evidence gathering questionnaire for the fitness …...the evidence gathered through this...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
1
Evidence Gathering Questionnaire for the Fitness Check
of the Nature Directives
Introduction
As part of its Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT), the European
Commission is undertaking a Fitness Check of the EU nature legislation, the Birds Directive1
and the Habitats Directive2 ('the Nature Directives'),3 which will involve a comprehensive
assessment of whether the current regulatory framework is “fit for purpose”.
Adopted in 1979, the Birds Directive relates to the conservation of all wild birds, their eggs,
nests and their habitats across the EU. Its strategic objective is ‘to maintain the population of
all species of wild birds in the EU at a level which corresponds to ecological, scientific and
cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to
adapt the population of these species to that level’.
The Habitats Directive, adopted in 1992, covers around 1000 other rare, threatened or
endemic species of wild animals and plants and some 230 habitat types. These are collectively
referred to as habitats and species of Community interest. The strategic objective of the
Habitats Directive is "to maintain or restore natural habitats and species of Community
interest at favourable conservation status, taking into account economic, social and cultural
requirements and regional and local characteristics".
The Directives require Member States to take a variety of measures to achieve these
objectives. These measures include the designation of protected areas for birds (Special
Protection Areas) and for habitats and species of Community interest (Special Areas of
Conservation), which together comprise the Natura 2000 network, and the adoption of strict
systems of species protection (see objectives of the Directives in Annex I to this document).
The Fitness Check is intended to evaluate how the Nature Directives have performed in
relation to the achievement of the objectives for which they were designed. In accordance
with its mandate,4 adopted by the European Commission in February 2014, it will assess the
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the Nature Directives5.
As part of this process, the European Commission has commissioned an evaluation study to
support the Fitness Check. The study is tasked with gathering and analysing evidence and
data held by a wide range of stakeholders.
The Questionnaire presented below is a key tool to enable you to provide this evidence.
In parallel to this questionnaire, you are invited to contribute to the initial list of published and
peer-reviewed documents identified as being relevant for the Fitness Check. The list, which
1 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild
birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7-25. 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
22.7.1992, p. 7-50). 3 Please note that for the purposes of this questionnaire, the terms 'EU nature legislation' and 'Nature Directives' refer to the
Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. 4 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/docs/mandate_for_nature_legislation_en.pdf 5 For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
2
will be updated at regular intervals, is structured according to the evaluation categories set out
in the mandate. It can be accessed at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm
The European Commission will also launch an online public consultation for 12 weeks from
April to June 2015. You are welcome to fill in that survey as well, but please be aware that the
two exercises are of a different nature. The public consultation will collect views and
opinions, whereas the questionnaire presented below aims to collect evidence, meaning facts
or information (such as case studies, research findings, infringement cases, case law and data)
which support a point or position.
The questionnaire
The questionnaire has been prepared in order to gather evidence-based information for the
evaluation. It is being sent out to all Member States and selected key stakeholders across the
EU.
Please answer all questions that you consider relevant to the situation in your
country/region/sector/area of activity, based on direct experience supported by evidence.
You are not expected or obliged to answer all questions.
Where possible, quantitative evidence should be provided. Where this is not possible, semi-
quantitative or qualitative evidence would be welcome.
We would encourage you to answer in English. In your answers please specify why and how
the evidence and documents provided is relevant for the specific question. For documents that
are not in English, please provide in the answer to the question a brief summary in English
that explains its relevance to the question.
Please provide full reference details for all documents cited or referred to in your
answers: author / editor names and their initials, full titles, full names of journals, relevant
page numbers, publishers and place of publication. If the document is available online, please
add a URL link. If it is unpublished information, please supply a copy or relevant excerpt.
When citing in short a document for which you have already provided full reference details,
please ensure that we can distinguish between references that have the same author(s) and
year of publication.
Please, make sure that the link between a question and the document related to it is clear. You
may choose to provide the full reference of cited documents in footnotes or in notes numbered
and linked to a reference list at the end of the questionnaire. If you send documents as
attachments to the email, please give them a name that includes the number of the question(s)
they are related to.
Deadlines for submission of the questionnaire
We kindly ask you to fill in the questionnaire and return it by e-mail within 5 weeks of
receiving it to: [email protected].
We appreciate that it may not be possible to provide complete answers to all the questions and
collect all the evidence you may wish to provide within this timeframe. However, it is
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
3
essential that we receive an initial response which is as complete as possible within 5 weeks
in order to enable us comply with the tight evaluation schedule.
On the basis of the initial responses received, follow-up interviews may be organised to seek
clarification or additional information if required. It may not be possible to organise such
interviews for responses received after the 5 week deadline. However, you will have until the
end of April to complete your final submission in response to the questionnaire. Please note
that it will not be possible to take into account contributions received after that deadline.
The evidence gathered through this questionnaire will be vital to the overall process. For this
reason, if you anticipate that you will not be able to complete the questionnaire, please let
us know as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance for your contribution.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
4
QUESTIONNAIRE
A. General Information
Please answer ALL questions in this table
Answer
Organisation: Stichting BirdLife Europe
Date: 16 March 2015
Country (and, if applicable, region)
represented:
European Union
Organisation(s) represented:
Association for the Defence of Nature Andorra,
Armenian Society for the Protection of Birds (ASPB),
BirdLife Austria, Azerbaijan Ornithological Society,
BirdLife Belarus, Natuurpunt, Natagora, Bulgarian
Society for the Protection of Birds, Association for
Biological Research-BIOM, BirdLife Cyprus, Czech
Society for Ornithology, Danish Ornithological Society,
Faeroese Ornithological Society, Estonian Ornithological
Society, BirdLife Finland, Ligue pour la Protection des
Oiseaux, Georgian Centre for the Conservation of
Wildlife, NABU – NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION UNION, Hellenic Ornithological
Society, Hungarian Ornithological and Nature
Conservation Society, Icelandic Society for the Protection
of Birds, BirdWatch Ireland, Society for the Protection of
Nature in Israel, Italian League for the Protection of
Birds, Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of
Kazakhstan (ACBK), Public Association NABS, Latvian
Ornithological Society, Liechtenstein Botanical and
Zoological Society, Lithuanian Ornithological Society,
Luxembourg League for the Protection of Birds,
Macedonian Ecological Society, BirdLife Malta, Center
for Protection and Research of Birds of Montenegro -
CZIP, Netherlands Society for the Protection of Birds,
Norwegian Ornithological Society, Polish Society for the
Protection of Birds, Portuguese Society for the Study of
Birds, Romanian Ornithological Society, Bird Protection
and Study Society of Serbia - BPSSS, Slovak
Ornithological Society/BirdLife Slovakia,
DOPPS/BirdLife Slovenia, Spanish Ornithological
Society, Swedish Ornithological Society, SVS - BirdLife
Switzerland, Nature Society, Ukrainian Society for the
Protection of Birds, Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds, Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History
Society, Uzbekistan Society for the Protection of Birds.
Name of contact for enquires (including
follow-up interview if required):
Wouter Langhout
Contact email address: [email protected]
Contact telephone number: +32 2 541 07 80
Languages spoken fluently by contact
person:
English
Language for the interview if it is not possible
to conduct it in English
Type of organisations you represent:
EU authority or agency / Member State
authority or agency / business or industry /
educational or scientific institute / nature
conservation charity / recreation / individual
Nature conservation charity
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
5
expert / other (please specify).
Sector represented: environment / water /
agriculture / forestry / fisheries / transport /
energy / extractive industry / industry / housing
and other buildings / recreation & tourism /
science & education / other (please specify)
Environment
Additional comments:
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
6
B. EVALUATION / FITNESS CHECK questions
Please answer all questions that are relevant to you and for which you can provide
informed insights from direct experience and/or supporting evidence.
We would kindly ask that you keep your answers as succinct as possible. They should
summarise in no more than 2 pages any evidence relevant to a given question. More
complete/detailed information, if any, should be provided in the form of references and/or
web links. Definitions, explanations and examples are provided under each question to assist
you in answering them.
When answering the questions, please note that the Fitness Check intends to examine the
performance of the Nature Directives in relation to their stated objectives, taking into account
expected results, impacts and external factors. The figure below presents the intervention
logic as included in the mandate. For ease of reference, a table presenting the objectives of the
Directives, differentiating between different types of objectives (strategic, specific,
operational), is included in Annex I to this document.
The questions are structured around the five evaluation criteria addressed in the mandate:
effectiveness = S, efficiency = Y, coherence = C, relevance = R, and EU added value = AV.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
7
Effectiveness
This section focuses on assessing the extent to which the objectives of the Birds Directive and Habitats
Directive have been met, and any significant factors which may have contributed to or inhibited
progress towards meeting those objectives. By 'objectives', we refer not only to the strategic
objectives, but also to other specific or operational objectives required under other articles of both
Directives (as set out in Annex I to this questionnaire).
'Factors contributing to or inhibiting progress' can relate to the Nature Directives themselves (e.g. the
clarity of definitions) or be external factors such as lack of political will, resource limitations, lack of
cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or other external factors (e.g. see those listed
in the above intervention logic).
We are particularly keen to learn of evidence that is not included in the Member State implementation
reports6.
S.1.1 What progress have Member States made over time towards achieving the
objectives set out in the Directives and related policy documents?
Please provide evidence on what progress has or is being made towards the achievement of the
objectives set out in Annex I that are of relevance to you. Please address separately the objectives of
the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, and specify which objective(s) you are referring to,
with references to the corresponding Articles. If possible quantify the progress that is being made.
Answer:
Strategic objectives of the Directives
There is plenty of evidence, that the Birds and Habitats Directives, where properly implemented, have
been proving extremely effective at improving the status of species and habitats at the EU. The
upcoming EEA State of Nature Report will show the population status of birds, other species, and
habitats, and will assess progress towards Target 1 of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy.
Scientific evidence demonstrates that Birds Directive Annex I species have shown more positive
trends than non-Annex I species in 1990-2000 in the EU15, and Annex I species had more positive
trends inside EU15 Member States compared to outside7, underlining the effectiveness of the SPA
network and other measures taken as a consequence of Annex I listing (e.g. LIFE projects, species
action plans). An upcoming study based on the latest data gathered for Art.12 (Birds Directive)
reporting and more extensive analysis confirms these conclusions. It is currently in press and will be
provided as soon as it is published.
Birds, and in particular migratory birds, have benefited enormously from hunting restrictions imposed
under the Birds Directive, which shows the transboundary effectiveness and EU added value of the
Directives.
A significant number of animal species have returned to Europe, thanks to an important degree to the
EU Nature Directives. Main positive factors are restriction of hunting, protected areas and
improvement of wider environmental quality.
A recent report titled, “Wildlife Comeback in Europe8 on the recovery of selected mammal and bird
species, found that, “wildlife comeback in Europe since the mid-20th century appears to be
6 Habitats Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/
Birds Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_12/Reports_2013/ 7Paul F. Donald, Fiona J. Sanderson, Ian J. Burfield, Stijn M. Bierman, Richard D. Gregory, Zoltan Waliczky (2007).
International Conservation Policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Published in: Science, Vol 317: 810-813.
http://www.monitoringmatters.org/publications/Science%20Donald%20paper.pdf 8 Deinet, S., Ieronymidou, C., McRae, L., Burfield, I.J., Foppen, R.P., Collen, B. and Böhm, M. (2013). Wildlife comeback in
Europe: The recovery of selected mammal and bird species. Final report to Rewilding Europe by ZSL, BirdLife International
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
8
predominantly due to species protection and active targeted conservation (both birds and mammals),
habitat management and site protection (birds) and legal protection (both).” The authors concluded
that, “The case studies of wildlife comeback presented in this report seem to vindicate decades of
conservation efforts in Europe. Sound legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Directives have led to
better hunting regulation, species and site protection and focusing of conservation investments. They
show that with sufficient resources and appropriate efforts, species can be brought back, even from the
brink of extinction.” The report includes accounts for 18 species of European mammals, and 19
species of birds.
National reports under the Birds and Habitats Directives show that progress is weakest where species
and habitats depend on human management and other sectoral policies, in particular agriculture or
energy. For example the loss of grassland of high biodiversity value has been massively accelerated
due to higher land prices, subsidies for bioenergy production and incentives for intensive agriculture
A striking example is the rush for biogas in Germany which has led to a large increase of energy crop
demands such as maize turning whole Natura 2000 sites into intensive arable production9. The
situation of farmland birds is particularly problematic if compared to all common species or marine
specialists10
where the Farmland Bird Index shows a serious decline in comparison to the 1980ies. The
reasons behind this farmland bird decline is due to on the one hand intensification and on the other
hand trends of abandonment. This dual pressure leads to a combination of habitat loss, loss of
heterogeneity in the landscape and general intensification of production and pollution11
.
Therefore it can be concluded that the Directives are delivering on their strategic objectives, but can
only be successful if they are properly implemented and not jeopardized by other policies (see answers
under "coherence").
A key problem is the failure of many Member States to define in quantitative and operational terms
the levels referred to in Art.2 of the Birds Directive and the Favourable Conservation Status referred to
in the Habitats Directive, at national, regional and site level. This seriously hampers the
implementation of the Directives.
Natura 2000 site designation
Thanks to the Birds and Habitats Directives the largest network of areas has been established where
nature conservation objectives are prioritised, with due consideration of social and economic concerns.
Progress in designation of important sites for birds as SPAs in general has been good. In 2013, overall
67% of Important Bird Areas (as identified by BirdLife International) were classified as SPAs,
compared to 23% in 199312
. Natura 2000 has revolutionised site protection in the EU. The Natura
2000 network has added 10% of European Territory as protected areas13
, with huge historical increases
and the European Bird Census Council. London, UK: ZSL http://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/media/2014-02/wildlife-
comeback-in-europe-the-recovery-of-selected-mammal-and-bird-species-2576.pdf 9 OSTERMANN, G. (2012): DefizitanalyseNatura 2000 am Beispiel der FFH-Gebiete Idarwald und Gerolsteiner Kalkeifel.
NABU-Bundesverband, Berlin https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/landwirtschaft/gruenland/nabu_gr__nlandstudie.pdf 10 EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands (2015) Common farmland bird indicator, Europe, single European species
habitat classification, 1980-2012 http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=568&result_set=Publish2014&indik[E_C_Fa]=1 11 Stoate, C., Baldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N. D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., de Snoo, G. R., Rakosy, L. & Ramwell, C. 2009
Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe - A review. Journal of Environmental Management.
91, p. 22-46 25 p.
Donald, P.F., Sanderson, F.J., Burfield, I.J. & van Bommel, F.P.J. (2006). Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of
agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990-2000. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 116: 189-196
Donald, P. F., Green, R. E. and Heath, M. F. (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird
populations. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 268: 25–29 12 BirdLife International (2013). State of the World’s Birds: Indicators for our changing world. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife
International.
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/sowb/pubs/SOWB2013.pdf 13 European Environment Agency (2012). Protected areas in Europe - an overview. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/protected-areas-in-europe-2012/at_download/file
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
9
in for example Estonia and Austria as a direct consequence of the nature legislation. 69% of the
protected areas worldwide is found in Europe, which protect a relatively large share of its territory in
spite of a high population density – 18% is covered by Natura 2000 compared to the USA only 12,9%
protected areas, with population densities of 116.3 km2 vs 33.7 km2 14 . The designation of SPAs has
been slower in the marine environment. Over 40% of marine IBAs identified by BirdLife in Europe
had not been designated as Special Protection areas in 2014, and two thirds of EU countries only
protect 3% or less of their marine area15
. On the other hand some countries such as Germany which
has designated 88% of its area of IBAs as SPAs and Spain which has designated 90%.
The designation of SCIs/SACs under the Habitats Directive has seen good progress as well.
There is evidence that the Natura 2000 network does effectively cover species of European
interest1617
including non target species18
. Together the Birds and Habitats Directives have
revolutionised site protection in the EU, evidence from the UK showing that prior to the adoption of
the Habitats Directive almost a quarter of nationally designated sites in England were being damaged
annually.19
Natura 2000 site protection and management (Art.6 Habitats Directive)
There have been serious delayed in many Member States regarding the establishment of legal
protection, development of management plans and setting of conservation objectives for Natura 2000
sites. However, where such measures are taken, Natura 2000 proves to be a very effective and
accepted tool202122
.
Proper application of Arts 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive to plans and projects provides a
‘litmus test for sustainable development’, preventing adverse effects on Natura 2000 where these are
avoidable and unjustifiable, while ensuring that essential development, for which there are no less
damaging alternatives are permitted to proceed subject to the provision of compensation to secure the
integrity of the Natura 2000 network.
The practical effects of this aspect have proven more difficult to track, as in many Member States
there is only weak government oversight of the implementation on Article 6.3 (Habitats Directive)
provisions. The clear cut conservation outcome mentioned above demonstrates that Natura 2000 has
been effective in reducing the amount of damaging activity affecting protected sites. Substantial
14 European Environment Agency (2012). Protected areas in Europe - an overview. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/protected-areas-in-europe-2012/at_download/file 15 BirdLife International (2014). Marine Natura 2000 progress report: Protection of marine Important Bird and Biodiversity
Areas (mIBAs), and sites at sea for seabirds.
http://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2014.11_MarinaN2K_ProgressReport_0.pdf 16Gruber B, Evans D, Henle K, Bauch B, Schmeller D, Dziock F, Henry P, Lengyel S, Margules C, Dormann C (2012)
“Mind the gap!” – How well does Natura 2000 cover species of European interest? Nature Conservation 3: 45-62.
http://natureconservation.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1335 17 Evans D (2012) Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network. Nature Conservation 1: 11–26.
http://natureconservation.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1329 18 Pellissier V., Schmucki R., F., Jiguet, R., Julliard, J., Touroult, Richard D., and D. Evans (2014). The impact of Natura
2000 on non-target species, assessment using volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring. ETC/BD report for the EEA.
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/Reports/ETCBDTechnicalWorkingpapers/Impact_Natura%202000_non-target_species 19 Hughes, P. and Ware, R. (1994). The habitats directive and the UK conservation framework and SSSI system: Research
Paper 94/90. House of Commons Library:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp94-90.pdf 20 IUCN (2005). Implementation of Natura 2000 in New EU Member States of Central Europe: Assessment Report. Warsaw,
Poland: IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe:
https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2005-117.pdf 21 WWF (2006). Natura 2000 in Europe - An NGO assessment: Implementation status of the Habitats Directive in the EU-25
Member States, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey. Budapest, Hungary:
assets.panda.org/downloads/natura_2000__wwf_report_2006.pdf 22 EEB (2007). Saving Biodiversity - Releasing Natura 2000's Potential. Brussels, Belgium: EEB:
http://www.eeb.org/?LinkServID=5031049D-9965-7B23-7C7F51A0351FD5DC&showMeta=0
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
10
evidence of plans and projects being improved and damage prevented has been gathered in the UK23
,
and there are some notable examples across the EU of iconic sites being saved from poorly planned
developments thanks to the protection provided by the Birds and Habitats Directives.
Case Studies: Article 6 Successes
BirdLife Europe partners have intervened in a number of high profile cases, where environmentally
damaging projects in or near to Natura 2000 sites have been modified following intervention based
on Article 6:
Rospuda Valley, Poland24
Kresna Gorge, Bulgaria2526
Port of Antwerp, Belgium2728
Kaliakra, Bulgaria29
There remain, however, a variety of serious problems with implementation. A commission study has
found evidence of poor quality of Appropriate Assessments (AA) undertaken under Art.6 Habitats
Directive, a lack of skills/ knowledge /capacity in relation to Article 6.3 procedures, an inadequate
knowledge base on which to assess impacts, inconsistent screening of plans and projects, a lack of
understanding of key concepts and legal terms, persistent lack of assessment of cumulative effects,
confusion with the EIA/SEA procedures, lack of early dialogue, lack of effectiveness of AAs on plans
and problems during public consultation30
. It is nevertheless important to note that the same study
highlights that the procedure is working well in general.
Bird species protection (Art.5-9 Birds Directive)
The complete and comprehensive system of protection that the Birds Directive established for all wild
bird species in Europe has been very successful. Many examples show that it leads, over time, to
largely sustainable hunting practices, although Member States have repeatedly faced the European
23 RSPB (2012). An overview of the RSPB’s engagement with the site protection
system: The second RSPB submission to the Defra review of the implementation of the Birds and Habitats
Directive in England. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/rspb2ndsubmissiontodefrahrrcasestudycommentaryandanalysis_tcm9-
305620.pdf 24 BirdLife International (2010). BirdLife's Polish Partner (OTOP) campaigned to save the Rospuda valley from road
development. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website:
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/25 25 RSPB (2003). Conflict Areas Between the Ten-T and Nature Conservation: Case studies July 2003.
http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/media/conflictareas_0.pdf 26 Wikipedia (2015). Kresna Gorge Tunnel. Retrieved from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kresna_Gorge_Tunnel 27 Port of Antwerp. A haven for endangered European plant and animal species. Retrieved from Port of Antwerp website:
http://www.sustainableportofantwerp.com/en/content/planet/haven-endangered-european-plant-and-animal-species 28 Vanoutrive, T. (2007). Sustainable spatial planning for European Sea Ports: Natura 2000 and ports striking a new balance.
As part of the 43rd ISOCARP Congress:
http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/971.pdf 29 RSPB (2014). Kaliakra. Retrieved from RSPB website:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/campaigningfornature/casework/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-228284 30 Roth, P. and Sundseth, K. (2013). EC Study on evaluating and improving permitting procedures related to Natura
2000 requirements under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Brussels, Belgium:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/AA_final_analysis.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
11
Court of Justice over unsustainable and unlawful hunting practices31
. In Italy and Spain very likely
hunting pressure has declined massively over the last decades.
Even in the younger EU Member States the Birds Directive has already significantly reduced the
pressure from illegal killing and legal hunting on migratory birds, however some room for
improvement still exists. For example, in Malta finch trapping was phased out following accession,
but was recently unlawfully reinstated. The topic has also raised awareness on the Birds Directive –
i.e. a high public awareness exists on the problem of illegal killing in Malta.
The remaining problems in this field can be related most of all to a lack of enforcement and in
Member States, which is caused by a lack of awareness, inadequately mandated enforcement units,
and understaffed and underfinanced enforcement departments 32
, and problems with access to
environmental justice33
.
Financing (Art. 8 Habitats Directive)
See answer on question Y.2
Research and reporting (BD Art 10, 12; HD Art 17, 18):
Surveillance and reporting of the conservation status of the habitats and species listed under the Birds
and Habitats Directive has led to huge improvements in the knowledge and evidence base about
Europe's biodiversity. Results from the latest article 17 report show a reduction in the proportion of
assessments where conservation status is unknown, from 31% to 17% for species and from 18% to 7%
for habitats.34 Furthermore, establishment of the Natura network has prompted research on a number
of themes, including adaptation to environmental change and management strategies, further
contributing to the overarching objectives of the Directives.35
S.1.2- Is this progress in line with initial expectations?
'Initial expectations' refer to the expectations, positive or negative, held by different stakeholders at
the time the legislation transposing the Directives came into force in your country. For example,
government reports and plans might provide evidence of intended timetables for the identification and
designation of Natura 2000 sites. We are seeking to understand the extent to which progress made to
date has met, exceeded, or fallen short of such expectations. If possible, in your answer please address
separately each of the objectives referred to in question S1.1 for which you have provided evidence.
Answer:
31 European Commission (2006) NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY CASES RULING OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF
JUSTICE Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006 32 BIO Intelligence Service (2011), Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for
tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU, Final report prepared for. European Commission (DG
Environment) 33 Darpo, J. (2013). Effective Justice? Synthesis report of the study on the Implementation of Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the
Aarhus Convention in the Member States of the European Union. Uppsala, Sweden, Uppsala Universitet :
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/synthesis%20report%20on%20access%20to%20justice.pdf see also
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/conference_summary.pdf 34 European Environment Agency (2015). The European environment — state and outlook 2015: Synthesis Report.
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer 35 European Environment Agency (2012). Protected areas in Europe - an overview. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/protected-areas-in-europe-2012/at_download/file
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
12
Initial expectations at EU level at the time the Birds Directive entered into force where largely
focussed on the need to harmonize rules governing the hunting of migratory birds and tackle the
widespread, large scale and unsustainable persecution of birds, 36
.
The petition "Save the Migratory Birds" submitted by the Dutch ecological group Stichting Mondiaal Alternatief
in 1974 lies at the root of EU efforts to protect wildlife37
. This petition motivated the European Parliament to
adopt a resolution38
, expressing its deep concern, “at the threat of extinction to our migratory birds”, and stating;
“Considers that the problem of the mass slaughter of migratory birds during their passage
through a State's territory must be examined as soon as possible in international law, since
migratory birds should be regarded not as 'res nullius' but as 'res communis';”
The resolution called on the Commission to adopt practical measures, including a general prohibition on the
trapping of birds with nets, a shorter season for hunting migratory birds by other means, the creation of bird
reserves in which hunting is generally banned, the preservation of certain species of birds and the creation of
suitable breeding grounds, and the safeguarding of a healthy environment.
The European Parliament specifically noted that time was short and demanded prompt action, stating;
“Stresses that once introduced the Community Regulations must be enforced as completely as possible
by comprehensive controls and suitable penalties and follow-up action against offenders;”
In response, the EU’s Second Environmental Action Programme39
included the following paragraphs;
A . Protection of wild fauna
139 . Over the last two years the commission has investigated a number of questions concerning the
protection of migratory birds and certain animal species threatened with extinction or becoming extinct
. These studies have shown that the problems transcend national frontiers and that any solution requires
initiatives at both international and community level .
140 . One such measure is the proposal for a council directive on bird conservation which the
commission submitted to the council on 20 December 1976. This measure is in particular response to
the wishes of the European parliament as expressed in its resolution of 21 February 1975.
This demonstrates that expectations around the EU’s new environmental laws were that prompt action would be
taken to address what was seen to be a serious problem.
The Birds Directive successfully improved sustainability of hunting practices by reducing the number
of species subject to legal hunting and the length of the hunting seasons. It has outlawed the use of
unselective methods for killing of wild birds such as poisoning. A similar improvement in the
regulation of hunting on mammals has been brought about by the Habitats Directive. A scientific study
on the recovery of wildlife suggested that persecution was one of the most frequent reasons for
historical declines, and that legal protection under the Birds (and Habitats) Directive is a key driver for
36 Meyer. JH (2013). Getting started: Agenda-setting in European Environmental Policy in the 1970s. Published in: Johnny
Laursen (ed.), The Institutions and Dynamics of the European Community, 1973-83, Baden-Baden: Nomos, March 2013.
http://pure.au.dk//portal/files/52042561/Meyer_2013_Getting_started.pdf 37 Meyer. JH (2013). Getting started: Agenda-setting in European Environmental Policy in the 1970s. Published in: Johnny
Laursen (ed.), The Institutions and Dynamics of the European Community, 1973-83, Baden-Baden: Nomos, March 2013. 38 European Parliament (1975) Resolution on PetitionNo 8/74,'Save the migratory Birds. Publication office of the European
Union, Luxembourg http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:1975:060:FULL&from=EN, 39 Council of the European Communiteies (1977). RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES AND OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL OF 17 MAY 1977ON THE CONTINUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY POLICY AND ACTION PROGRAMME ON THE ENVIRONMENT http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.1977.139.01.0001.01.ENG Publication office of the European
Union, Luxembourg
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
13
wildlife comeback40
.
The Habitats Directive was also intended to boost site protection in the EU and has been very
successful in that sense (see responses to S1.1).
Transposition has been slow, with many deadlines missed41
. Overall, the designation of terrestrial
Natura 2000 sites is largely complete, but is still significantly behind at sea (See Answer to S1.1). As
the Article 17 reports will show, the adoption of management plans is also falling behind schedule in
most Member States. The combination of legal protection and targeted project funding has however
resulted in the recovery of numerous species.
The EU biodiversity strategy "Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to
2020" includes a specific target (target 1) referring to the improvement of conservation status of
habitat types and species (HD) and the status of bird populations (BD).The EU 2010 Biodiversity
Target was missed, but Member States have recognized that protected areas and ecological networks
are a cornerstone of efforts to preserve biodiversity, and called for full implementation of the Nature
Directives42
.
The Directives have shaped EU citizens views on EU environment action, where demonstrable
positive impacts on the ground are reflected in EU citizens positive views of the EU’s role in relation
to environmental protection (Eurobarometer)43
.
In conclusion, it can be safely stated that the Directives have produced very substantial progress along
the lines expected when the Directives were adopted, and in some cases even exceeding these
expectations. Many conservation experts did not expect that the Directives would have such a strong
impact on conservation reality, and that the Natura 2000 network would indeed be established. Taking
into account the patchy implementation efforts of Member States, the successes achieved so far are
truly remarkable.
S.1.3 - When will the main objectives be fully attained?
On the basis of current expectations and trends, please provide evidence that indicates the likely year
or range of years that the main objectives will be met. By 'main objectives' we mean the strategic
objectives of the Birds Directive (as set out in its Article 2) and the Habitats Directives (in its Article
2), as well as the specific objectives set out in Annex I to this document.
Answer:
It is unlikely that the main objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives will be met while
implementation of the measures set out in the Directives, designed to achieve these objectives, remains
40 Deinet, S., Ieronymidou, C., McRae, L., Burfield, I.J., Foppen, R.P., Collen, B. and Böhm, M. (2013). Wildlife comeback
in Europe: The recovery of selected mammal and bird species. Final report to Rewilding Europe by ZSL, BirdLife
International and the European Bird Census Council. London, UK: ZSL
http://static.zsl.org/files/wildlife-comeback-in-europe-the-recovery-of-selected-mammal-and-bird-species-2576.pdf 41 WWF European Policy Office (2001). A Race to protect Europe’s Natural heritage: European snapshot report on the status
of implementation of the Habitats Directive.
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/raceprotect.pdf 42 Council of the European Union (2010). Biodiversity: Post-2010 - EU and global vision and targets and international ABS
regime. Council conclusions:
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7536-2010-INIT/en/pdf 43 European Commission (2014). Eurobarometer 416: Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment. Conducted
by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the Directorate-General for Environment:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
14
incomplete, inadequately funded, and is undermined by EU sectoral policies.
The Birds Directive Article 12 and Habitats Directive Article 17 Reports will show the progress made by
Member States towards achievement of adequate population levels and favourable conservation status at
EU level. These reports will also show where significant gaps in implementation remain, for example in
the designation and management of SACs. If Member States are required to fulfil their obligations under
the Directives on conservation measures and species protection and recovery, this will make a significant
positive difference as to when objectives will be fully attained.
The Commission has acknowledged that funding for Natura 2000 management is highly inadequate44
,
with likely only 9-19% of funding needs met4546
. Addressing the lack of funding is also likely to
significantly accelerate progress towards achieving the objectives set out in the Directives.
The impact on wildlife of perverse subsidies promoted under the EU’s sectoral policies, including the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)47
, Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)48
and Regional Policy49
is well
charted. While some improvements have been made to CFP, the opportunity to reform the CAP has been
missed in this round, and the impacts of unsustainable farming on biodiversity50
are likely to continue and
intensify. Without sweeping reform of the CAP, conservation objectives under the Birds and Habitats
Directives, particularly in the wider countryside, are unlikely to be met.
Experience with implementation of the Directives have also shown that while some species and habitats
can recover within a few years of appropriate management being put in place, for others decades or even
centuries might be needed to recover from past damage. For example research has shown that the rate of
recovery of peatlands from burning may be up to 500 years51
.
44European Commission (2011). Financing Natura 2000 - Investing in Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and
people. Brussels, Belgium:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/financing_natura2000.pdf 45 Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., Gerdes H. and ten Brink P. (2010). Costs
and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network: Final report to the European Commission, DG
Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Brussels, Belgium. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK /
Ecologic: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf 46Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A., Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, E.,
Rayment, M., Daly, E. and Pieterse, M. (2011). Assessmentof the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU
financing instrument. A project for the European Commission –final report. Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy
(IEEP). Brussels, Belgium.138 pp + Annexes: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/791/Assessment_of_Natura_2000_Co-financing.pdf 47Boccaccio, L., Brunner, A. and Powell, A. (2009). Could do better: How is EU Rural Development policy delivering for
biodiversity? Birdlife International:
http://natura2000.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report.Could.Do.Better.Natura2000.En.pdf 48BirdLife Europe (2015). Towards sustainable fisheries policy in the EU. Retrieved from BirdLife Europe website:
http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/towards-sustainable-fisheries-policy-eu 49Brunner, A., Campos, B., Godinot, S., Kalinka, P., Kedzierski, A., Palasi, JP., Riley, B., Trilling, M. and Torkler, P. (2010).
Changing Persoectives: How the EU Budget Can Shape a Sustainable Future. Stichting BirdLife Europe:
http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen
PDF/Changing_Perspectives_EU_budget_for_a_sustainable_future__engl._.pdf 50 European Bird Census Council. (2011). Trends of common birds in Europe, 2011 update. Retrieved from EBCC website:
http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=457 51 Lindsay, R. (2010). Peatbogs and carbon: A critical synthesis to inform policy development in oceanic peat bog
conservation and restoration in the context of climate change. Environmental Research Group – University of East London.
Page 217 et seq.:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Peatbogs_and_carbon_tcm9-255200.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
15
S.2 – What is the contribution of the Directives towards ensuring biodiversity? In
particular to what extent are they contributing to achieving the EU Biodiversity
Strategy* Objectives and Targets?
By 'contribution towards ensuring biodiversity', we are referring not only to the conservation of the
species and habitats specifically addressed by the Directives, but also to biodiversity more broadly
defined: i.e. other species and habitats not targeted by the Directives; ecosystems (terrestrial and
marine); and genetic diversity, both within and beyond the Natura 2000 network – in line with the
EU’s 2050 vision and 2020 headline target and the Targets of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
* For an overview of the EU biodiversity Strategy see:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/factsheets/Biod%20Strategy%20FS.pdf
Answer:
The European Parliament52
and EU Member States53
have recognised that the Birds and Habitats
Directives are the cornerstone of EU efforts to conserve biological diversity.
Protected areas work, and scientific studies have established that Protected Areas remain a key
conservation tool in the face of climate change, enabling species to adapt to shifting range envelopes
and other climate impacts54
. A study of population trends for all wild birds in Europe since 1970 has
shown how important the Birds Directive has been for these birds, especially those on Annex I. The
rate of recovery of Annex I species has been significantly greater inside the EU than outside, and
within the EU has been greater for Annex I species than species not listed on the Annex. A new study
about to be published suggests that the longer a species has been on Annex I of the Birds Directive, the
more positive is the trend. The role of protected areas in this recovery is critical. The greater the area
of SPAs, the stronger the recovery, especially for the rare and vulnerable species on Annex I. This was
borne out by evidence that these trends were more positive in those countries that designated larger
areas of SPAs 55
The need for coordinated international approach, given that nature does not respect national borders
(e.g. migratory species), is a largely self-evident statement (several Birds Directive Articles cover
this). This international approach has for example been exemplified by the Species Action Planning /
Management Planning approach under the Birds Directive56
, which implements several Articles. The
ORNIS Committee has also clarified the key concepts, thus harmoniously protecting species on their
52 European Parliament (2012). European Parliament resolution of 20 April 2012 on our life insurance, our natural capital: an
EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (2011/2307(INI)). Retrieved from European Commission website:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/EP_resolution_april2012.pdf 53 Council of the European Union (2010). Biodiversity: Post-2010 - EU and global vision and targets and international ABS
regime. Council conclusions:http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7536-2010-INIT/en/pdf 54Chris D. Thomas, Phillipa K. Gillingham, Richard B. Bradbury, David B. Roy, Barbara J. Anderson, John M. Baxter, Nigel
A. D. Bourn, Humphrey Q. P. Crick, Richard A. Findon, Richard Fox, Jenny A. Hodgson, Alison R. Holt, Mike D.
Morecroft, Nina J. O’Hanlon, Tom H. Oliver, James W. Pearce-Higgins, Deborah A. Procter, Jeremy A. Thomas, Kevin J.
Walker, Clive A. Walmsley, Robert J. Wilson and Jane K. Hill (2012). Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions.
PNAS 2012 109 (35). Pages 14063-14068: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/14063.full.pdf+html 55 Paul F. Donald, Fiona J. Sanderson, Ian J. Burfield, Stijn M. Bierman, Richard D. Gregory, Zoltan Waliczky (2007).
International Conservation Policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Published in: Science, Vol 317: 810-813.
http://www.monitoringmatters.org/publications/Science%20Donald%20paper.pdf 56 BirdLife International (2012). METHODOLOGY FOR BIRD SPECIES RECOVERY PLANNING IN THE EUROPEAN
UNION. Produced under Contract ENV.B.2./SER/2009/0076r “Scientific and technical assistance supporting the
implementation of the Birds Directive”:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/final_report.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
16
return to their breeding grounds.
The Directives form an important framework for enabling environmentally sustainable economic
development, without placing any unnecessary burden on business. This is exemplified by the port
sector – the Commission has issued guidance 57
, Article 6(4) has been used to allow port expansion
where this was of overriding public interest and no alternatives existed in the port of Rotterdam58
, and
good practice on species protection has emerged in the port of Antwerp59
.
There is scientific evidence that Directives work not only for target species60
but also for non-target
species 61
, an effect that will be amplified if implementation of the Directives improve, thus
contributing towards the Headline Target of the Biodiversity Strategy.
The Directives are by definition key tools for delivering target 1 of EU Biodiversity Strategy (i.e.
Fully implement the birds and habitats directives). Member States have acknowledged this in Council
Conclusions on the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020; “AGREES that full implementation of the EU
environment acquis, and in particular the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, is essential for the
achievement of the new EU 2020 Biodiversity targets”62
Directives also key for delivering target 2 (Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services), as
conservation measures for species and habitat types in unfavourable status amount to restoration. The
Directives. Connectivity under Article 10 of the Habitats Directive is an integral part of the
Commission’s Green Infrastructure Strategy63
.
The Birds and Habitats Directives protect many species and habitats on farmland (forthcoming EEA
Report, Commission guidance on Farmland). So far, implementation of the directives on farmland has
been very patchy, relying on subsidies under the Common Agriculture Policy including through Agri-
Environmental schemes (contributing to Target 3), and the use of cross-compliance with some
provisions of the Directive as a condition for payments. The CAP in general fails to deliver on
biodiversity64
, and species and habitats on farmland are doing worse compared to other ecosystems.
57 European Commission (2011). EC Guidance on the implementation of the EU nature legislation in estuaries and coastal
zone: With particular attention to port development and dredging. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Estuaries-EN.pdf 58 European Commission (2003). Opinion on the port of Rotterdam. Brussels, Belgium:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinion_en.htm 59 Port of Antwerp (2012). Sustainability Report 2012. Pages 114-116. Retrieved from Port of Antwerp website:
http://www.sustainableportofantwerp.com/sites/default/files/Sustainability_report_2012.pdf 60 Paul F. Donald, Fiona J. Sanderson, Ian J. Burfield, Stijn M. Bierman, Richard D. Gregory, Zoltan Waliczky (2007).
International Conservation Policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Published in: Science, Vol 317: 810-813:
http://www.monitoringmatters.org/publications/Science%20Donald%20paper.pdf 61 Pellissier, V., Touroult, J., Julliard, R., Siblet, J. P. and Jiguet, F. (2013). Assessing the Natura 2000 network with a
common breeding birds survey. Animal Conservation, 16: 566–574. doi: 10.1111/acv.12030
Pellissier V., Schmucki R., F., Jiguet, R., Julliard, J., Touroult, Richard D., and D. Evans (2014). The impact of Natura 2000
on non-target species, assessment using volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring. ETC/BD report for the EEA. 62 European Commission (2011). EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: Council conclusions. 3103rd ENVIRONMENT Council
meeting. Luxembourg:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/EU-council-conclusions-2020-strategy.pdf 63 European Commission (2013). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM/2013/0249 final:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249 64 G. Pe’er, L. V. Dicks, P. Visconti, R. Arlettaz, A. Báldi, T. G. Benton, S. Collins, M. Dieterich, R. D. Gregory, F. Hartig,
K. Henle, P. R. Hobson, D. Kleijn, R. K. Neumann, T. Robijns, J. Schmidt, A. Shwartz, W. J. Sutherland, A. Turbé, F. Wulf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
17
The utter failure of the CAP to reward biodiversity conservation is by far the biggest cause of ongoing
loss of biodiversity in Europe. This failure cannot be attributed to the Directives. Indeed, in many
cases Natura 2000 sites have provided a backstop, forcing some targeting of agrienvironmental
schemes with spectacular impact 65
.
For target 4 (Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources), Directives establish basis for the
creation of marine protected areas, which have a crucial role to play in delivering sustainable fisheries,
and protecting marine animal and bird species 66. Similarly to the case of farming, marine
conservation is overwhelmingly impacted by unsustainable fishing practices that are determined not
by the Directives but by the Common Fisheries Policy. Indeed, until the recent CFP reform, Member
States were being prevented from imposing appropriate management of Nature 2000 sites as
management of fisheries was outside their control in most waters (see also C.4). As for target 3, the
establishment of target 4 is an upfront acknowledgement by EU institutions that there are problems
outside the scope of the directives which must be solved in the relevant policy frameworks.
For targets 3 and 4, while Directives have been integrated into CAP and Marine Strategy Framework
Directive, inadequate implementation by Member States has significantly limited the contribution of
the Directives to protecting biodiversity in the wider countryside, and a key provision for cross-
compliance on Article 5 of the Birds Directive has been removed from the new CAP67
. The tools for
delivering conservation in the wider countryside exist in the Directives, but Member States have been
implementing them poorly in general and the Commission has only taken legal action once on Article
3 of the Birds Directive68
.
For target 5, it can be said that the Nature Directives have accelerated action on Invasive Alien Species
long before a dedicated EU Regulation was adopted. Especially with regard to the implementation of
LIFE projects that were carried out in Natura 2000 sites69
.
For target 6, it can be stated that the Nature Directives have been the most prominent instrument of the
EU to implement the CBD's Strategic Plan. The Nature Directives are directly beneficial also to
biodiversity outside the EU, especially migratory birds that spend part of their lifecycle in the EU.
This is also supported by the LIFE fund. At the same time Natura 2000 is a globally known and
admired initiative, with several initiatives being inspired from it or even trying to copy it into
legislation .
and A. V. Scott (2014). EU Agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 6 JUNE 2014 • VOL 344 ISSUE 618. Pages
1090-1092:
http://mta.hu/data/cikk/13/44/58/cikk_134458/peer-et_al_2014_Science_06-06-14_%282%29.pdf 65 As can be seen in this evaluation of the agri-environment measure in Castro Verde, there was a real benefit for avi-fauna
such as the Great Bustard. Agro-GES (2005) EVALUATION DES MESURES AGRO-ENVIRONNEMENTALES
ANNEXE 34 : ETUDE DE CAS CASTRO VERDE. Cascais, France.
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/measures/annex34.pdf
A similar positive example can be found for Corncrake in the Czech republic as indicated by the field research carried out by
CSO (BirdLife in the Czech Republic) – evidence to be submitted later. 66 EMPASFish (2008) European Marine Protected Areas as tools for Fisheries management and conservation Issue 3 /
February 2008 http://www.um.es/empafish/files/Issue%203.pdf 67 The European Parliament and The Council of the EU(2013). REGULATION (EU) No 1306/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013: on the financing, management and monitoring of the
common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC)
No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008. Joint statement by the European Parliament and the Council:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0549:0607:en:PDF 68 ECJ (2002). Commission of the European Communities v Ireland. Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations -
Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas. Case C-117/00. Delivered in
open court in Luxembourg on 13 June 2002:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62000CJ0117&from=EN 69 European Commission (2014). LIFE and Invasive Alien Species. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/life_ias.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
18
S.3 – Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by
stakeholders) have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving the Directive’s
objectives?
Please summarise evidence of the main factors that have supported or constrained progress towards
achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives. As in previous questions, by 'objectives' we mean
not only the strategic objectives set out in Articles 2 of both Directives, but also specific and
operational objectives, as set out in Annex I to this document. Relevant factors might include, for
example, resource limitations, lack of cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or
other external factors (e.g. those listed in the above intervention logic).
Answer:
Factors that stood in the way of achieving the Directives' objectives
First of all, transposition was delayed. Many member states failed to properly transpose the Directives
into national law by the due date, some only did so when taken to court by the European Commission (7).
In addition, implementation was slow and incomplete, resulting in a large number of complaints and legal
action by the Commission. Most Member States failed to implement the measures set out in the Directives
by the deadlines originally set (Article 12/17 report information on SAC designation). Some measures, for
example the designation of Natura 2000 sites in the marine environment , have in many cases still not been
completed. Most of these delays have been caused by political opposition to designation and
implementation by national and regional stakeholders such as farming unions, hunters associations or
specific vested interests (often property and infrastructure developers). Lack of proper communication
and consultation by many Member States at the early stages of the establishment of the Natura 2000
network have often fuelled suspicion and have been effectively misused by politicians and administrators
hostile to conservation.
Member States have in some cases also directly undermined the implementation of the Directives – for
example by leaving out important parts of sites during designation 70
, or by (unlawfully) exempting sectors
such as forestry and agriculture from the requirements of the Directives71
.
Funding has been a constraint. Member States and the EU have failed to dedicate sufficient resources to
the establishment and management of the Natura 2000 network72
(10,). A lack of mechanisms for
earmarking as well as tracking funding used for biodiversity conservation under EU funds are key
70 ECJ (1996). Judgment of the Court of 11 July 1996. Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte: Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds. Reference for a preliminary ruling: House of Lords - United Kingdom. Directive
79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds - Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna
and flora - Delimitation of Special Protection Areas - Discretion enjoyed by the Member States - Economic and social
considerations - Lappel Bank. Case C-44/95:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61995CJ0044 71 ECJ (2006). Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 January 2006.Commission of the European Communities v
Federal Republic of Germany. Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of
natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Assessment of the implications of certain projects on a protected site - Protection of
species. Case C-98/03:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddf9f0523b2f884a94bce8eed7dd0287ad.e34KaxiL
c3qMb40Rch0SaxuPbhv0?text=&docid=57288&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=63224
8 72 Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A., Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, E.,
Rayment, M., Daly, E. and Pieterse, M. (2011). Assessmentof the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU
financing instrument. A project for the European Commission –final report. Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy
(IEEP). Brussels, Belgium.138 pp + Annexes: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/791/Assessment_of_Natura_2000_Co-financing.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
19
problems73
. Spending under the ERDF on biodiversity has been insufficient74
. Rural development
spending suffers from lack of monitoring, reporting and clear objectives in general 75
, and agri-
environment schemes suffer from lack of clear objectives and strategic choices76
. Positive funding has been
often more than offset by perverse subsidies77
. The LIFE fund is effectively contributing to the
conservation status of habitats and species78
, but seriously underfunded.
Access to Environmental Justice has been a problem – citizens and NGOs have in many Member
States no legal standing, face excessive cost, or have no effective way of challenging decisions79
and there are major problems with the handling of complaints in many Member States,
including with transparency and accountability80
. This has in its turn led to a large number of
complaints to the Commission, while resolving complaints at the national level would be quicker
and more efficient.
Enforcement is a particular problem. A study by IMPEL showed that illegal activities and a lack
of respecting of permit conditions are a frequent problem in Natura 2000 sites, and that human
and financial resources for enforcement are the biggest challenge in enforcement, suggesting
that Member States do not allocate sufficient resources to enforcement81
.
The Commission has taken a large amount of much needed legal action for the implementation
contributing to better implementation, however there has also been at least one case of legal
action not forthcoming as a result of direct political interference from the political top of the
Commission (the Sabor dam in Portugal) 82
73 Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A., Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, E.,
Rayment, M., Daly, E. and Pieterse, M. (2011). Assessmentof the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU
financing instrument. A project for the European Commission –final report. Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy
(IEEP). Brussels, Belgium.138 pp + Annexes: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/791/Assessment_of_Natura_2000_Co-financing.pdf 74 European Court of Auditors (2014). Is the ERDF effective in funding projects that directly promote biodiversity under the
EU biodiversity strategy to 2020? Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union:
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR14_12/QJAB14012ENC.pdf 75 European Court of Auditors (2013). CAN THE COMMISSION AND MEMBER STATES SHOW THAT THE EU
BUDGET ALLOCATED TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY IS WELL SPENT? Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union:
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR13_12/SR13_12_EN.pdf 76 European Court of Auditors (2011). ISSN 1831-0834 EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS EN 2011 Special Report No
7 IS AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT WELL DESIGNED AND MANAGED? Luxembourg, Publications Office of the
European Union:
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR11_07/SR11_07_EN.PDF 77 Boccaccio, L., Brunner, A. and Powell, A. (2009). Could do better: How is EU Rural Development policy delivering for
biodiversity? Birdlife International: 78 European Court of Auditors (2009). The Sustainability and the Commission’s Management of the LIFE-Nature Projects.
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union:
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR09_11/SR09_11_EN.PDF 79 Darpo, J. (2013). Effective Justice? Synthesis report of the study on the Implementation of Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the
Aarhus Convention in the Member States of the European Union. Uppsala, Sweden, Uppsala Universitet :
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/synthesis%20report%20on%20access%20to%20justice.pdf see also
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/conference_summary.pdf 80 André, N., Hjerp, P., Homann, G., Lucha, C., Mitsios, A., Mudgal, S., Tedsen, E., Tilche, N. and Volkéry, A. (2012).
Study on environmental complaint handling and mediation mechanisms atnational level. Berlin, Germany, Ecologic Institute:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/mediation_and_complaint-handling.pdf 81 IMPEL (2013). Buidling up IMPEL Nature conservation capacities, pp. 32-33
http://impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FR-2013-17-Building-up-IMPEL-nature-conservation-capacities.pdf 82 Jackson, A. L. R. (2011). Global Environmental Change: Renewable energy vs. biodiversity - Policy conflicts and the
future of nature conservation. Elsevier, Pages 1195–1208:
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/613bb4fa-ab43-4a14-8f68-f7a8b6f7e0c0/2011_Jackson.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
20
Maybe the most important factor is a failure of addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss in other
sectoral policies, with the notable example of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy83The loss of
grasslands in Natura 2000 sites has been significantly accelerate by the failure of providing farmers
with adequate incentives for keeping instead of converting their land into arable fields as can be seen
in this example of Bulgaria84
.. On the other hand subsidies (e.g. in Germany for biogas production)
have fuelled habitat change. In combination with weak enforcement this has led to a dramatic decline
of grasslands in Germany and elsewhere .85
Factors that contributed to achieving the Directives' objectives
Case action by stakeholders bringing specific cases to attention of European Commission and
European Parliament has helped protect individual sites and secured conservation outcomes.
Environmental NGOs have achieved results, sometimes through complaints to the Commission
which triggered infringement procedures such as on the Augustow bypass planned through the
Rospuda Valley SPA86
and sometimes through direct legal action at national level87
. Nature
Directive violations represent a high proportion of citizens complaints to the Commission,
usually around 20% of the complaints to DG Environment relate to nature, making it one of the
larger areas 88
and 520 out 3505 complaints submitted to the Commission in 2013 related to
83
P. Reidsma et al., ‘Impacts of land‐use change on biodiversity: As assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the
European Union’ in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environmental, vol. 114, May 2006, pp. 86‐102.
C.A.M. Van Swaay et al., The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland species 1990‐2009, De Vlinderstichting,
Wageningen, 2010.
P.F. Donald et al., 'Further evidence of continent‐wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland
birds' in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environmental, vol. 116, September 2006, pp. 189‐196;
Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU) (2008), Eating Biodiversity: an Investigation of the Links Between Quality Food Production and Biodiversity Protection, 2008; http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/Buller%20Policy%20&%20Practice%20Notes.pdf
Williams I. 2002 Insect Pollination and Crop Production: A European Perspective. In: Kevan P &Imperatriz Fonseca VL (eds) - Pollinating Bees-The Conservation Link Between Agriculture and Nature Ministry of Environment / Brasília.p.59-65http://www.webbee.org.br/bpi/pdfs/livro_02_willians.pdf
G. Pe’er, L. V. Dicks, P. Visconti, R. Arlettaz, A. Báldi, T. G. Benton, S. Collins, M. Dieterich, R. D. Gregory, F. Hartig, K.
Henle, P. R. Hobson, D. Kleijn, R. K. Neumann, T. Robijns, J. Schmidt, A. Shwartz, W. J. Sutherland, A. Turbé, F. Wulf and
A. V. Scott (2014). EU Agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 6 JUNE 2014 • VOL 344 ISSUE 618. Pages 1090-
1092: 84 V Dobrev, G Popgeorgiev, D Plachiyski (2014) Effects of the Common Agricultural Policy on the coverage of
grassland habitats in Besaparski Ridove Special Protection Area (Natura 2000), southern Bulgaria- Acta zoologica bulgarica, 2014 http://www.acta-zoologica-bulgarica.eu/downloads/acta-zoologica-bulgarica/2014/supplement-
5-147-156.pdf 85
Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2014): Grünland Report - Alles im Grünen Bereich? http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/presse/2014/PK_Gruenlandpapier_30.06.2014_final_layout_barrierefrei.pdf 86 ECJ (2007). Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland. Case C-193/07:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2007.199.01.0014.01.ENG
– see also BirdLife International (2010). BirdLife's Polish Partner (OTOP) campaigned to save the Rospuda valley from road
development. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available from:
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/25 87 ECJ (2004). Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2004. Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de
Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en
Visserij. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Raad van State – Netherlands. Directive 92/43/EEC -Conservation of natural
habitats and of wild flora and fauna - Concept of "plan' or "project' - Assessment of the implications of certain plans or
projects for the protected site. Case C-127/02: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-127/02 88 European Commission. Legal Enforcement: Statistics on environmental infringements. Retrieved from Europeam
Commission website:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/statistics_sector.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
21
environmental legislation 89
; this shows how relevant this legislation is to citizens (see R.4) but
also how much of the enforcement task has been left to private citizens and NGOs.
There is published evidence from Germany that court cases filed by environmental NGOs were
significantly more successful than other cases at German administrative courts, and that the NGOs did
not excessively use the instrument of going to court. From this one can conclude that a key problem of
nature and other environment legislation lies in inadequate implementation by Member State
authorities.90
It can be noted from many examples, that only infringement procedures from the European
Commission led to significant implementation efforts of Member States, e.g. in the case of
Germany complaints about SPA designation or the ongoing horizontal infringement procedure
against Germany's failure to properly designate SACs.
A key factor of success has been cooperation among stakeholders, catalysed by EU or government
initiatives and funding. A variety of actors has actively engaged in the implementation of the Birds and
Habitats Directives with measureable conservation outcome. The flagship example is the LIFE
Programme projects on Natura 2000, which has involved a range of stakeholders including business,
NGOs and local, regional and national authorities. There are many more examples of constructive
engagement of sectors with the Directives, e.g. the positive role of hunters 91
, electricity grid operators92
,
cement industry9394
, port authorities95
, land owners96
, in and outside Natura 2000 sites.
In Germany several models have been developed to improve the Directives implementation, such as
Landcare associations at municipal and regional levels consisting of conservation and agriculture
representatives 97, or "Bio-Stations" 98
taking care of clusters of Natura 2000 sites, bringing
stakeholders together and developing projects.
89European Commission (2013). Report from the Commission: 31st Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EU
Law. Brussels, Belgium:
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/docs/annual_report_31/com_2014_612_en.pdf 90 SCHMIDT, A., ZSCHIESCHE, M. (2013): Verbandsklagen im Natur- und Umweltschutzrecht 2011 und 2012 unter
Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung von 2007 bis 2010
http://www.ufu.de/media/content/files/Fachgebiete/Umweltrecht/Publikationen/Original_Studie_Verbandsklage_Feb_2014-
1.pdf 91 BirdLife International and FACE (2004). Agreement between BirdLife and FACE on Directive 79/49/EEC
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/agreement_en.pdf 92 Renewables Grid Initiative (2011). European Grid Declaration on Electricity Network Development and Nature
Conservation in Europe. Retrieved from RGI website:
http://renewables-grid.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Files_RGI/European%20Grid%20Declaration.pdf
93 BirdLife International. The CEMEX - BirdLife International Global Conservation Partnership Programme 2007-2017.
Retrieved from BirdLife International website (last updated 2015):
http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/cemex-birdlife-international-global-conservation-partnership-programme-2007-2017 94 BirdLife International. Partnership with HeidelbergCement. Retrieved from BirdLife International website (last updated
2015):
http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/partnership-heidelbergcement 95
Vikolainen V., Bressers, J.T.A. and Lulofs, K. (2014) ‘A shift toward Building with Nature in the dredging and port development industries: managerial implications for projects in or near Natura 2000 areas’, Environmental Management, Vol. 54, Nr. 1, pp. 3-13
Port of Antwerp. A haven for endangered European plant and animal species. Retrieved from Port of Antwerp website:
http://www.sustainableportofantwerp.com/en/content/planet/haven-endangered-european-plant-and-animal-species 96
European Landowners Organsation (undated) Natura 2000 http://www.elo.org/UserFiles/File/Natura_2000.pdf 97
Jürgen Metzner et al., Kooperativer Naturschutz in der Praxis, NuL 45 (10/11), 2013, 315-321 (with English abstract: Cooperative Nature Conservation in Practice – Implementation examples of landcare groups) http://www.lpv.de/fileadmin/user_upload/data_files/Publikationen/Artikel/NuL10-11_13-Metzner_etal_LPVpraxiskl.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
22
BirdLife's experience shows that the huge amount of volunteer engagement in the implementation of
the Directives, e.g. in practical conservation or monitoring, is a key factor of success. The landmark
publications of BirdLife as well as government Art.12 reports would have been impossible or far too
expensive without volunteer input. 99
S.4 - Have the Directives led to any other significant changes both positive and negative?
This question aims to assess whether the implementation of the Nature Directives has brought about
any significant environmental, social or economic effects or changes that were not intended or
foreseen by the Directive at the time of their approval, and whether these changes were positive,
negative or neutral in terms of their contribution towards meeting the objectives of the Directives.
Examples of such effects or changes might include the development of a culture of social participation
in nature-related decisions as evidenced by Committees for the development of management plans or
higher cooperation of departments of different ministries, etc.
Answer:
Environmental effects The implementation of the Nature Directives had significant positive effects also for non-target
species 100
as well as the wider environment. Firstly they have created a much greater awareness for
environmental and biodiversity concerns in administration, among stakeholders, and the wider public.
Secondly, Natura 2000 is used also as a guidance for many strategic development initiatives, e.g. for
priorities of government financial support,101
priority setting for practical conservation projects or
establishment of site care takers by NGOs, and for the planning of wind farms (e.g. in several German
Länder) or powerlines. Thirdly the Directives have led to a professionalization of nature conservation,
e.g. by triggering new courses and degrees in universities. Fourthly the Directives led to the creation
of new institutional approaches, such as the German Landcare associations or the German
Biostationen (See references S.3).
The Directives have fostered collaboration between stakeholders (Sustainable Hunting Initiative 102
which has greatly contributed to the reduction of conflict in many parts of Europe). Conflicts that are
often attributed to N2000 are in fact conflicts over different uses of nature and Directives provided for
an effective management and resolution of these conflicts in a way that ensure nature does not lose
out.
The Directives have, especially in federal countries, led to increased cooperation and coordination of
98
Website of the umbrella organisations of Biostationen of Northrhine Westfalia: http://www.biostationen-nrw.com
99 Roomen, M. van, Koffijberg, K., Noordhuis, R. & Soldaat, L. 2006. Long-term waterbird
monitoring in The Netherlands: a tool for policy and management. Waterbirds around the world.
Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 463-
470
100 Pellissier V., Schmucki R., F., Jiguet, R., Julliard, J., Touroult, Richard D., and D. Evans (2014). The impact of Natura
2000 on non-target species, assessment using volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring. ETC/BD report for the EEA.
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/Reports/ETCBDTechnicalWorkingpapers/PDF/Impact_of_Natura_2000_on_non-target_species 101 National fund for Environment Protection (2015). Program LIFE (in Polish). Available at:
http://www.nfosigw.gov.pl/oferta-finansowania/srodki-zagraniczne/instrument-finansowy-life/ 102 BirdLife International and FACE (2004). Agreement between BirdLife and FACE on Directive 79/49/EEC
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/agreement_en.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
23
conservation and planning authorities in the different regions (e.g. in Germany) and supported
massively the cooperation among neighbouring countries or EU Member States of the same
biogeographic region.
The effects of EU Birds and Habitats Directive also are visible in accession countries which have been
adapting their conservation law to the requirements of the directives , indeed the directives have been
a source of inspiration for improved governance and conservation also in non-accession countries in
Eastern Europe, North Africa and the Middle east103
.
The Birds and Habitats Directive has given focus to national conservation work, inviting actors to
focus on EU priorities (LIFE Regulation). The LIFE program and the LIFE priority list for birds and
the Habitats Directive priority species have influenced the selection of projects, as LIFE is a
significant share of project funding for conservation in the EU 104105
.
Socio-economic effects
EU environmental legislation has helped create and boost the “green economy” through the creation of
new roles and sectors, including new environmental professionals, and new businesses.
The Nature Directives also channel a lot of EU financial support into marginal regions, especially
through Rural Development Funding and Cohesion Policy.
EU’s role in protecting the continent’s natural heritage is likely to have increased its popularity with a
large part of the population. EU environmental legislation is indeed generally perceived positively by the
larger public in the EU - 77% of EU citizens think EU environmental legislation necessary. Environmental
protection is seen as key benefit of European integration, and an area where citizens trust the EU and
acknowledge, even in more Eurosceptic countries, that the EU has a role to play. Campaigns around
threatened sites have involved EU citizens in nature conservation106
. The level of cooperation among
conservation NGOs from different EU countries has literally exploded thanks to the Directives and
Natura 2000 leading to daily exchanges of best practice that have improved knowledge, effectiveness and
coordination across the board.
EU-wide approach has given businesses operating across different Member States more certainty in
relation to legislative framework and the common legislative framework also helped them saved resources
compared to a situation in which they would have had to comply with a different nature protection
regimes in each Member State, and the wealth of Commission guidance is helping this further. The
Natura 2000 viewer allows business to locate sites in any Member States and find the species and habitats
103 The following initiative is in part inspired on the BirdLife-FACE agreement : BirdLife International (2010) Towards
sustainable hunting in the Middle East. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available from:
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/35. Checked: 15/03/2015 104 Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., Gerdes H., ten Brink P. (2010). Costs
and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report to the European Commission, DG
Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels
2010:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf 105 European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2013). REGULATION (EU) No 1306/2013 OF THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and
monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC)
No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0549:0607:en:PDF 106 ECJ (2007). Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland. Case C-193/07:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2007.199.01.0014.01.ENG
– see also BirdLife International (2010). BirdLife's Polish Partner (OTOP) campaigned to save the Rospuda valley from road
development. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available from:
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/25
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
24
present 107
A recent report for DG Environment estimated that the full implementation and management of
the Natura 2000 network can be expected to directly support 122,000 FTE jobs108
and Gross
Value Added of €3.05 billion in the regions in which sites are located, helping to provide a new
source of income for land owners and managers and to diversify the rural economy. Taking
account of indirect and induced effects (through purchased inputs and employee expenditures),
the total impact at the EU level is estimated to be to support 207,400 FTE jobs and GVA of €5.2
billion at the EU level109
. It has been estimated that job creation per bilion euros of EU
expenditure is 7 times higher in Management of Natura 2000 than in current CAP
expenditure.110
It is estimated that there are between 1.2 to 2.2 billion visitor days to Natura 2000
sites each year, generating recreational benefits worth between €5 and €9 billion per annum111
.
The Directives have helped involving business in nature conservation. The flagship example is the LIFE
Programme projects on Natura 2000, which has involved a range of stakeholders including business, and
local, regional and national authorities through joint LIFE projects. There are many more examples of
constructive engagement of sectors with the Directives, e.g. the positive role of hunters112
, electricity grid
operators113
and cement industry, including in Natura 2000 sites114115
.
107 European Environment Agency (2015). Natura 2000 viewer. Available on:
http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/ 108 De Ceuster, G., Hinterberger, F., Kuik, O., Leveson Gower, H., Pirgmaier, E., Polzin, C., Rayment, M. and Varna, A.
(2009). The economic benefits of environmental policy: A project under the Framework contract for economic analysis
ENV.G.1/FRA/2006/0073 - 2nd. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Vrije Universiteit:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_economic_benefits.pdf 109 GHK Consulting et al for DG Environment (2007). Links between the environment, economy and jobs. Londen, England.
Retrieved from European Commission website:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/industry_employment/pdf/ghk_study_wider_links_report.pdf 110 Investing for the future: more jobs out of a greener EU budget. http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=41FFA309-5056-
B741-DBFD725B2A886A5F based on:
Daly E., Pieterse M., Medhurst J., Evaluating the potential for Green Jobs in the next Multi-annual Financial Framework,
London, GHK, August 2011 - can be downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Green_Jobs.pdf
111 BIO Intelligence Service (2011). Estimating the economic value of the benefits provided by the tourism/recreation and
Employment supported by Natura 2000, Final Report prepared for European Commission, DG Environment. Retrieved from
Europeam Commission website:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Estimating_economic_value.pdf 112 BirdLife International and FACE (2004). Agreement between BirdLife and FACE on Directive 79/49/EEC
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/agreement_en.pdf 113 Renewables Grid Initiative (2011). European Grid Declaration on Electricity Network Development and Nature
Conservation in Europe. Retrieved from RGI website:
http://renewables-grid.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Files_RGI/European%20Grid%20Declaration.pdf 114 BirdLife International. The CEMEX - BirdLife International Global Conservation Partnership Programme 2007-2017.
Retrieved from BirdLife International website (last updated 2015):
http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/cemex-birdlife-international-global-conservation-partnership-programme-2007-2017 115 BirdLife International. Partnership with HeidelbergCement. Retrieved from BirdLife International website (last updated
2015):
http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/partnership-heidelbergcement
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
25
Efficiency
Efficiency is essentially a comparison between inputs used in a certain activity and produced outputs.
The central question asked here is whether the costs involved in the implementation of the EU nature
legislation are reasonable and in proportion to the results achieved (benefits). Both 'costs' and
'benefits' can be monetary and/or non-monetary. A typology of the costs and benefits resulting from
the implementation of the Directives is given in Annex II to this questionnaire. In your answers, please
describe the nature, value and overall significance of the costs and benefits arising from the
implementation of the Directive, supported by evidence.
Y.1 - What are their costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary)?
Based on the explanation given above, please indicate, supported by evidence, what types of costs and
benefits have resulted from the implementation of the Nature Directives. Please provide evidence,
quantitative where possible, of costs and benefits, describe their nature (monetary/non-monetary) and
value, and who is affected and to what extent. Please distinguish between the costs and benefits
arising from the Directives themselves and those arising as a result of other factors. To facilitate
analysis of the answers it would be useful if costs and benefits could be addressed separately.
Answer:
There is strong evidence that the benefits delivered by the directives (monetary and non-monetary) far
outweigh the costs resulting from current implementation of the directives, and also the costs that
would be incurred were the Directives to be fully implemented.
Costs
A key piece of evidence is the 2010 study titled, “Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with
the Natura 2000 Network”116
, which estimated the annual costs of implementing the Natura 2000
network at €5.8 billion per year for the EU-27.
A GHK study commissioned by the EU budget reform coalition concluded that the cost of a job
created through investment in the management of Natura 2000 is 7 times lower than the cost of a job
saved or created through current CAP expenditure. This is shows an outstanding level of effectiveness
of the directives as an engine of job creation117
.
A GHK study on Taking into account opportunity costs when assessing costs of biodiversity and
ecosystem action118
further highlights that the opportunity costs of the Natura 2000 network (€2bn) are
far exceeded by the benefits delivered by the network.
Benefits
A 2014 study titled “The Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network” found that the benefits that
flow from Natura 2000 are of the order of €200 to 300 billion/year. This study estimated that there are
between 1.2 to 2.2 billion visitor days to Natura 2000 sites each year, generating recreational benefits
116 Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., Gerdes H., ten Brink P. (2010). Costs
and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report to the European Commission, DG
Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels
2010:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf 117 Investing for the future: more jobs out of a greener EU budget. http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=41FFA309-5056-
B741-DBFD725B2A886A5F based on:
Daly E., Pieterse M., Medhurst J., Evaluating the potential for Green Jobs in the next Multi-annual Financial Framework,
London, GHK, August 2011 - can be downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Green_Jobs.pdf
118 Bassi, S., Davis, M., Gardner, S., Herbert, S., Kaphengst, T., Mazza, L., Pieterse, M. and Rayment, M. (2011). Taking into
account opportunity costs when assessing costs of biodiversity and ecosystem action. Berlin, Germany, Ecologic Institute:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/OpportunityCostsOfBiodiversityAndEcosystemAction.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
26
worth between €5 and €9 billion per annum119
.
It is estimated that the Natura 2000 network currently stores around 9.6 billion tonnes of carbon,
equivalent to 35 billion tonnes of CO2, which is estimated to be worth between € 600 billion and €
1,130 billion (stock value in 2010)120
, depending on the price attached to a ton of carbon (i.e. to reflect
the value of avoided damage of climate change by avoided GHG emissions). It can be expected that in
the future these carbon values will increase, especially if the conservation status of the network
improves121
.
BirdLife’s Wellbeing Through Wildlife report found that Europe’s environment is delivering health
benefits, ecosystem services, and economic benefits for its citizens. Europeans also value nature not
only for these benefits, but also for the intrinsic value of having access to a rich, biodiverse natural
environment122
.
Successive UK Government reports on “The costs and benefits of Defra’s regulatory stock, Emerging
Findings from Defra’s Regulation Assessment” 123
124
, found that there is a benefit to cost ratio of
between 8.6 – 7 to 1 for regulations in the area of biodiversity conservation, i.e. every €1 spent
delivers between €7 – 8.6 worth of benefits.
Y.2 - Are availability and access to funding a constraint or support?
This question focuses on the proportion of identified funding needs that has been or is being met by
EU and Member State funding, respectively, the extent to which the level of available funding affects
the implementation of the Directives and enables the achievement of their objectives (as set out in
Annex I to this questionnaire), and the extent to which initial funding allocations for nature under EU
funding instruments were used as well as any factors which may have favoured or hindered access to
and use of funds. In your answer please consider whether funding constraints affect costs or create
administrative burdens (eg as a result of limitations on guidance or delays in decision making).
Answer:
The inadequate amount of funding made available for implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives,
and significant difficulties in accessing even that funding available have been significant constraints to
119 ten Brink P. (2011). Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefitsprovided by the Natura 2000 Network. Final
Report to the European Commission,DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European
Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2011
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf
120 ten Brink P. (2011).Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefitsprovided by the Natura 2000 Network. Final
Report to the European Commission,DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European
Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf 121 ten Brink P. (2011).Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefitsprovided by the Natura 2000 Network. Final
Report to the European Commission,DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European
Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf 122 BirdLife International (2006). Wellbeing through wildlife in the EU. Available on RSPB website:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wellbeing_tcm9-148929.pdf 123 Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2015). Emerging Findings from Defra’s Regulation
Assessment: First update covering 2012. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406225/defra-regulation-assessment-2015.pdf 124 Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2011). The Costs and Benefits of Defra’s Regulatory Stock:
Emerging Findings From Defra’s Regulation Assessment. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69226/pb13623-costs-benefits-defra-
regulatory-stock110816.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
27
the achievement of the objectives set out in the Directives.
Site management and monitoring are suffering the most from under-financing. Funding is also lacking
to increase staff capacities; to carry out larger restoration projects (including land purchases) and to
implementing landscape scale measures to improve environmental quality in general in and around
Natura 2000 areas (e.g. nitrogen-reducing measures in agriculture)125
.
On paper, Natura 2000 can currently be funded through a variety of funds126
.
Only one of these funding sources, LIFE, is dedicated to nature conservation, and the limited size of
this fund is a severe constraint. The current LIFE Nature and Biodiversity represents around 0.2 % of
the total EU budget. LIFE operates on the basis of EU co-financing for Member State funds, currently
75% for priority species and habitat types and 40% for other species and habitat types, which can be a
barrier to access for applicants in some Member States. While some Member States have put
structures in place to help access LIFE funding, e.g. national cofinancing funds, which has led to
visible increases in project uptake127
, others have not, limiting applicants ability to access LIFE
funding.
Theoretical provision of funding for nature conservation through EU sectoral funding is a significant
support, but a lack of earmarking prevents tracking how these funds are spent. The likely result is
underfunding. Only 9-19% of the funds needed for the management of Natura 2000 were available in
the last Multi-annual Financial Framework (10)128
A lack of mechanisms for tracking funding
earmarked for biodiversity conservation under the ESF is a an important problem in assessing the
amount of funding129
.
A European Court of Auditors report has found that ERDF funding opportunities for projects directly
promoting biodiversity have not been exploited to their full potential. The Court reported that, ”Not
only did many Member States allocate little or no ERDF funding directly to biodiversity, but for those
which did allocate funding, the financial uptake was below the average for all cohesion policy
funding. Since the beginning of the 2007–13 programming period, the financial uptake for biodiversity
projects remained slow, despite the fact that, in 2011, the Commission called for the situation to be
rectified”130
.
The European Court of Auditors has also found that Rural development spending suffers from lack of
monitoring, reporting and clear objectives in general 131
, and agri-environment under RDP suffers
from lack of clear objectives and strategic choices132
.
125 EEB (2011). Where there is a will there is a way: Snapshot report of Natura 2000 management. Brussels, Belgium,
European Environmental Bureau:
http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=5CC039F5-5056-B741-DBFACCB777CA4E16 126 Kettunen, M., Torkler, P. and Rayment, M. (2014). Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook. Part I – EU funding
opportunities in 2014-2020, a publication commissioned by the European Commission DG Environment. Luxembourg,
Publications Offi ce of the European Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Natura2000financingHandbook_part%201.pdf 127 National fund for Environment Protection (2015). Program LIFE (in Polish). Available at:
http://www.nfosigw.gov.pl/oferta-finansowania/srodki-zagraniczne/instrument-finansowy-life/ 128 Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A., Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, E.,
Rayment, M., Daly, E. and Pieterse, M. (2011). Assessmentof the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU
financing instrument. A project for the European Commission –final report. Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy
(IEEP). Brussels, Belgium.138 pp + Annexes: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/791/Assessment_of_Natura_2000_Co-financing.pdf 129 Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A., Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, E.,
Rayment, M., Daly, E. and Pieterse, M. (2011). Assessmentof the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU
financing instrument. A project for the European Commission –final report. Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy
(IEEP). Brussels, Belgium.138 pp + Annexes: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/791/Assessment_of_Natura_2000_Co-financing.pdf 130 European Court of Auditors (2014). Is the ERDF effective in funding projects that directly promote biodiversity under the
EU biodiversity strategy to 2020? Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union:
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR14_12/QJAB14012ENC.pdf 131 European Court of Auditors (2013). CAN THE COMMISSION AND MEMBER STATES SHOW THAT THE EU
BUDGET ALLOCATED TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY IS WELL SPENT? Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union:
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
28
It is clear that if the Directives are to be effectively implemented a deep root and branches revision of
the integration approach to funding is urgent.
Y.3 - If there are significant cost differences between Member States, what is causing
them?
This question seeks to understand the factors that affect the costs of implementing the Directives,
whether there is evidence of significant cost differences between Member States, and the causes of
these cost differences. In your answer, please describe the cost differences and the reasons for them
(e.g. whether they arise from specific needs, circumstances or economic factors), supported by
quantitative evidence. Do these differences lead to differences in impact? Please note that Question
Y.5, below, focuses on good practices in keeping costs low. For this Question Y.3 we are interested in
evidence of overall differences in implementation cost (see typology of costs in Annex II to this
questionnaire) along with the reasons for them.
Answer:
There are cost differences, arising from differences in the ecology, economies, and conservation
approaches of the various Member States.
All Costs
Biodiversity is unequally distributed across the member states. This is a strong justification for
adopting an EU level approach to conservation, and vindicates the EU added value of the Birds and
Habitats Directives. This shared approach to conservation is carried over into financing, as action to
protect our common natural heritage for future generations is co-financed by the community (Article 8
Habitats Directive) through several different funding sources133
. It is also very clear that some of the
richest biodiversity is found in some of the EU’s poorest Member States and Regions.134
It must be noted however that Member states cost estimates often reflect their conservation ambition
and political choices (eg land purchase vs subsidies vs imposing rules on land owners). A recent
comprehensive global study found that performance in conservation is not correlated to countries
economic wealth, suggesting it is determined by level of priority given to biodiversity rather than by
spending power135
.
Administrative Costs
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR13_12/SR13_12_EN.pdf 132 European Court of Auditors (2011). ISSN 1831-0834 EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS EN 2011 Special Report No
7 IS AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT WELL DESIGNED AND MANAGED? Luxembourg, Publications Office of the
European Union:
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR11_07/SR11_07_EN.PDF 133 Kettunen, M., Torkler, P. and Rayment, M. (2014). Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook. Part I – EU funding
opportunities in 2014-2020, a publication commissioned by the European Commission DG Environment. Luxembourg,
Publications Offi ce of the European Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Natura2000financingHandbook_part%201.pdf 134 Ghermandi, A., Ding, H. and Nunes, P. A. L. D. (2013). The social dimension of biodiversity policy in the European
Union: Valuing the benefits to vulnerable communities. Published in Environmental Science & Policy 33, Pages 196-208:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea_Ghermandi/publication/247158164_The_social_dimension_of_biodiversity_poli
cy_in_the_European_Union_Valuing_the_benefits_to_vulnerable_communities/links/0046351dbadd4d351f000000.pdf 135 Rodrigues, A. S. L., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chanson, J., Cox, N., Hoffmann, M., & Stuart, S. N. (2014).
Spatially Explicit Trends in the Global Conservation Status of Vertebrates. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e113934.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113934. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245261/#__ref-listid528416title
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
29
Where Member States have insufficiently monitored their biodiversity, or have implemented the
Habitats Directives poorly, this may result in additional administrative costs. A prime example of this
is the marine environment, where site designation is late (1) and knowledge is limited (2) resulting in
uncertainty and costs to developers.
Habitat and Species Management Costs
The Article 12 and 17 reports will show that there are differences in current conservation status and
population levels of habitats and species in different Member States. In those Member States where a
higher percentage are in unfavourable status or declining, higher levels of funding may be needed to
bring these into back into favourable status.
Diverse national circumstances (sites type, land use, location, ecological status, pressures, labour and
wage costs, management strategies), the level of current data, and different cost assessment
approaches and methodologies may also explain differences in the cost estimates across Member
States136
Y.4 - Can any costs be identified (especially regarding compliance) that are out of
proportion with the benefits achieved? In particular, are the costs of compliance
proportionate to the benefits brought by the Directives?
Please provide any quantitative evidence you may have demonstrating that the costs of implementing
the Directives exceed the benefits. Do the Directives require any measures which give rise to
significant costs but which bring about little, or only moderate benefits?. If so, please explain the
extent to which any imbalances are caused by the Directives themselves, or by specific approaches to
implementation.
Answer:
The overall costs of the Birds and Habitats Directives are very small compared to the benefits. This is
true for the current incomplete level of implementation of the Directives, while benefits would be
significantly greater were full implementation to be achieved.
Many cases that BirdLife has reviewed where excessive costs have been claimed are usually cases of
botched implementation or compliance failures, where costs would have been very reasonable had the
directives been properly implemented or procedures adhered to in the first place (eg delays to
infrastructures due to inappropriate appropriate art 6 assessment leading to legal challenge and
blocking of the project or costly late stage modifications). Evidence from the UK demonstrates that in
almost all cases these costs can be avoided by engaging with the procedures set out in the Directives,
and working cooperatively with stakeholders to find an environmentally sustainable solution.137
According to the findings of the UK-focused Davidson Review138
on the “Implementation of EU
Legislation” from 2006, “many businesses that operate across Europe said that differential
implementation across Member States, thereby undermining the single market, matters more than
136 Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., Gerdes H., ten Brink P. (2010). Costs
and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report to the European Commission, DG
Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels
2010:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf 137 RSPB (2012). An overview of the RSPB’s engagement with the site protection system: The second RSPB submission to
the Defra review of the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directive in England. Available at RSPB website:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/rspb2ndsubmissiontodefrahrrcasestudycommentaryandanalysis_tcm9-305620.pdf 138 Beter Regulation Executive (2006). Davidson Review: Final Report. Crown copyright. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file44583.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
30
whether there is over-implementation in a particular country;”
Furthermore, there is a very substantial overlap between action needed to implement the directives and
action needed to achieve other environmental objectives, which means that there is ample opportunity
for coordination and cost-saving, and achieving biodiversity objectives while also delivering
supplementary benefits to water and air quality, flood protection etc. An obvious example is in relation
to the water framework directive where proper management of Natura 2000 sites would greatly
improve watershed management, in line with WFD obligations.
There is a huge body of evidence that claims of excessive costs of environmental legislation in general
are systematically over stated, while benefits are underappreciated and that almost all attempts to save
money by delaying action end up producing larger costs later on. 139
In the UK the 2006 Davidson review found little compelling evidence to suggest that EU Directives
are being routinely “over-implemented” (i.e. going beyond minimal legal obligations).140
An important
point made by the Davidson review was that “it is sometimes beneficial for the UK economy to set or
maintain regulatory standards which exceed the minimum requirements of European legislation”.
The UK-based business-led Aldersgate Group makes a similar point: “it will sometimes be beneficial
to go beyond minimum requirements of EU legislation to secure UK environmental aspirations,
provide international leadership or to create future competitive advantage for British based firms in
the green economy...the regulatory framework must encourage a rapid shift to a sustainable economy
rather than being held back by vested interests or the lowest common denominator.”141
There are examples where specific approaches to implementation generate unnecessary costs, although
evidence strongly suggests that even these costs are tiny in comparison with the benefits delivered.
Case Study: European Protected Species in the UK
In the UK, the failure to assess and to define favourable conservation status at national level, or at
the spatial levels appropriate for different species, lies at the heart of the UK’s current approach to
their protection: without a handle on what favourable conservation status looks like, and therefore
what is required to achieve it, a precautionary approach must be adopted based on a goal of no net
loss (as it is not known what scale of loss might prove significant).
Steps to assess and define favourable conservation status at the national and other appropriate
spatial scales for EPS is a prerequisite for the effective conservation of these species, and for the
development of a more streamlined and less precautionary approach to development impacts142
.
Nevertheless, evidence submitted by Wildlife and Countryside Link to the UK Government’s
Habitats Regulations Review showed that, of the thousands of land use consultations received by
Natural England each year, less than 0.5% result in an objection under the Habitats Regulations.143
Given this track record, the Precautionary approach should be implemented and actions that are crucial
139EEA (2013) Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. EEA Report No 1/2013 Copenhagen,
Denmark. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2 140 Beter Regulation Executive (2006). Davidson Review: Final Report. Crown copyright. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file44583.pdf 141 Raingold, A. (2011). Dealing with Deficits: Best value regulation to reduce our environmental and financial debts.
Retrieved from Aldersgate Group website:
http://www.aldersgategroup.org.uk/asset/download/262/Dealing%20with%20Deficits.pdf 142Wildlife and Countryside Link (2012). Wildlife and Countryside Link submission to the Defra Review of the
Implementation of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives. Available at WCL website:
http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/link_response_to_nature_directives_060212.pdf 143 Wildlife and Countryside Link (2012). Wildlife and Countryside Link submission to the Defra Review of the
Implementation of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives. Available at WCL website:
http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/link_response_to_nature_directives_060212.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
31
for maintaining the fabric of life on earth should not be discounted away on the basis of short term
costs. This is not to say that we shouldn’t continuously strive toward more cost effective conservation.
Y.5 - Can good practices, particularly in terms of cost-effective implementation, be
identified?
Here we are looking for examples of where the objectives of the Directives are being met more cost-
effectively in some Member States or regions than others, and the reasons for these differences. It is
important to understand whether they are due to particular practices (rather than, for example,
differences in needs, circumstances or economic factors) that have kept costs relatively low. We would
welcome examples of differences in practices between Member States in implementing the
requirements of the Directives, including initiatives designed to achieve cost-effective implementation,
and evidence of whether these initiatives or practices have reduced costs in certain Member States or
regions.
Answer:
There are many examples of cost-efficient implementation. In many cases this is where governments
or stakeholders have engaged with the processes set out in the Directives with a willingness to make
the work for nature, for citizens, for business, and for government.
Notable examples include;
Windfarm sensitivity mapping144
, which has delivered certainty for renewable energy
investors and helped avoid unnecessary legal costs.
Strategic long-term planning of alternatives by grid developers around Natura 2000 sites145
.
National level support for effective implementation, for example around Appropriate
assessment, through national guidance, access to data, high quality experts and efficient
screening .
Case studies from the UK demonstrate that where developers engage with the processes set out in the
Directives, a solution can usually be found that is environmentally sustainable and secures the
economic benefits anticipated from the development project, without compromising the integrity of
the protected site and the benefits it delivers, while also avoiding unnecessary delay and cost arising
from legal challenge.146
A review of the national legislation implementing the Habitats Directive in the UK “The Habitats
Regulations Review”147
recently found that;
“It was clear from the wide range of evidence and views submitted in the course of the Review
that in the large majority of cases the implementation of the Directives is working well,
allowing both development of key infrastructure and ensuring that a high level of
environmental protection is maintained.”
Evidence submitted by Wildlife and Countryside Link to the UK Government’s Habitats Regulations
Review showed that, of the thousands of land use consultations received by Natural England each
year, less than 0.5% result in an objection under the Habitats Regulations.148
144 European Commission (2011). Guidance on Wind energy development and Natura 2000. Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union: 2011http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Wind_farms.pdf 145 ENTSOE-E (2014) Ten Year National Development Plan. Appendix 7 (Pages 503-505). Available at European Network
of Transmission System Operators for Electricity website:
https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/TYNDP%20documents/TYNDP%202014/141031%20TYNDP%202014%20Report_.pdf 146 http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/rspb2ndsubmissiontodefrahrrcasestudycommentaryandanalysis_tcm9-305620.pdf 147 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69513/pb13724-habitats-review-report.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
32
Case Study: SCANS
In some cases Member States have collaborated in order to cost-effectively implement requirements of the
directives. One example of this is the collaboration between Member States to undertake large-scale
surveys to estimate the abundance of small cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea (SCANS-II)
in line with the requirements under article 11. This project was supported by eleven partners in 10
countries and co-financed by institutions in seven countries, as well as being supported by dedicated Life
funding. Sustained European funding streams are essential in order to support long-term monitoring at
this scale149
.
Y.6 - What are likely to be the costs of non-implementation of legislation?
This question seeks to gather evidence on the impacts of non-implementation of the Birds and Habitats
Directives, and its associated costs, whilst assuming that some measures would be taken to conserve
nature. Taking into account current national measures that do not arise directly from obligations
under the Directives, please describe and, if possible, quantify, with supporting evidence, the potential
impacts and associated costs of non-implementation of the Directives, for instance on: habitats and
species of Community interest and wider biodiversity; ecosystem services (eg in relation to carbon
sequestration, areas for recreation); and economic and social costs (eg jobs and health).
Answer:
The costs of non-implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives would be significant for nature,
for business, and for Europe’s citizens. It is important that the scale of the impact of the Directives on
development (and other activities) not be exaggerated in terms of potential savings or benefits from
non-implementation.
At European level, financial costs arising from the EU’s failure to fully implement the Birds and
Habitats Directives and to achieve its 2020 biodiversity targets have been estimated to be in the order
of €50bn per year150
. The same report suggests that the impact on businesses from the uncertainty
about implementation of the environmental legislation could be substantial, and there will be knock-on
costs (failure to achieve EU social / climate / agricultural / fisheries objectives).
At member state level, evidence from the UK demonstrates that of the 26,500 land use consultations
received by Natural England (the UK’s conservation agency for the England region) each year, less
than 0.5% result in an objection by Natural England under the Habitats Regulations. Therefore, the
proportion of total land use applications affected is very small and the proportion where significant
effects and/ or compensation is required is even smaller.
The impacts on business of non-implementation are confirmed by the UK-focused Davidson
Review151
on the “Implementation of EU Legislation” from 2006, which found that “many businesses
that operate across Europe said that differential implementation across Member States, thereby
148 Wildlife and Countryside Link Submission to the Defra Review of the Implementation of the Habitats and Wild Birds
Directives http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/link_response_to_nature_directives_060212.pdf 149
European Commission (2004) SCANS-II - Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2621&docType=pdf 150 European Commission (2011) The costs of not implementing the environmental acquis. Final report
ENV.G.1/FRA/2006/0073 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf 151 Beter Regulation Executive (2006). Davidson Review: Final Report. Crown copyright. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file44583.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
33
undermining the single market, matters more than whether there is over-implementation in a
particular country;”
In relation to the likely impacts of non-implementation on wildlife, a recent scientific study on the
recovery of wildlife suggested that persecution was one of the most frequent reasons for historical
declines, and that legal protection under the Birds (and Habitats) Directives has been a key driver for
halting this and supporting the wildlife comeback152
.
Historic evidence from the UK shows that prior to the adoption of the Habitats Directive national
conservation measures were ineffective at halting biodiversity losses, with almost a quarter of
nationally designated sites in England were being damaged annually.153
Y.7 - Taking account of the objectives and benefits of the directives, is there evidence
that they have caused unnecessary administrative burden?
This question seeks to gather evidence of any unnecessary burden arising from the administrative
requirements of the Directives for different stakeholders (MS authorities, businesses, landowners, non-
governmental organisations, citizens). Administrative burdens are the costs to businesses and citizens
of complying with information obligations resulting from legislation, and relate to information which
would not be collected in the absence of the legislation. Some administrative burdens are necessary if
the objectives of the legislation are to be met effectively. Unnecessary burdens are those which can be
reduced without affecting the objectives. Quantitative evidence may include typical requirements in
terms of human resource inputs, financial costs (such as fees and wages), delays for development and
other decision-making processes, and other measures of unnecessary or disproportionate burden the
administrative costs in terms of effort and time, and other inputs required, financial costs, delays and
other measures of unnecessary or disproportionate burden.
Answer:
There is no evidence that the Directives themselves have caused or are causing unnecessary
administrative burden. Overall, environmental legislation is causing less than 1% administrative
burdens on business in the EU154
, with one third of the administrative burden estimated to be the result
of inefficient public and private administrative practices 155
. Given the size of the EU environmental
aquis, this figure means that administrative burden of the directives is negligible. Note also here that
the perceived burden is higher than the actual burden 156
.
Evidence from Member State level confirms this. The UK Government’s Administrative Burdens
Measurement Exercise (ABME), launched in 2005, found that the Habitats Regulations, which
implement the Habitats Directive in the UK, accounted for £200,000 worth of the environment
ministry’s (Defra’s) administrative burden, i.e. less than 0.03 percent of Defra’s total administrative
152 Deinet, S., Ieronymidou, C., McRae, L., Burfield, I.J., Foppen, R.P., Collen, B. and Böhm, M. (2013) Wildlife comeback
inEurope: The recovery of selected mammal and bird species. Final report to Rewilding Europe by ZSL, BirdLife
International and the European Bird Census Council. London, UK: ZSL http://static.zsl.org/files/wildlife-comeback-in-
europe-the-recovery-of-selected-mammal-and-bird-species-2576.pdf 153 Hughes, P. and Ware, R. (1994). The habitats directive and the UK conservation framework and SSSI system: Research
Paper 94/90. House of Commons Library:http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp94-90.pdf 154 High level group on administrative burdens (2014) Cutting Red Tape in EuropeBrussels, 24 July 2014 Legacy and outlook
p.33 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/docs/08-10web_ce-brocuttingredtape_en.pdf 155 The breakdown of the costs is explained on page 20 of this report - European Commission (2012)Action Programme for
Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU Final
Reporthttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/admin_burden/docs/com2012_746_swd_ap_en.pdf
156 European Commission (2012)Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU Final
Reporthttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/admin_burden/docs/com2012_746_swd_ap_en.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
34
burden. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 accounted for £500,000 worth of administrative
burden, i.e. less than 0.07 percent of Defra’s total administrative burden157
.
Y.8 - Is the knowledge base sufficient and available to allow for efficient
implementation?
This question seeks to establish the extent to which adequate, up-to-date and reliable information
required to implement the Directives efficiently is available, such as information related to the
identification, designation, management and protection of Natura 2000 sites, the choice of
conservation measures, the management and restoration of habitats, the ecological requirements of
species and the sustainable hunting/use of species, permitting procedures, etc. Please indicate key
gaps in available knowledge relating to your country and, if relevant, at biogeographical and EU
levels. If possible, please provide evidence that inadequacies in the knowledge base have contributed
to the costs and burdens identified in previous questions.
Answer:
The knowledge base on the status of species and habitats under the Birds and Habitats Directive is
largely complete and has improved158
(see also Article 12 and Article 17 reports). The implementation
of the Directive has led to one of the world’s most impressive improvements in knowledge about
biodiversity. There can be no doubt that the Directives are operating on much more robust scientific
grounds than many other EU policies (eg the CFP allows, and the EMFF subsidies, fishing in the deep
sea environment in the virtual absence of scientific data).
However, information on implementation of appropriate assessments is scattered159
, which not only
needs to be improved for civil society and business, but also to meet the legal requirements of the
Aarhus convention. Implementation of active dissemination of environmental information has been
inadequate, notoriously in financing Natura 2000, legal aspects, and impact assessment and
compensation
157 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/regulat/documents/abme-report0612.pdf 158 EEA (2015) Publications on Natura 2000. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/publications-on-natura-2000-
per/publications-on-natura-2000-per 159 End report expected soon - Arcadis (2014) Workshop Document Active dissemination of Environmental information
in relation to the Birds and Habitats Directive. Unpublished
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
35
Relevance
Relevance concerns the extent to which the objectives of the nature Directives are consistent with the
needs of species and habitats of EU conservation concern. The question of relevance relates to whether
the objectives of the legislation are still necessary and appropriate; whether action at EU level is still
necessary in light of the challenges identified and whether the objectives and requirements set out in
the EU nature legislation are still valid.
R.1 - Are the key problems facing species and habitats addressed by the EU nature
legislation?
By ‘key problem’, we mean the main pressures and threats that species and habitats face, which are
significantly widespread in terms of their incidence (geographic extent) and/or magnitude/severity. Do
the Nature Directives respond adequately to these problems? Are the specific and operational
objectives of the Directives suitable in light of the key problems identified? Please justify your answers
with evidence.
Answer:
Yes, the Directives do address the main threats to habitats and species and provide a robust and modern
framework for dealing with all current threats, in so far as these can be addressed through dedicated
biodiversity legislation, rather than through legislation addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss such as
invasive alien species, air and water pollution etc.
The upcoming Red List of Birds and Article 12/17 reports will report the newest information on the
threats, showing that essentially these are largely the same ones that the Directives have been set up to
address. Even in the "new" threat of climate change there is very solid evidence that the Nature
Directives are playing a crucial role in allowing biodiversity to adapt to a changing climate (see below).
They even can contribute significantly to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions160
and to help people and
economy to adapt to climate change
The main drivers of biodiversity loss in the EU are land-use change (notably agricultural intensification 161
), over-exploitation of biodiversity and its components, the spread of invasive alien species, alteration of
hydrology, pollution and climate change162
. The Directives address by definition all the threats affecting species and habitats - as Member States are obliged to maintain or restor them at/to favourable levels.
This goes especially for Natura 2000 sites, such as land use change, as there are no exemptions to
categories activities that need an "appropriate assessment", as confirmed by the ECJ163
. Cases of
"Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest" (IROPI) are restricted, and derogations from
species protection provisions are conditional on the lack of suitable alternatives, restricting their use.
Where land use change occurs outside Article 6(4) and it has a significant effect on Natura 2000 site, this
160 ten Brink P. (2011).Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefitsprovided by the Natura 2000 Network. Final
Report to the European Commission,DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European
Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf 161 Donald et al 2006 Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds,
1990–2000 Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Volume 116, Issues 3–4, September 2006, Pages 189–196
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016788090600079X 162 European Commisison (2011) COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE
REGIONS Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 COMMUNICATION FROM THE
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 /*
COM/2011/0244 final */ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244 163
ECJ (2004). Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2004. Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de
Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en
Visserij. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Raad van State – Netherlands. Directive 92/43/EEC -Conservation of natural
habitats and of wild flora and fauna - Concept of "plan' or "project' - Assessment of the implications of certain plans or
projects for the protected site. Case C-127/02: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-127/02
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
36
land use change is illegal. Similarly, the Directives are able to address the problem of threatened species
through dedicated science based species action plans, developed by the Commission as measures to
achieve adequate population levels under the Birds Directive and favourable conservation status under
the Habitats Directive. This approach should be improved by extending species action plans to huntable
species, integrally addressing conservation and use according to Article 7 of the Birds Directive, and to
take legal action on the non-implementation of plans, as there has been no legal action by the Commission
in this respect yet.
The Directives form part of a coherent EU legal framework addressing these threats. Climate change
mitigation, Invasive alien species, Nitrates pollution, Water quality and several other forms of pollution
are addressed by other pieces of EU legislation. Natura 2000, like any other protected area networks, is
key in helping species to adapt to new ranges under climate change164 A recent detailed study has proven
in the role of SPAs in climate adaptation, specifically for the Smew165
and there are no reasons to believe
this is not a general pattern.
R.2 - Have the Directives been adapted to technical and scientific progress?
With this question, we are seeking to examine the implications of technical and scientific progress
regarding the habitats and species that the Directive focus on. Please summarise, and provide any
evidence you may have that indicates that the annexes listing habitats and species in both Nature
Directives are, or are not, sufficiently updated to respond to technical and scientific progress.
Answer:
A review of the Annexes to the Nature Directives would very likely be counterproductive for
achieving the strategic aims of the Directives and for meeting the internationally agreed 2020
biodiversity targets. Adding or deleting species or habitats to/from the Annexes would delay
implementation, jeopardize recently achieved legal certainty, increase administrative burden
and divert scarce human and financial resources away from urgently required full
implementation of the Directives.166
.
The principles of nature conservation embodied by the Directives and the science underpinning
them are still fully relevant today. Both the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive are driven by the
ecological requirements of the species and habitats concerned and both build in flexibility to deal
with changing environmental circumstances such as climate change.
The Birds and Habitats Directive give the possibility but do not contain an obligation of adapting
the annexes to technical and scientific progress. However, any annex change must support and not
weaken the overarching strategic objectives of the Directives. These are to contribute to ensuring
biodiversity through conservation of Europe's most valuable and threatened habitats and species,
maintaining at or restoring to an adequate/favourable level all wild bird species and species of
Community Interest, no matter if listed on one or several of the Annexes of the Habitats Directive.
The decision whether an update of the Annexes is appropriate should therefore be guided by a
thorough analysis of risks and benefits of such an update for all biodiversity collectively, and not
only for individual species or habitats.
These risks include delays to and uncertainty around implementation (diverting effort and resources
164 Hiley JR, Bradbury RB, Holling M, Thomas CD. 2013 Protected areas act as establishment centres for species colonizing
the UK. Proc R Soc B 280: 20122310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2310 and Thomas et al 2012 Protected areas
facilitate species’ range expansions www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210251109 165 Pavon Jordan et al 2015. Climate-driven changes in winter abundance of a migratory waterbird in relation to EU protected
areas Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2015) 1–12 166 Maes et al. (2013): Not the right time to amend the Annexes of the European Habitats Directive. Conservation Letters 00
(2013) 1–2
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
37
away from much-needed full implementation and placing a burden of uncertainty on business).
While there are potential arguments for review of the annexes, in our view the costs of doing so
would not justify the benefits. For example:
1) Annex I (Birds Directive) or Annex I, II (Habitats Directive)
Natura 2000, on land almost complete and by now the largest network of protected areas in the
world, has proven to be effective to deliver for target species167
but as well for other species168
(umbrella effect) - if properly implemented. So many of the problems of non listed species or
habitats could be addressed by better implementation of the Nature Directives in general, while
changes to the network would distract attention from the need to focus on full implementation
for the benefit of target and non-target species alike.
Natura 2000 supports also non-listed species in adapting to climate change, as it provides a
coherent network of sites that provides space for climate induced range shifts of species.169
170
Adaptive management of sites can and should allow new species to find refuge from changing
climatic conditions, including species that are not listed on the Annexes of the Directives.
At a time when the Natura 2000 network is just about to move fully from designation into
management, and where most sites are still lacking proper protection, conservation objectives,
management plans and monitoring (e.g. many Member States, e.g. Germany, are facing
infringement procedures now on SAC designation), the costs to biodiversity delivery of changes
to the annexes would far outweigh any potential benefits. In a densely populated and highly
fragmented landscape, as is the case in most of the EU, the current Natura 2000 network secures
more or less the last (semi-)natural areas of the continent - essential for many, not only listed,
species - in particular under the threat of climate change.
As things stand there is no evidence-led process for identifying at Member State level which
species in favourable or improving conservation status are not conservation dependent, and not
at risk of rapidly declining back into unfavourable status were they to be de-listed. Many
management dependent habitats and related species are definitely dependent on active
conservation and protection, especially in agricultural landscapes.
Regular changes to the annexes of the Directives, whether to add or remove species/habitats,
would cause legal uncertainty about site boundaries and restrictions for developers for years,
higher administrative burden and divert scarce resources from action for the established site
network - with a questionable benefit, given there are alternative options (see below). Electricity
grid operators, the cement industry and others have spoken out against changes to the Nature
Directives including annexes, as this would threaten planning certainty for their operations.171
172
2) Annex IV, V (Habitats Directive) or Annex II (Birds Directive)
Changing these annexes of the Directives could lead to massive political conflicts among
167 Paul Donald et al. (2007): International Conservation Policy delivers benefits for Birds in Europe (Science 317, 810) - a
follow-up study is going to be published shortly, 168 Pellisier et al. (2014): The impact of Natura 2000 on non-target species. ETC/BD Technical paper 4/2014 169 Andrew Dodd et al. (2010): Protected areas and climate change. Reflections from a practitioner’s perspective.
http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/ Volume 6, Issue 1 (January) 2010 170 Huntley B, Green R.E, Collingham YC, & Willis S.G. (2007) A climatic atlas of European breeding birds. Barcelona:
Lynx Edicions 171 CEMBureau and BirdLife (2014) CEMBUREAU & Birdlife call for no changes to rules that protect European nature
http://www.cembureau.be/newsroom/cembureau-birdlife-call-no-changes-rules-protect-european-nature 172 RGI (2014) The need for clear, stable nature and climate mandates for grid investment http://renewables-
grid.eu/publications/rgi-position-papers/open-letter.html
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
38
stakeholder groups that just have begun to accept the political compromise that has been found
in the last years.173
Such re-emerging conflicts would not only prolong the time until effective
action can be taken, but it would undermine the acceptance of EU conservation legislation in
general. Enforcement and implementation would suffer rather than benefit.
3.) Annex IV, V (Habitats Directive) or Annex II (Birds Directive)
The Directives already provide sufficient possibilities to address risks caused by improving
status of “conflict” species at local level for human health, infrastructure, crops or other damage
by way of derogations, allowing, as a last resort also the killing of protected species (Art.9
Birds Directive, Art.16 Habitats Directive). This is a much more targeted way to address
potential problems, based on sound science and facts, compared to indiscriminate hunting.
In the case of Cormorant the European Hunters Association FACE rejected the listing of the
species on Annex II, because private hunters do not see their role in managing problem species,
and because in a number of Member States they would have to bear responsibility for damage
caused by those.174
The European hunters organisation FACE has stressed that it opposes changes to the Birds
Directive, including Annex II.175
This annex must be seen rather as political compromise, than
as a reflection of up to date science. Any opening of this annexe would massively undermine
acceptance of the Directives, cause conflicts that slow down implementation efforts and thus
jeopardize the achievement of the strategic objectives of the Directives.
From the above it gets clear that the negative impact of a change to the annexes far outweigh any
potential benefits in terms of better protection of species or resolution of social or economic
conflicts. However, that is not to say that other measures for habitats and species may be required,
and conservation NGOs stand ready to cooperate on these:
1. Develop targeted EU wide or multi-country action plans for any taxa that require particular
extra attention (e.g. freshwater molluscs, other invertebrates), including specific
conservation projects, additional hunting restrictions, additional protected areas and
monitoring efforts above the level required by the Nature Directives;
2. Mobilise targeted funding for threatened species conservation: the EU LIFE Programme
allows funding for Red List species not covered by the Nature Directive Annexes. Member
States are free to allocate additional resources on these species (or habitats);
3. Maximising co-benefits of the Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework
Directive, air quality legislation and other environmental legislation for Red listed species;
Improving the ecological status of all waters, as required under the WFD, would for
example yield high benefits to all freshwater biodiversity including potentially endangered
mussels and macroinvertebrates.
4. Make use of measures under Target 2-5 of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy, e.g.
establishement of Green Infrastructure and ecosystem restoration, integrate biodiversity
concerns into agriculture, forestry and fisheries policy and tackle invasive alien species.
173 see especially documents of the EU Sustainable Hunting Initiative and the agreement between BirdLife and FACE
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/index_en.htm) 174 BirdLife and FACE issued a joint statement in 2008 opposing any listing of Cormorant in Annex II of the Birds Directive
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/495845/IPOL-PECH_NT%282013%29495845_EN.pdf -
page 32) 175 FACE conference conclusions of 23 Sept 2014 include the statement "FACE stands firm on its commitment taken with
BirdLife International, not to support initiatives aimed at amending the text of the Birds Directive, believing that such
initiatives would only weaken the current provisions of the Directive, which is not in the interest of either party"
http://www.face.eu/about-us/resources/news/hunters-call-on-the-eu-for-more-recognition-of-their-environmental-role
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
39
R.3 How relevant are the Directives to achieving sustainable development?
This question seeks to examine the extent to which the Directives support or hinder sustainable
development, which is about ensuring that the needs of the present generation are met without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It requires ensuring a balance
between economic development, social development and environmental protection. . In your answer,
please provide evidence of the impacts that implementation of the Directives has had in relation to
these three 'pillars' of sustainable development.
Answer:
One of the pillars of sustainable development is environment, and the Birds and Habitats
Directives represent the cornerstone of EU efforts to deliver environmental sustainability
through conservation of biological diversity. They remain central to the achievement of
sustainable development in the EU (see evidence above under Effectiveness).
The Directives are an excellent example of sustainable development176, as they do not prevent
development, but rather ensure that it is undertaken in a way which is compatible with the
protection of wildlife. Evidence to the widespread and increasing best practice in combining
economic development and conservation under the directives is given under question S3. Directives
also deliver wider environmental and social benefits, including employment177 and health
benefits178 (see question Y1).
Environmental regulations play a central role in protecting the environment and the natural
capital upon which our long-run prosperity ultimately depends. Yet, such regulations are
often perceived solely as a burden on business and the wider economy, despite their proven
benefits. However, we know that such perceptions are an unreliable indicator of the true
regulatory “burden”; evidence suggests that there may be a considerable disparity between
perceptions of regulatory quality and actual measurable results i.e. there may be a gap
between business perceptions of regulation and “objective reality”. 179
R.4 - How relevant is EU nature legislation to EU citizens and what is their level of
support for it?
The aim of this question is to understand the extent to which citizens value the objectives and intended
impact of the EU nature legislation. To this end, we would like to obtain information and evidence on
the extent to which nature protection is a priority for citizens (e.g. in your country), including in
176 Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions,” Chris D. Thomas et al
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/14063.abstract 177 Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., Gerdes H. and ten Brink P.
(2010). Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network: Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Brussels, Belgium. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf 178 BirdLife International (2006). Wellbeing through wildlife in the EU. Available on RSPB website:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wellbeing_tcm9-148929.pdf 179 OECD (2012). Measuring Regulatory Performance: A Practitioner's Guide to Perception Surveys. Paris, OECD
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
40
comparison with other priorities; for example whether citizens (e.g. in your country) support the
establishment and/or expansion of protected areas, the extent to which they access/use them or; the
extent to which citizens are involved in any aspect of the implementation of the Directives (e.g.
participation in the development of management plans of protected areas or decisions concerning the
permitting of projects which have an impact on protected areas).
Please note that the Birds and Habitats Directives may be relevant to citizens even if they do not
actually know of their existence or the existence of the Natura 2000 network.
Answer:
The Nature Directives are extremely relevant to EU citizens, even of many might not know them
directly. In fact they are among the most relevant and popular EU interventions: EU Nature
conservation legislation, and the Natura 2000 network of protected sites created through this
legislation, are one of the key concrete, tangible benefits of EU membership which are
recognized by EU citizens across the union. This is reflected in the consistently high level of
support from EU citizens for Union action on the environment in general and on biodiversity
specifically. Not all citizens are however aware about the links between local and national nature
conservation legislation with EU level legislation. The Eurobarometer survey180
has consistently
captured these high levels of support. It is noteworthy that support is high even in countries where overall
support for the EU is very low.
The relevance of the Directives to citizens is exemplified by the work of BirdLife Europe itself.
Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives is the top priority of BirdLife partner organisation in
the whole EU and beyond, and it is the object of efforts of our 28 grassroots partners, employing
thousands of staff, engaging tens of thousands of volunteers and supported by millions of individual
members and supporters181 . To this one can add the membership and supporters of several other big
NGO networks. It is hard to find a piece of EU policy whose roll out engages directly so many citizens.
Nature Directive violations represent a high proportion of citizens complaints to the
Commission, usually around 20% of the complaints to DG Environment relate to nature,
making it one of the larger areas 182
and 520 out 3505 complaints submitted to the Commission
in 2013 related to environmental legislation 183
The extremely high proportion of citizens’ complaints
to the European Commission that revolve around the Nature Directives are another tangible proof that
this legislation is very relevant for citizens and directly affects their interests and lives. The fact that so
many citizens seek help in getting the directives properly implemented is per se evidence to their
relevance.
R.5 - What are citizens’ expectations for the role of the EU in nature protection?
The aim of this question is to obtain information and evidence on questions such as: whether citizens
submit complaints or petitions to the EU requesting its involvement on cases regarding nature
protection, whether citizens expect the EU to become more involved in promoting nature protection,
or whether nature protection should be left to each individual Member State; whether citizens expect
180 European Commission (2014). Eurobarometer 416: Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment. Conducted
by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the Directorate-General for Environment:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf 181 BirdLife Europe (2012) Annual Report 2011. http://www.birdlife.org/community-blog/wp-
content/uploads/2012/04/Annual-report2011_lowres.pdf 182 European Commission. Legal Enforcement: Statistics on environmental infringements. Retrieved from Europeam
Commission website:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/statistics_sector.pdf 183European Commission (2013). Report from the Commission: 31st Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EU
Law. Brussels, Belgium:
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/docs/annual_report_31/com_2014_612_en.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
41
the EU to introduce laws on nature protection to be applied in all Member States equally or whether
the EU should limit itself to coordinating Member States’ initiatives; whether the EU should focus on
laying down rules, or whether the EU should more actively promote their monitoring and enforcement
in Member States.
Answer:
Citizens expect the EU to take a strong role in nature protection and, as explained above, this is
one of the areas where the EU is most trusted by citizens. Eurobarometer surveys show 95% of EU
citizens think environment is important, 77% agree that European environmental legislation is necessary
for protecting the environment in their country, and over half of Europeans think the EU is not doing
enough to protect the environment.184
Indeed, citizens, even in EU sceptic countries show higher trust in
the EU than in their own government. Citizens expect the EU to deliver on its nature conservation
commitments under the Birds and Habitats Directives and under the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
Where the EU, and member States, fail in these efforts, there is a very high level of concern from EU
citizens, as evidenced by the number of petitions to the European Parliament concerning the environment,
and the high level of EU-wide interests in significant breaches of nature conservation legislation, e.g. the
illegal killing of birds on Malta (see also question R.4).
184 European Commission (2014). Eurobarometer 416: Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment. Conducted
by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the Directorate-General for Environment:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
42
Coherence
Evaluating the coherence of legislation, policies and strategies means assessing if they are logical and
consistent, internally (i.e. within a single Directive), with each other (i.e. between both Directives),
and with other policies and legislation. Here we are looking for evidence regarding how far and in
what ways the Directives are complementary and whether there are significant contradictions or
conflicts that stand in the way of their effective implementation or which prevent the achievement of
their objectives.
C.1 – To what extent are the objectives set up by the Directives coherent with each
other?
This question focuses on coherence between objectives within each Directive, and/or between
objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives. It covers not only the strategic objectives but also the
specific and operational objectives set out in Annex I to this document. Based on experience in your
country/region/sector, please provide evidence of any inconsistencies between the objectives that
negatively impact on the implementation of the Directives.
Answer:
The Birds and Habitats Directives establish a legal framework that is internally coherent and
integrated with other EU environmental laws, with EU sectoral policies, and is key to
achievement of EU and international biodiversity conservation objectives.
There are no significant problems for implementation arising out of the fact that they are two
Directives. The Habitats Directive has been conceived from the start as a second step building on
top of the foundations laid by the Birds Directive. The original choice of expanding the scope of
the Birds Directive through a complementary piece of legislation, rather than repealing and
replacing it has been amply vindicated and today the two Directives represent one coherent
framework. The European Commission has already streamlined and harmonised reporting
obligations185
and other procedures so that there is no duplication or extra burden imposed by
the fact rules are embedded in two complementary legal texts.
C.2 – To what extent are the Directives satisfactorily integrated and coherent with other
EU environmental law e.g. EIA, SEA?
This question is similar to the previous question, but focuses on the extent to which the EU Nature
Directives are coherent with and integrated into other EU environment legislation, and the extent to
which they are mutually supportive. EU environment legislation of particular relevance to nature
conservation includes the following:
Strategic environmental assessment of policy plans and programmes 2001/42/EC Directive
(SEA)
Environmental impact assessment of projects 85/337/EC Directive as codified by Directive
2011/92/EU (EIA)
185 ORNIS Committee (2011) Minutes. Unpublished
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&5K404K2W+x90U5FmL1eEAfrfLn1
cgkj7Mn+InW96bkwDftvKFOKx2dvStAkgOQoq,
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
43
Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, (WFD)
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD)
Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD)
National Emission Ceilings Directive 2001/81/EC (NECD)
Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC (ELD).
This question considers how the main provisions and measures set out in these instruments interact
with the EU nature legislation, including whether there are potential gaps or inconsistencies between
these instruments and the EU nature legislation, for example whether the current permitting
procedures are working in a coherent way or whether they are acting as barriers to achieve the EU
Nature Directive’s objectives; whether the assessments required under the different pieces of EU
legislation, in particular under the EIA, are aligned or whether there are differences which result in
additional administrative burden; whether any identified gaps and inconsistencies are due to the texts
of the Directives or due to implementation in your/a Member State.
Answer:
The Nature Directives have already been complemented by other supporting legislation, which
has been explicitly designed to work alongside them. This is true notably for the Water
Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Invasive Alien Species
Regulation. There are no relevant systematic problems, at least not arising out of the Nature
Directives. There are good approaches tested to coordinate/integrate permission or reporting
procedures. In some cases insufficient ambition or bad implementation of other environmental
Directives can undermine the objectives of the Nature Directives (e.g. emission ceilings which
are too low and allow ammonia emissions that are highly damaging to biodiversity). There is a
clear lack of enforcement in most of these Directives, so the gap of an Inspection Directive must
be closed. A Soil Directive is also urgently needed to deal with problems such as erosion which
can heavily affect species and habitats but cannot effectively be addressed through the Nature
Directives.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive is very much coherent with EU nature legislation. The MSFD
specifically states (Recital 6) that establishing special protected areas and special areas of conservation
contributes to achieving good environmental status of EU seas – the main objective of the MSFD.
Therefore the MSFD states that monitoring programmes established by Member States to monitor the
achievement of GES needs to be compatible with the monitoring that is already laid down by EU nature
directives (Article 11 of the MSFD). Furthermore, Programmes of measures established by Member
States to adhere to the MSFD and contribute to coherent and representative networks of marine protected
areas should include spatial protection measures such as SPAs and SACs (Article 13 of the MSFD).
The Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) found that legal coherence
between the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Water framework Directive is clear,
“although the interaction on the ground needs interpreting on a case by case basis by the Member
States.”(186) Commission guidance makes it clear that the WFD does not change what Member
States must achieve for the BHD, but it provides a joint framework for the implementation of
measures needed by both WFD and BHD in water-dependent Natura 2000 sites.(187) The
guidance also points out that, according to WFD Article 4.1.(c) the WFD objective of good status
may need to be complemented by additional objectives in order to ensure that conservation
objectives for protected areas are achieved. Art. 4.2. WFD says that "where more than one of the
objectives … relates to a given body of water, the most stringent shall apply". The “Blueprint to
safeguard Europe’s Water Resources”(188), which aims to tackle the obstacles which hamper
186European Commission (2012) The Fitness Check of EU Freshwater Policy
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/pdf/SWD-2012-393.pdf 187 European Commission (2012) Links between the Water Framework Directivfe and the Nature Directives
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/FAQ-WFD%20final.pdf 188 European Commssion (2012) A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0673&from=EN
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
44
action to safeguard Europe's water resources, points out that achieveing widespread
improvement in aquatic ecosystems will contribute positively to the EU Biodiversity Strategy
goal of halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by
2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive has recently been reformed, among other reasons
in order to help streamline procedures between art 6 appropriate assessments and EIA. (eg “whereas” 32,
DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU of 16 April 2014: In order to improve the effectiveness of the assessments, reduce
administrative complexity and increase economic efficiency, where the obligation to carry out assessments
related to environmental issues arises simultaneously from this Directive and Directive 92/43/EEC and/or
Directive 2009/147/EC, Member States should ensure that coordinated and/or joint procedures fulfilling the
requirements of these Directives are provided, where appropriate and taking into account their specific
organisational characteristics. Where the obligation to carry out assessments related to environmental issues
arises simultaneously from this Directive and from other Union legislation, such as Directive 2000/60/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council (16
), Directive 2001/42/EC, Directive 2008/98/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council (17
), Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council (18
) and Directive 2012/18/EU, Member States should be able to provide for coordinated and/or joint
procedures fulfilling the requirements of the relevant Union legislation. Where coordinated or joint
procedures are set up, Member States should designate an authority responsible for performing the
corresponding duties. Taking into account institutional structures, Member States should be able to, where
they deem it necessary, designate more than one authority.’)
C.3 - Is the scope for policy integration with other policy objectives (e.g. water, floods,
marine, and climate change) fully exploited?
This question is linked to the previous questions as it addresses the extent to which the objectives of
the Nature Directives have been integrated into or supported by the objectives of other relevant EU
environment policies. However, this question focuses more on policy implementation. The other EU
legislation and policies targeted in this question are the same as those referred to under question C.2,
as well as climate change policy. When answering this question, please note that the scope of
integration refers to the integration from the EU Nature Directives to other policies as well as to the
extent in which the objectives of these other policies are supported by the implementation of the
Nature Directives.
Answer:
Other policies do partly integrate the objectives of the Nature Directives, but overall not sufficiently. In
particular, the Common Agriculture Policy has consistently failed to take into consideration the
conservation of biodiversity and the objectives of the Nature Directives (see following question).
The EU's climate change and energy policy offers many opportunities for synergies with the EU
Nature Directives and vice versa.
- Firstly, biodiversity will be more resilient to climate change, more able to adapt, if we maintain
our ecosystems in a healthy state. This will be vital also to human adaptation to climate change,
because our prosperity and wellbeing depend on the services that healthy ecosystems supply.
Scientific evidence shows that protected areas could continue to play a critical role in nature
conservation in the face of climate change, helping to both retain retracting species and
encourage colonisation by expanding species. Researchers concluded that protected areas seem
set to continue to deliver high biodiversity benefits, even if the relative abundances and identities
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
45
of the species present change. 189 190
- Secondly, by implementing the Nature Directives properly a significant amount of greenhouse gas
emissions can be avoided. Healthy wetlands, grasslands, forests and seas serve as carbon sinks - while
degraded ones serve as sources. The Natura 2000 network in the EU27 stored 9.6 billion tons of
Carbon (equivalent to 35 billion tonnes of CO2191
- Thirdly, the Nature Directives are an ideal instrument for ecosystem based adaptation to climate
change providing co-benefits for both nature conservation, many ecosystem services and protection of
humans against climate change impacts such as floods, droughts and storms.192
Climate change is an obvious major threat to biodiversity and ecosystem services that cannot be
fundamentally addressed through the directives and needs to be addressed by EU climate and energy
policy. However, nature and biodiversity conservation through the directives are crucial to climate change
adaptation. Biodiverse and healthy ecosystems are more resilient to (climate) change, and more able to
adapt to changing environments.193
]
C.4 – To what extent do the Nature Directives complement or interact with other EU
sectoral policies affecting land and water use at EU and Member State level (e.g.
agriculture, regional and cohesion, energy, transport, research, etc.)?
In this question we are aiming at gathering evidence on whether the provisions of EU nature
legislation are sufficiently taken into account and integrated in EU sectoral policies, particularly in
agriculture, rural development and forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, cohesion or regional
development, energy, raw materials, transport or research policies. It also addresses whether those
policies support and act consistently alongside EU nature legislation objectives Please provide
specific examples which show how the Nature Directives are coherent with, or conflict with, relevant
sectoral legislation or policies. Please be as precise as possible in your answers, e.g. pointing to
specific articles of the legislation and how they support or contradict requirements or objectives of
other legislation or policies, stating what are main reasons or factors for the lack of consistency and
whether there are national mechanisms in place to monitor coherence.
Answer:
The implementation of the Nature Directives interacts very heavily with other policy areas. Activities
in the areas of regional development, infrastructure planning or construction are fully covered by Art.
6.3/6.4. of the Habitats Directive as far as Natura 2000 sites are concerned. Agriculture, forestry,
fisheries and other spatially relevant uses must comply with Art 6.2 and avoid deterioration.
Outside of Natura 2000 there are, with the exception of species protection provisions, no specific
189 The performance of Protected Areas for biodiversity under climate change: Chris D Thomas, Phillipa K Gillingham;'in
press' in Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 190 “Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions,” Chris D. Thomas et al
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/14063.abstract 191 Brink, P. ten et al. 2013: The Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network. Synthesis Report. Institute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP), GHK, Ecologic Institut, Metroeconomica, EFTEC, Luxembourg. ISBN: 978-92-79-27588-3.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf 192 ten Brink P. (2011).Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefitsprovided by the Natura 2000 Network. Final
Report to the European Commission,DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European
Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf 193
BirdLife International (undated) Partners with nature - How healthy ecosystems are helping the world’s most vulnerable adapt to climate changehttp://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Ecosystemsandadaption.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
46
instruments in the Directives that would allow to effectively address societal and economic impacts on
biodiversity. However, there is the general obligation of Member States to maintain or restore to all
species and habitats of community interest and all wild birds. From this follows the need to properly
adapt other sectoral policies so they integrate biodiversit concerns, rather than vice versa.
EU Nature legislation has had positive impacts on achieving the objectives in some sectoral policies,
especially in ensuring marine habitats achieve a favourable conservation state and population of fish
stocks replenish. Marine protected areas have been found to have positive impacts for fish population194
and have been used as a tool for fisheries management with also positive outcomes in Europe195
.
The main failure in this integration involves the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) of the EU. A vast
scientific literature shows that agriculture intensification is the main threat to biodiversity in Europe196
.
Upcoming reports under art 12 and 17, identify agriculture as a main source of biodiversity loss, with
trends worsening or negatively stable. The European Environment Agency observes that “biodiversity in
agro-ecosystems is under considerable pressure as a result of intensification and land abandonment”197
and
in 2011, the European Farmland Bird Index, which monitors farmland bird populations, fell to its lowest
ever recorded level198
. The well-documented decline in farmland birds is also mirrored by declines in
other farmland biodiversity, as highlighted in the recent ‘State of Nature report’: 60% of the 1064 species
studied were declining, including 64% of farmland moths, 70% of carabid beetles and 76% of the plant
species preferred by bumblebees as food sources199
. Also the CAP in which there are several references to
the birds and habitats directives is not working. To list a couple of examples related to the CAP before this
latest reform round:
1. the inclusion of references to the birds and habitats directives in the cross compliance mechanism are
not sufficient. This has been highlighted not just by BirdLife200
but also by the Court of Auditors201
. The
meain reasons are because the scope and objectives of cross compliance are not well-defined and the
194
Fenberg P.B.*, Caselle J., Claudet J., Clemence M., Gaines S., García-Charton J.A., Gonçalves E., Grorud-Colvert K., Guidetti P., Jenkins S., Jones P.J.S., Lester S., McAllen R., Moland E., Planes S. and Sørensen T.K. (2012) The science of European marine reserves: status, efficacy and needs. Marine Policy 36(5), 1012-1021. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.021 http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfwpej/pdf/SMREUMP.pdf 195 EMPASFish (2008) European Marine Protected Areas as tools for Fisheries management and conservation Issue 3 /
February 2008 http://www.um.es/empafish/files/Issue%203.pdf 196
P. Reidsma et al., ‘Impacts of land‐use change on biodiversity: As assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the
European Union’ in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environmental, vol. 114, May 2006, pp. 86‐102.
C.A.M. Van Swaay et al., The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland species 1990‐2009, De Vlinderstichting,
Wageningen, 2010.
P.F. Donald et al., 'Further evidence of continent‐wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland
birds' in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environmental, vol. 116, September 2006, pp. 189‐196;
Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU) (2008), Eating Biodiversity: an Investigation of the Links Between Quality Food Production and Biodiversity Protection, 2008; http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/Buller%20Policy%20&%20Practice%20Notes.pdf
Williams I. 2002 Insect Pollination and Crop Production: A European Perspective. In: Kevan P &
Imperatriz Fonseca VL (eds) - Pollinating Bees-The Conservation Link Between Ag
riculture and Nature Ministry of Environment / Brasília.p.59-65http://www.webbee.org.br/bpi/pdfs/livro_02_willians.pdf 197 European Environment Agency (2010) 10 messages for 2010: Agricultural ecosystems;
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/10-messages-for-2010-agricultural-ecosystems/at_download/file 198 Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme: http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=457 199 Burns F, Eaton MA, Gregory RD, et al. (2013) State of Nature report. The State of Nature partnership.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/science/stateofnature/index.aspx 200 BirdLife (2009) Through the Green Smokescreen:How is CAP Cross Compliance delivering for biodiver
sity?
http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/sites/are.econ.univpm.it/files/FinestraPAC/Editoriale_17/Through_the_green_smokescree
n_November_2009.pdf 201 European Court of Auditors (2014) The effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund support for aquaculture
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/News/NEWS0812_09_01/NEWS0812_09_01_EN.PDF Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union, 2014
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
47
requirements are not properly translated in concrete on the ground measures.
2. Furthermore within Rural Development there were measures related to the implementation of Natura
2000 which were not always as effective or targeted202
.
3. Finally, it is clear also that there is an overlap between the CAP subsidies and the most problematic
zones in terms of environment and biodiversity as can be seen by BirdLife’s transparency report203
.
Even the most recent CAP reform in which biodiversity was identified as one of the key objectives has
failed to deliver real change as was stated in an article published by Science in June 2014204.
It has to be also noted that unsustainable policies and subsidies related to the production of bioenergy
is adding another challenge for biodiversity concerns and requires urgent reform. This can be seen for
example by the serious threats that biogas production in Germany had on Natura 2000 sites by the
dramatic conversion of high biodiverse grasslands to intensive maize production205
.
Although forestry is not subject to a common EU policy, the EU Forest Strategy of 2013206
gives clear
supportive signals to the implementation of Natura 2000. At national levels however, there is still a great
room for further integration of biodiversity concerns into forest policy - a necessity to take into
account that forests are far more than just producers of wood to society.
The Nature Directives have helped integrate biodiversity concerns into pan-EU initiatives, through the
establishment of an EU-wide legal framework for nature conservation. For example Commission guidance
on Projects of Common Interest207
identifies the Habitats Directive as a key tool for taking impacts on
biodiversity and habitats into account.
Another policy area where integration needs to be further improved is energy policies.
Transition to renewable energy sources requires major new investment in EU’s energy
systems and infrastructure, and poses new demands on EU’s land, water and forest
resources. Failures in integration are particularly linked to increased bioenergy
(biofuels and biomass) use, new grid development and lack of spatial planning in
deployment of new energy production.
For example, as EU policies currently have no safeguards for biomass use in the heating
and electricity sector, increased maize cultivation for biogas production has led to
increased conversion of grasslands to maize monocultures, even in species rich Natura
sites.Increased use of wood for energy has also raised concerns about the impacts of
202 Boccaccio, L., Brunner, A. and Powell, A. (2009). Could do better: How is EU Rural Development policy delivering for
biodiversity? Birdlife International:
203 Luigi Boccaccio, Ariel Brunner, Jenna Hegarty, Gareth Morgan Trees Robijns (2010)Reality check:
Are Common Agricultural Policy subsidies paying for environmental quality?http://www.seo.org/wp-
content/uploads/tmp/docs/birdlife_reality-check_transparency-report_july10.pdf
204 G. Pe’er, L. V. Dicks, P. Visconti, R. Arlettaz, A. Báldi, T. G. Benton, S. Collins, M. Dieterich, R. D. Gregory, F. Hartig,
K. Henle, P. R. Hobson, D. Kleijn, R. K. Neumann, T. Robijns, J. Schmidt, A. Shwartz, W. J. Sutherland, A. Turbé, F. Wulf
and A. V. Scott (2014). EU Agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 6 JUNE 2014 • VOL 344 ISSUE 618. Pages
1090-1092: 205 NABU (2014) Vollzugsdefizite und Verstöße gegen dasVerschlechterungsverbot bei FFH-Lebensraumtypen auf
Grünlandstandorten in Deutschland https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/landwirtschaft/gruenland/140403-nabu-
beschwerde_ffh-gr__nland.pdf 206
European Commission (2013) A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector. COM (2013) 659 final 207 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/PCI_guidance.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
48
intensified forest management to biodiversity and forest habitats 208
. In Slovenia209
for
example, expansion of hydro power and building of new dams, partly due to climate
change mitigation efforts, has in some cases happened at the expense of freshwater
ecosystems including Natura 2000 sites. In Bulgaria210
, wind power plants have been
planned in an area with high concentration of Natura sites, and one of Europe’s most
important bird migration areas.
The provisions under Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive are adequate to
handle renewable energy developments, - i.e. there are no fundamental problems and
the Directives contribute to better sited and designed projects, if implemented
properly211
Better integration of the nature legislation with energy policies is vital to ensure an environmentally
sustainable development of the energy sector]. Practice has shown that despite many failures in
integration, good examples and best practices already exists and that with careful planning it’s more than
feasible to develop energy infrastructure ‘in harmony with nature’. Good examples include Bern
Convention best practice guidance on integrated planning for wind farms and birds212
, and cooperation
of the electricity transmission systems operators with conservation groups 213
.
C.5 - How do these policies affect positively or negatively the implementation of the EU
nature legislation
In this question, we are keen to gather evidence on whether agriculture and rural development,
fisheries and aquaculture, cohesion or regional development, energy, raw materials, transport and
research policies have a positive or negative impact on the achievement of the objectives of nature
legislation. Please provide specific examples/cases (including infringement cases or case law), which
demonstrate clear conflicts or incoherencies between sectoral policies and EU nature legislation,
and/or examples showing how specific policies influence the implementation of the Nature Directives
in a positive or negative way, for example in relation to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (see Annex
I to this questionnaire). Where possible, please include evidence of the main factors influencing the
positive and negative effects. Please consider in your answer what ex ante and ex post evaluation
procedures are applied to ensure that this coherence is implemented or supervised.
Answer:
Fisheries.
The Common Fisheries Policy has in the past been more ambiguous with regards to the objectives of the
208
NGO Coalition (2011) Woody biomass for bioenergy, concerns and recommendations. http://www.clientearth.org/reports/ngo-report-on-biomass-11-april-2011.pdf 209
Euronatur and Riverwatch (undated )Outstanding Balkan River landscapes – a basis for wise development decisions - Slovenia http://www.balkanrivers.net/sites/default/files/SI_CountrySpecial14%5Bsmallpdf.com%5D.pdf 210
RSPB (2014). Kaliakra. Retrieved from RSPB website:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/campaigningfornature/casework/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-228284 211
Jackson, A. L. R. (2011). Renewable energy vs. biodiversity - Policy conflicts and the future of nature conservation.
Elsevier, Global Environmental Change: Pages 1195–1208:
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/613bb4fa-ab43-4a14-8f68-f7a8b6f7e0c0/2011_Jackson.pdf 212
Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (2013) Wind farms and birds: an updated analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds, and best practice guidance on integrated planning and impact assessment. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2064209&Site=COE 213
Renewables Grid Initiative (2011). European Grid Declaration on Electricity Network Development and Nature
Conservation in Europe. Retrieved from RGI website:
http://renewables-grid.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Files_RGI/European%20Grid%20Declaration.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
49
Nature Directives, mainly referring to general environmental legislation. However, the new policy fully
supports the objectives of EU Nature Directives, where it specially states that Member States, under the
obligation of the EU nature directives, can adopt conservation measures within their own jurisdiction to
support the conservation objectives of SPAs and SACs (Recital 25 and Article 11). Furthermore, the CFP
specifically states that an ecosystem based approach (Article 2.3) shall be applied to fisheries management
in order to minimise the impacts of fishing to the wider marine environment in order to contribute to the
achievement of good environmental statues of EU seas as set out under the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive. As stated above, achieving the objectives of the EU nature legislation is fundamental to
achieving good environmental status of the MSFD as stated in the legislation. It is now up to further
reforms of regional management plans of EU fisheries to further integrate the coherent objectives that
have been laid down in the CFP.
In the past, policies on maritime sectors have been ambiguous in coherence with EU Nature legislation.
The Integated Maritime Policy, has changed this, setting the MSFD as its environmental pillar (Recital 12,
Article 2.c and Article 3.3). Therefore issues such as aquaculture, coastal tourim, marine biotechnology,
ocean energy and seabed mining, all have to conform to the objectives set out under the MSFD, including
contributing to the conservation objetctives of spatial measures such as SPAs and SACs.
This has been clearly illustrated under the new Maritime Spatial Planning Directive adopted in 2014, a
tool that has been set out to ensure an efficient and sustainable management of activities at sea,
emphasises the need to support EU nature legislation and that spatial planning will contribute to EU
nature legislation (Recital 15). The Maritime Spatial Planning Directive specifically states that all
maritime spatial plans need to be based on an ecosystem based approach (Article 5) to be able to
contribute to EU nature legislation.
The European Court of Auditors found that the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) did not offer effective
support for the sustainable development of aquaculture214
.Rather than generating a more sustainable
fishing sector, the EFF (2007-2013) has worked significantly to its detriment. Less than one-quarter of the
fund has been directed at fleet capacity reduction, instead available funds have been used to help vessel
owners overcome economic problems at the expense of rebuilding fish stocks. In addition to poorly
managed aid for vessel modernisation and fleet adjustment, nearly 40 percent of the EFF was committed
to expanding port infrastructure, processing, and aquaculture by October 2010, representing an
incoherent and contradictory set of measures that together significantly increased economic returns to
enterprises and thus encouraged increased production irrespective of environmental carrying capacity215
.
The recently reformed CFP is supposed to change this sorry state of affairs (eg by setting quotas in line
with MSY and tackling by catch through discard bans) and it clarifies that Natura 2000 management
takes priority over fishing rights. The new EMFF also includes explicit provisions aimed at supporting the
management of Natura 2000 but it is still early to say how much these will be taken up by national
authorities.
Agriculture
The common agricultural policy has consistently undermined achievement of objectives of the Birds
and Habitats directives and contributed to the collapse of farmland biodiversity (see previous
question). Farming is also the sector that has seen the poorest levels of implementation as public
authorities have often turned a blind eye to gross violations of the directives, such as the clearing of
protected habitats for the expansion of intensive cropping216
. This has led to massive loss of
biodiversity, notably in the case of grasslands destruction, which in some regions has reached
214
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR14_10/QJAB14010ENC.pdf 215
WWF 2011: Reforming EU fisheries subsidies: a joint NGO discussion paper and technical resource
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lr_reform_fisheries_subsidies.pdf 216 Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2014): Grünland Report - Alles im Grünen Bereich?
http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/presse/2014/PK_Gruenlandpapier_30.06.2014_final_layout_barrierefrei.pdf
NABU (2014) Vollzugsdefizite und Verstöße gegen dasVerschlechterungsverbot bei FFH-Lebensraumtypen auf
Grünlandstandorten in Deutschland https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/landwirtschaft/gruenland/140403-nabu-
beschwerde_ffh-gr__nland.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
50
horrifying levels (97% of protected grasslands destroyed in parts of Bavaria in less than two decades217
and significant declines of grasslands in Bulgaria218
).In investigation carried out by BirdLife we have
failed to find almost any cases of farmers penalised for habitat clearing, either through genuine
sanctions or through withdrawing of subsidies under cross compliance219
, despite the destruction of
tens of thousands of hectares in hundreds of individual cases. Even for the new CAP reform 2014-
2020, improvements are not happening. The greening of the policy which was supposed to signify a
real change has allowed for a blanket exemption of all the permanent crops from greening, it is not
bringing the necessary habitats into the –very often- intensive landscapes through the Ecological
Focus Area measure which can be cropped and is not banned from pesticides, the crop diversification
measure will not allow for real diversity in the landscapes since monocultures can be deemed
equivalent to the diversification measures (as just approved by the Commission in the case of France)
and finally the grasslands within Natura 2000 sites do not get a 100% protection measure – this is
defined by Member States who are not obliged to designate all the grasslands within Natura 2000 as
environmentally sensitive and hence as extra protected.
The very un-satisfactory integration of biodiversity elements within the CAP overall does not mean
there are not specific elements where in the past there were success found. Especially with regards to
agri-environment several positive examples have been identified (e.g. Corncrake scheme in Czech
Republic220
and Great Bustard scheme in Portugal221
) and agri-environment has definitely been the
most effective measure within the CAP on biodiversity and the environment222
. Unfortunately not even
agri-environment has been without problems as could be seen from the Court of Auditors report223
.
C.6- To what extent do they support the EU internal market and the creation of a level
playing field for economic operators?
This question seeks to gather evidence of the implications of the EU Nature Directives for economic
operators in terms of whether they help ensure a level playing field across the EU (e.g. by introducing
common standards and requirements for activities carried out in or around Natura 2000 areas or
otherwise depend on natural resources protected under the Directives), predictability and legal
certainty (e.g. helping to avoid that developments are blocked due to 'Not In My Backyard' type
challenges), or whether they negatively affect the internal market.
Answer:
Environmental standards are key for the proper functioning of the single market in purely economic
217 NABU (2014) Vollzugsdefizite und Verstöße gegen dasVerschlechterungsverbot bei FFH-Lebensraumtypen auf
Grünlandstandorten in Deutschland https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/landwirtschaft/gruenland/140403-nabu-
beschwerde_ffh-gr__nland.pdf
218 V Dobrev, G Popgeorgiev, D Plachiyski (2014) Effects of the Common Agricultural Policy on the
coverage of grassland habitats in Besaparski Ridove Special Protection Area (Natura 2000), southern
Bulgaria- Acta zoologica bulgarica, 2014
219 BirdLife (2009) Through the Green Smokescreen:How is CAP Cross Compliance delivering for biodiver
sity?
http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/sites/are.econ.univpm.it/files/FinestraPAC/Editoriale_17/Through_the_green_smokescree
n_November_2009.pdf 220 Agri environment for corncrake – evidence to be submitted later. 221 Agro-GES (2005) EVALUATION DES MESURES AGRO-ENVIRONNEMENTALES ANNEXE 34 : ETUDE DE CAS
CASTRO VERDE. Cascais, France. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/measures/annex34.pdf 222 Broyer, J., Curtet, L., and Chazal, R. 2014. How to improve agri-environment schemes to achieve meadow bird
conservation in Europe? A case study in the Saône valley, France. J. Ornithol. 155(1):145-155
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10336-013-0996-6?wt_mc=alerts.TOCjournals 223 European Court of Auditors (2011). ISSN 1831-0834 EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS EN 2011 Special Report No
7 IS AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT WELL DESIGNED AND MANAGED? Luxembourg, Publications Office of the
European Union:
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
51
terms as they help set a level playing field across the EU, and prevent any one member state deriving an
unfair short-term competitive advantage by destroying its environment. EU environmental standards
achieve this by establishing minimum standards for environmental protection that apply across all EU
Member States. This also serves to provide certainty for businesses operating across the EU, that the rules
applicable to them are the same in all Member States. Businesses that wish to trade within any EU
Member State must comply with these rules whether they are based in the EU or outside.
Aside from the functioning of the internal market, it is also important to recognize the role played by EU
environmental standards in supporting the EU economy more broadly. There is a growing body of
evidence regarding the importance of the natural environment in relation to the valuable goods and
services it provides.224
There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that, in the long-run, environmental regulation is good for
business by opening up new market opportunities and driving cost-reducing innovation.225
Research has clearly demonstrated the major role played by Europe’s Natura 2000 network in
safeguarding the natural capital upon which Europe’s prosperity and well-being ultimately depends,
providing a wide range of important benefits to society and the economy via the flow of ecosystem
services.226
As an EU -wide network, Natura 2000 represents an important shared resource capable of
providing multiple benefits to society and to Europe’s economy.227
Ecosystem services deliver benefits over multiple spatial and temporal scales; many are trans-boundary in
nature. In addition, the complex ecological processes underpinning the delivery of these services also do
not respect national boundaries. Protecting supra-national “public goods” must be a shared
responsibility; without EU environmental standards that simply would not be possible.
Environmental standards can also help create new markets for environmental products or services, as
well as promoting improved levels of environmental protection globally among countries wishing to trade
with the EU. Within a Member State, such standards are also important as they should play a role in
preventing environmental damage taking place in one sector (for example agriculture) which, by
damaging the natural environment, has a negative impact on another sector (such a tourism). The Europe
2020 Strategy aims to create a smart, sustainable and inclusive European economy. As one of the three
pillars of sustainable development, environmental protection is therefore a key element of the current
political objectives of the single market.
C.7 – To what extent has the legal obligation of EU co-financing for Natura 2000 under
Article 8 of the Habitats Directive been successfully integrated into the use of the main
sectoral funds?
This question builds on question Y.2 on the availability and access to funding, but aims at examining
whether Member States have sufficiently identified the funding needs and are availing of EU funding
opportunities to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the Habitats Directive. EU co-funding for the
Natura 2000 network has been made available by integrating biodiversity goals into various existing
EU funds or instruments such as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),
European (Maritime and) Fisheries Fund (EFF / EMFF), Structural and Cohesion funds, LIFE and
Horizon 2020. In your reply, please distinguish between different sources of funding.
224 For example, see: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Our
Human Planet: Summary for Decision Makers (Vol. 5). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.). Island Press. 225 Rayment, M., E. Pirgmaier, et al. (2009). The economic benefits of environmental policy - Final Report., Institute for
Environmental Studies. 226 Brink, P. ten et al. 2013: The Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network. Synthesis Report. Institute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP), GHK, Ecologic Institut, Metroeconomica, EFTEC, Luxembourg. ISBN: 978-92-79-27588-3.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf 227 Kettunen, M. et al. (2011). Assessment of the Natura 2000 co‐financing arrangements of the EU financing instrument. A
project for the European Commission – final report. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
52
Answer:
Many Member States have missed various opportunities to use EU funds that could be used for co-
financing of Natura 2000, this is mainly due to competent authorities priority setting in agriculture and
regional funds, but also the fault of inconsistent communication and negotiation of the European
Commission. It might be time to reconsider the integration approach in funding and discuss a stand-alone
EU environment fund or a more effective procedure for ensuring ringfencing of funds. The Commission
has acknowledged that the use of different EU instruments is still very significantly below the financial
needs of Natura 2000 as defined by the Member States.228
Only 9-19% of the estimated financial needs of
Natura 2000 are covered by the EU funds229
. A recent study230
by the Institute for European
Environmental Policy estimates that somewhere in the region of €34bn per year would be required to
cover the cost of environmentally beneficial land management on agricultural and forested land in the EU,
rising to €43bn per year when supportive costs (such as advice provision) are factored in. The CAP’s
Rural Development pillar represents the single largest fund available in the EU for conservation measures
but receives just c€12bn per year. It is also important to note that not all of this funding is used to support
more sustainable and wildlife-friendly land management, in fact much is still spent on harmful
investments or wasted231
. In the current CAP, Member States are required to spend at least 25% of the
RD budget on ‘environmental measures’ however some schemes are little more than additional income
support (such as the Less Favoured Area payment) or have been poorly designed by the Member State232
and so deliver minimal environmental benefit (the issue of limited expertise and capacity within the
Commission is also at fault here as they have responsibility for scheme approval).
The European Maritime Fisheries Fund has been previously very harmful to the environment –
subsidising overcapacity and overfishing233
. However, the new fund that supports the objectives of the
CFP and the IMP has been reformed, forcing Member States to fund actions to support EU Nature
legislations. It is however up to the Member States to decide how to achieve this through their operational
programmes that have yet to be adopted
The European Commission Staff Working Paper on Financing Natura 2000 noted that a lack of
information about funding for Natura 2000 under the European Fisheries Fund may be partly
explained by poorer progress in establishment of Natura 2000 for the marine environment.234
228 European Commission (2011) COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER FINANCING NATURA 2000 Investing in
Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people. SEC(2011) 1573 final
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/financing_natura2000.pdf - 229 Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O.,Torkler,P.,Arroyo Schnell, A.,Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, E. Rayment,
M.,Daly, E.& Pieterse, M. 2011.Assessmentof the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU financing instrument. A
project for the European Commission–bfinal report.Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy(IEEP), Brussels, Belgium.
138 pp + Annexes. http://www.ieep.eu/publications/2011/03/financing-natura-2000 230 Hart K, Baldock D, Tucker G, Allen B, Calatrava J, Black H, Newman S, Baulcomb C, McCracken D, Gantioler S (2011)
Costing the Environmental Needs Related to Rural Land Management, Report Prepared for DG Environment, Contract No
ENV.F.1/ETU/2010/0019r. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London 231 Boccaccio, L., Brunner, A. and Powell, A. (2009). Could do better: How is EU Rural Development policy delivering for
biodiversity? Birdlife International:
. European Court of Auditors (2013). CAN THE COMMISSION AND MEMBER STATES SHOW THAT THE EU
BUDGET ALLOCATED TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY IS WELL SPENT? Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union: http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR13_12/SR13_12_EN.pdf 231 European Court of Auditors (2011). ISSN 1831-0834 EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS EN 2011 Special Report No
7 IS AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT WELL DESIGNED AND MANAGED? Luxembourg, Publications Office of the
European Union: 232 European Court of Auditors (2011) Special report no. 7: Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 233 Reforming EU Fisheries Subsidies A Joint NGO Discussion Paper And Technical Resource October 2011
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lr_reform_fisheries_subsidies.pdf 234 European Commission (2011) COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER FINANCING NATURA 2000 Investing in
Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people. SEC(2011) 1573 final
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/financing_natura2000.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
53
It is clear therefore that considerably less is being spent on protecting and enhancing the natural
environmental than is required.
C.8 - Are there overlaps, gaps and/or inconsistencies that significantly hamper the
achievements of the objectives?
This question refers to overlaps, gaps and/or inconsistencies in the different EU law/policy
instruments regarding nature protection. It therefore depends largely on the results of other questions
related to the coherence of the Nature Directives with other EU law and policies. When answering this
question you may want to consider whether the identified overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies hamper
the achievement of the Directive’s objectives (e.g. see Annex I to this questionnaire).
Answer:
There is a severe gap in enforcement of EU environmental legislation, including the Nature
Directives. Member States should be obliged to fulfil specific standards in monitoring, inspecting
and sanctioning potential illegal activities. Therefore an EU Inspection Directive has to be
tabled.
There are no gaps or inconsistencies within the Directives themselves that hamper achievement of the
objectives. Implementation failures at member state levels have, however, created gaps and inconsistencies
that are hampering achievement of the objectives, while also, in some cases, creating a significant burden
for business.
BirdLife has denounced systemic failure in implementation in several cases including appropriate
assessment in Italy235
and Bulgaria236
and enforcement of hunting legislation in Malta237
.,
C.9 - How do the directives complement the other actions and targets of the biodiversity
strategy to reach the EU biodiversity objectives?
With this question we seek to collect evidence on ways in which the implementation of measures under
the Birds and Habitats Directives that are not explicitly mentioned in the EU Biodiversity Strategy,
help to achieve actions and targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. For example, restoration of
Natura 2000 sites can significantly contribute to helping achieve the goal under Target 2 of the EU
Biodiversity Strategy to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems.
Answer:
The Directives contribute significantly to the other actions and targets of the EU biodiversity strategy.
Birds and Habitats Directives complement nature conservation efforts in wider countryside, by
protecting hotspots of biodiversity, which serve as pools of species that can colonise beyond the
Natura 2000 sites, thus supporting overall Biodiversity target and target 2.
EEA report confirms that “the abundance of a large number of bird species is higher inside than
outside the Natura 2000 network, showing that the Natura 2000 areas designated upon the presence of
235 WWF & LIPU. 2013. Dossier sul depauperamento dei siti Natura 2000 e sulla Valutazione di Incidenza in Italia.
http://awsassets.wwfit.panda.org/downloads/dossiernatura2000_lipu_wwf_2013.pdf 236 RSPB (2014). Kaliakra. Retrieved from RSPB website:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/campaigningfornature/casework/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-228284 237
BirdLife Europe (2013) BirdLife malta acts on illegal hunting. http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/news/birdlife-malta-acts-illegal-hunting.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
54
targeted bird species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive also harbour a substantial number and
population of common bird species”.238
Much of the Natura 2000 network is on farmland, and so the Directives can play (if implemented) a
key role in protecting farmland and forest biodiversity (target 3).
Birds and Habitats Directives play a key role in maintaining habitats and species, but also in delivering
restoration of degraded habitats and depleted species populations. They therefore complement efforts
to tackle pressures on wildlife, including climate change and invasive alien species.
If properly implemented in the marine environment, the Directives would also help achieve good
ecological status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, as outlined in our response to C2.
See also question S.2
C.10: How coherent are the directives with international and global commitments on
nature and biodiversity?
This question seeks to assess whether and how the EU nature legislation ensures the implementation
of obligations arising from international commitments on nature and biodiversity which the EU and/or
Member States have subscribed to239
, and whether there are gaps or inconsistencies between the
objectives and requirements of the EU nature legislation and those of relevant international
commitments, including the way they are applied. For example, the Directives’ coherence with
international agreements which establish targets relating to nature protection and/or require the
establishment of networks of protected areas.
238 Pellissier V., Schmucki R., F., Jiguet, R., Julliard, J., Touroult, Richard D., and D. Evans (2014). The impact of Natura
2000 on non-target species, assessment using volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring. ETC/BD report for the EEA.
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/Reports/ETCBDTechnicalWorkingpapers/PDF/Impact_of_Natura_2000_on_non-target_species 239 e.g. Bern Convention; Convention on Biological Diversity; Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage; Ramsar Convention; European landscape Convention; CITES Convention; CMS (Bonn) Convention;
International Convention for the protection of Birds; Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory
Waterbirds; Regional Sea Conventions (Baltic, North East Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Sea).
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
55
Answer:
The Birds and Habitats Directives are the Cornerstone of EU efforts to conserve biological diversity.
As such, they are the prime and practically the only instrument to implement key obligations under the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the Bern Convention. They also fulfil many other
commitments under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands,
the World Heritage Convention, and also CITES.
In relation to the CBD, the Birds and Habitats Directives implement key obligations under Articles 6,
7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 20, and under several Programmes of Work. Successive EU reports to the
CBD240
confirming that the legal backbone of the EU biodiversity and nature protection legislation is
formed by the Birds and Habitats Directives, and that in designating 18% of the EU’s terrestrial area
as Natura 2000 sites, the EU has gone beyond Aichi target 11 in the terrestrial environment.
In addition to fulfilling standing obligations under international conventions, the Directives have also
helped strengthen commitments made by other contracting parties.
For example, the Habitats Directive has formed the foundation of the agreed European Common
Position within the International Whaling Commission which states that;
“Within the Union, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora lists all cetacean species as species of Union interest
and requires Member States to maintain those species in, or restore them to, a favourable
conservation status in those parts of their territory to which the Treaty applies. All cetaceans are
listed in Annex IV to that Directive. Therefore, all whale species are strictly protected from
deliberate disturbance, capture or killing within Union waters. ….Cetaceans, and therefore
whales, are migratory species. Consequently, Union policies and legislation relating to
cetaceans will be more effective within Union waters if they are backed by coherent worldwide
action”.
EU member states are therefore obligated to take a strong position on the protection of cetaceans at
meetings of the parties to the IWC, which both strengthens global conservation commitments made by
the EU, and enhances protection of cetaceans within European waters given their migratory nature.
Similarly the Birds and Habitats Directive inform the EU position taken within other international
conventions such as CMS and CITES.
Monitoring and conservation measures undertaken to fulfil the requirements of the Habitats Directive
are coherent with Member States’ commitments under international agreements such as the IWC and
CMS. They are a central component of Member States’ progress reports to international and regional
conventions such as the IWC, ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS and contribute to fulfilling their
commitments under these conventions.
By serving as a template for neighbouring countries the directives have supported conservation in the
entire Western Palearctic region, further enhancing delivery of the Aichi targets at global scale.
240 European Commission (several years) National Reports to the CBD http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/eur/eur-nr-02-en.pdf
http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/eur/eur-nr-03-en.pdf
http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/eur/eur-nr-04-en.pdf
http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/eur/eur-nr-05-en.pdf
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
56
EU Added Value
Evaluating the EU added value means assessing the benefits/changes resulting from implementation of
the EU nature legislation, which are additional to those that would have resulted from action taken at
regional and/or national level. We therefore wish to establish if EU action (that would have been
unlikely to take place otherwise) made a difference and if so in what way? Evidence could be
presented both in terms of total changes since the Directives became applicable in a particular Member
State, in changes per year, or in terms of trends.
AV.1 - What has been the EU added value of the EU nature legislation?
When responding to this question, you may wish to consider the following issues: What was the state
of play or the state of biodiversity in your country at the moment of the adoption of the Directives
and/or your country’s entry into the EU? To what extent is the current situation due to the EU nature
legislation? In answering this question, please consider different objectives/measures set out in the
Directives (eg regarding protected areas, species protection, research and knowledge, regulation of
hunting, etc, including their transboundary aspects).
Answer:
The Birds and Habitats Directives were adopted to address failures and inconsistencies in national
nature protection laws, and to tackle rapid and accelerating biodiversity losses. As nature knows no
borders, to be effective nature conservation action must be coordinated at international level, justifying
an EU-level approach.
Similarly, in a common market we need also a level-playing field for economic actors, based on a
shared framework of environmental laws and standards. EU level action is essential to conserve shared
biological resources and ensure complementarity of conservation action across union.
Natura 2000 has expanded the protected area network across Europe, established effective and flexible
rules for nature conservation, and has helped businesses to integrate biodiversity in their planning in a
coherent way. Evidence of EU added value is that most Member States have upgraded their hunting
legislation and completed their Natura 2000 designation only following Commission legal action241
. It
is thus logical to conclude that these conservation improvements would not have happened, or would
have taken a lot more time without the EU framework and enforcement. Further evidence of the EU
added value is the much lower level of biodiversity protection in European Countries outside the EU
such as the western Balkans.242243
AV.2 - What would be the likely situation in case of there having been no EU nature
legislation?
241 European Commission (2006) NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY CASES RULING OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF
JUSTICE Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006 242 Denac, D., Schneider-Jacoby, M. & Stumberger, B. (eds.) (2010): Adriatic flyway – closing the gap in bird conservation.
Euronatur, Radolfzell. Schneider-Jacoby, M. & Spangenberg, A. (2010): Bird Hunting Along the Adriatic Flyway – an
Assessment of Bird Hunting in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia. – In: Denac, D.,
Schneider-Jacoby, M. & Stumberger, B. (eds.). Adriatic flyway – closing the gap in bird conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell,
pp. 32–51. 243 BirdLife International (2015) Wings across the Balkans. http://www.biom.hr/en/izdvojeni-projekti/wings-across-the-
balkans/
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
57
This question builds on question AV.1. In answering it, please consider the different
objectives/measures set out in the Directives (eg. whether there would be a protected network such as
that achieved by Natura 2000; whether the criteria used to identify the protected areas would be
different, whether funding levels would be similar to current levels in the absence of the Nature
Directives; the likelihood that international and regional commitments relating to nature conservation
would have been met; the extent to which nature conservation would have been integrated into other
policies and legislation, etc).
Answer:
Without the Nature Directives the situation would be much worse (see previous question: much less
protected areas, less restrictions (e.g. on hunting) etc. Many important comebacks of species would not
have happened, etc. Comparison with conservation situation inside the EU with any country to the
south and east is striking, as described above.
In the absence of EU nature legislation, it is likely that uncoordinated nature conservation efforts
would have continued at national level across the EU (including the selection of sites, conservation
measures, monitoring of conservation status). Evidence suggests that these approaches had not been
effective prior to the adoption of the Birds and Habitats Directives, and the absence of any
international coordination would have presented a serious challenge to achieving the goal of halting
the loss of biodiversity - Evidence from the UK shows that prior to the adoption of the Habitats
Directive almost a quarter of nationally designated sites in England were being damaged annually.244
We can testify that conservation work by BirdLife partners has massively improved in quality thanks
to the focus, , legal support and exchange of best practice triggered by EU legislation. We have seen
such improvements kicking in particularly swiftly following countries accession to the EU.
Inconsistency of nature protection rules across EU 28 would have compromised achievement of single
market.245
AV. 3 - Do the issues addressed by the Directives continue to require action at EU level?
When answering this question the main consideration is to demonstrate with evidence whether or not
EU action is still required to tackle the problems addressed by the Directives. Do the identified needs
or key problems faced by habitats and species in Europe require action at EU level?
Answer:
Yes, there is still a very strong case for EU-level action to tackle the problems addressed by the
Directives.
Europe’s habitats and wildlife are still under pressure from climate change, invasive alien species, and
other drivers of biodiversity loss that can only be tackled through international action. The internal
market is more established, and responsible businesses not only want to engage with the Directives,
but also finds them no barrier to their business operations.246
244
Hughes, P. and Ware, R. (1994). The habitats directive and the UK conservation framework and SSSI system: Research
Paper 94/90. House of Commons Library:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp94-90.pdf 245 Beter Regulation Executive (2006). Davidson Review: Final Report. Crown copyright. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file44583.pdf 246 BirdLife (2007) The CEMEX - BirdLife International Global Conservation Partnership Programme 2007-
2017http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/cemex-birdlife-international-global-conservation-partnership-programme-2007-2017
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
58
The need not just to halt but to reverse biodiversity loss requires not only that EU action should
continue, but that the EU should do more, in particular to close the implementation and enforcement
gap.
In 1979, the EC signed and ratified the Bern Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and
natural habitats, which explicitly recognises “that wild flora and fauna constitute a natural heritage of
aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational, economic and intrinsic value that needs to be preserved and
handed on to future generations;”.247
As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the EU has confirmed that the conservation
of biological diversity is a common concern of humankind.248
At the international level, growing concern over biodiversity loss has spurred governments, including
the EU, to sign up to ever more ambitious biodiversity conservation targets.249
The need to conserve biodiversity is even more pressing now in the face of climate change.
Although the nature Directives have not yet been fully implemented, and conservation funding
remains inadequate, there is scientific evidence that EU level intervention through the Birds and
Habitats Directives has proven to be effective at reducing the rate of loss of biodiversity.250
The Pan-European Common Birds Indicator251
shows that biodiversity loss is continuing, despite
successes of Directives.
Public concern across the EU about the environment remains high, as does public support for EU level
action to tackle environmental problems252
.
Business also supports EU level intervention because of the advantages that this brings for the Single
Market and environmental protection.253
Europe is a continent that values and protects its environment; many people believe that the nature has
its own intrinsic value that cannot be traded off against purely economic values. A 2010
Eurobarometer poll found that EU citizens see the conservation of biodiversity first and foremost as
moral obligation rather than as a means of protecting our own well-being and quality of life.254
According to the latest results from the article 17 report of the Habitats Directive only 16% of
European Habitats and 23% of species of community interest are in favourable conservation status255
.
These are preliminary results from the “State of Nature” report expected to be published during the
246 BirdLife (2011) Partnership with Heidelberg Cement. http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/partnership-
heidelbergcement 247 Council of Europe (1979) Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Bern
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/104.htm 248 Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-00 249 Convention on Biological Diverstity (2011) Aitchi Targets http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ 250 Paul F. Donald, Fiona J. Sanderson, Ian J. Burfield, Stijn M. Bierman, Richard D. Gregory, Zoltan Waliczky (2007).
International Conservation Policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Published in: Science, Vol 317: 810-813.
http://www.monitoringmatters.org/publications/Science%20Donald%20paper.pdf 251 EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands(2014) All common bird indicator, Europe, single European species habitat
classification, 1980-2012http://www.ebcc.info/pecbm.html 252 European Commission (2014). Eurobarometer 416: Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment. Conducted
by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the Directorate-General for Environment:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf 253 UK Government (2014) Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union
Environment and Climate Change
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284500/environment-climate-change-
documents-final-report.pdf 254 Eurobarometer (2010). Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of biodiversity. The Gallup organisation
Analytical report Wave 2 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_290_en.pdf 255Full report to be published in April. Information from Presentation by the EC at the Nature Directors Meeting in Rome in
November 2014.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
59
upcoming months.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
60
Annex 1: Objectives of the Directives
Overall
objective
To contribute to ensuring biodiversity through conservation of Europe's most valuable and threatened
habitats and species, especially within Natura 2000 Birds Directive Habitats Directive
Strategic
Objectives
Art. 2: Maintain the population of all species of
naturally occurring wild birds in the EU at a
level which corresponds in particular to
ecological, scientific and cultural requirements,
while taking account of economic and
recreational requirements, or to adapt the
population of these species to that level.
Art 2: Maintain or restore natural habitats and
species of Community interest at a favourable
conservation status (FCS), taking into account
economic, social and cultural requirements and
regional and local characteristics.
Specific
Objectives
Art. 3: Preserve, maintain or re-establish a
sufficient diversity and area of habitats’ for
birds, primarily by creating protected areas,
managing habitats both inside and outside
protected areas, re-establishing destroyed
biotopes and creating new ones.
Art. 5: Establish a general system of protection
for all birds.
Art. 7: Ensure hunting does not jeopardize
conservation efforts and complies with the
principles of wise use and ecologically
balanced control of the species concerned.
Art 4: Establish Natura 2000 – a coherent network of
special areas of conservation (SACs) hosting
habitats listed in Annex I) and habitats of species
listed in Annex II), sufficient to achieve their FCS
across their natural range, and SPAs designated
under the Birds Directive.
Art. 6: Ensure SCIs and SACs are subject to site
management and protection.
Art 10: Maintain/develop major landscape features
important for fauna and flora
Art. 12-13: ensure strict protection of species listed
in Annex IV.
Art. 14: ensure the taking of species listed in Annex
V is in accordance with the maintenance of FCS.
Art. 22: Consider the desirability of reintroducing
species listed in Annex IV that are native to their
territory.
Measures/
Operations
objectives
Site Protection system
Art. 4:
4(1): Designate Special Protection Areas
(SPAs) for threatened species listed in Annex I
and for regularly occurring migratory species
not listed in Annex I, with a particular attention
to the protection of wetlands and particularly to
wetlands of international importance.
4(3): Ensure that SPAs form a coherent whole.
4(4): [Obligations under Art 6(2), (3) and (4) of
Habitats Directive replaced obligations under
first sentence of 4(4)]. Outside SPAs, strive to
avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats.
Species protection system
Art. 5 (a-e): Prohibit certain actions relating to
the taking, killing and deliberate significant
disturbance of wild birds, particularly during
the breading and rearing periods.
Art. 6: Prohibit the sale of wild birds except of
species listed in Annex III/A and, subject to
consultation with the Commission, those listed
in Annex III/B.
Art. 7: Regulate hunting of species listed in
Annex II and prohibit hunting in the breeding
and rearing seasons and, in the case of
migratory birds, on their return to breeding
grounds.
Art. 8: Prohibit the use of all means of large-
scale or non-selective capture or killing of
birds, or methods capable of causing the local
disappearance of species, especially those listed
in Annex IV.
Art 9: Provide for a system of derogation from
Site Protection system
Arts. 4 & 5: Select Sites of Community Importance
(SCIs) and SACs, in relation to scientific criteria in
Annex III.
Art. 6(1): Establish necessary conservation measures
for SACs.
Art. 6(2): [Take appropriate steps to?]Avoid the
deterioration of habitats and significant disturbance
of species in Natura 2000 sites.
Plans or projects
Art. 6(3/4): Ensure, through an ‘appropriate
assessment’ of all plans or projects likely to have a
significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, that those
adversely affecting the integrity of the site are
prohibited unless there are imperative reasons of
overriding public interest.
Art. 6(4): When plans or projects adversely affecting
the integrity of a site are nevertheless carried out for
overriding reasons, ensure that all compensatory
measures necessary are taken to ensure the overall
coherence of Natura 2000.
Financing
Art. 8: Identify required financing to achieve
favourable conservation status of priority habitats
and species, for the Commission to review and adopt
a framework of aid measures.
Landscape features
Art 10: Where necessary, encourage the
management of landscape features to improve the
ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
61
protection of species provisions under specified
conditions
Research
Art. 10: Encourage research into relevant
subjects, especially those listed in Annex V.
Non-native species
Art 11: Ensure introductions of non-native
species do not prejudice local flora and fauna.
Reporting
Art 12: report each 3 years on implementation
Surveillance
Art. 11: Undertake surveillance of the conservation
status of habitats and species of Community interest.
Species protection system
Art 12 & 13: Establish systems of strict protection
for animal species and plant speces of Annex IV
prohibiting specified activities.
Art. 14: Take measures to ensure that taking/
exploitation Annex V species is compatible with
their maintenance at FCS
Art. 15: Prohibit indiscriminate means of
capture/killing as listed in Annex VI.
Art. 16: Provide for a system of derogation from
protection of species provisions under specified
conditions
Reporting
Art 17: report on implementation each 6 years,
including on conservation measures for sites and
results of surveillance.
Research
Art. 18: undertake research to support the objectives
of the Directive.
Non-native species
Art. 22: ensure that introductions of non-native
species do not prejudice native habitats and species.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
62
Annex 2: Typology of cost and benefits
This annex sets out a typology of costs and benefits resulting from implementation of the Nature
Directives in the EU, which need to be considered in the evaluation.
Typology of Costs
The evaluation will consider costs which result directly and indirectly from the Directives, including
both monetary costs (i.e. involving direct investments and expenditures) and non-monetary costs
(involving additional time inputs, permitting delays, uncertainty and missed opportunities).
It will include both the compliance costs of the legislation, and any opportunity costs resulting from
missed or delayed opportunities for development or other activities. Compliance costs can be further
divided into administrative costs and costs of habitat and species management. Examples of each
of these types of costs are set out in Table 1.
Administrative costs refer to the costs of providing information, in its broadest sense (i.e. including
costs of permitting, reporting, consultation and assessment). When considering administrative costs,
an important distinction must be made between information that would be collected by businesses and
citizens even in the absence of the legislation and information that would not be collected without the
legal provisions. The costs induced by the latter are called administrative burdens.
Evidence of these costs will include:
Monetary estimates of investments required and recurrent expenditures on equipment,
materials, wages, fees and other goods and services; and
Non-monetary estimates of administrative time inputs, delays, missed opportunities and
other factors affecting costs.
Typology of benefits
The evaluation will collect evidence on the direct and indirect benefits derived from EU nature
legislation, which include benefits for biodiversity and for the delivery of ecosystem services, and the
resultant effects on human well-being and the economy.
The ecosystem services framework provides a structured framework for categorising, assessing,
quantifying and valuing the benefits of natural environmental policies for people. However, it is also
widely recognised that biodiversity has intrinsic value and that the Directives aim to protect habitats
and species not just for their benefits to people, but because we have a moral duty to do so. In
addition, consideration of benefits needs to take account of the economic impacts of implementation
of the legislation, including effects on jobs and output resulting from management activities as well as
the effects associated with ecosystem services (such as tourism).
A typology of benefits is given in Table 2. Assessment of the benefits of the Directives for
biodiversity is a major element in the evaluation of their effectiveness. Effects on ecosystem services
will be assessed in both:
Biophysical terms – e.g. effects on flood risk, number of households provided with clean
water, number of visitors to Natura 2000 sites etc.; and
Monetary terms – e.g. reduced cost of water treatment and flood defences, value of
recreational visits, willingness to pay for conservation benefits.
Evidence of economic impacts will include estimates of expenditures by visitors to Natura 2000 sites,
employment in the creation and management of the Natura 2000 network, and resultant effects on
gross value added in local and national economies.
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
63
Typology of costs resulting from the Nature Directives
Type of costs Examples Administrative costs
Site designation, including scientific studies, administration, consultation etc.
Establishing and running of management bodies
Preparation and review of management plans
Public communication and consultation
Spatial planning
Development casework, including time and fees involved in applications, permitting
and development casework affecting habitats and species, including conducting
appropriate assessments
Time and fees involved in compliance with species protection measures, including
derogations
Research
Investigations and enforcement
Habitat and species
management costs
Investment costs:
Land purchase
Compensation for development rights
Infrastructure for the improvement/restoration of habitat and species
Other infrastructure, e.g. for public access, interpretation works, observatories etc.
Recurrent costs - habitat and species management and monitoring:
Conservation management measures– maintenance and improvement of favourable
conservation status for habitats and species
Implementation of management schemes and agreements with owners and managers
of land or water
Annual compensation payments
Monitoring and surveillance
Maintenance of infrastructure for public access, interpretation etc.
Risk management (fire prevention and control, flooding etc.)
Opportunity costs Foregone development opportunities resulting from site and species protection,
including any potential effects on output and employment
Delays in development resulting from site and species protection, and any potential
effects on output and employment
Restrictions on other activities (e.g. recreation, hunting) resulting from species and
site protection measures
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
64
Typology of Benefits
Type of benefit Examples Benefits for species and habitats Extent and conservation status of habitats
Population, range and conservation status of species
Ecosystem services Effects of Directives on extent and value (using a range of physical and monetary
indicators) of:
Provisioning services – food, fibre, energy, genetic resources, fresh water,
medicines, and ornamental resources.
Regulating services – regulation of water quality and flows, climate, air
quality, waste, erosion, natural hazards, pests and diseases, pollination.
Cultural services – recreation, tourism, education/ science, aesthetic,
spiritual and existence values, cultural heritage and sense of place.
Supporting services – soil formation, nutrient cycling, and primary
production.
Economic impacts Effects of management and ecosystem service delivery on local and national
economies, measured as far as possible in terms of:
Employment – including in one-off and recurring conservation management
actions, as well as jobs provided by tourism and other ecosystem services
(measured in full time equivalents);
Expenditure – including expenditures by visitors as well as money spent on
conservation actions;
Business revenues – including effects on a range of land management,
natural resource, local product and tourism businesses;
Local and regional development – including any effects on investment,
regeneration and economic development; and
Gross Value Added – the additional wages, profits and rents resulting from
the above.