Terrestrial sites

Good progress: • Legal protection of Natura 2000 sites • Protection and sustainable use of species, including regulating hunting • Research, surveillance / monitoring – although significant knowledge gaps

remain

Limited progress: • Conservation measures in Natura 2000 sites • Establishment of adequate financing mechanisms • Management of landscape features that improve the ecological coherence of

the Natura 2000 network

Uncertain progress: • Non-native species, reintroduction programmes and education and awareness

Impacts of the Birds Directive • Annex 1 species have more favourable trends compared to non-EU countries and

non-Annex 1 species, especially where more SPA coverage

• Some evidence of benefits of Natura 2000 sites for other bird species

• Annex 1 species with Action Plans are more likely to be increasing

Impacts of the Habitats Directive • Habitats and species with an unfavourable status have more favourable trends

where a high proportion of their area or population is within Natura 2000

Recoveries • Numerous examples where conservation measures have been well implemented

Target habitats and species • The Annexes comprise a significant proportion of the most threatened

biodiversity in Europe, especially amongst vertebrates

Other habitats and species – the umbrella effect • Natura 2000 sites have diverse and species-rich habitats

• Natura 2000 sites provide an umbrella benefit for a large number of species

• Some studies indicate deficiencies in the coverage of biodiversity in Natura 2000, but too localised and taxa specific to draw any general conclusions

Widely considered to be the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation in the EU – but cannot halt biodiversity losses alone

Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems

• The Directives require the restoration of degraded habitats

• The Natura 2000 network comprises the backbone of Green Infrastructure

Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to biodiversity conservation

• Help to prioritise CAP agri-environment climate scheme measures

• Management plans help target and tailor scheme measures to sites, and can feed into forest management plans

Target 4: Sustainable management of fisheries

• Marine protected areas can provide indirect benefits for fisheries

Target 5: Control and eradication of invasive alien species

• Actions have been taken in advance of the IAS Regulation

Availability of public funding

Political and general public support

Uncertainty over the legal interpretation of some provisions

Biodiversity knowledge

Stakeholder awareness and involvement

Development of management plans

Unintended effects of incentives from other policy sectors

Integration with spatial planning, impact assessments and permitting procedures

Capacity of competent authorities

The Directives have brought other / unintended changes Not required in the Directives

Significantly impacting their effectiveness

Key positive changes are: Increased public awareness and

Stakeholder participation increased support to nature

Management integrating biodiversity and economic factors

generating business opportunities and new governance approaches

Negative changes: High number of court cases - risk averse decision making

Types of activities prohibited or strict requirements for authorisation

Restrictions on property rights

National choices of implementation

Are the Nature Directives ‘Fit for Purpose’ in relation to: Their effectiveness?

Panellists: • Pierre Commenville, French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy

• Kim Holm Boeren, Danish Agrifish Ministry

• Cy Griffin, FACE (European Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation)

• Irene Lucius, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme

Your views: In relation to evidence provided are there important gaps, misinterpretations, or insufficient regard to different inputs and the evidence that supports different views?