Nat

ura

20

00

Natura 2000in the new

EU Member States, Romania, Bulgaria

and Croatia

September 2005

Nature Trust (Malta)

Federation of Ecological and Environmental

Organisations in Cyprus

II

1

Natura 2000

in the new EU Member States,

Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia

September 2005

Nat

ura

20

00

2

Contents

Summary ..........................................5

Introduction: 2005 Natura 2000 implementation report ....................7

Natura 2000 implementation in the new EU Member States ........9 Legislation ................................................................. 9

Site designation ......................................................12

Financing .................................................................14

Management and monitoring ...............................18

Communications ....................................................20

Threats ......................................................................22

Main Priorities .........................................................23

Natura 2000 implementation in Romania and Bulgaria, Croatia ...........................................25

Recommendations ........................31

Reports for individual countries available

for downloading at: www.panda.org/epo

(see under Natura 2000 and publications)

Text:

Alberto Arroyo Schnell,

WWF Natura 2000 Coordinator

and

Andreas Beckmann,

WWF Danube-Carpathian

Programme

Editing:

Andreas Beckmann,

WWF Danube-Carpathian

Programme

Graphics & layout:

Michal Stransky

Printing:

Agentura NP,

Staré Město (CZ)

Published by:

WWF-Austria

This project and publication

have been made possible

by generous support from

WWF-United Kingdom

and WWF-Austria

as well as contribution

of in-kind support

from participating WWF

and partner organizations.

Co

nte

nts

3

Bulgaria: Vesselina Kavrakova,

WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme

Simeon Marin, Green Balkans

Andrey Kovatchev, BALKANI Wildlife Society

Toma Belev, Association of Parks in Bulgaria

Croatia: Petra Durić, Green Action

Jagoda Munić, Green Action

Cyprus: Antonia Theodosiou, Federation of Environmental

and Ecological Organizations of Cyprus

Georges Petrides, Federation of Environmental

and Ecological Organizations of Cyprus

Lyra Chrystia, Federation of Environmental

and Ecological Organizations of Cyprus

Czech Republic: Vlastimil Karlík, Arnika

Estonia: Eerik Leibak, Estonian Fund for Nature

Kärg Kama, Estonian Fund for Nature

Alex Lotman, Estonian Fund for Nature

Silvia Lotman, Estonian Semi-natural Communities

Conservation Association

Kärt Vaarmari, Estonian Fund for Nature

Hungary: Brigitta Bozsó, WWF-Hungary

Viktória Kavrán, WWF-Hungary

Zsolt Szilvácsku, BirdLife Hungary

Gabor Figeczky, WWF-Hungary

Latvia: Inga Racinska, Latvian Fund for Nature

Liene Salmina, Latvian Fund for Nature

Viesturs Larmanis, Latvian Fund for Nature

Edmunds Racinskis, Latvian Ornithological Society

Lithuania: Pranas Mierauskas, Lithuanian Fund for Nature

Malta: Vincent Attard, Nature Trust Malta

Annalise Falzon, Nature Trust Malta

Poland: Katarzyna Nowak, WWF-Poland

Romania: Luminita Tanasie,

WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme

Erika Stanciu,

WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme

Doru Banaduc, Ecotur Sibiu

Dan Hulea, Romanian Ornithological Society

Raluca Barbu,

WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme

Slovakia: Eva Viestová, Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology

Milan Janák, Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology

Ján Šeffer, Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology

Slovenia: Maja Zagmajster, SDPVN – Slovenian Association

for Bat Research and Conservation

Acknowledgements

A large number of people and organizations across Europe

have cooperated to make this report possible:

Many thanks also to the many officials, experts and other people

who have provided information for this report.

4

phot

o ©

mic

hal@

sky.

cz

5

Summary and foreword

Continuing challenges: This summary re-

port and the individual country reports on which

it is based1 make clear that much still remains to

be done for proper implementation of the Habi-

tats Directive. There are still some gaps in trans-

position of legislation, especially with regard to

assessments of plans and projects (Habitats

Directive Article 6). All countries still need to im-

prove their lists of proposed Natura 2000 sites,

some of them (like Cyprus and Lithuania) quite

significantly. For all new and future EU member

states, actual implementation of the Habitats

Directive will clearly be a challenge. Many of the

proposed or potential Natura 2000 sites are

already under threat, certainly not helped by the

fact that nature conservation and provisions of

the Habitats Directive are only poorly integrated

into most other sectoral policies and program-

ming, from regional development to transporta-

tion. Resources and capacity for implementation

of Natura 2000 remains relatively limited.

Little more than a year has passed since ten

countries from Central and Eastern Europe as

well as the Mediterranean joined the European

Union. Romania and Bulgaria are in line to join

the EU in 2007 or latest 2008, and Croatia

could soon follow. Within the territories of

these countries is the greater share of Europe’s

remaining natural wealth, including the conti-

nent’s last great wilderness areas as well as rich

cultural landscapes.

The EU’s new and future members have an im-

portant responsibility for maintaining this unique

natural heritage, not only for themselves but also

now on behalf of all EU citizens. Like our previ-

ous reports, published in 2003 and 2004, this

report seeks to assess the progress that these

countries have made in implementing the EU’s

central tool for conservation policy, the Habitats

Directive, in particular the EU’s Natura 2000

network of specially protected sites.

1 The summary report and individual country reports are available

for downloading at: www.panda.org/epo (under Natura 2000 as

well as publications).

Su

mm

ary

and

Fo

rew

ord

6

Important achievements: Many chal-

lenges clearly remain. But it is worth taking

a step back and considering for a moment what

in fact has been achieved over the past several

years of preparations for the EU conservation

legislation. And this is by no means insignificant,

especially when one considers where these

countries have come from. For example:

Taken overall, we now have a much bet-

ter understanding of the natural values

that exist across the EU’s newest member

states – and, increasingly, also in the future

members as well. Even in countries that

already had a relatively strong tradition of

naturalism, such as the Czech Republic,

preparations for Natura 2000 have provid-

ed an important impulse for collecting and

significantly improving existing information

(indeed, over 700 experts were involved

in mapping and site identification for the

Czech network).

A new approach has been introduced to

conservation, involving and communicating

with relevant stakeholders and members

of the public, treating them as people with

legitimate interests or even partners rather

than as adversaries. This change in culture

has not been easy, and is still continuing,

but as the growing number of communica-

tions activities of conservation authorities

attest, some tangible progress has been

made.

In terms of financing for Natura 2000, it

still remains to be seen to what extent

planned provisions will in fact be adequate.

But progress has clearly been made, with

conservation needs now included in many

of the programming documents, especially

for agriculture and rural development, and

farmers in many countries signing up to

agrienvironmental programmes.

These are substantial achievements; they are not

enough, but they deserve to be celebrated.

While recognizing these relative achievements,

we should keep our eyes on the ultimate objec-

tive and the reason for introducing the Habitats

Directive in the first place: to halt the ongoing

and precipitous loss of biodiversity in Europe.

The eastward and southward expansion of the

Common Market is contributing to increasing

pressures on the natural heritage of these coun-

tries, as illustrated by the threatened sites that

are documented in this report.

While celebrating the substantial achievement

of implementing Natura 2000 in the new and

future EU member states, it is therefore critically

important that the remaining deficiencies and

challenges that are outlined in this report are ad-

dressed adequately as soon as possible.

7

Introduction: 2005 Natura 2000 implementation report

The Habitats and Birds Directives which es-

tablish the Natura 2000 network of specially

protected sites are the cornerstone of EU con-

servation policy and one of the key instruments

for achieving its aim of halting biodiversity loss

by 2010. Timely and effective implementation of

the Directives in the new and future EU member

states is a clear step for ensuring preservation of

the rich store of natural wealth in the countries

of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediter-

ranean, particularly as they undergo rapid social

and economic change and increasing integration

into the global economy.

The present report covers the ten countries that

joined the EU on May 1, 20042; the two acces-

sion countries, Romania and Bulgaria, who are

expected to pin their stars to the EU flag on

January 1, 2007, or at latest in 2008; as well

as Croatia, which is expected to begin acces-

sion negotiations in the near future. It follows

on two earlier reports by WWF and partner

organizations, published in 2003 and in 2004,

on implementation of the Natura 2000 network

of specially protected sites in the new and future

European Union member states3. Like its two

predecessors, this report evaluates implementa-

tion of the Habitats and Birds Directives, cov-

ering various aspects related to Natura 2000,

including site designation, financing, transposi-

tion of relevant European Union legislation, com-

munication and awareness raising, management

and monitoring as well as threats to Natura 2000

sites.

Shortly before publication of this report, the

IUCN-Warsaw Office published its own assess-

ment of implementation of Natura 2000 in the

new EU member states in Central and Eastern

Europe. Despite this, we have decided to go for-

ward with publication of this document as it goes

beyond the new EU member states in Central

and Eastern Europe to cover all new EU mem-

ber states and accession countries as well as

Croatia, and goes into greater detail regarding

some aspects. Where possible, we have sought

to avoid duplicating the information already pre-

sented by the IUCN report.

Methodology: Like our previous reports

on implementation of Natura 2000 in the new

and future European Union member states, the

present analysis is based on standard ques-

tionnaires filled out by WWF staff and partner

organizations for each of the participating

countries, drawing both on their own knowledge

and experience working on Natura 2000 and

conservation as well as interviews with relevant

experts and authorities.

2 The ten countries that joined the EU on May 1, 2004 are:

Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,

Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

3 Progress on Preparation for Natura 2000 in Future Member States (WWF-EPO, January 2003).

Natura 2000 in the New Member States (WWF-EPO, June 2004).

Both publications are available for downloading from the Internet

at: www.panda.org/epo (under Natura 2000 as well as publications)Intr

od

uct

ion

: 20

05

Nat

ura

20

00

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n r

epo

rt

8

A special section is devoted to Bulgaria and

Romania, which as accession countries face

a different timeline for implementing the EU

legislation than the EU’s newest members.

Though Croatia has yet to begin formal negotia-

tions for accession to the European Union, the

country has already made considerable progress

in preparing for implementation of the Habitats

and Birds Directives, which is described in the

final section of this report. Turkey, which is also

expected to begin negotiations for eventual EU

membership, unfortunately is not included in this

report.

It is important to note that the implementation of

the Habitats and Birds Directives includes more

than just the establishment of the Natura 2000

network of specially protected areas. The Direc-

tives also include provisions for the broader pro-

tection of a long list of species. Until recently, ef-

forts to introduce the twin directives have largely

focused on establishment of the Natura 2000

network, but the protection regime for species in

the Directives is now growing in importance, and

thus also finds mention in this report

The country questionnaires provide flexibility and

space for detailed information and comments for

individual countries. In fact, many of the reports

present a very rich source of information on

implementation of Natura 2000 in specific coun-

tries. In addition to reading this summary report,

therefore, we encourage you also to read the

individual country reports, which are available

for downloading from the Internet at: www.panda.

org/epo (see under Natura 2000 and publications)

The information from the questionnaires is

updated at least to June and in most cases to

August 2005.

phot

o ©

mic

hal@

sky.

cz

9

Natura 2000 in the new European Union Member States

Legislation

Both the Habitats and Birds Directives are legal-

ly binding texts that must be transposed by each

EU member state into specific national legisla-

tion. As with other EU Directives, the countries

have the freedom to decide how to achieve the

main goals of the EU legislation. All ten former

accession countries were required to transpose

the EU laws into national legislation by their date

of accession on May 1, 2004.

All countries have introduced both the Habitats and

the Birds Directives into their national legislation.

However, the quality of transposition varies between

countries. In certain cases, there are legal gaps that

still need to be addressed, including e.g. provisions

for assessment of plans and projects with potentially

negative effects for Natura 2000 sites. There is also

serious concern regarding the actual implementation

of this legislation, due to lack of resources as well as

a number of threats, including tourism and transpor-

tation development. A major problem continues to

be the lack of Natura 2000 integration into sectoral

policymaking, including e.g. transportation, regional

development, and agriculture.

Site designation procedure: Most of

the new member states have clear provisions

regarding the designation of Special Protection

Areas and Special Areas of Conservation in their

national legislation. According to the Hungar-

ian report, there are some unclarities regarding

site designation in the national legislation, and

the Ministry of Defense has the power to veto

designation of sites.

Site protection: National legislation

includes a general protection regime for Special

Protection Areas and Special Areas of Con-

servation in all countries, although in Hungary

there are some gaps in the legislation. An official

complaint has already been submitted to the

European Commission regarding the Cypriot

legislation, which divides responsibilities for

the implementation of the relevant laws among

competing authorities, creating unnecessary

confusion, duplication, and conflict. Reports for

Hungary, Latvia, Malta and Cyprus express seri-

ous concern regarding the real implementation

of the protection measures, including insufficient

application of the precautionary principle in

potential Natura 2000 areas.

Nat

ura

20

00

in t

he

new

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

10

Article 6 assessment: The transposition

of Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive,

concerning assessment of plans and projects

with potential impacts on habitats or species

protected by the Directive, appears to be one of

the main legal problems for many of the coun-

tries, though there is still lack of experience

with actual implementation to allow for clear

evaluation. Most of the countries are following

existing provisions for Environmental Impact

Assessments (EIAs), but many have not inte-

grated the specific requirements of the Habitats

Directive into this legislation. Both the Czech

Republic and Slovenia rely on the EIA, but have

special procedures for Article 6 assessments

where EIAs do not apply. Network coherence is

included among criteria for assessments accord-

ing to the Slovene legislation.

Article 6 assessment versus EIAs

Needs for assessment of plans and projects

under the Habitats Directive are not necessarily

equivalent to those for Environmental Impact As-

sessments (EIAs), which are applied for projects

of a certain kind (e.g. a nuclear power plant) or

size (above a certain threshold). To note one

illustrative example: a relatively small project in-

volving reconstruction of a church belfry proba-

bly would not require an EIA, but could very well

require assessment under the Habitats Directive,

e.g. if it was designated as a habitat for bat spe-

cies of European importance. Thus, developing

practical guidelines for screening projects is

difficult, since kinds of projects and thresholds

may not be relevant for determining impacts on

Natura 2000 sites.

Thanks to lobbying from forestry stakeholders,

Article 6 assessments do not apply to Czech

forestry plans. Another aspect of the Czech

legislation is especially problematic, and stands

out from that of the other countries in permitting

the government to make exceptions to regular

assessment and decision making procedures,

without any regulated process or transparency.

In fact, existing provisions within the EU Habitats

Directive already allow for projects with negative

impacts on Natura 2000 sites, where these are

of overriding public interest. In such cases, the

Directive provides for a relatively transparent

procedure for decision making, and ensures that

negative impacts are mitigated and compensat-

ed as much as possible – which is not the case

with the Czech legislation. A formal complaint

regarding this issue has already been submitted

to the European Commission.

Network coherence: Legal provisions

regarding network coherence vary consider-

ably from country to country. In Estonia, Poland

and Slovenia, the provisions are considered

adequate by the national reports; but no men-

tion is made of network coherence in legislation

for Lithuania, Malta, or Hungary. In the Czech

Republic, Slovakia, Latvia and Cyprus, there are

legal provisions concerning coherence, green

belts, bio-corridors and bio-centers, but our

national reports consider them to be insufficient

to secure network coherence.

Species protection: The species protec-

tion regime (Articles 12–16 of the Habitats Di-

rective) has been correctly transposed into most

national legislation, although reports for Slovakia,

Lithuania, Estonia and Cyprus express deep con-

cerns regarding the practical implementation of

such measures. In the Czech Republic, the list of

protected species is not entirely in accordance

with the annexes of the Habitats Directive, with

some minor problems regarding birds of prey

(weak requirements for proof of origin for birds

raised in captivity).

11

Sectoral integration: The integration of

the provisions of the Habitats and Birds Direc-

tives into sectoral legislation and programming

(e.g. for agriculture, spatial planning, transporta-

tion, water management, forests, others) also

varies considerably between countries and sec-

tors. The case of Cyprus is extreme: while some

environmental measures have been included in

the country’s Rural Development Plan, there is

no mention of biodiversity or natural values (let

alone provisions for their conservation) in any

other of the country’s sectoral plans, including

spatial planning and transportation – thanks in

part, it appears, to strong influence from power-

ful lobbies with interests in tourism and resort

development. The situation is slightly better in

Lithuania, where some provisions in the legisla-

tion on spatial planning make reference to pro-

tection and management of Natura 2000 sites.

The situation in other countries is mixed, as il-

lustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Integration of Natura 2000 into sectoral legislation

Agr

icul

ture

Spa

tial p

lann

ing

Tran

spor

t

Wat

er

Fore

stry

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Estonia

Hungary

Lithuania

Latvia

Malta

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Adequately

Inadequately

No integration

No information

Nat

ura

20

00

in t

he

new

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

12

Site designation

The Habitats Directive provides for establish-

ment of the network of specially protected areas

referred to as Natura 2000, which includes not

only Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s) but

also areas designated according to the Birds

Directive (Special Protected Areas, or SPA’s).

By their date of accession, the new member

states were to submit to the European Commis-

sion their lists of proposed sites for the Natura

2000 network.

The next step is for the lists to be evaluated and

then discussed in the so-called biogeographic

seminars, and finally approved by the European

Commission. A first meeting of the Alpine

biogeographic seminar took place in May 2005

in Slovenia; the first seminar for the Pannonian

biogeographic region is scheduled for Septem-

ber 2005, with those for the Boreal and Conti-

nental regions expected to take place in Decem-

ber 2005 and early 2006, respectively. Sites

proposed by Cyprus and Malta for the Natura

2000 network are being evaluated and agreed

on a bilateral basis between countries and the

European Commission.

All of the countries have submitted their lists of sites

within several months of their May 1, 2004 accession.

The quality of the scientific information on which the

proposed lists of sites has generally been fair to good.

Despite this, many of the lists that have been tabled

by governments still require substantial improve-

ments in order to adequately protect and maintain

relevant species and habitats that are of European

importance. This especially applies to the official lists

that have been submitted to date for Cyprus, Lithua-

nia, and Poland.

Quality of scientific data: Good scientif-

ic data regarding the natural values of the country

is the basis for elaborating a good list of sites.

The quality of data that has been used is consid-

ered good in Cyprus, Latvia and Slovakia. Reports

for other countries consider that the information

used was fair, although changes are needed

especially regarding some habitats or species.

Quality of lists proposed sites: The

quality of lists of proposed Natura 2000 sites

ranges from fair or good in most cases, to clearly

insufficient in the case of Cyprus, Lithuania, and

Poland. At last report, the Polish government

was taking steps to improve its proposals to the

European Commission. Although the Slovene

list covers over 35% of the country’s territory,

some sites that were in the original list were cut

in the last minute, apparently for political reasons.

Eventual gaps will be considered during the bio-

geographic seminars. According to our Slovak

national report, the Slovak list is considered fair,

but it does not include a number of important

sites that have been proposed by environmental

organisations. National reports for the Czech

Republic, Malta, Estonia and Hungary consider

the lists proposed for these countries as fair, but

requiring additional sites to ensure adequate

protection of certain habitats and species.

Overlap with existing protected ar-eas: The lists of sites proposed by the govern-

ments of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and

Slovakia largely coincide with previously exist-

ing protected areas (Czech Republic: ca. 70%,

Estonia ca. 67%, Slovakia: 86%4, Latvia 100%). In

the case of Latvia, the complete overlap is due to

the fact that, according to the national legislation,

all Natura 2000 sites must be designated as Pro-

tected Areas before they can be included in the

official proposal of Natura 2000 sites. Hungary

has an overlap of 39%, while in Slovenia the co-

incidence between previously existing protected

areas (including Triglav National Park, regional

and landscape parks, nature reserves and natural

monuments) and Natura 2000 sites is about 25%.

4 In the case of Slovakia, the figure repesents the overlap with exist-

ing protected areas just for proposed Sites of Communiy Interest:

Special Protection Areas for Birds are not included into this figure.

13

Table 2: Overview of evaluations of proposed Natura 2000 sites for each country

% of country’s

territory

Quality of scientific data

Quality of proposed sites

Overlap with existing

protected areas

Cyprus 7.0% Good Poor, clearly insufficient Not available

Czech Republic 13.0% Good Fair, but some sites missing some species/habitats

70%

Estonia 15.9% Fair, some changes needed Fair, but some sites missing some habitats

67% for terrestrial sites, 9% for marine sites

Hungary 20.6% Fair to poor, some gaps for certain habitats and species

Fair, but still incomplete 39%

Latvia 12.0% Good Good 100%5

Lithuania 2.1% Fair, in general lack of information for some species

Poor, clearly insufficient Not available

Malta 12.0% Fair, in general lack of information for some species

Poor, clearly insufficient Not available

Poland 9.0% Fair, not updated and incomplete information

Poor, clearly insufficient Not available

Slovakia 28.9% Good Fair, some sites should be added to the Government’s list

86%4

Slovenia 35.5% Fair, but lack of information for some species/habitats

Fair, but some sites missing and some sities missing some species

25%

The official list of proposed Nature 2000 sites submitted by the Cypriot government in-cludes only a small part of the sites that had previously been identified for the network.Virtually none of the Mediterranean island’s coastal areas have been included.

5 According to Latvian legislation, all Natura 2000 sites must be

designated as official protected areas – hence the 100% overlap

in this case.

Nat

ura

20

00

in t

he

new

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

phot

o ©

Ant

onia

The

odos

iou

14

Financing

Conservation without money is conversation,

the adage goes. Indeed, when it comes to

actually moving the Natura 2000 from paper to

practice, financing will be of key importance. Al-

though a section on financing has been included

in our previous reports, it is especially impor-

tant to the present one. All of the EU member

states are in the midst of programming for the

use of EU and related national funds for the EU

financial period 2007–13. Decisions that will be

made over the next several months and agreed

with the European Commission by the end of

2006 will largely determine the financial re-

sources that will be available for implementation

of the Habitats and Birds Directives, and nature

conservation in general, over the medium-term.

The European Commission has estimated

that implementation of the Habitats and Birds

Directives in a Union of 25 member states will

cost some €6.1 billion per year6, roughly half of

which could be expected to be made available

through EU co-financing. According to the Eu-

ropean Commission, the majority of these funds

should come from EU support for rural and

regional development (European Agricultural

Fund for Rural Development; Structural and

Cohesion Funds).7

In general, financing for Natura 2000 is a major

concern for all the new EU member states, reflecting

the ongoing programming for use of EU and related

national funds for the next financial period 2007–13.

Financing for Natura 2000 from EU and related

national funds has been relatively limited in the

current financial period (2004–06). Nevertheless,

although it is too early to report the extent to which

the programming documents will include provisions

for financing the Natura 2000 network, our national

reports generally are optimistic that substantial provi-

sions will be included in funds available after 2007.

To a certain extent, it seems, decision making on

financing for Natura 2000 is being done with incom-

plete information. While most of the countries have

some form of cost estimates related to implementa-

tion of Natura 2000, few appear actually to have any

longer-term plans for covering these financing needs.

Foreign support, both from EU funds as well as gov-

ernment aid (especially Dutch and Danish), has been

critically important for preparing the EU’s newest

members to implement the Natura 2000 network.

Cost estimates: Most if not all new member

states have or will soon have (Poland, by the

end of 2005) an estimation of the costs for the

implementation of Natura 2000 in their country.

For Hungary, there are cost estimates regarding

some habitats and species, but no comprehen-

sive figure for the network as a whole.

6 Commission Communication on Financing Natura 2000, COM(2004)431

7 Ibid

15

Financing plans: According to our national

reports, most countries do not appear to have

any formal plans for longer-term financing of the

Natura 2000 network. Exceptions appear to be

Estonia, whose officially approved state plan

on Implementation of Natura 2000 in Estonia, 2000–07

includes a section devoted to financing; and

Slovenia, where the proposed Environmental

Programme includes Natura 2000 costs. Plan-

ning in most countries appears to be focused

around programming for use of relevant EU

and related national funds – as in the case of

Poland, where activities needed to implement

Natura 2000 have been identified in order to be

able to cover them with relevant provisions in the

national programming.

Financing from national budgets: Specific provisions for financing Natura 2000

in national budgets are generally limited. In the

Czech Republic, approximately 1 billion CZK

(ca. €30 million) is expected to be made avail-

able for Natura 2000 implementation by 2007. In

Latvia, it is possible to finance Natura 2000 sites

as protected areas. Hungary, Lithuania and Po-

land currently have no specific provisions in their

national budgets for Natura 2000 financing.

Pre-accession funds: EU pre-accession

funds, including the PHARE, SAPARD and

ISPA programmes, have been used by the new

EU member states for financing various needs

related to implementation of Natura 2000, ex-

cept in Latvia, Lithuania and Cyprus (there is no

information available for Malta). The rest of the

countries have used PHARE funds for different

purposes related to the implementation of the

Habitats Directive (e.g. cartography, pilot man-

agement plans, transposition of legislation). In

the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the SAPARD

programme has been used to support agri-envi-

ronment measures. Estonia is currently running

a Technical Assistance ISPA project for prepar-

ing the Terms of Reference for an infrastructure

project related to Natura 2000 which is expected

to receive support from the Cohesion Fund.

LIFE: The EU’s LIFE-Nature programme has

been an important source of support for financ-

ing preparations for Natura 2000 in a number of

countries, including Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary,

Malta and Slovenia. In Cyprus, the LIFE-Third

Country programme supported identification of

Natura 2000 sites (most of the sites identified

have not been included by the government in the

list of proposed sites it submitted to the Euro-

pean Commission).

Nat

ura

20

00

in t

he

new

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

16

Other support: Governmental support from

The Netherlands and Denmark has been espe-

cially important for site identification in a number

of countries, including Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia,

and Slovakia. The rather remarkable efforts for

site designation that were undertaken by the

Czech Republic (employing as many as 700 ex-

perts for data collection and site mapping) were

wholly financed from national funds – a rather

exceptional case.

EU Funds, 2004–06: The new EU member

states joined the European Union in 2004, in

time to catch the last two years of the current

EU financial period (2000–06). The National

Development Plans, Sectoral Development

Plans, and Rural Development Plans that the

countries have developed are the basic program-

ming instruments for the use of EU regional and

rural development support, which in the current

financing period includes some opportunities for

financing implementation of Natura 2000.

In general, few references are made in the docu-

ments to specific lines for financing Natura 2000.

Lithuania has included some financial require-

ments of Natura 2000 into some sectoral plans;

some 12 million LTL (ca. €3.48 million) are

reportedly allocated from Structural Funds for

planning and management of protected areas

(including Natura 2000 sites) in 2005. In Poland,

the Rural Development Plan stipulates that

farmers in Natura 2000 areas can receive a 20%

premium from agri-environmental measures. The

National Development Plan for Estonia states

that EU support is available for Natura 2000

sites for restoration, construction of small-scale

infrastructure, as well as purchase of buildings

and equipment. Specific mention of Natura

2000 is also made in rural development plans

for Latvia, Slovenia, and Hungary. Although

Natura 2000 is not specifically mentioned in the

Czech programming documents, there are some

interesting related opportunities, including for

sustainable tourism, river restoration, and some

agri-environment measures.

Decisions regarding future financing for the Natura 2000 network are being made now.The bulk of future support is expected to come from EU co-financed rural and regionaldevelopment funds, programming for which is expected to be completed by the end of 2005.

phot

o ©

mic

hal@

sky.

cz

17

EU Funds, 2007–13: The new regulations

for the EU rural development fund (European

Agriculture Fund for Rural Development, EA-

FRD) for the next financial period contain a

number of funding lines that can be used for

implementation of Natura 2000. New regulations

for regional development (Structural and Cohe-

sion Funds) have not yet been finalized, but also

seem likely to include significant opportunities

for financing the conservation network. Whether

or not these opportunities are in fact used will

depend on programming for the use of the funds

at national level.

National programming for use of EU funds in

the next financial period is now ongoing, so it is

still too early to report which funding lines have

been incorporated into the national planning

documents. Nevertheless, our national reports

are generally optimistic that many of the new

provisions for financing Natura 2000 will in

fact be included in national-level programming.

We hope that this will be the case, and will be

evaluating the national programmes as soon as

they become available. The next challenge will

then be to actually use these new opportunities,

ensuring that the support that has been made

available is in fact drawn down and put to work

on the ground.

A general problem with programming for use of

EU funds in designated Natura 2000 areas is

worth mentioning. While decisions on applica-

tion of EU and national funds are being made

now, actual designation of Natura 2000 sites

could still take years. The problem is relevant

for the EU member states – e.g. in Slovakia,

where current rural development support is only

available to designated SPAs with management

plans – and especially for Bulgaria and Romania,

which are also in the midst of programming for

use of EU funds in 2007–13 but who cannot be

expected to have designated Natura 2000 sites

for some time.

Nat

ura

20

00

in t

he

new

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

18

Management and monitoring

Once the Natura 2000 network is established,

the work has just begun: from that moment, man-

agement and monitoring of the sites takes centre

stage. Articles 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats

Directives, concerning assessment of plans and

projects with a potential impact on sites and spe-

cies, already apply to Special Protection Areas,

and will apply to Sites of Community Interest

approved by the European Commission; Articles

12–16 of the same Directive, concerning protec-

tion of species, apply to all the species of the

Annexes concerned from the date of accession;

and within two years, an exhaustive monitoring

report must be sent to the European Commis-

sion (Article 17of the Habitats Directive).

Capacity available for implementing Natura 2000 is

difficult to assess, as most staff involved in implement-

ing and managing the network are also involved in

other issues. Generally, it is probably safe to say that

capacity has improved, but remains limited. Natura

2000 sites are still in the process of being identified

and formally designated. Nevertheless, our national

reports show that the new EU member states are

beginning to focus on management and monitoring of

Natura 2000 sites. Although not specifically required

by the EU legislation, most countries are planning

to have some form of management plans or arrange-

ment for sites. Many of the countries have already

developed their own guidelines and methodologies

for developing the plans, and in some cases have be-

gun developing their own understanding of favourable

conservation status.

Staffing: All countries have staff dedicated

to Natura 2000, although in most cases these

people also share other tasks related to pro-

tected areas or nature conservation, thus making

comparison difficult. The Czech Republic may

be exceptional among the new member states

in having 100 civil servants focused on Natura

2000, including site designation as well as site

and species management.

Favourable Conservation Status: The

main goal of the Habitats Directive is to maintain

or restore to favourable conservation status the

habitats and species of European importance

that are listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive.

The understanding of the concept of “favour-

able conservation status” necessary to carry out

appropriate management measures is still being

developed. Some of the new Member States, e.g.

Slovakia and the Czech Republic, have undertak-

en or are in the process of undertaking research

to define principles and guidelines for favourable

conservation status.

Management plans: EU legislation does

not require countries to have management plans

for Natura 2000 sites, though it may be recom-

mended for maintaining habitats or species in

favourable conservation status. Nevertheless, all

new member states plan to have management

plans for some if not all Natura 2000 sites. Many

of the countries also plan to have management

plans for some if not all species. In Latvia, for

example, protection plans have already been

developed for several species, including the

brown bear (Ursos arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx), and

wolf (Canis lupus). Both Lithuania and Slovakia

do not have species management plans per se,

but rather species conservation projects, which

depending on the circumstances may be the

equivalent of a formal plan.

19

Management methodology: The Czech

Republic, Poland and Slovakia have developed

methodologies for the elaboration of manage-

ment plans for Natura 2000 sites and protected

species. Lithuania has a methodology for the

preparation of site management plans, though

none for species; Slovenia plans to have these

methodologies ready by the end of 2005.

Table 3: Management plans for sites and species

Sites Management

Plans

Species Management

plans

Pla

nned

Exi

stin

g P

lan

Ela

bora

tion

M

etho

dolo

gies

Pla

nned

Exi

stin

g P

lan

Ela

bora

tion

M

etho

dolo

gies

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Estonia

Hungary

Lithuania

Latvia

Malta

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia 8

Yes

No

No information

Assessment: Plans or projects which could

have a significant effect on Natura 2000 sites

should be subject to an “appropriate assess-

ment”. Much has been written to clarify these

concepts since they were included in the

Habitats Directive in 1992. Especially important

are guidance documents from the European

Commission in which the concrete legal provi-

sions are analysed in detail.9 Most of our country

reports consider implementation of Article 6

assessment provisions to be inadequate, either

due to problems of legislation (see section on

transposition of legislation above) or poor ap-

plication. Legislation governing assessments in

Hungary, Malta, and Slovenia does not include

provisions for public participation.

Monitoring: Development of monitoring in

the EU’s newest member states is still in its

infancy. Only Hungary and Slovakia have com-

pleted methodologies for monitoring, though

the latter has yet to be finalised. Lithuania has

a monitoring programme, but according to the

national report the methodology is inadequate.

The Czech Republic, Latvia and Poland are

currently developing such methodologies. In

Slovenia there is some work already being done

to carry out some methodologies, but the work

is not completed yet, and there are no resources

for their implementation.

8 In Slovenia these plans will not be made separately for all sites,

but should be included in other plans (e.g. for forestry, water

management, and agriculture)

9 Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Available at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/

nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/

pdf/art6_en.pdf

Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites.Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/

environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/

specific_articles/art6/pdf/natura_2000_assess_en.pdf

Nat

ura

20

00

in t

he

new

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

20

Communications – Awareness raising and stakeholder involvement

Public awareness and understanding for

Natura 2000 is critical to the long-term success

of the network. Experience from Western Euro-

pean countries, and increasingly also the new

EU member states, has shown that many of the

problems and controversy that have been experi-

enced surrounding the Natura 2000 network has

been the result of misinformation or bad informa-

tion – e.g. that sites will be under strict protec-

tion prohibiting all manner of socioeconomic ac-

tivity. Such myths, and attendant problems they

cause, are best addressed through pro-active

efforts to promote awareness and understand-

ing of the EU conservation legislation, including

reasons for it, its implications as well as potential

benefits. At the same time, public consultation

and involvement in decision making regarding

the network can be effective in ensuring imple-

mentation of the aims for Natura 2000 while

addressing the legitimate concerns of interested

stakeholders.

While all of the new EU member states have under-

taken communications activities to raise awareness

and understanding of Natura 2000, few seem to be

following a well-developed strategy for these activities.

Even where Natura 2000 communications strategies

exist, they are not being implemented adequately.

Most of the countries have some provisions for public

consultation and involvement in the process of site

designation and assessment of plans and projects

with potential impacts on protected sites and species.

But here too, our national reports are generally critical

of the efforts that have been made to date to involve

stakeholders and the public in decision making

regarding Natura 2000. Certainly one major problem

has simply been lack of time, with the challenging

process of site designation rushed in order to meet

EU deadlines, leaving little time for real consultation

and involvement.

Awareness raising: None of the new

member states appear to have an adequate

strategy for raising awareness and understand-

ing of Natura 2000. The Estonian plan for

implementing Natura 2000 (2000–07) includes

communications and awareness raising as one

measure (objective), although its implementation

is considered inadequate. In Slovakia as well, a

communications plan has been developed, but

according to our national report it is not really

being implemented.

Plan or no plan, all countries have undertaken at

least some ad hoc activities to communicate

Natura 2000. In Poland, an information system

on all Natura 2000 sites proposed by the Gov-

ernment has been installed in offices of some

future managers; a website on Natura 2000

was launched in September. In Latvia, aware-

ness raising is part of each LIFE project, and

Governmental Authorities perform different

activities (e.g. publications for farmers); in the

Czech Republic there is also an specific website

dedicated to Natura 2000, and some other

communication activities have been developed

(press conferences, pres releases, exhibitions,

movies – even on TV, etc.).

21

Public participation: Most of the new

member states have undertaken some form of

public consultation process for the designation

of Special Protection Areas and for the elabora-

tion of the lists of proposed Sites of Community

Interest, though our national reports vary in their

appraisal of these efforts. Lack of time seems to

have been a major problem in many of the coun-

tries, with conservation authorities so focused

on the challenging work of site identification

and designation that public consultation has

been ill prepared and rushed. Though perhaps

understandable, the result in practice in many

cases has been problematic if not disastrous.

In Estonia, for example, public hearings were

not organized until February 2004, with only

three weeks made available for review and com-

ments. Coupled with a poor communications

strategy, the result was a wave of opposition to

Natura 2000 from land owners, which resulted

in all proposed sites on private land to which

land owners objected being removed from the

government’s proposal. Similar lack of pro-ac-

tive communications and involvement has had

a similar effect in other countries as well. Public

consultation regarding Slovak sites is generally

considered adequate by our national report,

aside from some smaller problems. Here, a total

of 362 meetings involving 59% of landowners,

administrators and land users were organized to

present and discuss proposed Sites of Commu-

nity Interest.

For the future, most of the countries plan to have

public participation processes for the elabo-

ration of management plans (exceptions are

Hungary, Malta and Lithuania) and for assess-

ments of plans and projects potentially impacting

Natura 2000 sites or species (except in Hungary

and Malta).

Nat

ura

20

00

in t

he

new

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

22

Threats and complaints

According to the Habitats Directive, a Natura

2000 site must enjoy legal protection as soon it

is officially nominated for the network. However,

even before then member states must follow the

precautionary principle and take appropriate

measures to ensure that potentially nominated

sites do not suffer destruction. In cases where

EU conservation legislation is not observed,

complaints can be submitted to the European

Commission. If necessary, the Commission

can then refer cases to the European Court of

Justice, which has the power to fine individual

member states where they are found to be in

breach of EU law.

Threats to proposed sites are reported for all of the

new EU member states. Regardless of the applica-

tion of EU conservation legislation, there has been

a palpable increase in pressure on natural values

across the new EU member states, ranging from

development of infrastructure for mass tourism to

transportation. Certainly of no help in this respect is

the relatively poor integration of the Habitats Directive

and environment more generally into other sectoral

legislation and policy making, with in some cases

even clear contradictions in legislation. Gaps in legis-

lation and especially limited implementation and as-

sessment of plans and projects are further concerns.

A number of official complaints have already been

submitted to the European Commission on a variety

of issues, ranging from improper transposition of leg-

islation and site designation to threats against specific

sites or species.

Official complaints sent to the European Com-

mission concern, among other things, activities

negatively affecting proposed sites of Commu-

nity Interest, e.g. threats from water extraction in

Cyprus, development of motorways and inland

shipping in the Czech Republic, and tourism

development in Slovenia. Complaints have also

been submitted regarding improper site designa-

tion and inadequate transposition of legislation

in Malta, Cyprus and the Czech Republic, as

well as incorrect implementation of the Rural

Development Programme in Estonia, where

modifications of the programme have cancelled

support for semi-natural communities manage-

ment.

The Via Baltica motorway in Poland continues to be a concern in this report as in previ-ous ones. Complaints have also been made regarding similar transportation projects in the Czech Republic and other countries.

phot

o ©

WW

F-C

anon

/Fre

d F.

HA

ZE

LHO

FF

23

Main Priorities

According to our national reports, financing,

awareness raising and stakeholder involvement

as well as management issues top the list of pri-

orities for further implementation of Natura 2000.

Finalisation of site designation is naturally also a

major priority, especially for those countries with

the most to do in this respect, i.e. Cyprus, Lithua-

nia, and Poland. Other priorities mentioned are

impact assessment of the Article 6 of the Habi-

tats Directive, integration of Natura 2000 into the

sectoral policies, improvement of legislation, as

well as capacity building (mostly related to lack

of knowledge of decision makers).

As this was an open-ended question, the

priorities that every national report indicated for

further work on Natura 2000 are quite hetero-

geneous, but can be grouped into nine general

categories as presented in table 4 below.

Table 4: Priorities for further work on Natura 2000

CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SK SI

Legislation

Sites lists

Management and monitoring

Financing

Capacity building

Communications. and awareness. raising

NGO involvement

Impact assessment

Sectoral integration

Nat

ura

20

00

in t

he

new

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

Mem

ber

Sta

tes

24

phot

o ©

WW

F-C

anon

/Mic

hel G

UN

THE

R

25

Natura 2000 implementation in Bulgaria and Romania, Croatia

By their date of accession on January 1, 2007,

or at the latest 2008, Bulgaria and Romania

must not only transpose the Habitats and Birds

Directives into their national legislation but also

submit to the European Commission their lists of

Natura 2000 sites.

Bulgaria appears to be largely on track with its prepa-

rations for implementation of Natura 2000, although

there are still some important issues to be addressed.

Site identification is notably being carried out through

government-financed projects managed and sup-

ported by nongovernmental organizations. Beyond

site selection, however, preparations are relatively

limited. Human and financial resources available for

Natura 2000 are scarce; legislation, though officially

transposed, has substantial gaps; preparations for

management of future sites and issues of public

consultation have yet to be addressed.

Unfortunately, substantially less progress has been

made on preparations for Natura 2000 in Romania.

Considerable resources are expected to become avail-

able for Natura 2000 preparations this year. They are

welcome, and much needed. Nevertheless, the fact

is that the Romanian government has done precious

little to date to prepare for implementation of the

Habitats Directive in the country, and with accession

now set for 2007 or at most 2008, little time and few

growing seasons now remain to adequately prepare

for the network. It is now critically important that the

resources that will now become available are used as

effectively as possible. The Romanian NGO Coalition

on Natura 2000, which has 34 member organiza-

tions, including the country’s leading organizations

as well as specialist and local groups, can provide

substantial support to the government efforts.10

10 For further information on the Romanian Natura 2000 coalition,

see: www.natura2000.ro

Nat

ura

20

00

imp

lem

enta

tio

n in

Bu

lgar

ia a

nd

Ro

man

ia, C

roat

ia

Natural values across the new and future EU member states are coming under intense pressure from development, including for tourism infrastructure as on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria. The response to such pressure on the part of both the Bulgarian and Romanian governments seems to be to weaken rather than strengthen existing protection.

phot

o ©

Geo

rgi T

inch

ev

26

Legislation

Both Bulgaria and Romania have already trans-

posed both the Habitats and Birds Directives

into their national legislation, though imperfectly

according to the national reports. In particular,

the reports consider provisions for the assess-

ment of plans and projects affecting Natu-

ra 2000 sites to be inadequate. Both countries

have adopted a limited interpretation of Articles

6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive by following

the existing provisions regarding Environmental

Impact Assessments.

The Bulgarian report highlights a potential

danger of destruction of valuable habitats and

species in sites that have yet to be formally des-

ignated, as the precautionary principle is missing

from the Bulgarian legislation. In Romania, apart

from the aforementioned gaps and problems

in legislation, the actual implementation of the

legislation is a major issue of concern due to the

lack of capacity and knowledge.

In Bulgaria there is no integration of Natu-

ra 2000 into sectoral legislation. In contrast, the

Romanian legislation provides for integration of

Natura 2000 requirements into spatial planning,

though only inadequate integration in water

management and forestry, and no integration

into agriculture.

Sites

Bulgaria: Mapping and identification of

potential Natura 2000 sites is moving forward

in Bulgaria, more or less on track and in time for

the country’s scheduled accession to the EU.

A provisional list of proposed Sites of Commu-

nity Interest was elaborated through a Danish-

funded project (2002–04). The rough estimate

produced by this project is now being followed

up with an intensive programme of mapping

and site identification managed by two NGOs,

Green Balkans (for pSCI’s) and the Bulgarian

Society for the Protection of Birds (for SPA’s),

with significant contributions from other organi-

zations, including the Balkani Wildlife Society

and WWF. Potential Natura 2000 sites that have

been identified to date cover some 34% of the

national territory.

Financial support for the work of Green Balkans

and the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of

Birds is notably coming from the Bulgarian gov-

ernment. While there have been previous cases,

e.g. in Slovakia, where NGOs have shouldered

responsibility for coordinating and undertaking

mapping and site identification for the Natu-

ra 2000 network, this is the first case that we

are aware of in which this is occurring thanks to

national and not foreign support.

27

Romania: Unfortunately, less progress has

been made on site designation in Romania,

where government efforts to date have been

limited. A GIS system has been established and

standard data forms filled out for a handful of

sites, especially within the Danube Delta Bio-

sphere Reserve. Cooperation with NGOs has

been limited. This is unfortunate, as the NGOs

have been particularly active. The 34 member

organizations of the Romanian NGO Coali-

tion on Natura 2000, which includes all major

conservation organizations as well as specialist

and local groups, have identified priority areas

for identifying Natura 2000 sites and are now

moving forward with actual mapping and site

identification.

Certainly late, but better than never, the Roma-

nian government has organized a number of

substantial PHARE-financed projects that should

push forward Natura 2000 site designation

and preparations over the next couple of years,

including two twinning projects to build capacity

of regional environmental agencies for work on

Natura 2000, as well as a €1.5 million tender for

site designation. In addition, the Transylvanian

University in Brasov in cooperation with WWF

are set to begin a project focused on identifying

sites for priority forest and sub-alpine habitats

with financial assistance through the EU’s LIFE-

Nature programme.

Financing

Like regular EU member states, both accession

countries are currently in the midst of program-

ming for use of EU and related national funds for

the next programming period (2007–13), which

they will become eligible to receive upon formal

accession to the Union. Decisions being made

now, even before actual EU membership, will

significantly determine the financial resources

that are available for Natura 2000 implementa-

tion over the medium-term as well as shape the

threats that sites and species may be exposed to

e.g. from intensive agricultural practices, mass

tourism, and infrastructure development. It is

still too early to report on the outcomes of this

programming.

Both Bulgaria and Romania have a cost estimate

for the implementation of Natura 2000; that

for Bulgaria is considered insufficient by our

national report. Neither country appears to have

a clear, longer-term plan for future financing

of site designation and implementation of the

Natura 2000 network. To date, in both countries,

some external funds (EU PHARE and LIFE-Na-

ture, Dutch and Danish government support)

have been used for the implementation of Natu-

ra 2000. Some support has been made avail-

able from the national budgets for Natura 2000

preparations – especially in Bulgaria, where the

Bulgarian government has followed up previous

Danish support for Natura 2000 preparations in

2002–04 with its own financing, which is going

to support NGO efforts for site identification and

preparation (see above, site designation). As

mentioned above under site designation, sub-

stantial support totaling over €5 million should

become available for Natura 2000 preparations

in Romania over the next few years.

Nat

ura

20

00

imp

lem

enta

tio

n in

Bu

lgar

ia a

nd

Ro

man

ia

28

Management and monitoring

Although it is still quite early to evaluate the man-

agement and monitoring efforts related with the

implementation of the Habitats Directive in the

Accession Countries, there are already some

advances.

Bulgaria and Romania both plan to have man-

agement plans for sites and species. In Bulgaria,

specific methodologies for developing manage-

ment plans for sites as well as species have

already been developed. In Romania, there are

guidelines for the favourable conservation status

of habitats and sites, but they are considered

inadequate by our national report.

Communications and public involvement

Communications and awareness raising: Communications and public aware-

ness raising regarding Natura 2000 will be

particularly important in the next period when

Bulgaria and Romania finalise their proposed

lists of sites. Experience from other countries,

both in Western Europe as well as the new mem-

ber states, has shown that many of the problems

and controversy that have been experienced sur-

rounding the Natura 2000 network has been the

result of misinformation or bad information – e.g.

that sites will be under strict protection prohibit-

ing all manner of socio-economic activity. Such

myths, and attendant problems they cause, are

best addressed through pro-active efforts to

promote awareness and understanding of the

EU conservation legislation, including reasons

for it, its implications as well as potential benefits.

Unfortunately, neither Romania nor Bulgaria has

a strategy or pro-active programme for com-

munications and awareness raising related to

Natura 2000. What communications exist have

been largely undertaken by nongovernmental

organizations.

Public participation: Stakeholder consul-

tation and public participation in site designation

will become relevant in the next period as lists of

proposed sites are finalized. Bulgarian legisla-

tion includes provisions for public consultation.

Elaboration of management plans will probably

include a public participation process in Ro-

mania, but there is no information about this in

Bulgaria.

Forest restitution has proven a major problem for potential Natura 2000 sites in Romania, resulting in extensive illegal fellings in Rodna Mountains and Piatra Crailui National Park as well as other areas. Though welcome in principle, restitution must be accompanied by adequate support for new forest owners as well as effective implementation of existing legislation.

phot

o ©

WW

F D

anub

e-C

arpa

thia

n P

rogr

amm

e/Fl

oren

tina

Flor

escu

29

Known threats

The future existence of Natura 2000 sites is

already in question. Without too much exaggera-

tion, it is difficult to escape the impression that

an all-out assault is underway against many of

Europe’s most valuable natural areas. Develop-

ment pressure, especially linked to tourism, is

placing severe pressure on natural values in both

countries, e.g. on the Black Sea coast and Dan-

ube Delta. Nothing has been undertaken against

previous illegal development of ski resorts in

protected areas (e.g. in Pirin National Park in

Bulgaria); indeed, in Romania, the government’s

own plan for ski tourism development significant-

ly overlaps with existing protected areas. Illegal

logging continues to be a major problem in both

countries. The problem is becoming especially

acute in Romania, where restitution of forests

to private owners is expected to lead to further

unregulated fellings in existing national parks

and potential Natura 2000 sites.

Main Priorities

Naturally, the common priority for both Bulgaria

and Romania is to finalise the list of proposed

sites that will be submitted to the European

Commission by the day of formal accession to

the European Union. Financing is also a top

issue for both countries. Predictably, perhaps,

communication and NGO involvement are also

noted as important issues for Romania, and less

so for Bulgaria, where NGOs are intimately in-

volved in mapping and site selection. In contrast,

the Bulgarian report places priority on address-

ing continuing problems with transposition of

legislation as well as capacity building, particu-

larly among relevant authorities, for implementa-

tion of the network.

Nat

ura

20

00

imp

lem

enta

tio

n in

Bu

lgar

ia a

nd

Ro

man

ia

Croatia: first steps

Although Croatia has not yet actually begun

negotiations for membership in the European

Union, substantial steps have already been

undertaken to prepare the country for imple-

mentation of the Habitats and Birds Directives.

An Emerald Network pilot project implemented

in 2002–2003 by the Croatian government in

cooperation with the Council of Europe and

national experts identified some habitats types

as well as sites.

More recent preparations have focused on the

project Building-up the National Ecological Network as

part of the Pan-European Ecological Network & Natura 2000

in Croatia, which has recently been completed.

Undertaken with financial support from the EU’s

LIFE Third Countries programme, the project

has developed a list of sites for the national eco-

logical network, which will serve as the basis for

future Natura 2000 network in the country. The

LIFE project also included institutional capacity

strengthening, education and awareness raising

as well as dissemination of results.

NGOs have contributed to Natura 2000 prepara-

tions, with e.g. Green Action and WWF under-

taking mapping and site identification for areas

including the Velebit Mountains.

30

phot

o ©

mic

hal@

sky.

cz

31

Recommendations

Legislation

Address gaps in legislation, especially

regarding impact assessment of plans and

projects (Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habi-

tats Directive).

Ensure full and proper integration of provi-

sions and requirements of the Habitats and

Birds Directives into sectoral policymaking

and legislation.

Site Designation

Finalise and agree proposed lists of sites,

adding sites for habitats and species

where necessary. Special attention should

be paid to sites proposed to date for

Cyprus, Lithuania and Poland, which are

clearly inadequate. Focus special attention

on marine areas, which will require special

efforts for data collection and site identifi-

cation as well as development of appropri-

ate management measures.

Financing

Develop realistic and comprehensive

cost estimates for implementation of the

EU Habitats and Birds Directives.

Develop a longer-term financing plan for

implementation of the Directives, taking

into account realistic cost estimates as well

as the full-range of financing opportunities,

including Community co-financing (see

below).

Take full advantage of opportunities for

co-financing from Community funds by

including relevant provisions and measures

for implementation of EU conservation

policy in national programming documents

for the next financial period (2007–13).

This must be done as a matter of urgency,

as planning and decision making regarding

National Development Plans, Rural Devel-

opment Plans, and other relevant docu-

ments is already nearing completion.11

Plan and allocate sufficient resources

for Natura 2000 implementation from the

national budget, recognizing the need for

national co-financing to draw down Com-

munity support as well as the fact that

ultimate responsibility for implementing

Natura 2000 – and main benefits accruing

from this – lie with member states them-

selves.

11 For information on the most relevant EU funding measures,

particularly from rural and regional development funds, see:

EU Funding for Environment: A handbook for the 2007–13 programming period (WWF, 2005), available for downloading from the Internet at:

www.panda.org/epo, under publications.

Rec

om

men

dat

ion

s

32

For the European Commission: ensure that

relevant planning documents of member

states include adequate provisions for

financing implementation of EU conserva-

tion legislation.

For NGOs and other environmental advo-

cates: ensure that proper financing is inte-

grated into national planning documents by

taking an active part in national planning

and decision making. Bring attention to

cases where needs of the Natura 2000

network have not been adequately re-

flected in national programming.12 Prepare

to assist in drawing down funds that are

eventually made available, both by develop-

ing initiatives as well as raising awareness

among relevant stakeholders (e.g. farmers)

regarding financing opportunities (e.g. for

agri-environmental measures).

Management and monitoring

Apply the precautionary principle to all pro-

posed and potential Sites of Community

Interest in order to ensure that these sites

do not suffer damage before they are given

formal protection.

Ensure adequate assessment of plans and

projects, as stipulated by Articles 6.3 and

6.4 of the Habitats Directive and following

the principles and guidelines developed by

the European Commission.

Develop monitoring and reporting systems

in preparation for the monitoring reports

that are due for submission to the Euro-

pean Commission in 2007.

Communications

Develop and implement comprehensive

national communications strategies for

promoting awareness and understanding

of Natura 2000, including the reasons for

establishment of the network, its impli-

cations as well as potential benefits for

relevant stakeholders.

Consult and involve relevant stakeholders

and members of the public in the elabo-

ration of management plans and impact

assessments for plans and projects.

Threats

Ensure adequate integration of biodiversity

legislation into all sectoral policymaking,

including transportation, regional develop-

ment, and agriculture.

Apply the precautionary principle.

Control the use of EU and national funds

to ensure that Community and national fi-

nancing is not used in a manner contradic-

tory to EU conservation and environmental

legislation and standards.

12 WWF is currently developing a tool for evaluating national

programming documents for integration of nature conservation

and environment more generally, which will be used to develop

a report with recommendations for use by the European Commis-

sion in evaluating these documents.

III

phot

o ©

mic

hal@

sky.

cz

IV

WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by:• conserving the world’s biological diversity • ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable • promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption

Alberto Arroyo Schnell WWF Natura 2000 Coordinator

WWF-Austria, Vienna alberto.arroyo@wwf.at

Andreas Baumueller WWF Biodiversity Policy Officer

WWF-European Policy Office, Brussels

abaumueller@wwfepo.org

Bulgaria – Vesselina Kavrakova WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme

kavrakova@wwfdcp.bg

Croatia – Petra Durić Green Action

petra@zelena-akcija.hr

Cyprus – Antonia Theodosiou Federation of Environmental and Ecological

Organizations of Cyprus theodosioua@hotmail.com

Czech Republic – Vlastimil Karlík Arnika

priroda@arnika.org

Estonia – Eerik Leibak Estonian Fund for Nature

eerik@elfond.ee

Hungary – Viktória Kavrán WWF-Hungary

viktoria.kavran@wwf.hu

Latvia – Inga Racinska Latvian Fund for Nature

inga@lanet.lv

Lithuania – Pranas Mierauskas Lithuanian Fund for Nature

pranas.m@glis.lt

Malta – Vincent Attard Nature Trust Malta

info@naturetrustmalta.org

Poland – Katarzyna Nowak WWF-Poland

knowak@wwf.pl

Romania – Luminita Tanasie WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme

ltanasie@wwfdcp.org

Slovakia – Eva Viestová Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology

viestova@changenet.sk

Slovenia – Maja Zagmajster SDPVN – Slovenian Association for Bat

Research and Conservation maja.zagmajster@guest.arnes.s

© 1

986,

WW

F –

Wor

ld W

ide

Fund

For

Nat

ure

(For

mer

ly W

orld

Wild

life

Fund

) ®

WW

F R

egis

tere

d T

rad

emar

k ow

ner.