in the designation of Natura 2000 sites is weak, so, without special structures, the procedures for international cooperation and coordination of nature conservation on the Land-Kraj-Voivodeship level are doubtful.

In Poland, the coordination and decision-making process is centralized (strong vertical and poor hori-zontal coordination). In the Czech Republic the coordination is also vertical, but the position of the nature protection administration is much stronger. The coordination in Germany is both vertical and horizontal, and the responsibility of officials for specific tasks is clearly defined.

2.3 Semi-formal cooperation

In the field of semi-formal cross-border cooperation many good examples can be given. Of course, the list of activities mentioned is not complete.

Since 1997 the non-governmental organization (NGO) called “Lower Silesian Foundation of Eco-Development” has been coordinating the campaign “Czas na Odrę” (Time for the Odra River), in which NGO’s from Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic take part. The aim of this campaign is to save and protect the nature in the Odra River valley. A corresponding campaign at the German side – “Zeit für die Oder” – is coordinated by the German NGO BUND, which publishes the magazine “Oder-Rundbrief” (The Odra News) in Polish and German at irregular intervals.

The results of one of the first cross-border actions, named “Zielona Wstęga (Green Belt) Odra-Nysa”, were published in 1999. This project was run by WWF Potsdam. Scientists from Poland and Germany made an inventory of landscape and nature, identified socio-economic problems, and studied the sources and the scale of threats to nature. A Polish NGO – “Lubuski Klub Przyrodników” (Lubuski Nature Club) – prepared most of the inventories of habitats and of selected species of flora and fauna.

A very important paper covering parts of Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic is the “Oder-Auen-Atlas” (Atlas of Odra floodplains) which was published in 2001. It was coordinated by the “WWF

123

Auen-Institut” Rastatt in close cooperation with the Protected Landscape Area “CHKO Poodri” in the Czech Republic and with Polish scientists.

Some elements of nature protection are included in activities of the Euroregion Neisse – Nisa – Nysa. They cover the south-western part of the Lower Silesian province and the neighbouring areas in Ger-many and the Czech Republic. Since 1998 the annual “Przyroda Sudetów Zachodnich” (The Nature of the West Sudety) has been edited by the Nature Museum in Jelenia Góra and the NGO “West Sudete Nature Society”. The journal presents papers of Polish, German and Czech naturalists.

An interesting programme for the protection of bats hibernating in caves and galleries was run by Polish NGO’s – the Polish Society of Wildlife Friends “pro Natura” and the “Salamandra” – in coopera-tion with Euro-Natur and NATO. Entries to caves and galleries have been closed by means of metal bars. Moreover, for a few years the Polish NGO “Lubuski Nature Club” has been organizing meetings of Polish and German ornithologists.

Good cooperation exists between Polish and Czech National Parks on both sides of the Karkonosze Mountains. One of its results is the publication “Atlas of breeding birds of the Karkonosze Mountains”. Presently another book on nature and nature protection on both sides of the Karkonosze Mountains is in preparation. Cooperation between the Stołowe Mountains National Park and the Protected Land-scape Area “CHKO Broumovsko” almost has the character of private meetings and consultations of staff members. Good cooperation exists also between the Lower Odra National Park in Germany and the Landscape Parks in the West Pomeranian province in Poland.

Currently a pilot research programme for the Nysa Łużycka (Neisse) River catchment area is being implemented. It is run by the RZGW (Regional Water Authorities) in Wrocław. Part of this research is focused on fishes and invertebrates.

Many different actors are involved in the semi-formal cross-border cooperation, including NGO’s as well as institutions (official research institutes). Regarding the structure of coordination and decision-making process, coordination is mainly horizontal. The decision-making process is quick and focused on specific tasks (scientific research, permanent exchange of information, common programmes of sustainable development, and highly specialized tasks of fauna species protection).

Especially the semi-formal activities create a very good base for future cooperation in designation and functioning of the Natura 2000 network, and give much more chance of success than the formal ac-tivities mentioned.

3 Current problems of cooperation and possible common actions

It is a pity that the Natura 2000 sites lack transboundary compatibility. This is a result of the lack of continuous cooperation between Germany and Poland, as well as between the Czech Republic and Poland during the process of site selection. The main problems responsible for that situation are:

• total lack of international cooperation on the international and provincial levels;

• incompatible official procedures for designating Natura 2000 sites;

• different roles of NGO’s in the process of designation;

• different level of accuracy of the habitats and species inventories for neighbouring countries.

3.1 Possible common actions

The NGO’s do not have the possibility to really influence international and provincial actors involved in the process. However, as we are trying to demonstrate, cooperation and coordination between NGO’s

124

and independent expert groups is effective and has yielded good results in the past. This cooperation should be continued at least in the corridor of provinces (Voivodeship in Poland, Land in Germany and Kraj in the Czech Republic) along our common borders. Therefore, the authors recommend to carry out the following joint tasks:

• establishing an institution which could be a place for the exchange of information and would cre-ate both rules and recommendations for the management of Natura 2000 sites;

• comparing the numbers and condition of the most endangered habitats and species between the three countries, and intensifying the protection of threatened species, for example by designating additional Natura 2000 sites in that country where they are in the best condition;

• projects of common financing;

• preparing common opinions on the projects for the Odra River engineering works, especially those involved with flood-control and improving navigation;

• common restoration of typical for river valley habitats in the Odra and Nysa Łużycka valleys;

• common protection of habitats typical of the Polish and Czech Sudete and Beskid Mountains, particularly those which stretch across the borders in the sub-alpine zone;

• common monitoring of rare birds of prey;

• common education of our societies and governmental representatives;

• restoring of ecological corridors in the interstate border areas.

The ability to cooperate in preparing management plans, in planning common monitoring schemes and in solving problems connected with management of the Natura 2000 sites is of utmost impor-tance.

3.2 Preparation of management plans

The main issues taken into consideration while preparing management plans are the predicted impact of human activities on Natura 2000 sites and proposed changes regarding the way they are managed and financed. We need cooperation and exchange of experience, especially in the following range of activities.

In the realm of forest management:

• Identification of appropriate felling methods (group felling, shelter wood felling, strip felling, clear cutting) in different types of forest in order to obtain their ecological functions;

• how to modify the felling age of different species of trees;

• how to adapt the restocking of forest to the demands of nature conservation and how to enhance natural restocking;

• preparation of methodological instructions for forest management focused on the conservation of protected plant and animal species;

• permissible level of losses (especially those caused by game animals) in a forest stand, particu-larly in young generations of trees; if and when fencing is a good solution;

• number of dead, dying and hollow trees to be left per hectare;

• acceptable level of modification of the forest management by owners or managers in different countries;

• methods for calculating compensation for smaller production of timber, or for greater costs of managing the Natura 2000 sites; sources of financial support (in Poland almost all Natura 2000 sites on forest land are owned by the State).

125

In the realm of water economy:

• Minimization of losses in nature due to water economy,

• caused by river engineering works, cutting of alluvial forest and filling ox-bows with soil, i.e. unifi-cation of river beds as well as lowering of the water table in the river and in the river valley,

• resulting from functioning of water reservoirs, i.e. changes in water regime (flow) in an annual cycle, reduction of the fluctuations in water level, and decreasing the frequency of inundation of river valleys, and

• protection and restoration of alluvial and riparian forest within the embankments and in areas without embankments which are still regularly flooded.

In the realm of agriculture:

• Changes in the dates and in the frequency of mowing;

• extensive instead of intensive usage of meadows;

• transformation of dry meadows into wet and semi-wet meadows;

• changes in the range of restoration activities in agricultural drainage systems.

In the realm of fishpond management:

• Reconciliation of fishpond economy with nature protection, particularly with the conservation of birds. We have got good experience with this kind of sustainable development in the province of Lower Silesia at the “Stawy Milickie” (The Milicz Fishponds) nature reserve.

In the realm of tourism:

• Rules of availability of the Natura 2000 sites to tourists.

Others areas:

• Principles of accessibility to information on very rare and endangered species and habitats;

• rules of dealing with alien species;

• restoring and protecting ecological corridors that connect neighbouring countries.

3.3 Monitoring and management

We especially need cooperation and coordination for the comparison of results (impact on nature) of different management methods. Monitoring of habitats and endangered plants is of high importance. Some of the proposed habitats and species designated to be commonly monitored are listed in tables 1 and 2 (see annex). However, this kind of cooperation would fail without a special coordination body.

In the light of the present, newly issued Polish Nature Protection Law, the officials responsible for management of the Natura 2000 sites shall be the managers of the already existing national parks and landscape parks, assisted only by a small number of workers to undertake the new duties. Such a situation would have a very negative impact on the effectiveness of the management of Natura 2000 sites, as the state administration for nature protection is already overloaded with obligations. The best way to solve this problem would be to establish a special Foundation, which in its statutes would have the responsibility for all tasks connected with the management of sites to be protected in the future. It is a pity that none of the Polish officials supports this remedy.

126

4 Current tasks of the Polish side and summary

Before the Polish side is ready for effective cooperation in the process of designation, management and monitoring of Natura 2000 sites, we should finish some tasks. The most important are:

• Completing the inventory of nature. Contrary to the statement of some officials, Poland does not have a complete nature inventory, so it is difficult to properly designate Natura 2000 sites.

• Carrying out a broad educational action concerning the EU Water Framework Directive, since presently most of the water administrations think that purification of water is the only important task mentioned in this document. We should point out that protection of aquatic ecosystems and ecosystems depending on water is also a major obligation included in the EU Water Framework Directive.

• Undertaking a broad educational action on the role and importance of nature conservation since presently our society and government representatives on different levels of administration almost exclusively take into account the technical aspects of the needs for environmental protection, i.e. building of wastewater treatment plants, filters on chimneys etc.

In summing up, it can be stated that we need cooperation in designating Natura 2000 sites, creating a set of rules for preparing management plans and in working out rules for resolving possible conflicts. There is almost no cooperation on the State level. The best cooperation exists on the level of NGO’s and between experts. Creating additional transboundary forums or institutions would be a very good solution.

References

Chojnacki, I.; Torkler P. (ed.) (2000): Zielona Wstęga Odra-Nysa, Frankfurt a. M.

European Commission, DG Environment (2003): Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. EUR 25, Brussels.

Flousek, J.; Gramsz, B. (1999): Atlas hnizdoniho rozsireni ptaku Krkonos. Atlas ptaków lęgowych Karkonoszy (1991-1994).

Jankowski, W.; Świerkosz, K. (eds.) (1995): Oder as an Ecological Corridor. State – Functioning – Threats (in Polish with English summary), Warszawa.

Rast, G.; Obrdlik, P.; Nieznański, P. (eds.) (2000): Oder Auen Atlas, Rastatt (in German, Czech and Polish).

Świerkosz, K. (2002): Inwentaryzacja i monitoring ekosystemów lądowych oraz flory i fauny w dolinie Odry i Nysy Łużyckiej, Biuletyn Monitoringu Przyrody 3, 34-47.

Świerkosz, K.; Obrdlik, P. (2002): Natura 2000 in the Oder river valley, Wrocław.

Zwaan, P. J. (2004): Building on soft soil; Natura 2000: a cross-border coherent network? (Master thesis, University of Nijmegen), Nijmegen.

127

Annex

Especially on border … Natura 2000 code

Type of habitat CZ / PL D / PL

1150 * Coastal lagoons (WWF) X

1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts (WWF) X

2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) (WWF)

X

2130 *Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) X

2330 Inland dunes with open Corynephorus and Agrostis grasslands X

3110 Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae)

x X

3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

X X

6110 * Rupicolous calcareous or basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi X X

6190 Rupicolous pannonic grasslands (Stipo-Festucetalia pallentis) X x

6230 * Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas X X

6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clay-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)

X X

6440 Alluvial meadows of river valleys of the Cnidion dubii X x

6520 Mountain hay meadows X

7110 * Active raised bogs (WWF) X X

7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs (WWF) X X

8160 * Medio-European calcareous scree of hill and montane levels X x

8230 Siliceous rock with pioneer vegetation of the Sedo-Scleranthion or of the Sedo albi-Veronicion dillenii

X X

9140 Medio-European subalpine beech woods with Acer and Rumex arifolius X

9150 Medio-European limestone beech forests of the Cephalanthero-Fagion X X

9180 * Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines (WWF) X X

91E0 * Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) (WWF)

X X

91F0 Riparian mixed forests of Quercus robur, Ulmus laevis and Ulmus minor, Fraxinus excelsior or Fraxinus angustifolia, along great rivers (Ulmenion minoris) (WWF)

X X

9410 Acidophilous Picea forests of the montane to alpine levels (Vaccinio-Piceetea) (WWF)

X

Explanations: * – Priority habitats of annex I of the Habitats Directive WWF – Included in the “List of habitats and species focal for implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Candidate Couties” prepared by WWF in 2003 X – Cross-border coordination very important x – Cross-border coordination important

Table 1: List of habitats, included in annex I of the 92/43/EEC Directive, proposed for cross-border monitoring of the Natura 2000 network implementation

128

Especially on border … Name Category

CZ / PL D / PL

Apium repens P X

Liparis loeseli P x X

Trichomanes speciosum P X X

Pedicularis sudetica P X

Campanula corcontica P X

Galium sudeticum P X

Cerambyx cerdo I x X

Euphydras aurinia I X X

Euphydras maturna I X X

Maculinea nausithous I X X

*Osmoderma eremita I X X

Lucanus cervus I X X

Lycaena dispar I X X

Vertigo angustior I ? X

Bombina bombina A X X

Bombina variegata A X X

Triturus cristatus A X X

Triturus montandonii A X

Barbastella barbastellus M X X

Myotis myotis M X X

Myotis bechsteinii M X X

Rhinolophus hipposideros M X

Rhinolophus pherumequinum M X

Lutra lutra M X X

Castor fiber M X X Explanations: P – Plant I – Invertebrates A – Amphibians M – Mammals * – Priority species of annex II of the Habitats Directive X – Cross-border coordination very important x – Cross-border coordination important

Table 2: List of species, included in annex II of the 92/43/EEC Directive, proposed for cross-border monitoring of the Natura 2000 network implementation

129

Natura 2000 sites in the Czech Republic: Political and institutional factors of the designation process from cross-border perspective Vlastimil Karlík

1 Two key aspects of the designation process

In the Czech Republic the designation process of Natura 2000 sites has two key aspects. In accor-dance with the Habitat and Birds Directives and some judgements of European Court of Justice, we can see it, firstly, as a scientific process in which, based on clear and transparent scientific criteria and best available data, the Special Protected Areas (SPAs) and the preliminary Sites of Community Importance (SCI’s) are identified, established and reported to the European Commission. Even from this point of view, a cross-border perspective of course opens up a huge field for discussion. We can ask questions like:

• How is the cross-border aspect included in criteria for designation?

• Are appropriate institutional partners (from each of the neighbouring countries) identified and con-sulted?

• Are data from both sides available and are they compatible?

• How are different approaches co-ordinated, considering that there are differences not only be-tween countries but, as for example in the case of Austria and Germany, also between different districts within countries?

But in fact in the current as well as in the new member states the process of designating of Natura 2000 sites is, secondly, more or less impacted upon by strong political pressure. The principle of sci-entific justification of the proposed lists is attacked directly or indirectly from the point of view of eco-nomic, social and political interests. The number of sites and their boundaries are questioned and reduced. In this conflict, which usually takes place on national or district levels, also pre-consulted areas can be lost which are important from a cross-border point of view.

From this perspective, important factors for the defence of the scientifically justified proposal of Natura 2000 sites could be, for example:

• good data, clear and transparent criteria for designation;

• power and effectiveness of pressure groups (“supporters” and “attackers”);

• determination and responsibility of competent authorities;

• strategy, tactics and time schedule of implementation.

2 The Czech approach

As the technical and scientific aspects are covered in other articles of this volume, this contribution concentrates on some basic ideas, presumptions and strategies of the designation process in the Czech Republic, and briefly deals with its real history and results.

130

The Czech approach to designation was originally based on two very reasonable ideas:

First – the proposal should be based on sound data. This can later help as a defence against political pressures. Therefore, extensive field work was carried out including the most extensive mapping of habitats in the history of Czech nature conservation, involving 500 to 700 experts over several years.

Second – it is important to have a scientifically justified proposal, supported by the community of ex-perts, and separate it from the final proposal, which is the result of the process of negotiation and consideration of comments from other sectors and other stakeholders. This helps to limit political pressure in the first, “scientific” step, and creates a base for further lobbying for areas excluded during the second step. This division was reflected in the institutional arrangement – the “scientific” step was coordinated by Agency of Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection (ANCLP), as an expert institution, the second, “negotiation”, step is led by the Ministry of Environment and the Administration of Protected Landscape Areas (APLA), as an administrative and political body.

In practise, both ideas failed to some extent, and many questions are still open. For both categories of areas (SPA and pSCI) we have to say that the Czech Republic did not fulfil the requirements of the Commission on time. By the date of accession, the SPA’s should have been established, and list of pSCIs should have been reported to the Commission. The real situation is that the list of SPAs exists and has been subject to a consultation process, but has not yet been approved. As for pSCIs, the situation is even worse – it was announced that the list would be published only a few days before the 1 May (on 27 April), but the negotiations have only just started; the question is still open when the Government will approve the list and what it will eventually look like. The estimation is that it could be completed by the end of 2004. A first version of the list was sent to the Commission but the valid ver-sion, approved by the Government, could be very different.

3 Shortcomings and threats, strengths and weaknesses

Assessing the designation process so far, we can point out following the shortcomings and identify the following threats:

• The process of mapping, processing and evaluation of background data for the proposal of pSCIs was not finished. This means that many areas are probably missing because of the lack of data. There was little time to assess the official proposal, but it seems that the total area of proposed pSCIs (9.6 % of the area of CR) is far below the original estimations (15-20 %), even considering the fact that the Czech authorities obviously tried to limit the area covered by Natura 2000 to a minimum by designating a huge number of small sites.

• Because of the time delay even areas which were included in the proposal, have not yet been provided protection according to article 6 of the Habitat Directive. For areas which are not cur-rently protected, this means there is a danger of degradation.

• The large number and small size of proposed sites can cause problems in the future, e.g. regard-ing the preparation of management plans as well as the administration and sustainability of the areas.

• It is difficult now to predict the results of the negotiation process. How many sites will be deleted because of political pressure? The process of transposition and pre-negotiation of SPA’s clearly showed that the acceptance of nature conservation among decision-makers is probably on its lowest level since 1989.

131

To sum up, we can identify the following strengths and weaknesses of the designation process in the Czech Republic:

Strengths:

• The designation process was coordinated on the national level. There is a clear distinction be-tween the responsibility for the expert aspects of the designation. (ANCLP) and the political as-pects (Ministry of Environment).

• Quite good data are available or are likely to be available, at least for birds and habitats.

Weaknesses:

• time delay of the process;

• the current proposal of pSCIs is incomplete even before the negotiation process has begun;

• lack of political will among decision-makers to meet the needs of nature conservation.

From the Czech-German cross-border point of view, the following aspects represent the limitations for creating a coherent network at a European level:

• There is a time difference between the national processes of designation. On the German side it is finished, while on the Czech side it is still ongoing with uncertain final results.

• Even if the cross-border perspective can scientifically be included in the process, the final results are highly impacted upon by political, social and economical pressures, which are concentrated especially on national or districts levels.

• There are differences in administrative arrangements (rather centralised approach in Czech Re-public, more decentralised responsibility in Germany).

It is too early to make final conclusions concerning cross-border coherence of the Natura 2000 net-work – the next important milestones in the process are the next biogeographical seminars.

132

133

Part V

Conclusions

134

135

Cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites between “new” and “old” EU Member States: Still an unfinished business Markus Leibenath, Sandra Rientjes, Gerd Lintz, Carsten Kolbe-Weber, Ulrich Walz

1 Introduction

The International Workshop underpinned the need for transboundary exchange of information on na-tional procedures for selecting and designating Natura 2000 sites and it ought to be regarded as an attempt in this regard. On the basis of the lively discussions in all sections of the International Work-shop the following conclusions can be drawn.

2 Different agendas in different countries

The workshop focused on the three Member States Poland, Czech Republic and Germany. The se-lection processes for Natura 2000 sites show significant differences in each of the three countries. The distinctions resulted from the structures of political systems in general and from the different ways of organising nature conservation in particular. Whereas the process of selecting proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI’s) in Germany was complicated and fragmented due to the federal structure of the state, the procedures were much more centralised in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Another important difference between the two new Member States on the one hand and Germany on the other hand relates to the time frames. Before Poland and the Czech Republic even began to ne-gotiate about Accession, Germany already had to have its national lists of pSCI’s submitted to the European Commission. Currently Poland and the Czech Republic have finalised the first phase of the selection and designation process by preparing their national lists. By contrast, Germany is almost at the end of the second phase (assessment of the Community importance of the sites included on the national lists) because it is close to reaching a final agreement on Sites of Community Importance (SCI’s) with the Commission.

The selection processes differed also with regard to the methodological approach. For instances the Czech authorities launched a broad mapping programme for habitat types, whereas Poland tried to manage with existing data as far as possible.

The presentations in Section A of the workshop lead to at least three conclusions:

• A final appraisal of the cross-border coordination and coherence of Natura 2000 sites at the bor-ders between Poland, Czech Republic and Germany is not yet possible because the selection processes have not yet come to an end.

• A high number of habitats and populations of Community interest can be found in the Polish-German and in the Czech-German border regions, some of them even priority.

• The different time frames and methodological approaches represent major obstacles to a smooth coordination.

Especially the three parallel working groups of the workshop offered room for taking a closer look at the details of selecting and coordinating Natura 2000 sites. The participants stressed the need to complement vertical coordination procedures with horizontal ones. This applies to site selection as

136

well as to the preparation of maintenance schemes. But any kind of coordination can only be success-ful if it is based on sound information on habitats and species of Community interest. This type of geo-data has to be made available to decision-makers on both sides of respective borders. One of the parallel groups did also revisit the concept of spatial connectivity of biotopes and compared different forms of ecological networks.

3 Natura 2000 as a contribution to existing transboundary ecological networks

Physical linkages between habitats can raise the effectiveness of any conservation attempt because the relevant population sizes increase. This reduces the risk of extinction. Depending on the type of habitat or species, these linkages can be very different in size and structure. However, with regard to the progressing fragmentation of landscapes in Europe, the concept of spatial connectivity of biotopes is more up to date than ever.

Scientists as well as politicians and planners reacted to the need of establishing physical linkages between biotopes both nationally and internationally. Countries like Czechoslovakia developed na-tional schemes already in the 1980’s. The debate also had repercussions on the international level and led to the elaboration of the Emerald Network and, later on, the Pan-European Ecological Net-work (PEEN).

The discussions in the working group on transboundary ecological networks led to the conclusions that implementation of actual on-the-ground activity is scarce, through lack of resources as well as lack of mechanisms to translate international policy to the regional and local level. The need was stressed for regional stakeholders to take the initiative and start – if necessary on an informal basis – to establish contacts and joint activities with colleagues on the other side of the border. Top-down processes which would be steered from the international level were not considered to be the most effective way forward.

The state of affairs concerning transboundary ecological networks in general can be paraphrased by the following headlines:

• Cross-border cooperation and exchange of information is insufficient.

• Sometimes the existing concepts are regarded as too big or too general.

• There is a lack of funds to investigate needs and possibilities of transboundary ecological net-works on the regional and local levels.

• The concept as such is hardly known on the local level.

• Implementation is often unclear or uncertain and activities focus mainly on planning.

• There are problems of scale and of linking the different spatial levels.

There seems to be a gap between national and international processes of designating and coordinat-ing Natura 2000 sites. Sometimes the government processes are not transparent and follow double agendas. From an overall perspective, it was recommended to use regional potentials to fill gaps in implementation and bring the issue of cross-border coordination to the attention of the EU Commis-sion’s scientific working groups.

137

4 Cross-border coordination requires harmonised geodata

Establishing a coherent ecological network requires coherent information. This means that the infor-mation has to be comparable and compatible. The habitat types and species that are listed in an-nexes II and III of the Habitat Directive represent clear indicators and thus should facilitate gathering comparable data bases in each country. However, by taking a closer look it becomes evident that the provision of data on habitat types and species of Community interest and an SCI’s lead to major tech-nical challenges. This is, besides various national particularities, also due to the sheer amount of data that have to be processed.

The presentations in the working group on Natura 2000 geodata management covered data flows on European and national levels, experiences with the use of Natura 2000 geodata in spatial research as well as data needs regarding the future management and monitoring of Natura 2000.

The working group confirmed the importance of geodata for the practical process of the Natura 2000 designation process. Appropriate topographic geodata represent the geographical background for the definition of the proposed or preliminarily proposed Natura 2000 sites. The resulting maps and verbal geodata become part of the information flow within Natura 2000. The specific Natura 2000 Standard Data Forms (SDF’s) particularly qualify the vertical information flow. It does not include prescriptions for the horizontal geodata exchange. Due to the variance of geodata characteristics such as scale, date, projection, and file format, each cross-border situation requires data harmonisation. This cannot be achieved without sufficient metainformation about the respective geodata file. The lack of such geodata metainformation especially hampers the horizontal geodata interactions within Natura 2000. Furthermore, a general “process metainformation” could help to understand the rather complex struc-ture of the Natura 2000 designation process as a whole as well as the specific state of affairs in one country. This would allow assessing the status and the relevance of a specific Natura 2000 geodata file.

A number of web presentations prove that the dissemination of information on proposed Natura 2000 sites is improving. The workshop participants agreed that the internet should be used more intensely especially for decentralised data input into NATURA 2000 databases and for a broad access of users to these databases. Relevant metainformation and general solutions for cross-border geodata man-agement have to be available that way, too.

The experiences with transboundary coordination of Natura 2000 sites accentuate the need for the harmonisation of European geodata. The awareness of this issue can advance the endeavours of geoinformatics experts to offer appropriate tools and guidelines. It can also strengthen projects on European level to achieve harmonised geodata, e.g. the INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe initiative (INSPIRE) aims at making available relevant, harmonised, and high-quality geo-graphic information for the purpose of formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of Community policy-making.

5 Interplay of multi-level and cross-border governance: Just started

The designation of Natura 2000 sites takes place in a complex multi-level and multi-actor setting, and the achievement of an ecologically coherent network of sites is a difficult task. This especially holds true for border areas in general and even more for the border areas between Poland and Germany as well as between the Czech Republic and Germany.

After the harsh transformation starting in 1989/1990 the eastern German Länder, Poland and the Czech Republic are striving to catch up with western economic standards. The eastern German Län-der and Poland are still suffering from high unemployment which was brought about by the trans-formation. While the eastern German Länder immediately took over German – and with that EU –

138

rules it was the big challenge of the last years for Poland and the Czech Republic to adjust to EU rules in-cluding those concerning Natura 2000 and general administrative structures until joining the EU in May 2004.

These framework conditions certainly have not been conducive to coordinated designation of Natura 2000 sites in border areas in which cross-border cooperation had hardly any tradition. The more or less strong perception of Natura 2000 sites as being obstacles to economic development and the rapid changes in the administrations in the countries made coordination much more difficult. More-over, since the countries are in quite different stages of the designation of Natura 2000 sites compre-hensive coordination is not possible – even though sometimes the designation of a site in one country can be used as an argument for designating a corresponding site in the other country.

The special problems along the new internal EU border could not be taken into consideration when in 1979 the “Birds” directive and in 1992 the “Habitats” directive were adopted. But in general these di-rectives seem not to have sufficiently facilitated or encouraged ecological cross-border coherence. Firstly the concept of coherence is too vague. It leaves too much room for interpretation and does not support those actors at EU, national and subnational level who try to achieve ecological coherence. Secondly, the implementation of Natura 2000 is hampered by insufficient capacities at European, na-tional and subnational levels. The EU Commission and the European Topic Centre apparently have barely enough personnel to tackle cross-border issues. Thirdly, the Commission has no flexible sanc-tions to react to insufficient coherence in border areas.

Considering the principle of subsidiarity and taking into account that hierachical coordination is strongly limited by the capacity of the deciding centre the focus must be to encourage horizontal co-ordination between the countries themselves. It can not be said that there had been no financial sup-port of the work regarding cross-border coordination concerning Natura 2000 in the countries. But European funds like LIFE and INTERREG were hardly used for such purpose. This refers probably to difficult application procedures and a lack of marketing for Natura 2000. If it is not possible to intro-duce compensation for people who in fact might suffer from the designation of a Natura 2000 site it should at least be made clear that the restrictions of Natura 2000 sites are less drastic then normally thought and that it also can be positive to have legal planning security in that areas – not to mention the advantages that can arise for tourism development.

The fact that, despite many factors which hamper cross-border cooperation, a certain extent of cross-border cooperation does exist might be explained by at least three factors. Firstly the nongovernmen-tal organisations like WWF or Friends of the Earth played an important role because their interest is primarily focused on nature conservation which seldom leads to cross-border conflicts. They will con-tinue to be important but in the long run they can not substitute the engagement of the official authori-ties. Secondly, the commitment of professionals in the authorities in charge of implementing Natura 2000 was a crucial point. They used their room to move for the good of nature conservation. This room to move should be widened. Thirdly, special institutions for coordination which already had been in place before could be used for cooperation concerning the designation of sites. The institutions should be cultivated. All in all the actors are just at the beginning to learn to work together and im-provement of cooperation seems likely.

6 Natura 2000 in the light of EU enlargement and beyond

There were very intense debates in the three parallel working groups of the workshops. This and also the high number of participants underpin the timeliness and importance of cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites. It seems that this aspect within the whole complex of creating the Natura 2000 network has been neglected for too long. After a quantitatively sufficient representation of habitats and species has been achieved in most EU countries, now the qualitative aspect of cross-border con-nectivity comes into fore.

139

It became apparent that in the process of selecting and designating Natura 2000 sites some of the mistakes that are well known from nature conservation in general, have been repeated once again: Late and insufficient information of stakeholders, too little emphasis on awareness raising and com-pensation, and insufficient participation of local people in decision-making. This is partly due to the fact that the implementation mechanisms of Natura 2000 combine top-down and bottom-up ap-proaches in a quite complicated fashion. Furthermore a relatively high number of actors and interests are involved which makes local participation not an easier business. Therefore the workshop partici-pants proposed to create additional fora for an exchange of experiences and to facilitate mutual learn-ing from the mistakes of others.

The workshop revealed that there was not yet really a systematic cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 at the Polish-German and the Czech-German borders. The existing coordination depended chiefly on the initiative of single administrators or NGO representatives. Cross-border coherence of Natura 2000 was also hampered by the overall difficulties with establishing the national lists of pSCI’s.

However, there are still “windows of opportunity” for improving cross-border coherence of Natura 2000 sites. In the case of all three countries – Poland, Czech Republic and Germany – the national lists of pSCI’s have not yet been accepted, at least not fully. And amendments can even be made af-ter the final approval. Maybe the auspices will be more positive once the selection process in general has come to an end. The preparation of management plans that have not yet been established will prove to be an additional field of cross-border coordination with regard to Natura 2000.

In the International Workshop on 7 May 2004 in Dresden, some enabling and hampering factors for a successful cross-border coordination of Natura 2000 sites were already identified, e.g. the importance of cross-border geodata flows. But it still remains to be shown how successful the coordination has been in reality, i.e. to what extent transboundary habitats and populations have been considered in the site selection process. This has to be subject of a site-by-site analysis.

Further research is also needed with regard to the complex structures of multi-governance between the EU Commission, national and subnational governments as well as private organisations. As simi-lar governance and cooperation processes can be found in other fields of EU environmental policy, e.g. water policy, the study of decision-making processes related to Natura 2000 can serve as a kind of learning ground and yield valuable insights in the functioning of such processes in general.

140

141

List of participants

Austria

Langanke, Tobias ZGIS Hellbrunner Str. 34 5020 Salzburg Tobias.langanke@sbg.ac.at

Belgium

Vandenbroucke, Danny Spatial Applications Division Leuven (SADL) Vital Decosterstraat 102 3000 Leuven Danny.Vandenbroucke@SADL.kuleuven.ac.be

Czech Republic

Guth, Jiri Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic Kališnická 4 – 6 11000 Praha 4 Jiri_Guth@env.cz

Haltmar, Bohuslav Topograf spol. s.r.o. Rooseveltova 23 16000 Praha topograf@topograf.cz

Karlik, Vlastimil Arnika Chlumova 17 13000 Praha 3 Vlastimil.Karlik@arnika.org

Kocourková, Jana National museum, Mycological Development Václavské nám. 68 11579 Praha 1 Jana.kocourkova@nm.cz

Kostkan, Vlastimil Palacký University, Fac. of Natural Science Tr. Svobody 26 77146 Olomouc kost@prfnw.upol.cz

Kyselka, Igor Ústav Územního Rozvoje Jakubské Nám. 3 60100 Brno kyselka@uur.cz

142

Máca, Vojtéch Charles University Environment Center U Kříže 8 15800 Praha 5 Vojtech.maca@czp.cuni.cz

Misiaček, Radim DHV CR Sokolská 99 70200 Ostrava Radim.misiacek@ova.dhv.cz

Pojer, Dr. Frantisek Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic Kališnická 4 – 6 11000 Praha 4

Roth, RNDr. Petr Czech Ministry of Environment, Department of International Conservation of Biodiversity Vršovická 65 10010 Praha 10 Petr_Roth@env.cz

Škapec, Ludvik Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic Kališnická 4 – 6 11000 Praha 4 Ludvik_skapec@nature.cz

Vlasin, Mojmír Ecological Institute VERONICA Panska 9 60200 Brno Mojmir.vlasin@ecnc.cz

Belansky, Pavel Czech Ministry of Environment, Department of International Conservation of Biodiversity Vršovická 65 10010 Praha 10

Germany

Auhagen, Prof. Dr. Axel HTW Dresden (University of Applied Sciences) FB Landbau/Landespflege Auhagen@pillnitz.htw-dresden

Deilmann, Clemens Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden C.Deilmann@ioer.de

Ende, Susanne ERM GmbH Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 3 63263 Neu-Isenburg Susanne.Ende@erm.com

143

Finck, Peter Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstraße 110 53179 Bonn

Füger, Christa CADSES Contact Point Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden C.Fueger@ioer.de

Fürst, Christine Institut für Bodenkunde und Standortslehre der TU Dresden Piennerstr. 19 01737 Tharandt fuerst@forst.tu-dresden.de

Gilleßen, Dr. Werner P. CYSATEC GmbH Unter den Linden 21 10117 Berlin p-gillessens@t-online.de

Glaessl, Brigitte Hegelmann + Dutt Gustav-Bruck-Str. 16 a 66123 Saarbrücken b.glaessl@t-online.de

Gruschwitz, Dr. Michael Saxon State Ministry for Environment and Agriculture 01075 Dresden Michael.Gruschwitz@smul.sachsen

Hoffmann, Dr. Frank IGN e. V. c/o M.-A.-Nexö-Str. 4 01217 Dresden 320052219146@t-online.de IGN-Vorstand@gmx.de

Howein, Heike Institute for Vegetation science and Landscape Ecology (IVL) Georg-Eger-Str. 1 B 91334 Hemhofen Heike.howein@ivl-web.de

Hutter, Gerard Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden G.Hutter@ioer.de

Janssen, Gerold Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden G.Janssen@ioer.de

144

Kaiser, Klaus ERM GmbH Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 3 63263 Neu-Isenburg Klaus.Kaiser@erm.com

Keusch, Katrin Technical University Dresden Mommsenstr. 13 01062 Dresden

Knippschild, Robert Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden R.Knippschild@ioer.de

Kochan, Birgit Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden B.Kochan@ioer.de

Kolbe-Weber, Dr. Carsten Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden C.Kolbe@ioer.de

Kube, Alice Technical University Dresden Bienertstr. 32 01187 Dresden Alice.kube@web.de

Leibenath, Dr. Markus Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden M.Leibenath@ioer.de

Lintz, Dr. Gerd Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden G.Lintz@ioer.de

Lütz, Michael Saxon Academy of Sciences Neustädter Markt 19 01097 Dresden Michael.Luetz@mailbox.tu-dresden.de

Lutze, Dr. Gerd ZALF Eberswalder Str. 84 15374 Müncheberg GLutze@zalf.de

145

Morgenstern, Daniela Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden D.Morgenstern@ioer.de

Moskwa, Dr. Georg Brandenburg Ministry for Agriculture, Environment and Spatial Planning Referat für Europäische- und Internationale Zusammenarbeit H.-Mann-Allee 103 14473 Potsdam georg.moskwa@mlur.brandenburg.de

Neubert, Marco Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden M.Neubert@ioer.de

Reinke, Dr. Markus Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden M.Reinke@ioer.de

Röper, Dr. Christiane Landesamt für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt PSF 20 08 41 06008 Halle (Saale) roeper@lau.mlu.lsa-net.de

Sauter, Britta DEGES Deutsche Einheit Fernstraßenplanungs- und -bau GmbH Zimmerstr. 54 10117 Berlin sauter@deges.de

Schmidt, Dr. Frank Beak Consultants GmbH Am St.-Niclas-Schacht 13 09599 Freiberg fschmidt@beak.de

Schwand, Inka Fachhochschule Eberswalde (University of Applied Sciences) Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 28 16225 Eberswalde ischwand@fh-eberswalde.de

Ssymank, Dr. Axel Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstraße 110 53179 Bonn ssymanka@bfn.de

Uhlig, Dr. Jens Regional Planning Association Chemnitz-Erzgebirge Paulus-Jenisius-Str. 24 09456 Annaberg-Buchholz Jens.uhlig@rpv-ce.de

146

Verlage, Werner Gesellschaft für Informationstechnologie mbH Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 9 04103 Leipzig info@gfi-gis.de

Walz, Dr. Ulrich Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden U.Walz@ioer.de

Warnke-Grüttner, Dr. Raimund Landesamt für Umwelt u. Geologie Zur Wetterwarte 11 Dresden Raimund.Warnke-Gruettner@lfug.smul.sachsen.de

Weber, Jens Grüne Liga Osterzgebirge e. V. Große Wassergasse 19 01744 Dippoldiswalde gl.osterzgebirge@t-online.de

Witschas, Sabine Institute of Ecological and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 01217 Dresden S.Witschas@ioer.de

Zimmermann, Dr. Frank Landesumweltamt Brandenburg Berliner Str. 21 – 25 14467 Potsdam Frank.Zimmermann@LUA.Brandenburg.de Hungary

Vegh, Mihaly Head of ECNC Regional Office Kolto u 21 1121 Budapest vegh@ecnc.hu

Italy

Andrian, Dr. Giorgio UNESCO-ROSTE Castello 4930 30122 Venice g.andrian@unesco.org

147

Poland

Bałazy, Prof. Stanislaw Research Centre for Agricultural and Forest Environment Bukowska 19 str. 50-809 Poznań balazy@man.poznan.pl

Jankowski, Dr Wojciech Polish Society of Wildlife Friends "pro Natura Wroclaw pronatura@eko.wroc.pl

Jerzak, Dr. Leszek Liga Ochrony Przyrody Ul. Piękna 22/24 65-223 Zielona Góra L.Jerzak@ibos.uz.zgora.pl

Makomaska-Juchiewicz, Dr. Małgorzata Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute for Nature Conservation 33 A. Mickiewicza Av. 31-120 Krakow juchiewicz@iop.krakow.pl

Piwowarski, Wojciech Student Warsaw University 7/311 Ksiazkowa Str. 03-134 Warsaw WPIWOWAR@mercury.ci.uw.edu.pl

Swierkosz, Krzysztof Museum of Natural History University of Wroclaw Sienkiewicza 21 50-335 Wroclaw krissw@biol.uni.wroc.pl

The Netherlands

Klarenaar, Rudolph ex student KUN Heiweg 2/4 6533 PH Nijmegen R.Klarenaar@student.kun.nl

Rientjes, Sandra European Centre for Nature Conservation PO Box 90154 5000 LG Tilburg rientjes@ecnc.org

Smit, Gerard Bureau Waardenburg P.O.Box 365 4100 AJ Culemborg G.F.J.Smit@buwa.nl

148

van Vliet, Dr. Fleur Bureau Waardenburg P.O. Box 365 4100 AJ Culemborg F.van.Vliet@buwa.nl

Zwaan, Pieter Catholic University of Nijmegen Nijmegen p.zwaan@student.kun.nl