natura 2000 europe’s safety net for nature – and people
Post on 14-Jan-2016
49 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Natura 2000Europe’s safety net for nature – and people
Andreas Beckmann
Deputy Director, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme
What is not true…
• “From Brussels for Brussels”
• Including land in a Natura 2000 site affect the ownership of such land
• All economic activities will be limited
• Properties automatically lose value as a consequence of Natura 2000 designation
• Hunting activities are forbidden
• Any new infrastructure is forbidden
• Everyday activities will have to undergo an environmental impact assessment
Natura 2000: Myths
Outline
About Natura 2000: • Why Natura 2000?• How does Natura 2000 work?
Implications for business:• Challenges
• Opportunities
Our challengeOur challenge
Bringing it HomeBringing it Home
• 12bn hectares – 6 bn people• Per capita global quota - 2 hectares • European footprint - 6 hectares
• Average European needs 3 planets • Average American needs 5 planets
Biodiversity provides crucial…
• Goods (food, wood, fiber…)
• Services (clean water, climate regulation…)
• Genetic reserves – our insurance policy
A global crisis
1000 x natural extinction rate
In Europe:
• 42% of mammals endangered, e.g. Iberian lynx
• 80% of Danube wetlands lost
• Collapsing fish stocks
EU response
• “The Community shall have as its task…to promote throughout the Community…a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.”
Treaty Establishing the European Community (2002), Article 2:
• Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)
• Gothenburg Summit (2001): “halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010”
• EU 6th Environmental Action Programme (2001)
• Birds Directive (1979) and Habitats Directive (1992)
Europe’s “Safety net for nature”
• Birds + Habitats Directives = Natura 2000 network
• Cornerstone of EU conservation policy
• Maintain species and habitats of European importance
• Does not necessarily restrict socioeconomic activities – in many cases requires them
Site designation
• Scientific assessment at national level
• Selection of sites of Community Importance
• Designation as Natura 2000 sites
Methods of site selection
91E06210
9110
91E06210
9110
91E06210
9110
Large sites:a few big sitesbuffer zones includedpublic acceptance often lowsimple managementlow administrative costs
Small sites:many sitesno buffer zones large edge effects and impactsno functional unitsimpacts from outside not under controlmanagement difficultadministration costly
Excluding:„holes“ where no habitat type/ species has been foundomitting private property wherever possibletraffic facilities
Site management
• Avoid damage
• Positive measures, where necessary, to maintain and restore habitats and species
Possible consequences
Consequences of not selecting all Habitats Directive sites:• No complete impact assessment possible, no Commission Opinion,
no authorization of plans/projects or at high risk
Consequences of incomplete Bird Directive sites:• Factual Bird Directive sites (not delimited or declared but obviously
fulfilling the scientific criteria): legally no planning or impact possible at all – “full stop” for any investments or changes
• Only declared bird sites fall under the Appropriate Assessment and less strict protection regime of the Habitats Directive!
Potential sites which may qualify (based on scientific evidence) are to be protected (precautionary principle)
• Any EU-citizen or NGO may start an infringement procedure
• Risk of national courts to stop any activities/impacts started with the result of at least high additional costs for delays in case of missing appropriate assessments
• EU-court cases and judgements:– Fines (e.g.: FR fisheries obligations C304/02: a lump sum of €20 million)– Penalty payments until full compliance (FR: €57.8 million/half year)
• Possibility to stop any Structural Funds of the EU-Commission for not respecting the Habitats/Birds Directives (e.g.: letter DE for Saxony)
• It is wise to establish a safe legal background for any economic investments and planning by fully selecting the necessary sites and by using the prescribed methods of appropriate assessments.
Possible consequences
• Natura 2000 assessment required for plans or projects likely to have a significant impact
• Focus on habitats or species protected
• Negative assessment: if no alternatives, the project may go forward if considered to be of overriding public importance.
Assessments
Negative assessments
• 6.4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out
• for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of
social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
• Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
Measures for avoidance
The proponent suggests a generous bridging as a mitigation measure
Corridor for migration to species of amphibia (stream and littoral)
All individuals are able to continue migrating, no adverse impact occurs
Measures for reduction
New road Birds habitat
Car traffic noise has adverse effects on birds (deterioration of the breeding
success, disturbance,
etc.)
Noise barriers can reduce the specific impacts
residual impact on individuals but not significant for the respective bird population on site
Baden-Airpark (DE): Positive EC opinion
Commision Opinion of 06/VI/2005
Plan: New landing strip, renewal of runways, new buildings and change of runoff-water treatment
Directly affected site DE 7214-804 - „Baden-Airpark“ -- with 225 ha one of the last continental dune complexes in the Rhine-valley;
Priority habitat * 6230: Species rich Nardus grasslands
Baden-Airpark (DE): Positive EC opinion
Reasons:
A. Best alternative chosen (for nature conservation): • 7 alternatives were checked – the accepted variant has no negative
impacts on adjacent sites but destroys a slightly larger area of the priority habitat (the habitat type depends on the specific mowing regime at the airport).
B. Imperative reasons of overriding public interest: • Need proofed: passenger numbers increased by a third in last 3 years,
major international connection, safety standards have to be met.
• Part of the Trans-European Network for Transportation.
C. Compensation measures
• Habitat 2330 (4 ha): Destroyed 1.5 ha, temporarily used: 0.5 ha; Compensation 45 ha redevelopment;
• Habitat 4030 (0,05 ha): Only temporary use of 0,02 ha; Compensation of 2 ha• Habitat *6230 (25,47 ha): Destroyed 3.3 ha, temporarily used: 2.88 ha;
Compensation: Creation of 3.5 ha with optional 2.3 ha
Compensation measures sufficient to ensure coherence of Natura 2000:
• Geographically as compensation is done in the same region• The losses of habitats are both in quantity and in quality fully compensated by
the creation of new ocurrences/areas
Baden-Airpark (DE): Conditions
Trupach (DE): A negative EC opinion
Commision Opinion of 24/04/2003)
Plan: 140 ha planned industrial estate and business park
Site DE 5113-301 – „Heiden und Magerrasen Trupbach“ (NRW) -- An 85 ha large complex of heathland and species rich nutrient poor hay meadows
Habitats: 4030 dry heaths (all subtypes, 8 ha), *6230 species rich Nardus grasslands (11 ha),
Trupach (DE): negative impacts
Significant negative effects the result of the project:• Quantitative loss of habitat-area• Deterioration of the structural and functional integrity of the site• Mitigation measures are not possible
As a priority habitat (*6230) exists in the site Art. 6(4) has to be applied:
• Alternatives• Imperative reasons of overriding public interest
Trupach (DE): negative opinion
Reasons:
A. Existing alternatives: 3 other areas suitable for new business parks existing business parks include over 370 ha of still unused land alternatives in adjacent communities/administrative regions exist
(Member State affair)
B. imperative reasons of overriding public interest not given: need not proofed: the assessment for the need of areas for industrial
parks where too old (10a) alternatives existing local or regional reasons without major positive effects on economy
in the country
• Austrian motorway builder• Significant delays to S33 (Lower Austria), S18
(Vorarlberg)• Led to significantly changed approach – build consensus
before project starts
Compensation
EU funding measures through:• Rural Development fund• European Fisheries Fund
Support also through Structural Funds, LIFE+
Note: National programming determines to what extent these opportunities are used!
Rural Development
Wachau (AT)
• Upriver from Vienna
• Very strong tourism product focused on landscape
• LIFE project, Agri-environment, LEADER, Structural Funds
Rural Development
Lech Valley (AT)
Greifswalder Bodden (DE)
• Important resting and breeding area for birds
• Recreational area for sailing, boating, etc.
• Restrictions limited to a few weeks per year
Marketing
• Traditions of the White Carpathians• Patchwork landscape on CZ/SK border• Juices, fruit products, meat, crafts
Opportunities
What future?
Challenges: Protected Areas
Illegal construction in Strandzha Nature Park, Bulgaria
WWF’s Challenge for ChangeWWF’s Challenge for Change
NotNot My BusinessMy Business
Reducing Reducing ImpactImpact
Zero Zero Impact Impact
Net Positive Net Positive ImpactImpact
Selling Solutions to Selling Solutions to the World’s problemsthe World’s problems
Philanthropy toPhilanthropy toOffset ImpactsOffset Impacts
Compliance Compliance And BeyondAnd Beyond
Global Strategies Global Strategies for Risk for Risk Management and Management and Cost EfficienciesCost Efficiencies
TransformationTransformation
TransformationTransformation
TransformationTransformation
top related