evidence gathering questionnaire for the fitness...

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

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm


2

will be updated at regular intervals, is structured according to the evaluation categories set out

in the mandate. It can be accessed at:


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

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.


mailto:[email protected]


3

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.


4

QUESTIONNAIRE

A. General Information

Please answer ALL questions in this table

Answer

Organisation: Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF)

Date: 20 March 2015

Country (and, if applicable, region)

represented:

EU-wide

Organisation(s) represented:

National forest owner organisations and associated

members

(http://www.cepf-eu.org/organisation.cfm?ID_kanal=31)

Name of contact for enquires (including

follow-up interview if required):

Dr. Clemens von Doderer

Contact email address: [email protected]

Contact telephone number: +32 2 239 23 13

Languages spoken fluently by contact

person:

English, German

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

expert / other (please specify).

Other: umbrella association of national forest owner

organisations in Europe

Sector represented: environment / water /

agriculture / forestry / fisheries / transport /

energy / extractive industry / industry /

housing and other buildings / recreation &

tourism / science & education / other

(please specify)

Forestry, environment

Additional comments:

Due to the complexity and detail, as well as due

to the language barriers the submission of the

response to this evidence gathering

questionnaire required more time than

expected.

Eight of our members provided input to the

CEPF reply,

In case of our Austrian member the answers

were only provided in German.

In order to provide you with the full range of

http://www.cepf-eu.org/organisation.cfm?ID_kanal=31



5

responses of our members, the content has not

been changed whatsoever. Only minor

amendments to the responses were done to

improve readability.

In case you have specific questions concerning the

responses provided, please contact the following

individuals:

Austria: Bernulph von der Hellen

([email protected])

Czech Republic: Stanislav Janský

([email protected])

Denmark: Hans M. Hedegaard

([email protected])

France: Luc Bouvarel

([email protected])

Germany: Natalie Hufnagl-Jovy (nhufnagl-

[email protected])

Latvia: Leva Rove ([email protected]), Laila Šica

([email protected])

Slovenia: Veronika Valentar

([email protected])

Sweden: Gunnar Lindén

([email protected])












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.


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:

Austria: Insgesamt betrachtet hat die EU die Naturschutzziele mit Hilfe beider Richtlinien

erreicht. Viele Tausend Hektar wurden als N2000-Flächen ausgewiesen. Leider existiert

immer noch eine zu statische Betrachtungsweise eines dynamischen Systems (Natur). Diese

Betrachtungsweise betrifft die Ausweisung der Flächen, wie auch die Umsetzung der

Maßnahmen, die in Management-Plänen fixiert sind. Komplexe Ökosysteme lassen sich

schwer in ein Regelwerk pressen. Verabsäumt wurde eine Anpassung der Richtlinien

hinsichtlich der Veränderungen, die durch den Klimawandel hervorgerufen wurden und

werden.

Czech Republic:

Monitoring

The monitoring of species and habitats was organised by the Ministry of Birds & Habitats in

the period 2000 -2004. Landowners, local and regional nature protection bodies were not

involved in this process. Therefore many mistakes occured.

The legal implementation

of the EU Directives was realised by following legal accts:

No. 218/2005 – amendment to Nature protection law No. 114/1992 – basic law rules

The Birds Directive - The SPAs designation by CZ Government law orders in the years 2004,

2005 2007 2009

The Habitats Directive – The SAC designation by following CZ Government law orders:

Na. 132/2005 – list of National Habitats sites

No. 301/2007 – amendment of 132/2005 – Habitat sites in Panonionian region added

No. 371/2009, No 208/2012 – corrections of the list of SAC

The findings of the N2000 Bilateral biogeographical Seminar 2011 in Průhonice – CZ are

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/

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/Member_State_Deliveries

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_12/Reports_2013/


8

currently implemented.

The possible ways of protection of N2000 sites:

Originally (until 2009) mostly establishing new nature protected areas was considered.

‘Contract protection’ was included in the law, but the possibility to use it was limited - only in

the case, all landowners altogether was able to sign prepared contract. Therefore only a few

such examples we have.

2009 was adopted amendment of Nature protection law 114/1992, in which was established

new way of SAC protection – “Basic SACs protection”. In this time is ongoing process in

which “Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic” in cooperation with that

landowners which have interest to be involved prepared “Set of recommended rules of

management” for all SAC in the Czech republic. In this way less administrative burdens

occurs. For all 189 and part of 210 SAC on the area 146 824 ha. In this case are defined the

needs of protected species and habitats and the way of management in simple process with

small administrative and financial demands.

Reporting

SPAs reporting 2008 – 2012 – the final scope of bird populations was never consulted with

stakeholders.

Species and habitats reporting 2007 – 2012. In this report is not separately evaluated the result

of management on species and habitats in SAC. Altogether are evaluated as species and

habitats in SAC and outside. It is not possible to evaluate the real result of N2000 SAC

management measurements.

The evaluation by reporting in the CZ was individual opinion without opposer's position.

The definition of “favourable” status is not clear, not exact. In this case is not possible to

define the proper recommended management. This is necessary to solve.

It is necessary to precise the “favourable status” and the objectives with respect to economical

and social pillar for each SAC, SPA separately.

Denmark: Habitat Directive: The elements are implemented in The Forest Act and in The

Nature Conservation Act. Furthermore there has been established a grant scheme for the

owners to change the current operation mode in a direction of increased protection according

to the directive. (see: http://naturstyrelsen.dk/naturbeskyttelse/skovbrug/privat-

skovdrift/tilskud-til-private-skove/natura-2000-skovnatur/)

France: There has been no real progress over time in terms of changes in the implementation

of the objectives of the guidelines regarding the private forest. Indeed for each site identified

at the time of its introduction important work took place to define the broad areas of

management regarding options as well as instructions to follow regarding the dates in the year

when some operations may or may not be realized depending on the development stage of the

cycle of certain species present. Regarding forest management legislation (Forestry Code)

provides guidance to management as soon as possible the owner has over 25 ha, the law

provides for the establishment of specific instructions based on key habitats recognized that

the forest owner can do approve its management plan under Directive simultaneously with the

obligations under the Forest Act. This legislative change has been integrated into the Forest

Code in Articles L122-7 and L 122-8. It gives rise to the drafting of a document called: green

Annexes SRGS (regional plan for forest management) this document, as SRGS, is written for

a regional application. It is carried out by the CRPF (regional centre for forest ownership) in

close cooperation with regional administrations in charge of the forest and those in charge of

the environment. Once validated at the regional level, it is subject to final confirmation at the

national level with the Ministry of Forests and the one in charge of the environment. Once this

validation made the CRPF, supported by the forestry law to approve the presented document

management for a period of 10 to 20 years each for its own forest, so it covers more than 25

hectares, has the ability to give this approval under the Directives. Any owner whose forest is

on the territory of a site validated guidelines and who had faithfully its document management

http://naturstyrelsen.dk/naturbeskyttelse/skovbrug/privat-skovdrift/tilskud-til-private-skove/natura-2000-skovnatur/

http://naturstyrelsen.dk/naturbeskyttelse/skovbrug/privat-skovdrift/tilskud-til-private-skove/natura-2000-skovnatur/


9

before this designation may ask the CRPF reconsidered for validation under the Directives.

For forest owners with areas smaller than 25 ha forest law provides for the application to the

forestry administration if it is envisaged a full exploitation of trees on the plot. This device

allows a site to the Directive to provide information and instructions corresponding to the

target document validated for the site.

These provisions correspond to the frame of the normal management in forests. Directive on

sites included Article 3 of the Birds Directive and Article 2 of Directive habitat restoration of

natural habitats, support of these objectives has been provided in the form of contracts with

the owners. But the fact is that their implementation is very low (of the order of only 200

contracts less than 1% of potentially affected landowners, while the forest area affected by the

directives exceeds 2.7 million ha ). This relative failure, compared to what can be found in

agriculture, is mainly the lack of flexibility of funding available at European level to address

forest constraints primarily the duration of the conduct of operations to conduct inconsistent

with the possible modes of funding....

Transposition of law - Changes in the Code of Environment ( protection of species) and in

the Forest Code (evaluation of incidences –Art L414 Art 122.7 and 122.8).

12 % of the national territory is Natura 2000.

Germany: There have been clear steps backwards, as those who are the “implementers” of the

Directive planned measures without knowledge or inclusion of the owners; the designation of

the areas are often ungrounded; the quality of the planning often does not keep up a

professional assessment, but contains ideological elements; the implementation of the

measures is partly amateurish and ineffective and the owners of the land are not compensation

for limitations of area management.

There is none from our point of view; documents are static nature protection that does not take

into account natural developments. Regression of beech forest management has led in some

parts to regression of biodiversity.

The following remarks relate to the objectives in Annex 1, that can be directly deduced from

the articles of directive 92743/EWG

Strategic objectives (Art.2): Art.2(3) demands, that the measures taken should take account of

economic, social and cultural as well as regional and local characteristics. This is not the case

in praxis. As examples may serve formulations in management plans respectively in the draft

of regulations, that demand as measures abdication of use or extensive limitations of use,

without taking into consideration that the status that is to be protected is part of a cultural

landscape that was shaped by management and use.

Individual objectives (Art. 4;6;10;12-14;22): Art.4 (1-3) are done in Germany; Art.4 (4) is

currently in the process of implementation; in principle one needs to refer to the drafts of

legislation and regulation in relation to directive 92/43/EWG; we cannot judge the situation in

other member states; Art.6 (1) is covered in Germany by means of FFH management plans

and is partly completed, partly in the process of implementation;

Operational objectives (Art.4;6;8;10-18;22): Art.8 is not appropriately taken into account;

The effects of FFH are minor; the majority of forest habitat types were already legally

protected as biotopes (regional forest law; nature protection law); beech habitat types are not

endangered as they occur on large areas; biodiversity protection is difficult to implement;

financing of development measures is unsatisfactory, for example there is no support for

communes; overall there is an increasing refusal from the concerned land managers and land

owners, as limitations of management and use were denied at the beginning of the process by

administration and politics but are now to an increasing level reality (with view to tree species

selection, planning and building of forest infrastructure, use of forest land as area for wind

energy a.s.o)

The prior objective of the Natura 2000 directive is the conservation of valuable typical

habitats and in particular of threatened, native species. Thuringia as a “beech land” has a

particular responsibility for the beech habitats types (Luzulo-Fagetum, Galio-Fagetum,

Hordelymo-Fagetum, Carici-Fagetum). Those have developed over the whole area very

positively when it comes to the extension in area as well as with view to the conservation


10

status. The Federal forest inventory II has proven this. Also the soil quality has improved (cf.

federal soil inventory). The species that are listed in the Annex of both directives have

developed very well in Thuringia in particular the European wild cat (Felis silvestris

silvestris), the European lynx (Lynx lynx), the black stork (Ciconia nigra), the native newts

(Triturus) as well as birds of prey in particular the red kite (Milvus milvus). Those species can

be considered as mainly unthreatened today. These developments however are not related to

Natura 2000 as so far the implementation of the FFH directive on the ground has not started.

1) The progress in a minimal sensitization of forest owners in Natura 2000 areas was reached

at a minimum level through the commitment of the regional forest owner association; 2) The

progress in an active participation of concerned forest owners with view to management plans

is not at all reached – they are only informed but not involved; 3) It is still open for the forest

owners whether there will be compensation for limitations of management and use of forest

resources; 4) There is an immense progress when it comes to increased bureaucracy and

financial expenditure spend for consultants to elaborate FFH management plans:

FFH-Impact Study (http://literatur.ti.bund.de/digbib_extern/dn052208.pdf):

Prior to this these managed forests were not subject to a particular conservation status under

the Law on Nature Protection. They thus represent, concerning the area, the most important

protection entities among the forest habitat types => conclusion: through the FFH directives

habitats of common concern are designated, that do not require a special conservation status in

some member states, as their continuity is secured through sustainable management.

Latvia: The Natura 2000 terrestrial and marine network according to the Nature Directives

has been developed in Latvia formally.

Terrestrial Natura2000 network of Latvia is based on existing specially protected nature areas,

which were protected by the Law before Latvia joined the EU. There are Natura2000 sites

where high quality nature value investigations are not carried out till now. As well as, there

are Natura2000 sites which do not include special values for biodiversity. Existing location of

the Natura2000 sites in Latvia is not planned according landscape ecologically based

principles.

The terrestrial Natura2000 network of Latvia is a part of nature conservation system of Latvia,

but the fact that concrete site is included in Natura2000 network does not mean that it has high

added value.

Slovenia: Slovenia forest association hasn’t been involved towards the achievements of the

objectives; The processes have been implemented by the Slovene forest service and the

Slovene Institute for nature conservation without any permission of owners or at least

stakeholders involvement.

Sweden: In Sweden big steps have been taken towards the objectives, but this is not due to the

Directives, but to an ambitious nature conservation policy independent of the directives. As

species and habitats in the directives many times are not the most relevant for Swedish

condition, the directives leads to priority of wrong conservation measures.

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:

Austria: Die Ausweisung von Flächen ist gewiss ein Mehrwert für die gesamte EU. Von

betroffenen Grundeigentümern wurde und wird erwartet, dass sie in den Ausweisungsprozess

eingebunden werden und sie für die Bereitstellung von Flächen für den Naturschutz


11

angemessen entschädigt werden. Letztendlich sind die Land- und Forstbewirtschafter Garant

für alle Ökosystemdienstleistungen die von der Gesellschaft konsumiert werden. Die

Bewahrer dieser Ökosystemdienstleistungen auf der einen Seite in ihrer

Bewirtschaftungsweise einzuschränken und dann auf der anderen Seite nicht für

Naturschutzleistungen zu entschädigen, gefährdet letztendlich die Bereitstellung von

Ökosystemdienstleistungen.

Czech Republic: The main objectives were fulfilled.

Denmark: Habitat directive: No. First of all the Danish legislation was adopted in 2004 -

many years after the directive. In the Act there are certain actions that require the authorities

accept in advance. This was meant as an initial protection of the habitats until a grant scheme

could be established. But the resulting grant scheme does not - in many cases - compensate the

owner for his economic losses for managing the forests according to the required management

changes. Therefore there are not many owners that have received the grant and are still under

the Acts requirements for the authorities accept in advance for certain operations in the forests.

France: In forestry it is unfortunate that in a number of sites enabled the precise habitat

mapping at a scale of the property is still not done. This makes it difficult to take into account

the guidelines that have been developed and makes the forest owner in a sometimes awkward

position of legal uncertainty in relation to the regulation from the guidelines.

Germany: The setback corresponds to the initial expectations

No

With view to the fact that the FFH directive came into force in 1992 it is obvious that the

status of implementation does not correspond to the expectations. For those concerned the

implementation is overall not transparent.

The positive developments have not taken place because of Natura 2000 but due to other

processes that were already underway when Natura 2000 came into force.

objective 1 of Q. S.1.1: The initial expectations concerning open and active participation

mechanisms of concerned forest owners in the elaboration and implementation of FFH

management plans have not been fulfilled (NEGATIV); concerned forest owners continue to

plan and work in accordance with agreed C&I for sustainable forest management keeping the

balance between economical-environmental and social requirements (POSITIV); objective 2

of Q.S.1.1: The initial expectations to involve concerned forest owners are clearly in

regression (NEGATIV) as it would asked to much time and bureaucracy to deal with the

issue; There is a fundamental ideology that does not honour generation bridging sustainability

but on the contrary punishes it with restriction of property rights; this leads to an increasing

resignation on the side of forest and land owners!; objective 3 of Q. S.1.1 The initial

expectation of a planned EAFRD compensation measure on the basis of the FFH impact study

– calculated at about 20 Mio € for 2014-2020- is not realistic due to ha fees that are too low,

due to bureaucratic costs that are higher, due to more requests from Commission side (e.g.

there is the need to have a FFH management book) (NEGATIV); objective 4 Q. S.1.1: The

initial expectation that the consultants who are elaborating the FFH management plans

integrate existing planning instruments of the concerned forest enterprises is not ensured

(NEGATIV); irrespective of the excellent conservation status that was reached through

decades of sustainable forest management the planning is based without consideration on pure

ideology; the concept of conservation through management is omitted (NEGATIV);

FFH impact study: The implementation status of the FFH management planning in forests

differed significantly in the Laender at the time of the last survey… For forest owners,

however, only the completion of the management planning will show the exact location and

size of the habitat types and species distribution and thus the security in regard to avoiding a

deterioration of the conservation status => conclusion: there have been and there are no exact

timelines for the implementation of Natura 2000

Latvia: -/-.

Slovenia: No, the progress doesn’t meet our expectations. The Nature 2000 sites are mostly

defined without habitats inventory. Slovenia is at the moment 37% covered by the Nature

2000, of which 2/3 within forests. This makes us difficulties by all building interventions as

well as normally forest management. Additionally, the conservation sites of brown bear and

wolf habitats are renewed and exaggerated. Our national ministries also don’t predict any


12

European or national reimbursements regarding the harms in the year 2015.

Sweden:-/-.

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:

Austria:

Czech Republic: Designation and setting up “Set of rules for management” will be finalised

in near future (2016?).

Denmark: Habitat directive: There are – as mentioned earlier – certain management elements

in the forests and in the open land which require the authorities accept in advance. This will

protect the habitat from extinction, but these elements in the laws cannot secure a more rapid

protection to a higher conservation status as would be the case if the grant scheme was

established in a way, where the owners were compensated for his/hers real economic losses in

connection with the requirements. This is unfortunately not possible because the Danish

Parliament has decided that the protection shall be funded by the RDP. Furthermore there are

also problems with the grant scheme for protection of some of the species in the art. 12

protections.

It is because of the above mentioned problems that it is impossible to say when all the main

objectives will be fully attained.

France: in France the government has committed an important step in the whole national

territory titled GREEN and BLUE FRAME. This approach's main objective is to identify the

main cores of biodiversity and then position the corridors allowing them connectivity

necessary to maintain and natural expression of biodiversity. All sites validated as part of the

guidelines included in this process will be finalized by the end of 2015 the establishment of

regional patterns of ecological coherence. These schemes should be taken into account by all

regulatory planning documents of smaller scales. These schemes have both a policy but also

informative role.

In France, the last DOCOB will be validated at the end of 2015

Germany: In that way – never!

Art.2(3) demands that the measures taken comply with the requirements of economy, society

and culture as well as with the regional and local characteristics. This is on a regular basis not

the case in praxis. Because of that the objectives might be fulfilled in quite different ways in

individual cases, as the overall Art.2 objective was not reached, if on the one hand the

conservation status was reached but on the other hand the above mentioned requirements

where not taken into account.

This depends largely on the available resources. Until now it is absolutely unclear how the

desired development measures are going to be financed.

Under the premises that Natura 2000 follows dynamic and not static conservation objectives

the main objectives will always be in a flow and there is no final point when they will be

reached. When it comes to the integration of the conservation objectives into regional law one

can state that in case of Thuringia they were integrated into regional law.

If one looks into the past and tries to get an idea what could be the development in the future,

it is doubtful whether the objectives will be reached at all.

With the current measures the objectives will not be reached with the comprehensive

acceptance of the concerned forest owners. It is more likely that there will be long lasting

court cases against management restrictions.

FFH impact study: Also, the safe-guarding of the FFH areas and the binding character of the

management planning are administered differently in the Laender and have different levels of

transparency … Furthermore there are considerable differences in the methods for the


13

assessment of the conservation status. In some Laender no on-site visit is required. The

assessment of the conservation status is carried out on the basis of existing data in forest

inventories or of the mapping of forest biotopes.

Latvia: As it is answered in the question S.1.1., there is developed terrestrial and marine

Natura 2000 network in Latvia according to the Nature Directives. There is some, on field

mapping based, information about the occurrence of the EU importance species and habitats

(findings, coverage, quality) within the existing Natura 2000 network in Latvia. Nevertheless,

there is significantly insufficient information and approach of all levels about necessary goals,

volume, quality and distribution of the EU importance species and habitats outside the Natura

2000 network. As well as, there is a lack of required framework within the Nature Directives

sense to fulfil the obligatory requirements of the Nature Directives inside and outside the

Natura 2000 network to achieve the objectives of the Directives on a whole area of Latvia.

Slovenia: On 12th of March, the Government of Slovenia has adopted the supplementary

Action Plan for the sustainable management of wolf populations ( Canis lupus ) in Slovenia

2013-2017. The operational programme of Nature 2000 for the next period will be also

confirmed by the government in the year 2015 and without the participation of Slovene forest

association.

Sweden: In Sweden, the objectives are fully attained for many species and habitats in our

opinion. But national assessments according to article 17 shows another picture. With Swedish

interpretation of favourable conservation status of natural habitats, there is no possibility to

attain the objectives independently of measures taken.

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:

Austria: -/-.

Czech Republic: -/-.

Denmark: Habitat Directive: Due to the basic protection of the designated forest habitat, the

general biodiversity in the forests is supposed to increase – and not only for the species

included in the directive. The speed of this increment would increase further, if the grant

scheme was more attractive for the forest owners so it covered the owner’s real loss.

France: No documented response on this point

The contribution of the directives to the conservation of biodiversity can be analysed by the

fact that they have introduced in forestry visible variation, and can be more precise, the

consideration of biodiversity that existed hitherto primarily by taking into account the

environment in relation to the expected production. The main factors considered was praying

the ground, its biochemical composition and its water reserve capacity. The directives have led

to more fully integrate the functioning of the ecosystem.

Germany: The behaviour of the persons in power thwarts the intention of the biodiversity

strategy, to involve and convince the concerned forest owners. It only leads to resistance and

rejection.

They do not contribute to it; bureaucracy walks past natural interrelations;

Here it is important to refer to the connectivity between management and biodiversity.

Management and biodiversity are not in contradiction. In particular in forestry there is

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/factsheets/Biod%20Strategy%20FS.pdf


14

numerous evidence for that. With view to biodiversity a special conservation status is often

not necessary respectively counterproductive.

If it is possible to really implement the “floating” approach and to ensure that in further

implementation the concerned managers and owners are firstly better involved and secondly

get better support for the implementation, then the FFH directive can contribute to the

objectives and targets of the biodiversity strategy.

It has to be considered that in some areas beech forest habitats are in average species poor

habitats. In that respect the increase of these habitats types has led to a decrease of

biodiversity.

The current approach and procedure of the Natura 2000 planning of the administrations

(authorities) works against the objectives of the Biodiversity strategies, nature lives and

develops fluently from areas designated as “Natura 2000 hot spots” to other areas not affected

by Natura 2000. A consequence from Natura 2000 management restrictions are cash flow

improving management systems in other areas.

The two Natura 2000 directives date back to 1979 and 1992. The EU biodiversity strategy was

adopted in 2011.

The EU biodiversity strategy contains individual targets for the following six subject areas:

1. Conservation and restoration of nature through better implementation of EU nature

legislation

2. Protection and improvement of ecosystems and ecosystem services (through green

infrastructure and restoration of a minimum of 15% of degraded ecosystems)

3. Securing a sustainable agriculture and forestry (measurable improvement with view to

the conservation of habitats/species and ecosystem services, that depend on

agriculture respectively forestry; contribution to the implementation of targets 1 and 2

4. Contribution of fishery to the protection of biodiversity; reaching the maximum

sustainable yield until 2015; healthy fish stock through a management that does not

have negative impacts on other stock, species and ecosystems;

5. Control of invasive alien species

6. Increased contribution of the EU to global protection of biodiversity

The individual targets 1,2,3 and 5 are of direct relevance for forestry. The FFH directive

contributes significantly to the implementation of EU biodiversity targets through the FFH

report developed every six years. In the framework of the FFH report the conservation targets

of habitats and species are described. Depending on the biogeographical region there are

approximately 17-18% of the habitats and 20-22% of the species in a favourable conservation

status. This result has only slightly changed since the last FFH report from 2006. There has

however been a change with view to the number of species and habitats that have been taken

into consideration.

In that way there is a direct link between the targets of the EU Biodiversity strategy and the

Natura 2000 directives. The quality of the FFH report has a central role to play. The current

FFH report lacks reliable data probably not only in Germany but Europe wide. In Germany

there is only few information for most of the species. The FFH report names as applied

method of collecting data for the occurrence of the hermit beetle in the Atlantic

biogeographical region “estimation on the basis of expert opinion with or without minimum

samples”. For the existence of Luzulo-fagetum beech forests in the continental region the FFH

report names as applied method of collecting data “estimation on the basis of part data with a

certain extrapolation and/or modelling”. Both statements document, that at least in Germany

the current information on species and habitats does not allow any conclusion on the actual

occurrence of these species and habitats and their degree of endangerment. As the collection

of data is expensive and time consuming it can be assumed that future FFH reports do not

have much better data ready. That report will however most likely be used to survey how the

targets of the EU Biodiversity strategy have been met. Therefore, it has to be emphasised that

reliable data on the conservation status of habitats and species will not be available until 2020

and the FFH reports are not suitable to contribute substantially to the attainment of the targets

of the EU Biodiversity strategy.

FFH impact study: As a main result … it can be observed that the assessment schemes and

threshold values for both of the beech habitat types differ considerably between the Laender


15

and thus identical habitats could be assessed with a differing conservation status => example:

dead wood threshold in beech habitat type forest for conservation status A – region 1: >3

tress/ha; region 2: > 40 m³/ha; region 3: >15 m³/ha;

Latvia: We agree and support on the positive contribution of the Nature Directives towards

ensuring biodiversity. Nevertheless, in Latvia there is not any system how to implement the

Nature Directives outside the existing Natura 2000 network.

Slovenia: In Slovenia, the natural biodiversity is possible in regards with climatic

circumstances and very small scale forestry and agricultural management. The newest

measures, defined in the rural development plan, as well as the extension of protected habitats

are from the owner’s point of view a kind of eco- fascisms.

Sweden: Sweden has an ambitious nature conservation policy independent of the directives.

As species and habitats in the directives often are not the most relevant for Swedish condition,

the directives leads to priority of wrong conservation measures.

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:

Austria: Im Weg stand die unzureichende bzw. mangelhafte direkte Einbindung der

Grundeigentümer, die fehlenden gesetzlichen Sicherheiten und die nicht sauber geregelte

Abgeltung. Natur wird von Umwelt-NGO´s als Allgemeingut betrachtet ohne auf die

tatsächlichen Eigentumsverhältnisse Rücksicht zu nehmen. Von politischen

Meinungsbildnern wird dieser Missstand gerne übernommen.

Czech Republic: Lack of communication with landowners.

Denmark: Habitat directive: First of all has the grant scheme´s lack of adaption to the

forest owner’s situation led to minor changes as could have been the result in a system,

where this have been taken in consideration. Furthermore we have – as a consequence of

the intensive managed forests in Denmark – many very small stands that have to be

managed administrative by the authorities and administrative as well as practical by the

owners. We have only to a minor extend natural forests in Denmark, at all the small mapped

areas is an administrative problem for both the owner and the authorities, and in connection

to the Danish authorities’ lack of approachability to have a more dynamic approach to the

protection in the individual forest will slow down the process. Despite the fact that the

Danish documentation of the conservation status does not have to be on the estate level, the

authorities act as if that was the case.

France: Lack of transparency at the beginning of the step: some incidences have not been

clearly announced, and that has led to tensions with forest actors.

The main factor that has slowed the implementation of the Habitats Directive has been the

lack of consultation with the owners of the areas concerned. This has led to a great distrust

on the device which was seen as the application of specific constraints in the areas

concerned. This fact was confirmed by the absence in some cases sufficient scientific

knowledge to locate the habitats or species concerned. An important characterization work

was conducted and resulted in the production of documents used as references: the

notebooks of habitats and species.

Germany: Missing acceptance from forest owner side because of regulative approach


16

(regulation as nature protection area).

Firstly it is problematic that the effect of the designation as conservation area is only

stepwise perceptible by forest owners (deterioration ban and the consent to continue with

the current management are over time changed into an improvement imperative and

management restrictions). Secondly there are new effects through listing of new species and

habitats with the consequence for further management restrictions. Thirdly there will be

significant legal consequences for the management if accusations that one infringed on

conservation measures can not be invalidated.

Non-transparent approach, lack of involvement; “salami” tactic with view to restrictions

reduces acceptance from forest owner side; FFH areas are seen as “oath of good deed”; the

readiness to support conservation goals decreases;

In particular in the area of close to nature management systems Natura 2000 depends on the

acceptance by local people. In significant parts of the local population there is fear, refusal

and angriness with view to the Natura 2000 directives, for example in connection with the

delay of important public building projects. This has led to the result that the understanding

for the objectives of Natura 2000 are lost, and that habitats and species have been destroyed

or kept secret. Even in the circles of experts the inappropriate and “overeager”

implementation of Natura 2000 has led to incomprehension. An inappropriate and

ideological oriented implementation is currently the biggest barrier for the acceptance of

Natura 2000. The EU should primarily focus on a voluntary exchange of experience and

voluntary commitments.

Following factors were beneficial to reach the objectives in particular in forests

Close to nature management since 1970

Sustainable forest management in Germany follows since several generations close to

nature management systems. Since the big storm in 1972 and the international year of

forests in 1970 forest management is continuously integrating ecological requirements.

Forest management in Germany takes into account ecological requirements on a sustainable

basis. These developments could only be reached on the basis of a positive attitude of

public and private forest owners.

Development of programmes for close to nature management since 1990

The development of these programmes was initiated by the federal forest administrations

and has led since 1990 to concrete forest programmes.

High information density in forests

With view to the forest habitat types the access to available information provided by forest

administrations has been very valuable. Contrary to data on species there is a long tradition

in Germany for an area wide data collection on the forest status.

Efficient implementation of Natura 2000 in regional forests

Because of the above mentioned development a significant part of the Natura 2000

objectives and measures were implemented without additional financial burden in some

regional forests. Through existing and newly established human resources and information

structures it was possible to implement Natura 2000 in some regional forests.

Following factors were cumbersome to reach the objectives in particular in forests

Undetermined legal terms have to be eliminated

Natura 2000 is in clear contradiction to the principle of legal certainty/reliability. Legal

certainty is based on clarity, consistency, predictability and reliable guarantees of legal

norms, concrete rights and obligations. It should guarantee the confidence of citizens on the

reliability of the legal frame. Part of legal certainty is the need for clarification of legal

disputes in a given time frame. … Legal clarity requires in particular that the content of the

legal norms is without contradiction and that they are comprehensible for the addressee and

the one who implements (Zippelius, Rechtsphilosophie 2011). Until today essential terms of

the Natura 2000 directives at European and national level are not precise enough. This is the

case for terms like significance, deterioration ban, and competition between different

requirements of species in the same area, concrete impact of Natura 2000 for the individual

forest owner (citizen), the term “local population”. This is a task not only for the EU but

also for the federal government and the Laender.

Unsufficient financing of the Natura 2000 network


17

2015, 23 years after the adoption of the FFH directive, there is no uniform approach in

Germany for the valuation of losses and additional costs, that have to carried by public and

private forest owners. Environmental organisations demand that these costs should be

classified as social responsibility of the owner (BUND Lower Saxony, 2014).

Lack of consistency with other European processes

Between the environmental directives and strategies like Natura 2000 and the EU

Biodiversity strategy on the one side and economic directives and strategies (Forest Action

Plan, EU Forest Strategy, EU climate policy) on the other side there is a lack of consistency

with regards to content. This is in particular obvious with view to climate change: Referred

to climate change policy one objective is the promotion of energy from renewable

resources. In practice this leads to conflicts with the Natura 2000 directives.

Static conservation status of species and habitats

Climate change has direct consequences for species and habitats that can already be seen

today (e.g. increase of crane population, decrease of cuckoo population). The extent/surface

of oak forests are a consequence of historical development and not natural. The

deterioration ban in the Natura 2000 directive however does apply to these forests as well.

Therefore it is required to adapt the objectives of the Natura 2000 directives to new

circumstances and scientific knowledge.

The contact with landowners and “opinion leaders” (farmer representatives, forest owner

representatives, local council representatives) was not satisfactory. Whereas the forest

administration tends to be more open the regional government acts more secretive. This

leads to mistrust and refusal. The professionals who mapped the species and habitats

behaved like “ghosts” – the owners were not allowed to accompany them during their work,

the results were not presented, round tables that were promised beforehand did not take

place.

Latvia: The main factors hamper in the way of achieving the Nature Directives objectives

in Latvia are insufficient mapping data about the EU importance species and habitats

(findings, quality), insufficient amount of scientific investigations – which form bases for

objective inability of successful nature conservation planning. Additionally, there is a lack

of usage of landscape ecology approach and methods to achieve long term meaningful

nature conservation inside and outside the Natura 2000 network where quality, occurrence

and connectivity are the key terms towards implementation of the Nature Directives. As

well as, personnel and financial capacity of responsible authorities must be taken into

account.

Slovenia:

o Central organized natural protection institute and forest service is an advantage

o Good organized non-governmental organizations (e.g. bird protection association)

o Well done dissemination of ( e.g. Life, SEE, ALP, projects) results

Sweden: National implementation that goes beyond the directives intention have led to

disproportionate consequences followed by lack of acceptability for the directives.

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:

Austria: Die Schutzgüter sind erst durch die Bewirtschaftung des Menschen entstanden bzw.


18

überlebensfähig geworden.

Sobald aber Flächen unter Naturschutz gestellt sind, werden diese Bewirtschaftungsformen

sanktioniert.

Ökologische Ziele werden immer in den Vordergrund gestellt. Wirtschaftliche und soziale

Gesichtspunkte geraten dadurch zwangsläufig in den Hintergrund. Dabei wäre es nur fair die

Naturschutzthematik ganzheitlich zu betrachten.

Czech Republic: SVOL have no such evidence.

Denmark: Habitat directive: The directive has provoked an increased awareness to the

importance of biodiversity. But at the same time the forest owners feel, that this is just one

more regulation during the recent years that further diminish their economic outcome from

their forests.

France: The implementation of the two directives has led the development work and

reflections seeking to build tools to assess the impact of management operations on

biodiversity by identifying potential habitats are maintained allowing him or development.

This is how the built Potential Biodiversity Index (PBI). This tool does not assess the

importance and richness in absolute value of biodiversity but it gives richness habitats that

could support the species involved in the good state of biodiversity.

lack of transparency at the beginning of the step : some incidences have not been clearly

announced, and that has led to tensions with forest actors

Germany: The mistrust towards nature administration and nature protection industry has

increased significantly. The land- and forest owners undock emotionally and factually from

these subjects.

There is a decreasing readiness of forest owners to contribute actively to nature conservation

objectives.

The implementation can not be assessed positively, as the requirements from Art.2 have not

been appropriately taken into account.

In principle it can be regarded as positive that the Natura 2000 directives asked for the

European importance of the conservation objective and not only for the regional or national

importance. Negative is the change in mood: there is the general impression of a top-down EU

environment bureaucracy that has no longer the protection of “our” nature in focus.

It can be regarded as positive that there is a continuous implementation of multifunctional

sustainable forest management balancing social, economic and environmental requirements.

Negatively is the fact that EU demands, federal demands and regional demands are not any

longer accepted for an implementation without alternative!

Main positive changes:

The designation of species and habitats deserving protection has led to an increased awareness

amongst forest owners for these species and habitats and to the consequence that nature

administrations are intensifying their data collection.

Main negative changes:

At the beginning of the 1990´s Natura 2000 was communicated as a protection regime that lies

below the conservation status of a landscape protection area. Actually Natura 2000 represents

inside as well as outside of protection areas the highest conservation status. This development

has fomented the mistrust of forest owners. The bursting of the dyke was reached with the

judgement of the European Court of Justice from 10.1.2006 were the ECJ criticised the release

of sustainable forest management in connection with Natura 2000. In consequence the missing

legal certainty and the unsufficient financing has led to a negative connotation of nature

protection compared to 1992. Because of strict protection obligations there is a segregative

approach inside the forest area, that inevitably leads to an evasion on not protected areas.

Environmental organisations continue to build up a threatening front through law suits and

legal opinions and thus to achieve a tightening up of the Natura 2000 directives. Thereby the

mutual co-operation between nature administration and forestry at the beginning of the 1990´s

has developed into conflict.

Positive: more information and awareness on the extent and the value of the “ecological

infrastructure”

Negative: Considerably more bureaucracy and costs; economic constraints for which there is

no adequate financing available;


19

Latvia: There is not held any full socio-economic assessment about the impact of

implementation of the Nature Directives in Latvia. That is a reason while it is not possible to

give concrete answer on positive or negative impacts of the Nature Directives, for example, on

economic dynamics in Latvia.

Slovenia:

o Positive: Kept nature with many habitats and birds from “red list”

o Nature conservation’s opinions are the main bottleneck by building’s permissions

(e.g. forestry infrastructure)

Sweden: As species and habitats in the directives often are not the most relevant for national

condition, the directives leads to priority of wrong conservation measures. Also the lack of

possibility to balance different interests have led to wrong priorities. For instance, it makes it

more difficult to manage populations of big predators in balance with other interests. The

directives lead to more bureaucracy, expensive investigations and sometimes disproportionate

difficulties to use private land.

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:

Austria:

o monetär: hoher bürokratischer Aufwand, zu geringe Fördertöpfe, Finanzierung von

Naturschutzmaßnahmen zu meist ungesichert; Bewirtschaftungseinschränkungen

gefährden die Existens von nachhaltig wirtschaftenden ländlichen Betrieben.

Rechtliche Sicherheit bietet in gewisser Weise der Vertragsnaturschutz.

o nicht-monetär: Schutz von Biodiversität, Aufwertung des ländlichen Raums;

Weitergabe und Bewahrung von Know-How;


Denmark: Habitat directive: The costs of mapping and documentation to the Commission of

existing natural forest habitats in Denmark have been astronomical in time as well as money.

Then afterwards contact to each owner and the development of a grant scheme has been very

expensive. In total it has been very costly and certainly until now it has not matched the extra

natural values in the same period. The effect will only arise on the very long term as nature

values do not arise overnight.

France: This process, even is very positive in that sense described above, has been very

costly, and it’s not proven that things couldn’t have been made differently, and with more cost

efficiency.

To date, except for the territory in which it was possible to set up a contracts (in very specific

areas: islands of senescence) monetary benefits remained very faibles.il must still mention that


20

the state has decided to exempt from the payment of property taxes for 10 years homeowners

who signed a document of the target document called: Charter Natura 2000. This charter

contains the basic obligations of objectives proposed in the document for each site where it is

validated . This decision is currently problematic because it deprives the rural communes of

financial resources without a corresponding compensation by the State.

In brief, the concertation process, and elaboration of the framework documents (DOCOB)

seems to have used all the funding and energy, and there is no much left for the follow-up of

the concrete actions (contracts).

Germany:

There is not much information on the costs that are imposed on the tax payers. The

procurement by tender of the expert opinions remain unclear. Currently there is the

information from the regional parliament that 100% of the financial resources have been used

for 20% of the Natura 2000 area. Financial loss is expected in particular with view to tree

species selection, regular sustainable forest management and forest infrastructure. As Natura

2000 measures are generally based on a static approach the natural dynamics in nature

(climate change, natural succession) have to be contrasted with cost intensive conservation

measures; a fight against windmills that cannot be successful and cannot be financed;

Loss of income, decrease of land value;

Costs: with view to Annex 2 - Generally it can be stated that the administrative costs

surmount significantly the actual investments within the frame of the habitat management.

Investment costs can partly be based on operating figures from contractual nature protection.

The running costs can partly be derived from operating costs from EAFRD for forestry

measures. The opportunity costs have to be carried directly by the land- and forest owner and

are not sufficiently quantified. There are some hints on these costs can be derived from the

FFH impact study. The investments and support programmes of the federal government and of

the Laender do not create an appropriate compensation for the opportunity costs of the

concerned landowners; the following benefit effects do not change this;

Benefits: In the meaning of Annex 2 there are benefits for species and habitats. The

ecosystem services however do not improve significantly. Economic effects in the meaning of

Annex 2 certainly exist but do not reach the concerned forest owners. It is well possible that

the Natura 2000 directives have created jobs; however these jobs were created at the level of

administration and environmental organisations but not necessarily in the affected regions or

at the level of the landowners that have to bear the opportunity costs.

The opportunity costs will increase due to the planned tightening up of protection categories

and an increased participation of environmental groups;

As benefits there were payments for the protection of habitat trees. The selection of these trees

was carried out on an individual basis. The amount of the payment can be an incentive for the

protection of these trees and to abstain from an alternative use. Furthermore there was support

for forest conversion into habitat types that covered the costs. These programmes are already

finished. There is no compensation for loss of income, e.g. harvesting ban during the nesting

season. This leads to particular challenges with view to climate change: harvesting operations

can often no longer be carried out during winter as it is no longer cold enough.

There is no final analysis of the costs yet. Nevertheless there are some tendencies. It can be

assumed that the share of administrative costs and the costs for data collection including

management planning surmount the costs of the actual area development (concrete measures

for the improvement of the habitat quality).

Costs

Administrative costs: the share of administrative costs at the overall expenditure is very high.

This is mainly due to a broad consensual process. The basic data are collected by the federal

forest administration. Then these basic data have to be agreed upon with the expert authority

for nature protection and the competent lower nature conservation authority. Within the nature

protection administration there is often a lack of time and expertise which hampers the process

of coordination. The management planning that is based on this basic data has to be

coordinated with the nature protection administration and with the participation of recognised

environmental organisations. Resulting from that there is an enormous time and effort. This


21

process is furthermore hindered through the lack of doubtless legal basis with clear

definitions.

Running costs: Basic data collection/monitoring and the creation of a management plan are

very costly. Species specific expert reports of value determining species are not yet included.

Loss of income: They can not be quantified yet

Benefits

Development of habitats and species: Benefits with view to the development of value

determining populations and habitats can only be judged within the frame of an intensive

monitoring.

Upstream value added for enterprises: Through the assignment of different enterprises

there is a positive effect on value added

Attainment of income through employees: Additional tasks for employees have a positive

effect on the income function.

Financial efficiency criteria lead to the result that mainly EU finances (tax payers money) do

not reach concerned private, church or communal forest owners, they rather are spend at the

level of regional forest offices, for environmental organisations and their “trust forests” as

well as for producer of bureaucracy (consulting engineers). Financial efficiency criteria that

should reach the concerned forest owners have to comply with the FFH impact study. There is

still a lack of will by society and politicians to honour environmental benefits provided by

forest owners.

FFH impact study:

Designation of habitat and biotope trees – The designation and the conservation of habitat-

and old growth trees were rated as a permanent loss of productive area by 20 of 21 case study

forest enterprises. This loss of productive forest area was rated by the majority as between 3 to

4% of the habitat type area.

Preservation of an adequate percentage of stands in the maturity stage – on the one hand

a postponement of the harvesting of mature stands because of a low share of old trees was

mentioned, which equals a prolongation of the rotation period and can lead to a devaluation of

the mature timber through, e.g. decay and red heartwood, and, on the other hand, a limitation

of options to shorten existing rotation periods as a reaction to changing framework conditions

Securing the share of the habitat typical tree species – Furthermore FFH planning of

measures for the conservation of the habitat typical species inventory were rated as restrictions

for the operational achievement of objectives by 14 of 21 case study forest enterprises. In the

case study forest enterprises immediate effective costs for thinning and pruning could be

derived from the occurrence of non-habitat typical natural regeneration as well as the medium-

to long-term lasting constraints for the species selection in the succeeding stands. The

operations simulations have shown, that through the introduction of productive tree species

(e.g. Douglas fir) in beech habitats, the long term operational result can be significantly

improved – taking as a basis the current economic framework conditions. Here the default risk

of the different tree species was taken into account.

Additional ongoing administrative costs – As further impacts on forest management in FFH

areas additional ongoing FFH administrative costs for the enterprises of on average

2€/ha/annum was identified, e.g. for coordination with the lower Nature Conservation

Authorities prior to management measures or for the selection and marking of old-growth and

biotope-trees.

Latvia: There is no socio – economic assessment done to valuate costs and benefits of impact

of the Nature Directives and its implementation in Latvia. So, it is not possible to evaluate

concrete costs and benefits as it is requested in the question.

Slovenia:

o Monetary costs (e.g. harms after wild beasts)

o Non-monetary costs: no established ecosystem’s services yet, no possibilities for

marketing of conserved protection sites or hunting by the forest and land owners.

Sweden: Examples of costs are projects that not have been done and expensive investigations.

Farm landowners have been unable to continue to use their land. En example: A landowner


22

was forbidden to use 14 hectares of forest because a Siberian jay (near threatened on the

National list) was breeding in the forest. The landowner got no compensation. He lost income

of about 100 000 Euro. The same interpretation in other forests would mean enormous

amounts for forest owners.

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:

Austria: Finanzielle Anreize sind zu gering. Bürokratieaufwand, sanktionierte

Bewirtschaftung und die Verfügungsgewalt von Fremden wirkt im hohen Maß abschreckend.

Für jede Bewirtschaftungseinschränkung muss es automatisch eine finanzielle Entschädigung

in der Höhe des Einkommesverlustes geben. Alternative Finanzierungsmechanismen werden

vermisst (Beitrag der Gesellschaft oder von Klimaschädigern).

Czech Republic: The rules for calculation payment for compensations constrains are not

sufficient, it is necessary to change them. The money for compensations are from CZ state

budget only.

The rules in EAFRD 2015 – 2020 are not sufficient and not motivating for forest owners, are

full of administrative burdens and penalty terms.

Denmark: Habitat Directive: The Danish Parliament has on the annual budgets allocated

significant amount to protection of the habitats. The authorities have furthermore developed a

grant system for protection, but because the funding is provided through the rural development

funds there are certain limitations for the use and the amount that can be given to the owners.

Furthermore will the use of standard amounts led to a situation, where the grants do not

provide effective cover for the owner’s financial losses. At the same time it means that there

from the owners point of view is no focus on the areas with the greatest potential for the

development of biodiversity. The focus of concluding agreements with the authorities will

then only be for areas where the owner do not intend to do active felling or the like in the

coming 20 year period of which the grant is given. The conclusion is that the total funding is

enough for the present grant scheme, but if the grant scheme is altered to cover the total loss in

– especially old stands – the funding will be insufficient.

France: access to financial resources dedicated to supporting the implementation of the two

directives laid and poses problems in the area of the forest. The complexity and severity of the

administrative records requested in proportion to the amounts allocated and the difficulty of

returning to the established administrative rules multiyear programmed actions induce in

consumption of financial resources available. It has never been possible in forestry to

implement measures of agri-environmental measures of the type that could have to

compensate the owners for the implementation of environmental management that was asked.

Further delays in obtaining aids are important enough to two years where the person

concerned has made him the operations and adjusted his bills, these delays were quickly

discouraged potentially interested owners.

Germany: Wherever money appears in this system it will be spend. The more money is

available the more monkey business is done with it. There is the impression that all planning

is by intention not consigned with costs and loss of income as this would surface the absurd

effort that is undertaken without being able to name a concrete, sustainable and valuable

objective.

They were not realistic and thus were not used;

The bureaucratic requirements that are linked to the environmental allowance for forest lead to


23

rejection and a low level of usage. Forest owners with agriculture fear problems with cross

compliance. Communal forest owners are not entitled for application. There is the impression

that the biggest share of the financial means is wasted by administrative processes and for

consulting engineers.

Currently it is a barrier. On national and regional level there is a lack of finances; at EU level:

there is a high level of bureaucracy for the application and in particular for documentation and

control with view to the amount of allowed financial resources and taking into account the

ownership structure in forests.

Demands for reimbursement or compensation according to §68 Federal Nature Protection Act

for property limitations deriving from nature protection are rejected if nature protection on a

contractual basis is applied. After the end of the contract these kind of demands can also be

rejected in individual cases if the measures of nature protection on a contractual basis pursued

a determined ecological objective whose realisation has led to management limitations. The

forest owner has in that case knowingly taken the risk of later management limitations.

Latvia: The EU funding instruments are available in Latvia. Nevertheless, the administrative

and bureaucratic burdens are so huge that even big companies, for example, such as the LVM,

are not keen to involve themselves in a process of acquiring these funding instruments.

Slovenia: See answer Y.1

Sweden:-/-.

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:

Austria: -/-.


Denmark: Habitat directive: There is no doubt that there are significant cost differences

between countries. One of the main reasons for this is that the Habitats Directive operates with

natural or mostly natural stands. In Denmark, we have virtually no such stands as the forest

area in 1800 was only 2% of the country, where it is now more than 14%. Therefore, virtually

all mapped forest habitats stands in Denmark production stands where any intervention in the

future mode of operation is extremely costly and lead to great losses to the individual owner.

Furthermore the administration of many small individual mapped stands will increase the

administrative burdens for the authorities as for the owners.

France: We have no information on the amounts of aid granted in other European countries,

nor whether the shares with are the same.

Germany:

Political decision, budgetary reasons;

Assumption: different interpretation of the directive 92/43/EWG with view to the national

implementation; different ownership structures;

Latvia: -/-.

Slovenia: No.

Sweden: Obvious differences in national implementation to stiffen or soften the

implementation. Also differences in views on human intervention on land use / nature.

Sweden has a tradition to stop all land use in protected areas. The same view for species

protected by the directives will be very burdensome, disproportionate and cost a lot. Sweden


24

has implemented the directives beyond their intentions. This could mean great costs for

farming and forestry.

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:

Austria: Die Frage kann nur schwer beantwortet werden. Unversehrte Natur zum Schutz und

Wohlergehen aller Lebewesen lässt sich nicht beziffern. Sie wird gegenüber den Kosten

immer unbezahlbar sein. Naturschutzgelder haben wenig Nutzen, wenn ein Großteil des für

den Naturschutz zur Verfügung gestellten Geldes in Ökobüros hängen bleibt und zu wenig

Geld auf der Fläche ankommt. Auch muss in Zukunft bedacht werden, dass sich die

Entschädigungen an der aktuellen Bewirtschaftungsform orientieren. Das soll heißen: Werden

bewirtschaftete Flächen durch Naturschutzmaßnahmen sanktioniert, muss die finanzielle

Abgeltung höher sein, als wenn Flächen unter Schutz gestellt werden, die vorher nicht

bewirtschaftet wurden. Die in den Richtlinien vermerkte Wiederherstellungspflicht muss

vollkommen neu bewertet und verhandelt werden, da sie sowohl naturschutzfachlich und

rechtlich verfehlt ist.


Denmark: Habitat directive: All initial costs implementing such a protective scheme will

exceed the benefits in the short run, but in the long run the perspective can be different

depending on the valuation (in money) of the increase in biodiversity. The question can’t be

answered before there is a fixed price for the value of biodiversity. But one thing is the costs

of the grant scheme compared with the increase in biodiversity but all the administration costs

for the owner and the authorities must be taken in consideration too – and they are

considerably.

France: in general it is not possible to say that financial assistance is disproportionate to the

objectives sought in forestry. This is usually the contrary, the costs of the required objectives

are more important in general that aid given all it asked the owners to engage over long

periods of time (about 30 years)

Germany: There is the impression that disproportionalities are a daily occurrence. Concrete

figures are not available.

It lies in the eye of the beholder how the protection of habitats and species has to be valued

(cf. Y.1). One can have the standpoint that the protection of species in Germany can also get

by without FFH areas as the environmental laws and their compliance are more than

sufficient. Against this background the overall costs would be disproportional.

In particular the maintenance of elements of the cultural landscape, in particular “open spaces”

seem to be disproportional: in particular in cases where there is no reasonable management

option the “open spaces” have to be financing by public funds on a continuous basis which is

not sustainable. The objective is often too static. There should be an opening towards a more

dynamic, natural development e.g. through natural succession or through a close to nature

afforestation of the area.

The costs that are caused by the implementation of the directive are on the one side personnel

costs, that appear in correlation with preparation of management plans and monitoring. On the

other side there are loss of income and additional costs deriving from management limitations

compared to regular sustainable forest management. As evidence for the estimation of costs

due to management limitations the figures of the regulation on compensation for difficulties

can be used. The compensation for difficulties that are listed there do not take into account


25

financial losses that derive from property loss. The impact of the directive on the forest-wood-

cluster can not be estimated yet. In contrary to the monetary ascertainable costs and the loss of

income it is quite difficult to value the benefits of the directive which are without exception

not monetary or not easy to value. Because of that it is very difficult to say something to the

proportionality of costs and benefits.

1) Bureaucratic costs;

2) costs of individual measures: reason for that: the consulting engineers only plan the

measures but not the costs deriving from them; numerous hidden costs through

management limitations that the consulting engineers do not know or do not see, as they

are technically overextended. In particular in those cases in which in excess of the

deterioration ban additional measures are foreseen they cause high costs compared to the

results.

Latvia: There is a compensation mechanism for restrictions of certain economic activities in

Natura 2000 sites in Latvia. However, time to time it is not possible to get the compensation

because of lack of financial resources.

Besides, it must be stressed, that any nature conservation measures outside the Natura 2000

sites are mainly voluntary and all costs refer to the owner itself. Often amount of these costs

are higher than direct unrealized gains.

Slovenia: -/-

Sweden: Although many birds have a positive trend, their presence may lead to prevention for

landowners to use their land. This can lead to disproportionate cost for landowners.

The measures are often disproportionate, i.e. when traditional farming including forestry is

prohibited without compensation.

Sometimes valuable projects does not take place because of presence of species that are not

locally rare. The Great Crested Newt is such a species that have prevented several projects.

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:

Austria: Vertragsnaturschutz und Freiwilligkeit! Gesetzlich gesicherte Finanzierung.

Czech Republic:

“Rules for conservation measures of forest habitats in SACs in the Czech republic”

Issued in “Pleneta 9/2006” AOPK 2006,

Informations – issued in “Natura 2000 Management in European State Forests”, Eustafor

2013

This document was elaborated in cooperation of Nature protection administrative bodies and

forestry experts as wery waluable document for SAC management plans, but |S|VOL have

signals, tne Nature protection administration bodies not respect this recommendations.

“Basic protection” of SAC in CZ

SAC CZ0523290 Týnišťské Poorličí (570 ha) was intended to be designated as small scale

protected area. The owner of 85% area is madam Alexandra Hardegg, the rest small

landowners. From the side of Madam Hardegg was defined the core area, in which the


26

protected species – Osmoderma eremite is in favourable status. This part 54,79 ha was

declared as Nature reserve with detail management plan, for the rest were “Recomended rules

of management” elaborated and this part of SAC is so called “Basic protection”, which

minimise costs and administrative burdens.th administrative process detail management plan

Denmark: Habitat directive: A very detailed mapping due to the small size of the individual

stands i Denmark will increase the costs compared to countries in which large stands can be

identified. This is due to the fact that we don’t have natural forests in Denmark and therefore

cannot be interpreted as a good or bad practice. The cost of a very detailed regulation of every

single stand/area however, can be considered as differences in good or a bad practice in the

implementation of the directive.

France: in France the decision was made to implement the directives by contract following a

very strong vis-à-vis opposition Natura 2000 on the part of all rural stakeholders who

perceived this as new constraints that were be imposed.

The fear that the device evolved into a regulatory framework is still relevant under pressure

from the European Commission and stakeholders in the environment. If the French

government was forced to do this would strongly opposed by professional actors of the rural

world and could induce abandonment of the management of these areas without the state has

the means to maintain them in order to maintain habitats concerned in good condition.

Germany:

No!

The cost efficiency can only increase if the costs decrease; in particular the opportunity costs

that have to be carried by the land owners;

The current framework conditions prevent costs efficiency (see also Y1). These framework

conditions also include the administrative structure with numerous rural districts without a

bundling instance in the middle. Furthermore there is a lack of doubtless legal specifications

and definitions of concepts – the resulting space for interpretation makes the process even

more difficult;

If one would “keep the ball low” the cost-benefit-efficiency could be increased significantly!

According to the Pareto principle the costs increase disproportionally with an increase in

planning requests.

No – however one should think about the reason for the existence of Natura 2000!! This

unique achievement was created by forest owners for free!!!!

Latvia: There are many good practice examples and best practice cases in Latvia on

management Natura 2000 sites during these years since 2004.

Nevertheless, all management measures, as well as non-intervention (surveillance, control,

sometimes measures to optimize hydrology etc.), have certain costs. These costs often are

higher, even significantly higher than direct unrealized gains or income.

Slovenia: Some projects with stakeholders involvement (e.g. Wetman, Natreg)

Sweden:-/-.

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:

Austria: -/-.


Denmark: Habitat directive: This is impossible to tell. For instance we have increased the

amount of deadwood in the forests in the past years thus increasing the biodiversity, but it has


27

nothing to do with the effect of implementing the directive. But we can’t exclude, that the

discussions over all the years from the directives birth till now have increased the awareness

of biodiversity.

France: in forest areas, there will not be no costs of non implementation, as the forest is

sustainably managed.

Germany: In this case one should not talk about costs but revenues, that could be achieved if

there were no limitations. Partly certain developments would proceed undisturbed if they

would not artificially be kept in a “natural status”.

The question assumes that opportunity costs would occur on the benefit side, as a certain

benefit can not be achieved for lack of implementation of the directive. For that a measurable

and possibly monetary quantifiable benefit has to be generated.

In connection with the sovereign protection of areas of community interest there are

uncertainties in the way of legal implementation on the level of the Laender that hinder a

legally compliant management planning. The already time and personnel consuming

participation process for the elaboration of the management planning is additionally impeded

and complicated through the subsequent adaptation of the management planning to legal

framework conditions on Laender level. This leads to yet another increase in costs for the

management planning. Sometimes environmental groups demand a complete management ban

until the unclear legal situation is clarified.

In forestry in principle only insignificant. Forestry has proven that independent of Natura 2000

its management is sustainable and close to nature and thus has achieved significant ecological

improvement over the last decades. For individual threatened species a targeted protection can

be reached through regional and national programmes. An exception are the migrating species

where the inexistence of Natura 2000 would cause additional costs (ecological and economic).

Latvia: The nature conservation legislation of Latvia is joint to the requirements of the Nature

Directives, regarding to Natura 2000 network. So, it is not possible non-implement the

Directives. Nevertheless, till now, there is not any requirements (quantitative, qualitative,

occurrence and disposition) of the EU importance species and habitat conservation outside the

existing Natura 2000 network in Latvia.

Slovenia: Eco- systems services with possibility of new working places in rural areas, regimes

for public access and driving in natural surroundings etc.

Sweden: In Sweden almost none. Sweden has an ambitious nature conservation policy

independently of the directives and good measures would have been done anyway. The

directives lead to wrong priorities for national conditions.

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:

Austria: Der aktuelle Verwaltungsaufwand steht in keinem Verhältnis zum Nutzen und

behindert den Naturschutzgedanken. Bürokratischer Aufwand wirkt meist abschreckend.

Naturschutz Know-How ist direkt bei den Land- und Forstbewirtschaftern vor Ort vorhanden

und muss eigentlich nicht "eingekauft" werden. Über diesen Umweg entsteht weiterer


28

bürokratischer Aufwand.


Denmark: Habitat directive: Yes – with a more holistic approach to the protection in the

country, where the directives demand has to be obtained in the country/region rather than in

the individual forest as is in fact the demand in Denmark, many administrative burdens could

have been saved - both for the authorities and for the owners. And it is always more burden

full to administer many very small areas than fewer larger areas. So many small areas have

been mapped and included in the protection in Denmark without considering if so small areas

can contribute to an increased biodiversity in the long run.

France: France in forest management in private forests can be presented in three main types:

- Assets owners who manage their forests with a document management that meets the criteria

approved by the State and the forest law. in this case the practiced management is often very

close to that which would be required dan a site validated Natura 2000. The only major

constraints often result from the prohibition of changing forest species present by other often

more productive in production wood such as: Beech by Douglas fir, this type of stress can be

very impacting for the owner because at the end of the rotation financial results may differ

materially, sees quite inferior. These owners are informed that they have their property or part

thereof on a Natura 2000 site and therefore are aware of guidelines and constraints they must

take into account.

- The less active owners, they do not manage their forests, but realize in a very hieratic wood

harvesting operations often for their personal consumption. These owners often do not know

their forest plots are included in a Natura 2000 site and so they perform operations that

sometimes are not consistent with the instructions issued. It is only when they realize these

operations the moderator of the site if it has informed able to contact them and give them the

rules issued.

- Inactive owners, for several reasons: ignoring the location of their land often small or will

not to intervene in their forest, they make no action in their forest plot. in the territory of a

Natura 2000 site it can be an advantage if the forest is moving in the desired direction but it

can also be very significant if due to the absence of any will to intervene site managers are

faced with a total inability to act even when it proves to be necessary to maintain the habitat in

good condition.

It therefore appears that according to these major types of interlocutors guidelines may be

more or less important to see unnecessary administrative burdens where management is

already assured and validated by the State.

Yes, the administrative burden can be considered as disproportionate for forest areas.

Germany:

For forest holdings the fight for their property leads on a regular basis to significant expenses

(time, money, costs for lawyers).

Yes, definitely. If costs for bureaucracy would have been put in concrete measures more could

have been achieved.

The directive 92/43/EWG requires the designation of area, no matter whether it make sense in

the respective Member State or not. It is difficult to judge the relative efficiency of the

required administrative effort by the state. The administrative effort for the land owners could

have been significantly decreased if the basis of Art.2 of the directive 92/43/EWG had been

respected by the competent authorities and the taken measure had taken into account the

requirements of economy, society and culture as well as regional and local characteristics.

The fact that each of the Laender has developed different processes has led to a massive

increase of costs. Likewise the numerous reporting obligation lead to an increase of costs.

Yes, in particular with view to the development of management plans.

Latvia: -/-.

Slovenia: Unnecessary burden for small interventions; many experts involved etc.

Sweden: Associated with exploitations the directives lead to disproportionate requirements of

investigations, sometimes because of an animal that is not so rare in the area.


29

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:

Austria: -/-.

Czech Republic: In \CZ by the first designation of SPAs and SAC many mistakes were done.

It is necessary in the process of implementation to reduce them.

Denmark: Habitat directive: Yes – probably. Perhaps with the exception of management and

the choice of conservation measures. Do we know, if the selected measurements will increase

the biodiversity as we expect?

France: significant work has been done in drafting documents called books habitats and

species specification. It is unfortunate that these documents could not be published in

sufficient quantities and distributed to the various actors in charge of conducting the

management of approved sites. It also appears that a number of sites for habitat mapping could

not be carried out at a sufficient scale to be used to allow subsequent management. This often

makes it problematic for owners the application of specific measures because they are unable

to know if their forest plots are affected by a particular type of habitat.

Germany:

It seems that the knowledge base is sufficient but is not taken into consideration (e.g. plant

sociology).

First of all there is a lack of a clear quantification of opportunity costs and therefore a lack of

the basis for an holistic consideration in the frame of management planning against the

background of Art.2 and Art.6 of the directive 92/43/EWG.

No, the officially available knowledge base is not sufficient. Furthermore the administrative

processes for the processing of data is too long: it takes years until a result is agreed between

all authorities and then the knowledge base is already obsolete. The involvement of forest

owners for the creation of management plans is insufficient. An inclusion of data that are e.g.

collected by hunting authorities does not take place.

Yes, missing information lead to increased costs and burdens. As an example there were

designations of FFH areas for the protection of Annex II species without knowing whether

these species really exist or ever existed in these FFH areas. There is a lack of up to date

surveys for these species in these areas which leads to significant burden and costs in the

frame of management planning. An efficient implementation of conservation measures is

hardly possible under these preconditions. Similar examples exist for the protection of

habitats. A number of FFH areas were designated and recognised for the protection of certain

habitats although there was no valid data base for it. In the course of the basic data collection

it becomes again and again obvious that FFH habitat types for which protection some FFH

areas were designated do not exist in the assumed extent or even not at all.

More precise knowledge on the species inventory would be desirable but can not be financed

partly because of the related expenditure (area, dynamics of populations) in the long term.

Latvia: No. Specific situation about existing Natura 2000 network occur in Latvia, according

to recent field work based mapping etc., significant amount of the EU importance species and

habitats occur outside the existing terrestrial Natura 2000 network than inside it. The

proportion between in/out Natura 2000 in some regions is slight unbalanced. So, knowledge

and information on the EU importance species are habitats has been and is insufficient. Thus,

at this moment efficient implementation of the Nature Directives is challenging.

Besides, knowledge and usage of landscape planning approach and methods are insufficient in


30

Latvia, for example, it is a factor of crucial importance – certain location and connectivity

(core areas, stepping stones, corridors) of the EU importance species and habitats and areas of

high density of these values; to achieve the objectives of the Nature Directives meaningfully.

Slovenia: Yes.

Sweden: No.


31

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:

Austria: Die entscheidenden Probleme sind identifiziert, werden aber zu statisch betrachtet.

Veränderungen durch den Klimawandel müssen in Zukunft unbedingt berücksichtigt werden.

Czech Republic:

In many cases are designated SAC for habitat and species, which occurs outside or on the

border of their areal. The cost for their protection could be very high and the viability very

problematic. It is a question, if in this case is the protection reasonable.

In cooperation with other stakeholders – landowners, economical operators, local and

regional administration for rural development, industry, public .. set up the realistic

realistic “favourable conservation status” of protected species and habitats which can be

achieved as balance of ecological social and economical pillar. Involve this stakeholders

to reporting process.

In forestry respect traditional forestry practises – small scale clear cut management, which

is practicing in central Europe more than 200 years. This way of management was in CZ

practicing for example in habitats 9110 Luzulo-Fagetum – in CZ SAC on the area more

than 78 000 ha and is no reason this way of management to change.

By sufficient scope protected N2000 habitats and species is recommended not to change

the way of management, reduce the intended restriction.

Denmark: Habitat directive: Many administrative costs and expenses are wasted when we

deal with spices that in some countries are generally not threatened but because of the threats

in some other countries in EU are included in the directive. The absolute protection which

exists today ought to be changed to a protection depending of the level of threat in each

country, resulting in a protection that varies between the countries. Furthermore it is a waste

of resources to try to improve the conservation status of species living on the edge of their

climate range, and where climate change will hamper efforts further.

France: the Natura 2000 programs identified particular areas where habitats have been

identified. This program has not incorporated into the proposed methodology the effects of

climate change will cause the disappearance of some not because of human activities habitats

but because of climate change.

It therefore appears important that this be reviewed and that proposals be discussed.

Germany:

This is on a regular basis not the case. The static approach disregards the dynamic of natural

processes. The “cheese dome thinking” can be monetised but can not be ecologised.

Administrations and ENGOs use the means to increase their influence and prosperity but not

to develop the situation in an appropriate and technically feasible way.

Partly;

It is useless to integrate all-in descriptions of problems into laws. In law only the conservation

target should be anchored, this means the species or the habitat. Problems, as well as

individual solutions, need to be identified on an individual basis.


32

Operational targets can merely be identified or are at all known. The evidence for that is that

the implementation in the different Member States and Laender differs greatly and is partly

contradictory.

No there is no agreement between actually concerned forest owners, civil servants in the

administration and ENGOs on a target oriented and in particular consistent satisfactory

implementation. The persons concerned do not even benefit rudimentary.

Latvia: No. The success of implementation of the Nature Directives depends – how and in

what quality the Member States implement requirements of the Nature Directives.

Slovenia: No, it’s addressed by the national legislation. It’s always stricter than the European.

Sweden: No, The designated habitats and species in the directives are not of relevance for the

whole EU and many nationally important species and habitats are not included. Rigidly

defined habitats have limited importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

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:

Austria: Nein. Die Richtlinien hätten schon nach der EU Osterweiterung angepasst werden

müssen. Schutzgüter aus verschiedenen Klimaräumen sind hinzugekommen und bereiten zum

Teil Probleme (z.B. Wolf, Otter, Biber, Kormoran, Reiher...)

Czech Republic: That is necessary to adapt management practices to current knowledges and

possibilities and respect social and economic pillar.

Denmark: Habitat directive: Not to our knowledge

France: as mentioned in the previous answer we have the example already in the south of

France a habitat: the 2080 Chestnut trees; Pyrenean oak – Quercus Pyrenaica which

disappears due to natural mortality of trees by a lack of water in sufficient reserves when the

trees are growing. the Directives were not - and still are - not so adapted .

The commission should enjoy thinking about the green and blue infrastructure to offer an

evolution of the two directives by including in forest management voluntary certification

process for sustainable forest management based on the economy of the sector forest wood

which gives it a much more practical application.

Germany:

No. The main deficit is the disregard of natural processes and the missing cooperation with

those who have to carry the responsibility and bear the consequences of the measures.

The scientific progress has in particular delivered findings on the development of climate

change and the specific importance of forestry as an instrument for climate protection. This is

not adequately taken into account. Management limitations or management ban have nothing

to do with climate protection!

So far the persons concerned do not see an adaptation. It seems that the forward looking

elements of the directive (floating) are dismissed in favour of administrative requirements

(control over the area).

To really answer this question there is currently not enough information available. See

questions S 3 4. “Static conservation status of species and habitats”

No, it has to be clear that nature is always in a flow and growth processes are subject to

continuous change! Consequently it has to be anticipated that Natura 2000 areas and/or

habitats and/or species are subject to change in the future and might even disappear and

develop in other areas (dinosaurs have gone through this as well!). Pure wilderness areas in

the midst of the cultural landscape in Europe are utopia!

Latvia: The existing requirement framework of the Nature Directives is not a burden

to technical or scientific progress.

Slovenia: -/-


33

Sweden: The designated habitats and species in the directives are not of relevance for the

whole EU and many nationally important species and habitats are not included. Rigidly

defined habitats have limited importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services. The annexes

include a small selection of species that probably not are of significant importance for the

ecosystem services.

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:

Austria: Die Richtlinien sind relevant für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Sie sollen

sicherstellen, dass Schutzgüter die durch eine nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung des Menschen

entstanden sind, geschützt werden.

Czech Republic: More and more are occurring the proposal for non-intervention management

and “wilderness” areas. Such approach is not suitable, in many cases the result can be

reducing of biodiversity. The balance with social and economic pillar can be endangered, too

(the prohibition for public access, economy loss)

Denmark: Habitat directive: With the creation of the habitat directive the aim was to achieve

more biodiversity, and therefore a redistribution of the balance between the abovementioned

three legs in sustainability. And almost per definition it will reduce the weight on economic

development in the forests. But are we sure, that an increase in biodiversity in only a part of

the forest area in the country is equal to a more sustainable development in the forests in

general? And biodiversity is only one element in sustainable development.

France: it appears that the directions even if they specified the inclusion of economic, social

and cultural requirements (Article 2), is focused in their implementation of the environmental

aspect. It is therefore necessary to examine the influence of their achievements on the

economic and social aspects of studies and observations should be conducted by the

Committee in this regard in different countries. Without being able to date formal proof

certain directions taken will affect forest-wide time (at least 60 to 100 years) non-trivial and

must be studied and simulated simply by implementing the principle precaution.

Yes they are. It’s out of our reach to provide evidence of the impacts

One point has to be highlighted in our opinion : It is regrettable that in the forestry sector, like

the agricultural sector, the Directives leave little opportunities for forest-environmental

measures to balance the functions of production and protection

Germany:

They are important but they lead in the wrong direction and lead away from sustainable

development.

Retrogressive, as sustainable management is at risk und overexploitation in third countries is

abetted.

Sustainability exists since generations in German forestry. The FFH directive contributes with

its unilateral support of the ecological component only a small share but burdens the economic

and social components disproportional. The balance in sustainability is consequently

disrupted.

Aspects of climate change are unfortunately not appropriately considered within the frame of

Natura 2000. This leads to the planning and implementation of measures under the prefix of

the protection of species and habitats that thwart the objectives of climate protection and are

even harmful for the climate. One example it the so called “Prozessschutz”, and in particular

the set aside of forest areas which means the permanent abandonment of woody biomass. This

results in imports of woody biomass from third countries where sustainable forest


34

management is not guaranteed. For the conservation of certain habitats the natural succession

is pushed back. This is in dual aspect harmful for the climate: firstly there is energy needed to

keep the area open and secondly the open area can not store as much CO2.To prevent such

negative consequences or to balance them at all the introduction of an obligatory CO2 balance

might be worthwhile to consider.

In particular in forestry sustainability was in the focus long before the implementation of

Natura 2000. With regard to the economic component of sustainability the directive has a

direct negative influence in the form of increased costs and loss of income. If there is an

indirect positive impact of the directive on the economic component of sustainability can not

be judged the moment, but seems to be unlikely. In case the directive has a positive influence

on some parts it can be assumed that these positive effects are not sufficient to compensate the

negative effects. With regard to the ecological component of sustainability the requirements of

the directive can not very well be integrated in an integrative nature protection concept and

represent mainly a segregated nature protection concept. With respect to some conservation

goods of the directive (in particular habitats) the static concept of adherence at a certain

conservation status does not give consideration to the natural, dynamic developments in

forests. It can be assumed that with the Natura 2000 directives the objective can be reached to

permanently protect the conservation goods without knowing whether the same result can not

be reached with other means as well. With regard to the social component of sustainability the

economic limitations, that result from the implementation of the directive for the forest-wood

cluster have to be taken into account. The positive effects might be of indirect nature and can

not be valued directly.

The directive limit the property of forest owners significantly. Economic sustainability is

suppressed. For society as a whole the directive might lead to an ecological sustainability. Are

future generations social enough and ready to balance this among themselves?

They are rudimentary important but would need to be put in a balanced relation to the benefit

effects. A sustainable cultural forest landscape can only exist if sustainable economic benefit

can be obtained from it. The entrepreneurial freedom based on liberal management decision

has to remain.

Latvia: Sustainable development is wider concept than biological diversity. The

Nature Directives are focused mainly on nature issues which are the target. So, for this

objective factor, the Nature Directives are not able to cover all aspects, including

sustainable development. Thus, nature issues are a relevant part of sustainable

development.

Slovenia: The sustainable development should meet at least three criteria (ecological,

economic and social). Regarding the restrictive natural protection and social function of

forests, the economics of forestry management is not optimal. (higher production costs,

responsibility of forest owners for the visitors, hikers, bikers etc.)

Sweden: Many times the directives prevent a sustainable economic and social development,

and they are not good instruments to promote the ecological part of sustainable development

because of wrong priorities. An uncompromising implementation in forestry and farming

could lead to use of worse (i.e. fossil) products, often produced outside the EU, and accelerate

climate change.

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

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).


35

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:

Austria: -/-.

Czech Republic: The citizens’ opinions are in the whole scale.

Denmark: Habitat directive: The citizens do not know to which extent the habitat directive

influence their life. Only a minor part of the citizens know, what the directive contains and to

a lesser extent what it precise means to them. But as long as they know it has something to do

with protection of the nature – they are satisfied. They do not know what is sufficient and

what is insufficient.

France: Yes it is. It’s out of our reach to provide evidence on the extent to which nature

protection is a priority for citizens

Germany:

The long lasting misuse of the financial means has led to disinterest and rejection of nature

protection issues. Superficially considered everybody supports the protection of nature, but

increasingly it is not implemented. With view to nature protection industry land owners turn

away from commonly agreed targets and remain neutral or actively hostile. Naïve city

dwellers with land, responsibility or expertise can still be influenced by means of coloured

booklets with the picture of the good nature protection in fight with evil landowners and

landusers. The persons concerned in the rural areas do not believe this clientele any longer.

The persons concerned can not any longer be motivated. Partly there is already some kind of

sportive ambition to thwart the objectives.

Assumption: for the average EU citizen the EU nature legislation is only a term.

From the concerned land and forest owners the EU nature legislation is as far as possible

rejected. It is perceived as nontransparent and unbalanced.

The citizen perceives it not as a priority task of the EU. In particular the EU nature legislation

is perceived as heteronomy from Brussels.

The EU nature legislation does not mean anything to the landowners in the region. They feel

they are enough bossed around by the federal and regional governments. If there were not

financial compensation the influence of the state on private property would very difficult. The

land and forest owners have (through their management in the past) created the basis for the

designation of protected areas. Nobody feels that he/she is integrated in the development. For

the other parts of society the EU nature legislation is of high importance even if they do not it.

In particular in the Alps and the alpine region the stomping ground of our megacities the

conservation of nature has priority over the management of nature. This is also known to the

politicians who want to be elected and re-elected.

This question can not be answered in short. There is a difference between the citizens in rural

areas (with the income cluster nature management) and the citizens in urban areas (with the

income cluster other economies). For forestry it is decisive for the citizens in the rural areas

that sustainable forest management can continue. Something that is already good has not

always to be improved!

Latvia: Various. In general, citizens are positively about nature conservation until it

does not affect their properties and/or activities planned. Compensation issues are not

fully in order in Latvia, so, it is sensitive issue.

Slovenia: The EU legislation should impact to the EU citizens through the regime of social

and ecological functions of forests.

Sweden: There is a lack of understanding that the directives almost not at all allow possibility

to balance different interest when exploitation is in question. People do not either understand

why some species that is not locally rare can stop important projects. Landowners find it

unfair that their traditional right to use their land is taken away without compensation.

R.5 - What are citizens’ expectations for the role of the EU in nature protection?


36

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

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:

Austria: -/-.

Czech Republic: Landowners – communication – to explain the reason, goals and demands of

protection. To consult needs of protected species and habitats, monitoring and set proper

management rules. To set the simple system of financial support and compensations.

Citizens – not to limit economical, recreation activities.

Denmark: Habitat directive: We don’t think that citizens have any opinion on this aspect

France: Out of our reach. See divers national polls

Germany:

Pull-out!

Strengthening of a cooperative understanding of nature protection: reduce regulatory

compulsory measures in favour of appropriate information offers (what kind of voluntary

measures support species and habitats?) und targeted incentives (contractual nature protection

with low bureaucreatic burden)

The citizen expects that the EU achieved a certain rationalisation of nature protection,

meaning that those species and habitats are protected that are of common interest for the EU

and not only of regional interest. The citizens expect as well that Member States that have

lower environmental standards are brought up to a minimum level of common standards.

The EU has no face on the ground. The implementation is carried through local authorities

which on the one side are “well versed” and on the other side pass on all negative aspects from

the EU.

As defined by Diogenes one could say “EU get out of my sun”! With regard to local resource

holders one requests likewise that subsidiarity is key for a successful nature protection.

Latvia: There is no need to “wait from the EU” push for nature conservation.

Implementation of the Directives, concrete solutions are directly dependant from the

each Member State and must be done by the Member States by their own.

Slovenia: We as EU citizens expect following:

o The respect of people, wild and nature;

o The keeping of the natural and EU legislation regardless the ownership of protected

sites;

o The involvement into the legislative procedures as well as the implementation of

measures;

o Fair damages;

Sweden: Swedish citizens probably think protection in general should be left to each

individual member state.


37

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:

Austria: Beide Richtlinien stellen (Vogel-) Arten und Habitate unter Schutz wobei der Schutz

von Vogelarten in der Praxis strenger ausgelegt wird als der Schutz der FFH-Arten. In der

Praxis kann es vorkommen, dass sich Schutzmaßnahmen, die sich aus beiden

Richtlinenumsetzungen ergeben, gegenseitig behindern.

Czech Republic: On many SAC are the need of declared protected species and habitats in

contrary. It is on the local nature protection authority to set the priority.

In many cases the demand to let some trees or forest stand to natural decay in contrary with

citizens security. The Nature protection administration decide the trees let to decay, but won ´t

to overtake the responsibility for citizens security.

Denmark: Tough to answer, but the directives can collide for example in situations where

you are forced to compromise in the selection of protection measures because of conflicting

accounts. If there are responsibility species in an area and these species are not threatened in

the actual country or region it might lead to conflicts

France: No inconsistency, as far as we know.

Germany:

They are in an insufficient way not coherent and should be merged.

There are no major conflicts between the two directives that have an impact in practice. There

are natural conflict of aims between species and habitats, that need to be solved in the frame of

management planning.

These kind of questions are premature as the basics like mentioned in the questionnaire have

not been achieved yet!

Latvia: The Birds and The Habitats Directives are consolidated. So, they are coherent with

each other, this job has been done.

Slovenia: -/-.

Sweden: -/-.

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)


38

Environmental impact assessment of projects 85/337/EC Directive as codified by Directive

2011/92/EU (EIA)

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:

Austria: -/-.


Denmark: We don’t have the necessary knowledge about this subject

Germany:

It should be clear to the EU that “Rome was not build in one day” and thus time needs to be

given to the Member States for developments to grow. This applies also to coherence! The

implementation from EU to federal to regional to local level requires a longer growth process

!!

Latvia: -/-.

Slovenia: -/-.

Sweden: -/-.

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:

Austria: -/-.


Denmark: We do not have enough knowledge to answer this question

France: Out of our reach

Germany:

No – climate change is missing! The room for manoeuvre is certainly not maxed out yet.

The question is in how far the nature protection objectives taken into account the prognosis on

the effects of climate change. It is questionable whether a static approach can do justice to the

protection of proglacial relict species like the capercaillie.

No – in particular questions of climate change have to be integrated. For that it would be

necessary to develop a European standard with which the CO2 balance of different land uses


39

(land, meadow, forest, nature protection areas/set aside areas) can be compared. The “climate

costs” of different political goals in agricultural and environmental policy could then be

quantified and compared.

Latvia: Water, floods and especially climate change policy objectives are more as itself. We

agree, that formally aspects of the Nature Directives take place, as well as, that main issue is

quality of implementation nor duplication of sentences from one document to another.

Slovenia: -/-.

Sweden: -/-.

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:

Austria: Viele andere EU-Politikbereiche wirken direkt oder indirekt auf

Landbewirtschaftung. Leider werden diese zurzeit nicht in den beiden Richtlinien

berücksichtigt, (z.B. Forststrategie, Bioökonomie, Strategien gegen den Klimawandel,

Energiewende, Makroregionale Strategie für den Alpenraum usw.) was vor Ort auf der Fläche

zu großen Problemen führt.


Denmark: For the forestry and agricultural sector it is our opinion, that the directive have

been implemented properly (maybe even to a higher extend than demanded) as the directives

content have been inserted in the forest act and agricultural laws.


Germany:

In principle there an apparent potential for interaction in the area of energy policy in relation

to the goals and challenges of climate protection.

Unfortunately too little. In particular measures and programmes of the CAP are not enough

oriented toward long term and sustainable goals. The thought of sustainability as ecological,

economical and social fit for the future should influence the goals of the CAP. This includes

that land that can not be used long term in an economic way should be converted to

economically viable land use forms. This includes that the afforestation of agricultural

marginal land is incorporated in the CAP again.

The land use form that is operating closest to nature is forestry. According to this the

designation of Natura 2000 areas in forests is way above the designation on other land use

forms. This leads to the fact that the share of Natura 2000 areas for the other forest functions

(e.g. delivery of the renewable resource wood) is of high importance only because of the

overall high share. This requires in particular in forests an integrative approach that allow for a

constructive coexistence of different forest functions. Problems arise when consultant

engineers ignore this fact and focus monocausal on nature protection objectives. This tends to

be more an issue of the implementation at national level rather than of the directive itself.

Latvia: We recognize that sectorial politics must be in line with the Nature Directives, and

formally it has been done. As, the impact of the Nature Directives had not been assessed on

different sectors, for example, forestry, socio – economics etc., it is not possible to give


40

concrete quantitative answer. Nevertheless, Forest Strategy of Europe is towards

multifunctional forestry and has taking into account various aspects (below):

Forests are multifunctional, serving economic, social and environmental purposes. They offer

habitats for animals and plants and play a major role in mitigating climate change and other

environmental services. Nearly a quarter of the EU’s forest area is protected under Natura

2000, and much of the rest is home to species protected under EU nature legislation. Forests

also offer wide societal benefits, including for human health, recreation and tourism.

Sustainable forest management means using forests and forest land in a way, and at a rate,

that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their

potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at

local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems.

Both the nature and the effects of certain threats are trans-boundary and therefore action at

EU level is needed.

Forest Management Plans (FMPs) or equivalent instruments based on the principles of

sustainable forest management are key instruments in delivering multiple goods and services

in a balanced way. FMPs are at the core of both the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and EU

Rural Development funding. The strategy encompasses them and promotes and supports their

use.

Strategic orientations: Member States

- will, with the Commission’s assistance, develop a conceptual framework for valuing

ecosystem services, promoting their integration in accounting systems at EU and national

levels by 2020. They will build on the Mapping and Assessment of the state of Ecosystems and

of their Services;

- should maintain and enhance forest cover to ensure soil protection, water quality and

quantity regulation by integrating sustainable forestry practices in the Programme of

Measures of River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive and in the

Rural Development Programmes;

- should achieve a significant and measurable improvement in the conservation status of

forest species and habitats by fully implementing EU nature legislation and ensuring that

national forest plans contribute to the adequate management of the Natura 2000 network by

2020. They should build on the upcoming guide on Natura 2000 and forests;

- will implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and reach its Aichi targets

adopted in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, building on the upcoming

common Restoration Prioritisation Framework;

- should strengthen forest genetics conservation (tree species diversity) and diversity within

species and within populations. The Commission may support them in particular via the Rural

Development Programme.

Slovenia:

Sweden: Strict legislation that prohibits activities affecting species can be in conflict with the

right to property, and the European convention for the protection of human rights and

fundamental freedoms, i.e. when traditional farming including forestry is prohibited without

compensation. The directive is also many times in conflict with growth, jobs and

competitiveness.

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


41

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:

Austria: Die verschiedenen EU-Politiken verursachen bei den Landbewirtschaftern extreme

Handlungskonflikte und Unsicherheit. Diese müssen bereits auf EU Ebene gelöst und in den

Richtlinien integriert werden.


Denmark: We do not have the necessary information to answer this question.


Germany:

In particular the agri-environment measures of the CAP are too short term: 5 years. The period

of validity is often shorter than the average lifetime of species, that should take benefit from it,

i.e. they can not even have a positive effect on species protection. It would make much more

sense to invest the means in a long term, ecological valorisation of the landscape as well as in

the network of habitats for example through the increase in forest area. The period of validity

is likewise too short to serve climate change objectives.

Latvia: These policies push the Member States towards implementation of the EU nature

legislation, gently.

Slovenia: -/-.

Sweden:-/-.

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:

Austria: Wettbewerbsverzerrung entsteht dann, wenn Landbewirtschafter (Land- und

Forstwirtschaft), die in das Natura2000 Regime fallen, mit Bewirtschaftungseinschränkungen

sanktioniert werden. Bewirtschafter, welche das gleiche Schutzgut auf ihren Flächen haben,

und nicht im Natura2000 Schutzregime sind, haben keine Bewirtschaftungseinschränkungen.

Keine Abgeltungen für Naturschutzleistungen zu zahlen, verstärkt diesen Trend.

Czech Republic: The compensation of restriction of forest management in Sac and SPAs is in

the CZ paid from national budget.

Denmark: We think that different implementation of the directives between the EU countries

can influence and alter the competition between the countries.

France: The global feeling, in the forestry sector, it that the Directive hampers the EU internal

market and the creation of a level playing field for economic operators …

Germany:

Through the difference with in the EU it leads to competition disadvantages in Germany as the

implementation is much more tightened than in other areas.

Increasingly! Instead of legal compulsion the EU should mainly focus on voluntary exchange

of experience between Member States for example through visits and exchange programmes

and voluntary European certifications.

In the frame of the implementation of the FFH directives there are always conflict of goals.

These refer partly to concurrent goals between species and habitats but also to concurrent

goals between different species with a FFH area. Additionally there are concurrent goals in

congruent birds and habitat areas with view to species protection and habitat


42

protection/development. Different programmes of the EU collide in some parts, see also

question S 3 3.

They increase costs and decrease the extent of the supply with the renewable resource wood.

Because of that substitutes and competing materials with a significant worse eco-balance gain

a competitive advantage. Example: a decrease of conifers in FFH areas and an increase of the

extent of “Prozessschutz” areas leads to this development. This has a negative impact on

numerous workplaces along the forest wood value chain and therefore on the development in

rural areas.

Latvia: Inside the Natura 2000 network there is possibilities of compensation and sectorial

payments to minimize certain economic restrictions. Nevertheless, main areas for economic

activities lies outside the existing Natura 2000 network, but these areas have high density of

the EU importance species and habitats. So, protection of these values – outside the Natura

2000 network is voluntary and no compensations exist to minimize costs.

Slovenia:

Sweden: As the directives are implemented differently in different countries, it doesn´t

support a level playing field. They also strike different industries differently, where i.e.

forestry can have disadvantages.

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.

Answer:

Austria: -/-.

Czech Republic: Landowners need EU support in simple way of co-financing management

and compensations in nature protected areas, which more motivate them. The system in

EAFRD 2003 and 2014 -2020in the CZ rules is not good, is full of administrative burdens and

penalty terms. The compensations are fully from national budged.

Denmark: See our answer to question Y.2.

France: It has been integrated, but it could have been more funded

Germany:

Not sufficient!

With the EAFRD there is a financing foreseen for FFH measures but it is limited to the exact

areas whereas the protection objectives apply to the whole FFH setting. It is not

comprehensible why municipalities in terms of connectivity are not supported for the

implementation of supranational goals.

With view to EAFRD negative remarks have already been made. With view to CAP nothing

was achieved. With view to LIFE nothing has been achieved as well.

Latvia: There are different sectorial funds available within the existing Natura 2000 network.

But these sectorial funds are not available all over the Latvia – especially, outside the existing

Natura 2000 network, where, in Latvian specific situation, occur high density of the EU

importance species and habitats.

Slovenia:

Sweden: The funding does not help landowners in Sweden that can-not use their land

properly. There is no possibility to get compensation for prohibitions because of article 12 in

the habitat directive or article 5 in the bird directive.


43

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:

Austria: Überschneidungen treten auf, wenn verschiedene Arten auf gleicher Fläche unter

Schutz gestellt werden, die um das gleiche Habitat bzw. um dieselben Nahrungsquellen

konkurrieren. Das ist z.B. beim Eisvogel vs. Fischotter; Süßwassermuscheln vs. Fischotter;

Seltene Fischarten vs. Fischotter bzw. Reiher; Auwald-Habitate vs. Biber, Steinkrebs vs.

Otter, Reiher der Fall.


Denmark: Habitat directive: The Directive imposes restrictions on the business, reducing

economic growth in production and further in processing. This counteracts the efforts to boost

economic growth in society and employment. And this is just one of the expenses for

increased biodiversity.

France: not as far as we know …

Germany:

The other way round: There are limitations for a climate friendly policy through management

bans and limitations as a result of nature protection policy!

The principles of the directives should include that management limitations caused by the

directives have to result in compensation for the owner in any case.

In the field of WFD (Water Framework Directive) and Natura 2000 there are indeed problems:

the premium fees of water and soil associations put the buren of the entire society on the

shoulders of individual forest owners.

Latvia: There are not significant gaps in a system. Gaps, inconsistencies in some cases are

connected to poor implementation mechanism and poor implementation of the Directives by

the Member States.

Slovenia:

Sweden:

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:

Austria: -/-.

Czech Republic: Degraded ecosystem is mainly problem in agricultural land, especially

arable land. In forestry the definition of degradation have to respect principle of sustainable

forest management and local condition. The monitoring and assessment have to be consulted

with relevant stakeholders.

Denmark: The Directive provides protection considerations and administrative regulations in

the hope that the different implementation in each country is handled in such a way that

biodiversity is increased and thus contribute to the EU's biodiversity strategy. However, the

Directive has selected focus areas of habitats and species, and the focus on these single

elements without the elements interaction will afterwards be the measure point of the success


44

of the directive. But biodiversity should not be seen as separate elements but rather as

elements in constant interaction, and this are the aims of EU's biodiversity strategy. So

Habitats Directive is an important element in achieving the goals in EU biodiversity strategy,

but the success criteria as measured in the habitat directive may differ from those in the

strategy


Germany:

They thwart each other – see above!

Merely as its goals are static.

Latvia: The Priority Action Plan (PAF) for Latvia describes in detail particular needs and

prioritizes them to reach the EU biodiversity objectives regarding the existing Natura 2000

network.

Slovenia:

Sweden:

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 to7, 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.

7 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).


45

Answer:

Austria: -/-.


Denmark: We do not have specific knowledge to answer this question.


Germany:

They outrun them in the context of the implementation at local level.

They are not coherent with the international commitments with view to climate change where

they prevent a CO2 friendly land use for example through sustainable forest management or

afforestation.

Latvia: In general, the Nature Directives are coherent to with international and global view

towards nature conservation. Nevertheless, implementation process of the Nature Directives

would benefit from certain region based quantitative targets (for example, like Aichi targets

etc.) for concrete time scale with mid-term assessment and reports. Otherwise, there is a space

for manoeuvre to implement these Nature Directives theoretically or describe the results

without strong linkage to certain and binding quantitative requirements.

There is lack of scientifically based, agreed conservation objectives on the State and

Biogeographical region level for EU importance species and habitats. For example, what is

the aim it terms of nature conservation for Boreal forest (9010*) on the State and on the

Boreal Biogeographical region level (what, how many, how, were etc.).

There is lack of scientifically based, agreed general guidelines on the EU level, on the

Biogeographical region level, for management of EU importance species and habitats.

According the EU Directives, conservation and management of EU importance species and

habitats outside N2K terrestrial network is mandatory - to maintain FCS on the State level.

But there is no clear framework on the State level how to implement EU importance species

and habitat conservation outside the N2K network and how to provide connectivity (towards

green infrastructure). It is important not just from formal point while many EU importance

nature values occur outside the network. So, common understanding and rules how to

conserve and manage these nature values is crucial.

Slovenia:

Sweden: The Natura 2000-sites help reaching some of the Aichi targets from Nagoya. But the

directives only focus on a small part of biodiversity and do not focus on ecosystem services.

This means expensive costs without reaching the target.


46

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:

Austria: -/-.

Czech Republic: The network of protected areas In the CZ was on high level before

N2000.

Denmark: The nature directives has certainly contributed to society's increased focus and

awareness on biodiversity and natural values, but so far there has been only few concrete

improvements in Denmark due to the directives. But in recent years there has been an

evolution in progress leading to increased biodiversity and natural values. This might have

connection to the directives, but this can’t be verified. There is also no doubt that the

directives have led to increased research funding to the area.

France: Global vision at EU level, mutualisation of knowledge and follow-up tools.

Germany:

No added value – waste of money, administration effort, financing of the nature protection

industry

At least in Germany the added value has to be questioned, especially there are numerous

nature protection instrument on national and regional level. As mentioned earlier different

FFH habitat types are already protected by other means. The bureaucratic effort is

significantly increased through FFH, a huge part of the resources is administered through the

“nature protection administration” and is not invested for nature protection. For the acceptance

of nature protection objectives FFH constitutes a massive damage. One can talk about a “FFH

effect”: nature elements that are worth to be protected are perceived as a burden and a threat

for the freedom of ownership.

Before the implementation of the Natura 2000 objectives the nature protection concepts for

forests were concentrated on state forests and on integrative protection concepts with

segregative elements in form of “natural forests” or national parks. In private forests the

regulations of national environmental legislation were applied with view to the protection of

certain species and biotopes.

The designation of Natura 2000 areas include private forests much more and oblige the private

forest owners to comply with certain nature protection objectives. With regard to research and

knowledge base there is the necessity to increase them in the area of Natura 2000 subjects to

protection (data collection of species, data collection on habitat types and their assessment,

monitoring). This information is only in a very limited way available due to the complexity of

data collection and the huge effort linked to that which can not be supplied by nature

protection administrations. A positive but mainly theoretical added value would be common

environmental standards and thus common framework conditions which are equal to

comparable forest holdings in different Member States. In reality the level of implementation

respectively the impacts of the implementation of Natura 2000 are very different not only


47

between Member States but also within Member States. The objective of the protection of the

species and habitats in the Annex of the directives can certainly not be achieved through the

commitment of individual Member States, in that case there is an EU added value.

No added value – pure waste of task payers money.

See answer to Question Y 6

Latvia: Latvia entered into the EU with a prepared and developed terrestrial Natura

2000 network (2004) based on former protected nature area network. Since 2004,

there has been made some slight changes in terrestrial Natura 2000 network, and

marine Natura 2000 sites are developed – based on field research data. So, during this

years, due to field expeditions, improved knowledge, it is clear that existing terrestrial

Natura 2000 network does not consist high density of the EU importance species and

habitats, even opposite – high quality nature values lie outside the terrestrial Natura

2000 network on Latvia. Thus, it is necessary to transcribe existing terrestrial Natura

2000 sites and their borders. As well as – landscape ecological planning methods must

be applied to develop coherent network with a meaningful connectivity to achieve

objectives of the Nature Directives all over the Latvia. Latvia joined the EU on 2004, according the EU rules, the list of terrestrial Natura2000 sites

of Latvia were submitted on 2004 (1st May of 2004). Since 2004, some slight changes

regarding Natura2000 network in Latvia took place e.g. some sites were added to the list,

some optimisation of borders of sites were performed etc. For example, on 2004, terrestrial

Natura2000 of Latvia covered ~10.5 %, nowadays – 11.9 %.

The list of terrestrial Natura2000 sites of Latvia is based on so called “old protected sites”

even since beginning of 20 Century. All protected sites of Latvia were inventoried during

2001-2004, within activities of a project Emerald, new potential sites were investigated, too.

On the basis of this inventory, draft list of Natura2000 sites were developed. Next step was

discussions with stakeholders, public and private.

Slovenia:

Sweden:-/-.

AV.2 - What would be the likely situation in case of there having been no EU nature

legislation?

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:

Austria: EU: Die Umsetzung von N2000 ist sicherlich ein grundsätzlicher Mehrwert für die

Naturschutzgestaltung in der EU.In einigen Mitgliedstaaten (zB. Deutschland, Österreich und

Frankreich) gab es bereits vor Natura2000 eine Reihe von Naturschutzreglements die zu einer

guten naturschutzsituation beigetragen haben (z.B. Vogelschutzgebiete,

Landschaftsschutzgebiete und Wasserschutzgebiete). Speziell in AT: Es gibt eine Vielzahl

von Programmen (z.B. ÖPUL, Ökopunkte,...) die unabhängig von Schutzflächen eine

aussreichende Leistung für ein ausgeglichenes Naturschutzangebot gewährleisten. N2000 hat

hier durch die schlechte Implementierung auch zu einer Verschlechterung der Naturschutz-

Politikgestaltung geführt.


Denmark: See answer AV1.


48

France: for Forest sector, the situation probably would be the same … as the forest in France

is sustainably managed

Germany:

Less waste of money, less bureaucracy, less influential nature protection industry, more

acceptance of nature protection in rural areas, more nature protection in the areas;

Presumably there would not be a network with the extent of Natura 2000; this is only relevant

if we act on the assumption that such a network is an end in itself. For Germany the question

is whether species and habitat protection would be significantly worse respectively whether

the conservation goals could have been reached otherwise. Under German conditions that kind

of heteronomy is NOT needed!

Presumably the same kind of measures would have been taken at national level;

Latvia: Nature conservation system was in Latvia before the entry into the EU. As, existing

Natura 2000 terrestrial network has been developed on a basis of former protected nature area

network, significant changes in terrestrial part of Latvia would not took place. There still are

National protected species and habitat lists which consists of more species and habitats as in

the Nature Directives Annexes. And opposite, there are some species included in the Annexes

of the Nature Directives, for example beaver Castor fiber, which is not protected in Latvia due

to its high density and vitality.

Nevertheless, marine Natura 2000 sites are absolutely new sites, never before protected, in

Latvia.

Besides, during 20th century the main nature conservation management was non-intervention

or doing nothing. Even for disturbance dependant species and habitats. So, the EU approach

has opened management possibilities of species and habitats what is of a great value for nature

values meaningful management.

As well as, despite of certain administrative and bureaucratic burdens, the EU funding

instruments, sectorial funding are available for nature planning, management as well as for

compensation to minimize some restrictions on economic activities.

As a positive push from the EU Nature Directives one must stress necessity to assess

conservation state of the EU importance species and habitats inside and outside the Natura

2000 network. So, it as concrete possibility to reach the objectives set by the Directives.

Slovenia:

Sweden:-/-.

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:

Austria: Es sollten vor allem über Fragen der Entschädigung, der finanziellen Absicherung

von Naturschutzmaßnahmen und über die Einbindung der Grundeigentümer in das gesamte

Verfahren gesprochen werden.


Denmark: Not necessarily. The growing awareness of the importance of biodiversity and

nature values – maybe initiated by many years with focus on the directives – do not disappear

even if the strict regulation and yearly reporting to EU do not exist in the future.

France: Yes.

Germany:

Yes – far reaching deregulation!

No! Certainly not – the directives are currently transferred into national law. An individual

adaptation or further development should be left to the Member States concerned if necessary

in direct cooperation with their neighbouring countries. In demand is more flexibility for


49

action on one´s own responsibility.

A commitment is necessary in particular for migrant birds and for nature protection measures

in Member States with a less viable economy. Here the EU should concentrate on protection

concepts at national level. The added value of own protection objectives of the EU with regard

to stationary and ulterior protected species is not proportional to the effort.

Yes the should be dynamically reformed in particular with view to the objectives. There

should be the possibility to integrate natural processes. Furthermore with view to European

subsidiarity responsibility should be transferred to local level in particular by means of

voluntary cooperation between those most concerned.

As species and habitats in matters of biogeographical regions should be protected and

developed and as these partly extent over several Member States and/or regions it would be

helpful if the EU engages in the formulation of common standards.

Yes – far reaching deregulation and creation of market based incentives, accompanied by a

societal reward for the ecosystem services of forestry.

Latvia: Challenge in Latvia is implementation and usage of the Nature Directives on

the National level not the Directives as itself, especially – outside the terrestrial

Natura 2000 network.

Slovenia:

Sweden:-/-.


50

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.

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


51

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 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

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.

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.


52

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.


53

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


54

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.

evidence gathering questionnaire for the fitness...

Documents