Nature Trust (Malta)

Transcription

1 Natura 2000 in the new EU Member States, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia September 2005 Natura 2000 Nature Trust (Malta) Federation of Ecological and Environmental Organisations in Cyprus

2 II

3 Natura 2000 in the new EU Member States, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia September 2005 Natura

4 Contents Summary...5 Introduction: 2005 Natura 2000 implementation report...7 Natura 2000 implementation in the new EU Member States...9 Legislation... 9 Site designation...12 Financing...14 Management and monitoring...18 Communications...20 Threats...22 Main Priorities...23 Natura 2000 implementation in Romania and Bulgaria, Croatia...25 Recommendations...31 Reports for individual countries available for downloading at: (see under Natura 2000 and publications) Text: Alberto Arroyo Schnell, WWF Natura 2000 Coordinator and Andreas Beckmann, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Editing: Andreas Beckmann, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Graphics & layout: Michal Stransky Printing: Agentura NP, Staré Město (CZ) Published by: WWF-Austria This project and publication have been made possible by generous support from WWF-United Kingdom and WWF-Austria as well as contribution of in-kind support from participating WWF and partner organizations. Contents 2

5 Acknowledgements A large number of people and organizations across Europe have cooperated to make this report possible: Bulgaria: Vesselina Kavrakova, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Simeon Marin, Green Balkans Andrey Kovatchev, BALKANI Wildlife Society Toma Belev, Association of Parks in Bulgaria Croatia: Petra Durić, Green Action Jagoda Munić, Green Action Cyprus: Antonia Theodosiou, Federation of Environmental and Ecological Organizations of Cyprus Georges Petrides, Federation of Environmental and Ecological Organizations of Cyprus Lyra Chrystia, Federation of Environmental and Ecological Organizations of Cyprus Czech Republic: Vlastimil Karlík, Arnika Estonia: Eerik Leibak, Estonian Fund for Nature Kärg Kama, Estonian Fund for Nature Alex Lotman, Estonian Fund for Nature Silvia Lotman, Estonian Semi-natural Communities Conservation Association Kärt Vaarmari, Estonian Fund for Nature Hungary: Brigitta Bozsó, WWF-Hungary Viktória Kavrán, WWF-Hungary Zsolt Szilvácsku, BirdLife Hungary Gabor Figeczky, WWF-Hungary Latvia: Inga Racinska, Latvian Fund for Nature Liene Salmina, Latvian Fund for Nature Viesturs Larmanis, Latvian Fund for Nature Edmunds Racinskis, Latvian Ornithological Society Lithuania: Pranas Mierauskas, Lithuanian Fund for Nature Malta: Vincent Attard, Nature Trust Malta Annalise Falzon, Nature Trust Malta Poland: Katarzyna Nowak, WWF-Poland Romania: Luminita Tanasie, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Erika Stanciu, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Doru Banaduc, Ecotur Sibiu Dan Hulea, Romanian Ornithological Society Raluca Barbu, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Slovakia: Eva Viestová, Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology Milan Janák, Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology Ján Šeffer, Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology Slovenia: Maja Zagmajster, SDPVN Slovenian Association for Bat Research and Conservation Many thanks also to the many officials, experts and other people who have provided information for this report. 3

6 4 photo

7 Summary and foreword Little more than a year has passed since ten countries from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Mediterranean joined the European Union. Romania and Bulgaria are in line to join the EU in 2007 or latest 2008, and Croatia could soon follow. Within the territories of these countries is the greater share of Europe s remaining natural wealth, including the continent s last great wilderness areas as well as rich cultural landscapes. The EU s new and future members have an important responsibility for maintaining this unique natural heritage, not only for themselves but also now on behalf of all EU citizens. Like our previous reports, published in 2003 and 2004, this report seeks to assess the progress that these countries have made in implementing the EU s central tool for conservation policy, the Habitats Directive, in particular the EU s Natura 2000 network of specially protected sites. Continuing challenges: This summary report and the individual country reports on which it is based 1 make clear that much still remains to be done for proper implementation of the Habitats Directive. There are still some gaps in transposition of legislation, especially with regard to assessments of plans and projects (Habitats Directive Article 6). All countries still need to improve their lists of proposed Natura 2000 sites, some of them (like Cyprus and Lithuania) quite significantly. For all new and future EU member states, actual implementation of the Habitats Directive will clearly be a challenge. Many of the proposed or potential Natura 2000 sites are already under threat, certainly not helped by the fact that nature conservation and provisions of the Habitats Directive are only poorly integrated into most other sectoral policies and programming, from regional development to transportation. Resources and capacity for implementation of Natura 2000 remains relatively limited. Summary and Foreword 1 The summary report and individual country reports are available for downloading at: (under Natura 2000 as well as publications). 5

8 Important achievements: Many challenges clearly remain. But it is worth taking a step back and considering for a moment what in fact has been achieved over the past several years of preparations for the EU conservation legislation. And this is by no means insignificant, especially when one considers where these countries have come from. For example: Taken overall, we now have a much better understanding of the natural values that exist across the EU s newest member states and, increasingly, also in the future members as well. Even in countries that already had a relatively strong tradition of naturalism, such as the Czech Republic, preparations for Natura 2000 have provided an important impulse for collecting and significantly improving existing information (indeed, over 700 experts were involved in mapping and site identification for the Czech network). These are substantial achievements; they are not enough, but they deserve to be celebrated. While recognizing these relative achievements, we should keep our eyes on the ultimate objective and the reason for introducing the Habitats Directive in the first place: to halt the ongoing and precipitous loss of biodiversity in Europe. The eastward and southward expansion of the Common Market is contributing to increasing pressures on the natural heritage of these countries, as illustrated by the threatened sites that are documented in this report. While celebrating the substantial achievement of implementing Natura 2000 in the new and future EU member states, it is therefore critically important that the remaining deficiencies and challenges that are outlined in this report are addressed adequately as soon as possible. A new approach has been introduced to conservation, involving and communicating with relevant stakeholders and members of the public, treating them as people with legitimate interests or even partners rather than as adversaries. This change in culture has not been easy, and is still continuing, but as the growing number of communications activities of conservation authorities attest, some tangible progress has been made. In terms of financing for Natura 2000, it still remains to be seen to what extent planned provisions will in fact be adequate. But progress has clearly been made, with conservation needs now included in many of the programming documents, especially for agriculture and rural development, and farmers in many countries signing up to agrienvironmental programmes. 6

9 Introduction: 2005 Natura 2000 implementation report Introduction: 2005 Natura 2000 Implementation report The Habitats and Birds Directives which establish the Natura 2000 network of specially protected sites are the cornerstone of EU conservation policy and one of the key instruments for achieving its aim of halting biodiversity loss by Timely and effective implementation of the Directives in the new and future EU member states is a clear step for ensuring preservation of the rich store of natural wealth in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, particularly as they undergo rapid social and economic change and increasing integration into the global economy. The present report covers the ten countries that joined the EU on May 1, ; the two accession countries, Romania and Bulgaria, who are expected to pin their stars to the EU flag on January 1, 2007, or at latest in 2008; as well as Croatia, which is expected to begin accession negotiations in the near future. It follows on two earlier reports by WWF and partner organizations, published in 2003 and in 2004, on implementation of the Natura 2000 network of specially protected sites in the new and future European Union member states 3. Like its two predecessors, this report evaluates implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, covering various aspects related to Natura 2000, including site designation, financing, transposition of relevant European Union legislation, communication and awareness raising, management and monitoring as well as threats to Natura 2000 sites. Shortly before publication of this report, the IUCN-Warsaw Office published its own assessment of implementation of Natura 2000 in the new EU member states in Central and Eastern Europe. Despite this, we have decided to go forward with publication of this document as it goes beyond the new EU member states in Central and Eastern Europe to cover all new EU member states and accession countries as well as Croatia, and goes into greater detail regarding some aspects. Where possible, we have sought to avoid duplicating the information already presented by the IUCN report. Methodology: Like our previous reports on implementation of Natura 2000 in the new and future European Union member states, the present analysis is based on standard questionnaires filled out by WWF staff and partner organizations for each of the participating countries, drawing both on their own knowledge and experience working on Natura 2000 and conservation as well as interviews with relevant experts and authorities. 2 The ten countries that joined the EU on May 1, 2004 are: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 3 Progress on Preparation for Natura 2000 in Future Member States (WWF-EPO, January 2003). Natura 2000 in the New Member States (WWF-EPO, June 2004). Both publications are available for downloading from the Internet at: (under Natura 2000 as well as publications) 7

10 A special section is devoted to Bulgaria and Romania, which as accession countries face a different timeline for implementing the EU legislation than the EU s newest members. Though Croatia has yet to begin formal negotiations for accession to the European Union, the country has already made considerable progress in preparing for implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, which is described in the final section of this report. Turkey, which is also expected to begin negotiations for eventual EU membership, unfortunately is not included in this report. It is important to note that the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives includes more than just the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of specially protected areas. The Directives also include provisions for the broader protection of a long list of species. Until recently, efforts to introduce the twin directives have largely focused on establishment of the Natura 2000 network, but the protection regime for species in the Directives is now growing in importance, and thus also finds mention in this report The country questionnaires provide flexibility and space for detailed information and comments for individual countries. In fact, many of the reports present a very rich source of information on implementation of Natura 2000 in specific countries. In addition to reading this summary report, therefore, we encourage you also to read the individual country reports, which are available for downloading from the Internet at: org/epo (see under Natura 2000 and publications) The information from the questionnaires is updated at least to June and in most cases to August photo michal@sky.cz 8

11 Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States Legislation Both the Habitats and Birds Directives are legally binding texts that must be transposed by each EU member state into specific national legislation. As with other EU Directives, the countries have the freedom to decide how to achieve the main goals of the EU legislation. All ten former accession countries were required to transpose the EU laws into national legislation by their date of accession on May 1, Site designation procedure: Most of the new member states have clear provisions regarding the designation of Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation in their national legislation. According to the Hungarian report, there are some unclarities regarding site designation in the national legislation, and the Ministry of Defense has the power to veto designation of sites. Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States All countries have introduced both the Habitats and the Birds Directives into their national legislation. However, the quality of transposition varies between countries. In certain cases, there are legal gaps that still need to be addressed, including e.g. provisions for assessment of plans and projects with potentially negative effects for Natura 2000 sites. There is also serious concern regarding the actual implementation of this legislation, due to lack of resources as well as a number of threats, including tourism and transportation development. A major problem continues to be the lack of Natura 2000 integration into sectoral policymaking, including e.g. transportation, regional development, and agriculture. Site protection: National legislation includes a general protection regime for Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation in all countries, although in Hungary there are some gaps in the legislation. An official complaint has already been submitted to the European Commission regarding the Cypriot legislation, which divides responsibilities for the implementation of the relevant laws among competing authorities, creating unnecessary confusion, duplication, and conflict. Reports for Hungary, Latvia, Malta and Cyprus express serious concern regarding the real implementation of the protection measures, including insufficient application of the precautionary principle in potential Natura 2000 areas. 9

12 Article 6 assessment: The transposition of Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive, concerning assessment of plans and projects with potential impacts on habitats or species protected by the Directive, appears to be one of the main legal problems for many of the countries, though there is still lack of experience with actual implementation to allow for clear evaluation. Most of the countries are following existing provisions for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), but many have not integrated the specific requirements of the Habitats Directive into this legislation. Both the Czech Republic and Slovenia rely on the EIA, but have special procedures for Article 6 assessments where EIAs do not apply. Network coherence is included among criteria for assessments according to the Slovene legislation. Article 6 assessment versus EIAs Needs for assessment of plans and projects under the Habitats Directive are not necessarily equivalent to those for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), which are applied for projects of a certain kind (e.g. a nuclear power plant) or size (above a certain threshold). To note one illustrative example: a relatively small project involving reconstruction of a church belfry probably would not require an EIA, but could very well require assessment under the Habitats Directive, e.g. if it was designated as a habitat for bat species of European importance. Thus, developing practical guidelines for screening projects is difficult, since kinds of projects and thresholds may not be relevant for determining impacts on Natura 2000 sites. Thanks to lobbying from forestry stakeholders, Article 6 assessments do not apply to Czech forestry plans. Another aspect of the Czech legislation is especially problematic, and stands out from that of the other countries in permitting the government to make exceptions to regular assessment and decision making procedures, without any regulated process or transparency. In fact, existing provisions within the EU Habitats Directive already allow for projects with negative impacts on Natura 2000 sites, where these are of overriding public interest. In such cases, the Directive provides for a relatively transparent procedure for decision making, and ensures that negative impacts are mitigated and compensated as much as possible which is not the case with the Czech legislation. A formal complaint regarding this issue has already been submitted to the European Commission. Network coherence: Legal provisions regarding network coherence vary considerably from country to country. In Estonia, Poland and Slovenia, the provisions are considered adequate by the national reports; but no mention is made of network coherence in legislation for Lithuania, Malta, or Hungary. In the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia and Cyprus, there are legal provisions concerning coherence, green belts, bio-corridors and bio-centers, but our national reports consider them to be insufficient to secure network coherence. Species protection: The species protection regime (Articles of the Habitats Directive) has been correctly transposed into most national legislation, although reports for Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Cyprus express deep concerns regarding the practical implementation of such measures. In the Czech Republic, the list of protected species is not entirely in accordance with the annexes of the Habitats Directive, with some minor problems regarding birds of prey (weak requirements for proof of origin for birds raised in captivity). 10

13 Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States Sectoral integration: The integration of the provisions of the Habitats and Birds Directives into sectoral legislation and programming (e.g. for agriculture, spatial planning, transportation, water management, forests, others) also varies considerably between countries and sectors. The case of Cyprus is extreme: while some environmental measures have been included in the country s Rural Development Plan, there is no mention of biodiversity or natural values (let alone provisions for their conservation) in any other of the country s sectoral plans, including spatial planning and transportation thanks in part, it appears, to strong influence from powerful lobbies with interests in tourism and resort development. The situation is slightly better in Lithuania, where some provisions in the legislation on spatial planning make reference to protection and management of Natura 2000 sites. The situation in other countries is mixed, as illustrated in Table 1. Table 1: Integration of Natura 2000 into sectoral legislation Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Lithuania Latvia Malta Poland Slovakia Slovenia Adequately Inadequately No integration No information Agriculture Spatial planning Transport Water Forestry 11

14 Site designation The Habitats Directive provides for establishment of the network of specially protected areas referred to as Natura 2000, which includes not only Special Areas of Conservation (SAC s) but also areas designated according to the Birds Directive (Special Protected Areas, or SPA s). By their date of accession, the new member states were to submit to the European Commission their lists of proposed sites for the Natura 2000 network. The next step is for the lists to be evaluated and then discussed in the so-called biogeographic seminars, and finally approved by the European Commission. A first meeting of the Alpine biogeographic seminar took place in May 2005 in Slovenia; the first seminar for the Pannonian biogeographic region is scheduled for September 2005, with those for the Boreal and Continental regions expected to take place in December 2005 and early 2006, respectively. Sites proposed by Cyprus and Malta for the Natura 2000 network are being evaluated and agreed on a bilateral basis between countries and the European Commission. All of the countries have submitted their lists of sites within several months of their May 1, 2004 accession. The quality of the scientific information on which the proposed lists of sites has generally been fair to good. Despite this, many of the lists that have been tabled by governments still require substantial improvements in order to adequately protect and maintain relevant species and habitats that are of European importance. This especially applies to the official lists that have been submitted to date for Cyprus, Lithuania, and Poland. 4 In the case of Slovakia, the figure repesents the overlap with existing protected areas just for proposed Sites of Communiy Interest: Special Protection Areas for Birds are not included into this figure. Quality of scientific data: Good scientific data regarding the natural values of the country is the basis for elaborating a good list of sites. The quality of data that has been used is considered good in Cyprus, Latvia and Slovakia. Reports for other countries consider that the information used was fair, although changes are needed especially regarding some habitats or species. Quality of lists proposed sites: The quality of lists of proposed Natura 2000 sites ranges from fair or good in most cases, to clearly insufficient in the case of Cyprus, Lithuania, and Poland. At last report, the Polish government was taking steps to improve its proposals to the European Commission. Although the Slovene list covers over 35% of the country s territory, some sites that were in the original list were cut in the last minute, apparently for political reasons. Eventual gaps will be considered during the biogeographic seminars. According to our Slovak national report, the Slovak list is considered fair, but it does not include a number of important sites that have been proposed by environmental organisations. National reports for the Czech Republic, Malta, Estonia and Hungary consider the lists proposed for these countries as fair, but requiring additional sites to ensure adequate protection of certain habitats and species. Overlap with existing protected areas: The lists of sites proposed by the governments of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia largely coincide with previously existing protected areas (Czech Republic: ca. 70%, Estonia ca. 67%, Slovakia: 86% 4, Latvia 100%). In the case of Latvia, the complete overlap is due to the fact that, according to the national legislation, all Natura 2000 sites must be designated as Protected Areas before they can be included in the official proposal of Natura 2000 sites. Hungary has an overlap of 39%, while in Slovenia the coincidence between previously existing protected areas (including Triglav National Park, regional and landscape parks, nature reserves and natural monuments) and Natura 2000 sites is about 25%. 12

15 Table 2: Overview of evaluations of proposed Natura 2000 sites for each country % of country s territory Quality of scientific data Quality of proposed sites Overlap with existing protected areas Cyprus 7.0% Good Poor, clearly insufficient Not available Czech Republic 13.0% Good Fair, but some sites missing some 70% species/habitats Estonia 15.9% Fair, some changes needed Fair, but some sites missing some habitats Hungary 20.6% Fair to poor, some gaps for certain habitats and species 67% for terrestrial sites, 9% for marine sites Fair, but still incomplete 39% Latvia 12.0% Good Good 100% 5 Lithuania 2.1% Fair, in general lack of Poor, clearly insufficient Not available information for some species Malta 12.0% Fair, in general lack of Poor, clearly insufficient Not available information for some species Poland 9.0% Fair, not updated and incomplete Poor, clearly insufficient Not available information Slovakia 28.9% Good Fair, some sites should be added 86% 4 to the Government s list Slovenia 35.5% Fair, but lack of information for some species/habitats Fair, but some sites missing and some sities missing some species 25% Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States photo Antonia Theodosiou The official list of proposed Nature 2000 sites submitted by the Cypriot government includes only a small part of the sites that had previously been identified for the network. Virtually none of the Mediterranean island s coastal areas have been included. 5 According to Latvian legislation, all Natura 2000 sites must be designated as official protected areas hence the 100% overlap in this case. 13

16 Financing Conservation without money is conversation, the adage goes. Indeed, when it comes to actually moving the Natura 2000 from paper to practice, financing will be of key importance. Although a section on financing has been included in our previous reports, it is especially important to the present one. All of the EU member states are in the midst of programming for the use of EU and related national funds for the EU financial period Decisions that will be made over the next several months and agreed with the European Commission by the end of 2006 will largely determine the financial resources that will be available for implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, and nature conservation in general, over the medium-term. The European Commission has estimated that implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives in a Union of 25 member states will cost some 6.1 billion per year 6, roughly half of which could be expected to be made available through EU co-financing. According to the European Commission, the majority of these funds should come from EU support for rural and regional development (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development; Structural and Cohesion Funds). 7 In general, financing for Natura 2000 is a major concern for all the new EU member states, reflecting the ongoing programming for use of EU and related national funds for the next financial period Financing for Natura 2000 from EU and related national funds has been relatively limited in the current financial period ( ). Nevertheless, although it is too early to report the extent to which the programming documents will include provisions for financing the Natura 2000 network, our national reports generally are optimistic that substantial provisions will be included in funds available after To a certain extent, it seems, decision making on financing for Natura 2000 is being done with incomplete information. While most of the countries have some form of cost estimates related to implementation of Natura 2000, few appear actually to have any longer-term plans for covering these financing needs. Foreign support, both from EU funds as well as government aid (especially Dutch and Danish), has been critically important for preparing the EU s newest members to implement the Natura 2000 network. Cost estimates: Most if not all new member states have or will soon have (Poland, by the end of 2005) an estimation of the costs for the implementation of Natura 2000 in their country. For Hungary, there are cost estimates regarding some habitats and species, but no comprehensive figure for the network as a whole. 6 Commission Communication on Financing Natura 2000, COM(2004)431 7 Ibid 14

17 Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States Financing plans: According to our national reports, most countries do not appear to have any formal plans for longer-term financing of the Natura 2000 network. Exceptions appear to be Estonia, whose officially approved state plan on Implementation of Natura 2000 in Estonia, includes a section devoted to financing; and Slovenia, where the proposed Environmental Programme includes Natura 2000 costs. Planning in most countries appears to be focused around programming for use of relevant EU and related national funds as in the case of Poland, where activities needed to implement Natura 2000 have been identified in order to be able to cover them with relevant provisions in the national programming. Financing from national budgets: Specific provisions for financing Natura 2000 in national budgets are generally limited. In the Czech Republic, approximately 1 billion CZK (ca. 30 million) is expected to be made available for Natura 2000 implementation by In Latvia, it is possible to finance Natura 2000 sites as protected areas. Hungary, Lithuania and Poland currently have no specific provisions in their national budgets for Natura 2000 financing. Pre-accession funds: EU pre-accession funds, including the PHARE, SAPARD and ISPA programmes, have been used by the new EU member states for financing various needs related to implementation of Natura 2000, except in Latvia, Lithuania and Cyprus (there is no information available for Malta). The rest of the countries have used PHARE funds for different purposes related to the implementation of the Habitats Directive (e.g. cartography, pilot management plans, transposition of legislation). In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the SAPARD programme has been used to support agri-environment measures. Estonia is currently running a Technical Assistance ISPA project for preparing the Terms of Reference for an infrastructure project related to Natura 2000 which is expected to receive support from the Cohesion Fund. LIFE: The EU s LIFE-Nature programme has been an important source of support for financing preparations for Natura 2000 in a number of countries, including Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Malta and Slovenia. In Cyprus, the LIFE-Third Country programme supported identification of Natura 2000 sites (most of the sites identified have not been included by the government in the list of proposed sites it submitted to the European Commission). 15

18 Other support: Governmental support from The Netherlands and Denmark has been especially important for site identification in a number of countries, including Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Slovakia. The rather remarkable efforts for site designation that were undertaken by the Czech Republic (employing as many as 700 experts for data collection and site mapping) were wholly financed from national funds a rather exceptional case. EU Funds, : The new EU member states joined the European Union in 2004, in time to catch the last two years of the current EU financial period ( ). The National Development Plans, Sectoral Development Plans, and Rural Development Plans that the countries have developed are the basic programming instruments for the use of EU regional and rural development support, which in the current financing period includes some opportunities for financing implementation of Natura In general, few references are made in the documents to specific lines for financing Natura Lithuania has included some financial requirements of Natura 2000 into some sectoral plans; some 12 million LTL (ca million) are reportedly allocated from Structural Funds for planning and management of protected areas (including Natura 2000 sites) in In Poland, the Rural Development Plan stipulates that farmers in Natura 2000 areas can receive a 20% premium from agri-environmental measures. The National Development Plan for Estonia states that EU support is available for Natura 2000 sites for restoration, construction of small-scale infrastructure, as well as purchase of buildings and equipment. Specific mention of Natura 2000 is also made in rural development plans for Latvia, Slovenia, and Hungary. Although Natura 2000 is not specifically mentioned in the Czech programming documents, there are some interesting related opportunities, including for sustainable tourism, river restoration, and some agri-environment measures. photo michal@sky.cz Decisions regarding future financing for the Natura 2000 network are being made now. The bulk of future support is expected to come from EU co-financed rural and regional development funds, programming for which is expected to be completed by the end of

19 Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States EU Funds, : The new regulations for the EU rural development fund (European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development, EA- FRD) for the next financial period contain a number of funding lines that can be used for implementation of Natura New regulations for regional development (Structural and Cohesion Funds) have not yet been finalized, but also seem likely to include significant opportunities for financing the conservation network. Whether or not these opportunities are in fact used will depend on programming for the use of the funds at national level. National programming for use of EU funds in the next financial period is now ongoing, so it is still too early to report which funding lines have been incorporated into the national planning documents. Nevertheless, our national reports are generally optimistic that many of the new provisions for financing Natura 2000 will in fact be included in national-level programming. We hope that this will be the case, and will be evaluating the national programmes as soon as they become available. The next challenge will then be to actually use these new opportunities, ensuring that the support that has been made available is in fact drawn down and put to work on the ground. A general problem with programming for use of EU funds in designated Natura 2000 areas is worth mentioning. While decisions on application of EU and national funds are being made now, actual designation of Natura 2000 sites could still take years. The problem is relevant for the EU member states e.g. in Slovakia, where current rural development support is only available to designated SPAs with management plans and especially for Bulgaria and Romania, which are also in the midst of programming for use of EU funds in but who cannot be expected to have designated Natura 2000 sites for some time. 17

20 Management and monitoring Once the Natura 2000 network is established, the work has just begun: from that moment, management and monitoring of the sites takes centre stage. Articles 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directives, concerning assessment of plans and projects with a potential impact on sites and species, already apply to Special Protection Areas, and will apply to Sites of Community Interest approved by the European Commission; Articles of the same Directive, concerning protection of species, apply to all the species of the Annexes concerned from the date of accession; and within two years, an exhaustive monitoring report must be sent to the European Commission (Article 17of the Habitats Directive). Capacity available for implementing Natura 2000 is difficult to assess, as most staff involved in implementing and managing the network are also involved in other issues. Generally, it is probably safe to say that capacity has improved, but remains limited. Natura 2000 sites are still in the process of being identified and formally designated. Nevertheless, our national reports show that the new EU member states are beginning to focus on management and monitoring of Natura 2000 sites. Although not specifically required by the EU legislation, most countries are planning to have some form of management plans or arrangement for sites. Many of the countries have already developed their own guidelines and methodologies for developing the plans, and in some cases have begun developing their own understanding of favourable conservation status. Staffing: All countries have staff dedicated to Natura 2000, although in most cases these people also share other tasks related to protected areas or nature conservation, thus making comparison difficult. The Czech Republic may be exceptional among the new member states in having 100 civil servants focused on Natura 2000, including site designation as well as site and species management. Favourable Conservation Status: The main goal of the Habitats Directive is to maintain or restore to favourable conservation status the habitats and species of European importance that are listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive. The understanding of the concept of favourable conservation status necessary to carry out appropriate management measures is still being developed. Some of the new Member States, e.g. Slovakia and the Czech Republic, have undertaken or are in the process of undertaking research to define principles and guidelines for favourable conservation status. Management plans: EU legislation does not require countries to have management plans for Natura 2000 sites, though it may be recommended for maintaining habitats or species in favourable conservation status. Nevertheless, all new member states plan to have management plans for some if not all Natura 2000 sites. Many of the countries also plan to have management plans for some if not all species. In Latvia, for example, protection plans have already been developed for several species, including the brown bear (Ursos arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx), and wolf (Canis lupus). Both Lithuania and Slovakia do not have species management plans per se, but rather species conservation projects, which depending on the circumstances may be the equivalent of a formal plan. 18

21 Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States Management methodology: The Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia have developed methodologies for the elaboration of management plans for Natura 2000 sites and protected species. Lithuania has a methodology for the preparation of site management plans, though none for species; Slovenia plans to have these methodologies ready by the end of Table 3: Management plans for sites and species Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Lithuania Latvia Malta Poland Slovakia Sites Management Plans Planned Slovenia 8 Yes No No information Existing Plan Elaboration Methodologies Species Management plans Planned Existing Plan Elaboration Methodologies Assessment: Plans or projects which could have a significant effect on Natura 2000 sites should be subject to an appropriate assessment. Much has been written to clarify these concepts since they were included in the Habitats Directive in Especially important are guidance documents from the European Commission in which the concrete legal provisions are analysed in detail. 9 Most of our country reports consider implementation of Article 6 assessment provisions to be inadequate, either due to problems of legislation (see section on transposition of legislation above) or poor application. Legislation governing assessments in Hungary, Malta, and Slovenia does not include provisions for public participation. Monitoring: Development of monitoring in the EU s newest member states is still in its infancy. Only Hungary and Slovakia have completed methodologies for monitoring, though the latter has yet to be finalised. Lithuania has a monitoring programme, but according to the national report the methodology is inadequate. The Czech Republic, Latvia and Poland are currently developing such methodologies. In Slovenia there is some work already being done to carry out some methodologies, but the work is not completed yet, and there are no resources for their implementation. 8 In Slovenia these plans will not be made separately for all sites, but should be included in other plans (e.g. for forestry, water management, and agriculture) 9 Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Available at: nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/ pdf/art6_en.pdf Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Available at: environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/ specific_articles/art6/pdf/natura_2000_assess_en.pdf 19

22 Communications Awareness raising and stakeholder involvement Public awareness and understanding for Natura 2000 is critical to the long-term success of the network. Experience from Western European countries, and increasingly also the new EU member states, has shown that many of the problems and controversy that have been experienced surrounding the Natura 2000 network has been the result of misinformation or bad information e.g. that sites will be under strict protection prohibiting all manner of socioeconomic activity. Such myths, and attendant problems they cause, are best addressed through pro-active efforts to promote awareness and understanding of the EU conservation legislation, including reasons for it, its implications as well as potential benefits. At the same time, public consultation and involvement in decision making regarding the network can be effective in ensuring implementation of the aims for Natura 2000 while addressing the legitimate concerns of interested stakeholders. While all of the new EU member states have undertaken communications activities to raise awareness and understanding of Natura 2000, few seem to be following a well-developed strategy for these activities. Even where Natura 2000 communications strategies exist, they are not being implemented adequately. Most of the countries have some provisions for public consultation and involvement in the process of site designation and assessment of plans and projects with potential impacts on protected sites and species. But here too, our national reports are generally critical of the efforts that have been made to date to involve stakeholders and the public in decision making regarding Natura Certainly one major problem has simply been lack of time, with the challenging process of site designation rushed in order to meet EU deadlines, leaving little time for real consultation and involvement. Awareness raising: None of the new member states appear to have an adequate strategy for raising awareness and understanding of Natura The Estonian plan for implementing Natura 2000 ( ) includes communications and awareness raising as one measure (objective), although its implementation is considered inadequate. In Slovakia as well, a communications plan has been developed, but according to our national report it is not really being implemented. Plan or no plan, all countries have undertaken at least some ad hoc activities to communicate Natura In Poland, an information system on all Natura 2000 sites proposed by the Government has been installed in offices of some future managers; a website on Natura 2000 was launched in September. In Latvia, awareness raising is part of each LIFE project, and Governmental Authorities perform different activities (e.g. publications for farmers); in the Czech Republic there is also an specific website dedicated to Natura 2000, and some other communication activities have been developed (press conferences, pres releases, exhibitions, movies even on TV, etc.). 20

23 Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States Public participation: Most of the new member states have undertaken some form of public consultation process for the designation of Special Protection Areas and for the elaboration of the lists of proposed Sites of Community Interest, though our national reports vary in their appraisal of these efforts. Lack of time seems to have been a major problem in many of the countries, with conservation authorities so focused on the challenging work of site identification and designation that public consultation has been ill prepared and rushed. Though perhaps understandable, the result in practice in many cases has been problematic if not disastrous. In Estonia, for example, public hearings were not organized until February 2004, with only three weeks made available for review and comments. Coupled with a poor communications strategy, the result was a wave of opposition to Natura 2000 from land owners, which resulted in all proposed sites on private land to which land owners objected being removed from the government s proposal. Similar lack of pro-active communications and involvement has had a similar effect in other countries as well. Public consultation regarding Slovak sites is generally considered adequate by our national report, aside from some smaller problems. Here, a total of 362 meetings involving 59% of landowners, administrators and land users were organized to present and discuss proposed Sites of Community Interest. For the future, most of the countries plan to have public participation processes for the elaboration of management plans (exceptions are Hungary, Malta and Lithuania) and for assessments of plans and projects potentially impacting Natura 2000 sites or species (except in Hungary and Malta). 21

24 Threats and complaints According to the Habitats Directive, a Natura 2000 site must enjoy legal protection as soon it is officially nominated for the network. However, even before then member states must follow the precautionary principle and take appropriate measures to ensure that potentially nominated sites do not suffer destruction. In cases where EU conservation legislation is not observed, complaints can be submitted to the European Commission. If necessary, the Commission can then refer cases to the European Court of Justice, which has the power to fine individual member states where they are found to be in breach of EU law. Threats to proposed sites are reported for all of the new EU member states. Regardless of the application of EU conservation legislation, there has been a palpable increase in pressure on natural values across the new EU member states, ranging from development of infrastructure for mass tourism to transportation. Certainly of no help in this respect is the relatively poor integration of the Habitats Directive and environment more generally into other sectoral legislation and policy making, with in some cases even clear contradictions in legislation. Gaps in legislation and especially limited implementation and assessment of plans and projects are further concerns. A number of official complaints have already been submitted to the European Commission on a variety of issues, ranging from improper transposition of legislation and site designation to threats against specific sites or species. Official complaints sent to the European Commission concern, among other things, activities negatively affecting proposed sites of Community Interest, e.g. threats from water extraction in Cyprus, development of motorways and inland shipping in the Czech Republic, and tourism development in Slovenia. Complaints have also been submitted regarding improper site designation and inadequate transposition of legislation in Malta, Cyprus and the Czech Republic, as well as incorrect implementation of the Rural Development Programme in Estonia, where modifications of the programme have cancelled support for semi-natural communities management. photo WWF-Canon/Fred F. HAZELHOFF The Via Baltica motorway in Poland continues to be a concern in this report as in previous ones. Complaints have also been made regarding similar transportation projects in the Czech Republic and other countries. 22

25 Main Priorities According to our national reports, financing, awareness raising and stakeholder involvement as well as management issues top the list of priorities for further implementation of Natura Finalisation of site designation is naturally also a major priority, especially for those countries with the most to do in this respect, i.e. Cyprus, Lithuania, and Poland. Other priorities mentioned are impact assessment of the Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, integration of Natura 2000 into the sectoral policies, improvement of legislation, as well as capacity building (mostly related to lack of knowledge of decision makers). As this was an open-ended question, the priorities that every national report indicated for further work on Natura 2000 are quite heterogeneous, but can be grouped into nine general categories as presented in table 4 below. Table 4: Priorities for further work on Natura 2000 Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States Legislation Sites lists Management and monitoring Financing Capacity building Communications. and awareness. raising NGO involvement Impact assessment Sectoral integration CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SK SI 23

26 24 photo WWF-Canon/Michel GUNTHER

27 Natura 2000 implementation in Bulgaria and Romania, Croatia Natura 2000 implementation in Bulgaria and Romania, Croatia By their date of accession on January 1, 2007, or at the latest 2008, Bulgaria and Romania must not only transpose the Habitats and Birds Directives into their national legislation but also submit to the European Commission their lists of Natura 2000 sites. Bulgaria appears to be largely on track with its preparations for implementation of Natura 2000, although there are still some important issues to be addressed. Site identification is notably being carried out through government-financed projects managed and supported by nongovernmental organizations. Beyond site selection, however, preparations are relatively limited. Human and financial resources available for Natura 2000 are scarce; legislation, though officially transposed, has substantial gaps; preparations for management of future sites and issues of public consultation have yet to be addressed. photo Georgi Tinchev Unfortunately, substantially less progress has been made on preparations for Natura 2000 in Romania. Considerable resources are expected to become available for Natura 2000 preparations this year. They are welcome, and much needed. Nevertheless, the fact is that the Romanian government has done precious little to date to prepare for implementation of the Habitats Directive in the country, and with accession now set for 2007 or at most 2008, little time and few growing seasons now remain to adequately prepare for the network. It is now critically important that the resources that will now become available are used as effectively as possible. The Romanian NGO Coalition on Natura 2000, which has 34 member organizations, including the country s leading organizations as well as specialist and local groups, can provide substantial support to the government efforts For further information on the Romanian Natura 2000 coalition, see: Natural values across the new and future EU member states are coming under intense pressure from development, including for tourism infrastructure as on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria. The response to such pressure on the part of both the Bulgarian and Romanian governments seems to be to weaken rather than strengthen existing protection. 25

28 Legislation Sites Both Bulgaria and Romania have already transposed both the Habitats and Birds Directives into their national legislation, though imperfectly according to the national reports. In particular, the reports consider provisions for the assessment of plans and projects affecting Natura 2000 sites to be inadequate. Both countries have adopted a limited interpretation of Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive by following the existing provisions regarding Environmental Impact Assessments. The Bulgarian report highlights a potential danger of destruction of valuable habitats and species in sites that have yet to be formally designated, as the precautionary principle is missing from the Bulgarian legislation. In Romania, apart from the aforementioned gaps and problems in legislation, the actual implementation of the legislation is a major issue of concern due to the lack of capacity and knowledge. In Bulgaria there is no integration of Natura 2000 into sectoral legislation. In contrast, the Romanian legislation provides for integration of Natura 2000 requirements into spatial planning, though only inadequate integration in water management and forestry, and no integration into agriculture. Bulgaria: Mapping and identification of potential Natura 2000 sites is moving forward in Bulgaria, more or less on track and in time for the country s scheduled accession to the EU. A provisional list of proposed Sites of Community Interest was elaborated through a Danishfunded project ( ). The rough estimate produced by this project is now being followed up with an intensive programme of mapping and site identification managed by two NGOs, Green Balkans (for psci s) and the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (for SPA s), with significant contributions from other organizations, including the Balkani Wildlife Society and WWF. Potential Natura 2000 sites that have been identified to date cover some 34% of the national territory. Financial support for the work of Green Balkans and the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds is notably coming from the Bulgarian government. While there have been previous cases, e.g. in Slovakia, where NGOs have shouldered responsibility for coordinating and undertaking mapping and site identification for the Natura 2000 network, this is the first case that we are aware of in which this is occurring thanks to national and not foreign support. 26

29 Financing Natura 2000 implementation in Bulgaria and Romania Romania: Unfortunately, less progress has been made on site designation in Romania, where government efforts to date have been limited. A GIS system has been established and standard data forms filled out for a handful of sites, especially within the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. Cooperation with NGOs has been limited. This is unfortunate, as the NGOs have been particularly active. The 34 member organizations of the Romanian NGO Coalition on Natura 2000, which includes all major conservation organizations as well as specialist and local groups, have identified priority areas for identifying Natura 2000 sites and are now moving forward with actual mapping and site identification. Certainly late, but better than never, the Romanian government has organized a number of substantial PHARE-financed projects that should push forward Natura 2000 site designation and preparations over the next couple of years, including two twinning projects to build capacity of regional environmental agencies for work on Natura 2000, as well as a 1.5 million tender for site designation. In addition, the Transylvanian University in Brasov in cooperation with WWF are set to begin a project focused on identifying sites for priority forest and sub-alpine habitats with financial assistance through the EU s LIFE- Nature programme. Like regular EU member states, both accession countries are currently in the midst of programming for use of EU and related national funds for the next programming period ( ), which they will become eligible to receive upon formal accession to the Union. Decisions being made now, even before actual EU membership, will significantly determine the financial resources that are available for Natura 2000 implementation over the medium-term as well as shape the threats that sites and species may be exposed to e.g. from intensive agricultural practices, mass tourism, and infrastructure development. It is still too early to report on the outcomes of this programming. Both Bulgaria and Romania have a cost estimate for the implementation of Natura 2000; that for Bulgaria is considered insufficient by our national report. Neither country appears to have a clear, longer-term plan for future financing of site designation and implementation of the Natura 2000 network. To date, in both countries, some external funds (EU PHARE and LIFE-Nature, Dutch and Danish government support) have been used for the implementation of Natura Some support has been made available from the national budgets for Natura 2000 preparations especially in Bulgaria, where the Bulgarian government has followed up previous Danish support for Natura 2000 preparations in with its own financing, which is going to support NGO efforts for site identification and preparation (see above, site designation). As mentioned above under site designation, substantial support totaling over 5 million should become available for Natura 2000 preparations in Romania over the next few years. 27

30 Management and monitoring Although it is still quite early to evaluate the management and monitoring efforts related with the implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Accession Countries, there are already some advances. Bulgaria and Romania both plan to have management plans for sites and species. In Bulgaria, specific methodologies for developing management plans for sites as well as species have already been developed. In Romania, there are guidelines for the favourable conservation status of habitats and sites, but they are considered inadequate by our national report. Communications and public involvement Communications and awareness raising: Communications and public awareness raising regarding Natura 2000 will be particularly important in the next period when Bulgaria and Romania finalise their proposed lists of sites. Experience from other countries, both in Western Europe as well as the new member states, has shown that many of the problems and controversy that have been experienced surrounding the Natura 2000 network has been the result of misinformation or bad information e.g. that sites will be under strict protection prohibiting all manner of socio-economic activity. Such myths, and attendant problems they cause, are best addressed through pro-active efforts to promote awareness and understanding of the EU conservation legislation, including reasons for it, its implications as well as potential benefits. Unfortunately, neither Romania nor Bulgaria has a strategy or pro-active programme for communications and awareness raising related to Natura What communications exist have been largely undertaken by nongovernmental organizations. photo WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme/Florentina Florescu Public participation: Stakeholder consultation and public participation in site designation will become relevant in the next period as lists of proposed sites are finalized. Bulgarian legislation includes provisions for public consultation. Elaboration of management plans will probably include a public participation process in Romania, but there is no information about this in Bulgaria. Forest restitution has proven a major problem for potential Natura 2000 sites in Romania, resulting in extensive illegal fellings in Rodna Mountains and Piatra Crailui National Park as well as other areas. Though welcome in principle, restitution must be accompanied by adequate support for new forest owners as well as effective implementation of existing legislation. 28

31 Known threats Main Priorities Natura 2000 implementation in Bulgaria and Romania The future existence of Natura 2000 sites is already in question. Without too much exaggeration, it is difficult to escape the impression that an all-out assault is underway against many of Europe s most valuable natural areas. Development pressure, especially linked to tourism, is placing severe pressure on natural values in both countries, e.g. on the Black Sea coast and Danube Delta. Nothing has been undertaken against previous illegal development of ski resorts in protected areas (e.g. in Pirin National Park in Bulgaria); indeed, in Romania, the government s own plan for ski tourism development significantly overlaps with existing protected areas. Illegal logging continues to be a major problem in both countries. The problem is becoming especially acute in Romania, where restitution of forests to private owners is expected to lead to further unregulated fellings in existing national parks and potential Natura 2000 sites. Croatia: first steps Although Croatia has not yet actually begun negotiations for membership in the European Union, substantial steps have already been undertaken to prepare the country for implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives. An Emerald Network pilot project implemented in by the Croatian government in cooperation with the Council of Europe and national experts identified some habitats types as well as sites. Naturally, the common priority for both Bulgaria and Romania is to finalise the list of proposed sites that will be submitted to the European Commission by the day of formal accession to the European Union. Financing is also a top issue for both countries. Predictably, perhaps, communication and NGO involvement are also noted as important issues for Romania, and less so for Bulgaria, where NGOs are intimately involved in mapping and site selection. In contrast, the Bulgarian report places priority on addressing continuing problems with transposition of legislation as well as capacity building, particularly among relevant authorities, for implementation of the network. More recent preparations have focused on the project Building-up the National Ecological Network as part of the Pan-European Ecological Network & Natura 2000 in Croatia, which has recently been completed. Undertaken with financial support from the EU s LIFE Third Countries programme, the project has developed a list of sites for the national ecological network, which will serve as the basis for future Natura 2000 network in the country. The LIFE project also included institutional capacity strengthening, education and awareness raising as well as dissemination of results. NGOs have contributed to Natura 2000 preparations, with e.g. Green Action and WWF undertaking mapping and site identification for areas including the Velebit Mountains. 29

32 30 photo

33 Recommendations Legislation Financing Address gaps in legislation, especially regarding impact assessment of plans and projects (Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive). Ensure full and proper integration of provisions and requirements of the Habitats and Birds Directives into sectoral policymaking and legislation. Develop realistic and comprehensive cost estimates for implementation of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. Develop a longer-term financing plan for implementation of the Directives, taking into account realistic cost estimates as well as the full-range of financing opportunities, including Community co-financing (see below). Recommendations Site Designation Finalise and agree proposed lists of sites, adding sites for habitats and species where necessary. Special attention should be paid to sites proposed to date for Cyprus, Lithuania and Poland, which are clearly inadequate. Focus special attention on marine areas, which will require special efforts for data collection and site identification as well as development of appropriate management measures. Take full advantage of opportunities for co-financing from Community funds by including relevant provisions and measures for implementation of EU conservation policy in national programming documents for the next financial period ( ). This must be done as a matter of urgency, as planning and decision making regarding National Development Plans, Rural Development Plans, and other relevant documents is already nearing completion. 11 Plan and allocate sufficient resources for Natura 2000 implementation from the national budget, recognizing the need for national co-financing to draw down Community support as well as the fact that ultimate responsibility for implementing Natura 2000 and main benefits accruing from this lie with member states themselves. 11 For information on the most relevant EU funding measures, particularly from rural and regional development funds, see: EU Funding for Environment: A handbook for the programming period (WWF, 2005), available for downloading from the Internet at: under publications. 31

34 Communications For the European Commission: ensure that relevant planning documents of member states include adequate provisions for financing implementation of EU conservation legislation. For NGOs and other environmental advocates: ensure that proper financing is integrated into national planning documents by taking an active part in national planning and decision making. Bring attention to cases where needs of the Natura 2000 network have not been adequately reflected in national programming. 12 Prepare to assist in drawing down funds that are eventually made available, both by developing initiatives as well as raising awareness among relevant stakeholders (e.g. farmers) regarding financing opportunities (e.g. for agri-environmental measures). Develop and implement comprehensive national communications strategies for promoting awareness and understanding of Natura 2000, including the reasons for establishment of the network, its implications as well as potential benefits for relevant stakeholders. Consult and involve relevant stakeholders and members of the public in the elaboration of management plans and impact assessments for plans and projects. Threats Ensure adequate integration of biodiversity legislation into all sectoral policymaking, including transportation, regional development, and agriculture. Management and monitoring Apply the precautionary principle to all proposed and potential Sites of Community Interest in order to ensure that these sites do not suffer damage before they are given formal protection. Apply the precautionary principle. Control the use of EU and national funds to ensure that Community and national financing is not used in a manner contradictory to EU conservation and environmental legislation and standards. Ensure adequate assessment of plans and projects, as stipulated by Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive and following the principles and guidelines developed by the European Commission. Develop monitoring and reporting systems in preparation for the monitoring reports that are due for submission to the European Commission in WWF is currently developing a tool for evaluating national programming documents for integration of nature conservation and environment more generally, which will be used to develop a report with recommendations for use by the European Commission in evaluating these documents. 32

35 photo III