ISSN

102

6-61

51

Number 29 • December 2010

E u r o p E a N C o m m I S S I o N N a t u r E a N d B I o d I v E r S I t y N E w S l E t t E r

Promoting the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000

EU BiodivErsity Policy

EU 2010 BAP Assessment

commUnicating natUra 2000

Good practices in conflict resolution

intEgrating natUra 2000

Exploring the socio-economic benefits

2 natura2000

Contents Editorial

Taking stock2010 has been an important year for biodiversity. at the Eu level, we have taken stock of the impact of our Eu Biodiversity action plan so far and examined carefully the reasons behind our failure to meet the target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010. this has brought to light some important lessons, which are being used in the development of the Eu’s post 2010 strategy.

two issues stand out in particular: a clear need to target funding more carefully to maintain and restore natural capital; and a requirement to improve the integration of biodiversity concerns into other sectoral policies.

the tEEB reports have revealed how important biodiversity is from an economic perspective, and how it underpins our prosperity and social well-being. we must now build on this work in the new Eu strategy and ensure that the value of nature is better recognised at all levels and in all sectors.

this also applies to the Natura 2000 Network, which is still too often seen as an economic burden. despite a number of studies indicating the substantial benefits it can provide, its socio-economic benefits remain less well understood. the time has come to highlight these benefits in a more systematic fashion, and to underline the extent to which they outweigh the costs.

the momentum is there. an ambitious Eu 2020 headline target was agreed by Eu Heads of State and Government last march, and in october 2010, 193 parties to the Convention on Biological diversity adopted a landmark global agreement to combat biodiversity loss. the complex task we now face is to transform that agreement into effective policies.

I will do everything in my power to ensure the Eu plays its part in translating these commitments into real action.

Commissioner Janez Potočnik

The EU Biodiversity Action Plan: 2010 assessment .......... 3–5the Eu Bap assessment reveals important lessons for the future

Resolving conflicts in Natura 2000 ..... 6–7Sharing best practice

Natura 2000 barometer ............ 8–9

The socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000...... 10–13 valuing the benefits of Natura 2000

NaturaNews ...... 14–16

Cover: the stoat, Mustela erminea© Elio della Ferrera/naturepl.com

Siberian jay, perisoreus infaustus

© Jorm

a luhta/leuka.fi

© naturepl.com

© Kerstin Sundseth

© iStock

3Number 29 • December 2010

The EU 2010 BAP assessment

reveals important lessons for the future

The EU Biodiversity Action Plan: 2010 assessment

Land cover change between 1990 and 2006: area change for major habitat classes

Transitional land (woodland...

Arti�cial areas (urban, industrial...

Water bodies (arti�cial reservoirs)

Natural grasslands

Extensive agricultural land

Wetland areas

-10% -5% -0% 5% 10% 15%

Biodiversity:

Waterfall, Upper Teesdale, UK. Natura 2000 sites are an important source of clean water

post 2010strategy

© peter Creed

In 2006, the Eu adopted a Biodiversity action plan setting out a comprehensive programme of measures which would enable it to meet its commitment to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Four years on, the time has come to take stock. with this in mind, the Commission published a detailed assessment of the Eu Bap in october 2010, reviewing progress made on some 160 actions that make up the plan. In parallel, the EEa produced an updated report on the latest status and trends of Europe’s biodiversity. the overall conclusion of the assessment is that the Eu has missed its 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss. the percentage of species threatened with extinction remains high and habitats continue to be lost and degraded. over 1,000 km² of wetlands and 4,000 km² of grasslands have been lost in the last 15 years alone. meanwhile

artificial surfaces have increased by almost 8% (12,500 km²). yet, beneath this disappointing conclusion, lies a more complex picture of achievements as well as shortcomings. these need to be analysed in full so that lessons can be drawn and used to develop a new more effective post 2010 biodiversity strategy.

Safeguarding biodiversity in the EUone of the first priorities of the Bap was to ensure the full and

timely implementation of the Habitats and Birds directives, and the completion of the Natura 2000 Network in particular. Significant progress has, indeed, been made in this area: over 200,000 km² of land and sea has been added to Natura 2000 since 2006, bringing the total up to 26,000 sites covering 18% of the Eu territory. designating Natura 2000 sites is, however, just the start of the process, major efforts are now required to protect and

4 natura2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

19951996

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

June-2009

Cum

ulat

ed ha

, mill

ions

RomaniaBulgariaSloveniaSlovakiaPolandMaltaLithuaniaLatviaHungaryEstoniaCzech RepublicCyprusUnited KingdomSwedenPortugalNetherlandsLuxembourgItalyIrelandGreeceFranceFinlandSpainDenmarkGermanyBelgiumAustria

Cumulative surface areas of sites designated per Member State under the EU Habitats Directive over time

manage these sites so that they play their role in bringing the species and habitat types they aim to protect up to a favourable conservation status. Judging from the results of the first health check undertaken in 2008, which concluded that only 17% of the species and habitat types listed in the Habitats directive were in a favourable conservation state, there is still a long way to go to achieve this ambition. the Bap assessment points to two factors in particular that will be central to achieving these goals in the future: sufficient, well-targeted funding and a better integration into other policy sectors. Some progress has already been made on this front, in particular as regards the Common agricultural policy (2007–2013). this has made funding conditional upon cross compliance with the two Eu Nature directives and introduced a series of wildlife friendly measures under the rural development regulation. to date, over €22 billion has been allocated to agri- and forest environmental measures and a further €590 million has been assigned to Natura 2000 payments. whilst the overall impact of these measures is likely to be mostly beneficial for biodiversity (by rendering the wider environment less hostile to wildlife), it is not clear to what extent they actively contribute to reversing the current trends in species decline and habitat degradation within farmland and forests. recent analyses have indicated that measures are often too broad and lack the necessary focus to be truly effective. the lack of progress in setting conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites and drawing up detailed management plans may be partly responsible for this. authorities and farming communities may not be sufficiently aware of the issues at stake and how they can

devise integrated measures that are beneficial for both farmers and wildlife. Similar problems are seen with the Eu Structural and Cohesion Funds where new opportunities exist to directly or indirectly support biodiversity conservation within the framework of Eu regional or local development. But, whilst significant funds have been made available for this, the take-up so far has been limited. this may again be due to a lack of information on the benefits of investments in Natura 2000 sites or in promoting wider biodiversity. all this points to a need for a better integration of Natura 2000 and biodiversity requirements into other policy sectors and funding streams. Because such sectors are often the main drivers of biodiversity loss, mainstreaming biodiversity into public and private sector decisions and policies is key to addressing many of the underlying threats to biodiversity. But successful integration depends to a large extent on how well the conservation community is able to communicate on the conservation requirements of Natura 2000 and biodiversity in general, and of the important benefits they can bring to society. the recent work carried out on measuring the economic value of ecosystem goods and services (tEEB) provides a compelling case for convincing authorities of the merits of mainstreaming biodiversity conservation but still has a long way to go to get its messages across. this should be given a much greater focus in years to come. a more ecosystem-based approach is already being promoted in the water Framework directive (wFd) and the new marine Strategy Framework directive (mSFd). Because they set common environmental targets for all freshwater bodies and seas

within the Eu, they are bound to make significant contribution to biodiversity conservation, both within Natura 2000 sites and across the broader countryside, and help alleviate many of the pressures facing biodiversity in these fragile ecosystems. the close linkages between these directives and the two Nature directives should, if tackled properly, help to ensure that the ecological measures proposed under wFd and mSFd are well coordinated with those required for Natura 2000 sites, species and habitat types, and that any potential synergies between them are maximised through win-win solutions whenever possible.

Contributing to global biodiversity conservation the Eu Bap assessment also looked at what has been achieved to stem global biodiversity loss over the last four years. particular attention has focused on reducing the impact of Europe’s high consumption patterns on the rest of the world as well as the impact of international trade on global biodiversity and ecosystems. measures include the signing of the first voluntary partnership agreements designed to combat illegal exploitation of forests and the adoption of a green public procurement policy to ensure

that at least half of all goods and services purchased by Eu public authorities are from green sources. the Eu also pledged to help mainstream biodiversity into its development cooperation programmes. So far €133 million has been allocated within these programmes over the period 2007–2010, and a further €114 million made available under the Eu thematic programme for Environment and Natural resources (ENrtp). the Eu has been actively engaged in negotiating an agreement for an international regime on access and Benefit Sharing (aBS) of genetic resources which was finally adopted at the 10th Conference of parties of the Biodiversity Convention in Nagoya in october 2010.

iStockphoto

The red-eyed tree frog – endangered by tropical deforestation

5Number 29 • December 2010

according to the latest findings of the Eu project ruBICodE, Europe’s ecosystem services are degrading to such an extent that many are no longer able to deliver the optimal quality and quantity of basic services such as crop pollination, providing clean air and water, or controlling floods and erosion. http://www.rubicode.net

Trend between periods positive change between the periods 1950–1990 and 1990 to present Negative change between the periods 1950–1990 and 1990 to present= No change between the two periods

Status for period 1990 – present

■ degraded ■ mixed ■ Enhanced ■ unknown ■ Not applicable(source: EU project RUBICODE)

EcosystemsServices

Agro ecosystems

Forests Grasslands Heath and scrubs

Wetlands Lakes and rivers

ProvisioningCrops/timber Livestock = = = Wild foods =Wood fuel =Capture fisheries = =Aquaculture Genetic = = =Fresh water RegulatingPollination =Climate regulation = = =Pest regulation =Erosion regulation = = =Water regulation = =Water purification = =Hazard regulation = =CulturalRecreation = ➔ =Aesthetic = = = =

Status and trends in ecosystem services in the EU

Landmark agreement on a new Global Strategic Plan

Biodiversity and climate changethe third Eu Bap policy area focused on biodiversity and climate change. In its white paper on adaptation to climate change in July 2009, the Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity and developing a green infrastructure as a means of combating and mitigating the effects of climate change. It stressed in particular that maintaining healthy ecosystems also makes economic sense since they can deliver many of the same services as man-made technological solutions (carbon storage, flood retention, erosion control…), but at a fraction of the cost. this integrated approach is increasingly being reflected in policy developments, but further measures will be needed to ensure that ecosystem-based approaches are part and parcel of climate mitigation and adaption strategies within the Eu and at the global level.

Improving the knowledge base the final cornerstone of the Eu Bap was to improve the level of understanding on biodiversity in order to create a more robust knowledge base upon which to develop policies. In addition to funding a number of major research projects through the 7th Eu research Framework programme (2007–2013), the Commission, in partnership with the European Environment agency, also established a solid Eu biodiversity baseline against which future policy measures and actions can be assessed, and set up a new Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) to act as a single point of access for all data on biodiversity in the Eu.

Messages for the future In conclusion, the findings of the Bap assessment show that significant progress has been made in several areas, but particular attention has to be paid in the future to improving the Eu’s biodiversity policy framework in the following areas:

• ensuring the effective management of the Natura 2000 Network;

• integrating Natura 2000 and biodiversity needs into other sectoral policies;

• making the necessary funding for biodiversity conservation available, both in the Eu and in relations with developing countries;

• filling existing policy gaps (as regards invasive alien species, climate change and biodiversity, and green infrastructure in particular).

the global 2011–2020 Strategic plan adopted at the 10th Conference of parties to the uN Convention on Biological diversity (CBd Cop10), last october will also be taken fully into account in the formulation of the Eu’s post 2010 biodiversity strategy.

At the occasion of the tenth annual meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan in October 2010, 193 nations reached a landmark agreement on a global strategy to combat biodiversity loss. This includes the adoption of a new ten-year Strategic Plan, the mobilisation of extra financial resources to implement the plan and the approval of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation.

The Strategic Plan, or the “Aichi Target”, adopted by the meeting includes 20 headline targets, organised under five strategic goals that address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, reduce the pressures on biodiversity and enhance the benefits provided by biodiversity.

Through these targets, Parties have agreed to achieve, amongst others, the following by 2020:

• halve and, where feasible, bring close to zero the rate of loss of natural habitats, including forests;

• increase the area of protected land in the world from 13% to 17%, and in the oceans from 1% to 10%

• restore at least 15% of those valuable nature areas that are already degraded.

The EU was instrumental in getting agreement for the global strategy and the ABS Agreement. It will now ensure that the commitments made will be taken up in its own post 2010 biodiversity strategy to be adopted early in 2011.

details available on CBd’s website http://www.cbd.int/cop10/

Biodiversity Action Plan: 2010 Assessment 1

EU BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN:2010 Assessment

For more information on the BAP and its assessment go to: • http://ec.europa.eu/

environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/index_en.htm

• http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline

• http://biodiversity.europa.eu/

The red-eyed tree frog – endangered by tropical deforestation

6 natura2000

Resolving conflicts in Natura 2000 sites

Potential conflicts can be

avoided in most cases if they are

addressed proactively

many Natura 2000 sites contain significant areas of land or sea that are used for purposes other than nature conservation: be it for farming, forestry, fishing, recreation or for other productive and non-productive activities. managing such sites represents a particular challenge for all concerned since it requires finding ways of combining conservation measures with existing land uses. Sometimes, this can lead to conflicts between land owners or land users and conservation authorities. However, addressed in a proactive way, such conflicts can be pre-empted or resolved in many cases. understanding the mechanisms and reasons behind the conflict is essential

to finding workable solutions and developing sustainable management practices. with this in mind, dG Environment commissioned a study last year to examine these issues in detail. the study set out to: • undertake a review of

potential sources of conflicts and the current strategies used to resolve them;

• identify good practice examples of how to reconcile different land uses within a Natura 2000 site and resolve conflicts;

• organise a series of workshops with different stakeholder groups to exchange views on how to ensure a good management planning process for Natura 2000 sites.

Having the right management tools to negotiate withwhen discussing the management of Natura 2000 sites, two different potential types of conflict appear most frequently. the first relates to the actual management of the site and the need to reconcile its multiple uses with the conservation requirements of the protected species and habitats present. the other is about the way the management planning process is organised. problems often arise because the landowners and users believe they have little influence over the way a Natura 2000 is going to be managed and feel excluded from the process. In the case of the former, the study pinpointed a number of

Natura 2000

Alpine Ibex fighting

conflictresolution

© a

rCo/naturepl.com

7Number 29 • December 2010

potential sources of conflict linked to day-to-day management. these range from concerns over restrictions on current land uses, inadequate compensation and interference in the sovereignty to the lack of information. How these potential conflicts are managed depends to a large extent on the underlying policies and practices in place in each member State. the study identifies four key factors in particular that influence the degree of conflict that may arise: • Availability of sufficient

funds: targeted and flexible financial incentives and compensatory measures should be made available to support management measures or changes to current practices;

• Easy and efficient administrative procedures: Simple procedures for licensing and obtaining funding for management with clear guidance and support are required;

• Development of innovative practices: New land use technologies can help solve conflicting multiple land use practices. often land use sectors and developers play an essential role in the development of innovative technologies;

• Sufficient scientific knowledge: to assess effects on biodiversity of the various uses of a site and develop good management or mitigation measures.

Getting the management planning process right avoiding conflict situations also depends to a large extent on the management planning process itself. Several of the reported conflicts have arisen or escalated from simple disagreements or different viewpoints because of poor consultation and dialogue. the study identified the following measures as being particularly important for ensuring a successful and

effective participatory process:• Site governance: a good

governance structure should be in place so that the main stakeholders can participate in decisions over the management of the site.

• Public participation: Early engagement and dialogue with relevant stakeholders is essential and should be based on a stakeholder analysis.

• Communication and information: a differentiated communication approach should be considered which matches the information needs and interests.

• Education and training in communication and facilitation skills is of key importance as, often, management planning fails due to poor communication skills of the conservation authorities or site managers.

• Knowledge and scientific underpinning: a good scientific baseline and a functioning monitoring programme are important for targeted management.

• Sectoral and policy integration: Natura 2000 should be better reflected in other policies. Instead of being the last element to be included in regional spatial planning, efforts should be made to have Natura 2000 considered as an integral component in spatial planning frameworks and land use planning strategies.

• Use of professional mediators when conflicts arise: the involvement of independent mediators in conflict situations can help unblock problem issues and diffuse the tensions between groups.

planning and implementing management for Natura 2000 is still in its early stages, which means there is still time to get the process right. But it is essential that those charged with responsibilities for implementing

Natura 2000 are given the necessary skills, time and resources to undertake this work in a flexible and transparent way. the time and effort invested now will pay dividends later on and will lead to more sustainable results for Natura 2000 and for society at large.

Opposition to the harvesting of mussel seed in the Wadden Sea, the Netherlands

In the Dutch Wadden Sea, the existing technique for harvesting mussel seed by dredging the seabed with a blade net was considered to cause too much damage to the ecosystem. Mussel seed harvesting requires a license issued on an annual basis and each year the Federation of Fisheries Associations was being challenged in court by the conservation organisations.

After a long-standing conflict, with several court cases, an agreement was reached through the involvement of an independent mediator, between nature organisations and the fishermen on this issue. Part of the agreement was that the current technique to harvest mussel seed would be allowed until 2020. In the meantime, the Federation of Fisheries Associations would invest in the development of a new technique, which consists of floating or suspended installations on which the young mussels can grow, thus catching mussel seed without causing disturbance to the seabed.

Resolving conflicts between cereal farming and birds, Champeigne, France

In 2006, the designation of a Natura 2000 site for the little bustard, Tetrax tetrax in an important cereal farming region in the centre of France was met with strong opposition from both local farmers and hunters. They objected on principle to the “top-down” designation of their land. To try to resolve the impasse, a series of meetings were held, chaired by the local mayor and facilitated by an independent mediator, in which farmers, hunters and NGOs could voice their concerns and discuss how to conserve the breeding habitats in a way that was acceptable to the local landowners and users.

Agri-environmental measures were considered the best tool but the national system was not flexible enough for the local farmers. The local group decided therefore to draw up its own proposals and submit these to the Ministry of Agriculture for consideration. The latter agreed that the measures could be adjusted to suit the local circumstances provided that it retained the power to approve and control their application. Thanks to the concerted effort of all parties, the measures are now being successfully applied across the area to the mutual satisfaction of both farmers and conservationists.

the project summary brochure and detailed reports can be downloaded from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/best_practice_en.htm

Alpine Ibex fighting

© Joan m

anel puig

8 natura2000

notably insufficient

incomplete

largely complete

MEMBER STATES

Nota Bene:

• The Natura Barometer is managed by dG ENv with the technical assistance of the European Environment agency and is based on information officially transmitted by member States.

• Numerous sites have been designated according to both nature directives, either in their entirety or partially. due to this potential overlap between sites from both directives, it is not possible to combine the numbers for SCIs and Spas to get an overall figure for Natura 2000.

• The surface area percentage relates only to the terrestrial area that has been designated, which is the overall Spa (Birds directive), proposed SCI, SCI or SaC (Habitats directive) area, not including the marine area. Some member States have designated substantial portions of their marine waters. these are included in the number of sites and areas proposed but not in the percentage surface area. work is now underway on assessing the sufficiency of national proposals for marine habitats and species for the successful application of Natura 2000 under both directives, including for offshore marine environment.

• Several Member States have proposed large areas including “buffer zones”, while others have proposed only the core areas. In both cases, article 6 of the Habitats directive applies to new activities, which are foreseen outside a Natura 2000 site but likely to affect it.

barometer

BELGIË/BELGIQUE

BULGARIA

CESKÁ REPUBLIKA

DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND

EESTI

ÉIRE/IRELAND

ELLÁDA

ESPAÑA

FRANCE

ITALIA

KÝPROS**

LATVIJA

LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG

MAGYARORSZÁG

MALTA***

NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA

PORTUGAL

ROMÂNIA****

SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO

SUOMI

SVERIGE

UNITED KINGDOM

EU

Update December 2010

Number of sites

234

114

39

113

738

66

132

202

599

382

597

29

95

88

13

55

13

77

96

141

59

109

27

38

468

531

260

5,315

Total area sites (km2)

3,282

23,217

9,684

14,718

59,784

12,592

3,013

29,534

105,032

78,476

43,777

1,593

6,999

6,449

145

13,512

16

10,125

9,869

55,228

10,438

-

4,656

12,236

30,838

29,873

18,401

593,486

Terrestrial area (%)*

9.7

20.4

12.3

5.9

12.2

13.5

3.0

20.9

20.6

7.9

13.6

25.9

10.0

9.6

5.6

14.5

5.1

12.6

11.8

15.6

10.7

-

23.0

25.1

7.5

6.2

6.2

11.4

Number of marine sites

4

14

-

59

15

27

71

120

33

73

45

3

4

1

-

-

0

6

-

4

10

1

1

-

66

108

35

700

Marine area (km2)

315

539

-

12,180

16,055

6,502

933

1,947

1,034

34,914

2,724

109

520

171

-

-

0

4,895

-

6,490

622

-

3

-

5,567

4,018

3,125

102,663

Progress

8 natura2000

© iStock

Number of sites

280

228

1,082

261

4,622

531

424

241

1,448

1,367

2,288

40

324

382

48

467

28

146

168

823

96

273

259

382

1,715

3,983

623

22,529

SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (SPAs) Birds Directive

9Number 29 • December 2010

MEMBER STATES

The Natura 2000 Barometer:Commentary on progress

the current barometer presents the state of progress as regards the completion of the Natura 2000 Network up to may 2010. the next update will be done once the member States have submitted additional data on their SCIs and Spas. they have been given until the end of the year to do so. the new SCIs, and modifications to existing SCIs, proposed by member States during the course of this year have now been approved for six of the nine biogeographical regions (alpine, atlantic, Boreal, Continental, mediterranean and the pannonian). the Commission decisions updating the Community lists of SCIs for these six regions will be published in January 2011. overall, the Natura 2000 Network increased significantly in area between mid 2009 and mid 2010. the terrestrial coverage has grown by more than 21,000 km² while its marine component has expanded by more than 25,000 km². the number of sites in the Network has also grown by over a 1,000 in the last year, attaining close to 26,000 sites in all. the marine part now accounts for close to 20% of the total Natura 2000 Network, with many member States having expanded their marine areas over the last year, such as Germany, denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and united Kingdom. However significant gaps still exist, especially in offshore waters. more progress in this field is expected in 2011 following the completion of marine biogeographical seminars for all European seas. In addition, significant efforts need to be undertaken for the classification of marine Spas.

notably insufficient

incomplete

largely complete

* % of SCI or SPA terrestrial area compared to MS terrestrial area

** The area and % of territory corresponds to the area of Cyprus where the Community acquis applies at present, according to protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty of Cyprus

*** Several marine sites, but no information on marine areas provided in the database

**** No surface areas provided in the Romanian database

Natura2000Barometer

Progress

BELGIUM

BULGARIA

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

GERMANY

ESTONIA

ÉIRE/IRELAND

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

ITALY

CYPRUS**

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

HUNGARY

MALTA***

THE NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

POLAND

PORTUGAL

ROMANIA

SLOVENIA

SLOVAKIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

EU

9Number 29 • December 2010

© J. H

lasek

Explore the Natura 2000 sites on the GIS Natura 2000 viewer

http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu

Total area sites (km2)

3,269

33,430

7,854

19,319

54,342

11,321

13,560

28,076

131,434

73,556

45,309

883

7,856

9,254

399

13,973

50

14,342

8,978

38,003

16,788

32,833

6,360

5,739

48,552

64,467

29,066

719,015

Terrestrial area (%)*

10.1

29.6

10.0

7.4

9.7

16.7

10.7

16.3

24.5

8.5

14.3

13.1

11.3

13.9

15.4

15.0

13.3

8.4

10.7

11.0

17.4

13.2

31.4

11.7

12.7

13.7

6.8

13.7

Number of marine sites

2

14

-

125

53

46

96

134

97

133

162

6

6

2

-

-

1

14

-

6

25

6

3

-

98

334

49

1,412

Marine area (km2)

198

592

-

16,145

19,768

3,752

6,009

6,604

7,926

26,838

2,254

129

562

171

-

-

8

10,857

-

3,600

775

1,353

-

-

5,460

7,512

12,409

132,923

Number of sites

280

228

1,082

261

4,622

531

424

241

1,448

1,367

2,288

40

324

382

48

467

28

146

168

823

96

273

259

382

1,715

3,983

623

22,529

SITES OF COMMUNITY IMPORTANCE (SCIs) Habitats Directive

SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (SPAs) Birds Directive

10 natura2000

Although data is still very limited,

studies done so far indicate that the socio-economic benefits derived

from Natura 2000 sites far outweigh

the cost of conserving them

with the Natura 2000 Network nearing completion, the focus is now firmly on ensuring the conservation and management of the sites within the network. this often implies a cost – be it for initial investments, restoration work, agreements with local stakeholders or other activities required to maintain or restore Natura 2000 sites. putting a figure on this cost is an essential prerequisite to ensuring sufficient resources

are made available to implement the necessary conservation measures in a reasonable time period. the Eu has a strong interest in this as the Habitats directive is one of the few directives to include a requirement for the Eu to co-finance a part of the costs from its budget (through article 8 of the directive). But what about the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000? How are these factored

into the equation? It seems that little attention has been given to this issue up to now. only a limited number of studies and economic analyses have been undertaken within Europe but, interestingly, they all conclude that the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000 far outweigh the costs incurred. In order to explore the issue of Natura 2000’s costs and benefits further, the Commission launched a study

Natura 2000:

Ecosystem services such as water purification are often overlooked when analysing the socio-benefits of Natura 2000

socio-economic

benefits

The socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000

© Kerstin Sundseth

11Number 29 • December 2010

last year to support its work on financing Natura 2000. the objectives of the study were to:• obtain an accurate estimate

of the costs of managing the Natura 2000 Network across the Eu;

• increase awareness of the socio-economic benefits; and

• develop a methodology for improving the assessment of costs and benefits associated with the network.

the results of the study are now available. Key aspects are highlighted in this article.

Estimating the costs associated with Natura 2000 the first part of the study consisted of updating the estimates made in 2004 of the

allocation of Eu funds to Natura 2000 in the next financial period after 2013. Indicative information on the current level of support shows that the estimate of €5.7 billion/year is around four times higher than the likely annual contribution of the present Eu budget. whilst an overall increase in Eu funds for Natura 2000 may be difficult to achieve, the above estimates will at the very least help to raise the profile of the financial needs of the network at both Eu and national level. It will also provide food for thought on how to improve the ‘integration approach’ to financing Natura 2000 whereby support is made available through major Eu funds such as the Structural and

cost of implementing the Natura 2000 Network which at that time was estimated to be€6.1 billion per year for the Eu-25. a slightly modified questionnaire was sent out again in 2008 to collect up-to-date information from member States. Based on the replies received from 25 countries, a revised estimate was made, which put the figure (extrapolated to Eu-27) at €5.7 billion – i.e. very close to the original estimate. on average 33% of the costs are for one-off investments (e.g. investment in infrastructure and land purchase) and 67% are for recurrent annual costs (e.g. habitat management and planning). However, this is considered to be a low estimate. a key

reason is that many of the member States have based their estimates on existing resources rather than on the desired cost of completing, restoring and managing the network, if resource constraints were not an issue. the effect of these different assumptions and assessment methods is exemplified by Spain which provided two cost estimates: one based on actual costs and another on desired costs. the first led to an estimation of ca. €1billion/year or €70/ha/yr, the second to a figure of €1.5 billion/year or €110/ha/yr – almost 60% higher. Nevertheless, the overall figure is sufficiently robust to be used by the Commission in its negotiations over the

Innovative use of EU funds for Natura 2000 The EU study indentifies a selection of innovative Natura 2000 projects that have succeeded in obtaining co-financing from EU funds other than LIFE+. Here are two examples:

Weser Estuary, Germany: in order to reconcile the conservation needs of the Weser Natura 2000 sites with the many land use activities within the Estuary, the City of Bremen decided to develop and implement an integrated management plan for the entire area using money from ERDF under Priority 2: ‘to activate the urban economy and quality of life’. The total project costs €5 million, of which 50% will come from ERDF. The integrated plan, which will be developed in close collaboration with all stakeholder groups, aims to reconcile the interests of each through more strategic level planning. Measures will be implemented to improve the conservation status of the Natura 2000 site whilst at the same time supporting the other economic activities in the estuary, such as fisheries, waterway transport, energy and recreation. The ultimate goal is to improve the competitiveness of Bremen and Bremerhaven through a more integrated and therefore efficient land use model. Ultimately, this is expected to improve the lives and working conditions of the people living in the area.

Operational Programme for Natura 2000, Slovenia: Natura 2000 sites in Slovenia cover over 35.5% of the country. Most of the land in Natura 2000 is forest (70.6%) or agricultural land (22.1%). The government decided therefore that the most effective way of securing the conservation of these sites was to distribute the responsibility for their management amongst the relevant national authorities responsible for different sectors (forests, agriculture, water…). It therefore adopted a national operational programme for the management of Natura 2000 for the period 2007–2013, which lays down the conservation objectives of each site, the detailed measures needed to reach these objectives and the sectors responsible for their implementation.

By making horizontal links to other governmental programmes, the management of Natura 2000 sites has become an integral part of the country’s rural and regional development policies. This in turn enables it to access various EU funding sources. Half of the money needed to implement the Natura 2000 management programme (total cost €146.9 million) will come from ERDF (€57. 3 million), Rural Development (€21 million) and LIFE+ (€16.1 million).

In Slovenia, Natura 2000 measures are integrated into the Rural Development Programme

© iStock

© iStock

12 natura2000

rural development Funds and whether a dedicated nature fund based on the current lIFE+ Fund is still needed. Experience so far would indicate that the opportunities under Structural and rural development Funds are not being exploited to their full extent. there may be a number of reasons for this. Structural Funds may be difficult to access because projects are not able to demonstrate that investing in Natura 2000 brings socio-economic benefits for the region concerned. also, there may not be sufficient information available to authorities to know how to invest in Natura 2000 (due to a lack of Natura 2000 management plans for instance). In addition, there may be a lack of capacity and resources amongst the conservation community itself to apply for and manage such funding. the Commission will now reflect on the findings of the

study and on how to improve the current uptake of existing Eu funds with a view to preparing a new Communication on financing Natura 2000 in 2011.

Assessing the socio-economic effects of Natura 2000the second part of the EC study focused on exploring the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000. Clearly, in addition to playing a crucial role in protecting Europe’s biodiversity, Natura 2000 sites are capable of providing a wide range of other benefits and ecosystem services to society. they help purify and retain water, store carbon, protect against floods and erosion. they also host populations of species that are economically important such as pollinators, pest controllers, game animals, fish, wild crop varieties etc… and they provide ample possibilities for tourism and recreation.

However, these socio-economic benefits remain poorly understood and largely unrecognised, despite a general increase in the appreciation of the value of ecosystem services to society over the last few years. Evaluating the benefits associated with Natura 2000 would help to counterbalance the general view that the network is only about economic constraints and instead demonstrate that an appropriately managed Natura 2000 Network can, to a large extent, repay the costs related to its maintenance. demonstrating the socio-economic importance of Natura 2000 can encourage a better regional and local acceptance of the network by promoting a more integrated and multifunctional land use. It will also help to secure additional resources for the network through Eu funds such as the European regional development Fund.

with this in mind, the EC study examined the various initiatives that have been undertaken so far to assess the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000 sites. It found that most of the studies focused on calculating the benefits in terms of income and employment opportunities generated by tourism and recreation, without taking into consideration the economic benefits of less tangible services such as water purification or flood protection. Even so they all concluded that the benefits derived from protected areas such as Natura 2000 are greater than the cost of managing them (see box). unfortunately, there are still too few of these cost-benefit analyses to allow us to form a coherent picture of the overall benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. the EC study has therefore developed a practical toolkit for assessing the socio-economic benefits of individual Natura 2000 sites.

Forests not only store carbon and prevent soil erosion they also harbour huntable species such as deer

© naturepl.com

13Number 29 • December 2010

Examples of valuing the benefits of Natura 2000

Benefits provided by Natura 2000 in the Netherlands were estimated to be around €4,000/ha/year. Recreation and tourism as well as wider ecosystem functions were important components of this value as were non-use benefits. By extrapolating the gross welfare benefits of all Natura 2000 areas in the Netherlands (1.1 million ha), the authors came up with an estimate of around €4.5 billion/year.

The protection of all 300 Natura 2000 sites in Scotland was estimated to have an overall benefit-cost ratio of around seven over a 25-year period. This means that overall national welfare benefits are seven times greater than the national costs, representing good value for money.

As part of a wider economic and institutional assessment of Natura 2000 in France, several studies were carried out to determine the benefits arising from Natura 2000 across a range of sites. The objective of the assessment was to estimate the net benefits related to the management of Natura 2000. At the Natura 2000 site ‘Plaine de la Crau’. The net benefits were calculated to be around €142 ha/year, i.e. around seven times higher than the costs associated with the Natura 2000 site.

According to a study in Ireland, the economic benefits provided by the Burren (an extensive area of limestone pavements and orchid-rich grasslands) were estimated to be between €64.6 and €67.93 million per year. In addition, the total revenue (e.g. multiplied effects) from domestic tourists was estimated to be about €71.47/ha/year. All in all, the total rate of return on government support to the Burren Natura 2000 site was estimated conservatively to be around 353–383%, (with or without tourism), and 235% if all operating costs of the RDP farming programme and all direct payments are considered.

Under the Lower Danube Green Corridor (LDGC) Agreement, it has been agreed to restore 2,236 km² of floodplain, side channels and associated habitats along the Danube to help control floods in the region. The total cost of this restoration work is estimated at €50 million and would result in 2,100 million m³ of flood retention capacity. This compares favourably to the cost already incurred in Romania alone as a result of floods in 2010 which amounted to €59 million. In addition, it is estimated the restoration would provide €112 million a year in additional ecosystem services for fisheries, forestry, nutrient retention and recreation etc...

In 2009 the Finnish Natural Heritage Services (Metsahallitus) and the Finnish Forest Institute (Metla) carried out a national assessment of the economic impacts of nature tourism and nature-related recreational activities on local economies. The study consisted of the key government-owned nature areas,

including 35 national parks (many of which are in Natura 2000) and 10 other recreation areas. According to the study, the total annual revenue linked to visitor spending in national parks amounted to €70.1 million and supported local employment by creating 893 person-years. In general, it was estimated that €1 of public investment to protected areas provided €20 in return.

the aim of this toolkit is:• to help understand, assess

and communicate the socio-economic benefit and value of a Natura 2000 site. In this context particular focus is given to the less tangible benefits which are traditionally overlooked, such as water purification, carbon storage, flood retention etc. and which are not easily translated into monetary terms;

• to encourage site managers and authorities to carry out their own valuation exercises and promote their findings so that the benefits of Natura 2000 become better known and understood by key stakeholders and the public at large;

• to promote the use of a more standardised approach to cost-benefit analyses so that the findings of such studies can be scaled up and used to help form on overall picture of the economic value of Natura 2000.

the toolkit also provides advice on how to analyse the potential trade-offs involved. there will be times when the costs are borne by one sector of society and the benefits reaped by another. these need to be studied in detail so that this can be factored into the equation and redressed as required. Comparing costs and benefits in this way will also help to better prepare funding applications under ErdF and rural development Funds and demonstrate the true socio-economic value to a region or conserving and managing their Natura 2000 sites. the toolkit has been tested out on five Natura 2000 sites across the Eu to ensure its practical use, and is now available on-line, together with the other reports mentioned in the article: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm

Tourism and recreation in Natura 2000 sites generates significant income for local communities

© iStock

© iStock

14 natura2000

developed in order to present the core concepts of the tEEB study in a user-friendly way, and help people understand how and why we should value nature. In addition to these user reports, tEEB also launched its final report, Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature, at the 10th Conference of parties of the Biodiversity Convention in october. It illustrates how the economic concepts and tools described in tEEB can help equip society with the means to incorporate the values of nature into decision-making at all levels and concludes with ten key recommendations to help citizens and policy-makers factor biodiversity into everyday decisions. all reports are available on:

http://www.teebweb.org/

First overview of marine IBAs in the EU

after ten years research into seabird populations and their habitat, Birdlife has published two new reports on marine IBas in the Eu. the first report presents a detailed description of the latest state of play on the identification and classification of marine IBas in 20 Eu member States, and reviews governmental support for the establishment of marine Spas. the second report provides a methodological toolkit which is designed to assist in the identification of marine IBas and help standardise some of the methods and techniques used. It offers guidelines on the use of a variety of data sources, including satellite tracking data, at-sea survey data, and habitat modelling. Both reports

2011. It will focus on such issues as the relationship between good ecological status and favourable conservation status, the inclusion of nature conservation measures in the river Basin management plans and the application of exemptions for projects of overriding public interest under article 6 of the Habitats directive and article 4.7 of the wFd. a detailed workshop report, case studies overview and draft ‘Frequently asked Questions’ document on the links between the wFd and nature directives are all available under the EC circa wFd website: http://circa.europa.eu/public/irc/

env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_

conventio/biodiversity_legislation&vm=detailed&sb=titl

TEEB final reports the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (tEEB) study has completed its series of reports aimed at different target audiences. recognising the central role businesses play in managing, safeguarding and investing in the Earth’s natural capital, the TEEB for Businesses

report examines the relationship between business and biodiversity and provides practical guidance on the opportunities that can be created by the inclusion of ecosystem- and biodiversity-related considerations in day to day business practices. the TEEB for local and regional policy makers report explores how to deal with the challenge of biodiversity loss at a local and regional level. It examines what local governments can do with respect to natural resource use and management, maintaining and supporting biodiversity, local and regional urban and spatial design, as well as market-based approaches, such as payment for Ecosystem Services (pES). lastly, for citizens and consumers, a special on-line tool called TEEB4me, has been

WFD and Natura 2000 workshop

In June, the water and Nature units of dG Environment organised a joint workshop to explore the potential synergies and differences between the water Framework directive (wFd) and the Habitats and Birds directives. the aim was to:• provide an overview of the

existing links between the wFd and the nature directives;

• present case studies and exchange experiences on practical aspects of implementation;

• identify issues where further guidance and coordination is required.

the overall conclusion was that there are many links between the three directives. However more effort should be made to exploit these through closer cooperation between the nature and water authorities, and through a more integrated approach to implementation. the Commission is currently preparing further guidance on the potential synergies and overlaps between the directives which will be available in early

The River Danube: applying the WFD and Natura 2000

© Kovacs

Эк

он

ом

ик

а

э к о с и с т е м и

биоразнообразия

TEEB ДЛЯ РАЗРАБОТЧИКОВ ПОЛИТИКИ

РЕЗЮМЕ: ОТВЕЧАЯ ЗА ЦЕННОСТЬ ПРИРОДЫ

Laeconom

íade

losecos is tem

as

y labiodivers idad

TEEB PARA LAS EMPRESASRESUMEN EJECUTIVO

T h e E c o n o mi c s

o f E c o s y s t e ms

& Bi o d i v e r s i t y

MAINSTREAMING THE ECONOMICS OF NATURE

A SYNTHESIS OF THE APPROACH, CONCLUSIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF TEEB

生態系と生物多様性の経済学

Th

e e

co

no

mi c

s

of e

co

sy

st e

ms

& b

i od

i ve

r si t y

中間報告

生態系と生物多様性の経済学

中間報告

t h e ec o n om

i c s

of e

c os y s t e m

s

& b

i od

i v er s i t y

CLIMATE ISSUES UPDATESeptember 2009

L’ É conomi e

d e s

é co s y s t èmes

e t

dela

biodivers i té

UN BREF APERÇU : ÉTUDE TEEB À L’ATTENTION DESDÉCIDEURS POLITIQUES LOCAUX ET RÉGIONAUX

15Number 29 • December 2010

the other ten are Biodiversity projects that tackle wider biodiversity issues, such as demonstrating biodiversity functionality in viticulture landscapes in France or applying innovative actions against illegal poisoning in Eu mediterranean pilot areas.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/compilations/documents/natcompilation09.

pdf

Second Green Infrastructure conference

on 19 November, the Commission organised a second conference to further develop the implementation of the Green Infrastructure concept in the Eu. Issues addressed included the identification of implementation gaps, links to the climate change agenda, and the exchange of best practices reflecting progress being made on the ground. Background documents and presentations can be downloaded from:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/

ecosystems/green_infrastructure.htm

European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity

the EC Joint research Centre has just completed a major project on soil biodiversity. one of its outputs is a European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity. the atlas explains and illustrates the great diversity of life in soils across Europe. the first part of the book provides an overview of the environment beneath the ground, soil biota in general, the ecosystem functions that soil organisms perform, the important value it has for human activities and relevance for global biogeochemical cycles. the second part is more of an encyclopaedia of soil biodiversity. Starting with

subsequent implementation. particular focus was paid to strengthening the acceptance and uptake of the plans amongst stakeholders and national authorities. the results will now be used to develop updated criteria for selecting species for action plan preparation and for elaborating the plans themselves. the project will also examine how to update the Commission’s ‘key concepts’ of article 7.4 of the Birds directive document regarding periods of reproduction and prenuptial migration of huntable species. more information can be found on:

http://www.birdlife.org/eu/eu_events.html

New LIFE projects adopted

In July, the European Commission approved funding for 84 new projects under its lIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity programme. Spread over 24 member States, they represent a total investment of €224 million, to which the Eu will provide some €124 million. the majority (74) are Nature projects, contributing to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats directives and the Natura 2000 Network.

will be updated every six months. the Commission has acknowledged this work, which has been carried out with the support of the lIFE Fund, and has invited member States to make full use of the two reports when completing their marine Spa network.

http://www.birdlife.org/news/extra/europe/marine-toolkit.

html

Conference on bird conservation in the EU

on the 23–24 November the European Commission, with the assistance of Birdlife and FaCE, organised a conference bringing together over 100 conservation experts, practitioners and administrators to discuss the development and implementation of Eu-wide recovery plans for threatened bird species in Europe. the aim was to look at ways to improve the process of preparing these plans and ensuring their

the smallest organisms, this segment works through a range of taxonomic groups such as bacteria, fungi, nematodes, insects and macro-fauna to illustrate the astonishing levels of heterogeneity of life in soil. the overall purpose of the atlas is to support policies such as the Eu Biodiversity action plan and the Soil thematic Strategy by bringing soil biodiversity into policy focus. It also helps to identify needs for policy and research strategies aimed at soil protection and enhancement of biodiversity.

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/maps/biodiversity_atlas/

New guidance documents on economic activities affecting Natura 2000 sites

as mentioned in the previous newsletter, the Commission has recently issued two new sector-specific guidance documents for non-energy extractive industries and wind farm development. the overall objective is to establish a better understanding of how to apply the Habitats directive’s article 6 procedure to plans and projects within these two sectors of activity. Both documents have been developed in close cooperation with the stakeholders concerned and with the Commission departments responsible for these sectoral activities.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/

natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

NEwS

puBlICatIoNS

EvENtS

© tom

Brereton/marinelife

Balearic shearwater puffinus mauretanicus

Wind energy developments and Natura 2000

GuidaNce documeNt

nature

Tom Brereton/Marinelife

16 natura2000

Latest publications

apart from those already mentioned in previous articles, the Commission has produced a series of additional factsheets and leaflets on the following issues:• Green Infrastructure• the Natura 2000 viewer • Eu Biodiversity Indicators• Soil biodiversity.

you can also sign up for the Business and Biodiversity newsletter available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/

business/index_en.html

EU biodiversity campaign: Phase II

the Eu’s biodiversity campaign has now entered its second phase (see article in Issue 28). major publicity events have been held in a further four countries: Hungary, portugal, romania and Slovenia. In london, the National Geographic store dedicated an entire floor to promoting the campaign during one week in November. National Geographic has also produced three animated vignettes to highlight information of biodiversity which can be viewed on:

http://www.youtube.com/user/biodiversifyme

the campaign has also produced a ‘missing link’ quiz to test people’s knowledge of biodiversity. the quiz is available on Facebook:

http://apps.facebook.com/biodiversity/contest.php

International Year of the Bat

the Convention on the Conservation of migratory Species of wild animals (CmS) and Eurobats have joined forces to launch the international ‘year of the Bat’ campaign which will run for two years (2011–2012). the aim is to draw attention to the world’s 1,100 bat species – half of which are currently considered by IuCN to be threatened or near threatened – mainly due to habitat loss, human disturbance and persecution, insecticide use, increasing urbanisation and disease. the campaign will promote further conservation, research and education on bats. particular attention will be paid to highlighting the indispensable role that bats play in maintaining our environment. By controlling pests, they save farmers and others millions of Euro a year in crop or fruit damage. It is estimated that bat populations in large urban areas can consume around 13 tonnes of insects in a single night! they also play a major role in sustaining and regenerating both temperate and tropical forests through seed dispersal and pollination which is why the campaign will deliberately coincide with the uN’s International year of the Forest, also due to be launched in 2011. details can be found on:

http://www.yearofthebat.org/

Natura 2000 Viewer available on iPhone

as reported in Issue 27, the Commission has developed a new online tool, called the Natura 2000 viewer, which enables the user to locate and zoom in on any one of the 26,000 sites in the Natura 2000

Network across the Eu-27. a variety of backgrounds are available, including: detailed satellite images, street maps, Corine land cover maps, or biogeographical maps. It is also possible to search for all sites which have been designated for a particular species or habitat type. the Natura 2000 viewer is now also available as an application for your iphone and ipad. Go to:

http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/

the newsletter does not necessarily reflect the official view of the European Commission. reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged

printed on recycled paper that has been awarded the Eu Ecolabel (http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel)

the Natura 2000 Newsletter is produced by dG Environment, European Commission

AuthorKerstin SundsethEcosystems ltd, BrusselsCommission EditorSusanne wegefeltdG EnvironmentDesignNatureBureau, uK

the newsletter is produced twice a year and is available in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and polish. to be added to the mailing list, or to download the electronic version, visit http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs:natura2000nl_en.htm

E u r o p E a N

C o m m I S S I o N

KH-a

a-10-002-EN

-C

Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula©

Hug

h Cl

ark

/ Bat

Con

serv

atio

n tr

ust