Natura 2000 Management. Regional Development funding as part of the integrated funding approach for biodiversity

Transcription

1 Natura 2000 Management Regional Development funding as part of the integrated funding approach for biodiversity

2 Designed and printed by Plus One Design 1st edition Dec. 2012, 500 copies Online: This report was written with the support of the Province of Rieti, Municipal Enterprise For Planning & Development of Patras S.A. (Greece), Office of the Marshal of the Warmińsko- Mazurskie Voivodeship (Poland) and WWF Germany, and financially supported by the INTERREG IVc SURF Nature project Authors: Alessandro Piazzi and Istituzione Formativa Rieti Province of Rieti Konstadinos Konstadakopoulos Municipal Enterprise For Planning & Development of Patras S.A. Hanna Wiśniewska and Marcin Proniewicz Office of the Marshal of the Warmińsko- Mazurskie Voivodeship Front and Back Cover photo: Surf-nature Province of Rieti (Italy) Municipal Enterprise For Planning & Development of Patras S.A. (Greece) Office of the Marshal of the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship (Poland) Acknowledgements: Guidance revised and edited by Peter Torkler (WWF Germany) and Colette Price Countryside Council for Wales. Project partners Warmia and Masury-Poland, Province of Rieti Italy and Patras Greece provided coordination and support for the booklet development with valuable help from the whole SURF project partnership. Consultation on the content was provided by Petr Roth (Czech Republic), Ioli Christopolou (WWF Greece) and Alberto Arroyo Schnell (WWF European Policy Office) The production of the Guidance was coordinated by Maggie Birkett and David Letellier from Environment Agency Wales / Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd Cymru. Thanks to everyone who commented on and contributed to this report. This report was published by the SURF-nature project SURF-Nature (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds for Nature) is a project of 14 partners in 10 different EU member states who have come together to enhance regional policies for the promotion and conservation of biodiversity and nature. This project is funded by the EU s European Regional Development fund through the INTERREG IVC programme.

3 Natura 2000 Management Content 1. Introduction 2 2. An Overview of the Natura 2000 Situation 3 3. Natura 2000 Regulatory Framework 5 4. The Natura 2000 Implementation Process 6 5. National Implementation of the EU Directives National Implementation of the EU Directives - Poland National Implementation of the EU Directives - Greece National Implementation of the EU Directives Italy Funding Opportunities for the Natura 2000 Network The importance of EU funds for the Natura 2000 network ERDF and Natura 2000 network Natura 2000 Good Practices 22 Conservation measures of priority habitats in the special protected area IT Fiume Farfa Corso Medio-alto 22 Management of the Natura 2000 site Mondsee and Attersee 23 Protection of priority habitats in the Natura 2000 sites of Bogdaniec and Międzyzdroje forest inspectorates 24 Preparation of Natura 2000 Management Plans in Poland 26 Landscape in harmony (Traditional use of Natura 2000 habitats along the SI-HU border) 27 Implementation of Natura 2000 sites in Olomouc Region, Czech Republic Conclusions and Recommendations References 32 1

4 1. Introduction European funds provide opportunities to complement the financing of nature conservation measures in the member states to preserve the precious natural assets and cultural landscapes. The European approach for financing Natura 2000 suggests that all nature conservation measures should be integrated into all EU funds. The current programming period has shown great potential for financing of the promotion of biodiversity and nature within the European regional development fund (ERDF). Indeed, 3.8 billion have been allocated for nature investments across all ERDF Operational Programmes. However, the current country and project allocations of these funding opportunities vary enormously across Europe. In light of this, the Sustainable Use of Regional Funds for Nature (SURF-Nature) project was developed. The overall objective of the project is to improve regional policies and practices for nature conservation and biodiversity by increasing the opportunities for financing these measures from the ERDF, whilst also increasing their impact. The partnership consists of 14 public bodies from 10 countries in the EU which are responsible for the implementation of ERDF funding or have experience in applying for these funds. Within the project the partners chose one topic out of five that also serves as their main focus. The following topics were chosen and thematic booklets are being published by the SURF-Nature project: Sustainable Tourism Natura 2000 Management Green Infrastructure Environmental Education Forest and Biodiversity All booklets will build a bridge between the topic and the ERDF as a financing opportunity. They will also present project examples for the thematic focus from the partner regions, as well as good practice examples. These booklets as well as the other project outputs are available to download on our web page: 2

5 2. An overview of the Natura 2000 situation After more than a decade of preparation to identify and designate Natura 2000 sites, the challenge now is to actually implement the necessary measures that will ensure the conservation and coherence of the Natura network and this requires political will for financial support. The European Commission has proposed that the support for implementation of the Natura 2000 network should come from all available EU funds, of which agriculture and regional development could provide the biggest share. Therefore these two funding instruments could not only provide the biggest share of necessary funding for Natura 2000 but also contribute to the reform and long-term sustainability of agriculture and regional development in Europe. This thematic booklet represents only one small path towards best practice in financing Natura The SURF-Nature project explores many other practical issues in the approach to financing but keeps its focus on Regional Policy only. A more comprehensive approach to the integration source: NATURA European Commission Nature and Biodiversity Newsletter (Number 29 - December 2010) 3

6 of all available resources is presented in the Commission Staff Working Paper Financing Natura Investing in Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people which was in released in December Key progress with a more strategic approach to planning the necessary finance for Natura 2000 should come with the Prioritized Actions Frameworks that are about to be agreed between the Commission and the Member States and which are due by the end of In this regard, the booklet will present the recording of individual experiences of SURF-Nature project partners and in particular the use of different European funding instruments, in order to contribute to critical thinking on future financing options for the network. Based on the Birds Directive over 5,300 SPAs have been classified since 1981, covering more than 11% of the EU territory (over 590,000 km2). As a result, populations of some severely threatened bird species are recovering. But actions vary from country to country and some important sites needed for bird conservation are still not under protection. Classification and the proper management of SPAs have to be combined with other measures in the field of species protection as well as a decrease in the overall environmental load caused by excessive development. The Habitats Directive aims to conserve selected habitat types and habitats of wildlife species other than birds. It also requires strict species protection measures in terms of selected species of fauna and flora. For the selected habitat types and species, Member States have to identify Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) and designate them, following the approval of the European Commission, as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). These sites should be managed in such a way that in addition to the needs of their target features, people s economic and social activities are taken into consideration. Although not obligatory, management plans tailored specifically for every site may be beneficial for the proper management of these sites. The Directive identifies some 200 types of habitats, 300 animal and over 600 plant species as being of community importance and requiring protection. At the end of 2011 the total number of Sites of Community Importance in the European Union was around 26,000, which cover more than 750,000 km 2 (18% of the EU area). 4

7 3. Natura 2000 Regulatory Framework The European ecological network, Natura 2000, is a system of conservation areas protecting and conserving rare and endangered elements of European biodiversity. It has been implemented on the territory of all European Union countries in a coherent manner (both methodological and organizational) since The most important EU pieces of law on nature conservation are the Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EEC of 30 November 2009 amending directive 79/409/ EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds) and the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora). The Birds Directive focuses on the long-term conservation of all wild bird species in the EU. It identifies 193 endangered species and sub-species in need of special care. Member States are responsible for classifying Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for these species, as well as for the regularly occurring migratory species which represent a natural asset shared by all Europeans. Together, the SPAs and SCIs (SACs) form the Natura 2000 network a cornerstone of the EU biodiversity policy. Pierwos nature reserve in the Mazurian landscape Parc SURF nature 5

8 4. The Natura 2000 Implementation process Based on the directives and legal requirements the graph below provides a quick overview of the main steps that have been and will need to be taken by all Member States in order to properly implement the directives. These steps are just a snapshot but illustrate the different levels of requirements arising from the directives in the period since Overview of main steps for the implementation of Natura 2000, 2012 WWF, Alberto Arroyo Schnell Amvrakikos wetland in Greece Surf nature 6

9 The fulfilment of these obligations was not always smooth, therefore some additional notes are given below summarizing the process: Legislation transposition After 1992 when the Habitats Directive was passed, Member States where required to transpose the directive within 2 years. However, in many countries delays occurred as the process included several adjustments of national laws in order ensure that the transposition of the directives was completed. Therefore, there was ongoing work related to the transposition of the legislation, particularly during the first years. In later years, the accession of new Member States (1995 Austria, Finland and Sweden; new members; 2007 Bulgaria and Romania) meant that work on this issue continued, as in principle new EU Member States should have completed the transposition of acquis communautaire by the accession date (also relevant to Croatia s envisaged accession in 2013). Site designation 1994: once the Habitats Directive has been transposed (i.e. the 2 year transposition deadline for Member States), Members States should have commenced their site designation activity. 2012: completion of marine site lists (as stated in the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy). The majority of the work on terrestrial site designation can be considered as finalised, subject to small corrections and the selection of additional sites in many countries as the data sheets are updated or monitoring and research results show the need for adjustments. The marine site designation process is yet to be completed. Site Management Measures 1994: the Habitats Directive comes into force: therefore articles 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 apply to SPAs (therefore it can be considered that the management of Natura 2000 has started). 2002: The first SCIs are officially passed by the EC (Macaronesian); therefore article 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 apply to the first SCIs. 2012: Commencement of the Biogeographic process, therefore management can be said to have entered its definitive phase (the first is the Boreal process, still ongoing now together with the Atlantic and Alpine processes). Financing 2004: The EC issues its Communication on Article 8 (financing Natura Consequently, in 2007 the EC Guidance on Financing Natura 2000 helps to integrate funding requirements in all EU funds. 2011: The EC issues its Staff Working Paper on financing Natura starts the development of PAFs. 2014: First National and Regional OPs with PAFs in place will be completed and due for implementation in the following years, probably with a further need to update and improve the PAFs : it will be again very important to work on the subsequent EU financing period of

10 Monitoring : Work on the 1st report assessing the conservation status of habitats and species (the previous monitoring report ( ) comprised of information collated on the progress towards implementation, but not an assessment of conservation status) : Work on the 2nd report assessing the conservation status of habitats and species first opportunity to analyse the evolution of the situation : Work on the 3rd assessment of conservation status of habitats and species, which will also serve as an indicator in relation to the achievement of the 2020 goal. Species protection regime 1994: the Habitats Directive comes into force (therefore articles 12 to 16 already apply to Annex IV species in principle; however, the focus was on the construction of Natura 2000). 2002: Article 12 Working Group is created still, the implementation of the Natura 2000 network is the key priority rather than the application of the protection regime 2015: Hopefully, at some point before 2020 the protection regime of Annex IV species will be given more prominence: we suggest that this point in the future should be 2015 at the latest, as the discussion on the protection of the wider countryside (including e.g. through the conclusions of the No Net Loss Initiative which will have been produced by that time) will then be complete. Connectivity 2009: Start of the discussion on Green Infrastructure. Some work started earlier ( ) on Article 10 of the Habitats Directive, but it did not gain the same momentum as the Green Infrastructure (which goes far beyond connectivity issues). Therefore, this date has been selected as a key milestone for this issue, in terms of nature protection beyond Natura 2000, in the wider countryside (target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy). 2015: In the same way as the species protection regime, hopefully, at some point before 2020 the discussion on connectivity will become more prominent. We suggest that this point in the future should be 2015 at the latest, as the discussion on the protection of the wider countryside (including e.g. through the conclusions of the No Net Loss Initiative which will have been produced by that time) will then be complete. Stakeholder involvement Many failures in the early days of the directives show that stakeholder involvement is essential for successful implementation; many authorities have strengthened cooperation with environmental organisations to improve site management and often depend on voluntary action. In future this will become more important if different funding sources are to be mobilised for Natura 2000 for example as integrated projects under the LIFE programme. 8

11 5. National Implementation of the EU Directives As already demonstrated above the implementation process faces a range of delays and exceptions, not only because of the different accession dates of some countries but also because of very diverse approaches followed by Members States to the implementation of the directives. The following examples will therefore provide a snapshot of the institutional frameworks for implementation of the Directives in Poland, Greece and Italy. In the past, delays in designation have caused problems particularly where responsibility was not clearly defined. For this reason it is important to have clarity regarding responsibilities in the regions, as only a strong institutional framework will be able to support appropriate funding for the Natura 2000 network in a region. Riverine forest Olomuc county Surf nature 5.1 National Implementation of the EU Directives - Poland In Poland the Natura 2000 sites are selected by the General Directorate for Environmental Protection in consultation with community councils regarding individual areas. The Directorate prepares the Standard Data Forms (the principal information about location, area, types of natural habitats and species, quantitative and qualitative characteristics, threats and prospects) and a vector map. This process is supervised by the Minister for the Environment. The main instrument for meeting the objective of the Natura 2000 network is the assessment of the impacts of proposed plans and projects on site integrity and on the particular habitat types and species for which the particular Natura 2000 site was established. All conservation activities should take into consideration economic, social and cultural requirements as well as regional and local characteristics of the area in question. 9

12 The implementation of Natura 2000 in Poland is supervised by the General and Regional Directors for Environmental Protection, Directors of National Parks as well as Directors of Maritime Offices. Their competencies are specified in the Nature Conservation Act and include responsibility for the selection and supervision of sites, as well reporting to European Commission. network comes from the state budget and further EU funds (LIFE+, Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, European Fisheries Fund and others). The source of funding may also be national, for example in Poland there are National and Regional Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management. Financing requirements for biodiversity and main funding sources Reports ordered by the European Commission show that correct functioning of the Natura 2000 network in Europe requires 6 billion every year. The average cost of managing Natura 2000 sites in Poland was estimated at 115m per year which is 14 / ha/year (well below the EU average of 63 / ha/year). In fact costs of Natura 2000 have been greatly underestimated in Poland the General Directorate for Environmental Protection calculated the rate of nature stocktaking as 2 /ha for bird sites and 3 /ha for habitat sites while the true costs in Biebrzański National Park amount to around 25 /ha. It is worth noting that these calculations were based on direct costs only and did not take into account other expenses such as the losses suffered by those people or organizations most affected by the establishment of the Natura 2000 sites. Many new tasks and responsibilities relating to Natura 2000 were imposed upon The State Forests National Forest Holding without the provision of adequate funds for their implementation. In accordance with Article 6 and Article 8 of the Habitats Directive financial obligations for the establishment and maintenance of the Natura 2000 network are the responsibility of the Member States. The financial resources necessary for the smooth functioning of the Natura 2000 Main threats and problems with Natura 2000 Among the main problems and threats in implementing Natura 2000 in Poland it is important to mention the negative evaluation by local societies of the influence of Natura 2000 sites on development of tourism and the ability to attract investors. The belief that Natura 2000 is a product of European bureaucracy which suppresses the economic activity and enterprise of the country s inhabitants is still common. Among development barriers regularly indicated are: - longer time period and increased costs of achieving an investment, - uncertainty in obtaining construction permits, - lack of guidelines specifying acceptable type and range of business activity, - difficulties in developing agricultural production, - general disinformation on the regulations and restrictions regarding specific areas. The most important sources of these problems are imprecise and often preventative restrictions resulting from lack of proper information on the nature of protected areas often with no management plans; the feeling within local communities of not being sufficiently included in the 10

13 process of selecting Natura 2000 sites; lack of understanding of the character and regulation of habitats and species conservation within the Natura 2000 network resulting from insufficient information and communication; poor institutional preparation and financing of implementation of this new element of nature conservation. The remedial measures: To deal with these issues Poland took some steps aimed at better management of the Natura 2000 network, building a platform of dialogue between authorities and local communities, educating people and improving the image of nature conservation measures. In 2008 the General Directorate for Environmental Protection and 16 Regional Directorates were established in order to reform the management of the environment, in particular the Natura 2000 sites, and to improve the absorption of EU funds. In 2009 the GDEP began drawing up the management plans for Natura 2000 areas in Poland. This important and expensive task is partly funded from European Funds using the Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme The project s aim is to produce 406 management plans for Natura 2000 sites. The plans will not only help to identify existing and potential threats, establish a monitoring system or facilitate and improve the quality of the environmental impact assessments, but also are likely to become an important element of development by making nature conservation measures more acceptable to local communities. Acceptance is one of the most important expected results. The management plans will certainly contribute to a proper understanding of the essence of nature and allow the treatment of Natura 2000 to act as a stimulus, rather than a constraint on economic development. In addition to the plans, some other projects (e.g. public campaigns, e-learning), funded by the Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme or LIFE+, were developed in order to raise the administration and society s awareness of the idea of the European Natura 2000 network and its functioning, to build foundations of social dialogue through the creation of a partnerships and to provide a platform for cooperation. Goals: - to give real and strong importance to the process of social communication, - to review the rights and responsibilities of the institutions participating in the process of creating and enforcing regulations concerning the functioning of the Natura 2000 network, - to prepare management plans for every Natura 2000 site, - to embrace the social and economic consequences of the management plans. 11

14 5.2 National Implementation of the EU Directives - Greece In Greece, both the Habitats and the Birds Directives have been transposed into national legislation. However, as recently as 2009, the European Court of Justice ruled that the transposition of the two directives was insufficient. Since then, adjustments to the national legal framework have been adopted and the transposition is considered almost complete. Furthermore, a new biodiversity law (Law 3937/2011) legally designated all SCI as SACs, and outlined the process for the identification of conservation objectives. Currently, the Natura network in Greece includes 202 SPAs and 241 SACs covering 27.29% of the terrestrial and 6.1% of the marine national area. The overall responsibility for the Natura 2000 sites lies with the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change and particularly the Department of Nature Management. However, other departments, ministries and regional authorities and services (including the Forest service) also contribute on several aspects that relate to Natura In order to implement the requirements of the Habitats Directive, 29 management bodies have been established since These management bodies cover a little more than 20% of the Natura network area, while no specialized authority has been designated for the remaining Natura sites despite available alternative options in the current legislation. National funding for Natura 2000 is minimal (excluding wages and operational expenses for the environmental administration). Hence, the establishment of a dedicated national environment fund, the Green Fund, in 2010 was welcomed as an important development to secure funding for nature conservation, among other environmental priorities. However, several legal provisions that have been adopted as a result of the financial crisis and in line with the economic adjustment programme, have stipulated that only a small percentage of the Fund s revenues is directed to environmental purposes, with the greatest share (approx %) being redirected to the State budget. As a consequence EU funds (LIFE, Cohesion and Rural Development Funds) constitute the main funding source to cover implementation requirements. However, funding available through other European funds, including the European Fisheries Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development has not become available. LIFE projects continue to constitute an important funding source for the monitoring and management needs of Natura sites. With regards to funding from ERDF, the Ministry of Environment (MoE) was ac tively involved in the development of financial programming for the period, which was centrally coordinated by the Ministry of Finance. Most environmental funding is made available through the Environment and Sustainable Development Operational Programme (with a budget of 1800m: 220m from ERDF and 1,580 from CF), as well as measures that have been integrated at various levels in regional programmes. A priority axis on Nature and Biodiversity Conservation has been allocated approximately 126 million. These are expected to cover the needs of the 29 management bodies, monitoring 12

15 requirements under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive as well as other projects. Nonetheless, significant delays are noted and currently (Nov. 2012) only 25% of these specially allocated funds has been paid, demonstrating an underinvestment of available resources. The financial crisis and the requirements imposed by the economic adjustment programme jointly supervised by the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the European Central Bank, have also led to significant environmental impacts. Environmental safeguards, including processes and measures that relate to biodiversity conservation, are sidelined in favour of shortterm economic growth. Within this framework, several demands have been made for higher absorption of EU funds in order to boost the Greek economy and provide public funding in areas that have otherwise been affected by severe cuts in order to service the public debt. However, priorities promoted do not include biodiversity conservation measures, but rather business-as-usual projects including road building and other basic infrastructure work. Surf nature 13

16 5.3 National Implementation of the EU Directives Italy 14 There are several steps in establishing Italian SACs. The Italian Ministry for Environment supervises the designation of Natura 2000 sites using a dedicated Manual of Interpretation of Habitats for the identification of habitat types related to the Italian territory. The identification of sites is the responsibility of the Regions which send the data to the Italian Ministry for Environment using Standard Data Forms and maps to facilitate the process of checking the coherence and completeness of data and information. The Region of Lazio prepares the relevant legal documents and carries out all the administrative functions deriving from the national biodiversity laws for the local implementation of the network and management of Natura 2000 sites. This includes the development and approval of guidelines for the implementation of management plans. However, the actual implementation of management plans for Natura 2000 sites is the responsibility of the Protected Areas administration in the Provinces and Municipalities, for example in the Region of Lazio the Assessorato all Ambiente (Regional Department for the Environment) is in charge of the approval of management plans. Similar responsibilities exist for the conduct of impact assessment according to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. The Region of Lazio delegates all surveillance and environmental protection activities, especially within the Natura 2000 network, to the state forest rangers (Corpo Forestale dello Stato). The harmonization of the management plan with further territorial plans is achieved through cooperation between the Regional Department for Environment and the Regional Department of Urban and Spatial Planning of the Region of Lazio where a combined commission evaluates the indication compatibility and harmonization of the plans. In Region of Lazio approximately 80% of Natura 2000 sites have a Management Plan that, in most cases, has been financed through DOCUP (Regional Operational Programme, Region of Lazio ) Objective 2 funds. This type of financing has been applied only in the Region of Lazio where we find the greatest number of plans made and adopted by the municipalities and management authority. Most of these plans are close to approval by the Region of Lazio, after a validation process that has verified the contents of the plans. Main funding sources and financing needs for biodiversity In the Region of Lazio, the main financial resources which may be used for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network are: the Life + Programme which provides 23.5m for 2011 and approximately 30m for each of 2012 and 2013 for the whole country; ERDF Regional Operational Programme Latium with a total budget of 371.7m; and the Rural Development Programme Region of Lazio funded by the EAFRD with 317.5m. These funds reveal an enormous potential that could be used for biodiversity compared with the financial resources derived from state/ regional funds allocated for biodiversity which amounts to 5m per year for Lazio (from the Fund for Deprived Areas).

17 A comparison of the available funding with the estimated costs for the Italian Natura 2000 network shows a funding gap. Natura 2000 costs are estimated at 181.5m per year for the whole country, divided as follows: management 3.1m; investments 18.1m; infrastructures 10.6m; management planning 24.3m; monitoring 125.4m. A breakdown of theses costs per region shows an average funding requirement of 9.075m per year for the Region of Lazio. One of the main problems is linked to the allocation of financial resources within the above Funding Programmes for measures and actions directly affecting biodiversity conservation and enhancement. In the Life+ Programme only Axis 1 Nature & Biodiversity deals with biodiversity and Natura 2000 management. The Rural Development Programme Region of Lazio is mainly focused on agriculture and rural development. This means that biodiversity and Natura 2000 management are only considered indirectly within programme scopes and thus few actions and financial resources are directed to biodiversity and Natura The Regional Operational Programme Latium exemplifies this: the Axis 2 Environment and Risk Prevention has a financial allocation of 92.5m (ERDF only), but none of this funding is directly linked to actions for biodiversity and Natura 2000; just 21m is dedicated to the improvement of promotional structures in Natural Protected Areas. The only funds dedicated to biodiversity come from the Axis 2 - Activity 8 of a summary programme called Unitary Development Programme of the Region of Lazio which integrates all the funds available in the Region (ERDF and Fund for Deprived Areas) for the implementation of development strategies ( 5m in total). Recommendations At a strategic level Natura 2000 and biodiversity play an active role in growth and innovation in different sectors and areas such as tourism, risk prevention, rural development etc. Financing biodiversity from all existing funds in a region therefore appears in principle to be an effective and appropriate strategy. However, in practice the amount of funds envisaged does not meet the needs as the value of biodiversity is often underestimated, as are the costs of Natura 2000 management. It would be useful for the future programming period to include the social and economic value of biodiversity in the assessment of the financial requirements of the Natura 2000 network at the regional level, thus increasing the financial allocation for measures and activities clearly dedicated to biodiversity and Natura 2000 management while keeping the Integration Approach. Currently these approaches are gaining a greater relevance in Italy as recently approved LIFE+ proposals increasingly deal with the value of ecosystems and also attempt to link these values with the need for better financial planning as required for the prioritized action frameworks. At the implementation level, Managing Authorities should simplify programme structures by clearly referring to biodiversity and Natura 2000 within measures and actions, as well as by avoiding any overlap of different Planning Programmes or Summary and Coordination Programmes which leads to confusion and difficulties in accessing EU funds for biodiversity and Natura 2000 management. 15

18 6. Funding Opportunities for the Natura 2000 network 6.1 The importance of EU funds for the Natura 2000 network Member States, in order to comply with their obligations to adopt and implement conservation measures enabling the conservation of Natura 2000 sites, will have to finance Natura 2000 activities related to the establishment of sites, management planning and ongoing habitat management as well as investment in the infrastructure needed for restoration. With reference to the subsidiarity principle, Member States costs related to those actions should be covered by national budgets. However, according to Article 8 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, it is possible for Member States to obtain the funds necessary to allow them to meet their obligations through EU co-financing. Moreover Member States have also recently been asked to develop Prioritized Actions Frameworks which, based on the provisions of Article 8, provide a strategic approach to the priority measures needed for implementation of the directives linked with financial programming that allows for the identification of the main funding requirements as well as helping to identify possible sources of European and National funds. In the Communication on financing Natura 2000 for the period (Comm ) the European Commission set out the ways in which Natura 2000 sites financial needs could be integrated in Community Funds, as well as the measures eligible for co-financing by those Funds. The Communication suggests that Community co-financing should be defined by each existing financial instrument so that: - Member States may define actions according to specific priorities of different national territories; - Natura 2000 site management may be included in the general land management policies established and approved by the Community; - duplication and overlapping of funding sources shall be avoided. This represents the so called integration approach for financing of the Natura 2000 network, considered as a more suitable way to fund environmental protection policies, strategies and actions during the financial period. As a result, whereas in the past the EU funds for nature and biodiversity conservation were mainly distributed through the LIFE Programme, during the period Cohesion Programmes as well as National and Regional Operational Programmes supported by European funds include even more environmental opportunities within their funding priorities. 16

19 The integration of funds for Natura 2000 network into the current Community funding programmes represents a new challenge for many of the authorities and stakeholders involved. This challenge is also linked to the different restrictions imposed in terms of eligible target groups, land types, objectives and specific actions that define the extent to which activities related to the management of Natura 2000 sites are eligible for funding under each of the funding programmes. To better match the different characteristics of specific funds with types of Natura 2000 sites that are eligible to receive funding support, it is useful to classify the following groups of land types: - agricultural and other land areas - forests - inland waters - wetlands - coastal zones and marine areas. The activities related to the management of Natura 2000 sites eligible for funding are generally those listed in the Final Report on Financing Natura 2000 grouped under 4 categories: - Establishment of Natura 2000 sites - Management planning - Ongoing habitat management and monitoring - Investment costs. It should be pointed out that not all the activities, land types and stakeholders listed can receive financial support from each financial instrument available. For example, specific funds support development of agricultural systems (EAFRD), or long-term investment in Natura 2000 (ERDF) rather than transnational research on environmental themes (FP7) or specific projects for biodiversity conservation (LIFE+). In order to provide both managing authorities and potential applicants with accurate information about restrictions and funding opportunities, the Guidance Handbook Financing Natura 2000 commissioned by the European Commission Directorate General for the Environment provides a dedicated section entitled Table of Activities detailing restrictions regarding financial instrument, target groups, land types, actions and objectives for each of the 25 activities valuable for the implementation of the Natura 2000 management. As the categorisation is adapted to the funding period, the Commission has recently contracted an update of the handbook that will reflect the funding provisions enshrined in the legislation for The handbook is expected mid Moreover a similar analysis to the chapters below on the current period is underway by the ENEA MA network (European Network of Environmental and Managing Authorities for Cohesion Policy). The expert working group on biodiversity prepared a first analysis of the funding opportunities (the document will be available on ENEA website following approval by the Network). The SURF-Nature project developed a more comprehensive Handbook to give guidance on how to strengthen uptake in the area of biodiversity in future programming. However the following chapters focus on previous experience and aim to show what has already been possible and the best opportunities to build on previous experience when entering the new programming negotiations. ( FINAL_SURF_Handbook_V4_Sept_2012.pdf 17

20 6.2 ERDF and Natura 2000 network 18 The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Objectives The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), along with the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund, defines the European Community s policy to strengthen the economic and social cohesion of the European Union in order to promote the harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of the European Community. Those Funds and the other existing Community financial instruments contribute to the achievement of the following three objectives: Convergence, Regional competitiveness and employment, and European territorial cooperation (EC regulation 1083/2006). In EC Regulation N. 1080/2006, concerning the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the period, funding actions are also oriented towards environmental protection policies. In particular, according to the Convergence objective, one of the priorities is the promotion of biodiversity and nature protection, including investments in Natura 2000 sites (Article 4), while the Regional competitiveness and employment objective is expected to promote (with ERDF) the development of infrastructure linked to biodiversity and invest in Natura 2000 sites where this contributes to sustainable economic development and/or diversification of rural areas (Article 5). Article 6 on territorial cooperation also includes provisions for the joint management of Natura 2000 areas under the three dimensions of territorial cooperation (crossborder, transnational and interregional). Programmes Different Territorial, Regional, Multi Regional and National Operational Programmes are developed in each of the EU Member States. These Programmes rely on national strategic reference frameworks which define strategies in compliance with Community strategic guidelines on cohesion, convergence, competitiveness and employment and European territorial cooperation objectives. Member States and Regional or National Managing Authorities then prepare their National, Multi Regional and Regional Operational Programmes, which give them EC funds based on the shared management principle to develop strategies and actions. Only actions included in or eligible under the operational programmes can be co-financed. The current European Territorial Cooperation objective is split into 3 different cooperation areas: Cross-Border Cooperation which tackles local issues also including the management of natural resources, river basins and reservoirs; Transnational Cooperation, mainly focused on innovation, environment, water management, risk prevention, sea safety and sustainable urban development; Interregional Cooperation, which is more about the exchange of experiences and best practices in the field of the environment and risk prevention. Each cooperation area gives the EU actors an opportunity to apply for ERDF funds through calls for proposals or direct application procedures issued within the context of specific Operational Programmes. A list of all Operational Programmes in Europe is available at the following link: index_en.cfm

21 Examples of eligible activities Investment in environmental infrastructure of the protected areas; investment in the tourism value of natural resources; establishment of administrative & management structures; production of Management Plans; monitoring activities; background work such as surveys and research; purchase of land; exchange of relevant information and data; exchange of good practices and pilot approaches; assessment of cross-border impacts on the environment, specifically protected areas and development of common approaches to minimize the negative impacts; support for implementation of the new standards and instruments; cooperation and joint management, monitoring, reporting, marketing of protected areas; educational measures; public relations and promotional activities. Beneficiaries Public or private actors carrying out an individual project and receiving public aid (mainly small and medium-sized enterprises). Biodiversity and ERDF Operational Programmes The quality of an Operational Programme with relation to biodiversity and Natura 2000 depends on a variety of factors among which are: the way biodiversity is considered in the SWOT analysis; how biodiversity is included within the objectives, measures and activities; how biodiversity is integrated with other activities; the indicators taken into account; the eligibility of applicants; and the budget allocated for biodiversity and Natura The analysis of 46 ERDF Operational Programmes that was carried out by the SURF-Nature project in 10 different EU Member States gives a comprehensive overview of the way in which biodiversity is included in different programme types for ERDF and indicates the most significant differences between programmes in terms of quality and implementation. In all Operational Programmes the budget is defined according to the Codes by Dimension, which is a list of 86 categories of expenditure to be funded through the programmes. In allocating budget codes within EU structural funds, several codes may allow direct or indirect funding measures for nature conservation (e.g. code 55 or code 56 could provide indirect opportunities through tourism or natural heritage oriented investments). Only code 51 is explicitly dedicated to supporting the promotion of Natura For this reason in each ERDF Operational Programme special attention has to be given to the code 51 which represents the only direct funding category for the Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (including Natura 2000) linked with an indicative budget for the programme. In the funding period , 2.7 billion has been allocated for investment in nature across all ERDF Operational Programmes (based on code 51). Generally the SURF-Nature analysis has shown that the highest amounts of budgets allocated to nature conservation are in the Sectoral Programmes for the Environment which is typical of convergence regions. The majority of the Cross-Border and Transnational Programmes have many opportunities for integrated nature conservation activities which go beyond code 51 but need some creativity and innovative ideas to explore these opportunities. In contrast, Regional Competitiveness and Employment and Convergence Programmes offer fewer integrated nature conservation measures or none at all. Many Cross-Border Programmes give a valuable example of how nature conservation and biodiversity can be 19

22 20 included within objectives, measures and activities, and thus implemented and enforced by an Operational Programme. It could be relevant that these programmes are designed by more than one Member State and have therefore a broader understanding of biodiversity integration. Transnational Programmes are usually of high quality in relation to their inclusion of biodiversity. Regional Competitiveness and Employment and Convergence Programmes (excluding Sectoral Programmes for the Environment) show the worst quality in terms of activities and objectives with relation to biodiversity and nature conservation. Recommendations The SURF-Nature OP analysis has provided valuable information which can be used to shape criteria for future programmes and therefore improve both programme quality and implementation. The most important lessons learned combined with the objective requirements of project partner regions have finally been compiled in the SURF- Nature Handbook on Financing Biodiversity in the context of the European Fund for Regional Development. In general, even if the majority of OPs identify biodiversity as an important issue, improvement is needed in producing biodiversity indicators which are clear and useable. There is a potential for inclusion of biodiversity in all programmes, but this potential has in the past not always been realised. In particular there is an opportunity to increase the allocation of funds under code 51 and its successor in the next funding period. Increasing the uptake through indirect activities and measures can become more relevant in future but needs also to be clearly referred to biodiversity and Natura Crucial elements for a more successful uptake of funding in the future will be to improve project screening and support for the applicants; to increase the number of nature conservation experts within the Selection and Authorising Committees; to improve communication to applicants regarding the possibilities for nature conservation; to improve the use of pre-application procedures as well as pre-financing to assist and encourage applications from not for profit organisations. Experiences with ERDF in project regions Poland In general Polish Sectoral and Regional Operational Programmes do not consider nature conservation as a main objective because in this programming period the greatest emphasis was put on the development of infrastructure and economy. An exception and a good example is the Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme which is the largest national sectoral programme with a total budget of more than 37bn. The main objective of this Programme is to increase investment by developing technological infrastructure while maintaining the protection and improvement of the environment, health, cultural heritage and territorial cohesion. Nature conservation is clearly established in the objectives of the priority axes and the budget for code 51 is 89.8m. Although this is a substantial amount it only represents 0.2% of the overall programme budget. EcoDevelopment Foundation from Poland analysed the implementation of 16 Polish Regional Operational Programmes to assess the potential for financing nature conservation measures. Only the region of Dolnośląskie Voivodeship guaranteed appropriate opportunities from the start of the implementation period. Other regions adapted Programmes after interventions by ecological organizations and one Programme (the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship) has no opportunities for financing nature conservation. The majority of priorities