Natura 2000 Europe’s safety net for nature – and people

1. Natura 2000Europe’s safety net for nature – and people Andreas Beckmann Deputy Director, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme

2. Natura 2000: Myths • What is not true… • “From Brussels for Brussels” • Including land in a Natura 2000 site affect the ownership of such land • All economic activities will be limited • Properties automatically lose value as a consequence of Natura 2000 designation • Hunting activities are forbidden • Any new infrastructure is forbidden • Everyday activities will have to undergo an environmental impact assessment

3. Outline About Natura 2000: • Why Natura 2000? • How does Natura 2000 work? Implications for business: • Challenges • Opportunities

4. Our challenge

5. Bringing it Home • 12bn hectares – 6 bn people • Per capita global quota - 2 hectares • European footprint - 6 hectares • Average European needs 3 planets • Average American needs 5 planets

6. Biodiversity provides crucial… • Goods (food, wood, fiber…) • Services (clean water, climate regulation…) • Genetic reserves – our insurance policy

7. A global crisis • 1000 x natural extinction rate • In Europe: • 42% of mammals endangered, e.g. Iberian lynx • 80% of Danube wetlands lost • Collapsing fish stocks

8. EU response • “The Community shall have as its task…to promote throughout the Community…a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.” Treaty Establishing the European Community (2002), Article 2: • Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) • Gothenburg Summit (2001): “halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010” • EU 6th Environmental Action Programme (2001) • Birds Directive (1979) and Habitats Directive (1992)

9. Europe’s “Safety net for nature” • Birds + Habitats Directives = Natura 2000 network • Cornerstone of EU conservation policy • Maintain species and habitats of European importance • Does not necessarily restrict socioeconomic activities – in many cases requires them

10. Site designation • Scientific assessment at national level • Selection of sites of Community Importance • Designation as Natura 2000 sites

11. Large sites: • a few big sites • buffer zones included • public acceptance often low • simple management • low administrative costs • Excluding: • „holes“ where no habitat type/ species has been found • omitting private property wherever possible • traffic facilities • Small sites: • many sites • no buffer zones • large edge effects and impacts • no functional units • impacts from outside not under control • management difficult • administration costly Methods of site selection

12. Site management • Avoid damage • Positive measures, where necessary, to maintain and restore habitats and species

13. Possible consequences Consequences of not selecting all Habitats Directive sites: • No complete impact assessment possible, no Commission Opinion, no authorization of plans/projects or at high risk Consequences of incomplete Bird Directive sites: • Factual Bird Directive sites (not delimited or declared but obviously fulfilling the scientific criteria): legally no planning or impact possible at all – “full stop” for any investments or changes • Only declared bird sites fall under the Appropriate Assessment and less strict protection regime of the Habitats Directive! Potential sites which may qualify (based on scientific evidence) are to be protected (precautionary principle)

14. Possible consequences • Any EU-citizen or NGO may start an infringement procedure • Risk of national courts to stop any activities/impacts started with the result of at least high additional costs for delays in case of missing appropriate assessments • EU-court cases and judgements: • Fines (e.g.: FR fisheries obligations C304/02: a lump sum of €20 million) • Penalty payments until full compliance (FR: €57.8 million/half year) • Possibility to stop any Structural Funds of the EU-Commission for not respecting the Habitats/Birds Directives (e.g.: letter DE for Saxony) • It is wise to establish a safe legal background for any economic investments and planning by fully selecting the necessary sites and by using the prescribed methods of appropriate assessments.

15. Assessments • Natura 2000 assessment required for plans or projects likely to have a significant impact • Focus on habitats or species protected • Negative assessment: if no alternatives, the project may go forward if considered to be of overriding public importance.

16. Negative assessments • 6.4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out • for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. • Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

17. Corridor for migration to species of amphibia (stream and littoral) Measures for avoidance The proponent suggests a generous bridging as a mitigation measure • All individuals are able to continue migrating, no adverse impact occurs

18. Car traffic noise has adverse effects on birds (deterioration of the breeding success, disturbance, etc.) New road Birds habitat Noise barriers can reduce the specific impacts Measures for reduction • residual impact on individuals but not significant for the respective bird population on site

19. Baden-Airpark (DE): Positive EC opinion Commision Opinion of 06/VI/2005 • Plan: New landing strip, renewal of runways, new buildings and change of runoff-water treatment • Directly affected site DE 7214-804 - „Baden-Airpark“ -- with 225 ha one of the last continental dune complexes in the Rhine-valley; • Priority habitat * 6230: Species rich Nardus grasslands

20. Baden-Airpark (DE): Positive EC opinion Reasons: A. Best alternative chosen (for nature conservation): • 7 alternatives were checked – the accepted variant has no negative impacts on adjacent sites but destroys a slightly larger area of the priority habitat (the habitat type depends on the specific mowing regime at the airport). B. Imperative reasons of overriding public interest: • Need proofed: passenger numbers increased by a third in last 3 years, major international connection, safety standards have to be met. • Part of the Trans-European Network for Transportation.

21. Baden-Airpark (DE): Conditions C. Compensation measures • Habitat 2330 (4 ha): Destroyed 1.5 ha, temporarily used: 0.5 ha; Compensation 45 ha redevelopment; • Habitat 4030 (0,05 ha): Only temporary use of 0,02 ha; Compensation of 2 ha • Habitat *6230 (25,47 ha): Destroyed 3.3 ha, temporarily used: 2.88 ha; Compensation: Creation of 3.5 ha with optional 2.3 ha Compensation measures sufficient to ensure coherence of Natura 2000: • Geographically as compensation is done in the same region • The losses of habitats are both in quantity and in quality fully compensated by the creation of new ocurrences/areas

22. Trupach (DE): A negative EC opinion Commision Opinion of 24/04/2003) • Plan: 140 ha planned industrial estate and business park • Site DE 5113-301 – „Heiden und Magerrasen Trupbach“ (NRW) -- An 85 ha large complex of heathland and species rich nutrient poor hay meadows • Habitats: 4030 dry heaths (all subtypes, 8 ha), *6230 species rich Nardus grasslands (11 ha),

23. Trupach (DE): negative impacts Significant negative effects the result of the project: • Quantitative loss of habitat-area • Deterioration of the structural and functional integrity of the site • Mitigation measures are not possible  As a priority habitat (*6230) exists in the site Art. 6(4) has to be applied: • Alternatives • Imperative reasons of overriding public interest

24. Trupach (DE): negative opinion Reasons:  A. Existing alternatives: • 3 other areas suitable for new business parks • existing business parks include over 370 ha of still unused land • alternatives in adjacent communities/administrative regions exist (MemberState affair)  B. imperative reasons of overriding public interest not given: • need not proofed: the assessment for the need of areas for industrial parks where too old (10a) • alternatives existing • local or regional reasons without major positive effects on economy in the country

25. Austrian motorway builder • Significant delays to S33 (Lower Austria), S18 (Vorarlberg) • Led to significantly changed approach – build consensus before project starts

26. Compensation EU funding measures through: • Rural Development fund • European Fisheries Fund Support also through Structural Funds, LIFE+ Note: National programming determines to what extent these opportunities are used!

27. RuralDevelopment • Wachau (AT) • Upriver from Vienna • Very strong tourism product focused on landscape • LIFE project, Agri-environment, LEADER, Structural Funds

28. Rural Development Lech Valley (AT)

29. Greifswalder Bodden (DE) • Important resting and breeding area for birds • Recreational area for sailing, boating, etc. • Restrictions limited to a few weeks per year

30. Marketing • Traditions of the White Carpathians • Patchwork landscape on CZ/SK border • Juices, fruit products, meat, crafts

31. Opportunities

32. What future?

33. Challenges: Protected Areas Illegal construction in Strandzha Nature Park, Bulgaria

34. Transformation Transformation Transformation WWF’s Challenge for Change Not My Business Philanthropy to Offset Impacts Reducing Impact Compliance And Beyond Zero Impact Global Strategies for Risk Management and Cost Efficiencies Net Positive Impact Selling Solutions to the World’s problems