Evidence Gathering Questionnaire for the Fitness Check of the Nature Directives

Transcription

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 Directive 1 and the Habitats Directive 2 ('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 Directives 5. 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, , p Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, , 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 For more information see: 1

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 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, semiquantitative 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 , 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 within 5 weeks of receiving it to: info.naturedirectivesfitnesscheck@milieu.be. 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. 2

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. 3

4 QUESTIONNAIRE Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives A. General Information Please answer ALL questions in this table Answer Organisation: Date: Country (and, if applicable, region) represented: Organisation(s) represented: Name of contact for enquires (including follow-up interview if required): Contact address: Contact telephone number: Languages spoken fluently by contact person: 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). Sector represented: environment / water / agriculture / forestry / fisheries / transport / energy / extractive industry / industry / housing and other buildings / recreation & tourism / science & education / other (please specify) [select one from list] [select one from the list] Additional comments: 4

5 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. 5

6 Effectiveness Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives 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 reports 6. 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. Strategic objective of the Birds Directive: The progress achieved has been documented in the last German report prepared as required by Article 12 of the Birds Directive (Bundesregierung 2014; statistical analysis in Sudfeldt et al. 2013). As the report states, 30 % of the breeding bird species reported in the last 12 years had an increasing trend, 35 % a stable or fluctuating trend and 35 % a declining trend. The increasing species included particularly large numbers of overwintering bird species such as geese and ducks; the declining species were predominantly open-country birds and long-distance migratory birds. Strategic objective of the Habitats Directive: The progress achieved has been documented in the last German report prepared as required by Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (Bundesregierung 2013; statistical analysis in Ellwanger et al. 2014). As the report states, approx. 25 % of species and habitat types have a favourable conservation status, approx. 60 % of species and approx. 70 % of habitat types have an unfavourable conservation status. In the case of species, these percentages for the most part correspond to the last but one report, which was submitted in 2007 (see Balzer et al. 2008a, b; Ellwanger et al. 2008). In the case of habitats, many habitat types that are dependent on sustainable use of grasslands or biotope management have deteriorated (e.g. hay meadows, inland dunes, heaths). 55 % of species and 58 % of habitats have an increasing or stable trend and 21 % of species and 31 % of habitats a declining trend. Specific objectives of the Birds Directive Article 3: Germany completed its designation of Special Protected Areas in 2009 and currently has 742 SPAs (11.2 % of Germany s land area). Measures to achieve the objectives of Article 3 are being carried out predominantly in the Special Protected Areas. There have been key successes with species for which species recovery programmes were carried out and where their breeding sites were protected. They include the black stork, white-tailed eagle, peregrine, little owl, common tern. To date there are management plans for 22.2 % of the surface area of the Special Protected Areas 6 Habitats Directive Reports: Birds Directive Reports: 6

7 Article 5: Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives A protection regime for European bird species was established. All bird species that naturally occur in Europe are protected by law. Article 44 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act implements the protection obligations under Article 5 along with bans that go beyond those obligations. There is a similar legal protection mechanism for bird species to which hunting regulations apply. Under the Directives, species protection must also be taken into account in any intervention measures. To that end, specific legal regulations have been developed, which make use of the leeway available under European law. A number of guidelines issued by the European Commission, the German government and the Länder are helpful in implementing them. It is now common practice to take species protection into account as a matter of course. Article 7: The requirements have been implemented in Germany in the Federal Hunting Act and its secondary legislation - the Federal Hunting Season Ordinance along with the hunting regulations issued by the individual Länder (esp. hunting seasons, regulations on monetary fines). [addition on threats of illegal hunting of birds in southern Europe and on hunting on their flyway outside Germany] Specific objectives of the Habitats Directive: Article 4: Designation of Habitat Directive sites in Germany was concluded in 2006 for terrestrial sites and in 2008 for marine sites. There are currently 4,603 sites (9.3 % of Germany s land area). Article 6: A detailed report on the current status of requirements under Article 6 was forwarded to the EU Commission on 26 June 2014 as part of pilot procedure 6117/14/ENVI (designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)). It stated that at this time conservation objectives and measures had been established for 1,840 areas (= 40 %). They will have been established for almost 80 % of areas by the end of 2016, for 97 % by 2020, and for all areas by Management plans are in place for 1,740 areas (20.4 % of the land area) and are being developed for 591 areas (Bundesregierung 2013). Management plans are scheduled to be developed for the vast majority of areas, so that they give a good indication of implementation progress. Article 10: The 2002 amendment to the Federal Nature Conservation Act stipulated the creation of a network of interlinked biotopes on at least 10 per cent of Germany s land area. A concept for a nationwide biotope network was developed in 2010, which identified the nationally and internationally important corridors connecting the biotopes (Fuchs et al. 2010). The legally protected biotopes are also part of the biotope network. In addition, features of the landscape are given special consideration in various other policy fields (e.g. implementation of the Water Framework Directive, good agricultural practice). The establishment of management plans for fishing in Natura 2000 sites has only had a legal basis since in the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation. Article 12-13: All the species of fauna and flora listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive are under strict legal protection. The protection obligations under Articles 12 and 13 and bans that go further than those obligations are implemented by Article 44 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. There is a similar legal protection mechanism for bird species to which hunting regulations apply. Article 38 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act includes the obligation to put in place effective and coordinated precautionary protection measures for these species. Under this article, the responsible agencies also put the measures in place necessary to ensure that unintentional capture and killing do not have any serious harmful impact on these species. The Directives also require that species protection be taken into account in any intervention measures. To that end legal regulations have been developed, which make use of the leeway available under European law. A number of guidelines issued by the European Commission, the German government 7

8 and the Länder are helpful in implementing them. It is now common practice to take species protection into account as a matter of course. In addition to legal regulations, a diverse range of recommendations has been developed to complement the protection regulations and to ensure the conservation of Annex IV species. They cover, for example, protection of bats in trees and caves, and recommendations for action for agriculture and forestry to conserve local populations (BfN no date given). The latter help to ensure the protection of those species that are often also key species in endangered or sensitive biotope types. Article 14: Many of the species of fauna and flora that are listed in Annex V and occur in Germany are covered by bans on their being taken in the wild, which aim to protect the species. Some species of fauna listed in Annex V are covered by hunting legislation, which implements the requirements of Article 14. The situation is similar for some fish species; here the fishing legislation of the individual German Länder ensures the implementation of Article 14. Article 39, paragraph 2, of the Federal Nature Conservation Act also includes a blanket ban on taking in the wild of specimens of species of wild fauna and flora listed in Annex V of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Länder may grant exemptions to this ban provided this does not contravene the conditions of Article 45 paragraph 7 or Article 14 of the Habitats Directive. Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Federal Ordinance on the Conservation of Species contains a specific regulation for the Roman snail (Helix pomatia), which implements the requirements of Article 14 of the Habitats Directive. In the case of most Annex V species, there are safeguards to ensure that they are sustainably exploited, if exploitation of any kind is permitted. Article 22: Germany s 2007 and 2013 Habitats Directive Reports gave details of reintroduction projects for Annex IV species and the success achieved thus far. They report that numerous measures of this kind were carried out - 66 according to the 2013 Habitats Directive Report. Measures/Operations objectives of the Birds Directive: Article 10: At national level, we can make far-reaching statements about birdlife in Germany, about the necessity for and management of protection measures and about the success of management activities with regard to the conservation status of species. We were able to achieve this particularly as a result of the administrative agreement between the federal government and the Länder on bird monitoring, which entered into force in 2008 in Germany. Based on this, the federal government and Länder jointly finance nationwide coordination of the volunteer bird monitoring programmes and processing of the data by the Federation of German Avifaunists (DDA) (Sudfeldt et al. 2012). The results were fed into the reporting activities under Article 12, the species diversity and countryside quality indicator, which is part of the LIKI indicator sets (Länder Initiative for a Set of Core Indicators - Länderinitiative Kernindikatoren; and the indicator sets of the national sustainability strategy ( and the national biodiversity strategy ( The random sampling design of the procedure for monitoring frequent breeding bird species in Germany is also used for the high nature value farmland indicator, which is part of the EU Common Agricultural Policy and will be further developed (Benzler 2012). Knowledge about the distribution of breeding bird species has been continuously improved. Also the Atlas deutscher Brutvogelarten (ADEBAR) expanded it considerably (Gedeon et al. 2015). Mapping for this project was carried out from 2005 to 2009 and was coordinated nationwide by the Federation of German Avifaunists (DDA). Furthermore, the Länder also to some extent set up a monitoring regime in line with the Birds Directive. Numerous other research findings on birds have been developed (e.g. Mendel et al. 2008: species profiles of seabirds, annual status reports on birds in Germany since 2007: Sudfeldt et al. 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, Wahl et al. 2012; Sudfeldt 2009, Inger et al on the decline of particular 8

9 species; Lehikoinen et al on climate change and birdlife; Boye et al. 2010, Sudfeldt & Dröschmeister 2010 on the history of implementation; Wahl & Sudfeldt 2010 on bird monitoring by volunteers). [addition on less bureaucracy by putting together available information] Article 12: Germany has conscientiously produced its national reports and submitted them on time. It also supported the change towards status and trends in bird species in the reporting format. The data needed for this report was compiled as a result of the administrative agreement on bird monitoring, surveys carried out by sectoral authorities/bird observatories at Länder level, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, and voluntary organisations (Sudfeldt et al. 2013). Measures/Operations objectives of the Habitats Directive: Article 8: Financing requirements and instruments are detailed in the German prioritised action framework - PAF (2013). There are specific funding programmes in all of Germany s Länder to implement Natura Article 11: A system to monitor habitat types under Annex I and species under Annexes II and IV has been developed since 2001, and has been implemented since 2008 for the Atlantic and Continental region. It was incorporated into the Habitats Directive Report for the first time in 2013 (Doerpinghaus et al. 2003, Sachteleben & Behrens 2010, Schnitter et al. 2006, Weddeling et al. 2007). Article 17: A procedure for producing the national Habitats Directive Reports, based on close cooperation between the Länder and the federal government, has been established in Germany since the 2007 Habitats Directive Report. 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. Strategic objective of the Birds and Habitats Directive: The progress achieved meets expectations. Many ecosystems and species have complex biological requirements and react with a time lag, so that changes in underlying conditions and measures can often only be effective in the medium or long term (e.g. forests, moorlands). Designation of sites was not completed until 2006 and, in the case of terrestrial sites, The most important conditions to facilitate implementation have now been created (in addition to the implementation into law at national and Land level, extensive information is now also available, along with training opportunities, and assistance in the form of guidelines or advisory services etc.) The systematic establishment of measures for Natura 2000 sites is well underway (see below). The protection mechanisms are already beginning to take effect (e.g. Donald et al. 2007). For example, actual improvements in the conservation status of some species can already be seen, especially in the case of fish, reptiles, and larger mammals such as the beaver, wildcat, and grey seal. Other species too such as the European river otter, lynx, common seal, osprey, peregrine, and some species of swan, goose and duck are showing signs sometimes of regional and sometimes of transregional improvement (Bundesregierung 2013, 2014). And yet the objectives of the Directives have not yet been achieved for most species and habitats; the conservation status of marine and coastal habitats, water-based habitats and grasslands, 9

10 oligotrophic grasslands and heaths is particularly unfavourable. Here it particularly discouraging that it has not been possible to prevent deterioration of many habitat types that depend on extensive use of grasslands or biotope management (e.g. extensive hay meadows, inland dunes, heaths). In cases of habitats that depend on management or use for which deterioration of the conservation status was prevented (e.g. oligotrophic grasslands), this must be seen as a success. Furthermore, the Directives have made a major contribution to reducing the rate of biodiversity loss in the last 20 years; it would otherwise have been far more serious. This is true of lowland and mountain hay meadows for example, which were still relatively prevalent in the 1980s and since then have to some extent disappeared at regional level. Specific objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives Article 3 of the Birds Directive and Article 4 of the Habitats Directive: Site designation was overall significantly slower than expected, with differences across the individual Länder and more prompt site designation in the Exclusive Economic Zone than in other countries (Ssymank & Vischer-Leopold 2006, Ssymank et al. 2010; see also Evans 2012). The rulings of the European Court of Justice were a major factor in its conclusion. When the Habitats Directive entered into force, 2.5 % of Germany s land area was comprehensively protected (nature reserves, national parks), just less than 20 years later that figure was 4.3 %. By contrast, the designation of 15.4 % of the country s land area and 45 % of its marine area as European protected areas in Germany, which is a densely populated and highly industrialised country with high-intensity use, is a significant achievement on the part of all stakeholders. Furthermore, a systematic selection of protected areas was carried out for the first time on the basis of overarching nature conservation criteria, creating good conditions for effective protection. In particular, nature conservation began to focus on elements of biodiversity that until then had not been so well covered by protected areas. Examples of this are bats, fish, molluscs and crustaceans, offshore marine areas and beech forests. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive: Even if the establishment of conservation objectives and measures is behind the schedule set by the Habitats Directive, they nevertheless meet expectations in that they are ambitious in terms of the content being implemented. This requires, on the one hand, extensive technical input (mapping etc.), and, on the other hand, intensive coordination across all stakeholders (government agencies, land users, associations) to ensure that high-quality measures are put in place, increase acceptance for their implementation (e.g. Ellwanger & Schröder 2006). The progress achieved thus far already surpasses similar work that preceded the establishment of Natura 2000 and achievement of objectives, which is currently making progress, is foreseeable in the medium term (see S 1.1). Only then will Natura 2000 be able to be fully effective across its entire area. Article 10 of the Habitats Directive: The provisions of this Article have the character of recommendations and there are no further EU implementation instructions. In Germany, there is neither a specific target for features of the landscape to be created or conserved nor current data on their number and quality. As a result of the progress described under S 1.1, it can be assumed that the creation and conservation of landscape features has not yet been completed but is nevertheless in line with expectations. Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Articles of the Habitats Directive: The species protection regulations have been implemented in the light of current rulings of the European Court of Justice and the protection regulations are now widely firmly anchored in the awareness of land users (e.g. forestry) and the interested public. Expectations have been met. Article 7 of the Birds Directive and Article 14 of the Habitats Directive: Even before the Directives entered into force, hunting and fishing legislation already included regulations that allowed the use of similar criteria to those of Article 7 of the Birds Directive and Article 14 of the Habitats Directive. For species listed in Annex V of the Habitats Directive that are not covered by hunting and fishing legislation a more stringent approach was implemented. Expectations have been met. Implementation of the regulations caused no problems. 10

11 Article 22 of the Habitats Directive: Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives At federal government level there is no specific target regarding species to be reintroduced. However, the progress described under S 1.1 indicates that reintroduction schemes are being regularly carried out and that expectations are therefore being met. Examples of reintroduction projects include sturgeon (Tautenhahn & Geßner 2014), salmon ( allis shad (Schabert 2011), lynx ( and the European pond turtle ( Winkel & Kuprian 2011), which are still in the implementation phase, since their reintroduction usually takes longer. Measures/Operations objectives of the Birds Directive: Article 10 and Article 12: With the new reporting format and the reporting system that was established in 2013, which was made possible by the administrative agreements between the federal government and the Länder on bird monitoring, expectations have largely been met. With the research findings, just a few examples of which were cited in answer to Question S.1.1, expectations were surpassed. Measures/Operations objectives of the Habitats Directive: Article 8: Expectations were partially met (see answer to Question C.7). Article 11: Expectations were met and those relating to achieving a procedure coordinated at national level were surpassed. Article 17: Expectations were met. S 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. Strategic objective of the Birds and Habitats Directive: It is not possible to specify a target year or period for meeting the strategic objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directives in Germany. This depends on numerous factors that cannot be predicted and that are influenced by developments at different levels (EU, national, regional) and in different areas (nature conservation, infrastructure, industry, management of biological resources, climate trends etc.). Attainment of the objectives is particularly dependent on the human and financial resources deployed and that in turn depends on political priorities (e.g. funding systems), economic developments and public opinion. Initial successes indicate that the measures are starting to take effect. Specific objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directive Article 3 of the Birds Directive and Article 4 of the Habitats Directive: The objective was achieved (see S 1.1) Article 6 of the Habitats Directive: The objective will probably be achieved by 2022 (see S 1.1). 11

12 Article 10 of the Habitats Directive: Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives Due to the unspecific objective of the Habitats Directive, it is not possible to predict when it will be achieved. Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Articles of the Habitats Directive: The objective was achieved (see S 1.1). Article 7 of the Birds Directive and Article 14 of the Habitats Directive: The objective was achieved (see S 1.1). Article 22 of the Habitats Directive: This provision does not contain any specific targets. Should invasive species occur, Germany will take all necessary and proportionate measures. Measures/Operations objectives of the Birds Directive: Article 10: The objective was achieved. Article 12: The objective was achieved. Measures/Operations objectives of the Habitats Directive: Article 8: It is not possible to conclusively specify a period of time, because implementation is decisively influenced by numerous factors not connected with nature conservation (European, national and regional budget decisions). Article 11: The objective has been achieved for the Atlantic and Continental region and for the Alpine region will be an important element of the 2019 Habitats Report. Article 17: The objective was achieved. 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 * For an overview of the EU biodiversity Strategy see: Since a broad spectrum of the habitats occurring in Germany that are listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive is covered, the majority of species of fauna, flora, and fungus are covered either indirectly or as characteristic species of habitats (Ssymank et al. 1998). The spectrum of protected habitats will be expanded by the designation of special protection areas for bird species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and regularly occurring migratory birds referred to in Article 4 (2) of the Birds Directive. The species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive usually have a flagship function, i.e. protecting 12

13 them also affords protection to other habitats that are of key importance for biodiversity. Since Natura 2000 sites are distributed across a wide area, they contain a broad spectrum of the genetic diversity of wild species. This generates a crucial positive influence on biodiversity in general (Devictor et al. 2007, Gaston et al. 2007, Trochet & Schmeller 2013, Zimmermann et al. 2010). In the light of climate change, we anticipate that in future Natura 2000 sites could play an important role, on the one hand providing refugia, but also enabling species to proliferate in new climatically suitable areas (Beierkuhnlein et al. 2014, Ellwanger et al. 2012a, 2013, Huntley et al. 2012, Normand et al. 2007, Petermann et al. 2007, Schlumprecht et al. 2011, Vohland et al. 2013a, b, Lovejoy u. Hannah 2005, Huntley 2007, Araújo 2009, Heller u. Zavaleta 2009, Mawdsley et al. 2009, Araújo et al. 2011). The factors cited in the answer to S.4 contribute to a similar degree as the EU Nature Directives themselves to attainment of the general biodiversity objectives. The importance of the EU Nature Directives in safeguarding biodiversity is also reflected in the implementation structure of the EU biodiversity strategy (CIF, common implementation framework), under which the Directives are intended to make the sole contribution to Target 1 (To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments, 100 % more habitat assessments and 50 % more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status) and important contributions to two other targets (Target 2: Maintaining ecosystems and their services and restoring 15 % of degraded ecosystems; Target 3: Increasing the contribution made by agriculture and forestry to conserving and enhancing biodiversity). Germany also intends to achieve the targets of the EU biodiversity strategy predominantly on the basis of the EU Nature Directives. For example, measures to protect and develop habitat types and species habitats within the Natura 2000 sites contribute crucially to Target 2, maintaining and restoring ecosystems and their services. They include management of wetlands or regeneration of degraded bogs to store water, reducing excess nitrogen surplus and soil erosion by conserving grasslands, maintaining pollination services and controlling pests by encouraging speciesrich habitats close to agricultural land, flood protection effects resulting from restoring water meadows, and improving the appearance of the landscape, the recreational appeal and therefore income generated by tourism in areas with a high proportion of habitats subject to the Habitats Directive. The Directives are also of key importance in restoring 15 % of degraded ecosystems (Target 2). Germany is prioritising bogs and alluvial meadows here. For example, all active raised bogs in Germany are within Habitat Directive sites and 51 % of recent alluvial meadows in Germany are Natura 2000 sites. As part of the above-mentioned objectives of Target 1, the federal government and Länder have agreed to identify those species and habitats where there is primarily a need for action to achieve as effective an improvement as possible in the conservation status and to take appropriate opportunities for collaboration. This should make implementation of the EU Nature Directives more successoriented and effective in future. Without full implementation of the Directives, achievement of the targets of the EU biodiversity strategy would only be possible with new, similar legal regulations. 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, 13

14 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). Initially, the delay in implementing them into national law, particularly with regard to site designation, hindered faster implementation. Here it was primarily court rulings, particularly by the European Court of Justice, that made their relevance clear. Site designation based on technical criteria increased the quality of the Natura 2000 framework but had a negative impact on acceptance by user groups. This provoked opposition, sometimes powerful opposition, e.g. in form of complaints. Especially, the knowledge and the information of the user groups was not enough. This also led to decrease acceptance (Seintsch et al. 2012). In addition to this, there was uncertainty in the early years about how to interpret Article 6.3 (assessment of the implications for the site), but this did not prevent it from being applied early on (e.g. for a number of planned road transport projects). Sectoral agencies at federal and Länder level processed methodological and content issues early on (see for example BfN and Landesanstalten 1998). Implementation of Article 6.3 made an important contribution to optimising many infrastructure and building projects to make them more compatible with nature. Contrary to initial fears, it proved perfectly possible to carry out infrastructure projects that were in the public interest, either by designing them to be compatible with nature or by putting damage limitation or coherence measures in place. Furthermore, coherence measures were necessary for only six or seven projects a year in Germany, which was fewer than anticipated (Bundesregierung 2013). Nevertheless, projects may have changed or be delayed and higher coasts and administrative burden might have occurred (s. Answer to question Y.1). Overall, nuanced rulings by the European Court of Justice (cf. European Commission 2006) and the national courts has evolved over the last 25 years, permitting the Directives to be implemented on a sound legal basis. Nevertheless, legal uncertainties still exist that are constraints to for the permission of projects. The regulations on cross compliance were particularly helpful for implementation of Natura This control instrument makes a particular contribution to raising awareness of land users for nature conservation. The development of EU guidelines with guidance on interpretation and solutions in different areas has in cases where they were available in time for national implementation increased legal certainty and made implementation simpler and more effective in practice. They were adapted to the national situation in Germany (e.g. significance thresholds; Lambrecht & Trautner 2007), or sometimes complemented (e.g. guidelines on management of species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive; guidelines on enforcing species protection legislation in North Rhine- Westphalia). [sentence that in future economy should be stronger involved in guidelines] The nature conservation organisations played a decisive role in setting up the Natura 2000 network and their specialist expertise came to have a significant effect in conjunction with the abovementioned rulings (Important Bird Areas as de facto SPAs) (e.g. Mayr 2010). Organisations of affected land users have often been not consulted or too late. The human and financial resources of the implementing agencies improved as implementation progressed. A basically positive aspect is the fact that nature conservation funding has become an established part of the EU s ELER, EFRE, EFF/EMFF funds, permitting partly both funding and compensation for losses suffered by land users. This has increased acceptance. [sentence on deficits in the forest sector] Specialist knowledge about the occurrence of habitat types and species habitats was not always available to a sufficient degree. Basic data collection has now largely been completed and nationwide monitoring to meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Habitats Directive has been established. Currently specialist knowledge is lacking for only a few very special species, particularly in regions such as the Alps that are difficult to access (see the high percentage (31 %) of not known ratings for the Alpine region in the German Habitats Directive Report) or for rare species that have very complex biology. For bird species too the administrative agreement on bird monitoring among other things 14

15 closed gaps in knowledge and paved the way for improved, targeted implementation of protection and conservation measures. Cooperation with other sectors plays a key role in meeting the objectives of the Directives. Cooperation has improved as implementation has progressed, but still needs improvement. It varies depending on the sector (agriculture, forestry, planning), region and local conditions. See examples given in answer to Question S.4. Thus, for example, Natura 2000 sites are now taken into consideration in the initial stage of planning processes, e.g. for new roads or railway routes or nationwide expansion of the electricity grid. In the case of the latter, the Federal Network Agency takes Natura 2000 sites into account when considering potential electricity transmission routes and involves nature conservationists in its planning processes from the very outset. The Directives are also taken into consideration at a very early stage in planning procedures for federal highways and those of Deutsche Bahn railways. For example, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, the Federal Railway Authority and the Federal Network Agency regularly share GIS data. Furthermore, information on all the sites can be accessed via the EU, federal government and Länder websites and can be taken into consideration in planning processes. Particular importance is accorded to the need to take the EU Directives into consideration in the case of maintaining military property (e.g. military training areas) (Ellwanger et al. 2012b). Here there are corresponding internal rules concerning site management. For all military training areas belonging to the Bundeswehr (German armed forces), which comprise Natura 2000 sites, the Bundeswehr has already collaborated with the Länder on developing management plans. It aims to do this for all military training areas containing affected by Natura 2000 (Velte & Puffpaff 2012). Similar rules exist for military training areas used by guest troops and administrated by the Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben (Gutsche & Schleyer 2009; Schmid 2012). Examples of best practice in implementing the EU Nature Directives have also been compiled with regard to the cooperation between nature conservation and the mining, waterways and groundwater use sectors (BfN 2010). In the current evaluation by Sundseth & Roth (2013:65ff.) there are also numerous examples of good practice that illustrate how implementation of the Directives has been optimised over time. Nevertheless, the incorporation of Natura 2000 requirements for maintaining and developing water roads is still connected with huge efforts and difficulties. The Natura 2000 sites have also now been integrated into planning at Land and regional level (cf. Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung 2006). This makes it possible to take protection needs into account at an early stage in the planning process and to integrate regional biotope network concepts into regional planning. There are numerous practical examples from agriculture and forestry that cite the factors involved in successful implementation (e.g. guidance on Natura 2000 implementation; DVL 2007). They include long-term site stewardship, involvement of regional stakeholders, implementation of funding programmes on a voluntary basis, practice-oriented management planning, qualified advisory services such as the Partnerbetrieb Naturschutz in Rhineland-Palatinate (a nature conservation stewardship scheme for farmers and vintners), open communication, and funding programmes that make it possible for farmers to earn a living even within Natura 2000 sites. The management planning aims for the involvement of, and collaboration with, land users. Nevertheless, implementation of the Directives has not yet been integrated into all policy fields to such an extent that their objectives can be achieved. For example, it only proved possible to establish conservation measures for the fisheries management sector by because a proposal was submitted to the EU Commission, who then had to develop its own proposal, which in turn was discussed under the proper procedures and then approved. This has in fact happened in the EU in only a handful of cases. With enforcement of EU Regulation reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, the legal basis for fishery measures exists. (on fisheries see also the answer to C.4). A challenge for reaching the strategic objectives of the directive are intensification of land management, including in connection with increased use of renewable energy crops (maize cultivation), development of wind power, nitrogen input from energy, transport and agriculture or also climate change (see German national reports of the bids and habitats directive). 15

16 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. The implementation of the EU Nature Directives has significantly improved nature and biodiversity conservation in Germany above and beyond the Natura 2000 sites and the targets for protection listed in the Annexes. For example, as a result of the implementation process (see S.1), wide sections of the general public, planners, land managers, and policymakers have become aware of the significance of nature conservation. Planners, government agencies, interest groups and many individual members of the public are now familiar with the Directives and incorporate them into their activities. They have also triggered a diverse range of new activities. For example, they have been included in school textbooks in Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate has launched a project for schools entitled Natura 2000 macht Schule, there is a Junior Ranger project in the Greifswald Bodden (Bay of Greifswald) area, where children talk to visitors to the beach about seals and about appropriate behaviour around them, passenger ships take people out who are interested in monitoring grey seals, there are information and training courses in educational institutions and forest youth centres, voluntary agreements have been made concerning outdoors sports, Bodden managers work in Wismar Bay giving sailing enthusiasts, anglers etc. information about the voluntary agreement on water sports in the bay, and there is also a voluntary agreement between Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and canoeing businesses about boating on the River Warnow, the Directives are given media coverage, special consideration is given to Natura 2000 sites that have hiking trails and other tourist activities, and the subject has been integrated into training schemes for occupations outside the nature conservation field per se. The position of Natura 2000 sites is one of the criteria for decision-making in strategic planning and activities, for example when selecting National Natural Heritage sites, setting funding priorities at federal and Land level, including for voluntary nature conservation e.g. stewardship of protected areas, when setting priorities for restoring free passage for migratory fish in watercourses (BfG 2010), in local authority decision-making about designating areas needed for natural processes in riparian woodland (Speyer, Rhineland-Palatinate), on tariffs for wind turbines (wind turbines that were approved after in Natura 2000 sites within the Exclusive Economic Zones are not eligible for tariff payments), in selecting sites for wind turbines based on regulations at Länder level (e.g. prohibiting wind power facilities in Natura 2000 sites in Hamburg, Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein, in Special Protected Areas in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, permitting repowering of existing wind turbines only in Natura 2000 sites in North Rhine-Westphalia) or imposing sustainability requirements for biofuels. The EU Nature Directives impose higher requirements than the former national nature conservation instruments. This has helped to strengthen the scientific nature conservation education. For example, in the early 1990s it spawned numerous degree courses specialising in nature conservation (nature conservation and landscape ecology degree within the faculty of agriculture at Bonn University and in the biology department of the zoology institute at Hamburg University, nature conservation degree at Marburg University, chair in nature conservation in the Faculty of Forest and Environment and degree in landscape management and nature conservation at Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development) and training courses in the public sector (training course in landscape conservation for civil servants since 1985 in NRW; Voithenberg 2010; cf. also APO 2013: S. 103). The EU Nature Directives gave rise to greater institutionalisation of cooperative nature conservation models, in which nature conservation, agriculture and forestry, hunting and local authority interests were represented (e.g. Ökonsult 2003, Ssymank et al. 2014). Examples are landscape management and 16

17 conservation associations, e.g. in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Saxony. Schleswig-Holstein currently has 155 Lokale Aktionen designed to facilitate cooperation among all stakeholders; the German Association for Landscape Conservation (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege was founded in 1993 (Metzner 2013). These organisations specialise in management planning and Natura 2000 implementation (Boller et al. 2013). In 1990, North Rhine-Westphalia began to set up biological stations across almost the entire state, stepping up the pace over the course of the decade ( they also play an important role in education and public outreach. Both organisations also advise and support farmers, particularly on matters of funding programmes, so that their remit goes far beyond implementing Natura 2000 (Metzner et al. 2013). In Brandenburg, LIFE projects were jointly carried out with landowners and users to establish or continue land uses that are compatible with nature conservation, e.g. of inland salt meadows and marshes and sand grasslands. The fact that during these projects, or as part of the management planning, nature conservationists and user groups exchanged views in some cases for the first time promoted understanding for each other s positions and helped to overcome reservations. The integrated management plans for the German North Sea Estuaries are an example of how this can also succeed even when there are powerful economic interests at stake. Interest groups concerned with these federal waterways, which are important for the national ports industry and have a high volume of traffic, sat down together for the first time at a Round Table. This process even enabled new synergies to be discovered (see answer to R.3). Furthermore, the necessity of any intervention is now carefully scrutinised. The consideration of options that is part of an assessment of the implications for the site makes a key contribution to avoiding unnecessary negative impacts on biodiversity. Ensuring coherence in the case of major interventions guarantees actual ecological compensation. On taking nature conservation aspects into account early on in planning processes cf. the answer to Question S.3. The implementation of the Directives gave the impulse to the legal basis for nature conservation being expanded both in terms of content and geographic reach. For example, the fact that from 2002 the regulations on Natura 2000 applied to the German exclusive economic zone meant that in 2010 virtually all the provisions of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (e.g. intervention regulations, biotope conservation) were extended to cover this marine area. Since 2006, Natura 2000 sites must be given consideration with regard to release of genetically modified organisms. The knowledge base for nature conservation has increased. The monitoring and reporting obligations have meant that mapping activities and surveys have increased in number or in some cases been carried out for the first time. This has made new synergies possible (e.g. more frequent monitoring of forests due to the expansion of the National Forest Inventory (Bundeswaldinventur) and joint monitoring for the Habitat Directive and Water Framework Directive and for the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive). This means that for the first time the quality of nature conservation data in Germany is on a par with that for other environmental areas. Furthermore, the attainment of nature conservation targets has become measurable and quantifiable for the first time. Civil society involvement in nature conservation has become more important. This becomes clear by increasingly involving volunteers in some areas of monitoring, such as bats, amphibians, bivalves/gastropods and insects, or the use of data collected by volunteers for the Birds Directive Report as a result of voluntary stewardship of Natura 2000 sites). The volunteers services more or less match the funding provided by the federal government, foundations and users (e.g. in the form of compensation payments, water abstraction charges, waste water charges, fishing and hunting fees) (PAF 2013; see answer to Question Y.2). Cooperation between public sector bodies and associations has also improved in some areas, e.g. implementation by the Federation of German Avifaunists (Dachverband Deutscher Avifaunisten, DDA) with 6,000 volunteers of the administrative agreement between the federal government and the Länder on bird monitoring (Sudfeldt et al. 2012b). Furthermore, the cooperation between the federal government and the Länder on nature conservation has also intensified. This is of fundamental importance, since Germany is a federal country. For example, bodies were set up as part of the process of implementing the EU Nature Directives, in which alongside, or against the backdrop of, the Directives, other issues outside the remit of the Directives were intensively discussed (e.g. a standing committee on fundamental policy issues and 17

18 Natura 2000 set up by the supreme nature conservation agencies at federal and Länder level, federal government/länder working group on monitoring and reporting duties of the sectoral agencies responsible for nature conservation at federal and Länder level, federal government/länder working group on Natura 2000 in forests, made up of federal and Länder forestry commissions). Dealing with the EU Nature Directives also injected new impetus into the work of many existing bodies, including those within the supreme nature conservation authorities at federal and Länder level responsible for legal aspects, species and habitat protection and intervention planning, for example. One outcome was that methods of data acquisition were standardised (e.g. biotope mapping outside forests), which meant that for the first time data could be compared across the different Länder and a standardised nationwide monitoring system could be set up (Sachteleben & Behrens 2010). This improved standard of cooperation between the federal government and the Länder and among the Länder themselves meant that unnecessary conflict and duplication of effort could be avoided, problems identified early on and ideas for practicable solutions shared. The effectiveness and efficiency of nature conservation activities has improved as a result. Cooperation with other EU Member States and in particular with Germany s neighbours has been stepped up (see the answer to Question AV.1). The examples cited above help to make implementation more efficient. A change to the statutory provisions could jeopardise this and entail changeover costs. As Negative effect of the directives it could be mentioned: durable coasts (administrative coasts e.g. for administrations, land users, enterprises, reduction of gain), legal uncertainties, and time delay; s. answer to question Y.1. 18

19 Efficiency Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives 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. I Costs The costs for setting up and maintaining the Natura 2000 network of protected areas in Germany are estimated to be 627 million per year (PAF 2013). With an overall Natura 2000 area of 8,083,224 ha, including a terrestrial area of 5,503,033 ha, (data from 2014), this amounts to costs of 77 or 114 per hectare, per year. However, it is important to note that some of the costs would also arise without the EU Nature Directives, i.e., to fulfil national nature conservation requirements (e.g., managing national special protection areas, national monitoring obligations, etc.) [Land managers may be confronted with costs due to regulations on utilisation or restoration measures that are in principle voluntary by nature. An average loss of the silvicultural contribution margin of 40 per ha of the area of beech habitat types has been calculated for forests (including administrative expenses, without administrative expenses: 20; Rosenkranz et al. 2012). For the most part, these refer to the implementation of management measures targeting improvement. It is important to take into account that owners and managers are not obligated to carry out improvement measures, and thus compensate for their losses with active management measures, meaning these costs incurred by owners and managers are already included in the first figure mentioned. Conversely, land managers are obligated to comply with the no-deterioration principle, the costs of which are also partially compensated for by public funds, for example, Natura 2000 compensation payments or remuneration for the non-use of fertilisers in the context of agri-environmental measures. Compensation payments may be higher than the costs incurred due to utilisation regulations. Lower Saxony, for example, is authorised to pay compensation for measures to maintain or reach an improved conservation status for dedicated Natura 2000 protected areas amounting to 100 in beech habitat types and 110 in oak habitat types] many changes, delations and additions to this passage; admission of a passage of an English publication: Over the entire 200-year simulation period the mean values for the differences in felling through FFH planning of measures in beech forest habitat types compared to the forest management reference Enterprise Objective range between 0 up to -1.6 harvested m³/ha/annum. The difference in felling with view to the habitat type area amounts in its arithmetic average to harvested m³/ha/annum. The minimum and the maximum of the difference in felling ranges in one extreme case between-5.3 harvested m³/ha/annum and +3.7 harvested m³/ha/annum in the respective period under consideration. Including the additional administrative costs, the mean difference of the silvicultural contribution margin of the forest enterprises lies within a range of 0 up to 180 /ha/annum across the entire 200- year period. On average of all forest enterprises, the loss of the contribution margin amounts to 40 /ha/annum in relation to the habitat type areas. The differences of the contribution margin range across all case study forest enterprises between -234 /ha/annum and +97 /ha/annum in the respective periods under consideration. 19

20 The analysis of the loss of value of the management unit beech habitat type area comparing forest management under the FFH-Regime and the reference Enterprise Objective leads in average to a reduced cash value of 2,496 /ha. As highest value a loss in cash value of 10,945 /ha was identified. In average a difference of the capitalised value of -2,501 /ha was calculated. A difference in capitalised value of -10,945 /ha was identified as the highest value. Furthermore additional ongoing administrative costs are to be expected within environmental and forest administration. Planning costs for infrastructure projects (Habitats Directive-based preliminary screening and, if necessary, impact assessment including extensive surveys and contributions on species protection) constitute another important cost category. These may entail costs for modifying planned projects, mitigation and containment, and measures to ensure coherence. It is important to note that for certain parts these costs would also arise due to national planning regulations (e.g. intervention rules) or European ones (e.g. environmental impact assessment), and/or that by fulfilling Habitats Directive requirements, national requirements (intervention and compensation regulations) are fulfilled at the same time. Finally, there may be costs incurred by mitigation and containment, or coherence measures. In many cases a review of planned projects by courts and the ensuing legal uncertainty and delays seem to be as problematic as costs. All in all, planning processes are becoming more complex, take longer, and require more effort in an ever denser landscape against the backdrop of increasing public interest and the associated calls for transparency (cf. e.g. Aarhus Convention) and participation. The Federal Government assumes that Stakeholders will contribute extensively to their coasts. II Benefits The Union s economic prosperity and well-being is underpinned by its natural capital, i.e., its biodiversity, including ecosystems that provide essential goods and services (fertile soil, multifunctional forests, productive land and seas; good quality fresh water and clean air and pollination; climate regulation and protection against natural disasters). A substantial body of Union legislation seeks to protect, conserve and enhance this very natural capital, including the Habitats and Birds Directives. The EU Nature Directives and the conservation and improvement of flora and fauna habitats have numerous positive impacts on economic and societal objectives and well-being in general (macroeconomic benefit). In addition to contributing to biodiversity preservation (and the associated appreciation thereof), they provide the following ecosystem services: contribute to climate change mitigation as ecosystems function as sinks, especially when bogs are renaturalised contribute to climate change adaptations; this reduces consequential follow-up costs (reducing flood-related damages, buffering extreme weather conditions, a.o.) preserve the flood control effect of intact alluvial areas, better climate change adaptability (resilience) of semi-natural ecosystems reduce pollution through reduced nitrogen excess as a contribution to water quality control and drinking water protection, reduce soil erosion (e.g. by protecting grassland), maintain pollination and pest control functions when flora and fauna habitats providing biodiversity are protected in spatial connection to areas used for agricultural production, cultural ecosystem services due to improving natural scenery and to their recreational qualities, their attractiveness for tourists, and tourism-related income in landscapes and regions with a high share of flora and fauna habitats. The last bullet point refers to substantial positive effects for regional economies; these are especially relevant in the case of larger protected areas. They can count as valorisations for safeguarding and improving cultural ecosystem systems by nature conservation measures, including Natura However, it is significantly more difficult to give figures for benefits directly associated with the EU 20