ESPON project 1.3.2. Territorial trends of the Management of the Natural Heritage

1. ESPON project 1.3.2.Territorial trends of the Management of the Natural Heritage Nijmegen, 11 - 12 Oct. 2004

2. Projects core group: • EuroNet – Royal Haskoning (lead partner), Utrecht, Netherlands; • European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC), Tilburg, Netherlands; • EuroNet – Enviplan, Athens, Greece ; • EuroNet – Land Use Consultants, London, UK ; and • EuroNet – Territoires, Sites & Cités, Lumbres (Lille), France. With contributions from: • Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestale (Italy); • Eastern Norway Research Institute (Norway); • EuroNet – Taller de Ideas (Spain); • Peter Bassin (Slovenia); • Institute of Environmental and Landscape Management, • Heriot Watt university, School of the built environment (Scotland); Szent Istvan University(KTI), (Hungary); and • ACER, Jelka Hudoklin (Slovenia). Plus the respondents to the questionnaire. ESPON 1.3.2

3. Content of presentation • Key messages / results; • Main maps; • Key policy recommendations; • Achievements; • Networking; • Further research / improvements available. ESPON 1.3.2

4. Findings in DPSIR: agriculture - nature MACRO: • EU policy stimulated land take for intensive use: decreased semi-natural area and biodiversity; • CAP reform stimulates rural development: turn of processes; MESO: • National agr. policy strongly dependent from EU policy MICRO: • Rural development (CAP) includes landscape and nature protection, affects local/regional natural heritage. ESPON 1.3.2

5. Findings in DPSIR: Socio econ. - nature MACRO: • EU policies on social/economic coherence aim at equal developments over EU territory, balanced development (ESDP) aims at differentiated solutions. MESO: • National soc-econ. policies are not focussed at balanced development (apart from few national spatial plans). MICRO: • Local and regional initiatives decrease variety of local and regional natural heritage. ESPON 1.3.2

6. Findings in DPSIR: Infrastructure - nature MACRO: • Equal (road) accessibility as prerequisite for economic development stimulates spreading of developments. MESO: • Facilities for mobility follow urbanisation and enhance further suburbanisation, causing pressure on valuable landscapes. MICRO: • Main infrastructure causes fragmentation of semi-natural areas; • Facilitating local accessibility results in soil sealing; • Improved accessibility at the cost of natural values. ESPON 1.3.2

7. Findings in DPSIR: Impacts - nature • During ages a constant decrease of semi-/natural areas and number of species has taken place. • Semi-natural area is fragmented. The European Natural Heritage consist of remains of semi-nature. ESPON 1.3.2

8. Findings in DPSIR: policy Response - nature MACRO: • Environmental legislation. • Birds/Habitat directive, Natura 2000, ESDP (too new to show results). MESO: • National nature protection/landscapes; • Few integral national spatial plans, growing acknowledgement of importance of integrated regional planning. MICRO: • Growing need for integrated regional strategic co-ordination. ESPON 1.3.2

9. Main maps: Fragmentation index for NUTS3 ESPON 1.3.2

10. Main maps: Percentage semi-natural area compared to urban pressure ESPON 1.3.2

11. Main maps: Percentage semi-natural area related to road density ESPON 1.3.2

12. Main maps: Percentage semi-natural area compared to changes in GDP (1995-2000) ESPON 1.3.2

13. Main maps: Comparison of flood risk to the percentage semi-natural area ESPON 1.3.2

14. Spatial planning systems and protection of natural heritage ESPON 1.3.2

15. Example: Potentials and threats in EU based on networks ESPON 1.3.2

16. Key recommendations GENERAL: • Consider locations of WFD projects as opportunities for natural heritage. • Explore the value for future developments of nature and landscapes. MACRO: 3. Identify the crossings of urban development axes and the ecological network. MESO: 4. Pay extra attention to balanced development in the overlaps of both networks. MICRO: 5. Give priority to nature on locations of strategic importance for the coherence of the ecological network. ESPON 1.3.2

17. Indicators: ESPON 1.3.2

18. Indicators: Plus: importance of considering sites within context of regional typology. ESPON 1.3.2

19. Regional typology: MACRO ESPON 1.3.2

20. Regional typology: MESO ESPON 1.3.2

21. Regional typology: MICRO ESPON 1.3.2

22. Further research issues • Trend analyses (land cover). • Identification of potential conflict areas, urban development vs ecological network. • Nature as an asset for attracting economic activities. ESPON 1.3.2

23. Improvement of data availability • Complete Corine 2000 dataset • Location of agricultural intensification/abandonment • Statistical data, such as bed density data for all EU27, preferably since 1950 • Long term trends for indicators developed. ESPON 1.3.2

24. Networking with other projects: • Polycentricity project 1.1.1 • Hazards project 1.3.1 • Transport project 2.1.1 • Agriculture project 2.1.3 • Urban rural relations project 1.1.2 ESPON 1.3.2