1 / 13

Financing Natura 2000 Progress with PAFs and wider MFF debate

An overview of the Natura 2000 network's financing status, habitat assessments, legal provisions, and conservation priorities. Insights on financing sources, financial needs, and conservation measures. Recommendations for improving prioritization and setting clear targets for 2020.

georgegibbs
Download Presentation

Financing Natura 2000 Progress with PAFs and wider MFF debate

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Financing Natura 2000Progress with PAFs and wider MFF debate Habitats Committee Brussels, 25 April 2013

  2. PAF: state of play and follow-up • PAFs received from 15 MS (AT, BE Wallonia, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT (5 regions) NL, RO, UK); other expected. • Assessment and quality check by Nature Unit: • Completeness; • Up-to-date; • Part F and G – the most important; • Level of detail sufficient for the OPs.

  3. A. Introductory overview of Natura 2000 network for territory • Prefilled by the Commission • MS updated and developed information • Missing information in some PAFs

  4. B. Status of the habitats and species • Data prefilled by the Commission; • MS updated and added information; • Problems with bird data: no data or data based on different methodologies (national censuses, common farmland bird indexes, red lists etc.). • Occasionally explanation of the trends, diagnosis of problems, proposals for actions.

  5. C. Legal and administrative provisions for Natura 2000 sites • Overview of legal and administrative framework; • Progress with management planning and establishment of conservation objectives; • Info on relevant plans and initiatives: species action plans, sectoral plans (e.g. forestry, agriculture, energy, river management plans); • Info missing in some PAFs.

  6. D. Overview of financing of the Natura 2000 network in 2007-2013 • MS provided info on financing under different funds; • Difficult to aggregate data: • different currencies; • figures oftenpresented for wholecategoriese.g. agri-env (not clear how much for N2000); • different categories of appropriations: allocations, contracting levels, spending levels etc.; • national co-financing: presented separately or together with EU funds allocations; • Valuable comments under 'lessons learnt and obstacles encountered'.

  7. EAFRD major contributor to N2000: • agri-env payments (214) – key source of financing; • N2000 payments (213) and forest N2000 payments (224) – used to a smaller extent – initiation of payments often delayed; • other relevant categories: non-productive investments (216, 227), forest-env measures (225), preparation of management plans (323); • ERDF, CF: • category 51 directly relevant for N2000 • categories 55, 56 indirectly relevant for N2000 • EMFF • LIFE • National and internationalfunding

  8. E. Estimate of financial needs for management of Natura 2000 • Figures from 2008 or updated; • Differentapproach in the PAFs- break-down of costs vs. general categories; • Costestimatessometimespresentedseparately for sectors (agri, env, fish etc.). • At this stage too early to give an update of the overall cost of N2000 network in the EU.

  9. F. Conservation priorities for 2014-2020 • Different approach among the MS: • Thorough analysis of priorities (e.g. based on conservation status) vs. maximalistic approach (shopping lists) • Measurable and quantifiable targets vs. general targets • National priorities (e.g. based on national red lists) vs. European priorities (habitats and species for which the MS have particular responsibility) • In manycaseslack of clearprioritisation; • In somecasesimportantgaps (e.g. birds).

  10. G. Conservationmeasures • Different approach among the MS: • Detailed vs. general • Specific habitats and species vs. generic (forests, grasslands, marine sites etc.) • MS level vs. regional level • Fund specific vs. funds unspecified • Serious efforts to look for synergies with climate and growth and jobs agenda vs. "business as usual" nature conservation • Same measures under different categories (double counting?).

  11. Conlusions • PAFs prepared for the 1st time; • Different quality: most are complete and acceptable but some miss key information; • Better prioritisation would be useful; • The same for clearer targets for 2020; • Conservation as a driver for wider socio-economic benefits – generally analysis missing.

  12. MFF update: • EAFRD: • Triloges (budget and scope) • Commissionposition: at least 25% of RD to env measures: agri-env, organic, (N2000?); • Draft OP template: possible ref. to Natura 2000 and PAFs: e.g. SWOT, description of measures, and indicators. • ERDF/CF • Trilogues (thematicconcentration) • Earmarking for non-envpriorities • Draft templates for OPs – caninclude N2000 • LIFE • Proposed budget of €3.6 billion; but cutspossibledue to EU budgetcapping (EP and some MS against) • Outstanding issues: national allocations, co-financing rates and earmarking for nature and biodiversity, adoption of multiannual work programmes as implementing acts vs. delegated acts.

  13. Contact: Przemyslaw.Oginski@ec.europa.eu For more information, please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment 13

More Related