implementation of natura 2000 in new eu member states of ... · natura 2000 and nature need...

I U C NProgrammeO f f i c e f o rC e n t r a lE u r o p e

Implementation of Natura 2000in New EU Member States of Central EuropeAssessment Report

Warsaw, May 2005

IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe

Implementation of Natura 2000in New EU Member States of Central EuropeAssessment Report

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Copyright: (2005) The World Conservation Union – IUCNand Foundation IUCN Poland (IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe)

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without permission from the copyright holder.

Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

ISBN: 2-8317-0886-9

Compiled by: Dorota Metera, Tomasz Pezold, Wojciech Piwowarski

Cover photo: Wiesław Lipiec, Dariusz Miszkiel

Authors of country reports:

Layout and cover design by: Carta Blanca: Ewa Cwalina, Ola Lotterhoff

1. CZECH REPUBLIC

Jaroslav Ungerman

NGO Ecological Center Veronica

e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

2. ESTONIA

Kalev Sepp

Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

of Estonian Agricultural University


3. HUNGARY

Gergő Halmos

MME Birdlife Hungary


4. LATVIA

Inga Racinska

Latvian Fund for Nature


5. LITHUANIA

Pranas Mierauskas

Lithuanian Fund for Nature


6. POLAND

Dorota Metera, Tomasz Pezold,

Wojciech Piwowarski

IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe

e-mail: [email protected]

7. SLOVAKIA

Eva Viestova

DAPHNE Institute of Applied Ecology

e-mail: [email protected]

8. SLOVENIA

Leon Kebe

Notranjska Regional Park


The IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe would like to express its

gratitude to the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Food Quality

of the Netherlands for its financial assistance for the project administered

by The World Conservation Union – IUCN.

Romas Mečionis

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

About this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Designation procedure for Natura 2000 sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Designation methods for Natura 2000 sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. The status of national Natura 2000 networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. NGO participation in the Natura 2000 designation process . . . . . . . . . 22

5. The involvement and participation of local communities in the Natura 2000 designation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6. Shadow Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7. Assessment of national Natura 2000 network cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

8. Assessment of transboundary cohesion of the national Natura 2000 networks and transboundary co-operation in the designation process . . 35

9. The Natura 2000 financing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

10. Financial instruments (sources of financing and types of land use) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

11. Financial instruments (beneficiaries, amount of support and special conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . 43

12. Adaptation of national nature protection legislation to Natura 2000 network requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

13. Assessment of awareness and understanding of Natura 2000 among key stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

14. Useful links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

CONTENTS

Wie

sław

Lip

iec

"Nature conservation is everybody's business", stated Valli Moosa, the president of The World Conservation Union– IUCN, during the Third World Conservation Congress in Bangkok, November 2005. “We will succeed if we con-tinue to broaden our scope and involve more people”. It is not only governments that are interested in natureprotection, but also civil society including environmental NGOs and the “users” of environment and nature – far-mers and entrepreneurs – that need to be involved and interested in protecting the natural resources which theyare using.

The EU’s Natura 2000 is a special nature protection system giving the right to use and protect nature at the sametime. Landowners and users should be informed on time by governments about the planned introduction of theNatura 2000 system and protection measures should also be discussed with them. Only through such a smoothimplementation, accommodating the rights and interests of each interest group, can nature be sufficiently pro-tected for current and future generations.

The implementation of Natura 2000 in the New EU Member States of Central Europe is a long process whichbegan with the signing of Accession Treaties in the beginning of the 1990s and it will continue for the nextfew years. Environmental NGOs were extremely interested and have been lobbying for proper designation andimplementation of Natura 2000 sites with the involvement of civil society. This publication, prepared by se-veral experts from nature protection organisations, gives a picture of this process. One year after 1st May 2004,the biggest enlargement in the history of the EU, is maybe too early to assess how successful the implemen-tation of Natura 2000 in the New EU Member States of Central Europe has been, but it gives examples ofgood practice in the designation process and public consultations; it also illustrates where problems canappear and how to avoid them. We hope that it can be one of many useful publications supporting the imple-mentation of Natura 2000, with mutual benefit for nature and society.

The text below is based upon questionnaires sent out to NGOs of eight new Central European Member States ofthe EU. The responses were collected from February until May 2005; please bear in mind that many elementsof Natura 2000 could have changed in the meantime, since the process of implementation is very dynamic.Please note that comments are subjective and according to the individual authors of the questionnaires, whichhave been edited together to form a country-by-country panorama.

7

Introduction

The IUCN Office for Central Europe co-ordinated the project “Integrating Natura 2000, rural development and Agri--environment Programmes in CE” from 2002 to 2004, in the time of the fastest and most profound changes in the legalsystem in all areas of the economy and environmental protection which influence nature and nature conservation.

At the beginning of the project in 2002 everybody involved in nature conservation believed that the different sectoralsubsidies paid by Central and Eastern Europe states for rural areas would be changed to structural support after acces-sion to the EU, in order to provide integrated rural development. It was vital for IUCN's constituency to be part of thisprocess in the pre-accession phase. IUCN wanted to find mechanisms to ensure that nature conservation would be inte-grated in the rural development programmes, supporting financial mechanisms and projects (e.g. SAPARD). To achieveour aims we invited to the discussion the experts from environmental and agriculture NGOs as well as representativesof ministries of agriculture and environment.

During the project’s implementation important events and decisions took place such as the Mid Term Review in 2002and the decision to reform the Common Agricultural Policy in 2003, the celebration of 10 years of Natura 2000 in theEU-15 in 2002, the biggest enlargement of the EU in 2004 and the 25th anniversary of the European Birds Directive(79/409/EEC) in 2004.

In the project led by Avalon in partnership with a consortium which included IUCN Office for Central Europe, the 10 accession countries have developed Agri-environment Programmes (as required by SAPARD and the acquis commu-nautaire). This process, amongst others, is Phare-access financed.

During this period the governments of the accession countries have developed National Rural Development Plans andAgri-environment Programmes. IUCN as well as many other environmental NGOs was concerned in particular with theintroduction of safeguards for biodiversity into National Rural Development Plans, therefore the activities of the projectwere focused on the relations between the future Natura 2000 sites and Rural Development Plans, focusing on Agri--environment Programmes in particular as financial instruments for implementation of the Natura 2000. An importantstep in this process was an international conference entitled “Integrating Natura 2000, Rural development and Agri--environment Programmes in Central Europe”, held in the Biebrza national park in Poland in 2003. The rationale behindthe conference was to find ways to achieve the overall aim of conserving biodiversity linked to agriculture, using the sy-nergy between Natura 2000 and Agri-environment Schemes as part of the Rural Development Plans. One year beforethe implementation of Natura 2000 in the New EU Member States of Central Europe we foresaw that the often-isolatedNatura 2000 sites would not be enough to conserve biodiversity on their own. One year after the enlargement we aresure that Natura 2000 can not rescue all the biodiversity in the New Member States facing so many changes, espe-cially in agriculture and water management. Natura 2000 and nature need responsible human activities, wise deci-sions of the politicians, effective financial mechanisms for the users of nature as well as dialogue of all stakeholders,primarily environmentalists with farmers, foresters, fishermen and water resources managers.

One year after magic date of 1th May 2004 is maybe still to early to assess the implementation of the acquis commu-nautaire in all areas of real life, but the environmental NGOs are still trying to do their best to serve nature with theirknowledge, experience and work on the ground. The text of the report is based upon questionnaires sent out to NGOsof eight new Central European Member States of the EU. Please note that comments are subjective and according tothe individual authors. We address our candid gratitude to our colleagues working actively in the field in Central Europefor their valuable contribution to the project and this publication.

We hope that the readers of this report will use the information for further support and development of Natura 2000and nature generally, as a collective and co-operative effort from as many individuals as possible is needed to ensureeffective protection of our shared living heritage.

Dorota Metera, Wojciech Piwowarski, Tomasz Pezold

Compilers of the Report

9

About this report

The designation process was assessed by the expertsas “good” only in Slovakia, as “sufficient” in the CzechRepublic and Hungary, as unlikely to be sufficient inPoland and as more or less sufficient in the othercountries, but almost all were delayed. This indicatesthat nature protection was not a high priority in theintegration process comparing to other sectors of theeconomy.

Czech Republic

Since 1999 it has been evident that the complexity andvolume of the work concerning Natura 2000 had beenunderestimated on the national level, including the co--operation and official communication with the Euro-pean Commission. Much of preparatory work has beencarried out since 1999. It was decided then that “stan-dardised mapping” should be used to identify the rele-vant biotopes in the territory of the Czech Republic.This very ambitious undertaking has involved:

creating, discussing and publishing of a list ofpSPAs together with an information brochure for thepublic; the information brochure was partially com-pleted and then put on hold because the relevantamendment of the Nature Protection Law had notbeen introduced on time.regarding pSCIs, the relevant mapping had been car-ried out for only 2/3 of the Czech territory by thedeadline for national proposals for Natura 2000. TheEuropean Commission did not extend the deadline asthe Czech authorities had requested. Despite the

remaining 1/3 of the territory having been mapped bythe end of 2004, the obtained results could only par-tially be implemented into the national proposal, andjust a preliminary selection of the Natura 2000 siteswas submitted to the European Commission (anadditional nomination of the sites is supposed to bemade during the final stage of the approval process).The whole nomination process for Natura 2000 wasled by the Ministry of the Environment. On a regio-nal level, the co-operation between regional officialsand specialists was satisfactory.

Estonia

The Ministry of the Environment co-ordinated thepreparation of pSCIs, including adjustments in legisla-tion and designation of sites. NGOs, experts and scien-tific institutions carried out fieldwork, made scientificinventories and proposed the sites. 15 CountyEnvironmental Departments prepared the county listsof pSCIs and organised public hearings.

A national programme called “Estonian NATURA2000” has been adopted by the government, whichoutlines actions for 2000–2007. The timetable formost relevant actions was the following:

gathering and evaluating existing data – March 2001;preliminary list of pSCIs and SPAs – March 2001;additional inventories on species and habitats –September 2001;analysis of coverage (overlapping) and linkagesbetween existing protected areas, pSCIs and SPAs –December 2001;analysis of the lists in County environmental depart-ments – March 2002;additions to the list – November 2002;hearings and negotiations with stakeholders –March 2002;publication of the list – March 2002;final preparations for adoption of the list –December 2002.

The earlier activities were carried out roughly accord-ing to the above timetable, but by the end the Ministrywas about a year behind schedule. Hearings and nego-tiations with stakeholders took place only in 2003–2004.

10

Implementation of Natura 2000 in New EU Member States of Central Europe, Assessment Report

1. Designation procedure for Natura 2000 sites

Arc

hive

of

Not

ranj

ski

Reg

ijski

Par

k

11

1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora2 Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds

Despite a huge delay, the Estonian government ma-naged to present the list of Natura 2000 sites to theEuropean Commission by 1st May 2004.

Hungary

The Natura 2000 site designation procedure was car-ried out in two major steps. Firstly, a consortium wasestablished, including the Ministry of the Environmentand Water, ÖKO Ltd, ADAS Consulting Ltd, CEENConsulting, the Ecological and Botanical Institute of theHungarian Scientific Academy, MME/BirdLife Hungary,and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Thisconsortium made an assessment of available andrecently-collected information and prepared a proposalfor SPAs and pSCIs in the framework of a PHARE project called “Preparation for Implementing theHabitats Directive1 in Hungary”. This proposal includedproposed sites, procedures for developing regulationsand communication of results. The main results of theproject were published in a series of three books.

Secondly, based on these preparations, the ten NationalPark Directorates and the Ministry made a moredetailed strategic designation plan including local infor-mation from national parks, researchers and NGOs. Therewere some misunderstandings during the consultation,and some problems with data provision, but finallythese procedures provided a sufficiently well-designednetwork covering 21% of the country’s area.

Latvia

The research project was carried out by the Danishconsultancy company DARUDEC, Latvian Fund forNature and Latvian Ornithological Society between2001 and 2004. During the project, research onpotential Natura 2000 sites was carried out, the list ofproposed Natura 2000 sites was prepared, and a Na-tura 2000 database was created. Afterwards the listwas submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. Theresearch project was carried out by the Latvian Fundfor Nature and the Latvian Ornithological Societybetween 2001 and 2003.

NGOs submitted the list of proposed Natura 2000sites to the MoE. The list contained:

existing national Specially Protected NatureTerritories where species or habitats of Communityinterest were found;

proposals for amendments of borders of existingSPNTs;proposals for establishing new national SPNTs forspecies or habitats listed in the Habitats Directive orthe Birds Directive2.

In February – March 2003, several regional seminarswere organised by the MoE in order to inform and con-sult landowners, municipalities and other stakeholderson the proposed new protected territories and borderamendments of existing ones. It was followed by astakeholder negotiation process on proposals, carriedout by the Nature Protection Board (with visits tomunicipalities in April – August, 2003).

In addition, the “Propose a Territory!” campaign waslaunched in March 2003, which carried on until theend of May 2003. The main goal of this campaign wasto raise public awareness about the process of esta-blishing the Natura 2000 network. People were in-vited to suggest new potential Natura 2000 sites thatthey would find valuable for nature protection. In totalmore than 50 proposals were received. Information onthe proposed territories was analysed by NGO expertsfrom the EMERALD project.

Then newly-proposed SPNTs were approved by theGovernment (the last one in April, 2004) and the listof proposed Natura 2000 sites was then finalised, ap-proved by the Minister of the Environment and sub-mitted to the European Commission.

Lithuania

Designation procedures are defined in the Law on Protec-ted Areas and Territorial Planning: there must be a publichearing and all interested parties may take part. This pro-cedure was followed. NGOs and research institutions tookpart in site selection and preparation of the list.Municipalities were not so involved in the designationprocess, as their role was to officially approve the sites.

The designation process was more inclusive and transpa-rent in the beginning, but later on it became less open andNGOs were more or less eliminated from the procedures.

Poland

The Natura 2000 designation procedure was co-ordi-nated by the Ministry of the Environment. Work star-ted with a pilot project called “Implementation of the

Birds and Habitats Directive in the Karkonoski ParkNarodowy and Krkonoski Narodni Park” which aimedto test procedures of identifying Natura 2000 sites intwo national parks on the Czech-Polish border.

A project entitled “Conception of the Natura 2000 net-work in Poland” started in February 2000, whichdeveloped a preliminary concept of the Natura 2000network and verified data of existing protected areasand areas from the CORINE biotopes and CORINELand Cover databases.

Most of the Natura 2000 sites was selected in theframework of a project entitled “Implementation of aNatura 2000 network in Poland”, carried out by a con-sortium of institutions (the National Foundation forEnvironmental Protection, UNEP/GRID-Warsaw, theDepartment of Ornithology of the Polish Academy ofSciences and the Institute of Nature Conservation ofthe Polish Academy of Sciences). Other naturalistsfrom the scientific community and NGOs were alsoinvolved in this phase on their own initiative.

The main tasks of the project covered inter alia verify-ing and completing a list of sites proposed in the ear-lier project; consultating with nature conservationauthorities; formulating the main principles of conser-vation for particular habitat types and species; definingthe scope of work for preparing management plans forthe sites; indicating ecological corridors linking majorNatura 2000 sites and formulating guidelines;preparating standardised documentation for designat-ed sites. The list of sites proposed after this stage con-sisted of 420 sites covering approximately 18% ofPoland’s land territory.

The next project was launched after the Treaty ofAccession was adopted, when new habitat types andspecies were added to the annexes of the Directives.As a result, 39 new sites were added to the existingproposal.

During the last stage, at the beginning of 2004, thelist of 141 SPAs and 323 pSCIs with 28 sites pro-posed by NGOs was consulted with communes (localauthorities) as well as with representatives of otherstakeholder groups for such as the State Forests or the Regional Boards Water Management. After thisprocess, the Ministry of the Environment decided toreduce the original number of sites. The criteria of thisselection were not presented to the public. The finallist submitted to the European Commission was madeup of 72 SPAs (7,8% of the country’s area) and 184pSCIs (3,7% of the country’s area).

Recently the Ministry has finalised a PHARE twinningproject in co-operation with France. Manuals for con-servation of natural habitat types and species as wellas pilot management plans have been developed. Theproject also carried out information-based activities toraise awareness about the network.

Slovakia

After the negotiation processes in 1998–1999, wherethe most active players were the Ministry of theEnvironment and the State Nature Conservancy, workstarted to include and co-operate more closely withuniversities and NGO experts, mainly in proposingamendments to the Annexes of the Directives. Bothgovernmental institutions realised that establishing theNatura 2000 network would be a real test for Slovakiaand they would need the support of all relevantexperts.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlandsoffered support to the Slovak Republic in this difficulttask through a project entitled “Establishment of theNatura 2000 network in the Slovak Republic”, fundedunder PIN-MATRA (Programme on InternationalNature Management in Pre-accession Countries). Withthe help and guidance provided by Dutch experts, theSlovak Republic started to create solid foundations forits Natura 2000 network. This was mainly due to the thorough approach chosen by the Ministry of theEnvironment, the State Nature Conservancy and theNGOs. A consortium of nine institutions and organisa-tions was involved, which included the InternationalAgricultural Centre, SOVON, AVALON, the Daphne –Institute of Applied Ecology, the Institute of Botany of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, the Institute ofLandscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Scien-ces, the Faculty of Natural Sciences of the ComeniusUniversity, the Society for the Protection of Birds inSlovakia (SOVS – Slovak Birdlife partner) and theGroup for the Protection and Research of Owls andBirds of Prey in Slovakia.

The overall objective of the project was to contribute tofull compliance with international agreements con-cerning nature protection and securing the natural he-ritage of the country on a long-term basis. The imme-diate objective of the project was implementing of theBirds Directive and providing the first stage of imple-mentation of the Habitats Directive, including legalcompliance and capacity for development of theNatura 2000 network before the end of 2003. Theobjectives of the project were to be achieved throughworking towards the three identified aims:

12


organisation and capacity building; database and inventory development; raising awareness.

This was the key project for the establishment of Natura2000, in which NGOs were deeply involved. After theproject finished, NGOs carried on co-operating with go-vernmental institutions to prepare the final SPAs andpSCIs lists. Co-operation on implementation of Natura2000 also continued after 1st May 2004.

Slovenia

Because the government was unprepared, the designa-tion of Natura 2000 sites started late and the procedurewas rushed. Communication on site designation wasplanned in advance but was insufficient. Communication

of information about Natura 2000 was carried out bygovernmental institutes (e.g. nature conservation andforestry). Public participation was possible in thisprocess, but it was of insufficient quality because it wasmainly carried out in areas that have little inhabitants,and generally in small areas with few problems so themore serious issues and fundamental problems did notarise until the very end of the process. During the finalphase representatives of all local governments wereinvited to participate with their comments. The extent towhich these remarks were considered by the centralauthorities is unknown. DOPPS-BirdLife Slovenia com-municated Natura 2000 sites (SPAs only) to the publicindependently of the governmental authorities, startinglong before the government exercise, so as to pre-sensi--tise local people about bird habitats and Natura 2000and thus to increase effectiveness of the scheme.

13A

rchi

ve o

f N

otra

njsk

i R

egijs

ki P

ark

The methods used to designate sites were graded as“very good” in the Czech Republic and Slovakia,“unlikely to be sufficient” in Poland and “sufficient” or“more or less sufficient” in other countries. Theinvolvement of local nature protection organisations inthe designation of sites increased the possibilities ofobtaining good-quality data.

Czech Republic

The process of designation and evaluation of theNatura 2000 sites (selected on the basis of mappingthe territory of the Czech Republic) used the followingmethods:

designation of the pSPAs: all available long-termornithological knowledge and observations (nestlocations and migration routes) were exploited;designation of the pSCIs: only large and high-qualityhabitats were designated for the remaining 1/3 of theterritory of the Czech Republic (see section 1). Criteriaset out in Annex III of the Habitats Directive and theabundant knowledge on species expansion (mainlyanimal species) was used for the designation.

On the national level, regional co-ordinators andgroups of specialists dealing with specific groups ofanimals were established. The weak point of this de-signation and evaluation process was that the selectionof sites (based strictly on the mapping), did not con-sider the long-term evolution of the sites and theirdevelopment potential.

Estonia

Data and information for site designation largely camefrom experts from the University of Tartu, the Institute ofZoology and Botany, the Estonian Agricultural University(who also participated in Natura 2000 field work andcompiled the handbook on Natura 2000 habitats inEstonia). Several databases which were compiled byNGOs were used for designation, for example a data-base on semi-natural grasslands compiled by theEstonian Semi-natural Community ConservationAssociation (ESCCA). The database of habitat invento-ries of the Estonian Fund for Nature has practically notbeen used at all, except in published materials. The

Ministry of the Environment and environmental depart-ments of county administrations have launched theirown small-scale inventories. Several pilot projects fortesting methodologies were completed, such as: the“Inventory of species and habitats protected by interna-tional conventions and directives in Estonia”;“Implementation of the EU Birds and HabitatsDirectives in Lääne and Rapla counties”; “Implemen-tation of the Natura 2000 network in Estonia regardingfreshwater and brackish water species and habitats”.Five projects have been financed since 2001 under theLIFE Nature programme, which have also contributed tothe establishment of Natura 2000 sites. Two new LIFEprojects began at the end of 2003.

Inventories are clearly insufficient for some inverte-brates. Although there are satisfactory inventories formost land-based habitats, there is a gap in knowledgeregarding marine habitats. The scientific representa-tiveness of proposed Sites of Community Importancehas not been evaluated by academic institutions. Also,socio-economic aspects in designating Natura 2000sites were not analysed or considered.

Hungary

The designation of SPAs was based on the BirdLifeIBAs “C” criterion method. The method was used for thewhole country. The designation was made in a part-nership by the Ministry, the National Park directoratesand MME/BirdLife Hungary. After this a few amend-ments were made, but the final result is close to thefirst agreement.

The preparation for designation of pSCIs included a country-wide survey, data collection and monitoringprogrammes, i.e. the Hungarian Biodiversity MonitoringProgramme; a programme for creating the NationalEcological Network; a survey of legally defined fens andalkali habitats; a country-wide programme for collec-ting habitat/species/plant data; and the CORINE HabitatMapping Programme developed from the results ofCORINE Land Cover Project. The assessment resultedin consistent GIS databases (EVITA). Based on theanalyses of the databases, the expert group gave a pro-posal for pSCI sites. The final step of designation wasmade by experts from the national parks authorities.

14


2. Designation methods for Natura 2000 sites

Latvia

In order to meet the EU requirement to choose loca-tions for Natura 2000 sites by the time of accession tothe EU, the solution was to use the existing system ofSpecially Protected Nature Territories (SPNTs) as a ba-sis for the new Natura 2000 network and to adjust itto the demands of the EU Directives. New sites whereprotected species and habitats were found were firstdesignated as national SPNTs and afterwards as poten-tial Natura 2000 sites. To establish the Natura 2000network, an inventory of SPNTs and selection of newprotected territories was made by experts within a Da-nish–Latvian project entitled “Analysis of the SpeciallyProtected Nature Territories (SPNTs) in Latvia andEstablishing EMERALD/Natura 2000 Network”.Territories for the Natura 2000 network were selectedaccording to the Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers“Criteria for Selecting Sites Eligible for Identification asSites of Community Importance (Natura 2000) inLatvia”. These Regulations are developed according toAnnex III of the Habitats Directive. According to theArticle 2 of this Regulation, for European SpeciallyProtected Nature Territory (Natura 2000), consideringscientific information, territory can only be designatedas such if it complies with the following criteria:

if the territory contains one or more types of spe-cially protected habitats, which are protected bynational legislation and one or more specially pro-tected species or their habitats;if the factors mentioned in Articles 3 and 4 of theseregulations apply (e.g. representation of a speciallyprotected habitat type in correspondent territory;quantity and density of population of a speciallyprotected species in correspondent territory cf.quantity and density of the population of thespecies across the whole of Latvia etc.), and theterritory is or could be important for further protec-tion and conservation of specially protected habitatsor species and their habitats;the territory is designated as Specially ProtectedNature Territory or a micro-reserve according to thenational legislation.

The Latvian Ornithological Society was sub-contractedto designate bird areas (SPAs). The experts wereresponsible for the collection of data on the BirdsDirective species within existing SPNTs and for iden-tification of potential sites to establish new SPNTs.

The Latvian Fund for Nature was sub-contracted todesignate pSCIs. The experts involved were respon-sible for collecting data on habitats and speciesexcept for birds.

Lithuania

A selection of potential sites was made by researchinstitutions, administrative staff from protected areasand NGOs. The Ministry of the Environment issued anorder concerning selection criteria. Up to 2–4 years ofresearch was carried out, including mapping of habi-tats. Data were also used from previous years. Almostall sites were selected on the basis of scienti-fic data. But an issue was that only part of the selec-ted sites were designated, and some were already pro-tected on national level. A very small number of newsites were designated as SPAs or pSCIs. Similar me-thods and criteria for selection of SPAs were used toidentify Important Bird Areas, but limited resourcescould not ensure detailed investigation of all the poten-tial sites, which is why the methodology was notapplied correctly in some cases.

Poland

The first stage of the designation process was mainlybased on a CORINE biotopes project carried out between1992 and 1996. Results of this project were added towith information on species and habitats of Communityimportance. Afterwards, sites meeting the criteria of theBirds and Habitats Directive were identified.

The selection of sites was based on existing data. Becauseof gaps in knowledge, the selection was only done rela-tively well with regard to birds and more spectacular andwell-researched species. There was no inventory of natu-ral habitat types and existing knowledge was definitelynot enough in this case since division into natural habitattypes represents a new approach in nature protectionwhich was not considered before. The problem was alsothat some new data were not published and access to itwas difficult. For these reasons, the quality of outputs

15

Arn

e A

der

such as SDFs and maps is relatively low. Indicative mapsof sites in the scale 1: 100 000 and 1: 50 000 were pro-duced. The approach to designation of sites was to selecta few large areas covering in many cases many differenthabitats and species.

Because of the above-mentioned low quality of pro-duced materials there will be a need to improve themin the future. This is foreseen to be done while themanagement plans are being prepared. This includesinter alia verification of SDFs based on field invento-ries, production of detailed maps and GIS databaseswith detailed descriptions of borders.

Slovakia

The Natura 2000 Centre at the State Nature Conservan-cy is operational with a well-equipped meta-databaseon species and habitats. Here, data developed in otherinstitutions have been collected and processed, and thedata can be used to plan management activities inEMERALD/Natura 2000 sites. For preparation of theSPAs and pSCIs it was necessary to review the qualityof all existing databases, as well as their accessibilityand usefulness. The databases held by the Slovak part-ners of the consortium – grasslands and peatlands(Daphne), the database of phytocenological records(Institute of Botany), the databank of Slovak fauna(Faculty of Natural Sciences of the ComeniusUniversity), the database of IBAs and the database of

bird distribution in Slovakia (SOVS) – were reviewed atthe early stages of the project. The databases at theSNC (D-FYTO and D-ZOO) were also reviewed.

Data included in these databases and also relevant “soft”information (i.e. the present structure of protected areas,the National Ecological Network, Ramsar sites, IBAs,Wetland Shadow List) were used to identify potential net-work of Natura 2000 sites in Slovakia. Gap analyses gui-ded field research in 2001 and 2002.

The data held by the Ministry of Agriculture in forest data-bases were reviewed as regards their scope and their for-mat in summer 2002. Late access to forest databasesprevented more comprehensive fieldwork being carriedout in forests within the framework of the project, butSNC was also working on this issue later on and suitabledata were provided for the list of pSCIs.

Slovenia

Most of the pSCIs were proposed by experts working indifferent institutions and also by NGOs. The metho-dology was defined by the Ministry of the Environment.Methods were selected according to the habitat and/orspecies involved. DOPPS-BirdLife Slovenia carried outa designation of SPAs according to criteria adopted byBirdLife International and recognised by the EuropeanCommission3. The methodology of designation wasapplied to the whole country.

16


3 In 1988 the European Court of Justice in ruling against the Netherlands confirmed these criteria as the best expert reference.

Arc

hive

of

Not

ranj

ski

Reg

ijski

Par

k

This section concerns official lists of proposed Sites ofCommunity Importance (pSCIs) and Special ProtectionAreas (SPAs) submitted to the European Commission,as well as comments on the selection.

Czech Republic

Out of the 41 designated SPAs, the Czech governmenthas so far approved 38 (and only those were submittedto the European Commission, the remaining 3 are stillsubject to further discussion). Each SPA has to be for-mally established by a special government regulation.

The government approved the 864 pSCIs on 22nd

December 2004. The majority of these sites are locatedin the two thirds of the Czech Republic’s territory wherebiotopes had been preliminarily mapped (see section 1);only 44 pSCIs have so far been identified in the remain-ing area (one third of the Czech Republic’s territory) withthe designation and evaluation procedures still to becompleted. More than half of the sites have an area offewer than 40 hectares. Several large areas (such as theŠumava and the Beskydy mountains) were designated as the Natura 2000 sites due to the presence of largemammals there. It is expected that when approvalprocess is finalised, all pSCIs will be enacted by meansof one comprehensive Czech government regulation.

Estonia

the entire Estonian territory is 45 215 km2, butmore than 50% of this is coastal sea, which is notincluded into the official (land-based) Estonian ter-ritory. The problem is that the official marine borderis not fixed;sites with temporary legal protection6 cover 898 420 ha(451 sites);the area of sites with temporary legal protectionwhich were sent to the European Commission covers886 800 ha;the area of Natura 2000 sites located on existingprotected areas is 535 700 ha;730 700 ha are marine Natura 2000 sites, 72 194 haof this on existing protected areas.

17

3. The status of national Natura 2000 networks

Proposed Sites of Community Importance in the Czech Republic(Czech Ministry of the Environment)

Special Protection Areas in the Czech Republic(Czech Ornithological Society and Czech Ministry of theEnvironment)

Submitted to the European Commission on 15th March 2005(statistics in the table below include 3 additional pSPAs whichhave not yet been submitted to the European Commission).

Submitted to the European Commission on 1st May 2004.

4 Only inland area taken into consideration5 Part of sites sent to the European Commission, the remaining 85 will be sent later.6 It refers to the sites, which have not been protected in national nature conservation system. Up to approval these sites have a temporary legal protection, according to Act on Nature Conservation. 39 areas are located fully on protected areas, which have already protection rules, there-fore these areas do need temporary protection.

Hungary

The list of sites of Natura 2000 network was submitted5 months after the deadline because of the slow consul-tation process with other ministries (the Ministry of Agri-culture and Rural Development, the Ministry of Defence).The sites included fulfil previous expectations and cover21.2% of the country’s area, making the Hungarian net-work one of the most comprehensive in Europe. Howeverduring the consultation process, the Ministry of theEnvironment and Water was able to make agreementswith other ministries regarding the network by addingcertain questionable amendments to the regulations.

Latvia

The Latvian Natura 2000 list of sites with naturalhabitats of European importance was approved by theMinister of the Environment. Four of the designatedsites are Strict Nature Reserves, 3 are National Parks,38 are Nature Parks, 9 are Nature Monuments, 9 are

18


Proposed Sites of Community Importance in Hungary(MME BirdLife Hungary, basing on data from the Ministry ofthe Environment)

Special Protection Areas in Hungary (MME BirdLife Hungary,basing on data from the Ministry of the Environment)

Proposed Sites of Community Importance and Special ProtectionAreas in Latvia (Latvian Ministry of the Environment)

Nature Conservation in Latvia (Latvian Environment Agency)

Submitted to the European Commission in October 2004.

7 only if the same borders

Proposed Sites of Community Importance in Estonia(http://maps.ekk.ee/natura)

Protected Landscape Areas, 250 are Nature Reservesand 23 are Micro-reserves. According to the nationallegislation, all Natura 2000 sites have legally protec-ted status. National legislation prescribes that onlysites that are designated as national SpeciallyProtected Nature Territories or Micro-reserves can beincluded in the List of proposed Natura 2000 areas.93 Natura 2000 sites correspond both to the HabitatsDirective and to the Birds Directive.

Lithuania

Some of the SPAs and pSCIs are overlapping, and sothe Ministry of the Environment cannot give a totalnumber and percentage of potential Natura 2000 sites.

In general, the percentage coverage of SPAs is more orless sufficient – 7.8% of total country area. The num-ber of pSCIs seems to be high, but the percentage ofcountry coverage is very low – only 2%. The problemis that pSCIs were selected as small sites, mostly inareas which were already protected. In many cases,pSCIs are selected within the area of distribution ofcertain habitat type, but there are no buffer zones.

The Ministry of the Environment tried to avoid designatinglarge areas, with many landowners or users, who wouldpotentially not be satisfied with Natura 2000 protectionstatus. In many cases, relevant areas (or some problematicparts of the areas) were excluded from the list and the siteswhich caused least problems were designated.

Poland

19

Proposed Sites of Community Importance in Lithuania(Lithuanian Ministry of the Environment)

Submitted to the European Commission on 26th April 2004. Submitted to the European Commission in a few parts. The first part was submitted at the end of April 2004.

Submitted to the European Commission on 1st May 2004.

Special Protection Areas in Lithuania(Lithuanian Ministry of the Environment) To

mas

z P

ezol

d

8 Number included also in numbers of SPAs and pSCIs

The total list contains 248 sites (this includes 8 siteswhich consist of SPAs and pSCIs within the same bor-ders i.e. where SPA and pSCI overlap completely), co-vering in total 10.3% of Poland’s terrestrial territory.According to the NGOs’ assessment, the list is definitelyinsufficient and according to scientific criteria needs tobe significantly increased (see section 6).

Slovakia

The future Natura 2000 sites that have been proposedby the government cover some 28.9% of the country’sterritory. Much of this substantial amount is made upof areas important for birds. According to NGOs’ analy-sis, a substantial number of areas – 474 sites – aremissing from the list of proposed Sites of CommunityImportance; the pSCIs in the current proposal coveronly 11.72% of the country’s territory.

Proposed Special Protection Areas were discussedwith the relevant stakeholders prior to their approvalby the government on 9th July 2003. The list of birdsites includes a total of 38 SPAs, covering 25.2% ofthe country’s territory. Some 55.15% of the territory ofthe proposed SPAs overlap with currently protectedareas.

List of Proposed Sites of Community Importance wereprepared and discussed with stakeholders in the autumnof 2003 and submitted to the government on 17th

December 2003. Approval of the list by the govern-ment was delayed for a few months, mainly due toopposition from the Ministries of Agriculture, Economyand Finance. Only on 17th March 2004 did the go-vernment finally approve the list, after three months ofmedia pressure arising from NGO’s activity, pressure

20

Special Protection Areas in Slovakia(State Nature Conservancy Slovakia, www.sopsr.sk)

Submitted to the European Commission 1st May 2004

Proposed Sites of Community Importance in Slovakia(State Nature Conservancy Slovakia, www.sopsr.sk)

Proposed Sites of Community Importance in Poland(Polish Ministry of the Environment)


Special Protection Areas in Poland (Polish Ministry of the Environment)

from the Ministry of the Environment, and (probablymost importantly), pressure from the EuropeanCommission, which threatened to withhold StructuralFunds if the country did not fully observe EU environ-mental legislation. Among the list of pSCIs there are382 sites, covering 11.72% of the territory (86.1% ofthe sites overlap with existing protected areas).

Slovenia

Slovenia is the country with the largest percentage ofNatura 2000 sites in the EU. As a result of the uncer-tainty as to what designation of these sites will bringto people, there is weak support for this kind of natureprotection. Legal procedures in these sites are unde-fined. Thus we can say that the Natura 2000 networkis not yet functional in Slovenia.

21

Proposed Sites of Community Importance in Slovenia(Slovenian Ministry of the Environment)

Special Protection Areas in Slovenia(Slovenian Ministry of the Environment)

Submitted to the European Commission in June 2004

Arc

hive

of

Not

ranj

ski

Reg

ijski

Par

k

22


The participation of NGOs in the designation processranged from “very good” in Slovakia, to “unlikely to besufficient” in Estonia and Poland. The governmentscould use the activities of NGOs more effectively,because with their involvement it would be easier topromote Natura 2000 and the general idea of natureprotection and sustainable use of natural resources ina better and more successful way.

Czech Republic

The preparation of the pSPAs was developed by anNGO – the Czech Society of Ornithology – which alsohad responsibility for co-ordinating other issues.

Regarding biotope mapping for pSCIs identification,the specialists were engaged on the basis of individualpersonal contracts. Only highly qualified biologists par-ticipated, many of them being members of the envi-ronmental NGOs, with a majority from the CzechFederation of Nature Protection. The activity of someNGOs was concentrated on the development of a pa-rallel "priority list".

Estonia

Although the Ministry of the Environment had formal-ly invited NGOs into the process, it was quite selectivein choosing with whom to co-operate. The EstonianOrnithological Society was contracted by the Ministry

of the Environment to analyse favourable conservationstatuses of Annex I species as well as to prepare docu-mentation for Special Protection Areas; the EstonianSemi-natural Community Conservation Association data-base was used to designate semi-natural communities;Wildlife Estonia did the main job of designating fishspecies and freshwater habitats. Aside from a couple ofenvironmental organisations which were contracted toprovide information to the Ministry of the Environmentregarding specific habitat types (mainly grassland andwater habitats), involvement of NGOs in site designationwas unlikely to be sufficient. For example the EstonianFund for Nature, despite having the most extensive data-base on Estonian habitats, was practically excluded.Unfortunately, there has been an unco-operative attitudefrom both sides. At the beginning (1998–2001) severalNGOs were involved in “Natura Council” activities, but thelast stage of designation of Natura 2000 sites took placelargely within the Ministry of the Environment, withoutthe involvement of several stakeholders. Apart from datagathering, consolidation and consultation, NGOs shouldhave been more actively involved in raising awareness,which until now has been clearly beyond the capacity ofthe relevant authorities.

Hungary

MME/BirdLife Hungary participated in the designationprocess of SPAs. There was no participation of NGOsin the overall process of pSCIs designation, but localNGOs helped in the designation with consultation andproviding data for both SPAs and pSCIs.

Latvia

The Latvian Ornithological Society was sub-contractedfor designation of SPAs, and the Latvian Fund forNature was sub-contracted for designation of pSCIs.These are the most active and largest nature protec-tion NGOs in Latvia. They represent almost all expertsin the field of protected species and habitats. Most ofthe sites that were proposed by these NGOs were de-signated as national SPNTs and included in the list ofproposed Natura 2000 sites. The Ministry of theEnvironment amended some borders for several sitesas a result of the stakeholder consultation process.

4. NGO participation in the Natura 2000 designation process

Leve

nte

Vis

zló

23

Lithuania

In the beginning of the designation process, NGOstook an active role, e.g. they could suggest sites, deli-ver data, take part in public hearings. Later on the roleof NGOs became downgraded and involvementdecreased. It is difficult to assess why NGOs wereeliminated from the final selection process. However,in general NGO participation was quite active.

Poland

Polish NGOs could have been much more involvedand their capacity used more effectively. AlthoughNGOs undertook activities concerning designation ofNatura 2000 sites, they did so mainly on their owninitiative and were not invited officially by the govern-ment to take part in the process. Because of the go-vernment’s lack of willingness to involve NGOs andlack of information on the designation process, NGOsvery often worked in opposition to the government.

Many of the NGOs supported the designation processby providing scientific data and proposing new sites.They also disseminated information. Although the scaleof those activities was low, it was an important step,taking into consideration the lack of an informationdissemination campaign concerning Natura 2000.

The most important activity carried out by NGOs is thePolish Natura 2000 Shadow List prepared by a coalitionof NGOs (WWF Poland; the Polish Society for NatureProtection ”Salamandra”; the Naturalist Club; the PolishSociety for the Protection of Birds), which could be cru-cial for proper implementation of the network (see alsosection 6). At the time of writing, the list was beinganalysed by the Ministry of the Environment and most ofsites included on it will probably be sent as an official go-vernmental proposal to the European Commission.

Slovakia

NGO participation in the Natura 2000 designationprocess was very good. The Daphne-Institute of AppliedEcology together with the Society for Bird Protection

in Slovakia (the Slovak BirdLife partner), were the keypartners of the Ministry of the Environment and of theState Nature Conservancy during the whole designa-tion process. A consortium of several other NGOs andinstitutes was responsible for preparing the scientificproposal of SPAs and pSCIs as well as other connec-ted topics such as communication and raising aware-ness. They also had the opportunity to comment on thepreparation of the new Act on Nature and LandscapeProtection, prepare several conferences and meetings,as well as prepare information and expert materials.

Slovenia

SPAs were on the whole designated by DOPPS--BirdLife Slovenia. All existing NGOs in the field con-tributed as much as they were able to. NGOs are notyet developed enough in Slovenia: beside DOPPS--BirdLife Slovenia there is no NGO with a sufficientnumber of volunteers to carry out this kind of work. In most cases, collaboration between experts andNGOs was established either on a formal or an infor-mal level.

Arc

hive

of

Not

ranj

ski

Reg

ijski

Par

k

24


The designation process took place mostly without pro-per communication with local communities. It was as-sessed as unlikely to be sufficient or definitely insufficientin all countries concerned. Although it is clear for every-body that EU law should be enforced in order to ensure a good status of biodiversity, ultimately landowners areresponsible for managing their own land. They should beinformed on time about the law which will be imple-mented and its consequences. Future land managementmethods should be negotiated with them to ensure suc-cessful implementation of the Natura 2000 system.

Czech Republic

Local communities were involved too late in theprocess of Natura 2000 designation. It was causedmainly by the following:

the new law on nature protection fixing the EUNatura 2000 legislation was approved with a greatdelay in 2004;the authorities tried to ensure that the process of habi-tat mapping and designation was managed by biolo-gists and specialists, without the influence at thisstage of political interests, intervention or pressure; nevertheless during the "pre-negotiations", theobjections of local communities were dealt with(e.g. corrections of the borders of sites) and also themain stakeholders in the territories were informedand invited to participate (important landownersand users).

Estonia

Involvement and participation of local communities inthe Natura 2000 designation process has been insuf-ficient. Distribution of information to local communi-ties has largely been the responsibility of the Ministryof the Environment’s regional departments. Officialpublic hearings were organised at the last minute andonly three weeks were allowed for review and com-ments. Materials (posters, pamphlets and films)should have been distributed more widely.

Issues concerning nature conservation are regarded asmarginal, except for direct stakeholders (mostly landow-ners in proposed areas). Difficulties with landowners arise

from the obscurity of the legal and financial backgroundsfor Natura 2000 areas – the mechanism of compensa-tions or subsidies is not yet clear.

In the near future, communication work targeted atlandowners and local communities must be improved.Widespread criticism and opposition to the Natura2000 network, including largely negative reports inthe press, have been almost inevitable given the hur-ried process of public consultation. Without improvedcommunication and awareness-raising regarding theimplications and potential benefits of Natura 2000,the process of implementation in Estonia is likely to beas difficult.

Hungary

During the designation process, local communitieswere only involved through some nature conservationNGOs; thus community participation was weak. Localcommunities were informed of the Natura 2000 net-work, the designation process, the proposed sites, thereasons, aims and their possible future benefits by the so-called “NGO Natura 2000 coalition” (CEEWEB,MME/BirdLife Hungary, the National Society ofConservationists and WWF Hungary). MME/BirdLifeHungary organised a travelling exhibition, publishedinformation materials and organised media events.CEEWEB and the National Society of Conservationistsorganised workshops for municipalities. During 2004,the NGO coalition published leaflets for farmers andorganised a series of local information fora for stake-holders with the support of the Ministry of theEnvironment and Water.

Latvia

Regional seminars aiming to inform landowners,municipalities and other stakeholders and to canvasstheir opinions took place only in 2003, the third andfinal year of the EMERALD project. In addition, the“Propose a Territory!” campaign was launched at theend of May 2003.

Co-operation with the State Forest Service and the“Latvian State Forests” State Stock Company (SSC“LSF”) started during the second year of the project.

5. The involvement and participation of local communities in

the Natura 2000 designation process

25

The State Forest Service (local departments) and SSC“LSF” (regional branches) were involved in order to pro-vide information on the distribution of certain species orhabitats. The representatives of the State Forest Servicealso participated in field inventories and further nego-tiations in the site designation process.

The public negotiation process was short and formal.Due to lack of positive awareness-raising, most of thelandowners were against the establishment of new pro-tected areas. These objecting opinions of landownersor municipalities were taken into account and the pro-posed borders were changed as a result. In a fewcases where features of high nature value wereinvolved, the authorities in charge of site designationnevertheless proceeded with designation.

Lithuania

Local municipalities were not involved in the actual siteselection or designation, but were asked to endorse sites,in line with their obligations according to the law: theycould either agree or disagree with the proposed sites,and also could comment and request changes concer-ning territory size or boundaries. This local municipalityopinion was obligatory in the majority of cases.

Local town or village communities could participate inpublic hearing procedures and express their opinions,but were not involved in site selection or the designa-tion process. They could only express their opinion,which was not obligatory.

Poland

Involvement and participation of local communitieswas and still is definitely insufficient. There was noreliable information about the Natura 2000 networkprovided to local communities. The awareness abouthow the network functions is critically low at thislevel. Moreover, in many cases lack of informationhas caused a negative and wrong picture of the net-work. Natura 2000 is perceived as another form ofstrict nature protection, i.e. as reserves or nationalparks. Stakeholders are convinced that it means onlymore restrictions which will limit their further deve-lopment. Opportunities for development arising fromNatura 2000 were not presented to local people, sothey are in most cases not aware of the possibilitiesof sustainable development from which they can gainadditional income (this also applies to the imple-mentation of Agri-environment Programmes). Localcommunities and authorities (communes) were

Jona

s A

ugus

taus

kas

26


asked to give their opinion on proposed sites locatedin their area. Opinions received were in most casesnegative.

Greater involvement of local authorities and other stake-holders had been foreseen to be carried out during thepreparation of management plans for each site. The pro-ject aimed at developing management plans for pilotareas demonstrated that involvement of local authoritiesand other stakeholders is essential for the long-term sus-tainability of the management plans as well as theimplementation of the network as such. Such meetingscould be good opportunities to make up for backlogs inpast information dissemination activities. This involve-ment could be crucial to develop effective rules for pro-tection of certain species and habitats, which could beacceptable for all the stakeholders involved. Such anapproach has been foreseen in a project of ministerialdecree on management plans for Natura 2000 sites.Unfortunately the regulation which was finally adopteddoes not explicitly require such an involvement. Takinginto consideration the low awareness of local communi-ties and their negative attitude to the network, it couldcause serious problems in the implementation and pro-per management of Natura 2000 sites.

Slovakia

All relevant stakeholders from the proposed Natura2000 sites were involved in the designation process.This is an obligation according to the Act on Natureand Landscape Protection. The Ministry of theEnvironment must involve owners, administrators, andtenants of lands designated for protection underNatura 2000. The Ministry must explain the reason forincluding a site in a national list, define those activitiesthat require approval of the nature protection body orwhich are prohibited according to this Act, and inform

stakeholders of compensation available for restrictionof common cultivation.

To identify all stakeholders, an inventory of the landparcels was carried out and a database of owners,administrators, and users of the relevant land was pre-pared. A total number of 42 850 stakeholders on 67 605parcels were identified. The number of parcels wasobtained from the cadastre (land register) offices (inApril 2003). Altogether, 362 meetings were orga-nised, in which 59% of the owners, administrators,and users of the relevant land participated. The meet-ings covered almost 80% of relevant territories. Ofthose who participated, 31% approved of the site de-signation, 16% expressed conditional acceptance,13% expressed disapproval, 38% refused to give anopinion, and less than 3% requested additional time todecide. Most of the disagreements were connectedwith doubts regarding the ability of the State to paycompensation for land use restrictions.

Slovenia

Local communities were requested to give their com-ments and remarks at the very end of the designationprocess. There was not enough time to study the prosand cons of Natura 2000. This gave rise to dissatis-faction among some local community representatives,especially among those to whom investments in infra-structure had been promised, which could potentiallynot be carried out because of Natura 2000 require-ments (wind power plants for instance). Opportunitiesand benefits of the Natura 2000 network were poorlypresented to locals so they have little knowledge aboutopportunities offered by nature conservation in thisform. Some local communities are still very unsatisfiedwith the existing Natura 2000 network and theythreaten lawsuits against the government.

27

Official lists submitted to the European Commissionwere often assessed as not providing favourable con-servation status to habitats and species from AnnexesI and II to the Habitats Directive and Annex I to theBirds Directive. The "Shadow List" is one of the mostimportant tools which enable NGOs to present theirpoint of view, and they will be discussed during bio-geographical seminars.

The Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia andSlovenia have prepared Shadow Lists; the EstonianShadow List is under preparation. Latvia and Hungaryhave not prepared Shadow Lists, however LatvianNGOs are recognising need for making one.

Czech Republic

The Shadow List was developed as the "priority list" overfour years by Czech environmental NGOs (2001–2004),with the co-operation of more than 100 specialists inBotany and Zoology. In 2003, a "Coalition of Czech NGOsfor Natura 2000" was established (including NGO mem-bers such as Veronica, Arnika and Calla) which aimed tofinish, promote and lobby for the "priority list" using co--operation in Central Europe. This Czech list was deliveredto WWF International in Vienna for the development of a "common interest list" of the new EU accession coun-tries, which was handed over to Margot Walström, in hercapacity as Environment Commissioner, during the cele-bration of the accession of the new EU member states inBrussels on 1st May 2004. The "Coalition of Czech NGOsfor Natura 2000" continues to work with the "priority list"to monitor the designation process of Natura 2000 sites.

Estonia

The Shadow List of Natura 2000 areas is under prepa-ration and is expected to be submitted in autumn2005. The Estonian Fund for Nature is responsible forcompiling the List. Several other NGOs, such as theEstonian Semi-natural Community ConservationAssociation (ESCCA), Wildlife Estonia and theEstonian Ornithological Society, will be involved incompiling the Shadow List.

6. Shadow Lists

Priority list map and proposed Sites of Community Importancein the Czech Republic (Mojmir Vlasin and al., Veronica)

Priority list map and Special Protection Areas in the CzechRepublic (Mojmir Vlasin and al., Veronica)

Leve

nte

Vis

zló

28


Hungary

A Shadow List was not prepared in Hungary, becauseit was seen as unnecessary as there are only minor dif-ferences between the IBAs list and the submitted SPAslist. There are not enough data to prepare a ShadowList of pSCIs.

Latvia

The Latvian Fund for Nature and the LatvianOrnithological Society carried out the inventory ofexisting and potential SPNTs. These organisations havenot prepared a Shadow List as they were participantsof the evaluation process and prepared the initial listof the proposed Natura 2000 sites.

Concerning SPAs, the Latvian Ornithological societypublished a book called “Important Bird Areas ofEuropean Union importance in Latvia”, which can beused to evaluate the Natura 2000 site list.

Nevertheless, there might be a need for a Shadow Listto recognise sites that are suitable for designation, but

which were not included in the list of proposed Natura2000 sites for some reason (lack of information or lackof political will), or were designated as national SPNTs(and included in the list of proposed Natura 2000 ter-ritories).

Several inventories, i.e. the Latvian Breeding Bird Atlasand the Woodland Key Habitats Inventory, have shownthat areas of high biodiversity value might still befound outside the proposed Natura 2000 sites.

Lithuania

The Shadow List was prepared in May 2004 and pub-lished by the WWF Accession initiative in June 2004:“Natura 2000 in the New EU Member States – StatusReport and List of Sites for Selected Habitats andSpecies”9.

The Lithuanian Fund for Nature suggested 198 sites inthe Shadow List. Some of the areas have been desig-nated already, but the Ministry of the Environment hasnot published the Natura 2000 list and so it is difficultto assess the extent of its success.

9 See the website: www.panda.org/epo (under Natura 2000)

Sel

emon

as P

alta

naviči

us

29

Poland

The Shadow List in Poland was prepared because theNGOs involved agreed that the governmental list of pSCIsand SPAs was insufficient and did not allow for providingfavourable conservation status in key areas. The ShadowList was developed by WWF Poland, the Polish Societyfor Nature Protection ”Salamandra”, the Naturalist Club,and OTOP – the Polish Society for the Protection of Birds(Polish BirdLife partner)10. The differences as comparedto the governmental proposal include:

several changes to the site borders proposed by thegovernment;most of the new sites proposed have already beenconsidered in the previous stages of work on desig-nating the Polish Natura 2000 network, but wereexcluded later, often as a result of conflicts withstakeholders;

37 completely new sites – complete Standard DataForms (SDFs) had to be created for them.

New and modified SDFs were sent to the EuropeanCommission together with the report on the ShadowList. The Shadow List, containing 152 pSCIs not pre-sent in the governmental proposal, was sent to theEuropean Commission. In the 15 cases where hadbeen changes in borders proposed to the governmentvia the Shadow List, the results were that the govern-mental proposal was enlarged.

The complete Shadow List of pSCIs prepared by NGOsconsists of 336 sites with an area of 29 400 km2

which covers 9.4% of Polish inland territory, and6159.7 km2 of marine sites.

The organisations preparing Shadow List emphasise thattheir list is not complete, as some other areas need to beresearched, and may be included on the list of Natura2000 sites, but for now there are not enough data.

The Polish Society for the Protection of Birds prepareda list of pSCIs which:

consists of 140 sites (cf. 72 sites in the govern-mental proposal); 67 sites are completely new, 2are partly included in governmental proposal;covers 15% of Polish terrestrial area (cf. 8% in thegovernmental proposal).

The Ministry of the Environment has commissioned averification of the habitat Shadow List by the Institutefor Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy ofSciences. Some areas of alpine regions were alreadyincluded in the governmental proposal, for a biogeo-graphical seminar on this region which was held at theend of May 2005. Most of the areas included onShadow List falling within the continental biogeographi-cal region will be sent to the European Commissionalong with the second part of the governmental pro-posal. The verification of the SPAs Shadow List will bealso commissioned to experts.

Slovakia

In June 2004 the report “Natura 2000 in the New EUMember States” was produced by WWF and sevenpartner organisations11, which included a proposed listof sites for selected habitats and species for a numberof countries. Slovakia was included in the report’s

10 “Natura 2000 Shadow List in Poland. Detailed Analysis of Habitat Directive Implementation. Syntethic Approach to Bird DirectiveImplementation”, Warszawa, 200411 See also the website: www.panda.org/epo (under Natura 2000)

Shadow List map for proposed Sites of CommunityImportance in Poland 10

Shadow List map for Special Protection Areas in Poland 10

Shadow List. The basic conclusion of the report wasthat the new and future EU member states have madesignificant progress in implementing Natura 2000, butmuch remains to be done. More committed efforts arenow needed to complete the work of site designationand to prepare for actual implementation of the net-work, for example by securing necessary funds as wellas raising awareness among relevant stakeholders.

The Slovak NGOs’ list, which has been developed andco-ordinated by Daphne, contains a total of 856 sites,which cover a total of 888,958 ha, covering a total of

18.20% of the country’s territory. Comparing this listwith the 382 pSCIs, covering 11.72% of the country(which have already been approved by the govern-ment), a total of 474 sites must still be added to thegovernment’s list in order to fully meet the require-ments of the Habitats Directive.

The most important comment on this NGO list of sitesis that it is still not the final version. The present ver-sion has been prepared from data that are currentlyavailable from mapping, but this is still ongoing andwill continue for the next few years – new data will benecessary especially for non-forest habitats (e.g. one--third of grasslands data is missing) as well as forspecies of fauna.

Slovenia

The Shadow List for SPAs was prepared by DOPPS--BirdLife Slovenia in the form of a book entitled"Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Slovenia. ProposedSpecial Protection Areas (SPAs) in Slovenia" and sub-mitted to the European Commission. The Shadow Listfor the entire Natura 2000 network (pSCIs and SPAs)in Slovenia was prepared for WWF by the private com-pany OIKOS and submitted in June 2002.

30


Shadow List map for proposed Sites of Community Importancein Slovakia (DAPHNE Institute of Applied Ecology)

Arc

hive

of

Not

ranj

ski

Reg

ijski

Par

k

31

The European Commission does not give clear criteriato be used in the designation process, as it leaves a freehand to Member States. The general aim is to achievefavourable conservation status of habitats and speciesmentioned in the annexes to directives. Put simply,cohesion is provided when all areas which ought to bedesignated are designated. It was not always soaccording to the NGO assessments, and this was themain reason for creating the Shadow Lists mentionedin the previous chapter. Another key factor in providingcoherence is ecological corridors enabling connectivitybetween various types of protected areas; work hasalready started in marking them out in some MemberStates.

The cohesion of the Natura 2000 network seems to besufficient in Slovenia and Hungary (concerning SPAs),and also more or less sufficient in Estonia and Latvia.The situation seems to be worse in other countries: it

is unlikely to be sufficient in Poland, Slovakia inHungary (concerning pSCIs) and the Czech Republicand definitely insufficient in Lithuania.

Czech Republic

Cohesion is not sufficient and has two problemsregarding pSCIs:

in the 2/3 of the Czech territory where mapping ofbiotopes was finished in time, it is evident that thesites are too fragmented. There seems to be a ten-dency to avoid conflicts in the negotiation process;in the 1/3 of the Czech territory where mapping ofbiotopes was not carried out on time, it will be ne-cessary to communicate the new sites (this correc-tion is supposed to be done during 2005 on thebasis of the biotope mapping which was finished in2004).

7. Assessment of national Natura 2000 network cohesion

Arn

e A

der

32


The concept of ecological corridors (and the centres orreservoirs of biodiversity in the framework of a landscape--based, ecologically stable system) has existed for morethan 10 years, but in the context of Natura 2000 wasneither included nor improved.

Estonia

According to the experts’ evaluation, the cohesion ofthe Natura 2000 network is more or less sufficient.However the following points need to be addressedfully in the near future:

scientific analysis regarding the total coverage ofeach habitat and its importance within Estonia andthe boreal biogeographical region (the meeting willbe in 2005 or at the latest in 2006);principles of selection of certain sites according toeach habitat type (“representativity” analysis);need for protection and comparison with existing le-vels of protection (including both existing protectedareas and pSCIs).

Without such detailed analysis, it cannot be ade-quately evaluated whether the planned Natura 2000measures will be sufficient. To date, such analysishas been conducted for the Birds Directive, but notfor the Habitats Directive. With increasing criticismfrom landowners, encouraged by the media, such ananalysis is of vital importance for justifying site desi-gnation.

In Estonia, Natura 2000 areas were defined quiteselectively, largely based on the existing protectedareas (about 70%). Large areas were selected on thesea and on Lake Peipsi and Vortsjärve. Several parts ofrivers are included into the list of Natura 2000 sites,and these are forming ecological corridors betweencore areas. However, in general the linkages betweencore areas could be improved.

Hungary

All important areas seem to be included in the net-work. For example all important breeding, feeding,staging and migration areas for birds can be found inthe network of SPAs.

Except for birds, there is no complete NGO assessmentof biodiversity yet, but it is under preparation. SPAs

were usually designated as large areas (if some areaswere close to each other they were connected into onelarge area), whereas pSCIs were mostly designated asseveral small areas. For SPAs the assessment is thatthe network is coherent. Regarding pSCIs a coalition ofNGOs is currently working on an analysis.

Latvia

According to national legislation, in order to ensure pro-tection (favourable conservation status of species andhabitats) of SPAs and pSCIs, Latvia must designate allpotential Natura 2000 sites as national SpeciallyProtected Nature Territories (SPNTs) before they canbe included in the list of proposed Natura 2000 sites.

Proposals for categories of new SPNTs were based onspecies and habitats found in the respective territory.Then the most appropriate status for the territory (e.g.nature reserve, nature park or other) that would ensureprotection of species and habitats was defined accord-ingly.

In general, calculations and distribution of proposedNatura 2000 sites confirm that species and habitatsare protected to a significant extent. There are howevermany biologically valuable forest areas11 that are notincluded in the list of proposed Natura 2000 sites.There are strong objections from the forestry industryas timber production is the most important source ofincome in Latvia.

In order to meet the EU requirement to choose loca-tions for Natura 2000 sites by the time of accession tothe EU, the most logical solution for Latvia was to usethe existing system of Specially Protected NatureTerritories as a basis for the new Natura 2000 networkand to adjust it to the demands of the EU Directives;these were large territories including National Parks aswell as small Nature Reserves. Following a subsequentanalysis proposals to establish new national SPNTswere submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, onsites where inadequately protected species or habitatsof Community interest were found.

In the Latvian approach to ecological corridors, the na-tional plan and criteria were initially developed and usedin one pilot region – Kuldiga. On the basis of the acqui-red experience, a National Ecological Network was deve-loped in the form of digital map. All ECONET12 elements

11 In Europe, most of the areas with trees are "forests", not "woods", as they all have been more or less impacted. The most valuable ones are thosewhich have not been impacted in the last 100 years or so, but almost no forest can be found with no impact at all. In Latvia, when speaking about"biologically valuable forests" it refers to forests where natural processes are undisturbed and natural forest structure elements are present.12 Project results of the European Ecological Network ECONET, 1999–2001

33

are reflected in it – core areas, corridors and bufferzones. The ecological network on the local, regional andnational level will serve as a guideline for physical plan-ning of the territories on all levels. The Latvian Fund forNature participated in the IUCN project “Developmentof National Ecological Networks in the Baltic Countriesin the framework of the Pan-European EcologicalNetwork”, which resulted in a publication including a situation analysis and proposed an ecological networkfor the Baltic countries in 2002.

To some extent, ecological corridors are maintained bydesignation of protected areas along rivers, waterbodiesand by legislation on Protective Belts along waterbo-dies. Nevertheless, no special emphasis was put on eco-logical corridors when the Natura 2000 network wascreated. In theory, the legislation foresees that pro-tected areas in Latvia can be established to provide thatfunction to some extent (e.g. ensure migration ofspecies) but in practice it has not been done.

Lithuania

Designated SPAs are mostly in areas which are alreadyprotected, but there is not enough of them. There is a large number of nominated pSCIs, but the territorythey cover is quite small, and they usually do not havebuffer zones or protected corridors between each otheror between them and other protected areas. TheLithuanian Fund for Nature and a large group ofresearchers asked the Ministry of the Environment tolegally adopt an ecological network according toPEEN, which could allow for the creation of a morecoherent network of potential Natura 2000 sites andEMERALD sites. Unfortunately the Ministry of theEnvironment did not adopt the ecological network con-cept, but instead adopted the “Nature Framework”,which did not allow for the formation of a coherentnetwork of Natura 2000 sites protected by buffers andlinked by corridors. The “Nature Framework” is ratherbased on physio-geographical and geomorphologicfeatures, and so it is not particularly well-suited to bio-diversity conservation or Natura 2000.

Poland

The cohesion of the national Natura 2000 networkleaves a lot to be desired. Although the proposedNatura 2000 sites are relatively large, this does notensure adequate cohesion of the network. The official-ly proposed list consists of more or less connectedsites which need further development to meet the cri-teria required by the directives. Moreover, the geo-

graphical distribution of the proposed sites does notstrictly reflect the distribution of the habitats andspecies considered. This pattern is in many cases dueto e.g. greater activity of local NGOs in some regions,or of lower opposition from stakeholders whose opi-nion was taken into consideration when the Ministrydetermined the sites. This is especially visible for siteslocated in river valleys. The preliminary list of sitesconsisted of relatively good representation of thosekinds of sites, which apart from their role as sites assuch, could also constitute effective ecological corri-dors connecting other sites. Regrettably, because ofobjections raised by Regional Boards for WaterManagement, this list has been significantly short-ened.

An important step on the way to secure both adequaterepresentation of sites and cohesion of the network isthe Shadow List prepared by coalition of NGOs (seesection 6) which is most coherent and consistent withrequirements and vision of the network. Some faithcan be also placed in the project carried out for theMinistry of the Environment by the Mammal ResearchInstitute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, whichaimed to designate ecological corridors connectingmajor Natura 2000 sites and to prepare guidelines on its functioning. The main output of the project is a concept of ecological corridors connecting the mainNatura 2000 areas. It consists of a GIS database, current nature protection projects and rules for function-ing and management of ecological corridors. A team ofexperts also proposed changes and additions in legi-slation to make management and protection of cor-ridors more effective.

Slovakia

Preliminary SPAs were identified using several protec-tion networks. GIS-based analyses were worked outwhere qualitative data for well-known species and habi-tats were available. Additional inventories were carriedout in preliminarily identified sites. For each speciesevaluated, an expert was consulted who gathered infor-mation. Additional information was collected andentered into the database. Finally, 45 sites were identi-fied as potential SPAs. However, after the inter-ministe-rial evaluation, 7 sites were excluded from the officialSPAs list, and the final list contained only 38 sites.

Regarding pSCIs the situation was even more difficultand more proposed sites were excluded from the pro-posed expert list. Sites eligible to be identified aspSCIs were pre-selected using several protection net-

34


works. After finishing the project, a total of 59 siteswere identified, covering some 31.7% of the nationalterritory; this list was handed to the Ministry of theEnvironment and the State Nature Conservancy. Butdue to their nomination requiring more detailed le-gislative steps, finally 382 pSCIs were proposed, co-vering only 11.72% of the Slovak territory, as biggersites were cut into smaller ones. Cuts within the pSCIslist were much more complicated and that is why thislist cannot be seen as sufficient.

As for spatial aspects, a number of sites were chosenon the basis of scientific data and they form some-times less and sometimes more coherent networks.For large carnivores in particular, the coherence is dis-putable, but there will be an opportunity during thebiogeographical seminars to increase the number ofsites for them. Article 10 of the Habitats Directive,which calls for the ecological coherence of the networkis mentioned separately in the “Act for a CoherentEuropean Network of Protected Areas in Slovakia”.However, the meaning of the article 10 of the HabitatsDirective is different from the one in Slovak Act on

Nature and Landscape Protection. So, even if it isallowed for in the Act, coherence is neither secured inlegislation nor in practice.

Slovenia

The extensive coverage of the Natura 2000 networkover the country provides sufficient cohesion. Howeveras Slovenia is a relatively small country, connectivitywith other national Natura 2000 networks is veryimportant for wildlife in the region, and there was nocross-border co-operation between NGOs or govern-mental bodies. Such a lack of co-operation results inpoorly-defined cross-border Natura 2000 sites. This islikely to result in objection from people living close tostate borders. For example it is hard for local people tounderstand why on one side of the border there is aNatura 2000 site, whereas on the other side with thesame habitat there was no designation.

Regarding ecological corridors, there is one corridor forbig mammals (such as bears and wolves) which iscovered by Natura 2000 sites in sufficient way.

Rom

as M

ečio

nis

35

Nature does not recognise or respect political borders,many of which were established only a few hundredsyears ago. No wonder that while animals and plantsare “travelling” – migrating or expanding their ranges –the borders are creating problems for their naturalbehaviour. In the future a concept for transboundarynature protection within Natura 2000 should be devel-oped, which should be easily solved within theEuropean Union. Only Estonia assessed transboundaryco-operation as more or less sufficient, and in othercountries the situation needs to be improved.

Czech Republic

The insufficient transboundary cohesion was caused bya rather hectic development of Natura 2000 in neigh-bouring countries and their political decisions. From theCzech point of view the quality of co-operation is diverse:

it is good with the Land of Sachsen, not good enoughwith Slovakia, harmonised in the border area withAustria and the Land of Bavaria, and there is a lack ofany integration with Poland, except in the Krkonosemountains. As regards pSCI, all the Krkonose NationalPark and also the buffer zone is included as one largecomplex. As regards SPA only a part of the KrkonoseNational Park is included, but as the coherent area.

In the immediate future the Czech government mustsend an official demand to the Polish government fornegotiations concerning transboundary co-operationregarding Natura 2000.

Estonia

According to expert evaluation the Natura 2000 net-work transboundary cohesion is more or less sufficient.

8. Assessment of transboundary cohesion of the national

Natura 2000 networks and transboundary co-operation in

the designation process

Source: European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity

36


There have been some meetings and informationexchange with Latvian colleagues, but the jointEstonian-Latvian scientific analysis regarding trans-boundary cohesion has not been carried out.

There was no co-operation with Russia on maintaininga good state of conservation of transboundary areas.Between Russia and Estonia the border is along theRiver Narva and Lake Peipsi, i.e. mainly a freshwaterborder, and quite a short land border. There is a verypreliminary idea to establish a National Park ofSetumaa to preserve the unique culture of the Setupeople and the area’s landscape heritage. There is alsogood co-operation with Russia on protecting and ma-naging Lake Peipsi.

Hungary

No information on transboundary co-operation in thedesignation process initiated by the government is ava-ilable. MME/BirdLife Hungary prepared a proposal in theframework of the European Important Bird Areas pro-gramme of BirdLife International, in which all EuropeanPartners were involved, so transboundary cohesion wasnecessarily taken into account in the proposal.

However, not enough co-operation has taken placewith neighbouring countries yet to assess the trans-boundary cohesion of the network. In the SPA desi-gnation process, the BirdLife-RSPB EU-Accession pro-ject carried out strong co-operation between NGOs(mainly BirdLife partners in all new accession count-ries). For pSCIs there is little international co--operation, but NGO co-operation occurs mainly onlocal and regional levels.

Latvia

There was a lack of co-operation between neighbour-ing countries (Lithuania and Estonia) in the prepara-tion of the lists of potential Natura 2000 sites. Thereasons were that different approaches were used (dif-ferent methods of site selection and mapping of habi-tats) and the governments used different designationprocedures.

Bilateral co-operation agreements have been signedwith Estonia and Lithuania. Numerous bilateral co--operation projects are taking place, for example inNorth Vidzeme Biosphere reserve. Co-operation withthe UNDP is continuing. Support for several projectshas been received, such as the UNDP/GEF project“Maintenance of biological diversity in North Vidzemebiosphere reserve”. A bilateral agreement between

Latvia and Lithuania “on co-operation in the manage-ment of international river basins” was signed in 2003.Regional and sub-regional co-operation is continuouslytaking place in the scope of several biodiversity--related international conventions: the Convention onBiological Diversity, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, the Convention on Internatio-nal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora andFauna, the Convention on the Conservation of MigratorySpecies of Wild Animals, the Convention on theConservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.Latvia is participating in HELCOM activities, and severalprojects based in the Baltic Sea are being implemented.Generally, with accession to the EU, co-operation withinbiogeographical regions is also being strengthened.

Lithuania

There was no real co-operation concerning trans-boundary areas with Latvia concerning Natura 2000.However there already exist some transboundary pro-tected areas with Latvia, Belarus and Kaliningrad.

Poland

Transboundary co-operation was not co-ordinated bythe government. All activities concerning transboun-dary co-operation were initiatives of the NGOs, notablyin the Odra River Valley and the KarkonoszeMountains.

The first steps were very promising. Work on imple-mentation of Natura 2000 started with the pilot studyconducted on the Czech–Polish border (see section 1).Later on, co-operation existed only partly at the locallevel, mostly where co-operation between NGOsacross the border has traditionally been good. Thiswas based on individual initiatives of particular expertsor NGOs and was not co-ordinated at the nationallevel. The most important reasons for this lack of for-

Tom

asz

Pez

old

37

mal international co-operation were different stages ofprogress of implementation in neighbouring countriesand their different approach to site designation.Moreover, Polish teams of experts had no capacity,resources or time for additional international meetingsand exchange of information since these were not sup-ported and co-ordinated by the Ministry. Only someinternational meetings were organised, which endedonly with declarations of co-operation which were notrealised later.

Certainly these gaps need to be filled in the futurethrough further development of the network sinceinternational coherence creates important additionalvalue for effective protection. So far, sites protected asNatura 2000 areas on one side of the border are oftennot reflected in the same protection on the other.

The results of the project (mentioned in section 7) onecological corridors should also be co-ordinated in thefuture with similar activities in neighbouring countries,since the outputs are very promising.

Slovakia

When the establishment of Natura 2000 networkstarted in the new EU Member States, all those count-ries tried their best in their own territory and were notconcerned with the situations in neighbouring count-ries. Some co-operation did take place between theexperts on the transposition of both directives, on

methodology for site selection, raising awareness andso on, but this exchange of expertise focused more oncollection of knowledge for use within the experts’ owncountries. There was an absolute lack of time andcapacity for proper transboundary co-operation aimingat optimal transboundary cohesion. Most of the NGOshope that the biogeographical seminars will be alsofocused on achievement of the goal of sufficient trans-boundary cohesion and co-operation.

Slovenia

In some cases Natura 2000 sites cross boundaries butthese are more coincidental than results of deliberatework. In many more cases there are Natura 2000 siteson one side of the border and nothing on the other side(e.g. river Mura, Kras). This also caused problems withlocal people, because there was no explanation givenwhy such differences were existing on either side ofthe border.

The River Mura is a transboundary river (linkingAustria, Slovenia and Croatia) which is designated asa SPA on both sides of the Austrian-Slovenian borderbut they are not connected because Slovenian SPAdoes not start immediately after the border. The Krasis also a transboundary ecosystem (Carst) spanningthe Slovenian-Italian border, with big differences oneither side: while the Slovenian side is designated asa large Natura 2000 site, only fragments of the Italiancarst have been designated as Natura 2000.

Arn

e A

der

38


It is hard to believe that the new EU Member Stateshave not prepared any effective sources of funds for theNatura 2000 system, but this is true. The moneywould be paid to the landowners for delivering publicgoods and services, so it should be possible to separatea proportion of tax-payers’ money for services directedto the whole of society: fresh air, a living landscape,and nature values. It is also true that the preparatorywork for Natura 2000 in the new EU Member States ofCentral Europe was to a large extent financed by foreignfunds. The question to be asked to the politicians in thenew Member States is: are foreign countries more inte-rested in saving our natural heritage than we are?

The financing system for Natura 2000 was assessedas definitely insufficient in most countries, but inEstonia it seems to be more or less sufficient.

Czech Republic

For the immediate future there exists legislation to sup-port the Natura 2000 sites – the new approach for Czechnature conservation recognises the use of financial com-pensation with the motivation of nature conservation. A similar possibility, which includes the improvement ofbiotopes, is offered by the existing Agri-environmentProgramme in the Czech Republic, for which it would bepossible to apply in 2005 and 2006. An analysis wasmade to evaluate financing support for Natura 2000 butit seems rather hypothetical at this stage.

Estonia

Support for implementation of the Natura 2000 net-work has been earmarked from the state budget until2007, as the Natura 2000 programme in Estonia wasbudgeted for by the state between 2000 and 2007. Itappears that investments both for scientific researchand communication activities have not always beenused effectively, though lack of transparency in alloca-tion of the funds makes clear evaluation difficult.There is a clear need for increasing the rates and totalamount of support available for management of semi--natural grasslands in particular.

According to a government order of 6th May 2003, theoverall costs for the implementation of Natura 2000for the years 2003–2007 (2nd Natura 2000 imple-

mentation period) is foreseen to be 20 million EEK(1.3 million EUR), and the government order men-tioned above provides for the whole of this sum for theyears 2003–2007. Of this, 19 million EEK hasalready been guaranteed or will be applied for from thestate budget; 1 million will be financed in 2003 underthe PHARE programme for Estonia. According to agovernment order of 25th July 2000, the overall bud-get for the first implementation period for Natura 2000(2000–2002) was planned to be 18.3 million EEK(1.2 million EUR), of which 10.4 million EEK (664 000EUR) was financed from the state budget.

Some specific projects which are also contributing toactivities in some Natura 2000 sites are financed bythe Centre for Environmental Investments, but no spe-cial financial measures are provided for this.

Hungary

There is no dedicated Natura 2000 financing systemyet in Hungary. Currently the only available, but notdedicated, source of financing is the National RuralDevelopment Plan, but there are problems with theimplementation of the Plan. The Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Development has not started topay out subsidies and submitted a proposal to theEuropean Commission to amend the NRDP and toreallocate 20% of the budget of the National RuralDevelopment Plan to complementary national directpayments (“top-up” payments). The Hungarian go-vernment proposes to introduce non-targeted measures(formerly planned to be funded from the nationalbudget) to replace targeted measures, aiming at deli-vering supports to targeted areas in accordance withthe priorities of the European Commission’s 6th

9. The Natura 2000 financing system

Leve

nte

Vis

zló

39

Environmental Action Plan: this is crucial in providingsupport to the implementation of the BiodiversityAction Plan for Agriculture, the Birds and HabitatsDirectives, as well as the Water Framework Directive.

However, the submitted proposal fails to consider theenvironmental impacts, as well as effects of theplanned reallocations for 2005 and 2006.

Latvia

There are several sources of finance that can be appliedfor financing of Natura 2000, but there is no nationalfinancing instrument with the main aim of financing ofNatura 2000. Since 2000, the largest potential Natura2000 sites have been financed through the EU’s LIFENature fund (management and protection).

One of the national financing instruments is theLatvian Environmental Protection Fund (LEPF) thatoperates under the supervision of the Ministry of theEnvironment. It was established to manage a specialbudget for environmental protection and it is used tofinance environment and nature protection projects.The funds of the LEPF are collected from naturalresource tax revenues. Financing is received on a pro-ject basis as a grant. Part of the natural resource taxrevenues is transferred to special environment protect-ion budgets run by the municipalities. These resourcescan be used by the municipality only for environmentprotection including nature protection.

Mostly the approach for obtaining resources for finan-cing the Natura 2000 system has been based on pro-jects such as the Danish–Latvian project entitled“Analysis of Specially Protected Nature Territories (SPNTs)in Latvia and Establishing the EMERALD/Natura 2000Network”, and several LIFE Nature projects with the aimto maintain particular SPNTs (potential Natura 2000territories) or particular habitats.

More resources for management of agricultural landwithin Natura 2000 territories became available uponaccession to the EU (via payments arising from theRural Development Plan), since "areas with environ-mental restrictions" mentioned in the RDP includeNatura 2000 sites.

Lithuania

There are funds allocated for Natura 2000 in the statebudget. Structural Funds can finance management ofNatura 2000, but most resources were allocated formanagement of recreational facilities in protected

areas, not particularly SPAs and pSCIs. Resourceswhich are directly related to ensuring a favourable con-servation status of habitats and species are very limi-ted. Until now potential Natura 2000 sites were most-ly managed by NGOs, but NGOs do not have access toStructural Funds, except in the budget line for infor-ming society about the quality of their environment.

The Agri–environment Programme under the Lithu-anian Rural Development Plan started in 2004, butonly for organic farming and the rearing of localbreeds. Other tasks relevant to Natura 2000, such asmeadow management, will probably not be open forfunding in 2005, or even 2006.

Poland

Financial support for some activities which are positivefor Natura 2000 implementation is only possible forfarmers (forestry, water management and other activi-ties are not taken into account at all) who applied forAgri-environment Measures under conditions whichwere neither easy nor legally well-defined. There isalso no special budget line for financing Natura 2000activities.

A farmer who applied for Agri-environment Measuresand whose farmland (or part of it) is located in a Natura2000 site can claim 20% higher payment under fol-lowing conditions (besides basic conditions for theAEM):

the operator of the Natura 2000 site will confirmthat the activities of the farmer under the AEM arein line with the management plan of the site;or the operator of Natura 2000 site will confirm thatthe activities of the farmer under the AEM are in linewith the protection goals of the site.

Until now, no designated Natura 2000 sites had a management plan, although some of them were inthe process of developing one, so fulfilling the first

Tom

asz

Pez

old

condition is rarely possible. It is slightly easier to getconfirmation using the second condition, since theprotection goals of Natura 2000 sites are alreadydefined, although there is no clear procedure for theconfirmation. On the other hand, the operators of theNatura 2000 sites (Voivodship Nature ConservationOfficers) are trying to help the farmers and are con-firming the applications of farmers for 20% higherpayments, to guarantee that the farmers will imple-ment AEMs (instead of, for example, intensification).

The danger is, that in the case of implementation byfarmers of the “sustainable agriculture” measure inNatura 2000, they theoretically can increase their useof fertilisers up to 180 kg N/ha (the average use ofNPK fertilisers in Poland is at the moment 90 kgN/ha), which definitely will be not beneficial for theconservation goals of Natura 2000 sites.

Slovakia

Most of the activities related to preparing for the esta-blishment of Natura 2000 have relied on support fromforeign sources, as funds made available from the statebudget were entirely inadequate for the task. Initial activi-ties were based on existing data and additional invento-ries developed through the Dutch-supported project enti-

tled “Establishment of Natura 2000 in Slovakia”. Toge-ther with the implementation of Natura 2000, projects onspecific habitat sites, such as the peatlands project (sup-ported by the Danish government) and the grasslands pro-ject (supported by the Dutch government and GEF) havesignificantly boosted conservation activities in Slovakia.

In 2004, a positive sign was the increase of supportavailable for compensation measures (from 10 millionSKK [0.24 million EUR] to 100 million SKK [2.47million EUR], but this amount is still insufficient forcompensation. For the future, the most important fac-tor will be that the Ministry of the Environment toge-ther with the State Nature Conservancy have a clearstrategy regarding how to use EU funding sources andmatch these with domestic sources in order to ensureeffective nature protection in Slovakia. Support fromthe EU sources is not sufficient in isolation and only incombination with national sources can it be mosteffective.

Slovenia

At the moment there is no financial system that wouldproperly address the Natura 2000 network. There aresmall funds available for the work of NGOs, but theseare insufficient for serious and widespread work.

40


Vie

ra S

tano

va

Czech Republic

In the 2005–2006 financial perspective, the adapta-tion of the existing national programmes and instru-ments for the financing of Natura 2000 is expected tocover:

the majority of the small-scale biotopes under theMinistry of the Environment’s "Welfare of theLandscape" programme;while on the larger scale meadows will be coveredby Agri-environment Measures managed by theMinistry of Agriculture.

Evaluation of the breakdown of future funding sources issupposed to be 90% national funds and 10% EU funds.

Estonia

Natura 2000 is mentioned in the general introduction tothe draft Rural Development Plan, but there is no men-tion of specific financial measures connected with this.With regard to Less Favoured Areas measures, it is saidthat the relevant Natura 2000 sub-measure will not bestarted until the next programming period (after 2006).

Hungary

Currently in Hungary the only available, but not dedi-cated for Natura 2000, source of financing are Agri--environment Programmes.

Latvia

LIFE Nature has been the most important tool fornature conservation in Latvia since 2000. Projectswhich are submitted for financing from LIFE Natureshould promote implementation of Birds and HabitatsDirectives and especially management of Natura 2000sites. For the time being, there are 12 LIFE Natureprojects that are either finished or being implemented.

The importance of EU structural funds such as theEuropean Regional Development Fund and European

10. Financial instruments

(sources of financing and

types of land use)

41

42


Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund hasincreased since Latvia became a member of EU.

The measure for Less-Favoured Areas and Areas withEnvironmental Restrictions are implemented since2005. The sub-measure for Areas with EnvironmentalRestrictions shall be implemented from 2005 uponthe approval of Natura 2000 sites by the Cabinet ofMinisters and creation of maps of those areas in a di-gitalised format.

The support from the SPD measure “Improvement ofEnvironmental Infrastructure and Tourism” is alsointended at promotion of nature tourism activities

including development of eco-tourism facilities in theNatura 2000 sites. But nevertheless there is demandfor a financial instrument to ensure sustainable mana-gement of forest areas within Natura 2000 territories.

Lithuania

Lithuania has not yet co-financed Natura 2000 projects.Authorities can give money for the administration of pro-tected areas from the state budget, and Natura 2000 isamong the activities that can be financed, but there isno specific funding targeted just at Natura 2000.

Poland

No special financing instrument is planned in the RuralDevelopment Plan for 2004–2006, only the possibilityfor farmers to apply for 20% additional payments forimplementation of AEMs in Natura 2000 sites.

Slovakia

According to the Act on Nature and LandscapeProtection, owners can obtain a financial contributionfrom the state budget if they maintain or enrich a part of the landscape that is not possible to enrich viacommon cultivation; or maintain buildings or under-ground premises created by a human activity if thesebuildings or premises are necessary for the protectionof protected animals associated with them. Accordingto this Act, the owners of the lands are obliged toobtain compensation for restriction of common culti-vation. Amount of finances are changing annually.

Slovenia

In general there is no financing system exclusivelydealing with Natura 2000. In some cases applicationsfor financing can be more successful if they are pre-pared for Natura 2000 sites.

Tom

asz

Pez

old

43

Czech Republic

For 2005–2006, the issue is to be clarified on the basisof discussions and adjustments between the Ministries ofEnvironment, Agriculture, Finance and LocalDevelopment, as well as between the respective usersand owners of land (as stakeholders). For the period2007–2013, the specification of Natura 2000 financingought to be outlined in the EC regulation which wasbeing discussed within the EU Member States (Councilregulation on support for rural development by theEuropean Agriculture Fund for Rural Development).

Estonia

The Rural Development Plan provides support for ma-nagement of semi-natural grasslands and valuable land-scapes, establishment of "feeding fields" for some migra-tory birds, protection of endangered amphibians and theestablishment of small wetlands. Some activities in thenational Natura 2000 implementation programme areco-financed through the PHARE national programme(0.8 Million EUR in 2001 for a twinning project withFinland). There is a plan to include some agri-environmentmeasures in the Rural Development Plan with 15%"stimulus" financing for activities occurring in Natura2000 sites (i.e. nature-friendly management, organicagriculture, maintenance of traditional stone fences, andmanagement of semi-natural grasslands).

Hungary

Currently the only source of financing could be theNational Rural Development Plan, but at the time ofwriting the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Deve-lopment had not started to pay subsidies and submitteda proposal to the European Commision to amend theNRDP and to reallocate 20% of the budget of theNational Rural Development Plan towards complemen-tary national direct payments. The Hungarian go-vernment proposes to introduce non-targeted measures(formerly planned to be funded from the national bud-get) to replace targeted measures aiming at deliveringsupport to specific areas in accordance with the priori-ties of the European Communities 6th EnvironmentalAction Plan; these targetted measures were crucial in

supporting the implementation of the Biodiversity ActionPlan for Agriculture, the Birds and Habitats Directives aswell as the Water Framework Directive. The proposalsubmitted fails to consider these environmental impactsand fails to consider the impact in the framework of theplanned reallocations for 2005 and 2006.

Latvia

The Latvian Rural Development Plan is a very complicateddocument even for the experienced reader, thus farmersare generally excluded from studying the plan themselves.The information for farmers was poor and fragmented,because elaboration of the RDP was finished only at thebeginning of May 2004. The interest from the farmingcommunity was very high; but there was no precise informa-tion as to which measures they could apply for and whatwould be the requirements. As for payments for organicfarming and biologically valuable grasslands, these twomeasures are often confused and farmers are not ade-quately informed about them. The campaign about apply-ing for the Single Area Payments and LFA Payments wascarried out, informing farmers of the requirements forreceiving these payments (excluding information aboutagri-environment measures, which have different require-ments). As a result, farmers are more or less informedabout how to receive payments for intensive farming, butnot informed about other possibilities. In general, infor-mation regarding financial instruments for Natura 2000needs to be seriously improved, with a special focus onlocal municipalities and landowners.

Lithuania

There is no financial instrument dedicated specificallyfor Natura 2000 sites. Management programmes andmeasures for SPAs and pSCIs are expected to befinanced from Structural Funds. Agri-environmentMeasures are supposed to be used for Natura 2000sites on which agricultural land exists.

Poland

The process of applications for AEMs by farmers to thepaying agency started on 1st October 2005. There wereno published data at the time of writing on how many

11. Financial instruments (beneficiaries, amount of support

and special conditions)

44


45

farmers with land located in Natura 2000 sitesapplied for the 20% bonus payments. In general by31st December 2004 nearly 4000 farmers in Polandhad applied for different measures under the AEP,most of them for the “Organic agriculture” measure.On the end of May 2005 over 8500 farmers appliedfor AEMs, including 5000 organic farmers.

Slovakia

Owners of the land on Natura 2000 sites are supposedto be paid based on the Act on Nature and LandscapeProtection. They just have to submit a written request forcalculation and compensation. Farmers and foresters willbe paid with resources from the Rural Development Planand the Sectoral Operational Programme for Agricultureand Rural Development. The Sectoral OperationalProgramme for Industry and Customs will makeresources available for different stakeholders, includingNGOs. Activities protecting the environment on Natura

2000 sites will be financed from the Sectoral OperationalProgramme for Basic Infrastructure. LIFE Nature projectsare sources of financing of proposed and approved pro-jects for Natura 2000 sites to be used by SNC.

Slovenia

There is no measure that would specifically target theNatura 2000 sites. Slovene Agri-Environment Programmeis implemented in so-called ecologically importantareas that cover more than 50% of Slovenia. There isno special additional funding of any measure in thecase where land lies in Natura 2000 sites, but there isadditional funding if land is in a national park (20%),a regional park (15%) or other protected areas (10%),i.e. Natura 2000 status does not mean that site is“protected” in the strictest sense of the word. Also themanagement bodies for protected areas which includeNatura 2000 sites do not receive any additional finan-cial support because of this inclusion.

Arc

hive

of

Not

ranj

ski

Reg

ijski

Par

k

46


European Union Directives are legislative acts whichdo not become part of a national law automatically,but they have to be transposed into relevant nationalacts. Countries have to decide by themselves whichnational acts need amendments concerning the Natura2000 network. In Hungary the process should beimproved, whereas in other countries it has been com-pleted quite successfully, or at least is more or lesssufficient.

Czech Republic

Just before accession of the Czech Republic to the EUthe new Law for Nature and Landscape Protectioncame into force (from 28th April 2004), in which re-gulations regarding Natura 2000 were transposed. Thecritical evaluation of the quality and conformity of thislaw is dealt with by the NGO Ecological legal service.

The Law for Nature and Landscape Protection laysdown the principle that each of the Natura 2000 sitesin the Czech Republic must have the category of a "spe-cial protected area". In practice this means that if anyNatura 2000 site (or part of it) has not yet been awar-ded this category, it will be imperative to adopt it. In themajority of cases, the lowest status will be awarded – a "natural monument". It is expected that this legislativestep will be very complicated and will cause large pro-blems in the nature protection sector.

Estonia

The adaptation of national nature protection legislationto the requirements of the Natura 2000 network is moreor less sufficient. The Nature Conservation Act speci-fying rules of functioning of the Network and protectionmethods (such as Environmental Impact Assessment)was passed on 21st April 2004 in Parliament.

Hungary

The regulation on the Natura 2000 network enterednational legislation in October 2004 as two Govern-mental Decrees. One Decree includes a definitionand regulation of the Natura 2000 sites and theirnetwork.

The other, the “Governmental Decree on Environmen-tal Impact Assessment of Plans and Programmes” in-cludes rules on the assessments taking into accountthe aims of the Natura 2000 network.

Some parts of the legislation were found insufficient:

the orders do not include the proper designation(corresponding to EU regulation) of the Natura2000 sites. This gap was forseen to be solved during the first half of 2005; provision of information on the aims and rules of theNatura 2000 network; the orders cannot assure the resultant conservationcommitments of Natura 2000 conservation tasks; there are certain tasks missing from the orderswhich can assure conservation, calculability, trans-parency and equality; the orders do not include the adequate implementa-tion of the article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

Latvia

The requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directivesare transposed into Latvian legislation through:

The Law on Specially Protected Nature Territories(adopted on 2nd March 1993, with amendments asof 26th October 2004);

12. Adaptation of national nature protection legislation to

Natura 2000 network requirements

Leve

nte

Vis

zló

47

The Law on Protection of Species and Habitats(adopted on 16th March 2000);Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers “On the Listof Specially Protected Species and Species with Exploi-tation Limits” (adopted on 14th November 2000);Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers “onEstablishment, Protection and Management ofMicro-reserves” (adopted on 30th January 2001);Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers “OnRecompensing Damage for Spoiling or DestroyingIndividuals or Specially Protected Species orHabitats” (adopted on 13th March 2001);Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers “On the Listof Specially Protected Habitats” (adopted on 5th

December 2000);Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers on “Criteriafor Selecting Sites Eligible for Identification as Sitesof Community Importance (Natura 2000) in Latvia”(adopted on 28th May 2002).

The requirements of the EU Directives are alsoincorporated in the national legislation on hunting,fishery and forestry.

Lithuania

The Law on Protected Areas contained the main require-ments for designation and implementation of Natura2000, but SPAs and pSCIs are not defined in separatecategories of protected areas. A Governmental Decisionand Order of the Minister of the Environment set themain requirements for the preparation and implementa-tion of management plans for Natura 2000.

The Law on Protected Animal, Plant and Fungal speciesand communities sets out the main requirements forspecies protection. There is a national list and a list ofEU protected species. The problem is that the legal acts(Governmental Decision or Ministerial Order) whichshould ensure in situ conservation had not yet been pre-pared at the time of writing. It is necessary to preparepractical and legally binding mechanisms (as requiredby the Habitats Directive, Art. 12, Annex IV).

The National Master Plan has been prepared and the County and Municipality Master Plans are beingprepared. They are defined under the Law of Spatial

Ain

a– rs

Aun

inš

48


Planning as obligatory planning documents. Unfor-tunately the potential Natura 2000 sites (SPAs, pSCIs)were not included in the national plan, which meansthat the resulting county and municipality plans willnot include Natura 2000 sites. In conclusion, spatialplans for protected areas are contradicting the protec-tion requirements of Natura 2000 sites.

Poland

The Birds and Habitats Directives have been transposedinto Polish legislation, mainly into the Nature Conserva-tion Act, which came into force on 1st May 2004.Legally speaking, the two types of Natura 2000 sites,i.e. SPAs and SACs, are defined as distinct forms ofnature conservation, independent of other forms.

However, problems may occur since the Polish systemof Natura 2000 management is not very clear. Manyquestions arise after reading the Nature ConservationAct: e.g. how management is related to supervision;who is responsible for monitoring; who is responsiblefor obtaining funds for protection of Natura 2000 sites,etc.

The article of the Nature Conservation Act concerningthe role of local authorities (communes) in the Natura2000 designation and management process waswidely discussed, as there is an obligation that ma-nagement plans of designated areas are agreed withcommunes. Communes may force solutions which arebetter for them from the economic point of view,which may in many cases lead to solutions which areharmful for nature. It also may not be the case, ascommunes may understand that Natura 2000 can bebeneficial for them, e.g. as a factor which supportssustainable activities such as tourism.

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive states that all plans orprojects that may have a significant effect on Natura2000 sites must be appropriately assessed. Such a re-gulation is included in the Nature Conservation Act, butas for detailed conditions on how such an assessmentshould be realised, it refers to existing EnvironmentalLaw. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive also says thatpublic opinion on investment which may have impacton a Natura 2000 site should be taken into account.The Nature Conservation Act only allows for communes’opinions to be taken into account, but surely this cannotbe treated as public opinion. Thus there is no placeallowed for the opinions of NGOs or individuals.

The Nature Conservation Act gives a clear deadline oncreating management plans for Natura 2000 sites, i.e.5 years from the moment of national designation. On30th March 2005 a Ministerial Decree announced a course of action and the scope of the Natura 2000management plans. Since legislation is weak concer-ning ecological corridors, potentially very fruitful resultscan be achieved in the above-mentioned project aimedat developing ecological corridors. One result of thatproject is a detailed proposal of changes to be incor-porated into Polish legislation related to nature pro-tection (such as the National Development Plan, theNature Conservation Act, the Environmental ProtectionLaw, the Water Law and others).

Slovakia

The transposition of the Habitats Directive into natio-nal legislation seems to be sufficient. A new Act onNature and Landscape Protection was prepared andapproved by the government in 2002 and this trans-posed both Directives into national legislation. The Actentered into force in January 2003 and a binding re-gulation was approved a few months later in the middleof 2003. Since the Act’s entry into force, a few gapshave been observed, but as a whole the Act is more orless sufficient.

There may be some misunderstanding connected withnew obligations for investors and with regard to provi-sions for Environmental Impact Assessments.

There are important discrepancies regarding two im-portant acts – the Act on Nature and LandscapeProtection (more oriented towards management andconservation of forests) and the Act on Forests (diffe-rent management goals and tools, strongly orientedtoward economically profitable management offorests). A new Act on Forests was due to be preparedin 2004, but is still awaited.

This is also the case with the Act on EnvironmentalImpact Assessments, where the Article 6 of theHabitats Directive is yet to be transposed. This Actwas due to be approved in 2004.

Slovenia

All key elements were adopted in Slovene legislationso that there are enough legal elements for nature pro-tection.

49

The Natura 2000 network is not just a scientific concept,but a practical nature conservation tool which should beharmonised with the national economy and with humanactivities. In order for the Natura 2000 network to beaccepted among stakeholders, they first need to havegood understanding of the whole idea. An awareness--raising campaign is an important tool while designatingsites, but even more so when managing them. Levels ofawareness leave a lot to be desired in most countries,although in Estonia it seems to be more or less sufficient.

Czech Republic

Pre-negotiation with the key stakeholders started in spring2004 under the leadership of different Directorates ofProtected Landscape Areas within the delimited territo-ries. It was doubtless too late but the stakeholdersexpressed interest and responsibility regarding Natura2000. Most apprehesive were the foresters who raisedmost objections, less objections were raised by farmersand even less from hunters (contrary to expectations).Generally if stakeholders formed negative positions beforethe pre-negotiation meeting, it was very difficult (orimpossible) to change their opinion. Officials at regionaland local levels regretted getting involved so late but theirrole will be sufficiently optimised in future, all being well.

Other ways NGOs participated included:

direct active engagement with the public (informationbrochures, exhibitions, discussion meetings, etc);the "Coalition for Natura 2000", made up of ecolo-gical NGOs, organised special seminars, meetingsand negotiations (4 times during the year);the NGOs Arnika and the Czech Society of Ornithologyare preparing to address their complaints to the Euro-pean Commission, motivated by the exclusion of somepSCIs by the Czech government and also generally tocomplain about the legislative faults in applying ofNatura 2000 rules to Czech nature protection law.

Estonia

In general awareness and understanding of Natura2000 among key stakeholders has not been very high.Also it is hard to assess and give just one evaluation

mark, because the group of stakeholders is verydiverse. For example there are no serious conflicts withhunters after Estonia gained exemptions concerningthe hunting of wolves and beavers. There are a fewconflicts in the fisheries sector caused by designationof Natura 2000 areas, connected with the damagescaused by seals to fishing gear and fish stock. The sys-tem of compensating such damages is still not suffi-cient. No targeted communications programme hasbeen undertaken during the last phase of site desi-gnation in 2003–2004. Items on Natura 2000 haveappeared in national and local newspapers, TV andradio interviews. Numerous leaflets and posters havebeen published and two video films were producedfeaturing Natura 2000 habitat types and several bookshave been published. Natura 2000 information dayswere held with the support of the Baltic EnvironmentalForum in 2000–2001. The indicative boundaries ofthe sites have been available at the Ministry of theEnvironment’s website.

There has been too little co-operation with ministriesother than the Ministry of Agriculture, despite the factthat the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry ofDefence and the Ministry of Economic Affairs andCommunication are important decision-makers andstakeholders who should be involved. The co-operationbetween the Ministry of the Environment and theMinistry of Agriculture has focused on development ofthe Rural Development Plan, the benefits of which arepresently unclear for Natura 2000 sites.

The co-operation between the Ministry of the Environmentand different stakeholders (other Ministries, state agen-cies, academic institutions, NGOs) should be im-proved, which will considerably facilitate future work,such as designation and management of the sites, aswell as successful communication.

Hungary

Local communities were informed of the Natura 2000network, the designation process, the proposed sites,the reasons and aims and their possible future benefitsmainly by the so-called “NGO Natura 2000 coalition” ofNGOs (CEEWEB, MME/BirdLife Hungary, the National

13. Assessment of awareness and understanding of Natura

2000 among key stakeholders

50


Society of Conservationists and WWF). MME/BirdLifeHungary organised a travelling exhibition, publishedinformation materials and held media events.CEEWEB and NSC organised workshops for munici-palities. During 2004, the NGO coalition publishedleaflets for farmers and a series of local informationforums for stakeholders, with the support of theMinistry of the Environment and Water. However, theoverall understanding of Natura 2000 among keystakeholders is still very weak and much more aware-ness should be raised. One of the key problems is theuncertainty of financing.

Latvia

There were several activities performed to raise thelevel of understanding of Natura 2000 among keystakeholders, such as the publication and distributionof booklets for landowners to describe the implicationsand benefits of the Natura 2000 network; also seve-ral articles devoted to the Natura 2000 process werepublished in local and regional newspapers. But thereare still many objections about the designation ofSPNTs: the main reason is absence of legislation onlandowner’s rights to receive compensation for thelegal restrictions established in Specially ProtectedNature Territories. Generally, forest owners are lessenthusiastic about site designation than farmers andowners of agricultural land, mostly because of the lackof state or EU support for Natura 2000 territories inforests. Hunters share the opinion of forest ownersbecause some rules introduced in the Birds Directiveprohibit old hunting traditions i.e. woodcock huntingat spring. Farmers are more enthusiastic because theyforesee adequate support payments from the EuropeanAgricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (envisagedby the Rural Development Plan). In general, commu-nication regarding Natura 2000 still needs to beimproved, with a special focus on local municipalitiesand landowners.

Lithuania

Awareness and understanding of Natura 2000 differbetween stakeholders. The Ministry of the Environmentand its agencies obviously have a good level of aware-ness; the Ministry of Agriculture staff are less aware,but it is more or less sufficient.

Governmental organisations and agencies of develop-ment sectors (transport, economy, energy, etc.) arenot sufficiently aware of Natura 2000; regional andlocal administrations are even less aware (except inthe ecology sector in the municipalities). National-level

forest owners, landowners or farmers, hunting andfisheries unions/organisations are quite well-aware andinformed. But at the regional and local level, organisa-tions are much less informed and awareness is not suf-ficient. Grassroots organisations, individual landow-ners or users are insufficiently aware, except in areaswhere pilot projects have been carried out on Natura2000 requirements.

Poland

In general, awareness and understanding of Natura2000 among key stakeholders is very low. There wasno comprehensive information campaign on Natura2000 for the public and for local stakeholders. Someinformation materials were presented to a limitednumber of recipients. The Ministry of the Environmentprepared a few brochures from which only the oneentitled “The Natura 2000 network. 10 questions –10 answers” is a good example, presenting in a “user--friendly” and exhaustive manner the main goals of thenetwork. There were also some other materials pre-pared, such as a film on CD and maps presenting thenetwork. An internet page was still under constructionand the time of writing.

Obtaining reliable and up-to-date information is difficult.Awareness is particularly low concerning farmers; manymay not be aware if their farm was even located inside a Natura 2000 site and are more concerned regardingpossibilities of receiving 20% more compensation viaAgri-environment Measures. Often, opinion is negativeand Natura 2000 is treated as a “limitation of develop-ment” because of the limited efforts to fully inform stake-holders. Even local administrations of some areasprotested against designation of Natura 2000 sites with-in their territory, so that afterwards farmers were disap-pointed that they “could not apply for 20% more mo-ney”. A similar opinion is shared by the most influentialfarmers’ unions and some political parties dominant inrural areas. Fishermen have a similar opinion, but theseare harder to convince because there are no direct finan-cial measures supporting them to develop sustainablefisheries consistent with protection goals of Natura 2000sites, although they and their target fish populations willbenefit from nature protection in the longer term.

The critically low awareness of local administrationauthorities is very disturbing; these are often notinformed of the goals of the network and possible li-mitations of landuse and development opportunities.This caused them to be decisively opposed to theimplementation of the network and will probablycause further complications in the future.

51

The most worrying fact showing low awareness aboutNatura 2000 network is that even some nature pro-tection authorities are not very aware of its rules andeven have a negative attitude towards it. Moreover, inmany cases scientists working on protection of certainspecies and habitats, do not have knowledge of thespecific rules of Natura 2000. Linked to this, the scienti-fic capacity to be utilised in the implementation phaseof the network is also relatively low and should beboosted. Taking into consideration that many activities(such as inventories and management plans) havebeen postponed, these factors could cause real pro-blems in achieving such ambitious goals in the future.

While some environmental NGOs were involved in theprocess and were invited to Voivodship (Regional)Working Groups and supported the Natura 2000 net-work with data, lobbying and promoting, some NGOs(mostly rural development NGOs or Civil SocietyOrganisations) were never invited or even officiallyinformed about the process.

Slovakia

The Ministry of the Environment together with theState Nature Conservancy and several other organisa-tions and NGOs have prepared several informationbrochures as well as a series of conferences and se-minars focussing on Natura 2000.

At the national level, national conferences have beenorganised on Natura 2000 (three for experts and onefor stakeholders) and four types of brochures havebeen disseminated to the public. However, Natura2000 has been insufficiently explained in the nationalmedia, especially regarding its implications. Efforts toprevent misunderstandings and fears have not had thenecessary effect.

At the local level, the most important awareness-raisingactivities have been the meetings held during thepreparation phases in the proposed protected areas.These meetings provided an opportunity to explain in

Arc

hive

of

Not

ranj

ski

Reg

ijski

Par

k

detail the reasons for and implications of the Natura2000 network, as well as potential opportunities andbenefits. Unfortunately, not all protected area admini-strations used these opportunities optimally.

Because all these opportunities were not used proper-ly, a lot of misunderstandings still exist among stake-holders. This varies from extreme anti-Natura 2000feelings due to incorrect information to positive feel-ings for Natura 2000. Among the stakeholders, thoseagainst Natura 2000 are investors, foresters andhunters, while on the other side we can find more andmore farmers and a few investors who understand

properly the philosophy of Natura 2000 and its poten-tial for developing sustainable tourism.

Slovenia

The majority of stakeholders does not know andunderstand the aim and meaning of the Natura 2000network. There were efforts to communicate theimportance and especially the need for Natura 2000sites. This is one of the major needs to be addressedin the future. Only with support of stakeholders, espe-cially at the local level, will the Natura 2000 networkbe successful.

52


53

Czech Republic

The Ministry of the Environmenthttp://www.natura2000.cz

Veronica Ecological Institutehttp://www.veronica.cz information on "priority list”

Estonia

Maps of the pre-selected and finally selected siteshttp://maps.ekk.ee/natura

The Ministry of the Environmenthttp://www.envir.ee

Hungary

The Ministry of the Environment and Waterhttp://www.kvvm.hu

MME/BirdLife Hungaryhttp://www.mme.hu

National Society of Conservationistshttp://www.mtvsz.hu

WWF Hungaryhttp://www.wwf.hu

Latvia

The Ministry of the Environmenthttp://www.vidm.gov.lv/vad/English/natura.htm

The Nature Protection Boardhttp://www.dap.gov.lv

Informative system of Latvian Environmental Agencyhttp://vdc2.vdc.lv:8998/iadt.html

Lithuania

State Service for Protected Areashttp://www.vstt.lt

Lithuanian Ornithological Societyhttp://www.birdlife.lt

Lithuanian Fund for Naturehttp://www.glis.lt

Poland

Natura 2000 in Poland (The Ministry of theEnvironment)http://www.mos.gov.pl/natura2000

The Ministry of the Environmenthttp://www.mos.gov.pl/1strony_tematyczne/natu-ra2000http://www.mos.gov.pl/1strony_tematyczne/natu-ra2000/broszura/eng.shtml

WWF-Polandhttp://www.wwf.pl/informacje/publikacje_natura.php

The Naturalist Clubhttp://www.lkp.org.pl/n2k

“Salamandra” – The Polish Society for Nature Protectionhttp://www.salamandra.org.pl/Natura2000

Institute for Nature Protection, Polish Academy ofScienceshttp://www.iop.krakow.pl/natura2000

Odra River Atlas (Natura 2000 in Odra River Valley)http://atlas.odra.org.pl

Slovakia

State Nature Conservancyhttp://www.sopsr.sk

The Ministry of the Environmenthttp://www.enviro.gov.sk

Society for Birds Protection in Slovakiahttp://www.sovs.sk

Daphne Institute of Applied Ecologyhttp://www.daphne.sk

Slovenia

Natura 2000 in Sloveniahttp://www.natura2000.gov.si

The Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planninghttp://www.gov.si/mop/podrocja/uradzaokolje_sektor-varstvonarave/projekti/natura2000

14. Useful links:

55

Abbreviations and acronyms

AEMs – Agri-environment Measures

AEPs – Agri-environment Programmes

CEEWEB – the Central and East European WorkingGroup for the Enhancement of Biodiversity

CORINE – Co-ordination of Information on theEnvironment (information system on nature, co-ordi-nated by the European Environmental Agency)

EAFRD – the European Agricultural Fund for RuralDevelopment

EAGGF – the European Agricultural Guidance andGuarantee Fund

ECONET – European Ecological Network

EMERALD – ecological network made up of “areas ofspecial conservation interest”, launched by the Councilof Europe as part of its work under the BernConvention

ERDF – European Regional Development Fund

EU – European Union

GEF – Global Environment Facility

GIS – Geographical Information Systems

HELCOM – the Helsinki Commission, the governingbody of the "Convention on the Protection of theMarine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area" (HelsinkiConvention)

IBA – Important Bird Area

LEPF – Latvian Environmental Protection Fund

LFA – Less Favoured Area

LIFE – the Financial Instrument for the Environment

LIFE Nature – part of LIFE, used to conserve naturalhabitats and the wild fauna and flora of EuropeanUnion interest

MoE – the Ministry of the Environment

NGO – non-governmental organisation(s)

NPK – nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium (in relation tofertilisers)

(N)RDP – (National) Rural Development Plan

NSC – National Society of Conservationists (Hungary)

PEEN – the Pan-European Ecological Network

PHARE – pre-accession instruments financed by theEuropean Union to assist the applicant countries ofCentral and Eastern Europe in their preparations forjoining the European Union

RDF – Rural Development Fund

RSPB – Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

(p)SCI – (proposed) Site of Community Importance(the Habitats Directive)

SDF – Standard Data Form

SNC – State Nature Conservancy

SPA – Special Protection Areas (the Birds Directive)

SPD – Single Programming Document

SPNT – Specially Protected Nature Territory

UNDP – United Nations Development Programme

WWF – World Wildlife Fund

IIUUCCNN –– TTHHEE WWOORRLLDD CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN UUNNIIOONN

Founded in 1948, The World Conservation Union brings together states, government agencies, and a di-verse range of non-governmental organisations in a unique worldwide partnership; over 1000 members inall, spread across some 140 countries.

As a union, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve theintegrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologi-cally sustainable.

The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of its members, networks and partners to enhancetheir capacity and to support global alliances to safeguard natural resources at local, regional and globallevels.

EEUURROOPPEEAANN PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMEE 22000055––22000088

The IUCN European Programme mission is to contribute to a sustainable Europe by influencing policydevelopment and implementation for biodiversity and landscape conservation, restoration and sustainableuse inside and outside Europe. In practical terms, the mission translates into the following objectives:

SSuuppppoorrttiinngg tthhee UUnniioonn iinn EEuurrooppee aanndd tthhee EEUU – Improved support framework for the global work of IUCNthrough the EU and other European partners; improved European membership services, including capac-ity building

UUnnddeerrssttaannddiinngg tthhee mmaaiinn ddrriivveerrss ooff bbiiooddiivveerrssiittyy cchhaannggee – Improved knowledge of biodiversity change and effective conservation measures at landscape, ecosystem, habitat and species levels

FFiinnaanncciinngg nnaattuurree ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn – Efficient incentive frameworks for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use are available and understood

LLiinnkkiinngg eedduuccaattiioonn,, sscciieennccee,, ppoolliiccyy aanndd pprraaccttiiccee – National and supranational (EU) policies, multilateralagreements, processes and institutions are more supportive of biodiversity conservation and ecologicallysustainable use

MMaannaaggiinngg oouurr nnaattuurraall hheerriittaaggee – Ecosystems are managed in a sustainable manner, reconciling social, eco-nomic and biodiversity objectives

The European Programme seeks to make IUCN’s voice heard through providing authoritative informationand policy products, whilst applying the expertise in the European constituency of IUCN. These will be theresult of integrating the diverse expertise of the Commissions, members and the worldwide IUCN secre-tariat to address the key drivers of biodiversity loss. The IUCN European Programme provides the platformfor bringing the expertise together, coordinating development of the products and obtaining financialresources.

TThhee IIUUCCNN PPrrooggrraammmmee OOffffiiccee ffoorr CCeennttrraall EEuurrooppee –– ccuurrrreenntt ffiieellddss ooff aaccttiivviittiieess

The IUCN Programme Office in Warsaw has a ten years experience in providing information on currenttopics related to biodiversity management. The office’s expertise in compiling and disseminating informa-tion to key societal actors currently serves four major fields of activities:

Ecological Networks – development of the ecological network in Ukraine. Uniting world experience tosupport a Global ECONET. Working together with stakeholders to support implementation of Natura2000 network in the New Member StatesAgriculture – integrating environmental and consumer organisations of the CE region into the discussionof the European agricultural policy reform, and Integrating biodiversity protection concerns into thedevelopment of rural areas by linking instruments of the future Natura 2000 sites with RuralDevelopment Plans in the CE regionForestry – raising awareness and building capacity among private forest owners in the CE region, devel-oping nature conservation guidelines for afforestation projects Fishery – sustainable management of fresh-water fisheries in 19 countries of Central and Eastern Europe

CCoouunnttddoowwnn 22001100

‘Countdown 2010’ is an initiative of IUCN, its members and partners to raise awareness on biodiversityand to monitor the progress of a unique political commitment by all EU heads of State, and the pan-European Environment Ministers to ‘halt the loss of biodiversity in Europe by 2010’. This ambitiousgoal forms a part of the EU Sustainability Strategy, and was reinforced by the 5th Environment for Europeconference in 2003.

IUCN Regional Office for EuropeBoulevard Louis Schmidt 641040 BrusselsBelgiumTel.: +32 27 328299Fax: +32 27 329499e-mail: [email protected]://www.iucneurope.org http://www.iucn.org

IUCN Programme Office for Central Europeul. Włoska 400-777 WarsawPolandTel.: +48 22 841 07 57Fax: +48 22 851 84 82e-mail: [email protected]://www.iucn-ce.org

IUCN Programme Office for the CIS17, Marshal Vasilevsky Street123182 MoscowRussian FederationTel.: +7 095 1904655 or 1907077Fax: +7 095 4905818e-mail: [email protected]://www.iucn.ru

IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern EuropeDr. Ivana Ribara 9111070 Novi Beograd Serbia and Montenegrotel/fax: +381 11 2272 531e-mail: [email protected]

implementation of natura 2000 in new eu member states of ... · natura 2000 and nature need...

Documents